Spoonish spanerisms: A lexical bias effect in Spanish

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 949-953

  Hartsuiker, Robert J ^a   Antón Méndez, Inés ^b,d   Roelstraete, Bjorn ^a   Costa, Albert ^c  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BARCELONA   (Spain)

^d UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Cross linguistic differences in language processing; Language production; Lexical bias effect; Spanish; Speech errors

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; AWARENESS; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; PAIRED ASSOCIATE LEARNING; PHONETICS; PROBABILITY; REINFORCEMENT; RISK FACTOR; SEMANTICS; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

ATTENTION; AWARENESS; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; PAIRED-ASSOCIATE LEARNING; PHONETICS; PROBABILITY; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; REINFORCEMENT (PSYCHOLOGY); RISK FACTORS; SEMANTICS; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 33746611657     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.32.4.949     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Alarcos Llorach, E. (1991). Fonología española [Spanish phonology]. Madrid, Spain: Edtorial Gredos.
2. Baars, B. J., Motley, M. T., & MacKay, D. G. (1975). Output editing for lexical status in artificially elicited slips of the tongue. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 382-391.
3. Clopper, C. J., & Pearson, E. S. (1934). The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial. Biometrika, 26, 404-413.
4. Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283-321.
5. Dell, G. S., & Reich, P. A. (1981). Stages in sentence production: An analysis of speech error data. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 611-629.
6. del Viso, S., Igoa, J. M., & García-Albea, J. E. (1987). Corpus of spontaneous slips of the tongue in Spanish. Unpublished manuscript,
7. del Viso, S., Igoa, J. M., & Garcia-Albea, J. E. (1991). Autonomy of phonological encoding: Evidence from slips of the tongue in Spanish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 161-185.
8. Duyck, W., Desmet, T., Verbeke, L. P. C., & Brysbaert, M. (2004). WordGen: A tool for word selection and nonword generation in Dutch, English, German, and French. Behavior Research Methods Instruments & Computers, 36, 488-499.
9. Fay, D., & Cutler, A. (1977). Malapropisms and the structure of the mental lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 505-520.
10. Garrett, M. F. (1976). Syntactic processes in sentence production. In R. J. Wales & E. C. T. Walker (Eds.), New approaches to language mechanisms (pp. 231-256). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
11. Hamm, S., Junglas, K., & Bredenkamp, J. (2004). The central executive as a prearticuliatory control device. Zeitschrift far Psychologie, 212, 66-75.
12. Harris, J. W. (1983). Syllable structure and stress in Spanish. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. Hartsuiker, R. J. (in press). Is there a monitoring bias in speech error patterns? Language and Cognitive Processes.
14. Hartsuiker, R. J., Corley, M., & Martensen, H. (2005). The lexical bias effect is modulated by context, but the standard monitoring account doesn't fly: Related beply to Baars, Motley, and MacKay (1975). Journal of Memory and language, 52, 58-70.
15. Humphreys, K. R. (2002). Lexical bias in speech errors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
16. Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1-75.
17. MacKay, D. G. (1992). Problems with Popper: The initial goal is to develop viable theories, not disconfirm them. Consciousness and Cognition, 1, 231-240.
18. Nooteboom, S. G. (2005). Listening to oneself: Monitoring speech production. In R. J. Hartsuiker, R. Bastiaanse, A. Postma, & F. Wijnen (Eds.), Phonological encoding and monitoring in normal and pathological speech (pp. 167-186). Hove, England: Psychology Press.
19. Postma, A. (2000). Detection of errors during speech production: A review of speech monitoring models. Cognition, 77, 97-131.
20. Rapp, B., & Goldrick, M. (2000). Discreteness and interactivity in spoken word production. Psychological Review, 107, 460-499.
21. Roelofs, A. (2004). Error biases in spoken word planning and monitoring by aphasic and nonaphasic speakers: Comment on Rapp and Goldrick (2000). Psychological Review, 111, 561-572.
22. Saito, A., & Saito, S. (2002). Experimentally induced verbal slips in Japanese. Evidence from a phonological bias technique. In K. Yasue, M. Jibu, & T. Delia Senta (Eds.), No matter, never mind: Advances in consciousness research (Vol. 33, pp. 273-279). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
23. Stermberger, J. P. (1992). The reliability and replicability of naturalistic speech error data: A comparison with experimentally induced errors. In B. J. Baars (Ed.), Experimental slips and human error: Exploring the architecture of volition (pp. 195-215). New York: Plenum Press.
24. Vigliocco, G., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2002). The interplay of meaning, sound, and syntax in sentence production. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 442-472.
25. Vitevitch, M. S. (2002). The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 735-747.