[Xmca-l] Re: Repair in inner speech

Tue Apr 2 17:15:26 PDT 2019

David,
Your Hallydayan analysis resonates with things Vera used to talk about. I am glad you brought in writing and visual art, also resonates with Vera’s work in creativity. I wrote the following just before I read your post, about things I was thinking about since I posted:
1) Repairs in writing. Not only through editing of a finished draft, but the inserts, cross-outs, etc. on the original draft. And how academics begin to “talk like a book”. I am amazed at some of the posts on this listserv that are as polished as they are. I have to repair my own posts many times usually. I am sure that not everyone labors so hard to make something somewhat presentable. I assume that the more one writes about a topic, the more one writes like a book, a good book. And this bleeds over into written conversation, like here. Fluency. 
2) How much of repair in inner speech is conscious? And are self reports considered good data?
3) Advances in research on the repairs in the private speech of children raised bilingually. 
Henry

> On Apr 2, 2019, at 5:09 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Peter, Henry--
> 
> I have always been very suspcious of the idea that inner speech is simply non-vocalized private speech. What Vygotsky says is that this may be true of very small children, but with seven-year-olds, there are huge grammatical differences between inner speech and private speech (in Hallidayan terms, inner speech deletes Theme and Given and consists only of a stream of Rheme and New: what Vygotsky says is that it is "predicative").
> 
> There is a kind of Chinese painting that is supposed to be spontaneous and calligraphic: you want to catch lots of aleatory effects like drips and "flying ink". Of course, these effects are hard to control, and so you end up throwing away hundreds of sheets of paper for every paper you save. Oil painting is exactly the opposite, because when you put a layer of oil paint over another layer, if the first layer hasn't dried, it will suck the oil out of the top layer and make it dull looking and lifeless. So each layer has to be left for days until you apply another layer.
> 
> Before I learnt to use a word processor, I used a manual typewriter. With the typewriter, I would write in drafts which I would then "cellar" for a few days and then rewrite. I never do that now, and the effect seems to me very like Chinese painting: I have to throw away a lot of stuff to get what I want. (And even then...)
> 
> It seems to me this has something to do with the difference between inner speech and private speech in adults. Inner speech (in me, before I have had my morning coffee at any rate) is a stream of sketches, a bunch of mis-strokes which are immediately effaced or over-written. But private speech is not like that: it is, in many ways, more developed than public speech because it includes public speech as its premise.
> 
> David Kellogg
> Sangmyung University
> 
> New Article: 
> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without SELF: Vygotsky’s
> pedology, Bruner’s constructivism and Halliday’s construalism in understanding narratives by
> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663
> To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 <https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663>
> 
> Some e-prints available at:
> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663 <https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663>
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 7:31 AM Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] <pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu <mailto:pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu>> wrote:
> Henry,
> 
> In a paper I co-authored on private speech produced in the context of a referential communication task (see attached), we found evidence of a child that interrupted his own social speech to another child when he needed to stop and think about the meaning of a particular word he wanted to use - and that that interruption took the form of a private speech communication aimed at solving the problem. Once the child solved the word-meaning problem, he returned to the social speech utterance he had interrupted and completed it. To the extent that private speech is identical to inner speech in function (but not form), this piece of evidence suggests that inner speech can indeed interrupt social speech when thinking is required. Such an interruption would appear externally as a 'thinking' pause in social speech. 
> 
> I have frequently observed similar breaks and shifts in private speech conversation, suggesting that the flow of thought and speech is being interrupted and re-directed. And if private speech is inner speech (differing only in the fact that it is vocalized and not sub-vocalized), then there is every reason to believe that inner speech conversation also breaks and shifts topic. 
> 
> I don't know if that qualifies as *repair*, but the possibility is certainly consistent with the notion that conversation - whether social, private, or inner - can entail repairs.
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 4:14 PM HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>> wrote:
> For my doctoral dissertation on the developmemt of fluency in a second language, finished more than three decades ago, I found a lot data on self-repair. I was surprised today by something I never really thought of before: Is there self-repair in inner speech? (whether it be in a first or second). I found this on the internet:
> 
> "Levelt (1983) found that errors were often interrupted very quickly, even at mid-segment. The implication of such quick interruptions was that the speaker could not have detected the error while attending to his overt speech. Thus, Levelt (1983, 1989) proposed that speakers monitor their inner speech. According to what is known as the ‘main interruption rule’, when an error is detected, whether internally or auditorily, speech is immediately interrupted (Nooteboom, 1980; Levelt, 1983). This means that short error-to-cut-off intervals are to be expected.
> 
> "Thus in an incremental model of speech production such as Levelt’s, error-detection is followed by the decision to interrupt speech. This in turn is followed by the planning of the repair (repair- planning), which is thought to take place only upon interruption. If this is true, then short cut-off-to- repair intervals should not be anticipated. This is contrary to the short cut-off-to-repair intervals found by Blackmer and Mitton (1991), suggesting that repair-planning must have occurred before speech was interrupted. The question then remains as to when repair-planning is initiated.” (Detecting and Correcting Speech Repairs”, Peter Heeman and James Allen, 1994.) 
> 
> My question for anybody out there is this: Is there research on repair in inner speech in the CHAT universe? 
> 
> Henry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D.
> Director, 
> Office of Institutional Research <https://www.fordham.edu/info/24303/institutional_research>
> Fordham University
> Thebaud Hall-202
> Bronx, NY 10458
>  
> Phone: (718) 817-2243
> Fax: (718) 817-3817
> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu <mailto:pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190402/17a25a68/attachment.html 