Phonological neighborhood competition affects spoken word production irrespective of sentential context

Journal of Memory and Language

Volumn 83, Issue , 2015, Pages 97-117

  Fox, Neal P ^a   Reilly, Megan ^a   Blumstein, Sheila E ^a  

^a BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Hyperarticulation; Neighborhood density; Phonological competition; Sentence context; Speech production; Voice onset time (VOT)

Indexed keywords

EID: 84929008954     PISSN: 0749596X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2015.04.002     Document Type: Article

References (91)

1. Alario F.X., Matos R.E., Segui J. Gender congruency effects in picture naming. Acta Psychologica 2004, 117:185-204.
2. Anderson A.H., Bard E.G., Sotillo C., Newlands A., Doherty-Sneddon G. Limited visual control of the intelligibility of speech in face-to-face dialogue. Perception & Psychophysics 1997, 59:580-592.
3. Arnold J.E., Kahn J.M., Pancani G.C. Audience design affects acoustic reduction via production facilitation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2012, 19:505-512.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Baayen R.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(4):390-412.
7. Baese-Berk M., Goldrick M. Mechanisms of interaction in speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes 2009, 24(4):527-554.
8. Barr D.J., Levy R., Scheepers C., Tily H.J. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 2013, 68:255-278.
9. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-7. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.
10. Bell A., Brenier J.M., 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(1):92-111.
11. Berndt R.S., Mitchum C.C., Haendiges A.N., Sandson J. Verb retrieval in aphasia. 1. Characterizing single word impairments. Brain and Language 1997, 56(1):68-106.
12. Bolinger D. Length, vowel, juncture. Linguistics 1963, 1:5-29.
13. Bradlow A.R., Alexander J.A. Semantic and phonetic enhancements for speech-in-noise recognition by native and non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2007, 121:2339-2349.
14. Brysbaert M., New B. Moving beyond Kucera 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.
15. Bullock-Rest N., Cerny A., Sweeney C., Palumbo C., Kurowski K., Blumstein S.E. Neural systems underlying the influence of sound shape properties of the lexicon on spoken word production: Do fMRI findings predict effects of lesions in aphasia?. Brain and Language 2013, 126(2):159-168.
16. Buz, E., & Jaeger, T. F. (2012). Effects of phonological confusability on speech duration. Poster at the 25th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing, New York, NY.
17. Buz, E., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Jaeger, T. F. (2015). Adaptive articulation: Production is sensitive to perceived communicative success. Poster at the 28th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing, Los Angeles, CA.
18. Chafe W. Language and consciousness. Language 1974, 50:111-133.
19. 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.
20. Cho T., Lee Y., Kim S. Communicatively driven versus prosodically driven hyperarticulation in Korean. Journal of Phonetics 2011, 39(3):344-361.
21. 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.
22. Cohen J. The cost of dichotomization. Applied Psychological Measurement 1983, 7:249-253.
23. Dell G.S. A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review 1986, 93:283-321.
24. Dell G.S., Oppenheim G.M., Kittredge A.K. Saying the right word at the right time: Syntagmatic and paradigmatic interference in sentence production. Language and Cognitive Processes 2008, 23:583-608.
25. Fay D., Cutler A. Malapropisms and the structure of the mental lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 1977, 8:505-520.
26. Fidelholtz, J. L. (1975, April). Word frequency and vowel reduction in English (Vol. 11, pp. 200-213). Chicago Linguistic Society.
27. Flemming E. Modeling listeners: Comments on Pluymaekers et al. and Scarborough. Laboratory phonology 2010, Vol. 10:587-606. Mouton de Gruyter, New York.
28. Fowler C., 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, 26:489-504.
29. Fricke, M. (2013). Phonological encoding and phonetic duration. Ph.D. Thesis. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.
30. Gahl S. Time and thyme are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language 2008, 84(3):474-496.
31. Gahl S. Lexical competition in vowel articulation revisited: Vowel dispersion in the Easy/Hard database. Journal of Phonetics 2015, 49:96-116.
32. Gahl S., Garnsey S.M. Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation. Language 2004, 80(4):748-775.
33. Gahl S., Garnsey S.M. Knowledge of grammar includes knowledge of syntactic probabilities. Language 2006, 82(2):405-410.
34. 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.
35. Goldin, G., & Darlow, A. (2013). TurkGate (version 0.4.0). http://gideongoldin.github.com/TurkGate/.
36. Goldinger S.D., Luce P.A., Pisoni D.B. Priming lexical neighbors of spoken words: Effects of competition and inhibition. Journal of Memory and Language 1989, 28:501-518.
37. Goldinger S., Summers W. Lexical neighborhoods in speech production: A first report. Research on Speech Perception Progress Report. Psychology Department, Speech Research Laboratory, Indiana University 1989, 15:331-342.
38. Goldrick M. Limited interaction in speech production: Chronometric, speech error and neuropsychological evidence. Language and Cognitive Processes 2006, 21:817-855.
39. 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.
40. Goldrick M., Vaughn C., Murphy A. The effects of lexical neighbors on stop consonant articulation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2013, 134(2):EL172-EL177.
41. Hawkins S., Warren P. Phonetic influences on the intelligibility of conversational speech. Journal of Phonetics 1994, 22:493-511.
42. Heller, J. R. (2014). Contextual constraints on phonological activation during sentence production. Ph.D. Thesis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
43. Heller J.R., Goldrick M. Grammatical constraints on phonological encoding in speech production. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2014, 21(6):1576-1582.
44. Heller, J. R., & Goldrick, M. (2015). Corrigendum to "Grammatical constraints on phonological encoding in speech production". Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (submitted for publication).
45. Hunnicutt S. Intelligibility versus redundancy - conditions of dependency. Language and Speech 1985, 28:47-56.
46. Jacqmin-Gadda H., Sibillot S., Proust C., Molina J.M., Thiébaut R. Robustness of the linear mixed model to misspecified error distribution. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 2007, 51:5142-5154.
47. Jaeger T.F. Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 2010, 61:23-62.
48. Jurafsky D., Bell A., Girand C. The role of the lemma in form variation. Laboratory phonology 2002, Vol. 7:3-34. Mouton de Gruyter, New York.
49. Jurafsky D., Bell A., Gregory M., Raymond W.D. Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure 2001, 229-254. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. J. Bybee, P. Hopper (Eds.).
50. Kilanski, K. (2009). The effects of token frequency and phonological neighborhood density on native and non-native speech production. Ph.D. Thesis. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Seattle.
51. Kirov, C., & Wilson, C. (2012). The specificity of online variation in speech production. 34th Annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Sapporo, Japan.
52. Kuperman V., Bresnan J. The effects of construction probability on word durations during spontaneous incremental sentence production. Journal of Memory and Language 2012, 66(4):588-611.
53. Levy, R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2007). Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In B. Schölkopf, J. C. Platt, & T. Hoffman (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems 19 (pp. 841-848).
54. Lieberman P. Some effects of semantic and grammatical context on the production and perception of speech. Language and Speech 1963, 6:172-187.
55. Lindblom B. Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H&H theory. Speech production and speech modelling 1990, 403-439. Kluwer, The Netherlands. W.J. Hardcastle, A. Marchal (Eds.).
56. Lisker L., Abramson A.S. A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: Acoustical measurements. Word: Journal of the International Linguistic Association 1964, 20(3):384-422.
57. Luce P.A., Pisoni D.B. Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing 1998, 19(1):1-36.
58. Mahon B.Z., Costa A., Peterson R., Vargas K.A., Caramazza A. Lexical selection is not by competition: A reinterpretation of semantic interference and facilitation effects in the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2007, 33:503-535.
59. Mertus J. BLISS user manual 1989, Brown University, Providence, RI.
60. Mertus, J. (2014). Automated VOT measurement for isolated words in English: A novel tool for BLISS. Providence, RI: Brown University. http://www.mertus.org/Bliss/AutoVOT.pdf.
61. Munson B. Lexical access, lexical representation, and vowel production. Laboratory phonology 2007, Vol. 9:201-228. Mouton de Gruyter, New York.
62. Munson B., Solomon N.P. The effect of phonological neighborhood density on vowel articulation. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2004, 47:1048-1058.
63. Nooteboom S.G. The tongue slips into patterns. Leyden studies in linguistics and phonetics 1969, 114-132. Mouton, The Hague. A.G. Sciarone, A.J. van Essen, A.A. van Raad (Eds.).
64. Pechmann T., Zerbst D. The activation of word class information during speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2002, 28:233-243.
65. 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 2011, 23(3):593-603.
66. Peterson R.R., Savoy P. Lexical selection and phonological encoding during language production: Evidence for cascaded processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1998, 24:539-557.
67. Pickett J.M., Pollack I. Intelligibility of excerpts from fluent speech: Effects of rate of utterance and duration of excerpt. Language and Speech 1963, 6:151-164.
68. Pitt, M. A., Dilley, L., Johnson, K., Kiesling, S., Raymond, W., Hume, E., et al. (2007). Buckeye corpus of conversational speech (2nd release). Columbus, OH: Department of Psychology, Ohio State University (Distributor). http://www.buckeyecorpus.osu.edu.
69. R Core Team (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/.
70. Rapp B., Goldrick M. Discreteness and interactivity in spoken word production. Psychological Review 2000, 107:460-499.
71. Rodriguez-Ferreiro J., Davies R., Cuetos F. Semantic domain and grammatical class effects in the picture-word interference paradigm. Language and Cognitive Processes 2014, 29(1):125-135.
72. Sadat J., Martin C.D., Costa A., Alario F.X. Reconciling phonological neighborhood effects in speech production through single trial analysis. Cognitive Psychology 2014, 68:33-58.
73. Scarborough, R. A. (2003). Lexical confusability and degree of coarticulation. In Proceedings of the 29th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society; 2003.
74. Scarborough R.A. Lexical and contextual predictability: Confluent effects on the production of vowels. Laboratory phonology 2010, Vol. 10:557-586. Mouton de Gruyter, New York.
75. Scarborough R.A. Lexical similarity and speech production: Neighborhoods for nonwords. Lingua 2012, 122(2):164-176.
76. Scarborough R.A. Neighborhood-conditioned patterns in phonetic detail: Relating coarticulation and hyperarticulation. Journal of Phonetics 2013, 41(6):491-508.
77. Scarborough R.A., Zellou G. Clarity in communication: "Clear" speech authenticity and lexical neighborhood density effects in speech production and perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2013, 134(5):3793-3807.
78. Smiljanic R., Bradlow A.R. Stability of temporal contrasts across speaking styles in English and Croatian. Journal of Phonetics 2008, 36(1):91-113.
79. Strand J.S., Sommers M.S. 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(3):1663-1672.
80. 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):147-165.
81. Vaden, K. I., Halpin, H. R., & Hickok, G. S. (2009). Irvine phonotactic online dictionary, version 2.0. http://www.iphod.com.
82. Van Santen J.P.H. Contextual effects on vowel duration. Speech Communication 1992, 11:513-546.
83. Vigliocco G., Vinson D.P., Siri S. Semantic similarity and grammatical class in naming actions. Cognition 2005, 94:B91-B100.
84. Vitevitch M.S. The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2002, 28:735-747.
85. Vitevitch M.S., Ambrüster 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.
86. Vitevitch M.S., Luce P.A. When words compete: Levels of processing in spoken word perception. Psychological Science 1998, 9:325-329.
87. Vitevitch M.S., Luce P.A. Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood activation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 1999, 40:374-408.
88. 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.
89. Volaitis L.E., Miller J.L. Phonetic prototypes: Influence of place of articulation and speaking rate on the internal structure of voicing categories. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1992, 92(2):723-735.
90. Wright R. Factors of lexical competition in vowel articulation. Laboratory phonology 2004, Vol. VI:75-87. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
91. Yao, Y. (2009). The effect of phonological neighborhoods on pronunciation variation in conversation speech. Ph.D. Thesis. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.