[Xmca-l] Re: Repair in inner speech

[Huw Lloyd]

I am saying that the evaluation is the same as the orientation of use. If
you change perspectives on the use to hold a "conversation", then the
meanings may change.

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 04:52, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com> wrote:

> Huw,
> Speaking hands and gloves, who out there remembers Johnny Cochran, defense
> attorney in 1995 for the iconic black professional football player accused
> of murdering his white wife: “If it doesn’t fit, you must aquit”.
>
>
> https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/OJ-Simpson-20-Years-Later-Glove-Fit-Darden-Dunne-Murder-Trial-of-the-Century-262534821.html
> <https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/OJ-Simpson-20-Years-Later-Glove-Fit-Darden-Dunne-Murder-Trial-of-the-Century-262534821.html>
>
> Even when a glove or utterance seems to fit perfectly the hand or meaning,
> the person evaluating the fit of the glove or the meaning of the utterance
> may misconstrue. It seems to me repair could reflect the judgement by the
> speaker that an utterance could be misconstrued, making for uncertainty in
> how to couch an utterance in the first place. Meaning gets negotiated going
> in and coming out. Negotiation is constant repair. Now what is “repair”? It
> does NOT mean the same thing as error, though it includes errors. But in
> looking for a definition on the web, I don’t come up with anything totally
> convincing, at least not when it comes to dealing with what you say:
> “…speech and language is extremely unwieldy when it comes to conveying
> anything complex.” But I am humbly open to a convincing definition. I just
> know what I want to be able to do with the term: analyze credibly how
> discourse works and to rise to the concrete in developmental settings. For
> example, in school. It was why I did my doctoral work in Educational
> Linguistics founded at UNM by Vera John-Steiner and Bernard Spolsky lo
> these many years ago. I still haven’t credibly risen to the concrete...but
> I’m a late bloomer. Help me out!
>
> Henry
>
>
>
> On Apr 2, 2019, at 7:10 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, Henry. But I don't think you have caught my point about not needing
> to correct a placeholder if no-one is questioning the meaning attributed to
> it.
>
> Personally, I am not convinced that the classification is useful beyond
> pointing to different appearances. If one thinks of inner-speech as a hand
> that manifests as a glove, then it is simple enough to see that it can
> manifest in any kind of glove -- spoken, mathematical, action-image, etc.
> Similarly it can then be considered to manifest within different degrees of
> formality depending upon the needs of the situation.
>
> The speech as the progenitor of thought argument merely seems to me to be
> a preoccupation for people who find themselves thinking that way. Contrary
> to that, speech and written language is extremely unwieldy when it comes to
> conveying anything complex.
>
> Cheerio,
> Huw
>
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 00:26, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Huw,
>> You say, “By repair, I assume you are referring to change in how a
>> meaning is expressed rather than a change in the meaning.” I’m not sure I
>> can alwahys answer that question unambiguously, either in a first or second
>> language. Some repairs in L2 certainly seem to be simply efforts to express
>> a meaning more like a native speaker. But, especially with L1 speakers,
>> changing the how a meaning is expressed changes ever so slightly the
>> meaning, especially in the framing of an utterance. And even a slight
>> change in framing can alter radically how an utterance is received. I can’t
>> think of an example right now, but they come up all the time when I am
>> posting.
>> Henry
>>
>>
>> On Apr 2, 2019, at 5:02 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Assuming that inner speech lacks any necessity to resolve ambiguity in
>> the use of words, because it emphasises particular meanings, there would
>> not be a requirement to repair ambiguity. Although if one's inner speech
>> was about the intention to declare something, then I suppose that intended
>> declaration might be subject to 'repair' and considered part of the inner
>> speech. But that would constitute a difference in logical type despite
>> being "part of" the inner speech, hence concurring with Peter's
>> description. By repair I assume you are referring to change in how a
>> meaning is expressed rather than a change in the intended meaning.
>>
>> Huw
>>
>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 23:31, Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] <
>> 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> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190403/b17baf45/attachment.html