34 results
Contributors
-
- By Mitchell Aboulafia, Frederick Adams, Marilyn McCord Adams, Robert M. Adams, Laird Addis, James W. Allard, David Allison, William P. Alston, Karl Ameriks, C. Anthony Anderson, David Leech Anderson, Lanier Anderson, Roger Ariew, David Armstrong, Denis G. Arnold, E. J. Ashworth, Margaret Atherton, Robin Attfield, Bruce Aune, Edward Wilson Averill, Jody Azzouni, Kent Bach, Andrew Bailey, Lynne Rudder Baker, Thomas R. Baldwin, Jon Barwise, George Bealer, William Bechtel, Lawrence C. Becker, Mark A. Bedau, Ernst Behler, José A. Benardete, Ermanno Bencivenga, Jan Berg, Michael Bergmann, Robert L. Bernasconi, Sven Bernecker, Bernard Berofsky, Rod Bertolet, Charles J. Beyer, Christian Beyer, Joseph Bien, Joseph Bien, Peg Birmingham, Ivan Boh, James Bohman, Daniel Bonevac, Laurence BonJour, William J. Bouwsma, Raymond D. Bradley, Myles Brand, Richard B. Brandt, Michael E. Bratman, Stephen E. Braude, Daniel Breazeale, Angela Breitenbach, Jason Bridges, David O. Brink, Gordon G. Brittan, Justin Broackes, Dan W. Brock, Aaron Bronfman, Jeffrey E. Brower, Bartosz Brozek, Anthony Brueckner, Jeffrey Bub, Lara Buchak, Otavio Bueno, Ann E. Bumpus, Robert W. Burch, John Burgess, Arthur W. Burks, Panayot Butchvarov, Robert E. Butts, Marina Bykova, Patrick Byrne, David Carr, Noël Carroll, Edward S. Casey, Victor Caston, Victor Caston, Albert Casullo, Robert L. Causey, Alan K. L. Chan, Ruth Chang, Deen K. Chatterjee, Andrew Chignell, Roderick M. Chisholm, Kelly J. Clark, E. J. Coffman, Robin Collins, Brian P. Copenhaver, John Corcoran, John Cottingham, Roger Crisp, Frederick J. Crosson, Antonio S. Cua, Phillip D. Cummins, Martin Curd, Adam Cureton, Andrew Cutrofello, Stephen Darwall, Paul Sheldon Davies, Wayne A. Davis, Timothy Joseph Day, Claudio de Almeida, Mario De Caro, Mario De Caro, John Deigh, C. F. Delaney, Daniel C. Dennett, Michael R. DePaul, Michael Detlefsen, Daniel Trent Devereux, Philip E. Devine, John M. Dillon, Martin C. Dillon, Robert DiSalle, Mary Domski, Alan Donagan, Paul Draper, Fred Dretske, Mircea Dumitru, Wilhelm Dupré, Gerald Dworkin, John Earman, Ellery Eells, Catherine Z. Elgin, Berent Enç, Ronald P. Endicott, Edward Erwin, John Etchemendy, C. Stephen Evans, Susan L. Feagin, Solomon Feferman, Richard Feldman, Arthur Fine, Maurice A. Finocchiaro, William FitzPatrick, Richard E. Flathman, Gvozden Flego, Richard Foley, Graeme Forbes, Rainer Forst, Malcolm R. Forster, Daniel Fouke, Patrick Francken, Samuel Freeman, Elizabeth Fricker, Miranda Fricker, Michael Friedman, Michael Fuerstein, Richard A. Fumerton, Alan Gabbey, Pieranna Garavaso, Daniel Garber, Jorge L. A. Garcia, Robert K. Garcia, Don Garrett, Philip Gasper, Gerald Gaus, Berys Gaut, Bernard Gert, Roger F. Gibson, Cody Gilmore, Carl Ginet, Alan H. Goldman, Alvin I. Goldman, Alfonso Gömez-Lobo, Lenn E. Goodman, Robert M. Gordon, Stefan Gosepath, Jorge J. E. Gracia, Daniel W. Graham, George A. Graham, Peter J. Graham, Richard E. Grandy, I. Grattan-Guinness, John Greco, Philip T. Grier, Nicholas Griffin, Nicholas Griffin, David A. Griffiths, Paul J. Griffiths, Stephen R. Grimm, Charles L. Griswold, Charles B. Guignon, Pete A. Y. Gunter, Dimitri Gutas, Gary Gutting, Paul Guyer, Kwame Gyekye, Oscar A. Haac, Raul Hakli, Raul Hakli, Michael Hallett, Edward C. Halper, Jean Hampton, R. James Hankinson, K. R. Hanley, Russell Hardin, Robert M. Harnish, William Harper, David Harrah, Kevin Hart, Ali Hasan, William Hasker, John Haugeland, Roger Hausheer, William Heald, Peter Heath, Richard Heck, John F. Heil, Vincent F. Hendricks, Stephen Hetherington, Francis Heylighen, Kathleen Marie Higgins, Risto Hilpinen, Harold T. Hodes, Joshua Hoffman, Alan Holland, Robert L. Holmes, Richard Holton, Brad W. Hooker, Terence E. Horgan, Tamara Horowitz, Paul Horwich, Vittorio Hösle, Paul Hoβfeld, Daniel Howard-Snyder, Frances Howard-Snyder, Anne Hudson, Deal W. Hudson, Carl A. Huffman, David L. Hull, Patricia Huntington, Thomas Hurka, Paul Hurley, Rosalind Hursthouse, Guillermo Hurtado, Ronald E. Hustwit, Sarah Hutton, Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa, Harry A. Ide, David Ingram, Philip J. Ivanhoe, Alfred L. Ivry, Frank Jackson, Dale Jacquette, Joseph Jedwab, Richard Jeffrey, David Alan Johnson, Edward Johnson, Mark D. Jordan, Richard Joyce, Hwa Yol Jung, Robert Hillary Kane, Tomis Kapitan, Jacquelyn Ann K. Kegley, James A. Keller, Ralph Kennedy, Sergei Khoruzhii, Jaegwon Kim, Yersu Kim, Nathan L. King, Patricia Kitcher, Peter D. Klein, E. D. Klemke, Virginia Klenk, George L. Kline, Christian Klotz, Simo Knuuttila, Joseph J. Kockelmans, Konstantin Kolenda, Sebastian Tomasz Kołodziejczyk, Isaac Kramnick, Richard Kraut, Fred Kroon, Manfred Kuehn, Steven T. Kuhn, Henry E. Kyburg, John Lachs, Jennifer Lackey, Stephen E. Lahey, Andrea Lavazza, Thomas H. Leahey, Joo Heung Lee, Keith Lehrer, Dorothy Leland, Noah M. Lemos, Ernest LePore, Sarah-Jane Leslie, Isaac Levi, Andrew Levine, Alan E. Lewis, Daniel E. Little, Shu-hsien Liu, Shu-hsien Liu, Alan K. L. Chan, Brian Loar, Lawrence B. Lombard, John Longeway, Dominic McIver Lopes, Michael J. Loux, E. J. Lowe, Steven Luper, Eugene C. Luschei, William G. Lycan, David Lyons, David Macarthur, Danielle Macbeth, Scott MacDonald, Jacob L. Mackey, Louis H. Mackey, Penelope Mackie, Edward H. Madden, Penelope Maddy, G. B. Madison, Bernd Magnus, Pekka Mäkelä, Rudolf A. Makkreel, David Manley, William E. Mann (W.E.M.), Vladimir Marchenkov, Peter Markie, Jean-Pierre Marquis, Ausonio Marras, Mike W. Martin, A. P. Martinich, William L. McBride, David McCabe, Storrs McCall, Hugh J. McCann, Robert N. McCauley, John J. McDermott, Sarah McGrath, Ralph McInerny, Daniel J. McKaughan, Thomas McKay, Michael McKinsey, Brian P. McLaughlin, Ernan McMullin, Anthonie Meijers, Jack W. Meiland, William Jason Melanson, Alfred R. Mele, Joseph R. Mendola, Christopher Menzel, Michael J. Meyer, Christian B. Miller, David W. Miller, Peter Millican, Robert N. Minor, Phillip Mitsis, James A. Montmarquet, Michael S. Moore, Tim Moore, Benjamin Morison, Donald R. Morrison, Stephen J. Morse, Paul K. Moser, Alexander P. D. Mourelatos, Ian Mueller, James Bernard Murphy, Mark C. Murphy, Steven Nadler, Jan Narveson, Alan Nelson, Jerome Neu, Samuel Newlands, Kai Nielsen, Ilkka Niiniluoto, Carlos G. Noreña, Calvin G. Normore, David Fate Norton, Nikolaj Nottelmann, Donald Nute, David S. Oderberg, Steve Odin, Michael O’Rourke, Willard G. Oxtoby, Heinz Paetzold, George S. Pappas, Anthony J. Parel, Lydia Patton, R. P. Peerenboom, Francis Jeffry Pelletier, Adriaan T. Peperzak, Derk Pereboom, Jaroslav Peregrin, Glen Pettigrove, Philip Pettit, Edmund L. Pincoffs, Andrew Pinsent, Robert B. Pippin, Alvin Plantinga, Louis P. Pojman, Richard H. Popkin, John F. Post, Carl J. Posy, William J. Prior, Richard Purtill, Michael Quante, Philip L. Quinn, Philip L. Quinn, Elizabeth S. Radcliffe, Diana Raffman, Gerard Raulet, Stephen L. Read, Andrews Reath, Andrew Reisner, Nicholas Rescher, Henry S. Richardson, Robert C. Richardson, Thomas Ricketts, Wayne D. Riggs, Mark Roberts, Robert C. Roberts, Luke Robinson, Alexander Rosenberg, Gary Rosenkranz, Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal, Adina L. Roskies, William L. Rowe, T. M. Rudavsky, Michael Ruse, Bruce Russell, Lilly-Marlene Russow, Dan Ryder, R. M. Sainsbury, Joseph Salerno, Nathan Salmon, Wesley C. Salmon, Constantine Sandis, David H. Sanford, Marco Santambrogio, David Sapire, Ruth A. Saunders, Geoffrey Sayre-McCord, Charles Sayward, James P. Scanlan, Richard Schacht, Tamar Schapiro, Frederick F. Schmitt, Jerome B. Schneewind, Calvin O. Schrag, Alan D. Schrift, George F. Schumm, Jean-Loup Seban, David N. Sedley, Kenneth Seeskin, Krister Segerberg, Charlene Haddock Seigfried, Dennis M. Senchuk, James F. Sennett, William Lad Sessions, Stewart Shapiro, Tommie Shelby, Donald W. Sherburne, Christopher Shields, Roger A. Shiner, Sydney Shoemaker, Robert K. Shope, Kwong-loi Shun, Wilfried Sieg, A. John Simmons, Robert L. Simon, Marcus G. Singer, Georgette Sinkler, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Matti T. Sintonen, Lawrence Sklar, Brian Skyrms, Robert C. Sleigh, Michael Anthony Slote, Hans Sluga, Barry Smith, Michael Smith, Robin Smith, Robert Sokolowski, Robert C. Solomon, Marta Soniewicka, Philip Soper, Ernest Sosa, Nicholas Southwood, Paul Vincent Spade, T. L. S. Sprigge, Eric O. Springsted, George J. Stack, Rebecca Stangl, Jason Stanley, Florian Steinberger, Sören Stenlund, Christopher Stephens, James P. Sterba, Josef Stern, Matthias Steup, M. A. Stewart, Leopold Stubenberg, Edith Dudley Sulla, Frederick Suppe, Jere Paul Surber, David George Sussman, Sigrún Svavarsdóttir, Zeno G. Swijtink, Richard Swinburne, Charles C. Taliaferro, Robert B. Talisse, John Tasioulas, Paul Teller, Larry S. Temkin, Mark Textor, H. S. Thayer, Peter Thielke, Alan Thomas, Amie L. Thomasson, Katherine Thomson-Jones, Joshua C. Thurow, Vzalerie Tiberius, Terrence N. Tice, Paul Tidman, Mark C. Timmons, William Tolhurst, James E. Tomberlin, Rosemarie Tong, Lawrence Torcello, Kelly Trogdon, J. D. Trout, Robert E. Tully, Raimo Tuomela, John Turri, Martin M. Tweedale, Thomas Uebel, Jennifer Uleman, James Van Cleve, Harry van der Linden, Peter van Inwagen, Bryan W. Van Norden, René van Woudenberg, Donald Phillip Verene, Samantha Vice, Thomas Vinci, Donald Wayne Viney, Barbara Von Eckardt, Peter B. M. Vranas, Steven J. Wagner, William J. Wainwright, Paul E. Walker, Robert E. Wall, Craig Walton, Douglas Walton, Eric Watkins, Richard A. Watson, Michael V. Wedin, Rudolph H. Weingartner, Paul Weirich, Paul J. Weithman, Carl Wellman, Howard Wettstein, Samuel C. Wheeler, Stephen A. White, Jennifer Whiting, Edward R. Wierenga, Michael Williams, Fred Wilson, W. Kent Wilson, Kenneth P. Winkler, John F. Wippel, Jan Woleński, Allan B. Wolter, Nicholas P. Wolterstorff, Rega Wood, W. Jay Wood, Paul Woodruff, Alison Wylie, Gideon Yaffe, Takashi Yagisawa, Yutaka Yamamoto, Keith E. Yandell, Xiaomei Yang, Dean Zimmerman, Günter Zoller, Catherine Zuckert, Michael Zuckert, Jack A. Zupko (J.A.Z.)
- Edited by Robert Audi, University of Notre Dame, Indiana
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
- Published online:
- 05 August 2015
- Print publication:
- 27 April 2015, pp ix-xxx
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Knowledge exchange: a review and research agenda for environmental management
- IOAN FAZEY, ANNA C. EVELY, MARK S. REED, LINDSAY C. STRINGER, JOANNEKE KRUIJSEN, PIRAN C. L. WHITE, ANDREW NEWSHAM, LIXIAN JIN, MARTIN CORTAZZI, JEREMY PHILLIPSON, KIRSTY BLACKSTOCK, NOEL ENTWISTLE, WILLIAM SHEATE, FIONA ARMSTRONG, CHRIS BLACKMORE, JOHN FAZEY, JULIE INGRAM, JON GREGSON, PHILIP LOWE, SARAH MORTON, CHRIS TREVITT
-
- Journal:
- Environmental Conservation / Volume 40 / Issue 1 / March 2013
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 24 September 2012, pp. 19-36
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
There is increasing emphasis on the need for effective ways of sharing knowledge to enhance environmental management and sustainability. Knowledge exchange (KE) are processes that generate, share and/or use knowledge through various methods appropriate to the context, purpose, and participants involved. KE includes concepts such as sharing, generation, coproduction, comanagement, and brokerage of knowledge. This paper elicits the expert knowledge of academics involved in research and practice of KE from different disciplines and backgrounds to review research themes, identify gaps and questions, and develop a research agenda for furthering understanding about KE. Results include 80 research questions prefaced by a review of research themes. Key conclusions are: (1) there is a diverse range of questions relating to KE that require attention; (2) there is a particular need for research on understanding the process of KE and how KE can be evaluated; and (3) given the strong interdependency of research questions, an integrated approach to understanding KE is required. To improve understanding of KE, action research methodologies and embedding evaluation as a normal part of KE research and practice need to be encouraged. This will foster more adaptive approaches to learning about KE and enhance effectiveness of environmental management.
14 - Agrammatism revisited
- John C. L. Ingram, University of Queensland
-
- Book:
- Neurolinguistics
- Published online:
- 26 January 2010
- Print publication:
- 18 October 2007, pp 297-328
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
We suspended discussion of the nature of agrammatic comprehension impairment in chapter 12, in order to consider the role of working memory in sentence processing and to review the methodology of on-line language assessment. With a clearer picture of the alternative (but not necessarily irreconcilable) concepts of working memory resources utilized in volitional and automated language processing, together with an appreciation of the current state-of-the-art in behavioural and neural techniques for monitoring moment-by-moment fluctuations in processing load, we are better equipped to critically evaluate competing theories of receptive agrammatism. But to avoid needless confusion that often attends discussion of this topic, let us be clear what we mean by ‘receptive agrammatism’, how it relates to the clinical classification of aphasia (Broca's, Wernicke's, anomic, conduction and transcortical aphasia), and why this particular language syndrome has preoccupied neurolinguistic research more than any other over the last quarter century or so.
Receptive agrammatism refers to a pattern of comprehension impairment that is revealed by psycholinguistic investigations of the kind described in detail in chapter 12. Subjects manifest an inability to use syntactic cues for sentence comprehension in tests of thematic role assignment, where pragmatic and lexical cues to meaning are rigorously controlled by selection of sentence materials and other aspects of the testing situation. A pattern of comprehension impairment that can be identified as receptive agrammatism has the following attributes: (1) not better than chance performance for agent identification on reversible passive constructions, (2) poor performance on object relative clauses and other structures involving departures from canonical word order, and (3) selective ‘blindness’ to the presence of semantically opaque function words or grammatical affixes.
Part II - Speech perception and auditory processing
- John C. L. Ingram, University of Queensland
-
- Book:
- Neurolinguistics
- Published online:
- 26 January 2010
- Print publication:
- 18 October 2007, pp 91-92
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
4 - On modularity and method
- John C. L. Ingram, University of Queensland
-
- Book:
- Neurolinguistics
- Published online:
- 26 January 2010
- Print publication:
- 18 October 2007, pp 66-90
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
In the two preceding chapters, we have explored in a preliminary way two different paths to understanding the human ‘language faculty’ (Chomsky, 1965; Jackendoff, 1997) or our capacity for spoken language communication. The linguistic approach seeks to isolate and describe the elements of a system of spoken communication by studying varieties of linguistic expressions in the world's languages and human language in general. The neuropathological approach examines types of language breakdown in response to brain damage of various kinds. It is hoped that the search for parallels or correspondences in these two very different domains will yield empirical constraints on a theory of language that could not otherwise be discovered if these two strands of inquiry were conducted in isolation from one another. For example, a fundamental distinction that grammarians draw between lexis and rule in the architecture of the language faculty may turn out to have a correspondence – or not – in the classification of language pathologies, reflecting the organization of language capacities in the human brain. We have already provided you with some classical findings from these two domains, which provides at least a foundation for speculation and further inquiry.
However, it is time to draw some critical methodological distinctions in the interests of making our search for correspondences and a cross-disciplinary theory of language more precise. The distinctions that we draw here will anticipate issues discussed more fully in subsequent chapters.
7 - The speech recognition lexicon
- John C. L. Ingram, University of Queensland
-
- Book:
- Neurolinguistics
- Published online:
- 26 January 2010
- Print publication:
- 18 October 2007, pp 140-154
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
Thus far, we have not entirely neglected but certainly down-played the role of the lexicon in speech perception. In chapters 5 and 6 we sought to make a case that speech recognizers must be able to build phonological representations of possible word forms, purely on the basis of acoustic phonetic input. Otherwise, it is difficult to account for the robustness and flexibility of our ‘bottom-up’ speech recognition capabilities. But it is also true that the goal of speech recognition is to identify words in the service of understanding whole utterances, and that there are a host of ‘top-down’ lexical, semantic and discourse effects that arise as a consequence of lexical retrieval mechanisms. Such effects express themselves in (a) the different ways that we respond perceptually to words (e.g. kelp) versus non-words (whether pronounceable like klep – a possible word – or phonotactically illegal, like tlep), (b) neighbourhood effects, arising from the fact that particular words vary in the number of phonologically near neighbours that compete for matching to the acoustic signal, and (c) other effects, such as phoneme restoration (see below), which may or may not be lexical in origin, but nevertheless require explanation.
The account given in previous chapters has characterized speech perception as an active process whereby phonological forms are constructed from speech-specific (phonetic) features in the acoustic signal, via the application of specialized perceptual analysers that exploit tacit knowledge of the sound pattern of the language and the sound production constraints of the human vocal tract.
Preface and acknowledgements
- John C. L. Ingram, University of Queensland
-
- Book:
- Neurolinguistics
- Published online:
- 26 January 2010
- Print publication:
- 18 October 2007, pp xix-xx
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
This book is intended as a self-contained introduction to the study of the language–brain relationship for students of cognitive science, linguistics and speech pathology. The essentially interdisciplinary nature of the subject matter posed considerable difficulties for the author and will likely do so also for the reader. So please be warned. Despite my considerable efforts to keep the pathways open between the villages of the cognate disciplines concerned, the jungle is everywhere and its capacity for re-growth is relentless.
As appropriate for an introductory text, the book is accessible to a wide readership. Foundational concepts and issues on the nature of language, language processing and brain language disorders (aphasiology) are presented in the first four chapters. This section of the book should be complementary with many stand-alone introductory courses in linguistics, psychology or neuroanatomy. Subsequent sections deal with successively ‘higher’ levels of language processing and their respective manifestations in brain damage: speech perception (chapters 5–8); word structure and meaning (lexical processing and its disorders; chapters 9–11); syntax and syntactic disorder (agrammatism; chapters 12–14); discourse and the language of thought disorder (chapters 15–16), followed by a brief final chapter, speculating on unsolved problems and possible ways forward. Each major section of the book begins by posing the principal questions at an intuitive level which is hopefully accessible to all. The often quite specialized research methods by which answers to these questions have been sought are then introduced, in a selective review of the literature.
6 - Speech perception: paradigms and findings
- John C. L. Ingram, University of Queensland
-
- Book:
- Neurolinguistics
- Published online:
- 26 January 2010
- Print publication:
- 18 October 2007, pp 112-139
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
In the previous chapter, we drew some tentative conclusions and made some quite strong claims about speech perception: that it is a ‘bottom-up’, highly modular process; that the objects of speech perception are abstract, hierarchically structured phonological targets; that speech differs in important respects from other kinds of auditory perception; that special, species-specific neural machinery may be required to support speech perception. It is time to consider more closely the experimental evidence to see if these claims can be substantiated, to examine the tools that have been developed for studying speech perception, and to approach the controversies that currently animate the field. We will not attempt a comprehensive review, but simply explore some long-standing themes and introduce the specialized experimental paradigms with which one needs to be familiar to understand current research.
One of the guiding themes of speech perception research has been the question of whether ‘speech is special’: whether specific adaptation of the perceptual system has occurred with the evolution of human language to support the demands of spoken communication. Several key concepts and experimental paradigms have been developed in an attempt to answer this question. Two early paradigms, dichotic listening and categorical perception, provide the foundational concepts for understanding contemporary issues. Specifically, the dichotic listening paradigm raises questions of hemispheric specialization and cortical mechanisms for speech perception that remain central to contemporary neuroimaging studies.
References
- John C. L. Ingram, University of Queensland
-
- Book:
- Neurolinguistics
- Published online:
- 26 January 2010
- Print publication:
- 18 October 2007, pp 387-413
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Part III - Lexical semantics
- John C. L. Ingram, University of Queensland
-
- Book:
- Neurolinguistics
- Published online:
- 26 January 2010
- Print publication:
- 18 October 2007, pp 177-178
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
11 - Lexical semantic disorders in aphasia
- John C. L. Ingram, University of Queensland
-
- Book:
- Neurolinguistics
- Published online:
- 26 January 2010
- Print publication:
- 18 October 2007, pp 221-240
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
The previous chapter's discussion of lexical semantics sought to address the fundamental problem of how word meanings are modified by context in sentence processing. These considerations are central to the goal of developing a combinatorial semantics of natural language processing – a task that is beyond the grasp of current theory or computation. However, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that words and idioms (phrase-like chunks of the kick-the-bucket variety) are also discrete linguistic entities, and that isolated word recognition, retrieval and production constitute a quasi-modular component of linguistic competence in its own right. Severe word-finding difficulties constitute a criterial symptom for a diagnosis of anomic aphasia or serve as a sign of incipient Alzheimer's disease. Phonemic or semantic paraphasias are characteristic features of fluent speech production in Wernicke's aphasia and may be accompanied by an agnosia (perceptual deficit) for the phonological form or the meanings of isolated words.
Indeed it has been argued that an initial stage of context-independent word recognition is required, in which all of the possible roles that a given word may play in different linguistic contexts are activated (perhaps in proportion to their likelihood of use), prior to the selective inhibitory or excitatory effects of context which rapidly constrain the system to settle on a dominant interpretation. This in fact was the conclusion to which Swinney (1979) was led in his celebrated ‘bug’ study of CMLP reported previously (chapter 10).
16 - Breakdown of discourse
- John C. L. Ingram, University of Queensland
-
- Book:
- Neurolinguistics
- Published online:
- 26 January 2010
- Print publication:
- 18 October 2007, pp 346-366
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
As we indicated in the previous chapter, a breakdown at the discourse level of language comprehension would be expected to reveal itself in difficulties of reference retrieval and failure to successfully construct and maintain a mental model that serves the interlocutors engaged in a particular discourse. Discourse construction, insofar as it involves formulating communicative intentions, reference management and taking account of the listener's perspective, places high demands on working memory and attentional resources. Deficits in these higher cognitive abilities are likely to result in violations of the Gricean pragmatic felicity conditions mentioned in the previous chapter. The spoken language which results from poor discourse model construction or management may manifest itself in incoherent or bizarre speech that is likely to be characterized as ‘thought disordered’ in the psychiatric literature (Andreasen, 1982).
Thought disorder is traditionally clinically characterized in terms of either ‘looseness or bizarreness of association’ between ideas, or as an absence of appropriate expressions which enable the listener to construct a coherent model of what the speaker is talking about. The term formal thought disorder is often used specifically to indicate that what is being referred to is the ‘form’ of thought or its overt expression, and not necessarily a pathology of an underlying cognitive process or condition, which might nevertheless be responsible for the production of thought disordered speech.
There has been much debate about the underlying cognitive pathology of thought disordered speech. The symptom is most closely identified with schizophrenia in its acute phase.
9 - Morphology and the mental lexicon
- John C. L. Ingram, University of Queensland
-
- Book:
- Neurolinguistics
- Published online:
- 26 January 2010
- Print publication:
- 18 October 2007, pp 179-198
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
Our discussion thus far has been confined to problems of word recognition and the retrieval of phonological forms from the speech signal. But we have yet to address three core issues of language processing at the lexical level: (1) how word meanings are represented in the mental lexicon; (2) how lexical meanings are assigned to words in the context of sentence processing; and (3) the precise nature of the items which make up the mental lexicon, which we have thus far identified as ‘words’, but have not attempted to define with any precision.
We shall tackle the third of these questions first, the nature of items in the mental lexicon. Perhaps the fundamental issue here is: to what extent do language users decompose words into their constituent morphemes, or minimal units of meaning, as discussed in chapter 2? It is almost universally acknowledged, by linguists and psycholinguists alike, that the units of lexical representation are smaller than words, the units conventionally separated by white space in printed text. Few would argue, for example, that cat and cats, although they are clearly different words, constitute separate entries in the mental lexicon. Rather, cats is a morphological construction, made up of the lexemecat plus the plural inflectional suffix: i.e. cat + s. The assumption here is that in the course of processing words for meaning, listeners ‘strip’ inflectional affixes off word forms to access lexical meanings (Taft and Forster, 1976). But how far does this affix stripping extend?
10 - Lexical semantics
- John C. L. Ingram, University of Queensland
-
- Book:
- Neurolinguistics
- Published online:
- 26 January 2010
- Print publication:
- 18 October 2007, pp 199-220
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
In the previous chapter we inquired into the structure of words and the extent to which they can be decomposed into smaller constituents, morphemes. Morphological decomposition was seen to be justified, up to a point, on evidence from cross-modal semantic priming studies. The evidence suggested that morphological decomposition may be justified insofar as the morphological components of a word are semantically transparent, i.e. to the extent that the meaning of the whole word can be clearly related to the meanings of its component morphemes (e.g. indefensible = <not>(<defend>(<able>))). However, we did not provide an explicit account of ‘semantic transparency’, other than to appeal to language users' intuitions about the meanings of words. A theory of lexical semantics should provide an explicit account of word meaning; of how similarities and differences in word meaning are established, how various word meaning relations, such as synonymy (violin – fiddle), antonymy (long – short), hyponymy (horse – animal) etc., are established.
We defined morphology as the syntax of the word. This chapter concerns the semantics of words or word meanings. A useful theory of lexical semantics needs to account not only for the meaning of individual words but for how word meanings change in context with other words. Consider the meaning of good in the phrase good friend (<loyal, reliable>). Now consider the meaning of the same word in the phrase good lover or good meal.
Index
- John C. L. Ingram, University of Queensland
-
- Book:
- Neurolinguistics
- Published online:
- 26 January 2010
- Print publication:
- 18 October 2007, pp 414-420
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
13 - On-line processing, working memory and modularity
- John C. L. Ingram, University of Queensland
-
- Book:
- Neurolinguistics
- Published online:
- 26 January 2010
- Print publication:
- 18 October 2007, pp 266-296
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
In the previous chapter we outlined two opposing theories of the role that syntactic processing plays in sentence comprehension. According to one view – the modular theory, inspired by early psycholinguistic attempts to apply Chomsky's generative grammar – a specialized syntactic parser assigns grammatical structure to an input sentence, yielding an intermediate representation which strongly constrains the assignment of meaning, but which needs to be further operated upon by interpretive (semantic and pragmatic) processes to yield the full meaning of the utterance. According to the opposing view, dubbed the interactive model, sentence meanings are assigned incrementally to word sequences as soon as they are identified, making maximal use of whatever constraints can be applied from the speakers' tacit knowledge of the grammar of their language, pragmatic knowledge and expectations, or even collocational restrictions on word usage (such as habitual phrases or idioms). Sometimes these cues will conflict, in which case constraints may compete to produce local ambiguities which are usually resolved by further input.
In principle, it should be possible to decide between these opposing models (or some intermediate theory between the two) if we had some means of observing changes in state of the language processor as it steps through the input sentence in real time. We may never fully achieve this privileged perspective, but over the past two or three decades a variety of ‘on-line’ techniques, based initially upon behavioural reaction time measurements and latterly upon functional neural imaging techniques, have been devised, which arguably enable us to observe local fluctuations in ‘processing load’, as sentences are judged or comprehended in real time.
1 - Introduction and overview
- John C. L. Ingram, University of Queensland
-
- Book:
- Neurolinguistics
- Published online:
- 26 January 2010
- Print publication:
- 18 October 2007, pp 3-14
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
This book is about language processing in the human brain and, more specifically, what happens to spoken language when certain areas of the brain are damaged. Language processing is what takes place whenever we understand or produce speech; a mundane task, but one of extraordinary complexity, whose mysteries have baffled some of the greatest minds across the centuries.
Neurolinguistics is the technical term for this field, introduced into academic usage by Harry Whitaker (1971), who founded the leading journal that bears this title. As Whitaker noted at the time, it is a key assumption of neurolinguistics that ‘a proper and adequate understanding of language depends upon correlating information from a variety of fields concerned with the structure and function of both language and brain, minimally neurology and linguistics’. Today, some thirty years later, it seems necessary to add ‘cognition’ or cognitive science to the list of minimally necessary disciplines. A well-articulated cognitive science is needed to provide the hoped for integration of two otherwise very different fields of study: language and neurobiology.
Considerable progress and a vast body of research have accumulated since then. Yet leading advocates of the cognitive science perspective on language as a biologically grounded human ability (such as Chomsky, Pinker and Deacon, to mention just three) disagree on some fundamental questions. To what extent are our language learning capabilities ‘hard-wired’ into the human brain and unique to the species? How is ‘innate linguistic competence’ actually deployed in language learning?
8 - Disorders of auditory processing
- John C. L. Ingram, University of Queensland
-
- Book:
- Neurolinguistics
- Published online:
- 26 January 2010
- Print publication:
- 18 October 2007, pp 155-176
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
It is abundantly clear from the foregoing three chapters that there are many unresolved questions on processes underlying spoken word recognition: the extent to which speech perception relies upon special mechanisms, distinct from the processing of auditory signals in general; the delineation of distinct levels of signal processing in the auditory system and how they interact (e.g. ‘bottom-up’ or feed-forward processing versus ‘top-down’ or feed-back controlled processing); whether mechanisms employed in speech production play an active role in speech perception (the ‘motor’ theory of speech perception); the concrete or abstract nature of stored representations of speech sounds in the recognition lexicon. An important source of evidence on all of these questions, as with the broader question of language processing, comes from the study of auditory processing disorders. Yet as Polster and Rose (1998) point out in their review of the field, a clear taxonomy of disorders of auditory processing has yet to emerge. This they attribute to a range of factors: (a) the comparative rarity of discrete disorders of auditory processing, (b) difficulties of differential diagnosis of auditory processing disorders from aphasia and other forms of auditory agnosia, (c) the inconsistent use of terminology by pioneers in the field, and, perhaps most importantly, (d) our ignorance about the underlying neural mechanisms at higher levels of auditory processing in the brain.
The purpose of the present chapter is to provide a framework for the clinical evaluation of auditory processing disorders underlying the perception of single words.
Glossary
- John C. L. Ingram, University of Queensland
-
- Book:
- Neurolinguistics
- Published online:
- 26 January 2010
- Print publication:
- 18 October 2007, pp 380-386
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
15 - Discourse processing
- John C. L. Ingram, University of Queensland
-
- Book:
- Neurolinguistics
- Published online:
- 26 January 2010
- Print publication:
- 18 October 2007, pp 331-345
-
- Chapter
- Export citation