temout/ling

/LING

Update: February 24, 2023 The new version of Termout.org is now online, so this web site is now obsolete and will soon be dismantled.

Lista de candidatos sometidos a examen:
1) cognitive (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística

1
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines173 - : ABSTRACT: In this article we approach the cognitive processing of specialized written discourse in three areas of technical-professional education: maritime, industrial, commerce . We search into the influence of some text variables in reading specialized comprehension by a group of 234 students attending last year of secondary professional high schools, in Valparaíso, Chile. More specifically, we explore some relationships between the process of discourse comprehension and a group of written texts with specialized contents, hierarchically organized according to specific text structures and to dimensions of communicative linguistic features co-occurring systematically in the texts, identified upon of what we called Dimension Informational Focus (Parodi 2005a). To accomplish this, we designed and administered six comprehension texts to the group of students previously mentioned. Results show that there is enough empirical evidence to claim that some linguistic structures that identify

2
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines174 - : Cognitive and intersubjective properties of oral comprehension:

3
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines192 - : The approach was illustrated with descriptive results of the RedACTe Project, particularly, with generalizations about the LGP associated with the terminal genre category [research announcement] as proposed in Hlavacka (2004). There are two main subtypes of cognitive processes involved in the realization of this genre category: the examine subtype and the discuss subtype (cf . §3.2). The choice of one or the other depends on the research announcement orientation that the researcher-writer wishes to adopt in writing this RAA text location. These two subtypes, furthermore, interact in interesting ways with decisions related to whether to make explicit or not the orientation adopted. Thus, if an explicit research-oriented announcement is chosen, the writer is algorithmically assisted to choose either hiding himself behind the research (in which case the research will end up as the Agent of a cognitive process of the examine subtype), or competing with the research in the participant role

4
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines203 - : We have reached many inspiring results in cognitive linguistics, in solving some aspects of Platos problem: How can we know so much, given that we have so little information ? How is it possible that we can construct a world in our mind with only a few shreds of discourse? Our challenge for the years to come will lie in critical linguistics, in solving some aspects of Orwells problem: How can we know so little, given that we have so much information available? The fast growing amount of governmental documentation and in-formation has not resulted in better informed citizens. The activities of news agencies all over the world seem inversely proportional to getting real news to the people. We have so much information -in discourse- about how to work on communication between different cultures and religions, how to solve poverty, how to prevent war, but we do have the same problems, and even bigger ones, than forty years ago. Could it be that we are still pro-ducing discourse in institutions,

5
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines300 - : 3.1. Cognitive refiguration: Retrospectively reorganized cognition

6
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines337 - : Imaging data were analyzed with SPM5 (Wellcome Department of Cognitive Neurology, London, UK, [29]http://www .fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/) implemented in Matlab 6.51 (Mathworks, Natick, MA). Functional EPI volumes were 1) slice-time corrected for acquisition order, 2) realigned and motion corrected to the first image of the session, 3) normalized to a common template (Montreal Neurological Institute EPI template), 4) resliced to 2 x 2 x 2 mm voxels, and 5) spatially smoothed with a 10 mm Gaussian filter. A 128 s high-pass filter was applied to each time course in order to eliminate low frequency noise. Data analysis was performed in the laboratory of neurophysiology at the Venezuelan Institute for Scientific Research. fMRI data are available upon request to the authors.

7
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines371 - : both elements presented (image and text) are only visual results in less learning than if both are visual and auditory (less cognitive load)”. In Mayer’s terminology, this coincides perfectly well with his modality principle which states that “students learn better from animation and narration than from animation and on-screen text” (Mayer, 2001: 184). This cognitive load resulting from some types of presentations is associated to the redundancy effect when an extraneous load is introduced and information has to be processed in working memory by the same channel (visual: image and text) rather than by two channels (visual and auditory: image and narration ). In Farías et al. (2009) we investigated the effects of two types of presentation in the retention and transfer of idiomatic expressions in an EFL context, one including narration, text and image and another only narration and text. Although there were no differences between groups, the discussion centered on the nature of the language

8
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines396 - : Metaphors play an essential role in formulating and articulating scientific theories (Kuhn, 1979; Bicchieri, 1989; Boyd, 1993). Boyd (1993) distinguished between theory-constitutive metaphors, used by scientists to express theoretical claims when there is no adequate literal paraphrase for them, and others, such as heuristic and exegetical metaphors, which are more common in the case of mature sciences. Heuristic metaphors allow scientists to begin the enquiry of a phenomenon without implying any causal relationship between the domains involved. They are a “pre-analytic cognitive act”, (Schumpeter, 1954: 41 ), which may develop into a scientific theory, as was the case of the human capital metaphor in economics proposed by T. P. Schultz. Exegetical or pedagogical metaphors are used ad hoc to teach or explain theories with available non-metaphorical formulations, and have no further implications for the development of the discipline. In the present study, the Great Wall metaphor (Angling,

9
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines400 - : Abstract: The Spanish pronominal clitic and verb-ending systems have been widely treated in the functional and cognitive linguistics literature. However, they have rarely been jointly modeled from a network-based perspective. Moreover, the only previous attempt to characterize the systems’ architecture in network terms presents a number of limitations. This paper presents a preliminary relational-network-based model of the main semantic, morphological, and morphotactic aspects of both systems. An explicit distinction is introduced among several types of cognitive relationships operating at different levels of the systems, as follows: (i ) the relationships between the relevant semantic categories and their associated features are disjunctive, thus involving downward ‘or’ nodes; (ii) whereas explicit, context-independent meanings involve simple downward ‘or’ nodes, implicit, context-dependent messages call for complex disjunctive relationships in which an upward ‘or’ node is then connected to

10
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines400 - : All in all, Castel’s (2012) network approach constitutes an important contribution to the functional-cognitive treatment of meaning-form mappings, in general, and the Spanish clitic and verb-ending systems, in particular. However, this innovative approach presents at least four descriptive assumptions which can be improved in the quest for cognitive plausibility, namely: (i ) unidirectionality, (ii) node uniformity, (iii) syntactic slot-filling, and (iv) representational redundancy. These limitations may be overcome by adopting a conspicuous connectionist model. This paper builds upon Castel’s approach to provide a more explicit characterization of the functional- cognitive structure underlying both systems, from the perspective of Relational Network Theory (RNT) (Lamb, 1966, 1999; García & Gil, 2011a).

11
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines400 - : Figure 3. Language in relation to other cognitive systems (taken from Lamb, 1999: 140 ).

12
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines400 - : Third, the networks formalize a connectionist account of morphotactics which does away with rules, transformations, displacement operations, and other constructs of questionable cognitive plausibility (Lamb, 1999). The present model characterizes the morphotactics of clitics and verb endings by virtue of connections and flows of activation traveling along those connections. Consequently, the semantic, morphotactic, and morphological representations of both systems are processed by the same type of cognitive mechanism: flows of dynamic signals leading to the concerted activation of specific patterns of nodes . As regards the systems’ morphotactics, what determines the relative order of the representations in sentence processing is the specific pattern of sequential and disjunctive connections in the morphotactic network. In such a network, the activation of each ordered ‘and’ node triggers multiple obligatory sequential connections, whereas ‘or’ nodes lead to several paradigmatic options

13
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines406 - : “a metacognitive process… essential for competent reading, which directs the reader’s cognitive processes as he/she strives to make sense of incoming textual information” (Wagoner, 1983: 328 ).

14
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines406 - : This learner takes up the metalinguistic terms issuing from the CaRS model (‘topic, debate and contribution’) and explains that locating these helps to make rhetorical inferences (‘understand the author’s position and distinguish it from those of other authors’), which she reports has had a favorable impact on her essay writing. However, only this learner and the learner in example 2 showed any uptake of metalinguistic terms. Other learners show declarative knowledge of rhetorical inferences without connecting them explicitly to the metalanguage or metalinguistic activity. Tellingly, one learner’s answer reveals some impact on cognitive monitoring while simultaneously giving evidence that metalanguage is not a necessary condition for it to occur:

15
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines414 - : is less probable to happen, as opposed to what may occur when using ‘transfer’ (L1-based messages) or ‘avoidance’ types of CSs (unfinished messages or omission of information). Something similar, in terms of complexity, can be evidenced in the use of ‘foreignising’. In the excerpt above it can be seen that this mechanism implies a greater effort on the part of the speaker, who is trying to adapt a word from her L1 into the L2. By doing this, it becomes clear that this type of CS, as ‘circumlocution’, requires a higher cognitive and linguistic effort, since “it requires a construction process which leads to the creation of a new word” (Dörnyei & Kormos, 1998: 364 ). Thus, this outcome seems to demonstrate the learners’ progress from the use of less cognitively and linguistically demanding CSs to those considered more complex as their level of L2 competence progresses (Prebianca, 2009).

16
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines426 - : The results demonstrated in Table 4 reveal a quantitative prevalence of the proximal deictic items over the distal ones, which appeal to the earlier and later images in the addressee’s working memory respectively. In doing so, from the cognitive perspective, Bachelet creates the shared mental space with her audience, “in which the speaker and the addressee are co-present at a given point in time” (Yang, 2011: 130 ). Yang (idem.) further claims that this cognitive dimension of time-space deictic references “is based on linguistic representation of a physical act performed by a human being in the presence of another human being”, which further favors positive associations with an action here and now, than with something happening there and then (Cramer, 2010).

17
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines453 - : Similarly, the COREL schema in (10) below captures the cognitive content of the following related constructional realizations: 'It wouldn’t kill you to X', 'It wouldn’t harm you to X', and 'It wouldn’t do you harm to X':

18
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines453 - : ^2 ^[165]Periñán and Mairal (2011) explain the methodology behind the creation of the Ontology of FunGramKB. For reasons of space, we shall only provide a brief explanation of this core component. The Ontology of FunGramKB is divided into three separate, albeit interrelated, subontologies in which the metaconcepts #ENTITIES, #EVENTS, and #QUALITIES respectively arrange in cognitive dimensions the following parts of speech: (i ) nouns, (ii) verbs, and (iii) adjectives. This type of organization stems from the fact that subsumption or IS-A is the only taxonomic relation permitted in the knowledge base.This contrasts with the approach adopted in FrameNet, for example, in which several frame-to-frame relations are posited (see ^[166]Ruppenhofer et al., 2010). These, however, have been shown to be problematic for NLP as far as reasoning is concerned (see ^[167]Ovchinnikova, Vieu, Oltramari, Borgo & Alexandrov, 2010). Conceptual, lexical and grammatical information is available through the NLP

19
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines464 - : Oral performance in a second language (L2) can be measured in terms of complexity, accuracy and fluency, thus offering an overview of L2 learning. Focusing on the cognitive development of L2 learning, particularly from the point of view of Processing Theory and the Speech Production Model, limited attentional resources hinder simultaneous attention to the variables studied, namely: Performance components of complexity, accuracy and fluency in semi spontaneous oral monologues at different levels of English proficiency (A2, B2 and C1 ). Complexity was measured in terms of lexical range (as D score, best fit for lexical range) and grammatical complexity (as the average length of words in each clause, and number of clauses in each Analysis of Speech (AS) unit). Accuracy was measured as the proportion of AS units free from errors and percentage of error-free clauses. Fluency was measured by calculating the phonation-time ratio and the mean length of pauses. Regarding trends in L2 language

20
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines478 - : Cognitive Strategies Usefulness Perception in Female and Male Learners of Spanish: An International Empirical Study

21
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines480 - : 2. Cognitive scaffolding: It refers to the provision of support with the purpose of learners’ comprehension enhancement which occurs via conceptual scaffolding (i .e., supportive frameworks for meaning, such as charts), and procedural scaffolding (i.e., supportive framework for learning procedures)

22
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines480 - : 4. Meta-cognitive scaffolding: It refers to the provision of support with the purpose of enhancing learners’ structure and regulation of cognitive processes, co-construction of knowledge, and monitoring and control of learning processes .

23
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines485 - : The concept of textual genre has been defined in a variety of ways. For example, ^[29]Swales (1990: 58) states that, “In addition to purpose, exemplars of a genre exhibit various patterns of similarity in terms of structure, style, content and intended audience”. However, scholars have tended not to coalesce around a single definition of textual genres. As ^[30]Parodi (2008) notes, it would be inappropriate to limit a definition to a single perspective, since “contextual, social and cognitive limitations and parameters” must be considered (^[31]Parodi, 2008: 26 ).

24
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : . Thus, for instance, the thematic role Theme is defined as ‘Entity that undergoes a cognitive process’ if it belongs to the metaconcept #COGNITION, as ‘Entity that creates another entity’ if it belongs to #CREATION, or as ‘Entity that changes its place or position’ if it belongs to #MOTION ([55]http://www .fungramkb.com/resources/papers/tutorial2.pdf).

25
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines545 - : The decreased performance of Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) patients in semantic tasks is related to the progressive loss of the semantic attributes underlying category representation. The present study examined the extent to which semantic tasks focused on the ‘living beings’ category are affected as a function of the type of semantic relation between the nodes and the degree of cognitive impairment associated to AD. One hundred and eight volunteer participants from the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, Argentina (Age M = 71 years old, SD = 6, Education M = 10 years old, SD = 5) completed a true-false sentence verification task. The task evaluated three types of semantic relation: taxonomic, part-whole and evaluative. The sample was divided into four groups, based on their cognitive performance: controls (n = 27 ), mild cognitive impairment or MCI (n = 50), mild AD (n = 36) and moderate AD (n = 14). The results showed decreased performance in false statements and greater impairment of the

26
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines545 - : Genon, S., Collette, F., Moulin, C. J., Lekeu, F., Bahri, M.A., Salmon, E., et al. (2013). Verbal learning in Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment: Fine-grained acquisition and short-delay consolidation performance and neural correlates . Neurobiology of Aging, 34(2), 361-373. [ [145]Links ]

27
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines545 - : Tchakoute, C. T., Sainani, K. L., Henderson, V. W. & Raloxifene in Alzheimer’s Disease Investigators (2017). Semantic memory in the clinical progression of Alzheimer disease. Cognitive and behavioral neurology: Official journal of the Society for Behavioral and Cognitive Neurology, 30(3 ), 81-89. [ [191]Links ]

28
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines546 - : Lozano Gallego, M., Hernández Ferrándiz, M., Turró Garriga, O., Pericot Nierga, I., López-Pousa, S. & Vilatla Franch, J. (2009). Validación del Montreal Cognitive Assessmnet (MoCA): Test de cribado para el deterioro cognitivo leve . Datos preliminares. Alzheimer. Realidades e investigación en demencia, 43, 4-11. [ [157]Links ]

29
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines546 - : Vita, M. G., Marra, C., Spinelli, P., Caprara, A., Scaricamazza, E., Castelli, D., Canulli, S., Gainotti, G. & Quaranta, D. (2014). Typicality of words produced on a semantic fluency task in amnesic mild cognitive impairment: Linguistic analysis and risk of conversion to dementia . Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 42(4), 1171-1178. [ [189]Links ]

30
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines546 - : Winblad, B., Palmer, K., Kivipelto, M., Jelic, V., Fratiglioni, L., Wahlund, L.O, … & Arai, H. (2004). Mild cognitive impairment-beyond controversies, towards a consensus: report of the International Working Group on Mild Cognitive Impairment . Journal of Internal Medicine, 256, 240-246. [ [193]Links ]

31
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines598 - : 5. “Modality is the semantic category associated with the basic human cognitive ability of thinking that things might be otherwise, that is thinking of alternatives: situations other than what is the case . Modality refers generally to the linguistic means that allow “one to say things about , or on the basis of, situations which need not be real” (^[39]Portner, 2009: 1, emphasis is ours). (^[40]Rocci, 2017: 3)

32
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines92 - : Flavell, J. H. (1985) Cognitive Development, London: Prentice Hall . (Primera Impresión 1977). [ [36]Links ]

Evaluando al candidato cognitive:

1) semantic: 11 (*)
7) mild: 6 (*)
8) linguistic: 6 (*)
11) learners: 5 (*)
12) impairment: 5
14) explicit: 5
15) metaphors: 5 (*)
16) learning: 5
18) complexity: 5 (*)
19) comprehension: 5 (*)

cognitive
Lengua: eng
Frec: 738
Docs: 200
Nombre propio: 9 / 738 = 1%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 7
Puntaje: 7.654 = (7 + (1+5.88264304936184) / (1+9.52943055414615)));
Rechazado: muy disperso;

Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término

(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)

cognitive

: Abbot-Smith, K. & Behrens, H. (2006). How known constructions influence the acquisition of other constructions: The german passive and future constructions. Cognitive Science, 30(6), 995-1026 [en línea]. Disponible en: [91]https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_61
: Altmann, G. (1988). Ambiguity, parsing strategies, and computational models. Language and Cognitive Processes, 3(2), 73-97.
: Andersen, R. W. & Shirai, Y. (1994). Discourse motivations for some cognitive acquisition principles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 135-156.
: Anderson, J., Conrad, F. & Corbett, A. (1989). Skill acquisition and the LISP tutor. Cognitive Science, 13, 467-505.
: Anderson, J., Corbett, A., Koedinger, K. & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 167-207.
: Anderson, R. C. y Ortony, A. (1975) On putting apples into bottles. A problem of polysemy. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 167-180.
: Anthony, J., Lonigan, C., Driscoll, K., Phillips, B. & Burgess, S. (2003). Phonological sensitivity: A quasi-parallel progression of word structure units and cognitive operations. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(4), 470-487.
: Asgari, M., Kaye, J. & Dodge, H. (2017). Predicting mild cognitive impairment from spontaneous spoken utterances. Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 3(2), 219-228.
: Athanasopoulos, P. & Bylund, E. (2013). Does grammatical aspect affect motion event cognition? A cross-linguistic comparison of English and Swedish speakers. Cognitive Science, 37, 286-309.
: Athanasopoulos, P. (2007). Interaction between grammatical categories and cognition in bilinguals: The role of proficiency, cultural immersion, and language of instruction. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 689- 699.
: Athanasopoulos, P. (2009). Cognitive representation of colour in bilinguals: The case of Greek blues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 83-95.
: Ausubel, D. P. (2012). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
: Baars, B. J. (1988) A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press.
: Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends Cognitive Science, 4(11), 417-423.
: Baicchi, A. & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2010). The cognitive grounding of illocutionary constructions within the theoretical perspective of the Lexical Constructional Model. Textus, English Studies in Italy, 23(3), 543-563.
: Baker, L. & Brown, A. L. (1984). Cognitive monitoring in reading. In J. Flood (Ed.), Understanding reading comprehension: Cognition, language and the structure of prose (pp. 21-43). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.
: Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148.
: Bangerter, A. & Clark, H. H. (2003). Navigating joint projects with dialogue. Cognitive Science, 27(2), 195-225.
: Bara, B. & Tirassa, M. (1999). A mentalist framework for linguistic and extralinguistic communication. Ponencia presentada en Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Cognitive Science (ECCS´99). Certosa di Pontagnio, Siena, Italia.
: Bara, B., Bosco, F. & Bucarelli, M. (1999). Simple and complex speech acts: What makes the difference within a developmental perspective. En M. Hahn & S. Stones (Eds.), Proceedings of the XXI Cognitive Science Society (pp. 55-60). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
: Baron-Cohen, S. (1988). Social and pragmatic deficits in autism: Cognitive or affective?. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 18(3), 379-402.
: Barsalou, L. (1992) Cognitive psychology: An overview for cognitive scientists. Hove, Sussex and Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
: Bazerman, C. (2007). Genre and cognitive development: Beyond writing to learn. SIGET [on line]. Retrieved from: [35]http://www3.unisul.br/paginas/ensino/pos/linguagem/cd/English/5i.pdf.
: Bazerman, C. (2009). Genre and cognitive development: Beyond writing to learn. Genre in a Changing World, Perspectives on writing (pp. 279-294). Fort Collins, CO: The WAC Clearinghouse.
: Beller, S. (2010). Deontic reasoning reviewed: psychological questions, empirical findings, and current theories. Cognitive Processing, 11, 123-132.
: Ben-Zur, H. (1998). Dimensions and patterns in decision-making models and the controlled/automatic distinction in human information processing. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 10, 171-189. doi: 10.1080/713752271
: Beretta, A., Fiorentino, R. & Poeppel, D. (2005). The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: An MEG study. Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 57-65.
: Berman, R. & Katzenberger, I. (1998). Cognitive and linguistic factors in development of picture-series narration. Organization of Learners' Texts. Special Issue of Studi italiani di linguisticateorica ed applicata, 27, 21-47.
: Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives (Vol. 1). Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.
: Boroditsky, L. & Prinz, J. (2008). What thoughts are made of. En G. Semin & E. Smith (Eds.),Embodied grounding: Social, cognitive, affective, and neuroscientific approaches (pp. 98-116). Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.
: Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? English and Mandarin speakers' conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 1-22.
: Brennan, S. E. & Hanna, J. E. (2009). Partner‐specific adaptation in dialog. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 274-291.
: Britton, B. K., & Gulgoz, S. (1991). Using Kintsch's computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 329-345.
: Browder, D., Wakeman, S., Spooner, F, Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. &Algozzine, B. (2006). Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 392-408.
: Brunsdon, R., Coltheart, M. & Nickels, L. (2006). Severe developmental letter-processing impairment a treatment case study. Cognitive neuropsychology, 23(6), 795-821.
: Burani, C. & Caramazza, A. (1987). Representation and processing of derived words. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2, 217-227.
: Capitani, E., Laiacona, M., Mahon, B. & Caramazza, A. (2003). What are the facts of semantic category-specific deficits? A critical review of the clinical evidence. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20(3), 213-61.
: Caplan, D., Hildebrandt, N. & Waters, G. S. (1994). Interaction of verb selectional restrictions, noun animacy and syntactic form in sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9(4), 549-585.
: Caputi, N., Di Giacomo, D., Aloisio, F. & Passafiume, F. (2016). Deterioration of semantic associative relationships in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer Disease. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 23(3), 186-195.
: Carlucci, L. & Case, J. (2013). On the necessity of U-shaped learning. Topics in cognitive Science, 5(1), 56-88.
: Carter, R. (1990) The idea of expertise: An exploration of cognitive and social dimensions of writing. College Composition and Communication, 41, 265-86.
: Casado, P., Martín-Loeches, M., Muñoz, F. & Fernández-Frías, C. (2005). Are semantic and syntactic cues inducing the same processes in the identification of word order? Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 526–543.
: Chafe, W. (1980). The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Company.
: Chafe, W. (1987). Cognitive contrasts on information flow. En R. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse. Typological studies in language (pp. 21-51). Ámsterdam: Jonh Benjamins.
: Chamot, A. & O'Malley, J. (1994). The CALLA handbook. Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
: Chi, M. Bassok, & Lewis, M. (1989). Self-Explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 15, 145-182.
: Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
: Chi, M., Bassok, M. & Lewis, M. (1989). Selfexplanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 15, 145-182.
: Chi, M., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
: Chi, M., Siler, S., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T. & Hausmann, R. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471-533.
: Chipman, S., Schraagen, J. & Shalin, V. (2000). Introduction to cognitive task analysis. En J. Schraagen, S. Chipman & V. Shute (Eds.), Cognitive Task Analysis (pp. 3-23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
: Chwilla, D. J. & Kolk, H. H. (2005). Accessing world knowledge: Evidence from N400 and reaction time priming. Cognitive Brain Research, 25(3), 589-606.
: Clare, L. & Woods, R. T. (Eds.) (2001). A role for cognitive rehabilitation in dementia care. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, Special Issue, 11(3-4), 193-196.
: Clark, H. (1979). Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 430-477.
: Clark, H. H. (1973). Space, time, semantics, and the child. En T. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 27-63). Nueva York: Academic Press.
: Clore, G. & Ortony, A. (2000). Cognition in emotions: Always, sometimes, or never? En R. Lane & L. Nadel (Eds.), The cognitive neuroscience of emotion (pp. 34-61). New York: Oxford University Press.
: Coll-Florit, M., Castellón, I., Climent, S. & Santiago, J. (2009). Realidad psicológica del aspecto léxico. Evidencias experimentales. En J. Valenzuela & A. Rojo (Eds.), Trends in Cognitive Linguistics: Theoretical and Applied Models (pp. 85-100) Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
: Collins, A., Brown, J. S. & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
: Cornillie, B. (2010). On conceptual semantics and discourse function. the case of spanish modal adverbs in informal conversation. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 8(2), 300-320.
: Coulson, S. & Oakley, T. (2000). Blending Basics. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(34), 175196.
: Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Thompson, S. (2000). Concessive patterns in conversation. En E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp. 381-410). Berlin/Nueva York: Mouton/De Gruyter.
: Crandall, B., Klein, G. & Hoffman, R. (2006). Working minds. A practitioner's guide to cognitive task analysis. Londres: MIT.
: Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambrigde University Press.
: Croft, W. (1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
: Cross, E. & Franz, E. (2003). Talking hands: Observation of bimanual gestures as a facilitative working memory mechanism. Cognitive Neuroscience Society 10^th Annual Meeting, New York.
: Crossley, S. A. & McNamara, D. S. (2010). Cohesion, coherence, and expert evaluations of writing proficiency. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32 ^nd annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 984-989). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
: Cuetos, F., Rodríguez-Ferreiro, J. & Menéndez, M. (2009). Semantic markers in the diagnosis of neurodegenerative dementias. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 28(3), 267-274.
: Davey, B. (1983). Think aloud: Modeling the cognitive processes of reading comprehension. Journal of Reading, 27, 44-47.
: De Deyne, S., Peirsman, Y. & Storms, G. (2009). Sources of semantic similarity. Ponencia presentada en el 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.1834-1839). Amsterdam: Netherlands.
: DeKeyser, R. (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.
: Del Campo, N. (2013). Illocutionary constructions in English: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. Bern: Peter Lang.
: Demetriou, E. & Holtzer, R. (2017). Mild cognitive impairment moderate the effect of time on verbal fluency performance. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 23(1), 44-55.
: Di Carlo, S. (2017b). Understanding cognitive language learning strategies. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 6(2), 114-126. DOI: 10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.2p.114
: Di Carlo, S. (2017c). Assessing cognitive learning strategies: A global study of Spanish learners. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 7(2), 15-32. DOI: 10.5861/ijrsll.2017.1782
: Dickson, W.P. (1983) "Training cognitive strategies for oral communication" en M. Pressley & J..R. Levin, Cognitive Strategy Research, New:York, Springer-Verlag.
: Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. En P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206-257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Dronkers, N. (1999) Language, Neural Basis of. En R.A. Wilson & F.C.Keil (Eds), The MIT encyclopedia of the Cognitive Science. 448-451. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
: Dumay, N., Benraïss, A., Barriot, B., Colin, C., Radeau, M. & Besson, M. (2001). Behavioral an elec-trophisiological study of phonological priming between bysillabic spoken words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13, 121-143.
: Duong, A., Whitehead, V., Hanratty, K. & Chertkow, H. (2006). The nature of lexico-semantic processing deficits in mild cognitive impairment. Neuropsychologia, 44(10), 1928-1935.
: Durbin, M., Earwood, J. & Golden, R. (2000). Hidden Markov models for coding story recall data. En Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Cognitive Science Society Conference (pp. 113-118). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
: Dwyer, S., Huebner, B. & Hauser, M. D. (2010). The linguistic analogy: Motivations, results, and speculations. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(3), 486-510.
: Ellis, N. C. & Robinson, P. (2008). An introduction to cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and language instruction. In N. C. Ellis & P. Robinson, (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 3-24).Oxford: Routledge.
: Elman, J. L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14, 179-211.
: Epstein, R. (2002). The definite article, accessibility, and the construction of discourse referents. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(4), 333378.
: Erickson, F. (1996). Going for the zone: The social and cognitive ecology of teacher-student interaction in classroom conversations. En D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, Learning and Schooling (pp. 30-62). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
: Escandell Vidal, V. (2017). Notes for a restrictive theory of procedural meaning: Cognitive, Philosophical, and Sociopragmatic Perspectives. En R. Giora & M. Haugh (Eds.), Doing Pragmatics Interculturally (pp. 79-98). Berlín/Munich/Boston: de Gruyter.
: Eysenck, M. y Keane, M. (1995) Cognitive psychology. Hove, LEA- Taylor & Francis.
: FLOWER, L. y HAYES, J. (1981) "A cognitive process theory of writing", College Composition and Communication, 32, 363-387.
: FLOWERS, L. S. y RAYES, J. R.(1979) «Writerbased Prose. A cognitive Basis for problems in Writing» College English.
: Faber, P. (Ed.) (2012). A cognitive linguistics view of terminology and specialized language. Berlín, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
: Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133-187.
: Fawcett, R. (1980). Cognitive linguistics and social interaction. Heidelberg: Julius Groos and Exeter University.
: Fayol, M. (1992). Comprendre ce quon lit: De lautomatisme au contrôle. En M. Fayol (Ed.), Psychologie cognitive de la lecture (pp. 347-397). Paris: P.U.F.
: Feng, G. (2006). Eye movements as time-series random variables: A stochastic model of eye movement control in reading. Cognitive Systems Research, 7(1) 70-95.
: Fernández-Silva, S., Cabré, M. T. & Freixa, J. (2012). A cognitive approach to synonymy in terminology. En M. Brdar, I. Raffaelli & M. Žic Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics between Universality and Variation (pp. 189-212). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
: Flavell (1979) "Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring. A New Area of cognitiveDevelopmental Inquiry" en American Psychologist. October (pp.705-712).
: Flavell, J. (1977) Cognitive Development. London: Prentice Hall.
: Flavell, J. (1979) "Metacognition and cognitive monitoring", American Psychologist, 34, 10, 906-911.
: Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. A new area of cognitive-developmental Inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906 - 911.
: Flavell, J. (1985). Cognitive development. Englewood Cliffs, N. J: Prentice-Hall.
: Flavell, J. 1979. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 34, 10, 906-911.
: Flavell, J. H. (1979) "Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring. A New Areaof cognitiveDevelopmental Inquiry" en American Psychologist. October.
: Flavell, J. H. (1981). Cognitive monitoring. En W. P. Dickson (Ed.), Children’s oral communication skills (pp. 35-60). Nueva York: Academic Press.
: Flavell, J. H. (1985) Cognitive Development USA: Prentice-Hall.
: Flavell, John (1979). "Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Psychological Inquiry" en American Psychologist, 34.
: Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. En L. Gregg & E. Teinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
: Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition & Communication, 31 , 132149.
: Flower, L. & Hayes, J.R. (1980) The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. En L.W. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg (eds.) Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale (N.J.): Erlbaum (pp.31-50).
: Flower, L. (1979). Writer-based prose: A cognitive basis for problems in writing. College English, 41(1), 19-37.
: Flower, L. (1990) Reading to write: exploring a cognitive & social process, New York: Oxford University Press.
: Flower, L. (1994) The construction of negotiated meaning: A social cognitive theory of writing. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
: Flower, L. y Hayes, J.R. (1981) «A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing», CCC, 32, 365-387.
: Flower, L. y J. Hayes (1980b) The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. En L. Gregg y E. Steinberg (eds.), Cognitive processes in writing. Hove, Sussex and Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 31-50
: Flower, L. y J. Hayes (1981) "A cognitive process theory of writing", en College composition and communication, 31.
: Flower, L., Stein, V., Ackerman, J., Kantz, M. J., McCormick, K. & Peck, W. C. (1990). Reading-to-Write: Exploring a cognitive and social process. Nueva York: Oxford University Press.
: Fodor, J. (1998). Concepts: Where cognitive science went wrong. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
: Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E. & McHugh, P. E. (1975). Mini mental state: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189-198.
: Fonlupt, P. (2003). Perception and judgment of physical causality involve different brain structures. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 248-254.
: Forrest-Pressley, D. L. y Gillies, L. A. (1983) "Children's flexible use of strategies during reading" en M. Pressley y J. R. Levin (Eds.) Cognitive Strategy Research, New York: Springer-Verlag, 133-152.
: Fortanet, I. (2004). Enhancing the speaker-audience relationship in academic lectures. In P. Garcés, R. Gómez, L. Fernández & M. Padilla (Eds.), Current trends in intercultural cognitive and social pragmatics (pp. 83-96). Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla.
: Fox, B. (1986). Cognitive and interactional aspects of correction in tutoring. Technical Report 88-2, Institute of Cognitive Science, Universidad de Colorado, Estados Unidos de Norteamérica.
: Frank, M. C., Everett, D. L., Fedorenko, E. & Gibson, E. (2008). Number as a cognitive technology: Evidence from Pirahã language and cognition. Cognition, 108(3), 819-824.
: Frazier, L. & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 178-210.
: Frings, L., Kloppel, S., Teipel, S., Peters, O., Frolich, L., Pantel, J., et al. (2011). Left anterior temporal lobe sustains naming in Alzheimer’s dementia and mild cognitive impairment.Current Alzheimer Research, 8(8), 893-901.
: Fugelsang, J., Roser, M., Corballis, P., Gazzaniga, M. & Dunbar, K. (2005). Brain mechanisms underlying perceptual causality. Cognitive Brain Research, 24(1), 41-47.
: Fuhrman, O. & Boroditsky, L. (2010). Cross-cultural differences in mental representations of time: Evidence from an implicit non-linguistic task. Cognitive Science, 34, 1430-1451.
: Gallese, V., Keysers, C. & Rizzolatti, G. (2004). A unifying view of the basis of social cognition. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 396403.
: García, E. (2009). The motivated syntax of arbitrary signs. Cognitive constraints on Spanish clitic clustering. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
: Gardner, H. (1985) The mind's new science: A history of the cognitive revolution. New York: Basic Books.
: Garrard, P., Ralph, M. A. L., Watson, P. C., Powis, J., Patterson, K. & Hodges, J. R. (2001). Longitudinal profiles of semantic impairment for living and nonliving concepts in dementia of Alzheimer’s type. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13(7), 892-909.
: Gaskell, M. & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1997). Integrating form and meaning: A distributed model of speech perception. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16, 583-607.
: Gaskell, M. & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2002). Representation and competition in the perception of spoken words. Cognitive Psychology, 45, 220-266.
: Gauthier, S., Reisberg, B., Zaudig, M., Petersen, R. C., Ritchie, K., Broich, K., ... & Cummings, J. L. (2006). Mild cognitive impairment. Lancet, 15, 1262-1270.
: Gazzaniga, M. (Ed.) (1999). The cognitive neurosciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
: Geeraerts, D. (1993). Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 229-272.
: Gernsabcher, M. (1985). Surface information loss in comprehension. Cognitive Psychology 17, 324-363.
: Gernsbacher, M. & Kaschak, M. (2013). Text comprehension. En D. Reisberg (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology (pp. 462-474). Londres: Oxford University Press.
: Gibbs, R. & Nayak, N. (1989). Psycholinguistic studies on the syntactic behavior of idioms. Cognitive Psychology, 21(1), 100-138.
: Gibbs, R. (1990). Psycholinguistic studies on the conceptual basis of idiomaticity. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 417-451.
: Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The Graded Salience Hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistic, 7(1), 183-206.
: Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 92-96.
: Goh, C. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners' listening comprehension problems. System, 28(1), 55-75.
: Goldberg, A. E. (1998). Patterns of experience in patterns of language. The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, 1, 203-219.
: Goldberg, A. E. (2002). Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 327-356.
: Golden, R. M. & Goldman, S. R. (2006). An empirical feasibility study of the ARCADE system. En R. Sun (Ed.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Cognitive Science Society Conference (pp.1376-1381). Mahwah, NJ: Lauwrence Erlbaum.
: Grady, J., Oakley, T. & Coulson, S. (1999). Blending and metaphore. En G. Steen & R. Gibbs (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 101-124). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin.
: Graesser, A., Person, N. & Magliano, J. (1995). Collaborative dialog patterns in naturalistic one-on-one tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 495-522.
: Graesser, A., Wiemer-Hasting, K., Wiemer-Hasting, P. & Kreuz, R. (1999). AutoTutor: A simulation of a human tutor. Journal of Cognitive Systems Research, 1, 35-51.
: Guasti, M.T., Chierchia, G., Crain, S., Foppolo, F., Gualmini,A. & Meroni. L. (2005).Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20(5), 667-696.
: Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69(2), 274-307.
: Gómez, D. M., Bion, R. A. H. & Mehler, J. (2011). The word segmentation process as revealed by click detection. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(2), 212-223.
: Ha, L., Stewart, D., Hanna P. & Smith, F. (2006). Zipf and Type-Token rules for the English, Spanish, Irish and Latin languages. Web Journal of Formal, Computational and Cognitive Linguistics, 1(8), 1-12.
: Haddock, N. J., Klein, E. & Morrill, G. (1987). Categorial Grammar, Unification Grammar, and Parsing. Technical Report No. EUCCS/WP-1. Centre for Cognitive Science, Edimburgo: Universidad de Edimburgo.
: Hagoort, P., Brown, C. & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 439-483.
: Hale, J. T. (2011). What a rational parser would do. Cognitive Science, 35, 399-443.
: Halpern, D. F. (1992). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
: Harp, S. F. & Mayer, R. E. (1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psycholog y, 89, 92-102.
: Harp, S. F. & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414-434.
: Hasting, A. S., Kotz, S. A. & Friederici, A. D. (2007). Setting the stage for automatic syntax processing: The mismatch negativity as an indicator of syntactic priming. Journal of Cognitive neuroscience, 19(3), 386-400.
: Hayes, J. & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing process. En L.W. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
: Heeger, D. & Ress, D. (2004). Neuronal correlates of visual attention and perception. In M. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (pp. 339-350). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
: Heine, B. (1997). Cognitive foundations of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
: Hennemann, A. (2012). The epistemic and evidential use of spanish modal adverbs and verbs of cognitive attitude. Folia Linguistica, 46(1), 133-170.
: Herd, S., Banich, M. & O’Reilly, R. (2006). Neural mechanisms of cognitive control: An integrative model of Stroop task performance and fMRI data. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(1), 22-32.
: Hernández-Domínguez, L., Ratté, S., Sierra-Martínez, G. & Roche-Bergua, A. (2018). Computer-based evaluation of Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment patients during a picture description task. Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 10, 260-268.
: Hidi, S., Renninger, K. A. & Krapp, A. (2004). Interest, a motivational construct that combines affective and cognitive functioning. En D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion and cognition (pp.89-115). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
: Hobbs, J. (1979). Coherence and coreference. Cognitive science, 3(1), 67-90.
: Holmes, K. J. & Wolff, P. (2010). Simulation from schematics: Dorsal stream processing and the perception of implied motion. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Portland, Oregon, USA.
: Holsanova, S., Holmberg, N. & Holmqvist, K. (2009). Reading information graphics: The role of spatial contiguity and dual attentional guidance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(9), 1215-1226.
: Hoyer, W. J. & Rybash, J. (1994). Characterizing adult cognitive development. Journal of Adult Development, 1(1), 7-12.
: Hyona, J., Radach, R. & Deubel, H. (Eds.) (2003). The mind's eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research. Ámsterdam: Elsevier.
: Jezek, E. & Melloni, C. (2011). Nominals, polysemy, and co-predication. Journal of Cognitive Science, 12, 1-31.
: Johnson-Laird, P. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Joshi, A. (1999). Computational linguistics. En R. Wilson & F. Keil (Eds.), The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (pp. 162-164). Masachussets: MIT Press.
: Just, M. & Carpenter, P. (1976). Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 441-480.
: Jääskeläinen, L. P. (2012). Introduction to cognitive neurosciene. Ventus Publishing.
: Kansal, K., Mareddy, M., Sloane, K. L., Minc, A. A., Rabins, P. V., Mc Gready, J. B. & Onyike, C. U. (2016). Survival in frontotemporal dementia phenotypes: A meta-analysis. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders, 41(1-2), 109-122.
: Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1985). Language and cognitive processes from a developmental perspective. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1(1), 61-85.
: Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity. A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Londres: MIT Press.
: Kellogg, R. T. (1987). Effects of topic knowledge on the allocation of processing time and cognitive effort to writing processes. Memory & Cognition, 15(3), 256-266.
: Kintsch, W. & Keenan, J. (1973). Reading rate and retention as a function of the number of propositions in the base structure of the sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 257-274.
: Kintsch, W. (2001) Predication. Cognitive Science. 25, 173202.
: Kirby, J. 1984. Strategies and processes, en J. Kirby (Ed), Cognitive strategies and educational performance. New York: Academic Press, 21-38.
: Kirchberg, B. C., Cohen, J. R., Adelsky, M. B., Buthorn, J. J., Gomar, J. J., Gordon, M., et al. (2012). Semantic distance abnormalities in mild cognitive impairment: Their nature and relationship to function. American Journal of Psychiatry, 169(12), 1275-1283.
: Koda, K. (1987). Cognitive strategy transfer in second language reading. En J. Devine, P. Carrell & D. Eskey (Eds.), Research in reading in English as a second language (pp. 125-144).Washington, DC:TESOL.
: Koornneef, A.W. & Sanders, T. (2012). Establishing coherence relations in discourse: The influence on implicit causality and connectives on pronoun resolution. Language and cognitive processes, 28, 1169-1206.
: Krause-Ono, M. (2004). Change in backchanneling behaviour. The influence from L2 to L1 on the use of backchannel cues. Journal of Cognitive Science. Muroran Cognitive Science Circle, 3, 51-81.
: Kulakova, E. & Nieuwland, M. S. (2016). Pragmatic skills predict online counterfactual comprehension: Evidence from the N400. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 1-11. doi: 10.3758/s13415-016-0433-4
: Kuperberg, G. R., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D. & Holcomb, P. J. (2003). Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 117-129.
: Kuperberg, G., Paczynski, M. & Ditman, T. (2011). Establishing casual coherence across sentences: An ERP Study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(5), 1230-1246.
: Kövecses, Z. & Szabó, P. (1996). Idioms: A view from cognitive linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 326-355.
: Kövecses, Z. (2008). Conceptual metaphor theory: Some criticisms and alternative proposals. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6(1), 168-184.
: Kühnen, U. & Oyserman, D. (2002). Thinking about the self-influences thinking in general: Cognitive consequences of salient self-concept. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 492-499.
: Laiacona, M. & Capitani, E. (2001).A case of prevailing deficit on nonliving categories or a case of prevailing sparing of living categories? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 18, 39-70.
: Lakoff, G. & Kövecses, Z. (1987). The cognitive model of anger in American English. En D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 195- 221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Lakoff, G. (1983). Categories: An essay in cognitive linguistics. En Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seúl: Hanshin Publishing Co.
: Langacker, R. (1986). Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. 1). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
: Langacker, R. (1997). The contextual basis of cognitive semantics. En J. Nuyts & E. Pederson (Eds.), Language and conceptualization (pp. 229-252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Langacker, R. (2001). Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 143188.
: Langacker, R. W. (1991). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlín: Mouton de Gruyter.
: Langacker, R. W. (1995). Possession and possessive constructions. En J. R. Taylor & R. E. MacLaury (Eds.), Language and Cognitive Construal of the World (pp. 51-79). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
: Langacker, R. W. (2009). Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlín: Mouton de Gruyter.
: Langacker, R.W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1-38.
: Langley, P., Laird, J. E. & Rogers, S. (2009). Cognitive architectures: Research issues and challenges. Cognitive Systems Research, 10, 141-160.
: Larivée,S., Normandeau,S., Bouffard-Bouchard,T., Peyrade,T, Parent,S., Tremblay, R. (1994) "Six Year in Cognitive and Metacognitive Life of 71 Families" in International Journal of Psychology, vol. 29(3), Junio 1994 (pp. 367-391).
: Laws, K. R., Irvine, K. & Gale, T. M. (2016). Sex differences in cognitive impairment in Alzheimer's disease. World journal of psychiatry, 6(1), 54-65.
: Lawson (1984) "Being Executive about Cognition" en Kirby, I. Eds. Cognitive Strategies and Educational Performance. Orlando: Academic Press. (pp.34-50).
: Leahy, W. & Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory, modality of presentation and the transient information effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 943-951.
: Lee, D. (2001). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
: Lee, H. S. & Holyoak, K. J. (2007). Causal models guide analogical inference. En D. McNamara & D. Trafton (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-ninth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1205-1210). Austin, Texas: Cognitive Science Society.
: Lehrner, J., Coutinho, G., Mattos, P., Moser, D., Pflüger, M., Gleiss, A., et al. (2017). Semantic memory and depressive symptoms in patients with subjective cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, and Alzheimer's disease. International Psychogeriatrics, 29(7), 1123-1135.
: Leonard, T. & Cummins, F. (2010). The temporal relation between beat gestures and speech. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 1295-1309.
: Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K. & Brown, G. D. (2009). No temporal decay in verbal short-term memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(3), 120-126.
: Liberman, N. & Trope, Y. (2014). Traversing psychological distance. Trends in cognitive sciences, 18(7), 364-369.
: Linderholm, T. , Virtue, S., van den Broek, P. & Tzeng, Y. (2004). Fluctuations in the availability of information during reading: Capturing cognitive processes using the landscape model. Discourse Processes, 37(2), 165-186.
: Livingston, C. & Borko, H. (1989). Expert-novice differences in teaching: A cognitive analysis and implications for teacher education. Journal of teacher education, 51, 36-42.
: Loewenstein, D. A., Curiel, R. E., Duara, R. & Buschke, H. (2018). Novel cognitive paradigms for the detection of memory impairment in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Assessment, 25(3), 348-359.
: Lorenzo, F. (2017). Historical Literacy in bilingual settings: Cognitive academic language in L2 History Narratives. Linguistics and Education, 37, 32-41.
: Lorenzo, F., Granados, A. & Ávila, I. (2019). The development of cognitive academic language proficiency in multilingual education: Evidence of a longitudinal study on the language of history. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 41, 100767.
: Louwerse, M. (2001). An analytic and cognitive parameterization of coherence relations. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 291-315.
: Lungu, O., Liu, T., Waechter, T., Willingham, D. & Ashe, J. (2007). Strategic modulation of cognitive control. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(8), 1302-1315.
: Luria, A. R. (1976). Cognitive development: Its social and cultural foundations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
: MacDonald, M. C. (1994). Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 157-201.
: Mairal, R. (2015). Constructional meaning representation within a knowledge engineering framework. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13(1), 1-27.
: Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Kita, S., Haun, D. B. & Levinson, S. C. (2004). Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in cognitive sciences, 8(3), 108-114.
: Mandler, J. & Johnson, N. (1977). Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 111-151.
: Marangolo, P., Incoccia, C., Pizzamiglio, L., Sabatini, U., Castriota-Scanderbeg, A. & Buran, C. (2003). The right hemisphere involvement in morphologically derived words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 364-371.
: Markman, E. M. & Wachtel, G. F. (1988). Children's use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meanings of words. Cognitive psychology, 20(2), 121-157.
: Marslen-Wilson, W. & Welsh, A. (1978). Processing interactions and lexical accessduring word recognition in continuos speech. Cognitive Psychology, 10, 29-63.
: Martinovski, B., Mao, W., Gratch, J. & Marsella, S. (2005). Mitigation theory: An integrated approach. En Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 27, 1407-1412.
: Masson, M. (2001). Cognitive psychology of priming. In N. Smelser & P. Baltes. (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 12042-12046). Oxford: Elsevier.
: Mayer, R. (2009). The next phase in multimedia learning. En S. Kalyuga (Ed.) Managing cognitive load in adaptive multimedia learning (pp. 10-12). Nueva York: Information Science Reference.
: Mayer, R., Heiser, J. & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psycholog y, 93, 187-198.
: McClelland, J. & Elman, J. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1-86.
: McRae, K. & Jones, M. N. (2013). Semantic memory. En D. Reisberg (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology (pp. 206-219). Oxford, UK: Ofxord University Press.
: McRae, K., Ferretti, T. R. & Amyote, L. (1997). Thematic roles as verb-specific concepts. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12(2-3), 137-176.
: Meilán, J. J., Martinez-Sánchez, F., Carro, J., López, D. E., Millian-Morell, L. & Arana, J. M. (2014). Speech in Alzheimer’s disease: Can temporal and acoustic parameters discriminate dementia? Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 37(5-6), 327-334.
: Mercier, H. (2011). Reasoning serves argumentation in children. Cognitive Development, 26(3), 177-191.
: Meyer, B. (1984). Text dimension and cognitive processing. In H. Mandl, N. Stein & Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and compression of text (pp. 3-52). New Jersey: LEA.
: Miikkulainen, M., & Dyer, M. (1991). Natural language processing with modular PDP networks and distributed lexicon. Cognitive Science, 15, 345-399.
: Moirand, S. (2003a). Communicative and cognitive dimensions of discourse on science in the French mass media. Discourse Studies, 5(2), 175-206.
: Moore, K. E. (2006). Space-to-time mappings and temporal concepts. Cognitive Linguistics, 17, 199-244.
: Moreno, E. & Mayer, R. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358-368.
: Mortamais, M., Ash, J.A., Harrison, J., Kaye, J., Kramer, J., Randolph, C., et al. (2017). Detecting cognitive changes in preclinical Alzheimer's disease: A review of its feasibility. Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 13(4), 468-492.
: Mueller, K. D., Hermann, B., Mecollari, J. & Turkstra, L. S. (2018). Connected speech and language in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease: A review of picture description tasks. Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology, 40(9), 917-939.
: Murphy, K. J., Rich, J. B. & Troyer, A. K. (2006). Verbal fluency patterns in amnestic mild cognitive impairment are characteristic of Alzheimer's type dementia. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 12, 570-574.
: Muñoz Martín, R. (2011). Nomen mihi Legio est: A cognitive approach to natural translation. In M. J. Blasco Mayor & M. A. Jiménez Ivars (Eds.), Interpreting Naturally: A Tribute to Brian Harris (pp. 35-66). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang .
: Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 353-383.
: Nelson, K. (1996). Language in cognitive development. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.
: Ni, W., Crain, S. & Shankweiler, D. (1996). Sidestepping garden paths: Assessing the contributions of syntax, semantics, and plausibility in resolving ambiguities. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 283-334.
: Nieuwland, M. S. (2015b). The truth before and after: Brain potentials reveal automatic activation of event knowledge during sentence comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(11), 2215-2228. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00856
: Nobe, S. (1996). Representational gestures, cognitive rhythms, and acoustic aspects of speech: a network/threshold model of gesture production. Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Chicago, Chicago, USA.
: Nolan, B. (2014). Theoretical and computational considerations of linking constructions in Role and Reference Grammar. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 12(2), 410-442.
: Norris,D. (1999) Computacional psycholinguistics. En R.A. Wilson y F.C. Keil, (Eds.) The Mit encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences. 168-170). Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.
: Noveck, I. (2018). Experimental pragmatics: The making of a cognitive science. Cambridge University Press.
: Noveck, I. A. & Reboul, A. (2008). Experimental pragmatics: A Gricean turn in the study of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(11), 425-431.
: Núñez, R. & Cornejo, C. (2012). Facing the sunrise: Cultural worldview underlying intrinsic-based encoding of absolute frames of reference in Aymara. Cognitive Science, 1-27.
: Oliveri, M., Romero, L. & Papagno, C. (2004). Left but not right temporal involvement in opaque idioms comprehension: A repetitive trascranial magnetic stimulation study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(5), 848-855.
: Olson, G., Mack, R. & Duffy, S. (1981). Cognitive aspects of genre. Poetics, 10, 283-315.
: Onysko, A., Callies, M. & Ogiermann, E. (2013). Gender variation of anglicisms in German: The influence of cognitive factors and regional varieties. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 49, 103-136.
: Panther, K. & Thornburg, L. (1997). A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 755-769.
: Panther, K. & Thornburg, L. (2007). Metonymy. En D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 236-263). Oxford: University Press.
: Park, B., Moreno, R., Seufert, T. & Brünken, R. (2011). Does cognitive load moderate the seductive details effect? A multimedia study. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 5-10.
: Park, H. I. & Ziegler, N. (2014). Cognitive shift in the bilingual mind: Spatial concepts in Korean–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(02), 410-430. Doi: doi:10.1017/S1366728913000400
: Perfetti, C. A., Yang, C-L. & Schmalhofer, F. (2008). Comprehension skill and word-to-text processes. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(3), 303-318.
: Periñán-Pascual, C. & Arcas-Túnez, F. (2007). Cognitive modules of an NLP knowledge base for language understanding. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural, 39, 197-204.
: Perkins, L., Whitworth, A. & Lesser, R. (1997). Conversation analysis profile for people with cognitive impairment. Londres: Whurr.
: Person, N. & Graesser, A. (1999). Evolution of discourse in cross-age tutoring. En A. ODonnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 69-86). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
: Pessoa, L. & Ungerleider, L. (2004). Top-down mechanisms for working memory and attentional processes. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (pp. 919-930). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
: Petersen, R. C., Roberts, R. O., Knopman, D. S., Boeve, B. F., Geda, Y. E., Ivnik, RJ. et al. (2009). Mild cognitive impairment: Ten years later. Archives of Neurology, 66, 1447-1455.
: Pickering, M. J. & Garrod, S. (2007). Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension? Trends in Cognitive Science, 11(3), 105-110.
: Piolino, P., Desgranges, B. & Eustache, F. (2009). Episodic autobiographical memories over the course of time: Cognitive, neuropsychological and neuroimaging findings. Neuropsychologia, 47, 2314-2329.
: Plass, J. (1998). Design and evaluation of the user interface of foreign language multimedia software: A cognitive approach. Language Learning & Technology, 2(1), 40-53.
: Pollatsek, A., Reichle, E. D. & Rayner, K. (2006). Tests of the E-Z Reader Model: Exploring the interface between cognition and eye movement control. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 1-56.
: Ponterotto, D. (2000). The cohesive role of cognitive metaphor in discourse and conversation. En A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 283-298). Berlin: Gruyter.
: Poulin-Dubois, D. & Graham, S. (2007). Cognitive processes in early word learning. En E. Hoff & M. Shatz (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Language Development (pp. 191-211). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
: Pulvemüller, F., Cooper-Pye, E., Dine, C., Hauk, O., Nestor, P. J. & Patterson, K. (2010). The word processing deficit in Semantic Dementia: All categories are equal, but some categories are more equal than others. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2027-2041.
: Pulvermüller, F. (2013). How neurons make meaning: Brain mechanisms for embodied and abstract-symbolic semantics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 458-470.
: Pyszczynski, T. & Greenberg, J. (1987). Toward an integration of cognitive and motivational perspectives on social inference: A biased hypothesis-testing model. Advances in experimental social psychology, 20, 297-340.
: Quesada, J., Kintsch, W. & Gómez, E. (2002). A theory of complex problem solving using latent semantic analysis. En W. Gray & C. Schunn (Eds.), Actas de the 24th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 750-755). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
: ROSCH, E. (1973), Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4: 328-350.
: Radach, R. & Kennedy, A. (2004). Theoretical perspectives on eye movements in reading: Past controversies, current issues, and an agenda for the future. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 3-26.
: Rayner, K. & Kiegl, R. (2012). Eye movements and cognitive processes. En H. Cooper (Ed.), APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology (pp. 413-427). Washington, DC: APA.
: Rayner, K., Li, X. & Pollatsek, A. (2007). Extending the E-Z Reader Model of Eye Movement Control to chinese readers. Cognitive Science, 31, 1021-1033.
: Recanati. F. (1995). The alleged priority of literal interpretation. Cognitive Science, 19, 207-232.
: Reitter, E., Moore, J. & Keller, F. (2006). Priming of syntactic rules in task-oriented dialogue and spontaneous conversation. En Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 685-690.
: Resnick, L.B.; Klopfer L.E., Toward the Thinking Curriculum: Current Cognitive Research. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1989.
: Richardson, D. & Dale, R. (2005). Looking to understand: The coupling between speakers’ and listeners’ eye movements and its relationship to discourse comprehension. Cognitive Science, 29, 1045-1060.
: Richardson, D., Spivey, M., Barsalou, L. & McRaec, K. (2003). Spatial representations activated during realtime comprehension of verbs. Cognitive Science, 27, 767780.
: Richmond, V., Gorham, J. & McCroskey, J. (1987). The relationship between immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 10 (pp. 574-590). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
: Richter, E., Engbert, R. & Kliegl, R. (2006). Current advances in SWIFT. Cognitive Systems Research, 7(1), 23-33.
: Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287-318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Rodd, J., Gaskell, G. & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2004). Modelling the effects of semantic ambiguity in word recognition. Cognitive Science, 28, 89-104.
: Roediger, H. L. & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1), 20-27.
: Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford Press.
: Romberg, A. R. & Saffran, J. R. (2011). Statistical learning and language acquisition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Cognitive Science, 1(6), 906-914 [en línea]. Disponible en: [120]https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.78.Statistical
: Rosch, E. & Mervis, C. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605.
: Rosch, E. (1973a). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328-350.
: Rosch, E. (1973b). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. En T. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 111-144). New York: Academic Press.
: Rouet, J. & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2002). "Mining for meaning": Cognitive effects of inserted questions in learning from scientific text. En J. Otero, J. León & A. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 417-436). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
: Rubin, J. (1981). Study of cognitive processes in second Language learning. Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 117-131 [en línea]. Disponible en: [373]http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/2.2.117
: Ruiz de Mendoza, F. & Baicchi, A. (2007). Illocutionary constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. In I. Kecskes & L. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive, and intercultural aspects (pp. 95-128). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
: Ruiz de Mendoza, F. & Galera, A. (2014). Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Rumelhart, D. (1975). Notes on a schema for stories. En D. Bobrow & A. Collins (Eds.), Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science (pp. 211-236). New York: Academic Press.
: Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1986). PDP Models and general issues in cognitive science. En D.E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland & the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Paralllel distributed processing (Vol.1). Cambridge. MA.: M.I.T. Press, A Bradford Book.
: Rupp, A., Ferne, T. & Choi, H.（2006). How assessing reading comprehension with multiple-choice questions shapes the construct: a cognitive processing perspective. Language Testing, 23, 441-474.
: Salehi, M., Mohsen, R. & Ghasisin, L. (2017). Lexical retrieval or semantic knowledge? Which one causes naming errors in patients with mild and moderate Alzheimer’s Disease? Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra, 7(3), 419-429.
: Sanders, T. & Spooren, W. (2001). Modeling causal and contrastive connectives: On domains, subjectivity and mental spaces. International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Santa Barbara, CA: USA.
: Sanders, T. (2005). Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. En D. Aurnague, M. Bras, A. Le Draoulec & L. Vieu (Eds.), Proceedings/Actes SEM-05, First International Symposium on the exploration and modelling of meaning (pp. 105-114).
: Sanford, A. J. & Sturt, P. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(9), 382-386.
: Sartori, G. & Lombardi, L. (2004). Semantic relevance and semantic disorders. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 439-452.
: Scanlon, D. &Vellutino, F. (1997). A comparison of the instructional backgrounds and cognitive profiles of poor, average, and good readers who were initially identified as at risk for reading failure. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 191-216.
: Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A. & Glowalla, U. (2010b). Explaining the modality and contiguity effects: New insights from investigations students’ viewing behaviour. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 226-237.
: Scholl, B. & Tremoulet, P. (2000). Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(8), 299-309.
: Shah, P. & Freedman, E. G. (2011). Bar and line graph comprehension: An interaction of top‐down and bottom‐up processes. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(3), 560-578.
: Shah, P. (1997). A model of the cognitive and perceptual processes in graphical display comprehension. En M. Anderson (Ed.), Reasoning with diagrammatic representations II (pp. 94-101). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
: Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
: Smith, I. & Bryson, S. (1998). Gesture imitation in autism I: Nonsymbolic postures and sequences. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 15(6-7-8), 747-770.
: Solso, R. (1988). Cognitive psychology. Massachussets: Allyn & Bacon.
: Spector, A., Gardner, C. & Orrell, M. (2011). The impact of cognitive stimulation therapy groups on people with dementia: Views from participants, their careers and group facilitators. Aging and Mental Health, 15(8), 945-949.
: Spinelli, E., Segui, J. & Radeau, M. (2001). Phonological priming in spoken word recognition with bisyllabic targets. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16(4), 367-392.
: Spooren, W. & Sanders, T. (2008). The acquisition order of coherence relations: On cognitive complexity in discourse. Journal of pragmatics, 40(12), 2003-2026.
: Sun, R., Merrill, E. & Peterson, T. (2001). From implicit skills to explicit knowledge: a bottom-up model of skill learning. Cognitive Science, 25(2), 203-244.
: Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371-391.
: Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. En R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia Learning (pp.19-30). Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.
: Sweller, J., Ayres, P. & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Nueva York: Springer.
: Séguinot, C. (1997). Accounting for variability in translation. In J. H. Danks, G. M. Shreve, S. B. Fountain & M. K. McBeath (Eds.), Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting (pp. 104-119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
: Taft, M. (1994). Interactive-activation as a framework for understanding morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 271-294.
: Taler, V., Voronchikhina, A., Gorfine, G. & Lukasik, M. (2016) Knowledge of semantic features in mild cognitive impairment, Journal of Neurolinguistics, 38, 56-70.
: Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49100.
: Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. 2: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press .
: Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
: Tanenhaus, M. K., Carlson, G. & Trueswell, J. C. (1989). The role of thematic structures in interpretation and parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4(3-4), 211-234.
: Tannen, D. (1980). A comparative analysis of oral narrative strategies: Athenian Greek and American English. En W. Chafe (Ed.), The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Company.
: Taylor, K. I., Devereux, B. J. & Tyler, L. K. (2011). Conceptual structure: Towards an integrated neuro-cognitive account. Language and cognitive processes, 26(9), 1368-1401.
: Tenny, C. (1989). The aspectual interface hypothesis.Lexicon Project Working Papers, 31. Cambridge, MA: Center for Cognitive Science at MIT.
: Tettamanti, M., Buccino, G., Saccuman, M., Gallese, V., Danna, M., Scifo, P., Fazio, F., Rizzolatti, G., Cappa, S. & Perani, D. (2005). Listening to actionrelated sentences activates frontoparietal motor circuits. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 273281.
: Thornburg, L. & Panther, K. (1997). Speech act metonymies. En W. Liebert, G. Redeker & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspectives in cognitive linguistics (pp. 205-219). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
: Thorndyke, P. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 77-110.
: Tindale, C. (1992). Audiences, relevance, and cognitive environnements. Argumentation, 6, 177-188.
: Toepper, M. (2017). Dissociating normal aging from Alzheimer's disease: A view from cognitive neuroscience. Journal of Alzheimer's disease, 57(2), 331-352.
: Tomasello, M. (1998). The new Psychology of Language: Cognitive and functional approaches tolanguage structure. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
: Toth, L., Hoffmann, I., Gosztolya, G., Vincze, V., Szatloczki, G., Banreti, Z. & Kálmán, J. (2018). A speech recognition-based solution for the automatic detection of mild cognitive impairment from spontaneous speech. Current Alzheimer Research, 15(2), 130-138.
: Tsantali, E., Economidis, D. & Tsolaki, M. (2013). Could language deficits really differentiate Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) from mild Alzheimer's disease? Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 57, 263-270.
: Tunmer, W. & Hoover, W. (1992). Cognitive and linguistic factors in learning to read. En P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 175-214). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
: Ureña, J. M. & Faber, P. (2010). Reviewing imagery in resemblance and non-resemblance metaphors. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 123-149.
: Van Berkum, J., Hagoort, P. y Brown, C. (1999) Semantic integration in sentences and discourse: evidence from the N400. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 11 (6): 657-671.
: Van Dijk, T. (1985) Cognitive situation models in discourse production; The expression of ethnic situations in prejudices discourse. En J. Forgas (ed.), Language and social situations. London: Academic Press, 61-79.
: Van der Lely, H. (2005). Domain-specific cognitive systems: Insight from grammatical-SLI. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 9(2), 53-59.
: Van der Lely, H., Rosen, S. & Adlard, A. (2004). Grammatical language impairment and the specificity of cognitive domains: Relations between auditory and language abilities. Cognition, 94(2), 167-183.
: VanLehn, K, Graesser, A., Jackson, G., Jordan, P., Olney, A. & Rose, C. (2005). When is reading just as effective as one-on-one interactive human tutoring? Actas de the Annual Cognitive Science Society. Stressa, Italia.
: Varela, F., Thompson, E. & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind. Cognitive science and human experience. Massachussets: MIT Press.
: Vion, M. & Colas, A. (1999). Maintaining and reintroducing referents in French: Cognitive constraints and development of narrative skills. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 72, 32-50.
: Várela, F., Thompson, E. & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
: Weissa, E. M., Kemmlera, G., Deisenhammerb, E. A., Fleischhacker, W. & Delazerc, M. (2003). Sex differences in cognitive functions. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 863-875.
: Wenger, E. (1987). Artificial Intelligence and Tutoring Systems: Computational and Cognitive Approaches to the Communication of Knowledge. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
: West, C. K., Farmer, J. A. & Wolff, P. M. (1991). Instructional design: Implications from cognitive science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
: Wiemer-Hastings, P.; Graesser, A. & Wiemer-Hastings, K. (1998). Inferring the meanings of verbs context. En M. Gernsbacher & S. Derry (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenieth annual conference of cognitive science (pp.1142-1147). Wisconsin: Erlbaum.
: Willers, I. F., Feldman, M. L. & Allegri, R. F. (2008). Subclinical naming errors in mild cognitive impairment. A semantic deficit? Dementia & Nueropsychologia, 2(3), 217-222.
: Wineburg, S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 73-87.
: Winn, W. (1994). Contributions of perceptual and cognitive processes to the comprehension of graphics. En W. Schontz & R. W. Kulhay (Eds.), Comprehension of graphics (pp. 3-28). North-Holland, Elsevier.
: Wolff, P. & Holmes, K. J. (2011). Linguistic relativity. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(3), 253-265.
: Wolff, P. & Song, G. (2003). Models of causation and the semantics of causal verbs. Cognitive Psychology, 47(3), 276-332.
: Wolff, P. & Zettergren, M. (2002). A vector model of causal meaning. In W. Gray & C. Schunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-forth annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 944-949). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
: Woodard, J., Seidenberg, M., Nielson, K. A., Antuono, P., Guidotti, L., Durgerian, S., et al. (2009). Semantic memory activation in amnestic mild cognitive impairment.Brain, 32(8), 2068-2078.
: Woods, B., Aguirre, E., Spector, A. E. & Orrell, M. (2012). Cognitive stimulation to improve cognitive functioning in people with dementia. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005562.pub2
: Wyman, E., Rakoczy, H. & Tomasello, M. (2009). Normativity and context in young children’s pretend play. Cognitive Development, 24, 146-155.
: Xu, F., Carey, S. & Quint, N. (2004). The emergency of kind-based object individuation in infancy. Cognitive Psycholog y, 49, 150-90.
: Yang, S. (2006). An oculomotor-based model of eye movements in reading: The competition/interaction model. Cognitive Systems Research, 7(1), 56-69.
: Yang, Y. (2011). A cognitive interpretation of discourse deixis. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(2), 128-135.
: Yussen, S. (1985) "The role of metacognition in contemporary theories of cognitive development" en Forrest-Pressley, Mackinnon y Waller (Eds.) Metacognition, Cognition and Human Performance, Orlando: Academic Press, 253-283.
: Zeevat, H., Klein, E. & Calder, J. (1987). Unification categorial grammar. In J. Haddock, E. Klein & G. Morill (Eds.), Categorial grammar, unification grammar and parsing (pp. 195-222). Edinburgh: Centre for Cognitive Science.
: Zhu, Z., Novikova, J. & Rudzicz, F. (2018). Detecting cognitive impairments by agreeing on interpretations of linguistic features, ARXIV, 1-8.
: Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. En M. Boekaerts, P. R., Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of selfregulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
: Zwaan, R., Madden, C., Yaxley, R. & Aveyard, M. (2004). Moving words: Dynamic representations in language comprehension. Cognitive Science, 28, 611619.
: reading age equivalency to four year-olds (^[117]Woodcock & Muñoz-Sandoval, 1996). Children’s general cognitive ability, as measured with vocabulary and non-verbal reasoning, was M = 91.56 (SD = 14.70).
: van Dijk, T. (1985). Cognitive situational models in discourse processing. The expression of ethnic situation models in prejudice stories. En J. Forgas (Ed.), Language and social situations (pp. 61-79). New York: Springer.
: van Herten, M., Chwilla, D. J. & Kolk, H. H. (2006). When heuristics clash with parsing routines: ERP evidence for conflict monitoring in sentence perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1181-1197.
: van Herten, M., Kolk, H. H. & Chwilla, D. J. (2005). An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 241-255.
: von Heusinger, K. (2007). Accessibility and definite noun phrases. En M. Schwarz-Friesel, M. Consten & M. Knees (Eds.), Anaphors in text. Cognitive, formal and applied approaches to anaphoric reference (pp. 123-144). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

/LING

1) Candidate: cognitive

Evaluando al candidato cognitive:

Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término