Error biases in inner and overt speech: evidence from tongue twisters.

To compare the properties of inner and overt speech, Oppenheim and Dell (2008) counted participants' self-reported speech errors when reciting tongue twisters either overtly or silently and found a bias toward substituting phonemes that resulted in words in both conditions, but a bias toward substituting similar phonemes only when speech was overt. Here, we report 3 experiments revisiting their conclusion that inner speech remains underspecified at the subphonemic level, which they simulated within an activation-feedback framework. In 2 experiments, participants recited tongue twisters that could result in the errorful substitutions of similar or dissimilar phonemes to form real words or nonwords. Both experiments included an auditory masking condition, to gauge the possible impact of loss of auditory feedback on the accuracy of self-reporting of speech errors. In Experiment 1, the stimuli were composed entirely from real words, whereas, in Experiment 2, half the tokens used were nonwords. Although masking did not have any effects, participants were more likely to report substitutions of similar phonemes in both experiments, in inner as well as overt speech. This pattern of results was confirmed in a 3rd experiment using the real-word materials from Oppenheim and Dell (in press). In addition to these findings, a lexical bias effect found in Experiments 1 and 3 disappeared in Experiment 2. Our findings support a view in which plans for inner speech are indeed specified at the feature level, even when there is no intention to articulate words overtly, and in which editing of the plan for errors is implicated. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved).

[1]  Gary S. Dell,et al.  Inner speech slips exhibit lexical bias, but not the phonemic similarity effect , 2008, Cognition.

[2]  A. Postma Detection of errors during speech production: a review of speech monitoring models , 2000, Cognition.

[3]  Dani Byrd,et al.  Dynamic action units slip in speech production errors , 2007, Cognition.

[4]  S. Engel Thought and Language , 1964 .

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

[6]  Frank Wijnen,et al.  Phonological Encoding and Monitoring in Normal and Pathological Speech , 2005 .

[7]  Douglas M. Bates,et al.  Linear mixed models and penalized least squares , 2004 .

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

[9]  N. Breslow,et al.  Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models , 1993 .

[10]  P. Boersma Praat : doing phonetics by computer (version 5.1.05) , 2009 .

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

[12]  A. Healy,et al.  The roles of phoneme frequency, similarity, and availability in the experimental elicitation of speech errors , 1985 .

[13]  A. N. Sokolov,et al.  Inner Speech and Thought , 1972 .

[14]  W. Levelt,et al.  Monitoring the Time Course of Phonological Encoding , 1995 .

[15]  S. Blumstein,et al.  Cascading activation from phonological planning to articulatory processes: Evidence from tongue twisters , 2006 .

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

[17]  Anne Cutler,et al.  A theory of lexical access in speech production , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

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

[19]  Gary S. Dell,et al.  The retrieval of phonological forms in production: tests of predictions from a connectionist model , 1988 .

[20]  Marianne Pouplier,et al.  The role of a coda consonant as error trigger in repetition tasks , 2008, J. Phonetics.

[21]  W. Cooper,et al.  Sentence Processing: Psycholinguistic Studies Presented to Merrill Garrett. , 1980 .

[22]  B. Baars Experimental slips and human error : exploring the architecture of volition , 1992 .

[23]  Martin Corley,et al.  Cascading influences on the production of speech: Evidence from articulation , 2010, Cognition.

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

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

[26]  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 .

[27]  Carolyn E. Wilshire,et al.  The “Tongue Twister” Paradigm as a Technique for Studying Phonological Encoding , 1999 .

[28]  V. Fromkin Errors in linguistic performance: Slips of the tongue , 1982 .

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

[30]  A. Agresti,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis , 1991, International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science.

[31]  A. Postma,et al.  Production and Detection of Speech Errors in Silent, Mouthed, Noise-Masked, and Normal Auditory Feedback Speech , 1996 .

[32]  Andrew W. Ellis,et al.  Normal writing processes and peripheral acquired dysgraphias , 1988 .

[33]  D. G. MacKay Awareness and error detection: New theories and research paradigms , 1992, Consciousness and Cognition.

[34]  W. Levelt,et al.  Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form , 1994 .

[35]  Gary S. Dell,et al.  Effects of Frequency and Vocabulary Type on Phonological Speech Errors , 1990 .

[36]  Richard Wright,et al.  The phonetics of phonological speech errors: An acoustic analysis of slips of the tongue , 2002, J. Phonetics.

[37]  G. Dell,et al.  Errors in Inner Speech , 1992 .