Title: PSY 369: Psycholinguistics
1PSY 369 Psycholinguistics
- Language Production
- Introduction
2Announcements
- 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.
3Some 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
4What 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.
5Undesirable 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
6What 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.
7Getting 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.
8Getting 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).
9Getting 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).
10Getting 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
11Methodologies
- 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
12Whats 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
13Common 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?
14Methodologies Observational
- Naturally occurring speech
15Methodologies Observational
- Naturally occurring speech
16Methodologies Observational
- Naturally occurring speech errors
17Picture naming description
swan
18Picture naming description
swing
19Picture 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
20Picture-word interference task
- Name the picture (While ignoring the word)
tiger
21Neurophysiological 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?
22Brief 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
23Speech 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.
24Speech 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?
25Speech 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)
26Freudian 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)
27Freudian 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)?
28Freudian slips
- 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).
29Freudian slips
- 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)
30Freudian slips
- 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.
31Speech 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)
32Speech 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.
33Speech 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.
34Speech 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.
35Speech 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.
36Speech 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.
37Speech 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.
38Speech errors
- Classifications and examples of speech errors?
- Deletion something is omitted
..mutter intelligibly. FOR ..mutter
unintelligibly.
39Speech 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.
40Speech errors
- Frequency of units in errors
- Different sized units can slip
- Suggestions of building blocks of production
41Speech 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
42Speech error regularities
- What can we learn from speech errors?
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.
43Speech error regularities
- What can we learn from speech errors?
- 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.
44Speech error regularities
- What can we learn from speech errors?
- 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
45Speech 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.
46Problems 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.
47Problems 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.
48Problems 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.
49Problems 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.
50Experimental 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
51Experimental speech errors
- Can we examine speech errors in under more
controlled conditions? - SLIP technique speech error elicitation
technique - Motley and Baars (1976)
52Task Say the words silently as quickly as you
can Say them aloud if you hear a ring
53dog bone
54dust ball
55dead bug
56doll bed
57darn bore
barn door
58Experimental speech errors
- 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
59Experimental speech errors
- 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
60Experimental speech errors
- 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
- or
- semantically neutral controls (P)
61Experimental speech errors
- 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
62Experimental 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
63Experimental 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)
65car tires
66cat toys
67can tops
68cup trays
69cool tits
tool kits
70Experimental 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.
71Experimental 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.
72Experimental 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.
73Experimental speech errors
- 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
74From 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)
75From 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
76From 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
77From 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
78From 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
79From thought to speech
Ross
Emily
Rachel
It was such a happy moment when Ross kissed
Rachel
80From thought to speech
Ross
Emily
Rachel
Oops! I mean kissed Emily.
81From thought to speech
- LEXICON
- ROSS
- KISS
- EMILY
- RACHEL
Spreading activation
82From 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
83From 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
84Syntactic priming
- Bock (1986) syntactic persistance tested by
picture naming
Hear and repeat a sentence
Describe the picture
85Syntactic 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
86Syntactic 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
87From 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
88From thought to speech
Message level
- 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
89From 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
90From 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
91From thought to speech
PHONOLOGICAL FRAME
- LEXICON
- /d/, C
- /g/, C
- , V
Word
Syllable
Onset
Rhyme
V
C
C
92From 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
93Tip-of-the-tongue
An instrument used by navigators for measuring
the angular distance of the sun, a star, etc.
from the horizon
94Tip-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?
95Tip-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)
96Tip-of-the-tongue
- 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
97Tip-of-the-tongue
- 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.Â
98Tip-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)
99Tip-of-the-tongue
- Results suggest a basic split between
semantics/syntax and phonology - People can access meaning and grammar but not
pronunciation
100Tip-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
101Tip-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?
102Vigliocco et al (1997)
- Scoring
- TOT
- Both reported some correct information in
questionnaire - And said yes to recognition question
- - TOT
- Otherwise
103Vigliocco 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
104Nitty-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
105Doing 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.
106Two different models
Dell (1986)
Levelt (1989)
TACTIC FRAMES
LEXICAL NETWORK
107Levelts 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)
108Levelts model
- Formalization on the Syntax side of the model
- Works in parallel with the lexicon side
109Levelts model
- Formalization on the Syntax side of the model
- Works in parallel with the lexicon side
Positional processing Build syntactic tree
110Levelts 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
111Levelts 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
112Levelts 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/
113Levelts 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/
114Levelts 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/
115Levelts 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/
116Morpho-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/
117Models 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
118Dells 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
119Dells interactive account
- Dell (1986)
- A moment in the production of
- Some swimmers sink
TACTIC FRAMES
LEXICAL NETWORK
120Dells interactive account
Dell (1986)
TACTIC FRAMES
LEXICAL NETWORK
information
- Cascading because processing at lower levels can
start early
121Dells 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
122Model comparisons
Similar representations Frames and
slots Insertion of representations into the frames
Similarities
Dells
Serial Modular External monitor (comprehension)
Interactive Cascaded
Differences
123Testing 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
124Experimental 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
125Experimental 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
126Experimental tests
- Picture-word interference task
- Form-related words can speed up processing
- e.g., the word liar in a picture of a LION
liar
127Experimental 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
128Evidence 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)
129Evidence against interactivity
- Schriefers, Meyer, and Levelt (1990)
- DOT phonologically related
- CAT semantically related
- SHIP unrelated word
Early Only Semantic effects
Late Only Phonological effects
130Evidence 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/
/t/
/a/
/k/
/h/
131Interpretation
- 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
132Evidence 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
133Evidence 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
134Evidence 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)
135Evidence 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
136Evidence for interactivity
couch (unrelated) peach (semantically
related) apathy (phonologically related) apricot
(sem phono related)
- early semantic inhibition
137Evidence for interactivity
couch (unrelated) peach (semantically
related) apathy (phonologically related) apricot
(sem phono related)
- early semantic inhibition
- late phonological facilitation (0 and 150 ms)
138Evidence for interactivity
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.
139Evidence 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
140Evidence for interactivity
- Cutting and Ferreira (1999)
BALL (X)
BALL (X)
DANCE (X)
GAME (X)
ball
ball
dance
game
/ball/
Cascading Prediction
dance
ball
/ball/
141Evidence for interactivity
- Cutting and Ferreira (1999)
- Early semantic inhibition
142Evidence 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)
143Evidence for interactivity
- Peterson Savoy (1998)
- Slightly different task
- Prepare to name the picture
- If ? comes up name it
?
144Evidence 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
145Evidence 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
146Evidence 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?
147Can 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
148Overall 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
149Conversational 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.
150Conversational 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.
151Conversational 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?
152Conversational 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.
153Conversational 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".
154Conversational interaction
the horse raced past the barn
the kids swam across the river
Conversation is more than just two side-by-side
monologues.
155Conversational 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.
156Conversation
The language of face-to-face conversation is