Roelofs A, Meyer A S, Levelt W J
School of Psychology, University of Exeter, Washington Singer Laboratories, UK.
Cognition. 1998 Dec;69(2):219-30. doi: 10.1016/s0010-0277(98)00056-0.
In a recent series of papers, Caramazza and Miozzo [Caramazza, A., 1997. How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? Cognitive Neuropsychology 14, 177-208; Caramazza, A., Miozzo, M., 1997. The relation between syntactic and phonological knowledge in lexical access: evidence from the 'tip-of-the-tongue' phenomenon. Cognition 64, 309-343; Miozzo, M., Caramazza, A., 1997. On knowing the auxiliary of a verb that cannot be named: evidence for the independence of grammatical and phonological aspects of lexical knowledge. Journal of Cognitive Neuropsychology 9, 160-166] argued against the lemma/lexeme distinction made in many models of lexical access in speaking, including our network model [Roelofs, A., 1992. A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition 42, 107-142; Levelt, W.J.M., Roelofs, A., Meyer, A.S., 1998. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, (in press)]. Their case was based on the observations that grammatical class deficits of brain-damaged patients and semantic errors may be restricted to either spoken or written forms and that the grammatical gender of a word and information about its form can be independently available in tip-of-the-tongue states (TOTs). In this paper, we argue that though our model is about speaking, not taking position on writing, extensions to writing are possible that are compatible with the evidence from aphasia and speech errors. Furthermore, our model does not predict a dependency between gender and form retrieval in TOTs. Finally, we argue that Caramazza and Miozzo have not accounted for important parts of the evidence motivating the lemma/lexeme distinction, such as word frequency effects in homophone production, the strict ordering of gender and phoneme access in LRP data, and the chronometric and speech error evidence for the production of complex morphology.
在最近的一系列论文中，卡拉马扎和米奥佐[卡拉马扎，A.，1997年。词汇通达中有多少加工水平？《认知神经心理学》14卷，第177 - 208页；卡拉马扎，A.，米奥佐，M.，1997年。词汇通达中句法知识与语音知识的关系：来自“舌尖现象”的证据。《认知》64卷，第309 - 343页；米奥佐，M.，卡拉马扎，A.，1997年。关于知道一个无法说出的动词的助动词：词汇知识的语法和语音方面独立性的证据。《认知神经心理学杂志》9卷，第160 - 166页]反对在许多言语词汇通达模型中所做的词元/词位区分，包括我们的网络模型[罗尔夫斯，A.，1992年。言语中词元提取的扩散激活理论。《认知》42卷，第107 - 142页；列尔特，W.J.M.，罗尔夫斯，A.，迈耶，A.S.，1998年。言语产生中的词汇通达理论。《行为与脑科学》（即将出版）]。他们的观点基于以下观察结果：脑损伤患者的语法类别缺陷和语义错误可能仅限于口语或书面形式，并且在舌尖状态（TOT）中，单词的语法性和关于其形式的信息可以独立获取。在本文中，我们认为虽然我们的模型是关于言语的，对书写不持立场，但可以对书写进行扩展，使其与失语症和言语错误的证据相兼容。此外，我们的模型并不预测在舌尖状态下性和形式提取之间的依赖性。最后，我们认为卡拉马扎和米奥佐没有考虑到支持词元/词位区分的证据的重要部分，例如同音词产生中的词频效应、LRP数据中性和音素提取的严格顺序，以及复杂形态产生的计时和言语错误证据。
