1 / 37

Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects

Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects. Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006. Objective. Examine some patterns of “normal word substitution errors” Support claims for semantic fields

Antony
Télécharger la présentation

Lexical Retrieval Processes: Semantic Field Effects

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lexical Retrieval Processes:Semantic Field Effects Garrett, 1992a Anna Tinnemore April 26, 2006

  2. Objective • Examine some patterns of “normal word substitution errors” • Support claims for semantic fields • “… to find distributional patterns that provide evidence for the structure of the general cognitive and linguistic processes that underlie language production”

  3. Data • Errors made by normal speakers in the course of regular conversation • Collection of >12,000 speech errors using diary method (much smaller segment used) • Shattuck and Garrett

  4. Multiple Location Error Examples • “a sot hoddering iron” (hot soddering) • “It just sounded to start” (started to sound) • “We completely forgot to add the list to the milk” (milk to the list)

  5. Single Location Error Examples • “It looks as though you are making considerable process.” (progress) • “…Looking at deep freeze structure…” (phrase)

  6. Meaning-based Lexical Errors • “He rode his bike to school tomorrow.” (yesterday) • “What I’ve done here is torn together three . . . uh, torn apart three issues that . . . .”

  7. Notice: • Important distinction between form-mediated errors (phonological-ish) and meaning-mediated errors (concept mix-ups)

  8. Movement Errors • Reveal a distinction between abstract logical and syntactic processes and surface phrasal structure processes in sentence processing • These two levels correspond directly with two major types of lexical processing!

  9. A conceptually driven process • A form-driven process

  10. Lots of types of errors • Use only those errors with no apparent discourse or environmental source • (best candidates for errors in lexical retrieval) • These can be divided into two groups –you guessed it! - form-based and concept-based

  11. Form-Related • “You’ll earn her eternal grapefruit.” (gratitude) • “I gave you my undevoted attention.” (undivided)

  12. Meaning Related • “The picture on the front was the whale from Jaws.” (shark) • “Ask me whether you think it’ll do the job.” (tell)

  13. Semantic Constraints on Errors • Substantial proportion of word-substitution errors involving meaning-related pairs can be grouped into natural categories!

  14. Semantic Fields • The body part field • Subfields: head, torso, and limb

  15. Semantic Fields • Strong constraints within the body-part field (28 in / 4 out) • Exceptions plausibly explained as actually form-based errors • Ex: soldier/shoulder • Subfields too! (22 in / 6 cross)

  16. Interesting Notes: • Top three free-associates 13 yes / 15 no • No parallels between word frequency and word substitution errors

  17. More Interesting Notes: • No lexically mediated substitution pairs (guns/arms, coconut/palm, inch/foot) • From conceptual space to lemmas • Comprehension: multiple activation of lexical interpretations of phonological input (Swinney, and others)

  18. Therefore: • It is reasonable to look for methods/processes that map from conceptual space to lemmas.

  19. Substitution pairs • Animals (dog/cat, cat/dog, lion/tiger, whale/shark, squirrel/turtle) • Colors (pink/green, yellow/red, red/yellow, blue/black) • Temporals (seconds/minutes, minute/second, year/week, day/year)

  20. Do you know the difference?Now, can you say it?

  21. Field integrity is strong, but not all fields are of equal strength • Something more general than lexical relatedness – semantic relatedness? (foot/wheel, speed/temperature, year/yard)

  22. Effects on grammatical classes • Nouns – conceptual oppositions Contradictories (end/beginning, top/bottom) Functional Contrasts (husband/wife, answer/question) (number names, letter names, proper names)

  23. Effects on Grammatical Classes • Adjectives – antonymy vs. synonymy • Antonyms Win!! but not just any antonyms only the base-form polar opposites

  24. Gross, Fisher, and Miller (1989)Semantic Space for Adjectives

  25. Effects on Grammatical Classes • Verbs very similar to adjectives with strong tendency toward “opposites” (30/48) (go/come, start/stop, remember/forget, ask/tell, love/hate, heard/said) -- (looks/sounds, drink/eat)

  26. Topic switch • BLEND ERRORS in word substitution the competition is won by the wrong word, in blending they both win, and a phonetic compromise is reached!

  27. stummy (tummy/ stomach) perple (person/people) slickery (slick/slippery) evoid (evade/avoid) kwierd (queer/weird) editated (edited/annotated) everybun (everyone/everybody) dentars (dentals/velars) smever (smart/clever) corallel (corollary/parallel) Examples

  28. What? SYNONYMY not ANTONYMY

  29. Conclusions • If substitutions are errors in the mapping between concepts and lemmas • If blends are the result of multiple lemma activations for one concept • They are different and the same!

  30. Early stages of mapping from concept to lemma representation

  31. Conclusions: • There are semantic field constraints. There may be some feature of the mechanism we use that makes antonym relations prevalent in word substitution errors across grammatical classes

  32. Further questions • How does the relationship between concept and lemma representations control lexical retrieval? • Are lemmas in semantic fields? • Or are conceptual representations what cause these field effects?

  33. Your questions I can neither confirm nor deny the veracity of any answer I give to any question posed at this time. There may or may not be evidence to contradict any statement I might make. I may claim no knowledge of a subject but do not acknowledge any deficiencies regarding my mental state or education that may seem apparent from these claims. Void where prohibited. Must be 18 or older to play. Offer expires 4/26/2006.

  34. ‘Lyssa, cute and scruffy

  35. WASP - white Anglo-Saxon prostitute “I thought Westerns were where people rode horses instead of cows.” “I was so tired I couldn’t get off my foot.” “Rewrite your thesis to your heart’s dissent.” “I just banged my finger with a hanger.” transpised (transposed/transcribed) stougher (stiffer/tougher) swifting (shifting/switching) dreeze (draft/breeze) grastly (grizzly/ghastly) More examples

  36. “When you apply the underlying string to the P-rule…” “I’m going to mainly point about …” (I’m going to talk about three main points) “When you key in your KIN number, ah PIN number…” “Use e-mail to handle it in” “Just buy a fifty pound dog of bag food” “Say the languages from 1 to 10 in your native language.” “I think Your Honor has really put the finger on it” (your finger) “There’s a branch falling on the tree” (roof) “I have a tongue on my sore” “ “John shaves John” is not ambigual” More fun

More Related