Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-568f69f84b-klmjj Total loading time: 0.412 Render date: 2021-09-21T12:16:57.630Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Experimentally eliciting phonetic and sentential speech errors: methods, implications, and work in progress

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Bernard J. Baars
Affiliation:
S.U.N.Y. at Stony Brook & University of California, Los Angeles
Donald G. MacKay
Affiliation:
S.U.N.Y. at Stony Brook & University of California, Los Angeles

Extract

Linguists and psychologists have noted the potential value of studying speech errors since the 1890s (Meringer & Mayer 1895; Freud 1938; Fromkin 1973; MacKay 1972). The reasoning has been that involuntary errors may lay bare certain aspects of the speech production system which are hidden in normal, errorless speech. Today we are closer than ever before to realizing this hope, because (a) we have more complete samples and analyses of spontaneous errors (Fromkin 1973; MacKay 1970; Garrett 1975) and (b) because of considerable success in recent years in attempts to elicit errors of varying complexity in the laboratory (MacKay 1971; Baars & Motley 1974; Motley & Baars 1976). This paper reports some extensions of the experimental approach, extensions which apparently enable us to elicit almost any arbitrary error at any level of complexity.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baars, B. J. (1976). The Competing Plans Hypothesis: An heuristic viewpoint on the problem of speech errors. UCLA Psychology Dept., Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
Baars, B. J., Motley, M. T. & MacKay, D. (1975). Output editing for lexical status in artificially elirefd slips of the tongue. J. Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior 14. 382–91.10.1016/S0022-5371(75)80017-X10.1016/S0022-5371(75)80017-XGoogle Scholar
Baars, B. J., & Motley, M. T. (1976). Spoonerisms as the result of conflict between sequencers: Evidence from artificially elirefd slips of the tongue. American J. Psychology 89 (3). 467484.10.2307/142161910.2307/1421619Google Scholar
Baars, B. J., & Motley, M. T. (1974). Spoonerisms: The experimental elicitation of human speech errors. Journal Supplement Abstract Service, Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, Fall, 1974.Google Scholar
Carterette, E. C. & Jones, M. H. (1974). Informal speech. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Freud, S. (1938). The psycopathology of everyday life. Tyson, Tr. A., New York: Norton (1965).Google Scholar
Fromkin, V. A. (ed.) (1973) Speech errors as linguistic evidence. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Garrett, M. F. (1975). The analysis of sentence production. In Bower, G. (ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, vol. 9. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
MacKay, D. G. (1970). Spoonerisms: The structure of errors in the serial order of speech. Neuropsychologia 8. 323–50.10.1016/0028-3932(70)90078-3552256610.1016/0028-3932(70)90078-3Google Scholar
MacKay, D. G. (1971). Stress pre-entry in motor systems. American J. Psychology 84 (1).10.2307/1421223Google Scholar
MacKay, D. G. (1972). The structure of words and syllables: Evidence from errors in speech. Cognitive Psychology 3. 210–27.10.1016/0010-0285(72)90004-710.1016/0010-0285(72)90004-7Google Scholar
Meringer, R. & Mayer, K. (1895). Versprechen und Verlesen: eine Psychologische-Linguistisch Studie. Stuttgart: Goschensche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Motley, M. T. & Baars, B. J. (1976a). Semantic bias effects on the Outcomes of verbal slips. Cognition 4. 177–87.10.1016/0010-0277(76)90003-210.1016/0010-0277(76)90003-2Google Scholar
Motley, M. T. & Baars, B. J. (1976b). Situational cognitive Set affects the probability of related outcomes in verbal slips. UCLA Psychology Department, Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
7
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Experimentally eliciting phonetic and sentential speech errors: methods, implications, and work in progress
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Experimentally eliciting phonetic and sentential speech errors: methods, implications, and work in progress
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Experimentally eliciting phonetic and sentential speech errors: methods, implications, and work in progress
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *