scholarly journals Disfluency patterns in the language production system

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aurélie Pistono ◽  
Robert J. Hartsuiker
Keyword(s):  
Production System ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Lexical Selection ◽  
Language System ◽  
Multivariate Pattern ◽  
Conceptual Formulation

Within the language system, several of the language production levels may be involved in the production of disfluencies. Here, we conducted network task experiments to tackle disfluencies occurring during lexical selection, grammatical selection, and conceptual formulation. We showed that each difficulty induced a different pattern of disfluency. Additionally, multivariate pattern analyses demonstrated that difficulty is predictable from disfluency data patterns.

scholarly journals Are phonological influences on lexical (mis)selection the result of a monitoring bias?

2008 ◽  
Vol 61 (11) ◽  
pp. 1687-1709 ◽  
Author(s):  
Els Severens ◽  
Elie Ratinckx ◽  
Victor S. Ferreira ◽  
Robert J. Hartsuiker
Keyword(s):  
Information Flow ◽  
Production System ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Related Word ◽  
Lexical Selection ◽  
Bottom Up ◽  
Error Patterns ◽  
Speech Error ◽  
Interactive Models ◽  
Phonological Errors

A monitoring bias account is often used to explain speech error patterns that seem to be the result of an interactive language production system, like phonological influences on lexical selection errors. A biased monitor is suggested to detect and covertly correct certain errors more often than others. For instance, this account predicts that errors that are phonologically similar to intended words are harder to detect than those that are phonologically dissimilar. To test this, we tried to elicit phonological errors under the same conditions as those that show other kinds of lexical selection errors. In five experiments, we presented participants with high cloze probability sentence fragments followed by a picture that was semantically related, a homophone of a semantically related word, or phonologically related to the (implicit) last word of the sentence. All experiments elicited semantic completions or homophones of semantic completions, but none elicited phonological completions. This finding is hard to reconcile with a monitoring bias account and is better explained with an interactive production system. Additionally, this finding constrains the amount of bottom-up information flow in interactive models.

Word form retrieval in language production

2007 ◽  
pp. 470-488 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antje S. Meyer ◽  
Eva Belke
Keyword(s):  
Language Production ◽  
Knowledge Building ◽  
Word Production ◽  
Word Form ◽  
Lexical Selection ◽  
Single Word ◽  
Phonological Representations ◽  
Phonological Knowledge ◽  
Phonetic Code ◽  
Selection Of

Current models of word form retrieval converge on central assumptions. They all distinguish between morphological, phonological, and phonetic representations and processes; they all assume morphological and phonological decomposition, and agree on the main processing units at these levels. In addition, all current models of word form postulate the same basic retrieval mechanisms: activation and selection of units. Models of word production often distinguish between processes concerning the selection of a single word unit from the mental lexicon and the retrieval of the associated word form. This article explores lexical selection and word form retrieval in language production. Following the distinctions in linguistic theory, it discusses morphological encoding, phonological encoding, and phonetic encoding. The article also considers the representation of phonological knowledge, building of phonological representations, segmental retrieval, retrieval of metrical information, generating the phonetic code of words, and a model of word form retrieval.

Brain-imaging studies of language production

2007 ◽  
pp. 546-564
Author(s):  
Peter Indefrey
Keyword(s):  
Brain Imaging ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Brain Regions ◽  
Code Word ◽  
Word Production ◽  
Production Model ◽  
Exact Nature ◽  
Lexical Selection ◽  
Imaging Studies ◽  
Independent Evidence

This article adopts the production model of Levelt to discuss brain imaging studies of continuous speech. Conclusions about the involvement of brain regions in processes of language production are mainly drawn on the basis of the presence or absence of processing components of speaking in certain experimental tasks. Such conclusions are largely theory independent, because differences between current models do not concern the assumed processing levels but the exact nature of the information flow between them. In a second step, the article tests some of these conclusions by comparing the few available data on activation time courses of brain regions and independent evidence on the timing of processes in language production. It also discusses brain regions involved in word production, conceptually driven lexical selection, phonological code (word form) retrieval, phonological encoding, phonetic encoding and articulation, self-monitoring, whether the hemodynamic core areas are necessary for word production, and bilingual language production.

scholarly journals Neural systems for sign language production: Mechanisms supporting lexical selection, phonological encoding, and articulation

2004 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 156-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucila San José-Robertson ◽  
David P. Corina ◽  
Debra Ackerman ◽  
Andre Guillemin ◽  
Allen R. Braun
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Neural Systems ◽  
Phonological Encoding ◽  
Lexical Selection ◽  
Production Mechanisms

scholarly journals Cascading and feedback in interactive models of production: A reflection of forward modeling?

2013 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 351-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary S. Dell
Keyword(s):  
Production System ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Forward Modeling ◽  
Reverse Direction ◽  
Lexical Retrieval ◽  
Interactive Models

AbstractInteractive theories of lexical retrieval in language production assume that activation cascades from earlier to later processing levels, and feeds back in the reverse direction. This commentary invites Pickering & Garrod (P&G) to consider whether cascading and feedback can be seen as a form of forwarding modeling within a hierarchical production system.

scholarly journals Monitoring and Control in Language Production

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 403-410 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nazbanou Nozari ◽  
Jared Novick
Keyword(s):  
Language Production ◽  
Monitoring And Control ◽  
Language System ◽  
Domain Specific ◽  
Language Research ◽  
And Control ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Review Current

Language research has provided insight into how speakers translate a thought into a sequence of sounds that ultimately becomes words, phrases, and sentences. Despite the complex stages involved in this process, relatively little is known about how we avoid and handle production and comprehension errors that would otherwise impede communication. We review current research on the mechanisms underlying monitoring and control of the language system, especially production, with particular emphasis on whether such monitoring is issued by domain-general or domain-specific procedures.

scholarly journals Lexical Selection in Language Production

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Winston Downes
Keyword(s):  
University Students ◽  
Speech Production ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Noun Phrase ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Semantic Relatedness ◽  
First Year ◽  
Lexical Selection ◽  
First Year University

<p>Two experiments were conducted with first-year university students in an effort to discover more about what happens when a phrase is spoken. A paradigm was constructed with the intention of getting the participants to produce a simple, two-noun phrase at a cue and then 'catch' them out having them say the name of a single picture presented instead. The single picture presented to 'catch' the participants out (instead of the cue) was either the first or second name in the simple two-noun phrase, or a third, unplanned picture. The intention was to compare the relative timings of the different catch pictures in an effort to discover which of two theories of speech production best describes the cognitive processes that underlie such processes. The second experiment was an extension of this idea but also included a semantic relatedness variable, where the catch picture could be semantically related to an item shown during the planning of the simple, two-noun phrase. The results of these experiments were not in line with the hypothesis regarding the relative timings of the catch pictures, but were in line with the hypothesis that it would take longer to name catch pictures that were preceded by semantically related pictures. Implications of such findings are discussed along with possible future modifications to extend the utility of the paradigm used in this study.</p>

scholarly journals Eye-movements can help disentangle mechanisms underlying disfluency

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aurélie Pistono ◽  
Robert Hartsuiker
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Eye Tracking ◽  
Eye Movement ◽  
Lexical Selection ◽  
Self Monitoring ◽  
Speech Encoding ◽  
Movement Data ◽  
Multivariate Pattern

To reveal the underlying cause of disfluency, several authors related the pattern of disfluencies to difficulties at specific levels of production, using a Network Task. However, disfluencies are arguably multifactorial. To disentangle disfluency related to word preparation from other factors, we combined this task with eye-tracking. We manipulated lexical and grammatical selection difficulty. In Experiment 1, lines connecting the pictures varied in length. Experiment 2 only used short lines. In both experiments, lexical selection difficulty promoted self- corrections and pauses and longer viewing times. Multivariate pattern analyses (MVPA) demonstrated that lexical selection difficulty is predictable from disfluency and eye-movement data patterns. In Experiment 1, participants spent less time gazing at pictures preceded by long lines, while producing more pauses. This suggests they used a strategy to inspect other areas than the upcoming picture. We conclude that eye-tracking is informative about mechanisms underlying disfluency related to speech encoding, self-monitoring, and stalling strategies.

scholarly journals Paradigmatic and syntagmatic effects in Estonian spontaneous speech

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaidi Lõo ◽  
Fabian Tomaschek ◽  
Pärtel Lippus ◽  
Benjamin V. Tucker
Keyword(s):  
Complex System ◽  
Internal Structure ◽  
Speech Production ◽  
Production System ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Spontaneous Speech ◽  
Corpus Analysis ◽  
Linguistic Context ◽  
System P ◽  
Morphological Family

Recent evidence has indicated that a word's morphological family and inflectional paradigm members get activated when we produce words. These paradigmatic effects have previously been studied in careful, laboratory context using words in isolation. This previous research has not investigated how the linguistic context affects spontaneous speech production. The current corpus analysis investigates paradigmatic and syntagmatic effects in Estonian spontaneous speech. Following related work on English, we focus on morphemic and non-morphemic word final /-s/ in content words. We report that linguistic context, as measured by conditional probability, has the strongest effect on the acoustic durations, while inflectional properties (internal structure and inflectional paradigm size) also affect word and segment durations. These results indicate that morphology is part of a complex system that interacts with other aspects of the language production system.

scholarly journals Information structure and referential givenness/newness: How much belongs in the grammar?

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeanette Gundel
Keyword(s):  
Structural Properties ◽  
Information Structure ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Cognitive Status ◽  
The Other ◽  
Language System ◽  
New Information ◽  
Information Status ◽  
Label Information ◽  
The Way

This paper is concerned with such concepts as topic, focus and cognitive status of discourse referents, which have been included under the label information structure (alternatively information status), as they are related in some sense to the distribution of given and new information. It addresses the question of which information structural properties are best accounted for by grammatical constraints and which can be attributed to non-linguistic constraints on the way information is processed and communicated. Two logically independent senses of given-new information are distinguished, one referential and the other relational. I discuss some examples of linguistic phenomena that pertain to each of these different senses and show that both are linguistically relevant and must be represented in the grammar. I also argue that phenomena related to both senses have pragmatic effects that do not have to be represented in the grammar since they result from interaction of the language system with general pragmatic principles that constrain inferential processes involved in language production and understanding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document