Audience design affects acoustic reduction via production facilitation

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 505-512

  Arnold, Jennifer E ^a,b   Kahn, Jason M ^a   Pancani, Giulia C ^a  

^a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Acoustic prominence; Audience design; Language production; Prosody; Reference

Indexed keywords

EID: 84860862499     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: 15315320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13423-012-0233-y     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Anderson, A. H., Bard, E. G., Sotillo, C., Newlands, A., & Doherty-Sneddon, G. (1997). Limited visual control of the intelligibility of speech in face-to-face dialogue. Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 580-592. doi: 10. 3758/BF03211866.
2. Audacity Team. (2011). Audacity (Version 1. 3 beta) [Computer program]. Retrieved January 11, 2011, from http://audacity. sourceforge. net.
3. Aylett, M., & Turk, A. (2004). The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 47, 31-56.
4. Balota, D. A., Boland, J. E., & Shields, L. W. (1989). Priming in pronunciation: Beyond pattern recognition and onset latency. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(1), 14-36.
5. Bard, E. G., Anderson, A. H., Sotillo, C., Aylett, M., Doherty-Sneddon, G., & Newlands, A. (2000). Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 1-22. doi: 10. 1006/jmla. 1999. 2667.
6. Bard, E. G., & Aylett, M. P. (2004). Referential form, word duration, and modeling the listener in spoken dialogue. In J. C. Trueswell & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Approaches to studying world-situated language use: Bridging the language-as-product and language-as-action traditions (pp. 173-191). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. Bell, A., Brenier, J. M., Gregory, M., Girand, C., & Jurafsky, D. (2009). Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 92-111. doi: 10. 1016/j. jml. 2008. 06. 003.
8. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2011). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5. 2. 01) [Computer program]. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from www. praat. org.
9. Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1482-1493. doi: 10. 1037/0278-7393. 22. 6. 1482.
10. Brennan, S. E., & Schober, M. F. (2001). How listeners compensate for disfluencies in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 274-296. doi: 10. 1006/jmla. 2000. 2753.
11. Clark, H. H., & Krych, M. A. (2004). Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 62-81. doi: 10. 1016/j. jml. 2003. 08. 004.
12. Clark, H. H., & Wasow, T. (1998). Repeating words in spontaneous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 37, 201-242.
13. Ferreira, V. S., & Dell, G. S. (2000). The effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology, 40, 296-340.
14. Galati, A., & Brennan, S. E. (2010). Attenuating information in spoken communication: For the speaker, or for the addressee?Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 35-51. doi: 10. 1016/j. jml. 2009. 09. 002.
15. Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions. Language, 69, 274-307.
16. Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English (Part 2). Journal of Linguistics, 3, 199-244.
17. Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59, 91-117.
18. Jurafsky, D., Bell, A., Gregory, M., & Raymond, W. D. (2001). Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 229-254). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
19. Kahn, J., & Arnold, J. E. (2011). Speakers reduce because of their own activated representations. Paper presented at the CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Stanford, CA.
20. Kahn, J., & Arnold, J. E. (2012). A processing-centered look at the contribution of givenness to durational reduction. Manuscript under review.
21. Lam, T. Q., & Watson, D. G. (2010). Repetition is easy: Why repeated referents have reduced prominence. Memory & Cognition, 38, 1137-1146. doi: 10. 3758/MC. 38. 8. 1137.
22. Levitan, R., Gravano, A., & Hirschberg, J. (2011). Entrainment in speech preceding backchannels. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (pp. 113-117). Portland, OR: Association for Computational Linguistics.
23. Lindblom, B. (1990). Explaining variation: A sketch of the H and H theory. In W. J. Hardcastle & A. Marchal (Eds.), Speech production and speech modelling (pp. 403-439). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
24. Smiljanic, R., & Bradlow, A. R. (2009). Speaking and hearing clearly: Talker and listener factors in speaking style changes. Linguistics and Language Compass, 3, 236-264.
25. Wagner, M., & Watson, D. G. (2010). Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: A review. Language & Cognitive Processes, 25, 905-945.
26. Watson, D. G., Arnold, J. E., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2008). Tic Tac TOE: Effects of predictability and importance on acoustic prominence in language production. Cognition, 106, 1548-1557. doi: 10. 1016/j. cognition. 2007. 06. 009.
27. Wright, R. A. (2004). Factors of lexical competition in vowel articulation. In J. J. Local, R. Ogden, & R. Temple (Eds.), Laboratory phonology (Vol. 6, pp. 26-50). Cambridge, U. K.: Cambridge University Press.