Semantic context effects in the comprehension of reduced pronunciation variants

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 39, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 1301-1316

  van de Ven, Marco ^a   Tucker, Benjamin V ^b   Ernestus, Mirjam ^a,c  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^c RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Acoustic reduction; English; Latent semantic analysis; Semantic priming; Speech perception; Word recognition

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPREHENSION; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; PHONETICS; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGIC TEST; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION; SEMANTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

COMPREHENSION; HUMANS; PHONETICS; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SEMANTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 84856458348     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: 15325946     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13421-011-0103-2     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Andruski, J., Blumstein, S., & Burton, M. (1994). The effect of subphonetic differences on lexical access. Cognition, 52, 163-187.
2. Aydelott, J., & Bates, E. (2004). Effects of acoustic distortion and semantic context on lexical access. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19, 29-56.
3. Aydelott, J., Dick, F., & Mills, D. L. (2006). Effects of acoustic distortion and semantic context on event-related potentials to spoken words. Psychophysiology, 43, 454-464.
4. Aydelott-Utman, J., Blumstein, S., & Burton, M. (2000). Effects of subphonetic and syllable structure variation on word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1297-1311.
5. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.
6. Becker, C. (1979). Semantic context and word frequency effects in visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 5, 252-259.
7. Bradlow, A. R., & Alexander, J. A. (2007). Semantic and phonetic enhancements for speech-in-noise recognition by native and non-native listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121, 2339-2349.
8. Carroll, J. B. (1967). On sampling from a lognormal model of word frequency distribution. In H. Kučera & W. N. Francis (Eds.), Computational analysis of present-day American English (pp. 406-424). Providence: Brown University Press.
9. Davies, M. (2008). The corpus of contemporary American English (coca): 385 million words, 1990-present [On-line], Retrieved from http://www. americancorpus. org.
10. Deerwester, S., Dumais, S. T., Furnas, G. W., Landauer, T. K., & Harshman, R. (1990). Indexing by latent semantic analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41, 391-407.
11. Donnenwerth-Nolan, S., Tanenhaus, M., & Seidenberg, M. (1981). Multiple code activation in word recognition: Evidence from rhyme monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 170-180.
12. Ernestus, M. (2000). Voice assimilation and segment reduction in casual Dutch: A corpus-based study of the phonology-phonetics interface. Utrecht: LOT.
13. Ernestus, M., Baayen, R., & Schreuder, R. (2002). The recognition of reduced word forms. Brain and Language, 81, 162-173.
14. Hawkins, S., & Smith, R. (2001). Polysp: A polysystemic, phonetically-rich approach to speech understanding. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 13, 99-188.
15. Jaeger, F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434-446.
16. Johnson, K. (2004). Massive reduction in conversational American English. In Spontaneous speech: Data and analysis. Proceedings of the 1st session of the 10th international symposium (pp. 29-54). Tokyo: National International Institute for Japanese Language.
17. Kemps, R., Ernestus, M., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. (2004). Processing reduced word forms: The suffix restoration effect. Brain and Language, 19, 117-127.
18. Landauer, T. (1998). Lsa@cuboulder [Online], Retrieved from http://lsa. colorado. edu.
19. Landauer, T., & Dumais, S. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240.
20. Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1987). Functional parallelism in spoken wordrecognition. Cognition, 25, 71-102.
21. McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1-86.
22. Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90, 227-234.
23. Norris, D., Cutler, A., McQueen, J., & Butterfield, S. (2006). Phonological and conceptual activation in speech comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 53, 146-193.
24. Rayner, K., Ashby, J., & Pollatsek, A. (2004). The effects of frequency and predictability on eye fixations in reading: Implications for the E-Z reader model. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 30, 720-732.
25. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2007). E-Prime getting started guide. Psychology software tools.
26. van de Ven, M., Ernestus, M., & Schreuder, R. (2011). Contextual influences in the understanding of spontaneous speech. Manuscript submitted for publication.
27. van de Ven, M., Tucker, B., & Ernestus, M. (2009). Semantic context effects in the recognition of acoustically unreduced and reduced words. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (pp. 1867-1870). Brighton.
28. van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1990). Interactions between sentence context and word frequency in event-related brain potentials. Memory & Cognition, 18, 380-393.