"Where was I?": A psycholinguistic investigation of interruptions to language production

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Swets ◽  
Fernanda Ferreira ◽  
Erik M. Altmann
Keyword(s):  
Language Production

Issues in Language Sample Collection and Analysis With Children Using AAC

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 65-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gail Van Tatenhove
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Augmentative And Alternative Communication ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Expressive Language ◽  
Sample Analysis ◽  
Alternative Communication ◽  
Sample Collection ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
Language Sample Analysis ◽  
Language Sample

Language sample analysis is considered one of the best methods of evaluating expressive language production in speaking children. However, the practice of language sample collection and analysis is complicated for speech-language pathologists working with children who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices. This article identifies six issues regarding use of language sample collection and analysis in clinical practice with children who use AAC devices. The purpose of this article is to encourage speech-language pathologists practicing in the area of AAC to utilize language sample collection and analysis as part of ongoing AAC assessment.

Lexical Access Problems Lead to Disfluencies in Speech

2010 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 169-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. Hartsuiker ◽  
Lies Notebaert
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Access ◽  
Picture Naming ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Line Drawings ◽  
Name Agreement ◽  
Access Problems ◽  
Agreement Condition

A picture naming experiment in Dutch tested whether disfluencies in speech can arise from difficulties in lexical access. Speakers described networks consisting of line drawings and paths connecting these drawings, and we manipulated picture name agreement. Consistent with our hypothesis, there were more pauses and more self-corrections in the low name agreement condition than the high name agreement condition, but there was no effect on repetitions. We also considered determiner frequency. There were more self-corrections and more repetitions when the picture name required the less frequent (neuter-gender) determiner “het” than the more frequent (common-gender) determiner “de”. These data suggest that difficulties in distinct stages of language production result in distinct patterns of disfluencies.

Grammatical Competence within L2 Communication: Language Production, Monitor Hypothesis, and Focus on Forms Instruction

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Moh. Rofid Fikroni
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Language ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Communicative Competence ◽  
Focus On Form ◽  
Grammatical Competence ◽  
Foreign Language Learners ◽  
Speaking Skill ◽  
Focus On Forms ◽  
Learning Language

Bearing in mind that the learners’ speaking skill had become the main goal in learning language, grammatical competence is believed to have a big role within foreign language learners’ language production, especially in spoken form. Moreover, the learners’ grammatical competence is also closely related to the Monitor Hypothesis proposed by Krashen (1982) in which it says that the acquired system will function as monitor or editor to the language production. The students’ monitor performance will vary based on how they make use of their acquired system. They may use it optimally (monitor optimal user), overly (monitor over-user), or they may not use it at all (monitor under-user). Therefore, learners’ grammatical competence has its own role, which is very crucial, within learners’ language production, which is not only to produce the language, but also to monitor the language production itself. Because of this reason, focus on form instruction will give a great impact for students’ grammatical competence within their communicative competence. This paper aims to present ideas about the how crucial the role grammatical competence within learners’ L2 communication.

Lelonkiewicz_Gambi_2020_Making_oneself_predictable_in_linguistic_interactions

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaroslaw Roman Lelonkiewicz ◽  
Chiara Gambi
Keyword(s):  
Temporal Variability ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Task Difficulty ◽  
Final Word ◽  
Variable Delays ◽  
Post Test ◽  
Do So

While language production is a highly demanding task, conversational partners are known to coordinate their turns with striking precision. Among the mechanisms that allow them to do so is listeners’ ability to predict what the speaker will say, and thus to prepare their response in advance. But do speakers also play a role in facilitating coordination? We hypothesised that speakers contribute by using coordination smoothers – in particular by making their turns easier to predict. To test this, we asked participants to type definitions for common English words, either on their own (n = 26 individuals) or interacting with a partner (n = 18 pairs), and we measured the timing with which they produced the definitions. In a post-test, additional participants (n = 55) attempted to predict the final word of these definitions and rated them for quality. We found that interacting speakers initiated their turns with less variable delays than solo individuals. In contrast, our post-test measures suggested that jointly produced definitions were in fact of lower predictability and quality than those produced by individuals, but the analysis revealed these findings were likely confounded by task difficulty. We propose that the reduction in temporal variability observed for interacting speakers may facilitate prediction and thus act as a coordination smoother in linguistic interactions. [NOTE: Please cite this paper as: Lelonkiewicz, J. R., & Gambi, C. (2020). Making oneself predictable in linguistic interactions. Acta Psychologica, 209, 103125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103125 ]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document