Slips of The Tongue

SLIPS OF THE TONGUE
sibil.20.vw.p65 1 17/09/99, 5:03 PM

STUDIES IN BILINGUALISM (SiBil)
EDITORS
Kees de Bot Thom Huebner
University of Nijmegen San José State University
EDITORIAL BOARD
Michael Clyne (Monash University)
Kathryn Davis (University of Hawaii at Manoa)
Joshua Fishman (Yeshiva University)
François Grosjean (Université de Neuchâtel)
Wolfgang Klein (Max Planck Institut für Psycholinguistik)
Georges Lüdi (University of Basel)
Christina Bratt Paulston (University of Pittsburgh)
Suzanne Romaine (Merton College, Oxford)
Merrill Swain (Ontario Institute for Studies in Education)
Richard Tucker (Carnegie Mellon University)
Volume 20
Nanda Poulisse
Slips of the Tongue

Speech Errors in First and Second Language Production
sibil.20.vw.p65 2 17/09/99, 5:03 PM

SLIPS OF THE TONGUE
SPEECH ERRORS
IN FIRST AND SECOND LANGUAGE
PRODUCTION
NANDA POULISSE
University of Amsterdam
JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY

AMSTERDAM/PHILADELPHIA
sibil.20.vw.p65 3 17/09/99, 5:03 PM

TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of Ameri-
8
can National Standard for Information Sciences — Permanence of Paper for

Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Poulisse, Nanda.
Slips of the tongue : speech errors in first and second language production / Nanda Poulisse.
p. cm. -- (Studies in bilingualism, ISSN 0928-1533 ; v. 20)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Language acquisition. 2. Speech errors. 3. Children--Language. I. Title. II. Series.
P118.P646 1999
401’.93--dc21 99-42694
ISBN 90 272 4130 9 (Eur.) / 1 55619 952 X (US) (Hb; alk. paper) CIP
© 1999 – John Benjamins B.V.

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other
means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Co. • P.O.Box 75577 • 1070 AN Amsterdam • The Netherlands
John Benjamins North America • P.O.Box 27519 • Philadelphia PA 19118-0519 • USA
sibil.20.vw.p65 4 17/09/99, 5:03 PM

To Gerda Poulisse-van der Worp
Table of Contents
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
C 1
Literature Review: Slips of the Tongue in Adult Native Speech . . . . . . 5
1.1 Research methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2 Research findings: 14 major claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3 Two monolingual models of speech production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.3.1 Dell (1986) and beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.3.2 Levelt (1989) and beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
C 2
Literature Review: Slips of the Tongue in Child Language Production . 35
2.1 Research findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.2 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
C 3
Literature Review: Slips of the Tongue in L2 Production . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.1 Research findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.2 Bilingual models of speech production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.2.1 Differences between L1 and L2 production . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.2.2 Early studies of bilingualism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.2.3 Green (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.2.4 De Bot (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.2.5 Poulisse and Bongaerts (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.2.6 Green (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
viii TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.3 Models of second language acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

3.3.1 McLaughlin’s model of restructuring and automatization . . . . 67
3.3.2 Anderson’s ACT* theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.3.3 MacWhinney and Bates’ Competition Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3.3.4 Gass’ input … output model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
C 4
The Second Language Slip Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.1 Goals, research questions and hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.2 Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.3 Data collection and data handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
C 5
Methodological Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5.1 Defining slips of the tongue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5.2 Detecting slips of the tongue: the reliability issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
5.3 Coding slips of the tongue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
C 6
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
6.1 A comparison of L1 and L2 slips concerning 14 claims . . . . . . . . . . 116
6.1.1 An analysis of the L2 slip corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6.1.2 An analysis of the L1 slip corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
6.2 L2 slips and the learner’s proficiency level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
6.2.1 The number of slips produced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
6.2.2 Slips at different linguistic levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
6.2.3 The unsupported claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
6.2.4 A comparison of L2 learners’ and child L1 learners’ slips . . . 145
6.3 L1-based slips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
6.4 L2 learner-specific slips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
6.4.1 The 3rd person singular ‘-s’ morpheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
6.4.2 The phonemes /q/ and /ð/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
6.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
TABLE OF CONTENTS ix
C 7
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
7.1 Implications for monolingual models of speech production . . . . . . . . 161
7.2 Implications for bilingual models of speech production . . . . . . . . . . 167
7.3 Implications for models of second language acquisition . . . . . . . . . . 173
7.4 Conclusion and recommendations for future research . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
List of References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Appendix 1: L2 slips of the tongue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Appendix 2: L1 slips of the tongue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
Preface
This book is the final outcome of a research project which went through three
stages. The first stage, which lasted from June 1990 until March 1992 was the
Nijmegen stage. During this stage I was employed by the Department of Applied
Linguistics at the Catholic University of Nijmegen as a postdoc researcher,
sponsored by the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie voor Wetenschappen
(KNAW). I was based at the Interfaculty Research Unit for Language and
Speech (IWTS), an institute which was closely linked to the Max Planck Institut
für Psycholinguistik, also in Nijmegen. This position allowed me to profit greatly
from the expertise of Nijmegen applied linguists and psycholinguists. I am
particularly grateful to Theo Bongaerts, Kees de Bot, Willem Levelt and his
lexical access research group, and Rob Schreuder. During this stage I completed
most of the work on the identification and classification of slips of the tongue.
I was assisted in this job by Mirjam Woutersen and I would like to thank her for
working so conscientiously. I am also indebted to the late Erik Schils, who advised
me on statistical matters and pointed out the shortcomings of particular procedures.
The second stage started in March 1992, when I accepted a position as a
teacher/researcher in the Department of English at the University of Amsterdam.
During this stage work on the project progressed in slow-motion, and mostly
with the help of graduate students who volunteered to write their MA theses on
the subject. Two previous students with whom it was particularly pleasant to
work are Anita van Lieshout and Martine Soffers. The many discussions I had
with them forced me to sharpen my ideas and led to new insights.
The third and last stage was the writing stage. It started in the winter term
of 1997–1998, when a so-called extended research term relieved me from all
teaching and administrative duties in the English Department. Writing was
continued in the summer of 1998 when I was able to go on a seven-month
sabbatical thanks to a grant from NWO (the Dutch Organization of Research).
Without these two periods off teaching this book would not have been written.
There are several people who encouraged me during this stage: René Appel,
xii PREFACE
Kees de Bot and Jan Hulstijn, who commented on an early outline of the book,
Rob Schoonen, who advised me on the statistics in Chapter 6, Willem Levelt and
Frank Wijnen, who commented on an earlier version of the manuscript, and last
but not least Theo Bongaerts, who advised me at several stages and provided
very detailed comments on the entire manuscript. I am most grateful to all of
them. Any remaining errors are, of course, my own responsibility.
The writing stage coincided with my moving in with Douwe Treurniet and his
daughter Anna. Living together with them in Bergen and becoming a member of their
family has put research in a different perspective. It has created a certain distance,
which has definitely helped me to write this book. I thank them dearly for this.
This book is dedicated to my (step)mother, Gerda Poulisse-van der Worp.
She raised eight of us, and I admire her greatly.
Nanda Poulisse
April 1999
Introduction
Ever since the publication of Corder’s The Significance of Learners’ Errors in

1967, errors have featured largely in second language acquisition (SLA) research.
Virtually all of this research has concentrated on errors of competence since only
these errors were considered to reflect the systematicity of the learner’s inter-
language. However, second (and foreign) language speakers (both will be
referred to as L2 speakers) also make many errors of performance, which are not
due to an incomplete or incorrect L2 system, but to processing problems. In the
field of psycholinguistics, such errors are known as “slips of the tongue” (or
“speech errors”). They have been defined as “unintended, nonhabitual devia-
tion[s] from a speech plan” (Dell 1986: 284). Baars (1992a) characterized slips
of the tongue as inadvertent errors which are beyond the speakers’ control, which
are not representative of their ordinary language use, and which can be corrected
by them if they are asked to do so. So rather than being the result of ignorance
or forgetfulness, they are the result of problems in controlling the speech
production process (Baars 1992a: preface). Some examples of slips of the tongue,
produced by Dutch learners of English, are:
1. the ban, the man got very angry
2. uh a thing you put on a glass of milk, on uh, a bottle of milk
3. yes she heeft, uh she has uh, big ears
4. wooden pieces for, to put your foo(t) uh your feet on
It is clear that the errors in examples (1) to (4) are due to processing problems
rather than lack of knowledge because in all cases the speakers are able to
correct them. Thus, they meet Dell’s definition of slips of the tongue.
As will become clear from Chapter 1, slips of the tongue have played a
major role in the development of models of speech production (see e.g. Dell
1986; Levelt 1989). However, most research in this area has focussed on first
language (L1) data and very little research has been done on slips of the tongue
in foreign language learners’ speech. The present book proposes to fill this gap.
2 INTRODUCTION
The book has four main goals. The first goal is to present a complete report of
an extensive project on the occurrence of slips of the tongue in the speech of
foreign language (L2) learners. The second goal is to relate the findings of the
L2 slip project to the results of research on slips of the tongue produced by adults
and children in their native language. More particularly, we hope to answer the
question to what extent adult and child L1 production processes and adult L2 learner
production processes are the same, and to what extent they differ. The third goal
is to interpret these similarities and differences and to discuss their implications
for theories of speech production and second language acquisition. The fourth
goal, finally, is to stimulate further research on L2 slips of the tongue by making
the L2 slip corpus compiled by the author available to the readers.
The L2 slip project to be discussed in this book was started in 1990. It was
set up to compile a corpus of slips of the tongue produced by L2 learners which
could serve as a basis for the study of L2 speech production and possibly L2
acquisition. The most straightforward research question was to see if, and in
what way, L2 slips differ from L1 slips. The slips in the corpus were taken from
35 hours of English spoken by 45 Dutch learners of English, viz. 15 second-year
university students of English (advanced), 15 5-VWO pupils (upper intermedi-
ate), and 15 3-VWO pupils (low intermediate).1 The data were originally
collected to study the use of lexical compensatory strategies and were elicited by
means of four tasks, including two different referential tasks, a story-retell task
and an interview by a native speaker of English. For the purpose of the L2 slip
project the tape-recordings of the data were carefully re-examined by two trained
researchers (independently). Only those slips about which the two researchers
agreed, often after having consulted the tapes again, were included in the final
collection of slips, which consists of 2000 L2 slips and 137 L1 slips.
The book consists of an introduction, followed by seven chapters and two
appendices containing the two corpora of L2 and L1 slips of the tongue compiled
as part of the L2 slip project. The first three chapters will contain the theoreti-
cal background to this study. In Chapter 1 we will review research on slips of
the tongue produced by adult native speakers. A large part of this review will be
focussed on 14 claims which have been made on the basis of L1 slip studies. In
addition, we will present two influential models of speech production, which
have been (partly) based on this research (Dell 1986, 1988; Dell, Juliano and
Govindjee 1993; and Levelt 1989, 1995; Levelt, Roelofs and Meyer 1999). In
1. VWO stands for Voorbereidend Wetenschappelijk Onderwijs (‘Preparatory Academic Education’).

It is a type of secondary school for 12- to 18-year-olds. The diploma allows students to enter
university.
INTRODUCTION 3
Chapter 2 we will review studies of slips of the tongue produced by children

acquiring their native language. Special attention will be paid to the differences
observed in children’s and adults’ slips of the tongue and to the implications of
these differences for models of speech development. Then, in Chapter 3, we will
discuss the few studies of L2 learners’ slips of the tongue conducted so far. In
this chapter we will also present several bilingual models of speech production
(De Bot 1992; De Bot and Schreuder 1993; Green 1986, 1998; and Poulisse and
Bongaerts 1994) and several cognitive models of second language acquisition
(Anderson 1983, 1986; McLaughlin 1987, 1990; MacWhinney 1997). We will
review to what extent these models can account for the L2 performance data. In
addition, a more encompassing model of second language acquisition (Gass
1997) will be discussed, which more clearly brings out the relationship between
input, output and language learning.
The next three chapters deal with the L2 slip project itself. Chapter 4 will
describe the set-up of the L2 slip project. The research questions and hypotheses
will be presented, and the choice of subjects and tasks will be motivated.
Chapter 5 deals with methodological issues. It discusses the procedures of
identification and classification followed in the L2 slip project and compares
these to the procedures followed in most other slip research. Particular attention
will be paid to the question of reliability, since this seems to have affected other
studies. Chapter 6 will report the results of the L2 slip project. It will first
present the data needed to compare L2 learners’ slips of the tongue to the slips
produced by adults speaking their L1. Subsequently, it will present proficiency-
related differences in both number and types of slips produced by the three
groups of L2 learners. In this section we will also consider whether there are any
similarities in the slips produced by adult L2 learners and child L1 learners. And
finally, a detailed presentation will be given of certain types of slips which are
typical for Dutch learners of English. This discussion will relate to a variety of
slips resulting from L1 influence (L1-based slips) and to the production of the
third person singular verb morpheme ‘-s’ and the production of voiced and
voiceless ‘th’.
The seventh and last chapter will discuss the implications of the results for
models of speech production and for theories of second language acquisition. We
will consider to what extent the data are in line with the monolingual speech
production models presented in Chapter 1 and how they relate to the recently
developed bilingual models of speech production presented in Chapter 3. In
addition, we will consider to what extent the data can be accounted for by
models of second language acquisition. Chapter 7 will finish with a summary of
the main conclusions and some suggestions for further research.
4 INTRODUCTION
Appendix 1 consists of a list of all the L2 slips of the tongue collected for
this project (N = 2000) and appendix 2 of the L1 slips produced by the same
subjects (N = 137). The slips have been classified in terms of slip type (substitu-
tion, anticipation, perseveration, exchange, deletion, addition etc.) and the unit
involved (phoneme, morpheme, word, etc.) and have been ordered accordingly.
Information about the subject who produced the slips, and about the correction
of the slips (yes/no repair) has also been included, as has information about
wordclass and the context when this seemed relevant. For reasons of space and
readability, it was impossible to include the context for all slips of the tongue.
The data have, however, been included in the CHILDES database (unfortunately
without slip codes though) and could be made available for consultation at the
University of Amsterdam.
C 1
Literature Review
Slips of the Tongue in Adult Native Speech
The first serious attempt to study slips of the tongue was made by Meringer at
the end of the 19th century. Meringer recorded slips of the tongue produced by
his relatives, acquaintances and students, meticulously adding details concerning
the context in which the slips had been produced, and the people who had
produced them. The 8800 slips collected by Meringer were published in two
volumes: Meringer and Mayer (1895) and Meringer (1908). Since then there has
been a growing interest in the study of slips of the tongue from various perspec-
tives. Well-known is the work by Freud (1901/1973), who studied slips of the
tongue from a clinical psychological perspective. Others, like Sturtevant (1947),
Wells (1951), Celce-Murcia (1973), Fay (1980), and Laubstein (1987) have taken
a linguistic perspective. And yet others have studied slips of the tongue from a
psycholinguistic perspective, see e.g. the many contributions in Fromkin (1973a)
and (1980), and Cutler (1982a). Most of the research reported in these volumes
was corpus-based. More recently, an increasing number of studies are being
carried out based on experimentally elicited slips of the tongue. Many of these
studies are discussed in a volume edited by Baars (1992a).
In the first three chapters of this book we will provide an overview of slip
research carried out from a psycholinguistic perspective. In the present chapter
we will deal with studies concerning slips of the tongue produced by adult native
speakers of a language. In fact, this constitutes the bulk of the research on slips.
We will start in Section 1.1 with a brief discussion of the different methods that
have been used to collect slips of the tongue. Then, in Section 1.2, we will
present a series of findings which have proved to be relevant to the development
of models of speech production. And in Section 1.3 we will present two well-
known models of speech production which have been based on this research. The
conclusion (Section 1.4) will summarize the main points.
6 SLIPS OF THE TONGUE
1.1 Research methods
Following Meringer, many researchers have compiled their own corpora of slips
of the tongue by writing down all the slips of the tongue they — or other helpful
people — heard. We will refer to the corpora collected in this way as “pen-and-
paper corpora”. Some researchers limited themselves to collecting slips when
they were in the “slip collecting mode”, that is after they had consciously
decided that for the next hour or so they would monitor for and collect slips of
the tongue (Berg 1987; Stemberger and Treiman 1986). In this way they tried to
reduce the chances of not hearing or mishearing slips of the tongue (see Chap-
ter 5). The most important pen-and-paper corpora are listed in Table 1.1.
In addition to the pen-and-paper corpora, there are two small corpora of
tape-recorded slips. Both corpora contain slips produced in L1 English. One of
these corpora, compiled by Boomer and Laver (1968), consists of 100 slips tape-
recorded during conference discussions, psychiatric interviews, broadcasts and
normal conversations. The other corpus, compiled by Garnham, Shillcock,
Brown, Mill and Cutler (1982), consists of the 191 slips found in the transcrip-
tion of the London-Lund corpus. Although a comparison of the slips in the pen-
and-paper corpora and the tape-recorded corpora has suggested that there are no
sharp discrepancies between them (Fromkin 1971), the reliability of these corpora
is still to some extent questionable. For instance, the fact that only 191 slips of
the tongue were detected in the London-Lund corpus, which consists of 170,000
words (34 texts times 5000 words), suggests the transcription may have been
inaccurate. The reliability issue will be discussed in extenso in Chapter 5.
Another method is to collect slips of the tongue experimentally. Baars
(1992b) discusses a dozen techniques which have been used for this purpose,
Table 1.1. Pen-and-paper corpora of L1 slips of the tongue

Researchers Affiliation Number Date Language
Meringer Univ. of Vienna 8800 1908 German
Cohen and Nooteboom Utrecht Univ. 0900 1969 Dutch
Shattuck-Hufnagel MIT 6000 1975 English
Fromkin UCLA 8000 1980 English
Dell and Reich Toronto 4000 1981 English
Stemberger Univ. of California, San Diego 7200 1985 English
Berg Braunschweig 6000 1987 German
Del Viso, Igoa and García-Albea Oviedo Univ. 3612 1987 Spanish
Abd-El-Jawad and Abu-Salim Yarmouk Univ., Irbid Jordan 0911 1987 Arabic
Arnaud Lyon 2400 1994 French
SLIPS OF THE TONGUE IN ADULT NATIVE SPEECH 7
including the use of tongue twisters and techniques that use competition between
alternative words in memory. The most widely used technique though, is the
phonological bias technique developed by Motley and associates (see e.g. Baars,
Motley and MacKay 1975; Motley and Baars 1979; Motley 1980). This proce-
dure has become known as the “SLIP (Spoonerisms of Laboratory-Induced
Predisposition) procedure”. Subjects are shown a large set of word pairs on a
computer screen. After some word pairs a buzzer goes off, prompting the
subjects to pronounce the word pair they have just seen. Experimental word pairs
are preceded by three so-called bias pairs, which are phonologically interfering.
The bias pairs need not be pronounced by the subjects. An example of a set of
three bias pairs followed by an experimental pair is: flat-freight; flag-fraud; flash-
front; fruit-fly. The assumption is that the bias pairs will cause the subjects to
produce a slip in the experimental pair. In the above example, this would result
in the production of flute-fry instead of fruit-fly. To distract the subjects’
attention from the bias and experimental word pairs, a large number of filler
pairs are also presented and occasionally buzzed.
Some researchers have argued that Baars et al.’s SLIP technique makes use
of a task which is highly artificial and unlike real speech so that the validity of
the data is questionable. Meyer (1992), for instance, mentions as a possible
disadvantage that because of the technique used “some of the normal planning
processes might be omitted or altered and that the articulation might be more
difficult than in spontaneous speech” (p. 197). Another disadvantage of experi-
mentally elicited data is that they yield only certain types of slips of the tongue,
viz. phonological exchanges and anticipations, and do not reflect the distribution
of slips of the tongue in normal speech production. An advantage of the SLIP
technique is that the method can be used to test specific hypotheses, since it is
possible to manipulate the factors of interest. Moreover, in several studies, e.g.
Stemberger and Treiman (1986) and Stemberger (1991), the use of natural and
spontaneous data has yielded the same outcomes. Also when different research-
ers are involved in studies using spontaneous and experimental data, they usually
arrive at the same conclusions (Stemberger 1992). It therefore seems good
practice to combine the two research methods, a recommendation made by both
Meyer (1992) and Stemberger (1992). Spontaneous data can be used both to raise
hypotheses and to test hypotheses following from particular theories, while
experimental data can be used to test particular hypotheses in a more direct manner.
Most of the studies of slips of the tongue, both corpus-based and experimen-
tal, were carried out to support the study of speech production. Slips can tell us
what things may go wrong during the production of speech, and, equally
important, what things never go wrong. For this reason, slips have been consid-
ered “windows to the mind” (Fromkin 1973b: 44).
Most of the early (and some later) corpus-based studies were rather
descriptive in nature. The researchers noted what kinds of slips of the tongue
were made and which units were involved. In addition, they noted which
regularities could be observed, which types of error were most frequent, which
types were absent or rare, in what conditions they appeared to be most frequent
and so on. These observations were then usually discussed in terms of their
implications for a model of speech production (see e.g. the contributions in
Fromkin (1973a, 1980) and in Cutler (1982a), and articles by García Albea, Del
Viso and Igoa (1989) and Arnaud (1997, 1998).
Later research tends to be more theoretical in nature. Either a corpus or
experimentally elicited slips of the tongue are used to test specific hypotheses
relating to particular aspects of a theory of speech production (see e.g. Berg
1991a, 1991b, 1992; Dell 1984, 1985, 1990; Dell and Reich 1981; Shattuck-
Hufnagel 1982, 1987, 1992; Stemberger 1982, 1991). Although nowadays the
theoretical approach is usually considered to be more valuable, in fact both the
descriptive and the more theoretical, hypothesis-testing studies have contributed
greatly to the development of models of speech production such as those by Dell
(1984, 1986) and Levelt (1989).
1.2 Research findings: 14 major claims
An excellent and complete review of speech error findings can be found in

Levelt (1989). In this section we will limit ourselves to the most important
observations made on the basis of slip research. The review has two purposes:
a. it shows how speech error research has supported the development of
speech production models and
b. it will provide a basis for comparison with L2 learner data.
In view of the second purpose, the review will take the form of a series of
claims. For each claim, we will present evidence from L1 slip corpora as well as
experimental studies, if available. The theoretical implications of the findings will
also be discussed briefly. We will start with a number of claims based on
phonological slips of the tongue, which mostly have implications concerning
phonological encoding, and will then go on to discuss claims based on lexical
slips, which mainly shed light on lexical access and storage.
1. Individual segments are the most important units in speech production

(Boomer and Laver 1968; Dell 1986, 1988; Fromkin 1971; Nooteboom 1969;
Shattuck-Hufnagel 1982)
Boomer and Laver (1968) reported that about 60% of the approximately 100
slips in their corpus were segmental. Nooteboom (1969) reported that in the
Nooteboom and Cohen corpus, 83% (729) of the slips related to single segments
(241 vowels and 488 consonants) and 7% (58) related to consonant clusters.
Another 10% (91 slips) related to units larger than single phonemes or phoneme
clusters (e.g. affixes, root morphemes and words). Fromkin (1971) too made the
point that “by far the largest percentage of speech errors of all kinds show
substitution, transposition [exchange], omission, or addition of segments of the
size of a phone” (p. 30). She also noted that consonant clusters are often broken
up in speech errors, only one of the two or three segments being involved in the
slip, but that diphthongs and affricates are never split up, neither in her corpus,
nor in the examples cited by other people. From all this, she concluded that
individual segments (i.e. phonemes, including diphthongs and affricates) are
discrete units at some stage of the speech production process. This point was
further substantiated by Shattuck-Hufnagel (1982), who reported that slips of the
tongue involving single segments account for two-thirds of the sublexical (i.e.
phonological) speech errors in the MIT corpus.
Fromkin (1971) had also suggested that phonetic features might play a role
in speech production, since some slips, like glear plue sky for ‘clear blue sky’
appear to result from the exchange of the feature ‘voice’. This suggestion was
tested by Shattuck-Hufnagel and Klatt (1979), who considered the consonantal
exchange errors in the MIT corpus, and observed that at least 90 of them
involved the exchange of two or more features, while in 70 of these it would
also have been possible for one feature to exchange. Considering the fact that the
MIT corpus contained only three unambiguous cases of feature exchange errors,
which could not be interpreted as segment exchanges, Shattuck-Hufnagel and
Klatt (1979) conclude “that features are not independent movable entities at the
level where most substitution and exchange errors are made” (p. 50). Shattuck-
Hufnagel (1982) reports that a task which required subjects to pronounce four-
syllable tongue twisters like pim fan fum pon, while resulting in numerous
segment exchanges, did not result in any single feature exchanges at all. From
this and the previous study with Klatt, she concluded that unitary segments and
not features are the basic units of phonological encoding. The same conclusion
was also reached by Stemberger (1982).
Not everyone agrees on this issue though. Laver (1980a) conducted an
experiment which led him to a different conclusion. Laver was investigating the
effect of time pressure on the pronunciation of vowels by having subjects, six
adult RP speakers, say out loud pairs of stimuli like peep-pip, pup-poop and pip-
parp. It turned out that when time pressure was increased, the subjects started
making errors, mainly producing diphthongs and monophthongs of a quality in
between the two targets. Interestingly, the pairs, peep-pip, poop-pup and porp-
pop, and vice versa, never resulted in errors, presumably because the same
muscles are involved in the production of these pairs. These findings led Laver
to conclude that vowels are not represented as unitary segments but have
“primarily a motor representation” (p. 26). Laver also concluded that the role
played in vowel production by auditory feedback control is minimized.
Mowrey and MacKay (1990) too are sceptical about the role of segments in
speech production. They analyzed electromyographic recordings of sublexical
speech errors elicited by means of tongue twisters, and concluded that many
deviations from the target sound were graded. In other words, the errors did not
consist of one segment replacing another segment, or one feature another feature,
but rather of small deviations in the movement of the articulatory muscles, some
of which were not even audible to trained phoneticians.
It seems then that the evidence on this issue is conflicting. While most
sound errors clearly involve single segments, there is also some evidence that
segments are not stored as units, but need to be constructed. In this respect it
might be important to note that both Laver’s study and Mowrey and MacKay’s
study involved the production of tongue twisters. It is possible that the sound
errors in this task are due to articulatory movement problems, while the sound
errors in the spontaneous speech error corpora originated at the earlier level of
phonological encoding.
2. Anticipations are more common than perseverations (Boomer and Laver 1968;
Cohen 1966; Fromkin 1971; Nooteboom 1969; Van den Broecke and Goldstein
1980; but see Abd-El-Jawad and Abu-Salim 1987; Del Viso, Igoa and García-
Albea 1987; Shattuck-Hufnagel 1987; Stemberger 1989)
Anticipations and perseverations (and exchanges, see below) are known as

contextual slips of the tongue because they are caused by the linguistic context
in which the error occurs. In the case of anticipations a linguistic unit is substi-
tuted by one occurring later in the utterance, as in example 1, in which the sound
‘t’ from ‘teeth’ is anticipated in the error tarp. Perseverations are slips of the
tongue in which a linguistic unit is substituted by one occurring earlier in the
utterance (see example 2). In some cases a slip is both an anticipation and a
perseveration (see example 3).1
(1) ta(rp) [t]eeth (sharp teeth; 104t1)
(2) [on] the bottom on the sea (on the bottom of the sea; 108t1)
(3) something you [c]an, ket get [c]oal in (get;106t1)
The mere presence of contextual slips constitutes evidence that different fragments
of the message to be produced are active at the same time (Levelt 1989).
With respect to the frequency of the different kinds of contextual slips of
the tongue, Boomer and Laver (1968) mentioned a prevalence of anticipatory
slips over perseveratory slips, which they explained in terms of tone groups.
Cohen (1966) found that of 600 contextually determined phonological slips in his
corpus, 78% were anticipations, 15% were perseverations and 7% were exchang-
es. Very similar proportions were reported by Nooteboom (1969): 75% anticipa-
tions, 20% perseverations and 5% exchanges. Nooteboom explained the relative
frequency of anticipations as a result of the speakers’ inclination to direct their
attention to the future. He also noted though that the percentage of perseverations
increased considerably (up to 40%) when subjects were asked to read tongue
twisters with an abundance of similar clusters at a fast rate, and (up to 75%)
when the tongue twisters consisted of nonsense syllables.
Other researchers have questioned the frequency of anticipations in sponta-
neous speech. Abd-El-Jawad and Abu-Salim (1987) reported that their Arabic
corpus contained 61 segmental anticipations and 59 segmental perseverations.
Shattuck-Hufnagel (1987) argued that the large number of anticipations in
Nooteboom’s corpus is misleading if one considers that an error like tame —
same time, which is usually regarded as an anticipation, is incomplete and might
as well be regarded as the first half of an exchange. An analysis of all completed
errors in the MIT corpus showed that consonant anticipations were actually less
1. Examples given in this book are from the L2 slip project, unless otherwise specified. Slips of the
tongue in them have been underlined. In the case of contextually determined slips, the source of the
error is marked between [square brackets]. The target is given in (brackets), following the example,
unless it is clear from the subject’s correction. The subject’s identity is specified by a file-code, also
following the example. The first digit marks the subject’s proficiency level, 101 referring to a second-
year university student of English, 201 to a 5-VWO pupil, and 301 to a 3-VWO pupil. The last two
digits specify the task in which the slip was made, t1 being task I and so on. Numbers in the
examples are used to indicate the approximate length of pauses in seconds. A comma indicates a
pause that lasted less than a second. The text between $ $ contains information on the subject’s
behaviour, e.g. $laughs$, $coughs$. The text between () was not actually spoken, but has been added
to indicate the speaker’s intended meaning as we interpreted it.
frequent than consonant perseverations (95 vs 182). Stemberger (1989) reported

similar figures. Of 1472 between-word phonological errors produced by adults
15.8% were anticipations and 33.4% were perseverations. The percentage of
incompletes is 41.2. For lexical errors, the figures are 8.3% anticipations, 13.3%
perseverations and 54.1% incompletes. Del Viso, Igoa and García-Albea (1987)
too reported a much larger proportion of perseverations than anticipations, both
at the phonological (459 pers. vs 149 ant.) and at the lexical level (33 pers. vs 19
ant.). They too considered completed errors only. Del Viso et al. also found 71
phonological and 2 lexical errors that could be interpreted as both anticipations
and perseverations.
3. Exchanges are very infrequent (Cohen 1966; Dell 1986; Nooteboom 1969; but
see Garrett 1980a; Stemberger 1989; and particularly Abd-El-Jawad and Abu-
Salim 1987; Del Viso et al. 1987)
Exchanges too are contextually determined. They are slips of the tongue in which
two units swap position (see example 4).
(4) the [n]ipper is [z]arrow (the zipper is narrow; from Fromkin 1971)
Claim 3, concerning the (in)frequency of exchanges, has also yielded conflicting
results. We have already seen that Cohen (1966) and Nooteboom (1969) reported
that few of the contextually determined slips in their corpus were exchanges (7%
and 5%, respectively). Garrett (1980a) said he analysed 200 word exchanges and
200 sound exchanges in the MIT corpus of 6000 slips, which suggests exchanges
constitute 6.6% of the slips in this corpus. However, in view of the round
figures, the corpus may have contained even more exchanges. Stemberger (1989)
noted that exchanges are rare among between-word phonological slips (5%
exchanges) but not among within-clause lexical slips (24.8% exchanges). The
number of exchanges in the Arabic and Spanish corpora are much larger. Abd-
El-Jawad and Abu-Salim (1987) found 397 exchanges (43.6% of the total
number of slips in their corpus). Of these 43 concerned whole words, 261 were
segmental exchanges within a single word, 36 were segmental exchanges across
words and 57 concerned all root consonants. Del Viso et al. (1987) reported 194
phonological and 140 lexical exchanges, which amounts to 12.6% and 11.3% of
the 1535 phonological and 1238 lexical errors in their corpus. These findings
suggest that the frequency of exchanges may be language-specific.
4. Phonological units involved in movement errors usually keep their original

position in the syllable (Boomer and Laver 1968; Fromkin 1971; García-Albea et
al. 1989; Garrett 1975; Laubstein 1987; MacKay 1970b; Nooteboom 1969;
Shattuck-Hufnagel 1982).
This claim has become known as the “syllable position constraint”. It entails that
“initial segments in the origin syllable replace initial segments in the target
syllable, nuclear replace nuclear and final replace final” (Boomer and Laver
1968: 126). The syllable position constraint explains why consonants only switch
with consonants and vowels only with vowels (MacKay 1970b; Fromkin 1971;
but see Meijer 1997). The claim has received a great deal of support. Nooteboom
(1969) pointed out that in his collection no errors were found in which a
prevocalic consonant influences a postvocalic consonant and vice versa. Origin
and target element occupied the same syllable positions. Likewise, MacKay
(1970b) reported that 98% of reversed consonants and 81% of reversed vowels
originated in the same syllabic position. Laubstein reported that 88% of 559
between-word phonological slips (both vowels and consonants) observed the
syllable position constraint. García-Albea et al. (1989) said that in 96% of the
cases interacting consonants occupied the same position.
The syllable position constraint was interpreted as an indication that
syllables figure as units in speech performance, and that “the segments constitut-
ing each syllable must have sequential ordering” (Fromkin 1968: 64). Similarly,
Shattuck-Hufnagel (1982) first argued that the syllable position constraint on
interacting segments pointed to a syllabic framework to guide the serial ordering
process (but see below).
Lately, A. Meyer (1997) and P. Meijer (1997) have questioned the syllable
position constraint. They argue that 80% of the evidence for this constraint
comes from onset-onset interactions, which reflects the fact that onsets are
particularly error prone rather than that consonants are bound to a particular
position in the syllable. Also, the point that vowels do not take the position of
consonants and vice versa does not constitute strong evidence, they say. They
suggest that this finding may be due to the phonetic similarity constraint. Vowels
are more similar to vowels than to consonants. Moreover, the substitution of a
vowel by a consonant might result in an unpronounceable string and might be
rare for this reason. In fact, Meijer (1997) conducted an experiment in which
vowels did interact with consonants and vice versa, when they were appropriately
primed. For instance, item would be substituted for ‘stem’ when primed by the
words ice, ivy and idol.
5. Word-or syllable-initial consonants are more likely to be involved in slips than

final sounds (Garrett 1975, 1980a; Laubstein 1987; MacKay 1970b; Shattuck-
Hufnagel 1987; Stemberger 1985; Van den Broecke and Goldstein 1980)
This claim, which describes the “initialness effect”, was first made by MacKay
(1970b), who noted that of the within word exchanges 96% and of the between
word exchanges 81% were syllable-initial. The point was also supported by
Stemberger (1985), who found that 80% of errors involving consonants occur in
consonants that are word- or syllable-initial. The most convincing support for the
initialness effect, however, comes from Shattuck-Hufnagel (1987), who reported
that 66% of all consonant errors in her corpus occurred in word-onset position,
while in normal adult speech only 33% of all consonants occur word-initially. A
similar percentage was also reported by Laubstein (1987) in whose corpus of 559
submorphemic speech errors 63% involved the substitution of onsets by onsets.
Shattuck-Hufnagel (1987) noted that there was some unclarity as to whether
the initialness effect was related to word- or syllable-initial sounds. Moreover,
she noted that the effect might be (partly) an effect of stress (see claim 6). After
all, most errors occurred in monosyllabic words, and these normally carry stress.
In an experiment set up to unravel whether it is word- or syllable-onset position
or stress which causes the frequent exchange of word-initial consonants, she
showed that it is word- rather than syllable-initial position which causes errors,
and that stress also has an effect. These results have been confirmed by Shat-
tuck-Hufnagel (1992).
Shattuck-Hufnagel (1987) related the frequency of word-initial errors to her
“slots-and-fillers” model of phonological encoding. She suggests that the frame
to be filled in phonological encoding initially consists of two parts, one for the
word onset, and one for “the rest of the word”, called the rhyme. Errors often
arise as a result of the onset mistakenly being linked to the wrong “rest of the word”.
At a later stage a frame is created for the segments in the rest of the word. At
this stage, all segments of a word are equally likely to be involved in errors.
Again, there is also counterevidence. An analysis of critical cases in the
Spanish corpus collected by Del Viso et al. revealed that while there is evidence
for a syllable-initial effect, there is no evidence for a word-initial effect: Onset
errors did outnumber coda errors, but non-word-initial, syllable-initial substitu-
tions were found to be more common than word-initial ones (García-Albea et al.
1989). For a discussion of these data, and a comparison with English and
German data, see also Berg (1991a).
6. Errors occur more frequently in stressed than in unstressed syllables (Boomer

and Laver 1968; Fromkin 1971; Garrett 1975; Nooteboom 1969)
Boomer and Laver (1968) were the first to note that slips predominantly involved
salient syllables. Nooteboom (1969: 150) confirmed the point, stating that “in
significantly more cases than is to be expected in a random distribution the
elements involved in a speech error belong to stressed syllables”. Garrett (1975)
reported that this point was also supported by the errors in the MIT corpus,
where of 137 sound exchanges, 92% involved two salient syllables.
Cutler (1982b) noted that the frequency of errors in stressed syllables may
be due to perceptual bias. It is probably easier to detect errors in stressed
syllables than in unstressed ones. In this respect it is remarkable that according
to Berg (1991a) the claim does not hold in Spanish. Berg’s analysis of segmental
slips of the tongue in the Oviedo corpus showed that they occur with chance
frequency in stressed and unstressed syllables.
The experiments by Shattuck-Hufnagel (1987), which were mentioned
above, clearly indicated though that whatever the effect of perceptual bias, stress
is a factor affecting error rate in word-initial consonants.
7. Errors occur more frequently in open-class words than in closed-class words

(Garrett 1980a; Nooteboom 1969; but see Dell 1990; Stemberger 1985)
Nooteboom (1969) reported that in 521 cases the origin of a phonemic slip was
an open-class word (either a noun — which he calls “substantive” —, a verb, an
adjective or an adverb), while in only 49 cases it was a closed-class word.
Similarly, in 550 cases the target word was an open-class word and in only 20
cases a closed-class word. He related this finding to the point that open-class
words, and particularly nouns, are often stressed, hence attract relatively many
speech errors (see claim 6). Garrett (1980a) suggested there might be a psycho-
logical distinction between open- and closed-class vocabulary. It could be that
closed-class vocabulary plays a more structural role in production, in that it
determines the sentence form, while open-class vocabulary is selected later and
inserted in the frame thus created. He cited evidence for this distinction from a
comparative study of normal speakers and agrammatic aphasics by Bradley
(1978). In this study it was found that for normal speakers word frequency
affected lexical decision times of open-class words only, while for the aphasics
it affected the lexical decision times of both open- and closed-class words equally.
Conversely, Stemberger (1985) argued that it is not wordclass (content vs
function words), but word frequency which explains differences in the number
of errors in open- and closed-class words. Content words are usually less
frequent than function words, and hence more errors occur in them. Stemberger
used this argument to support his point that content and function words do not
have different representations in the mental lexicon.
Later Dell (1990) provided experimental support for Stemberger’s point,
using the SLIP technique. The results showed that the status of the word has no
effect, but that frequency has. Interestingly, Dell also showed that it is frequency
of the phonological form rather than the lemma, which determines the error rate.
This last finding is in line with Jescheniak and Levelt’s (1994) finding that the
word frequency effect in speech production is to be located at the level of the
word form (or lexeme) rather than the lemma.
Dell explains the frequency effect as a result of practice leading to the
direct retrieval of frequently used forms. He notes that such an explanation is in
line with Anderson’s (1983, 1986) cognitive theory of learning. According to this
theory frequent production of a sequence results in special purpose procedures
being created for the execution of that sequence (Dell 1990: 343; see also Chapter 3).
8. When two segments exchange, they tend to be phonetically similar (Fromkin

1971; García-Albea et al. 1989; Garrett 1975; Levitt and Healy 1985; MacKay
1970b; Nooteboom 1969; Shattuck-Hufnagel 1982; Shattuck-Hufnagel and Klatt
1979; Van den Broecke and Goldstein 1980)
This claim has become known as the “phonetic similarity constraint”. Early on,
it was noted that consonants only switch with consonants and vowels with
vowels (MacKay 1970b; Fromkin 1971). This finding was related to the observa-
tion that two phonemes involved in a slip of the tongue tend to be phonetically
similar. Phonetic similarity is expressed in the number of features shared by two
phonemes. For instance, /p/ is more similar to /k/ than to /g/, since /p/ and /k/
differ only in the feature ‘place of articulation’, while /p/ and /g/ differ in the
features ‘place of articulation’ and ‘voice’.
MacKay (1970b) analysed the 124 exchanges in Meringer’s corpus and
found that 56% of the reversed consonants differed in only one feature, 33% in
two features, 9% in three features and 2% in all four distinctive features. The
features most often shared by the two phonemes involved are ‘openness’,
‘voicing’ and ‘nasality’. ‘Place of articulation’ is typically not shared. In other
words, the two phonemes involved often differ in terms of ‘place of articulation’
(the same point was also made by Boomer and Laver 1968: 126).
These findings were confirmed in several other studies. Van den Broecke
and Goldstein (1980) analysed a large number of single consonant exchanges,
anticipations, perseverations and substitutions from Fromkin’s UCLA corpus,

Shattuck-Hufnagel’s MIT corpus and Meringer’s corpus of German speech
errors. Again, they found ‘place of articulation’ to be the feature most often
involved in speech errors. In another study Levitt and Healy (1985) actually
counted the number of features shared by the two interacting phonemes. They
found that of 429 experimentally elicited consonant substitutions — all involving
the phonemes /t/, /s/, /w/, /v/ and /q/ only — 224 (52.2%) differed in terms of 1
feature, 143 (33.3%) in terms of 2 features, and 62 (14.5%) in terms of 3
features. García-Albea et al. (1989) reported that the phonetic similarity con-
straint also applied to their Spanish data. Abd-El-Jawad and Abu-Salim (1987)
said it applies to phoneme substitutions, but not to phoneme exchanges.
Shattuck-Hufnagel and Klatt (1979) tested whether it is similarity or
markedness which causes phonemes to exchange. According to symmetry models
similar phonemes substitute for each other, with substitutions in both directions
being equally probable (that is, /p/ will replace /b/ equally often as /b/ will
replace /p/). Markedness models, however, predict that strong, frequent phonemes
replace weak, infrequent ones. A confusion matrix was generated for 1620
consonantal exchange and substitution errors in the MIT corpus. The matrix
showed that there was no evidence for a markedness model. With the exception
of four segments (/s/, /t/, /w/ and /Š/), each segment appeared as an intrusion just
as often as it appeared as a target. The four exceptional segments showed a
palatal bias, which is not consistent with the markedness model. The more
marked /t/ and /s/ were replaced by the less marked /w/ and /Š/ more often than
vice versa. These results were confirmed by an analysis of Fromkin’s UCLA
corpus. Therefore, Shattuck-Hufnagel and Klatt concluded that phoneme substitu-
tion errors are best explained by a symmetry model and that any target-intrusion
asymmetry can be accounted for by a palatalization mechanism.
Later, Stemberger (1991) investigated the same issue using both speech
error corpora and experimentally elicited speech errors. He observed several
asymmetries, the most notable one being that between /s/ and /w/. Thus, he
confirmed Shattuck-Hufnagel and Klatt’s finding that there is a palatal bias.
Stemberger explained the effect in terms of the underspecification of certain
phonetic features.
9. Two segments are more likely to exchange if they are preceded or followed by
identical sounds (Dell 1984; Dell and Reich 1980; Garrett 1975; MacKay 1970b;
Nooteboom 1969)
This claim describes the “repeated phoneme effect”. The effect is illustrated by
example 5. The /h/ and /l/ are both followed by the phoneme /7/, which has
increased the chances of their exchange.
(5) [h]eft [l]emisphere (target: left hemisphere, from Dell 1984)
MacKay’s (1970b) analysis of 124 exchanges in L1 German showed that in 78%
of the cases identical phonemes preceded or followed the reversed phonemes,
whereas the chance expectation was only 14%. Dell (1984: 229) reported a much
lower percentage: “Repeated phonemes were found in the adjacent position
(Position 2) in 28.6% of the exchanges” (in the Toronto corpus), but this figure
is still much higher than the chance expectancy of less than 10% estimated by Dell.
In the same article Dell also provided experimental support for the repeated
phoneme effect. He conducted two experiments, both using the SLIP technique.
In one of these half of the critical pairs contained similar vowels, and in the
second one a number of additional critical pairs were included which were
designed to test whether similar final consonants could also induce initial
consonant slips. Both experiments supported the hypothesis that repeated vowels
increase the occurrence of slips of the tongue. In addition, the second experiment
showed that also non-adjacent similar sounds lead to an increase in initial sound
exchanges, anticipations and perseverations. On the basis of these findings, which
corroborated earlier findings from analyses of speech error corpora, Dell argued
against so-called adjacency accounts (e.g. Wickelgren 1969, 1976 and MacKay
1970b), in which only neighbouring sounds could have an effect. Rather, Dell
suggested, the effect can be accounted for in terms of a spreading activation
model (see Section 1.3.1 for details).
10. Slips of the tongue will not result in sequences of phonemes that are not
possible in the language (Boomer and Laver 1968; Dell 1986, 1988; Fromkin
1971; Garrett 1980a, 1980b; MacKay 1970b; Van den Broecke and Goldstein
1980; Wells 1951)
This claim was first made by Wells (1951), who noted that while slips might
result in non-words such as scrill, sny and mip, they rarely result in impossible
words with un-English sounds (as in loef) or with un-English combinations (as
in ktin, pmip, or ksob). MacKay (1970b) noted that none of the 124 exchanges in
Meringer’s corpus violate “Wells’ Law”. Fromkin (1971) noted that if a sound
exchange results in a phonologically illegal sequence, as in the exchange of the
initial /p/ and /v/ in ‘play the victor’, accommodation takes place to prevent word
initial /vl/, which is illegal in English, causing the slip to come out as flay the pictor.
A similar case of accommodation was noted by Boomer and Laver (1968): when
the /f/ in ‘confusing’ is substituted by a /p/, the preceding /n/ is changed to an
/m/, resulting in a fairly compus … confusing pattern.
Fromkin (1971) pointed out that accommodation also takes place when an
exchange of syllables or morphemes results in a phonologically illegal sequence,
as is illustrated by the occurrence of bloodent studie/z/ for ‘bloody student/s/’ and
add up/s/ to for ‘add/z/ up to’, where voiceless /s/ is changed into voiced /z/ and
vice versa to suit the requirements of a voiced and voiceless context, and also by
an arrent curgument for ‘a current argument’, where an /n/ is added to ‘a’ after
the consonant /k/ has been deleted from ‘current’.
Garrett (1980a, 1980b) argued that cases of accommodation provide
evidence of an ordering of the processes which cause them. First, an error is
made in assigning a selected element to the correct slot, and then the processes
which determine the phonetic form of tense and number morphemes or of the
indefinite article are carried out.
11. Phonological errors usually result in existing words (Baars, Motley and
MacKay 1975; Dell 1985; Dell and Reich 1981)
In several studies it has been observed that phonological slips more often result
in existing words than in non-words. For instance, the error to take for ‘to make’
would be more likely than the error touse for ‘mouse’. In both cases /m/ is
replaced by /t/, but in the first case the substitution results in an existing word,
whereas in the second case it does not. This tendency has become known as the
“lexical bias effect”.
Evidence for the lexical bias effect was first provided by Baars, Motley and
MacKay (1975). They used the SLIP procedure to test whether slips of the
tongue are more likely to occur when they result in existing words than in non-
existing words. This proved to be the case. More subjects slipped on L-L
experimental pairs like darn-bore, resulting in barn door, than on L-N experi-
mental pairs like dart-board, resulting in bart-doard. Apparently, subjects
evaluate the outcome of a spoonerism for lexical legitimacy before they utter it.
Interestingly, Baars et al. also found that the lexical bias effect was reduced
when the context consisted of non-words, that is, when the non-target items (bias
pairs and fillers) were not real words. This suggests that the lexical editor only
funtions if the task is essentially lexical in nature.
Dell and Reich (1981) examined the sound errors in the Toronto corpus to
see if they exhibited lexical bias. They first considered all phonological exchang-
es, anticipations and perseverations involving word-initial phonemes and found
that these phonological errors (N = 363) exhibited a strong lexical bias: averaged
over three error types, 60% of the outcomes resulted in existing words, which is
more frequent than the 45% lexical outcomes which would be expected by
chance. Dell and Reich argued that these findings constitute evidence against
Garrett’s (1975, 1976) assumption that there are two fully independent stages of
production: the functional stage at which an underlying grammatical representa-
tion of the sentence to be spoken is constructed, and at which lexical items are
selected and inserted into this representation, and a positional stage at which a
representation is constructed consisting of phonologically specified morphemes
stored in the order in which they are to be spoken. If the functional and the
positional level were fully independent, which is what Garrett claimed, the
positional stage should not have access to the mental lexicon, and hence phono-
logical substitutions should not be influenced by the lexicality of the outcome.
That is, errors at the phonological level should not more frequently result in
existing words than is to be expected by chance. From their finding that sound
errors do exhibit lexical bias, Dell and Reich concluded “that information can
leak between stages through the lexicon” (p. 627). In other words, they accepted
the distinction between the functional and the positional level, but argued that the
two levels are not completely independent of each other.
Dell (1985) used the SLIP technique to study the time dependence of the
lexical bias effect. In essence the experiment was a replication of Baars et al.
(1975, discussed above), but subjects had to utter the critical pairs at three
different deadlines, viz. 500, 700, or 1000 ms. The experiment showed that the
shorter deadlines resulted in more errors, but also that the lexical bias effect was
only present at the two longer deadlines. Dell explained this by arguing that in
his spreading activation network model the lexical bias effect comes about
through feedback from the phonological to the lexical level. Since it takes time
for the activation to spread backwards, lexical bias does not occur at very fast
speech rates.
12. Lexical substitutions often involve phonologically and/or semantically related

words (Arnaud to appear; Butterworth 1982; Fay and Cutler 1977; Fromkin 1971;
Garrett 1980a; Harley 1984; Hotopf 1980, 1983; Nooteboom 1969)
Nooteboom (1969) noted that word substitutions often involve phonologically

related words, such as prepare for ‘prepay’, combination for ‘contamination’ and
literature for ‘temperature’. Phonologically motivated substitutions like this are
called “malapropisms” (Fay and Cutler 1977). Fay and Cutler (1977) reported
that 46% of the 397 non-contextually determined lexical substitutions in their
corpus were malapropisms, the remaining 54% involving two semantically

related words. Hotopf (1983) reported a similar proportion for his naturalistic
corpus in which 48% of 232 non-contextually determined lexical substitutions
were “structural”, i.e., malapropisms, but a much larger proportion for Merin-
ger’s corpus in which 62% (of 339 cases) were malapropisms. In any case,
phonologically determined lexical substitutions appear to be quite frequent. The
existence of malapropisms suggested to Fay and Cutler (1977) that a single
mental lexicon, in which words are arranged by phonemic structure, is used for
both comprehension and production (see also Garrett 1980a for the same point).
Word substitutions may also involve two semantically related words
(including antonyms). Examples are slips like tree for ‘flower’, contemporary for
‘adjacent’ and I really like to for ‘I really hate to’ (examples from Fromkin 1971;
Nooteboom 1969 and Hotopf 1980). The proportion of “semantic” substitutions
ranges from 54% (Fay and Cutler 1977); 52% (Hotopf’s naturalistic corpus);
38% (Meringer’s corpus) to 28% (Arnaud to appear). Hotopf (1980) specifies the
kinds of semantic relationships: 31.25% were complements, antonyms or
converses (e.g. early-late, husband-wife) and 44.6% were co-hyponyms (e.g.
breakfast-lunch, red-black). The remaining 24.2% were in a kind of hyponomous
relation (e.g. Saturday-January, Europe-Britain). Abd-El-Jawad and Abu-Salim
(1987) found that 17% of the non-contextual whole-word substitutions were
antonyms, 58% were co-hyponyms and the remaining 25% involved words/
elements present in the environment. Arnaud reported that of the 322 “semantic”
substitutions in his French corpus, 91 were antonymic (28.3%), while the
remaining ones were mainly co-hyponymic. Arnaud suggested the occurrence of
these slips supports a decomposed (or distributed) connectionist view of the
mental lexicon, in which semantic features have separate representations, as
suggested by Tanenhaus, Dell and Carlson (1987).
Nooteboom (1969) concluded from the existence of meaning- and sound-
related substitutions that words might be organized in the lexicon in semantic
fields, but also in formal fields, and that the selection of word meaning and word
form are separate processes. A similar proposal was made by Garrett (1980a), who
suggested that meaning- and sound-related lexical substitutions arise at different
levels. Meaning-related substitutions were said to arise at the functional level,
where lexical items are selected “for assignment to argument positions, and for
the purpose of guiding selection of specific phrase planning frames” (p. 208).
Form-related lexical substitutions, Garrett supposed, arise at a later level,
following lexical specification at the functional level, but prior to the construction
of a specific phrasal environment at the positional level (p. 208). Along the same
lines, Butterworth (1982) suggested lexical retrieval takes place in two steps. In
step 1 a lexical item in the semantic lexicon is accessed by a semantic represen-

tation, via a content address, and in step 2, this lexical item is used to access an
item in the phonological lexicon (cf. also Levelt 1989). In this model too, errors
can occur at either stage, yielding the selection of semantically and phonological-
ly similar items respectively.
In their attempt to test the independence of Garrett’s functional and
positional levels, Dell and Reich (1981) also investigated whether semantic word
substitutions (e.g. knee for ‘elbow’) and lexical insertion errors, that is, contextu-
ally determined lexical substitutions, were more phonologically related than
would be expected by chance. This proved to be the case, a finding which has
recently been confirmed in a naming study by Martin, Gagnon, Schwartz, Dell
and Saffran (1996). Dell (1986) explained the relative frequency of these “mixed
phonological/lexical errors” in terms of a spreading activation model of lexical
access in which activation can spread both from the semantic to the phonological
level and vice versa (see also Harley 1984, for a similar proposal). Levelt
(1989: 355) noted that malapropisms can only be explained in this way if the rate
of speaking is low. Otherwise, there is not sufficient time for the backward
spreading to take effect.
13. Lexical blends usually involve two (near) synonyms (Arnaud to appear;
Butterworth 1982; Fromkin 1971; Garrett 1980a; Nooteboom 1969)
Fromkin (1971) listed a number of blends showing that they usually consist of
a combination of two semantically similar words. Some examples are maistly, a
blend of ‘mainly’ and ‘mostly’ and I swinged, a blend of ‘I switched’ and ‘I
changed’. Baars (1980) noted that such blends probably result from competing
speech plans. Arnaud (to appear) also lists blends resulting from competing
plans, e.g. une belle /eIklIz/ (a blend of ‘église’ and ‘écluse’) and c’est au milieu
de la /ryt/ (a blend of ‘rue’ and ‘route’). The existence of blends of two near
synonyms supports the idea that semantic features play a role in word selection.
It also suggests that two alternative candidates may be simultaneously retrieved
and further processed resulting in their joint articulation (cf. Garrett 1980a: 211;
Levelt et al. 1999). Arnaud (to appear) interpreted blends of synonyms as support
for the existence of separate representational levels for concepts and lemmas, in
addition to a third level of lexemes (see also Levelt 1989; Levelt et al. 1999).
14. Lexical slips normally involve words belonging to the same wordclass (Fay
and Cutler 1977; Fromkin 1971; Garrett 1980a; Nooteboom 1969; Abd-El-Jawad
and Abu-Salim 1987; García-Albea et al. 1989)
This constraint has become known as the “syntactic category constraint”. It is

based on the observation that nouns tend to substitute for nouns, verbs for verbs,
adjectives for adjectives, and so on. Fay and Cutler (1977) reported that in
lexical substitutions target and error word are of the same grammatical category
in 99% of the cases (N = 183). Garrett (1980a) found that 85% of 200 word
exchanges involved words of the same syntactic category. Abd-El-Jawad and
Abu-Salim (1987) reported no exceptions at all. According to García-Albea et al.
(1989) 88% of the lexical exchanges in their corpus (N = 167) preserved the
grammatical category of the word involved in the error. In some cases, Fromkin
(1971) noted, slips involve the exchange of complete syntactic phrases, as in I
wouldn’t buy kids for the macadamia nuts for ‘I wouldn’t buy macadamia nuts for
the kids’. Nooteboom (1969) noted that in slips involving affixes (N = 22),
prefixes always replaced prefixes and suffixes always replaced suffixes, as is
illustrated by expiration in experiments for ‘inspiration in experiments’.
The syntactic category constraint suggests that the grammatical structure of
the intended utterance restricts the selection of words (Nooteboom 1969: 155).
Or, as Levelt (1989: 182) put it: “Certain items in the lexicon are activated
during grammatical encoding by the fulfillment of their syntactic conditions”.
This suggests that wordclass may be one of the selection criteria in lexical access.
Berg (1992) investigated this issue. More particularly, he was interested in
the question whether lexical access is constrained by wordclass and gender. He
argued that wordclass information is probably exploited as an access feature,
since this would greatly enhance the success of the retrieval procedure (p. 200).
Conversely, gender is probably not used as an access feature, since it is unlikely
that gender information is available prior to the lexical item itself, gender being
an essentially arbitrary feature of nouns, which is not normally meaning-related.
To test these predictions Berg examined all contextual and non-contextual speech
errors in the Braunschweig corpus as well as a number of “paraphasias” (which
are like word substitutions) produced by a German-speaking aphasic patient.
Somewhat surprisingly, the results indicated that both wordclass and gender
affected lexical access, although the effect was larger for wordclass than for
gender. This suggests that while both features play a role in lexical access, the
roles are not the same. To account for these results, Berg proposed a model in
which properties like wordclass and gender are represented as independent
classes of nodes in a parallel-interactive processing network. To account for the
weaker effect of gender he assumed that prelexical features (such as wordclass)
are available before lexical selection, and hence exert a direct influence, while
postlexical features (such as gender) only become available after a subset of
nodes has already been activated, and hence are less likely to influence the
processing result (p. 219).
Our review has shown that most of the claims regarding slips of the tongue
in adult native speech production are supported by researchers working with
different corpora. In five cases researchers disagree though. One disagreement
concerns the role of phonetic features, which in some experimental studies do
appear to play a role but which in spontaneous corpora appear to play only a
minor role. Another controversy appears to be the ratio of anticipations and
perseverations. However, if incompleted anticipations are excluded, persevera-
tions clearly outnumber anticipations. The remaining cases of disagreement relate
to the frequency of exchanges, the word-initialness effect and the tendency of
phonological slips to occur in stressed syllables. Exchanges are infrequent in
English corpora, but quite frequent in the Arabic and Spanish corpora collected
by Abd-El-Jawad and Abu-Salim (1987) and Del Viso et al. (1987) respectively.
The two other effects appear to be true for English and German slips, but not for
Spanish ones (see the studies by Berg 1991a and García-Albea et al. 1989).
While it is possible that these language-related differences are due to differences
in identification or classification procedures, it may also be the case that slips of
the tongue are language-specific to some extent. The ultimate implication of this
might even be that the speech production process is language-specific in certain
respects. To test whether this is indeed the case it would be a good idea to
replicate some of the speech production research with non-Germanic language data.
1.3 Two monolingual models of speech production
From the discussion in Section 1.2, it is clear that researchers have noted, and
collected further evidence for a substantial number of regularities in the speech
error data. These regularities have been of great importance, because they lay at
the basis of much theory building. Over the years, many attempts have been
made to develop models of speech production, or parts thereof, which could
explain these regularities. Examples of this work can be found in Berg (1992),
Dell and Reich (1980), Dell (1986), Fromkin (1971), Garrett (1975, 1976,
1980a), Levelt (1989), Shattuck-Hufnagel (1982, 1987) and Stemberger (1985).
In this section two of these models, viz. those by Dell (1986) and Levelt (1989)
will be discussed in detail. It is important to note that while both models were
originally largely based on speech error research, many of their features have
been supported in the last decade by research involving computational modelling
and experimental studies involving the timing of subjects’ responses in tasks
such as lexical decision, picture naming and related word production tasks (Dell
1995; Dell, Burger and Svec 1997; Dell, Schwartz, Martin, Saffran and Gagnon
1997; Levelt, Roelofs and Meyer 1999). Some changes have also been suggested
though (see particularly Dell, Juliano and Govindjee 1993 and Levelt et al.
1999). In this chapter, the models will first be presented in their original version,
whereafter the changes will be briefly discussed. The main reason for this
approach is that the original 1986 and 1989 models were largely based on the
regularities observed in the studies of slips of the tongue as discussed in this
chapter. Another reason is that the original models lay at the basis of several
models trying to account for speech production in the case of bilingual speakers
(including L2 and L3 learners). Some of these “bilingual” models of speech
production (see e.g. De Bot 1992; De Bot and Schreuder 1993; Green 1986,
1998; Poulisse and Bongaerts 1994) will be discussed in Chapter 3.
1.3.1 Dell (1986) and beyond
The first monolingual model of speech production to be discussed here is that

presented by Dell (1986, 1988). Dell’s theory combines notions from linguistic
theory regarding linguistic levels, rules and units with the mechanism of spread-
ing activation. Thus, it can be classified as a spreading activation theory.
According to Dell (1986), at least three levels of encoding need to be
distinguished: syntactic encoding, morphological encoding and phonological
encoding. Each level of encoding is associated with a set of productive, or
generative, rules that define the possible combinations of units at that level. The
rules are said to generate frames with categorized slots. For instance, at the
syntactic level, a frame may be produced for the sentence this cow eats grass
which has slots for Determiner, Noun, present-tense Verb, and Noun (Dell 1986:
286). At the morphological level there might be slots for stems and affixes, and
at the phonological level there might be slots for onsets and rhymes (consisting
of nuclei and codas), or for consonants and vowels.
The slots which are created by the linguistic rules need to be filled in with
units, like words, morphemes and phonemes. These units are stored in the
lexicon, which has the form of a hierarchical network with connections between
nodes at the syntactic, morphological and phonological levels. The units are
specified for the category they belong to. Thus, the words cow and grass are
labeled as nouns. Dell refers to this category marking as insertion rules and
explains that these insertion rules see to it that units of the appropriate category
are inserted into the slots in the frames (Dell 1986: 286–7).
Retrieval of the required units from the lexicon takes place via the mechanism
of spreading activation. In general, the node of the required category with the
highest level of activation is the one that will be selected. After its selection, its
activation level drops to prevent its being selected over and over again. The
nodes which have been selected to fill in a frame’s slots are tagged (to specify
the order in which they need to be encoded) and together they constitute a
representation of the sentence to be spoken. Higher level representations, such as
those at the syntactic level, guide the selection of nodes at a lower level. Thus,
a word selected to fill a particular syntactic slot will spread activation to the
morphemes which are needed to fill the slots of the corresponding morphological
frame. Similarly, activation will spread from the morphemes to the phonemes
needed for the phonological representations.
Dell’s model uses two mechanisms: the frame-and-slot mechanism and the
spreading activation mechanism. The first mechanism is supported by the finding
that in slips of the tongue units of one kind rarely interact with units of another
kind. As we have seen in the previous section, virtually all lexical substitutions
preserve syntactic category and stems do not take the place of affixes and vice
versa, nor do affixes and suffixes exchange (i.e. slips follow the syntactic
category constraint, claim 14). Similarly, consonants and vowels do not replace
each other, but always end up in consonant and vowel slots (claim 4). Moreover,
the phonological units involved in slips usually keep their original position in the
syllable (syllable position constraint, claim 4) and the outcome of slips is usually
well-formed (Wells’ Law, claim 10).
The spreading activation mechanism, with activation spreading both ways,
and the lexical network through which the activation spreads are supported by
various other speech error findings. The network, with connections between
related concepts, allows the simultaneous activation of semantically related
words. This explains the occurrence of semantically related lexical substitutions
and lexical blends (claims 12 and 13). Phonologically related lexical errors (or
malapropisms, claim 12) are explained as the result of activation spreading from
a target word to the target word’s phonemes and from there back up to other
non-target words that share those sounds. This backward spreading of activation
accounts for three other findings. One is the repeated phoneme effect (claim 9).
If a single phoneme node is activated twice from two syllabic nodes, activation
also spreads back up to two syllables and may cause activation to leak from the
correct syllable to a competing syllable, resulting in the untimely production of
one or more of its phonemes (Dell 1984). The second is that semantic and
phonological influences can combine to increase the chances of slips. This
explains why many of the semantically related word substitutions are also
phonologically similar (claim 12, Dell and Reich 1981; Del Viso et al. 1991;
Harley 1984). And the third finding it accounts for is that phonological slips tend
to result in words rather than non-words (lexical bias effect, claim 11). Finally,
the spreading activation mechanism accounts for the occurrence of lexical and
phonological anticipations and perseverations. Anticipations result from units
being “over-activated” too early and perseverations result from units being
activated for too long a time, for instance because they are simultaneously
activated from two or more sources.
Recently, Dell, Juliano and Govindjee (1993) have suggested that there may
be an alternative explanation for some of the regularities in phonological slips of
the tongue. They suggest that four general constraints, which formed the
foundation for the frame-and-slot mechanism in Dell’s 1986 model (and other
models by Levelt 1989; MacKay 1987; Meyer 1990, 1991; Shattuck-Hufnagel
1979 and Stemberger 1990, 1991) can also be explained by a PDP (parallel
distributed processing) model, which does not postulate linguistic structures,
frames or rules, but holds that rule-like behaviour emerges when links between
different nodes in the network are strengthened as a result of practice. The four
constraints are the phonotactic regularity effect (Wells’ Law, claim 10), the
consonant–vowel category effect (claim 4), the syllabic constituent effect
(syllable position constraint, claim 4) and the initialness effect (claim 5). The
four effects all showed up in computer simulations which involved a PDP model
learning to produce sequences of phonological features.
The PDP model differs from Dell’s original model in various respects
besides the frame-and-slot mechanism being given up for phonological encoding.
First, the model’s units are presented in a distributed fashion, which implies that
syllables, syllabic constituents and segments are not stored as units but have to
be constructed from phonetic features. Second, the sequential ordering of
segments is seen to by means of a timing mechanism. The phonemes needed to
encode a syllable are not activated simultaneously, but sequentially, so that the
segments activated first take up the first position in a syllable. This mechanism
allows for a better explanation of the initialness effect and is also more in line
with Meyer (1991), who found that a syllable’s segments are retrieved in order.
And third, activation spreading is no longer interactive. More specifically,
backward spreading activation, from the phonological to the lexical level, is no
longer taken for granted.
Dell et al. (1993) present the PDP approach as an alternative worthy of
further investigation and certainly have not completely rejected the frame-and-
slot approach (see e.g. Dell 1995; Dell, Burger and Svec 1997; Schwartz,
Saffran, Bloch and Dell 1994, which still follow Dell’s original model). In
addition, they are careful to point out that the PDP model cannot account for
some of the speech error effects at the lexical and syntactic levels and hence
they suggest maintaining the frame-and-slot mechanism at these levels. They
assume this is so because the system needs to be more creative at these higher
levels. Sentences must be built, whereas sound sequences making up words can
be retrieved from memory. Dell (1995) uses the creativity hypothesis to explain
why sound errors rarely occur in function words. He suggests that since the
number of function words is limited, there is no need to be creative in construct-
ing them, so that it is possible that their phonological representations are
retrieved in one go.2
1.3.2 Levelt (1989) and beyond
Another very influential model of speech production is Levelt’s (1989) “blueprint

for the speaker”. Levelt’s model divides the speech production process into four
steps: message generation, grammatical encoding, phonological encoding and
articulation. These steps are covered by three autonomous processing compo-
nents: the conceptualizer, the formulator and the articulator (see Figure 1.1). The
assumption of autonomy (often referred to as the “modularity principle”) has
important implications for the functioning of the model. It forbids all interaction
between the processing components (or modules), which means that each
component operates independently, and is, as it were, unaware of what is
happening in previous or following parts of the production process. Each of the
three processing components contains a number of procedures, which make up
the speaker’s procedural knowledge. The procedures operate on the declarative
(or factual) knowledge that is stored in the speaker’s memory.
The first processing component, the conceptualizer, generates messages.
Apart from the conception of a communicative intention, this involves planning
the content as well as the form of the message. Planning the content is called
macroplanning. It involves “selecting the information whose expression may
realize the communicative goals” (Levelt 1989: 5). Planning the form of the
message is referred to as microplanning. Among other things it includes deciding
on an appropriate speech act (e.g., an assertion, a question or a promise),
marking referents as “given” or “new”, and assigning topic and focus. The
generation of messages is influenced by the speakers’ knowledge of what has
2. As we have seen in Section 1.2, Dell (1990) argued that the difference might not be between
content and function words but between frequent and non-frequent words.
been said before in the conversation (discourse model), their knowledge of the
spatio-environment (situation knowledge) and their knowledge of the world
(encyclopedia). In Figure 1.1 this first source of declarative knowledge is repre-
sented as an ellipse. The output of the conceptualizer is a preverbal message,
which can be accepted as input by the second component, the formulator.
Figure 1.1. A model of speech production (from Levelt 1989: 9)
The formulator covers two steps of the speech production process: grammatical
encoding and phonological encoding. For these processes to take place the
formulator has to have access to the mental lexicon, which constitutes a second
source of (linguistic) declarative knowledge. The lexical items which are stored
in the mental lexicon not only specify the meanings of words, but also contain
syntactic, morphological and phonological information about them. In Levelt’s
(1989) model semantic and syntactic information constitute the “lemma” of the
lexical item while morphological and phonological information constitute its

“form” (also referred to as “lexeme”). During the formulation of a message the
conceptual information in the preverbal message triggers the appropriate lexical
items into activity. This frees the syntactic information, which will activate
syntactic procedures like the VP-, NP- and PP-building procedures. The result of
grammatical encoding is a surface structure which is further processed by the
phonological encoder. The phonological encoder works on the basis of the
information contained in the form components of lexical items to produce a
phonetic plan. In the third component, the articulator, the phonetic plan is
transformed into overt speech.
The distinction between lemma retrieval and word form encoding is rooted
in evidence from speech errors. For instance, it is assumed that word exchanges,
which typically respect grammatical category (claim 14) and involve words from
different phrases, are errors of lemma retrieval, arising during syntactic encod-
ing. Conversely, segment exchanges, which typically involve words from
different grammatical categories belonging to the same phrase, are supposed to
take place at the later stage of word form encoding. The same characteristics are
shared by errors involving the exchange of stems (with stranded inflectional
morphemes) as in how many pies does it take to make an apple and errors
involving the exchange of inflectional or derivational morphemes, as in slicely
thinned. The former respect syntactic category and involve words from different
phrases, the latter do not respect grammatical category and involve words from
the same phrase. Hence, the former are said to arise at the level of syntactic
encoding, and the latter at the level of word form encoding.
Levelt’s model of speech production includes a speech comprehension
system, which the speaker uses to parse both internal and overt speech. The
outcome of this process is fed into the monitoring device located in the con-
ceptualizer. This provides speakers with a chance to evaluate their messages. As
Levelt points out, in this way speakers manage to avoid some speech errors and
to repair others.
To account for the fact that the speech production process is incredibly fast,
Levelt suggests that it is largely automatic. Normally, the only activities that
require the speaker’s continual attention are message generation and monitoring.
Hence, these activities are described as controlled. The grammatical and phono-
logical encoding of a message, including lexical access, and articulation are
usually automatic. With some exceptions, say in the case of very infrequent
words, these processes are executed without conscious awareness and do not
share their processing resources with other processes. The high degree of
automaticity allows the speech production process to operate incrementally,
which means that it combines serial and parallel processing. Each fragment of
the message goes through each of the processing components in the same order
as described above. As soon as a fragment exits one component, the next
component starts to operate on it. Thus, the components work in parallel on
different fragments of the message, which makes for a remarkably efficient system.
Since 1989 Levelt’s model has undergone several changes, particularly as
a result of experimental work involving measuring reaction times on word
naming and lexical decision tasks and the like and the construction of a computa-
tional model of Lemma Access and Word Form Encoding by Activation and
VERification, called WEAVER++ (see Levelt 1995; and particularly Levelt et al.
1999). One of the most important changes is the adoption of Roelofs’ (1992)
network model of lexical retrieval, which was adapted from Dell’s, discussed
above. The network is characterized by feedforward activation spreading and
does not allow backward spreading. Within the network there is competition
between activated nodes, but no inhibition. Roelofs’ model contains a conceptual
level in addition to the lemma and word form levels (Levelt 1995). The nodes at
the conceptual level represent lexical concepts. These concepts are non-decom-
posed, that is, they consist of unitary wholes, rather than sets of semantic
features. Levelt et al. (1999) make this assumption because it solves the “hypero-
nym” problem. If lexical concepts were made up of semantic features, each
spreading activation to all the lemmas sharing these features, then speakers would
tend to produce hyperonyms of the intended target words. Thus, they would often say
animal instead of ‘wolf’, which in fact is not the case. In the 1999 model, the
meaning of a lexical concept is represented by its links to other concepts.
When conceptualizing a message, the speaker activates the appropriate
lexical concepts, which spread activation to related lexical concepts and from
there to the corresponding lemmas in the mental lexicon. In addition, function
words such as that in ‘John said that he …’, which have little meaning, may be
selected on syntactic grounds. The lemmas no longer include semantic informa-
tion but consist of packages of syntactic information only (Levelt et al. 1999: 2). The
lemma which is most highly activated is selected and proceeds to spread
activation to the associated word form, freeing the word’s morphological make-
up, its metrical shape and its segmental make-up. Lemmas which are not
selected, do not spread activation to the lower levels.
Another major change concerns the assumption that in addition to the
lexicon, there is a “phonetic syllabary”, which contains articulatory programs for
frequently used syllables (Levelt et al. 1999: 5). An advantage of this is that
highly frequent syllables need not be re-computed time and again. Since the
syllable representations are not included in the mental lexicon, they cannot be
retrieved during phonological encoding. Instead, Levelt et al. argue syllabification

is a late process which takes place during prosodification, after word form retrieval.
While the Levelt et al. model is based on experimental studies of word
naming, lexical decision, category naming and the like, the authors acknowledge
that the model should also be able to account for the regularities observed in
speech error research. For this reason they tested the validity of their theory by
checking whether WEAVER++ could generate the key findings regarding speech
errors discussed in Section 1.2. This proved to be the case for some, but not for
all findings. The following effects were replicated: 1. segmental anticipations
were more frequent than segmental perseverations, while segmental exchanges
were very infrequent (claims 2 and 3, but note that in this respect the evidence
from different speech error studies is conflicting), 2. the lexical bias effect
(claim 11), 3. mixed phonological/lexical errors (claim 12), 4. blends of two
(near)-synonyms (claim 13). The lexical bias effect and mixed errors are
explained by Levelt et al. as the result of monitoring rather than backward
activation spreading. Mixed errors and blends can also be explained if one
assumes that two lemmas can be selected simultaneously. Other effects have not
yet been accounted for. These include the word onset effect in phonological
errors (claim 5) and the decreasing rate of anticipations to perseverations with
increasing error rate (Dell, Burger and Svec 1997; Nooteboom 1969).
To account for the fact that few slips of the tongue are made, Levelt et al.
(1999) assume that selection at all levels is governed by a “binding-by-checking”
mechanism. This mechanism entails that “Each node has a procedure attached to
it that checks whether the node, when active, links up to the appropriate node
one level up” (p. 7). Naturally, this mechanism is not perfect, since some speech
errors do occur.
The two models presented by Dell and Levelt are similar in many respects,
certainly now that Levelt has adopted a network model of lexical retrieval. An
important difference between the two models is that Dell’s 1986 model allows
interaction between the various linguistic levels, while Levelt’s model does not
allow activation to spread from a non-selected node and does not allow feedback
between the different processing components. One of the main reasons for Levelt’s
first assumption is that it would be rather baroque to assume that the word forms
of all semantic alternatives are activated and subsequently suppressed to allow
encoding of the selected lemma (see also Levelt, Schriefers, Vorberg, Meyer,
Pechmann and Havinga 1991 for experimental evidence). The second assumption
entails that lemma selection is not influenced by word forms. Hence, Levelt et al.
give a different explanation for the relative frequency of mixed phonological/
lexical errors, such as rat substituting for ‘cat’ and the lexical bias effect. They
suggest that these effects could be the result of self-monitoring. Speakers are
most likely to detect errors resulting in non-words, and least likely to detect
errors resulting in words that fit the context. For a more elaborate discussion of
interaction in the lexical network see Dell and O’Seaghdha (1992) and Levelt
(1992). In this respect it is also worth noting that Dell, Schwartz et al. (1997)
have recently modified their position, in that they now accept that the selection
processes associated with the two steps of lexical retrieval, viz. lemma access and
phonological access, are modular, even though activation in the lexicon is
allowed to spread both ways.
1.4 Conclusion
This chapter has reviewed studies of slips of the tongue produced by adult native
speakers. In Section 1.1 we have seen that there are two major approaches to
collecting slips of the tongue: one is corpus-based and the other experimental.
Both methods have proved valuable. The corpus-based method yields a large
variety of slips of the tongue produced under normal circumstances, but the
experimental approach is more appropriate to test specific hypotheses. Section 1.2
reviewed the most important findings from the adult native speaker speech error
studies. They were presented in the form of 14 so-called claims, which capture
most of the regularities observed. In Chapter 6 we will see to what extent these
claims are also true for L2 learner data. In Section 1.3 two speech production
models were presented, viz. Dell (1986) and Levelt (1989). It was shown how the
two models were built on and sought to account for speech error findings. We
have also discussed some of the later developments of these models. Although
these are predominantly based on computational modelling and reaction timing
research, the newer versions of course still need to be able to account for speech
error findings.
C 2
Literature Review
Slips of the Tongue in Child Language Production
Since this book deals with slips of the tongue produced by (foreign) language
learners, it will be useful to review studies that have been conducted from a
developmental perspective. In this chapter, we will therefore review L1 acquisi-
tion research dealing with slips of the tongue (Section 2.1). As will become
clear, the findings of these studies are not always straightforward. Nevertheless
the data have led to some suggestions concerning the development of fluency
which might also apply to L2 learners (Section 2.2). This issue will be taken up
again in Chapter 6.
2.1 Research findings
Studies dealing with slips of the tongue in children’s speech have been quite
rare. Jaeger (1992a) noted that this is probably due to the formidable method-
ological problems involved in collecting children’s speech errors. The most
important of these is that children’s grammars are developing grammars, which
means that many of their utterances contain forms which deviate from the adult
forms. The problem therefore is to distinguish between consistent errors, which
result from the child’s current grammar, and slips of the tongue, which deviate
from this child’s current grammar and are in fact due to performance problems
(Jaeger 1992a: 337; Warren 1986: 311–313). Nevertheless, some studies of
children’s slips of the tongue are available.
Before discussing the studies that have been conducted in this area, it is
worth noting that children appear to produce slips of the tongue from a very
early age onwards. Jaeger (1992a) reported that one of her children produced his
first speech error at age 1;7, when still at the one-word stage. Stemberger’s
(1989) corpus too contains seven slips produced by one of his daughters during
the one-word stage, at age 1;10–1;11. Thus, slips of the tongue appear to be part
of speech processing also when the language system has not been fully developed.
In one of the first studies of slips in L1 acquisition, Bowerman (1978)
reported findings relevant to lexical storage. She observed that young children
(between 2 and 5 years of age) at first do not produce any substitution errors
involving semantically related words (like behind for ‘after’), and then go
through a stage during which they produce quite a number of these errors.
Bowerman suggested that the sudden increase in speech errors of this kind
reflects the fact that a reorganization is taking place in the lexicon which results
in relations between semantically similar words. The temporary instability of the
system and the strain which the process of semantic integration puts on the
child’s planning and monitoring capacities cause the children to produce many
speech errors in this area for a while.
Warren (1986) was primarily interested in the frequency of slips produced
by children and adults. Operating on the assumption that all slips have a
psycholanalytic cause (cf. Freud 1901/1973), she hypothesised that children
would make fewer slips of the tongue than adults, since children “are less
inclined to suppress and repress ideas and impulses” (p. 309). To test this
hypothesis Warren analyzed all the slips of the tongue that appeared in the
transcripts of two large child language corpora. One corpus, called the “Nina
corpus”, consisted of 56 sessions in which the child, Nina, interacted with her
mother. The recordings started when Nina was 23 months old and lasted until
she was 39 months old. The total number of words in the corpus was 300,000,
of which approximately 36% were produced by Nina. The other corpus, referred
to as the “Rockefeller corpus”, consisted of 41 sessions in which eight very
bright children interacted with their teacher in a classroom situation. The
children’s ages varied from 32–36 months in session 1 to 38–42 months in the
last session. The corpus consists of 170,000 words, of which 52% were produced
by the children. In view of the large amount of data to be analyzed, Warren
decided not to check the accuracy of the transcriptions. However, she was careful
to exclude any errors that might have been considered typing errors, such as seep
for ‘sleep’, and conducted a separate analysis of ambiguous cases, which might
be slips of the tongue, but might also be changes of mind.
The results of Warren’s analysis indicated that in these two corpora the
children produced considerably fewer slips of the tongue than the adults. In the
Nina corpus, the child produced only 3 slips in 108,000 words and the mother 78
in 192,000 words, and in the Rockefeller corpus the eight children produced 16
slips in 88,400 words and the teacher 41 in 81,600 words. Warren also noted that
Nina’s mother frequently substituted Nina’s name for that of her own young
sister, and that the teacher often substituted two of the children’s names for each
SLIPS OF THE TONGUE IN CHILD LANGUAGE 37
other, while the children in three cases called the teacher mommy. Since these
substitutions did not just involve any names, but revealed certain associations in
the adults’ and the children’s minds, Warren interpreted her data, including the
frequency differences between children and adults, as support for her hypothesis
and thus for her assumption that slips have a psychoanalytic, rather than a
psycholinguistic cause. Nevertheless, she also offered two alternative explana-
tions. One is that children have smaller vocabularies, hence less opportunity for
retrieval errors. And the other is that children do not make certain kinds of slips
because they are not cognitively mature enough to make them. In addition,
Warren noted that psychoanalytic theory cannot explain the phonological form
that certain slips take.
Warren’s study is based on an impressive amount of data. Nevertheless,
there is some reason to doubt her conclusions. Firstly, the number of slips in the
two corpora is small. There are only 138 unambiguous slips in 470,000 words,
which is even less than the 191 slips in the 170,000 word London-Lund corpus.
Since the transcriptions of these corpora were made before it was decided to
investigate the slips in them, it is possible that some or many of the slips went
unnoticed (see Chapter 5). And secondly, it seems rather one-sided to consider
psychoanalysis as the only cause of slips of the tongue, certainly in view of the
masses of studies taking a psycholinguistic perspective (reviewed in Chapter 1).
While it is probably true that repressed feelings may lead to a larger number of
slips, they are definitely not the only cause of slips, and certainly cannot explain
all the different kinds of slips (e.g. blends of two synonyms, the substitution of
two phonologically related words). Moreover, the name substitutions which
Warren explained in terms of psycholanalytic theory can also be explained in
terms of psycholinguistic theory. It is quite likely that the names of two children
who are both part of the adult’s family or in the adult’s class, are connected in
the mental lexicon, just as two semantically related words are.
A problem in connection with Warren’s study is also that her results have
not been replicated in later studies by Smith (1990) and Wijnen (1992, to be
discussed below). Smith’s study was primarily intended at developing a tech-
nique which could be used to elicit a large number of slips of the tongue from
children in a quick way. He hoped that this experimental method would advance
the study of developmental aspects of speech production, for instance concerning
children’s phonological organization. The method developed by Smith consisted
of a tongue twister task involving 10 experimental sentences like small snails
smell silly and his shirt soon shrank and 10 control sentences matched for number
of syllables and stress patterns like small birds look pretty and his socks had
holes. The subjects (five 5-year-old children and five adults) had to repeat each
of the sentences at least five times quickly and without stopping. Smith was
aware of the unnaturalness of this task, but listed as advantages (1) that it is
efficient, (2) that it allows the data to be tape-recorded, so that careful transcrip-
tion is possible, (3) that as a result of this, potential interpretative bias can be
avoided, and (4) that the data can be analyzed acoustically to provide information
concerning aspects of speech motor control.
Smith reported that the adults made 212 errors while the children made 580.
Since these figures include disfluencies (that is hesitations) and distortions
(where sounds are not produced with adequate precision), which in most other
studies would not be considered slips of the tongue, it is more interesting to
compare the number of sound substitutions reported by Smith. This is 73 for
adults and 311 for children (in the experimental sentences only). Clearly then,
the children in Smith’s study did not produce fewer slips than the adults, but
more. Thus, Smith’s results contradict those reported by Warren.
Smith also reported the results of several other analyses. He found that
75–80% of the slips involved one-feature errors, and that 87% of these involved
changes in ‘place of articulation’ (cf. also Stemberger 1989 to be discussed
below). This was true for children as well as adults. Smith also found that
30–40% of the slips were at the same time anticipations and perseverations, and
that of the remaining slips 30% were anticipations, 16–17% were perseverations
and 10–15% were exchanges. Again there were no differences between children
and adults in this respect. Differences between children and adults were ob-
served with respect to the word-initialness effect. Whereas 65–70% of the
children’s slips in the experimental condition were observed in word-initial
position, only 40–45% of the adults’ slips were. The adults also produced many
slips (also 40–45%) in word-final phonemes. These results differ from those
reported for adults by Shattuck-Hufnagel (1987, discussed in Chapter 1), and
Stemberger (1989) to be discussed below. Since Smith’s data were recorded,
hence available for repeated checking, it must be assumed that his results are the
more reliable ones. Finally, an acoustic analysis of the duration of certain target
stimuli revealed that these durations were greater for the children than for the
adults in both the experimental and the control condition. The differences
between the adults and the children were larger in the experimental condition
(332 vs 192 msecs) than in the control condition (240 vs 158 msecs). Smith
suggested this is because adults are better able to cope with difficult tasks. He
said: “with their additional experience, adults are in at least some instances more
skilled in responding to increased demands that may be placed upon their speech
production systems than are children” (141). It is possible that this ability is
related to the extent to which the processes involved in speech production have
been automatized or proceduralized (see Schneider and Shiffrin 1977; Anderson

1983, 1986).
In several other studies sets of slips produced by children in spontaneous
speech were compared to similar sets of slips produced by adults. On the whole,
these comparisons showed the adult and child data to be strikingly similar.
MacKay (1970a), for instance, compared 23 spoonerisms (i.e. exchanges)
produced by children with 124 spoonerisms produced by adults (all from
Meringer’s 1908 corpus) and found that the same (contextual, syllabic and stress)
factors had affected both sets of spoonerisms. Similar results have been reported
by various other researchers. Aitchison and Straf (1980) compared 472 adult and
208 child malapropisms, sent in by readers of The Times, and concluded that
adults and children used the same phonological features (number of syllables,
stress pattern, initial consonant, final consonant and stressed vowel) for the
retrieval and hence the storage of lexical items. Jaeger (ms 1997) found that 91%
of 32 malapropisms, most of which were produced by her three children between
the ages of 1;7 and 5;11, had the same number of syllables, and 88.5% of these
shared internal syllable structure. Moreover, all 12 multisyllabic malapropisms
with the same number of syllables had identical stress patterns. These results
were compared to Fay and Cutler’s (1977) analysis of adult malapropisms, and
were found to be largely the same. In another study, Vihman (1981) had also
compared children’s errors (most of which are not slips since they are part of the
child’s developing system) with Fay and Cutler’s (1977) malapropisms, and had
arrived at the same conclusion. However, she noted that “the segments that make
up the stressed syllable, specifically, appear to be more salient than word-initial
or -final segments, and among the latter, final position may be more important”
(p. 262). This last observation is compatible with Smith’s (1990) finding that with
children, sounds appearing in word-final position are less error prone than with
adults. Vihman’s findings were also supported by Elbers (1985), who found
instances of malapropisms like soldaatjes (‘soldiers’) and oranje (‘orange’),
produced by a Dutch two-year-old searching for the word dolfijnen (‘dolphins’).
In these examples too, the number of syllables and the stressed syllable are the
same in the error and target words.
A more encompassing study attesting to the similarity of children’s and
adults’ slips of the tongue is Stemberger’s (1989). Stemberger undertook a
detailed comparison of 576 slips of the tongue produced by his two daughters,
Gwendolyn and Morgan (aged between 1.0 and 5.11 and 1.0 and 3.4 respective-
ly) and a collection of approximately 6000 slips of the tongue produced by
adults. Stemberger systematically examined the child data with respect to all the
regularities reported in the literature on adult speech errors and found that child
and adult slips were largely the same. First, the children’s slips could be
categorized in the same major classes of error types, viz. phonological, morpho-
logical, lexical access, lexical ordering, lexical shift and syntactic. Morphological
and syntactic slips were infrequent in the child data, but this is probably due to
the fact that the children also made these errors systematically, so that they were
usually not considered slips. Second, the child errors respected the syntactic
category constraint (in 93.9% of the cases, which is even more than the 80.2%
for adult errors). Third, the children’s word ordering errors respected well-
formedness in that they showed stranding of inflectional morphemes and
accommodation (to the same extent as adults’ errors, viz. 88.9%). Fourth, the
children, like the adults, produced few impossible sound sequences. Fifth, the
children observed the syllable position constraint in 92.9% of the consonant
substitutions, as did adults in 90.3% of the cases. In the majority of cases (79.9%
for children and 73.0% for adults) the initial consonant was involved. And sixth,
children’s and adults’ behaviour regarding consonant clusters was similar (cf.
Stemberger and Treiman 1986). From the large number of similarities between
the children’s and the adults’ slips of the tongue, Stemberger concluded that
“Adult language production mechanisms are largely in place and operating
normally from a very early point in language acquisition, possibly from the very
beginning. There seem to be no points of discontinuity or radical reorganization
in development” (p. 186).
Stemberger’s conclusion was supported by Jaeger (1992a), who analysed
907 slips collected in natural settings from 32 children, aged 1;4–6;0. Most of
the slips, 829, were produced by Jaeger’s own three children, Anna, Alice and
Bobby. Like Stemberger (1989), Jaeger reported that the children made nearly all
the same types of slips as the adults did. Also the proportions of phonological,
lexical, and phrase-based slips were similar: as in adult speech, phonological
slips (59–69%) outnumbered lexical slips (15–27%), and lexical slips outnum-
bered phrasal slips (12–20%). A study of the 266 whole-word slips in this corpus
showed that grammatical class was preserved in 90.5% of the cases (Jaeger and
Wilkins ms 1992) and a study of 706 phonological slips showed that the syllable
position constraint was observed in 86% of the cases (Jaeger ms 1997). Although
this figure is slightly lower than that reported by Stemberger, it is quite compara-
ble to that of 88% reported by Laubstein (1987) for adults. Jaeger (ms 1997) also
confirmed Stemberger’s findings regarding the vulnerablity of initial consonants.
Of 477 between-word phonological errors, 63% involved onset-onset substitu-
tions. Again this figure is found to be very similar to that of 64% reported for
adults by Laubstein (1987).
Jaeger (ms 1997) discussed various kinds of evidence suggesting that
syllable structure is represented in lexical entries and plays a role in speech

production as soon as the child begins to develop a phonological system. Like
many child language acquisition researchers, she assumes that the first 50 words
are stored holistically, but that phonological development begins soon afterwards,
when the child is approximately 18 months old. Evidence for this assumption is
that each of her three children produced their first phonological slip of the
tongue about a month after they had acquired their first 50 words. For two of the
children this was at 19 months, and for one of them, a relatively late talker, this
was at 24 months. To support her point that syllables have independent status
from this early stage onwards, Jaeger cited four kinds of evidence. The first is
that the children observe the syllable position constraint (see above). The second
is the structural similarity of words involved in malapropisms (see above). The
two other sources of evidence both support an internal syllable structure,
consisting of onset and rhyme. Jaeger’s child slip corpus contained 19 instances
where a rhyme was substituted for another rhyme, and only one instance where
an onset-nucleus combination was substituted for a similar combination. More-
over, an analysis of “telescopings” (a kind of haplologies, see Chapter 5) and
word blends also provided evidence for the reality of rhymes and syllables in
phonological processing. From this, Jaeger concluded that phonological process-
ing in the case of young children (who have acquired the first 50 words) is
probably similar to phonological processing in the case of adults. “Once a child
has begun to develop a phonological system, syllable structure is represented
robustly in lexical entries and is an important organizing factor in speech
production planning” (Jaeger, ms 1997: 26).
The large number of similarities between children’s and adults’ slips of the
tongue should not be taken to mean that there are no interesting differences
related to language development at all. The differences are, however, typically
interpreted in terms of a gradual change in the operation of the language
production mechanism. MacKay (1970a), for instance, observed that in the case
of child spoonerisms the context of the reversed phonemes and the phonemes
themselves were generally less similar than in the case of adult spoonerisms. He
suggested this might be due to the child’s less developed skill in combining or
integrating individual phonemes into connected speech.
Similar findings were reported by Stemberger (1989) and Jaeger (1992b).
Stemberger found that the average number of feature mismatches (using a three-
feature system) was 1.21 for children and 1.30 for adults. Jaeger (1992b), who
examined 366 consonant substitutions and exchanges produced by children aged
1;7–6;0, found that the average number of feature mismatches (using a five-
feature system) was 1.73, which is considerably less than the average of 2.14
reported for adults by Van den Broecke and Goldstein (1980), who also used a
five-feature system. To explain this difference Jaeger adopted Stemberger’s
suggestion that adults’ segmental representations may be more integrated than
those of children, as a result of their more automatized speech production.
Presumably, the increased integration causes adults to replace entire segments
rather than features, so that feature similarity plays a less important role.
Stemberger (1989) also observed that the children produced more phonological
errors which were not determined by the context and that the repeated phoneme
effect was lacking in their case. In his connectionist framework these differenc-
es were explained as the result of there being less backward activation spreading
(i.e. from the phonological to the lexical level) in the case of young children.
Another noteworthy observation made by Stemberger concerned the large
proportion of perseverations produced by children. Particularly at a very young
age, under 4;0, his children produced many perseverations. Between-word
phonological perseverations for Gwendolyn constituted 46.8% of the phonologi-
cal ordering errors at age 2 and 39.1% at age 3 and for Morgan 50.5% at age 2
and 44.8% at age 3. As Gwendolyn grew older, the proportion of perseverations
dropped to 26.9% at age 4 and 24.6% at age 5 (no data are available for
Morgan). The proportion of between-word phonological perseverations for adults
reported by Stemberger is 33.4%. The two children also produced more between-
sentence word perseverations than the adults, viz. 34.7% vs 23.6%. The propor-
tions of within-sentence word perseverations did not differ significantly,
although there is a tendency in the expected direction (children 21.9% vs adults
13.3%). Stemberger explained the large proportion of perseverations in the
children’s data as an effect of a lower decay rate of activation of selected words.
It is noteworthy that neither Smith’s (1990) experimental data discussed
above, nor Jaeger’s (1992a) data show this preference for perseverations in
young children. In the case of Jaeger’s three children perseverations constitute
29% of all contextually determined phonological slips (N = 528), which is similar
to the proportions of perseverations reported by Stemberger for adults, viz. 33.4%
(N = 1472), and considerably less than the proportion Stemberger reported for his
two children, viz. 45.5% (N = 374). Jaeger also tried to establish whether there
was a consistent decrease in the proportion of phonological perseverations over
time, but did not find this to be the case, the proportions going down from 35.5
at age 1 to 27% at age 2, up to 32% at age 3, and then down and up again to
24% and 41% at ages 4 and 5 respectively. Jaeger (1992a) did not report any
quantitative data on lexical slips, but Jaeger and Wilkins (ms 1992) did. Out of
266 lexical slips 32 were perseverations (combining cases where the perseverated
word appears in the same and in different utterances), while only 15 were
anticipations. Thus, there appeared to be twice as many lexical perseverations as

anticipations. If we compare this to the ratio of lexical perseverations vs anticipa-
tions inferrable from Stemberger’s Table 17 (p. 182), we find that children
produced 24 perseverations and 6 anticipations while adults produced 97
perseverations and 18 anticipations. Thus, we note a huge difference between
Jaeger and Wilkins’ (ms 1992) data and Stemberger’s (1989) data. Clearly, then,
more data from more different children are needed to establish whether there are
age-related differences in the proportions of perseverations and anticipations.
Another difference reported by Stemberger is that the proportion of
incomplete anticipations (which could be either anticipations or exchanges) is
much lower in child speech than in adult speech. For Gwendolyn incomplete
anticipations ranged from 14.9% at age 2, to 23.9% at age 3, 23.1% at age 4 and
23.2% at age 5 and for Morgan from 4.8% at age 1, to 22.5% at age 2 and
24.1% at age 3. For adults the proportion of incomplete anticipations was 41.2%.
Since incomplete anticipations are cases where the slip is intercepted before it is
completed, Stemberger ascribed the smaller number of incomplete anticipations
in the case of the children to inferior monitoring skills.
In Jaeger’s (1992a) corpus too the children made fewer incomplete anticipa-
tions than adults. She also found that the proportions of incomplete anticipations
were related to age, going up from 10% at age 2 to 23% at age 5. Jaeger adopted
Stemberger’s explanation that children may not be as good at self-monitoring as
adults and further supported it with findings on self-corrections. She reported that
as they grew older, the children corrected a larger percentage of their slips (from
42% at age 2 to 65% at age 4). For unclear reasons, the proportion of corrected
slips dropped again at age 5;0. Unfortunately, the adult data on self-corrections
are highly conflicting. For instance, Nooteboom (1980) reported that 75% of the
phonological slips in Meringer’s (1908) corpus were corrected, while in Levelt’s
(1983, tape-recorded) corpus, only 0.5% of the phonological errors were self-
corrected (as calculated by Jaeger 1992a).
Finally, there is a study by Wijnen (1992), in which the differences between
children’s and adults’ slips of the tongue were explained in terms of differences
in the degree of practice and automatization. Wijnen’s data consisted of 250
tape-recorded slips from two Dutch children (aged 2.4 to 3.0 and 3.0 to 3.10),
which were compared to 155 slips in the London-Lund corpus (Garnham et al.
1982). While the child data were again largely similar to those of the adults,
three differences were found. The first of these was that error frequency is about
five times as high in children as in adults. This finding, which corroborated
Smith’s (1990) finding based on experimentally elicited data, was attributed to
the lack of automaticity in child speech. Wijnen assumed that the more decisions
to be taken during this process, the greater the amount of attention required for
speech production, and hence, the higher the chances would be for an error to occur.
The second difference was that very few of the lexical substitutions in the
child data were phonologically motivated (i.e. malapropisms). Wijnen argued that
this could be interpreted as further support for Stemberger’s suggestion that
backward activation spreading might be limited in the case of small children.
According to Wijnen, a plausible reason why this should be so is that it might
require prolonged practice for backward activation spreading to develop.
Alternatively, it could be that the small number of malapropisms found by
Wijnen is due to the fact that sound patterns are still relatively unanalyzed in the
case of young children, so that there are relatively few links between the
phonological representations of different words, which makes it less likely that
they are mixed-up (Elbers and Van Loon-Vervoorn 1998: 323).
A third difference reported by Wijnen is that the children produced a large
number of sound errors in function words, something which the adults hardly
ever did. He offered two explanations for this finding. One was that in the case
of children the phonological encoding of these words has not yet been automatized,
whereas in the case of adults it has. This could be because the absolute frequency of
function words is much smaller for children in comparison with that for adults.
The other explanation was that function words may not yet have formed a closed
class in the case of children since they are still busy acquiring the lexicon.
There are several other studies which report production errors by children
which look like slips of the tongue, but may also be errors of competence. For
instance, Elbers and Van Loon-Vervoorn (1998) present some examples of
mixed-up idiomatic expressions, which are just like the blends appearing in adult
L1 speech. One example is: ik ben er zat van (‘I am it fed up of’) blending ik ben
het zat (‘I am fed up with it’) and ik heb er genoeg van (‘I’ve had enough of it’).
In addition, Elbers and Van Loon-Vervoorn (1998) list 27 cases of “inverted
compounds” like bal-voeten (‘to play ball-foot’) for ‘voetballen’ (‘to play
football’, age 2;2, example from Verrips 1998) and inverted prepositional phrases
like mag ik op de Loekie van brommer (‘may I on the Loekie of moped’, age
4;11). These last examples are similar to lexical shifts and lexical exchanges
respectively. Since it is not clear though whether or not they are part of the
child’s current linguistic system, they may or may not have the same source as
production errors resulting from performance problems.1
1. Verrips (personal communication, October 1998) was unable to say whether the inverted
compounds were used systematically or not. I was told that my step-daughter Anna used rozenklapjes
for a while when she was three or four, meaning ‘klaproosjes’ (‘poppies’). She probably produced
2.2 Discussion
The studies of slips produced by children lead to the following conclusions. First,
most of the claims true for adult slips of the tongue are also true for children’s
slips. As Stemberger (1989) noted, this suggests that the speech production
mechanisms are largely in place and that in essence the child’s speech production
process can be described by the adult models discussed in the previous chapter.
Some differences have also been noted though. One of these concerns the
number of slips produced by children and adults. However, the evidence in this
respect is conflicting. While Warren (1986) found that children produced fewer
speech errors than adults, both Smith (1990) and Wijnen (1992) report that
children produce more slips of the tongue than adults. It is not clear which of
these findings should be given most credit. On the one hand, Warren’s data were
transcriptions and it is possible that not all slips were included in them. On the
other hand, this would go for the children’s as well as the adult data, since they
came from the same corpus. If the children did indeed produce fewer slips of the
tongue than the adults, this might be due to the fact that children’s language
tends to be less complex. After all, young children mostly speak about concrete
things. Smith’s data clearly show that children produce more slips of the tongue
than adults. However, his data were collected by means of tongue twisters. The
children had to perform the same rather complex task as adults. It is quite likely
that in these difficult circumstances their less automatized speech mechanism let
them down, causing them to produce many slips of the tongue. Unfortunately,
Wijnen’s data do not solve the issue. Although his child data were recorded,
transcribed, and carefully checked, and hence can be considered reliable, his
adult data were taken from the London-Lund corpus, the transcription of which
was not specifically directed at detecting slips. This may have caused slips to be
underrepresented in the adult corpus. Thus, we must conclude that the question
regarding differences in the number of slips produced by children and adults is
still unanswered.
Other differences between child and adult slip data relate to the magnitude
of the word-initialness effect, the number of phonetic features shared by the
source and error phoneme, the number of phonemic slips in function words, the
size of the repeated phoneme effect, the proportion of phonologically related
lexical substitutions (malapropisms), the proportion of anticipations and persever-
this inverted compound as a slip the first time round. The rest of the family had so much fun about
this that they adopted it too, and thus caused it to become part of Anna’s linguistic system.
ations, and the proportion of incomplete anticipations. Unfortunately, the

evidence here is also occasionally conflicting, which may be due to the fact that
different methods have been used (viz. spontaneous pen-and-paper corpora and
tongue twister tasks). Moreover, the spontaneous studies usually involve two or
three children only, which implies that individual differences may have greatly
affected the data.
Several explanations have been offered to account for the differences.
Wijnen suggested the larger number of slips produced by his two child subjects
was due to the fact that the speech production process is less practised, hence
less automatic in the case of young children. A related explanation was offered
by Stemberger and Jaeger for the finding that children’s phonemic slips differ
from the target phonemes in few phonetic features. They both ascribed this to the
possibility that children are less skilled in integrating phonetic features in
phonemes. Hence they would rarely substitute an entire segment for another, but
more frequently substitute a single feature. Similarly, Wijnen (1992) suggested
that children produced relatively many sound errors in function words because
they are less skilled in phonological encoding.
Other explanations relate to the operation of the spreading activation
mechanism. Stemberger suggested that the repeated phoneme effect is lacking in
children as a result of less backward activation spreading (from the phonological
to the lexical level). The same explanation would also account for Wijnen’s
finding that children produce fewer phonologically motivated lexical substitutions
(malapropisms). The larger proportion of perseverations in children was ascribed
by Stemberger to a lower decay rate of activation for selected words. Finally, the
lower proportion of incompleted anticipations was related to children’s inferior
monitoring skills.
Schwartz, Saffran, Bloch and Dell (1994) observed that some of the
findings reported for children were very similar to findings they had obtained
examining the speech errors produced by a jargon aphasic patient and those
produced by normal adult native speakers in an error induction experiment which
forced them to operate under time pressure (Dell 1990). The aphasic’s slips of
the tongue were compared to those in the London-Lund corpus. It was found,
first, that the aphasic produced many more slips of the tongue than the normal
speakers in the London-Lund corpus (one every 15 words vs one every 1400
words). Second, the aphasic produced more perseverations (10) than anticipations
(7, completed and incompleted combined), while in the London-Lund corpus the
reverse was the case (35 anticipations vs 12 perseverations). And third, the
aphasic produced a much larger proportion of slips resulting in non-words (78%
vs 60%). A similar pattern was observed when normal adults participated in an
experiment (following the SLIP procedure) in which the time pressure was
manipulated (Dell 1990). When the subjects were given less time, they produced
more slips of the tongue and a higher proportion of non-words (that is, the
lexical bias effect was reduced). Moreover, the proportion of perseverations
(relative to anticipations and exchanges) was larger at faster speech rates.
Schwartz et al. (1994) referred to this pattern of many slips, many persever-
ations, and many non-word outcomes as a “bad” error pattern. They suggested
that in the case of the aphasic patient the pattern is caused by weak connections
in the lexical network. This results in a slower spread of activation, causing
relatively many perseverations and few lexical outcomes. In the case of adults
operating under time pressure the same bad pattern is observed, because the time
is too limited to allow enough activation to spread through the network. To
support their assumption, they considered the slips produced by children, whose
lexical network, they argued, may also be characterized by weak connections,
since children have not yet had a great deal of practice using their network. They
noted that in Wijnen’s study children did indeed produce more speech errors than
adults, and that in Stemberger’s study, the children produced relatively many
perseverations. Moreover, Wijnen’s data suggested there was less activation
spreading from the phonological to the lexical level, since the children produced
few phonologically motivated lexical substitutions.
While Schwartz et al. (1994) noted that the child data are weak and do not
agree on all the relevant effects, their hypothesis certainly seems worthy of
further investigation. Indeed, an additional investigation by the same researchers
showed that practice, in a tongue twister experiment with normal adults, caused
a “bad” error pattern to turn into a “good” one. Over eight blocks of practice, the
number of errors dropped from 97 to 35, and the proportions of anticipations and
lexical outcomes increased significantly. Similar findings were obtained by Dell,
Burger and Svec (1997), who replicated the effects of practice and speech rate
on the number of speech errors and the proportion of anticipations vs perseverations.
Thus, both studies suggest that practice strengthens the connections in the network.
In the current study, the same hypothesis may be tested using L2 learners’ slips.
If we assume that in the case of beginning learners of English, the connections in the
lexical network are weaker than in the case of advanced learners of English, we
may predict that the beginning learners produce a ”bad” error pattern. That is,
they will not only produce more slips of the tongue, but also a larger proportion
of perseverations and a larger proportion of non-word outcomes.
C 3
Literature Review
Slips of the Tongue in L2 Production1
In Chapter 1 we have seen that the study of slips of the tongue has yielded
important information regarding the speech production process in normal adult
monolingual speakers. In Chapter 2, we obtained some insight in the develop-
ment of this process by reviewing studies of children’s slips of the tongue. In
this chapter, we would like to consider to what extent research on slips of the
tongue produced by L2 learners can shed light on the speech production process
of people who know more than one language. We will begin, in Section 3.1, by
reviewing L2 slip studies. Subsequently, in Section 3.2, we will consider current
models of L2 production, paying particular emphasis to the evidence on which
they are based. In Section 3.3 we will present four models of second language
acquisition which explain differences in the speech production of beginning and
advanced L2 learners. Finally, Section 3.4. summarizes the main findings and
draws some conclusions for the current study.
3.1 Research findings
To our knowledge, there have been but few studies of slips of the tongue in L2
learner speech. Seliger (1980) suggested slips and other performance data might
be worth investigating because of their relevance for models of second language
acquisition. Slips of the tongue, for instance, could provide information about
1. Parts of this chapter were previously published in Poulisse (1997a) “Language Production in
Bilinguals”. In A. de Groot and J. Kroll (eds), Tutorials in Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Perspec-
tives. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 201–224; and in Poulisse (1997b) “The Development of
Fluency in Learners of English: A Study of L2 learners’ Slips of the Tongue”. In J. Aarts, I. de
Mönnink and H. Wekker (eds), Studies in English Language and Teaching: In honour of Flor Aarts.
Amsterdam: Rodopi, 293–308.
lexical storage, he argued. To illustrate this point he discussed three cases in

which L2 learners substituted L1 words for the intended L2 words. He interpreted
these as evidence of compound storage of L1 and L2 words in the mental lexicon.
A more substantial study was conducted by James (1984). He analysed 148
segment substitutions and exchanges in the English of post-intermediate level
Dutch learners. The most important results were that speakers made particularly
many errors involving phonemes like /ð/ and /q/ or /w/, /Š/, /v/ and /3/, which do
not occur in native Dutch, except in some loanwords. James suggested that this
was because the contrasts between these phonemes and those with which they
interacted, here /s/ and /z/, had not yet stabilized. This supports the assumption
made by Bowerman (1978) that an increased number of speech errors may
reflect which parts of the language system are being developed.
Baker (1990) reported on the results of his unpublished PhD research, which
was finished in 1984. Baker collected slips of the tongue from English learners
of Spanish as a foreign language and from native speakers of Spanish. Unfortu-
nately, Baker (1990) did not specify how he collected the slips, what number he
collected, or how he distinguished them from ordinary L2 mistakes. In the 1990
article, the slips produced by near-native (NN) speakers of Spanish were
compared to those of native (N) speakers.
On the whole, the slips produced by the NN and N speakers were highly
comparable. Baker noted, for instance, that the NN speakers followed Shattuck’s
(1975) similarity hypothesis: error and target item were usually alike in terms of
the number of features shared, their phonetic environment, syllable position, the
number of syllables, wordclass, and stress value. From these similarities, Baker
concluded that a single model for the production of L1 and L2 speech is
permitted. “That is, if both NN and N speakers breach the rules in the same
manner, then the method of generating the language must be the same for both
groups” (p. 123).
Baker (1990) also noted a few differences in the slips produced by the NN
and the N speakers. One of these is that NN speakers produced a larger propor-
tion of morphosyntactic slips than N speakers. Baker suggested this indicates that
the NN speaker is less adept at pre-programming in L2. Another difference was
that NN speakers were more inclined to substitute items similar in meaning than
in sound, while N speakers equally often substituted lexical items similar in
meaning as in sound. While Baker pointed out that these slips suggest that the
lexicon is organized in a dual fashion, according to both meaning and sound, no
explanation was offered for this difference between NN and N speakers. A
third, and perhaps most interesting difference was that N speakers produced
more speech before correcting a slip of the tongue, and also repeated more
SLIPS OF THE TONGUE IN L2 PRODUCTION 51
speech when correcting one. Baker interpreted this finding in terms of a differ-
ence in pre-programming. The N speaker plans further ahead, and is more
capable of retaining these plans in memory (p. 123). It is possible that this is
related to the fact that the speech production process is more automatized in the
case of N speakers, which implies that speech production requires less attention.
Crow (1990) reported on a study involving two groups of 10 French/English
bilinguals, who may be considered advanced learners of L2 French and L2
English respectively. The study also involved two control groups, consisting of
10 native speakers of French and 10 native speakers of English respectively. The
subjects were presented with 40 index cards, each of which had a four-word set
printed on it (cf. Shattuck-Hufnagel 1987). Thirty-five of the sets had sound
sequences which were permitted in both English and French (e.g. parade fad foot
parole). Five were language-specific and contained segments unique to each
language in word onset position (e.g. six thick thistle sticks). The subjects had to
read each card three times, and then repeat the sets three more times by heart.
The results of this study showed that while the groups behaved similarly in some
respects, and in line with the findings of monolingual studies, they differed in
other respects. Similarities concerned the ratio of anticipatory to perseveratory
errors (the exact ratio is not reported), the size of the syllable position effect, the
proportion of errors involving words with similar stress patterns, and the
distribution of different kinds of errors. The most striking differences between
the monolinguals and the bilinguals related to the number of errors in word-final
position (up to 30% for both bilingual groups, up to 60% for monolingual French
speakers, and “a clear bias towards word-initial position errors” for monolingual
English speakers, p. 32), the complete absence of lexical blends in the L2 of
bilinguals, and the fact that all of the errors in the bilinguals’ L2 data related to
single segments only, whereas the monolinguals’ errors involved 1–5 segments.
Various explanations are offered for these findings, but none seem very convinc-
ing. The relatively large number of word-final errors, for instance, was interpret-
ed as either the result of an interaction between L1 and L2 phonological systems
or “an effect of bilingualism which creates an unrestricted bias toward word-
final errors” (p. 32). At the same time, however, it was noted that the French
probably resyllabify words ending in consonants, so that the English and French
phonological systems are not really different in this respect. Hence it is not clear
how they could interact. Moreover, the bias towards word-final errors as an
effect of bilingualism was not motivated. Unfortunately, there is no discussion
of the findings concerning the language-specific phonemes like /q/ in English.
In 1994 Poulisse and Bongaerts reported on a study investigating the
occurrence of unintentional language switches to L1 (Dutch) in the production of
English as L2. Since these unintentional language switches usually involved

single words, Poulisse and Bongaerts considered them very comparable to lexical
substitution errors. An L2 word is replaced by its translation equivalent in the
L1, just as an L1 word may be replaced by a semantically similar word. The
corpus which was used as a basis for this study was the same as that used for the
present book. Data were produced by three groups of 15 Dutch learners of
English at three different proficiency levels, carrying out four different tasks
(see Chapter 4 for details). Poulisse and Bongaerts scrutinized the transcripts for
occurrences of L1 use and singled out those cases where the lack of hesitation
phenomena suggested that usage was unintentional.
The corpus contained 771 unintentional language switches, of which 749
were not adapted to the L2, either morphologically or phonologically. The
occurrence of these non-adapted language switches was proficiency-related, the
least proficient subjects producing 463, the intermediate group producing 235,
and the most proficient subjects producing 51. Another interesting finding was
that the switches often involved function words (316 times) or “editing terms” —
words like ‘or’ and ‘no’ which speakers use in self-corrections (302 times).
Content words were involved only 131 times. The difference in function and
content words significantly exceeded the ratio of function and content words in
the corpus. Of the 22 adapted switches 12 were morphologically adapted and 10
were phonologically adapted. The 12 morphologically adapted words were all
verbs, which were given the appropriate L2 (zero) inflection, as in ‘and then you
neem a smaller, take a smaller elevator’. The Dutch word neem (Eng. ‘take’) gets
the required English zero ending instead of the Dutch morpheme ‘-t’, which
would have been appropriate for the second person singular verb. In the 10
phonologically adapted switches, L2 English phonemes were used in words that
were otherwise Dutch. For example, the Dutch word stuk (‘piece’), was pro-
nounced as ‘stuck’, that is with the English /%/ sound.
On the basis of these findings Poulisse and Bongaerts presented a spreading
activation account of lexical access in bilingual speakers in which the relative
frequency of L1 and L2 words in the learner’s repertoire plays an important role.
They assumed that as a result of their much more frequent usage, the resting
level of L1 words, particularly of L1 function words and particularly in the case
of beginning learners, is much higher than that of the corresponding, intended L2
words. This might lead to the accidental access of these L1 words before the L2
words are sufficiently activated. The large number of L1 function words
substituted in L2 may also be explained in terms of the amount of attention
devoted to function and content words (presumably, less attention is devoted to
the selection of function words than content words), or by the fact that function
words tend to be short, hence allow the speaker little time for correction. In
addition, Poulisse and Bongaerts made various suggestions concerning the
storage of inflected word forms in the (bilingual) mental lexicon, the existence
of a lexical checking device, and the relationship between lemma access and
phonological encoding. The proposals made by Poulisse and Bongaerts will be
discussed in detail in Section 3.2.5 of this book.
Poulisse and Bongaerts’ findings regarding unintentional language switches
were supported by Williams and Hammarberg (1998), who conducted a longitu-
dinal case study of language switches in L3 production. The subject in their
study was a native speaker of English, who had lived six years in Germany
before she moved to Sweden, where she started learning Swedish as L3. In
addition to L2 German, the subject also knew French and some Italian. Williams
and Hammarberg noted that the subject frequently switched to L2 German
“Without Identified Pragmatic Purpose”. Williams and Hammarberg referred to
these switches as “WIPPS” and noted that they correspond in part to Poulisse
and Bongaerts’ unintentional language switches. Like Poulisse and Bongaerts,
Williams and Hammarberg found that the number of WIPPs decreased as the
subject became more proficient in Swedish, and that most of the WIPPs (59 out
of 72) concerned function words. What is noteworthy in these data is that 92%
of the WIPPs were switches to L2 German and only 4% were switches to L1
English. Williams and Hammarberg pointed out that similar findings were
reported by Vildomec (1963), Ringbom (1983, 1987) and Stedje (1977). This
finding sheds some doubt on Poulisse and Bongaerts’ explanation of unintention-
al switches to the L1 in terms of relative differences in the frequency between
L1 and L2 items. After all, one would assume that for the subject in the Wil-
liams and Hammarberg study, L1 words were more frequent than L2 words,
particularly since the subject frequently used her L1 at work.
Williams and Hammarberg also reported that for other, pragmatic functions
the subject did tend to use L1 English. She resorted to L1 English in 70% of the
cases when introducing self-repairs and giving interactive feedback (EDIT
function), in 100% of the cases when making metalinguistic comments or asking
metalinguistic questions (META function) and in approximately 75% of the cases
when trying to elicit L3 word forms from the interlocutor (INSERT function).
These findings led Williams and Hammarberg to believe that L1 and L2 may
play different roles in L3 production. They argued that the subject used her L1
for metalinguistic purposes, while L2 German was used to supply material for
lexical constructions, hence was assigned the role of “Default Supplier Lan-
guage”. They suggested that the Default Supplier Language is activated in
parallel to the L3, which explains the frequency of L2 WIPPs. Furthermore, they
argued that the choice of the Default Supplier Language is determined by four
factors: proficiency, typology (i.e., language distance), recency and L1/L2 status.
In the case of their subject, where there were hardly any differences between the
subject’s L1 (English) and her L2 (German) in terms of proficiency, recency and
typology, the L2 status of German caused it to take on the Default Supplier role.
In sum, it must be concluded that research on L2 slips of the tongue is rare.
The few L2 studies that have been conducted have provided some support for the
idea that L2 production is very similar to L1 production, in that most of the
regularities observed in adult L1 slips are also true for adult L2 learners’ slips.
Some differences have also been observed though, particularly concerning the
number of morpho-syntactic slips, the ratio of meaning- and sound-based lexical
substitutions, the number of slips involving phonemes in word-final position, the
number of lexical blends and the number of slips relating to single phonemes.
James’ (1984) study is interesting in that it suggested that the number of speech
errors in a particular area might reflect which part of the language system is
being developed. Finally, the studies by Poulisse and Bongaerts (1994) and
Williams and Hammarberg (1998) pointed at the importance of the L1 and other
languages known by the speaker in L2/L3 production. Clearly, the large number
of lexical switches to the L1 and other languages will need to be accounted for
in a multilingual model of speech production.
3.2 Bilingual models of speech production
Speech produced by L2 learners differs from adult L1 speech in several respects.

Obviously, these differences need to be taken into account when developing a
model of second language production. Therefore, we will briefly discuss these
differences before going on to discuss several bilingual models of speech production.
3.2.1 Differences between L1 and L2 production
The first and most obvious difference between L1 and L2 speakers is that L2
knowledge is not complete. Most strikingly, L2 speakers generally have fewer
words at their disposal than L1 speakers. This sometimes keeps them from
expressing their intended messages, but usually leads them to resort to compensa-
tory strategies, which allow them to solve their lexical problems by using
alternative ways of expression (Færch and Kasper 1983; Poulisse 1990). In
addition, L2 speakers’ knowledge of grammar is often underdeveloped, which
may lead them to avoid certain grammatical structures in the L2 (Schachter
1974) or to produce sentences which are ungrammatical (Ellis 1985, 1994; Van
Els, Bongaerts, Extra, Van Os and Janssen-Van Dieten 1984).
A second difference to be accounted for by L2 production models is that L2
speech tends to be less fluent than L1 speech. The evidence in this respect has
been accumulating since the 1980s and a few examples will have to suffice here.
One of the first serious studies in this area was conducted by Wiese (1982,
1984). Wiese collected cartoon retellings in L1 English and German (eight native
speakers each) and L2 English and German (again eight speakers in each group)
and reported that both in L2 English and in L2 German there were two to three
times as many hesitation phenomena (repetitions, corrections and filled pauses)
as in L1 English and German. In addition he observed significant differences
between the L1 and L2 data in terms of speech and articulation rate, pause length and
length of run (i.e., the number of syllables between two pauses), the L2 data being
slower, with longer pauses and shorter runs. Similar findings were obtained by Möhle
(1984), Raupach (1987), Towell (1987), Lennon (1990) and Towell, Hawkins and
Bazergui (1996). In all of these studies the researchers established a relationship
between temporal variables, including length of run, and proficiency level.
A third characteristic of L2 speech that needs to be covered by L2 produc-
tion models is that L2 speech may carry traces of the L1, particularly when the
learners’ proficiency level in the L2 is low. Obviously, this is because in addition
to the (incomplete) L2 system, L2 speakers have a fully developed L1 system at
their disposal. The L1 system is sometimes used deliberately by L2 speakers, and
sometimes it is used accidentally. Deliberate, or intentional usage of the L1
system often manifests itself as code-switching. Bilinguals may have various
reasons to switch between languages. Grosjean (1982: 151) reported that some
code switches are motivated by the lack of a particular word in one of the
languages (thus their function is to “fill a linguistic need”), or by the greater
availability of a word in the other language (“the most available word phenome-
non”). Such switches to the L1 are also familiar from studies of the use of
compensatory strategies to solve lexical problems (Færch and Kasper 1983;
Poulisse 1990). Other intentional code switches are socially or psychologically
motivated and are used for instance to emphasize one’s identity or group
membership, to mark a change of subject, to specify a particular addressee, to
draw the attention to a particular part of the message, to express certain emotions
or to mark “asides” from ongoing discourse (see Appel and Muysken 1987:
118–120; Giesbers 1989: 28; and Grosjean 1982: 149–157 for extensive reviews).
As we have seen in the previous section, L2 speakers may also use their L1
system unintentionally though. Giesbers (1989) referred to such unintentional
switches as “performance switches”. Unintentional use of the L1 system also
manifests itself in the form of “transfer”, or “cross-linguistic influence” (Keller-

man and Sharwood Smith 1986). Transfer is a well-described phenomenon in
second language acquisition studies and has been shown to take place at all
linguistic levels: phonological, lexical, syntactic, and pragmatic. Thus, as early as
1957, Lado described how Spanish learners add an ‘e’ before English words like
‘school’, which have an /s/ at the beginning of an initial consonant cluster /sk/,
to conform to Spanish syllable structure (Lado 1957: 18). For more examples of
transfer see, for instance, Kasper 1992; Odlin 1989; or the contributions to Gass
and Selinker 1992 and Kellerman and Sharwood Smith 1986).
Although the studies mentioned above clearly go to show that bilinguals can
and do switch from the L2 to the L1 and vice versa, it is important to remember
that L2 speakers, particularly the more advanced ones, are also remarkably able
to keep two or more languages apart when they wish to do so. This is another
aspect of L2 production data that will need to be accounted for by models of
second language production.
Of the three differences between L1 and L2 speech, the first two do not
really present any problems. The L2 learner’s incomplete knowledge base and
lack of automaticity can be handled by the usual monolingual models of speech
production. In Levelt’s (1989) model, for instance, an incomplete L2 knowledge
base could easily be accounted for by assuming that the lexicon contained only
those L2 lexical items which the speaker had learned and that some of these
lexical items might not yet be fully specified in terms of the semantic, syntactic
and phonological information they contain. Moreover, the relationships between
different lexical items might not be fully established. The lack of automaticity
could simply be captured by assuming serial, step-by-step processing (at least to
some extent) instead of parallel processing at the morpho-phonological and articulato-
ry levels. Serial processing being slower, it would allow the speaker to replenish the
resources needed to carry out non-automatic, attention demanding, processes.
It is much more problematic for existing monolingual models of speech
production to deal with the third characteristic of second language productions,
namely that L2 speech often carries traces of the L1. It has also been pointed out
though that on the whole bilinguals succeed remarkably well in separating the
two languages. Both the possibility to mix and the ability to separate will need
to be accounted for by models of second language production.
3.2.2 Early studies of bilingualism
Since the 1960s, the question of mixing and separating two language systems has
been the focus of many studies of bilingualism. A large number of these were
exclusively directed at the organization of the bilingual lexicon, the main issue
being whether there was one lexicon storing the words of several languages, or
whether there were separate lexicons for individual languages (Kolers 1963). The
experimental research conducted in this area has been reviewed by Kroll (1993)
and Kroll and De Groot (1997). Kroll (1993) suggested that many of the
findings, which at first sight appear to be conflicting, can be accounted for if a
distinction is made between the conceptual (or semantic) and the lexical levels
of representation. From the available evidence she concluded that conceptual
representations are shared, but that lexical representations are independent across
languages. Kroll and De Groot (1997) discussed the effect of proficiency-related
differences on lexical representation. In particular, they discussed the evidence
in support of Kroll and Stewart’s (1994) revised hierarchical model, which
assumes there is an asymmetry in the connection strengths between L1 and L2
words. Most of the evidence suggests that the connections from L2 to L1 lexical
items are stronger than the connections from L1 to L2 lexical items. This could
explain the large number of unintentional switches to the L1 during L2 speech,
and the almost complete lack of such switches to L2 when speaking L1.
Other researchers have focussed on the mechanisms which are used to
separate languages, while at the same time allowing for the occurrence of
language switches. Among the early proposals (reviewed by Giesbers 1989) were
switch models, which allow the speaker to switch a particular language on or off
(e.g. MacNamara 1967; MacNamara and Kushnir 1971) and models containing
a “comparator” (Lipski 1978; Sridhar and Sridhar 1980), which would check
whether guest constituents from another language were compatible with the
syntactic structure of the base language. The problem with the switch models is
that they cannot account for intra-sentential code-switches and interference
effects. The comparator models can account for intentional switches, but not for
unintentional ones, nor for other interference effects.
In more recent proposals it is often assumed that a bilingual speaker’s
language systems constitute subsets which can be kept separate because they may
take on different levels of activation, depending on whether or not they are
currently or regularly used (e.g. De Bot 1992; De Bot and Schreuder 1993;
Færch and Kasper 1986a; Green 1986; Paradis 1987, 1997) or whether the
speaker is in the monolingual, an intermediary or the bilingual mode (Grosjean
and Soares 1986; Grosjean 1997, 1998). Usually, it is assumed that these subsets
are activated in their entirety (though see Poulisse and Bongaerts 1994, to be
discussed below). A good example of a second language production model
incorporating this idea was Green’s original (1986) model, which served as the
basis for the inhibitory control (IC) model presented recently (Green 1998).
3.2.3 Green (1986)
Green (1986) proposed a framework which was meant to account for the
performance of normal as well as brain-damaged bilinguals. In view of the fact
that bi- or multilingual brain-damaged patients sometimes lose command of one
language but not the other, he supposed that the bilingual’s languages are
organized in separate subsystems. To account for the fact that bilinguals can
choose which language they want to use, Green supposed that the subsystems
can be activated to different extents. He distinguished three levels of activation.
Languages are most activated when they are “selected”, that is when they are
currently being spoken and hence control speech output. They are less activated,
but still “active” when they are in regular use, but not spoken at the time. Active
languages play a role in ongoing processing, which accounts for the occurrence
of language interference effects in bilingual lexical decision tasks (Altenberg and
Cairns 1983) or L1 transfer effects in L2 speech. Finally, languages are least
active, or maybe not active at all, when they are “dormant”. Dormant languages
are not in regular use and do not affect ongoing processing.
In Green’s perception, a bilingual speaker who wishes to speak a particular
language must ensure that its activation exceeds that of competing languages. So,
when speaking the L2, the L2 must be selected, i.e., highly activated, and the L1,
which is still active, must be suppressed (or inhibited). To allow the correct
identification of words belonging to a particular language, so that they can be
activated or de-activated as the situation demands, Green supposed that words
possess language tags. In addition, Green postulated the existence of a device
called “the specifier”, which specifies how the system is to be controlled in the
case of language switches or translation from one language to the other. Green
suggested that in the case of code switches, there need not be any external
suppression of the L2 at all. Rather, he said, the output can be “free to vary”
according to which words first reach the required threshold level of activation
(Green 1986: 217). In the case of translations, however, a more complex form of
regulation is needed. This is because both languages need to be active, but the
output of one of them must be internally suppressed. It is the specifier’s task to
regulate this.
Green (1986, but also 1993) pays much attention to the resources which are
needed to regulate (or control) the activation levels. The resources are described
as energy, or fuel, without which the system cannot work. Since resources are
assumed to be limited, they must be replenished in time to keep the system
running smoothly. If the resources are insufficient, control will be imperfect and
errors will result. An example of such an error would be the blend of two words
from different languages as in Springling (from Eng. spring and German

Frühling). Thus, Green accounts for the occurrence of slips of the tongue in
terms of insufficient resources. Green (1993: 265) predicts that “As resources are
constrained, e.g., by dual-tasks or pacing, then performance difficulties in L2
should increase”.
Green’s model of bilingual language production and his representation of
languages as subsystems which can be more or less activated bears some
resemblances to Dell’s (1986) suggestion that the words of a language are stored
in a neural network from which they are selected as the result of activation
spreading to them. An advantage of Green’s model in comparison with Dell’s is
that Green postulates a specifier which sets the activation going. Another
advantage is the explicit role given to the resources. This makes it possible to
explain why beginning learners of an L2 suffer more from L1 interference
effects than advanced learners. Beginning learners need to invest much energy
in speaking the L2, since their L2 production has not yet been automatized. As
a result, they have few resources left to suppress the activation level of the L1.
A drawback of Green’s model is that it is fairly global and fails to give a detailed
account of the morpho-phonological encoding of bilingual speakers’ messages.
3.2.4 De Bot (1992)
A more complete account of bilingual speech production was first given by De

Bot (1992). De Bot based his model on Levelt’s (1989) model of speech
production. Since this model has a firm empirical basis, De Bot (1992) decided
to make only those changes which are absolutely necessary. The first issue he
deals with concerned the decision to speak in one language rather than the other.
Following Levelt’s account of registers, like casual talk, or telegraphic speech
(Levelt 1989: 368), De Bot argues that the decision to speak in a particular
language must be made in the conceptualizer since it is influenced by the
speaker’s knowledge of the situation, including the participants and their
knowledge of languages. As this kind of knowledge is directly available to the
conceptualizer only, this does indeed seem to be the most natural place for
language choice to be determined. De Bot then raises the problem that not all
languages lexicalize concepts in the same way. Spanish, for instance, has a three-
way system of spatial reference (proximal/medial/distal: aquí/ahí/allí), whereas
English has a two-way system of spatial reference (proximal/distal: here/there).
This implies that the preverbal message should contain different specifications
for terms of spatial reference, depending on whether one is speaking Spanish or
English. To solve this problem, De Bot suggests that the language to be used is
determined in the conceptualizer as part of macroplanning, and that subsequently,

during microplanning, language-specific encoding takes place, so that the preverbal
message contains language-specific information to be lexicalized by the formulator.
With respect to the second component in Levelt’s model, the formulator, De
Bot hypothesizes that it is language-specific, meaning that different procedures
are applied to the grammatical and phonological encoding of L1 and L2 speech,
in any case for languages that are typologically different. He assumes this is the
case because analytic languages like English and agglutinative languages like
Turkish could not possibly be encoded by means of the same syntactic and
morphological encoding procedures. To account for the occurrence of code
switches De Bot follows Green (1986) and suggests that bilinguals produce two
speech plans simultaneously, one for the selected language (which they are
speaking at the moment) and one for the active language (which they are not
speaking at the moment of speech, but which is in regular use with the speaker).
Because speech plans for two languages are available, it is easy to stop the
encoding of one of them and continue with the other when problems occur or
when for some reason or other the speaker considers it more appropriate to
continue in the other language.
In his proposals for the organization of the mental lexicon De Bot adopted
Paradis’ (1987) “Subset Hypothesis” and stipulated that L1 and L2 lexical items
form different subsets which can be activated to different extents, depending on
which language is currently being spoken. All subsets are said to belong to one
and the same lexicon, so that the lexicon is considered to be language indepen-
dent. At the same time, however, De Bot points out that if one describes lexical
access in terms of spreading activation (cf. Dell 1986; Roelofs 1992), the
question of whether there is one single lexicon, which stores the lexical items of
all languages, or a separate lexicon for each individual language becomes
irrelevant. In that case the crucial questions seem to be whether lexical items
from different languages are related to each other, whether they can activate
each other equally and whether they can be activated simultaneously.
Finally, De Bot suggests that there is only one articulator which makes use
of one large set of sounds (or syllables, since Levelt considers these to be the
basic units of speech production) and pitch patterns from both languages.
Depending on the frequency and the quality of contact with the L2, learners will
develop their own, language-specific norms for L2 sounds. Particularly in the
case of beginning L2 learners, however, L1 norms may be used in the production
of both L1 and L2 speech. In this way De Bot explains phonological interference
from the L1.
In a later article, together with Schreuder, De Bot revised his bilingual
model in two respects. Firstly, de Bot and Schreuder (1993) propose that
information concerning language choice is contained in the preverbal message in
the form of a language cue. This language cue sees to it that the activation level
of the words in the mental lexicon belonging to that language is raised, so that
they are easier to select. They further argue that the language cue may have
different values. For instance, in the case of immigrants who frequently mix
languages, the value of the cue might be so low that it can be ignored in the
retrieval of lexical items. Secondly, de Bot and Schreuder, following Bierwisch
and Schreuder (1992) propose to insert an additional component VBL (for
“Verbalizer”) between the conceptualizer and the formulator. The VBL’s task is
to map pieces of conceptual structure contained in the preverbal message to
semantic representations of lemmas in the lexicon. Thus, it cuts the message up
into lexicalizable chunks, whereafter lexical access can take place. De Bot and
Schreuder again note that different languages lexicalize in different ways, which
implies that the language cue must be specified before the VBL starts chunking.
De Bot’s model is a logical extension of Levelt’s monolingual model, which
accounts for the following second language phenomena: a) different ways of
lexicalization in different languages; b) different ways of grammatical encoding,
e.g., in analytic and agglutinative languages; c) intentional code-switches in the
case of lexical problems or for other reasons; d) phonological interference and e)
dense code mixing in the case of immigrants. Unintentional language switches,
like those reported by Poulisse and Bongaerts (1994) and Williams and Hammar-
berg (1998), are not explicitly accounted for. Other slips of the tongue are
implicitly accounted for in that Levelt’s model accounts for them.
While some of the proposals put forward by De Bot and De Bot and
Schreuder provide plausible accounts of the phenomena mentioned above, it
should be noted that they are not the only, and not the most efficient accounts
possible. In particular, this goes for the point that two speech plans (for the
selected and the active language) are always activated simultaneously and for the
assumption that the language cue activates entire language systems. Also, the
Verbalizer constitutes an extra component, which Levelt et al. (1999) see no need
for (see Chapter 1).
3.2.5 Poulisse and Bongaerts (1994)
In their study of unintentional language switches in L2 production Poulisse and

Bongaerts (1994) presented an account of second language speech production,
again based on Levelt (1989), which in some respects is more efficient than the
account provided by De Bot’s and De Bot and Schreuder’s model.
Like de Bot (1992) Poulisse and Bongaerts assume that language choice is
determined during conceptualization and is included as a language component in
the preverbal message. They further assume that the language component (or
language cue) works in the selection of lemmas in the same way as conceptual
features (or primitives) do. In other words, the conceptual information and the
language cue in the preverbal message work together in activating lemmas of the
appropriate meaning and language. Since Poulisse and Bongaerts assume that L1
and L2 words are stored in a single, multilingual network, the lexical items in
this network need to contain information which specifies to which language they
belong. For this reason, Poulisse and Bongaerts adopt Green’s (1986) suggestion
that lemmas are tagged with a language label (for similar solutions see Grainger
and Dijkstra 1992, who suppose all word nodes are connected to language nodes,
and Monsell, Matthews and Miller 1992). Another feature of the model is that
the conceptual level has a distributed form. Each concept is made up of different
meaning elements which are (to some extent) shared by semantically related
words and translation equivalents (see De Groot 1992 and Paradis 1997 for
similar proposals).
Figure 3.1. The selection of an L2 lemma through spreading activation (from Poulisse and
Bongaerts 1994: 41)
Poulisse and Bongaerts’ model of L1 and L2 word selection is presented in

Figure 3.1. The model explains how language learners may differentiate between
the lexical items of two or more language systems. L2 lemmas, for instance,
receive more activation than the corresponding L1 lemmas when the preverbal
message contains the feature [+L2]. Intentional L1 use during L2 speech, either
because the L2 has not lexicalized a particular concept or because the speaker
has not yet acquired the word, can be explained in the same way. An L1
specification for a particular concept in the preverbal message will cause the L1
lemma to be activated and selected. Finally, the model explains unintentional L1
use during L2 speech as a slip of the tongue, similar to lexical substitution errors
involving semantically related words. In both cases a word is selected, by
accident, which shares all but one of the features of the target word. In the case
of semantically related substitutions this is a semantic feature, and in the case of
L1 substitutions, this is the language feature. The frequency of L1 substitution
errors (unintentional language switches) in the case of the least proficient
subjects is explained as a result of the relatively large difference in the resting
levels of activation for the L1 and L2 words. For a beginning L2 speaker, the L1
word will have a much higher resting level of activation than the corresponding
L2 word. As a consequence, the chances that the L1 word is accidentally
selected instead of the intended L2 word are relative large. This is all the more
true when the speakers have little attention to spare, which is often the case for
beginning learners, whose speech production is not very automatized.
Poulisse and Bongaerts (1994) also make a few suggestions with respect to
morphological and phonological encoding. The lack of L1 inflectional mor-
phemes used in combination with L1 verbs unintentionally produced in L2
speech supports Myers-Scotton’s (1992) assumption that it is the matrix language
which sees to the morphological encoding of inflections. In other words, when
one is speaking the L2, all inflections come from the L2 while when one is
speaking L1, all inflections come from the L1. With respect to phonological
encoding Poulisse and Bongaerts conclude that this is usually determined by the
language of the lexical item that has been accessed, since the majority of L1
words used in L2 speech were encoded with L1 phonemes. Poulisse and
Bongaerts also found a small number of cases though where Dutch words like
stuk (‘piece’) and rok (‘skirt’) were pronounced with the English phonemes /%/
and /r/ as in ‘stuck’ and ‘rock’. They interpret these cases as support for De
Bot’s (1992) suggestion that there is one large store of sound and pitch patterns.
They suggested that just as L1 and L2 lexical items are stored in one network
and may be distinguished by means of language tags, L1 and L2 phonemes may
be conceived of as being stored in one network and tagged for language. As a
result, Dutch words may accidentally be encoded with English phonemes.
A major advantage of the model of lexical access presented by Poulisse and
Bongaerts is its efficiency. It does not require the formulation of two alternative
speech plans to explain code-switching, and it allows the bilingual speaker to
switch to the other language by activating individual lexical items rather than
complete subsets consisting of all the words of a particular language. Moreover,
it does not postulate an extra component such as the Verbalizer to map concepts
and lemmas.
Another advantage is that Poulisse and Bongaerts’ (1994) proposal not only
accounts for intentional language switching (the language cue in the preverbal
message is changed), but also for unintentional language switches (in the same way
as semantically related lexical substitutions are accounted for in Levelt’s model).
A problem with Poulisse and Bongaerts’ proposal is that it cannot account
for the results of Williams and Hammarberg (1998), who observed that a speaker
of L3 Swedish frequently switched to her L2 rather than her L1. It will be
recalled that Williams and Hammarberg suggested that in addition to frequency
and recency of usage, language distance and L2 status might play a role in
WIPPs (language switches without pragmatic purposes). Clearly, then, the model
will need to be adapted in this respect.
A very similar model to the Poulisse and Bongaerts’ model was proposed
by Myers-Scotton and Jake (1995). In their model of Bilingual Language
Competence and Production lemmas are also tagged for language and are selected on
the basis of language-specific, semantic-pragmatic feature bundles. Interestingly,
Myers-Scotton and Jake note that these feature bundles may vary, depending on
the lexicalization patterns of the language being used. This places the chunking
process at the level of conceptualization and hence makes a special component,
such as the Verbalizer postulated by De Bot and Schreuder (1993), superfluous.
For a more detailed discussion of these issues see Poulisse (1996, 1997a).
3.2.6 Green (1998)
The last bilingual production model to be discussed here is the Inhibitory Control
(IC) Model, recently proposed by Green (1998). The model is particularly geared
at describing and explaining performance on different tasks, such as naming
pictures or translating visually presented words. It has several features of Green’s
earlier model discussed above. One of these is the assumption that the activation
levels of language networks, or items therein, may be modified depending on the
task to be carried out. Another feature which has been maintained is that the
modification of activation levels may take place both by means of activation and
by means of inhibition. And yet another common feature is that lemmas have
language tags which specify the language to which they belong.
In his new model, Green adopts the model of action proposed by Norman
and Shallice (1986; see also Shallice 1988), which postulates multiple levels of
control. For instance, there is routine behaviour such as driving, which is directly
controlled by schemas (networks detailing action sequences) triggered by
perceptual or cognitive cues. But there are also well-learned actions, like making
breakfast, which consist of several sub-actions, each involving their own task
schemas, whose performance is subject to voluntary control. And finally, there
are new actions, for which schemas have to be constructed or adapted, and which
involve the “Supervisory Attentional System” (SAS). Thus, a distinction is made
between automatic behaviour, which involves only one level of control and does
not involve the SAS, and controlled behaviour, which involves multiple levels of
control deriving from the SAS and from several layers of task schemas.
In the case of language tasks, Green says, conceptualisation of messages is
mediated by the SAS, as well as by the lexico-semantic system and by language
task schemas (p. 69). The SAS works in two ways. It influences conceptualiza-
tion, but it also activates particular language task schemas. Both the conceptual
information and the language task schemas are then transmitted to the lexico-
semantic system, where they lead to the selection of a word in the appropriate
language. For instance, if the language task schema is translation from L1 into
L2, then L1 words are inhibited and L2 words are activated until the goal of
producing the L2 word is achieved or changed.
As in the 1986 model, lemma selection is helped by the fact that there are
language tags, specifying to which language a lemma belongs. Like Poulisse and
Bongaerts (1994), Green assumes that tag specification is part of the conceptual
representation and is one of the factors activating lemmas. To make sure that the
right lemma is associated with the right lexical concept, he adopts Levelt et al.’s
(1999) binding-by-checking solution (see Chapter 1). Although this provides a
satisfactory account of lemma access in the case of bilinguals, Green goes on to
suggest that L1 and L2 lemmas which overlap in meaning are linked to each
other and hence may be activated at the same time until checking takes place.
After checking, lemmas with incorrect tags are suppressed, allowing the correct
ones to be phonologically encoded and articulated.
Green (1998) argues that the IC model can explain differences in the time
needed for forward (from L1 to L2) and backward translation (from L2 to L1),
as reported by Kroll and Stewart (1994), in terms of the time needed to suppress
previously activated lemmas. Since the connections between concepts and L1
lemmas are supposed to be stronger than between concepts and L2 lemmas, the
L1 lemmas will be more activated, and hence it will take longer to inhibit them
in L1 to L2 translation. In a similar way, the IC model explains the cost of
language switching in receptive (lexical decision) and productive (naming) tasks,
as reported by Von Studnitz and Green (1997) and Meuter (1994) respectively.
The time needed to switch between languages is caused by a change in language
schema and the concurrent need to suppress previously activated lemmas
belonging to the other language.
Green’s proposals were discussed by a number of researchers in the same issue
of Bilingualism. They raised numerous issues, the most important of which were:
1. that the notion of language task schemas was insufficiently specified, and
might in fact not be more than the speaker recognizing the goal of the task
at hand, and hence selecting the required output language;
2. that it might not be necessary to postulate the existence of language tags,
since the words belonging to a particular language might be organized in
one neural network as a result of the fact that they belong to the same
pattern of activity, that is, are frequently used together, and;
3. that reactive inhibitory control, after both L1 and L2 lemmas have first been
activated, might be less efficient than pro-active activation as proposed by
for instance Grainger and Dijkstra (1992) and Poulisse and Bongaerts (1994).
Moreover, Roelofs (1998) pointed out that inhibition is not plausible since
lemmas are selected in parallel as is evidenced by lexical exchanges like we
completely forgot to add the list to the roof (cf. Garrett 1980a) and by experiments
reported in Meyer (1996). This implies that in fluent switching L1 and L2 lemmas
must also be simultaneously active and hence the lemmas belonging to one of the
languages cannot be inhibited. Note that lack of inhibition also explains why in
these cases switching from one language to the other does not take time.
3.3 Models of second language acquisition
Just as bilingual models of speech production need to account for the differences
between L1 and L2 speech, models of second language acquisition will need to
account (among other things) for the proficiency-related differences between
beginning and advanced learners’ speech. As it turns out, the requirements in this
respect for L2 production and acquisition models are largely similar, since
advanced learners’ L2 speech differs from beginning learners’ L2 speech on the
same points as L1 speech differs from L2 speech. As learners become more
proficient in the L2, their L2 knowledge will become increasingly complete, their
L2 production will become increasingly fluent, and the influence from the L1
will be reduced. Thus, models of second language acquisition will have to
explain how knowledge increases, how speech (and writing, listening and
reading) become(s) more fluent and how the influence from the L1 is reduced.
There are several cognitive models of second language acquisition which can account
for the differences between beginning and advanced learners (see Schmidt 1992 for
an overview). In this section we will discuss McLaughlin’s theory of restructur-
ing and automatization (Section 3.1.1), Anderson’s ACT* theory (Section 3.3.2)
and MacWhinney and Bates’ Competition Model (Section 3.3.3). In addition, we
will discuss Gass’ input … output model (Section 3.3.4).
3.3.1 McLaughlin’s model of restructuring and automatization
McLaughlin’s model of second language acquisition can be classified as an

information-processing approach to language learning (and use). Such an
approach is characterized by the following assumptions (adapted from McLaugh-
lin and Heredia 1996):
1. Complex behaviour is composed of simple processes;
2. Each of these processes takes time;
3. There are two modes of processing: controlled and automatic;
4. Controlled processes take attention;
5. Automatized processes do not take attention;
6. Attentional resources are limited.
McLaughlin (1987, 1990; McLaughlin, Rossmann and McLeod 1983), discusses
language learning in terms of the automatization of processing skills and the
restructuring of knowledge. Automatization comes about as a result of practice.
Once processes have become automatized they are fast and effortless. They take
place “without subject control, without stressing the capacity limitations of the
system, and without necessarily requiring attention” (Schneider and Shiffrin
1977: 1). Schneider and Shiffrin showed that automatic processes, once devel-
oped, are hard to suppress. This means that an automatic process is difficult to
change. Since automatic processes are fast and make limited attention demands,
automatization promotes the learner’s fluency in speaking the L2.
Fluency is also enhanced as a result of the restructuring of knowledge, the
other aspect of language learning discussed by McLaughlin.2 It is important to
note that the restructuring of knowledge involves more than just adding informa-
tion to a knowledge store. As McLaughlin (1987: 136) points out, the learner also
“needs to impose organization and to structure the information that has been
acquired”. Thus, acquisition of new knowledge goes hand in hand with restruc-
turing. As a result of this restructuring, the procedures used to process the
information can work more efficiently. Naturally, this also promotes the
learner’s fluency in speaking the L2.
From this description, it will be clear why L2 learners’ productions are
more hesitant than native speakers’ productions. Language learners, particularly
2. Segalowitz and Segalowitz (1993) have proposed that automatization includes both speed-up and
restructuring of processing. The latter involves qualitative changes in the functioning of the
underlying processes which can be brought about by elimination of the slower, less stable processes
and replacing them by more efficient ones. Thus, in their view restructuring is part of automatization.
beginners, not only have to cope with the problem that their L2 knowledge is
incomplete and inefficiently structured, but also they have not yet had a great
deal of training in using the language, so that their speech production processes have
not yet become fully automatized. As a consequence of the lack of automatization,
their speaking is not effortless and requires a great deal of attention. Since atten-
tional resources are limited, a too great demand of attention slows down the
production process (as if one has to wait for new resources to become available).
The description of automatic processes also explains why the L1 so
frequently interferes in beginning L2 learners’ speech. As a result of frequent
usage, the L1 processes have become greatly automatized, while the correspond-
ing L2 processes have not yet reached this stage. Since the automatized L1
procedures are hard to suppress, they often take the place of the intended L2
processes, which are relatively hard to activate.
3.3.2 Anderson’s ACT* theory
Another cognitive theory which may account for the development of fluency in
L2 production is Anderson’s ACT* theory. This theory, which is not specifically
directed at second language acquisition, describes the acquisition of any cognitive
skill as a process by which declarative (or interpretive) skills operating on
declarative, factual knowledge gradually develop into procedural skills. The
process of skill acquisition takes place in three stages (Anderson 1983, 1986).
The first stage is called the “cognitive stage” (also called the “declarative” or the
“interpretive stage”). At this stage the declarative knowledge stored in long-term,
declarative, memory is retrieved into short-term, working memory, where it may
be rehearsed sub-vocally to keep it available for use by means of interpretive
procedures. At the second stage, called the “associative stage”, the knowledge is
converted from declarative into procedural form by means of a process called
“knowledge compilation”. This process can be divided into two subprocesses.
The first of these is called “proceduralization”. This means that the knowledge
which was first stored in declarative memory is incorporated in productions, that
is, condition/action pairs of the IF/THEN kind. An example of such a production
(from Anderson 1986) is: IF the goal is to dial Mary’s phonenumber THEN dial
4–3–2–2–8–1–5. This production contains the declarative knowledge needed to
dial Mary’s phonenumber. So, whereas originally the person may have had to
consult his declarative memory (cf. a diary) each time s/he wanted to phone
Mary, repeated use of the procedure resulted in proceduralization, so that s/he
can now dial the number without consulting declarative memory. Thus, the
process of proceduralization requires practice and results in the ability to use
declarative knowledge directly without having to activate it in working memory

and without the intercession of other interpretive procedures. The second
subprocess of knowledge compilation is called “composition”. As a result of this
process sequences of productions are combined into a single production. For
instance, the three productions needed to add 2 plus 2 plus 2 plus 2 can be
combined into the single production of multiplying 2 by 4. Productions are stored
in a second long-term memory, called “production memory”. At the third and
final stage, which is called the “autonomous stage”, there is further tuning of the
knowledge as a result of generalisation, discrimination and strengthening
processes. As a result, the knowledge can be applied more appropriately, and
faster. Altogether, the processes of proceduralization, composition, generalization,
discrimination and strengthening lead to more efficient processing. There is a
reduction of memory demands (because knowledge no longer needs to be activated
in working memory) and the process is faster (due to tuning). Of course, the
assumption is that more efficient processing will lead to more fluent speech.
Raupach (1987) questions some of the claims made by ACT* theory. Using
the theory to explain the occurrence of temporal variables in the L2 speech of
German learners of French both before and after a stay in France, he noted that
L2 learning is not just a matter of proceduralization of L2 declarative knowledge.
He found that both the less and the more advanced L2 learner also appeared to
apply L1 productions, i.e., L1 proceduralized knowledge. In other words, they
also transferred L1 productions. Moreover, some of the advanced learner’s
fluency after her stay in France seemed to result from her imitating the L2 input.
This implies that the learner acquired some productions directly, by imitation,
without first storing them as declarative knowledge. Clearly, then, these observations
show that not all L2 development follows all three stages described by Anderson.
Moreover, Raupach quite rightly pointed out that L1 development does not
always follow these stages either. Children too seem to learn most of their native
language by imitation of the input they receive. This makes it unlikely that they
first store linguistic knowledge (words, morphemes, sounds, syntactic rules) in
declarative form and later proceduralize it. If we just think of their use of
language chunks (i.e., formulaic language), it is immediately clear that some
knowledge at least is stored and used in the form of productions from the start.
In view of this criticism Anderson now no longer claims that all knowledge has
to start as declarative knowledge (Anderson and Fincham 1994).
Following Raupach (1987), Towell, Hawkins and Bazergui (1996) applied
Anderson’s ACT* theory to the study of temporal variables in L2 learner speech.
They related Anderson’s model of development to Levelt’s (1989) model of
speaking. As we have seen in Chapter 1, Levelt’s model consists of three
components: the conceptualizer, the formulator and the articulator, each of which
contain procedural knowledge in the form of productions such as those described
by Anderson. The productions operate on declarative knowledge, which includes
encyclopedic (world) knowledge and knowledge of words (their meaning,
morphology and phonology and the syntactic relations they may enter in), but
also knowledge of the situation and knowledge of the current discourse. Assum-
ing that oral production takes place as described by Levelt, and that becoming
fluent in oral production requires the conversion of declarative knowledge into
procedural knowledge as described by Anderson, Towell et al. set out to
investigate how proceduralization takes place in the case of second language
learners over the age of 7, and what it is that becomes proceduralized (p. 90).
More specifically, they addressed the question in which of the components of
conceptualization, formulation and articulation proceduralization takes place in
the case of second language learners.
To answer these questions Towell et al. set up a study of temporal variables
in the L2 productions of 12 advanced learners of French. The subjects were aged
between 18 and 19 at the beginning of the study. They were asked to recount a
film in French (L2), once before and once after a year abroad, six months of
which were spent in a French-speaking country. They also performed the same
task in English (L1), a year after the second recording in French. A comparison
of their recounts showed that the learners had become more fluent in French in
the sense that their speaking rate (mean number of syllables per minute spent on
performing the task) had gone up, albeit that they did not reach their native
English speaking rate. The effect was largely due to an increase in the length of
run (mean number of syllables between pauses of .28 seconds and above) and
partly to a small increase in the rate of articulation ( = syllables per second based
on the time spent speaking). Unlike Lennon (1990), Towell et al. reported that
there was no reduction in the number of pauses or the length of pauses. From
this Towell et al. concluded that proceduralization had mainly taken place at the
level of formulation (resulting in a longer length of run, without a decrease in the
phonation/time ratio and without an increase in the average pause length), and
only marginally at the level of articulation (there was only a small increase in the
rate of articulation).
Having established that proceduralization in the case of second language
learners predominantly affects formulation, Towell et al. performed a detailed
qualitative analysis of the data from two subjects to find out whether procedural-
ization took place in the area of setting up the syntactic frames, accessing the
lexicon, or morpho-phonological encoding, or in all three of them. The analysis
of the two subjects’ data suggested that the increase in the mean length of run
was largely to be attributed to the proceduralization of syntactic knowledge. The

increased rapidity with which this knowledge could be accessed for on-line
production resulted in longer and more complex syntactic structures being used.
It will be noted that in Anderson’s theory increased fluency in L2 speech is
the result of proceduralization and composition. The underlying procedures are
changed because they incorporate declarative knowledge (proceduralization) and
they allow the combination of sequences of productions (composition). In
addition, the procedures are strengthened (at the tuning stage), which might be
a process very similar to the process of automatization. If strengthening is similar
to automatization, Anderson’s theory may account for L1 influence in the same
way as McLaughlin’s theory did. Greatly strengthened or automatized L1
procedures may be hard to suppress.
3.3.3 MacWhinney and Bates’ Competition Model
Neither McLaughlin’s nor Anderson’s theory are very explicit about the accumu-
lation of knowledge. Both theories seem to operate on the assumption that L2
knowledge is already there before it is restructured or proceduralized. The
question how this knowledge got there in the first place remains largely unan-
swered. One answer to this question is provided in the third cognitive theory to
be discussed here, viz. the Competition Model of MacWhinney and Bates (Bates
and MacWhinney 1989; MacWhinney 1987, 1992 and 1997).
The Competition Model was first developed to deal with L1 data from
adults as well as children, but was later generalized to also deal with L2 acquisi-
tion (see MacWhinney 1997 in particular). The model makes four basic theoreti-
cal commitments. The first of these is a commitment to lexical functionalism.
This principle entails that one learns language forms, because one is pressured to
express communicative functions. The second commitment is to connectionism.
It is assumed that form–function mappings are represented in connectionist
networks, with connections between forms and functions as well as between
functions and between forms. Of particular interest to L2 acquisition is the
connectionist account of transfer. MacWhinney (1997) assumes that “all aspects
of the L1 that can possibly transfer to L2 will transfer” (p. 119). For instance,
when learning new vocabulary items, the L2 learner will transfer the full
conceptual structure of the most closely corresponding L1 word. Similarly, the
L2 learner will initially make use of L1 phonology and L1 grammatical con-
structs. As the L2 develops, the meanings of some words will be restructured and
the connections between L2 forms and the underlying referents will be strengthened.
The third principle of the Competition Model is that learning is input driven. Two
notions are particularly important here: “cue validity” and “cue strength”. Cues
are a kind of markers in the input which help the learner to interpret a particular
construction. For instance, preverbal positioning and agreement are formal cues
to the functions of subject and actor. Cue validity expresses the probability that
use of a particular cue will lead to the correct interpretation of the utterance. Cue
validity, along with frequency, availability and reliability is one of the determi-
nants of cue strength, that is, the strength of the connection between a particular
form and a particular function node. The stronger the connection, the more
important the cue will be for interpretation, and the more likely that learners of
a language will make use of the cue. The fourth and last principle is a commit-
ment to capacity limitations. It is assumed that language processing in real time
is subject to capacity limitations as a result of the limited capacity of short term
verbal memory.
MacWhinney’s model explains the accumulation of knowledge as a result
of the learner paying attention to the cues in the input. Increased fluency is
explained as the result of increasing strength of the connections between form
and function nodes as cues are repeatedly found to be valid and reliable. Finally,
interference is explained as an effect of the learner starting out with the L1 system,
applying (strong) L1 cues, and only gradually separating the L1 and L2 systems.
3.3.4 Gass’ input … output model
Another second language acquisition model, which focusses on how L2 learners

may turn input into intake, has recently been presented by Gass (1997; see also
Gass 1988 and Gass and Selinker 1994). We will refer to this model as the
“input … output model”. Interestingly, a very similar model, called the “output-
as-input model”, has been described for child language acquisition by Elbers
(1997, 1999).
Gass (1997) describes how input is integrated into the L2 learner’s language
system presenting a model consisting of five stages. Stage 1 is the stage of
“apperceived input”. In this stage the learner notices particular parts of the
language, for instance because they relate to bits of existing knowledge or
because the learner is aware of a mismatch between the input and his/her current
interlanguage system (cf. Færch and Kasper 1986b). Although Gass presents
some research manifesting that learning can take place without attention being
paid (viz. Carr and Curran 1994; Eckman, Bell and Nelson 1988; Gass 1982;
Schachter, Round, Wright, Smith and Magoto 1996), from which she concludes
that this stage is not necessarily characterized by attention and awareness, she
notes that Schmidt strongly argued that attention is a necessary condition at this
stage (e.g. Schmidt 1990, 1993, 1994). Other researchers too usually assume that
attention is involved at this stage. De Bot, Paribakht and Wesche (1997), for
instance, suggested that initial attention to the form of an unknown word in the
input may lead to the setting-up of an empty knowledge structure for a new
lemma, which is gradually filled in with syntactic and semantic information at
later stages. For a discussion of the role of attention (and consciousness) in L2
learning see also the contributions in Hulstijn and Schmidt (1994).
Gass lists a number of factors which determine whether/which aspects of
language are noticed at this stage. The factors are not independent of each other.
They include a) the presence of time pressure (particularly relevant in the case
of oral input), b) the frequency or infrequency with which something occurs in
the input, c) “affect”, including the learner’s motivation and attitude, the
perceived psychological or social distance from the target language community
and status, d) past experiences, that is, associations and prior knowledge, e)
salience of form (e.g. as a result of form-focussed instruction or frequency) and
f) attention. It will be noted that some of these factors, e.g. factors b) and e)
closely resemble some of the operating principles identified by Slobin (1973,
1985) and Andersen (1990).
Stage 2 in Gass’ model is the stage of “comprehended input”. Gass points
out that it is comprehended rather than comprehensible input which plays a role
at this stage. Only comprehended input can become intake. There are several
factors which may contribute to input being comprehended. They include a)
having the opportunity to negotiate meaning (though the effect of negotiation
on acquisition is not always clear (Ellis, Tanaka and Yamazaki 1994; Gass and
Varonis 1994; Loschky 1994) or only observable in certain conditions (Ellis
1995)), b) simplifications as in foreigner talk, c) redundancy and d) prior
linguistic knowledge. Gass notes that not all comprehended input becomes
intake. For instance, input that is used only once, within a conversation, need
not be taken in.
Stage 3 is the stage of “intake”. During this stage comprehended linguistic
material is assimilated. New information is matched against prior knowledge,
generalizations occur and memory traces are formed. Again, Gass specifies
several factors which affect this process. They are: a) the extent to which input
has been analysed, that is, comprehended, b) time (needed to analyse the input),
c) knowledge of L1 and L2 and d) whether or not a feature is part of U. G. or of
universal knowledge.
Stage 4 is the “integration stage”. At this stage, input which has been taken
in is either immediately integrated in the language system, or stored for later
integration.3 Immediate integration takes place if the input has led to the
confirmation or rejection of the learner’s hypotheses. If this results in new
knowledge, this is incorporated in the learner’s language system. If it concerns
knowledge which was already part of the system, this knowledge is strengthened
(in Anderson’s sense, discussed above). Postponed integration takes place if input
has been put into storage, e.g. because it is not yet clear how the knowledge
should be integrated or because it has led to hypotheses which require confirma-
tion before integration can take place. Factors causing intake to become integrat-
ed are: a) the organizational structure of the native language, b) existing L2
knowledge, c) universal principles of language and d) recognition of a mismatch
between input and the interlanguage system.
Stage 5, finally, is the “output stage”. This stage represents, on the one
hand, an overt manifestation that acquisition has taken place, but on the other
hand, constitutes another means of hypothesis testing, which is why Gass
includes it as part of the acquisition process. Thus, hypothesis testing, but also
receiving feedback for the verification of these hypotheses are described by Gass
as two functions of producing output.
A third function of output mentioned by Gass is rooted in the work of
Merrill Swain (Swain 1985, 1995; Swain and Lapkin 1995). Swain noticed that
sixth grade children who had been learning French in an immersion setting for
a number of years, were not very proficient in producing French, in spite of the
large amounts of input they had been exposed to. Since the children were given
little opportunity to use the language productively, Swain concluded that output
must play an important role in language development. In particular, she argued
that the production of comprehensible output pushes learners into making
syntactic rather than just semantic analyses of the language. This is because
when speaking or writing the learner is forced to put the elements of a sentence
in a particular order, and to do this appropriately they need to pay attention to
syntax. Eventually, this leads to more advanced and more accurate grammar use.
A fourth function of producing output is the development of automaticity in
interlanguage production. In her (very brief) discussion of this function, Gass
quotes McLaughlin’s (1987) characterization of automatization as involving “a
response that has been built up through the consistent mapping of the same input to
the same pattern of activation over many trials” (p. 134) and extends it to output:
“The consistent and successful mapping (i.e., practice) of grammar to output
3. This section in Gass (1997) is not entirely clear because it discusses some things, like hypothesis
testing, confirmation and rejection, as if they are part of stage 4, while according to a figure of the
model they appear to be part of stage 3.
results in automatic processing” (Gass 1997: 148). Much the same function had also
been identified by Swain and Lapkin (1995) who noted that the production of output
might also lead to learning in the sense of consolidating knowledge.
De Bot (1996) related the different functions of output (as presented by
Swain and Lapkin 1995) to Levelt’s (1989, 1993) model of speech production
and to Anderson’s (1982) ACT* theory. He pays particular emphasis to the
development from controlled to automatic processing (although strictly speaking
this is not part of Anderson’s model), the acquisition of declarative and procedur-
al knowledge, and the role of attention in skill acquisition. He relates the
hypothesis testing function to the monitor in the speech comprehension compo-
nent of Levelt’s model. Both internal and external speech are measured against
internal standards. If the output matches the internal system, improved patterns
of language use will develop. The noticing function of output is discussed in
terms of the amount of attention devoted to areas where the learner experiences
a language problem. Noticing may lead to learning because it may focus the
learner’s attention on the relevant information in the input. Finally, the function
of enhancing fluency is described in terms of the strength of connections
between lemmas and certain procedures. As a result of frequent output, the
connections are strengthened, which makes them more rapid and more precise.4
Unfortunately, there are but few studies showing the effect of output on L2
acquisition. There is some evidence from field studies reviewed by Chaudron
(1988), which revealed a positive correlation between L2 proficiency and student
oral output inside and outside the classroom. A positive effect of output practice
(for production) was also found by DeKeyser and Sokalski (1996), whose results
shed some doubt on those from an earlier study by VanPatten and Cadierno
(1993), who had reported that input practice was more effective than output
practice. It turned out that depending on the particular syntactic construction
being tested, direct object clitic or conditional in L2 Spanish, either output or
input practice was more beneficial. Finally, Ellis and Laporte (1997) reviewed
several laboratory studies demonstrating that output practice aids the acquisition
of L2 vocabulary and of phrases and collocations, in any case for beginning learners.
Gass’ model of second language acquisition provides a neat description of
how L2 learners may accumulate knowledge by focussing on particular aspects
of the input and incorporating them into their L2 systems. Two features of Gass’
4. Swain and Lapkin (1995) distinguish a fourth function of output, not mentioned by Gass (1997),
which is called the metalinguistic function. De Bot (1996) gives an account of this function which is
very similar to that given for the noticing function. As a result of increased awareness, more attention
is devoted to the relevant input.
model are particularly noteworthy. One of these is her attempt to specify which
factors affect processing at different stages of the acquisition process. The
number of factors identified is large and varied, including personal factors like
attitude and motivation, features of the input like frequency, redundancy and
simplification, existing knowledge, including world knowledge, previous L1 and
L2 knowledge and Universal Principles, and environmental conditions like the
available amount of time and social distance. Gass repeatedly makes the point
that these factors are not independent and may play a role at several of the
stages. Although this may make the model hard to test, it does illustrate the
complexity of language learning. At the same time, the model shows how many
of the factors that have been identified in the SLA literature as affecting success
in L2 learning can be related to the conversion of input to intake and the
integration of intake into the learner’s interlanguage system. This suggests that
the processing of input is a very crucial component of language learning indeed.
The second noteworthy aspect of Gass’ model is her inclusion of output as
a stage in second language acquisition. This allows us to link Gass’ model to the
three cognitive models by McLaughlin, Anderson, and MacWhinney and Bates
discussed earlier. Producing output constitutes practice. And practice helps
learners to automatize the processes of retrieving the required lemmas and
applying the relevant encoding procedures or to strengthen the connections
between form and function nodes. Thus, output too must be considered an
important component in language learning. It leads to faster activation of the
relevant L2 knowledge and procedures, which increases L2 fluency and reduces
L1 influence.
In conclusion, it appears that by combining Gass’ model with the three
cognitive models, we can explain a) the accumulation of knowledge as the result
of the integration of input into the L2 language system, b) the fluent use of this
knowledge as the result of practice which leads to the increased automatization
or proceduralization of knowledge and procedures or to strengthened connections
between nodes frequently used together and c) reduced L1 influence as a side-
effect of this development. Thus, as L2 knowledge and procedures are used
more often, the connections between L2 forms and referents will be strengthened,
so that they will gradually be used instead of L1 forms when speaking L2.
3.4 Conclusion
This chapter has reviewed studies of slips of the tongue produced by L2 learners,
L2 production models and models of second language acquisition. Studies of L2
slips turned out to be rare. Unlike the studies of slips of the tongue produced by
child L1 learners, L2 slip studies have not yielded data concerning the frequency
of slips in L2 data, nor have there been any detailed analyses concerning the
frequency of particular kinds of slips in the L2, concerning the constraints L2
slips are subjected to, or concerning the presence of L2-specific slips of the tongue.
Our review of L2 production models has shown that these are largely built
on existing monolingual speech production models, and in that sense account for
slips of the tongue in the same way as these models do. A number of adaptations
have been suggested to account for observations of bilingual aphasics, code-
switching data, L1 use during spontaneous L2 production and the results of a
variety of bilingual experiments involving tasks like lexical decision, picture
naming and word translation. Studies of L2 slips of the tongue so far have only
played a role in the Poulisse and Bongaerts’ model, and they limited themselves
to cases of unintentional L1 use. It is the goal of the present book to investigate
L2 learners’ slips of the tongue in more detail than has been done so far and to
provide others with the data to continue this line of research. It is hoped that in
this way we may gather the data needed to further the development of bilingual
models of speech production.
In the last section we discussed three cognitive models of second language
acquisition and Gass’ input … output model. We argued that a combination of
these models can account for the increase in knowledge and fluency and the
decrease of L1 influence which are typically observed in L2 learners as they
become more proficient in the L2. We expect that these models will also provide
a useful framework for the interpretation of proficiency-related differences in the
L2 slip data.
C 4
The Second Language Slip Project
In this chapter a description will be given of the second language slip project. In
Section 4.1 the two main goals of the project will be discussed, the research
questions will be presented and hypotheses will be formulated in view of the
findings reported in Chapter 1. In Section 4.2 the choice of subjects will be
motivated and in Section 4.3 a description will be given of the tasks used and the
procedure followed to elicit the second language speech corpus from which the
L2 slips were taken.
4.1 Goals, research questions and hypotheses
The second language slip project was set up with two major goals in mind. The
first of these was to increase our insight in the speech production process of
second and foreign language learners in particular and bilingual speakers in
general. As we have seen in Chapter 1, the study of slips of the tongue has
contributed greatly to the development of monolingual models of speech
production. It can therefore be expected that an analysis of L2 slip data will be
useful for the development of bilingual models of speech production. In Chap-
ter 3 we saw that recently, several attempts have been made to develop such
models (see e.g. De Bot 1992; De Bot and Schreuder 1993; Green 1986, 1998;
Poulisse and Bongaerts 1994). The data provided by the L2 slip project could be
used to further support and improve these models.
The development of a bilingual model of speech production is highly
desirable since bilingualism is the rule rather than the exception in today’s world
(Crystal 1987: 360). De Bot (1992: 2) therefore quite rightly suggested that “one
could argue that the basic model should be concerned with bilingualism, with an
option to have a unilingual version”. Currently, however, most models of speech
production are not concerned with bilingualism, but with the description of
language as produced by adult monolingual speakers (see e.g. Dell 1986; Garrett
1975; Laver 1980b; Levelt 1989; MacKay 1987). In a way, this is not surprising.
The development of speech production models is difficult enough as it is, so
there is little inclination to make things more complicated by also accounting for
child language production or for speech production by bilinguals. Nevertheless,
in view of the large number of bilingual speakers (including foreign and second
language learners) a bilingual model is clearly also needed. An additional
advantage of developing a bilingual model is that the data collected for this
purpose could be used to test current monolingual models. In this way, the
present study might make a contribution to the general field of speech production.
The second goal of the L2 slip project is to increase insight in the notion of
L2 acquisition and particularly in the development of L2 fluency. As we have
seen in Chapter 2, some researchers have found that children produce more slips
of the tongue than adults, which has been interpreted as a sign that the develop-
ing linguistic knowledge systems are still unstable and that the speech production
processes are insufficiently automatized (Bowerman 1978; Smith 1990; Wijnen
1992; but see Warren 1986). It is possible that this would also be true for
beginning learners of a second or foreign language. In addition, it is possible that
L2 learners will not only produce more slips of the tongue than advanced
learners, but will also produce different kinds of slips, e.g. slips resulting from
L1 interference or from the lower rate of speech production. It is expected that
by examining the different kinds of slips of the tongue produced by L2 learners
at various proficiency levels more detailed information can be obtained regarding
the second language acquisition process.
So far, “performance variability” has received little attention from those
interested in second language acquisition (with the exception of a group of
researchers at the University of Kassel), “because it does not shed any light on
how acquisition takes place” (Ellis 1985: 76). It is our contention that perfor-
mance errors (i.e. slips of the tongue) may very well shed light on second
language acquisition because the types of slips that occur and their causes show
a great deal of systematicity indeed.
To meet the two goals of making a contribution to theory building in the
areas of bilingual speech production and second language acquisition, we will try
to answer the following research questions:
1. Do L2 learner slips show the same regularities as slips produced by adult
L1 speakers: do they involve the same units, do they show the same effects
and are they subject to the same constraints?
2. Are there any proficiency-related differences in the slips produced by L2
learners: do they produce different numbers of slips, do they produce
THE SECOND LANGUAGE SLIP PROJECT 81
different kinds of slips to different degrees, do they show the same

regularities, and are there any similarities in the slip patterns produced by
(beginning) L2 learners and child L1 learners?
3. To what extent and in what way do L2 slips demonstrate influence from the L1?
4. To what extent and in what way do areas of L2 learning show up in L2
learners’ slips of the tongue?
To answer research question 1, we will first analyse the L2 data with respect to the
14 claims discussed in Chapter 1 regarding slips of the tongue produced by adult L1
speakers. We hypothesize that, to the extent that L1 and L2 speech production
are the same, these claims will be true for L1 and L2 production alike. In view
of the fact that speech production tends to be less automatized in the case of first
and second language learners, as became clear from chapters 2 and 3, it is
possible though that some of the claims will not be supported by the L2 data.
To answer research question 2, we will investigate differences in the slips
of the tongue produced by learners at different levels of L2 proficiency. Our
hypotheses regarding this question are based on the findings from the L2
performance studies referred to in Chapter 3, which suggested that L2 production
is less automatized than L1 production. Consequently, we hypothesize that L2
speakers will produce more slips of the tongue than L1 speakers and that the
number of slips of the tongue produced by L2 learners will be inversely related
to their proficiency level. Moreover, we hypothesize that certain kinds of slips
may be particularly frequent in the data of L2 speakers, reflecting the instability
of the procedures and knowledge involved. Moreover, if any of the 14 claims are
not supported for L2 learners, we hypothesize that the differences will be
smallest for the advanced L2 learners and largest for the beginning L2 learners,
reflecting the degree of automatization. And finally, following Schwartz et al.
(1994), we hypothesize that the least proficient L2 learners produce a larger
proportion of perseverations and a larger proportion of non-word outcomes than
the more advanced L2 learners.
With respect to research question 3, we will extend the investigation
conducted by Poulisse and Bongaerts (1994), this time including slips of the
tongue at all linguistic levels, including morphology, phonology and syntax. We
hypothesize that L1-based slips at all levels will be particularly likely in the case
of beginning L2 learners, assuming that their (frequently used) L1 knowledge is
easier to activate than their (newly acquired, hence infrequently used) L2 knowledge.
Regarding research question 4, we hypothesize that those areas of L2
knowledge which are particularly unstable will give rise to many slips of the
tongue. A systematic analysis of the L2 slip data will have to reveal what the
crucial areas are. We assume that an investigation of the kinds of slips made in
these areas may improve our understanding of second language acquisition.
4.2 Subjects
The slips of the tongue for the current project were collected from a large L2
corpus compiled in 1984 to investigate the use of compensatory strategies by
Dutch learners of English (Poulisse 1990). The subjects who took part in this
project were three groups of Dutch learners of English at three different
proficiency levels. Each of the three groups consisted of 15 subjects. The three
groups were chosen so as to cover as wide a range of proficiency as possible.
This was necessary to make sure that the proficiency levels of the groups would
be sufficiently distinct from each other to allow group-wise comparisons. At the
same time care was taken to ensure that all three groups, including the least
proficient one, would be capable of carrying out the same tasks, so that the data
produced by the three groups would be comparable. For this reason the level of
the lowest proficiency group could not be set too low. Previous experiences and
pretests involving Dutch learners of English had shown that 3-VWO pupils could
be expected to meet the demands. Hence 15 3-VWO pupils constituted the
lowest proficiency group. The intermediate group consisted of 15 5-VWO pupils,
and the most advanced group consisted of 15 second-year university students of
English. Table 4.1 gives some general information on each group’s proficiency
level and age.
Table 4.1. Information on the proficiency levels and the ages of the subjects in the three
groups of learners
status proficiency level years of study age
group 1 2nd-year students advanced 7 or more 19–25
group 2 5-VWO pupils intermediate 4 or 5 16–18
group 3 3-VWO pupils low 2 14–15
The 3-VWO pupils who took part in the study were in their third year at school,
which means that at the time the data were collected (autumn 1984) they had
been learning English at school for two years and three months (for three
50-minute class periods per week). The 5-VWO pupils were in their fifth year
and had been learning English at school for at least four years and three months
(again, for three 50-minute class periods per week). All VWO pupils attended the
Elshof College in Nijmegen. The second-year students had attended classes in

English for at least six years at secondary school (again VWO) and were at the
time of recording studying English language and literature fulltime at the
University of Nijmegen.
Grosjean (1997: 226–227) recommends that when working with bilinguals,
as many factors as possible are controlled for. The subjects who participated in
the present study all had a similar language learning history and came from a
similar socio-economic and educational background. Since proficiency level was
one of the factors at stake, the subjects did of course differ in language stability,
competence in the four skills, the function of languages, and the extent to which
they found themselves in the monolingual or bilingual mode. We did, however,
try to ensure as much homogeneity as possible within each of the three proficien-
cy groups. For this reason, the selection of subjects was based on a number of
criteria. For VWO pupils they were ‘years of tuition in English’, ‘school-report
marks’, ‘teacher judgements’ and ‘scores on a cloze test’. For second-year
students the criteria were ‘contact with the English language’, ‘results on first-
year exams’, and again ‘scores on a cloze test’ (see Poulisse 1990 for details).
With the help of these criteria the best as well as the poorest learners were
excluded from each proficiency group. The subjects were equally divided among
both sexes, the ratio always being 7 to 8. All subjects who participated in the
project were volunteers. They were paid ƒ18,- ( = approx. US $9) for two data
collection sessions, which together lasted approximately three hours.
4.3 Data collection and data handling
The subjects who participated in the project carried out four different speaking
tasks, which ranged from strictly controlled to fairly natural. A controlled task is
a task in which disturbing factors, like the contents of speech and the amount of
feedback given, are kept to a minimum. The advantage of such a task is that the
data it yields are largely comparable across subjects. The disadvantage, of course,
is that the elicited data may be somewhat unnatural. A ‘natural’ task is one
which, ideally, is indistinguishable from the natural speech situation. Its main
advantage, of course, is that it may yield results which are generalizable to real
communication. Two disadvantages are that it may not yield sufficient instances
of the phenomenon to be studied and that the instances which are found occur in
different contexts, which may make it difficult to interpret and/or compare them.
For the study of compensatory strategies, for which these data were
originally collected, it was particularly important to have a variety of tasks with
a large number of different lexical problems embedded in them, since previous

studies had revealed that compensatory strategy use is task- and item-specific. In
addition, it was necessary to have one task which could be carried out in L1
(Dutch) as well as L2 (English), because one of the goals of that study was to
compare compensatory strategy use in L1 and L2. The four tasks which were
used in the project were the following:
1. A concrete picture description task (task I)
2. An abstract figure description task (task II)
3. A story retell task (task III)
4. An oral interview (task IV)
The concrete picture description task
The concrete picture description task was the most controlled task used in the
project. It consisted of 40 coloured photographs of objects. Of the objects, 20
were selected because pretests with very advanced Dutch learners of English had
shown that they would present the subjects of all three proficiency levels with
naming problems. Examples of these difficult items are rolling pin, bib, clapper
and spirit level. The other 20 objects were all easy to name. Examples are roses,
book, door and television. These items were used as fillers to keep the subjects
motivated. Pretests had also shown that all 40 objects could be easily recognized.
The photographs were presented to the subjects in one of four different random
orders. The subjects were asked to look at them one by one and to make clear in
English what object they saw, either by naming it, or in any other way. No
feedback was given while they were doing this, but the subjects were asked to do
the task in such a way that an Englishman who would later listen to the record-
ings of the session would be able to identify the objects. The data yielded by the
“difficult” items in this task predominantly consist of lengthy descriptions of the
objects. Examples,1 with the slips of the tongue in them underlined, are:
(1) it’s a toy, which you can pl uh which you can play with, uh it’s for
little children, you can put uh, you can pull 1 one, a piece of the
thing and it goes around (humming-top; 202t1)
(2) erm, if you want to, have your, lamp uh burning, you, have to get
some energy, this energy comes out of this, kind of this wittle /wI/
white little box, it’s uh placed on uh 1 a wall (three-way extension
lead; 214t1)
1. See Chapter 1, note 1 (p. 11).

Most of the ‘easy’ items were named by the subjects. They were excluded from
further data analysis.
The abstract figure description task
The abstract figure description task was also fairly controlled in the sense that no
feedback was given to the subjects. The task required the subjects to refer to 12
line drawings (novel graphic designs taken from Krauss and Weinheimer 1964),
which do not have conventional names. Since this task is not only problematic
to L2 learners, but also to native speakers having to refer to the figures in their
L1, it could be used to elicit both L1 and L2 data. In the project on compensato-
ry strategy use this allowed us to compare L1 and L2 strategic behaviour. In the
current project on L2 slips, it provides us with a small sample of comparable L1
slips produced by the same subjects. This proved to be very valuable. It turned
out that the subjects adopted various strategies to deal with this task. One such
strategy was to describe the figures from a holistic perspective. Usually this took
the form of an analogy set up between the figure to be described and a real-
world object or a conventional geometrical shape (see examples 3 and 4).
Another strategy, called partitive, was adopted when a figure was viewed not as
a whole but as consisting of two or more parts. Again this could be in the form
of analogies to real world objects or geometrical shapes, or even a combination
of the two (see examples 5 and 6). A third strategy, called linear, was to break
the figure up into its ultimate components (e.g. lines, angles, spatial relations)
and to describe it in terms of these. In this case no conceptual interpretation of
the figure is given. Rather, one could say that the linear strategy takes the
listener through the figure as it were, by giving a meticulous route description
(see example 7). Again, the slips of the tongue in the examples have been underlined.
The letters following the file-code specify which figures are being described.
(3) erm, 1 six 2 uh, looks like a, uh, a bottle, but /t6/ on the, right side
and the left side there’s, there are going lines, erm, up, so that you
could /w7lm6~s/ almost, take it up by those uh, things (106t2; j)
(4) number eleven, is uh, a kind of circle, with uh tree three uh open-
ings in it (102t2; c)
(5) /faI/ uh four is, a kind of, axe, with a big 2 uh triangle on the front
and 1 uh at the right side there’s something like a tear (214t2; h)
(6) erm 3 uh, figure uh one, uh, is a f 2 uh figure that like, nee, that 3
uh 9 uh that likes of uh 3 erm 3 that likes o erm 16 erm 2 ja f uh
figure one, uh that likes uh 3 on the uh other nee, under, uh side 1
of erm 2 uh 3 erm, a circle 1 and, uh 3 and, at the top uh, it likes
uh 2 uh, of an, uh 3 uh 1 nee and inside it likes uh 1 of an uh heart

(309t2; d)
(7) erm uh, this one is, erm the top line is, uh 1 bent, erm 5 erm 2 and
the, on both sides 1 mm 1 there’s a line downstairs erm 3 that is
erm 3 in the middle it’s, uh, in the middle of a figjure, figure,
downstairs it’s bent uh, to the inside, both, and then uh, at the
bottom, there’s a, line from 1 uh, up, uh from down 2 up, and,
there’s a line from the, left to the right (103t2; e)
As examples (3) to (6) show, the subjects often added more specific information
after the initial analogies had been set up. This, together with the length of the
linear strategies means that the abstract figure description task yielded a useful
amount of speech.
The story retell task
The story retell task was chosen because it combines characteristics of a
controlled and a natural task. It is controlled in that the contents of the stories,
and hence the problematic items, can be largely determined by the researcher.
Feedback too can be controlled, but in this case without affecting the naturalness
of the task. After all, stories are naturally monologues. The naturalness also
benefits from the fact that in a story retell task it is the message rather than the
exact words that has to be conveyed. People seem to remember the meaning of
a text, or, as Sachs (1967: 437) puts it “… the original form of the sentence is
stored only for the short time necessary for comprehension to occur. When a
semantic interpretation has been made, the meaning is stored.”
The story retell task used in the project consisted of five ten-line stories.
Three of these were selected from Hill (1977), one was an unfamiliar version of
a well-known joke and one was written for the occasion. The stories from Hill
had been adapted for the compensatory strategy project by increasing the number
of expected lexical difficulties, e.g. by replacing words like doctor with repre-
sentative. The subjects were asked to listen to recordings of the stories read in
Dutch by an experienced reader. After each story they were asked to retell it in
English. Pictures had been drawn to accompany the stories to make sure that the
subjects would not omit too many essential details. The subjects could look at
these pictures while listening to the stories and while retelling them. The first of
the five stories was presented as a practice story and later discarded from the
analyses. An example of the data yielded by the story retell task is given below.
erm, once there was a man, who wanted to be a /k#n/ /k#n’sj8˜rŠ/ 1 of a,
house, where old people do live $coughs$ and so he wrote 1 uh 2 he lote he,
wrote, a lot of, briefs, to get, that so(rt) that kind of job, $coughs$ after few
years, he /s%ks/ he succeeded, in his writing, because 1 erm 2 he ge(t) he got

that /saI/ that kind of job, and so 1 $coughs$, he 1 he went to another house,
which belongs, to 1 the house with, uh 1 several old people 2 erm, and when
he lived in that house, he got a, a packet of flowers, with a, with a card on it
2 on that card stand, stood a /m7q/ message 3 which people do always send,
if someone dies, that kind of message 1 the ban, the man got very angry, and
he called 1 erm, the shop, where the flowers came from 2 the boss from that
shop, was excited, and, and told the man 1 erm, there’s made a mis, mistake,
we wrote you, uh nee, we sent you, the vrong the wrong packet, because,
there’s uh 1 a man has died, and he got the 1 he got the, uh other packet, with
flowers, and on, on the, the message on, that card is, uh, congratulations with
your new position (205t3).
The oral interview
The oral interview was the most natural task in the project. Although we felt
obliged to make some concessions to the requirements of naturalness to guaran-
tee the use of compensatory strategies, we assumed the interview would be an
adequate method for eliciting spontaneous data. The interviews lasted 20 minutes,
of which the first five minutes were considered as a warming up period and
hence discarded from the analyses. They were conducted by a native speaker of
English, a 29-year-old woman from Ireland. The woman was married to a
Dutchman and had lived in the Netherlands for six months. Her knowledge of
Dutch was very limited. Before experimentation began, she received instructions
on the required interview techniques and was trained in a number of practice
sessions. In these sessions it was emphasised that the subjects should be talked
into lexical problems as much as possible, and particularly that they should not
be helped too quickly. This was necessary to ensure that a sufficient number of
compensatory strategies were elicited, but occasionally made the interviews less
natural than they could have been. On the whole, the interviewer succeeded in
creating a relaxed atmosphere though.
The topics which were discussed in the interviews were partly determined
beforehand. It was expected that familiar topics like school, home and holidays,
since they would place subjects “in the know” while the interviewer was not,
would be more motivating for the subjects to talk about than traditional exam
topics like nuclear energy and capital punishment. A number of specific topics
like gardening and cooking were included because they were expected to result
in the use of many compensatory strategies. Other topics just came up spontane-
ously during the interviews and as long as the subjects showed an interest in
talking about them, they were pursued. In general the strategy was to prefer
lively conversations to predetermined “question and answer games”. An illustra-
tive fragment of one of the interviews, featuring quite a few instances of L1
lexical substitution errors, is given below. Note that ‘I’ stands for interviewer and
‘S’ for subject.
I: oh, and what else do you like to do in your spare time?
S: uh 1 uh ballet uh 1 /’bæl6t/ $laughs$
I: ja
S: jazz
I: oh, and are you taking lessons?
S: yes, and uh, maar, I uh, stop $laughs$ uh next year $laughs$
I: why?
S: na I uh want to go to dance with erm, somebody else with a boy, and uh
style uh, /dæns6/
I: what’s that?
S: erm, ja dance, uh /dæns6/ uh with, with uh, a boy and a girl
I: oh ja
S: the cha cha cha
I: oh ja that’s lovely
S: yes
I: and you don’t do that now?
S: no
I: mm
S: but uh my friends uh, they do it, dus, so
I: mm, and where are you learning, the the lessons that you’re taking now?
S: for jazzballet
I: ja
S: erm, ja it’s by uh, by uh Tilly van, uh Oss 1 it’s uh, a school, /6t/ uh, a
/b6l7t/school
I: oh ja, and do you have to go there often?
S: yes uh, erm, every Friday night, from uh six uh to seven
I: mm
S: it’s very nice, ja
I: ja
S: maar ja I uh must uh, choose from my, parents, or, jazzballet or dance
with the boy and the,
I: oh ja
S: ja, ja en ik I uh 1 choose for uh, dance with a boy
I: ja
S: want uh, but, because uh, on parties, they do it, and I can’t uh, do it
I: ja
S: so
I: ja, that ‘ll be nice I think
S: ja (311t4)
The experimentation
All subjects were tested individually in a quiet room at the University of
Nijmegen in two sessions of approximately one-and-a-half hours each. The order
of the tasks was the same for all subjects. In the first session they did the
concrete picture description task, followed by the story retell task and in the
second session they did the abstract picture description task (first in Dutch and
then in English) and the oral interview. Each session also included a retrospec-
tive session in which the subjects’ performance on the story retell task and the
interview were reviewed with them.
Upon entering the room the subjects were offered a cup of coffee or tea,
and were given some general instructions to read. These emphasised the impor-
tance of a good understanding of all task instructions. After the general instruc-
tions the experimenter asked for some additional personal information from the
subjects concerning their date of birth and their contacts with English. They were
then given the instructions for each task. Understanding was checked and then
the tasks were carried out. All data were both tape- and video-recorded.
Processing of the data
The total amount of data to be analysed took up 34 hours, the average time
needed to do the four tasks being 45 minutes per subject. The average number
of words used by the subjects was 2,795 (s.d. = 721) for the 3-VWO subjects,
3,199 (s.d. = 676) for the 5-VWO subjects and 3,361 (s.d. = 609) for the second-
year university students of English. All data were transcribed from the audio-
tapes, using a Sanyo memoscriber. The transcription was orthographic, but a
phonemic transcription was given when this was necessary to interpret the use of
compensatory strategies. Special care was taken to mark pauses, repetitions,
rising intonation, laughs and coughs as these might be significant in the identifi-
cation of compensatory stategy use. Furthermore, slips of the tongue and self-
corrections were included in the transcription. All transcriptions were stored on
computer and subsequently checked by a research assistant, who also corrected
typing errors and other inconsistencies. The transcription of the data and the
subsequent correction took five months. For the purpose of the current project,
the original tapes were re-examined once more to make sure all slips of the
tongue had been included in the transcriptions (see Chapter 5).
C 5
Methodological Issues
This chapter will be devoted to methodological issues. Section 5.1 will reconsider
the definition of slips of the tongue given in the introductory chapter to this book
and will specify the criteria which have been used in this study to distinguish
slips of the tongue from other irregularities and errors frequently occurring in L2
speech. In Section 5.2 the identification procedures followed in most L1 slip
collections will be discussed. Particular emphasis will be given to the reliability
of so-called “pen-and-paper” corpora. The section will finish with a description
of our own method of identification. Finally, in Section 5.3, there will be a
presentation of the coding system which we adopted to classify the slips of the
tongue in our own corpus.
5.1 Defining slips of the tongue
In the introductory chapter to this book we quoted the definition of slips of the
tongue offered by Dell (1986: 284). According to this definition “a slip of the
tongue can be identified as an unintended, nonhabitual deviation from a speech
plan”. From this definition we can distill two criteria which we used to oper-
ationalize the notion of slips of the tongue. The first of these criteria is that there
must be an error and the second one is that the speaker must be able to repair
the error.
Criterion 1, that there must be an error, follows from the word ‘deviation’
in Dell’s definition. This word suggests that something goes wrong. The outcome
of the speech plan differs from the originally intended speech plan. This
criterion is important in the identification of slips of the tongue because it helps
one to exclude a number of other phenomena typical of spoken language such as
repetitions (including stuttering), inappropriate lexical items and stretches of
speech which are uninterpretable. Thus, the following utterances do not contain
slips of the tongue:
(1) a 1 pin on on it (101t1)

(2) s somewhere (101t1)
(3) two little two small no, younger sisters (108t4)
(4) you will have to wear 1 you need to wear (101t1)
(5) it can be rea very, very dangerous (113t4)
(6) because he, he thought that it was, that that was uh (209t3)
(7) and you can, put it just, f well because you won’t spill anything
(101t1)
(8) so that it can damage the 1 the /p8˜/ the wood or something like it
(101t1)
(9) these are, two t uh two d things uh (202t1)
Examples 1 and 2 illustrate the repetition of words and sounds. Repetitions
(including stuttering) suggest that there is insufficient processing capacity to
meet the demands of the speech production system (Koopmans 1995; Stark-
weather 1987). They are not considered slips of the tongue since they do not
involve erroneous language use. Examples 3 to 6 illustrate the occurrence of
inappropriate lexical items. Such inappropriate items are often repaired to
disambiguate, to specify or to improve the coherence of a text (Levelt 1983).
They are not considered slips of the tongue since what is repaired (the reparan-
dum) is not erroneous, but merely inappropriate. Finally, examples 7 to 9
illustrate the production of uninterpretable sounds, or rather noises. Cases like
these are excluded because it is not clear whether the sound uttered should be
considered as the beginning of an error or of an inappropriate item. In short, we
excluded all those cases from our corpus of slips of the tongue which were not
clearly erroneous.
The second criterion, that the speaker must be able to repair the error,
follows from the words ‘unintended’ and ‘non-habitual’. Unintended means
unplanned or unintentional, that is, accidental. Accidental errors are errors which
probably would not have been made if the speaker had paid more attention. This
is also implied by the characterization of these errors as non-habitual. Non-
habitual means that the speaker does not normally make these errors. In other
words, the speaker also produces correct instances of these words or sounds.
Thus, the feature non-habitual suggests that slips of the tongue are errors not
resulting from a lack of competence, but rather from a problem in performance,
e.g., as a result of insufficient attention being paid. Since slips of the tongue are
not due to lack of competence, speakers who produce these slips should be able
to repair them when they perceive them or when they are pointed out to them.
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES 93
This is why reparability is used as a second criterion.

The notion of reparability can be operationalized in two ways. The most
convincing way, of course, is when the speaker actually repairs the error which
is reparable. This is illustrated in examples (10) to (15), all of which contain
slips of the tongue.
(10) something to, to kill fly_ w flies with (113t1)
(11) to put your foo uh your feet on (212t1)
(12) erm 3 a thing, erm 3 uh with whom, with, which (206t1)
(13) they drink, melk out of i(t) milk out of it (205t1)
(14) 1 the ban, the man got very angry (205t3)
(15) all the food that uh, falls, will fell on it, fall $laughs$ (204t1)
Errors are also considered reparable though, when they are not actually repaired,
but when there are good reasons to assume that the speaker would be able to
repair the error. One good reason to assume this is when the erroneous words are
so frequent in the language that it seems fair to assume that the speakers know
them. This is illustrated in examples (16) and (17).
(16) and then he, foud out, that the flowers (found out; 106t3)
(17) afther the, rabbit had gone (after; 109t3)
Another good reason to assume that errors are reparable is when they are non-
habitual. The occurrence of correct instances of the target items in the data
strongly suggests that the speakers do know and can produce the intended forms.
Hence we may assume that they can repair erroneous instances of these same
forms when asked to do so. Thus, the errors in (18) to (21) are considered slips
of the tongue, since in all cases the speakers who made these errors also
produced a number of correct instances of the target forms.
(18) now the clothe-mather thought (207t3; clothe-maker occurs five times)
(19) with this thing, you can little childs learn to count (207t1; children
also occurs);
(20) it’s sometime used (101t1; sometimes occurs twice, the second time
it is corrected)
(21) but my father don’t want (208t4; don’t occurs three times, but doesn’t
is also used correctly, and one of the three slips is corrected too)
Conversely, errors like (22) and (23), are not considered slips, because they
appear to be habitual. They occurred repeatedly without there being any correct
instances in these subjects’ data.
(22) uh a plathtic thing (plastic; 201t1)

(23) erm 2 uh, this is a sing you use (thing; 204t1)
The operationalization of reparable errors as non-habitual ones needs to be
applied with some caution when dealing with second language data as is the case
in the study reported here. This is because L2 data are typically unstable. L2
learners who are, for instance, acquiring the rule that in English the morpheme
‘-s’ needs to be added to third person singular verb forms in the simple present
tense, will typically go through a stage in which they sometimes forget to add
the ‘-s’, sometimes correctly add it, and sometimes add it incorrectly, e.g. to third
person plural verb forms (see also Chapter 6). Thus, it is one of the characteristics of
L2 learner language that it contains mistakes which are non-habitual.
This raises the question when these errors should be considered true errors
resulting from lack of competence, and when they should be considered slips of
the tongue, resulting from problems in performance (called “mistakes” by Corder
1967). Of course the easiest way out here would have been to ignore all errors
which could possibly have arisen from lack of competence. We felt though that
if we did that, we would probably lose much information that could help us
improve our insight in the process of second language acquisition. And since this
was one of the goals of our study to begin with (see Chapter 4), it seemed wrong
to discard precisely those areas from our study where most language learning
could be expected to take place. We therefore decided to adhere to the idea that
reparable errors could be operationalized as non-habitual ones, but to further
specify what we considered to be non-habitual. This led to the following
guidelines which were strictly adhered to in our study:
– an error that occurs once is considered a slip if there is at least one correct
instance of the intended unit in the same task performance;
– errors that occur twice are considered slips only if there are at least two
correct instances of it in the same task;
– errors that occur three times are considered slips only if there are at least
six correct instances of it in the same task;
– and errors that occur more than four times are excluded from the collection.
Although these guidelines are to some extent arbitrary, they definitely helped to
operationalize the criterion of reparability in cases where the speakers did not
actually repair the errors.
In view of the above criteria it should be clear that errors which were not
repaired, or which were not considered reparable (either because they concerned
infrequent words and/or because there were no or insufficient correct instances
of the target in the data), were considered competence errors and therefore
excluded from the collection of slips of the tongue. Examples of competence
errors not considered slips of the tongue are (24) to (31).
(24) some uh, thread, erm to, uh, /su˜/ something (sew; 103t1)
(25) when the baby doesn’t eat, very uh 1 $laughs$ good (well; 204t1)
(26) then you can put your foots on it (feet; 114t1)
(27) no of course not, I send him a sort of tool (sent; 109t3)
(28) it’s a thing to 3 keep your /w7v/ with you (watch; 305t1)
(29) in your, uh kast of zo (cupboard; 211t1)
(30) the bicycle-seller 2 uh, asked his advocate what, uh (lawyer, cf. Du.
advocaat; 207t3)
(31) do you have, uh 3 robs (pleated skirts, cf. Fr. robe; 207t3)
In all these cases errors arise because the required knowledge is incomplete or
not available at all.
Two final points need to be made here. One concerns the repetition of slips
of the tongue. If that happened two slips were identified. This is illustrated in
example (32), where /i˜/ is used twice instead of the intended ‘he’.
(32) that evening he thought 1 uh /i˜/, /i˜/ thought erm (211t3)
The second point concerns the use of so-called “editing terms”, which can be
considered part of the repair process (see Levelt 1983; Van Hest 1996). It turned
out that the Dutch learners of English participating in our study often used Dutch
editing terms in their correction of slips of the tongue instead of English ones
(see examples (33) to (35)).
(33) and the other is flat, of uh goes flat (or; 307t4)
(34) /spaI6neId/ of /sp/ spinat of zo (or; 303t4)
(35) big fish nee, much fish (no; 302t4)
Although these could have been considered as slips of the tongue themselves, we
chose not to identify them separately but to mark them as L1 substitutions within
the repair codes (see Section 5.3). Only when Dutch editing terms were used in
the correction of inappropriate items (which were not considered slips), were the
editing terms separately identified as slips.
5.2 Detecting slips of the tongue: the reliability issue
In the past most collections of slips of the tongue were gathered by the “pen-
and-paper” method. Researchers, and often their colleagues, students and friends
as well, would simply note down any slip of the tongue they heard (cf. Meringer
and Mayer 1895; Meringer 1908; Fromkin 1971, 1980; Dell and Reich 1981;
Shattuck-Hufnagel 1975; Stemberger 1985; Berg 1987). In some cases (e.g.
Meringer 1908) the persons who produced the slips were subsequently questioned
as to the origin of their slips, and sometimes detailed information about their
ages, educational backgrounds and the speech situations was also collected. This
procedure is clearly very cumbersome, and certainly if additional information
was collected from the person who had produced the slip, also very disruptive of
family conversations and university meetings. No wonder therefore that Merin-
ger, one of the first collectors of slips of the tongue, used to be known as a very
impopular person (Sturtevant 1947, quoted by MacKay 1970b).
Apart from being cumbersome, the “pen-and-paper” method has come in for
criticism concerning its reliability. Cutler (1982b) raised three problems in this
respect. The first of these is that not all slips of the tongue are detected because
listeners tend to divide their attention between the contents and the form of
speech. The detectability problem resulting from selective attention is familiar
from research on proofreading (Smith and Groat 1979). The more attention one
pays to the contents of the text, the fewer typing errors are detected. Naturally,
when taking part in a conversation or attending a meeting, it is hard ignore what
is being said, so that one is likely to miss some of the slips of the tongue. Some
researchers have tried to solve this problem by collecting slips of the tongue only
in situations admitting optimal listening conditions (Berg 1987) or when enough
attention could be spared and after they had consciously decided that for the next
hour or so they would monitor for and collect slips of the tongue (Stemberger
and Treiman 1986). But even then, it is likely that they paid some attention to
the contents of the speech, if only because otherwise the slips of the tongue they
heard would not have been interpretable.
Another problem raised by Cutler (1982b) is that of perceptual bias. She
points out that some slips of the tongue may be easier to detect than others,
which may result in these kinds of slips being overrepresented in the corpus.
Conversely, other kinds of slips which are hard to detect will be underrepresen-
ted. As a result, the corpus will not be a reliable reflection of the distribution of
slips of the tongue in spontaneous speech.
The third problem raised by Cutler is that the collection of slips of the
tongue may also be biased as a result of distributional differences in the
language. If a language contains more content words than function words, for
instance, it is only natural that slips of the tongue will involve content words
more frequently than function words.
Of the three problems raised by Cutler the first two, dealing with detect-
ability, are the most serious, since they may cause the researcher to believe that
some kinds of slips do not occur while in fact they do. The third problem, a bias
resulting from distributional differences in the language, can be solved by taking
such differences into account (see e.g. Dell 1984; Dell and Reich 1981; MacKay
1970b; Shattuck-Hufnagel 1987).
That detectability is a major problem indeed was demonstrated in several
studies. In one of these Cole (1973) showed that the detectability of mispronunci-
ations, which can be equated with phonological slips of the tongue, depends on
the extent to which they differ from the target sounds and on whether the
listeners are also listening for meaning. Cole’s study was meant to demonstrate
that subjects need only a limited number of acoustic features to identify a word.
Hence, he predicted that words mispronounced by a single feature only are not
normally detected as mispronunciations. Cole asked his subjects to listen to a
passage from Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass and to press a button
as quickly as possible whenever they heard a mispronunciation. There were 45
subjects, divided over three groups. Each group listened to a different version of
the story. Each version had 45 slips of the tongue in it occurring in three-syllabic
words and an additional 10 slips in 10 monosyllabic distractor words. The slips
occurred equally often in the first, second and third syllables of the three-syllabic
words. In one of the three versions of the story the slips of the tongue differed
from the target sounds in terms of one distinctive feature (e.g. ‘voice’ in busily-
pizily), in another version they differed in terms of two distinctive features (e.g.
‘place’ and ‘manner of articulation’ in busily-vizily) and in the third version they
differed in terms of four features (e.g. ‘voice’, ‘place’ and ‘manner of articul-
ation’ and a feature called ‘hissing-hushing’ in busily-sizily).
It turned out that the subjects did not detect all the slips of the tongue, and
that the number of slips detected depended on the number of distinctive features
in which the slips differed from the targets. Of the slips which differed in only
one feature fewer than 30% were noticed by the subjects, while of the slips
which differed in terms of two or four features, 60% and 75% respectively were
detected accurately. In addition, it was found that of the 30% of slips differing
in one feature only, most were detected when the slip occurred in the first
syllable. Such a syllable effect was not found for slips differing from the target
in more than one feature. Cole also demonstrated that detection improved when
slips were presented in isolated CV or VC syllables, rather than in words
embedded in a meaningful context. In this condition subjects always identified

the phoneme correctly, that is, as it was mispronounced. From this part of the
study Cole concluded that detection is not problematic when speakers need not
divide their attention between form and meaning.
Interestingly, Cole (1973) also reported the results of an informal study with
another group of subjects, 200 university students, who were asked to listen to
the same passage from Through the Looking Glass, without being instructed to
listen for slips. The passage contained 45 slips differing from the target in one
feature only. Of the 200 students only 20 reported afterwards that they had heard
one or more slips. In other words, there were 180 students who did not hear a
single slip. This shows that when one is not intentionally listening for slips of the
tongue, one is not very likely to hear them.
In another study, Ferber (1991) set out to more directly investigate the
accuracy and reliability of pen-and-paper corpora of slips of the tongue. For this
purpose Ferber asked four trained listeners to listen to a 45-minute discussion,
tape-recorded from the radio, and to note down any slips of the tongue they
heard. The listeners listened to the recording only once, and they were not
allowed to re-examine the tapes (on-line identification). Ferber compared the
slips of the tongue identified by the four listeners with the slips she herself had
identified while repeatedly listening to the tapes (off-line identification). It
turned out that only one third of the 51 slips Ferber had noted off-line were also
heard by the listeners identifying slips on-line. Moreover, one half of this one
third were noted down incorrectly. Ferber also noted that there were considerable
differences between the individual listeners regarding the units involved in the
slips. One listener, for instance, did not notice any of the 9 phonemic slips, and
two other listeners failed to notice all lexical slips.
Both Cole’s and Ferber’s results raise doubts about the reliability of most
slip research to date. Not only do listeners miss many of the slips in the speech
they are listening to, even when they are specifically instructed to listen for slips
of the tongue, but also do they mishear many of the slips, which implies that
they are also likely to be misclassified. Certainly if perception is biased, that is,
if some kinds of slips are more frequently missed than others, this may have
serious consequences for the conclusions to be drawn on the basis of slip
corpora. As Cutler (1982b) points out, it is not safe to make “more errors” or
“no errors” arguments on the basis of a corpus that is perceptually biased. In
other words, it is not safe to base arguments on the relative frequency or the
absence of particular kinds of slips of the tongue, if there is a chance that this
kind of slip is harder to perceive than another kind.
In view of the importance of perceptual bias, it is worth considering several
studies which have been conducted to investigate whether or not perceptual bias
plays a role in slip collections. In one of these Cohen (1980) tested differences
in detectability, using a shadowing task which required subjects to repeat as
accurately as possible everything they heard, including possible mistakes. The
assumption was that the extent to which subjects repeated the slips of the tongue
would reflect their ability to detect them. There were 24 subjects (university
students), who were presented with four texts, of which the first three contained
31 phonological slips and the last one contained 10 lexical slips of the tongue.
The results of the study suggest that phonological slips are more difficult to
detect than lexical slips (40% detection vs 85%), that phonological perseverations
are more difficult to detect than phonological anticipations (35% vs 44%), that
slips involving consonants are more difficult to detect than slips involving
vowels (32% vs 47%), that phonological slips whose cause appears in a different
word are more difficult to detect than those whose cause lies in the same word
(24% vs 55%) and that slips in unstressed syllables are more difficult to detect
than slips in stressed syllables (29% vs 44%). No significant differences were
found in the detection of lexical exchanges that did or did not seriously affect
meaning (88% vs 81%).
In another study Tent and Clark (1980) investigated the perception of slips
of the tongue using a transcription task. They asked 20 normal hearing adults
(university students) to transcribe 100 sentences, 27 of which contained a slip of
the tongue. Of the slips, 15 were phonemic (5 anticipations, 5 perseverations and
5 exchanges) and 12 were non-phonemic (3 syllabic anticipations, 3 syllabic
perseverations, 3 syllabic exchanges and 3 lexical blends). All slips had been
made up following the normal regularities and laws governing slips in spontane-
ous speech. The sentences were presented to the subjects only once. White noise
was added to them to sensitise test conditions so that differences in the percep-
tion of different kinds of slips would be maximised.
Tent and Clark found that non-phonemic tongue slips are much easier to
perceive than phonological slips. Of the former, the subjects corrected (that is,
failed to transcribe) only 11.7%, while of the latter, they failed to transcribe
77.7%. In addition, it was found that the subjects also made some mistakes in the
transcription of correct segments. In other words, some correct words were
transcribed as if they contained slips of the tongue. This happened more often
when the same sentence contained a non-phonemic slip (viz. to 8.6% of the
segments) than when it contained a phonemic slip (to 2.9% of the segments) or
no slip at all (to 1.6% of the segments). This led Tent and Clark to conclude that
the presence of a tongue slip influences one’s perception of the rest of the
sentence. Finally, Tent and Clark observed a small difference between the
perception of anticipations, perseverations and exchanges, perseverations being

somewhat less perceptible (87% non-perception for phonemic and 18.3% for
non-phonemic perseverations) than anticipations (72% non-perception for
phonemic and 3.3% for non-phonemic anticipations) and exchanges (74% non-
perception for phonemic and 1.7% for non-phonemic exchanges).
It should be noted that the use of white noise is rather artificial and may
have had an effect on the detectability of slips of the tongue. However, accord-
ing to Tent and Clark the low percentages of errors in the transcription of correct
segments suggests that “white noise masking only disturbed correct perception of
the speech signal to a slight degree” (p. 320).
In another study Bond and Small (1984) investigated subjects’ ability to
detect mispronounced words in continuous speech, using two different tech-
niques. The subjects (two groups of 20) were asked to listen to three prose
passages of approximately 650 words each, each of which contained 20 mispro-
nunciations in two-syllable words. The mispronunciations concerned either the
stress pattern, the voicing of obstruents or the front-back dimension of vowels.
One group of subjects, performing the task in condition 1, was instructed to mark
all mispronunciations on a transcript of the passages. The other group, perform-
ing the task in condition 2, was instructed to stop the tape whenever they heard
a mispronunciation and to say what the mispronounced word was.
Bond and Small’s study showed that while the detectability of mispronunci-
ations was high in both conditions, detection was slightly better in condition 1
than in condition 2 (94% vs 86%). In condition 1, which was considered the
optimal condition for detecting errors, mispronunciations involving the voicing
of obstruents were detected slightly less often (91%) than mispronunciations
involving the front-back pronunciation of vowels (95%) and errors involving
stress (96%). Somewhat surprisingly, in condition 2 stress errors proved to be the
most difficult to detect (80% only). Moreover, subjects who had detected stress
errors in condition 2 were not always able to correct them. In about 13% of the
relevant cases, the subjects would hesitate after they had stopped the tape and
say something like “I don’t know”.
A comparison of the percentages in Tent and Clark’s (1980) study with
those reported by Bond and Small (1984) shows that detectability depends to a
great extent on the task used. In Tent and Clark’s study, which required the
subjects to transcribe speech, only 11.7% of the phonemic errors were detected,
while in Bond and Small’s study detectability of mispronounced obstruents and
vowels ranged between 86% and 95% in the two conditions. This has strong
implications for the technique to be used in collecting errors from spontaneous
speech. The pen-and-paper method, which consists of writing down slips of the
tongue as they are being produced, and which is therefore highly comparable to
Tent and Clark’s transcription method, is clearly less reliable than Bond and
Small’s optimal method, where errors had to be indicated in the transcription of
recorded speech.
The studies discussed above clearly demonstrate that not all slips of the
tongue are detected, certainly not if the listeners have only one opportunity to
note down the slip, and that some kinds of slips are detected more easily than
others. Another problem concerning pen-and-paper corpora of slips of the tongue
is that the slips need to be classified on the spot, which requires the researcher
to also remember the linguistic and situational context in which the slip occurred.
A problem is also that pen-and-paper corpora do not allow one to check the
reliability of the identification and classification procedures (for a discussion of
these problems see Ferber 1995).
The points made above regarding the reliability of pen-and-paper corpora
contrast strongly with Fromkin’s (1971) finding that there are no sharp discrep-
ancies between the slips in pen-and-paper corpora and the tape-recorded corpora
compiled by Boomer and Laver (1968) and Garnham, Shillcock, Brown, Mill and
Cutler (1982). Berg (1987: 282) too claimed that he found “not any significant
differences, neither with regards to the frequency of errors, nor the identity of
the essential components of slips (source, target, error)”, when he compared the
tape-recordings of television talk-shows with his hand-written records of the slips
produced in these shows. Unfortunately, Berg’s comparison relates to 40 slips
only (Berg, personal communication 1987, quoted by Ferber 1991: 106), which
does not make his point very convincing.
As to Fromkin, it is possible that her finding is due to the nature of the
tape-recorded corpora she investigated. The slips in Boomer and Laver’s corpus
were produced by 35 different speakers of English in conference discussions,
psychiatric interviews, broadcasts and conversations. The corpus consists of more
than a hundred excerpts, each of which contains a slip. Presumably, the research-
er who compiled the corpus had tape-recorded much larger stretches of speech
to begin with, and had later made a selection of excerpts containing slips.
Unfortunately, Boomer and Laver do not say how much speech they started out
with nor how they determined when a slip had been made. Clearly, the reliability
of their tape-recorded corpus depends on the procedure they followed for slip
identification. If they limited themselves to clear cases, it is no wonder that the
slips in their corpus showed the same regularities as slips in pen-and-paper
corpora. The same point goes for the corpus compiled by Garnham et al. (1982).
This corpus consists of 191 slips (again in English) taken from the London-Lund
corpus. A problem with this corpus is that the slips were taken from the tran-
scription of the London-Lund corpus, which implies that the reliability of the slip
corpus depends on the correctness of the transcription. Since the transcription
was not specifically geared at the analysis of slips of the tongue, it is question-
able whether it was really adequate for this purpose. The relatively small number
of slips (only 191) contained in this large corpus, consisting of 34 texts of 5000
words each, that is 170,000 words, suggests that the transcribers may have
missed quite a few. Again then, Fromkin’s comparison relates to clear cases of
slips, those included in the transcription, and it is not surprising that these are
similar to the slips in pen-and-paper corpora.
Several conclusions can be drawn from the above discussion of the reliabili-
ty of pen-and-paper corpora. First, such corpora are unlikely to contain all the
slips that were made. Second, some slips may be underrepresented as a result of
perceptual bias. Third, the slips may have been noted down incorrectly. Fourth,
it is unlikely that enough of the context is noted down. And fifth, as a result of
(3) and (4), the slips may be classified incorrectly. These shortcomings have two
important implications for the present study. First and foremost, it is obviously
an advantage to work with a tape-recorded corpus of slips. It is essential though
that the transcription of the 35-hour speech corpus, which was originally
collected for a different research purpose, is carefully checked, making sure that
every slip is transcribed accurately. A second important implication is that when
comparing the slips in our own tape-recorded L2 corpus to those in the L1 pen-
and-paper corpora, we should bear in mind that the L2 and L1 corpora were collected
in different ways. In particular, it seems recommendable to follow Cutler’s
advice that one should be really careful making claims of the ‘no-errors are like
this’ or ‘more errors are like that’ type in connection with the L1 data. It could
be that such errors did occur in the L1, but were not noted by the slip collectors.
Of course, it is also possible to circumvent the problems noted above by
eliciting slips of the tongue experimentally (see Section 1.1). This method,
however, is most fruitfully applied when one has specific hypotheses to be
tested, which was hardly the case in the present study of L2 slips. Moreover,
experimental techniques like the SLIP technique developed by Motley and
associates (see e.g. Baars, Motley and MacKay 1975) have several drawbacks.
One is that the task is rather artificial. This may lead the speaker to adopt
particular strategies to deal with it (Meyer 1992). Another drawback is that only
certain kinds of slips can be elicited by means of the SLIP technique, viz.
exchanges and anticipations. This implies that for the current study, in which we
set out to obtain a full overview of the whole array of slips made in L2 speech,
experimental methods are less suitable. For this reason the present book is based
on a corpus of slips of the tongue taken from natural speech.
Identification in the second language slip project

To maximalize the reliability of the identification of slips of the tongue in the
second language slip project the following procedure was adopted. First, the
author prepared a four-page manual which defined slips of the tongue, specified
the criteria to be applied in distinguishing them from ordinary L2 errors, and
listed numerous examples of cases which should and which should not be
considered slips of the tongue. Then, the author trained a student assistant in
using this manual. Subsequently, the author and the research assistant indepen-
dently checked the transcription of the entire L2 speech corpus paying specific
attention to the transcription of slips of the tongue. As they were doing this, they
listened to the tape-recordings as often as they felt necessary and marked all the
slips of the tongue that they detected in the transcripts. They then compared their
results of this procedure. If a slip of the tongue had been identified by only one
of them, the other person listened to the relevant speech fragment again to
determine whether a slip had really been produced. Only if this was found to be
the case, was the slip included in the collection. Thus, the final collection
contains only those slips on which the two researchers, after repeatedly listening
to the recordings, agreed.
The procedure described here is extremely time-consuming, but certainly
when dealing with messy L2 learner data, absolutely necessary to obtain a
reliable corpus. This becomes very clear when one compares the results of the
initial rounds of identification. The comparison relates to two thirds of the data.
In this dataset the author and the research assistant agreed on the occurrence of
a slip in 789 cases, that is, 56.4% of the 1398 slips (in this subset) eventually
included in the collection. In 301 cases, that is 21.5%, a slip was first identified
only by the author and later agreed on by the research assistant, while in 308
cases, that is 22.0%, a slip was first identified only by the research assistant and
later agreed on by the author. In 61 cases slips identified by the author were
rejected by the research assistant while in another 302 cases the reverse hap-
pened. Hence, the fact that the data were available for repeated consultation
largely increased the number of slips that were detected, and, more importantly,
greatly improved the reliability of the resulting corpus of slips.
5.3 Coding slips of the tongue
The slips of the tongue identified in the transcripts were classified by the author
and the same research assistant who took part in the identification. For this
purpose, an elaborate ten-page coding manual was prepared to make sure that
classification was done as consistently as possible. Again, the author’s and the
research assistant’s classifications were compared and discussed until agreement
was reached. Subsequently, all slips were stored in a database, which included
information about the subject who produced the slip (including his/her proficien-
cy level) and the task in which the slip was produced, (including the language in
which this task was performed). The slip of the tongue itself was coded elabo-
rately for the following aspects: linguistic level, slip type, source (if determina-
ble), wordclass (of the error and target words), presence of repair, and in the
case of repair: presence of editing term, moment of interruption (including delay)
and span. In addition, where relevant, information was included concerning
phonological accommodation. In the following paragraphs the coding system will
be described in detail.
Subject
The subject who produced the slip of the tongue was marked in the database by
a three-digit code, of which the first digit marked the subject’s proficiency level.
Thus, the codes 101–115 were used to identify the 15 second-year university
students, the codes 201–215 were used to identify the 15 5-VWO pupils, and the
codes 301–315 were used to identify the 15 3-VWO pupils.
Task
The task and the language in which that task was performed were marked by a
two-digit code. The first digit refers to the elicitation task. Code 1 was used to
refer to the concrete picture description task, code 2 was used to refer to the
abstract figure description task, code 3 was used to refer to the story retell task
and code 4 was used to refer to the oral interview (see Chapter 4 for an exten-
sive description of the tasks). The second digit was used to indicate whether the
task was performed in English (e) or in Dutch (d).
Linguistic levels and sublevels
To begin with, codes were assigned to specify the linguistic level at which the
slip occurs. A slip may for instance relate to a conceptual plan, a word, a
morpheme, a phoneme, or a syntactic structure. At some of these levels further
subdivisions were made. In these cases, additional codes were assigned for
sublevels. The following codes were used:
Conceptual slips CPL
Slips were considered conceptual when they appeared to originate at the level of
message planning, that is, conceptualization. The speaker appears to change his
or her mind concerning the contents of the intended message.
– fifteen year nee sixteen they are already $laughs$ (108t4) CPL
– it’s a st, it’s an animal and, it has the form of a star (210t1) CPL
– this is something baby babies use round wear around their necks (106t1;
conceptual blend of ‘use’ and ‘wear round’) CPL
Lexical slips LEX
Slips are considered lexical when they relate to a word or a syllable that has an
independent lexical representation. Examples are:
– so that he can, so that she can smash him on the head (101t1) LEX
– you use a fl(es) uh a bottle (102t1) LEX
– /%/(pside) for downside (207t2) LEX
Use of the wrong personal, relative or demonstrative pronoun or determiner is
also considered lexical.
– I for we LEX Substitution
– it for them LEX Substitution
– he for she LEX Substitution
– who for which LEX Substitution
– this for that LEX Substitution
– much for many LEX Substitution
Use of negative for positive forms (and vice versa) is also considered lexical.
– can for can’t LEX Substitution
– wouldn’t for would LEX Substitution
cf. right for wrong LEX Substitution
Malapropisms MAL
In line with common practice in slip research, lexical slips are coded as mala-
propisms when they involve the substitution of a word by a phonologically
related one. Examples are:
– you can put uh, you can pull 1 one, a piece of the thing and it goes around
(202t1) MAL
– make everything clear, of clean (309t1) MAL
Phonological/lexical slips P/L
In a number of cases it was not clear whether a slip should be considered
phonological or lexical in nature. In these cases the mixed code P/L was
assigned. Examples are:
– and this is the, metal, band with you, put round your, wrist (108t1) P/L
– to get all sorts of uh dust of off the floor (115t1) P/L
Morphological slips MOR

Slips were considered morphological and assigned the code MOR when they
related to a morpheme. This was also the case when slips involved a phoneme
or syllable which constituted a morpheme. For morphological slips three
sublevels were distinguished, marked by the following codes:
NFL for inflectional morphemes
– something to, to kill fly w flies with (113t1) MOR; NFL
– he wanted to sol uh selled s $whispers$ to sell (306t3) MOR; NFL
DER for derivational morphemes
– then it’s very easily to suck uh 1 through this thing (easy; 101t1) MOR; DER
– they are interesting (in music) (interested; 215t4) MOR; DER
ALL for vowel substitutions from morphologically related forms
– your shoes on your foot(s) feet $laughs$ (214t1) MOR; ALL
– he just /du˜z/ what he wants to do (he just does; 208t4) MOR; ALL
– I’m now in the faifth, in the fifth (205t4) MOR; ALL
– ja, very little school, ch/aI/l(dren) uh children from four and /fI/ five (204t4)
MOR; ALL
The following slips were also considered to be morphological in nature:
Use of a singular instead of a plural form (and vice versa). In these cases, if it is
possible to distinguish an inflectional morpheme that has been deleted or added,
this is indicated by the NFL code, while if it involves a vowel change, this is
indicated by the code ALL.
– flower for flowers MOR; NFL Deletion
– glasses for glass MOR; NFL Addition
– foot for feet MOR; ALL Substitution
– men for man MOR; ALL Substitution
If the plural and singular forms involved in the substitution have separate lexical
representations, they are coded MOR, without further specification, e.g.
– this for these MOR Substitution
– those for that MOR Substitution
– are for is MOR Substitution
– is for are MOR Substitution
Use of past tense forms instead of present tense forms (and vice versa), and use
of the past or present tense instead of the past perfect or present perfect (and
vice versa).
– I missed for I miss MOR; NFL Addition
– they were for they are MOR Substitution
– I talk for I talked MOR; NFL Deletion

– he talks for he talked MOR; NFL Substitution
– he sent for he had sent MOR Substitution
– I have been for I am MOR substitution
Use of progressive instead of simple verb forms (and vice versa), and forms that
are blends of the progressive and simple aspect.
– is going for goes MOR Substitution
– I look for I am looking MOR Substitution
– actually doing for are actually doing/actually do MOR Blend
Use of other wrong verb forms.
– he go for he goes MOR; NFL Deletion
– he cames for he came MOR; NFL Addition
– he do for he does MOR Substitution
– he don’t for he doesn’t MOR Substitution
– he d/u˜/s for he does MOR; ALL Substitution
– he hang for he hung MOR; ALL Substitution
Use of the wrong form of a pronoun.
– he for him MOR Substitution
– them for they MOR Substitution
– your for yours MOR; NFL Deletion
– my for mine MOR Substitution
Phonological slips PHO
Slips of the tongue were considered phonological when they related to a vowel
or a consonant, a consonant cluster, a feature, a syllable, a rhyme, or a stress
pattern. All phonological slips were assigned the code PHO. In addition, the
following sublevel codes were used:
VOW if the phoneme was a vowel
– the first moment you int(er) you enter the the the room (104t4) PHO; VOW
– there is mich uh much uh, gymnist (302t4) PHO; VOW
CON if the phoneme was a consonant
– it’s sometime used in cartoons (sometimes; 101t1) PHO; CON
– this is something you can, ket get coal in (106t1) PHO; CON
– you can uh, erm go, abroad 1 to uh, work uh 1 in a office (206t4) PHO; CON
– we ‘ve also uh, an big dog (207t4) PHO; CON
CC for consonant clusters. This code was assigned when a consonant cluster was
replaced by another consonant cluster (e.g. /ts/ for /qr/, but also when a conso-
nant cluster was replaced by a single consonant (e.g. /l/ for /wr/) or when a
single consonant was replaced by a cluster (e.g. /sk/ for /w/. The code was not
assigned when a single consonant was deleted from a cluster or added to another
consonant to form a cluster.
– uh a thing /ts/ uh through 1 which (206t1) PHO; CC
– he lote a lot (wrote; 205t3) PHO; CC
– put on your /sku˜/, shoes (302t1) PHO; CC
FEA for phonological features. This code was assigned instead of the VOW or CON
code when a contextual explanation could be found for the substitution of a feature,
but not for the substitution of a vowel or consonant, i.e. when the slip could be
classified as an Anticipation, Perseveration, Exchange or Shift (see below).
– next day he, re/z/(eived) uh 1 he received 2 a bunch of flowers (207t3)
PHO; FEA
– uh 1 ja tribunaal, trimunal, tribi 1 nul, denk ik (305t3) PHO; FEA
SYL for syllables which do not have either morphological or lexical status
– this is a /vaI/ a device for children (112t1) PHO; SYL
– and they were offing often quarreling (104t3) PHO; SYL
RIM for rhymes (i.e. the nucleus (vowel) and coda of a syllable)
– a round /ta~n/(d) uh toy (303t1) PHO; RIM
– whether the man would nould know this judge (106t3) PHO; RIM
STS for errors involving the stress pattern, including the use of strong forms for
weak forms and vice versa
– to be, given this view of uh literature, uh chro’nolo uh chrono’logically
(111t4) PHO; STS
– I did SAY you I DID say you, to 1 to, that it was wrong (203t3) PHO; STS
– the thought that it was, that that was uh 3 uh th/6/t th/6/t th/æ/t th/æ/t was
(209t3) PHO; STS
– so uh, one day I go to uh 1 to th/6/m to th/7/m, and (112t4) PHO; STS
In addition, slips of the tongue involving consonants, consonant clusters or
features were assigned a code indicating whether the error occurred at the
beginning (or onset) of the syllable (ONS) or at the end (coda) of it (COD).
Syntactic slips SYN
Slips were assigned the code SYN when they resulted in erroneous syntactic
constructions. Very often this was the result of the speaker’s blending two
different syntactic constructions.
– a toy for children, by where they can, erm play with (blend of ‘by where
they can play’ and ‘where they can play with’; 107t1) SYN
– a little rope 4 with, centimetres on 1 to can you can measure all kinds of
things (blend of ‘to measure’ and ‘so you can measure’; 112t1) SYN
Slip types and subtypes
Secondly, codes were assigned to mark the type of slip. The following types and
subtypes have been distinguished:
Substitution SUB
Slips are coded as substitutions when a linguistic unit is replaced by another one.
– to, distinguish /k#l6z/ colours (108t1) PHO; VOW; SUB
– 5 uh a thing you put on a glass of milk, on uh, a bottle of milk (111t1)
LEX; SUB
Several subtypes of substitution have been distinguished. They are:
L1 when a linguistic unit from the L2 is substituted by its L1 equivalent
– you can, see by, this, thing of, something is 2 erm 10 steady (if; 201t1)
LEX; SUB; L1
– they drink, melk out of /I/ milk out of it (205t1) PHO; VOW; SUB; L1
(note that if lexical, the subject should have said /m7l6k/)
– I don’t s do sports or whatever (109t4) SYN; SUB; L1 (Du. sporten = ‘do
sports’)
– we had to uh 1 uh well, another solution … seek another solution (103t4) SYN;
SUB; L1 (cf. Du. word order in: we moesten een andere oplossing zoeken)
– and fre get fresh air (212t4) SYN; SUB; L1 (cf. Du. word order in: en frisse
lucht krijgen)
L1/L2 to mark the substitution of the target word by an L2 word that is morpho-
phonologically related to an L1 word that has the same meaning as the target
word (i.e., a false cognate of the L1 translation equivalent)
– to look if the ground uh the the floor is 1 erm 2 equal? erm flat (108t1)
LEX; SUB; L1/L2 (Du. grond = Eng. ‘floor’)
– the most important part of a clock, a bell sorry (109t1) LEX; SUB; L1/L2
(Du. klok = Eng. ‘bell’)
L2/L1 to mark the substitution of an L1 linguistic unit by an L2 linguistic unit
– my dad has there uh worken by uh, uh Nijhouse, Nijhuis Ocono (301t4)
PHO; VOW; SUB; L2/L1 (Du. huis = Eng. ‘house’)
L3 when a linguistic unit is substituted by an L3 equivalent
– things I uh eat ge(rne) I I love to eat (211t4) LEX; SUB; L3 (German ich
esse gerne = Eng. ‘I love to eat’)
– oui, yes 1 erm 1 well (206 t4) LEX; SUB; L3 (French oui = Eng. ‘yes’)
L3/L2 to mark the substitution of the target word by an L2 word that is morpho-
phonologically related to an L3 word that has the same meaning as the target
word (i.e., a false cognate of an L3 translation equivalent)
– and he he erm, became uh, a nee he uh 1 /g6/ got a lot of money (306t3)
LEX; SUB; L3/L2 (German bekommen = Eng. ‘get’)
FOR for foreignizing, i.e. the use of an L1 word with L2 pronunciation or
morphology
– twelve is a star with, a stuck of uh, a piece of a star (301t2) LEX; SUB;
FOR (Du. stuk = Eng. ‘piece’)
– and then you neem a smaller, take a smaller elevator (208t4) LEX; SUB; FOR
ANT for anticipation, i.e. the substitution of a linguistic unit by one that also
occurs later in the utterance
– all you have to do with uh, in a couple, in a song is, to know a couple of
uh, of runs (115t4) LEX; SUB; ANT
– a device to make to take measures (111t1) PHO; CON; ONS; SUB; ANT
PER for perseveration, i.e. the substitution of a linguistic unit by one that also
occurs earlier in the utterance
– yes there are much cutch, cats in uh, in cages or? (302t4) PHO; RIM; SUB;
PER
– that day the tailor tought by itself (thought; 214t3) PHO; CON; ONS; SUB;
PER
A/P for substitutions which could be both anticipations and perseverations at the
same time
– it’s for the /It/ electricity (204t1) PHO; CON; SUB; A/P
– on this thing you cang 1 hang on your clothes (205t1) PHO; CON; COD;
SUB; A/P
Exchange EX
An exchange is the simultaneous substitution of two linguistic units of the same
linguistic category for each other
– bread or thomesing (202t1) PHO; CON; ONS; EX
– erm 4 when uh, /q/is /ð/ing, this thing, erm touches uh the bell (209t1)
PHO; CON; ONS; EX
Shift SH
A shift is the addition of a linguistic unit that is deleted elsewhere
– I’ve learnt uh, great a lot uh, on the, on the camping (202t4) LEX; SH
– and the lawyer asked 1 did you do it? I didn, I did SAY you, I DID say
you, to 1 to, (203t3) PHO; STS; SH
Blend BLE
A blend is a mixture of two linguistic units
– uh, a thing you use to uh, put your, pint of /eIr/ on (115t1) LEX; BLE (‘ale’
+ ‘beer’)
– uh, a play or a toy where you can uh, 2 wet what’s turning uh round, where
you must uh, uh push on (301t1) LEX; BLE (‘where’ + ‘what’)
A blend may also be a mixture of two linguistic units of which one belongs to
the L1. This subtype is marked by the additional code L1.
– and and and, who had a shop, and there /kweIm/ a rabbit into his shop
(210t3) LEX; BLE; L1 (Du. kwam + Eng. ‘came’)
Deletion LOS
A deletion is the omission of a linguistic unit
– this is a /vaI/ a device for children (112t1) PHO; SYL; LOS
– something to, to kill fly /w/ flies with (113t1) MOR; NFL; LOS
If the omission of a linguistic unit is due to L1 interference the code L1 is added
– tha’_s a village (315t4) PHO; CON; LOS; L1 (Du. da’s, coll. for dat
is = Eng. ‘that’s’)
– so that he can drink out __ his bottle (214t1) LEX; LOS; L1 (Du. uit zijn
fles = Eng. ‘out of his bottle’)
If the omission of a linguistic unit is contextually determined, the code ANT,
PER or A/P is added
– when he wants to call someone from the dead, back, there comes a back
black shadow (214t4) PHO; CON; ONS; LOS; PER (Note that this could
also be interpreted as LEX; SUB; PER)
– that evening he thought 1 uh /i˜/, /i˜/ thought erm, was sad for the rabbit
(211t3) PHO; CON; ONS; LOS; PER
Addition ADD
The addition of a linguistic unit
– 9 a long plastic thing 1 which you can 3 with which you can blow, give
heavily heavy blows to, small insects (111t1) MOR; DER; ADD
– 4 this is a thing 1 very little childrens get (201t1) MOR; NFL; ADD
If the addition of a linguistic unit is due to interference from the L1 the code L1
is added
– and then my mother said van (303t4) LEX; ADD; L1 (Informal Du. zeggen
van = Eng. ‘to say’)
– I I’ve also an brother (213t4) PHO; CON; COD; ADD; L1 (Du. een = Eng. ‘a’)
If the addition of a linguistic unit is contextually determined, the code ANT,

PER or A/P is added
– the thing in the thing that makes noitse noise in the church (307t1) PHO;
CON; COD; ADD; ANT
– the bunch of flower which said, congratulation, with your new pjosition,
was sent to a funeral (112t3) PHO; CON; ONS; ADD; A/P
Haplology HAP
A haplology is the omission of part of a linguistic unit, as a result of which the
utterance becomes contracted
– and he immedial(ly) immediately rang 2 uh the flowershop (112t3) LEX; HAP
– the representative, uh there was uh a representive and he (114t3) LEX; HAP
Source
If it was possible to determine the source of the slip of the tongue, information
to this effect was included in the database. In cases of interference, the source
includes the corresponding L1 and L3 words. In cases of contextually determined
errors, anticipations, perseverations, exchanges and shifts, the relevant context
was added.
Wordclass
We have coded the lexical items affected by slips of the tongue for the follow-
ing wordclasses:
a. prepositions (e.g. in, at, with etc.) PRE
b. coordinate and subordinate conjunctions (e.g. and, or, nor, but, also, so, yet,
because, when, before, while, although, etc.) CON
c. determiners (e.g. articles: the, an, some; possessives: my, your, his; demon-
stratives: this, that, these, those; interrrogatives: which, whose, what) DET
d. relatives (who, which, that, whose, whom, where, when, what) REL
e. pronouns (personal pronouns: I, me, you, he, him; possessive pronouns:
mine, yours, his; demonstrative pronouns: this, that, these, those; reflexive
pronouns: myself, yourself; interrogative pronouns: who, which, what; and
the pronouns: something, nothing, everything, each other) PRO
f. primary and modal auxiliaries (e.g. be, have, do, can, may etc.) and the
copula (be) AUX
g. conjunctive adverbs that conjoin sentences (e.g. besides, instead, neverthe-
less, still, accordingly, thereupon, hence, later, etc.) CAD
h. pro-adverbs e.g. (there, here, then, so, how etc.) PAD
i. intensifiers, quantifiers (e.g. very, too, quite, so, many, some, few, less, any,
each, another, etc.) INT
j. negators (no, not) NEG

k. nouns NOU
l. verbs VER
m. adjectives ADJ
n. adverbs ADV
o. numerals NUM
If a slip involves more than one word, or relates to a syntactic structure, no
wordclass code is assigned. If a word of one wordclass is substituted for one of
another wordclass, the wordclass code MIX is assigned. It will be noted that the
codes listed under a) to j) may be combined into one class of function words,
i.e., words whose function is predominantly grammatical. Categories k) to o)
concern content words.
Accommodation
Accommodation refers to the phenomenon that phonemes and morphemes
involved in exchanges may be phonologically adapted to the new linguistic
environment (Berg 1987; Fromkin 1971; Garrett 1980b). If this was the case in
our corpus, the slip was marked ‘yes’ for accommodation. Examples are:
– I had uh, a /r#p6/ operation on my knee (an operation; 214t4) accommodation
= yes
– uh, babies wear these thik/s/ (thing/z/; 207t1) accommodation = yes
– and that’s also with erm, with other/s/ uh subjects in school (other; 215t4)
accommodation = no
Reparation
Finally, codes have been included to mark the reparation of a slip of the tongue.
If the slip is not repaired, this is marked by a simple ‘no’. If there is a repair,
‘yes’ is used to indicate this and information regarding the use of an editing term
(L1 or L2), the moment of interruption (within or following the error word), the
delay (the number of syllables between the error word and the moment of
interruption and the span of retracing (the number of syllables repeated in the
repair) are added. For reasons of space, the information regarding editing terms,
moment of interruption, delay and span have not been included in the appendix
of this book. For a detailed study of these variables in L1 and L2 self-repairs see
Van Hest (1996).
Ambiguous cases
To complete the description of the coding system, it must be pointed out that
sometimes a slip could be interpreted in two different ways. In these cases the
slips were marked as ambiguous (amb) and two codes were assigned. An example is:
– the Britsh (the British; 212t4)
The interpretation of this slip depends on whether it was interrupted before it

was completed. If it was, that is, if the person meant to say ‘Britsh(ish)’, the slip
is to be interpreted as a phonological addition, where the consonant /w/ is added
in anticipation of the final consonant in ‘British’. But if the person had finished
the slip, hence meant to say ‘Britsh’, it should be interpreted as a phonological
deletion, of the vowel /I/, possibly due to interference from Dutch (Du. de Britse
(adj.) = Eng. ‘the British’ (adj.)).
Double slips
Moreover, there were some instances where two slips appeared to have been
made at the same time. In these cases the slip was marked as a double mistake
(dou) and again assigned two codes. An example is:
– if 1 for example uh, a wall is wight is straight (205t1)
The first slip that it is made here is the substitution of the lexical item ‘right’ for
‘straight’, probably caused by interference from Dutch: the Dutch word recht,
normally translatable by ‘right’, can also mean ‘straight’. The second slip is the
perseveration of the phoneme /w/ in ‘wall’, which is substituted for /r/ in ‘right’,
yielding wight.
The entire collection was computerized in an MSWorks database and
afterwards converted to a VMS datafile that could be handled by SPSSX
statistical packages. The L2 collection has been included in this book as appen-
dix 1 and the L1 collection as appendix 2. For ease of reference, the slips have
been ordered in terms of level, type and subtype. Thus, the appendix starts with
all slips at the conceptual level, followed by all slips at the lexical level, and so
on. Within each level, the slips are organized by type and subtype. For instance,
within the lexical slips, we first find all the lexical substitutions of one L2 word
for another L2 word, then all the lexical substitutions of an L1 word for an L2
word and so on. Within each category, the slips are organized by subject number,
so that it is easy to observe proficiency-related differences. To save space, task
information, which did not appear to be very relevant anyway, and information
regarding accommodation, which appeared to be relevant in 47 cases only, was
excluded from the appendix. For the same reason, contextual information was
only included where relevant.
C 6
Results
In this chapter we will present the answers to the four research questions raised
in Chapter 4. The answers are based on the collection of slips of the tongue
which was compiled as part of the second language slip project, and which has
been included in appendices 1 and 2 of this book. The collection consists of
2000 L2 slips and a small corpus of 137 L1 slips. In Section 6.1 we will
compare the L2 slips in this corpus to the L1 slips discussed in Chapter 1. In
particular, we will discuss whether the regularities observed for L1 slips also
hold for L2 slips (Section 6.1.1). If they don’t, we will consider whether our
own, small, L1 corpus does support the claims (Section 6.1.2). In this way we
may distinguish L2 learner effects from an effect obtained as a result of
differences in elicitation procedures. In Section 6.2 we will investigate proficien-
cy-related differences in L2 learners’ slips of the tongue. First, we will establish
whether speakers produce more slips in L2 than in L1 and whether the least
proficient subjects produce most slips of the tongue (Section 6.2.1). Next, we
will consider whether they favour particular kinds of slips and whether the
number of (different kinds of) L2 slips is related to their L2 proficiency level
(Section 6.2.2). Then, in Section 6.2.3, we will examine whether there are any
proficiency-related differences with respect to the unsupported claims examined
in Section 6.1. And finally, we will compare the slip patterns of L2 learners with
those of L1 learners reported in Chapter 2 (Section 6.2.4). In Section 6.3 we will
discuss to what extent L2 slips are influenced by the L1. And in Section 6.4 we
will consider two aspects of L2 English, which have yielded particularly many
slips of the tongue. These areas relate to the third person singular ‘-s’ morpheme
used in verbs (Section 6.4.1) and the phonemes /q/ and /ð/ (Section 6.4.2).
Section 6.5 will summarize the main findings of this chapter.
6.1 A comparison of L1 and L2 slips concerning 14 claims
The first research question formulated in Chapter 4 was:

1. Do L2 learner slips show the same regularities as slips produced by adult L1
speakers: do they involve the same units, do they show the same effects and are
they subject to the same constraints?
The main reason for asking this question was that a positive answer would lend
further support to the assumption that L1 and L2 speech production are essential-
ly the same processes. To answer the question we will investigate whether the 14
claims made for L1 slips, as discussed in Chapter 1 of this book, are also true
for the slips in our L2 corpus. The results of this investigation will be presented
in Section 6.1.1.
It will be noted that in comparing the L2 data with the L1 data reported in
the literature, we have refrained from applying statistical tests. The reason for
this is that we do not always have information about the number of cases on
which the L1 proportions are based, about the criteria used in coding the L1
data, and about the distributional differences between L1 and L2 speech, and
hence the likelihood with which a particular slip of the tongue may occur. Thus,
the use of statistics might have suggested a high degree of comparability which
is not always warranted.
Another problem affecting comparability is that different methods were
used to collect the L1 and L2 data. Since most of the L1 data discussed in
Chapter 1 were collected by means of the pen-and-paper method, which may not
be very reliable (see Chapter 5), it is possible that (some of the) differences with
respect to the claims are due to differences in data collection procedures rather
than differences between L1 and L2 speakers. For this reason, the claims
yielding different results will also be tested using the small corpus of L1 data
which we collected from the same subjects who participated in the L2 slip study.
The results of this analysis will be reported in Section 6.1.2.
6.1.1 An analysis of the L2 slip corpus
Table 6.1 provides a quantitative overview of the slips in the L2 corpus orga-
nized by linguistic level (conceptual, lexical, malapropism, both phonological and
lexical (P/L), morphological, phonological and syntactic) and type (substitutions,
L1 substitutions, a combination of foreignizings, L1/L2, L3, L3/L2 and L2/L1
substitutions ( = sub*), anticipations, perseverations, both anticipations and
perseverations (A/P), exchanges, additions, deletions, blends, haplologies and shifts).
RESULTS 117
Two categories of double slips and ambiguous slips have also been added but are
not further specified. Unless stated otherwise, the counts below are based on the
collection of L2 slips, excluding double slips and ambiguous slips.
Table 6.1. An overview of the slips in the L2 corpus

level sub L1 sub* ant per A/P ex add del ble hap sh Tot.
Conc. 035 26 061
Lex. 195 388 103 13 16 02 32 36 27 6 06 825
Mal. 066 003 06 04 078
P/L 025 007 03 035
Mor. 126 002 03 07 64 77 35 14 328
Pho. 135 024 002 96 84 33 3 40 67 14 498
Syn. 017 26 043
Total: 557 459 112 1210 1110 35 3 1360 1800 1140 6 34 18680
Dou. 040
Amb. 092
Total: 20000
The slips at the different linguistic levels were not all corrected to the same
extent. The proportions corrected are 67% for conceptual slips, 62% for lexical
slips, 63% for malapropisms, 34% for P/L slips, 66% for morphological slips,
58% for phonological slips, 40% for syntactic slips, 72% for double slips, and
63% for ambiguous slips. Altogether 56% of the slips were self-repaired.
Differences in self-repair are of course partly due to the fact that the
criterion of reparability was not equally important for the detection of all
sliptypes: some slips are hard to identify unless they are repaired. For instance,
all 35 conceptual substitutions were repaired, while only 6 of the 26 conceptual
blends were repaired. This is because conceptual substitutions, where someone
says something different from what he or she intended to say, are virtually
impossible to detect if they are not corrected. There was also a difference in the
correction of L2 and L1 substitutions. Of the 226 L2 lexical substitutions (listed
in Table 6.1 as substitutions, anticipations, perseverations and A/P), 187 were
corrected ( = 83%), while of 388 lexical substitutions from L1, only 180 ( = 46%)
were self-corrected. Again, this may in part reflect our identification criteria. An
L1 substitution is easily detected as a slip, even when it is not corrected.
With respect to claim 1, concerning the units involved in slips of the tongue,
the L2 corpus confirms the results obtained in L1 corpora consisting of spontane-
ous speech. Of the 374 phonological substitutions in the L2 corpus (categories

sub to A/P), 353 ( = 94.4%) involved single segments (197 consonants, 116
vowels and 38 features). There were 13 slips involving consonant clusters, 7
slips involving rhymes, 2 slips involving syllables, and one slip involving stress.
Thus, single segments are clearly the most affected unit in speech errors.
It was also found that consonant clusters do not operate as single units.
Although the L2 corpus does contain 13 slips involving consonant clusters, there
were 72 cases in which only one segment of a consonant cluster was substituted
(N = 30), added (N = 21) or deleted (N = 21). Examples are (1), in which only the
‘d’ of the cluster ‘dr’ is substituted, (2), in which only the ‘r’ of the cluster ‘pr’
is added and (3), in which only the ‘r’ of the cluster ‘str’ is deleted.
(1) wrink (drink; 202)
(2) drepressing (depressing; 102)
(3) abstactly (abstractly; 210)
Considering affricates, the L1 findings were not confirmed. While Fromkin
(1971) had found that affricates do not split up into stop plus fricative, in the L2
data there were four additions of /w/ or /Š/ resulting in affricates and four cases
in which one part of an affricate was deleted. This suggests that affricates did
behave like separable clusters. Consider examples 4–7 and 8–11.
(4) pro/36/(ct) (product; 209)
(5) /v/eacher (teacher; 204)
(6) the Britshish (the British; 209)
(7) picture /vu/ (picture two; 306)
(8) /t/ube (/v/ube; 104)
(9) ea/w/ (each; 301)
(10) congra/tu/(lations) (congratulations; 306)
(11) /w/(ocolate) (chocolate; 306)
Although it is possible to interpret these cases as substitutions of one segment for
another, e.g. /3/ for /d/ or /t/ for /v/, it is striking that there are no errors where
an affricate substituted a single segment other than /t/ or /d/ and only three
errors where an affricate was substituted by a single segment other than /t/, /d/,
/w/ or /Š/. These three cases are listed below (12–14). Clearly, they are all
influenced by spelling, while 12 and 13 also have Dutch cognates (juni and
jacks) pronounced with /j/ and 14 contains an instance of feature perseveration.
Of the 7 remaining slips where an affricate should have been used, it was
RESULTS 119
replaced by another cluster in five cases (see example 15) and by another
affricate in two cases (example 16). Altogether, the evidence suggests that in the
case of L2 learners, affricates do not operate as single segments, but as clusters
consisting of a stop plus a fricative. One should not exclude the possibility
though, that affricates develop into single segments as L2 learners become more
advanced. In this respect it is interesting to note that only one of the relevant
cases given here, was produced by a subject from the most advanced learner group.
(12) /j/une (June; 301)
(13) /j/ackets (jackets; 304)
(14) psycholo/g/ical (psychological; 212)
(15) wi/ts/ (which; 213)
(16) su/3/ (such; 303)
Finally, we considered phonological errors involving single features. For this
purpose we considered all slips which were classified as feature substitutions. As
we have seen in Chapter 5, the feature code was assigned only when a contextual
explanation could be found for the substitution of a phonetic feature, but not for
the substitution of a vowel or consonant, as in examples 17 to 19.
(17) ude (I can use i[t]; 106)
(18) af/q/er (after [th]e; 109)
(19) trimunal (tribu[n]al; 305)
Our corpus contained 38 instances of such less ambiguous cases of feature slips.
Of these, 36 related to consonants and 2 related to vowels. In 30 cases a single
feature was moved: this was the feature ‘voice’ (voiced, voiceless) in 16 cases,
the feature ‘place of articulation’ (labial, labio-dental, dental, alveolar, palatal,
velar, glottal) in 10 cases and the feature ‘manner’ (stop, fricative, approximant,
nasal, affricate) in 4 cases (feature description adapted from Shattuck-Hufnagel
and Klatt 1979). In six cases two features were moved at the same time. In four
instances they were ‘place of articulation’ and ‘manner’, and in two instances
‘place of articulation’ and ‘voice’. It is somewhat difficult to interpret our data
regarding the role of features in speech production. On the one hand, there are
clearly many more segmental slips than “unambiguous” feature slips (but this
may in part merely reflect our classification procedure). On the other hand, the
number of “unambiguous” feature slips in our corpus (N = 38) is clearly much
larger than that in the MIT corpus (N = 3) analysed by Shattuck-Hufnagel and
Klatt (1979).
Altogether the results regarding the units involved in slips of the tongue
support the claim that phonemes are the most important units in speech produc-
tion. Both clusters and affricates appear to be made up of separate segments, and
the presence of 38 feature errors suggests that features might play a larger role
at some level of production than was hitherto assumed.
Claim 2 concerned the relative frequency of anticipations and persevera-
tions. In L1 research the evidence in this respect was inconclusive. Some
researchers reported anticipations to be much more frequent than perseverations
(e.g. Nooteboom 1969), while others reported the reverse (e.g. Del Viso et al.
1987; Shattuck-Hufnagel 1987; Stemberger 1989). We considered all anticipa-
tions and perseverations in the L2 corpus, including phonological, morphological
and lexical ones. Substitutions, additions and deletions were considered separate-
ly. Interestingly, it turned out that many of the phonological substitutions and
additions, but few of the phonological deletions and few of the morphological
and lexical slips were contextually determined (see Table 6.2).
If we consider the proportions of anticipations and perseverations in
Table 6.2, there appear to be no striking differences. Note though that in this
study no distinction was made between completed and incomplete anticipations.
As Shattuck-Hufnagel (1987) argued, the latter might have turned into exchang-
es. If incomplete anticipations had been categorized separately, the proportion of
anticipations would be much reduced. Thus, we may conclude that anticipations
are definitely not more frequent than perseverations in our data. Since the
numbers of anticipations and perseverations in the L2 data are in fact approxi-
mately the same, these results support neither Nooteboom’s (1969) nor Shattuck-
Hufnagel’s (1987) and Del Viso et al.’s (1987) findings.
Claim 3 concerned the frequency of exchanges. Exchanges are rare in most
L1 studies, but not in Abd-El-Jawad and Abu-Salim (1987) and Del Viso et al.
(1987). Again, we considered all phonological, morphological and lexical
exchanges in the L2 corpus. The number turned out to be very small indeed. Our
data contain only 3 instances of phonological exchanges (a few more cases
appear among the double and ambiguous slips). There were no instances of morpho-
logical or lexical exchanges. This finding is in line with most of the L1 research.
The fourth claim concerned the syllable position constraint. In L1 slip
research it was found that interacting consonants and vowels almost always
occupied the same position in the syllable. The effect is somewhat stronger for
consonants (98% reported by MacKay 1970b, 96% reported by García-Albea et al.
1989) than for vowels (81% reported by MacKay 1970b). The syllable position
constraint was followed by the majority, but by no means all of the L2 slips. Of
the 106 contextually determined single consonant substitutions (anticipations and
RESULTS 121
Table 6.2. The proportions of contextually determined slips in the L2 corpus (excluding
three phonological exchanges). Note that 491 of the lexical substitutions were caused by L1
(or L3) influence. If these cases are excluded from the total number of lexical substitutions,
the percentage of contextually determined ones goes up to 14%.
ant. per. A/P % contextual
Phon. sub. (N = 374) 96 84 33 57%
Phon. add. (N = 40) 15 08 03 65%
Phon. del. (N = 67) 03 06 03 18%
Mor. sub. (N = 138) 03 07 0− 07%
Mor. add. (N = 64) 08 08 01 27%
Mor. del. (N = 31) 05 0− 0− 16%
Lex. sub. (N = 717) 13 16 02 04%
Lex. add. (N = 32) 03 03 0− 19%
Lex. del. (N = 36) 0− 01 0− 03%
Total: 1460 1330 42
perseverations only), 82, that is 77%, followed the syllable position constraint,
that is onsets interacted with onsets and codas with codas. However, of the 24
cases where the syllable position constraint was not followed, 13 resulted from
assimilation, as in examples 20–22. Hence these cases may not constitute strong
counter evidence. Of the 36 contextually determined vowel substitutions (antici-
pations and perseverations only) 25, that is 69% followed the constraint, while 11
(that is, 31%), did not. Application of criteria was strict though. If a vowel in a
closed syllable interacted with one in an open syllable, as in ‘the r[a]bbit, uh 1
l/æ/ft’, this was regarded as a violation of the constraint. In the three remaining
cases there was more than one source, so that it was impossible to determine
whether the constraint was followed. Summarizing, we may conclude that the
syllable position constraint is adhered to, but less strictly than in L1.
(20) thi/q/ (this [th]ing; 206) + repair
(21) k(row) (ma[ke] k grow; 306) + repair
(22) si(ng) (thi[s] sing; 309) + repair
Claim 5 held that word- or syllable-initial consonants are more likely involved
in slips than final consonants (initialness effect). Percentages reported for L1
slips range from 66% for word (and not syllable) onset position (Shattuck-
Hufnagel 1987) to 81% and 96% for word or syllable onset position in between
word and within word exchanges respectively (MacKay 1970b). L2 learners seem
to be less focussed on initial segments, as only 106 out of 233 single consonant
and feature substitutions, that is 45%, were word-initial, and 149 (64%) were
either word- or syllable-initial. This implies that 83 (36%) of the single conso-
nant and feature substitutions related to codas. Thus, the initialness effect
appears to be smaller for the L2 data than for the L1 data. Since there were only
three phonological exchanges in our corpus, there was no point in determining
the initialness effect for within and between word exchanges.
According to claim 6, slips in L1 occur more frequently in stressed than in
unstressed syllables. Garrett (1975) reports a proportion as high as 92% for
phonological exchanges. The claim was tested for L2 by establishing the
proportion of phonological slips (additions, deletions, and substitutions) occurring
in stressed syllables. It turned out that of 480 relevant cases, 395 appeared in
stressed syllables ( = 82%). Most of these 480 phonological slips occurred in
monosyllabic words, however, which are of course normally stressed. There were
169 cases where a phonological slip was made in a multisyllabic word. In 84 of
these cases the slip appeared in the stressed syllable ( = 49.7%). For substitutions
the percentage was 54% (N = 132), for additions, it was 17% (N = 12) and for
deletions it was 44% (N = 25). Obviously, this is no better than chance. Thus, it
appears that in our L2 data, stressed syllables are not more error prone than
unstressed ones. In other words, claim 6 does not appear to be true for our
recorded L2 slips.
Claim 7 concerned the distinction between open-class and closed-class
words. In L1 research most slips occurred in open-class words (nouns, verbs,
adjectives, adverbs, and numerals). Nooteboom (1969) reported 550 phonemic
slips relating to open-class words and only 20 relating to closed-class words.
This would mean that 96% of the phonemic slips occurred in open-class words.
In our L2 corpus very different percentages were obtained. Of the 371 relevant
phonological substitutions, 37 additions and 67 deletions (Total N = 475), 296
occurred in open-class (content) words. This amounts to 62%, which is consider-
ably less than the percentage reported by Nooteboom.
If we also consider lexical errors, an even larger discrepancy is brought to
light. Of 665 lexical substitutions, 32 additions and 36 deletions (Total N = 733),
only 307 were content words ( = 42%). Interestingly, all 32 lexical additions and
28 of the 36 lexical deletions concerned function words. An estimate of the
proportion of function and content words in the data, based on thirty 100-word
extracts of the story-retell and interview data (i.e., of five subjects of each
proficiency group), indicated that content words make up 40% of the text and
function words 60%, irrespective of the subjects’ proficiency level or the task
they were performing. This suggests that phonological slips do indeed more
RESULTS 123
frequently occur in open-class than in closed-class words, although the effect is

smaller than that reported for L1, but that lexical slips do not. They concern
open- and closed-class words as often as one would expect considering the
distribution of function and content words in the data.
The eighth claim was the phonetic similarity constraint. Two phonemes are
more likely to exchange or substitute for each other when they are phonetically
similar. In L1 studies the interacting phonemes differed in only one feature in
56% (MacKay 1970) and 52.2% (Levitt and Healy 1985) respectively. We
examined 223 consonant and consonantal feature substitutions in the L2 corpus,
using the (slightly adapted) three-way feature system described by Shattuck-
Hufnagel and Klatt (1979). The system distinguishes between the features ‘voice’
(voiced, voiceless), ‘place of articulation’ (labial, labio-dental, dental, alveolar,
palatal, velar, glottal) and ‘manner’ (stop, fricative, approximant, nasal, affri-
cate). We favoured this rather simple system to a more complex one, such as that
applied by Levitt and Healy (1985) because of the ease with which it could be
applied. We felt justified in doing so since a comparison of various feature
systems by Van den Broecke and Goldstein (1980) had shown that they were “all
capable of showing meaningful structure in phonological speech errors as they
occur” (p. 63). The analysis revealed that 145 (65%) consonant substitutions differed
in terms of one feature, 66 (30%) in terms of two features and 12 (5%) in terms
of three features. Table 6.3 shows how often each of the features was changed.
Table 6.3. Feature changes in consonant substitutions

Voice 33
Manner 32
Place 80
Voice + Manner 03
Voice + Place 19
Manner + Place 44
Voice + Manner + Place 12
Total: 2230
As Table 6.3 shows, the feature most often involved in consonant substitutions
was ‘place of articulation’. This replicates earlier findings reported by Boomer
and Laver (1968), MacKay (1970b), Shattuck-Hufnagel and Klatt (1979), and
Van den Broecke and Goldstein (1980). It is worth noting though that 45 of the
80 cases in which ‘place of articulation’ was changed concerned the substitution
of /q/ for /s/. This substitution and related ones involving the phonemes /q/ and
/ð/ will be discussed in more detail in Section 6.4.1.

The feature analysis reported above supports the phonetic similarity
constraint. As in L1, the majority of single consonant substitutions in L2 involve
similar phonemes, which differ in one feature only.
Claim 9 described the repeated phoneme effect. In L1 it was found that two
segments are more likely to exchange when they are preceded or followed by
identical sounds. Dell (1984) reported a percentage of 28.6% which was signifi-
cantly larger than the estimated chance expectancy of 10%. Again, it was
difficult to reach a conclusion concerning the repeated phoneme effect on the
basis of the exchanges in our L2 data, since there were only three. Only one of
these showed the repeated phoneme effect (/q/is /ð/ing, target: ‘this thing’, 209).
In view of the limited number of exchanges we also looked at the extent to
which the repeated phoneme effect occurs in perseverations and anticipations.
Out of 125 cases (involving single consonants and consonantal features), 21 were
preceded or followed by identical phonemes (16.8%) and 104 were not (83.2%).
Of the 41 vowel substitutions, 12 were preceded or followed by identical phonemes,
that is 29.3%. The percentage obtained for the L2 consonants is smaller than that
reported for L1 slips by Dell (1984), and only slightly higher than the chance
expectancy of 10%. The 29.3% obtained for vowels is similar to Dell’s 28.6%,
but does not provide strong support either, since it is based on 41 cases only.
Claim 10 is Wells’ Law. It entails that slips of the tongue will not result in
sequences of phonemes that are not possible in the language being spoken. This
claim appears to be largely true for L2 learner speech, although some violations
are found. An examination of all 498 phonological slips of the tongue in the L2
corpus, revealed 14 slips in which the phonological rules of English are violated.
These 14 cases are: shapshed (‘shaped’), I wen/Š/ (‘I went’), ts(ough) (‘through’),
vrote (‘wrote’), the vrong (‘the wrong’), trji(ldren) (‘children’), /w/tudying
(‘studying’), /w/kirt (‘skirt’), /ó/aravans (‘caravans’), to qruarrel (‘to quarrel’),
kskools (‘schools’), dthat (‘that’), Dutch tstamps (‘Dutch stamps’), and rb(idge)
(‘bridge’). Some of these phoneme combinations are allowed in Dutch, viz. ‘ts’
(as in tsaar), ‘vr’ (as in vrij) and /ó/ (as in goed). Other combinations do occur
in stretches of speech, e.g. one genre, that sock, wish to, I wish Kim would, I like
school, and that, what stamps, warbaby. This leaves only shapsed, trji(ldren) and
qruarrel unaccounted for.
With respect to the issue of accommodation, it turned out that in our L2
corpus, there were only 47 cases in which the question of accommodation is
relevant. In 46 of these cases accommodation takes place (see examples (23) and
(24)), while in one case it does not (see example (25)).
RESULTS 125
(23) I had uh, a /r#p6/ operation on my knee (an operation; 214t4)

(24) uh, babies wear these thiks (things; 207t1)
(25) and that’s also with erm, with other/s/ uh subjects in school (with
other subjects; 215t4)
Example (23) illustrates accommodation of the indefinite article ‘an’. Example
(24) illustrates accommodation of the voiced plural morpheme /z/, which is here
produced as a voiceless /s/. In (25) a voiceless ‘-s’ morpheme is used instead of
the required voiced /z/. This may, however, be an anticipation of the ‘-s’
morpheme in ‘subjects’ and/or it may be the result of assimilation and/or the
application of the final devoicing rule, which is normally applied in Dutch.
Altogether, the data indicate that Wells’ Law is followed by L2 speakers.
Although the subjects did produce 14 instances which at first sight seemed to
violate the phonological rules of English, most of these could be explained as
either permissible in Dutch, or in longer stretches of English speech. Where relevant,
phonological accommodation took place, with one possible exception only.
Claim 11 concerned the lexical bias effect. In L1 it was observed that
phonological slips more often result in existing words than in non-words. For
instance, Dell and Reich (1981) reported that of 196 phonological exchanges, 99
anticipations and 68 perseverations involving word-initial phonemes in the
Toronto corpus, approximately 60% resulted in existing words, which is a
significantly higher proportion than the estimated chance expectancy of 45%.
Unfortunately, our L2 corpus contained only 31 cases which met all the require-
ments specified by Dell and Reich (they restricted themselves to contextually
determined sound errors, which involved word-initial consonant changes, and
which had a vowel following the initial consonants in the speech error as well as
the source word). They were 18 anticipations, 10 perseverations, and 3 cases
which were at the same time anticipations and perseverations. Of these 31 cases
17, that is 55%, resulted in existing words. Although this figure is reasonably
comparable to that reported by Dell and Reich (1981), the numbers on which it
is based are too small to take it very seriously. For this reason we also conducted
an analysis of all 374 phonological substitutions. The analysis showed that 110
of these resulted in existing English or Dutch words (79 English, 20 Dutch and
11 both English and Dutch), while 264 did not. Thus, only 29.4% of the relevant
slips result in existing words, which is a much smaller percentage than that
reported by Dell and Reich (1981). Since the class of malapropisms (N = 78) also
contains 34 cases in which the error word differs from the target by one sound only,
it might be appropriate to add these to the phonological errors with lexical outcomes.
If this is done the percentage of lexical outcomes increases to 31.6% only. The
class of phonological/lexical cases is hardly relevant here, since it mainly

contains cases where it was ambiguous as to whether a Dutch sound or a Dutch
word was substituted for the English cognate equivalent (e.g. s/a~/ce for ‘sauce’,
cf. Du. saus).
A problem in the interpretation of the L2 figures reported here is that it is
virtually impossible to apply Dell and Reich’s procedure of calculating a chance
expectancy figure in the case of L2 learners. Since, presumably, a learner’s slips
may only be biased by the words which he or she has stored in his or her mental
lexicon, one would need to establish exactly which words the learner knew at the
time he or she produced the slip to arrive at a valid chance expectancy figure for
lexical outcomes. This is very unpractical, and in the present project it was
impossible because the data had been recorded in 1984 and were not analysed
for slips until the 1990s. Thus, we accepted any word that we could think of as
a possible lexical outcome, including words like trice, as in ‘he did it in a trice’,
an expression which most of our subjects probably did not know. We also
counted as word outcomes phonological slips like f/f˜/rst for ‘first’ (cf. ‘forced’),
/q/ort for ‘sort’ (cf. ‘thought’), /q/ome for ‘some’ (cf. ‘thumb’) and /daIn/ for
‘down’ (cf. ‘dine’). Cases like these, which violate the lexical category con-
straint, were numerous among the English word outcomes (N = 61) and greatly
outnumbered more typical cases like line for ‘wine’ and birth for ‘bird’ (N = 29).
For this reason, we doubt whether lexical bias played any role in our data collection.
Claim 12 was that lexical substitutions often involve phonologically and/or
semantically related words. Fay and Cutler (1977) had reported that 46% of the
397 non-contextually determined lexical substitutions in their corpus were
malapropisms. Hotopf (1983) reported proportions of 48% for his own corpus,
and 62% for Meringer’s corpus. In our L2 data there were 196 non-contextually
determined lexical substitutions and 66 malapropisms. Thus, of 262 relevant
lexical substitutions, 25% involved phonologically related words (malapropisms).
This percentage might seem low, but does not include 491 cases of L1 substitution
which also quite frequently involved two phonologically related L1 and L2 words.
As to semantically related substitutions, proportions range from 54% (Fay
and Cutler 1977) to 28% (Arnaud to appear). The two words involved are
usually antonyms (or complements or converses) or (co-)hyponyms. Hotopf
(1980), for instance, found that 31.25% were antonymic, and 68.8% were co-
hyponyms or hyponyms. Similar proportions were reported by Arnaud (to
appear). Of the 196 non-contextually determined lexical substitutions in our L2
corpus (that is, excluding the malapropisms), 59 were antonyms and the like
(30%) and 60 were (co-) hyponyms (31%). Examples of former are: he – she,
ans(wered) – asked, can – cannot, under – on and dif(ficult) – easy. Examples of the
RESULTS 127
latter are: the lot – the big, back – bottom, apartments – rooms, in Eng(land) – in
Holland, twenty-fi(ve) – twenty-four. Another 63 involved two words which
belonged to the same grammatical class, such as two relative pronouns (34 times
who – which, 1 time who – that), two prepositions (15 times excluding the ant-
onyms, e.g. at the right – on the right), two (intensifying) determiners (5 times
much – many; 2 times any – some; 1 time an – the), two conjunctions (3 times, e.g.
but – because) or two pronouns (2 times, e.g. there – he). These slips obviously
involve two semantically related words, but are probably partly caused by the
fact that for Dutch learners of English the choice between the two words
involved may require the application of a rule. Thus, the selection of these words
may cause a capacity overload. It is important to note that all but five of these
63 cases were self-corrected by the subject. Of the remaining 13 cases, 11 were
probably also related to specific L2 problems (e.g. much – very, right – good,
appli(cated) – applied, women – wife, like Dutch – like Netherlands), but again
involved two semantically related words. In 2 cases the lexical substitution was
caused by another word in the context.
An analysis of the non-contextually determined lexical substitutions and
malapropisms involving content words (similar to the one conducted by Dell and
Reich 1981), showed that 32 of these 136 cases were both semantically and
phonologically related (in that they shared the first phoneme). This amounts to
23% mixed phonological/lexical cases. In comparison with the 38% reported by
Dell and Reich (1981) for first phoneme matches in semantically related words,
the percentage for L2 is considerably smaller. The number of contextually
determined lexical substitutions and malapropisms in our L2 data was 15. Of
these, three involved semantically related and four involved phonologically
related words. None concerned mixed phonological/lexical cases.
Altogether, the analysis of the L2 lexical substitutions has shown that L2
lexical substitutions usually involve either two phonologically or two semantical-
ly related words, or two words that are both phonologically and semantically
related. The substitution of semantically related words is about three times more
frequent than that of phonologically related ones. Of the semantically related
substitutions, antonyms, co-hyponyms, and grammatically related words, occur
approximately equally often.
Finally, it is worth noting that in addition to the cases discussed here, there
were 475 cases where L1 (or L1-related) words were substituted for the intended
L2 words and 16 cases where L3 words (German or French) were substituted. In
these 491 cases there is of course also a semantic relationship between the (L2)
target and the (L1/L3) error word.
Claim 13 is that lexical blends usually involve two (near-) synonyms. The
65 blends listed by Fromkin (1971) show six exceptions (besides 3 cases which
are difficult to interpret). The exceptions in four cases involve two phonological-
ly related words (e.g. ‘population/pollution’ → populution) and in two cases two
words of opposite meaning (e.g. ‘mainly/only’ → monely). Arnaud (to appear)
discusses 28 blends, which included synonyms, quasi synonyms, words differing
in formality and words with the same referent. Our L2 corpus contained 27
lexical blends. Four of these were combinations of Dutch and English translation
equivalents as in cwame (Dutch ‘kwam’ and English ‘came’, 2x), elchother
(Dutch ‘elkaar’ and English ‘each other’), and jas (Dutch ‘ja’ and English ‘yes’).
Of the remaining 23 blends, seven involved two synonymous L2 words e.g. /eIr/
(‘ale’ and ‘beer’), sind (‘sort’ and ‘kind’), and probles (‘problems’ and
‘troubles’). Five involved semantically related words like thru (‘three’ and
‘two’), tomato suice (‘sauce’ and ‘juice’) and m/f˜/t(S) (‘more’ and ‘much’).
Another five involved syntactically similar words like thas (‘that’ and ‘this’),
th/6/s (‘the’ and ‘this’) and wet (‘where’ and ‘what’). Three cases involved two
prepositions on (‘of’ and ‘in’) and if (‘in’ and ‘of’), and the remaining three
appeared to result from two competing conceptual plans, e.g. somethings
(‘something’ and ‘sometimes’) or my hon (‘my hobby’ and ‘one’). Although the
two words involved in these L2 blends are not always exact synonyms, they are
generally semantically related in one way or other. For this reason one could say
our findings support the claim made for L1 slips.
Claim 14 held that lexical slips normally involve words belonging to the
same wordclass. For L1 the percentages reported range from 88% (García-Albea
et al. 1989) to 99% (Fay and Cutler 1977). The L2 data support these results. Of
all 717 lexical substitutions in our corpus, only 15 involved words belonging to
different wordclasses. Since in 59 cases no wordclass code was assigned (mostly
because more than one word was substituted from L1), this means that the
syntactic category constraint was observed in 643 out of 658 cases, which is
97%. Interestingly, 10 of the 15 cases where the constraint was not observed,
concerned contextually determined slips, which are not due to problems of
lexical access, but of lexical ordering (see example (26)). Of the five remaining
cases three can be explained with reference to Dutch (like for ‘funny’, cf. the
Dutch adjective leuk (‘funny’) and good for ‘well’ (2x, Dutch goed can be used
as an adjective as well as an adverb).
(26) [as] good as that [as] boys (at that; 105t4)
We may now summarize our findings regarding the 14 claims based on the L1
slip literature. The + and/or − signs preceding the claims indicate whether the L2
RESULTS 129
findings support or contradict the L1 claims, or fail to provide conclusive

evidence. We have found that:
+ Claim 1a: of phonological units, single segments are most often involved in
slips of the tongue.
+ Claim 1b: clusters are made up of separate segments.
− Claim 1c: affricates are made up of separate segments.
± Claim 1d: features may play a role in speech production.
− Claim 2: anticipations are not more, but also not less frequent than persever-
ations.
+ Claim 3: the number of exchanges is very small.
± Claim 4: interacting consonants and vowels usually, but by no means always
occupy the same position in the syllable (the syllable position constraint).
− Claim 5: word- and syllable-initial consonants are only slightly more often
involved in slips than word- and syllable-final consonants.
– Claim 6: slips do not more frequently occur in stressed than in unstressed
syllables.
± Claim 7: phonological slips occur more frequently in open-class words than
in closed-class words, but the effect is much smaller than that reported for
L1, and it does not apply to lexical slips.
+ Claim 8: Exchanging segments tend to be phonetically similar: most
consonant substitutions differ in one feature only.
± Claim 9: two segments are hardly more likely to exchange when they are
followed by identical sounds (repeated phoneme effect).
+ Claim 10: slips rarely result in impossible sequences of sounds and where
relevant, phonological accommodation to the new environment usually takes
place.
− Claim 11: there does not appear to be a lexical bias effect in the L2 data.
+ Claim 12: lexical substitutions often involve phonologically and/or semanti-
cally related words, 23% involve both phonologically and semantically
related words.
+ Claim 13: lexical blends usually involve two (near-)synonyms or semanti-
cally related words.
+ Claim 14: lexical substitutions nearly always involve words belonging to the
same wordclass.
Of the 17 claims and subclaims which we tested, eight were supported, five were
contradicted, and for four the evidence was inconclusive. Before drawing any
conclusions from these findings, it is important to remember that we have tested
a number of claims which were generally based on the analysis of pen-and-paper
corpora, using a tape-recorded L2 corpus. Thus, our corpus differs not only in
that it is an L2 rather than an L1 corpus, but also in that it is tape-recorded, and,
more importantly, in that the tape-recordings were checked as often as necessary.
This implies that whenever we find a difference between our L2 findings and the
L1 findings reported in the literature, we should consider whether this difference
is likely to be the result of a perceptual bias in the pen-and-paper corpora or
whether we are dealing with a real L2 effect.
There are two ways to solve this issue. The first is to examine the corpus of
L1 (Dutch) slips, which we compiled in the same way as the L2 corpus, by
scrutinizing the subjects’ performance on the Dutch version of the abstract figure
description task. This will be done in Section 6.1.2. Although this corpus
contains relatively few slips (137 only), it could indicate a difference between
L1 and L2 data. The second way is to consider whether there are any proficien-
cy-related differences in the L2 data. If differences between our recorded L2
corpus and the L1 pen-and-paper corpora are due to the fact that our subjects
have not fully mastered the L2, then these differences should be bigger for the
least proficient learners than for the advanced learners. The results of this
analysis will be reported in Section 6.2.3.
6.1.2 An analysis of the L1 slip corpus
The L1 corpus consisted of 137 slips. Table 6.4 gives an overview organized by
linguistic level and sliptype. Striking is the relatively large number of conceptual
and syntactic slips among them. Most of these were blends of two conceptual
plans (N = 29) or two syntactic constructions (N = 18). The numbers of lexical
and phonological slips are relatively small, which means that any conclusions
based on them must be considered very tentative indeed. Nevertheless, we will
examine the 14 claims to see if these L1 data are more in line with the L1
claims than the L2 data. Wherever that is the case, it will be important to
consider proficiency-related differences in the L2 data to see whether we are
really dealing with an L2 proficiency effect.
Assuming that those claims which were supported by the L2 data will also
be supported by our L1 Dutch data, we will restrict ourselves here to an
examination of those claims which were not supported by the L2 data, or for
which the support was inconclusive.
Claim 1c concerning the status of affricates could not be tested using the
Dutch data, since affricates do not occur in Dutch.
With respect to claim 1d, we considered whether there were any phonetic
feature substitutions among the 13 contextually determined phonological sub-
RESULTS 131
Table 6.4. An overview of the slips in the L1 corpus

level sub L1 sub* ant per A/P ex add del ble hap sh Tot.
Conc. 04 29 33
Lex. 24 4 2 2 07 04 1 44
Mal. 05 05
Mor. 03 2 05 10
P/L 1 01
Pho. 4 4 2 3 05 18
Syn. 18 1 19
Total: 36 9 6 2 7 17 51 2 1300
Dou. 02
Amb. 07
Total: 1370
stitutions in the Dutch data. No such substitutions were found, however, which
suggests features may play a more limited role than in our L2 data.
Claim 2 concerned the proportion of anticipations and perseverations. The
Dutch data contained 5 phonological, 1 morphological, 4 lexical and 1 P/L
anticipations (including 2 cases which have been included as additions and
deletions in Table 6.4, see Section 5.3) and 5 phonological, 0 morphological and
3 lexical perseverations (again including 1 addition and 1 deletion). Thus, the
ratio of anticipations vs perseverations is 11–8. In addition there were 3 phono-
logical slips (2 substitutions and 1 deletion) and 1 morphological addition which
were at the same time anticipations and perseverations. We conclude that, as in
the L2 data, there are no clear differences between anticipations and perseverations.
To test claim 4, concerning the syllable position constraint, we considered
contextually determined phoneme substitutions (anticipations and perseverations
only). Unfortunately, the number of relevant cases was limited to a mere 7: 4
consonants and 3 vowels. It turned out that 3 of the 4 consonants ( = 75%) and
2 of the 3 vowels ( = 66%) followed the constraint. These percentages closely
resemble those reported for the L2 data (77% and 64% respectively), but can
hardly be considered reliable since they are based on so few cases.
Claim 5 concerned the initialness effect. Again, the number of relevant
cases was very small, namely 5 consonant substitutions. Nevertheless, it is
remarkable that none of these five cases concerned word-initial consonants. All
5 of them did appear in syllable-initial position. This finding differs both from
the L1 findings reported in the literature and from our own L2 findings. In view
of the small numbers on which it is based, it cannot be considered reliable though.

Claim 6 dealt with the frequency of phonological slips in stressed and un-
stressed syllables. We tested this claim on the basis of 12 phonological slips in
multisyllabic words. Of these 12, 9 appeared in the unstressed syllable, which
amounts to 75%. This confirms the findings based on the L2 data. Stressed
syllables do not appear to be more error prone than unstressed ones. We
therefore suggest that the L1 data on which this claim was based may have been
affected by perceptual bias.
Claim 7 held that slips occur more frequently in open- than in closed-class
words. This turned out to be true for 15 of the 18 phonological slips in the L1
data ( = 83%), and for 24 of the 34 lexical substitutions to which the distinction
applied ( = 71%). These proportions are considerably higher than those for the L2
data (62% and 42% respectively), so that these findings are more in line with the
L1 data reported in the literature. Hence, it will be interesting to see whether
there are any proficiency-related differences in this respect (see Section 6.2.3).
To test claim 9, concerning the repeated phoneme effect, again, only 7
relevant cases (phoneme anticipations and perseverations) were available. Quite
remarkably, the four consonant substitutions all showed the repeated phoneme
effect, while two of the three vowel substitutions did. This yields proportions of
100% and 66% respectively, which are not only much higher than the 16.8% and
29.3% observed in the L2 data, but also than the 28.6% reported by Dell (1984)
for L1 data. While the numbers are obviously too small to make this a reliable
finding, it does suggest that it may be worth considering proficiency-related
differences in this respect.
The last claim which was not supported by our L2 data was claim 11. This
claim concerned the lexical bias effect. We tested it on the basis of the 10
phonological substitutions in our L1 corpus, and found that 6 of these resulted in
word outcomes, while 4 did not. This 60% word outcome is twice as large as the
29.4% (or 31.6% if malapropisms are included) reported for our L2 data, and is,
in fact, the same as that reported by Dell and Reich (1981). And although the
numbers on which it is based are again very small, it suggests that here too, we
should consider proficiency-related differences.
To sum up, the analysis of our small tape-recorded L1 corpus confirmed our
doubts regarding claims 2, 4, 5 and 6. Although the numbers in the L1 corpus
are very small, these findings provide some indication that we may not be
dealing with a real difference between L1 and L2 slips, but with a difference
resulting from differences in the collection procedures. Particularly the L1 data
underlying claim 6, regarding the occurrence of slips of the tongue in stressed
syllables, may have been subject to perceptual bias. In three cases, our analysis
RESULTS 133
did not confirm our doubts. Claims 7, 9 and 11, which were not supported by
our L2 data, were supported by our L1 data. This might mean that in these cases,
we are dealing with real L2 learner effects. In Section 6.2.3, we will examine
proficiency-related differences in all of these areas.
6.2 L2 slips and the learner’s proficiency level
In this section we will try to answer research question 2.

2. Are there any proficiency-related differences in the slips produced by L2
learners: do they produce different numbers of slips, do they produce different
kinds of slips to different degrees, do they show the same regularities, and are there
any similarities in the slip patterns produced by (beginning) L2 learners and child
L1 learners?
To answer research question 2, we will investigate differences in the slips of the
tongue produced by learners at different levels of L2 proficiency. In particular,
we will consider proficiency-related differences in the number of slips of the
tongue, the distribution of slip-types, and, for those of the 14 claims which were
not supported for L2 learners, whether the differences between the L1 data and
the L2 data are equally large for all three proficiency groups. The assumption
here, of course is that the differences will be smallest for the advanced L2
learners and largest for the beginning L2 learners, reflecting the degree of
automatization. Finally, we will investigate whether there are any similarities
between the L1 child data discussed in Chapter 2 and the data produced by L2
learners. In particular, and following Schwartz et al. (1994), we will investigate
whether the least proficient L2 learners produce a larger proportion of perseverations
and a larger proportion of non-word outcomes than the more advanced L2 learners.
6.2.1 The number of slips produced
We will begin by examining language and proficiency-related differences in the

number of slips produced by our subjects. In Chapter 3 it was noted that L2
production is less automatized than L1 production (e.g. Wiese 1984; Lennon
1990). Since the extent to which a process has been automatized is inversely
related to the amount of variation possible in that process, we hypothesize (a)
that L2 speakers will produce more slips of the tongue than L1 speakers and (b) that
the least proficient L2 learners, whose speech we assume to be least automatized,
will produce more slips of the tongue than the most proficient L2 speakers. It is
possible though that this effect is neutralized by the fact that beginning L2
learners tend to speak more slowly (Rob Schoonen, personal communication
April 1999). In that case, no proficiency-related differences will be found in the
number of slips produced.
To determine whether L2 learners produce more slips of the tongue in L2
than L1, a comparison was made of the number of slips in the L1 and L2
versions of task II, which required the subjects to refer to abstract shapes.
Table 6.5 shows the mean number of slips produced by the subjects belonging to
the three proficiency groups in the L1 and L2 versions. A MANOVA test
showed a significant main effect for language, the speakers producing more slips
in L2 than in L1 (F = 47.40, df = 1, p < .001).1 Since the number of words in the
L1 and L2 data for these tasks does not differ (F = .07; p = .80), we may
conclude that the data confirm our first hypothesis.
Table 6.5. The number of slips in the Dutch (L1) and English (L2) versions of task II broken
down by group: means per subject and standard deviations
L1 L2
N means s.d. means s.d.
2nd-year 15 2.00 1.93 3.00 1.85
5-VWO 15 3.20 3.74 8.93 6.56
3-VWO 15 4.07 3.39 8.87 6.02
Grand mean: 3.09 3.17 6.93 5.85
The MANOVA also showed a significant interaction of language by proficiency

level (F = 6.7, df = 2, p < .01). Therefore, post hoc analyses of proficiency-related
differences per language were carried out (Tamhane). These tests showed that
none of the proficiency-related differences in the L1 version of the task were
significant, while in the L2 version of the task second-year university students
differed significantly from 5-VWO pupils (p < .05) and from 3-VWO pupils (p < .01),
but 5-VWO and 3-VWO pupils did not differ significantly from each other.
1. The data in Tables 6.5 and 6.6 were tested by means of an Analysis of Variance, even though the
standard deviations, reported in the same tables, show that the data do not meet the assumption of
homogeneity of variance. In view of the robustness of ANOVA, it was decided to report the results
of these tests anyway. Non-parametric tests, carried out to check the results, confirmed our findings.
For Table 6.5, a sign test (two-tailed) showed a significant difference between the number of slips in
L1 and L2 (Z = -4,269, p < .001). For Table 6.6 a Kruskal-Wallis test showed a significant proficiency
effect (ó2 = 21,585, df = 2, p < .05).
RESULTS 135
These findings are in line with our expectations. The subjects are equally
proficient in L1, hence the number of slips produced in L1 is the same for all
three groups. In L2, however, the subjects do differ in proficiency level, and this
reflects itself in a larger number of slips produced by the two least proficient
subject groups. This supports hypothesis 2, that the least proficient L2 learners
would produce most slips of the tongue.
Finally, it is worth noting that there is a significant paired samples correla-
tion (r = .72, p < .001). This means that subjects who produced many slips of the
tongue in L1 also produced many in L2. In other words, the production of slips
of the tongue is to some extent individually determined.
To provide further support for the second hypothesis, that the least profi-
cient L2 learners would produce most slips of the tongue, we combined the L2
data on all four tasks for each of the proficiency groups (see Table 6.6). A one-
way ANOVA on this much larger collection of slips confirmed that the number
of slips produced by L2 learners is indeed inversely related to their proficiency
level (F = 14.42, df = 2, p < .001). The most advanced L2 learners, the 2nd-year
university students, produced an average of 22.33 slips (min. = 5, max. = 38), the
intermediate group of 5-VWO pupils produced an average of 48.87 slips
(min. = 19, max. = 83), and the beginners group of 3-VWO pupils produced an
average of 62.07 slips (min. = 19, max. = 118). A post hoc Scheffé analysis to
test the differences between the proficiency groups again showed that 2nd-year
university students differed from 5-VWO pupils and from 3-VWO pupils, but
that the two latter groups did not differ from each other.
Table 6.6. The number of slips in the combined English data broken down by group: means
per subject and standard deviations
N means s.d.
2nd-year 15 22.33 08.30
5-VWO 15 48.87 17.04
3-VWO 15 62.07 30.31
Grand mean: 44.42 26.19
The analyses of the numbers of slips produced by the L2 learners in L1 and L2

clearly support our hypotheses and thus confirm earlier findings that L2 speech
is less automatized (or proceduralized) than L1 speech.
6.2.2 Slips at different linguistic levels
Like Towell, Hawkins and Bazergui (1996), we felt it would be interesting to

establish which particular parts of the speech production process had been
automatized or proceduralized. For this reason we investigated whether there
were any proficiency-related differences in the production of slips involving
different linguistic levels (i.e., conceptual, lexical, malapropisms ( = lexical and
phonological), P/L (ambiguous as to whether phonological or lexical), morpho-
logical, phonological and syntactic). It was assumed that the more slips of the
tongue occur at a particular linguistic level, the less automatized or procedural-
ized the corresponding process is. Table 6.7 presents an overview of the number
of slips of the tongue at each linguistic level broken down by proficiency group.
Table 6.7. The number of L2 slips at different linguistic levels broken down by proficiency
group
2nd year 5-VWO 3-VWO Total
conceptual 022 021 018 061
lexical 110 287 427 824
malapropisms 017 032 030 079
P/L 005 014 016 035
morphological 046 129 153 328
phonological 101 171 226 498
syntactic 014 016 013 043
Total: 315 670 883 18680
Table 6.7 shows that most of the slips in the L2 learner corpus relate to the
lexical level. In addition, there are many slips at the morphological and phono-
logical levels. Interestingly, it is at these same three levels that we observe
proficiency-related differences in the number of slips produced by the three
subject groups (ó2 = 46,375; df = 12; p < .001).2 In terms of McLaughlin’s
information processing theory, this suggests that the processes of lexical,
morphological and phonological encoding are in different stages of automatization
2. Following Stemberger (1989) and many other researchers investigating the distribution of slips of
the tongue, we have adopted the ó2 test to determine proficiency-related differences between the three
groups. Some people might object to the use of this test because the observations are not indepen-
dent, each subject having produced more than one slip. For an elaborate defence of the use of the ó2
procedure with data like these see Stemberger (1989), note 3.
RESULTS 137
for the three proficiency groups. Alternatively, in terms of Anderson’s ACT*

theory, they are in different stages of proceduralization. It is noteworthy that
there are no proficiency-related differences at the syntactic level, which was the
area in which proceduralization predominantly took place in the study by Towell
et al. (1996). In fact, the present study shows very few syntactic slips, suggesting
that this area had been proceduralized already. We would not like to jump to this
conclusion, however. Syntactic slips of the tongue are very hard to recognize in
the case of L2 learners. Syntactic errors are rarely corrected, which makes it
virtually impossible to decide whether a learner uses the wrong syntactic
construction because of lack of competence (i.e., incomplete declarative knowl-
edge) or because of a processing problem. For this reason many of the syntactic
errors made by the subjects were not considered to constitute slips of the tongue.
To increase our insight in the processes of lexical, morphological and
phonological encoding, which according to the data presented in Table 6.7 are
the processes that are being automatized or proceduralized, a more specific study
of slips at the lexical, the morphological and the phonological levels is needed.
The lexical slips consisted of lexical blends (N = 27), haplologies (N = 6),
shifts (N = 6), additions (N = 32), deletions (N = 36) and substitutions (N = 717).
Clearly then, substitutions constitute the largest class. These substitutions can be
further subdivided into three major classes:
a. contextually determined substitutions, that is anticipations or perseverations,
where the word that is wrongly used occurs either later or earlier in the
context (see Chapter 5 for examples. Note that there were no lexical
exchanges in our L2 corpus)
b. substitutions which take their origin in the speakers’ first (and occasionally
third) language, where the intended word is substituted by the corresponding
L1 (or L3) word, or by a direct translation of the L1 word
c. substitutions by semantically related words like antonyms or co-hyponyms.
Table 6.8 shows how often lexical slips of types a, b, and c were produced by
the three proficiency groups. A ó2 analysis of the data in Table 6.8 suggests that
the differences between the three proficiency groups arise at the level of lexical
access. The 3-VWO pupils, who are the least proficient learners, more often
produce substitution slips which originate in their L1 (or L3) than 5-VWO pupils
and these again produce more of these slips than the 2nd-year university
students. Moreover, both 3-VWO and 5-VWO pupils more often produce
semantically related substitution errors than the 2nd-year university students
(ó2 = 76,172; df = 4; p < .001). Both the L1/L3- based and the semantically related
substitution errors result from accessing the wrong lexical item from the mental
lexicon (see Poulisse and Bongaerts 1994, discussed in Chapter 3 for a discus-
sion of the similarities between these two kinds of substitutions). In the case of
contextually determined slips the correct lexical item is accessed, but it is used
either too early (in the case of anticipations) or it is used a second time (in the
case of perseverations). It is interesting that this type of error, which is not due
to problems with lexical access, is relatively rare and does not exhibit the
expected proficiency-related difference. This suggests that it is only the process
of lexical access that is not yet fully automatized or proceduralized in the case
of L2 learners.
Table 6.8. The number of contextually determined, L1/L3-based and semantically related
lexical substitutions in L2 broken down by proficiency level
2nd-year 5-VWO 3-VWO Total
contextual 13 007 011 031
L1/L3-based 30 162 299 491
sem. related 46 076 073 195
Total: 89 245 383 717
The morphological slips were categorized as shifts (N = 14), blends (N = 35),

additions (N = 64), deletions (N = 77), and substitutions (N = 138). In the case of
morphological shifts, the morpheme moves from its intended position to another
position. Examples are: it look likes for ‘it looks like’ and bigs thing for ‘big
things’. Morphological blends are cases where two verb forms have been blended
as in can standing (a blend of ‘can stand’ and ‘is standing’), I sleeping (a blend
of ‘I sleep’ and ‘I am sleeping’ and he cames (a blend of ‘he comes’ and ‘he
came’). Additions and deletions relate to the addition and the deletion of a
morpheme as in he wented for ‘he went’ or he want for ‘he wants’. Substitutions
usually related to the substitution of one entire verb form for another as in she
have for ‘she has’, he has for ‘he had’, we didn’t went for ‘we didn’t go’, and we
maked for ‘we made’. Substitution of one morpheme for another was extremely
rare. There is one instance where the ‘-ed’ morpheme replaces the ’-s’ morpheme
(he comed for ‘he comes’) and there are two cases with derivational morphemes,
viz. the follows day for ‘the following day’ and interesting for ‘interested’. In
addition, there are some cases like he said for ‘he says’, which have, however,
been interpreted as substitutions of past for present tense verb forms.
Most of the morphological slips related to verb forms (276 out of 328). This
makes this category the most interesting to look at. As Table 6.9 shows, the
RESULTS 139
number of slips involving verb forms is dependent on the subjects’ proficiency

level. Second-year university students produce 30 slips of this kind, 5-VWO
pupils 109 and 3-VWO pupils 137. Slips relating to other wordclasses are much
rarer and show less distinct proficiency-related differences. Altogether, the data
suggest that 5-VWO and 3-VWO pupils are still busy automatizing or procedur-
alizing verb formation processes.
Table 6.9. Morphological L2 slips per wordclass broken down by proficiency level
verbs 30 109 137 276
nouns 07 016 008 031
adjectives 04 001 004 009
adverbs 03 001 00− 004
pronouns 01 00− 001 002
prep. 0− 001 00− 001
determiner 01 001 003 005
Total: 46 129 153 328
Finally, the phonological slips might shed some light on the process of phonolog-
ical encoding. Phonological slips were of five different kinds. They take the
form of additions (N = 40), deletions (N = 67), substitutions (N = 374), shifts
(N = 14) and exchanges (N = 3). Of the 14 instances of phonological shift, 9 related
to the shift of stress. Table 6.10 shows that the occurrence of all types, except
shifts and exchanges appears to be related to the subject’s proficiency level.
Table 6.10. The number of phonological additions, deletions, substitutions and shifts in L2
broken down by proficiency group
additions 05 10 25 40
deletions 10 25 32 67
substitutions 83 1230 1680 3740
shifts 03 10 01 14
exchanges 0− 03 0− 03
Total: 1010 1710 2260 4980
Many of the phonological slips (264 = 53.0%) were contextually determined, that
is, they were either anticipations, perseverations, combinations of anticipation and
perseveration, exchanges or shifts. In 45, that is 9.0% of the cases the cause was
the L1 and in two cases an L3. In the remaining 187 cases, i.e., 37.5%, the cause
was not clear. Table 6.11 gives an overview of the different causes per profi-
ciency group.
Table 6.11. An overview of the causes of phonological additions, deletions and substitutions
broken down by proficiency group
anticipations 30 40 44 1140
perseverations 20 27 51 98
ant./pers. 09 15 15 39
exchanges 0− 03 0− 03
shifts 02 07 01 10
total contextual 61 92 1110 2640
L1/L3 07 16 24 47
unknown 33 63 91 1870
Total: 1010 1710 2260 4980
Table 6.11 shows that there is not a single cause responsible for the larger
number of phonological slips in the case of the least proficient subject groups
(ó2 = 3,821; df = 4; p = .431). The less proficient the subjects are, the more
contextually determined, the more L1-based and the more phonological slips of
unknown causes they produce. In most cases, viz. all those that are contextually
RESULTS 141
determined, the correct sounds are selected, but they are activated at the wrong
time. In terms of ACT* this might mean that the process of phonological
encoding is far from fully proceduralized, because if it were, the sounds would
have been incorporated in the productions and the time of activation would have
been fixed, so that contextually determined slips would be less likely.
The quantitative analyses of L2 learners’ slips of the tongue presented in
this section have corroborated earlier findings that L2 speech, certainly in the
case of beginning learners, is less automatized than L1 speech. Moreover, our
investigation has revealed that many of the L2 learners’ slips relate to the
processes of lexical access, verb formation and phonological encoding. The large
number of slips arising during these processes, and the fact that the frequency of
these slips is proficiency-related, suggests that it is particularly these processes
which have not yet been fully automatized, or proceduralized.
6.2.3 The unsupported claims
In Section 6.1.1 we noted that five of the claims based on the L1 literature were
contradicted by the L2 data, while for four the evidence was inconclusive. In this
section we will examine whether any proficiency-related differences can be
observed for these nine claims.
Claim 1c concerned affricates. We found that in L2 these are made up of
separate segments. Of all the relevant cases (four cases where one segment was
added resulting in an affricate, four cases where one part of an affricate was
deleted, and five cases where one segment of an affricate was replaced by
another segment), only one was produced by a second-year university student
(and this one case concerned American pronunciation in ‘tube’ which was
corrected into the English pronunciation), five were produced by 5-VWO pupils
and seven were produced by 3-VWO pupils. This suggests that affricates are
made up of two segments for beginning and intermediate L2 learners. There is
no evidence of this for advanced L2 learners, so that it may well be the case that
for them affricates have developed into single segments.
Claim 1d concerned the role of features in speech production. We found that
there were 38 contextually determined phonological substitutions which con-
cerned features rather than phonemes. Of these, 8 were made by 2nd-year
university students, 14 by 5-VWO pupils, and 16 by 3-VWO pupils. However,
in view of the fact that the three groups made 53, 68 and 92 contextually
determined phonological substitutions respectively, this difference does not really
point at an L2 proficiency effect as far as the status of features is concerned.
Claim 2 related to the frequency of anticipations and perseverations. While
the total number of anticipations did not differ from the total number of
perseverations (binomial test, p = .47), there are differences in this respect
between the three proficiency groups (ó2 = 9.01, df = 2, p < .05). As Table 6.12
shows, both the 2nd-year university students and the 5-VWO pupils produced
more anticipations than perseverations, while for 3-VWO pupils we found the
reverse. This suggests that the proportion of anticipations versus perseverations
is determined by the subjects’ proficiency level. The least proficient L2 learners
produced most perseverations.
Table 6.12. Contextually determined phonological, morphological and lexical substitutions,

additions and deletions, broken down by proficiency level
ant. per. A/P
2nd-year Pho. 30 20 09
Mor. 02 02 0−
Lex 08 06 01
Tot. 2nd-year: 40 28 10
5-VWO Pho 40 27 15
Mor 08 04 0−
Lex 06 03 01
Tot. 5-VWO: 54 34 16
3-VWO Pho 44 51 15
Mor 06 09 01
Lex 02 11 0−
Tot. 3-VWO: 52 71 16
Tot. all groups: 1460 1330 42
Claim 4 concerned the syllable position constraint. This constraint was followed
in 77% of the relevant L2 cases with consonants and 69% of the relevant cases
with vowels, while in L1 percentages have been reported of 98% and 81%
(MacKay 1970). Table 6.13 presents the data for the three proficiency groups.
For consonants the differences between the three groups are not significant
(ó2 = 2.20, df = 2, ns). The slips of the most proficient subjects do not more often
follow the syllable position constraint than the slips of the least proficient
subjects. For vowels, the differences in the proportions could not be tested
because they are based on very small numbers.
Claim 5 concerned the initialness effect. We found for L2 learners that
word- and syllable-initial consonants are only slightly more often involved in
RESULTS 143
Table 6.13. Proficiency-related differences in adherence to the syllable position constraint

for consonants and vowels
group consonant vowels
same different same different
2nd-year 26 ( = 87%) 04 03 ( = 75%) 01
5-VWO 20 ( = 72%) 08 11 ( = 79%) 03
3-VWO 36 ( = 75%) 12 11 ( = 61%) 07
Total: 82 ( = 77%) 24 25 ( = 69%) 11
slips than word-final consonants. Table 6.14 again breaks the data down by
proficiency level. It shows that the word-initialness effect is stronger for the
least rather than the most proficient group (ó2 = 12.11, df = 4, p < .05). This could
be due to the effect that these subjects produce a relatively large number of
monosyllabic words. This assumption is in line with the fact that few of their
consonant substitutions are syllable-initial. If we combine the word- and syllable-
initial categories, the differences between the three proficiency groups are no
longer significant (ó2 = 0.68, df = 2, ns).
Table 6.14. Proficiency-related differences in the initialness effect for single consonant and
feature substitutions. The syllable-initial category does not include cases which are word-
initial.
group word-initial syllable-initial word-final total
2nd-year 20 ( = 41%) 14 ( = 29%) 15 ( = 31%) 049
5-VWO 30 ( = 38%) 20 ( = 25%) 29 ( = 37%) 079
3-VWO 56 ( = 53%) 10 ( = 09%) 39 ( = 37%) 105
The sixth claim was that slips occur more frequently in stressed than in un-
stressed syllables. We had found, however, that in L2 49.7% of the phonological
slips appeared in the stressed syllable of a multisyllabic word. In this respect
there turned out to be no proficiency-related differences (ó2 = 0.35, df = 2, ns).
For the 2nd-year university students the percentage of phonological slips in
stressed syllables was 46.8% (22/47), for 5-VWO pupils it was 49.2% (31/63)
and for 3-VWO pupils it was 52.2% (31/59).
Claim 7 concerned the vulnerability of open- and closed-class words. We
found that phonological slips did indeed occur more often in open-class words
than in closed-class words, but lexical slips did not. Moreover, the effect for
phonological slips was not nearly as strong as that reported for L1 data (96%
according to Nooteboom 1969). Table 6.15 presents the proficiency data.
Interestingly, it turns out that there are proficiency-related differences for
phonological as well as lexical slips. The most proficient subjects make a larger
proportion of their phonological slips in open-class words (ó2 = 21.52, df = 2,
p < .001) and they produce more lexical slips involving open-class words (ó2 = 11.83,
df = 2, p < .01). Conversely, the least proficient subjects make most slips in closed-
class words. This indicates that we are indeed dealing with an L2 effect here. As
the learners become more proficient, function words become less vulnerable.
Table 6.15. Phonological and lexical slips in open- and closed-class words broken down by
proficiency level
phonological lexical
Tot.N open Tot.N open
2nd-year 096 076 ( = 79%) 097 054 ( = 56%)
5-VWO 158 104 ( = 66%) 262 115 ( = 44%)
3-VWO 221 116 ( = 52%) 374 138 ( = 37%)
475 296 ( = 62%) 733 307 ( = 42%)
The ninth claim related to the repeated phoneme effect. We found that in L2 two
segments are hardly more likely to exchange when they are preceded or followed
by identical sounds. A specification per proficiency group showed that there is
no clear proficiency effect (see Table 6.16; for consonants ó2 = 0.22, df = 2, ns;
for vowels the numbers are too small to allow testing). So, while our L1 data
suggested the effect might be larger for more proficient subjects, these data
indicate that this is not the case.
Table 6.16. The repeated phoneme effect in contextually determined consonant and vowel
substitutions broken down by proficiency level
consonant vowel
Tot.N repeated phon. Tot.N repeated phon
2nd-year 35 05 ( = 14%) 04 01 ( = 25%)
5-VWO 34 06 ( = 18%) 18 03 ( = 17%)
3-VWO 56 10 ( = 18%) 19 08 ( = 42%)
1250 21 ( = 17%) 41 12 ( = 29%)
RESULTS 145
Finally, we will consider whether there are any proficiency-related differ-

ences with respect to claim 11, concerning lexical bias. Table 6.17 shows that
this is not the case (ó2 = 1.95, df = 2, ns). The differences are minor and the
effect is largest for the least proficient rather than the most proficient group,
which is not what we would have expected in view of our L1 analysis.
Table 6.17. Lexical bias: Phonological slips resulting in English or Dutch words broken
down by proficiency level
English English/Dutch Dutch Total
2nd-year 16 03 5 024/083 ( = 29%)
5-VWO 24 02 5 031/123 ( = 25%)
3-VWO 39 10 6 055/168 ( = 33%)
Total: 79 15 160 110/374 ( = 29%)
Summarizing the results of these analyses, we may conclude that three of the
nine claims examined here showed the expected proficiency-related differences.
In these cases, the data of the most proficient L2 learners were more similar to
the L1 data reported in the literature than the data of the least proficient L2
learners. The three claims for which proficiency-related differences were found
concerned the status of affricates as single segments (claim 1c), the proportion
of anticipations vs perseverations (claim 2), and the vulnerability of open-class
words (claim 7). For six other claims (the independent status of phonetic features
(claim 1d), the syllable position constraint (claim 4), the word- and syllable-
initialness effect (claim 5), the vulnerability of stressed syllables (claim 6), the
repeated phoneme effect (claim 9) and the lexical bias effect (claim 11)) no
proficiency-related differences were found.
6.2.4 A comparison of L2 learners’ and child L1 learners’ slips
In Chapter 2, we discussed the findings of research into children’s slips of the

tongue. From this review we drew two major conclusions. One was that on the
whole the regularities observed in adults’ slips were also found in children’s
slips. And the other was that the evidence regarding the few differences
observed between adults’ and children’s slips was not always conclusive due to
differences in elicitation procedures and small numbers of subjects. Nevertheless,
Schwartz et al. (1994) suggested that child data might be similar to those of
aphasics and native speakers operating under time pressure in three respects.
They suggested that children, aphasics and people operating under time pressure
would produce more slips of the tongue. And they postulated that as a result of
weaker connections in the lexical network, causing a slower spread of activation,
both children and aphasics would produce a larger proportion of perseverations
and fewer phonological slips resulting in lexical outcomes.
It is not unlikely that the L2 learner data would differ from adult L1 data
in the same respects, and we would expect these differences to be largest for the
least proficient subjects. This turned out to be true for two of the aspects only.
As we have seen above, the least proficient subjects produced more slips of the
tongue, and they produced a larger proportion of perseverations. They did not,
however, produce fewer phonological slips resulting in lexical outcomes (cf.
claim 11 above).
It is also interesting to compare some of the other child L1 findings with
our L2 findings. Stemberger (1989) reported that children produced more
phonological errors which were not caused by the context. A similar tendency
was observed for our subjects (2nd-year: 40 out of 101 is 40%, 5-VWO: 79 out
of 171 is 46%, and 3-VWO: 115 out of 226 is 51%, cf. Table 6.11). The
tendency was not significant though: ó2 = 3.63, df = 2, ns). Stemberger also
reported that the repeated phoneme effect was lacking in the children’s case, a
finding which turned out to be true for the L2 learners too (see Section 6.1 claim
9), although we did not find any proficiency-related differences in this respect.
Wijnen (1992) reported that children produce but a small number of malaprop-
isms. This was not found for L2 learners. The proportion of phonologically
related lexical substitutions was approximately the same for all three groups
(2nd-year: 15 out of 37 is 40%, 5-VWO: 18 out of 52 is 35%, 3-VWO: 16 out
of 47 is 34%: ó2 = 0.45, df = 2, ns). Another of Wijnen’s (1992) findings was
replicated though. Like the children in his study, the least proficient L2 learners
produced relatively many sound errors in function words.
In conclusion, we may say that beginning L2 learners behave like children
in several respects: they produce more slips of the tongue, they produce more per-
severations, and they produce relatively many phonological slips in function words.
6.3 L1-based slips
In Chapter 3 it was pointed out that one of the characteristics of L2 speech is

that it may carry traces of the L1. Since we expected that the L1 system might
be a source of slips in the L2, our third research question was:
RESULTS 147
3. To what extent and in what way do L2 slips demonstrate influence from the L1?
We hoped that by answering this question we would improve our insight in
bilingual speech production, and particularly in the question how L2 learners
cope with the fact that they have two language systems, which they manage to
keep separate most of the time, but not all of the time.
As a first step in the investigation, the different kinds of L2 slips originat-
ing in L1 were identified and their frequency of occurrence established. This led
to the overview in Table 6.18.
Table 6.18. Sliptypes involving the L1, broken down by proficiency level
2nd-year 5−VWO 3−VWO Total
L1 lexical substitutions 16 1260 2460 3880
Lexical foreignizings 0− 07 16 23
L1/L2 lexical substitutions 13 22 29 64
L1 lexical additions 0− 07 09 16
L1 lexical deletions 03 04 03 10
L1/L2 blends 0− 02 02 04
L1 malapropisms 0− 0− 03 03
L1 lexical/phonological subst. 03 12 10 25
L1 morphological substitutions 0− 0− 02 02
L1 phonological substitutions 04 07 13 24
L1 phonological additions 01 02 06 09
L1 phonological deletions 0− 04 03 07
L1 phonological shifts 01 03 0− 04
L1 syntactic substitutions 04 06 07 17
Total: 45 2020 3490 5960
The overview shows that 596 slips of the tongue show L1 influence. This is
almost 30% of the total number of slips collected and thus goes to show the
importance of the L1 in L2 production. At the same time, the overview shows
that the role of the L1 is clearly much diminished in the case of the most
proficient learner group. The second-year university students produce only 45
slips which can be related to the L1. In what follows we will discuss the
different L1 sliptypes one by one.
A. L1 lexical substitutions (N = 388)
L1 lexical substitutions constitute the largest group of L1-based slips. This
sliptype is the equivalent of what Poulisse and Bongaerts (1994) called non-
adapted language switches (see examples 27 to 30).
(27) yes she heeft, uh she has uh, big ears (has; 302t4)
(28) yes it’s also, a book vol uh 1 with uh like uh Donald Duck (full; 303t4)
(29) I have ook, I have uh, a brother too (too; 311t4)
(30) and then nog one (another; 315t4)
The reason why the number reported here differs from that in Poulisse and
Bongaerts (1994), which was based on the same data collection, is threefold:
first, for the purpose of the current study of slips of the tongue, the tape record-
ings were listened to once more, which led to some corrections in the original
transcription; second, the criteria for slip identification were adapted to include
the notion of reparability, which did not play a role in the earlier study; and
third, with a few exceptions, Dutch editing terms were not identified as slips in
the current study, but considered to be part of repairs. Nevertheless, the same
tendencies can be observed as in the Poulisse and Bongaerts (1994) study. The
number of L1 substitutions is proficiency-related. Most L1 substitutions relate to
function words, and this is particularly so for the least proficient subjects
(ó2 = 13.21, df = 4, p < .01; cf. Table 6.19).
Table 6.19. L1 substitutions (content words and function words) broken down by proficiency
level. The category ‘other’ comprises cases which could not be classified as either content
or function, e.g. because they consisted of more than one word.
content function other Tot.
2nd-year 08 006 02 016
5-VWO 50 065 11 126
3-VWO 60 150 36 246
Tot. 1180 221 49 388
B. Lexical foreignizings (N = 23)

The class of lexical foreignizings consists of L1 substitutions which have been
adapted to the L2 either morphologically (N = 13, see examples 31 and 32),
phonologically (N = 9, see examples 33 and 34) or in both ways (N = 1, see
example 35).
(31) one is won(ing) is living in Nijmegen (301t4)
(32) and then you neem a smaller, take a smaller elevator (208t4)
(33) uh, figure /dr/ie 1 uh 3 it seems to be some (pronounced with an
English /dr/ sound. Du. drie = Eng. ‘three’; 202t2)
RESULTS 149
(34) when we uh, were organizing uh the /raI(s)/ the 1 the trip to London
(Du. reis = Eng. ‘trip’; 203t4)
(35) I must uh 1 uh put uh, the flashes in uh, of the, the bottles in erm,
in uh 1 in cupboards (Du. flessen = Eng. ‘bottles’; 303t4)
Although this class comprises few cases, Poulisse and Bongaerts (1994) showed
that it is quite interesting from a theoretical point of view (see Section 3.2.5).
With respect to the cases of morphological adaptation it is worth noting that
there are no cases where an L1 lemma (the stem) was followed by an L1
inflection, or where an L2 lemma was combined with an L1 inflection.3 In all
13 cases we find L1 lemmas with the L2 zero morpheme. Poulisse and Bon-
gaerts interpreted this as evidence that morphological encoding is determined by
the language currently being spoken and is independent of lemma selection.
Otherwise, the selection of an L1 lemma would result in the selection of an L1
inflectional morpheme and such cases do not occur.
The instances of phonological adaptation were interpreted as the result of
two simultaneous mistakes. The first is the selection of an L1 lemma instead of
an L2 lemma, and the second is the use of an L2 phoneme in the encoding of the
L1 lemma. Such cases are highly exceptional. In the majority of cases (the 388
non-adapted L1 substitutions), the selection of an L1 lemma leads to the use of
L1 phonemes in the phonological encoding of this L1 lemma. Thus, Poulisse and
Bongaerts assumed that normally phonological encoding is determined by the
language of the lemma that has been selected.
C. L1/L2 lexical substitutions (N = 64)
L1/L2 substitutions may be characterized as false cognates. This class consists of
L2 words used with L1 meaning, as in examples (36)–(38). The majority of the
64 cases, viz. 59 were repaired, which indicates that we are really dealing with
slips of the tongue, and not with errors resulting from lack of L2 knowledge.
Presumably, these slips come about as follows: the concept for ‘bell’ activates
the English lemma ‘bell’ and the Dutch lemma ‘klok’. The Dutch lemma ‘klok’
spreads its activation to the Dutch word form ‘klok’, which spreads its activation
to the English word form ‘clock’. In addition, some activation may spread from
3. Note that combinations of L1 stems (or base-forms) and L1 morphemes are produced intentional-
ly by our subjects when they attempt to compensate for lexical problems. Consider the following
examples:
(1) a thing with which you can uh 1 /mi˜t/, m meten (measure; 206t1)
(2) so she can’t erm, knoeien $laughs$ (waste; 313t1)
(3) to give uh, /t/ goh, uh voorstellingen (performances; 209t4)
the concept ‘bell’ to the associated concept ‘clock’ and from there to the lemmas
‘clock’ and ‘klok’, which also activate the word forms ‘clock’ and ‘klok’. Since
the English word form ‘clock’ receives activation from two sources, viz. from the
Dutch word form ‘klok’ and from the English lemma ‘clock’, it is encoded
before the intended word form ‘bell’. This explanation of L1/L2 substitutions
leaves Levelt’s assumption of modularity (no feedback between the different
levels) intact. It does, however, assume that activation may spread from one
concept to another associated concept, and from one word form to a similar word
form from another language.
(36) the most important part of a clock, a bell sorry (Du. klok = Eng.
‘bell’ and ‘clock’; 109t1)
(37) we stood up uh, we got up uh, early (Du. staan, past tense stonden
= Eng. ‘stand’; Du. we stonden op = Eng. ‘we got up’; 203t4)
(38) the baker have to stand up on, three, three hour, uh 1 three o’clock
in the morning (Du. uur = Eng. ‘hour’, Du. om drie uur = Eng. ‘at
three o’clock’; 209t4)
D. L1 lexical additions (N = 16)
There were 16 cases where an L1 lexical item was added. None of them were
repaired. Interestingly, 14 of these concerned the Dutch particle van which often
appears in colloquial Dutch in expressions like zeggen van (‘say’), vragen van
(‘ask’), antwoorden van, (‘answer’), and denken van (‘think’). In all 14 cases, the
English verb is used, but the Dutch particle van is added (see examples 39 and
40). These cases suggest that the concept ‘zeggen’ simultaneously activates the
English lemma ‘say’ and the Dutch lemma ‘zeggen (van)’. The English lemma
subsequently activates the word form ‘say’ which is encoded, and the Dutch
lemma activates the word forms for both ‘zeggen’ and ‘van’. Apparently, the
syntactic encoding procedures steered by the lemmas have created a slot for a
particle following the verb zeggen. Since there is no English particle which can
fill this slot, it is filled by the Dutch van, resulting in the combination said van.
Example 41 illustrates one of the two other cases.
(39) you have no parents uh, which say van uh, don’t do that (Du.
zeggen van = Eng. ‘say’; 206t4)
(40) asked van uh, asked the bicycle-seller van uh (Du. vroeg van = Eng.
‘asked’; 209t3)
(41) ja I uh, can’t uh $laughs$ 1 tell it, in uh in ’t English (Du. in het
engels = Eng. ‘in English’; 311t4)
RESULTS 151
E. L1 lexical deletions (N = 10)

The 10 cases of L1 lexical deletions all came about as the result of English
constructions requiring words which are not required in the equivalent Dutch
constructions (see examples 42–44). Presumably, no slots for these words are
created by the L2 lemmas at first. Since 8 of the 10 cases are corrected by the
subjects, these slots are created at a later stage, and found empty during the
monitoring process.
(42) I can, explain it you to you (Du. ik leg het je uit = Eng. ‘I explain it
to you’; 211t4)
(43) so that he can drink out his bottle (Du. uit zijn fles = Eng. ‘out of his
bottle’; 214t1)
(44) there’s a third line 1 erm which comes from 1 left, uh 4 fr from the
left (Du. van links = Eng. ‘from the left’; 213t2)
F. L1/L2 blends (N = 4)
The theoretical importance of the small class of L1/L2 blends (examples 45–47)
was already discussed by Poulisse and Bongaerts (1994). They considered these
cases as evidence that L1 and L2 lemmas can be simultaneously activated.
Interestingly, it appears that the first part of these blends is always the beginning
of the unintended Dutch word, and the second part the end of the intended
English word (Rob Schreuder, personal communication). This suggests that these
blends may be on the spot corrections of slips, which would have important
implications for the time needed to repair slips (see Levelt 1983; Van Hest 1996).
(45) and there cwame a rabbit into his shop (Du. ‘kwam’ and English
‘came’; 210t3 and 306t3)
(46) two forms 1 which bow, towards elchother (Du. ‘elkaar’ and English
‘each other’; 208t2)
(47) ja:s I have two cats (Du. ‘ja’ and English ‘yes’; 308t4)
G. L1 malapropisms (N = 3)
There are three cases of L1 malapropisms, all of which consisted of the substitu-
tion of the English word ‘who’ for the intended word ‘how’. The slip probably
comes about as a result of activation spreading from the Dutch word form ‘hoe’
to the phonologically related ‘who’. Note that these cases differ from the L1/L2
substitutions in that no activation reaches the L2 word form ‘who’ through the
English lemma ‘who’. This is because it is unlikely that the concept ‘how’ would
be associated with the concept ‘who’, hence activate the lemma ‘who’.
(48) I don’t know who to say that (Du. hoe te zeggen = Eng. ‘how to say’;
305t4)
H. L1 word or phoneme substitutions (N = 25)
The class of L1 word or phoneme substitutions is ambiguous as to whether an
L1 word is substituted for the intended L2 word, or whether it is just an L1
phoneme being substituted. The ambiguity arises because the L1 and L2 words
are cognates, differing only in the one phoneme (see examples 49 and 50). If
these cases are L1 lexical substitutions, they can be explained like the cases in
category A above. If they are phonological substitutions, they are similar to cases
in category J below.
(49) and such a ding uh, above my bed, against uh, insects (Du.
ding = Eng. ‘thing’; 208t4)
(50) the last, looks like, uh, normally 1 /lamp/ /læmp/ (Du. lamp = Eng.
‘lamp’; 304t2)
I. L1 morphological substitutions (N = 2)
Only two cases were classified as L1 morphological substitutions. They are listed
here as examples (51) and (52). They are somewhat problematic in view of the
assumption made by Poulisse and Bongaerts (1994) that morphological encoding
takes place in the language being spoken. A possible explanation is that the cases
are L1 phoneme additions or substitutions rather than morphological ones.
Example (52) might also be explained as a phonological anticipation (the source
being the ‘t’ in ‘patient’) or as an L2 morpheme substitution (‘-ed’ for ‘-s’ with
final devoicing, as in Dutch).
(51) my uh, daddy and mine uh mum (Du. mijn = Eng. ‘my’; 303t4)
(52) and there comet a patient (Du. daar komt = Eng. ‘there comes’; 307t4)
J. L1 phonological substitutions (N = 24)
Category J consists of L1 phoneme substitutions. An L1 phoneme is used in the
encoding of an L2 lemma. This error is comparable to the second error in
phonologically adapted L1 substitutions (category B above), where an L2
phoneme was used in the encoding of an (accidentally selected) L1 lemma. It
suggests that the articulator makes use of one huge set of L1 and L2 sounds and
intonation patterns, again, probably marked for language by means of language
tags. In the selection of the required phonemes, something may go wrong. So
just as an L2 phoneme may sometimes crop up in the articulation of an L1
lemma, an L1 phoneme may sometimes crop up in the articulation of an L2
lemma. It should be noted though that with one exception (example 57) the L1
RESULTS 153
phonological substitutions in this class can also be interpreted as L1/L2 blends,

resulting from the simultaneous activation of the L1 and L2 lemmas for a
concept. However, in that case the point made by Schreuder for L1/L2 blends no
longer applies.
(53) most work was done /a~/tom/æ/ automatically (Du. /a~/tomatisch
= Eng. ‘automatically’; 104t4)
(54) with dit with, thit thing you can 1 see 2 how long you are (Du.
dit = Eng. ‘this’; 205t1)
(55) it lies on the 3 uh 2 ground of the zea (Du. zee = Eng. ‘sea’; 311t1)
(56) they saw os uh saw us (Du. ons = Eng. ‘us’; 306t4)
(57) we had uh, history and I didn’t l/eI/rnt for that (Du. Ik had niet
geleerd = Eng. ‘I had not learned’; 314t4)
K. L1 phonological additions (N = 9)
The class of L1 phonological additions mainly consists of cases like example
(58), where the indefinite article an is used instead of ‘a’, which could be
explained as the result of interference from the Dutch indefinite article which is
always een. Presumably, they result from the simultaneous activation of L1 and
L2 lemmas spreading to both L1 and L2 word forms. Since the Dutch een is
usually pronounced /6n/, an alternative interpretation is that these cases are L1
lexical substitutions or even L1/L2 blends. In example (59), the /d/ which is
added to ‘in’ is probably the first phoneme of the Dutch word de (English ‘the’).
A possible explanation for this slip is that it results from a blend of the Dutch
expression in de mijne and the English expression ‘in mine’.
(58) we have a big garden, erm, we’ve also uh an big dog (Du. een grote
hond = Eng. ‘a big dog’; 207t4)
(59) uh ind mine there are 2 thirty, forty (Du. in de mijne = Eng. ‘in
mine’; 312t4)
L. L1 Phonological deletions (N = 7)
Of the 7 phonological deletions, four were like example (60), where the /t/ in
‘that’s’ is deleted as the result of the application of a t-deletion rule, which
applies in colloquial Dutch. This suggests that L1 phonological rules may be
triggered when speaking L2 English, just like L1 phonemes may occasionally be
triggered. In two cases, the word ‘sixty’ was rendered as sesty by subject 211.
One of these slips was corrected to sexty, so that we must assume that ‘sexty’
rather than ‘sixty’ was the target form for this subject. In this case, the deletion
may have come about as the result of blending two word forms.
(60) I am doing that in, Alverna 1 tha’s a village, near Wijchen (Du.
da’s, colloquial for dat is = Eng. ‘that’s’; 315t4)
(61) this figure, stands uh, sesty degrees, to the left (Du. zestig = Eng.
‘sixty’; 211t2)
M. L1 phonological shifts (N = 4)
The four phonological shifts all concerned the shift of stress, resulting in the
stress pattern of the Dutch cognate. Thus, English phonemes were combined with
Dutch stress patterns. Again this suggests that Dutch word forms are simulta-
neously active with English ones, certainly in the case of cognates.
(62) ten looks like the planet s/6/ Saturn (Du. Sa’turnus = Eng. ‘Saturn;
203t2)
(63) yes, at uh nor’mal normally the library (Du. nor’maal = ‘normally;
214t4)
N. L1 syntax (N = 17)
Finally, there are 17 slips demonstrating the influence of L1 syntax. The small
number of slips in this category is probably an underestimate due to the fact that
it was very difficult to decide whether syntactic errors could have been corrected
by the L2 learners. We decided to adopt a conservative stance and only included
those syntactic errors in our slip corpus, which the subjects had actually repaired.
Of the 17 syntactic slips originating in L1, 13 reflect the use of Dutch word
order (twice with 2nd-year students, 5 times with 5-VWO pupils and 6 times
with 3-VWO pupils, see examples 64–66). Thus, these slips suggest that
beginning Dutch learners of English sometimes follow Dutch word order rather
than English word order. This might support De Bot’s (1992) idea that two
speech plans in the bilingual’s two different languages, are developed simulta-
neously, allowing the speaker to switch from one plan to the other, e.g. when
problems occur or when for some reason the speaker considers it more appropri-
ate to continue in the other language. However, the question which arises is
whether this implies that L1 syntactic procedures are always activated to produce
L1 speech plans in addition to the required L2 speech plans, or whether L1
syntactic procedures sometimes accidentally get in the way of the intended L2
syntactic procedures, for instance as a result of their frequent application in L1
and their similarity to L2. The other four cases are literal translations of Dutch
constructions, as in example (67).
(64) so I can him (give) uh so I can give him, a bicycle (so I can give
him, Dutch: dus ik kan hem geven; 311t3)
RESULTS 155
(65) if we s(ums are making) are making sums (if we are making sums,
Dutch: als we sommen maken; 314t4)
(66) there was once 1 a bicycle, maker (there once was, Dutch: er was
eens, the same subject also uses the expression correctly; 112t3)
(67) and he said, erm, what for, what kind of lawyer, erm, of uh what kind
of, judge will we have (what kind, Dutch: wat voor rechter; 107t3)
The results reported in this section have shown that the L1 clearly influences L2
speech. Particularly the number of L1 lexical substitutions is large, and suggests
that L2 speakers activate L1 and L2 lemmas simultaneously. However, the much
smaller numbers of L1/L2 lexical substitutions and of L1 phonological slips
suggested that it is not just at the lemma level, but also at the word form level,
that the two language systems may interact. Furthermore, we have seen that
syntactic and phonological encoding procedures from the L1 may also interfere
in L2 production. In Chapter 7, we will relate these findings to the bilingual
models of speech production discussed in Chapter 3.
6.4 L2 learner-specific slips
It has often been noted that L2 learner data tend to be variable or unstable (e.g.
Ellis 1985; Sharwood Smith 1986). Learners may demonstrate knowledge of a
particular language rule or certain words in some situations, but not in others. In
these cases, where the learners do appear to know the rules or words, they are in
fact making slips of the tongue. Since an analysis of the unstable, developing
areas could be potentially very interesting for the development of a model of
second language acquisition, it was decided to investigate whether the L2 learner
slip data contained any L2 learner-specific slips, which might reflect such
unstable areas. Hence the fourth research question was:
4. To what extent and in what way do areas of L2 learning show up in L2 learners’
slips of the tongue?
Scrutiny of the L2 corpus (this time including double and ambiguous slips)
revealed two “unstable” areas which led to relatively large numbers of slips of
the tongue. One of these areas concerned the 3rd person singular ‘-s’ morpheme
in present tense verbs, the other the phonemes /q/ and /ð/. Usage of the 3rd
person singular ‘-s’ morpheme constitutes a problem to many Dutch (and other)
learners of English even though the rule is quite simple and in fact mastered by
most learners at an early stage of learning English. As Sharwood Smith (1986)
has pointed out though, mastery of a rule does not mean it is also correctly
applied in all cases. The data to be reported below will show that this is true for
the 3rd person singular ‘-s’ rule in particular. In the case of the phonemes /q/ and
/ð/ the problem is not one of acquiring rule knowledge and applying the rule where
appropriate, since most Dutch learners of English know when /q/ and /ð/ should be
used. Rather, the problem here is to get one’s articulatory muscles to make the
right movements. In other words, the problem is a neuro-motor one and has to
do with the automatization of physical skills rather than the application of rules.
It is important to emphasize that the cases to be discussed here — both
those relating to the third person singular ‘-s’ morpheme and those relating to the
phonemes /q/ and /ð/ — all met our criteria for slips of the tongue. They were
either actually repaired or the data of the subjects who produced the errors contained
so many instances in which the 3rd person singular rule and /q/ and /ð/ were
used correctly, that we may safely assume that they were real slips, which could
have been repaired by the subjects if they had wanted to and/or had had the time.
6.4.1 The 3rd person singular ‘-s’ morpheme
The data contained 77 cases in which subjects incidentally added or deleted the
3rd person singular ‘-s’ morpheme. As Table 6.20 shows the occurrence of this
type of speech error appears to be dependent on the speaker’s proficiency level.
The relatively large number of slips in this area for the least proficient subjects
suggests that the language systems of (some of) these learners have not yet
stabilized on this point. Although the learners know when the ‘-s’ morpheme
should be used (which is demonstrated by the fact that they correct a small
number (12) of the errors involving this morpheme), they have not yet firmly
represented this knowledge in their linguistic system.
Table 6.20. The number of speech errors involving the deletion or addition of the 3rd person
singular ‘-s’ morpheme in verbs, broken down by proficiency group
deletion addition total
2nd-year 05 02 07
5-VWO 24 05 29
3-VWO 20 21 41
Total: 49 28 77
RESULTS 157
Besides the proficiency-related differences in the number of slips involving the

3rd person singular ‘-s’ morpheme, there also turned out to be differences in the
kind of slips the proficiency groups made. The least proficient L2 learners not
only failed to apply the 3rd person singular ‘-s’ rule when they should apply it
(20 times) but also frequently did apply it when they should not (21 times).
Conversely, the two other groups “overapplied” the 3rd person singular ‘-s’ rule
in only 2 and 5 cases respectively. The overapplication by the least proficient
learners not only points at the instability of their internal language system, but
also suggests that these learners were paying excessive attention to this area of
the language. They were probably so much focussed on this new aspect of the
language, that the 3rd person singular ‘-s’ rule might have been continuously
activated, as it were, and therefore hard to suppress. In view of the controversy
about the importance of attention and noticing in second language learning
(Robinson 1995; see also the contributions in Hulstijn and Schmidt 1994), this
observation is not unimportant.
6.4.2 The phonemes /q/ and /ð/
Another type of speech error which occurred quite frequently involved the
phonemes /q/ and /ð/, which are notoriously difficult for Dutch learners of
English. The data contained 111 substitution errors involving these phonemes, 39
of which were repaired. Again, the occurrence of this type of slip seems to be
proficiency-related (cf. Table 6.21). Further analysis of these slips showed that
there were 38 cases in which /q/ or /ð/ were replaced by /s/, /z/, /t/ or /d/ and,
quite surprisingly, 73 cases in which /s/, /z/, /t/ or /d/ were replaced by the more
difficult /q/ or /ð/. Again, these latter cases seem to be the result of the speakers
being so much concentrated on the correct production of /q/ and /ð/ that they also
produce it when they should not.
Table 6.21. The number of “expected” and “unexpected” slips involving the phonemes /q/
and /ð/ broken down by proficiency group
“expected” “unexpected” total
/s,z,t,d/ for /q,ð/ /q,ð/ for /s,z,t,d/
2nd-year 04 10 14
5-VWO 06 30 36
3-VWO 28 33 61
Total: 38 73 1110
There are two noteworthy points to be made with respect to these data (cf.
Table 6.21). Firstly, it is not only the least proficient learners who are producing
“unexpected” errors here as a result of paying too much attention to the produc-
tion of /q/ or /ð/, but also the two most advanced groups of learners. And secondly,
the least proficient group is the only group which also produces a fair number of
the “expected” slips, in which /q/ and /ð/ are substituted by “easier” phonemes.
These findings suggest that all three groups of learners were still in the
process of mastering the production of /q/ and /ð/. Even though there are enough
correct instances in the data to infer that all learners were able to make the
distinction between these and the contrasting phonemes /s,z,t,d/, they were not
yet fully in control. This is reflected by the fact that the learners not only failed
to produce /q/ and /ð/ where they should, but also produced /q/ and /ð/ where
they should not. This suggests that besides acquiring knowledge and automatiz-
ing the procedures operating on this knowledge, language development also
involves acquiring the ability to suppress these procedures when they should not
be applied. Thus, there seem to be two sides to the automatization of the speech
production process. It is hard to equate these two sides with developmental
stages, though. For the 3rd person singular ‘-s’ morpheme the most advanced
groups fail to apply, but do not overapply the rule, whereas for /q/ and /ð/ only
the least proficient learners fail to produce the phonemes /q/ and /ð/ where they
should produce them, while all groups overproduce them where they should not.
Summing up, the analyses of slips of the tongue involving the 3rd person
singular ‘-s’ morpheme and the phonemes /q/ and /ð/ have supported the
hypothesis that there are unstable areas in learners’ language systems, which are
error-prone. They have also revealed that the instability is not just reflected in
failure to apply a certain rule or produce certain phonemes, but also in its
overapplication or their overproduction. The latter is probably due to increased
attention being devoted to unstable areas. This confirms the point made by L1
researchers like Clark (1982) and Karmiloff Smith (1986) that there is a close
relationship between learning and attention.
6.5 Summary
In this chapter we presented the answers to the four research questions raised in
Chapter 3. In Section 6.1.1 we reported that only 8 of the 17 claims and subclaims
made on the basis of L1 data were supported by our L2 data. Five claims were
not true for L2 data and for four the evidence was inconclusive. In Section 6.1.2
we reported the results of an analysis of our small tape-recorded L1 corpus. This
analysis, which was undertaken to determine whether the differences were due
RESULTS 159
to L1 vs L2 differences or perceptual bias in the L1 pen-and-paper corpora,

revealed that in three cases we might be dealing with L2 learner effects. These
cases are the vulnerability of closed-class words, the repeated phoneme effect
and the lexical bias effect.
In Section 6.2 we reported that more slips are produced in the L2 than in L1
and that the number of L2 slips is inversely related to the learners’ proficiency
level (Section 6.2.1). We also established that proficiency-related differences
mainly appear to arise at the levels of lexical access, morphological encoding of
verbs and phonological encoding (Section 6.2.2). This suggests that it is in these
areas that the L2 production process has not yet been fully automatized or
proceduralized. In Section 6.2.3 we examined proficiency-related differences
regarding the nine unsupported claims. This revealed the expected proficiency-
related differences for three claims, viz. those concerning the status of affricates
as single segments (claim 1c), the proportion of anticipations vs perseverations
(claim 2), and the vulnerability of open-class words (claim 7). No support was
obtained for the expectation, based on our analysis of the L1 corpus in Sec-
tion 6.1.2., that there would also be proficiency-related differences regarding the
repeated phoneme effect and the lexical bias effect. Finally Section 6.2.4
revealed that like L1 children (in some studies), beginning L2 learners produce
more slips of the tongue, a larger proportion of perseverations, and a larger
proportion of phonological slips in function words.
Section 6.3 revealed that 29.8% of L2 slips find their origin in the learner’s
L1. Particularly the number of non-adapted L1 substitutions is large (N = 388).
Many of these involved function words. For most of the classes of L1-based slips,
there appeared to be a proficiency-related difference in the number of such slips
produced by the subjects. The findings reported in this section suggest that the
learner’s two language systems are not fully separated. In Chapter 7 we will discuss
what this implies for the bilingual speech production models presented in Chapter 3.
Finally, in sections 6.4.1 and 6.4.2, we discussed slips of the tongue in two
specific areas which appeared to be unstable for most L2 learners. The two areas
concerned the application of the 3rd person singular ‘-s’ rule in present tense
verbs and the pronunciation of the phonemes /q/ and /ð/. The analyses of the
slips of the tongue in these areas showed that the subjects not only made the
expected slips (failure to apply the ‘-s’ rule, and substitution of /q/ and /ð/ by
“easier” phonemes like /s,z,t,d/), but also made a large number of unexpected
slips (overapplication of the ‘-s’ rule, and substitution of /s,z,t,d/ by /q/ and /ð/).
This suggests that learners pay much attention to language rules and sounds
which they are developing, and as a consequence may find it difficult to
suppress using these rules and sounds.
C 7
Discussion
In this chapter we will discuss the implications of our findings for models of
speech production and models of second language acquisition. In Section 7.1 we
will go into our findings regarding the 14 claims which were based on the L1
literature. We will discuss to what extent the lack of supportive evidence for
these claims in the L2 data can be ascribed to perceptual bias in the L1 data
collection procedures, and more importantly, whether this has any implications
for monolingual models of speech production. In Section 7.2 we will discuss the
implications of L1-based slips for bilingual models of speech production. And in
Section 7.3 we will consider proficiency-related differences in L2 slips, includ-
ing L2-specific slips involving the ‘-s’ morpheme and ‘th’, and will relate them
to models of second language acquisition. In Section 7.4, which is the last
section of this book, we will summarize the main conclusions and make some
suggestions for further research.
7.1 Implications for monolingual models of speech production
In the previous chapter we saw that of the 17 claims and subclaims made in the
L1 literature on slips of the tongue, eight were supported by our L2 data. These
claims were claim 1a (single segments are frequently involved in slips of the
tongue), claim 1b (clusters are made up of separate segments), claim 3 (exchang-
es are rare), claim 8 (exchanging segments tend to be phonetically similar), claim
10 (slips rarely result in impossible sequences of sounds, where relevant,
phonological accommodation takes place), claim 12 (lexical substitutions often
involve phonologically or semantically related words, or words that are both
phonologically and semantically related), claim 13 (lexical blends usually involve
two near-synonyms or semantically related words), and claim 14 (lexical
substitutions nearly always involve words belonging to the same wordclass).
The fact that our L2 data have supported these claims means that those
aspects of monolingual models of speech production which are based on these

claims, or were included to account for them, should also be included in
bilingual models of speech production. As far as phonological encoding is
concerned this means that the most important unit of encoding is the segment (1a
and 1b), that phonetic features may play a role in the selection of segments (8)
and that phonological rules apply after the phonemes have been selected (10).
For the organization of the mental lexicon, these findings mean that there are
connections between related lexical concepts, so that the lemmas of semantically
related words may be activated simultaneously (claims 12 and 13). Moreover, the
frequency of malapropisms and mixed phonological/lexical errors (claim 12)
might mean that there is backward spreading of activation from the phonological
to the lexical level as Dell (1986) suggests. Finally, the adherence to the
syntactic category constraint goes to show that syntactic encoding may be
described in terms of building frames with slots marked for syntactic category,
and that lemma retrieval is (partly) steered by syntactic category.
Of the remaining nine claims, five were contradicted and for four the
evidence was inconclusive. We tried to determine to what extent the lack of
support for the L1 claims could be explained by the unreliability of the pen-and-
paper method which was used to collect most of the slip corpora on which the
L1 claims had been based. As we have seen in Chapter 5, this method might be
subject to perceptual bias. To determine to what extent this was the case, we
carried out two additional analyses. The first was an analysis of our own L1
corpus. The second was an analysis of proficiency-related differences in our L2
corpus. In what follows the results from both analyses for each claim will be
considered and the implications discussed.
Claim 1c (the status of affricates) could not be tested using our L1 corpus
because affricates do not occur in Dutch. The L2 English data showed that of
the 13 relevant cases, only one was produced by an advanced learner. This might
indicate that for beginning L2 learners an affricate is made up of two segments,
while for advanced learners it has developed into a single segment. In view of
the proficiency-related difference found, there is no reason to suspect the
reliability of L1 pen-and-paper corpora in this respect. The finding has no
implications for monolingual production models, which could easily account for
affricates anyway, whether they be represented as single segments or as two
separate ones.
Claim 1d concerned the role of features. The L1 data did not contain any
relevant instances and the L2 evidence regarding proficiency-related differences
was inconclusive. Subjects who made more slips of the tongue also made more
feature slips. In view of the difficulty of distinguishing feature slips from
DISCUSSION 163
segmental slips, the role of features in speech production is still unclear. Our L2
data did, however, support the L1 findings that most consonants involved in
substitution errors differ in one feature only and that the feature most affected
by slips is ‘place of articulation’. This suggests that if features have a role to
play, it is the same in L1 and L2.
Claim 2 (regarding the proportion of anticipations vs perseverations) was not
supported by our L2 nor by our L1 data. The proportion of anticipations was
neither larger nor smaller than the proportion of perseverations, but approximate-
ly the same. Since the L1 literature does not agree on this issue, we must
conclude that at least some corpora are not reliable in this respect. The proficien-
cy analysis revealed that the proportion of perseverations is larger for the least
proficient subjects. This finding replicates Stemberger’s (1989) finding that
young children tend to produce more perseverations than anticipations. Stember-
ger’s explanation for this finding was that selected words remained activated for
a longer period of time in the case of young children. As a result, the chances
that these words and their phonemes would be available for a second usage later
in the utterance, were larger than for adults, in whose case the decay rate of
activation is faster. A similar explanation may be put forward for beginning L2
learners. It may take longer to deactivate selected lemmas and forms, just as it
may take longer to activate them.
Claim 4 (regarding the syllable position constraint) was less strongly
adhered to in our data (both L2 and L1) than in the L1 literature. However, our
L1 data consisted of 7 cases only, so that it would be premature to say that the
L1 data reported in the L1 literature are affected by perceptual bias. The small
differences between the three proficiency groups were not significant. Hence, it
is not clear whether we are dealing with an L1/L2 effect here. If there is such
an effect both Dell’s and Levelt et al.’s models could explain it. Dell (1986)
interpreted adherence to the syllable position constraint as support for the frame-
and-slot mechanism operating at the level of phonological encoding, but later
suggested that a PDP model might also account for the fact. In such a model
rule-like behaviour emerges when links between different nodes in the network
are strengthened as a result of practice. It could be argued that in the case of L1
speakers, who have had more practice in using the language, the links are
stronger, causing better adherence to the syllable position constraint. In Levelt et
al.’s model, improved adherence to the syllable position constraint might result
from the fact that L1 speakers have frequently used syllables, so that they can be
retrieved from the syllabary. Hence, if a substitution error is made, it is likely to
affect a similar part of the syllable. Conversely, L2 learners, who have not yet
stored so many syllable patterns, but need to build them from scratch, may make
errors all over the place.
Claim 5 (concerning the initialness effect) was not supported by our L2
data. Word- and syllable-initial consonants were only slightly more often
involved in slips than word- and syllable-final consonants. Our L1 data contained
only five relevant cases, all of which concerned syllable- but not word-initial
consonants. The proficiency analysis showed that the word-initialness effect was
strongest for the least proficient subjects (as it was for the children in Stemberger
1989). However, this finding is probably an artefact of the fact that beginning
learners use more monosyllabic words, in which word- and syllable-initialness
coincide. If we combine word- and syllable-initial consonant substitutions, the
initialness effect appears to be only slightly larger for the most proficient
subjects (69% vs 63% for the two other groups, a non-significant difference).
This suggests that while we may be dealing with an L1/L2 effect here, it is also
possible that some of the L1 pen-and-paper corpora contained a disproportion-
ately large number of word-initial phoneme substitutions as a result of perceptual
bias. In this respect it should be recalled that the word-initialness effect was not
present in the Spanish data collected by García-Albea et al. (1989). It is also
interesting to note that the initialness effect is not accounted for by Dell’s (1986)
spreading activation model and is not generated by Levelt et al.’s computational
model WEAVER ++. Conversely, Shattuck-Hufnagel (1987, 1992) did find
evidence for a word-initialness effect using experimental tasks, while Dell et
al.’s (1993) PDP model also produced the initialness effect. Since it is possible
that in Shattuck-Hufnagel’s experiments the effect resulted from the artificiality
of the task, it is possible that the initialness effect in corpora is the result of
perceptual bias only. If that is the case, then of course it need not be accounted
for and should not be generated by computational models. Thus, our finding
might be interpreted as evidence against the PDP model and in favour of
spreading activation models.
Claim 6 (stressed syllables are more vulnerable) was not supported by our
L2 nor by our L1 data. Stressed syllables of multisyllabic words are not more
error prone than unstressed syllables. This turned out to be true for all three
proficiency groups. In view of these findings, we strongly suspect that the L1
pen-and-paper corpora on which this claim was based are biased in this respect.
Garrett (1980a: 181) already noted that stress errors were among those most
likely to be affected by the perceptual problem. This is all the more likely since
listeners most probably focus on stressed rather than unstressed syllables. As a
result, they are more likely to detect slips in stressed syllables. This finding does
not affect monolingual production models. Neither in Levelt’s nor in Dell’s model
DISCUSSION 165
does the encoding of stressed syllables differ from that of unstressed ones. Hence,
the models themselves never predicted the vulnerability of stressed syllables.
Claim 7 (open-class words are more vulnerable) was found to be true for L2
phonological slips, although the effect was smaller than reported in the L1
literature, but not for L2 lexical slips. Our L1 data yielded figures which were
more similar to the figures reported in the L1 literature. This suggested we might
be dealing with an L1/L2 effect, which was supported by the proficiency
analysis. The second-year university students produced a larger proportion of
their phonological slips in open-class words than the 5-VWO subjects, and these
produced a larger proportion of phonological slips in open-class words than the
3-VWO pupils. A similar proficiency effect was obtained for lexical slips, open-
class words being most vulnerable for the most proficient subjects. It is important
to note though that the different proportions we obtained suggest that the effect
is not so much due to the greater vulnerability of open-class words, but to the
reduced vulnerability of closed-class words in the case of advanced learners. In
other words, in the case of less advanced subjects, closed-class words are more
vulnerable. For 3-VWO pupils, 48% of the phonological slips and 63% of the
lexical slips concern function words. A similar vulnerability of function words
had also been observed by Wijnen (1992) for children acquiring their L1. He
suggested that this could be due to lack of automatization of the phonological
encoding procedures, or to the fact that function words had not yet formed a
closed class. Either of these explanations might also apply to L2 learners. Our
finding is also compatible with Dell’s (1995) suggestion that the phonological
representation of frequently used function words may be retrieved in one go.
This explains why function words are less vulnerable in the case of advanced
learners and more vulnerable in the case of beginning learners, who need to build
the phonological representation of less frequently used words from scratch.
Claim 9 (regarding the repeated phoneme effect) was not clearly supported
by our L2 data, in any case not for consonant substitutions. The repeated
phoneme effect applied to only 16.8% of them, which was hardly more than the
chance expectancy of 10% estimated by Dell (1984). The effect was stronger for
L2 vowel substitutions. Our L1 corpus contained only 7 relevant cases, of which
six showed the repeated phoneme effect. So for our L1 data, the effect was
stronger than in the L1 literature. The proficiency analysis did not make things
any clearer. For consonant substitutions, there were no significant differences in
the repeated phoneme effect for the three proficiency groups. For vowel
substitutions the effect could not be tested due to small numbers. We must
therefore conclude that the evidence with respect to the repeated phoneme effect
is inconclusive.
Claim 11 (regarding the lexical bias effect) was not supported by our L2
data, but it was supported by 6 of the 10 relevant cases in our L1 corpus. An
analysis of proficiency-related differences in the L2 data revealed no significant
differences. It is possible that the differences between our findings and the
findings reported by Dell and Reich (1981) are due to the different criteria used
to select relevant cases. Dell and Reich (1981) limited their analysis to contextu-
ally determined word-initial consonant substitutions, which were followed by
vowels. Of these 60% resulted in existing words. When we selected relevant
cases using similar criteria, we obtained a similar 55% resulting in existing
words. However, the number of relevant cases selected this way was so small,
only 31, that we then decided to analyse all 374 phonological substitutions. Of
these only 29.4% resulted in existing English or Dutch words. It is not unlikely
therefore that the lexical bias effect is stronger if you limit yourself to a
particular subset of the data. This might also explain why a lexical bias effect
has been obtained in experimental studies (Baars, Motley and MacKay 1975;
Dell 1985) and computer simulations (Levelt et al. 1999). In these cases too,
experimental items are carefully selected and consist of monosyllabic CVC
words. It could be that in such conditions lexical bias effects are obtained which
do not show up in spontaneous speech.
To sum up, it appears that our study has lent additional support to several of the
claims underlying monolingual speech production models. In only three cases, did we
find that the differences between the L1 and L2 data could possibly be ascribed
to perceptual bias having affected the pen-and-paper corpora. This concerned the
proportion of anticipations and perseverations, the word-initialness effect and the
vulnerability of stressed syllables. In two other cases, concerning the repeated
phoneme effect and lexical bias, the evidence was not clear.
The frequency of anticipations used to be interpreted as evidence that
speakers were looking ahead rather than backwards (Nooteboom 1969). The
frequency of perseverations, which was reported by several other researchers
(Del Viso et al. 1987; Shattuck-Hufnagel 1987; Stemberger 1989) could be
explained as a result of slow decay of activation. Our finding that L2 learners
produce similar numbers of anticipations and perseverations, with perseverations
being more frequent among beginning L2 learners, suggests that lookahead may
play a larger role in the case of advanced learners and slow decay of activation
in the case of beginning learners. The finding does not require any adaptation of
speech production models though. The same goes for the two other findings.
Neither the word-initialness effect, nor the vulnerability of stressed syllables
were predicted by Dell’s (1986) and Levelt et al.’s (1999) network models in
which activation spreads from one node to another. The word-initialness effect
DISCUSSION 167
was generated by the PDP model adopted by Dell et al. (1993). The fact that this
effect was not found in our L2 data may be held as an argument against such a
PDP model.
The two cases in which our evidence was inconclusive concerned two
effects, the repeated phoneme effect and lexical bias, which have been interpret-
ed by Dell (1986) as support for activation spreading backwards from the phonologi-
cal level to the lexical level in network models. This means that our findings with
respect to these two claims cannot be used as evidence against activation
spreading backwards. However, they do not support it either. Since backwards
spreading activation is the most obvious difference between Dell’s (1986) and
Levelt et al.’s (1999) models, our data so far do not allow us to make a choice
between these models. Rather, we may conclude that our findings are compatible
with both of the most influential monolingual models of speech production.
7.2 Implications for bilingual models of speech production
One of the goals of the present study was to provide data which could be used
to support and improve bilingual models of speech production. Since we have
already seen that most of our findings are compatible with Dell’s and Levelt et
al.’s monolingual models, they will support bilingual speech production models
to the extent these models are based on the monolingual models. Bilingual
production models also need to account though for the fact that bilingual people
may mix two or more languages, either willfully or accidentally, as well as for
the fact that usually they succeed quite well in separating different language
systems. We expected that the L1-based slips discussed in Section 6.3 might
shed light on this aspect of bilingual production models.
In Section 6.3 we already concluded from the large number of L1-based
slips that the L1 clearly influences L2 speech. We also noted that this influence
is much larger in the case of the least proficient L2 learners. This suggests that
both language systems may be activated simultaneously, but only in the case of
the less proficient L2 learners does this lead to a large number of L1-based slips.
There are several related explanations for this finding. One is that beginning
speakers need to invest so much energy in speaking the L2, since it has not yet
been automatized, that they have few resources left to suppress the activation
level of the L1 (Green 1986). Another possible explanation lies in the difference
in usage of L1 and L2 knowledge and procedures (Poulisse and Bongaerts 1994).
The less proficient L2 learners have not yet used the L2 knowledge and proce-
dures very often, so that access to this knowledge and application of these
procedures is slow and takes much attention. The corresponding L1 knowledge

and procedures have been used much more often, and hence are quick to access
and apply. The difference in accessibility and usability may cause the L1 system
to be used accidentally instead of the L2 system. This could be both because its
level of activation reaches the required level for selection before that of the L2
system (as Poulisse and Bongaerts 1994 suggested), and/or because it takes a great
deal of attention to de-activate the highly activated L1 system (Green 1998).
In Section 3.1 we discussed a study by Williams and Hammarberg (1998),
which shed some doubt on the above explanation for L1-based slips in terms of
frequency differences. Williams and Hammarberg noted that 92% of their
WIPPs, which are comparable to L1 substitution errors, showed influence from
L2 German rather than L1 English. This suggested to them that it is not just
frequency (or proficiency, as they call it) which determines which language takes
the role of “Default Supplier Language”. Other important factors, they say, might
be typology (i.e., language distance), recency and L2 status. Since the Williams
and Hammarberg study clearly indicates that these factors may also play a role,
we accept their point that besides frequency, typological similarity, recency, and
L2 status may raise the activation level of languages which are not currently
being used, thus increasing the chances that these languages will interfere with
the target language. Certainly, in our study typology and recency also played a
role. The study involved two typologically related languages, Dutch and English,
of which Dutch had been used very recently. L2 status probably played much
less of a role in our study. Our subjects did know two other foreign languages to
some extent, viz. French and German, but their knowledge of these languages
was definitely not native-like as the L2 knowledge was in the Williams and
Hammarberg study, nor had these languages been used recently. For this reason,
the factor L2 status was probably overruled in our study by the frequency and
recency factors.
The L1-based slips also indicate at which levels of speech production the L1
and L2 systems interact. As we have seen, most L1-based slips are L1 lexical
substitutions. Poulisse and Bongaerts (1994) interpreted these as evidence for the
simultaneous activation of L1 and L2 lemmas resulting from the fact that L1 and
L2 lemmas generally share many meaning components. Bongaerts (1994)
suggested that the slips themselves come about at the level of the word form,
since it is at this level that frequency effects should be located (Jescheniak and
Levelt 1994). This would imply that after the L1 and L2 lemmas have been
activated, activation spreads to the corresponding L1 and L2 word forms, so that
these too are simultaneously active. According to Levelt et al. (1999) this could
only happen if the L1 and L2 lemmas were both selected, since a word form can
DISCUSSION 169
only be activated after the corresponding lemma has been selected (see also
Levelt et al. 1991). The simultaneous selection of two lemmas had already been
postulated by Levelt et al. to account for blends, so that there is no reason why
it could not also apply to L1 and L2 translation equivalents.
Other L1-based slips too require the simultaneous activation of L1 and L2
word forms. This goes for L1/L2 blends like cwame (Dutch ‘kwam’ and English
‘came’), but also for L1 phonological shifts where a Dutch stress pattern is used
instead of the required English one, as in nor’mal (cf. Dutch ‘nor’maal’). In both
cases, both L1 and L2 word forms must be available simultaneously. In addition,
L1 phonological substitutions as in thit for ‘this’, zea for ‘sea’ and os for ‘us’
may also be explained this way.
We have also seen in Section 6.3, that some slips can only be explained if
one word form can spread its activation to a phonologically related word form in
the other language. This is the case for L1/L2 lexical substitutions like clock for
‘bell’ (cf. Du. klok, which can mean both ‘bell’ and ‘clock’) and L1 malaprop-
isms like who for ‘how’ (cf. Dutch hoe, which means ‘how’). As the description
of these slips in Section 6.3 showed, they come about as the result of activation
spreading from the L1 lemma to the L1 word form, which in its turn activates
the related L2 word form. Thus, in the case of the L1/L2 substitution clock for
‘bell’, activation spreads from the L1 lemma ‘klok’ to the L1 word form ‘klok’
and from there to the L2 word form ‘clock’. In addition the L2 word form
‘clock’ may have been activated by the L2 lemma ‘clock’ which in its turn was
activated by the concept ‘clock’, which is semantically related to ‘bell’.
The data also shed some light on the application of syntactic, morphological
and phonological encoding procedures. As far as syntactic encoding is concerned,
both Dell (1986) and Levelt (1989) assumed that frames were generated with
categorized slots. Lemmas were then selected whose syntactic category fitted the
specification of the slots. In Levelt’s (1989) model, the selection of lemmas freed
additional syntactic information which led to further syntactic encoding at the
phrase level. The question for bilingual models of speech production is whether
this syntactic encoding follows L1 or L2 syntax, and perhaps even whether the
syntactic encoding procedures are language-specific. De Bot (1992) argued that
they must be language-specific, since analytic languages like English and
agglutinative languages like Turkish could not possibly be encoded by means of
the same syntactic (and morphological) encoding procedures. This certainly
makes sense, but does not rule out that in the case of typologically similar
languages like Dutch and English, L2 learners may accidentally follow L1 instead of
L2 syntactic encoding procedures. There are some slips in the corpus, which
support this point of view. They are cases of L1 syntax, which demonstrate the
use of Dutch word order (13 times) or the literal translation of Dutch construc-
tions. Certainly the cases in which Dutch word order is followed seem to result
from the subjects’ accidental use of Dutch syntactic encoding procedures. Two
other types of L1-based slips appear to arise at the phrase level and are triggered
by the activation of L1 lemmas. This goes for L1 lexical additions as in he said
van and L1 lexical deletions as in I can explain it you. In the case of the addition,
the lemma ‘zeggen’ creates an additional slot for ‘van’ which is filled by the
Dutch word form, and in the case of the deletion, the lemma ‘uitleggen’ fails to
create a slot for a preposition, since none is needed in Dutch.
With respect to syntactic encoding, we should also consider De Bot’s
suggestion that two speech plans are always encoded simultaneously, one for the
selected and one for the active language, to allow easy code-switching. In
previous publications we have argued against this, firstly because it clashed with
De Bot’s assumption that only the activation level of the selected language was
raised and secondly because it would not be very efficient to have parallel
encoding all the time (Poulisse 1997a). The small number of L1 syntax slips
confirms our doubts in this respect. Even if the number may be an underestimate,
because we restricted ourselves to repaired cases, parallel encoding of two speech
plans could have caused a much larger number of repaired syntactic errors. Thus,
the L2 learners included in our study probably did not encode two speech plans
simultaneously, although they did occasionally use an L1 instead of an L2
encoding procedure.
As far as morphological encoding is concerned, the evidence suggests that
it is language-specific. With one possible exception, (there comet a patient,
which might be influenced by the Dutch daar komt (‘there comes’) but might
also be interpreted as a phoneme anticipation or an L2 morpheme substitution
with application of the Dutch final devoicing rule), the subjects in our study
never used an L1 inflectional morpheme while speaking the L2. They did not
add L1 inflectional morphemes to L2 stems, nor did they add L1 inflectional
morphemes to accidentally selected L1 stems. They did, however, in 13 cases
add the L2 (zero-) morpheme to accidentally selected L1 stems (the 13 cases of
foreignizing which showed morphological adaptation to L2). Although the
evidence here would have been stronger if the third person singular ‘-s’ mor-
pheme had been added instead of the zero morpheme, the fact that in none of
these cases the Dutch morpheme ‘-t’ was used does constitute strong evidence
supporting the point that morphological encoding takes place in the language that
is currently being spoken. Evidence in this respect is also available from Myers-
Scotton’s studies of code-switching. She too found that if a constituent from one
language was embedded in another language (called the “Matrix Language”) the
DISCUSSION 171
inflections would always be from the matrix language (Myers-Scotton 1992).

On the basis of these findings regarding morphological encoding Poulisse
and Bongaerts (1994) argued that it is unlikely that inflected word forms are
stored in the mental lexicon, from which they are always directly retrieved
(Levelt 1989: 191; 321–324). Rather, they assume that direct retrieval is one
option, and the only possible option for irregular word forms like ‘mice’ and
‘came’, but that it is also possible that base forms and inflectional morphemes
are stored and accessed separately, whereafter they are combined into single
word forms (Taft and Forster 1975).1
Finally, let us consider phonological encoding. In Dell’s (1986) model a
frame is created at this level with slots for onsets and rhymes, which again
consist of slots for nuclei and codas. Each slot is to be filled with phonemes, as
determined by the information at the morphological level. In Levelt’s model, the
phonological encoder works on the basis of the information contained in the
form component of the lexical item. The word form specifies which phonemes
are to be selected. Once selected, the phonemes activate the syllable in which
they appear, which again triggers the associated articulatory program. The L1
phonological substitutions, and the phonologically adapted foreignizings, in
which L2 phonemes are used in the encoding of L1 word forms, suggest that L1
and L2 phonemes may be activated simultaneously and combined into a single
syllable. This could be interpreted as support for the assumption made by
Poulisse and Bongaerts (1994) that L1 and L2 phonemes (which may more or
less closely resemble the native speaker model) might be stored in one network
and distinguished by means of language tags. In the selection of a phoneme,
something may go wrong, so that an L1 phoneme may occasionally be used
instead of an L2 phoneme and vice versa. Such slips are quite rare though, since
the majority of accidentally selected L1 words were encoded with L1 phonemes
only, and L1 phoneme substitutions in L2 words were not very frequent (N = 24),
and could, with one exception also be interpreted as L1/L2 blends. For this
reason, we must conclude that normally, the activation of an L2 word form leads
to the selection of L2 phonemes and the activation of an L1 word form (even
when speaking L2) leads to the selection of L1 phonemes.
So far, then, our data suggest (1) that L1 and L2 lemmas can be simulta-
neously activated, (2) that L1 and L2 word forms can be simultaneously
activated, (3) that phonologically related word forms belonging to different
1. This representation would obviously be redundant, but redundancy is a well-known characteristic

of speech. Moreover, there is no reason why we should assume that memory space is limited.
languages may activate each other, (4) that syntactic encoding is language-
specific, but that occasionally the wrong encoding procedures may be chosen, (5)
that there is no need to assume parallel encoding of two speech plans, (6) that
morphological encoding is language-specific and is determined by the language
which is currently being spoken (the matrix language), (7) that inflected word
forms are stored as units but also in decomposed form, (8) that L1 and L2
phonemes may be stored in one network and may be distinguished by language
tags and (9) that the language of the most activated word form determines which
language is used for phonological encoding.
It should be noted that these findings entail that more than one word form
may be activated at the time. Nevertheless, we know from the relative rarity of
blends, that normally only one word form is phonologically encoded. Hence,
there must be a mechanism which sees to this. Two suggestions have been made
in this respect. One, by Levelt et al. (1999), is the “binding-by-checking” mecha-
nism, which checks whether an activated node links up to the appropriate node
one level up. Levelt et al. suggested that selection at all levels is governed by
this mechanism. Our data suggest that while this may be true, the mechanism is
certainly less efficient at the higher levels in the case of L2 learners who are not
yet very advanced speakers. This reduced efficiency could be the result of a
capacity overload: checking requires resources which may already be used up in
the speaking process itself. It could also result though from the fact that the
connections between concepts and L2 lemmas and between L2 lemmas and L2 word
forms are not so strong in the case of beginning L2 learners. The other suggestion,
by Green (1998), is that activated nodes which are inappropriate (as determined
by the binding-by-checking mechanism) are inhibited or suppressed. Again,
suppression may not be entirely successful in the case of beginning L2 learners,
for instance because they have insufficient resources left for this purpose. It
seems to us that both solutions to the problem are feasible. Green’s solution is
less elegant, however, in that it entails both binding-by-checking and inhibition.
There are a number of other issues which have occupied researchers
developing bilingual models of speech production. One of these concerns the
lexicalization problem: different languages lexicalize concepts in different ways.
Another issue is whether the lexical items belonging to a particular language are
organized in a subset which always needs to be activated in its entirety. And a
third issue is whether or not concepts are stored in a decomposed form (i.e.,
consisting of different features). The first two of these issues have been dis-
cussed in detail by Poulisse (1996 and 1997a). Since the present data do not shed
any light on them, this discussion will not be repeated here. For a discussion of
the third issue see Roelofs (1993, 1997).
DISCUSSION 173
7.3 Implications for models of second language acquisition
In the first section of this chapter we already discussed the proficiency-related

differences obtained for three of the claims. The differences concerned the
representation of affricates as two separate segments for beginning learners and
as one segment for more advanced learners (claim 1c), the larger proportion of
perseverations vs anticipations for the least proficient subjects (claim 2), and the
greater vulnerability of closed-class words for the least proficient learners (claim
7). Two of these findings, regarding claims 1c and 7, can be explained in the
same way, namely by assuming that practice strengthens the links between
elements which are frequently used in combination, so that eventually these
elements are stored in combination and hence may be retrievable as ready-made
units. Units which are stored as such are probably less error prone (affricates
and function words). The other finding, regarding claim 2, was explained as the
result of a slower decay rate of activation in the case of beginning learners
(Stemberger 1989).
Our data contain a number of other proficiency-related differences (see
sections 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.4 and 6.4.1 and 6.4.2). These relate to the number of
slips produced, the number of lexical retrieval errors (both L1 substitutions and
semantically related substitution errors), the number of morphological slips
involving verb forms, particularly the 3rd person ‘-s’ morpheme and the number
of phonological slips, particularly involving ‘th’. In what follows, we will relate
these findings to the theories of second language acquisition discussed in Chapter 3.
First, it is important to note that the explanation given above for the
proficiency-related differences in the representation of affricates and the
vulnerability of function words corresponds closely to the processes of procedur-
alization and composition in Anderson’s ACT* theory. Procedures which apply
frequently to the same knowledge, gradually incorporate this knowledge in the
productions as a result of which this knowledge can then be used without
activating it in working memory and without the intercession of other interpretive
procedures. As a consequence, sequences of productions can be combined into
single productions. If we apply this for instance to the phonological encoding
procedures used in producing the word ‘that’, it becomes clear that with practice,
the phonemes /ð/, /æ/ and /t/ are no longer retrieved one by one and then
combined, but are incorporated in the production used to encode the word ‘that’.
The proficiency-related differences in the number of slips of the tongue
produced confirmed our hypothesis that those L2 learners whose speech produc-
tion is least automatized, would make most slips of the tongue. This hypothesis
followed from the description of automatic and non-automatic processes in
McLaughlin’s theory (see also Schneider and Shiffrin 1977). Whereas automatic
processes are fixed as it were, in the sense that each step follows directly from
previous steps, non-automatic processes are free to vary. Each step in a non-
automatic process requires a choice which demands some attention. This implies
that at each step, the wrong choice may be made and the chances of such a
wrong choice are all the greater if attention is limited. Hence, the less automatic
the speech production process is, the more attention demanding choices have to
be made, and the higher the chances that errors are made, resulting in more slips
of the tongue. Since many of the slips in the beginners’ L2 speech were the
result of L1 interference (see Section 6.3), another explanation for the large
number of slips in L2 speech is that the automatic L1 processes got in the way
of the less automatic L2 processes. Conceivably, beginning L2 learners, who
need to devote much attention to speaking the L2, do not always have sufficient
attention to spare to suppress highly automatized L1 processes.
The differences in the number of L2 slips produced can also be explained
in terms of Anderson’s ACT* theory though. According to Anderson (1983: 34):
“Gradual creation of a set of task-specific productions makes it more likely that
errors will be detected in the learning process before the system has totally
relinquished control to the new production set”. In other words, the processes of
proceduralization and composition may cause errors to slip into the performance
(Raupach 1987: 130). Conversely, the more proceduralization has taken place and
the more fixed the productions are, the smaller the chances are that errors are
made. With respect to interference from the L1 Raupach (1987: 150) noted that
“Since language is most effectively processed in proceduralised form, the system
will be ready to activate in foreign language performance the same kind of
procedures that it usually applies in first language production. … part of the
system’s learning consists in ‘filtering out’ the misleading procedures and in
strengthening the adequate ones”. In other words, and this is also what MacWhinney
(1997) argued, L2 learners will start out using well-established L1 procedures,
and only gradually, as the connections between functions and L2 forms have
become strengthened, will they be able to fully separate L1 and L2 systems.
As in the Towell et al. (1996) study, the more interesting question that
presents itself is whether it is possible to identify the areas in which procedural-
ization has taken place. The analysis of slips at different linguistic levels
reported in Section 6.2.2, revealed proficiency-related differences in errors of
lexical access, (but not of lexical ordering), in morphological slips relating to
verb forms, and in phonological slips. This suggests that the procedures operating
at these levels, viz. lexical access, morphological encoding of verbs and phono-
logical encoding, are still being proceduralized. Operating within McLaughlin’s
DISCUSSION 175
framework, one could say these procedures are in different states of automatiza-
tion for the three proficiency groups.
Finally, we have found proficiency-related differences in errors involving
the 3rd person singular ‘-s’ morpheme in verbs and the phonemes /q/ and /ð/
(Section 6.4). In the case of the ‘-s’ morpheme we not only found that the least
proficient subjects produced more errors of this kind, but also that they produced
more errors resulting from overapplication of the morphological rule. The
3-VWO pupils deleted the ‘-s’ morpheme 20 times, and added it 21 times. We
have already suggested that this finding might be caused by the 3-VWO pupils
being so keen on getting it right, that they have the ‘-s’ rule constantly in their
minds. Thus the rule is continuously activated to some extent whenever a verb
form is to be produced, which results in its frequent overapplication. The same
explanation applies to the overproduction of the phonemes /q/ and /ð/, which was
observed for all three proficiency groups. Again, the subjects seemed to be so
focussed on the correct production of /q/ and /ð/, that they also produced these
phonemes when they should not.
These last findings have an important implication for theories of second
language acquisition. They suggest that learning a second language involves
more than learning the words, the rules and the articulatory movements and using
them automatically whenever they are required. Learning also involves suppress-
ing knowledge and procedures that are not relevant. This goes for morphological
encoding of the ‘-s’ morpheme and articulation of /q/ and /ð/, the procedures for
which may be deliberately kept activated by the speakers because they know they
have problems with them. But it may also go for frequently used L1 procedures,
which are more automatic than the corresponding L2 procedures as well as for
frequently used L2 procedures which may not be appropriate in all cases. Failure
to suppress highly automatized L1 procedures results in interference errors as we
have seen. Failure to suppress highly automatized L2 procedures would result in
errors of overgeneralization.
Of the three cognitive theories of second language acquisition presented in
Chapter 3, McLaughlin’s and Anderson’s best account for the finding that the
least proficient subjects make most slips of the tongue. MacWhinney’s Competi-
tion Model gives the best account of L1-based slips, and the proficiency-related
differences observed in them. Anderson’s ACT* theory is weak in this respect,
as was pointed out by Raupach (1987), but it is strong in explaining the profi-
ciency-related differences we obtained concerning claims 1c and 7. It seems then
that each theory has something valuable to offer with respect to our data.
Of course, it would have been interesting if our data had allowed us to rule
out one of the theories, or aspects of it. This was not the case though. One
reason for this is that none of the theories is sufficiently explicit to allow the
formulation of hypotheses concerning L2 slip production which differ from the
hypotheses formulated on the basis of the other two theories. Each of the three
theories predicts that L2 slips will be most frequent among the least proficient
L2 learners. And none of the theories is so explicit that they can predict what
kind of slip would be most frequent. Although MacWhinney’s theory is the only
one which explicitly accounts for transfer from the L1, and hence predicts the
occurrence of L1-based slips among the least proficient subjects, the two other
theories could also be stretched to make this prediction, if we postulate that the
difference in the level of automatization or proceduralization of L1 and L2
procedures causes the L1 procedures to take the place of the intended L2
procedures. Our main conclusion with respect to these three cognitive theories
therefore is that they should be expanded to account for all the proficiency-
related differences we have obtained. Moreover, it would be good if the differences
between the three theories were made more explicit and if hypotheses were
formulated which could serve as a basis for testing the theories on these points.
Gass’ input … output theory was discussed in Chapter 3 because it neatly
describes how L2 learners accumulate L2 knowledge. Although this aspect of
language learning plays hardly any role in the frequency of (types of) slips of the
tongue, since by definition, errors resulting from lack of competence were ruled
out as slips of the tongue, we felt Gass’ theory was worthy of discussion for a
number of reasons. The first reason was that it deals with several aspects of
second language learning which are not included in (all of) the cognitive models.
One of these is the accumulation of knowledge. The cognitive theories, Mac-
Whinney’s excepted, pay little attention to this point. The second aspect is that
it makes mention of the factors which may further language acquisition. For
instance, Gass mentions factors like time pressure, frequency of input, motiva-
tion, attitude, past experiences, salience of form and attention. Although some of
these factors (like frequency of input and attention) are implicit in cognitive
theories of second language acquisition, other factors (for instance those to do
with affect) are just simply ignored. Since much second language acquisition
research has shown that these factors do influence the second language acquisi-
tion process, it is important that they be included in a model of second language
acquisition. By including Gass’ account of the integration of language input into
the L2 learner’s language system we hope to have provided a more complete
picture of the second language acquisition process and to encourage researchers
working on cognitive models to include the missing elements.
The second reason for discussing Gass’ model is that it not only deals with
the role of input, but also with the role of output in second language acquisition.
DISCUSSION 177
The production of output is important in three ways. It provides an opportunity

to test hypotheses and to receive feedback, it pushes learners to pay attention to
syntax because it forces them to put the elements of a sentence in a particular
order, and it gives them an opportunity to practise using the language and thus
to automatize the language procedures. It is this last function of output that
provides the link with the three cognitive models. Whether learning to speak
fluently is a matter of automatization, proceduralization or strengthening of the
connections between L2 forms and language functions, in all three cases the
process of speaking develops as a result of frequent usage. For this reason, it
seems that the role of output deserves much more attention from second lan-
guage acquisition researchers and second language teachers than it has hitherto
received (see Crookes 1991: 117 for the same point).
7.4 Conclusion and recommendations for future research
The L2 slip data discussed in this book have allowed us to test many of the
claims that were made on the basis of L1 slip research. It turned out that not all
of the claims reported in the L1 slip literature were supported by our data. In
some cases, different findings were due to differences in the data collection
procedures which were used. In particular, perceptual bias in the L1 pen-and-
paper corpora and adherence to strict criteria for selecting the relevant cases
caused some differences. Other differences were due to real differences between L1
and L2 speakers and could be explained in terms of cognitive models of second
language acquisition. In no cases did the L2 slip data yield results that had
implications for monolingual models of speech production, other than that these
models should be expanded to include more than a single language system. With
respect to bilingual models of speech production, the slip data yielded a wealth
of information, particularly in the form of a large variety of L1-based slips of the
tongue. Most importantly, the evidence suggested that both L1 and L2 lemmas
and L1 and L2 word forms may be activated simultaneously and that phonologi-
cally related word forms from different languages may spread activation to each
other. Syntactic, morphological and phonological encoding procedures appeared
to be different for different language systems, but while L1-based slips did
occur in the application of syntactic and phonological encoding procedures, no
such slips occurred in the application of morphological encoding procedures.
When speaking the L2, the subjects always used L2 morphemes, even when they
had accidentally selected L1 lemmas.
Although the cognitive models of second language acquisition could account
for the L2 slip data, McLaughlin’s model of restructuring and automatization and
Anderson’s ACT* theory were better at accounting for differences in the
numbers of slips produced, while MacWhinney’s Competition Model gave the
best account of L1-based slips. Thus, while each model had something valuable
to offer, no one model was perfect. It would be good if the differences between
the models were spelled out more explicitly, so that testable hypotheses could be
formulated. In addition, it seems that some of the factors included in Gass’ input
… output model, factors which are known to affect success in second language
acquisition, also deserve to be incorporated in the cognitive models.
It seems appropriate to finish this book with some recommendations for
further research. One of the most obvious points is the need for a large L1
corpus, to be collected by means of the same procedure as that followed in
compiling the L2 slip corpus. Alternatively, the transcriptions of an existing L1
corpus, like the London-Lund corpus, should be carefully checked while
relistening to the tape-recordings to make sure that all slips of the tongue are
included and correctly transcribed. The L1 corpus compiled as part of the present
study was too small to test some of the claims. A carefully collected, larger L1
corpus, could solve some of the issues for which the evidence from our study
was inconclusive.
Another point worthy of further investigation, which came up in the review
of L1 slip studies in Chapter 1, concerns crosslinguistic differences. In several
cases, the Spanish data collected by Del Viso et al. (1987) and the Arabic data
colleced by Abd-El-Jawad and Abu-Salim (1987) yielded results different from
those found in English and German corpora. It would be useful to determine
whether these differences can be replicated for these and other languages, and if
so to investigate which language-related factors in the production of these
languages may cause these differences.
Then, it turned out that our corpus contained quite a few slips resulting from
competing plans (cf. Baars 1980), not only at the conceptual level, but also at the
syntactic and morphological levels (see examples 1–3, respectively).
(1) it’s not ea(sy) (it’s not difficult/it’s easy; 109t3)
(2) on, which, people, put their glasses on (on which people put their
glasses/which people put their glasses on; 203t1)
(3) you biking (you bike/you are biking 202t4)
Such slips, of which the first two types were also quite frequent in our small
corpus of L1 slips, might shed further light on the processes of syntactic
encoding and morphological encoding. Also, a detailed analysis of the so-called
double and ambiguous slips in our corpus might prove interesting.
DISCUSSION 179
The L2 corpus we have collected contains a wealth of information. Our final

recommendation therefore is that other researchers use it to test their own
hypotheses. It is our hope that in this way the present book may make a
longlasting contribution to the development of bilingual models of speech
production.
List of References
Abd-El-Jawad, Hassan and Abu-Salim, Issam. 1987. “Slips of the Tongue in

Arabic and their Theoretical Implications”. Language Sciences 9.2: 145–171.
Aitchison, Jean and Straf, Miron. 1980. “Lexical Storage and Retrieval: A
Developing Skill?”. In: Cutler 1982a, 751–795.
Altenberg, Evelyn P. and Smith Cairns, Helen. 1983. “The Effects of Phono-
tactic Constraints on Lexical Processing in Bilingual and Monolingual
Subjects”. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22: 174–188.
Andersen, R. 1990. “Models, Processes, Principles and Strategies: Second
Language Acquisition Inside and Outside the Classroom”. In B. van Patten
and J. Lee (eds), Second Language Acquisition — Foreign Language Learn-
ing. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Anderson, John R. 1982. “Acquisition of Cognitive Skill”. Psychological Review
89: 369–406.
Anderson, John R. 1983. The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge, M. A.:
Harvard University Press.
Anderson, John R. 1986. “Knowledge Compilation: The General Learning
Mechanism”. In R. S. Michalski, J. G. Carbonell and T. M. Mitchell (eds),
Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Vol. 2. Los Altos,
CA: Morgan Kaufman, 289–310.
Anderson, John R. and Fincham, J. 1994. “Acquisition of Procedural Skill from
Examples”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition 20: 1322–1340.
Appel, René and Muysken, Pieter. 1987. Language Contact and Bilingualism.
London: Edward Arnold.
Arnaud, Pierre J. L. 1997. “Les Ratés de la Dénomination: Typologie des Lapsus
par Substitution de Mots”. In C. P. Boisson and P. Thoiron (eds), Autour de
la Dénomination. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon.
Arnaud, Pierre J. L. To appear. “Les Lapsus Semantiques”. In: M. Abraham
(ed.), Actes de Journées de Sémantique Lexicale Brestoises 96.
182 LIST OF REFERENCES
Baars, Bernard J. 1980. “The Competing Plans Hypothesis: An Heuristic View-

point on the Causes of Errors in Speech”. In H. Dechert and M. Raupach
(eds), Temporal Variables in Speech: Studies in Honour of Frieda Goldman-
Eisler. The Hague: Mouton, 39–49.
Baars, Bernard J. (ed.). 1992a. Experimental Slips and Human Error: Exploring
the Architecture of Volition. New York: Plenum Press.
Baars, Bernard J. 1992b. “A Dozen Competing-Plans Techniques for Inducing
Predictable Slips in Speech and Action”. In Baars 1992a, 129–150.
Baars, Bernard J., Motley, Michael T. and MacKay, Donald G. 1975. “Output
Editing for Lexical Status from Artificially Elicited Slips of the Tongue”.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14: 382–391.
Baker, William D. 1990. “Learning from the Speech Errors of Near-Native
Speakers”. In A. Labarca and M. Bailey (eds), Issues in L2: Theories as
Practice/Practice as Theory. Norwood: Ablex, 119–125.
Bates, Elizabeth and MacWhinney, Brian. 1989. “Functionalism and the Compe-
tition Model”. In B. MacWhinney and E. Bates (eds), The Crosslinguistic
Study of Sentence Processing. New York: Cambridge University Press, 3–73.
Berg, Thomas. 1987. “The Case against Accommodation: Evidence from German
Speech Error Data”. Journal of Memory and Language 26: 277–299.
Berg, Thomas. 1991a. “Phonological Processing in a Syllable-timed Language
with Pre-final Stress: Evidence from Spanish Speech Error Data”. Language
and Cognitive Processes 6.4: 265–301.
Berg, Thomas. 1991b. “Redundant Feature Coding in the Mental Lexicon”.
Linguistics 29: 903–925.
Berg, Thomas. 1992. “Prelexical and Postlexical Features in Language Produc-
tion”. Applied Psycholinguistics 13: 199–235.
Bierwisch, Manfred and Schreuder, Robert. 1992. “From Concepts to Lexical
Items”. Cognition 42: 23–60.
Boomer, Donald S. and Laver, John D. M. 1968. “Slips of the Tongue”. British
Journal of Disorders of Communication 3: 2–12. Reprinted in Fromkin
1973a, 120–131.
Bond, Z. S. and Small, L. H. 1984. “Detecting and Correcting Mispronunciations:
A Note on Methodology”. Journal of Phonetics 12: 279–283.
Bongaerts, Theo. 1994. “Niet-intentioneel Gebruik van de Eerste Taal in Mondelinge
Tweede-taalproduktie”. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen 48: 19–29.
Bowerman, Melissa. 1978. “Systematizing Semantic Knowledge: Changes over
Time in the Child’s Organization of Word Meaning”. Child Development
49: 977–987.
LIST OF REFERENCES 183
Bradley, D. 1978. Computational Distinctions of Vocabulary Type. PhD. Thesis,

Dept. of Psychology, M. I. T.
Butterworth, Brian. 1982. “Speech Errors: Old Data in Search of New Theories”.
In Cutler 1982a, 627–662.
Carr, Thomas H. and Curran, Tim. 1994. “Cognitive Factors in Learning about
Structured Sequences: Applications to Syntax”. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 16.2: 205–230.
Celce-Murcia, Marianne. 1973. “Meringer’s Corpus Revisited”. In Fromkin
1973a, 195–204.
Chaudron, Craig. 1988. Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and
Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, Eve V. 1982. “Language Change during Language Acquisition”. In M.
Lamb and A. Brown (eds), Advances in Developmental Psychology Vol. 2.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cohen, Anthony. 1966. “Errors of Speech and their Implication for Understand-
ing the Strategy of Language Users”. Zeitschrift für Phonetik 21: 177–181.
Reprinted in Fromkin 1973a, 88–92.
Cohen, Anthony. 1980. “Correcting of Speech Errors in a Shadowing Task”. In
Fromkin 1980, 157–163.
Cole, Ronald A. 1973. “Listening for Mispronunciations: A Measure of what we
Hear during Speech”. Perception and Psychophysics 1: 153–156.
Corder, S. Pit. 1967. “The Significance of Learners’ Errors”. IRAL 5: 161–170.
Crookes, Graham. 1991. “Second Language Speech Production Research: A
Methodologically Oriented Review”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition
13: 113–132.
Crow, Cheney. 1990. “Phonological Organization in Bilinguals: Evidence from
Speech Error Data”. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Congress of
Phonetic Sciences. Aix-en Provence, 30–33.
Crystal, David. 1987. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cutler, Anne. (ed.). 1982a. Slips of the Tongue and Language Production. The
Hague: Mouton. Reprinted in Linguistics 1982.
Cutler, Anne. 1982b. “The Reliability of Speech Error Data”. In Cutler 1982a,
561–582.
De Bot, Kees. 1992. “A Bilingual Production Model: Levelt’s ‘Speaking’ Model
Adapted”. Applied Linguistics 13.1: 1–24.
De Bot, Kees. 1996. “Review Article: The Psycholinguistics of the Output
Hypothesis”. Language Learning 46.3: 529–555.
De Bot, Kees, Paribakht, T. Sima and Wesche, Marjorie B. 1997. “Toward a

Lexical Processing Model for the Study of Second Language Vocabulary
Acquisition: Evidence from ESL Reading”. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 19.3: 309–329.
De Bot, Kees and Schreuder, Robert. 1993. “Word Production and the Bilingual
Lexicon”. In R. Schreuder and B. Weltens (eds), The Bilingual Lexicon.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 191–214.
Dechert, Hans W. and Raupach, Manfred. (eds). 1980. Towards a Cross-linguis-
tic Assessment of Speech Production. Frankfurt: Lang.
De Groot, Annette M. B. 1992. “Bilingual Lexical Representation: A Closer Look at
the Conceptual Representations”. In R. Frost and L. Katz (eds), Orthography,
Phonology, Morphology, and Meaning. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 389–412.
De Groot, Annette M. B. and Kroll, Judith F. (eds). 1997. Tutorials in Bilingual-
ism: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
DeKeyser, Robert M. and Sokalski, Karl J. 1996. “The Differential Role of Compre-
hension and Production Practice”. Language Learning 46.4: 613–642.
Dell, Gary S. 1984. “Representation of Serial Order in Speech: Evidence from
the Repeated Phoneme Effect in Speech Errors”. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 10.2: 222–233.
Dell, Gary S. 1985. “Positive Feedback in Hierarchical Connectionist Models:
Applications to Language Production”. Cognitive Science 9: 3–23.
Dell, Gary S. 1986. “A Spreading Activation Theory of Retrieval in Sentence
Production”. Psychological Review 93: 283–321.
Dell, Gary S. 1988. “The Retrieval of Phonological Forms in Production: Tests
of Predictions from a Connectionist Model”. Journal of Memory and
Language 27: 124–142.
Dell, Gary S. 1990. “Effects of Frequency and Vocabulary Type on Phonologi-
cal Speech Errors”. Language and Cognitive Processes 5.4: 313–349.
Dell, Gary S. 1995. “Speaking and Misspeaking”. In Lila R. Gleitman and Mark
Liberman (eds), Language: An Invitation to Cognitive Science, Vol. 1 (2nd
ed.). Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 183–208.
Dell, Gary S., Burger, Lisa K. and Svec, William R. 1997. “Language Produc-
tion and Serial Order: A Functional Analysis and a Model”. Psychological
Review 104: 123–144.
Dell, Gary S., Juliano, Cornell and Govindjee, Anita. 1993. “Structure and
Content in Language Production: A Theory of Frame Constraints in Phono-
logical Errors”. Cognitive Science 17: 149–195.
Dell, Gary S. and O’ Seaghdha, Padraig G. 1992. “Stages of Lexical Access in
Language Production”. Cognition 42: 287–314.
Dell, Gary S. and Reich, Peter A. 1980. “Toward a Unified Model of Slips of
the Tongue”. In Fromkin 1980, 273–286.
Dell, Gary S. and Reich, Peter A. 1981. “Stages in Sentence Production: An
Analysis of Speech Error Data”. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior 20: 611–629.
Dell, Gary S., Schwartz, Myrna F., Martin, Nadine, Saffran, Eleanor M. and
Gagnon, Deborah A. 1997. “Lexical Access in Aphasic and Nonaphasic
Speakers”. Psychological Review 104.4: 801–138.
Del Viso, Susana, Igoa, José M. and García-Albea, José E. 1987. Corpus of
Spontaneous Slips of the Tongue in Spanish. Unpublished Manuscript.
Del Viso, Susana, Igoa, José M. and García-Albea, José E. 1991. “On the
Autonomy of Phonological Encoding: Evidence from Slips of the Tongue in
Spanish”. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 20.3: 161–185.
Eckman, Fred R., Bell, Lawrence and Nelson, Diane. 1988. “On the Generaliza-
tion of Relative Clause Instruction in the Acquisition of English as a Second
Language”. Applied Linguistics 9: 1–20.
Elbers, Loekie. 1985. “A Tip-of-the-Tongue Experience at Age Two?”. Journal
of Child Language 12: 353–365.
Elbers, Loekie. 1997. “Output as Input: A Constructivist Hypothesis in Language
Acquisition”. Archives de Psychologie 65: 131–140.
Elbers, Loekie. 1999. “An Output-as-Input Hypothesis for Language Acquisition:
Arguments, Model, Evidence”. In P. Broeder and J. Murre (eds), Models of
Language Acquisition: Inductive and Deductive Approaches. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Elbers, Loekie and Van Loon-Vervoorn, Anita. 1998. “Acquiring the Lexicon.
Evidence from Dutch Research”. In Steven Gillis and Annick de Houwer
(eds), The Acquisition of Dutch. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 301–377.
Ellis, Nick C. and Laporte, Nadine. 1997. “Contexts of Acquisition: Effects of
Formal Instruction and Naturalistic Exposure on Second Language Acquisi-
tion”. In De Groot and Kroll 1997, 53–83.
Ellis, Rod. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, Rod. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, Rod. 1995. “Modified Oral Input and the Acquisition of Word Meanings”.
Applied Linguistics 16.4: 409–441.
Ellis, Rod, Tanaka, Yoshihiro and Yamazaki, Asako. 1994. “Classroom Interac-
tion, Comprehension, and the Acquisition of L2 Word Meanings”. Language
Learning 44.3: 449–491.
Færch, Claus and Kasper, Gabriele. 1983. “Plans and Strategies in Foreign
Language Communication”. In C. Færch and G. Kasper (eds), Strategies in
Interlanguage Communication. London: Longman, 20–60.
Færch, Claus and Kasper, Gabriele. 1986a. “Cognitive Dimensions of Language
Transfer”. In E. Kellerman and M. Sharwood Smith (eds), Crosslinguistic
Influence in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 49–65.
Færch, Claus and Kasper, Gabriele. 1986b. “The Role of Comprehension in
Second Language Acquisition”. Applied Linguistics 7: 257–274.
Fay, David. 1980. “Transformational Errors”. In Fromkin 1980, 111–122.
Fay, David and Cutler, Anne. 1977. “Malapropisms and the Structure of the
Mental Lexicon”. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 505–520.
Ferber, Rosa. 1991. “Slip of the Tongue or Slip of the Ear? On the Perception
and Transcription of Naturalistic Slips of the Tongue”. Journal of Psycholin-
guistic Research 20.2: 105–122.
Ferber, Rosa. 1995. “Reliability and Validity of Slip-of-the-Tongue Corpora: A
Methodological Note”. Linguistics 33: 1169–1190.
Freud, Sigmund. 1901/1973. “Slips of the Tongue” ( = Chapter V from Psycho-
pathology of Everyday Life). In Fromkin 1973a, 46–81.
Fromkin, Victoria A. 1968. “Speculations on Performance Models”. Journal of
Fromkin, Victoria A. 1971. “The Non-anomalous Nature of Anomalous Utteranc-
es”. Language 47: 27–52. Reprinted in Fromkin 1973a, 215–242.
Fromkin, Victoria A. (ed.). 1973a. Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence. The
Hague: Mouton.
Fromkin, Victoria A. 1973b. “Introduction”. In Fromkin 1973a, 11–45.
Fromkin, Victoria A. (ed.). 1980. Errors in Linguistic Performance. New York:
Academic Press.
García-Albea, José E., Del Viso, Susana and Igoa, José M. 1989. “Movement
Errors and Levels of Processing in Sentence Production”. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research 18.1: 145–161.
Garnham, Alan, Shillcock, Richard C., Brown, Gordon D. A., Mill, Andrew I. D.
and Cutler, Anne. 1982. “Slips of the Tongue in the London-Lund Corpus
of Spontaneous Conversation”. In: Cutler 1982a, 805–817.
Garrett, Merrill F. 1975. “The Analysis of Sentence Production”. In G. Bower
(ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation. New York: Academic
Press, 133–177.
Garrett, Merrill F. 1976. “Syntactic Processes in Sentence Production”. In R.
Wales and E. Walker (eds), New Approaches to Language Mechanisms.
Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company, 231–256.
Garrett, Merrill, F. 1980a. “Levels of Processing in Sentence Production”. In B.

Butterworth (ed.), Language Production. Volume I. Speech and Talk. New
York: Academic Press, 177–220.
Garrett, Merrill F. 1980b. “The Limits of Accommodation: Arguments for Indepen-
dent Processing Levels in Sentence Production”. In Fromkin 1980, 263–271.
Gass, Susan M. 1982. “From Theory to Practice”. In M. Hines and W. Ruther-
ford (eds), On TESOL ’81. Washington DC: TESOL, 129–139.
Gass, Susan M. 1988. “Integrating Research Areas: A Framework for Second
Language Studies”. Applied Linguistics 9: 198–217.
Gass, Susan M. 1997. Input, Interaction and the Second Language Learner.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gass, Susan M. and Selinker, Larry. (eds). 1992. Language Transfer in Language
Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gass, Susan M. and Selinker, Larry. 1994. Second Language Acquisition: An
Introductory Course. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gass, Susan M. and Varonis, Evangeline Marlos. 1994. “Input, Interaction and
Second Language Production”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16:
283–302.
Giesbers, Herman W. M. 1989. Code-switching tussen Dialect en Standaardtaal.
Amsterdam: P. J. Meertens-Instituut.
Grainger, Jonathan and Dijkstra, Ton. 1992. “On the Representation and Use of
Language Information in Bilinguals”. In R. J. Harris (ed.), Cognitive
Processing in Bilinguals. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 207–220.
Green, David W. 1986. “Control, Activation and Resource: A Framework and a
Model for the Control of Speech in Bilinguals”. Brain and Language 27:
210–223.
Green, David W. 1993. “Towards a Model of L2 Comprehension and Produc-
tion”. In R. Schreuder and B. Weltens (eds), The Bilingual Lexicon. Amster-
dam: John Benjamins, 249–277.
Green, David W. 1998. “Mental Control of the Bilingual Lexico-Semantic
System”. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1: 67–81.
Grosjean, Francois. 1982. Life with Two Languages. Cambridge MA: Harvard
University Press.
Grosjean, Francois. 1997. “Processing Mixed Language: Issues, Findings, and
Models”. In De Groot and Kroll 1997, 225–254.
Grosjean, Francois. 1998. “Studying Bilinguals: Methodological and Conceptual
Issues”. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1: 131–149.
Grosjean, Francois and Soares, C. 1986. “Processing Mixed Language: Some
Preliminary Findings”. In J. Vaid (ed.), Language Processing in Bilinguals:
Psycholinguistic and Neuropsychological Perspectives. Hillsdale NJ: Law-

rence Erlbaum, 145–179.
Harley, Trevor A. 1984. “A Critique of Top-down Independent Levels Models
of Speech Production: Evidence from Non-plan-internal Speech Errors”.
Cognitive Science 8: 191–219.
Hill, Leslie. 1977. Advanced Stories for Reproduction. Tokyo: Oxford University
Press.
Hotopf, W. H. N. 1980. “Semantic Similarity as a Factor in Whole-word Slips of
the Tongue”. In Fromkin 1980, 97–109.
Hotopf, W. H. N. 1983. “Lexical Slips of the Pen and Tongue”. In B. Butter-
worth (ed.), Language Production II: Development, Writing and Other
Language Processes. London: Academic Press, 147–200.
Hulstijn, Jan H. and Schmidt, Richard. (eds). 1994. Consciousness in Second
Language Learning. AILA Review 11.
Jaeger, Jeri J. 1992a. “Not by the Chair of my Hinny Hin Hin: Some General
Properties of Slips of the Tongue in Young Children”. Journal of Child
Language 19: 335–366.
Jaeger, Jeri J. 1992b. “Phonetic Features in Young Children’s Slips of the
Tongue”. Language and Speech 35.1,2: 189–205.
Jaeger, Jeri J. ms 1997. “The Acquisition of Syllable Structure: Evidence from
Slips of the Tongue”. Unpublished manuscript.
Jaeger, Jeri J. and Wilkins, David P. ms 1992. “Some Lexical and Semantic Proper-
ties of Young Children’s Slips of the Tongue”. Unpublished manuscript.
James, Allan. 1984. “Syntagmatic Segment Errors in Non-native Speech”.
Jescheniak, Jörg D. and Levelt, Willem J. M. 1994. “Word Frequency Effects in
Speech Production: Retrieval of Syntactic Information and of Phonological
Form”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni-
tion 20.4: 824–843.
Karmiloff-Smith, Annette. 1986. “From Meta-processes to Conscious Access:
Evidence from Children’s Metalinguistic and Repair Data”. Cognition 23:
95–147.
Kasper, Gabriele. 1992. “Pragmatic Transfer”. Second Language Research 8.3:
203–231.
Kellerman, Eric and Sharwood Smith, Michael. (eds). 1986. Crosslinguistic Influ-
ence in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press.
Kolers, Paul A. 1963. “Interlingual Word Associations”. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior 2: 291–300.
Koopmans, Marina. 1995. Stotteren als Indicatie voor Spraakplanning. Nijmegen:

Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Krauss, Robert M. and Weinheimer, Sidney. 1964. “Changes in Reference
Phrases as a Function of Frequency of Usage in Social Interaction: A
Preliminary Study”. Psychonomic Science 1: 113–114.
Kroll, Judith F. 1993. “Accessing Conceptual Representations for Words in a
Second Language”. In R. Schreuder and B. Weltens (eds), The Bilingual
Lexicon. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 249–277.
Kroll, Judith F. and De Groot, Annette M. B. 1997. “Lexical and Conceptual
Memory in the Bilingual: Mapping Form to Meaning in Two Languages”.
In De Groot and Kroll 1997, 169–200.
Kroll, Judith F. and Stewart, Erika. 1994. “Category Interference in Translation and
Picture Naming: Evidence for Asymmetric Connections between Bilingual
Memory Representations”. Journal of Memory and Language 33: 149–174.
Lado, Robert. 1957. Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press.
Laubstein, Ann Stuart. 1987. “Syllable Structure: The Speech Error Evidence”.
Canadian Journal of Linguistics 32.4: 339–363.
Laver, John D. M. 1980a. “Slips of the Tongue as Neuromuscular Evidence for
a Model of Speech Production”. In H. Dechert and M. Raupach (eds),
Temporal Variables in Speech: Studies in Honour of Frieda Goldman-Eisler.
The Hague: Mouton, 21–26.
Laver, John D. M. 1980b. “Monitoring Systems in the Neurolinguistic Control of
Speech Production”. In: Fromkin 1980, 287–306.
Lennon, Paul. 1990. “Investigating Fluency in EFL: A Quantitative Approach”.
Language Learning 40.3: 387–417.
Levelt, Willem J. M. 1983. “Monitoring and Self-repair in Speech”. Cognition
14: 41–104.
Levelt, Willem J. M. 1989. Speaking. From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Levelt, Willem J. M. 1992. “Accessing Words in Speech Production: Stages,
Processes and Representations”. Cognition 42: 1–22.
Levelt, Willem, J. M. 1993. “Language Use in Normal Speech and its Disorders”.
In G. Blanken, J. Dittmann, H. Grimm, J. Marshall and C. Wallesch (eds),
Linguistic Disorders and Pathologies: An International Handbook. Berlin: De
Gruyter, 1–15.
Levelt, Willem J. M. 1995. “The Ability to Speak: From Intentions to Spoken
Words”. European Review 3.1: 13–23.
Levelt, Willem J. M, Roelofs, Ardi and Meyer, Antje S. 1999. “A Theory of Lexical
Access in Speech Production”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 1–38.
Levelt, Willem J. M., Schriefers, Herbert, Vorberg, Dirk, Meyer, Antje S.,
Pechmann, Thomas and Havinga, Jaap. 1991. “The Time Course of Lexical
Access in Speech Production: A Study of Picture Naming”. Psychological
Review 98: 122–142.
Levitt, A. G. and Healy, A. F. 1985. “The Roles of Phoneme Frequency, Similari-
ty, and Availability in the Experimental Elicitation of Speech Errors”.
Journal of Memory and Language 24: 717–733.
Lipski, John M. 1978. “Code-switching and the Problem of Bilingual Compe-
tence”. In M. Paradis (ed.), Aspects of Bilingualism. Columbia: Hornbeam
Press, 250–264.
Loschky, Lester. 1994. “Comprehensible Input and Second Language Acquisition:
What is the Relationship?”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16:
303–323.
MacKay, Donald G. 1970a. “Spoonerisms of Children”. Neuropsychologia 8:
315–322.
MacKay, Donald G. 1970b. “Spoonerisms: The Structure of Errors in the Serial
Order of Speech”. Neuropsychologia 8: 323–350. Reprinted in Fromkin
1973a, 164–194.
MacKay, Donald G. 1987. The Organization of Perception and Action: a Theory
for Language and other Cognitive Skills. New York: Springer.
MacNamara, John. 1967. “The Bilingual’s Linguistic Performance”. Journal of
Social Issues 23: 58–77.
MacNamara, John and Kushnir, Seymour L. 1971. “Linguistic Independence of
Bilinguals: The Input Switch”. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior 10: 480–487.
MacWhinney, Brian. 1987. “Applying the Competition Model to Bilingualism”.
Applied Psycholinguistics 8: 315–327.
MacWhinney, Brian. 1992. “Transfer and Competition in Second Language
Learning”. In R. Harris (ed.) Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals. Amster-
dam: Elsevier, 371–390.
MacWhinney, Brian. 1997. “Second Language Acquisition and the Competition
Model”. In De Groot and Kroll 1997, 113–142.
Martin, Nadine, Gagnon, Deborah A., Schwartz, Myrna F., Dell, Gary S. and
Saffran, Eleanor M. 1996. “Phonological Facilitation of Semantic Errors in
Normal and Aphasic Speakers”. Language and Cognitive Processes 11:
257–282.
McLaughlin, Barry. 1987. Theories of Second Language Acquisition. London:

Edward Arnold.
McLaughlin, Barry. 1990. “Restructuring”. Applied Linguistics 11.2: 113–128.
McLaughlin, Barry and Heredia, Roberto. 1996. “Information-Processing
Approaches to Research on Second Language Acquisition and Use”. In
William C. Ritchie and Tej K. Bhatia (eds), Handbook of Second Language
Acquisition. New York: Academic Press, 213–228.
McLaughlin, Barry, Rossman, T. and McLeod, B. 1983. “Second Language Learning:
An Information-Processing Perspective”. Language Learning 33: 135–157.
Meijer, Paul J. A. 1997. “What Speech Errors Can Tell Us About Word-Form
Generation: The Roles of Constraint and Opportunity”. Journal of Psycholin-
guistic Research 26.1: 141–158.
Meringer, Rudolf. 1908. Aus dem Leben der Sprache: Versprechen, Kinder-
sprache, Nachahmungstrieb. Berlin: Behr’s Verlag.
Meringer, Rudolf and Mayer, Karl. 1895. Versprechen und Verlesen: Eine Psycho-
logisch-Linguistische Studie. Stuttgart: Göschense Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Meuter, R. F. I. 1994. Language Switching in Naming Tasks. Unpublished D.Phil
Thesis, Oxford University.
Meyer, Antje S. 1990. “The Time Course of Phonological Encoding in Language
Production: The Phonological Encoding of Successive Syllables of a Word”.
Meyer, Antje S. 1991. “The Time Course of Phonological Encoding in Language
Production: Phonological Encoding inside a Syllable”. Journal of Memory
and Language 30: 69–89.
Meyer, Antje S. 1992. “Investigation of Phonological Encoding through Speech
Error Analyses: Achievements, Limitations, and Alternatives”. Cognition 42:
181–211.
Meyer, Antje S. 1996. “Lexical Access in Phrase and Sentence Production:
Results from Picture-word Interference Experiments”. Journal of Memory
and Language 35: 477–496.
Meyer, Antje S. 1997. “Word Form Generation in Language Production”. In W.
Hulstijn, H. F. M. Peters, P. H. H. M. van Lieshout (eds), Speech Production:
Motor Control, Brain Research and Fluency Disorders. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Science, 73–88.
Möhle, Dorothea. 1984. “A Comparison of the Second Language Speech
Production of Different Native Speakers”. In H. W. Dechert, D. Möhle and
M. Raupach (eds), Second Language Productions. Tübingen: Narr, 26–49.
Monsell, S., Matthews, G. H. and Miller, D. C. 1992. “Repetition of Lexicaliz-

ation across Languages: A Further Test of the Locus of Priming”. The
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 44.4: 763–783.
Motley, Michael T. 1980. “Verification of “Freudian Slips” and Semantic
Prearticulatory Editing via Laboratory-induced Spoonerisms”. In Fromkin
1980, 133–147.
Motley, Michael T. and Baars, Bernard J. 1979. “Effects of Cognitive Set upon
Laboratory Induced Verbal (Freudian) Slips”. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research 22: 421–432.
Mowrey, Richard A. and MacKay, Ian R. A. 1990. “Phonological Primitives:
Electromyographic Speech Error Evidence”. Journal of the Acoustic Society
of America 88.3: 1299–1312.
Myers-Scotton, Carol M. 1992. “Constructing the Frame in Intrasentential
Codeswitching”. Multilingua 11: 101–127.
Myers-Scotton, Carol M. and Jake, Janice L. 1995. “Matching Lemmas in a
Bilingual Language Competence and Production Model: Evidence from
Intrasentential Codeswitching”. Linguistics 33: 981–1024.
Nooteboom, Sieb G. 1969. “The Tongue Slips into Patterns”. In A. Sciarone, A.
van Essen and A. van Raad (eds), Leiden Studies in Linguistics and Phonet-
ics. The Hague: Mouton. Reprinted in Fromkin 1973a, 144–156.
Nooteboom, Sieb G. 1980. “Speaking and Unspeaking: Detection and Correction
of Phonological and Lexical Errors in Spontaneous Speech”. In: Fromkin
1980, 87–96.
Norman, D. A. and Shallice, Tim. 1986. “Attention to Action: Willed and
Automatic Control of Behaviour”. In R. J. Davidson, G. E. Schwartz and D.
Shapiro (eds), Consciousness and Self-regulation, Vol. 4. New York: Plenum
Press, 1–18.
Odlin, Terence. 1989. Language Transfer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paradis, Michel. 1987. The Assessment of Bilingual Aphasia. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Paradis, Michel. 1997. “The Cognitive Neuropsychology of Bilingualism”. In De
Groot and Kroll 1997, 331–354.
Poulisse, Nanda. 1990. The Use of Compensatory Strategies by Dutch learners of
English. Dordrecht: Foris.
Poulisse, Nanda. 1996. “Models of Second Language Production”. EUROSLA 6: A
Selection of Papers, Toegepaste Taalwetenschappen in Artikelen 55: 151–159.
Poulisse, Nanda. 1997a. “Language Production in Bilinguals”. In De Groot and
Kroll 1997, 201–224.
Poulisse, Nanda. 1997b. “The Development of Fluency in Learners of English:
A Study of L2 Learners’ Slips of the Tongue”. In J. Aarts, I. de Mönnink
and H. Wekker (eds), Studies in English Language and Teaching: In Honour

of Flor Aarts. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 293–308.
Poulisse, Nanda and Bongaerts, Theo. 1994. “First Language Use in Second Lan-
guage Production”. Applied Linguistics 15, 36–57.
Raupach, Manfred. 1987. “Procedural Learning in Advanced Learners of a
Second Language”. In J. Coleman and R. Towell (eds), The Advanced
Language Learner. London: AFLS/CILT, 123–155.
Ringbom, Hakan. 1983. “Borrowing and Lexical Transfer”. Applied Linguistics
4.3: 207–212.
Ringbom, Hakan. 1987. The Role of the First Language in Foreign Language
Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Robinson, Peter. 1995. “Review Article: Attention, Memory, and the “Noticing”
Hypothesis”. Language Learning 45.2: 283–331.
Roelofs, Ardi. 1992. “A Spreading-activation Theory of Lemma Retrieval in
Speaking”. Cognition 42: 107–142.
Roelofs, Ardi. 1993. “Testing a Non-decompositional Theory of Lemma Retriev-
al in Speaking: Retrieval of Verbs”. Cognition 47: 59–87.
Roelofs, Ardi. 1997. “A Case for Non-decomposition in Conceptually Driven
Word Retrieval”. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 26: 33–67.
Roelofs, Ardi. 1998. “Lemma Selection without Inhibition of Languages in
Bilingual Speakers”. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1: 94–95.
Sachs, J. 1967. “Recognition Memory for Syntactic and Semantic Aspects of
Connected Discourse”. Perception and Psychophysics 2: 437–442.
Schachter, Jacqueline. 1974. “An Error in Error Analysis”. Language Learning
24: 205–214.
Schachter, J., Rounds, P., Wright, S., Smith, T. and Magoto J. 1996. “A Dual
Mechanism Model for Adult Syntax Learning”. Unpublished Manuscript.
Schmidt, Richard. 1990 “The Role of Consciousness in Second Language
Learning”. Applied Linguistics 11: 129–158.
Schmidt, Richard. 1992. “Psychological Mechanisms Underlying Second Lan-
guage Fluency”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14.4: 357–385.
Schmidt, Richard. 1993. “Consciousness, Learning and Interlanguage Pragmat-
ics”. In Gabriele Kasper and Shoshana Blum-Kulka (eds), Interlanguage
Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press, 21–42.
Schmidt, Richard. 1994. “Implicit Learning and the Cognitive Unconscious: Of
Artificial Grammars and SLA”. In N. Ellis (ed.), Implicit and Explicit
Learning of Languages. London: Academic Press, 165–210.
Schneider, Walter and Shiffrin, Richard M. 1977. “Controlled and Automatic

Human Information Processing I: Detection, Search, and Attention”.
Psychological Review 84: 1–66.
Schwartz, Myrna F., Saffran, Eleanor M., Bloch, Diane E. and Dell, Gary S.
1994. “Disordered Speech Production in Aphasic and Normal Speakers”.
Brain and Language 47: 52–88.
Segalowitz, Norman S. and Segalowitz, Sydney J. 1993. “Skilled Performance,
Practice, and the Differentiation of Speed-up from Automatization Effects:
Evidence from Second Language Word Recognition”. Applied Psycholin-
guistics 14: 369–385.
Seliger, Herbert. 1980. “Utterance Planning and Correction Behavior: Its Func-
tion in the Grammar Construction Process for Second Language Learners”.
In: Dechert and Raupach 1980, 401–409.
Shallice, Tim. 1988. From Neuropsychology to Mental Structure. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sharwood Smith, Michael. 1986. “The Competence/Control Model, Crosslinguis-
tic Influence and the Creation of New Grammars”. In: Kellerman and
Sharwood Smith 1986, 10–20.
Shattuck, Stephanie. 1975. Speech Errors and Speech Production. Unpublished
PhD Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge MA.
Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stephanie. 1979. “Speech Errors as Evidence for a Serial-
ordering Mechanism in Sentence Production”. In W. Cooper and E. Walker
(eds), Sentence Processing: Psycholinguistic Studies Presented to Merrill
Garrett. Hillsdale; NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 295–342.
Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stephanie. 1982. “Three Kinds of Speech Error Evidence for
the Role of Grammatical Elements in Processing”. In Loraine Obler and
Lise Menn (eds), Exceptional Language and Linguistics. New York: Aca-
demic Press, 133–142.
Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stephanie. 1987. “The Role of Word-Onset Consonants in
Speech Production Planning: New Evidence from Speech Error Patterns”. In
Eric Keller and Myrna Gopnik (eds), Motor and Sensory Processes of
Language. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 17–51.
Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stephanie. 1992. “The Role of Word Structure in Segmental
Serial Ordering”. Cognition 42: 213–259.
Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stephanie and Klatt, Dennis H. 1979. “The Limited Use of
Distinctive Features and Markedness in Speech Production: Evidence from
Speech Error Data”. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18:
41–55.
Slobin, Dan I. 1973. “Cognitive Prerequisites for the Development of Grammar”.

In C. A. Ferguson and D. I. Slobin (eds), Studies of Child Language Develop-
ment. New York: Holt Rinehart Winston, 175–208.
Slobin, Dan I. 1985. “Crosslinguistic Evidence for the Language-making Capaci-
ty”. In D. Slobin (ed.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition,
Vol. 2, Theoretical Issues. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1157–1256.
Smith, Bruce L. 1990. “Elicitation of Slips of the Tongue from Young Children:
A New Method and Preliminary Observations”. Applied Psycholinguistics
11: 131–144.
Smith, P. T. and Groat, A. 1979. “Spelling Patterns, Letter Cancellation and the
Processing of Text”. In P. A. Kolers, M. Wrolstad and H. Bouma (eds),
Processing of Visible Language. New York: Plenum.
Sridhar, S. and Sridhar, K. 1980. “The Syntax and Psycholinguistics of Bilingual
Code Mixing”. Canadian Journal of Psychology 34: 407–416.
Starkweather, C. Woodruff. 1987. Fluency and Stuttering. Englewood Cliffs,
N. J.: Prentice-Hall.
Stedje, Astrid. 1977. “Tredjespraksinterferens i Fritt Tal — en Jämförande
Studie”. In Rolf Palmberg and Hakan Ringbom (eds), Papers from the
Conference on Contrastive Linguistics and Error Analysis. Stockholm and
Abo, 7–8 February 1977. Abo: Abo Akademi.
Stemberger, Joseph Paul. 1982. “The Nature of Segments in the Lexicon:
Evidence from Speech Errors”. Lingua 56: 235–259.
Stemberger, Joseph Paul. 1985. “An interactive Activation Model of Language
Production”. In A. Ellis (ed.), Progress in the Psychology of Language.
London: Lawrence Erlbaum, 143–186.
Stemberger, Joseph Paul. 1989. “Speech Errors in Early Child Language Produc-
tion”. Journal of Memory and Language 28: 164–188.
Stemberger, Joseph Paul. 1990. “Word Shape Errors in Language Production”.
Cognition 35: 123–157.
Stemberger, Joseph Paul. 1991. “Apparent Anti-frequency Effects in Language
Production: The Addition Bias and Phonological Underspecification”.
Stemberger, Joseph Paul. 1992. “The Reliability and Replicability of Naturalistic
Speech Error data: A Comparison with Experimentally Induced Errors”. In
Baars 1992a, 195–215.
Stemberger, Joseph Paul and Treiman, Rebecca. 1986. “The Internal Structure of
Word-Initial Consonant Clusters”. Journal of Memory and Language 25:
163–180.
Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1947. Linguistics Science. New Haven: Yale University

Press.
Swain, Merrill. 1985. “Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehen-
sible Input and Comprehensible Output in its Development”. In S. Gass and
C. Madden (eds), Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.:
Newbury House.
Swain, Merrill. 1995. “Three Functions of Output in Second Language Learn-
ing”. In G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer (eds), Principle and Practice in Applied
Linguistics: Studies in Honour of H. G. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 125–144.
Swain, Merrill and Lapkin, Sharon. 1995. “Problems in Output and the Cognitive
Processes they Generate: A Step towards Second Language Learning”.
Applied Linguistics 16.3: 371–391.
Taft, M. and Forster, K. 1975. “Lexical Storage and Retrieval of Prefixed
Words”. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14: 638–647.
Tanenhaus, M. K., Dell, G. S. and Carlson, G. 1987. “Context Effects in Lexical
Processing: A Connectionist Approach to Modularity”. In J. L. Garfield
(ed.), Modularity in Knowledge Representation and Natural-Language
Understanding. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 83–108.
Tent, J. and Clark, J. E. 1980. “An Experimental Investigation into the Perception
of Slips of the Tongue”. Journal of Phonetics 8: 317–325.
Towell, Richard. 1987. “Variability and Progress in the Language Development of
Advanced Learners of a Foreign Language”. In R. Ellis and C. Roberts (eds),
The Social Context of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Prentice Hall.
Towell, R., Hawkins, R. and Bazergui, N. 1996. “The Development of Fluency
in Advanced Learners of French”. Applied Linguistics 17.1: 84–115.
Van den Broecke, Marcel P. R. and Goldstein, Louis. 1980. “Consonant Features
in Speech Errors”. In Fromkin 1980, 47–65.
Van Els, Theo, Bongaerts, Theo, Extra, Guus, Van Os, Charles and Janssen-Van
Dieten, Anne-Mieke. 1984. Applied Linguistics and the Learning and
Teaching of Foreign Languages. London: Edward Arnold.
Van Hest, Erna. 1996. Self-repair in L1 and L2 Production. Tilburg: Tilburg
University Press.
VanPatten, Bill and Cadierno, Teresa. 1993. “Explicit Instruction and Input
Processing”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15.2: 225–243.
Verrips, Maaike. 1998. “Amsterdam-Leiden, Leiden-Amsterdam, oftewel: Waar
Zit je met je Hoofd?”. In Adrienne Bruijn and Jacques Arends (eds),
Mengelwerk voor Muijsken. Publikatie nr 72 van het Instituut voor Alge-
mene Taalwetenschap, Universiteit van Amsterdam, 12–19.
Vihman, Marilyn May. 1981. “Phonology and the Development of the Lexicon:
Evidence from Children’s Errors”. Journal of Child Language 8: 239–264.
Vildomec, Veroboj. 1963. Multilingualism. Netherlands: A. W. Sythoff-Leyden.
Von Studnitz, Roswitha E. and Green, David W. 1997. “Lexical Decision and
Language Switching”. The International Journal of Bilingualism 1.1: 3–24.
Warren, Hermine. 1986. “Slips of the Tongue in Very Young Children”. Journal
of Psycholinguistic Research 15.4: 309–344.
Wells, Rulon. 1951. “Predicting Slips of the Tongue”. The Yale Scientific
Magazine 263: 9–30. Reprinted in Fromkin 1973a.
Wickelgren, W. A. 1969. “Context-sensitive Coding, Associative Memory, and
Serial Order in Speech Behavior”. Psychological Review 76: 1–15.
Wickelgren, W. A. 1976. “Phonetic Code and Serial Order”. In E. C. Carterette
and M. P. Friedman (eds), Handbook of Perception Vol. 7. New York:
Academic Press, 225–264.
Wiese, Richard. 1982. Psycholinguistische Aspekte der Sprachproduktion:
Sprechverhalten und Verbalisierungsprozesse. Düsseldorf: Dissertation
Universität Bielefeld.
Wiese, Richard. 1984. “Language Production in Foreign and Native Languages:
Same or Different?”. In H. W. Dechert, D. Möhle and M. Raupach (eds),
Second Language Productions. Tübingen: Narr, 11–25.
Wijnen, Frank. 1992. “Incidental Word and Sound Errors in Young Speakers”.
Journal of Memory and Language 31.6: 734–755.
Williams, Sarah and Hammarberg, Björn. 1998. “Language Switches in L3
Production: Implications for a Polyglot Speaking Model”. Applied Linguis-
tics 19.3: 295–333.
Appendix 1: L2 slips of the tongue
Conceptual substitutions
su. error target wordclass repair
101 fi(ve) four num yes
108 fifteen sixteen num yes
111 cabbage-like onion-like adj yes
113 lives lived ver yes
114 last year this year adj yes
115 four three num yes
115 we moved I moved pro yes
115 next year this year adj yes
115 two (years) a year num yes
115 two three num yes
202 tomorrow Sunday morning nou yes
204 yeah no yes
209 his lawyer as(ked) he said yes
209 yeah no yes
210 st(ar) animal nou yes
211 ten sixty num yes
211 the next morning that morning mix yes
212 it them pro yes
212 re(d) orange adj yes
301 one two two three num yes
301 twelve thirteen num yes
301 thir(teen) fourteen num yes
303 yes no yes
304 Nijmegen The Netherlands nou yes
304 Pakistan India nou yes
304 my si(xth) my seventh num yes
304 Saturday Friday nou yes
305 one hour half an hour num yes
305 fourteen fifteen num yes
306 not any more we never did yes
313 b(ell) clapper nou yes
315 I we pro yes
315 we give hi(m) we give her pro yes
200 APPENDIX 1: L2 SLIPS OF THE TONGUE
Conceptual blends
su. error target rep.
103 one angle uh are pointing two angles are pointing at each other no
one angle is pointing at the other/two are pointing at each other
103 there was a b.f.m. and a t.f.m. were no
there was a bicycle factory manager who lived next to/there were a b. f. manager
and a tool factory manager who were neighbours
106 sth babies use round use/wear round their necks yes
sth babies use/sth babies wear round their necks
107 whose biggest dream wants was no
a man who wants/whose dream was to have a job
108 I always a bit I am always a bit no
I always V/am always nervous
109 it’s not ea(sy) it’s not difficult yes
it’s easy/not difficult
110 there was a tailor and a rabbit there were a tailor and a rabbit no
there was a tailor/there were a tailor and a rabbit
110 another subjects other subjects no
another subject/other subjects
113 on each side, there are two on each side, there is one yes
on each side there is one/there are two
115 I didn’t know them any I didn’t know them at all no
them at all/any of them
115 any one any of those yes
any of those/one of those
202 it’s uh, iron thing, for coals in it you can put coals in it yes
a thing for coals/you can put coals in it
203 there, is not, erm 1 uh, /Ig6l/ it is not equal ( = smooth) no
there aren’t any pleats in it/it is not equal
205 there disappears two there disappear two no
there disappears sth/there disappear two
205 a certain degrees a certain degree no
a certain degree/certain degrees
205 won’t be nothing won’t be anything no
won’t be anything/will be nothing
206 it’s a very big it’s very big no
it’s a very big (place)/it’s very big
209 a little stops little stops no
a little stop/little stops
210 he was somewhere a demo. he was somewhere at a demonstration no
he was somewhere at a demo./there was somewhere a demo
214 it isn’t, really like a circles a circle no
like a circle/two half circles are missing
215 these lines ends these lines end no
these lines end/this line ends
215 a musicshops a musicshop no
a musicshop/musicshops
APPENDIX 1: L2 SLIPS OF THE TONGUE 201

302 what must do what they must do no
what must happen/what they must do
307 not so a lot not a lot yes
not so often/not a lot
309 which, three uh 1 threesides which has three threesides ( = triangles) no
which has three threesides/with three threesides
313 there are standing they are standing no
there are standing some things/they are standing against themselves
Lexical substitutions (L2)

101 he she pro yes
101 ans(wered) asked ver yes
101 which who rel no
101 in which with which pre yes
101 the lot the big adj yes
102 can cannot aux yes
102 ri(ght) good adj yes
102 who that rel yes
103 under on pre no
103 at the right on the right pre yes
103 which who rel yes
103 sen(t) done ver yes
103 dif(ficult) easy adj yes
103 a s(tudent-something) a university nou yes
103 at sc(hool) to school pre yes
103 in (school) at school pre yes
103 many time much time int yes
104 back bottom nou yes
104 left right nou yes
104 apartments rooms nou yes
106 I’ve I haven’t aux yes
107 lawyer judge nou yes
107 in with pre yes
107 within with pre yes
107 in Eng(land) in Holland nou yes
108 appli(cated) applied ver yes
108 s(ell) buy ver yes
108 cla(ssic) jazz nou yes
109 twenty-fi(ve) twenty-four num yes
110 he lost he won ver yes
111 glass bottle nou yes
111 to which to whom rel yes
112 dis(appeared) appeared ver yes
113 second next num no
113 lef(t) right nou yes

113 the ju(dge) the lawyer nou yes
113 black magic white magic adj yes
115 book(shop) flowershop nou yes
115 rabbit tailor nou yes
115 not very hope not much hope int no
115 the bottom (floor) the top floor adj yes
115 nephews cousins nou yes
115 to live at that (pattern) to live in that pattern pre yes
115 without with pre no
115 not very easy not very difficult adj yes
201 anything something pro yes
201 who which rel yes
202 left right adj yes
202 bow(s) lines nou yes
202 hair middle for hair nou no
202 he can he can’t aux no
202 everyth(ing) everyone pro yes
202 you can you can’t aux no
203 didn(’t) did ver yes
203 on from pre yes
204 right left adj yes
204 whi(ch) who rel yes
204 to against pre yes
204 winter summer nou no
205 he wrote you he sent you ver yes
205 cou(ntry) village nou yes
205 team club nou yes
205 would wouldn’t aux no
206 an the det yes
206 can have to aux yes
206 from of pre no
206 second next num no
206 s(econd) next num yes
206 much many int yes
206 ge(t) a sportteacher become a sportteacher ver yes
207 /%/(pside) down side nou yes
207 sell give ver yes
207 couldn’t play could play aux no
208 for so con yes

208 them him pro yes
208 my f(ather) my mother nou yes
208 World (Trade Center) Empire State Building nou yes
209 argument talk nou yes
209 you I pro yes
209 Chi(nese) Indisch adj yes
210 mist(er) man nou yes
210 which who rel no
210 it’s not eas(y) it’s not too difficult adj yes
211 who which rel no
211 his it pro no
211 vertical horizontal adj yes
211 read a(ngry) was angry ver yes
211 blackm(ail) bribery nou yes
211 lit(tle) a lot int yes
212 to the left on the left pre yes
212 to at pre yes
212 left right adj yes
212 much good adj yes
213 to the lef(t) to the right nou yes
213 nine eight num no
213 the left the right adj yes
213 sell give ver no
213 sell give ver no
213 you can you can’t aux no
213 sell give ver yes
213 much many int yes
214 li(ttle) large adj yes
214 fi(ve) four num yes
214 women wife nou no
214 like Dutch like Netherlands mix yes
214 died was born ver yes
215 the se(cond) the next adj yes
215 much very int no
215 much very int no
301 the ele(venth) the tenth num yes
301 I’ll sorry I’m sorry aux no
301 good mistake big mistake adj yes
301 sell bring ver yes
301 selled brought ver yes
302 gratulatio(ns) condoleances nou yes
302 mu(ch) cats many cats int yes
302 big fi(sh) much fish adj yes

302 letters words nou yes
303 two three num no
304 from the left from the right adj yes
304 from the, lef(t) from the right adj yes
304 to the, lef(t) to the right adj yes
304 to the left to the right adj no
304 to the, left to the right nou yes
304 who which rel no
304 from the left from the right adj yes
304 the roo(m) the kitchen nou yes
304 her him pro yes
306 /kænt/ can aux no
306 f(rom) of pre yes
306 can can’t aux yes
306 you haven’t to do you mustn’t do aux yes
306 on under pre yes
306 on in pre yes
306 he she pro no
306 she he pro yes
306 maked (the washes) did (the washes) ver yes
306 they we pro yes
307 the window the tree nou yes
309 one two num yes
309 whi(ch) who rel yes
309 him it pro yes
309 any some int yes
309 next y(ear) last year adj yes
309 ca(sh) coins nou yes
310 right left nou yes
310 bought sold ver no
310 together each other pro yes
310 buy sell ver no
310 many much int yes
310 buy sell ver yes
310 ag(ainst) by pre yes
311 glass bottle nou no

311 buy sell ver no
311 buy sell ver yes
311 wr(ote) rang ver yes
311 bu(t) because con yes
311 bu(t) because con yes
312 se(cond) next adj yes
312 written read ver yes
312 written read ver no
313 the left the right adj yes
313 s(pent) got ver yes
314 fi(re) lamp nou yes
314 I haven’t I have ver no
315 there he pro yes
315 they he pro yes

su. error target wordclass repair source
102 fl(es) bottle nou yes L1, fles
102 maar but con no L1, maar
103 bl(oemen) flowers nou yes L1, bloemen
103 s(tuk) piece of hair nou yes L1, haarstukje
103 dat was it that was it no L1, dat was
103 maar ja but still no L1, maar ja (comment)
104 tenminste at least adv yes L1, tenminste
104 ieder geval in any case no L1, ieder geval
106 of or con no L1, of
107 it hee(ts) it’s called ver yes L1, het heet
108 l(ekker) nice adj yes L1, lekker
108 I don’t know of I don’t know if con yes L1, ik weet niet of
108 I want to s(pelen) I want to play ver yes L1, spelen
111 ma(ar) but con no L1, maar
113 al(leen) only adv yes L1, alleen
115 met with pre yes L1, met
201 zes six num yes L1, zes
201 I don’t know wat I don’t know that pro no L1, ik weet niet wat …
201 oo(k) also adv yes L1, ook
201 dus so con no L1, dus
201 wacht wait ver yes L1, wacht
202 vier four num no L1, vier
202 meer anymore adv no L1, meer
202 d’r there pad no L1, d’r
202 el/6/f eleven num no L1, elf
202 /f/(roeg) asked ver yes L1, vroeg

202 /f/(raagt) asks ver yes L1, vraagt
202 there was /Iz/ there once was adv no L1, er was eens
202 niks nothing pro yes L1, niks
202 nee no neg no L1, nee
202 ik I pro yes L1, ik
202 dus so con yes L1, dus
202 want because con no L1, want
202 ook also adv no L1, ook
203 dit this pro no L1, dit
203 nee no neg yes L1, nee
203 men one pro yes L1, men
203 /d6~s/ box nou yes L1, contactdoos
203 versie, vier version four yes L1, versie vier
204 zelfs even int no L1, zelfs
204 hoor well no L1, geen probleem hoor
205 dit this det yes L1, dit
205 /6k/(aar) each other pro yes L1, elkaar
206 of or ET no L1, of
206 f(ietsenmaker) bicyclemaker nou yes L1, fietsenmaker
206 the f(ietsenmaker) the bicyclemaker nou yes L1, fietsenmaker
206 ook also adv yes L1, ook
207 hoe how pad no L1, hoe
207 kon could aux no L1, kon
207 die they rel yes L1, die
207 zijn zo are so yes L1, zijn zo
207 of zo or so no L1, of zo
208 met with pre no L1, met
208 hij’s he’s pro yes L1, hij
208 die he pro yes L1, die
208 m(aar) but con yes L1, maar
208 kon could aux yes L1, kon
208 dat that pro no L1, dat
209 weet je wel you know no L1, weet je wel
209 it’s ook it’s also adv no L1, ook
209 en zo and so no L1, en zo
210 fles bottle nou no L1, fles
210 meer anymore adv yes L1, meer
210 economie economy nou yes L1, economie
210 of in or in con yes L1, of
210 of in or in con no L1, of

210 hier vlakbij close no L1, hier vlakbij
210 of so or so con yes L1, of
210 s(pelen) play ver yes L1, spelen
210 ei(genlijk) actually adv no L1, eigenlijk
210 gewoon ordinary adv no L1, gewoon
211 ’t stands it stands pro no L1, ’t
211 te(ken) draw ver yes L1, tekenen
211 str(eep) line nou yes L1, streep
211 ge(tekend) drawn ver yes L1, getekend
211 zes six num no L1, zes
211 vanaf uh off pre yes L1, vanaf
211 van off pre yes L1, vanaf
211 dit this pro yes L1, dit
211 zo(’n) such adj yes L1, zo’n
211 sto(nd) stood ver yes L1, stond
211 oo(k) also adv yes L1, ook
211 klee(rmaker clothesmaker nou yes L1, kleermaker
211 ko(n) could aux yes L1, kon
211 dus so cad no L1, dus
211 bijvoorbeeld for example adv no L1, bijvoorbeeld
211 niet not neg no L1, niet
211 oo(k) also adv yes L1, ook op Maasbommel
211 ook also adv yes L1, ook op de Berendonck
211 veel much int no L1, veel
211 sp(eel) play ver yes L1, spelen
211 one uh k(eer) one time nou yes L1, keer
211 soms sometimes adv no L1, soms
211 en dan and then no L1, en dan
211 dan then pad no L1, dan
211 a whole hope a whole lot nou no L1, hoop
212 of or con yes L1, of
213 dit’s this is yes L1, dit is
214 elf eleven num yes L1, elf

214 wan(t) because con yes L1, want
214 lang(s) to pre yes L1, langs
214 ongeveer approximately adv yes L1, ongeveer
214 toen then pad no L1, toen
214 heel beautiful very beautiful int yes L1, heel
214 goed good adj no L1, goed
214 die he pro no L1, one of our leaders die
had been
214 shove op shove up pre no L1, opschuiven
214 moeder mother nou yes L1, moeder
214 I eat the meat wel I do eat the meat no L1, ik eet het wel
215 oo(k) too adv yes L1, ook
215 d(aa)rom therefore cad no L1, daarom
301 drie three num no L1, drie
301 spul stuff nou yes L1, spul
301 bo(s) bunch nou yes L1, bos
301 heb have aux yes L1, heb
301 soms sometimes adv no L1, soms
301 hoe lang how long yes L1, hoe lang
301 was dat was that no L1, was dat
301 sp(elletjes) plays nou yes L1, spelletjes
301 kij(k) look ver no L1, kijken
301 bijvoorbeeld for example no L1, bijvoorbeeld
301 die they pro no L1, die
301 bijvoorbeeld for example no L1, bijv.
301 honderd hundred num no L1, honderd
301 ergens somewhere adv no L1, ergens
301 anders is ’t or else it is yes L1, anders is ’t

301 with uh allema(al) with a lot of int yes L1, allemaal
302 ’t is it is pro yes L1, het is
302 dat’s that’s pro no L1, dat
302 die man that man det no L1, die
302 she heeft she has ver yes L1, heeft
302 want because con yes L1, want
302 nog another int yes L1, nog twee katten
302 nee jawel no yes no L1, nee jawel
303 hoor well no L1, niet daar hoor
303 ’k denk uh I think uh yes L1, ik denk uh
303 neu (sic) no neg yes L1, nee
303 ik kook nooit I never cook yes L1, ik kook nooit
303 dan hè then huh no L1, dan he
303 effe kij(ken) let me see yes L1, effe kijken
304 there was iz there was once adv no L1, er was eens
304 that’s well nice that’s kind of nice int no L1, wel aardig
304 a book vol a book full adj no L1, ’n boek vol
305 I like it wel I do like it int no L1, ik hou er wel van
305 ken da is that possible no L1, kan dat
305 met with pre yes L1, met Kerstmis
306 ee(n) one num yes L1, een
306 op on pre yes L1, op
306 elf eleven num no L1, elf
306 the f(ietsenmaker) the bikemaker nou yes L1, fietsenmaker
306 and toen uh and then uh adv no L1, en toen uh
306 wa(t) what rel yes L1, wat
306 and zo and so pad no L1, en zo
306 en dan and then no L1, en dan
306 poe(s) cat nou yes L1, poes

306 tegen m(ouse) to pre yes L1, zeggen tegen
306 tegen mouse to mouse pre yes L1, zeggen tegen
306 die they pro yes L1, die
306 nog another int yes L1, nog een kat
306 toen then adv yes L1, toen
306 behal(ve) except pre yes L1, behalve
306 als as if con no L1, als
306 vin’k (lekker) I like yes L1, vind ik lekker
306 hoor well no L1, niet alleen ik hoor
306 die he pro yes L1, mijn andere broer die
306 die he pro no L1, mijn andere broer die
306 die they pro no L1, mijn vader en
moeder die
306 meer uit more from no L1, meer uit
306 be(doel) do you mean ver yes L1, bedoel
307 dit ding this thing no L1, dit ding
307 and dan and then adv no L1, dan
307 not so /f/(aak) not so often adv yes L1, vaak
307 a(lle)ma(al) all int yes L1, allemaal
307 uit uh, the three out of the three pre no L1, uit de drie
307 of so or so con no L1, of zo
307 zes six num yes L1, zes
307 ik onthou ’t I remember yes L1, ik onthou het
307 die who rel yes L1, die
308 zijn are aux no L1, zijn
309 el(f) eleven num yes L1, elf
309 op (a morning) on pre yes L1, op ’n morgen
309 of zo or so con no L1, of zo
309 op (a day) at a day pre yes L1, op ’n dag
309 of whether con no L1, of

309 die it pro yes L1, die
309 kwam came ver no L1, kwam
309 wo(rteltjes) carrots nou yes L1, worteltjes
309 ook too adv yes L1, ook
309 ge(zellig) nice adj yes L1, gezellig
309 bijv(oorbeeld) for instance yes L1, bijvoorbeeld
309 bijvoorbeeld for instance no L1, bijvoorbeeld
309 die which rel yes L1, die
310 elf eleven num no L1, elf
310 die who rel no L1, die
310 and he kon and he could aux yes L1, kon
310 alleen only adv yes L1, alleen
310 nog still adv no L1, nog
310 ’k heb I have yes L1, ik heb
310 ik kan I can no L1, ik kan
310 /weI/ double /ju/ nou yes L1, /weI/
311 it’s ook it’s also adv yes L1, ook
311 da(t) that rel yes L1, dat
311 m(aar) but con yes L1, maar
311 die who rel no L1, die
311 die they pro no L1, mijn ouders die
311 ja yes yes L1, ja
311 zeven en twintig twenty-seven num yes L1, zeven-en-twintig
311 dan then adv yes L1, dan
311 dit this det no L1, dit
311 van uh from uh pre no L1, van
311 van uh from uh pre no L1, van
311 iets something pro yes L1, iets van vijfentwintig
311 maar but con yes L1, maar
311 van from pre yes L1, van

311 to(t) to pre yes L1, tot
311 bal ball nou no L1, bal
311 bij by pre yes L1, bij
311 en ik and I pro yes L1, en ik
311 zijn are aux no L1, zijn
312 en dan and then adv no L1, en dan
313 nummer twee number two yes L1, nummer twee
313 s(chrijfster) writer nou yes L1, schrijfster
313 sch(rijfster) writer nou yes L1, schrijfster
314 mee with yes L1, mee
314 alleen only adv no L1, alleen
314 allee(n) only adv yes L1, alleen
314 zit aan uh is attached to ver no L1, zitten aan
314 zes six num no L1, zes
314 from ’t broo(d) from the bread yes L1, het brood
314 ui(t) from pre yes L1, uit
314 basis base nou yes L1, basis
314 al(leen) only adv yes L1, alleen
314 op the idea on the idea pre no L1, hij kwam op het idee
314 elkaar each other pro yes L1, elkaar
314 mad op mad at pre no L1, boos op
314 op (’n dag) on one day pre yes L1, op ’n dag
314 b(ijvoorbeeld) for example yes L1, bijvoorbeeld
314 we k(rijgen) we get ver yes L1, krijgen
314 die she pro no L1, mijn vriendin die
314 waar where rel no L1, waar
314 hoe how pad yes L1, hoe
314 vak subject nou no L1, vak
314 di(t) this det yes L1, dit

314 die which rel no L1, die
314 dat that pro yes L1, dat
314 in ons land in our country no L1, in ons land
314 we have we(l) we do have int yes L1, we hebben wel
314 he moest he had to aux yes L1, moest
314 die these det no L1, die
314 iets f(oor) a little in front of no L1, iets voor
314 ’t house the house det no L1, het huis
314 heeft has ver no L1, heeft
314 en de w(ijk) and the quarter yes L1, en de wijk
315 he f(roeg) he asked ver yes L1, vroeg
315 hun their det yes L1, hun
315 hun their det no L1, hun
315 dus dat so that no L1, dus dat
315 en dan and then pad no L1, en dan
315 and dan and then pad no L1, en dan
315 and da(n) and then pad yes L1, en dan
315 nog een another int no L1, nog een
315 one d’r up one on top of it pad no L1, een er op
315 and then nog one and then another one int no L1, en dan nog een
Lexical substitutions (foreignizing = L1 substitutions plus phon. or morph. adaptation to L2)

202 /dr/ie three num no L1, drie
202 b/r/(aden) grill ver yes L1, braden
203 the /raI/(s) the trip nou yes L1, de reis
208 you neem you take ver yes L1, nemen
210 rock skirt nou yes L1, rok
212 you leer learn ver yes L1, leren
214 you stoke keep/burn (a fire) ver yes L1, stoken
301 strand beach nou yes L1, strand
301 stuck piece nou yes L1, stuk

301 ga(tes) holes nou yes L1, gaten
301 I m/aI/ pak I may take ver yes L1, pakken
301 one is won(ing) one is living ver yes L1, wonen
301 ra(mes) windows nou yes L1, ramen
302 blooms flowers nou no L1, bloemen
303 the flashes the bottles nou yes L1, flessen
306 you bedoel you mean ver yes L1, bedoelen
310 there zit there is ver yes L1, zitten
311 we noem it we call it ver yes L1, noemen
314 to leer to learn ver yes L1, leren
314 d/r/ie-angels three-angels num no L1, drie
314 you neem you take ver no L1, nemen
314 the groups heet the groups is called ver no L1, heten
314 there zit uh there are ver no L1, er zitten (op school)
Lexical substitutions (L1/L2 = false cognates; L2 words used with L1 meaning)

su. error target wcl repair source
103 clo(ck) bell nou yes L1, klok
103 fr(om four by three) which is four to three pre yes L1, van vier bij drie
103 sho(rt by) nearby adv yes L1, kort bij
103 on the univer(sity) at the university pre yes L1, op de universiteit
105 in that at that pre yes L1, goed zijn [in]
107 s(ay) tell ver yes L1, wat je te zeggen hebt
108 make on make ver yes L1, (een vuur) aanmaken
108 ground floor nou yes L1, grond
108 on the bottom at the bottom pre yes L1, op de bodem
108 fl(esh) meat nou yes L1, vlees
108 applied to applied for pre yes L1, solliciteren naar
109 clock bell nou yes L1, klok
115 on the en(d) at the end pre yes L1, op het eind
201 f(or) before pre yes L1, voor
202 f(lesh) meat nou yes L1, vlees
203 f(or) in front of pre yes L1, voor
203 in the foreig(n country) in a foreign country det yes L1, in het buitenland
203 we stood up we got up ver yes L1, opstaan
203 dr(ive) ride ver yes L1, rijden ( = drive+ride)
204 self himself pro yes L1, hij is zelf kaal
204 can know ver no L1, kennen
204 for instead of pre yes L1, voor
205 cabbage coals nou yes L1, kool ( = coal+cabbage)
205 the man self the man himself pro yes L1, de man zelf
205 I’ll I want ver yes L1, willen
207 up on pre yes L1, op
207 on at pre yes L1, aan de onderkant
207 bicy(cle) ride a bicycle ver yes L1, fietsen
208 for before pre yes L1, voor
su. error target wcl repair source

209 three hour three o’clock nou yes L1, drie uur
210 f(or) the case was on before pre yes L1, voor
212 set put ver yes L1, zetten
215 very like very nice/funny mix no L1, leuk
215 they learn they teach ver no L1, leren
301 how grea(t) how big adj yes L1, groot
302 wa(lk) came ver yes L1, lijnen lopen
302 w(alk) come ver yes L1, lijnen lopen
302 walk go ver yes L1, lijnen lopen
302 wa(lks) goes ver yes L1, lijnen lopen
302 football soccer nou yes L1, voetbal
303 flash bottle nou yes L1, fles
305 I s(elf) I myself yes L1, ik zelf
305 good well mix yes L1, iets goed doen
307 by a house at a house pre yes L1, bij een huis
307 well piano I do play the piano int no L1, ik speel wel piano
307 but well in the but we did in the int yes L1, maar wel in de
307 you se(t) you write ver yes L1, ’n streepje zetten
307 think good think well mix yes L1, goed
308 what which rel yes L1, wat
309 on the top at the top pre yes L1, op
309 on the (top) at the top pre yes L1, op
309 on the (top) at the top pre yes L1, op
310 gave, on a man gave, to a man pre no L1, aan de man
310 before in front of pre yes L1, voor (time and place)
311 on my room in my room pre yes L1, op mijn kamer
312 walks comes ver yes L1, lopen
312 what which rel yes L1, wat
312 small narrow adj yes L1, smal
314 sa(ifers) numbers nou yes L1, cijfers
315 will want ver yes L1, willen
315 very hard very fast adv yes L1, erg hard

su. error target wcl rep. source
109 med(icins) doctors nou yes L3, French: medecins
205 si t(u) if you yes L3, French: si tu
205 a strei(t) a quarrel nou yes L3, German: streit
206 oui yes yes L3, French: oui
210 zo therefore cad no L3, German: also
210 zo therefore cad no L3, German: also
211 ne(nnen) call ver yes L3, German: nennen
211 I uh eat ge(rne) I love to eat adv yes L3, German: gerne
309 von from pre yes L3, German: von
311 vo(n) from pre yes L3, German: von

311 von from pre no L3, German: von
314 das that det yes L3, German: das
314 ta(g) today mix yes L3, German: Tag
314 oui yes yes L3, French: oui
315 sie they pro no L3, German: sie
Lexical substitutions (L1/L3)

306 he became he got ver yes L3 German, bekommen
Lexical substitutions (anticipations)

101 neighbour bicycle-merchant nou yes no said the n I gave him an x
with the name of my [n]
109 /w6z/ o(nce was) what once was mix yes was once [was]
111 at on pre yes at a certain day 1 uh, [at] a meeting
111 like know ver yes I don’t really like if my friends [like]
111 know(ly know) really know mix yes I don’t know(ly) [know]
115 win (to win) want to win ver yes win to [win]
115 in a couple in a song nou yes in a couple is to know a [couple] of runs
201 who had to who want to aux yes who had to read the article [had to] be
careful
206 go al(ways) can always mix yes go always [go]
215 the a det yes the watch but [the] thing
215 when which rel no the thing when you write on [when]
someone
310 make help ver yes can make you to [make]
310 sixty-fives people mix yes where lives sixty-fives who are
[sixty-fives]
Lexical substitutions (perseverations)

102 a(sked) sold ver yes he [asked] him …. whether he asked
107 to li(ke) TV to watch TV ver yes I [like] to for a change you know to li(ke)
108 on of pre yes [on] the bottom on the sea
112 if it had if he had pro yes [it] asked, again 1 if it had
115 of off mix yes sorts [of] uh dust of off the floor
204 them us pro no I. to see [them]. S. [they] don’t really like
them
209 they she pro yes [they] are now dead, so they uh
301 are have ver yes die [are] uh, ja when you are the most have
the most most points
302 on(side) underside pre yes [on] the onside
302 on the in(side) on the other side mix yes it goes erm 1 [in]side that round and, on the
in, other side

303 he I pro yes [he]’s in the first class and he I’m in the,
third
306 in the at the pre yes [in the] sky in the
307 it ship the ship mix no [it]’s in it ship
312 it a(re) there are mix yes like [it] more when it are
314 the j(urist) the lawyer nou yes of the 2 [jurist]? 1 uh, then the, j(urist)
314 pr(esent) sent mix yes I have sent him a [present] 1 but I have uh, I
haven’t pr(esent)
Lexical substitutions (anticipations/perseverations)

105 as that at that mix yes [as] good as that [as] boys
202 lawyer judge nou no went to a [lawyer], and he asked the
name of the lawyer, the [lawyer] asked
Lexical additions (L2)

114 it’s ha(s) it has aux yes it is like a ball/ has the form of
206 a straight, a line a straight line det no
208 it’s wa/q/ it was aux no it’s like a movie
211 a lot of a lot int yes
301 with is a letter on it with a letter aux no which is
304 that’s are that are aux no that’s
305 it’s is it is aux yes
305 a lot of a lot int no
306 was being growing was growing aux yes
312 blowed the 2 and blowed the hair con no
hair away away
Lexical additions (L1)

202 he said van he said pre no L1, zeggen van
206 say van say pre no L1, zeggen van
209 he asked van he asked pre no L1, hij vroeg van
209 asked x van asked x pre no L1, vragen van
209 I thought van I thought pre no L1, denken van
214 know, van know pre no L1, weten van
214 thought van thought pre no L1, denken van
303 said van said pre no L1, zeggen van
306 he thought he thought
by himself van by himself pre no L1, hij dacht bij zichzelf van
306 answered van answered pre no L1, antwoorden van
306 say van say pre no L1, zeggen van
306 she said van she said pre no L1, zeggen van
306 she shaid so van she shaid so pre no L1, zeggen van
306 said to me van said to me pre no L1, zeggen van

311 in ’t English in English det no L1, in het Engels
314 so we went dus so we went con no L1, we gingen dus
Lexical additions (anticipations)

113 that’s of (a sort) that’s a sort of pre yes that’s of a sort [of]
203 but’s that(’s) but that’s aux no but’s that [’s]
206 that’s it’s that it’s aux no that’s it[’s]
Lexical additions (perseverations)

202 I’ve need I need aux yes I[’ve] heard it pays well, so, and I
I’ve need
302 it’s goes it goes aux no and it[’s] uh, it’s goes
302 it’s go.es it goes aux no and it[’s], it’s go.es
Lexical deletions (L2)

102 that regretted that it regretted pro no
107 look it look at it pre no
112 and why he wanted and asked him why ver no
to know it he wanted to know it
115 when you are, uh here at when you are supposed to ver yes
be here at
201 live the (campus) live on the campus pre yes
202 at endi(ng) at the ending det yes
202 after made after having made aux yes
203 is a there’s a pad yes
205 put don’t put neg yes
210 to field into the field det no
211 what not maked what is not maked aux no
213 with with which rel no
213 which can which you can pro yes
214 which rather old which is rather old ver no
214 and we dances from and we dance dances from ver yes
215 that much interesting that’s much interesting aux yes
303 like uh 1 iks like an iks det yes
306 can made can be made aux no
306 he gone he is gone aux no
308 got, j(ob) got that job det yes
309 that uh very uh that is very uh aux no
311 a lot money a lot of money pre yes
314 I don’t know to I don’t know how to pad yes
314 ma(ny) not many neg yes
315 I don’t my home(work) I don’t do my homework ver yes
Lexical deletions (L1)

106 how it called how it is called aux no L1, hoe het heet
115 and l(eft) and to the left yes L1, links
115 I go fo(otball) I (am) go(ing to) play football ver yes L1, ik ga voetballen
211 out this out of this pre yes L1, uit deze
211 explain it you explain it to you pre yes L1, je uitleggen
213 from left from the left det yes L1, van links
214 out his bottle out of his bottle pre no L1, uit zijn fles
302 to s(occer) to play soccer ver yes L1, voetballen
304 home at home nou yes L1, thuis
312 but left but on the left yes L1, links
Lexical deletions (perseverations)

107 did it didn’t it neg yes [did] work then after all, did it
Lexical blends (L2)

104 congratulationed congratulations mix no congratulations/congratulated
104 tomato suice tomato sauce nou yes sauce/juice
106 welmos(t) almost int yes well/almost
107 somethings sometimes mix no something/sometimes
108 /mf˜t/(/w/) much int yes more/much
111 at any w(ay) at any rate yes at any rate/anyway
111 a great lots of with lots of int no a great many/lots of
115 /eIr/ ale/beer nou no ale/beer
205 that /saI/(nd) that kind of job nou yes that sort/kind
206 th/6/s this det yes the/this
207 thr/u/ two num yes three/two
209 probles problems nou no problems/troubles
214 on in pre yes of/in
301 wet what rel yes where/what
301 the lai(ter) the lawyer nou yes lawyer/righter
301 if my class of my class pre yes in/of
301 on my class in my class pre no of/in
301 thas that pro no that/this
302 belong beside pre yes beside/along
305 tw/aI/ t(imes) twice yes twice/two times
306 thas those det yes that/those
310 my hon my hobby mix no my hobby/one
315 hyou you pro no he/you
Lexical blends (L1/L2)

208 /7lv/other each other pro no L1, elkaar/each other
210 kwame came ver no L1 kwam/came

306 kwa(me) came ver yes L1 kwam/came
308 /ja˜s/ yes no L1 ja/yes
Lexical haplologies
109 unent/6/(fied) unidentified adj yes
203 al(ectric) an electric yes
203 we Áhad some we had Ámet some ver yes
214 /ul6/ Ursula le Guin nou yes
214 /ar/ after adv yes
303 complety completely adv no
Lexical shifts
103 so whate(ver) whatsoever int yes
114 what’s it what it’s aux yes
201 young ang(ry) men angry young men adj yes
202 it’s put is put it pro no
311 seven (and twenty) twenty-seven num yes L1, zeven-en-twintig
312 an h(alf hour) half an hour det yes L1, een half uur
Malapropisms ( = lexical substitution by a phonologically related word)

102 to go (my tests) to get ver yes
104 cold coals mix no
106 ev(eryone) anyone pro yes
107 different difficult adj no
108 with which mix no
109 Torbay Torquay nou yes
110 about around pre yes
110 can sta(nd) can stay ver yes
111 rem(oved) moved ver yes
111 shirt skirt nou no
111 removed moved ver no
111 removed moved ver no
113 loaves leaves nou yes
114 at least at last no
115 Áadverb advert nou yes
202 put pull ver yes
203 or of mix yes
203 they there mix yes
203 on in pre yes
203 then there pad no
203 something someone pro yes
203 something someone pro yes
204 put push ver yes

204 right red adj yes
204 hairs head nou no
204 shi(rt) skirt nou yes
204 heights highest mix yes
205 something sometimes mix yes
205 you have to go you have got ver yes
206 animal enemy nou yes
206 alway(s) also adv yes
207 pro/37/(cting) protesting ver yes
208 in my eye(s) in my ears nou yes
210 ne(xt) yet adv yes
210 two ear(s) two hours nou yes
211 almost most mix yes
212 into onto pre no
213 as home at home pre yes
214 other under mix no
214 from for pre yes
214 /w7n/ day one day mix no
214 /w7n/ one mix no
214 /w7n/ one mix yes
215 very many int no
301 pou(nds) points nou yes
301 from for pre yes
302 other under mix yes
302 a lot of m/æ/ny a lot of money mix yes many = a lot
303 we got there by car we go there by car ver no
304 he read he wrote ver no
304 eighty eighteen num yes
305 air hair nou yes
306 and send and said ver no
306 he wrote he read ver no
308 why who mix yes
309 clear clean adj yes
309 /%/ther under mix yes
310 their the det no
310 thought saw ver yes
310 difficult different adj no
311 why where rel yes
311 /a(Iz)/ ears nou yes
313 which with mix no
314 between therein mix yes
Malapropisms (L1)
305 who to say how to say mix no L1, hoe te zeggen
311 who how mix yes L1, hoe

311 who how mix yes L1, hoe
Malapropisms (anticipations)
109 was what mix no was once [was]
206 send the m(an) said the man ver yes no, send the man I [sent] him
210 is if mix yes is it [’s]
306 send said ver no and send have you [send] him
313 your you pro no your put [your] glass on it
314 which with mix no with [which]
Malapropisms (perseverations)
115 /tu/ through pre yes [to] go /tu/ a shop
215 world word nou no the [world] how do you call that world
309 which with mix yes [which] is uh 3 which uh, the man
309 which with mix no [which] is uh 3 … which the man
Phonological/Lexical (foreignizing)
205 you hoor you hear ver yes L1, horen
301 dings things nou no L1, dingen
301 dings things nou yes L1, dingen
314 w/7/rks works nou yes L1, werken
314 parents who w/7/rks works ver no L1, werken
Phonological/Lexical (L1)
104 s/a~/(ce) sauce nou yes L1, saus
104 zo so pad no L1, zo
114 d(at) that pro yes L1, dat
202 /kan/ can aux no L1, kan
202 /f/ier four num no L1, vier
205 zo so con no L1, zo
206 st/u/dy study nou no L1, studie
208 such a ding such a thing nou no L1, ding
211 ding thing nou no L1, ding
211 op up pre yes L1, op
211 /mus/ must aux yes L1, moe(s)ten
211 m/a/(teriaal) materials nou yes L1, materiaal
211 meer more adv yes L1, niet meer
212 wa(t) what rel yes L1, wat
215 zo that so that con no L1, zodat
301 /ha/(ng) hang ver yes L1, hangen
304 l/a/mp lamp nou yes L1, lamp
306 a(lle) all int yes L1, alle

311 haa(r) hair nou yes L1, haar
311 the m/a/(n) the man nou yes L1, man
312 bal ball nou yes L1, bal
314 l/a/n(d) land nou yes L1, land
314 a m/a/(n) a man nou yes L1, man
314 l/a/nd land nou no L1, land
314 ki(nderen) children nou yes L1, kinderen
Phonological/Lexical (L3)
302 hil(f) helped ver yes L3, German hilf
302 hil(f) helped ver yes L3, German hilf
Phonological/Lexical (anticipations)
109 /k%n/(ties/tries) counties nou yes /k%n/(ties/tries) of the [c[ou]ntry]
109 /k%n/(ties/tries) counties nou yes /k%n/(ties/tries) of the [c[ou]ntry]
204 likes looks ver no likes [l[i]ke]
Morphological substitutions
su. error target sublevel rep.
101 teaches has taught yes
102 he hang he hung all yes
102 he se(nt) he had sent yes
103 friends of uh, my friends of mine yes
104 had have to yes
107 ben(d) bent yes
108 was, blew was blown yes
110 ea(t) ate yes
111 a(re) is yes
112 I look I am looking no
112 I still (think) I am still thinking yes
113 it asks it asked no
113 are is yes
113 are were yes
114 she have she has no
114 it were it was no
202 get got no
202 I have to made I have to make no
203 has had no
203 that were that was yes
204 fell fall all yes
204 ch/aI/l(dren) children all yes
204 my sister do my sister does no
204 I doesn’t have I don’t have no
204 I uh, doesn’t use I don’t use no

205 su(ngs) songs all yes
205 sells sold no
205 he ge(ts) he got yes
205 stand stood yes
206 tries tried no
206 make(s) made yes
206 is (going) goes yes
207 childs children no
207 had has yes
207 have has yes
207 sells sold yes
207 have has no
207 do does yes
208 he just /du˜z/ he just does all no
208 that those no
208 he don(’t) he doesn’t yes
208 don’t doesn’t no
208 don’t doesn’t no
208 we have sleep we have slept yes
209 who asks who asked yes
209 he get he got no
209 you doesn’t you don’t no
210 dr/I/mt dreamt all yes
210 won’t wouldn’t yes
210 my brother have my brother has no
210 we’ve seen we will see no
211 can could yes
211 mans men no
212 we had dro(ve) we had driven yes
212 you ca(n) you could yes
213 who se(lls) who sold yes
213 there’s there was yes
214 foot(s) feet all yes
214 maked made no
215 interesting interested der no
215 buyed bought yes
215 he had writed he had written no
215 says said no
215 that don’t go that doesn’t go no
215 my parents has my parents have yes
215 has have no
301 made make no
301 the follows day the following day der no
301 liked likes no
301 he’s he was yes
302 /du˜z/ does all no
302 he had he has yes

302 will came will come no
302 the people who is the people who are yes
302 he were he was no
302 he said he says yes
304 he give he had given yes
304 if he has if he had yes
304 make made yes
304 that he has that he had yes
304 so I lived so I’ve lived yes
304 someone have got someone has got no
304 she have to she has to no
304 learned are learning yes
304 I get I got no
305 she haved she has yes
305 have has yes
305 he w/I6/r(s/ed) he wore yes
305 weared wore yes
305 solding selling no
305 blowed blew yes
305 blow(ed) blew yes
306 is are no
306 to sold to sell no
306 to sol(d) to sell yes
306 he ge(ts) he got yes
306 the beautifule(st) the most beautiful yes
306 she don’t may she doesn’t may no
306 his(self) himself yes
306 everybody have to everybody has to no
306 I have buyed I have bought yes
307 came come no
309 have has yes
309 have has no
309 has gone had gone no
310 maked made yes
310 give gave no
310 give gave yes
310 give gave no
311 has you have you yes
311 made shall make yes
311 make shall make yes
311 to made to make no
311 who are who is no
312 he weared he wore yes
312 /rId/ read yes
312 I are I am no
313 tha(t) those yes
314 they hasn(’t) they haven’t yes

314 ch/aIl/(ldren) children all yes
314 don’t didn’t yes
314 we di(d) we do yes
314 us school our school yes
314 didn’t don’t yes
314 it will it would yes
315 and eight 1 are
2 like 1 uh, skirt is like a skirt no
Morphological substitutions (L1)

su. error target subl. rep. source
303 mine my no L1, mijn
307 there comed there comes no L1, er komt
Morphological substitutions (anticipations)

205 do does no the priest always do that, but
we [do]
209 the baker have the baker has no the baker have to [stand] up
310 didn’t said didn’t say no didn’t said that, and [said] that
Morphological substitutions (perseverations)

101 he has teached he has taught no he [teaches] a long time, of he
has teached
115 he didn’t took he didn’t take no he [did]n’t took
207 /6ts6/ upside der yes [at] the /6t/s(ide)
213 did you do you yes it ask[ed] the sewer, did you
215 did you had to do did you have to do no [did] you had to do
302 he didn’t made it he didn’t make it no he [did]n’t made it
307 didn’t had didn’t have yes [did]n’t had
Morphological additions
101 you can asks you can ask nfl yes
101 it is easily to suck it is easy to suck der no they suck easily
111 heavily heavy der yes with which you can blow heavily
111 musical music der yes
113 arms arm nfl no
201 childrens children nfl no
204 he askeds he asks nfl no
204 I doesn’t I don’t nfl no
204 looks like look like nfl no
205 stands stand nfl no
205 arosed arose nfl no
205 those two, stands those two stand nfl no

206 he wents he went nfl no
207 things that uh happens things that happen nfl no
211 sides side nfl no
213 looked likes looked like nfl no look[s] likes
214 we uh wented we went nfl no
215 it has the forms of it has the form of nfl no
215 wented went nfl no
215 they teached they teach nfl yes
301 I’ll makes I’ll make nfl no
301 you can makes you can make nfl no
302 two lines goes two lines go nfl yes
302 they have saided they have said nfl yes
304 he saids he said nfl no
304 who lives who live nfl no
304 in the ends in the end nfl no
305 the beasts the beast nfl no
305 who lives who live nfl no
305 they wants they want nfl no
305 children thinks children think nfl no
306 comes come nfl no
306 goes go nfl no
306 to … selled to sell nfl yes
306 one times one time nfl no
307 you makes you make nfl no
307 you makes you make nfl no
307 all men who wants all men who want nfl no
310 of a shopping of a shop nfl yes
310 I hoped I hope nfl yes
312 maded made nfl no
313 mens men nfl yes
314 wants want nfl yes
314 wants want nfl no
314 glasses glass nfl yes
314 you may talks you may talk nfl no
314 you can looked you can look nfl yes
Morphological additions (anticipations)

102 your owns children your own children nfl yes with your owns child[ren]
114 that sorts of books that sort of books nfl no that sorts of book[s]
204 it’s look(s) it looks nfl yes it’s look[s]
215 with others subjects with other subjects nfl no with others subject[s]
305 that’s look likes that looks like nfl no that’s look[s] likes
308 its looks like it looks like nfl no its look[s] like
311 it’s belo(ng) it belongs nfl yes it’s belong[s]
314 the circles the circle nfl no the circles from this, thing,
… has strange uh, thing[s]
Morphological additions (perseverations)

214 looks likes looks like nfl no look[s] likes
304 tried to selled tried to sell nfl no tri[ed] to selled
306 does he really lives does he really live nfl no do[es] he really lives
307 who solds who sold nfl no who 1 sell[s], who solds
308 looks likes looks like nfl no look[s] likes
310 doesn’t goes doesn’t go nfl no do[es]n’t goes
310 doesn’t goes doesn’t go nfl no do[es]n’t goes
313 must walking must walk nfl no walk[ing] with (..4 ..) that they,
uh must walking
Morphological additions (A/P)

305 they sells they sell nfl no shop[s] where they sells, thing[s]
Morphological deletions
101 sometime sometimes nfl yes
101 sometime sometimes nfl no
101 it suggest it suggests nfl no
104 watch watches nfl no
106 chemist chemists nfl no
108 normal normally der yes
109 look looks nfl yes
109 old people home old people’s home nfl no that belonged to these old people
109 most mostly der yes
112 flower flowers nfl no
113 fly flies nfl yes
114 ask asked nfl no
114 he find he finds nfl no
202 go goes nfl no
202 go goes nfl no
202 go goes nfl no
202 who want who wants nfl no
202 she want she wants nfl no
204 eat eats nfl no
204 he has use he has used nfl no
204 the flower the flowers nfl no
204 ask asks nfl no
204 he want he wants nfl no
204 translate translates nfl no
204 she translate she translates nfl no
205 he visit he visited nfl no
205 he appear he appears nfl no

205 other thing other things nfl no
206 ask asks nfl no
208 he want he wants nfl no
208 he never join he never joins nfl no
210 it look it looks nfl no
211 make makes nfl no
211 side sides nfl no
212 most mostly der yes
214 it start it started nfl no
214 those thing those things nfl no
215 stand stands nfl no
215 two part two parts nfl no
301 he say he says nfl no
302 bring brings nfl no
302 make uh makes nfl yes
302 he hit he hits nfl no
302 what make what makes nfl no
302 who want who wants nfl no
302 get gets nfl no
302 the flower the flowers nfl no
302 it cost it costs nfl no
302 little house smaller houses nfl yes
302 I’ve walk I’ve walked nfl no
304 that cut that cuts nfl no
304 start started nfl no
304 she uh know she uh knows nfl no
304 he look he looks nfl no
305 a man who give a man who gives nfl no
306 ring rings nfl no
306 he want he wanted nfl no
306 she go died she goes died nfl no
306 he throw he throws nfl yes
306 he throw he throws nfl no
307 change changed der yes
308 he ask hi(m) he asked him nfl yes
309 keep keeps nfl no
309 stand stands nfl no
310 hold holds nfl no
311 he make he made nfl no
312 want wanted nfl no
314 the side the sides nfl no
315 frighten frightened der no
Morphological deletions (anticipations)

212 it look like it looks like nfl no it look like[]

213 it look like it looks like nfl yes look like[]
214 look like looks like nfl no look like[]
215 it look like it looks like nfl no it look like[]
304 that make think that makes think nfl no that make think[]
Morphological shifts
102 it look likes it looks like nfl no it look[s] likes
203 sides up upside der yes
204 it’s look like it looks like nfl no it’s look[s]
206 I’d like it I liked it no I’d lik[ed] it
212 tailor shops tailor’s shop nfl no tailor[’s] shops
213 it look likes it looks like nfl no it look[s] likes
213 look likes looks like nfl no look[s] likes
214 don’t wanted didn’t want nfl no do [+ past] wanted
214 bigs thing big things nfl no bigs thing[s]
307 the others one the other ones nfl no the others one[s]
308 its look like it looks like nfl no its look[s] like
308 severals thing several things nfl no severals thing[s]
Morphological blends
103 I, done it I did it ver no I did/have done
107 if you, done it if you have done it ver no did/have done
111 come comes ver no will come/comes
111 living are living ver no live/are living
113 actually doing are actually doing ver no do/are doing
115 asking asked ver no asked/was asking
202 you biking you are biking ver no you bike/are biking
203 that missing that are missing ver yes that (are) miss(ing)
204 which called which is called ver no which is called/which calls
204 I, ja training there I am training there ver no I train/am training there
204 she have she will have ver no she has/will have
206 I’m … worry about I’m … worried no I worry/am worried
about
208 the cat’s goes the cat goes ver no if the cat’s going/goes
209 were use would use ver no were using/would use
210 they’re put they’ve put ver no they’re putting/have put
210 I’m hang I hang ver no I’m hanging/I hang
211 cames came ver no comes/came
213 spinning is spinning ver no spins/is spinning
213 begans begins ver no began/begins
215 begans begins ver no began/begins
301 I, doing it I am doing it ver no I do/I am doing
303 solds sells ver no sold/sells

303 solds sells ver yes sold/sells
303 they always uh saying they always say ver no they (are) always say(ing)
308 which standing which is standing ver no which stands/is standing
311 can standing can stand ver no can stand/am standing
311 cames came ver yes came/comes
311 cames came ver no came/comes
311 I sleeping I am sleeping ver no I sleep/am sleeping
311 I, sitting I am sitting ver no I sit/am sitting
313 they ending they are ending ver no they end/are ending
313 they, ending they, are ending ver no they end/are ending
314 they shouting they were shouting ver no they shout/were shouting
314 we sitting we are sitting ver no we sit/are sitting
315 that is goes that goes ver no that is going/goes
Phonological substitutions
su. error target wcl subl. pos. rep. source
102 /6/l(ectricity) electricity nou vow yes
102 flet flat adj vow yes
102 ting thing nou con ons no
104 f/a/scina(ting) fascinating adj vow yes
104 you int(er) you enter ver vow yes
106 /I/t’s it’s pro vow yes it’s/he’s
106 expen/w/(ive) expensive adj con ons yes
108 k/#/lours colours nou vow yes
108 /æ/(x) /7ks/ nou vow yes
108 /n7z/ nose nou vow yes
108 /paI7/(no) piano nou vow yes
108 a li(t) a lot nou vow yes
109 un, /6/dentified un, identified adj vow ons yes
109 /6/(pportunity opportunity nou vow yes
109 /æ/djuc(ation) education nou vow yes
109 krow grow ver con ons no
110 ea/ð/ier easier adj con ons no
110 /q/ix six num con ons yes
111 d/6/s(tbin) dustbin nou vow yes
111 c/7/rcles circles nou vow yes
111 /s7/(rious) serious adj vow yes
111 /h7t/ head nou con cod yes
115 w/a/rry worried adj vow yes
115 st/æ/pped stepped ver vow yes
115 a m/æ/ss a mess nou vow yes
115 I wen/Š/ I went ver con cod no
201 l/8˜/yer lawyer nou vow yes
202 m/æ/ny money nou vow yes
202 /q/en then pad con ons no
202 wrink drink ver con ons no
203 bo/d/om bottom nou con ons yes Am. flap

203 sa/q/urn Saturn nou con ons no
204 k/a~/(ls) coals nou vow yes
204 /a~6/ are ver vow yes
204 sh/f˜k/ shark nou vow no
204 sh/f˜k/ shark nou vow yes
204 cro(ck) clock nou con ons yes
204 b/æq/ bat nou con cod no
205 objac(t) object nou vow yes
205 /a/n on pre vow yes
205 s/a/ks(eeded) succeeded ver vow yes
205 a me/q/age a message nou con ons yes
205 the ban the man nou con ons yes
205 s(effield) Sheffield nou con ons yes
206 /w/i(de) side nou con ons yes
206 /w/i(de) side nou con ons yes
206 no/q/ not neg con cod no
206 ts(ough) through pre cc ons yes
207 thiks things nou con cod no
207 tree three num con ons no
207 sings things nou con ons yes
207 thas that pro con cod no
208 /w7n/ one num vow no
208 hi/q/ his det con cod no
208 wa/q/ was aux con cod no
209 /3/ellow yellow adj con ons yes
210 a/q/ at pre con cod yes
210 /ð8˜r/ their det vow yes
211 /%n/(der) under pre vow yes
211 thi/q/ this pro con cod yes
211 which say/q/ which says ver con cod yes
211 say/q/ says ver con cod no
211 thas that con con cod no
211 hair/v/essers hairdressers nou cc ons yes
212 th(ake) take ver con ons yes
213 bo/ð/em bottom nou con ons yes
213 /wIts/ which rel cc cod yes
213 /wIts/ which rel cc cod no
214 /6/ther other pro vow ons yes
214 me/q/al metal adj con ons no
214 cour/q/ court nou con cod no
214 ol/q/ old adj con cod no
215 alwoos always adv vow no
215 /q/ongs songs nou con ons no
301 p/7/(ple) people nou vow yes
301 neph/8˜/r nephair nou vow no
301 a c/a/r(avan) a caravan nou vow yes car
301 poin(ting) painting ver vow yes

301 tree three num con ons no
301 bis with pre con ons yes
301 cars card nou con cod no
302 h/eI/r here pad vow yes
302 pl/æ/nts plants nou vow yes
302 free three num con ons yes
302 /q/ifteen fifteen num con ons yes
302 skoe(s) shoes nou cc ons yes
303 at(self) itself mix vow yes
304 m/6~/(vie) movie nou vow yes spelling
304 /q/ome(times) sometimes adv con ons yes
304 /q/(ometimes) sometimes adv con ons yes
305 b/6/t(tle) bottle nou vow yes
305 ting thing nou con ons no
305 onder/q/(ide) onderside nou con ons yes
305 /q/ome some det con ons no
305 decide/q/ decides ver con cod no
305 /t/ome some det con ons no
305 he i/q/ he is aux con cod no
306 any h/8˜/(r) any hair nou vow yes
306 wet what rel vow no
306 some/wan/ someone pro vow no
306 thig thing nou con cod no
306 wet what rel vow yes
307 tomething something pro con cod no
307 chur/ts/ church nou cc cod yes
307 vrote wrote ver con ons yes
308 w/f˜/rds words nou vow no
308 ge/q/ get ver con cod no
308 was(ing) washing nou con ons yes
309 p/6/t put ver vow yes
309 p/6/t put ver vow no
310 he h/8˜/d he had aux vow no
310 wiz with pre con cod no
310 od on pre con cod yes
310 wis with pre con cod yes
310 /q/ome some det con ons no
310 look/q/ /q/o looks so con ons no
310 /q/ome some pro con ons no
311 h/I6/r hair nou vow yes
312 cl/u/ clean adj vow yes
312 m/#/nths months nou vow yes
312 l/I/ber(ary) library nou vow yes spelling
312 I l/I/k I look ver vow yes
312 m(/%n/) one pro con ons yes
312 the o/d/er the other adj con ons yes
312 grand/ð/aughter granddaughter nou con ons no

313 /wIts/ which rel cc cod no
313 hath has aux con cod no
314 /jI/ you pro vow yes
314 we /maI/ we may aux vow yes spelling
314 wit with pre con cod yes
314 wif with pre con cod yes
314 bus but con con cod yes
314 a sing a thing nou con ons yes
314 /%/n on pre vow yes
315 I /k8˜/(n) I can aux vow yes
Phonological substitutions (L1)

102 /traIa/(ngles) triangles nou vow yes L1, triangels
104 /a~/toma(tically) automatically adv vow yes L1, automatisch
107 p/ha/(n) pan nou vow yes L1, pan
108 /k#m/ come ver vow yes L1, ik kom
203 panter panther nou con ons yes L1, panter
205 melk milk nou vow yes L1, m[e]lk
205 thit this det con cod no L1, di[t]
205 the vrong the wrong adj con ons yes L1, verkeerde
207 thit this pro con cod yes L1, dit
210 the feld the field nou vow yes L1, veld
212 op(ject) object nou con cod yes L1, /#pj7kt/
301 /j/une June nou con ons yes L1, juni
304 vour four num con ons no L1, vier
304 /j/ackets jackets nou con ons yes L1, jacks
305 I /q/e(nk) I thought ver vow yes L1, denk
306 os us pro vow yes L1, ons
306 thit this pro con cod yes L1, di[t]
310 the /7/ng(lish) the English nou vow yes L1, Engelsen
310 th/R/ee three num con ons yes L1, d/R/ie
310 zuch such int con ons no L1, zulk/z#
310 zuch such int con ons no L1, zulk/zo
311 mel(k) milk nou vow yes L1, melk
311 melk milk nou vow no L1, melk
311 zea sea nou con ons no L1, zee
314 I didn’t l/7/rnt I didn’t learn ver vow no L1, gel[ee]rd
Phonological substitutions (L2 → L1)

301 Nijhouse Nijhuis nou vow yes L2, house
Phonological substitutions (L3)

302 gr/I/ grey adj vow yes French, gris
Phonological substitutions (anticipations)

103 al/z/o also adv con ons yes al/z/o co[/z/]y
103 al/z/o also adv con ons no al/z/o co[/z/]y
103 g(ould) would go aux con ons yes gould [g]o
104 offing often adv syl yes often quarrell[ing]
104 ta(rp) sharp adj con ons yes ta(rp) [t]eeth
106 ude use ver fea cod yes I can ude i[t]
106 wit with pre con cod yes with whi/[t]w/
106 number/q/ numbers nou con cod no numbers wi[th]
106 al/q/o also adv con ons no al/q/o 1 round uh,
[th]ings
106 shebbard shephard nou con ons yes a shebbard [b]ut
107 intil until con vow yes int[i]l [i]t
107 towar/v/ towards pre cc cod yes towar/v/ ea[ch]
107 towar/v/ towards pre cc cod yes towar/v/ ea[ch]
108 /ma/ more int vow yes /ma/ m[o]ney
109 /s7t/ say ver rim no to /s7t/ th[/7t/]
109 af/q/er after pre fea ons no af/q/er [th]e
109 the /q/ailor the tailor nou con ons yes the /q/ailor [th]ought
109 u/z/ive(rsity) university nou con ons yes u/z/iver[s]ity
110 to l(ait) to wait ver con ons yes to lait at [l]east a year
110 /r%n/ one pro con ons yes /r%n/ that’s very, erm
[r]ightwing
111 make take ver con ons yes to make [m]easures
111 /naIq/ nice adj con cod yes a /naIq/ [th]ing
112 /Im/ I ’m pro vow no when /Im/, [i]n
113 in(alian) Italian adj con ons yes Inalia[n] [n]eighbours
114 /ð/ay day nou con ons no all /ð/ay in [th]e tent
115 r/6~/ know ver con ons no I don’t r/6~/ [r]eally
201 wha/ð/ what rel con cod no wha/ð/ [th]e
202 meddle middle nou vow no meddle [a]nd th[e]n
202 /q/ort sort nou con ons no /q/ort of, [th]ing
202 /q/omething something pro con ons no /q/ome[th]ing
202 pie/t/ piece nou con cod yes wooden pie/t/ with some
mea[t]
202 /q/o so con con ons no and /q/o he [th]ought
203 rappit rabbit nou fea ons no rappi[t]
203 wore were aux fea yes wore n[o]t
203 f/f˜/rst first num fea yes f/f˜/rst time in a f[o]reign
country
203 /kraIt/ quite int con ons no /kraIt/ uncomfortable to
d[r] to [r]ide
204 whet(/w/) which rel vow yes whet is h[a]nging
204 pr/u/(ducing) producing ver vow yes pr/u/d[u]cing
204 w/æ/nt want ver vow no w/æ/nt to go to [A]nt-
werp
205 w/8˜/n’t won’t ver vow yes w/8˜/n’t d[i]rty

205 h/8˜/v have aux vow yes h/8˜/v (h[ea]rd)
205 shorder shorter adj con ons no shorder than the o[d]er
one
205 tought thought ver con ons no tough[t]
205 he lote he wrote ver cc ons yes he lote a [l]ot
206 thi/q/ this det con cod yes thi/q/ [th]ing
206 rati(t) rabbit nou con ons yes rati[t]
207 robes robs nou vow yes robes s[o]
207 the rabbi/q/ the rabbit nou con cod no the rabbi/q/ and the
clo[th]emaker
207 trice twice num con ons no trice a week uh [tr]aining
209 /q/omething something pro con ons no some[th]ing
210 /daInt/ don’t aux vow yes dain’t l[i]ke N[ij]megen
210 clo/sIz/ clothes nou fea ons yes clothe[/z/]
210 becau/q/e because con fea cod no becau/q/ [th]ey
210 kimo(metres) kilometres nou con ons yes kimo[m]etres
210 in/ð/o into pre con ons no in/ð/o [th]e
212 /Ik/ electricity nou con ons yes ele[c]tricity
214 /a~l/ all int vow yes /a~l/ the h[ou]ses
214 /ka~d/ called ver vow yes /ka~d/ sc[ou]ts
214 wittle white adj rim yes wittle l[ittle] box
301 /q/ort sort nou con ons no /q/ort of [th]ing
303 su/3/ such int fea cod yes su/3/ [a thing]
303 sl(owershop) flowershop nou con ons yes slower/[s]j/op
303 my m/%/rer my mother nou con ons yes my more[r]
305 n/8˜/rly nearly adv vow no n/8˜/rly a c[i]rcle
305 they w/I6/r they were aux vow no they w/I6/r, by, uh n[ea]r
the tribunal
305 trimunal tribunal nou fea ons yes trimu[n]al
305 an/q/ and con con cod no an/q/ [th]ought
305 tought thought ver con ons no tought [t]oo
305 /q/uch such int con ons no /q/uch [th]ings
305 g/u/ do ver con ons yes /gu/ it [g]ood
306 t/i/bles tables nou vow no t/i/bles cl[ea]n
306 it s(ould) it should aux con ons yes it s(ould) be de[c]ided
306 go(ngratulations) congratulations nou con ons yes gon[g]ratulations
307 a/q/ as pre con cod no a/q/ wi[th]
307 tomething something pro con ons no tomething [t]o
307 tomething something pro con ons no tomething [t]o
309 /ð/o to pre con ons yes /ð/o [th]e
309 is it pro con cod yes and is, it wa[s]
310 hilp help ver vow no hilp h[i]m
310 hilped helped ver vow no who hilped h[i]m to
w[i]n
310 wis with pre con cod yes wis a no[s]e

310 becau/q/ because con con cod no becau/q/ he [th]ought
311 zo so con fea ons no zo [they]
311 thomething something pro con ons no thome[th]ing
311 long /qI/(eth) long teeth nou con ons yes /q/ee[th]
312 it wa/w/ it was aux con cod yes it wa/w/ an Engli[sh]
314 to gis up to give up ver con cod yes to gis up hi[s] job
314 /trjI/(ldren) children nou cc ons yes /trjI/ld[r]en
315 n/7/thing nothing pro vow no n/7/thing, you c[a]n
315 bu/q/ but con fea cod no bu/q/ my fa[th]er
315 that whas that what rel con cod no that whas he ha[s]
Phonological substitutions (perseverations)

101 whewever wherever adv con ons no [wh]erever
102 it’s ko(t) it’s got ver con ons yes it’s [c]oming uh 2 it’s
ko(t)
103 theor/i/tical theoretical adj vow yes th[e]or/i/tical
103 wa/s/ wa/z/ aux con cod yes on[ce] there wa/s/
104 /qa/(ides) sides nou con ons yes [th]ree thides
105 blblbl(anches) branches nou con ons yes litt[l]e bl(anches)
106 nould know ver rim yes w[ould] nould know
106 wa/Š/ was aux fea cod no [sh]ow, and so that
wa/Š/
106 /w/tudying studying ver con ons no [sh]e’s /w/tudying
106 ailf(orce) airforce nou con cod yes Roya[l] ailf(orce)
106 alr/7/ly already adv con ons no a[l]r/7/ly
107 v(otographers) photographers nou fea ons yes to [the] v(otograph-
ers)
107 wes(taurant) restaurant nou con ons yes [w]hen you are in a
wes(taurant)
107 ticke/v/ ticket nou con cod no on whi[ch] the ticke
uh, the ticke/v/
111 /q/ix six num fea ons yes wi[th] /q/ix
111 /v%/(dge) judge nou con ons yes whi[ch] /v/udge
114 wits which is rim yes [it’s] a thing wits
115 my/v/(elf) myself pro con ons yes tea[ch] my/v/(elf)
115 my/v/(elf) myself pro con ons yes tea[ch] my/v/(elf)
202 /q/ome some det con ons no wi[th] /q/ome
202 /q/ides sides nou con ons no bo[th] /q/ides
203 posi/Š/ion position nou fea ons no po[/z/]i/Š/ion
203 i/ð/ it pro con cod no he told [th]em [th]at
i/ð/
204 f/I/(ve) five num vow yes ch[i]ldren from four
and f/I/(ve)

204 sk(ories) stories nou con ons yes we [c]all them
[k]rimis uh ja
dete[c]tive sk(ories)
205 s/I/(wing) sewing ver vow yes w[e] learn s/I/(wing)
206 birth bird nou con cod no mou[th] of a birth
206 mi(cer) nicer adj con ons yes [m]uch micer
207 epside upside nou vow no [/7/]t the /7/pside
209 was fo(nd) was found ver vow yes w[a]s fo(nd)
209 /ð6t/ /ð6t/ /ð6t/ /ðæt/ pro sts yes [/ð6t/] /ð6t/
211 thi/ð/ this det con cod no wi[th] thi/ð/
211 i/q/ is ver con cod no thi/q/ i/q/
211 /ts[j]Ildj6n/ children nou cc yes /ts[j]Ildj6n/
211 bicyble(maker) bicycle(maker) nou con ons yes [b]icyble
212 psycholo/g/ical psycholo/3/ical adj fea ons yes psy[ch]olo/g/ical
213 /a/s as pre vow no not so f[a]r /a/s
214 weshed washed ver vow yes h[/7/]ve w/7/shed
214 tought thought ver con ons no the [t]ailor tought
215 mich which rel fea ons yes thi[ng] mich
215 ing(sects) insects nou con cod yes ca[n k]ill ing(sects)
301 gl/7/ss glass nou vow no wh[e]re you c[/7/]n
put on a gl/7/ss
301 my /m7d/(er) my mother nou vow yes my d[ad] and my
m/eI/d mother
301 tr/eI/ try ver vow yes you t[a]ke some cards
and then you uh, ja
you tr/eI/ try to
301 s(oes) shoes nou con ons yes a [s]poon for uh your
s
301 /w/kirt skirt nou con ons no the [sh]op again, uh
are you having a
/w/kirt
302 other c/%/ts other cats nou vow yes [o]ther c/%/ts
302 much cutch much cats nou rim yes m[uch] cutch
302 /ð/(inks) thinks ver con ons yes and [th]e tailor
/ð/(inks)
303 toun(d) toy nou rim yes a r[ound] toun(d)
304 l/æ/ft left ver vow no the r[a]bbit, uh 1
l/æ/ft
304 /q/ome(times) sometimes adv fea ons yes [th]ere’s /q/ometimes
304 /q/(ometimes) sometimes adv fea ons yes [th]ere’s /q/(ome-
times)
304 hi/q/ his det con cod no wi[th] hi/q/
304 hi/q/ his det con cod no wi[th] hi/q/
304 hi/q/ work his work det con cod no wi[th] hi/q/
305 dain down adv vow yes a little l[i]ne, that
goes, uh, dain down

306 ta(ld) told ver vow yes told uh the man that
uh, w[a](t) uh, ta told
the man what
306 /weI/ we pro vow no th[ey] /weI/
306 /sf˜/ so pad vow no I b[ou]ght erm 1 uh,
/sf˜/ something
306 k(row) grow ver con ons yes ma[k]e k grow
306 /w/aid said ver con ons no [sh]e /w/aid
307 /w/ide side nou con ons yes at ea/t[w]/ /w/ide
307 /q/ome some det con ons no wi[/q/] /q/ome
309 w/76r/ were aux vow yes th[e]re w/76r/
309 si(ng) thing nou con ons yes thi[s] sing
309 i/ð/ is aux con cod yes [th]is i/ð/
310 /7/f if con vow no [a]nd wh[e]n /7f/
another fish comes
310 he wa/ð/ doing he was doing aux fea cod no clo[th]es and uh, he
wa/ð/ doing
310 /q/ame same adj fea ons no [th]e /q/ame
310 /q/aid said ver con ons no that [th]ings, and he
uh 1 he /q/aid it was
312 animan animal nou con cod yes a[n]iman
312 thinkth thinks ver con cod yes [th]inkth
312 somesing something pro con ons no [s]omesing
312 word/w/ words nou con cod yes with Engli[sh] word/w/
313 he tou(ght) he tought ver con ons yes the [t]ailor said no
again but he tought
314 w/I/(n) when con vow yes came [i]n 2 ja w/I/(n)
314 r/æ/nt went ver syl ons no the [ra]bbit r/æ/nt
314 thas that det con cod no thi[s] thing into thas
thing
314 li(ne) wine nou con ons yes a g[l]ass where you
put line in
314 thi/q/ this det con cod yes this uh [th]ing, and 1
[th]ith
314 wuth with pre vow yes (b[u]t) wuth, but met
314 wis with pre con cod yes thi[s] word, uh with,
wis
314 mi(ght) right adj con ons yes [m]ake the might
Phonological substitutions (A/P)

101 ub up adv fea cod no c[omes] ub [again]
102 the be/q/t thing the best thing adj con cod yes [th]e be/q/t [th]ing
105 wa/ð/ was aux con cod yes [th]ere once wa/ð/ a man
wi[th]out a job
106 ket get ver con ons yes [c]an get [c]oal

107 anothel another det con cod yes we[ll] there’s anothel gir[l]
[l]iving
108 much /ma/ money much more money int vow yes m[u]ch /ma/ m[o]ney
108 some/ð/ing something pro fea ons no s[ome]/ð/[ing]
113 groubz groups nou fea cod yes [who live in grou]bz [and
I] quite like that
201 in courd in court nou fea cod no [he wins in] court, [he
tells]
204 subosed supposed ver con ons yes [b]ut uh I’m subosed to
[b]e
205 cang hang ver con cod no on this thi[ng] you cang 1
ha[ng]
206 no/z/e nose nou fea cod yes [under that no]/z/e [a
mou]th
207 ret right nou rim yes [at] the ret and [at] the left
207 re/z/eived received ver fea ons yes [he re]/z/[ieved]
207 clothemather clothemaker nou con ons no clo[th]emather [th]ought
212 gase case nou fea ons yes [the] gase [is brou]ght
213 /ó/ara(vans) caravans nou fea ons yes i[n] /ó/a[r]a[v]ans
213 wilt with pre cc cod yes with chi[l]dren 1 uh or
wilt o[ld]
214 tometimes sometimes adv con ons no fas[t] tome[t]imes
215 al/z/o also adv fea ons no [al]/z/[o very]
301 w/7/(n) one pro vow yes a d[ea]d we(n) uh, one,
who’s h[a]ving
302 mich much int vow yes there [i]s mich uh much
uh, g[y]mn[i]st
302 peoble people nou fea ons no p[eo]b[le]
307 flower/q/ flowers nou fea cod no [th]e flower/q/ were, and
uh 2 [th]e man
307 on/q/e once adv fea cod no [th]ere was, on/q/e [th]ere
was
307 at lea/q/t at least fea cod no [th]e o[th]er 1 and, at
lea/q/t [th]ere, [th]ey
309 al/z/o also adv fea ons no [al]z[o young ones]
309 ned(er) never adv fea ons yes [n]ed(er) woul[d]
310 h/~/(ld) could aux con ons yes [wh]o hould [h]elp
310 /q/ells sells ver con ons no /q/ome[th]ing, uh who
/q/ells [th]at [th]ings
312 h/7/d had aux vow yes wh[e]n I h/7/d r[ea]d
314 thi/q/ this det fea cod no [th]i/q/ 1 bottle wi[th]
314 glass class nou fea ons yes [in our] g[la]sst
Phonological exchanges
202 thomesing something pro con ons no [s]ome[th]ing
202 thomesing something pro con ons no [s]ome[th]ing

209 /q/is /ð/ing this thing con ons yes [th]is [th]ing
Phonological additions
209 pro/dj6/(ct) product nou con ons yes produce
305 underside/q/ underside nou con cod no
305 ye/q/s yes con cod yes
307 clodes clothes nou con cod yes
313 /t/thr(ee) three num con ons yes
Phonological additions (L1)

su. error target wcl subl. pos.rep. source
115 an a det con cod no L1, een
207 an big dog a big dog det con cod no L1, een
213 an brother a brother det con cod no L1, een
301 an uh canasta a canasta det con cod no L1, een
303 an helmet a helmet det con cod no L1, een
305 an hotel a hotel det con cod no L1, een hotel
306 an a det con cod no L1, een
306 an a det no L1, een
312 ind mine in mine pre con cod no L1, in de mijne
Phonological additions (anticipations)

102 drep(ressing) depressing adj con ons yes drep[r]essing
102 holi/dz/ays holidays nou con ons no holid/z/ay[s]
204 subtstance substance nou con cod no subts[t]ance
204 un, f(identified) unidentified adj con ons yes un, fidenti[f]ied
204 /v/ea(cher) teacher nou con ons yes /v/ea[ch]er
209 the Britshish the British adj con ons yes the Britshi[sh]
213 to qruarrel to quarrel ver con ons yes to qrua[rr]el
214 a rope(ration) an operation nou con ons yes a rope[r]ation
302 for hit for it pro con ons yes for hit and [h]e said
304 someones someone pro con cod no someones ha[s]
307 noitse noise nou con cod yes noitse in the chur[t]/w/
310 ask/I/d asked ver vow no and ask/I/d why [i]t was
310 yets yes con cod no yets (i[t’s] very nice)
314 frorm form nou con ons no fro[r]m
314 ksk(ools) schools nou con ons yes ks[ch](ools)
Phonological additions (perseverations)

101 shapshed shaped adj con cod no [sh]apeshd
302 a sha(r)p thri(ng) a sharp thing nou con ons yes a sha[r]p thring
303 the oldest ist the oldest is aux con cod no the oldes[t] ist
303 thent then pad con cod no in the toile[t] and thent

306 /tju/ two num con ons no pic[tj]ure /tju/
308 wi/tq/ with pre con cod yes i[t] looks like a bar wit/q/
310 likes like pre con cod no si[x] is likes uh 3 the sun
312 dtha(t) that pro con ons yes couldn’t [d]o dthat
Phonological additions (A/P)

112 pjosition position nou con ons no /n[j]u/ pjosi/[w]6n/
204 wus us pro con ons no [w]hen she is [w]ith wus,
every [w]eekend
303 Dutch tstamps Dutch stamps nou con ons no Du[t]ch ts[t]amps
Phonological deletions
103 /w%s/ once adv con cod yes
104 /tu/(be) tube nou con ons yes
112 vi(ce) device nou syl yes
112 tel(ve) twelve num con ons yes
112 /g7/ to kno(w) get to know ver con cod yes
113 he ad he had ver con ons yes
114 what is what it’s pro con cod yes
201 scri(be) describe ver syl yes
202 a annual an annual det con cod no
204 di/k/ discovered ver con ons yes
205 I’ve sed him I’ve sent him ver con cod no
205 sothing something pro con cod no
206 a office an office det con cod no
208 a other room another room det con cod no
208 a elevator an elevator det con cod no
209 /baIl/(ogy) biology nou syl yes
209 aF an F det con cod no
210 congratl(ations) congratulations nou syl yes
210 abstactly abstractly adv con ons no
212 kirts skirts nou con ons yes
213 poiting pointing ver con cod no
301 ea/w/ each int con cod no
301 terriby terribly adv con ons yes
301 /I/ he pro con ons no
301 /I/ he pro con ons no
301 greates greatest adj con cod no
302 a open (mouth) an open mouth det con cod yes
302 is his det con ons yes
302 fom from pre con ons yes
303 o on pre con cod no
303 greatet greatest adj con cod yes
303 afer after pre con ons no
304 progammes programmes nou con ons no

306 congra/t~/ congratulations nou con ons yes
306 a apartment an apartment det con cod no
307 /s7/ said ver con cod yes
310 /i/ he pro con ons no
310 bi(kes) bikes nou cc cod no
312 word worked ver con cod no
312 /i/ he pro con ons no
312 had’t any hadn’t any ver con cod yes
312 couln’t couldn’t aux con cod yes
314 poiting pointing ver con cod yes
314 /i/ he pro con ons yes
314 /kf˜/rters quarters nou con ons yes
315 I needed I needn’t aux con cod yes
315 a old an old det con cod no a (old) house
Phonological deletions (L1)

211 sesty sexty num con cod yes L1, zestig
211 sesty sexty num con cod no L1, zestig
211 tha’s that’s pro con cod no L1, da’s
211 tha’s that’s pro con cod yes L1, da’s
306 /w/(ocolate) chocolade nou con ons yes L1, /w/ocolade
309 tha’s that’s pro con cod yes L1, da’s
315 tha’s a village that’s a village pro con cod no L1, da’s een dorpje
Phonological deletions (L3)

104 helf(ul) helpful adj con cod yes L3, helfen
Phonological deletions (anticipations)

106 foud found ver con cod no he foud [ou]t
108 as has ver con ons no as []a sort
312 /i/ he pro con ons no e []often
Phonological deletions (perseverations)

su. error target wcl subl. pos.rep. source
205 tha that det con cod no tha way[]
208 ave you have you aux con ons no []asked, ave you
211 /i/ he pro con ons yes that []evening he thought 1 uh, /i/
211 /i/ he pro con ons no []evening he thought 1 uh /i/, /i/
215 eas/is/(t) easiest adj vow yes [ea]s/i/s
315 is his det con ons no go, []off, is, head
Phonological deletions (A/P)

207 I aven’t I haven’t ver con ons no []I aven’t []any
208 asked im asked him pro con ons no []asked im []if
301 is his pro con ons no []away 1 so uh, is uh good days were []over
Phonological shifts
107 what’s it was con no i[t] was
111 chroÁnolo(gically) chronoÁlogically adv sts yes chroÁnology
202 specaltiy specialty nou con ons no spec[i]altiy
203 I did SAY you I DID say you sts yes I [did] SAY you
204 MIStake misTAKE nou sts yes MIS[TAKE]
204 hism(elf) himself pro yes
206 Áhot/6/l hoÁtel nou sts yes
206 rb(idge) bridge nou cc yes
212 eÁlectri(city) elecÁtricity nou sts yes eÁlectric
307 aksed asked ver con no
Phonological shifts (L1)

su. error target wcl subl. rep. source
103 /fIÁg~6/ Áfigure nou sts yes L1, fiÁguur
203 /s6/(Áturn) ÁSaturn nou sts yes L1, SaÁturnus
204 proÁbl/6/(m) Áproblem nou sts yes L1, proÁbleem
214 norÁmal Ánormally adv sts yes L1, norÁmaal
Syntactic substitutions (L1)

su. error target rep. source
107 what for what kind yes L1, wat voor
109 I don’t s(port) I don’t do sports yes L1, sporten
112 there was once there once was no L1, er was eens
115 I don’t think he uh very I don’t think he cares yes L1, ik denk niet dat hij erg
(much cares about that) about that very much veel geeft om
201 while he wants him while he wants to send him yes L1, hij wil hem een fiets sturen
204 there’s uh, too an uh there’s an X too yes L1, er is ook een X
205 you ha(ve not to marry) you don’t have yes L1, je hoeft niet
206 often is it overcrowded often it is overcrowded no L1, dikwijls is het overvol
212 so wi(ll they) so they will yes L1, zo kunnen ze eten
214 it had too (long stood) it had stood too long yes L1, het had te lang gestaan
301 that li(ke I) that’s nice yes L1, dat vind ik leuk
309 that un(der water is) that is under water yes L1, die onder water is
310 s(tand it) it stand yes L1, (op het schaap) stond
311 so I can him (give) so I can give him yes L1, ik kan hem geven
311 it’s they are yes L1, het zijn
313 there can you put on there you can put on no L1, daar kun je
314 if we s(ums) if we make sums yes L1, als we sommen maken
Syntactic blends
source
101 which you think you can go on later with which etc no
(with) which you think you can go on (with) later
101 it’s very large hall it’s a very large hall yes
it’s (a) very large (hall)
106 which for students which was for students no
(which was) for students
107 by where they can play with (with) which they can play no
by which they can play/where they can play with
108 an assembly, which he was … at which he was no
(at) which he was demonstrating the product (at)
108 dependent on be dependent on no
(be) depend(ent) on
111 it’s my turn is on Monday it’s my turn on Monday no
(it’s) my turn (is) on Monday
112 to can to measure/you can measure yes
to measure/you can measure
112 where three … have been cut out of it where three … have been cut no
out of
where three … have been cut out of/and
three … have been cut out of it
112 I don’t not want I don’t want no
I don’t/I do not want
202 which you can put your shoes on with which you… shoes on no
(with) which you can put your shoes on (with)
203 on, which, people, put their glasses on on which … their glasses yes
(on) which people put their glasses (on)
207 he was self was he (him)self was no
he was self/he self was
210 has his one of of his own has one of his own no
has his own/has one of his own
210 when I’m got back when I’ve got back no
when I’m back/when I’ve got back
212 a wooden pieces (a) wooden piece(s) no
a wooden piece/wooden pieces
212 it’s the 1 object it looks uh most like it it’s the object it looks most like no
the object it looks most like/that looks most like it
212 to going to (live) are going to live no
to live/are going to live
214 things … which you can make X things with which you can no
make X
things (with) which you can make X (with)
215 on the harp you can not play pop on it on the harp you cannot play pop no
(on the harp) you cannot play pop (on it)
301 a thing you can make holes in the wall a thing you can make … with no
a thing (with which) you can make holes in the wall (with)

source
301 and now mostly go and now we mostly go no
and now (we) mostly (we) go
302 on the underside, is uh, like a plate on the underside, it’s like a no
plate
(on) the underside (it) is like a plate
302 black, on the ears are black black on the ears no
(black on) the ears (are black)
302 there, c uh came uh, other people, came there came other people no
(there came) other people (came)
314 which with which no
with which you can keep /which can keep
Double slips
su. error target lev. subl. type subt. rep.
source
104 /pits/ o(f) pieces of pho con add yes
mor nfl los
104 /æb6l6k/ation application pho fea sub A/P yes
/[æ]b[6l6]/cation pho syl add
104 /tr76z/ threads pho con sub yes
pho con los
107 rat red pho vow sub ant yes
rat c[a]bbage pho fea sub ant
rat [c]abbage
107 the lawyal the bike merchant lex sub ant yes
the lawyal said to his [lawyer] pho con sub per
won the tria[l], and the lawyal
109 unendif/6/ unidentified pho con sub per yes
un(i[d])endi(fied) lex hap
112 four/q/een mont fourteen months pho con ex no
four[t]een mon[th]s mor nfl los
112 al/rir/(y) already pho vow sub ant yes
alr/i/d[y] pho con sub per
al[r]/ir/(y)
112 I sting (think) I am still thinking pho con sub ant yes
I sting thi[nk] mor sub
113 zort sort cpl ble yes
[z]eester/sort of animal P/L sub L1
L1, zeester
202 en zo can and so one can walk P/L sub L1 yes
L1, en zo syn sub L1
L1, en zo kun je lopen
202 the menu call the menu is called mor sub L1 no
L1, het menu heet mor nfl los
203 /græ3~/ra(tions) congratulations pho fea sub A/P yes
/[græ]3[~/la]tions pho fea sub per

source
/g[r]æ3~/lations pho syl los
203 /Áfo˜to˜/(grapher) photographer pho vow sub L1 yes
L1, fotoÁgraaf pho sts sh
203 that was dus so that was lex sub L1 no
L1, dus syn sub L1
L1, dat was dus
203 a/q/ in pho fea sub ant yes
a/q/ [th]e church lex sub
203 /raI/(s) hotel lex sub for yes
L1, reis ( = trip) lex sub
204 no I doesn’t yes I do cpl sub yes
mor nfl add
205 drogitst drogists pho con add ant no
drogits[t] mor nfl los
205 wight straight lex sub L12 yes
L1, recht pho con sub per
for example uh a [w]all is wight
205 you /k~m/ you can make pho vow sub per yes
y[ou] /k~m/ pho con sub ant
you /k~m/ [m]ake
206 f(iets) drill lex sub L1 yes
L1, fiets ( = bicycle) lex sub
206 he get he got mor sub no
mor nfl los
211 doesn’t goeth doesn’t go mor nfl add yes
pho con sub
211 you doesn’t a sportman you aren’t a sportman cpl ble no
don’t sport/aren’t a sportsman mor sub
211 zes seven lex sub L1 yes
L1, zes ( = six) lex sub
212 congra/w/ulations condoleances pho con los ant yes
congra/w/ula[/w/]ions lex sub
214 ansÁ/w/er Áanswer pho con add yes
spelling pho sts sh
215 other right mal sub yes
other (i.e. under) lex sub
301 such ding such things P/L sub L1 no
L1, ding mor nfl los
301 with who mal sub no
with (i.e. which) lex sub
305 t/a/t thought pho con sub ant yes
t/a/t [t]oo pho vow sub
307 vrote write mor sub no
pho con sub

source
308 its look likes it looks like mor nfl sh no
its look[s] likes mor nfl sh
its look[s] likes
310 wit with which pho con sub ant no
wit you can h[it] lex hap
310 on the sheep stond it … it stood lex sub L1 yes
L1, stond syn sub L1
L1, op het schaap stond dat het gemaakt was in ( = that it was made in)
310 he make/q/ he made mor sub yes
pho con sub
311 have you hem (given) have you given him syn sub L1 yes
L1, heb je hem ’n fiets gegeven P/L sub L1
L1, hem ( = him)
314 Á/pliv6s/ /pliÁw7s/ pho con add yes
pho sts sh
314 third, fourth and sixth fourth, fifth and sixth lex sub yes
lex sub
Ambiguous cases
su. error target lev subl. type subt. rep.
101 go(ws) grows mal sub yes
pho con los
102 tree three pho con sub yes
mal sub
104 a ch/I/l(d) a child pho vow sub per yes
from wh[i]ch a ch/I/l(d) mor all sub
105 make take pho con sub ant yes
make the [m]atter mal sub
106 to eats to eat mor nfl add per no
sb come[s] to eats pho con add ant
to eats then it’[s]
107 he showed hem them pho con sub A/P yes
[h]e showed hem [h]is [h]air lex ble L1
L1 hen ( = them)/them
107 I’m /raI/(ding/ting) reading pho vow sub per yes
[I]’m ri(ding) mal sub
109 /7/ngland England pho vow sub L1 yes
L1: Engeland pho vow sub per
w[e]nt to /7/ngland
110 it isn’t har(d) it’s hard/it isn’t easy lex sub ant yes
it’s hard to iron, [isn’t] it lex sub
114 we didn’t went we didn’t go mor sub per no
we [did]n’t went lex sub per
one day we [went] … we didn’t went

201 thit’s uh party this/it/that is a party lex ble no
this/it/that pho con sub L1
L1, dit
202 thit this pho con sub ant no
thit and tha[t] pho con sub L1
L1, dit
203 an a pho con add L1 no
L1, een pho con add per
i[n] an
203 thit this pho con sub per no
tha[t] ’s thit pho con sub L1
L1, dit
203 f/f˜/(rth/rst) first mal sub yes
pho vow sub
203 in on pho vow sub A/P yes
th[i]ng in wh[i]ch lex sub
204 it(y) electricity P/L sub per yes
[it]’s for the it lex hap
e(lectrici)ty
204 sec(sth)/(ond) next/sixth pho vow sub ant yes
the sec(sth) obj[ec]t lex sub
205 he d/u˜/s he does pho vow sub per no
to [do] with it then, he, d/u˜/s mor all sub
205 f/aI/fth fifth mor all sub yes
five pho vow sub per
[I]’m now in the f/aI/fth
205 if I’d if I’ve pho con sub ant yes
if I’d [d]one that test mor sub
205 they had a go(b/t) they had (got) a job pho con sub per yes
they had [g]ot a go(b) lex sh
they had a got
206 rapit rabbit pho con sub ant no
a li/d/lle rapit ste[pp]ed in fea sub ant
rapi[t]
206 is it it is syn sub L1 yes
L1, onder de UFO is het lex ex
206 /qu˜/ two lex ble yes
three/two pho con sub
206 in on pho vow sub ant yes
in wh[i]ch lex sub
207 w/eI/ks weeks pho vow sub ant no
w/eI/ks l[a]ter the c[a]se c[a]me for P/L sub L1
L1, weken
207 I give him I gave him pho vow sub ant no
I give h[i]m mor all sub

thit ca[t] pho con sub L1
L1, di[t]
209 ge(t) got pho vow sub ant yes
ge(t) [a]ngry mor sub
210 ekspecially especially lex ble yes
expensive/especially pho con add ant
ekspecially e/[k]s/pensive
210 sollita(ted) sollicitated lex hap yes
pho syl los
210 i(n) on pho sub A/P yes
[i]t, i(n) … th[i]s th[i]ng lex sub
210 w/7/th with pho vow sub per yes
th/7/n you are w/7/th pho vow sub L1
L1, m[e]t
210 duse/thuse use pho con sub per yes
[d]irty, you can du(se) pho con sub ant
/ð/u(se) [th]is
211 somestimes sometimes pho con add ant no
somestime[s] pho con add L1
L1, som[s]
211 vegeb(le) vegetable lex hap yes
vege(ta)ble pho con sub ant
vegeba[b]le
211 can can’t pho con los ant no
I can explain[] lex sub
212 but’s but it’s pho con add A/P yes
it[’s] but’s it[’s] lex hap
but (it)’s
212 the Britsh(ish) the British pho con add ant yes
the Britshi[sh] pho vow los L1
L1, de Britten
212 you could get out and you could get out and
fre(sh air) get fresh air syn sub L1 yes
L1, en verse lucht krijgen lex los
212 foo(ts) feet pho rim sub per yes
p[ut] your foo(t) mor all sub
foot
212 cought cou/r/t pho rim sub per yes
br[ought] to cought pho con los per
brou[]ght to c/f˜/t
212 a the lex ex yes
[a] part of [the] watch lex sub
213 fe(r) far pho vow sub L1 yes
L1, ver pho vow sub ant
not so fer [/7/]s ( = as)

214 sto(f) cloth lex sub L1 yes
L1, stof = cloth lex sub per
you need [stuff] (yarn) to get the cloth
214 alsmo(st) almost pho con add ant yes
alsmo([s]t) lex ble
also/almost
214 trow dir/q/y throw dirty pho con ex no
[th]row dir[t]y pho con sub ant
dir/q/y [th]ings
214 as has/is pho con los per yes
and the []eye as, is not uh a s or, as a lex sub ant
real circle
and the eye as, is not uh a s or, [as] a real circle
214 back black pho con los per yes
lex los per
from the, dead, [back], there comes a back black shadow
214 hem him pho vow sub per yes
l[e]t’s uh hem P/L sub L1
L1, hem
214 wi(t(tle)) white pho rim sub ant yes
wi(ttle) l[ittle] lex sub L1
L1, wit
215 dit it/this pho con add L1 no
L1, [d]it lex sub L1
L1, dit
215 is this pho con los ant no
is []is lex sub ant
is [is]
215 pa(y) play pho con los per yes
what p[]osition yes I usually pa(y) mal sub
play back
301 moet must pho rim sub ant no
moet p[ut] lex sub L1
L1, moeten
301 dings things pho con sub per yes
[d]irty uh dings P/L sub L1
L1, dingen
301 thit pan this pan pho con sub per no
you m/u˜/st pu[t] them in thit pan P/L sub L1
L1, dit
302 hilped helped pho vow sub ant no
who hilped h[i]m w[i]th pho vow sub L3
L3 German hilf
you must buy thit and you have tha[t] pho con sub L1
L1, dit

302 m/u˜/st must pho vow sub L1 no
L1 moe(s)ten pho vow sub per
wh[o] m/u˜/st
303 the left on the right the left and (on) the lex sub no
right
and [on] the right lex del
305 /a~/ld old pho vow sub per yes
in a h[ou]se, where, /a~/ld, old people pho vow sub L1
L1, oud
305 hisself himself pho con sub per yes
a hou[s]e for hisself pho mor sub
306 /k#mt/ come mor nfl add L1 no
L1, komt pho con add per
righ[t] and lef[t] /k#mt/
306 thas that lex ble yes
that/this pho con sub
306 almost mosttimes lex ble yes
always/mosttimes mal sub
306 it i(n) in it pho con ex yes
i[n] i[t] lex sh
306 /tr/(uien)/tr(ousers) pullovers lex sub for yes
L1, truien lex sub
306 hoe how lex sub L1 no
L1, hoe pho vow sub ant
hoe tall y[ou] are
306 himselfs/s(wart) himself black lex sub L1 yes
L1, zwart mor add
306 /weI/ they pho con sub per yes
[w]e /weI/ lex ble
we/they
307 with d/æ/t ding with that thing pho con sub per no
with [d]/æ/t ding P/L sub L1
L1, ding
308 zo good so well P/L sub L1 no
L1, zo goed pho fea sub ant
zo [good]
309 they can’t talked they cannot talk pho con sub per no
they can’[t] talked mor nfl add
309 se(x)/se(ven) six P/L sub L1 yes
L1, /s/es (zes = six) lex sub
310 it’s hold it warm it’s holding it warm mor nfl sh no
it’s hold[s] it warm mor nfl los
310 /mu˜s/ must pho vow sub L1 yes
L1, moest pho vow sub per
y[ou] /mu˜s/
310 ge(ve/t) give pho vow sub per yes
I c[/7/]n ge(ve/t) lex sub

310 w/%/n win pho vow sub per no
m[u]st w/%/n mor sub
310 give gave pho vow sub ant yes
give h[i]m mor sub
311 you can seen you can see pho con add per yes
ca[n] seen mor nfl add
311 you can seen you can see pho con add per yes
ca[n] seen mor nfl add
311 van/von from lex sub L1 no
L1, van lex sub L3
German, von
311 m/u˜/(st) must P/L sub L1 yes
L1, moest pho vow sub per
y[ou] m/u˜/(st)
312 my mo/d/er my mother pho con sub L1 yes
L1, moeder pho con sub ant
my mo/d/er ha[d]n’t
313 num(mer/ber) number P/L sub L1 yes
L1, nummer lex sub L1
L1, nummer
313 dis ding this thing pho con sub per no
[d]is ding lex sub L1
L1, ding
313 dis ding this thing pho con sub per no
[d]is ding lex sub L1
L1, ding
314 the tw(o/ee) the two pho con add per yes
bet[w]een the tw(o) lex sub L1
L1, twee
314 lies lines pho con los no
mal sub
315 sit op sit on lex ble no
on/up P/L sub L1
L1, zitten op
Appendix 2: L1 slips of the tongue
Conceptual substitutions
su. error target wcl rep.
102 de o(nderste) de derde van links nou yes
211 tien zestig num yes
309 schuine /s/(ijde) onder zijde mix yes
310 de onderste de tweede van rechts nou yes
Conceptual blends
source
101 dus die dan aan de rechterkant, twee etc. dus die dan aan de r.kant zitten no
dus die dan aan de r.kant zitten/dus aan de r.kant zitten twee etc.
101 die aan de rechterkant op wijst die de rechterkant op wijst no
die aan de r.kant zit/die de r.kant op wijst
101 of ’n half maantje-achtig of ’n half maantje no
of ’n half maantje/of half maantje-achtig
101 ’n uitsteeksels uitsteeksels no
’n uitsteeksel/uitsteeksels
101 ’n soort uh, cirkelvormig, uh beschrijven ’n soort cirkelvormig iets beschrijvenyes
cirkelvorm/cirkelvormig iets
101 ’n soort andere golfje ’n soort ander golfje no
’n soort andere golf/ander golfje
106 met links loopt ’t heel spits toe links loopt ’t heel spits toe no
met links ’n spitse punt/en links loopt het heel spits toe
112 die je met een p. naar elkaar toe gericht zijn die met de p. naar elkaar toe gericht no
zijn
die (je) met een punt naar elkaar toe (ge)richt (zijn)
202 is ’n soortement van rond is rond no
is (’n soortement van) rond(je)
202 is ’n half rond is half rond no
is (’n) half rond(je)
203 en ’t uh, loopt ’n gedeelte naar en er loopt ’n gedeelte naar no
en er/’t loopt (een)gedeelte(lijk) naar
203 is ’n omgekeerde F aan vast zit er ’n omgekeerde F aan vast no
is ’n omgekeerde F/zit er ’n omgekeerde F aan vast

source
214 alleen zit bij ’n hou, gewone houweel is ’t alleen zit bij ’n gewone houweel no
bij ’n gewone houweel zit iets/is ’t recht aan de achterkant
301 aan een zijde is dan naar binnen gevallen en een zijde etc. no
aan een zijde is dan een x/en een zijde is dan etc.
301 aan de zijkanten zijn, aan allebei de kanten aan de zijkanten is etc. no
aan de zijkanten zijn twee rondjes uitgesneden
306 die er van die punt vandaan komt die er vandaan komt no
die (er) (van die punt) vandaan komt
307 en ’t onderste rondje zitten vier punten en aan ’t onderste etc. no
en ’t onderste rondje is x/aan ’t rondje zitten etc.
307 de onderste zit zo’n tuit aan de onderste etc. no
de onderste is/aan de onderste zit zo’n tuit
309 twee spitse een spitse yes
twee kleine ronde hapjes/een spitse hap
312 zit nog ’n half rondje uit zit nog ’n half rondje in no
zit nog ’n half rondje in/is een half rondje uit
312 is weer op ’n peer lijkt weer op ’n peer no
is weer een peer/lijkt weer op ’n peer
314 ziet er meestal met ’n st. en ’n uh b. d’r op ziet er meestal uit als no
ziet er meestal uit als/is meestal met ’n steeltje en ’n bobbeltje erop
314 zitten d’r allemaal uh 1 eieren uitgenom(en) zijn d’r allemaal etc. yes
zitten d’r allemaal gaten in/zijn d’r allemaal eieren uitgenomen
314 een heel dieper een veel dieper no
een heel diep/veel dieper
314 of die kopjes armpjes heeft of dat kopje armpjes heeft no
die kopjes hebben/dat kopje heeft
314 ’n lijntje die in ’n kopje zijn getekend lijntjes die etc. no
’n lijntje dat … is/lijntjes die… zijn
314 als die, ’t rechtdoor naar beneden trekt als je ’t rechtdoor etc. no
als die rechtdoor .. getrokken wordt
315 die is, dan ’n heel groot stuk vanaf daar is dan etc. no
die is …kwijt/daar is … vanaf
315 de bovenstuk is het bovenstuk is no
de bovenkant/het bovenstuk
Lexical substitutions
113 rechterkant linkerkant nou yes
202 zes zeven num no
202 die dat rel no
203 de het det no
203 die dat rel no
204 middel(ste) op een na kortste nou yes
206 zesde vijfde num no
206 de het det no
211 verticale horizontale adj yes

211 ver(ticale) horizontale adj yes
211 vee(rtig) negentig num yes
212 van boven van onder adv yes
213 figuur driehoek nou yes
301 de bo(venkant de voorkant adj yes
302 de bui(tenste) de binnenste adj yes
304 van links b(oven) van links onder adv yes
304 rechts onder rechts boven adv yes
304 rechts on(der) centraal midden adv yes
312 verticaal horizontaal adv yes
314 de ronde gedeelte het ronde gedeelte det no
314 op die schoteltje op dat schoteltje det no
Lexical substitutions (anticipations)

301 de bovenkant de vlakke kant adj yes de bovenkant is [boven]
304 rechts boven rechts onder adv yes van rechtsboven naar … midden [boven]
304 van links onder van links boven adv yes van links onder naar centraal [onder]
314 hebt is ver yes en wat symmetrisch hebt, [heb] je
Lexical substitutions (perseverations)

304 en ll(inks) en rechts adv yes die voor [links] onder, en ll rechts
304 naar links (boven) naar rechts boven adv yes van [links] boven naar links
Lexical additions
106 loopt er dan loopt dan adv no loopt er dan naar rechts
211 trek je ’t vanuit trek je vanuit pro no
Lexical deletions
204 en an(der) en die ander det yes
204 va(ten) handvaten nou yes
304 dat, ’n beetje op dat, lijkt ’n beetje op ver no
314 heel klein stukje ’n heel klein stukje det no
Lexical deletions (perseverations)

211 rechterpunt de rechterpunt det no naar [] rechts, rechterpunt wijst
Lexical blends
202 gevest(igd) getekend ver yes getekend/bevestigd
204 zaat zaagt/slaat ver no zaagt/slaat
304 gaat er ’n k strein gaat er ’n klein streepje mix yes streepje/klein streepje
315 de linkerkande de linkerkant nou no de linkerkant/zijde
Lexical shifts
su. error target rep. source
301 stukjes ro(nd) ronde stukjes yes twee halve ronde stukjes
Malapropisms
115 uitwer(pselen) uitsteeksels nou yes
202 binnen beneden adv yes
203 verkee(rde) verschillende adj yes
306 uitwerpsel uitsteeksel nou no
314 e(gaal) ovaal adj yes
Morphological substitutions
101 gaan ’t gaat ’t ver no cpl, gaan ze
202 uitkepingen inkepingen nou yes conc
208 uithammen inhammen nou no conc
302 ruimteschipje ruimtescheepje nou yes ruimteschip
302 loopt lopen ver yes
311 ui(thammen) inhammen nou yes conc
Morphological additions
203 voorwerpig voorwerp nou no
Morphological additions (A/P)

source
304 in de vormen v(an) in de vorm van no
gat[en] d’r in in de vormen v, uh, hoe heet dat,van eier[en]
Morphological deletions
102 s(teeksels) uitsteeksels yes
103 zit zitten no
115 steeksels uitsteeksels no stekels
203 zit zitten no
211 ander andere no
305 driehoek driehoekig no
Morphological deletions (anticipations)

211 stukje stukjes no twee kleine stukje van ’n cirkeltje[]
P/L substitutions (anticipations)

204 geboven gebogen adj yes geboven zeg maar, en, daar rechts[bo[v]en]
Phonological substitutions (anticipations)

su. error target subl. wcl rep. source
303 geboden gebogen con adj yes twee geboden gebogen lijden uh, naar be-
ne[d]en
303 lijden lijnen con nou no twee geboden gebogen lijden uh, naar be-
ne[d]en
213 bestuit bestaat vow ver no bestuit [ui]t
306 v/I/(rbonden) verbonden vow ver yes v/I/rbonden [i]s
Phonological substitutions (perseverations)

106 stejen stelen con nou yes twee[j] stejen
310 rechterpa(nt) rechterkant con nou yes ’n [p]unt, en aan de rechterpa(nt)
310 veel vreemd/gek rim adj yes ’n h[eel] veel gek figuur
315 das dus vow adv no k[a]n je d[a]n das
Phonological substitutions (A/P)

201 dut dat vow con no tenminst[/6/] dut, zou je d[u]s zeggen
312 versi(cale) verticale con adj yes [s]treep, aan ’n versikale brede [s]treep
Phonological additions
su. error target subl. wcl rep.
203 ontstraat ontstaat con ver no
304 hun ’n con det no
Phonological additions (perseverations)

203 contactlenst contactlens con nou no contac[t]lenst
Phonological deletions
su. error target subl. wcl rep.
112 tee twee con num yes
302 ike(pingen) inkepingen con nou yes
314 uitstekel(s) uitsteeksels con nou yes
Phonological deletions (anticipations)

205 vort vormt con ver yes vort ’n soo[rt]
Phonologcal deletions (A/P)

311 innam inham con nou no []en uh die []inam []eindigt
Phonological shift
su. error target subl. rep.
109 Ádie niet die Ániet sts no
Syntactic blends
source
101 doorverbonden doorverbonden is no
(is) doorverbonden (is)
102 zit ’n gewone opening in zit er ’n gewone opening in no
zit (er) ’n gewone opening (in)
104 en die naar beneden gericht zijn die naar beneden gericht zijn no
(en) die (zijn) naar beneden gericht (zijn)
104 ’n … uitsteeksels uitsteeksels no
met … (’n) enigszins, spits toelopend(e) uitsteeksel(s)
105 en dat zijn mond een beetje open heeft dat zijn mond een beetje open heeft no
(en) dat (heeft) zijn mond een beetje open (heeft)
107 steekt er ook nog x eruit steekt er ook nog ’n x uit no
steekt (er) ook nog ’n x (er)uit
114 x heeft de b.kant heeft de vorm van een ster de bovenkant heeft de vorm van een ster no
(x heeft) de bovenkant (heeft de vorm) van een ster
114 bij x is de b.kant is uh, ’n beetje c.vormig bij x is de bovenkant ’n beetje c.vormig no
(bij x is) de bovenkant is een beetje cirkelvormig
115 met uh de voet, die is eraf met de voet eraf no
met de voet eraf/en de voet, die is eraf
204 en daar zit de scherpe kant zit dus onder en daar zit x dus onder no
en (daar zit) x (zit) dus onder
204 gaat naar beneden gaat ’n x gaat ’n x no
(gaat) (naar beneden gaat) ’n x (naar beneden)
205 dus eigenlijk verticaal op de h staat dat dus eigenlijk etc. no
(dat) dus verticaal op de horizontale (staat)
211 waar boven van is geen rechte lijn getrokken daar boven van is geen no
waar boven geen x getrokken is/daar boven van is geen
212 metde punt nogal, kromgeb. scherpe punt met de punt nogal kromgebogen no
met (de punt) (’n) nogal, kromgebogen scherpe punt
214 aan de lkant van x zit aan de lkant aan de lkant van x zit no
(aan de lkant) van x zit (aan de lkant)
302 en dan verbindt ’n streepje verbindt en dan verbindt ’n streepje die lijnen no
en (dan verbindt) ’n streepje (verbindt) die lijnen
302 als je x kijkt als je naar x kijkt no
als je (naar) x (be)kijkt
312 waaruit uh drie x uit zijn gehaald waaruit drie x zijn gehaald no
waar(uit) drie x (uit) zijn gehaald
Double slips
204 horizaataal horizontaal pho vow sub ant no
horizaat[aa]l pho con los
313 ’n ei wie je ’n ei dat je lex ble no
wat/die lex sub
die for dat
Ambiguous cases
source
111 de(den/len) leden pho con sub A/P yes
[d]e [d]rie de(den) mal sub
113 d’r/6/ d’raan lex ble yes
d’raan/dus lex sub
202 bevonden verbonden pho con ex no
[v]e(r)[b]onden mal sub
211 bie die lex ble no
de rechterpunt pho con sub
buigt/die heeft
305 rechts recht mal sub no
pho con add
Index
/q/ and /ð/ 155, 157, 159, 175 blends 22, 26, 32, 37, 41, 44, 51, 54,
3rd person singular ‘-s’ morpheme 99, 107, 116, 117, 128, 129, 130,
155, 156, 159, 173, 175 137, 138, 161, 169, 172
A C
accommodation 18, 19, 40, 104, 113, CHILDES 4
114, 124, 125, 129, 161 children’s slips of the tongue 2, 3,
ACT* theory 66, 68, 69, 75, 137, 35–46, 77, 80, 81, 133, 145, 159,
141, 173, 174, 175, 178 163–165
affricate 9, 118–120, 123, 129, 130, code-switching 55
141, 145, 159, 162, 173 cognitive models of second language
anticipation 4, 7, 10, 11, 24, 27, 32, acquisition 66
38, 43, 46, 47, 99, 100, 102, 110, Competition Model 66, 71, 175, 178
112, 117, 120, 129, 131, 137, comprehended input 73
138, 140, 141, 145, 159, 163, conceptualizer 28–30, 59, 61, 70
166, 173 connectionism 21, 42, 71
apperceived input 72 consonant cluster 9, 40, 107, 108, 118
articulator 28, 30, 60, 70, 152 content words see open-class words
automatization 43, 67, 71, 74, 76, 81, cross-linguistic influence 56
133, 136, 156, 158, 165, 175, cue strength 72
176, 177 cue validity 72
autonomy see modularity principle.
D
B declarative knowledge 28, 29, 68–71,
backward spreading 22, 26, 27, 31, 75, 137
162 Default Supplier Language 53, 54,
bad (error) pattern 47 168
bilingual lexicon 57 definition (of slips of the tongue) 1,
bilingual models of speech production 91
54, 167 detectability 96, 97, 99, 100
binding-by-checking mechanism 32,
65, 172
264 INDEX
E L1 phonological shifts 154, 169

editing terms 52, 95, 104, 113, 148 L1 phonological substitutions 152,
exchanges 7, 9–12, 24, 30, 32, 38, 39, 169, 171
41, 43, 44, 47, 66, 99, 100, 102, L1 syntactic slips 154, 169, 170
112, 116, 120, 129, 137, 139, L1 word or phoneme substitutions
140, 161 152
experimentally collected data 5–8, L1/L2 blends 151, 153, 169, 171
16–18, 24, 32, 33, 37, 42, 43, L1/L2 effect see L2 learner effect
102, 164, 166 L1/L2 lexical substitutions 149, 155,
169
F L2 learner effect 115, 133, 159, 163–
fluency 55, -68, 70, 72 165
foreignizings 110, 148, 171 L2 learner-specific slips 155
formulator 28, 29, 60, 61, 70 language choice 59, 61, 62
frame-and-slot mechanism 26–28, 163 language cue 61, 62, 64
language-specific slips 12, 24, 51
G lemma access see lexical access
gender 23 lexical access 8, 22, 23, 30, 40, 52,
60, 61, 63, 65, 128, 137, 138,
H 141, 159, 174
hyperonym problem 31 lexical bias 19, 20, 27, 32, 47, 125,
126, 129, 132, 145, 159, 166,
I 167
inhibition 31, 64, 66, 172 lexical concepts 31, 65, 162
Inhibitory control model (=IC model) lexical storage 36, 50
57, 64, 65 lexicalization problem 61, 64, 172
initialness effect 14, 27, 38, 45, 121, linguistic level 136
131, 142, 143, 145, 164, 166 London-Lund corpus 6, 37, 43, 45, 46,
input … output model (= input … 101, 102, 178
output theory) 66, 72, 77, 176,
178 M
intake 73 malapropisms 20, 26, 39, 41, 44–46,
integration 73 105, 116, 117, 125–127, 132,
inverted compounds 44 136, 146, 162
matrix language 63, 171, 172
L mental lexicon 16, 20, 21, 29, 31, 37,
L1–based slips 3, 81, 146, 147, 159, 50, 53, 60, 61, 126, 137, 162,
161, 167–170, 175–178 171
L1 lexical additions 150, 170 mixed phonological/lexical errors 22,
L1 lexical deletions 151, 170 32, 127, 162
L1 lexical substitutions 147, 155, 168 Models of second language acquisition
L1 malapropisms 151, 169 66, 173
L1 morphological substitutions 152 modularity principle 28, 150
L1 phonological additions 153 monolingual models of speech produc-
L1 phonological deletions 153 tion 24, 161
INDEX 265
morphological encoding 25, 60, 63, R

149, 152, 159, 170–172, 174, reliability (of speech error corpora) 3,
175, 177, 178 6, 91, 96, 98, 101, 103, 162
reparability 93
N repeated phoneme effect 18, 26, 42,
Nina corpus 36 45, 46, 124, 129, 132, 144, 145,
146, 159, 165–167
O research questions 80
open-class (= content) words vs. restructuring 67
closed-class (= function) words restructuring and automatization theory
15, 52, 122, 129, 143, 145, 159, 66, 67, 178
165 revised hierarchical model 57
output 3, 74–76, 176 rhyme 14, 25, 41, 107, 108, 118, 171
Rockefeller corpus 36
P S
parallel encoding 170, 172 semantically related words 20, 21, 26,
PDP model 27, 163, 164, 167 36, 37, 62, 63, 126–129, 137,
pen-and-paper corpora 6, 46, 91, 96, 138, 161, 162, 169, 173
98, 100, 101, 102, 116, 129, 130, simultaneous activation/processing 22,
159, 162, 164, 166, 177 26, 27, 32, 60, 61, 66, 150, 151,
perceptual bias 15, 96, 98, 102, 130, 153–155, 162, 167–171, 177
132, 159, 161–164, 166, 177 slip collecting mode 6
perseveration 4, 10, 11, 24, 27, 32, SLIP technique 7, 16, 18–20, 47, 102
38, 42, 43, 46, 47, 81, 99, 100, speech comprehension system 30
110, 112, 116, 117, 120, 129, spreading activation 18, 20, 22, 25,
131, 133, 137, 138, 140, 141, 26, 27, 31, 46, 52, 60, 164, 167
145, 146, 159, 163, 166, 173 stress 14, 15, 24, 39, 50, 51, 99, 100,
phonetic features 9, 16, 17, 24, 27, 107, 108, 118, 122, 129, 132,
39, 42, 45, 46, 97, 108, 118–120, 139, 143, 145, 154, 164, 166,
123, 124, 129, 131, 141, 145, 169
162, 163 Subset Hypothesis 60
phonetic similarity constraint 13, 16, syllable position constraint 13, 26, 27,
17, 123, 124 40, 41, 120, 129, 131, 142, 143,
phonetic syllabary 31 145, 163
phonological encoding 8–10, 14, 25, syntactic category constraint 23, 26,
27–30, 32, 44, 46, 53, 60, 63, 40, 128, 162
136, 137, 139, 141, 149, 155, syntactic encoding 25, 30, 150, 162,
159, 162, 163, 165, 169, 171, 169, 170, 172, 178
172–174, 177
preverbal message 29, 30, 59, 61, 62, T
64 tag 58, 62–66, 152, 171, 172
procedural knowledge 28, 70, 75 tape-recorded corpora 6, 38, 43, 98,
proceduralization 68–71, 76, 137, 101, 102, 130, 132, 158
173, 174, 176, 177 time pressure 10, 46, 47, 73, 145, 176
proficiency-related differences 133 transfer 56
266 INDEX
U W
unintentional language switches 51– WEAVER 31, 32, 164
53, 55, 57, 61–64, 77 Wells’ Law 18, 26, 27, 124, 125
units in speech production 9, 13, 120 WIPP 53, 64, 168
wordclass 4, 15, 22, 23, 50, 104, 112,
V 128, 139, 161
VBL see Verbalizer
verb formation 139, 141
Verbalizer 61, 63, 64
In the series STUDIES IN BILINGUALISM (SiBil) ISSN 0298-1533 the following titles
have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication:
1. FASE, Willem, Koen JASPAERT and Sjaak KROON (eds): Maintenance and Loss of
Minority Languages. 1992.
2. BOT, Kees de, Ralph B. GINSBERG and Claire KRAMSCH (eds): Foreign Language
Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective. 1991.
3. DÖPKE, Susanne: One Parent - One Language. An interactional approach. 1992.
4. PAULSTON, Christina Bratt: Linguistic Minorities in Multilingual Settings. Implications
for language policies.1994.
5. KLEIN, Wolfgang and Clive PERDUE: Utterance Structure. Developing grammars
again.
6. SCHREUDER, Robert and Bert WELTENS (eds): The Bilingual Lexicon. 1993.
7. DIETRICH, Rainer, Wolfgang KLEIN and Colette NOYAU: The Acquisition of Tempo-
rality in a Second Language. 1995.
8. DAVIS, Kathryn Anne: Language Planning in Multilingual Contexts. Policies, commu-
nities, and schools in Luxembourg. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1994.
9. FREED, Barbara F. (ed.) Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context. 1995.
10. BAYLEY, Robert and Dennis R. PRESTON (eds): Second Language Acquisition and
Linguistic Variation. 1996.
11. BECKER, Angelika and Mary CARROLL: The Acquisition of Spatial Relations in a
Second Language. 1997.
12. HALMARI, Helena: Government and Codeswitching. Explaining American Finnish.
1997.
13. HOLLOWAY, Charles E.: Dialect Death. The case of Brule Spanish. 1997.
14. YOUNG, Richard and Agnes WEIYUN HE (eds): Talking and Testing. Discourse
approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency. 1998.
15. PIENEMANN, Manfred: Language Processing and Second Language Development.
Processability theory. 1998.
16. HUEBNER, Thom and Kathryn A. DAVIS (eds.): Sociopolitical Perspectives on Lan-
guage Policy and Planning in the USA. n.y.p.
17. ELLIS, Rod: Learning a Second Language through Interaction. n.y.p.
18. PARADIS, Michel: Neurolinguistic Aspects of Bilingualism. n.y.p.
19. AMARA, Muhammad Hasan: Politics and Sociolinguistic Reflexes. Palestinian border
villages. 1999.
20. POULISSE, Nanda: Slips of the Tongue. Speech errors in first and second language
production. n.y.p.
sibil.serie.p65 1 17/09/99, 5:20 PM

Slips of The Tongue

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Slips of The Tongue

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SLIPS OF THE TONGUE

sibil.20.vw.p65 1 17/09/99, 5:03 PM

Slips of the Tongue

sibil.20.vw.p65 2 17/09/99, 5:03 PM

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY

sibil.20.vw.p65 3 17/09/99, 5:03 PM

can National Standard for Information Sciences — Permanence of Paper for

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

© 1999 – John Benjamins B.V.

sibil.20.vw.p65 4 17/09/99, 5:03 PM

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

3.3 Models of second language acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Ever since the publication of Corder’s The Significance of Learners’ Errors in

1. VWO stands for Voorbereidend Wetenschappelijk Onderwijs (‘Preparatory Academic Education’).

Chapter 2 we will review studies of slips of the tongue produced by children

1.1 Research methods

Table 1.1. Pen-and-paper corpora of L1 slips of the tongue

1.2 Research findings: 14 major claims

An excellent and complete review of speech error findings can be found in

1. Individual segments are the most important units in speech production

Anticipations and perseverations (and exchanges, see below) are known as

frequent than consonant perseverations (95 vs 182). Stemberger (1989) reported

4. Phonological units involved in movement errors usually keep their original

5. Word-or syllable-initial consonants are more likely to be involved in slips than

6. Errors occur more frequently in stressed than in unstressed syllables (Boomer

7. Errors occur more frequently in open-class words than in closed-class words

8. When two segments exchange, they tend to be phonetically similar (Fromkin

anticipations, perseverations and substitutions from Fromkin’s UCLA corpus,

12. Lexical substitutions often involve phonologically and/or semantically related

Nooteboom (1969) noted that word substitutions often involve phonologically

corpus were malapropisms, the remaining 54% involving two semantically

step 1 a lexical item in the semantic lexicon is accessed by a semantic represen-

This constraint has become known as the “syntactic category constraint”. It is

1.3 Two monolingual models of speech production

1.3.1 Dell (1986) and beyond

The first monolingual model of speech production to be discussed here is that

1.3.2 Levelt (1989) and beyond

Another very influential model of speech production is Levelt’s (1989) “blueprint

Figure 1.1. A model of speech production (from Levelt 1989: 9)

lexical item while morphological and phonological information constitute its

retrieved during phonological encoding. Instead, Levelt et al. argue syllabification

2.1 Research findings

been automatized or proceduralized (see Schneider and Shiffrin 1977; Anderson

syllable structure is represented in lexical entries and plays a role in speech

anticipations. Thus, there appeared to be twice as many lexical perseverations as

ations, and the proportion of incomplete anticipations. Unfortunately, the

3.1 Research findings

lexical storage, he argued. To illustrate this point he discussed three cases in

English as L2. Since these unintentional language switches usually involved

3.2 Bilingual models of speech production

Speech produced by L2 learners differs from adult L1 speech in several respects.

3.2.1 Differences between L1 and L2 production

manifests itself in the form of “transfer”, or “cross-linguistic influence” (Keller-

3.2.2 Early studies of bilingualism

3.2.3 Green (1986)

from different languages as in Springling (from Eng. spring and German

3.2.4 De Bot (1992)

A more complete account of bilingual speech production was first given by De

determined in the conceptualizer as part of macroplanning, and that subsequently,

3.2.5 Poulisse and Bongaerts (1994)

In their study of unintentional language switches in L2 production Poulisse and

Poulisse and Bongaerts’ model of L1 and L2 word selection is presented in

3.2.6 Green (1998)