PSY 369: Psycholinguistics

1
PSY 369 Psycholinguistics

• Language Production
• Introduction

2
Announcements

• Homework 6 (Due April 24)
• Try to be vigilant for four or five days in
  noting speech errors made by yourself and others.
  Write each slip down (carry a small notebook and
  pencil with you). Then, when you have accumulated
  a reasonably size sample (aim for 20 to 30, but
  don't panic if you don't get that many), try to
  classify each slip in terms of
• the unit(s) involved
• the type of error
• Remember that each error may be interpreted in
  different ways. For some of them, see if you can
  come up with more than one possibility.

3
Some of the big questions
the horse raced past the barn

• Production forms half of language ability
• Input to comprehension
• More difficult problem than comprehension?
• Developmental lag
• Learning a second language

4
What we dont do
Dr. C How much money is there in my current
account and in my deposit account? ltSILENCEgt Dr.
C Hello? ltSILENCEgt Computer Colourless green
ideas sleeeeeep furiously. Dr. C How much money
is there in my current account and in my deposit
account? ltSILENCEgt Computer Your current
a-ccount encompasses two hundred dollars. I
cannot access how..ltSILENCEgt.. in your deposit
account money much is there.
5
Undesirable features

• Meaningless and irrelevant content.
• Long silences, strange pausing.
• Infelicities of vocabulary and structure
• Your current account encompasses 200
• I cannot access how in your deposit account
  money much is there.
• Strange intonation and pronunciation
• Your current a-ccount
• Sleeeeeep

6
What we do do

• Expressing non-ordered conceptual message via
  ordered array of sounds.
• Start with a message (idea) and partition it,
  sequence it, and articulate it
• Speakers must produce utterances with
• Appropriate meaningful content, lexical items,
  syntax, pronunciation, intonation, and
  phrasing.
• And they must do this fluently, in real time.

7
Getting the form right

• Hearers
• Details of form can sometimes (often?) be ignored
  (e.g. missing words, not paying attention).
• Speakers
• Have to get every aspect of the form right,
  whether or not germane to message.

8
Getting the content wrong

• Paradox Adept at getting form right but content
  wrong
• Subject-verb agreement errors
• The report about the fires are very long
• Less than 5 errors in experiment designed to
  elicit them (Bock Miller 1991).

9
Getting the content wrong

• Paradox Adept at getting form right but content
  wrong
• Serious structural anomalies (unparseable)
• I cannot access how in your deposit account money
  much is there.
• 0.5 utterances (Deese 1984).

10
Getting the content wrong

• Paradox Adept at getting form right but content
  wrong
• Sound/word errors
• Can you put the desk back on my book when youve
  finished with it?
• Itll get fast a lot hotter if you put the burner
  on.
• Garnham et al 1982
• Sound errors 3.2/10,000 words
• Word errors 5.1/10,000 words

11
Methodologies

• Production is intrinsically more difficult
  subject to study than language comprehension
• Not susceptible to experimental study?
• Yes it is, but requires careful and clever
  methods
• Historically observational methods
• Recently experimental methods

12
Whats the problem?

• Comprehension
• Can control input precisely
• Moving from language to conceptual representation
• Production
• How do we control input?
• Moving from (unobservable) conceptual
  representation to language
• BUT end product is observable in production but
  not comprehension

13
Common Measures

• What people say
• Under which circumstances do they produce
  particular words, utterances etc
• May be intended, or may be errors
• How frequently do they do this
• Time course
• How quickly do people produce language
• Neurophysiological
• How is language production represented in the
  brain?

14
Methodologies Observational

• Naturally occurring speech

15
Methodologies Observational

• Naturally occurring speech

16
Methodologies Observational

• Naturally occurring speech errors

17
Picture naming description

• Name these pictures

swan
18
Picture naming description

• Name these pictures

swing
19
Picture naming description
Describe the action in this picture
The girl is throwing a ball to the boy
The girl is throwing the boy a ball
20
Picture-word interference task

• Name the picture (While ignoring the word)

tiger
21
Neurophysiological Measures

• Recent technological developments allow research
  on neurophysiological aspects of production.
• ERPs, fMRI, PET,
• Which areas of the brain are involved?
• What is the time course of processing?
• Are different areas/processes/timecourses
  associated with different aspects of production?

22
Brief summary

• Language production research
• Speaker has different problems than the
  comprehender
• Paradox when errors are made form rather than
  meaning is often preserved
• What errors tell us about correct speech
• Observational and experimental approaches

23
Speech Errors -Spoonerisms

• Reverend Dr. William Archibald Spooner,
  1844-1930.
• Lecturer, tutor, and dean at Oxford university
  famous for speech errors
• Some famous examples

Nosey little cook
FOR ... Cosy little nook
FOR ... Battle ships and cruisers
Cattle ships and bruisers
..well have the hags flung out
FOR ... ..well have the flags hung out
FOR ... .. youve wasted two terms
youve tasted two worms
FOR ... customary to kiss the bride
kisstomary to cuss the bride.
24
Speech errors

• What errors tell us about correct speech
• What can we learn from speech errors?
• How are speech errors collected?
• Observational and experimental approaches
• Classifications and examples of speech errors?

25
Speech errors

• How are speech errors collected?
• Observational approaches
• Collected from natural speech, listen for them
  and write them down. Most accurate way is to
  record speech samples and carefully study them
  later.
• Some of these collections Freud (1958), Meringer
  Mayer (1895), Fromkin (1971), Fay Cutler
  (1977), Garnham et al (1981)
• Experimental approaches
• SLIP technique Motley and Baars (1976)

26
Freudian slips

• Freudian approach
• Held that speech errors arise from the
  concurrent action - or perhaps rather, the
  opposing action - of two different intentions
• Intended meaning disturbing intention ? speech
  error
• The psycholinguistic approach
• Assume that the mechanics of slips can be
  studied linguistically without reference to their
  motivation. (Boomer and Laver, 1968)

27
Freudian slips

• In the case of female genitals, in spite of many
  versuchungen temptations - I beg your pardon,
  versuche experiments
• From a politician I like Heath. Hes tough -
  like Hitler - (shocked silence from reporters) -
  Did I say Hitler? I meant Churchill.

• Are these cases of disturbing intentions or
  merely cases of lexical substitution
  (phonologically or semantically related words)?

28
Freudian slips

• Ellis, (1980)

• Of the 94 errors listed in Freuds
  Psychopathology of Everyday Life 85 were made in
  normal speech.

• 51 (60) involved lexical substitution in which
  the substituting word was either similar in
  phonological form (27) to the intended word or
  related in meaning (22).

29
Freudian slips

• Ellis, (1980)

• Of the 94 errors listed in Freuds
  Psychopathology of Everyday Life 85 were made in
  normal speech.

• Only 10/94 of the errors reported by Freud were
  spoonerisms, and 4 were from Meringer and Mayer,
  1895 (an early, linguistically oriented study).
• E.g. Eiwess-scheibchen (small slices of egg
  white) ? Eischeissweibchen (lit.
  egg-shit-female)
• Alabasterbüchse (alabaster box) ?
  Alabüsterbachse (büste breast)

30
Freudian slips

• Ellis, (1980)

• Of the 94 errors listed in Freuds
  Psychopathology of Everyday Life 85 were made in
  normal speech.

• Conclusion it appears that Freuds theory can
  be translated into the language of modern
  psycholinguistic production models without
  excessive difficulty.

31
Speech error regularities

• What can we learn from speech errors?

• Logic how the system breaks down, tells us
  something about how it works
• Speech can go wrong in many ways
• Different sized units can slip
• The ways that they go wrong are not random
• Look for regularities in the patterns of errors
• It is not always easy to categorize errors

Recommended reading Um Slips, Stumbles, and
Verbal Blunders, and What they Mean, by Michael
Erard (2007)
32
Speech errors

• Classifications and examples of speech errors?

• Shift one segment disappears from its
  appropriate location and appears somewhere else.
  The thing that shifts moves from one element to
  another of the same type

..in case she decide FOR ...in case she
decides to hits it. to hit it
a maniac for weekends.
FOR a weekend for maniacs.
33
Speech errors

• Classifications and examples of speech errors?

Exchange in effect double shifts, since 2
linguistic units change places
You have hissed all my mystery lectures FOR
.. You have missed all my history lectures
your model renosed. FOR ..your nose remodelled.
34
Speech errors

• Classifications and examples of speech errors?

• Anticipation in anticipation of a forthcoming
  segment, we replace an earlier segment with the
  later segment

It's a meal mystery FOR .. It's a real mystery
..bake my bike. FOR .. take my bike.
35
Speech errors

• Classifications and examples of speech errors?

Perseverance an earlier segment replaces a later
one (while also being articulated in its correct
location)

• give the goy FOR .. give the boy

..he pulled a pantrum. FOR ..he pulled a tantrum.
36
Speech errors

• Classifications and examples of speech errors?

Addition something is added to the target
utterance

• I didnt explain it clarefully enough

FOR I didnt explain it carefully enough.
37
Speech errors

• Classifications and examples of speech errors?

• Blends occur when more than one word is being
  considered, and the two blend into a single item

• didnt bother me FOR didnt bother me
• in the sleast. in the
  least/slightest.

38
Speech errors

• Classifications and examples of speech errors?

• Deletion something is omitted

..mutter intelligibly. FOR ..mutter
unintelligibly.
39
Speech errors

• Classifications and examples of speech errors?

• Substitutions (malapropisms) when one segment is
  replaced by an intruder, but this differs from
  the other types of errors since the intruder may
  not occur at all in the intended sentence

Jack is the president FOR Jack is
the subject of the sentence. of the
sentence. Im stuttering FOR Im
studying psycholinguistics.
psycholinguistics.
40
Speech errors

• Frequency of units in errors
• Different sized units can slip
• Suggestions of building blocks of production

41
Speech error regularities

• What can we learn from speech errors?

• If we look at the shift error

a maniac for weekends.
FOR a weekend for maniacs.

• From this we can infer that
• Speech is planned in advance.
• Accommodation to the phonological environment
  takes place (plural pronounced /z/ instead of
  /s/).
• Order of processing is
• Selection of morpheme ? error ? application of
  phonological rule

42
Speech error regularities

• What can we learn from speech errors?

• Stress exchange

econ 'om ists FOR e con omists

• From this we can infer that
• Stress may be independent and may simply move
  from one syllable to another (unlikely
  explanation).
• The exchange may be the result of competing plans
  resulting in a blend of
• e con omists and econ 'omics.

43
Speech error regularities

• What can we learn from speech errors?

• bat a tog FOR pat a dog

• Is this a double substitution (/b/ for /p/ and
  /t/ for /d/)?
• /p/ and /t/ are vocieless plosives and /b/ and
  /d/ voiced plosives
• Better analysed as a shift of the phonetic
  feature voicing.

• From this we can infer that
• Indicates that phonetic features are
  psychologically real - phonetic features must be
  units in speech production.

44
Speech error regularities

• What can we learn from speech errors?

• Observed regularities

• Consonant-vowel rule consonants never exchange
  for vowels or vice versa
• Suggests that vowels and consonants are separate
  units in the planning of the phonological form of
  an utterance.
• Errors produce legal non-words.
• Suggests that we use phonological rules in
  production.
• Lexical bias effect spontaneous (and
  experimentally induced) speech errors are more
  likely to result in real words than non-words.
• Grammaticality effect when words are substituted
  or exchanged they typically substitute for a word
  of the same grammatical class

45
Speech error regularities

• What can we learn from speech errors?

• Implications for theories of language production

• That speech is planned in advance - anticipation
  and exchange errors indicate speaker has a
  representation of more than one word.
• Substitutions indicate that the lexicon is
  organised phonologically and semantically.
  Substitutions appear to occur after syntactic
  organisation as substitutions are always from the
  same grammatical class (noun for noun, verb for
  verb etc.).
• External influences - situation and personality
  also influence speech production.

46
Problems with speech errors

• Not an on-line technique.
• We only remember (or notice) certain types of
  errors.
• People often dont (notice or) write down errors
  which are corrected part way through the word,
  e.g. wo..wring one.

47
Problems with speech errors

• Even very carefully verified corpora of speech
  errors tend to list the error and then the
  target.
• However, there may be several possible targets.
• Saying there is one definitive target may limit
  conclusions about what type of error has actually
  occurred.
• Evidence that we are not very good at perceiving
  speech errors.

48
Problems with speech errors

• How well do we perceive speech errors?
• Ferber (1991)

• Method
• Transcripts of TV and radio were studied very
  carefully to pick out all the speech errors.

• The errors spotted by the subjects were compared
  with those that actually occurred.

49
Problems with speech errors

• How well do we perceive speech errors?
• Ferber (1991)

• Results
• Subjects missed 50 of all the errors
• And of the half they identified
• 50 were incorrectly recorded (i.e. only 25 of
  speech errors were correctly recorded).
• Conclusion We are bad at perceiving errors.

50
Experimental approaches

• Not prey to same problems as observational
  studies
• Reduces observer bias
• Isolates phenomenon of interest
• Increases potential for systematic observation
• Different problems!
• How to control input and output?
• Input ecological validity problem (controlling
  thoughts)
• Output controlling responses
• Response specification - artificiality
• Exuberant responding loss of data

51
Experimental speech errors

• Can we examine speech errors in under more
  controlled conditions?
• SLIP technique speech error elicitation
  technique
• Motley and Baars (1976)

52
Task Say the words silently as quickly as you
can Say them aloud if you hear a ring
53
dog bone
54
dust ball
55
dead bug
56
doll bed
57
darn bore
barn door
58
Experimental speech errors

• Some basic findings

• This technique has been found to elicit 30 of
  predicted speech errors.
• Lexical Bias effect error frequency affected by
  whether the error results in real words or
  non-words

More likely
wrong loot FOR long root rawn loof
FOR lawn roof
59
Experimental speech errors

• Some basic findings

• Influence of semantics (Motley, 1980)

• Hypothesis
• If preceded by phonologically and semantically
  biasing material (PS)
• If preceded by only phonologically biasing
  material (P).

Predicted to be more likely
60
Experimental speech errors

• Some basic findings

• Influence of semantics (Motley, 1980)

• Method 2 matched lists
• 20 word pairs as targets for errors
• e.g. bad mug ? mad bug
• Each preceded by 4 - 7 neutral filler word pairs

red cars
rainy days
small cats
mashed buns
mangy bears
angry insect
angled inset

• Then 4 interference word pairs
• 2 phonological PLUS

ornery fly
older flu
bad mug

• 2 semantic (SP)

• or
• semantically neutral controls (P)

61
Experimental speech errors

• Some basic findings

• Influence of semantics (Motley, 1980)

• Results More errors in the Semantic and
  Phonological (SP) condition than in the
  Phonological (P) condition.
• Conclusion
• Semantic interference may contribute to a
  distortion of the sound of a speakers intended
  utterance

62
Experimental Freudian slips?

• Motley Baars (1979)
• Hypothesis Spoonerisms more likely when the
  resulting content is congruous with the
  situational context.
• Method 90 males, same procedure previously used
  by Motley, 1980 (SLIP).
• 3 Conditions
• Electricity - expecting to get shocked
• Sex - researcher provocatively attired female
• Neutral

63
Experimental Freudian slips?

• Same word pairs in all conditions
• spoonerism targets were non-words (e.g. goxi furl
  ? foxy girl), targets preceded by 3
  phonologically biasing word pairs not
  semantically related to target words
• Some resulting errors were sexually related (S),
  some were electrically related (E)
• Bine foddy -gt fine body
• Had bock -gt bad shock

64
(No Transcript)
65
car tires
66
cat toys
67
can tops
68
cup trays
69
cool tits
tool kits
70
Experimental Freudian slips?

• Results (number of errors, by type)
• Electricity set 69 E, 31 S
• Sex set 36 E, 76 S
• Neutral set 44 E, 41 S
• Hence errors were in the expected direction.
• Conclusion subjects speech encoding systems are
  sensitive to semantic influences from their
  situational cognitive set.

71
Experimental Freudian slips?

• Hypothesis subjects with high levels of sex
  anxiety will make more sex spoonerisms than
  those with low sex anxiety.
• Method
• 36 males selected on the basis of high, medium,
  low sex anxiety (Mosher Sex-Guilt Inventory).
• SLIP task same as previous experiment but with 2
  additional Sex targets and 9 Neutral targets.

72
Experimental Freudian slips?

• Results looked at difference scores (Sex -
  Neutral)
• High sex anxiety gt medium gt low.
• Overall Sex spoonerisms gt Neutral spoonerisms.
• Conclusion appears to support Freuds view of
  sexual anxiety being revealed in Slips of the
  Tongue
• BUT the experimenters (Baars and Motley) went on
  to show that any type of anxiety, not just sexual
  produced similar results.
• SO anxiety was at play but it was more general,
  so the priming was more global.

73
Experimental speech errors

• Some basic findings

• Many of the same effects found in naturalistic
  errors are found in experimental errors
• Lexical Bias effect error frequency affected by
  whether the error results in real words or
  non-words (Motley Baars, 1976)
• Motley, (1980a) Semantic effects on phonological
  exchange speech errors
• Can isolate particular factors and get a lot of
  errors
• This technique has been found to elicit 30 of
  predicted speech errors. (Motley Baars, 1976)
• Motley, (1980b) Situational contexts can affect
  frequency and type of error

74
From thought to speech
Jane threw the ball to Bill

• General Model of Language Production
• What do speech errors suggest?
• Fromkin (1971)
• Garrett (1975)
• (And experiments too)

75
From thought to speech
Message level

• General Model of Language Production
• Ordered sequence of independent planning units
• Four levels of processing are typically proposed
• Typically they are ordered this way (but there is
  debate about the independence of the different
  levels)
• Note the similarity to models of comprehension

76
From thought to speech
Message level

• Propositions to be communicated

• Selection and organization of lexical items

• Morphologically complex words are constructed

• Sound structure of each word is built

77
From thought to speech
Message level

• Propositions to be communicated

• Not a lot known about this step
• Typically thought to be shared with comprehension
  processes, semantic networks, situational models,
  etc.

Syntactic level
Morphemic level
Phonemic level
Articulation
78
From thought to speech
Message level

• Grammatical class constraint
• Most substitutions, exchanges, and blends involve
  words of the same grammatical class
• Slots and frames
• A syntactic framework is constructed, and then
  lexical items are inserted into the slots

Syntactic level
Morphemic level
Phonemic level
Articulation
79
From thought to speech
Ross
Emily
Rachel
It was such a happy moment when Ross kissed
Rachel
80
From thought to speech
Ross
Emily
Rachel
Oops! I mean kissed Emily.
81
From thought to speech

• LEXICON
• ROSS
• KISS
• EMILY
• RACHEL

Spreading activation
82
From thought to speech

• LEXICON
• ROSS
• KISS
• EMILY
• RACHEL

If the word isnt the right grammatical class, it
wont fit into the slot.

• Grammatical class constraint

83
From thought to speech
Message level

• Grammatical class constraint
• Most substitutions, exchanges, and blends involve
  words of the same grammatical class
• Slots and frames
• A syntactic framework is constructed, and then
  lexical items are inserted into the slots
• Other evidence
• Syntactic priming

Syntactic level
Morphemic level
Phonemic level
Articulation
84
Syntactic priming

• Bock (1986) syntactic persistance tested by
  picture naming

Hear and repeat a sentence
Describe the picture
85
Syntactic priming

• a The ghost sold the werewolf a flower

• Bock (1986) syntactic persistance tested by
  picture naming

• b The ghost sold a flower to the werewolf

• a The girl gave the teacher the flowers

• b The girl gave the flowers to the teacher

86
Syntactic priming

• In real life, syntactic priming seems to occur as
  well
• Branigan, Pickering, Cleland (2000)
• Speakers tend to reuse syntactic constructions of
  other speakers
• Potter Lombardi (1998)
• Speakers tend to reuse syntactic constructions of
  just read materials

87
From thought to speech
Message level

• Stranding errors
• I liked he would hope you
• I hoped he would like you

Syntactic level

• The inflection stayed in the same location, the
  stems moved
• Inflections tend to stay in their proper place
• Do not typically see errors like
• The beeing are buzzes
• The bees are buzzing

Morphemic level
Phonemic level
Articulation
88
From thought to speech
Message level

• Stranding errors

• Closed class items very rare in exchanges or
  substitutions
• Two possibilities
• Part of syntactic frame
• High frequency, so lots of practice, easily
  selected, etc.

Syntactic level
Morphemic level
Phonemic level
Articulation
89
From thought to speech
Message level

• Consonant vowel regularity
• Consonants slip with other consonants, vowels
  with vowels, but rarely do consonants slip with
  vowels
• The implication is that vowels and consonants
  represent different kinds of units in
  phonological planning

Syntactic level
Morphemic level
Phonemic level
Articulation
90
From thought to speech
Message level

• Consonant vowel regularity
• Frame and slots in syllables
• Similar to the slots and frames we discussed with
  syntax

Syntactic level
Morphemic level
Phonemic level
Articulation
91
From thought to speech
PHONOLOGICAL FRAME

• LEXICON
• /d/, C
• /g/, C
• , V

Word
Syllable
Onset
Rhyme
V
C
C
92
From thought to speech
Message level

• Consonant vowel regularity
• Frame and slots in syllables
• Evidence for the separation of meaning and sound

Syntactic level

• Tip of the tongue
• Picture-word interference

Morphemic level
Phonemic level
Articulation
93
Tip-of-the-tongue
An instrument used by navigators for measuring
the angular distance of the sun, a star, etc.
from the horizon
94
Tip-of-the-tongue
Uhh It is a.. You know.. A.. Arggg. I can
almost see it, it has two Syllables, I think it
starts with A ..

• TOT
• Meaning access
• No (little) phonological access
• What about syntax?

95
Tip-of-the-tongue

• The rhythm of the lost word may be there without
  the sound to clothe it or the evanescent sense
  of something which is the initial vowel or
  consonant may mock us fitfully, without growing
  more distinct. (James, 1890, p. 251)

96
Tip-of-the-tongue

• Brown McNeill (1966)

• Low-frequency words (e.g., apse, nepotism,
  sampan), prompted by brief definitions.
• On 8.5 of trials, tip-of-the-tongue state
  ensued
• Had to guess
• word's first or last letters
• the number of syllables it contained
• which syllable was stressed

97
Tip-of-the-tongue

• Brown McNeill (1966)

• Total of 360 TOT states
• 233 "positive TOTs" (subject was thinking of
  target word, and produced scorable data
• 127 "negative TOTs" (subject was thinking of
  other word, but could not recall it)
• 224 similar-sound TOTs (e.g., Saipan for sampan)
• 48 had the same number of syllables as the
  target
• 95 similar-meaning TOTs (e.g., houseboat for
  sampan).
• 20 had same number of syllables as target. 

98
Tip-of-the-tongue

• Similar words come to mind about half the time
• but how much is just guessing?
• First letter correct 50-71 of time (vs. 10 by
  chance)
• First sound 36 of time (vs. 6 by chance)

99
Tip-of-the-tongue

• Results suggest a basic split between
  semantics/syntax and phonology
• People can access meaning and grammar but not
  pronunciation

100
Tip-of-the-tongue

• Semantics
• Syntax
• grammatical category (part of speech)
• e.g. noun, verb, adjective
• Gender
• e.g. le chien, la vache le camion, la voiture
• Number
• e.g. dog vs. dogs trousers vs. shirt
• Count/mass status
• e.g. oats vs. flour

101
Tip-of-the-tongue

• Vigliocco et al. (1997)
• Subjects (Italian speakers) presented with word
  definitions
• Gender was always arbitrary
• If unable to retrieve word, they answered
• How well do you think you know the word?
• Guess the gender
• Guess the number of syllables
• Guess as many letters and positions as possible
• Report any word that comes to mind
• Then presented with target word
• Do you know this word?
• Is this the word you were thinking of?

102
Vigliocco et al (1997)

• Vigliocco et al. (1997)

• Scoring
• TOT
• Both reported some correct information in
  questionnaire
• And said yes to recognition question
• - TOT
• Otherwise

103
Vigliocco et al (1997)

• Vigliocco et al. (1997)

• Results
• TOT 84 correct gender guess
• - TOT 53 correct gender guess
• chance level
• Conclusion
• Subjects often know grammatical gender
  information even when they have no phonological
  information
• Supports split between syntax and phonology in
  production

104
Nitty-gritty details of the model
Message level

• Central questions
• How many levels are there?
• Are the stages discrete or cascading?
• Discrete must complete before moving on
• Cascade can get started as soon as some
  information is available
• Is there feedback?
• Top-down only (serial processing)
• Garrett, Levelt
• Bottom up too (interactive processing)
• Dell, Stemberger, McKay

105
Doing it in time

• Strongest constraint may be fluency
• Have to get form right under time pressure.
• Incrementality
• Work with what youve got
• Flexibility allows speaker to say something
  quickly, also respond to changing environment.
• Modularity
• Work only with what youve got
• Regulate flow of information.

106
Two different models
Dell (1986)
Levelt (1989)
TACTIC FRAMES
LEXICAL NETWORK
107
Levelts model

• Four broad stages
• Conceptualization
• Deciding on the message ( meaning to express)
• Formulation
• Turning the message into linguistic
  representations
• Grammatical encoding (finding words and putting
  them together)
• Phonological encoding (finding sounds and putting
  them together)
• Articulation
• Speaking (or writing or signing)
• Monitoring (via the comprehension system)

108
Levelts model

• Formalization on the Syntax side of the model
• Works in parallel with the lexicon side

109
Levelts model

• Formalization on the Syntax side of the model
• Works in parallel with the lexicon side

Positional processing Build syntactic tree
110
Levelts model

• Formalization on the Lexicon side of the model

• Involves lexical retrieval
• Semantic/syntactic content (lemmas)
• Phonological content (lexemes or word-forms)

• Tip of tongue state when lemma is retrieved
  without word-form being retrieved

111
Levelts model (see chpt 5, pg 115-117)
has stripes
is dangerous
TIGER (X)
Lexical concepts
Noun
tigre
Lemmas
Fem.
countable
/tigre/
Lexemes
/t/
/I/
/g/
Phonemes
112
Levelts model conceptual level
has stripes
is dangerous

• Conceptual level is not decomposed
• one lexical concept node for tiger
• instead, conceptual links from tiger to
  stripes, etc.

TIGER (X)
Noun
tigre
Fem.
countable
/tigre/
/t/
/I/
/g/
113
Levelts model meaning syntax

• First, lemma activation occurs
• This involves activating a lemma or lemmas
  corresponding to the concept
• thus, concept TIGER activates lemma tiger

has stripes
is dangerous
TIGER (X)
Noun
tigre
Fem.
countable
/tigre/
/t/
/I/
/g/
114
Levelts model meaning syntax

• First, lemma activation occurs
• This involves activating a lemma or lemmas
  corresponding to the concept
• thus, concept TIGER activates lemma tiger

has stripes
is dangerous
TIGER (X)
LION (X)
Noun

• But also involves activating other lemmas
• TIGER also activates LION (etc.) to some extent
• and LION activates lemma lion

tigre
lion
Fem.
/tigre/
/t/
/I/
/g/
115
Levelts model meaning syntax

• First, lemma activation occurs
• Second, lemma selection occurs

has stripes
is dangerous

• Selection is different from activation
• Only one lemma is selected
• Probability of selecting the target lemma
  (tiger)
• ratio of that lemmas activation to the total
  activation of all lemmas (tiger, lion, etc.)
• Hence competition between semantically related
  lemmas

TIGER (X)
LION (X)
Noun
tigre
lion
Fem.
/tigre/
/t/
/I/
/g/
116
Morpho-phonological encoding (and beyond)

• The lemma is now converted into a phonological
  representation
• called word-form (or lexeme)
• If tiger lemma plus plural (and noun) are
  activated
• Leads to activation of morphemes tigre and s
• Other processes too
• Stress, phonological segments, phonetics, and
  finally articulation

has stripes
is dangerous
TIGER (X)
Noun
countable
tigre
Fem.
/tigre/
/t/
/I/
/g/
117
Models assumptions

• Modularity
• Later processes cannot affect earlier processes
• No feedback between the word-form (lexemes) layer
  and the grammatical (lemmas) layer
• Also, only one lemma activates a word form
• If tiger and lion lemmas are activated, they
  compete to produce a winner at the lemma stratum
• Only the winner activates a word form
  (selection)
• The word-forms for the losers arent accessed

118
Dells interactive account

• Dell (1986) presented the one of the best-known
  interactive accounts
• other similar accounts exist (e.g., Stemberger,
  McKay)
• Network organization
• 3 levels of representation
• Semantics (decomposed into features)
• Words and morphemes
• phonemes (sounds)
• These get selected and inserted into frames

119
Dells interactive account

• Dell (1986)
• A moment in the production of
• Some swimmers sink

TACTIC FRAMES
LEXICAL NETWORK
120
Dells interactive account
Dell (1986)
TACTIC FRAMES
LEXICAL NETWORK
information

• as well as downwards

• Cascading because processing at lower levels can
  start early

121
Dells interactive account
Dell (1986)
FURRY
BARKS
MAMMAL

• e.g., the semantic features mammal, barks,
  four-legs activate the word dog

• this activates the sounds /d/, /o/, /g/

dog
log
dot

• these send activation back to the word level,
  activating words containing these sounds (e.g.,
  log, dot) to some extent

/a/
/g/
/d/
/l/
/t/
this activation is upwards (phonology to syntax)
and wouldnt occur in Levelts account
122
Model comparisons
Similar representations Frames and
slots Insertion of representations into the frames
Similarities

• Levelts

Dells
Serial Modular External monitor (comprehension)
Interactive Cascaded
Differences
123
Testing Models of language production

• Experimental investigations of some of these
  issues
• Time course - cascading vs serial
• Picture word interference
• Separation of syntax and semantics
• Subject verb agreement
• Abstract syntax vs surface form
• Syntactic priming

124
Experimental tests

• Picture-word interference task
• Task
• Participants name basic objects as quickly as
  possible
• Distractor words are embedded in the object (or
  presented aloud)
• Participants are instructed to ignore these words

tiger
125
Experimental tests

• Picture-word interference task

• Semantic interference
• Meaning related words can slow down naming the
  picture
• e.g., the word TIGER in a picture of a LION

tiger
126
Experimental tests

• Picture-word interference task

• Semantic interference

• Form-related words can speed up processing
• e.g., the word liar in a picture of a LION

liar
127
Experimental tests
liar
liar
liar
time

• Experiments manipulate timing
• picture and word can be presented simultaneously

• or one can slightly precede the other

• We draw inferences about time-course of processing

128
Evidence against interactivity

• Schriefers, Meyer, and Levelt (1990)
• DOT phonologically related
• CAT semantically related
• SHIP unrelated word

• SOA (Stimulus onset asynchrony) manipulation
• -150 ms (word 150 ms picture)
• 0 ms (i.e., synchronous presentation)
• 150 ms (picture 150ms word)

129
Evidence against interactivity

• Schriefers, Meyer, and Levelt (1990)
• DOT phonologically related
• CAT semantically related
• SHIP unrelated word

Early Only Semantic effects
Late Only Phonological effects
130
Evidence against interactivity

• Schriefers, Meyer, and Levelt (1990)
• Also looked for any evidence of a mediated
  priming effect

DOG (X)
CAT (X)
dog
cat
hat
/cat/
/hat/

• Found no evidence for it

/t/
/a/
/k/
/h/
131
Interpretation

• Early semantic inhibition
• Late phonological facilitation
• Fits with the assumption that semantic processing
  precedes phonological processing
• No overlap
• suggests two discrete stages in production
• an interactive account might find semantic and
  phonological effects at the same time

132
Evidence for interactivity

• Mixed errors
• Both semantic and phonological relationship to
  target word
• Target cat
• semantic error dog
• phonological error hat
• mixed error rat
• Occur more often than predicted by modular models
  
• if you can go wrong at either stage, it would
  only be by chance that an error would be mixed

133
Evidence for interactivity

• Dells explanation
• The process of making an error
• The semantic features of dog activate cat
• Some features (e.g., animate, mammalian) activate
  rat as well
• cat then activates the sounds /k/, /ae/, /t/
• /ae/ and /t/ activate rat by feedback
• This confluence of activation leads to increased
  tendency for rat to be uttered
• Also explains the tendency for phonological
  errors to be real words (lexical bias effect)
• Sounds can only feed back to words (non-words not
  represented) so only words can feedback to sound
  level

134
Evidence for interactivity

• A number of recent experimental findings appear
  to support interaction under some circumstances
  (or at least cascading models)
• Damian Martin (1999)
• Cutting Ferreira (1999)
• Peterson Savoy (1998)

135
Evidence for interactivity

• Damian and Martin (1999)
• Picture-Word interference
• The critical difference
• the addition of a semantic and phonological
  condition
• Picture of Apple
• peach (semantically related)
• apathy (phonologically related)
• apricot (sem phono related)
• couch (unrelated)

peach
136
Evidence for interactivity

• Damian Martin (1999)

couch (unrelated) peach (semantically
related) apathy (phonologically related) apricot
(sem phono related)

• early semantic inhibition

137
Evidence for interactivity

• Damian Martin (1999)

couch (unrelated) peach (semantically
related) apathy (phonologically related) apricot
(sem phono related)

• early semantic inhibition

• late phonological facilitation (0 and 150 ms)

138
Evidence for interactivity

• Damian Martin (1999)

couch (unrelated) peach (semantically
related) apathy (phonologically related) apricot
(sem phono related)

• early semantic inhibition

• late phonological facilitation (0 and 150 ms)
• Shows overlap, unlike Schriefers et al.

139
Evidence for interactivity

• Cutting and Ferreira (1999)
• Picture-Word interference
• The critical difference
• Used homophone pictures
• Related distractors could be to the depicted
  meaning or alternative meaning
• game
• dance
• hammer (unrelated)
• Only tested -150 SOA

140
Evidence for interactivity

• Cutting and Ferreira (1999)

BALL (X)
BALL (X)
DANCE (X)
GAME (X)
ball
ball
dance
game
/ball/
Cascading Prediction
dance
ball
/ball/
141
Evidence for interactivity

• Cutting and Ferreira (1999)

• Early semantic inhibition

142
Evidence for interactivity

• Cutting and Ferreira (1999)

• Early semantic inhibition

• Early Facilitation from a phonologically mediated
  distractor

• Evidence of cascading information flow (both
  semantic and phonological information at early
  SOA)

143
Evidence for interactivity

• Peterson Savoy (1998)
• Slightly different task
• Prepare to name the picture
• If ? comes up name it

?
144
Evidence for interactivity

• Peterson Savoy (1998)
• Slightly different task
• Prepare to name the picture
• If ? comes up name it
• If a word comes up instead, name the word

liar

• Manipulate
• Word/picture relationship
• SOA

145
Evidence for interactivity

• Peterson Savoy (1998)
• Used pictures with two synonymous names

Dominant
Subordinate

• Used words that were phonologically related to
  the non dominant name of the picture

sofa
couch
146
Evidence for interactivity

• Peterson Savoy
• Found evidence for phonological activation of
  near synonyms
• Participants slower to say distractor soda than
  unrelated distractor when naming couch
• Soda is related to non-selected sofa
• Remember that Levelt et al. assume that only one
  lemma can be selected and hence activate a
  phonological form
• Levelt et als explanation Could be erroneous
  selection of two lemmas?

147
Can the two-stage account be saved?

• Evidence for interaction is hard to reconcile
  with the Levelt account
• However, most attempts are likely to revolve
  around the monitor
• Basically, people sometimes notice a problem and
  screen it out
• Levelt argues that evidence for interaction
  really involves special cases, not directly
  related to normal processing

148
Overall summary

• Levelt et al.s theory of word production
• Strictly modular lexical access
• Syntactic processing precedes phonological
  processing
• Dells interactive account
• Interaction between syntactic and phonological
  processing
• Experimental evidence is equivocal, but
  increasing evidence that more than one lemma may
  activate associated word-form

149
Conversational interaction

• ABBOTT Super Duper computer store. Can I help
  you?
• COSTELLO Thanks. I'm setting up an office in my
  den, and I'm thinking about buying a computer.
• ABBOTT Mac?
• COSTELLO No, the name is Lou.
• ABBOTT Your computer?
• COSTELLO I don't own a computer. I want to buy
  one.
• ABBOTT Mac?
• COSTELLO I told you, my name is Lou.
• ABBOTT What about Windows?
• COSTELLO Why? Will it get stuffy in here?
• ABBOTT Do you want a computer with windows?
• COSTELLO I don't know. What will I see when I
  look in the windows?
• ABBOTT Wallpaper.
• COSTELLO Never mind the windows. I need a
  computer and software.
• ABBOTT Software for windows?
• COSTELLO No. On the computer! I need something I
  can use to write proposals, track expenses and
  run my business. What have you got?
• ABBOTT Office.

150
Conversational interaction

• COSTELLO Yeah, for my office. Can you recommend
  anything?
• ABBOTT I just did.
• COSTELLO You just did what?
• ABBOTT Recommend something.
• COSTELLO You recommended something?
• ABBOTT Yes.
• COSTELLO For my office?
• ABBOTT Yes.
• COSTELLO OK, what did you recommend for my
  office?
• ABBOTT Office.
• COSTELLO Yes, for my office!
• ABBOTT I recommend office with windows.
• COSTELLO I already have an office and it has
  windows!OK, lets just say, I'm sitting at my
  computer and I want to type a proposal. What do I
  need?
• ABBOTT Word.
• COSTELLO What word?
• ABBOTT Word in Office.
• COSTELLO The only word in office is office.
• ABBOTT The Word in Office for Windows.

151
Conversational interaction

• COSTELLO Which word in office for windows?
• ABBOTT The Word you get when you click the blue
  "W.
• COSTELLO I'm going to click your blue "w" if you
  don't start with some straight answers. OK,
  forget that. Can I watch movies on the Internet?
• ABBOTT Yes, you want Real One.
• COSTELLO Maybe a real one, maybe a cartoon.
  What I watch is none of your business. Just tell
  me what I need!
• ABBOTT Real One.
• COSTELLO If its a long movie I also want to see
  reel 2, 3 and 4. Can I watch them?
• ABBOTT Of course.
• COSTELLO Great, with what?
• ABBOTT Real One.
• COSTELLO OK, I'm at my computer and I want to
  watch a movie. What do I do?
• ABBOTT You click the blue "1.
• COSTELLO I click the blue one what?
• ABBOTT The blue "1.
• COSTELLO Is that different from the blue "W"?
• ABBOTT The blue 1 is Real One and the blue W is
  Word.
• COSTELLO What word?

152
Conversational interaction

• ABBOTT The Word in Office for Windows.
• COSTELLO But there are three words in "office
  for windows"!
• ABBOTT No, just one. But its the most popular
  Word in the world.
• COSTELLO It is?
• ABBOTT Yes, but to be fair, there aren't many
  other Words left. It pretty much wiped out all
  the other Words.
• COSTELLO And that word is real one?
• ABBOTT Real One has nothing to do with Word.
  Real One isn't even Part of Office.
• COSTELLO Stop! Don't start that again. What
  about financial bookkeeping you have anything I
  can track my money with?
• ABBOTT Money.
• COSTELLO That's right. What do you have?
• ABBOTT Money.
• COSTELLO I need money to track my money?
• ABBOTT It comes bundled with your computer.
• COSTELLO What's bundled to my computer?
• ABBOTT Money.

153
Conversational interaction

• COSTELLO Money comes with my computer?
• ABBOTT Yes. No extra charge.
• COSTELLO I get a bundle of money with my
  computer? How much?
• ABBOTT One copy.
• COSTELLO Isn't it illegal to copy money?
• ABBOTT Microsoft gave us a license to copy
  money.
• COSTELLO They can give you a license to copy
  money?
• ABBOTT Why not? THEY OWN IT!
• (LATER)
• COSTELLO How do I turn my computer off??
• ABBOTT Click on "START".

154
Conversational interaction
the horse raced past the barn
the kids swam across the river
Conversation is more than just two side-by-side
monologues.
155
Conversational interaction
The horse raced past the barn
Really? Why would it do that?
Conversation is a specialized form of social
interaction, with rules and organization.
156
Conversation

• Fillmore (1981)

The language of face-to-face conversation is