New Questions for the Next Decade
  • ISSN 1871-1340
  • E-ISSN: 1871-1375
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


The majority of studies addressing psycholinguistic questions focus on speech produced and processed in a careful, laboratory speech style. This ‘careful’ speech is very different from the speech that listeners encounter in casual conversations. This article argues that research on casual speech is necessary to show the validity of conclusions based on careful speech. Moreover, research on casual speech produces new insights and questions on the processes underlying communication and on the mental lexicon that cannot be revealed by research using careful speech. This article first places research on casual speech in its historic perspective. It then provides many examples of how casual speech differs from careful speech and shows that these differences may have important implications for psycholinguistic theories. Subsequently, the article discusses the challenges that research on casual speech faces, which stem from the high variability of this speech style, its necessary casual context, and that casual speech is connected speech. We also present opportunities for research on casual speech, mostly in the form of new experimental methods that facilitate research on connected speech. However, real progress can only be made if these new methods are combined with advanced (still to be developed) statistical techniques.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Anderson, A.H. , Bader, M. , Bard, E.G. , Boyle, E. , Doherty, G. , Garrod, S. , & Sotillo, C
    (1991) The HCRC map task corpus. Language and Speech, 34(4), 351–366.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baayen, R.H
    (2008) Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using r. Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baayen, R.H. , van Rij, J. , de Cat, C. & Wood, S.N
    . (to appear). Autocorrelated errors in experimental data in the language sciences: Some solutions offered by Generalized Additive Mixed Models. In D. Speelman , K. Heylen , & D. Geeraerts (Eds.) Mixed effects regression models in linguistics. Berlin: Springer. Retrieved fromarxiv.org/abs/1601.02043.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bates, D. , Kliegl, R. , Vasishth, S. & Baayen, R.H
    . (submitted). Parsimonious mixed models.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bates, E. , & Liu, H
    (1996) Cued shadowing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11(6), 577–582. doi: 10.1080/016909696386962
    https://doi.org/10.1080/016909696386962 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bentum, M. , Ernestus, M. , ten Bosch, L. & van den Bosch, A
    . (submitted). How do speech registers differ in the predictability of words?
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Benzeghiba, M. , De Mori, R. , Deroo, O. , Dupont, S. , Erbes, T. , Jouvet, D. , Fissore, L. , Laface, P. , Mertins, A. , Ris, S. , Rose, R. , Tyagi, V. , & Wellekens, C
    (2007) Automatic speech recognition and speech variability: A review. Speech Communication, 49(10), 763–786. doi: 10.1016/j.specom.2007.02.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2007.02.006 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bernhard, D. , & Tucker, B
    (2015) The effects of duration on human processing of reduced speech. Canadian Acoustics, 43(3).
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Biber, D
    (1988) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  10. Biber, D. , Conrad, S. , & Reppen, R
    (1998) Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511804489
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804489 [Google Scholar]
  11. Brand, Sophie , & Ernestus, Mirjam
    . (submitted). How do native listeners and learners of French comprehend French word pronunciation variants?
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Brenner, D
    (2013) The acoustics of Mandarin tones in careful and conversational speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 134(5), 4246. doi: 10.1121/1.4831619
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4831619 [Google Scholar]
  13. Brenner, D.S
    (2015) The phonetics of Mandarin tones in conversation. Retrieved fromarizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/578721
  14. Brouwer, S. , Mitterer, H. , & Huettig, F
    (2012) Speech reductions change the dynamics of competition during spoken word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(4), 539–571. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2011.555268
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.555268 [Google Scholar]
  15. Bürki, A. , Ernestus, M. , Gendrot, C. , Fougeron, C. , & Frauenfelder, U.H
    (2011) What affects the presence versus absence of schwa and its duration: A corpus analysis of French connected speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(6), 3980–3991. doi: 10.1121/1.3658386
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3658386 [Google Scholar]
  16. Bürki, A. , Ernestus, M. , & Frauenfelder, U.H
    (2010) Is there only one “fenêtre” in the production lexicon? On-line evidence on the nature of phonological representations of pronunciation variants for French schwa words. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 421–437. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2010.01.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  17. Çetin, Ö. , & Shriberg, E
    (2006) Speaker overlaps and ASR errors in meetings: Effects before, during, and after the overlap. In 2006 IEEE international conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing Proceedings (vol. 1).
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Chen, T.-Y. , & Tucker, B.V
    (2013) Sonorant onset pitch as a perceptual cue of lexical tones in Mandarin. Phonetica, 70(3), 207–239. doi: 10.1159/000356194
    https://doi.org/10.1159/000356194 [Google Scholar]
  19. Chomsky, N
    (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Connine, C.M. , & Titone, D
    (1996) Phoneme monitoring. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11(6), 635–646. doi: 10.1080/016909696387042
    https://doi.org/10.1080/016909696387042 [Google Scholar]
  21. De Chat, C
    (2007) French dislocation. interpretation, syntax, acquisition [Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics, 17] (pp.288). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Dilts, P.C
    (2013) Modelling phonetic reduction in a corpus of spoken English using random forests and mixed-effects regression (Thesis). Retrieved fromhttps://era.library.ualberta.ca/downloads/5425k999s
  23. Drijvers, L. , & Özyürek, A
    . (in press). Visual context enhanced: The joint contribution of iconic gestures and visible speech to degraded speech comprehension. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Engen, K.J.V. , Baese-Berk, M. , Baker, R.E. , Choi, A. , Kim, M. , & Bradlow, A.R
    (2010) The wildcat corpus of native-and foreign-accented English: Communicative efficiency across conversational dyads with varying language alignment profiles. Language and Speech, 53(4), 510–540. doi: 10.1177/0023830910372495
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830910372495 [Google Scholar]
  25. Ernestus, M
    (2000) Voice assimilation and segment reduction in casual Dutch: A corpus-based study of the phonology-phonetic interface. Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics, Utrecht.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2012) Message related variation: Segmental within speaker variation. In A.C. Cohn , C. Fougeron , & M. Huffman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of laboratory phonology (pp.92–102). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Ernestus, M. , & R.H. Baayen
    (2011) Corpora and exemplars in phonology. In J. Goldsmith , J. Riggle , & A. Yu (Eds.), The handbook of phonological theory (2nd ed., pp.374–400). Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781444343069.ch12
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444343069.ch12 [Google Scholar]
  28. Ernestus, M. , Baayen, R.H. , & Schreuder, R
    (2002) The recognition of reduced word forms. Brain and Language, 81, 162–173. doi: 10.1006/brln.2001.2514
    https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2001.2514 [Google Scholar]
  29. Ernestus, M. , Hanique, I. , & Verboom, E
    (2015) The effect of speech situation on the occurrence of reduced word pronunciation variants. Journal of Phonetics, 48, 60–75. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2014.08.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2014.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Ernestus, M. , Lahey, M. , Verhees, F. , & Baayen, R.H
    (2006) Lexical frequency and voice assimilation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120, 1040–1051. doi: 10.1121/1.2211548
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2211548 [Google Scholar]
  31. Fowler, C.A. , & Turvey, M.T
    (1981) Immediate compensation in bite-block speech. Phonetica, 37(5–6), 306–326. doi: 10.1159/000260000
    https://doi.org/10.1159/000260000 [Google Scholar]
  32. Fu, Q. , Zeng, F
    (2000) Identification of temporal envelop cues in Chinese tone recognition. Asia Pacific Journal of Speech Language and Hearing, 5, 45–57. doi: 10.1179/136132800807547582
    https://doi.org/10.1179/136132800807547582 [Google Scholar]
  33. Gahl, S. , Yao, Y. , & Johnson, K
    (2012) Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4), 789–806. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2011.11.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.11.006 [Google Scholar]
  34. Galliano, S. , Georois, E. , Mostefa, D. , Choukri, K. , Bonastre, J.-F. , & Gravier, J
    (2005) ESTER phase II evaluation campaign for the rich transcription of French broadcast news. Proc. Interspeech2005, 2453–2456.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Gaskell, G. , & William, M.-W
    (1998) Mechanisms of phonological inference in speech perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 380–396. doi: 10.1037/0096‑1523.24.2.380
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.24.2.380 [Google Scholar]
  36. Gaygen, D.E. , & Luce, P.A
    (1998) Effects of modality on subjective frequency estimates and processing of spoken and printed words. Perception & Psychophysics, 60(3), 465–483. doi: 10.3758/BF03206867
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206867 [Google Scholar]
  37. Gick, B
    (2002) The use of ultrasound for linguistic phonetic fieldwork. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 32(02), 113–121. doi: 10.1017/S0025100302001007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100302001007 [Google Scholar]
  38. Godfrey, J.J. , Holliman, E.C. , & McDaniel, J
    (1992) Switchboard: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. In 1992 IEEE international conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 1992. ICASSP-92 (vol. 1, pp.517–520). doi: 10.1109/ICASSP.1992.225858
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP.1992.225858 [Google Scholar]
  39. Greenberg, S
    (1999) Speaking in shorthand – A syllable-centric perspective for understanding pronunciation variation. Speech Communication, 29, 159–176. doi: 10.1016/S0167‑6393(99)00050‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6393(99)00050-3 [Google Scholar]
  40. Goldinger, S.D. , & Papesh, M.H
    (2012) Pupil dilation reflects the creation and retrieval of memories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(2), 90–95. doi: 10.1177/0963721412436811
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412436811 [Google Scholar]
  41. Hastie, T.J. , & Tibshirani, R.J
    (2002) Generalized additive models (vol. 43). CRC Press 1990.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Heylighen, F. , & Dewaele, J.-M
    (2002) Variation in the contextuality of language: An empirical measure. Foundations of Science, 7(3), 293–340. doi: 10.1023/A:1019661126744
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019661126744 [Google Scholar]
  43. Hockett, Charles F
    1955A manual of phonology. Baltimore: Waverly Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Hymes, D
    (1992) The concept of communicative competence revisited. Thirty years of linguistic evolution. InStudies in honour of René Dirven on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday (pp.31–57).
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Kemps, R. , Ernestus, M. , Schreuder, R. , & Baayen, R.H
    (2004) Processing reduced word forms: The suffix restoration effect. Brain and Language, 19, 117–127. doi: 10.1016/S0093‑934X(03)00425‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00425-5 [Google Scholar]
  46. Klingner, J. , Tversky, B. , & Hanrahan, P
    (2011) Effects of visual and verbal presentation on cognitive load in vigilance, memory, and arithmetic tasks. Psychophysiology, 48(3), 323–332. doi: 10.1111/j.1469‑8986.2010.01069.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01069.x [Google Scholar]
  47. Koch, X. , & Janse, E
    (2016) Speech rate effects on the processing of conversational speech across the adult life span. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 139(4), 1618–1636. doi: 10.1121/1.4944032
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4944032 [Google Scholar]
  48. Kruschke, J.K
    (2010) What to believe: Bayesian methods for data analysis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(7), 293–300. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  49. (2014) Doing Bayesian data analysis: A tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan. Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Kryuchkova, T. , Tucker, B.V. , Wurm, L.H. , & Baayen, R.H
    (2012) Danger and usefulness are detected early in auditory lexical processing: Evidence from electroencephalography. Brain and Language, 122(2), 81–91. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2012.05.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2012.05.005 [Google Scholar]
  51. Labov, W
    (1972) Sociolinguistic patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Lahiri, A. , & Reetz, H
    (2002) ‘Underspecified recognition’. In Carlos Gussenhoven , Natasha Warner , & Toni Rietveld (Eds.), Phonology & phonetics: Laboratory phonology VII (pp.637–676). Berlin, Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Levelt, W.J.M. , Roelofs, A. , & Meyer, A.S
    (1999) A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–38.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Lindblom, B
    (1963) Spectrographic study of vowel reduction. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 35(11), 1773–1781. doi: 10.1121/1.1918816
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1918816 [Google Scholar]
  55. Liu, S. , & Samuel, A.G
    (2004) Perception of Mandarin lexical tones when F0 information is neutralized. Language & Speech, 47, 109–138. doi: 10.1177/00238309040470020101
    https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309040470020101 [Google Scholar]
  56. MacWhinney, B
    (2000) The childes project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. McLennan, C.T. , Luce, P.A. , & Charles-Luce, J
    (2003) Representation of lexical form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(4), 539–553. doi: 10.1037/0278‑7393.29.4.539
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.4.539 [Google Scholar]
  58. McQueen, J
    (1996) Word spotting. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11(6), 695–699. doi: 10.1080/016909696387114
    https://doi.org/10.1080/016909696387114 [Google Scholar]
  59. Mehta, G. , & Cutler, A
    (1988) Detection of target phonemes in spontaneous and read speech. Language and Speech, 31(Pt 2), 135–156.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Mirman, D. , Dixon, J.A. , & Magnuson, J.S
    (2008) Statistical and computational models of the visual world paradigm: Growth curves and individual differences. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 475–494. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.006 [Google Scholar]
  61. Mulder, K. , ten Bosch, L. , & Boves, L
    . (submitted). Comparing different methods for analyzing ERP signals.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Munson, B. , & Solomon, N.P
    (2004) The effect of phonological neighborhood density on vowel articulation. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(5), 1048–1058. doi: 10.1044/1092‑4388(2004/078)
    https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2004/078) [Google Scholar]
  63. Oleson, J.J. , Cavanaugh, J.E. , McMurray, B. , & Brown, G
    (2015) Detecting time-specific differences between temporal nonlinear curves: Analyzing data from the visual world paradigm. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 0962280215607411.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Oostdijk, N
    (2000) The spoken Dutch Corpus Project. The ELRA Newsletter, 5, 4–8.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Pitt, M.A. , Dilley, L. , Johnson, K. , Kiesling, S. , Raymond, W. , Hume, E. , & Fosler-Lussier, E
    (2007) Buckeye corpus of conversational speech (2nd release) [www.buckeyecorpus.osu.edu] Columbus, OH: Department of Psychology. Ohio State University (Distributor).
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Pluymaekers, M. , Ernestus, M. , & Baayen, R
    (2006) Articulatory planning is continuous and sensitive to informational redundancy. Phonetica, 62(2–4), 146–159. doi: 10.1159/000090095
    https://doi.org/10.1159/000090095 [Google Scholar]
  67. Podlubny, R. , Geeraert, K. , Tucker, B.V
    (2015) It’s all about, like, acoustics. Proceedings of the 18th international Congress of Phonetic Sciences . Glasgow, UK: The University of Glasgow. Paper number 0477.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Podlubny, R. , Tucker, B.V. , & Nearey, T
    (2011) ‘Sorry, what was that?’: The roles of pitch, duration, and amplitude in the perception of reduced speech. Poster presented at the Nijmegen Spontaneous Speech Workshop , Nijmegen, NL.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Pollack, I. , & Pickett, J.M
    (1963) Intelligibility of excerpts from conversational speech. Language and Speech, 6, 165–171.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Ranbom, L.J. , & Connine, C.M
    (2007) Lexical representation of phonological variation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(2), 273–298. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.04.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  71. Richter, E
    1930 Beobachtungen über Anglitt und Abglitt an Sprachkurven und umgekehrt laufenden Phonogrammplatten. In Paul Menzerath (Ed.), Berichte über die I. Tagung der Internationalen Gesellschaft für experimentelle Phonetik (pp.87–90). Bonn: Scheur.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Ruiter, de, L.E
    (2015) Information status marking in spontaneous vs. read speech in story-telling tasks – Evidence from intonation analysis using GToBI. Journal of Phonetics, 48, 29–44. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2014.10.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2014.10.008 [Google Scholar]
  73. Schönle, P.W. , Gräbe, K. , Wenig, P. , Höhne, J. , Schrader, J. , & Conrad, B
    (1987) Electromagnetic articulography: Use of alternating magnetic fields for tracking movements of multiple points inside and outside the vocal tract. Brain and Language, 31(1), 26–35. doi: 10.1016/0093‑934X(87)90058‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(87)90058-7 [Google Scholar]
  74. Schweitzer, K. , Walsh, M. , Calhoun, S. , Schütze, H. , Möbius, B. , Schweitzer, A. , & Dogil, G
    (2015) Exploring the relationship between intonation and the lexicon: Evidence for lexicalised storage of intonation. Speech Communication, 66, 65–81. doi: 10.1016/j.specom.2014.09.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2014.09.006 [Google Scholar]
  75. Stampe, D
    (1973) A dissertation on natural phonology. PhD Diss.University of Chicago.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Stone, M
    (1990) A three‐dimensional model of tongue movement based on ultrasound and X‐ray microbeam data. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 87(5), 2207–2217. doi: 10.1121/1.399188
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.399188 [Google Scholar]
  77. Taft, M. , & Chen, H.C
    (1992) Judging homophony in Chinese: The influence of tones. Advances in Psychology, 90, 151–172. doi: 10.1016/S0166‑4115(08)61891‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61891-9 [Google Scholar]
  78. Tagliamonte, S.A. , & Baayen, R.H
    (2012) Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change, 24(2), 135–178. doi: 10.1017/S0954394512000129
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394512000129 [Google Scholar]
  79. Torreira, F. , Adda-Decker, M. , & Ernestus, M
    (2010) The nijmegen corpus of casual French. Speech Communication, 52, 201–221. doi: 10.1016/j.specom.2009.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2009.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  80. Tucker, B.V
    (2007) Spoken word recognition of the reduced American English Flap. The University of Arizona. Retrieved fromhdl.handle.net/10150/194987
    [Google Scholar]
  81. (2011) The effect of reduction on the processing of flaps and /g/ in isolated words. Journal of Phonetics, 39(3), 312–318. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2010.12.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  82. Tyrone, M.E. , & Mauk, C.E
    (2010) Sign lowering and phonetic reduction in American Sign Language. Journal of Phonetics, 38(2), 317–328. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2010.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  83. van Rij, J. , Natalya, P. , van Rijn, H. , Wood, S.N. , & Baayen, R.H
    . (submitted). Pupil dilation to study cognitive processing: Challenges and solutions for time course analyses.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Van de Ven, M. , Ernestus, M. , & Schreuder, R
    (2012) Predicting acoustically reduced words in spontaneous speech: The role of semantic/syntactic and acoustic cues in context. Laboratory Phonology, 3, 455–481. doi: 10.1515/lp‑2012‑0020
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lp-2012-0020 [Google Scholar]
  85. Viebahn, M. , Ernestus, M. , & McQueen, J
    (2015) Syntactic predictability in the recognition of carefully and casually produced speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(6), 1684–1702. doi: 10.1037/a0039326
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039326 [Google Scholar]
  86. Wagner, P. , Trouvain, J. , & Zimmerer, F
    (2015) In defense of stylistic diversity in speech research. Journal of Phonetics, 48, 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2014.11.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2014.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  87. Warner, N
    (2011) Reduction. In M. van Oostendorp , C. Ewen , E. Hume , & K. Rice (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology: General issues and segmental phonology (vol. 1, pp.1866–1891). John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. (2012) Methods for studying spontaneous speech. In A. Cohn , C. Fougeron , & M. Huffman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of laboratory phonology (pp.621–633). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Warner, N. , & Tucker, B.V
    (2011) Phonetic variability of stops and flaps in spontaneous and careful speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(3), 1606–1617. doi: 10.1121/1.3621306
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3621306 [Google Scholar]
  90. Wiggers, P. , & Rothkrantz, L.J.M
    (2007) Exploratory analysis of word use and sentence length in the spoken Dutch Corpus. In V. Matoušek & P. Mautner (Eds.), Text, speech and dialogue (pp.366–373). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑540‑74628‑7_48
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74628-7_48 [Google Scholar]
  91. Willems, R.M. , Frank, S.L. , Nijhof, A.D. , Hagoort, P. , & Bosch, A. van den
    (2016) Prediction during natural language comprehension. Cerebral Cortex, 26(6), 2506–2516. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhv075
    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhv075 [Google Scholar]
  92. Wood, S.N
    (2006) Generalized additive models. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Wrench, A.A. , & Scobbie, J.M
    (2011) Very high frame rate ultrasound tongue imaging. In Proceedings of the 9th International Seminar On Speech Production (ISSP) (pp.155–162).
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Wurm, L.H. , & Fisicaro, S.A
    (2014) What residualizing predictors in regression analyses does (and what it does not do). Journal of Memory and Language, 72, 37–48. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2013.12.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  95. Xiong, W. , Droppo, J. , Huang, X. , Seide, F. , Seltzer, M. , Stolcke, A. , & Zweig, G
    (2016) The Microsoft 2016 Conversational Speech Recognition System. arXiv:1609.03528 [Cs]. Retrieved fromarxiv.org/abs/1609.03528
  96. Xu, Y
    (2010) In defense of lab speech. Journal of Phonetics, 38(3), 329–336. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2010.04.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  97. Zekveld, A.A. , Kramer, S.E. , & Festen, J.M
    (2010) Pupil response as an indication of effortful listening: The influence of sentence intelligibility. Ear and Hearing, 31, 480–490. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181d4f251
    https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181d4f251 [Google Scholar]
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error