Untitled

Abstract

We explore the features of a corpus of naturally occurring word substitution speech errors. Words are replaced by more imageable competitors in semantic substitution errors but not in phonological substitution errors. Frequency effects in these errors are complex and the details prove difficult for any model of speech production. We argue that word frequency mainly affects phonological errors. Both semantic and phonological substitutions are constrained by phonological and syntactic similarity between the target and intrusion. We distinguish between associative and shared-feature semantic substitutions. Associative errors originate from outside the lexicon, while shared-feature errors arise within the lexicon and occur when particular properties of the targets make them less accessible than the intrusion. Semantic errors arise early while accessing lemmasfrom a semantic-conceptual input, while phonological errors arise late when accessing phonological forms from lemmas. Semantic errors are primarily sensitive to the properties of the semantic field involved, whereas phonological errors are sensitive to phonological properties of the targets and intrusions.

What can errors tell us about differences between monolingual and bilingual vocabulary learning?

“…Whatever the explanation, for the deep semantic error to occur, the novel word necessarily must have been mapped either onto its correct English translation, or on the correct semantic space that the English translation occupied. In this sense, the deep semantic errors in the present study were similar to semantic errors identified by prior studies where instead of the target word, a semantically-related non-target word was produced (e.g., Cuetos, Aguado, & Caramazza, 2000; Harley & MacAndrew, 2001; Howard & Gatehouse, 2006; McGregor, Friedman, Reilly, & Newman, 2002).…”

“…That is, in order to make a surface error, a participant would have to mis-map the novel word onto a phonologically-similar novel word, and the translation of the non-target, phonologically-similar novel word would then interfere with the ability to retrieve the target translation. Conversely, consistent with previous studies (e.g., Cuetos, Aguado, & Caramazza, 2000; Harley & MacAndrew, 2001; Howard & Gatehouse, 2006; McGregor, Friedman, Reilly, & Newman, 2002), we viewed deep semantic errors as arising from the breakdown at the level of the semantic network associated with the novel words. That is, in order to make a deep semantic error, a participant would have to activate the correct mapping between the novel word and its English translation, although the retrieval of the exact translation would be derailed.…”

“…Thus, if a participant produces the word “cable” instead of “table”, the response would be coded as a phonological error. Conversely, semantic errors are thought to occur at the conceptual level, and reflect confusion between words that are similar in meaning (e.g., Cuetos, Aguado, & Caramazza, 2000; Harley & MacAndrew, 2001; Howard & Gatehouse, 2006; McGregor, Friedman, Reilly, & Newman, 2002). Thus, if a participant produces the word “chair” instead of “table”, the response would be coded as a semantic error.…”

Age-Related Increases in Verbal Knowledge Are Not Associated With Word Finding Problems in the Cam-CAN Cohort: What You Know Won’t Hurt You

“…Increasing the number of known words creates denser “neighborhoods” of words that are phonologically similar, supporting faster and more accurate phonological access during production (Vitevitch, 2002; Vitevitch & Sommers, 2003). Words from dense phonological neighborhoods elicit fewer TOTs in both younger and older adults (Harley & Macandrew, 2001; Vitevitch & Sommers, 2003). Similarly, older (but not younger) adults have fewer TOTs for words with high-frequency first syllables (Farrell & Abrams, 2011).…”

Speaker-Versus Listener-Oriented Disfluency: A Re-examination of Arguments and Assumptions from Autism Spectrum Disorder

“…1–3 s), so as to exclude prosodic pausing (Kormos and Denes 2004 ; Lake et al 2011 ). However, a recent study by De Jong and Bosker ( 2013 ) that investigated perceptions of fluency in L2 learners and accounted for speech rate, argued that 250 ms is the best threshold for unfilled pauses, and this is consistent with the original work of Goldman-Eisler ( 1968 ) (see also, Garrett 1982 ; Harley 2013 ; Harley and MacAndrew 2001 ; Redford 2013 ). With a 250 ms threshold, approximately 30% of sentences contained at least one unfilled pause.…”