Questions related to Speech Production
A number of models for speech production are introduced in psycholinguistics (Fromkin, 1971; Garrett, 1975; Levelt, 1989; Dell, 1986) which one of these models do you support and why? Do you believe that one day humans will be able to fully and closely examine mental processes?!
- Based on the model presented by Goh and Burns in "Teaching Speaking: A Holistic Approach" (Page 53), it seems that we have two sides of a bridge in terms of second language speaking competence. One of them is knowledge, and the other one is the skill. The "knowledge" phase puts the emphasis on teaching the components related to the knowledge of a language such as grammatical points, vocabulary, idioms, etc. Based on my interpretations of the first four chapters of the book, it seems that teaching the "knowledge" of a language is not going to result in competent second language learners in terms of their speaking competence. In fact, it seems that beginning the process of language teaching from the "knowledge" side is not going to reach to the other side of the bridge that is the skill.
- If we investigate the other side of the bridge, the skill has some key features. A skill is unconscious, automatic, etc. Based on the mentioned model, moving from the bottom of the triangle to the top (from the skill to knowledge) might have better results in the sense of speaking competence. In fact, adding the needed knowledge to the already-gained skill might let the learners have access to the knowledge in a blink of an eye for negotiation of meaning while the needed knowledge without the presence of the needed skill might not be accessible for the negotiation of meaning. Metaphorically speaking, having a glass prior to pouring water in, is more logical than having water with no glass.
- Having the mentioned points in mind, some language teachers limit the teaching a language to its knowledge. Now there are several questions to be asked:
- 1. How can teachers move from skill to knowledge in practice?
- 2. Do material designers consider such theoretical issues in designing coursebooks?
- 3. Is there any relationship between the Interface hypothesis and the mentioned issues?
- Goh, C. C., & Burns, A. (2012). Teaching speaking: A holistic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
i want to work on a child of 3-6 month or above. my main focus is to study speech production of children depending on how fast they assimilate or pick. And the other topic is to make a comparative study of speech production and understanding capacity of children language between 3-9 month. furthermore i intend to see a critical examination of infants assimilation rate of the three major languages in Nigeria.
Hi! So I am currently doing research on perilymph fistulas and have come across multiple case studies where the individuals speech production has been hindered. I am wondering if there is any information as to why that occurs. They also expressed difficulties in cognitive processing, what would be a plausible explanation for that as well? ---Thank you!
I'm currently designing my research on the learning of sentence stress by EFL learners. I've designed four sentences for each stress type, and plan to have my participants read each sentence twice (or three times, as the default design for research on speech production). I'm not sure if the numbers of sentences and repetitions for each stress type is sufficient for evaluating the L2 learners' performance.
Also, I'll ask my participants to do a perception task. Do I need to include the same amount of stimuli as in the production task?
I can have more sentences and ask my participants to repeat more, but that will be too demanding to the participants.
In brief, my question is: What is the ideal number of stimuli for a certain speech feature in order to assess L2 learners' perception and production of this feature?
Thanks a lot.
Recently, in my Psych of Music class, we were discussing the influence that music therapy (MT) has on people with aphasia after suffering a traumatic brain injury. After watching a video on Gabby Giffords, I started to wonder how internal speech is impacted, if at all. I am curious to see if internal speech plays a role in the positive outcomes of MT (in being able to produce internal music) and whether or not it is through the familiarity of MT music that provides cues for speech production. Please refer to my comment below for more information.
I'm doing my dissertation on the subject matter of communication strategies and how to implement them into an ESL classroom and would require the knowledge and guidance of the 'higher spirits'.
I would like to get in touch with the experts of the field (CSs, speech fluency, English language teaching, dysfluency, [second] language acquisition, vocabulary] and share insights with them, if possible.
Dear all..................I need help
I conducted my study qualitatively by using structured interview to test my subjects in speech production and perception in word stress placement. I want to conduct another instrument to obtain quantitative data by using a questionnaire test. my study would be a mixed method , so , my question if I have to use the same experimental words in the second instrument to reflect the research question of my study or different experimental words. In other words, if my study is a mixed method, shall I have to use the same tested words in both collected methods........any comments, suggestions...I appreciate. that..also I wonder if there is any reference about this matter because i could not find answers to to my questions. best regards
I am studying the acoustic correlates of breathy voice. Two of the measures I use are the difference between the amplitude of the first harmonic and the amplitude of a harmonic near the frequency of the first and third formant, respectively. While they make sense for stable monophthongs, they are less suitable for diphthongs and vowels near glides and liquids, where there is a long transition phase. What measures should I use in such cases? (just to be clear, I'm interested in the full segment, not just the stable edges)
Good to have an agreement on ubiquity of 1/f scaling, I also am of the opinion experimental control is essential (see Hasselman, 2013). I would add that direct confrontation of theoretical predictions is crucial as well:
"In order to advance scientific knowledge about scaling phenomena in living systems a program of strong inference that aims to produce closed theories of principles is needed. In order to reach this goal, empirical inquiries need to go beyond describing scaling phenomena in different populations in the context of impaired performance or pathology (e.g., Goldberger et al., 2002; Gilden and Hancock, 2007; West, 2010; Wijnants et al., 2012a). Several recent studies reveal scaling phenomena can be brought under experimental control, which is essential for a program of strong inference (e.g., Kello et al., 2007; Wijnants et al., 2009; Van Orden et al., 2010; Correll, 2011; Holden et al., 2011; Kuznetsov et al., 2011; Stephen et al., 2012). The diverging theoretical predictions examined in most studies reveal that the observed waveforms are more likely to originate from interaction-dominant complexity than from component-dominant mechanics (also see Turvey, 2007; Kello et al., 2010; Diniz et al., 2011)."
At least these articles revealing experimental control over scaling exponents should have been discussed:
- Wijnants et al., 2009 (Practice motor learning http://fredhasselman.com/main/wp-content/papercite-data/pdf/wijnants2009.pdf)
- Wijnants et al., 2012 (Speed-Accuracy TradeOff http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2012.00116 )
- Correll, 2008; 2011 (Correll, 2008 was replicated, manipulation failed, but all subjects showed 1/f noise)
- Kuznetsov et al., 2011; (instruction manipulation)
Then, there are many more studies that make risky predictions or directly confront two or more competing predictions (in fact, all predictions in 1/f studies are more risky than mainstream, because they concern interval predictions and not merely > 0). In any case, they do much more than 'just' show another case of 1/f noise in some population.
- Van Orden (2005) Tested presence of a low-frequency plateau predicted by AR models by recording a timeseries of several hours.
- Den Hartig et al. (Rowing proficiency https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274318392_Pink_Noise_in_Rowing_Ergometer_Performance_and_the_Role_of_Skill_Level )
- Wijnants et al. 2012 (correlations between scaling and reading in dyslexic readers, but not in average readers http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11881-012-0067-3 )
- Lowie et al. 2014 (multilingual speech production: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10407413.2014.929479 )
All the best,
I am looking for a collaborator with expertise in running psycholinguistic experiments in speech production to undertake a research on competing inflectional morphology, specifically when two or three inflectional forms consistent with the sentence context compete to being selected in speech production. I hold a PhD in General Linguistics and work as an assistant professor in Iran, Persian Gulf University, English Language and Literature Department to teach linguistic courses. I have so far focused in my studies on lexical semantics, and at this phase of my studies, I am interested in exploring lexical semantics from the lens of a psycholinguist with a focus on lexical processing and access. Any further details to those interested would be provided on demand. I am looking forward to hearing from an expert to help as a mentor and joint author.
I have sibilant fricative productions- and I want to "get rid" of the anatomical variation due to sex differences. Any formula that the community knows of which has proven to be reliable. Or a good literature recommendation?
I have some questions about the speech production model of Caramazza (1997).
Caramazza does not postulate a lemma-level in his Independent Network (IN) model.
1. I have the impression that the level of 'syntactic features' is equivalent to the lemma level (except that the lemma is not modality-neutral). So, is it just another naming for lemma-level or is there really a difference?
2. Why is the 'semantic representation' not more strongly linked with the 'syntactic features' (p. 196)?
3. How can the orthographic and phonological word forms ('O- and P-lexemes') have influence on the 'syntactic features' but not the other way round (p. 196)?
4. Are the 'syntactic features' on the same level as the 'phonological lexemes' (figure at p. 196) or it there a hierarchy (figure at p. 197)?
Source: Caramazza, A. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 177-208.
I look forward to hearing your feedback!