Communicative Contributions and Communicative Genres: Language Production and Language Understanding in Context

Author(s):  
Anita Fetzer
2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 65-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gail Van Tatenhove

Language sample analysis is considered one of the best methods of evaluating expressive language production in speaking children. However, the practice of language sample collection and analysis is complicated for speech-language pathologists working with children who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices. This article identifies six issues regarding use of language sample collection and analysis in clinical practice with children who use AAC devices. The purpose of this article is to encourage speech-language pathologists practicing in the area of AAC to utilize language sample collection and analysis as part of ongoing AAC assessment.


Author(s):  
Robert J. Hartsuiker ◽  
Lies Notebaert

A picture naming experiment in Dutch tested whether disfluencies in speech can arise from difficulties in lexical access. Speakers described networks consisting of line drawings and paths connecting these drawings, and we manipulated picture name agreement. Consistent with our hypothesis, there were more pauses and more self-corrections in the low name agreement condition than the high name agreement condition, but there was no effect on repetitions. We also considered determiner frequency. There were more self-corrections and more repetitions when the picture name required the less frequent (neuter-gender) determiner “het” than the more frequent (common-gender) determiner “de”. These data suggest that difficulties in distinct stages of language production result in distinct patterns of disfluencies.


2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Swets ◽  
Fernanda Ferreira ◽  
Erik M. Altmann
Keyword(s):  

1998 ◽  
Vol 37 (04/05) ◽  
pp. 327-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Buekens ◽  
G. De Moor ◽  
A. Waagmeester ◽  
W. Ceusters

AbstractNatural language understanding systems have to exploit various kinds of knowledge in order to represent the meaning behind texts. Getting this knowledge in place is often such a huge enterprise that it is tempting to look for systems that can discover such knowledge automatically. We describe how the distinction between conceptual and linguistic semantics may assist in reaching this objective, provided that distinguishing between them is not done too rigorously. We present several examples to support this view and argue that in a multilingual environment, linguistic ontologies should be designed as interfaces between domain conceptualizations and linguistic knowledge bases.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document