View
223
Download
3
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
PSY 369: Psycholinguistics
Language Production:A General Model
From thought to speech
Jane threw the ball to Bill
What do speech errors suggest? Productivity Advanced planning
From thought to speech Propositions to be communicatedMessage level
Morphemic level
Syntactic level
Phonemic level
Articulation
Selection and organization of lexical items
Morphologically complex words are constructed
Sound structure of each word is built
From thought to speech Propositions to be communicatedMessage level
Syntactic level
Morphemic level
Phonemic level
Articulation
Not a lot known about this step Typically thought to be shared with
comprehension processes, semantic networks, situational models, etc.
From thought to speech 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
Message level
Syntactic level
Morphemic level
Phonemic level
Articulation
From thought to speech
It was such a happy moment when Ross
kissed Rachel…
Ross
Em
ily
Rachel
From thought to speech
… Oops! I mean “kissed Emily.”
Ross
Em
ily
Rachel
From thought to speech
LEXICON
•ROSS
•KISS
•EMILY
•RACHEL
SYNTACTIC FRAME
NP
S
VP
V(past) NN
Spreading activation
From thought to speech
LEXICON
•ROSS
•KISS
•EMILY
•RACHEL
SYNTACTIC FRAME
NP
S
VP
V(past) NN
Grammatical class constraint:
If the word isn’t the right grammatical class, it won’t “fit” into the slot.
From thought to speech Grammatical class constraint
Most substitutions, exchanges, and blends involve words of the same grammatical class
Slots and frames Other evidence
Syntactic priming
Message level
Syntactic level
Morphemic level
Phonemic level
Articulation
Hear and repeat a sentence
Describe the picture
Bock (1986): syntactic persistance tested by picture naming
Syntactic priming
a: The ghost sold the werewolf a flowerb: The ghost sold a flower to the werewolf
Bock (1986): syntactic persistance tested by picture naming
Syntactic priming
b: The girl gave the flowers to the teacher
a: The girl gave the teacher the flowers
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
From thought to speech
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 buzzesThe bees are buzzing
Message level
Syntactic level
Morphemic level
Phonemic level
Articulation
Stranding errors
I liked he would hope you
I hoped he would like you
From thought to speech
Closed class items very rare in exchanges or substitutions
Two possibilities Part of syntactic frame High frequency, so lots of practice,
easily selected, etc.
Message level
Syntactic level
Morphemic level
Phonemic level
Articulation
Stranding errors
From thought to speech
Message level
Syntactic level
Morphemic level
Phonemic level
Articulation
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
From thought to speech
Message level
Syntactic level
Morphemic level
Phonemic level
Articulation
Consonant vowel regularity Frame and slots in syllables
Similar to the slots and frames we discussed with syntax
From thought to speech
LEXICON
•/d/, C
•/g/, C
• , VOnset
Word
Rhyme
V CC
PHONOLOGICAL FRAME
Syllable
From thought to speech
Message level
Syntactic level
Morphemic level
Phonemic level
Articulation
Consonant vowel regularity Frame and slots in syllables Evidence for the separation of
meaning and sound Tip of the tongue Picture-word interference
Eliciting tips-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)
Tip-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
Brown & McNeill (1966)
Tip-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.
Tip-of-the-tongue Brown & McNeill (1966)
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)
Tip-of-the-tongue
Results suggest a basic split between semantics/syntax and phonology: People can access meaning and grammar
but not pronunciation
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
Tip-of-the-tongue
Vigliocco et al. (1997) Subjects 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?
Tip-of-the-tongue
Vigliocco et al (1997)
Scoring + TOT
Both reported some correct information in questionnaire
And said yes to recognition question - TOT
Otherwise
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
Vigliocco et al. (1997)
Central questions How many levels are there? What is the scope of planning? Are the stages discrete or cascading? Is there feedback in lexicalization:
interactive or not?
conceptual level
Animal
Quakes
Jumpslemma level frog
noun
male
+s
lexeme level /frog/
/f/r/o/g/
stress
syllables
How many levels?
conceptual level
lemma level frog
lexeme level /frog/
STAGE 1
STAGE 2
How many levels?
Levelt et al. (1991): EARLY PRIMING: KANGEROO => FROG
Temporal evidence for the 2-stage modelstage 1: conceptual => lemma
conceptual level
Animal
Quakes
Jumpslemma level frog
noun
male
+s
Levelt et al. (1991): LATE PRIMING: FROCK => FROG
Animal
Quakes
Jumpslemma level frog
noun
male
+s
lexeme level /frog/
/f/r/o/g/
stress
syllables
Temporal evidence for the 2-stage modelstage 1: conceptual => lemma
b: Are the stages discrete or cascading?
conceptual level
lemma level
lexeme level/frog/
STAGE 1
STAGE 2
kangeroograsshopper
/frog/
/grasshopper/
/kangeroo/??
b: Discrete vs. cascading put to the test: the mediated priming paradigm
lemma level
sheep
lexeme level /sheep/
STAGE 1
STAGE 2
goat
Does sheep prime goal?
/goat/
/goal/ /sheet/
?
b: The mediated priming paradigm: Does sheep prime goal?
naming: 600 ms
150 ms 125 ms 325 msV Lem Lex sheep
goal or goat or sheet or mukl: button yes/no-rt
a: Discrete vs. cascading put to the test: the mediated priming paradigm
lemma level
sheep
lexeme level/sheep/
STAGE 1
STAGE 2
goat
/goat/
/goal/ /sheet/
Does sheep prime goal? Cascaders would say yes
a: Discrete vs. cascading put to the test: the mediated priming paradigm
lemma level
sheep
lexeme level/sheep/
STAGE 1
STAGE 2
goat
/goat/
/goal/ /sheet/
Does sheep prime goal? Discreters would say no
a: Discrete vs. cascading put to the test: the mediated priming paradigm
lemma level
sheep
lexeme level/frog/
STAGE 1
STAGE 2
goat
Levelt (1991): mediated priming doesn’t work
/goat/
/goal/ /frock/
b: The mediated priming paradigm: Does sheep prime goal?
150 ms 125 ms 325 msV Lem Lex sheep
goal or goat or sheet or mukl: button yes/no-rt
GOAT SHEET
GOAL
a: Discrete vs. cascading put to the test: the mediated priming paradigm
lemma level
couch
lexeme level/couch/
STAGE 1
STAGE 2
sofa
/sofa/
/soda/
Peterson & Savoy (1998): Yes it does: couch primes soda via sofa
sheep – goat: categorical associates
sofa – couch: near synonyms
c: Are the stages interactive? (Levelt, no)
conceptual level
lemma level frog
lexeme level /frog/
STAGE 1
STAGE 2
c: Are the stages interactive? (Dell, Laine, yes)
conceptual level
lemma level frog
lexeme level /frog/
STAGE 1
STAGE 2
From thought to speech How does a mental concept get turned into a spoken utterance? Levelt, 1989, 4 stages of production:
1 Conceptualising: we conceptualise what we wish to communicate (“mentalese”).
2 Formulating: we formulate what we want to say into a linguistic plan.– Lexicalisation
– Lemma Selection– Lexeme (or Phonological Form) Selection
– Syntactic Planning3 Articulating: we execute the plan through muscles in the vocal tract.4 Self-monitoring: we monitor our speech to assess whether it is what we
intended to say, and how we intended to say it.
Models of production As in comprehension, there are serial
(modular) and interactive models Serial models - Garrett, Levelt et al. Interactive models - Stemberger, Dell
Levelt’s monitoring stage (originally proposed by Baars) can explain much of the data that is said to favour interaction between earlier levels
An model of sentence production Three broad stages:
Conceptualisation 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)
Message
Lexicon
Grammatical
Form
Articulation
FunctionalProcessing
PositionalProcessing
An model of sentence 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
Recommended