Dick and Lydia Todd Professor of Cognitive Science
The Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD. 21218
Office: 241A Krieger Hall
Telephone: 410-516-5255
Fax: 410-516-8020
E-mail:
landau@cogsci.jhu.edu
Lab: 234 Krieger Hall
Telephone: 410-516-4087/ 6843
Lab Manager: Gitana Chunyo (gitana@cogsci.jhu.edu)
Research Interests
Language and Cognition Lab
Biographical Information
Selected Publications
Courses
Introduction to Cognitive Development (Syllabus,
Fall 2002)
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience
Research Seminar in Language and Cognition
Last updated: 10/02
LANGUAGE AND SPACE:
REPRESENTATION AND LEARNING
My work focuses on language learning, spatial representation, and the relationships between these systems of knowledge.
Central questions include:
What are the semantic and syntactic representations that guide language
learning?
What is the nature of our representations of space-- in particular, objects
and locations?
How are these spatial representations recruited during the process of language
learning?
Are linguistic representations "special," separate from non-linguistic
representations?
Specific areas of research include:
The representation and acquisition of object names (terms for everyday
objects as well as
terms for "natural kinds")
The representation and acquisition of spatial terms
The relationships between spatial language and spatial cognition
Populations we study include:
Normally developing children and adults learning English
Normally developing children and adults learning languages other than English
Neurologically impaired individuals, who show disruption of normal space-language
relationships -- specifically, children and adults with Williams Syndrome
Methods we use include:
Formal linguistic analyses
Traditional experimental and developmental methods
Eye-tracking (in collaboration with Professor James
Hoffman)
Event-related potentials (in collaboration with Professor James
Hoffman)
Our head-mounted eye-tracker can be used to examine visual fixations
of young children and adults
as they carry out spatial tasks (such as constructing spatial patterns,
above) and linguistic tasks (such as
following directions to place objects in specific locations.)
Director:
Barbara Landau (landau@cogsci.jhu.edu)
Lab Overview
Current Project Brief Descriptions
Naming of Objects and Object Parts
Lab Members and their Research
Links to Cognitive Science Resources
Lab Address: 234 Krieger Hall,
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. 21218
Lab Phone: (410)-516-4087
Fax: (410)- 516-8580
Barbara Landau can also be reached
by e-mail (landau@cogsci.jhu.edu) or phone (410-516-5255)
Our work focuses on language
learning, spatial representation, and the relationship between the two.
We ask questions such as:
How do humans represent objects for the purposes of recognition and naming?
How do they represent space for the purposes of navigating, reaching and
grasping objects, imagining spatial layouts, and using symbolic devices
such as maps?
How are these representations of objects and space engaged during the process
of language learning?
How are they recruited during language use and comprehension among adults?
Are linguistic representations separate from those of other cognitive systems,
or do they interact, and if so, in what ways?
How are the representations of space and of language instantiated in the
brain, and how do they emerge during development?
Ý
How do impairments of the brain affect these different systems of knowledge?
In thinking about these problems, we conduct research in several areas, we study several different kinds of populations, and we use a variety of different methods and approaches. For example, many of our studies examine the nature of language learning and spatial representation in normally developing children and adults who are native speakers of English. However, we also study cross-linguistic differences in how spatial language is acquired and used, and the disruption of normal space-language relationships in neurologically impaired individuals such as those with Williams Syndrome. Our methods include traditional experimental and linguistic techniques, and our lab collaborates with that of Jim Hoffman, who brings expertise in eye-tracking and ERP measurement.
Please read more about current
projects on-going in the lab.
Naming of Objects and Object Parts
How do we represent objects for the purposes of naming, and how do children learn to name objects? Philosophers such as Quine have pointed out that the novice language learner faces a problem of "indeterminacy": Hearing some word in the context of some event, the child might interpret that word in an infinite number of ways, only one of which will be consistent with the intended meaning. How does the child language learner solve this problem?
Research over the past few decades indicates that toddlers come to the word learning task with biases to interpret novel object names as names for members of categories such as animals, artifacts, etc. Perceptual information provides surprisingly rich information that can help toddlers assign objects to categories, and thereby help them generalize object names correctly (see Landau, Smith, and Jones, 1998, for review).
For example, consider the two panels below. Each shows an object on the left, then three changes in shape. If the first object in each panel was named a "dax", would you generalize this name to any of the three objects on the right? Does your answer differ for the two panels? (See Landau & Leyton, 1999 for discussion)
Now consider how you would decide how each of the objects shown can be divided into its main parts. Do we use pre-determined components, or do we use properties of an object's contour (as suggested by Hoffman & Richards, 1984). How does such knowledge affect the naming of parts?
Finally, you
might consider how you would decide to name the "spatial parts" of each
object, that is, each object's "top", "bottom", "front", "back" and "side".
It might seem quite easy to do this with the novel objects that are shown,
especially when they are in upright orientation. But as it turns
out, the naming of these spatial parts varies enormously with the kind
of object under consideration. For example, think about the front
or back of a camera. Most people consider the "front" to be the part
that faces the world when you take a picture, and the "back" to be the
part that faces the photographer as he or she looks through the eye piece.
Now consider the front or back of a dresser (bureau). Most people
now consider the "front" to be the part that faces the user, and the back
to be the part that faces away from the user. You can continue this
thought experiment with many other objects, such as pencils, books, cups,
animals, etc. Each one seems to engage somewhat different principles.
This means that an object's function or kind must interact with spatial
representations to get the right spatial part term assigned to the right
spatial part! We are currently examining the development of this
interaction among normal children and adults, as well as spatially impaired
children.
Overall, current work in our
lab seeks to explore such issues of the relationship and interactions between
perceptual and spatial representations and naming by examining how perception
might support naming, and how naming may go beyond perception.
Spatial Language and Spatial Cognition in Williams Syndrome
Our head-mounted eye-tracker is used to monitor eye-fixations as people
carry out spatial construction tasks,
for example, constructing an overall design (right) from individual
parts. People with Williams Syndrome
(as well as other spatial disorders) have great difficulty carrying
out such tasks.
Williams Syndrome (WS) is a rare genetic defect which results in a highly unusual cognitive profile of great interest to cognitive scientists and neuroscientists: People with WS exhibit profound spatial impairment, but relatively preserved language. For example, the pattern you see displayed above is a simple combination of four individual blocks. Normal children can take such blocks and assemble the design shown above. Individuals with Williams Syndrome-- even as adults-- have great difficulty assembling such puzzles, showing impairment in a simple task requiring basic spatial capacities. This combination of deficit and strength across different domains suggests the possibility that different cognitive domains may emerge in development along independent paths.
We are engaged in a comprehensive program of research designed to determine the source and nature of the spatial deficit in children with Williams Syndrome, and how it affects the development of spatial language. The work is collaborative with James Hoffman, and also involves many individuals in our lab, whose work examines different facts of the spatial deficit and/or spatial language. Current work examines:
Dilks, Landau, & Hoffman (2000) Selective impairment of dorsal stream functions in children with Williams syndrome. Poster presented at Cognitive Neuroscience Society, San Francisco.
Hoffman, J. & Landau, B. (2000) Spared object recognition with profound spatial deficits: Evidence from children with Williams syndrome. Poster presented at Cognitive Neuroscience Society, San Francisco.
Hoffman, J., Landau, B., and Pagani, B. (1998) Eye fixations
during block construction in children with Williams Syndrome . Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, November 1998 .
(Paper readable at http://hoffman.psych.udel.edu/)
Ý
Lakusta, L., Licona, R., & Landau, B. (2002) Interactions
between spatial representation and spatial language: The language
of events. Paper presented at Boston University Conference on Language
Development.
Zukowski, A., and Landau, B. (1998) Spatial language in Williams Syndrome. Paper presented at the Boston University Conference on Language Development, November.
Zukowski, A., Schwartz, D., & Landau, B. (1999) Spatial terms in children with Williams Syndrome. Paper presented at the Boston University Conference on Language Development, November.
Papers published and in press:
Landau, B. Hoffman, J., Reiss, J., Dilks, D., Lakusta, L., and Chunyo, G. (2002) Specialization and breakdown in spatial cognition: Lessons from Williams syndrome. To appear, C. Morris, H. Lenhoff, & P. Wang (Eds.), Williams-Beuren syndrome: Research and clinical perspectives. Baltimore: JHU Press.
Landau, B. & Zukowski, A. (2002) Objects, motions, and paths: Spatial language of children with Williams Syndrome. Developmental Neuropsychology, Special Issue on Williams syndrome (Editor: C. B. Mervis)
Jordan, H., Riess, J., Hoffman, J.E., & Landau, B. (2002) Spared perception of biological motion in the face of severely impaired spatial cognition. Psychological Science.
Hoffman, J., Landau, B., & Pagani, B. (in press) Spatial construction and spatial cognition: Evidence from eye-fixations in Williams syndrome. Cognitive Psychology.
Landau, B., Hoffman, J.E. and Kurz, N. (2002) Spared Object
Recognition with Profound Spatial Deficits in a Genetic Disorder.
Manuscript submitted.
Cross-linguistic Studies of Spatial Cognition and Spatial Language
How do we manage to talk about space? In order to do so, there must be some connections between two systems of knowledge-- one linguistic, and one non-linguistic. One possibility is that these two systems of representation are identical-- that is, whatever is represented non-linguistically is also represented by language. Although this is intuitively plausible, there is a great deal of evidence showing that languages do NOT encode everything in our system of spatial knowledge. Still, it seems likely that there is some partial mapping between spatial language and our other ways of knowing about space-- otherwise, it would be hard to imagine how we manage to talk about space at all! What is the nature of this mapping between spatial cognition and spatial language?
Universals in Spatial Language and Spatial Cognition
(Munnich, Landau, & Dosher, 2002; Munnich & Landau, 2002)
One way of answering this question is to look for universals in spatial language-- those kinds of spatial relationships that are encoded by ALL languages of the world-- and see whether their organization correspond to the organization of our non-linguistic spatial knowledge. Some theoretical and empirical work suggests there are such correspondences, called "homologies". For example, Hayward & Tarr (1995) found homologies between spatial memory and spatial language in English-speaking adults. Below on the left, you can see the pattern of performance shown by adults in a non-linguistic memory task, and on the right, the pattern of labelling shown in a language task, when adults give spatial terms to name these locations. Darker areas represent better memory in the non-linguistic task and more frequent use of basic terms like "above" and "below" in the language task.
But now we confront an interesting problem: Although languages of the world tend to encode of the same kinds of spatial relationships, there are also striking cross-linguistic DIFFERENCES in the ways that languages choose to encode spatial relationships. If there are homologies, then how do these differences arise, and what effect do they have on other aspects of spatial organization? Some have suggested that cross-linguistic differences may actually lead to cross-cultural differences in our ways of knowing about space. You may recognize this as a version of Whorf's hypothesis-- the idea that differences in languages create differences in cognition.
Ed Munnich's research (Munnich, Landau, & Dosher, 2002) examines the relationship between non-linguistic spatial memory and spatial language across adult native speakers of English, Korean, and Japanese, using Hayward & Tarr's methods. Although the three languages code some spatial relationships in the same way, there are other clear differences. For example, in English, we can use the word ON for relationships in which some kind of force, such as gravity, holds one thing in contact with another. e.g The book is ON the table. We cannot use the term ABOVE, for example, for such a relationship. But both Japanese and Korean possess a single term that can be used to express relationships covered by the separate English terms ON and ABOVE.
What do you think? Should
such a cross-linguistic difference lead to a difference in spatial memory?
If English clearly distinguishes between ON and ABOVE relationships, but
Japanese and Korean do not, then should that make it easier for English
speakers to distinguish between these relationships in memory?
If you'd like to know the answer, please ask Ed Munnich for a preprint
of the paper, "Spatial language and spatial memory: What is universal",
Cognition,
2001.
Cross-linguistic acquisition of verbs (Kim, Phillips,
& Landau)
Using another approach, Meesook Kim's thesis (Kim, 1999; Kim, Phillips, & Landau, 1998) examined how native adult speakers of English and Korean encode locational events such as filling, pouring, etc. Native adult speakers of these two languages encode the events quite differently. For example, for English-speakers, one can say either "John poured the juice into the glass" or "John filled the glass with juice", but not *" John filled juice into the glass" or "John poured the glass with juice". Thus "pour" must occur in one kind of syntactic frame; and "fill" in another. But the rules for Korean are somewhat different, permitting the "figure frame" for both verbs: That is, it is grammatical to say the equivalent of "John filled juice into the glass".
How would a child learn these differences in the ways that their native language expresses spatial events? It seems unlikely that young children learning English vs. Korean differ in their observation-based understanding of events in which pouring or filling take place. It seems more likely that children must learn the patterns of their language from linguistic input they receive (in this case, the syntactic frames which occur together with pouring and filling events) and from an abstract analysis of the typological nature of their language. How early is this knowledge acquired by children? What are the pertinent properties of the linguistic input provided to children by their parents? What kinds of knowledge about the universal properties of language must children begin with, in order to support their learning?
Meesook addressed these questions
in her
Ph.D. dissertation.
Read it to find out the answers!
Input
and maturation in the acquisition of spatial language semantics (Munnich,
2002 Ph.D. dissertation)
Gitana Chunyo, Lab Manager (gitana@cogsci.jhu.edu)
Kirsten O'Hearn, Postdoctoral Fellow (ohearn@cogsci.jhu.edu)
Graduate students:
Danny Dilks (dilks@cogsci.jhu.edu)
Laura Lakusta (llakusta@jhu.edu)
Uyen Le (le@cogsci.jhu.edu)
Tamara Nicol (nicol@cogsci.jhu.edu)
Melanie Palomares (paloma@jhu.edu)
Jay Reiss (University of Delaware; jreiss@strauss.udel.edu)
Undergraduate assistants:
Rosalinda Licona (rosalinda@jhu.edu)
Peter Oberg (poberg@jhu.edu)
Ý
Recent Ph.D. graduates of the lab:
Meesook Kim (Assistant Professor, Linguistics, Sangji
University, Seoul, Korea
Edward L. Munnich (Post-doctoral Fellow, U. California,
Berkeley; emunnich@alum.mit.edu)
Andrea Zukowski (Research Associate, University of
Maryland; zukowski@glue.umd.edu)
On Language Learning and Cognition:
Landau, B., & Gleitman, L. R. (1985). Language and experience: Evidence from the blind child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gleitman, L. R., & Landau, B. (Eds.) (1994). Acquisition of the lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wright, C. E., & Landau, B. (1998). Language and Action: Current challenges to cognitive theory. In J. Hochberg & J. E. Cutting (Eds.), Handbook of perception and cognition. Perception and cognition at century's end: History, philosophy, theory. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Landau, B. (1998) Nativist perspectives on the acquisition of knowledge. In W. Bechtel & G. Graham (Eds.), A companion to cognitive science. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Landau, B. (2000) Concepts, the lexicon, and acquisition: Fodorís new challenge. Mind and Language.
Landau, B. (2000) Language and space. In B. Landau, J. Sabini, J. Jonides, and E. Newport (Eds.), Perception, cognition, and language: Essays in honor of Henry and Lila Gleitman. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
On the Acquisition and Representation of Object Names:
Landau, B., Smith, L. B., & Jones, S. (1988). The importance of shape in early lexical learning. Cognitive Development, 3, 299-321.
Landau, B., Jones, S., & Landau, B. (1992). Perception, ontology, and naming in young children: Commentary on Soja, Carey, & Spelke. Cognition, 43, 85-91
Landau, B., Smith, L., & Jones, S. (1992). Syntactic context and the shape bias in children's and adults' lexical learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 31.
Landau, B. (1994). Object shape, object name, and object kind: Representation and development. In D. L. Medin (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 31. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Landau, B. (1994). Where's what
and what's where? The language of objects in space. In L. R. Gleitman &
B. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of the lexicon. Special Issue, Lingua, 92,
259-296. Reprinted by Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Landau, B., & Shipley, E.
(1996). Object naming and category boundaries. In A. Stringfellow (Ed.),
Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development.
Brookline, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Smith, L., Jones, S., & Landau, B. (1996). Naming in young children: A dumb attentional mechanism? Cognition, 60(2), 143-171.
Landau, B., Smith, L., & Jones, S. (1997). Object shape, object function, and object name. Journal of Memory and Language.
Landau, B., Smith, L., & Jones, S. (1998) Object perception and object naming in early development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(1), 19-24.
Landau, B. and Leyton, M. (1999) Perception, object kind, and object naming. Spatial Cognition and Computation.
Subrahmanyam, K, Landau, B., & Gelman, R. (1999) Shape, material, and syntax: Interacting forces in the acquisition of count and mass nouns. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14 (3), 249-281.
On the Acquisition and Representation of Spatial Terms:
Landau, B., & Jackendoff,
R. (1993). "What" and "where" in spatial language and spatial cognition.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16(2), 217-238, 255-265. (Target article
and
response to commentaries.)
Landau, B. (1996). Multiple geometric
representations of objects in languages and language learners. In P. Bloom,
M. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. Garrett (Eds.), Language and
space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kim, M., Landau, B., & Phillips,
C. (1999) Cross-linguistic differences in childrenís
syntax for locative verbs. In A. Stringfellow (Ed.), Proceedings
of the Boston University Conference on Language Development,
Vol. 23. Brookline, Mass: Cascadilla Press.
Education
Ph.D. Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, 1982
Ed.M Educational Psychology, Rutgers University, 1977
B.A. Sociology, University of Pennsylvania,
1970
Positions Held
2001- Todd Professor, Cognitive Science, Johns Hopkins University
1997- Professor, Psychology and Linguistics
Director, Cognitive Science Program, University of Delaware
1995- 1997 Associate - Full Professor, Psychology and Linguistics, University of Delaware
1990- 1996 Associate- Full Professor of Psychology, University of California, Irvine
1992- 1993 Visiting Scientist, University
of Pennsylvania
Institute for Research in Cognitive Science
1983- 1991 Assistant- Associate Professor of Psychology, Columbia University
1983 Visiting Instructor of Psychology, Princeton University
1982- 1983 Sloan Post-Doctoral Fellow,
University of Pennsylvania
Awards, Honors, Grants, Fellowships
Awards and Honorary Speeches:
2001 Fellow, American Psychological Society
1999 Fellow, American Psychological Association (Divisions 7 and 3)
1992 Keynote Address, Stanford Child Language Forum. Stanford University.
1990 Boyd McCandless Young Scientist Award, American Psychological Association
1987 Plenary Session Address, 17th Annual Symposium
of the Jean Piaget Society, Philadelphia.
External Grants:
1999 High-density ERP system for conducting
cognitive science research.
National Science Foundation (Co-P.I. with James Hoffman)
1998-2000 Spatial language and cognition in Williams
Syndrome.
NIH James A. Shannon Director's
Award (Co-P.I. James Hoffman) 1 R55 NS37923
1998-2001 Spatial language and spatial cognition
in Williams Syndrome.
National
Science Foundation (Co-P.I. James Hoffman) SBR-9808585
1998-2000 Spatial language and spatial cognition
in Williams Syndrome.
March
of Dimes Foundation, #12-0194
1997-2000 Naming and the perception of shape
in children and adults.
NIMH -
1 RO1 MH55240 (PI) (Co-PIs L.B. Smith and S. Jones)
1996-1999 The shape bias in childrenís word learning.
NICHD-
2 RO1 HD28675 (Co-P.I. with L.B. Smith and S. Jones)
1992-1994 Haptic exploration, object knowledge, and spatial language in blind and sighted children. Behavioral and Social Sciences Award, March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation.
1992-1995The shape bias in children's word learning.
NICHD- RO1 HD 28675 (Co-P.I.
with L.B. Smith and S. Jones)
1990-1992 Haptic exploration, object knowledge,
and spatial language in blind babies.
Social
Sciences Research Award, March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation.
1988-1990 Haptic exploration and object
perception in blind babies.
Social
and Behavioral Sciences Research Award, March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation.
1981-1987 Language acquisition in premature
babies blind from birth.
Social
and Behavioral Sciences Research Grant, National Foundation-- March of
Dimes.
1984-1985 Spencer Foundation Award, Young
Faculty Research Grant
Publications and Manuscripts:
A. Books
Landau, B. & Gleitman, L.R. (1985) Language and experience: Evidence from the blind child. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Gleitman, L.R. & Landau, B. (Eds.) (1994) Acquisition of the lexicon. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
... First published as Gleitman, L.R. & Landau, B. (Eds.) (1994) Acquisition of the lexicon . Lingua, Special Issue, 92.
Landau, B., Sabini, J., Jonides, J., & Newport, E. (in press) Perception, Cognition, and Language: Essays in honor of Henry and Lila Gleitman. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
B. Papers
Landau, B. (in press) Concepts, the lexicon, and acquisition: Fodorís new challenge. Mind and Language.
Landau, B. (in press) Language and space. In B. Landau, J. Sabini, J. Jonides, and E. Newport (Eds.), Perception, cognition, and language: Essays in honor of Henry and Lila Gleitman. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Landau, B., Sabini, J., Jonides, J., & Newport, E. (in press) Introduction. In B. Landau, J. Sabini, J. Jonides, and E. Newport (Eds.), Perception, cognition, and language: Essays in honor of Henry and Lila Gleitman. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Landau, B. (in press) Reinventing a broken wheel: Commentary on ìPerceptual symbol systemsî. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
Landau, B. and Leyton, M. (1999) Perception, object kind, and object naming. Spatial Cognition and Computation.
Subrahmanyam, K, Landau, B., & Gelman, R. (1999) Shape, material, and syntax: Interacting forces in the acquisition of count and mass nouns. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14 (3), 249-281.
Kim, M., Landau, B., & Phillips, C. (1999) Cross-linguistic differences in childrenís syntax for locative verbs. In A. Stringfellow (Ed.), Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development, Vol. 23. Brookline, Mass: Cascadilla Press.
Singh, M. & Landau, B. (1998) Parts of visual shape as primitives for categorization. Commentary on Schyns, Goldstone, & Thibaut. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
Landau, B., Smith, L., & Jones, S. (1998) Object perception and object naming in early development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(1), 19-24.
Landau, B. (1998) Nativist perspectives on the acquisition of knowledge. In W. Bechtel & G. Graham (Eds.), A companion to cognitive science. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Wright, C.E. & Landau, B. (1998) Language and Action: Current challenges to cognitive theory. In J. Hochberg (Ed.), Handbook of perception and cognition. Perception and cognition at centuryís end: History, philosophy, theory. Orlando, Fla: Academic Press.
Landau, B., Smith, L., & Jones, S. (1997) Object shape, object function, and object name. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(1): 1-27.
Landau, B. and Munnich, E. (1997) The representation of space and spatial language: Challenges for cognitive science. In P. Olivier & P. Gapp (Eds.), Representation and processing of spatial expressions. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Landau, B. (1997) Language and experience in blind children: Retrospective and prospective. In V. Lewis and G.M. Collis (Eds.), Blindness and Psychological Development 0-10 years. Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society.
Smith, L., Jones, S. & Landau, B. (1996) Naming in young children: A dumb attentional mechanism? Cognition, 60(2), 143-171.
Landau, B. & Shipley, E. (1996) Object naming and category boundaries. In A. Stringfellow (Ed.), Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development. Brookline, Mass: Cascadilla Press.
Landau, B. (1996) Multiple geometric representations of objects in languages and language learners. In P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. Garrett (Eds.), Language and Space. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Landau, B. (1994) Object shape, object name, and object kind: Representation and development. In D. L. Medin (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 31. San Diego, Ca: Academic Press.
Landau, B. (1994) Where's what and what's where? The
language of objects in space.
In L.R. Gleitman & B. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of the
Lexicon. Special Issue, Lingua, 92, 259-296. (Reprinted
by MIT Press)
Jackendoff, R. & Landau, B. (1994) What is coded in parietal representations? Commentary on M. Jeannerod, The representing brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
Subrahmanyam, K. & Landau, B. (1994) Modulation of object perception by count and mass syntax. In E. Clark (Ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth Annual Stanford Child Language Research Forum. Stanford, Ca: C.S.L.I.
Landau, B. (1993) Ontology and perception, object kind and object naming. In E. Clark (Ed.) Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Annual Stanford Child Language Research Forum. Stanford, Ca.: C.S.L.I.
Landau, B. & Jackendoff, R. (1993) "What" and "where" in spatial language and spatial cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, l6(2), 217-238, 255-265. (Target article and response to commentaries.)
Landau, B. (1993) Learning the language of space. Keynote Address, in E. Clark (Ed.) Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth Annual Stanford Child Language Research Forum. Stanford, Ca: C.S.L.I.
Landau, B., Smith, L. & Jones, S. (1992) Syntactic context and the shape bias in children's and adults' lexical learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 807- 825.
Landau, B., Jones, S. & Smith, L. (1992) Perception, ontology, and naming in young children: Commentary on Soja, Carey, & Spelke. Cognition, 43, 85-91.
Smith, L., Jones, S. & Landau, B. (1992) Count nouns, adjectives, and perceptual properties in novel word interpretations. Developmental Psychology, 28 (2), 273- 286.
Jackendoff, R. & Landau, B. (1991) Spatial language and spatial cognition. In D.J. Napoli and J. Kegl (Eds.), Bridges between Psychology and Linguistics: A Swarthmore Festschrift for Lila Gleitman. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Jones, S., Smith, L. & Landau, B. (1991) Object properties and knowledge in early lexical learning. Child Development, 62, 499-516.
Landau, B. (1991) Spatial representations of objects in
the blind child. Cognition, 38,
145-178.
Landau, B. & Stecker, D. (1990) Objects and places: Geometric and syntactic representation in early lexical learning. Cognitive Development, 5, 287-312.
Gerken, L.A., Landau, B. & Remez, R. (1990) Function morphemes in young children's speech perception and production. Developmental Psychology, 26(2), 204-216.
Kohn A. & Landau, B. (1990) A partial solution to the homonym problem: Linguistic forms as an aid to word learning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19(2), 71-89.
Landau, B., Smith, L.B. & Jones, S. (1988) The importance of shape in early lexical learning. Cognitive Development, 3, 299-321.
Landau, B. & Spelke, E.S. (1988) Geometrical complexity and object search in infancy. Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 512-521.
Landau, B. (1988) Knowledge and its expression in the blind child. In H. Rosen and D. Keating (Eds.), Constructivist perspectives on atypical development. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Landau, B. (1988) The construction and use of spatial knowledge in blind and sighted children. In J. Stiles-Davis, M. Kritchevsky, and U. Bellugi (Eds.), Spatial Cognition: Brain bases and development. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Landau, B. (1987) New failures to learn. Commentary on R. Schank, G. Collins, and L. Hunter, Transcending inductive category formation in learning. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10(2).
Gleitman, L.R., Gleitman, H., Landau, B. & Wanner, E. (1987) Where learning begins: Initial representations for language learning. In F. Newmeyer (Ed.) The Cambridge Linguistic Survey. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Landau, B. (1986) Early map use as an unlearned ability. Cognition, 22, 201-223.
Landau, B. & Spelke, E. (1985) Spatial knowledge and its manifestations. In H.M. Wellman (Ed.), Children's searching: The development of search skill and spatial representation. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Landau, B. & Gleitman, L.R. (1984) The meaning of vision-related terms to a blind child. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Boulder, Co.
Landau, B. (1984) The construction and control of visual space. Contemporary Psychology, 29(10), 789-790.
Landau, B., Spelke, E. & Gleitman, H. (1984) Spatial knowledge in a young blind child. Cognition, 16, 225-160.
Landau, B. (1983) Blind children's language is not "meaningless". In A.E. Mills (Ed.), Language and communication in the blind child. London: Croom Helm.
Landau, B. (1982) Will the real grandmother please stand up? The psychological reality of dual meaning representations. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 11(1), 47-62.
Landau, B., Gleitman, H., & Spelke, E. (1981) Spatial knowledge and geometric representation in a child blind from birth. Science, 213, 1275-1278.
... (1984) Reprinted in N.R. Cromley, D. Hamilton, C.H. Klaus,
R. Scholes, & N. Sommers (Eds.), Fields of writing: Readings
across the disciplines. New York: St. Martin's Press.