Pim Levelt

Primary tabs

Publications

Displaying 1 - 8 of 8
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (2019). How Speech Evolved: Some Historical Remarks. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 62(8S), 2926-2931. doi:10.1044/2019_JSLHR-S-CSMC7-19-0017.

    Abstract

    The evolution of speech and language has been a returning topic in the language sciences since the so-called “cognitive revolution.”
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (2019). On empirical methodology, constraints, and hierarchy in artificial grammar learning. Topics in Cognitive Science. doi:10.1111/tops.12441.

    Abstract

    This paper considers the AGL literature from a psycholinguistic perspective. It first presents a taxonomy of the experimental familiarization test procedures used, which is followed by a consideration of shortcomings and potential improvements of the empirical methodology. It then turns to reconsidering the issue of grammar learning from the point of view of acquiring constraints, instead of the traditional AGL approach in terms of acquiring sets of rewrite rules. This is, in particular, a natural way of handling long‐distance dependences. The final section addresses an underdeveloped issue in the AGL literature, namely how to detect latent hierarchical structure in AGL response patterns.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1992). Accessing words in speech production: Stages, processes and representations. Cognition, 42, 1-22. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(92)90038-J.

    Abstract

    This paper introduces a special issue of Cognition on lexical access in speech production. Over the last quarter century, the psycholinguistic study of speaking, and in particular of accessing words in speech, received a major new impetus from the analysis of speech errors, dysfluencies and hesitations, from aphasiology, and from new paradigms in reaction time research. The emerging theoretical picture partitions the accessing process into two subprocesses, the selection of an appropriate lexical item (a “lemma”) from the mental lexicon, and the phonological encoding of that item, that is, the computation of a phonetic program for the item in the context of utterance. These two theoretical domains are successively introduced by outlining some core issues that have been or still have to be addressed. The final section discusses the controversial question whether phonological encoding can affect lexical selection. This partitioning is also followed in this special issue as a whole. There are, first, four papers on lexical selection, then three papers on phonological encoding, and finally one on the interaction between selection and phonological encoding.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1992). Fairness in reviewing: A reply to O'Connell. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21, 401-403.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1992). Psycholinguistics: An overview. In W. Bright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of linguistics (Vol. 3) (pp. 290-294). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1992). Sprachliche Musterbildung und Mustererkennung. Nova Acta Leopoldina NF, 67(281), 357-370.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1992). The perceptual loop theory not disconfirmed: A reply to MacKay. Consciousness and Cognition, 1, 226-230. doi:10.1016/1053-8100(92)90062-F.

    Abstract

    In his paper, MacKay reviews his Node Structure theory of error detection, but precedes it with a critical discussion of the Perceptual Loop theory of self-monitoring proposed in Levelt (1983, 1989). The present commentary is concerned with this latter critique and shows that there are more than casual problems with MacKay’s argumentation.
  • Van de Geer, J. P., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1963). Detection of visual patterns disturbed by noise: An exploratory study. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15, 192-204. doi:10.1080/17470216308416324.

    Abstract

    An introductory study of the perception of stochastically specified events is reported. The initial problem was to determine whether the perceiver can split visual input data of this kind into random and determined components. The inability of subjects to do so with the stimulus material used (a filmlike sequence of dot patterns), led to the more general question of how subjects code this kind of visual material. To meet the difficulty of defining the subjects' responses, two experiments were designed. In both, patterns were presented as a rapid sequence of dots on a screen. The patterns were more or less disturbed by “noise,” i.e. the dots did not appear exactly at their proper places. In the first experiment the response was a rating on a semantic scale, in the second an identification from among a set of alternative patterns. The results of these experiments give some insight in the coding systems adopted by the subjects. First, noise appears to be detrimental to pattern recognition, especially to patterns with little spread. Second, this shows connections with the factors obtained from analysis of the semantic ratings, e.g. easily disturbed patterns show a large drop in the semantic regularity factor, when only a little noise is added.

Share this page