Semantic structuring and non-linear sentence
planning
Jens Roeser
ELN WG1 & WG3 Workshop
University of Cyprus
Nov 4, 2016
Thanks to Mark Torrance and Thom Baguley for
important contribution to this research.
1 / 30
Sentence planning
I. Advanced planning scope:
I
Linguistic requirements to begin a sentence
II. Scope flexibility:
I
Flexibility of planning unit
III. Non-linear planning:
I
Is advanced planning strictly incremental?
Ferreira and Slevc (2007); Griffin (2003); Levelt (1989); Martin et al. (2010); Wagner et al. (2010)
2 / 30
Sentence planning
I. Advanced planning scope:
I
Linguistic requirements to begin a sentence
II. Scope flexibility:
I
Flexibility of planning unit
III. Non-linear planning:
I
Is advanced planning strictly incremental?
Ferreira and Slevc (2007); Griffin (2003); Levelt (1989); Martin et al. (2010); Wagner et al. (2010)
2 / 30
Sentence planning
I. Advanced planning scope:
I
Linguistic requirements to begin a sentence
II. Scope flexibility:
I
Flexibility of planning unit
III. Non-linear planning:
I
Is advanced planning strictly incremental?
Ferreira and Slevc (2007); Griffin (2003); Levelt (1989); Martin et al. (2010); Wagner et al. (2010)
2 / 30
Sentence planning
I. Advanced planning scope:
I
Linguistic requirements to begin a sentence
II. Scope flexibility:
I
Flexibility of planning unit
III. Non-linear planning:
I
Is advanced planning strictly incremental?
Ferreira and Slevc (2007); Griffin (2003); Levelt (1989); Martin et al. (2010); Wagner et al. (2010)
2 / 30
Table of Contents
Introduction
Experiment 1
Results
Interim discussion
Experiment 2
Results
Conclusion
3 / 30
I. Advanced planning
Levelt and Maasen (1981); Martin et al. (2014); Smith and Wheeldon (1999); Wagner et al. (2010)
4 / 30
I. Advanced planning
Levelt and Maasen (1981); Martin et al. (2014); Smith and Wheeldon (1999); Wagner et al. (2010)
4 / 30
I. Advanced planning
The dog and the foot
moved above the kite.
Levelt and Maasen (1981); Martin et al. (2014); Smith and Wheeldon (1999); Wagner et al. (2010)
4 / 30
I. Advanced planning
Levelt and Maasen (1981); Martin et al. (2014); Smith and Wheeldon (1999); Wagner et al. (2010)
4 / 30
I. Advanced planning
Levelt and Maasen (1981); Martin et al. (2014); Smith and Wheeldon (1999); Wagner et al. (2010)
4 / 30
I. Advanced planning
The dog moved above
the foot and the kite.
Levelt and Maasen (1981); Martin et al. (2014); Smith and Wheeldon (1999); Wagner et al. (2010)
4 / 30
I. Advanced planning
I
Longer production onset latency in (a) compared to (b)
∆ Phrasal planning scope
. . . i.e., minimal unit of grammatical encoding
I
Effect often replicated
I
Generalisation falsified (e.g., Allum and Wheeldon, 2007)
a. The dog and the foot moved above the kite.
b. The dog moved above the foot and the kite.
Levelt and Maasen (1981); Martin et al. (2014); Smith and Wheeldon (1999); Wagner et al. (2010)
4 / 30
I. Advanced planning
I
Longer production onset latency in (a) compared to (b)
∆ Phrasal planning scope
. . . i.e., minimal unit of grammatical encoding
I
Effect often replicated
I
Generalisation falsified (e.g., Allum and Wheeldon, 2007)
a. The dog and the foot moved above the kite.
b. The dog moved above the foot and the kite.
Levelt and Maasen (1981); Martin et al. (2014); Smith and Wheeldon (1999); Wagner et al. (2010)
4 / 30
I. Advanced planning
I
Longer production onset latency in (a) compared to (b)
∆ Phrasal planning scope
. . . i.e., minimal unit of grammatical encoding
I
Effect often replicated
I
Generalisation falsified (e.g., Allum and Wheeldon, 2007)
a. The dog and the foot moved above the kite.
b. The dog moved above the foot and the kite.
Levelt and Maasen (1981); Martin et al. (2014); Smith and Wheeldon (1999); Wagner et al. (2010)
4 / 30
I. Advanced planning
I
Longer production onset latency in (a) compared to (b)
∆ Phrasal planning scope
. . . i.e., minimal unit of grammatical encoding
I
Effect often replicated
I
Generalisation falsified (e.g., Allum and Wheeldon, 2007)
a. The dog and the foot moved above the kite.
b. The dog moved above the foot and the kite.
Levelt and Maasen (1981); Martin et al. (2014); Smith and Wheeldon (1999); Wagner et al. (2010)
4 / 30
I. Advanced planning
I
Longer production onset latency in (a) compared to (b)
∆ Phrasal planning scope
. . . i.e., minimal unit of grammatical encoding
I
Effect often replicated
I
Generalisation falsified (e.g., Allum and Wheeldon, 2007)
a. The dog and the foot moved above the kite.
b. The dog moved above the foot and the kite.
Levelt and Maasen (1981); Martin et al. (2014); Smith and Wheeldon (1999); Wagner et al. (2010)
4 / 30
I. Advanced planning
I
Longer production onset latency in (a) compared to (b)
∆ Phrasal planning scope
. . . i.e., minimal unit of grammatical encoding
I
Effect often replicated
I
Generalisation falsified (e.g., Allum and Wheeldon, 2007)
a. The dog and the foot moved above the kite.
b. The dog moved above the foot and the kite.
Levelt and Maasen (1981); Martin et al. (2014); Smith and Wheeldon (1999); Wagner et al. (2010)
4 / 30
I. Advanced planning
I
Longer production onset latency in (a) compared to (b)
∆ Phrasal planning scope
. . . i.e., minimal unit of grammatical encoding
I
Effect often replicated
I
Generalisation falsified (e.g., Allum and Wheeldon, 2007)
a. The dog and the foot moved above the kite.
b. The dog moved above the foot and the kite.
Levelt and Maasen (1981); Martin et al. (2014); Smith and Wheeldon (1999); Wagner et al. (2010)
4 / 30
I. Advanced planning
I
Grammatical encoding: Lexical names, structure, . . .
I
Lexical content of phrase (a) not necessarily fully encoded.
I
Which cognitive process underlies the phrasal scope effect?
æ Syntactic frames?
æ Semantic representation of and-phrase?
a. The dog and the foot moved above the kite.
b. The dog moved above the foot and the kite.
Bock and Levelt (1994); Ferreira and Slevc (2007); Levelt (1989); Wheeldon et al. (2013)
5 / 30
I. Advanced planning
I
Grammatical encoding: Lexical names, structure, . . .
I
Lexical content of phrase (a) not necessarily fully encoded.
I
Which cognitive process underlies the phrasal scope effect?
æ Syntactic frames?
æ Semantic representation of and-phrase?
a. The dog and the foot moved above the kite.
b. The dog moved above the foot and the kite.
Bock and Levelt (1994); Ferreira and Slevc (2007); Levelt (1989); Wheeldon et al. (2013)
5 / 30
I. Advanced planning
I
Grammatical encoding: Lexical names, structure, . . .
I
Lexical content of phrase (a) not necessarily fully encoded.
I
Which cognitive process underlies the phrasal scope effect?
æ Syntactic frames?
æ Semantic representation of and-phrase?
a. The dog and the foot moved above the kite.
b. The dog moved above the foot and the kite.
Bock and Levelt (1994); Ferreira and Slevc (2007); Levelt (1989); Wheeldon et al. (2013)
5 / 30
I. Advanced planning
I
Grammatical encoding: Lexical names, structure, . . .
I
Lexical content of phrase (a) not necessarily fully encoded.
I
Which cognitive process underlies the phrasal scope effect?
æ Syntactic frames?
æ Semantic representation of and-phrase?
a. The dog and the foot moved above the kite.
b. The dog moved above the foot and the kite.
Bock and Levelt (1994); Ferreira and Slevc (2007); Levelt (1989); Wheeldon et al. (2013)
5 / 30
I. Advanced planning
I
Grammatical encoding: Lexical names, structure, . . .
I
Lexical content of phrase (a) not necessarily fully encoded.
I
Which cognitive process underlies the phrasal scope effect?
æ Syntactic frames?
æ Semantic representation of and-phrase?
a. The dog and the foot moved above the kite.
b. The dog moved above the foot and the kite.
Bock and Levelt (1994); Ferreira and Slevc (2007); Levelt (1989); Wheeldon et al. (2013)
5 / 30
II. Scope flexibility
I
Planning adapts to non-linguistic parameters: e.g., fluency
æ Griffin’s (2003) reversed word length effect:
Advanced preparation to avoid pausing within utterance.
I
Fluency might explain phrasal scope effect in speech.
I
Writing does not require fluency.
æ Isolate minimal linguistic planning scope.
Allum and Wheeldon (2007); Roeser et al.; Torrance and Nottbusch (2012); Wagner et al. (2010)
6 / 30
II. Scope flexibility
I
Planning adapts to non-linguistic parameters: e.g., fluency
æ Griffin’s (2003) reversed word length effect:
Advanced preparation to avoid pausing within utterance.
I
Fluency might explain phrasal scope effect in speech.
I
Writing does not require fluency.
æ Isolate minimal linguistic planning scope.
Allum and Wheeldon (2007); Roeser et al.; Torrance and Nottbusch (2012); Wagner et al. (2010)
6 / 30
II. Scope flexibility
I
Planning adapts to non-linguistic parameters: e.g., fluency
æ Griffin’s (2003) reversed word length effect:
Advanced preparation to avoid pausing within utterance.
I
Fluency might explain phrasal scope effect in speech.
I
Writing does not require fluency.
æ Isolate minimal linguistic planning scope.
a. wig carrot
b. windmill carrot
Allum and Wheeldon (2007); Roeser et al.; Torrance and Nottbusch (2012); Wagner et al. (2010)
6 / 30
II. Scope flexibility
I
Planning adapts to non-linguistic parameters: e.g., fluency
æ Griffin’s (2003) reversed word length effect:
Advanced preparation to avoid pausing within utterance.
I
Fluency might explain phrasal scope effect in speech.
I
Writing does not require fluency.
æ Isolate minimal linguistic planning scope.
a. wig next to carrot
b. windmill next to carrot
Allum and Wheeldon (2007); Roeser et al.; Torrance and Nottbusch (2012); Wagner et al. (2010)
6 / 30
II. Scope flexibility
I
Planning adapts to non-linguistic parameters: e.g., fluency
æ Griffin’s (2003) reversed word length effect:
Advanced preparation to avoid pausing within utterance.
I
Fluency might explain phrasal scope effect in speech.
I
Writing does not require fluency.
æ Isolate minimal linguistic planning scope.
Allum and Wheeldon (2007); Roeser et al.; Torrance and Nottbusch (2012); Wagner et al. (2010)
6 / 30
II. Scope flexibility
I
Planning adapts to non-linguistic parameters: e.g., fluency
æ Griffin’s (2003) reversed word length effect:
Advanced preparation to avoid pausing within utterance.
I
Fluency might explain phrasal scope effect in speech.
I
Writing does not require fluency.
æ Isolate minimal linguistic planning scope.
a. The dog and the foot . . .
b. The dog moved above the foot . . .
Allum and Wheeldon (2007); Roeser et al.; Torrance and Nottbusch (2012); Wagner et al. (2010)
6 / 30
II. Scope flexibility
I
Planning adapts to non-linguistic parameters: e.g., fluency
æ Griffin’s (2003) reversed word length effect:
Advanced preparation to avoid pausing within utterance.
I
Fluency might explain phrasal scope effect in speech.
I
Writing does not require fluency.
æ Isolate minimal linguistic planning scope.
Allum and Wheeldon (2007); Roeser et al.; Torrance and Nottbusch (2012); Wagner et al. (2010)
6 / 30
II. Scope flexibility
I
Planning adapts to non-linguistic parameters: e.g., fluency
æ Griffin’s (2003) reversed word length effect:
Advanced preparation to avoid pausing within utterance.
I
Fluency might explain phrasal scope effect in speech.
I
Writing does not require fluency.
æ Isolate minimal linguistic planning scope.
Allum and Wheeldon (2007); Roeser et al.; Torrance and Nottbusch (2012); Wagner et al. (2010)
6 / 30
III. Non-linear planning
I
Planning employs piecemeal increments.
I
Starting point determined from conceptual plan . . .
via conceptual weights or structural frames.
I
Language is hierarchically organised.
I
Does planning involve non-linear/hierarchical structures?
Allum and Wheeldon (2007); Bock et al. (2004); Gleitman et al. (2007); Kuchinsky et al. (2011)
7 / 30
III. Non-linear planning
I
Planning employs piecemeal increments.
I
Starting point determined from conceptual plan . . .
via conceptual weights or structural frames.
I
Language is hierarchically organised.
I
Does planning involve non-linear/hierarchical structures?
Allum and Wheeldon (2007); Bock et al. (2004); Gleitman et al. (2007); Kuchinsky et al. (2011)
7 / 30
III. Non-linear planning
I
Planning employs piecemeal increments.
I
Starting point determined from conceptual plan . . .
via conceptual weights or structural frames.
I
Language is hierarchically organised.
I
Does planning involve non-linear/hierarchical structures?
Allum and Wheeldon (2007); Bock et al. (2004); Gleitman et al. (2007); Kuchinsky et al. (2011)
7 / 30
III. Non-linear planning
I
Planning employs piecemeal increments.
I
Starting point determined from conceptual plan . . .
via conceptual weights or structural frames.
I
Language is hierarchically organised.
I
Does planning involve non-linear/hierarchical structures?
Allum and Wheeldon (2007); Bock et al. (2004); Gleitman et al. (2007); Kuchinsky et al. (2011)
7 / 30
III. Non-linear planning
I
Planning employs piecemeal increments.
I
Starting point determined from conceptual plan . . .
via conceptual weights or structural frames.
I
Language is hierarchically organised.
I
Does planning involve non-linear/hierarchical structures?
Allum and Wheeldon (2007); Bock et al. (2004); Gleitman et al. (2007); Kuchinsky et al. (2011)
7 / 30
III. Non-linear planning
I
Lee et al. (2013): Is grammatical planning mediated by
non-linear dependencies?
I
Relative clause (RC) attachment sites
(1) Click on the fork of the king [RC that’s below the apple].
8 / 30
III. Non-linear planning
I
Lee et al. (2013): Is grammatical planning mediated by
non-linear dependencies?
I
Relative clause (RC) attachment sites
(1) Click on the fork of the king [RC that’s below the apple].
8 / 30
III. Non-linear planning
NP
NP
the
fork
PP
of
NP
NP
the
king
RC
that’s below the apple
Low attachment
(1) Click on the fork of the king [RC that’s below the apple].
8 / 30
III. Non-linear planning
NP
NP
NP
the
fork
PP
of
NP
NP
NP
the
king
NP
RC
that’s below the apple
Low attachment
the
fork
RC
PP
of
that’s below the apple
NP
the
king
High attachment
(1) Click on the fork of the king [RC that’s below the apple].
8 / 30
Lee et al. (2013)
Low attachment
Click on the fork of the king that’s below the apple
9 / 30
Lee et al. (2013)
Low attachment
Click on the fork of the king that’s below the apple
9 / 30
Lee et al. (2013)
Low attachment
High attachment
Click on the fork of the king that’s below the apple
9 / 30
Lee et al. (2013)
Low attachment
High attachment
Click on the fork of the king that’s below the apple
9 / 30
III. Non-linear planning
I
Lee et al. (2013) found longer latency for high attachment (2)
æ Planning of non-linear dependency in (2)
æ Linear dependency (1) allows to delay some processing
(1) Click on the fork of the king that’s below the apple.
(2) Click on the fork of the king that’s below the apple.
10 / 30
III. Non-linear planning
I
Lee et al. (2013) found longer latency for high attachment (2)
æ Planning of non-linear dependency in (2)
æ Linear dependency (1) allows to delay some processing
(1) Click on the fork of the king that’s below the apple.
(2) Click on the fork of the king that’s below the apple.
10 / 30
III. Non-linear planning
I
Lee et al. (2013) found longer latency for high attachment (2)
æ Planning of non-linear dependency in (2)
æ Linear dependency (1) allows to delay some processing
(1) Click on the fork of the king that’s below the apple.
(2) Click on the fork of the king that’s below the apple.
10 / 30
III. Non-linear planning
“[The] transition from thought to speech [is] not strictly linear and
[. . . ] reflects hierarchical dependencies among the message
elements.” (Lee et al., 2013, p. 557)
I
Lee et al. (2013) confounded syntactic and semantic structure.
I
Linearity must be decided pre-syntactically.
Research question: Does the semantic structure of the message
determine whether advanced syntactic planning requires
non-linearity?
Hypothesis: The linearity of the advanced plan can be changed
without changing its syntactic structure.
10 / 30
III. Non-linear planning
“[The] transition from thought to speech [is] not strictly linear and
[. . . ] reflects hierarchical dependencies among the message
elements.” (Lee et al., 2013, p. 557)
I
Lee et al. (2013) confounded syntactic and semantic structure.
I
Linearity must be decided pre-syntactically.
Research question: Does the semantic structure of the message
determine whether advanced syntactic planning requires
non-linearity?
Hypothesis: The linearity of the advanced plan can be changed
without changing its syntactic structure.
10 / 30
III. Non-linear planning
“[The] transition from thought to speech [is] not strictly linear and
[. . . ] reflects hierarchical dependencies among the message
elements.” (Lee et al., 2013, p. 557)
I
Lee et al. (2013) confounded syntactic and semantic structure.
I
Linearity must be decided pre-syntactically.
Research question: Does the semantic structure of the message
determine whether advanced syntactic planning requires
non-linearity?
Hypothesis: The linearity of the advanced plan can be changed
without changing its syntactic structure.
10 / 30
III. Non-linear planning
“[The] transition from thought to speech [is] not strictly linear and
[. . . ] reflects hierarchical dependencies among the message
elements.” (Lee et al., 2013, p. 557)
I
Lee et al. (2013) confounded syntactic and semantic structure.
I
Linearity must be decided pre-syntactically.
Research question: Does the semantic structure of the message
determine whether advanced syntactic planning requires
non-linearity?
Hypothesis: The linearity of the advanced plan can be changed
without changing its syntactic structure.
10 / 30
III. Non-linear planning
“[The] transition from thought to speech [is] not strictly linear and
[. . . ] reflects hierarchical dependencies among the message
elements.” (Lee et al., 2013, p. 557)
I
Lee et al. (2013) confounded syntactic and semantic structure.
I
Linearity must be decided pre-syntactically.
Research question: Does the semantic structure of the message
determine whether advanced syntactic planning requires
non-linearity?
Hypothesis: The linearity of the advanced plan can be changed
without changing its syntactic structure.
10 / 30
Experiment 1
Method:
I
Written image description task
DVs: Eye movements; onset latency
2◊2 design:
• Scope: narrow, wide
• Modifier: possessive, relative clause
11 / 30
Experiment 1
Method:
I
Written image description task
DVs: Eye movements; onset latency
2◊2 design:
• Scope: narrow, wide
• Modifier: possessive, relative clause
11 / 30
Experiment 1
Method:
I
Written image description task
DVs: Eye movements; onset latency
2◊2 design:
• Scope: narrow, wide
• Modifier: possessive, relative clause
11 / 30
Experiment 1
Method:
I
Written image description task
DVs: Eye movements; onset latency
2◊2 design:
• Scope: narrow, wide
• Modifier: possessive, relative clause
11 / 30
Experiment 1
Method:
I
Written image description task
DVs: Eye movements; onset latency
2◊2 design:
• Scope: narrow, wide
• Modifier: possessive, relative clause
11 / 30
Stimulus screens: Possessives
Narrow scope
Possessive: The skunk’s bread is red.
Scope implications:
a. Narrow scope: æ not the alligators’s bread
b. Wide scope: æ not the skunks’s bridge
12 / 30
Stimulus screens: Possessives
Narrow scope
Possessive: The skunk’s bread is red.
Scope implications:
a. Narrow scope: æ not the alligators’s bread
b. Wide scope: æ not the skunks’s bridge
12 / 30
Stimulus screens: Possessives
Narrow scope
Possessive: The skunk’s bread is red.
Scope implications:
a. Narrow scope: æ not the alligators’s bread
b. Wide scope: æ not the skunks’s bridge
12 / 30
Stimulus screens: Possessives
Narrow scope
Wide scope
Possessive: The skunk’s bread is red.
Scope implications:
a. Narrow scope: æ not the alligators’s bread
b. Wide scope: æ not the skunks’s bridge
12 / 30
Stimulus screens: Possessives
Narrow scope
Wide scope
Possessive: The skunk’s bread is red.
Scope implications:
a. Narrow scope: æ not the alligators’s bread
b. Wide scope: æ not the skunks’s bridge
12 / 30
Stimulus screens: Relative clauses
Narrow scope
RC: The skunk (that is) above the bread is red.
13 / 30
Stimulus screens: Relative clauses
Narrow scope
Wide scope
RC: The skunk (that is) above the bread is red.
13 / 30
Stimulus screens: Relative clauses
Narrow scope
Wide scope
RC: The skunk (that is) above the bread is red.
13 / 30
Stimulus screens: Relative clauses
Narrow scope
Wide scope
RC: The skunk (that is) above the bread is red.
13 / 30
Stimulus screens: Relative clauses
P1
Narrow scope
Wide scope
RC: The skunk (that is) above the bread is red.
13 / 30
Stimulus screens: Relative clauses
P1
P2
Narrow scope
Wide scope
RC: The skunk (that is) above the bread is red.
13 / 30
Stimulus screens: Relative clauses
P1
P2
Narrow scope
Wide scope
Prediction:
If semantic planning determines non-linearity, more attention will
be dedicated to the preparation of the non sentence-initial item in
the wide scope conditions (across modifier type).
13 / 30
Results
Time to production onset
Experiment 1. Errors bars indicate 95% CIs.
14 / 30
Results
Time to production onset
Eye samples before onset
Experiment 1. Errors bars indicate 95% CIs.
14 / 30
Interim discussion
I
Wide scope: more planning of non sentence-initial item
. . . within modifier type!
I
Semantic scope affects linearity in advanced planning.
I
Problem:
Duplicated image might explain scope effect (in eye
movements).
15 / 30
Interim discussion
I
Wide scope: more planning of non sentence-initial item
. . . within modifier type!
I
Semantic scope affects linearity in advanced planning.
I
Problem:
Duplicated image might explain scope effect (in eye
movements).
15 / 30
Interim discussion
I
Wide scope: more planning of non sentence-initial item
. . . within modifier type!
I
Semantic scope affects linearity in advanced planning.
I
Problem:
Duplicated image might explain scope effect (in eye
movements).
15 / 30
Interim discussion
I
Wide scope: more planning of non sentence-initial item
. . . within modifier type!
I
Semantic scope affects linearity in advanced planning.
I
Problem:
Duplicated image might explain scope effect (in eye
movements).
15 / 30
Discussion
Narrow scope
Wide scope
16 / 30
Experiment 2
(mixed) 2◊2 design:
• Scope: narrow, wide
• Modifier: possessive, preposition phrases (PP)
17 / 30
Experiment 2
(mixed) 2◊2 design:
• Scope: narrow, wide
• Modifier: possessive, preposition phrases (PP)
17 / 30
Experiment 2
(mixed) 2◊2 design:
• Scope: narrow, wide
• Modifier: possessive, preposition phrases (PP)
17 / 30
Stimulus screens
Narrow scope (possessives); wide scope (PPs)
18 / 30
Stimulus screens
What
is blue?
Narrow scope (possessives); wide scope (PPs)
18 / 30
Stimulus screens
What
is blue?
Narrow scope (possessives); wide scope (PPs)
PP: The glove of the deer is blue
18 / 30
Stimulus screens
What
is blue?
Narrow scope (possessives); wide scope (PPs)
Possessive: The deer’s glove is blue
18 / 30
Stimulus screens
What
is blue?
Wide scope (possessives); narrow scope (PPs)
18 / 30
Stimulus screens
What
is blue?
Wide scope (possessives); narrow scope (PPs)
PP: The glove of the deer is blue
18 / 30
Stimulus screens
What
is blue?
Wide scope (possessives); narrow scope (PPs)
Possessive: The deer’s glove is blue
18 / 30
Stimulus screens
What
is blue?
Wide scope (possessives); narrow scope (PPs)
18 / 30
Stimulus screens
What
is blue?
Wide scope (possessives); narrow scope (PPs)
18 / 30
Stimulus screens
What
is blue?
P1
Wide scope (possessives); narrow scope (PPs)
18 / 30
Stimulus screens
What
is blue?
P1
P2
Wide scope (possessives); narrow scope (PPs)
18 / 30
Stimulus screens
What
is blue?
P1
P2
Wide scope (possessives); narrow scope (PPs)
Prediction 1: Duplicated image – For conditions with single
glove more eye movements to P2
18 / 30
Stimulus screens
What
is blue?
P1
P2
Wide scope (possessives); narrow scope (PPs)
Prediction 2: Semantic scope – For wide scope more eye
movements to P2 in possessives and to P1 in PPs
18 / 30
Results
Eye samples before onset. Errors bars indicate 95% CIs.
19 / 30
Stimulus screens
Narrow scope (possessives); wide scope (PPs)
Wide scope (possessives); narrow scope (PPs)
20 / 30
Finding
I
More processing dedicated to non sentence-initial items in
wide scope while syntactic structure was held constant
I
. . . for possessives and RCs (Exp. 1) but not in PPs (Exp. 2)
21 / 30
Finding
I
More processing dedicated to non sentence-initial items in
wide scope while syntactic structure was held constant
I
. . . for possessives and RCs (Exp. 1) but not in PPs (Exp. 2)
21 / 30
Conclusion
• Does the semantic structure of the message determine
whether advanced syntactic planning requires non-linearity?
I
Linearity of the advanced plan can be changed without
changing its syntactic structure.
I
Advanced planning involves semantic structuring,
. . . and is not strictly linear.
• Scope effect conditional on conceptual apprehension.
I
Semantic structuring is the product of linguistic intention and
visual attention.
• Writing: isolating psycholinguistic planning processes,
. . . removing potential fluency confounds on speech.
Gleitman et al. (2007); Kuchinsky et al. (2011); Swets et al. (2014)
22 / 30
Conclusion
• Does the semantic structure of the message determine
whether advanced syntactic planning requires non-linearity?
I
Linearity of the advanced plan can be changed without
changing its syntactic structure.
I
Advanced planning involves semantic structuring,
. . . and is not strictly linear.
• Scope effect conditional on conceptual apprehension.
I
Semantic structuring is the product of linguistic intention and
visual attention.
• Writing: isolating psycholinguistic planning processes,
. . . removing potential fluency confounds on speech.
Gleitman et al. (2007); Kuchinsky et al. (2011); Swets et al. (2014)
22 / 30
Conclusion
• Does the semantic structure of the message determine
whether advanced syntactic planning requires non-linearity?
I
Linearity of the advanced plan can be changed without
changing its syntactic structure.
I
Advanced planning involves semantic structuring,
. . . and is not strictly linear.
• Scope effect conditional on conceptual apprehension.
I
Semantic structuring is the product of linguistic intention and
visual attention.
• Writing: isolating psycholinguistic planning processes,
. . . removing potential fluency confounds on speech.
Gleitman et al. (2007); Kuchinsky et al. (2011); Swets et al. (2014)
22 / 30
Conclusion
• Does the semantic structure of the message determine
whether advanced syntactic planning requires non-linearity?
I
Linearity of the advanced plan can be changed without
changing its syntactic structure.
I
Advanced planning involves semantic structuring,
. . . and is not strictly linear.
• Scope effect conditional on conceptual apprehension.
I
Semantic structuring is the product of linguistic intention and
visual attention.
• Writing: isolating psycholinguistic planning processes,
. . . removing potential fluency confounds on speech.
Gleitman et al. (2007); Kuchinsky et al. (2011); Swets et al. (2014)
22 / 30
Conclusion
• Does the semantic structure of the message determine
whether advanced syntactic planning requires non-linearity?
I
Linearity of the advanced plan can be changed without
changing its syntactic structure.
I
Advanced planning involves semantic structuring,
. . . and is not strictly linear.
• Scope effect conditional on conceptual apprehension.
I
Semantic structuring is the product of linguistic intention and
visual attention.
• Writing: isolating psycholinguistic planning processes,
. . . removing potential fluency confounds on speech.
Gleitman et al. (2007); Kuchinsky et al. (2011); Swets et al. (2014)
22 / 30
Conclusion
• Does the semantic structure of the message determine
whether advanced syntactic planning requires non-linearity?
I
Linearity of the advanced plan can be changed without
changing its syntactic structure.
I
Advanced planning involves semantic structuring,
. . . and is not strictly linear.
• Scope effect conditional on conceptual apprehension.
I
Semantic structuring is the product of linguistic intention and
visual attention.
• Writing: isolating psycholinguistic planning processes,
. . . removing potential fluency confounds on speech.
Gleitman et al. (2007); Kuchinsky et al. (2011); Swets et al. (2014)
22 / 30
Conclusion
• Does the semantic structure of the message determine
whether advanced syntactic planning requires non-linearity?
I
Linearity of the advanced plan can be changed without
changing its syntactic structure.
I
Advanced planning involves semantic structuring,
. . . and is not strictly linear.
• Scope effect conditional on conceptual apprehension.
I
Semantic structuring is the product of linguistic intention and
visual attention.
• Writing: isolating psycholinguistic planning processes,
. . . removing potential fluency confounds on speech.
Gleitman et al. (2007); Kuchinsky et al. (2011); Swets et al. (2014)
22 / 30
Conclusion
• Does the semantic structure of the message determine
whether advanced syntactic planning requires non-linearity?
I
Linearity of the advanced plan can be changed without
changing its syntactic structure.
I
Advanced planning involves semantic structuring,
. . . and is not strictly linear.
• Scope effect conditional on conceptual apprehension.
I
Semantic structuring is the product of linguistic intention and
visual attention.
• Writing: isolating psycholinguistic planning processes,
. . . removing potential fluency confounds on speech.
Gleitman et al. (2007); Kuchinsky et al. (2011); Swets et al. (2014)
22 / 30
Thanks for listening!
Comments:
[email protected]
Me:
https://nottinghamtrent.academia.edu/JensRoeser
23 / 30
References I
Allum, P. H. and Wheeldon, L. R. (2007). Planning scope in spoken sentence
production: The role of grammatical units. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(4):791–810.
Bock, J. K., Irwin, D. E., and Davidson, D. J. (2004). Putting first things first. In
The interface of language, vision, and action: Eye movements and the visual world,
pages 249–278. Psychology Press, New York, NY.
Bock, J. K. and Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Language production: Grammatical
encoding. In Gernsbacher, M. A., editor, Handbook of Psycholinguistics, pages
945–984. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Ferreira, V. S. and Slevc, L. R. (2007). Grammatical encoding. In Gaskell, M. G.,
editor, The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics, pages 453–470. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, UK.
Gleitman, L. R., January, D., Nappa, R., and Trueswell, J. C. (2007). On the give and
take between event apprehension and utterance formulation. Journal of Memory
and Language, 57(4):544–569.
Griffin, Z. M. (2003). A reversed word length effect in coordinating the preparation
and articulation of words in speaking. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,
10(3):603–609.
Kuchinsky, S. E., Bock, J. K., and Irwin, D. E. (2011). Reversing the hands of time:
Changing the mapping from seeing to saying. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(3):748–756.
24 / 30
References II
Lee, E.-K., Brown-Schmidt, S., and Watson, D. G. (2013). Ways of looking ahead:
Hierarchical planning in language production. Cognition, 129(3):544–562.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation, volume 1. MIT
press.
Levelt, W. J. M. and Maasen, B. (1981). Lexical search and order of mention in
sentence production. In Kleine, W. and Levelt, W. J. M., editors, Crossing the
boundaries in linguistics, pages 221–252. Reidel, Dordrecht.
Martin, R. C., Crowther, J. E., Knight, M., Tamborello II, F. P., and Yang, C.-L.
(2010). Planning in sentence production: Evidence for the phrase as a default
planning scope. Cognition, 116(2):177–192.
Martin, R. C., Yan, H., and Schnur, T. T. (2014). Working memory and planning
during sentence production. Acta Psychologica, 152:120–132.
Roeser, J., Torrance, M., and Baguley, T. Advanced planning in spoken and written
sentence production. in prep.
Smith, M. and Wheeldon, L. (1999). High level processing scope in spoken sentence
production. Cognition, 73:205–246.
Swets, B., Jacovina, M. E., and Gerrig, R. J. (2014). Individual differences in the
scope of speech planning: Evidence from eye-movements. Language and Cognition,
6(1):12–44.
25 / 30
References III
Torrance, M. and Nottbusch, G. (2012). Written production of single words and
simple sentences. In Berninger, V., editor, Past, Present, and Future Contributions
of Cognitive Writing Research to Cognitive Psychology, pages 403–422. Taylor
Francis, New York.
Wagner, V., Jescheniak, J. D., and Schriefers, H. (2010). On the flexibility of
grammatical advance planning during sentence production: Effects of cognitive
load on multiple lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 36(2):423–440.
Wheeldon, L., Ohlson, N., Ashby, A., and Gator, S. (2013). Lexical availability and
grammatical encoding scope during spoken sentence production. The Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(8):1653–1673.
26 / 30