語誤：音韻、詞彙與句法之整體研究 - 政大學術集成

國立政治大學補助學術活動執行成果報告書

填表日期： 94 年 12 月 26 日

活動類別

▇

研究團隊

學術研討會

其他

申請單位

語言所

申請人：何萬順

電話：88167

實際活動起迄日期 94 年 3 月至 94 年 9 月

活動地點

語言所及英語系

成 果 摘 要

成果報告至少應包括下列各項，本頁不敷使用請自行加頁，成果報告內容將於研發處網頁公告，以 分享執行成果。 一、活動名稱 二、活動方式 三、內容摘要(含參與人數、主協辦單位、各子計畫名稱或研討會議程…) 四、活動照片 五、重要結論或研究成果 六、建議 七、相關聯結(活動網頁、與本學術活動有關聯結…)

國立政治大學研究團隊整合型計畫

研究規劃成果精簡報告

研究團隊主題：

Speech Errors: An Integrated Study from Phonological, Lexical, and Syntactic Perspectives (1/2)

語誤：音韻、詞彙與句法之整體研究

(1/2)

全程計畫：自 94 年 3 月至 94 年 9 月

研究團隊召集人：何萬順教授

聯絡電話：29387246

傳真：29387466

E-MAIL：hero@nccu.edu.tw

申 請 人 簽 章 單位主管 簽 章 院 長 簽 章 研發處研 發長簽章 備註:本執行成果報告應於活動執行完畢後一個月內提出。

國立政治大學研究團隊整合型計畫

研究規劃成果精簡報告

研究團隊主題：

Speech Errors: An Integrated Study from Phonological, Lexical, and Syntactic Perspectives (1/2)

語誤：音韻、詞彙與句法之整體研究

(1/2)

全程計畫：自 94 年 3 月至 94 年 9 月

研究團隊召集人：何萬順教授

聯絡電話：29387246

傳真：29387466

E-MAIL：hero@nccu.edu.tw

研究團隊

計畫項目 主持人 服務單位/系所 職稱 計畫名稱 總計畫 何萬順 語言學研究所 教授

Speech Errors: An Integrated Study from Phonological, Lexical, and Syntactic Perspectives

子計畫一 萬依萍 語言學研究所 副教授 Phonetic and phonological analysis of speech errors

子計畫二 1.張郇慧 2.Dr. Rainer Stasiewski 1.英國語文學系 2. Chinese Dept., Srinakharinwirot University 1.副教授

2.副教授 Lexical and semantic analysis of speech errors

子計畫三 何萬順 語言學研究所 教授 Morphological and syntactic analysis of speech errors

1.

I

NTRODUCTION

Speech errors, also known as slips of the tongue (SOT), are defined as one-time errors occurring during speech production planning. A speech error is such because the utterance produced is in fact different from what is intended. Speakers of all languages seem to be subject to speech errors. The great psychologist Sigmund Freud discovered the significance of speech errors as early as 1901 in the monograph Psychopathology of Everyday life, where he claimed that the particular slips of the tongue a speaker makes are resulted from repressed thoughts and thus that there is presumed an unconscious determinant of each error. Slips of the tongue thus represent windows through which such repressed thoughts are revealed. Given the Chomskyan thesis that language is very much part of human cognitive knowledge and is indeed what makes humans uniquely human, then Freud is correct in the broad sense and hence every speech error is a ‘Freudian slip’1 in that it reveals something of the unconscious mind, to which our tacit knowledge of language belongs. It is precisely the links between speech errors and this tacit knowledge this research project wishes to explore, from the particular perspectives in Mandarin Chinese.

The development of speech production planning models has a long history of using speech errors in examining various issues in linguistic theories and the cognitive status of specific linguistic units and processes in specific languages; speech errors thus constitute invaluable evidence for the study of theoretical linguistics as well as psycholinguistics (Fromkin 1973b, 1980, Dell 1980, Cutler 1982b, Stemberger 1983, Garrett 1988, Levelt 1989, Baars 1992, among others). This current research project proposed, which is squarely based on the rationale above, examines a wide range of Mandarin speech error data from normal adults and aphasics and explores their implications to our current understanding of the theories on phonology, lexicon, meaning, syntax, and perhaps even the pragmatics. It is our understanding that no such research projects have been undertaken thus far concerning Mandarin Chinese.

2.

C

ATEGORIZATION OF SPEECH ERRORS

Given the modules assumed in the modern science of language, the linguistic difference between the intended and produced utterances can be related to phonological units, lexical choice, syntactic structure, and semantic connections. Through a thorough study of four types of speech errors, Garrett (1980, 1984, 1988) concludes that language

1 A Freudian slip as a layman’s term is typically an error that reveals something sexually-oriented. For example, to a woman who wanted to reschedule a dinner date with a man, he says, “I hope this is not an erection”, meaning to say “rejection”.

production involves the following levels of processing. The initial stage is the message level, where the speaker determines what ideas are to be expressed, followed by the functional level, where appropriate lexical items are identified for the expression of the ideas already determine. Then, at the positional level, these lexical items selected are arranged into well-formed syntactic structures, and then, at the final stage of production, phonological forms are assigned to the syntactic structured previously constructed.

The four types of speech errors are: semantic substitutions, word exchanges, sound exchanges, and stranding errors. Some examples follow. A semantic substitution error is one where the intended word is replaced by another word that is semantically closely related. For example, the is intended idea of 男生‘boy’ is substituted by 女生‘girl’. Such errors can thus only involve content words, i.e., words with semantic content, but not function words, which, by definition, fulfill a grammatical function but are without semantic content. Word exchanges involve the inversion of two lexical items, or their sub-parts, in a clause. Such errors likewise involve only content words, not function words. For example, the intended 採蘑菇的小女孩‘the little girl that picks mushrooms’ becomes 採女孩的小蘑菇‘the little mushroom that picks girls’. An example of sound exchange is bu4pu4 布瀑, where the [b] sound and [p] sound of the intended pu4bu4 瀑 布 have been exchanged. Finally, a stranding error leaves a subpart of a word, usually a formative such as prefix or suffix, stranded, for example the intended sinking ships that turns into shinking sips and 買菜啊，二舅! that becomes out 買舅啊，二菜! An error can of course involve more than type of error.

Finer distinctions can also be made within each module of phonology, semantics, syntax, and pragmatics. Moreover, the linear relationship between the error and source, i.e., directionality of the error, also serves as a significant characteristic, likewise the particular substance type of an error, i.e. substitution, addition, omission, etc.

3.

D

ATA

C

OLLECTION AND

M

ANDARIN

S

PEECH

E

RROR

C

ORPUS

The current study is based on 4227 slips of the tongue from the corpus collected from native speakers of Taiwan Mandarin. The data are derived from anecdotal observations, various sources on the Internet, previously published works on the subject, and most importantly thousands of tape-recorded brief excerpts of natural speech, which contain the target unit involved in errors (i.e., those which the speaker intended to produce), the source of the error (i.e., those units which were the interfering factor in the error), and the error itself (i.e., the units in the utterance production which violated the speaker’s intentions). These excerpts were taken from free conversation, conference discussions, broadcasts, lectures and from interviews with students. For each error, the researcher recorded the complete utterance including self-corrections, and relevant

contextual information; portions are written in IPA phonetic transcription as appropriate. Thus SOTs will be reported below in terms of the actual pronunciations subjects produced during the error utterance.

Errors were collected from over 100 different speakers. Subjects ranged from monolingual to trilingual, with Mandarin as their first language and English and Taiwanese as their other language(s) if any. However, all the errors were collected when the speakers were conversing in Mandarin; any errors which showed a bilingual influence were not included in the data set. One might argue that obtaining the slips data under naturalistic conditions does not have the overriding advantage of giving insight into the psychological structures and processes actually used by native speakers in the generation of speech. Even if evidence may be derived from psychological constructs, it is not always clear at which level of analysis the speakers operate on. In addition, the traditional methodology in collecting speech error data is to rely on the native-speaker linguist’s intuitions as to what categories in the native language were heard by the native listener (Fromkin 1973a). This method is subject to a certain listener bias (Cutler 1982b). In order to eliminate the context-effect applying in naturalistic speech performance, Dell & Reich (1980) and Stemberger (1985) conducted a number of experiments, trying to reduce all anticipated potential distortions that might render evidential value of the slips ambiguous. Furthermore, Mowrey & MacKay (1990) found that in speech errors induced in the laboratory by having speakers repeat ‘tongue twisters’ several times in succession, some phonetic differences between erroneously produced and intentionally produced consonants could be detected using electromyography. However, Stemberger (1989) gathered naturalistic corpus to examine some issues related to speech errors in early child language production, suggesting that there should not be great differences between an experimentally elicited corpus and a natural/spontaneous corpus. In addition, Fromkin (1973b, 1980) suggested that speech errors collected in a naturalistic setting have a cognitive validity in terms of the representation of speakers’ minds during processing. Therefore, in order to prove that the perception by a native speaker that a segment was spoken with a particular sound is a more valid psycholinguistic measure than the actual phonetic properties of the utterance, Wan (1999, 2003) and Wan & Jaeger (2003) subjected several instances of erroneously produced sounds and the same sounds produced intentionally in the same environments in order to formant value analysis. It was found that there are no significant differences in analysis between the erroneously produced sounds and the same sounds produced intentionally in the same environment. Therefore, the slips collected in a naturalistic setting for this study will be taken as evidence reflecting psychological constructs in the language structure, and the data to be discussed below are thus sufficiently reliable to provide matter for analyses.

After data collection and categorization, the study contained 3846 categorized errors, 216 non-contextual errors, 156 ambiguous (multiple) errors, and 9 bilingual errors for a total of 4227 tokens. Another 24 miscellaneous utterances, which are not presented under the study, included ones where the subjects restarted utterance or created ungrammatical sentences that were judged not to be speech errors. The number of each type of error in the Mandarin corpus is shown in Table 1 at the end of the text.

TABLE 1

The number of each type of error in this corpus: N=4227

I. PERSEVERATION N IV. EXCHANGE N

1. Initial single consonant substitution 225 39. Initial single consonant 9 2. Initial single consonant addition 78 40. Final single consonant 15

3. Initial single consonant omission 45 41. Vowel and glide 3

4. Final single consonant substitution 138 42. Larger unit 3

5. Final single consonant addition 45 43. Whole syllable 18

6. Final single consonant omission 12 44. Vowel-consonant exchange 3

7. Single vowel substitution 54 Total 51

8. Single vowel addition 12 V. NON-CONTEXTUAL ERRORS

9. Single vowel omission 12 45. Initial single consonant substitution 90 10. Vowel and glide substitution 48 46. Initial single consonant addition 12 11. Vowel and glide addition 15 47. Initial single consonant omission 24 12. Vowel and glide omission 3 48. Final single consonant substitution 27 13. Larger unit substitution 123 49. Final single consonant addition 3 14. Larger unit omission 6 50. Final single consonant omission 6 15. Whole syllable substitution 57 51. Single vowel substitution 12

Total 873 52. Larger unit substitution 36

II. ANTICIPATION 53. Whole syllable substitution 6

16. Initial single consonant substitution 150 Total 216

17. Initial single consonant addition 30 VI. OTHER PHONOLOGICAL ERRORS

18. Initial single consonant omission 24 54. Feature 90

19. Final single consonant substitution 78 55. Telescoping 123

20. Final single consonant addition 51 56. Multiple 156

21. Final single consonant omission 21 57. Vowel and glide interaction 114

22. Single vowel substitution 60 Total 483

23. Single vowel omission 15 VII. TONAL ERRORS

24. Vowel and glide substitution 27 58. Perseveration substitution 183 25. Vowel and glide addition 9 59. Anticipation substitution 99

26. Vowel and glide omission 3 60. Anticipation/Perseveration 48

27. Larger unit substitution 75 61. Exchange 21

28. Larger unit omission 6 62. Addition/Anticipation 6

29. Whole syllable substitution 81 63. Non-contextual 39

Total 630 Total 396

III. ANTICIPATION/ PERSEVERATION VIII. LEXICAL/MORPHOLOGICAL ERRORS

30. Initial single consonant substitution 24 64. Word blends 66 31. Initial single consonant addition 18 65. Lexical substitution 1179

32. Initial single consonant omission 21 66. Lexical omission 42

33. Final single consonant substitution 21 67. Syntagmatic ordering 66 34. Final single consonant addition 21 68. Morphological errors 27

35. Final single consonant omission 6 69. Lexical exchange 21

36. Single vowel substitution 15 Total 1401

37. Vowel and glide substitution 6 IX. SYNTACTIC ERRORS 27

38. Larger unit substitution 9 X. BILINGUAL ERRORS 9

The errors are classified according to the following four criteria: these error units broadly classified into phonological, lexical/morphological, syntactic and bilingual categories; the linear relationship between the error and source (i.e., directionality of the error); the type of error (substitution, addition, omission, etc.); and the position in the syllable in which the error occurred for phonological errors.

Errors are classified as ‘phonological’ if non-meaningful phonological units are involved: phonetic features, single consonants or vowels, clusters of segments (including consonants clusters, rhymes, etc.), whole syllables, and tones. Errors are classified as ‘lexical/ morphological’ if one lexical/morphological item is involved in the utterance, and it is clearly a lexical/morphological rather than phonological error. Usually, true lexical errors can be distinguished from phonological errors in that lexical errors nearly always preserve lexical category, and are usually semantically related to the intended word; a phonological relationship is less common. Phonological errors, on the other hand, frequently violate lexical category and have no semantic relationship to the target word; thus they typically produce an ungrammatical or meaningless utterance. Errors are classified as ‘syntactic’ if a whole word or compounds are moved and the word order is thus changed; both target and interfering units are in the discourse context. Errors are classified as ‘bilingual’ if the error is the result of interference from a language (other than the one being spoken) in which the speaker is fluent or of which he or she has significant knowledge. In the corpus, the error output involved units influenced by English or Taiwanese.

4.

T

ENTATIVE

F

INDINGS

Evidence from a corpus of speech errors in Mandarin occurring in naturalistic settings support the following findings. Corpus analysis in Mandarin shows that the speech mechanisms in regard to types of error and classification are universal; however, the causes of error are language-specific.

Regarding the occurrence at any stage of the speech production planning process, phonological errors are the major types of error distribution (64.3%). Regarding phonological units occurring in errors, in the Mandarin corpus, it can be seen that speakers produced more consonant errors than vowel errors. Cross-linguistically, consonants outnumber vowels both in terms of number of phonemes in the segment inventory and in the ratio of consonants to vowels within utterances. Phonological substitution errors far outnumber any other type of error. Based on the autosegment- and optimality-theoretical approach to phonology, it can be predicted that substitution errors will occur more frequently than other types. Similarly, the faithfulness constraint in

optimality theory requires that every segment or feature of the phonological input has an identical correspondent in the output. Accordingly, if one segment in the input is replaced by another, this only violates segmental faithfulness constraint. Evidence from the Mandarin slips finally shows the preponderance of a one-syllable span in the distance between source and error. Although a number of models of speech production planning (e.g., Garrett 1980, 1984, 1988, Levelt 1989, etc.) predict that the speech is planned far ahead in clausal units and there is a building of syntactic structures in advance, the source segment that influences the production of the error is usually within the utterance context; furthermore, the source and error unit are likely to occur in near proximity and the distance between the source and error can be measured in syllables, suggesting that syllable can be regarded as an important unit in the phonemic programming system.

5.

T

OWARDS AN

I

NTEGRATED

R

ESEARCH

P

ROJECT

Having started on the actual data collection and achieved close to 5,000 speech errors, the researchers involved are confident that they are on the right track. In the second stage of the project period, data collection will be continued. Furthermore, the errors are to be examined more closely and classified into fined categories with more detailed tagging. In short, a model of speech error corpus that is statistically adequate will be constructed.

The second task is to conduct pilot studies, using small samples of speech error data, and examine their causes and identity the particular language production stage where such errors occur. The ultimate goal is to build an inventory for all errors in the corpus. The ultimate goal is a statistically adequate and well-structure corpus of Mandarin speech errors.

Also an important task during this second phase is the establishment of different scenarios how findings from speech error data can contribute to (i.e., verify, modify, or reject) current theories of phonology, lexicon, meaning, syntax, and perhaps even the pragmatics. The division of labor will be more finely defined in this second stage. Each sub-project will focus more on its specialized.

Finally, possible medical and pedagogical implications will also be explored. For this, more cooperation, especially from clinically-oriented medical practicians and speech therapists, will be needed.

R

EFERENCES

Andrew B., Crider, George R., Goethals, Robert D., Kavanaugh, Paul R., and Solomon (1986) Psychology. London: Scott Foresman and Company.

Baars, B J, Motley M T, Mackay D. (1975) Output editing for lexical status from artificially elicited slips of the tongue. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior 14: 382-391

Baars, B. J. (1992) Experimental Slips of Human Error, in B. J. Baars (ed), Plenum Press, New York.Berg, T. (1987) A Cross-linguistic Comparison of Slips of the Tongue, Indiana University Linguistics Club.

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

Best, W. M. (1996) When racquets are baskets but baskets are biscuits, where do the words come from?A single-case study of formal paraphasic errors in aphasia. Cognitive Neuropsychology 13: 443-480

Boomer, D. & J. Laver (1973) “Slips of the tongue,” In V. Fromkin (ed.), 120-131. Caramazza, A. (1997) How many levels of processing are there in lexical access?

Cognitive Neuropsychology 14(2): 177-208

Chen, J.-Y., & Dell, G. S. (in press). Word-form encoding in Chinese speech production. In E. Bates, Tan, L.-H., & Tzeng, O. J.-L. (Eds.), Handbook of East Asian Psycholinguistics: Part I. Chinese Psycholinguistics. Boston: Cambridge University Press.

Chen, T.-M., & Chen, J.-Y. (in press). Morphological Encoding in the Production of Compound Words in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Memory and Language.

Chen, J.-Y., & Dell, G. S. (2003). Word-form encoding in Chinese speech production. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 45, 313-322.

Chen, J.-Y., Lin, W.-C., & Ferrand, L. (2003). Masked priming of the syllable in Mandarin Chinese speech production. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 45, 107-120.

Chen, J.-Y., Chen, T.-M., & Dell, G. S. (2002). Word-form encoding in Mandarin Chinese as assessed by the implicit priming task. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 751-781.

Chen, J.-Y. (2000). Syllable errors from naturalistic slips of the tongue in Mandarin Chinese. Psychologia, 43(1), 15-26. (Special Issue edited by Takeshi Hatta and Hirofumi Saito).

Chen, J.-Y. (1999). The representation and processing of tone in Mandarin Chinese: Evidence from slips of the tongue. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20(2), 289-301.

Chen, J.-Y. & Lee, S.-M. (1994). How tongue slips can be useful in the study of the Chinese speech system: The case of word boundary. Journal of National Chung Cheng University, Sec. II: Social Sciences, 5, 205-224.

Chen, J.-Y. (1993). A corpus of speech errors in Mandarin Chinese and their classification. The World of Chinese Language, Sep. 1993, No. 69, 26-41.(一些國 語的自然語誤及其分類，華文世界，69, 26-41)

Chen, J.-Y. & Baars, B. J. (1992). General and specific factors in "transformational errors": An experimental study. In Bernard J. Baars (Ed.), Experimental slips and human error: Exploring the architecture of volition. N.Y.: Plenum Press.

Cleason, J. B. (1998) Psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Cohen, A. (1973) “Errors of speech and their implication for understanding the strategy

of language users,” In V. Fromkin (ed.), 88-92.

Cutler, A. (1980). Errors of Stress and Intonation.In V.A.Fromkin(Ed. ),Errors in Linguistic Performance: Slips of the Tongue, Ear, Pen, and Hand. New York: Academic Press.

Culter, A. (1980) “La lecon des lapsus,” La Recherche 11, 686-692.

Cultler A. (1981) The reliability of speech error data. Linguistics 19: 561-582

Cutler, A. (ed.) (1982a) Slips of the Tongue and Language Production, New York: Mouton.

Cutler, A. (1982b) “The reliability of speech error data,” in A. Cutler (1982a), 7-28. Cutler, A. (ed.) (1982b) Slips of the Tongue and Language Production, New York:

Mouton.

Dell, G. (1980) Phonological and lexical encoding in speech production, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto.

Dell, G. & Reich, P. (1980) “Toward a unified theory of slips of the tongue,” In Errors in linguistic performance: slips of the tongue, ear, pen and hand, V. Fromkin (ed.), NY: Academic Press, pp 273-286.

Dell, G. (1986) “A spreading activation theory of retrieval in sentence production,” Psychological Review 93, 283-321.

Dell, G S. (1988) The retrieval of phonological forms in production: Tests of predictions from a connectionist model. Journal of Memory and Language 27(1): 124-142 Dell, G (1990) “Effects of frequency and vocabulary type on phonological speech

errors,” Language and Cognitive Processes 5, 313-349.

Dell, G and L. Burger (1997) “Language production and serial order: A functional analysis and a model,” Psychological Review 104 (1), 123-147.

Dell, G S, and O'Seaghdha P. (1992) Stages of lexical access in language production. Cognition 42: 287-314

Dell, G S, Schwartz M F, Martin N, Saffran E M, Gagnon D A. (1997) Lexical access in normal and aphasic speech. Psychological Review 104: 801-838

Elman, J. L. & McClelland, J. L. (1984). The Interactive Activation Model of Speech Perception.

Forster, K. I. (1990). Lexical Processing. In D.O sherson & H.Lasnik (Eds .), Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Freud, Sigmund. (1901). Psychopathology of Everyday Life, translation by A. A. Brill (1914), London: T. Fisher Unwin

Fromkin, V. (1973a) “The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances,” In V. Fromkin (1973b).

Fromkin, V. (ed.) (1973b) Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence, The Hague: Mouton. Fromkin, V. (ed.) (1980) Errors in linguistic performance: Slips of the tongue, ear, pen,

and hand, New York: Academic Press.

Gandour, J. (1977) “Counterfeit Tones in the Speech of Southern Thai bidilectals,” Lingua 41, 125-143.

Garnham, A R, Shillcock G D A. (1981) Slips of the tongue in the London-Lund corpus of spontaneous conversation. Linguistics 19: 805-817

Garrett, M. (1980) “Levels of processing in sentence production,” In: B. Butterworth (ed.), Language Production V.1, speech & Talk. London: Academic Press. 177-220. Garrett, M. (1984) “The Organization of processing structure for language production,”

In D. Caplan, A.R. Lecourse, and A. Smith (eds.). Biological Perspectives on Language. Cambridge: MIT Press. 172-193.

Garrett, M. (1988) “Processes in language production,” In F. Newmeyer (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey III. Language: Psychological and Biological Aspects, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 69-96.

Glaser, W R. (1992) Picture naming. Cognition 42: 61-105

Glaser, W R, Dungelhoff F J. The time course of picture-word interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology 10(4): 640-654

Jaeger, J. (1992) “Phonetic Features in Young Children’s Slips of the Tongue,” Language & Speech 35, 189-205.

Jaeger, J. J. (2004) What Young Children's Slips of the Tongue Reveal About Language Development, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publisher.

Jescheniak, J D, Levelt W J M. Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language,Memory and Cognition 20(4): 824-843

Lai, Chi-Shiu 賴 琪 琇 . 1984. Speech Errors as Evidence for Models of Speech Production: A Case from Mandarin Chinese (從國語的語誤現象探討中文的說話 模式), MA thesis, Fujen University.

Levelt, W. (1989) Speaking: From Intention to Articulation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(1): 1-75

Levelt, W J M, Schriefers H, Vorberg D, et al. (1998) The time course of lexical access in speech production: A study of picture naming. Psychological Review 98: 122-142

Liberman, A.M. & Mattingly, I.G. (1985) The Motor Theory of Speech Perception Revised. Cognition 21: 1-36.

MacLeod, C M. (1991) Half a Century of Research on the Stroop effects: An integrative Review. Psychological Bulletin 109(2): 163-203

Marslen-Wukson,W.D. & Welsh, A. (1978). Processing Interactions and Lexical Access During Word Recognition in Continuous Speech. Cognitive Psycho logy 10: 29-63. Meringer, R. and Mayer K. (1999) Versprechen und Verlesen,Goschenscher-Verlag. In

Levelt, W. J. Models of word production: Trends in cognitive sciences 3(6): 223-232

Meyer, A S. (1991) The time course of phonological encoding in language production: Phonological encoding inside a syllable. Journal of Memory and Language 30: 69-89

Miller, G. A. (1956) “The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information,” Psychological Review, 63. 81-97.

Min, H. S. (1998) Syllabification in Korean: Evidence from speech errors, M.s. SUNY-Buffalo.

Miozza, M. and A. Caramazza. (1997) Retrieval of lexical-syntactic features in tip-of-the-tongue state.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory and Cognition 23 (1): 1-14

Mowrey, R. & I. MacKay (1990) “Phonological primatives: Electromyographic speech error evidence,” Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 88. 1299-1322.

Nickels, L. A. and D. Howard. (1995) Phonological errors in aphasic naming: comprehension, monitoring and lexicality. Cortex 31: 209-237

Nooteboom, (1973) “The tongue slips into patterns,” In. V. Fromkin (ed.), 144-156. Peng, R.-Y., & Chen, J.-Y. (2004). Even words are right, odd ones are odd: Explaining

the word segmentation inconsistency among Chinese readers. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 46, 049-055. (in Chinese: 彭瑞元、陳振宇，「偶語易安、奇字難適」： 探討中文讀者斷詞不一致之原因)

Peterson, R R, Savoy P. (1998) Lexical selection and phonological encoding during language production:Evidence for cascaded processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Language, Memory and Cognition 24(3): 539-557

Postma, A., & Kolk, H. H. J. (1990). Speech errors, disfluencies and self-repairs in stutterers under two accuracy conditions. Journal of fluency disorders, 15, 291-303.

in normal and stuttered disfluencies. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 472-487.

Poulisse, Nanda (1999) Slips of the tongue: speech errors in first and second language production, John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia

Rapp, B. and M. Goldrick (2000) Discreteness and interactivity in spoken word production. Psychological Review 107: 460-499

Schriefers, H. (1993) Syntactic processes in the production of noun phrases. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory and Cognition 19(6): 841-850 Schwartz, M. E. Saffran, D. Bloch & G. Dell. (1994) “Disordered speech production in

aphasic and normal speakers,” Brian and Language 47, 52-88.

Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1979) Speech errors as evidence for a serial-ordering mechanism in sentence production. In W. Cooper & E.C. Walker (Eds.), Sentence Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Shen, J. (1993) “Slips of the tongue and the syllable structure of Mandarin Chinese,” In S-C. Yau (ed.) Essays on the Chinese Language by Contemporary Chinese scholars, Paris: Centre de Recherches Linguistiques sur l'Asie Orientale-Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 139-162.

Starreveld, P. A. and La Heij W. (1995) Semantic interference, orthographic facilitation and their interaction in naming tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory and Cognition 21(3): 686-698

Stemberger, J. (1983) Speech Errors and Theoretical Phonology: a Review, Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Stemberger, J. (1985) “The Reliability and Replicability of Naturalistic Speech Error Data: A Comparison with Experimentally Induced Errors,” Research on Speech Perception Progress Report, No 11: 235-261, Indiana University.

Stemberger, J. (1989) “Speech errors in early child language production,” Journal of Memory and Language 28. 2. 164-188.

Wald, L. (1980) “Citeva observatii asupra erorilor de limbaj,” Studii Si Cercetari Lingvistice 31, 645-648.

Wan, I. P. (1997) “The status of prenuclear glides in Mandarin Chinese: Evidence from speech errors,” Chicago Linguistics Society 33, 417-428.

Wan, I. P. (1999) Mandarin Phonology: Evidence from speech errors, Ph.D. dissertation, SUNY-Buffalo.

Wan, I. P. (2000) Testing the psychological reality of coronals, Proceedings of the 2000 NCCU Teachers’ Conference on Linguistics Research, 66-93.

Wan, I. P. (2001) “On the representation and processing of prenuclear glides in Mandarin,” Proceedings of the 7

th

International and 19

th

National Conferences on Chinese Phonology, 232-248.

of the tongue,” Concentric 28(2), 1-25.

Wan, I. P. (2003) Alignments of prenuclear glides in Mandarin, Crane Publishing. Wan, I. P. and J. Jaeger (1998) “Speech errors and the representation of tone in

Mandarin Chinese,” Phonology 15(3), 417-461.

Wan, I. P. and J. Jaeger (2003) “The phonological representation of Taiwan Mandarin vowels: A psycholinguistic study,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 12, 205-257. Wells-Jensen, S. (1999) Cognitive Correlates of Linguistic Complexity: A

Cross-Linguistic Comparison of Errors in Speech, Ph D dissertation, University at Buffalo, State University of New York.

Yang, W. (1997) Speech errors in Chinese: a psycholinguistic study, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Victoria, BC. 王宗炎等 (1998) 英漢應用語言學詞典，長沙：湖南教育出版社 余林、舒華 (2002) 西方語言產生研究中的幾個主要問題《心理科學進展》 2002.3 沈家煊 (1992) 口誤舉例《中國語文》1992.4 沈家煊（譯）(2000)《現代語言學詞典》，商務印書館 沈家煊 (2001) 心理詞庫-來自口誤的證據，中國的語言學研究與應用，上海：上 海外語教育出版社 吳颯 (2005) 英漢口誤的共性《江南大學學報》（人文社會科學版）4.1: 90-92 (Journal of Southern Yangtze University Humanities & Social Sciences Edition) 高桂香 (2003) 英汉语口误对比 《河北師範大學學報》（哲社版）Journal of Hebei Normal University, 2003.3.3 桂詩春 (2000)《新編心理語言學》，上海外語教育出版社 陳一 《北方論叢》1997(5)《語文建設》1999(3)、增刊及《漢語語法論稿》等 陳琪、劉儒德 (1997)《當代教育心理學》，北京師範大學出版社 陳國鵬（譯）(1997)《心理語言學》，上海譯文出版社 張春興 (1997)《現代心理學》，上海人民出版社

張淑慧 (1993) A Discussion toward Some Speech Errors of Mandarin《中州學報》 張寧 (1994) 漢語口誤的類別，九十年代的語法思考 217-225，邵敬敏、劉大為北 京語言學院出版社 張寧 (1990) 語言研究與口誤《外國語》1990(4) 崔麗娟等 (2002) 心理學是什麼，北京：北京大學出版社 施春宏 (2003) 逆諧：一種時尚表達《修辭學習》2003(2) 邵 Shao, J.-M. (1993) 漢語口誤失誤研究《語言文字應用》