Output editing for lexical status in artificially elicited slips of the tongue

Baars, Bernard J.; Motley, Michael T.; MacKay, Donald G.

doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(75)80017-x

Cited by 309 publications

(284 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

258

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Because the feedback loop through the speech comprehension system activates compatible morpheme representations in the production network, which activate corresponding syllable program nodes, the loop favors the selection of syllable programs that correspond to words. Note that in a context that de-emphasizes selfmonitoring and a lexical involvement, such as the all-nonwords condition of Baars et al (1975), a lexical-error bias should not occur, in agreement with the empirical findings. To conclude, in a model without production-internal backward links from phonemes to lexical forms such as WEAVER++, there are several factors that give rise to a tendency to produce word over non-word errors at a higher rate than chance.…”

Section: The Weaver++ Modelsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Similar to the lexical effects on phoneme processing in spoken word recognition, and contrary to what the interactive account of the DSMSG model implies, however, the lexical error bias is not a mandatory effect, as already suggested by the seminal study of Baars, Motley, and MacKay (1975). That the lexical error bias is not an inevitable effect is also suggested by the absence of the bias in a num-ber of error corpora.…”

Section: The Dsmsg Modelmentioning

confidence: 62%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Modeling the relation between the production and recognition of spoken word forms

Roelofs¹

2003

Phonetics and Phonology in Language Comprehension and Production

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: The Weaver++ Modelsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: The Dsmsg Modelmentioning

confidence: 62%

Modeling the relation between the production and recognition of spoken word forms

Roelofs¹

2003

Phonetics and Phonology in Language Comprehension and Production

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That we sometimes spontaneously correct our own speech errors before they are articulated (Levelt, 1983) indicates that we can monitor our own speech production at some prearticulatory stage. Further evidence for internal speech monitoring comes from experiments designed to elicit slips of the tongue (Baars, Motley & MacKay, 1975). Subjects are much less likely to make a slip when it forms a rude word (e.g., tool kits -* kool tits) than when it does not (Motley, 1980).…”

Section: Monitoring Internal Speechmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring the Time Course of Phonological Encoding

Wheeldon

Levelt

1995

Journal of Memory and Language

229

247

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments examined the time course of phonological encoding in speech production. A new methodology is introduced in which subjects are required to monitor their internal speech production for prespecified target segments and syllables. Experiment 1 demonstrated that word initial target segments are monitored significantly faster than second syllable initial target segments. The addition of a concurrent articulation task (Experiment lb) had a limited effect on performance, excluding the possibility that subjects are monitoring a subvocal articulation of the carrier word. Moreover, no relationship was observed between the pattern of monitoring latencies and the timing of the targets in subjects' overt speech. Subjects are not, therefore, monitoring an internal phonetic representation of the carrier word. Experiment 2 used the production monitoring task to replicate the syllable monitoring effect observed in speech perception experiments: responses to targets were faster when they corresponded to the initial syllable of the carrier word than when they did not. We conclude that subjects are monitoring their internal generation of a syllabified phonological representation. Experiment 3 provides more detailed evidence concerning the time course of the generation of this representation by comparing monitoring latencies to targets within, as well as between, syllables. Some amendments to current models of phonological encoding are suggested in light of these results. © 1995 Academic Press, inc.Most current models of speech production propose that articulation is preceded by the generation of an abstract representation of the form of the target word or utterance (Dell, 1986(Dell, , 1988Garrett, 1975;Levelt, 1989;Levelt & Wheeldon, 1994;Shattuck-Hufnagel, 1979. Indeed, the existence of an internal abstract speech code is a basic assumption within psycholinguistic theory. In speech recognition, a store of abstract lexical representations has been postulated to accommodate the fact that no two tokens of a given word form are acoustically identical (Lahiri & Marslen-Wilson, 1991). Similarly, in speechThe authors thank Ger Desserjer and Jouke Riepkema for their help with the running and analysis of the experiments reported, and Vincent Evers for carrying out speech lab measurements. Many thanks also to Antje Meyer, Pienie Zwitserlood, and an anonymous reviewer for their comments on an earlier version of this article. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Linda Wheeldon, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK. production the same word, in different contexts, can be spoken with very different segmental and syllable structure, intonation, duration, and amplitude. This generalization has long been captured in linguistic theory by the proposal that every linguistic item has a unique phonological representation which encodes only that information which can distinguish among words in the language. Phonological representations are categorical in nature and consist of discre...

show abstract

“…By using taped corpora instead of tranwipts, listener strategies can be minimized, and reasonable samples of unambiguous errors can be obtained by collecting large error corpora. An efficient way of acquiring speech error corpora is to induce errors in experimental settings, for instance by using the SLIPS procedure introduced by Baars et al (1975): or by asking subjects to produce tongue-twisters, such as "She sells sea shells on the sea shore" (see, for instance, Butterworth & Whittaker, 1980;Kupin, 1982;Levitt & Healy, 1985;Shattuck-Hufnagel, 1987, this volume). Problems of siich techniques are that some of the normal planning processes might be omitted or altered and that the articulation might be more difficult than in spontaneous speech.…”

Section: Error Ai5alysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigation of phonological encoding through speech error analyses: Achievements, limitations, and alternatives

Meyer

1992

Cognition

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phonological encoding in language production can be defined as a set of processes generating utterance forms on the basis of semantic and syntactic information. Most evidence about these processes stems from analyses of sound errors. In section 1 of this paper, certain important results of these analyses are reviewed. Two prominent models of phonological encoding, which are mainly based on speech error evidence, are discussed in section 2. In section 3, limitations of speech error analyses are discussed, and it is argued that detailed and comprehensive models of phonological encoding cannot be derived solely on the basis of error analyses. As is argued in section 4, a new research strategy is required. Instead of using the properties of errors to draw inferences about the generation of correct word forms, future research should directly investigate the normal process of phonological encoding

show abstract

Output editing for lexical status in artificially elicited slips of the tongue

Cited by 309 publications

References 3 publications

Modeling the relation between the production and recognition of spoken word forms

Modeling the relation between the production and recognition of spoken word forms

Monitoring the Time Course of Phonological Encoding

Investigation of phonological encoding through speech error analyses: Achievements, limitations, and alternatives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About