PSY 369: Psycholinguistics Language Production: A General Model

Jane threw the ball to Bill From thought to speech Jane threw the ball to Bill Productivity on multiple levels, phonological, morphemic, syntactic A lot of the utterance is planned prior to onset of the utterance What do speech errors suggest? Productivity Advanced planning

From thought to speech Propositions to be communicated Message level Propositions to be communicated Syntactic level Selection and organization of lexical items Morphemic level Morphologically complex words are constructed Phonemic level Articulation Sound structure of each word is built

From thought to speech Propositions to be communicated Message level Not a lot known about this step Typically thought to be shared with comprehension processes, semantic networks, situational models, etc. Syntactic level Morphemic level Slobin’s Thinking for speaking paper - get reference Early osgood and bock paper Phonemic level Articulation

From thought to speech Grammatical class constraint Slots and frames 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

From thought to speech Rachel Emily Ross It was such a happy moment when Ross kissed Rachel…

From thought to speech Rachel Emily Ross … Oops! I mean “kissed Emily.”

From thought to speech Spreading activation SYNTACTIC FRAME LEXICON ROSS KISS EMILY RACHEL NP S VP V(past) N Spreading activation

From thought to speech Grammatical class constraint: SYNTACTIC FRAME LEXICON ROSS KISS EMILY RACHEL NP S VP V(past) N If the word isn’t the right grammatical class, it won’t “fit” into the slot. Grammatical class constraint:

From thought to speech Grammatical class constraint Slots and frames Message level Grammatical class constraint Most substitutions, exchanges, and blends involve words of the same grammatical class Slots and frames Other evidence Syntactic priming Syntactic level Morphemic level Phonemic level Articulation

Syntactic priming Bock (1986): syntactic persistance tested by picture naming Hear and repeat a sentence Describe the picture

Syntactic priming a: The ghost sold the werewolf a flower Bock (1986): syntactic persistance tested by picture naming b: The ghost sold a flower to the werewolf a: The girl gave the teacher the flowers b: The girl gave the flowers to the teacher

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 GO BACK TO PREVIOUS SHEETS!

From thought to speech Stranding errors Message level Syntactic level 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

From thought to speech Stranding errors Message level Stranding errors Closed class items very rare in exchanges or substitutions Two possibilities Part of syntactic frame High frequency, so lots of practice, easily selected, etc. Syntactic level Morphemic level Phonemic level Articulation

From thought to speech Consonant vowel regularity Message level 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

From thought to speech Consonant vowel regularity 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

From thought to speech PHONOLOGICAL FRAME Word LEXICON /d/, C /g/, C , V Syllable Onset Rhyme C V C

From thought to speech Consonant vowel regularity 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

Eliciting tips-of-the-tongue

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 Brown & McNeill (1966) Low-frequency words (e.g., apse, nepotism, sampan), prompted by brief definitions. On 8.5% of trials, tip-of-the-tongue state ensued: Had to guess: word's first or last letters the number of syllables it contained which syllable was stressed

Tip-of-the-tongue Brown & McNeill (1966) Total of 360 TOT states: 233 ="positive TOTs" (subject was thinking of target word, and produced scorable data 127 = "negative TOTs" (subject was thinking of other word, but could not recall it) 224 similar-sound TOTs (e.g., Saipan for sampan) 48% had the same number of syllables as the target 95 similar-meaning TOTs (e.g., houseboat for sampan). 20% had same number of syllables as target. 

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

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?

Vigliocco et al (1997) Vigliocco et al. (1997) Scoring + TOT Both reported some correct information in questionnaire And said yes to recognition question - TOT Otherwise

Vigliocco et al (1997) Vigliocco et al. (1997) Results Conclusion + 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

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?

How many levels? conceptual level lemma level frog lexeme level /frog/ Animal noun lemma level frog Quakes male Jumps +s /f/r/o/g/ lexeme level /frog/ stress syllables

How many levels? conceptual level STAGE 1 lemma level frog STAGE 2 lexeme level /frog/

Levelt et al. (1991): EARLY PRIMING: KANGEROO => FROG Temporal evidence for the 2-stage model stage 1: conceptual => lemma conceptual level Animal noun lemma level frog Quakes male Jumps +s Levelt et al. (1991): EARLY PRIMING: KANGEROO => FROG

Levelt et al. (1991): LATE PRIMING: FROCK => FROG Temporal evidence for the 2-stage model stage 1: conceptual => lemma Animal noun lemma level frog Quakes male Jumps +s /f/r/o/g/ lexeme level /frog/ stress syllables Levelt et al. (1991): LATE PRIMING: FROCK => FROG

b: Are the stages discrete or cascading? conceptual level STAGE 1 lemma level grasshopper kangeroo /grasshopper/ /kangeroo/ ? /frog/ STAGE 2 lexeme level /frog/

b: Discrete vs. cascading put to the test: the mediated priming paradigm ? lemma level STAGE 1 goat sheep lexeme level /goat/ /sheep/ STAGE 2 /goal/ /sheet/ Does sheep prime goal?

goal or goat or sheet or mukl: button yes/no-rt b: The mediated priming paradigm: Does sheep prime goal? naming: 600 ms V Lem Lex sheep 150 ms 125 ms 325 ms goal or goat or sheet or mukl: button yes/no-rt

a: Discrete vs. cascading put to the test: the mediated priming paradigm STAGE 1 lemma level goat sheep STAGE 2 /goat/ /sheep/ lexeme level /goal/ /sheet/ Does sheep prime goal? Cascaders would say yes

a: Discrete vs. cascading put to the test: the mediated priming paradigm STAGE 1 lemma level goat sheep STAGE 2 /goat/ /sheep/ lexeme level /goal/ /sheet/ Does sheep prime goal? Discreters would say no

a: Discrete vs. cascading put to the test: the mediated priming paradigm lemma level STAGE 1 goat sheep /goat/ /frog/ STAGE 2 lexeme level /goal/ /frock/ Levelt (1991): mediated priming doesn’t work

goal or goat or sheet or mukl: button yes/no-rt b: The mediated priming paradigm: Does sheep prime goal? GOAL GOAT SHEET V Lem Lex sheep 150 ms 125 ms 325 ms 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 STAGE 1 sofa couch /sofa/ /couch/ STAGE 2 lexeme level /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 STAGE 1 lemma level frog STAGE 2 lexeme level /frog/

c: Are the stages interactive? (Dell, Laine, yes) conceptual level STAGE 1 lemma level frog STAGE 2 lexeme level /frog/

From thought to speech How does a mental concept get turned into a spoken utterance? Levelt, 1989, 4 stages of production: Conceptualising: we conceptualise what we wish to communicate (“mentalese”). Formulating: we formulate what we want to say into a linguistic plan. Lexicalisation Lemma Selection Lexeme (or Phonological Form) Selection Syntactic Planning Articulating: we execute the plan through muscles in the vocal tract. 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)

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