A Cross-Linguistic Study of Individual Differences in Speech Planning

Abstract

Although previous research has shown that there exist individual and cross-linguistic differences in planning strategies during language production, little is known about how such individual differences might vary depending on which language a speaker is planning. The present series of studies examines individual differences in planning strategies exhibited by speakers of American English, French, and German. Participants were asked to describe images on a computer monitor while their eye movements were monitored. In addition, we measured participants' working memory capacity and speed of processing. The results indicate that in the present study, English and German were planned less incrementally (further in advance) prior to speech onset compared to French, which was planned more incrementally (not as far in advance). Crucially, speed of processing predicted the scope of planning for French speakers, but not for English or German speakers. These results suggest that the different planning strategies that are invoked by syntactic choices available in different languages are associated with the tendency for speakers to rely on different cognitive support systems as they plan sentences.

Keywords: crosslinguistic; incrementality; individual difference; speech planning; speed of processing; working memory.

Figure 1

Contrast and control conditions in Swets et al. (2014). Figures 1 and 2 are reprinted from Swets (2015). With permission from Peter Lang International Academic Publishers, Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Wien, copyright 2015.

Figure 2

Examples of Matcher displays. The left side shows the initial state of a display before the beginning of a given round. The right side shows target state of the display after all commands had been given for a round.

Figure 3

Log-scaled initiation time as a function of (A) working memory scores as measured by the reading span task, and (B) speed of processing scores as measured by the letter comparison task. The gray bands represent 95% confidence interval for the regression lines. Contrast, Contrast condition; control, Control condition.

Figure 4

Average number of pauses per utterance as a function of (A) working memory scores as measured by the reading span task, and (B) speed of processing scores as measured by the letter comparison task. The gray bands represent 95% confidence interval for the regression lines. Contrast, Contrast condition; control, Control condition.

Figure 5

Proportion of gaze time to Region 3 per utterance as a function of (A) working memory scores as measured by the reading span task, and (B) speed of processing scores as measured by the letter comparison task. The gray bands represent 95% confidence interval for the regression lines. Contrast, Contrast condition; control, Control condition.