title: Ways of looking ahead: hierarchical planning in language production.
abstract: It is generally assumed that language production proceeds incrementally, with chunks of linguistic structure planned ahead of speech. Extensive research has examined the scope of language production and suggests that the size of planned chunks varies across contexts (Ferreira & Swets, 2002; Wagner & Jescheniak, 2010). By contrast, relatively little is known about the structure of advance planning, specifically whether planning proceeds incrementally according to the surface structure of the utterance, or whether speakers plan according to the hierarchical relationships between utterance elements. In two experiments, we examine the structure and scope of lexical planning in language production using a picture description task. Analyses of speech onset times and word durations show that speakers engage in hierarchical planning such that structurally dependent lexical items are planned together and that hierarchical planning occurs for both direct and indirect dependencies.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Harvard University, United States. Electronic address: eunkyunglee@fas.harvard.edu.
authors.forename: Eun-Kyung
authors.initials: EK
authors.lastname: Lee
authors.forename: Sarah
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Brown-Schmidt
authors.forename: Duane G
authors.initials: DG
authors.lastname: Watson
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D056344:Executive Function / Q000502:physiology*; D006801:Humans; D013060:Speech / Q000502:physiology*; D013068:Speech Production Measurement; D014705:Verbal Behavior / Q000502:physiology*
keywords: Hierarchical planning; Language production; Planning scope
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2009 Sep;35(5):1240-55
references.pmid: 19686018
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2007 Feb;136(1):64-81
references.pmid: 17324085
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007 Jul;33(4):791-810
references.pmid: 17576154
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 1993 Apr;25(2):188-230
references.pmid: 8482072
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2010 Mar;36(2):423-40
references.pmid: 20192540
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2010 Aug;61(1):23-62
references.pmid: 20434141
references.citation: Cognition. 2001 Nov;82(1):B1-14
references.pmid: 11672707
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2011 Nov;37(6):1503-14
references.pmid: 21767058
references.citation: Cognition. 1988 Oct;30(1):73-105
references.pmid: 3180704
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2000 Jun;40(4):296-340
references.pmid: 10888342
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2000 Jul;11(4):274-9
references.pmid: 11273384
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1991 Dec;90(6):2956-70
references.pmid: 1787237
references.citation: Cognition. 1995 Feb;54(2):131-67
references.pmid: 7874875
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2003 Sep;10(3):603-9
references.pmid: 14620353
references.citation: Cognition. 1998 May;66(2):B25-33
references.pmid: 9677766
references.citation: Cognition. 1999 Dec 17;73(3):205-46
references.pmid: 10585515
references.citation: J Mem Lang. 2008 Feb;58(2):541-573
references.pmid: 19190719
references.citation: Cognition. 1985 Oct;21(1):47-67
references.pmid: 4075761
references.citation: J Psycholinguist Res. 1996 Mar;25(2):249-71
references.pmid: 8667298
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2000 Nov;26(6):1355-67
references.pmid: 11185769
references.citation: Hum Mov Sci. 2007 Aug;26(4):525-54
references.pmid: 17698232
references.citation: Cognition. 2008 Jul;108(1):69-99
references.pmid: 18358460
references.citation: Cognition. 2010 Aug;116(2):177-92
references.pmid: 20501338
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2013 Aug;66(8):1653-73
references.pmid: 23286440
references.citation: Cognition. 2008 Nov;109(2):274-80
references.pmid: 18842259
references.citation: Cogn Sci. 2008 Oct;32(7):1232-44
references.pmid: 21585451
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2000 Jun;7(2):314-9
references.pmid: 10909139