1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. The Mental Lexicon
  4. Volume 13, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 13, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1871-1340
  • E-ISSN: 1871-1375
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Producing multi-word utterances is a complex, yet relatively effortless process. Research with the picture-word interference paradigm has shown that speakers can plan all elements of such utterances up to the phonological level before initiating speech, yet magnitude and direction of this phonological priming effect (i.e. facilitative vs. inhibitory) differ between but also within studies. We investigated possible sources for variability in the phonological advance planning scope. In two experiments, participants produced bare nouns () and complex noun phrases () while ignoring distractor words phonologically (un)related to the noun. For low- and high-working memory capacity speakers as well as fast and slow speakers, we found phonological facilitation effects for the bare noun, but no distractor effects for the complex noun phrases. However, looking at individual distractor effects for utterance-final elements revealed a large variability between speakers. We conclude that phonological advance planning cannot be summarised as an overall effect, but should take into account inter- and intraindividual variability.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ml.17020.kla
2019-01-10
2024-10-13

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ml.17020.kla
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baayen, R. H. , Davidson, D. J. , & Bates, D. M.
    (2008) Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baddeley, A.
    (2003) Working memory and language: an overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36(3), 189–208. 10.1016/S0021‑9924(03)00019‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9924(03)00019-4 [Google Scholar]
  3. Barr, D. J. , Levy, R. , Scheepers, C. , & Tily, H. J.
    (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bates, D. , Mächler, M. , Bolker, B. , & Walker, S.
    (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  5. Conway, A. R. A. , Kane, M. J. , Bunting, M. F. , Hambrick, D. Z. , Wilhelm, O. , & Engle, R. W.
    (2005) Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(5), 769–786. 10.3758/BF03196772
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196772 [Google Scholar]
  6. Costa, A. , & Caramazza, A.
    (2002) The production of noun phrases in English and Spanish: Implications for the scope of phonological encoding in speech production. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(1), 178–198. 10.1006/jmla.2001.2804
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2804 [Google Scholar]
  7. Damian, M. F. , & Dumay, N.
    (2007) Time pressure and phonological advance planning in spoken production. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(2), 195–209. 10.1016/j.jml.2006.11.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Damian, M. F. , & Martin, R. C.
    (1999) Semantic and phonological codes interact in single word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1–18. 10.1037/0278‑7393.25.2.345
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.2.345 [Google Scholar]
  9. Daneman, M. , & Carpenter, P. A.
    (1980) Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450–466. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(80)90312‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6 [Google Scholar]
  10. Daneman, M. , & Green, I.
    (1986) Individual differences in comprehending and producing words in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 25(1), 1–18. 10.1016/0749‑596X(86)90018‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(86)90018-5 [Google Scholar]
  11. Daneman, M. , & Merikle, P. M.
    (1996) Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(4), 422–433. 10.3758/BF03214546
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214546 [Google Scholar]
  12. Engle, R. W. , Tuholski, S. W. , Laughlin, J. E. , & Conway, A. R. A.
    (1999) Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128(3), 309–331. 10.1037/0096‑3445.128.3.309
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.128.3.309 [Google Scholar]
  13. Friedman, N. P. , & Miyake, A.
    (2005) Comparison of four scoring methods for the reading span test. Behavior Research Methods, 37(4), 581–590. 10.3758/BF03192728
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192728 [Google Scholar]
  14. Hartsuiker, R. J. , & Barkhuysen, P. N.
    (2006) Language production and working memory: The case of subject-verb agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(1–3), 181–204. 10.1080/01690960400002117
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960400002117 [Google Scholar]
  15. Jaeger, T. F.
    (2008) Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434–446. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007 [Google Scholar]
  16. Jescheniak, J. D. , Schriefers, H. , & Hantsch, A.
    (2003) Utterance format affects phonological priming in the picture-word task: implications for models of phonological encoding in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(2), 441–54. 10.1037/0096‑1523.29.2.441
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.29.2.441 [Google Scholar]
  17. Jongman, S. R. , Roelofs, A. , & Meyer, A. S.
    (2015) Sustained attention in language production: An individual differences investigation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(4), 710–730. 10.1080/17470218.2014.964736
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.964736 [Google Scholar]
  18. Kane, M. J. , Hambrick, D. Z. , Tuholski, S. W. , Wilhelm, O. , Payne, T. W. , & Engle, R. W.
    (2004) The generality of working memory capacity: a latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 189–217. 10.1037/0096‑3445.133.2.189
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.189 [Google Scholar]
  19. Klaus, J. , Mädebach, A. , Oppermann, F. , & Jescheniak, J. D.
    (2017) Planning sentences while doing other things at the same time: effects of concurrent verbal and visuospatial working memory load. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(4), 811–831. 10.1080/17470218.2016.1167926
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1167926 [Google Scholar]
  20. Klaus, J. , & Schriefers, H.
    (2016) Measuring verbal working memory capacity: A reading span task for laboratory and web-based use. 10.17605/OSF.IO/NJ48X
     https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/NJ48X [Google Scholar]
  21. Meyer, A. S.
    (1996) Lexical access in phrase and sentence production: Results from picture–word interference experiments. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(4), 477–496. 10.1006/jmla.1996.0026
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.0026 [Google Scholar]
  22. Michel Lange, V. , & Laganaro, M.
    (2014) Inter-subject variability modulates phonological advance planning in the production of adjective-noun phrases. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 43. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00043
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00043 [Google Scholar]
  23. Morey, R. D. , & Rouder, J. N.
    (2015) BayesFactor: Computation of Bayes factors for common designs. R package version 0.9.12-2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BayesFactor
  24. Oppermann, F. , Jescheniak, J. D. , & Schriefers, H.
    (2010) Phonological advance planning in sentence production. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(4), 526–540. 10.1016/j.jml.2010.07.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.07.004 [Google Scholar]
  25. Schnur, T. T.
    (2011) Phonological planning during sentence production: Beyond the verb. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 319. 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00319
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00319 [Google Scholar]
  26. Schnur, T. T. , Costa, A. , & Caramazza, A.
    (2006) Planning at the phonological level during sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35(2), 189–213. 10.1007/s10936‑005‑9011‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-005-9011-6 [Google Scholar]
  27. Schriefers, H.
    (1992) Lexical access in the production of noun phrases. Cognition, 45(1), 33–54. 10.1016/0010‑0277(92)90022‑A
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90022-A [Google Scholar]
  28. Schriefers, H. , de Ruiter, J. P. , & Steigerwald, M.
    (1999) Parallelism in the production of noun phrases: Experiments and reaction time models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 25(3), 702–720. 10.1037/0278‑7393.25.3.702
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.3.702 [Google Scholar]
  29. Schriefers, H. , Meyer, A. S. , & Levelt, W. J. M.
    (1990) Exploring the time course of lexical access in language production: Picture-word interference studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(1), 86–102. 10.1016/0749‑596X(90)90011‑N
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90011-N [Google Scholar]
  30. Schriefers, H. , & Teruel, E.
    (1999) Phonological facilitation in the production of two-word utterances. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 11(1), 17–50. 10.1080/713752301
     https://doi.org/10.1080/713752301 [Google Scholar]
  31. Shao, Z. , Roelofs, A. , & Meyer, A. S.
    (2012) Sources of individual differences in the speed of naming objects and actions: The contribution of executive control. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(10), 1927–1944. 10.1080/17470218.2012.670252
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.670252 [Google Scholar]
  32. Sikora, K. , Roelofs, A. , Hermans, D. , & Knoors, H.
    (2016) Executive control in spoken noun-phrase production: Contributions of updating, inhibiting, and shifting. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(9), 1719–1740. 10.1080/17470218.2015.1093007
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1093007 [Google Scholar]
  33. Smith, M. , & Wheeldon, L.
    (2004) Horizontal information flow in spoken sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(3), 675–686. 10.1037/0278‑7393.30.3.675
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.3.675 [Google Scholar]
  34. Swets, B. , Jacovina, M. E. , & Gerrig, R. J.
    (2014) Individual differences in the scope of speech planning: evidence from eye-movements. Language and Cognition, 6(1), 12–44. 10.1017/langcog.2013.5
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2013.5 [Google Scholar]
  35. Turner, M. L. , & Engle, R. W.
    (1989) Is working memory capacity task dependent?Journal of Memory and Language, 28(2), 127–154. 10.1016/0749‑596X(89)90040‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90040-5 [Google Scholar]
  36. Wagner, V. , Jescheniak, J. D. , & Schriefers, H.
    (2010) On the flexibility of grammatical advance planning during sentence production: Effects of cognitive load on multiple lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(2), 423–440. 10.1037/a0018619
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018619 [Google Scholar]
  37. Wheeldon, L. , Ohlson, N. , Ashby, A. , & Gator, S.
    (2013) Lexical availability and grammatical encoding scope during spoken sentence production. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(8), 1653–1673. 10.1080/17470218.2012.754913
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.754913 [Google Scholar]
  38. Zhao, L.-M. , & Yang, Y.-F.
    (2016) Lexical planning in sentence production is highly incremental: Evidence from ERPs. PLoS One, 11(1), e0146359. 10.1371/journal.pone.0146359
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146359 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.17020.kla
Loading
An investigation of the role of working memory capacity and naming speed in phonological advance planning in language production
The Mental Lexicon 13, 159 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.17020.kla
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.17020.kla
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.17020.kla
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): individual differences; language production; phonological advance planning; working memory

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error