1. Semantic facilitation and phonological interference in self-correction: evidence from picture naming
Rob Hartsuiker
(Ghent University)
Martin Pickering & Nivja de Jong
(Edinburgh University)

2. Self-monitoring of speech
(1) “You cannot even get a job in an English hospital without passing an English/ a French test”
(2) “If Quebec can have a ba/ a Bill 101”
Self-monitoring of speech: detecting problems in speech (e.g., semantic [1] or phonological [2] errors), interrupting, and repairing
How do people repair?
*Source: Blackmer & Mitton (Cognition, 1991)

3. Self-repair Previous research considered:
The grammatical form of self-repairs (Levelt, 1983; Nooteboom, 1980; Van Wijk & Kempen, 1987)
The time course of repairing (Blackmer & Mitton, 1991; Hartsuiker & Kolk, 2001; Oomen & Postma, 2001)
But how do we repair?

4. Self-repair: two views
Do we maintain a representation of the error or do we “wipe the slate clean?”
Wiping-clean: prevents the error from re-occuring.
Maintenance: errors tend to resemble the target - why not re-use as much as you can?

5. Why wiping clean?
Simplest account of repair is simply starting from scratch (Berg, 1986; Postma & Kolk, 1993)
But restarting needs to prevent repeated selection of the error.
Therefore, requires ‘wiping clean’

6. Why maintenance? Levelt (1983): Well-formedness rule of self-repairs:
a repair (R) is well-formed iff the original utterance (O) can be completed with a string C so that O + C + or/and + R is a well-formed sentence.
But in order to adhere to that rule, the original utterance needs to be maintained.

7. Errors as distractors
Maintaining an error - analogous to Stroop-like tasks
Semantic interference (e.g., Damian & Martin, 1999; Glaser & Glaser, 1989; Schriefers, Meyer, & Levelt, 1990; La Heij et al., 1990; Starreveld & La Heij, 1995)
Phonological facilitation (same references)
Semantic facilitation (Bloem & La Heij, 2003)

8. Predictions
Wipe-clean: No difference between Related repairs (Sem, Phon) and unrelated repairs (Unr)
Maintenance: Relatedness effects, as in Stroop-like tasks
Sem: Butterfl/ Cat
Phon: Butterfl/ Bus
Unr: Butterfl/ Pipe

9. Interruption paradigm
Picture naming
Occasionally, picture changes while naming it
Interrupt and repair
Glass … apple
Glasses… apple
Measure: repair onset latency +
Interrupted stimulus (IS)
Corrected stimulus (CS)
1000
1300
cf., Van Wijk & Kempen (1987)

10. No-change trial (92%) +

11. Change-trial (8%) +

12. Experiment 1: Semantic Relatedness
Filler trials:
Related trial:
Unrelated trials:

13. Method 32 participants Pictures from Snodgrass & Vanderwart (1980)
IS polysyllabic, CS monosyllabic
264 trials:
24 Change Trials (12 sem. related, 12 unrelated)
12 Filler change trials
228 No-Change trials

14. Results: response types
UNR SEM
IS interrupted: butterf/ cat
IS completed: butterfly cat
IS skipped: cat
Completions more likely in semantically-related trials

15. Results: reaction times (ms)
UNR SEM Effect
IS interrupted (*)
IS completed (*)
IS skipped
Semantic interference if IS interrupted
Semantic facilitation if IS completed

16. Experiment 2: Phonological Relatedness
Filler
Phon
Unr

17. Results: response types
UNR PHON
IS interrupted:
IS completed:
IS skipped:
No effect on completion frequency

18. Results: reaction times (ms)
UNR PHON Effect
IS interrupted
IS completed *
IS skipped
Phonological interference if IS completed

19. Discussion
Relationship error<->repair affects repair latency, supporting maintenance hypothesis.
Directionality depends on placement interruption:
Within IS: Sem. interference; Phon. facilitation(?)
After IS: Sem. facilitation; Phon. interference

20. Within-IS interruptions
The lemma and the phonological representations remain active.
SEM related words: increased competition at lemma level (e.g., Levelt et al., 1999; Schriefers et al., 1990)
PHON related words: re-use of sublexical elements (id.)

21. Post-IS interruptions
After speaking a word, the lemma and phon. representations are discarded, or even inhibited:
SEM related words: no competition at lemma level, but priming at conceptual level (cf., Bloem & La Heij, 03).
PHON related words: post-selection inhibition of phon. units (cf., Dell 1986, Dell et al., 1997).

22. Implications
We maintain representations of the error, including the lemma and (sub)lexical phonology
But only until the error is produced completely. At that point, certain mechanisms kick in that prevent reselection.
=> If you stop too fast, you’ll Stroop yourself.