7.0.3　Representation of meaning

One is quick to recognize the exceptional precocity of talented writers，artists，or athletes，but one often fails to appreciate the gifts underlying so many of our everyday activities.It is only through loss or injury that we suddenly realizes how much one takes them for granted.The skill involved in such a literally pedestrian activity as walking down a flight of stairs is immediately recognized after one has sprained an ankle.It is only then that one begins to appreciate the marvelous manner in which the visual input from our eyes and the tactile information from our one's transmit complementary information to one's brain's sensory cortex.There it is immediately synthesized and fed to corresponding areas of the motor cortex that，in turn，feeds the cerebellum，the part of the brain is voted to the programming，timing，and coordination of all voluntary muscular movements.From the cerebellum radiate hundreds of simultaneous messages along the nerve pathways which go to the appropriate muscles involved in the head and neck（to focus the face and eyes downward toward the stairwell），in the back（to keep the posture erect and tilted slightly backward to compensate for the downward motion of the body），in the arms and hands（to slide down the banister for continual support and feedback），in the legs（to maintain a lifting and dropping motion quite different from normal walking），and in the feet（to angle the foot in just the right manner so that the ball of the foot catches the stair）.Even this elaborate description is a gross oversimplification of the neurosensory and neuromuscular processes that are involved at any single moment of a descent down a staircase.But all of this is taken for granted and considered uninteresting，until one stumbles and injure ourselves.Loss of what one considers the simple and common give one renewed appreciation of life's uncommon complexity.

The production of speech is neurologically and psychologically far more complicated than negotiating a flight of stairs，but its intricacy also goes unappreciated until one suffers some linguistic disability or commit a slip of the tongue.In daily conversations，one remains generally unaware of the complexity of our achievement.Again，it is only through disability that one's marvelous ability is made manifest.

One of the most influential psycholinguistic models for speech production，developed by Levelt，views it as a linear progression of four successive stages：（1）conceptualization，（2）formulation，（3）articulation，and（4）self-monitoring.Each of these will be looked at in turn，not forgetting that viewing speech phenomena as a step-by-step sequential processis only one way of investigating production.Alternative approaches exist；for example，characterizing the production of speech as a holistic activity where several simultaneous and parallel activities are taking place to create the utterances one intends to produce.

（1）Conceptualization

Where does the very beginning of any spoken utterance come from？What sparks speech？These are difficult questions to answer，partly because one still doesn't know enough about how language is produced，but partly because they deal with mental abstractions so vague that they elude empirical investigation.The American psycholinguist David McNeill，however，has gone on record with an interesting mentalistic account of how speech is first conceptualized in the human mind.His theory is that primitive linguistic concepts are formed as two concurrent and parallel modes of thought.These are syntactic thinking，which spawns the sequence of words that we typically think of when we talk about how language is initiated，and imagistic thinking，which creates a more holistic and visual mode of communication.The former is segmented and linear and creates the strings of syllables，words，phrases，and sentences that together make up speech.

（2）Production

The latter is global and synthetic and tends to develop the gestures that one naturally uses to punctuate and illustrate one's conversations.McNeill's claim that syntactic thought and imagistic thought collaborate to conceptualize conversation is quite convincingly demonstrated by the way in which speech utterances and ordinary gestures seem to be tied and timed together in any conversation.Consider the following very simple example.Two people are holding a short discussion over the whereabouts of a lost object.Let's see how they gesture as they interact in the following two dialogues.

First dialogue

Person A：Where's my schoolbag？

Person B：There's your schoolbag？

Person B（points to the schoolbag the same moment he says）There's.

Second dialogue

Person A：Where's my umbrella and schoolbag？

Person B：There's your schoolbag.

Person B（points to the schoolbag the same moment he says）schoolbag.

What are the very first things that are going through Person B's mind when she is responding to Person A's questions in these two dialogues？Of course one cannot be too mentalistic and pretend one knows what B is thinking.After all，one is often unsure of what one is thinking oneself when one thinks about what one thinks，if one thinks about thinking at all.This is the problem with mentalism.But McNeill offers some plausible evidence for this bimodal view of how speech is produced.It seems likely that after B hears A's query in the first example，her syntactic thought might generate something that begins with the demonstrative，‘there’while，simultaneously，her imagistic thought might be or someone pointing toward an object，in this case，a schoolbag.Evidence that these two modes are operating concurrently at the conceptualization stage is found in the simultaneous timing of the pointing gestures with the stressed words in each of these two scenes.In the first dialogue，B points to the schoolbag（manifesting the imagistic part of her attempt to communicate）just as she stresses the word‘there’in her speech（illustrating the syntactic component of her communicative intent）.Again，in the second dialogue，one sees the synchrony of image and speech；at the end of the phrase B points to the schoolbag just as she stresses the word in her articulation.If one reads this last example out loud，one will also note a slight change in B's intonation—the voice trails off a bit as if to say‘There's your schoolbag...’Were B suddenly to spot the schoolbag，she could continue with‘and there's your schoolbag’with a more decisive，tailing intonation on‘schoolbag’and，of course，another pointing gesture to show A where his schoolbag was located.

Appealing as McNeill's hypothesis might appear，and convincing as these examples might be，it is difficult to use his model to explain this first stage of production.For one thing，his attempts to describe how imagistic and syntactic thought are initially conceptualized are unclear.For another，the illustrations he uses to describe how gestures synchronize with important syntactic breaks in spoken language are difficult to follow.Perhaps this form of research，like studies of American Sign Language，can only be adequately illustrated by a videotape and not by drawings.Levelt's initial stage of conceptualization seems justified.After all，speech does not start from nothing，and if it does not start with concepts，how else could it possibly begin？At the same time，people realize how difficult it is to actually define this stage in non-mentalistic terms，and despite the plausibility of McNeill's binary model of language and gestures being birthed together，like twins，it is difficult to muster any hard evidence to support this，or any other theory for the embryonic development of speech.Although we know very little about how speech is initiated at this first stage of conceptualization，we have psycholinguistic evidence to help us understand the successive stages of production，so it is easier for us to describe and to understand Levell's second stage，formulation.

（3）Formulation

It can be seen that the initial stage of conceptualization is so far removed from the words one actually speaks and writes that it is too difficult to delineate this phase of production.But at the second stage of speech production，formulation，one moves close enough to the eventual output of the process to allow one to be more precise in our terminology and more convincing in his use of empirical data.Conceptualization is hard to conceptualize，but formulation is much easier to formulate.Well over three decades ago，the psychologist Karl Lashley published one of the first attempts to account for the way speakers sequence strings of sounds，words，and phrases together so rapidly and accurately，and his essay was influential enough to be included in the first book ever published in English which focused exclusively on the then very new field of the psychology of language.His essay was first presented as an oral address，and it is intriguing to see how Lashley organized it to demonstrate some of the very concepts about speech production which he was writing about.For example，he talked about how common it is to commit spelling errors when one is typing，and he mentioned how he misspelled‘wrapid’with a w，while typing‘rapid writing’，most probably because as he was about to type‘rapid’，he anticipated the‘silent w’in the following word.Remember that this sentence was heard，not seen，so having been primed by the earlier phrase‘rapid writing’，it was natural for the audience to hear‘Rapid writing with his uninjured hand！’Of course，like all native speakers of any language，the listeners were able to readjust their comprehension of this sentence.After they recognized they had initially wandered down the wrong garden path of comprehension，they were forced to retrace their steps，and to choose the proper path toward complete understanding.

The use of linguistic deviations as data for scientific investigation is a new phenomenon，but the recognition of speech errors goes hack more than a century.

For example，the subjects might have seen‘barn door’instantaneously flashed in front of them，and they either read them correctly，or，as was often the case，because of the pressure of time，came up with a slip of the tongue，such as‘darn bore’.There were three different situations：a control or normal situation，where the subjects had no distractions；a second situation where subjects knew that they might receive a small electrical shock at any moment，and a third situation，where they performed the task in a state of slight sexual arousal（the subjects were all male，and the experimenter was an attractive and welldressed female）.Here are examples of two stimuli phrases that were flashed to all three groups.

①sham dock　　②past fashion

Although most of the subjects were accurate most of the time under all three conditions，the slips of the tongue that did occur differed significantly among the three groups.The control group tended to make arbitrary errors，such as‘darn bore’，but the two experimental conditions tended to elicit two different kinds of slips.When①was flashed to the subjects who were in the group that was threatened with a potential electrical discharge，they，much more frequently than the other two groups，came up with the slip‘damn shock’.And when②was shown to the group with the attractive female experimenter，they，as one has already anticipated，came up with the phrase‘fast passion’much more frequently than the others.Let us review some of this evidence.Linguists divide sounds into vowels and consonants and subcategorize each of these into various phonetic groupings.Speech errors seem to follow the phonetic classifications established by linguists and rarely，if ever，cross over these linguistic boundaries.Consider the following examples.

①a reading list　　a leading rist

②big and fat　　pig and fat

③fill the pool　　fool the pill

As trivial and silly as these mistakes may appear initially，they actually tell us a great deal about the organization of the English language.The anticipation of［l］in the third word in①creates the substitution of［l］for［r］in the second word.Phoneticians point out that［l］and［r］are two consonants which share many phonetic features，for example，both are pronounced in the same part of the mouth，so that this type of substitution would always be likely.The second example is a bit more subtle，because at first sight it seems that［p］is randomly introduced into the phrase from nowhere.But again，linguistic analysis gives a clear explanation.The phonetic feature of voicelessness of the following［f］in fat seems to he anticipated when the speaker is about to produce the［b］in the first word of phrase.As it turns out，the voiceless equivalent of the consonant［b］is［p］.Although one is focusing on sound structure in these first few examples，it is also possible that speakers are simultaneously being influenced by other linguistic factors，so that the person who misspoke‘pig and fat’may have also been gently nudged by the semantic association between these words.In③one sees the psychological reality of the contrast between vowels and consonants in the minds of speakers.The vowels in the two words replace each other.It is theoretically possible for vowels to substitute for consonants and vice versa，but again，this rarely occurs because they are so distinct linguistically.Slips of the tongue also reveal that when one formulates speech，one is not only influenced by the sound system of the language one is speaking，one is also conditioned by the way words are put together in that language.Consider the following examples as evidence of the psychological reality of morphology—the way words are organized and structured in a language.

④sesame seed crackers　　sesame street crackers

⑤a New Yorker　　a New Yorkan

⑥the derivation of　　the derival of

Unlike the first set of examples，these slips do not involve individual sounds，rather，they seem to reflect a higher level of linguistic organization because they are associated with complete words，or with significant parts of words.④is a very common example，and it reminds one of the spoonerisms discussed earlier.Notice how the misspoken forms still adhere to normal patterns of word usage.For example‘Sesame Street crackers’might be a brand of cracker named after the children's TV show.Examples⑥and⑦are further elaborations of this same theme，but in this case，the suffix slots are exchanged while the original words remain the same.The person who misspoke⑥might have been thinking，if an‘American’is someone who lives in America，why isn't a resident of New York a‘New Yorkan？’And by the same logic，if‘arrival’is the noun form of the verb‘arrive’，why isn't the noun form of‘to derive’，‘derival？’Once again one witnesses the way slips of the tongue provide psycholinguistic insights into the production of speech；they help one see how speakers arrive at derivations.Speech errors are also helpful in revealing a third level of language processing at the formulation stage；they give support to the notion that utterances are not just strings of sounds and linear sequences of words，but are formed into larger structural units.This is demonstrated in examples⑦and⑧.

⑦he swam in the pool　　he swimmed in the pool

⑧the children are in the park　　the chitds are in the park

These mistakes are much less common than the swapping of words and parts of words that one finds in spoonerisms and similar constructions，but their occurrence，however rare，tells one something about the way grammar affects the formulation process.Those familiar with the speech and writing of non-native users of English will recognize these goofs as learner errors，but the big difference between learner errors and the slips exemplified by⑦and⑧is that native speakers almost always correct themselves when they err；learners of English，on the other hand，experience great difficulty recognizing exactly what was wrong and how to rectify it.Almost immediately after saying⑧for example，a native speaker might stop and say‘I mean children’.Learners，upon recognizing that they said something wrong in a sentence like⑨or，more commonly，having it pointed out to them，will often miscorrect the original error and come out with something like‘I mean childrens’.The fact that native speakers correct themselves shows that they are also paying attention to grammar，in addition to concentrating at the sound and word levels of the language.It is no accident that these last examples all involve irregular words.It looks very much as if the speaker has chosen the words and the slots which they fill，and at the last moment，forgotten to choose the right verb or noun form.The errors suggest that speakers organize their utterances into smaller groups of words，like noun phrases，or clauses with a main verb，and having filled these groups with the appropriate lexical items that express the intended meaning，the speakers finally add the appropriate grammatical inflections.Almost always，this complicated process is completed fluently and accurately，and only occasionally，as in these examples，does the formulation of speech slip up.But when it does，it provides us with a glimpse of the production process.

The planning of higher levels of speech—another way of trying to understand the process of producing language is to analyze the steps one has to take and the decisions one has to make in order to produce an intended utterance.