LANGUAGE PRODUCTION
2. SUMMARY
experiments suggest that under similar circumstances, speakers prepare nouns one at a time, shortly before uttering them, even in complex subject noun phrases or conjunctions (Griffin, 2001; Meyer, Sleiderink, & Levelt, 1998; but see Morgan & Meyer, 2005).
An unanswered question is whether verbs (or other predicates) play a special role in the preparation of utterances. Based on the constraining properties of verbs, some theo-rists have suggested that verb selection must normally take place early in sentence formulation (e.g., Bock, 1987; Ferreira, 2000; Jarvella, 1977; MacWhinney, 1987). When not required to select verbs in an utterance, speakers begin speaking earlier than they otherwise do (Kempen & Huijbers, 1983; Lindsley, 1975). Such results have been used to argue that verb selection precedes subject selection and therefore often speech onset (e.g., Bock & Levelt, 1994; Ferreira, 2000). However, these same experiments (Kempen &
Huijbers, 1983; Lindsley, 1975) are also consistent with a desire to have a full or partially specified message planned before speech onset without verb selection, assuming that messages that include an action or other predicate take more time to compose, all else being equal, than those with only a topic. Similarly, the relationship between ear-to-mouth lag and verb position in translation input (Goldman-Eisler, 1972) supports the idea that a verb is selected before translated production begins, but also the more con-servative possibility that production processes wait for a predicate to be included in the message. Further complicating matters is the possibility that speakers may only need to prepare verbs prior to speech onset whenever verbs occur soon after sentence onset (e.g., after short subject noun phrases in English) simply because there would not be time to prepare them while articulating the subject noun phrase (Griffin, 2003).
In addition to semantic and linguistic units and dependencies, time also appears to be important in timing speech. Longer words by definition take more time to articu-late than shorter words do and slower speakers take more time to articuarticu-late their words than faster speakers do. Both of these aspects of timing have been shown to influence when speakers begin preparing words (Griffin, 2003). That is, speakers may attempt to minimize their buffering of prepared words by estimating how long words will take to prepare and how long it will take to articulate already prepared speech. Speakers are sensitive enough to the timing of articulation and word preparation that they will insert optional words such as that is The coach knew that you missed practice is response to variations in the availability of the following word (Ferreira & Dell, 2000). Also suggesting sensitivity to the time needed to prepare upcoming speech, speakers are more likely to say uh than um before shorter delays in speaking (Clark &
Fox Tree, 2002).
involves activating (#2) and then competitively selecting (#3) from a family of meaning-related words in a grammatically constrained (#4) but meaning-sensitive (#5) fashion.
This word-selection process may require an intention-to-name to have it commence (#6), and it manifests a long-term learning component (#7). Nonetheless, word production can fail partway through (#8). Function words may undergo a somewhat different selection process than content words do (#9). Sound processing in turn is characterized as assem-bling sequences of sounds (#10), a process that is affected by speakers’ experience (#11), and proceeds from word start to end (#12). Phonological similarity has complex effects on production, attesting to the fact that it probably affects multiple subprocesses (#13).
Although only one word may ultimately be spoken to produce a meaning, multiple mean-ing-related candidates can affect the availability of sound information (#14). Finally, speakers plan messages further in advance than they retrieve sounds, showing a tendency to prepare words for about a noun phrase at a time, due to message-level, syntactic, prosodic, and/or timing constraints or preferences (#15).
In focusing on spoken language and the production of words in particular, we have left untouched the literature on written language production (see e.g., Bonin et al., 2002;
Kellogg, 2003), the production of sign languages (e.g., Thompson, Emmorey, & Gollan, 2005), and the complications of knowing words in multiple languages (e.g., Costa, Miozzo, & Caramazza, 1999; Gollan & Acenas, 2004; Kroll & Sunderman, 2003).
Within spoken word production, this chapter has not addressed work on how speakers produce morphologically complex words (e.g., Badecker, 2001; Melinger, 2003; Roelofs, 1996; Wheeldon & Lahiri, 2002; for discussion, see Waksler, 2000) such as morphology, litterbox, or ko-tätaste (a Swedish word meaning “most tightly packed with cows”) or id-ioms such as It’s Greek to me and to put one’s foot in one’s mouth (see e.g., Cutting &
Bock, 1997; Levelt et al., 1999). We have hardly touched on the production of prosody and the role of intonation in spoken language (for discussion, see Ferreira, 1993;
Wheeldon, 2000). Nor have we discussed under what circumstances and how speakers may or may not tailor their language to suit their audiences (Barr & Keysar, this volume;
Ferreira & Dell, 2000; Ferreira, Slevc, & Rogers, 2005; Horton & Gerrig, 2005; Kraljic
& Brennan, 2005; Lockridge & Brennan, 2002). These are active and important areas of research in language production.
Most of the properties we have reviewed are sufficiently basic that they are virtually certain to characterize how production works, at least to some level of approximation.
A few of them, however, are more controversial and are likely to be explicated and revised by future research (e.g., whether the intention to name is critically involved in word activation [6], seriality in phonological encoding [12], and origins of phonological similarity effects in production [13]). Nonetheless, in all, these properties represent a tribute to the progress that the field of language production has made, as they represent true gains in our understanding of how speakers produce words. At the same time, they pose challenges to current and future models of production, as such models pursue their goal of transforming these descriptions of how production works into explanations of why it works the way it does.
REFERENCES
Astell, A. J., & Harley, T. A. (1996). Tip-of-the-tongue states and lexical access in dementia. Brain and Language, 54, 196–215.
Baars, B. J., Motley, M. T., & MacKay, D. G. (1975). Output editing for lexical status in artificially elicited slips of the tongue. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 382–391.
Bachoud-Levi, A. C., Dupoux, E., Cohen, L., & Mehler, J. (1998). Where is the length effect? A cross-linguistic study of speech production. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 331–346.
Badecker, W. (2001). Lexical composition and the production of compounds: Evidence from errors in naming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16, 337–366.
Badecker, W., Miozzo, M., & Zanuttini, R. (1995). The two stage model of lexical retrieval: Evidence from a case of anomia with selective preservation of grammatical gender. Cognition, 57, 193–216.
Balota, D. A., & Paul, S. T. (1996). Summation of activation: Evidence from multiple primes that converge and diverge within semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 827–845.
Bartram, D. J. (1974). The role of visual and semantic codes in object naming. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 325–356.
Bates, E., D’Amico, S., Jacobsen, T., Szkely, A., Andonova, E., Devescovi, A., Herron, D., Lu, C.C., Pechmann, T., Plh, C., Wicha, N., Federmeier, K., Gerdjikova, I., Gutierrez, G., Hung, D., Hsu, J., Iyer, G., Kohnert, K., Mehotcheva, T., Orozco-Figueroa, A., Tzeng, A., & Tzeng, O. (2003).
Timed picture naming in seven languages. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10, 344–380.
Bates, E., Wulfeck, B., & MacWhinney, B. (1991). Cross-linguistic research in aphasia: An overview. Brain and Language, 41, 123–148.
Beattie, G. W. (1979). Planning units in spontaneous speech: Some evidence from hesitation in speech and speaker gaze direction in conversation. Linguistics, 17, 61–78.
Berg, T. (1991). Phonological processing in a syllable-timed language with pre-final stress:
Evidence from Spanish speech error data. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6, 265–301.
Berg, T. (1998). Linguistic structure and change: An explanation from language processing.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Biedermann, B., Blanken, G., & Nickels, L. (2002). The representation of homophones: Evidence from remediation. Aphasiology, 16, 1115–1136.
Bierwisch, M., & Schreuder, R. (1992). From concepts to lexical items. Cognition, 42, 23–60.
Bloem, I., & La Heij, W. (2003). Semantic facilitation and semantic interference in word transla-tion: Implications for models of lexical access in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 468–488.
Bloem, I., Van Den Boogaard, S., & La Heij, W. (2004). Semantic facilitation and semantic inter-ference in language production: Further evidence for the conceptual selection model of lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 307–323.
Bock, J. K. (1987). Coordinating words and syntax in speech plans. In: A. Ellis (Ed.), Progress in the Psychology of Language (Vol. 3, pp. 337–390). London: Erlbaum.
Bock, J. K., & Cutting, J. C. (1992). Regulating mental energy: Performance units in language pro-duction. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 99–127.
Bock, J. K., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In: M. A.
Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 945–984). San Diego: Academic Press.
Bonin, P., Chalard, M., Meot, A., & Fayol, M. (2002). The determinants of spoken and written pic-ture naming latencies. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 89–114.
Boomer, D. S. (1978). The phonemic clause: Speech unit in human communication. In: A. W. Seigman
& S. Feldstein (Eds.), Nonverbal behavior and communication (pp. 245–262). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brédart, S., & Valentine, T. (1992). From Monroe to Moreau: An analysis of face naming errors.
Cognition, 45, 187–223.
Brown, R., & McNeill, D. (1966). The “tip of the tongue” phenomenon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 325–337.
Brysbaert, M., & Ghyselinck, M. (2006). The effect of age-of-acquisition: Partly frequency-related, partly frequency-independent. Visual Cognition, 13, 992–1011.
Burke, D. M., Locantore, J. K., Austin, A. A., & Chae, B. (2004). Cherry pit primes Brad Pitt:
Homophone priming effects on young and older adults’ production of proper names. Psychological Science, 15, 164.
Burke, D. M., MacKay, D. G., Worthley, J. S., & Wade, E. (1991). On the tip of the tongue: What causes word finding failures in young and older adults? Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 542–579.
Butterworth, B. (1982). Speech errors: Old data in search of new theories. In: A. Cutler (Ed.), Slips of the Tongue and Language Production (pp. 73–108). Berlin: Mouton.
Butterworth, B. (1989). Lexical access in speech production. In: W. D. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.), Lexical Representation and Process (pp. 108–135). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Caramazza, A. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 177–208.
Caramazza, A., Costa, A., Miozzo, M., & Bi, Y. (2001). The specific-word frequency effect:
Implications for the representation of homophones in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1430–1450.
Cattell, J. M. (1889). Mental association investigated by experiment. Mind, 14, 230–250.
Cave, C. B. (1997). Very long-lasting priming in picture naming. Psychological Science, 8, 322–325.
Chang, F. (2002). Symbolically speaking: A connectionist model of sentence production. Cognitive Science, 26, 609–651.
Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113, 234–272.
Chang, F., Dell, G. S., Bock, K., & Griffin, Z. M. (2000). Structural priming as implicit learning: A comparison of models of sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 217–229.
Chen, J.-Y., Chen, T.-M., & Dell, G. S. (2002). Word-form encoding in Mandarin Chinese as as-sessed by the implicit priming task. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 751–781.
Cholin, J., Levelt, W. J. M., & Schiller, N. (2006). Effects of syllable frequency in speech produc-tion. Cognition, 99, 205–235.
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H. H., & Fox Tree, J. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84, 73–111.
Clark, H. H., & Wasow, T. (1998). Repeating words in spontaneous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 37, 201–242.
Cooper, W. E., Soares, C., & Reagan, R. T. (1985). Planning speech: A picture’s words worth. Acta Psychologia, 58, 107–114.
Costa, A., & Caramazza, A. (2002). The production of noun phrases in English and Spanish:
Implications for the scope of phonological encoding in speech production. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 178–198.
Costa, A., Mahon, B., Savova, V., & Caramazza, A. (2003). Level of categorization effect: A novel effect in the picture–word interference paradigm. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 205–233.
Costa, A., Miozzo, M., & Caramazza, A. (1999). Lexical selection in bilinguals: Do words in the bilingual’s two lexicons compete for selection? Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 365–397.
Cree, G. S., & McRae, K. (2003). Analyzing the factors underlying the structure and computation of the meaning of chipmunk, cherry, chisel, cheese, and cello (and many other such concrete nouns). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 163–201.
Cutting, J. C., & Bock, K. (1997). That’s the way the cookie bounces: Syntactic and semantic com-ponents of experimentally elicited idiom blends. Memory and Cognition, 25, 57–71.
Cutting, J. C., & Ferreira, V. S. (1999). Semantic and phonological information flow in the production lexicon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 318–344.
Damian, M. F., & Bowers, J. S. (2003). Locus of semantic interference in picture–word interference tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10, 111–117.
Damian, M. F., & Martin, R. C. (1999). Semantic and phonological codes interact in single word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 345–361.
De Groot, A. M. B. (1989). Representational aspects of word imageability and word frequency as assessed through word association. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 824–845.
De Groot, A. M. B. (1992). Determinants of word translation. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1001–1018.
Deese, J. (1984). Thought into speech: The psychology of a language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321.
Dell, G. S. (1990). Effects of frequency and vocabulary type on phonological speech errors.
Language and Cognitive Processes, 5, 313–349.
Dell, G. S., & Gordon, J. K. (2003). Neighbors in the lexicon: Friends or foes? In: N. O. Schiller &
A. S. Meyer (Eds), Phonetics and phonology in language comprehension and production (pp.
9–38). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyer.
Dell, G. S., & O’Seaghdha, P. G. (1992). Stages of lexical access in language production.
Cognition, 42, 287–314.
Dell, G. S., & Reich, P. A. (1981). Stages in sentence production: An analysis of speech error data.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 611–629.
Dell, G. S., Juliano, C., & Govindjee, A. (1993). Structure and content in language production: A theory of frame constraints in phonological speech errors. Cognitive Science, 17, 149–195.
Dell, G. S., Reed, K. D., Adams, D. R., & Meyer, A. S. (2000). Speech errors, phonotactic con-straints, and implicit learning: A study of the role of experience in language production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 26, 1355–1367.
Dell, G. S., Schwartz, M. F., Martin, N., Saffran, E. M., & Gagnon, D. A. (1997). Lexical access in normal and aphasic speakers. Psychological Review, 104, 801–838.
Eikmeyer, H.-J., Schade, U., Kupietz, M., & Laubenstein, U. (1999). A connectionist view of lan-guage production. In: R. Klabunde & C. V. Stutterheim (Eds), Representations and Processes in language production (pp. 205–236). Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitaets Verlag.
Fay, D., & Cutler, A. (1977). Malapropisms and the structure of the mental lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 505–520.
Ferreira, F. (1993). The creation of prosody during sentence production. Psychological Review, 100, 233–253.
Ferreira, F. (1994). Choice of passive voice is affected by verb type and animacy. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 715–736.
Ferreira, F. (2000). Syntax in language production: An approach using tree-adjoining gram-mars. In: L. Wheeldon (Ed.), Aspects of language production (pp. 291–330). London:
Psychology Press.
Ferreira, V. S., & Dell, G. S. (2000). Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology, 40, 296–340.
Ferreira, V. S., Slevc, L. R., & Rogers, E. S. (2005). How do speakers avoid ambiguous linguistic expressions? Cognition, 96, 263–284.
Fodor, J. A. (1975). The language of thought. New York, NY: Cromwell Co.
Ford, M. (1982). Sentence planning units: Implications for the speaker’s representation of meaningful relations underlying sentences. In: J. Bresnan (Ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations (pp. 797–827). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ford, M., & Holmes, V. M. (1978). Planning units and syntax in sentence production. Cognition, 6, 35–53.
Freedman, M. L., Martin, R. C., & Biegler, K. (2004). Semantic relatedness effects in conjoined noun phrase production: Implications for the role of short-term memory. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 21, 245–265.
Fromkin, V. A. (1971). The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Language, 47, 27–52.
Gagnon, D. A., Schwartz, M. F., Martin, N., Dell, G. S., & Saffran, E. M. (1997). The origins of formal paraphasias in aphasics picture naming. Brain and Language, 59, 450–472.
Garrett, M. F. (1975). The analysis of sentence production. In: G. H. Bower (Ed.), The Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 9, pp. 133–177). New York: Academic Press.
Garrett, M. F. (1982). Production of speech: Observations from normal and pathological language use. In: A. Ellis (Ed.), Normality and pathology in cognitive functions (pp. 19–76). London:
Academic Press.
Glaser, W. R., & Düngelhoff, F.-J. (1984). The time course of picture-word interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 640–654.
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1958a). The predictability of words in context and the length of pauses in speech. Language and Speech, 1, 226–231.
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1958b). Speech production and the predictability of words in context.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 10, 96–106.
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1972). Segmentation of input in simultaneous translation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 1, 127–140.
Goldrick, M. (2004). Phonological features and phonotactic constraints in speech production.
Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 586–603.
Gollan, T. H., & Acenas, L. A. R. (2004). What is a tot? Cognate and translation effects on tip-of-the-tongue states in Spanish–English and Tagalog–English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 30, 246–269.
Gordon, J. K., & Dell, G. S. (2002). Learning to divide the labor between syntax and semantics: A con-nectionist account of deficits in light and heavy verb production. Brain and Cognition, 48, 376–381.
Gordon, J. K., & Dell, G. S. (2003). Learning to divide the labor: An account of deficits in light and heavy verb production. Cognitive Science, 27, 1–40.
Griffin, Z. M. (2001). Gaze durations during speech reflect word selection and phonological en-coding. Cognition, 82, B1–B14.
Griffin, Z. M. (2003). A reversed word length effect in coordinating the preparation and articula-tion of words in speaking. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10, 603–609.
Griffin, Z. M. (2004). The eyes are right when the mouth is wrong. Psychological Science, 15, 814–821.
Griffin, Z. M., & Bock, K. (1998). Constraint, word frequency, and levels of processing in spoken word production. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 313–338.
Griffin, Z. M., & Bock, K. (2000). What the eyes say about speaking. Psychological Science, 11, 274–279.
Griffin, Z. M., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2003). Looking and Lying: Speakers’ gazes reflect locus of attention rather than speech content. Paper presented at the 12th European Conference on Eye Movements, Dundee, Scotland, August.
Harley, T. A. (1984). A critique of top–down independent levels models of speech production:
Evidence from non-plan-internal speech errors. Cognitive Science, 8, 191–219.
Harley, T. A. (1990). Environmental contamination of normal speech. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11, 45–72.
Harley, T. A. (1993). Phonological activation of semantic competitors during lexical access in speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 291–309.
Harley, T. A., & Bown, H. E. (1998). What causes a tip-of-the-tongue state? Evidence for lexical neighborhood effects in speech production. British Journal of Psychology, 89, 151–174.
Hinton, G. E., & Shallice, T. (1991). Lesioning an attractor network: Investigations of acquired dyslexia. Psychological Review, 98, 74–95.
Horton, W. S., & Gerrig, R. J. (2005). The impact of memory demands on audience design during language production. Cognition, 96, 127–142.
Humphreys, G. W., & Forde, E. M. E. (2001). Hierarchies, similarity, and interactivity in object recognition: “category-specific” neuropsychological deficits. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 24, 453–509.
Huttenlocher, J., Haight, W., Bryk, A., Seltzer, M., & Lyons, T. (1991). Early vocabulary growth:
Relation to language input and gender. Developmental Psychology, 27, 236–248.
James, L. E., & Burke, D. M. (2000). Phonological priming effects on word retrieval and tip-of-the-tongue experiences in young and older adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1378–1391.
Janssen, N., & Caramazza, A. (2003). The selection of closed-class words in noun phrase produc-tion: The case of Dutch determiners. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 635–652.
Jarvella, R. J. (1977). From verbs to sentences: Some experimental studies of predication. In: S.
Rosenberg (Ed.), Sentence production: Developments in research and theory (pp. 275–305).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jescheniak, J. D., & Schriefers, H. (1997). Lexical access in speech production: Serial or cascaded processing? Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 847–852.
Jescheniak, J. D., & Schriefers, H. (1998). Discrete serial versus cascaded processing in lexical ac-cess in speech production: Further evidence from the coactivation of near-synonyms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1256–1274.
Jescheniak, J. D., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2003). Specific-word frequency is not all that counts in speech production: Comments on Caramazza, Costa, et al. (2001) and new experi-mental data. Journal of Experiexperi-mental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 432–438.
Jescheniak, J. D., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Word frequency effects in speech production:
Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 824–843.
Katz, J. J., & Fodor, J. A. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory. Language, 39, 170–210.
Kellogg, R. (2003). Written language production. In: T. Hermann & J. Grabowski (Eds), Encyklopedie der Psychologie, Themenbereich c: Theorie und forchung, Serie III: Sprache bd. 1.
Goettingen: Hogrefe.
Kempen, G., & Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formula-tion. Cognitive Science, 11, 201–258.
Kempen, G., & Huijbers, P. (1983). The lexicalization process in sentence production and naming:
Indirect election of words. Cognition, 14, 185–209.
Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica, 26, 22–63.
Kraljic, T., & Brennan, S. E. (2005). Prosodic disambiguation of syntactic structure: For the speaker or for the addressee? Cognitive Psychology, 50, 194–231.
Kroll, J. F., & Sunderman, G. (2003). Cognitive processes in second language learners and bilin-guals: The development of lexical and conceptual representations. In: C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Lachman, R. (1973). Uncertainty effects on time to access the internal lexicon. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 99, 199–208.
Lachman, R., Shaffer, J. P., & Hennrikus, D. (1974). Language and cognition: Effects of stimulus codability, name-word frequency, and age of acquisition on lexical reaction time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 613–625.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1992). Accessing words in speech production: Stages, processes and representa-tions. Cognition, 42, 1–22.
Levelt, W. J. M., & Wheeldon, L. R. (1994). Do speakers have access to a mental syllabary?
Cognition, 50, 239–269.
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech produc-tion. Behavioral and Brain Science, 22, 1–45.
Levelt, W. J. M., Schriefers, H., Vorberg, D., Meyer, A. S., Pechmann, T., & Havinga, J. (1991).
The time course of lexical access in speech production: A study of picture naming. Psychological Review, 98, 142–163.
Lindsley, J. R. (1975). Producing simple utterances: How far ahead do we plan? Cognitive Psychology, 7, 1–19.
Lockridge, C. B., & Brennan, S. E. (2002). Addressees’ needs influence speakers’ early syntactic choices. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 550–557.
Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual choice behavior. New York: Wiley.
Lupker, S. J. (1979). The semantic nature of response competition in the picture–word interference task. Memory and Cognition, 7, 485–495.
MacKay, A. J., Connor, L. T., Albert, M. L., & Obler, L. K. (2002). Noun and verb retrieval in healthy aging. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 8, 764–770.
MacKay, D. G. (1972). The structure of words and syllables: Evidence from errors in speech.
Cognitive Psychology, 3, 210–227.
MacKay, D. G. (1982). The problems of flexibility, fluency, and speed-accuracy trade-off in skilled behavior. Psychological Review, 89, 483–506.
MacKay, D. G. (1987). The organization of perception and action: A theory for language and other cognitive skills. New York: Springer.
MacWhinney, B. (1987). The competition model. In: B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 249–308). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Martin, N., Saffran, E. M., & Dell, G. S. (1996). Recovery in deep dysphasia: Evidence for a rela-tion between auditory–verbal STM capacity and lexical errors in repetirela-tion. Brain and Language, 52, 83–113.
Martin, N., Weisberg, R. W., & Saffran, E. M. (1989). Variables influencing the occurrence of naming errors: Implications for models of lexical retrieval. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 462–485.
Martin, R. C., & Freedman, M. L. (2001). Short-term retention of lexical-semantic representations:
Implications for speech production. Memory, 9, 261–280.
Martin, R. C., Lesch, M. F., & Bartha, M. C. (1999). Independence of input and output phonology in word processing and short-term memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 3–29.
Martin, R. C., Miller, M., & Vu, H. (2004). Lexical–semantic retention and speech production:
Further evidence from normal and brain-damaged participants for a phrasal scope of planning.
Cognitive Neuropsychology, 21, 625–644.
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (Eds). (1986). Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol. 2). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Melinger, A. (2003). Morphological structure in the lexical representation of prefixed words:
Evidence from speech errors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 335–362.
Meyer, A. S. (1990). The time course of phonological encoding in language production: The en-coding of successive syllables of a word. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 524–545.
Meyer, A. S. (1991). The time course of phonological encoding in language production:
Phonological encoding inside a syllable. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 69–89.
Meyer, A. S. (1996). Lexical access in phrase and sentence production: Results from picture–word interference experiments. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 477–496.
Meyer, A. S. (1997). Conceptual influences on grammatical planning units. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 859–863.
Meyer, A. S., & Bock, K. (1992). The tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon: Blocking or partial activa-tion? Memory and Cognition, 20, 715–726.
Meyer, A. S., & Schriefers, H. (1991). Phonological facilitation in picture-word interference ex-periments: Effects of stimulus onset asynchrony and types of interfering stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 1146–1160.
Meyer, A. S., Roelofs, A., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2003). Word length effects in object naming: The role of a response criterion. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 131–147.
Meyer, A. S., Sleiderink, A. M., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1998). Viewing and naming objects: Eye move-ments during noun phrase production. Cognition, 66(2), B25–B33.
Miozzo, M., & Caramazza, A. (1997a). On knowing the auxiliary of a verb that cannot be named:
Evidence for the grammatical and phonological aspects of lexical knowledge. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 160–166.
Miozzo, M., & Caramazza, A. (1997b). Retrieval of lexical-syntactic features in tip-of-the-tongue states. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1410–1423.
Morgan, J. L., & Meyer, A. S. (2005). Processing of extrafoveal objects during multiple-object naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 428–442.
Morrison, C. M., Chappell, T. D., & Ellis, A. W. (1997). Age of acquisition for a large set of ob-ject names and their relation to adult estimates and other variables. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 528–559.
Morsella, E., & Miozzo, M. (2002). Evidence for a cascade model of lexical access in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 555–563.
Motley, M. T., Camden, C. T., & Baars, B. J. (1982). Covert formulation and editing of anomalies in speech production: Evidence from experimentally elicited slips of the tongue. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 578–594.
Navarrete, E., & Costa, A. (2005). Phonological activation of ignored pictures: Further evidence for a cascade model of lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 359–377.
Nooteboom, S. G. (1973). The tongue slips into patterns. In: V. A. Fromkin (Ed.), Speech errors as linguistic evidence (pp. 144–156). The Hague: Mouton.
Oldfield, R. C., & Wingfield, A. (1964). The time it takes to name an object. Nature, 202, 1031–1032.
O’Seaghdha, P. G., & Marin, J. W. (2000). Phonological competition and cooperation in form-re-lated priming: Sequential and nonsequential processes in word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1–17.
Osgood, C. E. (1963). On understanding and creating sentences. American Psychologist, 18, 735–751.