Displaying 1 - 7 of 7
-
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. (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? -
Levelt, W. J. M. (1997). Kunnen lezen is ongewoon voor horenden en doven. Tijdschrift voor Jeugdgezondheidszorg, 29(2), 22-25.
-
Levelt, W. J. M. (1997). Language. In G. Adelman, & B. H. Smith (
Eds. ), Elsevier's encyclopedia of neuroscience (CD-ROM edition). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. -
Schiller, N. O., Van Lieshout, P. H. H. M., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1997). Is the syllable an articulatory unit in speech production? Evidence from an Emma study. In P. Wille (
Ed. ), Fortschritte der Akustik: Plenarvorträge und Fachbeiträge der 23. Deutschen Jahrestagung für Akustik (DAGA 97) (pp. 605-606). Oldenburg: DEGA. -
Schiller, N. O., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1997). The syllabic structure of spoken words: Evidence from the syllabification of intervocalic consonants. Language and Speech, 40(2), 103-140.
Abstract
A series of experiments was carried out to investigate the syllable affiliation of intervocalic consonants following short vowels, long vowels, and schwa in Dutch. Special interest was paid to words such as letter ['leter] ''id.,'' where a short vowel is followed by a single consonant. On phonological grounds one may predict that the first syllable should always be closed, but earlier psycholinguistic research had shown that speakers tend to leave these syllables open. In our experiments, bisyllabic word forms were presented aurally, and participants produced their syllables in reversed order (Experiments 1 through 5), or repeated the words inserting a pause between the syllables (Experiment 6). The results showed that participants generally closed syllables with a short vowel. However, in a significant number of the cases they produced open short vowel syllables. Syllables containing schwa, like syllables with a long vowel, were hardly ever closed. Word stress, the phonetic quality of the vowel in the first syllable, and the experimental context influenced syllabification. Taken together, the experiments show that native speakers syllabify bisyllabic Dutch nouns in accordance with a small set of prosodic output constraints. To account for the variability of the results, we propose that these constraints differ in their probabilities of being applied.
Share this page