This item is only available for download by members of the University of Illinois community. Students, faculty, and staff at the U of I may log in with your NetID and password to view the item. If you are trying to access an Illinois-restricted dissertation or thesis, you can request a copy through your library's Inter-Library Loan office or purchase a copy directly from ProQuest.
Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/2142/82031
Description
Title
Lexical Bias in Speech Errors
Author(s)
Humphreys, Karin Renee
Issue Date
2002
Doctoral Committee Chair(s)
Bock, Kathryn
Department of Study
Psychology
Discipline
Psychology
Degree Granting Institution
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Degree Name
Ph.D.
Degree Level
Dissertation
Keyword(s)
Psychology, Cognitive
Language
eng
Abstract
Models of spoken word production disagree over whether the process involves feedback from phonological to lexical levels, or whether it is feed-forward only. To address this question, the experiments here investigated the underlying cause of the lexical bias effect---the tendency for phonological speech errors to be more likely when the outcomes are real words rather than nonwords. This lexical effect on phonological processing can be explained either by feedback, (Dell, 1986); or in models where feedback is prohibited, by a prearticulatory lexical editor that selectively aborts nonword output (e.g. Levelt, Roelofs & Meyer, 1999). The present experiments specifically compare these alternative explanations. Experiment 1 elicited phonological speech errors using the Slip procedure (Baars & Motley, 1974), and showed that the lexical bias effect in exchange errors is asymmetrical, with the first word showing a greater lexical bias than the second. This is not predicted by a lexical editor, but is predicted by feedback if exchanges are incremental, where the first part of the error precipitates the second. Two further experiments provided support for this incremental model of exchanges, by showing that more exchanges were created by priming the anticipatory part of the exchange than by priming the perseveration. A fourth and final experiment attempted to replicate the primary piece of experimental evidence for a lexical editor---Baars, Motley and MacKay (1975) Experiment 2, which showed the disappearance of the lexical bias effect when speakers were producing only nonwords, and should therefore not have been editing on the basis of lexicality. However, Experiment 4 did demonstrate significant, and equal lexical biases in nonword and word contexts, contra Baars, Motley and MacKay (1975) and the predictions of a lexical editor. These experiments provide the most precise tests to date of these alternative explanations of the lexical bias effect. The results argue strongly for feedback, rather than a lexical editor mechanism underlying lexical bias in speech errors, and therefore necessitate the inclusion of feedback from phonological to lexical levels in models of language production.
Use this login method if you
don't
have an
@illinois.edu
email address.
(Oops, I do have one)
IDEALS migrated to a new platform on June 23, 2022. If you created
your account prior to this date, you will have to reset your password
using the forgot-password link below.
