Displaying 1 - 9 of 9
-
Kempen, G. (2014). Prolegomena to a neurocomputational architecture for human grammatical encoding and decoding. Neuroinformatics, 12, 111-142. doi:10.1007/s12021-013-9191-4.
Abstract
The study develops a neurocomputational architecture for grammatical processing in language production and language comprehension (grammatical encoding and decoding, respectively). It seeks to answer two questions. First, how is online syntactic structure formation of the complexity required by natural-language grammars possible in a fixed, preexisting neural network without the need for online creation of new connections or associations? Second, is it realistic to assume that the seemingly disparate instantiations of syntactic structure formation in grammatical encoding and grammatical decoding can run on the same neural infrastructure? This issue is prompted by accumulating experimental evidence for the hypothesis that the mechanisms for grammatical decoding overlap with those for grammatical encoding to a considerable extent, thus inviting the hypothesis of a single “grammatical coder.” The paper answers both questions by providing the blueprint for a syntactic structure formation mechanism that is entirely based on prewired circuitry (except for referential processing, which relies on the rapid learning capacity of the hippocampal complex), and can subserve decoding as well as encoding tasks. The model builds on the “Unification Space” model of syntactic parsing developed by Vosse & Kempen (2000, 2008, 2009). The design includes a neurocomputational mechanism for the treatment of an important class of grammatical movement phenomena. -
Kempen, G., Olsthoorn, N., & Sprenger, S. (2012). Grammatical workspace sharing during language production and language comprehension: Evidence from grammatical multitasking. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 345-380. doi:10.1080/01690965.2010.544583.
Abstract
Grammatical encoding and grammatical decoding (in sentence production and comprehension, respectively) are often portrayed as independent modalities of grammatical performance that only share declarative resources: lexicon and grammar. The processing resources subserving these modalities are supposed to be distinct. In particular, one assumes the existence of two workspaces where grammatical structures are assembled and temporarily maintained—one for each modality. An alternative theory holds that the two modalities share many of their processing resources and postulates a single mechanism for the online assemblage and short-term storage of grammatical structures: a shared workspace. We report two experiments with a novel “grammatical multitasking” paradigm: the participants had to read (i.e., decode) and to paraphrase (encode) sentences presented in fragments, responding to each input fragment as fast as possible with a fragment of the paraphrase. The main finding was that grammatical constraints with respect to upcoming input that emanate from decoded sentence fragments are immediately replaced by grammatical expectations emanating from the structure of the corresponding paraphrase fragments. This evidences that the two modalities have direct access to, and operate upon, the same (i.e., token-identical) grammatical structures. This is possible only if the grammatical encoding and decoding processes command the same, shared grammatical workspace. Theoretical implications for important forms of grammatical multitasking—self-monitoring, turn-taking in dialogue, speech shadowing, and simultaneous translation—are explored. -
Kempen, G. (1995). De mythe van het woordbeeld: Spellingherziening taalpsychologisch doorgelicht. Onze Taal, 64(11), 275-277.
-
Kempen, G. (1995). Drinken eten mij Nim. Intermediair, 31(19), 41-45.
-
Kempen, G. (1995). 'Hier spreekt men Nederlands'. EMNET: Nieuwsbrief Elektronische Media, 22, 1.
-
Kempen, G. (1995). IJ of Y? Onze Taal, 64(9), 205-206.
-
Kempen, G. (1995). Processing discontinuous lexical items: A reply to Frazier. Cognition, 55, 219-221. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)00657-7.
Abstract
Comments on a study by Frazier and others on Dutch-language lexical processing. Claims that the control condition in the experiment was inadequate and that an assumption made by Frazier about closed class verbal items is inaccurate, and proposes an alternative account of a subset of the data from the experiment -
Kempen, G. (1995). Processing separable complex verbs in Dutch: Comments on Frazier, Flores d'Arcais, and Coolen (1993). Cognition, 54, 353-356. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)00649-6.
Abstract
Raises objections to L. Frazier et al's (see record 1994-32229-001) report of an experimental study intended to test Schreuder's (1990) Morphological Integration (MI) model concerning the processing of separable and inseparable verbs and shows that the logic of the experiment is flawed. The problem is rooted in the notion of a separable complex verb. The conclusion is drawn that Frazier et al's experimental data cannot be taken as evidence for the theoretical propositions they develop about the MI model. -
Kempen, G. (1995). Van leescultuur en beeldcultuur naar internetcultuur. De Psycholoog, 30, 315-319.
Share this page