Displaying 1 - 19 of 19
-
Levelt, W. J. M. (2018). Is language natural to man? Some historical considerations. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 21, 127-131. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.04.003.
Abstract
Since the Enlightenment period, natural theories of speech and language evolution have florished in the language sciences. Four ever returning core issues are highlighted in this paper: Firstly, Is language natural to man or just an invention? Secondly, Is language a specific human ability (a ‘language instinct’) or does it arise from general cognitive capacities we share with other animals? Thirdly, Has the evolution of language been a gradual process or did it rather suddenly arise, due to some ‘evolutionary twist’? Lastly, Is the child's language acquisition an appropriate model for language evolution? -
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