Lexical competition in vowel articulation revisited: Vowel dispersion in the Easy/Hard database

Journal of Phonetics

Volumn 49, Issue , 2015, Pages 96-116

  Gahl, Susanne ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Coarticulation; Intelligibility; Language production; Phonological neighbourhood density; Pronunciation; Vowel dispersion; Vowel formants

Indexed keywords

EID: 84921047215     PISSN: 00954470     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2014.12.002     Document Type: Article

References (92)

1. Akaike H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 1974, 19:716-723.
2. Arnold J.E., Tanenhaus M.K., Altmann R.J., Fagnano M. The old and thee, uh, new: Disfluency and reference resolution. Psychological Science 2004, 15:578-582.
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. 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. Storage and computation in the mental lexicon. The mental lexicon: Core perspectives 2007, 81-104. Elsevier, Amsterdam. G. Jarema, G. Libben (Eds.).
7. 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.
8. Baese-Berk M., Goldrick M. Mechanisms of interaction in speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes 2009, 24:527-554.
9. Balota D.A., Boland J.E., Shields L.W. Priming in pronunciation: Beyond pattern recognition and onset latency. Journal of Memory and Language 1989, 28:14-36.
10. Balota D.A., Chumbley J.I. The locus of word-frequency effects in the pronunciation task: Lexical access and/or production?. Journal of Memory & Language 1985, 24:89-106.
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 & Language 2000, 42:1-22.
12. Barr D., Levy R., Scheepers C., Tily H.J. Random effects stucture for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 2013, 68:255-278.
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. Beddor P.S. Phonological and phonetic effects of nasalization on vowel height 1983, (unpublished dissertation), Indiana University, Bloomington.
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. Bradlow A.R., Pisoni D.B. Recognition of spoken words by native and non-native listeners: Talker-, listener-, and item-related factors. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1999, 106:2074-2085.
18. 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.
19. Bybee J. Phonology and language use 2001, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
20. Byrd D. Relations of sex and dialect to reduction. Speech Communication 1994, 15:39-54.
21. Chen M.Y. Acoustic correlates of English and French nasalized vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1997, 102:2360-2370.
22. Chen Q., Mirman D. Competition and cooperation among similar representations: Toward a unified account of facilitative and inhibitory effects of lexical neighbors. Psychological Review 2012, 119:417-430.
23. Clopper C.G., Pisoni D.B., de Jong K. Acoustic characteristics of the vowel systems of six regional varieties of American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2005, 118:1661-1676.
24. Clopper C.G., Tamati T.N. Effects of local lexical competition and regional dialect on vowel production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2014, 136:1-4.
25. 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 De Gruyter, New York. N.O. Schiller, A.S. Meyer (Eds.).
26. Ferguson S.H. Talker differences in clear and conversational speech: Acoustic characteristics of vowels. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2007, 50:1241-1255.
27. Flemming E. The phonetics of schwa vowels. Phonological weakness in English 2010, 78-95. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndsville. D. Minova (Ed.).
28. Flemming E. Modeling listeners: Comments on Pluymaekers et al. and Scarborough. Laboratory phonology 2010, 10:587-606. Mouton De Gruyter, Berlin.
29. Fourakis M. Tempo, stress, and vowel reduction in American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1991, 90:1816-1827.
30. Frauenfelder U.H., Baayen H., Hellwig F.M., Schreuder R. Neighborhood density and frequency across languages and modalities. Journal of Memory and Language 1993, 32:781-804.
31. Gahl S. "Time" and "thyme" are not homophones: Word durations in spontaneous speech. Language 2008, 84:474-496.
32. Gahl S., Yao Y., Johnson K. Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language 2012, 66:789-806.
33. Gelman A., Hill J. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models 2006, Cambrige University Press, Cambrige.
34. Goldrick M., Vaughn C., Murphy A. The effects of lexical neighbors on stop consonant articulation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2013, 134:EL172-EL177.
35. Gordon J. The aging neighborhood: Phonological density in naming. Language and Cognitive Processes 2014, 29:326-344.
36. Harrell F.E. Regression modeling strategies: With applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis 2001, Springer, New York.
37. Harrington J. Acoustic phonetics. The handbook of phonetic sciences 2010, 81-129. Blackwell, Oxford. 2nd ed. J. Laver, W.J. Hardcastle (Eds.).
38. Hawkins S. Roles and representations of systematic fine phonetic details in speech understanding. Journal of Phonetics 2003, 31:373-405.
39. Hawkins S., Slater A. Spread of CV and V-to-V coarticulation in British English: Implications for the intelligibility of synthetic speech. ICSLP 1994, 1:57-60.
40. Hillenbrand J.M., Clark M.J., Nearey T.M. Effects of consonant environment on vowel formant patterns. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2001, 109:748-763.
41. Howes D. On the relation between the intelligibility and frequency of occurrence of English words. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1957, 29:296-305.
42. Jescheniak J.D., 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 1994, 20:824-843.
43. Joos M. Acoustic phonetics 1948, Linguistic Society of America, Baltimore.
44. 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.
45. Kessler B., Treiman R. Syllable structure and the distribution of phonemes in English syllables. Journal of Memory and Language 1997, 37:295-311.
46. Kilanski K. The effects of token frequency and phonological neighborhood density on native and non-native speech production 2009, University of Washington, Seattle.
47. Krause J., Braida L. Acoustic properties of naturally produced clear speech at normal speaking rates. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2004, 115:362-378.
48. Labov W., Ash S., Boberg C. Atlas of North American English: Phonetics, phonology and sound change 2005, Mouton De Gruyter, Berlin, New York.
49. Levelt W.J.M. Speaking: From intention to articulation 1989, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, US.
50. Levelt W.J.M., Roelofs A., Meyer A.S. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1999, 22:1-75.
51. Lindblom B. Economy of speech gestures. The production of speech 1983, 217-245. Springer, New York. P. MacNeilage (Ed.).
52. 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.).
53. Luce P.A., Pisoni D.B. Neigborhoods of words in the mental lexicon. Research on speech perception technical report No. 6 1987, Speech Research Laboratory, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
54. Luce P.A., Pisoni D.B. Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear & Hearing 1998, 19:1-36.
55. 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.).
56. 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.
57. Munson B. Lexical access, lexical representation, and vowel production. Laboratory phonology 9: Phonology and phonetics 2007, 201-227. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. J. Cole, J.I. Hualde (Eds.).
58. Munson B., Solomon N.P. The effect of phonological neighborhood density on vowel articulation. Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2004, 47:1048-1058.
59. Neel A.T. Vowel space characteristics and vowel identification accuracy. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2008, 51:574-585.
60. Nusbaum H.C., Pisoni D.B., Davis C.K. Sizing up the Hoosier mental lexicon: Measuring the familiarity of 20,000 words. Research on Speech perception progress report 1984, Vol. 10. Psychology Department, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
61. Oldfield R.C., Wingfield A. Response latencies in naming objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1965, 17:273-281.
62. Pierrehumbert J.B. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Typological studies in language 2001, Vol. 45:137-157. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
63. Pierrehumbert J.B. Word-specific phonetics. Laboratory phonology 2002, Vol. VII:101-140. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
64. 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.
65. Pluymaekers M., Ernestus M., Baayen H. Articulatory planning is continuous and sensitive to informational redundancy. Phonetica 2005, 62:146-159.
66. Pluymaekers M., Ernestus M., Baayen H. Lexical frequency and acoustic reduction in spoken Dutch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2005, 118:2561-2569.
67. R Development Core Team. (2008). R: A language and environment fo statistical computing. Vienna, Austria. , . http://www.R-project.org.
68. Salverda A.P., Dahan D., McQueen J.M. The role of prosodic boundaries in the resolution of lexical embedding in speech comprehension. Cognition 2003, 90:51-89.
69. Scarborough R.A. Lexical and contextual predictability: Confluent effects on the production of vowels. Laboratory phonology 2010, 10:557-586. De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin, New York.
70. Scarborough R.A. Neighborhood-conditioned patterns in phonetic detail: Relating coarticulation and hyperarticulation. Journal of Phonetics 2013, 41:491-508.
71. Stack J., Strange W., Jenkins J.J., Clarke W.D., Trent S.A. Perceptual invariance of coarticulated vowels over variations in speaking rate. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2006, 119:2394-2405.
72. Stephenson, L. (2004). Lexical frequency and neighbourhood density effects on vowel produciton in words and nonwords. In Proceedings of the 10th Australian international conference on speech science & technology (pp. 364-369). Macquarie University, Sydney.
73. Stevens K.N., House A.S. Perturbation of vowel articulations by consonantal context: An acoustical study. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 1963, 6:111-128.
74. Strand J., Sommers M. Sizing up the competition: Quantifying the influence of the mental lexicon on auditory and visual spoken word recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2011, 130:1663-1672.
75. Strange W., Weber A., Levy E.S., Shafiro V., Hisagi M. Acoustic variability within and across German, French, and American English vowels: Phonetic context effects. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2007, 122:1111-1129.
76. Thomas E. An acoustic analysis of vowel variation in New World English 2001, Duke University Press, Durham, NC.
77. Torretta G. The "easy-hard" word multi-talker speech database: An initial report. Research on spoken language processing progress report 1995, Vol. 20:321-333. Speech Research Laboratory, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
78. Tremblay, A., & Ransijn, J. (2013). LMERConvenienceFunctions: A suite of functions to back-fit fixed effects and forward-fit random effects, as well as other miscellaneous functions (2.5 ed.).
79. Tunley A. Coarticulatory influences of liquids on vowels in English 1999, University of Cambridge.
80. Uchanski R. Clear speech. The handbook of speech perception 2008, 207-235. Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA. D.B. Pisoni, R.E. Remez (Eds.).
81. Ueda Y., Hamakawa T., Sakata T., Hario S., Watanabe A. A real-time formant tracker based on the inverse filter control method. Acoustical Science and Technology of the Acoustical Science of Japan 2007, 28:271-274.
82. Vinet A.R. Homiletics; or, the theory of preaching 1870, Ivison & Phinney, New York. 3rd ed.
83. Vitevitch M.S. The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2002, 28:735-747.
84. 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.
85. Vitevitch M.S., Luce P.A. When words compete: Levels of processing in perception of spoken words. Psychological Science 1998, 9:325-329.
86. Vitevitch M.S., Luce P.A. Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood activation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 1999, 40:374-408.
87. Vitevitch M.S., Luce P.A., Pisoni D.B., Auer E.T. Phonotactics, neighborhood activation, and lexical access for spoken words. Brain and language 1999, 68:306-311.
88. 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.
89. Watanabe A. Formant estimation method using inverse filter control. IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing 2001, 9:317-326.
90. 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).
91. Wright R. Factors of lexical competition in vowel articulation. Papers in laboratory phonology 2004, VI:26-50. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
92. Yuan, J., & Liberman, M. (2008). Speaker identification on the SCOTUS corpus. In Proceedings of acoustics 2008, pp. 5687-5690.