Planning at the Phonological Level during Sentence Production

Schnur, Tatiana T.; Costa, Albert; Caramazza, Alfonso

doi:10.1007/s10936-005-9011-6

Cited by 49 publications

(90 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This suggests the verb, part of the first PW, was phonologically encoded before articulation. Phonological encoding of the first PW before articulation of sentences is consistent with previous evidence that phonological planning extends at least one PW in advance (Levelt, 1989;Wheeldon and Lahiri, 1997) and/or planning extends to the verb in sentence production (Smith and Wheeldon, 2004;Schnur et al, 2006;Oppermann et al, 2010a).Having replicated previous results showing phonological planning through the first PW and verb in a different set of sentences, the critical question to be addressed is whether in sentence production phonological planning is non-incremental, extending an entire phonological phrase. If phonological planning in sentence production is defined by phonological phrase boundaries then I expect phonological effects to the direct object NP at articulation of the sentence for sentences like, "He opens the gate."…”

supporting

confidence: 85%

“…Similarly, Oppermann et al (2010a) found that participants were faster to produce sentences when phonologically related distractors were related to the first PW and PP before the verb, but no effects were found for the object after the verb (e.g., "Die Maus frisst den Käse": [The mOUse] PW/PP [[EAts] PW [the chEEse] PW/PP ; the verb was not tested). Thus, phonological planning encompassed both a PW and PP, and extended up to the verb of the sentence.The non-incremental view of phonological planning suggests that more is planned in advance of articulation, where the unit of planning may be a phonological phrase (Miozzo and Caramazza, 1999;Costa and Caramazza, 2002;Smith and Wheeldon, 2004;Schnur et al, 2006;Damian and Dumay, 2007). In Schnur et al (2006), participants were faster to produce sentences when distractors were phonologically related to the verb (e.g., [The Orange gIrl] PP [wAlks] PW/PP ) showing that planning extended two phonological phrases.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Phonological planning during sentence production: Beyond the verb

Schnur¹

2011

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study addresses the extent of phonological planning during spontaneous sentence production. Previous work shows that at articulation, phonological encoding occurs for entire phrases, but encoding beyond the initial phrase may be due to the syntactic relevance of the verb in planning the utterance. I conducted three experiments to investigate whether phonological planning crosses multiple grammatical phrase boundaries (as defined by the number of lexical heads of phrase) within a single phonological phrase. Using the picture-word interference paradigm, I found in two separate experiments a significant phonological facilitation effect to both the verb and noun of sentences like "He opens the gate." I also altered the frequency of the direct object and found longer utterance initiation times for sentences ending with a low-frequency vs. high-frequency object offering further support that the direct object was phonologically encoded at the time of utterance initiation. That phonological information for post-verbal elements was activated suggests that the grammatical importance of the verb does not restrict the extent of phonological planning. These results suggest that the phonological phrase is unit of planning, where all elements within a phonological phrase are encoded before articulation. Thus, consistent with other action sequencing behavior, there is significant phonological planning ahead in sentence production.Keywords: language production, sentences, phonological planning, verbs, picture-word interference paradigm, lexical frequency PHONOLOGICAL PLANNING DURING SENTENCE PRODUCTION: BEYOND THE VERBWhen we speak, we perform a series of actions. We generate an idea. We select the words to convey that idea and order them according to the grammatical rules of the language. Finally, we retrieve the sounds in an order corresponding to those words and perform the motor movements to begin speaking. Because speech is produced sequentially over time, the idea we want to convey has to be translated into components that can be produced in linear order. Earlier stages of speech production involve larger representations (e.g., the idea) but at later stages the representation becomes smaller (i.e., it corresponds to the word being produced at that moment in time).In advance of articulation, to what extent must the utterance be phonologically planned? Previous evidence suggests that planning is either fully incremental (one phonological word at a time; Meyer, 1996;Wheeldon and Lahiri, 1997;Levelt et al., 1999), or alternatively, encompasses larger units, such as a phrase (Smith and Wheeldon, 2004;Schnur et al., 2006). However, results are also consistent with the extent of planning being driven by the syntactic importance of the verb (Ferreira, 2000;Ferreira and Swets, 2002). In the following, I present evidence in spontaneous sentence production demonstrating that phonological planning is not incremental, is not restricted by the verb, but encompasses a full phonological phrase. Following evidence for other beh...

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 85%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Phonological planning during sentence production: Beyond the verb

Schnur¹

2011

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(a) a conversational turn is of no fixed length, adapting to the open-ended or generative character of natural language syntax (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974); (b) the language production system is quite slow, even a single word requiring 600 msec from conception to articulatory output (Indefrey & Levelt, 2004;Levelt, 1989), and multiword utterances considerably longer (see e.g., Schnurr, Costa, & Caramazza, 2006;Jescheniak, Schriefers, & Hantsch, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Early Anticipation Lies behind the Speed of Response in Conversation

Magyari

Bastiaansen

Ruiter

et al. 2014

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract■ RTs in conversation, with average gaps of 200 msec and often less, beat standard RTs, despite the complexity of response and the lag in speech production (600 msec or more). This can only be achieved by anticipation of timing and content of turns in conversation, about which little is known. Using EEG and an experimental task with conversational stimuli, we show that estimation of turn durations are based on anticipating the way the turn would be completed. We found a neuronal correlate of turn-end anticipation localized in ACC and inferior parietal lobule, namely a betafrequency desynchronization as early as 1250 msec, before the end of the turn. We suggest that anticipation of the otherʼs utterance leads to accurately timed transitions in everyday conversations. ■

show abstract

“…Overall, diverging results were reported. While some authors claimed that the unit of encoding is limited to one word (Meyer, 1996), others argued that speakers plan the entire message before speaking (Schnur, 2011;Schnur, Costa, & Caramazza, 2006). A different set of studies focussed on which constraints might modulate phonological planning.…”

Section: The Span Of Encoding At the Phonological Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The results reported by these studies actually show that the planning unit is subject to inter-individual differences (Gillespie & Pearlmutter, 2011;Michel Lange & Laganaro, 2014;Wagner, Jescheniak, & Schriefers, 2010). Nevertheless, many investigations converge on the span of encoding extending over the initial word, at least in adjectival noun-phrases with prenominal adjectives (Costa & Caramazza, 2002;Damian & Dumay, 2007;Dumay, Damian, Stadthagen-Gonzalez, & Perez, 2009;Schnur et al, 2006). At the interface with the phonetic level, some studies reported syllabic length effect in picture naming tasks with longer naming latencies for words of two syllables relative to one (Santiago, MacKay, Palma & Rho, 2000) and frequency effects for both the first and second syllable of a bisyllabic word (Cholin, Dell & Levelt, 2011) which suggests a span of encoding extending the initial syllable.…”

Section: The Span Of Encoding At the Phonological Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%