• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

site logo
The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language
search
  • Home
  • About TESL-EJ
  • Vols. 1-15 (1994-2012)
    • Volume 1
      • Volume 1, Number 1
      • Volume 1, Number 2
      • Volume 1, Number 3
      • Volume 1, Number 4
    • Volume 2
      • Volume 2, Number 1 — March 1996
      • Volume 2, Number 2 — September 1996
      • Volume 2, Number 3 — January 1997
      • Volume 2, Number 4 — June 1997
    • Volume 3
      • Volume 3, Number 1 — November 1997
      • Volume 3, Number 2 — March 1998
      • Volume 3, Number 3 — September 1998
      • Volume 3, Number 4 — January 1999
    • Volume 4
      • Volume 4, Number 1 — July 1999
      • Volume 4, Number 2 — November 1999
      • Volume 4, Number 3 — May 2000
      • Volume 4, Number 4 — December 2000
    • Volume 5
      • Volume 5, Number 1 — April 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 2 — September 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 3 — December 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 4 — March 2002
    • Volume 6
      • Volume 6, Number 1 — June 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 2 — September 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 3 — December 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 4 — March 2003
    • Volume 7
      • Volume 7, Number 1 — June 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 2 — September 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 3 — December 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 4 — March 2004
    • Volume 8
      • Volume 8, Number 1 — June 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 2 — September 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 3 — December 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 4 — March 2005
    • Volume 9
      • Volume 9, Number 1 — June 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 2 — September 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 3 — December 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 4 — March 2006
    • Volume 10
      • Volume 10, Number 1 — June 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 2 — September 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 3 — December 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 4 — March 2007
    • Volume 11
      • Volume 11, Number 1 — June 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 2 — September 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 3 — December 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 4 — March 2008
    • Volume 12
      • Volume 12, Number 1 — June 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 2 — September 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 3 — December 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 4 — March 2009
    • Volume 13
      • Volume 13, Number 1 — June 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 2 — September 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 3 — December 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 4 — March 2010
    • Volume 14
      • Volume 14, Number 1 — June 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 2 – September 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 3 – December 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 4 – March 2011
    • Volume 15
      • Volume 15, Number 1 — June 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 2 — September 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 3 — December 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 4 — March 2012
  • Vols. 16-Current
    • Volume 16
      • Volume 16, Number 1 — June 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 2 — September 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 3 — December 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 4 – March 2013
    • Volume 17
      • Volume 17, Number 1 – May 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 2 – August 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 3 – November 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 4 – February 2014
    • Volume 18
      • Volume 18, Number 1 – May 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 2 – August 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 3 – November 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 4 – February 2015
    • Volume 19
      • Volume 19, Number 1 – May 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 2 – August 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 3 – November 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 4 – February 2016
    • Volume 20
      • Volume 20, Number 1 – May 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 2 – August 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 3 – November 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 4 – February 2017
    • Volume 21
      • Volume 21, Number 1 – May 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 2 – August 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 3 – November 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 4 – February 2018
    • Volume 22
      • Volume 22, Number 1 – May 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 2 – August 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 3 – November 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 4 – February 2019
    • Volume 23
      • Volume 23, Number 1 – May 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 2 – August 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 3 – November 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 4 – February 2020
    • Volume 24
      • Volume 24, Number 1 – May 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 2 – August 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 3 – November 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 4 – February 2021
    • Volume 25
      • Volume 25, Number 1 – May 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 2 – August 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 3 – November 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 4 – February 2022
    • Volume 26
      • Volume 26, Number 1 – May 2022
      • Volume 26, Number 2 – August 2022
      • Volume 26, Number 3 – November 2022
      • Volume 26, Number 4 – February 2023
    • Volume 27
      • Volume 27, Number 1 – May 2023
      • Volume 27, Number 2 – August 2023
      • Volume 27, Number 3 – November 2023
      • Volume 27, Number 4 – February 2024
    • Volume 28
      • Volume 28, Number 1 – May 2024
      • Volume 28, Number 2 – August 2024
      • Volume 28, Number 3 – November 2024
      • Volume 28, Number 4 – February 2025
    • Volume 29
      • Volume 29, Number 1 – May 2025
      • Volume 29, Number 2 – August 2025
      • Volume 29, Number 3 – November 2025
      • Volume 29, Number 4 – February 2026
    • Volume 30
      • Volume 30, Number 1 – May 2026
      • Volume 30, Number 2 – August 2026
  • Books
  • How to Submit
    • Submission Info
    • Ethical Standards for Authors and Reviewers
    • TESL-EJ Style Sheet for Authors
    • TESL-EJ Tips for Authors
    • Book Review Policy
    • Media Review Policy
    • TESL-EJ Special issues
    • APA Style Guide
  • Editorial Board
  • Support

Slips of the Tongue: Speech Errors in First and Second Language Production

December 2000 — Volume 4, Number 4

Slips of the Tongue: Speech Errors in First and Second Language Production

Nanda Poulisse (1999)
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Pp. 266
ISBN 90-2724130-9

“One half of me is yours, the other half yours–
Mine own, I would say; but if mine, then yours–
And so all yours.”
     –Portia to Bassanio in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice (Act III, Scene 2)

“It [speech-blunder] is thus a means of self-betrayal.”
    –Freud, The Psychopathology of Everyday Life (p. 69)

Have you ever opened a meeting by declaring it closed rather than open? Have you ever surprised others–and yourself–by blurting out something other than what you thought you had meant to say? Do you find that such speech errors happen to you more often in your second language than in your first?

Many of us have experienced this type of speech blunder at one point or another, in one language or another. As we know only too well, these verbal behaviour mistakes can be exquisitely funny for the listener, but deeply embarrassing for the perpetrator. Slips of the tongue come in many different shapes and sizes, in both first (L1) and second language (L2) speech, although not much research has been done in the latter. Until, that is, Nanda Poulisse’s Slips of the Tongue came along, which proposes to fill just that lap . . . er, I mean gap.

Nanda Poulisse, researcher/lecturer at the University of Amsterdam, sets out to: a) report on a project on slips of the tongue in the speech of L2 speakers, b) relate the L2 findings with slips of the tongue produced by L1 speakers (i.e., to explore the similarities and differences between the L2 and L1 processes), and c) to interpret the findings and their implications for theories of speech production and L2 acquisition. In two appendices she also includes the L1 and L2 slip corpora on which the findings are based, with the intention of stimulating more research in this field.

Do L1 slips differ from L2 slips, and if so, in what ways? This research question was set against 35 hours of English recorded by various speaker groups, focusing on two cognate languages: Dutch and English. The data were originally collected to study a different speaker behaviour (lexical compensatory strategies).

One would readily anticipate a much higher occurrence of slips in L2. Most people would guess twice as many or perhaps even five times as many slips in L2. My own guess was around 10 times as many slips in L2 than in L1. Poulisse’s results, however, outdo the “guestimate” by far. Two researchers, working independently, identified 137 L1 slips as opposed to 2000 L2 slips of the tongue in the data. Only slips identified as such by both researchers are included in the final list of slips. That makes 14.5 times as many slips in L2. [-1-]

The first chapter of the book offers a literature review of slips in adult L1 speech. I was shocked to find that the index does not include Freud, but further checking revealed that in fact the index does not include any proper names. They can only be found in the list of references, which is not as helpful as it could be.

In the first paragraph of the first chapter (p. 5), to my relief, I found a reference to Freud’s work in this field (“Mistakes in Speech,” chapter 5 in Freud, 1937). Disappointingly though, this reference is no more than a short sentence in passing, specifying his clinical psychological approach. Whatever you may think of Fraud . . . er, I mean Freud’s work, a one-liner is surely too brief and therefore not really satisfactory given its seminal influence.

No doubt, one is bound to be selective in putting a literature review together. Still, some readers may find it puzzling that the not-altogether-minor points of how markedly Freud disagreed with the pioneers of slip studies, Rudolf Meringer and Karl Mayer (1895), and why he did so (Freud, 1937, p. 49), does not even get a passing mention.

If your interest is more in child language production, then the literature review in the second chapter is more relevant for you. If you are a practising interpreter or a second language user in general, models of second language acquisition may be more to your fancy, in which case the literature review to look for is in the third chapter, although, as it turns out, L2 slip studies and in-depth analyses are few and far between.

Chapter 4 describes the L2 slip project, its goals, research questions, and hypotheses. Chapter 5 is devoted to methodological issues, such as the definition of slips of the tongue, the reliability of detecting them, dealing with perceptual bias, and the issue of coding slips as conceptual, lexical, malapropos, phonological, and so forth. Chapter 6 details the results and discusses them. For example, in terms of organising our respective mental lexicons, as one would suspect, the findings confirm that: a) related lexical concepts are indeed connected; thus lemmas (words or phrases representing all the inflectional and spelling variants of an entry in a dictionary) of words which are semantically related can be activated simultaneously; and b) lemmas are at least partly driven by syntactic category.

One of the salient features of L2 speech production is that, whether on purpose or by accident, bilinguals often mix their two languages even though they excel at the same time, most of the time, in separating the two systems. Many of the L2 slips are L1 based, hence the inference is that L1, not surprisingly, influences L2 speech production. According to the data, not surprisingly either, this is particularly the case with less proficient L2 speakers: The less proficiency, the more slips of the tongue.

One explanation may be that both L1 and L2 systems are activated simultaneously but it takes considerable energy to suppress L1, which the speaker can ill afford when L2 is not yet automatized. Not only does de-activating L1 use up resources, but the L2 knowledge base is also not readily accessible unless the speaker is sufficiently proficient. Fundamentally, this means that learning a new language (L2) is not just about learning and automatizing the rules, the words, and the articulation; it is also about keeping a tight rein on previously learnt procedures and knowledge (L1) which are not relevant at the time. [-2-]

Slips of the Tongue is relevant and informative reading that will help language teachers gain insights into the phenomenon of language slips.

References

Freud, S. (1937). Psychopathology of everyday life. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

Meringer, R., & Mayer, K. (1895). Versprechen und Verlesen: Eine psychologisch-linguistiche Studie (Mistakes in speech and reading: A psychological and linguistic study). Stuttgart: Gщschense Verlagsbuchhandlung.

Zsuzsanna Ardó
Writer/translator/interpreter, London
<ardo@pobox.com>

© Copyright rests with authors. Please cite TESL-EJ appropriately.

Editor’s Note: Dashed numbers in square brackets indicate the end of each page for purposes of citation.

[-3-]

© 1994–2026 TESL-EJ, ISSN 1072-4303
Copyright of articles rests with the authors.