next up previous
Next: Chen, Chen: Morphological Processing Up: Poster Session 3: Wednesday Previous: Desmet, Ferreira: Implicit Causality

Where is the Twist in the Tongue Twister? Dysfluencies following Spoken and Heard Twister Strings

Tracy MacLeod and Simon Garrod
Tracym@psy.gla.ac.uk, Simon@psy.gla.ac.uk
University of Glasgow

There is theoretical debate as to whether language comprehension and production processes involve shared representations or distinct representational systems (Roelof, in press). Where these processes have been considered in isolation, split comprehension and production models have evolved. In contrast, dialogue research indicates input representations formed during comprehension are co-ordinated, or aligned, with output representations formed during production (Bard, Anderson, Sotillo, Aylett, Doherty-Sneddon & Newlands, 2000; Branigan, Pickering & Cleland, 2001; Brenan & Clark, 1996; Clark & Marshall, 1981; Garrod and Anderson, 1987; Garrod & Clark, 1993; Garrod & Doherty, 1994; Levelt & Kelter, 1982). We modified Wilshire's (1999) tongue twister paradigm to test whether representations held in comprehension and production aligned at the phonological level. When read aloud, tongue twister word strings with alliterations of similar phonemes in the same position prime errors (Butterworth & Whittaker, 1980; Kupin, 1982; Levitt & Healy, 1985; Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. & Klatt, 1979; Wilshire, 1999). To date, such paradigms have had an articulatory component that has made distinguishing between phonological and motor interference difficult. In order to make this distinction we included an auditory condition, where tongue twister strings were simply heard prior to articulating a target word. Error rate, reaction time and word duration measured dysfluent articulation. Error rate and reaction time increased on tongue twister conditions in the spoken modality only, suggesting motor interference. Word duration increased on tongue twister conditions in both the overtly articulated and auditory modalities, with a greater effect for the auditory modality. As simply listening to tongue twister strings interfered with articulation, we propose an incorrect phonological representation primed during comprehension interfered with subsequent production. Our findings indicate that the representations involved in comprehension and production are primarily phonological and are shared. They support Pickering and Garrod's Alignment theory (in press) which can also account for the observed word duration increase in absence of errors. These findings indicate an automatic link between comprehension, or perception, and production, or behaviour, (Dijksterhuis & Bargh, 2001; Pickering & Garrod, in press; Prinz, 1997). Results from a second experiment will also be reported.

References

Bard, E.G., Anderson, A.H., Sotillo, C., Aylett, M., Doherty-Sneddon, G., & Newlands, A. (2000). Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 42 ,1-22.

Branigan, H., Pickering, M., & Cleland, S.(2001). Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition, 75, Volume 75, Issue 2, 15 May 2000, Pages B13-B25. .

Brennan, S.E. & Clark, H.H.(1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: learning, memory and cognition, 22, 1482-1493.

Butterworth, B. & Whittaker, S.(1980). Peggy Babcock's Relatives. In G.E.Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behaviour (pp.647-658).Amsterdam:Elsevier/North Holland.

Clark, H.H. & Marshall, C.R.(1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A.K. Joshi, I.A. Sag & B.L. Webber(Eds.).Elements of discourse understanding (pp.10-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dijksterhuis, Ap & Bargh, John A. The perception-behavior expressway: Automatic effects of social perception on social behavior. [Chapter] Zanna, Mark P. (Ed). (2001). Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 33. (pp. 1-40). ix, 325pp.

Garrod, S.C & Anderson, A. (1987). Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination. Cognition, 27, 181-218.

Garrod, S. & Clark, A. (1993). The development of dialogue co-ordination skills in schoolchildren. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 101-126.

Garrod, S. & Doherty, G. (1994). Conversation, co-ordination and convention: An empirical investigation of how groups establish linguistic conventions. Cognition, 53, 181-215.

Kupin, J.J (1982). Tongue twisters as a source of information about speech production. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Levitt, A.G. & Healy, A.F. (1985). The roles of phoneme frequency, similarity and availability in the experimental elicitation of speech errors. Journal of Memory and Language, 24. 717-733.

Levelt, W. J. M.. & Kelter, S. (1982). Surface form and memory in question answering. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 78-106.

Pickering, M.J, & Garrod, S. (in press). Toward a Mechanistic Psychology of Dialogue. Behavioural and Brain Sciences.

Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and Action Planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9 (2),129-154.

Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. & Klatt, D. (1979). The limited use of distinctive features and markedness in speech production: Evidence from speech error data. Journal of Verbal Learning and Behaviour,18, 41-55.

Wilshire, C.E. (1999). The `Tongue Twister' Paradigm as a Technique for Studying Phonological Encoding. Language and Speech, 42 (1), 57-82.


next up previous
Next: Chen, Chen: Morphological Processing Up: Poster Session 3: Wednesday Previous: Desmet, Ferreira: Implicit Causality
Patrick Sturt 2003-08-15