1 / 36

PSY 369: Psycholinguistics

PSY 369: Psycholinguistics. Language Production: Speech Errors. Problems with speech errors. Even very carefully verified corpora of speech errors tend to list the error and then “ the target”. However, there may be several possible targets.

piper
Download Presentation

PSY 369: Psycholinguistics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. PSY 369: Psycholinguistics Language Production: Speech Errors

  2. Problems with speech errors • Even very carefully verified corpora of speech errors tend to list the error and then “the target”. • However, there may be several possible targets. • Saying there is one definitive target may limit conclusions about what type of error has actually occurred. • Evidence that we are not very good at perceiving speech errors.

  3. Did you hear what he said?! • The tapes were played to subjects whose task was to record all the errors they heard. Problems with speech errors • How well do we perceive speech errors? • Ferber (1991) • Method: • Transcripts of TV and radio were studied very carefully to pick out all the speech errors. • The errors spotted by the subjects were compared with those that actually occurred.

  4. Problems with speech errors • How well do we perceive speech errors? • Ferber (1991) • Results: • subjects missed 50% of all the errors • and of the half they identified • 50% were incorrectly recorded (i.e. only 25% of speech errors were correctly recorded). • Conclusion: we are bad at perceiving errors.

  5. Experimental speech errors • Can we examine speech errors in under more controlled conditions? • SLIP technique: speech error elicitation technique • Motley and Baars (1976)

  6. Say the words silently as quickly as you can Say them aloud if you hear a tone

  7. dog bone

  8. dust ball

  9. dead bug

  10. doll bed

  11. “darn bore” barn door

  12. Experimental speech errors • This technique has been found to elicit 30% of predicted speech errors. • Lexical Bias effect: error frequency affected by whether the error results in real words or non-words • Some basic findings More likely “wrong loot” FOR “long root” “rawn loof” FOR “lawn roof “

  13. Experimental speech errors • Influence of semantics (Motley, 1980) • Some basic findings • Hypothesis: • If preceded by phonologically and semantically biasing material (PS) • If preceded by only phonologically biasing material (P). Predicted to be more likely

  14. Experimental speech errors • Influence of semantics (Motley, 1980) • Some basic findings • Method: 2 matched lists • 20 word pairs as targets for errors • e.g. bad mug  mad bug • Each preceded by 4 - 7 neutral “filler” word pairs red cars rainy days small cats mashed buns mangy bears angry insect angled inset • Then 4 interference word pairs • 2 phonological PLUS ornery fly older flu bad mug • 2 semantic (SP) or • semantically neutral controls (P)

  15. Experimental speech errors • Results: More errors in the Semantic and Phonological (SP) condition than in the Phonological (P) condition. • Conclusion: • Semantic interference may contribute to a distortion of the sound of a speaker’s intended utterance • Some basic findings • Influence of semantics (Motley, 1980)

  16. Freudian slips • The psycholinguistic approach • Assume that “the mechanics of slips can be studied linguistically without reference to their motivation.” (Boomer and Laver, 1968) • Freudian approach • Held that speech errors “arise from the concurrent action - or perhaps rather, the opposing action - of two different intentions” • Intended meaning + disturbing intention  speech error

  17. Freudian slips “In the case of female genitals, in spite of many versuchungen [temptations] - I beg your pardon, versuche [experiments]…” From a politician “I like Heath. He’s tough - like Hitler - (shocked silence from reporters) - Did I say Hitler? I meant Churchill.” • Are these cases of disturbing intentions or merely cases of lexical substitution (phonologically or semantically related words)?

  18. Freudian slips • Ellis, (1980) • Of the 94 errors listed in Psychopathology of Everyday Life 85 were made in normal speech. • 51 (60%) involved lexical substitution in which the substituting word was either similar in phonological form (27) to the intended word or related in meaning (22).

  19. Freudian slips • Ellis, (1980) • Of the 94 errors listed in Psychopathology of Everyday Life 85 were made in normal speech. • Only 10/94 of the errors reported by Freud were spoonerisms, and 4 were from Meringer and Mayer, 1895 (an early, linguistically oriented study). • E.g. Eiwess-scheibchen (“small slices of egg white”) Eischeissweibchen (lit. “egg-shit-female”) • Alabasterbüchse (“alabaster box”) Alabüsterbachse (büste = breast)

  20. Freudian slips • Ellis, (1980) • Hence, it appears that “Freud’s theory can be translated into the language of modern psycholinguistic production models without excessive difficulty.”

  21. Experimental Freudian slips? • Hypothesis: Spoonerisms more likely when the resulting content is congruous with the situational context. • Method: 90 males, same procedure previously used by Motley, 1980 (SLIP). • 3 Conditions: “Electricity”, “Sex”, and Neutral.

  22. car tires

  23. cat toys

  24. can tops

  25. cup trays

  26. “cool tits” tool kits

  27. Experimental Freudian slips? • Same word pairs in all conditions, spoonerism targets were non-words (e.g. goxi furl foxy girl), targets preceded by 3 phonologically biasing word pairs not semantically related to target words.

  28. Experimental Freudian slips? • Results: • Electricity set: 69 E, 31 S • Sex set: 36 E, 76 S • Neutral set: 44 E, 41 S • Hence errors were in the expected direction. • Conclusion: subjects’ speech encoding systems are sensitive to semantic influences from their situational cognitive set.

  29. Experimental Freudian slips? • Hypothesis: subjects with high levels of sex anxiety will make more “sex” spoonerisms than those with low sex anxiety. • Method: • 36 males selected on the basis of high, medium, & low sex anxiety (Mosher Sex-Guilt Inventory). • SLIP task same as previous experiment but with 2 additional Sex targets and 9 Neutral targets.

  30. Experimental Freudian slips? • Results: looked at difference scores (Sex - Neutral) • High sex anxiety > medium > low. • Overall: Sex spoonerisms > Neutral spoonerisms. • Conclusion: appears to support Freud’s view of sexual anxiety being revealed in Slips of the Tongue • BUT: the experimenters (Baars and Motley) went on to show that any type of anxiety, not just sexual produced similar results. • SO: anxiety was at play but it was more general, so the priming was more global.

  31. Conclusions • Speech errors have provided data about the units of speech production. • Phonology - consonants, vowels, and consonant clusters (/fl/) can be disordered as units. Also, phonetic features. • Syllables which have morphemic status can be involved in errors. Separation of stem morphemes from affixes (inflectional and derivational). • Stress? Stress errors could be examples of blends..

  32. Conclusions • Syntax-grammatical rules may be applied to the wrong unit, but produce the correct pronunciation (e.g. plural takes the correct form /s/, /z/, or /iz/. • Indicates that these parts of words are marked as grammatical morphemes. • Phrases (e.g. NP) and clauses can be exchanged or reversed. • Words - can exchange, move, or be mis-selected. • Speech errors have provided data about the units of speech production.

  33. From thought to speech • How does a mental concept get turned into a spoken utterance? • Levelt, 1989, 4 stages of production: • Conceptualising: we conceptualise what we wish to communicate (“mentalese”). • Formulating: we formulate what we want to say into a linguistic plan. • Lexicalisation • Lemma Selection • Lexeme (or Phonological Form) Selection • Syntactic Planning • Articulating: we execute the plan through muscles in the vocal tract. • Self-monitoring: we monitor our speech to assess whether it is what we intended to say, and how we intended to say it.

  34. Models of production • As in comprehension, there are serial (modular) and interactive models • Serial models - Garrett, Levelt et al. • Interactive models - Stemberger, Dell • Levelt’s monitoring stage (originally proposed by Baars) can explain much of the data that is said to favour interaction between earlier levels

  35. An model of sentence production • Three broad stages: • Conceptualisation • deciding on the message (= meaning to express) • Formulation • turning the message into linguistic representations • Grammatical encoding (finding words and putting them together) • Phonological encoding (finding sounds and putting them together) • Articulation • speaking (or writing or signing)

More Related