2001 friedmann paraphasias

8/13/2019 2001 Friedmann Paraphasias

1/28

From phonological paraphasias to the structure of thephonological output lexicon

Michal BiranTel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel, and Loewenstein Hospital

Rehabilitation Center

Naama FriedmannTel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

This study examined how phonological information is represented andretrieved, using analysis of naming errors in anomia. We focused onquestions that relate to metrical and segmental information, the types ofinformation each of them contains, and whether they are organised inparallel or serially. Nine Hebrew-speaking individuals with anomia due tophonological output deficit named 200 pictures. A detailed analysis of the 208phonological paraphasias they produced, at the group level and at theindividual level, revealed errors preserving only segmental information,errors preserving only metrical information (number of syllables and stresspattern), and errors preserving partial information of both types. There werealso errors in the order of segments. The pattern of errors indicates thatmetrical information and segmental information are accessed in parallelrather than serially, and are merged at a later stage in which the segments areinserted into the word form; and that segmental information includesconsonants and vowels, and involves information about their identity as wellas about their relative position. Information about the number of syllablesseems to be retrieved together with information about the stress pattern. Theanalysis also showed preservation of phonological principles.

Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Naama Friedmann, School of Education, Tel

Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel. Email: [email protected]

We thank Dirk-Bart den Ouden, Outi Bat-El, Gary Dell, Argye Hillis, Aviah Gvion, Rama

Novogrodsky, and Ronit Szterman for comments on an earlier version of the paper and for

stimulating discussions of this study. The research was supported by the Joint German-Israeli

Research Program grant in Neuroscience GR01791 (Friedmann).

c 2004 Psychology Press Ltd

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pp/01690965.html DOI: 10.1080/01690960400005813

LANGUAGE AND COGNITIVE PROCESSES, 2004, 19 (0), 000000


2/28

2 BIRAN AND FRIEDMANN

INTRODUCTION

Word retrieval is a complex and intriguing process. Although the numberof words a language speaker knows is estimated in several tens ofthousands, in spontaneous speech, two or three words are retrieved every

second, almost without failin individuals without language impairment,errors occur only once in a thousand words, approximately (Butterworth,1989; Levelt, 1989; Levelt et al., 1991; Levelt, Roelofs, & Meyer, 1999).This process of word retrieval proceeds in several stages: from theconceptual level, at which the message is created, it proceeds to a semanticlexicon, and from there to a phonological stage, which is responsible forthe sounds in the word and their organisation. The final stage of wordretrieval includes the articulation of the desired word. This study examinesthe word retrieval process and its subcomponents by looking at it when itfails: by analysing naming errors produced by individuals with anomia,focusing on the information available in each subcomponent of thephonological output stages.

Stages of lexical retrieval

Various models were suggested for the lexical retrieval process. Earlymodels assumed that lexical retrieval is performed on a single stage, whichincludes semantic as well as phonological characteristics (e.g., Brown &McNeill, 1966; Morton, 1969, 1979; Oldfield & Wingfield, 1964). Findingsfrom speech errors (slips of the tongue), tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) states,and word retrieval deficits led researchers to modify this view and developmodels that assume that lexical access for speech production proceeds intwo main stageslexical-semantic and lexical-phonological, with thesemantic level preceding the phonological level (e.g., Butterworth, 1989,1992; Dell, 1986, 1988; Garrett, 1976, 1992; Kempen & Huijbers, 1983;

Levelt, 1989, 1992; Patterson & Shewell, 1987). These models describe theintact word production process and enable the prediction of possible loci ofdeficit in the different levels of the model in cases of word retrieval deficits.

One such multi-stage model for word retrieval was described by Ellisand Young (1988). According to this model, lexical retrieval starts with aconceptual representation, which is still not verbally formulated. Theconceptual representation activates the lexical representation of the wordsmeaning, which is stored in the semantic system. These representations donot include the word form, only its meaning. At this stage of the process, aspeaker can provide detailed semantic information about the itemitssemantic category, its function, size, colour etc. These semantic repre-sentations are calledlemmas(a term coined by Kempen and Hoenkamp ina paper published in 1987, but which was already cited in Kempen and

Huijbers, 1983). Lemmas are lexical items that include information about


3/28

PARAPHASIAS AND THE PHONOLOGICAL LEXICON 3

the semantic and syntactic features of the word, but not about itsphonological structure. These representations activate the representationsin the phonological output lexicon in which the phonological structure ofthe word is stored. The phonological output lexicon contains the

phonological form of the word, and the word is retrieved from it as asequence of sounds. From the phonological output lexicon the activationflows to the phoneme level(the phonological buffer), in which the speechsounds are represented as separate units. At this stage the sequence ofphonemes that are required for the production of the word are activated,and this eventually enables the production of the word. According to thismodel, the phonological representations of the word that were retrievedfrom the phonological output lexicon are stored in the phonological buffer,until they are needed for the production of the word.

Support for the claim that lexical access is composed of two differentstages of semantic and phonological information comes from speech errorsstudies, TOT studies, measures of response time, imaging studies in peoplewithout a language deficit, and from studies of anomia. Examination of

speech errors revealed that there are different types of errorssemanticerrors (instead of my shoulders,my elbows) and phonological errors (marfore, instead offar more) (Fromkin, 1971; Garrett, 1976; Levelt et al., 1991;Schriefers, Meyer, & Levelt, 1990). In TOT states, full semanticinformation about the target word is available but the phonologicalinformation is only partial. In some cases, number of syllables, stresspattern and sometimes partial information about the segmentsusuallyabout the first phonemeare accessible (Brown, 1991; Brown & McNeill,1966). Additional support for the existence of two separate successivestages in lexical access and for the claim that the semantic level precedesthe phonological level can be seen in the studies of Schriefers et al. (1990)and Levelt et al. (1991) who found that the effect of a semantic distractor

on naming occurred at an earlier point than that of a phonologicaldistractor. Studies of brain imaging (fMRI, MEG) also suggest that thesemantic information is accessed prior to the phonological information(Heim, Opitz, & Friederici, 2002; Indefrey & Levelt, 2000; Levelt,Praamstra, Meyer, Helenius, & Salmelin, 1998).

Anomia studies provide further support for the separation betweensemantic and phonological lexical access. Individuals with anomia producedifferent types of errors when failing to retrieve the target word accordingto the locus of their deficit on the lexical processing (Ellis & Young, 1988;Friedmann & Biran, 2003; Hadar, Jones, & Mate-Kole, 1987; Kay & Ellis,1987; Lambon Ralph, Sage & Roberts, 2000). A deficit on the conceptuallevel manifests mainly in unrelated paraphasias (e.g., knife-book). A deficitin the lexical-semantic level manifests mainly in semantic paraphasias,

namely, a word that is semantically related to the target word (e.g., apricot-


4/28


peach) (Kay & Ellis, 1987). A deficit in the phonological output lexicon,which is the focus of the current study, might occur in the access to thelexicon or in the retrieval from it, and it can manifest in an inability toretrieve the target word in the presence of full knowledge about its

meaning. A failure to retrieve the word-form from the phonological outputlexicon might result in partial access to the word form, which manifests inphonological approximations, in formal paraphasias (substitutions of atarget word with another existing word that is phonologically related), inphonemic paraphasias (substitution with a phonologically related non-word), or in responses that resemble TOT states, indicating full semanticinformation and partial access to phonological information (number ofsyllables, first phoneme, etc.; Kay & Ellis, 1987; Le Dorze & Nespoulous,1989). Thus, the errors are mainly phonologically related to the targetword. Individuals with anomia also show differential pattern of response todifferent types of cues: for example, individuals with impairment at thelexical-semantic level were assisted by a semantic cue, but individuals whowere impaired at the phonological level were not assisted by this cue

(Biran & Friedmann, 2002). The current study uses errors in anomia tofocus on questions that relate to the structure of the phonological level inspeech production.

The phonological stage and its riddles

As described earlier, Ellis and Young (1988) suggested that at the stage ofthe phonological lexicon, the phonological word is retrieved. However,other researchers claimed that it is not the word itself that is retrieved butrather only various types of information about its phonological form(Butterworth, 1992). Theories that describe phonological encoding discuss

two types of phonological information that are available at this stagemetricalinformation and segmental information. The metrical informationincludes information about number of syllables and stress pattern (Levelt,1989, 1992); the segmental information includes information about thephonemes of the wordconsonants, vowels (and also clusters, according toLevelt & Wheeldon, 1994). Thus, an important aspect of these theories isthat the phonological structure of the word is not retrieved as a whole butrather constructed from the word form and the segments that fill it (e.g.,Butterworth, 1992; Levelt, 1989, 1992). The integration of the two types ofinformation is done by a mechanism of slots-and-fillers (also calledsegment-to-frame-association) in which the segments (the fillers) areinserted into their positions within the word form (the slots). When aspeaker accesses information about a word, she retrieves the information

about its metrical structure as well as the information about its segments,


5/28


and then the segments are inserted into the word form in their relativeorder. This process of inserting segments into the metrical form is thesource of many speech errors (Levelt et al., 1999; Nickels, 1997).

This process of constructing the word from its frame and segments that

are retrieved separately seems uneconomical at first sight. Why do we haveto generate the frame from scratch each time and fill it with the segments,if both these two types of information are stored in the phonologicalrepresentation? The answer, according to Levelt, lies in the production ofconnected speech, in which metrical frames are generated for theproduction of utterances rather than for single words. This processincludes not only sequencing of existing word frames, but also productionof phonological word frames in the speech process. The phonologicalwords are metrical units rather than lexical units, for example: gave it tohim will turn into gavitim, and I understand itwill turn to I understandit.This causes a different division into syllables (syllabification), one whichdoes not correspond to lexical boundaries. In this case, the phonologicalencoding is not based on filling existing lexical frames, but on filling frames

of new phonological words that are constructed according to the context.Speech errors in the context of more than a single word indicate that

word forms are probably not retrieved from the mental lexicon as ready-to-use units, but are rather constructed from the integration of sub-lexicalunits that must then be positioned in the word form. Such errors areExchange errors, such as heft lemisphere (left hemisphere), anticipatorysubstitutions, such as a leading list (a reading list), and perseveratorysubstitutions, such as gave thegoy (gave the boy) (Fromkin, 1971; Meyer,1992). If the word forms were retrieved as whole units with no internalstructure, errors that involve parts of the word could not exist (Meyer,1992; Shattuck-Hufnagel, 1992). A study we recently conducted in whichwe examined the effect of different types of phonological cues also

supports the separation between the metrical and the segmental informa-tion (Biran, 2003; Biran & Friedmann, 2002). The study compared theeffects of segmental cues of first phoneme and metrical cues of the soundenvelope on word retrieval for individuals with various types of anomicdeficits. The results were that even though the first phoneme was helpfulfor participants with different types of deficits, it was most beneficial forparticipants with a phonological deficit, and more specifically, it helpedthem when they had metrical information but incomplete segmentalinformation. In these situations, a cue that provides segmental informa-tionthe first phoneme in this casefacilitated the retrieval of the word.There were also cases in which the sound envelope cue helped wordretrieval, and these occurred when the individual had partial metricalinformation, or, crucially, partial segmental information about the target

word.


6/28


One question regarding phonological encoding relates to the exactnature of the information that is included in the metrical and segmentallevels. According to Dell (1988), metrical information includes informa-tion about the abstract form of the wordnumber of syllables and their

consonant-vowel structure (CV, CVC, etc.). Butterworth (1992) charac-terises the slots by number of syllables and their structure, and by theirprosodic structurethe stress of each syllable (and the pitch, when it isrelevant). Roelofs and Meyer (1998), similar to Levelt (1989, 1992 andLevelt et al., 1999), argue that the metrical information includes onlyinformation about the number of syllables and the stress pattern, withoutinformation about the CV structure or the syllable components (onset,nucleus, coda). Cholin, Schiller, and Levelt (2004) also showed, by implicitpriming studies, that the syllable is generated only at a later stage ofprocessing, at the interface between the phonological encoding and thephonetic encoding.

An interesting aspect of the types of phonological information relates tothe representation of vowelsare they represented similarly to conso-

nants, as members of segmental information, or are they part of themetrical information? Butterworth (1989) and Levelt and Wheeldon(1994) took vowels to be part of segmental information. However, at leastwhen it comes to Semitic morphology (which is the morphology relevant tothis study), words are constructed from a three-consonantal root, andvowels form a part of the nominal or verbal templates, and therefore, in away, it might be that vowels function as part of the metrical structure.Another question is whether the vowels are represented separately fromthe consonants, namely, whether they have an independent representationor whether they are represented in the phonological lexicon together withthe consonant that precedes them, creating a CV unit. Caramazza,Chialant, Capasso, and Miceli (2000) report on two individuals with a

naming deficitone produced more errors in consonants and the otherproduced more errors in vowels. A similar dissociation betweenconsonants and vowels in naming errors of aphasic patients is reportedby Romani, Olson, Semenza, and Grana (2002). This double dissociationsuggests, according to Caramazza et al., separate representations ofconsonants and vowels.

Another central question is whether metrical and segmental informationare accessed in parallel or serially.1 Levelt (1989, 1992) claimed that accessto the two types of information is serial and that the metrical information is

1 This discussion of serial versus parallel access to metrical and segmental information

should notbe confused with the discussion over whether the slot-filling process occurs in a

serial (segment-by-segment) or a parallel (all the segments of a phonological word or

morpheme at once) fashion (see Den Ouden & Bastiaanse, 2004).


7/28


available before the segmental information. He brought support for thisclaim from TOT states, in which the information about the number ofsyllables and the stress pattern is available even when there is no access tomost or all of the segmental information, as well as from speech errors,

where word form can be available, at least partly, even without theavailability of all the segments. For example, in good jay, gentlemen,produced instead of good day, gentlemen (taken from our collection)word form is present, but not all the segments. In addition, the finding thaterrors tend to be substitutions rather than deletions (jay and not ay) alsoindicates that the speaker already had an available word form that wasfilled with an inappropriate segment. Note, however, that although theseexamples were brought as evidence for the availability of metricalinformation before segmental information, they only show that metricalinformation can be accessed separately from the segmental information.Evidence for the other type of errors, that include segments without fullmetrical information, would support parallel, rather than serial, access tothe two types of phonological information. Additional evidence for the

distinction between metrical and segmental information comes from astudy conducted by Roelofs and Meyer (1998). They used a procedure ofimplicit form priming and found that the construction of the word formincludes retrieval of an abstract metrical representation which includesinformation about the number of syllables and the stress pattern, andretrieval of segmental information. Unlike Levelt, they argued, based onthese data, that the metrical spellout procedures and the segmentalspellout procedures proceed in parallel.

Thus, although many theories assume that there are two types ofphonological information at the phonological lexiconmetrical informa-tion and segmental informationthere is no agreement regarding the waythese two types of information are organised: whether they are accessed in

parallel or serially, with the segmental information depending in some wayupon the retrieval of the metrical information.Anomia is a potentially valuable source for further information about

this question, because different types of selective deficits in thecomponents in question might bear on the organisation of the information.On the assumption that the different levels of the lexical processing areseparate cognitive units (modules), each of them can be selectivelyimpaired. An impairment in each module would manifest in a differenttype of naming deficit with different characteristics (Ellis & Young, 1988).

A phonological deficit can serve as a test case for the question of theorganisation of metrical and segmental information in the following way:When two modules are organised serially and access to the second dependsupon successful access to the first, the information that we would expect to

find in the errors is partial information about LevelA without information


8/28


about LevelB, in case of a deficit in access to LevelA, and full informationabout LevelAwith partial information about Level B, in case of a deficit inLevel B. We would not expect to find cases in which the errors preserveinformation that is stored in Level B without information that is stored in

Level A, because it is not possible to access the information in Level Bwithout LevelA. To bring this general idea to bear more specifically on thecurrent issue of the organisation of metrical and segmental information, ifmetrical and segmental information are organised in parallel (as wasassumed by Levelt et al., 1999; Roelofs and Meyer, 1998), there should beindividuals with a phonological deficit who have difficulties in retrievingthe segmental information, so that when they fail to retrieve a word theyhave metrical information about it but not segmental information; andthere should also be patients whose difficulty is on the metrical level, sothey do not have metrical information but they do have segmentalinformation. If the two types of information are organised serially, in sucha way that the metrical information precedes the segmental information, asLevelt (1989, 1992) suggested, then if access to segmental information is

dependent upon access to metrical information, there should be patientswho have metrical information but no segmental information (or onlypartial segmental information), but not patients who have segmentalinformation without metrical information. Thus, errors that includesegmental information without metrical information are not expected.

Data from anomia that bear on this question are scarce. Lambon Ralphet al. (2000) examined two patients with phonological naming impairmentand found that one of them could usually provide information about thenumber of syllables in words he could not retrieve, but was unable toprovide information about the first phoneme of these words. That is to say,he had access to metrical but not to segmental information. The secondpatient could provide information neither about the number of syllables

nor about the first phoneme, and thus it seems that his deficit was in theaccess to the phonological lexicon; as a result he had no phonologicalinformation availableeither metrical or segmental. It is important tonotice that the dissociation that was found in this study was only in onedirection, namely, only a case of access to metrical information with noaccess to (a specific type of) segmental information. This does not rule outthe possibility of parallel access to these two types of information and thepossibility of an opposite case with access only to segmental informationwith no access to metrical information. Therefore, this finding does notsuffice to decide between serial and parallel access to the two types ofinformation. Cappa, Nespor, Lelasi, and Miozzo (1997) reported a case ofan Italian-speaking aphasic patient who produced many stress errors inreading aloud and naming when the position of the stress was not

predictable from the word structure, but had preserved segmental


9/28


information. The authors indicate that this patient presents a dissociationthat is the reverse of many reported cases of anomia and TOT states, inwhich there is available information about the number of syllables and thestress pattern without fully available information about the segments. This

patient has preserved segmental information but impaired stress patterninformationwhich might suggest a double dissociation between therepresentations of segmental and metrical information, and might providesupport to parallel access.2

The current data from the different studies of anomia are insufficient todetermine between the different claims regarding the organisation ofmetrical and segmental information. In this study we examined how thephonological information is represented and retrieved, and specifically,whether it is possible to distinguish between metrical information andsegmental information, what types of information each of them includes,and in which order they are accessed. These questions were studied byexamining the various types of partial information in the paraphasiasproduced by aphasic patients with naming impairment due to a deficit at

the phonological level.

EXPERIMENT

Method

Participants. The participants were nine Hebrew-speaking individualswith phonological anomia, who were selected out of an initial group of 24individuals with anomia. We identified the individuals with phonologicaldeficit from the initial group on the basis of their good performance in testsfor assessing their conceptual and lexical-semantic knowledge and theirpoor lexical-phonological abilities. The tests used were the Pyramids and

Palm Trees test (Howard & Patterson, 1992), an odd-out test (one pictureout of fourfrom different semantic categories or within the samecategory), spoken word-picture matching testPALPA 47 (Kay, Lesser,& Coltheart, 1992; Hebrew version: Gil & Edelstein, 2001), semanticverbal fluency task (Say as many names of animals as you can),phonological verbal fluency task (Say as many words as you can that start

2 There were also studies that examined what was the most robust phonological

information in phonological errors. Valdois, Joanette, and Nespoulous (1989) for example,

examined the phonological informationnumber of syllables, segments and CV structure

preserved in the approximations of three aphasic patients, and found that number of syllables

was the most available information for all the participants and the information about the CV

structure was the least available. Other studies carried out different analyses of the

phonological information conveyed by the phonological errors (e.g., Gagnon, Schwartz,

Martin, Dell, & Saffran, 1997; Lecours & Lhermitte, 1969; Whilshire, 2002).


10/28


withm) and identification of the first phoneme of a word. Based on thesetests, we screened out participants who failed on the conceptual andsemantic tasks, and included in the phonological deficit group onlyindividuals with naming deficits who succeeded in these tasks but failed on

the phonological tasks. Their performance on the phonological verbalfluency task was poorer than in a semantic verbal fluency task, and theyhad difficulties in first phoneme identification. Because unimpaired objectidentification is essential in a picture naming task, we used theperformance in the Pyramids and Palm Trees test, in the odd-out testand in the PALPA 47 test also to exclude individuals with agnosia.Individuals with severe articulation deficits who had articulatory difficul-ties even in repetitions of single vowels were not included in the study.

The identification of the participants with phonological deficit was alsobased on the pattern of their errors in naming. The participants withphonological deficit produced mainly phonological errors: phonemicerrors, formal paraphasias, and approximations. Every response thatincluded errors of either metrical information or segmental information or

both was counted as phonological error. The participants were 7 men and 2women, aged between 20 and 71 years (average age 54 years, 9 months).They were all proficient in Hebrew5 of them were monolingual nativespeakers of Hebrew, and the others spoke Hebrew for at least 50 years. Allof them were right handed. Six had a left hemisphere stroke, one had abrain tumour and two had traumatic brain injury. Time post onset rangedfrom 2 weeks to 38 months (see Table 1 for detailed backgroundinformation on the participants).

Procedure. The participants were asked to name 200 colour pictures ofobjects. The pictures included objects whose names were 1- 2- and 3-syllables long, with ultimate, penultimate, and antepenultimate stress,

some with and some without clusters, with various first phonemes and fromdifferent semantic categories, some masculine and some feminine. Prior tothe experimental stage the pictures were presented to 15 individualswithout language deficit. They were asked to name the pictures in order tomake sure that the pictures were clear and that there was agreement innaming each of them. Pictures that were not clear to more than sixparticipants were replaced. Overall, six pictures were replaced. In addition,we collected frequency judgements: 25 individuals without language deficitwere asked to rate the frequency of the target words, in a scale of 17 (1very infrequent, 7very frequent). The frequencies of the target wordsranged from 3.0 to 6.88 (mean 5.2).

Each of the nine participants named the 200 pictures. They had 62%errors in general, of various types: Phonological paraphasias, including

formal errors (real word errors that are phonologically related to the


11/28


target), and phonemic errors (nonword errors that are phonologicallyrelated to the target), constituted 27% of their errors. In addition,participants produced phonological approximations (19% of the errors),which are attempts at searching for the sounds without producing anyword. Semantic paraphasias (providing a word that is semantically relatedto the target) occurred in 14% of the errors.3 The participants alsoproducedcircumlocutions(7% of the errors), in which they tried to give adefinition or a description of the items they could not name. There were

also 2% real-word paraphasais which were both semantically andphonologically unrelated to the target, and less than 1% neologisms thatwere phonologically unrelated to the target word. Note, that there is noclear distinction between phonemic errors and neologisms. According toButterworth (1992), when a substitution of one phoneme in the wordcreates a nonword, but the target word is still identifiable, it is usuallycalled phonemic error; substitutions that do not seem to be related enoughto the target word are called neologisms. However, identifiable or close

TABLE 1

Background information on the participants. R right, L left, pleg. hemiplegia,

par. hemiparesis, TBI traumatic brain injury

Months

Plegia/ post P articipa nt Ag e Sex Hand par esis Etiolog y onset Lesion site Education

DM 64 M right R par. stroke 1 L temporo- parietal

infarct

8

SW 71 M right R par. stroke 1 L temporo- parietal

hemorrhage

17

SH 68 M right R par. stroke 1.5 L parietal infarct 8

IK 62 M right R par. stroke 0.5 L parietal infarct 14

CM 54 F right tumor 1 L temporal meningioma 12

MM 34 M right R pleg. TBI 38 L frontal, temporal and

basal ganglia hypodensic

areas

12

AY 64 M right R par. stroke 2 bilateral lacunar infarcts

in the basal ganglia

6

SB 20 F right R pleg. TBI 6 L fronto-parieto-temporalhemorrhage 12

ZS 57 M right stroke 1 L parietal infarct 15

3 As suggested by Butterworth (1989) and Caramazza and Hillis (1990), such semantic

errors could stem from a deficit in accessing the phonological representation of the target

word, rather than from a deficit at the semantic representation. When there is no access to the

phonological representation of the target word, a word which is semantically related to it, and

its phonological representation is available, might be produced instead.


12/28


enough to the target word are not clear-cut definitions. We definedphonemic paraphasias and neologisms according to the preservation ofmetrical and segmental information. Phonemic paraphasias were definedas nonwords that preserve at least half of the segments and/or number of

syllables of the target word. Nonwords that did not preserve thisphonological information (neither segmental nor metrical information)were classified as neologisms. Another type of response was no response(31% of the failures to name), namely, cases in which the participant didnot produce any word in reponse to the picture presented.4

For the analyses in this study we included only the phonologicalparaphasias, namely the words and nonwords that were phonologicallyrelated in some way to the target word. We analysed the partialinformation about the target word that was preserved in each phonologicalparaphasiafor the whole group of participants with a phonological deficitand for each participant separately.

Analysis of phonological errors. The phonological paraphasias that

were produced by the participants with phonological deficit includedformal paraphasiassubstitutions of a word for another existing word thatis phonologically related to the target word (metrically and/or segmentally)(vilon-milon curtain-dictionary5, gader-zaken fence-old), and pho-nemic paraphasiasproduction of a nonword that is related to the targetin at least half of the segments and/or number of syllables (for example:panas-pamas, ekdax-egdar, cfardea-cfardrea, kipod-pargan, afifon-ifof).

We conducted a detailed analysis of these paraphasias in order to answerquestions regarding the organisation of the phonological information inthe intact lexical retrieval process. We focused on the information that isavailable to the participants as reflected in the preserved information ineach paraphasia.

In the analysis, phonological paraphasias were classified into paraphasiasthat preserve partial information about the metrical structure, paraphasiasthat preserve partial segmental information, and paraphasias that preserveboth types of information.

4 No response in phonological anomia might indicate that both metrical and segmental

information are unavailable, making the participant unable to produce any response, or that

the speaker only has metrical structure, and possibly metrically correct neologisms that

include no segments of the target are perceived too far from the target and are therefore

edited out by speakers with good self-monitoring, leading to no response.5 Translations of the examples will be given only in case the error forms an existing word,

to enable the non-Hebrew speakers to evaluate the semantic relations between the target and

the errors. When the error is a phonemic error that forms a nonword, a translation is not

given. The stressed syllable is marked in bold.


13/28


We further classified the paraphasias in these groups into severalsubcategories according to the type of partial information that waspreserved in the paraphasia:

1. Within the group of paraphasias that preserve information about the

metrical structure, paraphasias were classified by: preservation of thenumber of syllables only; preservation of the number of syllables and thestress pattern; preservation of the number of syllables and the structure ofthe consonants and vowels (the CV structure); preservation of the numberof syllables, the stress pattern and the CV structure. (We examinedpreservation of stress pattern only in paraphasias that preserved number ofsyllables because it is problematic to examine preservation of stress patternwhen the number of syllables in the target word and that in the paraphasiadiffer.) Since we were interested in whether the information about the CVstructure is part of the metrical information, we examined its preservationtogether with different properties of the metrical information.

2. Within the paraphasias that preserve information about thesegmentsthe criterion for defining a preservation of segments was that

at least half of the segments of the target word were present in theparaphasia. In counting the preserved segments we counted vowels andconsonants, on the basis of theories that assume that the segmentalinformation includes information about vowels as well as about consonants(e.g., Butterworth, 1989; Levelt & Wheeldon, 1994). With respect tovowels, we also analysed whether vowels were preserved when metricalinformation was preserved, in order to assess whether it can be taken to bepart of metrical, rather than segmental information. We distinguishedbetween errors of segment identificationparaphasias in which segmentswere omitted or substituted for other segments that did not exist in theword, and errors of segment positionparaphasias in which there was asubstitution of the order of the segments in the word.

Results

A total of 208 phonological paraphasias was produced by the nineparticipants with phonological deficit. These phonological paraphasiaswere distributed as follows.

1. Preservation of the metrical structure only. Overall, there were 11paraphasias that preserved only information about the metrical structure.

Of these, 8 paraphasias preserved the number of syllables and the stresspattern: mavreg-nedor, hege-da?at( wheel-knowledge), and 3 parapha-sias preserved the number of syllables, the stress pattern and the CVstructure: sakin-xacan, caif-shalik, gader-zaken ( fence-old). Note that

these three paraphasias also included two segments of the target word.


14/28


No errors were found that preserved only the number of syllables of thetarget words, and no errors were found that preserved only the number ofsyllables and the CV structure without the stress pattern. That is to say, allerrors that preserved the number of syllables also included the correct

stress pattern.

2. Preservation of segments only. Overall, there were 44 paraphasiasthat preserved information only about the segments: iparon-ipor, xacocra-xacacoriya, afifon-mafafaim, afifon-fifon.

3. Preservation of metrical and segmental information. Overall, therewere 153 paraphasias that preserved information both about the metricalstructure and about the segments.

Out of these, 35 paraphasias preserved the number of syllables and thestress pattern as well as partial segmental information: mazleg-mazel,sargel-sarte; and 118 paraphasias preserved the number of syllables, the

stress pattern and the CV structure as well as partial segmentalinformation: tanur-shanur, maceket-cakeket.

None of the errors preserved only segments and the number of syllables,or only segments, number of syllables and CV structure without the stresspattern.

Out of the 153 paraphasias that preserved number of syllables and stresspattern )with or without CV structure) and more than half of the segments,23 paraphasias included errors of segment identity as well as segmentposition: mazleg-mazkel, sakin-kones, naxash-shaxen ( snake-neigh-bour), ca?if-nafic(scarf-explosive).

In addition, 8 paraphasias preserved all the information: number ofsyllables, stress pattern, CV structure, and all the target segments but still

included errors of the relative order of the segments: yanshuf-yanfush,masor-samor, berez-zeber .. . bezer, xerev-rexev( sword-vehicle).The overall number of paraphasias that included information about the

number of syllables and the stress pattern (with or without segmentalinformation) is 43, the number of paraphasias that preserved informationabout the number of syllables, the stress pattern, and the CV structure(with or without segmental information) is 121. This number ofparaphasias that preserved information about number of syllables andstress pattern is significantly larger than the number of such preservationthat is expected by chance. In order to get an estimate for the guessinglevel of number of syllables and stress position, we ran a randomisationtest 10 times, in which we compared paraphasias in 10 random orders(randomised by sorting according to a random number produced by

Microsoft Excel attached to each paraphasia) to the original list of target


15/28


words, and counted the number of paraphasias that included the samenumber of syllables and stress position as the (randomly assigned) target.The results were that the average of correct guessing in the paraphasiaswas 77/208 compared with the actual 164/208, which is a significant

difference (w2

74.66, p 5

.0001). (Out of the 11 paraphasias thatpreserved only metrical structure without segments, which were 6.5% ofthe paraphasias that preserved metrical structure, 5 could be taken aspreserving metrical structure by chance, based on the general number of 77metrical structure preservation by chance.)

The total number of paraphasias that preserved at least half of thesegments of the target word were 197. This number, too, was significantlylarger than random segment preservation that amounted to 13 (w2 325.57, p 5 .0001).

Out of the 197 paraphasias that preserved segmental information (withor without metrical information), 126 included information about the firstphoneme. The distribution of the different types of paraphasias can beseen in Figure 1.

Interim summary: metrical and segmental information in

paraphasias

Several new findings emerge from this analysis:

(a) There are paraphasias (though only few) that preserve metricalinformation without segmental information, and there areparaphasias that preserve segmental information (more thanhalf of the segments) without metrical information.

(b) The majority of the paraphasias (153/208) preserve partial

information about the metrical structure as well as about thesegments.

(c) There were no paraphasias that preserved information onlyabout the number of syllables or only about the number ofsyllables and the CV structure (with or without segmentalinformation), without information about the stress pattern. Inother words, when there was information about the number ofsyllables, there was always information about the stress patternas well. (The stress of nouns in Hebrew is lexical, and can not bepredicted from number of syllables or their structure, Bat-El,1993 and p.c.). On the other hand, there were paraphasias thatpreserved information only about the number of syllables and

the stress pattern without information about the CV structure.


16/28


(d) Even when there was full information about the segments andthe metrical structure, there were still errors of the relativeorder of segments.

These different types of errors support the separation between therepresentations of the different types of information in the phonologicallexiconmetrical information (the metrical structure) and segmentalinformationand might bear on the organisation of the different types of

information in the lexical retrieval process.

Figure 1. Distribution of the paraphasias that preserve segmental information (at least half

of the segments) and metrical information (number of syllables and stress pattern) for the

group.


17/28


Additional findings with respect to phonological

information

New findings emerge also regarding the phonological representation of

vowels. We asked whether the vowels in Hebrew are represented as partof the segmental information or as part of the metrical information. Thefindings suggest that the vowels are not part of the metrical information.In many cases there was full metrical information about the number ofsyllables and the stress pattern, and yet the vowels were incorrect. Forinstance, participant CM produced 8 paraphasias that preserved thenumber of syllables and the stress pattern, none of them preserving thevowels of the target word (for example, garzen-kashon, ekdax-oresh,kipod-pargan). Even where she preserved part of the segments in additionto the number of syllables and the stress pattern, a third of theparaphasias included incorrect vowels (for example, xacil-xasal, sakin-kones,kenguru-korgane). This indicates that the vowels are not part of themetrical information and are not retrieved along with the information

about the number of syllables and the stress pattern. Another findingregarding the representation of vowels is that the vowels are encodedseparately from the consonants, rather than as a CV unit with theconsonant that precedes them. This can be seen in that when a consonantwas omitted, many times it was omitted without the vowel that follows it(mizvada-mizada); when a consonant was substituted, the vowels couldbe kept (mavreg-bamrez), and when a consonant was added, it sometimeschanged the position of the correct vowels to be produced after theincorrect consonants (xagora-maxgora, cfardea-cfardrea). Also, some-times the consonants were kept and the vowels were substituted (ogen-egen, potxan-patxen).

Interestingly, the preservation of the metrical structure did not

necessarily include preservation of the nominal templatesome Semiticnouns are constructed from a three consonantal root and a template. Forexample,maceket, ladle, is built in the template Ma(X)XeXet.However, itwas named cakeketby one participant and baceket(edema) by another.These errors preserve the number of syllables, the stress pattern, and theCV structure, but not the nominal template.

Another finding regards the position of errors. In order to see whetherstressed syllables or initial syllables were more immune to errors, weanalysed all syllables in the 205 paraphasias that had more than a singlesyllable, counting each syllable as correct when it was completelyidentical to the target syllable or incorrect when it included any type oferror. The findings were that stressed syllables were not more immune toerrors than unstressed ones, and for two of the participants even

significantly more errors occurred in stressed compared with unstressed


18/28


syllables. Three participants showed the opposite trend, though notsignificantly. At the group level, when taking into account syllable position(initial/non-initial) as well as syllable stress (weak/strong), and dividing bythe number of syllables of each type, no differences between these syllable

types were found (p >.21 for all comparisons). The number of errors persyllable type were: initial stressed: 17/24; initial unstressed: 104/181; non-initial stressed: 129/181; non-initial unstressed: 70/108. Within the initialsyllables, there was no significant difference between stressed andunstressed syllables, and the same held for non-initial syllables. Withinstressed syllables, no difference was found between word-initial and non-initial positions in the target word, and the same held for unstressedsyllables.

Finally, somewhat surprisingly, the phonological errors indicate thatphonological knowledge, both about the phonological rules of Hebrew andabout universal principles, might be unimpaired even in phonologicalanomia. Many times the error was adjusted to the phonological rules ofHebrew, such as spirantization. In Modern Hebrew, stops alternate with

fricatives, the basic generalisation is that fricatives appear postvocally andstops appear elsewhere (Idsardi, 1998). For example, b in Hebrew ispronounced /b/ at the beginning of a word or after a consonant, and as /v/when it appears after a vowel. When a segment was omitted in theparaphasia so that the /b/ changed its relative position, the participantspronounced it according to the new position. So, for example, when berezbecamedevrez, theb became v because the b lost its word-initial positionand now follows a vowel, and therefore became a fricative; when mavregbecamebamrezthe fricative /v/ turned into /b/ because it moved to a word-initial position. Universal phonological rules were also kept in the errors:for example, all phonological errors preserved the sonority principle, andnone of the phonological errors violated the sonority hierarchy within the

syllable.

An analysis of the paraphasias produced by eachparticipant

In addition to the analysis of the paraphasias produced by the group ofparticipants with phonological deficit, we also examined the patterns ofparaphasias and types of preserved information of each of the participantsseparately. Under this analysis no participant was found whose paraphasiaspreserved only metrical information or only segmental informationtherewere always paraphasias that preserved both types of information: none ofthe participants showed complete failure to access either type of

informationmetrical or segmental.


19/28


As can be seen in Figure 2, which plots the distribution of preservedinformation per participants, there were patients whose paraphasiasincluded preservation of metrical and segmental information, onlysegmental information, or only metrical information (participants IK,CM, SH), and there were patients whose paraphasias included metricaland segmental information or only segmental information, but noparaphasias that preserved only metrical information (AY, DM, MM,SB, SW, ZS).

These findings provide further support for the claim that the metricalinformation and the segmental information are represented separately,accessed in parallel, and integrated at a later stage (as has been claimed by

Levelt et al., 1999; Roelofs & Meyer, 1998), since no participant was foundwho showed no access at all to one of the two types of informationmetrical or segmental. There was always access to both types ofinformation, at least to some extent.

DISCUSSION

This study analysed partial information that was preserved in paraphasiasproduced by anomic patients with a phonological output deficit, in order tolearn about the types of phonological information and their organisation.The main findings of this analysis were:

1. There are paraphasias that preserve segmental information withoutmetrical information, and paraphasias that preserve metrical information

without segmental information (though only few). This finding supports

Figure 2. Distribution of paraphasias of the different types per participant.


20/28


the claim that metrical information and segmental information arerepresented independently and are integrated at a later stage. Itcorroborates theories that assume parallel, rather than serial, processingof these two types of information. Another finding that supports parallel

processing is that no participant was found who had no access at all to onetype of informationall of the participants showed access to both types ofinformation, at least to some extent.

2. The analysis of the metrical information preserved in the paraphasiasreveals that whenever the paraphasia preserved the targets number ofsyllables, it always preserved the correct stress pattern as well (althoughnominal stress pattern is not predictable in Hebrew from number ofsyllables). This finding might suggest that the information about the stresspattern is stored and retrieved together with the information about thenumber of syllables.

3. Paraphasias were found that preserved information about the numberof syllables and the stress pattern without information about the CVstructure. This might indicate that information about the number of

syllables and about stress pattern are accessed before the informationabout the CV structure.

4. Errors of relative ordering of segments indicate that even when thereis full information about the segments as well as about the metricalstructure, there might still be errors at the stage of inserting the segmentsinto the metrical structure.

5. Vowels are represented separately from consonants, as part of thesegmental information.

6. Errors occurred in stressed syllables as well as in unstressed ones.7. Universal phonological principles such as sonority hierarchy as well as

phonological principles that are unique to Hebrew were not violated in theparaphasias.

Looking in some more detail at the main questions asked in the currentresearch, and the answers the results suggest for them, the first questionwas whether the metrical information and the segmental information arerepresented separately and in parallel in the phonological output lexicon(as was argued by Levelt et al., 1999, and by Roelofs and Meyer, 1998), orwhether these two types of information are represented in serial order,with the metrical information preceding the segmental information (as wasargued by Levelt, 1989, 1992). In the case of serial order some dependencyis expected between access to the two types of information, namely, that adeficit at the earlier stage would prevent access to the next stage. In orderto answer this question we analysed the metrical and segmentalinformation in each of the 208 phonological paraphasias. We found that

there were paraphasias that preserved only segmental information, only


21/28


metrical information or partial information of both types. When weexamined the paraphasias produced by each of the participants, we foundparticipants who produced paraphasias that preserved metrical andsegmental information, only segmental information or only metrical

information, and participants whose paraphasias preserved metrical andsegmental information or only segmental information. We did not find anyparticipant for whom all of the paraphasias preserved only metricalinformation or only segmental informationthere were always parapha-sias that included both types of information. That is to say, none of theparticipants showed absolutely no access to one type of informationmetrical or segmental.

More specifically, if the organisation of the information were in serialorder with the metrical information preceding the segmental information,as Levelt (1989, 1992) argued, we would have expected to find paraphasiasthat preserve partial metrical information without segmental information,full metrical information without segmental information or full metricalinformation with partial segmental information. We would not have

expected to find paraphasias that preserve full or partial segmentalinformation without metrical information or full segmental informationwith partial metrical information. However, paraphasias that preservesegmental information without metrical information were indeed foundand thus serial representation with metrical information first is unattestedby the current results. For the same reason the current findings do notsupport a serial model in which access to segmental information precedesaccess to the metrical information. This is again because we also foundparaphasias that preserved metrical information, to some extent, withoutsegmental information. In addition, the quantitative finding that only 11paraphasias included metrical information without segmental information,compared to 44 that included segmental information without any metrical

information, is not compatible with theories assuming that the informationis organised in a serial order when the access to the metrical informationprecedes, and is essential for, the access to segmental information.6

Thus, when the performance of each of the participants is examinedseparately, and also jointly in the analysis of the group, the findings supportthe claim that the metrical information and the segmental information are

6 A reviewer has suggested that a possible reason for the small number of responses that

preserve only metrical information is that responses that preserve metrical information

without segmental information might be screened out by the aphasic speakers, and cases in

which only metrical information is available to them might result in no reponse (or possibly

circumlocutions and semantic errors). An interesting way to assess in these cases whether

metrical information is available is to ask questions that relate to metrical information when

no response is given, which could uncover metrical knowledge even when no response is

offered.


22/28


independent, accessed in parallel and integrated at a later stage ofprocessing. Furthermore, there is some asymmetry with respect to thedependency between these two types of errors, which works in favour ofthe serial model: segmental substitutions do not impair the metrical

structrue, but metrical errors such as syllable deletion and addition causesegmental errors. Nevertheless, the data here show many paraphasias thatpreserved segmental information, without preserving metrical information,thus suggesting a counterevidence for a serial model with metrical beforesegmental information. Notice that this finding only refutes a serial modelin the strong sense, namely, the one that assumes that a failure in the firststage does not allow access to the second. This was probably what Levelthad in mind, given that the type of support he brought for his claim wereerrors in which metrical information existed, with only partial segmentalinformation. A weaker version of a serial model, in which access tometrical information and segmental information is independent, so thataccess to the second stage does not oblige full access to the first is stillpossible under our findings, but it is no longer different from the parallel

access account, except, perhaps, in the temporal properties of access to thedifferent types of information.

The current study also examined the relations between the differenttypes of metrical information. When we analysed the various types ofmetrical information in the paraphasias, no paraphasia was found thatpreserved information about the number of syllables (with or withoutsegmental information, and with or without CV structure) withoutinformation about the stress pattern. This finding might indicate that theinformation about the stress pattern is stored and retrieved together withthe information about the number of syllables. Although some nouns inHebrew are created in nominal templates that determine stress pattern,this could not account for the finding that number of syllables always

comes with a correct stress position. First, because number of syllables isnever enough. To be able to deduce the stress based on the template, boththe number of syllables and information about the segments should beavailable. Second, only a small group of nouns in our study were in thesenominal templates, while most of the items were not created in a nominaltemplate.

Although the information about number of syllables was alwaysaccompanied with information about stress pattern, it did not alwaysentail also preserved information about the CV structure. This findingmight indicate that the information about the number of syllables andstress pattern is available earlier than the information about the CVstructure. This finding is compatible with theories that assume that themetrical information includes information about the number of syllables

and the stress pattern, without information about the CV structure (e.g.,


23/28


Levelt, 1989, 1992; Levelt et al., 1999). Dell (1988), by contrast, claimedthat the word form contains information about the number of syllables andthe CV structure, and that this information is represented separately fromthe information about the segments that are inserted into this frame. Our

findings, in line with a series of priming studies conducted by Roelofs andMeyer (1998), support the claim that the metrical information includesinformation about the number of syllables and the stress pattern, withoutinformation about the CV structure. (Notice, however, that preserved CVhinges on the appearance of segments in their correct location, so omissionor misordering of segments might compromise the CV structure.) Inaddition, the fact that only 3 paraphasias out of 208 in the current studypreserved CV information without segmental information, and theseparaphasias also included two segments of the target word, suggests eitherthat CV information is represented with the segmental information, or thatCV information is stored at the segment-to-frame insertion stage, servingthe insertion process in some way. It might even be that this information isnot represented separately at all but rather surfaces from the knowledge

about the segments identity and their order and from general phonolo-gical principles regarding syllable structure in the language (since theknowledge that the segments are y,a,n,sh,u,fand that this is their relativeorder, suffices to conclude that the consonants and vowels structure isCVCCVC). This is in line with Levelt et al. (1999) who suggest that thesyllable structure is not stored but generated on the fly according touniversal rules and language-specific rules.

When we compared the relative stability of stressed and unstressedsyllables, we found that stressed syllables did not show less errors thanunstressed syllables, when syllable position (initial/non-initial) was takeninto account. Like earlier findings in the studies by Nickels and Howard(1999) and Howard and Smith (2002) some of the participants had more

errors in stressed syllables and some had more errors in unstressedsyllables.New conclusions arise from this study as to the representation of vowels.

We examined whether the vowels are represented similarly to consonants,as members of segmental information, or whether they are part of metricalinformation. Butterworth (1989) and Levelt and Wheeldon (1994), forexample assume that segmental information includes information aboutvowels as well as information about consonants. However, at least when itcomes to Semitic morphology, words are constructed from a three-consonantal root, and vowels form an important part of the nominal andverbal templates and inflections, and therefore, in a way, function as anenvelope for the consonants. The current results indicate that even whennumber of syllables and stress pattern were correct, there were still errors

in the identity of vowels, suggesting that the information about the vowels


24/28


is not retrieved together with these properties of the envelope, butprobably rather as part of the segmental information. The findings suggestthat consonants and vowels are encoded separately in the phonologicallexicon, rather than as syllables or sub-syllabic structures. This can be seen

in that when a consonant was omitted, many times it was omitted withoutthe vowel that followed it; when a consonant was substituted, the vowelscould be kept, and when a consonant was added, this sometimes changedthe position of the correct vowels, to move after the incorrect consonants,and sometimes when the consonants were kept, the vowels weresubstituted.

Somewhat surprisingly, the phonological errors reveal preservedknowl-edge of phonological principles, both of Hebrew phonological rules and ofuniversal phonological principles. This could be seen in that the errorsobeyed phonological rules of Hebrew, for example, changing thepronunciation of stops into fricatives and vice versa according to theirposition in the word (for example, /b/ in word-initial position and /v/ after avowel). In addition, universal phonological rules were preserved, for

example, the sonority principlenone of the phonological errors violatedthe sonority hierarchy within the syllable. This is similar to the sensitivityto phonological constraints that was reported by Dell (2004; Dell, Reed,Adams, & Meyer, 2000) for phonological speech errors of individualswithout language deficits.

Finally, the analysis of the paraphasias also suggests a possiblediscrimination between two components of the segmental informationthat is stored in the phonological output lexicon: segment identity andsegment position. A selective deficit in each of them might lead to adifferent type of error (similar to dyslexias in which the information aboutthe letter identity and the letter position might be selectively impaired,Friedmann, Biran, & Gvion, 2004; Friedmann & Gvion, 2001; Lambon

Ralph & Ellis, 1997; Marshall & Newcombe, 1973). A deficit in segmentidentity will cause omission or substitution of segments. For example:xerev-terev, panas-pamas, gafrur-gafrush. A deficit in segment positionwillcause errors of the relative order of the segments. For example: berez-zeber. . .bezer, masor-samor.In addition, there might be errors that includea deficit in both of these functions, for example: paamon-maaton, masor-maron, naxash-xanaf. Another possible source for errors in the order ofsegments is a deficit at the phonemic bufferit is possible that theinformation about the segmental representation, including identity andposition of the segments, is retrieved properly from the lexicon, but at thestage of segment-to-frame association, when they are held in thephonological buffer until they get inserted in the metrical frame, theirorder is impaired. This suggestion is similar to the suggestion of Shattuck-

Hufnagel (1992) regarding speech errors of individuals without language


25/28


deficit. She suggested that errors in segment-order are caused at the timeof the integration of two separate representations, in the insertion of thesegments into the metrical frame.

Thus, the analysis of paraphasias that anomic patients produce suggestsinsights regarding the types of information that are available to each of

them. Additionally, such analysis suggests new data as to the differenttypes of information that are available at the various stages of intact lexicalprocessing.

The model of phonological retrieval that emerges from this study, whichcan be seen on Figure 3, is that the metrical and the segmentalrepresentations are separate and are accessed in parallel. The metricalrepresentation includes information about the number of syllables and thestress pattern. The segmental representation includes information aboutthe identity and relative position of the segments, and includes separaterepresentations of vowels and consonants. After the retrieval of themetrical and segmental representation, the segments are inserted into theword-form and create the complete word.

Manuscript received February 2004Revised manuscript received July 2004

Figure 3. A word retrieval model that is supported by the findings of the current study.


26/28


REFERENCES

Bat-El, O. (1993). Parasitic metrification in the Modern Hebrew stress system. Linguistic

Review, 10 , 189210.

Biran, M. (2003). Levels in lexical retrieval: Evidence from cueing and paraphasias.

Unpublished MA thesis. Tel Aviv University. (In Hebrew.)

Biran, M., & Friedmann, N. (2002). The effect of semantic and phonological cueing on the

naming of aphasics with deficits in different levels of lexical processing. Israeli Journal of

Language, Speech and Hearing Disorders, 24 , 2140. (In Hebrew.)

Brown, A. S. (1991). A review of the tip-of-the-tongue experience. Psychological Bulletin,

109, 204223.

Brown, R., & McNeill, D. (1966). The tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon. Journal of Verbal

Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 5 , 325337.

Butterworth, B. (1989). Lexical access in speech production. In W. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.),

Lexical representation and process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Butterworth, B. (1992). Disorders of phonological encoding.Cognition, 42 , 261286.

Cappa, S. F., Nespor, M., Lelasi, W., & Miozzo, A. (1997). The representation of stress:

Evidence from an aphasic patient. Cognition, 65 , 113.

Caramazza, A., Chialant, D., Capasso, R., & Miceli, G. (2000). Separable processing of

consonants and vowels. Nature, 403 , 428430.

Caramazza, A., & Hillis, A. E. (1990). Where do semantic errors come from?Cortex,26, 95122.

Cholin, J., Schiller, N. O., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2004). The preparation of syllables in speech

production. Journal of Memory and Language, 50 , 4761.

Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production.

Psychological Review, 93, 283321.

Dell, G. S. (1988). The retrieval of phonological forms in production: Tests of predictions

from a connectionist model. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 124142.

Dell, G. S. (2004, January). Phonological speech errors: A psycholinguistic perspective on

learning and phonological processing. Presented at the 4th IGERT workshop, Cognitive

Science of Language: Integrative Approaches, Baltimore, MD.

Dell, G. S., Reed, K. D., Adams, D. R., & Meyer, A. S. (2000). Speech errors, phonotactic

constraints, and implicit learning: A study of the role of experience in language

production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26,

13551367.den Ouden, D. B., & Bastiaanse, R. (2004). Phonological encoding and conduction aphasia. In

R. J. Hartsuiker, R. Bastiaanse, A. Postma, & F. Wijnen (Eds.), Phonological encoding

and monitoring in normal and pathological speech. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

Ellis, A. W., & Young, A. W. (1988). Human cognitive neuropsychology. Hove, UK:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.

Friedmann, N., & Biran, M. (2003). When is gender accessed? A study of paraphasias in

Hebrew anomia. Cortex, 39 , 441463.

Friedmann, N., Biran, M., & Gvion, A. (2004). Patterns of visual dyslexia. Manuscript

submitted for publication.

Friedmann, N., & Gvion, A. (2001). Letter position dyslexia. Cognitive Neuropsychology,18,

673696.

Fromkin, V. (1971). The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Language, 47, 27

52.

Gagnon, D. A., Schwartz, M. F., Martin, N., Dell, G. S., & Saffran, E. M. (1997). The origin of

formal paraphasias in aphasics picture naming.Brain and Language, 59 , 450472.


27/28


Garrett, M. (1976). Syntactic processes in sentence production. In R. J. Wales, and E. Walker,

(Eds.), New approaches to language mechanisms (pp. 231256). Amsterdam: North-

Holland.

Garrett, M. (1992). Disorders of lexical selection. Cognition, 42 , 143180.

Gil, M., & Edelstein, C. (2001). Hebrew version of the PALPA. Raanana, Israel: Loewenstein

Hospital Rehabilitation Center.Hadar, U., Jones, C., & Mate-Kole, C. (1987). The disconnection in anomic aphasia between

semantic and phonological lexicons.Cortex, 23 , 505517.

Heim, St., Opitz, B., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Brocas area in the human brain is involved in

the selection of grammatical gender for language production: Evidence from event-related

functional magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroscience Letters, 328 , 101104.

Howard, D., & Patterson, K. E. (1992). Pyramids and Palm Trees: A test of semantic access

from words and pictures. Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, UK: Thames Valley Test Company.

Howard, D., & Smith, K. (2002). The effects of lexical stress in aphasic word production.

Aphasiology, 16 , 198237.

Indefrey, P., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2000). The neural correlates of language production. In M.S.

Gazzaniga (Ed.),The new cognitive neurosciences (pp. 845865). Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press.

Idsardi, W. J. (1998). Tiberian Hebrew spirantization and phonological derivations. Linguistic

Inquiry, 29, 3773.

Kay, J., & Ellis, A. (1987). A cognitive neuropsychological case study of anomia. Implicationsfor psychological models of word retrieval. Brain, 110 , 613629.

Kay, J., Lesser, R., & Coltheart, M. (1992). Psycholinguistic Assessments of Language

Processing in Aphasia (PALPA).Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.

Kempen, G., & Huijbers, P. (1983). The lexicalization process in sentence production and

naming: Indirect election of words. Cognition, 14 , 185209.

Kempen, G., & Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence

formulation. Cognitive Science, 11 , 201258.

Lambon Ralph, M. A., & Ellis, A. W. (1997). Patterns of paralexia revised: Report of a case

of visual dyslexia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14 , 953974.

Lambon Ralph, M. A., Sage, K., & Roberts, J. (2000). Classical anomia: A neuropsychological

perspective on speech production. Neuropsychologia, 38 , 186202.

Le Dorze, G., & Nespoulous, J. L. (1989). Anomia in moderate aphasia: Problems in accessing

the lexical representation. Brain and Language, 37, 381400.

Lecours, A. R., & Lhermitte, F. (1969). Phonemic paraphasias: Linguistic structure andtentative hypotheses. Cortex, 5 , 193228.

Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Levelt, W. J. M. (1992). Accessing words in speech production: Stages, processes and

representations. Cognition, 42 , 122.

Levelt, W. J. M., Praamstra, P., Meyer, A. S., Helenius, P., & Salmelin, R. (1998). An MEG

study of picture naming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10 , 553567.

Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech

production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22 , 175.

Levelt, W. J. M., Schriefers, H., Voberg, D., Meyer, A. S., Pechmann, T., & Havinga, J. (1991).

The time course of lexical access in speech production: A study of picture naming.

Psychological Review, 98, 122142.

Levelt, W. J. M., & Wheeldon, L. (1994). Do speakers have access to a mental syllabary?

Cognition, 50 , 239269.

Marshall, J. C., & Newcombe, F. (1973). Patterns of paralexia: A psycholinguistic approach.

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 2, 175199.


28/28


Meyer, A. S. (1992). Investigation of phonological encoding through speech error analyses:

Achievements, limitations, and alternatives. Cognition, 42 , 181211.

Morton, J. (1969). Interaction of information in word recognition. Psychological Review, 76 ,

165178.

Morton, J. (1979). Facilitation in word recognition: Experiments causing change in the

logogen model. In P. A. Kohlers, M. E. Wrolstad, & H. Bouma (Eds.),Proceedings of the

conference on the processing of visible language (pp. 259268). New York: Plenum.

Nickels, L. (1997). Spoken word production and its breakdown in aphasia. Hove, UK:

Psychology Press.

Nickels, L., & Howard, D. (1999). Effects of lexical stress on aphasic word production.

Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 13 , 269294.

Oldfield, R. C., & Wingfield, A. (1964). The time it takes to name an object. Nature, 202,

10311032.

Patterson, K., & Shewell, C. (1987). Speak and spell: Dissociation and word-class effects. In

M. Coltheart, G. Sartori & R. Job (Eds.), The cognitive neuropsychology of language.

Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.

Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1998). Metrical structure in planning the production of spoken

words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24, 922

939.

Romani, C., Olson, A., Semenza, C., & Grana, A. (2002). Patterns of phonological errors as a

function of a phonological versus an articulatory locus of impairment. Cortex,38, 541567.Schriefers, H., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1990). Exploring the time course of lexical

access in language production: Picture-word interference studies. Journal of Memory and

Cognition, 29 , 86102.

Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1992). The role of word structure in segmental serial ordering.

Cognition, 42, 213259.

Valdois, S., Joanette, Y., & Nespoulous, J.-L. (1989). Intrinsic organization of sequences of

phonemic approximations: A preliminary study. Aphasiology, 3 , 5573.

Whilshire, C. E. (2002). Where do aphasic phonological errors come from? Evidence from

phoneme movement errors in picture naming. Aphasiology, 16 , 169197.

2001 friedmann paraphasias

Documents