1 / 22

Rob Hartsuiker ( Ghent University ) Martin Pickering & Nivja de Jong ( Edinburgh University )

Semantic facilitation and phonological interference in self-correction: evidence from picture naming. Rob Hartsuiker ( Ghent University ) Martin Pickering & Nivja de Jong ( Edinburgh University ). Self-monitoring of speech.

smithbill
Download Presentation

Rob Hartsuiker ( Ghent University ) Martin Pickering & Nivja de Jong ( Edinburgh University )

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. Semantic facilitation and phonological interference in self-correction: evidence from picture naming Rob Hartsuiker (Ghent University) Martin Pickering & Nivja de Jong (Edinburgh University)

  2. Self-monitoring of speech (1) “You cannot even get a job in an English hospital without passing an English/ a French test” (2) “If Quebec can have a ba/ a Bill 101” • Self-monitoring of speech: detecting problems in speech (e.g., semantic [1] or phonological [2] errors), interrupting, and repairing • How do people repair? *Source: Blackmer & Mitton (Cognition, 1991)

  3. Self-repair Previous research considered: • The grammatical form of self-repairs (Levelt, 1983; Nooteboom, 1980; Van Wijk & Kempen, 1987) • The time course of repairing (Blackmer & Mitton, 1991; Hartsuiker & Kolk, 2001; Oomen & Postma, 2001) • But how do we repair?

  4. Self-repair: two views Do we maintain a representation of the error or do we “wipe the slate clean?” • Wiping-clean: prevents the error from re-occuring. • Maintenance: errors tend to resemble the target - why not re-use as much as you can?

  5. Why wiping clean? • Simplest account of repair is simply starting from scratch (Berg, 1986; Postma & Kolk, 1993) • But restarting needs to prevent repeated selection of the error. • Therefore, requires ‘wiping clean’

  6. Why maintenance? • Levelt (1983): Well-formedness rule of self-repairs: a repair (R) is well-formed iff the original utterance (O) can be completed with a string C so that O + C + or/and + R is a well-formed sentence. • But in order to adhere to that rule, the original utterance needs to be maintained.

  7. Errors as distractors Maintaining an error - analogous to Stroop-like tasks • Semantic interference(e.g., Damian & Martin, 1999; Glaser & Glaser, 1989; Schriefers, Meyer, & Levelt, 1990; La Heij et al., 1990; Starreveld & La Heij, 1995) • Phonological facilitation(same references) • Semantic facilitation (Bloem & La Heij, 2003)

  8. Wipe-clean: No difference between Related repairs (Sem, Phon) and unrelated repairs (Unr) Maintenance: Relatedness effects, as in Stroop-like tasks Sem: Butterfl/ Cat Phon: Butterfl/ Bus Unr: Butterfl/ Pipe Predictions

  9. Interruption paradigm • Picture naming • Occasionally, picture changes while naming it • Interrupt and repair • Glass … apple • Glasses… apple • Measure: repair onset latency + Interrupted stimulus (IS) 0 Corrected stimulus (CS) 1000 1300 cf., Van Wijk & Kempen (1987)

  10. No-change trial (92%) +

  11. Change-trial (8%) +

  12. Experiment 1: Semantic Relatedness Filler trials: Related trial: Unrelated trials:

  13. Method • 32 participants • Pictures from Snodgrass & Vanderwart (1980) • IS polysyllabic, CS monosyllabic • 264 trials: • 24 Change Trials (12 sem. related, 12 unrelated) • 12 Filler change trials • 228 No-Change trials

  14. Results: response types UNR SEM IS interrupted: butterf/ cat 110 87 IS completed: butterfly cat 114 142 IS skipped: cat 108 95 • Completions more likely in semantically-related trials

  15. Results: reaction times (ms) UNR SEM Effect IS interrupted 676 729 -53 (*) IS completed 761 716 45 (*) IS skipped 744 765 -21 • Semantic interference if IS interrupted • Semantic facilitation if IS completed

  16. Experiment 2: Phonological Relatedness Filler Phon Unr

  17. Results: response types UNR PHON IS interrupted: 64 68 IS completed: 290 276 IS skipped: 40 42 • No effect on completion frequency

  18. Results: reaction times (ms) UNR PHON Effect IS interrupted 660 621 39 IS completed 652 698 -46* IS skipped 753 731 22 • Phonological interference if IS completed

  19. Discussion • Relationship error<->repair affects repair latency, supporting maintenance hypothesis. • Directionality depends on placement interruption: • Within IS: Sem. interference; Phon. facilitation(?) • After IS: Sem. facilitation; Phon. interference

  20. Within-IS interruptions • The lemma and the phonological representations remain active. • SEM related words: increased competition at lemma level (e.g., Levelt et al., 1999; Schriefers et al., 1990) • PHON related words: re-use of sublexical elements (id.)

  21. Post-IS interruptions • After speaking a word, the lemma and phon. representations are discarded, or even inhibited: • SEM related words: no competition at lemma level, but priming at conceptual level (cf., Bloem & La Heij, 03). • PHON related words: post-selection inhibition of phon. units (cf., Dell 1986, Dell et al., 1997).

  22. Implications • We maintain representations of the error, including the lemma and (sub)lexical phonology • But only until the error is produced completely. At that point, certain mechanisms kick in that prevent reselection. • => If you stop too fast, you’ll Stroop yourself.

More Related