Hubbry Logo
Speech errorSpeech errorMain
Open search
Speech error
Community hub
Speech error
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Speech error
Speech error
Speech error
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A speech error, commonly referred to as a slip of the tongue[1] (Latin: lapsus linguae, or occasionally self-demonstratingly, lipsus languae) or misspeaking, is a deviation (conscious or unconscious) from the apparently intended form of an utterance.[2] They can be subdivided into spontaneously and inadvertently produced speech errors and intentionally produced word-plays or puns. Another distinction can be drawn between production and comprehension errors. Errors in speech production and perception are also called performance errors.[3] Some examples of speech error include sound exchange or sound anticipation errors. In sound exchange errors, the order of two individual morphemes is reversed, while in sound anticipation errors a sound from a later syllable replaces one from an earlier syllable.[4] Slips of the tongue are a normal and common occurrence. One study shows that most people can make up to as much as 22 slips of the tongue per day.[5]

Speech errors are common among children, who have yet to refine their speech, and can frequently continue into adulthood. When errors continue past the age of 9 they are referred to as "residual speech errors" or RSEs.[6] They sometimes lead to embarrassment and betrayal of the speaker's regional or ethnic origins. However, it is also common for them to enter the popular culture as a kind of linguistic "flavoring". Speech errors may be used intentionally for humorous effect, as with spoonerisms.

Within the field of psycholinguistics, speech errors fall under the category of language production. Types of speech errors include: exchange errors, perseveration, anticipation, shift, substitution, blends, additions, and deletions. The study of speech errors has contributed to the establishment/refinement of models of speech production since Victoria Fromkin's pioneering work on this topic.[7]

Psycholinguistic explanations

[edit]

Speech errors are made on an occasional basis by all speakers.[1] They occur more often when speakers are nervous, tired, anxious or intoxicated.[1] During live broadcasts on TV or on the radio, for example, nonprofessional speakers and even hosts often make speech errors because they are under stress.[1] Some speakers seem to be more prone to speech errors than others. For example, there is a certain connection between stuttering and speech errors.[8] Charles F. Hockett explains that "whenever a speaker feels some anxiety about possible lapse, he will be led to focus attention more than normally on what he has just said and on what he is just about to say. These are ideal breeding grounds for stuttering."[8] Another example of a "chronic sufferer" is Reverend William Archibald Spooner, whose peculiar speech may be caused by a cerebral dysfunction, but there is much evidence that he invented his famous speech errors (spoonerisms).[1]

An explanation for the occurrence of speech errors comes from psychoanalysis, in the so-called Freudian slip. Sigmund Freud assumed that speech errors are the result of an intrapsychic conflict of concurrent intentions.[1] "Virtually all speech errors [are] caused by the intrusion of repressed ideas from the unconscious into one's conscious speech output", Freud explained.[1] In fact, his hypothesis explains only a minority of speech errors.[1]

Psycholinguistic classification

[edit]

There are few speech errors that clearly fall into only one category. The majority of speech errors can be interpreted in different ways and thus fall into more than one category.[9] For this reason, percentage figures for the different kinds of speech errors may be of limited accuracy.[10] Moreover, the study of speech errors gave rise to different terminologies and different ways of classifying speech errors. Here is a collection of the main types:

Types of speech errors
Type Definition Example
Addition "Additions add linguistic material."[1] Target: We
Error: We and I
Anticipation "A later segment takes the place of an earlier segment."[1] Target: reading list
Error: leading list
Blends Blends are a subcategory of lexical selection errors.[10] More than one item is being considered during speech production. Consequently, the two intended items fuse together.[1] Target: person/people
Error: perple
Deletion Deletions or omissions leave some linguistic material out.[1] Target: unanimity of opinion
Error: unamity of opinion
Exchange Exchanges are double shifts. Two linguistic units change places.[1] Target: getting your nose remodeled
Error: getting your model renosed
Lexical selection error The speaker has "problems with selecting the correct word".[10] Target: tennis racquet
Error: tennis bat
Malapropism, classical The speaker has the wrong beliefs about the meaning of a word. Consequently, they produce the intended word, which is semantically inadequate. Therefore, this is a competence error rather than a performance error. Malapropisms are named after 'Mrs. Malaprop', a character from Richard B. Sheridan's eighteenth-century play The Rivals.[3] Target: The flood damage was so bad they had to evacuate the city.
Error: The flood damage was so bad they had to evaporate the city.
Metathesis "Switching of two sounds, each taking the place of the other."[3] Target: pus pocket
Error: pos pucket
Morpheme-exchange error[10] Morphemes change places. Target: He has already packed two trunks.
Error: He has already packs two trunked.
Morpheme stranding Morphemes remain in place but are attached to the wrong words.[11] Target: He has already packed two trunks.
Error: He has already trunked two packs.
Omission cf. deletions Target: She can't tell me.
Error: She can tell me.
Perseveration "An earlier segment replaces a later item."[1] Target: black boxes
Error: black bloxes
Residual speech errors "Distortions of late-developing sounds such as /s/, /l/, and /r/."[6] Target: The box is red.

Error: The box is wed.

Shift "One speech segment disappears from its appropriate location and appears somewhere else."[1] Target: She decides to hit it.
Error: She decide to hits it.
Sound-exchange error Two sounds switch places.[10] Target: Night life [nait laif]
Error: Knife light [naif lait]
Spoonerism A spoonerism is a kind of metathesis. Switching of initial sounds of two separate words.[3] They are named after Reverend William Archibald Spooner, who probably invented most of his famous spoonerisms.[10] Target: I saw you light a fire.
Error: I saw you fight a liar.
Substitution One segment is replaced by an intruder. The source of the intrusion is not in the sentence.[1] Target: Where is my tennis racquet?
Error: Where is my tennis bat?
Word-exchange error A word-exchange error is a subcategory of lexical selection errors.[10] Two words are switched. Target: I must let the cat out of the house.
Error: I must let the house out of the cat.

Speech errors can affect different kinds of segments or linguistic units:

Segments
Segment Example
Distinctive or phonetic features Target: clear blue sky
Error: glear plue sky (voicing)
Phonemes or sounds Target: ad hoc
Error: odd hack
Sequences of sounds Target: spoon feeding
Error: foon speeding
Morphemes Target: sure
Error: unsure
Words Target: I hereby deputize you.
Error: I hereby jeopardize you.
Phrases Target: The sun is shining./The sky is blue.
Error: The sky is shining.

Types

[edit]

Examples

[edit]

Scientific relevance

[edit]

Speech production is a highly complex and extremely rapid process, and thus research into the involved mental mechanisms proves to be difficult.[10] Investigating the audible output of the speech production system is a way to understand these mental mechanisms. According to Gary S. Dell "the inner workings of a highly complex system are often revealed by the way in which the system breaks down".[10] Therefore, speech errors are of an explanatory value with regard to the nature of language and language production.[12]

Performance errors may provide the linguist with empirical evidence for linguistic theories and serve to test hypotheses about language and speech production models.[13] For that reason, the study of speech errors is significant for the construction of performance models and gives insight into language mechanisms.[13]

Evidence and insights

[edit]
  • Speech errors provide investigators with insights into the sequential order of language production processes.[10]
  • Speech errors clue investigators in on the interactivity of language production modules.[12]
  • The existence of lexical or phonemic exchange errors provides evidence that speakers typically engage in forward planning their utterances. It seems that before the speaker starts speaking the whole utterance is available.[10]
Anticipation
Target: Take my bike.
Error: Bake my bike.
Perseveration
Target: He pulled a tantrum.
Error: He pulled a pantrum.
  • Performance errors supply evidence for the psychological existence of discrete linguistic units.
Speech errors involve substitutions, shifts, additions and deletions of segments. "In order to move a sound, the speaker must think of it as a separate unit."[3] Obviously, one cannot account for speech errors without speaking of these discrete segments. They constitute the planning units of language production.[1] Among them are distinctive features, phonemes, morphemes, syllables, words and phrases. Victoria Fromkin points out that "many of the segments that change and move in speech errors are precisely those postulated by linguistic theories." Consequently, speech errors give evidence that these units are psychologically real.
  • One can infer from speech errors that speakers adhere to a set of linguistic rules.
"There is a complex set of rules which the language user follows when making use of these units."[3] Among them are for example phonetic constraints, which prescribe the possible sequences of sounds.[3] Moreover, the study of speech error confirmed the existence of rules that state how morphemes are to be pronounced or how they should be combined with other morphemes.[3] The following examples show that speech errors also observe these rules:
Target: He likes to have his team rested. [rest+id]
Error: He likes to have his rest teamed. [ti:m+d]
Target: Both kids are sick. [kid+z]
Error: Both sicks are kids. [sik+s]
Here the past tense morpheme resp. the plural morpheme is phonologically conditioned, although the lemmas are exchanged. This proves that first the lemmas are inserted and then phonological conditioning takes place.
Target: Don't yell so loud! / Don't shout so loud!
Error: Don't shell so loud!
"Shout" and "yell" are both appropriate words in this context. Due to the pressure to continue speaking, the speaker has to make a quick decision which word should be selected.[8] This pressure leads to the speaker's attempt to utter the two words simultaneously, which resulted in the creation of a blend.[8] According to Charles F. Hockett there are six possible blends of "shout" and "yell".[8] Why did the speaker choose "shell" and not one of the alternatives? The speaker obeyed unconscious linguistic rules because he selected the blend, which satisfied the linguistic demands of these rules the best.[8] Illegal non-words are for example instantaneously rejected.
In conclusion, the rules which tell language users how to produce speech must also be part of our mental organization of language.[3]
  • Substitution errors, for instance, reveal parts of the organization and structure of the mental lexicon.
Target: My thesis is too long.
Error: My thesis is too short.
In case of substitution errors both segments mostly belong to the same category, which means for example that a noun is substituted for a noun. Lexical selection errors are based on semantic relations such as synonymy, antonymy or membership of the same lexical field.[2] For this reason the mental lexicon is structured in terms of semantic relationships.[3]
Target: George's wife
Error: George's life
Target: fashion square
Error: passion square
Some substitution errors which are based on phonological similarities supply evidence that the mental lexicon is also organized in terms of sound.[3]
  • Errors in speech are non-random. Linguists can elicit from the speech error data how speech errors are produced and which linguistic rules they adhere to. As a result, they are able to predict speech errors.
Four generalizations about speech errors have been identified:[1]
  1. Interacting elements tend to come from a similar linguistic environment, which means that initial, middle, final segments interact with one another.
  2. Elements that interact with one another tend to be phonetically or semantically similar to one another. This means that consonants exchange with consonants and vowels with vowels.
  3. Slips are consistent with the phonological rules of the language.
  4. There are consistent stress patterns in speech errors. Predominantly, both interacting segments receive major or minor stress.
  • These four generalizations support the idea of the lexical bias effect. This effect states that our phonological speech errors generally form words rather than non-words. Baars (1975) showed evidence for this effect when he presented word pairs in rapid succession and asked participants to say both words in rapid succession back. In most of the trials, the mistakes made still formed actual words.[14]

Information obtained from performance additions

[edit]

An example of the information that can be obtained is the use of "um" or "uh" in a conversation.[15] These might be meaningful words that tell different things, one of which is to hold a place in the conversation so as not to be interrupted. There seems to be a hesitant stage and fluent stage that suggest speech has different levels of production. The pauses seem to occur between sentences, conjunctional points and before the first content word in a sentence. That suggests that a large part of speech production happens there.

Schachter et al. (1991) conducted an experiment to examine if the numbers of word choices affect pausing. They sat in on the lectures of 47 undergraduate professors from 10 different departments and calculated the number and times of filled pauses and unfilled pauses. They found significantly more pauses in the humanities departments as opposed to the natural sciences.[16] These findings suggest that the greater the number of word choices, the more frequent are the pauses, and hence the pauses serve to allow us time to choose our words.

Slips of the tongue are another form of "errors" that can help us understand the process of speech production better. Slips can occur at various levels: syntactic, phrasal, lexical-semantic, morphological, and phonological. They can take multiple forms, such as additions, substitutions, deletions, exchanges, anticipations, perseverations, shifts, and haplologies M.F. Garrett, (1975).[17] Slips are orderly because language production is orderly.

There are some biases shown through slips of the tongue. One kind is a lexical bias which shows that the slips people generate are more often actual words than random sound strings. Baars Motley and Mackay (1975) found that it was more common for people to turn two actual words to two other actual words than when they do not create real words.[14] This suggests that lexemes might overlap somewhat or be stored similarly.

A second kind is a semantic bias which shows a tendency for sound bias to create words that are semantically related to other words in the linguistic environment. Motley and Baars (1976) found that a word pair like "get one" will more likely slip to "wet gun" if the pair before it is "damp rifle". These results suggest that we are sensitive to how things are laid out semantically.[18]

Euphemistic misspeaking

[edit]

Since the 1980s, the word misspeaking has been used increasingly in politics to imply that errors made by a speaker are accidental and should not be construed as a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the facts of a case. As such, its usage has attracted a degree of media coverage, particularly from critics who feel that the term is overly approbative in cases where either ignorance of the facts or intent to misrepresent should not be discarded as possibilities.[19][20]

The word was used by a White House spokesman after George W. Bush seemed to say that his government was always "thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people" (a classic example of a Bushism), and more famously by then American presidential candidate Hillary Clinton who recalled landing in at the US military outpost of Tuzla "under sniper fire" (in fact, video footage demonstrates that there were no such problems on her arrival).[20][21] Other users of the term include American politician Richard Blumenthal, who incorrectly stated on a number of occasions that he had served in Vietnam during the Vietnam War.[20]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Speech error

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Speech errors, also termed slips of the , constitute unintended deviations in production wherein the actual output mismatches the speaker's planned , typically arising from transient disruptions in cognitive-linguistic processing mechanisms. These errors manifest across levels such as phonemic substitutions (e.g., exchanging similar sounds like "left" for "rest"), lexical blends (e.g., merging "shoes and " into "shoes and shox"), or morpheme exchanges (e.g., "we're all living in a bigger and better " instead of ""), providing empirical windows into the modular stages of speech planning from conceptual intent to articulatory execution. In , systematic corpora of such errors, notably compiled by Victoria Fromkin in the 1970s, reveal constraints like phonotactic legality—wherein erroneous forms often remain permissible sound sequences in the —and anticipatory or perseverative patterns, supporting hierarchical models that distinguish functional (e.g., grammatical assignment) from positional (e.g., sound sequencing) processing phases. Computational frameworks, including Gary Dell's 1986 spreading-activation model, further leverage these data to simulate interactive dynamics between semantic, lexical, and phonological nodes, explaining phenomena like the lexical bias effect where errors preferentially form real words over nonwords. While early psychoanalytic interpretations, such as Freud's attribution to unconscious conflicts, persist in popular discourse, rigorous analysis favors causal accounts rooted in production bottlenecks, fatigue, or interference, with minimal evidence for repressed motivation in most cases.

Definition and Scope

Core Characteristics

Speech errors represent unintentional deviations in where the produced utterance mismatches the speaker's intended message, typically manifesting as substitutions, exchanges, additions, omissions, or blends at phonetic, morphological, lexical, or syntactic levels. These lapses occur during the rapid, parallel processes of speech planning and articulation, often involving competition among similar linguistic units such as phonologically or semantically related elements. Empirical analyses of spontaneous corpora reveal systematic rather than random patterns, with errors constrained by language-specific , hierarchies, and frequency distributions in the . In fluent speakers, speech errors arise at a consistent rate of about 1 to 2 per 1,000 words uttered, equivalent to roughly one slip every few minutes of continuous talk at typical speaking paces of 120–150 . This frequency highlights their status as inherent byproducts of normal cognitive variation, such as transient attentional fluctuations or processing overload, rather than indicators of underlying deficits. Speakers frequently detect and repair these errors mid-utterance through mechanisms, minimizing communicative disruption. Core to speech errors is their occurrence in automatized, goal-directed production under real-time constraints, distinguishing them from rehearsed or scripted speech where error rates plummet. Cross-linguistic and multimodal evidence, including analogous "slips of the hand" in sign languages, affirms their universality, pointing to shared neural and representational substrates in human language systems. Such characteristics underscore errors as windows into incremental, interactive models of language generation, where selectional biases and representational overlaps precipitate deviations. Speech errors, also known as slips of the tongue, differ fundamentally from pathological language disorders such as , which involve persistent impairments in or comprehension arising from neurological damage, often resulting in elevated error rates across multiple utterances rather than isolated, transient deviations in otherwise fluent speakers. In contrast, speech errors occur sporadically in neurologically intact individuals during normal speech planning and execution, reflecting momentary lapses in cognitive processing without underlying structural deficits. For instance, aphasic errors, as documented in studies of post-stroke patients, exhibit systematic patterns tied to sites, such as phonemic paraphasias in Broca's aphasia, whereas speech errors in healthy adults follow probabilistic patterns consistent with incremental phonological assembly models. Similarly, speech errors are distinct from fluency disorders like , which manifest as involuntary repetitions, prolongations, or blocks disrupting speech rhythm, typically stemming from motor planning or timing issues rather than substitutions or exchanges of linguistic units. affects prosody and flow consistently in affected individuals, often exacerbated by stress, and is classified as a neurodevelopmental condition with genetic components, whereas speech errors do not impair overall and resolve spontaneously without intervention. Psycholinguistic analyses emphasize that slips involve errors in lexical selection or phonological encoding, such as sound anticipations (e.g., "lead a horse to the old" instead of "water"), not the dysrhythmic interruptions characteristic of . Speech errors must also be differentiated from dialectal variations or accents, which represent systematic, rule-governed deviations acquired through social and regional influences, aligning with a speaker's intended communicative norms rather than unintended mismatches between and output. For example, a Southern U.S. dialect's shifts are productive and consistent across contexts, serving identity and clarity, whereas a speech error like a blend (e.g., "chortle" from "chuckle" and "snort") violates the speaker's own phonological targets transiently. Unlike accents, which enhance within communities, uncorrected speech errors reduce it momentarily but do not define a speaker's baseline competence. Tip-of-the-tongue states, involving temporary lexical retrieval failures without erroneous production, contrast with speech errors by lacking overt output; in TOT phenomena, the speaker recognizes the target's phonological shape but cannot articulate it, often resolved by cues, whereas slips entail actual deviant articulation from misplanned forms. Empirical collections of TOT incidents show higher incidence with low-frequency words, but without the substitution or exchange patterns seen in slips, highlighting distinct stages in lexical access—retrieval blockage versus encoding mishaps. Within error typology, speech errors encompass subtypes like (consonant transpositions, e.g., "tease my ears" for "ease my tears"), which are accidental phonological swaps, but differ from malapropisms, where a semantically unrelated but phonologically similar word is selected (e.g., "dance a flamingo" for ""), often reflecting vocabulary gaps rather than pure production slips and sometimes persisting as habitual substitutions. , posited by as revealing unconscious motivations, overlap with certain semantic errors but lack empirical support as systematically indicative of repressed content; psycholinguistic evidence attributes most to performance-level confusions, such as perseverations from recent discourse, rather than deep psychological drives. Thus, while interpretations persist in popular discourse, rigorous analysis favors mechanistic explanations grounded in models.

Historical Development

Early Observations and Collections

The systematic study of speech errors began in the late with philological and linguistic inquiries into slips of the tongue as indicators of processes. German linguist Hermann Paul, in his 1880 treatise Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, was among the first to advocate examining such errors for insights into the psychological underpinnings of speech, viewing them as deviations revealing synchronic mental operations rather than mere historical linguistic artifacts. Paul's observations emphasized empirical collection over speculative interpretation, setting a precedent for treating errors as data points in normal speech rather than pathological anomalies. The inaugural large-scale collection appeared in 1895 with Versprechen und Verlesen (Errors in Speaking and Reading) by Rudolf Meringer, a philologist, and , a neurologist at the . Drawing from self-observations, reports from colleagues, and clinical cases accessed via Mayer's clinic connections, they amassed over 1,300 examples of naturally occurring errors, primarily from German speakers. Their catalog focused on observable patterns such as sound exchanges (e.g., "Schwester" intended as "Schwester" but produced as "Schwester" with transposed elements), anticipations (where an upcoming sound intrudes early), perseverations (repetition of prior elements), and rearrangements of syllables or words, attributing these to phonetic similarity, proximity in utterance position, or syntactic adjacency rather than deeper motivational causes. This descriptive approach prioritized frequency counts and typologies, establishing speech errors as a corpus-based field distinct from anecdotal or introspective accounts. Meringer and Mayer's work represented a shift toward quantifiable , influencing subsequent researchers by demonstrating that errors cluster predictably—e.g., exchanges often involve sounds sharing articulatory features like place or manner of production—thus enabling hypothesis-testing on production mechanisms. Their collection, while limited to European languages and voluntary reports prone to , provided the empirical foundation for later analyses, underscoring the rarity of errors (approximately 1-2 per 1,000 words in fluent speech) as windows into otherwise opaque cognitive routines. Early critiques noted the corpus's underrepresentation of semantic substitutions, but it nonetheless pioneered the method of aggregating spontaneous slips for pattern detection over contrived experiments.

Foundational Psycholinguistic Studies

In the mid-20th century, emerged as a field integrating linguistic theory with , shifting speech error analysis from anecdotal or psychoanalytic interpretations toward empirical evidence for mental representations in language production. Foundational studies emphasized collecting and classifying spontaneous slips of the to test hypotheses about phonological, lexical, and syntactic processing stages. These efforts revealed systematic patterns, such as exchanges between similar units (e.g., anticipations where a later sound intrudes early), supporting the psychological reality of abstract linguistic structures like phonemes and morphemes rather than purely motor-based errors. Victoria Fromkin's 1971 analysis of over 600 recorded speech errors marked a pivotal advancement, demonstrating that anomalies like sound substitutions (e.g., "sh" and "s" exchanges in "the shoup shent me a shample") align with generative phonology's feature hierarchies and syllable structures, contradicting surface-level articulatory explanations. Her work argued that errors preserve underlying grammatical constraints, such as morpheme boundaries, evidenced by rare intrusions across word stems (e.g., no blends like "heft" from "left" and "heavy" violating stress patterns). Fromkin collected errors from diverse speakers, including self-reports and audio recordings, to quantify types: approximately 40% involved sound exchanges, 20% word substitutions, and others morphological blends, providing data against Freudian symbolic interpretations in favor of modular production models. Building on this, Fromkin's 1973 edited volume compiled contributions analyzing error corpora to validate serial processing stages, where lexical selection precedes phonological encoding, as seen in semantic substitutions without phonetic similarity (e.g., "" for ""). These studies influenced early computational models by highlighting error repair mechanisms, with speakers often self-correcting mid-utterance, suggesting monitoring loops. Empirical patterns, like dominance in blends (e.g., recent elements persisting), underscored timing in activation spreading, laying groundwork for later connectionist theories while prioritizing data-driven inference over speculative causation.

Modern Corpus-Based Research

Modern corpus-based research on speech errors emphasizes systematic collection from large samples of spontaneous speech, enabling quantitative analyses of error frequencies, distributions, and contextual factors that were infeasible with earlier anecdotal or small-scale collections. A pivotal development is the Speech Error Database (SFUSED) English, released in 2024, which compiles over 10,000 verified speech errors extracted from high-quality audio recordings of unscripted conversations, such as podcasts and broadcasts. Errors are annotated manually by trained teams with independent verification, capturing details like phonetic transcriptions, intended targets, and self-repairs, thus providing ecologically valid data from naturalistic settings. This approach addresses historical limitations, such as underrepresentation of rare error types, by leveraging audio for precise acoustic analysis and reducing reliance on self-reported slips. Analyses from SFUSED have quantified specific error subtypes, revealing patterns in lexical access failures. For instance, among 1,094 noncontextual lexical substitutions, co-hyponyms (e.g., "apple" for "banana") predominated at 30.7%, followed by subsumatives (8%) and synonyms (9%), with blends showing elevated synonym rates (35.85%). These distributions, estimated via Poisson models with 95% confidence intervals, support psycholinguistic models positing semantic competition during lemma selection, as in WEAVER++ or Dell's interactive activation framework, where shared conceptual features drive intrusions. Sublexical errors in SFUSED-derived studies exhibit robust effects, including word-onset biases (44% of substitutions initial-positioned) and phonological regularity (95.11% preserving native segments), underscoring incremental planning from onset to coda. Cross-linguistic extensions of corpus methods, such as SFUSED Cantonese (2,245 sublexical errors from 32 hours of podcasts), confirm universal trends like the single-phoneme effect (89.7–96.59% of errors) and similarity conditioning (correlations r=0.4354 for ), while highlighting language-specific deviations, including elevated whole-syllable errors (5.77%) in tonal languages due to syllabic prominence. Similar efforts in Korean spontaneous corpora document slips in naturalistic dialogues, revealing anticipatory and perseveratory patterns akin to English but modulated by prosodic structure. These findings, aggregated across studies, demonstrate corpus data's role in testing causal mechanisms, such as inhibition failures, though challenges persist: error rarity (e.g., blends <1% in large samples) necessitates massive corpora, and collection biases toward public speech may underrepresent private contexts. Emerging integrations with computational tools, like acoustic feature extraction for automated detection, promise scalability but require human oversight to maintain fidelity.

Causal Mechanisms

Cognitive Processing Models

Cognitive processing models of speech errors conceptualize slips of the tongue as manifestations of breakdowns or interactions within the multi-stage architecture of language production. These models, grounded in psycholinguistic analysis of error corpora, infer processing units and mechanisms from patterns such as exchanges, substitutions, anticipations, and perseverations, which reveal the incremental assembly of utterances from conceptual intent to articulatory output. Early formulations emphasized discrete, serial stages to explain why certain error types predominate, such as sound-level exchanges occurring post-lexical selection, supporting the psychological reality of abstract phonological representations independent of meaning. Victoria Fromkin's 1971 model delineated six sequential stages: selection of utterance meaning, syntactic frame construction, retrieval, insertion, phonological specification of morphemes, and phonetic encoding for motor execution. Errors like feature migrations (e.g., exchanging and in "pack of lies" becoming "back of pies") localize to the phonological stage, after semantic and syntactic planning, as they preserve while disrupting sound structure; similarly, lexical blends (e.g., "streak of pearls" for "") indicate competition during word selection. This staged approach, derived from over 1,000 analyzed slips, counters holistic views by demonstrating that production operates on hierarchical units, with errors rarely violating language-specific constraints like syllable position or morpheme boundaries. Building on such serial models, Willem Levelt's 1989 framework integrates monitoring mechanisms to account for the infrequency of detected errors (estimated at 1-2 per 1,000 words in fluent speech). Production proceeds modularly: the conceptualizer generates preverbal messages; the formulator accesses lemmas (semantic-syntactic representations), encodes grammatical structure, and retrieves phonological forms via a mental lexicon; the articulator executes motor plans. Speech errors arise from selection failures, such as tip-of-the-tongue states or perseverative intrusions, but self-correction via an inner loop—comparing internal phonology against a perceptual module—preempts many, explaining why overt slips often involve late-stage articulatory mishaps rather than cascading semantic-phonological mixes. Empirical validation comes from induced errors in picture-naming tasks, where latencies and error rates align with modular delays, and corpus data showing grammatical errors confined to syntactic encoding without phonological spillover. Interactive connectionist models, exemplified by Gary Dell's network, contrast with strict by positing bidirectional activation across semantic, lexical, and phonological nodes, where errors emerge from noise in rather than isolated stage failures. For instance, a semantic substitution (e.g., "" for "") may trigger a phonologically related lexical competitor due to partial feedback, yielding mixed errors like "dat" for "," with probabilities modeled via connection weights tuned to corpus frequencies. This accounts for rarer error blends unobserved in serial accounts, supported by simulations matching natural distributions (e.g., 40-50% of lexical errors being semantic paraphasias), though critics note overprediction of feedback-driven anomalies absent in large corpora. Refinements incorporate timing dynamics, as in variants, where internal error signals from efference copies anticipate and suppress deviations during phonological planning. Debates persist on serial versus interactive dynamics, with from error repair latencies favoring Levelt's discrete monitoring over fully cascaded , as interactive models predict higher rates of undetected semantic intrusions than observed (under 5% in corpora). These frameworks, tested against corpora exceeding 10,000 slips, underscore causal realism in production: errors stem from resource competition and temporal misalignment, not arbitrary malfunctions, informing broader cognitive theories of under .

Neurological Substrates

Speech errors arise from disruptions in the distributed neural networks responsible for planning, selecting, and executing verbal output, predominantly localized in the left hemisphere's perisylvian language areas. These include the (Broca's area) for grammatical and articulatory encoding, the superior and middle temporal gyri for lexical retrieval, and premotor and supplementary motor areas for sequencing motor commands. Lesion studies demonstrate that damage to these regions increases error rates; for instance, poststroke , characterized by articulatory distortions and sound substitutions, correlates with injury to the left , insula, and , impairing phonemic planning precision. Similarly, , featuring phonemic paraphasias, links to perisylvian disruptions, particularly the arcuate fasciculus connecting frontal and temporal lobes. Functional neuroimaging reveals distinct correlates for error types during overt production. Semantic substitutions and anomic omissions activate atypical patterns in the left , including the anterior temporal and angular gyri, suggesting failures in competitive lexical selection where semantically related but unintended items prevail due to weakened inhibition. Phonological errors, such as anticipations or perseverations, engage heightened activity in ventral regions, with deficits in error detection tied to lesions there, indicating a role in monitoring articulatory output buffers. Event-related potentials preceding slips of the tongue, like spoonerisms, show early negativities over frontal and temporal sites approximately 300-500 ms before articulation, reflecting predictive mismatches in phonological assembly. Self-monitoring of errors recruits additional substrates beyond production hubs, including the medial frontal cortex for conflict detection and the left posterior for auditory-motor integration and awareness. Damage to the latter impairs explicit recognition of one's own phonological errors, as seen in cohorts, underscoring a domain-general signaling mechanism adapted for speech. loops, particularly involving the , modulate selection thresholds to suppress erroneous activations in spreading activation models of production, with subcortical lesions exacerbating substitution errors in . These findings from lesion mapping and align with computational simulations positing errors as emergent from noisy neural competition rather than isolated modular failures.

Classification Systems

Sublexical and Phonological Errors

Sublexical errors in involve disruptions during the phonological encoding stage, where abstract word forms are converted into phonetic plans comprising segments, , or subphonemic features, prior to articulation. These errors manifest as unintended alterations in structure without affecting lexical selection or meaning, distinguishing them from higher-level semantic or syntactic slips. Empirical analyses of spontaneous corpora, such as the SFU Speech Error Database, classify them by linguistic unit (e.g., or ) and error type (e.g., exchange or substitution), revealing patterns like adherence to phonotactic constraints where erroneous forms remain permissible within the language's . Phonological errors, a primary subtype, encompass segmental misorders such as anticipations—where a later sound intrudes early (e.g., "lead zone" for "lead cone")—and perseverations, where an earlier sound repeats inappropriately (e.g., "Greek Greeks" for "Greek tragedies"). Exchanges, or metatheses, swap sounds across positions, as in Spoonerisms like "tease my ears" intended as "ease my tears," often involving initial consonants in stressed syllables. Substitutions replace one segment with another, sometimes blending features (e.g., voicing shift in "big" for "pig"), while additions insert extraneous sounds and deletions omit them, with acoustic studies confirming that error realizations approximate intended targets phonetically, suggesting partial activation of competing representations. Mechanisms underlying these errors align with modular models of , where phonological nodes activate via ; premature or delayed firing leads to interference, as evidenced by induced error experiments showing error rates increase with phonological similarity between targets. Cross-linguistic corpora indicate sublexical errors favor legal sequences, supporting abstract phonological planning over purely motor-based accounts, though feature geometry models posit errors propagate along articulatory tiers (e.g., place assimilations). In English, exchanges constitute about 20-30% of documented slips, with higher frequency for obstruents over sonorants, per corpus analyses. Developmental and pathological data further illuminate these processes: children exhibit more syllable-level errors during acquisition, reflecting incomplete phonotactic mastery, while aphasic patients show disproportionate substitutions tied to sites in perisylvian regions. Quantitative trends from large-scale databases underscore rarity (e.g., <1% of utterances) but diagnostic value, as error distributions probe representational granularity in production architectures.

Lexical and Semantic Errors

Lexical errors in speech production arise during the lemma selection stage, where an unintended word from the mental lexicon is accessed instead of the target, often preserving grammatical category but altering content. These errors typically reflect competition among semantically related candidates activated by the intended message, as evidenced by corpus analyses showing that substitutes frequently share features like synonymy or hyponymy. Semantic errors, a prominent subtype, involve substitutions where the erroneous word maintains partial overlap in meaning with the target, such as coordinates (e.g., intended "dog" produced as "cat") or thematic associates (e.g., "lunch" as "dinner"), indicating spread of activation within lexical-semantic networks during planning. In the Simon Fraser University Speech Error Database (SFUSED), lexical substitutions comprised 1094 instances, with semantically related categories like co-hyponyms (22.39%) and thematic relations (18.74%) dominating, while unrelated errors accounted for 40.59%, suggesting that pure random selection is rare and competition drives most deviations. Word blends represent another lexical error form, merging elements of two competing words (e.g., intended alternatives "papa" and "dad" yielding "pad"), predominantly involving synonyms (35.85% in SFUSED) due to heightened overlap at the conceptual level. These errors support modular models of production, such as Garrett's (1975) distinction between functional (message-level) and positional (surface structure) stages, where lexical swaps preserve syntactic roles but disrupt content, as seen in exchanges like "the woods are lovely dark and deep" for "deep dark and lovely." Empirical corpora, including Fromkin's collections from the 1970s, document lexical errors as less frequent than phonological ones (roughly 10-20% of total slips), yet systematically biased toward , challenging serial models without interactive . Causal mechanisms implicate inhibitory failures in lemma access, where contextual priming exacerbates selection s; for instance, picture-word interference tasks reveal semantic competitors delaying naming by 50-100 ms and increasing substitution rates under load. Cross-corpus consistency, as in SFUSED versus earlier datasets, affirms that semantic relations predict error likelihood better than phonological overlap alone, informing computational models like WEAVER++ that incorporate and feedback to simulate observed patterns. While some substitutions appear unrelated, post-hoc often uncovers latent thematic links, underscoring the need for large-scale, context-rich corpora to distinguish true from undetected priming.

Morphosyntactic Errors

Morphosyntactic errors in involve unintended deviations in the realization of grammatical features, such as inflectional affixes, agreement markings, or syntactic dependencies, often arising during the stage where lemmas are selected and structured into phrases. These errors differ from purely phonological slips by implicating abstract grammatical knowledge, including constraints and feature percolation, as evidenced in models like Distributed Morphology integrated with psycholinguistic processing levels. Common subtypes include agreement violations, where morphosyntactic features fail to match, such as subject-auxiliary mismatches like "I’ve went" instead of "I’ve gone," reflecting erroneous insertion or feature attraction. substitutions or exchanges also occur, as in irregular form blends like "satten" for "sat" in "I haven't satten down," indicating or incomplete decomposition of stored lexical items. Syntactic reversals tied to morphology, such as root exchanges preserving case but altering agreement (e.g., "ich versuche die Folge" yielding a grammatical but unintended accusative shift), highlight pre-insertion processing errors. Empirical analyses of corpora reveal systematic patterns: in noun substitutions, 72.6% exhibit an identical effect, suggesting early specification of morphosyntactic features during lemma selection. Word exchanges adhere to a constraint in 87.7% of cases, with errors like "eine Theorie ist eine Grammatik des Wissens" swapping same-category s while maintaining phrase structure. Stranding errors, where a detaches (e.g., "the park was truck-ed" for "the truck was parked"), occur at the positional level, accommodating phonological form without full syntactic repair in 89.4% of instances involving category shifts. These constraints support modular models separating functional (lemma-based) and positional (form-based) processing, with feedback mechanisms explaining feature propagation failures.

Empirical Data and Illustrations

Canonical Examples

One representative example of a lexical exchange error involves the swapping of content words while maintaining grammatical agreement, such as the intended utterance "this seat has a spring in it" becoming "this spring has a seat in it." This preserves the syntactic frame, with nouns interchanged but verbs adjusted accordingly, as documented in analyses of spontaneous speech corpora. A phonological exchange, often termed a , exemplifies sound transposition between adjacent words, as in "blushing crow" produced instead of "crushing blow." Such errors typically involve initial consonants of stressed syllables, reflecting constraints on permissible sound sequences in . Pronoun substitution errors highlight syntactic dependencies, where case and agreement shift appropriately; for instance, "they must be too tight for you" is erroneously rendered as "you must be too tight for them." This maintains morphological form while inverting referents, supporting models of parallel activation in lexical access. Morphosyntactic adaptations demonstrate category conversion, such as "she’s already packed two trunks" becoming "she’s already trunked two packs," where the noun "trunk" acquires verbal (-ed) and "pack" receives nominal pluralization (-s). These preserve overall phrase structure but reveal independent processing of stems and affixes. Victoria Fromkin’s compilation of approximately 8,800 spontaneous errors from the onward established a benchmark corpus, revealing patterns like anticipatory intrusions (e.g., early production of a later ) and perseverative repetitions, which occur in less than 1% of cases but inform sublexical planning stages. Empirical collections emphasize that errors rarely violate phonotactic rules, indicating pre-articulatory monitoring.

Cross-Linguistic and Developmental Patterns

Speech errors demonstrate cross-linguistic variation shaped by phonological, prosodic, and morphological structures inherent to each language. In , sub-lexical errors such as segment exchanges and insertions predominantly occur within syllable boundaries, reinforcing a universal trend where errors align with syllable well-formedness constraints observed in like English and German. Similarly, systematic analyses of errors in English, , Japanese, Spanish, and Turkish reveal language-specific frequencies: for example, Japanese exhibits higher rates of vowel devoicing errors due to its phonotactic restrictions, while Spanish shows more consonant cluster simplifications reflecting Romance syllable preferences. These patterns indicate that speech production mechanisms adapt to typological features, with errors rarely violating markedness hierarchies, such as preferring unmarked stops over fricatives in substitution errors across tonal and non-tonal languages. Computational simulations of common error types, including backing and fronting, confirm that their prevalence correlates with inventory size and contrast distribution; for instance, cluster reduction is more frequent in languages with complex onsets like English than in those with simpler CV structures like Hawaiian. Developmentally, speech errors in children under 5 years primarily manifest as predictable phonological processes rather than the lexical-semantic slips dominant in adults. Common patterns include fronting (e.g., /θ/ → /f/ or /k/ → /t/), stopping (fricatives to stops, e.g., /s/ → /t/), and cluster reduction (e.g., /str/ → /st/), which reflect simplifications of adult forms and typically resolve by age 4–8 years depending on the process and language. These errors are constrained by the prosodic template of the target language; for example, English-speaking children frequently delete weak syllables or final consonants, mirroring adult error biases but with higher consistency due to immature phonological representations. Atypical or persistent errors in preschoolers, such as inconsistent substitutions beyond age 3, correlate with weaker phonological awareness and predict later reading difficulties, as evidenced by longitudinal data showing elevated risks for phonological awareness deficits in affected cohorts. Unlike adult errors, which often involve anticipation or perseveration across words, child errors emphasize within-word assimilation and reduplication (e.g., "tuppy" for "puppy"), diminishing as lexical access and articulatory control mature around age 6–7. Cross-linguistically, developmental trajectories vary; bilingual children may exhibit transfer effects, such as heightened stopping in a second language influenced by the first's phonology, but core processes like gliding (/r/ → /w/) persist universally until motor maturation.

Scientific and Practical Implications

Contributions to Language Production Theories

Speech errors offer for the staged architecture of models, demonstrating discrete processing levels such as conceptualization, lexical selection, grammatical encoding, and phonological/articulatory formulation. Patterns in errors, including anticipations, perseverations, and exchanges, indicate that production proceeds incrementally, with errors rarely violating linguistic constraints like syllable position or , as observed in corpora analyzed by researchers like Victoria Fromkin in the 1970s. For instance, sound exchanges typically involve elements from adjacent words or morphemes, supporting modular theories where phonological encoding operates independently of semantic content. Analyses of speech errors have informed interactive activation models, such as Gary Dell's 1986 spreading-activation framework, which posits bidirectional connections between semantic, lexical, and phonological representations to account for observed error distributions, including semantic substitutions followed by phonological paraphasias. This model explains why errors like word substitutions often preserve semantic relations while altering form, and why nonwords are less common than real-word errors due to feedback mechanisms strengthening activated competitors. Empirical from slip corpora validate the two-step interactive process, where lexical access precedes phonological retrieval, with error rates aligning with activation thresholds in computational simulations. Contributions extend to testing serial versus parallel processing: Levelt's blueprint for the speaker incorporates slip evidence to argue for modular stages with , where errors arise from competition at lemma or levels but are constrained by incremental planning. Cross-linguistic error patterns further refine these theories, revealing universal tendencies like feature exchanges over segment swaps, which affirm the psychological reality of distinctive features in phonological production. Overall, speech errors constrain theoretical models by highlighting causal mechanisms, such as timing mismatches in rehearsal buffers, rather than post-hoc interpretations.

Applications in Disorders and Technology

Analysis of speech error patterns plays a key role in diagnosing and differentiating speech and language disorders, particularly in conditions involving impaired production such as , (AOS), and . In , resulting from acquired lesions, patients exhibit phonemic paraphasias—substitutions of similar-sounding words or sounds—and semantic paraphasias, where intended words are replaced by related but incorrect ones, reflecting deficits in phonological or lexical access rather than motor execution alone. These errors, observed in up to 80% of post- cases, aid clinicians in classifying subtypes like Broca's or , with phonemic errors more prevalent in non-fluent variants due to anterior brain damage. In contrast, AOS involves effortful, groping articulatory attempts and inconsistent sound distortions, stemming from motor programming failures, which distinguish it from purely linguistic errors in ; for instance, a 2023 documented pure AOS post-left hemisphere with preserved comprehension but slowed, trial-and-error speech output. , often co-occurring with in 25% of patients, manifests as imprecise consonants, reduced prosody, and slower speech rate due to neuromuscular weakness, enabling via error consistency metrics. In pediatric speech sound disorders (SSDs), error analysis identifies articulation deficits, where children substitute, omit, or distort (e.g., replacing /r/ with /w/), versus phonological disorders involving rule-based patterns like cluster reduction. Treatment targets high-impact errors, with studies showing that addressing consistent substitutions in 70-80% of cases improves intelligibility, as measured by SODA (Substitution, Omission, Distortion, Addition) frameworks. Therapeutically, error elicitation techniques, such as contrasts, leverage natural slip patterns to retrain phonological representations, with evidence from 2019 reviews indicating modest gains in sound accuracy for nonspeech oral motor exercises adjunct to traditional . Speech error research extends to through computational models that simulate production lapses to enhance automatic (ASR) systems, particularly for handling spontaneous disfluencies. ASR models trained on slip-inclusive datasets, like those incorporating slips (e.g., anticipations or perseverations), achieve up to 15% lower word rates in noisy or error-prone inputs, as demonstrated in 2025 evaluations of end-to-end systems. In clinical applications, algorithms detect and correct in dictated medical reports, reducing observed rates from over 7% in raw ASR outputs via post-editing, thereby supporting scalable analysis of disordered speech. For language learners and aids, AI-driven detection identifies phonetic deviations with accuracies exceeding 90% using on acoustic features, enabling real-time feedback in apps that model slip repair mechanisms. These models draw from psycholinguistic corpora, such as the Speech Error Database, to predict error-prone sequences and refine neural architectures for robust recognition in diverse accents or pathologies.

Debates and Critiques

Empirical Validity of Theoretical Models

Speech errors serve as a primary empirical for evaluating theoretical models of , revealing patterns that align with proposed stages of planning, selection, and articulation. Models such as Willem Levelt's modular framework (1989), which posits discrete processing levels from conceptualization to phonetic encoding, gain support from the stratification of error types: for instance, sound exchanges (e.g., "left hemisfeel" for "left hemisphere") suggest operations at a phonological level post-lexical access, while word substitutions indicate earlier lexical retrieval issues. Similarly, Merrill Garrett's (1975) distinction between message-level and sentence-level planning is corroborated by errors preserving grammatical class, as in noun-for-noun blends, implying category-specific lexical stores. These patterns, drawn from corpora like Victoria Fromkin's collection of over 2,000 natural slips, demonstrate non-random distributions, with anticipatory errors outnumbering perseveratory ones by ratios up to 3:1, supporting temporal-forward planning mechanisms. Interactive spreading-activation models, exemplified by Gary Dell's (1986) framework, receive validation from "mixed" errors combining semantic and phonological similarity (e.g., "" intended but "" produced, where both share semantics and partial sound overlap), which discrete models struggle to predict without feedback loops. Empirical analysis of error corpora shows such mixed substitutions occurring at rates of 10-20% in phonological paraphasias, aligning with cascading where semantic errors propagate downward to form levels. Computational simulations of Dell's model replicate observed error probabilities, such as phoneme migrations favoring high-frequency sounds, with activation decay parameters tuned to match corpus data from English speakers. Cross-linguistic studies extend this support; for example, sublexical errors exhibit tone exchanges consistent with tonal encoding in interactive architectures, challenging strictly segmental models. Notwithstanding these alignments, empirical challenges undermine the universality of both modular and interactive models. Natural speech error corpora, often limited to 1,000-5,000 instances due to rarity (occurring at ~1-2 per 1,000 words), introduce sampling biases toward salient or corrected slips, potentially inflating exchange rates while underrepresenting subtle semantic drifts. Levelt's model, for instance, predicts minimal feedback between levels, yet timing studies reveal repair latencies inconsistent with strict , as via perceptual loops accounts for only 30-50% of observed cut-offs in lab-induced errors. Dell's interactive predictions falter on pure semantic errors, which comprise under 5% of substitutions despite model simulations forecasting higher rates without inhibitory mechanisms not fully evidenced in error data. Frequency effects in errors, such as overproduction of common phonemes, support probabilistic enhancements but require adjustments to baseline models, as seen in acoustic analyses where sub-featural errors deviate from segmental assumptions. These discrepancies highlight that while speech errors offer causal probes into production bottlenecks, their validity as standalone tests is constrained by corpus incompleteness and the absence of direct neural correlates, necessitating convergence with and real-time paradigms for robust model falsification.

Rejection of Non-Evidence-Based Interpretations

Psycholinguistic research on speech errors has consistently rejected interpretations attributing slips to unconscious motivations or repressed desires, as proposed by in (1901), due to the absence of empirical support for such causal mechanisms. Freud posited that errors like substitutions or omissions reveal hidden psychic conflicts, but analyses of large corpora reveal no systematic correlation between error content and speakers' purported unconscious states; instead, errors predominantly involve phonetic, morphological, or syntactic similarities, such as anticipatory substitutions (e.g., "lead pencil" for " ") driven by phonological overlap rather than thematic inhibition. This pattern-based regularity aligns with modular models of , where errors arise from transient activation competition in processing stages, not interpretive psychological forces. Early critics, including Rudolf Meringer and in their 1895 collection of slips, argued against motivational explanations by demonstrating that errors cluster around linguistic associations—like sound or word-class similarity—rather than semantic or emotional content, a view substantiated by subsequent corpus studies showing over 90% of lexical exchanges occur between syntactically equivalent items without motivational predictability. Experimental inductions of slips in controlled settings, such as those using tongue twisters or primed word lists, produce errors mirroring spontaneous ones but without inducing emotional conflict, further undermining claims of deep psychological revelation. Victoria Fromkin's 1971 analysis of over 1,000 errors emphasized their role in validating linguistic units (e.g., distinctive features in ), rejecting Freudian accounts as unfalsifiable and incompatible with observable data distributions. Non-evidence-based views persist in but lack rigor compared to psycholinguistic frameworks, which prioritize verifiable patterns over attributions; for instance, Freudian "slips" fail to predict error rates or types, whereas production models like Levelt's (1989) account for them via feedback loops and monitoring, supported by reaction-time data and showing localized neural disruptions. Psychoanalytic interpretations, often rooted in anecdotal case studies from biased clinical settings, overlook cross-linguistic consistencies—such as errors in English, German, and Mandarin corpora—attributable to universal processing constraints rather than culture-specific psyches. This rejection underscores a commitment to causal realism in speech error research, favoring mechanistic explanations grounded in empirical corpora exceeding 4,000 instances by the , which reveal errors as artifacts, not windows into the .

References

  1. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/handbook-of-east-asian-psycholinguistics/speech-errors/4B3B4A0A87831551DB91095A49BA7E05
  2. http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/bp/fromkin71-speech-errors.pdf
  3. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-29077-001
  4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/speech-error
  5. https://oecs.mit.edu/pub/l6g6kh9i
  6. https://www.sfu.ca/~alderete/pubs/alderete2020_SpeechErrorsPatternsPrepress.pdf
  7. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/201203/slips-the-tongue
  8. https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/matt-goldrick/publications/pdfs/compass.pdf
  9. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2018/03/secrets
  10. https://journalofcognition.org/articles/440/files/67ebd2f34fb8f.pdf
  11. https://theconversation.com/why-do-people-have-slips-of-the-tongue-191383
  12. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304041208_Speech_Errors_Psycholinguistic_Approach
  13. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374531974_A_Psycholinguistic_Investigation_of_Aphasia_New_Perspectives
  14. https://www.asha.org/policy/rp1993-00208/
  15. https://leader.pubs.asha.org/do/10.1044/language-delay-versus-a-disorder/full/
  16. https://ijessnet.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/3-24.pdf
  17. https://www.understood.org/en/articles/difference-between-speech-impairment-and-language-disorder
  18. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4534828/
  19. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/spoonerism
  20. https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/mondegreens-eggcorns-malapropisms-spoonerism-freudian-slip
  21. https://web.stanford.edu/~zwicky/slips-of-the-tongue.pdf
  22. https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/bitstream/handle/2066/15610/6003.pdf
  23. https://oecs.mit.edu/pub/l6g6kh9i/download/pdf
  24. https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_69877_8/component/file_506940/content
  25. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18082111/
  26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/speech-error
  27. https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Freud/Psycho/chap5.htm
  28. https://web.stanford.edu/~zwicky/speech-errors-as-linguistic-evidence.pdf
  29. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1270433/full
  30. https://journalofcognition.org/articles/10.5334/joc.440
  31. https://journalofcognition.org/articles/10.5334/joc.278
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10198225/
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9975887/
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0024384118305308
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4749438/
  36. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/001002779290038J
  37. https://pages.ucsd.edu/~scoulson/cogs179/Levelt.pdf
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10205072/
  39. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/strokeaha.115.009211
  40. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S001094521930098X
  41. https://direct.mit.edu/jocn/article/35/1/111/113588/Neural-Correlates-of-Naturally-Occurring-Speech
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10273223/
  43. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16831855/
  44. https://www.frontiersin.org/Community/AbstractDetails.aspx?ABS_DOI=10.3389%252Fconf.fnhum.2019.01.00041
  45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095447002901762
  46. http://www.cas.usf.edu/~frisch/Frisch_Wright_02.pdf
  47. https://shotam.github.io/LING712_papers/Garrett_1975.pdf
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10300674/
  49. https://babel.ucsc.edu/~hank/mrg.readings/pfau-ch4.pdf
  50. https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/linguistics/lectures/05lect16.html
  51. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ850903
  52. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0023830920987268
  53. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0023830920987268
  54. https://www.asha.org/practice-portal/clinical-topics/articulation-and-phonology/selected-phonological-patterns/
  55. https://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/pdlg/CPC2008_TAK.pdf
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3586759/
  57. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11361782/
  58. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0364021393900106
  59. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0749596X88900708
  60. https://www.mpi.nl/world/materials/publications/Levelt/1993_Book_Levelt.pdf
  61. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559315/
  62. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neurology/articles/10.3389/fneur.2023.1187399/full
  63. https://www.stroke.org.uk/stroke/effects/aphasia/comms-problems/types
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5576968/
  65. https://pubs.asha.org/doi/10.1044/2020_PERSP-20-00138
  66. https://www.medbridge.com/blog/sound-advice-assessing-speech-sound-disorders
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7922837/
  68. https://arxiv.org/html/2508.13060v1
  69. https://www.isca-archive.org/interspeech_2025/alderete25_interspeech.pdf
  70. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2687052
  71. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10539745/
  72. https://opentextbc.ca/psyclanguage/chapter/evidence-for-speech-production/
  73. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390607563_Revisiting_the_speech_error_phenomenon_A_thematic_narrative_review
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2000858/
  75. https://psychologyoflanguage.pressbooks.tru.ca/chapter/speech-production-models/
  76. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrew_Ellis16/publication/284125008_On_the_Freudian_theory_of_speech_errors/links/5fa6c74ba6fdcc06241d5abd/On-the-Freudian-theory-of-speech-errors.pdf
  77. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10091465/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.