Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech

Journal of Memory and Language

Volumn 66, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 789-806

  Gahl, Susanne ^a   Yao, Yao ^b   Johnson, Keith ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

Audience design; Language production; Lexical access; Lexical neighborhood; Pronunciation variation; Spontaneous speech corpus

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862252508     PISSN: 0749596X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2011.11.006     Document Type: Article

References (104)

1. Anderson J.R. Spread of activation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1983, 10:791-798.
2. Arnold J.E. Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Language and Cognitive Processes 2008, 23(4):495-527.
3. Aylett M., Turk A. The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech 2004, 47:31-56.
4. Aylett M., Turk A. Language redundancy predicts syllabic duration and the spectral characteristics of vocalic syllable nuclei. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2006, 119:3048-3058.
5. Baayen H. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to Statistics using R 2008, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
6. Baayen, H. (2008b). languageR: Data sets and functions with " Analyzing Linguistic Data: A practical introduction to statistics" (Version 0.953).
7. Baayen H., Davidson D.J., Bates D.M. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 59:390-412.
8. Baayen, H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM).
9. Baayen H., Wurm L.H., Aycock J. Lexical dynamics for low-frequency words: A regression study across tasks and modalities. The Mental Lexicon 2007, 2:419-463.
10. Baese-Berk M., Goldrick M. Mechanisms of interaction in speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes 2009, 24:527-554.
11. Bard E.G., Anderson A.H., Sotillo C., Aylett M., Doherty-Sneddon G., Newlands A. Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language 2000, 42(1):1-22.
12. Bard E.G., Aylett M.P. Referential form, word duration, and modeling the listener in spoken dialogue. Approaches to studying world-situated language use 2005, 173-191. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. J.C. Trueswell, M.K. Tanenhaus (Eds.).
13. Bates, D., & Maechler, M. (2010). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-33. <>. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.
14. Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Dai, B. (2008). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-28. <>. http://lme4.r-forge.r-project.org.
15. Bell A., Brenier J., Gregory M., Girand C., Jurafsky D. Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language 2009, 60:92-111.
16. Bell A., Jurafsky D., Fosler-Lussier E., Girand C., Gregory M., Gildea D. Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2003, 113:1001-1024.
17. Belsley D.A., Kuh E., Welsch R.E. Regression diagnostics. Identifying influential data and sources of collinearity 1980, Wiley, New York.
18. Bent T., Bradlow A.R., Smith B.L. Production and perception of temporal patterns in native and non-native speech. Phonetica 2008, 65:131-147.
19. Boersma, P., & Weenik, D. (2002-2005). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 4.3.04) (Version 4.0.26). Amsterdam.
20. Bradlow A.R., Torretta G., Pisoni D.B. Intelligibility of normal speech I: Global and fine-grained acoustic-phonetic talker characteristics. Speech Communication 1996, 20:255-272.
21. Brennan S.E., Clark H.H. Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1996, 22:1482-1493.
22. Brysbaert M., New B. Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods 2009, 41:977-990.
23. Bybee J. Phonology and language use 2001, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
24. Clark, H. H., Brennan, S. E., Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M., & Teasley, S. D. (1991). Grounding in communication perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127-149). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
25. Clopper C.G., Pierrehumbert J.B. Effects of semantic predictability and regional dialect on vowel space reduction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2008, 124:1682-1688.
26. Coltheart M. The MRC psycholinguistic database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1981, 33:497-505.
27. Crystal T.H., House A.S. Segmental durations in connected-speech signals: Current results. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1988, 83:1553-1573.
28. Damian M.F. Articulatory duration in single-word speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2003, 29:416-431.
29. Dell G.S. A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review 1986, 93(3):283-321.
30. Dell G.S., Gordon J.K. Neighbors in the lexicon: Friends or foes?. Phonetics and phonology in language comprehension and production 2003, 9-47. Mouton, New York. N.O. Schiller, A.S. Meyer (Eds.).
31. Dell G.S., Schwartz M.F., Martin N., Saffran E.M., Gagnon D.A. Lexical access in aphasic and nonaphasic speakers. Psychological Review 1997, 104:801-838.
32. Ferreira V.S. Ambiguity, accessibility, and a division of labor for communicative success. The psychology of learning and motivation 2008, 210-246. Elsevier, Amsterdam. B.H. Ross (Ed.).
33. Ferreira V.S., Dell G.S. Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology 2000, 40:296-340.
34. Flemming E. Modeling listeners: Comments on Pluymaekers et al. and Scarborough. Laboratory phonology 10 2010, 587-606. Mouton, Berlin. C. Fougeron, B. Kühnert, M. D'Imperio, N. Vallée (Eds.).
35. Fosler-Lussier E., Morgan N. Effects of speaking rate and word predictability on conversational pronunciations. Speech Communication 1999, 29:137-158.
36. Fowler C.A. Differential shortening of repeated content words produced in various communicative contexts. Language and Speech 1988, 31(4):307-319.
37. Fowler C.A., Housum J. Talkers' signaling of " new" and " old" words in speech and listeners' perception and use of the distinction. Journal of Memory and Language 1987, 26(5):489-504.
38. Fox Tree J.E., Clark H.H. Pronouncing " the" as " thee" to signal problems in speaking. Cognition 1997, 62:151-167.
39. Gahl S., Garnsey S.M. Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. Language 2004, 80(4):748-775.
40. Gahl S. " Time" and " thyme" are not homophones: Word durations in spontaneous speech. Language 2008, 84:474-496.
41. Gahl, S. (2009). Homophone duration in spontaneous speech: A mixed-effects model (pp. 279-298). UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report.
42. Galati A., Brennan S.E. Attenuating information in spoken communication: For the speaker, or for the addressee?. Journal of Memory and Language 2010, 62:35-51.
43. Geffen G., Luszcz M.A. Are the spoken durations of rare words longer than those of common words?. Memory & Cognition 1983, 11:13-15.
44. Gernsbacher M.A. Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1984, 113(2):256-281.
45. Goldinger, S. D., & Summers, W. V. (1989). Lexical neighborhoods in speech production: A first report. Bloomington, IN: Speech Research Laboratory, Indiana University.
46. Goldrick M., Folk J.R., Rapp B. Mrs. Malaprop's neighborhood: Using word errors to reveal neighborhood structure. Journal of Memory and Language 2010, 62:113-134.
47. Gordon J.K. Phonological neighborhood effects in aphasic speech errors: Spontaneous and structured contexts. Brain and Language 2002, 82:113-145.
48. Guion S. Word frequency effects among homonyms. Texas Linguistic Forum 1995, 35:103-116.
49. Hunnicutt S. Intelligibility vs. redundancy - Conditions of dependency. Language and Speech 1985, 28:47-56.
50. Jaeger F. Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 2010, 61:23-62.
51. Johnson, K. (2004). Massive reduction in conversational American English. In K. Yoneyama & K. Maekawa (Eds.), Spontaneous speech: Data and analysis. Proceedings of the 1st session of the 10th international symposium (pp. 29-54). Tokyo: The National International Institute for Japanese Language.
52. Jurafsky D. Probabilistic modeling in psycholinguistics: Linguistic comprehension and production. Probabilistic linguistics 2003, 39-95. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. R. Bod, J. Hay, S. Jannedy (Eds.).
53. Kello C.T., Plaut D.C. Strategic control in word reading: Evidence from speeded responding in the tempo-naming task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2000, 26:719-750.
54. Kello C.T., Plaut D.C. Strategic control over rate of processing in word reading: A computational investigation. Journal of Memory and Language 2003, 48:207-232.
55. Kilanski, K. (2009). The effects of token frequency and phonological neighborhood density on native and non-native speech production. Seattle: University of Washington.
56. Kučera H., Francis W. Computational analysis of present-day American English 1967, Brown University Press, Providence, RI.
57. Levy, R., & Jaeger, F. (2007). Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In Paper presented at the twentieth annual conference on neural information processing systems.
58. Lieberman P. Some effects of semantic and grammatical context on the production and perception of speech. Language and Speech 1963, 6:172-187.
59. Lindblom, B. (1964). Articulatory activity in vowels. Speech, music and hearing. Quarterly Progress Report, 1, 1-15.
60. Lindblom B. Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H&H theory. Speech production and speech modeling 1990, 403-439. Kluwer, Dordrecht. W.J. Hardcastle, A. Marchal (Eds.).
61. Lockridge C.B., Brennan S.E. Addressees' needs influence speakers' early syntactic choices. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2002, 9:550-557.
62. Luce P.A., Pisoni D.B., Goldinger S.D. Similarity neighborhoods of spoken words. Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives 1990, 122-147. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, US. G.T.M. Altmann (Ed.).
63. Luce P.A., Pisoni D.B. Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing 1998, 19:1-36.
64. McClelland J.L., Elman J.L. The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology 1986, 18:1-86.
65. Moon S.-J., Lindblom B. Interaction between duration, context, and speaking style in English stressed vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1994, 96:40-55.
66. Munson B. Lexical access, lexical representation, and vowel production. Laboratory phonology 9: Phonology and phonetics 2007, 201-227. Mouton, Berlin. J. Cole, J.I. Hualde (Eds.).
67. Munson B., Solomon N.P. The effect of phonological neighborhood density on vowel articulation. Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2004, 47:1048-1058.
68. Norris D. Shortlist: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition 1994, 52:189-234.
69. Nusbaum, H. C., Pisoni, D. B., & Davis, C. K. (1984). Sizing up the Hoosier mental lexicon: Measuring the familiarity of 20,000 words. Bloomington, IN: Psychology Department, Indiana University.
70. Peramunage D., Blumstein S.E., Myers E.B., Goldrick M., Baese-Berk M. Phonological neighborhood effects in spoken word production: An fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2010, 23:593-603.
71. Peterson G.E., Lehiste I. Duration of syllable nuclei in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1960, 32:693-703.
72. Picheny M.A., Durlach N.I. Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing I. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 1985, 28:96-103.
73. Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In Bybee, Joan & Hopper, Paul (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Typological studies in language (Vol. 45, pp. 137-157). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
74. Pisoni D.B., Nusbaum H.C., Luce P.A., Slowiaczek L.M. Speech perception, word recognition and the structure of the lexicon. Speech Communication 1985, 4:75-95.
75. Pitt M.A., Johnson K., Hume E., Kiesling S., Raymond W. The Buckeye corpus of conversational speech: Labeling conventions and a test of transcriber reliability. Speech Communication 2005, 45:89-95.
76. Pitt, M. A., Dilley, L., Johnson, K., Kiesling, S., Raymond, W., Hume, E., et al. (2007). Buckeye corpus of conversational speech (2nd release). <>. http://www.buckeyecorpus.osu.edu.
77. Quené H. Multilevel modeling of between-speaker and within-speaker variation in spontaneous speech tempo. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2008, 123(2):1104-1113.
78. R Development Core Team (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria. ISBN: 3-900051-07-0. <>. http://www.R-project.org.
79. Scarborough, R. A. (2005). Coarticulation and the structure of the lexicon. Doctoral dissertation, UCLA Department of Linguistics, 2004. Dissertation abstracts international, A 66(02), 574.
80. Scarborough, R. A. (2009). Lexical similarity and speech production: Neighborhoods for nonwords. In Paper presented at the NELS workshop on phonological similarity.
81. Scarborough R.A. Lexical and contextual predictability: Confluent effects on the production of vowels. Laboratory phonology 10 2010, 557-586. De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin, New York. L. Goldstein, D.H. Whalen, C.T. Best (Eds.).
82. Schuchardt H. über die Lautgesetze: Gegen die Junggrammatiker 1885, R. Oppenheim, Berlin.
83. Smiljanić R., Bradlow A.R. Stability of temporal contrasts across speaking styles in English and Croatian. Journal of Phonetics 2008, 36:91-113.
84. Stemberger J.P. Neighbourhood effects on error rates in speech production. Brain and Language 2004, 90:413-422.
85. Tily H., Gahl S., Arnon I., Snider N., Kothari A., Bresnan J. Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation in spontaneous speech. Language and Cognition 2009, 1(2):147-164.
86. Torretta, G. (1995). The " easy-hard" word multi-talker speech database: An initial report research on spoken language processing progress report (Vol. 20, pp. 321-333). Bloomington, IN: Speech Research Laboratory, Indiana University.
87. van Son, R. J. J. H., & Pols, L. C. W. (2003). Information structure and efficiency in speech production. In Paper presented at the 2003 Eurospeech conference, Geneva, Switzerland.
88. Vitevitch M.S. The neighborhood characteristics of malapropisms. Language and Speech 1997, 40:211-228.
89. Vitevitch M.S. The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2002, 28:735-747.
90. Vitevitch M.S., Armbrüster J., Chu S. Sublexical and lexical representations in speech production: Effects of phonotactic probability and onset density. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2004, 30:514-529.
91. Vitevitch M.S., Luce P.A. When words compete: Levels of processing in perception of spoken words. Psychological Science 1998, 9:325-329.
92. Vitevitch M.S., Luce P.A. A Web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 2004, 36:481-487.
93. Vitevitch M.S., Sommers M.S. The facilitative influence of phonological similarity and neighborhood frequency in speech production in younger and older adults. Memory & Cognition 2003, 31:491-504.
94. Wardlow Lane L., Ferreira V.S. Speaker-external versus speaker-internal forces on utterance form: Do cognitive demands override threats to referential success?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2008, 34:1466-1481.
95. Wardlow Lane L., Groisman M., Ferreira V.S. Don't talk about pink elephants! Speakers' control over leaking private information during language production. Psychological Science 2006, 17:273-277.
96. Warner N., Jongman A., Sereno J., Kemps R. Incomplete neutralization and other sub-phonemic durational differences in production and perception: Evidence from Dutch. Journal of Phonetics 2004, 32:251-276.
97. Warren P. Prosody and parsing: An introduction. Language and Cognitive Processes 1996, 11:1-16.
98. Watson, P. J., & Munson, B. (2007). A comparison of vowel acoustics between older and younger adults. In Proceedings of the 16th international congress of phonetic sciences (pp. 561-564).
99. Watson D., Gibson E. The relationship between intonational phrasing and syntactic structure in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes 2004, 19:713-755.
100. Whalen D.H. Infrequent words are longer in duration than frequent words. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1991, 90:2311.
101. Wilson, M. D. (1988). The MRC psycholinguistic database: Machine readable dictionary, version 2. Behavioural Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 20, 6-11.
102. Wright, R. (1997). Lexical competition and reduction in speech: A preliminary report. Indiana University research on spoken language processing progress report no. 21 (pp. 471-485).
103. Wright, R. (2004). Factors of lexical competition in vowel articulation. In J. Local, R. Ogden, & R. Temple (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology VI (pp. 26-50). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
104. Yao Y. Effects of neighborhood density on pronunciation variation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation 2011, University of California, Berkeley.