Docstoc

Structure of Mother Tongue and the significance of multilinguism

Document Sample
Structure of Mother Tongue and the significance of multilinguism Powered By Docstoc
					Compound elicitation in Finnish:
     the case of writing
                 Bertram, R. Toennessen, F., Strömqvist, S.
                          Hyönä, J. and Niemi, P.




  Poster presentation during the 45th annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society,
                18.11-21.11, Minneapolis, USA, 20.11, 12.00-13.30
                    Background
In psycholinguistics, from all four modalities, writing is the least
studied and therefore least understood one. This does not imply that
scholars think of this modality as the least interesting one, but rather as
the modality that is the hardest to study. Indeed, there are very few
tools that allow one to get an insight in the writing process in general
and even less to get an insight in the on-line writing process. Recently,
Strömqvist and Malmsten (1998) developed a tool, coined Scriptlog,
which does exactly that. In other words, Scriptlog allows one to
investigate all kind of important aspects of writing behavior. The
program registers practically everything: the production time from
letters to whole texts, typing errors and their corrections, pauses,
transition times between different linguistic units, etc. Consequently, it
can be used to investigate writing behavior on all linguistic levels: the
word, sentence and text level. Writing behavior can be elicited by
pictures or text or by simple oral instructions.
   The present compound study
In the current study, we investigated the role of morphology in writing
words. In one experiments, including two experimental manipulations,
participants had to write down pictures names by means of a
keyboard. The target pictures were supposedly eliciting compound
words that either varied with respect to first constituent frequency or
whole word frequency.




 lento/kone         tuhka/kuppi       tasku/lamppu       silitys/rauta
 ’airplane’         ’ashtray’         ’flashlight’       ’ironing iron’
 high-frequency     low-frequency     high-frequency     low-frequency
 whole word         whole word        1st constituent    1st constituent
   The present compound study
Frequency is often used as a diagnostic tool in studying complex
words: the frequency of the constituent morphemes or that of the
whole word is manipulated in order to assess whether morphological
substrings and/or whole-word forms are employed in the course of
processing. We assume that if low first-constituent frequency
compounds have longer writing onset times than high-frequency ones,
this would imply that the first constituent is effectively employed in
retrieving the whole compound. Similarly, if low whole-word frequency
compounds elicit longer writing onset times than high-frequency ones,
it would imply that the whole-word form is effectively employed in
retrieving the compound. In visual comprehension, both types of
manipulation might exert an effect (e.g., Bertram & Hyönä, 2003;
Pollatsek et al., 2000; Burani & Caramazza, 1987; Taft, 1979) or,
under some circumstances, only one of them does (e.g., Bertram et
al., 2000; Bradley, 1980; Colé et al., 1989; Vannest & Boland, 1999).
           Frequency as a diagnostic tool
                                 High frequency   Low frequency    High frequency      Low frequency
                                 whole word form whole word form   first constituent   first constituent
Mean 1st-constituent                  36.1            38.6               78.7                5.7
frequencya
Mean 2nd-constituent                  53.1            73.9               39.1                38.9
frequencya
Mean surface frequencya               8.8              0.6               3.8                 4.3
Mean word lengthb                     10.8            11.0               11.5                11.4
Mean 1st constituent lengthb          5.6              5.2               5.6                 6.3
Mean bigram frequencyc                6.3              7.1               6.3                 7.7
Mean initial trigram fequencyc        0.48            0.71               0.65                0.76

Mean final trigram frequencyc         0.83            1.29               0.77                1.05

Mean naming score                     0.98            0.91               0.95                0.91
Mean visual complexity                4.20            4.32               4.06                4.14
ratingd
Mean typicality ratingd               2.88            2.55               2.89                2.66

                                   N = 10           N = 10           N = 10              N = 10
                                 Method
Participants. 18 students of the University of Turku participated in the experiment. All
were native speakers of Finnish, and had normal or corrected-to-normal vision.
Materials. Before the experiment proper, we conducted a paper-and-pencil experiment
to assure that the pictures would elicit the intended compounds. In this pre-experiment
15 native Finnish students participated. They had to write down the name of thirty-one
target pictures and 19 filler pictures. Next to naming, they had to rate the visual
complexity and typicality of the pictures on a scale from 1 to 5. For the experiment
proper, only pictures were included that elicited at least 73.3 of the time the intended
compound (average 94.4%). This yielded twenty-six pictures eliciting longish two-noun
compounds (on average 11 characters). The lexical statistics of these compounds were
based on an unpublished computerized newspaper corpus of 22.7 million word forms,
assessed with the help of the WordMill database program of Laine and Virtanen (1999).
In the experiment proper, two frequency contrasts were built in. The first contrast was
based on the frequency of the whole word form. One condition included 10 items with a
relatively high frequency whole word form (8.8 per million) and another condition
included 10 items with a low frequency whole word form (0.6 per million). The two
conditions were matched on all kind of relevant lexical factors. Since the experiment was
a picture elicitation experiment, we matched the conditions on typicality and visual
complexity as well. The second contrast was based on the frequency of the first
constituent. Hence one condition included 10 compounds with a high frequency first
constituent (78.7 per million) and the other included 10 compounds with a relatively low
frequency first constituent (5.7 per million). Again, the conditions were matched on all
kind of relevant lexical and visual factors. Note that the strength of the frequency
manipulation was approximately equal for both contrasts (for whole word manipulation,
the factor is 8.8/0.6 ≈ 15, for the first constituent manipulation 78.7/5.7 ≈ 14).
    Lexicalization in spoken word production
Mean 1st-constituent frequencya    36.1           38.6
Mean surface frequencya             8.8            0.6
                              HF             LF
           conceptual
           level                                                   ROUTE 2

                                                   lento   tuhka      morpheme
           ROUTE 1                                                    level
                                                   kone    kuppi

    lemma level lentokone                 tuhkakuppi




WRITING ONSET TIME (WOT): HF 1406 ms vs LF 1723 ms, p’s<.01=> ROUTE 1
    Lexicalization in spoken word production
Mean 1st-constituent frequencya   78.7        5.7
Mean surface frequencya            3.8        4.3

                           HF            LF
        conceptual
        level
                                                     ROUTE 2


                                            tasku silitys   morpheme
                                                            level
                                           lamppu rauta
                                   ROUTE 3

    lemma level taskulamppu silitysrauta




  WRITING ONSET TIME (WOT): HF 1588 ms vs LF 1600 ms, n.s.
Lexicalization in spoken word production

                                     In simple words,
    conceptual                       writers retrieve
    level                            the whole word
                                     lemma, before
                                     they start to write
    ROUTE 1                          and there is no
                                     morphological
lemma level lentokone   tuhkakuppi   involvement
Lexicalization in spoken word production

                                                   Question: Is there
    conceptual                                     morphological
    level                                          involvement at a
                                                   later stage?
    ROUTE 1                                        And how can we
                                                   find out?
lemma level lentokone     tuhkakuppi

        morpheme: lento     kone

                                   syllable: len    to   ko   ne

                    lexeme level     /lentokone/      /tuhkakuppi/
 Lexicalization in spoken word production

   Question: Is there morphological involvement at a later stage?
   And how can we find out?


   l e n t o k o n e            INTER-KEYSTROKE INTERVALS (IKI)

   1 2345 6 7 8

Transition time of adjacent letters without sublexical boundary:       224 ms
(1: le; 2: en; 4: to; 6:ko; 8: ne
Transition time of adjacent letters with syllable boundary:            276 ms
(3: nt; 7: on)
Transition time of adjacent letters with syllable/morpheme boundary:   383 ms
(5: ok)
Lexicalization in spoken word production
 In sum, when we start to write out a word, we have the lemma
 readily retrieved, plus the letters of the first syllable, but
 subsequent individual letters are retrieved (or perhaps
 reretrieved at the sublexical boundaries)

              lentokone       len                        RETRIEVAL

                               len                        WRITING

                                     to                  RETRIEVAL
 linguistic planning                      to               WRITING
                                           ko             RETRIEVAL
                                               ko          WRITING
   motor program
                                                ne        RETRIEVAL
                                                    ne     WRITING
                         Conclusions



• Initial retrieving of compound words is based on the whole concept
• Before starting to write, the motor program is instructed to write the
         first syllable
• Subsequent instructions to the motor program for writing graphemes
         are given at sublexical boundaries
• In general, linguistic planning and motor program are much more
         intertwined than when might think

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:5/25/2013
language:Unknown
pages:13