The timing of verb planning in active and passive sentence production
Shota Momma, Robert Slevc & Colin Phillips
University of Maryland
Introduction: Timing of verb processing in sentence production
Current Study
When do speakers plan a verb in sentence production?
Active vs. Passive sentence production with verb interference
Some models: before saying the first word [1]
N = 72
Sentence Type (Active Vs. Passive, between-subject) x Distractor Type (Related vs. Unrelated, within-subject)
Onset (RT)
Previous evidence:
stalk
u  Schriefers et al. [2]: Verb not planned before subject onset [cf. 3],
u  Momma et al [4]: but planned before object onset.
Duration
The chef is chasing the ballerina.
The ballerina is being chased by the chef.
Onset
Duration
Selective look-ahead to verbs before object noun (in V-final language)
**
*
Active - Unrelated
**
Passive - Related
.
Current Study: Why the contrast - Thematic or grammaticalfunctional?
n.s
Active - Related
Passive - Unrelated
Should we expect to see look-ahead effects in English? Yes - if internal argument
of verb requires verb planning, then look-ahead should occur specifically in
passives. Subject of passive = internal argument.
Active
Passive
u  Verb planning ( ) before the object noun?
SVO
S V (Obl.)
u  Before the internal argument?
SVO
S V (Obl.)
u  Onset delay only found in passive sentences = verb look-ahead only in passive
sentences.
u  Subject elongation found in active sentences (and less clearly in passive sentences)
= verbs selected during subject noun articulation in active sentences.
Picture-word Interference – incrementality and look-ahead
Single-word planning
Picture-word Interference (PWI)
Multi-word planning
Extended PWI [2-5]
pen
u  Where in the utterance do we
find the interference effect?
1.  Delayed utterance onset =
advance planning.
2.  Elongated pre-critical words
= ‘incremental’* planning
(plan it right before
saying it).
*This is just one of many senses of
‘incremental’ used in the field.
Fast
Vincentile
Slow
Mean RT in unrelated condition for each vincentile
Vincentile (20% increment)
1
2
3
4
5
Active
902 1033 1133 1269 1542
Passive
944 1081 1205 1369 1683
u  Slow actives do not show
interference. Fast passives do.
Onset (RT)
**
stalk
u  Interfere with non-initial words
in a phrase/sentence.
- - - Passive
Active
SI effect
Speech Onset Latency (RT)
Semantic
Interferen
ce (SI)
effect
poke
www.PosterPresentations.com
Can difficulty difference explain
the active-passive contrast? –NO.
SI effect by response speed
dog
POSTER TEMPLATE BY:
Discussion
u  Verb-only prod. Exp. (= easier)
showed onset interference.
Theoretically
u  Verb look-ahead occurs selectively before the
articulation of internal arguments – reflecting
closer linguistic relation between verb & internal
argument. Patienthood is more relative to a verb
than is agenthood?
u  Partial lexical guidance of argument encoding?
u  ‘Scope of planning’ is influenced by linguistic
dependency [6] (not just by linear distance/
cognitive load [7]).
Methodologically
u  Duration of pre-critical words is informative in
extended PWI about the time-course of planning.
References & Acknowledgement
[1] Ferreira, F. (2000) In L. Wheeldon (Ed.), Aspects of Language Production, 291-330. [2] Schriefers,
H., Teruel, E., & Meinshausen, M. (1998). Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 4, 609-632. [3]
Hwang, H., & Kaiser, E. (2014). JEP: LMC, 40, 5,1383. [4] Momma, S., Slevc, R., & Phillips, C (2013).
Advance planning of verbs in head-final language production. Poster presented at the 26th CUNY conf.
U. of South Carolina, Columbus, SC. [5] Meyer, A. (1996). Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 4,
477-496. [6] Schriefers, H. (1993). LEP:LMC, 19,4,841. [7] Wagner, V., Jescheniak, J. D., & Schriefers,
H. (2010). JEP: LMC, 36, 2, 423.
We would like to thank the members of the UMD Cognitive Neuroscience of Language Lab for useful
comments and discussion. This work was supported in part by NSF BCS-0848554 to Colin Phillips.