Constraints on error variables in grammar: bilingual misspelling orthographies

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR: Bilingual Misspelling Orthographies

Philip Luelsdorff Universitӓt Regensburg

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY AMSTERDAM/PHILADELPHIA 1986

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Luelsdorff, Philip. Constraints on error variables in grammar. Bibliography: p. Includes indexes. 1. Language and languages ~ Orthography and spelling. 2. Language and languages -Variation. 3. Language and languages — Study and teaching — Error analysis. 4. Gram­ mar, Comparative and general. 5. English language - Study and teaching -- German speakers. 6. Interference (Linguistics) 7. Language transfer (Language learning). I.Title. P240.L84 1986 415 85-30823 ISBN 0-915027-74-7 (US)/90 272 2017 4 (European) (pb.talk. paper) ISBN 0-915027-73-9 (US)/90 272 2014 X (European) (hb.:alk. paper) © Copyright 1986 - 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.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface

xvii

Acknowledgments Introduction

xix 1

I.0. Summary 1 I.1. Variation in grammar 3 I.1.1. Introduction 3 I.1.2. Syntactic dialectology 3 I.1.3. Phonological dialectology 5 I.1.4. Grammars: Ideal and real 11 I.2. Differential linguistics: A program for research 17 I.2.1. Introduction 17 I.2.2. Differential linguistics 19 I.2.2.1. Trait or factor linguistics 19 I.2.2.2. Typology 20 I.2.2.3. Idiographic linguistics 21 I.2.2.4. Differential phonology 22 I.2.2.5. Differential syntax/semantics 22 I.2.2.6. Differential vocabulary 23 I.2.2.7. Differential pragmatics 23 I.2.3. Clinical linguistics 24 I.2.4. Conclusion 25 I.2.5. Retrospect and prospect 26 I.3. Orthography in grammar 28 I.3.1. On linguistic1 error 30 I.3.1.1. The notion'linguistic 1 error' 31 I.3.1.2. The notion 'error' in the organon model of lan­ guage 33 I.3.2. The notion 'possible error' '. 37 I.3.3. The sign-template and linguistic1 error 38 I.3.4. Sign mutation 44

vi

CONTENTS

Chapter I: On putative'transpositions'in spelling 1.0. Introduction 1.1. The notion 'transposition' 1.2. On taxonomies of spelling errors 1.3. An identity crisis 1.4. Displacements and conventional errors 1.5. A proposed security check 1.6. Constraints on displacement 1.7. A disappointing development 1.8. Appendix: The displacement corpus

49 49 49 51 53 55 57 59 63 64

Chapter II: Letter naming as a spelling strategy 2.0. Introduction 2.1. Preconventional spelling 2.2. Literal use and mention 2.3. Letter naming 2.4. Major patterns for primary vowels 2.5. Spelling: A teaching strategy

67 67 67 68 69 71 72

Chapter III: Substitutions: Vowels 3.0. Introduction 3.1. English vowel misspellings: Types and causes 3.1.1. English/i/ 3.1.2. English /i 3.1.3. English /e/ 3.1.4. English /ɛ/ 3.1.5. English/æ/ 3.1.6. English /ә/ 3.1.7. English// 3.1.8. English/∧/ 3.1.9. English/u/ 3.1.10. English/u/ 3.1.11. English/o/ 3.1.12. English /ɔ/ 3.1.13. English /a/ 3.1.14. English/oy/ 3.1.15. English/aw/ 3.1.16. English/ay/

75 75 75 75 77 79 80 84 85 87 89 90 92 94 96 97 98 98 99

CONTENTS

vii

3.2. Summary 102 3.2.1. English/i/ 102 3.2.1.1. Transfer from German 102 3.2.1.2. German letter-naming 102 3.2.1.3. English letter-naming 102 3.2.1.4. Phonetic spelling 102 3.2.1.5. Slips-of-the-pen 102 3.2.2. English /i/ 102 3.2.2.1. Regularization 102 3.2.2.2. German spelling-pronunciation 102 3.2.2.3. English letter-naming 102 3.2.2.4. Cognatization 102 3.2.3. English /e/ 102 3.2.3.1. German letter-naming 102 3.2.3.2. English letter-naming 102 3.2.3.3. Irregularization 102 3.2.3.4. Regularization 102 3.2.4. English /ε/ 102 3.2.4.1. Place of articulation of English letter-name . . . 102 3.2.4.2. Place of articulation of German letter-name . . 102 3.2.4.3. Overgeneralization 102 3.2.4.4. Regularization 103 3.2.4.5. Strong conventional error 103 3.2.4.6. Negative transfer from German 103 3.2.4.7. Irregularization 103 3.2.4.8. Slip-of-the-pen 103 3.2.4.9. Decognatization 103 3.2.5. English /æ/ 103 3.2.5.1. Interlanguage representation by approximation to German 103 3.2.5.2. Negative paradigmatic interference from English 103 3.2.6. English /ә/ 103 3.2.6.1. Lexicalized misrepresentation 103 3.2.6.2. German cognate spelling pronunciation 103 3.2.6.3. Negative transfer from German 103 3.2.6.4. Slip-of-the-pen 103 3.2.7. English /ɝ/ 103 3.2.7.1. Negative transfer from German 103

viii

CONTENTS

3.2.8.

3.2.9.

3.2.10.

3.2.11.

3.2.12.

3.2.13.

3.2.14. 3.2.15. 3.2.16.

3.2.7.2. Overgeneralization 103 3.2.7.3. Slip-of-the-pen 103 3.2.7.4. Lexicalized misrepresentation 103 English /∧/ 103 3.2.8.1. Interlanguage representation by approximation to German 103 English/u/ 103 3.2.9.1. Negative transfer from German 103 3.2.9.2. Simplification 104 3.2.9.3. Slip-of-the-pen 104 3.2.9.4. Irregularization 104 3.2.9.5. Total cognatization 104 3.2.9.6. German/English letter-naming 104 English/U/ 104 3.2.10.1. German spelling pronunciation 104 3.2.10.2. Partial cognatization 104 English /o/ 104 3.2.11.1. Negative transfer from German 104 3.2.11.2. German letter-naming sequence 104 3.2.11.3. Simplification 104 3.2.11.4. Complication 104 3.2.11.5. Intralinguistic transfer 104 English /ɔ/ 104 3.2.12.1. Negative transfer from German 104 3.2.12.2. Partial cognatization 104 3.2.12.3. Irregularization 104 English /a/ 105 3.2.13.1. Negative transfer from German 105 3.2.13.2. German letter-naming 105 3.2.13.3. Overgeneralization 105 3.2.13.4. Orthographic hypercorrection 105 English/oy/ 105 3.2.14.1. Suppression of negative transfer from German . 105 English/aw/ 105 3.2.15.1. Negative transfer from German 105 English/ay/ 105 3.2.16.1. Negative transfer from German 105 3.2.16.2. Total Cognatization 105

CONTENTS

ix

Chapter IV: Substitutions: Consonants 107 4.0. Introduction 107 4.1. English consonant misspellings: types and causes 107 4.1.1. English/p/ 107 4.1.2. English/b/ 108 4.1.3. English/t/ 108 4.1.4. English/d/ 111 4.1.5. English/k/ 112 4.1.6. English/g/ 113 4.1.7. English/θ/ 114 4.1.8. English /ð/ 114 4.1.9. English /f/ 115 4.1.10. English/v/ 117 4.1.11. English /s/ 118 4.1.12. English/z/ 119 4.1.13. English /š/ 120 4.1.14. English /ž/ 121 4.1.15. English /č/ 121 4.1.16. English /ǰ/ 123 4.1.17. English /ml 124 4.1.18. English/n/ 124 4.1.19. English/ŋ/ 125 4.1.20. English /l/ 126 4.1.21. English/r/ 127 4.1.22. English/w/ 128 4.1.23. English /j/ 128 4.1.24. English/h/ 128 4.2. Summary 128 4.2.1. English/p/ 128 4.2.1.1. Inconsistent application of final-consonant doub­ ling in monosyllables 128 4.2.1.2. Doubling-rule displacement 128 4.2.1.3. English letter-naming 128 4.2.2. English/b/ 128 4.2.3. English /t/ 128 4.2.3.1. Negative transfer of German syllable-final obstruent devoicing 128 4.2.3.2. Orthographic hypercorrection 129

x

CONTENTS

4.2.4.

4.2.5.

4.2.6. 4.2.7. 4.2.8.

4.2.9.

4.2.10.

4.2.3.3. Phonetic spelling 129 4.2.3.4. Partial phonetic spelling 129 4.2.3.5. English letter-naming 129 4.2.3.6. Conventional errors 129 4.2.3.7. Transfer from German 129 English /d/ 129 4.2.4.1. Transfer of German syllable-final obstruent devoicing 129 4.2.4.2. Tense substitution 129 4.2.4.3. Slip-of-the-pen 129 English/k/ 129 4.2.5.1. English/German letter-naming 129 4.2.5.2. English intralingual interference 129 4.2.5.3. German syllable-final obstruent devoicing . . . 129 4.2.5.4. Orthographic hypercorrection 129 4.2.5.5. Conventional error 129 4.2.5.6. Slip-of-the-pen 129 English /g/ 129 4.2.6.1. Doubling-rule suspension 129 English /θ/ 129 4.2.7.1. Articulatory proximity 129 English /ð/ 129 4.2.8.1. Mispronunciation by articulatory proximity . . 129 4.2.8.2. Negative transfer of German PGC 129 4.2.8.3. Negative intralingual transfer of misrepresenta­ tion strategy 129 English /f/ 129 4.2.9.1. Negative transfer of German GPC 129 4.2.9.2. Negative transfer of German rule of syllablefinal obstruent devoicing 129 4.2.9.3. Orthographic hypercorrection 130 4.2.9.4. Partial cognatization 130 4.2.9.5. Simplification 130 4.2.9.6. Regularization 130 4.2.9.7. Conventional error 130 English/v/ 130 4.2.10.1. Negative transfer of German rule of syllable-final obstruent devoicing 130

CONTENTS

4.2.11.

4.2.12.

4.2.13.

4.2.14.

4.2.15.

4.2.16.

xi

4.2.10.2. Phonetic spelling 130 4.2.10.3. Spelling by analogy 130 4.2.10.4. Morpheme-by-morpheme spelling 130 4.2.10.5. Conventional error 130 English/s/ 130 4.2.11.1. Regularization 130 4.2.11.2. Simplification 130 4.2.11.3. Negative transfer of German GPC 130 4.2.11.4. Total cognatization 130 4.2.11.5. Decognatization 130 4.2.11.6. Negative transfer of German cluster 130 4.2.11.7. Partial cognatization 130 4.2.11.8. Orthographic hypercorrection 130 4.2.11.9. Interlingual allomorphic substitution 130 English/z/ 130 4.2.12.1. Total cognatization 130 4.2.12.2. Decognatization 130 4.2.12.3. Slip-of-the-pen 130 4.2.12.4. Syntagmatic interference 130 4.2.12.5. Dual interlingual representation of preterit . . . 130 English /š/ 130 4.2.13.1. Negative transfer of German GPC 130 4.2.13.2. Letter-deletion from native trigraph 130 English /ž/ 131 4.2.14.1. Negative transfer of German rule of syllable-final obstruent devoicing 131 4.2.14.2. Negative intralingual transfer of misrepresentation strategy 131 English /č/ 131 4.2.15.1. Negative transfer of German GPC 131 4.2.15.2. Articulatory proximity 131 4.2.15.3. German letter-naming 131 4.2.15.4. Phonetic spelling 131 4.2.15.5. Cluster analysis 131 English/ǰ/ 131 4.2.16.1. Negative transfer of German rule of syllable-final obstruent devoicing 131 4.2.16.2. Morpheme-by-morpheme spelling 131

xii

CONTENTS

4.2.17. 4.2.18.

4.2.19.

4.2.20. 4.2.21.

4.2.22. 4.2.23. 4.2.24.

4.2.16.3. Negative intralingual transfer of misrepresenta­ tion strategy 131 English/m/ 131 4.2.17.1. Phonetic spelling 131 English /n/ 131 4.2.18.1. Phonetic spelling 131 4.2.18.2. Doubling-rule suspension 131 4.2.18.3. Cognatization 131 English /ŋ/ 131 4.2.19.1. Negative transfer of German rule of syllable-final obstruent devoicing 131 4.2.19.2. Slip-of-the-pen 131 English /l/ 131 4.2.20.1. Phonetic spelling 131 English /r/ 131 4.2.21.1. Phonetic spelling 131 4.2.21.2. Slip-of-the-pen 131 English /w/ 132 4.2.22.1. Phonetic spelling 132 English /j/ 132 4.2.23.1. Negative transfer of German GPC 132 English /h/ 132 4.2.24.1. Phonetic approximation 132

Chapter V: Additions and omissions 5.0. Introduction 5.1. Additions 5.1.1. Vowel additions 5.1.2. Consonant additions 5.1.3. Capitalization additions 5.1.4. Letter additions 5.1.5. Word additions 5.1.6. Morpheme additions 5.1.7. Syllable additions 5.1.8. Non-letter additions 5.1.9. Word-token length 5.1.10. Letter position and letter addition

133 133 135 136 137 139 141 142 144 145 146 146 147

CONTENTS

xiii

5.2. Omissions 5.2.1. Vowel omissions 5.2.2. Consonant omissions 5.2.3. Capitalization omissions 5.2.4. Letter omissions 5.2.5. Word omissions 5.2.6. Morpheme omissions 5.2.7. Syllable omissions 5.2.8. Non-letter omissions 5.2.9. Word-token length 5.2.10. Letter position and letter omission 5.3. Appendices 5.3.1. Additions 5.3.2. Omissions

148 149 150 151 152 154 156 158 159 161 161 163 164 177

Chapter VI: Anticipations and perseverations 6.0. Introduction 6.1. Anticipations: Definitions 6.1.1. Anticipations: Lexical and literal 6.1.2. Anticipates 6.1.3. Anticipations: Environments 6.1.4. Anticipations: Distances 6.1.5. Edited anticipations 6.2. Perseverations: Definitions 6.2.1. Perseverations: Lexical and literal 6.2.2. Perseverates 6.2.3. Perseverations: Environments 6.2.4. Perseverations: Distances 6.2.5. Edited perseverations 6.3. Alliteration, assonance, anticipations, perseverations 6.4. Appendices 6.4.1. Appendix I: Anticipations 6.4.1.1. Unedited 6.4.1.2. Edited 6.4.2. Appendix II: Perseverations 6.4.2.1. Unedited 6.4.2.2. Edited

201 201 201 202 202 203 204 205 207 207 208 209 210 210 213 217 217 217 217 219 219 220

xiv

CONTENTS

Chapter VII: 7.0. 7.1.

7.2. 7.3. 7.4. 7.5. 7.6. 7.7.

Orthographic conduits d'approche: Some quantitative aspects 223 Introduction 223 Orthographic conduits d'approche: Structure 224 7.1.1. Substitutions 224 7.1.2. Omissions 225 7.1.3. Additions 226 7.1.4. Displacements 228 7.1.5. Erroneous error perceptions 229 7.1.6. Homophones 229 Differential ranks: The differential rank hypothesis 231 Monitor strength 233 Error salience 237 Error correction vs. error creation 246 Correction frequency and correction site 247 Appendix: Orthographic conduits d'approche 252

Chapter VIII: Processing strategies in bilingual spellers: A group study 265 8.0. Introduction 265 8.1. The group experiment 265 8.2. The error framework 267 8.3. English vowel misspellings: Types and causes 269 8.3.1. English /i/ 269 8.3.2. English /i/ 273 8.3.3. English /e/ 275 8.3.4. English /ε/ 279 8.3.5. English/æ/ 283 8.3.6. English /ә/ 285 8.3.7. English // 289 8.3.8. English /∧/ 291 8.3.9. English /u/ 292 8.3.10. English /U/ 296 8.3.11. English/o/ 296 8.3.12. English /ɔ/ 302 8.3.13. English /a/ 307 8.3.14. English /oy/ 310 8.3.15. English /aw/ 312 8.3.16. English /ay/ 314

CONTENTS

8.4. Conclusions 8.5. Appendix: Dictation test

xv

315 321

Conclusion 323 C.0. Conclusion 323 C.l. The relativity of categorization 323 C.2. Norms and abnorms 326 C.3. Constraints on error variables: Misspelling orthographies 331 C.3.1. Bilingual misspelling orthographies 332 C.3.2. Finger agnostics and aphasics 335 C.3.3. Spelling errors of older dyslexics 336 C.3.4. Oral and written errors 342 C.3.5. Normal native misspelling orthographies 346 C.4. On monolingual and bilingual phonological intrusions 351 C.4.1. Consonant substitutions 351 C.4.2. The relativity of intrudibles 351 C.5. Oral reading errors 362 C.5.1. From product to process 362 C.5.2. The taxonomy of oral reading errors 363 C.5.3. The graphic similarity index 368 C.6. Linguistic1 errors in normals and aphasics: The theory of similar constraints 370 C.6.1. Similar constraints: Phonology 372 C.6.1.1. Similar constraints: segmental phonology . . . . 372 C.6.1.2. Similar constraints: suprasegmental phonology .373 C.6.1.3. Lexical stress errors 375 C.6.1.4. Isochronicity and syllable additions/omissions .376 C.7. From intention to action 377 C.7.1. The theory of act selection 377 C.7.2. The theory of action and the theory of slips 378 C.7.3. The linguistic1 monitor: Structure and function 384 C.7.4. Cognition and Feedback 385 C.7.5. The morphology of the monitor 386 C.7.6. On the axiomatization of the linguistic1 monitor 387 C.8. Processing structure 388 C.9. Appendices 393 C.9.1. Appendix I: Widely applicable spelling rules 393 C.9.2. Appendix II: Scope and sequence chart for spelling . . . . 396

xvi

CONTENTS

Appendix: The corpus

397

Bibliography

449

Name Index

481

Subject Index

485

PREFACE

This study constitutes an in-depth investigation of constraints on error variables in grammar with special reference to bilingual misspelling ortho­ graphies. The inquiry is divided into ten chapters. The introduction presents an elaborated review and critique of past treatments of variation in grammar and an outline of differential linguistics, based on the view that the locus of lan­ guage is the individual, not the speech community, that the subject matter of differential linguistics are the constraints on intra- and interpersonal varia­ tion, including intra- and interpersonal linguistic error, in complete concor­ dance with the claim that whatever advances have been made in our under­ standing of linguistic phenomena have accrued from investigations of indi­ vidual speaker-hearer-writer-readers, in short grammar knowers and users, in great depth and detail, yielding a broad spectrum of linguistic dimensions on which it is possible to compare and contrast these individuals. The intro­ duction concludes with a rationale for the incorporation of an orthographic component in the theory of grammar, a protracted discussion of the notion "error" within the extended Buhlerian Organon Model of language and the presentation and justification of a novel interpretation of the crucial notion "linguistic sign", termed the "distributive dissociative sign-template". The body of the study, presented in Chapters I-VIII, is a microscopic inquiry into the qualitative and quantitative values of the error variables of Substitution (Chapters III and TV), Addition and Omission (Chapter V), and Transposition (= Displacement) (Chapter I), Anticipations and Persevera­ tions (Chapter VI), and quantitative aspects of the orthographic monitor (or­ thographic conduits d'approche) (Chapter VII), incorporating definitions and exemplifications of the notions "monitor strength" and "error salience". The cognitive strategies underlying the processing of target-language orthog­ raphy and spelling are introduced with letter naming as a spelling strategy (Chapter II) and fully elaborated and defined in respect of the major error variable of substitution in a group investigation under the caption "processing strategies in bilingual spellers" (Chapter VIII). Appeal to the notion "proces-

xviii

PREFACE

sing strategy" makes it possible to at once lay bare the cognitive psychological processes underlying the error mechanisms employed and explain a myriad of error types and tokens. Very specific and highly motivated recommendations for the prevention and remediation of erroneous representation and use of English orthographic knowledge, emerging from the error analysis itself, are interspersed throughout the body of the work. The conclusion takes a step in the direction of generalizing some of the conclusions drawn in the body of the text to a more encompassing theory of linguistic error on several other levels of linguistic representation in both written and oral linguistic production. Transmodular equivalencies in respect of the fundamental error operator and operand variables are established, suggesting the necessity of a modulus errans et corrigens with the capacity to access the several levels of linguistic representation which follow from the theory of grammar, leading to several revisions in a currently widely accepted model of speech production. The emerging picture is one of linguistic produc­ tion and comprehension in media both oral and written, entailing now both analysis by synthesis, now synthesis by analysis, this production and com­ prehension running in parallel and in series with a linguistic ego and alter monitor-editor. The fact that the modulus errans et corrigens is shown to be level and medium independent with respect to the data set under considera­ tion suggests a linguistic organization considerably less modular and more isotropic than the current paradigm would have it. The work concludes with an attempt to place the theory of linguistic error within a general theory of action error. The relevant error corpora are appended to the respective chapters, and the entire error corpus is reproduced as an appendix. Finally, a selected bib­ liography is given, listing those contributions which are either cited in the body of the text or contain relevant background information. Compared with studies of the spelling performance of different categories of monolingual or bilingual learners conducted within an identical framework, the conclusions reached in this investigation could serve to deter­ mine those error types which are characteristic of the class of German lear­ ners of English as a foreign language as a whole, could lay the foundation for a general typology of orthographic errors made by foreign learners of Eng­ lish, could contribute to the study of the acquisition of spelling skills by Ger­ mans and bilinguals in general, to the development of a general typology of intra- and interlinguistic error and materials for teaching the structure of Eng­ lish orthography to Germans and others.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author acknowledges a debt of gratitude to the Fritz Thyssen Stiftung, Cologne, for a research grant which made it possible for him to be freed of his teaching responsibilities for two semesters in order to devote himself fulltime to the class of considerations dealt with in this book and attend the 1982 Summer Institute of Linguistics of the Linguistic Society of America devoted to neurolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and the psychology of language, a truly memorable experience as enlightening academically as it was enriching per­ sonally. I am often reminded of my intellectual indebtedness for the assistance and encouragement I received from friends and colleagues in a number of pro­ fessions during the course of my work on this project. To these, and the for­ mula that they are "too numerous to mention" is not far from the truth, I offer a personal, heartfelt dedication in the form of the frequent use of the first person plural "we" in which the body of this work is written. It is with admiration and gratitude that I single out Uta Frith, John C. Marshall, Richard L. Venezky, and Arnold M. Zwicky for their demonstrated interest in the advancement of this inquiry. Thank you Uta, John, Dick, and Arnold for the beauty of your inspired work, the depth of your devotion to the profes­ sion, for the power of your minds to evoke mind. On my mind your imprint is lasting. I also wish to thank Academic Press and The Orton Society and the authors for permission to reproduce the tables presented in the Conclusion. Thank you, Erna Dollinger, Institut fur Mathematik, Universitat Regensburg, for your gentle, accurate, and elegant touch in preparing the manu­ script of this book for publication. Marta, please accept, sight unseen, this verbal bouquet of baby's-breath and bachelor's-buttons in deep appreciation of your unbounded devotion, en­ couragement, and support throughout the duration of this endeavor. To my mother, Pauline Louise Bernadette (1907-1982), who coped with an agonizing illness for a decade in undaunted cheer, I dedicate these lines, and the pain of gestation and parturition underlying them, in loving memory of her selfless giving and sheer goodness.

INTRODUCTION

I.0.

Summary

This introductory statement consists of three subsections. The first, Vari­ ation in Grammar, presents a critical review of several approaches to syntactic and phonological variation within generative grammar, from its earliest at­ tempts to account for variation in terms of the addition, deletion, and reorder­ ing of rules, to some of the most recent attempts to account for variation in terms of implicational analysis and variable rules. The first of these will be seen to sacrifice empirical adequacy to the simplicity metric, the latter two to buy generalizations at the cost of reductionism and psychological reality. All three are predicated on the Dependence Principle. In their stead, we argue for analyses predicated on the Independence Principle, the writing of grammars with reasoned claim to psychological reality for individual speaker/writerhearer/readers and metagrammars based thereon which are independently motivated. Section two, Differential Linguistics, outlines the framework within which this investigation of the constraints on error variables in grammar is written, with special reference to constraints on bilingual misspelling orthog­ raphies. Definitions of Language, language, idiolect, dialect, grammar, op­ timum corpus, microlinguistics, and macrolinguistics are delivered, and an at­ tempt made to render explicit the notion 'linguistic fact'. Some areas within the domain of differential linguistics are delineated, an area of investigation concerned with determining the kinds, amounts, and causes of individual and group differences in linguistic characteristics, their observation, description, ultimate explanation, and the types of constraint they are subject to, in the case of both the norm and the norm-deviation. Section three, Orthography in Grammar, states the case for the incorpo­ ration of an orthographic component in the theory of grammar, contains an extended discussion of the necessity to broaden current understanding of the notion 'linguistic error' within the framework of the developing organonmodel of language, an excursus on the theory-dependent notion of 'possible

2

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

error', presents and motivates a fundamental revision in our understanding of the notion 'linguistic1 sign', leading to the development of the 'distributive dissociative sign-template', held to be necessary to explain linguistic1 signs in both the normal and pathological case. Whereas our own research has focused on the construction of grammar fragments for individual sender-receivers since its inception—where else but in the minds of individual sender-receivers is language instantiated? — this realization is a very recent arrival on the orthodox generative scene. Chomsky (1980, 1982:107-8) stresses the importance of the notion 'grammar' as funda­ mental, rather than the notion 'language', which he rightfully now regards as epiphenomenal, a basic shift in emphasis, which, as the editors of Chomsky 1982 remark, "... must have shocked the rest of the world." (p. 107). Chomsky replies: "I do not know why I never realized that clearly before, but it seems obvious, when you think about it, that the notion language is a much more abstract no­ tion than the notion of grammar. The reason is that grammars have to have a real existence, that is, there is something in your brain that corresponds to the grammar. That's got to be true. But there is nothing in the real world corres­ ponding to language ... In fact the notion language might turn out just to be a useless notion." (p. 107)

The next realization is that the grammar of each individual is different from the grammar of each other individual, i.e. that the linguistic competence and performance of each individual is different. Then comes the realization that the different grammars instantiating one and the same language as an epiphenomenon of those different individual grammars do not differ from one another in arbitrary and unpredictable ways, but, rather, are subject to constraints. Granted the truth of this claim, and it is a truth, not an assump­ tion, and assigning the inquiry into the linguistics of this top priority given our hierarchy of values qua linguists, we set as the goal of linguistic1 theory (cf. Luelsdorff 1975:89) the formalization of the correct theory of constraints on individually different grammars in response to the question "How really dif­ ferent is different?" i.e., how and why do humans actually manifest differen­ tial linguistic1 semiosis as opposed to possible vs. impossible linguistic1 semiosis, including actual erroneous linguistic semiosis as opposed to possi­ ble vs. impossible erroneous linguistic semiosis? This, then, has been our program and remains the program under pursuit in the following work.

INTRODUCTION

3

I.1. Variation in Grammar I.1.1.

Introduction.

This section presents a critical review of several treatments of syntactic and phonological variation within the theory of generative grammar. The general conclusion of some of the most recent work is that dialects of a lan­ guage may differ in their deep structures. This unanticipated result, if correct, entails an investigation of intrapersonal and interpersonal differences consid­ erably more individually oriented than past approaches have been. In part I.1.2. we examine several contributions to the theory of syntactic dialectology. In part I.1.3. generative contributions to phonological dialectol­ ogy are surveyed, and a sharp distinction is drawn between grammars under­ lying the speech of individual speakers and metagrammars relating the gram­ mars of individual speakers. Part I.1.4. contains a statement of the principles and procedures upon which we think dialectology should be based. I.1.2. Syntactic dialectology. Contributions to the theory of syntactic dialectology are few in number and poor in quality. Some exceptions to this rule are studies by E.S. Klima, P.S. Rosenbaum, and M.D. Loflin. Klima (1964), in a widely read study of the relatedness between gram­ matical systems, considers the syntactic structure of each of several related systems to be revealed by the set of rules which most economically generates the sentences of the system. Coexisting systems are related by extension rules, rules added to one system to generate the sentences of another, whose choice is motivated by a purely synchronic principle of simplicity, namely, shortness of rules. Fundamental structural difference between two systems is seen to exist when the rules needed to generate the sentences of one system are fewer than those needed to generate the sentences of the other system plus the ex­ tension rules. Taking Klima's lead, R.R. Butters (1971) suggests making use of optional grammatical rules in order to generate dialect variants, with one variant marked as primary and the other(s) as secondary for a particular speaker. The variants (use of who vs. whom, use of he and I vs. him and me) are embedded within systems that are otherwise so close that the question of fundamental structural differences, in particular the question of how gram­ mars exhibiting fundamental structural differences should be related, does not arise. In a programmatic statement in 1964, Rosenbaum called for a characteri-

4

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

zation of the notion "dialect" in terms of transformational theory and the de­ termination of the levels on which dialects differ from one another. Due to the then lack of transformational research in the area of syntactic dialectology, Rosenbaum leaves the question of deep-structure differences between dialects of the same language open. He concludes by stressing the need to de­ velop a motivated methodology for describing and relating different linguistic systems and investigating the constraints on dialect divergence. One year later, in 1965, Beryl L. Bailey advanced the exciting hypothesis that the speech of the southern black differs in deep structure from that of the southern white. In support of this hypothesis, M.D. Loflin (1967, 1970, 1975), working explicitly within the theory of deep-structure developed in Chomsky's Aspects (1965), presents evidence that certain copulative sen­ tences with be are ambiguous in Black English and that in order to disam­ biguate such sentences an habituative category must be postulated not found in the grammar of Standard English. This habituative category, which Loflin later renames "a-temporal", appears to have the function of representing a re­ curring activity engaged in at specific times. Loflin further observes that there is no perfective form in Black English comparable to the one posited for Stan­ dard English (have+en): surface realizations of have+en in simple sentences, in yes/no questions, in tag questions, and in nominalizations are totally lack­ ing. Loflin's analysis of Black English auxiliary structure (1970) and C.J. Fillmore's analysis of Standard English auxiliary structure (1963) are jux­ taposed in Table I.1.2: Table I.1.2: Standard English

Black English

Aux Aux1 Aux 2 Perf Imperf Tense

Aspect

→ → → → → →

Aux 1 (Aux 2 ) (M) Tense (Perf) (Imperf) have + en be + ing Pres \ Past ƒ

→

Generic Non-generic Non-generic → Perf Imperf Imperf → Tense + in Tense → Present A-temporal Definite-past-imperf Indefinite-past-imperf

INTRODUCTION

5

Generic = eat Perfect = ate Present = is eatin A-temporal = be eatin Definite-past imperfect = was eatin Indefinite-past-imperfect = been eatin Loflin's rules, if correct, demonstrate that within the Aspects theory of the base, dialects of what are intuitively felt to be one and the same language may be deep-structurally different, in that they may contain different elements and relations, despite R.W. Fasold's disclaimer to the contrary. In Fasold's view (1970), "Social dialects are not differentiated from each other by discrete sets of features, present in the speech of people at one social level. Rather, they are distinguished by differences in the combination of features, and by varia­ tions in the frequency of occurrences of features which are present in everyone's speech." I.1.3. Phonological dialectology In 1961, J. R. Applegate presented a description of the speech of two chil­ dren whose "subdialect" of English deviates from Standard English. It was the only language of the children, and they used it to communicate with Englishspeaking adults, with each other, and with their playmates. The children's brother served as a translator in situations where the children could not com­ municate effectively with adults. Although Applegate refers to the children's dialect as an "autonomous system," he describes it in terms of its deviant re­ lationship to Standard English: the children have no fricatives in their dialect, but underlying fricatives are posited in the interests of relating it to Standard English. While such an analysis may reflect the way in which the dialect was acquired or the knowledge a speaker of the standard language would have to internalize in order to speak the dialect, it is unjustified on the grounds that there are no data in the dialect on which to support it, i.e., on dialect-internal grounds. A paradigm example of the orthodox generative approach to dialectol­ ogy is a study by M. Halle (1961) in which he considers a hypothetical dialect of English — a dialect with almost exactly those features as described by Ap­ plegate — differing from the standard language in the following two respects:

6

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

1. When the standard language has a continuant consonant in non-initial position, the dialect has the cognate, non-continuant (stop) consonant. 2. When the standard language has several identical non-continuant conso­ nants in a word, the dialect replaces all but the first of these by a glottal stop. Thus, Standard English cuff and puff are pronounced [k⋀p] and [p⋀p], and Standard English pup and cook are pronounced [p ⋀?] and [k ⋀?]. Halle handles the phonetic peculiarities of this dialect by the following two ordered rules, which do not function in the standard language: 1. If in a word there are several identical nonvocalic, consonantal noncontinuants, all but the first become glottal stops. 2. In noninitial position, nonvocalic, consonantal continuants become noncontinuants. Halle here follows the same procedure as Applegate: he compares the dialect with the standard language and arrives at the same underlying representa­ tions for both. Again, while this procedure results in an analysis which may reflect the way in which the dialect was acquired, or the ordered rules which a speaker of the standard language would have to learn in order to speak the dialect, it is unjustified on the basis of dialect-internal evidence alone. Halle (1962) characterizes recent work in dialectology as focussing atten­ tion on facts of the utterance and concerning itself primarily with questions of mutual intelligibility, the similarities and differences of cognate utterances, of their phoneme repertoires, distributional constraints, etc. Instead of follow­ ing this procedure, he proposes to focus on the grammars of the dialects, that is, on the ordered set of statements that describe the data, rather than on the data directly. Halle considers the case of Pig Latin in order to show that these approaches are different in fundamental ways. The former approach entails noting the distributional differences of the phonemes of Pig Latin and Gen­ eral American,that infixation is the major morphological device in Pig Latin, and that Pig Latin is incomprehensible to the uninitiated speaker of General American. On the basis of such observations, we would be led to falsely con­ clude that Pig Latin and General American were at best remotely related ton­ gues. The latter approach, involving a comparison of the grammars of Gen­ eral American and Pig Latin, results in the observation that Pig Latin contains a morphoponemic rule that is absent in the more standard dialects, namely, the shift of initial consonant clusters to the ends of words and the addition of /ē/. Since this rule is the only difference between the grammars of Pig Latin and General American, he concludes that Pig Latin is a special dialect of General American.

INTRODUCTION

7

We would all, we think, agree with Halle's analysis of Pig Latin, since all speakers of General American are speakers of Pig Latin, or, at least, all speakers of Pig Latin are speakers of some other variety of English. Consider, however, the hypothetical case of the monodialectal speaker of Pig Latin. It is clear from Halle's hypothetical example above that he would analyze the speech of the monodialectal speaker of Pig Latin in the same way as he would the speech of the bidialectal speaker of Pig Latin and General American, namely, by positing underlying General American for both with an obliga­ tory Pig Latin rule for the monodialectal speaker and an optional Pig Latin rule for the bidialectal speaker. For Halle, it is clear that a dialect cannot be adequately described without recourse to the data of some other dialect. In other words, it is impossible to construct an adequate grammar for a speaker on the sole basis of data elicited from that speaker! Saporta (1965) offers evidence from Spanish dialects to support the view of Halle that the grammatical description of a given dialect may be converted into an adequate description of a related dialect by the addition, deletion, and reordering of a relatively small number of rules. Saporta stresses that the choice of underlying forms and rules is motivated by the desire to account for the greatest number of facts in a manner as straightforward as possible. This desire, however, leads him to postulate underlying representations for Latin American Spanish which are unsupportable on the basis of the primary data of that dialect alone. D. DeCamp (1971) presents a generative analysis of the syllabic nuclei of three varieties of Jamaican English — one (H) spoken by higher-class speak­ ers, another (M) by middle-class speakers, the third (L) by lower-class speak­ ers. The language situation is such that each dialect has some speakers who are mono dialectal, while other speakers are tridialectal: a man may deliver a lec­ ture in dialect H, converse with his friends in dialect M, and talk to the gar­ dener in dialect L. This state-of-affairs leads DeCamp to the bizarre conclu­ sion that all three systems and the process of switching from one to another must be described in the grammar, resulting in an analysis wherein vowels which appear only in the speech of H and M underlie some of the vowels of the monodialectal speakers of L. This analysis is in the same vein as all the others in the domain of phonology considered thusfar: grammars are being written for languages, rather than for speakers, dialect variants are being derived from the same underlying representations, regardless of the descrip­ tive adequacy of such grammars. The remaining portion of this section is devoted to an examination of im-

8

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

plicational scaling and variable rules, which are as applicable in the domain of syntax as in the domain of phonology. The only justification for treating them in this section on phonological dialectology is that almost all of the examples of these approaches have been phonological. Implicational analysis was introduced into linguistics by DeCamp in 1971, although it has been known to sociologists as scalogram analysis since 1944 (Guttmann 1944). DeCamp illustrates implicational analysis with six features drawn from the many which define the continuum of Jamaican En­ glish. Each speaker is described in terms of the presence or absence of each feature, and the informants are ordered along a scale on the sole criterion of the co-occurrence of linguistic features (see Table I.1.3-1). Table I.1.3-1 Features + + + + + +

A child B eat C θ/t D ð/d E granny F didn't

Speakers

-Apikni - B nyam -Ct -Dd - E nana - F no ben

1. + A + B + C - D + 2. - A + B - C - D + 3. - A + B - C - D 4. - A - B - C - D 5. + A + B + C + D + 6. + A + B - C - D + 7. - A + B - C - D +

E E E E E E E

+ + + + + -

F F F F F F F

Scale + D 5

-D

+C 1

-C

+ A 6

-A

+ F 2

-F

+ E 7

-E

+B 3

-B 4

The positive specification of a feature indicates the habitual use of that fea­ ture, negative specification, the use of some other feature. [+ A], for exam­ ple, indicates the habitual use of child, [— A], the habitual use of pikni; [+ D] indicates the contrastive pronunciation of, for example, den and then; [— D], their homophonous pronunciation. The vertical divisions in the line separate those speakers who have a particular feature from those who do not. The left­ most division thus indicates that speaker 5 has feature [+ D] and that speak­ ers 1, 6, 2, 7, 3, 4 have feature [— D]; the next leftmost division shows that

INTRODUCTION

9

speakers 5 and 1 have feature [+ C], while speakers 6, 2, 7, 3, and 4 have fea­ ture [- C]. This implicational theory of variation predicts that if a speaker uses nyam, then he will also use pikni, nana, no ben, and fail to contrast thin and tin and then and den, respectively, or that if a speaker contrasts then and den, he will say child, eat, granny, didn't and contrast thin and tin. DeCamp notes that once this spectrum has been established on the basis of linguistic data alone, social and economic data for each informant may be added in the appropriate position. Informant 5, for example, whose speech exhibits the greatest number of standard features, is a well-educated proprietor of an appliance shop; informant 4, whose speech evinces the fewest number of standard fea­ tures, is an illiterate farmer in an isolated mountain village. While DeCamp originally made no attempt to formalize implicational scaling within the theory of generative grammar, an appropriate formalism was presented by Fasold in 1970. DeCamp's critics (Fasold 1970; Bickerton 1971) have raised various ob­ jections to his theory of implicational scaling, namely, that it cuts across estab­ lished categories of linguistics (i.e., phonological, syntactic, and lexical vari­ ables are mixed up along the scale) and that, in addition to the interinformant variation for which the scaling was originally designed, there is often intrainformant variation, not only relatable to linguistic contexts or style shifts, so that the data is not amenable to the bimodal treatment implicational analysis seems to call for. DeCamp (1973) has attempted to answer these critics by re­ garding scales which mix different kinds of variables as complexes of simpler scales, each confined to one kind of variable, and by replacing his bimodal ap­ proach with one based on speakers' acceptability judgments. These answers are cast in terms of hypotheses, however, and the results of the experimenta­ tion are not conclusive. We would like to point out that the presence of a fea­ ture in a person's speech cannot be said to imply anything about the presence of other features in his speech unless his speech is compared with that of others in the community. Implicational scales should thus not be viewed as rules be­ longing to grammars, but as statements relating grammars. They have a place in what we term "metagrammar". A different approach to the study of variation within generative grammar entails the tabulation of certain linguistic variable features for the frequency of their variants, and the correlation of these frequencies with social factors. Wolfram (1969:60, 84, 110) (cf. Fasold 1970), for example, presents a fre­ quency analysis of the articulation of [f] instead of [0] in word-final position, rlessness, and word-final cluster simplification in the speech of Detroit blacks, reproduced in Table I.1.3-2.

10

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Table I.1.3-2 Class

Features

Upper Middle Lower Middle Upper Working LowerWorking

[f]for[θ] .06 .11 .38 .45

no[r] .21 .39 .61 .71

no [CC≠] .51 .66 .79 .84

An examination of these data reveals that all Detroit blacks sometimes say baf for bath, mothah for mother, ha:d for hard, and des for desk. The fre­ quencies of these variants vary not only from speaker to speaker, but from im­ mediate linguistic context to immediate linguistic context. In order to express such variable linguistic constraints, Labov (1969,1972) has proposed the vari­ able rule, which, according to Fasold (1970), may be further modified to show social-class influences on variability. Labov associates with each variable rule a quantity 0 which expresses the proportion of the cases in which the rule applies out of all those cases in which the rule might apply. To each optional rule, an automatic interpretation is given such that 0 = 1 — k , where k is some factor which interferes with the rule's going to completion. The k fac­ tor may be governed by such constraints as age, sex, class, and ethnic group. Angle brackets are used to capture the generalization that the presence of the feature contained in the bracket favors the application of the rule. When sev­ eral constraints are involved, and one constraint is stronger than another, Greek letters are attached to the constraining factor, such that the earlier the letter, the more frequently the rule applies. Categorical constraints are ex­ pressed by means of an asterisk prefixed to the constraining factor. For exam­ ple, Black English consonant cluster simplification is expressed by Labov by means of the following rule: [-cont] → <Ø>/[+cons]<ß(Ø)>

<*strid> ≠≠<α(V)>

This means that consonant cluster simplification is always effected if the clus­ ter is followed by a word beginning with a sibilant, irrespective of whether or not the cluster contains a morpheme boundary. Otherwise, the rules apply in the following decreasing order of frequency: -CC≠≠C—C≠C≠≠C-CC≠≠V—C≠C≠≠V-

past two passed me past us passed us

INTRODUCTION

11

Bickerton (1971) has presented what we consider an irrefutable critique of Labov's variable rules. He points out that in language acquisition nothing would prevent the mind's generalizing capacity from formulating an obligato­ ry rule when presented with a phenomenon which, say, takes place 95% of the time. Next, in order for such rules to operate, speakers would have to keep a running score of each application in each environment, and, in the case where such rules are formulated for groups rather than individuals (Labov 1969), even in the physical absence of all other group members! Wolfram (1973), in a discussion and defence of the use of variable rules, fails to address himself to these objections. He assumes the existence of inherent variability because "our best powers of observation leave us with inexplicable fluctuation". But it is doubtful if we have used our "best powers of observation". As Wolfgang Dressier has recently (1975) pointed out, sociolinguistics needs the psy­ chologist. His suggestions and ongoing work promise to contribute to our un­ derstanding of the psychological and sociopsychological determinants of what has thusfar been regarded as inherent variation. He points to the need for dis­ tinguishing between fast (compressed) and casual speech, the effects of vari­ ous activation processes in emotional vs. non-emotional speech, and en bloc vs. mixed ordering of rules from different components of the grammar. Then, in Labov's rules, the environment determines the categorical vs. variable ap­ plication of a rule and the relative variability. One can easily imagine the use of a feature determining aspects of the environment, especially when psychological factors are involved and the context of discourse is taken into consideration. Next, Labov's cucting-off point in the investigation of environ­ mental factors seems to be arbitrary. Why not investigate each and every phonological and grammatical environment right down to individual words if necessary in the quest for the determinants of language? Lastly, it might be asked whether or not variable rules explain anything, or are mere descriptive devices for formalizing in a quasi-generative way recorded, albeit systematic, variation. Perhaps, as Bickerton has suggested, Labov's variable rules are "structural wolves in generative clothing". I.1.4. Grammars: ideal and real In an oft-cited passage, Chomsky (1965:3) characterizes linguistic theory as being primarily concerned with "an ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homogeneous speech community, who knows its language perfectly ..." Again (p. 4), "a grammar of a language purports to be a description of the ideal speaker-hearer's intrinsic competence", where "competence" refers to

12

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

the speaker-hearer's knowledge of his language (p. 4). From these quota­ tions, it is clear that Chomsky has the individual, in particular, the individual's knowledge of his language in mind as the object of grammatical description, rather than the community. It is also clear that under the idealization which Chomsky sets forth, namely where speech communities are completely homogeneous, the grammar of each member of the community will be identi­ cal to the grammar of each other member of the community—the grammar of one is the grammar of all. Such grammars are ideal, not only in the sense that they abstract away from performance phenomena such as false starts and hesi­ tations, but also in the sense that they abstract away from interpersonal varia­ tion. At the opposite pole is the notion of a grammar of a speech community, or panlectal grammar. Labov (1969: 759) has maintained that the goal of the linguist is not "the construction of complete grammars for 'idiolects'", but rather the construction of "the grammar of the speech community", which is "more regular and systematic than the behavior of any individual". Expanding the notion of competence to include everything a speaker can understand and imitate, C.-J. N. Bailey (1969) advances the idea of polylectal grammar which encompasses all the dialects of a language. He rejects the synchronic/diachronic dichotomy and the idiolectal basis of synchronic analysis and states that the alternative to subscribing to this theory is to propose a multiplicity of grammars individually formulated for each variety of the language known to the user. Note that this all-encompassing notion of acceptable linguistic cor­ pus is radically different from that presented in Bickerton (1973), where a cor­ pus is restricted to speaker productions, and Luelsdorff (1975), where a cor­ pus is restricted to speaker productions and judgements of acceptability and formality, and Luelsdorff (1982 and infra, Section I.2.1.), where a microcorpus cum macrocorpus are seen to constitute an optimum corpus. In order to account for speakers who are not aware of certain varieties of their native lan­ guage, Bailey is forced to posit rules which are not "psychologically inter­ nalized". Chomskyan idealization leads to disregard for intrapersonal and inter­ personal variation. Studies within the Chomskyan tradition have led to no in­ sight into the nature and causes of linguistic variation. The handful of studies attempting to treat dialect differences have resulted in empirically unmoti­ vated attempts to account for dialect differences by means of the addition, de­ letion, and reordering of rules. Labovian idealization leads to "grammars" which have no psychological

INTRODUCTION

13

reality for individual speakers, either because the rules therein are not psychologically internalized or place inconceivable demands on the human mind. This is not to discredit idealizations, however, for, as Lopreato and Alston (1970) have pointed out, they can serve the important functions of methodical examination of the real case, a search for causes underlying depar­ tures from the ideal case, and a construction of the basis for a quantification of analytical factors. A sharp distinction should be made between writing grammars underly­ ing the speech behavior of individual speakers (= grammars) and statements relating the grammars of individual speakers (= metagrammars). The goal of the former is the accurate and complete description of the linguistic compe­ tence of selected members of the speech community. The goal of the latter is to relate these grammars in an accurate and illuminating way. The former are theories of the linguistic competence of individual language users; the latter are statements of the similarities and differences in the linguistic knowledge of individuals in the community. The essential feature of the above approaches to dialectology within generative grammar may be reduced to the principle that the description of a given dialect may be converted into the description of a related dialect by the addition, deletion, and reordering of rules, either categorical or quantificational, or both. We call this the "Dependence Principle". In each case examined, this principle leads to the postulation of underlying representa­ tions for a dialect identical to those of some other dialect (in the case of En­ glish, the standard language), irrespective of whether or not those represen­ tations are justifiable on the basis of the dialect data alone, that is, on the basis of speaker/writer productions and judgements of grammaticality and formal­ ity. This principle has the undesirable result of making the construction of an adequate grammar for an individual speaker-hearer impossible without re­ course to data from all other varieties of the language. Since generative gram­ mars are representations of the linguistic competence of individual speaker/ writer-hearer/readers, this principle must be rejected. We offer the principle that each dialect may be described on its own terms, without recourse to the data of related dialects. We call this the "Independence Principle". The as­ sociated procedure is to produce such descriptions for individual speaker/wri­ ter-hearer/readers. These individual grammars should then be compared with an eye to determining their similarities and differences, leaving the extent and nature of dialect differentiation an essentially empirical question. Respect for the Independence Principle led Loflin to the auxiliary

14

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

hypothesis presented above (cf. Section I.1.2.), seen to differ from that prop­ osed for Standard English. Our own research into the phonology and mor­ phology of Black English (Luelsdorff 1975) had led to the same conclusion. Consider the following two examples, one phonological, the other mor­ phological, the data presented in Table I.1.4-1. In Black English there are no examples of lax [ε] occurring in the environ­ ment of an immediately following nasal consonant. Corresponding to Stan­ dard English words in which lax [ε] occurs in the environment of a following nasal are Black English words in which lax [ɪ] occurs in the environment of a following nasal. Table I.1.4-1 Differential Phonology

pen hen

SE

BE

[pεn] [hεn]

[pɪn] [hɪn]

Differential Morphology Unattested BE Prefixes:

Unattested BE Suffixes:

a-, anti-, arch-, circum-, cis-, crypto-, demi-, gi-, epi-, hyper-, mal-, etc.

-ate, -by, -een, -erel, -esque, -ette, -fold, -iana, -ing, -mo, -ory.

According to the Independence Principle, the phonology of Black English would have underlying /ɪ/ before nasals in just those words in which Standard English has an underlying /ε/ before nasals, and the phonology of Black Eng­ lish would contain a Sequence Structure Condition stating that if a nonTense, non-Back, non-Low true vowel occurs in the environment of an immediately following nasal consonant, then the vowel will also be specified High. According to the Dependence Principle, the phonology of Black Eng­ lish would differ from the phonology of Standard English in that it would con­ tain a rule which obligatorily realized underlying /ε/ as [ɪ] in the environment of a following nasal. Thus, according to the Dependence Principle, the under­ lying representation of Black and Standard English are the same, and the phonology of Black English differs from that of Standard English in that it contains an additional phonological rule. According to the Independence Principle, the underlying representations of Black and Standard English are different, and the phonology of Black English contains a Sequence Structure Condition which the phonology of Standard English lacks. Since we accept

INTRODUCTION

15

the Independence Principle, we conclude that there are underlying differ­ ences in the phonologies of Standard and Black English. Examination of hours of recorded data and systematic elicitation revealed that the prefixes and suffixes listed in Table I.1.4-1 were absent from the grammar of our prin­ cipal informant. Deference to the Independence Principle leads us to exclude Standard English lexical items containing these affixes from our informant's lexicon. Since the lexicon is part of the base (cf. Chomsky's Aspects), we con­ clude that the base of our informant's grammar is different from that of a speaker for whom these affixes are attested. We conclude this section with an extended example, at once illustrating the different effects of applying the Dependence and Independence Princi­ ples and the difference between grammars and metagrammars. In a discus­ sion of the variation-theoretical approach with implicational ordering within and among rules, Fasold (1973) mentions the discovery of numerous cases in which the application of some rules implies the application of others in a single overall pattern. See Table I.1.4-2. Table

I.1.4-2

Table I.1.4-3

Implicational Pattern Lects

A

1

1

2 3

1 1

Rules B C 1

Frequency Pattern D

1

1

Lects 1

1 1 0 1 0 0

2 3 4

4

1

0

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

5 6

A

Rules B C

1

N N n

n 0

N

N

N n

n n

n

0

O 0

O 0

Here, if a lect has rule D, then it will also have rules A, B, and C, if it has rule C, then it will also have rules A and B, etc. This pattern may be extended to in­ clude rules which apply variably in certain lects. In Table I.1.4-3, the letters N indicate numerical frequencies such that N is greater than N which is greater than n which is greater than n, 1 indicates categorical output and 0 indicates no output (i.e. the absence of a rule). It will be noted that the value of N becomes greater from bottom to top and from right to left. Fasold goes on to observe that the same principle applies within a single rule, where the scale is governed by the hierarchy of

16

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

constraints on variable rules, and that implicational patterns within single rules can be read directly from variable rules. This he exemplifies with one version of the final stop deletion rule in English.

This rule expresses the generalization that a non-strident consonant at the end of a word can be variably deleted if preceded by a consonant with the same voicing specification, provided that if the consonant to be deleted is not co­ ronal (here not /t/ or /d/), then the preceding consonant must be strident (here /s/). The two variable constraints are indicated by upper case Greek letters. The absence of a [+syllabic] segment favors the operation of the rule as does the absence of a [-segmental] item (a boundary) between the two conso­ nants. The alpha specification for vowel absence and the beta specification for boundary absence shows that the effect of vowel absence exceeds the effect of boundary absence. Fasold goes on to state that the existence of such a rule predicts the possi­ bility of a lect distribution like the one in Table I.1.4-4. Table I.1.4-4 Implicational Pattern Predicted by Final Stop Deletion Rule Environments Lects 1 2 3 4 5

AB -V,-≠

1 1 0

A -V,≠ 1 1 1

B V,-≠ 1 1

1 1

0 0 0

V,≠

0 0

1 0 0 0 0

Now, recall that 1 indicates categorical output and that 0 indicates absence of the rule, the case where the final stop is always deleted and the case where the final stop is never deleted, as in lects 1 and 5, respectively. If the final stop is always deleted, then it is clear that we are not dealing with inherent variation at all, in which case the rule is obligatory, not optional, and that the elements

INTRODUCTION

17

contained in parentheses must be omitted. If the final stop is never deleted, then no final stop deletion rule is needed at all. Thus, in addition to the criti­ cism voiced above, namely that implicational analysis violates the Indepen­ dence Principle in that it is necessarily based on two or more grammars, we see that it leads to analyses of individual speaker-hearers which are either un­ necessarily complicated or simply wrong. This is because implicational rules are not really rules in the sense of formalized generalizations found in the grammar of an individual speaker-hearer, but metarules, in the sense that they capture generalizations about rules found in the grammars of several indi­ vidual speaker-hearers. As such, they have no place in grammars, are not part of the competence of the monolectal speaker. This section has presented a critical review of several approaches to syn­ tactic and phonological variation within generative grammar, from the ear­ liest attempts to account for variation in terms of the addition, deletion, and reordering of rules, to some of the most recent attempts to account for varia­ tion in terms of implicational analysis and variable rules. The first of these sac­ rifices empirical adequacy to the simplicity metric, the latter two are psychologically unreal. All three are predicated on the Dependence Principle. In their stead, we have advanced the Independence Principle leading to the construction of psychologically real grammars for individual speaker/writerhearer/readers and metagrammars relating them that are independently moti­ vated. I.2. Differential Linguistics : A Program for Research1 I.2.1.

Introduction

Language, with a capital 'L', is conceptualized as a set of languages and each language as a set of idiolects. The task of the linguist is to elicit, both sys­ tematically and naturalistically, an optimum corpus, where by 'optimum cor­ pus' we mean a set of observation reports in support of the correct theory of the individual speaker-hearer's idiolect,2 and by 'observation report' we mean a set of statements of matters of fact concerning states of affairs in a particular, partly empirical domain consisting of speech events and speaker-hearer's judgments, i.e., metalinguistic (and sometimes metametalinguistic) reports (cf. Luelsdorff l975,p. 89). A corpus is thus a relation consisting of primary linguistic data as its first coordinate and secondary (and tertiary) responses as its second coordinate. Secondary and tertiary responses, in turn, are a function of individual

18

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

speaker-hearers, either elicited or proffered, the term 'secondary (and ter­ tiary) response' thus being used with a systematic ambiguity. We use the term 'microcorpus' to refer to a body of 'purely' linguistic data, i.e., data, either fragmentary or complete, in the traditional sense, and the term 'macrocorpus' to refer to a minimal corpus plus 'extralinguistic' or 'nonlinguistic' data typi­ cally of a (psycho)sociological nature. Generative grammarians, in the main, predicate their analyses of microcorpora plus informant judgements of grammaticality and acceptability, while (psycho)sociolinguists typically predicate their analyses of macrocorpora, an ongoing controversy concerning which types of corpora, minimum or maximum, or both, should serve as the empiri­ cal foundations of linguistic theory (cf. Aarts (1977); Seuren (1979), and the references cited there), with implications for the conceptual and logical foun­ dations as well. The parties to this debate simply represent different, equally legitimate, interests. We have introduced the concepts Language, language, and idiolect, ig­ noring the vexed question of dialect. For the present purposes, 'dialect' is de­ fined as the intersection of two or more idiolects, where the intersection is non-null. A 'language variety' may then be defined as either the grammar of an individual speaker-hearer, with the term 'grammar' used with the Chomskyan (systematic) ambiguity to refer to either the grammar constructed by the linguist or to the internalized rules of the speaker-hearer, or (conjunctive or disjunctive 'or') a dialect in the above-defined sense. 3 More precisely, a lan­ guage variety is identified with the nonempty intersection of the Cartesian products of n grammars, where n ≧ 2, each grammar constituting a 'represen­ tation' or explanatory theory of the set of ordered pairs {PD,SR}, where PD is the primary linguistic data and SR the secondary (and tertiary) responses, the terms 'secondary' and 'tertiary response' themselves multiply systemati­ cally ambiguous, referring to (1) the informant's (elicited or proffered) metalinguistic judgments (the reference mentioned above in the context of one systematic ambiguity), (2) the linguist's explanatory representation of (1), itself a function of time, further insight, etc., and (3) the facts obtained as the result of correlating micro- and macrolinguistic data of fairly precisely specifiable types. As a first approximation, 'linguistic fact' is defined as fol­ lows: lf.Def : f ε A x B :⇔ V PD

V[f = {PD,SR} APD ε A A SR ε B] SR

INTRODUCTION

19

The one, to our mind, pressing professional obligation of the contempor­ ary linguist is to create an (axiomatized) theory powerful enough to explain and bridge the constraints on individual linguistic differences — that is, to explain the constraints on human language difference in all their manifold realizations, past, present, and future. Such a theory holds forth the promise of being the key to human nature, an explanation of the nature and manifesta­ tions of the faculté de langage in the broadest sense, for self-knowledge is something we wish to place as a necessary condition on intelligence and actual understanding. This book purports to take a very modest step in this direction in respect of constraints on errors in grammar. I.2.2. Differential Linguistics During the past two decades (some) linguists have posited rules, thought to have psychological reality, underlying the competence and performance of language users. The notion that there exists a uniform and homogeneous com­ petence, however, has been repeatedly demonstrated to be in need of revi­ sion: demonstrably there is no one set of rules underlying the language subparameterization of the individuals in a speech community. Rather, linguistic competence is differential, a function of an inordinately large conglomeration of factors, including genetic and environmental. The view that linguistics is a branch of cognitive psychology leads to the establishment of three essential branches of investigation highly relevant to the task at hand, namely, founding, justifying and developing a rich and pro­ ductive, and, above all, therapeutic differential psychology of language: (1) trait or factor linguistics; (2) typological linguistics, and (3) 'idiographic lin­ guistics' (= linguistics of the individual). In A Comprehensive Dictionary of Psychological and Psycho-analytical Terms differential psychology is defined as: '[...] that branch of psychology that investigates the kinds, amounts, causes and effects of individual or group differences in psychological characteristics.' Substituting 'linguistics' for 'psychology' in this definition, we obtain: '[...] that branch of linguistics that investigates the kinds, amounts, causes and effects of individual or group dif­ ferences in linguistic characteristics.' I.2.2.1. Trait or Factor Linguistics Trait or factor linguistics paints linguistic portraits of all individual lin­ guistic differences, lists them, classifies them, and attempts to explain them by showing why just these factors are indicated as opposed to others which could have been indicated: This entails, among other things, investigating all traits

20

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

at all levels of phonology and grammar, including type/token relations in syn­ tax/semantics, and pragmatics. For example, it is a fact of the variety of En­ glish spoken by some American Blacks that their individual linguistic por­ traits or profiles (= idiographs) differ in certain fundamental respects from the linguistic profiles of non-Black members of the American speech com­ munity. In this context, it is important to bear in mind that different situations arouse different stylistic dispositions. These have been treated as different psychological sets to the situations in which they occur (Luelsdorff, 1975). In Investigating English Style, Crystal and Davy (1969) envision themselves as being confronted with a tripartite task: (1) identifying the entire range of linguistic features people intuit to be stylistically significant and specifying a precise way of talking about them (a metalanguage); (2) outlining a method of analysis permitting the organization of these features thereby facilitating comparison of any one use of language with any other; (3) deciding on the function of these features by classifying them into categories based on the kind of extra-linguistic purpose they have. (p. 12, quoted in Aarts (1977: 10). Here the factors and functions of speech events play a decisive role (Bühler (1934); Jakobson (1960), many of the writings of Hymes (1961,1968), and Luelsdorff (1984)), although it must be said that the factors and functions thus far posited have been excessively sociological and anthropological in na­ ture, to the sacrifice and neglect of psychological determinants. We must forgo a recapitulation of Bühler's triadic explication of the linguistic sign and its development in the writings of Jakobson and Hymes, but hasten to point out that speech acts are determined to a great extent by the situations in which they occur, and this not exclusively in a ritualistic sense. In this regard and within this framework, a description of speech acts which relate is needed to supplement the recent discussion of speech acts which are relevant (Dascal, 1977). Such speech acts are perhaps best categorized as healthy, rather than as 'happy', as they were dubbed by Austin (1975). I.2.2.2. Typology Various systems of classifying human types have been developed, one of which is the following (Assagioli, 1974): (1) nominalist — realist, (2) classicist — romantic, (3) Philistine — Bohemian, (4) Appolonian — Dionysiac (Nietzsche), (5) tenderhearted — toughminded (James), (6) empiricist —

INTRODUCTION

21

rationalist, (7) primary function — secondary function, (8) active — reflec­ tive (Gross), (9) schizoid — cyclothymic (Kretschmer), (10) inner-directed — outer-directed, (11) extrovert — introvert, (12) forward-verted — retroverted. Called for here is the correlation and explanation of linguistic behavior with any one or several of these human types, and the expansion and refinement of the typology itself. By way of example, a schizoid text follows where the author, hospitalized and being treated for paranoid schizophrenia, is corresponding with the rep­ resentative of his publisher while under the influence of haloperidol (Haldol), a tranquilizer and personality stabilizer belonging to the class of neuroleptics: Dear Mr. van den Oever, The day before yesterday my wife sent you the corrected signature proofs. I would like you to MAKE ARRANGEMENTS F O R HAVING [lower case superimposed on upper case, P. A.L.] the list of addenda et cor­ rigenda separately in Holland and to subsequently insert this list in the overall swing of your things. As long as the will is here, I cannot see any reason why we should have, bought I therefore respectfully, please don't be, since, as you will know is not... You made no intention. Wishing you ... Mr. van den Oever's reaction was the registering of a kind, partial lack of comprehension. We may assign the above text, at least in part, to Kretschmer's type, mentioned in 9 above, schizoid, since, beginning with overall swing of your things ... ' it exhibits some of the features of schizo­ phrenic discourse (disconnectedness of speech, 4 lack of relation to the prim­ ary signal system, etc.) (Lebedinskij 1938, 1959). I.2.2.3. Idiographic Linguistics Idiographic linguistics attempts to give a full, comprehensive account of individual differences at all levels of linguistic analysis, including the lexical and the pragmatic. Interestingly enough, as the above text exemplifies, these factors are in a state of constant flux, owing to the inner 'growth of the indi­ vidual' and the differentially largely deterministic influence of the external world. The chief method of the analysis is 'verstehende Psychologie' whose goal is to arrive at an understanding and comprehension from within. In this context, a distinction has been made between 'acquaintance with' and 'know­ ledge about', the latter reserved for comprehension from within.

22

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

I . 2 . 2 . 4 . Differential Phonology The object of differential phonology is to record and explain individual differences in phonetic and phonological behavior in all its manifold aspects. Such differences have been recorded in systematic phonemic and phonetic in­ ventories for one and the same language, in segment structure and sequence structure conditions, in surface phonetic constraints, and in rules assigning in­ tonation and stress. For example, P-rules for Black English not found in the standard language include: (1) Vocalization of liquids; (2) diphthongization of monophthongs; (3) monophthongization of diphthongs; (4) deletion of nasals; (5) utterance-final obstruent devoicing; (6) 'weakening' of word-final stops; (7) schwa retraction, and (8) simplification of morpheme-final conso­ nant clusters. The investigation, to repeat, should not be limited to group dif­ ferences, but extend to individual differences and their psychological deter­ minants as well. Examples could easily be multiplied, covering aspects of the pronuncia­ tion of mongoloids and aphasics, for instance, suggesting directions differen­ tial linguistics might profitably take, but most of these are based on the un­ stated and unjustified assumption that deviant speech be considered a replica and the standard language as model (for one recent example of this see Eisenwort-Scheltz and Dressier, 1980). I.2.2.5. Differential Syntax/Semantics Ulvestad [personal commun.] has pointed out that systematic differences are to be found among authors in the use of the German relative for temporal expressions. We find: Die Zeit, zu der/als/wann er ankam ... Some variants have stylistic value, others are simply dialectal. Thus, in Passauer German, we obtain: [iá:ßәt] [du á:ßә ? st] [ε á:ßәt]

'I work' 'you work' 'he works'

[mi á:ßә ? n] [es á:ßә ? s] [zi á:ßә ? n]

'we work' 'you (dual) work' 'they work'

The es-dual is used by older speakers in the area of Passau, the Bavarian forest, and elsewhere.

INTRODUCTION

23

An example of differential semantics, an experiment conducted by Lebedinskij (1959), demonstrated that schizophrenics have difficulty expres­ sing themselves on a feeling level. Subjects were asked to participate in a free association test whose result was that none, all diagnosed as schizophrenic, as­ sociated any emotive words with the words given, suggesting a program for therapy involving exercises designed to evoke emotions, help people identify them, and train them in their verbal expression, one of many caveats being that talking about an emotion is quite different from experiencing one. I.2.2.6. Differential Vocabulary One of our Black English informants compiled a 'mini-lexicon' of Black English, rendering his own definition of the entries and establishing rhyming pairs. Wife was defined as 'a man's girlfriend'. Vernacular definitions remain an interesting area of future investigation within the framework of differential linguistics, there being more variation within the subjective lexicon than any­ where else in the grammar. In Luelsdorff (1975), furthermore, we plead for a feeling level of semantic analysis of lexical items, having observed that some lexemes are, on occasion, more emotionally loaded than others. We are thinking of such notions as 'love', 'hate', 'jealousy', 'anger', etc. It appears feasible to 'generate' these emotions via a deductive model, the details of which must be postponed. I.2.2.7. Differential Pragmatics Following Haberland and Mey (1977, p. 1) we conceive of pragmatics as concerning itself with the conditions which govern language use. For the pur­ pose of this sketch, we recapitulate one perspective on the theory of sincerity conditions (Searle, 1969), presented in Luelsdorff (1974, pp. 12-14), where the predicate 'presuppose' is used in an intuitive, ordinary language sense. If I say to an interlocutor: T will do X' and am being sincere, then my statement presupposes I am able to do X I intend to do X I promise to do X, the last presupposition containing a performative. If I believe that I am able to do something and intend to do it, then this presupposes that I either dispose of the resources to do it (time, money, opportunity, etc.), or will dispose of the resources to do it as a necessary prerequisite to doing it. In other words, a

24

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

necessary prerequisite to my making a sincere utterance is that all the presup­ positions of my statement be true. There thus appears to be an intimate re­ lationship between sincerity and truth. This relationship explains why it is that people who are thought to be insincere are sometimes also thought to be liars. As we have seen, presuppositions of statements relate to our abilities, inten­ tions and promises, beliefs, assessments of our resources, etc., and, if our statements involve others, their abilities, intentions, beliefs, etc. Sincere statements are thus seen to involve knowledge of our own and other people's minds. If I ask someone a question like 'How high is the Campanile?' and if I am sincere, then this presupposes that I don't know the answer, I want an answer, I believe that the person addressed either knows or can find out the an­ swer, I assume the person can communicate the message to me. Similar reasoning applies to injunctions. The notion of sincerity is thought to be a relative one, and the extent to which a person is thought to be sincere, or thinks himself to be sincere, appears to be a matter of degree. As a first, crude approximation, the sincerity of an utterance is inversely related to the number of its presuppositions that are false. I.2.3. Clinical Linguistics Patholinguistics has thus far concerned itself with the language of aphasics, schizophrenics, and mongoloids, partly on the assumption that an understanding of the workings of pathological speech patterns would yield high dividends for the understanding of the mechanisms of the language of normals. Whether this assumption was justified remains to be seen (cf. above statement in regard to the model typically used). We illustrate the study of the language of schizophrenics with another example where the patient was under treatment for paranoid schizophrenia taking 3 x 10 drops of Haldol per day. It is a fact of the language of certain American Blacks that idiolects, that the resultant idiographs different in certainessential waas from the idiographs of non-Black memers of the American speech community.

INTRODUCTION

25

Recall that different situations evoke different stylistic dispositions. Con­ trary to widespread belief and attempted practice, it appears to be impossible to reconstruct the standard text from the given replica, working, for the pre­ sent purposes, within the replica-model approach; here the immediate lin­ guistic context is insufficient for purposes of reconstruction, as is the context of situation: the speaker's (writer's) underlying intention is lost forever, thus making the claim that schizophrenics on occasion speak a private language, out of desperation and frustration, more attractive. In this sample, all the fac­ tors and functions of speech events, excepting the message, remain constant, the only really essential difference being the lapse of several days in time. From the point of view of the replica-model position, the text exhibits perseveration (that...), copula be deletion (idiographs Ø different), obvious orthographical run-ons, misspellings (a for y in waas instead of ways, possibly traceable to perceptual problems), and deletions (b deleted in memers for members), etc. Viewed from the coign of vantage of private language (Leodolter, 1975; Spoerri, 1973: 59), where the language of schizophrenia is termed a 'Privat- oder Kunstsprache', however, a special grammar, i.e., one that was independent of that of the standard language, would have to be writ­ ten, for which purpose the written samples are altogether inadequate — they do not constitute an optimum corpus in the sense of the introduction to this section. Consider finally the case of inner speech, e.g., that used in the context of Autogenes Training (Schultz, 1966, cited in Spoerri, 1973), or the Transcen­ dental Meditation of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, perhaps too well known to even warrant a footnote. Characteristic here is nonuttered, but nevertheless real, autosuggestion, with an intended therapeutic objective ('the right (left) arm is warm, very warm ...' or 'my legs are heavy, very heavy', etc.) (Spoerri, 1973:195-196). One might inquire into the relative effectiveness of such inner speech, over and above its linguistic properties, as opposed to speaking out loud to oneself, as opposed to listening to a second party, either in person, or recorded. The literature on this subject seems unjustifiably limited in both quantity and quality (cf. Goldstein (1948: 91-104) 'Disturbances of Inner Speech', and Jakobson's commentary on Goldstein's 'Wortbegriff (1959) for two very readable discussions of inner speech from the pathological and semiotic perspectives). For a sketch of clinical linguistics cf. Crystal (1981). I.2.4.

Conclusion

We have attempted to outline the goals of a new field of linguistic interest, herein termed 'differential linguistics', an area of investigation con-

26

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

cerned with the kinds, amounts, and causes of individual and group differ­ ences in linguistic1 (in the broadest sense) characteristics, their description and ultimate explanation. It is an intention that this discussion will have the effect of evoking some interest in its capacity of a new paradigm for interdis­ ciplinary inquiry. I.2.5. Retrospect and prospect The above will have performed its primary functions if it has left the reader with the persuasion that the pursuit of intrapersonal variation is a both necessary and desirable mode of linguistic inquiry and that the delicacy of a linguistic analysis bears a positive, direct relation to the quantity and quality of variation, in both the Chomskyan micro-linguistic and the Labovian macro-linguistic sense of competence and performance. While it is Chomsky's personal preference to abstract away from such variation in his quest for the essence of language and Labov's personal preference to abstract away from individual linguistic diversity by focusing on the metalinguistic quantification of the realization of extremely few sociolinguistic variables (cf., for example, Labov 1966) in small groups known in advance to exhibit such variation, differential linguistics offers minutely detailed observation, description, and explanation of intrapersonal macrolinguistic variation in communicative competence and performance, attempting to identify all the linguistically relevant dimensions therein as a logical prerequisite to interper­ sonal linguistic comparison and contrast, typology, and universal quantifica­ tion. The first vade mecum of differential linguistics, the volume Individual differences in language ability and language behavior (Fillmore, Kempler, and Wang 1979), contains extensive discussions of the psycholinguistics of indi­ vidual differences (Carroll 13-32, Hymes 33-46, Lambert 47-56), individual differences in language use and language judgements (Day 57-84, Fillmore 85-102, Ross 127-166), individual differences in language acquisition (Crys­ tal and Fletcher 167-188, Ferguson 189-202, Gilbert 229-244), individual neurolinguistic differences (Efron 245-252, Goodglass 253-260, Hardyck, Naylor, and Smith 261-276, Jerison 277-288, Levy 289-304), and sociocultural aspects of individual differences (Gumperz and Tannen 305-326, Labov 327340). In the context of the present study, the discussion of sociocultural as­ pects of individual differences warrants special attention, since the very titles of the contributions by Gumperz and Tannen, "Individual and social differ­ ences in language use", and Labov, "Locating the frontier between social and

INTRODUCTION

27

psychological factors in linguistic variation", promise an engaging examina­ tion of the idiolinguistic-sociolinguistic interface. What is promised, however, is not delivered. In the case of Gumperz and Tannen, we read an (interesting) account of socially defined differences in comprehension strategies, and, in the case of Labov we again find individual differences virtually swept under the metalinguistic social throw-rug and held to be a function of social experi­ ence, a social determinism we must reject, for if linguistic competence and performance were socially strictly determined, there would be no interper­ sonal and intrapersonal variation that was psycholinguistic or creative, i.e. individual language competence and performance would be homogeneous across individuals in socially delineated groups: "Thus a number of studies of individuals served to reinforce our findings that the major social variables in language were strongly constrained by indi­ vidual behavior, despite the conviction of many people that they had en­ gaged in 'individual enterprise' in language. There was a wide individual vari­ ation in placement on the use of the variables, but the individual's place in that spectrum reflected his early social experience (my underscoring — P.A.L.), almost independent of his individual ideology or self-image."

Thus, for Labov, man's linguistic place is socially given, not there for him to choose or create, mould or shape, not even subject to standard deviation, de­ void of personality, character, motivation, attitude, or intention — speaking, in short, the language of the faceless crowd — a position which Labov, paradoxically, had somewhat earlier explicitly repudiated. Writing in refer­ ence to his collaborative investigation of the empirical foundations of lan­ guage change (Weinreich, Herzog, and Labov 1968), he remarks (Labov 1975: 53): "That paper emphasized the need for recognizing heterogeneity as a fundamental property of linguistic structures, since change is incomprehen­ sible if we begin with and end with the search for homogeneous structures." This strict social determinism, it seems to us, has its analogue in psychological behaviorism, and we reject the former for all the reasons that have been ad­ vanced since the late 50s (Chomsky 1959) for rejecting the latter. While by no means gainsaying that there are myriad common linguistic denominators among individuals belonging to the same speech community — how else would "communication" be possible? — and among the languages implemented by different speech communities — how else would "linguistic universals" be empirically interpretable? — we view the world as populated by linguistic sender-receivers, by individuals, granted, in society, with differen­ tial capacities for linguistic knowledge, acquisition, and use, and wish to em-

28

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

phasize these individual aspects of language in culture to turn the tide of lin­ guistic research in the direction of the formulation of a theory of constraints on individual differences (cf. Luelsdorff 1975: 89), for limits in intrasystemic and intersystemic linguistic differences there must be, both within languages and among them. It is these constraints that constitute the true subject matter of linguistic1 universals, the correct theory of which is the ultimate concern of our current investigations. We think that time will tell, again and again, that there is more truth in Bickerton's (1971) remark that Labov's variable rules are "structural wolves in generative clothing" than perhaps first met the eye. We also think that the generative ((revised) (extended)) standard-theoretic linguistic corpus, whose heart beats with the rarified blood of a transindividual, no, supraindividual frictionless linguistic "reality" will gradually come to a really real rest insofar as it casts a perspicacious glance at the individual. We conclude this retrospect with a prospect, a quotation from a recent contribution to the neurolinguistic literature (Newcombe and Marshall 1981: 44), for it captures in a uniquely elegant way a portion of the sume and sub­ stance of our intentions: "We...wish to conclude with a moral. Whatever small advances have been made in our understanding of the acquired dyslexias have accrued from the policy of studying individual patients in greater depth and detail. It has then been possible to compare and contrast these individuals on a fairly large number of dimensions."

The interested reader is strongly encouraged to contrast this view with the hideously distorted picture of it painted by Rousseau and Sankoff (1978: 9799), for the issue is of such fundamental importance that it simply cannot be glossed over or ignored. Given our view of sign as symptom (Luelsdorff 1984), it is the purpose of this present study to put this policy of studying individuals in "greater depth and detail" into practice by investigating the spelling pattern of an individual German learner of English and the processing strategies which underlies it in order to lay the foundation for the systematic comparison and contrast of the constraints on orthographies in isolation and in contact along all those dimen­ sions which are discovered in the course of time to be significant. I.3. Orthography in grammar Since the inception of generative grammar now over 30 years ago, (cf.

INTRODUCTION

29

Chomsky 1951,1957,1965, and Halle 1959), the orthographie child has been at best a foundling — the number of generative contributions to the study of orthography can almost be counted on one hand (Chomsky and Halle 1968, Halle 1969, 1972, Klima 1972, 1975, Chomsky 1970, and Read 1971) — un­ justly denied the status of a component of grammar, autonomous or other­ wise, in intricate and intimate interaction with its syntactic, semantic, and phonological siblings. Consider the following remarks as an attempt to pro­ vide a rationale for adopting an orthographic component as a foster child. First, the argument from writing systems qua systems of linguistic signs. If a grammar is a theory of a language, and a language is a multilevel (or multicomponential) system of linguistic signs, then the orthography of that lan­ guage (where by 'orthography' (of a language) we mean the system of written representation of a language, be it a mapping onto segments, syllables, mor­ phemes, lexical items, or syntax, and, if the given language has no orthog­ raphy, or a given individual cannot write, the orthographies that could be in­ vented for that language, or the individual qua speller), viewed as the set of rules underlying the written representations of that language (cf. Vachek 1972, 1973), which rules, in the case of an alphabet, specify the relation be­ tween letters and segments in context, i.e. define linguistic signs (in the view adopted in this study, cf. infra) or components of linguistic signs, must be ac­ corded the status of a component of that grammar. Second, while an orthography may be a secondary system of represen­ tation (cf., Baron 1981, and some of the many references cited there) in the case of normal speller-writer/readers, it is elevated to the rank of a primary representation system in the neurolinguistic dissociative disorder known as "deep dyslexia" (sometimes called "phonemic dyslexia") (cf. Coltheart, Pat­ terson & Marshall 1980 and Coltheart (1984)), recently referred to as "the most extensively studied syndrome of acquired dyslexia" (Patterson 1981: 154) the results of which should hence not be taken lightly or ignored, whose major symptom is very great difficulty in using the phonological code in reading as shown by very poor performance in reading nonsense syllables and non-words. Even were one to dismiss the notion of expanding the domain of grammar to include an orthographic component on the grounds that an orthography is a secondary system of representation, hence not an essen­ tial component of a grammar, one must include an orthographic component in grammar in order to account for the reading behavior of deep dyslexics (or, for that matter, for that class of readers who could be shown to make exclusive use of the semantic route to reading comprehension, bypassing the

30

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

phonology), involving as it does a dissociation of written symbol and spoken segment. Call this one "argument from neurolinguistics". One might counter with the objection that grammar should deal with the normal, not the pathological case, but what are the quantitative and qualitative attributes of normality in language (Ellis 1982) and how do these evidence a general theory of normality (Offer and Sabshin 1966)? The answers to these questions depend on one's conception of deviation, which leads to the third argument, the argument from error analysis. It has been shown (Buckingham 1981:199-220) that the same constraints on error are operative in many instances of "normal" slips-of-the-tongue as are operative in aphasic errors and that the range and type of such errors are very similar. Now, were it to turn out to be the case that the theory of con­ straints on orthographic error is isomorphic with the theory of constraints on phonological error, as we believe it will, and that the theory of constraints on error in first language acquisition bears a definable relation to the theory of constraints on error in bilingual language acquisition, with the errors specifi­ able as a complex function of the underlying properties of the systems in con­ tact, as we also believe it will, and granting that similar constraints should be expressed by similar rules, ignoring these regularities is tantamount to missing a class of generalizations inherent in linguistic competence and performance in language acquisition and in language knowledge and use in general. It is be­ coming increasingly apparent that the presence of errors in linguistic compe­ tence and error commission, detection, and correction in linguistic perfor­ mance are part and parcel of the notion "language", that they are in the "core" of language knowledge and use, rather than on the "periphery", and that the investigation of error data delivers insights into the very nature of language it­ self, into human nature in fact (cf. Bierwisch 1970,1981), and the very valid­ ity of linguistic argumentation (cf. Sternberger 1983 and the many references cited there, and Cutler 1982 for a classified bibliography of speech errors, where, however, no studies of errors in second language acquisition or oral reading and only a few studies of errors in spelling are included). I.3.1. Onlinguistic51error Our interest in orthographic errors stems from our subscribing to the commonly held view (cf. Fromkin 1973, 1980, inter alia) that errors provide clues to the underlying linguistic1 knowledge of the linguistic1 sender-receiver (speaker-writer-speller-hearer-reader) and to the processing of that know­ ledge in language comprehension and production (Garrett 1981) and that

INTRODUCTION

31

error analysis subserves the evaluation of linguistic2 argumentation (Stern­ berger 1983). In the case of linguistic -pathological data, errors are seen as evidence which may support or refute theories of the constraints on the range of possible mispragmatic, missyntactic, missemantic, misphonological and misphonetic (cf. Maxwell 1982 for a theory of constraints on misarticulation phonologies), and misspelling systems (the present study), and the typologi­ cal investigation of such systems. The present study is a detailed treatment of an incipient English-German bilingual's knowledge of the orthographic con­ ventions of English and the processing strategies held to underlie his use of these conventions in his spelling productions, based on a minute examination of the types of spelling errors made and their causes. At the same time, it takes a step in the direction of specifying the set of constraints on orthographic mis­ representations for the above-mentioned pair of orthographies in contact, i.e., to provide a rather precise characterization of the notion "possible or­ thographic misrepresentation" for the type of learner studied in the particular context in which the data was elicited (cf. Chapter VIII: Processing Strategies in Bilingual Spellers for methodological considerations). From another cogni­ tive perspective, we investigate a rather large set of factors held to be responsi­ ble for short-term and long-term memory decay. From yet another perspec­ tive (cf. Chapter VII: Orthographic Conduits d'Approche), we present an introduction to the quantitative structure of an orthographic monitor. Finally, interspersed throughout the study are recommendations for pedagogical in­ tervention in prevention and remediation insofar as such recommendations emerge as an obvious by-product of the error analysis under immediate dis­ cussion . Consequently, our work should be of interest to linguists of most per­ suasions, including psycholinguists and neurolinguists, cognitive and educa­ tional psychologists, language educationalists in particular, and educationalists in general. I.3.1.1. The notion 'linguistic1error' In this section we sketch an extended theory of the notion 'linguistic1 error', extended in the sense that it is grounded in the ever-expanding organon-model of language, a theory of linguistic factors and functions ultimately derived from Plato's Cratylus, introduced into linguistic1 theory by Bühler (1920, 1931, 1932, 1934, 1936, 1969) and developed by Jakobson (1960), Hymes (1961,1968), Habermas (1973,1976a, 1976b, 1976c, 1976d), Holenstein (1979), and Luelsdorff (1984). The organon-model of language is a model of language qua speaker's competence (communicative competence) as manifested in speech events in context, what we have been terming "differential

32

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

linguistics". This theory of linguistic1 factors and functions contains the notion of a "norm-theoretical speech event in Li. at time t1 in context (both psycholog­ ical and sociological) c ". From the conjunction of templates (cf. infra) and cooccurrence restrictions which constitute the norm, the linguistic1 norm, the sender-receiver, within the confines of his competence, selects, combines, and recombines just those conceptual archetypes which conform, as a rule, to those semantically representable attitudes and intentions he wishes to ac­ tualize (foreground) by using his linguistic1 performance as an instrument to communicate them. Note that we distinguish between the class of such possi­ ble speech events in Li, on the one hand, and the class of such speech events which a particular sender-receiver of speech-events in L. is capable of produc­ ing/comprehending and actually produces/comprehends, on the other. Clearly, there is a vast difference between the norms of a language and the norms of a language which an individual sender-receiver has internalized, on the one hand, and what an individual sender-receiver is capable of producing or intends to produce as opposed to what he actually produces, on the other. Very clear evidence of the matter is provided by linguistic1 errors, although there are, of course, linguistic1 errors which are intentionally produced and in­ tentionally received as such, suggesting the necessity of the notion 'differen­ tial error-function'. For detailed accounts of the factors and functions of speech events which have thusfar been discovered, we refer the interested reader to the discussions cited above, restricting ourselves here for lack of space to the following sum­ mary list: Factor

Function

Speaker Hearer Objects Channel Code Message Utterance Inner Form Attitude Intention

Expressive Appellative Referential Phatic Metalinguistic Aesthetic Communicative Constitutive Adaptive Selective

Validity-Claim Sincerity Normativity Adequacy Equality Intelligibility Beauty Interpersonal Subjectivity Executibility Conformity Clarity

INTRODUCTION

33

Each of the above categories in the theory of differential linguistics have the status of variables realized by various values. Each configuration of extramicrolinguistic1 values may have microlinguistic1 reflexes in the items selected from and sequenced in the particular linguistic1 code for the particu­ lar linguistic1 utterance, which choice and combination occupies a place in a system of multidimensional coordinates constituting the conventions com­ monly referred to by the rubric "norm". The individual sender-receiver may or may not subscribe to the norm in question, either intentionally or uninten­ tionally, either in knowledge or in ignorance. While norms themselves do con­ tain variants, some variations from norm prototypes are perceived as errors relative to the context in which they occur and relative to the perceptual sys­ tem of the listener/viewer. Pathological linguistic1 use is indicated when the sender-receiver's system of coordinates of ego-demarcation is sufficiently di­ vergent from (i.e., is in great enough conflict with) the system of coordinates which constitute the ego-demarcation of the receiver defined by the norma­ tive values s/he assigns to the analogous selection and combination of factor-, function-, and validity-claim values in his or her own system. These values, in turn, are arrayed in a hierarchy of importance which hierarchy is partially dif­ ferential in each of the sender-receivers participating in the speech event. In writing this, we are attempting one, albeit somewhat vague, characterization of the distinction, which we all more or less clearly intuit, between normal and pathological errors. One current bone of contention is whether or not the line of demarcation between normal and pathological deviations is quantitative or qualitative, or both. It is our opinion that the ultimate answer, and we are sure that one is forthcoming, must await the collection and analysis of much more error data than is now available, within a unified analytical framework, using a much broader concept of error than has regrettably thusfar been available, namely, a concept of error defined in relation to the entire spectrum of exemplars of the factor-, function-, and validity-claim variables enumerated above. I.3.1.2. The notion 'error' in the organon-model of language. In a recent study of classical malapropisms and the creation of a mental lexicon (Zwicky 1982), a monomodal/bimodal dichotomy is proposed, the former term referring to errors instantiated in single-mode perception and production, the latter to errors instantiated when some type of production must be coordinated with some type of perception:

34

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Monomodal (1.) (2.) (3.) (4.)

Speaking Writing Listening Reading

Bimodal (1.) (2.) (3.) (4.)

Listening and Speaking Listening and Writing Reading and Writing Reading and Speaking

While this dichotomy is surely a simplification — how can one read and write without reading what one has written, or how can one read and speak without listening to what one is saying, or how can one listen without concurrently speaking in inner speech, or, even monomodally, speak without listening to oneself — it is at least a suggestive start because monomodal category (3.), Listening, and bimodal categories (1.) and (2.), Listening and Speaking and Listening and Writing refer to both a sender and a receiver. Furthermore, it in­ corporates — without comment, it is true — writing and reading as compo­ nents of the theory of grammar, a silent revolution in transformational circles, but a commonplace in educationalist, psychological, and neuropsychological inquiry (Avakian-Whitaker and Whitaker 1973, Marshall and Newcombe 1973, Beauvois and Dérouesné 1979, Dérouesné and Beauvois 1979, War­ rington and Shallice 1980, Coltheart, Patterson, and Marshall 1980, Coltheart 1981, 1982, 1984, Newcombe and Marshall 1981, Patterson 1981, Shallice 1981, Malatesha and Whitaker (1984), Patterson (1982), and Patterson and Kay 1982). Then — again without comment — it rightfully places reading and writing in the center of error analysis, alongside speaking and lis­ tening, another revolution in linguistic1 error-analytic circles, where one searches in vain in the major anthologies of error-analytic studies (Fromkin 1973, 1980, Cutler 1982, for errors in native language production, and Richards 1973, for errors in second-language production) for even a single paper dealing with either spelling or reading errors, although such studies have been published for years in the non-linguistic (?) literature (cf., for example Goodman 1967, 1969, Weber 1968, 1970, and the many references cited there), Avakian-Whitaker and Whitaker 1973 being a notable excep­ tion. In our opinion, this in itself is a gaping error of omission, especially in view of the fact that educational, reading, and psychological journals are rid­ dled with contributions addressed to these issues. Having identified this as an error, and the fact that it is a misconception and not simply an oversight or a question of the temporary assignment of priorities to other areas of linguistic1 investigation, we go on to identify the cause: the study of spelling and reading errors has been defined out of the field of linguistics by a narrow conception

INTRODUCTION

35

of grammar as consisting of the three components syntax, semantics, and phonology, to say nothing of the study of normal reading, writing, and spel­ ling competence and performance, in complete oblivion to an earlier, yet no less distinguished tradition (Artymovič 1932a, 1932b, Vachek 1933, 1939, 1942, 1948, 1972, 1973, 1976, Uldall 1939, Edgerton 1941, Bolinger 1946, Bloomfield and Barnhart 1961, Fries 1961, Weir and Venezky 1968, Venezky 1970, among others), with no more than a handful of exceptions (Halle 1969, 1972, Chomsky 1970, Klima 1972, 1975, Read 1971) the gist of all of which, excepting Read 1971, is that English orthography is an optimal system of graphic representation, because it fairly consistently maps letters onto sys­ tematic phonemes, although even this claim is not without its problems (cf. Vachek 1976, and the many reviews of The Sound Pattern of English (Chomsky and Halle 1968), which in so many other respects is rightly re­ garded as a modern classic). Zwicky {op cit) goes on to remark that errors may either represent the presence of an inappropriate feature or the absence of an appropriate feature, and that they may be statistically aberrant, either occurring too frequently or not frequently enough, and proposes four additional distinctions crosscutting the categories monomodal and bimodal: (1.) the linguistic basis of the error; (2.) the physical relationship between the target and the error; (3.) the intentions of the producer, and, (4.) the cause of the error. He concludes with mentioning four areas in error analysis as problematic, a judgement with which we readily concur: (1.) the definition of the relevant error categories; (2.) problems with the classification of particular examples (the solution to which is provided, we think, by the solution to (1.)); (3.) problems in the recognition of examples; and (4.) devising more controlled methods of data collection. While elsewhere Zwicky (1980) briefly deals with errors which are formally correct, i.e. have no microlinguistic basis (cf. (1.) above), notably absent is any discussion of errors resulting from misfirings in any of the combinations of the values substitutable for any of the variables in the organon-model of language (cf. supra). In fact, Zwicky's theory of error, restricted as it is to speaker, hearer, code, message, and utterance, i.e. five of the factors, is in principle incapable of accounting for the above-mentioned combinations because his theory of grammar is incapable of accounting for them. To mention just one example, how can a theory of grammar which consists of a syntactic, semantic, and phonological component account for any of Austin's (1975) infelicitous uses of performatives, saying "I challenge you to a duel", when duelling has been outlawed, or saying "I do" in a

36

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

would-be wedding ceremony before a ship's captain not at sea, or writing "My house" in a last will and testament, when one owns several, or uttering "I congratulate you" when it is insincere, or "I promise you" when the prom­ ise isn't kept. This inability to account for such phenomena is not just a question of different interests or emphasis; it is rather a question of different claims about the very nature of language, about the nature of the linguistic sign (cf. infra), and about the nature of language in society. Rather than adhere to a set of assumptions which are so narrow as to define much of the data out of the field, it is appropriate to either revise the assumptions or, if this proves inadequate to the task at hand, abandon them in favor of a new, less narrowly constrained set. In addition to the above, one may introduce the categories of error made in native and other-language acquisition — especially interesting is the negative influence of a second, rather than the first, language on a third — which Zwicky (1980, 1982) does, and errors made by bi- and multilinguals no longer in the acquisition stage. Bankevic (1981) lucidly demonstrates the overriding influence of phonology in explaining the errors made by native speakers of Russian in the acquisition of English vocabulary. As to the ques­ tion of exercising more control over the contexts of error-elicitation and observation, a significant step forward has been taken by Krashen (1982: 104-112) which is recapitulated in this study in Chapter VIII: Orthographic Conduits d'Approche. Most importantly, we place the study of linguistic1 error in the context of the entire array of linguistic1 factors, functions, and validity claims in both the normal and pathological case, for if any one general conclusion has to be drawn from the studies of linguistic1 error conducted by linguists over the past decade, it is, and this confirms an observation made by Jakobson (1971a,b,c,d) and Lurija (1976) years ago, that the functioning of normal lan­ guage cannot in principle be understood without recourse to error data. How many arguments advanced by transformational linguistics over the past 30 years could have been formulated without dozens of citations of the ungrammatical (*) instance, without "starredness"? Granting the validity of this con­ clusion, and one needs but become involved in an in-depth error analysis to convince oneself, the study of linguistic1 errors, even if interest is not focused on error typology and error causation, must by definition form a weighty cor­ nerstone of linguistic theory. Our attention thus shifts from an attempt to de­ fine the notion 'possible sentence of L i ' to the attempt to define the notion 'possible error of Li in C', where C = context and is given by the organonmodel of language.

INTRODUCTION

37

I.3.2. The notion 'possible error' To the best of our knowledge, despite the veritable mushrooming of pub­ lications on the subject of error analysis during this past decade, no one has addressed what we consider to be the central issue in the theory of linguistic1 error, namely, delivering a definition of the notion 'possible error'. The pre­ sent study contains such an attempt with respect to spelling errors and orthog­ raphic errors, where by 'spelling error' we mean an error in the product of the process of spelling and by 'orthographic error' we mean an error in the under­ lying set of orthographic conventions of which the spelling patterns in the pro­ ducts in part are functions (cf. Vachek 1973 for a clear review of the distinc­ tion between orthography and spelling). Prior to introducing the concept of 'possible error', we dwell for a mo­ ment on the notion of 'possible in L i ', heavily relying on the concept of template, lucidly discussed by Selkirk (1980: 8) in one of her interesting works on prosodic structure. Selkirk points out that the issue of what a syllable looks like in a phonological representation is logically quite different from the issue of how a grammar is to give expression to the notion of 'possible syllable in L.', i.e., that individual representations of syllables do not state generalizations about syllable structure, no more than any representation of a linguistic object is a generalization about the possible forms that that linguistic1 object may as­ sume . Assuming that the task of a grammar is to provide a statement of the no­ tion 'possible syllable of L i ', Selkirk supposes "that for each language this statement is in the form of a template and an accompanying set of phonological constraints... These together specify all the possible syllable types of the lan­ guage, and can be thought of as well-formedness conditions on the syllable structure of the phonological conditions of a language." (my italicization — P. A.L.) Equipped with this understanding of 'template', which, together with a set of phonological constraints, serve as well-formedness conditions, Selkirk (1980: 8) exemplifies the notions by The English Syllable Template:

38

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

stating that the function of the template is to encode the gross characteristics of syllable-structure: (1.) the syllable segment-types, (2.) the order of the syl­ lable segment-types, (3.)the hierarchical structure of the syllable segmenttypes, and (4.) the optionality of syllable segments and syllable-segment sequences. Selkirk summarizes by stating that the function of the template is to contribute to defining the well-formedness of the syllable structure of par­ ticular phonological representations, a necessary (but not sufficient) condi­ tion on which being that the syntactic structure of the representation be not distinct from the template, the sufficient condition that the collocational restrictions of the language not rule out the well-formedness of the syllable structure. Selkirk maintains that a distinction must be made between colloca­ tional restrictions and templates, because collocational restrictions do not find a "natural" expression in templates. Now, aside from the complications with which the notion 'non-distinct' bristles (cf. Lightner 1963, Stanley 1967) and the apparently legitimate question of why segment-structure and sequence-structure conditions fail the test of generalizability in Selkirk's sense (for the origin of the notions 'segment-structure' condition and 'se­ quence structure' condition, cf. Halle 1959, where the latter notion was refer­ red to as 'morpheme-structure' condition, and Luelsdorff 1975, which, to the best of our knowledge, remains the only attempt to formulate such conditions for the entire consonantal inventory, including clusters, of a variety of Eng­ lish or any other language, for that matter), we cannot but agree that the true generalizations about a language should be embodied in an appropriate for­ malism, appropriate in the sense that conceptual complexity should be directly reflected in formal complexity and vice-versa. I.3.3. The sign-template and linguistic1 error In this section we show that linguistic1 errors are derivative of the formal and substantive properties of the normative templates with which they, as er­ roneous attempts, are correlated as targets, and the collocational restrictions placed by the given language on the elements in those templates, together with the basic transformational operations which must be posited to account for formal properties of grammar on independent grounds. We continue with an exposition, critical examination, and revision of Mel'cuk's concept of linguistic1 sign (relative to a language L i , henceforth omitted), presented and explained in Mel'cuk (1982: 40-41) as follows, where linguistic1 (adj.) ( < language (n.)) and linguistic2 (adj.) ( < linguistics (n.)):

INTRODUCTION

39

ALINGUISTIC1SIGN: X is a linguistic1 sign = X is an ordered triple = X={Y;Z;W}, where Y is the signifiant of Z, Z is the signifié of Y, and W is the syntactics of the pair {Y;Z}. Mel'cuk notes (p. 24) that the notion 'signifiant', 'signifié', and 'syntactics' are elementary, and (p. 26) that the term 'syntactics' was coined by him to denote the set of specifications (i) about all possible combi­ nations of a given pair {signifiant, signifié} with all other similar pairs and (ii) about the 'behavior' of signifiants within these combinations, these specifica­ tions being such that they cannot be deduced either from signifiants or from signifiés alone. To quote: "... the syntactics of an item describes the whole bulk of its NON-STANDARD collocability", where by 'non-standard' he means that collocability of a linguistic item which cannot be stated either in terms of its signifiant or its signifié, such as parts of speech, grammatical gen­ der, verb government, conjugation or declension type, specifications of the alternations possible within the signifiant of an item, specifications which the given item can condition in a textually neighboring item, and lexical functions (words and phrases which are phraseologically bound by the given stem and stand to it in some constant semantico-syntactic relations). We take exception to Mel'cuk's claim (p. 41) that sounds (= phones) or phonemes are examples of linguistic1 items which are not signs, agreeing rather with Jakobson that phonemes are signifiants whose signifiés are "othernesses" so that English /p/ and English /b/, for example, each consist of a (different) signifiant with a different otherness as its signifié, the otherness of /p/ (O/p/) and the otherness of /b/ (O /b/ ), each having its own unique phonotactics. Since the collocability of the phonemes of English cannot be stated either in terms of their signifiants or in terms of their signifiés, however, i.e. the collocability of /p/, for example, cannot be stated in terms of either its signifiant (the classificatory distinctive feature matrix defining /p/) or its sig­ nifié (the otherness which is unique to /p/, i.e.,O /p/ ), we must conclude that, by definition, each of the phonemes of English has its own (unique) syntactics, in precisely Mel'cuk's use of the term 'syntactics' (cf. supra), which define the totality of its non-standard collocability. On this theory, phonemes, which are simple signs in the sense that they are incapable of being segmented into constituent signs, combine in accordance with their syntactics to form more complex signs called 'allomorphs'. We call signs whose signifiés are not them­ selves signs of other signifiés 'first-order signs'. Examples of first order signs are the English phoneme /p/ and the English proper name /pit/ 'Pete'.

40

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Next, we introduce the notion 'grapheme' into our theory of linguistic1 signs, defining it as the ordered pair G = {{L,P}{SL/P}} where 'L' stands for the graphemic signifiant of P, 'P' the (morpho)phonemic signifié of L, and 'S L/P ' the syntactics of the grapheme-phoneme correspon­ dence (GPC) L/P. Since G consists of a signifiant, L, and a signifié, P, and a collocability which cannot be stated in terms of its signifiant, but can be stated in terms of its signifié (assuming a theory of marking conventions which mark the words in the lexicon for their origin and mark words with lexical spellings accordingly), for in the unmarked or standard case, the graphotactis of L. is identified with the phonotactics of P., where L./P.is a GPC of English. A linguistic1 sign (of a language Li) consisting of a signifié which is itself a linguistic1 sign we call a 'second-order sign'. Since G consists of a signifié (P) which is itself a signifiant of a linguistic sign whose signifié is otherness (distinctiveness), G is a second-order linguistic1 sign. We have maintained that in the standard or unmarked case, the graphotactics of Li is equal to the syntactics of P., where Li/Pi is a GPC (of En­ glish) . As a result, we only need to specify the syntactics of P. in order to obtain the graphotactics of L.. We conclude that the normal or unmarked case of a second-order linguistic1 sign is the case of a linguistic sign with a second-order (derived) syntactics. Moreover, if in the unmarked case the relation between grapheme and phoneme is one-to-one, we are dealing with an alphabet. In a good many languages (e.g., English, German, Russian, French, Ita­ lian , etc.) the letters have names in the ordinary language which almost always bear an echoic relation to the (morpho)phonemes the letters are used to rep­ resent, such that the (morpho)phonemes the letters are used to represent are derivable from the names of the letters by means of a simple set of rules applied to the morphophonemic (= systematic phonemic) representations of the names. For example, we derive the letter-sound of the English letter p, i.e., /p/, by means of a set of phonological rules which apply to the mor­ phophonemic representation of the name of the letter p, i.e., /p/, by first ap­ plying a rule which epenthesizes the vowel Id to all (the names of w, r, and q excepted) letter-names in the environment # C or in the environment C # , and then applying a rule which raises the vowel /e/ in the environ­ ment C # to HI, yielding the name [pi:] for the English letter p from the underlying representation /p/ via /pe/. Note that this second phonological rule does not apply in the environment # C, leaving the phonetic rep-

INTRODUCTION

41

resentation of the name of the letter h (= [eč]) (systematic phonemic /č/, then, by application of Rule I) [eč]. Two strategies for letter-sounding suggest themselves on this analysis: (1.) deriving the sounds of the letters from the surface phonetic representations of the letter names by applying a simple rule of vowel deletion, or (2.) suspending the application of Rules I and II, so that the morphophonemic representations of the letter names are directly iden­ tified with the phonetic representations of the letter sounds. We have thusfar discussed the notions 'sign', 'signifiant', 'signifié', 'syn­ tactics', 'first-order sign', 'second-order sign', 'phoneme', 'grapheme', 'otherness', and 'letter-name' vs. 'letter-sound' and proposed two alternative derivations of letter-sounds from underlying letter-names. On the second sol­ ution, the phonemic representations of the letter names, i.e. the signifiants of the letter-names, are identified with the signifiés of the letters, i.e., the sig­ nifiants of the phonemes, creating, as it were, grapheme-phoneme correspon­ dences, although historically speaking, we might conjecture, it was the sounds of the letters which determined the selection of the letter-names on, in the vast majority of cases, the condition that the name chosen improperly or properly contain the sound the letter was being used to represent and, in the case of some orthographies (for example, Hebrew), the additional condition that the name selected be an already existing word in the language in question, this dou­ ble semiotic constraint being lost in the course of time when the letters of one language where borrowed by users of another (for example, the adoption of the Hebrew alphabet by the Greeks) (cf. Venezky 1975 for aspects of the fas­ cinating story of letter-naming). As a consequence, the notion 'letter' or 'grapheme' is derivative (= secondary) in a new, perhaps more interesting sense, namely, not only is spelling a secondary system of representation in the sense that speech is phylogenetically prior to spelling, or even in the sense that speech is ontogenetically prior to writing, but also in the further sense that let­ ter-names are third-order signs, signs with graphemes as their signifiés, graphemes, in turn, having phonemes as their signifiés, and phonemes, in turn, having othernesses as their signifiés, with the interesting additional attri­ bute of being, qua signifiants, identical to their signifiés twice removed. In­ deed, letter-names and letter-sounds appear to be generic Wahlver­ wandtschaften. Under such circumstances it is not all too difficult to imagine why learners of English as a foreign language experience some difficulty in acquiring the names of the English letters, where the fracture is compounded in the case of learners whose native orthographies contain letters whose names are quite

42

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

similar to those of the letters of English, for example, Germans. A German, under the above analysis, must learn to suspend Rule II which realizes the name of the letter

as [pi] from pe (from underlying /p/) in the production of the name of the letter

, i.e., [pe] in German after having acquired the rule for the production of the names of the letters in English, to say nothing of the acquisition of a language like Hebrew whose phonology contains, according to Lightner's (personal communication) tally of 26 steps in the derivation of some words in Chomsky's 1952 analysis, derivations with a depth of 26, rather than 2, as in the above example. A simple diagram may facilitate the perception of this relationship, which is discussed at some length in Chapter II: Letter Naming as a Spelling Strategy: Letter Name Letter Phoneme Otherness

/p/ p /p/ 'O'

3 2 1 0

While a letter name is a signifiant in relation to a letter-signifié, a letter is a signifiant in relation to a phoneme-signifié, and a phoneme is a signifiant in relation to an otherness. Thus, depending upon one's perspective (system of coordinates), a particular letter and a particular phoneme are now sig­ nifiants, now signifiés. Adopting a simultaneous view from both perspectives, which itself is a fortiori a perspective, we may say that letters (= graphemes) and phonemes are at once signifiants/signifiés. Now, we may of course refer to a letter name rather than use it to refer to a letter, use a letter name autonymously to refer to itself, in which case we are using a fourth-order sign, and so on, ad infinitum, limited only by the upper-bound on our power to abstract. Note that the signing relation (semiosis) between 3, 2, and 1 is not transitive. In using a letter-name to refer to a letter, where the letter refers to a phoneme (i.e., is a grapheme), we are not using the letter-name to refer to the phoneme, any more than in using the name of the word 'planet' to refer to the word 'planet', where the word 'planet' refers to a particular planet, are we referring to a particular planet. Nor is the relation between 3 and 2 or the relation between 2 and 1 symmetric, for neither is the use of a letter-name to refer to a letter the same as using a letter to refer to a letter-name, nor the use of a letter to refer to a phoneme the same as the use of a phoneme to refer to a letter, even though the name of the letter and

INTRODUCTION

43

the sound of the letter have identical signifiants, because they do not have identical signifiés. Therefore, the relation between 3 and 2 and the relation between 2 and 1 cannot be considered equivalent. Adopting the perspective of signifiant/signifié simultaneity (cf. supra), moreover, the relation between {3,1} and {1,3}, where qua signifiés, 1≠3, is a function since the elements of f qua signifiés are ordered pairs with different first coordinates. However, from the perspective of signifiant/signifié simultaneity the ordered triple {3,2,1} is identified with the ordered triple {1,2,3}, since 3=1 qua signifiants, 'top-down' with 'bottom-up', as it were, the {name-of-letter, letter, (morpho)phoneme} triad identical to the triad {(morpho)phoneme, letter, nameof-letter} , which is reflected in this study, unless the stress falls on a different perspective, in which case it is specified, where the notation 'GPC' (= grapheme-phoneme correspondence) is not unreflectingly used to refer to what other writers have referred to by 'PGC' (= phoneme-grapheme corres­ pondence), i.e. in total oblivion to the putative distinction between GPCs and PGCs, but as a convenient abbreviatory device for the simultaneous signifiant/signifié perspective adopted. At this juncture the wary reader might be concerned about the "psychological reality" of letter-names in the context of reading, possibly granting the appropriateness of the notion in the context of spelling. The stark truth of the matter is that letter-names are psychologically real, in the sense that they are an inextricable part of both what might be called the 'faculté de lire' and of the reading process itself, for there exist cases of letter-by-letter reading, cases of readers who cannot read without recourse to either covert or overt pronunciation of letter-names (cf. Patterson and Kay 1982, Patterson 1981, Coltheart 1984, Warrington and Shallice 1980). Surely whether or not it is possible for anyone reading English to read without at least covert recourse to letter naming is a difficult proposition to test, but we shall assume, on the strength of the evidence cited in the works above, the essential correctness of the notion of an inextricable link between visual and echoic memory pending evidence to the contrary. Under the assumption of such a bond between letter and sound, at this level of simultaneous abstrac­ tion, the putative distinction between GPCs and PGCs is spurious, for the dis­ tinction only obtains, if it obtains at all, in real time, i.e. on-line. Returning to the discussion of linguistic1 sign, we now claim that the no­ tion 'erroneous sign' is derivable in all its essentials from the notion 'sign' it­ self, for plainly it is only possible for an error to obtain in relation to a norma-

44

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

tive concept whose defining elements and relations admit of such a projection. Granting the truth of this proposition, we go on to make the further claim that no elements or relations in an error are new with respect to the elements and relations contained in the normative structures (concepts defined by specify­ ing their constituents and the relations among these constituents), i.e. that the set of erroneous projections is closed under a restricted set of transformations needed in the grammar on independent grounds. Call the former proposition the 'Necessary Condition on Error' and the latter proposition the 'Sufficient Condition on Error'. The former proposition expresses the notion that the form of the actual is "preshaped", so to speak, by the form of the possible, for clearly something cannot exist which is in principle excluded from the realm of existence; the latter proposition expresses the notion that the elements and re­ lations of the norm, on the one hand, and the templates and rules which specify them, on the other, pre-determine all the elements and relations of the norm-deviations, to the extent that the norm-deviations contain no elements or relations which are not present in the templates underlying the form of the norm. This is not to say that one does not find new productions in the devia­ tions from the norm, 'new' in the sense that these productions are not in the norm — clearly, by definition, one does — but that the types of deviations qua products and the processes underlying their production are themselves normimmanent. I.3.4. Sign Mutation We systematically mutate the elements and relations given by Mel'cuk's definition of 'linguistic1 sign', which we have reconceptualized as a signtemplate, assigning the template an empirical interpretation in the domain of English GPCs, in order to ascertain whether the resultant mutants bear any resemblance to the orthographic errors in our corpus and in demonstration of the validity of the Necessary Condition on Error and the Sufficient Condition on Error, although the conditions are intended to hold for all empirical do­ mains of error in all languages in the unmarked or "core" case (cf. Vachek 1966 for extensive discussion). We remind the reader of the discussion in sec­ tion I.3.1, where it was concluded that the error categories one adopts are a function of the system of coordinates from which the errors are viewed.

INTRODUCTION

45

Table I.3.4-1 Error Sign-Template Error Type I II III IV V VI VII

X = { Y, + + +

+

Z, + + -

W} + -

+ + -

+ + +

Denomination Norm x x x x x x x

where + = normative representation and — = non-normative representa­ tion. It should be apparent that Mel'cuk's notion of linguistic sign is inadequate to the task of serving as an error sign-template, although it was far from obvious that it was inadequate as a sign-template upon consideration of his detailed discussion and exemplification of at least 50 different types of normative linguistic1 signs. The heart of the problem is that his theory of lin­ guistic1 sign tolerates neither spurious absence of a signifiant and/or signifié, as in errors of omission, nor the spurious presence of a signifiant and/or sig­ nifié, as in errors of addition, nor spurious paradigmatic representation, as in errors of substitution, nor spurious syntagmatic representation, as in errors of displacement and transposition. In short, it does not tolerate the dissociation of a signifiant from a signifié, because his notion of syntactics is restricted to the ordered pair {Y,Z}. Consequently, we propose the following revision of Mel'cuk's definition of 'linguistic1 sign' (in language L i ): X = {{Y,S Y }{Z,S Z }}, which is to be read: a linguistic1 sign X is identified with the ordered pair con­ sisting of the ordered pair {signifiant Y of X, syntactics S of Y}, on the one hand, and the ordered pair {signifié Z of X, syntactics S of Z}, on the other. Here, we are no longer assigning syntactics to the signifiant/signifié qua pair, but to the signifiant and to the signifié qua members of the pair. Furthermore, in order to distinguish between errors of addition, which involve the errone­ ous presence of an item, and errors of omission, which involve the erroneous absence of an item, we supplement our coefficients + and — with the coeffi­ cient 0 , where + = normative representation, — = non-normative represen­ tation, and 0 = absence of representation. Since the theory may now distri-

46

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

bute the operation of dissociation over the operation of semiosis, and the operation of semiosis may now entail the erroneous presence or erroneous absence of signifiers and/or signifieds, we call this revision the "Distributive Dissociative Error Sign-Template", represented here, together with a partial array of the errors it predicts, in Table I.3.4-2: Table I.3.4-2 Distributive Dissociative Error Sign-Template Error Type I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV

X = {{Y,

Ø

SY}

+ -

+ Ø +

+ + + + + Ø

{Z,

+ + + +

Ø

+ -

Ø + -

+ + + + + -

Ø + Ø

+ +

S z }} + + + + + Ø + Ø + Ø + -

Denomination Norm LA LO LS LD PA PO PS PD LA + PA LO + PO LS + PS LD + PD LA + PO LA + PS LA + PD

where L = Literal, P = Phonological/Phonetic, A = Addition, O = Omis­ sion, S = Substitution, and D = Displacement. Type IV errors, Letter Dis­ placements, are dealt with in Chapter I: On Putative "Transpositions" in Spelling. Type III errors, Substitutions, form the subject matter of Chapter III: Substitutions: Vowels and Chapter IV: Substitutions: Consonants. Errors of Type I and Type II, context-free errors of addition and omission, form the core of Chapter V: Additions and Omissions. Context-sensitive additions and substitutions are treated in Chapter VI: Anticipations and Per­ severations. Chapter VII: Orthographic Conduits d'Approche presents

INTRODUCTION

47

quantitative aspects of the spelling editor. Chapter VIII: Processing Strate­ gies in Bilingual Spellers is a group pilot-study of interference mechanisms and the processes which underlie them in bilingual spelling production. The book concludes with an attempt to relate the conclusions reached to those drawn in studies of monolingual spelling errors and slips-of-the-tongue in normals and selected aphasics.

NOTES 1) This part of the introduction was presented on behalf of the author by Wolfgang Kühl­ wein, Universität Trier, at the annual meeting of the Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquée (AILA) in Stuttgart, Federal Republic of Germany, in August 1975. Emerging from the discussion was the fact that the term 'differential' in the phrase 'differential linguistics' was not being used for the first time. Apparently, 'differential linguistics' was introduced by the author's colleague Wolfgang Wildgen in 1974 in an article published in the journal Zeitschrift für Dialek­ tologie und Linguistik (41: 129-144) entitled 'Versuch einer sprachtheoretischen Fundierung des Variationsbegriffes'. The author's own use of the expression was an independent development stimulated by Roberto Assagioli's 1974 discussion of differential psychology in his book The Act of Will (Penguin Books, Baltimore, first published as an Esalon Book by The Viking Press in 1973) 2) We refer the reader to 'On Have-Contraction' for a brief discussion of the notion 'optimum linguistic corpus'. This paper, coauthored by N.R. Norrick, was presented at the annual meeting of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft (= German Linguistic Society) in Regensburg, West Germany, March 1981, and is being distributed in prepublication form by Lin­ guistic Agency University of Trier, Series A, No. 84, May 1981 and will appear in Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae in 1986. 3) Cf. Bonello (1968) for possibly the first mention of intersecting and interacting grammars. 4) Spoerri (1973, p. 59) lists the following linguistic1 symptoms of schizophrenia: 'Zerfahrenheit... Sperrung Gedankendrängen ... Sprache: geschraubt, bizarr, pathetisch, leer, schwebendunbestimmt, umständlich; häufig sind rhythmische Wiederholungen, spielerische Reimereien mit Klang-Assoziationen ... Neologismen ... Die auf den ersten Blick unverständlichen Spracheigentümlichkeiten erweisen sich — wie auch andere schizophrene Äußerungen — bei Kenntnis der Welt des Kranken als deren typischer Ausdruck und sind daher in dieser Hinsicht sinnvoll. Als Regression deutbar, werden Mechanis­ men unterbewußter Funktionsweisen aktiviert: Wortkontaminationen, Verschiebung und Denken in Symbolen (Analogien zum archaischen Erleben der Primitiven).' 5) We represent linguistic (adj.) (
Chapter I On Putative "Transpositions" in Spelling

1.0. Introduction Concepts commonly employed in the classification of speech-production errors include addition, substitution (replacement), metathesis (exchange, switch), duplication, deletion (ellipsis, omission), displacement (shift, move­ ment), and combination (blend). This chapter presents a detailed investiga­ tion of the 85 apparent "transposition" errors in a corpus of 2,138 errors detected in English dictations administered to a 12-year-old male secondyear student of English in a German Hauptschule in Regensburg, the capital of the Upper Palatinate in Bavaria (cf. Luelsdorff 1981 and Chapter VII for methodological details), embodying the claim that those errors which have hitherto been considered metathetical or transpositional are in fact errors of displacement, thereby leaving the putative category "transposition" in the theory of spelling errors unattested. 1.1. The notion "transposition" The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1976) offers the following definitions of "transposition" and "transpose": 1. The act of transposing. 2. The state of being transposed. 3. Some­ thing that has been transposed. 1. To reverse or transfer the order or place of; to interchange. 2. To put into a different order or place. Thus, on its first reading, the expression "transposition" embodies the notion of an interchange, or exchange, where an element A takes the place of an element B and vice-versa. "Metathesis" is defined as a special case of trans­ position, namely, the "transposition within a word of letters, sounds, or syllables, as in the change from Old English brid to Modern English bird,

50

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

or in the confusion of revelant for relevant. " As is well-known, the category "transposition" has played a role in the classification of errors in speech production, both oral and written. It is not the purpose of this chapter to contest the validity of the notion "transposition" in the study of slips-of-the-tongue, although a theory of possible transposi­ tion, to say nothing of a theory of possible production or comprehension error, remains outstanding. Bierwisch (1970, 1981), for example, contains a study of word-transposition (called "exchange") errors in German, with sev­ eral interesting implications for the study of the psychological reality of lin­ guistic constructs and the study of language processing, such as word exchanges affecting only words of the same syntactic category, morphological rules applying after word exchanges thereby preserving congruence, and the meanings of sentences not being affected by word exchanges. In the domain of phonology, Söderpalm Talo (1980) lists a few examples of segmental metathesis errors of both vowels and consonants within the word and across word boundaries in normal speech, noting that metathesis errors are much more common in normal speech than in pathological. The examples cited in these writings all illustrate metathesis defined as AXBYC > AYBXC, where the left-hand term is the standard form, the right-hand term the error, and B is non-null. In a study of the spelling errors of children with commu­ nicative disorders, notable both for the delicacy of the taxonomy — it contains 13 subcategories of error — and the presentation of a flow chart of the major encoding processes of language behavior permitting both written and spoken output without the obligatory encoding of cognitive-semantic features, Avakian-Whitaker & Whitaker (1973) include the category of metathesis the examples of which, however, do not satisfy the above definition since B in the schema AXBYC > AYBXC is null. Also, the data used for the classification, elicited from 40 children, was pooled for all the children, rather than analyzed individually for each child, making the reconstruction of the spelling system for any and all of the 40 children impossible, and there is no demonstration that the standard spelling was in the repertoire for each child. In addition, the two forms used to exemplify the category of metathesis (STORY > sotry, CHARGE > chager) are missing from the table of erroneous responses of the 40 informants which purports to be complete. Without imputing to Hotopf (1980) the apriori exportation of categories developed for the classification of slips-of-the-tongue to the study of slips-ofthe-pen, we find it remarkable that the categories of error which he posits for both should completely coincide. Closer inspection raises more questions

ON PUTATIVE 'TRANSPOSITIONS' IN SPELLING

51

than it answers. Under the rubric "sound pattern slips" we find the subtype "homophones", including <scene>, for <seen>, for , but it is difficult to imagine which slip-of-the-tongue would constitute a "homophone" error, consequently what justification there might be for including this error type in the theory of oral speech-production errors. Closer to home, we find his use of the predicate "transposition" unjustified as a classification of attempt: <soluition> for target: <solution>, the only exam­ ple of a transposition which Hotopf cites, since B in the transposition scheme is left null, and the presence of the second < i > is left unaccounted for. This error appears to us to be rather an error of anticipation consisting in the addition of an < i > , an analysis which is not facilitated by Hotopf s classifi­ cation scheme from which addition is absent as a discrete category. Equally baffling is his claim that a slip-of-the-pen like <soluition> for <solution> instantiates a substitution — to quote: "In all these examples a word or letter from another position is substituted for the target word or letter" (Hotopf s underscoring), since there is no letter for which the first < i > is substituted. 1.2. On taxonomies of spelling errors Drawing on Chomsky & Halle 1965, we sharply distinguish among three levels of adequacy in the study of errors, the observational, the descriptive, and the explanatory. The first, temporally and logically, entails the observa­ tion of a set of deviations in the form produced from the community produc­ tion norm, noting, for example, that the suffix in is spelled with an < e > , as opposed to the community-normative in which the suffix is spelled with an < a > . The second, the description of errors, entails a statement of the correct relationship between the discrepant produc­ tion and the community norm. In the above example, the second < e > in the deviant production is said to correspond to the third < a > in the norm. Notice that it would be incorrect to conceptualize the relationship between deviant < e > and normative < a > as one of substitution, since substitution, either con­ scious or subconscious, implies a processual view according to which norma­ tive < a > has been replaced by discrepant < e > which in the case of a speller unaware of the normative spelling could in principle not be the case. Three ex­ planations occur to us why an analyst might wish to consider an error of the above type an instantiation of a substitution operation. First, observation of the productions in an independent corpus in which normative < a > occurs leading to the norm-centered view that non-normative < e > has been substi-

52

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

tuted for < a > . Second, the observation that < e > varies with < a > in the spel­ ling productions of the informant. In the former case, the postulation of < e > as the deviate of < a > violates what has been called the "Independence Princi­ ple" (cf. Luelsdorff 1975), resulting in the assignment of a norm-deviate struc­ ture, namely < a > > < e > , which cannot be justified on the basis of obser­ vations of the productions of the informant viewed independently of the com­ munity norm. In the latter case, the relationship may be expressed by < a ~ e > , since the alternation in question is to be observed in the protocol for the in­ formant in question. Since our interest in this particular study is in the nature and causes of deviant productions in the spelling of an incipient German/En­ glish bilingual speller who had had exposure to the British English spelling norms of the words he was required to spell in sentences to dictation, i.e. the mechanisms involved in long- and short-term memory loss, we view the devia­ tions produced in terms of the processes of the addition, omission, substitu­ tion, and displacement of phoneme/grapheme correspondences in the norm as revelatory of processes of memory loss, and in this sense as psychologically real, yielding an insight into the quality and quantity of those processes which should be accorded special attention in programs designed to prevent and re­ mediate spelling errors, without concomitantly claiming that these processes are psychologically real in any sense other than the one intended, for exam­ ple, that they were still active in the processing of the errors involved at the time the dictations were administered. The complementary, equally viable, approach, is to treat the erroneous products as functions of the application of non-standard GPCs assignable to different sets of processing strategies avail­ able to the language user, dispensing entirely, from this complementary perspective, with the most misleading labels "substitution", "addition", "omission", "displacement", etc., and the concepts behind them, since, from this latter perspective, the introduction of such notions reflects incredible confusion. The importance of this distinction can hardly be exaggerated. The third level of adequacy is the explanation of errors, entailing a statement of the cause(s) of the relationships yielded by the descriptive level of description. In English orthography, for example, one such cause is system-internal ir­ regularity such as the one-many phoneme/grapheme correspondence in

ON PUTATIVE 'TRANSPOSITIONS' IN SPELLING

53

the failure of which to be committed to lexical memory explains why a spelling error of the type w for wh, as in wich for which, occurs. The importance of dis­ tinguishing between the description of an error and its explanation, between the mechanisms by which it occurs and the cause of its occurrence, has been stressed in the most recent error-analytic literature (Cutler 1981), where it is claimed that statements of cause and statements of mechanism are logically independent and suggested (Cutler 1980b) that whereas causes of errors might differ across languages, individuals, and occasions, error mechanisms ought to be both speaker- and language-universal. 1.3. An identity crisis Error data is often "noisy", theoretically intractable, in the sense that it frequently admits of a host of mutually contradictory classifications. Consider the following examples, where the standard spellings are listed under "Target" and the erroneous productions under "Attempt": Target

Attempt

Page

every alarm down says German

evrye arlam donw sasy gremen

(A1) (A2) (A2) (A7) (A9)

We begin with definitions of the possibly relevant error types. "Transposi­ > AYBXC, where the left-hand tion" was defined above (p. 50) as AXBYC term is the standard form, the right-hand term the error, and B is non-null. None of the above, in fact none of the 85 prima facie transpositions in the corpus satisfy this definition of transposition, since B in all of the attempts is null. To analyze just one example, ev A

e X

Ø ry B Y C

Ø

>

ev

ry A

Ø Y

e B

X

Ø C

where it becomes clearer that B is null. "Addition" is defined as AB > AXB and "omission" as AXB > AB. Now each prima facie transposition can be alternatively analyzed as a composite function of either an addition fol­ lowed by an omission or an omission followed by an addition with the proviso

54

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

that the elements added and deleted be identical. In reference to the same example, by the addition and omission of < r y > , in this order, we obtain: (1.) ev (2.) ev (3.) ev

ry ry

e e e

ry ry 0

-Addition -Omission

and by the omission and addition of < r y > , in this order, we obtain: (1.) ev (2.) ev (3.) ev

ry

e e e

ry Ø

-Omission -Addition

One apparent problem with both alternative analyses, call it the "sin of omis­ sion and addition", is that they entail the postulation of levels of representa­ tion, namely steps (2.) in both derivations, which are not attested in the data and are, therefore, in this sense, abstract. Then, the addition and omission on the addition-then-omission analysis add and omit letter sequences already present in the string, i.e., are a duplication and "deduplication", respectively, with the undesirable result that it becomes necessary to simultaneously assign these errors to the categories addition, omission, duplication, and "dedupli­ cation", which seems absurd. Finally, the omission-then-addition analysis de­ mands the further complication that the addition rule be "aware" (no ghost in the machine intended) of the derivational history of the error in order that it "know" which string of letters is to be added. In view of these considerations, which, taken together, render the addition/omission theory of prima facie transpositions inordinately complex, we are led to abandon this hypothesis in favor of the third, namely, displacement. "Displacement" may be either forward or backward, the former defined > ABXC, the latter as ABXC > AXBC. At first blush it as AXBC would appear to be a moot point, given, for example, attempt <sasy> for target <says>, whether < y > has been forward-displaced to follow < s > , or < s > has been backward-displaced to precede < y > . Considering the obvious, however, namely that spelling proceeds from left to right and that in the stan­ dard spelling of <says> the < y > precedes the < s > , it seems natural to say that the error in the attempt <sasy> consists in writing the < s > before the < y > , i.e. a backward displacement.

ON PUTATIVE TRANSPOSITIONS' IN SPELLING

55

1.4. Displacements and conventional errors We distinguished above between spelling errors made by spellers who are aware of the community spelling norm and spelling errors made by writers who are unaware of the community spelling norm. The former, insofar as they are unintentional, are slips-of-the-pen, which may be either edited or unedited. Edited slips-of the pen constitute what might be called "orthog­ raphic conduits d'approche" and are an interesting field of inquiry in their own right (cf. Chapter VII) revelatory as they are of processes involved in error correction. Studies in this area might provide answers to questions like: (1.) Of the total number of written errors made, how many are cor­ rected by the writer? (2.) What are the qualitative differences between written errors which are corrected and those which remain uncorrected? (3.) At which junctures in the writing process does a writer stop to cor­ rect a written error, using which means, under which circumstances? (4.) What are the quantitative and qualitative attributes of successful attempts to correct written errors? (5.) In which ways do the answers to the above questions differ from answers to analogous questions asked of slips-of-the-tongue? Errors made by writers who are unaware of the community spelling norm are conventional errors. Athough it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between slips-of-the-pen and conventional errors in the event that the slipsof-the-pen are not identified as such in that they undergo correction, a sure sign of a conventional error is its duplication in a text coupled with its plausi­ bility in terms of grapheme/phoneme correspondences which are extant but distributionally incorrect. Prima facie displacements in the present corpus, which are, on these criteria, conventional errors, include the following: Standard

Conventional Error

Page

doesn't does bottle bottles

dosen't dose bottel bottels

(A2, A39, A44) (A47) (A13) (A54)

56

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Standard

Conventional Error

Page

bottles candle(s) Puddlefield

butelt candel(s) Puddelfield 5x Puddelfild 2x Pudelfield, Padelfield wissel wihtel litel 4x littel sohps sohpping 2x wihtout wiht friut 2x sijutcase siutcase woh how weher, wheer hwere,wehr layd layds uncel

(A51(2)) (A20, A20, A30) (A28, A36, A57, A57, A78, A89a., A92, A92a.) (A92a.,A67)

whistle little shops shopping without with fruit suitcase who where lady Lady's uncle

(A32, A70, A70, A32(2)) (A47) (A51) (A57) (A76) (A55a., A57) (A75) (A89) (A14, A20 A92) (All(2), A24, A32 A95(2)) (A78(2)) (A61) (A59)

Cases such as attempt: <sohp> for target: <shop>, where the attempt varies with the standard spelling in the same dictation but is in the majority, perhaps justify establishing an intermediate class of errors which might be called "vir­ tual conventional errors". These might be assigned different confidence rat­ ings by informants, depending upon whether they were thought to be correct or wrong with which degree of certainty (for which, cf. infra). Intuitively, it would seem that among spelling errors of addition, omis­ sion, substitution, displacement, and erroneous error-perception which are overtly edited, i.e. which participate in conduits d'approche, displacements would occupy a prominent place, since they appear to be quite obvious. In point of fact, however, no one error type is given preferential treatment over another in terms of editing in spelling. In a detailed study of quantitative and qualitative aspects of errors participating in orthographic conduits d'ap-

ON PUTATIVE 'TRANSPOSITIONS' IN SPELLING

57

proche (cf. Chapter VII), we report that in dictations of a total of 6,162 words of which 1,482 words were erroneously spelled for a total of 2,138 errors — ad­ dition: 384, omission: 652, substitution: 1,010, displacement: 92 — 279 of the 1,482 misspelled words participated in conduits d'approche, involving 439 spelling errors — addition: 76, omission: 122, substitution: 194, displace­ ment: 17, erroneous error-perception: 30. Expressed in percentages, par­ ticipating in conduits d'approche were: 19.79% of the addition errors; 18.71% of the omission errors; 19.20% of the substitution errors, and 18.48% of the displacement errors. These facts are of great value for the construction of a course of instruction in English spelling, which should be based on an error analysis for all learners, both native and foreign, for without such an analysis, both qualitative and quantitative, one has no idea about the actual difficulties encountered in the spelling acquisition process and the teaching materials will be correspondingly uninformed. Furthermore, the teaching materials for native speakers should differ from those for foreign learners, and the materials for foreign learners should differ according to the native lan­ guage of the learners and their level of education, since error analyses reveal different error types and quantities for native and foreign learners. Moreover, in the case of languages with widely divergent dialects such as German, it is de­ sirable that the learners from these groups be provided with materials which anticipate their dialect-specific needs, since dialect differences, like language differences, do play a role in language perception and production, both of which are essential to the spelling acquisition process. The above statistics re­ veal that all types of spelling errors, especially those of substitution, are made by the German learner of English. A study of the types of errors made lays the foundation for instructional materials designed to forestall and remediate them on a reasoned basis. Here special attention should be devoted to errors of substitution, since these are frequently a function of negative transfer of the grapheme/phoneme correspondences of the native language. Lastly, the statistics on conduits d'approche indicate that each type of error is perceived with an equal amount of difficulty, so that from a perceptual point of view, each of the error types should be accorded an equal amount of attention in re­ mediation. 1.5. A proposed security check We have mentioned the desirability of distinguishing between conven­ tional errors and virtual conventional errors (p. 56) suggested by variation in

58

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

number and type of error, and that this might be done by assigning a measure of the informant's confidence in the spelling of the form in question to its writ­ ten representation. A measure of this type would reveal which spellings were most to least stable in the system of the learner, consequently provide addi­ tional data on which spellings require special treatment and reinforcement. Two questions suggest themselves: (1.) Is the word spelled correctly? and (2.) To which extent? Supplementing the responses to these questions with a specification of whether the word is indeed spelled correctly, we obtain: Table 1.5 Security Check Correct

Thought Correct

Certain

(1.)

+

+

+

(2.) (3.) (4.) (5.) (6.) (7.) (8.)

+ + + -

+ -

+

+ +

+ +

-

(1-2) are representations of our intuitions that we think a word is spelled cor­ rectly, and it is, and we are certain and uncertain, respectively. Call (1) "strongly correct" and (2) "weakly correct". Rows (3-8) are all representa­ tions of different ways of being in error. Even if we think a spelling is incor­ rect, when it is in fact correct, we are in error. We have categorized such errors in our conduits d'approche data as "erroneous error-perceptions". Of these there were 30/439 or 6.8%, as opposed to 17/439 or 3.9% displacements, 76/ 439 or 17.3% additions, 112/439 or 27.8% omissions, and 194/439 or 44.2% substitutions. Call (3) a "strongly erroneous error-perception" and (4) a "weakly erroneous error-perception". (5) and (6) represent thinking that a spelling is correct, when it is in fact inncorrect, and being certain about it and uncertain about it, respectively. Call (5) a "strong conventional error" and (6) a "weak conventional error". (7) and (8) represent thinking a spelling incor­ rect, when it is in fact incorrect, and being certain and uncertain about it, re­ spectively. Call (7) a "strong error perception" and (8) a "weak error percep­ tion".

ON PUTATIVE 'TRANSPOSITIONS IN SPELLING

59

1.6. Constraints on displacement We all intuit that it is not the case that "anything goes" to constitute an error in speech and writing perception and production. Writing chrysan­ themum backwards, for example, would strike us as an impossible error, either conventional or slip-of-the-pen. If it is something, rather than anything, that goes, the question is what, where the correct answer to this question is tantamount to a theory of constraints on errors. For the purposes of this chap­ ter we wish to take a modest step in the direction of articulating the constraints on displacement errors in spelling to the extent that these may be induced from the displacement errors in our corpus. To begin with we recapitulate the definitions of forward and backward displacement in the expectation that possible constraints on displacement will suggest themselves from the definition: Forward Displacement : AXBC Backward Displacement : ABXC

> ABXC; > AXBC.

In both cases of displacement we have an X transported over a B in the envi­ ronment of an A and a C. What constitutes a possible X, B, A and C? Metaphorically speaking, again no ghost in the machine intended, we suc­ cumb to the unenticing temptation of viewing displacement as moving, refer­ ring to the sequence of letters displaced as the "load", the number of letters displaced as the "weight" of the load, the original place of the letters in the target or the conventional spelling as the "origin", the place to which the let­ ters are moved as the "destination", the number of letters "over" which the load is moved as the "distance", and the move itself as taking place from an "old neighborhood" to a "new neighborhood". 76/85 or 89.41% of the displacements involve a move with a weight of 1 over a distance of 1, i.e., the "unmarked" case of displacement is 1/1, as in for , <egth> for <eight>, < t e h > for < t h e > , etc. Only 4/85 displacements involve either a weight of more than 1, e.g., <evrye> for <every> and for , where the weight is 2, or a distance of more than 1, e.g., <arlam> for where the distance is 2, and <somes time> for <sometimes>, where the distance is 4 in terms of let­ ters. Even these few examples, and one thirsts for more, suggest that it is not the case that these moves take place without rhyme or reason, for the new neighborhoods strikingly resemble the old: < r y > in <every> moves from an old neighbordhood in which the preceding vowel is silent to a new neighbor-

60

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

hood immediately following a consonant; < r > in moves from the old neighborhood of a preceding < a > to a new neighborhood with a preced­ ing < a > , < e e > in moves from an old neighborhood with a preced­ ing consonant to a new neighborhood with a preceding consonant; and < s > in <sometimes> moves from syllable and morpheme final position following an < m e > to a new neighborhood consisting of a morpheme and syllable final po­ sition following an < m e > . Noteworthy about the word displacements, should one wish to consider them spelling displacements rather than syntactic dis­ placements in inner speech, is that they invariably involve function words. Of these there are unfortunately only three examples: <ws an> for , for , and for . While there is a multitude of examples of misspelled words in the corpus which contain more than one misspelling, witness an error total of 2,138 for an erroneous word total of 1,482 or an average of 1.44 errors per word, there are only two examples in the entire corpus of two displacement errors in a single word, namely <weher> for <where> and for the virtual conven­ tional error (standard ), and both these examples could be alternatively analyzed as consisting of a single displacement, of < e > back­ wards over < h e r > in the former case and of the syllable backwards over the syllable < p u > in the latter, were it not for the extremely revealing fact that subjects asked to transpose the letters of attempt: <weher> in order to obtain target: <where> invariably do so by means of the double backwarddisplacement

rather than the single backward-displacement

assuming the validity of the form of argumentation according to which the processes involved in error correction reverse those involved in error commis­ sion. Even here in this case of a misspelling analyzable as consisting of multi­ ple displacements, it would appear that several factors "conspire" to "evict" the tenants to their new locations: the old neighborhoods with preceding con­ sonants and, perhaps, the tendency to anticipate the < e > , enhanced by the presence of two < e > ' s in the target, by adding one before the < h > . We turn now to a type/token analysis of the loads moved and the distance

ON PUTATIVE TRANSPOSITIONS' IN SPELLING

61

traveled in order to ascertain which load types and which distance types are represented in the data and to which extent, in line with our goal of construct­ ing a theory of constraints on displacement errors, for the theory should be de­ signed to permit those displacement errors which occur and exclude those which do not, while also specifying the proper environmental constraints. Load Types (NL = 85) V C W CV W VC S

Table 1.6-1 Load Tokens 44 = 28 = 6= 2= 2= 2= 1=

51.8% 32.9 % 7.1% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 1.2%

where V = vowel, C = consonant, W = word, CV = consonant + vowel, VV = vowel + vowel, VC = vowel + consonant, and S = syllable. Noticeably lacking from the inventory of load types is the sequence CC, so that, barring evidence to the contrary, the theory must be constrained to exclude the sequence CC from the candidates for loadship in a possible dis­ placement. Furthermore, since 84.7% of the displacement errors involve single letters and 51.8% single vowels, the theory should strongly favor singlevowel displacement. Distance Types C V W CV S WW

Table 1.6-2 Distance Tokens 56 = 19 = 4= 2= 2= 1= 1=

65.9 % 22.4 % 4.7% 2.4% 2.4% 1.2% 1.2%

Conspicuously absent from the inventory of attested distance types are the let­ ter sequences VV, VC, and CC; consequently, again barring evidence to the contrary, these must be excluded by the theory of spelling displacements as candidates for distances. Recall also that the number of displacements which either involve more than one letter in the load or in the distance or more than

62

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

one displacement per misspelled word is so low that it is negligible. Finally, distinguishing three positions in words misspelled by displaced letters, initial, medial, and final, 3/78 or 3.8% of the displacements move loads to initial position, 33/78 or 42.3% move loads from final position, and the rest, 42/78 or 53.8% loads over distances both of which are word internal. Thus, the chances of making a displacement error of the letter type become greater after one has begun to spell a word, then taper off slightly the closer one comes to the word's end. Among the causes of displacement errors, we note a tendency to place a future portion of the product of a spelling strategy held in the response buffer in the present, especially when the environment to which the load is moved — the new neighborhood — bears a relationship of similarity to the environment from which the load is moved — the old neighborhood. Of these displace­ ments, those which constitute more reasonable hypotheses about the spelling of a word in terms of grapheme/phoneme correspondences than the standard spelling are the most likely to become conventionalized errors. While all of the examples of displacement in this chapter have been exam­ ples of the displacement of letters, letter sequences, syllables, and words, we do have some evidence of the existence of rule displacement and rule anticipa­ tion and perseveration in spelling, what is more, of both the backwards and forward types. There exist two rules for the doubling of final consonants in English, one for monosyllabic stems, the other for stems which are disyllabic or polysyllabic, namely: Rule 1 : Doubling the final consonant — Monosyllables. Words of one syllable, ending in one consonant, after one vowel, double the final consonant before a suffix beginning with a vowel, but do not double it when the suffix begins with a consonant: big, bigger, but bigness. Rule 2: Doubling of the final consonant: Disyllables and Polysyllables. Words of more than one syllable, ending in one consonant, after one vowel, double the final consonant before a suffix beginning with a vowel, if the main stress is on the final syllable: begin, beginning, but open, opening. Furthermore, we posit rules, the details of which need not concern us here, for the doubling of the vowels in words like look, book, nook, hoot, coot, boot, and week, meek, and seek, and the consonants in cattle, apple, etc. Our informant has correctly internalized at least part of the first rule of consonant doubling, since monosyllabic words, ending in one consonant,

ON PUTATIVE 'TRANSPOSITIONS IN SPELLING

63

after one vowel, double, whereas monosyllabic words, ending in one conso­ nant, after two vowels do not: shop (A47) sohpping (2x)

(A51)

sohot (for Target: shout) sohuting (A66)

(66(2))

Evidence for the correct application of the vowel-doubling rule include at­ tempt: (A2) for target: , (A2(2)) for , <(ko) cooking> for (A8), for (A13(2)), for (A22), <meetes> for <meets> (A34), and for (A56). Finally, our evidence for rule displacement and rule duplication, both backward and forward: Doubling-rule Displacement Backward shooping (for shopping) (A56) bettwen (for between) (A92)

Forward apiles (2x) (for apples) (A17) kepp (2x) (for keep) (A32(2)) litll (for little) (A76) Wekkend (for week-end) (A89)

Doubling-rule Anticipation and Perseveration anticipation dinningroom (for dining-room) (A2) 1.7. A disappointing

perseveration football, football, soccer (CD) (for football) (A95)

development

This chapter ends on a disappointing note. It appears to be a widely accepted belief among teachers of spelling that the most effective means for remediating spelling errors is to have their pupils write the words they misspell correctly, over and over again, until they are blue in the face. This was the strategy adopted in this study, where the informant was required to correctly rewrite the words he misspelled at least five times each in the 58 dictations ad­ ministered to him from August 2, 1979, through October 12, 1980, with the shocking result that he showed no improvement at all, across the board, for any of the error types. In the case of displacement errors, both conventional and non-conventional, we recorded 18 errors on the first ten dictations, ad­ ministered from August 8 through October 16, 1979, 13 on the second ten

64

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

from October 18 through November 19, 12 on the third ten, given from November 22, 1979, through January 10, 1980, 16 on the fourth ten from January 17 through March 6,1980,10 on the fifth ten from March 20 through May 29, 1980, and 15 from June 5 through October 12, 1980. What is to be done? As the alternative strategy for spelling error prevention and remedia­ tion, we foresee nothing other than a full-scale frontal linguistic attack involv­ ing phonetic and phonemic perception drills in syntactically and semantically informed materials emerging from a careful contrastive analysis of the lan­ guages involved. 1.8. Appendix: The Displacement Corpus The letter/number combinations on the left refer to the page numbers of the corpus (cf. Appendix: 398-447), "Target" refers to the standard spelling of the word dictated, "Attempt" to the form as written by the informant, " # " preceding the attempt to the fact that the displacement is a displacement of a load to word-initial position, " # " following the attempt to the fact that the dis­ placement is a displacement from word-final position, "L" stands for loadtype, and " D " for distance type. A conventional error is indicated by an as­ terisk preceding the attempt. Target A2. A2. A2. A2. A7. A9. A9. A9. All. All(2). A13. A13(2). A14. A14. A14.

every alarm down doesn't says two German Good-bye eight where bottle starts who three holding

Attempt evrye# arlam donw# *dosen't sasy# tow# gremen Goodbey# egth# weher # *bottel# star$t# *woh# theer# # ohlding

L

D

CV C C C C C C V C V,V V C V VV V

V CV C V C V V C C C,C C C (s masks t) C C C

ON PUTATIVE 'TRANSPOSITIONS IN SPELLING

Target A14(2). A17. A20. A20. A20. A24. A28. A28. A28. A30. A32. A32. A32(2). A32(2). A36. A39. A43. A44. A44. A47. A49. A51. A51. A51. A51(2). A53. A54. A55a. A57. A57. A57. A57. A59. A59. A61. A61.

and wins apple-tree who candles candle where the Puddlefield Puddlefield candle where little little little Puddlefield doesn't to call the police Roberts doesn't does tomatoes shopping shopping two bottles twelve bottles fruit Puddlefield Puddlefield fruit without uncle restaurant he has seen lady's

Attempt wa an aplletre*woh# *candels *candel# wheer# teh# *Puddelfield *Puddelfild *candel # hwere *litel# *litel# *itel# *Puddelfild *dosent to P call the police (CD) Roberst# dosen't *dose# tomateos *sohpping *sohpping tow# *butelt twelef# *bottels *friut *Padelfield *Pudelfield *friut *wihtout *uncel# rautrent has he seen layds

65

L

D

W W V V V V V V V V C V V V V C W

W (attempt letters - struck through) C C C C C C C C C C C C C V WW

C C C V V V V VC,V V V V V V V C V W W C

C V V V C C C C,C C C V C C V C C C W C

66

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Target

Attempt

L

D

A66. shouting sohuting V C A66. pupils pipul C V (A66. pupils piupel (CD) — Although not an example of a displacement, this example was included in order to justify treating the previous example as a displacement, rather than as a transposition, where the spelling piupel, by analogy to friut and siutcase, is considered a virtual conventional error, and the following spelling, pilpu a syllabic displacement for target pupil.) A66. pupils pilpu S S A66(2). shout *sohot V C A66(2). two tow# V C A67. whistle *wihtel# V,V C,C A68. baby bayb C C A70. little *littel# V C A71. where's weh V C A75. sometimes somes t i m e # C S A75. weekend weke ende # C V A76. suitcase *sijutcase V V A76. breakfast bakeforst V CV A76. with *wiht# C C A78. Puddlefield *Puddelfield V C A78. lady layd# C C A89. suitcase *siutcase V V A89a. Puddlefield *Puddelfield V C A92. Puddlefield *Puddelfield V C A92. who how# CV C A92(2). whistle *wissel V C A92a. (cont'd) Puddlefield * Puddelfield V C A94. travel travle# C V A94. and to Betty to and Betty W W A95. know no one now one know W W A95. German Grerma C V A95(2). where wehr V C A95(2). mountains moutntens C C A95(2). miles milse# C V A95(3). learned learen(CD) V C A95(3). fat # avt V C

Chapter II Letter Naming as a Spelling Strategy

2.0. Introduction Poor performance in spelling has frequently been cited as a characteristic of dyslexics (Critchley 1975; Naidoo 1972; Orton 1966; Rutter 1978), although little attention has been devoted to its study (Cook 1981) and remediation (Bradley 1981) in dyslexic monolinguals and even less in dyslexic bilinguals (Luelsdorff and Bloor 1981). The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the use of letter naming as a spelling strategy based on an analysis of the vowel errors attributable to letter naming in a corpus of sentences containing 6,162 words with 2,138 errors dictated to a 12-year-old incipient English/German bilingual over a 14-month period (cf. Luelsdorff and Bloor 1981 for methodological details) and to propose extended letter-naming as a technique for the prevention and remediation of spelling errors. 2.1. Preconventional spelling Studies of preschool children's prephonic, preliterate, "invented" spel­ ling (Read 1971) indicate that such children spell on the basis of their phonetic analysis of the spoken word and their knowledge of the written alphabet and letter names, a spelling strategy which was pointed out by Cook (1981) to be also frequently observable in the misspellings of older dyslexic children. That knowledge of letter names plays the key role in preconventional spelling becomes apparent on the inspection of the list of preconventional error types, reproduced here from Cook (1981) as Table 2.1: Table 2.1 I.

Consonant Phonetic Spellings (Preconventional) A. Nasal omitted before a final stop consonant, as WET/went; DOT/don't.

68

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

B. Use of letter whose name contains the phoneme, as Y for /w/ and H for /č/: YOH/watch; YEL/will. C. Spelling initial /dr/ as JR (JRS/dress) and initial /tr/ as CHR (CHRAN/train). D. Representation of surface phonetic detail, such as the reduction of medial /t/, as in LIDL/little. II. Vowel Phonetic Spellings (Preconventional) A. Letter name for long vowel sound, as in MAK/make; FEL/feel; SNO/snow. B. Short vowel sound spelled with letter name articulated in same place, such as BAD/bed; KIT/cut; SET/sit; JRO/draw. C. Representations of elongation, rounding, or glide on vowels, such as BOE/boy; GOW/go; MEE/me. III. Syllabic Phonetic Spellings (Preconventional) A. Letter name used for syllable or part of syllable, as RGU/argue; XPRS/express. B. Final syllables (vowel-consonant segments) as in ENTR/enter; MITN/mitten; LIDL/little. 2.2. Literal use and mention To Carnap we owe the expression "autonymous" in reference to the use of words as the names of the same words, as in "The word 'man' is spelled with three letters" or "The word 'man' is a monosyllable". To this expression we would like to add "visual autonymous use" and "audio autonymous use" in order to distinguish between the two essentially different autonymous uses of names exemplified by "The word 'man' begins with the letter m," in which 'man' is used to refer to the sequence of letters which constitute its legitimate spelling, and by "The word 'man' initiates in a voiced bilabial nasal," in which 'man' is used to refer to its pronunciation. Both these autonymous uses of the word 'man', in which 'man' appears as the proper name of its spelling, on the one hand, and as the proper name of its pronunciation, on the other, sharply contrast with the denotative use of 'man', in which 'man' is used to refer to a featherless, plantigrade, biped mammal. Cast in terms of Quine's distinction between the mention of a word and its use, we may mention a word to refer to either its spoken or written shape, or use it to denote.

LETTER NAMING AS A SPELLING STRATEGY

69

The distinction between visual and audio autonymous use pertains to the names of letters as well as to the names of words as in "The word 'salmon' is spelled with an l" and " L is a consonant whose name begins with a vowel". Thus letters, like words, can be either signifiers or signifieds. The sounds which the letter is used to represent are its signifieds and the letter itself their signifier ; the name of the letter is the signifier and the letter itself the signified. When the sound of the name of the letter and the sound the letter is used to represent fully coincide, as in the free alternate pronunciation of the "primary vowels" a, e, i, o, and u in English (for which cf. Venezky (1970)), that is, when the mention of a letter is identical with its use, we speak of complete echoicity and propose ranking the alphabets of the world according to the extent to which their letters are echoic. 2.3. Letter naming Letter naming, i.e., pronouncing the names of the letters of the alphabet, e.g., English < a > = [e], < e > = [I], < i > = [a], < o > = [oy], = [j℧u], or German < a > = [α:], < e > = [e:], < i > = [i:], < o > = [o:], < u > = [u:]has been described as one of the devices characteristic of the invented spelling of young children (Read 1971; Schreiber and Read 1980; Cook 1981), where letter symbols are generated on the basis of preliterate children's knowledge of the written alphabet and letter names. We place three conditions on a theory of letter-naming used as a strategy for spelling: (1) that the informant know the names of the letters; (2) that the names of the letters be either identical with, closely approximate, or contain the sounds of the words they are used to represent; and (3) that the letters not correspond to those used in the standard spelling. (If the letters do correspond to those used in the standard spelling, it is clearly impossible to distinguish between letter-naming used as a spelling strategy, on the one hand, and letter-sounding used as a spelling strategy, on the other.) Under these three conditions we find ample evidence of both English and German letter-naming used as spelling strategies in the attempts of our incipient Eng­ lish/German bilingual to spell English words. We view this phenomenon as an overgeneralization of those instances where the names of letters partially resemble the sounds the letters are used to legitimately represent, hence the abilities to (1) letter name and (2) use letter naming as a spelling strategy as constituent components of the spelling competence of the normal, fluent writer. Since this relationship is one of similarity between the sound of the

70

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

letter name and the sound of the words the letter or the sequence of letters is used to represent, it is echoic (see above). Were this relationship completely regular, whereby the names of the letters were identical with the constituent sounds of the words, or the sounds of the words predictably derivable from the names of the letters, such as appears to be the case, or nearly the case, in Japanese kana, the orthography would be optimally echoic. As mentioned above, Cook (1981) has shown that letter-naming, which is employed as a spelling strategy by preliterate monolingual children using "invented" spelling, is also characteristic of monolingual, developmentally dyslexic children, decreasingly in direct proportion to age, for children dia­ gnosed as dyslexic on independent grounds. We now have evidence to suggest that both native and target language letter-naming interference in spelling be used as one of the symptoms characteristic of the foreign-language dyslexia syndrome, the additional attributes of which are yet to be ascertained. Clear examples of English letter-naming in the Bernhard corpus include the vowels < a , e, i,> and < u > : Table 2.3-1: English Letter-Naming Vowel <e>

Target paints Here jeans likes nine juice

Attempt pans Her jens liks nin just

Page A 2(2) A 6, A 9(2) A 75 A5 A9 A 20

Unambiguous examples of German letter-naming include the letters a, e, i, and u: Table 2.3-2: German Letter-Naming Vowel <e>

Target John on conflakes eight evening sleeps to soup

Attempt Jam an cornfleks egth ivening shlips tu sup

Page A 14 A 75(2) A 2 A 11 A 1 A 5 A9 A 49

LETTER NAMING AS A SPELLING STRATEGY

71

Apparently interpretable as examples of either English or German let­ ter-naming are English or German o, which were pronounced virtually the same by the person administering the dictation:

Toast bones

Tost Bons

A6 A 49

2.4. Major patterns for primary vowels Venezky (1970) shows that the vowel spellings < a , e, i/y, o > and < u > , which he terms "primary vowel spellings", carry the major burden of vowel representation in English, and that each of the primary vowel units corres­ ponds regularly to two different "morphophonemes", a free one and a checked one, according to the morpheme structure of the word in which it occurs and the consonant and vowel units which follow it. These correspon­ dences are given in Table 2.4, reproduced from Venezky (1970): Table 2.4: Major Pattern for Primary Vowels Spelling

Free Alternate

Checked Alternate

a

{e} sane mate ration {i} athlete mete penal {ai} rise risen malign site {o} cone robe posy {ju} induce rude lucre

{æ} sanity mat rattle {e} athletic met pennant {i}

e

u

malignant sit {a} conic rob possible {∧}

induction rudder luxury

72

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

In order to avoid repetition, a statement of the environmental determin­ ants of the pronunciation of the primary vowel spellings will be defrayed until immediately below. Be it noted, however, that the names of the primary vowel letters are identical to the free alternate realizations listed in Table 2.4. 2.5. Spelling: A teaching strategy It has been established that a major factor in the spelling strategy of both preschool, preconventional spellers and older dyslexic children is letternaming. This strategy is maximally effective to the extent that there exists a one-to-one correspondence between grapheme name and phoneme, which, in English, is notoriously not the case. Given the stated predisposition of preliterate, normal children and older dyslexic children to use letter-naming as a spelling strategy, we suggest naming each letter with an additional name such that the additional name is identical with the other predictable phoneme correspondence of the grapheme in question. This having been done, the task of the speller then amounts to correctly identifying the sound to be spelled with the sounds of the names of the primary vowel units < a , e, i, o, u > : this entails supplementing the established names of the letters [e, I, a, o℧, j℧], the free alternates, with the new letter names [æ, ε, ɪ, a, ∧], the checked alternates, respectively, with the instruction that the marker < e > be appended to words containing free alternates in their final syllables. As a strategy for oral reading, the primary vowel letters are to be pro­ nounced with their free alternates when they are followed by (1) a functionally simple consonant unit which in turn is followed by another vowel unit (includ­ ing final < e > or (2) a functionally simple consonant unit, followed by <1> or < r > , and then another vowel unit (including final < e > ) . Continuing to recapitulate Venezky (1970), they correspond to their checked alternates in the remaining cases, i.e., when followed by (1) a functionally compound consonant unit, e.g., <x, dg>, (2) a cluster of consonant units, e.g., or, (3) a word-final consonant unit or units. Venezky's examples are shown in Table 2.5.

LETTER NAMING AS A SPELLING STRATEGY

73

Table 2.5:

Examples of Primary Vowel Correspondence for Selected Environments Spelling

Free Alternate

Checked Alternate

1

2

1

a

canine

ladle

badge

saddle

sat

e i o u

median pilot vogue dubious

zebra microbe noble lucre

exit chicken pocket luxury

antenna epistle cognate supper

ebb hitch sod rug

2

3

In the case of slower monolingual and bilingual learners we suggest augmenting the bimodal, audio-visual approach of extended letter-naming proposed above with the trimodal audio-visual-tactile method partially devel­ oped and demonstrated to be effective by Lynette Bradley (1981). This method consists of the following series of ordered steps: (1) The student proposes the word he wants to learn. Clearly, in the case of the primary vowel units, the words proposed must be restricted to those containing either the free or the checked alter­ nate. (2)

The word is written correctly for him (or made with plastic script letters).

(3)

The student names the word.

(4)

He then writes the word himself, saying the alphabetic name of each letter of the word as it is written. Here the teacher should control to see that the letter names which are used are the English letter names and not the letter names in the native language.

(5)

He names the word again. He checks to see that the word has been written correctly so as to avoid inaccurate copying. Repeat steps 2 to 5 twice more, covering or disregarding the stimulus word as soon as the student feels he can manage without it.

(6)

The student practices the word in this way for six consecutive days.

74

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Bradley reports that 80% of the words learned with this method were still spelled correctly four weeks later. It is hoped that the method of augmented letter naming proposed herein will yet improve this already impressive statis­ tic.

Chapter III Substitutions: Vowels

3.0. Introduction. We proceed with an examination of the several types and causes of the vowel-substitution errors in our corpus, using the expression "substitution" in the sense qualified in Chapter I, as part of our ongoing attempt to specify the set of spelling strategies employed by German learners of English. 3.1. English vowel misspelings: types and causes. 3.1.1. English /i/. The informant misspelled English HI in 14 different ways in a total of 76 misspelled occurrences as follows: Type

Frequency Target

Examples Attempt

Page

(1.) < i >

for < e > <eCe> <ee>

7x 7x 5x 4x 3x

<We're> 26x

<wir>

A A A A A

36 70 49 72 55

(2.) < e >

for < e a > <eCe> <ee>

4x 4x 4x 3x 1x

17x <seventy>

<sevente>

A A A A A

66 96 96 34 22

(3.) < i e >

for < e > <ee>

7x 2x



A 95 A 34

(4.) < y >

for < e y >

5x 1x)

9x

6x



<money> <mony> A 36 A 63

76

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Type

Frequency Target

(5.) < e a > (6.) < o > (7.) < e y >

for < e e > for < e o > for < y >

4x 3x 3x

(8.) < e y >

for < y > <eCe>

lx lx

for for for for for for

lx lx lx lx lx lx

(9.) (10.) (11.) (12.) (13.) (14.)

<ei> <eae>

<ea> <ea> <ea> <ea> <ea>

2x

Examples Attempt

Page

<meet>

<meat> <pople>

A 63 A 63 A 20





A 13 A 54a

<every>

<evrye>

A A A A A A

2 59 2 7 13 22

35% of the misspellings of English /i/, namely < i > > /i/, we interpret > /i:/ as resulting from the misemployment of the German GPC < i > transfer strategy, as in < d i r > : [di:R] or < m i r > : [mi:R], in English, or mis­ employing the strategy of German letter-naming — the name of the German letter < i > is [i:] — in English, not excluding the possibility of these two strategies conspiring. 23% of the misrepresentations of [i] we attribute to English letter-nam­ ing used as a spelling strategy, cf. the examples under (2.) above, and a further 12%, cf. those under (3.), to the negative transfer of the GPC < i e > >/i:/from German. Thus, 58% of the misspellings of lil are accounted for by native and target language letter-naming strategies. Over 40% of the remaining misspel­ lings, cf. those under (4.), (5.), and (8.) are attributable to plausible, but lex­ ically incorrect representations, call them "phonetic spellings" e.g., < m e a t > for < m e e t > , <mony> for <money>. The remainder of the misspellings of /i/, cf. those under (6.), (9.) and (10.), where < o > > /i/, < e i > > /i/, and < a > > /i/, respectively, are incapable of being accounted for in terms of the GPCs of either English or German and too infrequent to be likely candidates for invented interlanguage GPCs; consequently, we consign them to the category of unedited slips-of-the-pen.

SUBSTITUTIONS : VOWELS

77

3.1.2 English /ɪ/. English /ɪ/ is misspelled in the following 7 different ways over 31 error tokens, listed in decreasing order of frequency: Type

Frequency Target

Examples Attempt

Page

(1.) < i >

for < i C e > <e>

6x 5x 4x lx

<pretty> <sausages> <women>

<pritty> <sausitches> <wimen>

A A A A

(2.) < e >

for < i >

7x

(3.) < a i >

for < i >

3x

<six> <which>

<sex> <whaida>

A 6 A 17 A 57

(4.) < i e >

for < i > 1x lx



<wiesit>

A 43 A 9

(5.) < u > (6.) < o > (7.) < e i >

for < y > for < i > for < e e >

<system>

<sustem>

A 95(2) A 17 A 63

lx lx lx

2x

63 75(2) 56 55

We interpret all of the instances of -representation above, with the exception of attempt: <wimen> for target: <women>, as regularizations to the checked alternate representation of the major pattern for the vowel /ɪ/, which, like the remainder of the primary vowel representations, corres­ ponds to its checked alternate when followed by (1.) a functionally compound consonant unit, e.g. <x, dg>, (2.) a cluster of consonant units, e.g., <-nn, -lth> (<sausitches, pritty>) or (3.) a word-final consonant unit or units (). <women>, analyzable into at least two morphemes, does not follow the pattern for the free-alternate pronunciation of a primary spelling unit in mono-morphemic words, in which case it would be pronounced [wόṷmәn], hence unique in its spelling. The informant's <wimen> is a closer approximation to its pronunciation, and <wimmen> would have been even closer, since, as noted above, the checked pronunciation occurs before wordinternal clusters. The < e > for < i > renderings under (2.) above, although very few in number, are of theoretical interest. Since they are related to attempt: <wiesit> for target: in (4.), they will be discussed together. It is

78

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

informally widely noted that English orthographic < i > is frequently pro­ nounced [i:] by beginning learners of English. This we trace to the fact that < i > is pronounced long [i:] in a few, but frequent German monosyllabic words, e.g.,

[di:R] 'you' (dat.), < m i r > : [mi:R] 'me' (dat.). Reading English and <will> as though they were German thus results in a pronunciation containing [i:], and this is indeed the way in which the infor­ mant pronounced these words. Note that there is nothing necessary about the < i > > [i:] pronunciation in German, since < i > is also articulated [ɪ], namely before two consonants, as in : [kindәR] 'children' and in monosyllables, in fact most monosyllables, as in < m i t > : [mɪt] 'with' and < i n > : [ɪn] 'in', so that the negative transfer of < i > > [i:] is the exercise of just one of two options. The pronunciations [zi:s] for and [vi:l] for <will> we thus derive from German letter-naming and/or letter-sounding as a pronunciation strategy and the misspellings and <well> for and <will> from English letter-naming as a spelling strategy. The misspelling attempt: <wiesit> for target: is relevant inasmuch as it is an unambiguous piece of evidence for the fact that there exists a German pronunciation [i:] in English words corresponding to the standard pronunci­ ation [ɪ]. The important question of which factors, if any, enable one to predict whether, in a given case, [ɪ] will be correctly spelled, or misspelled as a product of English letter-naming based on German letter-naming/sound­ ing, must, for lack of adequate understanding of the processes involved, remain unanswered. The misspelling <sustem> for <system> we attribute to the pronunci­ ation of the German cognate <System>: [systé:m], i.e., assimilation of the informant's pronunciation to the German, ignorance on the part of the infor­ mant that the spelling of German <System> with < y > is lexicalized, the predictable correspondence being /y/ > < u > , and subsequent omission of the umlaut, although preservation of umlauts in English spelling is not unheard of, witness for , A 1. The example attempt: <sex> for target: <six> in (2.) above we also assign to the category of what we will term "partial cognatization", English <six> being cognate with Ger­ man <sechs> 'six'. English /ɪ/ is among the least misspelling-prone of the monophthongs. We trace this fact to the observations that (1.) < i > >/ɪ/is one of the major patterns for primary vowels and (2.) < i > > /ɪ/ is the only means for repre­ senting /ɪ/ in German, i.e., that English /ɪ/ is virtually interference-immune. We write "virtually" because it is thinkable that German /ɪ/ > < i > be used

SUBSTITUTIONS: VOWELS

79

to misrepresent English l\l in those instances where */ɪ/ > < i > , as in the irregular correspondences for the final diacritic <e>-patterns, e.g., , , and — is in fact attested — in one of the major correspondences of the secondary vowel pattern < i e > , as in , , <eerie>, and <movie>, for those speakers who pronounce these polysyllabics with final [ɪ], not [i], or one of the minor correspondences of the secondary vowel patterns < e e > , as in < b e e n > , , and , , as in <mademoiselle>, <porpoise>, and , or, finally, < u i > , as in , , and . 3.1.3 English /e/. English Id exhibited 11 different types of misrepresentation by substitu­ tion over a total of 49 error tokens listed and exemplified here in decreasing order of frequency: Type Frequency Examples Target Attempt Page (1.) < e >

for < a C e > <ea> <ei>

7x 3x 3x 2x lx

(2.) < a C e > for < e a >

7x

(3.) < e y >

for < a y >

5x 2x

for < a C e > <ei>

3x 2x lx

for < e y >

3x lx lx

for for for for for for

3x lx lx lx lx lx

(4.) < a >

(5.) < a y >

(6.) (7.) (8.) (9.) (10.) (11.)

<ea> <ej> <eye>

<ey> <ey>

<marmalade> <marmaled> <potatoes> <potetos> 16x <eight> <eght>

A A A A A

6 8 17 84 11

<steak>.

<stake>

A 47

<way>

<wey>

A 6 A 14(2)

6x

<wave> <paints> <eight>

<wav> <pans>

A 55a A 2(2) A 92

5x



<wrays>

A 6 A 14 A 94

<May>

<Mae>

A A A A A A

7x

2 54a 89 95(2) 51 66

80

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Underlying just under 1/2 of the misspellings of English Id is English and German letter-naming as a spelling strategy, German letter-naming used to a greater extent than English. Thus, German < e > , whose name is [e:], is used to represent the stressed vowels in <marmaled>, <potetos>, < r e n > and , and English < a > to represent the vowels in <wav>, <suitcas>, and . Remarkable about the total set of misrepresentations of [e] is the fact that they are not restricted to misrepresentations of the unpredicable case, 1/3 (17/51) misspelling the regular representation < a C e > , for example, attempt: for target: . We thus note a strong tendency to irregularize the regular cases in addition to the intuitively more anticipatable weaker tendency to regularize the irregular cases, for example, attempt: <stake> for target: <steak>. Interestingly enough this latter strategy is restricted to the regularization of < e a > , suggesting the notion of a regularization-prone orthographic representation, but leaving unexplained why some irregular orthographic representations should be more regularization-prone than others. One hypothesis which suggests itself is that there is an inverse relationship between regularization-proneness and frequency of normative spelling-type, but the testing of this hypothesis lies beyond the scope of this study. Suffice it to say, pending detailed investigation of this question, that /e/, together with /e/, is a minor correspondence of the secondary vowel pat­ tern < e a > , the major correspondence being /i/, while the major correspon­ dence of both <ei/ey> and is Id. This hypothesis predicts that words of the type < b r e a k > , , <steak>, and < y e a > , containing the minor correspondence < e a > > /e/, will be more frequently regularized to sequences containing < a C e > than words of the type , , , and , on the one hand, and < b a i t > , < d a y > , , and <wait>, on the other, containing the major correspondences <ei/ey>, > Id, respectively. 3.1.4 English /ε/. English /ε/ underwent 15 different types of misspelling in a total of 88 misspelled tokens. From most to least frequent:

SUBSTITUTIONS : VOWELS

Type

Frequency Target

81

Examples Attempt

Page

(1.) < e >

for < e C e > 18x <ea> 9x <ei> 4x 2x < e C C e > 2x lx lx

37x <square> <Mary>

<squer> <Mery>

A A A A A A A

2(2) 2 7 1 74 26 80

(2.) < a >

for < e > <ea> <eCe> <ei>

<when> 25x <said>

<whan> <sad>

A A A A A

78 89 19 96 8

(3.) < i >

for < i e >

7x



A 63

<e>

17x 5x lx lx lx 4x 3x

A 22 <said>

<sayd>

A 76(2)

<Where>

<Wheer>

A A A A

57 24 2 20

<where> <said>

<wehr> <saied>

A A A A A A A A A

5 56 95(2) 47 1 66 76 89 89

(4.) < a y >

for < a i >

4x

(5.) < e e >

for < e > <eCe> for < a i > <e>

2x lx lx lx

(6.) < o > (7.) (8.) (9.) (10.) (11.) (12.) (13.) (14.) (15.)

< e C e > for for <eh> for < e a e > for <ä> for for < a C e > for <eaCe>for < a i e > for

<ei> <e> <eCe> <ea> <e> <e> <ea> <ea>



2x lx lx lx lx lx lx lx lx

3x

Note that /e/ is misrepresented in 69% of the error tokens by either < a > or < e > . The high frequency of < a > appears all the more enigmatic, since * > /ε/ is not a regular GPC in either English or German. We find a plausible explanation for < a > > /ε/ in an extended use of the concept of letter-name. Ordinarily, when one speaks of letter-naming used as a spel-

82

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

ling strategy (cf. Chapter II), one refers to using a letter to represent a sound which is identical to the sound of the name of the letter, justifying the assertion that this phenomenon is based on the equation use = mention, where use is the letter sound and mention is the letter name, as in <spek> for <speak> or <spik> for <spike>. Were we now to focus on just those articulatory features which the name of the letter < a > , i.e. Id, has in common with the target vowel Id, i.e. the intersection of the set of features defining Id with the set of features defining Id, thereby arriving at the archisegment /E/, we would find that Id would be just as likely to be represented by < a > as would /e/, given a spelling strategy based on letter-naming. We do in fact find < a > > /e/, letter-naming used as a spelling strategy for Id. Succinctly stated, the data dictate introducing in bilingual contexts the notion of the place of articulation of a letter name as a spelling strategy in addition to letter-naming proper. This is not to claim that the informant perceptually identifies Id with /e/, but that he judges them articulatorily sufficiently similar to assign them identical representations under a letter-naming strategy. It is also to claim that vowel similarity judgments assign priority to place of articulation (in this case front central) over manner of articulation (in this case tense/lax), yielding the prediction that /e/, for example, will be judged more similar to Id than to either HI or /i/, a prediction borne out by the fact that < a > is not among the 21 types of misrepresentation of /i/ and /i/, with the sole exception of the lone example < a > >/i/in attempt: for target: which we analyzed as a slip-of-the-pen (cf. English lil). Precisely this abstract sense of letter-naming as a spelling strategy has been attested in studies of children's acquisition of their native orthographies. In a study of developmental strategies of spelling competence in primary school children, Beers (1980, p. 38-39), for example, notes three and two stages in the acquisition of short < e > (= /ε/) and short < i > (= /i/), respec­ tively: A.

Short < e > as in < m e t > (1.) < a > for < e > — < g a t > for (2.) < i > for < e > — <wint> for <went> (3.) correct form

B.

Short < i > as in <sit> (1.) < e > for < i > — <mes> for <miss> (2.) correct form

Here, (A1.) and (B1.) confrim place of articulation of letter names as a

SUBSTITUTIONS: VOWELS

83

spelling strategy, which we have referred to above as "abstract" in the sense that its effective utilization entails abstracting away from the tenseness vs. laxness which phonetically differentiates these vowels. Note that (A2.), <wint> for <went>, might have constituted a counterexample, since the features distinguishing the letter name of < i > = /ay/ and Id include that of place of articulation, were it not for our suspicion that <went> is typically pronounced [wĩnt] and not [wnt] in this part of the States, i.e. Laurel, Maryland, bordering the south. Our suspicion is strengthened by the author's report (p. 39) that <many> was spelled < m e n e > , < e > by the author's own account (see above) constituting the first step in the acquisition of the correct orthographic representation of short < i > (= /i/), cf. <mes> for <miss>. The misspellings of /ε/ by < e > under (1.) may be interpreted as result­ ing from either the misuse of place of articulation of the German letter-name /e:/ (= < e > ) as a spelling strategy, or, in the cases of attempt: for target: and attempt: <Mery> for target: <Mary>, overgeneralization of the regular pattern for the representation of the checked alternate of English < e > to environments which intersect with those in which < e > regularly represents /i:/, or, in the case of attempt: < t h e r > for target: , the regularization of a minor correspondence for Id, namely, < e i > > /ε/, as in and , or the collusion of all these forces conspiring to misrepresent /ε/. Since * > /ε/ in neither English nor German, the attempt: for target: would appear to be a slip-of-the-pen. In view of the fact that it occurred thus misspelled three times, however, and these misspellings ranged over a long time span (A 63 — A 70 — A 95(2)), we assign this misrepresentation to the category of strong conventional error (for which cf. Chapter I). We trace attempt: <squer> for target: <square> to either negative transfer from German, where < e > may correspond to Id, as in < Q u e r > 'diagonal', or to regularization to the major correspondence for the checked alternate of English < e > , not excluding, of course, the possibility of the two tendencies conspiring. >/ε/is a minor correspondence of the secondary vowel pattern < a i > in English, as in , , and <said>, whereas < a i > in German invariably corresponds to /ay/, so that attempt: for target: is interpretable as the misuse of a minor secondary pattern for a major primary, an irregularization. Neither < e e > in for nor < a y > in for

84

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

correspond to /ε/ in the standard orthographies of English or German, suggesting a slip-of-the-pen in the case of , an interpreta­ tion reinforced by the absence of < - t > in the attempt. < e h > in attempt: <wehr> for target: <where> and < ä > in attempt: for target: clearly reflect negative transfer from German, where < e h > > /e:/ and < ä > > /ε:/, as in < E h r e > 'honor' and < B ä r > 'bear'. We do not regard as an instance of cognatization of English to German , however, since (1.) adjectives are not capitalized in German unless they occur sentence-initially, (2.) German is written with an < e > in the stressed syllable, not an < ä > , and (3.) cognatization would have entailed a representation with <-s-> or <-ss-> for English <-tt->. On the contrary, it rather dramatically illustrates what might be termed "decognatization", reflecting as it does a dissimilation of the standard representations of the cognates. 3.1.5 English /æ/. The 29 misspelled tokens of English /æ/, a phoneme foreign to German, involved the error types < e > , < a > , < a u > , < a C e > , < u > , and < a y > in decreasing order of frequency, indicating that the informant (1.) was not familiar with the English checked alternate correspondence of < a > and (2.) perceived German /e:,ε,ә/ = < e > as being closest to English /æ/. The < a u > misspelling, occurring exclusively in for target , might have been negatively influenced by preterit , call it "negative paradigmatic orthographic interference". Examples include: Type

Frequency

(1.) < e >

for < a >

(2.) < a >

for < a C e >

2x 2x lx

for for for for

3x 3x 2x lx

(3.) (4.) (5.) (6.)





Examples

15x 5x

Target

Attempt

Page





A 1





A 9(2) A 17(2) A 89

<jam> <match> <wrapping>

A <jame> A <much> A <wraypping>A

67a 49 92 11

SUBSTITUTIONS: VOWELS

85

Here instructional materials should include perception and production drills designed to facilitate perceiving the difference between English /ae/ and /ε/, on the one hand, and English /æ/ and German /ε/, on the other, and their production and, in the case of < t h a n > (and similar forms which undergo reduction in proportion to stress) [ðæn] > [ðәn], draw attention to the fact that the spelling remains constant under varying pronunciation. In speak­ ers of source languages characterized by a three-way phonemic/orthographic distinction between /ε, æ, a/ the problem of the identical orthographic rep­ resentation of English target /ε, æ, a/ (cf. section English /a/ for < a > → /a/) looms large so that at least some of the problems in learning English orthog­ raphy are clearly a function of the native-language background of the learner. Similar attention should be devoted to facilitating the acquisition of the dis­ tinction between English /æ/ and /∧/, e.g. < c a t > vs. < c u t > , < h a t > vs. < h u t > in discrimination and production, since /∧/ does not occur in stressed position in German. 3.1.6 English /ә/. English /ә/ was miswritten in 11 different ways for a total of 51 misrep­ resentation tokens. Examples, from more to less frequent: Type

Frequency Target

Examples Attempt

Page

(1.) < e >

for < a >

7x 4x 3x 3x 2x

21x <Saturday> 1x lx <mountains>

<Saterday> <Mountens>

A 28 A 67a A 43(2) A 63 A 65 A2 A 95(2)

(2.) < i >

for < e >

6x 4x lx

11x

<wilishes> <minits>

A14 A89 A 84

for < e > 4x 2x lx

7x

(3.) < a >

(4.) < o u >

for < a >

lx lx

<minutes>

A 11(2) A 30 <Parliament> <Parlament>A 96

A 2 A 92a

86

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Type

Frequency Target

Examples Attempt

Page

(5.) < i e > (6.) < y >

for < i > for < i >

2x 2x





(7.) < u >

for < e >

lx lx

<sausages>

A39 <sosuchess> A 54

for for for for

lx lx lx lx

<soccer> <station>

<soccor> <stateion>

(8.) (9.) (10.) (11.)

<ee> <eio> <ei>

<e> <e> <e>

2x

A 94 A 55a

A 51 A 95(2) A 24 A57

All of the primary vowel patterns used to misspell English /ә/ in some words, namely < a , e, i, o, u > , can be used to correctly represent /ә/ in others, the others being in this sense system-familar. Four of the five second­ ary vowel patterns used to misrepresent /ә/, namely <ee, ie, ei, eio>, how­ ever, are never used to represent /ә/ in English and are, consequently, sys­ tem-foreign. < i e > for < i > in attempt: for target: is conceivably traceable to the German pronunciation of the German cognate 'family' of English , with [i:] in the stressed syllable, which is then spelled with the German GPC < i e > > /i:/, although /i:/ in this instance is spelled in German with < i > , not < i e > , which would have resulted in the right spelling for the wrong reason. Thus viewed, attempt: is an example of what might be termed "partial, phonetic cognatization" cum subsequent negative transfer, albeit incorrect, from German > /i:/. and remain a mystery, all the more so since the word the is as frequent as it is. We are very eager to broach the topic of which factors underlie the selection of certain representations as opposed to others equally plausible in terms of the predictions yielded by system-internal and system-external contrastive analyses, but readily confess to virtual ignorance of these deter­ minants. In the case of the misrepresentation of fa/ we note two possible candidates. Almost 1/2 of the misspellings of /ә/, 21/51, consist of the misuse of < e > . < e > is the only vowel which is used to represent German fa/, as in the prefixes , i.e., : [bәgin] 'begin', : [gәvin] 'win' and the suffix <-en>, i.e. <schreiben>: [sráibәn], among others. Thus the native orthographic system predisposes one to represent English fa/ as < e > . A second, albeit curious, consideration is that all the

SUBSTITUTIONS: VOWELS

87

other primary vowel misrepresentations of /ә/, i.e., those not involving < e > , have the duplication of the preceding stressed vowel in common: thus, < i > for < u > in <minits> for <minutes> duplicates the preceding < i > ; < u > for < e > in for duplicates the preceding < u > ; < u > for < a > in <sosuchess> for <sausages> (cf. <sausitches> for <sausages>, with < a u > in the stressed syllable, p. A 56) duplicates the preceding < u > in a different attempt; < a > for < i a > in <Parlament> for <Parliament> duplicates the preceding < a > , and < o > for < e > in <soccor> for <soccer> duplicates the preceding < o > . It is almost as though the informant, uncertain of the correct representation for /ә/ in these items, adopted the strategy of duplicating the spelling of the preceding vowel, irrespective of the vowel sound it represented, secure in the feeling that at least a vowel letter occurring in the same word was being used. This hypothesis could be confirmed by obtaining the rating "weak conventional error" (for which cf. Chapter I) as a confidence rating on these and analogous items. 3.1.7 English /ɝ/. English /ɝ/ is orthographically misrepresented in 12 different ways in a total of 25 tokens, listed below in decreasing order of frequency: Type

Frequency Target

(1.) < e r >

(2.) < o r > (3.) (4.) (5.) (6.) (7.) (8.) (9.) (10.) (11.) (12.)

<ea> <ar>

for < i r > <eCe>

3x 2x 2x

for < i r > <er>

2x 2x

for for for for for for for for for for

3x 2x 2x 1x lx lx lx lx lx lx

<ear> <er> <er> <er> <ar>

7x

4x

Examples Attempt

Page

<shirt> <were>

<shert> <wer>

A 67 A 24 A 89



<porhaps>

A 9(2) A 34

<sugar>

<Parhaps> <prrhaps> <suga>

A 28 A 78 A 89 A 9(2) A 43 A 20 A 34(2) A 54(2) A 26 A6

88

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

These 12 types of misrepresentation of /ɝ/ may be almost evenly sub­ divided according to whether they reflect an attempt to represent the retroflex quality of /ɝ/ by means of < r > . Of the 7 that do, < o r > , < i e r > , < ö r > , < e r > , < a r > , < r r > , and < r > , one, < ö r > , is obviously of German prove­ nience — German [œr] = < ö r > being the closest phonetic approximation to English /ɝ/ in stressed syllables — three, < o r > , < a r > , and < e r > of English provenience, < o r > and < a r > corresponding to /ɝ/ in environments complementary to those in which they were erroneously used, < i e r > , which is apparently an error of anticipation consisting in the addition of < e > , rather than a conventional error, since the root is spelled correctly elsewhere, cf. for (A 26), and one, < r r > , is obviously an error of anticipation, since /ɝ/ is misspelled in all other instances with at least <-Vr->. >/ɝ/in for must be an overgeneralization of unstressed < o r > , such as the agentive, to stressed syllables, since the exceptional < o r > > /ɝ/ in stressed syllables is found in words which were not part of the informant's vocabulary, e.g., , , and <worry>. /ɝ/ > < i r > or < u r > or < e r > when followed by a conso­ nant or juncture, so that the attempt: <shert> for target: <shirt> and the attempt: < t e r n > for target: < t u r n > are plausible spellings but mistakenly represented in the informant's lexical memory, lexicalized misrepresenta­ tions. We trace those misrepresentations which reflect no attempt to represent the retroflection of stressed /ɝ/ to the absence of stressed /ɝ/ in German, yielding a total of four strategies for spelling /ɝ/: (1.) correct representation of both the vowel and the liquid; (2.) incorrect representation of the vowel, but correct representation of the liquid: (3.) correct representation of the vowel, but omission of the liquid; (4.) incorrect vowel representation and liquid omission. Note the absence of vowel omission and liquid preservation among the several conventional errors, suggesting the constraint on misrep­ resentation that the target graphotactics not be violated. This theory admits , , and , but excludes , as possible misrepresenta­ tions for for this class of learner, a step in the direction of defining the notion "possible error". It is likely that the theory of possible errors is, in addition, native-language relative, such that the above constraint would not hold for native speakers of Czech, for example, which exhibits syllabic liquids reflected in the orthography without vowels, e.g., 'wolf' and < k r k > 'neck'. The presence of the slip-of-the-pen <prrhaps> for also suggests that the theory of error not be constrained to exclude target-Ian-

SUBSTITUTIONS: VOWELS

89

guage graphotactic violations as possible slips-of-the-pen, although it must be noted that these are very rare indeed. 3.1.8 English /∧/. English /∧/ was misrepresented in 5 different ways, the overwhelming majority, or 42/49, restricted to either < a > (25x) or < o > (17x). Here, in decreasing order of frequency: Type

Frequency Target

(1.) < a >

for < u >

(2.) < o >

for < o u >

Page

<must> 25x

<mast>

A34 A 83(2) A 17

7x 5x 4x 17x < W h a t >

<Whot>

A 30 A 70 A 53

lx

<summer>

<somer>

A 78

(3.) < o C e > f o r < o e >

4x

<does>

<dose>

A74

(4.) < u >

lx lx lx

<money>

<muney> <jung>

A 13 A 63 A65



(5.) < o u >

for < o > for < o >

17x 5x 3x

Examples Attempt

The explanation for the misrepresentation of English IAI by German < a > and < o > is to be found in the contrastive analysis of the respective vowel systems. Both /∧/ and /ә/ occur in English and German, but with different distributions: /∧/ occurs in English only in stressed syllables, as in < c u t > = [kAt] and = [k∧m], whereas /∧/ occurs in German only in unstressed syllables, as in <Mutter>: [mút∧] 'mother' and < Vater>: [fát∧] 'father', while /ә/ occurs only in unstressed syllables in English and German, as in English <sofa>: [sóufә] and German [bitә] 'request'. Since stressed /∧/ is not present in German, and English stressed /∧/ is mainly misrepresented by < a > and < o > , the orthographic representations of just those German vowels which are phonetically closest to English /A/, namely close /ą/, as in < R a t t e > : /rątә/ 'rat' and open /ạ/, as in < R a t e > : /rątә/ 'install­ ment', and close /ọ/, as in < r o t e > : /rotә/ 'red', and open /ǫ/, as in < R o t t e > : /rǫtә/ 'gang', and the orthographic representations of just those English vow­ els which are phonetically closest to English /∧/, namely /a/, as in :

90

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

/fáðәr/, and /o/, as in < n o t e > : /not/, we conclude that the principle under­ lying the major misrepresentations of /∧/ is the assimilation of the orthog­ raphic representations of the articulatorily most proximate vowels to the orthographic representations of the target. This is by no means a logical necessity; other possibilities suggest themselves. For example, the abilities to identify, produce, and correctly orthographically represent English /A/ might have been acquired immediately. Or, the graphemic representation for unstressed German /∧/, namely < e r > , might have been transferred from unstressed position in German to stressed position in English, yielding attempts such as <merst> for <most> or <whert> for <what>. These log­ ically possible alternatives suggest the absolute favoring of certain acquisition strategies to the complete exclusion of others, whose study promises to lead to the description of strategy preference and its explanation. Since neither < a > >/∧/nor < o > >/∧/constitute the regular rep­ resentations of stressed /∧/ in English and the question of the regular rep­ resentation of stressed /∧/ in German fails to arise by default, we assign < a > >/∧/and < o > >/∧/to the invented GPCs comprising the informant's interlanguage. Attempt: <jung> for target: is one of several examples of total cognatization, cf. German <jung> 'young'. 3.1.9 English /u/. English /u/ underwent 12 types of misspelling in a total of 27 misspelling occurrences. Examples arrayed from most to least frequent:

Type

Frequency Target

( l . ) a . < u > for < u i > b. c. d. e. f.

3x 2x lx lx lx lx

(2.) < o >

2x 2x

for < o e >

(3.) <ewy/ewu> for < e w > 3x

9x

4x

Examples Attempt

Page

<juice> <soup> <June>

<juse> <sup> <Jun>

A A A A A A

30 49 75 9 66 66

<shoes>

<shos>

A 52 All

A 9

SUBSTITUTIONS: VOWELS

Type

Frequency Target

(4.) < o h > (5.) (6.) (7.) (8.) (9.) (10.) (11.) (12.)

for < o o >

< i u > for < o u > for < o w > for < e o > for for < o o > for < o y > for < a u > for

<ew> <ew>

lx lx 2x lx lx lx lx lx lx lx

2x

91

Examples Attempt

Page

<shoot> <Who>

<shoht> <Woh>

A 67 A 20

<soon>

<soun> <sankyoy>

A 56 A 70 A 92 A 92a A 92 A 17 A 9(2) A 94(2)

Inasmuch as German < u > > /u:/ when it occurs syllable-finally, as in < d u > : [du:], and before a single consonant, as in < t u n > : [tu:n] 'do', and there is no < u # > > /u/ GPC in English without the concomitant presence of the diacritic marker < - e > , we interpret examples (1b.-le.) above as result­ ing from negative transfer from German and/or German/English letter-nam­ ing as a spelling strategy. The major correspondences of the secondary vowel patterns < o o > and < u i > are /u/ and /(j)u/, respectively. Hence, we interpret (la.) and (9.), <juse> for <juice> and for < P o o r > , as simplifications consisting in the assimilation of major secondary vowel patterns to a major primary vowel pattern. The presence of the diacritic marker < - e # > in the attempts argues against attributing these error tokens to letter naming as a spelling strategy. > /u/ in English only as an irregular correspondence for the final < - e > pattern, as in , <move>, <prove>, and <whose>. Con­ sequently, attempt: <shos> for target: <shoes> does not consist in the misapplication of an English GPC. Furthermore, there is no GPC < o > >/u/in German so that <shos> for <shoes> is not an example of negative transfer from German. We are thus left with the possibility that <shos> is an unedited slip-of-the-pen consisting in the inadvertent omission of < e > from < o e > or the possibility that < o > > /u/ is an invented GPC in the informant's interlanguage. The latter hypothesis would enjoy greater credi­ > /ε/, which it is bility were < o > > /u/ more frequent, as is < a > not, nor is syllable-final /u/ consistently represented by < o > , witness

92

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

attempt: < b l u > for target: , leaving <shos> a plausible slip-of-thepen. > /u/, but there is a minor Since there is no German GPC * correspondence /u/ for the secondary vowel pattern < o u > in English, as in , , , <soup>, , etc., we interpret attempt: <soun> for target: <soon> as evidencing a misapplication of the minor correspondence < o u > > /u/ in lieu of a proper application of the major correspondence < o o > > /u/ for the secondary vowel pattern < o o > , an instance of irregularization. Because neither * > /(j)u/ nor *<eo> > /(j)u/ are GPCs in either English or German, we assign both attempts: and for target: to the category of unedited slips-of-the> /(j)u/ are GPCs in the pen. The possibility that either * or *<eo> informant's interlanguage is rendered unlikely by the fact that the above occurrences are isolated. We also discount the possibility that attempt: for target: instantiates a transposition error, since (1.) there is at least one other example of erroneous < e > >/ә/for < o > > /ә/, namely attempt: for target: and (2.) , thus interpreted, would be the only example of a genuine trans­ position in a corpus of some 80 putative "transposition" errors, which, inci­ dentally, we have interpreted as backward displacements. (cf. Chapter I). >/o/and < o h > >/o:/in English and German, respective­ ly, as in English < o h > and German 'bean', i.e. * >/u/in either language. Consequently, we do not view < o h > in attempt: <shoht> for target: <shoot> simply as an attempt to represent /u/, but as an attempt frustrated by a perseveration consisting in the substitution of < h > for < o > . In line with our comments on putative transpositions, we interpret attempt: for target: as originating in a backward displace­ ment which has fossilized into a virtual conventional error, for which cf. Chapter I. The attempt: for target: is a further example of total cognatization, cf. German 'blue'. 3.1.10 English /u/. English /u/ was misspelled by < o > , < o u > , and < o o > , for a total of 7 occurrences, in decreasing frequency, as follows:

SUBSTITUTIONS: VOWELS

Type

Frequency Target

(1.) < o > (2.) < o u > (3.) < o o >

for < o o >

3x 2x

for < u > for < u >

lx lx

5x

93

Examples Attempt

Page





A 76 A 89



A 54 A 95

German /u/ is invariably represented by < u > ; consequently, it is unpro­ ductive to search for the source of the above misrepresentations of English /u/, < o > , < o u > , and < o o > , in the GPC for /U/ in German. English /u/, on the other hand, is now the exceptional correspondence of < u > before geminate consonant clusters, as in , , , , , etc., the regular correspondence of < u > before geminates being /A/ as in , , , etc., now the minor correspon­ dence of < o o > , as in < b o o k > , , , etc., and now the minor correspondence of < o u > , as in , <should>, <would>, etc. We thus find a system-internal explanation for the < o u > for < u > and < o o > for < u > in (2.) and (3.) above, entailing the substitution of two different secondary vowel patterns, both minor, for an irregular primary vowel pat­ tern, interesting insofar as it constitutes a complication — two vowel letters for one — rather than a simplification. A somewhat more comprehensive explanation for this admittedly very small corpus derives from the consideration that these items were not pro­ nounced by the informant with lax [u] at all but rather with tense /u/ in the case of , , and and tense /o/ in the case of < t o o k > , which find direct interpretations as German spelling pronuncia­ tions, i.e., as a function of the application of German PGCs to English orthographic representations. We then interpret all of the listed misspellings with the exception of attempt: for target: as being a function of the application of English PGCs for /u/ rather than /u/ to the output of German spelling pronunciations, adding German spelling pronun­ ciation to our repertoire of strategies necessary to explain the informant's English spelling. for (A 51 (2)) is noteworthy not only because it exempli­ fies partial cognatization — English = German — but also because competes with and for the representation of

94

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

, leaving us with the notion, which is undoubtedly correct, that strategies simultaneously compete for the spelling of words in the acquisition of English orthography. 3.1.11 English /o/. The closest German phonetic approximations to the English diphthong [ou] are long [o:] as in < B o o t > : [bo:t] 'boat', : [bό:nә] 'bean' and short [o] as in <Sonne>: [znә] 'sun', : [fɔn] 'from'. The transfer theory of error yields the prediction that at least some occurrences of English [oy], the predictable free alternate of English orthographic < o C e > , will thus be represented by means of German orthographic < o o > , < o h > , and < o > , a prediction which is borne out by the following examples: Type (1.) < o >

(2.) < o h > (3.) < o o >

Frequency for < o a >

6x 7x 5x 3x

for < o C e >

lx lx

for < o a >

lx

21x

2x

Examples Target Attempt <jelo>

Page A 57 A 80 A 14 A 65

<Jones>

<Johns>

A 34 A 14





A 32

Not predicted by the interlinguistic transfer theory of error is the rep­ resentation < o u > for English /o/, amply in evidence in the error data and exemplified by: (4.) < o u >

for < o a >

3x 3x 2x lx

9x

<showed>

<shoud>

A 66(2) A 76 A 75(2) A 78

The transfer theory of error must be modified accordingly to include the principle that a native-language grapheme sequence may be used to rep­ resent a target-language sound even in the presence of native-language single graphemes corresponding to native-language phonemes similar to the targetlanguage single phonemes to be represented should the combined phonetic effect of such native-language grapheme sequences be similar to the target-

SUBSTITUTIONS: VOWELS

95

language sound under representation. Here by "native-language grapheme sequence" we do not only mean a sequence of graphemes adhering to the graphotactic conventions of the native language, such as German <ei, ai>, as in <Meister> 'master' and 'Kaiser', but also grapheme sequences, impermissible in the native language, whose composite pronun­ ciation function is similar to the native-language sound under representation, such as * in native German vocabulary used as an invented spelling for English [ou], "invented" because although the informant had been exposed to some of the major and minor correspondences of the English secondary vowel pattern , for example [ay]: <mountain>, [A]: cousin, [u]: , he had had no introduction to the correspondence [oy] as in , <shoulder>, <poultice>, <soul>, , etc. Finally, we attach importance to the observation that it is typically not the case that the predictable GPCs are misrepresented by the informant, although such misrepresentations do occur, witness attempt: for target: and attempt: <Johns> for target: <Jones>, but charac­ teristically the irregular ones, leading to the hypothesis that the primary dificit is not in the phoneme/grapheme route to spelling but in the lexical. Of the remaining error types (5.) < o C e > f o r < o a >

lx 2x

(6.) < o e >

for < o a >

lx lx

for < o > for < o C e >

lx lx

(7.) < a u > (8.) < o a >

3x

2x

<ParkRoad> A32 <don't> <donen't> A7 <so>



A 56 A 55a





A49 A 78

we attribute < o C e > for < o a > to the overgeneralization of the major corre­ spondence of the primary vowel pattern to the major correspondence of the secondary vowel pattern, < o a > for < o C e > to the converse, i.e., the overgeneralization of the major correspondence of the secondary vowel pattern to the major correspondence of the primary vowel pattern, and < o e > for < o a , o > to negative system-internal (intralinguistic) transfer of the result of the pluralization rule for and <potato> with which the informant became familiar in the immediately preceding dictation but one (cf. attempt: for target: , p. A 54, and attempt: <potatos> for

96

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

target: <potatoes>, also p. A 54), apparently no longer "aware" that < o e > >/o/may be a function of pluralization. 3.1.12 English /ɔ/. English /ɔ/ underwent 7 types of misrepresentation, namely, from most to least frequent: Types

Frequency Target

(1.) < o >

for < a >

(2.) < a >

for < o >

(3.) < o y >

for < a u >

(4.) (5.) (6.) (7.)



for for for for



Examples Attempt

14x 3x <sausages> 3x 23x 3x <doorbell> 2x 1x 1x 2x lx lx lx

2x

Page

<soshethes>

A 17 A 54 A 76 A 19





A 17



<noyte>

Al A 19





A 90 A 70 A 92 A 17

As the statistics indicate, the most frequent misrepresentation of /ɔ/ consists in writing < o > for < a > . Since the /ɔ/ correspondence of < o > in is irregular and the /ɔ/ correspondence of < o > before <-ss> and <-ff>, as in , , , , etc., regular but represented in the informant's vocabulary by only and , whereas the German correspondence of < o > is regularly /ɔ/ before two consonants and in : [fn] 'from', we attribute < o > >/ɔ/to negative transfer from German. Attempt: for target: is clearly also indicative of negative transfer from German 'longer', which, insofar as it is based on the partial substitution of a cognate, we refer to as "partial cognatization". Since the minor correspondence of the secondary vowel pattern < o a > is /ɔ/, as in < b r o a d > , we regard attempt: for target: as the substitution of the minor correspondence for the regular correspon­ dence < a > > /ɔ/ before final <-ll> and medial or final <-l> plus a

SUBSTITUTIONS : VOWELS

97

consonant other than <1>. 3.1.13 English lal. Almost all the incorrect attempts to represent English /a/ consist of either (1.) the use of < a > for < o > , < a C e > , < o h > , and < a u > or (2.) < o > for < a > or < o h > . As the cause of (1.) we propose either negative transfer from German, where < a > > /a/ applies when /a/ is (1.) followed by two consonants (e.g., < W a n d > : [vant] 'wall'), (2.) contained in a monosyllable (e.g., <was>: [vas] 'what') and (3.) in an unstressed syllable (e.g., <warum>: [varum] 'why' or German letter-naming or both. Negative transfer from German is ruled out as a possible explanation for (2.), however, because there is no < o > > /a/ in German. The errors involved are attributable rather to the overgeneralization of the predictable major pattern for the checked alternate of English < o > , as in , < r o b > , <possible>, etc., to cases which are unpredictable. Inasmuch as the misspellings exemplifying (2.) recur, and in the instance of attempt: <wont> for target: <want> recur throughout the entire 14-month period, we are dealing with a conventional error, where we distinguish between (1.) lexical conventional errors and (2.) rule-governed conventional errors, the former referring to a consistently incorrect graphemic representation < G 1 > > /P 1 / whereby > /P 1 /, where there are other representations in the corpus < G 2 > ≠ < G 2 > , the latter referring to the consistently incorrect graphemic rep­ resentation < G 1 > >/P1/for all occurrences of /P 1 /. For example, the con­ ventional error attempt: <wont> for target: <want> is a lexical conventional error, since /a/ (=P 1 ) is represented by < a > (=G 2 ) in attempt: < a n > for target: < o n > . Examples of the aforementioned two error types include: Type

Frequency Target

(1.) < a >

(2.) < o >

for < o > 3x < a C e > 2x 1x lx for < a >

8x 2x

7x

10x

Examples Attempt

Page

<are> <John's>

<ar> <Jams>

A 32 A 13 A 17 A2

<want> <John>

<wont> <Jon>

A6 A 14(2)

Not assignable to either of the abovemost 2 categories of error are type

98

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

< o h > for < h o > , as in <shops> (A 47) 1x, an example of a displacement which has become a conventional error, type < o o > for < o > (A 56) lx, as in <shooping> for <shopping>, a doubling-rule backward displacement (cf. Chapter I), <went> for <want> (A 74) lx, based perhaps on a misperception, and the interesting case of for (A 92a) lx, which we are disposed to treat as an orthographic hypercorrection, since a few pages earlier the informants's attempt: for target: (cor­ rected by the person administering the dictation), with the RP GPC < a u > > /a/ occurred, apparently leaving him with the temporary impression that /a/ is to be written < a u > . This leaves unexplained < a a > for < a h > lx, as in < H u r a a > for (A 20), < u > for < o > lx, as in for (A 51(2)), < O a > for < 0 > , as in for (A 66). Attempt: <swahn> for target: <Swan> (A 59) lx we interpret as resulting from the negative transfer of the German GPC < a h > > /a/, as in : [fá:rәn] 'drive'. 3.1.14 English /oy/ English /oy/ underwent only one type of misrepresentation once, namely attempt: <enjay> for target: <enjoy>, i.e. < a y > for < o y > , rendering it the least misrepresentation-prone of the English diphthongs. This is all the more remarkable due to the fact that German has a close phonetic approx­ imation to English [oi], namely [oy], as in [doyts]: <deutsch> 'German', spelled either < e u > , as in 'today', or < ä u > , as in : [frylain] 'miss'. Clearly the theory of linguistic1 interference must not only define the set of transferables but also partition that set into the disjoint subsets of transferred and non-transferred, leading us to posit the suppression of a potential but non-actual transferable as a processing strategy. 3.1.15 English /aw/. The corpus exhibits 8 different types of misspelling of English /aw/ in 23 error tokens, listed and exemplified in decreasing order of frequency: Type

Frequency Target

(1.) < a u > (2.) < o >

Examples Attempt

Page

for < o u >

6x 2x

8x

<shouts> <down>

<shauts>

A 14 A 14

for < o u >

6x lx

7x

<pound> <down>

<pond> <don>

A 51 A 24

SUBSTITUTIONS: VOWELS

Type

Frequency

Examples Attempt

Target (3.) < o u > (4.) (5.) (6.) (7.) (8.)



for < o w > lx 2x for for for for for



3x

lx lx lx lx lx

99

Page





A 53 A 20

<pounds>

<pands>

A 51(2) A 54a A 95(2) A9 A 14

Since the German diphthong [ay] is written < a u > and the only examples > /aw/ are words of German provenience such of the English GPC < a u > as sauerkraut and umlaut, we trace the first of the two most frequent misspel­ lings of English /aw/ to the negative transfer of < a u > > /aw/ from German. We are at a loss for an explanation of the second most frequent misrep­ > /aw/ exists neither resentation of /aw/, namely < o > , since a GPC < o > in English nor in German. Consider it a "random" error consisting in the omission of either the < u > or < w > from < o u > and < o w > , respectively. To the category of random error we also assign attempt: <pands> for target: <pounds>, where the < u > has been omitted from the negatively transferred German < a u > , and the attempt: for target: , where the < o > has been omitted from English < o u > . Having to resort to the category of random error is all the more disconcerting, since the misspelling <shot> for <shout> would otherwise appear to be a lexical conventional error, ranging as it does over temporally vastly discontiguous dictations. 3.1.16 English /ay/. The English diphthong /ay/ is misspelled in the corpus 13 different ways for a total of 55 misspelling tokens, ranking it among the qualitatively most misspelled sounds in the informant's English. Examples include, in decreas­ ing order of frequency: Type (1.) < e i >

Frequency for < I >

9x 5x lx

Target 15x <prize>

Examples Attempt <ein>

Page A41 A 17 A 24

100

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Type

Frequency Target

(2.) < a i >

(3.) < i > (4.) < i e >

for 5x 4x 2x for 6x 1x for

3x 2x

11x

7x

for < y >

4x

(6.) < a y >

for < u y > for < i C C >

2x lx lx lx

for < i e >

lx lx

(7.) < o > (8.) < e y > (9.) (10.) (11.) (12.) (13.)

for lx < i y > for lx < i a > for < i C e > lx < u y > for < y > lx for lx

3x 2x 2x

Page

<prize>



A 14(2) A 22 A 94a

<July>

<Juli>

A 55 A 66

<Tiegers>

A 30 A 68





A 59

<my>

<me>

A 32(2)

6x

1x (5.) < e >

Examples Attempt

A 13 A 76 A 17 <doing-room>A 11

A 55a A 9(2)

<arrived> <write>

<arafft>

A 74 A 66 A70 A5 A 24

The most frequent error types, types (1.-2.), confront us with a case of ambiguous assignment to error classes par excellence, for both English and > /ay/ and < a i > > /ay/. In German German exhibit the GPCs < e i > the major correspondence is < e i > > /ay/, as in < E i > : /ay/ 'egg', the minor correspondence < a i > > /ay/, as in > /káizәr/ 'Kaiser'. In English both < e i > > /ay/, as in , , , , , <sleight>, <stein> and < a i > > /ay/, as in , are minor correspondences. While the mechanism of these errors is clear, namely substitution, the cause of the errors is thus ambiguous: either negative transfer from German, on the one hand, or irregularization of the regular primary vowel pattern, on the other. Were irregularization of regular patterns otherwise totally unknown, the issue

SUBSTITUTIONS: VOWELS

101

would be readily decidable in favor of negative transfer from German. But we have already seen ample evidence of the irregularization of regular paradigms in the case of the substitution of the secondary vowel pattern minor correspondence < e a > ---› Id for the primary vowel pattern major correspondence < a C e > ---› /eC/. Irregularization is thus independently motivated and should therefore not be discounted as a plausible explanatory hypothesis for these kinds of transfer. But the simple fact of the matter is that the informant had not been exposed to the lexical items listed above in which either the process < e i > ---› /ay/ or the process < a i > ---› /ay/ is in evidence. Consequently, we are left with no choice other than to opt in favor of the negative transfer hypothesis in this instance. Had the informant had lexical items in his vocabulary which instantiate either < e i > ---›> /ay/ or < a i > ---› /ay/, and had he been able to spell these correctly, then we would have had evidence in support of the claim that both the processes of irregularization from English and interference from German conspire to yield the incorrect orthographic representations. Attempt: for target: is one example among several of misspellings in final < - e > which correspond to standard spellings ending in representations of word-final stops, e.g., < p u t e > for < p u t > (A 1), < a n t e > for (A 2), <wrape> for <wrap> (A11), <supermarkete> for <supermarket> (A 47); these we interpret as attempts to represent the aspiration which facultatively accompanies word-final stops, a clear instance of subphonemic, i.e. phonetic, spelling. This theory derives its support from the fact that there are no examples of the use of < u C e > to represent /u/ (cf. English lul), or to represent /a/ (cf. English /a/), or < e C e > to represent /ə/ (cf. English /ə/), in which < C > ≠ [voiceless stop] in . An apparent counterexample is < a C e > ---›> /æ/in <jame> for <jam> (A 49), and for (A 92a), but these misspellings may well reflect system-internal transfer of ---› /æ/, as in and . The particular spelling chosen for the representation of aspi­ ration, viz. < - e > , is apparently determined by negative transfer from Ger­ man, where < e > ---›> /ә/ in forms such as 'ask (1 Sg.)', 'suffer (1 Sg.)', 'show (1 Sg.)', 'read (1 Sg.)', <Wunde> 'wound', etc.

102

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

3.2. Summary. We conclude with a list of the several strategies employed in the misrep­ resentation of the English vowels, stating the entire set of strategies inferred for each vowel, vowel by vowel. Following each vowel is the ratio of error type to error token, the number of error tokens to be understood as indicative of only the texts dictated. 3.2.1

English /i/. 14/76 3.2.1.1 Transfer from German: < i > - - - › /i:/, < i e > ---› /i:/, e.g., < H i > for < H e > , for < b e > 3.2.1.2 German letter-naming: < i > ---› /i:/, e.g., for 3.2.1.3 English letter-naming: < e > ---› /i:/, e.g. for 3.2.1.4 Phonetic spelling: e.g., < m e a t > for < m e e t > 3.2.1.5 Slips-of-the-pen: <pople> for

3.2.2. English /I/. 7/31 3.2.2.1 Regularization: to checked alternate < i > , e.g., <pritty> for <pretty> 3.2.2.2 German spelling-pronunciation: for ([zi:s]) 3.2.2.3 English letter-naming: [zi:s] ---› 3.2.2.4 Cognatization (partial): <sustem> for <system> 3.2.3

English /e/. 11/49 3.2.3.1 German letter-naming: < e > ---› /e/, e.g., <marmaled> for <marmalade> 3.2.3.2 English letter-naming: < a > ---› /e/, e.g. <wav> for<wave> 3.2.3.3 3.2.3.4

3.2.4

Irregularization: for Regularization: <stake> for <steak>

English Id. 15/88 3.2.4.1 Place of articulation of English letter-name: < a > ---›> /ε/, e.g., <whan> for <when> 3.2.4.2 Place of articulation of German letter-name: < e > ---› /ε/, e.g., for 3.2.4.3 Overgeneralization: < e > ---› /ε/, e.g., <Mery> for <Mary>

SUBSTITUTIONS: VOWELS

103

3.2 4.4 Regularization: < e > ---› /ε/ for < e i > , e.g., for 3.2.4.5 Strong conventional error: < i > ---› /ε/, e.g., for 3.2.4.6 Negative transfer from German: < e > ---› /ε/, e.g., <squer> for <square> 3.2.4.7 Irregularization: < a i > ---›/ε/, e.g., for 3.2.4.8 Slip-of-the-pen: for 3.2.4.9 Decognatization: for 3.2.5

English /æ/. 6/29 3.2.5.1 Interlanguage representation by approximation to German: German < e > ---› English /æ/ 3.2.5.2 Negative paradigmatic interference from English : for

3.2.6

English /ə/. 11/51 3.2.6.1 Lexicalized misrepresentation: ---› /ə/, e.g., for 3.2.6.2 German cognate spelling pronunciation (cognatization (par­ tial)): for (German ---› [famí:liә]) 3.2.6.3 Negative transfer from German: for 3.2.6.4 Slip-of-the-pen: < t h e e > for < t h e >

3.2.7

English /^/. 12/25 3.2.7.1 Negative transfer from German: < ö r > - - - › /^/, e.g., for 3.2.7.2 Overgeneralization: < o r > ---› /^/, e.g., <porhaps> for 3.2.7.3 Slip-of-the-pen: for 3.2.7.4 Lexicalized misrepresentation: /^/ ---› , e.g., fur < t u r n >

3.2.8

English /∧/. 6/50 3.2.8.1 Interlanguage representation by approximation to German : < a , o > ---› /∧/

3.2.9

English lul. 12I21 3.2.9.1 Negative transfer from German: < u > ---›/u:/,e.g., < b l u > for

104

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

3.2.9.2 3.2.9.3 3.2.9.4

3.2.9.5 3.2.9.6

Simplification: < u C e > for < o o > , < u i > , e.g., < p u r e > for < p o o r > , <juse> for <juice> Slip-of-the-pen: < s h o > for <shoe> Irregularization: Minor correspondence of secondary vowel pattern for major correspondence of secondary vowel pat­ tern, e.g., <soun> for <soon> Total cognatization: for German/English letter-naming: e.g., < t u > for < t o >

3.2.10 English /U/. 3/7 3.2.10.1 German spelling pronunciation : English ---› Ger­ man [to:k] 3.2.10.2 Cognatization (partial): for , cf. German 'full' 3.2.11 English /o/. 8/40 3.2.11.1 Negative transfer from German: < o > , < o h > , < o o > ---› /o/, e.g., for , for < g o > , for 3.2.11.2 German letter-naming sequence: * < o u > ---› /o/, e.g., for 3.2.11.3 Simplification: Overgeneralization of major correspon­ dence of the primary vowel pattern to major correspondence of secondary vowel pattern, e.g., for <Park Road> 3.2.11.4 Complication: Overgeneralization of the major correspon­ dence of the secondary vowel pattern to the major corres­ pondence of the primary vowel pattern, e.g., for 3.2.11.5 System-internal transfer: < o e > ---› /o/, e.g., for :: 3.2.12 English /ɔ/. 7/30 3.2.12.1 Negative transfer from German: ---› /ɔ/, e.g., for 3.2.12.2 Cognatization (partial): for , cf. Ger­ man Tonger' 3.2.12.3 Irregularization: substitution of the minor correspondence of a secondary vowel pattern for the regular correspondence of a primary vowel pattern, e.g., for

SUBSTITUTIONS: VOWELS

105

3.2.13 English lal. 10/25 3.2.13.1 Negative transfer from German: < a > ---› /a/, e.g., < a u > for < o u > 3.2.13.2 German letter-naming: <Jams> for <John's> 3.2.13.3 Overgeneralization: < o > > /a/, e.g., < J o n > for <John> 3.2.13.4 Orthographic hypercorrection: for 3.2.14 English /oy/. 1/1 3.2.14.1 Suppression of negative transfer from German: <eu, äu> ---› /oy/ 3.2.15 English /aw/. 8/23 3.2.15.1 Negative transfer from German: < a u > <shauts> for <shouts>

---›

/aw/, e.g.,

3.2.16 English /ay/. 13/55 3.2.16.1 Negative transfer from German: <ei, ai> ---› /ay/, e.g., for 3.2.16.2 Cognatization (total): for <prize>

Orthographic representations are enclosed in angle brackets ( < > ) , autonomous phonemic representations in slashes (/ /), and phonetic respresentations in square brackets ([ ]). 'GPC' abbreviates grapheme/ phoneme correspondence, 'PGC' phoneme/grapheme correspondence, and an asterisk prefixed to either 'GPC' of 'PGC' stands for a non-correspon­ dence in either English or German.

Chapter IV Substitutions: Consonants

4.0. Introduction. In this chapter we present a detailed investigation of the 376 consonantletter "substitution" errors among the 2,138 errors detected our 6,162 word dictation corpus, complementing the analyses of the vowel-letter substitution errors presented in the preceding chapter. We note that these errors of "sub­ stitution", on the one hand, are fundamentally different from errors of dis­ placement, on the other, in that the former typically preserve the relational character of GPCs, {G, P}, whereas the latter typically destroy this relational character to {G, 0 } in the case of additions and displacements, and { 0 , P} in the case of omissions. This dissociation motivates a basic dichotomy between structure-preserving orthographic errors (substitutions) and struc­ ture-destroying orthographic errors (additions, omissions, and displace­ ments) . 4.1. English consonant misspellings: types and causes. 4.1.1 English /p/. English /p/ was misspelled 3 different ways in 5 misrepresentation tokens, from most to least frequent as follows: Type

Frequency Target

(1.) < p > f o r < p p > (2.) < p p > f o r < p > (3.) < B > f o r < p >

2x 2x 1x

<shopping> <postcards>

Examples Attempt

Page

<shoping> A 51 A 32(2) A 9

In attempt: <shoping> for target: <shopping> < p > for < p p > testifies to our informant's inconsistent application of the final-consonant doubling

108

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

rule in monosyllables (cf. Chapter I). We write "inconsistent" since the rule is applied correctly elsewhere, cf. attempt: <sohpping> for target: <shopping> (2x) (A 51). Thus the process involved here is not correctly described as either doubling-rule ignorance, i.e. simple affixation, or doubling-rule application, but doubling-rule suspension, which we do not mean to suggest is tantamount to doubling-rule optionality, bolstering our conclusion (cf. Chapter III) that rule selection and rule suppression are the two sides of the processing coin — every positive choice implies a negative. Attempt: < k e p p > for target: exemplifies a process which we have elsewhere termed "doubling-rule displacement", in particular, doubl­ ing-rule displacement of the forward type (cf. Chapter I), facilitated in this instance by an English letter-naming strategy ( < e > = /if). < B > for < p > in attempt: for target: <postcards> is the only example of the misrepresentation of < p > by < b > , in this instance all the more surprising since English post is cognate with German Post 'mail'. Quite conceivably the cause resides in the informant's native variety of Ger­ man, Regensburgerish, where the distinctive feature corresponding to stan­ dard German [± Voiced] is [V2 Tense], standard consonants specified [+ Voiced] and [ - Voiced] being specified [V2 Tense], as is generally the case in Bavarian German. 4.1.2 English /b/. We find no examples of the misrepresentation of Ibl in the entire corpus, thus leaving /p/ and Ibl the least misrepresentation-prone of the English stops. This fact itself requires an explanation in view of the very high frequencies of the substitution of < t > for < d > and < d > for < t > . 4.1.3 English /t/. English /t/ was misrepresented in 5 different ways for a total of 36 mis­ representation tokens, arrayed from most to least frequent as follows: Type

Frequency Target

(1.)

Examples Attempt

Page

for <ed>

16x

<write> <parked>

<Parkd>

A 70 A 68

(2.) < t > f o r < t t > <ed>

16x

<washed>

<washt>

A 22 A 52

SUBSTITUTIONS: CONSONANTS

Type

Frequency Target

(3.) < t h > f o r < t > (4.) < t w > f o r < t > (5.) < t t > f o r < t >

2x lx lx



Examples Attempt

109

Page A 92 A 56 A 84

< t > is most frequently misrepresented by < d > , and then only post-tonically: for (A 9), <jamtords> for <jamtorts> (A l l ) , for (A 32(2)), for (A 44), < m e a d > for < m e a t > (A 51), <wrid> for <write> (A 61), etc. We posit the combined effect of two processes in order to explain this all-pervasive post-tonic voicing : (1.) the negative transfer of the German rule of syllable-final obstruent devoicing to English and (2.) orthographic hypercorrection consisting in the voiced misrepresentation of obstruents which are voiceless in the standard. In order to show that the German rule of syllable-final obstruent devoicing is operative in the informant's English, we point to the observations that (1.) standard English syllable-final obstruents are often phonetically devoiced and (2.) this devoicing is very frequently reflected by the informant's English misspellings of standard voiced obstruents by letters corresponding to voice­ less, e.g., for (A 9), for (A 11 (2)), <salet> for <salad> (A 57), < p o n t > for <pound> (A 51), etc. Representations of the type voiceless consonant for voiced are in fact so frequent that the negative transfer of the German rule of syllable-final obstruent devoicing should be regarded as the primary process underlying the misrepresentation of the English voiced obstruents. The hypercorrection is explained by the informant's accommodating himself to his teacher's cor­ rection of his misrepresentation of voiced consonantism in pronunciation and spelling. It is conceivable that even at least some of the correct represen­ tations of the English voiced obstruents originate via this route — devoicing then hypercorrection — resulting in the correct representations for the wrong reasons. Of those misspellings of the past tense which are most plausible — < V t > , < d > , and < t > — all are represented in the data: < i t > for < e d > : <paintit> for <painted> (A 52) < d > for < e d > : for (A 71) < t > for < e d > : for (A 75(2)) The overwhelming majority of these misrepresentations may be accounted

110

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

for by either phonetic spelling (<Watcht> for <watched> (A 76)) or phonetic spelling subsequent to the application of the German rule of syllable-final obstruent devoicing ( for (A 78)). It is the rare excep­ tion such as <Parkd> for <parked> (A 68) which cannot be completely accounted for by either. <Parkd> reflects only partial application of phonetic spelling, namely the omission of < e > from preterit < - e d > . We point to a parallel between the misrepresentation of the preterit discussed above and a category of non-standard spelling which frequently appears in the writing of native speakers of English in kindergarten and the first and second grade, namely the use of < t > to render < e d > in the past tense form of certain verbs, as in for , for for , etc. (Gentry and Henderson (1980, p. 118)). Inasmuch as the regular correspondences of < t > and < d > are sounds which are properly contained in their letter-names, i.e. [t] in [ti:] and [d] in [di:], respectively, the phenomenon referred to above as "phonetic spelling" is also an example of letter-naming, phonetic spelling, letter-naming, and obstruent devoicing conspiring to yield the misrepresenting product. In German the shortness of vowels is often designated by doubling the following consonant, as in Pfiff 'whistle', Metall 'metal', Egge 'harrow', Gewitter 'storm', Paddel 'paddle', Schrott 'scrap-metal', Etappe 'stage', etc. Were this regularity transferred to English, it would facilitate spellings in which short vowels are followed by geminates and interfere with spellings in which short vowels are followed by single consonants. Since all of the exam­ ples of < t > for < t t > involve instances in which < t > is preceded by a short vowel, as in for , for , for , however, we clearly cannot attribute these misspellings to negative transfer of the German consonant-doubling rule. Furthermore, since the misspellings recur and persist for the entire duration of the dictations, they also cannot be considered slips-of-the-pen. In view of these latter two fea­ tures, recurrence and persistence, we assign them to the category of conven­ tional errors. < t h > for < t > in for < t e a m > is conceivably due to German < t h > ---› /t/ in foreign words and proper names, as in 'topic', 'theater', 'Bayreuth', 'Theresa', espe­ cially in view of the fact that the informant's best friend's name was Thomas, rather than the isolated irregular English GPC < t h > ---› /t/ in , the latter item understandably not in the informant's vocabulary. Were the

SUBSTITUTIONS : CONSONANTS

111

< h > in < t h > to represent the aspiration accompanying word-initial voiceless stops in English, one would expect at least an occasional < p h > for < p > and < k h > for < k > , which is not the case. 4.1.4 English /d/. English /d/ underwent 5 different types of misrepresentation in a total of 17 misrepresentation tokens, as follows: Type

Frequency Target

(1.) (2.) (3.) (4.) (5.)

for <s>for for<ed> for <e>for

12x 2x lx lx lx

Examples Attempt

<started>

<startes>

Page A A A A A

11(2) 72(2) 71 92a 17(2)

A plausible explanation for the misrepresentation of < d > by < t > we find in the negative transfer of the German syllable-final obstruent devoicing rule, since < d > is misrepresented by < t > only in those environments in which voiced obstruents in German devoice. Since < t > is by far the most frequent form of misrepresentation of < d > , sufficient instructional time should be devoted to the prevention and remediation of the articulation of syllable-final [t] for [d], and to the preven­ tion and remediation of the devoicing of syllable-final obstruents in English in general. In addition to the familiar drills designed to facilitate the discrimi­ nation and production of the relevant distinction through the use of minimal pairs, it has been suggested that the retention of the items terminating in voiced obstruents is fostered through their presentation in derivational families, for example, find, finding, finder, etc. Although this method has its limitations in beginning language instruction, presupposing as it does access to the repertoire of inflectional and derivational endings, and many, if not most items, are derivational "orphans" in the desired sense (e.g., salad, hundred, card), it should also be applied to forms with voiceless syllable-final obstruents, since, as we have seen in the case of /t/ above, these are just as susceptible to being misrepresented as voiced as the voiced segments are as voiceless. The 2 occurrences of <startes> for <started> may be interpreted as either perseverations consisting in the substitution of < s > for < d > or the

112

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

substitution of the present tense for the dictated past. We opt in favor of the latter interpretation, since the same dictation (A 72) contains several other substitutions which are unambiguously substitutions of the present for the past: < r u n > for < r a n > , for , and for . for is an example of a perseveration error, since there is ample evidence, even in the same dictation, that the informant is able to spell correctly. for is one of the very few instances of the substitu­ tion of a vowel for a consonant. We view it as an error of perseveration favored, as are so-called "transpositions" (cf. Chapter I), by an environment, < r - > , identical to that of the letter perseverated. 4.1.5 English /k/. English /k/ is misspelled in 7 different ways in 56 misrepresentation tokens. From most to least frequent: Frequency

Type

Target (1.) < k > f o r (2.)

Examples Attempt

Page



27x





A 9(2) A 9

for

13x





A 22 A 49



7x

<stomach>

<shicen> <stomac>

A 20 A 57 A 70



4x





A 9(2) A 34

<Excuse>

<Exzuse> <eant>

A 24 A 52 A 8

(3.) < c > f o r

(4.) < g > f o r

(5.) < z > f o r < c > (6.) < h > f o r < k > (7.) < e > f o r < c >

3x 1x 1x

[k] in words of Germanic origin in German is written < k > unless (1.) [k] is the phonetic realization of underlying systematic phonemic /g/, in which case it is written < g > , or (2.) [k] ends a stem syllable and follows a stressed, short vowel, in which case it is written < c k > . Examples,

SUBSTITUTIONS: CONSONANTS

113

Kunst 'art' Tag 'day' (cf. Tage 'days') Kuckuck 'cuckoo' /k/ in English is spelled (1.) < k > , as in <seek>, <soak>, and < t o o k > , (2.) < c k > , as in and < n e c k > , (3.) < k h > , as in < k h a n > and , (4.) < c > as in < a r c > , , and , (5.) < c h > as in , (6.) < q > as in and , (7.) < q u e > as in and <Mozambique>, and (8.) < g h > as in for those speakers who pronounce this word with a final [k] rather than [f]. For details on the distribution and history of these spellings cf. Venezky (1970). We are thus left with either German or English as plausible sources for the two most frequent types of misrepresentation of /k/, < k > and < c k > , not excluding the possibility of the two reinforcing each other. Since the GPC < c > ---› /k/ is quite infrequent in German, the probable source of the errors in < c > under (3.) above is system-internal interference from English. Since there is no GPC * ---› /k/ in English, the only source of the errors in < g > under (4.) above is negative transfer from German via the informant's incorrect hypothesis that the [k] in the final cluster in and the [k] in < b o o k > originate as systematic phonemic /g/s, i.e. via syllable-final obstruent devoicing. < z > for < c > in attempt: <Exzuse> for target: <Excuse> remains a mystery. Although it seems rather far-fetched to claim that that < z > origi­ nates as a reflection of the first letter of the second syllable of the German translational equivalent (Verzeihung), such negative transfer is attested in the case of cognatization, both total and partial (cf. Chapter III). Since the misspelling is recurrent we assign it to the category of conventional error rather than that of slip-of-the-pen. Both for and < e a n t > for we regard as slips-of-the-pen, there being neither * < h > ---› /k/ nor * < e > ---› /k/, and < h > and < e > being graphically similar to < k > and < c > , respectively. 4.1.6 English /g/. English /g/ was misrepresented in only 1 way in 3 mispelled tokens. Type

Frequency Target

for

3x



Examples Attempt

Page A 28

114

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Two tokens of this type of misspelling reflect a failure to apply the consonant-doubling rule (cf. Chapter I) before vowels: for and for . 4.1.7 English /Ɵ/. English /Ɵ/ underwent 3 types of misspelling in 9 misspelled tokens. From most to least frequent: Type

Frequency Target

(1.) < s > f o r < t h > 6x (2.) < t > f o r < t h > 2x (3.) < s t h > f o r < t h > 1x



Examples Attempt <sinks>

Page A 80 A 53 A 56

English IQI has no German equivalent. The most proximate English/ German phonemes, holding voice constant, are /t/, /s/, and /f/, of which lil and /s/ and their orthographic representation < t > and < s > are used in place of English IQI and < t h > , respectively. Thus the principle underlying this set of transfers is articulatory proximity of the target to target/native language sounds, where preservation of voice and most proximate place of articulation take precedence over preservation of manner of articulation, yielding an insight into the hierarchical structure of competing processing strategies (cf. Chapter VIII). Note that the misrepresentation of < t h > (= IQI) by < t > occurs only word-initially as in for (A 95), whereas the misspelling of < t h > (= IQI) by < s > occurs word-initially (<Sankyoy> for (A 9(2)), word-medially ( for (A 9(2)), and word-finally (<Whis> for <with> (A 78)), readily suggesting a positional constraint on processing strategies of the substitutive type. 4.1.8 English /ð/. English /ð/ was miswritten in 7 different ways in 17 misspelled occur­ rences as follows: Type

Frequency Target

(1.) < t > f o r < # t h > (2.) < s > f o r < t h >

7x 3x



Examples Attempt

Page

<say>

A 13 A 11

SUBSTITUTIONS: CONSONANTS

Type

Frequency Target

(3.) (4.) (5.) (6.) (7.)

<sh>for <st>for <ss>for for <sth>for

3x 1x lx lx lx

Examples Attempt



<she>

115

Page A 19 A 19 A 56 A89a(2) A 96

It will be noted that the most frequent misrepresentations of < t h > = /ð/ are also the most frequent misrepresentations of < t h > = IQI, namely < t > and < s > . Moreover, the misspelling of < t h > by < t > in both the cases of < t h > = /ð/ and < t h > = IQI occurs only in word-initial position. The misspelling of < t h > by < s > in both the cases of < t h > = IQI (cf. English /Ɵ/) and < t h > = là/, on the other hand, occurs in initial position and other positions as well (e.g. for (A 83(2)), reinforcing the notion of differential positional constraints on erroneous competing conso­ nant-letter substitutions advanced in the preceding section. Coupling the mispronunciation of SE < # t h > = là/ as [z] with the nega­ tive transfer of the German PGC /z/ ---› < s > , we obtain the misrepresen­ tations of SE < t h > = /ð/ as < s > under (2.) above. Then, the medial [s] articulation of SE < t h > = /ð/ explains the <-ss-> misrepresentation in attempt: for target: (German <ss> ---› /s/) and partly explains the < s > in < s t h > under (7.) above. The misarticulation of final SE < t h > = /ð/ explains the < d > for < t h > under (6.). Finally, the major misrepresentation < t > for < # t h > is explained if one conjoins the mispronunciation of SE < # t h > ---› /ð/ as [d] with the most frequent misrepresentation of /d/ as < t > (cf. English /d/) as interacting subcompo­ nents of a theory of overgeneralized hypercorrection. The observation that initial < t h > in function words corresponds to /ð/ (cf. Venezky (1970)), as in this, these, that, those, thus, they, them, there appears pedagogically potentially useful, although there are exceptions {through, throughout) to this rule. 4.1.9 English /f/. English /f/ was misrepresented in 8 different ways in 18 misspelled tokens; from most to least frequent:

116

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Type

Frequency Target

(1.) (2.)

for for

(3.)

for

(4.) (5.) (6.) (7.) (8.)

for for

for for for

5x 4x 4x 1x 1x 1x 1x 1x

Examples Attempt

Page





A 19 A 26





A 44 A 89

<pocketknife>

A 67 A 70(2) A 55a <poketnicfe> A 14(2) A 84

Word-initial occurrences of < v > for SE < f > , as in attempt: for target: (A 9) and attempt: < v o r > for target: (A 11) we attribute to the negative transfer of the German GPC < v > ---› /f/; wordfinal occurrences of < v > for SE < f > , as in attempt: for target: (A 56) and attempt: for target: (A 56) to the com­ bined effect of the German rule of syllable-final obstruent devoicing and the informant's mistaken hypothesis that the systematic segment underlying [-f] if/-v/. The 4 occurrences of < c h > for < g h > in for exemplify what we have termed "partial cognatization", where the misrep­ resentation of the target is a partial recapitulation of the structure of the native-language cognate, cf. German 'laughs'. Cf. Chapter III for examples of partial and total cognatization of vowels. < f > for < g h > , as in for (A 89), is a simplification — one letter for two — and a regularization — the representation of lil by regular < f > , rather than irregular < g h > . for (A 70(2)) is based on a misperception, the informant having been taught both fat and flat (in the sense of apartment) in his secondyear course, cf. Friedrichs (1971). < p > for < p h > in attempt: for target: (A 55a) appears to be a lexicalized conventional error, recurring and restricted as it is to this one item. For the distinction between lexicalized and rule-gov­ erned conventional errors, cf. Chapter III. for seems an unlikely slip-of-the-pen. Perhaps this < b > for < f > arose by association with or the first letter of

SUBSTITUTIONS: CONSONANTS

117

the second syllable of both of which lexical items had been introduced in English H2 (cf. Friedrichs (1971)). 4.1.10 English /v/. English /v/ underwent 5 different types of misspelling in 21 miswritten occurrences. Examples, Type

Frequency Target

(1.) (2.) (3.) (4.) (5.)

for for <w>for

for <j>for

15x 3x 1x lx lx

<movies>

Examples Attempt <wiesit> <mojies>

Page A A A A A

22 51 43(2) 52 95(3)

6 of the 18 misrepresentations of NI by either or occur in word-final position. These we attribute to the application of either the English or the German GPCs ---› /f/ to the output of the German rule of syllable-final obstruent devoicing. 7 of the remaining 12 occurrences of < f > or for < v > occur morpheme-finally in free morphemes, e.g., for (A 9), for (A 22), for (A 84), which may be explained by either spelling by analogy to the free stems or spelling morphemically, i.e., morpheme-by-morpheme. Comparing spelling performance on free morphemes ending in voiced obstruents in SE in word-final position and word-internally, on the one hand, with spelling performance on bound morphemes ending in voiced obstruents, e.g., abnor­ mal, adhere, on the other, if the voiced obstruents ending bound stems are spelled voiced, we would conclude that word-internal voiced obstruents end­ ing free morphemes are being spelled by analogy to their word-final counter­ parts. If they were represented voiceless, we would conclude that morphemeby-morpheme processing in spelling was involved. This issue warrants further investigation. The remaining 4 occurrences of < f > for < v > are all morpheme-internal and syllable-initial, as in for (A 76(2)) and for <Every> (A 36). This type of misspelling can neither be accounted for by negative transfer of the German rule of syllable-final obstruent devoicing nor by negative transfer of the German orthographic representation for /v/, which is < w > . Since for persists over a long time span (A

118

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

28 — A 63 — A 76(2)) we assign it to the category of lexical conventional error. As a possible cause we note the informant's general difficulty distin­ guishing between paired voiced/voiceless obstruents in English conditioned by the fact that the major distinction cutting across the obstruents in his native variety of German, Bavarian, is neither tense vs. lax nor voiced vs. voiceless. 4.1.11 English /s/. The informant's 35 tokens of orthographic misrepresentation are reduc­ ible to 9 misrepresentation types, listed from most to least frequent as follows: Type

Frequency Target

(1.) < s > f o r

<st> <sw> <ss>

(2.) < ß > f o r

<s> <ss>

Examples Attempt

15x 1x 5x

(3.) < s h > f o r < s > (4.) < t h > f o r < s > (5.) < t > f o r < s > (6.) <ss>for < c > <st>

5x 2x 2x

(7.) <sch>for < s > (8.) < z > f o r < c > (9.) < e > f o r < s >

2x 1x 1x

<must>

<sleeps> <so> <miss> 2x <whistle> <swim> <presents>

Page



A A A A

14(2) 26 30 83

<mußt>

A 80 A 26

<shlips> <mist> <wissel>

A A A A A

<schwim> <presente>

A 75 A 66 A 11

5 55a 83 54 92(2)

< s > for < c > testifies to the fact that the informant's regular (= most frequent) representation of /s/ is < s > and that he had forgotten English < c > ---› /s/ before < e > of the more complex GPC < V c > ---› /Vs/ before the spellings and in . < s > for <st, sw, ss> and < s s > for < c , st> in the above are phonetically acceptable renderings for irregular orthographic representations, constitut­ ing at once regularizations and simplifications. < ß > for < s > and < s s > is an obvious example of negative transfer from German, where < ß > is normally used to represent /s/ after a long vowel or

SUBSTITUTIONS: CONSONANTS

119

diphthong word-internally, as in 'height' and 'pour' and at the end of all words and stems which are written either <ss> or < ß > word-internally, as in (<) 'keg', <Schuß> (<<schießen>) 'shot', <er mißt> (<<messen>) 'he measures', (<) 'reliable', with < m u ß t > for <must> an example of total cognatization. The 2 occurrences of <shlips> for <sleeps> (A 5) are at once examples of decognatization, since < i > in <shlips> is neither the vowel of German <schläft> nor English <sleeps>, German letter-naming, and negative trans­ fer of German initial /šl/ and the English orthographic representation thereof, <shl>, there being no initial /sl/ in German. The 2 occurrences <schwans> for <swans> (A 76) and <shwam> for <swam> (A 89(2)) exhibit at once partial cognatization, with the English spelling < s h > of /š/ in the German initial cluster /sv/ and negative transfer of the German initial cluster /sv/, there being no initial /sw/ in German. for (A 66), on the other hand, instantiates total cognatization, cf. German Dezember 'December'. < t h o e > for < s o > we view as a hypercorrection, the most frequent misrepresentation of < t h > being < s > . The case of <presente> for <presents> is interpretable as either a perseveration consisting in the substitution of < e > for < s > or as the substitu­ tion of the orthographic representation of the allomorph of the German plural in the translational equivalent Geschenke 'presents'. If the latter, it would be the only example of interlingual allomorphic substitution in our corpus, very rare indeed. 4.1.12 English /z/. English /z/ underwent 4 types of misspelling in 5 misrepresentation tokens, namely: Type

Frequency Target

(1.) (2.) (3.) (4.)

<s>for for for for

<s> <s> <s>

2x 1x lx lx

<prize> <was>

Examples Attempt <wars>

Page A A A A

17 66 14(2) 75

The 2 misrepresentations of <prize>, (A 17) and <prais> (A

120

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

14(2)), exemplify total cognatization (cf. German 'prize') and decognatization, respectively, "decognatization" since the vowel spelling in <prais> is the vowel spelling of neither the native nor the target represen­ tation (cf. Chapter III for examples of total cognatization, partial cognatiza­ tion, and decognatization of vowels). for (A 66) we interpret as an eror of anticipa­ tion consisting in the substitution of the consonant < d > for the consonant <s>. for (A 14(2)) we view as an example of what might be termed "syntagmatic perseverative interference," since it strongly resem­ bles the informant's representation of in <pocketknife> (A 14(2)), namely , which occurred previously in the same dictation and was interpreted as an error of perseveration consisting in the addition of a < c > . <wars> for <was> (A 75) is interesting insofar as it embodies represen­ tations of both the German and the English past tense spellings of be, < w a r > and <was>, German < w a r > occurring to the informant first, English <was> as an afterthought, this misspelling evidencing negative transfer of an underlying word-level translational comprehension strategy. 4.1.13 English /š/. In 10 misspelling tokens of English /š/ the informant made 4 types of error, namely, from most to least frequent: Type

Frequency Target <wash> 6x <station>

(1.) <sch>for < s h > (2.) <s>for < s h > (3.) < c h > f o r < s h > (4.) < h t > f o r < s h >

2x 1x 1x

<shouts> <wash>

Examples Attempt <wasch> <steschen>

Page A 34(2) A 32(3)

<sauts> <waht>

A 14 A 13 A 75(2)

The most frequent misrepresentation of English /s/, <sch> for < s h > and < t i > , clearly results from negative transfer of the German GPC <sch> ---› /š/, as in <Schatz> 'treasure', 'rustle', and 'drunkenness'. < s h > regularly corresponds to /š/ in English. From the contrastive point of view the task of acquiring this representation amounts to remembering to delete the < c > from German <sch>. Remembering that some letter

SUBSTITUTIONS: CONSONANTS

121

must be deleted apparently accounts for the misrepresentations <sauts> for <shouts> (A 14) and <waht> for <wash> (A 75 (2)). for (A 13) we interpret as an error of perseveration consisting in the substitution of a < c > for an < s > . 4.1.14 English /ž/. English /ž/ was miswritten only once: < c h > for < g > in attempt: for target: (A 14(2)). This < c h > for < g > we attribute to (1.) the negative transfer of the German phonological rule of syllable-final obstruent devoicing and (2.) the misrepresentation of the resultant [s] by means of one of the established misrepresentation types for /š/, namely, < c h > (cf. English /š/). Note that transfer of the German GPC < g > ---› /ž/ before < e > , as in /žẹ:ní:/ 'genius' and < R a g e > /rá:žə/ 'rage' would have resulted in the correct representation of English /ž/, other things, such as perception of word-final English /ž/ as /ž/, being equal. One wonders, however, why < c h > was chosen to misrepresent /š/, rather than <sch>, which is the most favored misrep­ resentation type in terms of frequency, or even < s h > , which would have been phonetically correct. 4.1.15 English /č/. English /č/ was the most misrepresented of the consonants in terms of misspelling types, with 10 misrepresentation types in 35 misspelled tokens. Type

Frequency Target

(1.) < c > f o r < c h > 19x (2.) for 4x (3.) for < c h > 3x (4.)

for

(5.) < t h > f o r



(6.) for (7.) <sh>for < c h > (8.) < d > f o r (9.) for (10.) < t t c h > f o r < t c h >

2x

Examples Attempt

<which>

<witch>

A2 A 56 A 30

<watched>

<watsched>

A 68 A 14

1x 2x <sandwiches> <sandwith> 1x lx lx lx lx lx

Page

<Which>

<shicen> <Whaida>

A 70 A 20 A A A A A

67a 57 57 2 52

122

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Although /č/ is not a German phoneme, /tš/ occurs as a cluster in German, as in /tšęçə/ 'Czech' and <deutsch> /dǫçitš/ 'German'. Inasmuch as the most frequent representations of /č/ in English are < c h > and < t c h > , as in and <watch>, i.e. differ from the representation of German /tš/, , one would expect the misrepresentation of English /č/ by Ger­ man to be the most frequent misspelling type. for < t c h > and < c h > , as in <watsched> for <watched> (A 68) and for (A 14), ranks only fourth in frequency among the error types, however, a fact left unexplained by the transfer theory of error, which accounts for the quality of the error, but not its quantity. The most favored misrepresentation of /č/, for < c h > , occurs only in syllable-initial position and in all cases but 2 ( (A 2) and (A 14(2)) for ) before front vowels ( for (A 2), <armcair> for <armchair> (A 5), for (A 9(2)), for (A 52)). What accounts for the existence of this error type, its frequency, and its distributional restrictions? There are linguists, for example Moulton (1962, p. 27), who class the English affricates /č/ and l]l as stops, rather than as either fricatives or affricates, presumably for reasons having to do with either economy or distribution, or both. This classification leaves /č/, in terms of manner of articulation, place of articula­ tion, and voice, closest to English /t/ and /k/. Our informant used < c > to correctly represent /k/, as in <arlamclock> for (A 2), for (A 2), for (A 2), etc., and one of the more frequent ways in which the informant misrep­ resented English /k/ was by means of < c > (cf. English /k/), as in for (A 20), <shicen> for (A 57), whereas English /t/ was never misrepresented by < c > . Furthermore, there are instances in Ger­ man where < c > ---› /k/, as in /kóburg/ 'Coburg', but no instances where < t > ---› /k/. Due to the rarity of German < c > ---› /k/, we hypothesize that, in addition to interlingual identification of English /č/ with German /ts/, leading to the negative transfer of German ---› /tš/ to English, we have the intralingual identification of English /č/ and English Ikl via their representation in < c > . This hypothesis leaves unexplained why < c > should have been used to misrepresent /č/ to the total exclusion of < k > and the above-mentioned distributional limitation. Another possibility is that < c > for < c h > obtains from the use of German letter-naming as a spelling strategy (cf. Chapter II), the name of the German letter < c > being [tse:], which is phonetically quite close to [ts].

SUBSTITUTIONS: CONSONANTS

123

< t c h > for < c h > and < c h > for are phonetically plausible errors based on either incorrect memorization or absence of memorization. These error types are restricted to final position and medial and final positions, respectively. 2 of the remaining misrepresentation types, and < s h > for < c h > , as in for (A 67a) and <shicen> for (A 57) testify to the informant's having analyzed /č/ into /t + s/ and spelled each according to the SE conventions. Call this "cluster analysis". Why this analysis should have been limited to only 2 of the 35 misspelled tokens is another question. 4.1.16 English /ǰ/. English /]/ underwent 6 different types of misrepresentation in 8 misrep­ resentation tokens, namely: Type

Frequency Target

(1.) (2.) (3.) (4.) (5.) (6.)

for < g > for for for < g > <sch>for < g > for

3x 1x 1x 1x 1x 1x

<sausages> <sausages> <sausages>

Examples Attempt <soshethes> <sausitches> <sosuschess>

Page A A A A A A

54 56 49 56 54 90

< c h > for < g > occurs as a misrepresentation of only word-final SE /ǰ/. This error we interpret as obtaining from the application of the English GPC < c h > ---› /č/ to the result of applying the negatively transferred German rule of syllable-final obstruent devoicing to English. Of the remaining misrepresentations of /ǰ/, < c > , < t h > , and also occur as misrepresentations of /č/, suggesting that the informant is spel­ ling morpheme-by-morpheme, representing the voiceless result of applying the German rule of syllable-final obstruent devoicing, then the plural mor­ pheme, rather than word-by-word, in which case the /ǰ/ in sausages would begin the final syllable and hence not be subject to syllable-final obstruent devoicing. < d c h > for < d g > we submit arises from applying German syllable-final obstruent devoicing to [bridz], yielding [brits], then misrepresenting < š > by < c h > , a spelling which is independently motivated for [s] (cf. English /š/).

124

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

4.1.17 English /m/. In 15 tokens of misspelled Iml the informant miswrote Iml in 3 different ways: Type

Frequency Target

(1.) < n > f o r <m> (2.) < m m > f o r < m > (3.) < m > f o r < m m >

10x 4x 1x

<summer>

Examples Attempt <somer>

Page A 65 A 13(2) A 78

4 of the 10 instances of < n > for < m > are interpreted either as errors of anticipation (<winen> for <women> (A 55) for (A 80)) or errors of perseveration ( for (A 65), for (A 80)). Another 4 consist of the misrep­ resentation of Iml by < n > in stressed syllables before bilabials ( for (A 44), <Septenber> for <September> (A 66), <junp> for <jump> (A 22), <junps> for <jumps> (A 39)), surprising insofar as nasals before bilabials are themselves always bilabial. The 4 cases of < m m > for < m > , e.g., for (A 5) and for (A 11(2)), may not be traced back to negative transfer of the German rule of consonant doubling which requires the doubling of a consonant in stems ending in a consonant if the preceding vowel is short and stressed (<Scheffel> 'bushel', 'rag'), except < k > and < z > , which in such cases are written < c k > and < t z > , respectively ( 'cuckoo', <Schwätzer> 'gossip'), although there are excep­ tions (cf. Schmidt & Volk (1976, pp. 18-19)), and even exceptions not among those listed as such (e.g., 'can', <Wanne> 'tub'), because more than one stem consonant follows < m > in and ends in a vowel. 4.1.18 English /n/. English /n/ was miswritten in 5 ways in 26 misspelled occurrences. From most to least frequent: Type

Frequency Target

(1.) < n n > f o r < n >

12x



Examples Attempt

Page A 11

SUBSTITUTIONS: CONSONANTS

Type (2.) < n > f o r

Frequency

(3.) < m > f o r < n > (4.) < n g > f o r < n > (5.) < w > f o r < n >

3x 2x 1x

Examples Target Attempt

125

Page





A 11 A 19

<morning>

<morming> <Wew>

A6 A2 A 43

As in the case of < m m > for < m > (cf. English /m/), the instances of < n n > for < n > also cannot be explained by the negative transfer of the consonant-doubling rule from German (cf. English /m/), since, in addition to cases which meet the structural description of the rule and are doubled (e.g., for (A 11)), there are cases which do not meet the structural description of the rule but which are doubled anyway (e.g., <evenning> for <evening> (A 2), for (A 2)) and cases which do meet the structural description of the rule but are not doubled (e.g., for (A 72). The examples of < n n > for < n > do how­ ever amply evidence total cognatization, e.g. <winn> for <win> (A 65), cf. German gewinnen 'win', for , cf. German beginnen 'begin', < K a n n > for < c a n > , cf. German kann 'can', and the identification of English <when> with German <wenn> 'if', even though they do bear different meanings. All instances of < n > for < n n > , as in for (A 30), testify to the informant's lack of familiarity with the English rule of consonant doubling and < n > for < k n > , as in for (A 19), for (A 14(2)), and < n o w > for (A 55) both lack of familiarity with the lexicalized GPC < k n > ---› /n/ evidenced by the words and a phonetic spelling strategy. <morming> for <morning> (A 6) and both < a geng> and (A 2) for we view as errors of perseveration, and <Wew> for (A 43) as an error of anticipation. 4.1.19 English /ŋ/. English /ŋ/ was misspelled in 3 ways in 4 misspelled tokens.

126

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Type

Frequency Target

(1.) < n > f o r < n g > (2.) < n k > f o r < n g > (3.) < n d > f o r < n g >

2x 1x lx

<English>

Examples Attempt <enlish>

Page A 94(2) A 56 A 28

The phoneme /ŋ/ occurs in German with the same distribution and orthographic representation as autonomous phonemic /ŋ/ in English. Con­ sequently, the above error types cannot be directly attributed to negative transfer from German. Attempt: for target: we attribute to the phonetically correct orthographic representation of /k/ by < k > obtaining from the application of the German rule of syllable-final obstruent devoicing. Attempt: <enlish> for target: <English> (A 94(2)) we assign to the category of unedited errors of omission, rather than substitution, and attempt: for target: (A 28) to the category of errors of perseveration consisting in the substitution of < d > for < g > . 4.1.20 English /l/. English /l/ exhibited 5 misspelling types in 27 misspelled tokens. Type

Frequency Target

(1.) (2.) (3.) (4.) (5.)

for for for <s>for for

<1> <11> <1> <1> <1>

13x 11x 1x 1x 1x

<school>

Examples Attempt . <Schoor> <sights>

Page A ll A 17 A 17 A 43 A 92(2)

All attempts: <11> for targets: <1> follow stressed, short vowels, as in for (A 5), for (A 11), for (A 54a), for (A 56) and in so doing meet two, but not all, of the conditions on the German rule of consonant doubling (cf. English /m/). Unless one were to impart imperfect knowledge of this rule to the informant, which was not tested but could have been, it once again cannot be said that < C C > for < C > in the informant's English is a perfect reflection of the negative transfer of the German rule of consonant doubling to English, since for (A 5) ends in a vowel.

SUBSTITUTIONS: CONSONANTS

127

But, as we have seen (cf. English /m/) there are German stems ending in vowels in which the consonants are doubled after stressed, short vowels. for (A 43) and for (A 76(2)) we interpret as errors of perseveration consisting in the substitution of <1> for < e > , perhaps facilitated by the graphic similarity of <1> and < e > . Militating strongly against the view that attempts: < C C > for targets: < C > in English are a function of the negative transfer of the German rule of consonant doubling is the fact that all misrepresentations of target < C C > by < C > occur after short vowels, 9/11 stressed. The exceptions to the stress condition are for <doorbell> (A 19) and for (A 84). If the informant were consistently transferring the rule of con­ sonant doubling from German to English, it is those spellings in < C C > after short, stressed vowels which one would least expect to be misrepresented. < s > for <1> and < g > for <1> in <sights> for (A 43) and (A 72(2)), respectively, are errors of anticipation consisting in the substitution of < s > for <1> in the former and < g > for <1> in the latter. For <Schoor> for <school> (A 43) we have no explanation. 4.1.21 English /r/. English /r/ was misspelled 4 ways in 15 misspelled tokens. From most to least frequent: Type

Frequency Target

(1.) < r > f o r

<wr>

(2.) < r r > f o r < r > (3.) < n > f o r < r > (4.) < s > f o r < r >

10x 2x 2x 1x

Examples Attempt

Page

<wrapping>



A7 A 11

<silver-cup>

<silves-cup>

A 95 A 11(2) A 92

The 9 occurrences of < r > for < r r > are further evidence of the nontransfer of the German orthographic rule of consonant-doubling to English, since all these misspellings occur after short vowels, and 8/9 after stressed vowels, the sole exception being <arive> for <arrive> (A 94). The transfer hypothesis would also fail to explain the 2 occurrences of < r r > for < r > in for (A 95(2), A 95(3)). for is apparently a slip-of-the-pen perhaps facilitated by the graphic similarity of < n > and < r > and <silves-cup> for <silver-cup>

128

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

(A 92) an error of perseveration consisting in the substitution of < r > by < s > . 4.1.22 English /w/. English /w/ was uniformly misspelled < w > for < w h > in 12 misspelled tokens: attempt: <wenn> for target: <when> (A 55), attempt: < W a t > for target: < W h a t > (A 92a) and attempt: <Witch> for target: <Which> (A 63), testifying at once to the informant's success in spelling /w/ phonetically and failure to commit the <wh-> spelling to lexical memory. 4.1.23 English /j/, English /j/ was uniformly miswritten < j > in 2 occurrences of attempt: <jelow> for target: (A 67). Since the regular GPC for /j/ in German is < j > , as in <Jacke> /j kə/ 'jacket' and /kóə/ 'berth' and English < j > does not correspond to /j/ except in the Hebrew loan word (h)allelujah, we attribute the errors above to the negative transfer of the German GPC < j > ---› /j/ to English. 4.1.24 English Ihl. English /h/ was misspelled only once in attempt: <Parchaps> for target: (A 43) witnessing the informant's identification of English mor­ pheme-internal Ihl with German /x/ (spelled < c h > ) due to the fact that German Ihl occurs neither morpheme-internally nor morpheme-finally. 4.2. Summary. We conclude with a list of the several strategies employed in the misrep­ resentation of the English consonants, stating the entire set of strategies inferred for each consonant, consonant by consonant. Following each conso­ nant is the ratio of error type to error token, the number of error tokens to be understood as indicative of only the texts dictated. 4.2.1

English /p/. 3/5 4.2.1.1 Inconsistent application of final-consonant doubling in monosyllables: e.g., <shoping> for <shopping> 4.2.1.2 Doubling-rule displacement: e.g., < k e p p > for 4.2.1.3 English letter-naming: e.g., < k e p p > for < k e e p >

4.2.2

English /b/. 0/0

4.2.3

English /t/. 6/36 4.2.3.1 Negative transfer of German syllable-final obstruent devoicing: e.g., gate ---› [ge:t]

SUBSTITUTIONS: CONSONANTS

4.2.3.2 4.2.3.3 4.2.3.4 4.2.3.5 4.2.3.6 4.2.3.7

129

Orthographic hypercorrection: e.g., [ge:t] ---› Phonetic spelling: e.g., <Watcht> for <watched> Partial phonetic spelling: e.g., <Parkd> for <parked> English letter-naming: e.g., <Watcht> for <watched> Conventional errors: e.g., for Transfer from German: < t h > ---› /t/

4.2.4

English Id/. 5/17 4.2.4.1 Transfer of German syllable-final obstruent devoicing: e.g., for 4.2.4.2 Tense substitution: e.g., <startes> for <started> 4.2.4.3 Slip-of-the-pen: e.g., for

4.2.5

English/kl. 7/56 4.2.5.1 German/English letter-naming : e . g . , < k a t s > f o r < cards> 4.2.5.2 English intralingual interference: e.g., for 4.2.5.3 German syllable-final obstruent devoicing: e.g., book (vac­ uous) ---› [buk] 4.2.5.4 Orthographic hypercorrection: e.g., [buk] ---› 4.2.5.5 Conventional error: e.g., <Exzuse> for <Excuse> 4.2.5.6 Slip-of-the-pen: e.g., for

4.2.6

English /g/. 1/3 4.2.6.1 Doubling-rule suspension: e.g., for

4.2.7

English /Ɵ/. 3/9 4.2.7.1 Articulatory proximity: e.g., <sinks> for

4.2.8

English/ð/. 1/17 4.2.8.1 Mispronunciation by articulatory proximity: e.g., they ---› [ze:] 4.2.8.2 Negative transfer of German PGC: /z/ ---› < s > , e.g. [ze:] they ---› <say> 4.2.8.3 Negative intralingual transfer of misrepresentation strategy: */d/ ---› < t > , e.g., < t e r > for

4.2.9

English /ƒ/. 8/18 4.2.9.1 Negative transfer of German GPC: < v > ---› /f/, e.g., for 4.2.9.2 Negative transfer of German rule of syllable-final obstruent devoicing: half ---› [hæf] (vacuous)

130

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

4.2.9.3 4.2.9.4 4.2.9.5 4.2.9.6 4.2.9.7

Orthographic hypercorrection: [haef] half æ Cognatization (partial): e.g., for Simplification: e.g., for Regularization: e.g., for Conventional error: e.g., for

4.2.10 English /v/. 5/21 4.2.10.1 Negative transfer of the German rule of syllable-final obstruent devoicing: e.g. have ---› [hæf] 4.2.10.2 Phonetic spelling: e.g., [haef] ---› 4.2.10.3 Spelling by analogy: e.g., (= ) :: (= ) 4.2.10.4 Morpheme-by-morpheme spelling: e.g., for 4.2.10.5 Conventional error: e.g., for 4.2.11 English /s/. 9/35 4.2.11.1 Regularization: e.g., for 4.2.11.2 Simplification: e.g., for 4.2.11.3 Negative transfer of German GPC: < ß > ---› /s/, e.g., for 4.2.11.4 Cognatization (total): e.g., < m u ß t > for <must> 4.2.11.5 Decognatization: e.g., <schlips> for <sleeps> 4.2.11.6 Negative transfer of German cluster: e.g., /šl/ for /sl/ 4.2.11.7 Cognatization (partial): <shwans> for <swans> 4.2.11.8 Orthographic hypercorrection: < t h o e > for < s o > 4.2.11.9 Interlingual allomorphic substitution: <presente> for <presents> 4.2.12 English /z/. 4/5 4.2.12.1 Cognatization (total): for <prize> 4.2.12.2 Decognatization: <prais> for <prize> 4.2.12.3 Slip of the pen: for 4.2.12.4 Syntagmatic interference: for 4.2.12.5 Dual interlingual representation of preterit: <wars> for <was> 4.2.13 English /š/. 4/10 4.2.13.1 Negative transfer of German GPC: <sch> ---› /š/, e.g., <wasch> for <wash> 4.2.13.2 Letter-deletion from native trigraph: <sauts> for <shouts>

SUBSTITUTIONS: CONSONANTS

131

4.2.14 English /ž/. 1/1 4.2.14.1 Negative transfer of German rule of syllable-final obstruent devoicing: e.g. final [s] in garage 4.2.14.2 Negative intralingual transfer of misrepresentation strategy: < c h > ---› /š/. e.g., for 4.2.15 English /č/. 10/35 4.2.15.1 Negative transfer of German GPC: ---› /č/, e.g., for 4.2.15.2 Articulatory proximity: e.g., for 4.2.15.3 German letter-naming: < c > = [tse:], e.g., for 4.2.15.4 Phonetic spelling: e.g., <witch> for <which> 4.2.15.5 Cluster analysis: e.g., for 4.2.16 English /ǰ/. 6/8 4.2.16.1 Negative transfer of German rule of syllable-final obstruent devoicing: e.g. final [c] in cabbage 4.2.16.2 Morpheme-by-morpheme spelling: e.g., <sausitches> for <sausages> 4.2.163 Negative intralingual transfer of misrepresentation strategy: < c h > ---› /š/, e.g., for 4.2.17 English /m/. 3/15 4.2.17.1 Phonetic spelling: e.g., <somer> for <summer> 4.2.18 English /n/. 5/26 4.2.18.1 Phonetic spelling: e.g., for 4.2.18.2 Doubling-rule suspension: e.g., for 4.2.18.3 Cognatization (total): e.g., < K a n n > for < c a n > 4.2.19 English /ŋ/ 3/4 4.2.19.1 Negative transfer of German rule of syllable-final obstruent devoicing: e.g., [k] finally in anything 4.2.19.2 Slip-of-the-pen: e.g., for 4.2.20 English /l/. 5/27 4.2.20.1 Phonetic spelling: e.g., for 4.2.21 English /r/. 4/15 4.2.21.1 Phonetic spelling: e.g., <arive> for <arrive> 4.2.21.2 Slip-of-the-pen: <silves-cup> for <silver-cup>

132

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

4.2.22 English /w/. 1/12 4.2.22.1 Phonetic spelling: e.g., < W a t > for <What> 4.2.23 English /j/. 1/1 4.2.23.1 Negative transfer of German GPC: < j > <jelow> for

---›

/ j / , e.g.,

4.2.24 English /h/. 1/1 4.2.24.1 Phonetic approximation: e.g., <Parchaps> for

Orthographic representations are enclosed in angle brackets ( < > ) , autonomous phonemic representations in slashes (/ /), unless otherwise specified, and phonetic representations in square brackets ([ ]). 'SE' abbreviates standard English, 'GPC' grapheme/phoneme correspondence, 'PGC' phoneme/grapheme correspondence, and an asterisk prefixed to either 'GPC' or 'PGC' stands for a non-correspondence in either English or Ger­ man.

Chapter V Additions and Omissions

5.0. Introduction. In this chapter attention is focused on orthographic errors of addition and omission. The complete addition and omission corpora, including added and omitted words, syllables, spaces, hyphens, and apostrophies, are pre­ sented in Appendix I: Additions and Appendix II: Omissions, where added letters and punctuation marks are underlined in the attempt and omitted letters and punctuation marks underlined in the target. For the purposes of this discussion, an orthographic addition-error is defined as Ø ---› X/A B, where X, A and B range over one or more letters of the alphabet, typically one, and the standard orthographic represen­ tation is AB. Two special cases of additions, namely additions constituting anticipations and additions constituting perseverations (in Appendix I label­ led 'A' and 'P', respectively), are accorded separate, detailed attention in Chapter VI: Anticipations and Perseverations. Edited additions are treated in Chapter VII: Orthographic Conduits d'Approche. An orthographic omission-error, also for the purposes of this discussion, is defined as X ---› Ø /A B, where X, A, and B range over one or more of the letters of the alphabet, typically one, and the standard orthog­ raphic representation is AXB. Of note is the fact that error categories even as seemingly transparent as additions and omissions have undergone radically different treatment in the error-analytic literature from the one proposed and adopted here. Thus, Hotopf (1980, p. 293) mentions additions in passing (one sentence!) in his discussion of order errors — transpositions, anticipations, and repetitions. His theory of orthographic error thus admits errors of addition only insofar as they are either anticipations or perseverations, thereby in principle exclud­ ing the vast majority of errors of addition, which are in fact neither anticipa­ tions nor perseverations, on a theory in which the length of the environment

134

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

of the addition, measured in terms of letters or boundaries, is constrained. Omissions Hotopf (293-4) restricts to anticipations "in the sense that words, phonemes or letters, and syllables occur earlier than they would have done had there been no omission". As examples, Hotopf cites attempt: <sunday> for target: <sunny November day> and, at the "phoneme/letter and syllable level", attempt: for target: and attempt: for target: . In the absence of a theory of blends, which would overdetermine our data, we would call the first example, <sunday> for <sunny November day> a "backward displace­ ment" (cf. Chapter I) with subsequent omission of <-ny November>, the second example, for , an omission of the letters < e m > under identity with the preceding letters < e m > , the last exam­ ple, for , the omission of the disyllable based on the identification of < d e n > in with < d e n > in . More importantly, the restriction of omissions to anticipations renders a very large class of orthographic errors unaccountable, namely just those omissions which cannot be interpreted as anticipations, for example, for (A 17(2)), for (A 17), for (A 17). None of these or the above examples we regard as anticipations, because they all lack an Anticipated in the relation Anticipation = (Anticipate, Anticipated), for which cf. Chapter VI. Hotopf s final example, together with all of those of his above, for , which he calls an "haplophony" without justifying its being underlyingly phonological, would, by his own classification, be better termed a "blend", arising from a speaker/writer's thinking of several words at once, as in his <marmelite> (= <marmalade> + <marmite>) and (= + <particularly>). We draw attention to the vexed question of the treatment of capitaliza­ tion. Attempt: upper-case letter for target: lower-case letter is treated as the addition of capitalization and attempt: lower-case letter for target: upper-case letter as the omission of capitalization, rather than as the substitution of an upper-case letter for a lower-case letter and the substitution of a lower-case letter for an upper-case letter, respectively. Since the decision is of consider­ able moment for the theory of error and consequently the error-distribution statistics, we dilate on its justification. Were attempt: for target: to be treated as instantiating the substitution of < T > for < t > , i.e., the substitution of a letter for another letter, then, qua substitution, it would not be distinguishable from attempt: <sing> for target: , masking

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS

135

the similarity between < T > and < t > — the former the capitalization of the latter — and the difference between < s > and < t h > — they would both be identical by virtue of their being just substitutions. Futhermore, speaking in terms of error cause, rather than error mechanism, viewing both < T > for < t > and < s > for < t h > as substitutions disguises the fact that the former error is due to the negative transfer of the effects of the German rule of substantival capitalization, as we shall see a very frequent phenomenon, the latter to German phonetic spelling of a negatively transferred German sound. We do not want to propose that there is a one-to-one relationship between error type and error cause — on the contrary, the relationship is many-many — but we would like to design the theory of orthographic error to reflect the error-type/error-cause relationship to the greatest possible extent. In ref­ erence to the above example, our theory permits us to relate the substitution of < s > for < t h > in attempt: <sing> for target: to the cause of phonetic spelling in German of a negatively transferred German sound, namely [z] in the absence of German [0], and the substitution of < s > for < t h > and addition of < S > to < s > in attempt: <Sing> for target: to the German phonetic spelling of a negatively transferred German sound and the negative transfer of the effect of the German rule of substantival capitalization, respectively, the notation thereby reflecting the view that mechanisms, on the one hand, and causes, on the other, are, in principle, discrete (separate) phenomena, the discrete set of phenomena constituting the mechanisms and the discrete set of phenomena constituting the causes related to one another in intricate and interesting ways, many made explicit in the course of this study. Finally, the classification of capitalization errors as substitutions would render, say, attempt: < R a t e > for target: no greater an error than attempt: for target: , belying the fact that < R a t e > for exhibits a mistaken letter and a mistaken capitali­ zation, whereas < L a t e > for only a mistaken capitalization. These, then, are the reasons for considering errors of this type as errors of the addition and omission of capitalization. 5.1

Additions.

In 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 we investigate the addition of vowel and consonant letters in word-initial and word-final positions, before and after consonant/ vowel letters, and word-internally before and after consonants and vowels.

136

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

5.1.1 Vowel additions. Table 5.1.1 presents the frequencies of the 90 vowel-letter additions in the above-mentioned contexts, where < y > counts as a vowel-letter when it stands for a vowel-sound. Table 5.1.1. Vowel Additions Vowel/Context a e i o u y

C _ C C _ V V _ V V__C # _ V # _ C V _ # C _ # 2 16

4 11 5

1 5

1 8 2 Total

29

1 2 2 2

1

20

0

7

0

0

7

26

26

' _ C Total 8 60 1 8 4 8 2 1 90=N

In terms of context, note that =≠ V and ≠ C, i.e., word-initial posi­ tions, and V V are least vowel-addition prone, whereas C C, C V, and C ≠, i.e. all the immediately post-consonantal environments, are most vowel-letter addition-prone. In terms of vowel-letters added, 60/90 or 66.67% consist in the addition of < e > , almost 50% in C ≠ position, and almost 50% in C C/V. Closer inspection of the <e>-addition errors in C (≠) reveals that they are not attributable to regularization to primary vowel-patterns in -VCe≠, involving as it does augmentation by < - e > , as, for example, for (A 1) might suggest, but to the phonetic spelling of (1) English allophonic aspiration of word-final voiceless non-continuant obstruents, as in attempts: < p u t e > (A 1), (A 2), (A 24) for targets: < p u t > , < l a t e > , and , (2) the phonetic spelling of carefully articulated or spelled nasals and semivowels, as in attempts: (A 26) and (A 51) for targets: and , and (3) overgeneralization of second­ ary vowel-patterns to primary, as in attempts: (A 9) and (A 2) for targets: and . Since category (3) entails a secondary vowel-pattern representation of a single vowel-sound (diphthong), this error-type would perhaps be better regarded as instantiat­ ing a substitution rather than an addition. The intrasystemic explanation of errors of vowel-addition immediately above, and the intra- and intersystemic explanation of error in general —

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS

137

call it the "causation theory of error" — entails the negation of the converse proposition that errors are random events: if errors do occur, then they occur in predictable ways. Obviously, this state-of-affairs could be profitably exploited by a number of enterprises, notably the formulation of the correct theory of contraints on error, thereby enriching linguistic theory, and the production of programs for error prevention and remediation, thereby enriching linguistic practice. 5.1.2 Consonant additions. Table 5.1.2 presents the frequencies of the 85 consonant-letter additions in the same contexts as those presented for the vowels, with ' C added for the vowels (cf. Table 5.1.1) and V - for the consonants, excluding those edited in the conduits d'approche. Table 5.1.2 Consonant Additions Consonant/ Context b c d f

V__- C _ C C _ V V__V V _ C # _ V # _ C V _ # C _ # Total

1

1 1

1

1

1

2

1

2

6

2 2 5 1 3 1 4 13 5 15

1 1

3 3

7 3

10 13 6

2 2 1

1

g h

1

1

1

1

j k 1 m n P q r s t

1

2 6 2 2

2 3 3 4

2 1 1

4 2

V

1

w

4

3

X

1

y z Total

2

17

19

1

8

4

0

11

1 23

85=N

138

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

59/85 or 69.41% of the consonantal additions occur in post-consonantal letter environments, i.e. C _ C (17/85), C _ V (19/85), and C_≠ (23/85). Note that the same observation was true of the vowel additions discussed in 5.1.1. Consequently, we generalize by saying that the post-consonantal let­ ter-environments are the most letter-addition prone. Over 60% of the consonantal additions are accounted for by 19.05% of the consonants, namely, < n > (16/85), < s > (16/85), <1> (12/85), and < r > (11/85): anlarm-clock evenning dinning room donen't runns Limonned an mornninsg wenn an winn beginn wenn winns wenn wenn

<s> (A l) (A 2) (A 2) (A 7) (All) (A 22) (A 32 (2)) (A 54) (A 55) (A 55) (A 65) (A 78) (A 89a) (A 92) (A 95 (2)) (A 96)

<1> Hellga Hellga cilrio hellp apiles all-redy alltogessor coller Suddenlyl litll ahrady allso

shlips somes Bosteskarts stards holdings thersis Asks he's sups sosuschess tomatos it's sheeps gaves miles anosthe

(A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A

5) 9) 9) 11) 14) 19) 24) 34 (2)) 51 (2)) 54) 57) 70) 72) 78) 95 (2)) 96)

(A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A

2) 11 (2)) 13 (2)) 17 (2)) 24) 49) 54) 75) 78) 95 (2)) 95 (3))

(A 5) (A 9) (A 9 (2)) (A 11) (A 17) (A 54) (A 56) (A 67) (A 72) (A 76(2)) (A 89) (A 95 (2))

ansersers Grendparand wrriting-desk or clock Prarkrod officer officer wars larst verry verry

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS

139

It is immediately apparent that the overwhelming majority of additions of < n > and <1> constitute perseverations of the preceding < n > and <1> and the vast majority of <-s>-additions consist in the addition of <-s> in word-final position. While it is true that the letter-geminations cannot be invariably explained as resulting from the negative transfer of the German rule of consonant-doubling (cf. Chapter IV for extensive discussion), whence it obviously follows that English consonant-doubling cannot be exclusively taught on a German/English contrastive basis, it is quantitatively a sufficiently pervasive problem for the German English-learner's attention to be directed to orthogaphically contrastive cognate pairs such as /<win>, / and near homophones such as <wenn>/<when>. The spurious addition of <-s> in word-final position, whose frequency is undoubtedly facilitated by the <-s>-inflectional endings of the English plural, possessive, and third-singular verb agreement, should be counteracted by the teacher's vigorous insistence in practice on the importance of the role of auditory acuity and grammar in the acquisition of English orthography. 5.1.3 Capitalization additions. In the introduction to this chapter we offered our rationale for regarding mistaken capitalizations as errors of addition, rather than errors of substitu­ tion. Of the 94 erroneous capitalization additions in the entire corpus, the 6 most frequently involved letters are < B > (16), < P > (11), < M > (10), < W > (8), < S > (7), and < T > (6). We were interested in testing the (null) hypothesis that there is nothing about the type of a particular letter — where by "type" we mean geometrical configuration — that makes it more miscapitalization-prone than another, say, ascenders more miscapitalizationprone than descenders. On the null hypothesis that frequency of miscapitalization and letter-type are independent, there should not be a significant correlation between the rank order of the frequencies of the miscapitalizations of the individual letters and the rank order of the frequencies of capitalized initial letters in a representative sample of running written text. Unfortunately, this latter piece of information was unavailable to us. How­ ever, we did have access to the percentages of letter occurrences in a corpus of 10,000 letters of running text. On the (possibly contrary-to-fact) assump­ tion that the percentages of letter occurrences in 10,000 letters of text is directly related to the percentage occurrence of capitalized letters in 10,000 letters of text, we computed Spearman's coefficient of correlation between the rank orders of the frequencies of the miscapitalized letters and the rank orders of the percentages of occurrence of letters in a 10,000 letter corpus.

140

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Table 5.1.3 Capitalization Additions (rho = .10) Letter

Frequency

Rank

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V

2 16 1 4 2 5 3 3 0 1 3 4 10 0 0 11 0 2 7 6 4 1 8 0 1 0

15 1 18.5 9 15 7 12 12 23.5 18.5 12 9 3 23.5 23.5 2 23.5 15 5 6 9 18.5 4 23.5 18.5 23.5

w X Y Z

% Occurrence in 10,000 letters 7.78 1.41 2.96 4.02 12.77 1.97 1.74 5.95 6.67 .57 .74 3.72 2.88 6.86 8.07 2.23 .08 6.51 6.22 8.55 3.08 1.12 1.76 .27 1.96 .17

Rank 4 20 13 10 1 16 19 9 6 23 22 11 14 5 3 15 26 7 8 2 12 21 18 24 17 25

The results are presented in Table 5.1.3. Since rho = +.10, we conclude, granted the above-mentioned assumption, that frequency of miscapitalization and frequency of capitalized initial letters are unrelated, that is, it is not the case that the more frequently an initial letter in capitalized, the more fre­ quently it will be miscapitalized. Given a contrastive analysis of the German and English rules of capitalization, this is exactly what one would expect: the relevant factor in predicting whether or not a beginning German learner of

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS

141

English will miscapitalize a non-sentence-initial English word is not the statis­ tical property of the frequency of the letter with which the word begins, but the structural property of differences in the two orthographic systems. The vast majority of miscapitalizations in the corpus (76/94 or 80.85%) are functions of the negative transfer of the German rule of substantival capitalization to English, for example, for (A 2), for (A 2(2)), for (A 5), for (A 5), etc., etc. What is of equal interest to us are the miscapitalizations not predicted by a contrastive analysis of German and English, for example: <...Mrs. Ball says, "Sitdont...> <...your lunch: Bäter...> <§Foryou Peter,"> (§ = line begin) <...Happy Birthday> <§The...> <...he thinks, "Oh, Ther's...> <... or ein going shoot, "The man says.> < A t The corner of High Street> (story title) <"Oh, Thank you."> <§Evry§> <Whis all his cload on>

(A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A

1) 1) 13) 19) 20) 32 (2)) 39) 41) 43) 53) 54) 68) 78) 95 (2))

Generalizing over these cases, if a non-substantive is miscapitalized, the item in question will tend to initiate a line, or follow an opening quotationmark, a colon, or a capitalized word, or be a function word in a caption. These minor tendencies, together with the above-mentioned major tendency to miscapitalize non-proper, sentence-internal nouns, should be accordingly deaccentuated by appropriate drills. 5.1.4 Letter additions. We stressed above that some letters are more frequently erroneously added than others, an observation which is as true for the consonants as it is for the vowels. Ultimately, we are interested in ascertaining why. If the rank order of the frequencies of the letter misadditions is directly related to the rank order of the percentages of occurrences of the letters in the written

142

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

production mode, it would seem that we would be able to explain the fre­ quency of letter-additions in terms of the frequency of letter-occurrences. Accordingly, we tested the null hypothesis that the frequency of letter-addi­ tions and the frequency of letter occurrences are independent. The results are presented in Table 5.1.4. Since rho = +.77, we conclude that there is a fairly strong direct relationship between the frequencies of erroneously added letters and the frequencies of correct letter-occurrences in running text. That there is not a perfect correlation we attribute to the mitigating structural factors discussed in some detail in sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2. 5.1.5 Word additions. The entire corpus exhibited only 9 unedited erroneous word-additions, as follows: (A 8) (A 19) <do> (A 36)

< a n > (A 55a) < d o > (A 59) (A 61)



(A 65) (A 70) (A 75)

Here, number's loss is theory's gain. Note that these 9 mistakenly added words are all function words: pronouns, the indefinite article, forms of be, prepositions, and do-support. We thus have a basis for constraining the theory of word-addition errors in the written mode under dictation in the absence of editing, i.e., the theory of unedited written word-addables, to function words.

Table 5.1.4 Letter Addition (rho = .77) Letter

Frequency

Rank

a b c d e f

8 0 2 2 60 5 1 3 8 1

7 23.5 17.5 17.5 1 10.5 19.5 15.5 7 19.5

g h i j

% Occurrences in 10,000 letters 7.78 1.41 2.96 4.02 12.77 1.97 1.74 5.95 6.67 .57

Rank 4 20 13 10 1 16 19 9 6 23

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS

k 1 m n o P q r s t u V

w X

y z

4 13 5 15 4 0 0 10 13 6 8 0 4 0 3 0

13 3.5 10.5

2 13 23.5 23.5

5 3.5 9 7 23.5

13 23.5 15.5 23.5

143

.74 3.72 2.88 6.86 8.07 2.23

.08 6.51 6.22 8.55 3.08 1.12 1.76

.27 1.96

.17

22 11 14 5 3 15 26 7 8 2 12 21 18 24 17 25

The theory may be further constrained by considering the syntactic envi­ ronments in which the function words are erroneously added: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

<What she(lie)(s)it> < Are do you going to work (for <walk>-PAL> <would do you like ice-cream or fruit salad? > 8. <suddenly it's star started to rain> 9. <Mr. King, Daddy's friend, in lives in Norwich wis with his family>

(A 9) (A 19) (A 36) (A 55a) (A 59) (A 61) (A 65) (A 70) (A 75)

The data is scanty, but suggestive: even though almost the entire corpus consists of texts written to dictation, i.e. of sentences with predetermined syntax — "predetermined" in the sense that the syntax was not a matter of the writer's choice — this word-addition error-data readily suggests that written production is based on oral production, which, in turn, is based on

144

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

aural perception—where under "oral production" we include "silent speech" — because the erroneously added function words in the written dictation cannot be attributed to their presence in aural perception. At this stage of the informant's acquisition of English, it appears that he is processing the aural input in terms of alternative, mutually exclusive, competing com­ prehension and production strategies which occasionally come to the fore (surface) in the form of interlinguistic and intra-linguistic blends, and that these blends are indicative of the constraints on the alternatives which figure in the processing strategies themselves. In (1.) the alternatives are the declarative <She likes it> and the interrogative <What does she like?>. In (2.) the alternatives are , with contraction, and , without contraction. In (3.) the alternatives are the progressive present < Are you going to work?> and the simple present < D o you go to work?>. In (4.), an item in a list dictation, the alternatives are between writing nouns with the determiner, , and writing nouns without a determiner, , attributable either to the way in which German gender is acquired, hence to an interlinguistic phenomenon, or to competing strategies in a list dictation (single words) as opposed to a text dictation (words as constituents of larger constructions). In (5.) the alternatives are between question formation with do and question formation via subject-auxiliary inversion. In (6.) hypercorrection of an interlinguistic nature (German: <ein Glas Wasser>) is evidenced in function-word perse­ veration. In (7.) the alternatives are lexical between and , In (8.) the present perfect <Suddenly it has started to rain> competes with the simple past . Finally, in (9.) a predicative locative <Mr King is in Norwich> competes with an VP-locative <Mr King..lives in Nor­ w i c h . . ^ . Since none of the alternatives advanced above as underlying the products constitute transformationally related processes, we favor the blend account of word-addition errors to the transformational. The interested reader is referred to Fay (1980,1981) for a discussion of many relevant issues. 5.1.6 Morpheme

additions.

Since the erroneous addition of morphemes typically involves the erroneous addition of letters, morpheme-additions qua letter-additions were included in the letter-addition tally, e.g. <shlips> for <sleep> was regarded as the addition of <-s> in C ≠. We detected only 10 cases of letter-additions constituting morpheme-additions:

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS

<shlips> <stards raypping> <sups> <sheeps> <shwimed> <miles>

(A 5) (A 11) (A 20) (A 24) (A 34(2)) (A 51(2)) (A 67) (A 72) (A 78) (A 95(2))

145

3sg 3sg P1 3sg 3sg +P1 + Past R +P1 +Past R Pl

Note that these examples invariably involve the addition of only a proper subset of the set of inflectional morphemes, namely Pl (4x), 3sg (4x), and regular Past (2x). Further distinguishing bound-morpheme additions result­ ing in morphologically correct stem-variants from additions resulting in mor­ phologically incorrect stem-variants (the latter with +—prefix above), 6 are correct, while 4 are incorrect. Involved here is the addition of the regular plural to nouns having no overt plural <soup, sheep> and the addition of the regular past to verbs with irregular past-tense inflection . We are thus in a position to constrain the theory of intra-lexical mor­ pheme-additions to (1) bound morphemes; (2) within the set of bound mor­ phemes to those which are inflectional; (3) within the set of inflectional morphemes to the 3sg, Past, and Pl; (4) regularization (processes terminating in regular patterns). Conversely, excluded from the class of possible intralexical morpheme-additions are (1) errors in compounding; (2) derivational errors; (3) genitivization, comparativization, superlativization, and progressivization; (4) irregularization. Note that this theory, if correct, presupposes the psychological reality of such morphological categories as bound vs. free, inflectional vs. derivational, regular vs. irregular, and number and tense, on the one hand, and genitivization, comparativization, superlativization, progressivization, on the other. 5.1.7 Syllable additions. The syllable additions numbered 9: (A 2) <donen't> (A 7) (A 9)

(A 19) (A 30) (A 30)

<musti> (A 43) (A 39) (A 67)

146

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

While morpheme additions may consist of the addition of syllables, syllableadditions may consist of the addition of morphemes (cf. , ); consequently, were the theory of syllable-additions to be re­ stricted to admitting syllables which were non-morphemes only, it would be underdetermined. and consist of additions which are, at the same time, perseverations; consequently, the theory must tolerate wordinternal and word-final perseverations. <donen't> patterns like (A 36), (A 70(2)), and <musen't>, suggesting that these forms bear little relation to <do + not>, , and <must + not> in the mind of the informant. Recommended here would be silent pronunciation of the forms in question, together with exercises designed to facilitate word-analysis, since the misspellings appear to border on conventional spellings. 5.1.8 Non-letter additions. Non-letter additions include the addition of hyphens, apostrophies, and spaces. Note that all punctuation marks were dictated to the informant at least twice, accounting for the dearth of hyphen- and apostrophe-misadditions and the preponderance of additions of space. Hyphen <metrik-ic> <Bus-conducter>

Apostrophe (A 83) (A 71) (A 84) (A 95(2)) (A 96)

Space < A naster> < a W way>

< a way> <somes time> < a way> < a waiy>

(A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A

14(2)) 19) 41) 65) 72(2)) 75) 84) 92) 95) 95(2)) 95(2))

The apparent constraint on space-additions is that of the two elements ≠X≠ and ≠Y≠ which are spaced, there must exist at least one further element ≠Z≠, such that Z is homophonous with either X or Y. Most of these misspacings are indicative of the informant's false etymologizing. 5.1.9 Word-token length. Hotopf (1980, p. 303) notes that the words in which omissions occur are long words, averaging 8.4 letters, nearly double the average word-token

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS

147

length of 4.7 letters (Kucera & Francis, 1967). He suggests that omissions might consequently be explained as attempts to bring long words nearer the average number of letters constituting written words. We tested this hypothesis by applying the same reasoning to the case of letter-additions. On the null hypothesis that no letter additions would be made to words whose length in letters was more than the average word-letter length of 4.7, we sum­ med the letter-lengths of those of our informant's attempts which contain additions, where length was measured solely in terms of letters (word-, mor­ pheme-, and syllable-additions were excluded from the tally, as were all marks of punctuation) and we assumed his attempts were representative of his intentions (otherwise they would have been edited if they had not been overlooked), and divided by the number of words which exhibited letteradditions (where 'word' includes compound words). This resulted in an aver­ age word-length token of 6.26 letters, over 1.5 letters in excess of the average word-token length of correctly spelled items, thus disconfirming the null hypothesis for the case of this foreign learner of English. Whatever the ulti­ mate explanation of the phenomenon under discussion — letter additions — it may well entail positing different addition and omission norms for foreign learners than those established for natives. 5.1.10 Letter position and letter addition. We examined the letter contexts for all the vowel and consonant letteradditions in 1.1 and 1.2 above, respectively. We now turn to the relationship between letter-addition and letter-position. Here, by 'position' we mean the relative position of the letter in the word, numbering the first letter of the word 1, the second 2, the third 3, etc. We are interested in ascertaining whether there is any most-favored addition-position for misadditions of vowel and consonant letters over and above the C C/V environment established above. The results are given in Table 5.1.10, where the frequencies of the addition errors are presented in the rows and the relative position of the added letter in the attempt is presented in the columns. 30.26% of the errors of addition, the crest of the addition wave, occur in position 4, the percentages then rapidly diminishing on both sides of the wave. It is of interest to compare this conclusion with that reached by Hotopf (1980, p. 302) for non-edited, native errors of omission, where a similar, but not identical, serial-order effect is found to hold for omissions, more omisions

148

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Table 5.1.10 Letter Position and Letter Addition

occurring in the middles of words than at the ends. The main difference is that the crest of the wave for letter omissions which were not immediately detected, hence comparable in this sense to our letter additions, is at position 2, then tapers off slightly to position 3, then dramatically falls to positions 4 and 5. Our general conclusion is that addition errors for a foreign learner of English and omission errors for native speakers exhibit different serial-order effects, although similar in their overall wave-like design. 5.2. Omissions. In sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 we investigate the omission of vowel and consonant letters in word-initial and word-final positions, before and after consonant and vowel letters, and word-internally preceding and following consonants and vowels.

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS

149

5.2.1 Vowel omissions. Table 5.2.1 presents the frequencies of the 189 vowel-letter omissions in the above-mentioned contexts and C ', C -, where < y > counts as a vowel letter when it stands for a vowel sound. Table 5.2.1 Vowel Omissions Context/ C _ C C _ V V _ V V _ C # _ V # _ C V _ # C _ # Vowel a e i o u

2 42 1 3

6 1 1

1

4 19 5 3 3

1 1

1

4

3 4

y Total

83

C_'

48

8

1

34

0

2

4

87

4

C _ " Total 7 1 157 8 10 3 4 1 189=N

In terms of context, note that ≠ V and ≠ C, i.e., word-initial positions, and V V/≠ are least vowel-letter omission prone, whereas C ≠, C C, and V C are most vowel-letter omission prone, result­ ing in a rather striking parallelism between the environments which are vowelletter addition prone, on the one hand, and those which are vowel-letter omission prone, on the other:

In terms of vowel letters omitted, 157/189 or 83.07% consist in the omis­ C/V, sion of < e > , 46.03% in C ≠ position, and 82/189 or 43.39% in C rendering < e > that vowel which is most favored under both misaddition

150

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

and misomission and C ≠ the most favored environment for that vowel. Closer inspection of the omissions of < e > in C ≠ reveals that the major­ ity of these omissions can be explained in terms of English and German letter-naming as a spelling strategy, for example, < H e r > for < H e r e > (A 6) (English letter-naming) and < H i r > for < H e r e > (A 9(2)) (German letternaming) , discussed in detail in Chapters II and III and the negative transfer of German GPCs, as in for <prize> (A 17) and <prais> for <prize> (A 14(2), discussed in detail in Chapters III and IV. 5.2.2 Consonant omissions. Table 5.2.2 presents the frequencies of the 208 consonant-letter omis­ sions in the same contexts as those presented for the vowel omissions, with C 7- added for the vowels, and ' ≠ for the consonants, excluding those edited in the conduits d'approche. 134/208 or 64.42% of the consonantal omissions occur in post-consonan­ V tal letter-environments, i.e. C C (22/208), C ≠ (32/208), and C (80/208), permitting two important generalizations: (1) the post-consonantal letter-environments are the most omission-prone for both vowel and conso­ nant letters, and (2) the post-consonantal letter-environments are the most addition and omission-prone for both vowel and consonant letters. These generalizations, on the assumption that error frequency is directly related to pedagogical emphasis, require that the major stress of instruction in mis­ spelling prevention and remediation fall on post-consonantal position. 133/208 or 63.94% of the consonantal omissions are attributable to 4/22 or 18.18% of the consonants, namely < r > (42/208), < s > (37/208), < t > (29/208), and <1> (25/208). Accordingly, it is these consonants qua maxi­ mally omission-prone consonantal letters which should be placed under instructional focus. Note that < r > , < s > , and <1> were singled out in section 5.1.2 as being among the 4 most addition-prone, allowing the generalization that < r > , < s > , and <1> are among both the most addition and omission prone consonantal letters in the acquisition of English as a foreign language. Thus, should the teaching situation be one in which economy of time and means are of the essence, allowing attention to be devoted to only the most essential aspects of misaddition and misomission prevention and remedia­ tion, the teacher should opt in favor of < r > , < s > , and <1> in C .

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS

151

Table 5.2.2 Consonant Omissions Context/ Consonant

C_C C_V V_V V_C # _ V # _ C V _ # C _ #

b c d f

1

g gh h

4

1

j k 1 m n

1 1 1 5 1

1

1 11

3 1 1 2 1

3

' _ # Total

3

1 1

3 1 4

P q r s t

2 2 4

9 1 3 3

2 1 1

3 1 4

23

6

17

1

7 2 2

1

7 1

4 10 1

19 3

4 1

32

5 208=N

V

w

4

3

2

29

5

2

X

y z Total

22

80

13

1

21

2 5 9 5 6 3 13 0 1 25 3 10 7 0 42 37 29 0 11 0 0 0

5.2.3 Capitalization omissions. Recall that we argued in support of the claim that the mistaken lack of capitalization should be treated as a capitalization omission, rather than a mistaken substitution. Of the 53 erroneous capitalization omissions in the entire corpus, the 7 most frequently involved letters are < s > (9), < i > (7), < w > (6), < h > (5), < r > (5), < c > (4) and < t > (4). Comparing these results with those presented in section 5.1.3, we conclude that < s > , < w > , and < t > are the most erroneously capitalization-addition- and omission-prone. As in section 5.1.3, we were interested in testing the hypothesis that there is nothing about the type of a particular letter which makes it more capitalization-omis-

152

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

sion-prone than another. On the null hypothesis that frequency of capitaliza­ tion omission and frequency of letter-type are independent, there should be no significant correlation between the rank order of the frequencies of capitalization-omissions of the individual letters and the rank order of the frequencies of uncapitalized initial letters in a representative sample of run­ ning text. Again, this latter piece of information was unavailable to us. On the (possibly contrary-to-fact) assumption that the percentages of letteroccurrences in 10,000 letters of text is directly related to the percentage occur­ rence of uncapitalized initial letters in 10,000 letters of text, we computed Spearman's coefficient of correlation between the rank orders of the capitali­ zation omissions and the rank orders of the percentages of occurrence of letters in a 10,000 letter corpus. The results are presented in Table 5.2.3. Since rho = +.29, we conclude that the frequencies of individual letter capitalization omission and the frequency of uncapitalized initial letters are unrelated, that is, that we cannot justifiably claim that the more frequent erroneous capitalization omissions are more frequent because they involve letters which occur frequently uncapitalized in initial position. The explana­ tion of mistaken capitalization omissions must, therefore, reside elsewhere. Some mistaken capitalizations are predictable from the contrastive analysis of the capitalization conventions of German and English (cf. section 5.1.3). So, too, some mistaken capitalization omissions follow from such an analysis. Thus, for (adj.) (A 9), flows form the fact that German does not capitalize nationality designations when these are adjectives. Others, however, defy explanation in terms of contrastive analysis, like for (A 9), for (A 9), or sentence-initial <she> for <She> (A 7) or for < Y o u > in a caption. The absence of capitalization of < S > in is of interest insofar as it is a capitalization omission which is contingent upon writing together as one word, which, in turn, is predictable from a contrastive analysis. Such contingent phenomena are best treated in terms of the phenomena upon which they are contingent. In this regard, the host of sentence-initial capitalization omissions contingent upon the failure to remember or realize that the item in question initiates a new sentence. 5.2.4 Letter omissions. We stressed in sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 above that some letters are more frequently erroneously omitted than others, an observation which is as true

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS

153

of the consonants as it is of the vowels. As in the case of the letter additions, we are interested in ascertaining why. If the rank order of the frequencies of the letter misomissions is directly related to the rank order of the per­ centages of occurrences of the letters in the written production mode, it Table 5.2.3 Capitalization Omissions (rho = .29) Letter

Frequency

Rank

% Occurence in 10,000 letters

Rank

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V

0 0 4 0 3 1 1 5 7 0 0 0 3 0 2 2 0 5 9 4 0 0 6 0 1 0

20.5 20.5 6.5 20.5 8.5 13 13 4.5 2 20.5 20.5 20.5 8.5 20.5 10.5 10.5 20.5 4.5 1 6.5 20.5 20.5 3 20.5 13 20.5

7.78 1.41 2.96 4.02 12.77 1.97 1.74 5.95 6.67 .57 .74 3.72 2.88 6.86 8.07 2.23 .08 6.51 6.22 8.55 3.08 1.12 1.76 .27 1.96 .17

4 20 13 10 1 16 19 9 6 23 22 11 14 5 3 15 26 7 8 2 12 21 18 24 17 25

w X Y

z

would appear that we would be justified in explaining the frequency of letteromissions in terms of the frequency of letter occurrences. Accordingly, we

154

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

tested the null hypothesis that the frequency of letter-omissions and the frequency of letter-occurrences are independent. The results are presented in Table 5.2.4. Since rho = +.84, we conclude that there is a strong direct relationship between the frequencies of erroneously omitted letters and the frequencies of correct letter-occurrences in running text. Coupling this result with the results presented in section 5.1.4, it appears that if a letter is errone­ ously added or a letter is erroneously omitted, then the letter added or omit­ ted will by and large conform to the frequency of the letter in correct running text. 5.2.5 Word omissions. The corpus exhibited 30 unedited word-omissions, as follows: <does> < ' s > = is

(A 7) (A 8) (A 8) (A 9) (All) (A 11(2)) (A 13 (A 13) (A 13) (A 13)

(A 13) (A 14) < a r e > (A 14) < t h e > (A 14) (A 26) (A 32) <says> (A 32(2)) < a m > (A 36) (A 41) < a r e > (A 43)

< T h e > (A (A (A < h a d > (A < a r e > (A (A (A (A (A <down>(A

52) 53) 53) 61) 63) 74) 75(2)) 75(2)) 78) 84)

where (A 7) was inserted by the informant on the third and final reading. The from-class distribution of these words is as follows: fucntion words (22/30), proper nouns (3/30), common nouns (1/30), verbs (3/30), and adjec­ tives (1/30). One of the features of function words, as is well-known, is that they may be assigned a relatively low degree of prominence. It is tempting to theorize that the high incidence of function-word omissions testifies to the oral basis of writing, because function words may be assigned low stress in oral and inner speech, and when assigned such stress, they are rendered virtually imperceptible relative to non-function words. If the prominence theory of word-omissions is a necessary postulate in the general theory of omissions, it is far from sufficient, failing as it does to account for the omission of stressed lexical items, albeit limited. Deeper insight can be won only through careful examination of non-function word

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS

155

Table 5.2.4 Letter Omission (rho = .84) Letter

Frequency

Rank

% Occurrences in 10,000 letters

Rank

a b c d e f

7 2 5 9 157 5 6 13 8 0 1 25 3 10 10 7 0 42 37 29 3 0 11 0 4 0

12.5 20 15.5 10 1 15.5 14 6 11 24 21 5 18.5 8.5 8.5 12.5 24 2 3 4 18.5 24 7 24 17 24

7.78 1.41 2.96 4.02 12.77 1.97 1.74 5.95 6.67 .57 .74 3.72 2.88 6.86 8.07 2.23 .08 6.51 6.22 8.55 3.08 1.12 1.76 .27 1.96 .17

4 20 13 10 1 16 19 9 6 23 22 11 14 5 3 15 26 7 8 2 12 21 18 24 17 25

g h i j k 1 m m o P q r s t u V

w X

y z

omissions. Consider the omission of < F r e d > , in particular the context in which it is omitted. Peter and Betty are helping their mother in the kitchen. Mother wants to know what she should cook for Uncle Fred and Aunt Mabel, who are expected for dinner the next day. Peter asks what Aunt Mabel likes to eat. "Oh, she likes steak," Betty says. "And Uncle Fred likes steak, too." Our informant wrote: <"Oh, Ï she like steak," Betty says. "And Uncle like steak, too.">, omitting Fred after Uncle, evidently understanding the ques-

156

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

tion "What does she like?" to have been addressed to either him, the reader — there is one rhetorical question addressed to the reader at the beginning of the selection — or directly to Betty ("What do you like?"), rather than asked of Betty in relation to Aunt Mabel, initially responding as he did with ƒ, the remnants of which remain in the edited < I > and the unedited (not 3sg), subsequently deciding that the question was indeed asked of Betty in relation to Aunt Mabel. The informant's "Oh, I she like steak," thus emerges as a blend of "Oh, I like steak" and "Oh, she likes steak". I, we submit, once eliminated from the first conjunct, is transferred to the second conjunct — transfer mechanisms being independently motivated (cf. Fromkin 1973) — so that "And Uncle like steak, too" surfaces as a blend of "And I like steak, too" and "And Uncle Fred likes steak, too". We thus wish to explore the terrain of interpreting non-function-word omissions as the pro­ ducts of (contextualized) blending. Let us consider one further example, the case of omitted , which occurs in a selection under the title "At the Ticket-Office". Peter has purchased two return tickets to Norwich. Then he asks the clerk in the ticketoffice: Peter: "When does the next train go?" Clerk: "At 5:30." There follows the sentence from which was omitted: Peter: "And when dose the (Ø) arafft in Norwich?" We submit that this omission of is attributable to the presence of in the next-to-the-last preceding sentence. A much simpler hypothesis is that the absence of < F r e d > and is due to negative transfer from German in which and in the translational equivalents may be deleted. 5.2.6 Morpheme

omissions.

The set of omitted morphemes is constituted as follows: 3sg

Pl (A5) (A 7) (A 8) (A 11(2)) (A 13(2))

<sandwith(Ø)> <postcard(Ø)>

(A 2Ø) (A 2Ø) (A 22) (A 54) (A 65)

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS

3sg <sing(Ø)> <cut(Ø)>

157

Pl (A 17) (A 19) (A 19) (A 20) (A20) (A 22) (A 36) (A 47) (A 47) (A 51) (A 66) (A 17)

<point(Ø)> <note(Ø)>

(A (A (A (A (A

66) 66) 76(2)) 92) 96)

Poss

(A 28) (A 43) (A 71)

Comp Past <watch(Ø)>

(A 32(2))

(A 72(2)) (A 89)

Cop c where Cop c = contracted copula, here considered a morpheme, not a word, in line with the view (Kaisse 1983; Sells 1983) that the contracted copula results from Chomsky-adjunction to the host, and, as such, is no longer a constituent of the verb phrase. Conspicuously lacking from the set of omitted morphemes is the entire set of derivational morphemes, and, among the inflectional morphemes, progressive -ing, superlative -est, and the negative inflection not (for convinc­ ing arguments in support of the claim that not is an inflectional ending in English, rather than an enclitic, cf. Zwicky and Pullum, 1982). The theory of morpheme omissibles should be accordingly constrained to exclude deri­ vational morphemes and possibly progressive -ing and negative not. In view of the omissibility of comparative -er, we hesitate to exclude superlative -est, attributing the absence of the latter from the inventory of omitted morphemes to an accidental gap. Generalizing over the sets of word additions and word omissions, both contain function-words, the set of additions exclusively, the set of omissions

158

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

primarily, and, as a working hypothesis, both sets result from multifarious processes of syntactic blending. Generalizing over the sets of morpheme additions and morpheme omissions, they intersect with respect to the 3sg, Plural, and regular Past, and both exclude the derivational morphemes. What the vast majority of all word and morpheme additions and omissions have in common is their relatively low degree of prominence, with function words typically unstressed and inflectional morphemes invariably occurring posttonically. 5.2.7 Syllable omissions. The complete inventory of syllable omissions, where the omitted let­ ter(s) is represented by Ø, is as follows: <evØre> <wØØs> <sandwithØØ> < AfØry> <MollØ> <EvØry>

(A l) (A 6) (A 14(2)) (A 20) (A 20) (A 20) (A 32(2)) (A 36) (A 44) (A 44) (A 47)

<shØpping> <EvØry> <JanuarØ> <evØry>

(A 47) (A 54) (A 54) (A 59) (A 66) (A 66) (A 70) (A 70(2)) (A 90) (A 95)

18/26 or 69.23% of the omitted letters are vowels. 5 of these are the second <-e-> in <every>, i.e. <evØry>, a representation which thus has the status of a virtual conventional error (for which cf. Chapter I). Only 4/18 or 22.22% of the omitted vowel letters represent vowels assigned word-stress, whence the omission-proneness of unstressed vowels. All the 8/26 consonant omissions are post-tonic. 7/26 of the letter omissions are traceable to 5 tokens of morpheme omission of 4 morpheme types — Plural, Past, Comparative, and < t o > . We trace the omission of <-e-> in <evØry> to its standard status as a silent vowel, and the omission of <-y> in <JanuarØ> and to negative transfer of the German cognates <Januar> and . In 19/21 instances of syllable omission, the omitted syllable is omitted from a polysyllabic, with 2 instances of it being omitted form a monosyllabic: < w Ø Ø s > , < t h Ø > . . In only 5/21 cases does the syllable-omission consist of

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS

159

the omission of 2 letters, the remaining majority in 1. In no given word is the number of syllable omissions greater than 1. We thus constrain the theory of syllable omissions so as to exclude omitting more than one syllable per word, that syllable not to consist of more than 2 letters. 5.2.8 Non-letter omissions. There follows a complete inventory of non-letter omissions — omissions of hyphens, apostrophies, and spaces — where each non-letter omission is represented by Ø. Letter omissions crucial to understanding the non-letter omissions in question are also represented by Ø. Thus, for example, attempt: < H e r e > for target: is represented < H e r e Ø Ø > . The absence of omitted colons, semicolons, periods, exclamation points, quotation marks, and commas from the inventory is due to the fact that these punctuation marks were invariably dictated. Hyphen <arlamØclock> (A 2) (A 2) (A 9(2)) <WheelØbarrow>(A 14) (A 74)

<poketØnicfe> (A (A (A (A <wahtØroom> (A <WekkØend> (A

14(2)) 19) 32(3)) 34) 75(2)) 89)

The hyphen omissions in these standardly hyphenated words are forecast by the contrastive analysis of German and English, for in German the con­ stituents of nominal compounds are written together. Apostrophe <dolØshous> <JamØs> <JimØs>

(A 2(2)) (All) (A 11(2)) (A 13) (A 14) (A 14) (A 14) (A 17(2)) (A 19) (A 24)

(A 32(2)) (A 32(2)) (A 34) <WhatØs> (A 34) (A 34) <dosenØt> (A 39) <eiØn> (A 41) (A 43) <JohnØs> (A 44) (A 49)

< oØclock> <wiØr> <MillerØs>

(A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A

53) 54) 61) 70) 76) 83) 94) 94) 94) 94)

160

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR



(A 28) (A 32) (A 32)

(A 49) <weØr> (A 51) (A 51)

(A 94a) (A 96)

The absence of the apostrophe from possessive 's is also traceable to negative transfer from German, where the apostrophe is absent from the s possessive. The placement of an apostrophe between the host and the con­ tracted forms of copular be and auxiliary be and have is a predictable problem for German learners of English, since, if German knows contraction at all (an + dem = am, von + dem — vom, zu + der = zur, zu + dem = zum), the contracted forms do not, when spelled, require the use of an apostrophe. Space <dolsØhous> <morningØtea> <MummyØask> <SankØyou> <prityØpeaper> <jamØtords>

(A 2(2)) (A 6) (A 8) (A 9) (A 9) (A 9) (A 9(2)) (All) (All) (All)

<MarketØskqua> <ParkØrode> <shppingØ1ist>

(A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A (A

17) 17) 19) 24) 24) 28) 32) 32) 32) 44) 44) 47)



(A 53) (A 61) (A 61) (A 63) (A 63) (A 66)

<EnglishØteacher> <wereØan>

(A (A (A (A (A (A

66(2)) 68) 68) 70) 75(2)) 78)

<trunsØright> <ExciuseØme>

(A 83(2)) (A 83(2)) (A 92)

<don't0haf>

(A 95(2)) (A 95(2))

(A 14(2)) (A 17)

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS

161

Just as the mistaken absence of some of the apostrophies above is attributable to the absence of the possessive marker s, hence a secondary phenomenon, many of the misomissions of space are traceable to the percep­ tion of the items in question as compound nouns with concomitant negative transfer of the German convention for writing compounds as single words, hence interpretable as secondary phenomena. The remaining misomissions of space either consist of function word + lexical item, or lexical item + func­ tion word, or, very rarely, function word + function word, either orthographically procliticized, encliticized, or conjoined, respectively, possibly reflecting either the way in which the forms were perceived or the manner in which they were produced in silent speech. 5.2.9 Word-token length. As was mentioned in section 5.1.9, Hotopf (198Ø: 303) reports that the words in which omissions occur are long words, averaging 8.4 letters, nearly double the average word-token length of 4.7 letters as reported by Kucera & Francis (1967). He suggests that omissions might consequently be explained as attempts to bring long words nearer the average number of letters constituting written words. In section 5.1.9 we developed a disconfir­ mation of this hypothesis for letter additions from our English L2-acquisition corpus. We are now interested in testing this hypothesis for the case of letter omissions. On the null hypothesis that letters would not be omitted form words whose average token-length was less than 4.7, we summed the total number of letters occurring in the informant's word-token attempts (1,842) and divided by the number of words exhibiting letter omissions (360), arriving at the word-token length average of 5.12. Hotopf s findings of a length effect for words exhibiting letter omissions in the case of native speakers were thus confirmed by our foreign-learner data. It should be noted, however, that the word-token length of 5.12, established by us, is much shorter than the wordtoken length of 8.4, established by Hotopf. It remains to be seen what explains this discrepancy in length. One possibility is that the vocabulary in our infor­ mant's texts (cf. Friedrichs 1970, 1971) exhibits an average word-token length shorter than the one established by Kucera and Francis (1967). 5.2.10 Letter position and letter omission. We examined the letter contexts for all the vowel and consonant letter omissions in 5.2.1 and 5.2.2, respectively. We now turn to the relationship between letter position and letter omission. Here, by 'position' we mean the relative position of the letter in the word, from left to right, numbering the

162

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

first letter of the word 1, the second letter 2, the third 3, etc., also numbering the position of the letter omitted. We are interested in establishing if there is any most-favored omission position for misomissions of vowel and conso­ nant letters over and above the most-favored environments in terms of vowel and consonant letters established in sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2. The results are given in Table 5.2.5, where the percentages of the frequencies of the omission errors are presented in the rows and the relative position of the omitted letter in the attempt is presented in the columns. 25.74% of the errors of omission, the crest of the omission wave, occur in position 4, 23.76%, a close second, in position 5, the percentages then rapidly diminishing on both sides of the wave. It is immediately apparent that the geometry of this omission wave bears a remarkably close resemblance to that of the addition wave, establishing the near identity of additions and omissions in terms of position as defined. Even more remarkable is the near identity of this average position with the average word-token length estab­ lished by Kucera & Francis (Harasowska, personal communication), surely too close an approximation to be a coincidence. Assuming that attention Table 5.2.5 Letter Position and Letter Omission

span is weakened when the orthographic conventions are the object of atten­ tion in just that position which constitutes the boundary between orthog-

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS

163

raphic words, where "orthographic word-boundary" is understood to be that position which is identified with the average word-token length, we believe the near-identity of average word-token length and addition and omission maxima to be explained. Note that this explanation is not valid for the results of Hotopf's computation (Hotopf 1980: 302) of error probability as a function of relative position for not immediately detected slips-of-the-pen, whose highest probability ranges from positions 2-3, a fact which itself demands an explanation. 5.3. Appendices. There follow the two appendices to this chapter, Appendix I: Additions and Appendix II: Omissions. In the Addition appendix, the letter(s) added is underlined in the attempt, while in the Omission appendix the letter(s) omitted is underlined in the target. 'L' in the third column from the left designates letter omission/addition, as distinct from non-letter addition/omis­ sion. 'P'' and 'A' in the fifth column designate perseveration and anticipation, respectively. The numbers in the seventh column from the left represent the total number of letters in the word-target, where 'letter' does not include mark of punctuation. The numbers in the eighth column represent the total number of letters in the words containing letter additions and letter omissions, where the total number of letters in an omission-word consists of the total number of letters in the attempt. The final four columns to the right, labelled 'H', 'W', 'M', and 'S', contain an indication of the added and omitted homophones, words, morphemes, and syllables, respectively.

No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

Page A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 2 A 2 A 2 A 2 A 2 A 2 A 2 A 2 A 2 A 2a A 5 A 5 A 5 A 5 A 5 A 5

16

L L L L

LLL L L L L L L L L

L L L

Target put right alarm-clock sit down better answers late ice-cream aunt children evening again dining-room uncle books their sleep Helga hamster daddy's boys P P

P

P

P

pute righte anlarm-clock Sitdont Bäter ansersers leate ice-creame ante cailren evenning agong dinningroom Unckl Books there shlips Hellga hammster Daddy's Boys

Attempt

5.3.1 Appendix 1 : A dditions #

109

Letters 3 4 5 6 10 11 7 6 7 9 4 5 8 9 4 4 8 7 7 8 5 5 10 11 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 6 7 8 6 4

+

H

3sg.

W M

+

S

164 CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44.

16

7 L 7 L LL 7 8 8 8 8 L 9 9 LL L 9 9 L 9 9 LL 9 9(2) LL 9(2) LL 9(2) L 9(2) 11 L L 11 11 L 11 L 11 L

Page

No.

paper boy newspaper some Helga postman brother postcards newspaper newspaper Cheerio birthday wrap birthday presents pretty paper Suddenly an

their ice-cream don't mummy asks aunt Mabel uncle

Target

peaperboy newyspeaper P somes P Hellga Postman Brather Bosteskarts newyspeaper newuspeaper cilrio Börste wrape birthday presentes prity peaper sudeenley and

it

there A icec-cream donen't Mummy ask Aunt Mabel Uncle

Attempt #

8 9 4 5 7 7 9 9 9 7 8 4 8 5 8 2

5 8 4 5 4 5

5 9 6 9 3_

11 11 11 6

9 11 5 6

6

5

113

Letters

+

H W M

+

+

S

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS 16Í

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67.

11 11 11 11 11(2) 11(2) 11(2) 11(2) 13 13 13 13 13 13(2) 13(2) 14 14 14 14 14 14 14(2) 14(2)

Page

No,

19

L L L

L L L L L L

L L L L

L L L

L L L

runs help start wrapping football camera grandpa and camera camera crash ice-cream angry writing-desk broken writing-desk camera Now One go holding wheel-barrow race pocket-knife knees

Target P runns P hellp stards raypping Football Kammara Grendparand P Kammara Kamara A carach P ice-creaem angrey woriting-desk Broken P wrriting-desk P cammara Nowe Worn goh holdings Wheelbarrow wrays poketnicfe nifs

Attempt 4 4 5 8 6 10 6 6 5 8 5 11 6 11 6 3 3 2 7 11 4 11 5 5 10 4

12 7 4 3 3 8

6 9 6 12

7 11 7

5 5 6

130

# Letters

+

H

3sg

W M

S

166 CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90.

A 20 A 20

14(2) 14(2) 14(2) 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17(2) 17(2) 17(2) 19 19 19 19 19 20

Page

No.

12

L L

L

LL

L L L

L L L L L

Hurrah one

winners sack race between to apples can apples One school prize stamps Good-bye nine o'clock lovely doorbell for pocket-knife There's Another happy birthday

Target

Huraa won

Winners Sakreys be_ten too apiles cant apiles Won Schoor Preis Stamps Good-buy nin or clock lowvey Dorbel For Poket-nive P Thersis A_naster Hppey Bierthdays

Attempt 7 4 7 2 6 3 6 3 6 5 6 7 6 6 8 3 11 6 7 5 8 6 3 5 3

5

7

7 7 6

3 6 4 6 3

62

_______

# Letters

+

+

+ +

+

+

H

Pl

W M

+

S

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS 167

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113.

20 22 22 22 22 22 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24(2) 26 28 28 28 30 30 30

Page

No.

17

L L

L L L

L LL LL L L L L L L L L L

friends higher higher higher cream lemonade left right filling-station filling-station right Ask Park Road park lady left ice-cream Market Square he children answer dining-room present

Target Friend haiga haigaer haigaer crame P limonned lefte righe filling-stateion filling-stateion righte Asks A Prarkrod Park Ledy lefte ice-creame Marketskqua He Children anaser dinineg-room Presend

Attempt 7 6 6 6 5 8 4 5 14 14 5 3 4 4 4 4 8 6 2 8 6 10 7 6 11

5 9 5

5 7 7 5 8 5 5 15 15 6 4 4

122

# Letters

3 sg.

H W M

+ +

S

168 CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136.

30 32 32 32 32 32(2) 32(2) 32(2) 32(3) 34 34 34 34 34 34(2) 34(2) 36 36 36 36 39 39 41

Page

No.

10

L

L L L

L L L

L L

L

there's man the

record Perhaps acollar master master Perhaps a master master the hasn't Good-bye meets master policeman must he thinks isn't umbrela brief-case

Target Record Perhapes an collar Master Master P Perhapes an master Master The haven't Good buy meetes Master Policeman musti he's thinks isen't Umbrella Brif-case do Ther'is Man The

Attempt

6 3 3

6 7 1 6 6 7 1 6 3 5 7 5 6 9 4 2 4 7 9

# Letters

58

6

5 3 5

6 7 6

8 2

8 2

H

+

3 sg

W M

+

+

S

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS 169

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159.

41 41 43 43 43 43 43 43 44 47 49 49 49 49 49 49 51 51 51 51 51 51 51(2)

Page

No.

11

L

L L L L L L

L L L

L

away shouts the vans girls letter-box A new dress lorries book-shop jam cabbages post-office bones greengrocer's eggs they to we the have butcher's soup

Target a Way shof's The Vans Guls Letter-box A Wew Dress Loris Book-shop jame ckabishes post-officer Bons greem graisers agges theye too wei thee aff Bucher's sups

Attempt 4 6 3 4 5 9 3 5 7 8 3 8 10 5 12 4 5 2 2 3 4 8 4

# Letters

55

4_

5 5 3 3 4 3

4 9 11

4

+

+

H

Pl

+

W M

+

S

170 CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182.

52 53 54 54 54 54 54 55 55 55 55a 56 56 57 57 57 57 57 59 59 59 61 61

Page

No.

17

L

L L L L L L L L L L

L

L L LL L

L

hasn't policeman

cleaning thank you sausages office morning already every when accident telephone call so shopping altogether steak best cream cream tomato juice cream Swan Restaurant

Target cleaneing Tank you sosuschess officer P mornninsg allredy Evry P wenn anaxdent telepon-cal thoe shooping all togesser stake P bees creame creame tomatos-juice creame swahn rautrent do hasen't Poliseman

Attempt

5 9

2 8 10 5 4 5 5 6 5 4

8 5 8 6 7 7 5 4

6

4 8 11 5 4 6 6 7 6 5

4

10 7 9 7

9

144

# Letters

H

+

+ +

+

W M

+

S

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS 171

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205.

12

61 63 63 63 65 L 65 L 65 65 65 66 L 66 L 67 L 67 L 67 L 67 LL 68 68 70 L 70 L 70 L 70 70 70(2) _L_

Page

No.

already October music pupil colour referee caught parked tigers Henry jumped the afternoon elephant it mustn't

gangster waiter man Their win football

Target P of Gangster Waiter Man There P winn Football at ol rady Oaktober miusic piupel P coller P refferee couted Parkd Tiegers P Henney P jummped the hafternoon Elephant it's musen't

Attempt

6

7 7 5 5 6 7 6 6 6 5 6 9 8

8 6 3 5 3 8

# Letters

78

6

6 7 10

8 6 6 6 8 6

5 4

H

+

+

+

Past

W M

+

S 172 CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

A A A A A A A A A A A A

A 75 A 75 A 75

A A A A A A A A

206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215. 216. 217.

218. 219. 220.

221. 222. 223. 224. 225. 226. 227. 228.

75 75 75 75 75 75(2) 76 76a

70(2) 71 71 71 71 71 72 72 72 72(2) 74 75

Page

No.

15

L L L

LL L

L L L

LL L

L L

L L L

sometimes wash-room didn't little

suitcase was river

weekend by by

isn't field the uncle's boys aunt sheep Suddenly lunch away arrive by

Target

sijutcase wars River in somes_time waht room dident P litll

P weke ende buy buy

isen't filede they Uncle's Boy's Aunt sheeps Suddenlyl Lunch a.way P arafft buy

Attempt

9 8 5 6

8 3 5

7 2 2

4 5 3 6 4 4 5 8 5 4 6 2

# Letters

85

8 6 5

9 4

8 3 3

6 3

6 9

5 6 4

+ +

+

+

H

+

*P1

W M

S

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS 173

A A A A A A A A A A A A A

A A A A

A A A A

229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234. 235. 236. 237. 238. 239. 240. 241.

242. 243. 244. 245.

246. 247. 248. 249.

89 89 89 89

83(2) 84 84 84.

76a 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 80 83 83 83

Page

No.

14

L L L L

L L

LL L L

L L L L L

breakfast said week-end already

Excuseme later away Haig Street

boats coming our gave last begin with boys swam by bus Excuse way Cambridge Road

Target

Beakefirst saied P Wekkend P allrady

Esciuseme P latter a_way Haig-treet

Boat comeing ouer gaves larst P beginn Whis Boys shwimed buy bus exciuse Way camrich-road

Attempt

9 4 7 7

8 5 4

5 6 3 4 4 5 4 4 4 2 6 3

# Letters

87

10 5 7 7

8 6

7 3 7

7 4 5 5 6

+

+

Past R

H W M

S

174 CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

250. 251. 522. 253. 254. 255. 256. 257. 258. 259. 260. 261. 262. 263. 264. 265. 266. 267. 268. 269. 270. 271. 272.

89 89 89 89 89 89a 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92(2) 92a 92a 92a 92a 94 94 95

Page

No.

12

L

L L L L L

L L L L L

L

shout factory jeans pullover deck when diving match between wins swimming pool points match today match half teams diving already visit summer by

Target

P

P P

P

shoutd Factory Jens Pollover Deck wenn diveing muche bettwen winns Swimming Pool Points Match to_day Match hafe teames diveing allredy visite Summer buy

Attempt 5 7 5 8 4 4 6 5 7 4 8 4 6 5 5 5 4 5 6 7 5 6 2

# Letters

67

3

4 6 7 7 6

4 7 5 7 5

6

+

+

H

W M

S

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS 175

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

273. 274. 275. 276. 277. 278. 279. 280. 281. 282. 283. 284. 285. 286. 287.

95 95 95(2) 95(2) 95(2) 95(2) 95(2) 95(2) 95(2) 95(2) 95(2) 95(3) 96 96 96

Page

No.

10

L L L

L

L L L L L

L

of become music when very mountains mile country-western also away metric system very when Another Bus conductors

Target

P P

P

P P A

off be_come miusik wenn verry Moutntens miles countri-Western allso a_waiy merikjc sustem verry wenn Anosthe Bus-conducter

Attempt 2 6 5 4 4 9 4 14 4 4 6 4 4 7

# Letters

53

5 4 7

5

6 4 5 9 5

3

+

+

H

Pl

W M

S

176 CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

A 5 A 5 A 6

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

18. 19. 20.

1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2(2) 2(2) 2(2)

Page

No.

18

L LL L

LL L LL

L L L L L L L L L L L L

likes goes coming

every uncle aunt ready cornflakes chocolate better naughty answers ground breakfast children alarm-clock dining-room paints there doll'sjiouse

Target

liks go cming

evre Unckl ante redy cornfleks cocklet beter nonhty ansersers gound breckfour cailren arlamclock dinningroom pans ther dolshous

Attempt

5.3.2 Appendix 2: Omissions

5 4 6

5 5 4 5 10 9 6 7 7 6 9 8 10 10 6 5

# Letters

101

4 2 5

4 4 8

4 5 4 4 9 7 5 6 9 5 9 7

H

3 sg.

W M 4

S

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS 177

A A A A A A A

A A A A A

28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.

35. 36. 37. 38. 39.

8 8 8 8 9

7 7 7 7 8 8 8

A 7 A 7 A 7

25. 26. 27.

6 6 6 6

A A A A

Page

21. 22. 23. 24.

No.

14

L

LL L

L L L

L L

L L L

L L L

what likes does Fred nine

tomorrow likes She play potatoes tomorrow mummy_asks

their steak ice-cream

Here marmalade sugar morning_tea

Target

a

5

wa like ø 0 nin

4 5 4 4 4

8 5 3 4 8

5 5 8

4 9

# Letters

tomorow like she ø potetos t o m o r o w 8 Mummyask

there stek ice-cram

Her marmeled s u g morningtea

Attempt

73

3_

2 4

7 7 8

7 4

5 4 7

3 8 4

+

+ +

+

3 sg.

3 sg.

H W M

S

178 CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

A 9 A 9

A A A A A A

A 9

A A A A A A

A A A A

40. 41.

42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.

48.

49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54.

55. 56. 57. 58.

9(2) 11 11 11

9(2) 9(2) 9(2) 9(2) 9(2) 9(2)

9 9 9 9 9 9

Page

No.

10

L L L

L L L L

L

L L

Good-bye afternoon come please

Here have Here tomorrow Cheerio Thank_you

Garden_Street

with Now German Hamburg the paper_boy

o'clock picture_card

Target

# Letters

Goodbey after nom cam pleas

Her hav Hir tomorow c i l Sankyoy

gardenstreet

is naw gremen hamburg 0 peaperboy

r

3

i

o

7 9 4 6

4 4 4 8 7

3 6 7

49

3 3 5

3 3 3 7

2

o'clok 6 5 p i c t u r e k a t 1 0

Attempt

+

3 sg.

H W M

S

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS 179

A 11 A 11

A A A A

A 11

A 11(2) A 11(2)

A A A A A A A A A A

59. 60.

61. 62. 63. 64.

65.

66. 67.

68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77.

13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13(2)

11 11 11 11

Page

No.

10

L

L L L

L

L

L

L L

L

looks the can't are there There the they Pussy is Betty that's looks

birthday_presents

Suddenly You Here's jam_torts

dining-room prettypaper

Target

louk ø cant a ter Ther 0 0 ø ø 0 tets look

birthdaypresentes

sudeenley you Here jamtords

doing-room pritypeaper

Attempt

5 3 4 3 5 5 3 4 5 2 5 5 5

8 3 5

10

1 3 4

4

4

9

9 11

53

4 _4

# Letters

H

+ + + + +

+

+

3 sg

3 sg

W M

S 180 CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

A A A A A

95. 96. 97. 98. 99.

14(2) 14(2) 14(2) 14(2) 14(2)

13(2) 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14(2) 14(2) 14(2) 14(2) 14(2)

Page

78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94.

No.

11

LL L L L

L

L L L

L

L

between their chocolates must the

Thank One falls Fastest Mr is are the Let's John's Jim's wheel-barrow prize race and wins L balloonrace

Target

beten ther cokolate ust 0

Thak worn fols fastist mr 0 ø 0 Letts Jams Jims Wheelbarrow prais r e ws an L balloonreys

Attempt

y

7 5 10 4 3

5 3 5 7 2 2 3 3 4 5 4 11 5 s 2

# Letters

52

5 4 8 3

2 11

5 4

4

4 +

H

+ + +

W M

+

S

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS 181

A A A A A A A A A A A A

A 17

A 17

A 17

A 17(2) A 17(2) A 17(2)

A 17(2)

100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111.

112.

113.

114.

115. 116. 117.

118.

14(2) 14(2) 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17

Page

No.

14

L

L L L

L

L L LL L L L LL

L LL

time

Good-bye

house dance nine o'clock

all.run

tes

begins

the pocket-knife Come apple-tree One prize apples highest picks apples taller are longer

Target

i

g

Good-buy

haus d a n nin or clock

ollrun

testtime

b

0 poketnicfe cam aplletreWon Preis aples hiest pik apiles t o l alanger

Attempt

i

e

c

n

r

5

6

6

7

5

3 11 4 9 3 5 6 7 5 6

4 4 3

5

5 6 5 3 6 5 7

3 8

71

_7_

# Letters

+

H

Ns,V

3 sg.

Vs,adj.

3 sg.

W M

S

182 CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

A A A A A A A A A A A A A

119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131.

132. A 19 133. A 20 134. A 20 135. A 20 136. A 20 137. A 20 138. A 20 139. A 20 140. A 20

17(2) 17(2) 17(2) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19

Page

No.

19

L LL L L L L LL L

L L L L L L L L LL

L L

happy sings friends Hurrah cuts

ball-pen comes into the

children lovely Cheerio there We've here There's doorbell opens rings from pocket-knife a_book

Target

iin Hppey sing Friend Huraa cut

ballpen cam's t

childen lowvey cirio thar We'v hir Thersis Dorbel open ring fon Poket-nive abook

Attempt

h

2 5 5 7 6 4

7 5

8 6 7 5 5 4 6 8 5 5 4 11

# Letters

87

2 5 4 6 5 3_

4

4 3 3 7 6 4 4 3 9

7 6

H

3 sg

3 sg Pl

3 sg 3 sg

W M

+ +

S

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS 183

A A A A A A A A A A A

A A A A A

A A A A A

141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151.

152. 153. 154. 155. 156.

157. 158. 159. 160. 161.

24 26 26 26 26

24 24 24 24 24

20 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 24

Page

No.

18

L L L L

L L L L

L

LL L L L L L L L L

That's There square comes buys

down all right down High_Street

sandwiches house cream cooks brings letters postcards brings children The train ø Park Road

Target

Tats Ther squer corns 0

don ol righe don Heighstreet

sandwith hous crame cocks brins leters postcard bring cilden train Prarkrod

Attempt

5 5 6 5 4

4 3 5 4

10 5 5 5 6 7 9 6 8 3

# Letters

90

4 4 5 4

3 2 5 3

o

8 4 5 5 5 6 8 5 6

H

+

Pl

Pl 3 sg

W M +

S

184 CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

A A A A

A 28 A 28 A 30

A A A A A

A A A A A

A 30

162. 163. 164. 165.

166. 167. 168.

169. 170. 171. 172. 173.

174. 175. 176. 177. 178.

179.

30 30 30 30 30

30 30 30 30 30

28 28 28 28

Page

No.

14

L L

LL L LL L L

L L L

L LL L LL

Park_Road

haven't little Wants to a Dog

doorbeel answer You're your Comepn

bigger oldest orange juice

lives here's Betty's Market Square

Target

Parkrode

haven litel wonts 0 adog

dobell anaser Yor y o Comon

biger odist orang-juse

livs hir' Betty Marketskqua

Attempt

r

4

6 6 5 2

8 6 5

6 6

5 5 6

75

# Letters

5 5

6 6 3 3

5 5 9

4 3 5

H

+

Cop Poss

W M

S

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS 185

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202.

30 32(2) 32(2) 32(2) 32(2) 32(2) 32(2) 32(2) 32(2) 32(2) 32(3) 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34(2) 36 36 36

Page

No.

13

L LL L

L L L L L

L L LL L L

haven't goes little little hasn't nicer But Whose says Peter's police-station Jones live Good-bye lets and is What's Dick's Perhaps Every goes money

Target hafent gos litel itel hasen nice but whose 0 Peters Polise steschen Johns liv Good buy Its an 0 Whats Dicks prrhaps Afry go mony

Attempt 6 4 6 6 5 5 3 5 4 6 13 5 4 7 4 3 2 5 5 7 5 4 5

# Letters

47

4 2 4_

5 3 3 3 2

3 5 4 5 4

H

+

3 sg

Comp

W M

+

+

S

186 CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

A A A A A A A

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209.

210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215. 216. 217. 218. 219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 224.

L

L L L L

15

41 L 41 L 41 (LL) 41 L 41 41 41 43 L 43 LL 43 L 43 L 43 L 43 L 43 43(2) L

36 36 36 36 36 36 39

Page

No.

goes There o'clock and am on there's doesn't gives There there starts The to I'm There are where suitcase drive Mr. Brown's are Good-bye

Target gos Ther o'lock an 0 0 Ther'is dosent givs Ther tet stats the 0 ein Ther a wher suitcas dive Brown 0 Good-buy

Attempt 4 5 6 3 2 2 6 6 5 5 5 6 3 2 2 5 3 5 8 5 6 3 7

# Letters

64

7_

4 1 4 7 4 5

5

4 4

5

3 4 5 2

H

+

+

+

Poss

W M

S

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS 187

A A A A A

A A A A

A A A A A

A A A A A A

225. 226. 227. 228. 229.

230. 231. 232. 233.

234. 235. 236. 237. 238.

239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244.

47 47 47 49 49 49

44 47 47 47 47

44 44 44 44

44 44 44 44 44

Page

No.

15

L L L

L L

LL L L L

L L

L L (LL) L L

buys eggs Saturday bones cabbages grocer's

Johr's goes Every There shopping

traffic falls He his_bike

There Betty are Molly a.letter

Target

list

h

buy egs Saturday Bons ckabishes grauers

Johns go Evry Ther shppinglist

hisbike

trafik fols

Ther Bett á M o aleter

Attempt

l

e

l

5

4 4 8 5 8 7

5 4 5 5

7 5 2

5 5 3

# Letters

75

4 9 7

3 3

2 4 4

6 6 4

4

4 4

H

3 sg

3 sg

W M

+

+

+

S

188 CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

A 53

245. 246. 247. 248. 249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 254. 255. 256. 257. 258. 259. 260. 261. 262. 263. 264. 265.

266.

49 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51(2) 51(2) 52 52 52 52 52 53 53 53

Page

No.

15

L L L L L L

L L L L L L L L L

o'clock

greengrocer's already we're done shopping butcher's have drink when puts let's tomatoes bottles shoes cleaned plates washed The this a lot ø kitchen_chairs

Target

o clock

greengrausers alredi wer don shoping Bucher's aff dink wen put lats tomates butelt shos cleand plets washt 0 0 lot kitchenchairs

Attempt

6

12 7 4 4 8 8 4 5 4 4 4 8 7 5 7 6 6 3 4 1

# Letters

72

7 6 4 6 5 5

6 3 3 7 7 3 4 3 3

+ + +

3 sg

H W M

S

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS 189

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

267. 268. 269. 270. 271. 272. 273. 274. 275. 276. 277. 278. 279. 280. 281. 282. 283. 284. 285. 286. 287. 288. 289.

54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54a 54a 54a 54a 54a 54a 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55

Page

No.

23

L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L JL_

Evry bons potatos tomatos Billys (yoverl) sake cabbiche foul shos cleand plaits theys wenn pained cross drif thon telepon telepon-cal to wav trefic musen't

to wave traffic mustn't

Attempt

every bones potatoes tomatoes Billy's steak cabbages full shoes cleaned plates these when painted across drive soon telephone telepone call

Target

4 7 6

5 5 8 8 6 5 8 4 5 7 6 5 4 7 6 5 4 9

# Letters

119

3 6 6

4 4 7 7 5 4 8 4 4 6 6 5 4 6 5 4 4 7

H

Pl

W M

+

+

S

190 CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

290. 291. 292. 293. 294. 295. 296. 297. 298. 299. 300. 301. 302. 303. 304. 305. 306. 307. 308. 309. 310. 311. 312.

55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55a 56 56 56 57 57 59 59 59 59 59 61 61 61 61 61

Page

No.

18

L L L L

LLL L

L L L L L L L L L L L L

when know throw traffic traffic sign letter-box terrible carry cheese else shopping best the Restaurant please Swan Roast Would write I've money would I

Target wenn now thow trefic trefic sun leter-box terybel cary chees els shooping bees ø rautrent piase swahn rost would wrid I'v mony woud ei

Attempt 4 4 5 7 7 9 8 5 6 4 8 4 3 10 6 4 5 5 5 3 5 5 1

# Letters

89

4 2 4 4

8 5

4 3 4 6 6 8 7 4 5 3 8 4

H

W M

+

S

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS 191

A 61

A 61

A 61

A 61 A 63 A 63

A A A A

A 63

A A A A A A A

313.

314.

315.

316. 317. 318.

319. 320. 321. 322.

323.

324. 324a. 325. 326. 327. 328. 329.

65 65 65 65 66 66 66

63 63 63 63

Page

No.

11

L L L LL L L L

L L

L L

There AH teachers yellow January June Tuesday

that

gives there Saturday coffee_bar

lady's There there are

young

vegetable_soup

ofwater

has had

Target ø

Ther ol teacher jelo Januar Jun Thudday

thatjung

givs ther saterday coffeebar

layds Ther ther

vegetablesoup

ofwater

has

Attempt

ø

5 3 8 6 7 4 7

5 5 8

5 5

3

# Letters

49

4 2 7 4 6 3 _7_

4 4

4 4

H

+

+

Pl

W M

+

S 192 CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

A 66 A 66

A A A A A A A A

A A A A A A A

A 68 A 68 A 68

330. 331.

332. 333. 334. 335. 336. 337. 338. 339.

340. 341. 342. 343. 344. 345. 346.

347. 348. 349.

67 67 67a 67a 67a 68 68

66 66 66 66 66 66(2) 66(2) 66(2)

Page

No.

15

L L L L LL L L

L L L L LL L

LL L

I I car_park

yellow whistle people accident caught parked baby hippopotamus

March pupils teachers blows February running He English_teacher

Wednesday Cornepn

Target

ei ei carpark

jelow wihtel pople acedent couted Parkd babyhippopotees

Mach pipul teacher blow Faubrua runing he Englishteacher

Wensday comon

Attempt

1 1

6 7 6 8 6 6

5 6 8 5 8 7 2

9

# Letters

94

5 6 5 7 6 5

4 5 7 4 7 6

7

Pl Pl 3 sg

H W M

+

S

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS 193

A A A A A

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

350. 351. 352. 353. 354.

355. 356. 357. 358. 359. 360. 361. 362. 363. 364. 365. 366. 367. 368. 369. 370. 371.

70(2) 70(2) 71 71 71 71 71 72 72 72 72 72 72 72(2) 72(2) 74 75

70 70 70 70 70

Page

No.

20

LL L L L

L L L LL L L L L L L L L

L L LLL L

every mustn't called tomorrow Puddlefield your arrived showed looked Prince running Prince Then answered Prince's Office pence

sandwiches tomatoes naughty we're one_hundred

Target

evry musen't colld tomoro Puddefiled you arifed shod lookd Price runing Price then answer Pince's offis pens

sandwichs tomatos nautt wir onehundert

Attempt

5 6 6 8 11 4 7 6 6 6 7 6 4 8 7 6 5

10 8 7 4

# Letters

110

6 6 5 4

4 6 5 6 10 3 6 4 5 5 6 5

9 7 5 3

H

PastR

Poss

W M

+

+

S 194 CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

A A A A A A A

372. 373. 374. 375. 376. 377. 378. 379. 380. 381. 382. 383. 384. 385. 386.

387. 388. 389. 390. 391. 392. 393.

76 76 76 76 76 76 76

75 75 75 75 75 75 75(2) 75(2) 75(2) 75(2) 75(2) 75(2) 75(2) 75(2) 75(2)

Page

No.

15

L L

L L L

L LL L L L L L L L

LL

sailed villages watched too breakfast little We

arrive train timetable lives stopped pullover blue laughed pretty pretty pretty wash-room they is were_on

Target

saild villges watcht to bakeforst litle wi

arafft 0 timetable livs stopd pulover blu laught prity prity prity wahtroom ø ø werean

Attempt

6 8 7 3 9 6 2

6 5 9 5 7 8 4 7 6 6 6 8 4 2

# Letters

82

9 5

5 7 6

4 5 7 3 6 5 5 5 4

6

+

H

+ +

+

W M

S

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS 195

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

A A A A A

394. 395. 396. 397. 398. 399. 400. 401. 402. 403. 404. 405. 406. 407. 408. 409. 410.

411. 412. 413. 414. 415.

80 80 80 83 83

76 76 76(2) 76(2) 76(2) 76(2) 76(2) 76(2) 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78

Page

No.

15

L LL

L L

L L LL L L L L L LL LL L

goes goes Road large Cambridge Road

We did't There were little there boats Suddenly heard shouted clothes clothes summer They ¡t late a.little

Target

4

gos gos roud l a r c camrich-road

we dident Ther wer litll ther Boat suddenl head shoued cload couse somer they it 0 alitle

Attempt

h

5

4 4 4

2 5 5 4 6 5 5 8 5 7 7 7 6 4 2

# Letters

74

5

3 3

4 3 5 4 4 7 4 6 5 5 5

+

Pl

H W M

S

196 CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

A A A A A A A A A A

A A A A A A A A A A A A

416. 417. 418. 419. 420. 421. 422. 423. 424. 425.

426. 427. 428. 429. 430. 431. 432. 433. 434. 435. 436. 437.

83(2) 83(2) 84 84 84 84 84 84 89 89 89 89

83 83 83 83 83 83(2) 83(2) 83(2) 83(2) 83(2)

Page

No.

10

L L L L

L L L

L LLLL

L

there minutes overall Haig Street Street down lives showed week-end were

Excuse_me

crossroad He Excuse He it's here straight Hill Road You turns

Target

right

ther minits overol Haig-street street ø livs shoud wekkend wer

Esciuseme

crosroad he exciuse he its her stad Hill road y turnsright

Attempt

o

u

5 7 7 6 6 4 5 6 7 4

9 2 6 2 3 4 8 4 3

# Letters

50

4 5 7 3

4 6 6

3 4

8

H

+

W M

S

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS 197

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

A 92(2) A 92a A 92a

438. 439. 440. 441. 442. 443. 444. 445. 446. 447. 448. 449. 450. 451. 452. 453. 454. 455. 456.

457. 458. 459.

89 89 89 89 89 89 89 90 90 90 90 90 92 92 92 92 92 92 92

Page

No.

20

L L

LL L L L L LL L L LL LL L L L L L LL L L

Monday girls half

stopped there girls breakfast villages watched heard watched jumped exciting invited clothes There between there are different points a lot

Target

monday gils hafe

stopd ther gi ls Beakefirst wilishes watch head watcht jumt xeiting invaide cothes Ther bettwen ther a diferent p o i alot

Attempt

n

t

6

6 5 4

7 5 5 9 8 7 5 7 6 8 7 7 5 7 5 3 9

# Letters

107

4 4

5 4 4 10 8 5 4 6 4 7 7 6 4 7 4 1 8 5 PL R

PastR

H W M

+

S

198 CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

A A A A A A A A

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

460. 461. 462. 463. 464. 465. 466. 467.

468. 469. 470. 471. 472. 473. 474. 475. 476. 477. 478. 479. 480. 481.

94 94 94 94 94 94(2) 94(2) 94(2) 94a 95 95 95 95 95

92a 92a 92a 92a 92a 92a 92a 94

Page

No.

12

L L L

L L

L L

LL

L L L L

Inge's arrive English That's o'clock English parents Can aeronautical children's German Miller I the

won all climbed John running The have Mrs.Miller's daughter

Target

s Inge (s over e) arive english Thats o clock enlish parens can aernautical chillers Grerma miller ei ø

one ol cimbed Jon runing the 0 4 Mrs. Millers dauter

Attempt

5 6 7 5 6 7 7 3 12 9 6 6 1 3

3 3 7 4 7 3

# Letters

69

11 8 6

6 6

4 5

6

2 6 3 6

+

H

+

W M

S

ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS 199

A 95(2) A 95(2) A 95(2)

A A A A A

A A A A A A A A A A A

482. 483. 484.

485. 486. 487. 488. 489.

490. 491. 492. 493. 493a. 494. 495. 496. 497. 498. 499.

96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96

95(2) 95(2) 95(2) 95(2) 95(2)

Page

No.

15

L L L L LL L L L L

L L L

L L L

arrived said Here's called Parliament fifteen When Another notes Square That's

great-grandfather children metric In of grass

where There don't have

Target e

arrivd sad Her's colld parlamet fiften wenn Anosthe note square Thats

grate-gandfather cilden merik-ic in ofgrass

wehr T h don'thaf

Attempt r

5

7 4 5 6 10 7 4 7 5 6 5

16 8 6 2

5

# Letters

90

6 3 4 5 8 6 4 7 4

15 6 7

4 4

P1R

H W M

S

200 CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Chapter VI Anticipations and Perseverations

6.0. Introduction. Anticipations and perseverations, together with transpositions and dis­ placements, constitute the errors of serial ordering in speech and writing. The purpose of the present chapter is to (1.) define and describe the proper­ ties of orthographic errors of anticipation and perseveration, (2.) use these properties as a basis for comparing unedited and edited versions of such errors, and (3.) establish and attempt to explain their relatively high correc­ tion rate. 6.1. Anticipations:

Definitions.

Anticipations are either substitutions or additions. As substitutions, they are defined as: X------> Y/A BYC. As additions, they are defined as: 0 > Y/A BYC. Adopting the abbreviatory conventions familiar from generative phonology, an anticipation as either a substitution or an addition may be defined as:

—> Y / A _ B Y C .

Exemplifying anticipations as substitutions are attempt: <Wew> for target: < n e w > (A 43), attempt: <winen> for target: <women> (A 55) and exemplifying anticipations as additions are attempt: for target: (A 13) and attempt: for target: <Park Road> (A 24). In the anticipation AYBYC we refer to the first Y as the "anticipate", the second Y as the "anticipated", A B as the "environment of the antici­ pate" , B C as the "environment of the anticipated", and YB as the "distance of the anticipation".

202

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

6.1.1 Anticipations: Lexical and literal. Anticipations we divide into lexical and literal, the former referring to the anticipation of a word or group of words, the latter referring to the anticipation of a letter or group of letters. Exemplifying lexical anticipations is attempt: <...dis Master him is looking for him> for target: <...his master is looking for him> (A 32(2)), where the anticipate him is an addition over a distance of 4 words from a sentence-final environment in which it is gram­ matical to a sentence-internal environment in which it is not. Exemplifying literal anticipations is attempt: for target: (A 66), where the anticipate < d > is the substitution of < d > for < s > (Sd/s) over a distance of one letter, < d > itself, from a word-internal immediate environ­ ment of C V to a word-internal immediate environment of V C. In our corpus of 2,138 errors, a mere 14/2,138 or .65% were unedited errors of anticipation. Of these, 1/14 or 7.14% was a lexical anticipation, and 13/14 or 92.86% were literal anticipations. The entire corpus of anticipa­ tions, both unedited and edited, is given in Appendix I. 6.1.2 Anticipates. As noted in the definitional section above, anticipations consist of either substitutions or additions. Of the 14 unedited anticipations in our corpus, 10/14 or 71.43% consist of substitutions, while 4/14 or 28.57% consist of additions. Noteworthy about both the lexical anticipatory addition and the several literal anticipatory substitutions and additions is that they all involve either the substitution of a single unit for a single unit or the addition of a single unit and that no more than one anticipation occurs within a word or anticipatory phrase. There is nothing necessary about either of these restric­ tions; several, more complicated, configurations come to mind, for example, multiple anticipations such as *attempt: <prsraps> for target: ([ [A1 [A2 ]A1 ]A2 ]). We thus place as constraints on informants of this type that the number of units in each anticipate not exceed 1, 1 word in lexical anticipations, 1 letter in literal anticipations, and, furthermore, that no word contain more that 1 literal anticipate, which we jointly refer to as the "unitary theory of anticipations". The few examples cited by Hotopf (1980, p. 293), attempt: < I do not see how the first paragraph follows from the first> for target: < I do not see how the second paragraph follows from the first> — a lexical substitutive anticipation — and attempt: for target: — a literal substitutive anticipation—adhere to this constraint.

ANTICIPATIONS AND PERSEVERATIONS

203

10/13 of the unedited literal anticipates, or 76.92%, are consonants, 2/13 or 15.38% mixed, consisting in the substitution of a vowel for a consonant or a consonant for a vowel, and 1/13 or 7.69% is a vowel. Thus, although it cannot be categorically predicted which letter or even type of letter serves as an anticipate, the theory of anticipations must heavily favor anticipates which are consonants. 6.1.3 Anticipations:

Environments.

We refer to literal anticipations in which the anticipated and the antici­ pate are both in the same word as "intralexical anticipations" and literal anticipations in which the anticipated and the anticipate are in different words as "interlexical anticipations". An example of an intralexical anticipation is attempt: for target: (A 13), since anticipated < a > and anticipate < a > are both in the same word. An example of an interlexical anticipation is attempt: for target: (A 6), since anticipated and anticipate < s > occur in different words. Clearly, delimiting the domain of an anticipation is an important issue, since if the context following any error of substitution or addition is sufficiently large, the sub­ stitution or addition will constitute an anticipate. In the present study the domain of an anticipation was (rather arbitrarily) limited to the word follow­ ing the prospective anticipate. Of the 13 literal anticipations, 4/13 or 30.77% are interlexical and 9/13 or 69.23% are intralexical. 3 of the interlexical anticipations consist in anticipating the initial letter of the following word (a consonant) by the final letter of the preceding word (cf. Appendix I, unedited items 1,2, and 5) 1 in anticipating the final letter of the following word (cf. Appendix I, unedited item 12), suggesting that the theory of interlexical anticipations be con­ strained to include only anticipated which are either word-initial or word-final and only anticipates which are word-final, call it the "extremity constraint on interlexical anticipations." The immediate environments and frequencies of the immediate environ­ ments of the anticipates and anticipated in the attested intralexical anticipa­ tions are as follows:

204

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Table 6.1.3 Unedited Anticipations: Intralexical Environments C_C V_C C_V V_V #_V #_C V_# C_#

Anticipates 2 2 3 1 1 0 -

Anticipated 2 3 2 0 0 0 2 0

Although admittedly limited, the data does suggest that the theory of intralexical anticipations favor anticipated in word-internal as opposed to word-final position, favor anticipates in word-internal as opposed to wordinitial position, and exclude anticipations from C # , say *attempt: for target: . 6.1.4 Anticipations:

Distances.

Hotopf (1980, p. 296) remarks "The span ahead at which we plan speech may be gauged from anticipation slips. We measure this in syllables counting from the target word to the word ahead which was the source of the error and including both. (my underscoring — P.A.L.) To illustrate, in THEIR SUCCESS HAS ALSO BEEN REASONABLY SUCCESSFUL, the target word is PREDICTION, the source of the error is SUCCESSFUL, and the span is 14 syllables."

We take exception to the inclusion of both the source item and the target item in the calculation of span, since in anticipations of the type attempt: <sudeenley> for target: <Suddenly> (A 11), consisting in the substitution of < e > for < d > (S e/d ), the adoption of this metric would result in the counter­ intuitive literal span of 2 between source < e > and target < d > . In its stead we propose (cf. section 6.1 above) defining the distance of the anticipation AYBYC as YB, measured in terms of words in lexical anticipations, syllables in syllabic anticipations, and letters in literal anticipations. In the above example, <sudeenley> for <Suddenly>, the application of this measure, where B = 0 and Y = < e > , yields a distance of 1. Based on this distance metric we obtain a mean distance of 4 words for the lexical anticipations, of 2.75 letters for the interlexical literal anticipa­ tions, and 1.55 letters for the intralexical literal anticipations.

ANTICIPATIONS AND PERSEVERATIONS

205

6.1.5 Edited anticipations. The anticipations in our corpus occur either unedited or edited, i.e. as conduits d'approche (cf. Chapter VII). We have opted in favor of treating the unedited anticipations in sections 6.1-6.1.4 separately from the edited anticipations since we are interested in (1.) testing Hotopf s claim (1980, p. 297) that anticipation errors enjoy a high rate of correction, (2.) if confirmed, ascertaining why, and (3.) determining whether or not the properties of edited anticipations are somehow distinct from those of the unedited. We compute correction rate, in our terms "monitor strength", by cal­ culating the ratio of errors of a given type corrected to the errors of that type made. We give the monitor strengths for errors of substitution, omission, addition, and displacement immediately below, noting that they do not exhibit appreciable differences: Table 6.1.5-1 Monitor Strengths S O A D

194/1,010 122/698 76/382 17/102

= = = =

19.21% 17.48% 19.90% 16.67%

We distinguish within the conduits d'approche successful attempts at editing errors, i.e. error-correcting conduits d'approche, from unsuccessful attempts at editing errors, i.e. error-creating conduits d'approche. Of the 15 conduits d'approche involving anticipations, 14 were error-correcting, 1 error-creating. Of the 28 anticipations in our corpus, 14/28 or 50% were corrected, confirming Hotopf s observation, made for monolinguals, that anticipation errors enjoy a high rate of correction for bilinguals as well. In an attempt to answer question (3.) above, are there any properties of edited anticipations which distinguish them from those which are unedited, as was the case with the unedited anticipations we consider the edited antici­ pations in the light of the properties of their anticipates, the environments of the anticipates and anticipated, and their distances. Anticipating the con­ clusion, a consideration of these properties reveals some. All of the 14 corrected anticipations were of the literal type. Of these, 10/14 or 71.43% were substitutions, 4/14 or 28.57% additions. Of the 10 substitutions, 6/10 or 60% were substitutions of consonants, 3/10 or 30% mixed, consisting in the substitution of either a vowel for a consonant or a

206

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

consonant for a vowel, and 1/10 or 10% substitution of vowels. Of the 4 additions, 3 were additions of the vowel < e > , one of the consonant < t > . Stated differently, 7/14 of the edited (literal) anticipates, or 50%, are conso­ nants, 3/14 or 21.43% are mixed, and 4/14 or 28.57% are vowels. In contrast to this, 10/13 or 76.92% of the unedited literal anticipates are consonants, 2/13 or 15.38% mixed, and 1/13 or 7.69% is a vowel. We attach little or no importance to this difference, since, by and large, the rank orders of the monitor strengths correspond to the rank orders of the percentages of the consonant, mixed, and vowel anticipates in the entire anticipate corpus: Table 6.1.5-2 Anticipates

c s A

A

V M C V

(N = 14) (N=l) (N = 5) (N=3) (N = 4)

Unedited 80% 0 20% 75% 25%

Edited 60% 10% 30% 25% 75%

The immediate environments and frequencies of the immediate environ­ ments of the anticipates and anticipated in the corrected anticipations are as follows: Table 6.1.5.3 Edited Anticipations: Intralexical Environments

c_c v_c c_v v_v #_v #_c v_# c_#

Anticipates 6 2 3 0 1 2 -

Anticipated 4 0 3 1 0 0 1 5

Here, as in the case of the unedited anticipations, word-internal, as opposed to word-final, anticipated are favored, as are anticipates in word-internal, as opposed to word-initial position, i.e. the same serial-order effects are observed in both the edited and unedited anticipations. We note that of the

ANTICIPATIONS AND PERSEVERATIONS

207

8 anticipates occurring in C C in the entire anticipate corpus, 6/8 or 75% are corrected, as opposed to 3/6 or 50% of the anticipates in C V and 2/4 or 50% of the anticipates in V C, i.e. that the monitor strength for antici­ pates in C C is greater. We submit that the explanation for the high monitor strength of errors of anticipation emerges from a consideration of the very nature of anticipa­ tions. Anticipations are special cases of substitutions and additions, substitu­ tions and additions which are context-sensitive, substitutions and additions which are identical to the relevant aspects of their environment, total assimi­ lations. But language requires manifold differentiation and contrast for com­ munication, not uniform similarity. Anticipations are easily detected because their similarity foregrounds them against a background of difference. 6.2. Perseverations: Definitions. Perseverations, like anticipations, are either substitutions or additions. As substitutions, perseverations are defined as Y----- > X /AXB C. As additions, they are defined as Ø-----> X /AXB_C. Abbreviating the two, we obtain: ( Y ) -------> (Ø )

x /AXB_C.

Exemplifying perseveration as substitution are attempt: for target: (A 28) and attempt: <morming> for target: <morning> (A 6) and exemplifying perseveration as addition are attempt: for target: < t h e n > (A 14) and attempt: for target: (A 84). The entire corpus of perseverations is reproduced in Appendix II. In the perseveration AXBXC, we refer to the second X as the "perseverate", the first X as the "perseverated", B C as the "environment of the perseverate", A B as the "environment of the perseverated", and BX as the "distance of the perseveration". 6.2.1 Perseverations: Lexical and literal. Perseverations we divide into lexical and literal, the former referring to the perseveration of a word or group of words, the latter to the perseveration of a letter or group of letters. Exemplifying lexical perseverations are attempt : < I like Birmingham, but I like Birmingham better> for target: < I like Bir­ mingham, but I like Puddlefield better>, which consists in the perseverative

208

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

substitution of for and attempt: for target: (A 19), which consists in the perseverative addition of and was unedited by the informant. Exemplifying literal persevera­ tions are attempt: <morming> for target: <morning> (A 6), consisting in the perseverative substitution of < m > for < n > , and attempt: for target: (A 22), consisting in the perseverative addition of . Dividing the perseverations into unedited and edited for the same reasons that this was done in the case of the anticipations (cf. section 6.1.5), 41/58 or 70.68% of the perseverations are unedited. Of these, 2/41 or 4.88% are lexical perseverations, the remainder, 39/41 or 95.12% are literal perse­ verations. 6.2.2 Perseverates. As noted in the definitional section 6.2 above, perseverations consist of either substitutions or additions. There were 2 lexical perseverations, each adding a single word. Of the 39 items in our unedited literal perseveration corpus, 8/39 or 20.51% consist of substitutions, while 31/39 or 79.49% consist of additions. This contrasts markedly with the unedited literal anticipations, where 69.23% consist of substitutions and 30.77% of additions. Noteworthy about both the lexical perseverative additions and the literal perseverative substitutions and additions is that they all involve either the substitution of a single unit for a single unit or the addition of a single unit and that no more than one perseveration occurs within a word or perseverative phrase. We are thus justified in extending the unitary theory of anticipations stated in section 1.2 to include perseverations, referring to this extension as the "uni­ tary theory of repetitions", where by "repetition" we understand either an anticipation or a perseveration. Since the corpus does contain an isolated instance of a word exhibiting both an anticipation and a perseveration, namely attempt: for target: (A 13), which are, what is more, linked ([ [A [P ]A ]P ]), the unitary theory of repetitions should not be further constrained to exclude the possibility of anticipatory and perseveratory constituents cooccurring within the word in various ways, although the probability of this happening is very low indeed (1/88 or 1.14% if our corpus is representative). 25/31 or 80.65% of the unedited additive literal perseverations are con­ sonants, 6/31 or 19.35% vowels, and 7/8 or 87.50% of the unedited substitu­ tive literal perseverations are consonants, 1/8 or 12.50% mixed. Stated diffe-

ANTICIPATIONS AND PERSEVERATIONS

209

rently, of the perseverates 32/39 or 82.05% are consonants, 6/39 or 15.38% vowels, and 1/39 or 2.56% mixed. Juxtaposing anticipates and perseverates in terms of their constituency, we obtain: Table 6.2.2 C V M

Anticipates 75.00% 8.33% 16.67%

Perseverates 82.05% 15.38% 2.56%

where substantial differences are observable in the category vowel and the category mixed substitutions. 6.2.3 Perseverations:

Environments.

Paralleling the distinction drawn between interlexical and intralexical anticipations, we distinguish between interlexical perseverations, in which the perseverated and the perseverate are in adjacent words, and intralexical perseverations, in which the perseverated and the perseverate are in the same word. We have seen that 33.33% of the unedited literal anticipations are interlexical, 66.67% intralexical. By contrast, all of the (literal) persev­ erations, excluding those edited, are intralexical. The immediate environments and frequencies of the immediate environ­ ments of the perseverated and the perseverates in the attested intralexical perseverations are as follows: Table 6.2.3 Unedited Perseverations: Intralexical Environments C_C V_C C_V V_V #_V #_C V_# C_#

Perseverated 5 12 9 10 1 0 2 0

Perseverates 12 4 14 0

2 6

We observe the same serial-order effect here as in the case of the anticipa-

210

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

tions: the theory of intralexical perseverations should strongly favor perseverated in word-internal, as opposed to word-initial and word-final positions, and favor perseverates in word-internal (especially C ), as opposed to wordfinal position. In addition, it should exclude perseverated in # C and C # and perseverates in V V, which holds true of the entire literal perseveration corpus, both unedited and edited, e.g., *attempt: <sstart> for target: <start> ( # _ C ) , *attempt: <wantt> for target: <want> ( C _ # ) , and *attempt: for target: (V V). 6.2.4 Perseverations: Distances. In the perseveration AXBXC the distance from the perseverated to the perseverate was defined as BX. Based on this distance metric, we obtain a mean distance of 2.5 words for the lexical perseverations and of 1.45 letters for the intralexical literal perseverations,. 18 letters less than for the intralex­ ical anticipations. Although the data is too scanty to warrant any definitive conclusions, the possible necessity of restricting the theory of literal perseverations to those which are intralexical should be borne in mind. 6.2.5 Edited perseverations. As in the case of anticipations, the perseverations in our corpus occur either unedited or edited, i.e. as conduits d'approche (cf. Chapter VII). The edited perseverations are examined separately here in order to determine (1.) if, as in the case of anticipations, their monitor strength is greater than that of the substitutions, omissions, additions, and displacements, (2.) if so, why, and (3.) if there are any properties which distinguish the edited perse­ verations from the unedited ones which might be used as a basis for explaining why the edited perseverations are in fact edited. We recapitulate the monitor strengths for errors of substitution, omis­ sion, addition, and displacement, again noting that they do not significantly differ: Table 6.2.5-1 Monitor Strengths S O A D

194/1,010 122/698 76/382 17/102

= = = =

19.21% 17.48% 19.90% 16.67%

ANTICIPATIONS AND PERSEVERATIONS

211

Of the 17 conduits d'approche in which perseverations underwent attempts at correction, all were error-correcting, none error-creating, with the rather interesting result that errors of perseveration have a monitor strength roughly intermediate between that of errors of substitution, omis­ sion, addition, and displacement, on the one hand, and errors of anticipation, on the other, namely, 17/58 or 29.31%. Were one to include the one error of anticipation which was created in the conduits d'approche, but itself remained unedited, in the category of edited conduits d'approche, i.e. ignore the distinction between error-correcting and error-creating conduits d'ap­ proche, then the errors of anticipation and errors of perseveration would have somewhat more similar monitor strengths, anticipation 46.42%, perse­ veration 29.31%. We thus conclude that both errors of anticipation and errors of perseveration share the distinction of having the highest correction rates among the types of errors in the entire error corpus. It will be noted that this follows as a consequence of the theory advanced to explain the high correction rate of errors of anticipation, for both errors of anticipation and errors of perseveration, the first backward, the second forward, are fore­ grounded by the relation of similarity in the same way. Addressing the issue of the distinctive features of the class of corrected errors of perseveration, we examine the edited perseverations in the light of their perseverates, the environments of the perseverates and perseverated, and their distances. Of the 17 edited perseverations, 1 is unambiguously a lexical persever­ ation ( for (A 68)), 1 unambiguously an interlexical perseveration (a over d) for (A 8), 1 ambigu­ ously interpretable as either an interlexical literal perseveration or a lexical perseveration ( for (A 66(2)). We treat this as a lexical, rather than interlexical perseveration and generalize the extrem­ ity constraint on interlexical anticipations (cf. section 6.1.3) to include perse­ verations, calling this general theory "the extremity constraint on interlexical repetitions", where by "repetition" we understand either an anticipation or a perseveration. The remaining 14 edited perseverations are intralexical. 50% of these are substitutions, 50% additions. Of the substitutions, 3/7 or 42.86% are consonants, 2/7 or 28.57% mixed, and 2/7 or 28.57% vowels. Of the 7 additions, 5/7 or 71.43% are consonants, 28.57% vowels. Juxtapos­ ing the unedited and edited perseverates in terms of their constituency we obtain:

212

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Table 6.2.5-2 Perseverates

S

C(10) V(2) M (3) C(30) V(8)

Unedited 87.50% 0 12.50% 80.65% 19.35%

Edited 42.86% 28.57% 28.57% 71.43% 28.57%

As in the case of the anticipates, it appears difficult to attach any importance to this difference, since the rank order of the monitor strengths corresponds to the rank of the frequencies of the perseverate types. The immediate environments and frequencies of the immediate environ­ ments of the perseverated and the perseverates in the corrected persevera­ tions are as follows: Table 6.2.5-3 Edited Perseverations: Intralexical Environments C_C V_C C_V V_V #_V #_C V_# C_#

Perseverated 4 1 4 1 3 0 1 0

Perseverates 2 8 1 0

1 2

Here we note that of the 15 perseverates in C C position in the entire perseveration corpus, 2/15 or 13.33% were corrected, and of the 15 persev­ ­rates in C V position in the entire perseveration corpus, 1/15 or 6.67% was corrected. In striking contrast to this, 8/12 of the perseverates occurring in V C position in the entire perseveration corpus, or 75%, were corrected. V C, we conclude, is the site which maximally enhances perseveration monitor-strength. Finally, the mean distance for the edited lexical perseverations was 2.5 words, for the edited interlexical perseveration 2 letters, and for the edited intralexical perseverations 1.5 letters. Contrast this with a mean distance of

ANTICIPATIONS AND PERSEVERATIONS

213

1 word for the lexical perseverations which were unedited and 1.45 letters for the unedited intralexical literal perseverations. Relevant data is very scarce, but it seems that the greater the distance between the perseverated and the perseverate, the greater the chances of the perseverate being cor­ rected. 6.3. Alliteration, assonance, anticipations, perseverations. Buckingham (personal communication), in response to the above discus­ sion, notes that there are both similarities and differences between spelling and speech ordering errors. First, normal slip-of-the-tongue data and the phonemic paraphasias of fluent aphasics, in his experience, do not exhibit vowel-consonant switching errors. If this is true, we might generalize by saying that both in the case of normal slips-of-the-tongue and fluent aphasic paraphasias, on the one hand, and in the case of lexical exchanges in normals and fluent aphasies, on the other, the major class feature specifications are preserved, the + and — specifications of the major class features [Consonan­ tal] and [Vocalic], in the case of phonology, and the + and — specifications of the major class features [N(oun)] and [Adj(ective)], in the case of syntax. Now, by introducing major-class feature variables A, B,..., Z into the theory of grammar, where A ranges over the syntactic major class feature [N] and over the phonological major class feature [Consonantal], and B ranges over the syntactic major class feature [Adj] and the phonological major class feature [Vocalic], we place as a constraint on the theory of exchange errors that [A] and [B] be contained in no matrix under exchange such that the exchange results in an output matrix distinct from the input matrix in respect of [αA] or [ßB]. Buckingham further surmises that the editor output contains no sequence which is distinct from the morphotactic sequences of the norm, where by "morphotactic" we assume he intends to include phonotactic, morphotactic (= the tactics of morphemes), and, possibly, syn­ tactic concatenation constraints, but definitely at least graphotactic, since the example of ours he cites as ruled out by the theory of constraints on variables in grammar is attempt: for target: . Given the error corpus of orthographic conduits d'approche, reproduced as the appendix to Chapter VII: Orthographic conduits d'approche, this theory would appear to be correct: while there are error-creating conduits d'approche, the errors created as a function of the particular monitor qua editor under investigation observe the graphotactic constraints of German orthography embedded into

214

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

an English orthographic matrix, i.e. orthographic constraints of what we would call a variety of English, due to the fact that the informant regarded himself, and regarded himself consistently, as writing English (as opposed to German). Aravind Joshi (to appear) — we think correctly — found justifi­ cation in considering English to be embedded into Marathi in view of the fact that Marathi speakers when code-switching to English invariably consid­ ered themselves as speaking Marathi, as opposed to switching from Marathi to English, as opposed to speaking for the most part Marathi and to a lesser extent English, although, we hasten to add, we are very unwilling to generalize Joshi's Marathi-matrix English-embedding example to the case of all instances of so-called "code-switching" (cf. Luelsdorff 1975) for any one of a number of reasons, the main one being that at least some of the speakers we have tested this matrix-embedding hypothesis on deliver intui­ tions diametrically opposed to those expressed and semi-formalized by Joshi. We view this issue as far from trivial, since one's entire conceptualization of the interrelationships between the codes in bilingual/bidialectal contact situ­ ations, one's position on "interlanguages", "approximative systems", "inter­ ference", "borrowings", "loan words", "loan translations", etc., depends upon considerations of this very sort. It might just turn out to be the case that the study of such contact constellations is a study in differential linguistics par excellence. In an inquiry into alliteration and assonance in neologistic jargon aphasia, Buckingham, Avakian-Whitaker, and Whitaker (1978) present a discussion of certain aspects of the speech patterns of neologistic jargon aphasic patients, whose syndrome is one form of a more general classification referred to as Wernicke's or cortical sensory aphasia with, classically, the posterior superior temporal convolution of the dominant hemisphere as the lesion site. The authors define neologism as "a phonological form produced by the patient for which one cannot recover with any reasonable degree of certainty some single item in the patient's vocabulary as it presumably existed before the onset of the disease." The analysis focuses on those stretches of speech which exhibit perseveration to the point where there is an excessive amount of alliteration and assonance. The units perseverated are found to be segments, syllables, and sequences of syllables which are then related to a mechanism underlying this sort of speech and to the more general problems of neologisms in jargon aphasia. The authors' hypothesis (p. 378) is "that many neologisms may also be produced during the period of time in ongoing speech when the precise word called for by the context has not yet been

ANTICIPATIONS AND PERSEVERATIONS

215

retrieved; the actual forms produced by the patient can be accounted for by the various combinations perseverated or post-activited units of speech pro­ duction restricted by the phonological structure of the language. Further, it may be that when a word is available at point B for one of these patients, there will be an even greater likelihood that post-inhibition rebound will cause the reappearance of a previously uttered phonological unit from point A. In a sense, these neologistic utterances "fill-in" the temporal gaps where the actual words are missing." Thus, on this theory, perseveration is caused by post-inhibition rebound due to lexical unavailability in retrieval during speech execution, rather than accounted for by the "conduction theory" according to which neologisms are phonemic distortions of the target words. In a subsequent investigation of linguistic perseveration, Buckingham, Whitaker and Whitaker (1979) distinguish between iterative and discontinu­ ous perseveration, two of possibly more generalized types, whereby different regions of the brain have been implicated, the localization issue complicated by the fact that even normals perseverate under certain circumstances. Crossmodal perseverations, spoken paradigmatic perseverations, written paradig­ matic perseveration, the perseveration of initial clusters (where the tendency to perseverate certain clusters, say /kr/, is stronger than the tendency to perseverate others, itself a fact suggestive of an additional dimension of salience), the general paradigm of perseveration representable by: Stimulus A B C

Response > > >

X1 Y X2

where

and X1 is sometimes segmental, usually lexical, with heavy stress on X1 increasing the likelihood of its being perseverated. The fact that perseverates may be cut off supports the view that they are unconscious and involuntary in origin, but may nevertheless be monitored, a theory which finds strong

216

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

confirmation in our spelling-error data, not only in the case of perseverations, but in the case of anticipations as well, both cases constituting additional support for the theory known as the "catastrophic response" theory of per­ severation, whose domain of substituends we suggest be expanded to include the entire class of editables. Liepmann's Type-II-Perseveration, "clonic" perseveration, involving the indefinite repetition of behaviors once initiated, the neurolinguistic analogue of motor palilalia, repeated perseveration of shorter units of speech ultimately traceable to the lingual musculature, finds, we think, its orthog­ raphic analogue in just those orthographic conduits d'approche whose mem­ bers constitute complete replications of one another, i.e. undergo orthog­ raphic rerepresentation without concomitant transformation. The further distinction between Lurija's Type-II-Perseveration, "a disorder of the motor function with impairment of a 'program of action'", possibly comparable to Liepmann's Intentional Perseveration, which emerges from the hypothesis that new stimuli somehow excite old traces, which then lead to the repeated behaviors is perhaps related to the errors of mode discussed by Norman (1981) (cf. the Conclusion for some discussion) and the incorrect mode assign­ ments and fundamental indecision in respect of mode assignment discussed in Luelsdorff (1981) and the references cited therein. In sum, the authors found that posterior lesions in the dominant hemis­ phere can give rise to linguistic1 perseveration, the language elements involved tending to be segments, syllables, and full words. We conclude with the general comment that altogether insufficient atten­ tion has been paid to alliteration and assonance qua perseveration in its functional aspect within a general theory of repetition and rhyme (cf. Luelsdorff 1968). Napier, for example, in her insightful introduction to her translation of Kandinsky's Klänge (1981:3), quotes Arp as noting that Kandinsky exhibited a recurrent concern with transformation, his poems suggest­ ing a continual interchange of appearing and dissolution, a world in explicit transformation: "Par la poésie de Kandinsky, nous assistons au cycle éternel, au devenir et à la disparition, à la transformation de ce monde," Napier noting that the poems reveal Kandinsky's formal means for the expression of this change: his experimentation with the construction of words and his attention to modes of repetition and variation in dialogues and chants.

A 66 A 72(2) A 83 A 70

Edited A 11

11. 12. 13. 14.

6.4.1.2 1.

A 11(2)

A 34(2) A43 A 55

8. 9. 10.

2.

Page A6 A7 A 11 A 13 A 13(2) A 24 A 32(2)

Item 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

6.4. Appendices 6.4.1 Appendix I: 6.4.1.1 Unedited Attempt ans sugar icec-cream sudeenley carach Whath this Prarkrod him is looking for him prrhaps Wew winen

sofa

answers

answers (= w over e) sofa (= o over a)

Tuesday Thudday Allright algraig Birmingham Birningham naughty nauh(t over

Target and sugar ice-cream Suddenly crash What's this Park Road is looking for him Perhaps new women

Anticipations

Sa/o

Se/w

Sd/s Sg/l Sn/m h) St/h

n/m

S r/e S w/n Sn/m

Anticipate S s/d A Se/d Aa Sth/t's Ar Aw

C_C

C V

V_C C_# C_V V_C

C_C #_V V_V

To C # V C_V C_C V_# C_V

C_#

C C

C_V V_# V_C C_V

V_C V_# V #

From # V - C C_C C_C #_V V_C

1

1

1 5 2 1

1 2 2

Distance 2 2 1 2 2 2 3W

ANTICIPATIONS AND PERSEVERATIONS 217

Target cream shout

at the the

people

uncle's

caught

want name straight ahead dress Karlstraße

Page A 13 A 19

A 32 A 36(2)

A 43

A71

All

A 74 A 75(2) A 83(2) A 94(2) A 94(2)

5. 6.

7.

8.

9.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Item 3. 4. cream shaut (= s over t) at the the (= h over e) p ople (= e over l) Un l's (c over l) caught (g over t) w went name stad ahed deress Kar traße (= /overs)

Attempt

e

Ss/l

Ae

St/s

Sm/n

At

St/g

Sl/c

Se/h Sl/e

A

e

Anticipate A

v_# c_# c_# c_v c_v c_# c_# v_v c_c c_c c_c

c_v c_c v_c v_c #_v #_c c_c c_c

From C_V

#_c c_c c_v

To C_C

2 2 1 2 1

2

1

3

2 1

2 4

Distance

218 CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Page A2 A2 A5 A5 A6 A9

A9 A 9(2) All All A 11(2) A 11(2) A13 A 13(2) A 13(2) A14 A19 A 22 A 28 A 51(2) A 54a

Item 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

Helga Thank you runs help camera camera ice-cream writing camera then There's lemonade building bottles morning

Target evening dining Helga hamster morning postman

6.4.2 Appendix II: Perseverations 6. 4.2.1 Unedited Attempt evenning dinning Hellga hammster morming postmam (p over P) Hellga Sankyoy runns hellp Kammara Kammara ieice-creaem wrriting cammara theen Thersis limonned buildind botelt mornninsg An Sd/g St/s An

A, S y/u An Al Am Am Ae Aw Am Ae

Perseverate A An A1 Am Sm/n S m/n C_C V_# C_C C_C C_V C_V V C C__V C__V V_C C_V C_# C_# C V

Aw V__V C__V C_C C V

To C V C__V C_C C C C V V_#

V_C #_V V_C V_C V_V V__V C V C__V V__V C_C

From V V V_V V_C V C C V C_V 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1W 1 3 3 1

Distance 1 1 1 1 3 2

ANTICIPATIONS AND PERSEVERATIONS 219

already already

and aunt some camera

A 75 A 92a

38. 39.

6.4.2.2 Edited 1. A8 2. A9 3. A 13

Target when best glass of water referee jumped Henry arrive weekend little arrived begin later between children's mountains Perhaps

Page A 55 A 57 A 61 A 67 A 70 A70 A 74 A 75 A 76(2) A 78 A 78 A 84 A 92 A 94a A 95(2) A 32

Item 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. ol ol S1/r Al

Perseverate An Ae Aw Af Am Sn/r Af Ae Al Af An At At Sl/d At Ae

m

and dunt (a over d) Sd/a somes As cammara A

Attempt wenn bees glass of of water refferee jummped Henney arafft weke ende litll araifft beginn latter bettwen bettwen cillers Moutntens Berhapes (P over p) allady allredy

C—# #_V V V

#—V V_# C—V

C__C C_C

C_V C_C C_V C_C C_# C_# C_C C_# C_V C_C C_V C_V C_C

V_V V_C V_C V_V C_C C_V V_C V_# V_V V_C V_C C_V C_C V_C V_C

To C_# V_C

From V_# C_C

2 4 1

1 1

Distance 1 1 1W 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 5

220 CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Page A 13 A 13 A 13(2) A 36 A 53 A 53 A 65 A 66 A 66(2) A 68

A 75 A 89 A 95 A 95

Item 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

14. 15. 16. 17.

Target Attempt kitchen kittchen cream eetetm cream starts starst (s over t) biggest biggeest (s over e) shoes shoes (e over o) what what (h over a) teachers teacher (a over e) start start (a over t) Peter Pirn Peter Pe Pirn Puddlefield Birmingh Puddlefield works weer works suddenly suddenly (d over s) happy hahy happy when wenn n

Ao Ss/d Sh/p An

Sw

Perseverate At Ar St/s Se/s So/e Aa Se/a St/a

C_C #_V #_V V_#

From V_C C V C_C C_C C_V C_C C_V C_V Sw

V_C V_C V_C C_#

To C_C V C C_# V_C V_C V_C V_C C_C

1 2 2 1

Distance 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1W 4W ANTICIPATIONS AND PERSEVERATIONS 221

Chapter VII Orthographic Conduits d'Approche: Some Quantitative Aspects

7.0. Introduction. An orthographic conduit d'approche is a sequence of orthographic rep­ resentations, R1, R 2 , R 3 ,...R n , in which each successive orthographic rep­ resentation Rj>1 is derived from the preceding orthographic representation Rj-1 by means of single or multiple application of one or more of the orthog­ raphic transformations of addition, omission, substitution, transposition, dis­ placement (both forward and backward), and repetition (both anticipation and perseveration). The fundamental psychological mechanisms underlying conduits d'approche are the perception of the commission of an error and the attempt to correct it, i.e., error commission, error perception, and error correction. Our interest in orthographic conduits d'approche stems from two sources. First, we distinguish between covert and overt editing, what might be termed "pre-output" and "post-output" monitoring. It appears simplest to assume that those properties characteristic of post-output monitoring are also characteristic of pre-output monitoring, that the former reflects the latter. If correct, this assumption implies that it is not necessary to assign any structure to pre-output editing that is not derivable from overt, post-out­ put editing. Second, the study of conduits d'approche promises to provide insights into what might be termed "error salience", the ease with which error tokens are seen. Should it turn out to be the case that some errors are more difficult to detect than others, call it the "differential error-salience hypothesis", inferences could be drawn concerning the inherent complexity of the structures involved relative to certain classes of speakers and this complexity measure used as a basis for grading the material.

224

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

7.1. Orthographic conduits d'approche: structure. The data for this study, a corpus of sentences of 6,162 words with 2,138 errors dictated to a 12-year-old incipient English/German bilingual over a 14-month period (cf. Luelsdorff 1981 for methodological details) exhibited a total of 279 conduits d'approche with 441 monitored errors. Thus, 21.38% of the total number of errors made were monitored, and the average number of errors per conduit d'approche was 1.58. The orthographic transformations effected in the conduits d'approche were partitioned into the following classes: substitutions, omissions, addi­ tions, erroneous error perceptions, displacements, and homonyms, defined and exemplified in the following. 7.1.1 Substitutions. Substitution is defined as AXB > AYB, where X and Y range over a single letter or sequence of letters corresponding to a consonant, monophthong, diphthong or word. Examples include target: , attempt: , analysis: Ss/thøø, then (consonant); target: < h e > , attempt: < h i > , analysis: Si/e (monophthong); target: < I > , attempt: < e i > (/over ei), analysis:O capSei/I, I (diphthong). Distinguishing between substitu­ tions, on the one hand, and either errors of omission or addition, on the other, bristles with problems. Is attempt: < t h e r > for target: , for example, to be considered the substitution of < e > for < e i > , or the omission of an < i > ? Or, to take another example, is attempt: for target: to be interpreted as the substitution of < t t > for < t > or the addition of a < t > ? In general, we assigned misrepresentations of this type to the category of substitutions, i.e., as unitary attempts to represent the sounds in question. Exceptions to this rule were dictated by intuitive consid­ erations concerning the assumed cause of the error in question. In attempt: for target: , for example, we opted in favor of the analysis P:S e/a , rather than the prima facie equally plausible See/ea (cf. Chapter III), giving priority to perseveration over intralinguistic negative transfer. Or, in attempt: for target: , we decided in favor of S o/oa, rather than O a , giving priority to letter-naming as a spelling strategy (cf. Chapter II) over irregularization. We consider the specification and justifica­ tion of the hierarchies of precedence underlying such assignments to be of fundamental importance, but a discussion of the myriad details must await an independent study.

ORTHOGRAPHIC CONDUITS D'APPROCHE

225

The class of the monitored substitutions in the conduits d'approche was then partitioned into four subclasses: (1.) substitutions consisting of the sub­ stitutions of one consonant for another (S c ); (2.) substitutions consisting of the substitution of one vowel for another (S v ); (3.) mixed substitutions con­ sisting of the substitution of a consonant for a vowel or a vowel for a consonant (S M ); (4.) substitution of one word for another (S w ). Examples: Target

Attempt

S c : fresh

fraisch

Sv: rain

ren rain

Analysis frSai/e

Ssch/sh,frSai/e

sh

rS e/ai n,rain '

SM: and aunt

and dunt and P:Sd/a unt, and aunt (=a over d) S w : she likes steak I she like steak S , she The monitored errors of substitution constitute the largest subcategory of error in the conduits d'approche: 194 out of 441, or 43.99%. Within the above-mentioned four subcategories of monitored substitution errors, the following distributions obtain: Table 7.1-1 Distribution of Substitution Subtypes % total errors (N = 2,138) Sc(N = Sv(N = SM (N = Sw(N =

95) 77) 13) 9)

% total substitutions (N = 1,010)

4.44% 3.60% 0.61% 0.42%

9.41% 7.62% 1.29% 0.89%

% of errors in CD (N = 441) 21.54% 17.46% 2.95% 2.04%

% substitutions inCD (N = 194) 48.97% 39.69% 6.70% 4.64%

7.1.2 Omissions. An omission is defined as AXB > AB, where X ranges over a capital letter (O cap ), a consonant (O c ), a vowel (O v ), a word (O w ), a space (O ø ), or an apostrophe or hyphen (O - ). Examples include:

Ocap : Oc:

Target

Attempt

Analysis

Every like

Every (= E over e) (lie)...like

O 0000, Every liO k e,...,like

226

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Ov: Ow: Oø:

you yuy you o'clock on o'clockof clock at the attehe the

O- :

filling-station

fillingst-stateion

yO o uA y ,you o'clockOø Sw, o'clock Ow atOøtA:A he, at the fillingO- støøøøø, filling-statAe ion

These subcategories of omission are self-explanatory, with the exception of the omission of capitalization, which requires justification. The failure to capitalize might be interpreted as either (1.) the substitution of a lower-case letter for an upper-case letter or (2.) the omission of a capital letter. We reject the substitution theory of the failure of capitalization for two reasons: the resulting notation fails to differentiate the substitution of a lower-case letter for its upper-case counterpart, S e/E in the above example, from (1.) the substitution of a lower-case letter for a different upper-case letter, e.g. S , and (2.) the substitution of an incorrect upper-case letter for the correct upper-case letter, e.g. S I/E . On the omission analysis, however, attempt: <every> for target: <Every> is analyzed as Ocap very, attempt: for target: <Every> as O cap Si/Every, and attempt: for target: <Every> as SI/E very, thereby notationally distinguishing rather than mask­ ing, the three distinct error-types in question. The monitored errors of omission constitute the second largest error subcategory in the conduits d'approche: 122 out of 441, or 27.66%. Within the above-mentioned six subcategories of omission errors, the following dis­ tributions obtain: Table 7.1-2 Distribution of Omission Subtypes % total errors (N = 2,138) Ocap (N = 45) Oc (N = 37) O v (N = 18) O w ( N = 13) Oø (N = 7) O- (N = 2) 7.1.3 Additions.

% total omissions (N = 698)

% of errors in CD (N = 441)

% omissions in CD (N = 122)

2.10%

6.45%

10.21%

36.89%

1.73% 0.84% 0.61% 0.33% 0.09%

5.30% 2.58% 1.86% 1.00% 0.28%

8.39% 4.08% 2.95% 1.59% 0.45%

30.33% 14.75% 10.66% 5.74% 1.64%

An addition is defined as AB > AXB, where X ranges over a capital letter (A cap ), a vowel letter (A v ), a consonant letter (A c ), a word (A w ), a

ORTHOGRAPHIC CONDUITS D'APPROCHE

227

hyphen or apostrophe (A_), or a space (A ø ). Examples include:

Acap: Av: Ac: Aw: Aø :

Target

Attempt

Analysis

plane works some it started away

P plane weer works somes it's...started a W way

A 0000, plane woP:A r00, works someP:A s ,some it Aw it started aAøA capøø,aAøway

These six subcategories of addition appear self-explanatory, with the exception of A cap , which requires justification. Mistaken capitalization might be interpreted as either the substitution of an upper-case letter for a lower­ case letter or the addition of an upper-case letter. Considering mistaken capitalization as the substitution of an upper-case letter for a lower-case letter, however, must be dismissed for two reasons: the ensuing notation fails to differentiate the substitution of an upper-case letter for its lower-case counterpart, SP/p in the above example, from (1.) the substitution of an upper­ case letter for a different lower-case letter, e.g. SB/p , and (2.) the substitution of an incorrect lower-case letter for the correct lower-case letter, e.g. Sb/p. On the addition analysis, however, attempt: for target: is analyzed as Acap lane, attempt: for target: asA capSB/plane, and attempt: for target: asSb/plane, thereby notationally distinguishing the three distinct error-types in question. The monitored errors of addition constitute the third largest error sub­ category in the conduits d'approche: 76 out of 441, or 17.23%. Within the above-mentioned six subcategories of monitored addition errors, the follow­ ing distributions obtain: Table 7.1-3 Distribution of Addition Subtypes % total errors (N = 2,138) Acap Av Ac Aw AAø

(N = 43) (N = 13) (N=12) (N = 4) (N = 2) (N = 2)

2.01% 0.60% 0.56% 0.19% 0.09% 0.09%

% total additions (N = 382) 11.26% 3.40% 3.14% 1.05% 0.52% 0.52%

% of errors in CD (N = 441) 9.75% 2.95% 2.72% 0.91% 0.45% 0.45%

% additions in CD (N = 76) 56.58% 17.11% 15.79% 5.26% 2.63% 2.63%

228

7.1.4

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Displacements.

Displacements are of two types, forward and backward, forward dis­ > ABXC, backward displacement as ABXC placement defined as AXBC > AXBC (cf. Chapter I for detailed discussion). Of the 17 corrected displacements which occurred in the conduits d'approche, all were of the backward type. For example:
Tokens

Distances

Tokens

C V W S

9 4 3 1

C V W WW S

7 6 2 1 1

The 17 displacements corrected in the conduits d'approche constitute .80% of the entire error corpus and 20% of the corpus of displacements. The percentages of the load and distance types in the conduits d'approche and in the entire displacement corpus are as follows: Table 7.1-4 Distribution of Displacement Subtypes Load Type

% in conduits d'approche

% in total displacements

V C W CV W VC S

23.53% 52.94% 17.65% 0% 0% 0% 5.88%

51.76% 32.94% 7.06% 2.35% 2.35% 2.35% 1.18%

Distance Type

% in conduits d'approche

% in total displacements

C V

41.18% 35.29%

65.88% 22.35%

ORTHOGRAPHIC CONDUITS D'APPROCHE

Distance Type W CV S WW

% in conduits d'approche 11.76% 0% 5.88% 5.88% 0%

229

% in total displacements 4.71% 2.35% 2.35% 1.18% 1.18%

7.1.5 Erroneous error perceptions. An erroneous error perception is a perception of a correct orthographic representation as incorrect, leading to a conduit d'approche in which the correct orthographic representation is either (1.) omitted, due perhaps to ignorance of the correct spelling or, if the correct spelling is known, to forget­ ting to record it, or (2.) rewritten, reflecting the perceptual sequence (a.) perception of a correct orthographic representation as incorrect, then (b.) perception of the same orthographic representation as correct, or (3.) incor­ rectly monitored in the direction in which the informant thinks is correct by means of the orthographic transformations of substitution, omission, addi­ tion, or displacement. Exemplifying (1.) are attempt: for target: <are walking> (A 44) and attempt: <wer a l> for target: <were a lot> (A 76(2)), (1.) constituting 3/30 or 10% of the erroneous error perceptions. Exemplifying (2.) are attempt: < a n b bridge> for target: < a bridge> (A 76) and attempt: <w with> for target: <with> (A 84), (2.) constituting 18/30 or 60% of the erroneous error perceptions. Exemplifying (3.) are attempt: <silver-eup silves-cup> (A 92), substitu­ tions constituting 5/30 or 16.67% of the erroneous error perceptions, attempt: <Mummyask> (= M over m) for target: <mummy asks> (A 8), additions constituting 2/30 or 6.67% of the erroneous error perceptions, and attempt: <Englsh Enliseh english famiely> for target: <English family> (A 94), omissions constituting 1/30 or 3.33% of the erroneous error perceptions. The erroneous error perceptions led to no displacements. It thus emerges that the theory of erroneous error perceptions must strongly favor type-(2.) rewritings and exclude displacements. 7.1.6

Homophones.

Only two of the 441 errors in the conduits d'approche involved homophones, the first the correction of an incorrect homophone, namely,

230

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

attempt: <we one> for target: < o n e > (A 41), the second an erroneous error perception consisting of the substitution of adverbial too for preposi­ tional to (A 83(2)). Note that it is necessary here, as elsewhere, to distinguish between forms in the language, on the one hand, and forms in the repertoire of the informant, on the other. Thus, while which/witch and weather/whether are homophones in the language, and which was misspelled witch and weather was misspelled wether on several occasions by the informant (A 30, A 63, and A 68, A 89, A 90, respectively), it would be incorrect to conclude that these were exam­ ples of homophone or near-homophone substitutions because neither witch nor whether had been introduced in the informant's English instruction either prior to or during the time the dictations were administered (cf. Friedrichs 1970, 1971). Incorrect homophones were analyzed in terms of their deviations in spelling from their correct counterparts: attempt: < t o o > for target: < t o > , for example, was analyzed as consisting in the addition of an < o > , because the manifestation of a homophone error in context is its misspelling. Since this analysis by itself, however, disguises the fact that a homophone error is involved, a separate category of homophone errors should be introduced and the relevant statistics modified accordingly. There were a total of 30 homophone errors in the entire corpus, 2/30 or 6.67% occurring in the con­ duits d'approche. Homophone errors have been approached in various ways in the erroranalytic literature. Hotopf (1980, pp. 292-293), for example, introduces the category of "sound pattern slips" in his classification of slips of the pen consisting of homophones {scene for seen), quasi-homophones (wonder for wander) and near-homophones (could for good). It is difficult to imagine a homophone error as constituting a sound-pattern slip, since homophones are by definition identical in sound. Moreover, Hotopf s classification does not incorporate the analysis into constituent spelling-errors which we tried to justify above. Finally, the putative distinctions between quasi- and nearhomophones, on the one hand, and quasi-/near homophones and nonhomophones, on the other, are impossible to maintain on the basis of Hotopf s definition of near-homophone: "Near homophones also occur in speech. Examples are: DAUGHTER for DOCTOR, RESEARCH for SEARCH, MELON for LEMON, SAUS­ AGES for SANDWICHES, TOP for STOP. The criterion for identifying these slips was that error and target word should have as many phonemes

ORTHOGRAPHIC CONDUITS D'APPROCHE

231

in common as there were syllables in the longer word, though generally the two words were of the same number of syllables. The position and order in which the common phonemes occurred had also to be the same, both between and within syllables."

According to this definition, wonder for wander would be near-homophones, since they have (at least) as many phonemes in common as there are syllables in the longer word (2), but Hotopf classifies wonder and wander as quasi-, not near-, homophones, and chrysanthemum with 4 syllables, would be nearhomophonous with Chris (from Christopher), with 4 phonemes in common with chrysanthemum whose position and order are the same. 7.2. Differential ranks The differential rank hypothesis predicts that while the rank order of the error types in the entire error corpus will be the same as the rank order of the error types monitored in the conduits d'approche, the rank order of the error subtypes within each major error type will differ from the rank order of the error subtypes within each major error category monitored in the conduits d'approche. Intuitively, the larger the number of errors of a certain type, the greater the chances that errors of that type will be corrected, but the percentage of error subtypes monitored is disproportionate to the percen­ tage of error subtypes made. In order to quantify the degree of similarity between the rank orders of the major error types and subtypes in the entire error corpus, on the one hand, and the major error types and subtypes monitored in the conduits d'approche, on the other, we computed the Spearman rank correlation coef­ ficient rho for each of the relevant sets of ranks as shown in Tables 7.2-(1-5). Table 7.2-1 Major Error Types (rho = 1 . 0 ) Error Type S O A D

Frequency in corpus Rank 1,010/2,192 = 46.08% 1 698/2,192 = 31.84% 2 382/2,192=17.43% 3 102/2,192= 4.65% 4

Frequency in CD 194/409 = 47.43% 122/409 = 29.83% 76/409 = 18.58% 17/409= 4.16%

Rank 1 2 3 4

where S = substitution, O = omission, A = addition, D = displacement, CD = conduit d'approche, and the 30 erroneous error perceptions and 2 homophone errors made in the conduits d'approche are excluded.

232

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Excluding the 2 substitutions of either an apostrophe or a hyphen and the 1 h o m o p h o n e substitution from the substitution total for substitutionerror subtypes we obtain: Table 7.2-2 Substitutions (rho = .60) E r r o r Subtype Sv Sc Sw SM

Frequency in Corpus 509/1,007 = 425/1,007 = 41/1,007= 32/1,007=

50.55% 42.20% 4.07% 3.18%

Rank 1 2 3 4

Frequency in C D 77/194 = 95/194 = 9/194= 13/194=

39.69% 48.97% 4.64% 6.70%

Rank 2 1 4 3

w h e r e subscript V = vowel, subscript C = consonant, subscript W = word, and subscript M = mixed. Excluding the 3 omissions of syllables from the entire omission corpus, for omission errors we obtain: Table 7.2-3 Omissions (rho = .75) E r r o r Subtype

Oc Ov Ocap Ow OOø

Frequency in Corpus

241/695 = 210/695 = 97/695 = 50/695= 49/695= 48/695=

34.67% 30.22% 13.96% 7.19% 7.05% 6.91%

Rank

1 2 3 4 5 6

Frequency in C D

37/122 = 18/122 = 45/122 = 13/122 = 2/122= 7/122=

30.33% 14.75% 36.88% 10.66% 1.64% 5.74%

Rank

2 3 1 4 6 5

0

where subscript cap = capitalization, subscript - = hyphen or apostrophe, and subscript 0 = space. Excluding the 5 additions of syllables from the entire addition corpus, we obtain for the additions: Table 7.2-4 Additions (rho = .83) Error Subtype A cap Av Ac Aø

Frequency in Corpus Rank 137/377 = 103/377 = 97/377 = 16/377=

36.34% 27.32% 25.73% 4.24%

1 2 3 4

Frequency in CD

Rank

43/76 = 56.58 13/76 = 17.11% 12/76 = 15.79% 2/76= 2.63%

1 2 3 5.5

ORTHOGRAPHIC CONDUITS D'APPROCHE

Error Subtype Aw A-

Frequency in Corpus Rank 14/377= 3.71% 10/377= 2.65%

5 6

233

Frequency in CD

Rank

4/76= 5.26% 2/76= 2.63%

4 5.5

For the displacement loads and distances we obtain the highest rank order correlations: rho = .91 for the loads, rho = .95 for the distances: Table 7.2-5 Displacements Error Subtype Loads V C W CV W VC S Distances C V W S CV WW

Frequency in Corpus Rank

Frequency in CD

48/102 = 47.06% 37/102 = 36.27% 9/102= 8.82% 2/102= 1.96% 2/102= 1.96% 2/102= 1.96% 2/102= 1.96%

1 2 3 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5

4/17 = 9/17 = 3/17 = 0= 0= 0= 1/17=

23.53% 52.94% 17.65% 0 0 0 5.88%

63/102 = 61.76% 25/102 = 24.51% 6/102= 5.88% 3/102= 2.94% 2/102= 1.96% 2/102= 1.96% 1/102= .98%

1 2 3 4 5.5 5.5 7

7/17 = 41.18% 6/17=35.29% 2/17 = 11.76% 1/17= 5.88% 0 = 0% 1/17= 5.88% 0 = 0%

Rank 2 1 3 6 6 6 4 1 2 3 4.5 6.5 4.5 6.5

where S = syllable. To sum up: the rank orders of the major error types are identical to the rank orders of the monitored error types and the error subtypes and moni­ tored error subtypes exhibit the following decreasing order of similarity: displacements, additions, omissions, substitutions, i.e., the rank order of rho for the error subtypes is the exact inverse of the rank order of the major error types. The differential rank hypothesis is thus confirmed. 7.3. Monitor strength. Krashen (1982, pp. 104-112) addresses the question of the effectiveness

234

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

of monitoring in second language acquisition, i.e., the extent to which the second language-learner can improve output accuracy by applying his/her knowledge of grammar. Krashen holds three factors responsible for the variation in accuracy of self-correction: (1.) the monitor user; (2.) the level language monitored, and (3.) the monitoring conditions. Other things being equal, the greater the user's control of the grammar, the more accurate the monitor user. In regard to the level of language, Krashen suspects greater monitor efficiency for morphology than for either syntax or conversational competence, although noting the scarcity of the data on monitor control in grammar. None of the six studies of monitor efficiency he reviews deals with either pronunciation or spelling. Houck, Robertson, and Krashen (1978) distinguish five monitor­ ing conditions: (1.) free speech and writing, in which the performer's atten­ tion is focused on communication, rather than form; (2.) careful speech and writing, with more focus on form; (3.) an instructional setting in which lear­ ners are informed that errors exist, but not told where or which rules have been violated; (4.) an instructional setting in which the learner is told that errors exist and where they are, but not which rules have been broken; (5.) an instructional setting in which learners are told that errors are present, where they are, and which rules have been violated. The six studies which Krashen reviews indicate that monitor efficiency increases with an increase in the formality of the conditions, with self-correc­ tion never being perfect: "Possibly the most important result to emerge from these studies is the point that self-correction is never perfect, never reaches what some teachers would consider acceptable performance..." (p. 111). Another important result to emerge from such studies, we submit, is the notion of monitor strength, which we define as the ratio of the number of errors corrected to the number of errors made relative to a given produc­ tion condition. The production condition in this study was formal writing (Krashen's production condition 2), since the informant was required to write to dictation in a test situation with his attention focused on the form, rather than the content. The dictation procedure followed the recommendations of Deyes (1972), namely, reading the text three times: (1.)

When the dictation is given, the pupil should listen in order to get a general idea of its content without writing;

(2.)

When the dictation is to be written, the teacher should divide the

ORTHOGRAPHIC CONDUITS D'APPROCHE

235

text into convenient groups of four or five words each. They must be read, however, as connected groups and not as separate words; (3.)

The teacher has to be careful to use the weak forms of can, to, at, of, etc., when the context calls for them;

(4.)

The third reading should be done at the same speed as the first reading, but with breaks at the end of every sentence or two sen­ tences. In this case, the students have time to correct a sentence just read without being distracted by the need to listen to the next sentence at the same time.

Since our interest was not only in helping the informant overcome his deficiencies in English but also in ascertaining the causes of these deficiences, Deyes's further recommendation of a fourth reading with the students' having a copy of the correct text in hand was not adopted. A noteworthy feature of the monitor strengths of the major error types is that they are nearly identical: Table 7.3-1 Monitor Strengths: Major Error Types A S O D

76/382 194/1,010 122/698 17/102

= = = =

19.90% 19.21% 17.48% 16.67%

The monitor strengths for the substitution-error subtypes, in decreasing order of strength, are as follows: S M , S c , S , and S v . Table 7.3-2 Monitor Strengths: Substitutions Error Subtype

Monitored/Total errors

Monitor Strength

SM Sc Sw Sv

13/32 95/425 9/41 77/509

40.63% 22.35% 21.95% 15.13%

The monitor strengths for the addition-error subtypes, in decreasing order of strength, are as follows:

236

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Table 7.3-3 Monitor Strengths: Additions Error Subtype A

Monitored/Total Errors

Monitor Strength

43/137

31.39%

4/14 2/10 13/103 2/16 12/97

28.57% 20.00% 12.62% 12.50% 12.37%

cap

Aw A. Av Aø Ac

It is thus seen that errors consisting in the erroneous addition of capitali­ zation and the erroneous addition of a word are the most easily detected and errors consisting in the erroneous addition of a consonant the least easily detected. The monitor strengths for the omission-error subtypes, in decreasing order of strength, are as follows: O cap , O w , O c , O ø , O y , O-. Table 7.3-4 Monitor Strengths: Omissions Error Subtype

Monitored/Total Errors

Monitor Strength

Ocap Ow Oc Oø Ov O-

45/97 13/50 37/241 7/48 18/210 2/49

46.39% 26.00% 15.35% 14.58% 8.57% 4.08%

The erroneous omission of capitalization is the most easily detected omission-error subtype, much more easily detected than the erroneous addi­ tion of capitalization. The monitor strengths for the displacement-load subtypes and displace­ ment-distance subtypes are given in decreasing order of strength in Table 7.3-5. Table 7.3-5 Monitor Strengths: Displacements Error Subtype Load

Monitored/Total Errors

Monitor Strength

S

1/2

50.00%

ORTHOGRAPHIC CONDUITS D'APPROCHE

237

Error Subtype Load

Monitored/Total Errors

Monitor Strength

W C V CV W VC

3/9 9/37 4/48 0/2 0/2 0/2

33.33% 24.32% 8.33% 0% 0% 0%

1/2 2/6 1/3 6/25 7/63 0/2 0/1

50.00% 33.33% 33.33% 24.00% 11.11% 0% 0%

Distance WW W S V C CV

Clearly, stating that a particular error-subtype has a greater monitor strength is not the same thing as explaining why. What emerges from the comparison of the above computations is that the monitor strength of an error subtype is not directly related to the frequency with which that error subtype occurs in the corpus. Thus, for example, although the error-subtype of mixed substitutions occurs least frequently among the substitution-error subtypes (cf. p.232), it has the highest monitor strength (cf. p.235). Con­ sequently, there is something about the quality of the error-subtype mixed substitution which imparts to it great salience, a subject which undoubtedly deserves independent study. Moreover, the notion of monitor strength could serve as a basis for grading instructional materials. Assuming the validity of the view that instruc­ tional materials should be graded from simple to complex, were one to incor­ porate drills in error detection as a teaching strategy, the items in such drills, with the aid of the above data on monitor strength, could be graded from those having the greatest to those having the least monitor strength. 7.4. Error salience. In the introduction to this chapter, we mentioned that the investigation of orthographic conduits d'approche promises to deliver insights into what

238

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

might be termed "error salience", the ease with which error tokens are seen, in the case of written errors, or heard, in the case of oral errors. Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982, p. 33) have noted that there is no direct relationship between the degree of salience of items and the order in which those items are learned, pointing to the findings that the contracted form of the singular verb to be (as in He's fat) and the short plural (as in windows) are learned early and the short possessive (as in the king's) and the third person indicative (as in sees) are learned much later, although the salience of these items measured in terms of phonetic substance and stress level is virtually the same. Plainly, this runs contrary to one's intuitions that more salient items would be learned earlier and less salient items later. In this study we propose a different approach to salience, measuring the salience of an error as the ratio of the observed frequency with which an error is corrected to the expected frequency with which that error should be corrected. First we turn our attention to the relationship between the monitoring vs. non-monitoring of errors of a particular subtype and the error subtype itself, showing that monitor strength and error subtype are not inde­ pendent for all the error subtypes studied. Table 7.4-1 presents the contingency table for monitored and unmonitored substitution errors. Table 7.4-1 Contingency table for monitored and unmonitored substitution errors Error Subtype Sc Sv SM Sw

Monitor ~M M 330 95 432 77 19 13 32 9

Total 813

194

Total 425 509 32 41 1,007 = N

On the null hypothesis (H ) that monitor strength and substitution-error subtype are independent, the ratio of edited to unedited errors should be the same for each of the substitution-error subtypes. That is, the ratio should be the same on each row of the table. If the ratio is the same on each row, there should be a proportion 813/1,007 of the row total which are unedited

ORTHOGRAPHIC CONDUITS D'APPROCHE

239

and a proportion 194/1,007 of the row total which are edited. The expected frequency in the cell in row i and column j of the table is equal to (1/N) x the marginal total of row i x the marginal total of column/. Table 7.4-2 Expected frequency table for monitored and unmonitored substitution errors Error Subtype

Monitor

Sc Sv SM Sw Total

~M 343.12 410.94 25.84 33.10

M 81.88 98.06 6.16 7.90

Total 425.00 509.00 32.00 41.00

813.00

194.00

1,007.00

Comparing Table 7.4-2 cell by cell with Table 7.4-1 using (Oij - E ij ) 2 2

X = Σ all cells

Eij

the value of X2 is 17.79. Here, with df = 3, a chi-square of 11.341 is exceeded only 0.01 of the time under a true H Q . The observed chi-square is greater than this, so we reject the H Q that O = E for the observation categories and decide that whether or not a substitution error is monitored is not independent of the subtype of substitution error made. The distribution of monitored substitution errors differs among the substitution-error subtypes and among different substitution-error subtypes the distribution of the monitored sub­ stitution errors differs. Tables 7.4-3 and 7.4-4 present the observed and expected frequencies for monitored and unmonitored omission errors.

240

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Table 7.4-3 Contingency table for monitored and unmonitored omission errors Error Subtype Ocap Oc Ov Ow Oø O-

Monitor ~M M 52 45 204 37 192 18 37 13 41 7 47 2

Total 573

122

Total 97 241 210 50 48 49 695 = N

Table 7.4-4 Expected frequency table for monitored and unmonitored omission errors Error Subtype Ocap

Monitor ~M 79.97

*M 17.03

Total 97.00

198.70 173.14 41.22 39.57 40.40

42.30 36.86 8.78 8.43 8.60

241.00 210.00 50.00 48.00 49.00

573.00

122.00

695.00

cap

Oc Ov Ow Oø OTotal

The value of chi-square is 77.07. Here, with df = 5, a chi-square of 15.086 is exceeded only 0.01 of the time under a true H Q . The observed chi-square of 77.07 is considerably greater than this, so we reject H that O = E for the observation categories and decide that whether or not an omission error is monitored is not independent of the subtype of omission error made. The distribution of monitored omission errors differs among the omission-error subtypes and among different omission-error subtypes the distribution of the monitored omission errors differs. Tables 7.4-5 and 7.4-6 present the observed and expected frequencies of the monitored and unmonitored addition errors.

ORTHOGRAPHIC CONDUITS D'APPROCHE

241

Table 7.4-6 Contingency table for monitored and unmonitored addition errors Error Subtype A

Monitor ~M M 94 43

Total 137

cap

Ac Av Vø Aw A-

85 90 14 10 8 Total 301

12 13 2 4 2

97 103 16 14 10

76

377 = N

Table 7.4-4 Expected frequency table for monitored and unmonitored addition errors Error Subtype A

Monitor ~M 109.38

M 27.62

Total 137.00

77.45 82.24 12.77 11.18 7.98

19.55 20.76 3.23 2.82 2.02

97.00 103.00 16.00 14.00 10.00

301.00

76.00

377.00

cap

Ac Av Vø Aw ATotal

The value of chi-square is 19.28. Here, with df = 5, a chi-square of 15.086 is exceeded only 0.01 of the time under a true H . Since the observed chisquare of 19.28 exceeds the critical value of 15.086, we reject the H Q that O = E for the addition errors and decide that whether or not an addition error is monitored is not independent of the subtype of addition error made. The distribution of monitored addition errors differs among the addition error subtypes and among different addition-error subtypes the distribution of the monitored omission errors differs. Tables 7.4-7 and 7.4-8 present the observed and expected frequencies of the monitored and unmonitored displacement loads.

242

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Table 7.4-7 Contingency table for monitored and unmonitored displacement loads Error Subtype Loads V C W CV VV VC S

Monitor ~M 44 28 6 2 2 2

Total 85

1

M 4 9 3 0 0 0

17

Total 48 37 9 2 2 2

1

2

102 = N

Table 7.4-8 Expected frequency table for monitored and unmonitored displacement loads Error Subtype Loads V C W CV VV VC S Total

Monitor ~M 40.00 30.83 7.50 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67

M 8.00 6.17 1.50 .33 .33 .33 .33

Total 48.00 37.00 9.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

85.01

16.99

102.00

The value of chi-square is 8.36. Here, with df = 6, a chi-square of 7.231 is exceeded only 0.30 of the time. Since chi-square is 8.36, the H that the observed values equal the expected values for the displacement loads is rejected, and we decide that whether or not a displacement error is monitored is not independent of the displacement-load type. Tables 7.4-9 and 7.4-10 present the observed and expected frequencies for the monitored and unmonitored displacement distances.

ORTHOGRAPHIC CONDUITS D'APPROCHE

243

Table 7.4-9 Contingency table for monitored and unmonitored displacement distances Error Subtype

Monitor

Distances C V W CV S

Total

~M 56 19 4 2 2 1 1

M 7 6 2 0 1 0 1

63 25 6 2 3 1 2

Total 85

17

102 = N

WW

Table 7.4-10 Expected frequency table for monitored and unmonitored displacement distances Error Subtype Distances C V W CV S WW Total

Monitor

Total

—M 52.50 20.83 5.00 1.67 2.50 .83 1.67

M 10.50 4.17 1.00 .33 .50 .17 .33

63.00 25.00 6.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00

85.00

17.00

102.00

Here the value of chi-square is 6.41. With df = 6, a chi-square of 5.348 is exceeded 0.50 of the time. Hence, with the observed chi-square of 6.41 the displacement-distance subtypes in the conduits d'approche are monitored with nearly equal probability. Having established that the extent to which an error is monitored is not independent of the type of error to which it belongs, we proceed to present the saliences of the error subtypes, where salience of an error is defined as the ratio of the observed frequency to expected frequency.

244

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Table 7.4-11 Substitution Saliences Error

Observed/Expected

Salience

SM Sc Sw Sv

13/6.16 95/81.88 9/7.90 77/98.06

211% 116% 113% 78.5%

Table 7.4-12 Omission Saliences Error

Observed/Expected

Salience

Ocap Ow Oc Oø Ov O-

45/17.03 13/8.78 37/42.30 7/8.43 18/36.86 2/8.60

264.2% 148% 87.5% 83% 48.8% 23.3%

Table 7.4-13 Addition Saliences Error

Observed/Expected

Salience

Acap Aw AAv Aø Ac

43/27.62 4/2.82 2/2.02 13/20.76 2/3.23 12/19.55

155.7% 141.8% 99% 61.9% 61.9% 61.4%

Table 7.4-14 Displacement Saliences Error Loads

Observed/Expected

Salience

S W C V CV W VC

1/.33 3/1.5 9/6.17 4/8 0/.33 0/.33 0/.33

303% 200% 145.9% 50% 0% 0% 0%

ORTHOGRAPHIC CONDUITS D'APPROCHE

245

Distances WW W S V C CV

1/.33 2/1 1/.50 6/4.17 7/10.50 0/.33 0/.17

303% 200% 200% 143.9% 66.7% 0% 0%

A comparison of the rank order of the error-subtype saliences with the rank order of the error-subtype monitor strengths reveals that they are iden­ tical. T h u s , either the one or the other may b e used as a basis for material grading. In order to obtain a numerical expression of error salience (ES) of O , rather than 1, in the event that the observed frequency equals the expected frequency, we subtract the expected frequency from the observed frequency and divide the remainder by the expected frequency, i.e.,

yielding the revised expressions of error salience presented in Tables 7.4-11 '14': Table 7.4-11': Substitution Saliences E r r o r Subtype SM Sc Sw Sv

Salience 1.1 .16 .14 -.21

Table 7.4-12': Omission Saliences E r r o r Subtype Ocap

Salience 1.64

cap

Ow

.48

Oc

-.13

Oø Ov O-

-.17 -.51 -.76

246

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Table 7.4-13': Addition Saliences Error Subtype Acap Aw AAv Aø Ac

Salience .81 .49 -.01 -.38 -.38 -.53

Table 7.4-14': Displacement Saliences Load

Salience

Distance

Salience

S W C V CV VV VC

2.03 1.00 .46 -.50 -1.00 -1.00 -1.00

WW W S V C CV -

2.03 1.00 -.33 .44 -.33 -1.00 -1.00

7.5. Error correction vs. error creation. In section 7.1.5 we introduced the notion of an erroneous error-percep­ tion (EEP). Here it was seen that factual correctness is not central to the notion of an EEP, but, rather, perceptual correctness, since the parties to such conduits are input terms which are in fact correct, in addition to input terms which are in fact incorrect. Thus, heads on the EEP coin are incorrect representations perceived to be correct, while tails on the EEP coin are correct representations perceived to be incorrect. Due to the existence of oversights, the identification of the former class of errors is far from easy. De facto incorrect representations which are consistently perceived to be correct and de facto correct representations which are consistently perceived to be incorrect most readily suggest conventional errors, although the assign­ ment of representations to this category is far from completely straightfor­ ward, calling for nothing less than the development of quite sophisticated elicitation techniques. Perhaps the ultimate solution to the problem of EEPs will require recourse to prototype-theoretic semantics.

ORTHOGRAPHIC CONDUITS D'APPROCHE

247

The Index of Erroneous Error Perception (IEEP) is given by the total number of EEPs divided by the total number of error perceptions, i.e.:

For our German-English incipient bilingual, the Plainly, the higher the IEEP, the weaker the monitor strength (MS). Relating these notions to the notion of verbal fluency (F), (cf. Charles Fillmore (1979) for a penetrating discussion of several of the relevant parameters), the lower the IEEP, the greater the fluency, and the greater the MS, the greater the fluency. In the context of the immediately preceding discussion, we would add that verbal fluency, as a corollary, exhibits an inverse relationship to the number of EEPs in relation to the total number of errors (E), i.e.,

For our corpus,

= 1.4%.

7.6. Correction frequency and correction site. In 7.0 we analyzed the psycholinguistic structure of an orthographic conduit d'approche into error commission, error perception, and error cor­ rection. In 7.1.5, erroneous error perception, we saw that the structure per­ ceived as incorrect may in fact be correct and that the perception may result in either the omission of the structure in question, or, more frequently, in its being rewritten, the resultant rewriting itself being either correct or incor­ rect. In view of these observations it appears that error perception and error correction each has subjective {= intrapersonal grammatical) as well as objec­ tive (interpersonal grammatical) aspects, whereby the two may or may not coincide, depending upon the system of coordinates through which the phenomena constituting the linguistic representations are viewed. We hold that linguistic 1 production and metalinguistic 1 monitoring run, in principle, either in parallel or in series, that the linguistic 1 acquisition and production/ reception device, i.e. the sender/receiver, is at once a speech production and recognition device, where a set of values underlie both production and rec­ ognition whose constellation and configuration eventuate in the formation

248

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

of a set of communicative intentions (cf. the Conclusion for discussion), i.e. that every sender is at once a sender and a receiver, receiving both the planning and execution of his own linguistic1 productions and those of his interlocutors, i.e. ego-productions and alter-productions. Finally, the func­ tion of the linguistic1 monitor, its raison d'être, thus viewed, is to preshape, shape, and reshape individually differential linguistic1 competence and per­ formance in the interests of the optimization of the linguistic1 message, i.e. in order to bridge whatever gap the linguistic1/2 knower/user might perceive to exist between his communicative intentions and communicative actions subject to the constraints imposed by the factorial-functional-validational model. Of further relevance to quantitative aspects of conduits d'approche is the number of corrections made per conduit d'approche, which is plainly related to the number of errors made per lexical item, phrase, sentence, etc., on each of the levels which the theory of grammar requires for the observa­ tional, descriptive, and explanatory account of language in general, and a language (= the intersection of the sets of individual, differential grammars, for which cf. subsection 2., Introduction) and a grammar, in particular. This is given by the total number of corrections divided by the total number of lexical items, phrases, sentences, etc. Basing our calculation on the number of errors per orthographic word, where the orthographic word is the first term input to the conduits d'approche, we arrive at an error correction rate of 1.21 corrected errors per orthographic word. Of yet further relevance to the editor function of monitor theory is the notion correction site. Correction sites may be computed for the position of the correction in structure viewed as a serial display and for the position of the correction in structure viewed as a hierarchy, i.e., in terms of the linear ordering of items selected and sequenced and their hierarchical organization. The frequencies of the various error types relative to each other and their positional array and the frequencies of the occupations of the correction sites are given in Table 7.6. In this regard, we must emphasize that the correction frequencies and correction sites established for one level of linguistic organi­ zation, say the orthographic or the phonological, in contradistinction to what we as analysts might find intuitively most pleasing, are not isomorphic with the correction frequencies and correction sites established for a different level of linguistic organization, say the syntactic (cf. Levelt 1983), or, for a processing orientation, the functional or positional (cf. Garrett 1981). While it is true that the study of metacognition, for example, Carver and Scheier

ORTHOGRAPHIC CONDUITS D'APPROCHE Table 7.6: Conduits d'Approche:

249

250

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

(1981), De Houwer (1983), Laver (1980), Levelt (1983), Pressley and Levin (1983), in particular investigations into the metacognitive aspects of language knowledge, its acquisition and use, in both monolinguals and multilinguals, using all the values of the conceptual variables of factor, function, and valid­ ity-claim delivered by the revised organon-model of language (for which cf. subsection 3. of the Introduction and the many references listed in the items cited there) both in the case of linguistics and other domains of cognitive psychological inquiry and in the case of literary studies (Scholes, 1979) is in its infancy, it is already apparent from the highly fragmentary but very care­ fully analyzed data currently available that one must explore with extreme caution the largely unchartered territory of linguistic1 transmodular generalizability. One instructive exercise is the comparison and contrast of the conclusions which emerge from the investigation of the frequency dis­ tributions and correction sites for the data presented in 7.7 (infra) with — insofar as this is possible — the conclusions arrived at by Levelt (1983) for Dutch self-correction syntactic data and by De Houwer (1983) for self-cor­ rection in a Dutch-English incipient bilingual, where, again and again, one is struck by individual and intermodular differences. In saying this, note that we are not saying that any attempt to generalize is doomed to failure, but that this appears to be an area in which there is little or no room for what Russell termed 'heroic solutions'. We conclude with the introduction of a few concepts which appear war­ ranted on the basis of what has been presented and justified thusfar, where a more thorough treatment must be postponed (cf. Luelsdorff, in prepara­ tion). Designating the constituent of competence or performance which has undergone editing by the term 'corrigendum', the constituent of competence or performance which is used to edit the corrigendum by the term 'corrigens', the corrigendum-candidate deemed by the sender to be correction-worthy by the expression 'sender-corrigible', the constituent perceived by the receiver to be correction-worthy by the term 'receiver-corrigible', the triadic relation between the sender, the corrigendum and the corrigens by the term 'ego-corrigibility', the quadratic relation between the sender, receiver, the receiver's corrigendum, and the receiver's corrigens by the term 'alter-corrigibility', the object of ego-corrigibility, the ego-corrigendum, by the term 'egoabnorm', the object of alter-corrigibility, the alter-corrigendum, by the term 'alter-abnorm', the ego-corrigens by the term 'ego-norm', and the alter-corrigens by the term 'alter norm', we enrich the extended organon-model of

ORTHOGRAPHIC CONDUITS D'APPROCHE

251

language, and we lay the conceptual foundations for the theory of linguistic1 regulation and control, a subcomponent of the theory of general systems (cf. Luelsdorff 1981 and the references to the work of von Bertalanffy cited there).

Page

A5 A5 A7 A8 A8 A8 A8 A8 A8 A8 A8

Item

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

plane cage potatoes Today their cooking Mabel and aunt mummy asks aunt Mabel she

Target P plane ka cage (potatos) potatoes Today (= y over s) thar(= a over e) (ko) cooking (Map) Mabel and dunt (= a over d) Mummyask (= M over m) Aunt Mabel ( = A over a) (she) (= e over i)

Attempt

Acap øøøø, plane Sk/caøø, cage potatoO e s, potatoes TodaSs/y , Today thSe/ei r, thSa/e r S k / c oøøøø, cooking MaSp/bøø Mabel P:Sd/a unt.aunt mummyaskO , A ummyaskO aunt Mabel, Acap unt Mabel shSi/e, she

Analysis

This appendix consists of a complete list of the items constituting the orthographic conduits d'approche corpus organized in terms of the letter-number of the page of the corpus on which the conduit d'approche occurs, the orthographic target, the orthographic attempt, and the analysis of the orthographic attempt. In the analysis, 'P' preceding ':' stands for perseveration, 'A' preceding ':' for anticipation, 'S' for substitution, 'A' for addition, 'O' for omission, 'H' for homonym, subscript 'cap' for capitalization, subscript 'W' for word, A and Ox for the addition and omission of x, respectively, and 'Sx/y ' for the substitution of x for y, where x and y stand for a letter or sequence of letters. stands for the mistaken omission of a space, for the mistaken addition of a space, land for a mistaken displacement. Each '0' represents what is taken to be a letter intentionally omitted by the informant which formally marks the transition between the noticing of an error and the initiation of the editing process. The successive stages in the conduits d'approche are separatedby commas.

7.7 Appendix: Orthographic conduits d'approche 252 CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Page

A8

A8 A8

A8

A8

A8

A8

A9 A9 A9 A9 A9 A9 A9

A 9(2) A 11

A 11 A ll

Item

12.

13. 14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

26. 27.

28. 29.

answers Now

you mother

Every postman Betty Betty some your brother

andthen

andsthen

ei ia ice-cream

(fi)fish (crossed cursive/) (sehi)she (doe) (= s over e) (d) (= d over o) Well, (Wa) (= w over W) (W)(=half a W) she (lie) (s) like it. Oh, I she like steak,

Attempt

s/tn

S ei/iCe øøøøøøøø, Sia/iCe øøøøøøøø, ice-cream S s/thøø, then

she liO k e, A s , like A w S w , she

Ssch/shS./e,she doe0000,doS s/e øøøø,S o/d øøøøøø, doesn't A cap O h aø, wO h aø, Acap øøø,øøøø, O w

St/fi00,fish

Analysis

answers ( = w over e) Now (= N over n)

yuy you Mather (= m over M)

Acap

ther

cap

'

ans A : Se/wers, answers O ow.Now

yO o uA ,you Sa/o ther,mS a / o

Every(= E over e) O cap øøøø, Every postman (=p over P) Acap ostman, postman Betty ( = y over i) BettSi/y , Betty Betty (= y over e) BettS e/y , Betty somes someP:A,some Jjeyeryour Sj/y 000, Sj/y øøø, yoO u r,your Brasher(=th over s) Acap rSa/o Ss/ther, Acap rSa/o ther

Oh, she likes steak,... ice-cream

Well, what does she like?

she doesn't

fish

Target

ORTHOGRAPHIC CONDUITS D'APPROCHE 253

All A 11 (2) A 11 (2) A 11(2) A 11(2) A13

A 13 A 13 A13

A13

A13 A13 A13

A13 A 13(2) A 14(2) A17

A19

A 20 A 20 A 20 A20

36. 37. 38.

39.

40. 41. 42.

43. 44. 45. 46.

47.

48. 49. 50. 51.

Page

30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

Item

Attempt

Analysis

coke they eat the

shout

cream starts and wins can

very cry Run Ocap

over

Coke (=c over C) se they ¿at (= e over/) ë e ( = dovere)

ihaut(=s

t)

cream, cream starst(=s over t of tt#) wsan kcan Sk/c

wer very cry(=y vover e) Run (= R over r)

e

e/th '

d/th

A oke,coke Ss/th e0,they S. /eat,eat S l è .e,S...e

A:St/shS . t,shS

k/c

t

cream, cream startP:S t / s ,star|sJt~j I wO.O n s| a n O J , 0000 000 00, can

Sw/v er0,very crSe/y,cry un, Run

c

Betty(= B over b) O cap etty, Betty wer weher where (spelled by P. ) wO h erO e , weherl, where (spelled by P. ) safa ( = o over a) s A : S fa, sofa ander in (under six words back) S w , in hafe (= v over f) haS f/y e,have Ca cammara (first m crossed A aøøøø,camP:A m Sa/e ra, through) camSa/era Suddenly Suddenly (=y over e) SuddenlSe/y , Suddenly kitchen kittchen kitP:A t chen, kitchen cream eerermthe cee cream cA:A e reP:S r/a m,AwcOr A:A eøø, (prompted by P. ) cream (prompted by P.) ice-cream ieice-creaem iO e000000,ice-creaP:A m

Betty where sofa in have camera

Target

254 CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Page

A 22

A 24 A 24 A 24 A 24 A 24 A24 A 26 A 26 A 26 A 26 A 26 A 28

A30 A 30 A 30

A32 A 32 A 32 A 32 A32 A 32

A 32(2)

A 32(2)

Item

52.

53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64.

65. 66. 67.

68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73.

74.

75.

he

Whose

Jones standing at the river Perhaps with me

lovely orange juice shorter

lew,be,lovely eran, oreng, orang-juse sen, shorter

Way ( = W over w) Ocap ta standing lezte ( = ƒ over z) leSz P policeman fillingst-stateion Heigh Street (= S over s) Wer Where's r croß (German sharp s) wer very ( = d over t) gooSt/d wan (= v over w) T town

Manman

Attempt

hi he

he whose

Ocap

Jonex(/over j , s over z) Ocap tanstanding atiene the ritriver ßerhapes(= P over p) Ocap wisme with me

Way standing left policeman filling-station HighStreet Where's cross very good good van town

man

Target cap

'

an, man

'

O w høø,O cap hose i/e

hS

s/th

oneSz/s Jones O tan0000, standing attA:A he, at the riSt/v00, river erhapP:A s,PerhapP:A s wiS me, with me

sch/sn

loSw/v000, Sb/1o0000,lovely oran00, orS g/ang0, orang0A_juO.Ss/ce Ssch/sh00000, shorter

cap

ay, Way O s ta00000, standing /ftAe, left Ae A 00000000, policeman fillingO_st00000, filling-statAeion HS ei/ .ghO ca treet,HS ei/i gh Street WO h er000, Where's O c r000, croSß/ss S er0,very ' good Sw/van,van A øøø, town

A

Analysis

ORTHOGRAPHIC CONDUITS D'APPROCHE 255

Page

A 32(2) A 34 A 34

A 34

A 34 A 34(2) A 34(2) A 36 A 36 A 36 A 36 A36 A 36(2) A 36(2) A 39 A 39 A 39 A41 A 41 A41 A41 A 41 A 43 A43

Item

76. 77. 78.

79.

80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99.

i H he

day ( = i over a) Mast master wrait writing

Attempt Acap

h

i/e

O.S.. , A cap

'

0,he

dSa/iSy/r øøøø, diSy/røøøø astøø, master wrSai/itøø,writS.ing/es

Analysis

take ta takes ta00,takeA s ,take my m my m0,my must mut musti muO t, must A. biggest biggest ( = s over e) biggeP : S t, biggest shoe-shop she shoe-shop shoøøøøøø, shoe-shop a lot alot a lot a ot, alot o'clock on o'eleekef clock o'clockS w , o'clock Ow umbrella Unb Umbrella AcapSn/m bøøøøø,A cap mbrella near near (= e over i) nS.ia/ear, near the the (= h over e) tA:S e/h e,the there's Ther'is A herO ' A s , Acap herO 's there tare there S t/thSa/e re, there clever defer clever cleS er, clever away a W way a Acap 00, ai way one thousand oneth thousand oneth000000, one thousand pounds pau pounds pS au/ou 000, pounds there ter tO h er0,00000 one we one S H ,one taxis Tax taxis A ax00, taxis A they d They Sd/tøøø hey' they cap

he

dirtier master writes

Target 256 CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Page

A43 A 43 A 43 A43(2) A44

A47 A47 A47 A51 A 53

A53 A 53 A53 A54 A 54a

A55 A56 A 57 A57

A 57 A59 A 63

Item

100. 101. 102. 103. 104.

105. 106. 107. 108. 109.

110. 111. 112. 113. 114.

115. 116. 117. 118.

119. 120. 121.

o p l e , people

Ü tand000, standing wS.e/e,we a00,000(= O w ),wS o / ; walk000

i / e

Analysis

000,

sesehschool fraisch frSai/e tan than rostbefbeef

ï/ee d/t

e

o/oa

e/ee

7

o/oa

S s/sch o00,sch000, school S sch/sh frS ai/e sh S t/th an,than rS , stbS , f,rS . stbeef

ea/ee '

sehshop SehShe S Sch/sh 0,she over b) °Sb/f/vof subrsupermarket suS b / O e r000000, supermarket Whot have d you done s morning S w/wh aA o t, WhS o/a thave ( = h over a) you done S s/th 00,0000 morning seh shoes (= e overo) S sch/sh 000,shoP:S , s, shoes pe painded pS o/a 00000, painSd/ted what(= h over a) Sw/whaP:A t,what Bitys(= y over l) BillOy O's^UO^O's meat mide mS . t,mS. / S..A

people (=e o v e r / ) p A : S to P call the police tana standing wie we áweklwalk

Attempt

cream eren creame crS . Sn/m cream Ae Would you like weud would do you like O cap ouOjd,O ca ouldA w you like been to the cinema bein in the cinema to the cinema bS .. nSw the cinema, to the cinema

school fresh than roastbeef

shop She of olß(=f supermarket What have you done this morning shoes painted what Billy's meet

people to call the police standing we are walking

Target

ORTHOGRAPHIC CONDUITS D'APPROCHE 257

Page

A 63 A 65 A 65

A65 A65 A66

A 66 A66 A66 A66 A66(2) A 66(2) A 66(2)

A 66(2) A 66a A 66a A67 A 68 A68 A68 A68 A68

Item

122. 123. 124.

125. 126. 127.

128. 9. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134.

135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143.

catch score two blue weather here Puddlefield o'clock First

music Teachers teachers start Peter Pirn going goalkeeper

shirts The pupils

Suddenly They teachers

Target

/

eath catch sk score tew two beblue weth weather he here Birmingh Puddlefield ek o'clock Therst First (= Fover/)

Mmiusic Teacher(= Tover/) Teacher (= t over T) start (= a over seconds) PitPeterPePim goimg(=noverm) gele gele goulkeeper

seh sherts shirts T h e ( = Toverf) pipu piupel pilpu pipul

v

Suddenly (= S over T) They (= Tover i) teacher (= a over e)

Attempt

s7 s

A 0000,mAusic O eacherO ,TeacherO A eacher, teacher stP:S t/a rt, start PS./et00, Peter PP:Se/.0, Pirn goiSm/ng, going gSoCe/oal000000'gSoCe/oa1 000000, gS ou/oa lkeeper catO c h, catch sSkjz>00, score t[ofw], two bO,S \ ,blue wS th00, weather he00,here P:S w ,Puddlefield oO'S k/c 0000, o'clock STK/PS *.rst, O irst, First

S u / u 0000,shS ..rts,shirts O he,The p A. | pfu~| 00, p A.upSp/.l0, | pil| pu| 0,

e/a

S u d d e n l y , Suddenly O ca hey, They teP:S , cherO , teacherO

Analysis 258 CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Page

A68

A 68

A68 A68 A 68 A70 A70

A70 A 70

A 70 A 70 A 71 A71

A 71

A71 A 71

A 71

A71

A71

A 71 A 71 A71

Item

144.

145.

146. 147. 148. 149. 150.

151. 152.

153. 154. 155. 156.

157.

158. 159.

160.

161.

162.

163. 164. 165.

Where's He answered

lunch

She

How

from bike

miles

it started rain Last uncle's

naughty In

hippos baby yesterday answered called

Then

looked

Target

7

' 7

Weh Where's He(=//over/i) v Answered (= a 'overol)

Lunch (= /over L)

v

L Se She ( = S over s)

v

How (= Hover h)

v

from ( = / o v e r v) Bike (= b over B)

Mi miles

v

7

it's star started ren rain Lasst(=soverr) O H 0 U n è l e ' s ( = cover/)

nauiit(= iover/i) It In

Hippeshippos Bay Bayb baby ye yesterday answr answered eeldet eealled eealled

Than Then

lokdloM(= dovere) looked

Attempt

'

1'

'

'

t'

oa/a

'

oa/a

cap

1/c '

cap

'

ow.How

7

Ca

S/Sn

7

cap Pr-r-,

unch, lunch

7

ncle's

he,She

cap

cap O/u

W[eJTTJ0000, Where's O e, He ' A capnswered, answered

A

L/Sn

Sw^SQ/Qle,0

O

cap

'

i000, miles

cap

nA:S,,le's,A

cap U/u

Sv/from,from A ike, bike

A

A

itA w star000, it started rSe/a .n,rain LaA f st,LaAst A S o / n 0 0 0 0 0 , A S 0 / 000000,

w

nauO htO ,nauO A:S t/h tO S w ,In

o/a

A t ippos, hippos A cap a ( V> A c a P 4 # l > b a b y ye0000000, yesterday answO r00, answered cS , lOjdlelA ,cS ,Ued,cS , lied

a/e

ThS7n,Then

o/oo d/k

IS , k O d ^ S , k00, IS . S,.,00,looked

Analysis

ORTHOGRAPHIC CONDUITS D'APPROCHE 25S

Page

A72 A72

A72 A 72 A72 A 72 A 72 A 72 A72(2)

A72(2) A72(2) A72(2) A72(2) A74 A74 A 74 A 74 A74 A74 A 75 A75 A75 A75

Item

166. 167.

168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174.

175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188.

I said Then very Platform can't five thirty Norwich want with works factory I

Be said cows away We caught Allright

looked Hector

Target

ii(=/overei) sayd(= iovery) Then (= Tovert) wervery platform(= Pover/?) kan't(= covert) fife thcuty ( = r over e) nerksehNorwich watntwent wis with weer works Fafactori fehl

Be(=£over¿?) Said (=s over S) €ows(= cover C) aw A away We(=Woverw) caught (= g over f) OlOlalgraig

looked (= d over t) he Hee Hector

Attempt

O S /T,I saS^said O Y hen,Then S er0,very O J latform,Platform Shan't, can't fiS^ y e,0000 thS^.S^ty, thSr/eSu/rty O o r ó iS, ,.,,Norwich w a A : A n t , 0 O O t,wS . nt wiS,..,with woP:A r00, works A ca a00000,factorS. / S™J

O e, Be A aid, said A ows.cows aw00,A 000, away O e, We" cauAiS^ ht, caught S o/A l0 ' S o/A l0 ' O ca P 1S g/i

cap

lookeS t/d , looked O e0000,Hec000, Hector

Analysis 260 CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Page

A75 A75 A75 A75 A 75 A75(2) A 75(2) A 76

A76 A76 A 76 A 76 A 76(2) A 78 A78 A78 A 78 A83 A83 A 83 A 83(2) A83(2) A83(2) A83(2)

Item

189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196.

197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212.

some bought abridge The were a lot clothes Then We on lady please tell me to He it isn't Turn

already pullover can This We name deck river

Target

smesome hbeaghboght anbbridge The ( = Tover t) weral eleudcload Then (= Tover t) We(=Woverw) dm (= o over/) Laydlady plea please tellnme te too H e ( = Hoverh) itisnisn't Turn (= Tovert)

eiallady pepulover kkancan This (= Tover i) We(=Woverw) mname Beck ( = d over D) Ri river

Attempt

sO me, some 8^00000,008^110, boO u ght S n/b 00000,b00000, bridge O ca he, The wer0,0000,al00,a000 clS , S ^ O O , clS " S ^ O O O hen, Then O e, We S w ,on A ca a[yjd],lady plea00, please tellj>n/m0,tellme to,S^ m °cae'He itisn00, isn't O ca urn, Turn

cap

So/al00000,alP:S1/rOeady pS o/u 000000,pulO 1 over S k/c 00,S k/c an,can O ' h i s , This O e, We A:S m/n 000,name A c Jeck,deck A i000, river

Analysis

ORTHOGRAPHIC CONDUITS D'APPROCHE 261

Page

A83(2) A 83(2)

A 83(2) A83(2) A84 A84 A 84 A 84

A84 A 84 A 89 A 89

A 90

A 90 A 90 A 90 A92 A 92 A 92 A 92 A 92a A92a

Item

213. 214.

215. 216. 217. 218. 219. 220.

221. 22. 223. 224.

225.

226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234.

photos bridge empty between and for silver cup shouting But

arrived

OxfordStreet with suddenly has invited

can't station Breakdown The Oxford turns

Then straight ahead

Target

potos photos (=p over P) brigbridch ernte empty bettwen bettwen ad and for(=/overv) silver-cup silves-cup sehshoting But(=£overfo)

arav are arrived ( = d over t)

stre Oxford Street (= S over s) wwith suddenly (=d over s) has has inveited invited

k can't tastation Brecdewn(=<2 overo) T h T h e ( = Tovert) Oxbord (= b over s) to turns

Then(=roveri) it stad ahed

Attempt

ei/i

'

arO r S a/ .v00, arS c/r 0000, arriveSt/d, arrived S ; h otos,A ca hotos, photos brib d gO e ,b C ndS ch/g O e emO tS g/ , empty betP:A t weO e n,betP:A t weO e n aO n d,and S y/f or,for silverA.cup, silveS A.cup S 000000, shS ting 0§C ut,But

'

O w O tre00,OxfordO treet,Street w000,with suP:Ss/ddenly, suddenly has, has invS . ..ted, invited

o/u

O ca hen,Then A:S . 1000000, stO aO O O S aheO a d S k/c 0000, can't O g ta0000, station BrS , S „down,BrS . S ,,dS . wn O ca h0,The OxS „ord, OxSK/ford tS . 000, turns

Analysis 262 CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Page

A 92a A92a

A 92a A92a

A 92a

A 94 A94

A 94 A 94 A 94 A94 A 94

A94 A 94

A94

A94

A94

A 94(2)

A94(2) A 94(2)

A 94(2)

A 94(2) A 94(2)

Item

235. 236.

237. 238.

239.

240. 241.

242. 243. 244. 245. 246.

247. 248.

249.

250.

251.

252.

253. 254.

255.

256. 257.

you Karlsstraße

dress

going blue

She

London

Peter

the

arrive Victoria

Inge's nice Ostend Dover London

your English

dive

already beautiful

forty David

Target

a)

b)

y you Kar Jstraße ( = / over s)

déréss dress

going ( = / o v e r w) bublau

sehShe(= 5 o v e rÍ )

Londen (=o over e)

Be(= Pover

sithethe

arvearive vik Victoria

yaur(= o over EeglshEntisehFam english famiely Inge (= s over e) nieh ( = c over e) 0 s t e n d ( = O overo) Dover (= Dover d) lauden London

difedive

elallredy beutgfoul(=/overs)

ver forty dDaDavid

Attempt

g/i s/f ou/u

7

dea

g/i

ou/u

e/o

'

k/c ' cap b/P

'

SK/De000, Peter e/o h ; ç h 0,O

cap sen/on

S

he, She cap

au/ue e

y00,you Kar A : Ss/Jstraße, Karlstraße

e

d A : A ress, drO ss, dress

1 u/ue'

gS ou/o 0.ng, going hOS , \ b l S ,

O

LondS , n, London

O

s/th i/e '

S ^ S , ,the,the

cap

arO Ove,arO ive O iS,, 00000, Victoria

cap ' a/o u/n

yS au/ou r,your Engl0.sh,EnO liS sch/h , Aca am000, O ca nglish famS.e/.ly. IngeO'O s , IngO £ 0's niO eA L , nicO AL O stend,Ostend O over,Dover O S . S , dS . n, London

f/v '

diS f/ e,dive

e/ea

So/al00000,alP:A1rSe/eady bS utS ,.S JS , UbS* utS ,.fS ,1

cap

Sy/for00, forty O 0000, Da000, David

Analysis

ORTHOGRAPHIC CONDUITS D'APPROCHE 263

A 95(2) A 95(2) A95(2)

268. 269. 270.

277. 278. 279.

272. 273. 274. 275. 276.

'

A95a A 95a A95a

v

7

A 95(3) A 95(3) A95(3) A 95(3) A 95(3)

x

A 95(3)

7

A 95 A95 A 95 A95 A95 A 95 A95

261. 262. 263. 264. 265. 266. 267.

v

A 94a A 94a A 95

258. 259. 260.

271.

Page

Item

fat television pirate

noodles coca-cola learned Bud Spencer who

ravioli

football we don'thave

very happy many returns know no one or when

Inge living-room October

Target

avtfat te television Pi pirate

Needl-es noodles eeka-cola coca-cola lea learen learned Bud Spenz Spencer he h who

Ra

feetbeel, football soccer wè (=e over/) don'thafdon't

veráy hahy happy men many éreturnë(=sover£/) new ene know on one oré wenri

Iénge ( = ƒ and / over ie) liv¿ng-rom-room ( = / over e) Oek October

Attempt

ck/c

n7

w/wh

cap

\J

f/v

e' W

a00000,O w

W

h/wh

'

[af^lt,fat te00000000, television A ca Í0000, pirate

h/wh '

A 00dlA.es, noodles coSk/ca-cola, coca-cola lea0000,lear[eJrT|Od, learned SpenSz/c00, Spencer Sul , 0 , ^ u 0,who

A

footbSoo/a10,, football, soccer (= S w ) wS./e,we don'thaS„ O , d o n ' t O w

w/wh

verAy,very haP:S h/ O y, happy mS e/a n0,many O r e00000,returnS d/s , returns O know O w one, know |oJïï] one or A , or S , u enP:A ,S , Ken

O ca S.e/[nge, Inge HvSe/.ng-roOomA_, living room OS ,. 00000, October

Analysis 264 CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Chapter VIII Processing Strategies in Bilingual Spellers: A Group Study

8.0. Introduction. In this discussion of the group data (GD) we focus on the following four issues: (1.) a statement of the types and token frequencies of all the vowel errors in the GD, excluding those low frequency error words which were mis­ spelled in less than 14% of the trials, and an attempt to explain these error types in terms of the processing strategies advanced during the discussion of substitution errors in Chapters III and IV; (2.) a selective presentation of the differences in error distributions among the Hauptschule (H), Realschule (R), and Gymnasium (G) and whatever changes in processing strategies these differences in error distributions suggest in the transition from grade 7 (7) to grade 9 (9); (3.) a selective statement of recommendations for the teaching of specific aspects of English orthography emerging from the error analysis itself; (4.) a brief comparison in terms of error types, frequencies, and processing strategies between the individual data (ID) and the GD, bear­ ing in mind that the individual informant was enrolled in H6 at the time the dictations began and had just entered H7 at the time the dictations ended. We use the expression "received developmental pattern" to refer to the wide­ spread belief that the performance of pupils improves from H to R to G and from 7 to 9. 8.1. The group experiment1. Thus far the analysis has been an extensive and intensive investigation of the spelling errors made in English by one native-speaking German pupil in H6/7, age 12, on grade-level English dictations administered privately over a 1) The author acknowledges a profound debt of gratitute to Wm.J. Baker for many fruitful discussions leading to the design of this experiment and to Christine Laurell, Martha Smith and Catherine Tiede for preliminary tabulations of the data.

266

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

14-month period. This analysis has indicated massive interlinguistic and intralinguistic interference. In order to assess the extent to which these interactions are shared, it was necessary to test a large number of subjects in the German school systems at various stages in the acquisition of English spelling. Pursuant to this goal, the following testing procedure was devised. (1.) Two groups of subjects were drawn from intact classes in both grades 7 and 9 in each of the three schools comprising the German system of secondary education, the Hauptschule, the Realschule, and the Gymnasium. Within each grade and each school, one group was administered a grade-level dictation followed by an error-correction exercise. The other group was administered the same two tasks, but in the reverse order. 248 pupils were tested, 59 from H, 90 from R, and 99 from G. One of the two G9 classes was beginning French as a foreign language, but no errors on either task appear traceable to the interaction of French with English. This procedure yielded data on the development of orthographic and meta-orthographic processing strategies. (2.) The grade-level dictations were administered in British English by the regular teachers of the respective classes in order to avoid the possible effect of an unfamiliar face in the classroom. Dictation as a teaching device is discontinued by G9. The dictation procedure followed the recommendations of Deyes (1972), summarized in section 7.3. The words were selected from Friedrichs's English H1/H2 (1980), the standard textbooks for H6/H7, because many of them were known in advance to be error-prone from the errors in the ID. All of the pupils had had prior exposure to all of the words, except <juice, salad, store, gate, movie>, which were unfamiliar to the pupils in G. The dictation consisted of three short paragraphs, segmented into short phrases, which the teacher read aloud three times, before the dicta­ tion, during the dictation, and after the dictation. The pupils were asked to write on alternating lines of the response sheet and told not to make any cor­ rections during their initial transcriptions. Allowance for corrections was made during the final reading by the teacher after the dictation had been writ­ ten. The dictation text is included here as Appendix A. (3.) Following the initial writing, the pupils were asked to edit their own work by underlining the words they thought to be misspelled and writing the versions they thought to be correct beneath them. This yielded data on egoerrors and ego-corrigibility.

PROCESSING STRATEGIES IN BILINGUAL SPELLERS

267

(4.) The error-correction exercise was a written version of the dictation laden with real errors which had been extracted from the ID. The text was written on alternating lines of a response sheet, and the teachers read it to the pupils before the error-correction exercise began so that the pupils would be familiar with the intended words — the errors ranged from obvious to subtle deviations from the standard spellings. Pupils were asked to listen to the dic­ tation, presented in the manner described above, and to scan the text for errors. Spellings thought to be errors were underlined and the spelling thought correct written under the word thought to be spelled wrong. This yelded data on the puplils' ability to alter-monitor, to detect errors made by others. The following is a report on the errors made only in the dictations, administered both before and after the error-correction exercise. As stated above, the discussion is restricted to vowel misspellings of the substitution type. In general, our conclusions on processing strategies are thought to be valid only insofar as (1.) the subjects had had prior exposure to the normative spellings of the words in the text dictated and (2.) the distribution of major and minor primary and secondary spelling patterns (cf. 8.2.) in the experi­ ence of the informants parallels their distribution in the language. Certainty on the latter issue would require familiarity with the history of each subject's exposure to the spellings of each of the items dictated, a familiarity which we do not and could not have. 8.2. The error framework. Venezky (1970:101-119) divides the vowel spelling of English into two types, primary and secondary. Primary vowel spellings consist of one vowel letter (including < y > ) , whereas secondary vowel spellings consist of two or more (one of which may be < w > or < y > ) . Both primary vowel spellings and secondary vowel spellings have major and minor sound correspondences, where the difference between major and minor correspondence is the difference between more and less frequent. Major correspondences are referred to as "regular", minor correspondences as "irregular", where regularity is sensitive to surrounding consonant and vowel letters, stress, and morphemic structure. The above structure of English vowel orthography we present in Diag­ ram 8.2.-1.

268

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Diagram 8.2.-1: English Vowel Orthography

Since each of the above four patterns — the major primary, the minor primary, the major secondary, the minor secondary — has its own unique characteristic structure, including letters, sound correspondences, distribu­ tion, and frequency, we regard each pattern as constituting a module, each module containing a unique set of grapheme-phoneme correspondences. Errors of substitution occur when two different members of the same module are substituted for one another or when a member of one module is substituted for a member of another. All possible substitution-error types are presented in Diagram 8.2.-2, where X > Y is to be read: "X is substituted for Y". Diagram 8.2.-2: Substitution Errors

Inter- and intramodular interaction yields the following substitutionerror types: ( 1.) Primary Regularization (Major Primary → Minor Primary) ( 2 . ) Primary Reregularization (Major Primary→ Major Primary) ( 3 . ) Primary Irregularization (Minor Primary→Major Primary) ( 4 . ) Primary Re-irregularization (Minor Primary→Minor Primary) ( 5 . ) Secondary Regularization (Major Secondary→Minor Secondary) ( 6 . ) Secondary Reregularization (Major Secondary→Major Secondary) ( 7.) Secondary Irregularization (Minor Secondary→Major Secondary) ( 8. ) Secondary Re-irregularization (Minor Secondary→Minor Secondary) ( 9. ) Regularization cum Simplification (Maj or Primary→Minor Secondary) (10.) Reregularization cum Simplification (Major Primary→Major Second­ ary) (11.) Irregularization cum Simplification (Minor Primary→Major Second­ ary)

PROCESSING STRATEGIES IN BILINGUAL SPELLERS

269

(12.) Re-irregularization cum Simplification (Minor Primary→Minor Sec­ ondary) (13.) Regularization cum Complication (Major Secondary→ Minor Primary) (14.) Reregularization cum Complication (Major Secondary→Major Prim­ ary) (15.) Irregularization cum Complication (Minor Secondary→Major Prim­ ary) (16.) Re-irregularization cum Complication (Minor Secondary → Minor Primary) Ample exemplification of these error patterns in the ID is presented in Chapters III and IV. There and in the following our understanding of regular­ ity and irregularity is due to Venezky (1970) and Welna (1982). 8.3. English vowel misspellings: types and causes. In this section we proceed as in section 3.2 by listing each of the English vowels, their associated misspelling types, the frequencies of these misspel­ ling types, and by attempting to relate misspelling types to misspelling causes in terms of processing strategies. Where possible, we generalize about the ways in which these misspellings types and causes change through time. Recommendations for the teaching of English spelling, insofar as they are based on the error analysis, are noted. Finally, we point to similarities and differences between the processing strategies posited for the ID and the GD. 8.3.1. English HI. Five items in the group dictation contain /i/: 002 <Week-end> 048 057 148 <movie> 234 <week-end> The statistics on 002 and 234 indicate that the major error in <Weekend> was not the spelling of /i/ in < W e e k > , but the hyphenation of <Weekend>, since the hyphen was mistakenly omitted in 60.08% of its spellings in its first occurrence and 59.51% of its spellings in its second occurrence. Clearly, this misomission of hyphen is traceable to its absence in the German translational equivalent <Wochenende> and German compounds in gen­ eral.

270

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Instructive on several counts is the comparison of the frequencies of hyphen misomissions in the various school systems and grades given in Table 8.3.1.-1 Table 8.3.1.-1: Hyphen Misomissions (002) H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

70.37% 28.13% 45.83% 78.57% 52.94% 79.17%

First, fewer H7/9 pupils misomit hyphen (47.46%) than either R7/9 pupils (61.11%) or G7/9 pupils (65.66%). Second, only H pupils improve their hyphenation performance from 7 to 9 (+42.24% for H, -32.74% for R and —26.23% for G). Thus, it is a mistake to expect either across-the-board better performance in G than in R or in R than in H, or to expect uniform improvement in the transition from 7 to 9 in each of the school systems. In Table 8.3.1.-2 we list the entire range of the misspelling types for the /i/ in , , and <movie>, together with their token frequen­ cies, where frequency = total number of errors on /i/ / total number of trials: Table 8.3.1.-2: /¡/-Misspellings

(1.) (2.) (3.) (4.) (5.) (6.)

<ee> <ea> <eCe> <eaCe> <e>

18.78% 4.49% 2.45% 2.04% 1.22% .81%

(1.) (2.) (3.) (4.)

<movie> <e> <ey>

18.95% 12.10% 11.69% 2.82%

(1.) (2.) (3.) (4.) (5.) (6.) (7.) (8.)

<eaCe> <ea> <ee> <eCe> <eeCe> <e>

23.39% 12.50% 2.02% 2.02% .81% .81% .40% .40%

PROCESSING STRATEGIES IN BILINGUAL SPELLERS

271

These error data clearly show that the same sound in different words is spelling-error prone in different ways, confirming for L2-English spellers Nel­ son's observation (1980:477) about L1-English spellers: "...some words are especially prone to a particular type of error, e.g. SON is often misspelled as SUN but other misspellings of SON are extremely rare. Thus if error types obtained from different words are compared, such error tendencies of specific words may seriously bias the results." For example, given the fact that the HI in is most frequently misspelled < e e C > , one might be disposed to conclude that all /i/'s are most frequently misspelled < e e C > , a conclusion patently contradicted by the most frequent misspellings of the /i/'s in and <movie>. Or, for example, given the fact that the < i e > (= HI) in <movie> is most frequently misspelled < i > , one might conclude that all 's (=/i/) are most frequently misspelled < i > , a conclusion falsified by the most frequent misspelling of the in , namely < e a C e > . Thus, among the several determinants of spelling errors, in addition to the sound being spelled and its environment, is the word being spelled itself. We now turn to an attempt to relate these error types to the processing strategies underlying them. The major correspondence of < e e > is /i/, as in , the major correspondence of < e a > is /i/, as in <each, teach>, the major correspon­ dence of < e C e > is /i/, as in , the major correspondence of < e a C e > is /i/, as in , and the major correspondence of medial < i e > is /i/, as in . Thus, 97% of the misspellings of the HI in are attributable to the substitution of one major correspondence of HI for another, to reregularization. The major correspondence of < e e C e > is /i/, as in . Thus, 70% of the misspellings of the /i/ in — all excepting and < e > — are also explicable in terms of the substitution of one major cor­ respondence for another, reregularization. The minor correspondence of is /i/, as in <machine, ravine>. for in is then the substitution of a minor primary pattern for a major secondary, an irregularization cum simplification. < i > and < y > most frequently correspond to HI in unstressed position (Welna 1982:57), as in . Unstressed < e > corresponds to HI in words like , and < e y > has the minor correspon­ dence HI in words like < k e y > and <monkey>. Thus, 82.17% of the misspel­ lings of HI in <movie> are accountable for in terms of the substitution of a major primary pattern ( ) for a major secondary ( < i e > ) , a reregulari-

272

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

zation cum simplification, the remaining 18% in terms of the substitution of a minor secondary pattern (<ey>) for a major secondary ( < i e > ) , an irregularization. < e > for <eeCe> in and for in we attri­ bute to English letter naming. We conclude that all of the above GD errors on I'll may be understood in terms of the processing strategies advanced for the ID in Chapters III and IV. Turning to the cross-sectional and developmental data, the error percen­ tages for the most frequent misspellings of the /i/'s in , , and <movie> are given in Table 8.3.1.-3. Table 8.3.1.-3: /¿/-Misspellings: Developmental Data : < e e C > H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

25.93% 40.63% 25.53% 16.67% 6.12% 8.33%

: < e a C e > 3.70% 34.38% 62.50% 21.43% 15.59% 8.33%

<movie>: < i > H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

29.63% 28.13% 10.42% 16.67% 27.45% 8.33%

Here we note several deviations from the received developmental pattern. First, there is a 15% increase in the misrepresentation of < e é C e > by < e e C > in the transition from H7 to H9, an increase in secondary reregularization. Second, we note a 30% increase in the misrepresentation of by <eaC(e)> in the transition from H7 to H9, another increase in secondary reregularization. Third, there is a 6% increase in the misrepresentation of < i e > by < i > in the transition from R7 to R9, a reregularization cum simplifi­ cation. Fourth, we observe the superior performance of H7/9 to R7 and H7 to R7/9 on the representation of in , indicating a markedly greater tendency to overgeneralize < e a > for < i e > in the R than in the H.

PROCESSING STRATEGIES IN BILINGUAL SPELLERS

273

Recommendations for teaching the spelling of HI include: (1.) contrast­ ing the primary and secondary spellings of /i/ word-internally, e.g. , word-initially, e.g. <eel, each>, and word-finally, e.g. and (2.) contrasting the spellings of /i/-homonyms, such as and <meet, meat, mete>. Our ID for H6 revealed that 56% of the misspellings of /i/ are traceable to either native or target language letter naming as a spelling strategy (cf. sec­ tion 3.1.1.). The GD for 7 and 9, on the other hand, show the primary cause of error to be the intralinguistic substitution of one major correspondence of /i/ for another, i.e. reregularization, and the secondary cause to be the sub­ stitution of a minor correspondence for a major, i.e. irregularization. 8.3.2. English /I/. /I/ is represented by the critical items <sandwich> (034), <sausage> (046), (059), (202), and (222). The /I/ in <sandwich> was always spelled correctly. for <sandwich>, <sauce> for <sausage>, and < C a m e > for , grounded in mishearings, were excluded from the tally. In Table 8.3.2.-1 we list the entire range of misspelling types and their token frequencies for the critical items above. Table 8.3.2.-1: /I/-Misspellings

(1.) (2.) (3.) (4.) (5.) (6.) (7.) (8.) (9.)

<sausage> <eC(C)(C)> <e> <ea>

5.69% 3.25% 3.25% 2.03% 2.03% 0.41% 0.41% 0.41% 0.41%

(1.) < i C ( C ) ( C ) # > 10.98% (2.) <euCCC> 0.41%

(1.) (2.) (3.) (4.) (5.)

<eC> 4.07% 3.25% 0.41% <e> 0.41% <ea> 0.41%

(1.) < e a > 0.40%

274

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

< i C ( C ) ( C ) # > , the major misrepresentation of /I/, we interpret as a reregularization to the primary vowel representation of the checked alternate of ,/I/. /I, Ә/ are the principal values of in unstressed position, as in , including the /I/'s in preterite and past participial <-ed>, as in , and in plural <-es>, as in . > lIl in unstressed position are, thus viewed, reregularizations. The remaining misspellings of unstressed /I/ are all very infrequent. <ea> > /I/ in ; as a substitute for unstressed < a > in <sausage> and , it is a complication. for unstressed /I/ makes sense only insofar as unstressed /I/ is equated with unstressed /I/ in items such as and unstressed /ә/ in items such as <station, autumn, chauffeur>. We conclude that all the misspellings of unstressed /I/, seemingly heterogeneous though they may be, may be viewed as the products of the underlying strategy of reregularization. The most frequent misspellings of unstressed /I/ in the cross-sectional and developmental data are listed in Table 8.3.2.-2. Table 8.3.2.-2.: /I/-Misspellings: Developmental Data

H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

<sausage>: 14.81% 3.13% 17.02% 0% 0% 0%

: < e C > 14.81% 0% 6.25% 0% 0% 2.13%

H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

: 46.15% 21.88% 2.08% 2.38% 8% 4.17%

: < e a > 3.70% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Reregularization of the spelling of unstressed /I/ observes the received

PROCESSING STRATEGIES IN BILINGUAL SPELLERS

275

developmental pattern, excepting a slightly higher incidence of error in R7 than in H7 in the case of <sausage>, in G9 than in G7 in the case of , and in G7/9 than in R7/9 in the case of . The correct spelling of unstressed /I/ remains a problem only in H9, and then only in respect of the final < - e > in . < i > and < e > are the most frequent misspellings of /I/ in both the ID and the GD, with stressed /I/ less frequently misspelled in the GD — <pretty> was such a low frequency error word in the GD that it was not included in the tally. 8.3.3. English /e/. The critical items for Id were <Saturday> (006), (020), < a t e > (031), <steak> (033), <potato> (043), (054), (052), (117), and (202). The /e/ in S a t u r ­ day > was always spelled correctly. In Table 8.3.3.-1 we list the entire range of misspelling types in the GD for Id in the critical items above, together with their token frequencies. Table 8.3.3.-1: /e/-Misspellings

(1.) (2.) <e(C)CC> (3.) < e a C C >

6.56% (1.) < e a C > 3.28% (2.) < a C > 1.64% (3.) < e C > (4.) < a e C > (5.) < e a C e > (6.) < e i C >

(1.) < a C e > (2.) <eaCe> (3.) < a >

<steak> 7.76% 2.86% 2.04%

(1.) < a C > (2.) < e C >

1.61% .40%

29.44% 5.24% 1.21% .81% .81% .40% <potato> 1.62% .40% .40% .40%

(1.) (2.) (3.) (4.)

<e> <ei> <ea>

(1.) (2.) (3.) (4.)

<ea> 1.62% <ei> .40% <e> .40% .40%

276

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

(1.) (2.) (3.) (4.) (5.) (6.) (7.)

<ea> <e> <ei>

4.06% 3.25% 1.22% .81% .81% .41% .41%

(1.) < a C e > (2.) < a i >

33.33% 1.63%

We note with interest that the overwhelming majority of the above mis­ spellings of Id are explicable in terms of the processing strategies advanced for the ID in Chapters III and IV. >/e/to >/e/is traceable to English letter naming and < e > > /e/ (= [ei]) is due to sequencing of English German letter naming. < a e > letter names and < e i > >/e/to sequencing of German letter names and/or the substitution of a major secondary pattern for either a major primary pat­ tern, a complication (<eit> for < a t e > , <poteito> for <potato>, for ), or another major secondary pattern ( for ), a reregularization. < e a > > /e/ in , < a t e > , <potato>, and is the substitution of a minor secondary pattern for a major primary pattern, a complication cum irregularization, and < e a > for < a i > in is the substitution of a minor secondary pattern for a major secondary, an irregularization. < a i > for < a C e > in is the substitution of a major secondary pattern for a major primary, a reregularization cum complication, and < a i > for < a > in the substitution of a major secondary pattern for a minor primary, a regularization cum complication. < a C e > for < a > is a regularization. Several errors apparently exemplify the effects of conjoint application of two mutually exclusive processing strategies: <eaCe> for < a C e > in < a t e > the combined effects of minor secondary representation ( < e a > ) and major primary representation ( < a C e > ) ; <eaCe> for < e a C > in <steak> the com­ bined effects of minor secondary representation ( < e a > ) and major primary representation ( < a C e > ) ; for < a i > in the combined effects of major secondary representation () and major primary representation (). < o > for < a > in <potato>, within the framework adopted in Chapter VI, is an anticipation and/or a perseveration. < u e > for < a C e > in (H9) may be a stray from German (cf. Quer 'diagonal').

PROCESSING STRATEGIES IN BILINGUAL SPELLERS

277

Thus all the misspellings of Id may be explained by the action and interaction of the several established processing strategies, with the excep­ tion of for (lx, R7), where the doubled < t t > suggests that the vowel was perceived short rather than long, i.e. evidences a phonetic misperception. Turning to the developmental data, the %'s of error for the most fre­ quent misspellings of the /e/'s in , < a t e > , <steak>, <potato>, , , , and are given in Table 8.3.3.-2. Table 8.3.3.-2: /e/-Misspellings: Developmental Data

H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

: 14.81% 9.68% 0% 9.52% 2.08% 8.33%

: <eaC> 59.26% 25.00% 43.75% 16.67% 25.49% 16.67%

H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

<steak>: < a C e > 11.11% 3.13% 12.77% 3.38% 8.16% 8.33%

<potato>: < e > 3.70% 3.13% 2.13% 2.38% 0% 0%

H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

: < a C > 7.41% 0% 0% 2.38% 1.96% 0%

: < e a > 3.70% 0% 4.17% 0% 2.00% 0%

H7 H9

: < e a > 14.81% 0%

: < a C e > 53.84% 50.00%

278

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

R7 R9 G7 G9

2.08% 0% 10.20% 0%

29.17% 14.29% 34.00% 35.47%

The evidence strongly reinforces our conclusions that (1.) different words are misspelling-prone to different extents and (2.) the same phonolog­ ical segment is misspelling-prone in different ways depending upon the words it occurs in. In respect of quantity, the Id in was misspelled < e a > in only 3.70% of the trials in H7, whereas the Id in < a t e > was misspel­ led < e a C > in 59.26% of the trials in the same grade. In respect of quality, the Id in < a t e > was most frequently misspelled < e a C > , whereas the Id in was most frequently misspelled . Thus, the thorough grasp of the mechanisms and strategies underlying spelling errors requires nothing less than word-based error types and frequencies for rep­ resentative samples of the population, laborious though this may be. The processing of reflects a 5% decrease in the use of English letter naming as a spelling strategy from H7 to H9, a 9% increase from R7 to R9, and a 6% increase from G7 to G9. The main misspelling of < a t e > conforms to the received developmental pattern, with an across-theboard decrease in the employment of complication and irregularization. <steak>'s major misspelling evidences a decrease in simplification and reg­ ularization in H and R, with no change in G. The major misspelling of <potato> reflects a slight decrease in German letter naming in H and no change in R. English letter naming disappears as a processing strategy for the /e/ in in the transition from H7 to H9. Irregularization is phased out entirely in the processing of from 7 to 9 as are complication and irregularization in the processing of . The /e/ in regis­ ters a slight decrease in regularization from H7 to H9, a 15% decrease from R7 to R9, but a slight increase from G7 to G9. Materials for teaching the spelling of /e/ should thus (1.) drill the marker < - e > as essential to the spelling of the free alternate of < a > in H7 and H/R/ G9 and (2.) contrast < a C e > with < e a > and < a > with < a C e > in H/R/G in 7/9. The GD exhibits far less utilization of German/English letter naming as a spelling strategy than does the ID. Whereas almost 50% of the misspellings of /e/ in the ID are traceable to letter naming (cf. p. 80), only 70/285 or 24.56% are attributable to this cause in the GD. The next most frequent causes of the misrepresentation of /e/ in the ID are reregularization ( < e y >

PROCESSING STRATEGIES IN BILINGUAL SPELLERS

279

for , < a y > for <ey, aCe, ai>, < a i > for < a C e > ) and simplifica­ tion cum regularization ( for < e a > ) as opposed to regularization (< aCe> for < a C > ) and irregularization ( < e a > for < a C e > ) for the GD. In sum, the transition form the ID to the GD is the transition from greater to les­ ser letter naming, from reregularization to regularization, and from regulari­ zation to irregularization. 8.3.4 English /ε/ The critical items for Id in the GD were as follows: <Week-end> (002), (054), <wear> (100), (106), (126), <enjoyed> (179), (222), (229), and <weekend> (234). The Id in was always spelled correctly. In Table 8.3.4.-1 we list the entire array of the misspelling types in the GD for /ε/ in the critical items above, together with the frequencies of occur­ rence of each error token. Table 8.3.4.-1: /ε-Misspellings <Week-end> (002) (1.) < E > 6.85%

(1.) (2.) (3.) (4.) (5.) (6.)

<wear> <ere> <are> <e>

(1.) (2.) (3.) (4.) (5.)

<e> <ee> <eCCe>

10.89% 2.42% 1.61% 1.21% 0.81% 0.40%

2.44% 0.41% 0.41% 0.41% 0.41%

(1.) < a > 2.02%

(1.) < i > (2.) < a > (3.) < u >

32.66% 1.21% 0.40%

(1.) < a >

7.26%

<enjoyed> (1.) < i > (2.) < a >

3.67% 2.86%

<week-end> (234) (1.) < a > 0.81%

280

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

The misaddition of capitalization in < E > for < e > in <Week-end> (002) we attribue to <Week-end>'s occurring in the title of the dictation, not to interlinguistic transfer of the German rule of substantival capitalization. < i > for < e > in we trace to partial or total cognatization to German 'lemonade'. < a > for Id, in line with the discussion on p.81, results from using English letter naming, in particular place of articula­ tion of an English letter name, as a spelling strategy. < e > for Id in is due to regularization to the checked alternate primary vowel pat­ tern for < e > . Venezky (1970:110) points out that the correspondences of a primary vowel spelling before tautosyllabic < r > depend upon the environment fol­ lowing < r > . He distinguishes three cases: (1.) (2.) (3.)

< r > followed by a vowel unit, which is in turn followed by a vowel unit or juncture (e.g., <malaria>, ); < r > followed by a vowel unit, which is in turn followed by a conso­ nant, or < r > followed by < r > (e.g., , ); < r > followed by a consonant or juncture (e.g., , <star>).

<were> for <wear> is either due to the misperception of wear as were or to the simplification of environment 2 above to conform to environment 1: < e > is pronounced Id when followed by < r > which is followed by a vowel unit. <ware> for <wear> is the substitution of the regular primary vowel pattern for < a > before < r > followed by a vowel unit, which is then followed by juncture (cf. environment 1 above) for a minor correspondence of the sec­ ondary vowel pattern < e a > , a simplification cum regularization. <wair> for <wear> is the substitution of the secondary vowel pattern < a i > with the minor correspondence Id, as in , for the secondary vowel pattern < e a > with the minor correspondence /ε/, as in , an example of a re-irregularization. <weare> for <wear> appears as the product of the conjoint application of (1.) the secondary vowel pattern spelling < e a > of the minor correspondence Id and (2.) the simplification of environment 2 for <ere> to conform to environment 1. <waer> for <wear> is either due to a metathesis or the sequencing of English letter names result­ ing in a metathesis, while <wer> for <wear> is a regularization to the checked alternate of the primary vowel < e > . Thus, the major misspellings of /ε/ are seen to derive from the action and interaction of the processing strategies established for the ID. < e > for < i e > in is a regularization cum simplification of the

PROCESSING STRATEGIES IN BILINGUAL SPELLERS

281

secondary pattern < i e > with the minor correspondence /e/ to the primary pattern < e > with the checked alternate Id. < e e > for < i e > in we treat as a function of the same spelling strategy which yields < e > for < i e > , coupled with perseveration. < i > for < i e > in admits of several interpretations: the perseveration of the < i > in , the omission of the < e > in < i e > , or the substitution of < i > for < i e > . Assuming it is a substitu­ tion, it could be motivated by the perception of the unstressed Id in as A/, the most common pronunciation of < i > in unstressed syllables being /I/. A plausible explanation is somewhat more apparent in the case of < i > for the first < e > in <enjoyed>, where the pronunciation [e] alternates with the pronunciation [I]. In respect of the developmental data, the %'s of error for the most fre­ quent misspellings of the /e/'s in H7/9, R7/9, and G7/9 in the above-men­ tioned critical items are given in Table 8.3.4.-2.

H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

Table 8.3.4.-2: /ε/-Developmental Data <Week-end> (002): < E > : < i > 0% 7.41% 9.38% 28.13% 12.50% 41.67% 0% 40.48% 13.73% 49.02% 2.08% 16.67%

H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

<wear>: < e r e > 11.11% 15.63% 31.25% 9.52% 0% 0%

: < a > 3.70% 12.50% 0% 21.43% 7.84% 0%

H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

: < e > 14.81% 6.25% 0% 0% 0% 0%

<enjoyed>: < i > 4.00% 0% 10.42% 4.67% 1.96% 0%

282

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

: < a > 0% 0% 8.33% 2.38% 0% 0%

<week-end> (234): < a > 3.70% 3.13% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Note that the <en-> in <enjoyed> was misspelled 10x as < a n d > , tes­ tifying to their perceptual identification. Note further that <Week-end> (002) and <week-end> (234) exhibit different error patterns due to the first occurrence appearing in the title of the dictation. Contrary to the received developmental pattern, capitalization as a pro­ cessing strategy for hyphenated substantives in compounds increases in fre­ quency from H7 to H9 and is more frequent in both R7 and G7 than in H7. Cognatization of the < e > in to the < i > in also increases from H7 to H9 and is more frequent in both R7 and G7 than in H7. The major misspellings of <wear> and < T h e n > bear witness to the confusion of members of near homonym and homonym pairs. Such confusion of spellings increases from H7 to H9 and, in the case of < T h e n > , from R7 to R9. Stated in terms of processing strategies, the transition from H7 to H9 reflects an increase in simplification (<were> for <wear>) and an increase in the use of place of articulation of a letter name ( for < T h e n > ) . The data on < i > for < i e > in exhibit a decrease in simplifica­ tion cum regularization from H7 to H9 and its total absence for the /e/ in in R and G. The major misspelling of unstressed /ε ~ I/ in <enjoyed> is the product of the use of the primary vowel pattern < i > to represent the checked alter­ nate /ε/, a reregularization. This erroneous strategy is applied more fre­ quently in R7 than in either H7 or G7 and more frequently in R9 than in either H9 or G9. /e/ in , misspelled < a > in only R7 and R9, and /e/ in <week-end> (234), misspelled < a > in only H7 and H9, were both processed by place of articulation of an English letter name. On the basis of these obser­ vations and the data on < T h e n > , we must conclude that place of articulation of both German and English letter names is virtually phased out as a spelling strategy in G by 7.

PROCESSING STRATEGIES IN BILINGUAL SPELLERS

283

Several recommendations for the teaching of English spelling to L1 Ger­ man learners are suggested by these developmental trends: (1.) stressing the non-capitalization of the second element of hyphenated compounds in titles in H9, R7, and G7; (2.) contrasting the spellings of German and English cog­ nate pairs in 7/9 of H, R, and G; (3.) contrasting the spellings of English near homonym and homonym pairs, especially in H7/9 and R7/9; (4.) spelling < i e > in unstressed position in H7/9; (5.) spelling < e > in unstressed position in R7/9; (6.) exercises in the reduction of the use of place of articulation of a letter name, especially in H7/9 and R7/9. The comparison of the error types and their token frequencies in the GD with those in the ID reveals that the two most frequent misspellings of each item containing Id in the GD ( < i > , < e C e > , < a C e > , < a > , < e > , < e e > ) are properly included among the misrepresentations of /ε/ in the ID and the three most frequent misrepresentations of /ε/ in the ID ( < e > , < a > , < i > ) are properly included among the misspellings of /ε/ in the GD. The processing strategy of place of articulation of German and English letter names is the major cause of the misspellings of /ε/ in the ID (cf. p. 81) ; while the effects of this cause are still present in the GD, still greater roles are played here by cognatization, environmental simplification, and reregularization. 8.3.5. English /œ/. The critical items for /æ/ in the GD were <Saturday> (006), <jam> (025), <sandwich> (034), and <salad> (044). In Table 8.3.5.-1 are the mis­ spellings of /æ/ in these words, together with their token frequencies. Table 8.3.5.-1: /æ/-Misspellings <Saturday> (1.) < e > 0.80% (2.) < u > 0.40%

<jam> (1.) < a C e > (2.) < u > (3.) < e a > (4.) < e > (5.) < a i >

4.10% 2.87% 2.46% 2.05% 0.82%

<sandwich> (1.) < u > 1.21% (2.) < e > 0.81%

<salad> (1.) < e >

1.22%

As indicated in section 3.1.5., /æ/ is foreign to German. Articulatory

284

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

proximity predicts that /æ/ will therefore be misspelled by the graphemes used to spell the most similar sounds in English and German. The most similar English sounds are /e, 8, A/, and their standard orthographic representations serve to account for all of the above misspellings, /e/is the free alternate of the primary vowel pattern < a C e > , so that the substitution of < a C e > for < a > in <jam> is the replacement of the primary vowel pattern for the checked alternate ( < a > ) with the primary vowel pattern for the free alter­ nate ( < a C e > ) , a reregularization. Furthermore, Id is the minor correspon­ dence of < e a > and the major correspondence of < a i > , as in < great, wait>, so that < e a > for < a > in <jam> is the substitution of a minor secondary vowel pattern for a major primary, an irregularization cum complication, while < a i > for < a > in <jam> is the substitution of a major secondary vowel pattern for a major primary, a complication, /ε/ is the checked correspon­ dence of the primary vowel pattern < e > , so that < e > for < a > in <jam> is the substitution of one primary vowel pattern for another, a reregularization. Finally, /A/ is the checked correspondence of < u > , so that < u > for < a > in < j a m > is the substitution of one primary vowel pattern for another, another reregularization. From the point of view of attempts to spell /æ/, substitutions of the type for < a > in <jam> are misspellings which are the products of the process of reregularization. As attempts to spell /e, 8, A/, as in <pane, pen, pun>, are perfectly correct, i.e. not misspellings at all. Thus, we consider substitutions of the type for < a > in <jam> to be reregularizations mediated by the substitution of the phonemically prox­ imate /e, 8, A/ for /æ/, due to the absence of /æ/ from the phonemic repertoire of German. In respect of the cross-sectional and developmental data, the main mis­ spellings of the /ae/ in <Saturday>, < j a m > , <sandwich>, and <salad> and their token frequencies are given in Table 8.3.5.-2. Table 8.3.5.-2: /æ/-Misspellings: Developmental Data

H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

<Saturday>: < e > 3.70% 3.13% 0% 0% 0% 0%

<jam>: < a C e > 28.00% 3.13% 2.13% 2.44% 0% 0%

PROCESSING STRATEGIES IN BILINGUAL SPELLERS

H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

<sandwich>: < u > 0% 0% 4.26% 2.38% 0% 0%

285

<salad>: < e > 3.85% 0% 2.08% 0% 1.96% 0%

All the misspellings of /æ/ observe the received developmental pattern, excepting < u > for < a > in <sandwich> in R7/9. The most frequent misspel­ ling of /æ/, < a C e > for < a > in <jam> in H7, is strongly on the wane by H9. As mentioned in section 3.1.5., drills in H6, we now suggest H6/7, should train the discrimination and production of /æ/, as opposed to /e, e, A/, and then contrast the spelling < a C > with the spellings < a C e > , < e C > , and < u C > . The three most frequent misrepresentations of /ae/ in the GD, namely , are among the five main misspellings of /ae/ in the ID. Absent from the GD, however, is the regularization manifested by < a C > for < a C e > ( for ). 8.3.6. English /ә/. fa/ was represented by the critical items <Saturday> (006), <summer> (008), (018), <potato> (043), <salad> (044), < b o t l e s > (052), (054), (080), (085), (116), < h o u r > (212), (222), (229), and (223). <seller> for <salad> and < a n d > for < a > were omitted from the count. The /ә/ s in and the second /ә/ in were always spelled correctly. All the GD /ә/-misspelling types and their token frequencies are pre­ sented in Table 8.3.6.-1. Table 8.3.6.-1: fa/ -Misspellings <Saturday> (1.) < e > 0.81% (2.) < a > 1.21%

<summer> (1.) < a # > (2.) < a >

0.40% 0.40%

(1.) < i > (2.) < e >

<potato> (1.) < o a > (2.) < o e >

0.40% 0.40%

0.81% 0.40%

286

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

<salad> (1.) < a C e > (2.) < e > (3.) < o >

(1.) < e l >

10.08%

(1.) < a > 0.81% (2.) < e > 0.40%

(1.) < A >

14.11%

(1.) < r e > (2.) < e r >

2.42% 2.02%

(1.) < o >

(1.) < o > (2.) < e >

0.81% 0.81%

13.01% 1.22% 0.41%

0.40%

The most frequent misspelling of < a > = hi consisted in the misaddition of capitalization after < : > , < : > functioning for these informants as the equivalent of < . > . All of the misspellings of hi in the critical items above serve in other forms as the normative spellings of hi: <e>

: : : : : : :

<memorial> <defmite> (weak form) <cupboard> <does> (unstressed)

From this point of view, all/e/misspellings in the GD are due to intrasystemic transfer. for < o > in <potato> is a complication. Since the statis­ tics on spelling and vowel reduction are lacking, further interpretation of the error data must be held in abeyance. < e > after < 1 > marks the [1] as syllabic, as in Considerable, pebble bottle>. < e > before final < l , n > — unless preceded by , or some consonant clusters with an intitial nasal — is pronounced [ 0 ~ a], as in <novel, level, barrel> (cf. Welna 1982:48-49). Since the spelling of word-

PROCESSING STRATEGIES IN BILINGUAL SPELLERS

287

final [al] as either < l e > or < e l > is lexical, i.e. must be memorized, we inter­ pret < e l > for < l e > , as in for , as a product of word-level intralinguistic transfer, as, in particular, a regularization. In Table 8.3.6.-2 we give the main misspellings of hi and their token fre­ quencies in the cross-sectional and developmental data: Table 8.3.6.-2: /e/-Misspellings: Developmental Data

H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

<Saturday>: < e > 0% 3.13% 0% 2.38% 0% 0%

<summer>: < a # > 3.70% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

: < i > 3.70% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2.08%

<potato>: < o a > 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.96% 0%

H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

<salad>: < a C e > 3.85% 6.45% 8.33% 14.29% 13.73% 25.00%

: < e l > 22.22% 18.75% 18.75% 4.76% 1.96% 2.08%

H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

: < a > 0% 0% 0% 4.76% 0% 0%

: 7.41% 0% 33.33% 7.14% 21.57% 6.25%

288

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

: 3.70% 9.38% 2.08% 2.38% 1.96% 0%

H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

: < o > 3.70% 0% 2.13% 0% 0% 0%

: < o > 3.70% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

In most of these items the incidence of error is very low. The exceptions are <salad>, , and < a > . <salad>, together with , <juice>, <movie>, and <store>, were new words in G. Their error frequencies are brought together in Table 8.3.6.-3. Table 8.3.6.-3: New Words in G

<salad> (N = 246) (N = 246) <juice> (N = 235) <movie> (N = 248) <store> (N = 245)

G7 19.92% 3.25% 11.49% 14.92% 3.67%

G9 13.01% 0% 10.21% 5.65% 1.23%

Data controlled for familiarity is lacking, but the high error rate on <salad>, <juice>, and <movie> in G7 suggests that dictations be adminis­ tered at grade level unless the object of the experiment is to artificially induce error. Recommendations for teaching the spelling of hi suggested by the error data include: (1.) contrasting words in final <-le> as opposed to those in final <-el>, as in /<novel>; (2.) stressing lower-case spelling after a colon; (3.) teaching full vowel/reduced vowel alternations insofar as this is possible in derivational families, as in <defme>/<defmition>, where full

PROCESSING STRATEGIES IN BILINGUAL SPELLERS

289

vowel and reduced vowel are spelled identically, and as in <pronounce>/ <pronwnciation>, where full vowel and reduced vowel are spelled differentID (cf. section 3.1.6) and GD similarities in the misspellings of hi include: (1.) primary vowel misspellings which in other items are normative, i.e. intralinguistic transfer, and (2.) a correlation between the primary vowel misspellings of hi and another primary vowel spelling in the same word, e.g. ID <minits> for <minutes> and GD for . The central difference is that the ID contains digraphic misspellings of hi — < e e , ie, ei, eio> — which are never used to spell hi in other items. 8.3.7. English /3/. /3/ was represented in the GD by the critical items (126) and <were> (155). for in was not included in the tally, and /3/ in was never misspelled. The several misspel­ lings of <were> which resulted in the correct spelling of different words, for example <wear>, were included in the analysis because they are relatable to the correct spelling of <were> by established processing strategies. The var­ ious types of misspelling of the /3/ in <were> and their token frequencies are presented in Table 8.3.7.-1. Table 8.3.7.-1: /3/-Misspellings

(1.) (2.) (3.) (4.) (5.) (6.)

<were> <ea> <e> <eaCe> <eo>

7.82% 2.06% 0.82% 0.82% 0.41% 0.41%

/3/ corresponds regularly to < e a > before < r > followed by a consonan­ tal, as in , and exceptionally before < r > in . The regular correspondence of < e a > before final < r > is HI, as in . < e a r > for < e r e > in <were> is thus either the substitution of a decontextualized major secondary pattern (as in ) for a minor primary ( < e r e > ) , a regularization cum complication, or the substitution of a minor secondary pattern (as in ) for a minor primary, a re-irregularization cum complication. The regular correspondence of < e > before < r > followed by a vowel,

290

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

which is in turn followed by a vowel or juncture, is /I ~ i/, as in . /3/ is thus an irregular correspondence in <were>. Furthermore, the regular correspondence of < e > before < r > followed by a consonant or juncture is /3/, as in . < e r > for < e r e > is thus the substitu­ tion of a regular primary pattern for an irregular primary pattern, a regularization. /3/ is the regular correspondence of < o > preceded by <w, wh> and fol­ lowed by < r > , as in <word, work, world>. for < e r e > in <were> is then the substitution of a major primary pattern for a minor primary, a reg­ ularization. <was> for <were> is the substitution of singular for plural, <war> for <were> the substitution of a German singular for an English plural. <weor> for <were> is apparently the product of both irregularization ( < e r e > ) and regularization ( < o > ) . The frequency distributions of the major misspelling of the /3/ in <were> in the cross-sectional and developmental data are presented in Table 8.3.7.-2. Table 8.3.7.-2: /3/-Misspellings: Developmental Data

H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

<were>: < e a > 33.33% 15.63% 10.42% 0% 0% 0%

The complication or regularization cum complication evidenced by <wear> for <were> thus observes the received developmental pattern and is phased out by R9 and G7. Since the incidence of /3/-misspelling is still high in H by 9, the several alternatives for spelling /3/ should be contrasted in H7/9, including <were>, , < h e r > , , <work>, and < t u r n > . The GD reflects greater -awareness than the ID: 5 of the 12 types of misspelling of /3/ in the ID fail to represent the retroflex, tense, high-mid quality of hi, whereas < r > is always present in the misspellings of /a/ in the GD.

PROCESSING STRATEGIES IN BILINGUAL SPELLERS

291

8.3.8. English IA/. /A/ was represented in the GD by the critical items <summer> (008) and (233). All the misspelling types in these words and their token frequencies are given in Table 8.3.8.-1. Table 8.3.8.-1: /^-Misspellings <summer> (1.) < o > (2.) < a >

9.68% 0.40%

(1.) < a > (2.) < o u > (3.) < u > (4.) < a h >

2.83% 0.81% 0.40% 0.40%

Ihiis the major correspondence of the primary vowel pattern < u > when followed by a single consonantal, as in , or a consonantal cluster C 1 C 2 , where C1 < r > , as in <summer, butter, custom>. /A/ is the minor correspondence of the primary vowel pattern < o > before <m, n, v > , < t h > and other consonantals, as in (cf. Welna 1982:62,72). Thus, < o > for < u > in <summer> is the substitution of a minor primary pattern for a major primary, an irregularization, reinforced by par­ tial cognatization to German <Sommer>. Conversely, < u > for < o > in is the substitution of a major primary pattern for a minor prim­ ary, a regularization. Neither < a > nor < a h > are pronounced /A/ in English. Bearing in mind that stressed /A/ is foreign to German and that the articulatorily most proxim­ ate sounds in English are /a/, regularly spelled < a > before C 1 (C 2 ), where C 1 = < r > , as in , irregularly < a h > as in , and/o/, spel­ led by the minor secondary pattern < o u > , as in , the trans­ fer hypothesis permits for < u , o > pronounced /A/. < a > for < u > in <summer> is thus the substitution of a decontextualized major prim­ ary pattern for another major primary pattern, a reregularization, mediated by phonetic proximity. < a > for < o > in is the substitution of a decontextualized major primary pattern for a minor primary pattern, a reg­ ularization, mediated by phonetic proximity. < a h > for < o > in is the substitution of a minor primary pattern for another minor primary pat­ tern, a re-irregularization, mediated by phonetic proximity. Finally, < o u > for < o > in is the substitution of a minor secondary pattern for a minor primary pattern, a complication, also mediated by phonetic proxim­ ity.

292

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

We conclude that all the misspellings of/A/ in the GD may be understood as the products of the processing strategies established independently for the ID, including spelling by articulatory proximity, in this case proximity to seg­ ments specified ([+Back, -High]). The cross-sectional and developmental data on /A/ are presented in Table 8.3.8.-2. Table 8.3.8.-2: /A/-Misspelling: Developmental Data

H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

<summer>: < o > 18.51% 9.38% 22.92% 2.38% 5.88% 2.08%

: < a > 18.52% 3.13% 2.13% 0% 0% 0%

Here, the received developmental pattern is observed, except for a slight increase in the use of irregularization in the processing of <summer> in R7. The high error rates in H7, H9, and R7, coupled with the above analysis, indicate a need in these grades for materials (1.) teaching the perception and production of/A/, (2.) contrasting the perception and production of/A, C, a/, (3.) contrasting the various spellings of/A, O, a/, as in <cuff, cough, calf>, and (4.) contrasting differently spelled German and English cognates, such as German <Sommer>/English <summer>. The ID and GD exhibit nearly identical error types and strategies (cf. section 3.1.8), with misspellings of /A/ in < a > and < o > accounting for 85.72% of the errors in the GD. 8.3.9. English lul. The critical items fof/u/in the GD were: <juice> (019), <soup> (037), (089), (101), and <movie> (148). In Table 8.3.9.-1 we display the misspelling types in the GD for lul in the critical items above, together with the frequencies of occurrence of each error token. Table 8.3.9.-1: /u/-Misspellings <juice> (1.) < u C e > (2.)

18.30% 3.83%

<soup> (1.) < u > (2.) < u C e >

16.13% 4.84%

PROCESSING STRATEGIES IN BILINGUAL SPELLERS

(3.) (4.) (5.) (6.) (7.) (8.) (9.)



3.40% 1.28% 1.28% 0.85% 0.43% 0.43% 0.43%

(089) (1.) < o u > 1.61% (2.) < o u e > .40% (3.) < e w > .40% <movie> (1.) < u > (2.) < o o > (3.) < o u >

(3.) (4.) (5.) (6.) (7.)



4.03% 3.23% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40%

(101) (1.) < o u > (2.) < o u e > (3.) < e w >

1.12% .81% .40%

293

3.63% 2.42% 1.61%

Here, spelled words other than the ones dictated and unrelated to them via established processing strategies were excluded from the count: for <juice>; <soap, cheese, supper> for <soup>; and for . 11.69% of both the spellings of (089) and (101) consisted in the misaddition of a hyphen, i.e. , with a surprising 41.38% (089) and 37.93% (101) occurring in G9. /(j)u/ is the major correspondence of the secondary vowel pattern < u i > and the major correspondence of the primary vowel pattern < u C e > . Thus, < u C e > for , the main misspelling of the /u/ in <juice>, is the sub­ stitution of a major primary pattern for a major secondary, a simplification. /u/ is a minor correspondence of the secondary vowel pattern , as in , the major correspondences being /aw/ (in intitial and medial position), as in and /o/ (in final position), as in <arrow, pillow, bow>. Furthermore, /u/ is the major corre­ spondence of the secondary vowel pattern < u e > , as in , the major correspondence of the secondary vowel pattern <eu, ew>, as in , and the major correspondence of the secondary vowel pattern < o o > , as in . Thus, < o u > for in <juice> and < o u > for < u e > in is the substitution of a minor sec­ ondary correspondence for a major secondary correspondence, an irregularization. The substitution of < e w > for < e u > , on the other hand, is the sub-

294

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

stitution of a major secondary pattern for another major secondary, a reregularization. /u/ is the major correspondence of the primary pattern < o > before < v > , as in and the major correspondence of the primary pattern < u C V > . Hence, the substitution of < u > for < o > in <movie> is the substitution of one major primary vowel pattern for another, a reregularization, reinforced by English and/or German letter naming. < u > for < u i > in <juice> and < u > for < o u > in <soup> are the effects of English and/or German letter naming. < o e > usually occurs at the ends of native words with the pronunciation /o/. < o e > >/u/in <shoe> is an exception. Thus, < o e > for in <juice> is the substitution of a minor secondary pattern for a major, an irregularization. >/u/,as in , is a minor secondary pattern, and < o o C e > > /u/, as in , is a major secondary pattern. Hence, for < o u > in <soup> is the substitution of one minor secondary pattern for another, a re-irregularization, while for in <juice> is the substitution of one major secondary pattern for another, a reregularization, and < o u C e > for in <juice> the sub­ stitution of a minor secondary pattern for a major, an irregularization. < o u e > for < u e > in appears to be the product of the conjoint application of the processes (1.) < o u > > /u/, as in , a minor secondary pattern, and (2.) < u e > >/u/,as in , a major secondary pattern. The remaining error, < u o > for < o u > , is a backward displacement, since < u o > >/u/is not a GPC in either English or German. We conclude that all of the misspellings of /u/ obtain from the action and interaction of processing strategies previously established for the ID. The %'s of error for the most frequent misspellings of /u/ in each of the items in the cross-sectional and developmental data are given in Table 8.3.9.2. Table 8.3.9.-2: /u/-Developmental Data

H7 H9 R7 R9

<juice>: < u C e > 22.22% 22.58% 10.42% 7.14%

<soup>: < u > 33.33% 25.00% 27.08% 4.76%

PROCESSING STRATEGIES IN BILINGUAL SPELLERS

Gl G9

30.00% 21.28%

H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

(089): < o u > 11.11% 3.13% 0% 0% 0% 0%

H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

<movie>: < u > 11.11% 6.25% 6.25% 0% 1.96% 0%

295

15.69% 0% (101): < o u > 11.11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

The main misspelling of the /u/ in <juice>, < u C e > for , is a simplification. For <juice>, simplification observes the received develop­ mental pattern, except for G, where the incidence of this error is greater in G7 than R7 or H7 and in G9 than in R9 (cf. section 8.3.1.). The remainder of the most frequent misspellings of /u/ all reflect the received developmental pattern. German/ English letter naming, the strategy underlying < u > for < o u > in <soup>, decreases from H to R, from R to G, and from 7 to 9. The irregularization evidenced by < o u > for < u e > in is negligible by H9 and totally absent in R and G. Finally, the reregularization exhibited by < u > for < o > in <movie> is virtually phased out in the transi­ tion from R7 to R9. Instructional materials should be informed accordingly: (1.) complica­ tion of the type for < u C e > should be stressed, especially in H7/9 and G7/9; (2.) letter naming counteracted in H7/9, R7/9, and G7; (3.) reg> < u e > emphasized in H7 and (4.) rere­ ularization of the type < o u > gularization of the type < u > for < o > highlighted in H7/9. Note that the main misspellings in the GD are among those in the ID (cf. pp. 90-91). In the ID the major cause of the misspelling of /u/ is English/Ger­ man letter naming; in the GD it is simplification, followed by letter naming, reregularization and irregularization.

296

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

8.3.10. English /U/. lui was represented in the GD by the item (085) and mis­ spelled by < o > in 6.04% of the trials. In Table 8.3.10.-1 we list the frequency distributions in the cross-sectional and developmental data on this only mis­ spelling type for /u/. Table 8.3.10.-1: /u/-Misspellings: Developmental Data

H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

: < o > 7.41% 9.38% 10.42% 0% 9.80% 0%

/u/ is the minor correspondence of the primary pattern < o > in appar­ ently only and <woman>, the latter familiar to all the informants. Since < u > : /u/ is itself a minor primary pattern, < o > for < u > in is the substitution of one minor primary pattern for another, a reirregularization. The error rate on < o > for < u > is sufficiently high in H/R/G7 and H9 to warrant instruction. Here, attention should be drawn to (1.) the elusive < u > : /u/ vs. < u > : /A/ contrast, as in vs. , including the decisive influence of the preceding labials < p , b, f> and (2.) to differently spelled German/English cognates, such as German /English . The misspelling types for /u/ are very similar in the ID (cf. section 3.1.10) and GD, with a system-internal explanation for both. A special study is needed, however, to ascertain the extent of German spelling pronunciation and its consequences for the spelling of /u/ in particular, and English spelling in general. 8.3.11. English /o/. The critical items for /o/ were: <woke> (010), <potato> (043), (045), <store> (074), (079), (082), (085), < R o a d > (132), <wrote> (195), and (229). The types of misspelling of /o/ in these words and their token frequencies are given in Table 8.3.11.-1.

PROCESSING STRATEGIES IN BILINGUAL SPELLERS

Table 8.3.11.-1: /o/-Misspellings

(1.) (2.) (3.) (4.) (5.) (6.) (7.) (8.) (9.)

<woke> <e>

(1.) (2.) (3.) (4.)



(1.) (2.) (3.) (4.) (5.) (6.) (7.) (8.)



(1.) < u >

6.45% 4.44% 2.42% 2.42% 0.81% 0.81% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40%

12.15% 1.62% 0.40% 0.40%

9.72% 4.45% 3.24% 1.21% 1.21% 0.81% 0.40% 0.40%

0.40%

<potato> (1.) < o e > (2.) < o u > (3.) < o a > (4.) < a >

52.23% 0.81% 0.40% 0.40%

<store> (1.) < o C > (2.) < o a > (3.) < o o >

13.06% 1.23% 1.23%

(1.) < o u > (2.) < o > (3.) < o C e > (4.) < o u C e > (5.)

4.45% 2.02% 0.81% 0.40% 0.40%

(1.) < o C e > (2.) (3.) < o > (4.) (5.) < o e > (6.) < a u >

3.63% 2.02% 0.81% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40%

297

298

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

(1.) (2.) (3.) (4.) (5.)

<wrote>

1.21% 0.80% 0.80% 0.40% 0.40%

(1.) < o C > (2.) < o h > (3.) < e >

21.77% 0.40% 0.40%

The most frequent misrepresentation of <woke> was <walk> (10.08%), other word-level misrepresentations including <wake> (1.21%), <work> (1.21%), and <week> (0.40%). In a discussion of reading substitu­ tion strategies and their relation to spelling, Marsh, Friedman, Welch & Desberg (1980:341) mention that the initial strategy used when the child learning to read encounters an unknown word in context is to substitute a known word which fits the semantic and syntactic context of the sentence, even if the substituted word bears no orthographic relationship to the printed word. <walk, wake, work, week> for <woke> cannot reflect a spelling analogue of this guessing strategy for reading, however, since the misrep­ resentations (1.) do not fit the semantic and syntactic context of the sentence (John up at nine o'clock.) and (2.) do indeed bear an orthographic relationship to the correct spelling of the word dictated, namely the sharing of the first and last consonantal letters (<w,k>) of the target whose sound correspondences should therefore be regarded the most salient. The second beginning reading strategy mentioned by Marsh, Friedman, Welch & Desberg (1980:342) is the use of semantic and syntactic context along with partial graphemic cues as the basis of substitution of a known word for an unknown word, the child often relying on the first letter or the first and last letter to determine the substitution. The above misrepresentations cannot be the product of the spelling analogue of this second beginning reading strategy either, since none of the substitutions fit both the syntactic and the semantic context. Rather, the syntactic and semantic inappropriateness of the substitu­ tions reflect the informants' treating the dictated texts as word lists, and the fact that < a , aCe, or, ee> are neither German nor English major or minor patterns for /o/ appears to indicate that the misrepresentations are not erroneous attempts to spell <woke> at all, but grounded in misperceptions of or unfamiliarity with the word dictated. We thus arrive at a frequent asym­ metry between strategies in reading and strategies in spelling. Such errors of perception or ignorance of an item dictated were excluded from the tally. Also excluded for the same reason were <small> (lx) for <store>, for , <parkwell> for <Park

PROCESSING STRATEGIES IN BILINGUAL SPELLERS

299

Road>, and for <wrote>. Note that none are semantically and syntactically appropriate to the context. for is evidence of the frequent disyllabic pronun­ ciation of , a spelling error traceable to an error in pronunciation. The most frequent misspellings of consisted in the misaddition of hyphen ( (12.15%)) and consisted in the misaddition of space ( (10.12%)), i.e. in errors of addition, rather than substitution. To what extent do the above GD misspellings of /o/ reflect the processing strategies posited for the ID? /o/ is the regular free alternate of the primary vowel pattern < o C e > . As mentioned in section 3.11, the transfer theory of error predicts that English /o/ will be misspelled by German < o o > , < o > , and < o h > . Reinforcing the spelling of /o/ as < o > is German/English letter naming and English < o > > /o/ before final or preconsonantal <1> (e.g., <extol, fold>). /o/ is the major correspondence of < o a > , and of in final position (e.g., < b o a t > , <arrow>), the major correspondence of < o e > (e.g., <Joe, toe, foe>), the minor correspondence of in medial position (e.g., <soul, bowl>), and the minor correspondence of < a u > (e.g., ). Thus, virtually all of the misspellings of /o/ have their source in either intra- or interlinguistic transfer. < e > for /o/ in <woke> is an error of anticipation, < a > for /o/ in <potato> an error of perseveration — <pototas> is the only transposition error in the entire ID and GD — < u > for the /o/ in an error of perseveration, and < e > for /o/ in either an anticipation or a perseveration. Left unexplained are only the < a > and < u > for the /o/ in <woke>. <woke> is pronounced [wәuk] in British English, so that < a > might stand for [a] and < u > for [u], analogous for the vowels to the cluster analysis dis­ cussed for the consonants in Chapter IV. We conclude that, with very few infrequent exceptions, the processing strategies underlying the ID also underlie the GD misrepresentations of /o/. Turning to the cross-sectional and developmental data, we chart the major misspelling types for /o/ and their frequencies in H, R, and G, 7 and 9, in Table 8.3.11.-2. Table 8.3.11-2. /o/-Misspellings: Developmental Data

H7

<woke>: < o o > 22.22%

<potato>: < o e > 58.26%

300

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

3.13% 18.75% 0% 0% 0%

40.63% 21.28% 71.43% 56.86% 64.58%

H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

: < o u > 22.22% 15.62% 22.92% 7.32% 7.84% 2.08%

<store>: < o C > 25.93% 9.38% 31.25% 4.76% 10.42% 0%

H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

: < o C C C > 0% 3.13% 19.15% 30.95% 3.92% 0%

: < o u > 7.41% 0% 4.17% 11.90% 0% 4.17%

H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

: 0% 0% 2.38% 2.38% 7.84% 8.33%

<wrote>: < o u > 7.41% 3.13% 0% 0% 0% 0%

H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

: < o C > 37.03% 37.50% 27.08% 16.67% 15.69% 6.25%

PROCESSING STRATEGIES IN BILINGUAL SPELLERS

301

< o o > for < o C e > in <woke> is due to transfer from German. Its development accords with the received developmental pattern, with strong decreases from H7 to H9 andR7 to R9. < o e > for in <potato> is the substitution of a secondary pattern for a primary, a complication, with increases in error frequencies from R7 to R9 and G7 to G9 and almost three times more errors in R9 and G9 than in H9. Almost half of these errors occur in mispluralizations of <potato>. < o u > for < o > in is the substitution of a minor secondary pat­ tern for a major primary, an irregularization cum complication, reinforced by the sequencing of German/English letter names. It follows the received developmental pattern except for a minute increase in frequency in R7 as compared with H7. for in <store>, , and is the product of processing by letter naming instead of the primary vowel pat­ tern. Compared with one another, they illustrate how the same target ( < o C e > ) with the same attempt () is error-prone to different extents in the different schools and grades. The high frequency of < o C > for < o C e > in reflects the intensifying effect on error of the collu­ sion of several strategies conspiring to produce the same product, in this case letter naming and partial/total cognatization (cf. German ). < o u > for < o a > in is the substitution of a minor secondary pattern for a major secondary, an irregularization, and < o u > for < o C e > in <wrote> the substitution of a minor secondary pattern for a major primary, an irregularization cum complication. Note that the irregularization of the spelling of the /o/ in increases from R7 to R9 and G7 to G9. < o C e > for < o a > in < R o a d > is the substitution of a major primary pat­ tern for a major secondary, a simplification, with a developmental pattern which is the exact inverse of the received. It emerges from the above that instructional materials should stress primary vowel representation () in lieu of letter naming ( < o C > ) , especially in R7 and R9, contrast those German and English cognates which are spelled differently (English vs. German :/o/ in all schools in 7 and 9. All the major error types in the GD are represented in the ID and viceversa (cf. section 3.1.11). Over 50% of the ID misspellings of /o/ were proces­ sed by letter naming and sequencing of letter names. The GD evidence of these strategies is now strong (<woke>—40%, —53%, <store> —67%), now weak (—20%, <wrote>—10%, —2%),

302

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

with complication, irregularization, and cognatization underlying the major­ ity of the remainder. 8.3.12. English /ɔ /. The GD critical items for /ɔ / were <John's> (001), (018), (020), <sausage> (046), (052), (059), (143), <walk> (194), <watches> (204), and (225). We give the misspelling types and their frequencies for these items in Table 8.3.12.-1. The /ɔ /'s in and were always spelled correctly. Table 8.3.12.-1:/ɔ/-Misspellings <John's> ( 1.) < a >

( 1.) ( 2.) ( 3.) ( 4.) ( 5.) ( 6.) ( 7.) ( 8.) ( 9.) (10.) (11.)

<sausage> <eu> <ar>

(1.) (2.) (3.) (4.) (5.) (6.) (7.) (8.) (9.)



0.81%

6.50% 2.85% 1.63% 0.81% 0.41% 0.41% 0.41% 0.41% 0.41% 0.41% 0.41%

4.44% 4.44% 4.03% 1.21% 0.81% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40%

(1.) < 0 >

0.81%

(1.) < u > (2.) < o o > (3.) < o a > (4.) < o C e > (5.) < a >

2.82% 1.21% 0.81% 0.81% 0.40%

<walk> (1.) < o o > (2.) < o > (3.) < o a > (4.) < a C C e >

2.43% 2.43% 1.21% 0.81%

PROCESSING STRATEGIES IN BILINGUAL SPELLERS

(1.)

<watched>

0.40%

(1.) < o u > (2.) < o > (3.) < a u > (4.) < o a >

303

6.94% 3.27% 1.22% 0.41%

The major misspelling of <John's> (8.87%) was the mis-omission of apostrophe, traceable to the absence of apostrophe as a possessive marker in German. The capitalization of < 0 > in reflects transfer of the German rule of substantival capitalization. <Jones> (2x) for <John's>, and for , <work, wake, woke> for <walk>, and for , evidently based in mishearings, were excluded from the tally. The mispellings of /ɔ / present an altogether complicated picture. After reviewing the major and minor spelling patterns for /ɔ /, we proceed with an attempt to interpret these misspellings as products of the processing strate­ gies advanced in the course of the ID investigation. /ɔ/is the major correspondence of < o > when followed by < r > , as in , and when followed by at least two consonantal letters, C1C2 , where C # < 1 > , as in ./ɔ/is also the major cor­ respondence of < a > directly after < w > , as in <want, wash, watch>, and before a final or preconsonantal <1>, as in and the major correspondence of , as in ./ɔ/is the minor correspondence of , as in , of < o a > , as in , of < o o > , as in <door, floor> and of < o > in < o C V > , as in and < o e > , as in < B o e r > . Welna (1982:31) points to the fact that the grapheme < a > before single < r > corresponds to /ɔ / when it is preceded by , as in . If such spellings were segmentalized as , and the environments overgeneralized or ignored, < a r > could serve to spell/ɔ/in <sausage>. for /ɔ / appear somewhat of a mystery, since they are regu­ larly used to represent /(j)u/, as in . /u/ and/ɔ/are, how­ ever, articulatory neighbors; were one to abstract away from the feature with respect to which they differ, [+High] for /u/, [-High] for /ɔ /, then /ɔ / would be just as likely to be spelled as would /u/. Apparently the < - e > in for < o u > in and in for the < a > in <walk> are attempts to represent the aspiration

304

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

accompanying word-final voiceless stops in careful articulation (cf. Chapter

III. The processing strategies underlying the misspellings of /ɔ/ are thus as follows. < a > for < o > in <John> is the substitution of a decontextualized major primary pattern for another major primary pattern, a reregularization. < o , a, or, ar> for < a u > in <sausage> is the substitution of a decontex­ tualized major primary pattern for a major secondary pattern, a simplifica­ tion. for < a u > in <sausage> is the substitution of a minor sec­ ondary pattern for a major secondary, an irregularization. < a w > for < a u > in <sausage> is the substitution of a decontextualized major secondary vowel pattern for another, a reregularization. < u > and for < a u > in <sausage> are substitutions of a major primary pattern for a major sec­ ondary, a simplification, and of major secondary patterns for another major secondary, a reregularization, respectively, both mediated by place of articu­ lation ([—Low]) as a spelling strategy. < u > for < o > in is the substitution of a major primary pat­ tern for another major primary, mediated by place of articulation ([—Low]) as a spelling strategy. < o o , oa> for < o > in are substitutions of minor secondary patterns for a major primary, irregularizations cum compli­ cations, and < o C e > for < o > in the substitution of a minor prim­ ary pattern for a major primary, an irregularization. Finally, < a > for < o > in is the substitution of a decontextualized major primary pattern for another major primary, a reregularization. for < o u > in are the substitutions of minor sec­ ondary patterns for another minor secondary, re-irregularizations, and < o > for < o u > in the substitution of a major primary pattern for a minor secondary, a regularization cum simplification. for < o u > in are substitutions of major secondary patterns for a minor second­ ary, regularizations. < o C e > for < o u > in is the substitution of a minor primary pattern for a minor secondary, a simplification. < a > for < o u > in substitutes a decontextualized major primary pattern for a minor secondary, a regularization cum simplification. < o w > for < o u > in substitutes a decontextualized minor secondary pattern for a minor secondary pattern and is thus a re-irregularization. for < a > in <walk> are the substitutions of minor secondary patterns for a major primary, irregularizations cum complications. < o > for < a > in <walk> is the substitution of a decontextualized major primary pat­ tern for a major primary pattern, a reregularization.

PROCESSING STRATEGIES IN BILINGUAL SPELLERS

305

< o u > for < a > in <watched> is the substitution of a minor secondary pattern for a major primary, an irregularization cum complication. for < a > in are minor secondary patterns for a major primary, irregularizations cum complications, while < o > for < a > in is the decontextualized substitution of one major primary vowel pattern for another, a reregularization. Finally, < o u > for < a > in is the substitution of a minor secondary vowel pattern for a major primary, an irregularization cum complication. We conclude this section with the observation that the established pro­ cessing strategies and their combinations are indeed capable of accounting for the several misspellings of /ɔ/ if recourse is had to the notion of a "decon­ textualized" spelling pattern, i.e. a normative context-sensitive GPC regarded as context-free, and place of articulation as a spelling strategy. The major types of misspelling of /ɔ/ and their frequencies in the crosssectional and developmental data are presented in Table 8.3.12.-2: Table 8.3.12.-2: /ɔ /-Misspellings: Developmental Data

H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

<John's>: < a > 0% 3.13% 2.08% 0% 0% 0%

: < 0 > 0% 0% 2.08% 2.38% 0% 0%

H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

<sausage>: < o > 14.81% 0% 6.38% 4.76% 6.00% 8.33%

: < u > 11.11% 6.25% 4.17% 0% 0% 0%

H7 H9 R7 R9

: < o a > 14.81% 6.25% 8.33% 3.38%

<walk>: < o o > 14.81% 3.23% 2.08% 0%

306

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

G7 G9

0% 0%

H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

<watched>: < o u > 3.70% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0% 0% : < o u > 16.00% 9.38% 21.28% 0% 0% 0%

The frequencies of the tokens of the following three error types are too low to warrant further discussion: (1.) < a > for < o > in <John's>, a reregularization, < 0 > for < o > in , a product of the transfer of the German rule of substantival capitalization; (3.) < o u > for < a > in <watched>, an irregularization cum complication. All the higher frequency misspellings of /ɔ/ observe the received developmental pattern, excepting the < o > for < a u > in <sausage>, a simplification which undergoes a slight increase from G7 to G9, and the < o u > for < a > in , an irregularization cum complication which undergoes an increase in use in R7 vis-à-vis H7. In particular, simplification as a strategy for processing the /ɔ/ in <sausage> as evidenced by < o > for < a u > is phased out in H from 7 to 9 and decreases from R7 to R9. Second, reregularization as evidenced by < u > for < o > in decreases from H7 to H9 and is phased out from R7 to R9. Third, re-irregularization as evi­ denced by < o a > for < o u > in decreases from H7 to H9 and R7 to R9. Fourth, irregularization cum complication as evidenced by < o o > for < a > in <walk> and < o u > for < a > in <watched> and decreases in H and R from 7 to 9. The recommendations for the spelling of /ɔ/ which emerge from a consid­ eration of the above error data pertain, above all, to H7. Exercises are called for to (1.) reduce simplification of the type < o > for < a u > in <sausage>; (2.) reduce reregularization of the type < u > for < o > in , includ­ ing contrastive training in the various spellings of /u/ and /ɔ/; (3.) reduce reirregularization of the type < o a > for < o u > in by contrasting pairs such as /; (4.) reduce irregularization of the type < o o > for < a > i n <walk> by contrasting pairs such as /; (5.) reduce decontextualization by stressing, for example, the contextual deter-

PROCESSING STRATEGIES IN BILINGUAL SPELLERS

307

mination of < a > : / ɔ / after , as in , and before preconsonantal <1>, as in , and the spelling < a w > as opposed to < a u > for word-final /ɔ/, as in vs. <saw>. A comparison of the analyses of the -misspellings of /ɔ/ in the ID and the GD confronts us with an apparent contradiction: the -mispellings in the ID are claimed to derive from the negative transfer of the German GPC < o > - - - > /ɔ/, while the -misspellings of /ɔ/ in the GD, in particular < o > for < a u > in <sausage> are claimed to be a simplification resulting from the decontextualized application of English < o > - - - > /ɔ/. Yet another explanation is that the -misspellings of /ɔ/ result from activation of the strategy of place of articulation of a German letter name. Yet others are that they obtain from the activation of any two of these or all three. In this case, we resolve the problem by appealing to indirect evidence: because letter naming and interlinguistic transfer play major roles in the ID, but minor roles in the GD, we treat < o > : / ɔ / in the ID as the product of letter naming and interlinguistic transfer and < o > : / ɔ / in <sausage> in the GD as the product of simplification. Assuming this analysis to be correct, over 70% of the ID errors are seen to result from letter naming and the negative transfer of the German < o > ---> /ɔ/ GPC, while the major GD misspellings evidence roughly equal amounts of simplification, reregularization, re-irregularization, and irregularization cum complication. Moreover, the set of error types in the ID, excepting < o y > for , is properly included in the set of error types for /ɔ/ in the GD. 8.3.13. English /a/. /a/ is represented in the GD by the following critical items: (116), <Park> (131), (212), and (219). The types of /a/misspellings in these items, together with their token frequencies, are pre­ sented in Table 8.3.13-1. , miswritten for in 21.98% of the trials, and were omitted from the count. The /a/ in was always spelled correctly. Table 8.3.13.-1: /a/-Misspellings <Park> (1.) (2.) < o >

0.80% 0.40%

(1.) < a o u >

0.40%

308

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

(1.) (2.) (3.) (4.) (5.)



3.02% 1.29% .43% .43% .43%

Since /a/ is neither a major nor minor correspondence of < o > in British English — contrast this with American English :/a/, as in — and the pronunciation of the group instruction and dictations was British, :/a/ in < P a r k > cannot be attributed to the intralinguistic trans­ fer of a British English GPC. It is either a word-level error grounded in a mis­ hearing or a misspelling based on the misidentification of /a/ with /ɔ/, the reg­ ular correspondence of < o > , as in , due to their perceptual similarity. The main misspelling of < h o u r > (10.48%), most frequently < o u r > for < h o u r > , consisted in the misomission of the initial < h - > , a consonantal rather than vocalic error, /aw/ is the minor correspondence of < a u > , as in <sauerkraut, umlaut>, and the major correspondence of < o u > (in initial and medial position), as in . While the trigraph < a o u > corresponds to /aw/ in , it is safe to assume that this item was not in the informant's vocabulary. < a o u > for < o u > in thus appears to be the product of conjoint application of minor representation ( < a u > ) , irregularization, and major representation ( < o u > ) , regularization. for < a u > in offers additional support for analyzing < o > for < a > in < P a r k > as the misidentification of /a/ with /ɔ/, since < o u > , like < o > , may be used in British English to spell /ɔ/, as in . The basis for the misidentification of /a/ and ɔ/ is the foregrounding of [—High] and the backgrounding of [4+Low, ±Round]. Moreover, since /ɔ/ is the major correspondence of < a u > , as in <pause, cause>, and the minor correspondence of < o u > , as in , < o u > for < a u > may be the substitution of a minor correspondence for a major, an irregularization, mediated by the spelling pronunciation of < a u > as /ɔ/. Here, the fallacy involved may be expressed by: (1.) (2.)



(3.)

/ɔ/

---> /ɔ/ ---> /ɔ/ --->



PROCESSING STRATEGIES IN BILINGUAL SPELLERS

309

a violation of one of the several rules of inference presented in the Conclusion. /a/ is the irregular correspondence of < a C e > , as in <are, massage, corsage>. for < a C C > in < P a r k > is thus a minor primary pattern for a major primary pattern, an irregularization. for < a u > in is the substitution of a minor primary pattern for a minor secondary pattern, a simplification. Finally, for < a u > in appears to be a function of the interaction of minor secondary representation ( < a u > ) with minor primary representation ( < a C e > ) , an example of conjoint appli­ cation. As indicated in 3.1.13, -misspellings may derive from the negative transfer of the German GPC < a > - - - > /a/ and/or German letter naming. Moreover, < a > normatively corresponds to /a/ when followed by < r > , as in . < a > for < a u > in is thus the decontextualized sub­ stitution of a major primary correspondence for a minor secondary, a reg­ ularization cum simplification, or the product of negative transfer from Ger­ man. We conclude that the misspellings of /a/ are explicable in terms of the strategies advanced. Subsequent studies should focus on constraining the powerful device of place of articulation. In Table 8.3.13.-2 we present the cross-sectional and developmental data on the main misspellings of /a/. Table 8.3.13.-2: /a/-Misspellings: Developmental Data

H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

< P a r k > : 3.70% 0% 0% 2.38% 0% 0%

H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

: < o u > 3.85% 0% 6.25% 0% 1.96% 4.17%

: 0% 3.13% 0% 0% 0% 0%

310

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Minor reverses in the received developmental pattern we register in R9 for < P a r k > , H9 for < h o u r > , and R7 and G9 for . The /a/'s in < P a r k > and < h o u r > were too infrequently misspelled to suggest cross-sectional or developmental differences. The re-irregularization evidenced by < o u > for < a u > in increases in R7 and G9, suggesting the desirability in these grades of drills teaching the < a u > spellings of /a/, as in . In comparing the ID with the GD it is essential to bear in mind that the ID dictations were administered in American English, while the GD dicta­ tions were administered in British English. In the ID almost all of the misspel­ lings of /a/ (cf. section 3.1.13) consisted of either (1.) < a > for < o , aCe, oh, au> or (3.) < o > for . As the cause of (1.) we posited the negative transfer of the German GPC < a > - - - > /a/ and/or German letter naming and as the cause of (2.) the overgeneralization of the predictable major pattern for the checked alternate /a/ of < o > in American English, as in . Since the checked alternate of < o > in British English is /ɔ/, differ­ ent factors interact in the GD -misspellings of /a/, namely either the mis­ hearing or the misperception of /a/ as /ɔ/. Since there is clearly a difference between mishearing in the sense of a slip of the ear and misperception in the sense of an inability to distinguish, the former speaker-corrigible, the latter not, experimentation is required to clarify this issue. By contrast, the primary processes underlying the misspellings of /a/ in the GD are regularization, simplification, irregularization, re-irregularization mediated by place of articulation, and the interaction of minor patterns with major. 8.3.14. English /oy/. <enjoyed> (179), containing the critical item /oy/, was misspelled 105/ 245 or 42.86% of the trials, ranking it among the most misspelling-prone items in the corpus. The /oy/-misspelling types and their associated frequencies are as fol­ lows: Table 8.3.14.-1: /oy/-Misspellings (1.) (2.) (3.) (4.) (5.)

<eu>

20.00% 7.76% 2.86% 2.04% 1.63%

( 8.) ( 9.) (10.) (11.) (12.)

<ey>

.41% .41% .41% .41% .41%

311

PROCESSING STRATEGIES IN BILINGUAL SPELLERS

(6.) < u > (7.) < a u >

1.22% .41%

(13.) < i o > (14.)

.41% .41%

< o i > for /oy/ is written in medial position, whereas < o y > for /oy/ is writ­ ten morpheme-finally, with exceptions (, , etc.). We trace < o i > for /oy/ to (1.) overgeneralization consisting in intralinguistic transfer and/or (2.) sequence of German letter names as a spelling strategy and < o e > for /oy/ to sequence of English letter names as a spelling strategy, thus finding confirmation for three of the ID strategies summarized in Chapter III in the GD major misspelling types for /oy/. The %'s of error for <enjoyed> for H7/9, R7/9, and G7/9 are given in Table 8.3.14.-2. Table 8.3.14.-2: <enjoyed> H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

100% 77.42% 72.92% 26.19% 17.65% 2.08%

Here we find the received developmental pattern, with the spelling of <enjoyed> remaining a problem in H9 and R9. The %'s of error of < o i > for < o y > for H7/9, R7/9, and G7/9 are given in Table 8.3.14.-3. Table 8.3.14.-3: < o i > for < o y > H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

32.00% 45.16% 41.66% 11.90% 1.96% 2.08%

Here we note a 13% increase in the employment of German letter naming/intralinguistic transfer from H7 to H9, but a 29.76% decrease in the use of the same strategies from R7 to R9 in the processing of the spelling of /oy/ in <enjoy>. In the case of < o e > for < o y > (= /oy/) in <enjoyed> we note a slight

312

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

increase in the employment of German letter naming from H7 to H9 (4%) and a slight decrease from R7 to R9 (5.7%). The error data obviously suggests that materials for teaching the spelling of loyl stress the quasi contrastive distributions of the spellings , especially in H7/9 and R7. At the same time, attention should be accorded the analogously distributed (<wait, day>), (), <ei/ey> (), <eu/ew> (), and (<mountain, how>). In the ID loyl was only misspelled by < a y > , a misspelling absent from the GD. Note, however, that <enjayed> (= <enjoyed>) remained unedited in 9.27% of the error-correction responses, 55.58% in H7, leaving us with an example of an error no one in grades 7 and 9 makes, but 1 out of 10 subjects fails to recognize. 8.3.15. English /aw/. English /aw/ was represented twice in the item <downtown> (075), which was misspelled in 105/248 or 42.34% of the cases. 54% of these misspel­ lings consisted in the misaddition of space (<down town>) and 17% in the misaddition of a hyphen (<down-town>). The /aw/-misspelling types and their associated frequencies are as fol­ lows: Table 8.3.15.-1: /aw/-Misspellings (1.) (2.) (3.) (4.) (5.)

<wo>

4.84% 2.42% 1.61% 1.21% .40%

(6.) (7.) (8.) (9.)



.40% .40% .40% .40%

<don't> (2x) and <dont> (2x) are apparently traceable to misperceptions of /dawn/ as /dont/. Since < a u > - - - > /aw/ only in words of foreign ori­ gin in English (, , <sauerkraut>, <sauna>, etc.) and < a u > - - - > /aw/ in German ( 'house', <Maul> 'animal mouth', etc.), we explain < a u > for < o w > above as resulting from the combined effects of (1.) the negative transfer of < a u > - - - > /aw/ from German and (2.) sequencing German letter names as a spelling strategy. The next most frequent error, < o u > for < o w > , is a case of intralingual transfer of one major correspondence for another. According to Venezky

PROCESSING STRATEGIES IN BILINGUAL SPELLERS

313

(1970:118-119), has the major correspondence /aw/ in initial and medial positions ( < o u t > , , , ), the major corre­ spondence /o/ in final position (<arrow>, < b o w > , , etc.), and the minor correspondence /aw/ in final position (, , , etc.). Wema's assertion (1982:66) that the digraph < o u > is written < o w > in word-final position and before morpheme boundaries is a necessary condi­ tion on < o w > (except < t h o u > ) , but not sufficient (, , <down>, , , , etc.); apparently words spelled with initial and medial < o w > , as opposed to < o u > , must be committed to lexical memory. The %'s of error in <downtown> for H7/9, R7/9, and G7/9 are given in Table 8.3.15.-2. Table 8.3.15.-2: % Error <downtown> H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

92.59% 50.00% 58.33% 40.48% 3.92% 35.42%

Here we observe the received developmental pattern, with the exception of the dramatic increase in % error from G7 to G9 which is due to an 8% increase in the addition of space (<down town>) and a 29% increase in mishyphenation (<down-town>). the %'s of error of < a u > for < o w > for H7/9, and G7/9 are given in Table 8.3.15.-13: Table 8.3.15.-3: < a u > for < o w > H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

7.41% 15.63% 10.41% 0% 0% 0%

Recall that we noted in section 8.3.14. a 14% increase in /oy/-misrepresentation by < o i > from H7 to H9, hypothesizing that this is due to an increase in the combined effects of sequencing of German letter names and

314

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

transfer as spelling strategies. This hypothesis predicts a similar increase in the employment of these strategies in the spelling of /aw/, a hypothesis which is confirmed by the 7% increase in the misrepresentation of /aw/ by < a u > from H7 to H9. In the case of < o u > for < o w > in <dowtown>, we note slight decreases in the use of intralinguistic transfer as a spelling strategy from H7 to H9 (.8%) and R7 to R9 (1.6%). Teaching materials should contrast German < a u > with English < o w > in H/R/G in 6/7/9, < a u > for < o w > being the main misspelling of /aw/ in both the ID and the GD. In the ID /aw/ was misspelled in 8 different ways, with < a u > ranking first in frequency and < o u > ranking third. 8.3.16. English /ay/. The critical item for English /ay/ was (077), which was misspelled in 37/248 or 14.92% of the observations. The /ay/-misspelling types and frequencies are as follows: Table 8.3.16.-1: /ay/-Misspellings (1.) (2.) (3.) (4.) (5.)

<ey> <e>

12.50% 1.21% .40% .40% .40%

< y > , < e y > , < y e > and < u y > may be used word- and morphemefinally to spell /ay/, as in < m y > , < e y e > , < b y e > , and . These errors are thus due to intralinguistic transfer. < b e > for is evidently based on a mishearing. The %'s of erroneous spellings of for H7/9, R7/9, and G7/9 are given in Table 8.3.16.-2. Table 8.3.16.-2: % Error H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

29.63% 31.25% 20.83% 9.52% 5.88% 4.17%

PROCESSING STRATEGIES IN BILINGUAL SPELLERS

315

Here we again observe the received developmental pattern, excepting a slight (1.6%) increase in overall error frequency from H7 to H9. The % substitutions of < y > for < u y > in in H7/9, R7/9, and G7/ 9 are given in Table 8.3.16.-3. Table 8.3.16.-3: < y > for < u y > H7 H9 R7 R9 G7 G9

29.63% 25.00% 16.67% 9.52% 1.96% 4.17%

There are thus decreases in the use of a major correspondence of a prim­ ary vowel pattern for a major correspondance of a secondary vowel pattern, i.e. a reduction in simplification, in the processing of the vowel in /bay/ from H7 to H9 (4.6%) and R7 to R9 (7.2%) and a slight increase from G7 to G9 (2.2%). The error data suggests contrasting the various morpheme and wordfinal spellings of /ay/, especially in H/R in 7/9. In the ID (cf. section 3.1.16) the three most frequent misrepresentations of /ay/ are < e i > , < a i > , and < i > . The first we attributed to the interlinguistic transfer of the German GPC < e i > - - - > /ay/, as in Ei 'egg', the second to the interlinguistic transfer of the German GPC < a i > - - - > /ay/, as in and/or German letter naming, and the third to English letter naming, with < b u y > itself misspelled (A 13). < e i > , < a i > , and < i > , however, are totally absent from the GD as misrepresentations of the /ay/ in /bay/ (= ). Generalizing about the processing of /ay/, we thus note the abrupt cessation in the use of interlinguistic transfer as a processing strategy in the transition from 6 to 7 and an overall decrease in the use of intralinguistic transfer in the transition from 7 to 9. 8.4. Conclusions. We end this chapter with a summary and discussion of the major conclu­ sions reached. (1.) The same sound in different words may be spelling-error prone in different ways. The /ɔ/ in <walk>, for example, was misspelled
316

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

aCCe>, while the /ɔ/ in was misspelled . Moreover, the same sound with the same normative spelling may be spellingerror prone in different ways. For example, the /o/ in <woke>, with the nor­ mative spelling < o C e > , was misspelled , while the /o/ in <wrote>, with the same normative spelling < o C e > , was misspelled . Furthermore, the same norma­ tive spellings of different sounds may be spelling-error prone in different ways. For example, the < i e > for /i/ in was misspelled <eaCe, iC(C)e, ie, ea, ee, eCe, eeCe, e > , while the < i e > for Id in was misspelled < e , ee, i, eeCe, ae>. Finally, even in those cases where the set of spellingerror types for a vowel in one word is properly included in the set of spellingerror types for the same vowel in a different word, such spelling-error types may exhibit different absolute frequencies and these frequencies may appear in differant ranks. For example, the set of misspellings of the /i/ in is properly included in the set of misspellings of the HI in , but whereas < e e > is the most frequent misspelling of the /i/ in (18.78%), it is the fifth most frequent misspelling of the /i/ in (.81%). These observations lead us to conclude that it is not just sounds, nor just letters, nor even letter-sound correspondences which are misspelling prone in certain ways, but letter-sound correspondences in individual words. This we refer to as the "word effect for spelling errors". (2.) Statements of the form "X is substituted for Y by means of the pro­ cessing strategy Z", as in < u C e > is substituted for by means of reregularization cum simplification (cf. section 8.3.9.), miss an important generalization, in fact the most important generalization about errors of the substitution type. The fundamental fact about such errors is that any letter(s) X may be substituted for any letter(s) Y on the condition that both X and Y stand for the same sound in the standard orthography. More precisely, given any two GPCs, where G 1 = {L1, S1 and G 2 = {L2, S 2 }, L 2 > L1 if S 2 = S1. Casting this sufficient constraint on error variables of the substitution type in semiotic terms, the signifiants of two different signs may be substituted for one another if they have the same signifiés. Call this condition on sub­ stitution error variables the "Identical Signifié Constraint". We are thus left with the notion of the general operation of substitution (a mechanism in the terminology of this investigation) being subject to conditions or constraints (processing strategies in the terminology of this study), i.e. of rules or rule-like operations interacting with principles. The substitution of letter naming, on

PROCESSING STRATEGIES IN BILINGUAL SPELLERS

317

this theory, is subject to the constraint that the letter sound be contained in the letter name, i.e. that X may be substituted for Y if the signifiant of X (the letter name) properly or improperly includes the signifié of Y (the letter sound). The negative transfer of a native language GPC to the target lan­ guage, on the same theory, is subject to the constraint that native X may be substituted for target Y if X and Y have identical or similar signifiés. Thus vie­ wed, the development of spelling skills is the development of conditions on rules, some conditions becoming more general, others less general, some lifted, others added. (3. ) There are three classes of error types in the data where the signifiant L2 of G 2 is substituted for the signifiant L1 of G1 and S2 ≠ S . The first case is the substitution of : /e/, < e > : /ε/, and < u > : /A/ for < a > : /ae/, where /ae/ is a phoneme foreign to German (cf. section 8.3.5.). Here it was suggested that beginning German learners of English classify /ae/ with /e, 8, A/ because they are the perceptually most similar sounds to /ae/. This leads to the formulation of an additional constraint on error vari­ ables: given any pair of GPCs, G 1 = { L 1 S1 and G 2 = {L2, S 2 }, L 2 - - - > L , if S1 is system-foreign and S2 is perceptually identified with S1 Call this con­ straint on substitution error variables the "Near Neighbor Constraint". The second case is the substitution of < a , ah>: /a/ and < o u > : /ɔ/ for : /Λ/, where /Λ/ does not occur in stressed position in German (cf. sec­ tion 8.3.8.). Here it was suggested that beginning German learners of English classify stressed English /Λ/ with stressed English /á/ and /ɔ/ because /á/ and /ɔ/ are the nearest neighbors to /Λ/ in the perception of such learners. While /ae/ in the first case is foreign to German, /Λ/ in the second case is common to both German and English, but differently distributed. This observation leads us to formulate a third constraint on substitution error variables: given any two GPCs, where G 1 = {L , S } and G 2 = { L 2 , S 2 } , L 2 - - - > L 1 if S1 is common to but differently distributed in the target and native language, and S2 is percep­ tually identified with S . Call this constraint on substitution error variables the "Close Relative Constraint". The third case is the substitution of : lul for : /ɔ/ (cf. section 8.3.12.). Here it was suggested that < u , ue, eu> were substituted for via the identification and foregrounding of /ɔ/ and /u/ in respect of Backness and abstracting from such articulatory differences as Height and Tenseness. Call this constraint on substitution error variables the "Backness Constraint". Ignoring : /u/ for < a u > : /ɔ/, both of which are very infrequent, would have suggested that < u > : /A/ for < o > : /ɔ/ in

318

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

results from identifying /ɔ/ with its articulatory neighbor /A/. This hypothesis foregrounding Lowness was rejected in favor of the hypothesis foreground­ ing Backness because neither < u e > : /A/ nor < e u > : /A/ are GPCs of English. Thus, the error data suggests grouping (1.) /æ/ with /e, e, A/, (2.) /Á/ with /á, ɔ/, and (3.) /ɔ/ with /u/. It is of interest to note that these perceptual group­ ings are not the natural production groupings suggested by the articulatory distinctive feature compositions for English segments (cf. Chomsky & Halle 1968:176-177). The articulatory distinctive feature compositions for the rele­ vant English segments are given in Table 8.4.-1. Table 8.4.-1: Articulatory Distinctive Features for Selected English Vowels

High Back Low Anterior Coronal Round Tense

ë se ä ü e A _ _ _ + _ _ - + + - + - + + - - — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - + — + + + + — -

o _ + 4— _ 4—

As articulatorily /ae/ (our /ae/) differs from /ë/ (our Id) by one feature specifica­ tion ([+ Low]), it differs from /e/ (our /Є/) by two ([+ Low, 4 Tense]), and from /A/ (our /A/) by three ([— Back, 4- Low, 4- Tense]). Articulatorily, /A/ (our /A/) differs from /ā/ (our /a/) by two feature specifications ([— Low, — Tense]) and from /ɔ/ (our /ɔ/) by two feature specifications ([— Low, - Round]). Finally, /ɔ/ (our /ɔ/) differs from /ū/ (our /u/) by three feature specifications ([— High, 4- Low, — Tense]). On the assumption that the above articulatory and perceptual analyses are correct, speakers making errors of the type discussed in sections 8.3.5., 8.3.8., and 8.3.12. and summarized above exhibit an asymmetry between perception and production. (4.) Time and again we have had occasion to observe that the processing strategies underlying the production of the GD spelling error types are the same as those underlying the spelling error types in the ID, the central differ­ ence being the extent to which they are applied. In the following paragraphs we give an overview of the major trends. For /i/ 56% of the misspelling tokens are products of native or target Ian-

PROCESSING STRATEGIES IN BILINGUAL SPELLERS

319

guage letter naming in the ID, whereas the misspelling types in the GD are the products of regularization. The misspellings of /I/ in both the ID and the GD reflect mainly regulari­ zation. Half the error tokens on /e/ in the ID evidence letter naming as opposed to a quarter of the error tokens in the GD, followed by regularization and irregularization. /є/ in the ID was processed mainly by place of articulation of a letter name, while /є/ in the GD was mainly the product of cognatization, regulari­ zation, reregularization, and place of articulation, in that order. Both ID and GD /æ/ were processed primarily by articulatory proximity ("near neighbor"), with traces of regularization in the ID. ID /ә/ was produced by regularization and invented digraphs, while GD /ә/ was mainly the product of regularization. ID // and GD /  / are both products of regularization and irregulariza­ tion, with less -awareness in the ID than in the GD. /A/ in the ID followed from irregularization and regularization and /A/ in the GD from regularization ("close relative"). The misspellings of ID /u/ were mainly the product of English/German letter naming, while the misspellings of GD /u/ were mainly the products of simplification, letter naming, regularization, and irregularization. /u/ in both the ID and the GD resulted mainly from primary reirregularization. ID /o/ was mainly misspelled by letter naming and sequencing of letter names. The same is true of GD /0/, followed by complication, irregulariza­ tion, and cognatization. 70% of the misspellings of ID /ɔ/ are traceable to German letter naming and the negative transfer of German GPCs, while most of the GD misspel­ lings of /ɔ/ follow from simplification, regularization and irregularization. The misspellings of /a/ in the ID were mainly processed by negative transfer of German GPCs, German letter naming, and regularization, while the /a/-misspellings in the GD mainly followed from regularization, simplifi­ cation, and irregularization. /oy/ was mainly misspelled in the ID by negative transfer of a German GPC, whereas GD /oy/-misspellings resulted mostly from reregularization and sequencing of German and English letter names. The ID misspellings of /aw/ evidence mainly the negative transfer of a German GPC and German letter naming. The misspellings of GD /aw/ result

320

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

from these and regularization. Finally, ID /ay/ was mainly misspelled via negative transfer of German GPCs, German letter naming, and English letter naming, while GD /ay/-misspellings followed from mainly regularization cum simplification. In sum, the spelling-error data suggests the same cognitive processing for the ID and the GD, with more frequent use of letter naming and German GPCs in the ID and more frequent use of simplification, complication, reg­ ularization, and irregularization in the GD. This comes as no shock. In the initial stage of the acquisition of English orthography the German learner comes equipped with a knowledge of German and English letter names and a knowledge of German GPCs. At a later stage, with increased exposure to the major and minor primary and secondary patterns come increased intralinguistic overgeneralizations in the form of errors processed by simplification, complication, regularization and irregularization. From then on, the acquisi­ tion of correct spellings is tantamount to the undoing of these overgeneraliza­ tions. (5.) Spelling: the dual-route hypothesis? Several recent models of Eng­ lish contain two routes to oral reading, the lexical and the non-lexical (Coltheart 1984b:68-69). On the lexical route, a word-specific input letter-pattern is matched with the same word-specific letter-pattern in the mental lexicon and associated with its phonological representation. On the non-lexical route, letter patterns serve as the inputs to a set of regular graphemephoneme correspondence rules whose successive applications assemble the pronunciations of the graphemically parsed strings. Henderson (1984a:2-4) points out that the distinction between a lexical and a non-lexical route to oral reading is based on the dichotomization of the English vocabulary into regular words and exception words, where a word is regular if its pronunciation is predictable from its spelling by means of the most frequently occurring GPCs in the language. According to the dual-route hypothesis, irregular words or irregular portions of words are read orally on the lexical route, whereas pseudowords, regular words, or regular portions of words or pseudowords are read orally on the non-lexical, rule-governed route. Henderson wonders whether regularity is a dichotomous variable if there is nothing in the linguistic analysis which forces this conclusion. Were one to apply the dual-route hypothesis to spelling, then pseudowords, regular words and sounds with regular letter correspondences would be processed non-lexically, i.e. by means of PGCs, while irregularly spelled words or sounds with exceptional letter correspondences would be processed

PROCESSING STRATEGIES IN BILINGUAL SPELLERS

321

lexically, in a manner that is word-specific. While this hypothesis predicts the occurrence of spelling errors of the reregularization type, it fails to predict errors of regularization, irregularization, and re-irregularization, because, on this hypothesis, irregular spelling patterns are lexical, not rule-governed, i.e. word-specific, not word-general. The abundance of spelling errors of reg­ ularization, irregularization, and re-irregularization, however, argues strongly against the hypothesis of a dual-route to spelling and strongly in favor of the hypothesis that irregularly spelled words, like regularly spelled words, are spelled by means of rules, i.e. PGCs. On this hypothesis, the dif­ ference between spelling a regular and an irregular word is not that the former is rule-governed and the latter lexical, but that the former is wordgeneral, i.e. controlled by processes affecting the majority of occurrences of the sound-type being spelled, and the latter word-specific, i.e. controlled by processes affecting the minority of occurrences of the sound-type being spel­ led, with both regular and irregular spellings being rule-governed. Since this latter hypothesis — call it the "dual-word hypothesis" — predicts errors of regularization, irregularization, and re-irregularization, in addition, of course, to errors of reregularization, i.e. all and only the substitution error types in this investigation, we consider it confirmed. The dual-word hypothesis on spelling may have implications for the dual-route hypothesis on reading. If, for example, spelled pseudowords are orally read irregularly, say <preat> as [pret], it must mean that they are being read via a non-lexical route. But if a reader is reading via the non-lexical route, it must mean that irregular spellings themselves are not lexical, but rule-governed. 8.5. Appendix: Dictation test. John's Week-end It was a Saturday in summer. John woke up hungry/ at nine o'clock. He had or ange-juice,/ cornflakes,/ eggs,/ and toast with jam/ for breakfast. For lunch/ he ate some potato salad,/ cold sausage and cheese with bread,/ two bottles of lemonade,/ and a piece of chocolate cake. After John washed his car in the garage,/ he went shopping/ in a store downtown/ to buy some clothes:/ a yellow raincoat,/ a green pullover,/ a pair of blue jeans,/ and a pair of brown shoes. He likes to wear blue jeans/ when he works. Then he painted the front of his house/ and the garden gate. In the evening,/ he took Mary,/ his pretty girlfriend,/ to the cinema near Park Road/

322

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

and to a dance. It was her birthday,/ so he brought her some flowers. The movie started/ at eight o'clock,/ but they were five minutes late. On Sunday/ John got up early,/ went to church,/ and had a nice lunch/ with his mother and father. He enjoyed this visit/ with his parents/ very much. Later in the afternoon/ he took a walk,/ wrote a letter/ to a friend in Cam­ bridge,/ and watched a funny picture on television/ for an hour and a half. It made him laugh. Then he remembered Mary/ and called her on the tele­ phone/ to talk about another week-end together.

CONCLUSION

C0.

Conclusion.

In this concluding chapter we attempt to tie what may appear to be loose ends together, to sight the forest after a detailed inspection of the trees, to use Wieland's 1768 metaphor we now live by. This will amount to a summary of the major conclusions we have thusfar drawn, an attempt to place these conclusions in the broader perspective of error analyses of normals and abnor­ mals on the various levels of linguistic 1 representation, to locate the theory oflinguistic 1error within the theory of actional error, to present and critique one current processing model of language, and to suggest several areas for subsequent investigation which appear both necessary and desirable. C.l. The relativity of categorization. In the Introduction and Chapter I of this study we stressed that the process of category formation and the category-products which result are relative to the system of coordinates adopted by the categorizor. We place the entire theory of categorization within the organon-model of language, so that, for example, what is an error for one speaker, say a developmental error made by a child acquiring his native language, is a different error from the error made by an adult acquiring a second language, or an error in the discussion of one topic in a certain situation is not an error in relation to a dif­ ferent topic discussed in a different situation, etc. The relativity of categori­ zation was most eloquently brought home by Albert Einstein, when, in ref­ erence to the relativity of the category simultaneity, he wrote (1920:25-26): Up to now our considerations have been referred to a particular body of reference, which we have styled a "railway embankment." We suppose a very long train travelling along the rails with the constant velocity v and in the direction indicated in Fig. 1. People travelling in this train will with advantage use the train as a rigid reference-body (co-ordinate system) ; they regard all events in

324

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

reference to the train. Then every event which takes place along the line also takes place at a particular point of the train. Also the definition of simultaneity can be given relative to the train in exactly the same way as with respect to the embankment. As a natural consequence, however, the following question arises: Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B) which are simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment also simultaneous relatively to the train? We shall show directly that the answer must be in the negative. When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the mid-point M of the length A → B of the embankment. But the events A and B also correspond to positions A and B on the train. Let M' be the mid-point of the distance1 A → B on the travelling train. Just when the flashes of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with the point M, but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the velocity of the train. If an observer sitting in the position M' in the train did not possess this velocity, then he would remain permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of lightning A and B would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would meet just where he is situated. Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he is hastening toward the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A. Observers who take the railway train as their referencebody must therefore come to the conclusion that the lightning flash B took place earlier than the lightning flash A. We thus arrive at the important result: Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simul­ taneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time: unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event. 1 As judged from the embankment.

One need but pair any two of the very large number of extant error analyses to convince oneself that the error categories employed vary dramat­ ically from investigator to investigator, without compelling argumentation or justification, with the unfortunate consequence that virtually none of these investigations eventuate in results that are comparable, hence generalizable. To mention just a handful of examples in point from literally hundreds which

CONCLUSION

325

could have been mentioned. In a study of spelling errors in children with communicative disorders which is, in several noteworthy respects, pioneering (cf. Chapter I), Avakian-Whitaker and Whitaker (1973: 115-116) offer a finely graded taxonomy of spelling errors embedded in a conceptual framework consisting of 13 categories: metatheses, deletions, substitutions, additions, reversals, letter-sound spelling, grapheme-phoneme correspon­ dences, syllable-structure, syllable-position, sequence constraints on graphemes, dialect spelling, syntax, and unclassified jargon responses. By way of contrast, Lecours and Lhermitte (1969) develop a reference model for the description of phonemic paraphasias consisting of first and second order transformations, on the one hand, which yield a deletion of units and a deletion of doublets error categories, as well as the addition of units both in and without the stimulus, and deletions cum replacements, and third and fourth order transformations, on the other, eventuating in further categories in the theory of error, whereby the authors explicitly state that they make no claim to psychological reality: "It should be understood that this model is an attempted description of events occurring at the behavioural end of language production in phonemic j argon aphasia : and not a postulated theory of what goes on within brain machinery in that disease..." (op cit, p. 82), apparently meaning that the authors are proposing a descriptive theory of phonemic error qua product, which we find especially perplexing given the processual denominations assigned by the authors to the error categories which they propose. Then, in Blumstein (1973: 123-137), a study of some of the phonological implications of aphasic speech, we are confronted with a failure to justify the categories underlying the error taxonomy proposed and to explain the quantitative differences in the error types observed. Further­ more, the adopted error categories of 'simplification', 'addition', and 'envi­ ronment' were not investigated in respect of markedness — one of the major conclusions of the paper was the claim that the markedness analysis revealed a tendency in all groups to substitute unmarked values for marked — and her entire argument about the inverse relationship between complexity and impairment is circular. When she writes: "Thus, regardless of the area of brain damage, the more complex phonological structures are imparied, and the less complex phonological are relatively preserved," (p. 136), by 'more complex' she must mean less frequent, and by 'less complex' she must mean more frequent, where frequency bears an inverse relationship to markedness, the very point she sets out to make, i.e. the phonological structures impaired are more complex (marked) because they are less frequent and less frequent

326

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

because they are more complex (marked). Aside from the question of the justification of the quantity and quality of categories in the theory of error, the very nature of the notion 'category' has been undergoing rethinking bordering on the revolutionary, i.e., with far-reaching implications for the restructuring of scientific thought at the foundational level. Thus, the approaches to the notion 'category' involving distinguishing between genus and differentia specifica, sets and their mem­ bership, and all that this entails, are falling into increasing disrepute (cf. Rosch 1973, Lakoff 1982a, 1982b, Johnson-Laird 1983, and the many refer­ ences cited in the latter three works), with the argumentation at such a high level of sophistication that it should not continue to be ignored by the propo­ nents of discrete vs. gradient categories (cf. Chomsky and Halle 1968), "fuzzy sets" (Lakoff 1982b for critical discussion), "squishes" (Ross 1972), etc., which have been confronted now for the past ten years with the radically different notion of 'prototype' in both cognitive psychological and cognitive linguistic 2 circles, and, most recently, catastrophe-theoretic semantics (Wildgen 1983). The fact that prototype theory brings with it a host of thorny problems, such as the cultural and individual relativity of prototypes, the measurement of distances between prototypes and their "distortions", and the very amenability of certain classes of phenomena to being conceptualized in prototypical terms, does not mean that the prototype challenge should continue to remain unmet by the representatives of the more traditional approaches to categorization mentioned above. C.2. Norms and abnorms. We have endeavored in this study to justify the categories adopted in terms of their hypothesized psychological reality both in terms of their neces­ sity as categories in the theory of short- and long-term memory loss, and, as emerged from our fragmentary discussion of orthographic conduits d'approche (cf. Chapter VII), as categories actually employed in self-repair viewed as the reverse side of the production coin, i.e. the categories of substitution, addition, omission, and displacement employed in linguistic 1 monitoring as the converse of the categories of substitution, omission, addition, and dis­ placement employed in production, respectively. To sum up, we hold the concepts addition, omission, substitution, and displacement to belong to the conceptual foundations of linguistic 1 construction and reconstruction. Given the notion of "obligatory behavioral mode"

CONCLUSION (1.)

0(-)

≡

327

~P~(-),

where '-' is a description of an effective behavioral procedure and 'P' stands for possible, leading to the notion of 'norm', given as (2.)

0 (-) ≡ (E x

(Nx . xV(-)),

where 'V' stands for prescribes, the whole to be read as "- is obligatory if x is a norm and x prescribes -", we obtain the notion of the normative alphabetic orthographic template (3.): (3.)

o(Gi--->Pi)

≡

(Nx.xV(Gi--->Pi))

where 'G.' stands for a particular grapheme, 'P.' a particular phoneme, both of a particular language., and ( G i - - - > Pi) is a descriptive predicate with 'obligatory' as its argument associated with a unique syntactics S.. All devia­ tions from (3.) we hold to be derivable from successive examplars of (3.) by means of the misapplication of one or several of the following rules of infer­ ence, which are not only ohterwise needed in the grammar on independent grounds (cf. Garrett 1981), but also in the theory of valid inference in general (cf. Kalish and Montague 1964: 264-267): INFERENCE RULES (Here a, ß, y are to be variables, ζ, ζ', ŋ,ŋ', θ symbolic terms, and ɸ, ɸ', ψ, χ symbolic formulas.) PRIMITIVE SENTENTIAL RULES: Modus ponens (MP)

Modus tollens (MT)

Double negation (DN)

Repetition (R)

328

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Simplification (S)

Adjunction (Adj)

Addition (Add)

Modus tollendo ponens (MTP)

Biconditional-conditional (BC)

Conditional-biconditional (CB)

DERIVED SENTENTIAL RULES:

Separation of cases (SC) --->

X Conditional-disjunction(CD)

PRIMITIVE QUANTIFICATIONAL RULES: Universal instantiation (UI)

CONCLUSION

329

Existential generalization (EG)

where ψ comes from ɸ by proper substitution of a term for a; Existential instantiation (EI)

where ψ comes from ɸ by proper substitution of a variable for a. DERIVED QUANTIFICATIONAL RULES:

Quantifier negation (QN)

PRIMITIVE RULES OF IDENTITY: Identity-1 (Id-1)

Identity-2 (Id-2) wher xp comes from ɸ by proper substitution of ζ for a, and a does not occur in ζ. DERIVED RULES OF IDENTITY: Symmetry (Sm)

Transitivity (T)

330

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Leibniz' law (LL) where 0' is like 0 except for having one or more free occurrences of ζ' where 0 has free occurrences of ζ. Euclid's law (EL)

where ŋ' is like ŋ except for having one or more free occurrences of ζ' where ŋ has free occurrences of ζ. PRIMITIVE RULES OF DESCRIPTION: Proper descriptions (PD)

where xp comes from 0 by proper substitution of ]aɸ

for a, and ß is not free in 0. Improper descriptions (ID) where ß is not free in 0. INTERCHANGE One formula follows from another by interchange (Int) if and only if the two formulas are respectively the conclusion and the premise of one of the following four patterns of inference (in all cases ζ, ζ', ŋ,ŋ' are to be symbolic terms, and ɸ, ɸ', ψ, ψ' symbolic formulas):

where 0' is like 0 except for having one or more occurrences of ζ' where 0 has occurrences of ζ, and a ,...,a n are all the variables bound in 0;

CONCLUSION

331

where ŋ' is like ŋ except for having one or more occurrences of ζ' where r¡ has occurrences of ζ, and a l . . . , a n are all the variables bound in ŋ ;

where 0 ' is like 0 except for having one or more occurrences of ψ' where 0 has occurrences of ψ, and al...,an are all the variables bound in ɸ;

where ŋ' is like ŋ except for having one or more occurrences of ψ' where ŋ has are all the variables bound in ŋ. occurrences of ψ, and al...an Besides the compelling criticisms of traditional conceptualization of the notion 'category', even the firmly established foundations of the traditional notion 'rule of inference' are undergoing erosion under the weight of the new wave of natural mental models. Johnson-Laird (1983: 93), for example, writes: "None of the theories of syllogistic inference survives the battery of criteria for descriptive and explanatory adequacy ... The present theories (of syllogistic inference — P. A.L.) are too fragile to bear the weight of human reason. Erickson and Sternberg tamper with the logical machinery in order to account for deductive errors, and thereby give up the chance to achieve rationality. Newell holds fast to logical power, but fails to explain systematic error. The dilemma to be resolved is to allow f or both rationality and human error. If my diagnosis is correct, what is needed is both a simpler and more natural conception of mental model." (my underscoring — P. A.L.) C.3. Constraints on error variables: Misspelling orthographies. The theory of constraints on error variables thus viewed is the theory of the constraints on the substituends (cf. infra) of the variables in the above rules of inference, mental or otherwise, their misapplication, ordering, and combination. In the present study we have established many of the empiri­ cally given constraints on error variables in orthography and spelling for the special case of the acquisition of English orthography for native speaker/ spellers of German, and we believe the level of the discussion to have been

332

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

sufficiently general for the processing strategies underlying the error types to be characteristic of this class of learners as a whole. This, of course, remains to be seen; given the interest and resources, the nature and the extent of the deviation within this population could be easily determined, similar studies conducted over other bilingual populations, and the universals of the processes and products of orthography acquisition arrived at. In the remaining, we place our conclusions in the context of other error analyses of orthography and phonology, for both monolingual and bilingual normal and disturbed population samples, including some comparisons with the results of investigations in oral reading errors. The discussion is of necessity brief, but, we hope, suggestive of a similar course which might be taken for other levels of representation and processing. Those remarks which are sketchy, we hope, are at least not cryptic. Following Mates (1965: 20-21), we employ the expression 'variable' to refer to a letter of the alphabet — neither as a thing that varies nor as the name of a thing that varies — in order to facilitate the expression of generali­ zations about elements and relations in the norm which are subjet to error. Any statement containing an error variable, such as A(ddition), O (mission), D(isplacement), or S(ubstitution), means that if the elements and relations expressed by the statement are related as described, then they will stand in some other relation that the statement goes on to set forth. The substituends of a variable are all those expressions that may be meaningfully substituted for that variable. In distinguishing between substituend and value in this way, we are employing the expression 'substituend' in the sense in which the expression 'value' was employed in Chapter I. Moreover, we stress the dif­ ference in meaning between the expression 'substituend', as defined above, and the expression 'substitute', as employed elsewhere in this study. C. 3.1. Bilingual misspelling orthographies. In this section we supplement the summaries of the individual constraints on error variables in misspelling orthographies in the German-English bilinguals discussed in-depth in the several chapters constituting the body of this study with several remarks on the foundations of the taxonomy employed and the nature of bilingual orthographic substitutions. Underlying the taxonomy used in this investigation for the classification of the error variables in the misspelling orthography of German-English bilinguals is the notion of dissociation. Assuming a normative signifié with a normative syntactics, a literal substitution is a dissociation with a non-norma-

CONCLUSION

333

tive signifiant and a normative syntactics, a literal displacement is a dissocia­ tion consisting of a normative signifiant with a non-normative syntactics, a lit­ eral addition is a dissociation consisting of a non-normative signifiant and a non-normative syntactics, and a literal omission is a dissociation having a missing signifiant with, consequently, no syntactics. Since this theory may distribute the operation of dissociation over the operation of semiosis, and the operation of semiosis may entail the erroneous presence or erroneous absence of signifiers and/or signifieds, we have termed it the "Distributive Dissociative Error Sign-Template" (cf. Table 1.3.4-2). Perseveratory and anticipatory omissions, where 0 results from P - - - > ø, and ( ( P - - - > 0 ) - - - > ~ S), are attested for aphasic phonological data (cf. Söderpalm Talo, 1980) but are not attested for the bilingual misspelling orthography under investiga­ tion. Consequently, the theory of constraints on error variables in grammar may have to rule out anticipatory and perseveratory errors of omission for the orthographic level of representation. Not only in the theory of short and long-term memory loss and in the theory of the linguistic 1 monitor are the variables S, A, O, and D necessary, but in all theories of misrepresentation and repair on all linguistic 1 levels, the morphological, the syntactic, the semantic, in both competence and per­ formance, in both comprehension and production, although it would take us far too far afield to demonstrate this. Assuming this for the present pur­ poses to be the case, it appears to be simplest to assume that these mechanisms and the processes that underlie them are themselves modular, the conse­ quence being that they must be permitted to access all elements and relations on all levels oflinguistic 2representation, while themselves not being inherent to any. The alternative is an intolerable proliferation of Ss, As, Os, and Ds on each of the levels of representation in competence and performance, and in comprehension and production. The question of the reducibility of the four operations S, A, O, and D to more primitive operations was touched upon in Chapter I with the result that it appeared unnecessarily complicated to reduce D to either an ordered A cum O or an ordered O cum A. The possibility of reducing D and S to As and Os and a discussion of the merits and demerits of such a reduction is of great theoretical interest, but must be temporarily postponed for lack of space. Note, however, that it is possible; whether or not it is desirable is another matter. The application of the set of inter- and intralinguistic processing strategies specified in section 8.2 and the summaries to Chapters III and IV

334

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

to the standard orthographic represenations of the L 2 , in this case English, yields the set of substitutive orthographic misrepresentations listed by type in Chapters III and IV. Underlying this process of error genesis are the native linguistic 1 processes acting as a filter inhibiting the in principle error-free perception and production of the L 2 input-data causing partially erroneous competence and performance output data. Schematically, L 2 - I n p u t - - - > L 1 - F i l t e r - - - > L 2 -Output Thus, the L1-Filter, together with attention, motivation, length and intensity of exposure and training, is one of the variables which must be taken into acount in any attempt to establish the determinants of L 2 -error. The possibility that the inter- and intrasystemic processes involved are not idiosyncratic to the acquisition and use of the body of knowledge under­ lying linguistic 1 competence and performance, but universal, i.e. a general epistemological and ontological feature of learning, hence knowing, beings is not to be discounted. Assuming this to be the case, we raise the question of what purpose these knowledge acquisition and production strategies serve, leading as they do to such imperfect knowledge acquisition and use. We think the answer lies in our belief that their primary function is not to yield errors in thought, word, and deed at all, but rather correct representations of knowledge in order to assist mankind to optimally adapt and relate to its social and physical environment with whatever associated enhanced survival value that this entails. The misrepresentations, the misuse of representations, and the misuse of representations believed to be correct, etc., appear to be necessary by-products of a device designed for knowledge acquisition, rep­ resentation and use, the human mind, which, on this view, is inherently imperfect, for were it perfect, there would be no constraints on knowledge acquisition, representation, and use — in short, error is part and parcel of the human condition. Man's monitoring mechanisms for ego- and alterrepair do make it in principle possible to make amends, and are hence directly functionally related to adaption and control, but even this is incapable of setting wrong right, incorrect correct, in some more absolute sense. One sense of linguistic 1 change is the change of linguistic 1 norms. Another is the change of linguistic norms to abnorms. A third is the change of linguistic abnorms back to their associated norms, the cycle complete. Underlying these different types of change, we believe, are those processes which are responsible for the acquisition of the norms themselves, not just norms linguistic1' but norms in general, not just knowledge of norms, but

CONCLUSION

335

knowledge in general. It is in this sense that we would like to promote a unified view of mind. C.3.2 Finger agnostics and aphasics. Kinsbourne and Warrington (1964) tested the ability of four groups of monolinguals —finger agnostics, aphasics, right hemisphere lesion patients, and patients with extracranial lesions — to spell orally, using Schonell's graded word spelling lists. Their results are reproduced in Table C.3.2: Table C.3.2 Distribution of the error types in the four groups of patients

Errors

Extrane­ ous Letter

Group 1: finger agnosia (N = 11)

Order

Vowel Substi­ tution

Omis­ sion

Redupli­ cation

19 (17%)

35 (32%)

11 (10%)

44 (40%)

1 (1%)

Group 2: aphasies (N = 13)

63 (49%)

9 (7%)

14 (11%)

38 (29%)

7 (4%)

Group 3: right hemisphere (N = 13)

33 (25%)

22 (17%)

27 (21%)

43 (33%)

5 (4%)

Group 4: extra­ cranial (N = 10)

22 (22%)

17 (17%)

15 (15%)

38 (38%)

8 (8%)

Combined control (3+4)(N = 23)

55 (24%)

39 (17%)

42 (18%)

81 (35%)

13 (6%)

The aphasie group yielded a high proportion of extraneous letter (= addition) errors, and the finger agnostic group a high proportion of letter-order (trans­ position ?, displacement) errors. Thus, each of these two groups showed a distinctive pattern of incidence of the various types of spelling errors, i.e. a quantitative, as opposed to a qualitative difference. The authors surmise that finger agnosia and order errors in spelling may be manifestations of a single underlying disorder in cerebral functioning of the spatiotemporal type and conclude that the spelling disability of the finger agnostics cannot be due to

336

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

aphasia in view of the double (statistical) dissociation between the finger agnostic and aphasic groups in respect to order errors and extraneous letters. C. 3.3. Spelling errors of older dyslexics. If any one issue has been the moot point in the studies of dyslexic spelling patterns over the past decade it is this very issue of qualitative vs. quantitative differences between dyslexies and normals, whereas the issue is just beginning to be topical in the writings on phonemic (literal) paraphasias (cf. Dressler 1980, a difference theorist, and Söderpalm Talo 1980, a sameness theorist, the former unambiguously qualitative, the latter unambiguously quantita­ tive) (cf. Cook Moats 1983: 121-122, and the several references cited there, for stimulating discussion bearing directly on this plainly crucial question). According to Cook Moats (op cit: 121) the common neuropsychological denominator in these recent contributions of the typological-difference theorists is the attribution of supposed differences in spelling error types to underlying process dysfunctions and the concomitant minimization of the importance of school instruction, intelligence, grade, age, and spelling achievement-level to error patterns. Cook Moats herself sides with the vocal minority view that spelling error patterns change according to developmental level and achievement and con­ sequently chooses achievement-level peers as the appropriate comparison group for her dyslexic population. Her 1983 study examines qualitative differences between the spelling error types of normal second graders and older dyslexic children where, although phonetic accuracy/inaccuracy in spel­ ling was of interest, the major stress fell on the extent to which the error classification was influenced by the apparent developmental level of the errors. Cook Moats' hypothesis is: "When spelling achievement level is controlled, the spelling of older dyslexic and normally achieving second-grade students will not differ significantly in (a) proportion of serial order errors to total errors, (b) proportion of phonetically accurate errors (including preconventional and conventional types) to total errors, and (c) proportion of preconventional spelling errors to phonetically accurate errors. Additional questions addressed in the study concerned the effects of verbal intelligence, age, and time in an Orton-Gillingham program on phonetic spelling ability, the differences in graphomotor speed and accuracy between the groups."

Cook Moats' list of error types and results in numbers and proportions of spelling errors for dyslexic and normal subjects are reproduced immediately below:

CONCLUSION

337

Table C.3.3-1: Error Types I.

Preconventional Phonetically Accurate Errors A. Preconventional Consonant Errors 1. Nasal omitted before final stop consonant (WED/wind). 2. D spelling for tongue flap /D/ occurring in middle of word (LIDL/ little). 3. Use of a letter whose name contains the sound of the phoneme, especially Y for /w/ and H for /č/ (YOHIwatch). 4. Representation of affrication of inicial blends tr and dr (JRSR/ dresser', CHRAN/ train). 5. Other articulatory phonetic detail (USZE/use). B. Preconventional Vowel Errors, Phonetically Accurate 1. Vowel letter whose name represents the long vowel and represen­ tation of r-controlled long vowels with short vowels paired with them in articulation (MAK/ make; WER/ wear). 2. Letter name segmented and used to represent lax (short) vowel sound (BAD/bed; GIT/got). 3. Representation of glide, rounding, or elongation of long vowel (TIY/tie). 4. Transitional preconventional vowel spellings (WAER/wear; TIUR/tire). C. Syllabic Phonetically Accurate Preconventional Spellings 1. Letters m,n,r,l used syllabically (LITTL/ little ; RITN/written). 2. Letter name for syllable or part of syllable BGAN/began; DRSR/ dresser). D. Phonetic Spelling of Morpheme {ed} (CARD/cared). II. Phonetically Accurate Conventional Errors A. Consonant Errors 1. Consonant doubling; unnecessary addition of a doubled letter. 2. Consonant doubling; omission of a doubled letter. 3. Alternative consonant grapheme for phoneme, within the symbol system. a) Conforming to constraints of position (WHER/wear). b) Violating position constraints (CKARD/ cared). c) Omission of silent letter in knew and written. B. Vowel Errors 1. a) Vowel grapheme greater than 10 percent predictable accord-

338

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

ing to sound-symbol and position constraints (LODE/load). b) Vowel grapheme less than 10 percent predictable but still permissible {TROBEL/trouble). c) Vowel misspelling derived by analogy to known word rather than by use of a spelling pattern (YOUSE/use). 2. Reduced vowel (schwa) substitution {LESSEN/ lesson). C. Syllablic alternative el for le (in trouble and little). III. Phonetically Inaccurate Errors A. Consonant Nonphonetic 1. Consonant omission {STUCK/struck). 2. Consonant addition {BEGAND/ began). 3. Consonant substitution. a) Voiced-voiceless confusion {CLASS / glass). b) Preservation of salient phonetic feature {PLUN/plum). c) Bizarre substitutions {EVEY/easy). B. Vowel Nonphonetic 1. Vowel not represented, or omitted. 2. Vowel addition (BEGANE/ began). 3. Vowel substitution. a) Similar phonetic features (NOW/ knew). b) Not similar (NEN/noon). C. Serial Order Errors 1. Letter order confusions {STUK/ struck). 2. Duplication and insertion of letter out of sequences (see LeCours, 1966) as in CAREERED/ cared.

Subtotal

IA1 IA2 IA3 IA4 IA5 IB1 IB2 IB3 IB4 ICI IC2 ID .222

.00 .003 .003 .00 .00 .065 .003 .01 .043 .049 .018 .027

0 2 2 0 0 43 2 7 28 32 12 18

nasal omitted d for/D/ letter name affrication tr, dr phonetic detail letter name, long letter name, short glide, rounding transitional syllabic l,m, r syl., letter name ed morpheme

146

Prop.

No. 0 2 2 0 0 20 2 6 19 10 5 17

S's Making Error

Dyslexic (N=27)

Preconventional Phonetically Accurate

Error Type

0 1 1 0 0 5 1 2 3 6 2 2

Max. Error Per Sub.

164

0 2 0 4 1 47 11 4 28 49 4 14

No.

,240

.00 .003 .00 .006 .001 .069 .016 .006 .041 .072 .006 .02

Prop. 0 2 0 4 1 24 8 4 20 11 2 13

S's Making Error

2nd Graders (N=27)

Numbers and Proportions ef Spelling Erors for Dyslexic and Normal Subjects, by Group; Numbers of Subjects Making Each Error and Maximum Errors per Subject

Table C.3.3-2:

0 1 0 1 1 4 2 1 2 9 2 2

Max. Error Per Sub. CONCLUSION 339

doubling, add. doubling, om. substitution, c. sub., rule viol. om. silent let. substitution, v. sub., low prob. by analogy schwa syllabic el

Total Phonetically Acc.

Subtotal

IIA1 IIA2 IIA3a IIA3b IIA3c IIBla IIBlb IIBlc IIBlc IIC

Conventional Phonetically Accurate

Error Type

Table C.3.3-2 - continued

549

403

9 74 17 21 50 87 36 14 67 28

No. 5 25 15 13 27 27 20 14 27 10

Prop. .014 .112 .026 .032 .076 .13 .055 .021 .102 .043

.836

.613

S's Making Error

Dyslexic (N=27)

4 5 2 3 2 7 3 1 5 4

Max. Error Per Sub.

549

385

12 85 10 26 46 68 35 11 72 20

No.

.805

.565

.018 .125 .015 .038 .067 .099 .051 .016 .106 .029

Prop. 12 25 10 18 27 27 20 10 26 9

S's Making Error

2nd Graders (N=27)

1 5 1 3 2 5 3 2 5 4

Max. Error Per Sub.

340 CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

657

Grand Total .99

.164

.033 .015 .010 .009 .015 .005 .015 .016 .024 .012 .008

22 10 7 6 10 3 10 11 16 8 5

108

omission addition voiced/voiceless same sound class bizzare sub. omission, v. addition, v. similar sub. dissimilar sub. letter order insertion (serial order)

Prop.

No.

Subtotal

IIIA1 IIIA2 IIIA3a IIIA3b IIIA3C IIIB1 IIIB2 IIIB3a IIIB3b IIIC1 IIIC2

Phonetically Inaccurate

Error Type Max. Error Per Sub. 3 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 2 1 2

S's Making Error 14 9 7 6 8 3 6 10 11 8 4

Dyslexic (N=27)

Table C.3.3-2 - continued

682

133

43 3 2 2 6 6 7 20 17 17 10

No.

1.000

.195

.063 .004 .003 .003 .009 .009 .010 .029 .025 .025 .015

Prop. 23 3 2 2 6 5 7 15 12 12 7

S's Making Error 6 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 3

Max. Error Per Sub.

2nd Graders (N=27)

CONCLUSION 341

342

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Cook Moats (op civ. 125) arrives at the important result that "the spelling of older dyslexic and younger normal achievers, equated on spelling achieve­ ment, did not differ significantly in phonetic accuracy, level of maturity, or incidence of serial order confusion (Table C.3.3-2). Furthermore, the range of individual variation on these spelling error variables was highly similar in these two groups." Some group differences in graphomotor fluency were obtained, no evidence was found to support the view that subgroups of dysphonetic or dyseidetic spellers existed in greater numbers in the dyslexic group than in the normal second graders, only four of the dyslexics could be rightfully labeled "dysgraphic", the difference in preconventional phonetic spelling ratios was not statistically significant, and it was found that the dura­ tion of exposure to an Orton-Gillingham based instructional program accounts for a moderate proportion of the variation (.19) in phonetic spelling accuracy in the dyslexic group. In sum, the dyslexic children as a group were not only very good at phonetic spelling, but on the average as good as second graders spelling at the same level. It appears desirable to stress that Cook Moats' interesting results flow from a framework of promising new techniques being developed for the identification of subject groups, very recently subsumed under the rubric "response coincidence analysis" by Baker and Derwing (1982). Here group membership is determined by the coincidence in within-subject patterns of response cooccurrences which lay the empirical foundation for conjectures about stages in terms of the rules which characterize group performances. The nature of the rules, stages, processes, and strategies underlying these group performances may be inferred from the item response similarities within the subject groups. This seems to us to be a very attractive approach to ascertaining the nature of developmental stages, ultimately within a fully formalized theory of knowledge, its acquisition, representation, use, growth and repair (cf. Bickhard 1978 and Anderson 1983 and the many references cited in these works). C.3.4. Oral and written errors. Rubin and Liberman (1983) explore the relationship between oral and writ­ ten language deficits of language disabled children. The subjects, 34 children aged 4:3-12:7, all enrolled in a public school language disability program, were tested individually for picture naming, picture recognition, achieve­ ment in reading and spelling, and in a group for spelling. The children exhi­ bited a gap between the number of pictured objects they recognized and the

CONCLUSION

343

number they named and also named significantly fewer items than agematched controls. The authors present a taxonomy of errors whose primary categories are degrees of phonetic and semantic similarity, where an error was considered to be phonetic if it shared 50% of the phonemes or one free morpheme with the target. A study by Brown and McNeill (1966) is cited in which it was shown that "generic" characteristics of words, such as the first phoneme, the number of syllables, and the stress position are learned first, this skeletal representation being then completed by the learner's supplying the final consonants, then filling in the medial segments in time with repeated exposure to the word. Rubin and Liberman's examples and frequencies of error types are reproduced in Table C.3.4-1 and their generic characteristics of naming errors in Table C.3.4-2: Table C.3.4-1: Examples and Frequencies of Error Types PH1 =

Real word phonetic error, not semantically related sister/scissors hammer/hanger saucer/saw bathroom/mushroom acorn/unicorn telescope/stethoscope candle/camel wrench/bench

4%

PH2 =

Nonword phonetic error kalmkeno/volcano preztl/pretzel helican/pelican maks/mask heldakter/helicopter ocoputs/octopus

6%

PH3 =

11 % Semantically and phonetically related elevator/escalator basket/racket popcorn/acorn toothpick/toothbrush clam/camel steering wheel/wheelchair snake/snail tornado/volcano

PH4 =

Semantically, then phonetically, related narrow/dart evevetor/escalator kaminal/rhinoceros must/acorn speps/escalator bed/toboggan row/dart wheel/seahorse

6%

344

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Semantic

59% airplane/helicopter clothes/hanger tennis/racket cap/visor

stairs/escalator donkey/camel boat/canoe bookbag/briefcase

Circumlocutions Target Word put it on a clothes hanger thing to sit at when you wheelchair hurt it call a chair, it greens bench that you turn arounds globe a pirate thing for looking telescope something

13%

Table C.3.4-2: Generic Characteristics of Naming Errors Phonetic-Errors (PH1-PH4)

Semantic Errors

Syllable Agreement between Error and Target Word

54%

25%

Same Initial Phoneme in Error and in Target Word

55%

3%

Fewer Syllables in Error than in Target Word

25%

55%

The authors conclude (p. 117) that these results show that the target word has been accessed when a phonetic error has been made, because the generic characteristics are so often retained, whereas a semantic error suggests absence of target-word access perhaps because its phonological rep­ resentation is too weak. A positive, significant relationship was found between the children's reading performance and their picture-naming perfor­ mance, possibly explained by the fact that the same critical components are

CONCLUSION

345

required in the naming and reading processes. Virtually no relationship was found between correctly named and correctly spelled items, but there was a high, positive correlation (r = .78, p < .01) between the number of semantic errors in oral naming and in spelling of a pictured item, providing strong support for the hypothesis that similar error patterns are found across spoken and written language tasks. Phonological deficiencies in accuracy of represen­ tation in storage and in short-term memory-coding is a likely explanation of naming, or word-retrieval problems. Inspection of the error taxonomy (v. supra) reveals (1.) a normative bias (why should preztl for pretzel (PH 2) be considered a "nonword phonetic error" if this means that all intrusions, displacements, transpositions, addi­ tions, and omissions would be relegated to the category of nonwords ?); (2.) the criterion for status as a phonetic error, namely, that 50% of the phonemes be shared, is very general, so general that it seems forced or ad hoc (/tim/ 'team' and /mit/ 'meat', /it/ 'eat' and /ti/ 'tea', on this criterion, would all be phonetic errors vis-à-vis target /tik/ 'teak'; (3.) the class of "semantic then phonetic" errors is also too inclusive (e.g. considering the tokens narrow and dart to be semantically then phonetically related, assuming that this semantic relationship results from the possible syntagm AN, narrow dart (v. PH 4 supra), suggests a token semantic relationship between all the attributive and predicative adjectives which may be predicated of a noun); (4.) the categories, as defined, are not mutually exclusive (e.g. narrow for dart, by definition, is both a semantic error, in fact a semantic error of the associative type (v. Coltheart 1980), and a phonetic error, sharing as it does at least two letters (surely the authors must have meant letters, rather than phonemes, in their definition of their ad hoc similarity measure, recapitulated above). Just as importantly, it is not at all clear what the authors mean by the claims that the results displayed in Table C.3.4-2 show target-word access-success when a phonetic error has been made, but target-word access-failure in the face of a semantic error, the former due to retention of generic characteristics, the latter to "weakness" of phonological representation. On the contrary, what the results reported in Table C.3.4-2 appear to indicate is that, in the case of phonetic errors, greater prominence or salience is to be assigned the initial segment and the number of syllables, i.e., vowel segments qua seg­ ments specified [+ syllabic], than other segments in retrieval and recognition, not excluding the likelihood of a salience hierarchy (v. the discussion of Bän­ kevičinfra) and, in the case of semantic errors, that the relationship between the attempt and the target is essentially predicative (e.g. A helicopter is an

346

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

airplane, A canoe is a boat, etc.), the phonological effects being epiphenomenal. C. 3.5. Normal native misspelling orthographies. Shaughnessy (1977: 163-175) takes a bold, first step — she calls it a "rough-and-ready classification" — in the direction of a causally-based taxonomy of spelling errors made by over 1,000 college freshmen enrolled in a basic writing course in City College in The City University of New York, a discussion so readable and reasonable that it — in fact, the whole book — should serve as a model for style of presentation to an audience of uninitiated readers and source of suggestive stimulation for even the professional erroranalyst. The author differentiates among 'misspellings', 'miswritings', and 'misletterings': misspellings are [—intentional, -editable], miswritings [—in­ tentional, +editable], and misletterings [+intentional, + editable], the latter as in the case of intentional deviations from the norm for the purpose of repre­ senting dialect (= 'eye dialect'). The stress in her discussion falls on misspel­ lings and, notably, their causes. Of these Shaughnessy delineates five: (1.) "Unpredictabilities within English spelling," which we have been referring to as "intrasystemic irregularities" (cf. Chapters III, IV, and VIII). These Shaughnessy treats as represented by means of invented spelling: "... the reader has the impression of a vastly simplified system of correspon­ dences, perhaps not a system at all but a confused stock of graphemic options with which the writer invents spelling as he goes along." (p. 165) The misspel­ led products are characterized by both interword variation (for example, for target we have attempts < u n > ~ < i e n > ~ < i n > ~ < e n > ~ < a n > , as in <explosun> for <explosion>, <decisien> for <decision>, for , for , <educatanal> for <educational>, and intraword variation (for example, ~ ~ for ). Furthermore, her discussion, treading as it does on the virtually virgin soil of error reception, provides further support for the necessity of treating errors within the ever-expanding framework of the extended organon-model of language (cf. Introduction), some errors being regarded as more "glaring" than others, the domain of error reception involving the investigation of the interrelationships between various types of errors in competence and performance, on the one hand, and sender/receiver attitudes toward them including the influence which these attitudes exercise on error-production and error monitoring and the func­ tions errors may subserve. We eagerly anticipate the correct theory of con-

CONCLUSION

347

straints on inter-and intraitem variation in inter- and intrapersonal array. (2.) "Misspellings caused by pronunciation", commonly otherwise desig­ nated by "phonetic spelling", or, in this study, possibly referred to as "letternaming, "phonetic spelling", and "interpersonal/intrapersonal variation", whose true grasp, as Shaughnessy correctly points out, requires intimate famil­ iarity with the differential linguistic system of the informant. For r-less English, for example, we may find attempt: for target: , for cluster simplifiers (all speakers of English in some contexts) attempt: for target: , for intervocalic ¿-flappers, attempt: <medal> for target <metal>, etc. In respect of the informant's native linguistic repertoire being different from the standard, we point to the following analogy: dialect: standard :: L1 : L 2 i.e., errors whose cause is traceable to differences between a dialect and the standard are analogous to errors traceable to differences between L1 and L 2 in that the cause in both cases is intersystemic difference, whereas the error types qua products in both cases are different. Thus, if the destination is common error-denominators across dialects and languages, the route is via the determination of the processing strategies common to them all. It would not come as a surprise were this set oflinguistic 1processing strategies to turn out to be but a specific instantiation of general processing strategies. Thus, the processing strategies laid bare in this study should be viewed in the much broader framework of strategies employed in the acquisition of knowledge in general, for example, the theory of epigenesis vs. the theory of preformatism, or one of the variants of the latter, nativism. The former, linguistic 1 set of strategies may find confirmation in the latter, general set of strategies, or the latter in the former. (3.) "Homophones", i.e., words that sound the same but are semantically, syntactically, and orthographically different, Shaughnessy finds, as do we (cf. Chapter V: Additions and Omissions), to be the source of many errors. Shaughnessy's homonym list is, in fact, a proper subset of our own (cf. Chapter V: Appendices): do — due for — four — (fore) here — hear know — no there — their — they're two — to — too

348

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

through — threw won — one whether — weather you're — your (4.) "Misspellings caused by the unfamiliarity with the structure of words", in particular, insufficient knowledge of syllabification, affixation, and stress, leading to errors such as: (4a.) Syllable Addition Attempt Target availiable emphesises graduedet

available emphasis graduate

Attempt

Target

ansewer jellious simiple

answer jealous simple

(4b.) Syllable Deletion (especially medially) Attempt

Target

Attempt

Target

crated finncal motvation surban clerial

created financial motivation suburban clerical

imblance pareil consired inaccute strugged

imbalance parallel considered inaccurate struggled

(4c.) Diacritic <-e-> Deletion in Attempt

C Target

advancment advancement densly densely taks takes (4d.) Diacritic <-e-> Retention before a V-initial Suffix Attempt

Target

haveing houseing liveing useing

having housing living using

(4e.) Erroneous Diacritic <-e-> Addition Attempt

Target

considering considering

CONCLUSION

349

departement department limiteing limiting murderes murders (4f.) Misinapplication of Final-Consonant Doubling Attempt

Target

begining robed draging stabing geting writen ploted puting quiting

beginning robbed dragging stabbing getting written plotted putting quitting

(4g.) Misapplication of Final-Consonant Doubling Attempt

Target

cleanning scrapped dinning writting keepping litenning limitted

cleaning scraped dining writing keeping listening limited

(4f-g.) testify to the informants' insufficient knowledge or direct lack of know­ ledge of the phonological principles underlying the application of the relevant orthographic rules, which, for the convenience of the interested reader, are presented in Appendix I: Widely Applicable English Spelling Rules (cf. Gil­ lingham and Stillman 1970). Also, for the convenience of the interested reader, an overview of the teaching of spelling skills in the U.S. from early kindergarten through grade 10 is presented in Appendix II: Scope and Sequence Chart for Spelling (cf. Cohen and Abrams 1976). Note that it is far from clear which principled considerations underlie either this particular sequential ordering or its distribution over average grade levels. (5.) "Misspellings caused by the failure to remember or see word." While it is a truism that memory failure is ultimately responsible for all misspellings, assuming prior exposure, the uncertain knowledge of PGCs and lack of suf-

350

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

ficient exposure to the norm in print and writing lead to difficulty remem­ bering what has been seen and seeing what has been written. The single largest cause of misspellings among the basic-writing students Shaughnessy holds to be the lack of visual acuity with words and letters, frequently resulting in the writing of a word other than the one intended. Examples: Attempt

Target

out being my care change glass county committee defining expect

about bring by car chance class country community defending except

Attempt

Target

fellow father flight indent instead joy lift mush may must

follow farther fight intend instant job left much many most

Finally, the basic writing sample was found to contain a large number of reversals — what we term 'displacements' (cf. Chapter I: On Putative 'Transpositions' in Spelling) — characterized by high frequency, great inac­ curacy, and low monitorability, suggesting to Shaughnessy a perceptual prob­ lem solvable only by recourse to special visual discrimination training. Exam­ ples: Attempt

Target

Attempt

Target

afriad affulence cacht childern destory detialed exicting esle flims

afraid affluence catch children destroy detailed exciting else films

morden materail nerve obtian pearchers paraside sopply secerts soilder

modern material never obtain preachers paradise sloppy secrets soldier

CONCLUSION

351

It will be noted that the displacements in the above attempts in native produc­ tions conform in most details to those seen to obtain in our study of foreign productions (cf. Chapter I). C.4. On monolingual and bilingual phonological intrusions. We continue with a brief, but very specific, discussion of intrusions in monolinguals and bilinguals in phonology, pointing (1) to the need for much more data and (2) to very specific differences in intrudibles, depending on whether or not a monolingual or bilingual is under investigation. From this we conclude that the class of intrudibles is a function of (1) the monolingualism vs. bilingualism of the informant and (2) the particular language background of the informant, together with (3) the level of his/her fluency. C. 4.1. Consonant substitutions. Several studies have recently become available which shed considerable light on the subject of single consonant substitution errors in slips-of-thetongue in adult native-speakers (Fromkin 1980, especially Shattuck-Hufnagel and Klatt, pp. 35-46, and van den Broecke and Goldstein, pp. 47-66) and errors of semantic interpretation ('semanticization') in Russian learners of English as a foreign language in testing situations involving a reading/writing mode of presentation (Bankevic 1981: 19-69). We succinctly reproduce the major conclusions of these studies, attempting to relate them to those drawn in the present work insofar as this appears possible at the moment. C.4.2. The relativity of intrudibles. Shattuck-Hufnagel and Klatt (1980: 35-46), in a study of single-conso­ nant substitutions drawn from the MIT corpus of errors (cf. Garrett 1975), point to the fact that errors are severely constrained and hence a useful source of information about the kinds of models that are acceptable descrip­ tions of the psychological processes of planning and executing sentences. The authors reject the type of theory in which consonants randomly substitute for one another and the type of theory in which "strong" segments drive out "weak" ones, where 'strong' might mean more difficultly articulated, or more frequent, or less marked (cf. the critical discussion of Blumstein supra) and support the type of theory in which simultaneously present planning segments substitute for each other in proportion to their similarity. According to this latter theory, errors occur when two similar segments are simultaneously available to the sentence processor and compete for the same slot in the

352

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

planned utterance. Irrespective of the several possible causes of simultane­ ous-segment presence, the intrusive segment is selected by the processor for a given slot in place of the target segment. Thus, in the case of the two segments /s/ and /s'/ simultaneously available to the processor, errors of the form / s / - - - > /s'/ and / s ' / - - - > /s/ are equally probable as a function of the degree of similarity between them. The authors found that the two predic­ tions: (1B.) Across all the errors in which a given segment appears, it will appear about equally often as a target and as an intrusion; (2 B.) Across all the errors involving a given pair of segments, one direc­ tion of substitution will be about as common as the other better describe the results they obtained than the other predictions they countenanced. Since the authors do not present the statistical breakdown of the subcategories of substitution in the MIT corpus, in particular the break­ down in terms of consonants and vowels, either as types or tokens of C or V or particular Cs or Vs, a comparison of their results with ours on these points is, unfortunately, impossible; suffice it to say that consonantal substitu­ tions constitute 56% of the MIT corpus ( L , adult, oral) or 1,471 replacement (exchanges, substitutions, and incomplete) errors and consonant/vowel letter substitutions 47.28% of the orthographic errors in our corpus, a striking similarity in view of the fact that both the informants and the elicitation situation, including the production mode, could hardly have been more dif­ ferent. The Shattuck-Hufnagel and Klatt confusion matrix based on the 1,471 subtitution errors is represented here in Table C.4.2-1:

y m n h

r 1 w

ð

j e

s z s z c

V

g f

Intrusion Target p t k b d

1

3 1 3

-

3 1 1

-

1

-

-

3 5

-

2

-

5 1

-

1

-

-

-

13 2

4 6 3

-

2 6

-

1 2 2

-

-

-

2

-

10 1 10 X 6 1 6 6 9

2 11

2 3

2

d

-

1 1

-

X 14 9 2 5 1

-

b 7

6

-

8

-

11 5

-

31 2 2

-

-

k 28 18 X 2

-

-

t 14 X 18

4 1 2 1 22 2 2

-

P X 18 18 6

2 2

-

-

1

-

g 1 1 6 10 11 X

2

-

1

1 3 5

-

1 3

-

1

-

f 32 5 4 3 1 1 X 6 14

-

3 1

3 1 1 1

-

2

-

2 14 3 2 4 X 2 9

-

1

V

2 2 4

-

2

-

4 1 18

-

23 1 X 1 31

-

s 2 19 2 2 2

-

1 1

-

5

-

2

-

-

2 1 1

1

-

1 X

5

-

4 1 1 9 1 1 6 4 X

ž

-

-

-

1

-

5 1 X

1 4 - - - 1 - 65 -

š

-

z

-

2

-

1

-

X 1 1

-

4

-

12

-

1

-

1

-

12 9

-

c

-

1

-

1 1 2

-

X

-

1

-

1 2 5

-

2 11 1

-

1 3

j

-

2

-

3

-

1

-

1

-

-

-

3

-

- X - - - -

X

-

3

-

21

-

4

-

4 2

-

θ ö

Table C.4.2-1: Confusion Matrix, MIT Corpus r

X 65 35 4 13 4 2

-

1 1

-

3

-

1

-

72 X 11 13 6 25

-

1

-

1 1 1

-

4 3

-

6

-

2

-

12

-

29 5 X

-

1

-

1 2

-

1 2

-

w 2 y

-

5 14 1 X

-

1

-

2

-

-

1 3 3 14 1 X 32

-

3

-

13 3 2 2 5

-

m 7 3

-

1

-

2 2

-

h 2 1 5

1 1 1 1 15 2 2 2 30 1 X 1 X

-

1

-

2 3 1

-

2 10 1

-

n 1 5

CONCLUSION 353

354

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

While we abstain from agreeing with Shattuck-Hufnagel and Klatt's committment to their simultaneity hypothesis — their formulation of predic­ tion (1 B.), reproduced above, makes no sense: how can a given segment appear as a target, as opposed to an intrusion, if it is an error?), we are interested in listing the most favored single-consonant intrudible for each of the single-consonant target segments and contrasting the results of this tabu­ lation with the results of tabulating the single-consonantal intrusion data supplied by van den Broecke and Goldstein (1980, 50-53) for English1' Eng­ lish2 (which is claimed to be "the matrix obtained from Shattuck-Hufnagel" (p. 51), but differs substantially from the matrix displayed by Shattuck-Huf­ nagel and Klatt (p. 41, cf. infra)), German, and Dutch. These four matrices are reproduced below as Tables C.4.2-2 (English 1 ), C.4.2-3 (English 2), C.4.2-4 (German), and C.4.2-5 (Dutch), respectively.

I

j h c

s z s 1 r w

ð

e

V

g m n f

p t k b d

1 2

6 3 1 1

4 6 3

2 5 1

11

1

18 2 6 1 5 4 4

t 20

12

9 3 25 1

26 22 18 3

P

6 3

2 1 1 1

5

11 7 8 1 4 6

k 25 16

3 1

1 2 5 5

7 2

15 12 26

b 12 7 7

3

2

2 1 1 8 3 2

4 1 12 1 2

d 3 10 4 11

2

2 1

1 1 1

1 19 15 4

g

4

4

8 4 4

4 1

3

11 2 1 3 1

4 2

m n 15 1 2 10 1 2 21 7 2 1 27 23 10 1 2 2

7

3 2 3 1

11

8 5

f 23 7 7 7 2 2 4 1

1

5 1

4

2 4

1 5 1 1 1 2 8

2

V

2

1 1

1

0 1 3

2 1

ð

4 2

9 1 4 1

s 4 10 5 2 1 1 2 2 9 1 10

1

5

1

2 1 1

1

z

2 2 2

1 1 1

1 1 32

2

1

2 2

s

Table C.4.2-2: Confusion Matrix of One-Consonant Speech Errors: English1

37 3 5 4 1 4

3 1 1

1 3 12 1 2 10 1 12 13 2 6 1

2

8 2 4

1 42

2

1 1

r 2 7 1 4 3 2 5

1

1 2

1 6 10

2

1 2

5

2 1 3 2

w

5 3 1

3

j

1 5 4 2

4

1

4

3

5 1 1

h 4

2

1 1

3

1

2

c 3 3 3

3 5 1 1 3 2

2

2

1

3 2

2 9

1 5

I

CONCLUSION 355

I

j h c

s z s 1 r w

ö

e

V

g m n f

P t k b d

3 1

1 3 2

1

1

13

2 1 1 2

4 1

16

t 10

2

3 1 25 1

15 12 3

P

5 4

3

1 4

10

1

k 16 16

1

5 2 5

1

8 8 7 1 4 3

1

b 4

1 7

1 2 1

1 4 4

3

5 1 4

9

5

d

1

1

1 1 1

7 5 6

g

2

3 5 12

1

1

24 1 1

1

7

m 2 2

1

11 1 2 1

2 2

1

6 1 22

n 2 7 2

1

3 2

2

1 3 1 2

1 3

1 7 1 2

1

V

10

3 1

f 23 3 6 4 1 1 1

1 1

7

4

θ

1

3

1

1

1

ö

3 3

20 1

2 13 1 6

s 2 13 2 2 2

1

1 2

2 1 3

1 1 1 5 1

z

1 2

33

1

1

s

Table C.4.2-3: Confusion Matrix of One-Consonant Speech Errors: English 2

47 11 11

1

1 2

5 17 3 3

1 4

2

1

2

26 3

36

2

10 1

3

5

r

1

1

5 21

3 1

12

3

w 1

11 4 1

1

1

j

1 2 1 1

3

2

1

8

h 1

1

1

4

1

1

7 4

c

1 1 1

1 2 2

2

1 4

2

ž

356 CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

ts

Ç

X

j h

s z s 1 r w

V

ŋ f

g m n

P t k b d

1

4 1

5

6

P

2 7

1

1 1 1

8

3 1 2 2 1

t 2

2 1 2 1

2

1 1

3

4 1 4 1

k 1 2

1

2

6 1

1 16 2 1

b 1 2 7

3 1 1

1

1

1

5

d

1

2

15 2

1

g

1

5

1

1 1

7

2 1 3

m

8 4 2

5 2

2

5

1

n

1 1

1

1

2

ŋ

1 1 1 1

1

5 6 6 2

2 1

3

f 3 1

1

1

1

2

V

4

1 7

1 1 6

2

11 2

s

replacement

3

1

1 4

2

3

1

1

z 1 2

2 1

2 1

5 11

7

1

2 1

š

33 3 2 1

1 1 2 2

2 14

1 1

2

1

Table C.4.2-4: Confusion Matrix of One-Consonant Speech Errors: German

2

1 3

47

4 1

7

1 1

3

r

4

2 1 3 2

3

6 1

w 1 1 1 1

3

1

1

j

1

3

3

1

h

1

3

1

1

X

2

1 1

1

1

Ç

1

2

3 2 3

1

1

1

6 2 1

ts

CONCLUSION 357

358

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Table C.4.2-5: Confusion Matrix of One-Consonant Speech Errors: Dutch

p P t k b d m n f V

s z 1 r w j h

5 5 2 1 2 2 2

t 4

k 8 7

b 1

d 3

m 2 1

3

2

4 3

7 1 1 1 2 1

1 3 1

replacement n f V s 2 3 4 4 1 2 1 1

1

1

1

4

1

2

2 1

1 2

2

1

r

1

2

2

5 1 1

5

1 1

4

1 1

1

1

z

3 4

5

2 1

1 1 1

w

j

h

1 1 3 1

1 1 2

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 6

1 1 1

1 2

13 19 2

1 5 1

5

1

1 2

Based on Tables C.4.2.1-5 and the g r a p h e m i c - - - > phonemic error data presented by Bankevic (1981, 22-31) for native speakers of Russian learning English as a foreign language which lead to erroneous semantic interpretation assignments (in Bankevic's terms "erroneous semanticization", Russian: osibocnaja semantizacija), we conclude (1.) that the set of maximally-favored (in fact all) consonantal intrusions in a given language is relative to that language, i.e. assert the linguistic 1 relativity of intrudibles. Were we to have access to the data on maximal intrudibles for L1 Russian in the same mode (graphemic---> phonemic), which we do not, we would be in a position to impart empirical content to our long-standing suspicion (2.) that (I) R1 ≠ (I) R1 _ E2'' i.e. that the set of intrudibles is not only Ll-relative, b u t r e l a t i v e for each value of L. and L., where i ≠ j , and, furthermore, (3) relative to the native dialect of the speakers involved, i.e., (I) (L1)Di ≠ (I) (L1)Dj , where i ≠ j . In the course of time, we assume, the relevant data will become available, at which time we will either stand vindicated or cor-

stop place nas fric/appr.

voi

+

a

b

t

+

P

V

+

k

b

+ +

b

+ + V

a

g

+ +

d

+ + a

+

b

+

n

+ +

m

+

b

-

f

+

b

+

V

+

d

-

O

+

d

ð +

+

a

-

s

+

a

+

z

+

P

-

s

-

a

+

1

Table C.4.2-6: Speech Error Feature Specifications for English Consonants (SpE)

+

a

+

r

4-

V

+

w

+

P

+

j

+

g

-

h

+

+ P

tš

+

P

+ +

dž

CONCLUSION 359

360

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

rected. Now, regarding the most favored intrudible I. for Target T. the most representative, where the most representative exemplar of a concept G = R(x, y,..., z) is the prototype of that concept (cf. Lakoff 1982 and the many references cited there), we arrive at the notion of a prototypical intrudible. Since, as a rule, more than one intrudible is observed to intrude for a certain type of target on different occasions, questions arise as to the relations the intrudible-types for a given target-type exhibit among themselves. Moreover, also warranting investigation is the issue of the inter-relationships among exemplar intrudibles of different target-types. For the time being, it must suffice to say that the theory of intrudibles must contain relations which are one-one, one-many, and many-one, and the logical connectives of conjunc­ tion, exclusive disjunction, and unidirectional and bidirectional implication. Furthermore, if the Shattuck-Hufnagel and Klatt theory of simultaneous target: intrudible-representation is literally correct (for the reason stated above, we are not convinced that it is), then the question of how this psycholinguistic theory is to be incorporated into the theory of generative phonology must be confronted head-on. One possibility that appears worth exploring is the simultaneous paradigmatic representation of target and intrudible(s) in the underlying phonological representations in the lexicon, or, more economicaly, mapping the sets of intrudibles onto the sets of their respective targets in decreasing order of frequency by means of rules, where the sets of intrudibles, together with all other sets of intrudibles for all other sets of items in all the modules would constitute an autonomous error module, a modulus errans, consisting, ex hypothesi, of autonomous error submodules, each error module having its monotonic counterpart in one of several modules of norms, the latter, in turn, forming the core of the normative grammar. For English the consonantal error module might appear as follows:

CONCLUSION

Clearly error templates of the form A

361

⇆

consti­

tute forces in the direction of homogenization of the signifiant, in the case of phonology, morphology, and syntax, and homogenization of the signifié in the case of semantics, whereas error templates of the form

forces in the direction of heterogenization. Fortunately, we do dispose of a, even if it is not the, set of distinctive features in the different normative mod­ ules, so that we are in principle not forced to commit ourselves to a holistic, molecular interpretation of the elements in the norm-deviation relations under discussion. Bankevič offers a series of interesting observations on the subject of what he terms "key points" (Russian: ključevye točki) which, if correct, read­ ily suggest the incorporation of an additional dimension of representation in the theory of (generative) phonology. If this theory in its most recent redac­ tion is 3-dimensional (cf. Halle and Vergnaud, 1980), now it is 4-dimensional, including a fourth dimension of perceptual salience, i.e., the degree to which target segments are preserved in erroneous attempts at semantic interpreta­ tion, a reading of "perceptual salience" different from, but undoubtedly ultimately related to the notion of "error salience" introduced in Chapter VII. Bankevic (1981: 33) characterizes the notion "key point" in the following manner (my translation — P.A.L.): "The 'key point' of a word consists, as it were, of the figure (figura) of a perceptual image, the identification of the whole word proceeding on its

362

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR basis. The remaining portion of the word forms a characteristic background (fon) which is devoid of special significance at the moment of recognition and ignored by learners. It is well known, however, that variability in per­ ceptual organization exists: in the selection of another figure, in the transi­ tion from ground to figure."

C.5. Oral reading errors. In this section we selectively review several contributions to the study of oral reading errors in an attempt to relate the categories in the theory of oral reading errors to the categories in the theory of spelling errors as we have come to understand them during the course of the present study. It will be shown that these categories, although differently denominated, are, in the final analysis the same. C. 5.1. From product to process. Goodman (1969:19ff.) presents an extremely delicate taxonomy of what he terms 'cues' and 'miscues' in oral reading, the former term referring to the expected response (E. R.), the latter to the observed response (O. R.), corresponding exactly to our use of the terms 'target' and 'attempt', respec­ tively. Goodman's basic premise, which we have extended to spelling errors and referred to as the 'causal theory of error' (cf. Chapter IV: Substitutions: Consonants), is that "... all responses to the graphic display are caused and are not accidental or capricious. In every act of reading, the reader draws on the sum total of prior experience and learning. Every response results from the interaction of the reader and the graphic display. Responses which correspond to expected responses mask the process by which they are produced. But observed responses (O. R.s) which do not correspond to expected responses (E. R.s) are generated through the same process as expected ones. By compar­ ing the ways these miscues differ from the expected responses we can get direct insights into how the reading process is functioning in a particular reader at a particular point in time. Such insights reveal not only weaknesses, but strengths as well, because the miscues are not simply errors, but the results of the reading process having miscarried in some minor or major ways." (my underlining — P.A.L.)

Goodman (personal communication) uses the term 'miscue' in prefer­ ence to the otherwise universally used term 'error' in order to discourage viewing errors as simply errors, revealing as they are of the reader's previous

CONCLUSION

363

reading experience and experience in general (cf. quotation p. 362). His criteria for a taxonomy of cues and miscues in oral reading is a carefully thought-out battery of questions to be asked about each miscue. Despite the fact that the taxonomy was devised more than 15 years ago, it still constitutes a valuable source of information for categories in the theory of oral reading errors, and the theory of linguistic 1 errors in general, a source which, to the best of our knowledge, has hardly been tapped (but cf. Weber 1970 p. 326) by error analysts, which, if the above is correct, every linguist and psychol­ ogist should in part be. As differential linguists (cf. Introduction), we derive support from Goodman's view (p. 28) that it is clear from the great detail of the analytical framework that studies based on the taxonomy are depth studies and that, consequently, the number of subjects in any single study must be quite small, i.e., that the taxonomy embodies a technique "most suitable for seeking to thoroughly understand how a few readers use the reading process. It stands in sharp contrast to statistical studies of many subjects on a few, key vari­ ables." In this regard the reader is referred to the extensive critique of the Chomskyan and Labovian paradigms in the Introduction, which, reduced to its barest essentials, amounts to nothing more than what Goodman wrote now over 15 years ago. Discussion and elaboration of the Goodman taxonomy, which consists of at least 28 subparts, would itself require a book-length publication. Deserv­ ing of this as it is, and rather than use it as a basis for evaluating the com­ prehensiveness of subsequent error-analytic contributions, we single out for special consideration Goodman and Goodman's (1965) stressing the point that several linguistic1 levels may be involved in the error response of only a single word: (1.) the sound-letter level, (2.) the morpheme-word level, and (3.) the grammatical level. In relation to each of these an error can be described as a substitution, an insertion into the text, an omission, or a reversal, thereby stimulating hypotheses on some of the factors involved in reading materials, the reading strategies of children, and the nature of the aspects of written and spoken language operative in error causation (cf. Weber 1968: 25 for discussion). Us for use, for example, is a graphic omission but a lexical and grammatical/semantic substitution. C.5.2. The taxonomy of oral reading errors. Weber (1968) is a review of how oral reading errors have been analyzed in more than 30 studies to establish norms for the diagnosis of reading difficul-

364

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

ties and to provide insight into the nature of the reading process. She com­ ments on the results of Shale's (1966: 104-105) investigation to the effect that the diversity among the ten classification schemes which Shale reviews is so great as to prevent comparison, notes a general lack of concern with the linguistic 1 function of the incorrect elements, in particular the function of repetition as a possible form of hesitation, a filled pause, an act of confir­ mation rather than an error and, citing Goodman (1965), as a strategy used in order to correct previously made errors, such as substitutions, hence impor­ tant for the extraction and conveyance of meaning in oral reading. Several neurolinguistic investigations of alliteration and assonance and perseveration (Buckingham, Avakian-Whitaker, and Whitaker, 1978, and Buckingham, Whitaker, and Whitaker, 1979) neglected to consider these particular func­ tional aspects of the phenomenon which are the subjects of further discussion in Napier's interesting introduction to her English translation of Kandinsky's Sounds (1981: 1-11), suggesting a fundamental dichotomy between inten­ tional and unintentional perseveration, each type undoubtedly subserving disjoint sets of functions. In general, besides the investigation of error types, frequencies of error tokens, and the confirmation of hypotheses explanatory of their occurrence, the study of error-function appears a most promising course to follow, a course which is an inextricable part of the program offered by the extended organon-model of language (cf. Introduction). Weber (p. 105) is in full agreement with the observation made by DellaPiana (1962) that norms based on error types, such as those established by Monroe (1928, 1932), rather than those based on error-frequency or rate, are more revealing for specific diagnostic purposes. One apparently testworthy suggestion which has emerged (Madden and Pratt 1941) is that materials be assigned according to the students' abilities as measured by the analysis of the errors made. In the most thorough developmental study available, Shale (1966) traced error patterns made by 180 subjects in every other grade from grade two through grade nine, finding that the overall frequency of error from grade to grade decreased, that errors of substitution and repetition were most frequent, that errors of partial and gross mispronunciations, both of which can be considered errors of substitution, increased with grade level, that the occurrence of no response errors and repetitions declined with matur­ ity, while substitutions, omissions, and insertions remained proportionately the same. Weber (1970) presents a linguistic analysis of the errors in oral reading made by members of a first-grade class as they learned to read from a basal-

CONCLUSION

365

reader series. The study was unusual in the sense that its purpose was to determine the correct features of a set of errors and to induce from their characteristics the strategies that beginning readers use to identify words and to determine the extent to which the errors approximated the correct responses on each of several linguistic levels. Taking the whole word as the basis for classification in this study, Weber found that the following classifi­ cation accounted for all the errors observed: (1.) Substitutions. For example, where P = printed sentence and R = response: P: "Where is my ball?" P: Come here, Jane. R: "Here is my ball." R: Run here, Jane. (2.)

(3.)

(4.)

Omissions. P: "Oh,"sa/dDick. R: Oh, Dick. Insertions. P: Little Tim can help. R: Little Tim can help Sally.

P: He went to get something to eat. R: He went to eat. P: See my red car. R: See my little red car.

Reversals or scrambled words : may involve substitution, omission, or insertion. P: I am not Sally's little duck ... R: I am not little Sally's duck ... P: My pretty yellow ball. R: My ball is pretty yellow.

Weber intentionally omitted from consideration (1.) regressions and (2.) failures to respond to a word without prompting, considering the former a means for correcting errors or checking context and the latter to be otherwise very significant. With these qualifications, Weber arrives at the following five common denominators in respect of the response patterns: (1.) the chil­ dren drew the large majority of their erroneous responses from the list of words that they had already been exposed to in their books: (2.) some responses reflected the confusion between words which were presented in the same lesson or that were for some other reason closely associated; (3.) the children's response patterns demonstrated that they expected certain sentence types and turns of phrase; (4.) intonation errors could in some instances be traced to the format of the written materials; and (5.) familiar

366

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

instances of perseveration on a word pattern appeared. The number of errors analyzed according to the above classification system totaled 1,072; 639 were made by the High Group and 403 by the Low Group (high vs. low achievers). The average number of errors per child ranged from 9 to 144, and the mean for the 19 children studied was 55.2 per­ cent, 58.5 for the High Group ( n = l l ) and 50.8 for the Low Group (n=8), 3.9 errors per hundred words for the High Group, 6.7 for the Low Group. Tables C.5.2-1-4, reproduced from Weber (1970), present the frequencies and the percentages of the types of errors for the class as a whole and for the High and Low Groups: Table C.5.2-1: Mean graphic similarity scores

Group High (n=12) Low(n=9) Class (=21)

Errors with Total Errors with no shared substitution Total shared letters Mean GS letters G S = O Mean GS errors 430 280 710

477.11 339.72 422.93

73 73 146

503 353 856

Table C.5.2-2: Shared letter patterns (N=710) Position of shared letters

First letter First 2 letters Last letter Last 2 letters

Other letters Anything All different 53% 29% 31% 14%

11% 13% 7% 3%

407.87 269.47 350.79

CONCLUSION

367

Table C.5.2-3: Distribution of parts of speech (per cent) Noun Personal Function Proper Animal Verb modifier Adverb pronoun word noun sound

Noun 1 Fun with Dick and Jane n=6044 11.8

24.8

4.8

4.7

10.9

29.4

12.6

.9

2 FWD+J Printed words misread n=232 15.9 18.1

3.9

3.9

17.7

30.2

9.9

.4

3 Printed words misread n=940 11.5

25.6

4.9

5.7

10.2

31.4

9.6

1.1

4 Responses n=943 12.3

25.9

5.2

7.2

9.8

29.0

9.3

1.4

5 Printed words: Omission errors n=84 7.1 10.7

20.2

8.3

11.9

36.9

4.8

0.0

6 Responses: Insertion errors n=87 4.6

21.8

9.2

6.9

42.5

5.7

3.4

5.7

Table C.5.2-4: Parts of speech of printed words and substitution responses

Printed word Noun Verb Noun modifier Adverb Personal pronoun

RESPONSES Noun Personal Function Proper Animal noun sound Total Noun Verb modifier Adverb pronoun word 91 2

3 170

3 5

2 7

0 8

0 32

3 8

0 0

102 232

7 1

3 6

11 0

0 18

0 4

4 15

2 1

2 2

29 47

1

8

0

7

37

27

6

0

86

368

Printed word

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR RESPONSES Noun Personal Function Proper Animal Noun Verb modifier Adverb pronoun word noun sound Total

Function word

6

43

6

24

28

154

3

0

264

Proper noun

2

6

4

2

9

3

60

0

86

Animal sound

2

0

1

0

0

1

0

6

10

112

239

30

60

86

236

83

10

856

Total

Here it will be noted that errors of lexical substitution constitute roughly 80% of the total, the remaining errors being divided almost equally between omissions and insertions. Scrambles were rare and unique to neither group. The differences between the two groups are negligible. C.5.3. The graphic similarity index. Substantial differences between the two groups were found in the extent of the graphic similarity between the attempts and the targets which Weber computed by means of the following formula:

F = the number of pairs of adjacent letters in the same order shared by P and R:

V = the number of pairs of adj acent letters in reverse order shared by P and R: C = the number of single letters shared by P and R: P SPOT / R PUFF C = 1 P FAMILY / R FUNNY C = 2 A = average number of letters in P and R: PEVERY/RVERY

A = 4.5

CONCLUSION

369

T = ratio of number of letters in the shorter word to the number in the longer: P E V E R Y / R VERY T = 4/5 B = 1 if the first letter in the response is the same as the first letter in the printed word; otherwise B = 0: P FAMILY / R FUNNY E = 1 if the last letter in the response is the same as the last letter in the printed word; otherwise E = 0: P FAMILY / R FUNNY Examples included: IT/THE 73 SAW/WANT 180 SEE/WE 253 JANE/JUMP 345 WHAT/WHERE 466

SOMEONE/SOMETHING 559 THEY/THEM 645 COME/CAME 700 CHICKEN/CHICKENS 807 THREE/THERE 860

The weights assigned to the selected features reflected intuitions about the significance of various cues for the identification of words. For example, the greater weight given to shared beginning letters over end letters, and in turn the weight given to shared end letters over shared letters elsewhere in the word, reflect the importance of the positions of letters for word recognition. As the literature has shown (Weber, 1968, pp. 111-13), readers exploit the letters at the beginning and end as salient cues yielding high information. Because shared adjacent letter patterns reflect the formation of units of a higher order than single letters, special value is assigned to adjacent pairs, especially if the letters are in the same order. Since the number of shared single letters and adjacent pairs is a function of word length, the average number of letters was included in the formula. Some validation for the usefulness of the index was provided by adults' rankings of word pairs. Two lists of ten words and their misreadings were selected from the errors in this study. The pairs on one list were chosen arbitrarily, while those on the second differed by roughly one hundred points according to the graphic similarity index. Fifteen college students were asked to rank the word pairs on each list in terms of the similarity of their appear­ ance. The rankings within the arbitrary list correlated .93 with rankings based on the graphic similarity index; within the selected list, the rankings corre­ lated .80.

370

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

C.6. Linguistic1 errors in normals and aphasics: The theory of similar con­ straints. The theory that speech errors in normals and aphasics are similar has been stated by Buckingham (1980: 199) in the following way: "... in many instances, the same constraints are operative for both normal and braindam­ aged speakers and ... the range and type of errors are similar." (my under­ scoring — P. A.L.). We read this as asserting that identical constraints underlie similar error types in normals and abnormals, in many instances. Here, it cannot be overemphasized that this assertion is meaningless unless viewed within the context of an explicit theory of linguistic 1 norm and linguistic 1 deviation and a fully-developed theory of grammar and linguistic2/1 categori­ zation, none of which are currently available. One needs but consult the 805-item bibliography appended to Lenk's anthology of readings on the logic of norms (Lenk 1974, pp. 207-251) to become immediately convinced that the basic issues in deontic logic have not as yet been resolved, to say nothing of the logic of deviation, which, judging from this bibliography, was, in 1974, a nonfield. Then, both the theory of grammar and the theory of linguistic1/2 categorization have had foundations which have shaken, collapsed, and been rebuilt for years on an almost monthly, if not weekly, basis. Thus, what appears to be the case today, might turn out to be anything but the case tomorrow, a fact which has not, and should not, prevent the ongoing expres­ sion of theory-relative claims to truth. Buckingham continues: "As a conse­ quence, the study of normal speech errors and of aphasie errors will often lead to converging hypotheses concerning psycholinguistic models of the mental grammar as well as for more performance-oriented models, with components for the 'planning' and 'execution' of speech. In addition, since not all aphasies behave alike in terms of the specific language breakdowns, we can show that different aspects of the mental grammar are separately affected in accordance with lesion location." Buckingham, together with many others in the field of error analysis, is of the opinion that linguistic 1 errors are a unique window through which the elements and relations in the theory of normal linguistic processing may be viewed, a view which may be traced at least as far back as 1908 when Meringer wrote: ".. .wir können in einen Sprechmechanismus hineinblicken der uns ohne das Versprechen vollkommen geheimnisvoll geblieben wäre." ("we can catch a glimpse of the speech mechanism which would have remained a complete mystery to us without slips-of-the-tongue" — my translation P. A.L.)

CONCLUSION

371

It has been correctly remarked on several occasions that this inestimably valuable source of crucial data has seldom been tapped (Fodor, Bever, and Garrett 1974: xiv), Marin, Saffran, and Schwarz (1976: 868), Caramazza and Berndt (1978: 898), Zurif and Blumstein (1978: 229), Friedend (1983)), even though the conclusions which are being reached on the basis of the investiga­ tion of such errors are of far-reaching consequence for linguistic 2 theory. Thus, for example, Friedend (1983: 60) concludes her investigation of the interrelationships between linguistic 2 description, models of linguistic 1 pro­ cessing, psycholinguistic and patholinguistic reality with the observation that such study supports the assumption of differentially relatively autonom­ ous processing levels, which may be selectively absent or impaired, and a warning against the global equation of word-class and processing level. For­ tunately, the distorted picture of the structure of language which emerges without the consideration of error-data is now changing, due to the very intense efforts of the above-mentioned researchers and a handful of others (e.g. Coltheart, Marshall, Newcombe, Patterson, etc.). The result is an emerging paradigm of linguistic1/2 research which has already delivered insights and promises to deliver many more, none of which would have been possible without recourse to the real error-data in question. Buckingham (1980: 199-220) presents a defense of the thesis that the study of aphasic errors, like the study of normal slips-of-the-tongue, sheds light on normal language processes, that aphasic errors are often subject to the same constraints, that similar editing mechanisms are needed to explain the structure of the errors produced by both, and that both can be handled within the same unified framework, an approach which can foster the under­ standing of what is abnormal in aphasia and highlight the ways in which different types of aphasie "slips" can characterize different syndromes. This view is in agreement with that expressed by Lenneberg (1967: 345), whom Buckingham quotes (1980: 200), who wrote that "some forms of aphasia are an abnormally augmented and sustained state which in transient condition is not uncommon in persons without demonstrable pathology". Our purpose here is to illustrate the "same constraint" claim advanced by Buckingham for aphasie errors and normal slips and briefly examine the extent to which it holds true of our bilingual spelling-error data, Shaughnessy's (1977) data on monolingual spelling errors, the Söderpalm Talo (1980) data on Swedish monolingual slips in normal and pathological speech, the Shattuck-Hufnagel and Klatt (1980) English data on consonantal intrusions, the van den Broecke and Goldstein (1980) data on monolingual English, German, Dutch conso­ nantal intrusions, the latter two in contrast with the Bankevic (1981) Russian-

372

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

English bilingual graphemic/phonemic error data, held by the author to underlie semantic misinterpretation (= "semanticization") and the Goodman (1967, 1969) and Weber (1968, 1970) monolingual English oral-reading errors. In doing so, it is our intention to offer a pilot exploration into the nature of the differential linguistic constraints on error variables in grammar across normal and abnormal populations, both monolingual and bilingual. As we shall see, casting the constraints on error variables in the sufficiently ABSTRACT TERMS of the conditions on the misapplication of the general inferential processes permits us to achieve a level of generality at which the constraints under discussion appear identical. C.6.1. Similar constraints: phonology. In this subsection we review several recent contributions to the analysis of segmental and suprasegmental phonological errors in our ongoing attempt to correlate linguistic1 errors in normals and abnormals. In the case of the error-analytic literature on segmental and suprasegmental slips, we are again confronted with the universal problem of coping with data analyzed within different taxonomic frameworks and lack of relevant studies which might serve as a basis for comparison. C.6.1.1. Similar constraints: segmental phonology. In a short study of slips-of-the-tongue in normal and pathological (aphasic) speech, Söderpalm Talo (1980: 83) adopts the following classifica­ tion scheme: Table C.6.1.1.: Speech Errors I SYNTAGMATIC ERRORS 1:1 Metathesis of phoneme (morpheme, word) 1:2 Anticipation 1:2 a = addition 1:2 o = omission 1:2 s = substitution 1:3 Duplication 1:3 a = adddition 1:3 o = omission 1:3 s = substitution II PARADIGMATIC ERRORS Substitution of phoneme (morpheme, word)

CONCLUSION

373

where the subcategory of omissions in errors of anticipation and duplication is, as far as we know, not only unique to her taxonomy, hence most notewor­ thy, but perfectly correct (cf. her example of an anticipatory omission: den brittiske biträdande ministern — bittiske biträdande ... 'the British deputy minister'), so compelling, in fact, that one is left with a feeling of surprise that no one had ever thought of it before. Söderpalm Talo arrives at several quantitative (but not qualitative) dif­ ferences between errors made by normals and those made by aphasics; the former commit more syntagmatic (over 80%) errors than paradigmatic and phonemic metatheses are common, whereas the latter make more paradigma­ tic (over 60%) errors than syntagmatic, and phonemic metatheses are rare, indicating a weakened capacity for accurate speech planning, and a generalized weakened awareness of errors, i.e., in our terms, low monitor strength — in sum, primarily a sequencing difficulty in normals as opposed to primarily a selection difficulty in aphasics. C. 6.1.2. Similar constraints: suprasegmental phonology. In a study of errors in stress and intonation made by native speakers of American, British, and Australian English, Cutler (1980a: 69ff.) classifies lexical stress errors into (1.) errors with the stress pattern of a morphologi­ cally derivational relative and (2.) other. We reproduce her Table 1: Lexical Stress Errors as Table C. 6.1.2: Table C.6.1.2: Lexical Stress Errors I. Errors with the stress pattern of a morphological relative A. No change in number of syllables abstráct (N) administrátive advántag-ádvantágeous álter.. .native altérnately ambíg-ambigúity ánal-análysis àrith-àrithmetic(N) articulátory

hierárchy homógë-homogéneous homogenéous idiosyncrá-idiosycrasies imág-imàginátion líng-línguist linguist-lingúistic Jàp-Japan methodól-methodológical

374

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

certification chromát-chromatógraphy conflícts(N) cón-contéxtual contribúted deféct(N) differénces dígest(V) disambiguáting economist económists elaboráting énvelopes(V)

origin pérfectionist persónable phónetic photógraphing (two separate instances) présent-presénting prógress(V) psycholíng-psycholingúistic psychól-psychológical sarcásm syllabíf-syllábification syntáx (three separate instances) véstig-vestígial

B. Number of syllables changed ambíguty (T: ambigúity) bicéntial [bajsέntlәl] (T: bicenténnial) bótnical (T: botánical) computáted (T: compúted) fácilty [fsesiltij ] (T: facility) hóspable (T: hospitable)

óblitory (T: obligatory) phenömenolólogy (T: phenomenology) philosophai (T: philosóphical) psychoánalis (T: psychoanálysis) similárily (T: similarly) specífity (T: spècificity)

II. Other errors A. No change in number of syllables ádj-adjústed

commént

alimóny

mobility

B. Number of syllables changed polysabic [pәlísәblk] (T: polysyllábic)

trémenly [trémәnlij] (T: treméndously)

Cutler maintains that whereas the several suprasegmental components of a sentence are not independent in their effect, e.g. that syllable which takes primary sentence stress is a syllable which carries primary lexical stress

CONCLUSION

375

and the fundamental frequency contour of an utterance is a function of the intonation contour assigned and also of the lexical and sentential stress, they must be considered to be independent in production, since the speech error data supports this independence. She observes that slips can occur at each stage in the sentence production process and that the different character of the errors at each stage testifies to the independence of the suprasegmental operations. The fact that the erroneous stress pattern is usually that borne by a morphological relative is, Cutler maintains, supportive of a model of the mental lexicon incorporating lexical decomposition and conjunct storage of morphologically related words. Errors in phrasal stress, however, show either metathesis of stress features or the effects of an independent error in grammatical marking. In open class items involved in shifts or exchanges the sentence stress is left unaltered, whereas closed class words carry their stress levels with them. Although hard to detect, errors in sentence stress and intonation do occur and are important for determining the correct interpretation of other errors. We note that the members of Cutler's 'other' category (cf. Table C.6.1.2) warrant reconsideration as possibly resulting from form-based, rather than derivationally related, lexical blends. Thus, ex hypothesi, we have ádj—ádj(X), e.g. ádjective, alimóny—(X)óny, e.g. hóney, commènt— (X)mént, e.g. lamént, mobility—(X)ity, e.g., city, rather than ádj—adjusted, commént—?, and mobility—?, and this in the context of a lexicon having rhyme—initial, medial, and end—as one of its fundamental organizational principles (for which, cf. Luelsdorff 1968). The comparison of Cutler's conclusions drawn for suprasegmental error patterns in normals with those which will be drawn for aphasics we await in eager anticipation. C. 6.1.3. Lexical stress errors. Cutler (1980c: 188) claims that erroneous lexical stress is always capable of being traced to the stress pattern of some derivationally related word, i.e. to confusion within the lexicon between differently stressed derivations of the same morphological base-form, e.g., spécific for specific to spécify, dis­ ambiguáting for disambiguating to ambiguous, and the isochronicity hypothesis (for which, cf. C.6.1.4., infra). While almost 2/3 of the lexical stress errors result in an utterance with more regular rhythm, Cutler stresses that not all errors in lexical stress arise from isochronicity. What is not clear from Cutler's 1980c discussion is the precise mechanism

376

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

responsible for the misassignment of lexical stress. Is the misassignment of primary lexical stress to the antepenultimate syllable in spécific (for specific) based on the misanalysis of specific, an adjective, as a verb, rather than an adjective, is an analogical mechanism involved, are roots, initially indifferent to part-of-speech, first assigned primary stress, the root then undergoing major and minor syntactic classification, derivation and/or inflection, then lexical stress readjustment, or, alternatively, as in the theory of metrical phonology (cf. Selkirk 1980,1984), is lexical stress a function of prosody, prosody itself, according to Schmerling (1975), a function of syntax, semantics, and pragma­ tics? Cutler and Isard (1980: 247-250) go as far as to suggest that lexical stress-misplacement data support an alternative theory to Chomsky and Halle's 1968 lexical stress-rule proposal, namely, "... a listing, in the mental lexicon, of the appropriate stress marking as a part of the phonological rep­ resentation of each word," (p. 245) and maintain that "Alternative explana­ tions are unable to account for the regularities which these errors exhibit." But, as Zwicky and Pullum (1982) have very recently pointed out and exemplified in their persuasive discussion of English n't as an inflectional (!) ending, the life of the linguist is full of surprises, if not, as in this case, out-and-out shocks. Thus, Cutler and Isard's claim that "... the suggestion that (lexical stress errors — P.A.L.) are blends between two alternative candidates for utterance runs afoul of the truth on the observation that all known types of blend involve two words of the same grammatical category (or two equivalent constituents), whereas lexical stress errors always involve two words of different grammatical categories" itself founders on a sublexical theory of blends admitting the possibility of roots or stems of the same gram­ matical category undergoing subsequent categorial differentiation as a func­ tion of inflection or derivation. On this latter theory, the integrity of the Chomsky-Halle proposal in its essentials is preserved and we are spared the complexity and redundancy of the Cutler and Isard counterproposal of stressrules cum stress lists. C.6.1.4. Isochronicity and syllable additions/omissions. Cutler (1980c: 184) notes that the addition or deletion of one or two syllables in English changes the rhythmic pattern of the utterance, resulting in a statistically significant tendency to equalize the number of syllables per foot (isochronicity). This tendency appears strongest in errors of syllable addition and omission, to a lesser extent in errors of lexical stress, and least in haplologies and lexical omissions. The tendency to regularize utterance rhythm, the regularity effect, appears to exert pressure sufficiently great to

CONCLUSION

377

force utterances in the direction of isochronicity. Cutler (op cit. 189-90) concludes by raising questions about the extent to which the rhythmic regu­ larity effect is confined to English or generalizable to other languages, about whether the nature of the omitted syllable plays a role in error, and about whether the tendency to regular rhythm is also detectable in other types of speech error, for example, lexical exchanges and patterns of pauses and hesitations in spontaneous speech. In our view the effects of rhythm regularity on contraction merit investigation. C.7. From intention to action. The purpose of this portion of our concluding statement is to place the theory of erroneous linguistic 1 competence and performance in the perspec­ tive of the theory of erroneous knowledge and knowledge-use in general, the latter properly including the theory of action slips, a subpart of the theory of intention and action. We support the notional distinction between competence and perfor­ mance, the former referring to knowledge-having, the latter to knowledgeusing. Furthermore, we support the distinction between systems of know­ ledge and belief and the use of systems of knowledge and belief in abstraction from knowledge-havers and knowledge-users, on the one hand, and the indi­ vidual mental representations of these systems of knowledge and belief and their individual use in concrete situations, on the other. C.7.1. The theory of act selection. Norman (1981: 1) defines a 'slip' as an error that occurs when a person does not act in accordance with his intentions. He outlines a theory of action in which an action sequence is represented by a parent schema and numerous child schemas, in which several action schemas can be active at any one time, and in which each schema has a set of triggering conditions and an activation value. The path from intention to action consists of the activation of the parent schema that corresponds to the intention, the activation of the child schemas for the component parts of the action sequence, and then the appro­ priate triggering of schemas when the conditions match those for their oper­ ations. Slips are organized into three major categories and a number of sub­ categories: (1.) errors in intention-formation (including the subcategories of mode errors and description errors); (2.) faulty activation of schemas (which

378

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

includes the subcategories of capture errors, data-driven errors, associative activations, loss of intention, and misordering of action components; and (3.) faulty triggering (which includes the subcategories of spoonerisms, blends, intrusions of thoughts, and premature triggering). Norman (p. 4) regards a schema as an organized body of knowledge, each schema assumed to cover only a limited range of knowledge of actions. A given action sequence is specified by a large ensemble of schemas organized in a hierarchical control structure. Schemas may invoke other schemas, imparting to them the particular values that the schemas must assume for the particular actions to be performed. The various aspects of an action are controlled by a number of different schemas. The highest-level schema for the control of various aspects of an action is called the 'parent schema' and the subschemas initiated by the parent schema are called the 'child schemas', where a child schema may act as a parent schema to other child schemas. The Action-Trigger-Schema (ATS) theory of slips has as its major premise the claim that skilled actions need only be specified at the highest levels of their memory representations. Activation values allow a schema to constrain and support any others that share common data bases or require similar resources. Numerous intentions and schemas are activated at any given time due to the complexity of actions and the time they require for execution. The model provides each schema with a set of specific conditions that are required for it to be triggered. An activated schema can be triggered by processing activity whenever the situation matches its conditions sufficiently well, where an exact match is not required, and it is assumed that there is a trade-off between level of activation and the goodness-of-match to the trigger conditions. Con­ scious attention to the task can vary, with the task itself demanding attention at critical action points. If the relevant schema is not in a sufficiently active state at the critical time for its triggering, it is apt to be missed. To sum up, the theory of act selection contains the following essential assumptions: (1.) any given action sequence is controlled by an ensemble of child schemas; (2.) at any one time, numerous schemas for a number of different sequences may be active; and (3.) schemas only invoke actions when they have been triggered, and this requires satisfaction of trigger con­ ditions plus a sufficiently high level of activation. C.7.2. The theory of action and the theory of slips. On the basis of the above, we present the following (simplified) diagram of the process of action:

CONCLUSION

379

Intention Formation

↓ Activation

↓↓ Trigger Conditions ↓ Schema

↓ Action The theory of action, thus structured, permits a restricted class of error types. There can be errors in the selection of the intention or errors in the specification of the components. Schemas can be triggered out of order and a relevant schema can be missed. Furthermore, errors can result from the intrusion of unwanted activities, from thoughts, from the occurrence of some event that triggers an unwanted thought, or from a well-learned, familiar habit's taking over action. According to Norman (p. 5), the three major sources of action slips are: (1.) the formation of the intention; (2.) activation; (3.) triggering. Norman's classification of slips based on their presumed sources is reproduced here in Table C.7.2: Table C.7.2: Slips Classified by Source A Classification of Slips Based on Their Presumed Sources Slips that result from errors in the formation of the intention Errors that are not classified as slips: errors in the determination of goals, in decision making and problem solving, and other related aspects of the determination of an intention Mode errors: erroneous classification of the situation Description errors: ambiguous or incomplete specification of the intention Slips that result from faulty activation of schemas Unintentional activation: when schemas not part of a current action sequence become activated for extraneous reasons, then become triggered and lead to slips Capture errors: when a sequence being performed is similar to another

380

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

more frequent or better learned sequence, the latter may capture control Data-driven activation: external events cause activation of schemas Associative activation: currently active schemas activate others with which they are associated Loss of activation: when schemas that have been activated lose activation, thereby losing effectiveness to control behavior Forgetting an intention (but continuing with the action sequence) Misordering the components of an action sequence Skipping steps in an action sequence Repeating steps in an action sequence Slips that result from faulty triggering of active schemas False triggering: a properly activated schema is triggered at an inapprop­ riate time Spoonerisms: reversal of event components Blends: combinations of components from two competing schemas Thoughts leading to actions: triggering of schemas meant only to be thought, not to govern action Premature triggering Failure to trigger: when an active schema never gets invoked because The action was preempted by competing schemas There was insufficient activation, either as a result of forgetting or because the initial level was too low There was a failure of the trigger condition to match, either because the triggering conditions were badly specified or the match between occur­ ring conditions and the required conditions was never sufficiently close

The factors underlying intention-formation include : personal goals, deci­ sion analysis, problem-solving activities, and situational analyses. Especially relevant are intentional problems leading to errors in classifying the situation and errors that result from ambiguous or incompletely specified intentions. Mode errors, entailing the erroneous classification of the situation, share the

CONCLUSION

381

characteristic that an action entirely appropriate to the situation as performed is the correct one, except that the situation is not the correct one. Description errors are caused by insufficient specificity of all the relevant information needed to form the appropriate intention, or when an appropriate intention has been formulated, but the description of the desired act is insufficient, the latter giving rise to an incomplete description which leads to ambiguity in the selection of information from memory. From the examples Norman cites (p. 7), it appears that the putative distinction between mode errors and description errors is tenuous at best and that, as Norman points out, some errors are a function of multiple causation, a conclusion which we have had occasion to independently draw in the context of our investigation of errors of orthographic substitution (cf. Chapters III, IV, and VIII). Norman (p. 7) supplies us with a piece of self-criticism which we consider worthy of recapitulation in extenso: "The ATS framework provides the mechanisms that allow these classes of errors to occur. However, the theory does not address the issue of why the particular word pencil might have been substituted for coin. Here, it is quite possible that further knowledge of situational factors, or knowledge of the thoughts active at the time, or a clinical analysis of the person would demonstrate the existence of contributing factors that, working through the mechanisms of the ATS formalism, gave rise to this particular slip at this particular time. Unfortunately, in most of the situations analyzed here, there is insufficient information to determine these other factors."

The sense of this quotation we have echoed time and again in just those instances where we have been unable to arrive at a plausible explanation for the error at hand, while, at the same time, not wanting to abandon ship by admitting random factors at play. Schemas may be unintentionally activated, leading to the production of intrusions, which we, in this sense of 'intrusion', have termed 'additions', or a schema may lose its activation before the appropriate time to control behavior has occurred, thereby leading to the omission of its components of the action sequence. Capture slips occur when a familiar habit substitutes itself for the intended action sequence. Norman puts it this way: "Pass too near a wellformed habit and it will capture your behavior." According to Reason (1979), the power to divert an action from some intention is a partial function of recency and frequency: the greater the both, the more likely the action is to occur as an uninvited slip. This, we submit, is tantamount to Bankevic's (1981) explanatory theory of intrudibles (for which, cf. supra), where it was

382

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

claimed that the factors of recency and frequency account for the particular class of intrudibles in sound in the erroneous responses to English orthog­ raphic stimuli. External activation, or data-driven slips, are caused by some obvious environmental factor, and associative action slips caused by an inten­ tion activating a relevant set of schemas that, by association with other schemas in memory, cause those others to become activated. Slips are due to loss of activation when some of the schemas appropriate for an activated action lose activations as a result of the normal decay and interference prop­ erties of primary memory, resulting in the loss of the desired intention with continuation of the associated behavioral repertoire, the misordering of the components of an action, leaving out a step in a sequence, the repetition of a step in a sequence or the restarting of a sequence at some earlier stage. Triggering a schema at the wrong time or not at all leads to spoonerisms, blends, anticipations, substitution of the result for the action leading to the result, or effect for cause, and the confusion of thoughts with deeds, or omis­ sions. Coupling intentions with actions we arrive at: = norm = norm = omission = addition =substitution =

spoonerism, exchange, transposition

=

displacement

The detection of slips presupposes a feedback mechanism with some monitoring function that compares what is expected with what has occurred

CONCLUSION

383

and notes a discrepancy between expectations and occurrences. Norman regards this as a non-trivial task because the specification of the intention is at a different level than are the mechanisms of the act. Partial morphology of the monitor is revealed by: (1)

± Monitoring

(2)

+ Monitoring--->

error correction error creation

(3) error correction---> pre-commission in-commision post-commision (4)

error c r e a t i o n - - - >

± Monitoring

Norman holds that the consideration of feedback mechanisms, the basic control sequence being from intention to triggering of action, where if the intention is incorrectly specified, the error cannot be noted, reveals that the intention is specified at some abstract, high level of representation, whereas the output of the motor control system is the production of sound waves. Rather than have the monitor go through the whole process of speech under­ standing in order to match how well the sound conveys the idea, Norman suggests having many feedback comparison processes, each monitoring dif­ ferent levels of the operation of the system, i.e. different levels of feedback required for different purposes, feedback and monitoring at each level: "Feedback plays an essential role in complex behavior. With slips, it is of interest to discover under what conditions a slip can be discovered and when it cannot. The monitoring of actions is a basic component of a feedback control system, but the monitoring function requires that the comparison of intention and action be done at the same level of specification. Because complex acts have several different levels of specification, each with its own relevant schemas and operations, the monitoring function must also be per­ formed at many different levels. The performance of an action, from initial conceptualization through realization, is then the process of decomposing the original intention into a sequence of physically performable acts, with multiple levels of feedback analysis accompanying the acts." (p. 14)

We are thus left with the notion that thelinguistic 1monitor must be capable of accessing all the elements and relations on each of the levels of linguistic 1 representation, matching intention with action on each of these levels. From this perspective a grammar is an intention analyzer and synthesizer whose

384

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

structure may be laid bare by consideration of the elements and relations involved inlinguistic 1breakdown and repair. Whether or not many feedback comparison processes are needed, as Norman suggests, or whether or not the multiplicity of feedback processes may be reduced to some underlying, essential unity, say the converse of an autonomous error module, remains to be seen. For the moment all that seems to be clear is that at some point the monitor must undergo differentiation in order to function in a corrective capacity in respect of level-specific error parameterization (cf. Chapter VII for some discussion). C.7.3. The linguistic monitor: Structure and function. In Chapter VII, Orthographic conduits d'approche, we presented some, but by no means all, of the quantitative and qualitative aspects of our infor­ mant's spelling-error monitoring performance, a pilot study of informant qua proofreader. We hasten to point out that proofreading is just one of manylinguistic 1monitoring functions of thelinguistic 1feedback mechanisms, one detail in a much wider landscape encompassing all quantitative and qualitative aspects of action-monitoring in general, and linguistic 1 monitor­ ing, in particular. Within the extended organon-model of language, sketched in Chapter I: Introduction, linguistic monitoring includes the editing of oral and written production and comprehension as a function of all the factors, functions, and validity claims under elaboration within the framework of the logical, empirical, and conceptual foundations of this theory of language. Where phonology, morphology, syntax, pragmatics are the various subcom­ ponents of the theory of grammar, a subdiscipline of cognitive psychology, whose object of study is cognition, the linguistic monitor function is metalin­ guistic in nature, an object of investigation of metacognitive psychology, whose domain of inquiry is metacognition. Whereas speech production entails the translation of intentions (whether ultimately linguistic or not, we leave an open question) into linguistic actions, ego-correction and alter-correction entails the retranslation of speech-event occurrences into the indi­ vidually linguistically associated intended or expected speech acts, the Hättesogeäussertwerdensollen, the Sogesagt and Sogeschrieben into the Hättesogesagtwerdensollen and the Hättesogeschriebenwerdensollen, the wassaid and was-written into the should-have-been-said and the should-havebeen-written, the latter intended to be substituted for the former. We thus point to the past tense, perfect aspectual, modal imperative character of the linguistic monitor qua performance process, a past perfective, modal impera-

CONCLUSION

385

tive dynamism about which a great deal more could, and should, be said, an elaboration which must be deferred due to restrictions on space (cf. Luelsdorff, in preparation). C.7.4. Cognition and Feedback. We view thelinguistic 1monitor as a subcomponent of a general feedback component which makes it possible for the species to readjust itself to its environment by means of the individual optimization of the realization of human functions. As was presented in Chapter VII: Orthographic conduits d'approche, the monitoring process is seen as consisting of the perception of error com­ mission, i.e. error detection, based on prior error commission, and error correction. The data examined there made it apparent that a distinction must be drawn between the detection of errors which are indeed deviations from the community norm, on the one hand, and the detection of errors which are presumed to be errors, hence having the status of psychological reality as errors, but which in fact conform to the norm. We termed the latter 'erroneous error perceptions'. A closer approximation to what appears to be the case involves embedding the concept of error along the lines of the more delicate categorization framework articulated in Chapter I, On puta­ tive 'transpositions' in spelling, in which a gradient, as opposed to binary notion of erroneousness was hinted at, not excluding the probability that the notion itself is individual-relative, i.e. all-or-none or gradient depending upon the individual and level-relative, i.e. relative to the linguistic1 level undergo­ ing monitoring. Thus, for example, while it is clear that house is spelled and only , either correctly or incorrectly in English, it is not at all clear that there is only one norm for the expression of a given thought or sequence of thoughts or one absolute norm for oral or written comprehension. On the contrary, we have every reason to believe there are not. Dickson (1983: 37-39), for example, points out that many people have argued that metacognition plays an important role in oral communication of information, oral persuasion, oral comprehension, etc., but that despite the intuitive appeal of the notion that self-reflection will contribute to improved performance, the evidence in support of such a claim is in short supply. Dickson maintains that if metacognitive knowledge is to affect performance, it must include strategies for action, i.e. that the linkage between thinking about what might make for successful communication and the set of wellrehearsed cognitive strategies necessary for successful communication should

386

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

not be assumed to be direct. In the introduction to Chapter VII we distinguished between the overt and covert monitoring of linguistic 1 errors. We further distinguish between the time and point of detection of error, on the one hand, and the time and point of the correction of error, on the other, where neither the time nor the point of error detection necessarily equal the time and point of correction. We next differentiate between two types oflinguistic 1performance, the performance oflinguistic 1acts, i.e., speech events, on the one hand, and the revision of linguistic1 acts, the latter having the character of performatives insofar as in being executed they revise, the character of metalinguistic statements insofar as they are comments on linguistic performance, the character of imperatives insofar as they stipulate that the revising statement be substituted for, added to, or omitted from the statement being revised, and a deontic character in the sense that the revision ought/should/must be substituted for the revised. Where error commission entails the derivation of abnorms from norms by means of the misapplication of the rules of infer­ ence, error correction entails the converse, the orthoapplication of the rules of inference, i.e. misdisplacement, missubstitution, misaddition, and misomission underlie error-commission, whereas orthodisplacement, orthosub­ stitution, orthoaddition, and orthoomission underlie error-correction. Furth­ ermore, error correction is seen to result from error-commission via the mediation of error-detection, consisting in the comparison or matching of attempts with targets, whereby the attempt and target, in the unmarked case, are distinct. Since some attempts which undergo revision are, in fact, the norm, we abandon the error: correction dichotomy in favor of the dichotomy attempt: target, where the attempt may correspond to the norm. Since some targets are themselves errors, or deviations from the norm, we prefer to refer to revisions as targets rather than corrections. In Chapter VII we developed the notion of 'monitor strength', under­ stood as the proportion of errors corrected to errors made, and the notion of 'error saliency', understood as the proportion of the actual frequency of the correction of an error to its expected frequency. C.7.5.

The morphology of the monitor.

It emerges from the above discussion that linguistic events perceived as errors form the input to the linguistic monitor and the corresponding linguistic events perceived as correct form the output of the linguisticmonitor and that the latter are obtained from the former by means of the

CONCLUSION

387

application of two rules of inference. We now remark, in the context of the above discussion, that the perception of a linguistic 1 event as erroneous is a special case of the perception of an act, whereas the perception of a linguistic 1 event as correct is the perception of an act as corresponding to an intention, where the intention does not necessarily correspond to the norm, the latter qualification necessary in view of the existence of intentional errors. Cast within the language of the discussion above, we can say that the perception of a discrepancy between an act and an intention is the perception which triggers the application of a set of inference rules activated and applied in order to bridge the gap between occurrence and intention. We remark in passing that it cannot be true that feedback mechanisms have played no role in cognitive psychology because the emphasis has been on the reception of information rather than the performance of acts, if for no other reason than the fact that the performance of acts is just as subject to linguistic 1monitoring as is information reception. C.7.6.

On the axiomatization of the linguistic1 monitor.

The above discussion has led us to distinguish between errors of compe­ tence and errors of performance. Errors of performance are either intentional or unintentional. Errors of both competence and performance are seen to result from the processes of addition, omission, substitution, and displace­ ment applied to the norm to yield the abnorm. We now wish to take a step in the direction of the axiomatization of the linguistic 1monitor: Vocabulary: I : At: [: ]: {: }: /: /: <: >: &:

variable denoting intention or: disjunction (inclusive) variable denoting act ~ : negation left syntactic bracket --->: implication right syntactic bracket a , b , c : variables denoting graphemes left morphemic bracket p, q, r : variables denoting phonemes right morphemic bracket + , —: presence, absence left phonemic slant < , > : earlier, later right phonemic slant E : existential quantifier left orthographic bracket V: universal quantifier right orthographic bracket A: Addition conjunction O: Omission

388

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Grammar: 1. 2. 3.

Any variable is a well-formed formula If A is well-formed formula, then ~ A is too. If A and B are well-formed formulas, then so are (A & B), (A or B), and (A—>B).

Axioms: 1. / p / - - - > ( < a > - - - > / p / ) 2. A<--->O 3. ( O - - - > A ) - - - > ( A - - - > 0 ) Rules of inference: see above. C.8. Processing structure. Garrett (1981) is an effort to associate some general patterns of aphasic language disorder with the structure of normal language production within a processing model derived mainly from error data obtained from normal, adult native speakers of English. Garrett conceptualizes the relationship between aphasic syndromes and the normal production process either as an assimilation of the former to the latter or as a direct comparison of the error phenomena from the two populations. In either case, the analysis of both sets of error data is necessary, hence the second is presupposed by the first. Garrett's working model of language production is reproduced here as Figure C.8., where the observations leading to the model are summarized in Garrett 1976, 1980a, and 1980b. In Figure C.8. the Message level is for general conceptual processes, the Functional, Positional, and Phonetic levels for sen­ tence processes, and the Articulatory level for motor control processes. On the message level a conceptual syntax builds complex expressions from a basic vocabulary of simple concepts and the resulting representations are the proximal cause of sentence construction. Since the message level is responsive to both linguistic and non-linguistic facts, it should not be confused with semantics. "It is the intended locus of the inferential processes that determine structured discourse. " (p. 4) On the articulatory level are the processes which translate sentence-level structures into articulatory structures, where distinc­ tive features are converted into the instructions for the control of respiration and articulation. The sentence level of processing is responsible for inferential

CONCLUSION

Figure C.8.: Language production (after Garrett 1981)

389

390

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

processing and pronunciation processing. Hence, here one must have access to the lexical elements and their phrasal integration, which processes Garrett views as subject to two sorts of constraint: the requirement of accent-free pronunciation and the requirement of communicatively appropriate interpre­ tation. The transition from the message level to the functional level is the step from the general inferential level to the first specifically linguistic struc­ tures. The only properties which Garrett assigns to the functional level are those inferable from error data. He is led to postulate three planning modes for the level of functional representation: (1.) lexical selection; (2.) specifi­ cation of functional structure, and (3.) the assignment of lexical elements to role positions. These three planning modes Garrett justifies on the basis of meaning-based word substitutions, e.g. "He rode his bike to school tomorrow (yesterday)," and word exchange errors, e.g., "You are not allowed to put use to knowledge," where the exchanged words are underlined. But we find the conclusions which Garrett draws on the basis of such errors to be unjus­ tified. Assuming that the observation Bierwisch (1970, 1981) makes to the effect that the semantics of the sentence is constant under such "exchanges", i.e. that the speaker's intention does not change, then the proper conclusion would have been that errors of word exchange can only be understood on the assumption that the signifiant and signifié may undergo dissociation, the very assumption which we have held to be correct and have tried to justify (cf. Introduction). The transition from the functional level to the positional is the translation from a logically oriented representation into a phonetically oriented one, its properties including the retrieval of the segmental structure of lexical items, the determination of surface phrasal geometry, the assign­ ment of lexical formatives to phrasal positions, and the interpretation and citing of grammatical formatives in the surface sequence of sentence ele­ ments. The existence of these properties in processing structure Garrett moti­ vates on the basis of the observation of sound exchange errors, form-based word-substitutions, stranding exchanges (e.g., "It waits to pay" for "It pays to wait" or "They are turking talkish" for "They are talking Turkish") and word and morpheme shifts ("You have to do learn that" for "You do have to learn that.") in all of which a form relation suggests itself. Garrett remarks (p. 8): "Note that the parameters of form which govern lexical retrieval operations at this stage may be inferred from the points of similarity between target and intrusion, including initial phonetic elements, phonetic length of syllable, and stress locus." Garrett insists that the lexical selection processes of the levels of function and position are disjoint due to the putative fact

CONCLUSION

391

that no form relations suggest themselves for the meaning-related target: intrusion pairs on the level of function. This putative fact, we claim, is inac­ curate and cite Coltheart (1980) and the many references listed there which point to very clear properties of form on the similar-dissimilar, contiguousnoncontiguous dimensions underlying syntagmatic and paradigmatic seman­ tic errors in such disorders as deep dyslexia, and conclude that Garrett's claim, as a result, does not hold, i.e. that there is no basis in differential error analysis which would justify the separation of the functional and pos­ itional levels within Garrett's model. Over and above this, however, we point to a more fundamental point of disagreement, namely, our position that the universality of errors on all processing levels and the reducibility of the mechanisms underlying them to the processes of omission and addition (cf. supra) suggest the simple hypothesis of an autonomous error generator consisting of just these operations with variables ranging over the elements on the various processing levels as values which error-accesses the processing structure. Not only is this position alien to Garrett's analysis, but runs diamet­ rically opposed to the view of Levelt (1983:6) who tentatively rejects the "production theory of monitoring" and adopts the "perceptual theory of monitoring". Levelt's reasons for this tentative choice, namely, that (1.) a perceptual theory avoids unnecessary "doubling" of devices and that (2.) the speaker has no access to intermediate processing results, but only to his communicative intention and the final products of the formation process, require, ex hypothesi, reexamination. Our position is that the speaker not only has control of his intentions and his speech acts qua products, but also of each and every item and construction in the production process insofar as the existence of these items and constructions can be empirically demonstrated on the basis of error and non-error data. In particular, sentence blends, phrasal blends, word blends, lexical, morphemic, and phonemic/ phonetic errors of addition, omission, substitution, displacement, and exchange support access to items and arrangements from the topmost level of processing, the inferential, on each and every level, down to the bottommost, the phonetic and articulatory. Garrett (p. 9) points to the fact that minor class items (= function words), both bound and free, as opposed to major class items, are exempt from exchange errors in particular, though not exempt from errors in general. This fact he explains by having the function words assigned a different struc­ ture in processing, namely, that of feature of planning frames. But there are other, empirically given properties of function words, i.e. Garrett's minor

392

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

class items, which distinguish them from major class items, e.g., their distinc­ tive behavior under intonation and stress, their distinctive syntactic and mor­ phological properties, and their distinctively relational semantic characteris­ tics. That is, there appears to be no compelling reason why one might wish to isolate the hypothetical property of feature on frames as the cause of the inability of closed class items to undergo exchange errors. Then, Garrett (p. 10) observes that closed class items, although exempt from exchange errors, do participate in movement errors — termed 'displacement errors' by us in Chapter I — which he assumes arise in the process of interpreting features of the phrasal planning frame and citing them in the terminal string. But then the question arises as to why these same processes of interpreting fea­ tures of the phrasal planning frame and citing them in the terminal string should exclude errors of exchange — hence, Garrett's putative explanation, on closer inspection, appears to be quite ad hoc. Garrett is very explicit about his mode of reasoning (p. 11) "The nature of the argument is simple. If speech error patterns are taken to reflect normal processing structure, the properties of error types and their interactions should tell us what structures are being computed by the system at given points in the elaboration of a sentence. We may thereby assert claims for the computational vocabularies and operations that are characteristic of sentence level processing."

True as this may be, in point of fact, however, Garrett's reasoning, in the final analysis, begs the question. In answer to the legitimate question why one distinguishes levels, Garrett (p. 11) offers: "... The answer to such "why questions" is explicit in the preceding discus­ sion: the constraints on the errors which distinguish the processing levels are disjoint. Word exchange errors are between phrases, while sound exchange errors are within; word exchanges are not constrained by mor­ phological structure or by segmental or prosodic similarity, while sound exchanges and most stranding errors are; word selection processes are con­ strained by vocabulary type, both with respect to syntactic and phonological roles and with respect to meaning and form; in each case, the effective descriptions are particular to the levels of the processing and representation which inform the working model."

where the point to be proved, namely, that different constraints on errors require the postulation of different levels of representation, assumes the existence of different levels of representation to begin with. Granting that many of the constraints are disjoint, disjoint constraints may just as well be seen to hold true of disjoint structures, quite independently of whether or

CONCLUSION

393

not these disjoint structures are on different levels. But we are not willing to grant that many of the constraints on errors are in fact disjoint. In a recent study of semantic similarity of whole-word slips of the tongue, Hotopf (1980: 101) points to the importance of associative similarity in determining slips, including similar frequency, phonological similarity and such 'external' fac­ tors as family relationship, and concludes that the constraints on whole-word group slips may be much narrower than has previously been thought. Now, were the expression of similarity to achieve a level of generality on which word-similarity and sound-similarity were to receive identical formalization, through, for example, the use of feature variables, assuming the correctness of the approach to semantic analysis which goes under the rubric of 'semantic' or 'lexical' decomposition, one would arrive at the conclusion that both word and sound selection processes undergo errors along identical lines, the gen­ eral idea being the higher the level of abstraction, the greater the similarity. Why one level of abstraction should be more relevant than another with respect to the issue under discussion, however, is a question which we must leave unanswered. Suffice it to say that the level of abstraction on which one chooses to cast one's thought should probably be primarily motivated by questions of generality, rather than the desire to prove a point which is known in advance to be correct if one tailors the level of abstraction to fit the point. Depending on the level of abstraction, everything is either similar or dissimi­ lar, or so it would appear. C.9 Appendices C.9.1. Appendix: Widely applicable spelling rules Rule 1 Words ending in ff, ll, or ss Words of one syllable, ending in ƒ, /, or s, sounding /f/, IV, or Is/ after one vowel, usually end in ff, //, or ss. (If the ƒ sounds like /v/ or s sounds like /z/ the rule does not apply.) The cliff is ta// and covered with moss. Rule 2 Doubling the Final Consonant—Monosyllables Words of one syllable, ending in one consonant, after one vowel, double the final consonant before a suffix beginning with a vowel, but do not double it when the suffix begins with a consonant: big, bigger, bigness. Rule 3 Doubling the final Consonant—Dissyllables and Polysyllables Words of more than one syllable, ending in one consonant, after one vowel, double the final consonant before a suffix beginning with a vowel, if the accent is on the last syllable: be 'gin, beginning; but 'open, opening.

394

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Rule 4 Silent e Words ending in silent e drop the e before a suffix beginning with a vowel, but do not drop the e before a suffix beginning with a consonant: hope, hoping, hopeful. Rule 5 Regular Plurals The most common way of forming the plural of nouns is to add s to the singular: dog, dogs; elephant, elephants; table, tables. Rule 6 Plurals of Nouns Ending in s, x, z, ch, or sh Nouns ending in s, x, ch or sh form the plural by adding es to the singular: gas, gases; tax, taxes; topaz, topazes; thrush, thrushes; torch, torches. Rule 7 Plurals of Nouns Ending in y Nouns ending in y after a vowel form the plural by adding s: boy, boys. Nouns ending in y after a consonant form the plural by changing y to i and adding es: lady, ladies. Rule 8 Plurals of Nouns Ending in o Nouns ending in o after a vowel form the plural by adding s : studio, studios. For the plural of nouns ending in o after a consonant, consult the dictionary. Rule 9 Plurals of Nouns Ending in ƒ or fe Most nouns ending in ƒ or fe form their plurals regularly by adding s: roof, roofs; fife, fifes. However, some of them form the plural by changing the ƒ or fe to ves: leaf, leaves; knife, knives. Rule 10 Possessives The singular possessive of nouns is formed by adding 's to the singular: Tom's knife, the child's toy. The plural possessive is formed by adding an apostrophe to a plural ending in s: the boys' knives, the rabbits' burrow; and by adding 's to a plural not ending in s: men's voices, women's work, children's laughter. The possessive of personal pronouns does not require an apostrophe. The form of the word indicates possession: his, her, their. The possessive form of an indefinite pronoun does require an apostrophe: one's, anybody's, everybody's, somebody's, any one's, no one's, every one's. Rule 11 Plurals of Letters, Figures, and Signs The plurals of letters, figures, and signs are formed by adding an apostrophe s: cross your t's. Rule 12 Rule for ie and ei Put i before e Except after c Or when sounded like a

CONCLUSION

395

As in neighbor and weigh. Rule 13 The suffix—ful The suffix ful differs from the word full. The suffix never has two l's: joyful, harmful, sorrowful. Rule 14 The suffix—ly When the suffix ly is added to a word, the spelling of this word does not change: soft +—ly, softly; safe +—ly, safely, hopeful +—ly, hopefully. Rule 15 Final y before a Suffix Words ending in a diphthong, the second letter of which is y, remain unchanged before any suffix. Rule 16 The prefixes dis— and mis— The prefixes dis— and mis— are placed before a word without altering its spelling: dissatisfy, misdeed. Rule 17 Prefixes Changed for the Sake of Euphony The final consonant of a prefix may change to match the following letter or to a letter more easily blended with it, col lide instead of con lide.

396

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

C.9.2. Appendix: Scope and sequence chart for spelling Test Level

1

2

3

4

5_

6

7

8

Avg. Grade Level

K-3

1-4

2-5

3-6

4-7

5-8

6-9

7-10

Consonants Beginning Blends Ending Blends

szw cjk bdlg xqu hlmn prtv y dr-gr-tr- sw- sp- sl- ststr- spr- splpl-fl-mp-nd -ft-lt-nt

Diagraphs

Vowels

short ae i ou

-st -nt -lf-nd-mp ch sh th ng short ae i ou

1

c: city g: germ

-nk wh

ph: phrase ch:ache

ai,ay,a-e u-e: cube ee,ea,e-e igh,yi-e,ind oa, ow, o-e, old

Vowel Digraphs Diphthongs

u-e:rule -y: envy

ie: field ei: receive schwa (3)*

oo: pool

oo:hood ea: ready

oi: join ou: cloud ow: down aw: claw

oy:joy ew: chew

au:sauce

pre- enmis- exa-in-tion -ive

con- percom-

y: system

un- rePrefixes -s: chops Suffixes

-s: wheels -ing -ed -es

-er-est -ly-ful

-ent-en -ant

-et: target -ey: kidney -ic: public -al: signal -le: poodle

Endings Syllables:** open and closed

-ment -ous -ness -sion -us: cactus

Derivational Doubling: immature -ance-ence -ible -able -fully -ally -ssion

open: ti-ny closed: gos-sip ck-k ch-tch ge-dge

Generalization«

ti: cautious ci: social fu: future

Advanced Phonics mustn't they've

Contractions

Rules

Total Test Words

i: stadium i: companion

ar, er, ir, ur er, ear are, ire, ore all

"r" & "1" control

Sample Words

J

lap rug flop yet mint 20

sang chops brush spent bathtub

mean loaded junk painting waxes

refuse smartest fired join loudly

20

40

40

loyal ahead expensive strangle prescribe 40

* The "schwa" is a neutral vowel sound in an unaccented syllable. ** Open syllable ends in a vowel making the vowel long: mo/ment, pu/pil. Closed syllable ends in a consonant making the vowel short: sad/die, pup/py.

loosen freckle computerbelief launched 40

1. Dropping e: hope-hoping 2a. Doubling final conso­ nants (mono­ syllabic) hophopping 3. Changing y toi: funnv-funnier skinny scaring cloudiness sympathy enormous 40

2b. Doubling final consts (polysyllabic); open-opening beginbeginner

fortunately immortal forbidden phrase architect 40

Appendix: The Corpus

398

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

2.08.79

A1 Target

Attempt

put right every evening again bad alarm-clock naughty sit down better than laughing

pute righte evre ivening a geng bed anlarm-clock noyte Sitdont Bäter then lauching A2

7.08.79

Target

Attempt

every better evening again bad alarm-clock naughty down Saturday dining-room answers ground kitchen late ice-cream breakfast bacon uncle aunt ready

evrye beter evenning agong bed arlamclock nonhty donw Saterday dinningroom ansersers gound kitghen leate ice-creame breckfour, breckforst backon Unckl ante redy

APPENDIX: THE CORPUS

Target

399

Attempt

doesn't cornflakes chocolate children

dosen't cornfleks cocklet cailren A 2(2)

7.08.79

Target

Attempt

doll's house always reads armchair books paints there

dolshous alwers reids armcair, armcair (p.) Books pans ther A 5

9.08.79

Target

Attempt

sleeps daddy's armchair sleep their likes boys goes eat children by plane Helga friend hamster cage

shlips Daddy's armcair shlips there liks Boys go it caildren buy P plane Hellga frind hammster ka cage

400

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

A6

11.08.79

Target

Attempt

morning morning tea get coming they Here and sugar What Toast marmalade want this

morming morningtea gat cming thay Her ans suga Whot Tost marmeled wont thes A7

15.08.79

(B-edited) Target can't play in must their don't tomorrow She eat steak likes potatoes ice-cream ice-cream says

Target Today can't

Attempt can't in mast there donen't tomorow she iat (approximate blend?) stek like (Fred like steak, too.) (potatos) potatoes ice-cram icec-cream sasy A 8 19.08.79 (Repetition of A 7, P-edited) Attempt Today (= y over s) eant

APPENDIX: THE CORPUS

401

Target

Attempt

their cooking tomorrow Mabel will and aunt mummy asks aunt Mabel she fish she doesn't

ther (= a over e) (ko) cooking tomorow (Map) Mabel well and dunt (= a over d) Mummyask (= M over m) Aunt Mabel (= A over a) (she) (= e over i) (fi) fish (crossed cursive f) (sehi) she (do©) (=s over e) (d) (=d over o or o over d) doesn't Well, (Wa) (= w over W) (W) (=half a W) she (lie) (s) like it. Oh, Ï she like steak, ... Uncle like hafe potetos ei ia ice-cream and s then

Well, what does she like? Oh, she likes steak,... uncle Fred like have potatoes ice-cream and then A 9 Target Every the postman paper boy newspaper to Garden Street nine o'clock Now Betty

20.09.79 Attempt Every (= E over e) 0 Postmam (=p over P) peaperboy newyspeaper tu gardenstreet nin o'clok naw Betty (= y over i)

402

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Target

Attempt

garden gate Betty some your brother postcards picture card with German stamp from Helga lives Hamburg

gardenged Bett (= y over e) some your Bra her (= th over s) Bosteskarts picturekat is gremen stemp vrom Hellga liefs hamburg A 9(2)

20.09.79

Target

Attempt

cards birthday tomorrow birthday Good-bye Here newspaper have the comics Here you newspaper two comics Thank you Cheerio

kats Börste tomorow borstey Goodbey Her newyspeaper hav a comigs Hir you newuspeaper tow comigs Sankyoy cilrio

APPENDIX: THE CORPUS

A 11 Target

403

27.09.79 Attempt

You afternoon jam torts for football come before eight mother answers laughs an runs away Now Betty help wrap birthday presents please Here's pretty paper They dining-room start wrapping presents Suddenly

you after no jamtords vor Football cam be fore egth ather (= m over M) ans ers (= w over e) lauchs and runns a Wey Mow (= n over N) Betty (= B over b) hellp wrape birthdaypresentes pleas Here pritypeaper Say doing-room stards raypping presente sudeenley A 11(2)

27.09.79

Target

Attempt

where camera for grandpa and looks

where (spelled by P) Kammara fon Grendparand louk

404

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Target

Attempt

cupboard under sofa looks in wardrobes can't find the camera have camera

capbord ander s fa (= o over a) loke a in {under six words back) wordrobes cant fint 0 Kamara ha e (= v over f) Kammara A 13

Target Daddy are camera Suddenly there crash kitchen into the kitchen do they see bottle broken cream Pussy is licking it up. that's ice-cream very angry Betty starts

4.10.79 Attempt Deddy a a ca mara (first m crossed through) Suddenl (= y over e) ter carach kitŧchen (second t crossed through) into 0 kitchen do 0 see bottel Broken the cee cream (prompted by P) 0 0 linking it ap. tets ice-creaem very angrey 0 starts

APPENDIX: THE CORPUS

Target

405

Attempt

cry Run buy cream There money my writing-desk

crç (= y over e) Run (= R over r) bay cream cream Ther muney me woriting-desk A 13(2)

Target

4.10.79 Attempt

looks writing-desk starts What's this? camera laughs Thank

look wrriting-desk star$t (= s over first t of tt#) Whath thes cammara laugha Thak A 14

15.10.79

Target

Attempt

Who Fastest is Now children are Let's run races First the wheel-barrow race One

Woh fastist ø Nowe tschildren ø Letts ran resis Forst ø Wheelbarrow wrays worn

two

too

406

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Target

Attempt

three go shouts Mr holding John's holding Jim's falls down then

theer goh sauts mr ohlding Jams holdings Jims fols daun theen A 14(2)

Target John Molly are the winners prize chocolates sack race and wins pocket-knife the balloon race must hold between their knees the garage Come to apple-tree pick

15.10.79 Attempt Jon Molli other Winners prais cokolate Sak reys ws an poketnicfe ø balloonreys ust hol be ten ther nifs 0 garach cam too aplletrepik

APPENDIX: THE CORPUS Target

407

Attempt

apples One can higher than can highest picks six apples in school test time wins prize stamps taller than are longer begins rain all run

apiles Won k can hoher then cant hiest pik sex apiles on Schoor testtime winns Preis Stamps toler then alanger bigin ren ollrun A 17(2)

16.10.79

Target

Attempt

house record dance dance nine o'clock children Good-bye lovely Cheerio

haus reckore danc dancs nin or clock childen Good-buy lowvey cirio

408

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

A 19 Target Birthday four doorbell opens door there they shout rings again door the We've for Here There's record from Another and pocket-knife a book ball-pen

18.10.79 Attempt Bierthday (= B over b) foyr Dorbel open dor thar say (= s over t) ring agen dor she We'v For (line begin only) hir Thersis rekord fon A naster And Poket-nive abook ballpen

$haut

A 20 Target comes Who I am,-I am into the lemonade orange-juice coke they eat

22.10.79 Attempt cam's Woh I'm, - I'm in th lomonade orensh just oke (= c over C) se they at (= i over e)

APPENDIX: THE CORPUS

Target

409

Attempt

the sandwiches cakes jam tarts candles birthday one happy birthday

sandwith caces am tarts (= j over J) candels Biethday won Happy Birthay (= H and B over h and b) therten Hppey Bierthdays sing candel Friend Huraah cut

thirteen happy birthday sings candle friends Hurrah cuts A 22

25.10.79

Target

Attempt

man than child than house higher higher The train jump higher brings letters postcards brings milk cream children

an man then chaild tan hous haiga haigaer 0 train junp haigaer brins leters postcard bring milck crame cildren

410

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Target

Attempt

lemonade bank cooks children living Cheerio

limonned banck cocks cilden lifing ceereo A 24

Target Ask Way standing High Street Excuse Where down High Street Park Road park left That's all right policeman Excuse way filling-station down High Street turn filling-station right lady excuse

29.10.79 Attempt

ŧa

Asks Way (= W over w) standing Heigh Street Exzuse Wheer don Heighstreet Prarkrod Park le te (= ƒ over z) Tats ol righe P policeman Exzuse wey fillingsŧ-stateion don Heigh Street (= S over s) tern filling-stateion righte Ledy exzuse

APPENDIX: THE CORPUS

A 24(2) Target

411

29.10.79 Attempt

left

le te (= ƒ over v) A 26

6.11.79

Target

Attempt

dirtier There Where's there Listen cross square buys must this very good ice-cream laughs comes van

dirtir Ther Where's tere Lisen r croß (German sharp s) squer 0 mußt (German sharp s) thes wer very good (= d over t) ice-creame lauchs corns wan (= v over w) A 28

Target Betty's cousin lives he want town children Park Road Market Square here's bigger

2.11.79 Attempt Betty cousien livs He wont T town Children Park rod Marketskqua hir' biger

412

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Target

Attempt

the oldest over building Hospital biggest hospital Puddlefield dirtier Puddlefield

teh odist ofer buildind Hospitel bigest Hospitel Puddelfield diertier Pudderfild 8.11.79

A 30 Target

Attempt

doorbell present record answer pocket-knife thank you dining-room lovely hungry lemonade orange juice candle younger shorter neck running high higher highest which

dobell Presend Record anaser poket-knife Sank you dinineg-room lovely hangry lemonede orang-juse candel yonger shorter nack runing hieg hieger hiegest witch A 32

12.11.79

Target

Attempt

Wants

wonts

APPENDIX: THE CORPUS

413

Target

Attempt

a Dog Jones standing on Park Road at the boats river little brown he says You're Where your master Perhaps haven't master haven't acollar want to with me Come on little

adog one: (= J over j , s over z) standing an Parkrode the boots ŧriver litel braun he says Yor Hwere yor Master erhapes (= P over p) haven Master hafent an collar wont 0 with me Comon litel A 32 (2)

12.11.79

Target

Attempt

goes little runs what little says Whose he

gos litel rans wat itel ø whose hie

414

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Target

Attempt

my hasn't got a master want keep Perhaps ... his master is looking for him.

me hasen god an master wont kepp Perhapes ... dis Master him is looking for him. kepp Him to tis nice then Peters but he d y (= i over a)

keep him two this nicer than Peter's But he dirtier A 32(3) Target

12.11.79 Attempt

the police-station

The Polise steschen A 34

Target Prince Street hasn't master must keep Perhaps master is What's

15.11.79 Attempt

Masŧ

Prinz Street haven't Master mast kiep porhaps master ø Whats

APPENDIX: THE CORPUS

Target

Attempt

Jones live seventy six policeman writes Dick's book he and then take Good-bye meets Hey let's the he

Johns liv sevente six Policeman writing Dicks boog i he an than takes Good buy meetes Hay Its te hie

ŧa

A 34(2) Target

415

15.11.79 Attempt

wash my but must he thinks Perhaps

wasch my bat musti he's thinks prrhaps A 36

19.11.79

Target

Attempt

Every Friday o'clock goes He biggest shoe-shop

Afry Freiday o'lock go Hi bigge t (= s over e) shoe-shop

416

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Target

Attempt

Puddlefield and he a lot money o'clock on am money Are you going work isn't raining rain umbrella umbrella brief-case goes out There

Paddelfild an hie a lot mony o' clock 0 mony Are do you going walk isen't rening ren Umbrella Umbrella Brif-case gos aut Ther A 36(2)

Target

19.11.79 Attempt

near all the

n ar (= e over i) oll t ie (= h over e) A 39

Target there's number black over there clever under

27.11.79 Attempt Ther' numbur blak ofer there clever ander

APPENDIX: THE CORPUS

Target

417

Attempt

doesn't man black jumps out

dosent Man blak junps aut A 41

Target

29.11.79 Attempt

Help! shouts I'm to the gives The away starts laugh There one thousand pounds under gray there one

Halp! shot's ein ø The (sentence-internal, post-") givs the (sentence-initial) a way stats lauch Ther one thousand pounds ander grey one 3.12.79

A 43 Target

Attempt

the There vans taxis they drive men

The Ther Vans taxis They dive man

418

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Target

Attempt

children people are are waiting lights letter-box Two girls letter telephone Perhaps to call the police standing where Mr Brown's shop are you going A new dress suitcase

cildren p ople (= e over l) a 0 waiting sights Letter-box Too Guls Letter tellphon Parchaps to P call the police standing wher Mr Brown shop do you going A Wew Dress suitcas A 43(2)

Target

3.12.79 Attempt

we visit my London Good-bye

we wiesit me Londen Good-buy A 44

7.12.79

Target

Attempt

Saturday There lorries Betty are walking a letter

Saterday Ther Loris Bett walk aleter

APPENDIX: THE CORPUS

Target

Attempt

Roberts Over there behind taxi He riding Molly shouts her doesn't traffic amber taxi front John's crashes falls his bike

Roberst Over: her there (= t over s) bihind Taxi he reiding Moll shots hor dosen't trafik anber Taxi frond Johns cashis fols hisbike A 47

Target goes Every Saturday shops shop There book-shop supermarket shopping list She two does buys steak eggs

419

19.12.79 Attempt go Evry Saturday sohps shop Ther Book-shop supermarkete shppinglist She too dose buy stake egs

420

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Target

Attempt

pears of

peaer o (=f over b) A 49

21.12.79

Target

Attempt

bread jam sausages bones tomatoes cabbages greengrocer's butter cheese eggs grocer's orange-juice soup Then buys post-office

bread jame soshethes Bons tomateos ckabishes greengrausers batter chise agges grauers orange-juise sup Than buys post-officer A 51

27.12.79

Target

Attempt

morning they meet Let's to we shopping already steak the butcher's

marning theye mead Lats too wei shoping alredi stake thee Bucher's

APPENDIX: THE CORPUS

Target

421

Attempt

must supermarket have drink says we're when done shopping take shopping puts a lot pound

mußt (German sharp s) supermarket aff dink se says wer wen don sohpping takes sohpping put a Lot pont

two

tow

A 51(2)

27.12.79

Target

Attempt

pounds tomatoes bottles lemonade soup fish full

pands tomates butelt limonade sups fisch foll A 52

10.01.80

Target

Attempt

Have cleaning shoes is kitchen chairs cleaned

(= H over h) clean ing shos 0 hittchen cairs cleand

422

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Target

Attempt

The cups plates washed chairs have painted chairs

0 (sentence initial) caps plets washt cairs hape paintit cairs A 53

Target

15.01.80 Attempt

twelve o'clock What have you done this morning

twelef o clock W ot have you done s morning (= h over a) sho s (= e over o) painded kitchenchairs

shoes painted kitchen chairs flowers flouers a lot thank you what have

ø1ot Tank you w at (= h over a) has A 54

17.01.80

Review Test Target

Attempt

every Billy's steak sausages bones tomatoes potatoes cabbages

Evry Bi s (= y over l) sake sosuschess bons tomatos potatos cabbiche

APPENDIX: THE CORPUS

Target

Attempt

greengrocer's grocer's juice office full

greengroser s grosser's juce officer foul

423

A 54a pound bottles morning meet already when shoes cleaned plates painted flowers these

lb bottels mornninsg (second n inserted) mide all redy wenn shos cleand plaits pained floaers theys A 55 Review Test

Target traffic lights mustn't when across know too school ride drive throw soon thousand

Attempt trefic lights musen't wenn cross now to school ried drif thow thon thausend

22.01.80

424

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Target

Attempt

traffic traffic sign lorry men women

trefic trefic sun lori man winen A 55a

people letter telephone telephone call accident to wave to lie how terrible

pople leter-box telepon telepon-cal an axdent to wav to ley how terybel A 55a

22.01.80

Review Test Target

Attempt

carry ambulance so finish

cary ambulanz thoe finisch A 56

shopping loaf of bread sausages butcher cabbage fruit cheese tin half a pound fresh

shooping loev of bred sausitches bucher cabbice friut chees twin have a pound frais h

APPENDIX: THE CORPUS

Target

Attempt

anything else altogether

anysthink els all togesser

425

A 56a pay

pey A 57

29.01.80

Target

Attempt

Puddlefield the other the Puddlefield window steak roast than roast beef I chicken best Which tomato juice fruit salad with cream without cream

Padelfield thei ather 0 Pudelfield Window stake rost than rost beef ei shicen bees Whaida tomatos-juice friut salet wiht creame wihtout creame A 59

Target Uncle Swan Restaurant please

31.01.80 Attempt Uncel swahn rautrent plase

426

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Target

Attempt

I steak Roast right roast Would you like cream

ei stake rost (sentence initial) ried roast would do you like creame A 61

Target

4.02.80 Attempt

would drink lemonade I glass of water children their write roast I've has had vegetable soup policeman he has seen thief taken lady's money pocket hasn't

woud dinck limonade ei glass of ofwater cildren ther wrid rost I'v has 0 vegetablesoup Poliseman has he seen thief taken layds mony poket hasen't A 63

Target Saturday been to the cinema

12.02.80 Attempt saterday bein

to the cinema

APPENDIX: THE CORPUS Target

Attempt

ganster meet their there are a lot people coffee bar There music at the counter waiter gives them children their friends music Suddenly that young man over there Which young

Gangster meat the ther 0 a lot pople coffeebar Ther musik on the counter Waiter givs tham cildren ther frinds musik uddenly (= T over S) thatjung Man ofer ther Witch jung A 65

Target There All football They watching the Who win teachers have shirts

427

21.02.80 Attempt Ther ol Football hey (= T over t) watching at the How winn te cher (= a over e) hafe shirts

428

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Target

Attempt

colours Victoria The uniform Their yellow Baker's They are They're already

coulers Viktoria The (= T over t) (sentence initial) uniforn There jelo Beker's Ther is There ol rady A 66

28.02.80

Target

Attempt

January February March May June July September October December Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday teams shouting Come on pupils music kicked Teac ers shout teachers

Januar Faubrua Mach Mae Jun Juli Septenber Oaktober Dezember Thudday Wensday Theruday Friyday terns sohuting comon pipul M miusic kiced Teacher (= T over t) schot eacher (= t over T)

APPENDIX: THE CORPUS

429

Target

Attempt

referee blows start

creferee blow st rt (= a over second t) A 66(2)

Target

28.02.80 Attempt

Peter Pim He running English teacher him He kicks going shout goalkeeper catch

Peter Pirn he runing Englishteacher he he kiks goi g (= n over m) shot goulkeeper catch A 66a

Goal They shout score two

Goul the They sohot score two A 67 Review Test

Target

Attempt

pupil shirt colour blue black yellow shoot

piupel shert coller blue blak jelow shoht

6.03.80

430

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Target

Attempt

kick referee whistle

kic refferee wihtel A 67a

catch accident people caught

cautsh acedent pople couted A 68

Target weather here holidays I I like Birmingham, but I like Puddlefield better. We eleven o'clock parked carpark First looked tigers Then watched monkeys giraffes monkeys hippos baby hippopotamus yesterday

13.03.80 Attempt weather here holydays ei I like Birmingham, but ei like Puddlefield better. Wie ilefen o'clock Parkd carpark Therst First (= F over f) lokd (= d over k) looked Tiegers Then watsched monkys geraffes monckys hippos babyhippopotees yesterday

APPENDIX: THE CORPUS

A 70

431

20.03.80

Target

Attempt

under sandwiches tomatoes stomach cousin answered little catch called come here jumped naughty little we're friends In the afternoon ride we elephant it started rain Henry write soon one hundred

ander sandwichs tomatos stomac cosin answered littel cauth coalled komm he here jummped nau t (= t over h) litel wir frinds In the hafternoon raid wie Elephant it's started rain Henney riad soun onehundert A 70(2)

20.03.80

Target

Attempt

hay every week mustn't

hey evry weak musen't

432

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Target

Attempt

fat isn't

flat isen't A 71

Target Weekend Last want uncle's farm tomorrow miles from Puddlefield bike your boys arrived on Saturday How aunt She called cousins the lunch Where's He field hay-making Black answered

27.03.80 Attempt Week-end La st (= s over r) wont U n le's (= c over l) farn tomoro Mi miles rom (= ƒ over v) Puddefield Bike (= b over B) you Boy's arifed am Saturday How (= H over h) Aunt (= S over s) colld cosins they Lunch (= l over L) Where's He (= H over h) fielde hay-make Blak nswered (= a over A)

APPENDIX: THE CORPUS

A 72

433

17.04.80

Target

Attempt

lunch went showed them Then looked Hector last month Be said went fields looked cows sheep Suddenly Prince running away We catch children ran Prince caught ride

Lunch want shod tham then looked (= d over t) he Hee Hector lars mons Be (= B over b) Said (= s over S) want filds lookd Cows (= c over C) sheeps Suddenlyl Price runing aw A away We(= Woverw) caught cildren run Price caught (= g over t) raid A 72(2)

17.04.80

Target

Attempt

asked Allright answered ride

asks 0 1 0 1 alg raig answer raid

434

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Target

Attempt

I said Prince's started Then he away very

(= / over ei) sa d (= i over y) Pince's Startes (= T over t) hi a way very

hen

A 74

24.04.80

Target

Attempt

Office Here pence does train arrive Which Platform can't catch five thirty want Norwich time-table

offis Hir pens dose 0 arafft Witch latform (= P over/?) an't (= c over k) caut th uty (= r over e) t went Norwich timetable 1.05.80

A 75 Target lives with works factory sometimes by

Attempt livs with works a factori somes time buy

APPENDIX: THE CORPUS

Target

Attempt

invited me weekend I already my suitcase my jeans pullover can swim This by was river by We stopped front

in invited my weke ende I e allady me sijutcase me jens pe pulover k kan can schwim T i s ( = T over t buy wars River buy W e ( = W over w) stopd frond A 75(2)

Target blue name were on deck they showed wash-room pretty is laughed

435

1.05.80 Attempt blu m name werean Deck (= d over D) 0 shoud waht room prity (3x) 0 laught

436

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

A 76 Target

8.05.80 Attempt

we up breakfast sailed river We little villages with some watched swans weather took I bought picture abridge We didn't swim The weather too cold afternoon

wi ap bakeforst saild Ri river wi litle villges wiht some watcht shwans wather toke Ay boght pickture a bridge we dident schwim he (= T over t) wather to could after noon A 76(2)

8.05.80

Target

Attempt

There were a lot boats on lakes

Ther a Boat an lages

APPENDIX: THE CORPUS

Target

Attempt

rowing-boats Suddenly said little over there

rawing-boats suddenl sayd Util ofer ther A 78

Target heard shout a little coming shouted with clothes They swam our into It gave boys clothes Then late when we arrived We last Puddlefield has invited summer begin on

437

15.05.80 Attempt head schoued alittle comeing schoued Whis cload they shwimed ouer in to it gaves Boys couse hen (= T over t) 0 whan wi araifft We (= W over w) larst Puddelfield have inveitet somer beginn n (= o over i)

438

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

A 78(2) Target

15.05.80 Attempt

47

47 A 80

Target

29.05.80 Attempt

cousin Mary must by bus number goes shouts Road

cosin Mery mußt (German sharp s) buy bus nunber gos (2x) souts roud 5.06.80

A 83 Target

Attempt

thinks in Birmingham it's large He Cambridge Road crossroad He lady Excuse please tell me way always

sinks im Birningham its larch he camrich-road crosroad he lady exciuse please tell me Way olweys 5.06.80

A 83(2) Target

Attempt

want

wont

APPENDIX: THE CORPUS Target

Attempt

to

te too

Must here turns right Hill Road He another man Excuse me it isn't Turn here again Then straight ahead You can't miss station

Mußt (German sharp s) hir turnsright Hill road e (= H over h) a anaser men Exciuseme it is isn't urn (= T over t) her agayn (= T over t) stad ahed you k can't mist station

hen ŧŧ

ŧa A 84

Target Breakdown there traffic Haig Street driving down The Street Oxford turns Oxford Street mustn't nearest fetch

439

6.06.80 Attempt Brecd wn (= a over o) ther traffik Haig-street drifing 0 The (= T over t) street Ox ord (= b over s) to turns Oxford treet ( = 5 over s) musen't nerest fatch

440

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Target

Attempt

mechanic away minutes later with overall

mecanick a way minits latter w with overol A 89

19.06.80

Review Test Target lives factory laughed week-end showed already suitcase were girls jeans pullover stopped deck pretty breakfast said villages there watched water weather suddenly heard shout has invited hey

Attempt livs Factory laft Wekkend shoud allrady siutcase wer gils Jens Pollover stopd Deck pritty Beakefirst sa d saied wilishes ther watch wather wether su enly (= d over s) head shoutd has inveited invited hej

APPENDIX: THE CORPUS

A 89a (2)

441

19.06.80

Review Test (Cont'd.) Target

Attempt

Puddlefield when clothes swam

Puddelfield wenn clouds shwam A 90

watched weather invited clothes arrived photos bridge empty jumped exciting caught

watcht wether invaide cothes ( = d over t) otos (= p over P) bridch empty jumt xeiting cought A 92

swimming There a lot are pool match between Puddlefield and Newton different crawl there diving

Swimming Ther alot a Pool much bettwen Puddelfield and Nowten diferent cravl ther diveing

442

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Target

Attempt

match five points for team points wins match silver cup Who Poor today

muche fife Points (=f

over v) theam point winns Match silves-cup How Pure to day A 92(2)

He has had Monday match whistle

Hie is had monday Match wissel A 92a

What The girls shouting But They're good team have half teams won eight forty all

Whot the gils seh shoting But (= B over b) There goog teame ø hafe teames one aght ver forty ol

APPENDIX: THE CORPUS

Target

Attempt

diving David Newton already

diveing David Neoton ei allredy A 92a (cont'd.)

Target

443

3.07.80

Attempt

climed onto spring-board

cimbed aunto spring-boart (varies with spring­ board) runing Wat beutg oul (= ƒ over s) Kann Jon Puddelfield dive

running What beautiful Can John Puddlefield dive A 94 Target your cousin on Saturday English summer Mrs. Miller's daughter visit Inge's family That's nice isn't it travel

Attempt y ur (= o over a) cosin at Saturday english famiely Summer Mrs. Millers dauter visite Ing (= s over e) famiely Thats nieh (= c over e) in it travle

444

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Target

Attempt

from Ostend Dover train London arrive Victoria o'clock the Peter London

vrom stend (= O over o) over (= D over d) trayn London arive Victoria o clock the Peter Londθn (= o over e) A 94(2)

Target

Attempt

She going blue dress English of course Can you Karlsstraße parents and to Betty

he (= S over s) go ng (= i over u) blau d n ss dress enlish of courses can you Kar Straße (= / over s) parens to and Betty A 94 a

Target

Attempt

Miller meet Inge children's living-room night

miller meat I nge (= I and / over ie) chillers l nge-rom-room (= i over e) naight A 95

Thank

Tank

APPENDIX: THE CORPUS

Target

445

Attempt

October very happy many returns birthday know no one by the name of German be or when I finish want become aeronautical engineer

October ver y ha y happy many r e t u r n ( = s over d) birthay know on one buy name off Grerma bie or wen ei finisch wont be come aernautical angineer A 95(2)

When great-grandfather it very beatiful where also of grass children soccer football friends mountains about one-hundred miles

Wenn grate-gandfather id verry buitefooi wehr all so ofgrass cilden soccor soccer frinds Moutntens abut one-handret milse

446

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Target

Attempt

away In we use metric system There mile don't have country-western music

a waiy in w (= e over i) yous merik-ic sustem Ther miles don' countri-Western miusik A 95(3)

ravioli noodles coca-cola learned yet enjoy movies Bud Spencer who

Ra eedl-es noodles -cola coca-cola learned jet enjay mojíes Bud Spencer who A 95a

fat very television I pirate films

fat verry te television ei pirate films A 96

12.10.80

Target

Attempt

When arrived said Here's

Wenn arrivd sad Her's

APPENDIX: THE CORPUS

Target our called Another upstairs buy tickets What to Parliament Square Bus conductors notes fifteen That's

Attempt ouer colld Anosthe upstayrs bay ticets Wot too parlamet square Bus-conducter note fiften Thats

447

Bibliography

Aarts, F.G.A.M. (1977): "Describing linguistic variation: Towards a 'variety grammar' of English," L.A.U.T. (Linguistic Agency University of Trier, Trier), series A, No. 43. Akhmanova, Olga and Lidia Polubicenko (1979): Review of Wolfgang Wildgen, Differentielle Linguistik: Entwurf eines Modells zur Beschreibung und Messung semantischer und pragmatischer Variation. Journal of pragma­ tics 3, 524-529. Albert, Martin L. and Lorraine K. Obler (1978): The bilingual brain: Neuropsychological and neuro linguistic aspects of bilingualism. New York: Academic Press. Anastasi, A. (1958): Differential psychology. New York: MacMillan. Anderson, John R. (1983): The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, pp. 345. Applegate, Joseph R. (1961): "Phonological rules of a sub-dialect of Eng­ lish," Word 18,186-193. Artymovic, Agenor (1932): "Fremdwort und Schrift." In: Charisteria Gu. Mathesio quinquagenario...oblata. Prague. Artymovic, Agenor (1932): "Pysana mova," Naukovyj zbirnik Vys. Fed. Instituía v Prazi II, 1-8.

ukrainskoho.

Assagioli, Roberto (1974): The act of will. Baltimore: Penguin Books. Austin, John (1975): How to do things with words. Cambridge, Mass.: Har­ vard University Press.

450

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Avakian-Whitaker, H. and H.A. Whitaker (1973): "The spelling errors of children with communication disorders: A preliminary classification," Lin­ guistics, 115, 106-118. Bailey, Beryl L. (1965): "Toward a new perspective in Negro English dialec­ tology," American speech 40, 171-177. Bailey, Charles-James N. (1969): "The integration of linguistic theory: Inter­ nal reconstruction and the comparative method in descriptive linguistics," Working papers in linguistics 2 (University of Hawaii), 85-122. Bailey, Charles-James N. (1972): "The integration of linguistic theory: Inter­ nal reconstruction and the comparative method in descriptive analysis." In: Robert P. Stockwell and Ronald K.S. Macaulay (Eds.) Linguistic change and generative theory, Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 22-31. Baker, Robert G. (1980): "Orthographic awareness." In: Uta Frith (Ed.), 51-68. Baker, Wm. J. and Bruce L. Derwing (1982): "Response coincidence analysis as evidence for language acquisition strategies," Applied psycholinguistics3, 193-221. Bankevic, Leonid Valentinovic (1981): Testirovanie leksiki inostrannogo jazyka [Testing a foreign-language lexicon]. Moscow: Vysšaja škola, pp. 112. Baron, Naomi S. (1981): Speech, writing, and sign: Afunctional view of lin­ guistic representation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 303. Beauvois, Marie-France and J. Dérouesné (1979): "Phonological dyslexia: Three dissociations," Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry 42, 1115-1124. Beers, Carol S. (1980): "The relationship of cognitive development to spel­ ling and reading abilities." In: Edmund H. Henderson and James W. Beers (Eds.), 74-84. Beers, James W. (1980): "Developmental strategies of spelling competence

BIBLIOGRAPHY

451

in primary school children." In: Edmund H. Henderson and James W. Beers (Eds.), 36-45. Berndt, Rita Sloan (1983): "Phonological coding and written sentence com­ prehension," Annals of dyslexia 33: 55-66. Bickerton, Derek (1971): "Inherent variability and variable rules," Founda­ tions of language 7, 457-492. Bickerton, Derek (1973): "The structure of polylectal grammars," Mono­ graph series on language and linguistics, Roger W. Shuy (Ed.), Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 17-42. Bickhard, M. (1978): "The nature of development stages," Human develop­ ment, 21, 217-233. Bierwisch, Manfred (1970): "Fehler-Linguistik," Linguistic inquiry 1, 397414. Bierwisch, Manfred (1972): "Schriftstruktur und Phonologie," Probleme und Ergebnisse der Psychologie 43, 21-44. Bierwisch, Manfred (1982): "Linguistics and language error." In: Anne Cutler (Ed.), 583-629. Bloomfield, Leonard and Clarence Barnhart (1961): Lef's read: A linguistic approach. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Blumstein, Sheila (1973): "Some phonological implications of aphasic speech." In: H. Goodglass & S. Blumstein (Eds.), Psycholinguistics and aphasia. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Bolinger, Dwight (1946): "Visual morphemes," Language 22: 333-340. Bonello, R.R. (1968): Toward a theory of the base component of Maltese. M.A. thesis, Department of Germanic Languages and General Linguistics, University of Alberta, Edmonton.

452

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Bradley, Lynette (1981): "The organization of motor patterns for spelling: An effective remedial strategy for backward readers," Develop, med. child neurology 23, 83-91. Brown, Roger and David McNeill (1966): "The 'tip of the tongue' phenome­ non," Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 5, 325-337. Buckingham, Hugh W., Jr. (1981): "On correlating aphasic errors with slipsof-the-tongue," Applied psycholinguistics I, 199-220. Buckingham, H.W., Jr., H. Avakian-Whitaker, and H.A. Whitaker (1978): "Alliteration and assonance in neologistic jargon aphasia," Cortex 14, 365380. Buckingham, H.W., Jr., Haiganoosh Whitaker and Harry A. Whitaker (1979): "On linguistic perseveration." In: Studies in neurolinguistics, edited by Haiganoosh Whitaker and Harry A. Whitaker, Vol. 4, 329-352. Bunge, Mario (1979): Causality and modern science. Third revised edition, New York: Dover, pp. 394. Buszkowski, Wojciech and Philip A. Luelsdorff (1987): "A formal approach to error taxonomy," Lingua posnaniensis. Butters, Ronald R. (1971): "Dialect variance and linguistic deviance," Foun­ dations of language 7, 239-254. Bühler, Karl (1918): "Kritische Musterung der neueren Theorien des Satzes," Indogermanisches Jahrbuch, Vol. VI, Berlin/Leipzig, 1-20. Bühler, Karl (1931): "Phonetik und Phonologic" In: Travaux du cercle lin­ guistique de Prague 4. Réunion phonologique internationale tenue à Prague {18-211X11. 1930). Prague: Jednota ceskoslovenskych matematiku a fysiká, 22-53. Bühler, Karl (1932): "Das Ganze der Sprachtheorie, ihr Aufbau und ihre Teile." In: Bericht über den XII. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie in Hamburg vom 12.-16.4.1931. Jena: Gustav Fischer.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

453

Bühler, Karl (1934): Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Gustav Fischer. Bühler, Karl (1936): "Das Strukturmodell der Sprache." In: Travaux du cer­ cle linguistique de Prague 6. Etudes dédiées au quatrième congrés des lin­ guistes. Prague, 3-12. Bühler, Karl (1969): Die Axiomatik der Sprachwissenschaften. Introduction and commentary by Elizabeth Ströker, Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Kloster­ mann, pp. 156. Caramazza, A. and R.S. Berndt (1978): "Semantic and syntactic processes in aphasia: A review of the literature," Psychological bulletin, 85:4, 898-918. Carroll, John B. (1979): "Psychometric approaches to the study of language abilities." In: Fillmore, Kempler, and Wang (Eds.), 1979, 13-32. Carver, Charles S. and Michael F. Scheier (1981): Attention and self-regula­ tion: A control-theory approach to human behavior. New York, Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 403. Chomsky, Noam (1951): Morphophonemics thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

of Modern Hebrew. Master's

Chomsky, Noam (1957): Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, Noam (1959): "A review of B.F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior." In: J. A. Fodor and J.J. Katz (Eds.) The structure of language. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1968. Chomsky, Noam (1965): Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam (1970): "Phonology and reading." In: Levin and Williams (Eds.), pp. 3-18. Chomsky, Noam (1980): Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.

454

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Chomsky, Noam (1982): On the generative enterprise. A discussion with Riny Huybregts and Henk van Riemsdijk. Dordrecht: Foris Publications, pp. 143. Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle (1965): "Some controversial issues in phonological theory," Journal of' linguistics, Vol. 1:2, 97-138. Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle (1968): The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row. Cohen, C.R. and R.M. Abrams (1976): Spellmaster, spelling: Testing evaluating book one. Exeter, N.H.: Learnco. Cohen, Gillian (1980): "Reading and searching for spelling errors." In: Uta Frith (Ed.), 135-155. Coltheart, Max (1980): "The semantic error: Types and theories." In: Max Coltheart, Karalyn Patterson, and John Marshall (Eds.), Deep dyslexia. Lon­ don: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 22-47. Coltheart, Max (1981): "Disorders of reading and thier implications for mod­ els of normal reading," Visible language 15:3, 245-286. Coltheart, Max (1982): "The psycholinguistic analysis of acquired dyslexias: Some illustrations," Philosophical transactions of The Royal Society, B. Lon­ don. Coltheart, Max (1984a): "Acquired dyslexias and normal reading." In: R.N. Malatesha and H.A. Whitaker (Eds.), Dyslexia: A global issue. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 357-374. Coltheart, Max (1984b): "Writing systems and reading disorders." In: Leslie Henderson (Ed.), 67-80. Coltheart, Max, Karalyn Patterson and John C. Marshall (Eds.) (1980): Deep dyslexia. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Cook, Louisa (1981): "Misspelling analysis in dyslexia: Observation of

BIBLIOGRAPHY

455

developmental strategy shifts," Bulletin of the Orton Society, Vol. XXXI, 123-134. Cook Moats, Louisa (1983): "A comparison of the spelling errors of older dyslexic and second-grade normal children," Annals of dyslexia 33:121-140. Corder, S.P. (1967): "The significance of learner's errors." Reprinted in: Jack C. Richards (Ed.), 1973, 31-54. Corder, S.P. (1971): "Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis." Reprinted in: Jack C. Richards (Ed.), 1973,158-171. Critchley, M. (1974): "Aphasia in polyglots and bilinguals," Brain and lan­ guage 1:1,15-27. Critchley, M. (1975): "Specific developmental dyslexia." In: E.H. Lenneberg and E. Lenneberg (Eds.) Foundations of language development'. A multidisciplinary approach. Vol. II, New York: Academic Press. Crompton, Andrew (1981): "Syllables and segments in speech production." In: Anne Cutler (Ed.), 663-717. Crystal, David (1981): Clinical linguistics. New York: Springer Verlag. Crystal, David and Dirk Davy (1969): Investigating English style. Longmans: London. Crystal, David and Paul Fletcher (1979): "Profile analysis of language disabil­ ity." In: Fillmore, Kempler, and Wang (Eds.), 1979, 167-188. Cutler, Anne (1980a): "Errors of stress and intonation." In: Victoria A. Fromkin (Ed.), 1980, 67-80. Cutler, Anne (1980b): "La leçon des lapsus," La recherche 11, 686-692. Cutler, Anne (1980c): "Syllable omission errors and isochrony." In: Hans W. Dechert and Manfred Raupach (Eds.), 183-191.

456

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Cutler, Anne (Ed.) (1981a): Slips of the tongue and language production, = Linguistics, special issue, Vol. 190-7/8, pp. 559-847. Cutler, Anne (1981b): "The reliability of speech error data." In: Anne Cutler (Ed.), 561-579. Cutler, Anne (1982): Speech errors: A classified bibliography. Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club, pp. 34. Cutler, Anne and Stephen D. Isard (1980): "The production of prosody," In: Brian Butterworth (Ed.), Language production. London: Academic Press. Dascal, Marcelo (1977): "Conversational relevance," Journal of pragmatics 7,309-328. Day, Ruth S. (1979): "Verbal fluency and the language-bound effect." In: Fillmore, Kempler, and Wang (Eds.), 1979, 57-84. de Bono, Edward (1969): The mechanism of mind. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, pp. 281. DeCamp, David (1971): "Toward a generative analysis of a post-creole speech continuum." In: Pidginization and creolization of languages: Proceed­ ings of a conference held at the University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica, 1968, Dell H. Hymes (Ed.), London: Cambridge University Press, 349-370. DeCamp, David (1973): "What do implicational scales imply?" In: New ways of analyzing variation in English, Charles-James N. Bailey and Roger W. Shuy (Eds.), Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 141-148. Dechert, Hans W. und Manfred Raupach (Eds.) (1980): Temporal variables in speech: Studies in honour of Frieda Goldman-Eisler. Janua linguarum, Series Maior 86, The Hague: Mouton, pp. 370. De Houwer, Annick (1983): "Awareness of language and the use of the monitor by a three year old bilingual," paper presented to the 18. Linguis­ tisches Kolloquium, Linz, Austria, September 14-16,1983. Dell, Gary S. and Peter A. Reich (1980): "Toward a unified model of slips of

BIBLIOGRAPHY

457

the tongue." In: Victoria A. Fromkin (Ed.), pp. 273-286. Della-Piana, G. (1962): "Analysis of oral reading errors: Standardization, norms, and validity," The reading teacher, 15, 254-257. Dérouesné, J. and Marie-France Beauvois (1979): "Phonological processing in reading. Data from alexia," Journal of neurology, neurosurgery and psychiatry, 42, 1125-1132. Deyes, A.F. (1972): "Learning from dictation," English language teaching 23: 226-231. Dickson, W. Patrick (1983): "Training cognitive strategies for oral communi­ cation." In: Pressley and Levin (Eds.), pp. 29-42. Dietrich, Rainer (1982): "Selbstkorrekturen: Fallstudien zum mündlichen Gebrauch des Deutschen als Fremdsprache durch Erwachsene," Heft 45, Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik. Zweitsprachenerwerb, edited by Wolfgang Klein and Jürgen Weissenborn, pp. 120-149. Dingwall, William Orr and Harry A. Whitaker (1974): "Neurolinguistics." Annual review of'anthropology, Vol. 3, 323-356. Dressier, Wolfgang (1975): "For a socio-psycho-linguistic theory of phonological variation." In: Salzburger Beiträge zur Linguistik, Gabereil Drachman (Ed.). Tübingen: Günter Narr. Dressler, Wolfgang U. (1980): "Qualitative Merkmale phonologischer Paraphasien als Diagnosehilfe." In: Karl Gloning and Wolfgang U. Dressler (Eds.) Paraphasie: Untersuchungen zum Problem lexikalischer Fehlleis­ tungen. München: Fink Verlag. Dulay, Heidi, Marina Burt and Stephen Krashen (1982): Language two. New York: Oxford University Press. Edgerton, W.F. (1941): "Ideograms in English writing," Language 17, 148150. Efron, Robert (1979): "Individual variations in the perception of dichotic

458

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

chords." In: Fillmore, Kempler, and Wang (Eds.), 1979, 245-252. Eichler, Wolfgang (1976): "Zur linguistischen Fehleranalyse von Spon­ tanschreibungen bei Vor- und Grundschulkindern." In: Adolf Hofer (Ed.), pp. 246-264. Einstein, Albert (1920): Relativity: The special and the general theory. Trans­ lated by Robert W. Lawson. London: Methuen. Eisenwort-Scheltz and Wolfgang U. Dressier (1980): "Length of derivation as a property of deviant phonological acquisition," Wiener Linguistische Gazette, 15-24. Ellis, Andrew W. (Ed.) (1982a): Normality and pathology in cognitive func­ tions. London: Academic Press, pp. 327. Ellis, Andrew W. (1982b): "Spelling and writing (and reading and speak­ ing)." In: Andrew W. Ellis (Ed.), 113-146. Ellis, Andrew W. (1982c): "Introduction." In: Andrew W. Ellis (Ed.), viiviii. English, H.B. and A.C. English (1958): A comprehensive dictionary of psychological and psychoanalytical terms. A guide to usage. London: Longmans. Fasold, Ralf W. (1970): "Two models of socially significant variation," Lan­ guage 46:3, 551-563. Fasold, Ralf W. (1973): "The concept of 'earlier-later': Moreor less correct." In: New ways of analyzing variation in English, Charles-James N. Bailey and Roger W. Shuy (Eds.), Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 141-148. Fay, David (1980): "Transformational errors." In: Victoria A. Fromkin (Ed.), 111-122. Fay, David (1981): "Substitutions and splices: A study of sentence blends." In: Anne Cutler (Ed.), 717-749.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

459

Fay, David and Anne Cutler (1977): "Malapropisms and the structure of the mental lexicon," Linguistic inquiry 8, 505-520. Ferguson, Charles A. (1979): "Phonology as an individual access system: Some data from language acquisition." In: Fillmore, Kempler, and Wang 1979, 189-202. Fillmore, Charles J. (1963): "The position of embedding transformations in a grammar," POLA 3r: 23. Fillmore, Charles J. (1979): "Verbal fluency." In: Fillmore, Kempler, and Wang (Eds.), 1979, 85-102. Fillmore, Charles J., Daniel Kempler, and William S.-Y. Wang (Eds.) (1979): Individual differences in language ability and language behavior. New York: Academic Press, pp. 346. Fillmore, Lily Wong (1979): "Individual differences in second language acquisition." In: Fillmore, Kempler and Wang (Eds.), 1979, 203-229. Fodor, J.A. (1968): Psychological explanation: An introduction to the philosophy of psychology. Second edition. New York: Random House. Fodor, Jerry A. (1983): The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychol­ ogy. Second printing. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, pp. 145. Fodor, Jerry A., Thomas G. Bever, and Merrill F. Gaerrett (1974): The psychology of language: An introduction to psycholinguistics and generative grammar. New York: McGraw-Hill. Fowler, Carol A. (1981): Review article: Errors in linguistic performance: Slips of the tongue, ear, pen and hand, edited by Victoria Fromkin. In: Anne Cutler (Ed.), 819-840. Friederici, Angela D. (1983): "Repräsentation und Verarbeitung von lexikalischer und syntaktischer Information: Psycholinguistische und neurolinguistische Evidenz," Linguistische Berichte 85, 49-63. Friedrichs, Hildegard (1970, 1971): English. Ausgabe H (Hauptausgabe),

460

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Vol. I-II. Berlin: Cornelsen-Velhagen & Klasing. Fries, Charles C. (1961): Linguistics and reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Frith, Uta (Ed.) (1980): Cognitive processes in spelling. London: Academic Press. Frith, Uta (1980): "Unexpected spelling problems." In: Uta Frith (Ed.), 495516. Fromkin, Victoria A. (1971): "The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances." Reprinted in: Victoria A. Fromkin (Ed.), 1973, 215-242. Fromkin, Victoria A. (Ed.) (1973a): Speech errors as linguistic evidence. Janua linguarum, Series Maior, The Hague: Mouton, pp. 269. Fromkin, Victoria A. (1973b): "Introduction," In: Victoria A. Fromkin (Ed.), 1973, 11-45. Fromkin, Victoria A. (Ed.) (1980): Errors in linguistic performance: Slips of the tongue, ear, pen, and hand. New York: Academic Press, pp. 334. Garrett, Merrill F. (1975): "Syntactic processes in sentence production." In: E. Walker and R. Wales (Eds.), New approaches to language mechanisms. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 231-255. Garrett, Merrill F. (1980a): "Levels of processing in sentence production." In: Brian Butterworth (Ed.), Language production: Volume I'. Speech and talk, 177-220. London: Academic Press. Garrett, Merrill F. (1980b): "The limits of accomodation: Arguments for independent processing levels in sentence production." In: Victoria A. Fromkin (Ed.), 1980, 263-272. Garrett, Merrill F. (1981): "The organization of processing structure for lan­ guage production: Applications to aphasic speech." Revised version of a paper presented at the Conference on Biological Perspectives on Language, Montreal, May 17-20,1981, p. 27.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

461

Garrett, Merrill F. (1982): "Production of speech: Observations from normal and pathological use." In: Andrew W. Ellis (Ed.), 19-76. Gentry, J.Richard & Edmund H. Henderson (1980): "Three steps in teach­ ing beginning readers to spell." In: Edmund H. Henderson and James W. Beers (Eds.), 112-119. Gilbert, John H.V. (1979): "Individual variation in some phonetic aspects of language acquisition." In: Fillmore, Kempler, and Wang (Eds.), 1979, 229244. Gillet, Jean Wallace and M. Jane Kita (1980): "Words, kids, and categories." In: Edmund H. Henderson and James W. Beers (Eds.), 120-126. Gillingham, A. and B.W. Stillman (1970): Remedial training f or children with specific disability in reading, spelling, and penmanship. Cambridge, Mass.: Educators Publishing Service. Gleitman, Henry and Lila Gleitman (1979): "Language use and language judgement." In: Fillmore, Kempler, and Wang (Eds.), 1979, 103-126. Goldstein, Kurt (1948): Language and language disturbances: Aphasic symptom complexes and their significance for medicine and theory of lan­ guage. New York: Grune & Stratton. Goodglass, Harold (1979): "Effect of aphasia on the retrieval of lexicon and syntax." In: Fillmore, Kempler, and Wang (Eds.), 1979, 253-260. Goodman, Kenneth S. (1965): "A linguistic study of cues and miscues in reading," Elementary English, 42, 639-643. Goodman, Kenneth S. (1967): "Reading: a psycholinguistic guessing game," paper read at the American Educational Research Association, New York, p. 13. Goodman, Kenneth S. (1969): "Analysis of oral reading miscues: applied psycholinguistics," Reading research quarterly, 5:1, 9-30.

462

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Goodman, Kenneth S. and Yetta M. Goodman (1965): "A linguistic taxonomy of cues and miscues in reading," Paper read at the Symposium on the Psycholinguistic Nature of the Reading Process, Wayne State University. Gumperz, John J. and Deborah Tannen (1979): "Individual and social differ­ ences in language use." In: Fillmore, Kempler, and Wang (Eds.), 1979, 305326. Guttmann, Louis (1944): "A basis for scaling qualitative data," American sociological review 9, 139-150. Haberland, Hartmut and Jacob L. Mey (1977): "Editorial: pragmatics and linguistics," Journal of pragmatics 1, 1-13. Habermas, Jürgen (1973): Legitimationsprobleme Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.

im

Spätkapitalismus.

Habermas, Jürgen (1976a): Technik und Wissenschaft als Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.

"Ideologie''.

Habermas, Jürgen (1976b): Zur Rekonstruktion des Historischen Materialis­ mus. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp. Habermas, Jürgen (1976c): "Universalpragmatische Hinweise auf das Sys­ tem der Ich-Abgrenzung." In: Auwärter, Manfred et. al. (Eds.) Seminar. Kommunikation. Identität. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp, 332-347. Habermas, Jürgen (1976d): "Was heißt Universalpragmatik?" In: Apel, Karl-Otto (Ed.) Sprachpragmatik und Philosophie. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp, 174-272. Haldol-Janssen (1976): Das weltweit bewährte Neuroleptikum mit der großen Indikationsbreite. Düsseldorf: Janssen. Halle, Morris (1959): The sound pattern of Russian. The Hague: Mouton. Halle, Morris (1961): "On the role of simplicity in linguistic descriptions." In:

BIBLIOGRAPHY

463

Structure of language and its mathematical aspects, Providence, Rhode Island: American Mathematical Society, 89-94. Halle, Morris (1962): "Phonology in generative grammar," Word 17, 54-72. Halle, Morris (1969): "Some thoughts on spelling." In: K.S. Goodman and J.T. Fleming (Eds.) Psycholinguistics and the teaching of reading. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Halle, Morris (1972): "On a parallel between conventions of versification and orthography and on literacy among the Cherokee." In: J.F. Kavanagh and I.G. Mattingly (Eds.) Language by eye and ear: The relationship between speech and reading. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 149-154. Hardyck, Curtis, Hilary Naylor and Rebecca M. Smith (1979): "How shall a thingummy be called," In: Fillmore, Kempler, and Wang (Eds.), 1979, pp. 261-276. Hausmann, Robert B. (1974): "Underlying representations in dialectology," Lingua 35:1, 61-71. Henderson, Edmund H. (1980a): "Developmental concepts of word." In: Edmund H. Henderson and James W. Beers (Eds.), pp. 1-14. Henderson, Edmund H. (1980b): "Word knowledge and reading disability." In: Edmund H. Henderson and James W. Beers (Eds.), pp. 138-147. Henderson, Leslie (1984a): "Introduction". In: Leslie Henderson (Ed.), 1-9. Henderson, Leslie (Ed.) (1984b): Orthographies and reading: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, neuropsychology, and linguistics. London: Law­ rence Erlbaum, pp. 143. Hofer, Adolf (Ed.) (1976): Lesenlernen: Theorie und Unterricht. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann, pp. 364. Holenstein, Elmar and Tarcisius Schelbert (Eds.) (1979): Roman Jakobson

464

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Poetik: Ausgewählte Aufsätze 1921-1971. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp. Hotopf, Norman (1980a): "Slips of the pen." In: Cognitive processes in spel­ ling, Uta Frith (Ed.), 288-307. Hotopf, W.H.N. (1980b): "Semantic similarity in whole-word slips of the tongue." In: Victoria A. Fromkin (Ed.), 97-110. Houck, N., J. Robertson and S. Krashen (1978): "On the domain of the con­ scious grammar: morpheme orders for corrected and uncorrected ESL stu­ dent transcriptions," TESOL Quarterly 12, 335-339. Hymes, Dell H. (1961): "Functions of speech: An evolutionary approach." In: H. Gruber (Ed.) Anthropology and education. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Hymes, Dell H. (1968): "The ethnography of speaking." In: Gladwin and Sturtevant (Eds.) Anthropology and human behavior. Washington, D.C.: The Anthropological Society of Washington. In: Fishman (Ed.) Readings in the sociology of language, 99-138. Hymes, Dell (1979): "Sapir, competence, voices." In: Fillmore, Kempler, and Wang (Eds.), 33-46. Jacobsen, E. (1979): "Pragmalinguistics: Theory and practice." In: Rasmus Rask studies in pragmatic linguistics, Janua Linguarum, Series Maior, 85, Mouton: The Hague, 215-233. Jain, M.P. (1969): "Error analysis: Source, cause, and significance." Reprinted in: Jack C. Richards (Ed.), 189-215. Jakobson, Roman O. (1959): "Linguistic glosses to Goldstein's 'Wortbeg­ riff," Journal of individual psychology 15, 62-65. Jakobson, Roman O. (1953): "Aphasia as a linguistic topic." Reprinted in: Selected writings: Vol II. Word and language. The Hague: Mouton, 1971,229238. Jakobson, Roman O. (1956): "Zwei Seiten der Sprache und zwei Typen

BIBLIOGRAPHY

465

aphatischer Störungen." Reprinted in: Selected writings: Vol. II. Word and language. The Hague: Mouton, 1971, 117-141. Jakobson, Roman O. (1960): "Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics." In: Thomas A. Sebeok (Ed.) Style in language. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 350-377. Jakobson, Roman O. (1963): "Toward a linguistic classification of aphasic impairments." Reprinted in: Selected writings. Vol. II. Word and language. The Hague: Mouton, 1971, 289-306. Jakobson, Roman O. (1963): "Linguistic types of aphasia." Reprinted in: Selected writings. Vol. II. Word and language. The Hague: Mouton, 1971, 307-333. Jerison, Harry J. (1979): "On the evolution of neurolinguistic variability: Fossil brains speak." In: Fillmore, Kempler, and Wang (Eds.), 277-288. Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983): Mental models. Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Joshi, Aravind K. (to appear): "Processing of sentences with intrasentential code-switching." In: D. Dowty, L. Karttunen, and A.M. Zwicky (Eds.) Nat­ ural language processing: Psycholinguistic, computational, and theoretical perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kaisse, Ellen M. (1983): "The syntax of auxiliary reduction in English," Lan­ guage, Vol. 59, No. 1,93-122. Kalish, Donald and Richard Montague (1964): Logic: Techniques of formal reasoning. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, pp. 350. Kandinsky, Wassily (1981): Sounds. Translated and introduced by Elizabeth R. Napier. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 136. Kavanagh, James F. and Ignatius G. Mattingly (Eds.) (1972): Language by ear and eye: The relationships between speech and reading. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, pp. 398.

466

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Kinsbourne, M. and E.K. Warrington (1964): "Disorders of spelling," Jour­ nal of neurology, neurosurgery and psychiatry 27, 224-228. Klima, Edward S. (1964): "Relatedness between grammatical systems," Language 40,1-20. Klima, Edward S. (1972): "How alphabets might reflect language." In: J.F. Kavanagh and I.G. Mattingly (Eds.), 57-80. Klima, E.S. (1975): "Sound and its absence in the linguistic symbol." In: J.F. Kavanagh and J.E. Cutting (Eds.) The role of speech in language. Cam­ bridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Krashen, Stephen D. (1982): Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press. Kucera, Henry and W. Nelson Francis (1967): Computational analysis of pre­ sent-day American English. Providence, R.I.: Brown University Press. Labov, William (1966): The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. Labov, William (1969): "Contraction, deletion and inherent variability of the English copula," Language 45, 715-762. Labov, William (1972): "The internal evolution of linguistic rules." In: Lin­ guistic change and generative theory, Robert P. Stockwell and Ronald K.S. Macaulay (Eds.), Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 107-171. Labov, William (1975): What is a linguistic facti PDR Press Publications in linguistic theory 1, Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press, pp. 61. Labov, W. (1979): "Locating the frontier between social and psychological factors in linguistic variation." In: Fillmore, Kempler, and Wang (Eds.), 327340. Lakoff, George (1982a): "Categories and cognitive models," Linguistic Agency University of Trier, Series A. Paper No. 96, pp. 103.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

467

Lakoff, George (1982b): "Categories: An essay in cognitive linguistics," Lin­ guistics Department and Cognitive Science Program, University of Califor­ nia at Berkeley. Lambert, Wallace E. (1979): "The treatment of individual differences in psycholinguistic research." In: Fillmore, Kempler, and Wang (Eds.), 47-56. Laver, John (1980a): "Monitoring systems in the neurolinguistic control of speech production." In: Victoria A. Fromkin (Ed.), 287-306. Laver, John (1980b): "Slips of the tongue as neuromuscular evidence for a model of speech production." In: Hans W. Dechert and Manfred Raupach (Eds.), 21-28. Lebedinskij, M.S. (1938): "On the question of the speech disorders of schizophrenics." In: Soviet contributions to the language of schizophrenia, edited by Philip A. Luelsdorff, forthcoming. Appeared originally in Sovetskaja psixonevrologija 14, 56-64. Lebedinskij, M.S. (1959): "On certain features of the thought and language of schizophrenics." In: Soviet contributions to the language of schizophrenia. Appeared originally in Voprosy psixiatrii, Moscow 3,166-175. English trans­ lation in: Journal of orthomolecular psychiatry 8: 30-36, 1979. Lecours, André Roch and François Lhermitte (1969): "Phonemic paraphasias: Linguistic structures and tentative hypotheses," Cortex 5, 193228. Lehtonen, Jaako (1983): "Orthography as a source of the Finn's difficulties in foreign-language speech production," Umeå Papers in English, No. 4, Fin­ nish-English Language Contact: Papers from a Workshop, edited by ClaesChristian Elert and Aimo Seppänen, Department of English, Umeâ Univer­ sity, 5-22. Lenk, Hans (Ed.) (1974): Normenlogik: Grundprobleme der deontischen Logik. UTB Taschenbücher 414. Pullach bei München: Verlag Dokumenta­ tion, pp.256.

468

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Lenneberg, Eric H. (1967): Biological foundations of language: With appen­ dices by Noam Chomsky and Otto Marx. New York: Wiley. Leodolter, Ruth (1975): "Gestörte Sprache oder Privatsprache; Kommuni­ kation bei Schizophrenie," Wiener Linguistische Gazette 10-11, 75-95. Levelt, Willem J.M. (1983): "Monitoring and self-repair in speech," Cogni­ tion, 14,41-104. Levin, Harry and Joanna P. Williams (Eds.) (1970): Basic studies in reading. New York: Basic Books. Levy, Jerre (1979): "Strategies of linguistic processing in human split-brain patients." In: Fillmore, Kempler, and Wang (Eds.), 289-304. Lichtheim, L. (1885): "On aphasia," Brain 7, 433-484. Lightner, Theodore M. (1963): "A note on the formation of phonological rules," Quarterly progress report, Research Laboratory of Electronics, MIT, No. 68, 187-189. Loflin, Marvin D. (1967): "A note on the deep structure of non-standard English in Washington, D.C.," Glossa 1, 26-32. Loflin, Marvin D. (1970): "On the structure of the verb in a dialect of Ameri­ can Negro English," Linguistics 59,14-28. Loflin, Marvin D. (1975): "Black American English: Independent motiva­ tion for the auxiliary hypothesis." In: Philip A. Luelsdorff (Ed.) Linguistic perspectives on Black English. Nürnberg: Carl Verlag, 45-62. Lopreato, Joseph and Letitia Alston (1970): "Ideal types and the idealization strategy," American sociological review 35, 88-96. Lotz, John (1972): Script, grammar, and the Hungarian writing system. The Hungarian-English Contrastive Linguistics Project. Working papers. Budapest: Linguistics Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and Center for Applied Linguistics, pp. 48. Lotz, John (1972): "How language is conveyed by script. A discussion of

BIBLIOGRAPHY

469

Klima's and Martin's papers." In: James F. Kavanagh and Ignatius G. Mattingly (Eds.), 117-124. Luelsdorff, Philip A. (1968): "Repetition and rhyme in generative phonol­ ogy," Linguistics 44:75-89. Luelsdorff, Philip A. (1969): "On the phonology of English inflection," Glossa 3:39-48. Luelsdorff, Philip A. (1974): "Sincerely yours," Perfect liberty, 12-14. Luelsdorff, Philip A. (1975): A segmental phonology of Black English. Janua Linguarum, Series Practica, 191, The Hague: Mouton, pp. 102. Luelsdorff, Philip A. (Ed.) (1977): Soviet contributions to the sociology of language. In: Joshua A. Fishman (Ed.) Contributions to the sociology of lan­ guage. The Hague: Mouton, p. 199. Luelsdorff, Philip A. (1980): "Informal remarks on know and believe," distri­ buted by Linguistic Agency University of Trier, Series A, No. 77.

Luelsdorff, Philip A. (1981): "On language and schizophrenia," Folia phoniatrica, 34: 71-81. Luelsdorff, Philip A. (1982): "Differential linguistics: A program for research," Folia phoniatrica, 34: 173-181. Luelsdorff, Philip A. (1984): "Einstellung als ein Faktor des erweiterten Organon-Modells der Sprache." In: Achim Eschbach (Ed.) Bühler-Studien. Vol. I. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 317-342. Luelsdorff, Philip A. (1985): "A psycholinguistic model of the bilingual spel­ ler," paper presented at the annual meeting of the Gesellschaft für Angewandte Linguistik, University of Munich, September 19-21,1985. Luelsdorff, Philip A. (1985): "Beginning bilingual spellers," paper presented at the annual meeting of the Gesellschaft für Angewandte Linguistik, Uni-

470

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

versity of Munich, September 19-21,1985. Luelsdorff, Philip A. (to appear): "Processing strategies in bilingual spellers: A summary statement," Papers and studies in contrastive linguistics. Vol. XXI. Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznaň, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C. Luelsdorff, Philip A. (in preparation): The linguistic monitor. Luelsdorff, Philip A. and Hazel Bloor (1981): "Foreign language dyslexia: A research report," Linguistics Agency University of Trier, Series B, Paper No. 71a. Luelsdorff, Philip A. and Neal R. Norrick (1986): On have-contraction," Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. Lurija, Alexandr Romanovic (1975): Osnovnye problemy (Basic problems of neurolinguistics). Moscow: Nauka.

nevrolingvistiki

Luria (= Lurija), Alexandr Romanovic (1976): Basic problems of neurolin­ guistics. The Hague: Mouton. Malatesha, R.N. and Harry A. Whitaker (Eds.) (1984): Dyslexia: A global issue. NATO ASI Series, Series D, Behavioral and Social Sciences: No. 18. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Marin, O.S.M., E.M. Saffran, and M.F. Schwartz (1976): "Dissociations of language in aphasia: Implications for normal function," In: S.R. Harnad, H.D. Steklis, and J. Lancaster (Eds.) Origins and evolution of language and speech. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Vol. 280. Marsh, George, Morton Friedman, Veronica Welch, and Peter Desberg (1980): "The development of strategies in spelling." In: Uta Frith (Ed.), 339354. Marshall, John C. (1976): "Neuropsychological aspects of orthographic rep­ resentation." In: R.J. Wales and E. Walker (Eds.) New approaches to lan­ guage mechanisms: A collection of psycholinguistic studies. Amsterdam:

BIBLIOGRAPHY

471

North Holland, pp. 109-131. Marshall, John C. (1979): "Disorders of language and memory." In: M.M. Gruneberg and P.E. Morris (Eds.) Applied problems of memory. New York: Academic Press. Marshall, John C. (1982a): "Models of the mind in health and diseases." In: Andrew W. Ellis (Ed.) 1982, 1-19. Marshall, John C. (1982b): "Biological constraints on orthographic represen­ tation." In: The neuropsychology of cognitive function. Proceedings of a Royal Society discussion meeting held on 18 and 19 November 1981, organized and edited by D.E. Broadbent and L. Weiskrantz. London: The Royal Soci­ ety, 165-172. Marshall, John C. and Freda Newcombe (1966): "Syntactic and semantic errors in paralexia," Neuropsychologica 4, 169-176. Marshall, John C. and Freda Newcombe (1973): "Patterns of paralexia," Journal of psycholinguistic research 2, 175-199. Mates, Benson (1965): Elementary logic. New York: Oxford University Press. Maxwell, Edith M. (1982): A study of misarticulation from a linguistic perspective, Indiana University Linguistics Club, pp. 128. Mel'cuk, Igor' A. (1982): Towards a language of linguistics: A system of for­ mal notions for theoretical morphology. Internationale Bibliothek für allgemeine Linguistik/International library of general linguistics, Eugenio Coseriu (Ed.), Vol. 44, revised and edited by Philip A. Luelsdorff, Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, pp. 161. Meringer, Rudolf (1908): Aus dem Leben der Sprache: Versprechen, Kin­ dersprache und Nachahmungstrieb. Berlin: B. Behr. Monroe, Marion (1928): "Methods for diagnosis and treatment of cases of reading disability," Genetic psychology monographs, 4, 335-456.

472

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Monroe, Marion (1932): Children who cannot read. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Morris, Darrell (1980): "Beginning readers' concept of word." In: Edmund H. Henderson and James W. Beers (Eds.), 97-112. Morton, John (1980): "The logogen model and orthographic structure." In: Uta Frith (Ed.), 117-134. Morton, John (1981): "The status of information processing models of lan­ guage," Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society London, B 295, 387396. Morton, John and John C. Marshall (Eds.) (1977): Psycholinguistics: Developmental and pathological. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. Moulton, William G. (1962): The sounds of English and German. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Naidoo, S. (1972): Specific dyslexia. New York: Wiley and Sons. Nelson, Hazel E. (1980): "Analysis of spelling errors in normal and dyslexic children." In: Uta Frith (Ed.), 475-494. Nemser, William (1971): "Approximate systems of foreign language lear­ ners." Reprinted in: Jack C. Richards (Ed.), 1973, 55-63. Newcombe, Freda and John C. Marshall (1981): "On psycholinguistic clas­ sifications of the acquired dyslexias," Bulletin of the Orton Society 31,29-46. Norman, Donald A. (1981): "Categorization of action slips," Psychological review 88, 1, 1-15. Nöth, Winfried (1974): "Textsituation, Pragmatik, munikationsstörungen in der Schizophrenie," Orbis 23, 5-29.

und

Kom­

Offer, Daniel and Melvin Sabshin (1966): Normality: Theoretical and clinical

BIBLIOGRAPHY

473

concepts of mental health. With a forword by Roy R. Grinker, New York: Basic Books, pp. 253. Orton, June L. (1966): "The Orton-Gillingham approach." In: The disabled reader: Education of the dyslexic child, John Money (Ed.) and Gilbert Schiffman (Advisory editor in education), Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 119-145. Patterson, Karalyn (1980): "Derivational errors." In: Max Coltheart, Karalyn Patterson, and John C. Marshall (Eds.), Deep dyslexia. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 286-306. Patterson, Karalyn (1981): "Neuropsychological approaches to the study of reading," British journal of psychology, 72, 151-174. Patterson, K.E. (1982): "The relation between reading and phonological coding: Further neuropsychological observations." In: Andrew W. Ellis (Ed.) 1982, 77-112. Patterson, K.E. and Marcel, A.J. (1977): "Aphasia, dyslexia and the phonological coding of written words," Quarterly journal of experimental psychology 29,307-318. Patterson, Karalyn and Janice Kay (1982): "Letter-by-letter reading: Psychological descriptions of a neurological syndrome," Quarterly journal of experimental psychology 34A, 411-441. Pressley, Michael and Joel R. Levin (Eds.) (1983): Cognitive strategy research: Educational applications. New York: Springer, pp. 304. Prideaux, Gary D. (to appear): "Processing strategies: A psycholinguistic neofunctionalism?" In: René Dirven and Vilém Fried (Eds.) Functionalism in linguistics, Philip A. Luelsdorff (Ed.): Linguistic & Literary Studies in Eastern Europe. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ravem, Roar (1968): "Language acquisition in a second language environ­ ment." Reprinted in: Jack C. Richards (Ed.), 1973, 124-133. Ravem, Roar (1973): "The development of wh-questions in first and second

474

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

language learners." In: Jack C. Richards (Ed.), 1973, 134-157. Read, Charles (1971): "Preschool children's knowledge of English phonol­ ogy," Harvard educational review, 41, 1-34. Reason, J. (1979): "Actions not as planned: The price of automatization." In: Geoffrey Underwood and Robin Stevins (Eds.) Aspects of consciousness. Vol. I. Psychological issues, London: Academic Press, 1979, 67-89. Reid, D. Kim and Wayne P. Hresko (1981): A cognitive approach to learning disabilities. New York: McGraw Hill. Richards, Jack C. (1971): "A non-contrastive approach to error analysis." Reprinted in: Jack C. Richards, 1973,172-188. Richards, Jack C. (1972): "Social factors, interlanguage, and language learn­ ing." Reprinted in: Jack C. Richards (Ed.), 1973, 64-94. Richards, Jack C. (1973): Error analysis: Perspectives on second language acquisition. London: Longman, pp. 228. Richards, Jack C. and Gloria P. Sampson (1973): "The study of learner Eng­ lish." In: Jack C. Richards (Ed.), 1973, 3-18. Rosch, E.H. (1973): "Natural categories," Cognitive psychology 4, 328-350. Rosenbaum, Peter S. (1964): "Prerequisites for linguistic studies on the effects of dialect differences on learning to read," Project Literacy Report No. 2, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 26-30. Ross, John R. (1972): "The category squish: Endstation Hauptwort," Papers from the eighth regional meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 316-328. Ross, John R. (1979): "Where's English?" In: Fillmore, Kempler, and Wang (Eds.), 1979, 127-166. Rousseau, Pascale and David Sankoff (1978): "A solution to the problem of grouping speakers," In: David Sankoff (Ed.), 1978, 97-117.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

475

Rutter,M. (1978): "Prevalence and types of dyslexia." In: A. Benton and D. Pearl (Eds.) Dyslexia: An appraisal of current knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press. Rubin, Hyla and Isabelle Y. Liberman (1983): "Exploring the oral and writ­ ten language errors made by language disabled children," Annals of dyslexia 33,111-121. Saffran, E.M. and O.S.M. Marin (1976): "Reading without phonology: Evi­ dence from aphasia," Quarterly journal of experimental psychology 29, 515525. Sankoff, D. (Ed.) (1978): Linguistic variation: Models and methods. New York: Academic Press, pp. 296. Saporta, Sol (1965): "Ordered rules, dialect differences, and historical pro­ cesses," Language 41, 218-224. Schale, Florence Clare (1966): Changes in oral reading errors at elementary and secondary levels. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago. Schmerling, Susan F. (1976): Aspects of English sentence stress. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press. Schmidt, Heinz & Gerhard Volk (1976): ABC der deutschen Rechtschreibung und Zeichensetzung: Ein Regel- und Übungsbuch, Leipzig: VEB Bibliog­ raphisches Institut. Scholes, Robert E. (1979): Fabulation andmetafiction. Urbana, Illinois: Uni­ versity of Illinois Press. Schreiber, Peter and Charles Read (1980): "Children's use of phonetic cues in spelling, parsing, and — maybe — reading," Bulletin of the Orton Society 30: 209-224. Searle, John R. (1969): Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

476

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

Selinker, Larry (1972): "Interlanguage." Reprinted in: Jack C. Richards (Ed.), 1973, 19-30. Selkirk, Elizabeth O. (1980): "On prosodic structure and its relation to syn­ tactic structure," Indiana University Linguistics Club, pp. 31. Sells, Peter (1983): "Juncture and the phonology of auxiliary reduction in English," unpublished ms, Department of Linguistics, The University of Massachussetts, Amherst, pp. 54. Semenjuk, N.N. (1965): "Nekotorye voprosy izucenija variantnosti," [Some issues in the study of variation] Voprosy jazykoznanija 1, 48-55. Seuren, P.A.M. (1979): "Internal variability in competence," L.A.U.T., Series A, No. 66, pp. 28. Shallice, T. (1981): "Neurological impairment of cognitive processes," British medical bulletin 37,187-192. Shallice, T. and E.K. Warrington (1975): "Word recognition in a phonemic dyslexic patient," Quarterly journal of experimental psychology 27, 187-199. Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie and Dennis H. Klatt (1980): "How single phoneme error data rule out two models of error generation," In: Victoria A. Fromkin, 1980, 35-46. Shaughnessy, MinaP. (1977): Errors and expectations: A guide for the teacher of basic writing. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 312. Smith, Philip T. (1980): "Linguistic information in spelling." In: Uta Frith (Ed.), 33-50. Söderpalm Talo, Ewa (1980): "Slips of the tongue in normal and pathological speech." In: Victoria A. Fromkin (Ed.), 81-86. Spoerri, T. (1973): Kompendium der Psychiatrie: Klinik und Therapie für Studierende und Ärzte, seventh edition. Basel: Karger, pp. 224. St. Claire, Robert (1972): "Phonological rules across languages and

BIBLIOGRAPHY

477

dialects," Mid-America linguistics conference papers. St. Claire, Robert (1973): "The independency principle in dialectology," Language sciences 27, 23-26. St. Claire, Robert (1974): "Communication across languages and dialects," Linguistics 126, 83-98. Stanback, Margaret (1979-80): "Teaching spelling to learning disabled chil­ dren: Traditional and remedial approaches to spelling instruction," Research Review Series 1979-1980, Vol. 3, Research Institute for the Study of Learn­ ing Disabilities, Teachers College, Columbia University, pp. 73. Stanley, Richard (1967): "Redundancy rules in phonology," Language 43,2, 393-436. Sternberger, Joseph P. (1983): "Speech errors and theoretical phonology: A review," Indiana University Linguistics Club, pp. 54. Stever, Elizabeth F. (1980): "Dialect and spelling." In: Edmund H. Hender­ son and James W. Beers (Eds.), 46-51. Sulzby, Elizabeth (1980): "Word concept development activities." In: Edmund H. Henderson and James W. Beers (Eds.), 127-137. Templeton, Shane (1980a): "What is a word?" In: Edmund H. Henderson and James W. Beers (Eds.), 15-35. Templeton, Shane (1980b): "Spelling, phonology, and the older student." In: Edmund H. Henderson and James W. Beers (Eds.), 85-96. Uldall, H.J. (1938): "Speech and writing," Congrès international des sciences anthropologiques et ethnologiques, Compte rendu de la deuxième session. Copenhagen. Vachek, Josef (1933): "Cesky pravopis a struktura cestiny," Listy filologická 60, Vachek, Josef (1939): "Zum Problem der geschriebenen Sprache," Travaux

478

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

du cercle linguistique de Prague 8, 94-104. Vachek, Josef (1942): "Psany jazyk a pravopis," Čtení o jazyce a poesii 1. Vachek, Josef (1948): "Written language and printed language," Recueil lin­ guistique de Bratislava 1, 67-74. Vachek, Josef (Ed.) (1966): Les problèmes du centre et de la périférie du sys­ tème de la langue. Travaux linguistiques de Prague 2. Prague: Academia, pp. 285. Vachek, Josef (1972): "The present state of research in written language," Folia linguistica 6, 47-61. Vachek, Josef (1973): Written language. Janua linguarum, series critica 14. The Hague: Mouton. Vachek, Josef (1976): Selected writings in English and general linguistics. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 451. Valdman, Albert (1974): "Error analysis and pedagogical ordering," distri­ buted by L.A.U.T., Paper No. 11, Series B, pp. 31. van den Broecke, Marcel P.R. and Louis Goldstein (1980): "Consonant fea­ tures in speech errors." In: Victoria A. Fromkin (Ed.), 1980, 47-66. Venezky, Richard L. (1970a): The structure of English orthography. Janua Linguarum, Series Minor, Nr. 82, Mouton: The Hague. Venezky, Richard L. (1970b): "Regularity in reading and spelling." In: Levin and Williams (Eds.), pp. 30-42. Venezky, Richard L. (1975): "The curious role of letter names in reading instruction," Visible language 9:1, 7-23. Warrington, E. and T. Shallice (1980): "Word-form dyslexia," Brain 103, 99112. Watzlawick, P., J.H. Beavin, and D.D. Jackson (1967): Pragmatics of human

BIBLIOGRAPHY

communication. A study of interactional patterns, paradoxes. New York: Norton.

479

pathologies,

and

Weber, Rose-Marie (1968): "The study of oral reading errors: A survey of the literature," Reading research quarterly 4 , 1 , 96-119. Weber, Rose-Marie (1970): "A linguistic analysis of first-grade reading errors," Reading research quarterly 5 , 3 , 427-451. Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov and Marvin Herzog (1968): "Empirical foundations for a theory of language change." In: W. Lehmann and Y. Malkiel (Eds.) Directions for historical linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press, 97-195. Weir, Ruth and Richard L. Venezky (1968): "Spelling-to-sound patterns." In: K.S. Goodman (Ed.) The psychological nature of the reading process. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Wełna, Jerzy (1982): English spelling and pronunciation. Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, pp. 208.

Warsaw:

Whitaker, Harry A. (1978): "Bilingualism: A neurolinguistics perspective." In: William C. Ritchie (Ed.) Second language acquisition research: Issues and implications. New York: Academic Press, 21-32. Wildgen, Wolfgang (1980): "Models of verbal planning in the theory of catas­ trophe." In: Hans W. Dechert and Manfred Raupach (Eds.), 51-60. Wildgen, Wolfgang (1983): Catastrophe theoretic semantics: An elaboration and application of René Thorn's theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wing, Alan M. and Alan D. Baddeley (1980): "Spelling errors in handwrit­ ing: A corpus and a distributional analysis." In: Uta Frith (Ed.), 251-286. Wolfram, Walter A. (1969): A sociolinguistic description of Detroit Negro speech. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics, pp. 237. Wolfram, Walter A. (1973): "On what basis variable rules?" In: New ways of analyzing variation in English, Charles-James N. Bailey and Roger W. Shuy

480

CONSTRAINTS ON ERROR VARIABLES IN GRAMMAR

(Eds.), Washington, D.C.: Georgetown, University Press, 1-11. Woolford, Ellen (1983): "Bilingual code-switching and syntactic theory," Linguistic inquiry 15, 3, 520-536. Zurif, E. and S. Blumstein (1978): "Language and the brain." In: M . Halle, J. Bresnan, and G. Miller (Eds.) Linguistic theory and psychological reality. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Zuttell, Jerry (1980): "Children's spelling strategies and their cognitive development." In: Edmund H. Henderson and James W. Beers (Eds.), 5273. Zwicky, Arnold M. (1980): Mistakes. Reynoldsburg, Ohio: Advocate, pp. 47. Zwicky, Arnold M. (1982): "Classical malapropisms and the creation of a mental lexicon." In: Lorraine K. Obler and Lise Menn (Eds.) Exceptional language and linguistics. New York: Academic Press. Zwicky, Arnold M. and Geoffrey K. Pullum (1982): "Cliticization vs. inflec­ tion: English n't," Indiana University Linguistics Club, pp. 25.

NAME INDEX A Aarts, F.G.A.M., 18,20 Abrams, R.M., 349 Alston, L., 13 Anderson, J.R., 342 Applegate, J.R., 5 Arp,J., 216 Artymovič, A., 35 Assagioli,R., 20,47 Austin, J.L., 20,35 Avakian-Whitaker, H., 34, 50, 214, 215, 325, 364 B Bailey, B.L., 4 Bailey, C-J.N., 12 Baker, W.J., 265,342 Bankevic, L.V., 36, 345, 351, 358, 361, 371,381 Barnhart,C, 35 Baron, N.S., 29 Beauvois, M -F., 34 Beers, J.W., 82 Berndt,R.S., 371 Bever, T., 371 Bickerton,D., 9, 11, 12,28 Bickhard, M.H., 342 Bierwisch, M., 30,50,390 Bloomfield, L., 35 Bloor, H., 67 Blumstein, S., 325,351,371 Bolinger,D., 35 Bonello, R.R., 47 Bradley, L., 67,73 Brown, R., 343 Buckingham, H.W., Jr., 30, 213, 214, 215,364,370,371 Burt,M.K., 238 Butters, R.R., 3

Bühler, K., 20,31 C Caramazza, A., 371 Carnap,R., 68 Carroll, J.B., 26 Carver, C S . , 248 Chomsky, N., 2,4,11,12,15,18, 26,27, 29,35,42,51,318,326,363,376 Cohen, C R . , 349 Coltheart, M., 29, 34, 43, 320, 345, 371, 391 Cook,L., 67,69,70 Cook Moats, L., 336, 342 Critchley, M., 67 Crystal, D., 20,25,26 Cutler, A., 30, 34, 53, 373-377 D Dascal,M., 20 Davy, D., 20 Day, R.S., 26 DeCamp,D., 7,8,9 De Houwer, A., 250 Della-Piana, G., 364 Dérouesné, J., 34 Derwing, B.L., 342 Desberg, P., 298 Deyes,A.F., 234,235,266 Dickson, W.P., 385 Dressler, W.U., 11,22,336 Dulay, H.C., 238 E Edgerton, W.F., 35 Efron,R., 26 Einstein, A., 323 Eisenwort-Scheltz, B., 22 Ellis, A.W., 30

482

NAME INDEX

F Fasold,R.W., 5,9, 10, 15,16 Fay, D., 144 Ferguson, C.A., 26 Fillmore, C.J., 4,26,247 Fillmore, L.W., 26 Fletcher, P., 26 Fodor, J.A., 371 Francis, W.N., 147,161,162 Friederici, A., 371 Friedman, M., 298 Friedrichs, H., 116, 117, 161, 230, 266 Fries, C C , 35 Fromkin,V.A., 30,34,351 G Garrett, M.F., 30, 248, 327, 351, 388392 Gentry, J.R., 110 Gilbert, J.H.V., 26 Gillingham, A., 336,342,349 Goldstein, K., 25 Goldstein, L., 351,354,371 Goodglass, H., 26 Goodman, K.S., 42,362-364,372 Goodman, Y.M., 363 Gumperz, J.J., 26,27 Guttman, L., 8 H Haberland, H., 23 Habermas, J., 31 Halle, M., 5, 6, 7, 29, 35, 38, 51, 318, 326,361,376 Harasowska, M., 162 Hardyck,C, 26 Henderson, E.H., 110 Henderson, L., 320 Herzog, M., 27 Holenstein, E., 31 Hotopf, W.H.N., 50, 51, 133, 134, 146, 147, 161, 163, 202, 204, 205, 230, 231, 393 Houck,N., 234 Hymes, D.H., 20,26,31

I Isard, S.D., 376 J Jakobson, R.O., 20, 25, 31, 36, 39 James, W., 20 Jerison, H.J., 26 Johnson-Laird,P.N., 326,331 Joshi, A.K., 214 K Kaisse, E.M., 157 Kalish,D., 327 Kandinsky,W., 216,364 Kay,J., 34,43 Kempier, D., 26 Kinsbourne, M., 335 Klatt,D.H., 351,352,354,360,371 Klima, E.S., 3,29,35 Krashen, S.D., 36,233,234,238 Kretschmer, P., 21 Kucera, H., 147,161,162 Kühlwein, W., 47 L Labov,W., 10-12,26-28,363 Lakoff, G., 326,360 Lambert, W.E., 26 Laurell, C , 265 Laver, J.D.M., 250 Lebedinskij, M.S., 21,23 Lecours, A.R., 325 Lenk,H., 370 Lenneberg, E.H., 371 Leodolter, R., 25 Levelt, W.J.M., 248,250,391 Levin, J.R., 250 Levy, J., 26 Lhermitte, J., 325 Liberman,I.Y., 342,343 Lightner, T.M., 38,42 Loflin,M.D., 3,4,5,13 Lopreato,J., 13 Luelsdorff, P.A., 2, 12, 14, 17, 20, 23, 28, 31, 38, 49, 52, 67, 214, 216, 224, 251,375,385

NAME INDEX Lurija,A.R., 36,216 M Madden, M., 364 Mahesh Yogi, M., 25 Malatesha, R.N., 34 Marin, O.S.M., 371 Marsh, G., 298 Marshall, J . C , 28,29,34,371 Mates, B., 332 Maxwell, E.M., 31 McNeill, D., 343 Mel'čuk, I.A., 38,39,44,45 Meringer, R., 370 Mey,J.L., 23 Monroe, M., 364 Montague, R., 327 Moulton,W.G., 122 N Naidoo, S., 67 Napier, E.R., 216,364 Naylor, H., 26 Nelson, H., 271 Newcombe,F., 28,34,371 Newell, A., 331 Nietzsche, F., 20 Norman, D.A., 216,377-384 Norrick,N.R., 47 O Offer, D., 30 Orton,J.L., 67 Orton,S.T., 336,342 P Patterson, K.E., 29,34,43,371 Plato, 31 Pratt, M., 364 Pressley,M., 250 Pullum,G.K., 157,376 Q

Richards, J.C., 34 Robertson, J., 234 Rosch,E.H., 326 Rosenbaum, P.S., 3,4 Ross, J.R., 26,326 Rousseau, P., 28 Rutter, M., 67 Rubin, H., 342,343 S Sabshin,M., 30 Saffran,E.M., 371 Sankoff, D., 28 Saporta, S., 7 Scheier, M.F., 248 Schmerling, S.F., 376 Schmidt, H., 124 Scholes, R., 250 Schreiber, P., 69 Schwartz, M.F., 371 Searle,J.R., 23 Selkirk, E.O., 37,38,376 Sells, P., 157 Seuren,P., 18 Shale, F.C., 364 Shallice,T., 34,43 Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., 351-352, 354, 360, 371 Shaughnessy, M.P., 346-350,371 Smith, M., 265 Smith, R.M., 26 Söderpalm Talo, E., 60, 333, 336, 371, 372,373 Spoerri,Th., 25,47 Stanley, R., 38 Sternberger, J.P., 30,31 Sternberg, R.J., 331 Stillman,B.W., 349 T Tannen, D., 26, 27 Tiede,C, 265

Quine, W. V.O., 68 R Read, C , 29,35,67,69 Reason, J., 381

483

U Uldall,H.J., 35 Ulvestad,B., 22

484

NAME INDEX

V Vachek,J., 29,35,37,44 van den Broeke,M.P.R., 351,354,371 Venezky, R.L., 35,41,69,71,113,115, 267, 269,280,312 Vergnaud, J-R., 361 Volk, G., 124 von Bertalanffy, L., 251 W Wang,W.S-Y., 26 Warrington, E.K., 43,335 Weber, R-M., 42,363-369,372

Weinreich, U., 27 Weir, R.H., 35 Welch, V., 298 Wełna,J., 269,271,286,303 Wernicke, K., 214 Whitaker, H.A., 34, 50, 214, 215, 325, 364 Wildgen,W., 47,326 Wolfram, W.A., 9, 11 Z Zurif, E., 371 Zwicky, A.M., 33, 35, 36, 157, 376

SUBJECT INDEX A Abstraction level of, 393 Acceptability, 18 Accuracy of self-correction, 234 Achievement, 336 in reading, 342 in spelling, 342 Acquisition, 144 of knowledge, 347 of orthography, 139 order, 238 strategies, 90 Action, 377-385 monitoring, 384 schemas, 377 sequence, 377,378 misordering of, 380 repeating steps in, 380 skipping steps in, 380 slips, 379 Action-Trigger-Schema (ATS), 378 Activated schema, 378 Activation, 379 associative, 380 data-driven, 380 loss, 380 value, 377,378 Active, 21 schemas, 380 Adaptation, 334 Addition, 49, 51, 54, 325, 326, 382 error, 133 maxima, 163 of rules, 1 prone, 136, 149,150,151 wave, 162

Additions, 133-148, 226-227, 325, 333, 381 A c , 227 A , 227 cap'

A v , 227 A w , 227 A , 227 apostrophies, 146 capitalization, 139-141 consonant, 137-139 hyphens, 146 letter, 141-142 morpheme, 144-145 spaces, 146 syllable, 145-146 vowel, 136-137 word, 143-144 Adjectives attributive, 345 predicative, 345 Affixation, 348 Affricates, 122 Alliteration, 213-216,364 'Allomorphs\ 39 Allophonic aspiration, 136 Alphabet, 29, 40, 67 Alter-correction, 384 'Alter-corrigibility', 250 'Alter-norm', 250 Alternates checked, 71, 73 free, 71,73 Ambiguous intentions, 380 Analogy, 117 "Anticipate", 201,202,203 "Anticipated", 201 Anticipation, 51, 88, 120, 125, 163 lexical substitution, 202

486

SUBJECT INDEX

literal substitution, 202 Anticipations, 133, 134, 201-207, 382 environments of, 203-204 lexical, 202-203 literal, 202-203 Anticipatory omission, 373 Aphasic errors, 371 language disorder, 388 phonological data, 333 speech, 325, 372 syndromes, 388 Aphasics, 22,24,213,335,336 Appolonian, 20 "Approximative systems", 214 Archisegment, 82 Array interpersonal, 347 intrapersonal, 347 Articulatory proximity, 114 representation, 389 Ascenders, 139 Aspiration, 101 Assimilations, 207 Associative action slips, 382 Associative activations, 378,380 similarity, 393 Assonance, 213-216,364 'Attempt', 362 Attention, 162 Attitudes, 32 toward errors, 346 "Audio autonymous use", 68 Autogenes Training, 25 Autonomous error generator, 391 "Autonomous system", 5 Auto suggestion, 25 Auxiliary be, 160 have, 160 structure, 4 Awareness of errors, 373

B Backness Constraint, 317 "Backward displacement", 134 Bavarian German, 108 be, 142,160,166 Bilabials, 124 Bilingual misspelling orthographies, 332 orthographic substitutions, 332 Bilingualism, 351 Black English, 4, 14, 15, 22, 23 Blend, 49, 134, 144, 378, 380 Blends, 382 sublexical theory of, 376 Bohemian, 20 "Borrowings", 214 Bound morphemes, 145 Brain machinery, 325 C Capitalization addition of, 135, 139-141, 226-227 omission of, 135, 151-153, 225 Caption, 141 Capture errors, 378, 379 Capture slips, 381 Catastrophe-theoretic semantics, 326 "Catastrophic response", 216 Categorial differentiation, 376 Categories discrete, 326 gradient, 326 justification of, 326 Categorization, 326 relativity of, 323-326 'Category', 326, 331 Category formation relativity of, 323 theory of, 323 "Causation theory of error", 137, 362 Causes, 135 Change types of, 334 Child schemas, 377,378 Classical malapropisms, 33

SUBJECT INDEX Classicist, 20 Classification schemes, 364 Clinical linguistics, 25 "Clonic" perseveration, 216 Close Relative Constraint, 317 Closed class items, 375, 392 "Cluster analysis", 123 Cluster simplifiers, 347 Code-switching, 214 Coexisting systems, 3 Cognates, 158 Cognatization, 84 partial, 78, 86, 101, 113, 116, 119, 120 total, 90, 92, 109, 113, 119, 120, 125, 139, 140 Cognition, 385-386 Cognitive psychologists, 31 Cognitive psychology, 19, 387 Collocability, 39 Colon, 141 Combination, 49 Common error-denominators, 347 "Communication", 27 Community spelling norm, 55 Comparative, 157 Comparativization, 145 Competence, 12, 13, 19, 26, 30, 333 communicative, 31 differential, 19 reading, 35 spelling, 35 writing, 35 Complex signs, 39 Complexity, 325 Component orthographic, 29 reading, 34 writing, 34 Comprehension, 333 oral, 385 strategy, 27, 120, 144 written, 385 Conceptual archetypes, 32 "Conduction theory" of neologisms, 215

487

Conduits d'approche, 56, 57, 223-264 error correcting, 205 error creating, 205 Confidence ratings, 58 Confusion matrix, 352-358 Conjunct storage, 375 Consonant-doubling, 125-127, 139 Consonant omissions, 150-151 Consonant substitutions, 351-362 Consonantal error module, 360 Consonantal intrusions, 371 Constraints categorical, 10 on dialect diverence, 4 on diplacement, 59-63 on errors, 19, 30, 392, 393 on error variables, 372 on individual differences, 28 on misspelling, 1 on orthographic errors, 31 on orthographies, 28 on phonological errors, 30 Contact situations, 214 Contraction, 144, 160, 337 Contrastive analysis, 64, 86, 89, 140, 152 Control, 334 behavior, 380 Conventional error, 55-57, 58, 62, 83, 87,98,99,113 lexical, 97,99,116,118 rule-governed, 97, 116 Conventional spellings, 146 Co-ordinate system, 323 Copular be, 160 Copulative sentences, 4 Corpus, 12, 28 macrocorpus, 12 maximum, 18 microcorpus, 12 minimum, 18 optimum, 1, 12 Correction frequency, 247-249 rate, 205 site, 247-249

488

SUBJECT INDEX

Correctness factual, 246 perceptual, 246 Correspond, 51 'Corrigendum', 250 'Corrigens', 250 Cortical sensory aphasia, 214 Cyclothymic, 21 Czech, 88 D Data 'extralinguistic', 18 'nonlinguistic', 18 primary linguistic, 17,18 secondary(tertiary), 17, 18 Data-driven errors, 378, 382 Decision analysis, 380 "Decognatization", 84,119,120 Decomposition 'lexical', 393 'semantic', 393 "Deduplications", 54 Deep structure, 3 differences, 4-5 Deletion, 49,325 cum replacement, 325 of doublets, 325 of units, 325 Delicacy, 26 Deontic character, 386 logic, 370 Dependence Principle, 1, 13, 14, 15, 17 Derivation, 376 Derivational errors, 145 families, 111 history of error, 54 Descenders, 139 Description errors, 377, 379, 381 "Destination", 59 Detection of slips, 382 Determiner, 144 Developmental error, 323

level, 336 stages, 342 Deviation, 30 qualitative, 33 quantitative, 33 Diacritic marker < - e # > , 91 addition, 348 deletion, 348 retention, 348 Dialect, 2, 4, 18, 347 differences, 4 spelling, 325 Dialectology, 3-11 phonological, 5-11 syntactic, 3-5 Dialects social, 5 Dichotomy attempt: target, 386 error: correction, 386 synchronic/diachronic, 12 Dictation, 49, 52, 142, 143 Difference qualitative, 336ff, 373 quantitative, 336ff, 373 "Differential error-function", 32 "Differential error-salience hypothesis", 223 Differential linguistics, 1, 17-25, 31-32, 47, 214, 347 morphology, 14 phonology, 14, 22 pragmatics, 23 psychology, 19 syntax/semantics, 22 Differential rank hypothesis, 231, 233 Dionysiac, 20 Displacement, 55-57, 92, 98, 228-229, 326, 333, 350, 382, 392 backward, 59,60,62,63 forward, 59,62,63 position, 62 rule, 62 Dissociation, 29,30,45,332,333 Distance, 59,204,205,212

SUBJECT INDEX metric, 204,210 of the anticipation, 201, 204, 205 of the perseveration, 207, 210 token, 61 type, 61 Distinct, 386 "Distributive Dissociative Sign-Tem­ plate", 46 Domain of an anticipation, 203 do-support, 142 Double backward displacement, 60 Double dissociation, 336 Doubling-rule application, 108 displacement, 108 ignorance, 108 suspension, 108 Dual-route hypothesis, 320 Dual-word hypothesis, 321 Duplication, 49, 55 Dyslexia, 28,29 Dyslexic bilinguals, 67 children, 70 monolinguals, 67 Dyslexics, 67,336,342 Dysphonetic spellers, 342 E Echoic, 40, 69, 70 Echoicity, 69 Edited additions, 133 anticipations, 205 Editing covert, 223 overt, 223 mechanisms, 371 Editor, 213 function, 248 Educationalists, 31 Effect for cause, 382 Effective behavioral procedure, 327 'Ego-abnorm', 250 Ego-correction, 384 'Ego-corrigibility', 250

489

Ego-demarcation, 33 'Ego-norm', 250 Elicitation systematic, 17 naturalistic, 17 Elongation, 68 Empirical adequacy, 1 Empiricist, 20 Encliticized, 161 Encoding processes, 50 English American, 373 as a foreign language, 351 Australian, 373 British, 373 diphthongs, 99 orthography, 35, 52 acquisition of, 331 spelling rules, 349 stops, 108 Syllable Template, 37 'Environment', 325 of the anticipate, 201 of the anticipated, 201 of the perseverate, 207 of the perseverated, 207 Epigenesis, 347 Epiphenomenon, 2 Erroneous error-perception, 229, 230, 246, 385 knowledge, 377 knowledge-use, 377 linguistic1 competence, 377 linguistic1performance, 377 semanticization, 358 sign, 43 Erroneousness binary, 385 gradient, 385 Error, 331 analysis, 30,31,34,35,36,37 and producer intentions, 35 aphasic, 30 categories, 35, 324 causes of, 35, 53, 135

490

SUBJECT INDEX commission, 30, 223, 385, 386 constraints on, 30 correction, 30, 55, 223, 247, 383, 386 creation, 383 data, 371,388 graphemic/phonemic, 372 description, 53 detection, 30,385,386 point, 386 time, 386 elicitation, 36 explanation, 36, 53 frequency, 364 function, 364 genesis, 334 linguistic basis of, 35 mechanisms of, 53, 135 module, 360 monitoring, 346 observation, 36 perception, 223, 247 prevention, 137 production, 346 quality, 326 quantity, 326 reception, 346 relation to target, 35 remediation, 137 response, 363 salience, 223,237-246 saliency, 386 Sign-Template, 45 submodules, 360 taxonomy, 325 templates, 361 type/token ratio, 128 types, 347,379 norms based on, 355 preconventional, 67 typology, 36 variables Addition, 332 constraints on, 331-377 Displacement, 332

Omission, 332 Substitution, 332 Errors, 1 aphasic, 371 bilingual, 36 competence, 346, 387 correct features of, 365 in competence, 30, 346, 387 in compounding, 145 in intention-formation, 377 in intonation, 373,375 in lexical stress, 373, 375-376 in organon-model of language, 3336 in performance, 30, 346, 387 in phrasal stress, 375 in sentence stress, 374 insertions, 368 intentional, 387 lexical substitution, 368 multilingual, 36 normal, 33, 371 of mode, 216 omission, 368 oral, 342-346 paradigmatic, 372 pathological, 33 performance, 346, 387 phonetic, 343-345 reading, 34 reception of, 346 recognition of, 35 semantic, 344-345 interpretation, 351 semantic then phonetic, 345 Sign-Template, 45 spelling, 37, 345 syntagmatic, 372 taxonomy of, 346 typology, 36 unintentional, 387 written, 342-346 Evaluation of argumentation, 31 Exchange, 382 Errors, 50, 390, 392

SUBJECT INDEX Exercises, 146 Extension rules, 3 External activation, 382 Extracranial lesions, 335 Extraneous letter (= addition) errors, 335 "Extremity constraint on interlexical anticipations", 203 "Extremity constraint on interlexical repetitions", 211 Extrovert, 21 'Eye dialect', 346 F Factors of speech events, 32 Faculté de langage, 19 Faculté de lire, 43 Failure to trigger, 380 False etymology, 146 Faulty triggering, 378 Feedback, 385-387 component, 385 mechanism, 383,384,387 Feeling level, 23 Filter, 334 Final consonant-doubling, 62, 107, 110, 349 Finger agnostics, 335-336 'First-order signs', 39 Foot, 376 Foreign-language dyslexia, 70 Form-based word-substitutions, 390 Forward-verted, 21 Frequency, 350,381 of variants, 10 pattern, 15 Fricatives, 5, 122 Function word, 141, 161, 391 Functional aspect of alliteration, 216 of assonance, 216 Functional representation, 389 Functions of speech events, 32 "Fuzzy sets", 326

491

G Geminate consonant clusters, 93 General American, 7 Generative grammar, 1, 9, 28 grammarians, 18 phonology, 201,360,361 "Generic" characteristics of words, 343, 344 Genitivization, 145 "Glaring" errors, 346 Glide, 68 Goodness-of-match, 378 GPC, 40,43,44 Grading instructional materials, 237 Grammar, 1,2, 11-13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 29 panlectal, 12 polylectal, 12 Grammaticality, 18 'Grapheme', 40 Grapheme/phoneme correspondences, 40, 62, 325 Grapheme sequence, 95 Graphic similarity index, 368 Graphotactic conventions, 95 Graphotactics, 88 H Habituative category, 4 Haplologies, 376 "Haplophony", 134 Hättesogeäussertwerdensollen, 384 Hättesogesagtwerdensollen, 384 Hättesogeschriebenwerdensollen, 384 Hebrew, 41,47,128 Hesitation, 364,377 Hierarchical control structure, 378 Hierarchies of precedence, 224 Hierarchy of constraints on variable rules, 15-16 Hierarchy of importance, 33 Homophones, 51, 163,229-231,347-348 near-homophones, 230 non-homophones, 230 quasi-homophones, 230

492

SUBJECT INDEX

Human condition, 334 mind, 334 Hypercorrection, 115, 119, 144 I Idealization Chomskyan, 12 Labovian, 12 Idiographic linguistics, 21 Idiographs, 20 Idiolect, 1,18 Identical Signifié Constraint, 316 Impairment, 325 Implicational analysis, 1, 17 ordering, 15 pattern, 15 scaling, 7-8 Inaccuracy, 350 Incidence of spelling errors, 335 In-commission, 383 Indepenence Principle, 1, 13, 14, 15, 17, 52 Index of Erroneous Error Perception, 247 Individual differences, 22, 26, 27 Individual variation, 342 Inference rules of, 326-331 Inferential processes, 389 Infixation, 6 Inflection, 145,376 Inflectional morphemes, 145 Informant judgements, 18 Informants, 9 Inherent complexity, 223 Injunctions, 24 Inner-directed, 21 Inner speech, 25 Insertions, 364 Instruction, 150 in English spelling, 57 Instructional materials, 85 time, 111

Intelligibility, 76 Intention, 32,377-384 ambiguous specification of, 379 formation, 379 Intentional errors, 387 "Interference", 214,382 Interlanguage, 90, 91 "Interlanguages", 214 "Interlexical anticipations", 203 Interlingual allomorphic substitution, 119 Interlingual identification, 122 Intersystemic difference, 347 Intervocalic r-flappers, 347 Interword variation, 346 Intonation, 375 errors, 365 "Intralexical anticipations", 203 Intrapersonal variation, 26 Tntrasystemic irregularities', 346 Intraword variation, 346 Introvert, 21 Intrudible, 351-362, 381 most favored, 360 relativity of, 351-362 types, 360 Intrusion data consonantal, 351-362 Intrusions, 381 of thoughts, 378 Invented GPCs, 90 "Invented" spelling, 67, 69, 70, 346 Irregular spelling-type, 80 Irregularity, 52 Irregularization, 80,83,101,145 Irregularization cum Complication, 269 Irregularization cum Simplification, 268 Isochronicity, 376-377 J Jamaican English, 8-9 Jargon aphasia, 214 Judgements acceptability, 12 formality, 12

SUBJECT INDEX K ko factor, 10 Kana, 70 "Key points", 361 Knowledge, 347 and belief, 377 linguistic, 13 L L1-Filter, 334 L2-Input, 334 L2-Output, 334 Language, 1, 2, 17 acquisition, 26, 30, 36 change, 27 comprehension, 30 disabled children, 342 educationalists, 31 instruction, 111 judgements, 26 knowledge core of, 30 perception, 57 production, 30,57,389 tasks spoken, 345 written, 345 universals, 27, 28 use, 26 core of, 30 variety, 18 Length effect, 161 'Less complex', 325 Letter addition, 141,142,147,148 geminations, 139 lower-case, 134 omissions, 152-154, 161-163 position of, 147-148,161-163 upper-case, 134 Letter-by-letter reading, 43 Letter-name, 40-43 derivation of, 40-41 place of articulation of, 82, 83 sequence of, 94 Letter-naming, 67-73, 110, 150, 307

493

conditions on, 69 English, 70, 76, 78, 80, 82, 91 extended, 81 German, 70,76,78,80,83,91,119, 122 Letter-sound, 40-41 spelling, 325 Letter-sounding, 69 German, 78 Letters beginning, 369 end, 369 position of, 369 Levels of activation, 378 of adequacy descriptive, 51 explanatory, 51 observational, 51 of dialect difference, 4 of feedback, 383 of representation, 392 Lexical blends derivationally related, 375 form-based, 375 decomposition, 375 exchanges, 377 functions, 39 item, 161 memory, 53,88, 128 omissions, 376 route, 95 stress errors, 373-376 missasignment of, 376 readjustment, 376 stress-rule, 376 unavailability in retrieval, 215 Lexicalized misrepresentation, 88 Lexicon, 375 Liepmann's Intentional Perseveration, 216 Liepmann's Type-II Perseveration, 216 Lingual musculature, 216 Linguistic1

494

SUBJECT INDEX

abnorms, 334 acquisition device, 247 acts performance of, 386 revision of, 386 breakdown, 384 change, 334 code, 33 construction, 326 control, 251 corpus, 28 errors, 30-47,323,363 aphasic, 370 normal, 370 fact, 18 factors, 32,33,35,36 function, 32,33,36,364 knowledge, 30 level, 385 monitor, 248, 333, 384, 385 axiomatization of, 387-388 input to, 386 output of, 386 monitoring, 326, 385 norms, 32, 334 organization, 248 performance, 32 processing, 333, 370 strategies, 347 production, 247 profiles, 20 reconstruction, 326 regulation, 251 relativity of intrudibles, 358 repair, 384 representation, 323 sign, 20,38-46 transmodular generalizability, 250 theory, 2,371 universals, 28 utterance, 33 validity claims, 32, 36 Linguistic2 argumentation, 30, 31 description, 371 representation, 333

Linguistics 'idiographic\ 19, 21 trait, 19-20 typological, 19,20-21,31 Linguists, 31 List dictation, 144 Literal addition, 141-142 displacement, 55-57, 59-62 mention, 68-69 omission, 152-154 substitution, 75-132 use, 68-69 "Load", 59 tokens, 61 types, 61 "Loan translations", 214 "Loan words", 214 Localization, 215 Logic of deviation, 370 of norms, 370 Logical and syntactic processes, 389 connectives, 360 Lurija's Type-II Perseveration, 216 M Macrocorpus, 12, 18 Major class items, 391,392 feature variables phonological, 213 syntactic, 213 Marathi, 214 Marked, 40 Markedness, 325 Material grading, 223 Mechanisms, 53, 135, 341 Memory, 382 coding, 345 decay, 31 failure, 349 loss long-term, 52, 326, 333 short-term, 52, 326, 333

SUBJECT INDEX representations, 378 Mental grammar, 370 lexicon, 33, 375 Message representation, 389 Metacognition, 248, 384, 385 Metagrammar, 1, 13, 17 Metalanguage, 20 Metalinguistic1 judgements, 18 monitoring, 247 reports, 17 Metarules, 17 Metathesis, 49, 50, 325 of stress features, 375 Metrical phonology, 376 Microcorpus, 12, 18 Minor class items, 391, 392 Misarticulation, 115 phonologies, 31 Miscapitalization, 139-141 Miscapitalization-prone, 139 'Misletterings', 346 Misordering of action components, 378 Misphonetic systems, 31 Misphonological systems, 31 Mispragmatic systems, 31 Mispronunciation, 115 Misrepresentations, 333,334 Misrepresentation-prone, 98, 108 Missemantic systems, 31 Misspelling orthographies, 332-351 systems, 31 Misspelling-prone, 78 'Misspellings' causes of, 346-351 Missyntactic systems, 31 'Miswritings', 346 MIT corpus of errors, 351 Mode assignment, 216 Mode errors, 311, 379, 380 Models of linguistic1 processing, 371 performance-oriented, 370 psycholinguistic, 370, 371

495

Modular, 333 Modules of norms, 360 Modulus errans, 360 Mongoloids, 22,24 Monitor, 213 control, 234 morphology of, 383, 386-387 strength, 205, 207, 212, 233-237, 373, 386 Monitorability, 350 Monitoring, 383 conditions, 234 covert, 223,386 function, 382 mechanisms, 334 overt, 223,386 "post-output", 223 "pre-output", 223 Monolingual spelling errors, 371 Monolingualism, 351 Monolinguals, 335 'More complex', 325 Morpheme additions, 144-145 omissions, 156-158 structure conditions, 38 Morpheme-by-morpheme spelling, 117, 123 Morphemes, 163 bound, 117,145 free, 117,145 "Morphophonemes", 40,71 Morphotactic sequences, 213 Motor coding processes, 389 Motor palilalia, 216 N Nasals, 67, 124, 136 Native-language grapheme sequences, 95 Nativism, 347 Natural mental models, 331 Near Neighbor Constraint, 317 'Necessary Condition on Error', 44 "Negative paradigmatic orthographic in­ terference", 84

496

SUBJECT INDEX

"Neighborhood" "new", 59,60 "old", 59,60 Neologism, 214, 215 Neologistic jargon aphasia, 214 Neurolinguistics, 26, 28, 29, 30 Neurolinguists, 31 "Noisy" data, 53 Nominalist, 20 'Non-distinct', 38 Non-letter additions, 146 Non-letter omissions, 159-161 Non-normative representation, 45 "Non-word phonetic error", 345 Norm, 1, 32, 33, 45, 51, 213, 327, 382, 385, 386 prototypes, 33 variants, 33 Norm-deviation relations, 1, 44, 361 Norm-theoretical speech event, 32 Normal language production, 388 slips, 371 speech, 50 speller-writer/readers, 29 Normality, 30 Normals, 332 Normative alphabetic orthographic template, 327 bias, 345 grammar, 360 representation, 45 Norms addition, 147 and abnorms, 326-331 individual, 32 language, 32 omission, 147 Nouns, 141 Number, 145 O Obligatory, 327 behavioral mode, 326 'Observation report', 17

Obstruent, 118, 136 Omission, 53, 54, 123, 124, 148-163, 326,333,382 error, 133, 162 maxima, 163 prone, 149,150,151 proneness, 158 wave, 162 Omissions, 148-163, 225-226, 364 anticipatory, 333 apostrophies, 159-161 capitalization, 151-153 consonantal, 150-151 hyphens, 159 in errors of anticipation, 373 of duplication, 373 letter, 148-149, 152,154 morpheme, 156-158 O c , 225 O , 225 cap

O v , 226 O w , 226 O ø , 226 O_, 226 perseveratory, 333 spaces, 159-161 syllable, 158-159 vowel, 149-150 word, 154-156 Open class items, 375 Operations reducibility of, 333 Optimum corpus, 12, 17, 25, 47 "Oral production", 143 Oral reading 'cues', 362, 363 errors, 332,362-368 taxonomy of, 363-368 'miscues', 362 Order errors, 336 Organon-model of languague, 1, 31, 33-36,250,323,346,384 "Origin", 59 Orthographic component, 29-30

SUBJECT INDEX conduits d'approche, 31, 47, 216, 223-251,326,384 constraints, 213 errors, 30,37,352 structure-destroying, 107 structure-preserving, 107 hypercorrection, 98, 109 monitor, 31 rules, 349 transformations, 223 word-boundary, 163 words, 162-163 Orthographies in contact, 30 Orthography, 28 in grammar, 28-47 Orton-Gillingham, 336, 342 "Othernesses", 39 Outer-directed, 21 Overgeneralization, 69, 83, 88, 95, 97, 136 P Panlectal grammar, 29 Paranoid schizophrenia, 24 Paraphasia phonemic, 215 phonic, 215 semantic, 215 Parent schema, 377,378 Past, 109,158 Patholinguistics, 24 Pathological linguistic1 use, 33 speech, 50 Pathological, 30 Pauses, 377 Pedagogical emphasis, 150 intervention, 31 Perception, 334 bimodal, 33ff monomodal, 33ff of alinguistic1event, 387 of an act, 387 of error, 56 Perceptual image

497

background, 362 figure, 361 Perceptual Salience, 361 "Perceptual theory of monitoring, 391 Performance, 19,26,30,333,377 picture naming, 344 process, 384 reading, 35, 344 spelling, 35 writing, 35 Performative, 23,386 infelicitous use of, 35 "Perseverate", 207,208-209 "Perseverated", 207 Perseveration, 111, 119, 120, 121, 124, 125, 126, 128, 133, 139, 144, 146, 163, 209-213,214,366 cross-modal, 215 discontinuous, 215 distances of, 210 edited, 208,210-212 environments of, 209-210 intentional, 364 iterative, 215 interlexical, 209 intralexical, 209 lexical, 207 literal, 207 of initial clusters, 215 paradigm of, 215 spoken paradigmatic, 215 unedited, 208,210,211,213 unintentional, 364 written paradigmatic, 215 Personal goals, 380 'PGC', 43 Philistine, 20 Phoneme/grapheme route, 95 Phonemes as signs, 39 Phonemic jargon aphasia, 325 metatheses, 373 paraphasias, 213,325,336 Phonetic analysis, 67 representation, 389

498

SUBJECT INDEX

spelling, 76, 101, 110, 125, 135, 347 consonant, 67-68 syllabic, 68 vowel, 68 Phonological constraints, 37 displacement errors, 46 segmental, 372, 373 suprasegmental, 372, 373-376 intrusions bilingual, 351-362 monolingual, 351-362 principles, 349 similarity, 393 structure, 215 substitution, 46 Phrasal planning frame, 392 Picture naming, 342 recognition, 342 Pig Latin, 6-7 Planning modes, 390 segments, 351 Plural, 158 Pluralization rule, 96 Polylectal grammar, 12 Positional representation, 389 Possessive, 160 'Possible error', 37-46 inLi', 36 orthographic misrepresentation', 31 sentence of L', 36 syllable in L.', 37 Post-commission, 383 Post-inhibition rebound, 215 Post-tonic voicing, 109 Pre-commission, 383 Preconventional spelling, 67-68 Predetermined syntax, 143 Predicate locative, 144 Prefixes unattested BE, 14

Preformatism, 347 Premature triggering, 378, 380 Present perfect, 144 Primary linguistic data, 17 signal system, 21 vowel, 71,72,73 pattern, 86, 87, 93, 136 major correspondences, 77, 78, 83, 96, 97, 101 minor correspondences, 83,96 Primary Irregularization, 268 Primary Regularization, 268 Primary Re-irregularization, 268 Primary Reregularization, 268 "Primary vowel spellings", 73 Private language, 25 Problem-solving, 380 Processes inferential, 388ff logical and syntactic, 389ff motor coding, 388ff of addition, 387 of displacement, 387 of omission, 387 of substitution, 387 regular phonological, 388ff sound-selection, 393 syntactic and phonological, 388ff word-selection, 393 Processing level, 371,390 model, 388 strategies, 31,292,332 for consonants, 128-132 for vowels, 102-105 hierarchical structure, 114 intersystemic, 334 intrasystemic, 334 positional constraint on, 114 structure, 388-393 Procliticized, 161 Production, 326, 333 bimodal, 33ff

SUBJECT INDEX condition, 234 monomodal, 33ff strategy, 144 theory of monitoring, 391 Progressive present, 144 Progressivization, 145 Proofreader, 384 Prosodic structure, 37 Prosody, 376 'Prototype', 326,360 Prototypes distances between, 326 "distortions" of, 326 relativity of, 326 theory of, 326 Prototypical intrudible, 360 Psycholinguistics, 26,31,360 Psychological reality, 19,43,52,145,325,326 sets, 20 (Psycho)sociolinguists, 18 Punctuation marks, 146 Q

Question, 24 formation, 144 R r-less English, 347 Random error, 137 events, 137 Rationalist, 20 Rationality, 331 Reading, 29 semantic route to, 29 Realist, 20 Reality patholinguistic, 371 psycholinguistic, 371 'Receiver-corrigible', 250 Recency, 382 Reduction, 333 Reference-body, 324 Reflective, 21 Regensburgerisch, 108

499

Regressions, 365 Regular past, 145 phonological processes, 389 plural, 145 Regularization, 77, 80, 83, 116, 118, 136, 145 -prone, 80 Regularization cum Complication, 269 Regularization cum Simplification, 268 Re-irregularization cum Complication, 269 Re-irregularization cum Simplification, 269 Relational character of GPCs, 107 Remediating spelling errors, 63 Reordering of rules, 1 Repair, 333 alter-, 334 ego-, 334 Repetition, 211,216,364 function of, 364 Replica-model, 22,25 'Representation', 18,334 articulatory, 389ff conventional error strong, 58 weak, 58 correct strongly, 58 weakly, 58 erroneous error-perception strongly, 58 weakly, 58 error perception strong, 58 weak, 58 functional, 389ff message, 389ff phonetic, 389ff positional, 389ff primary system of, 29 secondary system of, 29 Reregularization cum Complication, 269 Reregularization cum Simplification,

500

SUBJECT INDEX

268 Response expected, 362 observed, 362 secondary, 18 tertiary, 18 "Response coincidence analysis", 342 Retrieval, 215 Retroflection, 88 Retro-verted, 21 Reversals, 325, 350 Rhyme, 216, 375 Rhythm, 375 Rhythmic regularity effect, 377 Right-hemisphere lesion, 335 Romantic, 20 Rounding, 68 Rule addition, 12 anticipation, 62, 63 application categorical, 11, 13 variable, 8, 10, 11 deletion, 12 displacement, 62, 63 extension, 3 optional, 10 perseveration, 62,63 -reordering, 7, 12 selection, 108 supression, 108 Rules of inference misapplication of, 327, 386 orthoapplication of, 386 Russian learners, 351 S Salience, 215 hierarchy, 345 Salient cues, 369 Schema, 378,379 faulty activation of, 377 Schizoid text, 21 Schizophrenia, 21 linguistic1symptoms of, 47 Schizophrenic discourse, 21

Schonell's graded word spelling lists, 335 Secondary function, 21 vowel pattern, 86,136 major correspondence, 79, 80, 91,95,100 minor correspondence, 79, 80, 83,93,95,100,101 Secondary Irregularization, 268 Secondary Regularization, 268 Secondary Re-irregularization, 268 Secondary Reregularization, 268 'Second-order sign', 40 Security check, 57-58 Segment strong, 351 structure conditions, 38 weak, 351 Selection difficulty, 373 Self-correction, 234,250 Self-repair, 326 Semantic errors paradigmatic, 391 syntagmatic, 391 interpretation, 361 misinterpretation, 372 similarity, 393 Semiosis, 2, 42 Semivowels, 136 'Sender-corrigible', 250 Sender-receiver, 30 Sentence construction, 388 execution, 351 planning, 351 processor, 351 production, 375 Sequence contraints on graphemes, 325 Structure Condition, 14, 38 Sequencing difficulty, 373 Serial-order effect, 147, 206, 209 Shifts morpheme, 390

SUBJECT INDEX word, 390 Short vowel sound, 68 Sibilant, 10 Sign, 2 as symptom, 28 mutation, 44-46 Sign-Template, 2, 38-46 'Signifiant', 39 heterogenization of, 361 homogenization of, 361 'Signifié', 39 heterogenization of, 361 homogenization of, 361 Signifieds, 69 Signifiers, 69 Signing relation, 42 Silent pronunciation, 146 speech, 144 Similar constraints phonology, 372-375 Similarity, 62,207,211 associative, 393 between target and intrusion, 390 frequency, 393 measure, 345 of segments, 351 phonetic, 343 phonological, 393 semantic, 393, 343 sound, 393 word, 393 Simple past, 144 Simplicity, 3 metric, 1 Simplification, 118, 325 of consonant clusters, 10 Simultaneity, 43 hypothesis, 354 relativity of, 323-324 Sincerity, 24 conditions, 23 Single backward displacement, 60 "Sin of omission and addition", 54 Situational analysis, 380

501

Skilled actions, 378 'Slip', 377 Slip-of-the-pen, 51, 59, 76, 82, 89, 92, 113 edited, 55 unedited, 55 Slip-of-the-tongue, 30, 51, 213, 351-362 Social class, 7, 10 determinism, 27 difference, 26 So gesagt, 384 Sogeschrieben, 384 Sound exchange errors, 390 "Sound pattern slips", 51, 230 Spanish dialects, 7 Latin American, 7 Spatiotemporal cerebral functioning, 296 Speaker-hearer, 11-12 Speech acts 'happy', 20 healthy, 20 community homogeneous, 11 errors classification of, 49, 372 events, 17 factors of, 20,25,32 functions of, 20,25,32 validity claims of, 32-33 execution, 370 planning, 370, 373 Spelling, 41 editor, 46 error, 37,49,50 causes, 31 types, 31 errors addition, 57 displacement, 57 dyslexic, 336-342 erroneous error perception, 57

502

SUBJECT INDEX

normal, 336-342 omission, 57 prevention, 67, 72-74 remediation, 67, 72-74 substitution, 57 pronunciations, 93 strategies for consonants, 128-137 for vowels, 102-105 Spoonerism, 378, 380, 382 "Squishes", 326 Standard, 347 English, 4,5,6,13,14,15 "Starredness", 36 Statement, 23 Stems disyllabic, 62 monosyllabic, 62 polysyllabic, 62 Stop consonant, 67,122 Stranding exchanges, 390 Strategies for action, 385 knowledge acquisition, 334 production, 334 Stress, 348 lexical, 373-376 pattern, 375 sentence, 374 Stressed syllables, 124 Structural differences, 3 Structure of words, 308 Stylistic dispositions, 20 Subcategories of error, 50 "Subdialect", 5 Subject-auxiliary inversion, 144 Substantival capitalization, 135, 141 'Substituend', 332 'Substitute', 332 Substitution, 49, 51, 52, 57, 223, 224225,326,332,382 consonants, 107-132, 352 vowels, 75-105,352 S c , 225

SM'

225

S v , 225 S w , 225 'Sufficient Condition on Error', 44 Suffixes unattested BE, 14 Superlativization, 145 Suppression, 98 Suprasegmental operations, 375 Survival value, 334 Switching errors, 213 Syllabification, 348 Syllable, 163,214,345 addition, 348, 376 deletion, 348,376 omission, 158-159,376 position, 325 segment types hierarchical structure of, 38 order of, 38 structure, 38, 325 Syllable-final obstruent devoicing, 109, 110,111,116,117,121,123,126 Syntactic and phonological processes, 389 'Syntactics', 39,45,333 "Syntagmatic perseverative interfer­ ence", 120 Syntax, 325 T 'Target', 362 types, 360 word access, 344, 345 Taxonomy of errors, 325, 343 Teaching materials, 57, 58, 63-64, 265, 273, 278, 283, 285, 288-289, 290, 292, 295, 296, 301, 306-307, 312, 314, 315 spelling, 72-74, 139 bimodal, 73 trimodal, 73 Template, 32,37,361 Tenderhearted, 20 Tense, 145

SUBJECT INDEX Terminal string, 392 Theory, 19 of action, 378,379 of action slips, 377 of blends, 134 of constraints on errors, 59 of error, 50 of exchange errors, 213 of grammar, 213,370 of intrudibles, 360 of knowledge, 342 oflinguistic1categorization, 370 of linguistic1 deviation, 370 of linguistic1 norm, 370 of normal linguistic1 processing, 370 of oral reading errors, 362-368 of similar constraints, 370-375 of slips, 378 of word-addition errors, 142 Third-order signs, 41 < t o > , 158 Toughminded, 20 Transcendental meditation, 25 Transfer hypothesis, 127 theory of error, 94 Transformational theory, 3 Transformations First-order, 325 Fourth-order, 325 Second-order, 325 Third-order, 325 "Transpose", 49 "Transposition", 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 92, 112,382 Trigger conditions, 377, 378, 379 Triggering of schemas, 377 Typology, 20-21 U Umlaut, 78 Unclassified jargon responses, 325 Underlying process dysfunctions, 336 representations, 14 Unintentional activation, 379

503

Unitary attempts, 224 theory of anticipations, 202 theory of repetitons, 208 Universality of errors, 391 Universals of orthography acquisition, 332 Unmarked, 40, 44, 386 displacement, 59 Unstressed vowels, 158 V Validity claims, 32, 33 Value, 332 Values factor, 33 function, 33 marked, 325 unmarked, 325 validity claim, 33 'Variable', 332 Variable constraints, 16 rule, 1,11,15,16 critique of, 11 defense of, 11 Variation, 11 in grammar, 3 inherent, 11 interpersonal, 3 interword, 346 intrapersonal, 3 intraword, 346 phonological, 1 syntactic, 1 Verbal fluency, 247 Vernacular definitions, 23 Verstehende Psychologie, 21 Virtual conventional error, 56, 57, 60 Visual acuity, 350 "Visual autonymous use", 68 Visual discrimination training, 350 Vowel additions, 136-137,147 errors, 67 omissions, 149-150

504 W Wahlverwandtschaften, 41 "Weight" of the load, 59 Weights, 369 Well-formedness conditions, 37 Wernicke's aphasia, 214 Whole-word slips, 392 Word addables, 142 additions, 142, 143, 144

SUBJECT INDEX analysis, 146 class, 371 displacements, 60 omissions, 154-156 recognition, 369 token length, 146-147,161-163 transposition errors, 50 Word effect for spelling errors, 316 Words, 163 Writing systems, 29