Evidence of Language Production Models through Experiment - Essay Example

Language production experiments By Presented to Evidence of Language Production Models through Experiments The study of psycholinguistics involves understanding three concepts namely; language comprehension, acquisition and production. Many scholars have tackled the first two concepts of language comprehension and language acquisition. However, there is very little information language production. This is not because it is less interesting than the others. Rather, it is quite challenging to do so. This is because the evidence of models involved is usually produced through experiments. In this paper, I shall examine the evidence of three models namely; Fromkin, Levelt, and Garret. As such, I shall use different experiments to exhibit the significance of the models in language production. The focus of the essay will be on the evaluation of the language production models and the impact of the whole process in learning and understanding. The process of language acquisition and production is dependent on the learning and processing environment developed by the students or learners. However, the learning process is dependent on the environment and the classroom settings. The Bock and Levelt Model The model by Levelt and Block analyzes the level of processing by creating a four level of processing. Message level is the first level. Under this level the main idea to be passed across is generated (Wheeldon, 2000, p. 89). Functional level is the second level of the process and involves a two level tier. Lexical selection stage is the first stage of the process and it involves the interpretation of conceptual representation is changed into a lexical representation. The lexical representation is called lemma and refers is the syntactical but not phonological properties of the word. The properties of the words are evaluated used in understanding of the syntactical issues associated with the words. There are intensive arguments and empirical evidence that can be used in distinguishing between the two levels of lexical representation (Guhe, 2007, p. 56). The distinction between lexeme and lemma provide a natural account for the existence of homonyms. Homonyms can be defined as words that are phonologically and orthographically identical but differ in meaning or the grammatical class. Therefore the identification of the two words is not on the level of lexical form because they are identical, but it is on the level of semantic and syntactic properties (Pechmann and Habel, 2004, p. 114). The understanding of the various lexical issues that affect the society in the language production as addressed by Levelt is restricted to the two lexical levels addressed. The empirical evidence regarding language use indicates that the success of the language use is based on the dual stage model of the lexical access (Miller, Klee, and Paul, 1991, p. 29). To distinguish the various levels of the lexeme and lemma, various sorts of data have been identified and cited in order to develop the necessary distinction. The development of the distinction is based on several issues including the experimentally induced speech error and slips of the tongue. The data by Fay and Cutler indicate that the two stage model of lexical access reflects the nature of the language production process. In addition, the word exchanges tend to engage words of the same grammatical class and between phrases. The word changes occur in similar event and are phonologically same and occur in the same phonological environment. In fact, the word exchanges are constrained by grammatical features and not the phonological properties. Sound exchanges do not have same phonological properties (Guhe, 2007, p. 135). The debate has also been argued over the two stages with the focus being on independence and interactive nature. The Levelt model addresses the two stages by developing the necessary understanding of the stage and the relationship between the two stages of the lexical distinction (Pechmann and Habel, 2004, p. 196). The evidence presented by several authors indicates that there is distinction which includes the reaction time data in naming and lexical decision experiments. The analysis of the Levelt model indicates similarity with other models of evaluation. However, the Levelt model does not offer the necessary illustration on the connection between Lemma and lexeme (Wheeldon, 2000, p. 45). Consequently, the most appealing evidence for the distinction of the difference between the levels is the tip-of-tongue phenomenon (Miller, Klee, and Paul, 1991, p. 212). TOT phenomenon is the feeling of knowing a word that is accessible for production momentarily. Therefore, it can be defined as the failure to retrieve a lexeme in the context of collective and successful retrieval of its lemma. From aphasia, there is evidence which shows word production disorders that can be associated with the deficit in lexical-semantic processing (Pechmann and Habel, 2004, p. 112). Despite the massive agreement on the distinction between a lemma and a lexeme level of lexical presentation, the processing dynamics of the lemma representation is unspecified. However, everyone agree that lemmas are modality-independent, semantic and syntactical lexical representations. There are different way by which one can implement the distinction between the phonological and orthographical and semantic, modality-independent lexical representations (Wheeldon, 2000, p. 56). Levelt and Bock adopts the processing structure of lemma found in the paper by Roelofs. The model distinguishes among the three levels of representation namely the conceptual, the lemma and lexeme levels. The conceptual level deals with the representation of the lexical concepts as unitary nodes in the conceptual network. Individual lexical concept node is connected to a lemma node. Consequently, each lemma mode is further connected to the lexeme node. This arrangement specifies the phonological and orthographic form of the word. The properties of the model must be stressed for the purpose of understanding the model (Guhe, 2007, p. 89). Word meaning is presented using the unitary concept node with each node connected to the corresponding lemma mode. Consequently, spreading activation from the concept node activates the corresponding lemma node. The spreading activation in some cases is vital because it spreads from the concept node to connected node in words such as animal, wild and stripes. The selection of lemma node is vital to the selection of the syntactic nodes or features that define the word. In addition, the selection of the lexeme is mediated by the selection of the grammatical features given the centrality of the syntactic information (Pechmann and Habel, 2004, p. 34). Authors such as Dell and Roelofs have proposed an interactive network model similar to the hierarchy of the lexical levels proposed by Bock and Levelt. The model by Levelt and Bock illustrates the various issues affecting the analysis of language. However, it lays a basis for the development of the various lexical levels and syntactical mediation (Pechmann and Habel, 2004, p. 90). The modality-neutral lemma hypothesis shared by Dell’s interactive model and Roelofs discrete stage model predicts the retrieval of syntactic information as vital to the retrieval of lexemes. The model proposed by Levelt and Bock is further supported by other models developed in the study of language production. In fact, the models are intertwined, but they share the same information on the same issues of language. Fromkin model of speech production The model identifies six stages in the language production process which include the identification of meaning, syntactic structure, intonation contour, and insertion of content words. The fifth stage is the formation of affixes and function words with the last stage being specification of phonetic segments. Evidence for the model can be indicated in the errors typically occurring at one level. For instance, level four words stems exchange while level five suffixes stay. Errors typically accommodate themselves in the linguistic environment. Consequently the errors made in one stage may trigger adjustments at a later stage. Stage five results in a stranded morpheme while stage six is for phonological accommodation. Production is harder to study compared it comprehension. The evaluation and study of language production has been limited because of little research being conducted on the subject. In fact, the most common errors visible in production stem from the speech errors which include the Freudian slips. Non-random errors are systematic. Error patterns provide clues about how the system works. Errors indicate some vital issues that could be addressed in the language production process. Sometimes words are said to early which can be referred to as anticipation. Therefore, a speaker must be able to evaluate what he intends to say well ahead of its time. Planning is applicable in language because it allows one to speak fluently. However, planning in language does not require a far enough planning because it may lead to confusion (Pechmann and Habel, 2004, p. 98). The planning in such instances will be determined by the intelligent level of the speaker. If a word is started before a word has been agreed on, pauses or stumbles may occur. The pauses and stumbles will indicate the lack of planning and the failure to address the issues word choice. Sometimes words are said later than intended this can be termed as preservation. In another instance, the word may have missed the position that it should occupy and therefore is used in the same sentence but in some other area leading to a concept of exchange. A sentence such as “work is the curse of the drinking class” is a Freudian slip which changes the meaning of the sentence (Wheeldon, 2000, p. 28). Even the individual phonemes can slip as shown in the sentence; “children sure can wreck your knife light.” However, not all kinds of sounds can cause slip, but the most common kind of slip is first consonant or consonant cluster of two words. Errors on vowels and final consonants are much rare. Additional errors include the addition errors, which lead to the addition of characters in words such as impossible to implossible. The deletion of characters within the word such change of processing to prossing. Stand and exchange can occur such as change of words in the sentence to make a different meaning (Pechmann and Habel, 2004, p. 214). Likewise, substitution of the words may occur in the sentence such as the elimination or change of words from rhapsody to restaurant. Some units are considered more "slippable" than others. A 35% of slip occurs on single phonemes which are usually consonants while 33% occur on whole words (Pechmann and Habel, 2004, p. 215). Minimum slippage occurs on consonant clusters at about five percent while for morphemes it occurs at 17%. There is evidence that sounds are not specified until the end of production. In speech errors, assimilation is true for the outcome and not the target. In producing language, many partially overlapping processes can be identified. However, the role of planning in language production is integral because it determines how far ahead one can plan his work and develop the necessary fluency in word choice (Miller, Klee, and Paul, 1991, p. 173). The Tip of the tongue (TOT) phenomenon is a factor that affects language production and may affect the performance of individual in language production. When a person tries to remember a forgotten name, the state of the consciousness if affected by the peculiar operational approach which may create a gap between the intended word and the word produced (Wheeldon, 2000, p. 74). When wrong names are proposed to the listener, the language connection may be lost leading to serious challenges in the approach and procedure of communication through the development of interruptions. The Garret model of language production involves four levels or stages that is similar to the model by Levelt and Buck. The first level is the message level involving formulation of the message to be conveyed. The functional level involves the retrieving of the “words” to perform functions in message. It is defined as the instrument or action. The positional level involves the building of the sentence frame which specifies where words are places in relation to the word function. The sound level involves the retrieval of sounds of words and turning them in to a plan of articulation. The four stages addressed by Garrett are similar to other models because it covers the vital issues of sound production and treatment. In response to the various experiments undertaken, it is vital to illustrate the different level and errors associated with the levels and identify the various issues that could be addressed in improving the level and nature of language production. In fact, the level of language production and the impact of the various slips can be analyzed. The areas of improvement identified in the process so as to avoid the creation of diverse level of communication. Language production and phonology are essential issues in communication and learning. However, the limited scope of evaluation of the sound and analysis (Miller, Klee, and Paul, 1991, p. 63). Conclusion The experimental analysis of the various language production models indicate several challenges and encourage the development of the various issues including the learning process. The power of language and the impact of the various slips and strands in language can be defined as part of the essential nature of communication. The understanding of the various level of communication is essential because of the diverse nature of the production process. The experimentation of the various models indicates similarity and expounding of the various level or stages of language production. Therefore, the models explain the nature of language production with different level of clarity. Bibliography Guhe, M., 2007., Incremental conceptualization for language production. London: Routledge. Miller, o. F., Klee, T. M., and Paul, R., 1991., Assessing Language Production in Children: Experimental Procedures. New York: Allyn and Bacon, Incorporated. Pechmann, T., and Habel, C. (Eds.)., 2004., Multidisciplinary Approaches to Language Production. chicago: Walter de Gruyte. Wheeldon, L., 2000., Aspects of Language Production. Michigan: Psychology Press. Read More