Language research has provided insight into how speakers translate a thought into a sequence of sounds that ultimately becomes words, phrases, and sentences. Despite the complex stages involved in this process, relatively little is known about how we avoid and handle production and comprehension errors that would otherwise impede communication. We review current research on the mechanisms underlying monitoring and control of the language system, especially production, with particular emphasis on whether such monitoring is issued by domain-general or domain-specific procedures.
DellG. S.NozariN.OppenheimG. M. (2014). Lexical access: Behavioral and computational considerations. In FerreiraV.GoldrickM.MiozzoM. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language production (pp. 88–104). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. A comprehensive review of the computational models of word production, with empirical evidence to verify claims of such models, for readers who wish to better understand the nature of the language production system.
2.
FedorenkoE.Thompson-SchillS. L. (2014). Reworking the language network. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(3), 120–126. A review of the debate on domain-generality of the language network from a neural perspective and a potential way to reconcile the earlier controversial findings.
3.
NovickJ. M.TrueswellJ. C.Thompson-SchillS. L. (2005). Cognitive control and parsing: Reexamining the role of Broca’s area in sentence comprehension. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 5, 263–281. A review of psycholinguistic models of language comprehension that develops a theory about how conflict-resolution and cognitive control processes are important for the syntactic processing of sentences.
4.
NozariN.DellG. S.SchwartzM. F. (2011). Is comprehension the basis for error detection? A conflict-based theory of error detection in speech production. Cognitive Psychology, 63(1), 1–33. The original model and empirical data which forms the basis of the conflict-detection monitoring in language production, also containing a thorough review of the earlier monitoring literature.
5.
NozariN.Thompson-SchillS. L. (2015). Left ventrolateral prefrontal cortex in processing of words and sentences. In HickokG.SmallS. L. (Eds.), The neurobiology of language (pp. 569–588). Waltham, MA: Academic Press. An update on Novick et al. (2005), with additional sections covering the role of VLPFC in word and sentence processing in both production and comprehension, of interest to readers who care to learn more about the neural basis of conflict resolution.
6.
AchesonD. J.HagoortP. (2014). Twisting tongues to test for conflict-monitoring in speech production. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 206. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00206
7.
AltmannG. T.KamideY. (2007). The real-time mediation of visual attention by language and world knowledge: Linking anticipatory (and other) eye movements to linguistic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 502–518.
8.
BotvinickM. M.BraverT. S.BarchD. M.CarterC. S.CohenJ. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108, 624–652.
9.
BreiningB.NozariN.RappB. (2016). Does segmental overlap help or hurt? Evidence from blocked cyclic naming in spoken and written production. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 500–506.
10.
CookA. E.MeyerA. S. (2008). Capacity demands of phoneme selection in word production: New evidence from dual-task experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(4), 886–899.
11.
CostaA.AlarioF. X.CaramazzaA. (2005). On the categorical nature of the semantic interference effect in the picture-word interference paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 125–131.
12.
DellG. S.NozariN.OppenheimG. M. (2014). Lexical access: Behavioral and computational considerations. In FerreiraV.GoldrickM.MiozzoM. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language production (pp. 88–104). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
13.
DellG. S.O’SeaghdhaP. G. (1992). Stages of lexical access in language production. Cognition, 42, 287–314.
14.
De SmedtK.KempenG. (1987). Incremental sentence production, self-correction, and coordination. In KempenG. (Ed.), Natural language generation: Recent advances in artificial intelligence, psychology, and linguistics (pp. 365–376). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
15.
de ZubicarayG.McMahonK.HowardD. (2015). Perfusion fMRI evidence for priming of shared feature-to-lexical connections during cumulative semantic interference in spoken word production. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 261–272.
16.
de ZubicarayG. I.WilsonS. J.McMahonK. L.MuthiahS. (2001). The semantic interference effect in the picture-word paradigm: An event-related fMRI study employing overt responses. Human Brain Mapping, 14, 218–227.
17.
DuthooW.NotebaertW. (2012). Conflict adaptation: It is not what you expect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1993–2007.
18.
FedorenkoE.BehrM. K.KanwisherN. (2011). Functional specificity for high-level linguistic processing in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 108, 16428–16433.
19.
FodorJ. A. (1983). The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
FreundM.GordonB.NozariN. (2016). Conflict-based regulation of control in language production. In PapafragouA.GrodnerD.MirmanD.TrueswellJ. C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1625–1630). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
21.
GauvinH. S.De BaeneW.BrassM.HartsuikerR. J. (2016). Conflict monitoring in speech processing: An fMRI study of error detection in speech production and perception. NeuroImage, 126, 96–105.
22.
HanleyJ. R.CortisC.BuddM. J.NozariN. (2016). Did I say dog or cat? A study of semantic error detection and correction in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 142, 36–47.
23.
HarrisonT. L.ShipsteadZ.HicksK. L.HambrickD. Z.RedickT.EngleR. W. (2013). Working memory training may increase working memory capacity but not fluid intelligence. Psychological Science, 24, 2409–2419.
HsuN. S.JaeggiS. M.NovickJ. M. (2017). A common neural hub resolves syntactic and non-syntactic conflict through cooperation with task-specific networks. Brain and Language, 166, 63–77.
26.
HsuN. S.NovickJ. M. (2016). Dynamic engagement of cognitive control modulates recovery from misinterpretation during real-time language processing. Psychological Science, 27, 572–582.
27.
HusseyE.HarbisonJ. I.Teubner-RhodesS. E.MishlerA.VelnoskeyK.NovickJ. M. (2017). Memory and language improvements following cognitive control training. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(1), 23–58.
28.
JanuaryD.TrueswellJ. C.Thompson-SchillS. L. (2009). Co-localization of Stroop and syntactic ambiguity resolution in Broca’s area: Implications for the neural basis of sentence processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 2434–2444.
29.
KanI. P.Teubner-RhodesS.NutileL.DrummeyA. B.KrupaL.NovickJ. M. (2013). To adapt or not to adapt: The question of domain-general cognitive control. Cognition, 129, 637–651.
30.
LeveltW. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31.
LindA.HallL.BreidegardB.BalkeniusC.JohanssonP. (2014). Speakers’ acceptance of real-time speech exchange indicates that we use auditory feedback to specify the meaning of what we say. Psychological Science, 25, 1198–1205.
32.
ManteV.SussilloD.ShenoyK. V.NewsomeW. T. (2013). Context-dependent computation by recurrent dynamics in prefrontal cortex. Nature, 503, 78–84.
33.
MunakataY.HerdS. A.ChathamC. H.DepueB. E.BanichM. T.O’ReillyR. C. (2011). A unified framework for inhibitory control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 453–459.
34.
NovickJ. M.KanI. P.TrueswellJ. C.Thompson-SchillS. L. (2009). A case for conflict across multipledomains: Memory and language impairments following damage to ventrolateral prefrontalcortex. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 26, 527–567.
35.
NovickJ. M.TrueswellJ. C.Thompson-SchillS. L. (2005). Cognitive control and parsing: Re-examining the role of Broca’s area in sentence comprehension. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 5, 263–281.
36.
NozariN.ArnoldJ. E.Thompson-SchillS. L. (2014). The effects of anodal stimulation of the left prefrontal cortex on sentence production. Brain Stimulation, 7, 784–792.
37.
NozariN.DellG. S.SchwartzM. F. (2011). Is comprehension the basis for error detection? A conflict-based theory of error detection in speech production. Cognitive Psychology, 63(1), 1–33.
38.
NozariN.FreundM.BreiningB.RappB.GordonB. (2016). Cognitive control during selection and repair in word production. Language Cognition & Neuroscience, 31, 886–903. doi:10.1080/23273798.2016.1157194
39.
NozariN.Thompson-SchillS. L. (2015). Left ventrolateral prefrontal cortex in processing of words and sentences. In HickokG.SmallS. L. (Eds.), The neurobiology of language (pp. 569–588). Waltham, MA: Academic Press.
40.
OomenC. C.PostmaA.KolkH. H. (2005). Speech monitoring in aphasia: Error detection and repair behaviour in a patient with Broca’s aphasia. In HartsuikerR. J.BastiaanseR.PostmaA.WijnenF. (Eds.), Phonological encoding and monitoring in normal and pathological speech (pp. 209–225). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
41.
PickeringM. J.GarrodS. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 36, 329–347.
42.
RièsS.JanssenN.DufauS.AlarioF. X.BurleB. (2011). General-purpose monitoring during speech production. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 1419–1436.
43.
ShitovaN.RoelofsA.SchriefersH.BastiaansenM.SchoffelenJ. M. (2017). Control adjustments in speaking: Electrophysiology of the Gratton effect in picture naming. Cortex, 92, 289–303.
44.
SimonsD.BootW.CharnessN.GathercoleS.ChabrisC.HambrickD.Stine-MorrowE. (2016). Do “brain-training” programs work?Psychological Science, 17, 103–186.
45.
SpiveyM.TanenhausM.EberhardK.SedivyJ. (2002). Eye movements and spoken language comprehension: Effects of visual context on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Cognitive Psychology, 45, 447–481.
46.
TianX.PoeppelD. (2010). Mental imagery of speech and movement implicates the dynamics of internal forward models. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 166. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00166
47.
UllspergerM.FischerA. G.NigburR.EndrassT. (2014). Neural mechanisms and temporal dynamics of performance monitoring. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 259–267.
