This paper presents a study of the temporal organization of lexical repair in spontaneous Dutch speech. It assesses the extent to which offset-to-repair duration and repair tempo can be predicted on the basis of offset timing, reparandum tempo and measures of the informativeness of the crucial lexical items in the repair. Specifically, we address the expectations that repairs that are initiated relatively early are produced relatively fast throughout, and that relatively highly informative repairs are produced relatively slowly. For informativeness, we implement measures based on repair semantics, lexical frequency counts and cloze probabilities. Our results highlight differences between factual and linguistic error repairs, which have not been consistently distinguished in previous studies, and provide some evidence to support the notion that repairs that are initiated relatively early are produced relatively fast. They confirm that lexical frequency counts are rough measures of contextual predictability at best, and reveal very few significant effects of our informativeness measures on the temporal organization of lexical self-repair. Moreover, although we can confirm that most repairs have a repair portion that is fast relative to its reparandum, this cannot be attributed to the relative informativeness of the two portions. Our findings inform the current debate on the division of labour between inner and overt speech monitoring, and suggest that, although the influence of informativeness on speech production is extensive, it is not ubiquitous.
AylettM.TurkA. (2004). The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 47, 31–56.
2.
BaayenR. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BaayenR. H.PiepenbrockR.GulikersL. (1995). The CELEX lexical database. Release 2 [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia: Linguistics Data Consortium.
4.
BakerR. E.BradlowA. (2009). Variability in word duration as a function of probability, speech style, and prosody. Language and Speech, 52, 391–413.
5.
BarryW.AndreevaB. (2001). Cross-language similarities and differences in spontaneous speech patterns. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 31, 51–66.
6.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2014). Lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. Version 1.1–7. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
7.
BenkensteinR.SimpsonA. P. (2003). Phonetic correlates of self-repair involving repetition in German spontaneous speech. In Proceedings of Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech 2003. Gothenburg (pp. 81–84).
8.
BlackmerE. R.MittonJ. L. (1991). Theories of monitoring and the timing of repairs in spontaneous speech. Cognition, 39, 173–194.
9.
BoersmaP.WeeninkD. (2010). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Version 5.1.34. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org/
10.
BurdinR. S.ClopperC. G. (2015). Phonetic reduction, vowel duration, and prosodic structure. In Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.icphs2015.info/Proceedings.aspx
11.
BybeeJ. (2002). Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonemically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change, 14, 261–290.
12.
BybeeJ. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
CutlerA. (1983). Speakers’ conceptions of the function of prosody. In CutlerA.LaddD. R. (Eds.), Prosody: Models and measurements (pp. 79–91). Heidelberg: Springer.
14.
Fox TreeJ. E.ClarkH. H. (1997). Pronouncing “the” as “thee” to signal problems in speaking. Cognition, 62, 151–167.
15.
GoffmanE. (1981). Radio talk. In GoffmanE. (Ed.), Forms of talk (pp. 197–330). Oxford: Blackwell.
16.
HarleyT. A.MacAndrewS. B. G. (2001). Constraints upon word substitution speech errors. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 395–418.
17.
HartsuikerR. J.KolkH. H. J. (2001). Error monitoring in speech production: A computational test of the Perceptual Loop Theory. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 113–157.
18.
HartsuikerR. J.BastiaanseR.PostmaA.WijnenF. (2005). Phonological encoding and monitoring in normal and pathological speech. In HartsuikerR. J.BastiaanseR.PostmaA.WijnenF. (Eds.), Phonological encoding and monitoring in normal and pathological speech (pp. 1–14). Hove: Psychology Press.
19.
HartsuikerR. J.KolkH. H. J.MartensenH. (2005). Division of labor between internal and external speech monitoring. In HartsuikerR. J.BastiaanseR.PostmaA.WijnenF. (Eds.), Phonological encoding and monitoring in normal and pathological speech (pp. 187–205). Hove: Psychology Press.
20.
HeemskerkJ.ZonneveldW. (2000). Uitspraakwoordenboek. Utrecht: Het Spectrum.
21.
HothornT.K. HornikK.ZeileisA. (2006). Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 15, 651–674.
22.
JacewiczE.FoxR. A.WeiL. (2000). Between-speaker and within-speaker variation in speech tempo of American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128, 839–850.
23.
JaspersonR. (2002). Some linguistic aspects of closure cut-off. In FordC.E.FoxB.A.ThompsonS.A. (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 257–286). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24.
JurafskyD.BellA.GregoryM.RaymondW. D. (2001). Probabilistic relationships between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In BybeeJ.HopperP. (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 229–254). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
25.
KapatsinskiV. (2010). Frequency of use leads to automaticity of production: Evidence from repair in conversation. Language and Speech, 53, 71–105.
26.
KormosJ. (1999). Monitoring and self-repair in L2. Language Learning, 49, 303–342.
27.
KormosJ. (2000). The timing of self-repairs in second language speech production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 145–167.
28.
LeveltW. J. M. (1984). Spontaneous self-repairs in speech: Processes and representations. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of Phonetic SciencesDordrecht: Foris (pp. 105–17).
29.
LeveltW. J. M.CutlerA. (1983). Prosodic marking in speech repair. Journal of Semantics, 2, 205–217.
30.
LeveltW. J. M. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14, 41–104.
31.
LeveltW. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
32.
LeveltW. J. M.RoelofsA.MeyerA. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75.
33.
LindblomB. (1990). Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H&H Theory. In HardcastleW. J.MarchalA. (Eds.), Speech production and speech modelling (pp. 403–440). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
34.
LindblomB. (1996). Role of articulation in speech perception: Clues from production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99, 1683–1692.
35.
MielletS.SparrowL.SerenoS. C. (2007). Word frequency and predictability effects in reading French. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 762–769.
36.
NakataniC. H.HirschbergJ. (1994). A corpus-based study of repair cues in spontaneous speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 1603–1616.
37.
NooteboomS. G. (1972). Production and perception of vowel duration: A study of durational properties of vowels in Dutch. PhD thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht.
38.
NooteboomS. G. (2005a). Listening to oneself: Monitoring speech production. In HartsuikerR. J.BastiaanseR.PostmaA.WijnenF. (Eds.), Phonological encoding and monitoring in normal and pathological speech (pp. 167–186). Hove: Psychology Press
39.
NooteboomS. G. (2005b). Lexical bias revisited: Detecting, rejecting and repairing speech errors in inner speech. Speech Communication, 47, 43–58.
40.
NooteboomS. (2010). Monitoring for speech errors has different functions in inner and overt speech. In EveraertM. B. H.LentzT.De MulderH.NilsenØ.ZondervanA. (Eds.), The linguistic enterprise: From knowledge of language to knowledge in linguistics (pp. 213–233). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
41.
OomenC. C. E.PostmaA. (2001). Effects of time pressure on mechanisms of speech production and self-monitoring. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 163–184.
42.
OomenC. C. E.PostmaA. (2002). Limitations in processing resources and speech monitoring. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 163–184.
43.
OostdijkN. (2002). The design of the Spoken Dutch Corpus. In PetersP.CollinsP.SmithA. (Eds.), New frontiers of corpus research (pp. 105–113). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
44.
PlugL. (2011). Phonetic reduction and informational redundancy in self-initiated self-repair in Dutch. Journal of Phonetics, 39, 289–297.
45.
PlugL.CarterP. (2013). Prosodic marking, pitch and intensity in spontaneous lexical self-repair in Dutch. Phonetica, 70, 155–181.
46.
PlugL.CarterP. (2014). Timing and tempo in spontaneous phonological error repair. Journal of Phonetics, 45, 52–63.
47.
PluymaekersM.ErnestusM.BaayenR. H. (2005a). Articulatory planning is continuous and sensitive to informational redundancy. Phonetica, 62, 146–159.
48.
PluymaekersM.ErnestusM.BaayenR. H. (2005b). Lexical frequency and acoustic reduction in spoken Dutch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 2561–2569.
49.
PostmaA. (2000). Detection of errors during speech production: A review of speech monitoring models. Cognition, 77, 97–131.
50.
QuenéH. (2008). Multilevel modeling of between-speaker and within-speaker variation in spontaneous speech tempo. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123, 1104–1113.
51.
R Development Core Team (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org
52.
RietveldA. C. M.van HeuvenV. J. (1997). Algemene fonetiek. Bussum: Coutinho.
53.
SchotterE. R.BicknellK.HowardI. (2014). Task effects reveal cognitive flexibility responding to frequency and predictability. Cognition, 131, 1–27.
54.
SeyfarthS. (2014). Word informativity influences acoustic duration: Effects of contextual predictability on lexical representation. Cognition, 133, 140–155.
55.
SeyfeddinipurM.KitaS.IndefreyP. (2008). How speakers interrupt themselves in managing problems in speaking: Evidence from self-repairs. Cognition, 108, 837–842.
56.
Shattuck-HufnagelS.CutlerA. (1999). The prosody of speech error corrections revisited. Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, San Francisco.
57.
ShribergE. (2001). To ‘errr’ is human: Ecology and acoustics of speech disfluencies. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 31, 153–169.
58.
StrycharczukP.van ‘t VeerM.BruilM.LinkeK. (2014). Phonetic evidence on phonology-morphosyntax interactions: Sibilant voicing in Quito Spanish. Journal of Linguistics, 50, 403–452.
59.
TagliamonteS. (2014). A comparative sociolinguistic analysis of the dative alternation. In Torres CacoullosR.DionN.LapierreA. (Eds.), Linguistic variation: Confronting fact and theory (pp. 297–318). London: Routledge.
60.
TagliamonteS.BaayenR. H. (2012). Models, forests and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change, 24, 135–178.
61.
TydgatI.StevensM.HartsuikerR. J.PickeringM. J. (2011). Deciding where to stop speaking. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 359–380.
62.
Van HestE. (1996). Self-repair in L1 and L2 production. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
