Displaying 1 - 9 of 9
-
Goldin-Meadow, S., Ozyurek, A., Sancar, B., & Mylander, C. (2009). Making language around the globe: A cross-linguistic study of homesign in the United States, China, and Turkey. In J. Guo, E. Lieven, N. Budwig, S. Ervin-Tripp, K. Nakamura, & S. Ozcaliskan (
Eds. ), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin (pp. 27-39). New York: Psychology Press. -
Goldin-Meadow, S., Gentner, D., Ozyurek, A., & Gurcanli, O. (2009). Spatial language supports spatial cognition: Evidence from deaf homesigners [abstract]. Cognitive Processing, 10(Suppl. 2), S133-S134.
-
Willems, R. M., Ozyurek, A., & Hagoort, P. (2009). Differential roles for left inferior frontal and superior temporal cortex in multimodal integration of action and language. Neuroimage, 47, 1992-2004. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.05.066.
Abstract
Several studies indicate that both posterior superior temporal sulcus/middle temporal gyrus (pSTS/MTG) and left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG) are involved in integrating information from different modalities. Here we investigated the respective roles of these two areas in integration of action and language information. We exploited the fact that the semantic relationship between language and different forms of action (i.e. co-speech gestures and pantomimes) is radically different. Speech and co-speech gestures are always produced together, and gestures are not unambiguously understood without speech. On the contrary, pantomimes are not necessarily produced together with speech and can be easily understood without speech. We presented speech together with these two types of communicative hand actions in matching or mismatching combinations to manipulate semantic integration load. Left and right pSTS/MTG were only involved in semantic integration of speech and pantomimes. Left IFG on the other hand was involved in integration of speech and co-speech gestures as well as of speech and pantomimes. Effective connectivity analyses showed that depending upon the semantic relationship between language and action, LIFG modulates activation levels in left pSTS.
This suggests that integration in pSTS/MTG involves the matching of two input streams for which there is a relatively stable common object representation, whereas integration in LIFG is better characterized as the on-line construction of a new and unified representation of the input streams. In conclusion, pSTS/MTG and LIFG are differentially involved in multimodal integration, crucially depending upon the semantic relationship between the input streams.Additional information
Supplementary table S1 -
Kuntay, A., & Ozyurek, A. (2002). Joint attention and the development of the use of demonstrative pronouns in Turkish. In B. Skarabela, S. Fish, & A. H. Do (
Eds. ), Proceedings of the 26th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 336-347). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. -
Ozyurek, A. (2002). Do speakers design their co-speech gestures for their addresees? The effects of addressee location on representational gestures. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(4), 688-704. doi:10.1006/jmla.2001.2826.
Abstract
Do speakers use spontaneous gestures accompanying their speech for themselves or to communicate their message to their addressees? Two experiments show that speakers change the orientation of their gestures depending on the location of shared space, that is, the intersection of the gesture spaces of the speakers and addressees. Gesture orientations change more frequently when they accompany spatial prepositions such as into and out, which describe motion that has a beginning and end point, rather than across, which depicts an unbounded path across space. Speakers change their gestures so that they represent the beginning and end point of motion INTO or OUT by moving into or out of the shared space. Thus, speakers design their gestures for their addressees and therefore use them to communicate. This has implications for the view that gestures are a part of language use as well as for the role of gestures in speech production. -
Ozyurek, A. (2002). Speech-gesture relationship across languages and in second language learners: Implications for spatial thinking and speaking. In B. Skarabela, S. Fish, & A. H. Do (
Eds. ), Proceedings of the 26th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 500-509). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. -
Ozyurek, A. (2000). Differences in spatial conceptualization in Turkish and English discourse: Evidence from both speech and gesture. In A. Goksel, & C. Kerslake (
Eds. ), Studies on Turkish and Turkic languages (pp. 263-272). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. -
Ozyurek, A., & Ozcaliskan, S. (2000). How do children learn to conflate manner and path in their speech and gestures? Differences in English and Turkish. In E. V. Clark (
Ed. ), The proceedings of the Thirtieth Child Language Research Forum (pp. 77-85). Stanford: CSLI Publications. -
Ozyurek, A. (2000). The influence of addressee location on spatial language and representational gestures of direction. In D. McNeill (
Ed. ), Language and gesture (pp. 64-83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Share this page