Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T08:34:43.026Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Eliminating grammatical function assignment from hierarchical models of speech production: Evidence from the conceptual accessibility of referents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 December 2012

ROGER HAWKINS ,
MONA ALTHOBAITI  and
YI MA
ROGER HAWKINS*
Affiliation:
University of Essex
MONA ALTHOBAITI
Affiliation:
University of Essex
YI MA
Affiliation:
University of Essex
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Roger Hawkins, Department of Language and Linguistics, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester CO4 3SQ, UK. E-mail: roghawk@essex.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The assignment of grammatical functions has been a key feature of hierarchical (serial) models of speech production since their inception in the 1970s. This article argues that grammatical function assignment is neither sufficient nor necessary in such models. It reports a study of the effects of the conceptual accessibility of referents on the selection of English dative syntactic frames in production and shows that the effects relate to linear precedence rather than grammatical function assignment. A secondary topic addressed in the same study is whether second language speakers of English have difficulty integrating syntactic knowledge where it interfaces with conceptual accessibility in speech production. Findings suggest that advanced proficiency speakers do not and are qualitatively similar to native speakers. The implications of this for the interface hypothesis about second language acquisition are discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , July 2014 , pp. 677 - 707
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 355–387.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In Gernsbacher, M. A. (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 945–984). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K., & Loebell, H. (1990). Framing sentences. Cognition, 35, 1–39.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K., & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, J. K., & Warren, R. K. (1985). Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition, 21, 47–67.Google Scholar
Branigan, H. P., & Feleki, E. (1999). Conceptual accessibility and serial order in Greek language production. In Hahn, M. & Stones, S. C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 96–101). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Tanaka, M. (2008). Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua, 118, 172–189.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-functional syntax. Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar
Chang, F., Bock, K., & Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Can thematic roles leave traces of their places? Cognition, 90, 29–49.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. (1994). Choice of passive voice is affected by verb type and animacy. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 715–736.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Engelhardt, P. E. (2006). Syntax and production. In Traxler, M. J. & Gernsbacher, M. A. (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 61–91). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Garrett, M. F. (1975). The analysis of sentence production. In Bower, G. (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 9, pp. 177–220). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldman-Eisler, F., & Cohen, M. (1970). Is N, P, and PN difficulty a valid criterion of transformational operations? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 9, 161–166.Google Scholar
Keenan, E., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63–99.Google Scholar
Kempen, G., & Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11, 201–258.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. L., Bock, K., & Kelly, M. H. (1993). Word and world order: Semantic, phonological, and metrical determinants of serial position. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 188–230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonough, K., & Trofimovich, P. (2009). Using priming methods in second-language research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Oxford Quick Placement Test. (2002). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic persistence in written language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 633–651.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., Branigan, H. P., & McLean, J. F. (2002). Constituent structure is formulated in one stage. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 586–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, M. C., & Lombardi, L. (1990). Regeneration in the short-term recall of sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 633–654.Google Scholar
Prat-Sala, M., & Branigan, H. P. (1999). Discourse constraints on syntactic processing in language production: A cross-linguistic study in English and Spanish. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 168–182.Google Scholar
Ryding, K. (2005). A reference grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2005). Selective optionality in language development. In Cornips, L. & Corrigan, K. (Eds.), Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social (pp. 55–80). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sorace, A., & Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22, 339–368.Google Scholar
Tanaka, M., Branigan, H. P., & Pickering, M. J. (2005). The role of animacy in Japanese sentence production. Paper presented at the CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Tucson.Google Scholar
Vernice, M., Pickering, M. J., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2011). Thematic emphasis in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 631–664.Google Scholar
White, L. (2011). Second-language acquisition at the interfaces. Lingua, 577–590.Google Scholar