Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T02:14:07.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Target–error resemblance in French word substitution speech errors and the mental lexicon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 1999

Pierre J. L. Arnaud
Pierre J. L. Arnaud*
Affiliation:
Université Lumière
*
Pierre J. L. Arnaud, C.R.T.T., Université Lumière, 69365 Lyon CEDEX 07, France. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The word substitution errors from a corpus of 2,400 French slips of the tongue were grouped into several categories: contaminational, semantic, formal, and mixed cases; substitutions of syntagmatic codependents also occurred. Semantic and formal substitutions involved a resemblance between target and error. In addition, all substitutions exhibited a strong degree of word class and gender identity. The various types of resemblance were analyzed with reference to three-layer models of lexicalization. They did not make a lemma layer necessary, but stronger evidence came from another error category – semantic blends.

Type
Symposia
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , June 1999 , pp. 269 - 287
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abd-el-Jawad, H., & Abu-Salim, I. (1987). Slips of the tongue in Arabic and their theoretical implications. Language Sciences, 9, 145–171.Google Scholar
Aitchison, J. (1987). Words in the mind: An introduction to the mental lexicon. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Aitchison, J., & Straf, M. (1981). Lexical storage and retrieval: A developing skill? Linguistics, 19, 751–795.Google Scholar
Arnaud, P. J. L. (1997). Les ratés de la dénomination individuelle: Typologie des lapsus par substitution de mots. In Boisson, C. & Thoiron, P. (Eds.), Autour de la dénomination (pp. 307–331). Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon.Google Scholar
Astell, A. J., & Harley, T. A. (1996). Tip-of-the-tongue states and lexical access in dementia. Brain and Language, 54, 196–215.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Badecker, W., Miozzo, M., & Zanuttini, R. (1995). The two-stage model of lexical retrieval: Evidence from a case of anomia with selective preservation of grammatical gender. Cognition, 57, 193–216.Google Scholar
Benveniste, E. (1966). Problèmes de linguistique générale (Vol. 1). Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Berg, T. (1987). A cross-linguistic comparison of slips of the tongue. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Benveniste, E. (1992). Prelexical and postlexical features in language production. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 199–235.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K. (1987). Coordinating word and syntax in speech plans. In Ellis, A. W. (Ed.), Progress in the psychology of language (Vol. 3, pp. 337–390). London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Burke, D. M., MacKay, D. G., Worthley, J. S., & Wade, E. (1991). On the tip of the tongue: What causes word finding failures in young and older adults? Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 542–579.Google Scholar
Chaffin, R., & Hermann, D. J. (1988). The nature of semantic relations: A comparison of two approaches. In Evens, M. W. (Ed.), Relational models of the lexicon: Representing knowledge in semantic networks (pp. 289–334). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Charles, W. G., & Miller, G. A. (1989). Contexts of antonymous adjectives. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 357–375.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1970). Word associations and linguistic theory. In Lyons, J. (Ed.), New horizons in linguistics (pp. 271–286). Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. A. (1988). Word meaning and encyclopedic knowledge. In Hüllen, W. & Schulze, R. (Eds.), Understanding the lexicon: Meaning, sense and world knowledge in lexical semantics (pp. 73–84). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. A. (1992). Antonymy revisited: Some thoughts on the relationship between words and concepts. In Lehrer, A. & Kittay, E. F. (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization (pp. 289–306). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Deese, J. (1965). The structure of associations in language and thought. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
de Groot, A. M. B. (1992). Bilingual lexical representation: A closer look at conceptual representations. In Frost, R. & Katz, L. (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning (pp. 389–412). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
de Jonge, B. (1993). The existence of synonyms in a language: Two forms but one, or rather two, meanings? Linguistics, 31, 521–538.Google Scholar
Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321.Google Scholar
Dell, G. S. (1989). The retrieval of phonological forms in production: Tests of predictions from a connectionist model. In Marslen-Wilson, W. (Ed.), Lexical representation and process (pp. 136–165). Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Dell, G. S. (1990). Effects of frequency and vocabulary type on phonological speech errors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5, 313–349.Google Scholar
Dell, G. S., Juliano, C., & Govindjee, A. (1993). Structure and content in language production: A theory of frame constraints in phonological speech errors. Cognitive Science, 17, 149–195.Google Scholar
Dell, G. S., & O’Seaghdha, P. (1992). Stages of lexical access in language production. Cognition, 42, 287–314.Google Scholar
Dell, G. S., & Reich, P. A. (1981). Stages in sentence production: Analysis of speech error data. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 611–621.Google Scholar
Del Viso, S., Igoa, J. M., & García-Albea, J. E. (1991). On the autonomy of phonological encoding: Evidence from slips of the tongue in Spanish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 161–185.Google Scholar
Fay, D., & Cutler, A. (1977). Malapropisms and the structure of the mental lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 505–520.Google Scholar
Ferber, R. (1991). Slip of the tongue or slip of the ear? On the perception and transcription of naturalistic slips of the tongue. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 105–122.Google Scholar
Fromkin, V. (1971). The nonanomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Language, 47, 27–52.Google Scholar
Garrett, M. F. (1980). Levels of processing in sentence production. In Butterworth, B. (Ed.), Language production: Vol. 1. Speech and talk (pp. 177–220). London: Academic.Google Scholar
Garrett, M. F. (1982). Remarks on the relation between language production and language comprehension systems. In Arbib, M. A., Caplan, D., & Marshall, J. C. (Eds.), Neural models of language processes (pp. 209–224). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Garrett, M. F. (1988). Processes in language production. In Newmeyer, F. J. (Ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge survey: Vol. 3. Language: Psychological and biological aspects (pp. 69–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Garrett, M. F. (1992). Lexical retrieval processes: Semantic field effects. In Kittay, E. F. & Lehrer, A. (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contents: New essays in lexical and semantic organization (pp. 377–395). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gross, D., Fischer, U., & Miller, G. A. (1989). The organization of adjectival meanings. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 92–106.Google Scholar
Harley, T. A. (1984). A critique of top-down independent levels models of speech production: Evidence from non-plan-internal speech errors. Cognitive Science, 8, 191—219.Google Scholar
Harley, T. A. (1990). Environmental contaminations of normal speech. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11, 45–72.Google Scholar
Harley, T. A. (1993). Phonological activation of semantic competitors during lexical access in speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 291–309.Google Scholar
Harley, T. A., & McAndrew, S. B. G. (1995). Interactive models of lexicalization: Some constraints from speech error, picture naming and neuropsychological data. In Levy, J., Bairaktaris, D., Bullinaria, J., & Cairns, D. (Eds.), Connectionist models of memory and language (pp. 311–331). London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
Hillert, D., & Gupta, G. A. (1994). Lexical selection in production: Reflections on spontaneous speech errors. Frankfurter Linguistische Forschungen, 16, 1–16.Google Scholar
Hotopf, W. H. N. (1980). Semantic similarity as a factor in whole-word slips of the tongue. In Fromkin, V. A. (Ed.), Errors in linguistic performance (pp. 97–109). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Hotopf, W. H. N. (1983). Lexical slips of the pen and tongue. In Butterworth, B. (Ed.), Language production (Vol. 2, pp. 147–199). London: Academic.Google Scholar
Humphreys, G. W., Riddoch, M. J., & Quinlan, P. T. (1988). Cascade processes in picture identification. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 5, 67–103.Google Scholar
Ikegami, Y. (n.d.). Register specification in the learner’s dictionary. Longman Language Review, (3), 2–5.Google Scholar
Kempen, G., & Huijbers, P. (1983). The lexicalization process in sentence production and naming: Indirect election of words. Cognition, 14, 185–209.Google Scholar
Lacerda de Almeida Andreiolo, T. J., (1982). Aspects linguistiques et sémiotiques du lapsus et mots d’esprit dans un corpus portugais et français. Thèse de 3ème cycle. Université Paris 10– Nanterre.Google Scholar
Laine, M., & Martin, N. (1996). Lexical retrieval deficit in picture naming: Implications for word production models. Brain and Language, 53, 283–314.Google Scholar
Lehrer, A. (1974). Semantic fields and lexical structure. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Leuniger, H., & Keller, J. (1994). Some remarks on representational aspects of language production. Linguistische Berichte, 6, 83–110.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1992). Accessing words in speech production: Stages, processes and representations. Cognition, 42, 1–22.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M., Schriefers, H., Vorberg, D., Meyer, A., Pechmann, T., & Havinga, J. (1991a). Normal and deviant lexical processing: A reply to Dell and O’Seaghdha. Psychological Review, 98, 615–618.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M., Schriefers, H., Vorberg, D., Meyer, A., Pechmann, T., & Havinga, J. (1991b). The time course of lexical access in language production: A study of picture naming. Psychological Review, 98, 122–142.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, J. L. (1981). A Propos des lapsus du chapitre V de la Psychopathologie de la vie quotidienne de S. Freud. Thèse de 3ème cycle. Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales.Google Scholar
Martin, N., Weissberg, R. W., & Saffran, E. M. (1989). Variables influencing the occurrence of naming errors: Implications for a model of lexical retrieval. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 462–485.Google Scholar
Meringer, R., & Mayer, K. (1895). Versprechen und Verlesen. Stuttgart: Goschen.Google Scholar
Miozzo, M., & Caramazza, A. (1997). On knowing the auxiliary of a verb that cannot be named: Evidence for the independence of grammatical and phonological aspects of lexical knowledge. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 160–166.Google Scholar
Morton, J. (1979). Word recognition. In Morton, J. & Marshall, J. E. (Eds.), Structures and processes (pp. 107–156). London: Elek.Google Scholar
Motley, M. T., Camden, C. T., & Baars, B. 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 Behavior, 21, 578–594.Google Scholar
Murphy, G. L., & Andrew, J. M. (1993). The conceptual basis of antonymy and synonymy in adjectives. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 301–319.Google Scholar
Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Perea, M., & Gotor, A. (1997). Associative and semantic priming effects occur at very short stimulus- onset asynchronies in lexical decision and naming. Cognition, 62, 223–240.Google Scholar
Pilleux, M. (1982). Errores del habla: Analisis lingüístico. Estudios Filológicos, 17, 39–55.Google Scholar
Poulisse, N., & Bongaerts, T. (1994). First language use in second language production. Applied Linguistics, 15, 36–57.Google Scholar
Rastier, F. (1992). Sémantique et recherches cognitives. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Roelofs, A. (1992). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognitive, 42, 107–142.Google Scholar
Rossi, M., & Peter-Defare, E. (1995). Lapsus linguae: Word errors or phonological errors? International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 11, 5–38.Google Scholar
Rossi, M., & Peter-Defare, E. (1998). Les lapsus. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Schreuder, R., & Flores d’Arcais, G. B. (1989). Psycholinguistic issues in the lexical representation of meaning. In Marslen-Wilson, W. (Ed.), Lexical representation and process (pp. 409–436). Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Schriefers, H. (1992). Lexical access in the production of noun phrases. Cognition, 45, 33–54.Google Scholar
Shelton, J. R., & Martin, R. C. (1992). How semantic is automatic semantic priming? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18, 1191–1210.Google Scholar
Stemberger, J. P. (1985). An interactive activation model of language production. In Ellis, A. W. (Ed.), Progress in the psychology of language (Vol. 1, pp. 143–186). London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tannenhaus, M. K., Dell, G. S., & Carlson, G. (1987). Context effects in lexical processing: A connectionist approach to modularity. In Garfield, J. L. (Ed.), Modularity in knowledge representation and natural language understanding (pp. 83–103). Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Williams, J. N. (1996). Is automatic priming semantic? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 8, 113–161.Google Scholar