言语生成中内隐学习现象的研究

言语生成中的结构启动和语误现象,通常分别用瞬时激活和语音的约束范围来解释它们产生的机制。20世纪60年代末发端的内隐学习的研究,为深入理解言语生成机制提供了崭新的视角。言语生成的各种现象中,语言经验和学习机制发挥着重要作用,结构启动和语误更倾向于是一种内隐的序列学习。     

言语产生中双词素词的语音编码

采用同音判断和音节监控方法 ,考察言语产生中双词素词语音激活的特点。选用以偏正结构的双词素词为名称的图片和与双词素词中首尾两个词素同音的两组探测字作为实验材料 ,探测字在图片呈现后 5 0毫秒 (实验一 ) ,或图片呈现前 130 0毫秒 (实验二 )出现 ,要求被试判断出现的字是否与图片名称中任何一个词素同音。实验结果与绝大部分言语产生理论的预期相反 ,对图片名称第一词素的反应慢于第二词素。考虑到首尾两个词素对整词意义贡献的差别 ,作者把实验结果解释为词素意义对语音激活的作用 :第二词素的语义重要性决定了对应音节激活的快速性 ,双词素词中词素音位激活的速度和时间性受词义和词素意义激活程度的影响 ,而不完全取决于词素发音的序列性。实验不支持音位编码从左到右、序列进行的观点     

自闭症者对音乐和言语音高的加工

自闭症是一种神经发展障碍,主要表现为社会互动障碍,语言交流困难以及刻板行为等症状。已有研究表明,在音乐方面,自闭症者不仅表现出较强的音乐音高知觉能力,而且在音乐表演方面也体现出某些优势。然而,在言语方面,自闭症者除了在言语音高轮廓分辨任务中得分较高外,对言语语调的知觉能力明显比正常人更差,同时,他们对言语语调的产生也存在障碍。本研究不仅可以推进音乐和言语对比研究,而且也为自闭症者言语康复提供借鉴。     

Epistemic Injustice in Social Cognition

Silencing is a practice that disrupts linguistic and communicative acts, but its relationship to knowledge and justice is not fully understood. Prior models of epistemic injustice tend to characterize silencing as a symptom that follows as a result of underrepresenting the knowledge of others. In this paper, I advance a model of epistemic injustice in which the opposite sometimes happens. Drawing on recent work in experimental cognitive science, I argue that silencing can cause misrepresentations of knowledge and, subsequently, epistemic injustice to occur. Drawing on recent work in epistemology, I also argue that, according to some leading theories, silencing potentially causes ignorance by depriving individuals and communities of knowledge itself. These findings expand our understanding of silencing in social practice, contribute a broader model of epistemic injustice for research at the intersection of ethics and philosophy of mind, and have implications for leading theories of knowledge in epistemology.     

Guess who? Children use prosody to infer intended listeners

This study examined the relative influence of prosody and semantic content in children's inferences about intended listeners. Children (n = 72), who ranged in age from 5 to 10 years, heard greetings with prosody and content that was either infant or adult directed and chose the intended listener from amongst an infant or an adult. While content affected all children's choices, the effect of prosody was stronger (at least, for children aged 7–10 years). For conditions in which prosodic cues were suggestive of one listener, and content cues, another, children aged 7–10 years chose the listener according to prosody. In contrast, the youngest age group (5‐ to 6‐year‐olds) chose listeners at chance levels in these incongruent conditions. While prosodic cues were most influential in determining children's choices, their ratings of how certain they felt about their choices indicated that content nonetheless influenced their thinking about the intended listener. Results are the first to show the unique influence of prosody in children's thinking about appropriate speech styles. Findings add to work showing children's ability to use prosody to make inferences about speakers' communicative intentions.     

Self-talk: Review and sport-specific model

Self-talk is a key component of the sport psychology canon. Although self-talk has been widely endorsed by athletes and coaches as a performance enhancement strategy, a comprehensive model of self-talk in sport that might be used to guide systematic research has yet to be developed. This purpose of this paper is to: (a) review theory and research related to self-talk in sport; and (b) present a sport-specific model that builds upon existing theory and research, and addresses key questions related to self-talk. The paper begins with a definition of self-talk, developed with consideration of the discursive nature of inner speech and dual process theories. Extant self-talk models related to self-talk in sport are reviewed and serve as a foundation for a sport-specific model of self-talk. Components of the model (i.e., self-talk, System 1, System 2, behaviour, contextual factors, personal factors) are presented, the reciprocal relationships among model components are explored, and implications of the sport-specific model of self-talk are discussed.     

Suppositions in argumentation

The atheist who begins to argue his case by saying, Suppose there is an omniscient Being of the sort in which Christians believe ... is employing a very familiar move in argumentation. However, most books on argumentation theory ignore suppositions completely. Searle omits suppositions entirely from his taxonomy of speech acts and this appears to lead to a similar omission in Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions by van Eemeren and Grootendorst.This paper argues that suppositional argument is elegant, powerful and extremely common, that the correct way to understand it is based on Gottlob Frege's distinction between asserted and unasserted propositions and hence that suppositions are neither assertions nor (and this is more important) assertives. The paper discusses the connections between suppositions and conditionals; it argues that argumentation theory which ignores suppositions is systematically misleading; and it concludes by indicating some possible developments in argumentation theory.Revised version of a paper delivered at the University of Amsterdam, April 3, 1987.     

Modeling human dialogue with computers

Conversation, talk, the communicative process, can be compared to the symphonic play of a piece of music. There is an orchestra, the musicians, whose tones and notes must flow, complement and harmonize with one another. There is a main theme. As the music builds variations on the theme are played, and new themes and subthemes are introduced. The basinett responds to the strings, the bass emphasizes the mood of the violin, while the french horn adds a new melody. The subtlety and evenness of flow, the seeming simplicity of the piece, the rich interleaving of subdevelopments, variations, tangents, and recapitulations, are what make a piece of music great.Coherent communication is much the same. It looks easy. It flows. It seems effortless. In reality, of course, it is rich and complex, in both form and content. As in music, conversants may begin a conversation slowly, tentatively, with some simple (or complex) topic in mind. Slowly the momentum builds, the connections surface, and the themes become defined. As in music, these themes are then elaborated upon in various ways. Topic elaborations often spawn their own variations. New themes and subthemes are introduced. All the while, as in music, original themes reappear and are interwoven with the new ones. The twists and turns of the conversation seem to occur effortlessly.In music, there is usually one composer in control of which instrument plays next; one composer who is in charge of what the instrument will say. There is a single coordinator of theme introductions, developments, variations, and interweavings. The composition is done off-line and usually involves editing and re-editing for flaws. In discourse, however, we have on-line development with multiple parties responsible for flow coordination. All parties have to organize their own turns, themes, and variations, in addition to their being able to integrate these items into co-conversants'.In their book, Understanding Computers and Cognition, Winograd and Flores (1987) cite the following from Gadamer (Winograd and Flores, 1987, p. 32):It is not so much our judgments as it is our prejudices that constitute our being ... the historicity of our existence entails that prejudices, in the literal sense of the word, constitute the initial directedness of our whole ability to experience. Prejudices are biases of our openness to the world. They are simply conditions whereby we experience something — whereby what we encounter says something to us. (Gadamer, Philosophical Hermeneutics, 1976, p. 9)     

Rationale for a pragma-dialectical perspective

Starting from a concept of reasonableness as well-consideredness, it is discussed in what way science could serve as a model for reasonable argumentation. It turns out that in order to be reasonable two requirements have to be fulfilled. The argumentation should comply with rules which are both problem-valid and intersubjectively valid. Geometrical and anthropological perspectives don't meet these criteria, but a critical perspective does. It is explained that a pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation which agrees with this critical perspective is indeed problem-valid and that strong pragmatic and utilitarian arguments can be given for its intersubjective validity. Thus, conventional validity is promoted for a code of conduct for discussants who want to resolve their disputes reasonably by way of a critical discussion.