LEXICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FACTORS IN THE NAMING OF RELATIONS

被引:26
|
作者
SCHRIEFERS, H
机构
[1] Max-Planck-Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen
关键词
D O I
10.1016/0010-0285(90)90005-O
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Recent models of language production distinguish three main stages, the generation of a preverbal (or conceptual) message level representation, the stage of linguistic formulation processes (which access lexical items and generate the syntactic frames in which these items are inserted), and the stage of articulation. This means that at least two sources of difficulty in producing a lexical item must be distinguished. First, the difficulty can be due to properties of the message representation. So, for example, several concepts may compete for expression. Second, a given lexical item might be more difficult to access than another item because of differences in the complexity of the processes translating from conceptual to lexical representations. The present study presents evidence for these two sources of difficulty in producing lexical items for the domain of semantically unmarked versus marked dimensional adjectives (e.g., big versus small). The first set of experiments establishes an effect of semantic markedness in language production which is due to a difference in the difficulty of accessing unmarked versus marked lexical items. The second set of experiments shows that competition between concepts for expression can lead to incorrect selection of an (unintended) lexical item (as reflected in certain types of speech errors), or to a higher processing load for producing the correct (intended) lexical item. Together, these experiments support the distinction between a preverbal conceptual and a lexical level of representation in language production, and show that both levels contribute to the relative difficulty of producing lexical items. © 1990.
引用
收藏
页码:111 / 142
页数:32
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Lexical relations
    Muñoz Nuñez, MD
    [J]. ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ROMANISCHE PHILOLOGIE, 2001, 117 (03): : 455 - 465
  • [22] Lexical factors in conceptual processes: The relationship between semantic representations and their corresponding phonological and orthographic lexical forms
    Orna Peleg
    Lee Edelist
    Zohar Eviatar
    Dafna Bergerbest
    [J]. Memory & Cognition, 2016, 44 : 519 - 537
  • [23] Lexical factors in conceptual processes: The relationship between semantic representations and their corresponding phonological and orthographic lexical forms
    Peleg, Orna
    Edelist, Lee
    Eviatar, Zohar
    Bergerbest, Dafna
    [J]. MEMORY & COGNITION, 2016, 44 (04) : 519 - 537
  • [24] Lexical relations
    Heinemann, A
    [J]. ROMANISCHE FORSCHUNGEN, 2002, 114 (03) : 387 - 389
  • [25] Conceptual and lexical factors in the production of speech and conversational gestures: Neuropsychological evidence
    Cristilli, C
    Carlomagno, S
    [J]. GESTURE-BASED COMMUNICATION IN HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION, 2003, 2915 : 70 - 76
  • [26] Effects of polysemy in lexical decision and naming: An alternative to lexical access accounts
    Hino, Y
    Lupker, SJ
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-HUMAN PERCEPTION AND PERFORMANCE, 1996, 22 (06) : 1331 - 1356
  • [27] Naming and equivalence relations
    Saunders, KJ
    Spradlin, JE
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR, 1996, 65 (01) : 304 - 308
  • [28] Rapid serial naming:: Relations between different stimuli and neuropsychological factors
    Närhi, V
    Ahonen, T
    Aro, M
    Leppäsaari, T
    Korhonen, TT
    Tolvanen, A
    Lyytinen, H
    [J]. BRAIN AND LANGUAGE, 2005, 92 (01) : 45 - 57
  • [29] The Effect of Lexical Stress on Rapid Object Naming
    Service, Elisabet
    Premananth, Sainica
    [J]. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-REVUE CANADIENNE DE PSYCHOLOGIE EXPERIMENTALE, 2012, 66 (04): : 319 - 319
  • [30] The influence of lexical and conceptual constraints on reading mixed-language sentences: Evidence from eye fixations and naming times
    Altarriba, J
    Kroll, JF
    Sholl, A
    Rayner, K
    [J]. MEMORY & COGNITION, 1996, 24 (04) : 477 - 492