1. Stages in lexical access Or: the lemma dilemma

2. TIGER (X) Tigre Noun Fem. Countable /tigre/ ti g Lexical concept lemma lexeme phonemes Has Stripes Is Dangerous

3. Levelt, Roelofs, & Meyer, 1999 zStep 1: Selection of semantically and syntactically specified representation (lemma) zStep 2: Selection of the form of the word (lexeme)

4. Evidence: zSpeech Errors zPicture/Word interference studies zTip-of-the tongue states zAphasia zCognitive Neuroscience (Evoked Potentials)

5. Speech errors: word substitution z(1a) I want whipped cream on my mushrooms [intended: strawberries] z(1b) I’ve got some whipped cream on my mushroom [intended: mustache]

6. Speech errors: exchanges z(2a) you ordered up ending some fish dish z(2b) lilting willy [intended: wilting lilly] z(2c) that’s why they sell the cheaps drink z(2a) lemma-level z(2b) lexeme or phoneme level z(2c) lexeme level

7. Picture/word interference zSs see a picture (e.g., of a TIGER) and have to name it a.s.a.p. zConcurrently, earlier, or later, they see or hear a distractor word (e.g., llama) zSOA is time between picture and distractor: zNegative means distractor first; zPositive means distractor last.

8. Picture/word interference zSchriefers et al., 1990: ySemantic interference at early SOAs (-150 ms) yPhonological facilitation at late SOA’s (0, 150 ms) yNo overlap zIf one presents the distractor early, it affects the first step, lemma retrieval. Therefore, semantic relation matters. zIf one presents the distractor late, it affects the second step, lexeme selection. Therefore, effect of phonological relation.

9. Picture/word interference: gender zMany languages, e.g., Spanish, Italian, French, German, Dutch, Russian, Arabic have nouns with grammatical gender. zFor a majority of nouns, there is no conceptual correlate with gender. zDependent on lng., gender is marked on the form or not zGender is a property that drives agreement processes: yThe red table in Spanish and Dutch: xLa mesa roja [the-fem table red-fem] xDe rode tafel [the-common red-common table]

10. Picture/word interference: gender zSchriefers (1993): Picture/Word interference in Dutch. zDistractors had either the same or a different gender from the target noun (say tafel-comm): broek-comm /hemd-neuter zTarget nouns were either named with a phrase or as a bare noun: de rode tafel or tafel zGender congruency effect, but only if the entire phrase was named. zInterpretation: distractor boosts one of the two gender nodes. If selection necessary, possible effect.

11. Tot-states zYou know a word, and you know you know it, but you can’t say it.. It is on the tip of your tongue.. zBrown & McNeill (1966):

12. Tot-states zYou know a word, and you know you know it, but you can’t say it.. It is on the tip of your tongue.. zBrown & McNeill (1966): z‘Instrument to determine your position when sailing’

13. Tot-states zYou know a word, and you know you know it, but you can’t say it.. It is on the tip of your tongue.. zBrown & McNeill (1966): z‘Instrument to determine your position when sailing’ z‘The capital of Estonia’

14. Tot-states zYou know a word, and you know you know it, but you can’t say it.. It is on the tip of your tongue.. zBrown & McNeill (1966): z‘Instrument to determine your position when sailing’ z‘The capital of Estonia’ z‘Electronic device, crucial in early radios’

15. Tot-states zYou know a word, and you know you know it, but you can’t say it.. It is on the tip of your tongue.. zBrown & McNeill (1966): z‘Instrument to determine your position when sailing’ z‘The capital of Estonia’ z‘Electronic device, crucial in early radios’ z‘Thing the ancient Egyptians kept a mummy in’

16. Tot-states zYou know a word, and you know you know it, but you can’t say it.. It is on the tip of the tongue.. zOften, very partial phonological information available (initial sound, number of syllables) zClaim: preservation of syntactic information (grammatical gender, count noun or mass noun) zInterpretation: lemma retrieval succeeds, but lexeme retrieval fails.

17. Aphasia zCertain patients, when confronted with a picture of say a pair of scissors: zAh, I know what it is, it is for..you know (gestures cutting movement) if there is something in the paper you want to keep you use one to cut it out.. zThis syndrome is called Anomia

18. Aphasia zHenaff Gonon et al., 1989 yFrench patient who could not name pictures of objects; but when asked for the gender of these nouns, he was remarkably accurate. zMiozzo & Caramazza, 1997 ysimilar Italian patients: showed preservation of the gender of nouns, and of the auxiliary for verbs for pictures he could not name. zInterpretation: correct access to lemma; problems in retrieving lexeme.

19. Evoked potentials zElectrodes attached to surface of the scalp, registering tiny fluctuations in voltage (EEG) zTime-locking to certain events (I.e., presentation of a certain type of stimulus) and averaging over many trials. zResulting waveforms vary with stimulus conditions: yN400 : semantic anomalies in comprehension yP600:syntactic violations in production yERN:error responses in forced-choice paradigms yLRP:preparation of motor output, specific for each side of body (I.e., for each hemisphere)

20. Evoked potentials zVan Turennout et al., 1997; 1998: Picture of a TIGER yPhonological decision AND Gender decision yOne decision: respond or not respond yAnother decision: Left hand or Right hand zLRPs: is their preparation in ‘not respond’ trials? zYes, if gender determines which hand, and phoneme determines whether to respond or not zNo, if gender determines whether to respond or not. zThus, after gender selection you can halt and decide not to prepare.

21. Summary zThere is quite a lot of evidence for the assumption for two sequential stages in lexical access: z(1) Determining a semantically and syntactically specified representation (irrespective of phonology) z(2) Determining a phonologically specified representation (irrespective of semantics/syntax)

22. But is this compelling evidence for the LRM model?? zA. Do we need a lemma? yCaramazza & Miozzo, 1997. No! The bulk of the evidence is also compatible with a model without a lemma. yStarreveld & LaHeij, 1995; Starreveld, 2000: Picture/ Word interference: x1. Interaction between semantic/phonological relatedness x2. Early phonological effects zB. Do we need a lexical concept? yLRM: Otherwise, we run into the ‘hyperonym’ problem. Anything that should activate CAT should also activate ANIMAL yHowever: there are connectionist solutions to that problem.