Hedging one's bets too much? A reply to Levelt (2002)

Levelt (2002) challenges the theoretical motivation and the interpretation of the data reported in Alario, Costa, and Caramazza's (2002) study on utterance planning during speech production. In this response we argue against these criticisms. First, we show that the hypotheses entertained in our research about the scope of phonological encoding are well motivated in the context of current theories of speech production. Second, we argue that although alternative interpretations of the frequency effect we report are logically possible, the available empirical evidence makes them very unlikely.