Monitoring for speech errors has different functions in inner and overt speech

In this paper it is argued that monitoring for speech errors is not the same in inner speech and in overt speech. In inner speech it is meant to prevent the errors from becoming public, in overt speech to repair the damage caused by the errors. It is expected that in inner speech, but not in overt speech, more nonword errors are detected than real-word ones, and that overt repairs of errors detected in inner speech differ from overt repairs of errors detected in overt speech in that they have shorter offset-to-repair times, are spoken with raised instead of lowered intensity and pitch, and are less often accompanied by editing expressions. These hypotheses are tested against a collection of experimentally elicited spoonerisms and a collection of speech errors in spontaneous Dutch. The hypotheses are basically confirmed.

[1]  Gary S Dell,et al.  More on Lexical Bias: How Efficient Can a "Lexical Editor" Be? , 2009, Journal of memory and language.

[2]  G S Dell,et al.  A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. , 1986, Psychological review.

[3]  D. G. MacKay,et al.  Output editing for lexical status in artificially elicited slips of the tongue , 1975 .

[4]  Sieb G. Nooteboom,et al.  Lexical bias revisited: Detecting, rejecting and repairing speech errors in inner speech , 2005, Speech Commun..

[5]  Gary S. Dell,et al.  Stages in sentence production: An analysis of speech error data , 1981 .

[6]  Albert Costa,et al.  Spoonish spanerisms: A lexical bias effect in Spanish. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[7]  Hugo Quené,et al.  Self-Monitoring and Feedback: A New Attempt to Find the Main Cause of Lexical Bias in Phonological Speech Errors. , 2008 .

[8]  D. Swinney,et al.  On the Psychological Reality of the Phoneme: Perception, Identification, and Consciousness. , 1973 .

[9]  W. Levelt,et al.  Monitoring and self-repair in speech , 1983, Cognition.

[10]  Robert J. Hartsuiker,et al.  Error Monitoring in Speech Production: A Computational Test of the Perceptual Loop Theory , 2001, Cognitive Psychology.

[11]  Sieb G. Nooteboom.  Alphabetics: From phonemes to letters or from letters to phonemes? , 2007 .

[12]  Robert J. Hartsuiker,et al.  Concurrent processing of words and their replacements during speech , 2008, Cognition.

[13]  Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel,et al.  The prosody of speech error corrections revisited , 1999 .

[14]  H. Kolk,et al.  A Time-Based Approach to Agrammatic Production , 1995, Brain and Language.

[15]  S. G. Nooteboom,et al.  Speaking and unspeaking : detection and correction of phonological and lexical errors in spontaneous speech , 1980 .

[16]  B. Baars,et al.  Covert formulation and editing of anomalies in speech production: Evidence from experimentally elicited slips of the tongue , 1982 .

[17]  W. Levelt,et al.  Speaking: From Intention to Articulation , 1990 .

[18]  José E. García-Albea,et al.  On the autonomy of phonological encoding: Evidence from slips of the tongue in Spanish , 1991 .

[19]  Willem J. M. Levelt,et al.  A theory of lexical access in speech production , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[20]  Sieb G. Nooteboom,et al.  Listening to oneself: Monitoring speech production : Abstract , 2005 .

[21]  Robert J. Hartsuiker,et al.  Are speech error patterns affected by a monitoring bias? , 2006 .

[22]  Heike Martensen,et al.  The lexical bias effect is modulated by context, but the standard monitoring account doesn’t fly: Related beply to Baars et al. (1975) ☆ , 2005 .

[23]  Elizabeth R. Blacfkmer,et al.  Theories of monitoring and the timing of repairs in spontaneous speech , 1991, Cognition.

[24]  Robert J. Hartsuiker,et al.  The division of labour between internal and external speech monitoring , 2005 .