Pim Levelt

Primary tabs

Publications

Displaying 1 - 28 of 28
  • Bock, K., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2002). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In G. T. Altmann (Ed.), Psycholinguistics: Critical concepts in psychology (pp. 405-452). London: Routledge.
  • Janssen, D. P., Roelofs, A., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2002). Inflectional frames in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17(3), 209-236. doi:10.1006/jmla.2001.2800.

    Abstract

    The authors report six implicit priming experiments that examined the production of inflected forms. Participants produced words out of small sets in response to prompts. The words differed in form or shared word-initial segments, which allowed for preparation. In constant inflectional sets, the words had the same number of inflectional suffixes, whereas in variable sets the number of suffixes differed. In the experiments, preparation effects were obtained, which were larger in the constant than in the variable sets. Control experiments showed that this difference in effect was not due to syntactic class or phonological form per se. The results are interpreted in terms of a slot-and-filler model of word production, in which inflectional frames, on the one hand, and stems and affixes, on the other hand, are independently spelled out on the basis of an abstract morpho-syntactic specification of the word, which is followed by morpheme-to-frame association.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (2002). Phonological encoding in speech production: Comments on Jurafsky et al., Schiller et al., and van Heuven & Haan. In C. Gussenhoven, & N. Warner (Eds.), Laboratory phonology VII (pp. 87-99). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (2002). Picture naming and word frequency: Comments on Alario, Costa and Caramazza, Language and Cognitive Processes, 17(3), 299-319. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17(6), 663-671. doi:0.1080/01690960143000443.

    Abstract

    This commentary on Alario et al. (2002) addresses two issues: (1) Different from what the authors suggest, there are no theories of production claiming the phonological word to be the upper bound of advance planning before the onset of articulation; (2) Their picture naming study of word frequency effects on speech onset is inconclusive by lack of a crucial control, viz., of object recognition latency. This is a perennial problem in picture naming studies of word frequency and age of acquisition effects
  • Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (2002). A theory of lexical access in speech production. In G. T. Altmann (Ed.), Psycholinguistics: critical concepts in psychology (pp. 278-377). London: Routledge.
  • Maess, B., Friederici, A. D., Damian, M., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2002). Semantic category interference in overt picture naming: Sharpening current density localization by PCA. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(3), 455-462. doi:10.1162/089892902317361967.

    Abstract

    The study investigated the neuronal basis of the retrieval of words from the mental lexicon. The semantic category interference effect was used to locate lexical retrieval processes in time and space. This effect reflects the finding that, for overt naming, volunteers are slower when naming pictures out of a sequence of items from the same semantic category than from different categories. Participants named pictures blockwise either in the context of same- or mixedcategory items while the brain response was registered using magnetoencephalography (MEG). Fifteen out of 20 participants showed longer response latencies in the same-category compared to the mixed-category condition. Event-related MEG signals for the participants demonstrating the interference effect were submitted to a current source density (CSD) analysis. As a new approach, a principal component analysis was applied to decompose the grand average CSD distribution into spatial subcomponents (factors). The spatial factor indicating left temporal activity revealed significantly different activation for the same-category compared to the mixedcategory condition in the time window between 150 and 225 msec post picture onset. These findings indicate a major involvement of the left temporal cortex in the semantic interference effect. As this effect has been shown to take place at the level of lexical selection, the data suggest that the left temporal cortex supports processes of lexical retrieval during production.
  • Schiller, N. O., Schmitt, B., Peters, J., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2002). 'BAnana'or 'baNAna'? Metrical encoding during speech production [Abstract]. In M. Baumann, A. Keinath, & J. Krems (Eds.), Experimentelle Psychologie: Abstracts der 44. Tagung experimentell arbeitender Psychologen. (pp. 195). TU Chemnitz, Philosophische Fakultät.

    Abstract

    The time course of metrical encoding, i.e. stress, during speech production is investigated. In a first experiment, participants were presented with pictures whose bisyllabic Dutch names had initial or final stress (KAno 'canoe' vs. kaNON 'cannon'; capital letters indicate stressed syllables). Picture names were matched for frequency and object recognition latencies. When participants were asked to judge whether picture names had stress on the first or second syllable, they showed significantly faster decision times for initially stressed targets than for targets with final stress. Experiment 2 replicated this effect with trisyllabic picture names (faster RTs for penultimate stress than for ultimate stress). In our view, these results reflect the incremental phonological encoding process. Wheeldon and Levelt (1995) found that segmental encoding is a process running from the beginning to the end of words. Here, we present evidence that the metrical pattern of words, i.e. stress, is also encoded incrementally.
  • Schriefers, H., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2002). Exploring the time course of lexical access in language production: Picture word interference studies. In G. Altmann (Ed.), Psycholinguistics: Critical Concepts in Psychology [vol. 5] (pp. 168-191). London: Routledge.
  • Vigliocco, G., Lauer, M., Damian, M. F., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2002). Semantic and syntactic forces in noun phrase production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 28(1), 46-58. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.28.1.46.

    Abstract

    Three experiments investigated semantic and syntactic effects in the production of phrases in Dutch. Bilingual participants were presented with English nouns and were asked to produce an adjective + noun phrase in Dutch including the translation of the noun. In 2 experiments, the authors blocked items by either semantic category or grammatical gender. Participants performed the task slower when the target nouns were of the same semantic category than when they were from different categories and faster when the target nouns had the same gender than when they had different genders. In a final experiment, both manipulations were crossed. The authors replicated the results of the first 2 experiments, and no interaction was found. These findings suggest a feedforward flow of activation between lexico-semantic and lexico-syntactic information.
  • Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Damian, M. F., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2002). Semantic distance effects on object and action naming. Cognition, 85, B61-B69. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00107-5.

    Abstract

    Graded interference effects were tested in a naming task, in parallel for objects and actions. Participants named either object or action pictures presented in the context of other pictures (blocks) that were either semantically very similar, or somewhat semantically similar or semantically dissimilar. We found that naming latencies for both object and action words were modulated by the semantic similarity between the exemplars in each block, providing evidence in both domains of graded semantic effects.
  • Indefrey, P., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2000). The neural correlates of language production. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences; 2nd ed. (pp. 845-865). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Abstract

    This chapter reviews the findings of 58 word production experiments using different tasks and neuroimaging techniques. The reported cerebral activation sites are coded in a common anatomic reference system. Based on a functional model of language production, the different word production tasks are analyzed in terms of their processing components. This approach allows a distinction between the core process of word production and preceding task-specific processes (lead-in processes) such as visual or auditory stimulus recognition. The core process of word production is subserved by a left-lateralized perisylvian/thalamic language production network. Within this network there seems to be functional specialization for the processing stages of word production. In addition, this chapter includes a discussion of the available evidence on syntactic production, self-monitoring, and the time course of word production.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (2000). Uit talloos veel miljoenen. Natuur & Techniek, 68(11), 90.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (2000). Dyslexie. Natuur & Techniek, 68(4), 64.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (2000). Met twee woorden spreken [Simon Dik Lezing 2000]. Amsterdam: Vossiuspers AUP.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (2000). Links en rechts: Waarom hebben we zo vaak problemen met die woorden? Natuur & Techniek, 68(7/8), 90.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (2000). Introduction Section VII: Language. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences; 2nd ed. (pp. 843-844). Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (2000). Psychology of language. In K. Pawlik, & M. R. Rosenzweig (Eds.), International handbook of psychology (pp. 151-167). London: SAGE publications.
  • Levelt, C. C., Schiller, N. O., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2000). The acquisition of syllable types. Language Acquisition, 8(3), 237-263. doi:10.1207/S15327817LA0803_2.

    Abstract

    In this article, we present an account of developmental data regarding the acquisition of syllable types. The data come from a longitudinal corpus of phonetically transcribed speech of 12 children acquiring Dutch as their first language. A developmental order of acquisition of syllable types was deduced by aligning the syllabified data on a Guttman scale. This order could be analyzed as following from an initial ranking and subsequent rerankings in the grammar of the structural constraints ONSET, NO-CODA, *COMPLEX-O, and *COMPLEX-C; some local conjunctions of these constraints; and a faithfulness constraint FAITH. The syllable type frequencies in the speech surrounding the language learner are also considered. An interesting correlation is found between the frequencies and the order of development of the different syllable types.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (2000). The brain does not serve linguistic theory so easily [Commentary to target article by Grodzinksy]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(1), 40-41.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (2000). Speech production. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (pp. 432-433). Oxford University Press.
  • Levelt, W. J. M., & Indefrey, P. (2000). The speaking mind/brain: Where do spoken words come from? In A. Marantz, Y. Miyashita, & W. O'Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain: Papers from the First Mind Articulation Project Symposium (pp. 77-94). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  • Levelt, W. J. M., & Meyer, A. S. (2000). Word for word: Multiple lexical access in speech production. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 12(4), 433-452. doi:10.1080/095414400750050178.

    Abstract

    It is quite normal for us to produce one or two million word tokens every year. Speaking is a dear occupation and producing words is at the core of it. Still, producing even a single word is a highly complex affair. Recently, Levelt, Roelofs, and Meyer (1999) reviewed their theory of lexical access in speech production, which dissects the word-producing mechanism as a staged application of various dedicated operations. The present paper begins by presenting a bird eye's view of this mechanism. We then square the complexity by asking how speakers control multiple access in generating simple utterances such as a table and a chair. In particular, we address two issues. The first one concerns dependency: Do temporally contiguous access procedures interact in any way, or do they run in modular fashion? The second issue concerns temporal alignment: How much temporal overlap of processing does the system tolerate in accessing multiple content words, such as table and chair? Results from picture-word interference and eye tracking experiments provide evidence for restricted cases of dependency as well as for constraints on the temporal alignment of access procedures.
  • Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2000). Merging speech perception and production [Comment on Norris, McQueen and Cutler]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(3), 339-340. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00373241.

    Abstract

    A comparison of Merge, a model of comprehension, and WEAVER, a model of production, raises five issues: (1) merging models of comprehension and production necessarily creates feedback; (2) neither model is a comprehensive account of word processing; (3) the models are incomplete in different ways; (4) the models differ in their handling of competition; (5) as opposed to WEAVER, Merge is a model of metalinguistic behavior.
  • Klein, W., & Levelt, W. J. M. (Eds.). (1981). Crossing the boundaries in linguistics: Studies presented to Manfred Bierwisch. Dordrecht: Reidel.
  • Levelt, W. J. M., Mills, A., & Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1981). Child language research in ESF Countries: An inventory. Strasbourg: European Science Foundation.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1981). Déjà vu? Cognition, 10, 187-192. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(81)90044-5.
  • Levelt, W. J. M., & Maassen, B. (1981). Lexical search and order of mention in sentence production. In W. Klein, & W. J. M. Levelt (Eds.), Crossing the boundaries in linguistics (pp. 221-252). Dordrecht: Reidel.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1981). The speaker's linearization problem [and Discussion]. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 295, 305-315. doi:10.1098/rstb.1981.0142.

    Abstract

    The process of speaking is traditionally regarded as a mapping of thoughts (intentions, feelings, etc.) onto language. One requirement that this mapping has to meet is that the units of information to be expressed be strictly ordered. The channel of speech largely prohibits the simultaneous expression of multiple propositions: the speaker has a linearization problem - that is, a linear order has to be determined over any knowledge structure to be formulated. This may be relatively simple if the informational structure has itself an intrinsic linear arrangement, as often occurs with event structures, but it requires special procedures if the structure is more complex, as is often the case in two- or three-dimensional spatial patterns. How, for instance, does a speaker proceed in describing his home, or the layout of his town? Two powerful constraints on linearization derive, on the one hand, from 'mutual knowledge' and, on the other, from working memory limitations. Mutual knowledge may play a role in that the listener can be expected to derive different implicatures from different orderings (compare 'she married and became pregnant' with 'she became pregnant and married'). Mutual knowledge determinants of linearization are essentially pragmatic and cultural, and dependent on the content of discourse. Working memory limitations affect linearization in that a speaker's linearization strategy will minimize memory load during the process of formulating. A multidimensional structure is broken up in such a way that the number of 'return addresses' to be kept in memory will be minimized. This is attained by maximizing the connectivity of the discourse, and by backtracking to stored addresses in a first-in-last-out fashion. These memory determinants of linearization are presumably biological, and independent of the domain of discourse. An important question is whether the linearization requirement is enforced by the oral modality of speech or whether it is a deeper modality-independent property of language use.

Share this page