Apparent anti-frequency effects in language production: The Addition Bias and phonological underspecification

Stemberger, Joseph Paul

doi:10.1016/0749-596x(91)90002-2

Cited by 93 publications

(108 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this case, the error-proneness of the phrase is a result of the similarity of the diphthongs/owl and/oy/, and what causes the replacement of low/with/oy/rather than vice versa is likely due to a property of this pair of sounds. Stemberger (1991) found that replacement asymmetries such as this arise when one sound is more marked than another, which is arguably true in this case? If a particular error's likelihood is strongly related to specific factors like these, whether the slip is anticipatory or perseveratory becomes less important.…”

Section: Other Data Setsmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…Theories also differ greatly in how the frames work. Schade (1992), for exampie, uses excitatory forward connections from frame element i to element i + 1 to store the order of categories, whereas the node structure theory uses forward lateral inhibition• Another dimension of difference concerns how many different frames are needed for particular processing levels• The theories of Dell (1986), Gupta (1995), and Hartley and Houghton (1996) used a single frame at the phonological level, one that was sufficiently flexible to handle all possible syllables• Others (e.g., Dell, 1988Dell, / 1989Stemberger, 1991 ) hypothesize the existence of several word-shape frames, one frame for each possible patterning of consonants and vowels in a word. Finally, frame-based models have differed on whether elements send activation to plans, as well as plans to elements.…”

Section: Theories Of Serial Order In Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Language production and serial order: A functional analysis and a model.

Dell¹,

Burger²,

Svec³

1997

Psychological Review

376

402

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In speech production, previously spoken and upcoming words can impinge on the word currently being said, resulting in perseverations (e.g., "beef needle soup" ) and anticipations (e.g., "cuff of coffee" ). These errors reveal the extent to which the language-production system is focused on the past, the present, and the future and therefore are informative about how the system deals with serial order. This article offers a functional analysis of serial order in language and develops a general formal model. The centerpiece of the model is a prediction that the fraction of serial-order errors that are anticipatory, as opposed to perseveratory, can be closely predicted by overall error rate. The lower the error rate, the more anticipatory the errors are, regardless of the factors influencing error rate. The model is successfully applied to experimental and natural error data dealing with the effects of practice, speech rate, individual differences, age, and brain damage.More than 45 years ago, Lashley ( 1951 ) directed the attention of psychologists to the problem of serial order. Ordered behavior, he wrote, cannot simply be the product of associations between elementary responses. Instead, there must be a hierarchically organized plan or schema that is separate from the responses and yet determines their order. Although it took some time for Lashley's paper to be appreciated (Bruce, 1994), his insights are now acknowledged to be central to theory in memory (e.g., Murdock, 1974), psycholinguisties (e.g., Levelt, 1989;MacKay, 1987), and motor control (e.g., Rosenbaum, 1990).This article examines the nature of order schemata in that behavior in which the serial-ordering problems are perhaps most acute, in language. We begin by reviewing evidence from serialorder errors in speech, particularly errors in which sounds or words are either anticipated, spoken ahead of their time, or perseverated, produced later than they should be. This evidence suggests that the past and future often impinge on the present while we are speaking and that the extent to which the languageproduction system is focused on the past or the future depends on a number of factors.We then present an experimental study of one of these factors, Gary S. Dell and Lisa K. Burger, Beckman Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; William R. Svec, Department of Psychology, Indiana University Bloomington.This research was supported by National Science Foundation Grant SBR 93-19368 and National Institutes of Health Grants DC-00191 and HD 21011 and grew out of a project involving Gary S. Dell, Myrna Schwartz, Eleanor Saffran, and Nadine Martin.We are grateful for the advice of David Adams, Howard Berenbaum, Gary Bradshaw, Kay Bock, Cooper Cutting, Vic Ferreira, Zenzi Griffin, Susan Garnsey, Anita Govindjee, Prahlad Gupta, John Huitema, Gordon Logan, Gregory Murphy, Neal Pearlmutter, Brian Ross, Christine Sevald, and Ulrich Schade and for the contributions of Linda May, Julie Owles, and the Beckman Institute.Correspondence concerning this article ...

show abstract

Section: Other Data Setsmentioning

confidence: 82%

Section: Theories Of Serial Order In Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

Language production and serial order: A functional analysis and a model.

Dell¹,

Burger²,

Svec³

1997

Psychological Review

376

402

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, speech errors continue to be used as key evidence for the psychological reality of linguistic units in the lexicon. Shattuck-Hufnagel & Klatt, 1979), and experimental paradigms have been developed to elicit speech errors in the laboratory (see e.g., work by Motley & Baars, 1976;Stemberger, 1991). Error rate in normal speakers is very low, about 0.1-0.2% (Garnham, Shillock, Brown, Mill, & Cutler, 1981).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic action units slip in speech production errors

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past, the nature of the compositional units proposed for spoken language has largely diverged from the types of control units pursued in the domains of other skilled motor tasks. A classic source of evidence as to the units structuring speech has been patterns observed in speech errors -"slips of the tongue". The present study reports, for the first time, on kinematic data from tongue and lip movements during speech errors elicited in the laboratory using a repetition task. Our data are consistent with the hypothesis that speech production results from the assembly of dynamically defined action units -gestures -in a linguistically structured environment. The experimental results support both the presence of gestural units and the dynamical properties of these units and their coordination. This study of speech articulation shows that it is possible to develop a principled account of spoken language within a more general theory of action.

show abstract

“…Levitt and Hcaly also found that fre quent phonemes tend to displace infrequent ones, and argued that the for mer have stronger output representations than the latter. However, no such asymmetry was observed in Shattuck-Hufnagcl and Klatt's (1979) natural slips corpus; nor did they find that markedness was a relevant variable in error frequency (but see Stemberger, 1991). Similarity effects may occur in mapping a phonological to an articulatory codc.…”

Section: Stages In Word Productionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…In production, some sequencing errors apparently involve movement of ele ments postulated for underlying but not surfacc phonological representa tions (e.g., swin atid swaig; T: swing and sway; Fromkin, 1973; the underlying representation of [g] is hypothesized to be [ng]); others involve replacement of elements that would be undcrspccified in an abstract representation by elements that would be specified (Stemberger, 1991). Both these findings suggest that phonological representations for production may be in abstract form.…”

Section: Phonological Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

Spoken Word Recognition and Production

Cutler¹

1995

Speech, Language, and Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most language behavior consists of speaking and listening. However, the recognition and production of spoken words have not always been central topics in psycholinguistic research. Considering the two fields together in one chapter reveals differences and similarities. Spokcn-word recognition studies began in earnest in the 1970s, prompted on one hand by the develop ment of laboratory tasks involving auditory presentation and on the other hand by the realization that the growing body of data on visual word recognition (see Scidenbcrg, Chapter 5, this volume) did not necessarily apply to listening, bccausc of the temporal nature of speech signals. This recognition research has been, to a great extent, model driven. Spokcnword production research, on the other hand, has a longer history but a less intimate relationship with theory. Laboratory tasks for studying production are difficult to devise, so that much research addressed production failure, such as slips of the tongue. An unhappy result of this focus has been models of production that are largely determined by the characteristics of failed rather than succcssful operation of the processes modeled; moreover, the models have rarely prompted new research. Only in recent years have mod els and laboratory studies of successful production bccomc widely available. Despite these differences, theoretical questions in recognition and produc- Speech, Language, and Communication

show abstract

Apparent anti-frequency effects in language production: The Addition Bias and phonological underspecification

Cited by 93 publications

References 26 publications

Language production and serial order: A functional analysis and a model.

Language production and serial order: A functional analysis and a model.

Dynamic action units slip in speech production errors

Spoken Word Recognition and Production

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About