High level processing scope in spoken sentence production

Smith, Mark C.; Wheeldon, Linda

doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00053-0

Cited by 147 publications

(285 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

232

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because there is evidence that semantic interference effects only arise during lemma access (e.g., Damian et al, 2001; and not during conceptual planning (e.g., Schriefers et al, 1990), such a finding may suggest that there is a temporal overlap in the access of lemmas at opposite ends of the clause. This in turn would seem to contradict the many recent studies that have provided evidence for incremental lemma access (e.g., Griffin, 2001;Griffin & Bock, 2000;Levelt & Maassen, 1981;Martin, Katz, & Freedman, 1998;Meyer et al, 1998;Meyer & Van der Meulen, 2000;Schriefers, de Ruiter, & Steigerwald, 1999;Schriefers, Teruel, & Meinshausen, 1999;Smith & Wheeldon, 1999, 2001; although see Ferreira & Swets, 2001, for evidence of nonincremental access). In fact, however, such findings are not irreconcilable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Horizontal Information Flow in Spoken Sentence Production.

Smith¹,

Wheeldon²

2004

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 4 experiments the authors used a variant of the picture-word interference paradigm to investigate whether there is a temporal overlap in the activation of words during sentence production and whether there is a flow of semantic and phonological information between them. Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrate that 2 semantically related nouns produce interference effects either when they are in the same or different phrases of a sentence. Experiments 3 and 4 demonstrate that 2 phonologically related nouns produce facilitation effects but only when they are within the same phrase of a sentence. The results argue against strictly serial models of multiple-word access and provide evidence of a flow of semantic and phonological information between words during sentence production.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Horizontal Information Flow in Spoken Sentence Production.

Smith¹,

Wheeldon²

2004

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although speakers do sometimes engage in holistic planning (e.g., when describing simple scenes: Bock, Irwin, Davidson, & Levelt, 2003;Griffin & Bock, 2000;Konopka & Meyer, 2014;Kuchinsky, Bock, & Irwin, 2011), a growing body of evidence demonstrates that speakers can also plan incrementally. For example, studies examining the production of noun phrases describing multiple objects have shown that speakers may sometimes plan as little as a single object (Griffin, 2001;Meyer 1996;Smith & Wheeldon, 1999) or two objects in a sentence-initial noun phrase before speech onset (Allum & Wheeldon, 2007;Konopka, 2012;Martin, Crowther, Knight, Tamborello, & Yang, 2010; see also F. Ferreira & Swets, 2002;Gleitman, January, Nappa, & Trueswell, 2007). However, these studies typically do not pinpoint the level of representation (message or sentence level) at which this incremental preparation occurs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Processes of incremental message planning during conversation

Brown‐Schmidt

2014

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speaking begins with the formulation of an intended preverbal message and linguistic encoding of this information. The transition from thought to speech occurs incrementally, with cascading planning at subsequent levels of production. In this article, we aim to specify the mechanisms that support incremental message preparation. We contrast two hypotheses about the mechanisms responsible for incorporating message-level information into a linguistic plan. According to the Initial Preparation view, messages can be encoded as fluent utterances if all information is ready before speaking begins. By contrast, on the Continuous Incrementality view, messages can be continually prepared and updated throughout the production process, allowing for fluent production even if new information is added to the message while speaking is underway. Testing these hypotheses, eye-tracked speakers in two experiments produced unscripted, conjoined noun phrases with modifiers. Both experiments showed that new message elements can be incrementally incorporated into the utterance even after articulation begins, consistent with a Continuous Incrementality view of message planning, in which messages percolate to linguistic encoding immediately as that information becomes available in the mind of the speaker. We conclude by discussing the functional role of incremental message planning in conversational speech and the situations in which this continuous incremental planning would be most likely to be observed.

show abstract

“…To date, much of the experimental research into speech production has relied on measurements of speech onset latencies (e.g., Bock, 1996). Such latency-based paradigms are well suited to study the generation of single words but provide only limited evidence about the generation of longer utterances because these are often not fully planned before speech onset (e.g., F. Ferreira & Swets, 2002;Meyer, 1996;Smith & Wheeldon, 1999). As a consequence, the duration of planning processes that occur during speech are not reflected in the speech onset latencies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Processing of Extrafoveal Objects During Multiple-Object Naming.

Morgan¹,

Meyer²

2005

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 3 experiments, the authors investigated the extent to which objects that are about to be named are processed prior to fixation. Participants named pairs or triplets of objects. One of the objects, initially seen extrafoveally (the interloper), was replaced by a different object (the target) during the saccade toward it. The interloper-target pairs were identical or unrelated objects or visually and conceptually unrelated objects with homophonous names (e.g., animal-baseball bat). The mean latencies and gaze durations for the targets were shorter in the identity and homophone conditions than in the unrelated condition. This was true when participants viewed a fixation mark until the interloper appeared and when they fixated on another object and prepared to name it while viewing the interloper. These results imply that objects that are about to be named may undergo far-reaching processing, including access to their names, prior to fixation.

show abstract

High level processing scope in spoken sentence production

Cited by 147 publications

References 21 publications

Horizontal Information Flow in Spoken Sentence Production.

Horizontal Information Flow in Spoken Sentence Production.

Processes of incremental message planning during conversation

Processing of Extrafoveal Objects During Multiple-Object Naming.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About