Publications

Abstract

Background

The factors that contribute to language alternation by bilingual speakers with aphasia have been debated. Some studies suggest that atypical language mixing results from impairments in language control, while others posit that mixing is a way to enhance communicative effectiveness. To address this question, most prior research examined the appropriateness of language mixing in connected speech tasks.
Aims

The goal of this study was to provide new insight into the question whether language mixing in aphasia reflects a strategy to enhance verbal effectiveness or involuntary behaviour resulting from impaired language control.
Methods & procedures

Semi-structured web-based interviews with bilingual speakers with aphasia (N = 19) with varying language backgrounds were conducted. The interviews were transcribed and coded for: (1) Self-reports regarding language control and compensation, (2) instances of language mixing, and (3) in two cases, instances of repair initiation.
Outcomes & results

The results showed that several participants reported language control difficulties but that the knowledge of additional languages could also be recruited to compensate for lexical retrieval problems. Most participants showed no or very few instances of mixing and the observed mixes appeared to adhere to the pragmatic context and known functions of switching. Three participants exhibited more marked switching behaviour and reported corresponding difficulties with language control. Instances of atypical mixing did not coincide with clear problems initiating conversational repair.
Conclusions

Our study highlights the variability in language mixing patterns of bilingual speakers with aphasia. Furthermore, most of the individuals in the study appeared to be able to effectively control their languages, and to alternate between their languages for compensatory purposes. Control deficits resulting in atypical language mixing were observed in a small number of participants.

Abstract

Thirty years ago, Pim Levelt published Speaking. During the 10th International Workshop on Language Production held at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen in July 2018, researchers reflected on the impact of the book in the field, developments since its publication, and current research trends. The contributions in this Special Issue are closely related to the presentations given at the workshop. In this editorial, we sketch the research agenda set by Speaking, review how different aspects of this agenda are taken up in the papers in this volume and outline directions for further research.

Abstract

In simultaneous interpreting, speech comprehension and production processes have to be coordinated in close temporal proximity. To examine the coordination, Dutch-English bilingual participants were presented with narrative fragments recorded in English at speech rates varying from 100 to 200 words per minute and they were asked to translate the fragments into Dutch (interpreting) or repeat them in English (shadowing). Interpreting yielded more errors than shadowing at every speech rate, and increasing speech rate had a stronger negative effect on interpreting than on shadowing. To understand the differential effect of speech rate, a computational model was created of sub-lexical and lexical processes in comprehension and production. Computer simulations revealed that the empirical findings could be captured by assuming a bottleneck preventing simultaneous lexical selection in production and comprehension. To conclude, our empirical and modelling results suggest the existence of a lexical bottleneck that limits the translation of narratives at high speed.

Abstract

The authors report six implicit priming experiments that examined the production of inflected forms. Participants produced words out of small sets in response to prompts. The words differed in form or shared word-initial segments, which allowed for preparation. In constant inflectional sets, the words had the same number of inflectional suffixes, whereas in variable sets the number of suffixes differed. In the experiments, preparation effects were obtained, which were larger in the constant than in the variable sets. Control experiments showed that this difference in effect was not due to syntactic class or phonological form per se. The results are interpreted in terms of a slot-and-filler model of word production, in which inflectional frames, on the one hand, and stems and affixes, on the other hand, are independently spelled out on the basis of an abstract morpho-syntactic specification of the word, which is followed by morpheme-to-frame association.

Abstract

Santiago, MacKay, Palma, and Rho (2000) report two picture naming experiments examining the role of syllable onset complexity and number of syllables in spoken word production. Experiment 1 showed that naming latencies are longer for words with two syllables (e.g., demon ) than one syllable (e.g., duck ), and longer for words beginning with a consonant cluster (e.g., drill ) than a single consonant (e.g., duck ). Experiment 2 replicated these findings and showed that the complexity of the syllable nucleus and coda has no effect. These results are taken to support MacKay's (1987) Node Structure theory and to refute models such as WEAVER++ (Roelofs, 1997a) that predict effects of word length but not of onset complexity and number of syllables per se. In this comment, I show that a re-analysis of the data of Santiago et al. that takes word length into account leads to the opposite conclusion. The observed effects of onset complexity and number of syllables appear to be length effects, supporting WEAVER++ and contradicting the Node Structure theory.

Abstract

Minimalist theories of spoken language planning hold that articulation starts when the first
speech segment has been planned, whereas non-minimalist theories assume larger units (e.g.,
Levelt, Roelofs, & Meyer, 1999a). Three experiments are reported, which were designed to distinguish
between these views using a newhybrid task that factorially manipulated preparation and
auditory priming of spoken language production. Minimalist theories predict no effect from
priming of non-initial segments when the initial segment of an utterance is already prepared;
observing such a priming effect would support non-minimalist theories. In all three experiments,
preparation and priming yielded main effects, and together their effects were additive. Preparation
of initial segments does not eliminate priming effects for later segments. These results challenge
the minimalist view. The findings are simulated by WEAVER++ (Roelofs, 1997b), which
employs the phonological word as the lower limit for articulation initiation.

Abstract

The control of language use has in its simplest form perhaps been most intensively studied using the color–word Stroop task. The authors review chronometric and neuroimaging evidence on Stroop task performance to evaluate two prominent, implemented models of control in naming and reading: GRAIN and WEAVER++. Computer simulations are reported, which reveal that WEAVER++ offers a more satisfactory account of the data than GRAIN. In particular, we report WEAVER++ simulations of the BOLD response in anterior cingulate cortex during Stroop performance. Aspects of single-word production and perception in the Stroop task are discussed in relation to the wider problem of the control of language use.

Abstract

The authors report a study in Dutch that used an on-line preparation paradigm to test the issue of semantic
dependency versus morphological autonomy in the production of polymorphemic words. Semantically
transparent complex words (like input in English) and semantically opaque complex words
(like invoice) showed clear evidence of morphological structure in word-form encoding, since both exhibited
an equally large preparation effect that was much greater than that for morphologically simple
words (like insect). These results suggest that morphemes may be planning units in the production of
complex words, without making a semantic contribution, thereby supporting the autonomy view. Language
production establishes itself as a domain in which morphology may operate “by itself” (Aronoff,
1994) without recourse to meaning.