Pragmatic constraints do not prevent the co-activation of alternative names: evidence from sequential naming tasks with one and two speakers

Mädebach, Andreas; Kurtz, Franziska; Schriefers, Herbert; Jescheniak, Jörg D.

doi:10.1080/23273798.2020.1727539

Cited by 10 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Kurtz et al reported a series of pictureword-interference (PWI) experiments in which pictures were named at a subordinate level (e.g., "duck") in the presence of distractor words which were phonologically related to the alternative basic-level name of these pictures (e.g., distractor "birch", phonologically related to the basic-level name "bird"). The authors found that such distractor words slowed down picture naming when compared to unrelated (control) distractor words (Kurtz et al, 2018, Experiments 1 and 3; see also Jescheniak et al, 2005Jescheniak et al, , 2017Mädebach et al, 2020Mädebach et al, , 2022; in the following, we refer to this effect by using the term phonological interference. Importantly, this phonological interference effect remained stable across repeated naming.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Repeated Naming Affects the Accessibility of Non-Selected Words: Evidence from Picture-Word Interference Experiments

Wöhner¹,

Mädebach²,

Schriefers³

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a recent study, Kurtz et al. (2018) reported a series of picture-word interference (PWI) experiments showing that picture naming (e.g., “duck”) is slowed down by distractor words phonologically related to an alternative name (e.g., distractor “birch” related to alternative name “bird”) when compared to unrelated distractor words. This effect indicates that alternative names were (phonologically) co-activated. Critically, the effect was not attenuated across repeated naming. The authors argued that the stability of the effect challenges adaptive models of word production which assume that co-activated but non-selected words become less accessible for future retrieval due to an incremental learning mechanism. Any such process should have been reflected in decreased interference across repeated naming. Using a similar experimental protocol as Kurtz et al., the present study looked at the stability versus attenuation of different distractor effects in PWI. We found that interference from distractor words phonologically related to an alternative name was stable across repeated naming, replicating the core finding from Kurtz et al. In contrast, interference from distractor words denoting a semantic category coordinate (e.g., “stork”) was attenuated across repeated naming. A similar pattern was found for distractor words denoting an alternative name (e.g., “bird”). We discuss implications of these findings with respect to the issue of incremental learning in word production and the use of the PWI task in this context.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Repeated Naming Affects the Accessibility of Non-Selected Words: Evidence from Picture-Word Interference Experiments

Wöhner¹,

Mädebach²,

Schriefers³

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The behavioral data in immediate naming replicated the phonological interference effect from previous studies. It was, however, smaller and less robust than in previous studies using the same materials (Jescheniak et al, 2017;Kurtz et al, 2018;Mädebach et al, 2020). Across eight experiments reported in these studies (with N = 320 participants), the phonological interference effect was estimated to be about 23 ms, 95% CI [14,33] (for details of the calculation see Mädebach et al, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…Questions addressed with the behavioral phonological interference effect so far include the following: Is incremental learning a general mechanism in word production according to which co-activated but non-selected words become less accessible for future retrieval (Kurtz et al, 2018;Wöhner et al, 2021)? How do pragmatic constraints affect lexical activation during word production (Jescheniak et al, 2017;Mädebach et al, 2020)? To which extent does a non-target language impact word production in bilinguals (Costa et al, 2004;Hermans et al, 1998)?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This phonological facilitation effect is assumed to reflect the pre-activation of phonological segments to be selected, leading to an easier encoding of the target word at a phonological level. In contrast, a distractor stimulus that is phonologically related to an alternative picture name (e.g., "birch", when "bird" is the alternative name to the target word "duck") slows down the naming response (e.g., Jescheniak et al, 2005;Kurtz et al, 2018;Mädebach et al, 2020). This phonological interference effect is assumed to reflect the co-activation of phonological segments of a non-target competitor word at a phonological level that must not be selected, slowing down the encoding of the target word at that level.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Hearing "birch" hampers saying "duck" – An ERP study on phonological interference in immediate and delayed word production

Mädebach¹,

Widmann²,

Posch³

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When speakers name a picture (e.g., “duck”), a distractor word phonologically related to an alternative name (e.g., “birch” related to “bird”) slows down naming responses compared to an unrelated distractor word. This interference effect obtained with the picture-word interference (PWI) task is assumed to reflect the phonological co-activation of close semantic competitors and is critical for evaluating contemporary models of word production. In the present study, we determined the event-related brain potential (ERP) signature of this effect in an immediate and a delayed version of the PWI task. ERPs revealed a differential processing of related and unrelated distractors: an early (305 – 436 ms) and a late (537 – 713 ms) negativity for related as compared with unrelated distractors. In the behavioral data, the interference effect was only found in immediate naming, while its ERP signature was also present in delayed naming. The time window of the earlier ERP effect suggests that the behavioral interference effect indeed emerges at a phonological processing level, while the functional significance of the later ERP effect is as yet not clear. The finding of a robust ERP correlate of phonological co-activation might facilitate future research on lexical processing in word production.

show abstract

“…If the definition of response relevance were to be extended to include a higher-level assessment of the contextual or pragmatic relevance at large, one could argue that a distractor word uttered as part of a conversational partner’s turn may not be considered response relevant and hence may elicit less interference. However, recent studies speak against a constraining influence of pragmatic context on word selection (Jescheniak et al, 2017; Mädebach et al, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mental Chronometry of Speaking in Dialogue: Semantic Interference Turns into Facilitation

Kuhlen

Rahman

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous studies demonstrate that the production of words is delayed when speakers process in temporal proximity semantically related words. Yet the experimental settings underlying this effect are different from those under which we typically speak. This study demonstrates that semantic interference disappears, and can even turn into facilitation, when semantically related words are embedded in a meaningful communicative exchange. Experiment 1 and 3 (each N=32 university students) implemented a picture-word interference task in a game played between two participants: one named the distractor word and, after a stimulus-onset-asynchrony of −150ms or −650ms, the other named a semantically related or unrelated target picture. Semantic interference reappeared with identical experimental parameters in a single-person picture-word interference setting (Experiment 2, N=32). We conclude that the inhibitory context effects leading to semantic interference in single-subject settings are attenuated whereas facilitatory effects are enhanced in communicative settings.HighlightsIn isolated speakers processing semantically related words interferes with speakingYet we typically speak to communicate with othersThis study transfers picture-word interference to a communicative settingSemantically related words produced by a partner do not interfere with speaking

show abstract

Pragmatic constraints do not prevent the co-activation of alternative names: evidence from sequential naming tasks with one and two speakers

Cited by 10 publications

References 69 publications

Repeated Naming Affects the Accessibility of Non-Selected Words: Evidence from Picture-Word Interference Experiments

Repeated Naming Affects the Accessibility of Non-Selected Words: Evidence from Picture-Word Interference Experiments

Hearing "birch" hampers saying "duck" – An ERP study on phonological interference in immediate and delayed word production

Mental Chronometry of Speaking in Dialogue: Semantic Interference Turns into Facilitation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About