PSY 369: Psycholinguistics

PSY 369: Psycholinguistics

Language Production:Introduction

Announcements Homework 7 (Due April 22) 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.

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

What we don’t do

Dr. C: How much money is there in my current account and in my deposit account?

<SILENCE>Dr. C: Hello?

<SILENCE>Computer: Colourless green ideas sleeeeeep furiously.Dr. C: How much money is there in my current account and in my deposit account?

<SILENCE>Computer: Your current a-ccount encompasses two hundred dollars. I cannot access how..<SILENCE>.. in your deposit account money much is there.

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’

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.

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.

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).



Serious structural anomalies (unparseable)

I cannot access how in your deposit account money much is there.

0.5% utterances (Deese 1984).



Sound/word errors

Can you put the desk back on my book when you’ve finished with it?It’ll 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

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

What’s 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

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?

Naturally occurring speech

Fluent speech: Sentence types, verb forms, prosodic markers, etc

(Deese, 1984) Distribution of extraposed structures (Arnold, et al.,

2000) – “Sandy picked the freshly baked apple pie up.” vs. “Sandy picked up the freshly baked apple pie.”

Distribution of thuh vs thee (Clark & Fox-Tree, 1997)

Methodologies: Observational

Naturally occurring speech

Disfluent speech: Scope of utterance planning (Ford & Holmes, 1978;

Beattie, 1983) Error detection and correction (Levelt, 1983)

Distribution of “um” & “uh” (Clark & Fox-Tree, 1997)


Naturally occurring speech errors

"The law I sign today directs new funds and new focus to the task of collecting vital intelligence on terrorist threats and on weapons of mass production.” George W. Bush

"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again." George W. Bush

"For seven and a half years I've worked alongside President Reagan.We've had triumphs. Made some mistakes. We've had some sex ... uh...setbacks.” George Bush Sr.


Picture naming & descriptionName these pictures

“swan”

Picture naming & description

“swing”

Name these pictures

Picture naming & descriptionDescribe the action in this picture

“The girl is throwing a ball to the boy”

“The girl is throwing the boy a ball”

Picture-word interference taskName the picture (While ignoring the word)

tiger

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?

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

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

..we’ll have the hags flung out

FOR ... Battle ships and cruisers

FOR ... customary to kiss the bride

FOR ... Cosy little nook

Cattle ships and bruisers

FOR ... ..we’ll have the flags hung out

kisstomary to cuss the bride.

you’ve tasted two worms” FOR ... .. you’ve wasted two terms

Speech errors What errors tell us about correct speech:

How are speech errors collected? Observational and experimental approaches

What can we learn from speech errors? Classifications and examples of speech

errors?

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)

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)

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. He’s 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)?

Freudian slips

Of the 94 errors listed in Freud’s Psychopathology of Everyday Life, 85 were made in normal speech.

Ellis, (1980)

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).

Freudian slips

Of the 94 errors listed in Freud’s Psychopathology of Everyday Life, 85 were made in normal speech.

Ellis, (1980)

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)

Freudian slips

Conclusion: it appears that “Freud’s theory can be translated into the language of modern psycholinguistic production models without excessive difficulty.”

Ellis, (1980) Of the 94 errors listed in Freud’s Psychopathology of

Everyday Life, 85 were made in normal speech.

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

Speech error regularities What can we learn from speech errors?

Recommended reading: Um… Slips, Stumbles, and Verbal Blunders, and What they Mean, by Michael Erard (2007)

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

Speech errors

..in case she decide FOR ...in case she decidesto hits it. to hit it

Classifications and examples of speech errors?

“a maniac for weekends.” FOR “a weekend for maniacs.”

Also see table 13.1 in textbook

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.


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

Speech errors

It's a meal mystery FOR .. It's a real mystery

..bake my bike. FOR .. take my bike.


give the goy FOR .. give the boy

Speech errors

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

..he pulled a pantrum. FOR ..he pulled a tantrum.


I didn’t explain it clarefully enough

Speech errors

Addition: something is added to the target utterance

FOR I didn’t explain it carefully enough.


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

Speech errors

didn’t bother me FOR didn’t bother mein the sleast. in the least/slightest.


Deletion: something is omitted

Speech errors

..mutter intelligibly. FOR ..mutter unintelligibly.


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

Speech errors

“Jack” is the president FOR “Jack” is the subject of the sentence. of the sentence.

I’m stuttering FOR I’m studying psycholinguistics. psycholinguistics.


Speech errors Frequency of units in errors

Different sized units can slip Suggestions of “building blocks” of production

Estimates of frequencies of linguistic units in exchange errors (Bock, 1991)

10% 20% 30% 40%

Sentence

> SyllableSyllable

VC or CVCluster

PhonemeFeature

PhraseWord

Morpheme

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


If we look at the shift error

“a maniac for weekends.” FOR “a weekend for maniacs.”

Stress exchange:

What can we learn from speech errors?

Speech error regularities

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.

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.

“bat a tog” FOR “pat a dog”

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



Observed regularities

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.


Implications for theories of language production

Problems with speech errors Not an on-line technique. We only remember (or notice) certain types of errors. People often don’t (notice or) write down errors which

are corrected part way through the word, e.g. “wo..wring one”.

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.

Problems with speech errors

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


Did you hear what he said?!

The tapes were played to subjects whose task was to record all the errors they heard.

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

Method: Transcripts of TV and radio were studied very carefully

to pick out all the speech errors.


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.

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

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

Experimental speech errors Can we examine speech errors in under more

controlled conditions? SLIP technique: speech error elicitation technique

Motley and Baars (1976)

Task: Say the words silently as quickly as you canSay them aloud if you hear a ring

dog bone

dust ball

dead bug

doll bed

barn door

“darn bore”

• 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

Experimental speech errors

“wrong loot” FOR “long root”

“rawn loof” FOR “lawn roof “

Some basic findings

More likely

Influence of semantics (Motley, 1980)


Hypothesis: If preceded by phonologically and semantically

biasing material (PS) If preceded by only phonologically biasing material

(P).

Some basic findings

Predicted to be more likely



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

Some basic findings

mashed bunsmangy bears

Then 4 interference word pairs 2 phonological PLUS

2 semantic (SP)

angry insect

ornery fly

angled inset

older flu

or semantically neutral controls (P)

bad mug

small catsrainy daysred cars

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 speaker’s intended utterance



Some basic findings

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

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 -> “fine body” Had bock -> “bad shock”

Experimental Freudian slips?

car tires

cat toys

can tops

cup trays

tool kits

“cool tits”

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.


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.


Results: looked at difference scores (Sex - Neutral) High sex anxiety > medium > low. Overall: Sex spoonerisms > Neutral spoonerisms.

Conclusion: appears to support Freud’s 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.


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

Experimental speech errors Some basic findings

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)

From thought to speech 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

Message level

Morphemic level

Syntactic level

Phonemic level

Articulation

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


It was such a happy moment when Ross

kissed Rachel…

Ross

Em

ily

Rachel


… Oops! I mean “kissed Emily.”

Ross

Em

ily

Rachel


LEXICON

•ROSS

•KISS

•EMILY

•RACHEL

SYNTACTIC FRAME

NP

S

VP

V(past) NN

Spreading activation


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 A syntactic framework is constructed, and

then lexical items are inserted into the slots 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


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


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


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


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


LEXICON

•/d/, C

•/g/, C

• , VOnset

Word

Rhyme

V CC

PHONOLOGICAL FRAME

Syllable


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

An instrument used by navigators for measuring the angular distance of

the sun, a star, etc. from the horizon

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?

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)

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 (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?

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)

Nitty-gritty details of the model

Message level

Morphemic level

Syntactic level

Phonemic level

Articulation

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

Doing it in time Strongest constraint may be fluency:

Have to get form right under time pressure.

Incrementality: ‘Work with what you’ve got’ Flexibility: allows speaker to say something quickly, also

respond to changing environment.

Modularity: ‘Work only with what you’ve got’ Regulate flow of information.

Two different models

TACTIC FRAMES LEXICAL NETWORK

Dell (1986)Levelt (1989)

Levelt’s 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)

Formalization on the Syntax side of the model

Works in parallel with the lexicon side

Levelt’s model

Functional processing: Assignment of roles

Direct object

Grammatical subject

Formalization on the Syntax side of the model

Works in parallel with the lexicon side

Levelt’s model

Positional processing: Build syntactic tree

NP VP

S

V NP

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

Levelt’s model

Involves lexical retrieval: Semantic/syntactic content

(lemmas) Phonological content

(lexemes or word-forms)

Formalization on the Lexicon side of the model

has stripes is dangerous

TIGER (X)

Fem.

Noun

countabletigre

/tigre/

/t/ /I/ /g/

Lexical concepts

Lemmas

Lexemes

Phonemes

Levelt’s model (see chpt 5, pg 115-117)


TIGER (X)

Levelt’s model: conceptual level

Conceptual level is not decomposed one lexical concept node for

“tiger” instead, conceptual links from

“tiger” to “stripes”, etc.

Fem.

Noun

tigre

/tigre/

/t/ /I/ /g/

countable

TIGER (X)

Fem.

Noun

tigre

Levelt’s model: meaning & syntax

First, lemma activation occurs This involves activating a lemma or

lemmas corresponding to the concept thus, concept TIGER activates lemma

“tiger”


/tigre/

/t/ /I/ /g/

countable

TIGER (X)

Fem.

Noun

tigre


First, lemma activation occurs This involves activating a lemma or

lemmas corresponding to the concept thus, concept TIGER activates lemma

“tiger”

But also involves activating other lemmas

TIGER also activates LION (etc.) to some extent

and LION activates lemma “lion”

LION (X)

lion

/tigre/

/t/ /I/ /g/


TIGER (X)

Fem.

Noun

tigre


First, lemma activation occurs Second, lemma selection occurs

LION (X)

lion

Selection is different from activation

Only one lemma is selected Probability of selecting the target

lemma (“tiger”) ratio of that lemma’s activation to

the total activation of all lemmas (“tiger”, “lion”, etc.)

Hence competition between semantically related lemmas

/tigre/

/t/ /I/ /g/


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/tigre/

/t/ /I/ /g/


Fem.

Noun countable

tigre

TIGER (X)

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” aren’t accessed

Model’s assumptions

Dell’s 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

Dell (1986)

A moment in the production of:

“Some swimmers sink”


Dell’s interactive account

as well as “downwards”

info

rmat

ion

inform

ation

Interactive because information flows “upwards”

Dell (1986)

Cascading because processing at lower levels can start early



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

Dell (1986)

this activation is upwards (phonology to syntax) and wouldn’t occur in Levelt’s account

FURRY BARKS

dog log

/a//g//d/ /l/

MAMMAL e.g., the semantic features mammal, barks, four-legs activate the word “dog”

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

/t/


Model comparisons

Levelt’s Dell’s

Similar representations

Frames and slots

Insertion of representations into the frames

Serial

Modular

External monitor(comprehension)

Interactive

Cascaded

Similarities

Differences

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

tiger

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

Experimental tests

Semantic interference Meaning related words can

slow down naming the picture

e.g., the word TIGER in a picture of a LION

Experimental tests

tiger

Picture-word interference task

Form-related words can speed up processing

e.g., the word liar in a picture of a LION

liar

Experimental tests Picture-word interference task

Semantic interference

Experiments manipulate timing: picture and word can be presented

simultaneously

liar

time

liar

or one can slightly precede the other We draw inferences about time-course of processing

liar

Experimental tests

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

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

Evidence against interactivity

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

EarlyOnly Semantic effects

LateOnly Phonological effects


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

priming effect

hat dog

DOG (X) CAT (X)

cat

/cat/ /hat/

/t//a//k/ /h/

Found no evidence for it


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

Interpretation

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

Evidence for interactivity

Dell’s 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


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)


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


Damian & Martin (1999)

early semantic inhibition

couch (unrelated)

peach (semantically related)

apathy (phonologically related)

apricot (sem & phono related)



late phonological facilitation (0 and + 150 ms)


couch (unrelated)






late phonological facilitation (0 and + 150 ms)

Shows overlap, unlike Schriefers et al.


couch (unrelated)





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

dance


ball

BALL (X) BALL (X)

ball

/ball/

DANCE (X)

dance

GAME (X)

game

Cascading Prediction: dance ball /ball/

Cutting and Ferreira (1999)


Early semantic inhibition



Early Facilitation from a phonologically mediated distractor

Early semantic inhibition


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


Peterson & Savoy (1998) Slightly different task

Prepare to name the picture

If “?” comes up name it?


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


Peterson & Savoy (1998) Used pictures with two

synonymous names

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

sofa couch

DominantSubordinate

soda


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 al’s explanation: Could be erroneous selection of two lemmas?


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

Levelt et al.’s theory of word production: Strictly modular lexical access Syntactic processing precedes phonological

processing Dell’s 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

Overall summary

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.

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.

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 it’s 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?

Conversational interaction ABBOTT: The Word in Office for Windows. COSTELLO: But there are three words in "office for windows"! ABBOTT: No, just one. But it’s 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.

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".

Conversational interaction“the horse raced past

the barn”

Conversation is more than just two side-by-side monologues.

“the kids swam across the river”

Conversational interaction“The horse raced past

the barn”

Conversation is a specialized form of social interaction, with rules and organization.

“Really? Why would it do that?”

Conversation Fillmore (1981)

“The language of face-to-face conversation is the basic and primary use of language”

(pg. 152)

So all instances of language usage can (should) be compared to conversation

What is the impact of the presence or absence of different features of face-to-face conversation?

Conversation Herb Clark (1996)

Face-to-face conversation - the basic setting Features

Co-presence Visibility Audibility

Instantaneity

Evanescence Recordlessness Simultaneity

Extemporaneity Self-determination Self-expression

Immediacy Medium Control

Other settings may lack some of these features e.g., telephone conversations take away co-presence and

visibility, which may change language use


Joint action Autonomous actions

Things that you do by yourself Participatory actions

Individual acts only done as parts of joint actions People acting in coordination with one another

Doing the tango Driving a car with a pedestrian crossing the street

The participants don’t always do similar things


Speaking and listening Traditionally treated as autonomous actions

Contributing to the tradition of studying language comprehension and production separately

Clark proposed that they should be treated as participatory actions


Speaking and listening Component actions in production and

comprehension come in pairs

Speaking Listening A vocalizes sounds for B

A formalizes utterances for B

A means something for B

B attends to A’s vocalizations

B identifies A’s utterances

B understands A’s meaning

The actions of one participant depend on the actions of the other


Arena’s of language use - places where people do things with language

Meaning and understanding Establishing Common Ground

Identifying participants Layers Conversation is structured

Meaning and understanding Common ground

Common ground is necessary to coordinate speaker’s meaning with listener’s understanding

Knowledge, beliefs and suppositions that the participants believe that they share

Members of cultural communities Shared experiences What has taken place already in the conversation

Lack of successful communication was due to lack of common ground Starting around 1:20

EavesdropperAll listeners

Identifying participants Conversation often takes place in situations that involve

various types of participants and non-participants

BystanderSide

participantsAll participants

Speaker Addressee

EavesdropperAll listeners

Identifying participants

BystanderSide

participantsAll participants

Speaker Addressee

Humor come in part because we (eavesdroppers) share common ground that Lou and Bud didn’t)

Layers Conversations may have several layers

Layer 1 The primary conversation

Layer 2 A commentary about Layer 1

Each layer needs to be coherent (within the layer) as well as be connected to other layers in a relevant way

Layer 2: “I'm going to click your blue "w" if you don't start with some straight

answers. OK, forget that.”

Conversations are purposive and unplanned Typically you can’t plan exactly what you’re going to say

because it depends on another participant Conversations look planned only in retrospect

Conversations have a fairly stable structure

Structure of a conversation

Opening the conversation Identifying participants Taking turns Negotiating topics Closing conversations

Joe: (places a phone call) Kevin: Miss Pink’s office - hello Joe: hello, is Miss Pink in Kevin: well, she’s in, but she’s

engaged at the moment, who is it? Joe: Oh it’s Professors Worth’s

secretary, from Pan-American college Kevin: m, Joe: Could you give her a message

“for me” Kevin: “certainly” Joe: u’m Professor Worth said that, if

Miss Pink runs into difficulties, .. On Monday afternoon, .. With the standing subcommittee, .. Over the item on Miss Panoff, …

Structure of a conversation Kevin: Miss Panoff? Joe: Yes, that Professor Worth would

be with Mr Miles all afternoon, .. So she only had to go round and collect him if she needed him, …

Kevin: ah, … thank you very much indeed,

Joe: right Kevin: Panoff, right “you” are Joe: right Kevin: I’ll tell her, Joe: thank you Kevin: bye bye Joe: bye










Opening the conversation










Exchanging information










Exchanging a message









Joe: right Kevin: Panoff, right “you” are Joe: right Kevin: I’ll tell her, Joe: thank you Kevin: bye bye Joe: byeClosing the conversation

Opening conversations Need to pick who starts

Turn taking is typically not decided upon in advance Potentially a lot of ways to open, but we typically restrict

our openings to a few ways Address another Request information Offer information Use a stereotyped expression or topic

Opening conversations

Has to resolve: The entry time

Is now the time to converse? The participants

Who is talking to whom? Their roles

What is level of participation in the conversation? The official business

What is the conversation about?

Need to pick who starts Turn taking is typically not decided upon in advance Potentially a lot of ways to open

Taking turns Typically conversations don’t involve two (or more)

people talking at the same time Individual styles of turn-taking vary widely Length of a turn is a fairly stable characteristic

within a given individual’s conversational interactions

Standard signals indicate a change in turn: a head nod, a glance, a questioning tone


people talking at the same time

These principles are ordered in terms of priority The first is the most important, and the last is the least

important Just try violating them in an actual conversation (but

debrief later!)

Three implicit rules (Sacks et al, 1974) Rule 1: Current speakers selects next speaker Rule 2: Self-selection: if rule 1 isn’t used, then next speaker can

select themselves Rule 3: current speaker may continue (or not)


people talking at the same time

Use of non-verbal cues Drop of pitch Drawl on final syllable Termination of hand signals Drop in loudness Completion of a grammatical clause Use of stereotyped phrase

“you know”

Negotiating topics Keep the discourse relevant to the topic (remember

Grice’s maxims) Coherence again

Earlier we looked at coherence within a speaker, now we consider it across multiple speakers

Must use statements to signal topic shifts

Closing conversations Closing statements

Must exit from the last topic, mutually agree to close the conversation, and coordinate the disengagement

Signal the end of conversation (or topic) “Okay”

Justifying why conversation should end “I gotta go”

Reference to potential future conversation “Later dude”

Dialog is the key Why so little research on dialog?

Most linguistic theories were developed to account for sentences in de-contextualized isolation

Dialog doesn’t fit the competence/performance distinction well

Hard to do experimentally Conversations are interactive and largely unplanned

Pickering and Garrod (2004) Proposed that processing theories of language

comprehension and production may be flawed because of a focus on monologues

Processing models of dialog Pickering and Garrod (2004)

Interactive alignment model Alignment of situation

models is central to successful dialogue

Alignment at other levels is achieved via priming

Alignment at one level can lead to alignment at another

Model assumes parity of representations for production and comprehension

Summary “People use language for doing things with

each other, and their use of language is itself a joint action.” Clark (1996, pg387) Conversation is structured

But, that structure depends on more than one individual Models of language use (production and

comprehension) need to be developed within this perspective

Documents

PSY 369: Psycholinguistics