PSY 369 Psycholinguistics Language Production Experimentally elicited speech

  • Slides: 163
Download presentation
PSY 369: Psycholinguistics Language Production: Experimentally elicited speech errors

PSY 369: Psycholinguistics Language Production: Experimentally elicited speech errors

Brief summary n Language production research n n n Speaker has different problems than

Brief summary n Language production research n n n Speaker has different problems than the comprehender Paradox: when errors are made form rather than meaning is often preserved Today: What errors tell us about correct speech n Observational and experimental approaches

Speech Errors -”Spoonerisms” n Reverend Dr. William Archibald Spooner, 1844 -1930. n n Lecturer,

Speech Errors -”Spoonerisms” n Reverend Dr. William Archibald Spooner, 1844 -1930. n n Lecturer, tutor, and dean at Oxford university famous for speech errors Some famous examples: Nosey little cook FOR. . . Cattle ships and bruisers Cosy little nook FOR. . . Battle ships and cruisers . . we’ll have the hags flung out FOR. . . we’ll have the flags hung out you’ve tasted two worms” kisstomary to cuss the bride. FOR. . . you’ve wasted two terms FOR. . . customary to kiss the bride

Speech errors n What errors tell us about correct speech: n n What can

Speech errors n What errors tell us about correct speech: n n What can we learn from speech errors? How are speech errors collected? n n Observational and experimental approaches Classifications and examples of speech errors?

Speech errors n How are speech errors collected? n Observational approaches n n n

Speech errors n How are speech errors collected? n Observational approaches n n n Collected from natural speech, listen for them and write them down. Most accurate way is to record speech samples and carefully study them later. Some of these collections: Freud (1958), Meringer & Mayer (1895), Fromkin (1971), Fay & Cutler (1977), Garnham et al (1981) Experimental approaches n SLIP technique: Motley and Baars (1976)

Freudian slips n Freudian approach n n n Held that speech errors “arise from

Freudian slips n Freudian approach n n n Held that speech errors “arise from the concurrent action - or perhaps rather, the opposing action - of two different intentions” Intended meaning + disturbing intention speech error The psycholinguistic approach n Assume that “the mechanics of slips can be studied linguistically without reference to their motivation. ” (Boomer and Laver, 1968)

Freudian slips “In the case of female genitals, in spite of many versuchungen [temptations]

Freudian slips “In the case of female genitals, in spite of many versuchungen [temptations] - I beg your pardon, versuche [experiments]…” From a politician “I like Heath. He’s tough - like Hitler - (shocked silence from reporters) - Did I say Hitler? I meant Churchill. ” n Are these cases of disturbing intentions or merely cases of lexical substitution (phonologically or semantically related words)?

Freudian slips n Ellis, (1980) n Of the 94 errors listed in Freud’s Psychopathology

Freudian slips n Ellis, (1980) n Of the 94 errors listed in Freud’s Psychopathology of Everyday Life 85 were made in normal speech. n 51 (60%) involved lexical substitution in which the substituting word was either similar in phonological form (27) to the intended word or related in meaning (22).

Freudian slips n Ellis, (1980) n Of the 94 errors listed in Freud’s Psychopathology

Freudian slips n Ellis, (1980) n Of the 94 errors listed in Freud’s Psychopathology of Everyday Life 85 were made in normal speech. n Only 10/94 of the errors reported by Freud were spoonerisms, and 4 were from Meringer and Mayer, 1895 (an early, linguistically oriented study). n n E. g. Eiwess-scheibchen (“small slices of egg white”) Eischeissweibchen (lit. “egg-shit-female”) Alabasterbüchse (“alabaster box”) Alabüsterbachse (büste = breast)

Freudian slips n Ellis, (1980) n Of the 94 errors listed in Freud’s Psychopathology

Freudian slips n Ellis, (1980) n Of the 94 errors listed in Freud’s Psychopathology of Everyday Life 85 were made in normal speech. n Conclusion: it appears that “Freud’s theory can be translated into the language of modern psycholinguistic production models without excessive difficulty. ”

Speech error regularities n What can we learn from speech errors? n Logic: how

Speech error regularities n What can we learn from speech errors? n Logic: how the system breaks down, tells us something about how it works n n n Speech can go wrong in many ways Different sized units can slip The ways that they go wrong are not random n n Look for regularities in the patterns of errors It is not always easy to categorize errors Recommended reading: Um… Slips, Stumbles, and Verbal Blunders, and What they Mean, by Michael Erard (2007)

Speech errors n Classifications and examples of speech errors? Shift: one segment disappears from

Speech errors n Classifications and examples of speech errors? Shift: one segment disappears from its appropriate location and appears somewhere else. The thing that shifts moves from one element to another of the same type. . in case she decide FOR. . . in case she decides to hits it. to hit it “a maniac for weekends. ” FOR “a weekend for maniacs. ”

Speech errors n Classifications and examples of speech errors? Exchange: in effect double shifts,

Speech errors n Classifications and examples of speech errors? Exchange: in effect double shifts, since 2 linguistic units change places You have hissed all my mystery lectures FOR. . You have missed all my history lectures your model renosed. FOR . . your nose remodelled.

Speech errors n Classifications and examples of speech errors? Anticipation: in anticipation of a

Speech errors n Classifications and examples of speech errors? Anticipation: in anticipation of a forthcoming segment, we replace an earlier segment with the later segment It's a meal mystery FOR. . It's a real mystery . . bake my bike. FOR . . take my bike.

Speech errors n Classifications and examples of speech errors? Perseverance: an earlier segment replaces

Speech errors n Classifications and examples of speech errors? Perseverance: an earlier segment replaces a later one (while also being articulated in its correct location) give the goy FOR. . give the boy. . he pulled a pantrum. FOR. . he pulled a tantrum.

Speech errors n Classifications and examples of speech errors? Addition: something is added to

Speech errors n Classifications and examples of speech errors? Addition: something is added to the target utterance I didn’t explain it clarefully enough FOR I didn’t explain it carefully enough.

Speech errors n Classifications and examples of speech errors? Blends: occur when more than

Speech errors n Classifications and examples of speech errors? Blends: occur when more than one word is being considered, and the two blend into a single item didn’t bother me in the sleast. FOR didn’t bother me in the least/slightest.

Speech errors n Classifications and examples of speech errors? Deletion: something is omitted .

Speech errors n Classifications and examples of speech errors? Deletion: something is omitted . . mutter intelligibly. FOR . . mutter unintelligibly.

Speech errors n Classifications and examples of speech errors? Substitutions (malapropisms): when one segment

Speech errors n Classifications and examples of speech errors? Substitutions (malapropisms): when one segment is replaced by an intruder, but this differs from the other types of errors since the intruder may not occur at all in the intended sentence “Jack” is the president of the sentence. I’m stuttering psycholinguistics. FOR “Jack” is the subject of the sentence. FOR I’m studying psycholinguistics.

Speech errors n Frequency of units in errors n Different sized units can slip

Speech errors n Frequency of units in errors n Different sized units can slip n Suggestions of “building blocks” of production Estimates of frequencies of linguistic units in exchange errors (Bock, 1991) Sentence Phrase Word Morpheme > Syllable VC or CV Cluster Phoneme Feature 10% 20% 30% 40%

Speech error regularities n What can we learn from speech errors? n If we

Speech error regularities n What can we learn from speech errors? n If we look at the shift error “a maniac for weekends. ” FOR n “a weekend for maniacs. ” From this we can infer that – – – Speech is planned in advance. Accommodation to the phonological environment takes place (plural pronounced /z/ instead of /s/). Order of processing is – Selection of morpheme error application of phonological rule

Speech error regularities n What can we learn from speech errors? n Stress exchange:

Speech error regularities n What can we learn from speech errors? n Stress exchange: econ 'om ists n FOR e ’con omists From this we can infer that – – Stress may be independent and may simply move from one syllable to another (unlikely explanation). The exchange may be the result of competing plans resulting in a blend of e ’con omists and econ 'omics.

Speech error regularities n What can we learn from speech errors? n “bat a

Speech error regularities n What can we learn from speech errors? n “bat a tog” FOR “pat a dog” n Is this a double substitution (/b/ for /p/ and /t/ for /d/)? – – n /p/ and /t/ are vocieless plosives and /b/ and /d/ voiced plosives Better analysed as a shift of the phonetic feature voicing. From this we can infer that n Indicates that phonetic features are psychologically real - phonetic features must be units in speech production.

Speech error regularities n What can we learn from speech errors? n Observed regularities

Speech error regularities n What can we learn from speech errors? n Observed regularities n Consonant-vowel rule: consonants never exchange for vowels or vice versa n n Errors produce legal non-words. n n n Suggests that vowels and consonants are separate units in the planning of the phonological form of an utterance. Suggests that we use phonological rules in production. Lexical bias effect: spontaneous (and experimentally induced) speech errors are more likely to result in real words than nonwords. Grammaticality effect: when words are substituted or exchanged they typically substitute for a word of the same grammatical class

Speech error regularities n What can we learn from speech errors? n Implications for

Speech error regularities n What can we learn from speech errors? n Implications for theories of language production n That speech is planned in advance - anticipation and exchange errors indicate speaker has a representation of more than one word. Substitutions indicate that the lexicon is organised phonologically and semantically. Substitutions appear to occur after syntactic organisation as substitutions are always from the same grammatical class (noun for noun, verb for verb etc. ). External influences - situation and personality also influence speech production.

Problems with speech errors n n n Not an on-line technique. We only remember

Problems with speech errors n n n Not an on-line technique. We only remember (or notice) certain types of errors. People often don’t (notice or) write down errors which are corrected part way through the word, e. g. “wo. . wring one”.

Problems with speech errors n Even very carefully verified corpora of speech errors tend

Problems with speech errors n Even very carefully verified corpora of speech errors tend to list the error and then “the target”. n n n However, there may be several possible targets. Saying there is one definitive target may limit conclusions about what type of error has actually occurred. Evidence that we are not very good at perceiving speech errors.

Problems with speech errors n How well do we perceive speech errors? n Did

Problems with speech errors n How well do we perceive speech errors? n Did you hear what he said? ! Ferber (1991) n Method: n n n Transcripts of TV and radio were studied very carefully to pick out all the speech errors. The tapes were played to subjects whose task was to record all the errors they heard. The errors spotted by the subjects were compared with those that actually occurred.

Problems with speech errors n How well do we perceive speech errors? n Ferber

Problems with speech errors n How well do we perceive speech errors? n Ferber (1991) n Results: n n n Subjects missed 50% of all the errors And of the half they identified n 50% were incorrectly recorded (i. e. only 25% of speech errors were correctly recorded). Conclusion: We are bad at perceiving errors.

Experimental approaches n Not prey to same problems as observational studies: n n Reduces

Experimental approaches n Not prey to same problems as observational studies: n n Reduces observer bias Isolates phenomenon of interest Increases potential for systematic observation Different problems! n n n How to control input and output? Input: ecological validity problem (‘controlling thoughts’) Output: controlling responses: n n Response specification - artificiality ‘Exuberant responding’ – loss of data

Experimental speech errors n Can we examine speech errors in under more controlled conditions?

Experimental speech errors n Can we examine speech errors in under more controlled conditions? n SLIP technique: speech error elicitation technique n Motley and Baars (1976)

Task: Say the words silently as quickly as you can Say them aloud if

Task: Say the words silently as quickly as you can Say them aloud if you hear a ring

dog bone

dog bone

dust ball

dust ball

dead bug

dead bug

doll bed

doll bed

“darn bore” barn door

“darn bore” barn door

Experimental speech errors n Some basic findings • • More likely This technique has

Experimental speech errors n Some basic findings • • More likely This technique has been found to elicit 30% of predicted speech errors. Lexical Bias effect: error frequency affected by whether the error results in real words or non-words “wrong loot” FOR “long root” “rawn loof” FOR “lawn roof “

Experimental speech errors n Some basic findings Predicted to be more likely n Influence

Experimental speech errors n Some basic findings Predicted to be more likely n Influence of semantics (Motley, 1980) n Hypothesis: n n If preceded by phonologically and semantically biasing material (PS) If preceded by only phonologically biasing material (P).

Experimental speech errors n Some basic findings Influence of semantics (Motley, 1980) Method: 2

Experimental speech errors n Some basic findings Influence of semantics (Motley, 1980) Method: 2 matched lists red cars n n n 20 word pairs as targets for errors n e. g. bad mug mad bug Each preceded by 4 - 7 neutral “filler” word pairs Then 4 interference word pairs n n n 2 phonological PLUS 2 semantic (SP) or semantically neutral controls (P) rainy days small cats mashed buns mangy bears angry insect ornery fly angled inset older flu bad mug

Experimental speech errors n Some basic findings n n n Influence of semantics (Motley,

Experimental speech errors n Some basic findings n n n Influence of semantics (Motley, 1980) Results: More errors in the Semantic and Phonological (SP) condition than in the Phonological (P) condition. Conclusion: n Semantic interference may contribute to a distortion of the sound of a speaker’s intended utterance

Experimental Freudian slips? n Motley & Baars (1979) n n Hypothesis: Spoonerisms more likely

Experimental Freudian slips? n Motley & Baars (1979) n n Hypothesis: Spoonerisms more likely when the resulting content is congruous with the situational context. Method: 90 males, same procedure previously used by Motley, 1980 (SLIP). n 3 Conditions: n n n “Electricity” - expecting to get shocked “Sex” - researcher provocatively attired female Neutral

Experimental Freudian slips? n n n Same word pairs in all conditions spoonerism targets

Experimental Freudian slips? n n n Same word pairs in all conditions spoonerism targets were non-words (e. g. goxi furl foxy girl), targets preceded by 3 phonologically biasing word pairs not semantically related to target words Some resulting errors were sexually related (S), some were electrically related (E) n n Bine foddy -> “fine body” Had bock -> “bad shock”

car tires

car tires

cat toys

cat toys

can tops

can tops

cup trays

cup trays

“cool tits” tool kits

“cool tits” tool kits

Experimental Freudian slips? n Results (number of errors, by type): n n n Electricity

Experimental Freudian slips? n Results (number of errors, by type): n n n Electricity set: Sex set: Neutral set: 69 E, 36 E, 44 E, 31 S 76 S 41 S Hence errors were in the expected direction. Conclusion: subjects’ speech encoding systems are sensitive to semantic influences from their situational cognitive set.

Experimental Freudian slips? n n Hypothesis: subjects with high levels of sex anxiety will

Experimental Freudian slips? n n Hypothesis: subjects with high levels of sex anxiety will make more “sex” spoonerisms than those with low sex anxiety. Method: n n 36 males selected on the basis of high, medium, & low sex anxiety (Mosher Sex-Guilt Inventory). SLIP task same as previous experiment but with 2 additional Sex targets and 9 Neutral targets.

Experimental Freudian slips? n Results: looked at difference scores (Sex - Neutral) n n

Experimental Freudian slips? n Results: looked at difference scores (Sex - Neutral) n n n High sex anxiety > medium > low. Overall: Sex spoonerisms > Neutral spoonerisms. Conclusion: appears to support Freud’s view of sexual anxiety being revealed in Slips of the Tongue BUT: the experimenters (Baars and Motley) went on to show that any type of anxiety, not just sexual produced similar results. SO: anxiety was at play but it was more general, so the priming was more global.

From thought to speech Jane threw the ball to Bill n What do speech

From thought to speech Jane threw the ball to Bill n What do speech errors suggest? n n Productivity & Units Advanced planning

Conclusions n Speech errors have provided data about the units of speech production. n

Conclusions n Speech errors have provided data about the units of speech production. n n n Phonology - consonants, vowels, and consonant clusters (/fl/) can be disordered as units. Also, phonetic features. Syllables which have morphemic status can be involved in errors. Separation of stem morphemes from affixes (inflectional and derivational). Stress? Stress errors could be examples of blends.

Conclusions n Speech errors have provided data about the units of speech production. n

Conclusions n Speech errors have provided data about the units of speech production. n Syntax -grammatical rules may be applied to the wrong unit, but produce the correct pronunciation (e. g. plural takes the correct form /s/, /z/, or /iz/. n n n Indicates that these parts of words are marked as grammatical morphemes. Phrases (e. g. NP) and clauses can be exchanged or reversed. Words - can exchange, move, or be mis-selected.

From thought to speech Message level n Syntactic level n Morphemic level n Phonemic

From thought to speech Message level n Syntactic level n Morphemic level n Phonemic level n Articulation Propositions to be communicated Selection and organization of lexical items Morphologically complex words are constructed Sound structure of each word is built

From thought to speech Message level n Propositions to be communicated n n Syntactic

From thought to speech Message level n Propositions to be communicated n n Syntactic level Morphemic level Phonemic level Articulation Not a lot known about this step Typically thought to be shared with comprehension processes, semantic networks, situational models, etc.

From thought to speech Message level n Grammatical class constraint n Syntactic level n

From thought to speech Message level n Grammatical class constraint n Syntactic level n Slots and frames n Morphemic level Phonemic level Articulation Most substitutions, exchanges, and blends involve words of the same grammatical class A syntactic framework is constructed, and then lexical items are inserted into the slots

From thought to speech Ross Emily Rachel It was such a happy moment when

From thought to speech Ross Emily Rachel It was such a happy moment when Ross kissed Rachel…

From thought to speech Ross Emily Rachel … Oops! I mean “kissed Emily. ”

From thought to speech Ross Emily Rachel … Oops! I mean “kissed Emily. ”

From thought to speech SYNTACTIC FRAME LEXICON S NP N • ROSS • KISS

From thought to speech SYNTACTIC FRAME LEXICON S NP N • ROSS • KISS VP V(past) • EMILY N • RACHEL Spreading activation

From thought to speech SYNTACTIC FRAME LEXICON S NP N n • ROSS •

From thought to speech SYNTACTIC FRAME LEXICON S NP N n • ROSS • KISS VP V(past) • EMILY N Grammatical class constraint: • RACHEL If the word isn’t the right grammatical class, it won’t “fit” into the slot.

From thought to speech Message level n Grammatical class constraint n Syntactic level n

From thought to speech Message level n Grammatical class constraint n Syntactic level n n Slots and frames Other evidence n Morphemic level Phonemic level Articulation Most substitutions, exchanges, and blends involve words of the same grammatical class Syntactic priming

Syntactic priming v Bock (1986): syntactic persistance tested by picture naming Hear and repeat

Syntactic priming v Bock (1986): syntactic persistance tested by picture naming Hear and repeat a sentence Describe the picture

Syntactic priming v Bock (1986): syntactic persistance tested by picture naming a: The ghost

Syntactic priming v Bock (1986): syntactic persistance tested by picture naming a: The ghost sold the werewolf a flower vb: The ghost sold a flower to the werewolf v a: The girl gave the teacher the flowers vb: The girl gave the flowers to the teacher v

Syntactic priming n In real life, syntactic priming seems to occur as well n

Syntactic priming n In real life, syntactic priming seems to occur as well n Branigan, Pickering, & Cleland (2000): n n Speakers tend to reuse syntactic constructions of other speakers Potter & Lombardi (1998): n Speakers tend to reuse syntactic constructions of just read materials

From thought to speech Message level n Stranding errors I liked he would hope

From thought to speech Message level n Stranding errors I liked he would hope you I hoped he would like you Syntactic level n Morphemic level n n Phonemic level Articulation The inflection stayed in the same location, the stems moved Inflections tend to stay in their proper place Do not typically see errors like The beeing are buzzes The bees are buzzing

From thought to speech Message level n n Syntactic level Stranding errors Closed class

From thought to speech Message level n n Syntactic level Stranding errors Closed class items very rare in exchanges or substitutions n Two possibilities n n Morphemic level Phonemic level Articulation Part of syntactic frame High frequency, so lots of practice, easily selected, etc.

From thought to speech Message level n Consonant vowel regularity n Syntactic level n

From thought to speech Message level n Consonant vowel regularity n Syntactic level n Morphemic level Phonemic level Articulation Consonants slip with other consonants, vowels with vowels, but rarely do consonants slip with vowels The implication is that vowels and consonants represent different kinds of units in phonological planning

From thought to speech Message level n n Consonant vowel regularity Frame and slots

From thought to speech Message level n n Consonant vowel regularity Frame and slots in syllables n Syntactic level Morphemic level Phonemic level Articulation Similar to the slots and frames we discussed with syntax

From thought to speech PHONOLOGICAL FRAME Word Syllable Onset C • /d/, C •

From thought to speech PHONOLOGICAL FRAME Word Syllable Onset C • /d/, C • /g/, C Rhyme V LEXICON • , V C

From thought to speech Message level n n n Syntactic level Consonant vowel regularity

From thought to speech Message level n n n Syntactic level Consonant vowel regularity Frame and slots in syllables Evidence for the separation of meaning and sound n n Morphemic level Phonemic level Articulation Tip of the tongue Picture-word interference

Tip-of-the-tongue Uhh… It is a. . You know. . Arggg. I can almost see

Tip-of-the-tongue Uhh… It is a. . You know. . Arggg. I can almost see it, it has two Syllables, I think it starts with A …. . n TOT n n n Meaning access No (little) phonological access What about syntax?

Tip-of-the-tongue n “The rhythm of the lost word may be there without the sound

Tip-of-the-tongue n “The rhythm of the lost word may be there without the sound to clothe it; or the evanescent sense of something which is the initial vowel or consonant may mock us fitfully, without growing more distinct. ” (James, 1890, p. 251)

Tip-of-the-tongue n Brown & Mc. Neill (1966) n n Low-frequency words (e. g. ,

Tip-of-the-tongue n Brown & Mc. Neill (1966) n n Low-frequency words (e. g. , apse, nepotism, sampan), prompted by brief definitions. On 8. 5% of trials, tip-of-the-tongue state ensued: n Had to guess: n n n word's first or last letters the number of syllables it contained which syllable was stressed

Tip-of-the-tongue n Brown & Mc. Neill (1966) n Total of 360 TOT states: n

Tip-of-the-tongue n Brown & Mc. Neill (1966) n Total of 360 TOT states: n n n 233 ="positive TOTs" (subject was thinking of target word, and produced scorable data 127 = "negative TOTs" (subject was thinking of other word, but could not recall it) 224 similar-sound TOTs (e. g. , Saipan for sampan) n n 48% had the same number of syllables as the target 95 similar-meaning TOTs (e. g. , houseboat for sampan). n 20% had same number of syllables as target.

Tip-of-the-tongue n Similar words come to mind about half the time n but how

Tip-of-the-tongue n Similar words come to mind about half the time n but how much is just guessing? n n First letter: correct 50 -71% of time (vs. 10% by chance) First sound: 36% of time (vs. 6% by chance)

Tip-of-the-tongue n Results suggest a basic split between semantics/syntax and phonology: n People can

Tip-of-the-tongue n Results suggest a basic split between semantics/syntax and phonology: n People can access meaning and grammar but not pronunciation

Tip-of-the-tongue n n Semantics Syntax n grammatical category (“part of speech”) n n Gender

Tip-of-the-tongue n n Semantics Syntax n grammatical category (“part of speech”) n n Gender n n e. g. le chien, la vache; le camion, la voiture Number n n e. g. noun, verb, adjective e. g. dog vs. dogs; trousers vs. shirt Count/mass status n e. g. oats vs. flour

Tip-of-the-tongue n Vigliocco et al. (1997) n Subjects presented with word definitions n n

Tip-of-the-tongue n Vigliocco et al. (1997) n Subjects presented with word definitions n n If unable to retrieve word, they answered n n n Gender was always arbitrary How well do you think you know the word? Guess the gender Guess the number of syllables Guess as many letters and positions as possible Report any word that comes to mind Then presented with target word n n Do you know this word? Is this the word you were thinking of?

Vigliocco et al (1997) n Vigliocco et al. (1997) n Scoring n n +

Vigliocco et al (1997) n Vigliocco et al. (1997) n Scoring n n + TOT n Both reported some correct information in questionnaire n And said yes to recognition question - TOT n Otherwise

Vigliocco et al (1997) n Vigliocco et al. (1997) n Results n n +

Vigliocco et al (1997) n Vigliocco et al. (1997) n Results n n + TOT: 84% correct gender guess - TOT: 53% correct gender guess n n chance level Conclusion n n Subjects often know grammatical gender information even when they have no phonological information Supports split between syntax and phonology in production

MODELS OF PRODUCTION n As in comprehension, there are serial (modular) and interactive models

MODELS OF PRODUCTION n As in comprehension, there are serial (modular) and interactive models n n n Serial models - Garrett, Levelt et al. Interactive models - Stemberger, Dell Levelt’s monitoring stage (originally proposed by Baars) can explain much of the data that is said to favour interaction between earlier levels

Doing it in time n Strongest constraint may be fluency: n n Incrementality: n

Doing it in time n Strongest constraint may be fluency: n n Incrementality: n n n Have to get form right under time pressure. ‘Work with what you’ve got’ Flexibility: allows speaker to say something quickly, also respond to changing environment. Modularity: n n ‘Work only with what you’ve got’ Regulate flow of information.

Comparing models n Central questions: n Are the stages discrete or cascading? n n

Comparing models n Central questions: n Are the stages discrete or cascading? n n n Is there feedback? n n n Discrete: must complete before moving on Cascade: can get started as soon as some information is available Top-down only Bottom up too How many levels are there?

From thought to speech n n How does a mental concept get turned into

From thought to speech n n How does a mental concept get turned into a spoken utterance? Levelt, 1989, 4 stages of production: 1 2 Conceptualising: we conceptualise what we wish to communicate (“mentalese”). Formulating: we formulate what we want to say into a linguistic plan. – Lexicalisation – – – 3 4 Lemma Selection Lexeme (or Phonological Form) Selection Syntactic Planning Articulating: we execute the plan through muscles in the vocal tract. Self-monitoring: we monitor our speech to assess whether it is what we intended to say, and how we intended to say it.

A model of sentence production n Three broad stages: n Conceptualisation n n Formulation

A model of sentence production n Three broad stages: n Conceptualisation n n Formulation n n deciding on the message (= meaning to express) turning the message into linguistic representations Grammatical encoding (finding words and putting them together) Phonological encoding (finding sounds and putting them together) Articulation n speaking (or writing or signing)

Levelt’s model n Four broad stages: n Conceptualisation n n Formulation n n turning

Levelt’s model n Four broad stages: n Conceptualisation n n Formulation n n turning the message into linguistic representations Grammatical encoding (finding words and putting them together) Phonological encoding (finding sounds and putting them together) Articulation n n deciding on the message (= meaning to express) speaking (or writing or signing) Monitoring (via the comprehension system)

Levelt’s model n Network has three strata n conceptual stratum n lemma stratum n

Levelt’s model n Network has three strata n conceptual stratum n lemma stratum n word-form stratum

Levelt’s model n Tip of tongue state when lemma is retrieved without word-form being

Levelt’s model n Tip of tongue state when lemma is retrieved without word-form being retrieved n Formulation involves lexical retrieval: n n Semantic/syntactic content (lemma) Phonological content (wordform)

Levelt’s model has stripes is dangerous Lexical concepts TIGER (X) Lexicon Noun countable Fem.

Levelt’s model has stripes is dangerous Lexical concepts TIGER (X) Lexicon Noun countable Fem. /t/ tigre Lemmas /tigre/ Lexemes /I/ /g/ Phonemes

Conceptual stratum has stripes is dangerous n TIGER (X) Conceptual stratum is not decomposed

Conceptual stratum has stripes is dangerous n TIGER (X) Conceptual stratum is not decomposed n n one lexical concept node for “tiger” instead, conceptual links from “tiger” to “stripes”, etc.

Lexical selection n TIGER (X) Noun Fem. n countable tiger First, lemma activation occurs

Lexical selection n TIGER (X) Noun Fem. n countable tiger First, lemma activation occurs This involves activating a lemma or lemmas corresponding to the concept n thus, concept TIGER activates lemma “tiger”

Lexical selection n First, lemma activation occurs n TIGER (X) LION (X) tiger lion

Lexical selection n First, lemma activation occurs n TIGER (X) LION (X) tiger lion This involves activating a lemma or lemmas corresponding to the concept n n thus, concept TIGER activates lemma “tiger” But also involves activating other lemmas n n TIGER also activates LION (etc. ) to some extent and LION activates lemma “lion”

Lemma selection n Selection is different from activation n TIGER (X) LION (X) n

Lemma selection n Selection is different from activation n TIGER (X) LION (X) n Only one lemma is selected Probability of selecting the target lemma (“tiger”) n tiger lion n ratio of that lemma’s activation to the total activation of all lemmas (“tiger”, “lion”, etc. ) Hence competition between semantically related lemmas

Morpho-phonological encoding (and beyond) n The lemma is now converted into a phonological representation

Morpho-phonological encoding (and beyond) n The lemma is now converted into a phonological representation n n If “tiger” lemma plus plural (and noun) are activated n /tigre/ n /I/ /g/ Leads to activation of morphemes tigre and s Other processes too n /t/ called “word-form” (or “lexeme”) Stress, phonological segments, phonetics, and finally articulation

Model’s assumptions n Modularity n Later processes cannot affect earlier processes n n No

Model’s assumptions n Modularity n Later processes cannot affect earlier processes n n No feedback between the word-form (lexemes) layer and the grammatical (lemmas) layer Also, only one lemma activates a word form n n n If “tiger” and “lion” lemmas are activated, they compete to produce a winner at the lemma stratum Only the “winner” activates a word form The word-forms for the “losers” aren’t accessed

Experimental tests n Picture-word interference task n tiger n Participants name basic objects as

Experimental tests n Picture-word interference task n tiger n Participants name basic objects as quickly as possible Distractor words are embedded in the object n participants are instructed to ignore these words

Basic findings n Semantically related words can interfere with naming n tiger e. g.

Basic findings n Semantically related words can interfere with naming n tiger e. g. , the word TIGER in a picture of a LION

Basic findings n liar However, form-related words can speed up processing n e. g.

Basic findings n liar However, form-related words can speed up processing n e. g. , the word liar in a picture of a LION

liar time n Experiments manipulate timing: n picture and word can be presented simultaneously

liar time n Experiments manipulate timing: n picture and word can be presented simultaneously

liar time n Experiments manipulate timing: n n n picture and word can be

liar time n Experiments manipulate timing: n n n picture and word can be presented simultaneously or one can slightly precede the other We draw inferences about time-course of processing

Schriefers, Meyer, and Levelt (1990) n Auditory presentation of distractors n n DOT phonologically

Schriefers, Meyer, and Levelt (1990) n Auditory presentation of distractors n n DOT phonologically related CAT semantically related SHIP unrelated word SOA (Stimulus onset asynchrony) manipulation n -150 ms (word … 150 ms … picture) 0 ms (i. e. , synchronous presentation) +150 ms (picture … 150 ms …word)

Schriefers, Meyer, and Levelt (1990) n Auditory presentation of distractors n n n Early

Schriefers, Meyer, and Levelt (1990) n Auditory presentation of distractors n n n Early Only Semantic effects DOT phonologically related CAT semantically related SHIP unrelated word

Schriefers, Meyer, and Levelt (1990) n Auditory presentation of distractors n n n DOT

Schriefers, Meyer, and Levelt (1990) n Auditory presentation of distractors n n n DOT phonologically related CAT semantically related SHIP unrelated word Late Only Phonological effects

Interpretation n n Early semantic inhibition Late phonological facilitation Fits with the assumption that

Interpretation n n Early semantic inhibition Late phonological facilitation Fits with the assumption that semantic processing precedes phonological processing No overlap n n suggests two discrete stages in production an interactive account might find semantic and phonological effects at the same time

Dell’s interactive account n Dell (1986) presented the best-known interactive account n n other

Dell’s interactive account n Dell (1986) presented the best-known interactive account n n other similar accounts exist Network organization with n 3 levels of representation n n Semantics (decomposed into features) Words and morphemes phonemes (sounds) These get selected and inserted into frames

Dell (1986) A moment in the production of: “Some swimmers sink”

Dell (1986) A moment in the production of: “Some swimmers sink”

Dell (1986) Interactive because information flows as well as “upwards” information n “downwards”

Dell (1986) Interactive because information flows as well as “upwards” information n “downwards”

Dell (1986) n FURRY BARKS MAMMAL n dot /t/ dog /d/ /g/ log /a/

Dell (1986) n FURRY BARKS MAMMAL n dot /t/ dog /d/ /g/ log /a/ /l/ n e. g. , the semantic features mammal, barks, four-legs activate the word “dog” this activates the sounds /d/, /o/, /g/ these send activation back to the word level, activating words containing these sounds (e. g. , “log”, “dot”) to some extent this activation is upwards (phonology to syntax) and wouldn’t occur in Levelt’s account

Evidence for Dell’s model n Mixed errors n n Both semantic and phonological relationship

Evidence for Dell’s model n Mixed errors n n Both semantic and phonological relationship to target word Target = “cat” n n semantic error = “dog” phonological error = “hat” mixed error = “rat” Occur more often than predicted by modular models n if you can go wrong at either stage, it would only be by chance that an error would be mixed

Dell’s explanation n The process of making an error n n n The semantic

Dell’s explanation n The process of making an error n n n The semantic features of dog activate “cat” Some features (e. g. , animate, mammalian) activate “rat” as well “cat” then activates the sounds /k/, /ae/, /t/ /ae/ and /t/ activate “rat” by feedback This confluence of activation leads to increased tendency for “rat” to be uttered Also explains the tendency for phonological errors to be real words n Sounds can only feed back to words (non-words not represented) so only words can feedback to sound level

Why might interaction occur? n n Can’t exist just to produce errors! So what

Why might interaction occur? n n Can’t exist just to produce errors! So what is feedback for? n Perhaps because the same network is used in comprehension n n So feedback would be the normal comprehension route Alternatively, it simply serves to increase fluency in lemma selection n advantageous to select a lemma whose phonological form is easy to find

Evidence against interactivity n Schriefers, Meyer, and Levelt (1990) n n n Early Only

Evidence against interactivity n Schriefers, Meyer, and Levelt (1990) n n n Early Only Semantic effects DOT phonologically related CAT semantically related SHIP unrelated word Late Only Phonological effects

Evidence against interactivity Schriefers, Meyer, and Levelt (1990) n Also looked for any evidence

Evidence against interactivity Schriefers, Meyer, and Levelt (1990) n Also looked for any evidence of a mediated priming effect hat n DOG (X) CAT (X) dog cat /cat/ Found no evidence for it /k/ /a/ /hat/ /h/

Evidence for interactivity n A number of recent experimental findings appear to support interaction

Evidence for interactivity n A number of recent experimental findings appear to support interaction under some circumstances (or at least cascading models) n n n Damian & Martin (1999) Cutting & Ferreira (1999) Peterson & Savoy (1998)

Evidence for interactivity n n n peach Damian and Martin (1999) Picture-Word interference The

Evidence for interactivity n n n peach Damian and Martin (1999) Picture-Word interference The critical difference: n n the addition of a “semantic and phonological” condition Picture of Apple n peach (semantically related) apathy (phonologically related) n apricot (sem & phono related) n n n couch (unrelated) (also no-word control, always fast)

Results n Damian & Martin (1999) n early semantic inhibition

Results n Damian & Martin (1999) n early semantic inhibition

Results n Damian & Martin (1999) n n early semantic inhibition late phonological facilitation

Results n Damian & Martin (1999) n n early semantic inhibition late phonological facilitation (0 and + 150 ms)

Results n Damian & Martin (1999) n n early semantic inhibition late phonological facilitation

Results n Damian & Martin (1999) n n early semantic inhibition late phonological facilitation (0 and + 150 ms) n Shows overlap, unlike Schriefers et al.

Evidence for interactivity n n n Cutting and Ferreira (1999) Picture-Word interference The critical

Evidence for interactivity n n n Cutting and Ferreira (1999) Picture-Word interference The critical difference: n dance n Used homophone pictures Related distractors could be to the depicted meaning or alternative meaning “game” “dance” “hammer” (unrelated) n Only tested -150 SOA

Evidence against interactivity n Cutting and Ferreira (1999) GAME (X) BALL (X) DANCE (X)

Evidence against interactivity n Cutting and Ferreira (1999) GAME (X) BALL (X) DANCE (X) game ball dance /ball/ Cascading Prediction: dance ball /ball/

Results n Cutting and Ferreira (1999) n Early semantic inhibition

Results n Cutting and Ferreira (1999) n Early semantic inhibition

Results n Cutting and Ferreira (1999) n n n Early semantic inhibition Early Facilitation

Results n Cutting and Ferreira (1999) n n n Early semantic inhibition Early Facilitation from a phonologically mediated distractor Evidence of cascading information flow (both semantic and phonological information at early SOA)

Evidence for interactivity Peterson & Savoy n Slightly different task ? n n Prepare

Evidence for interactivity Peterson & Savoy n Slightly different task ? n n Prepare to name the picture If “? ” comes up name it

Evidence for interactivity Peterson & Savoy n Slightly different task n liar n n

Evidence for interactivity Peterson & Savoy n Slightly different task n liar n n n Prepare to name the picture If “? ” comes up name it If a word comes up instead, name the word Manipulate n n Word/picture relationship SOA

Evidence for interactivity n n soda subordinate sofa Peterson & Savoy Used pictures with

Evidence for interactivity n n soda subordinate sofa Peterson & Savoy Used pictures with two synonymous names Dominant couch n Used words that were phonologically related to the non dominant name of the picture

Evidence for interactivity n Peterson & Savoy n Found evidence for phonological activation of

Evidence for interactivity n Peterson & Savoy n Found evidence for phonological activation of near synonyms: n n Participants slower to say distractor soda than unrelated distractor when naming couch n Soda is related to non-selected sofa Remember that Levelt et al. assume that only one lemma can be selected and hence activate a phonological form n Levelt et al’s explanation: Could be erroneous selection of two lemmas?

Evidence for interactivity n Summary n These the findings appears to contradict the “discrete

Evidence for interactivity n Summary n These the findings appears to contradict the “discrete two-step” account of Levelt et al.

Can the two-stage account be saved? n Evidence for interaction is hard to reconcile

Can the two-stage account be saved? n Evidence for interaction is hard to reconcile with the Levelt account n However, most attempts are likely to revolve around the monitor n n Basically, people sometimes notice a problem and screen it out Levelt argues that evidence for interaction really involves “special cases”, not directly related to normal processing

Overall summary n Levelt et al. ’s theory of word production: n n n

Overall summary n Levelt et al. ’s theory of word production: n n n Dell’s interactive account: n n Strictly modular lexical access Syntactic processing precedes phonological processing Interaction between syntactic and phonological processing Experimental evidence is equivocal, but increasing evidence that more than one lemma may activate associated word-form

Summary n Levelt et al. ’s theory of word production: n n n Dell’s

Summary n Levelt et al. ’s theory of word production: n n n Dell’s interactive account: n n Strictly modular lexical access Syntactic processing precedes phonological processing Interaction between syntactic and phonological processing Experimental evidence is equivocal, but increasing evidence that more than one lemma may activate associated wordform

Caramazza’s alternative n Caramazza and colleagues argue against the existence of the lemma node

Caramazza’s alternative n Caramazza and colleagues argue against the existence of the lemma node n n n instead they propose a direct link between semantic level and lexeme syntactic information is associated with the lexeme Also assumes separate lexemes for written and spoken production n This is really a different issue

n n Much evidence comes from patient data But also evidence from the independence

n n Much evidence comes from patient data But also evidence from the independence of syntactic and phonological information in TOT states n n see discussion of Vigliocco et al. also Caramazza and Miozzo (Cognition, 1997; see also replies by Roelofs et al. )

From thought to speech n n How does a mental concept get turned into

From thought to speech n n How does a mental concept get turned into a spoken utterance? Levelt, 1989, 4 stages of production: 1 2 Conceptualising: we conceptualise what we wish to communicate (“mentalese”). Formulating: we formulate what we want to say into a linguistic plan. – Lexicalisation – – – 3 4 Lemma Selection Lexeme (or Phonological Form) Selection Syntactic Planning Articulating: we execute the plan through muscles in the vocal tract. Self-monitoring: we monitor our speech to assess whether it is what we intended to say, and how we intended to say it.

Models of production n As in comprehension, there are serial (modular) and interactive models

Models of production n As in comprehension, there are serial (modular) and interactive models n n n Serial models - Garrett, Levelt et al. Interactive models - Stemberger, Dell Levelt’s monitoring stage (originally proposed by Baars) can explain much of the data that is said to favour interaction between earlier levels

An model of sentence production n Three broad stages: n Conceptualisation n n Formulation

An model of sentence production n Three broad stages: n Conceptualisation n n Formulation n n deciding on the message (= meaning to express) turning the message into linguistic representations Grammatical encoding (finding words and putting them together) Phonological encoding (finding sounds and putting them together) Articulation n speaking (or writing or signing)

An model of sentence production n Experimental investigations of some of these issues n

An model of sentence production n Experimental investigations of some of these issues n Time course - cascading vs serial n n Separation of syntax and semantics n n Picture word interference Subject verb agreement Abstract syntax vs surface form n Syntactic priming

Conversational interaction “the horse raced past the barn” “the kids swam across the river”

Conversational interaction “the horse raced past the barn” “the kids swam across the river” Conversation is more than just two side-byside monologues.

Conversational interaction “The horse raced past the barn” “Really? Why would it do that?

Conversational interaction “The horse raced past the barn” “Really? Why would it do that? ” Conversation is a specialized form of social interaction, with rules and organization.

Conversation n Herb Clark (1996) n Joint action n People acting in coordination with

Conversation n Herb Clark (1996) n Joint action n People acting in coordination with one another n n n Autonomous actions n n doing the tango driving a car with a pedestrian crossing the street n The participants don’t always do similar things Things that you do by yourself Participatory actions n Individual acts only done as parts of joint actions

Conversation n Herb Clark (1996) n Speaking and listening n Traditionally treated as autonomous

Conversation n Herb Clark (1996) n Speaking and listening n Traditionally treated as autonomous actions n n Contributing to the tradition of studying language comprehension and production separately Clark proposed that they should be treated as participatory actions

Conversation n Herb Clark (1996) n Speaking and listening n Component actions in production

Conversation n Herb Clark (1996) n Speaking and listening n Component actions in production and comprehension come in pairs Speaking Listening n A vocalizes sounds for B n B attends to A’s vocalizations n A formalizes utterances for B n B identifies A’s utterances n A means something for B n B understands A’s meaning n The actions of one participant depend on the actions of the other

Conversation n Herb Clark (1996) n Face-to-face conversation - the basic setting n Features

Conversation n Herb Clark (1996) n Face-to-face conversation - the basic setting n Features Immediacy n Co-presence Visibility Audibility n Instantaneity n n n Medium n n n Evanescence Recordlessness Simultaneity Control n n n Extemporaneity Self-determination Self-expression Other settings may lack some of these features n e. g. , telephone conversations take away co-presence and visibility, which may change language use

Meaning and understanding n n n n n ABBOTT: Super Duper computer store. Can

Meaning and understanding n n n n n ABBOTT: Super Duper computer store. Can I help you? COSTELLO: Thanks. I'm setting up an office in my den, and I'm thinking about buying a computer. ABBOTT: Mac? COSTELLO: No, the name is Lou. ABBOTT: Your computer? COSTELLO: I don't own a computer. I want to buy one. ABBOTT: Mac? COSTELLO: I told you, my name is Lou. ABBOTT: What about Windows? COSTELLO: Why? Will it get stuffy in here? ABBOTT: Do you want a computer with windows? COSTELLO: I don't know. What will I see when I look in the windows? ABBOTT: Wallpaper. COSTELLO: Never mind the windows. I need a computer and software. ABBOTT: Software for windows? COSTELLO: No. On the computer! I need something I can use to write proposals, track expenses and run my business. What have you got? ABBOTT: Office.

Meaning and understanding n n n n n COSTELLO: Yeah, for my office. Can

Meaning and understanding n n n n n COSTELLO: Yeah, for my office. Can you recommend anything? ABBOTT: I just did. COSTELLO: You just did what? ABBOTT: Recommend something. COSTELLO: You recommended something? ABBOTT: Yes. COSTELLO: For my office? ABBOTT: Yes. COSTELLO: OK, what did you recommend for my office? ABBOTT: Office. COSTELLO: Yes, for my office! ABBOTT: I recommend office with windows. COSTELLO: I already have an office and it has windows!OK, lets just say, I'm sitting at my computer and I want to type a proposal. What do I need? ABBOTT: Word. COSTELLO: What word? ABBOTT: Word in Office. COSTELLO: The only word in office is office. ABBOTT: The Word in Office for Windows.

Meaning and understanding n n n n n COSTELLO: Which word in office for

Meaning and understanding n n n n n COSTELLO: Which word in office for windows? ABBOTT: The Word you get when you click the blue "W. ” COSTELLO: I'm going to click your blue "w" if you don't start with some straight answers. OK, forget that. Can I watch movies on the Internet? ABBOTT: Yes, you want Real One. COSTELLO: Maybe a real one, maybe a cartoon. What I watch is none of your business. Just tell me what I need! ABBOTT: Real One. COSTELLO: If itユs a long movie I also want to see reel 2, 3 and 4. Can I watch them? ABBOTT: Of course. COSTELLO: Great, with what? ABBOTT: Real One. COSTELLO; OK, I'm at my computer and I want to watch a movie. What do I do? ABBOTT: You click the blue "1. ” COSTELLO: I click the blue one what? ABBOTT: The blue "1. ” COSTELLO: Is that different from the blue "W"? ABBOTT: The blue 1 is Real One and the blue W is Word. COSTELLO: What word?

Meaning and understanding n n n n ABBOTT: The Word in Office for Windows.

Meaning and understanding n n n n ABBOTT: The Word in Office for Windows. COSTELLO: But there are three words in "office for windows"! ABBOTT: No, just one. But itユs the most popular Word in the world. COSTELLO: It is? ABBOTT: Yes, but to be fair, there aren't many other Words left. It pretty much wiped out all the other Words. COSTELLO: And that word is real one? ABBOTT: Real One has nothing to do with Word. Real One isn't even Part of Office. COSTELLO: Stop! Don't start that again. What about financial bookkeeping you have anything I can track my money with? ABBOTT: Money. COSTELLO: That's right. What do you have? ABBOTT: Money. COSTELLO: I need money to track my money? ABBOTT: It comes bundled with your computer. COSTELLO: What's bundled to my computer? ABBOTT: Money.

Meaning and understanding n n n COSTELLO: Money comes with my computer? ABBOTT: Yes.

Meaning and understanding n n n COSTELLO: Money comes with my computer? ABBOTT: Yes. No extra charge. COSTELLO: I get a bundle of money with my computer? How much? ABBOTT: One copy. COSTELLO: Isn't it illegal to copy money? ABBOTT: Microsoft gave us a license to copy money. COSTELLO: They can give you a license to copy money? ABBOTT: Why not? THEY OWN IT! (LATER) COSTELLO: How do I turn my computer off? ? ABBOTT: Click on "START".

Meaning and understanding n Common ground n Knowledge, beliefs and suppositions that the participants

Meaning and understanding n Common ground n Knowledge, beliefs and suppositions that the participants believe that they share n n Members of cultural communities Shared experiences What has taken place already in the conversation Common ground is necessary to coordinate speaker’s meaning with listener’s understanding

Structure of a conversation n Conversations are purposive and unplanned n n n Typically

Structure of a conversation n Conversations are purposive and unplanned n n n Typically you can’t plan exactly what you’re going to say because it depends on another participant Conversations look planned only in retrospect Conversations have a fairly stable structure

Structure of a conversation n n n n Joe: (places a phone call) Kevin:

Structure of a conversation n n n n Joe: (places a phone call) Kevin: Miss Pink’s office - hello Joe: hello, is Miss Pink in Kevin: well, she’s in, but she’s engaged at the moment, who is it? Joe: Oh it’s Professors Worth’s secretary, from Pan-American college Kevin: m, Joe: Could you give her a message “for me” Kevin: “certainly” Joe: u’m Professor Worth said that, if Miss Pink runs into difficulties, . . On Monday afternoon, . . With the standing subcommittee, . . Over the item on Miss Panoff, … n n n n n Kevin: Miss Panoff? Joe: Yes, that Professor Worth would be with Mr Miles all afternoon, . . So she only had to go round and collect him if she needed him, … Kevin: ah, … thank you very much indeed, Joe: right Kevin: Panoff, right “you” are Joe: right Kevin: I’ll tell her, Joe: thank you Kevin: bye Joe: bye

Structure of a conversation n Action sequences: smaller joint projects to fulfill a goal

Structure of a conversation n Action sequences: smaller joint projects to fulfill a goal n Adjacency pairs n Opening the conversation n Kevin: Miss Pink’s office - hello Joe: hello, . . Exchanging information about Pink n n Joe: . . , is Miss Pink in Kevin: well, she’s in, but she’s engaged at the moment…

Structure of a conversation n Action sequences: smaller joint projects to fulfill a goal

Structure of a conversation n Action sequences: smaller joint projects to fulfill a goal n Adjacency pairs n Exchanging the message from Worth n n Joe: u’m Professor Worth said that, if Miss Pink runs into difficulties, . . On Monday afternoon, . . With the standing subcommittee, . . Over the item on Miss Panoff, … Closing the conversation n n Kevin: I’ll tell her, Joe: thank you Kevin: bye Joe: bye

Opening conversations n Need to pick who starts n n Turn taking is typically

Opening conversations n Need to pick who starts n n Turn taking is typically not decided upon in advance Potentially a lot of ways to open, but we typically restrict our openings to a few ways n n Address another Request information Offer information Use a stereotyped expression or topic

Opening conversations n Has to resolve: n The entry time n n The participants

Opening conversations n Has to resolve: n The entry time n n The participants n n Who is talking to whom? Their roles n n Is now the time to converse? What is level of participation in the conversation? The official business n What is the conversation about?

Identifying participants n Conversation often takes place in situations that involve various types of

Identifying participants n Conversation often takes place in situations that involve various types of participants and nonparticipants Speaker All participants All listeners Addressee Side participants Bystander Eavesdropper

Taking turns n Typically conversations don’t involve two (or more) people talking at the

Taking turns n Typically conversations don’t involve two (or more) people talking at the same time n n n Individual styles of turn-taking vary widely Length of a turn is a fairly stable characteristic within a given individual’s conversational interactions Standard signals indicate a change in turn: a head nod, a glance, a questioning tone

Taking turns n Typically conversations don’t involve two (or more) people talking at the

Taking turns n Typically conversations don’t involve two (or more) people talking at the same time n Three implicit rules (Sacks et al, 1974) n n Rule 1: Current speakers selects next speaker Rule 2: Self-selection: if rule 1 isn’t used, then next speaker can select themselves Rule 3: current speaker may continue (or not) These principles are ordered in terms of priority n The first is the most important, and the last is the least important n Just try violating them in an actual conversation (but debrief later!)

Taking turns n Typically conversations don’t involve two (or more) people talking at the

Taking turns n Typically conversations don’t involve two (or more) people talking at the same time n Use of non-verbal cues n n n Drop of pitch Drawl on final syllable Termination of hand signals Drop in loudness Completion of a grammatical clause Use of stereotyped phrase n “you know”

Negotiating topics n Keep the discourse relevant to the topic (remember Grice’s maxims) n

Negotiating topics n Keep the discourse relevant to the topic (remember Grice’s maxims) n Coherence again n n Earlier we looked at coherence within a speaker, now we consider it across multiple speakers Must use statements to signal topic shifts

Closing conversations n Closing statements n Must exit from the last topic, mutually agree

Closing conversations n Closing statements n Must exit from the last topic, mutually agree to close the conversation, and coordinate the disengagement n signal the end of conversation (or topic) n n Justifying why conversation should end n n “okay” “I gotta go” Reference to potential future conversation n “later dude”

Summary n “People use language for doing things with each other, and their use

Summary n “People use language for doing things with each other, and their use of language is itself a joint action. ” Clark (1996, pg 387) n Conversation is structured n n But, that structure depends on more than one individual Models of language use (production and comprehension) need to be developed within this perspective