Event Abstract

Back to Event

Revisiting the dual-nature account of homophony: Evidence from picture naming in aphasia

Marja-Liisa Mailend1* and Erica Middleton1
  • 1 Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute (MRRI), United States

Homophones provide a unique opportunity for studying the cognitive architecture of word production and its breakdown in aphasia. Jescheniak and Levelt [1; see also 2] reported a central finding involving homophony termed the “frequency-inheritance effect”: low frequency words (e.g., bee) with a high frequency homophonic counterpart (e.g., be) are named more fluently than low frequency words without a homophonic counterpart. Because increasing word frequency is understood to facilitate phonological retrieval [3], Jescheniak and Levelt interpreted the frequency-inheritance effect as evidence that separate lexical-semantic representations for homophone counterparts (e.g., lemmas for BEE and BE) access the same form representation in production. However, subsequent studies [e.g., 4-5] failed to replicate the frequency-inheritance effect. To account for these discrepant findings, Middleton et al. [6] proposed the dual-nature account of homophony in which homophony promotes accurate naming by facilitating phonological retrieval, but hinders naming by causing difficulty during lexical-semantic selection. In support of the dual-nature account, Middleton and colleagues found that homophony facilitated naming in 6 people with post-stroke aphasia (PWA) with phonological impairment, but not in a group of 6 PWA with lexical-semantic impairment. Furthermore, homophony was associated with enhanced omission errors in the lexical-semantic group, an error type attributable to lexical selection failure [7]. This study replicates and extends the findings of Middleton et al. using a picture-naming test comprising 31 low frequency targets (e.g., bee) with a high frequency homophonic counterpart (Homophones condition) and 26 low frequency non-homophones (Control condition). In contrast to the group design of Middleton et al., in the current study the naming test was administered to a large (n=65) unselected group of PWA. The dual-nature account predicts that, in comparison to the Control condition, the Homophones condition will promote lexical-semantic selection failure (manifesting in enhanced semantic and omission errors) but facilitate phonological retrieval (manifesting in reduced phonological errors) across the sample. Furthermore, in the Homophones condition, increasing frequency dominance (i.e., degree of greater frequency of the homophonic counterpart relative to the target) should increase lexical-semantic selection failure reflected in enhanced omissions and semantic error rates. Separate mixed logistic regression models were applied to trial level data for each error type (dependent variable coded as 1=error of interest; 0=all other trials). As predicted, the results indicated significantly fewer phonological errors in the Homophones versus the Control condition (z=2.40, p=.017; see Figure 1). Counter to predictions, we observed equivalent rates of omissions and semantic errors between conditions. However, in the Homophones condition, frequency dominance was strongly and positively related to omissions (z=5.38, p<.001) and semantic errors (z=6.14, p<.001) but not phonological errors (p=.53), underscoring the specificity of the frequency dominance effect to the lexical-semantic stage of word production. These findings are consistent with the two counterposing effects of homophony proposed by the dual-nature framework: (1) homophony promotes accurate phonological retrieval because of feedback of activation from the homophonic counterpart via shared phonology; (2) degree of activation of the homophonic counterpart via shared phonology interferes with lexical selection as a function of the counterpart’s frequency dominance relative to the target.

Figure 1
Image

References

[1] Jescheniak, J. D., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Word-frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 824–843.

[2] Dell, G. S. (1990). Effects of frequency and vocabulary type on phonological speech errors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5, 313–349.

[3] Kittredge, A. K., Dell, G. S., Verkuilen, J., & Schwartz, M. F. (2008). Where is the effect of frequency in word production? Insights from aphasic picture-naming errors. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 25, 463–492.

[4] Caramazza, A., Costa, A., Miozzo, M., & Bi, Y. C. (2001). The specific word frequency effect: Implications for the representation of homophones in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1430–1450

[5] Caramazza, A., Costa, A., Miozzo, M., & Bi, Y. C. (2001). The specificword frequency effect: Implications for the representation of homophones in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1430–1450

[6] Middleton, E.L., Chen, Q., & Verkuilen, J. (2015). Friends and Foes in the Lexicon: Homophone Naming in Aphasia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 41(1), 77–94.

[7] Chen, Q., Middleton, E. L., Mirman, D. (in press). Words fail: Lesion-symptom mapping of errors of omission in post-stroke aphasia. Journal of Neuropsychology.

Keywords: Aphasia, lexical access, naming, Interactive activation, Homophony

Conference: Academy of Aphasia 56th Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada, 21 Oct - 23 Oct, 2018.

Presentation Type: oral presentation

Topic: not eligible for a student prize

Citation: Mailend M and Middleton E (2019). Revisiting the dual-nature account of homophony: Evidence from picture naming in aphasia. Conference Abstract: Academy of Aphasia 56th Annual Meeting. doi: 10.3389/conf.fnhum.2018.228.00102

Copyright: The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers. They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters.

The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated.

Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed.

For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions.

Received: 30 Apr 2018; Published Online: 22 Jan 2019.

* Correspondence: Dr. Marja-Liisa Mailend, Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute (MRRI), Philadelphia, United States, mailendm@einstein.edu