Advertisement

Sentence Construction by a Psychologically Plausible Formulator

  • Gerard Kempen
Part of the NATO Conference Series book series (NATOCS, volume 4b)

Abstract

Natural language production comprises a variety of processes that may be grouped under two headings. The conceptualization processes select a conceptual theme for expression. They decide which parts of the theme must be actually communicated to the hearer and which can be left unexpressed: the latter are already present in the hearer’s memory or can be inferred by him from what the speaker said. And the conceptual content selected for expression must be organized into a linear sequence of messages so that each is expressible as a complete or partial sentence. The psychological mechanism that accomplishes these tasks I will call the conceptualizer. The second main mechanism is the formulator which maps each input conceptual message into a natural language utterance.

Keywords

Word Order Lexical Entry Dependency Level Speech Error Syntactic Construction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Becker, J. (1975). The phrasal lexicon. In R.C. Schank & B. Nash-Webber (eds.) Theoretical issues in natural language processing. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT.Google Scholar
  2. Boomer, D.S. (1965). Hesitation and grammatical encoding. Language and Speech, 8, 148–158.Google Scholar
  3. Ertel, S. (1976). Where do the subjects of sentences come from? In Rosenberg (1976).Google Scholar
  4. Fodor, J., Bever, T.G. & Garrett, M. (1974). The Psychology of Language. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  5. Fromkin, V.A. (1973) (ed.). Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  6. Garrett, M. (1975). The analysis of sentence production .In G. Bower, (ed.). The Psychology of Learning and MotivationVol. 9. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Goldman, N. (1976) Conceptual generation. In R.C. Schank Conceptual information processing. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  8. James, C.T., Thompson, J.G., & Baldwin, J.M. (1973). The reconstructive process in sentence memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 12, 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jarvella, R. (1976). From verbs to sentences: some experimental studies of predication. In Rosenberg (1976).Google Scholar
  10. Kempen, G. (1976a). Syntactic constructions as retrieval plans. British Journal of Psychology, 67, 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kempen, G. (1976b). On conceptualizing and formulating in sentence production. In Rosenberg (1976).Google Scholar
  12. Levelt, W.J.M. (1974). Formal Grammars in Linguistics and Psycholinguistics. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Levelt, W.J.M. & Kempen, G. (1975). Semantic and syntactic aspects of remembering sentences. In R.A. Kennedy & A.L. Wilkes (eds.) Studies in long-term memory. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Osgood, C.E. & Bock, J.K. (1976). Salience and sentencing: some production principles. In Rosenberg (1976)Google Scholar
  15. Rosenberg, S. (1976).(ed.) Sentence production developments in research and theory. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Schils, E. (1975). Internal Report, Department of Psychology, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerard Kempen
    • 1
  1. 1.University of NijmegenNetherlands

Personalised recommendations