title: How language production shapes language form and comprehension.
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.
authors: Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, WI, USA.
authors: Maryellen C
authors: MC
authors: Macdonald
keywords: language acquisition; language comprehension; language production; language typology; motor control; serial order; syntax; working memory
references: Cognition. 2012 Mar;122(3):306-29
references: 22208785
references: Mem Cognit. 2009 Dec;37(8):1177-86
references: 19933460
references: Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2011 May;2(3):323-335
references: 26302080
references: Cogn Sci. 2010 Jan;34(1):94-112
references: 21564207
references: Cognition. 1996 Apr;59(1):23-59
references: 8857470
references: Cogn Psychol. 2000 Jun;40(4):296-340
references: 10888342
references: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2011 Dec;64(12):2425-37
references: 21936644
references: Psychol Sci. 2010 Oct;21(10):1518-24
references: 20855906
references: Cogn Psychol. 2009 Mar;58(2):250-71
references: 18922516
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2007 Mar;11(3):105-10
references: 17254833
references: Cogn Psychol. 2012 Sep;65(2):141-76
references: 22537914
references: Psychol Sci. 2012 Apr;23(4):359-63
references: 22399415
references: Front Psychol. 2012 Jan 18;2:396
references: 22279439
references: Psychol Rev. 1994 Oct;101(4):676-703
references: 7984711
references: J Neurophysiol. 2000 Dec;84(6):2725-38
references: 11110803
references: Cognition. 2011 Oct;121(1):22-40
references: 21752357
references: Cognition. 2003 Jun;88(2):133-69
references: 12763317
references: Psychol Bull. 2009 Jan;135(1):50-68
references: 19210053
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2004 Feb;30(1):212-33
references: 14769078
references: Cognition. 2012 Mar;122(3):280-91
references: 22192697
references: Lang Cogn Process. 2006 Nov;21(7-8):1011-1029
references: 17710210
references: Cognition. 2001 Sep;81(2):B45-55
references: 11376643
references: Cognition. 2008 Mar;106(3):1126-77
references: 17662975
references: J Cogn Neurosci. 2005 Feb;17(2):294-307
references: 15811241
references: Nat Neurosci. 2000 Aug;3(8):764-9
references: 10903568
references: Psychol Sci. 2008 Apr;19(4):332-8
references: 18399885
references: Psychol Rev. 2004 Apr;111(2):395-429
references: 15065915
references: J Vis. 2005 Dec 16;5(10):878-87
references: 16441191
references: Cognition. 1997 Feb;62(2):151-67
references: 9141905
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2010 Sep;14(9):411-7
references: 20675183
references: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2012 Jul;140(3):218-29
references: 22673067
references: J Child Lang. 2007 Aug;34(3):601-22
references: 17822141
references: Cognition. 1998 Aug;68(1):1-76
references: 9775516
references: Psychol Rev. 1956 Mar;63(2):81-97
references: 13310704
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2004 May;30(3):675-86
references: 15099135
references: Cogn Sci. 2006 Jul 8;30(4):643-72
references: 21702829
references: Int J Psychophysiol. 2012 Feb;83(2):176-90
references: 22019481
references: Br J Psychol. 1964 Nov;55:429-32
references: 14237884
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2011 May;37(3):748-56
references: 21534707
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1987 May;13(2):291-9
references: 2953858
references: Behav Brain Sci. 2003 Dec;26(6):651-65; discussion 666-707
references: 15377127
references: Science. 1983 Apr 1;220(4592):25-30
references: 6828877
references: Cogn Sci. 2007 Nov 12;31(6):927-60
references: 21635323
references: Cognition. 2005 Dec;98(2):105-35
references: 16307955
references: J Psycholinguist Res. 1995 Nov;24(6):437-68
references: 8531169
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 1999 Dec;6(4):635-40
references: 10682206
references: J Mem Lang. 2008;58(4):161-187
references: 19724662
references: Psychol Rev. 2006 Apr;113(2):234-72
references: 16637761
references: Cognition. 1985 Oct;21(1):47-67
references: 4075761
references: Front Psychol. 2012 Jun 11;3:156
references: 22701440
references: Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2009 Nov;80(5 Pt 1):051902
references: 20365001
references: Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn. 2011 May;18(3):257-79
references: 21140310
references: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2007 Jul;33(3):244-61
references: 17620024
references: Cogn Sci. 2005 Mar 4;29(2):261-90
references: 21702774
references: J Child Lang. 1984 Feb;11(1):89-107
references: 6699115
references: J Mem Lang. 2012 Jul 1;67(1):211-223
references: 22754087
references: Psychol Rev. 1997 Jan;104(1):123-47
references: 9009882
references: Psychol Sci. 2010 May;21(5):629-34
references: 20483838
references: Science. 2000 Apr 21;288(5465):527-31
references: 10775113
references: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2007 Feb;60(2):161-70
references: 17455051
references: Hum Mov Sci. 2007 Aug;26(4):525-54
references: 17698232
references: Neuroscience. 2006 Apr 28;139(1):23-38
references: 16324795
references: Cognition. 2009 Apr;111(1):1-23
references: 19215912
references: Cogn Neuropsychol. 2000 Jun 1;17(4):297-338
references: 20945185
references: Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2012 Jun 1;21(3):170-176
references: 24000273
references: J Comp Psychol. 2011 Nov;125(4):431-435
references: 21707140
references: Am J Psychol. 1950 Apr;63(2):176-85
references: 15410879
references: Behav Brain Sci. 2009 Oct;32(5):429-48; discussion 448-494
references: 19857320
references: Science. 1997 Mar 14;275(5306):1599-603
references: 9054348
references: Cogn Psychol. 2009 Aug;59(1):30-66
references: 19324332
references: Cogn Psychol. 2004 Dec;49(4):370-407
references: 15342259
references: Psychol Rev. 2002 Jan;109(1):35-54; discussion 55-74
references: 11863041
references: Brain Res. 2009 Nov 24;1299:3-16
references: 19595992
references: Cognition. 1996 Apr;59(1):91-117
references: 8857472
references: Cognition. 2010 Apr;115(1):79-92
references: 20035934