Reading and Writing

, Volume 23, Issue 7, pp 777–801 | Cite as

Grammatical planning, execution, and control in written sentence production

Article

Abstract

In this study participants were asked to describe pictured events in one type-written sentence, containing one of two different syntactic structures (subordinated vs. coordinated subject noun phrases). According to the hypothesis, the larger subordinated structure (one noun phrase including a second, subordinated, one) should be cognitively more costly and will be planned before the start of the production, whereas the coordinated structure, consisting of two syntactically equal noun phrases, can be planned locally in an incremental fashion. The hypothesis was confirmed by the analysis of the word-initial keystroke latencies as well as the eye movements towards the stimulus, indicating a stronger tendency to incremental planning in case of the coordinated structure.

Keywords

Eye tracking Keystroke logging Sentence production Scope of grammatical planning Monitoring 

References

  1. Alamargot, D., Chesnet, D., Dansac, C., & Ros, S. (2006). Eye and pen: A new device for studying reading during writing. Behavior Research Methods Instruments & Computers, 38, 287–299.Google Scholar
  2. Alamargot, D., Dansac, C., Ros, S., & Chuy, M. (2005). Rédiger un texte procédural à partir de sources: Relations entre l’empan de production écrite et l’activité oculaire du scripteur [Revising a prodecural text from sources: Relations between the written production span and the writer’s eye movements]. In D. Alamargot, P. Terrier, & J.-M. Cellier (Eds.), Production, compréhension et usages des écrits techniques au travail [Production, comprehension and usage of technical writing at the workplace] (pp. 51–68). Toulouse, France: Octares Editions.Google Scholar
  3. Andersson, B., Dahl, J., Holmqvist, K., Holsanova, J., Johansson, V., & Karlsson, H. (2006). Combining keystroke logging with eye-tracking. In L. van Waes, M. Leijten, C. M. Neuwirth, et al. (Eds.), Writing and digital media (Studies in writing) (Vol. 17, pp. 166–172). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  4. Barr, D. J. (2008). Analyzing ‘visual world’ eyetracking data using multilevel logistic regression. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 457–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chanquoy, L., Foulin, J.-N., & Fayol, M. (1990). Temporal management of short text writing by children and adults. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 10, 513–540.Google Scholar
  6. Chanquoy, L., Foulin, J.-N., & Fayol, M. (1995). Writing in adults: A real-time approach. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. Van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Theories, models and methodology: Current trends in research on writing (pp. 36–44). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cooper, W. E. (Ed.). (1983). Cognitive aspects of skilled typewriting. New York, Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Coover, J. E. (1923). A method of teaching typewriting based upon a psychological analysis of expert typing. National Education Association, 61, 561–567.Google Scholar
  9. Dvorak, A., Merrick, N. L., Dealey, W. L., & Ford, G. C. (1936). Typewriting behavior. New York: American Book Company.Google Scholar
  10. Fendrick, P. (1937). Hierarchical skills in typewriting. Journal of Educational Psychology, 28, 609–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Foulin, J.-N. (1998). To what extent does pause location predict pause duration in adults’ and children’s writing? Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 17, 601–620.Google Scholar
  12. Gentner, D. R. (1982). Evidence against a central control model of timing in typing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 793–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gentner, D. R. (1983). The acquisition of typewriting skill. Acta Psychologica, 54, 233–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gentner, D. R., Larochelle, S., & Grudin, J. T. (1988). Lexical, sublexical, and peripheral effects in skilled typewriting. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 524–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldman-Eisler, F. (1972). Pauses, clauses, sentences. Language and Speech, 15, 103–113.Google Scholar
  16. Griffin, Z. M. (2001). Gaze durations during speech reflect word selection and phonological encoding. Cognition, 82, B1–B14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Griffin, Z. M., & Bock, K. (2000). What the eyes say about speaking. Psychological Science, 11, 274–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Inhoff, A. W., Briihl, D., Bohemier, G., & Wann, J. P. (1992a). Eye-hand span and coding of text during copytyping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 298–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Inhoff, A. W., & Gordon, A. M. (1998). Eye movements and eye-hand coordination during typing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 6, 153–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Inhoff, A. W., & Jian, W. (1992). Encoding of text, manual movement planning, and eye-hand coordination during copytyping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 437–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Inhoff, A. W., Topolski, R., & Wann, J. P. (1992b). Saccade programming during short duration fixations—an examination of copytyping, letter detection, and reading. Acta Psychologica, 81, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johansson, R., Wengelin, Å., Johansson, V., & Holmqvist, K. (2009). Gazing at the keyboard or the monitor: The relation to text production processes. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal (this issue).Google Scholar
  23. Johnson, R. L., Perea, M., & Rayner, K. (2007). Transposed-letter effects in reading: Evidence from eye movements and parafoveal preview. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 209–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kempen, G., & Huijbers, P. (1983). The lexicalization process in sentence production and naming: Indirect selection of words. Cognition, 14, 185–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Larochelle, S. (1983). A comparison of skilled and novice performance in discontinuous typing. In W. E. Cooper (Ed.), Cognitive aspects of skilled typewriting (pp. 67–94). New York, Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Leijten, M. (2007). Writing and speech recognition: Observing error correction strategies of professional writers. LOT Dissertation Series: Vol. 160: LOT.Google Scholar
  27. Levelt, W. J. M., & Maassen, B. (1981). Lexical search and order of mention in sentence production. In W. Klein, W. J. M. Levelt, & M. Bierwisch (Eds.), Crossing the boundaries in linguistics. Studies presented to Manfred Bierwisch (Synthese language library) (Vol. 13, pp. 221–252). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.Google Scholar
  28. Massaro, D. W., & Lucas, P. A. (1984). Typing letter strings varying in orthographic structure. Acta Psychologica, 57, 109–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Matsuhashi, A. (1981). Pausing and planning: The tempo of written discourse production. Research in the teaching of English, 15, 113–134.Google Scholar
  30. Matsuhashi, A. (1982). Explorations in the real time production of written discourse. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know: The language, process and structure of written discourse (pp. 269–289). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  31. Matsuhashi, A. (1987). Revising the plan and altering the text. In A. Matsuhashi (Ed.), Writing research: Writing in real time. Modelling production processes (pp. 197–223). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  32. Meyer, A. S. (1996). Lexical access in phrase and sentence production: Results from picture—word interference tasks. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 477–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Meyer, A. S., Sleiderink, A. M., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1998). Viewing and naming objects: Eye movements during noun phrase production. Cognition, 66, B25–B33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meyer, A. S., & Van der Meulen, F. F. (2000). Phonological priming effects on speech onset latencies and viewing times in object naming. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 314–319.Google Scholar
  35. Nottbusch, G. (2008). Handschriftliche sprachproduktion—sprachstrukturelle und ontogenetische aspekte. [Analysis of children’s handwriting movements. Orthographic and developmental aspects]. Tübingen, Germany: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nottbusch, G., Grimm, A., Weingarten, R., & Will, U. (2005). Syllabic structures in typing: Evidence from hearing impaired writers. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 18, 497–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nottbusch, G., Weingarten, R., & Sahel, S. (2007). From written word to written sentence production. In M. Torrance, L. van Waes, & D. W. Galbraith (Eds.), Writing and cognition. Research and applications (Studies in writing) (Vol. 20, pp. 31–53). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  38. Ostry, D. J. (1983). Determinants of interkey times in typing. In W. E. Cooper (Ed.), Cognitive aspects of skilled typewriting (pp. 225–246). New York, Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1982). Simulating a skilled typist: A study of skilled cognitive-motor performance. Cognitive Science, 6, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sahel, S., Nottbusch, G., Grimm, A., & Weingarten, R. (2008). The impact of frequency and semantic transparency on the time course of German compound production. Written Language and Literacy, 11, 221–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sahel, S., Nottbusch, G., Weingarten, R., & Blanken, G. (2005). The role of phonology and syllabic structure in the time course of typing: Evidence from aphasia. Linguistische Berichte, 201, 65–87.Google Scholar
  42. Schilperoord, J. (2002). On the cognitive status of pauses in discourse production. In T. Olive & C. M. Levy (Eds.), Contemporary tools and techniques for studying writing (Studies in writing) (Vol. 10, pp. 61–88). Dordrecht, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  43. Schriefers, H., & Teruel, E. (1999). The production of noun phrases: A cross-linguistic comparison of French and German. In M. Hahn & S. C. Stoness (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 637–642). August 19–21, 1999, Vancouver, British Columbia: Simon Fraser University. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  44. Shaffer, L. H. (1973). Latency mechanisms in transcription. In S. Kornblum (Ed.), Attention and performance IV (pp. 435–446). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  45. Shaffer, L. H. (1978). Timing in the motor programming of typing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 333–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shaffer, L. H., & Hardwick, J. (1968). Typing performance as a function of text. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 360–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith, M. C., & Wheeldon, L. R. (1999). High level processing scope in spoken sentence production. Cognition, 73, 205–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sternberg, S., Monsell, S., Knoll, R. L., & Wright, C. E. (1978). Latency and duration of rapid movement sequences: Comparison of speech and typewriting. In G. E. Stelmach (Ed.), Information processing in motor control and learning (pp. 117–152). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  49. Sullivan, K. P. H., & Lindgren, E. (Eds.). (2006). Computer key-stroke logging and writing: Methods and applications (Vol. 19). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  50. Terzuolo, C. A., & Viviani, P. (1980). Determinants and characteristics of motor patterns used for typing. Neuroscience, 5, 1085–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Van Waes, L., Leijten, M., & Quinlan, T. (2009). Reading during sentence composing and error correction: A multilevel analysis of the influences of cognitive load and error type. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal (this issue).Google Scholar
  52. Viviani, P., & Laissard, G. (1996). Motor templates in typing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 417–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Weingarten, R., Nottbusch, G., & Will, U. (2004). Morphemes, syllables, and graphemes in written word production. In T. Pechmann & C. Habel (Eds.), Multidisciplinary approaches to language production (pp. 529–572). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  54. Wengelin, Å., Torrance, M., Holmqvist, K., Simpson, S., Galbraith, D. W., & Johansson, V. (2009). Combined eye-tracking and keystroke-logging methods for studying cognitive processes in text production. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 337–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Will, U., Nottbusch, G., & Weingarten, R. (2006). Linguistic units in word typing: Effects of word presentation modes and typing delay. Written Language and Literacy, 9, 156–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zesiger, P., Orliaguet, J.-P., Boë, L.-J., & Mounoud, P. (1994). The influence of syllabic structure in handwriting and typing production. In C. Faure, P. Keuss, G. Lorette, & A. Vinter (Eds.), Advances in handwriting and drawing. A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 389–401). Paris: Europia.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Linguistics und LiteratureUniversity of BielefeldBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations