Lexical and post-lexical phonological representations in spoken production

Goldrick, Matthew; Rapp, Brenda

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2005.12.010

Cited by 165 publications

(172 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

156

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…they only produced single phoneme errors in all production tasks. This pattern of errors had previously been attributed to underlying "postlexical" impairment (Kohn & Smith 1994;Goldrick & Rapp, 2007). Although the exact definition of "post-lexical" impairment varies between authors, it globally refers to patterns in which the lexeme has been correctly retrieved, but further application of phonological rules and phonetic specification fails, hence resulting in phonological-phonetic impairments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamics of phonological–phonetic encoding in word production: Evidence from diverging ERPs between stroke patients and controls

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the dynamics of lexical-semantic and lexical-phonological encoding in word production have been investigated in several event-related potential (ERP) studies, the estimated time course of phonological-phonetic encoding is the result of rather indirect evidence. We investigated the dynamics of phonological-phonetic encoding combining ERP analyses covering the entire encoding process in picture naming and word reading tasks by comparing ERP modulations in eight brain-damaged speakers presenting impaired phonological-phonetic encoding relative to 16 healthy controls. ERPs diverged between groups in terms of local waveform amplitude and global topography at ~400ms after stimulus onset in the picture naming task and at ~320-350ms in word reading and sustained until 100ms before articulation onset. These divergences appeared in later time windows than those found in patients with underlying lexical-semantic and lexical-phonological impairment in previous studies, providing evidence that phonological-phonetic encoding is engaged around 400ms in picture naming and around 330ms in word reading.Time-course of phonetic encoding 3

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamics of phonological–phonetic encoding in word production: Evidence from diverging ERPs between stroke patients and controls

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…6 The level of representation responsible for frequency effects in speech production remains controversial, however. Most models of phonological planning distinguish at least two stages, the retrieval of a general lemma corresponding with general lexical information and syntactic information associated with words, and a second stage of phonological retrieval and planning (Dell & O'Seaghdha, 1992;Goldrick & Rapp, 2007;Levelt, 1992). Some models locate the role of frequency at the point of phonological retrieval; that is, more frequent phonological word forms are retrieved faster (Levelt et al, 1999).…”

Section: Measures Of Word Probabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are many measures of prosodic boundary strength, and for simplicity we will focus in this paper on the presence and duration of pauses (Goldman-Eisler, 1972;Grosjean & Collins, 1979;Kendall, 2013;Krivokapić, 2007;Price et al, 1991). In sociolinguistic literature on CSD, a following pause is treated as an environment on par with that of a following consonant or a following vowel.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Production planning and coronal stop deletion in spontaneous speech

Tanner

Sonderegger

Wagner

2017

Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many phonological processes can be affected by segmental context spanning word boundaries, which often lead to variable outcomes. This paper tests the idea that some of this variability can be explained by reference to production planning. We examine coronal stop deletion (CSD), a variable process conditioned by preceding and upcoming phonological context, in a corpus of spontaneous British English speech, as a means of investigating a number of variables associated with planning: Prosodic boundary strength, word frequency, conditional probability of the following word, and speech rate. From the perspective of production planning, (1) prosodic boundaries should affect deletion rate independently of following context; (2) given the locality of production planning, the effect of the following context should decrease at stronger prosodic boundaries; and (3) other factors affecting planning scope should modulate the effect of upcoming phonological material above and beyond the modulating effect of prosodic boundaries. We build a statistical model of CSD realization, using pause length as a quantitative proxy for boundary strength, and find support for these predictions. These findings are compatible with the hypothesis that the locality of production planning constrains variability in speech production, and have practical implications for work on CSD and other variable processes.

show abstract

“…A number of studies have documented individuals that violate this prediction (Galluzzi, Bureca, Guariglia, & Romani, 2015;Goldrick & Rapp, 2007;Romani & Galluzzi, 2005;Romani, Galluzzi, Bureca, & Olson, 2011;Romani, Olson, Semenza, & Granà, 2002). Furthermore, the errors of individuals exhibiting this pattern are strongly influenced by the acoustic/articulatory complexity of phonological structures (e.g., exhibiting errors on less-frequent sequences of consonants), but relatively uninfluenced by lexical properties (e.g., word frequency).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%