Theories of monitoring and the timing of repairs in spontaneous speech.
Abstract
This study reports the first data to be published on the timing of self-repairs in spontaneous speech, giving means and confidence intervals for cut-off-to-repair, error-to-repair, and cut-off-to-repair times for different types of repair based on 1525 repairs made in the conversational turns of 61 callers to a radio talk show. The three most detailed models of monitoring are discussed in the introduction, with emphasis on their temporal implications. Many of the cut-off-to-repair times observed were faster than would be predicted by any model in the literature. Laver's (1980) theory of monitoring is shown to be incongruent with the observed times, as is Levelt's (1983, 1989) main interruption rule. The results show that people can plan corrections to their speech while talking, and suggest that Kempen and Hoenkamp's (1987) concept of incremental processing can be extended to repairs.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Studies of self-repairs in spontaneous overt speech production show that speakers monitor the intended pre-verbal message for appropriateness.
“Studies of self-repairs in spontaneous overt speech production show that speakers do monitor the intended pre-verbal message for appropriateness (e.g., Levelt, 1983; Blackmer and Mitton, 1991).”
From The ConDialInt Model: Condensation, Dialogality, and Intentionality Dimensions of Inner Speech Within a Hierarchical Predictive Control Framework (2019) · cites this paper as Blackmer and Mitton, 1991
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking
Clark, H. (2002) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00017-3 · Cited by 1,235 · see citing works
Grandchamp, R., Rapin, L., Perrone-Bertolotti, M., Pichat, C., Haldin, C., Cousin, E., Lachaux, J.-P., Dohen, M., Perrier, P., Garnier, M., et al. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02019 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Interference between conversation and a concurrent visuomotor task.
Boiteau, T. W., Malone, P. S., Peters, S. A., & Almor, A. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/a0031858 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Lexical bias revisited: detecting, rejecting and repairing speech errors in inner speech.
Nooteboom, S. G. (2005) · Speech Communication · doi:10.1016/j.specom.2005.02.003 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
- Authors
- Blacfkmer, E. R., & Mitton, J. L.
- Affiliations
- Acadia University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Blacfkmer, Elizabeth R.
- Venue
- Cognition
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1991-06
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 173-194
- ISSN
- 0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2018901206
- Cited by
- 206
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 1.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cognition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Keywords
- speech error correction, self-healing, spontaneous speech, speech monitoring, timing of repair, incremental processing, conversational speech
- MeSH terms
- Feedback, Humans, Psycholinguistics, Radio, Speech, Time Factors
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
