psy 369: psycholinguistics language production: experimentally elicited speech errors

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.

Problems with 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 canSay them aloud if you hear a ring

dog bone

dust ball

dead bug

doll bed

barn door

“darn bore”

• 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

Experimental speech errors

“wrong loot” FOR “long root”

“rawn loof” FOR “lawn roof “

Some basic findings

More likely

Influence of semantics (Motley, 1980)


Hypothesis: If preceded by phonologically and semantically

biasing material (PS) If preceded by only phonologically biasing material

(P).

Some basic findings

Predicted to be more likely



Method: 2 matched lists 20 word pairs as targets for errors

e.g. bad mug mad bug Each preceded by 4 - 7 neutral “filler”

word pairs

Some basic findings

mashed bunsmangy bears

Then 4 interference word pairs 2 phonological PLUS

2 semantic (SP)

angry insect

ornery fly

angled inset

older flu

or semantically neutral controls (P)

bad mug

small catsrainy daysred cars

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



Some basic findings

Freudian slips The psycholinguistic 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

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

Ellis, (1980)

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).

Freudian slips

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

Ellis, (1980)

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)

Freudian slips

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

Ellis, (1980)

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”

Experimental Freudian slips?

car tires

cat toys

can tops

cup trays

tool kits

“cool tits”

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.


From thought to speech

Jane threw the ball to Bill

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

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.

Speech errors have provided data about the units of speech production.

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 Propositions to be communicatedMessage level

Syntactic level

Morphemic level

Phonemic level

Articulation

Not a lot known about this step Typically thought to be shared with

comprehension processes, semantic networks, situational models, etc.

From thought to speech 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

Message level

Syntactic level

Morphemic level

Phonemic level

Articulation


It was such a happy moment when Ross kissed Rachel…

Ross

Emily

Rachel


… Oops! I mean “kissed Emily.”

Ross

Emily

Rachel


LEXICON

•ROSS

•KISS

•EMILY

•RACHEL

SYNTACTIC FRAME

NP

S

VP

V(past) NN

Spreading activation


LEXICON

•ROSS

•KISS

•EMILY

•RACHEL

SYNTACTIC FRAME

NP

S

VP

V(past) NN

Grammatical class constraint:

If the word isn’t the right grammatical class, it won’t “fit” into the slot.

From thought to speech Grammatical class constraint

Most substitutions, exchanges, and blends involve words of the same grammatical class

Slots and frames Other evidence

Syntactic priming

Message level

Syntactic level

Morphemic level

Phonemic level

Articulation

Hear and repeat a sentence

Describe the picture

Bock (1986): syntactic persistance tested by picture naming

Syntactic priming

a: The ghost sold the werewolf a flowerb: The ghost sold a flower to the werewolf

Bock (1986): syntactic persistance tested by picture naming

Syntactic priming

b: The girl gave the flowers to the teacher

a: The girl gave the teacher the flowers

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


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


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


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


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


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 …..

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

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

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/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?

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)

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:

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:

1 Conceptualising: we conceptualise what we wish to communicate (“mentalese”).

2 Formulating: we formulate what we want to say into a linguistic plan.– Lexicalisation

– Lemma Selection– Lexeme (or Phonological Form) Selection

– Syntactic Planning3 Articulating: we execute the plan through muscles in the vocal tract.4 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)

Message

Lexicon

Grammatical

Form

Articulation

FunctionalProcessing

PositionalProcessing

Levelt’s model Four broad stages:


express) Formulation

turning the message into linguistic representations

Grammatical encoding (finding words and putting them together)

Phonological encoding (finding sounds and putting them together)


Monitoring (via the comprehension system)

Message

Lexicon

Grammatical

Form

Articulation



Network has three strata conceptual stratum

lemma stratum

word-form stratum

Message

Lexicon

Grammatical

Form

Articulation



Levelt’s model

Tip of tongue state when lemma is retrieved without word-form being retrieved

Message

Lexicon

Grammatical

Form

Articulation



Levelt’s model

Formulation involves lexical retrieval:

Semantic/syntactic content (lemma)

Phonological content (word-form)

has stripes is dangerous

TIGER (X)

Fem.

Noun countable

tigre

/tigre/

/t/ /I/ /g/

Lexical concepts

Lemmas

Lexemes

Phonemes

Levelt’s model

Lexicon

Conceptual stratum

Conceptual stratum is not decomposed one lexical concept node for

“tiger” instead, conceptual links from

“tiger” to “stripes”, etc.

has stripesis dangerous

TIGER (X)

First, lemma activation occurs This involves activating a

lemma or lemmas corresponding to the concept

thus, concept TIGER activates lemma “tiger”

Lexical selection

Fem.

Noun countable

tiger

TIGER (X)

First, lemma activation occurs This involves activating a lemma or

lemmas corresponding to the concept thus, concept TIGER activates lemma

“tiger”

Lexical selection

tiger But also involves activating other lemmas

TIGER also activates LION (etc.) to some extent

and LION activates lemma “lion”

TIGER (X) 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

Lemma selection

tiger

TIGER (X) LION (X)

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/

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

Model’s assumptions

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

Basic findings

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

time

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

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



500520540560580600620640660680700

-150 0 150

DOTCATSHIP

EarlyOnly Semantic effects



500520540560580600620640660680700

-150 0 150

DOTCATSHIP

LateOnly Phonological effects

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

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

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)

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/

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 Dell’s model

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

Dell’s explanation

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

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 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

600

620

640

660

680

700

720

740

-150 0 150SOA

UnrelatedSemanticPhonologicalS & P

Damian & Martin (1999)

early semantic inhibition

Results

600

620

640

660

680

700

720

740

-150 0 150SOA



late phonological facilitation (0 and + 150 ms)


Results

600

620

640

660

680

700

720

740

-150 0 150SOA



late phonological facilitation (0 and + 150 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

ball

BALL (X) BALL (X)

ball

/ball/


DANCE (X)

dance

GAME (X)

game

Cascading Prediction: dance ball /ball/

Cutting and Ferreira (1999)

Results

860870880890900910920930940950960

Unrelated game dance

condition

Early semantic inhibition


Results

860870880890900910920930940950960

Unrelated game dance

condition

Early Facilitation from a phonologically mediated distractor

Early semantic inhibition


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


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?


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

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

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:

1 Conceptualising: we conceptualise what we wish to communicate (“mentalese”).

2 Formulating: we formulate what we want to say into a linguistic plan.– Lexicalisation

– Lemma Selection– Lexeme (or Phonological Form) Selection

– Syntactic Planning3 Articulating: we execute the plan through muscles in the vocal tract.4 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:


express)

Formulation turning the message into linguistic

representations Grammatical encoding (finding words and

putting them together) Phonological encoding (finding sounds and

putting them together)


Message

Lexicon

Grammatical

Form

Articulation



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”

Conversation is more than just two side-by-side monologues.

“the kids swam across the river”

Conversational interaction“The horse raced past

the barn”

Conversation is a specialized form of social interaction, with rules and organization.

“Really? Why would it do that?”

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


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


Speaking and listening Component actions in production and comprehension come in pairs

Speaking Listening A vocalizes sounds for B

A formalizes utterances for B

A means something for B

B attends to A’s vocalizations

B identifies A’s utterances

B understands A’s meaning

The actions of one participant depend on the actions of the other


Face-to-face conversation - the basic setting

Features

Co-presence Visibility Audibility Instantanei

ty

Evanescence Recordlessness Simultaneity

Extemporaneity Self-

determination Self-expression

Immediacy Medium Control

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. ABBOTT: Mac? 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.

Meaning and understanding 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? ABBOTT: Yes. 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.

Meaning and understanding 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? ABBOTT: Real One. 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?

Meaning and understanding 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? ABBOTT: Money. COSTELLO: I need money to track my money? ABBOTT: It comes bundled with your computer. COSTELLO: What's bundled to my computer? ABBOTT: Money.

Meaning and understanding 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".

Meaning and understanding 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

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

Structure of a conversation

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, …

Structure of a conversation 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 Joe: right Kevin: I’ll tell her, Joe: thank you Kevin: bye bye Joe: bye

Structure of a conversation 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…

Structure of a conversation 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?

EavesdropperAll listeners

Identifying participants Conversation often takes place in situations that involve various types of participants and non-participants

Bystander

Side

participantsAll 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 language production: experimentally elicited speech errors

Documents

speech errors results

perceiving speech errors

predicted speech errors

elicited speech errors

perceiving errors

likely slide

ring slide

certain types of errors