1 / 44

PSY 369: Psycholinguistics

PSY 369: Psycholinguistics. Language Production: Models. Tip-of-the-tongue. TOT Meaning access No (little) phonological access What about syntax?. Uhh… It is a.. You know.. A.. Arggg. I can almost see it, it has two Syllables, I think it starts with A …. Tip-of-the-tongue.

maya
Download Presentation

PSY 369: Psycholinguistics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. PSY 369: Psycholinguistics Language Production: Models

  2. Tip-of-the-tongue • TOT • Meaning access • No (little) phonological access • What about syntax? Uhh… It is a.. You know.. A.. Arggg. I can almost see it, it has two Syllables, I think it starts with A …..

  3. 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

  4. 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?

  5. 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)

  6. 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)

  7. 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?

  8. Levelt’s model • Four 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) • Monitoring (via the comprehension system)

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

  10. Levelt’s model • 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)

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

  12. 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)

  13. 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.

  14. 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) LION (X) tiger lion • But also involves activating other lemmas • TIGER also activates LION (etc.) to some extent • and LION activates lemma “lion”

  15. Lemma selection • 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 TIGER (X) LION (X) tiger lion

  16. 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/

  17. 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

  18. Experimental tests • 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 tiger

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

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

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

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

  23. 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

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

  25. Schriefers, Meyer, and Levelt (1990) • Auditory presentation of distractors • DOT phonologically related • CAT semantically related • SHIP unrelated word Late Only Phonological effects

  26. 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

  27. Dell’s interactive account • Dell (1986) presented the best-known interactive account • other similar accounts exist • 3 levels of representation • semantics (decomposed into features) • words • phonemes (sounds)

  28. Interactive because information flows “upwards” as well as “downwards” • e.g., the semantic features mammal, barks, four-legs activate the word “dog” • 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 • this activation is upwards (phonology to syntax) and wouldn’t occur in Levelt’s account

  29. 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

  30. Dell’s explanation • The semantic features of dog activate lemma “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

  31. 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

  32. 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/

  33. Alternatively, it simply serves to increase fluency in lemma selection • advantageous to select a lemma whose phonological form is easy to find

  34. Evidence for interactivity • A number of recent experimental findings appear to support interaction under some circumstances (or at least cascading models) • Peterson & Savoy (JEP:LMC, 1998) • Cutting & Ferreira (JEP:LMC, 1999) • Griffin & Bock (JML, 1998) • Damian & Martin (JEP:LMC, 1999)

  35. 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?

  36. Damian and Martin (1999) • Extension of Schriefers et al.’s picture-word interference task • remember that semantic inhibition occurred early, phonological facilitation occurred late (with no overlap) • various methodological changes and developments • focus on Experiment 3

  37. The critical difference from Schriefers et al. is 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)

  38. Results

  39. Summary of findings • early semantic inhibition (- 150 and 0 ms) • late phonological facilitation (0 and + 150 ms) • shows overlap, unlike Schriefers et al. • but S & P condition didn’t show early semantic inhibition

  40. This last finding demonstrates that semantic interference is reduced in the simultaneous presence of a phonological relationship (which should facilitate) • Thus the finding appears to contradict the “discrete two-step” account of Levelt et al.

  41. 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

  42. 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

  43. 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

  44. 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.)

More Related