scholarly journals Tracking Lexical Access in Speech Production: Electrophysiological Correlates of Word Frequency and Cognate Effects

2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 912-928 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Strijkers ◽  
A. Costa ◽  
G. Thierry
Keyword(s):  
Speech Production ◽  
Word Frequency ◽  
Lexical Access

scholarly journals Determinants of lexical access in speech production: Role of word frequency and age of acquisition

2006 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
pp. 999-1010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando Cuetos ◽  
Bernardo Alvarez ◽  
María González-Nosti ◽  
Alain Méot ◽  
Patrick Bonin
Keyword(s):  
Speech Production ◽  
Word Frequency ◽  
Lexical Access ◽  
Age Of Acquisition

scholarly journals The word frequency effect and lexical access

1982 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 615-627 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan Segui ◽  
Jacques Mehler ◽  
Uli Frauenfelder ◽  
John Morton
Keyword(s):  
Word Frequency ◽  
Lexical Access ◽  
Frequency Effect ◽  
Word Frequency Effect

Is lexical selection in bilingual speech production language-specific? Further evidence from Spanish–English and English–Spanish bilinguals

1999 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 231-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert Costa ◽  
Alfonso Caramazza
Keyword(s):  
Speech Production ◽  
Lexical Access ◽  
Picture Naming ◽  
Facilitatory Effect ◽  
Lexical Selection ◽  
Bilingual Speakers ◽  
L2 Spanish ◽  
Naming Latencies ◽  
Spanish Bilinguals

In this study we address the question of how lexical selection is achieved by bilingual speakers during speech production. Specifically, we test whether there is competition between the two lexicons of a bilingual during lexical access. In two picture–word interference experiments we explore the performance of two groups of bilinguals, English–Spanish and Spanish–English proficient bilinguals while naming pictures either in their L1 (Spanish) or in their L2 (Spanish). Picture naming was facilitated when the name of the picture and the distracter word were the “same”, regardless of the language in which the distracter was printed: same-language (e.g., mesa–mesa [table in Spanish]) or different-language pairs (e.g., mesa–table). The magnitude of this facilitatory effect was similar when naming in L1 (Experiment 1) and in L2 (Experiment 2). We also found that naming latencies were slower when the distracter word was semantically related to the picture's name (e.g., mesa–chair), regardless of the language in which the distracter was printed. The results suggest that there is no competition between the two lexicons of a bilingual during lexical access for production. This interpretation favors a model of lexical access in which lexical selection is language-specific both when speaking in L1 and in L2.

Gesture, Speech, and Lexical Access: The Role of Lexical Movements in Speech Production

1996 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 226-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frances H. Rauscher ◽  
Robert M. Krauss ◽  
Yihsiu Chen
Keyword(s):  
Speech Production ◽  
Lexical Access

scholarly journals A theory of lexical access in speech production

1999 ◽  
Vol 22 (01) ◽  
Author(s):  
Willem J. M. Levelt ◽  
Ardi Roelofs ◽  
Antje S. Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Speech Production ◽  
Lexical Access

Does word frequency affect lexical selection in speech production?

2006 ◽  
Vol 59 (10) ◽  
pp. 1681-1690 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo Navarrete ◽  
Benedetta Basagni ◽  
F.-Xavier Alario ◽  
Albert Costa
Keyword(s):  
Speech Production ◽  
Word Frequency ◽  
Lexical Selection

scholarly journals Aspects of the Syntax of Behavior: Syllable Structure and Speech Rate

1974 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 642-657 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald G. Mackay
Keyword(s):  
Speech Production ◽  
Word Frequency ◽  
Speech Rate ◽  
Syllable Structure ◽  
Speech Errors ◽  
Maximal Rate ◽  
Serial Production ◽  
Poor Predictor ◽  
Syllable Duration ◽  
Rate Of Speech

This paper shows that maximal rate of speech varies as a function of syllable structure. For example, CCV syllables such as [sku] and CVC syllables such as [kus] are produced faster than VCC syllables such as [usk] when subjects repeat these syllables as fast as possible. Spectrographic analyses indicated that this difference in syllable duration was not confined to any one portion of the syllables: the vowel, the consonants and even the interval between syllable repetitions was longer for VCC syllables than for CVC and CCV syllables. These and other findings could not be explained in terms of word frequency, transition frequency of adjacent phonemes, or coarticulation between segments. Moreover, number of phonemes was a poor predictor of maximal rate for a wide variety of syllable structures, since VCC structures such as [ulk] were produced slower than phonemically longer CCCV structures such as [sklu], and V structures such as [a] were produced no faster than phonemically longer CV structures such as [ga]. These findings could not be explained by traditional models of speech production or articulatory difficulty but supported a complexity metric derived from a recently proposed theory of the serial production of syllables. This theory was also shown to be consistent with the special status of CV syllables suggested by Jakobson as well as certain aspects of speech errors, tongue-twisters and word games such as Double Dutch.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document