Abstract
Speakers tend to prepare their nouns immediately before saying them, rather than preparing them further in advance. To test the limits of this last-second preparation, speakers were asked to name object pairs without pausing between names. There was not enough time to prepare the second name while articulating the first, so the speakers’ delay in starting to say the first name was based on the amount of time available to prepare the second name during speech. Before speaking, they spent more time preparing a second name (e.g., carrot) when the first name was monosyllabic (e.g., wig) rather than multisyllabic (e.g., windmill ). When additional words intervened between names, the length of the first name became less important and speech began earlier. Preparation differences were reflected in speech latencies, durations, and eye movements. The results suggest that speakers are sensitive to the length of prepared words and the time needed for preparing subsequent words. They can use this information to increase fluency while minimizing word buffering.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., &Gulikers, L. (1995).The CELEX lexical database (Version 2) [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.
Bachoud-Lévi, A.-C., Dupoux, E., Cohen, L., &Mehler, J. 1998). Where is the length effect? A cross-linguistic study of speech production.Journal of Memory & Language,39, 331–346.
Banseel, P., Griffin, Z. M., & Spieler, D. H. (2001).Epd: MatLab wave file parsing software. Available from http://oak.psych.gatech. edu/~spieler/software.html
Bock, K., Huitema, J. S., & Griffin, Z. M. (1995).Repetition priming and the processing components of object naming. Unpublished manuscript.
Butterworth, B. (1989). Lexical access in speech production. In W. D. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.),Lexical representation and process (pp. 108–135). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,12, 335–359.
Ferreira, F. (1991). Effects of length and syntactic complexity on initiation times to prepared utterances.Journal of Memory & Language,30, 210–233.
Fischer, B. (1998). Attention in saccades. In R. D. Wright (Ed.),Visual Attention (pp. 289–305). New York: Oxford University Press.
Garrett, M. F. (1988). Processes in language production. In F. J. Newmeyer (Ed.), Linguistics:The Cambridge survey, Vol. 3. Language: Psychological and biological aspects (pp. 69–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968).Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous Speech. London: Academic Press.
Griffin, Z. M. (2001). Gaze durations during speech reflect word selection and phonological encoding.Cognition,82, B1-B14.
Griffin, Z. M., &Bock, K. (2000). What the eyes say about speaking.Psychological Science,11, 274–279.
Griffin, Z. M., & Huitema, J. S. (1999).Beckman spoken picture naming Norms. Available from http://langprod.cogsci.uiuc.edu/~norms/
Huitema, J. S. (1993).Planning referential expressions in speech production. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Huitema, J. S. (1996). [The Huitema picture collection]. Unpublished raw data.
Kempen, G., &Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation.Cognitive Science,11, 201–258.
Kempen, G., &Huijbers, P. (1983). The lexicalization process in sen tence production and naming: Indirect election of words.Cognition,14, 185–209.
Ketelaars, M. A. C., Garry, M. I., &Frank, I. M. (1997). On-line programming of simple movement sequences.Human Movement Science,16, 461–483.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989).Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lindsley, J. R. (1975). Producing simple utterances: How far ahead do we plan?Cognitive Psychology,7, 1–19.
Martin, R. C., Vu, H., Miller, M., & Freedman, M. (2000, September).Working memory in language production. Paper presented at the conference on Architectures and Mechanisms of Language Processing, Leiden.
Meyer, A. S., Roelofs, A., &Levelt, W. J. M. (2003). Word length effects in picture naming: The role of a response criterion.Journal of Memory & Language,48, 131–147.
Meyer, A. S., Sleiderink, A., &Levelt, W. J. M. (1998). Viewing and naming objects: Eye movements during noun phrase production.Cognition,66, B25-B33.
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.
Pechmann, T. (1989). Incremental speech production and referential overspecification.Linguistics,27, 89–110.
Potter, M. (1975). Meaning in visual search.Science,187, 965–966.
Raaijmakers, J. G. W., Schrijnemakers, J. M. C., &Gremmen, F. (1999). How to deal with “the language-as-fixed-effect fallacy”: Common misconceptions and alternative solutions.Journal of Memory & Language,41, 416–426.
Roach, A., Schwartz, M. F., Martin, N., Grewal, R. S., &Brecher, A. (1996). The Philadelphia Naming Test: Scoring and rationale.Clinical Aphasiology,24, 121–133.
Smith, M., &Wheeldon, L. (1999). High level processing scope in spoken sentence production.Cognition,73, 205–246.
Snodgrass, J. G., &Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,6, 174–215.
Snodgrass, J. G., &Yuditsky, T. (1996). Naming times for the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,28, 516–536.
Wheeldon, L., &Lahiri, A. (1997). Prosodic units in speech production.Journal of Memory & Language,37, 356–381.
Zelinsky, G. J., &Murphy, G. L. (2000). Synchronizing visual and language processing: An effect of object name length on eye movements.Psychological Science,11, 125–131.
Zipf, G. K. (1965).Human behavior and the principle of least effort. New York: Hafner. (Original work published 1949)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by Grant R03 MH61318-01 from the National Institutes of Health.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Griffin, Z.M. A reversed word length effect in coordinating the preparation and articulation of words in speaking. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 10, 603–609 (2003). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196521
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196521