Good-Enough Production: Selecting Easier Words Instead of More Accurate Ones

Abstract

Dominant theories of language production suggest that word choice—lexical selection—is driven by alignment with the intended message: To talk about a young feline, we choose the most aligned word, kitten. Another factor that could shape lexical selection is word accessibility, or how easy it is to produce a given word (e.g., cat is more accessible than kitten). To test whether producers are also influenced by word accessibility, we designed an artificial lexicon containing high- and low-frequency words whose meanings correspond to compass directions. Participants in a communication game (total N = 181 adults) earned points by producing compass directions, which often required an implicit decision between a high- and low-frequency word. A trade-off was observed across four experiments; specifically, high-frequency words were produced even when less aligned with messages. These results suggest that implicit decisions between words are impacted by accessibility. Of all the times that people have produced cat, sometimes they likely meant kitten.

Keywords

language production lexical selection artificial-language game word accessibility word frequency open data open materials

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Amato

M. S.

MacDonald

M. C.

(2010). Sentence processing in an artificial language: Learning and using combinatorial constraints. Cognition, 116(1), 143–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.04.001

Arnold

J. E.

(2008). Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(4), 495–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960801920099

Barry

Seymour

P. H. K.

(1988). Lexical priming and sound-to-spelling contingency effects in nonword spelling. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 40(1), 5–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748808402280

Bates

Mächler

Bolker

B. M.

Walker

S. C.

(2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01

Baus

Strijkers

Costa

(2013). When does word frequency influence written production? Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 963. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00963

Bock

J. K.

(1982). Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review, 89(1), 1–47.

Bybee

(2008). Formal universals as emergent phenomena: The origins of structure preservation. In Good

(Ed.), Linguistic universals and language change (pp. 108–121). Oxford University Press.

Dell

G. S.

(1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93(3), 283–321.

Dell

G. S.

O’Seaghdha

P. G.

(1991). Mediated and convergent lexical priming in language production: A comment on Levelt et al (1991). Psychological Review, 98(4), 604–614. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.4.604

10.

Dell

G. S.

Reich

P. A.

(1981). Stages in sentence production: An analysis of speech error data. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(6), 611–629. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90202-4

11.

Ferreira

V. S.

Griffin

Z. M.

(2003). Phonological influences on lexical (mis)selection. Psychological Science, 14(1), 86–90. https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1467-9280.01424

12.

Gennari

S. P.

Mirković

MacDonald

M. C.

(2012). Animacy and competition in relative clause production: A cross-linguistic investigation. Cognitive Psychology, 65(2), 141–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.03.002

13.

Gershkoff-Stowe

Connell

Smith

(2006). Priming overgeneralizations in two- and four-year-old children. Journal of Child Language, 33(3), 461–486. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000906007562

14.

Goldrick

(2006). Limited interaction in speech production: Chronometric, speech error, and neuropsychological evidence. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(7–8), 817–855. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960600824112

15.

Harley

T. A.

MacAndrew

S. B.

(2001). Constraints upon word substitution speech errors. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30(4), 395–418. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010421724343

16.

Harmon

Kapatsinski

(2017). Putting old tools to novel uses: The role of form accessibility in semantic extension. Cognitive Psychology, 98, 22–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2017.08.002

17.

Hudson Kam

Newport

(2005). Regularizing unpredictable variation: The roles of adult and child learners in language formation and change. Language Learning and Development, 1(2), 151–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2005.9684215

18.

Jaeger

T. F.

Furth

Hilliard

(2012). Incremental phonological encoding during unscripted sentence production. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, Article 481. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00481

19.

Jescheniak

J. D.

Levelt

W. J. M.

(1994). Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(4), 824–843. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.4.824

20.

Kapatsinski

(2010). What is it I am writing? Lexical frequency effects in spelling Russian prefixes: Uncertainty and competition in an apparently regular system. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 6(2), 157–215. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2010.007

21.

Koranda

M. J.

MacDonald

M. C.

(2018, March 15–17). The breadth of phonological interference in word choice [Poster session]. The 31st Annual CUNY Sentence Processing, Davis, CA, United States.

22.

Levelt

Roelofs

Meyer

(1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99001776

23.

MacDonald

M. C.

(2013). How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 226. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00226

24.

Melinger

(2021). Do elevators compete with lifts? Selecting dialect alternatives. Cognition, 206, Article 104471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104471

25.

Morgan

A. M.

von der Malsburg

Ferreira

V. S.

Wittenberg

(2020). Shared syntax between comprehension and production: Multi-paradigm evidence that resumptive pronouns hinder comprehension. Cognition, 205, Article 104417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104417

26.

Naigles

L. G.

Gelman

S. A.

(1995). Overextensions in comprehension and production revisited: Preferential-looking in a study of dog, cat, and cow. Journal of Child Language, 22(1), 19–46. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900009612

27.

Peirce

J. W.

(2007). PsychoPy—psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162(1–2), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017

28.

Piantadosi

S. T.

Tily

Gibson

(2012). The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition, 122(3), 280–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.004

29.

Rapp

D. N.

Samuel

A. G.

(2002). A reason to rhyme: Phonological and semantic influences on lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(3), 564–571. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.28.3.564

30.

R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.1.1) [Computer software]. http://www.R-project.org

31.

Sevald

C. A.

Dell

G. S.

(1994). The sequential cuing effect in speech production. Cognition, 53(2), 91–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90067-1

32.

Stoll

Abbot-Smith

Lieven

(2009). Lexically restricted utterances in Russian, German, and English child-directed speech. Cognitive Science, 33(1), 75–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2008.01004.x

33.

Wolpert

D. M.

Landy

M. S.

(2012). Motor control is decision-making. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 22(6), 996–1003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2012.05.003

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.43 MB