lexical retrieval processes: semantic field effects garrett, 1992a anna tinnemore april 26, 2006

37
Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

Post on 19-Dec-2015

218 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

Lexical Retrieval Processes:Semantic Field Effects

Garrett, 1992a

Anna Tinnemore

April 26, 2006

Page 2: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

Objective

Examine some patterns of

“normal word substitution errors” Support claims for semantic fields

“… to find distributional patterns that provide evidence for the structure of the general cognitive and linguistic processes that underlie language production”

Page 3: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

Data

Errors made by normal speakers in the course of regular conversation

Collection of >12,000 speech errors using diary method (much smaller segment used)

Shattuck and Garrett

Page 4: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

Multiple Location Error Examples

“a sot hoddering iron”

(hot soddering)

“It just sounded to start”

(started to sound)

“We completely forgot to add the list to the milk”

(milk to the list)

Page 5: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

Single Location Error Examples

“It looks as though you are making considerable process.”

(progress)

“…Looking at deep freeze structure…”

(phrase)

Page 6: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

Meaning-based Lexical Errors

“He rode his bike to school tomorrow.”

(yesterday)

“What I’ve done here is torn together three . . . uh, torn apart three issues that . . . .”

Page 7: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

Notice:

Important distinction between

form-mediated errors (phonological-ish)

and

meaning-mediated errors

(concept mix-ups)

Page 8: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

Movement Errors

Reveal a distinction between abstract logical and syntactic processes

and

surface phrasal structure processes

in sentence processing

These two levels correspond directly with two major types of lexical processing!

Page 9: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

A conceptually driven process

A form-driven process

Page 10: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

Lots of types of errors

Use only those errors with no apparent discourse or environmental source

(best candidates for errors in lexical retrieval)

These can be divided into two groups –you guessed it! - form-based and concept-based

Page 11: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

Form-Related

“You’ll earn her eternal grapefruit.”

(gratitude)

“I gave you my undevoted attention.”

(undivided)

Page 12: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

Meaning Related

“The picture on the front was the whale from Jaws.”

(shark)

“Ask me whether you think it’ll do the job.”

(tell)

Page 13: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

Semantic Constraints on Errors

Substantial proportion of word-substitution errors involving meaning-related pairs can be grouped into natural categories!

Page 14: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

Semantic Fields

The body part field

Subfields: head, torso, and limb

Page 15: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

Semantic Fields

Strong constraints within the body-part field (28 in / 4 out)

Exceptions plausibly explained as actually form-based errors

Ex: soldier/shoulder

Subfields too! (22 in / 6 cross)

Page 16: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

Interesting Notes:

Top three free-associates

13 yes / 15 no

No parallels between word frequency and word substitution errors

Page 17: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

More Interesting Notes:

No lexically mediated substitution pairs

(guns/arms, coconut/palm, inch/foot)

From conceptual space to lemmas

Comprehension: multiple activation of lexical interpretations of phonological input (Swinney, and others)

Page 18: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

Therefore:

It is reasonable to look for methods/processes that map from conceptual space to lemmas.

Page 19: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

Substitution pairs

Animals(dog/cat, cat/dog, lion/tiger, whale/shark, squirrel/turtle)

Colors(pink/green, yellow/red, red/yellow, blue/black)

Temporals(seconds/minutes, minute/second, year/week, day/year)

Page 20: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

Do you know the difference?Now, can you say it?

Page 21: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

Field integrity is strong, but not all fields

are of equal strength

Something more general than lexical relatedness – semantic relatedness?

(foot/wheel, speed/temperature, year/yard)

Page 22: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

Effects on grammatical classes

Nouns – conceptual oppositionsContradictories

(end/beginning, top/bottom)

Functional Contrasts

(husband/wife, answer/question)

(number names, letter names, proper names)

Page 23: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

Effects on Grammatical Classes

Adjectives – antonymy vs. synonymy

Antonyms Win!!

but not just any antonyms

only the base-form polar opposites

Page 24: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

Gross, Fisher, and Miller (1989)Semantic Space for Adjectives

Page 25: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

Effects on Grammatical Classes

Verbs

very similar to adjectives with strong tendency toward “opposites” (30/48)

(go/come, start/stop, remember/forget, ask/tell, love/hate, heard/said)

-- (looks/sounds, drink/eat)

Page 26: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

Topic switch

BLEND ERRORS

in word substitution the competition is won by the wrong word,

in blending they both win, and a phonetic compromise is reached!

Page 27: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006
Page 28: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

Examples

stummy

(tummy/ stomach) perple

(person/people) slickery

(slick/slippery) evoid

(evade/avoid) kwierd

(queer/weird)

editated

(edited/annotated) everybun

(everyone/everybody) dentars

(dentals/velars) smever

(smart/clever) corallel

(corollary/parallel)

Page 29: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

What?

SYNONYMY not

ANTONYMY

Page 30: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

Conclusions

If substitutions are errors in the mapping between concepts and lemmas

If blends are the result of multiple lemma activations for one concept

They are different and the same!

Page 31: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

Early stages of mapping from concept to lemma representation

Page 32: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

Conclusions:

There are semantic field constraints.

There may be some feature of the mechanism we use that makes antonym relations prevalent in word substitution errors across grammatical classes

Page 33: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

Further questions

How does the relationship between concept and lemma representations control lexical retrieval?

Are lemmas in semantic fields? Or are conceptual representations what

cause these field effects?

Page 34: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

Your questions

I can neither confirm nor deny the veracity of any answer I give to any question posed at this time. There may or may not be evidence to contradict any statement I might make. I may claim no knowledge of a subject but do not acknowledge any deficiencies regarding my mental state or education that may seem apparent from these claims.

Void where prohibited. Must be 18 or older to play. Offer expires 4/26/2006.

Page 35: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

‘Lyssa, cute and scruffy

Page 36: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

More examples

WASP - white Anglo-Saxon prostitute

“I thought Westerns were where people rode horses instead of cows.”

“I was so tired I couldn’t get off my foot.”

“Rewrite your thesis to your heart’s dissent.”

“I just banged my finger with a hanger.”

transpised

(transposed/transcribed) stougher

(stiffer/tougher) swifting

(shifting/switching) dreeze

(draft/breeze) grastly

(grizzly/ghastly)

Page 37: Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

More fun

“When you apply the underlying string to the P-rule…”

“I’m going to mainly point about …”

(I’m going to talk about three main points)

“When you key in your KIN number, ah PIN number…”

“Use e-mail to handle it in”“Just buy a fifty pound dog of

bag food”

“Say the languages from 1 to 10 in your native language.”

“I think Your Honor has really put the finger on it” (your finger)

“There’s a branch falling on the tree” (roof)

“I have a tongue on my sore”

“ “John shaves John” is not ambigual”