Linguistics, 23 , — Untersuchungen an deutschen und englischen Versprechern. Activation and inhibition in emergent processing systems unpublished manuscript. Blaxton, T. Inhibition from semantically related primes: Evidence of a category-specific inhibition. Memory and Cognition, 11 , — Bock, K. An effect of the accessibility of word forms on sentence structures.
Journal of Memory and Language, 26 , — Branigan, G. Syllable structure and the acquisition of consonants: The great conspiracy of word formation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5 , — Buckingham, H. On linguistic perseveration. Whitaker Eds. New York: Academic Press. Butterworth, B. Cognition, 26 , 1— Collins, A. Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8 , — Colombo, L. Activation and inhibition with orthographically similar words.
Dell, G. A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93 , — Mediated and convergent lexical priming in language production: A comment on Levelt et al.
Psychological Review, 98 , — Priming single digit numbers: Automatic spreading activation dissipates as a function of semantic distance. American Journal of Psychology, 99 , — Fromkin, V. A sample of speech errors. Fromkin Ed. The Hague: Mouton. Harley, T. A critique of top-down independent levels models of speech production: Evidence from non-plan-internal speech errors. Cognitive Science, 8 , — Automatic and executive processing in semantic and syntactic planning: A dual process model of speech production.
Sabah Eds. London: Pinter. Paragrammatisms: Syntactic disturbance or breakdown of control? Cognition, 34 , 85— Keller, E. The cortical representation of motor processes of speech.
Gopnik Eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Levelt, W. Which of the above speech errors are not accounted for by the Fromkin Model or Garret model? How are these errors better accounted for by the Bock and Levelt Model and by parallel processing models of speech production?
Remember that in this model there are nodes for many aspects of the utterance including phonemes, morphemes, syllables, concepts etc. Freudian slip B. Phoneme switch C. Word switch D. Morpheme switch E. The lexical bias effect.
How do the parallel and serial models of speech production explain the lexical bias effect differently? How does each type of model justify there being more of an effect at slow speech rates than at high speech rates? In order to get an idea of how language processing can be assessed, try the following pseudo-experiment. Please read these instructions carefully before opening the video hyperlink. The video contains 40 word-pairs. Your task is to decide how the two words of each pair are related, either semantically similar in meaning , phonetically consisting of similar phonetic units or not related at all.
Before pressing the link for the video, please take out a piece of paper and create a tally with the following headings: Semantically Related, Phonetically Related, and Not related. Once you start the video, focus on the cross in the middle of the screen. Word pairs will be presented for a few seconds, followed by the focal point cross , followed by the next pair; this will continue for 40 word-pairs.
Look at the word-pairs quickly and decide how they are related. Put a tick in the appropriate column of your tally sheet. For each word pair, you must choose one answer only, placing one tick on your tally sheet per pair such that you have 40 ticks in total.
Once the video is over it will say "Congratulations You Are Finished. Tally Time! Make sure to let the video completely load before pressing play.
Take this time, while it loads , to reread the instructions which are repeated quickly in the video. Because the instructions appear quickly, pause the video and take the time to read them and completely understand them before pressing play.
Give it a try! Press the following hyperlink to access the video file [2] Did you find any difference between the total number of times that you reported semantic compared to phonetic relatedness? What does this tell you about the order in which you process semantics and phonetics? In this case, the word list consisted of 10 semantically related word-pairs, 10 phonetically related word-pairs, 10 semantically and phonetically related word-pairs, and 10 non-related word-pairs to serve as controls.
If we do indeed process the semantics prior to the phonetics of a word as all of the above models suggest, the word-pairs that were both semantically and phonetically related would more often be reported as being semantically related than phonetically related. The main evidence used for the model, speech errors, have themselves been questioned as a useful piece of evidence for informing speech production models Cutler, For instance, the listener might misinterpret the units involved in the error and may have a bias towards locating errors at the beginning of words accounting for the large number of word-onset errors.
Evidence for the CV header node is limited as segment insertions usually create clusters when the target word also had a cluster and CV similarities are not found for peaks. The model also has an issue with storage and retrieval as segments need to be stored for each syllable position.
However, while this may seem redundant and inefficient, recent calculations of storage costs based on information theory by Ramoo and Olson suggest that the Dell model may actually be more storage efficient than previously thought. They suggest that one of the main inefficiencies of the model are during syllabification across word and morpheme boundaries.
As the Dell model codes segments for syllable position, it may not be possible for such segments to move from coda to onset position during resyllabification. These and other limitations have led researchers such as Levelt and his colleagues Meyer, ; Roelofs, to propose a new model based on reaction time experiments. The Levelt, Roelofs, and Meyer or LRM model is one of the most popular models for speech production in psycholinguistics. It is also one of the most comprehensive in that it takes into account all stages from conceptualization to articulation Levelt et al.
The model is based on reaction time data from naming experiments and is a top-down model where information flows from more abstract levels to more concrete stages. It accounts for the syllable frequency effect and ambiguous syllable priming data although the computational implementation has been more successful in illustrating syllable frequency effects rather than priming effects. As we can see in Figure 9. These vertices are specified for serial position and the segments are not coded for syllable position.
Indeed, the only syllabic information that is stored in this model are syllable templates that indicate the stress patterns of each word which syllable in the word is stressed and which is not. These syllabic templates are used during speech production to syllabify the segments using the principle of onset-maximization all segments that can legally go into a syllable onset in a language are put into the onset and the leftover segments go into the coda.
This kind of syllabification during production accounts for resyllabification which is a problem for the Dell model. The model also has a mental syllabary which is hypothesized to contain the articulatory programs that are used to plan articulation. The model is interesting in that syllabification is only relevant at the time of production. The rules at each level define categories appropriate to that level.
For example, the categorical rules at the syntactic level specify the syntactic categories of items within the sentence.
In addition to the categorical rules, there is a lexicon dictionary in the form of a constructionist network. It contains nodes for concepts, words, morphemes, and phonemes. When a node is activated, it sends activation to all the nodes connected to it see Chapter 1. Finally, insertion rules select the items for inclusion in the representation at each level according to the following criterion: the most highly activated node belonging to the appropriate category is chosen.
For example, if the categorical rules at the syntactic level dictate that a verb is required at a particular point within the syntactic representation, then that verb whose node is most activated will be selected. After an item has been selected, its activation level immediately reduces to zero; this prevents it from being selected repeatedly. According to spreading-activation theory, speech errors occur because an incorrect item will sometimes have a higher level of activation than the correct item.
The existence of spreading activation means that numerous nodes are all activated at the same time, and this increases the likelihood of errors being made in speech.
What kinds of errors are predicted by the theory? First, errors should belong to the appropriate category e. As expected, most errors do belong to the appropriate category Dell, Second, many errors should be anticipation errors, in which a word is spoken earlier in the sentence than is appropriate e.
This happens because all of the words in the sentence tend to become activated during the planning for speech. Third, anticipation errors should often turn into exchange errors, in which two words within a sentence are swapped e.
0コメント