Spring Seminar on Models of Speech Production

P800 Seminar: Models of Speech Production
Spring 2005 Line # 67865
Fraser 214 Wednesday, 1:30-4:20 pm

Instructor: Prof. Michael Vitevitch

Office: Fraser Hall 406

Phone: 864-9312

e-mail: mvitevit@ku.edu

web page: http://www.people.ku.edu/~mvitevit

Office hours: By appointment. You may also call or e-mail me with brief questions, or ask brief questions before or after class.

Course Description: In this course we will examine historic and contemporary models of speech production, primarily focusing on the process of lexical retrieval. In examining these models we will explore several issues that have captured the attention of the field (e.g., feed-forward vs. feedback approaches, levels or types of representation, etc.), as well as learn about various methods that are employed to examine these issues (e.g., analyses of errors, picture-naming tasks, eye-tracking, neuro-physiological techniques).

Requirements & Grading: Students are expected to come to class having read the material assigned for that meeting and prepared to discuss that material (see the class web site for the schedule of readings and to obtain PDF versions of the material). To assist you in preparing for each class you will have to turn in a (minimum of) 1-page (single spaced) paper related to the reading assignment. Simply summarizing the readings will result in a grade of C for that paper. Grades of A and B are reserved for more critical discussions of the readings. Your grade for this course will be based on: (1) the grades from your 1-page papers, (2) your attendance to class, (3) your participation in class, and (4) the grades from your answers (consisting of 3-5 double-spaced pages each) to 4 essay-type questions assigned during the semester. I will provide several questions from which you may select, but only the best 4 answers will contribute to your final grade. These answers may be handed in at anytime through out the semester, but are ultimately due at the last class (May 11, 2005).

Academic Work: Students are expected to observe all University guidelines (inside and outside of the classroom), especially those pertaining to academic misconduct. I refer you to the University Senate Rules and Regulations (Section 2.6.1) available at http://www.ku.edu/~unigov/usrr.html for specific information regarding academic misconduct.

Accommodations: The staff of Services for Students with Disabilities (SSD), 135 Strong, 785-864-2620 (v/tty), works to insure that every student has an equal opportunity to succeed at KU. If you have a physical, medical, psychological, or other condition related to attention or learning please contact them as soon as possible (if you have not already) to arrange and coordinate any requests. Also, please see me privately in regard to this course.

Changes: Every attempt will be made to follow the policies and procedures outlined here, however, changes may be necessary. Any changes or additions to these policies and procedures will be announced in class and posted on the class web page.

Date Topic & Readings

Jan 26
Introduction

Feb 2 Hx Models of Production

1. Fromkin, V.A. (1971/1973). The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. (reprinted from) Language, 47, 27-52.

2. Meyer, A.S. (1992). Investigation of phonological encoding through speech error analyses: Achievements, limitations, and alternatives. Cognition, 42, 181-211.

Feb 9 Contemporary Models of Production I (Feed-forward)

1. Levelt, Roelofs & Meyer (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1-75.

Feb 16 Contemporary Models of Production II (Feedback)

1. Harley & MacAndrew (1995) Interactive models of lexicalization: Some constraints from speech error, picture naming, and neuropsychological data. In Levy, Bairaktaris, et-al. (Eds), Connectionist models of memory and language. (pp.311-331). London, England: UCL Press Limited.

2. Dell G.S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review,93, 283-321.

Feb 23
Contemporary Models of Production III (Feedforward & Feedback)

1. Rapp, B. & Goldrick, M. (2000). Discreteness and interacivity in spoken word production. Psychological Review, 107, 460-499.

2. Burke, MacKay, Worthley, & Wade (1991). On the tip of the tongue: What causes word finding failures in young and older adults? Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 542-579.

Mar 2 How many levels? Part I

1. Mowrey & MacKay (1990). Phonological primitives: Electromyographic speech error evidence. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88, 1299-1312.
2. Caramazza & Miozzo (1997). The relation between syntactic and phonological knowledge in lexical access: Evidence from the "tip-of-the-tongue" phenomenon. Cognition, 64, 309-343.

Mar 9
How many levels? Part II Evidence from homophones

1. Caramazza, Costa, Miozzo & Bi (2001). The specific-word frequency effect: Implications for the representation of homophones in speech production. JEP:LMC, 27, 1430-1450.

2. Jescheniak, Meyer & Levelt (2003). Specific-word frequency is not all that counts in speech production: Comments on Caramazza, Costa, et al. (2001) and new experimental data. JEP:LMC, 29, 432-438.

3. Caramazza, Bi, Costa, & Miozzo (2003). What Determines the Speed of Lexical Access: Homophone or Specific-Word Frequency? A Reply to Jescheniak et al. (2003). JEP:LMC, 30, 278-282.

4. Ferreira & Griffin (2003). Phonological influences on lexical (mis)selection. Psychological Science, 14, 86-90.
5. Burke, Locantore, Austin & Chae (2004) Cherry Pit Primes Brad Pitt: Homophone Priming Effects on Young and Older Adults' Production of Proper Names. Psychological Science, 15, 164-170.

Mar 16 Detecting Speech Errors

1. Motley, Camden & Baars (1982). Covert formulation and editing of anomalies in speech production: Evidence from experimentally elicited slips of the tongue. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 578-594.

2. MacKay (1992). Awareness and error detection: New theories and research paradigms. Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal, 1, 199-225.

3. Postma (2000). Detection of errors during speech production: A review of speech monitoring models. Cognition, 77, 97-131.

Mar 23 SPRING BREAK **NO CLASS MEETING**

Mar 30 Neuro-linguistic evidence

1. Rodriguez-Fornells, Schmitt, Kutas & Muente (2002). Electrophysiological estimates of the time course of semantic and phonological encoding during listening and naming. Neuropsychologia, 40, 778-787.

2. Schiller, Bles & Jansma (2003). Tracking the time course of phonological encoding in speech production: An event-related brain potential study. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 819-831.
3. Rahman & Sommer (2003) Does phonological encoding in speech production always follow the retrieval of semantic knowledge? Electrophysiological evidence for parallel processing. Cognitive Brain Research, 16, 372-382.

4. Hickok (2001). Functional anatomy of speech perception and speech production: Psycholinguistic implications. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 225-235.

Apr 6
How is speech produced in other populations and what can other populations tell us about normal speech production? Part I
Older adults
1. Burke & Shafto (2004). Aging and Language Production. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 21-24.

2. Kemper, Herman & Lian (2003). The costs of doing two things at once for young and older adults: Talking while walking, finger tapping, and ignoring speech of noise. Psychology and Aging, 18, 181-192.

3. Vitevitch & Sommers (2003) The facilitative influence of phonological similarity and neighborhood frequency in speech production in younger and older adults. Memory and Cognition, 31, 491-504.

Apr 13
How is speech produced in other populations and what can other populations tell us about normal speech production? Part II
Bilingual speakers
1. Costa, Colome & Caramazza (2000). Lexical access in speech production: The bilingual case. Psicologica, 21, 403-437.
2. Lee & Williams (2001). Lexical access in spoken word production by bilinguals: evidence from the semantic competitor priming paradigm. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition, 4, 233-248.
3. Gollan & Acenas (2004). What Is a TOT? Cognate and Translation Effects on Tip-of-the-Tongue States in Spanish-English and Tagalog-English Bilinguals. JEP:LMC, 30, 246-269.

Apr 20
How is speech produced in other populations and what can other populations tell us about normal speech production? Part III
Patients (and models) with Aphasia
1. Garrett (1992). Disorders of lexical selection. Cognition, 42, 143-180.
2. Dell, Schwartz, Martin, Saffran & Gagnon (1997). Lexical access in aphasic and nonaphasic speakers. Psychological Review, 104, 801-838.
3. Gordon (2002). Phonological neighborhood effects in aphasic speech errors: Spontaneous and structured contexts. Brain & Language, 82, 113-145

Apr 27 Does speech production = perception (in reverse)?
Part I: Reviews
1. Cutler (1987). Speaking for listening. In MacKay et-al, (Eds), Language perception and production: Relationships between listening, speaking, reading and writing. (pp.23-40). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press.
2. Roelofs, A. Modeling the relation between the production and recognition of spoken word forms. In A. S. Meyer & N. O. Schiller (Eds.), Phonetics and phonology in language comprehension and production: Differences and similarities (pp. 115-158). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

May 4
Does speech production = perception (in reverse)?
Part II: Possible relationships between perception and production
1. Cangelosi & Parisi (1998). The emergence of a "language" in an evolving population of neural networks. Connection Science, 10, 83-97.
2. Fowler (1986). An event approach to the study of speech perception from a direct-realist perspective. Journal of Phonetics, 14, 3-28.

May 11
Does speech production = perception (in reverse)?
Part III: Other considerations

Perceptual evidence:

1. Kishon-Rabin, Taitelbaum, Tobin & Hildesheimer (1999) The effect of partially restored hearing on speech production of postlingually deafened adults with multichannel cochlear implants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America [JASA], 106, 2843-2857.

2. Van-Summers, Pisoni, Bernacki, Pedlow, et-al. (1988). Effects of noise on speech production: Acoustic and perceptual analyses. JASA, 84, 917-928.
Linguistic experience:
3. Bradlow, Pisoni, Akahane-Yamada & Tohkura (1997). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: IV. Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. JASA, 101, 2299-2310.
Physiological evidence:
4. Watkins and Paus (2004) Modulation of motor excitability during speech perception: The role of broca's area. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 978-987.

Date	Topic & Readings
Jan 26	Introduction
Feb 2	Hx Models of Production 1. Fromkin, V.A. (1971/1973). The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. (reprinted from) Language, 47, 27-52. 2. Meyer, A.S. (1992). Investigation of phonological encoding through speech error analyses: Achievements, limitations, and alternatives. Cognition, 42, 181-211.
Feb 9	Contemporary Models of Production I (Feed-forward) 1. Levelt, Roelofs & Meyer (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1-75.
Feb 16	Contemporary Models of Production II (Feedback) 1. Harley & MacAndrew (1995) Interactive models of lexicalization: Some constraints from speech error, picture naming, and neuropsychological data. In Levy, Bairaktaris, et-al. (Eds), Connectionist models of memory and language. (pp.311-331). London, England: UCL Press Limited. 2. Dell G.S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review,93, 283-321.
Feb 23	Contemporary Models of Production III (Feedforward & Feedback) 1. Rapp, B. & Goldrick, M. (2000). Discreteness and interacivity in spoken word production. Psychological Review, 107, 460-499. 2. Burke, MacKay, Worthley, & Wade (1991). On the tip of the tongue: What causes word finding failures in young and older adults? Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 542-579.
Mar 2	How many levels? Part I 1. Mowrey & MacKay (1990). Phonological primitives: Electromyographic speech error evidence. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88, 1299-1312. 2. Caramazza & Miozzo (1997). The relation between syntactic and phonological knowledge in lexical access: Evidence from the "tip-of-the-tongue" phenomenon. Cognition, 64, 309-343.
Mar 9	How many levels? Part II Evidence from homophones 1. Caramazza, Costa, Miozzo & Bi (2001). The specific-word frequency effect: Implications for the representation of homophones in speech production. JEP:LMC, 27, 1430-1450. 2. Jescheniak, Meyer & Levelt (2003). Specific-word frequency is not all that counts in speech production: Comments on Caramazza, Costa, et al. (2001) and new experimental data. JEP:LMC, 29, 432-438. 3. Caramazza, Bi, Costa, & Miozzo (2003). What Determines the Speed of Lexical Access: Homophone or Specific-Word Frequency? A Reply to Jescheniak et al. (2003). JEP:LMC, 30, 278-282. 4. Ferreira & Griffin (2003). Phonological influences on lexical (mis)selection. Psychological Science, 14, 86-90. 5. Burke, Locantore, Austin & Chae (2004) Cherry Pit Primes Brad Pitt: Homophone Priming Effects on Young and Older Adults' Production of Proper Names. Psychological Science, 15, 164-170.
Mar 16	Detecting Speech Errors 1. Motley, Camden & Baars (1982). Covert formulation and editing of anomalies in speech production: Evidence from experimentally elicited slips of the tongue. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 578-594. 2. MacKay (1992). Awareness and error detection: New theories and research paradigms. Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal, 1, 199-225. 3. Postma (2000). Detection of errors during speech production: A review of speech monitoring models. Cognition, 77, 97-131.
*Mar 23*	SPRING BREAK NO CLASS MEETING
Mar 30	Neuro-linguistic evidence 1. Rodriguez-Fornells, Schmitt, Kutas & Muente (2002). Electrophysiological estimates of the time course of semantic and phonological encoding during listening and naming. Neuropsychologia, 40, 778-787. 2. Schiller, Bles & Jansma (2003). Tracking the time course of phonological encoding in speech production: An event-related brain potential study. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 819-831. 3. Rahman & Sommer (2003) Does phonological encoding in speech production always follow the retrieval of semantic knowledge? Electrophysiological evidence for parallel processing. Cognitive Brain Research, 16, 372-382. 4. Hickok (2001). Functional anatomy of speech perception and speech production: Psycholinguistic implications. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 225-235.
Apr 6	How is speech produced in other populations and what can other populations tell us about normal speech production? Part I Older adults 1. Burke & Shafto (2004). Aging and Language Production. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 21-24. 2. Kemper, Herman & Lian (2003). The costs of doing two things at once for young and older adults: Talking while walking, finger tapping, and ignoring speech of noise. Psychology and Aging, 18, 181-192. 3. Vitevitch & Sommers (2003) The facilitative influence of phonological similarity and neighborhood frequency in speech production in younger and older adults. Memory and Cognition, 31, 491-504.
Apr 13	How is speech produced in other populations and what can other populations tell us about normal speech production? Part II Bilingual speakers 1. Costa, Colome & Caramazza (2000). Lexical access in speech production: The bilingual case. Psicologica, 21, 403-437. 2. Lee & Williams (2001). Lexical access in spoken word production by bilinguals: evidence from the semantic competitor priming paradigm. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition, 4, 233-248. 3. Gollan & Acenas (2004). What Is a TOT? Cognate and Translation Effects on Tip-of-the-Tongue States in Spanish-English and Tagalog-English Bilinguals. JEP:LMC, 30, 246-269.
Apr 20	How is speech produced in other populations and what can other populations tell us about normal speech production? Part III Patients (and models) with Aphasia 1. Garrett (1992). Disorders of lexical selection. Cognition, 42, 143-180. 2. Dell, Schwartz, Martin, Saffran & Gagnon (1997). Lexical access in aphasic and nonaphasic speakers. Psychological Review, 104, 801-838. 3. Gordon (2002). Phonological neighborhood effects in aphasic speech errors: Spontaneous and structured contexts. Brain & Language, 82, 113-145
Apr 27	Does speech production = perception (in reverse)? Part I: Reviews 1. Cutler (1987). Speaking for listening. In MacKay et-al, (Eds), Language perception and production: Relationships between listening, speaking, reading and writing. (pp.23-40). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press. 2. Roelofs, A. Modeling the relation between the production and recognition of spoken word forms. In A. S. Meyer & N. O. Schiller (Eds.), Phonetics and phonology in language comprehension and production: Differences and similarities (pp. 115-158). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
May 4	Does speech production = perception (in reverse)? Part II: Possible relationships between perception and production 1. Cangelosi & Parisi (1998). The emergence of a "language" in an evolving population of neural networks. Connection Science, 10, 83-97. 2. Fowler (1986). An event approach to the study of speech perception from a direct-realist perspective. Journal of Phonetics, 14, 3-28.
May 11	Does speech production = perception (in reverse)? Part III: Other considerations Perceptual evidence: 1. Kishon-Rabin, Taitelbaum, Tobin & Hildesheimer (1999) The effect of partially restored hearing on speech production of postlingually deafened adults with multichannel cochlear implants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America [JASA], 106, 2843-2857. 2. Van-Summers, Pisoni, Bernacki, Pedlow, et-al. (1988). Effects of noise on speech production: Acoustic and perceptual analyses. JASA, 84, 917-928. Linguistic experience: 3. Bradlow, Pisoni, Akahane-Yamada & Tohkura (1997). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: IV. Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. JASA, 101, 2299-2310. Physiological evidence: 4. Watkins and Paus (2004) Modulation of motor excitability during speech perception: The role of broca's area. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 978-987.