62
PSY 369: Psycholinguistics Language Production: Theories and models

PSY 369: Psycholinguistics Language Production: Theories and models

  • View
    238

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

PSY 369: Psycholinguistics

Language Production:

Theories and models

Exam 2 Don’t forget that Exam 2 is 1 week from

today (April 3) I’ll put together a “review” quiz, based

on the question sets used in the other quizzes, will NOT count for credit, just a tool for studying

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

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

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

Uhh…It is a.. You know.. A.. Arggg.I can almost see it, it has two

Syllables, I think it starts with A …..

Tip-of-the-tongue

William James (1842 -1910)a pioneering psychologist and philosopher

"It is a gap that is intensely active. A sort of wraith of the name is in it, beckoning us in a given direction, making us at moments tingle with the sense of our closeness and then letting us sink back without the longed-for term." …

“… 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.”

Low-frequency words (e.g., apse, nepotism, sampan), prompted by brief definitions.

“To keep eggs warm until hatching” 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 and phonology: People can access meaning and grammar

but not pronunciation What about syntax?

Tip-of-the-tongue

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) 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 detail 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

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)

Message

Lexicon

Grammatical

Form

Articulation

FunctionalProcessing

PositionalProcessing

Formalization on the Syntax side of the model

Works in parallel with the lexicon sideMessage

Lexicon

Grammatical

Form

Articulation

FunctionalProcessing

PositionalProcessing

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 sideMessage

Lexicon

Grammatical

Form

Articulation

FunctionalProcessing

PositionalProcessing

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

Message

Lexicon

Grammatical

Form

Articulation

FunctionalProcessing

PositionalProcessing

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 countable

tigre

/tigre/

/t/ /I/ /g/

Lexical concepts

Lemmas

Lexemes

Phonemes

Levelt’s model

has stripes is dangerous

TIGER (X)

Levelt’s model: conceptual level

Conceptual stratum is not decomposed one lexical concept node for “tiger” instead, conceptual links from “tiger”

to “stripes”, etc.

TIGER (X)

Fem.

Noun countable

tigre

Levelt’s model

First, lemma activation occurs This involves activating a lemma or

lemmas corresponding to the concept thus, concept TIGER activates lemma

“tiger”

TIGER (X)

Fem.

Noun

tigre

Levelt’s model

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

TIGER (X)

Fem.

Noun

tigre

Levelt’s model

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

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/

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 best-known interactive

account 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

Wor

TACTIC LEXICAL

some Q

summer N

sink V

drown V

some SQ

swim SV

-erAf1

PluralAf2

sink SV

swOn Nu

sO

wOn

INu

mCo

Pluralswim V

S

NP VP

Q(1)

N(2)

Plural(3)

V?

N

Word

SQ SV ?

Stem

Af1 Af2(1)

MORPHOLOG

SYNTAX

SYL

Rime

On ?

Nu Co

PHONOLOGY

1 2

3

C

C1

Dell (1986)

A moment in the production of:

“Some swimmers sink”

Wor

TACTIC LEXICAL

some Q

summer N

sink V

drown V

some SQ

swim SV

-erAf1

PluralAf2

sink SV

swOn Nu

sO

wOn

INu

mCo

Pluralswim V

S

NP VP

Q(1)

N(2)

Plural(3)

V?

N

Word

SQ SV ?

Stem

Af1 Af2(1)

MORPHOLOG

SYNTAX

SYL

Rime

On ?

Nu Co

PHONOLOGY

1 2

3

C

C1

as well as “downwards”

information

information

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

Interactive

Cascaded

Similarities

Differences

tiger

Picture-word interference task

Participants name basic objects as quickly as possible

Distractor words are embedded in the object

participants are instructed to ignore these words

Experimental tests

Semantically related words can interfere with naming

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

Experimental tests

tiger

However, form-related words can speed up processing

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

Basic findings

liar

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

Schriefers, Meyer, and Levelt (1990)

SOA (Stimulus onset asynchrony)

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

Auditory presentation of distractors DOT phonologically related CAT semantically related SHIP unrelated word

Schriefers, Meyer, and Levelt (1990)

Auditory presentation of distractors DOT phonologically related CAT semantically related SHIP unrelated word

500520540560580600620640660680700

-150 0 150

DOTCATSHIP

EarlyOnly Semantic effects

Schriefers, Meyer, and Levelt (1990)

Auditory presentation of distractors DOT phonologically related CAT semantically related SHIP unrelated word

500520540560580600620640660680700

-150 0 150

DOTCATSHIP

LateOnly Phonological effects

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

500520540560580600620640660680700

-150 0 150

DOTCATSHIP

EarlyOnly Semantic effects

LateOnly Phonological effects

Evidence against interactivity

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

Evidence against interactivity

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

Evidence for interactivity

Evidence for interactivity

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

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)

Evidence for interactivity

peach

Results

600

620

640

660

680

700

720

740

-150 0 150SOA

UnrelatedSemanticPhonologicalS & P

Damian & Martin (1999)

early semantic inhibition

couch (unrelated)

peach (semantically related)

apathy (phonologically related)

apricot (sem & phono related)

Results

600

620

640

660

680

700

720

740

-150 0 150SOA

UnrelatedSemanticPhonologicalS & P

Damian & Martin (1999)

late phonological facilitation (0 and + 150 ms)

early semantic inhibition

couch (unrelated)

peach (semantically related)

apathy (phonologically related)

apricot (sem & phono related)

Results

600

620

640

660

680

700

720

740

-150 0 150SOA

UnrelatedSemanticPhonologicalS & P

Damian & Martin (1999)

late phonological facilitation (0 and + 150 ms)

Shows overlap, unlike Schriefers et al.

early semantic inhibition

couch (unrelated)

peach (semantically related)

apathy (phonologically related)

apricot (sem & phono related)

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

Evidence for interactivity

dance

ball

BALL (X) BALL (X)

ball

/ball/

Evidence against interactivity

DANCE (X)

dance

GAME (X)

game

Cascading Prediction: dance ball /ball/

Cutting and Ferreira (1999)

Results

860870880890900910920930940950960

Unrelated game dance

condition

Early semantic inhibition

Cutting and Ferreira (1999)

Results

860870880890900910920930940950960

Unrelated game dance

condition

Early Facilitation from a phonologically mediated distractor

Early semantic inhibition

Cutting and Ferreira (1999)

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

Evidence for interactivity

?

Peterson & Savoy (1998) Slightly different task

Prepare to name the picture

If “?” comes up name it If a word comes up

instead, name the word

Evidence for interactivity

liar

Manipulate Word/picture relationship SOA

Peterson & Savoy (1998) Used pictures with two

synonymous names

Evidence for interactivity

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?

Evidence for interactivity

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