Display options
Cite
Macdonald MC. How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Front Psychol. 2013;4:226doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00226.
Macdonald, M. C. (2013). How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in psychology, 4226. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00226
Macdonald, Maryellen C. "How language production shapes language form and comprehension." Frontiers in psychology vol. 4 (2013): 226. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00226
Macdonald MC. How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Front Psychol. 2013 Apr 26;4:226. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00226. eCollection 2013. PMID: 23637689; PMCID: PMC3636467.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Front Psychol. 2013 Apr 26;4:226. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00226. eCollection 2013.

How language production shapes language form and comprehension.

Frontiers in psychology

Maryellen C Macdonald

Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, WI, USA.

PMID: 23637689 PMCID: PMC3636467 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00226

Abstract

Language production processes can provide insight into how language comprehension works and language typology-why languages tend to have certain characteristics more often than others. Drawing on work in memory retrieval, motor planning, and serial order in action planning, the Production-Distribution-Comprehension (PDC) account links work in the fields of language production, typology, and comprehension: (1) faced with substantial computational burdens of planning and producing utterances, language producers implicitly follow three biases in utterance planning that promote word order choices that reduce these burdens, thereby improving production fluency. (2) These choices, repeated over many utterances and individuals, shape the distributions of utterance forms in language. The claim that language form stems in large degree from producers' attempts to mitigate utterance planning difficulty is contrasted with alternative accounts in which form is driven by language use more broadly, language acquisition processes, or producers' attempts to create language forms that are easily understood by comprehenders. (3) Language perceivers implicitly learn the statistical regularities in their linguistic input, and they use this prior experience to guide comprehension of subsequent language. In particular, they learn to predict the sequential structure of linguistic signals, based on the statistics of previously-encountered input. Thus, key aspects of comprehension behavior are tied to lexico-syntactic statistics in the language, which in turn derive from utterance planning biases promoting production of comparatively easy utterance forms over more difficult ones. This approach contrasts with classic theories in which comprehension behaviors are attributed to innate design features of the language comprehension system and associated working memory. The PDC instead links basic features of comprehension to a different source: production processes that shape language form.

Keywords: language acquisition; language comprehension; language production; language typology; motor control; serial order; syntax; working memory

References

  1. Cognition. 2012 Mar;122(3):306-29 - PubMed
  2. Mem Cognit. 2009 Dec;37(8):1177-86 - PubMed
  3. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2011 May;2(3):323-335 - PubMed
  4. Cognition. 1996 Apr;59(1):23-59 - PubMed
  5. Cogn Psychol. 2000 Jun;40(4):296-340 - PubMed
  6. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2011 Dec;64(12):2425-37 - PubMed
  7. Psychol Sci. 2010 Oct;21(10):1518-24 - PubMed
  8. Cogn Psychol. 2009 Mar;58(2):250-71 - PubMed
  9. Trends Cogn Sci. 2007 Mar;11(3):105-10 - PubMed
  10. Cogn Psychol. 2012 Sep;65(2):141-76 - PubMed
  11. Psychol Sci. 2012 Apr;23(4):359-63 - PubMed
  12. Front Psychol. 2012 Jan 18;2:396 - PubMed
  13. Psychol Rev. 1994 Oct;101(4):676-703 - PubMed
  14. J Neurophysiol. 2000 Dec;84(6):2725-38 - PubMed
  15. Cognition. 2011 Oct;121(1):22-40 - PubMed
  16. Cognition. 2003 Jun;88(2):133-69 - PubMed
  17. Psychol Bull. 2009 Jan;135(1):50-68 - PubMed
  18. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2004 Feb;30(1):212-33 - PubMed
  19. Cognition. 2012 Mar;122(3):280-91 - PubMed
  20. Lang Cogn Process. 2006 Nov;21(7-8):1011-1029 - PubMed
  21. Cognition. 2001 Sep;81(2):B45-55 - PubMed
  22. Cognition. 2008 Mar;106(3):1126-77 - PubMed
  23. J Cogn Neurosci. 2005 Feb;17(2):294-307 - PubMed
  24. Nat Neurosci. 2000 Aug;3(8):764-9 - PubMed
  25. Psychol Sci. 2008 Apr;19(4):332-8 - PubMed
  26. Psychol Rev. 2004 Apr;111(2):395-429 - PubMed
  27. J Vis. 2005 Dec 16;5(10):878-87 - PubMed
  28. Cognition. 1997 Feb;62(2):151-67 - PubMed
  29. Trends Cogn Sci. 2010 Sep;14(9):411-7 - PubMed
  30. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2012 Jul;140(3):218-29 - PubMed
  31. J Child Lang. 2007 Aug;34(3):601-22 - PubMed
  32. Cognition. 1998 Aug;68(1):1-76 - PubMed
  33. Psychol Rev. 1956 Mar;63(2):81-97 - PubMed
  34. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2004 May;30(3):675-86 - PubMed
  35. Cogn Sci. 2006 Jul 8;30(4):643-72 - PubMed
  36. Int J Psychophysiol. 2012 Feb;83(2):176-90 - PubMed
  37. Br J Psychol. 1964 Nov;55:429-32 - PubMed
  38. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2011 May;37(3):748-56 - PubMed
  39. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1987 May;13(2):291-9 - PubMed
  40. Behav Brain Sci. 2003 Dec;26(6):651-65; discussion 666-707 - PubMed
  41. Science. 1983 Apr 1;220(4592):25-30 - PubMed
  42. Cogn Sci. 2007 Nov 12;31(6):927-60 - PubMed
  43. Cognition. 2005 Dec;98(2):105-35 - PubMed
  44. J Psycholinguist Res. 1995 Nov;24(6):437-68 - PubMed
  45. Psychon Bull Rev. 1999 Dec;6(4):635-40 - PubMed
  46. J Mem Lang. 2008;58(4):161-187 - PubMed
  47. Psychol Rev. 2006 Apr;113(2):234-72 - PubMed
  48. Cognition. 1985 Oct;21(1):47-67 - PubMed
  49. Front Psychol. 2012 Jun 11;3:156 - PubMed
  50. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2009 Nov;80(5 Pt 1):051902 - PubMed
  51. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn. 2011 May;18(3):257-79 - PubMed
  52. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2007 Jul;33(3):244-61 - PubMed
  53. Cogn Sci. 2005 Mar 4;29(2):261-90 - PubMed
  54. J Child Lang. 1984 Feb;11(1):89-107 - PubMed
  55. J Mem Lang. 2012 Jul 1;67(1):211-223 - PubMed
  56. Psychol Rev. 1997 Jan;104(1):123-47 - PubMed
  57. Psychol Sci. 2010 May;21(5):629-34 - PubMed
  58. Science. 2000 Apr 21;288(5465):527-31 - PubMed
  59. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2007 Feb;60(2):161-70 - PubMed
  60. Hum Mov Sci. 2007 Aug;26(4):525-54 - PubMed
  61. Neuroscience. 2006 Apr 28;139(1):23-38 - PubMed
  62. Cognition. 2009 Apr;111(1):1-23 - PubMed
  63. Cogn Neuropsychol. 2000 Jun 1;17(4):297-338 - PubMed
  64. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2012 Jun 1;21(3):170-176 - PubMed
  65. J Comp Psychol. 2011 Nov;125(4):431-435 - PubMed
  66. Am J Psychol. 1950 Apr;63(2):176-85 - PubMed
  67. Behav Brain Sci. 2009 Oct;32(5):429-48; discussion 448-494 - PubMed
  68. Science. 1997 Mar 14;275(5306):1599-603 - PubMed
  69. Cogn Psychol. 2009 Aug;59(1):30-66 - PubMed
  70. Cogn Psychol. 2004 Dec;49(4):370-407 - PubMed
  71. Psychol Rev. 2002 Jan;109(1):35-54; discussion 55-74 - PubMed
  72. Brain Res. 2009 Nov 24;1299:3-16 - PubMed
  73. Cognition. 1996 Apr;59(1):91-117 - PubMed
  74. Cognition. 2010 Apr;115(1):79-92 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support