FEATURE ARTICLE
Tip-of-the-Tongue States Yield Language Insights
Probing the recall of those missing words provides a glimpse of how we turn thoughts into speech and how this process changes with age
Lise Abrams
Studying TOT States
This model of weakened phonological connections makes an important prediction. If weakened connections to a word's phonology cause TOT states, then TOT states should resolve when the missing phonology is encountered in some way that strengthens those connections. It's possible to test this prediction with a simple interview. The test protocol often uses a computer to present the questions, which minimizes variability between trials. An interview session begins with a list of general-knowledge questions whose answers are the "target" words. As each question comes up on the screen, the study participant indicates whether they know the answer, don't know the answer or know it but can't quite recall the word—experiencing a TOT state, in other words. When the question elicits a TOT response, the computer gives a list of words to read that are phonologically related or unrelated to the target, then presents the same question a second time. By comparing the TOT responses to the first and second readings of the question, this protocol tests whether presentation of a word's phonology increases TOT resolution by aiding target retrieval. For the experiment to reflect pop-up resolutions, participants must remain unaware of the connection between the listed words and the target. Otherwise, they could use a directed-memory search for the target, which involves different processes from those where the TOT word pops into mind without conscious effort.
In 2000, Lori E. James, now at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, and Burke used this protocol to test the idea that phonologically similar words could prompt TOT resolution. For half of the TOT states, participants read aloud a list of words that cumulatively contained all of the syllables of the TOT word. For example, if a participant had a TOT response for the target abdicate, he might be asked to read aloud a list of ten words, including abstract, indigent, truncate, tradition and locate, each of which contains a syllable of the target. For the other half of TOT states, participants read a list of 10 phonologically unrelated words. Participants then saw the question again and attempted to retrieve the target.
The results showed that people resolved more TOT states after reading phonologically related words than they did with unrelated words. Speaking and hearing the syllables of the target, even when they were contained within other words, increased those sounds' recency of usage. This increase subsequently boosted the strength of those connections and enabled people to retrieve the target. James and Burke suggested that these results mimic how TOT states are resolved in everyday life, where we suddenly come up with the target, seemingly out of nowhere. In actuality, these pop-up resolutions of our TOT states are probably caused by encountering the target's phonology in some way.
The intriguing work of James and Burke inspired my colleagues and me to pursue additional experiments. We wondered, for example, if speakers needed the target's complete phonology to help resolve TOT states. In particular, we reasoned that because the first sound of a word was—obviously—spoken before the others, that it might be more critical for word retrieval. If this hypothesis were true, then strengthening connections to the initial phoneme might in turn strengthen the remaining phonological segments during a TOT state.
Using James and Burke's method, my former graduate student Katherine K. White (now a professor at the College of Charleston), then-undergraduate student Stacy L. Eitel and I conducted several experiments to test this idea. We presented general-knowledge questions and, following TOT responses, gave participants a list of words to read. On one list, the words were unrelated to the target. The other list had several words that shared the target's first phoneme. After the participants read the list, we presented the question again. We found that the phoneme-related list wasn't any better than the unrelated list at helping to resolve a TOT state. In retrospect, we realized that this finding mimics the real-life experience of knowing the first letter of a sought-after word but being unable to retrieve the whole thing.
We then discovered that word recall and TOT resolution require the entire first syllable, rather than just the first sound. Following TOT responses, we gave participants one of four possible word lists. Three of the lists contained words that were phonologically related to the target but shared only a single syllable—first, middle or last. The other list contained phonologically unrelated words. When seeing the question for the second time, reading words with the target's first syllable—but not the second or third—helped resolve TOT states relative to phonologically unrelated words. Thus, words like contact were helpful in recalling the target word contraband, but words like extradite and husband were not. These results suggest that a word's initial phonology is the key to its retrieval.
We also found that reading the words silently was as effective as reading them aloud in resolving TOT states. Therefore, it isn't necessary to either speak or hear the phonology, which broadens the possibilities for encountering phonological cues that help resolve TOT states in everyday life. This makes sense given that TOT states sometimes resolve when we are quiet and alone. Simply thinking about words or saying them to oneself can help retrieve the missing word.
» Post Comment