Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:11:07.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Process and perish” or multiple buffers with push-down stacks?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2016

Stephen C. Levinson
Stephen C. Levinson*
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen & Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, 6500 AH Nijmegen, The Netherlands. stephen.levinson@mpi.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This commentary raises two issues: (1) Language processing is hastened not only by internal pressures but also externally by turn-taking in language use; (2) the theory requires nested levels of processing, but linguistic levels do not fully nest; further, it would seem to require multiple memory buffers, otherwise there's no obvious treatment for discontinuous structures, or for verbatim recall.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e81
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baddeley, A. (1987) Working memory. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, B., Banjade, G., Gaenszle, M., Lieven, E., Paudyal, N., Rai, I. P., Rai, M., Rai, N. K. & Stoll, S. (2007) Free prefix ordering in Chintang. Language 83(1):43–73.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. & Aikhenvald, A. (2002) Word: A typological framework. In: Word: A cross-linguistic typology, ed. Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, A. Y., pp. 1–41. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Griffin, Z. M. & Bock, K. (2000) What the eyes say about speaking. Psychological Science 4:274–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickok, G. & Poeppel, D. (2000) Towards a functional anatomy of speech perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4:131–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Indefrey, P. & Levelt, W. J. M. (2004) The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components. Cognition 92(1–2):101–44.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2002) Foundations of language. Oxford.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. H. & Torreira, F. (2015) The timing and construction of preference: A quantitative study. Discourse Processes 52(4):255–89.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. & Torreira, F. (2015) Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language. Frontiers in Psychology 6:731. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00731.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63(2):81–97.Google Scholar
Pinkster, H. (2005) The language of Pliny the Elder. In: The language of Latin Prose, ed. Reinhardt, T., Lapidge, M. & Adams, J. N., pp. 239–56. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. & Jefferson, G. (1974) Simplest systematics for organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4):696–35.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (2007) Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2010) A phonological condition that targets discontinuous syntactic units: Ma/mon suppletion in French. Snippets 22:11–13.Google Scholar
Snijders, L. (2012) Issues concerning constraints on discontinuous NPs in Latin. In: Proceedings of the LFG12 Conference, Bali, Indonesia, June 28–July 1, 2012, pp. 565–81, ed. Butt, M. & King, T. H.. CSLI Publications. Available at: http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/17/lfg12.html Google Scholar
Vroomen, J. & de Gelder, B. (1999) Lexical access of resyllabified words: Evidence from phoneme monitoring. Memory and Cognition 27(3):413–21.Google Scholar