Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:52:08.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prelexical and postlexical features in language production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Thomas Berg
Thomas Berg*
Affiliation:
University of Oldenburg
*
FB 11, English Linguistics Department, University of Oldenburg, Ammerländer Heerstr, 114-118, 2900 Oldenburg, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigated the role of word class and gender during lexical access in language production. It was predicted that word class would constrain lexical access because it acts as the interface between the syntax and the lexicon. Gender, in contrast, should not constrain lexical access because it is a linguistic category that does not correlate with any semantic or syntactic information. These predictions were tested against contextual and noncontextual word substitution errors in a corpus of German slips of the tongue, as well as against verbal paraphasias produced by a German-speaking aphasic patient. The results indicated that in all three subsets, both word class and gender influenced the search through the mental lexicon to a reliable degree, with word class making a greater impact than gender. The model that best captured the empirical effects centered around the distinction between prelexical and postlexical features, assigning word class to the former and gender to the latter group. This distinction could be most naturally implemented in a parallel-interactive processing network. The creation of nodes and connections in this type of model was shown not only to respect functional principles, but also to occur on purely structural grounds. On the assumption that the information would be transmitted more or less reliably from one node to another, the aphasiological and speech error data could be readily accommodated within the same psycholinguistic model.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , April 1992 , pp. 199 - 235
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

Abd-El-Jawad, H., & Abu-Salim, I. (1987). Slips of the tongue in Arabic and their theoretical implications. Language Sciences, 9, 145–171.Google Scholar
Aitchison, J. & Straf, M. (1981). Lexical storage and retrieval: A developing skill? Linguistics, 19, 751–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, T. (1987a). The case against accommodation: Evidence from German speech error data. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 277–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, T. (1987b). A cross-linguistic comparison of slips of the tongue. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Berg, T. (1988). Die Abbildung des Sprachproduktionsprozesses in einem Aktivationsfluβmodell Untersuchungen an deutschen und englischen Versprechern. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Blanken, G. (1990). Formal paraphasias: A single case study. Brain and Language, 38, 534–554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buckingham, H. W. (1986). The scan-copier mechanism and the positional level of language production: Evidence from phonemic paraphasia. Cognitive Science, 10, 195–217.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1970). Word associations and linguistic theory. In John, Lyons (Ed.), New horizons in linguistics (pp.271–286). Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Dell, G. S. (1990). Effects of frequency and vocabulary type on phonological speech errors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5, 313–349.Google Scholar
Ellis, A. W., Miller, D., & Sin, G. (1983). Wernicke's aphasia and normal language processing: A case study in cognitive neuropsychology. Cognition, 15, 111–144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Estapà, R. (1979). Una propuesta: El malapropismo. Annuario Filología, 5, 257–266.Google Scholar
Fay, D. (1976). The role of grammatical category in the mental lexicon. Paper presented at the 48th annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
Fay, D., & Cutler, A. (1977). Malapropisms and the structure of the mental lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 505–520.Google Scholar
Fromkin, V. A. (1971). The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Language 47, 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García-Albea, J., del Viso, S. & Igoa, J. M. (1989). Movement errors and levels of processing in sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 145–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, T. A. (1990). Environmental contaminations of normal speech. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11, 45–72.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. M., Marshall, J. C. & Newcombe, F. (1971). Syntactic class as a determinant of word-retrieval in normal and dyslexic subjects. Nature, 234, 418.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1979). A functional approach to child language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kempen, G. & Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11, 201–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köpcke, K.-M. (1982). Untersuchungen zum Genussystem der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levi, Y. (1983). It's frogs all the way down. Cognition, 15, 75–93.Google Scholar
MacKay, D. G. (1983). A theory of the representation and enactment of intentions. In Richard, A. Magill (Ed.), Memory and control of action (pp. 217–230). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1989). Competition and connectionism. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 422–457). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Leinbach, J., Taraban, R. & McDonald, J. (1989). Language learning: Cues or rules? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 255–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, A. E. (1986). The acquisition of gender: A study of English and German. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nooteboom, S. G. (1969). The tongue slips into patterns. Reprinted in Fromkin, V. A. (Ed.), Speech errors as linguistic evidence (pp. 144–156). The Hague: Mouton, 1973.Google Scholar
Norman, D. A., & Bobrow, D. G. (1975). On data-limited and resource-limited processes. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 44–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, M. F. (1987). Patterns of speech production deficit within and across aphasia syndromes: Applications of a psycholinguistic model. In Coltheart, M., Sartori, G., & Job, R. (Eds.), The cognitive neuropsychology of language (pp. 163–199). London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Smith, S., & Bates, E. (1987). Accessibility of case and gender contrasts for agent-object assignment in Broca's aphasics and fluent anomics. Brain and Language, 30, 8–32.Google Scholar
Stemberger, J. P. (1985). An interactive activation model of language production. In Ellis, A. W. (Ed.), Progress in the psychology of language (Vol. 1, pp. 143–186). London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Vater, H. (1979). Das System der Artikelformen im gegenwärtigen Deutsch. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. (1978/1979). Classical malapropisms. Language Sciences, 1, 339–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar