Tobias Scheer Fabien Mathy Fanny Meunier [tous MSHS, BCL Nice]

1. How to detect the presence / absence of phonological activity in language production 58ème Congrès de la Société Française de Psychologie Symposium 9: Processus cognitifs et structure morphologique des mots Nice, 1er septembre 2017 Tobias Scheer Fabien Mathy Fanny Meunier [tous MSHS, BCL Nice]

2. steps in language production content working memory description action lexical access decision: talk about "electricity" (not "dog") fetch item from long term memory -- électri[k]- -ité conceptualization loadpiecesintoworking memory concatenatepieces and tag themwithnumber, person etc. construct sentence: "on a parlé de __" concatenation (morpho-syntax) {électri[k]-ité}N transform cognitive intophysical structure (articulatory, acoustic) preparethem for physicalprocessing (phoneticencoding) [elɛktχisite] phonology adjustthem for pronunciation (pho-nologicalencoding) transformphonemes (sounds): ks / _i {électri[s]-ité}N

3. no consensus about whodoeswhat • Linguists do not agree • how manypieces (morphemes) that are stored in long term memory are involved in wordsthatcanbeanalysed as morphologicallycomplex. • whatis the division of labour betweenstorage and computation. • e.g. electricity Phonology: Kiparsky (1968-73, 1974), Bermúdez-Otero (2012) etc. Morphology: Williams (2007) etc.

4. whatwewant to find out • For anygiven production : • ismorphologyinvolved ? • isphonologyinvolved ? • Numberof pieces ≠ phonologicalcomputation: • decompositiondoes not tell us anything about phonologicalcomputation • => if a worddecomposesinto [piece 1] and [piece 2] in the mental lexicon, the concatenation of thesepiecesmay or may not involvephonologicalactivity. • Examplewithoutphonologicalactivity: hike – hi[k]-ing • Examplewithphonologicalactivity: electri[k] – electri[s]-ity

5. experimentalprotocoladaptedformSahin et al. (2009) • Sahin et al. (2009) • intra-cranial EEG (deep electrodes) • 3 patients implanted for medical evaluation (epilepsy) • experimental protocol adapted to behavioural measurements of RT Sahin, Ned T., Steven Pinker, Sidney S. Cash, Donald Schomer & Eric Halgren 2009. Sequential Processing of Lexical, Grammatical, and Phonological Information Within Broca's Area. Science 326: 445-449.

6. hypothesis • doing more thingstakes more time • all otherthingsbeingequal, the RT hierarchyis • Read < NullInflect < OvertInflect

7. four phenomenastudied grand [grã] vs. grand-e [grãd] float. C adj. il part [paʁ] vs. nous par[t]-onsfloat. C conjug. il ach[ɛ]te vs. nous ach[ə]t-onsschwa-ɛ électri[k] vs. électri[s]-itéik-sité

8. Method Instruction 650ms + 1100ms 40 participants aged 25 on average 154 words split into 4 phenomena (plus fillers): 68 float.Cconjug, 68 float.C adj., 5 schwa, and 5 -i[k]-sité, 8 fillers. 3 conditions (Overtinflect, Nullinflect, Read) × 154 words = 462 trials Trial : Stimulus 250ms + 1500ms Production of the targetexpectedhere

9. Method Ils sont __ 650ms + 1100ms électrique 250ms + Example (NullInflect) 1500ms Production of « électriques » expectedhere Dependent variable : RT from the visualonset of the stimulus word(vocal key : CHRONOS, synchronizedwith E-PRIME).

10. Results Estimated gaussians Stacked mean RTs in msfor the conditionsRead, Null Inflect and Overt Inflect: 412 ms 460 ms 489 ms Macro-granularity(across 4 phenomena) : RTs as predictedaccording to condition: Read < NullInflect < OvertInflect • The ANOVA showed a main effect of Condition on RTs: F(2,78) = 59, p < .001, partial η2 = 60%, withpost hoc tests clearly separated the three conditions.

11. Results • Intermediategranularity • 4 phenomenaindividualized: • float.C adj. and schwa-ɛ: no effect • float.Cconjug.: only Read vs Overtinflectsignificanteffect • ik-sité: both Read and NullinflecsignificantlydifferentfromOvertinflect There is a significant interaction between Condition and Phenomena (F(6,234) = 9.4, p < .001). The mean RT for the four phenomena under scrutiny : in both the Read and Null inflect conditions showed no significant differences while in the Overt inflect condition showed significant differences (F(3,142) = 17.7, p < .001): RT (ms) Error bars are+/- 1 SE

12. Results • Micro-granularity • Within a givenphenomenon, differentwordsindividualized: • électricité behaveslikeNullInflect = absence of phonological computation • historicité and the 4 otherwordsbehavelikeOvertInflect = presence of phonological computation • predictor: tokenfrequency • électricité 12,97 (per million) • others 0,00 to 0,41 (per million) • no conclusion maybedrawnregading the number of pieces: recall • "number of pieces ≠ phonological computation" Bayes factors (highlighted in grey when phonological computation was not obvious): Note. For the 68 words of the categoryfloat C. adj, the frequencies of the best hypothesesNull, Overt, and Read wererespectively 11, 14 and 43 (goodness of fit chi-square test : χ2 = 27.6, p < .001), showingthatmostoften the words of thiscategory do not seem to requirephonology.

13. Discussion • Micro-granularity • token (=lexical) frequencyisresponsible for intra-phenomenon distinctions: • the more frequent, the greater the chance for a phonological alternation to belexicalized (listed). • Intermediate and Macro-granularity • significant RT effectscannotbe due to token (lexical) frequencysince for eachcontrasting group the same lexical items wereused. • Example Macro-granularity: Read vs. NullInflect vs. OvertInflect • the set of lexical items used are the same in the three conditions. • asidefrom lexical frequency, (at least) one more factor isresponsible for reaction time latencies: the complexity (difficulty) of the processingtask.

14. References Balota, David A. & James I. Chumbley 1985. The locus of word-frequency effects in the pronunciation task: lexical access and/or production? Journal of Memory and Language 24: 89-106. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo 2012. The architecture of grammar and the division of labor in exponence. The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence, edited by JochenTrommer, 8-83. Oxford: OUP. Bien, Heidrun, R. Harald Baayen & Willem J. M. Levelt 2011. Frequency effects in the production of Dutch deverbal adjectives and inflected verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes 26: 683-715. Bock, J. K. 1982. Toward a cognitive psychology of of syntax. Psychological Review 89: 1-47. Butterworth, B. 1983. Lexical representation. Language production. Vol. 2. Development, writing and other language processes, edited by B. Butterworth, 257-294. London: Academic Press. Chomsky, Noam 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Dell, Gary S. 1986. A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review 93: 283-321. Gahl, S. 2008. Time and thyme are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language 84: 474-496. Graves, W. W., T. J. Grabowski, S. Mehta & J. K. Gordon 2007. A neural signature of phonological access: distinguishing the effects of word frequency from familiarity and length in overt picture naming. Journal of cognitive neuroscience 19: 617-631. Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz 1993. Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. The view from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, edited by Kenneth Hale & Samuel Keyser, 111-176. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Janssen, N., Y. Bi & A. Caramazza 2008. A tale of two frequencies: Determining the speed of lexical access in Mandarin Chinese and English compounds. Language and Cognitive Processes 23: 1191-1223. Jescheniak, Jörg D. & Willem J. M. Levelt 1994. Word frequency effects in speech production: retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory, and Cognition 20: 824-843. Kiparsky, Paul 1968-1973. How abstract is phonology? Manuscript circulated since 1968 and published 1973 in: Three Dimensions of Linguistic Theory, edited by Osamu Fujimura, 5-56. Tokyo: TEC.

15. References Kiparsky, Paul 1974. On the Evaluation Measure. Papers from the parasession on Natural Phonology, edited by A.Bruck, R.Fox & M.LaGaly, 328-337. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Laganaro, M., S. Morand, V. Schwitter, C. Zimmermann, C. Camen & A. Schnider 2009. Electrophysiological correlates of different anomic patterns in comparison with normal word production. Cortex 45: 697-707. Levelt, Willem J. M. 1989. Speaking: from intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Levelt, Willem J. M. 2001. Spoken word production: A theory of lexical access. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98: 13464-13513. Levelt, Willem J. M., ArdiRoelofs & Antje S. Meyer 1999. A theory of lexical access in speech production. The Behavioral and brain sciences 22: 1-75. Meyer, A.S. 1992. Investigation of phonological encoding through speech error analyses: achievements, limitations, and alternatives. Cognition 42: 181-211. Prabhakaran, R., S. E. Blumstein, E. B. Myers, E. Hutchison & B. Britton 2006. An event-related fMRI investigation of phonological–lexical competition. Neuropsychologia 44: 2209-2221. Roelofs, Ardi 1992. A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition 42: 107-142. Roelofs, Ardi 1993. Testing a non-decompositional theory of lemma retrieval in speaking: retrieval of verbs. Cognition 47: 59-87. Roelofs, Ardi 1997. The WEAVER model of word-form encoding in speech production. Cognition 64: 249-284. Sahin, Ned T., Steven Pinker, Sidney S. Cash, Donald Schomer & Eric Halgren 2009. Sequential Processing of Lexical, Grammatical, and Phonological Information Within Broca's Area. Science 326: 445-449. Strijkers, K., A. Costa & G. Thierry 2010. Tracking lexical access in speech production: Electrophysiological correlates of word frequency and cognate effects. Cerebral Cortex 20: 912-928. Williams, Edwin 2007. Dumping Lexicalism. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, edited by Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss, 353-381. Oxford: OUP.

16. studies in language production • convergent views of • (generative-sceptic) psycho-linguistic experimental analysis • and (generative) linguistic analysis • 1. sequence of events • lexical access before • concatenation (grammatical encoding) before • phonological interpretation (phonological encoding) before • phonetics (phonetic encoding) • Chomsky (1965), Bock (1982), Levelt (1989) • 2. late insertion = lemma vs. lexeme • morpho-syntactic (grammatical) and phonological information is stored independently in the mental lexicon (long term memory) and accessed at two distinct stages in the production process: • lemma (containsmorpho-syntactic information) vs. lexeme (containsphonological information) • lemma retrieval before morpho-syntactic computation (grammatical encoding) before lexeme retrieval before phonological computation (phon. encoding) • Levelt (1989), Jescheniak & Levelt (1994), Halle & Marantz (1993)

17. studies in language production • evidence used • non-experimental • speech errors • Dell (1986), Meyer (1992) • experimental • behavioural: frequency effects detected by reaction time • Jescheniak & Levelt (1994) etc. • electrophysiological (EEG, MEEG) • Laganaroet al. (2009), Strijkers et al. (2010) • neuro-imaging (MRI) • Prabhakaranet al. (2006), Graves et al. (2007)

18. studies in language production protocols used naming task: measure naming latencies (reaction time) 2. delayed naming task Balota& Chumbley (1985) etc. 3. homophone naming task Gahl(2008) etc. 4. naming & translation (from language X to language Y) Jescheniak & Levelt (1994, exp. #6,#7)

19. studies in language production • goals: what people want to find out • identify the locus of frequency effects: at which processing stage does it occur? • Balota & Chumbley (1985), Jescheniak & Levelt(1994), Gahl (2008) • 2. identify the different steps / routines in production and provide evidence for their reality • Bock (1982), Dell (1986), Roelofs(1992, 1993, 1997), Levelt (1989), Leveltet al. (1999) • 3. decomposition vs. full listing: how many pieces are involved in morphologically complex items? • Butterworth (1983), Janssen et al. (2008), Levelt(2001), Levelt et al. (1999)

20. studies in language production linguistic granularity often the only differentiation is between morphologically complex vs. morphologically simple other parameter used: length of words (one vs. two or more syllables) sometimes different constructions are tested (in the decomposition vs. full listing debate): a. inflection b. derivation c. compounds but these differences are then scrambled and taken to equally represent the "morphologically complex" class: "There is converging evidence that the production of complex words involves access to the constituent morphemes, irrespective of transparency conditions in these experiments." Bien et al. (2011: 684) summary idea that the construction of all morphologically complex items has the same cognitive workings. different constructions are used, but without using linguistic evidence for their selection, classification or significance (e.g. class 1 vs. class 2 affixes).

21. stimuli selection linguistic restrictions 1. represent all floating consonants: -t (petit), -s (gros), -kt (distinct) 2. caveat schwa-ɛ: inf. empaqueter, but 3sg empacte / empaquète Otherthanthat: tokenfrequency (mostfrequent items selected) lexical frequencyeffect on RT neutralizedwhen all stimuli belong to the samefrequency class.

22. background of ourexperiment new experimentalprotocol in behaviouralstudies (adaptedfrom EEG-basedSahin et al. 2009) not all morphologicallycomplex items are the same: a. someinvolveonly one piece (lexicalized) b. othersinvolvetwopieces but no phonologicalactivity (allomorphy) c. stillothersinvolvetwopieces plus phonologicalactivity (morpho-phon.) 3. whatwe are after: for each construction (eachmorpheme), find out about 2a-c. stimuli sets selectedaccording to theirlinguisticcharacteristics: different constructions are more or less likely to instantiate 2a-c.