This work describes a methodology of collecting speech errors from audio recordings and investigates how some of its assumptions affect data quality and composition. Speech errors of all types (sound, lexical, syntactic, etc.) were collected by eight data collectors from audio recordings of unscripted English speech. Analysis of these errors showed that: (i) different listeners find different errors in the same audio recordings, but (ii) the frequencies of error patterns are similar across listeners; (iii) errors collected “online” using on the spot observational techniques are more likely to be affected by perceptual biases than “offline” errors collected from audio recordings; and (iv) datasets built from audio recordings can be explored and extended in a number of ways that traditional corpus studies cannot be.
BaarsB. J.MotleyM. T.MacKayD. G. (1975). Output editing for lexical status from artificially elicited slips of tongue. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(4), 382–391.
2.
BockK. (1982). Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychology Review, 89(1), 1–47.
3.
BockK. (1996). Language production: Methods and methodologies. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3(4), 395–421.
4.
BockK. (2011). How much correction of syntactic errors are there, anyway?Language and Linguistic Compass, 5(6), 322–335.
5.
BondZ. S. (1999). Slips of the ear: Errors in the perception of casual conversation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
6.
BoomerD. S.LaverJ. D. M. (1968). Slips of the tongue. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 3(1), 2–12.
7.
ChaoA. (2001). An overview of closed capture–recapture models. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics, 6(2), 158–175.
8.
ChenJ.-Y. (1999). The representation and processing of tone in Mandarin Chinese: Evidence from slips of the tongue. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20(2), 289–301.
9.
ChenJ.-Y. (2000). Syllable errors from naturalistic slips of the tongue in Mandarin Chinese. Psychologia, 43(1), 15–26.
10.
ColeR. A. (1973). Listening for mispronunciations: A measure of what we hear during speech. Perception and Psychophysics, 13(1), 153–156.
11.
ColeR. A.JakimikJ.CooperW. E. (1978). Perceptibility of phonetic features in fluent speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 64(1), 45–56.
12.
CruttendenA. (2014). Gimson’s pronunciation of English. 8th edition.London, UK: Routledge.
13.
CucchiariniC.StrikH.BovesL. (2002). Quantitative assessment of second language learners’ fluency: Comparisons between read and spontaneous speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111(6), 2862–2873.
14.
CutlerA. (1982). The reliability of speech error data. In CutlerA. (Ed.), Slips of the tongue and language production (pp. 7–28). Berlin, Germany: Mouton.
15.
CutlerA. (1988). The perfect speech error. In HymanL. M.LiC. N. (Eds.), Language, speech, and mind: Studies in honour of Victoria A. Fromkin (pp. 209–233). London, UK: Routledge.
16.
de JongN. H.WempeT. (2009). Praat script to detect syllable nuclei and measure speech rate automatically. Behavior Research Methods, 41(2), 385–390.
17.
DellG. S. (1984). Representation of serial order in speech: Evidence from the repeated phoneme effect in speech errors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 10(2), 222–233.
18.
DellG. S. (1985). Positive feedback in hierarchical connectionist models. Cognitive Science, 9(1), 3–23.
19.
DellG. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93(3), 283–321.
20.
DellG. S. (1995). Speaking and misspeaking. In GleitmanL. R.LibermanM. (Eds.), An invitation to cognitive science, Language, Volume 1 (pp. 183–208). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
21.
DellG. S.JulianoC.GovindjeeA. (1993). Structure and content in language production: A theory of frame constraints in phonological speech errors. Cognitive Science, 17(2), 149–195.
22.
DellG. S.ReichP. A. (1981). Stages in sentence production: An analysis of speech error data. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(6), 611–629.
23.
DeweyG. (1923). Relative frequency of English speech sounds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
ErnestusM.WarnerN. (2011). An introduction to reduced pronunciation variants. Journal of Phonetics, 39(3), 253–260.
25.
FerberR. (1991). Slip of the tongue or slip of the ear? On the perception and transcription of naturalistic slips of tongue. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20(2), 105–122.
26.
FerberR. (1995). Reliability and validity of slip-of-the-tongue corpora: A methodological note. Linguistics, 33(6), 1169–1190.
27.
FerreiraF.SwetsB. (2005). The production and comprehension of resumptive pronouns in relative clause "Island" contexts. In CutlerA. (Ed.), Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones (pp. 263–278). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
28.
FowlerC. A.MagnusonJ. S. (2012). Speech perception. In SpiveyM. J.McRaeK.JoanisseM. F. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 3–25). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29.
FrischS. A. (2007). Walking the tightrope between cognition and articulation: The state of the art in the phonetics of speech errors. In SchutzeC. T.FerreiraV. S. (Eds.), The state of the art in speech error research, MIT working papers in linguistics, Volume 53 (pp. 155–171). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
30.
FrischS. A.WrightR. (2002). The phonetics of phonological speech errors: An acoustic analysis of slips of the tongue. Journal of Phonetics, 30(2), 139–162.
31.
García-AlbeaJ. E.del VisoS.IgoaJ. M. (1989). Movement errors and levels of processing in sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18(1), 145–161.
32.
GarnesS.BondZ. S. (1975). Slips of the ear: Errors in perception of casual speech. In GrossmanR. E.SanL. J.VanceT. J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 214–225.
33.
GarnhamA.ShillcockR. C.BrownG. D.MillA. I.CutlerA. (1981). Slips of the tongue in the London–Lund corpus of spontaneous conversation. Linguistics, 19(7–8), 805–818.
34.
GarrettM. (1975). The analysis of sentence production. In BowerG. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, Advances in research and theory, Volume 9 (pp. 131–177). New York, NY: Academic Press.
35.
GarrettM. (1976). Syntactic processes in sentence production. In WalesR. J.WalkerE. C. T. (Eds.), New approaches to language mechanisms (pp. 231–255). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Halland.
36.
GiegerichH. J. (1992). English phonology: An introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37.
GoldrickM. (2011). Linking speech errors and generative phonological theory. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5(6), 397–412.
38.
GoldrickM.BlumsteinS. (2006). Cascading activation from phonological planning to articulatory processes: Evidence from tongue twisters. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(6), 649–683.
39.
GoldrickM.ChuK. (2014). Gradient co-activation and speech error articulation: Comment on Pouplier and Goldstein (2010). Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(4), 452–458.
40.
GoldsteinL.PouplierM.ChenaL.SaltzmanE. L.ByrdD. (2007). Dynamic action units slip in speech production errors. Cognition, 103(3), 386–412.
41.
HarleyT. A. (1984). A critique of top-down independent level models of speech production: Evidence from non-plan-internal speech errors. Cognitive Science, 8(3), 191–219.
42.
KormosJ.DénesM. (2004). Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners. System32(2), 145–164.
43.
LadefogedP. (2006). A course in phonetics. Boston, MA: Thomson.
44.
LeveltW. J. M.RoelofsA.MeyerA. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavorial and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 1–75.
45.
LevittA.HealyA. (1985). The roles of phoneme frequency, similarity, and availability in the experimental elicitation of speech errors. Journal of Memory and Language, 24(6), 717–733.
46.
MacDonaldM. C. (2016). Speak, act, remember: The language-production basis of serial order and maintenance in verbal memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(1), 47–53.
47.
MacKayD. G. (1970). Spoonerisms: The structure of errors in the serial order of speech. Neuropsychologia, 8(3), 323–350.
48.
MacKayD. G. (1971). Stress pre-entry in motor systems. American Journal of Psychology, 84(1), 35–51.
49.
MaclayH.OsgoodC. E. (1959). Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech. Word, 15(1), 19–44.
50.
MannV. A. (1980). Influence of preceding liquid on stop-consonant perception. Perception and Psychophysics, 28(5), 407–412.
51.
MaoC. X.HuangR.ZhangS. (2017). Petersen estimator, Chapman adjustment, list effects, and heterogeneity. Biometrics, 73(1), 167–173.
52.
MarinS.PouplierM. (2016). Spontaneously occurring speech errors in German: BAS corpora analysis. In GillesA.MititeluV. B.TufisD.VasilescuI. (Eds.), Errors by humans and machines in multimedia, multimodal and multilingual data processing (pp. 75–90). Bucharest, Romania: Romanian Academy Press.
53.
MarinS.PouplierM.HarringtonJ. (2010). Acoustic consequences of articulatory variability during productions of /t/ and /k/ and its implications for speech error research. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 127(1), 445–461.
54.
Marslen-WilsonW.WelshA. (1978). Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 10(1), 29–63.
55.
MeringerR.MayerK. (1895). Versprechen und Verlesen. Stuttgart, Germany: Gbschensche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
56.
MillerG. A.NicelyP. (1955). An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 27(2), 338–352.
57.
MotleyM. T.BaarsB. J. (1975). Encoding sensitivities to phonological markedness and transitional probability: Evidence from spoonerisms. Human Communication Research, 1(4), 353–361.
58.
MowreyR.MacKayI. R. A. (1990). Phonological primitives: Electromyographic speech error evidence. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88(3), 1299–1312.
59.
NooteboomS. G. (1969). The tongue slips into patterns. In van EssenA. J.van RaadA. A. (Eds.), Leyden studies in linguistics and phonetics (pp. 114–132). The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.
60.
PérezE.SantiagoJ.PalmaA.O’SeaghdhaP. G. (2007). Perceptual bias in speech error data collection: Insights from Spanich speech errors. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 36(3), 207–235.
61.
PouplierM.GoldsteinL. (2005). Asymmetries in the perception of speech production errors. Journal of Phonetics, 33(1), 47–75.
62.
PouplierM.HardcastleW. (2005). A re-evaluation of the nature of speech errors in normal and disordered speech. Phonetica, 62(2–4), 227–243.
63.
Shattuck-HufnagelS. (1979). Speech errors as evidence for a serial-ordering mechanism in sentence production. In CopperW. E.WalkerE. C. T. (Eds.), Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett (pp. 295–342). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
64.
Shattuck-HufnagelS. (1983). Sublexical units and suprasegmental structure in speech production planning. In MacNeilageP. F. (Ed.), The production of speech (pp. 109–136). New York, NY: Springer Verlag.
65.
Shattuck-HufnagelS. (1992). The role of word structure in segmental serial ordering. Cognition, 42(1–3), 213–259.
66.
Shattuck-HufnagelS.KlattD. H. (1979). The limited use of distinctive features and markedness in speech production: Evidence from speech error data. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(1), 41–55.
SlisA.Van LieshoutP. H. H. M. (2016). The effect of phonetic context on the dynamics of intrusions and reductions. Journal of Phonetics, 57(1), 1–20.
69.
StearnsA. M. (2006). Production and perception of articulation errors. MA Thesis, University of South Florida, USA.
70.
StembergerJ. P. (1982/1985). The lexicon in a model of language production. New York, NY: Garland.
71.
StembergerJ. P. (1983). Speech errors and theoretical phonology: A review. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
72.
StembergerJ. P. (1991). Apparent antifrequency effects in language production: The addition bias and phonological underspecification. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(2), 161–185.
73.
StembergerJ. P. (1992). The reliability and replicability of naturalistic speech error data. In BaarsB. J. (Ed.), Experimental slips and human error: Exploring the architecture of volition (pp. 195–215). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
74.
StembergerJ. P. (1993). Spontaneous and evoked slips of the tongue. In BlankenG.DittmannJ.GrimmH.MarshallJ. C.WalleschC.-W. (Eds.), Linguistic disorders and pathologies. An international handbook (pp. 53–65). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
75.
StembergerJ. P. (2009). Preventing perseveration in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(10), 1431–1470.
76.
Stoel-GammonC. (2001). Transcribing the speech of young children. Topics in Language Disorders, 21(4), 12–21.
77.
TentJ.ClarkJ. E. (1980). An experimental investigation into the perception of slips of the tongue. Journal of Phonetics, 8(3), 317–325.
78.
VitevitchM. S. (2002). Naturalistic and experimental analyses of word frequency and neighborhood density effects in slips of ear. Language and Speech, 45(4), 407–434.
79.
VitevitchM. S.SiewC. S. Q.CastroN.GoldsteinR.GharstJ. A.KumarJ. J.BoosE. B. (2015). Speech error and tip of the tongue diary for mobile devices. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(6), Article 1190.
80.
VousdenJ. I.BrownG. D. A.HarleyT. A. (2000). Serial control of phonology in speech production: A hierarchical model. Cognitive Psychology, 41(2), 101–175.
81.
WellsR. (1951). Predicting slips of the tongue. Yale Scientific Magazine, 3(1), 9–30.
82.
WickelgrenW. A. (1969). Context-sensitive coding, associative memory, and serial order in (speech) behavior. Psychological Review, 76(1), 1–15.
83.
WilshireC. E. (1998). Serial order in phonological encoding: An exploration of the "word onset effect" using laboratory-induced errors. Cognition, 68(2), 143–166.
84.
WilshireC. E. (1999). The "tongue twister" paradigm as a technique for studying phonological encoding. Language and Speech, 42(1), 57–82.
