Advertisement

On The Study of Linguistic Performance

  • Victor Sánchez de Zavala
Chapter
Part of the Philosophical Studies Series book series (PSSP, volume 52)

Abstract

I surmise that a Colloquium such as the present one is not a bad place to take with quite a bit of salt the very notion of cognitive science-an expression I always use with some trepidation. Not only, of course, because of the well known fact that the form of words “so-and-so science” is used when there is in fact no real science covering the domain we refer to with such a “so-and-so”; other reasons suggest that some scepticism would be in order.

Keywords

Natural Deduction Language Production Cognitive Study Mutual Knowledge Linguistic Communication 
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. Ades, A.E., and M.J. Steedman, 1982: “On the Order of Words,” Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 4 (1982), pp. 517–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altmann, G., and M.J. Steedman, 1988: “Interaction with context during human sentence processing,” Cognition, 30, 3 (December 1988), pp. 191–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anscombe, G.E.M., 1974: “The First Person,” in Guttenplan (1974), ch. 3.Google Scholar
  4. Appelt, D.E., 1984: Planning English Sentences; Cambridge: C. Univ. Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  5. Arbib, M.A., E.J. Conklin, and J. Hill, 1985: From Schema Theory to Language; Oxford: O. Univ. Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  6. Ariel, M., 1987: “Retrieving propositions from context: Why and how,” Journal of Pragmatics,12, 5/6 (Dec. 1988), pp. 567–600.Google Scholar
  7. Bach, K., and R.M. Harnish: Linguistic Communication And Speech Acts; Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  8. Berwick, R.C. and A.S. Weinberg, 1984: The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance: Language Use and Acquisition; Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bever, T.G., 1968–70: “The Cognitive Basis for Linguistic Structures,” in J.R. Hayes (ed.), Cognition and the Development of Language; New York: Wiley, 1970.Google Scholar
  10. Blakemore, D., 1986: Semantic Constraints on Relevance; Oxford: Blackwell, 1987.Google Scholar
  11. Blakemore, D., 1988: “So’ as a constraint on relevance,” in Kempson (1986b), ch. 8.Google Scholar
  12. Bock, J.K.,1981: “Toward a Cognitive Psychology of Syntax: Information Processing Contributions to Sentence Formulation, Psychological Review, 89,1 (Jan. 1982), pp. 1–47.Google Scholar
  13. Bransford, J.D., and N.S. McCarrell 1972: “A Sketch of a Cognitive Approach to Comprehension: Some Thoughts About Understanding What it Means to Comprehend,” in W. B. Weimer and D.S. Palermo (eds.), Cognition and the Symbolic Processes; Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1974.Google Scholar
  14. Bresnan, J., 1975–76: “A Realistic Transformational Grammar,” in M. Halle, J. Bresnan and G.A. Miller (eds.), Linguistic Reality and Psychological Theory; Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1978, ch. 1.Google Scholar
  15. Brown, P., and S.C. Levinson, 1986: Politeness: Some universals in linguistic usage; Cambridge: C. Univ. Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  16. Butterworth, B. (ed.), 1979: Language Production, vol. 1: Speech and Talk; New York: Academic Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  17. Butterworth, B. (ed.), 1982: Language Production, vol. 2: Development, Writing and Other Language Processes; New York: Academic Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  18. Carston, R., 1988: “Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics,” in Kempson (1988b), ch. 7.Google Scholar
  19. Cherniak, C., 1983: “The ‘Universal Acceptance of Logic”; Berkeley: Inst. of Cogn. Studies, Univ. of California.Google Scholar
  20. Clark, H.H., and E.V. Clark, 1977: Psychology and Language: An introduction to psycholinguistics; New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  21. Cole, P., and J.L. Morgan (eds.), 1975: Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3: Speech Acts; New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Cooper, W.E., and J. Paccia-Cooper, 1980: Syntax and Speech; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  23. Cooper, W.E. and E.C.T. Walker (eds.), 1978: Sentence Processing: Psycholinguistic Studies Presented to Merrill Garrett; Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1979.Google Scholar
  24. Cosmides, L., 1988: “The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task,” Cognition, 31, 3 (Apr. 1989), pp. 187–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Crain, S. and M. Steedman, 1982: “On not being led up the garden path: the use of context by the psychological syntax processor,” in D.R. Dowty, L. Karttunen and A.M. Zwicky (eds.), Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives; Cambridge: C. Univ. Press, 1985, ch. 10.Google Scholar
  26. Cutler, A., (ed.) 1982: Slips of the Tongue and Language Productions; Amsterdam: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dascal, M., 1983: Pragmatics and the Philosophy of Mind, 1: Thought in language; Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  28. Davidson, D., 1966: “The Logical form of Action Sentences,” in N. Rescher (ed.), The Logic of Decision and Action; Pittsburgh: Univ. of P. Press, 1967, ch. III; reprinted in (1980), essay 11.Google Scholar
  29. Davidson, D., 1971–74: “Psychologyas Philosophy,” in S.C. Brown (ed.), Philosophy of Psychology; London: Macmillan, 1974; reprinted in (1980), essay 12.Google Scholar
  30. Davidson, D., 1973a: “Belief and the Basis of Meaning,” Synthese, 27 (1974), pp. 309–23; reprinted in (1984), essay 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Davidson, D., 1973b: “Radical interpretation,” Dialectica, 27 (1973), pp. 313–28; reprinted in (1984), essay 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Davidson, D., 1974: “Thought and Talk,” in Guttenplan (1975), ch. 1; reprinted in (1984), essay 11.Google Scholar
  33. Davidson, D., 1980: Essays on Actions and Events; Oxford: Clarendon. Davidson, D., 1984: Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation; Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  34. Davies, D.J.M. and S.D. Isard, 1972: “Utterances as programs,” in B. Meltzer and D. Michie (eds.), Machine Intelligence 7; Edinburgh: E. Univ. Press, ch. 17.Google Scholar
  35. Dean Fodor, J., and L. Frazier, 1980: “Is the human sentence parsing mechanism an ATN?” Cognition 8, 4 (Oxt. 1984), pp. 417–59.Google Scholar
  36. Dummett, M.A.E.,1974: “What is a Theory of Meaning” in Guttenplan (1974), ch. 6.Google Scholar
  37. Dummett, M.A.E.,1976: “What is a Theory of Meaning? (II),” in Evans and McDowell (1976), ch. IV.Google Scholar
  38. Evans, G., and J. McDowell (eds.), 1976: Truth and Meaning: Essays in Semantics; Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  39. Flores d’Arcais, G.B. and R.J. Jarvella (eds.), 1982: The Process of Language Understanding; New York: Wiley, 1983.Google Scholar
  40. Fodor, J. and M. Garrett, 1966: “Some reflections on competence and performance,” in J. Lyons and R.J. Wales (eds.), Psycholinguistics Papers; Edinburgh: E. Univ. Press, pp. 135–54. (Discussion of the paper: pp. 154–79.)Google Scholar
  41. Fox, R.A. and M.L. Geis, 1984: “Mental Logic and Sentential Comprehension,” in J. Drogo, V. Mishra and D. Testen (eds.), Papers from the Twentieth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society; Chicago: Ch. Ling. Soc., pp. 87–103.Google Scholar
  42. Frazier, L. and J. Dean Fodor, 1978: “The sausage machine: a new two-stage parsing model,” Cognition, 6 (1978), pp. 291–325. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Fromkin, V.A. (ed.), 1973: Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence; The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  44. Fromkin, V.A. (ed.), 1977-80: Errors in Linguistic Performance: Slips of the Tongue, Ear,Pen, and Hand; New York: Academic Press, 1980. Google Scholar
  45. Garrett, M.F., 1981: “A Perspective on Research in Language Production,” in Mahler, Walker and Garrett (1981), ch. 10.Google Scholar
  46. Garrod, S. and D. Sanford, 1987: “Thematic subjecthood and cognitive constraints on discourse structure,” Journal of Pragmatics, 12,5/6 (Dec. 1988), pp. 514–45.Google Scholar
  47. Gazdar, G. and D. Good, 1981: “On a Notion of Relevance,” in Smith (1981), ch. 2, “Comments and Replies,” pp. 88–100.Google Scholar
  48. Goody, E. (ed.), 1978: Questions and politeness: Strategies ib social interaction; Cambridge: C. Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  49. Grice, H.P., 1957: “Meaning,”The Philosophical Review,66, 3 (1957), pp. 377–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Grice, H.P., 1967: “Logic and Conversation,” William James Lectures delivered at Harvard University: partially published as “Logic and Conversation” [in Cole and Morgan (1975), pp. 41–58] and as “Further Notes on Logic and Conversation” [in P. Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 9: Pragmatics; New York: Academic Press, 1978, pp. 113–27].Google Scholar
  51. Grice, H.P., 1982: “Meaning revisited,” in N. Smith (ed.), Mutual Knowledge; New York: Academic Press, pp. 223–43.Google Scholar
  52. Guttenplan, S. (ed.), 1974: Mind and Language; Oxford: Clarendon,1975.Google Scholar
  53. Haddock, N.J., 1987: “Incremental Interpretation and Combinatory Categorial Grammar,” Proceed. of the Tenth Int. Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence; Milan, pp. 661–3.Google Scholar
  54. Hobbs, J.R., M. Stickel, P. Martin, and D. Edwards, 1988: “Interpretation as Abduction,” Proceed. of the 26th Annual Meet. of the Assoc. for Computational Linguistics; Buffalo, pp. 95–103.Google Scholar
  55. Holmes, J. 1988: “Paying compliments: A sex-preferential politeness strategy,” Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 4 (Aug. 1988), pp. 445–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Jackendoff, R.S., 1983: Semantics and Cognition; Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  57. Johnson-Laird, P.N.,1983: Mental Models: Toward a cognitive science of language, inference,and consciousness; Cambridge: C. Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  58. Johnson-Laird, P.N.,1986: “Reasoning with Logic, ”in Myers, Brown and McGonigle (1986), ch. 1.Google Scholar
  59. Just, M.A., and P. A. Carpenter (eds.), 1977: Cognitive Processes in Comprehension; Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  60. Kaplan, R., 1972: “Augmented Transition Networks as Psychological Models of Sentence Comprehension,” Artificial Intelligence, 3 (1972), pp. 77–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kempson, R., 1974: “On Process Models for Sentence Analysis,” in D.A. Norman and D. J. Rumelhart (eds.), Explorations in Cognition; San Francisco: Freeman, 1975, ch. 5.Google Scholar
  62. Kempson, R.M., 1986: “Definite NP’s and Context-Dependency: A Unified Theory of Anaphora,” in Myers, Brown and McGonigle (1986), ch. 9.Google Scholar
  63. Kempson, R.M., 1988a: “On the grammar-cognition interface: the principle of full interpretation,” in Kempson (1988b), ch.9.Google Scholar
  64. Kempson, R.M., 1988b: Mental representations: The interfacebetween language and reality; Cambridge: C. Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  65. Kimball, J., 1973: “Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language,” Cognition,2, 1 (1973), pp. 15–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Kimball, J., 1975: “Predictive analysis and Over-the-Top Parsing,” in J. Kimball (ed.) Syntax and Semantics, vol.4; New York: Academic Press, pp. 155–79.Google Scholar
  67. Koike, D.A.,1988: “Requests and the role of deixis in politeness,”Journal of Pragmatics, 13, 2 (Apr. 1989), pp. 187–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Kurcz, I., G.W. Shugar and J.H. Danks (eds.), 1985: Knowledge and language; Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1986.Google Scholar
  69. Lakoff, G., 1969: “The Role of Deduction in Grammar,” in C.J. Fillmore and D.T. Langendoen (eds.), Studies in Linguistic Semantics; New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971.Google Scholar
  70. Lakoff, G. and H. Thompson, 1975: “Introducing cognitive grammar,” in C. Cogen et al., (eds.), Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society; Berkeley: B. Ling. Soc., pp. 295–313.Google Scholar
  71. Lapointe, S.G., 1983: “Some issues in the linguistic description of agrammatism,” Cognition,14, 1 (1983), pp. 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Leech, G., 1982: Principles of Pragmatics; London: Longman, 1983.Google Scholar
  73. Levelt, W.J.M., 1983: “Monitoring and self-repair in speech,” Cognition, 14, 3 (1983), pp. 185–209.Google Scholar
  74. Lewis, D. 1974: “Radical Interpretation,” Synthese 23 (1974), pp. 331–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Marcus, M.S., 1977: A Theory of Syntactic Recognition for Natural Language, Ph.D. dissertation, M.I.T.; published with slight revisions, 1979: A Theory of Syntactic Recognition for Natural Language; Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  76. Marslen-Wilson, W., 1975: “The limited compatibility of linguistic and perceptual explanations,” in R.E. Grossman et al. (eds.), Papers from the Parasession of Functionalism, Chicago Linguistic Society; Chicago: Ch. Ling. Soc., 1975, pp. 409–20.Google Scholar
  77. Marslen-Wilson, W., 1976: “Linguistic Descriptions and Psychological Assumptions in the Study of Sentence Perception,” in R.J. Wales and E. Walker (eds.), Language Mechanisms: A Collection of Psycholinguistic Stydies; Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 203–29.Google Scholar
  78. Matsumoto, Y., 1988: “Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese,” Journal of Pragmatics,12, 4 (Aug. 1988), pp. 403–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. McNeill, D., 1977: The Conceptual Basis of Language; Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1979.Google Scholar
  80. McNeill, D., 1987: Psycholinguistics. A New Approach; New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  81. Mehler, J., E.C.T. Walker and M.F. Garrett (eds.), 1981: Perspectives on Mental Representation; Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  82. Minsky, M., 1974: “AFramework Representing Knowledge, ” in P. Winston (ed.), The Psychology of Computer Vision; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975, pp. 211–77.Google Scholar
  83. Motley, M.T., 1985: “Slips of the Tongue,” Scientific American, 253, 3 (Sept. 1985), pp. 114–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Myers, T., K. Brown and B. McGonigle (eds.), 1986: Reasoning and Discourse Processes; Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  85. Nadel, L., L.A. Cooper, P. Culicover, and R.M. Hamish (eds.), 1989: Neural Connections,Mental Computations; Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  86. [Ochs-]
    Keenan, E., 1975: “On the Universality of Conversational Postulates”; Mimeographed by Indiana Univ. Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  87. Osgood, C.E., 1979: Lectures on Language Performance; New York: Springer, 1980.Google Scholar
  88. Pinker, S., and J. Mehler (eds.), 1988: Connectionism and symbol systems [=Cognition, 28, 1–2 (March 1988)].Google Scholar
  89. Sadock, J.M., 1972: Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts; New York: Academic Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  90. Sadock, J.M., 1986: “Remarks on the paper by Deirdre Wilson and Dan Sperber,” in A.M. Farley and K.E. McCullough (eds.), Papers on the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory, CLS 22, Part 2; Chicago: Ch. Linguistic Society, pp. 84–90.Google Scholar
  91. Searle, J.R., 1974: “Indirect Speech Acts,” in Coley Morgan (1975), pp. 59–82.Google Scholar
  92. Searle, J.R., 1979: Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts; Cambridge: C. Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Searle, J.R., 1983: Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind; Cambridge: C. Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Smith, N.V. (ed.), 1981: Mutual Knowledge; New York: Academic Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  95. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson, 1981a: “On Defining Relevance,” unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  96. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson, 1981b: “Mutual Knowledge and Relevance in Theories of Comprehension,” in Smith (1981), ch. 2, pp. 61–85.Google Scholar
  97. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson, 1981c: “Reply to Gazdar and Good,” in Smith (1981), ch. 2, “Comments and Replies,” pp. 101–110.Google Scholar
  98. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson, 1986: Relevance: Communication and Cognition; Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.Google Scholar
  99. Swinney, D.A., 1981: “The Structure and Time-Course of Information Interaction During Speech Comprehension: Lexical Segmentation, Access, and Interpretation,” in Mehler, Walker and Garrett (1981), ch. 8.Google Scholar
  100. Thagard, P., 1984: “Frames, Knowledge, and Understanding,” Synthese, 61, 2 (November 1984), pp. 233–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Vicher, A. and D. Sankoff, 1988: “The emergent syntax of pre-sentential turn openings, ”Journal of Pragmatics, 13,1 (Febr. 1989), pp. 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Von Savigny, E., 1988: The Social foundations of Meaning; Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Wanner, E., 1980: “The ATN and the Sausage Machine: which is baloney?” Cognition, 8 (1980), pp. 209–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Wason, P.C.,1959: “The processing of positive and negative information,” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11 (1959), pp. 92–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Wason, P.C., 1961: “REsponse to affirmative and negative binary statemente,” British Journal of Psychology, 52 (1961), pp. 133–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Wilensky, R., 1986: “Some Problems and Proposals for Knowledge Representation”; Berkeley: Inst. of Cognitive Studies, Univ. of California at B.Google Scholar
  107. Wilson, D. and D. Sperber, 1980a: “On Finding the Context for Comprehension,” paper delivered to the European Psycholinguistics Ass. Meeting, Goteborg, Sweden.Google Scholar
  108. Wilson, D. and D. Sperber, 1980b: “On Grice’s Theory of Conversation,” in P. N. Werth (ed.), Conversation and Discourse; London: Croom Helm, 1981, ch. 8.Google Scholar
  109. Wilson, D. and D. Sperber, 1986: “Inference and implicature,” in C. Travis (ed.), Meaning and Interpretation; Oxford: Blackwell, ch. 2.Google Scholar
  110. Wilson, D. and D. Sperber, 1988: “Representtion and Relevance,” in Kempson (1988b), ch. 6.Google Scholar
  111. Winograd, T., 1972: Understanding Natural Language [=Cognitive Psychology, 3, 1 (1972)]; also as a separate publ., New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  112. Winograd, T., 1987: “Thinking Machines: Can There Be? Are We?” [=Report No. CSLI-87–100]; Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
  113. Woods, W., 1970: “Transition Network Grammar for Natural Langauge Analysis,” Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 13,10 (1970), pp. 591–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Victor Sánchez de Zavala
    • 1
  1. 1.San SebastiánSpain

Personalised recommendations