Literature DB >> 12776753

Specific-word frequency is not all that counts in speech production: comments on Caramazza, Costa, et al. (2001) and new experimental data.

Jörg D Jescheniak1, Antje S Meyer, Willem J M Levelt.   

Abstract

A. Caramazza, A. Costa, M. Miozzo, and Y. Bi (2001) reported a series of experiments demonstrating that the ease of producing a word depends only on the frequency of that specific word but not on the frequency of a homophone twin. A. Caramazza, A. Costa, et al. concluded that homophones have separate word form presentations and that the absence of frequency-inheritance effects for homophones undermines an important argument in support of 2-stage models of lexical access, which assume that syntactic (lemma) representations mediate between conceptual and phonological representations. The authors of this article evaluate the empirical basis of this conclusion, report 2 experiments demonstrating a frequency-inheritance effect, and discuss other recent evidence. It is concluded that homophones share a common word form and that the distinction between lemmas and word forms should be upheld.

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12776753     DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.29.3.432

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn        ISSN: 0278-7393            Impact factor:   3.051


  13 in total

1.  What the tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) says about homophone frequency inheritance.

Authors:  Inés Antón-Méndez; Carson T Schütze; Mary K Champion; Tamar H Gollan
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2012-07

2.  Mrs. Malaprop's Neighborhood: Using Word Errors to Reveal Neighborhood Structure.

Authors:  Matthew Goldrick; Jocelyn R Folk; Brenda Rapp
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2010-02-01       Impact factor: 3.059

3.  Frequency effects in compound production.

Authors:  Heidrun Bien; Willem J M Levelt; R Harald Baayen
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2005-11-21       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  The left posterior superior temporal gyrus participates specifically in accessing lexical phonology.

Authors:  William W Graves; Thomas J Grabowski; Sonya Mehta; Prahlad Gupta
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 3.225

5.  The locus of the frequency effect in picture naming: when recognizing is not enough.

Authors:  Jorge Almeida; Mark Knobel; Matrhew Finkbeiner; Alfonso Caramazza
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2007-12

6.  Activation of distractor names in the picture-picture interference paradigm.

Authors:  Antje S Meyer; Markus F Damian
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2007-04

7.  Density pervades: an analysis of phonological neighbourhood density effects in aphasic speakers with different types of naming impairment.

Authors:  Erica L Middleton; Myrna F Schwartz
Journal:  Cogn Neuropsychol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 2.468

8.  Searching for interference effects in learning new face-name associations.

Authors:  Lori E James; Sarah K Tauber; Ethan A McMahan; Shalyn Oberle; Ashley P Martinez; Kethera A Fogler
Journal:  Memory       Date:  2012-01-31

9.  Friends and foes in the lexicon: homophone naming in aphasia.

Authors:  Erica L Middleton; Qi Chen; Jay Verkuilen
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2014-10-20       Impact factor: 3.051

10.  Where is the effect of frequency in word production? Insights from aphasic picture-naming errors.

Authors:  Audrey K Kittredge; Gary S Dell; Jay Verkuilen; Myrna F Schwartz
Journal:  Cogn Neuropsychol       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 2.468

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.