A monitoring bias account is often used to explain speech error patterns that seem to be the result of an interactive language production system, like phonological influences on lexical selection errors. A biased monitor is suggested to detect and covertly correct certain errors more often than others. For instance, this account predicts that errors that are phonologically similar to intended words are harder to detect than those that are phonologically dissimilar. To test this, we tried to elicit phonological errors under the same conditions as those that show other kinds of lexical selection errors. In five experiments, we presented participants with high cloze probability sentence fragments followed by a picture that was semantically related, a homophone of a semantically related word, or phonologically related to the (implicit) last word of the sentence. All experiments elicited semantic completions or homophones of semantic completions, but none elicited phonological completions. This finding is hard to reconcile with a monitoring bias account and is better explained with an interactive production system. Additionally, this finding constrains the amount of bottom-up information flow in interactive models.
BaarsB. J.MotleyJ. T.MacKayD. (1975). Output editing for lexical status from artificially elicited slips of the tongue.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior14, 382–391.
2.
BiedermannB.BlankenG.NickelsL. (2002). The representation of homophones: Evidence from remediation.Aphasiology16, 1115–1136.
3.
CaramazzaA. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access?.Cognitive Neuropsychology14, 177–208.
4.
CaramazzaA.CostaA.MiozzoM.BiY. C. (2001). The specific-word frequency effect: Implications for the representation of homophones in speech production.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition27, 1430–1450.
5.
CohenJ. D.Mac WhinneyB.FlattM.ProvostJ. (1993). PsyScope: A new graphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments.Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers25, 257–271.
6.
CuttingJ. C.FerreiraV. S. (1999). Semantic and phonological information flow in the production lexicon.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition25, 318–344.
7.
DellG. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production.Psychological Review93, 283–321.
8.
DellG. S.O'SeaghdhaP. G. (1991). Mediated and convergent lexical priming in language production—a comment.Psychological Review98, 604–614.
9.
DellG. S.ReichP. A. (1981). Stages in sentence production—an analysis of speech error data.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior20, 611–629.
10.
DellG. S.SchwartzM. F.MartinN.SaffranE. M.GagnonD. A. (1997). Lexical access in aphasic and nonaphasic speakers.Psychological Review104, 801–838.
11.
Del VisoS.IgoaJ. M.Garcia-AlbeaJ. E. (1991). On the autonomy of phonological encoding—evidence from slips of the tongue in Spanish.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research20, 161–185.
12.
FerreiraV. S.GriffinZ. M. (2003). Phonological influences on lexical (mis)selection.Psychological Science14, 86–90.
13.
GoldrickM. (2006). Limited interaction in speech production: Chronometric, speech error, and neuropsychological evidence.Language and Cognitive Processes21, 817–855.
14.
GoldrickM.BlumsteinS. E. (2006). Cascading activation from phonological planning to articulatory processes: Evidence from tongue twisters.Language and Cognitive Processes21, 649–683.
15.
HammS.JunglasK.BredenkampJ. (2004). The central executive as a prearticulatory control device.Zeitschrift für Psychologie212, 66–75.
16.
HartsuikerR. J. (2002). The addition bias in Dutch and Spanish phonological speech errors: The role of structural context.Language and Cognitive Processes17, 61–96.
17.
HartsuikerR. J. (2006). Are speech error patterns affected by a monitoring bias?.Language and Cognitive Processes21, 856–891.
18.
HartsuikerR. J.Anton-MendezI.RoelstraeteB.CostaA. (2006). Spoonish spanerisms: A lexical bias effect in Spanish.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition32, 949–953.
19.
HartsuikerR. J.CorleyM.MartensenH. (2005a). The lexical bias effect is modulated by context, but the standard monitoring account doesn't fly: Related beply to Baars et al. (1975).Journal of Memory and Language52, 58–70.
20.
HartsuikerR. J.PickeringM. J.De JongN. H. (2005b). Semantic and phonological context effects in speech error repair.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition31, 921–932.
21.
JescheniakJ. D.MeyerA. S.LeveltW. J. M. (2003). Specific-word frequency is not all that counts in speech production: Comments on Caramazza, Costa et al. (2001) and new experimental data.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition29, 432–438.
22.
KempenG.HuijbersP. (1983). The lexicalization process in sentence production and naming—indirect election of words.Cognition14, 185–209.
23.
LeveltW. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulationCambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24.
LeveltW. J. M.RoelofsA.MeyerA. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production.Behavioral and Brain Sciences22, 1–75.
25.
MartinN.GagnonD. A.SchwartzM. F.DellG. S.SaffranE. M. (1996). Phonological facilitation of semantic errors in normal and aphasic speakers.Language and Cognitive Processes11, 257–282.
26.
MarxE. (1999). Gender processing in speech production: Evidence from German speech errors.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research28, 601–621.
27.
MöllerJ.JansmaB. M.Rodriguez-FornellsA.MünteT. F. (2006). What the brain does before the tongue slips.Cerebral Cortex1–6.
28.
MotleyM. T.CamdenC. T.BaarsB. J. (1982). Covert formulation and editing of anomalies in speech production: Evidence from experimentally elicited slips of the tongue.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior21, 578–594.
29.
NooteboomS. G. (1969). The tongue slips into patterns.SciaroneA. G.Van EssenA. J.Van RaadA. A.Nomen, Leyden studies in linguistics and phoneticsThe Hague: Mouton114–132.
30.
NooteboomS. G. (2005). Lexical bias revisited: Detecting, rejecting and repairing speech errors in inner speech.Speech Communication47, 43–58.
31.
OomenC. C. E.PostmaA. (2001). Effects of time pressure on mechanisms of speech production and self-monitoring.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research30, 163–184.
32.
RappB.BenzingL.CaramazzaA. (1997). The autonomy of lexical orthography.Cognitive Neuropsychology14, 71–104.
33.
RappB.GoldrickM. (2000). Discreteness and interactivity in spoken word production.Psychological Review107, 460–499.
34.
RoelofsA. (2004). Error biases in spoken word planning and monitoring by aphasic and nonaphasic speakers: Comment on Rapp and Goldrick (2000).Psychological Review111, 561–572.
35.
SchneiderW.EschmanA.ZuccolottoA. (2002). E-prime User's GuidePittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools Inc.
36.
SeverensE.Van LommelS.RatinckxE.HartsuikerR. J. (2005). Timed picture naming norms for 590 pictures in Dutch.Acta Psychologica119, 159–187.
37.
SlevcL. R.FerreiraV. S. (2006). Halting in single word production: A test of the perceptual loop theory of speech monitoring.Journal of Memory and Language54, 515–540.
38.
StembergerJ. P. (2004). Neighborhood effects on error rates in speech production.Brain and Language90, 413–422.
39.
SwinneyD. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior18, 645–659.
40.
TanenhausM. K.LeimanJ. M.SeidenbergM. S. (1979). Evidence for multiple stages in the processing of ambiguous words in syntactic contexts.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior18, 427–440.
41.
ViglioccoG.HartsuikerR. J. (2002). The interplay of meaning, sound, and syntax in sentence production.Psychological Bulletin128, 442–472.
42.
ViglioccoG.VinsonD. P.IndefreyP.LeveltW. J. M.HellwigF. (2004). Role of grammatical gender and semantics in German word production.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition30, 483–497.
43.
VitevitchM. S. (2002). The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on speech production.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition28, 735–747.
44.
VitkovitchM.HumphreysG. W. (1991). Perseverant responding in speeded naming of pictures—it's in the links.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition17, 664–680.
45.
WilshireC. E. (1998). Serial order in phonological encoding: An exploration of the “word onset effect” using laboratory-induced errors.Cognition68, 143–166.
46.
WilshireC. E. (1999). The “tongue twister” paradigm as a technique for studying phonological encoding.Language and Speech42, 57–82.
47.
ZwitserloodP. (1989). The locus of the effects of sentential-semantic context in spoken-word processing.Cognition32, 25–64.
