SPOKEN LANGUAGE PRODUCTION: A PSYCHOLINGUISTIC APPROACH

SPOKEN LANGUAGE PRODUCTION: A PSYCHOLINGUISTIC APPROACH

SPOKEN LANGUAGE PRODUCTION: A PSYCHOLINGUISTIC APPROACH

Yessy Marzona

Lecturer of English Education Section
Teacher and Training Education Faculty
Ekasakti University of Padang
Email: yessy.marzona@gmail.com

ISBN: 978-602-70525-4-4
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON GLOBAL EDUCATION V

 PDF

ABSTRACT

Language production is logically divided into three major steps: deciding what to express (conceptualization), determining how to express it (formulation), and expressing it (articulation). Although achieving goals in conversation, structuring narratives, and modulating the ebb and flow of dialogue are inherently important to understanding how people speak, psycholinguistic studies of language production have primarily focused on the formulation of single, isolated utterances. An utterance consists of one or more words, spoken together under a single intentional contour or expressing a single idea. The simplest meaningful utterance consists of a single word. Generating a word begins with specifying its semantic and pragmatic properties-that is, a speaker decides upon an intention or some content to express (e.g., a desired outcome or an observation) and encodes the situational constraints on how the content may be expressed. The next major stage is formulation, which in turn is divided into a word selection stage and a sound processing stage. Sound processing, in contrast, involves constructing the
phonological form of a selected word by retrieving its individual sounds and organizing them into stressed and unstressed syllables and then specifying the motor programs to realize those syllables. The final process is articulation-that is, the execution of motor programs to pronounce the sounds of a word.

 

 

Keywords: Spoken language production, psycholinguistic approach

 

 

 

 

 

References

Ashcraft M H (1993). A personal case history of transient anomie. Brain and Language 44, 47–57.
Badecker W, Miozzo M & Zanuttini R (1995).The two stage model of lexical retrieval:
evidence from a case of anomie with selective preservation of grammatical
gender. Cognition 57, 193–216.
Bock J K (1982). Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing
contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review 89, 1–47.
Bock J K (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology
18, 355–387.
Bock J K (1990). Structure in language: creating form in talk. American Psychologist
45, 1221–1236.
Bock K (1995). Sentence production: from mind to mouth. In Miller J L & Eimas P D
(eds.) Handbook of perception and cognition, 11: Speech, language, and
communication. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. 181–216.
Bock J K (1996). Language production: methods and methodologies. Psychonomic
Bulletin & Review 3, 395–421.
Bock J K (2004). Psycholinguistically speaking: some matters of meaning, marking,
and morphing. In Ross B H (ed.) The psychology of learning and motivation,
vol. 44. San Diego: Elsevier. 109–144.
Bock J K & Cutting J C (1992). Regulating mental energy: performance units in
language production. Journal of Memory and Language 31, 99–127.
Bock J K & Griffin Z M (2000). The persistence of structural priming: transient
activation or implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
129, 177–192.
Bock J K & Kroch A S (1989). The isolability of syntactic processing. In Carlson G N
& Tanenhaus M K (eds.) Linguistic structure in language processing. Dordrecht:
Kluwer. 157–196.
Bock J K & Loebell H (1990). Framing sentences. Cognition 35, 1–39. Bock J K &
Miller C A (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology 23, 45–93.
Bock J K, Irwin D E, Davidson D J & LeveltWJM(2003). Minding the clock. Journal of
Memory and Language 48, 653–685.
Bock J K, Irwin D E & Davidson D J (2004). Putting first things first. In Henderson M J
& Ferreira F (eds.) The integration of language, vision, and action: eye
movements and the visual world. New York: Psychology Press. 249–278.
Boroditsky L (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’
conceptions of time.’ Cognitive Psychology 43, 1–22.

Bowerman M & Levinson S C (eds.) (2001). Language acquisition and conceptual
development. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Boyland J T & Anderson J R (1998). Evidence that syntactic priming is long-lasting. In
Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science
Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 1205.
Brown P M & Dell G S (1987). Adapting production to comprehension: the explicit
mention of instruments. Cognitive Psychology 19, 441–472.
Caramazza A (1997). ‘How many levels of processing are there in lexical access?’
Cognitive Neuropsychology 14, 177–208.
Chomsky N (1986). Knowledge of language: its nature, origin, and use. New York:
Praeger.
Clark H H & Wasow T (1998). Repeating words in spontaneous speech. Cognitive
Psychology 37, 201–242.
Cleland A A&PickeringMJ (2003). The use of lexical and syntactic information in
language production: evidence from the priming of noun-phrase structure.
Journal of Memory and Language 49, 214–230.
Corley M & Scheepers C (2002). Syntactic priming in English sentence production:
categorical and latency evidence from an internet-based study. Psychonomic
Bulletin & Review 9, 126–131.
Dell G S (1995). Speaking and misspeaking. In Gleitman L R & Liberman M (eds.) An
invitation to cognitive
Dell G S, Schwartz M F, Martin N, Saffran E M & Gagnon D A (1997). Lexical access
in aphasic and no aphasic speakers. Psychological Review 104, 801–838.
Fink B R (1986). Complexity. Science 231, 319. Fodor J A (1983). The modularity of
mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Foygel D & Dell G S (2000). Models of impaired lexical access in speech production.
Journal of Memory and Language 43, 182–216.
Fromkin V (1971). The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Language 47,
27–52.
Garrett M F (1975). The analysis of sentence production. In Bower G H (ed.) The
psychology of learning and motivation, vol. 9. New York: Academic Press. 133–
177.
Garrett M F (1988). Processes in language production. In Newmeyer F J (ed.)
Linguistics: the Cambridge survey, III: Language: psychological and biological
aspects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 69–96.
Gordon P (2004). Numerical cognition without words: evidence from Amazonia.
Science 306, 496–499.
Harris R A (1993). The linguistics wars. New York: Oxford University Press.
HortonWS&Gerrig R J (2002). Speakers’ experience and audience design:
knowing when and knowing how to adjust utterances to addressees. Journal of
Memory and Language 47, 589–606.
Huttenlocher J, Vasilyeva M, Cymerman E & Levine S (2002). Language input and
child syntax. Cognitive Psychology 45, 337–374. Indefrey
P&LeveltWJM(2000). ‘The neural correlates of language production.’ In
Gazzaniga M S (ed.) The new cognitive neurosciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press. 845–865.
Kempen G & Hoenkamp E (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence
formulation. Cognitive Science 11, 201–258.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Close Box

A password will be e-mailed to you.

Please enter your username or email address.
You will receive a link to reset the password via email.

Hubungi
Jalan Veteran Dalam No. 26, Padang, Sumatera Barat, Indonesia. +6285375530389
PGlmcmFtZSBzcmM9Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lmdvb2dsZS5jb20vbWFwcy9lbWJlZD9wYj0hMW0xNCExbTghMW0zITFkMTU5NTcuMTMwNjU0OTM5NDY5ITJkMTAwLjM1NjA3NiEzZC0wLjkzODg3OCEzbTIhMWkxMDI0ITJpNzY4ITRmMTMuMSEzbTMhMW0yITFzMHgwJTNBMHg3MWI5OTZhZGM5NzlmNjBmITJzVW5pdmVyc2l0YXMrRWthc2FrdGkhNWUwITNtMiExc2VuITJzITR2MTUwNTExMjU1Mjk3OCIgd2lkdGg9IjQwMCIgaGVpZ2h0PSIzMDAiIGZyYW1lYm9yZGVyPSIwIiBzdHlsZT0iYm9yZGVyOjAiIGFsbG93ZnVsbHNjcmVlbj48L2lmcmFtZT4=
Thank You. We will contact you as soon as possible.
Langue and Parole
* ISSN: 2581-0804
* E-ISSN: 2581-1819
Meliputi Kajian
* Sastra
* Linguistik
* Budaya