Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 107–157 | Cite as

A Cross-Linguistic Speech Error Investigation of Functional Complexity

  • Sheri Wells-Jensen
Original Paper


This work is a systematic, cross-linguistic examination of speech errors in English, Hindi, Japanese, Spanish and Turkish. It first describes a methodology for the generation of parallel corpora of error data, then uses these data to examine three general hypotheses about the relationship between language structure and the speech production system. All of the following hypotheses were supported by the data. Languages are equally complex. No overall differences were found in the numbers of errors made by speakers of the five languages in the study. Languages are processed in similar ways. English-based generalizations about language production were tested to see to what extent they would hold true across languages. It was found that, to a large degree, languages follow similar patterns. However, the relative numbers of phonological anticipations and perseverations in other languages did not follow the English pattern. Languages differ in that speech errors tend to cluster around loci of complexity within each language. Languages such as Turkish and Spanish, which have more inflectional morphology, exhibit more errors involving inflected forms, while languages such as Japanese, with rich systems of closed-class forms, tend to have more errors involving closed-class items.


Speech production Speech errors Psycholinguistics Complexity Cross-linguistic Speech production Functional 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alegre M., Gordon P. (1999). Frequency effects and the Representational status of regular inflections. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(1): 41–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baars B.J. (1980). The competing plans hypothesis: An heuristic viewpoint on the causes of errors in speech. In: Dechert H.W., Raupach M., (eds), Temporal variables in speech. New York, MoutonGoogle Scholar
  3. Baars B.J. (eds) (1992). Experimental slips and human error: Exploring the architecture of volition. New York, Plenum PressGoogle Scholar
  4. Berg T. (1987). A cross-linguistic comparison of slips of the tongue. Bloomington, Indiana University Linguistics ClubGoogle Scholar
  5. Butt J., Benjamin C. (1988). A new reference grammar of modern Spanish. London, Hodder & StoughtonGoogle Scholar
  6. Caplan D. (1992). Language: Structure, processing and disorders. Cambridge, MA, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark H.H., Clark E.V. (1977). Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics. New York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich IncGoogle Scholar
  8. Comrie B. (1992). Before complexity. In: Hawkins J.A., Gell-Mann M. (eds), The evolution of human languages. Redwood City, CA, Addison-Wesley, pp. 193–211Google Scholar
  9. Dalbor J.B. (1980). Spanish pronunciation: Theory and practice. New York, Holt Rinehart and Winston IncGoogle Scholar
  10. De Mello G. (1990). Español Contemporaneo Lanham, Maryland, University Press of America Inc.Google Scholar
  11. Del Viso P.S. (1992). Errores espontaneos del habla y produccion. Doctoral Dissertation, Universidad Complutense de Madrid.Google Scholar
  12. Dell G.S. (1984). Representation of serial order in speech: Evidence from the repeated phoneme effect in speech errors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory and Cognition 10(2): 222–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dell G.S. (1986). A spreading activation theory of retrieval in language production. Psychological Review 93, 283–321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dell G.S. (1990). Effects of frequency and vocabulary type on phonological speech errors. Language and Cognitive Processes 5, 313–349Google Scholar
  15. Dell G.S., Burger L.K., Svec W.R. (1997). Language production and serial order: A functional analysis and a model. Psychological Review 104, 123–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Donegan P.J., & David S. (1979). The study of Natural Phonology. w: D. Daniel (Ed.), Current approaches to phonological theory (pp. 126–173). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Fleck M. (2004). Childes List. Scholar
  18. Fromkin V.A. (eds) (1973), Speech errors as linguistic evidence. The Netherlands, Mouton and CompanyGoogle Scholar
  19. Fromkin V.A. (eds) (1980), Errors in linguistic performance: Slips of the tongue, ear, pen and hand. New York, Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  20. Garrett M.F. (1975). The analysis of sentence production. In: Bower G., (eds), Psychology of learning and motivation, vol. 9. New York, Academic Press, pp. 137–177Google Scholar
  21. Garrett M.F. (1980). Levels of processing in sentence production. In: Butterworth B. (eds), Language production, Vol 1. Speech and talk. London, Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  22. Garrett M.F. (1984). The organization of processing structure for language production: Applications to aphasic speech. In: Caplan D. et al. (eds), Biological perspectives on language. Cambridge MA, MIT Press, pp. 172–193Google Scholar
  23. Garrett M.F. (1988). Processes in language production. In: Newmeyer F., (eds), Linguistics: The cambridge survey III. language: psychological and biological aspects. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 69–96Google Scholar
  24. Groza V., Ileana D., Irwin I. (1999). A peacock or a crow: stories, interview, and commentaries on Romanian adoptions. Euclid, OH, Williams Custom Publishing DivGoogle Scholar
  25. Harley T.A. (1984). A critique of top-down independent levels models of speech production: Evidence from non-plan-internal speech errors. Cognitive Science 9, 191–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hotopf W.H.N. (1980). Semantic similarity as a factor in whole-word slips of the tongue. In V.A. Fromkin (1980) (Ed.), Errors in Linguistic Performance: Slips of the tongue,ear, pen and hand, pp. 97–109 New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hymes D. (1964). Introduction to part 2 of language in culture and society. New York, Harper and RowGoogle Scholar
  28. Jaeger J. (1992). Not by the chair of my hinny-hin-hin: Some general properties of slips of the tongue in young children. Journal of Child Language 19, 335–366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jaeger J. (1997). The development of syllable structure: Evidence from slips of the tongue (Manuscript. To appear in Festschrift for Derwing B.).Google Scholar
  30. Jaeger J. (2004). Kids’ slips: what young children’s slips of the tongue reveal about language development. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  31. Kachru Y. (1966). An introduction to Hindi syntax. Urbana, University of IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  32. Kawachi K. (2002). Practice effects on speech production planning: Evidence in spontaneous versus preplanned speech in Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31(4): 363–390PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kellerman E. (1977). Towards a characterisation of the strategies of transfer in second language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 2, 58–145Google Scholar
  34. Kubozono H. (1985). Speech errors and syllable structure. Linguistics and Philology 6, 220–243Google Scholar
  35. Levy Y. (2004). Childes List. and Scholar
  36. Levelt W. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition 14, 41–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Levelt W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  38. Light L.L. (1993). Language Changes in Old Age. In G. Blanken J. Dittmann H. Grimm J.C. Marshall, & C.-W. Wallesch, (Eds.), Linguistic disorders and pathologies: an international handbook (pp. 900–918). Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  39. Liskin-Gasparro J. (1982). Oral Proficiency Testing Manual. Princeton, NJ, Educational Testing ServiceGoogle Scholar
  40. MacKay D. (1982). The problems of flexibility, fluencey and speed-accuracy trade-off in skilled behavior. Psychological Review 89, 483–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. MacKay D.G., Abrams L. (1996). Language, memory and aging: Distributed deficits and the structure of new versus old connections. In: Birren J.E., Schaie W.K. (eds), Handbook of the psychology of aging: 4th edn. San Diego, Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  42. MacWhinney B. (2004). Childes List. Scholar
  43. Maddieson I. (1984). Patterns of sounds. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  44. Mahoney P.G. (1997). Language Production, Speech Errors, and Aging. Dissertation Abstracts International, B: Sciences and Engineering 58(4): 2148-BGoogle Scholar
  45. McCawley J.D. (1968). The phonological component of a grammar of Japanese. The Hague, MoutonGoogle Scholar
  46. McGregor R.S. (1995). Outline of Hindi grammar. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Miyakoda H. (2003). The theory of phonology as human behavior: A focus on Japanese speech errors. Sophia Linguistica 50, 197–209Google Scholar
  48. Motley M. (1976). Laboratory induction of verbal slips: A new method for psycholinguistic research. Communication Quarterly 24, 28–34Google Scholar
  49. Motley M. (1980). Verification of “Freudian Slips” and semantic prearticulatory editing via laboratory-induced Spoonerisms. In V.A. Fromkin (1980) (Ed.), Errors in linguistic performance: slipps of the tongue, ear, pen, and hand (pp. 133–148). NY: Academic press.Google Scholar
  50. Navon D., Gopher D. (1979). On the economy of the human processing system. Psychology Review 86, 214–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Niedzielski N., Preston D. (2000). Folk Linguistics. Berlin, Germany, Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar
  52. Nooteboom S.G. (1973). The tongue slips into patterns (Reprinted in Fromkin (1973). Spoesch errors as linguistic evidence. The Netherlands: Mouton and Company).Google Scholar
  53. Odlin T. (1992). Transferability and linguistic substrates. Second Language Research 8(3): 171–202Google Scholar
  54. Ohala M., Ohala J.J. (1988). Scarcity of speech errors in Hindi. In: Hyman L.M., Li C.N. (eds), Language, speech and mind: studies in honour of Victoria A. Fromkin. Knet, Routledge, pp. 239–253Google Scholar
  55. Pisoni D.B. (1981). Some current theoretical issues in speech perception. Cognition 10, 249–259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pullum G. (1991). The great Eskimo vocabulary hoax, and other irreverent essays on the study of language. Chicago, University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  57. Playhouse Video. (1989). Dr. Seuss: The cat in the hat. New York, Playhouse VideoGoogle Scholar
  58. Ruhlen M. (1975). A guide to the languages of the world. Stanford, Stanford University Language Universals ProjectGoogle Scholar
  59. Schwartz M.F., Saffran E.M., Bloch D.E., Dell G.S. (1994). Disordered speech production in aphasic and normal speakers. Brain and Language 47, 52–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schweizer K. (1996). The speed/accuracy transition due to task complexity. Intelligence 22(2): 115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Shattuck-Hufnagel S., Klatt D. (1979). The limited use of distinctive features and markedness in speech production: Evidence from speech error data. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18, 41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Slobin D (eds) (1985). The Crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ, L. Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  63. Snell R., Weightman S. (1989). Hindi. London, Hodder Headline PLCGoogle Scholar
  64. Stemberger J.P. (1983). Speech errors and theoretical phonology: A review. Bloomington, Indiana University Linguistics ClubGoogle Scholar
  65. Stemberger J.P. (1985). The reliability and replicability of naturalistic speech error data: A comparison with experimentally induced errors. In Research on speech perception Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  66. Stemberger J.P. (2004). Childes List. Scholar
  67. Stemberger J.P., MacWhinney B. (1986). Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected forms. Memory and Cognition 14, 17–26Google Scholar
  68. Stinen E.A. (1990). On-line processing of written text by younger and older children. Psychology and Aging 5, 68–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Swift L.B. (1963). A reference grammar of modern Turkish. Bloomington, Indiana University publicationsGoogle Scholar
  70. Thomas L.V. (1967). Elementary Turkish. New York, Dover Publications IncGoogle Scholar
  71. Tsujimura N. (1996). An introduction to Japanese linguistics. Cambridge, Blackwell PublishersGoogle Scholar
  72. Tobin Y. (1997). Phonology as human behavior: Theoretical implications and clinical implications. Durham (NC), Duke University PressGoogle Scholar
  73. Van den Broecke M.P.R., Goldstein L. (1980). Consonant features in speech errors. In V.A. Fromkin (1980) (Ed.), Errors in linguistic performance: Slipps of the tongue, ear, pen, and hand (pp. 47–65). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  74. Van Valin R.D. Jr., LaPolla R.J. (1997). Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  75. Vance T. (1987). An introduction to Japanese phonology. Albany, State University of New York PressGoogle Scholar
  76. Wan I. (1999). Mandarin phonology: Evidence from speech errors. Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo.Google Scholar
  77. Wells S. (1995). A speech error investigation of the impact of orthography on Japanese speech production. (Papers from the 31st Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society) (pp. 478–489). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bowling Green State UniversityBowling GreenUSA

Personalised recommendations