Lecture Notes

Language Production

Definitions:

Language: a shared symbolic system for communication

Discourse: the general study of communicative interactions

conversation between 2 people
lyrics of a song
story line of a film
content of a book

Linguistics: the study of language per se

Psycholinguistics: the study of language as it is used and learned by people

Linguistic Universals:

many linguists believe that all languages have certain aspects in common

we all need a way of referring to things, so all languages have nouns

Hockett’s (1960, 1966) 13 Linguistic Universals

features or characteristics that are common to all known languages

Language as an Information Source: 4 Levels of Analysis

phonology (sounds)
syntax (structure)
semantics (meaning)
pragmatics (use)

Phonology: The Sounds of Language

concerned with the sound that results from a specific coordinations of muscle movements in the face, mouth, and throat

phonemes: basic sounds of language

categorical perception:

all sounds falling within a set of boundaries are perceived as the same, despite physical differences between them

debt, deal, dome, dirt

phenomic competence:

extensive knowledge of the rules of permissible English sound combinations

bat vs. abt

McGurk effect:

Task: Ss saw video of face saying /ga/, but voice was /ba/

Results: Ss reported hearing a syllable “in between” /da/

Syntax: The Ordering of Words and Phrases

concerned with how we use rules about word order to form sentences

also concerned with how we are able to determine if a particular sentence we read or hear is grammatical and logical

How sentences are formed: Phrase Structure

parsing:

the process of assigning words to particular syntactic categories

My dog ate burritos.

S - V - O

75% of the world’s languages use S-V-O word order
exceptions: Japanese S-O-V, Welsh & Arabic V-S-O

Chomsky’s Transformational Grammar

surface structure: actual words you hear or read
deep structure: underlying meaning

Problems with phrase structure grammar alone:

ambiguous sentences

(1) Visiting relatives can be a nuisance.

[2 different deep structures correspond to 2 different phrase structures]

(2) The shooting of the hunters was terrible.

[2 different deep structures, only 1 phrase structure--still ambiguous]

[the shooting of the hunters] [was terrible]

[Problem: if the phrase structure grammar is complete, then it should not generate an ambiguous sentence]

sentences with 1 deep structure and 2+ surface structures

(3) The girl kissed the boy.

(4) The boy was kissed by the girl.

[Problem: 2 different phrase structures, therefore 2 different sentences]

Transformational rules:

rules to convert the deep structure idea into a surface structure

by applying different transformations, we can form:

active declarative sentences
passive voice sentences
questions
negatives
future tense sentences
etc.

therefore, sentences (3) and (4) would differ only in their surface structures; one deep structure was merely transformed in two different fashions

Semantics: The Meaning in Language

morphemes: the smallest unit of language that has meaning

trees = tree + -s [large plant + “more than one of”]

free morphemes: (words) stand, bland, hand
bound morphemes: (prefixes and suffixes) un-, -s

case grammar approach:

our knowledge of certain words and their relationship to other words influences how we derive meaning from sentences

believed that sentence parsing is based on semantics rather than syntax

Pragmatics: The Social Rules that Underlie Language Use

how to interpret words in different social contexts

how communication is coordinated - conversations

Grice’s (1975) conversational maxims:

rules of conduct for polite conversations
effective discourse depends on the participants’ being informative, truthful, relevant, and clear
if any of these maxims is violated, a sense of unease in the conversation arises

we often “mark” violations of conversational rules

Conversational Postulates and Rules

1. Cooperative principle: be sincere

Make your contributions reasonable, given the agreed purpose of the conversation

2. Be relevant

2a. Don’t say what others already know -- don’t state the obvious

2b. Don’t be superfluous -- don’t say too much, don’t be too informative

2c. Don’t wander -- stick to the topic

3. Be informative

Make your contributions as informative as possible or necessary.

3a. Don’t mislead -- don’t say something you believe is false, or don’t have the evidence for; don’t overspecify

3b. Don’t say more than you know

3c. Don’t say less than you know

4. Manner and tone

4a. Be clear, easily understood

4b. Avoid obscurity, ambiguity

4c. Don’t boast

4d. Be brief, orderly, polite

5. Relations with the conversational partner

5a. Infer and respond to partner’s knowledge and beliefs

6. Mark intentional violation of conversational rules

6a. Use linguistic or nonverbal (stress, gesture) markers

6b. Use blatant violation as marker

6c. Invite partner’s inference as to your reasons for the violation

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Seminar Press.

Norman, D. A., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1975). Explorations in cognition. San Francisco: Freeman Press.

Problems in Language Production:

1. Speech errors

2. Neurological disorders

Speech Errors

slips-of-the-tongue:

errors in which sounds or entire words are rearranged between two or more different words

“spoonerisms” - named after William A. Spooner, head of New College in Oxford (1903-1924)

“noble sons of toil” --> “noble tons of soil”

“the dear old queen” --> “the queer old dean”

Dell’s (1986) connectionist model of speech production

Common speech errors recorded by Fromkin (1993):

Neurological Disorders

Broca’s area: associated with language production
Wernicke’s area: associated with language comprehension

PET scans of normal brain activity (Posner & Raichle, 1994)

aphasia:

language deficit or difficulty that results from physical damage to the brain, infections or tumors in the brain, and birth defects

Broca’s aphasia:

associated with an ability to understand language, but an impaired ability to speak coherently
read Coast Guard story (Gardner, 1975):

E: Were you in the Coast Guard?

P: No, er, yes, yes...ship...Massachu...chusetts..Coast Guard...years. [raises hands twice with fingers indicating “19”]

E: Oh, you were in the Coast Guard for 19 years.

P: Oh...boy...right...right.

E: Why are you in the hospital?

P: [Points to paralyzed arm] Arm no good. [Points to mouth] Speech...can’t say...talk, you see.

E: What happened to make you lose speech?

P: Head, fall, Jesus Christ, me no good, str, str...oh Jesus...stroke.

E: Could you tell me what you’ve been doing in the hospital?

P: Yes, sure. Me go, er, uh, P. T. nine o’cot, speech...two times...read...wr...ripe, er, rike, er, write...practice...get-ting better.

syntax is disrupted
speech consists mainly of content words

very similar to telegraphic speech (two-word stage of language development “sleep blanket”)

Wernicke’s aphasia:

associated with an ability to produce speech, but an inability to comprehend language and an inability to produce meaningful discourse
read sample (Gardiner, 1975):

Boy, I’m sweating, I’m awful nervous, you know, once in a while I get caught up. I can’t mention the tarripoi, a month ago, quite a little, I’ve done a lot well, I impose a lot, while on the other hand, you know what I mean, I have to run around, look it over, trebin and all that sort of stuff.

syntax is preserved
problems in finding the right word...often make up words to substitute
associated with a conceptual deficit

Notes

Language Comprehension

How do we Understand Language?

Form a coherent mental representation
Inference generation
Role of context

Inference Generation

inferences integrate information from the text with knowledge (e.g. scripts)

inferences are used to construct a coherent mental representation

inferences are used to construct the meaning of a text

4 types of inferences that readers can draw:
instrument
elaborative
causal
emotional

instrument inference:

“The man swept the floor.” --> broom
inferences made about the thing (the instrument) used to perform the action

elaborative inference (O’brien et al., 1988):

All the mugger wanted to steal was the woman’s money. But when she screamed, he stabbed her with the (weapon / knife) in an attempt to quiet her. He looked to see if anyone had seen him. He threw the knife into the bushes, took her money, and ran away.

involves inferring a general concept from a specific one, or vice versa
Task: eye movements --> duration of fixation on knife in last sentence
Results 1: same durations for either weapon or knife; therefore, Ss made an elaborative inference from weapon that knife was OK
Results 2: for assaulted instead of stabbed, Ss took longer to make the elaborative inference that a knife was used

causal inference (Rayner & Pollatsek, 1989):

John was eating in the dining car of a train. The waiter brought him a bowl of soup. Suddenly, the train screeched to a stop. The soup spilled in John’s lap.

an inference made that something will cause something else

emotional inference (Gernsbacher et al., in press):

One night last week Tom went to visit his best friend Joe, who worked at the local 7-11 to get spending money while in school. While Tom was visiting, Joe needed to go to the storage room for a second. While Joe was away, Tom noticed the cash register had been left open. Tom couldn’t resist the open drawer and quickly took a ten dollar bill. At the end of the week, Tom learned that Joe had been fired from the 7-11, because his cash had been low one night. It would be weeks before Tom’s guilt / pride would subside.

DV = mean reading times
Results: Ss were faster at reading guilt than pride --> they made an inference based on the emotion that Tom may have felt

When do readers draw inferences?

when they need to explain story events or actions
when they have the processing resources
when they have the necessary knowledge
when it is necessary given their goal

Role of Context in Comprehension

Effects of Context on Phonology:

phonemic restoration (Warren & Warren, 1970):

the ability to fill in sounds that are missing, using context as a cue

It was found that the *eel was on the axle.

It was found that the *eel was on the shoe.

It was found that the *eel was on the orange.

It was found that the *eel was on the table.

top of page

back to cognitive notes page