PSY 369: Psycholinguistics

PSY 369: Psycholinguistics
Language Production: Experimentally elicited speech errors

Your speech error collections
How did it go? What interesting things did you notice? What difficulties did you encounter? Etc.

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.

How well do we perceive speech errors? Ferber (1991) Method: Transcripts of TV and radio were studied very carefully to pick out all the speech errors. 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.

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

Experimental speech errors
Can we examine speech errors in under more controlled conditions? SLIP technique: speech error elicitation technique Motley and Baars (1976)

Say the words silently as quickly as you can
Say them aloud if you hear a ring

dog bone

dust ball

dead bug

doll bed

“darn bore” barn door

Some basic findings 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 More likely “wrong loot” FOR “long root” “rawn loof” FOR “lawn roof “

Some basic findings Influence of semantics (Motley, 1980) Hypothesis: If preceded by phonologically and semantically biasing material (PS) If preceded by only phonologically biasing material (P). Predicted to be more likely

Some basic findings Influence of semantics (Motley, 1980) Method: 2 matched lists 20 word pairs as targets for errors e.g. bad mug  mad bug Each preceded by neutral “filler” word pairs red cars rainy days small cats mashed buns mangy bears angry insect angled inset Then 4 interference word pairs 2 phonological PLUS ornery fly older flu bad mug 2 semantic (SP) or semantically neutral controls (P)

Some basic findings Influence of semantics (Motley, 1980) 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

Freudian slips The psycholinguistic approach Freudian approach
Assume that “the mechanics of slips can be studied linguistically without reference to their motivation.” (Boomer and Laver, 1968) 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

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 Ellis, (1980)
Of the 94 errors listed in Psychopathology of Everyday Life 85 were made in normal speech. 51 (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).

Of the 94 errors listed in Psychopathology of Everyday Life 85 were made in normal speech. 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)

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

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”

car tires

cat toys

can tops

cup trays

“cool tits” tool kits

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.

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 & Units Advanced planning

Conclusions Speech errors have provided data about the units of speech production. Phonology - consonants, vowels, and consonant clusters (/fl/) can be disordered as units. Also, phonetic features. Syllables which have morphemic status can be involved in errors. Separation of stem morphemes from affixes (inflectional and derivational). Stress? Stress errors could be examples of blends.

Conclusions Speech errors have provided data about the units of speech production. Syntax -grammatical rules may be applied to the wrong unit, but produce the correct pronunciation (e.g. plural takes the correct form /s/, /z/, or /iz/. Indicates that these parts of words are marked as grammatical morphemes. Phrases (e.g. NP) and clauses can be exchanged or reversed. Words - can exchange, move, or be mis-selected.

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 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

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 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

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 ….. Productivity on multiple levels, phonological, morphemic, syntactic A lot of the utterance is planned prior to onset of the utterance 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 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

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

Doing it in time Strongest constraint may be fluency: Incrementality:
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.

Comparing models Central questions:
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 Bottom up too How many levels are there?

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.

A 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)

Levelt’s model Four broad stages: Conceptualisation Formulation
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)

Levelt’s model Network has three strata conceptual stratum
lemma stratum word-form stratum

Levelt’s model Formulation involves lexical retrieval:
Tip of tongue state when lemma is retrieved without word-form being retrieved Formulation involves lexical retrieval: Semantic/syntactic content (lemma) Phonological content (word-form)

Levelt’s model Lexical concepts Lexicon tigre Lemmas Lexemes /tigre/
has stripes is dangerous Lexical concepts TIGER (X) Lexicon Noun countable tigre Lemmas Fem. Lexemes /tigre/ /t/ /I/ /g/ Phonemes

Conceptual stratum Conceptual stratum is not decomposed
one lexical concept node for “tiger” instead, conceptual links from “tiger” to “stripes”, etc. has stripes is dangerous TIGER (X) “Pragmatically”, via the intention to communicate something (e.g., describing an object) Together with “perspective” (e.g., using “tiger” vs. “animal”) But also via spreading activation from other concepts Or via direct activation of that concept (e.g., the word “tiger”) Or perhaps via some random, spontaneous activation

Lexical selection First, lemma activation occurs
This involves activating a lemma or lemmas corresponding to the concept thus, concept TIGER activates lemma “tiger” TIGER (X) Noun countable tiger Fem.

Lexical selection tiger lion First, lemma activation occurs TIGER (X)
This involves activating a lemma or lemmas corresponding to the concept thus, concept TIGER activates lemma “tiger” TIGER (X) LION (X) tiger lion But also involves activating other lemmas TIGER also activates LION (etc.) to some extent and LION activates lemma “lion”

Lemma selection Selection is different from activation tiger lion
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 TIGER (X) LION (X) tiger lion

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/

Model’s assumptions 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 The word-forms for the “losers” aren’t accessed

Experimental tests Picture-word interference task tiger
Participants name basic objects as quickly as possible Distractor words are embedded in the object participants are instructed to ignore these words tiger

Basic findings Semantically related words can interfere with naming
e.g., the word TIGER in a picture of a LION tiger

Basic findings However, form-related words can speed up processing
e.g., the word liar in a picture of a LION liar

Experiments manipulate timing:
liar time Experiments manipulate timing: picture and word can be presented simultaneously

Experiments manipulate timing:
liar liar time Experiments manipulate timing: picture and word can be presented simultaneously or one can slightly precede the other We draw inferences about time-course of processing

Schriefers, Meyer, and Levelt (1990)
Auditory presentation of distractors DOT phonologically related CAT semantically related SHIP unrelated word 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 Early Only Semantic effects

Auditory presentation of distractors DOT phonologically related CAT semantically related SHIP unrelated word Late Only Phonological effects

Interpretation 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

Dell’s interactive account
Dell (1986) presented the best-known interactive account other similar accounts exist Network organization with 3 levels of representation Semantics (decomposed into features) Words and morphemes phonemes (sounds) These get selected and inserted into frames

A moment in the production of:
Dell (1986) A moment in the production of: “Some swimmers sink”

information information
Dell (1986) information Interactive because information flows “upwards” information as well as “downwards”

Dell (1986) dot dog log /t/ /d/ /g/ /a/ /l/ FURRY BARKS MAMMAL
e.g., the semantic features mammal, barks, four-legs activate the word “dog” FURRY BARKS MAMMAL this activates the sounds /d/, /o/, /g/ these send activation back to the word level, activating words containing these sounds (e.g., “log”, “dot”) to some extent dot dog log /t/ /d/ /g/ /a/ /l/ this activation is upwards (phonology to syntax) and wouldn’t occur in Levelt’s account

Evidence for Dell’s model
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

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 Sounds can only feed back to words (non-words not represented) so only words can feedback to sound level

Why might interaction occur?
Can’t exist just to produce errors! So what is feedback for? Perhaps because the same network is used in comprehension So feedback would be the normal comprehension route Alternatively, it simply serves to increase fluency in lemma selection advantageous to select a lemma whose phonological form is easy to find Dell argues against this because many aphasics have good auditory word recognition yet disturbed phonological encoding

Evidence against interactivity
Schriefers, Meyer, and Levelt (1990) DOT phonologically related CAT semantically related SHIP unrelated word Early Only Semantic effects Late Only Phonological effects

Schriefers, Meyer, and Levelt (1990) Also looked for any evidence of a mediated priming effect DOG (X) CAT (X) dog cat hat /cat/ /hat/ Found no evidence for it /k/ /a/ /t/ /h/

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) (also no-word control, always fast) peach

Results Damian & Martin (1999) early semantic inhibition

Results Damian & Martin (1999) early semantic inhibition
late phonological facilitation (0 and ms)

Results Damian & Martin (1999) early semantic inhibition
late phonological facilitation (0 and ms) Shows overlap, unlike Schriefers et al.

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

Cutting and Ferreira (1999) GAME (X) BALL (X) BALL (X) DANCE (X) game ball ball dance /ball/ Cascading Prediction: dance ball /ball/

Results Cutting and Ferreira (1999) Early semantic inhibition

Results Cutting and Ferreira (1999) Early semantic inhibition
Early Facilitation from a phonologically mediated distractor Evidence of cascading information flow (both semantic and phonological information at early SOA)

Peterson & Savoy Slightly different task Prepare to name the picture If “?” comes up name it ?

Peterson & Savoy 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 Used pictures with two synonymous names soda subordinate Dominant Used words that were phonologically related to the non dominant name of the picture sofa couch

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?

Summary These the findings appears to contradict the “discrete two-step” account of Levelt et al.

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

Overall summary 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

Summary 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 wordform

Caramazza’s alternative
Caramazza and colleagues argue against the existence of the lemma node instead they propose a direct link between semantic level and lexeme syntactic information is associated with the lexeme Also assumes separate lexemes for written and spoken production This is really a different issue

Much evidence comes from patient data
But also evidence from the independence of syntactic and phonological information in TOT states see discussion of Vigliocco et al. also Caramazza and Miozzo (Cognition, 1997; see also replies by Roelofs et al.)

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

Conversational interaction
“the horse raced past the barn” “the kids swam across the river” Conversation is more than just two side-by-side monologues.

Conversational interaction
“The horse raced past the barn” “Really? Why would it do that?” Conversation is a specialized form of social interaction, with rules and organization.

Conversation Herb Clark (1996) Joint action
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 Autonomous actions Things that you do by yourself Participatory actions Individual acts only done as parts of joint actions

Conversation Herb Clark (1996) 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

Conversation Herb Clark (1996) Speaking and listening Speaking
Component actions in production and comprehension come in pairs Speaking Listening A vocalizes sounds for B B attends to A’s vocalizations A formalizes utterances for B B identifies A’s utterances A means something for B B understands A’s meaning The actions of one participant depend on the actions of the other

Conversation Herb Clark (1996)
Face-to-face conversation - the basic setting Features Immediacy Medium Control Co-presence Visibility Audibility Instantaneity Evanescence Recordlessness Simultaneity Extemporaneity Self-determination Self-expression Co-presence: the participants share the same physical environment Visibility: the participants can see each other Audibility: the participants can hear each other Instantaneity: the participants perceive each other’s actions at no perceptible delay Evanescence: the medium fades quickly Recordlessness: the participants’ leave no record or artifact Simultaneity: the participants can produce and receive at once and simultaneously Extemporaneity: the participants formulate and execute their actions extemporaneously, in real time Self-determination: the participants determine for themselves what actions to take when Self-expression: the participants take actions as themselves Other settings may lack some of these features e.g., telephone conversations take away co-presence and visibility, which may change language use

Meaning and understanding
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. 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.

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? 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.

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ﾕ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? 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?

ABBOTT: The Word in Office for Windows. COSTELLO: But there are three words in "office for windows"! ABBOTT: No, just one. But itﾕ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? COSTELLO: I need money to track my money? ABBOTT: It comes bundled with your computer. COSTELLO: What's bundled to my computer?

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".

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

Structure of a conversation
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

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, … 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 Kevin: I’ll tell her, Joe: thank you Kevin: bye bye Joe: bye

Action sequences: smaller joint projects to fulfill a goal Adjacency pairs Opening the conversation Kevin: Miss Pink’s office - hello Joe: hello, .. Exchanging information about Pink Joe:.., is Miss Pink in Kevin: well, she’s in, but she’s engaged at the moment…

Action sequences: smaller joint projects to fulfill a goal Adjacency pairs Exchanging the message from Worth 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, … Closing the conversation Kevin: I’ll tell her, Joe: thank you Kevin: bye bye Joe: bye

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?

Identifying participants
Conversation often takes place in situations that involve various types of participants and non-participants Eavesdropper All listeners Bystander Side participants All participants Speaker Addressee

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

Taking turns Typically conversations don’t involve two (or more) people talking at the same time 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) 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!)

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

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

PSY 369: Psycholinguistics

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "PSY 369: Psycholinguistics"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

PSY 369: Psycholinguistics

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "PSY 369: Psycholinguistics"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback