1. Incrementality in Production

2. Binding Study update… Fiorentino/Minai conjecture… –On Principle B studies, “we observed the following. The results from the experiments using proper names showed effects of binding-theory incompatible antecedents (Badecker & Straub, 2002; Kennison, 2003). However, with full NPs (Nicol & Swinney, 1989; Clifton et al., 1997) and when the accessible proper name is introduced in a lead-in context sentence (Kennison, 2003; Runner, 2003) the apparent violations of Principle B were not evident.” –“If we assume that the early filter works on discourse representations, then it might be possible to propose a split among full NPs and proper names in terms of the richness of their discourse representation.”

3. Binding Study update… Proposed designs…

4. Incrementality in Comprehension How much of what you know can be deployed immediately? –Numerous linguistic constraints involving Complement structure Long-distance movement Binding, etc. –‘Immediately’ here has only word-level granularity –Next step: how is this achieved?

5. Incrementality in Production

6. Different domains –Speech errors –Flexibility and incrementality –Look-ahead in planning

8. Message Functional Processing Positional Processing Phonological Encoding a. Lexical selection b. Function assignment a. Constituent assembly b. Inflection Adapted from Bock & Levelt (1994)

9. Speech Errors

10. “…the most slippable units are the most basic units in language production […] each of these - the word, the morpheme, and the phoneme - is the basic building block for a particular linguistic level.” (Dell 1995, p. 190)

11. Word Errors - Category Constraint

12. Incrementality in Production

13. Binding Study Materials from Badecker & Straub are available 6 sets of 4, 12 fillers, comprehension questions –A: Clare, Diogo, Valérie –B: Matt, Ivan, Heather –C: Lisa, Takuya, Hajime, Kaori –D: Rob, Chunyuan, Utako

14. Message Functional Processing Positional Processing Phonological Encoding a. Lexical selection b. Function assignment a. Constituent assembly b. Inflection Adapted from Bock & Levelt (1994)

15. Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920) “…the main job will be to do as much as can be done with strictly incremental production. This is a time-honored principle in psycholinguistics. Wundt (1900) said that word order follows the successive apperception of the parts of a total conception [Gesamtvorstellung]. Of course, Wundt added that this can only hold to the degree that word order is free in a language.” (Levelt 1989, p. 26).

16. V. Ferreira 1996 Incremental models predict easier production with syntactic flexibility for two reasons –All structures are freely available to be filled –Strict incremental construction permits the most active lexical representation (rather than syntactic competition) to determine structural decisions.

17. + I gave toys children to 250ms 500ms 1500ms 250ms Until button press I gave toys to the children. I gave the children toys. I donated toys to the children. *I donated the children toys.

20. She gave it to the child. *She gave the child it. She gave the box to him. She gave him the box.

22. confused him story 250ms 1500ms 1000ms Until button press The story confused John.John rejected the story. John was confused by the story.The story was rejected by John. The story confused him.He rejected the story. *Him was confused by the story.*The story was rejected by he.

23. confused rejected

26. Ferreira & Dell 2000 “Production proceeds more efficiently if syntactic structures are used that permit quickly selected lemmas to be mentioned as soon as possible. We call this the principle of immediate mention.” (Ferreira & Dell, 2000, p. 299) Availability effects –The coach knew (that) you missed practice. –‘that’ omitted more frequently the more accessible the embedded subject is.

27. Ferreira & Dell 2000 Repetition –I knew (that) I had booked a flight for tomorrow. –You knew (that) I had booked a flight for tomorrow. –I knew (that) you had booked a flight for tomorrow. –You knew (that) you had booked a flight for tomorrow.

28. Ferreira & Dell 2000

31. Picture-Word Interference

33. cat

34. Picture-Word Interference duck

35. Picture-Word Interference rice

36. Levels of Encoding Task: picture description –Conjunctions:“the arrow and the bag” –Simple sentences“the arrow is next to the bag” Auditory distractor: semantic, phonological, unrelated Interference effects - delay in utterance onset latencies –SemanticNP1NP2 –PhonologicalNP1 (Meyer 1996)

37. Look-Ahead “Is the verb an obligatory part of the advance planning unit?” Task - simple scene description + distractors –Intransitive: verb + subject –Transitive: verb + subject + object Prompts –Auf dem nächsten Bild sieht man wie…S (O) V in the next pic. sees one how… –Und auf dem nächsten Bild…V S (O) and on the next pic. … Distractors: SEM, UNREL, SYN, IDENT, NONE (Schriefers et al., 1998)

38. Look-Ahead (Schriefers et al., 1998)

39. Look-Ahead “The production system does not have to wait for successful retrieval of the verb lemma when it occurs late in the utterance.” (Schriefers et al., 1998)

40. Look-Ahead (Schriefers et al., 1998) Distractor onsets after 200ms

41. Look-Ahead “It appears that speakers can assign syntactic functions without knowing the verb lemma and its subcategorization frame and argument structure, and they do so if the verb does not occur in utterance initial position.” (Schriefers et al., 1998)

42. Look-Ahead (Schriefers et al., 1998) Expt. 5 - simple main clauses, no prompts “…the verb is only part of the grammatical advance planning unit if it occurs in utterance initial position.”

43. More Production

44. Summary so far… Evidence for incremental grammatical encoding –V. Ferreira (1996): give/donate alternation - opportunistic choice of word order –Schriefers et al. (1998): lack of picture-word interference effects on verb in S (O) V structures –V. Ferreira & Dell (2000): modulation of use of that.

45. Arithmetic Add the following –21 + 4 = –4 + 21 = (Dutch, French speakers) (Brysbaert et al., 1998)

46. Arithmetic Language contrast –Dutch: 51ms advantage for 4 + 21 order –French: 56ms advantage for 21 + 4 order Radically incremental account –“the Dutch speakers try to get access to the unit of the response first, because they can start programming the pronunciation of the answer as soon as the value of the unit is known. In contrast, the French speakers have to capitalise on the value of the ten, which they must know before the response execution can be started” (p. 67) (Brysbaert et al., 1998)

47. Arithmetic Say the following –24 + 31 “[…]” “[…] is the sum” “the sum is […]” (Ferreira & Swets, 2002)

54. Expt 1: utterance duration unaffected by difficulty Expt 2: utterance duration affected by difficulty

56. Look-Ahead in Grammatical Encoding Swets & F. Ferreira (2003)

57. (Swets & Ferreira 2003)

62. How Incremental is Production? This question can mean different things –What are the units of grammatical encoding? –What are the units of phonological encoding? –How closely time-locked are grammatical and phonological encoding?

63. Comprehension-Production Same or different?

64. Syntactic Priming 1.Lexical prime (e.g. worship) 2.Structural prime (e.g. the dog was chased by the cat)

65. Priming Effects Production - Production Comprehension - Comprehension Comprehension - Production etc.

66. Mirror Neurons Cells respond for observation and generation of actions Single unit recordings in macaques, fMRI in humans Suggests a tight connection between perception and generation (Rizzolatti et al. 1996) (Iacoboni et al. 1996)

67. ‘…we understand others through an ‘internal act’ that recaptures the sense of their action…’ (Rizzolatti et al. 2001)

68. Mirror Neurons Mirror neurons are typically selective for a specific action (i.e. finite capacity system) Long term encoding of link between perception and generation of the same action Various ways in which mirror neurons might connect to input and output systems Well-known analog in language… (Rizzolatti et al. 1996) (Iacoboni et al. 1996)

69. Words Words encode specific concepts (i.e. finite capacity system) Long-term representations, shared across perception and generation Various ways in which lexical items might connect to input and output systems Does not entail an ‘ideomotor’ theory of words Same for phonemes, features / døg/ DOG

70. Surely the enthusiasm about mirror-neurons is supposed to be about more than that?

71. V. Ferreira - optionality vs. ambiguity “…comprehension and production share high level processing goals, but differ in terms of processing implementation.”