Presentations

Abstract

Subject-verb agreement is one of the most common
grammatical encoding operations in language
production. In many languages, morphological
inflection on verbs code for the number of the head
noun of a subject phrase (e.g., The key to the cabinets
is rusty). Despite the relative ease with which subjectverb
agreement is accomplished, people sometimes
make agreement errors (e.g., The key to the cabinets
are rusty). Such errors offer a window into the early
stages of production planning. Agreement errors are
influenced by both syntactic and semantic factors, and
are more likely to occur when a sentence contains either
conceptual or syntactic number mismatches. Little
is known about the timecourse of these influences,
however, and some controversy exists as to whether
they are independent. The current study was designed
to address these two issues using EEG. Semantic and
syntactic factors influencing number mismatch were
factorially-manipulated in a forced-choice sentence
completion paradigm. To avoid EEG artifact associated
with speaking, participants (N=20) were presented with
a noun-phrase, and pressed a button to indicate which
version of the verb ‘to be’ (is/are) should continue
the sentence. Semantic number was manipulated
using preambles that were semantically-integrated or
unintegrated. Semantic integration refers to the semantic
relationship between nouns in a noun-phrase, with
integrated items promoting conceptual-singularity.
The syntactic manipulation was the number (singular/
plural) of the local noun preceding the decision. This
led to preambles such as “The pizza with the yummy
topping(s)... “ (integated) vs. “The pizza with the tasty
bevarage(s)...” (unintegrated). Behavioral results showed
effects of both Local Noun Number and Semantic
Integration, with more errors and longer reaction times
occurring in the mismatching conditions (i.e., plural
local nouns; unintegrated subject phrases). Classic ERP
analyses locked to the local noun (0-700 ms) and to the
time preceding the response (-600 to 0 ms) showed no
systematic differences between conditions. Despite this
result, we assessed whether difference might emerge
using multivariate pattern analysis (MVPA). Using the
same epochs as above, support-vector machines with a
radial basis function were trained on the single-trial level
to classify the difference between Local Noun Number
and Semantic Integration conditions across time and
channels. Results revealed that both conditions could
be reliably classified at the single subject level, and
that classification accuracy was strongest in the epoch
preceding the response. Classification accuracy was
at chance when a classifier trained to dissociate Local
Noun Number was used to predict Semantic Integration
(and vice versa), providing some evidence of the
independence of the two effects. Significant inter-subject
variability was present in the channels and time-points
that were critical for classification, but earlier timepoints
were more often important for classifying Local Noun
Number than Semantic Integration. One result of this
variability is classification performed across subjects was
at chance, which may explain the failure to find standard
ERP effects. This study thus provides an important first
test of semantic and syntactic influences on subject-verb
agreement with EEG, and demonstrates that where
classic ERP analyses fail, MVPA can reliably distinguish
differences at the neurophysiological level.

Abstract

Prominent theories of predictive language processing assume that language production processes are used to anticipate upcoming linguistic input during comprehension (Dell & Chang, 2014; Pickering & Garrod, 2013). Here, we explore the converse case: Does a task set including production in addition to comprehension encourage prediction, compared to a task only including comprehension? To test this hypothesis, we conducted a cross-modal naming experiment (Experiment 1) including an object naming task and a self-paced reading experiment (Experiment 2) that did not include overt production. We used the same predictable (N = 40) and non-predictable (N = 40) sentences in both experiments. The sentences consisted of a fixed agent, a transitive verb and a predictable or non-predictable target word (The man drinks a beer vs. The man buys a beer). Most of the empirical work on prediction used sentences in which the target words were highly predictable (often with a mean cloze probability > .8) and thus it is little surprising that participants engaged in predictive language processing very easily. In the current sentences, the mean cloze probability in the predictable sentences was .39 (ranging from .06 to .8; zero in the non-predictable sentences). If comprehenders are more likely to engage in predictive processing when the task set involves production, we should observe more pronounced effects of prediction in Experiment 1 as compared to Experiment 2. If production does not enhance prediction, we should observe similar effects of prediction in both experiments. In Experiment 1, participants (N = 54) listened to recordings of the sentences which ended right before the spoken target word. Coinciding with the end of the playback, a picture of the target word was shown which the participants were asked to name as fast as possible. Analyses of their naming latencies revealed a statistically significant naming advantage of 106 ms on predictable over non-predictable trials. Moreover, we found that the objects’ naming advantage was predicted by the target words’ cloze probability in the sentences (r = .411, p = .016). In Experiment 2, the same sentences were used in a self-paced reading experiment. To allow for testing of potential spill-over effects, we added a neutral prepositional phrase (buys a beer from the bar keeper/drinks a beer from the shop) to each sentence. Participants (N = 54) read the sentences word-by-word, advancing by pushing the space bar. On 30% of the trials, comprehension questions were used to keep up participants' focus on comprehending the sentences. Analyses of participants’ target and post-target reading times revealed numerical advantages of 6 ms and 20 ms, respectively, in the predictable as compared to the non-predictable condition. However, in both cases, this difference was not statistically reliable (t = .757, t = 1.43) and the significant positive correlation between an item’s naming advantage and its cloze probability as seen in Experiment 1 was absent (r = .037, p = .822). Importantly, the analysis of participants' responses to the comprehension questions, showed that they understood the sentences (mean accuracy = 93%). To conclude, although both experiments used the same sentences, we observed effects of prediction only when the task included production. In Experiment 2, no evidence for anticipation was found although participants clearly understood the sentences and the method has previously been shown to be sensitive to measure prediction effects (Van Berkum et al., 2005). Our results fit with a recent study by Gollan et al. (2011) who found only a small processing advantage of predictive over non-predictive sentences in reading (using highly predictable sentences with a cloze probability > . 87) but a strong prediction effect when participants read the same sentences and carried out an additional object naming task (see also Griffin & Bock, 1998). Taken together, the studies suggest that the comprehenders' task set exerts a powerful influence on the likelihood and magnitude of predictive language processing. When the task set involves language production, as is often the case in natural conversation, comprehenders might engage in prediction to a stronger degree than in pure comprehension tasks. Being able to predict words another person is about to say might optimize the comprehension process and enable smooth turn-taking.

Abstract

The name-picture verification task is often used to assess the difficulty of prelexical processes (object recognition and semantic access) during picture naming. However, whether to use responses from word-picture match or from mismatch trials to index the difficulty of pre-lexical processes is debated. Levelt (2002) argued for the use of mismatch trials because on match trials the printed object name might facilitate picture recognition. However, in a study with speakers of Spanish Stadthagen-Gonzalez et al. (2009) showed that visual and conceptual properties of objects only correlated with the latencies of match responses but not with those of mismatch responses and therefore advocated the use of match responses. The present study aimed to replicate Stadthagen- Gonzalez et al. (2009) findings using native British English speakers and English norms for non-lexical and lexical variables. We replicated the finding that non-lexical variables affected the speed of match, but not mismatch responses. However, in addition, we found that lexical variables also affected the speed of match responses, which means that these latencies need to be interpreted with caution. In other words, neither match nor mismatch responses seem ideally suited to assess the difficulty of pre-lexical processes in picture naming. Levelt, W. J. M. (2002). Picture naming and word frequency. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 663–671. Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., Damian, M. F., Pérez, M. A., Bowers, J. S., & Marín, J. (2009). Name-picture verification as a control measure for object naming: A task analysis and norms for a

Abstract

As the popularity of sending messages electronically increased, so did the necessity of conveying messages more efficiently. A popular way of increasing efficiency is to use shortcuts such as gr8 “great” or cu “see you”. The aim of the study was to investigate whether such abbreviations have their own lexical representations or whether they are recorded into the words they stand for. We used associative masked and overt priming in lexical decision tasks. Primes were text shortcuts and their corresponding words. Targets were words that were associatively related to the prime (e.g., cu/see you – GOODBYE), associatively related to a part of the prime (e.g., cu/see you – LOOK) or unrelated to the prime and any part of the prime (e.g., 4u/for you – GOODBYE; 4u/for you – LOOK). In both tasks, responses were faster to targets preceded by related compared to unrelated primes (shortcuts and words). In the overt priming task, we in addition found faster responses when the target was related to a part of the prime. However, this effect was present only for word but not for shortcut primes. These results indicate that shortcuts have their own lexical representations that are independent of the representations of the individual words they replace.

Abstract

Ik laat zien dat het gebruik van sms- en msn-afkortingen geen schadelijke gevolgen heeft op het begrip van geschreven taal zoals blijkt uit een reeks van experimenten. Sterker nog, afkortingen hebben een eigen representatie in ons mentale woordenboek (bijvoorbeeld ‘iig’) en worden niet vertaald naar woorden waaruit ze bestaan (bijvoorbeeld ‘in ieder geval’). Het gebruik van korte tekstberichten via mobiele telefoons en e-mail neemt steeds meer toe en daardoor worden steeds meer afkortingen en acroniemen in de taal gebruikt. Momenteel worden er wereldwijd naar schatting 2000 miljard sms-jes per jaar verstuurd. In Nederland en België sms’t ongeveer 80% van de jongeren regelmatig, en ongeveer 70% van hen gebruikt sms-taal (Daniels, 2009). Het gebruik van afkortingen heeft de schuld gekregen van de verloedering van de Nederlandse taal, iets dat men terug zou zien in de kwaliteit van het Nederlands in e-mails en brieven. Verder gebruik van afkortingen zou de communicatie verslechteren tussen de gebruikers van afkortingen en niet gebruikers, bijvoorbeeld tussen studenten en docenten. De vraag is of dat echt zo is. Uit mijn onderzoek blijkt dat het begrijpen van een tekst niet leidt onder het gebruik van afkortingen in de zinnen

Abstract

Earlier research has shown that speakers naming object pairs can retrieve their names in parallel, but often fail to do so. The conditions for the occurrence of parallel object processing are largely unknown. We examined how associations between objects affected the speakers’ processing strategies. In Experiment 1, participants named object triplets in a left-right-bottom order. During the saccade towards the right object (interloper), it was replaced by a new object (target). We varied the relationship between interloper and target (conceptually related or unrelated) and between interloper and left object (categorically related, associated, unrelated). Target gaze durations were shorter after related than unrelated interlopers. However, this preview effect was independent of the interloper-left object relationship, suggesting that the left and right object were processed sequentially. In Experiments 2 and 3, participants named pairs of associated or unrelated objects. The left objects were repeated several times in each test block to facilitate their processing. Gaze durations for the left objects were longer in associated than unrelated pairs, consistent with parallel processing of the associated objects and interference among them. We will discuss how the difficulty of processing the objects and the relationship between them jointly determine speakers’ processing strategy.

Abstract

Individuals differ greatly on how efficiently they can retrieve words from the mental lexicon in spoken word production. Little is known about how this individual difference might be related to individual difference in other cognitive abilities. The present study investigated the relationship between individuals’ working memory capacity and their efficiency of lexical access. Speeded naming of drawings of actions and objects was used to measure the efficiency of lexical access. To assess working memory capacity, we used the Operation Span (OSPAN) task (Turner & Engle, 1989), in which participants memorize unrelated words while making judgments on simple mathematic operations. We found that action naming response time (RT) was significantly longer than object naming RT. More importantly, there was a significant negative correlation between the action naming RT and the OSPAN score. There was no correlation between object naming RT and the OSPAN score. Ex-Gaussian analyses of the RT distributions revealed that the negative relationship between OSPAN and RT was evident throughout the distributions (i.e., reflected in the Gaussian part of the distribution). These results suggest that when words are difficult to select (our verbcondition) people with larger working memory capacity outperform people with lower working memory capacity. Turner, M. L., & Engle. R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 127-154.