Content uploaded by Nina Jeanette Hofferberth
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nina Jeanette Hofferberth on Sep 21, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Proceedings of 7th ExLing 2016 Conference, 1-2 July, Saint Petersburg, Russia.
6/11$A1"'&3"0%2'$%.'*"2#"%+$1'(8"-1$,'"))"&+*'0%'
+0,7()7+4"7+(%23"'-"*(13+0(%'
Nina Jeanette Sauer
Goethe-University Frankfurt, Phorms Education Frankfurt
Abstract
The tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) phenomenon refers to a temporary word finding
failure. To induce TOTs in the lab, a common method is to ask for terms after
providing created definitions. When in a TOT, syllable cues were presented in order
to manipulate TOT resolution. After the presentation of the correct first syllable of
the target word, TOTs could be resolved faster and more accurately than after the
presentation of an incorrect syllable of some other word or the control condition
(Experiment 1: syllable cueing effect). The presentation of the extended syllable of
the word (the first syllable with one more segment) facilitated TOT resolution and
boosted lexical retrieval even more than the regular syllable (Experiment 2:
segmental overlap effect).
Key words: tip-of-the-tongue (TOT), resolution, cueing, syllable, segmental overlap
Introduction
The tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon (TOT) represents a temporary
impairment in speech production. When experiencing a TOT, one has access
to semantic (concept) and syntactic information (lemma) but only partial
access to phonological information (lexeme). While the complete word form
FDQQRWEHUHWULHYHGRQHKDVDVWURQJIHHOLQJRINQRZLQJWKHZRUGDQG³UHFDOO
is felt tREHLPPLQHQW´%URZQ0F1HLOO 1966, p. 325). Often, speakers are
able to retrieve the first letter or phoneme, the number of syllables and also
words with similar sound and similar meaning (Brown 2012, p. 196).
In order to induce TOTs in a laboratory setting, definitions were
preVHQWHGRQDFRPSXWHUVFUHHQIRUH[DPSOH³DOLIWFRQVLVWLQJRIDVHULHVRI
linked compartments moving FRQWLQXRXVO\´ for paternoster. In the cueing
paradigm so far, syllable cues were embedded in words or pseudowords, and
presented in word lists in order to manipulate TOT resolution (for an
overview, see Hofferberth-Sauer & Abrams 2014). Abrams, White, and Eitel
(2003) illustrated, for example, that the ent i r e first syllable is required for
TOT resolution ± the first phoneme or first grapheme alone had no effect. In
the present studies, syllable cues were presented in isolation. The advantage
of this procedure is that the syllable itself has no semantic and syntactic
information. The presentation of isolated correct, incorrect, and extended
syllables is new in TOT research.
N.J. Sauer
156
Previous studies
In the pre-tests, definitions had been collected and verified (Hofferberth,
2011). In two pilot studies (Hofferberth 2012), the design of the experiment
was evaluated, and more definitions were collected and validated.
Thereafter, two experiments were performed. The first experiment
(Hofferberth 2014; Hofferberth-Sauer & Abrams 2014) will be presented
here only marginally while the focus is on the second experiment (cf. 3.). All
the data was collected within my Ph.D. project (Sauer 2015).
Experiment 1
In the first experiment, definitions were presented on a computer screen.
When in a TOT, one of three cues was presented. It was shown that after the
presentation of the correct syllable (e.g., pa for pat er noster ), TOTs could be
resolved about twice as fast compared to after an incorrect syllable (e.g., co)
and to the control condition (xxx). The correct syllable also led to
significantly more accurate answers (M = 73.5%, SD = 18.6%) compared to
the control condition (M = 24.3%, SD = 16.4%, t(47) = 16.39, p .001), and
to the incorrect syllable (M = 16.0%, SD = 13.6%, t(47) = 20.06, p .001).
The control condition led to significantly more accurate TOT resolutions
compared to the incorrect syllable (t(47) = 3.71, p = .001). The incorrect
syllable did not block TOT resolution (not leading to more inaccurate
answers), but there was an inhibition effect: There were fewer accurate
answers and more unresolved TOTs. After demonstrating the cueing effect
of the first syllable in Experiment 1, a further experiment was conducted in
order to test if the syllable border plays a role (syl l able preference effect).
Experiment 2
Method
Participants
69 under- and postgraduates (42 female, 27 male) between 21 and 35 years
(M = 27.9 years, SD = 4.3) participated in this study.
Apparatus and material
The material was visually presented on a computer screen using the program
Presentati on. There were 240 definitions of German nouns presented in
order to induce TOTs (the English examples here are only for demonstration
purposes).
Syllable cueing and segmental overlap effects in tip-of-the-tongue
157
Procedure
The subjects were told to press a button on the keyboard as fast as possible
indicating that they know the word (KNOW), that they do not know the
ZRUG'21¶7.12:RUWKDWWKHZRUGLVRQWKHLUWLSRIWKHWRQJXH727
They had 10 seconds to react to the definition. After pressing KNOW, they
typed in the answer, and another definition was presented. After pressing
'21¶7.12:WKH QH[W GHILQLWLRQDSSHDUHGRQ WKH VFUHHQ$IWHUSUHVVLQJ
TOT, a cue was presented visually: either the regular syllable (e.g., pa for
paternoster), the extended syllable (e.g., pat), or the control condition
(marked by xxx). The cue was presented for 25 seconds. In this time, the
subjects had to type in their answer.
Results
TOT rate
The number of TOTs varied between 21 (8.8%) and 194 TOTs (80.8%).
Through 16560 stimuli overall, 5600 TOTs were induced, i.e., the TOT rate
was 33.8% with 81 TOTs per person on average (SD = 14.7%). Out of the
5600 TOTs, 3385 TOTs (60.5%) were resolved in the given time of 25
seconds, with reaction times (RTs) between 571 ms and 24948 ms (M =
4049 ms, SD = 4325 ms). There were 50.3% accurate answers, and 10.2%
inaccurate answers.
Cue analysis
The number of accurate TOT resolutions differed between the three types of
cues (F(2, 136) = 415.65, p < .001). With the extended syllable, TOTs were
accurately resolved significantly more often (M = 72.0%, SD = 18.7%) in
comparison to the regular syllable (M = 60.3%, SD = 19.0%, t(68) = 7.00, p
< .001), and to the control condition (M = 18.7%, SD = 13.0%, t(68) = 26.26,
p < .001). The regular syllable led to significantly more accurately resolved
TOTs (t(68) = 19.80, p < .001).
The RTs were significantly shorter after the presentation of the extended
syllable (M = 2330 ms, SD = 887 ms) in comparison to the regular syllable
(M = 2803 ms, SD = 1166 ms, t(67) = 3.92, p .001), and to the control
condition (M = 3017 ms, SD = 1592 ms, t(62) = 2.89, p = .005). There was
no significant difference between the regular syllable and the control
condition (t(62) = 0.78, p = .436).
Discussion
While Experiment 1 showed the syllable cueing effect, i.e., the correct first
syllable helped to overcome transmission deficits from the lemma to the
lexeme level, Experiment 2 showed the segmental overlap effect, i.e. a
N.J. Sauer
158
speaker needs even more than the first syllable for successful TOT
resolution. It was demonstrated that the extended syllable (e.g., pat for
paternoster) significantly speeded up lexical access (shorter RTs), and
significantly increased TOT resolution (more accurate answers) compared to
after the regular syllable (e.g., pa) and to the control condition (xxx). The key
factor was not the syllable per se but the information content: the bigger the
segmental overlap between cue and target, the faster and better the TOT
resolution. Therefore, it is helpful to get as much information as possible
about the beginning of the target word. The unit of the syllable only plays a
marginal role.
Syllable cueing and segmental overlap effects do not have to exclude
each other but rather can both be explained within speech production models
that allow for an interactive activation spreading and have a syllable level
below the phoneme level. For an interpretation and discussion of these
results within different models of speech production see Sauer and Schade
(2016).
References
Abrams, L., White, K.K., Eitel, S.L. 2003. Isolating phonological components that
increase tip-of-the-tongue resolution. Memory & Cognition, 31, 1153-1162.
Brown, A.S. 2012. The tip of the tongue state. New York, Psychology Press.
Brown, R., McNeill, D. 1966. The "tip of the tongue" phenomenon. Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 5, 325-337.
Hofferberth, N. J. 2011. The tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon: Search strategy and
resolution during word finding difficulties. Proc. 4th ISCA Tutorial and
Research Workshop on Experimental Linguistics, ExLing 2011, 83-86. Paris,
France.
Hofferberth, N. J. 2012. On the role of the syllable in tip-of-the-tongue states. Proc.
International Conference of Experimental Linguistics, ExLing 2012, 57-60.
Athens, Greece.
Hofferberth, N. J. 2014. Resolution of lexical retrieval failures. Reaction time data in
the tip-of-the-tongue paradigm. Proceedings of the International Seminar on
Speech Production. ISSP 05-08 May 2014, 194-197. Cologne, Germany.
Hofferberth-Sauer, N.J., Abrams, L. 2014. Resolving tip-of-the-tongue states with
syllable cues. In Torrens, V. and Escobar, L. (eds.), The processing of lexicon
and morphosyntax, 43-68. Newcastle, Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Sauer, N.J. 2015. Das Tip-of-the-Tongue-3KlQRPHQ Zur Rolle der Silbe beim
$XIO|VHQ YRQ :RUWILQGXQJVVW|UXQJHQ Doctoral dissertation, Frankfurt am
Main, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-8QLYHUVLWlWGRL5*
Sauer, N. J. and Schade, U. 2016. hEHU GLH (QWVWHKXQJ XQG $XIO|VXQJ YRQ
Versprechern und Tip-of-the-Tongue-=XVWlQGHQ0DQXVFULSWLQSUHSDUDWLRQ