Lexical bias revisited: Detecting, rejecting and repairing speech errors in inner speech

Nooteboom, S.G.

doi:10.1016/j.specom.2005.02.003

Cited by 52 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 23 publications

(56 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A common observation in the conversation-analytic literature on self-repair (Schegloff 1979, Fox and Jasperson 1995, Jasperson 2002, Rieger 2003 is that in spontaneous conversation, speakers tend to do self-repair work without delay, while other -repair -in which listeners notice an error and invite the speaker to repair it -is frequently delayed, if not avoided altogether, as shown by Schegloff et al (1977). Psycholinguistic studies confirm that speakers tend to initiate self-repair as soon as an error is detected (Levelt 1983, Blackmer and Mitton 1991, Nooteboom 2005.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…All instances involve the overt correction or reformulation of immediately prior speech. Instances of 'covert repair' such as hesitations, repetitions and restarts (Levelt 1983, Postma and Kolk 1993, Fox Tree and Clark 1997, Nooteboom 2005 were not included. It should be noted that the material used for this study is rather different from that used in some of the earlier studies of self-repair referred to above -in particular Levelt (1983) and Levelt and Cutler (1983).…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Phonetic reduction and informational redundancy in self-initiated self-repair in Dutch

Plug

2011

Journal of Phonetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Phonetic reduction and informational redundancy in self-initiated self-repair in Dutch

Plug

2011

Journal of Phonetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Previous research has shown that speakers are more likely to produce errors resulting in new words than pseudowords, indicating that lexicality is a filter used to intercept errors during speech production (Baars, Motley, & MacKay, 1975;Hartsuiker, Corley & Martensen, 2005;Nooteboom, 2005). Returning to our task, the following three predictions can be made: 1) Impaired language processing of any sort (including monitoring) would be apparent through slower response times and/or higher error rates; 2) Impaired self-monitoring for accuracy would be indexed by an overall increased error-rate; 3) Impaired selfmonitoring for lexicality would result in a modulation of errors as a function of their lexical status.…”

Section: The Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Internal modeling of upcoming speech: A causal role of the right posterior cerebellum in non-motor aspects of language production

Runnqvist

Bonnard

Gauvin

et al. 2016

Cortex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some language processing theories propose that, just as for other somatic actions, self-monitoring of language production is achieved through internal modeling. The cerebellum is the proposed center of such internal modeling in motor control, and the right cerebellum has been linked to an increasing number of language functions, including predictive processing during comprehension.Relating these findings, we tested whether the right posterior cerebellum has a causal role for self-monitoring of speech errors. Participants received 1Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation during 15 minutes to lobules Crus I and II in the right hemisphere, and, in counterbalanced orders, to the contralateral area in the left cerebellar hemisphere (control) in order to induce a temporary inactivation of one of these zones. Immediately afterwards, they engaged in a speech production task priming the production of speech errors.Language production was impaired after right compared to left hemisphere stimulation, a finding that provides evidence for a causal role of the cerebellum during language production. We interpreted this role in terms of internal modeling of upcoming speech through a verbal working memory process used to prevent errors.

show abstract

“…The use of this criterion is supported by the lexical bias effect both in corpus studies (e.g., Hartsuiker, Anton-Mendez, Roelstraete, & Costa, 2006;Nooteboom, 2005b) and in the SLIP task (Spoonerisms of Laboratory Induced Dispositions; e.g., Baars, Motley, & MacKay, 1975;Dell, 1986;Hartsuiker et al, 2006;Humphreys, 2002;Nooteboom, 2005a;Nooteboom & Quené, 2008). For example, in the SLIP task, word pairs that have to be read aloud are preceded by word pairs that bias them into making errors, like exchanging the first phonemes of each word (tool carts -> cool tarts).…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Lexical selection and verbal self-monitoring: Effects of lexicality, context, and time pressure in picture-word interference

Dhooge

Hartsuiker

2012

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current views of lexical selection in language production differ in whether they assume lexical selection by competition or not. To account for recent data with the picture-word interference (PWI) task, both views need to be supplemented with assumptions about the control processes that block distractor naming. In this paper, we propose that such control is achieved by the verbal self-monitor. If monitoring is involved in the PWI task, performance in this task should be affected by variables that influence monitoring such as lexicality, lexicality of context, and time pressure. Indeed, pictures were named more quickly when the distractor was a pseudoword than a word (Experiment 1), which reversed in a context of pseudoword items (Experiment 3). Additionally, under time pressure, participants frequently named the distractor instead of the picture, suggesting that the monitor failed to exclude the distractor response. Such errors occurred more often with word than pseudoword distractors (Experiment 2); however, the effect flipped around in a pseudoword context (Experiment 4). Our findings argue for the role of the monitoring system in lexical selection. Implications for competitive and non-competitive models are discussed.

show abstract

Lexical bias revisited: Detecting, rejecting and repairing speech errors in inner speech

Cited by 52 publications

References 23 publications

Phonetic reduction and informational redundancy in self-initiated self-repair in Dutch

Phonetic reduction and informational redundancy in self-initiated self-repair in Dutch

Internal modeling of upcoming speech: A causal role of the right posterior cerebellum in non-motor aspects of language production

Lexical selection and verbal self-monitoring: Effects of lexicality, context, and time pressure in picture-word interference

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About