Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T05:42:01.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

22 - Working Memory and Speech Planning

from Part IV - First Language Processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2022

By
Benjamin Swets  and
Iva Ivanova
Edited by
John W. Schwieter  and
Zhisheng (Edward) Wen
John W. Schwieter
Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University
Zhisheng (Edward) Wen
Affiliation:
Hong Kong Shue Yan University
Get access

Summary

A distinguishing feature of the cognitive process of speech planning is its flexible balancing of speed, quality, and effort. Utterance planning strategies can vary adaptively depending on speaker goals and circumstances. For example, when speed is a priority, the planning process might sacrifice the quality of an utterance by engaging in more incremental, on-the-fly planning. A focus on utterance quality may require more time. But sometimes, speakers seem to plan utterances well in advance without sacrificing quality or speed. In this chapter, we focus on recent research that explores how working memory can foster the flexibility of speech planning strategies. We review the role that WM might play in individual levels of planning, including message planning, grammatical encoding (including lemma selection and structure building), and phonological encoding, and the extent to which the scope and quality of planning at these different levels could be subject to WM constraints or predicted by WM capacity. We conclude that WM is a (sometimes optionally invoked) part of a complex system of compensatory factors that can determine how speech planning unfolds.

Keywords

Speech planninglanguage productionworking memory
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Working Memory and Language , pp. 482 - 503
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acheson, D. J., Hamidi, M., Binder, J. R., & Postle, B. R. (2011). A common neural substrate for language production and verbal working memory. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(6), 1358–1367. doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21519Google Scholar
Acheson, D. J., & MacDonald, M. C. (2009). Verbal working memory and phonological encoding in speech production: Common approaches to the serial ordering of verbal information. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 50–68.Google Scholar
Allum, P., and Wheeldon, L. (2007). Planning scope in spoken sentence production: The role of grammatical units. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 33, 791–810.Google Scholar
Arnold, J. E., & Nozari, N. (2017). The effects of utterance planning and stimulation of left prefrontal cortex on the production of referential expressions. Cognition, 160, 127–144. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.12.008Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. (2010). Working memory. Current Biology, 20(4), R136–R140.Google Scholar
Bishop, J. (2020). Exploring the similarity between implicit and explicit prosody: Prosodic phrasing and individual differences. Language and Speech, 64(4), 873–899. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830920972732Google Scholar
Bishop, J., & Intlekofer, D. (2020). Lower working memory capacity is associated with shorter prosodic phrases: Implications for speech production planning. In Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Speech Prosody, May 2020, Tokyo, Japan. doi:10.21437Google Scholar
Bock, J. K. (1982). Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review, 89(1), 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, K., & Levelt, W. (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In Gernsbacher, M. A. (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 945–984). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Brown-Schmidt, S., and Konopka, A. E (2008). Little houses and casas pequeñas: Message formulation and syntactic form in unscripted speech with speakers of English and Spanish. Cognition, 109, 274–280.Google Scholar
Brown-Schmidt, S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2006). Watching the eyes when talking about size: An investigation of message formulation and utterance planning. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 592–609.Google Scholar
Christodoulides, G. (2016). Effects of cognitive load on speech production and perception (Doctoral thesis, Universite Catholique de Louvain).Google Scholar
Cole, J. R., & Reitter, D. (2019). The role of working memory in syntactic sentence realization: A modeling and simulation approach. Cognitive Systems Research, 55, 95–106. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogsys.2019.01.001Google Scholar
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.Google Scholar
De Looze, C., Moreau, N., Renié, L., Kelly, F, Ghio, A., Rico, A., Audoin, B., Viallet, F., Pelletier, J., & Petrone, C. (2017). Effects of cognitive impairment on prosodic parameters of speech production planning in multiple sclerosis. Journal of Neuropsychology, 13, 22–45. doi: 10.1111/jnp.12127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Looze, C., Kelly, F., Crosby, L., Vourdanou, A., Coen, R. F., Walsh, C., et al. (2018). Changes in speech chunking in reading aloud is a marker of mild cognitive impairment and mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s disease. Current Alzheimer Research, 15, 828–847. doi: 10.2174/1567205015666180404165017Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Swets, B. (2002). How incremental is language production? Evidence from the production of utterances requiring the computation of arithmetic sums. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 57–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, M., & Holmes, V. M. (1978). Planning units in sentence production. Cognition, 6, 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291–235.Google Scholar
Garrett, M. F. (1980). Levels of processing in sentence production. In Butterworth, B. (Ed.), Language Production, Vol. 1: Speech and talk. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Griffin, Z. M. (2001). Gaze durations during speech reflect word selection and phonological encoding. Cognition, 82, B1–B14.Google Scholar
Griffin, Z. M., & Bock, K. (2000). What the eyes say about speaking. Psychological Science, 11, 274−279.Google Scholar
Hardy, S. M., Segaert, K., & Wheeldon, L. (2020) Healthy aging and sentence production: Disrupted lexical access in the context of intact syntactic planning. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 257.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., & Barkhuysen, P. N. (2006). Language production and working memory: The case of subject-verb agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 181−204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., & Moors, A. (2016). On the automaticity of language processing. In Schmid, H.-J. (Ed.), Entrenchment, memory and automaticity: The psychology of linguistic knowledge and language learning (pp. 201-223). De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ivanova, I., & Ferreirva, V. S. (2019). The role of working memory for syntactic formulation in language production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 45, 1791–1814. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000672Google Scholar
Ishkhanyan, B., Boye, K., and Mogensen, J. (2019). The meeting point: where language production and working memory share resources. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48, 61–79. doi: 10.1007/s10936-018-9589-0Google Scholar
Kawamoto, A. H., Liu, Q., & Kello, C. T. (2015). The segment as the minimal planning unit in speech production and reading aloud: Evidence and implications. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1457 doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.30.5.942Google Scholar
Keating, P. & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (2002). A prosodic view of word form encoding for speech production. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 101, 112–156.Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. T. (2004). Working memory components in written sentence generation. The American Journal of Psychology, 117(3), 341–361. https://doi.org/10.2307/4149005Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. T., Oliver, T., & Piolat, A. (2007). Verbal, visual, and spatial working memory in written language production. Acta Psychologica, 124, 382–397.Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. T., Whiteford, A. P., Turner, C. E., Cahill, M., & Mertens, A. (2013). Working memory in written composition: An evaluation of the 1996 model. Journal of Writing Research, 5(2), 159–190Google Scholar
Kempen, G. & Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formation. Cognitive Science, 11, 201–258.Google Scholar
Klaus, J., Mädebach, A., Oppermann, F., & Jescheniak, J. D. (2017). Planning sentences while doing other things at the same time: Effects of concurrent verbal and visuospatial working memory load. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 811–831.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klaus, J., & Schriefers, H. (2018). An investigation of the role of working memory capacity and naming speed in phonological advance planning in language production. The Mental Lexicon, 13, 159–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kondyles, L. N., & Swets, B. (2020). Effects of tDCS on the scope of sentence planning. Poster presented at the 61st Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Virtual.Google Scholar
Konopka, A. E. (2012). Planning ahead: How recent experience with structures and words changes the scope of linguistic planning. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 143–162.Google Scholar
Krivokapić, J. (2007). Prosodic planning: Effects of phrasal length and complexity on pause duration. Journal of Phonetics, 35, 162–179.Google Scholar
Krivokapić, J. (2012). Prosodic planning in speech production. In Fuchs, S., Weirich, M., Pape, D., &Perrier, P. (Eds.), Speech planning and dynamics (pp. 157–190). Peter Lang,Google Scholar
Lange, V. M., & Laganaro, M. (2014). Inter-subject variability modulates phonological advance planning in the production of adjective-noun phrases. Frontiers in Psychology, 5: 43. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00043Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989), Speaking: From intention to articulation. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M., & Meyer, A. S. (2000). Word for word: Multiple lexical access in speech production. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 12, 433–452.Google Scholar
Lupker, S. J. (1979). The semantic nature of response competition in the picture-word interference task. Memory & Cognition, 7(6), 485–495.Google Scholar
Maher, P. (2011). Tom Waits on Tom Waits: Interviews and encounters. Chicago Review Press.Google Scholar
Martin, R. C., Crowther, J. E., Knight, M. Tamborello, F. P., & Yang, C-L. (2010). Planning in sentence production: Evidence for the phrase as a default planning scope. Cognition, 116, 177–192.Google Scholar
Martin, R. C., & Slevc, L.R. (2014). Language production and working memory. In Ferreria, V., Goldrick, M., & Miozzo, M. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of language production. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, R. C., Yan, H., & Schnur, T. T. (2014). Working memory and planning during sentence production. Acta Psychologica, 152, 120–132.Google Scholar
Meyer, A. S. (1996). Lexical access in phrase and sentence production: Results from picture-word interference experiments. Journal of Memory & Language 35. 477–496. doi:10.1006/jmla.1996.0026Google Scholar
Meyer, A., Roelofs, A., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2003). Word length effects in object naming: The role of a response criterion. Journal of Memory and Language, 48,131–147. doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00509-0Google Scholar
Meyer, A. S., & Schriefers, H. (1991). Phonological facilitation in picture-word interference experiments: Effects of stimulus onset asynchrony and types of interfering stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17(6), 1146–1160.Google Scholar
Meyer, A. S., Sleiderink, A. M., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1998). Viewing and naming objects: Eye movements during noun phrase production. Cognition, 66, B25–B33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oppermann, F., Jescheniak, J.D., & Schriefers, H. (2010). Phonological advance planning in sentence production. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 526–540.Google Scholar
Petrone, C., Fuchs, S., & Krivokapić, J. (2011). Consequences of working memory differences and phrasal length on pause duration and fundamental frequency. Proceedings of the 9th International Seminar on Speech Production, 393-400. Montréal, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Power, M. J. (1985). Sentence production and working memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37(3), 367–385.Google Scholar
Roeser, J., Torrance, M., & Baguley, T. (2019). Advance planning in written and spoken sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(11), 1983.Google Scholar
Rosinski, R. R. (1977). Picture–word interference is semantically based. Child Development, 48, 643–647.Google Scholar
Salthouse, T. A. (1994). The aging of working memory. Neuropsychology, 8, 535.Google Scholar
Schriefers, H., & Teruel, E. 1999. Phonological facilitation in the production of two-word utterances. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 11. 17–50. doi:10.1080/713752301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwering, S. C., & MacDonald, M. C. (2020). Verbal working memory as emergent from language comprehension and production. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 14. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2020.00068Google Scholar
Slevc, L. R. (2011). Saying what’s on your mind: Working memory effects on sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1503–1514.Google Scholar
Smith, M., & Wheeldon, L. (1999). High level processing scope in spoken sentence production. Cognition, 73, 205–246.Google Scholar
Swets, B., Desmet, T., Hambrick, D. Z., & Ferreira, F. (2007). The role of working memory in syntactic ambiguity resolution: A psychometric approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 64–81. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.136.1.64Google Scholar
Swets, B., Jacovina, M. E., & Gerrig, R. J. (2014). Individual differences in the scope of speech planning: evidence from eye-movements. Language and Cognition, 6, 12–44.Google Scholar
Wagner, V., Jescheniak, J. D., & Schriefers, H. (2010). On the flexibility of grammatical advance planning during sentence production: effects of cognitive load on multiple lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 423–440.Google Scholar
Wheeldon, L., & Lahiri, A. (1997), Prosodic units in speech production, Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 356–381.Google Scholar
Wheeldon, L., Ohlson, N., Ashby, A., & Gator, S. (2013). Lexical availability and grammatical encoding scope during spoken sentence production. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 1653-1673.Google Scholar
Wundt, W. (1900). Völkerpsychologie: Eine Untersuchung der Entwicklungsgesetze von Sprache: Mythus und Sitte (Vol. 1). Die Sprache [Language]. Kroner-Engelmann.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×