[Xmca-l] Re: Repair in inner speech

[Huw Lloyd]

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/20190403/0c0f28cd/attachment.html