The effect of lexical frequency and Lombard reflex on tone hyperarticulation

Journal of Phonetics

Volumn 37, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 231-247

  Zhao, Yuan ^a   Jurafsky, Dan ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67349100698     PISSN: 00954470     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2009.03.002     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Al-Nassir A. Sibawaih the phonologist: A critical study of the phonetic and phonological theory of Sibawaih in his treatise "Al-Kitab" (1993), Kegan Paul, London
2. Aylett, M. (2000). Stochastic suprasegmentals: Relationships between redundancy, prosodic structure and care of articulation in spontaneous speech. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.
3. Aylett M., and Turk A. The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech 47 1 (2004) 31-56
4. Aylett M., and Turk A. Language redundancy predicts syllabic duration and the spectral characteristics of vocalic syllable nuclei. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119 5 (2006) 3048-3059
5. Academia Sinica: Balanced Corpus of Chinese. 〈http://godel.iis.sinica.edu.tw/CKIP/engversion/20corpus.htm〉.
6. Bell A., Brenier J., Gregory M., Girand C., and Jurafsky D. Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language 60 1 (2009) 92-111
7. Bell A., Jurafsky D., Fosler-Lussier E., Girand C., Gregory M., and Gildea D. Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113 2 (2003) 1001-1024
8. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2000). Praat: A system for doing phonetics by computer (Version 4.0.30). [Computer software]. Amsterdam: Institute of Phonetic Sciences. Retrieved from 〈http://www.praat.org〉.
9. Bradlow A.R., Torretta G.M., and Pisoni D.B. Intelligibility of normal speech I: Global and fine-grained acoustic-phonetic talker characteristics. Speech Communication 20 (1996) 255-272
10. Bybee J. Lexicalization of sound change and alternating environments. In: Broe M., and Pierrehumbert J. (Eds). Papers in laboratory phonology V: Acquisition and the lexicon (2000), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 250-268
11. Bybee J. The phonology of the lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion. In: Barlow M., and Kemmer S. (Eds). Usage-based models of language (1996), CSLI, Stanford 65-86
12. Caramazza A., Costa A., Miozzo M., and Bi Y. The specific-word frequency effect: Implications for the representation of homophones in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 2 6 (2001) 1430-1450
13. Carter M.G. Sibawayhi (2004), I.B. Tauris, London
14. Cheung, K. H. (1986). The phonology of present day Cantonese. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of London.
15. Diehl R., Lindblom B., Hoemeke K., and Fahey R. On explaining certain male-female differences in the phonetic realization of vowel categories. Journal of Phonetics 24 (1996) 187-208
16. Draegert G.L. Relationships between voice variables and speech intelligibility in high level noise. Speech Monograph 18 (1951) 272-278
17. Fidelhotz, J. L. (1975). Word frequency and vowel reduction in English. In CLS 11 (pp. 200-213).
18. Fosler-Lussier, E., & Morgan, Nelson (1998). Effects of speaking rate and word frequency on conversational pronunciation. In Proceedings of ESCA tutorial and research workshop on modeling pronunciation for variation for automatic speech recognition, Kerkrade, Netherlands (pp. 1-6).
19. Gregory, M. L., Raymond, W. D., Bell, A., Fosler-Lussier, E., & Jurafsky, D. (1999). The effects of collocational strength and contextual predictability in lexical production. In CLS 99 (pp. 151-166).
20. Hanley T.D., and Steer M.D. Effect of level of distracting noise upon speaking rate, duration and intensity. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 14 (1949) 363-368
21. Henton, C. (1995). Cross-language variation in the vowels of female and male speakers. In Proceedings of the XIIIth ICPhS, Stockholm (pp. 420-423).
22. Hombert J.M., Ohala J.J., and Ewan W.G. Phonetic explanations for the development of tones. Language 55 (1979) 37-58
23. Hooper, J. B. (1976). Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. In Christie, W. (Ed.), Current progress in historical linguistics, Amsterdam (pp. 96-105).
24. Hsu, H., & Huang, C. (1995). Design criteria for a balanced modern Chinese corpus. In Proceedings of ICCPOL'95, Hawaii.
25. Huang, C., & Chen, K. (1992). A Chinese corpus for linguistics research. In Proceedings of the 1992 international conference on computational linguistics (COLING-92), Nantes, France (pp. 1214-1217).
26. Huang, S. L. (1997). A Chinese talking syllabary of the Cantonese dialect. Available online at: 〈http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Canton2/〉.
27. Jescheniak J.D., and Levelt W.J.M. Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 20 (1994) 824-843
28. Junqua J.C. The Lombard reflex and its role on human listeners and automatic speech recognizer. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 93 (1993) 510-524
29. Jurafsky D., Bell A., Gregory M., and Raymond W. Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In: Bybee J., and Hopper P. (Eds). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (2001), Benjamins, Amsterdam
30. Jurafsky, D. (2003). Probabilistic modeling in psycholinguistics: Linguistic comprehension and production. In Rens Bod, Jennifer Hay, & Stefanie Jannedy (Eds.), Probabilistic linguistics (pp. 39-96). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
31. Kochanski G., and Shih C. Prosody modeling with soft templates. Speech Communication 39 3-4 (2003) 311-352
32. Khouw E., and Ciocca V. Perceptual correlates of Cantonese tones. Journal of Phonetics 35 (2007) 104-117
33. Lane H.L., and Tranel B. The Lombard sign and the role of hearing in speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 14 (1971) 677-709
34. LDC. Hong Kong news parallel text (2000), Linguistic Data Consortium
35. Letowski T., Frank T., and Caravella J. Acoustical properties of speech produced in noise through supra-aural headphone. Ear and Hearing 14 (1993) 332-338
36. Liberman P. Some effects of the semantic and grammatical context on the production and perception of speech. Language and Speech 6 (1963) 172-175
37. Lindblom B. Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H&H theory. In: Hardcastle W.J., and Marchal A. (Eds). Speech production and speech modeling (1990), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands 403-439
38. Lombard E. Le signe de l'elevation de la voix. Annales de Maladies de L'oreille et du Larynx 37 (1911) 101-119
39. Lu Y., and Cooke M. Lombard speech: Effects of task and noise type. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123 5 (2008) 3072
40. Ma Z. Xiandai Hanyu Xuci Yanjiu Fangfalun (Research methodology for the study of functional words in modern Chinese) (2004), Commercial Publishing House, Beijing
41. Munson, B. (2007). Lexical access, lexical representation and vowel production. In Papers in Laboratory Phonology 10.
42. Munson B., and Solomon N.P. The effects of phonological neighborhood density on vowel articulation. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47 (2004) 1048-1058
43. Nenkova, A., Brenier, J., Kothari, A., Calhoun, S., Whitton, L., Beaver, D., & Jurafsky, D. (2007). To memorize or to predict: prominence labeling in conversational speech. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT.
44. Norris D. The Bayesian reader: Explaining word recognition as an optimal Bayesian decision process. Psychological Review 113 2 (2006) 327-357
45. Norris D., and McQueen J.M. Shortlist B: A Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. Psychological Review 115 2 (2008) 357-395
46. Pan, S., & Hirschberg, J. (2000). Modeling local context for pitch accent prediction. In Proceedings of the ACL.
47. Patel R., and Schell K. The influence of linguistic content on the Lombard effect. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 51 (2008) 209-220
48. Patterson D., and Connine C. Variant frequency in flap production. Phonetica 58 (2001) 254-275
49. Picheny M.A., Durlach N.I., and Braida L.D. Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing: II. Acoustic characteristics of clear and conversational speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 29 (1986) 434-446
50. Pierrehumbert J. Word-specific phonetics. In: Gussenhoven C., and Warner N. (Eds). Laboratory phonology, Vol. 7 (2002), Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York 87-99
51. Pluymaekers M., Ernestus M., and Baayen R.H. Articulatory planning is continuous and sensitive to informational redundancy. Phonetica 62 (2005) 146-159
52. Raymond W.D., Dautricourt R., and Hume E. Word-internal /t,d/ deletion in spontaneous speech: Modeling the effects of extra-linguistic, lexical, and phonological factors. Language Variation and Change 18 (2006) 55-97
53. Rhodes R.A. English reduced vowels and the nature of natural processes. In: Hurch B., and Rhodes R.A. (Eds). Natural phonology: The state of the art (1996), Mouton de Gruyter, The Hague 239-259
54. Rhodes, R.A. (1992). Flapping in American English. In W. U. Dressler, M. Prinzhorn, & J. Rennison (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh international phonology meeting (pp. 217-232).
55. Rostolland D. Acoustic features of shouted voice. Acoustica 50 (1982) 118-125
56. Scarborough, R. (2004). Coarticulation and the structure of the lexicon. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, UCLA.
57. Schuchardt, H. (1885). Uber die Lautgesetze: Gegen die Junggrammatiker. Excerpted with English translation. Reprinted in T. Vennemann, & T. H. Wilbur, (Eds.), 1972. Schuchardt: The Neogrammarians, and the transformational theory of phonological change. Frankfurt: Athenaum Verlag.
58. Strom, V., Nenkova, A., Clark, R., Vazquez-Alvarez, Y., Brenier, J., King, S., & Jurafsky, D. (2007). Modelling prominence and emphasis improves unit-selection synthesis. In Proceedings of Interspeech.
59. Summers W.V., Pisoni D., Bernacki R., Pedlow R., and Stokes M. Effects of noise on speech production: Acoustic and perceptual analysis. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 84 3 (1988) 917-928
60. Van Son R.J.J.H., and Pols L.C.W. How efficient is speech?. Proceedings of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences 25 (2003) 171-184
61. Van Son, R. J. J. H., Koopmans-van Beinum, F. J. & Pols, L. C. W. (1998). Efficiency as an organizing principle of natural speech. In Proceedings of ICSLP 98, Sydney.
62. Vance T.J. Tonal distinction in Cantonese. Phonetica 34 (1977) 93-107
63. Wright R. Factors of lexical competition in vowel articulation. In: Local R., Ogden R., and Temple R. (Eds). Phonetic interpretation: Papers in laboratory phonology VI (2003), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 75-87
64. Whitehill T.L., Ciocca V., and Chow T.Y. Acoustic analysis of lexical tone contrast in dysarthria. Journal of Medical Speech and Language Pathology 8 (2000) 337-344
65. Xu Y. Sources of tonal variations in connected speech. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, Monograph Series 17 (2001) 1-31
66. Xu Y. Contextual tonal variations in Mandarin. Journal of Phonetics 25 (1997) 61-83
67. Xu, Y. (2006). Time-normalized f0 praat script. Available at 〈http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/yi/_TimeNormalizeF0.praat〉.
68. Zhang B. Xiandai Hanyu Xuci Cidian (Dictionary of functional words in modern Chinese) (2003), Commercial Publishing House, Beijing
69. Zipf G. Relative frequency as a determinant of phonetic change. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 15 (1929) 1-95