Talk:Speech error

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Linguistics / Theoretical Linguistics  (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Theoretical Linguistics Task Force.
 

Major revision.[edit]

As the article stands written, it doesn't belong in theoretical linguistics. For example, the examples given in the first section are common phonological processes from a prescriptionist viewpoint. Thaumaturgist (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is a lorry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.116.131 (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The example for "Morpheme-exchange error" is the same as "shift". Are we to assume that these are two names for the same error? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.151.103.8 (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

A morpheme-exchange error and a shift are not the same error.The segments in shifts are not exchanged but found in a different environment. Target: He has already packed two trunks. Error: He has already packs two trunked. The morphemes {-ed} and {-s} change places while in Target: She decides to hit it. Error: She decide to hits it. the morpheme {-s} is not exchanged with any other morpheme. It is suddenly added to the infinitive <hit>. --86.145.127.189 (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge Misspeaking to Speech error[edit]

The page Misspeaking includes a definition and simple history of the word misspeak, as well as several speech errors made by politicians. The latter content should probably be merged to Speech error; the former is dictionary-type content, which runs afoul of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Cnilep (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Speech production[edit]

My name is Jenaya, I'm a student of the U of A and I'm looking to incorporate speech production into this wiki as I believe it would be helpful to have a better understanding of the occurrence of speech errors. I'm hoping to add information explaining the root of speech errors along with different models through the ages that map out speech production. Please let me know if you have any ideas that may help me further develop this new section of the article.

Thanks
Jenaya (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Jenaya,
I have added the course banner. I think you might consider adding this page to the Psychology portal and other psycholinguistic resources. That might also bring more eyes as you outline your plans for revision. Paula Marentette (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Other Examples[edit]

Can anyone shed light on the mispronounciation of nuclear, perhaps by adding it and classifying that error? GeoFan49 (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I would think that any pronunciation that people regularly make doesn't count as a speech error. That is, a speech error should be recognized by the speaker as an error. The word nuclear, often pronounced "nucular", is an example of metathesis (and a vowel change) where the [l] is separated from the cl cluster in nuclear. Likely this is about ease of pronunciation because it is produced this way, consistently, by many people . Children often produce metathesis for words like hospital or spaghetti. I wouldn't consider any of these speech errors.
Paula Marentette (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

"Target: person/people
Error: perple"
[edit]

is that "people" or "purple"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.88.72 (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

misanalysis[edit]

There is no article on misanalysis, and this article doesn't even mention it. I wrote the following in names for the number 0 in English: The use of "aught" and "ought" to mean "zero" is looked down on by some especially older, upper-class people because "aught" originally meant something else and because the new meaning arose due to a reinterpretation of "a naught" as "an aught". This common process (called "misanalysis" by linguists) is not considered a confusion or not even noticed by these same people in other English words when it happened long enough ago, for example "an auger" was originally "a nauger". --Espoo (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)