What is the difference between comprehension and production

Early lexical development: comprehension and production. Comprehension strategies in children. Speech and language in the laboratory, school, and clinic. This book reports the proceedings of a May conference entitled "Implications of Basic Speech and Language Research for the School and Clinic," the sixth conference in the Communicating by … Expand.

The Acquisition Of Morphophonology. The Acquisition of Morphophonology. A model is presented which details the ways in which … Expand. View 1 excerpt, references background. Strange Eds. Theories in cognitive psychology : the Loyola symposium. Comprehension and production of subject-object order in semantically reversible sentences with animate or inanimate subject and object was studied in an object-manipulation paradigm.

Three groups o The origins of language comprehension. View 2 excerpts, references background. Model-and-replica phonological grammar of a child's first words.

Related Papers. Abstract 22 Citations 11 References Related Papers. We speculate that production disengaged the default mode network more than comprehension in responding to constituent size, due to the stronger requirements for accurate sentence planning Raichle et al.

The interaction effects between constituent size and modality cannot be reduced to task differences between modalities and in particular to the absence of an explicit task in comprehension. On the one hand, the constituent size effect in comprehension and the finding of larger comprehension activity in the LMTG confirm that participants processed the input even in the absence of a task see Fig.

On the other hand, the task requirements in production were very similar across levels of constituent size: what varied was the linguistic complexity of the output.

Differences between modalities may instead show task effects, including cognitive control differences. Task effects thus need not reflect spurious task differences due to the current design, but could be related to inherent differences in cognitive control between production and comprehension. Studies of spontaneous production may be able to address to what extent cognitive control is needed during naturalistic production as opposed to comprehension.

An additional dissociation in the response pattern for production and comprehension was found in the BOLD time courses. Production and comprehension elicited opposite profiles of response latencies in relation with constituent size. Larger structures were characterized by later peaks in comprehension, confirming previous evidence suggesting that larger structures take longer to be computed Pallier et al.

In contrast, larger structures elicited earlier peaks than smaller structures in production. This was likely due to planning differences between conditions.

Reaction time analyses showed that onset times increased with constituent size, with C2 taking longer than C1, and C4 taking longer than C2. Since high-level processing can be initiated for the whole clause before speaking Smith and Wheeldon , it is likely that more extensive planning at the message or structural level took place in early stages for the more complex structures, inducing early peaks in BOLD activity.

In contrast, in the conditions with smaller constituent size the structures to be computed were smaller and planning may have been in a word-by-word fashion interleaved with articulation, hence inducing sustained activity with later peaks. Since this was an exploratory analysis for which the stimuli and the design were not optimized a priori , future studies will need to clarify whether BOLD peak latencies in production are indeed influenced by planning scope and if the inverse relationship between onset times and production peak latencies holds with different stimuli and paradigms.

Overall, the current results are striking in showing how production and comprehension share resources but modulate them differently. Spatially, frontal and temporal regions are engaged in both modalities, but to different extents.

Temporally, constituent size affects BOLD peak latencies in both modalities but in opposite directions. Rather than providing support for a distinction of core processes and representations between modalities Meyer et al. In production, linguistic processes map from higher to lower linguistic levels, i. This directional difference implies that the inputs and outputs of each modality are opposite in production and comprehension, which results in differences in recruitment patterns within the shared language network Momma and Phillips ; Indefrey , reflected not only in different regional levels of activity, but also in timing patterns.

In conclusion, the current results extend the constituent structure effect found in comprehension Pallier et al. Additionally, the results confirm that the neural resources for sentence production and comprehension are largely overlapping, supporting accounts of shared representations between modalities.

Finally, our results highlight modality-specific differences in regional and time course patterns that underline inevitable differences in the requirements of speaking and listening. We would like to thank Eva Poort for help with stimulus recording and coding of production recordings, Maarten van den Heuvel for help with presentation scripts and Marcel Zwiers for support with data preprocessing.

This work was supported by the Max Planck Society. The one provided is a literal translation of the Dutch sentence. Since peak time extraction provided values in 1. The model returned a significant interaction between modality and time, and a three-way interaction between modality, constituent size and time, confirming the results of the peak time analysis.

Baggio G , Hagoort P. The balance between memory and unification in semantics: a dynamic account of the N Language and Cognitive Processes. Google Scholar. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language. Functional characterization of the human speech articulation network. Cereb Cortex. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4.

Journal of Statistical Software. Basic linguistic composition recruits the left anterior temporal lobe and left angular gyrus during both listening and reading.

Localising memory retrieval and syntactic composition: an fMRI study of naturalistic language comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. Binder JR. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. Syntactic processing is distributed across the language system. Bock K. Language production: methods and methodologies. Brain and Language.

Relational vs. Region of interest analysis using an SPM toolbox. Norms of age of acquisition and concreteness for 30, Dutch words. Acta Psychologica. Cortical encoding of linguistic constituent with and without morphosyntactic cues. Comprehension, production, and language acquisition.

Annual Review of Psychology. Inside the syntactic box: the neural correlates of the functional and positional level in covert sentence production. Dale AM. Optimal experimental design for event-related fMRI.

Hum Brain Mapp. Cortical surface-based analysis: I. Dell GS , Chang F. The P-chain: relating sentence production and its disorders to comprehension and acquisition. Nature Methods. Neural connectivity in syntactic movement processing. Front Hum Neurosci. Lexical and syntactic representations in the brain: an fMRI investigation with multi-voxel pattern analyses. Ferreira F.

Effects of length and syntactic complexity on initiation times for prepared utterances. The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences.

Cognitive Psychology. Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. Ferreira F , Lowder MW. In: Ross BH , editor. Psychology of Learning and Motivation. Vol Academic Press , pp. Google Preview. Isolating syntax in natural language: MEG evidence for an early contribution of left posterior temporal cortex. Unbiased nonlinear average age-appropriate brain templates from birth to adulthood. Car: companion to applied regression. Friederici AD.

The cortical language circuit: from auditory perception to sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. The language network. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. Conjunction revisited. Gambi C , Pickering MJ. Models linking production and comprehension. In: The handbook of psycholinguistics. Wiley Online Library. Garrett M.

Levels of processing in sentence production. In: Language production Vol. Academic Press. Garrett MF. Remarks on the relation between language production and language comprehension systems. In: Neural models of language processes. Elsevier , pp. Syntax production in bilinguals. From a concept to a word in a syntactically complete sentence: an fMRI study on spontaneous language production in an overt picture description task. Repetition and the brain: neural models of stimulus-specific effects.

Grodzinsky Y. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Hagoort P. On Broca, brain, and binding: a new framework. MUC memory, unification, control and beyond. Front Psychol. The neurobiology of language beyond single-word processing. Hagoort P , Indefrey P. The neurobiology of language beyond single words.

Annual Review of Neuroscience. Overt sentence production in event-related fMRI. Language structure in the brain: a fixation-related fMRI study of syntactic surprisal in reading.

Hendriks P , Koster C. Henson RN. In: Brain Mapping: an encyclopedic reference. Hickok G , Poeppel D. The cortical organization of speech processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. Who was the agent? The neural correlates of reanalysis processes during sentence comprehension. Human Brain Mapping. Competitive mechanisms in sentence processing: common and distinct production and reading comprehension networks linked to the prefrontal cortex.

Indefrey P. The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics. A neural correlate of syntactic encoding during speech production. Neural responses to the production and comprehension of syntax in identical utterances. Jackendoff R , Audring J. The texture of the lexicon: relational morphology and the parallel architecture. Jaeger TF.

Improved optimization for the robust and accurate linear registration and motion correction of brain images. Kempen G. Could grammatical encoding and grammatical decoding be subserved by the same processing module? Grammatical workspace sharing during language production and language comprehension: evidence from grammatical multitasking. Behavior Research Methods. Neural correlates of syntax production in schizophrenia.

The British Journal of Psychiatry. Active head motion reduction in magnetic resonance imaging using tactile feedback.

The neural and computational bases of semantic cognition. Neural encoding and production of functional morphemes in the posterior temporal lobe. Nature Communications. Emmeans: estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. Levelt WJ. A history of psycholinguistics: The pre-Chomskyan era. Oxford University Press. Neural correlates of processing passive sentences. Brain Sciences. Matchin W. Psychon Bull Rev. Matchin W , Hickok G. The cortical Organization of Syntax.

Matchin W , Wood E. Syntax-sensitive regions of the posterior inferior frontal gyrus and the posterior temporal lobe are differentially recruited by production and perception. Cereb Cortex Comm. Shared language: overlap and segregation of the neuronal infrastructure for speaking and listening revealed by functional MRI. Psychol Sci. The neuronal infrastructure of speaking.

Primary progressive aphasia and the evolving neurology of the language network. Nature Reviews Neurology. Just as important is background knowledge in order to form correct judgments about the context being read. Part of this knowledge includes the meaning of humor, slang, idioms i.

Languages have thousands of common and often subtle semantic attributes that involve analogy, exaggeration, sarcasm, puns, and parables to convey world knowledge. Teachers can explicitly teach these attributes so that they are recognized more readily, explicitly define particular sayings and expressions, and demonstrate examples and nonexamples.

Like vocabulary, the majority of semantic knowledge is derived from previous experiences and background knowledge. Teaching students phrases through exposure to discussions, reading, and other venues like television, movies, and online videos does a lot to promote this language comprehension element. Language use is termed pragmatics. Pragmatics are the rules of language that lead to appropriate use in assorted settings and contexts.

Each setting e. To communicate appropriately, students must learn patterns of conversation and dialogue that occur in assorted settings. Understanding the nuances of pragmatics contributes to language comprehension, which in turn enables a reader to recognize its uses in written text, leading to more successful reading comprehension.

The pragmatics of language use in school requires students to comprehend academic language. Students, especially English language learners and students with social difficulties, must comprehend the differences between conversation and academic language. Students can perform enjoyable skits demonstrating the differences in language use in various situations and teachers can monitor and model language use as students tell stories, describe events, or recount personal experiences.

To help students develop language comprehension, the underlying meaning-based elements of reading—background knowledge, vocabulary, and language structures—must be taught and monitored.

Unlike teaching students to recognize words accurately and automatically so that they become fluent readers, teaching the elements of language comprehension must be done so that students become increasingly strategic about extracting the meaning from texts they read.

This is an incremental, ongoing, developmental process that lasts a lifetime. With each new bit of background knowledge, each new vocabulary word, and each new understanding of language use, students can integrate this knowledge strategically to comprehend text. The two essential components of the Simple View of Reading, automatic word recognition and strategic language comprehension, contribute to the ultimate goal of teaching reading: skilled reading comprehension.

Once students become proficient decoders and can automatically identify words, the role of language comprehension becomes increasingly important as students shift from paying attention to the words to paying attention to meaning. Teachers must be ever mindful of the presence or absence of background knowledge that students bring to the task.

The value of the knowledge that students bring to their reading should never be sacrificed for the sake of comprehension strategy instruction. They must go hand in hand.

Adams, M. American Educator, 34, , Beck, I. Text talk: Capturing the benefits of read aloud experiences for young children. The Reading Teacher, 55, Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. Bloom, L. Language development and language disorders. Cain, K. Cervetti, G. Increasing opportunities to acquire knowledge through reading.

Hiebert Ed. Chase, W. Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology , 4 , Colvin, G. Talent is overrated: Wh at really separates world-class performers from everybody else. New York, NY: Penguin. Council of Chief State School Officers Knowledge, skills, and d ispositions: The Innovation L ab Network state framework for college, career, and c i tizenship readiness, and implications for state p olicy.

Cunningham, A. What reading does for the mind. American Educator, 22 1 , Davis, M. Reading instruction: The two keys. DeGroot, A. Thought and choice in chess 2nd ed. The Hague: Mouton. Duncan, G. School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, Foorman, B. The case for early reading intervention. Blachman Ed. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes. Gough, P. Decoding, reading, and reading disability.

Remedial and Special Education, 7, Hart, B. Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Hayes, D. Journal of Child Language , 15 , Hirsch, E. Building knowledge: The case for bringing content into the language artsblock and for a knowledge-rich curriculum core for all children.

American Educator, 30, , Hoover, W. The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2 , Marzano, R. The new taxonomy of educational perspectives 2nd ed. McKibben, B. Atwan Eds. New York, NY: Bedford. Meurer, J. Schemata and reading comprehension. Nagy, W. Understanding words and word learning: Putting research on vocabulary intoclassroom practice. Berninger Eds. Washington, DC: Author. National Research Council.

Pressley, M. Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. Scarborough, H. Connecting early language and literacy to later reading dis abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. Dickinson Eds. Schweizer, B. Cultural literacy: Is it time to revisit the debate? Thought and Action, 25, Shanahan, T.

Special Needs Activities.