Skip to main content
Log in

Productive and perceptual constraints on speech-error correction

  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Two incentives underlie the present study on speech-error detection and correction. First, this area of research has up to now almost completely been approached through experimental techniques. Since it is not at all clear whether speakers' detection and correction behaviour is identical inside and outside the laboratory, a comparison is made between experimental and naturalistic data. While the experimental materials are taken from the literature, the naturalistic findings are based upon the analysis of a corpus of more than 6,000 German slips of the tongue. It is shown that the same trends emerge in both data sets, thereby confirming the ecological validity of the experimental, and the reliability of the naturalistic, results. Secondly, the question arises as to the reasons for error correction and its occasional failure. Two working hypotheses are explored. Speakers fail to correct their errors because they have not detected them or because they assume that the error does not interfere with the listener's decoding process. The former reason is understood as a productive, the latter as a perceptual, constraint on the correction of self-produced errors. The empirical analysis discloses a large overlap between the effects of perceptual and productive constraints. However, whereas perceptual constraints can be subsumed under productive ones, the reverse is not possible. On the basis of this outcome it is argued that productive constraints are primary, and perceptual constraints secondary, reference points for error correction. Although the empirical data do not require the postulation of perceptual constraints, it is suggested that both speaker- and listenerbased aspects form part of à highly integrated processing system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abramovici, S. (1983). Errors in proofreading: Evidence for syntactic control of letter processing?Memory & Cognition, 11, 258–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, T. (1986). The aftermath of error occurrence: Psycholinguistic evidence from cut-offs.Language & Communication, 6, 195–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, T. (1988).Die Abbildung des Sprachproduktionsprozesses in einem Aktivationsflussmodell. Untersuchungen an deutschen und englischen Versprechern. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, T. (1989). On the internal structure of polysyllabic monomorphemic words: The case for superrimes.Studia Linguistica, 43, 5–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock, K., & Miller, C. A. (1991). Broken agreement.Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, Z. S., & Small, L. H. (1983). Voicing, vowel, and stress mispronunciations in continuous speech.Perception & Psychophysics, 34, 470–474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bond, Z. S., & Small, L. H. (1984). Detecting and correcting mispronunciations: A note on methodology.Journal of Phonetics, 12, 277–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brédart, S. (1991). Word interruption in self-repairing.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 123–138.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, E. K. (1980). Grammatical incoherence. In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.),Temporal variables in speech (pp. 27-37). The Hague: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P. M., & Dell, G. S. (1987). Adapting production to comprehension: The explicit mention of instruments.Cognitive Psychology, 19, 441–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, A. (1980). Correcting of speech errors in a shadowing task. In V. A. Fromkin (Ed.),Errors in linguistic performance (pp. 157–163). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, R. A. (1973). Listening for mispronunciations. A measure of what we hear during speech.Perception & Psychophysics, 11, 153–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, R. A., & Jakimik, J. (1980). How are syllables used to recognize words?Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 67, 965–970.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, R. A., Jakimik, J., & Cooper, W. (1978). Perceptibility of phonetic features in fluent speech.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 64, 44–56.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, W. E., Tye-Murray, N., & Nelson L. J. (1987). Detection of missing words in spoken text.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 16, 233–240.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Corcoran, D. W. J. (1967). Acoustic factor in proofreading.Nature, 214, 851–852.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, A. (1980). Productivity in word formation.Papers from the 16th annual regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 45–51). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, A. (1983). Speakers' conceptions of the function of prosody. In Anne Cutler & D. Robert Ladd (Eds.),Prosody: models and measurements (pp. 79–91). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, A. (1987). Speaking for listening. In A. Allport, D. G. MacKay, W. Prinz, & E. Scheerer (Eds.),Language perception and production: Relationships between listening, speaking, reading, and writing (pp. 23–40). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, A., & Norris, D. G. (1988). The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 113–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, S. M. (1989). On a non-argument for the rhyme.Journal of Linguistics, 25, 211–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich, R. (1982). Selbstkorrekturen. Fallstudien zum mündlichen Gebrauch des Deutschen als Fremdsprache durch Erwachsene.Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 12, 120–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferber, R. (1991). Slip of the tongue or slip of the ear? On the perception and transcription of naturalistic slips of the tongue.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 105–122.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Healy, A. F. (1981). The effects of visual similarity on proofreading for misspellings.Memory & Cognition, 9, 453 -460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hotopf, W. H. N. (1979). Review of re-issue of Meringer & Mayer (1895).Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31, 555–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lackner, J. R. (1980). Speech production: Correction of semantic and grammatical errors during speech shadowing. In V. A. Fromkin (Ed.),Errors in linguistic performance (pp. 149–155). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lackner, J. R., & Tuller, B. H. (1979). Roles of efference monitoring in the detection of self-produced speech errors. In W. E. Cooper & E. C. T. Walker (Eds.),Sentence processing. Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett (pp. 281–294). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laver, J. (1969). The detection and correction of slips of the tongue. Reprinted in V. A. Fromkin (Ed.),Speech errors as linguistic evidence (pp. 132–143). The Hague: Mouton, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech.Cognition, 14, 41–104.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levelt, W. J. M., & Cutler, A. (1983). Prosodic marking in speech repair.Journal of Semantics, 2, 205–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKay, D. G. (1987).The organization of perception and action. A theory for language and other cognitive skills. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, R. C., Rappaport, B. Z., & Garcia-Bunuel, L. (1985). Selfmonitoring behavior in a case of severe auditory agnosia with aphasia.Brain and Language, 24, 297–313.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marslen-Wilson, W., & Welsh, A. (1978). Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech.Cognitive Psychology, 10, 29–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meringer, R. (1908).Aus dem Leben der Sprache. Versprechen, Kindersprache, Nachahmungstrieb. Berlin: Behrs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom, S. G. (1980). Speaking and unspeaking. Detection and correction of phonological and lexical errors in spontaneous speech. In V. A. Fromkin (Ed.),Errors in linguistic performance (pp. 87–95). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ottevanger, I. B. (1983). Preserved mispronunciations and the interpretation of results obtained in a shadowing task. In M. R. P. van den Broecke, V. van Heuven, & W. Zonneveld (Eds.),Sound structures. Studies for Antonie Cohen (pp. 195–204). Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabbitt, P., Cumming, G., & Vyas, S. (1978). Some errors of perceptual analysis in visual search can be detected and corrected.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 319–332.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rath, R. (1975). Korrektur und Anakoluth im gesprochenen Deutsch.Linguistische Berichte, 37, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1983). Sublexical units and suprasegmental structure in speech production planning. In P. F. MacNeilage (Ed.),The production of speech (pp. 109–136). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1987). The role of word-onset consonants in speech production planning: New evidence from speech error patterns. In E. Keller & M. Gopnik (Eds.),Motor and sensory processes of language (pp. 17–51). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stemberger, J. P. (1983).Speech errors and theoretical phonology. A review. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tent, J., & Clark, J. E. (1980). An experimental investigation into the perception of slips of the tongue.Journal of Phonetics, 8, 317–325.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Berg, T. Productive and perceptual constraints on speech-error correction. Psychol. Res 54, 114–126 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00937140

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00937140

Keywords

Navigation