28-Gaskell-Chap28
3/10/07
7:13 PM
Page 471
CHAPTER 28
Word form retrieval in
language production
Antje S. Meyer and Eva Belke
M
ODELS of word production often distinguish between processes concerning
the selection of a single word unit from
the mental lexicon and the retrieval of the associated word form (e.g. Butterworth, 1980; Garrett,
1980; Levelt, 1989). In the present chapter we will
first explain the motivation for this distinction
and then discuss the retrieval of word forms in
more detail.
28.1 Lexical selection and
word form retrieval
Evidence supporting the distinction between
lexical selection and word form retrieval comes
from a variety of sources. First, contextual speech
errors that involve entire words differ in important respects from errors involving individual
segments. The interacting words in whole-word
errors, such as threw the window through the clock
(Fromkin 1973)1, typically appear in different
phrases and are members of the same syntactic
category. By contrast, the words involved in sound
errors (caught torses instead of taught courses)
tend to belong to the same phrase, often appear
adjacent to each other, and often differ in syntactic category (Dell, 1986; Garrett, 1975; 1980; see
also Meyer, 1992). Based on this and related evidence Garrett (1975; 1980) proposed that speakers first generated a representation capturing
the content of the utterance, where the planning
units corresponded roughly to clauses, and then
generated the syntactic surface structure of the
1 All speech errors, except for those marked otherwise, stem
from Fromkin (1973).
utterance and its morphological and phonological
form using phrases as planning units
(see also Bock and Levelt, 1994; Levelt, 1989).
Experimental studies support the view that
speakers use different planning spans at different
planning levels, and specifically that the planning span is wider at the semantic-syntactic level
than at the phonological level (e.g. F. Ferreira and
Swets, 2002; Jescheniak, Schriefers, and Hantsch,
2003; Meyer, 1996; Smith and Wheeldon, 1999).
Second, speakers sometimes experience “tip of
the tongue” (TOT) states, i.e. they have a strong
feeling of knowing a word, have access to its
meaning and syntactic properties (e.g. its grammatical gender), but cannot retrieve the complete phonological form (e.g. Brown and McNeill,
1966; Vigliocco et al., 1997). Sometimes, information about the length of the word, its stress
pattern, or some of its phonemes is available.
TOT states demonstrate that the lexical representations of words consist of several components,
which must be retrieved in separate processing
steps. This view is supported by neuropsychological evidence: There are case studies of braindamaged patients who are considerably more
impaired in accessing the semantic properties of
words than the phonological properties, and of
patients who show the opposite pattern. These
dissociations constitute strong evidence for the
assumption of separate semantic and phonological representations of words (e.g. Cuetos et al.,
2000; Caramazza et al., 2000; see also Caramazza
and Miozzo, 1997; Dell, Schwartz et al., 1997).
Finally, there is a substantial body of experimental evidence concerning the time course of
lexical access, demonstrating that information
about the semantic and syntactic properties of
words becomes available slightly before their
28-Gaskell-Chap28
3/10/07
7:13 PM
Page 472
472 · CHAPTER 28 Word form retrieval in language production
phonological forms (e.g. Indefrey and Levelt,
2004; Jescheniak et al., 2002; Schmitt et al., 2000;
Schriefers et al., 1990; van Turennout et al., 1998).
While models of lexical retrieval generally
agree on the broad distinction between semanticsyntactic and word form retrieval processes,
they differ with regard to the precise architecture of the system. Important issues that are
currently under debate are, first, the relationship
between semantic, syntactic, and morphophonological units and, second, the time-course of the
activation of these units. In the family of models
proposed by Dell and collaborators (e.g. Dell
1986; 1988; Dell, Burger, and Svec, 1997) and by
Levelt and collaborators (e.g. Levelt 1989; 1992;
Levelt et al., 1991; 1999), access to morphophonological units is syntactically mediated. For
instance, in Levelt’s model, speakers first select a
syntactic word unit (a lemma) and then the associated morphological and phonological units.
Similarly, in Dell’s model, activation spreads
from conceptual to syntactic to morphophonological units. By contrast, the Independent
Network model of language production proposed
by Caramazza and colleagues (Caramazza, 1997;
Caramazza and Miozzo, 1997) consists of three
networks for lexical-semantic, phonological and
syntactic information, respectively. Lexicalsemantic representations directly and in parallel
activate syntactic representations and phonological representations; i.e. word form activation
is not syntactically mediated. Neuropsychological
evidence supporting this view comes from studies of patients who are unable to access the grammatical representations of certain types of word
but can access their phonological properties (e.g.
Caramazza and Miozzo, 1997). Experimental
evidence from healthy speakers concerns the
representation of homophones, such as buoy/boy
or bat (animal/baseball bat). According to models assuming syntactic mediation, these word
pairs have distinct semantic and syntactic representations but a shared morphophonological
representation. Given that word frequency is
commonly assumed to affect the speed of word
form retrieval, these models predict that a lowfrequency member of a homophonous pair, such
as buoy, should be produced as fast as its highfrequency sibling (boy in the example). By contrast, in the Independent Network model, the
members of homophonous word pairs have distinct lexical-semantic representations, which are
linked to distinct word form representations.
Therefore, a low-frequency word with a highfrequency homophonous sibling should be produced as slowly as an equally low-frequency
word without such a sibling. In the empirical
studies both patterns of results have been observed
(Caramazza et al., 2001; 2004; Jescheniak and
Levelt, 1994; Jescheniak, Meyer, and Levelt. 2003;
Miozzo et al., 2004; see also Shatzman and
Schiller, 2004).
With respect to their assumptions about the
time course of the retrieval of different types of
information, models can be broadly classified as
serial stage vs. cascaded models. According to
serial stage models (e.g. Bloem and La Heij, 2003;
Levelt, 1989; Levelt et al., 1999; Roelofs, 1992;
1997a; 1997b; see also Levelt, 1999), word planning consists of a set of discrete stages that are
completed in a specific temporal order. This
view entails that information about the morphophonological form of a word only becomes
available after a superordinate representation (a
concept in Bloem and La Heij’s (2003) model
and a lemma in the models proposed by Levelt
et al., (1999) and by Roelofs, 1992; 1997a; 1997b)
has been selected to be part of the utterance. By
contrast, according to cascaded models, word
planning consists of processing steps that are
temporally ordered but may overlap in time
(e.g. Caramazza, 1997; Dell 1986; Dell, Burger,
and Svec, 1997; Humphreys et al., 1988; MacKay,
1987; Stemberger, 1985). On this view, conceptual
activation suffices for word form information to
become activated. The selection of concepts or
lemmas is not a necessary condition for word
form retrieval. Some cascaded models of lexical
access (e.g. Dell, 1986; Dell, Schwartz et al., 1997;
MacKay, 1987; Rapp and Goldrick, 2000;
Stemberger, 1985) assume feedback from lower to
higher levels of processing, such that, for instance,
the ease of retrieving the forms of words can affect
which words speakers might choose. Researchers
have used a variety of techniques to decide
between these views (e.g. Bloem and La Heij,
2003; Costa et al., 2000; Costa et al., 1999; Cutting
and Ferreira, 1999; V. S. Ferreira and Griffin,
2003; Jescheniak, Hahne, and Schriefers et al., 2003;
Jescheniak and Schriefers, 1998; Levelt et al.,
1991; Peterson and Savoy, 1998; Rahman et al.,
2003; Rapp and Goldrick, 2000). In our view, the
bulk of the evidence suggests cascaded processing,
possibly with some feedback between adjacent
processing levels (see also Dell and O’Seaghdha
1991; 1992; Dell, Burger, and Svec, 1997; Harley,
1984; Rapp and Goldrick, 2000).
In sum, in all current models of word production the processes and representations involved
in word form retrieval are distinguished from
those involved in accessing the semantic and
syntactic properties of words. Current controversies concern the relationships between these
different types of representations and processes.
28-Gaskell-Chap28
3/10/07
7:13 PM
Page 473
Morphological encoding · 473
Below, word form retrieval will be considered in
more detail. Following the distinctions in linguistic theory, it is usually divided into three
components, morphological, phonological, and
phonetic encoding, which we will discuss in turn.
28.2 Morphological encoding
Many words (e.g. spoon, umbrella) consist of a
single morpheme. Other words consist of two or
more morphemes (which are discrete units contributing to the word meaning; see Spencer, 1991),
for instance a modifier and a head noun (pancake), a verb stem and an affix (eating) or a prefix,
a stem, and an affix (disrespectful). There is abundant informal evidence that speakers have access
to morphological knowledge. For instance, speakers can produce and understand novel compounds (banana guard, e-shopping) and inflect
them according to the rules of the language
(e-shopper’s nightmare). In addition, the way
speakers syllabify and stress words reflects
their morphological structure. For example, we
say dis.ad.van.tage (but di.saster) rather than
di.sad.van.tage, preserving the integrity of the
affix dis-. Finally, speakers sometimes commit
errors such as a hole full of floors (V. S. Ferreira
and Humphreys, 2001), in which noun stems
exchange leaving an affix behind, or errors such
as his dependment—his dependence on the government (MacKay, 1979), in which bound morphemes are attached to incorrect stems (see also
Cutler,1980; Pillon, 1998). These errors demonstrate that stems and affixes are retrieved independently of each other (see also Marslen-Wilson,
Chapter 11 this volume).
Levelt et al. (1999) distinguished three ways in
which complex forms could be called upon in
word production: by a single concept, linked to
a lemma and a diacritic (e.g. boy + plural), by a
single concept linked to two lemmas (as in semantically opaque compounds, such as butterfly or
parachute), and by multiple concepts mapping
onto multiple lemmas (as in semantically transparent compounds, such as woodwork or pancake). In their model, all complex forms are
composed from their constituent morphemes.
Roelofs (1996; 1998) studied the production
of Dutch compounds and verb–particle combinations (such as look up, shut down) using a method
called “implicit priming.” Participants first learnt
to associate pairs of words (such as highway–
bypass, passenger–bystander, rule–bylaw). On each
of the following test trials, the first member of a
pair (e.g. highway) was presented and the participants produced the second member (bypass) as
quickly as possible. Each word pair was tested
several times in random order. The crucial feature of the paradigm is that items are combined
in such a way that the responses in a block of trials
are either related (as in the example, where all
response words begin with by-) or unrelated.
A robust finding is that participants produce the
response words faster when they share one or
more word-initial segments than when they are
unrelated (Meyer 1990; 1991). The most important result of Roelofs’ experiments was that the
implicit priming effect was stronger when the
responses shared a complete morpheme (as in
the above example) than when they merely shared
a syllable including the same number of segments
(as in bible, biker, biceps). Thus, there was a specific morphological priming effect. Roelofs and
Baayen (2002) showed that the size of this priming effect was the same for transparent compounds
(such as sunshine) as for opaque compounds
(such as butterfly), demonstrating that the effect
did not have a semantic basis. A morphological
priming effect was found when the responses
shared a word-initial morpheme but not when
they shared a word-final morpheme (Roelofs
1996; 1998). This demonstrates that speakers
build compounds and verb–participle combinations by selecting the component morphemes and
concatenating them, beginning with the wordinitial morpheme.
Using a similar paradigm, Janssen et al. (2002;
2004) investigated how Dutch speakers generate
inflected verb forms. In line with the results of
the speech error research, they concluded that
speakers built these forms by inserting stems
and affixes into independently generated morphological frames (see also V. S. Ferreira and
Humphreys, 2001).
The implicit priming experiments carried out
by Roelofs and collaborators demonstrate the
autonomy of a morphological planning level
from a semantic and phonological level. Further
evidence for the autonomy of morphological
representations stems from studies by Zwitserlood
and collaborators, who used short-lag and longlag priming paradigms (Dohmes et al., 2004;
Zwitserlood et al., 2000; 2002). In these experiments the morphological priming effects were
distinct from semantic and phonological priming effects in both their magnitude and their
longevity. Corroborating Roelofs and Baayen’s
(2002) findings, Zwitserlood et al. (2002) also
found morphological priming effects of approximately equal strength for semantically transparent and opaque compounds. This argues
against models of the mental lexicon that do not
include morphological representations but view
28-Gaskell-Chap28
3/10/07
7:13 PM
Page 474
474 · CHAPTER 28 Word form retrieval in language production
similarity effects as arising from semantic and
phonological overlap, because such models would
predict stronger effects for transparent than
opaque compounds (see Plaut and Gonnerman,
2000 for further discussion).
A much-discussed issue in the current literature on morphological processing in language
production concerns the generation of derived
verb forms, in particular English past tense
forms. Irregular forms, such as went and was,
must obviously be stored in the mental lexicon.
Stemberger (2002; 2004a) and Stemberger and
Middleton (2003) carried out extensive analyses
of speech errors involving complex verb forms
(over-tensing errors, such as I didn’t broke it, and
over-regularization errors, such as I singed), and
concluded that irregular verb forms were stored
as part of the same phonological network as
simple forms (break, sing) and that during the
retrieval of an irregular form, the phonological
representation of the base form became activated
and competed with the correct irregular form.
Regular verb forms could, in principle, be
derived in two ways: They could be retrieved
from the mental lexicon as units, with their internal structure being represented, or they could be
generated by rule. We know of no experimental
studies involving healthy English speakers
addressing this issue. However, there are case
studies demonstrating that the ability to process
regular forms or the ability to process irregular
forms can be selectively impaired in braindamaged patients. This double dissociation can
be viewed as evidence for the involvement of separate processing mechanisms in the generation
of regular and irregular forms. However, Lambon
Ralph and colleagues (Bird et al., 2003; Braber
et al., 2005; Lambon Ralph et al., 2005) proposed
that the patients’ profiles in the generation of
regular and irregular forms might be linked to
their semantic or phonological processing deficits.
For instance, the production of irregular forms
relies strongly on semantic knowledge because
there is often little phonological overlap between
the base and the past tense form (e.g. go–went,
be –was). Hence one might expect patients with
semantic deficits to be more impaired in the
generation of these forms than in the generation
of regular forms. By contrast, many English regular forms are phonologically more complex than
the most common irregular forms, and therefore patients with a phonological deficit should
be more impaired in the production of regular
than irregular forms. Lambon Ralph and colleagues (e.g. Braber et al., 2005) argued that the
patient data largely confirm these predictions.
However, Miozzo (2003), Tyler et al. (2004), and
Ullman et al. (2005) argued that the patients’ performance could not be fully explained by reference to their semantic and phonological deficits,
and therefore postulated separate mechanisms for
processing regular and irregular forms.
28.3 Representation of
phonological knowledge
According to all models of word production,
speakers generate the phonological forms of
words out of sublexical components rather than
retrieving them as units from the mental lexicon. Phonological decomposition must be postulated because the pronunciation of words in
connected speech often differs from their citation
forms. Connected speech consists of phonological
words, which can encompass one or more morphemes, for instance two morphemes of a compound or, in English, a head morpheme and an
unstressed function word (e.g. Levelt, 1992;
Wheeldon and Lahiri, 1997; 2002). Importantly,
phonological words are the domain for stress
assignment and syllabification, and segments can
assume different positions from the position taken
in the citation forms. For example, the phrases
demand it or got to can be produced as single
phonological words and would be syllabified as
de.man.dit and go.to, respectively. In some contexts, phonological segments are deleted (as in
go.to) or assimilated (as in handbag pronounced
as ham.bag; Inkelas and Zec, 1990; Nespor and
Vogel, 1986; Selkirk, 1986). Clearly, speakers can
only generate these connected speech forms if at
some point during the course of utterance planning individual sounds are available as planning
units.
Another argument for the assumption of
phonological decomposition is that speakers
often make speech errors that involve a single
segment (some kunny kind) or a cluster of two or
three segments that do not correspond to a complete morpheme (stedal peel guitar). Such sound
errors are far more frequent than word errors
(Boomer and Laver, 1968; Fromkin, 1971;
Shattuck-Hufnagel, 1979; 1983). For a number
of reasons, most sound errors cannot be viewed
as articulatory errors. For instance, the errors
are usually phonotactically well-formed, i.e. they
result in sound sequences that are permissible in
the speaker’s language (Boomer and Laver, 1968;
Dell et al., 2000; Fromkin, 1971; Wells, 1951; but
see Mowrey and MacKay, 1990 for evidence that
some errors yield phonetically and phonotactically ill-formed sequences); and sometimes the
left context is altered to accommodate the error
28-Gaskell-Chap28
3/10/07
7:13 PM
Page 475
Representation of phonological knowledge · 475
(e.g. a meeting arathon instead of an eating
marathon). This shows that the errors must arise
during the planning rather than the articulation
of the utterances.
Considerable research effort has been directed
at determining which sublexical processing units are
involved in phonological encoding. Most sound
errors (sixty to ninety per cent of the errors in different corpora; e.g. Meyer, 1992) involve single
segments. Approximately ten per cent of the sublexical errors involve consonant clusters (e.g.
clamage dame), usually word onsets, which are
replaced as units or replace a single segment.
However, there are also errors in which clusters
are divided (e.g. sprive for perfection), which suggests a dual representation of clusters, as units and
in terms of their constituents (Berg, 1989; 1991;
Dell, 1986; Stemberger, 1983, Stemberger and
Treiman, 1986).
Errors involving single phonological features
(e.g. glear plue sky) are quite rare, but the segments
involved in segmental errors tend to share more
phonological features than would be expected on
the basis of chance estimates (Fromkin, 1971;
Garcia-Albéa et al., 1989; Garrett, 1975; ShattuckHufnagel, 1983; Stemberger, 1991a; 1991b). Thus,
phonological features apparently do not function as processing units that are independently
selected during phonological encoding, but they
are visible to the encoding processes (see also
Goldrick, 2004). Finally, there are very few errors
that involve complete syllables. Therefore, syllables, like phonological features, probably do not
function as units that are independently selected
during phonological encoding (e.g. Meyer, 1992).
However, as will be explained below, syllables
play an important role as parts of the metrical
structure and as processing units during phonetic
encoding.
Further evidence demonstrating that speakers
generate the phonological forms of words by
combining phonological segments comes from
experimental studies. Some of these studies used
the implicit priming paradigm described above,
in which participants repeatedly produce sets of
related or unrelated words. Meyer (1990; 1991)
found that speakers produced the response words
faster when the words shared one or more wordinitial segment than when they were unrelated.
The size of this implicit priming effect increased
with the number of shared segments. Roelofs
(1999) found no priming when the response words
began with similar sounds, i.e. with segments
that shared most of their phonological features
(as in bed, bell, pet, pen). This supports the view
that speakers generate phonological forms out
of segments, not individual features.
Other studies have used versions of the
picture–word interference paradigm, where
speakers name target pictures which are accompanied by related or unrelated spoken or written
distractor words (e.g. Damian and Martin, 1999;
Jerger et al., 2002; Meyer and Schriefers, 1991;
Starreveld and La Heij, 1996). For instance, a
speaker might see a picture of a dog and simultaneously hear the word doll, which is phonologically similar to the picture name, or the
unrelated word chair. In these experiments, distractors that share word-initial or word-final segments with the target facilitate target-naming
relative to unrelated distractors. In experiments
with Dutch and English speakers Schiller (1998;
2000) used masked primes and found that
phonologically related primes facilitated the naming of target pictures relative to unrelated ones.
The size of this facilitatory effect depended on
the number of segments shared by prime and
target, but it did not depend on whether or not
the set of shared segments corresponded to a
full syllable of the target (but see Ferrand et al.,
1996, who obtained an effect of syllabic structure in French2. This suggests that phonological
facilitation arises because the prime preactivates
some of the processing units that need to be
selected to produce the target. The processing
units appear to be segments, not syllables.
In addition to retrieving the words’ segments,
speakers must generate or retrieve their metrical
structure. Levelt (1992; Levelt et al., 1999) argued
that the syllable structure of words does not
have to be stored in the mental lexicon because
it can always be derived on the basis of universal
and language-specific syllabification rules. The
basic rule is to assign each vowel to a different
syllable and to treat the intervening consonants
as syllable onsets unless that violates universal
or language-specific phonotactic constraints.
Therefore, Levelt and colleagues postulated an
on-line syllabification process, which assigns segments to syllables. In addition, even languages
with relatively varied stress patterns tend to have
a default pattern that applies to most words, or
to most words within a syntactic class. For
instance, in most English words, stress falls on
the first syllable that includes a full vowel (e.g.
Cutler and Norris, 1988). Levelt et al. (1999; see
also Roelofs, 1997b) therefore proposed that the
lexical entries for words following the default
stress pattern does not include any metrical information. For the remaining words, they postulated
2 Ferrand et al. (1997) reported a syllable-structure effect
for English, but they used word naming and lexical decision,
not picture-naming tasks.
28-Gaskell-Chap28
3/10/07
7:13 PM
Page 476
476 · CHAPTER 28 Word form retrieval in language production
lean metrical representations, specifying the number of syllables and the stress pattern.
In other models the metrical structure is lexically specified for all words. Most commonly,
hierarchical metrical structures are postulated
consisting of syllables and syllable constituents
(e.g. Dell, 1986; Shattuck-Hufnagel, 1987; 1992;
Stemberger, 1985). In many models, metrical
frames not only serve as a means of representing
prosodic structure but also support the ordering
of segments, as will be explained below. Syllable
frames with specified syllable constituents have
been invoked to explain important properties of
segmental ordering errors, in particular the observation that misplaced segments typically move
from their correct position to the corresponding
position in a new syllable. For instance, a segment
stemming from a syllable onset will typically
assume a new onset position (as in some kunny
kind instead of some funny kind) rather than a
coda position. However, this syllable position constraint can also largely be explained as resulting
from the tendency of sound errors to involve word
onsets, rather than word-internal segments, and
from the tendency to involve phonologically
similar rather than dissimilar segments (e.g. Dell
et al., 2000; Shattuck-Hufnagel 1987).
In addition, there is experimental evidence
from paradigms using repetition tasks and primed
picture-naming tasks suggesting that the parsing of words into consonantal and vocalic elements (the CV structure) is explicitly represented
in a structural frame (e.g. Costa and SebastiánGallés, 1998; Sevald et al., 1995; but see Meijer,
1996). This view is supported by speech error
analyses showing that segmental ordering errors
tend to involve syllables with the same rather
than different CV structures (Stemberger, 1990;
Vousden et al., 2000; see also Hartsuiker, 2002).
However, in a priming study with Dutch speakers,
Roelofs and Meyer (1998) did not obtain any evidence for the representation of CV structure; and
they argued that the effects of CV structure seen
in other studies might arise during the syllabification process rather than demonstrating the
existence of stored CV representations.
28.4.1 Segmental retrieval
representations
According to all current models of word form
retrieval, activation spreads from a word or
morpheme to the corresponding phonological
segments, which are eventually selected to be part
of the phonological representation. The models
differ in their assumptions about the time-course
of the segmental activation and selection processes and in whether or not they assume feedback between the segmental and the morpheme
level.
In Dell’s (1986) model, all segments of a syllable are activated and selected in parallel. The
segments are marked with respect to the syllable
positions they are to take, and they are ordered
when they are associated to the correspondingly
labeled positions in syllable frames. The segments
of successive syllables of a morpheme are activated in sequence. Thus, in this and related models
(e.g. MacKay, 1987), segmental ordering is
achieved through two mechanisms: through the
association of segments to the positions of frames
and through the timing of the activation of the
segments.
An alternative view is that all segments of a
word are activated simultaneously but are selected
in sequence (e.g. O’Seaghdha and Marin, 2000;
Sullivan and Riffel, 1999; Wilshire and Saffran,
2005). A third proposal, by Levelt et al. (1999)
and Roelofs (1997a; 1997b), is that all segments
of a word are activated and selected in parallel,
but that the subsequent syllabification process is
sequential, proceeding from the onset to the end
of the phonological word. The order of the segments within each morpheme is specified in
labeled links between the segments and the
morpheme3. Finally, there are models in which
the segments of a word are activated and selected
in sequence (e.g. Dell et al., 1993; Hartley and
Houghton, 1996; Sevald and Dell, 1994; Vousden
et al., 2000).
Most of the empirical evidence about the
time-course of segmental activation and selection comes from priming and interference experiments. Several studies have compared the effects
of primes or distracters that shared word-initial
or word-final segments with the targets (for a
recent review see Wilshire and Saffran, 2005).
As mentioned, phonologically related distractor
words facilitate the naming of target pictures
The results of speech error analyses and the experimental evidence reviewed above demonstrate
that speakers generate phonological forms by
retrieving individual segments and assigning them
to positions in metrical structures. In the following
section, we discuss how these tasks are accomplished in different models of word form retrieval.
3 In the implemented version of the model (Roelofs 1992;
1997a) activation spreads in parallel from a morpheme to
its segments. When the activation of a segment exceeds a
threshold, a verification mechanism is triggered that checks
whether the selection of the segment is licensed, i.e.
whether it is appropriately linked to the target morpheme,
and selects the segment when this is the case.
28.4 Building phonological
28-Gaskell-Chap28
3/10/07
7:13 PM
Page 477
Building phonological representations · 477
relative to unrelated ones (e.g. Meyer and
Schriefers, 1991). If word-initial segments are
activated and selected before word-final ones,
one might expect to see differences in the magnitude of effects of distractors that share wordinitial or word-final segments with the target. One
might also expect to see maximal facilitatory
effects of beginning- and end-related distractors
at different stimulus onset asynchronies relative
to the onset of the target picture; a beginningrelated distractor might need to be presented
slightly earlier than an end-related one to be
maximally effective. Some studies found such
differences (e.g. Meyer and Schriefers, 1991;
Sevald and Dell, 1994; Sullivan and Riffel, 1999;
see also Wheeldon, 2003), but others failed to
find them (e.g. Collins and Ellis, 1992; O’Seaghdha
and Marin, 2000; see Wilshire and Saffran, 2005).
Stronger evidence for the assumption that
phonological encoding encompasses a sequential component comes from studies in which
participants repeatedly produce phonologically
related or unrelated words. For instance, in the
implicit priming paradigm described above, participants are faster to produce sets of words that
share one or more word-initial segments than
unrelated sets of words. No difference is seen
between sets of words that share word-final
segments or are unrelated (Meyer 1990; 1991).
Roelofs (2004) showed that the implicit priming
effect and the effect of an additional phonologically related or unrelated distracter were additive, and concluded that these effects had different
origins. Taken together, the results of the priming studies suggest that phonological encoding
includes an early parallel component, the activation of phonological segments, and a following
sequential component, which is likely to be the
selection or syllabification of the segments.
Current theories of word form retrieval differ
in their assumptions about the information flow
between the morphological and the segmental
level. In the model proposed by Levelt et al.
(1999), information spreads from a morpheme
to the phonological segments, but not in the
opposite direction. Many other models (e.g. Dell,
1986; 1988; Dell, Burger, and Svec, 1997; Dell,
Schwartz et al., 1997) assume feedback between
adjacent processing levels. TA number of findings seem to support the latter assumption. Most
of them concern properties of speech errors
observed in healthy and brain-damaged speakers.
For instance, malapropisms (replacements of
target words by phonologically related ones, as
in a routine promotion instead of proposal, or
deep freeze structure instead of deep phrase structure) tend to obey a syntactic category constraint, i.e. the incorrect word tends to belong
to the same syntactic category as the target (e.g.
Harley and MacAndrew, 2001); semantic errors
tend to be more similar in their phonological
form than expected on the basis of chance estimates (e.g. Dell 1986; 1990; Dell and Reich, 1981),
and sound errors tend to result in existing words
rather than non-words (e.g. Baars et al., 1975).
These effects can readily be explained if bidirectional links between phonemes and morphemes
are assumed. However, they can also be seen as
demonstrating the operation of an efficient
output monitor that has access to the phonological form of the planned utterance and is sensitive
to syntactic and lexical constraints, as proposed
by Levelt et al.
Other evidence, which represents a more serious challenge to the view that the morphemeto-segment links are unidirectional, concerns
the effects of the phonological neighborhood on
word production: Words from dense neighborhoods (i.e. words that are phonologically similar
to many other words) are produced faster and
more accurately than words from sparser neighborhood (Stemberger, 2004b; Vitevitch, 2002;
Vitevitch and Sommers, 2003; but see Vitevitch
and Stamer, forthcoming). Based on the experimental evidence and results of computer simulations, Dell and Gordon (2003; see also Gordon,
2002; Gordon and Dell, 2001) concluded that
effects of neighborhood density had a lexicalsemantic and a phonological component. In other
words, form-related neighbors facilitate the selection of a target word unit as well as the selection
of its phonological segments. As Dell and Gordon
(2003) point out, these findings challenge noninteractive accounts of word production. In
such models, form-related neighbors of a target
become activated through the monitoring system. For instance, when a speaker prepares to
say cap, the related morphemes cat and map
become activated because the phonological representation of cap is processed by the speech
comprehension system in the same way as a word
spoken by a different speaker would be processed
(e.g. Levelt, 1989; Postma, 2000). Therefore the
neighbors of the target may become available
as likely error outcomes, but there is, in noninteractive models, no mechanism through
which this would facilitate the correct selection
of the target word or of its segments (see also
Vitevitch et al., 2004; Goldrick, Chapter 31 this
volume).
28.4.2 Retrieval of metrical
information
Most models of phonological encoding represent
metrical information lexically in frames, which
28-Gaskell-Chap28
3/10/07
7:13 PM
Page 478
478 · CHAPTER 28 Word form retrieval in language production
are retrieved in parallel with the words’ segments.
An exception is the model proposed by Levelt
et al. (1999), where metrical information is only
stored for words with irregular stress pattern but
is generated by rule for words that are stressed
according to the default rule of the language.
Very few experimental studies have investigated
how stress patterns are generated or retrieved.
Roelofs and Meyer (1998) used the implicit priming paradigm to study the retrieval of metrical
frames for words with irregular stress patterns.
They obtained an implicit priming effect when
the response words shared initial segments as
well as the metrical structure, i.e. when they had
the same number of syllables and the same stress
pattern. No implicit priming effect was seen
when the words shared initial segments but differed in stress or length, or when they only had
the same metrical structure, but did not share
the word-initial segments. As Roelofs and Meyer
(1998) argued, this pattern suggests that the metrical frame for irregularly stressed words is
retrieved in parallel with the set of segments, and
that both must be known for an implicit priming
effect to arise (see also Schiller et al., 2004).
28.4.3 Combining metrical and
segmental information
In most models, the combination of metrical
and segmental information is viewed as a process
of inserting segments into the positions of independently retrieved metrical frames. In Dell’s
(1986) model, the phonological form of a word is
generated in the following way. Encoding begins
when the word is granted current node status,
which means that it receives an extra boost of
activation. The next word in the utterance is
activated to a lesser degree. Activation spreads
from the current node via morpheme and syllable nodes to nodes representing syllable constituents (onset, nucleus, coda), and, in the case
of complex constituents (e.g. /st/, /pr/), to segments within constituents, and finally to phonological features. If the word includes several
morphemes, the first morpheme is assigned current node status first. At the syllable level, the
first syllable is initially the current node and
receives extra activation, which is passed on to
the subordinate units. Thus, all segments of a
syllable become activated at the same time, but
the segments of successive syllables reach their
activation maxima in succession, according to
their order in the utterance. Each activated unit
sends a proportion of its activation back to the
associated superordinate node. The phonological
segments are marked with respect to the syllable
positions they can assume. In parallel with the
activation of the segments, syntactic rules build
a syllable frame with the labeled positions onset,
nucleus, and coda. After a number of time steps,
which depends on the speech rate, the most highly
activated onset, nucleus, and coda segment are
selected and associated to the corresponding slots.
The activation of these segments is then reset to
zero, and the next syllable becomes the current
syllable.
Dell, Burger, and Svec (1997) proposed a general model of serial order in language production, consisting of (1) a network of stored lexical
representations, which are termed content nodes,
(2) structural frames representing syntactic
rules (e.g. the order of onset, nucleus, and coda
in a syllable), and (3) a simple plan network
consisting of nodes for past, present, and future
representations. The nodes of the plan are linked
to content nodes—for instance, at the phonological level, to the onset, nucleus and coda of a
syllable. The nodes of the plan induce strong activation of the current lexical representation (e.g.
the nucleus), rapid deactivation of past representations (the onset), and some pre-activation of
future representations (the coda), so that the
content nodes reach their activation maxima at
different moments in time and become selected
in sequence. The implemented version of the
model accounts well for the relative frequencies
of different types of serial ordering error (anticipations and perseverations) observed under different speaking conditions and in different groups
of speakers. One important finding it explains
is a striking relationship between speakers’ overall error rate and the proportion of those errors
which are anticipations: whenever the overall
rate of errors decreases (e.g. after practice of the
materials or at slow rather than faster speech
rates), the proportion of anticipations among
the errors increases.
There are a number of similar spreading activation models, which share important properties with Dell’s models (e.g. Dell, 1988; Eikmeyer
and Schade, 1991; Hartley and Houghton, 1996;
MacKay, 1982; 1987; Roelofs, 1992; Stemberger,
1985; 1990). They all distinguish between structural frames and content units which are associated to the positions of the frames, and assume
that the ordering of units is achieved by the
joint action of two mechanisms: the association
of units to frames and the time-course of the
activation and deactivation of the units. The
models differ in (1) the types of content units, for
instance in the representation of consonant clusters; (2) the types of metrical frame, for instance
in whether they postulate one syllable frame for
28-Gaskell-Chap28
3/10/07
7:13 PM
Page 479
Generating the phoentic code of words · 479
all utterances or different frames for words differing in length and CV structure; (3) the processing mechanisms, for instance in whether there
are unidirectional feedforward links or bidirectional links between units; or whether they
assume only activation and passive decay or lateral inhibition between units as well (see Dell,
Burger, and Svec, 1997 for further discussion).
As mentioned, metrical frames are invoked
in many models as ordering devices for simultaneously activated segments. This is not the case
for the model proposed by Levelt et al. (1999)
and Roelofs (1997b), where metrical frames are
stipulated only for those words that deviate
from the main stress pattern of the language. As
explained above, segmental ordering is achieved
through the labeled links between morphemes
and segments. The segments of a word are activated in parallel, and segments are selected if
they are appropriately linked to the superordinate node. As in the other models mentioned
above, segments are combined into syllables, but
this is not achieved by assigning them to positions within syllable frames, but through a rulebased sequential syllabification process. Where
possible, stress is assigned by rule. This approach
allows for a straightforward treatment of resyllabification processes. As explained earlier, the
syllabification of words in context is often different from the syllabification of the citations
forms. Models in which segments are marked
lexically with respect to the syllable positions
they assume in each word need to invoke additional post-lexical processes to explain how segments are assigned to new syllable positions in
connected speech. By contrast, in the model proposed by Roelofs and by Levelt et al., the affiliation
of segments to syllables is determined on-line.
In connected speech, the segments of morphemes
which are part of the same phonological word are
syllabified together and are assigned directly to
the appropriate syllables (see Roelofs, 1997b for
further discussion).
There are models of serial ordering in speech
production that represent frames in a more
implicit, distributed fashion (Vousden et al., 2000;
for further discussion see Goldrick, Chapter 31
this volume) or do not assume structural frames
at all. A model of the latter type is the parallel distributed processing (PDP) model proposed by
Dell et al. (1993). PDP models learn to map input
strings onto output strings. They commonly
consist of at least three layers—an input layer, a
layer of hidden units, and an output layer. Rulelike knowledge is an emergent property of the
network’s growing ability to map input signals
onto output signals. This knowledge is encoded
in the links that mediate the mapping from input
to output. The PDP model of phonological
encoding proposed by Dell et al. maps from lexical units via a hidden layer to output representations (phonological features) in a simple recurrent
network. The network virtually pronounces words
by generating a series of phoneme representations. Dell et al. augmented the basic feedforward architecture outlined above by two layers of
“state units.” On a given processing cycle, these
layers make copies of the state of activation in the
hidden unit layer and in the output layer, respectively. The state units feed back their copies to
the hidden layer on the next processing cycle.
This provides the network with a form of memory for preceding processing cycles, which is crucial for the generation of an ordered sequence of
segments (Elman, 1990). Dell et al. showed that
their model accounted well for important properties of speech errors, such as the observation
that they usually result in phonotactically wellformed strings, that vowels tend to interact with
vowels and consonants with consonants, and that
syllable onsets are affected more often than codas.
However, other findings remain unaccounted for.
For instance, the model cannot explain segmental
exchanges, such as Yew Nork, because each part of
the error (the anticipation of one segment and the
perseveration of the other) are treated as a separate incidents (see also Goldrick, Chapter 31
below) for a discussion of PDP models).
28.5 Generating the phonetic
code of words
The word form representation generated during
phonological encoding is generally considered
to be fairly abstract in that it consists of discrete
and context-independent segments. By contrast,
articulatory gestures overlap in time, and how
a segment is realized depends on which segments precede and follow it (e.g. Browman and
Goldstein, 1992). Therefore, the phonological
representation must be transformed into a phonetic representation that determines the movements of the articulators to be carried out for
each word.
How speakers generate the phonetic codes of
words has not been widely studied within psycholinguistics (but see Fowler, Chapter 29 this
volume, and Port, Chapter 30), and most models
of word form retrieval do not include phonetic
encoding. Crompton (1982) and Levelt (1992)
suggested that speakers had access to a syllabary,
a store of pre-assembled gestural scores for
frequent syllables. Low-frequency syllables are
28-Gaskell-Chap28
3/10/07
7:13 PM
Page 480
480 · CHAPTER 28 Word form retrieval in language production
assembled out of the scores corresponding to
individual segments. The syllable-sized motor
programs are still fairly abstract representations of
the speech movements; they do not, for instance,
capture any intersyllabic coarticulatory influences
or any effects of loudness, pitch, or speech rate on
the way syllables are produced. Therefore, further
fine-tuning of the gestures must occur during
motor planning.
Access to a mental syllabary would dramatically
reduce the planning effort for phonetic encoding,
in particular in languages where a large proportion of all frequently occurring words is composed of a relatively small number of frequent
syllables. For instance Schiller et al. (1996) estimated that the 500 most frequent syllable types of
Dutch (which has approximately 12,000 different
syllable types) suffice to produce eighty per cent
of all word tokens.
In the model proposed by Levelt et al. (1999)
and by Roelofs (1997b), phonetic encoding
involves the selection syllable units. As soon as
the first phonological syllable has been generated, phonetic encoding can begin. Activation
spreads the phonological segments to all syllables that include the segments. An activated syllable is selected if its links to the segments match
the syllable positions computed during syllabification. Exactly when a syllable node is selected
depends on its level of activation relative to the
activation levels of all other syllable nodes which
are activated at the same time. Metrical information is used to set parameters for the loudness,
pitch, and duration of the syllables.
Experimental support for a mental syllabary
was first obtained by Levelt and Wheeldon (1994).
They used a symbol-association task to elicit
words that were selected to vary orthogonally in
word frequency and in the frequency of their constituent syllables. For instance, speakers were
trained to produce koning (‘king’) upon presentation of the string “//////”, to say advise (‘advice’)
upon presentation of the string of “<<<<<<”,
and so on. Levelt and Wheeldon found that the
participants were faster to produce high-frequency
than low-frequency words and, importantly, that
they were faster to produce words consisting of
high-frequency than of low-frequency syllables.
The syllable frequency effect was carried primarily
by the frequency-second syllable of the words.
This suggests that the retrieval of the second syllable was initiated slightly later than that of the
first syllable, and that the participants initiated
the responses only after they had retrieved both
syllables. In Levelt and Wheeldon’s experiment,
syllable and segmental frequency could not be
separated. However, Cholin et al. (forthcoming;
see also Cholin, 2004) also obtained a small but
significant syllable frequency effect when Dutch
speakers produced pseudo-words consisting of
high- or low-frequency syllables which were
carefully matched for segmental frequency. In
this study, only the frequency of the first syllable
of disyllabic pseudo-words affected the speech
onset latencies, implying that the participants
began to speak as soon as the first syllable had
been fully planned (see also Meyer et al., 2003).
A number of other studies have also reported
syllable frequency effects in word production
tasks carried out by healthy speakers and speakers with aphasia or apraxia of speech (e.g.
Aichert and Ziegler, 2004; Laganaro, 2005; Perea
and Carreiras, 1998; but see Wilshire and
Nespoulous, 2003). However, the interpretation
of these results is complicated by the fact that
word and non-word reading or repetition tasks,
rather than picture naming or association tasks,
were used.
In a recent study Cholin et al. (2004) found a
stronger implicit priming effect when the segments shared by the response words within a set
corresponded to a complete syllable in all words
(as in beacon, beadle, beaker) than when this was
not the case (as in beacon, beadle, beatnik, where
the third item is the odd man out). This finding
contrasts with the finding of picture–word interference and priming studies mentioned above
that the size of facilitatory effects from phonologically related distracters and primes does not
depend on whether or not the primed segments
correspond to a syllable in the target. Cholin et al.
concluded that the syllable-match effect in their
implicit priming experiments arose because the
participants aimed to prepare for the words not
only on the phonological but also, where possible, on the phonetic level. They could only select
a syllable program when the first syllable was
the same for all words. Thus, the results support
the view that syllables are planning units at the
phonetic level.
28.6 A model of word form
retrieval
We have discussed the tasks to be carried out during morphological, phonological and phonetic
encoding, we have reviewed key empirical findings, and we have discussed how these can be
accounted for within various theoretical frameworks. In this section, we describe, by way of
summary, how word forms are retrieved in one
specific model, the model proposed by Levelt
et al. (1999; see also Roelofs, 1997a). We chose
28-Gaskell-Chap28
3/10/07
7:13 PM
Page 481
A model of word form retrieval · 481
feedforward direction only. There is also decay
of activation. In WEAVER, the form encoder follows simple selection rules, which are implemented in a parallel distributed manner. Attached
to each node are production rules (condition–
action pairs) which select nodes if they are appropriately connected to the superordinate target
node. The verification and selection process is
triggered when the activation level of the node
reaches a threshold.
The morphological encoder selects one or
more morphemes, depending on which lemma,
or lemmas, and diacritics have been selected. All
morphologically complex forms are composed
out of their constituent morphemes. Activation
spreads in parallel from a morpheme to the
associated segments. The order of the segments
is captured in the links between segments and
morphemes. Segments are selected if they are
appropriately linked to the morpheme. For words
with irregular stress pattern a simple metrical
frame, encoding the number of syllables and the
position of the stressed syllable, is selected as
well. The string of selected segments constitutes
this model because it is, in our view, the most
comprehensive model of word form retrieval
presently available, though some of its assumptions are probably incorrect. Most importantly,
the model is likely to be too serial: as explained
above, there is now good evidence for cascading
of information between levels of processing and
for limited feedback between processing levels.
However, the components of the model are well
specified, and it captures the main steps of word
planning from the selection of a lemma to the
generation of the articulatory code. A unique
feature of the model is its on-line syllabification
process, which allows for the generation of connected speech forms of words. Finally, though
this has not been shown in detail in this chapter,
the implemented version of the model (WEAVER
and WEAVER++; e.g. Roelofs, 1992; 1996; 1997a;
1997b; 1998; 1999; 2002; 2003; 2004) offers an
accurate account of a large number of key experimental findings from a variety of paradigms.
Word form retrieval begins when a morpheme
receives activation from a lemma (see Figure 28.1).
Activation spreads through the network in
guitar
sg
NUMBER
OF
word form stratum
2
1
w
s
Σ
Σ
g
i
On Nu
σʼ
diacritic feature node
<guitar>
METRIC
ω
lemma node
NAME OF
HAS
NUMBER
σʼʼ
morpheme node
3
4
t
a:
On
segment nodes
Co Nu
Nu On
Nu
On
[gi]
[ta:]
[ta]
syllable
program
syllabary
[ta:s]
[gi] [ta:] [ta:s] [ta]
Figure 28.1 Memory representation of the word form of guitar (see Roelofs, 1997a).
nodes
28-Gaskell-Chap28
3/10/07
7:13 PM
Page 482
482 · CHAPTER 28 Word form retrieval in language production
the input to a sequential syllabification process
which groups them into syllables and either
links them to the retrieved metrical structure or
assigns stress by rule. In morphologically complex words and in connected speech, the segments of adjacent morphemes may be syllabified
together, which allows for the assignment of
segments to syllable positions that do not correspond to the positions in the citation forms. The
syllabified phonological representation is the
input to the phonetic encoding processes. During
phonetic encoding, syllable program nodes are
selected based on the types and order of the segments in the phonological syllables, and metrical information is used to set the parameters for
loudness, pitch contour, and word durations.
28.7 Concluding remarks
Current models of word form retrieval converge on central assumptions. They all distinguish
between morphological, phonological, and phonetic representations and processes; they all
assume morphological and phonological decomposition, and agree on the main processing units
at these levels. In addition, they all postulate the
same basic retrieval mechanisms: activation and
selection of units. One might summarize the state
of the art by saying that word form retrieval in language production is reasonably well understood.
What remains to be done? Most of the psycholinguistic research on word form retrieval
has concerned the development of functional
models of single word retrieval in speakers of
Germanic languages. It is high time to extend the
area of investigation in several directions. First,
there is a need for systematic crosslinguistic
investigations of word form retrieval. The core
assumptions endorsed by current models of word
form retrieval—for instance that there are several planning levels, that there is decomposition
into unit smaller than words, and that processing can be described in terms of the activation
and selection of units—should hold for speakers
of other languages as well. However, the precise
nature and relative difficulty of the tasks speakers carry out during word form retrieval must
depend on properties of their language. For
instance, for speakers of Germanic languages,
the main processing units at the phonological
level appear to be phonological segments, not
syllables. Chen et al. (2002; see also Chen, 2000)
showed that the reverse holds for speakers of
Mandarin Chinese. As they explain, this difference
is likely to be related to the fact that Mandarin
Chinese has fewer syllables than the Germanic
languages, clear syllable boundaries, and no resyllabification, i.e. the syllable positions of segments
are not altered in connected speech relative to the
citation forms. Thus, syllables would appear to
be far more useful phonological processing
units in Mandarin Chinese than in English or
Dutch, and this seems to be reflected in the units
speakers use. Systematic crosslinguistic research
is required to understand which processing principles are common to speakers of all languages
and how speakers adapt to language-specific
requirements (see also Costa et al., Chapter 32
this volume). Second, there is a need to consider
how speakers generate word forms in context.
There is some empirical work on the generation
of phonological words (e.g. Wheeldon and
Lahiri, 1997; 2002) and on the time-course of
segmental retrieval in short phrases, such as the
blue kite (e.g. Costa and Caramazza, 2002;
Schriefers and Teruel, 1999); but within psycholinguistics, there is hardly any empirical
research on the generation of larger prosodic
units, such as phonological and intonational
phrases (but see F. Ferreira, 1993; Levelt, 1989;
Meyer, 1994; Watson and Gibson, 2004; see also
Port, Chapter 30 below). We know that speakers
generate these units (see also Kraljic and
Brennan, 2005; Schafer et al., 2000) but we do
not know much about how they do this—for
instance about how and when pragmatic and syntactic variables affect phonological and phonetic
planning.
Finally, an exciting and rapidly expanding new
area of research is the investigation of the neurological basis of language production through
neurophysiological and imaging techniques (e.g.
Hickok and Poeppel, 2004; Indefrey and Levelt,
2004; Indefrey, Chapter 33 below). The challenge
is to determine exactly where in the brain the
processes postulated in functional models happen, how the areas involved in word production
are related, and exactly when during the process of speech planning each of them becomes
activated.
References
Aichert, I., and Ziegler, W. (2004) Syllable frequency and
syllable structure in apraxia of speech. Brain and
Language, 88: 148–59.
Baars, B., Motley, M., and MacKay, D. G. (1975) Output
editing for lexical status in artificially elicited slips of the
tongue. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
14: 382–91.
Berg, T. (1989) Intersegmental cohesiveness. Folia
Linguistica, 23: 245–80.
28-Gaskell-Chap28
3/10/07
7:13 PM
Page 483
References · 483
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.
Bird, H., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Seidenberg, M. S.,
McClelland, J. L., and Patterson, K. (2003) Deficits in
phonology and past-tense morphology: what’s the
connection? Journal of Memory and Language,
48: 502–26.
Bloem, I., and La Heij, W. (2003) Semantic facilitation and
semantic interference in word translation: implications
for models of lexical access in language production.
Journal of Memory and Language, 48: 468–88.
Bock, K., and Levelt, W. (1994) Language production:
grammatical encoding. In M. A. Gernsbacher (ed.),
Handbook of Psycholinguistics, pp. 945–84. Academic
Press, San Diego, Calif.
Boomer, D. S., and Laver, J. D. M. (1968) Slips of the
tongue. British Journal of Disorders of Communication,
3: 1–12.
Braber, N., Patterson, K., Ellis, K., and Lambon Ralph, M. A.
(2005) The relationship between phonological and
morphological deficits in Broca’s aphasia: further
evidence from errors in verb inflection. Brain and
Language, 92: 278–287.
Browman, C. P., and Goldstein, L. (1992) Articulatory
phonology: an overview. Phonetica, 49: 155–180.
Brown, R., and McNeill, D. (1966) The “tip-of-the-tongue”
phenomenon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior, 5: 325–337.
Butterworth, B. (1980). Some constraints on models of
language production. In B. Butterworth (ed.), Language
Production, vol. 1: Speech and Talk, pp. 423–59.
Academic Press, London.
Caramazza, A. (1997) How many levels of processing
are there in lexical access? Cognitive Neuropsychology,
14: 177–208.
Caramazza, A., Bi, Y. C., Costa, A., and Miozzo, M. (2004)
What determines the speed of lexical access:
homophone or specific-word frequency? A reply to
Jescheniak et al. (2003) [Jescheniak, Meyer, and Levelt,
2003]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 30: 278–282.
Caramazza, A., Costa, A., Miozzo, M., and 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.
Caramazza, A., and Miozzo, M. (1997) The relation
between syntactic and phonological knowledge in lexical
access: evidence for the “tip-of-the-tongue”
phenomenon. Cognition, 64: 309–343.
Caramazza, A., Papagno, C., and Ruml, W. (2000) The
selective impairment of phonological processing in
speech production. Brain and Language, 75: 428–450.
Chen, J. T. (2000) Syllable errors from naturalistic slips of
the tongue in Madarin Chinese. Psychologia, 43: 15–26.
Chen, J. T., Chen, T. M., and Dell, G. S. (2002) Word-form
encoding in Mandarin Chinese as assessed by the
implicit priming task. Journal of Memory and Language,
46: 751–781.
Cholin, J. (2004) Syllables in Speech Production: Effects of
Syllable Preparation and Syllable Frequency. Nijmegen,
Max Planck Institute, The Netherlands.
Cholin, J., Levelt, W. J. M., and Schiller, N. O.
(forthcoming) Effects of syllable frequency in speech
production. Cognition.
Cholin, J., Schiller, N. O., and Levelt, W. J. M. (2004) The
preparation of syllables in speech production. Journal of
Memory and Language, 50: 47–61.
Collins, A. F., and Ellis, A. W. (1992) Phonological priming
of lexical retrieval in speech production. British Journal
of Psychology, 83: 375–388.
Costa, A., and 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., Caramazza, A., and Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2000)
The cognate facilitation effect: implications for models
of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26: 1283–1296.
Costa, A., Miozzo, M., and 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.
Costa, A., and Sebastián-Gallés, N. (1998) Abstract
phonological structure in language production:
evidence from Spanish. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
24: 886–903.
Crompton, A. (1982) Syllables and segments in speech
production. In A. Cutler (ed.), Slips of the Tongue and
Language Production, pp.109–62. Mouton, Berlin.
Cuetos, F., Aguado, G., and Caramazza, A. (2000)
Dissociation of semantic and phonological errors in
naming. Brain and Language, 75: 451–460.
Cutler, A. (1980) Errors of stress and intonation. In
V. Fromkin (ed.), Errors of Linguistic Performance: Slips
of the Tongue, Ear, Pen, and Hand, pp. 67–80. Academic
Press, New York.
Cutler, A., and Norris, D. (1988) The role of strong
syllables in segmentation for lexical access. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 14: 113–121.
Cutting, J. C., and 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., and Martin, R. C. (1999) Semantic and
phonological codes interact in single word production.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, 25: 345–361.
Dell, G. S. (1986) A spreading-activation theory of
retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review,
93: 283–321.
Dell, G. S. (1988) The retrieval of phonological forms in
production: tests of predictions from a connectionist
model. Journal of Memory and Language, 27: 124–142.
Dell, G. S. (1990) Effects of frequency and vocabulary type
on phonological speech errors. Language and Cognitive
Processes, 5: 313–349.
28-Gaskell-Chap28
3/10/07
7:13 PM
Page 484
484 · CHAPTER 28 Word form retrieval in language production
Dell, G. S., Burger, L. K., and Svec, W. R. (1997) Language
production and serial order: a functional analysis and a
model. Psychological Review, 104: 123–147.
Dell, G. S., and Gordon, J. K. (2003) Neighbors in the
lexicon: friends or foes? In N. O. Schiller and A. S. Meyer
(eds.), Phonetics and Phonology in Language
Comprehension and Production, pp. 9–37. Mouton de
Gruyter, Berlin.
Dell, G. S., Juliano, C., and Govindjee, J. (1993) Structure
and content in language production: a theory of frames
constraints in phonological speech errors. Cognitive
Science, 17: 149–195.
Dell, G. S., and O’Seaghdha, P. G. (1991) Mediated and
convergent lexical priming in language production:
comment. Psychological Review, 98: 604–614.
Dell, G. S., and O’Seaghdha, P. G. (1992) Stages of lexical
access in language production. Cognition, 42: 287–314.
Dell, G. S., Reed, K. D., Adams, D. R., and Meyer, A. S.
(2000) Speech errors, phonotactic constaints, 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., and Reich, P. A. (1981) Stages in sentence
production: an analysis of speech error data. Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 20: 611–629.
Dell, G. S., Schwartz, M. F., Martin, N., Saffran, E. M., and
Gagnon, D. A. (1997) Lexical access in aphasic
and nonaphasic speakers. Psychological Review,
104: 801–838.
Dohmes, P., Zwitserlood, P., and Bölte, J. (2004) The
impact of semantic transparency of morphologically
complex words on picture naming. Brain and Language,
90: 203–212.
Eikmeyer, H. J., and Schade, U. (1991) Sequentialization in
connectionist language production models. Cognitive
Systems, 3: 128–138.
Elman, J. L. (1990) Finding structure in time. Cognitive
Science, 14: 213–252.
Ferrand, L., Segui, J., and Grainger, J. (1996) Masked
priming of word and picture naming: the role of syllabic
units. Journal of Memory and Language, 35: 708–723.
Ferrand, L., Segui, J., and Humphreys, G. W. (1997) The
syllable’s role in word naming. Memory and Cognition,
25: 458–470.
Ferreira, F. (1993) Creation of prosody during sentence
production. Psychological Review, 100: 233–253.
Ferreira, F., and Swets, B. (2002) How incremental is
language production? Evidence from the production of
utterances requiring the computation of arithmetic
sums. Journal of Memory and Language, 46: 57–84.
Ferreira, V. S., and Griffin, Z. M. (2003) Phonological
influences on lexical (mis)selection. Psychological
Science, 14: 86–90.
Ferreira, V. S., and Humphreys, K. R. (2001) Syntactic
influences on lexical and morphological processing in
language production. Journal of Memory and Language,
44: 52–80.
Fromkin, V. A. (1971) The non-anomalous nature of
anomalous utterances. Language, 47: 27–52.
Fromkin, V. A. (1973) Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence.
Mouton, The Hague.
Garcia-Albéa, J. E., del Viso, S., and Igoa, J. M. (1989)
Movement errors and levels of processing in sentence
production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,
18: 145–161.
Garrett, M. F. (1975) The analysis of sentence production.
In G. H. Bower (ed.), The Psychology of Learning and
Motivation, vol. 9: pp. 133–77. Academic Press, New York.
Garrett, M. F. (1980) Levels of processing in sentence
production. In B. Butterworth (ed.), Language
Production, vol. 1: Speech and Talk, pp. 177–220.
Academic Press, New York.
Goldrick, M. (2004) Phonological features and phonotactic
constraints in speech production. Journal of Memory
and Language, 51: 586–603.
Gordon, J. K. (2002) Phonological neighborhood effects in
aphasic speech errors: spontaneous and structured
contexts. Brain and Language, 82: 113–145.
Gordon, J. K., and Dell, G. S. (2001) Phonological
neighborhood effects: evidence from aphasia and
connectionist modeling. Brain and Language,
79: 21–23.
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., and MacAndrew, S. B. G. (2001) Constraints
upon word substitution speech errors. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 30: 395–418.
Hartley, T. A., and Houghton, G. (1996) A linguistically
constrained model of short-term memory for nonwords.
Journal of Memory and Language, 35: 1–31.
Hartsuiker, R. (2002) The addition bias in Dutch and
Spanish phonological speech errors: the role of
structural context. Language and Cognitive Processes,
17: 61–96.
Hickock, G., and Poeppel, D. (2004) Dorsal and ventral
streams: a framework for understanding aspecits
of the functional anatomy of language. Cognition,
92: 67–99.
Humphreys, G. W., Riddoch, M. J., and Quinlan, P. T.
(1988) Cascade processes in picture identification.
Cognitive Neuropsychology, 5: 67–103.
Indefrey, P., and Levelt, W. J. M. (2004) The spatial and
temporal signatures of word production components.
Cognition, 92: 101–144.
Inkelas, S., and Zec, D. (1990) The Phonology–Syntax
Connection. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Janssen, D. P., Roelofs, A. R., and Levelt, W. J. M. (2002)
Inflectional frames in language production. Language
and Cognitive Processes, 17: 209–344.
Janssen, D. A., Roelofs, A., and Levelt, W. J. M. (2004) Stem
complexity and inflectional encoding in language
production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,
33: 365–381.
Jerger, S., Martin, R. C., and Damian, M. F. (2002)
Semantic and phonological influences on picture
naming by children and teenagers. Journal of Memory
and Language, 47: 229–249.
Jescheniak, J. D., Hahne, A., and Schriefers, H. (2003)
Information flow in the mental lexicon during speech
planning: evidence from event-related brain potentials.
Cognitive Brain Research, 15: 261–276.
28-Gaskell-Chap28
3/10/07
7:13 PM
Page 485
References · 485
Jescheniak, J. D., and 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.
Jescheniak, J. D., Meyer, A. S., and Levelt, W. J. M. (2003)
Specific-word frequency is not all that counts in speech
production: comments on Caramazza, Costa et al., and
new experimental data. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 29: 432–438.
Jescheniak, J. D. and Schriefers, H. (1998) Discrete serial
versus cascaded processing in lexical access in speech
production: further evidence from the coactivation of
near-synonyms. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24: 1256–1273.
Jescheniak, J. D., Schriefers, H., Garrett, M. F., and
Friederici, A. D. (2002) Exploring the activation of
semantic and phonological codes during speech
planning with event-related potentials. Journal of
Cognitive Neuroscience, 14: 951–964.
Jescheniak, J. D., Schriefers, H., and Hantsch, A. (2003)
Utterance format affects phonological priming in the
picture-word task: implications for models of
phonological encoding in speech production. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 29: 441–454.
Kralijc, T., and Brennan, S. E. (2005) Prosodic
disambiguation of syntactic structure: for the speaker or
for the addressee? Cognitive Psychology, 50: 194–231.
Laganaro, M. (2005) Syllable frequency effect in speech
production: evidence from aphasia. Journal of
Neurolinguistics, 18: 221–235.
Lambon Ralph, M. A., Braber, N., McClelland, J. L., and
Patterson, K. (2005) What underlies the
neuropsychological pattern of irregular > regular
past tense verb production? Brain and Language,
93: 106–119.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989) Speaking: From Intention to
Articulation. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1992) Accessing words in speech
production: stages, processes and representations.
Cognition, 42: 1–22.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1999) Models of word production. Trends
in Cognitive Sciences, 3: 223–232.
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., and Meyer, A. S. (1999) A
theory of lexical access in language production.
Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 22: 1–38.
Levelt, W. J. M., Schriefers, H., Vorberg, D., Meyer, A. S.,
Pechmann, T., and Havinga, J. (1991) The time course
of lexical access in speech production: a study of picture
naming. Psychological Review, 98: 122–142.
Levelt, W. J. M., and Wheeldon, L. (1994) Do speakers have
access to a mental syllabary? Cognition, 50: 239–269.
MacKay, D. G. (1979) Lexical insertion, inflection, and
derivation: creative processes in word production.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 8: 477–498.
MacKay, D. G. (1982) The problems of flexibility, fluency,
and speed–accuracy trade-off in skilled behaviour.
Psychological Review, 89: 483–506.
MacKay, D. G. (1987) The Organization of Perception and
Action: A Theory for Language and Other Cognitive Skills.
Springer, New York.
Meijer, P. J. A. (1996) Suprasegmental structures in
phonological encoding: the CV structure. Journal of
Memory and Language, 35: 840–853.
Meyer, A. S. (1990) The time course of phonological
encoding in language production: the encoding of
successive syllables. 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. (1992) Investigation of phonological encoding
through speech error analyses: achievements,
limitations, and alternatives. Cognition, 42: 181–211.
Meyer, A. S. (1994) Timing in sentence production. Journal
of Memory and Language, 33: 471–492.
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., Roelofs, A., and 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., and Schriefers, H. (1991) Phonological
facilitation in picture-word interference experiments:
effects of stimulus onset asynchrony and types of
interfering stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17: 1146–1160.
Miozzo, M. (2003) On the processing of regular and
irregular forms of verbs and nouns: evidence from
neuropsychology. Cognition, 87: 101–127.
Miozzo, M., Jacobs, M. L., and Singer, N. J. W. (2004) The
representation of homophones: evidence from anomia.
Cognitive Neuropsychology, 21: 840–866.
Mowrey, R. A., and MacKay, I. R. A. (1990) Phonological
primitives: electromyographic speech error evidence.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
88: 1299–1312.
Nespor, M., and Vogel, I. (1986) Prosodic Phonology. Foris,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
O’Seaghdha, P., and Marin, J. W. (2000) Phonological
competition and cooperation in form-related priming:
sequential and nonsequential processes in word
production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 26: 57–73.
Perea, M., and Carreiras, M. (1998) Effects of syllable
frequency and syllable neighborhood frequency in visual
word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Perception and Performance, 24: 134–144.
Peterson, R. R., and Savoy, P. (1998) Lexical selection and
phonological encoding during language production:
evidence for cascaded processing. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 24: 539–557.
Pillon, A. (1998) Morpheme units in speech production:
evidence from laboratory-induced verbal slips. Language
and Cognitive Processes, 13: 465–498
Plaut, D. C., and Gonnerman, L. M. (2000) Are nonsemantic morphological effects incompatible with a
distributed connectionist approach to lexical processing?
Language and Cognitive Processing, 15: 445–485.
28-Gaskell-Chap28
3/10/07
7:13 PM
Page 486
486 · CHAPTER 28 Word form retrieval in language production
Postma, A. (2000) The detection of errors during speech
production: a review of speech monitoring models.
Cognition, 77: 97–131.
Rahman, R. A., van Turenout, M., and Levelt, W.J.M.
(2003) Phonological encoding is not contingent on
semantic feature retrieval: an electrophysiological study.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, 29: 850–860.
Rapp, B., and Goldrick, M. (2000) Discreteness and
interactivity in spoken word production. Psychological
Review, 107: 460–499.
Roelofs, A. (1992) A spreading-activation theory of lemma
retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42: 107–142.
Roelofs, A. (1996) Serial order in planning the production
of successive morphemes of a word. Journal of Memory
and Language, 35: 854–876.
Roelofs, A. (1997a) The WEAVER model of word-form
encoding in speech production. Cognition, 64: 249–284.
Roelofs, A. (1997b) Syllabification in speech production:
evaluation of WEAVER. Language and Cognitive
Processes, 12: 657–693.
Roelofs, A. (1998) Rightward incrementality in encoding
simple phrasal forms in speech production:
verb–particle combinations. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
24: 904–919.
Roelofs, A. (1999) Phonological segments and features as
planning units in speech production. Language and
Cognitive Processes, 14: 173–200.
Roelofs, A. (2002) Spoken language planning and the
initiation of articulation. Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Section A, 55: 465–483.
Roelofs, A. (2003) Goal-referenced selection of verbal
action: modeling attentional control in the Stroop task.
Psychological Review, 110: 88–125.
Roelofs, A. (2004) Seriality of phonological encoding in
naming objects and reading their names. Memory and
Cognition, 32: 212–222.
Roelofs, A., and Baayen, H. (2002) Morphology by itself in
planning the production of spoken words. Psychonomic
Bulletin and Review, 9: 132–138.
Roelofs, A., and Meyer, A. S. (1998) Metrical structure in
planning the production of spoken words. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 24: 922–939.
Schafer, A. J., Speer, S. R., Warren, P., and White, S. D.
(2000) Intentional disambiguation in sentence
production and comprehension. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 29: 169–182.
Schiller, N. O. (1998) The effect of visually masked syllable
primes on the naming latencies of words and pictures.
Journal of Memory and Language, 39: 484–507.
Schiller, N. O. (2000) Single word production in English:
The role of subsyllabic units during phonological
encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 26: 512–528.
Schiller, N. O., Fikkert, P., and Levelt, C. C. (2004) Stress
priming in picture naming: an SOA study. Brain and
Language, 90: 231–240.
Schiller, N. O., Meyer, A. S., Baayen, H., and Levelt, W. J. M.
(1996) Comparison of lexeme and speech syllables in
Dutch. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 3: 8–28.
Schmitt, B. M., Münte, T. F., and Kutas, M. (2000)
Electrophysiological estimates of the time course of
semantic and phonological encoding during implicit
picture naming. Psychophysiology, 37: 473–484.
Schriefers, H., Meyer, A. S., and Levelt, W. J. M. (1990)
Exploring the time course of lexical access in language
production: picture–word interference studies. Journal
of Memory and Language, 29: 86–102.
Schriefers, H., and Teruel, E. (1999) Phonological
facilitation in the production of two-word utterances.
European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 11: 17–50.
Selkirk, E. O. (1986) On derived domains in sentence
phonology. Phonology Yearbook, 371–405.
Sevald, C. A., and Dell, G. S. (1994) The sequential cuing
effect in speech production. Cognition, 53: 91–127.
Sevald, C. A., Dell, G. S., and Cole, J. (1995) Syllable
structure in speech production: are syllables chunks or
schemas? Journal of Memory and Language, 34: 807–820.
Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1979) Speech errors as evidence
for a serial-ordering mechanism in sentence production.
In W. E. Cooper and E. C. T. Walker (eds.), Sentence
Processing: Psycholinguistic Studies presented to Merrill
Garrett, pp. 295–342. Springer, New York.
Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1983) Sublexical units and
suprasegmental structure in speech production
planning. In P. F. MacNeilage (ed.), The Production of
Speech, pp. 109–36. Springer, New York.
Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1987) The role of word-onset
consonants in speech-production planning: new
evidence from speech error patterns. In S. Keller and
M. Gopnick (eds.), Motor and Sensory Processes of
Language, pp. 17–51. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1992) The role of word structure
in segmental serial ordering. Cognition, 42: 213–258.
Shatzman, K. B., and Schiller, N. O. (2004) The word
frequency effect in picture naming: contrasting two
hypotheses using homonym pictures. Brain and
Language, 90: 160–169.
Smith, M., and Wheeldon, L. (1999) High level processing
scope in spoken sentence production. Cognition,
73: 205–246.
Spencer, A. (1991) Morphological Theory. Blackwell,
Cambridge, Mass.
Starreveld, P. A., and La Heij, W. (1996) Time-course
analysis of semantic and orthographic context effects
in picture naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22: 896–918.
Stemberger, J. P. (1983) The nature of /r/ and /l/ in English:
evidence from speech errors. Journal of Phonetics,
11: 139–147.
Stemberger, J. P. (1985) An interactive activation model of
language production. In A. W. Ellis (ed.), Progress in the
Psychology of Language, vol.1: pp. 143–86. Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, NJ.
Stemberger, J. P. (1990) Wordshape errors in language
production. Cognition, 35: 123–157.
Stemberger, J. P. (1991a) Radical underspecification in
language production. Phonology, 8: 73–112.
Stemberger, J. P. (1991b) Apparent anti-frequency effects
in language production: the addition bias and
phonological underspecification. Journal of Memory and
Language, 30: 161–185.
28-Gaskell-Chap28
3/10/07
7:13 PM
Page 487
References · 487
ED: Please check
& confirm as
initials is not
provided.
Stemberger, J. P. (2002) Overtensing and the effect of
regularity. Cognitive Science, 26: 737–766.
Stemberger, J. P. (2004a) Phonological priming and
irregular past. Journal of Memory and Language,
50: 82–95.
Stemberger, (2004b) Neighborhood effects on error rates
in speech production. Brain and Language, 90: 413–422.
Stemberger, J. P., and Middleton, C. S. (2003) Vowel
dominance and morphological processing. Language
and Cognitive Processes, 18: 369–404.
Stemberger, J. P., and Treiman, R. (1986) The internal
structure of word-initial consonant clusters. Journal of
Memory and Language, 25: 163–180.
Sullivan, M. P., and Riffel, B. (1999) The nature of
phonological encoding during spoken word retrieval.
Language and Cognitive Processes, 14: 15–45.
Tyler, L. K., Stamatakis, E. A., Bright, P. et al., (2004)
Processing objects at different levels of specificity.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16: 351–362.
Ullman, M. T., Pancheva, R., Love, T., Yee, E., Swinney, D.,
and Hickok, G. (2005) Neural correlates of lexicon and
grammar: evidence from the production, reading, and
judgement of inflection in aphasia. Brain and Language,
93: 185–238.
van Turennout, M., Hagoort, P., and Brown, C. M. (1998)
Brain activity during speaking: from syntax to
phonology in 40 milliseconds. Science, 280: 572–574.
Vigliocco, G., Antonini, T., and Garrett, M. F. (1997)
Grammatical gender is on the tip of Italian tongues.
Psychological Science, 8: 314–317.
Vitevitch, M. S. (2002) The influence of phonological
similarity neighborhoods on speech production. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 28: 735–747.
Vitevitch, M. S., Armbrüster, J., and Chu, S. (2004)
Sublexical and lexical representations in speech
production: effects of phonotactic probablility and
onset density. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30: 514–529.
Vitevitch, M. S., and Sommers, M. S. (2003) The facilitative
influence of phonological similarity and neighborhood
frequency in speech production in younger and older
adults. Memory and Cognition, 31: 491–504.
Vitevitch, M. S., and Stamer, M. K. (forthcoming) The
curious case of competition in Spanish speech
production. Language and Cognitive Processes.
Vousden, J. I., Brown, G. D. A., and Harley, T. A. (2000)
Serial control of phonology in speech production: a
hierarchical model. Cognitive Psychology,
41: 101–175.
Watson, D., and Gibson, E. (2004) The relationship
between intonational phrasing and syntactic structure
in language production. Language and Cognitive
Processes, 19: 713–755.
Wells, R. (1951) Predicting slips of the tongue. Yale
Scientific Magazine, 3: 9–30.
Wheeldon, L. R. (2003) Inhibitory form priming of spoken
word production. Language and Cognitive Processes,
18: 81–109.
Wheeldon, L. R., and Lahiri, A. (1997) Prosodic units in
speech production. Journal of Memory and Language,
37: 356–381.
Wheeldon, L. R., and Lahiri, A. (2002) The minimal unit
of phonological encoding: prosodic or lexical word.
Cognition, 85: B31–B41.
Wilshire, C. E., and Nespoulous, J. L. (2003) Syllables as
units in speech production: data from aphasia. Brain
and Language, 84: 424–447.
Wilshire, C. E., and Saffran, E. M. (2005) Contrasting
effects of phonological priming in aphasic word
production. Cognition, 95: 31–71.
Zwitserlood, P., Bölte, J., and Dohmes, P. (2000)
Morphological effects on speech production: evidence
from picture naming. Language and Cognitive Processes,
15: 563–591.
Zwitserlood, P., Bölte, J., and Dohmes, P. (2002) Where and
how morphologically complex words interplay with
naming pictures. Brain and Language, 81: 358–367.
28-Gaskell-Chap28
3/10/07
7:13 PM
Page 488