Psy 369 psycholinguistics
Download
1 / 163

PSY 369: Psycholinguistics - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 173 Views
  • Uploaded on

PSY 369: Psycholinguistics. Language Production: Experimentally elicited speech errors. Brief summary. Language production research Speaker has different problems than the comprehender Paradox: when errors are made form rather than meaning is often preserved

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'PSY 369: Psycholinguistics' - talasi


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Psy 369 psycholinguistics

PSY 369: Psycholinguistics

Language Production:

Experimentally elicited speech errors


Brief summary
Brief summary

  • Language production research

    • Speaker has different problems than the comprehender

    • Paradox: when errors are made form rather than meaning is often preserved

    • Today: What errors tell us about correct speech

      • Observational and experimental approaches


Speech errors spoonerisms

Reverend Dr. William Archibald Spooner, 1844-1930.

Lecturer, tutor, and dean at Oxford university famous for speech errors

Some famous examples:

Speech Errors -”Spoonerisms”

Nosey little cook

FOR ...Cosy little nook

Cattle ships and bruisers

FOR ...Battle ships and cruisers

..we’ll have the hags flung out

FOR ... ..we’ll have the flags hung out

FOR ... .. you’ve wasted two terms

you’ve tasted two worms”

kisstomary to cuss the bride.

FOR ...customary to kiss the bride


Speech errors
Speech errors

  • What errors tell us about correct speech:

    • What can we learn from speech errors?

    • How are speech errors collected?

      • Observational and experimental approaches

  • Classifications and examples of speech errors?


Speech errors1
Speech errors

  • How are speech errors collected?

    • Observational approaches

      • Collected from natural speech, listen for them and write them down. Most accurate way is to record speech samples and carefully study them later.

      • Some of these collections: Freud (1958), Meringer & Mayer (1895), Fromkin (1971), Fay & Cutler (1977), Garnham et al (1981)

    • Experimental approaches

      • SLIP technique: Motley and Baars (1976)


Freudian slips
Freudian slips

  • Freudian approach

    • Held that speech errors “arise from the concurrent action - or perhaps rather, the opposing action - of two different intentions”

    • Intended meaning + disturbing intention  speech error

  • The psycholinguistic approach

    • Assume that “the mechanics of slips can be studied linguistically without reference to their motivation.” (Boomer and Laver, 1968)


Freudian slips1
Freudian slips

“In the case of female genitals, in spite of many versuchungen [temptations] - I beg your pardon, versuche [experiments]…”

From a politician “I like Heath. He’s tough - like Hitler - (shocked silence from reporters) - Did I say Hitler? I meant Churchill.”

  • Are these cases of disturbing intentions or merely cases of lexical substitution (phonologically or semantically related words)?


Freudian slips2
Freudian slips

  • Ellis, (1980)

  • Of the 94 errors listed in Freud’s Psychopathology of Everyday Life 85 were made in normal speech.

  • 51 (60%) involved lexical substitution in which the substituting word was either similar in phonological form (27) to the intended word or related in meaning (22).


Freudian slips3
Freudian slips

  • Ellis, (1980)

  • Of the 94 errors listed in Freud’s Psychopathology of Everyday Life 85 were made in normal speech.

  • Only 10/94 of the errors reported by Freud were spoonerisms, and 4 were from Meringer and Mayer, 1895 (an early, linguistically oriented study).

    • E.g. Eiwess-scheibchen (“small slices of egg white”) Eischeissweibchen (lit. “egg-shit-female”)

    • Alabasterbüchse (“alabaster box”) Alabüsterbachse (büste = breast)


Freudian slips4
Freudian slips

  • Ellis, (1980)

  • Conclusion: it appears that “Freud’s theory can be translated into the language of modern psycholinguistic production models without excessive difficulty.”

  • Of the 94 errors listed in Freud’s Psychopathology of Everyday Life 85 were made in normal speech.


Speech error regularities
Speech error regularities

  • What can we learn from speech errors?

  • Logic: how the system breaks down, tells us something about how it works

    • Speech can go wrong in many ways

    • Different sized units can slip

    • The ways that they go wrong are not random

      • Look for regularities in the patterns of errors

    • It is not always easy to categorize errors

Recommended reading: Um… Slips, Stumbles, and Verbal Blunders, and What they Mean, by Michael Erard (2007)


Speech errors2
Speech errors

  • Classifications and examples of speech errors?

Shift:one segment disappears from its appropriate location and appears somewhere else. The thing that shifts moves from one element to another of the same type

..in case she decideFOR ...in case she decides

to hits it. to hit it

“a maniac for weekends.”

FOR “a weekend for maniacs.”


Speech errors3
Speech errors

  • Classifications and examples of speech errors?

Exchange: in effect double shifts, since 2 linguistic units change places

You have hissed all my mystery lectures FOR .. You have missed all my history lectures

your model renosed. FOR ..your nose remodelled.


Speech errors4
Speech errors

  • Classifications and examples of speech errors?

Anticipation: in anticipation of a forthcoming segment, we replace an earlier segment with the later segment

It's a meal mystery FOR .. It's a real mystery

..bake my bike. FOR .. take my bike.


Speech errors5
Speech errors

  • Classifications and examples of speech errors?

give the goy FOR .. give the boy

Perseverance: an earlier segment replaces a later one (while also being articulated in its correct location)

..he pulled a pantrum. FOR ..he pulled a tantrum.


Speech errors6
Speech errors

  • Classifications and examples of speech errors?

I didn’t explain it clarefully enough

Addition: something is added to the target utterance

FOR I didn’t explain it carefully enough.


Speech errors7
Speech errors

  • Classifications and examples of speech errors?

Blends: occur when more than one word is being considered, and the two blend into a single item

didn’t bother me FOR didn’t bother me

in the sleast. in the least/slightest.


Speech errors8
Speech errors

  • Classifications and examples of speech errors?

Deletion: something is omitted

..mutter intelligibly. FOR ..mutter unintelligibly.


Speech errors9
Speech errors

  • Classifications and examples of speech errors?

Substitutions (malapropisms): when one segment is replaced by an intruder, but this differs from the other types of errors since the intruder may not occur at all in the intended sentence

“Jack” is the presidentFOR “Jack” is the subject

of the sentence. of the sentence.

I’m stutteringFOR I’m studying

psycholinguistics. psycholinguistics.


Speech errors10
Speech errors

  • Frequency of units in errors

    • Different sized units can slip

      • Suggestions of “building blocks” of production

Estimates of frequencies of linguistic units in exchange errors (Bock, 1991)

Sentence

Phrase

Word

Morpheme

> Syllable

Syllable

VC or CV

Cluster

Phoneme

Feature

10%

20%

30%

40%


Speech error regularities1
Speech error regularities

  • What can we learn from speech errors?

  • From this we can infer that

    • Speech is planned in advance.

    • Accommodation to the phonological environment takes place (plural pronounced /z/ instead of /s/).

    • Order of processing is

      • Selection of morpheme  error  application of phonological rule

  • If we look at the shift error

“a maniac for weekends.”

FOR “a weekend for maniacs.”


Speech error regularities2
Speech error regularities

  • What can we learn from speech errors?

  • Stress exchange:

econ 'om ists FOR e ’con omists

  • From this we can infer that

    • Stress may be independent and may simply move from one syllable to another (unlikely explanation).

    • The exchange may be the result of competing plans resulting in a blend of

    • e ’con omists and econ 'omics.


Speech error regularities3
Speech error regularities

  • What can we learn from speech errors?

  • Is this a double substitution (/b/ for /p/ and /t/ for /d/)?

    • /p/ and /t/ are vocieless plosives and /b/ and /d/ voiced plosives

    • Better analysed as a shift of the phonetic feature voicing.

  • “bat a tog” FOR “pat a dog”

  • From this we can infer that

    • Indicates that phonetic features are psychologically real - phonetic features must be units in speech production.


Speech error regularities4
Speech error regularities

  • What can we learn from speech errors?

  • Consonant-vowel rule: consonants never exchange for vowels or vice versa

    • Suggests that vowels and consonants are separate units in the planning of the phonological form of an utterance.

  • Errors produce legal non-words.

    • Suggests that we use phonological rules in production.

  • Lexical bias effect: spontaneous (and experimentally induced) speech errors are more likely to result in real words than non-words.

  • Grammaticality effect: when words are substituted or exchanged they typically substitute for a word of the same grammatical class

  • Observed regularities


Speech error regularities5
Speech error regularities

  • What can we learn from speech errors?

  • That speech is planned in advance - anticipation and exchange errors indicate speaker has a representation of more than one word.

  • Substitutions indicate that the lexicon is organised phonologically and semantically. Substitutions appear to occur after syntactic organisation as substitutions are always from the same grammatical class (noun for noun, verb for verb etc.).

  • External influences - situation and personality also influence speech production.

  • Implications for theories of language production


Problems with speech errors
Problems with speech errors

  • Not an on-line technique.

  • We only remember (or notice) certain types of errors.

  • People often don’t (notice or) write down errors which are corrected part way through the word, e.g. “wo..wring one”.


Problems with speech errors1
Problems with speech errors

  • Even very carefully verified corpora of speech errors tend to list the error and then “the target”.

    • However, there may be several possible targets.

    • Saying there is one definitive target may limit conclusions about what type of error has actually occurred.

  • Evidence that we are not very good at perceiving speech errors.


Problems with speech errors2

Did you

hear what

he said?!

  • The tapes were played to subjects whose task was to record all the errors they heard.

Problems with speech errors

  • How well do we perceive speech errors?

    • Ferber (1991)

  • Method:

    • Transcripts of TV and radio were studied very carefully to pick out all the speech errors.

  • The errors spotted by the subjects were compared with those that actually occurred.


Problems with speech errors3
Problems with speech errors

  • How well do we perceive speech errors?

    • Ferber (1991)

  • Results:

    • Subjects missed 50% of all the errors

    • And of the half they identified

      • 50% were incorrectly recorded (i.e. only 25% of speech errors were correctly recorded).

  • Conclusion: We are bad at perceiving errors.


Experimental approaches
Experimental approaches

  • Not prey to same problems as observational studies:

    • Reduces observer bias

    • Isolates phenomenon of interest

    • Increases potential for systematic observation

  • Different problems!

    • How to control input and output?

    • Input: ecological validity problem (‘controlling thoughts’)

    • Output: controlling responses:

      • Response specification - artificiality

      • ‘Exuberant responding’ – loss of data


Experimental speech errors
Experimental speech errors

  • Can we examine speech errors in under more controlled conditions?

    • SLIP technique: speech error elicitation technique

      • Motley and Baars (1976)


  • Task:

    • Say the words silently as quickly as you can

    • Say them aloud if you hear a ring






“darn bore”

barn door


Experimental speech errors1
Experimental speech errors

  • This technique has been found to elicit 30% of predicted speech errors.

  • Lexical Bias effect: error frequency affected by whether the error results in real words or non-words

  • Some basic findings

More likely

“wrong loot” FOR “long root”

“rawn loof” FOR “lawn roof “


Experimental speech errors2
Experimental speech errors

  • Influence of semantics (Motley, 1980)

  • Some basic findings

  • Hypothesis:

    • If preceded by phonologically and semantically biasing material (PS)

    • If preceded by only phonologically biasing material (P).

Predicted to be

more likely


Experimental speech errors3
Experimental speech errors

  • Influence of semantics (Motley, 1980)

  • Some basic findings

  • Method: 2 matched lists

    • 20 word pairs as targets for errors

      • e.g. bad mug  mad bug

    • Each preceded by 4 - 7 neutral “filler” word pairs

red cars

rainy days

small cats

mashed buns

mangy bears

angry insect

angled inset

  • Then 4 interference word pairs

    • 2 phonological PLUS

ornery fly

older flu

bad mug

  • 2 semantic (SP)

or

  • semantically neutral controls (P)


Experimental speech errors4
Experimental speech errors

  • Results: More errors in the Semantic and Phonological (SP) condition than in the Phonological (P) condition.

  • Conclusion:

    • Semantic interference may contribute to a distortion of the sound of a speaker’s intended utterance

  • Some basic findings

  • Influence of semantics (Motley, 1980)


Experimental freudian slips
Experimental Freudian slips?

  • Motley & Baars (1979)

    • Hypothesis: Spoonerisms more likely when the resulting content is congruous with the situational context.

    • Method: 90 males, same procedure previously used by Motley, 1980 (SLIP).

      • 3 Conditions:

        • “Electricity” - expecting to get shocked

        • “Sex” - researcher provocatively attired female

        • Neutral


Experimental freudian slips1
Experimental Freudian slips?

  • Same word pairs in all conditions

  • spoonerism targets were non-words (e.g. goxi furl foxy girl), targets preceded by 3 phonologically biasing word pairs not semantically related to target words

  • Some resulting errors were sexually related (S), some were electrically related (E)

    • Bine foddy -> “fine body”

    • Had bock -> “bad shock”






“cool tits”

tool kits


Experimental freudian slips2
Experimental Freudian slips?

  • Results (number of errors, by type):

    • Electricity set: 69 E, 31 S

    • Sex set: 36 E, 76 S

    • Neutral set: 44 E, 41 S

  • Hence errors were in the expected direction.

  • Conclusion: subjects’ speech encoding systems are sensitive to semantic influences from their situational cognitive set.


  • Experimental freudian slips3
    Experimental Freudian slips?

    • Hypothesis: subjects with high levels of sex anxiety will make more “sex” spoonerisms than those with low sex anxiety.

    • Method:

      • 36 males selected on the basis of high, medium, & low sex anxiety (Mosher Sex-Guilt Inventory).

      • SLIP task same as previous experiment but with 2 additional Sex targets and 9 Neutral targets.


    Experimental freudian slips4
    Experimental Freudian slips?

    • Results: looked at difference scores (Sex - Neutral)

      • High sex anxiety > medium > low.

      • Overall: Sex spoonerisms > Neutral spoonerisms.

    • Conclusion: appears to support Freud’s view of sexual anxiety being revealed in Slips of the Tongue

    • BUT: the experimenters (Baars and Motley) went on to show that any type of anxiety, not just sexual produced similar results.

    • SO: anxiety was at play but it was more general, so the priming was more global.


    From thought to speech
    From thought to speech

    • What do speech errors suggest?

      • Productivity & Units

      • Advanced planning

    Jane threw the ball to Bill


    Conclusions
    Conclusions

    • Speech errors have provided data about the units of speech production.

    • Phonology - consonants, vowels, and consonant clusters (/fl/) can be disordered as units. Also, phonetic features.

    • Syllables which have morphemic status can be involved in errors. Separation of stem morphemes from affixes (inflectional and derivational).

    • Stress? Stress errors could be examples of blends.


    Conclusions1
    Conclusions

    • Syntax-grammatical rules may be applied to the wrong unit, but produce the correct pronunciation (e.g. plural takes the correct form /s/, /z/, or /iz/.

      • Indicates that these parts of words are marked as grammatical morphemes.

    • Phrases (e.g. NP) and clauses can be exchanged or reversed.

    • Words - can exchange, move, or be mis-selected.

    • Speech errors have provided data about the units of speech production.


    From thought to speech1

    Syntactic level

    Morphemic level

    Phonemic level

    Articulation

    From thought to speech

    Message level

    • Propositions to be communicated

    • Selection and organization of lexical items

    • Morphologically complex words are constructed

    • Sound structure of each word is built


    From thought to speech2
    From thought to speech

    Message level

    • Propositions to be communicated

    • Not a lot known about this step

    • Typically thought to be shared with comprehension processes, semantic networks, situational models, etc.

    Syntactic level

    Morphemic level

    Phonemic level

    Articulation


    From thought to speech3
    From thought to speech

    Message level

    • Grammatical class constraint

      • Most substitutions, exchanges, and blends involve words of the same grammatical class

    • Slots and frames

      • A syntactic framework is constructed, and then lexical items are inserted into the slots

    Syntactic level

    Morphemic level

    Phonemic level

    Articulation


    From thought to speech4
    From thought to speech

    Rachel

    Emily

    Ross

    It was such a happy

    moment when Ross

    kissed Rachel…


    From thought to speech5
    From thought to speech

    Rachel

    Emily

    Ross

    … Oops! I mean

    “kissed Emily.”


    From thought to speech6

    SYNTACTIC FRAME

    S

    NP

    VP

    N

    V(past)

    N

    From thought to speech

    • LEXICON

      • ROSS

      • KISS

      • EMILY

      • RACHEL

    Spreading activation


    From thought to speech7

    SYNTACTIC FRAME

    S

    NP

    VP

    N

    V(past)

    N

    From thought to speech

    • Grammatical class constraint:

    • LEXICON

      • ROSS

      • KISS

      • EMILY

      • RACHEL

    If the word isn’t the right grammatical class, it won’t “fit” into the slot.


    From thought to speech8
    From thought to speech

    Message level

    • Grammatical class constraint

      • Most substitutions, exchanges, and blends involve words of the same grammatical class

    • Slots and frames

    • Other evidence

      • Syntactic priming

    Syntactic level

    Morphemic level

    Phonemic level

    Articulation


    Syntactic priming
    Syntactic priming

    • Bock (1986): syntactic persistance tested by picture naming

    Hear and repeat a sentence

    Describe the picture


    Syntactic priming1
    Syntactic priming

    • a: The ghost sold the werewolf a flower

    • Bock (1986): syntactic persistance tested by picture naming

    • b: The ghost sold a flower to the werewolf

    • a: The girl gave the teacher the flowers

    • b: The girl gave the flowers to the teacher


    Syntactic priming2
    Syntactic priming

    • In real life, syntactic priming seems to occur as well

      • Branigan, Pickering, & Cleland (2000):

        • Speakers tend to reuse syntactic constructions of other speakers

      • Potter & Lombardi (1998):

        • Speakers tend to reuse syntactic constructions of just read materials


    From thought to speech9
    From thought to speech

    Message level

    • Stranding errors

      I liked he would hope you

      I hoped he would like you

    • The inflection stayed in the same location, the stems moved

    • Inflections tend to stay in their proper place

    • Do not typically see errors like

      The beeing are buzzes

      The bees are buzzing

    Syntactic level

    Morphemic level

    Phonemic level

    Articulation


    From thought to speech10
    From thought to speech

    Message level

    • Stranding errors

    • Closed class items very rare in exchanges or substitutions

      • Two possibilities

        • Part of syntactic frame

        • High frequency, so lots of practice, easily selected, etc.

    Syntactic level

    Morphemic level

    Phonemic level

    Articulation


    From thought to speech11
    From thought to speech

    Message level

    • Consonant vowel regularity

      • Consonants slip with other consonants, vowels with vowels, but rarely do consonants slip with vowels

      • The implication is that vowels and consonants represent different kinds of units in phonological planning

    Syntactic level

    Morphemic level

    Phonemic level

    Articulation


    From thought to speech12
    From thought to speech

    Message level

    • Consonant vowel regularity

    • Frame and slots in syllables

      • Similar to the slots and frames we discussed with syntax

    Syntactic level

    Morphemic level

    Phonemic level

    Articulation


    From thought to speech13
    From thought to speech

    PHONOLOGICAL FRAME

    Word

    • LEXICON

      • /d/, C

      • /g/, C

      • , V

    Syllable

    Onset

    Rhyme

    C

    V

    C


    From thought to speech14
    From thought to speech

    Message level

    • Consonant vowel regularity

    • Frame and slots in syllables

    • Evidence for the separation of meaning and sound

    Syntactic level

    • Tip of the tongue

    • Picture-word interference

    Morphemic level

    Phonemic level

    Articulation


    Tip of the tongue
    Tip-of-the-tongue

    • TOT

      • Meaning access

      • No (little) phonological access

      • What about syntax?

    Uhh…

    It is a.. You know.. A.. Arggg.

    I can almost see it, it has two

    Syllables, I think it starts with

    A …..


    Tip of the tongue1
    Tip-of-the-tongue

    • “The rhythm of the lost word may be there without the sound to clothe it; or the evanescent sense of something which is the initial vowel or consonant may mock us fitfully, without growing more distinct.” (James, 1890, p. 251)


    Tip of the tongue2
    Tip-of-the-tongue

    • Low-frequency words (e.g., apse, nepotism, sampan), prompted by brief definitions.

    • On 8.5% of trials, tip-of-the-tongue state ensued:

      • Had to guess:

        • word's first or last letters

        • the number of syllables it contained

        • which syllable was stressed

    • Brown & McNeill (1966)


    Tip of the tongue3
    Tip-of-the-tongue

    • Total of 360 TOT states:

      • 233 ="positive TOTs" (subject was thinking of target word, and produced scorable data

      • 127 = "negative TOTs" (subject was thinking of other word, but could not recall it)

      • 224 similar-sound TOTs (e.g., Saipan for sampan)

        • 48% had the same number of syllables as the target

      • 95 similar-meaning TOTs (e.g., houseboat for sampan).

        • 20% had same number of syllables as target. 

    • Brown & McNeill (1966)


    Tip of the tongue4
    Tip-of-the-tongue

    • Similar words come to mind about half the time

      • but how much is just guessing?

        • First letter: correct 50-71% of time (vs. 10% by chance)

        • First sound: 36% of time (vs. 6% by chance)


    Tip of the tongue5
    Tip-of-the-tongue

    • Results suggest a basic split between semantics/syntax and phonology:

      • People can access meaning and grammar but not pronunciation


    Tip of the tongue6
    Tip-of-the-tongue

    • Semantics

    • Syntax

      • grammatical category (“part of speech”)

        • e.g. noun, verb, adjective

      • Gender

        • e.g. le chien, la vache; le camion, la voiture

      • Number

        • e.g. dog vs. dogs; trousers vs. shirt

      • Count/mass status

        • e.g. oats vs. flour


    Tip of the tongue7
    Tip-of-the-tongue

    • Vigliocco et al. (1997)

      • Subjects presented with word definitions

        • Gender was always arbitrary

      • If unable to retrieve word, they answered

        • How well do you think you know the word?

        • Guess the gender

        • Guess the number of syllables

        • Guess as many letters and positions as possible

        • Report any word that comes to mind

      • Then presented with target word

        • Do you know this word?

        • Is this the word you were thinking of?


    Vigliocco et al 1997
    Vigliocco et al (1997)

    • Scoring

      • + TOT

        • Both reported some correct information in questionnaire

        • And said yes to recognition question

      • - TOT

        • Otherwise

    • Vigliocco et al. (1997)


    Vigliocco et al 19971
    Vigliocco et al (1997)

    • Results

      • + TOT: 84% correct gender guess

      • - TOT: 53% correct gender guess

        • chance level

    • Conclusion

      • Subjects often know grammatical gender information even when they have no phonological information

      • Supports split between syntax and phonology in production

    • Vigliocco et al. (1997)


    Models of production
    MODELS OF PRODUCTION

    • As in comprehension, there are serial (modular) and interactive models

      • Serial models - Garrett, Levelt et al.

      • Interactive models - Stemberger, Dell

    • Levelt’s monitoring stage (originally proposed by Baars) can explain much of the data that is said to favour interaction between earlier levels


    Doing it in time
    Doing it in time

    • Strongest constraint may be fluency:

      • Have to get form right under time pressure.

    • Incrementality:

      • ‘Work with what you’ve got’

      • Flexibility: allows speaker to say something quickly, also respond to changing environment.

    • Modularity:

      • ‘Work only with what you’ve got’

      • Regulate flow of information.


    Comparing models
    Comparing models

    • Central questions:

      • Are the stages discrete or cascading?

        • Discrete: must complete before moving on

        • Cascade: can get started as soon as some information is available

      • Is there feedback?

        • Top-down only

        • Bottom up too

      • How many levels are there?


    From thought to speech15
    From thought to speech

    • How does a mental concept get turned into a spoken utterance?

    • Levelt, 1989, 4 stages of production:

      • Conceptualising: we conceptualise what we wish to communicate (“mentalese”).

      • Formulating: we formulate what we want to say into a linguistic plan.

        • Lexicalisation

          • Lemma Selection

          • Lexeme (or Phonological Form) Selection

        • Syntactic Planning

      • Articulating: we execute the plan through muscles in the vocal tract.

      • Self-monitoring: we monitor our speech to assess whether it is what we intended to say, and how we intended to say it.


    A model of sentence production
    A model of sentence production

    • Three broad stages:

      • Conceptualisation

        • deciding on the message (= meaning to express)

      • Formulation

        • turning the message into linguistic representations

        • Grammatical encoding (finding words and putting them together)

        • Phonological encoding (finding sounds and putting them together)

      • Articulation

        • speaking (or writing or signing)


    Levelt s model
    Levelt’s model

    • Four broad stages:

      • Conceptualisation

        • deciding on the message (= meaning to express)

      • Formulation

        • turning the message into linguistic representations

        • Grammatical encoding (finding words and putting them together)

        • Phonological encoding (finding sounds and putting them together)

      • Articulation

        • speaking (or writing or signing)

      • Monitoring (via the comprehension system)


    Levelt s model1
    Levelt’s model

    • Network has three strata

      • conceptual stratum

      • lemma stratum

      • word-form stratum


    Levelt s model2
    Levelt’s model

    • Tip of tongue state when lemma is retrieved without word-form being retrieved

    • Formulation involves lexical retrieval:

      • Semantic/syntactic content (lemma)

      • Phonological content (word-form)


    Levelt’s model

    has stripes

    is dangerous

    Lexical concepts

    TIGER (X)

    Lexicon

    Noun

    countable

    tigre

    Lemmas

    Fem.

    Lexemes

    /tigre/

    /t/

    /I/

    /g/

    Phonemes


    Conceptual stratum
    Conceptual stratum

    • Conceptual stratum is not decomposed

      • one lexical concept node for “tiger”

      • instead, conceptual links from “tiger” to “stripes”, etc.

    has stripes

    is dangerous

    TIGER (X)


    Lexical selection
    Lexical selection

    • First, lemma activation occurs

      • This involves activating a lemma or lemmas corresponding to the concept

        • thus, concept TIGER activates lemma “tiger”

    TIGER (X)

    Noun

    countable

    tiger

    Fem.


    Lexical selection1
    Lexical selection

    • First, lemma activation occurs

      • This involves activating a lemma or lemmas corresponding to the concept

        • thus, concept TIGER activates lemma “tiger”

    TIGER (X)

    LION (X)

    tiger

    lion

    • But also involves activating other lemmas

      • TIGER also activates LION (etc.) to some extent

      • and LION activates lemma “lion”


    Lemma selection
    Lemma selection

    • Selection is different from activation

      • Only one lemma is selected

      • Probability of selecting the target lemma (“tiger”)

        • ratio of that lemma’s activation to the total activation of all lemmas (“tiger”, “lion”, etc.)

      • Hence competition between semantically related lemmas

    TIGER (X)

    LION (X)

    tiger

    lion


    Morpho phonological encoding and beyond
    Morpho-phonological encoding(and beyond)

    • The lemma is now converted into a phonological representation

      • called “word-form” (or “lexeme”)

    • If “tiger” lemma plus plural (and noun) are activated

      • Leads to activation of morphemes tigre and s

    • Other processes too

      • Stress, phonological segments, phonetics, and finally articulation

    /tigre/

    /t/

    /I/

    /g/


    Model s assumptions
    Model’s assumptions

    • Modularity

      • Later processes cannot affect earlier processes

        • No feedback between the word-form (lexemes) layer and the grammatical (lemmas) layer

    • Also, only one lemma activates a word form

      • If “tiger” and “lion” lemmas are activated, they compete to produce a winner at the lemma stratum

      • Only the “winner” activates a word form

      • The word-forms for the “losers” aren’t accessed


    Experimental tests
    Experimental tests

    • Picture-word interference task

      • Participants name basic objects as quickly as possible

      • Distractor words are embedded in the object

        • participants are instructed to ignore these words

    tiger


    Basic findings
    Basic findings

    • Semantically related words can interfere with naming

      • e.g., the word TIGER in a picture of a LION

    tiger


    Basic findings1
    Basic findings

    • However, form-related words can speed up processing

      • e.g., the word liar in a picture of a LION

    liar


    liar

    • Experiments manipulate timing:

      • picture and word can be presented simultaneously

    time


    liar

    liar

    time

    • or one can slightly precede the other

    • We draw inferences about time-course of processing


    Schriefers meyer and levelt 1990
    Schriefers, Meyer, and Levelt (1990)

    • SOA (Stimulus onset asynchrony) manipulation

      • -150 ms (word …150 ms … picture)

      • 0 ms (i.e., synchronous presentation)

      • +150 ms (picture …150ms …word)

    • Auditory presentation of distractors

      • DOT phonologically related

      • CAT semantically related

      • SHIP unrelated word


    Schriefers meyer and levelt 19901
    Schriefers, Meyer, and Levelt (1990)

    • Auditory presentation of distractors

      • DOT phonologically related

      • CAT semantically related

      • SHIP unrelated word

    Early

    Only Semantic effects


    Schriefers meyer and levelt 19902
    Schriefers, Meyer, and Levelt (1990)

    • Auditory presentation of distractors

      • DOT phonologically related

      • CAT semantically related

      • SHIP unrelated word

    Late

    Only Phonological effects


    Interpretation
    Interpretation

    • Early semantic inhibition

    • Late phonological facilitation

    • Fits with the assumption that semantic processing precedes phonological processing

    • No overlap

      • suggests two discrete stages in production

      • an interactive account might find semantic and phonological effects at the same time


    Dell s interactive account
    Dell’s interactive account

    • Dell (1986) presented the best-known interactive account

      • other similar accounts exist

    • Network organization with

      • 3 levels of representation

        • Semantics (decomposed into features)

        • Words and morphemes

        • phonemes (sounds)

    • These get selected and inserted into frames


    Dell (1986)

    A moment in the production of:

    “Some swimmers sink”


    information

    Dell (1986)

    as well as “downwards”

    information


    Dell (1986)

    • e.g., the semantic features mammal, barks, four-legs activate the word “dog”

    FURRY

    BARKS

    MAMMAL

    • these send activation back to the word level, activating words containing these sounds (e.g., “log”, “dot”) to some extent

    • this activates the sounds /d/, /o/, /g/

    dot

    dog

    log

    /t/

    /d/

    /g/

    /a/

    /l/

    this activation is upwards (phonology to syntax) and wouldn’t occur in Levelt’s account


    Evidence for dell s model
    Evidence for Dell’s model

    • Mixed errors

      • Both semantic and phonological relationship to target word

      • Target = “cat”

        • semantic error = “dog”

        • phonological error = “hat”

        • mixed error = “rat”

      • Occur more often than predicted by modular models

        • if you can go wrong at either stage, it would only be by chance that an error would be mixed


    Dell s explanation
    Dell’s explanation

    • The process of making an error

      • The semantic features of dog activate “cat”

      • Some features (e.g., animate, mammalian) activate “rat” as well

      • “cat” then activates the sounds /k/, /ae/, /t/

      • /ae/ and /t/ activate “rat” by feedback

      • This confluence of activation leads to increased tendency for “rat” to be uttered

    • Also explains the tendency for phonological errors to be real words

      • Sounds can only feed back to words (non-words not represented) so only words can feedback to sound level


    Why might interaction occur
    Why might interaction occur?

    • Can’t exist just to produce errors!

    • So what is feedback for?

      • Perhaps because the same network is used in comprehension

        • So feedback would be the normal comprehension route

      • Alternatively, it simply serves to increase fluency in lemma selection

        • advantageous to select a lemma whose phonological form is easy to find


    Evidence against interactivity
    Evidence against interactivity

    • Schriefers, Meyer, and Levelt (1990)

      • DOT phonologically related

      • CAT semantically related

      • SHIP unrelated word

    Early

    Only Semantic effects

    Late

    Only Phonological effects


    Evidence against interactivity1
    Evidence against interactivity

    Schriefers, Meyer, and Levelt (1990)

    • Also looked for any evidence of a mediatedpriming effect

    DOG (X)

    CAT (X)

    dog

    cat

    hat

    /cat/

    /hat/

    • Found no evidence for it

    /k/

    /a/

    /t/

    /h/


    Evidence for interactivity
    Evidence for interactivity

    • A number of recent experimental findings appear to support interaction under some circumstances (or at least cascading models)

      • Damian & Martin (1999)

      • Cutting & Ferreira (1999)

      • Peterson & Savoy (1998)


    Evidence for interactivity1
    Evidence for interactivity

    • Damian and Martin (1999)

    • Picture-Word interference

    • The critical difference:

      • the addition of a “semantic and phonological” condition

      • Picture of Apple

        • peach (semantically related)

        • apathy (phonologically related)

        • apricot (sem & phono related)

        • couch (unrelated)

        • (also no-word control, always fast)

    peach


    Results
    Results

    • Damian & Martin (1999)

    • early semantic inhibition


    Results1
    Results

    • Damian & Martin (1999)

    • early semantic inhibition

    • late phonological facilitation (0 and + 150 ms)


    Results2
    Results

    • Damian & Martin (1999)

    • early semantic inhibition

    • late phonological facilitation (0 and + 150 ms)

      • Shows overlap, unlike Schriefers et al.


    Evidence for interactivity2

    dance

    Evidence for interactivity

    • Cutting and Ferreira (1999)

    • Picture-Word interference

    • The critical difference:

      • Used homophone pictures

      • Related distractors could be to the depicted meaning or alternative meaning

        “game”

        “dance”

        “hammer” (unrelated)

    • Only tested -150 SOA


    Evidence against interactivity2
    Evidence against interactivity

    • Cutting and Ferreira (1999)

    GAME (X)

    BALL (X)

    BALL (X)

    DANCE (X)

    game

    ball

    ball

    dance

    /ball/

    Cascading Prediction:

    dance

    ball

    /ball/


    Results3
    Results

    • Cutting and Ferreira (1999)

    • Early semantic inhibition


    Results4
    Results

    • Cutting and Ferreira (1999)

    • Early semantic inhibition

    • Early Facilitation from a phonologically mediated distractor

    • Evidence of cascading information flow (both semantic and phonological information at early SOA)


    Evidence for interactivity3
    Evidence for interactivity

    Peterson & Savoy

    • Slightly different task

      • Prepare to name the picture

      • If “?” comes up name it

    ?


    Evidence for interactivity4
    Evidence for interactivity

    Peterson & Savoy

    • Slightly different task

      • Prepare to name the picture

      • If “?” comes up name it

      • If a word comes up instead, name the word

    liar

    • Manipulate

      • Word/picture relationship

      • SOA


    Evidence for interactivity5

    soda

    Evidence for interactivity

    • Peterson & Savoy

    • Used pictures with two synonymous names

    subordinate

    Dominant

    • Used words that were phonologically related to the non dominant name of the picture

    sofa

    couch


    Evidence for interactivity6
    Evidence for interactivity

    • Peterson & Savoy

      • Found evidence for phonological activation of near synonyms:

        • Participants slower to say distractor soda than unrelated distractor when naming couch

          • Soda is related to non-selected sofa

        • Remember that Levelt et al. assume that only one lemma can be selected and hence activate a phonological form

          • Levelt et al’s explanation: Could be erroneous selection of two lemmas?


    Evidence for interactivity7
    Evidence for interactivity

    • Summary

      • These the findings appears to contradict the “discrete two-step” account of Levelt et al.


    Can the two stage account be saved
    Can the two-stage account be saved?

    • Evidence for interaction is hard to reconcile with the Levelt account

      • However, most attempts are likely to revolve around the monitor

        • Basically, people sometimes notice a problem and screen it out

      • Levelt argues that evidence for interaction really involves “special cases”, not directly related to normal processing


    Overall summary
    Overall summary

    • Levelt et al.’s theory of word production:

      • Strictly modular lexical access

      • Syntactic processing precedes phonological processing

    • Dell’s interactive account:

      • Interaction between syntactic and phonological processing

    • Experimental evidence is equivocal, but increasing evidence that more than one lemma may activate associated word-form


    Summary
    Summary

    • Levelt et al.’s theory of word production:

      • Strictly modular lexical access

      • Syntactic processing precedes phonological processing

    • Dell’s interactive account:

      • Interaction between syntactic and phonological processing

    • Experimental evidence is equivocal, but increasing evidence that more than one lemma may activate associated wordform


    Caramazza s alternative
    Caramazza’s alternative

    • Caramazza and colleagues argue against the existence of the lemma node

      • instead they propose a direct link between semantic level and lexeme

      • syntactic information is associated with the lexeme

      • Also assumes separate lexemes for written and spoken production

        • This is really a different issue


    • Much evidence comes from patient data

    • But also evidence from the independence of syntactic and phonological information in TOT states

      • see discussion of Vigliocco et al.

      • also Caramazza and Miozzo (Cognition, 1997; see also replies by Roelofs et al.)


    From thought to speech16
    From thought to speech

    • How does a mental concept get turned into a spoken utterance?

    • Levelt, 1989, 4 stages of production:

      • Conceptualising: we conceptualise what we wish to communicate (“mentalese”).

      • Formulating: we formulate what we want to say into a linguistic plan.

        • Lexicalisation

          • Lemma Selection

          • Lexeme (or Phonological Form) Selection

        • Syntactic Planning

      • Articulating: we execute the plan through muscles in the vocal tract.

      • Self-monitoring: we monitor our speech to assess whether it is what we intended to say, and how we intended to say it.


    Models of production1
    Models of production

    • As in comprehension, there are serial (modular) and interactive models

      • Serial models - Garrett, Levelt et al.

      • Interactive models - Stemberger, Dell

    • Levelt’s monitoring stage (originally proposed by Baars) can explain much of the data that is said to favour interaction between earlier levels


    An model of sentence production
    An model of sentence production

    • Three broad stages:

      • Conceptualisation

        • deciding on the message (= meaning to express)

      • Formulation

        • turning the message into linguistic representations

        • Grammatical encoding (finding words and putting them together)

        • Phonological encoding (finding sounds and putting them together)

      • Articulation

        • speaking (or writing or signing)


    An model of sentence production1
    An model of sentence production

    • Experimental investigations of some of these issues

      • Time course - cascading vs serial

        • Picture word interference

      • Separation of syntax and semantics

        • Subject verb agreement

      • Abstract syntax vs surface form

        • Syntactic priming


    Conversational interaction
    Conversational interaction

    “the horse raced past

    the barn”

    “the kids swam across

    the river”

    Conversation is more than just two side-by-side monologues.


    Conversational interaction1
    Conversational interaction

    “The horse raced past

    the barn”

    “Really? Why would

    it do that?”

    Conversation is a specialized form of social interaction, with rules and organization.


    Conversation
    Conversation

    • Herb Clark (1996)

      • Joint action

        • People acting in coordination with one another

          • doing the tango

          • driving a car with a pedestrian crossing the street

            • The participants don’t always do similar things

        • Autonomous actions

          • Things that you do by yourself

        • Participatory actions

          • Individual acts only done as parts of joint actions


    Conversation1
    Conversation

    • Herb Clark (1996)

    • Speaking and listening

      • Traditionally treated as autonomousactions

        • Contributing to the tradition of studying language comprehension and production separately

      • Clark proposed that they should be treated as participatory actions


    Conversation2
    Conversation

    • Herb Clark (1996)

    • Speaking and listening

      • Component actions in production and comprehension come in pairs

    Speaking

    Listening

    • A vocalizes sounds for B

    • B attends to A’s vocalizations

    • A formalizes utterances for B

    • B identifies A’s utterances

    • A means something for B

    • B understands A’s meaning

    • The actions of one participant depend on the actions of the other


    Conversation3
    Conversation

    • Herb Clark (1996)

    • Face-to-face conversation - the basic setting

      • Features

    Immediacy

    Medium

    Control

    • Co-presence

    • Visibility

    • Audibility

    • Instantaneity

    • Evanescence

    • Recordlessness

    • Simultaneity

    • Extemporaneity

    • Self-determination

    • Self-expression

    • Other settings may lack some of these features

      • e.g., telephone conversations take away co-presence and visibility, which may change language use


    Meaning and understanding
    Meaning and understanding

    • ABBOTT: Super Duper computer store. Can I help you?

    • COSTELLO: Thanks. I'm setting up an office in my den, and I'm thinking about buying a computer.

    • ABBOTT: Mac?

    • COSTELLO: No, the name is Lou.

    • ABBOTT: Your computer?

    • COSTELLO: I don't own a computer. I want to buy one.

    • ABBOTT: Mac?

    • COSTELLO: I told you, my name is Lou.

    • ABBOTT: What about Windows?

    • COSTELLO: Why? Will it get stuffy in here?

    • ABBOTT: Do you want a computer with windows?

    • COSTELLO: I don't know. What will I see when I look in the windows?

    • ABBOTT: Wallpaper.

    • COSTELLO: Never mind the windows. I need a computer and software.

    • ABBOTT: Software for windows?

    • COSTELLO: No. On the computer! I need something I can use to write proposals, track expenses and run my business. What have you got?

    • ABBOTT: Office.


    Meaning and understanding1
    Meaning and understanding

    • COSTELLO: Yeah, for my office. Can you recommend anything?

    • ABBOTT: I just did.

    • COSTELLO: You just did what?

    • ABBOTT: Recommend something.

    • COSTELLO: You recommended something?

    • ABBOTT: Yes.

    • COSTELLO: For my office?

    • ABBOTT: Yes.

    • COSTELLO: OK, what did you recommend for my office?

    • ABBOTT: Office.

    • COSTELLO: Yes, for my office!

    • ABBOTT: I recommend office with windows.

    • COSTELLO: I already have an office and it has windows!OK, lets just say, I'm sitting at my computer and I want to type a proposal. What do I need?

    • ABBOTT: Word.

    • COSTELLO: What word?

    • ABBOTT: Word in Office.

    • COSTELLO: The only word in office is office.

    • ABBOTT: The Word in Office for Windows.


    Meaning and understanding2
    Meaning and understanding

    • COSTELLO: Which word in office for windows?

    • ABBOTT: The Word you get when you click the blue "W.”

    • COSTELLO: I'm going to click your blue "w" if you don't start with some straight answers. OK, forget that. Can I watch movies on the Internet?

    • ABBOTT: Yes, you want Real One.

    • COSTELLO: Maybe a real one, maybe a cartoon. What I watch is none of your business. Just tell me what I need!

    • ABBOTT: Real One.

    • COSTELLO: If itユs a long movie I also want to see reel 2, 3 and 4. Can I watch them?

    • ABBOTT: Of course.

    • COSTELLO: Great, with what?

    • ABBOTT: Real One.

    • COSTELLO; OK, I'm at my computer and I want to watch a movie.What do I do?

    • ABBOTT: You click the blue "1.”

    • COSTELLO: I click the blue one what?

    • ABBOTT: The blue "1.”

    • COSTELLO: Is that different from the blue "W"?

    • ABBOTT: The blue 1 is Real One and the blue W is Word.

    • COSTELLO: What word?


    Meaning and understanding3
    Meaning and understanding

    • ABBOTT: The Word in Office for Windows.

    • COSTELLO: But there are three words in "office for windows"!

    • ABBOTT: No, just one. But itユs the most popular Word in the world.

    • COSTELLO: It is?

    • ABBOTT: Yes, but to be fair, there aren't many other Words left. It pretty much wiped out all the other Words.

    • COSTELLO: And that word is real one?

    • ABBOTT: Real One has nothing to do with Word. Real One isn't even Part of Office.

    • COSTELLO: Stop! Don't start that again. What about financial bookkeeping you have anything I can track my money with?

    • ABBOTT: Money.

    • COSTELLO: That's right. What do you have?

    • ABBOTT: Money.

    • COSTELLO: I need money to track my money?

    • ABBOTT: It comes bundled with your computer.

    • COSTELLO: What's bundled to my computer?

    • ABBOTT: Money.


    Meaning and understanding4
    Meaning and understanding

    • COSTELLO: Money comes with my computer?

    • ABBOTT: Yes. No extra charge.

    • COSTELLO: I get a bundle of money with my computer? How much?

    • ABBOTT: One copy.

    • COSTELLO: Isn't it illegal to copy money?

    • ABBOTT: Microsoft gave us a license to copy money.

    • COSTELLO: They can give you a license to copy money?

    • ABBOTT: Why not? THEY OWN IT!

    • (LATER)

    • COSTELLO: How do I turn my computer off??

    • ABBOTT: Click on "START".


    Meaning and understanding5
    Meaning and understanding

    • Common ground

      • Knowledge, beliefs and suppositions that the participants believe that they share

        • Members of cultural communities

        • Shared experiences

        • What has taken place already in the conversation

      • Common ground is necessary to coordinate speaker’s meaning with listener’s understanding


    Structure of a conversation
    Structure of a conversation

    • Conversations are purposive and unplanned

      • Typically you can’t plan exactly what you’re going to say because it depends on another participant

      • Conversations look planned only in retrospect

    • Conversations have a fairly stable structure


    Structure of a conversation1
    Structure of a conversation

    • Joe: (places a phone call)

    • Kevin: Miss Pink’s office - hello

    • Joe: hello, is Miss Pink in

    • Kevin: well, she’s in, but she’s engaged at the moment, who is it?

    • Joe: Oh it’s Professors Worth’s secretary, from Pan-American college

    • Kevin: m,

    • Joe: Could you give her a message “for me”

    • Kevin: “certainly”

    • Joe: u’m Professor Worth said that, if Miss Pink runs into difficulties, .. On Monday afternoon, .. With the standing subcommittee, .. Over the item on Miss Panoff, …

    • Kevin: Miss Panoff?

    • Joe: Yes, that Professor Worth would be with Mr Miles all afternoon, .. So she only had to go round and collect him if she needed him, …

    • Kevin: ah, … thank you very much indeed,

    • Joe: right

    • Kevin: Panoff, right “you” are

    • Joe: right

    • Kevin: I’ll tell her,

    • Joe: thank you

    • Kevin: bye bye

    • Joe: bye


    Structure of a conversation2
    Structure of a conversation

    • Action sequences: smaller joint projects to fulfill a goal

      • Adjacency pairs

        • Opening the conversation

          • Kevin: Miss Pink’s office - hello

          • Joe: hello, ..

        • Exchanging information about Pink

          • Joe:.., is Miss Pink in

          • Kevin: well, she’s in, but she’s engaged at the moment…


    Structure of a conversation3
    Structure of a conversation

    • Action sequences: smaller joint projects to fulfill a goal

      • Adjacency pairs

    • Exchanging the message from Worth

      • Joe: u’m Professor Worth said that, if Miss Pink runs into difficulties, .. On Monday afternoon, .. With the standing subcommittee, .. Over the item on Miss Panoff, …

    • Closing the conversation

      • Kevin: I’ll tell her,

      • Joe: thank you

      • Kevin: bye bye

      • Joe: bye


    Opening conversations
    Opening conversations

    • Need to pick who starts

      • Turn taking is typically not decided upon in advance

      • Potentially a lot of ways to open, but we typically restrict our openings to a few ways

        • Address another

        • Request information

        • Offer information

        • Use a stereotyped expression or topic


    Opening conversations1
    Opening conversations

    • Has to resolve:

      • The entry time

        • Is now the time to converse?

      • The participants

        • Who is talking to whom?

      • Their roles

        • What is level of participation in the conversation?

      • The official business

        • What is the conversation about?


    Identifying participants

    Speaker

    Addressee

    Side

    participants

    Bystander

    All participants

    All listeners

    Eavesdropper

    Identifying participants

    • Conversation often takes place in situations that involve various types of participants and non-participants


    Taking turns
    Taking turns

    • Typically conversations don’t involve two (or more) people talking at the same time

    • Individual styles of turn-taking vary widely

    • Length of a turn is a fairly stable characteristic within a given individual’s conversational interactions

    • Standard signals indicate a change in turn: a head nod, a glance, a questioning tone


    Taking turns1
    Taking turns

    • Typically conversations don’t involve two (or more) people talking at the same time

      • Three implicit rules (Sacks et al, 1974)

        • Rule 1: Current speakers selects next speaker

        • Rule 2: Self-selection: if rule 1 isn’t used, then next speaker can select themselves

        • Rule 3: current speaker may continue (or not)

    • These principles are ordered in terms of priority

      • The first is the most important, and the last is the least important

        • Just try violating them in an actual conversation (but debrief later!)


    Taking turns2
    Taking turns

    • Typically conversations don’t involve two (or more) people talking at the same time

    • Use of non-verbal cues

      • Drop of pitch

      • Drawl on final syllable

      • Termination of hand signals

      • Drop in loudness

      • Completion of a grammatical clause

      • Use of stereotyped phrase

        • “you know”


    Negotiating topics
    Negotiating topics

    • Keep the discourse relevant to the topic (remember Grice’s maxims)

      • Coherence again

        • Earlier we looked at coherence within a speaker, now we consider it across multiple speakers

      • Must use statements to signal topic shifts


    Closing conversations
    Closing conversations

    • Closing statements

      • Must exit from the last topic, mutually agree to close the conversation, and coordinate the disengagement

        • signal the end of conversation (or topic)

          • “okay”

        • Justifying why conversation should end

          • “I gotta go”

        • Reference to potential future conversation

          • “later dude”


    Summary1
    Summary

    • “People use language for doing things with each other, and their use of language is itself a joint action.” Clark (1996, pg387)

      • Conversation is structured

        • But, that structure depends on more than one individual

      • Models of language use (production and comprehension) need to be developed within this perspective


    ad