Interaction and representational integration: Evidence from speech errors

We examine the mechanisms that support interaction between lexical, phonological and phonetic processes during language production. Studies of the phonetics of speech errors have provided evidence that partially activated lexical and phonological representations influence phonetic processing. We examine how these interactive effects are modulated by lexical frequency. Previous research has demonstrated that during lexical access, the processing of high frequency words is facilitated; in contrast, during phonetic encoding, the properties of low frequency words are enhanced. These contrasting effects provide the opportunity to distinguish two theoretical perspectives on how interaction between processing levels can be increased. A theory in which cascading activation is used to increase interaction predicts that the facilitation of high frequency words will enhance their influence on the phonetic properties of speech errors. Alternatively, if interaction is increased by integrating levels of representation, the phonetics of speech errors will reflect the retrieval of enhanced phonetic properties for low frequency words. Utilizing a novel statistical analysis method, we show that in experimentally induced speech errors low lexical frequency targets and outcomes exhibit enhanced phonetic processing. We sketch an interactive model of lexical, phonological and phonetic processing that accounts for the conflicting effects of lexical frequency on lexical access and phonetic processing.

[1]  M. Aylett,et al.  Language redundancy predicts syllabic duration and the spectral characteristics of vocalic syllable nuclei. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  Albert Costa,et al.  The dynamics of bilingual lexical access , 2006, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.

[3]  Marianne Pouplier,et al.  Intention in articulation: Articulatory timing in alternating consonant sequences and its implications for models of speech production , 2010, Language and cognitive processes.

[4]  Heike Martensen,et al.  The lexical bias effect is modulated by context, but the standard monitoring account doesn’t fly: Related beply to Baars et al. (1975) ☆ , 2005 .

[5]  Matthew A Goldrick,et al.  Limited interaction in speech production: Chronometric, speech error, and neuropsychological evidence , 2006 .

[6]  Dani Byrd,et al.  Dynamic action units slip in speech production errors , 2007, Cognition.

[7]  C. Fowler,et al.  Talkers' signaling of new and old. words in speech and listeners' perception and use of the distinction , 1987 .

[8]  Stephen E. Levinson,et al.  Continuously variable duration hidden Markov models for automatic speech recognition , 1986 .

[9]  Marianne Pouplier,et al.  The role of a coda consonant as error trigger in repetition tasks , 2008, J. Phonetics.

[10]  D. Plaut,et al.  Doing without schema hierarchies: a recurrent connectionist approach to normal and impaired routine sequential action. , 2004, Psychological review.

[11]  R. Wright.  Phonetic Interpretation Papers in Laboratory Phonology VI: Factors of lexical competition in vowel articulation , 2004 .

[12]  G S Dell,et al.  A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. , 1986, Psychological review.

[13]  John Kingston,et al.  Papers in Laboratory Phonology: Index of names , 1990 .

[14]  Brenda Rapp,et al.  Mrs. Malaprop's Neighborhood: Using Word Errors to Reveal Neighborhood Structure. , 2010, Journal of memory and language.

[15]  Janet B. Pierrehumbert,et al.  Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast , 2000 .

[16]  M. Garrett.  Levels of processing in sentence production , 1980 .

[17]  Stephen E. Levinson,et al.  Continuously variable duration hidden Markov models for speech analysis , 1986, ICASSP '86. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing.

[18]  B. Rapp,et al.  Lexical and post-lexical phonological representations in spoken production , 2007, Cognition.

[19]  Mariapaola D'Imperio,et al.  Lexical and contextual predictability: Confluent effects on the production of vowels , 2010 .

[20]  Janet B. Pierrehumbert,et al.  Word-specific phonetics , 2001 .

[21]  A. Caramazza,et al.  When more is less: a counterintuitive effect of distractor frequency in the picture-word interference paradigm. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[22]  T H Crystal,et al.  Segmental durations in connected speech signals: preliminary results. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  Dani Byrd,et al.  DYNAMICAL SIMULATIONS OF A PHASE WINDOW MODEL OF RELATIVE TIMING , 2001 .

[24]  B. Rapp,et al.  Discreteness and interactivity in spoken word production. , 2000, Psychological review.

[25]  Alice Turk,et al.  The Smooth Signal Redundancy Hypothesis: A Functional Explanation for Relationships between Redundancy, Prosodic Prominence, and Duration in Spontaneous Speech , 2004, Language and speech.

[26]  Richard Wright,et al.  The phonetics of phonological speech errors: An acoustic analysis of slips of the tongue , 2002, J. Phonetics.

[27]  Frank H Guenther,et al.  Effects of bite blocks and hearing status on vowel production. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  Patricia A. Keating,et al.  Papers in Laboratory Phonology: The window model of coarticulation: articulatory evidence , 1990 .

[29]  R. Hartsuiker,et al.  The interplay of meaning, sound, and syntax in sentence production. , 2002, Psychological bulletin.

[30]  Richard Wright,et al.  A new method for eliciting three speaking styles in the laboratory , 2008, Speech Commun..

[31]  B. Munson.  Lexical Access , Lexical Representation , and Vowel Production , 2006 .

[32]  Michael S Vitevitch,et al.  A Web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[33]  Audrey K. Kittredge,et al.  Where is the effect of frequency in word production? Insights from aphasic picture-naming errors , 2008, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[34]  Gary S. Dell,et al.  Effects of Frequency and Vocabulary Type on Phonological Speech Errors , 1990 .

[35]  B. Younger,et al.  Lexical and articulatory interactions in children's language production. , 2010, Developmental science.

[36]  No Value.  Proceedings of the 14th international congress of phonetic sciences , 2000 .

[37]  S. Goldinger.  Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. , 1998, Psychological review.

[38]  B. Munson,et al.  The effect of phonological neighborhood density on vowel articulation. , 2004, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[39]  Ann R Bradlow,et al.  Variability in Word Duration as a Function of Probability, Speech Style, and Prosody , 2009, Language and speech.

[40]  F H Guenther,et al.  Speech sound acquisition, coarticulation, and rate effects in a neural network model of speech production. , 1995, Psychological review.

[41]  J. Mullennix,et al.  Talker Variability in Speech Processing , 1997 .

[42]  David DeSteno,et al.  Individual talker differences in voice-onset-time. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[43]  Jason M. Brenier,et al.  Predictability Effects on Durations of Content and Function Words in Conversational English , 2009 .

[44]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  Activation of articulatory information in speech perception , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[45]  S. Gahl.  Time and Thyme Are not Homophones: The Effect of Lemma Frequency on Word Durations in Spontaneous Speech , 2008 .

[46]  Louis Goldstein,et al.  Asymmetries in the perception of speech production errors , 2005, J. Phonetics.

[47]  Daniel Jurafsky,et al.  The role of the lemma in form variation , 2002 .

[48]  S. Blumstein,et al.  Cascading activation from phonological planning to articulatory processes: Evidence from tongue twisters , 2006 .

[49]  A. Caramazza,et al.  The cognate facilitation effect: implications for models of lexical access. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[50]  G. E. Peterson,et al.  Duration of Syllable Nuclei in English , 1960 .

[51]  Willem J. M. Levelt,et al.  A theory of lexical access in speech production , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[52]  Susan C. Bobb,et al.  Language selectivity is the exception, not the rule: Arguments against a fixed locus of language selection in bilingual speech , 2006, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition.

[53]  T. H. Crystal,et al.  Segmental durations in connected speech signals , 1981 .

[54]  L. Lisker,et al.  A Cross-Language Study of Voicing in Initial Stops: Acoustical Measurements , 1964 .

[55]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Understanding normal and impaired word reading: computational principles in quasi-regular domains. , 1996, Psychological review.

[56]  Martin Corley,et al.  Cascading influences on the production of speech: Evidence from articulation , 2010, Cognition.

[57]  J. Bresnan,et al.  Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation in spontaneous speech , 2009, Language and Cognition.

[58]  R. Baayen,et al.  Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items , 2008 .

[59]  Carlos Gussenhoven,et al.  Laboratory Phonology 7 , 2002 .

[60]  Dani Byrd,et al.  A Phase Window Framework for Articulatory Timing , 1996, Phonology.

[61]  T. Jaeger,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models. , 2008, Journal of memory and language.

[62]  Joan Bybee.  Joan Bybee: Phonology and Language Use , 2004, Phonetica.

[63]  Matthew Goldrick,et al.  Mechanisms of interaction in speech production , 2009, Language and cognitive processes.

[64]  W. Levelt,et al.  Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form , 1994 .

[65]  Marianne Pouplier,et al.  Tongue Kinematics during Utterances Elicited with the SLIP Technique , 2007, Language and speech.

[66]  R. R. Peterson,et al.  Lexical selection and phonological encoding during language production: Evidence for cascaded processing. , 1998 .

[67]  Martin Corley,et al.  Articulatory evidence for feedback and competition in speech production , 2009 .

[68]  Elisabeth Dévière,et al.  Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R , 2009 .