Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:01:06.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grammatical planning scope in sentence production: Further evidence for the functional phrase hypothesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2014

LI-MING ZHAO ,
F.-XAVIER ALARIO  and
YU-FANG YANG
LI-MING ZHAO
Affiliation:
Chinese Academy of Sciences
F.-XAVIER ALARIO
Affiliation:
Aix-Marseille Université and CNRS
YU-FANG YANG*
Affiliation:
Chinese Academy of Sciences
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Yu-Fang Yang, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 4A Datun Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100101, China. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While there is a consensus that speakers plan their utterances before they start producing them, the scope of the initial planning unit remains controversial. In subject-initial utterances, is the planning unit the whole subject phrase or a smaller “functional phrase” within the subject phrase? Allum and Wheeldon (2007) reported that speakers show faster onset latencies in producing utterances like The flower above the house is red, where the subject consists of two functional phrases (the flower and above the house) than in producing The flower and the house are red, where there is a single, longer functional phrase (The flower and the house), both in head-initial languages like English and head-final languages like Japanese. This has been taken to suggest that the functional phrase is a preferred unit of planning, rather than the whole subject. Experiment 1 in the present study replicates Allum and Wheeldon's study with speakers of another head-final language (Mandarin Chinese) and finds similar results. Experiments 2 and 3 investigate whether syntactic processing or visual grouping could potentially explain the pattern of responses, and find that they cannot. Together, these results provide further empirical support for the claim that the functional phrase is a primary unit of grammatical planning for speech production.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 36 , Issue 5 , September 2015 , pp. 1059 - 1075
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alario, F.-X., Costa, A., & Caramazza, A. (2002). Frequency effects in noun phrase production: Implications for models of lexical access. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 299–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allum, P. H., & Wheeldon, L. R. (2007). Planning scope in spoken sentence production: The role of grammatical units. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 791–810.Google ScholarPubMed
Allum, P. H., & Wheeldon, L. R. (2009). Scope of lexical access in spoken sentence production: Implication for the conceptual–syntactic interface. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1240–1255.Google ScholarPubMed
Bock, J. K. (1986). Meaning, sound, and syntax: Lexical priming in sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 575–586.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K., & Levelt, W. (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In Gernsbacher, M. A. (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 945–984). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Caramazza, A. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 177–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, A., Navarrete, E., & Alario, F. X. (2006). Accessing object names when producing complex noun phrases: Implications for models of lexical access. Cognitiva, 18, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Swets, B. (2002). How incremental is language production? Evidence from the production of utterances requiring the computation of arithmetic sums. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 57–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, M. F. (1975). The analysis of sentence production. In Bower, G. (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 133–177, 505–529). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Garrett, M. F. (1976). Syntactic processes in sentence production. In Wales, R. & Walker, E. (Eds.), New approaches to language mechanisms (pp. 231–255). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Garrett, M. F. (1993). Errors and their relevance for models of language production. In Blanken, G., Dittmann, J., Grimm, H., & Marshall, J. C. (Eds.), Linguistic disorders and pathologies (pp. 72–92). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Griffin, Z. M. (2001). Gaze durations during speech reflect word selection and phonological encoding. Cognition, 82, B1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kempen, G., & Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11, 201–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konopka, A. E. (2012). Planning ahead: How recent experience with structures and words changes the scope of linguistic planning. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 143–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M., & Maassen, B. (1981). Lexical search and order of mention in sentence production. In Klein, W. & Levelt, W. J. M. (Eds.), Crossing the linguistic boundaries (pp. 221–252). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, R. C., Crowther, J. E., Knight, M., Tamborello, F. P. II, & Yang, C. (2010). Planning in sentence production: Evidence for the phrase as a default planning scope. Cognition, 116, 177–192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, R. C., Miller, M., & Vu, H. (2004). Lexical–semantic retention and speech production: Further evidence from normal and brain-damaged participants for a phrasal scope of planning. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 21, 625–644.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, A. S. (1992). Investigation of phonological encoding through speech error analyses: Achievements, limitations, and alternatives. Cognition, 42, 181–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, A. S. (1996). Lexical access in phrase and sentence production. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 477–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, A. S., Sleiderink, A. M., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1998). Viewing and naming objects: Eye movements during noun phrase production. Cognition, 66, B25–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, A. S., & van der Meulen, F. F. (2000). Phonological priming effects on speech onset latencies and viewing times in object naming. Psychological Bulletin and Review, 7, 314–319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, J. L., & Meyer, A. S. (2005). Processing of extrafoveal objects during multiple-object naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 428–442.Google ScholarPubMed
Roelofs, A. (1992). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42, 107–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schnur, T. T., Costa, A., & Caramazza, A. (2006). Planning at the phonological level during sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35, 189–213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schriefers, H., & Teruel, E. (1999). Phonological facilitation in the production of two-word utterances. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 11, 17–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M., & Wheeldon, L. (1999). High level processing scope in spoken sentence production. Cognition, 73, 205–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, M., & Wheeldon, L. (2001). Syntactic priming in spoken sentence production: An online study. Cognition, 78, 123–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, M., & Wheeldon, L. (2004). Horizontal information flow in spoken sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 675–686.Google ScholarPubMed
Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity and visual complexity. Journal of Experiment Psychology: Human Learning Memory, 6, 174–215.Google ScholarPubMed
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, 423–440.Google ScholarPubMed
Wheeldon, L. R., Ohlson, N., Ashby, A., & Gator, S. (2013). Lexical availability and advanced planning in spoken sentence production. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36, 423–440.Google Scholar
Yang, J. C., & Yang, Y. F. (2008). Horizontal flow of semantic and phonological information in Chinese spoken sentence production. Language and Speech, 51, 267–284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, Q. F., & Yang, Y. F. (2003). The determiners of picture-naming latency. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 35, 447–454.Google Scholar