A dual system for producing self-repairs in spontaneous speech: Evidence from experimentally elicited corrections

Wijk, C. van; Kempen, Gerard

doi:10.1016/0010-0285(87)90014-4

Cited by 69 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(16 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…processes having the authority to interrupt ongoing speech production activity at any point in time (cf. Van Wijk & Kempen, 1987, for some supporting experimental evidence).…”

Section: Repairs and Ellipsismentioning

confidence: 82%

An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation

1987

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…processes having the authority to interrupt ongoing speech production activity at any point in time (cf. Van Wijk & Kempen, 1987, for some supporting experimental evidence).…”

Section: Repairs and Ellipsismentioning

confidence: 82%

An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation

1987

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…First, in spontaneous error repairs the grammatical form of the original utterance constrains the form of the repair (Levelt, 1983;van Wijk & Kempen, 1987), so a repair is well formed if the concatenation of the original utterance, a completion of the interrupted constituent, a conjunction, and the repair results in a correct sentence. This observation suggests that speakers retain the original utterance and add the repair onto it.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This observation suggests that speakers retain the original utterance and add the repair onto it. Second, some overt repairs refer back to the original utterance with a pronoun, as in "Take the oranges to Elmira, um, I mean take them to Corning" (Core & Schubert, 1999; see also van Wijk & Kempen, 1987). Assuming that anaphoric reference requires inspection of the antecedent noun (e.g., so that the pronoun gets the correct grammatical gender), part of the original utterance (oranges in the example) appears to be retained.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, the revision hypothesis assumes that speakers have access to stored plans and revise these plans as required (van Wijk & Kempen, 1987). A speaker would then not need to plan entirely from scratch, but would use aspects of the initially planned representations that were still appropriate (e.g., a syntactic frame with the words inserted in the appropriate positions).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Repairing inappropriately specified utterances: Revision or restart?

Boland

Hartsuiker

Pickering

et al. 2005

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two experiments, we investigated repair of inappropriately specified utterances (e.g., blue square instead of dark blue square) to determine whether speakers can simply revise a speech plan or must begin anew. In Experiment 1, speakers produced a prime utterance followed by a target utterance that differed from the prime in only one word, but in Experiment 2, they only planned the prime but produced the target. If speakers must repair by restarting, both situations would involve planning from scratch, with a possible benefit of residual activation. If they can repair by revising, though, only the first situation would involve planning from scratch, and the second situation would involve revision of a plan. The targets had either one word more (addition) or fewer (deletion) than the prime sentences. The restart hypothesis predicted that any cost of addition over deletion should be similar in the two experiments. In contrast, the revision hypothesis predicted an extra cost of addition in Experiment 2, because addition involves retrieval of an extra word. In support of the revision hypothesis, there was no difference between additions and deletions in Experiment 1, but in Experiment 2 additions took longer than deletions. We conclude that speakers can repair utterances by revising a speech plan.

show abstract

“…Van Wijk and Kempen (1987)) involves the reformulation of one or a few major constituents only. Examples (1 1) and (12) show that they have their coordination counterparts as well, namely in gapping constructions.…”

Section: Coordination and Self-correctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A dual system for producing self-repairs in spontaneous speech: Evidence from experimentally elicited corrections

Cited by 69 publications

References 11 publications

An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation

An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation

Repairing inappropriately specified utterances: Revision or restart?

Conjunction reduction and gapping in clause‐level coordination: an inheritance‐based approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About