Home Induced speech errors as a tool for language description: a case study from Xong “prenasalized consonants”
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Induced speech errors as a tool for language description: a case study from Xong “prenasalized consonants”

  • Karl Reza Sarvestani EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: October 16, 2015
Linguistics Vanguard
From the journal Linguistics Vanguard Volume 1 Issue 1

Abstract

The task of language description often requires a linguist to make a choice between alternative hypotheses which cannot be satisfactorily decided by data obtained through traditional descriptive methods. This paper proposes induced speech error tasks as a means of extending the evidential base used to address descriptive questions. Much previous research has explored language-general cognitive processes underlying speech errors, but little work has investigated their potential as a tool for improving the description of language-specific phenomena. In part, this is because the collection of natural speech errors requires more time and a more certain knowledge of the structure of the language than descriptive linguists often have available. Induced speech error tasks, however, help overcome these limitations by allowing the rapid collection of speech error evidence which can aid in selection between competing analyses. Practical advice is offered for researchers considering implementing speech errors tasks in their own research. These points are then illustrated by an investigation of the segmental status of “prenasalized consonants” in Xong, an under-documented Hmongic/Miao language spoken in southern China. While traditional descriptive techniques were unable to resolve the question, a simple speech error-inducing task produced results which can be interpreted as support for a cluster analysis.

Keywords: language description; speech errors; prenasalized consonants; Miao/Hmongic; laboratory phonology

References

Baars, Bernard J. 1980. On eliciting predictable speech errors in the laboratory. In Victoria A. Fromkin (ed.), Errors in linguistic performance: Slips of the tongue, ear, pen and hand, 307–318. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Baars, Bernard J. 1992. A dozen competing-plans techniques for inducing predictable slips in speech and action. In Bernard J. Baars (ed.), Experimental slips and human error: Exploring the architecture of volition, 129–150. New York: Springer Science+Business Media.10.1007/978-1-4899-1164-3_6Search in Google Scholar

Bickmore, Lee S. 1989. Kinyambo prosody. University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2001. Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International 5(9/10). 341–345.Search in Google Scholar

Clements, George N. 1985. The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 2. 225–252.10.1017/S0952675700000440Search in Google Scholar

Downing, Laura J. 1990. Problems in Jita tonology. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Downing, Laura J. 2005. On the ambiguous segmental status of nasals in homorganic NC sequences. In Mark Oostendorp & Jeroen van de Weijer (eds.), The internal organization of phonologial segments, 183–216. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110890402.183Search in Google Scholar

Frisch, Stefan A. & Richard Wright. 2002. The phonetics of phonological speech errors: An acoustic analysis of slips of the tongue. Journal of Phonetics 30(2). 139–162.10.1006/jpho.2002.0176Search in Google Scholar

Fromkin, Victoria A. 1968. Speculation on performance models. Journal of Linguistics 4(1). 47–68.10.1017/S002222670000164XSearch in Google Scholar

Fromkin, Victoria A. 1971. The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Language 47(1). 27–52.10.1515/9783110888423.215Search in Google Scholar

Goldrick, Matthew A. 2011. Linking speech errors and generative phonological theory. Language and Linguistics Compass 5(6). 397–412.10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00282.xSearch in Google Scholar

Guest, Daniel J. 2001. Phonetic features in language production: An experimental examination of phonetic feature errors. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Hall, Tracy A. 2007. Segmental features. In Paul de Lacy (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology, 311–334. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486371.014Search in Google Scholar

Henrich, Joseph, Steven J. Heine & Ara Norenzayan. 2010. The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33(2/3). 61–135.10.1017/S0140525X0999152XSearch in Google Scholar

Herbert, Robert K. 1986. Language waiver sals, markedness theory and natural phonetic-processes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110865936Search in Google Scholar

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1998. Documentary and descriptive linguistics. Linguistics 36(1). 161–195.10.1515/ling.1998.36.1.161Search in Google Scholar

Hubbard, Kathleen. 1995. Syllable timing: Evidence from Runyambo and Luganda. Phonology 12(2). 235–256.10.1017/S0952675700002487Search in Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry M. 1992. Moraic mismatches in Bantu. Phonology 9(2). 255–265.10.1017/S0952675700001603Search in Google Scholar

Iwasaki, Noriko. 2007. Case particle errors in Japanese: Is the nominative ga a default case marker in sentence production? In Carson T. Schütze & Victor S. Ferreira (eds.), The state of the art in speech error research: Proceedings of the LS A Institute workshop, 205–220. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Ladefoged, Peter N. 2003. Phonetic data analysis: An introduction to fieldwork and instrumental techniques. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

MacKay, Donald G. 1971. Stress pre-entry in motor systems. The American Journal of Psychology 84(1). 35–51.10.2307/1421223Search in Google Scholar

Maddieson, Ian. 2001. Phonetic fieldwork. In Paul Newman & Martha Ratliff (eds.), Linguistic fieldwork, 211–229. Cambridge, UK.10.1017/CBO9780511810206.011Search in Google Scholar

Maddieson, Ian & Peter N. Ladefoged. 1993. Phonetics of partially nasal consonants. Phonetics and Phonology 5. 251–301.10.1016/B978-0-12-360380-7.50014-4Search in Google Scholar

Meringer, Rudolf & Karl Mayer. 1895. Versprechen und verlesen, eine psychologischlinguistische studie [Misspeaking and misreading: A psycholinguistic study]. Stuttgart: Goschensche Verlagsbuchhandlung.10.1515/9783112694480Search in Google Scholar

Meyer, Antje. 1992. Investigation of phonological encoding through speech error analysis: Achievements, limitations, and alternatives. Cognition 42(1). 181–211.10.1016/0010-0277(92)90043-HSearch in Google Scholar

Mowrey, Richard & Ian MacKay. 1990. Phonological primitives: Electromyographic speech error evidence. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 88(3). 1299–1312.10.1121/1.399706Search in Google Scholar

Pérez, Elvira, Julio Santiago, Alfonso Palma & Padraig O’Seaghdha. 2007. Perceptual bias in speech error data collection: Insights from spanish speech errors. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 36(3). 207–235.10.1007/s10936-006-9042-7Search in Google Scholar

Pouplier, Marianne. 2003. Units of phonological encoding: Empirical evidence. Yale University dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Pouplier, Marianne & Louis Goldstein. 2005. Asymmetries in the perception of speech production errors. Journal of Phonetics 33(1). 47–75.10.1016/j.wocn.2004.04.001Search in Google Scholar

Riehl, Anastasia K. 2008. The phonology and phonetics of nasal obstruent sequences. Cornell University dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Shi, Rujin. 1997. Miao-Han/Han-Miao cidian (Xiangxi fangyan) [Miao-Chinese/Chinese-Miao dictionary (Xiangxi dialect)]. Changsha: Yuelu Chubanshe.Search in Google Scholar

Stemberger, Joseph P. 1992. The reliability and replicability of naturalistic speech error data: A comparison with experimentally induced errors. In Bernard J. Baars (ed.), Experimental slips and human error: Exploring the architecture of volition, 195–215. New York: Plenum Press.10.1007/978-1-4899-1164-3_8Search in Google Scholar

Wan, I-Ping. 1999. Mandarin phonology: Evidence from speech errors. State University of New York at Buffalo dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Wan, I-Ping. 2006. A psycholinguistic study of postnuclear glides and coda nasals in Mandarin. Journal of Language and Linguistics 5(2). 158–176.Search in Google Scholar

Wan, I-Ping & Jeri J. Jaeger. 1998. Speech errors and the representation of tone in Mandarin Chinese. Phonology 15(3). 417–461.10.1017/S0952675799003668Search in Google Scholar

Wan, I-Ping & Jeri J. Jaeger. 2003. The phonological representation of Taiwan Mandarin vowels: A psycholinguistic study. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 12(3). 205–257.10.1023/A:1023666819363Search in Google Scholar

Wells-Jensen, Sheri. 1999. Cognitive correlates of linguistic complexity: A cross-linguistic comparison of errors in speech. State University of New York at Buffalo dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Wells-Jensen, Sheri. 2007. A cross-linguistic speech error investigation of functional complexity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 36(2). 107–157.10.1007/s10936-006-9036-5Search in Google Scholar

Whalen, Douglas H. & Joyce M. McDonough. 2015. Taking the laboratory into the field. Annual Review of Linguistics 1. 395–415.10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124915Search in Google Scholar

Wilshire, Carolyn. 1999. The “tongue-twister” paradigm as a technique for studying phonological encoding. Language and Speech 42(1). 57–82.10.1177/00238309990420010301Search in Google Scholar

Xiang, Rizheng. 1999. Jiwei Miaoyu yanjiu [A study of Jiwei Miao]. Chengdu: Sichuan Minzu Chubanshe.Search in Google Scholar

Yang, Zaibiao. 2004. Miaoyu dongbu fangyan tuyu bijiao [Comparative dialectology of Eastern Miao]. Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Daxue Chubanshe.Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2015-3-30
Accepted: 2015-9-22
Published Online: 2015-10-16
Published in Print: 2015-12-1

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorials/From the Editors
  3. From the Drawing Board
  4. Phonetics & Phonology
  5. Can we use rendaku for phonological argumentation?
  6. Toward completely automated vowel extraction: Introducing DARLA
  7. Induced speech errors as a tool for language description: a case study from Xong “prenasalized consonants”
  8. Real-time articulatory biofeedback with electromagnetic articulography
  9. Allomorphs of French de in coordination: a reproducible study
  10. Morphology & Syntax
  11. Interactional Construction Grammar
  12. Evidence Based on a dynamic source: Database support for a theory of transitive reciprocals
  13. Three open questions in experimental syntax
  14. The complexity of inflectional systems
  15. Investigating “periphery” from a functionalist perspective
  16. Semantics & Pragmatics
  17. Language structure and social agency: Confirming polar questions in conversation
  18. What can historical linguistics and experimental pragmatics offer each other?
  19. Language Documentation & Typology
  20. Directionals, episodic structure, and geographic information systems: Area/punctual distinctions in Ahtna travel narration
  21. Hidden complexity – The neglected side of complexity and its implications
  22. Semantic typology: New approaches to crosslinguistic variation in language and cognition
  23. Psycholinguistics & Neurolinguistics
  24. Discovering prominence and its role in language processing: An individual (differences) approach
  25. The Influence of Word Retrieval and Planning on Phonetic Variation: Implications for Exemplar Models
  26. Language Acquisition & Language Learning
  27. Second language acquisition and linguistics: A bidirectional perspective
  28. Sociolinguistics & Anthropological Linguistics
  29. An end of egalitarianism? Social evaluations of language difference in New Zealand
  30. Sounding the depths at the confluence of numerosity and language
  31. Connecting linguistic variation and non-linguistic behaviour
  32. Extending ELAN into variationist sociolinguistics
  33. I think your going to like me: Exploring the role of errors in email messages on assessments of potential housemates
  34. Computational & Corpus Linguistics
  35. Data “big” and “small” – Examples from the Australian lexical database
  36. The importance of robust corpora in providing more realistic descriptions of variation in English grammar
  37. Historical Linguistics
  38. A minimalist approach to the emergence of ergativity in Austronesian languages
  39. Cognitive Linguistics
  40. What makes a metaphor an embodied metaphor?
  41. Meaning change in a petri dish: constructions, semantic vector spaces, and motion charts
https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2015-0020
Keywords for this article
language description; speech errors; prenasalized consonants; Miao/Hmongic; laboratory phonology

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorials/From the Editors
  3. From the Drawing Board
  4. Phonetics & Phonology
  5. Can we use rendaku for phonological argumentation?
  6. Toward completely automated vowel extraction: Introducing DARLA
  7. Induced speech errors as a tool for language description: a case study from Xong “prenasalized consonants”
  8. Real-time articulatory biofeedback with electromagnetic articulography
  9. Allomorphs of French de in coordination: a reproducible study
  10. Morphology & Syntax
  11. Interactional Construction Grammar
  12. Evidence Based on a dynamic source: Database support for a theory of transitive reciprocals
  13. Three open questions in experimental syntax
  14. The complexity of inflectional systems
  15. Investigating “periphery” from a functionalist perspective
  16. Semantics & Pragmatics
  17. Language structure and social agency: Confirming polar questions in conversation
  18. What can historical linguistics and experimental pragmatics offer each other?
  19. Language Documentation & Typology
  20. Directionals, episodic structure, and geographic information systems: Area/punctual distinctions in Ahtna travel narration
  21. Hidden complexity – The neglected side of complexity and its implications
  22. Semantic typology: New approaches to crosslinguistic variation in language and cognition
  23. Psycholinguistics & Neurolinguistics
  24. Discovering prominence and its role in language processing: An individual (differences) approach
  25. The Influence of Word Retrieval and Planning on Phonetic Variation: Implications for Exemplar Models
  26. Language Acquisition & Language Learning
  27. Second language acquisition and linguistics: A bidirectional perspective
  28. Sociolinguistics & Anthropological Linguistics
  29. An end of egalitarianism? Social evaluations of language difference in New Zealand
  30. Sounding the depths at the confluence of numerosity and language
  31. Connecting linguistic variation and non-linguistic behaviour
  32. Extending ELAN into variationist sociolinguistics
  33. I think your going to like me: Exploring the role of errors in email messages on assessments of potential housemates
  34. Computational & Corpus Linguistics
  35. Data “big” and “small” – Examples from the Australian lexical database
  36. The importance of robust corpora in providing more realistic descriptions of variation in English grammar
  37. Historical Linguistics
  38. A minimalist approach to the emergence of ergativity in Austronesian languages
  39. Cognitive Linguistics
  40. What makes a metaphor an embodied metaphor?
  41. Meaning change in a petri dish: constructions, semantic vector spaces, and motion charts
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 13.10.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/lingvan-2015-0020/html?lang=en
Scroll to top button