[Xmca-l] Re: Repair in inner speech

[HENRY SHONERD]

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 <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/d3d2abdd/attachment.html