Interaction and representational integration: Evidence from speech errors

Abstract

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.

Voice Onset Time in Consonant Cluster Errors: Can Phonetic Accommodation Differentiate Cognitive From Motor Errors?

“…The concept of phonetic accommodation is at odds with several recent empirical studies that report that in error-inducing environments, VOT values reflect the competition of multiple items during planning (Goldrick, Baker, Murphy, & Baese-Berk, 2011;Goldrick & Blumstein, 2006;McMillan & Corley, 2010;McMillan, Corley, & Lickley, 2009). For example, for audibly identified voicing errors in keff geff alternations, subjects' VOT values differed significantly from both correctly produced voiceless and correctly produced voiced productions, even though the differences were below 8 ms (Goldrick & Blumstein, 2006).…”

Abstract and Lexically Specific Information in Sound Patterns: Evidence from /r/-sandhi in Rhotic and Non-rhotic Varieties of English

“…On the other side of the coin, the fact that /r/-sandhi in the UK dataset was not influenced by lexical frequency is incompatible with classical Exemplar Theory, which predicts that sound patterns should always be more advanced (that is, manifest at higher rates) in higher frequency words. The answer to the first research question thus appears to be that knowledge supporting sound patterns can be both abstract and word-specific, supporting hybrid theories of phonological knowledge (e.g., Buchwald and Miozzo, 2011;Goldrick, Ross Baker, Murphy, & Baese-Berk, 2011;Levelt et al, 1999;Pierrehumbert, 2006). Having shown that lexically specific information can influence /r/-sandhi, we can ask whether speakers store all or just a subset of the phonetic detail available to them.…”

Phonological simplifications, apraxia of speech and the interaction between phonological and phonetic processing

“…For example, it has been shown that relatively few exposures to pronunciations of low-frequency words can modulate the way these words are pronounced (e.g., Goldinger, 1998). Goldrick et al (2011) have shown that low-frequency words -which have stronger, more narrowly defined phonetic representations -leave stronger traces of target phonemes in the errors than high-frequency words. These influences will be possible only if the phonetics of the low-frequency words is stored and able to modulate subsequent production or the effect of errors.…”