The inner voice in writing
Study Overview
Title: The Inner Voice in Writing
Authors: N. Ann Chenoweth, John R. Hayes
Date: January 2003
Institution: The University of Texas–Pan American & Carnegie Mellon University
Research Focus
Investigates the connection between writing and working memory.
Specifically examines the subvocal articulatory rehearsal process (inner voice) during writing.
Methodology
Participants: 18 adult participants who are native English speakers.
Tasks: Participants typed sentences describing 24 multipanel cartoons.
Participants underwent articulatory suppression (repeating syllables) to affect working memory.
Conditions: Divided into conditions based on tapping responses and text visibility (visible vs. invisible).
Findings
Interference with Articulatory Rehearsal
Results of Articulatory Suppression:
Slowed writing rate.
Increased mechanical errors and difficulty in writing tasks.
Altered temporal microstructure of text production.
Higher perceived difficulty in writing task when using articulatory suppression.
Working Memory Models
Baddeley’s Model of Working Memory:
Components: phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad, central executive.
Phonological loop aids in storing verbal information and subvocal rehearsal.
Articulatory suppression impairs the rehearsal function of the phonological loop, negatively impacting writing.
Key Concepts
Inner Voice: The internal monologue experienced by writers; critical for processing language while writing.
Articulatory Suppression: The practice of repeating sounds which disrupts the memory rehearsal process.
Writing Fluency: Analysis of writing tasks indicated that linguistic experience leads to higher fluency and longer bursts of writing.
Experimental Design
Conditions Analyzed
Voice-tap with visible text.
Foot-tap with visible text.
No tap with visible text.
Voice-tap with invisible text.
Foot-tap with invisible text.
No tap with invisible text.
Procedure Steps
Participants viewed cartoons and typed one-sentence summaries with conditions randomized across trials.
Evaluation included fluency measures (e.g., writing time, number of words, rate) and quality measures (e.g., mechanical errors, holistic quality).
Results Summary
Fluency Measures Observed
Writing Time: Influenced by conditions, with significant differences between visible and invisible text.
Rate of Writing: Decreased by articulatory suppression more in invisible conditions (23% reduction) than in visible conditions (18% reduction).
Revision Time: Significant decline in revisions when the text was invisible, pointing to reliance on visual feedback during writing.
Quality Measures
Mechanical Errors: Increased significantly when employing invisible text (2.5 errors vs. 0.97 errors).
Number of Clauses: Notably stable across conditions, indicating complexity maintained despite suppression.
Discussion
Indicates that articulatory rehearsal, linked to the inner voice, is integral to writing processes.
Findings suggest external factors like irrelevant speech can further hinder writing efficiency.
Visual feedback enhances writing quality, with drafts improved by visible text, impacting revision and error rates.
Conclusion
Articulatory suppression adversely affects writing through decreased fluency, increased errors, and overall perception of task difficulty.
Highlights the importance of the inner voice in translating thought into written text and offers insights into improving writing practices.