Language Processing Differences Between Blind and Sighted Individuals and the Abstract Versus Concrete Concept Difference

Enrique Canessa; Sergio E. Chaigneau; Sebastián Moreno

doi:10.1111/cogs.13044

Language distance and non-native syntactic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials

Bilingualism Language and Cognition ◽

10.1017/s1366728910000350 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 14 (3) ◽

pp. 400-411 ◽

Cited By ~ 27

Author(s):

ADAM ZAWISZEWSKI ◽

EVA GUTIÉRREZ ◽

BEATRIZ FERNÁNDEZ ◽

ITZIAR LAKA

Keyword(s):

Language Processing ◽

Native Speakers ◽

Native Language ◽

Event Related Potentials ◽

Syntactic Processing ◽

Verb Agreement ◽

The Third ◽

Related Potentials ◽

Processing Differences ◽

Head Parameter

In this study, we explore native and non-native syntactic processing, paying special attention to the language distance factor. To this end, we compared how native speakers of Basque and highly proficient non-native speakers of Basque who are native speakers of Spanish process certain core aspects of Basque syntax. Our results suggest that differences in native versus non-native language processing strongly correlate with language distance: native/non-native processing differences obtain if a syntactic parameter of the non-native grammar diverges from the native grammar. Otherwise, non-native processing will approximate native processing as levels of proficiency increase. We focus on three syntactic parameters: (i) the head parameter, (ii) argument alignment (ergative/accusative), and (iii) verb agreement. The first two diverge in Basque and Spanish, but the third is the same in both languages. Our results reveal that native and non-native processing differs for the diverging syntactic parameters, but not for the convergent one. These findings indicate that language distance has a significant impact in non-native language processing.

Download Full-text

Language processing is not a race against time

Behavioral and Brain Sciences ◽

10.1017/s0140525x15000692 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 39 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Giosuè Baggio ◽

Carmelo M. Vicario

Keyword(s):

Information Processing ◽

Human Brain ◽

Language Processing ◽

Cognitive Functions ◽

Memory Systems ◽

Language System ◽

Moderating Factors

AbstractWe agree with Christiansen & Chater (C&C) that language processing and acquisition are tightly constrained by the limits of sensory and memory systems. However, the human brain supports a range of cognitive functions that mitigate the effects of information processing bottlenecks. The language system is partly organised around these moderating factors, not just around restrictions on storage and computation.

Download Full-text

Cognitive Processing of Miscommunication in Interactive Listening: An Evaluation of Listener Indecision and Cognitive Effort

Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research ◽

10.1044/2020_jslhr-20-00128 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-17

Author(s):

Jennifer M. Roche ◽

Arkady Zgonnikov ◽

Laura M. Morett

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Cognitive Processing ◽

Language Processing ◽

Cognitive Effort ◽

Mouse Tracking ◽

Computer Mouse ◽

Decision Making Processes ◽

Computer Mouse Tracking ◽

Listening Task ◽

Processing Effort

Purpose The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the social and cognitive underpinnings of miscommunication during an interactive listening task. Method An eye and computer mouse–tracking visual-world paradigm was used to investigate how a listener's cognitive effort (local and global) and decision-making processes were affected by a speaker's use of ambiguity that led to a miscommunication. Results Experiments 1 and 2 found that an environmental cue that made a miscommunication more or less salient impacted listener language processing effort (eye-tracking). Experiment 2 also indicated that listeners may develop different processing heuristics dependent upon the speaker's use of ambiguity that led to a miscommunication, exerting a significant impact on cognition and decision making. We also found that perspective-taking effort and decision-making complexity metrics (computer mouse tracking) predict language processing effort, indicating that instances of miscommunication produced cognitive consequences of indecision, thinking, and cognitive pull. Conclusion Together, these results indicate that listeners behave both reciprocally and adaptively when miscommunications occur, but the way they respond is largely dependent upon the type of ambiguity and how often it is produced by the speaker.

Download Full-text

Instruction Using Augmentative and Alternative Communication Supports: Description of Current Practices by Speech-Language Pathologists Who Work With Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder

American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology ◽

10.1044/2019_ajslp-19-00045 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 29 (2) ◽

pp. 586-596 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Kaitlyn A. Clarke ◽

Diane L. Williams

Keyword(s):

Autism Spectrum Disorder ◽

Augmentative And Alternative Communication ◽

Communication Systems ◽

Diagnostic Category ◽

Children With Autism ◽

Autism Spectrum ◽

Spectrum Disorder ◽

Alternative Communication ◽

Speech Language Pathologists ◽

Processing Differences

Purpose The aim of this research study was to examine common practices of speech-language pathologists (SLPs) who work with children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) with respect to whether or not SLPs consider processing differences in ASD or the effects of input during their instruction. Method Following a qualitative research method, how SLPs instruct and present augmentative and alternative communication systems to individuals with ASD, their rationale for method selection, and their perception of the efficacy of selected interventions were probed. Semistructured interviews were conducted as part of an in-depth case report with content analysis. Results Based on completed interviews, 4 primary themes were identified: (a) instructional method , (b) input provided , (c) decision-making process , and (d) perceived efficacy of treatment . Additionally, one secondary theme, training and education received , was identified . Conclusions Clinicians reported making decisions based on the needs of the child; however, they also reported making decisions based on the diagnostic category that characterized the child (i.e., ASD). The use of modeling when teaching augmentative and alternative communication to individuals with ASD emerged as a theme, but variations in the method of modeling were noted. SLPs did not report regularly considering processing differences in ASD, nor did they consider the effects of input during instruction.

Download Full-text