1887
Volume 13, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1871-1340
  • E-ISSN: 1871-1375
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Pronunciation variation in many ways is systematic, yielding patterns that a canny listener can exploit in order to aid perception. This work asks whether listeners actually do draw upon these patterns during speech perception. We focus in particular on a phenomenon known as paradigmatic enhancement, in which suffixes are phonetically enhanced in verbs which are frequent in their inflectional paradigms. In a set of four experiments, we found that listeners do not seem to attend to paradigmatic enhancement patterns. They do, however, attend to the distributional properties of a verb’s inflectional paradigm when the experimental task encourages attention to sublexical detail, as is the case with phoneme monitoring (Experiment 1a–b). When tasks require more holistic lexical processing, as with lexical decision (Experiment 2), the effect of paradigmatic probability disappears. If stimuli are presented in full sentences, such that the surrounding context provides richer contextual and semantic information (Experiment 3), even otherwise robust influences like lexical frequency disappear. We propose that these findings are consistent with a perceptual system that is flexible, and devotes processing resources to exploiting only those patterns that provide a sufficient cognitive return on investment.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ml.16029.coh
2018-08-10
2019-06-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allopenna, P. D. , Magnuson, J. S. , & Tanenhaus, M. K.
    (1998) Tracking the Time Course of Spoken Word Recognition Using Eye Movements: Evidence for Continuous Mapping Models. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(38), 419–439. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1997.2558
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2558 [Google Scholar]
  2. Altmann, G. T. M. , & Kamide, Y.
    (1999) Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73(3), 247–264. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(99)00059‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1 [Google Scholar]
  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(Pt 1), 31–56. doi: 10.1177/00238309040470010201
    https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309040470010201 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2006) Language redundancy predicts syllabic duration and the spectral characteristics of vocalic syllable nuclei. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(5 Pt 1), 3048–3058. doi: 10.1121/1.2188331
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2188331 [Google Scholar]
  5. Baayen, R. H. , Levelt, W. J. M. , Schreuder, R. , & Ernestus, M. T. C.
    (2008) Paradigmatic structure in speech production. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 43, 1–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Baayen, R. H. , Vasishth, S. , Kliegl, R. , & Bates, D.
    (2017) The cave of shadows: Addressing the human factor with generalized additive mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 206–234. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2016.11.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.11.006 [Google Scholar]
  7. Baayen, R. H. , Wurm, L. H. , & Aycock, J.
    (2007) Lexical dynamics for low-frequency complex words: A regression study across tasks and modalities. The Mental Lexicon, 2(3), 419–463. doi: 10.1075/ml.2.3.06baa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.2.3.06baa [Google Scholar]
  8. Barr, D. J. , Levy, R. , Scheepers, C. , & Tily, H. J.
    (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bates, D. , Maechler, M. , Bolker, B. M. , & Walker, S.
    (2015) Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models using {lme4}. Journal Of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  10. Beddor, P. S. , McGowan, K. B. , Boland, J. E. , Coetzee, A. W. , & Brasher, A.
    (2013) The time course of perception of coarticulation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133(4), 2350–2366. doi: 10.1121/1.4794366
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4794366 [Google Scholar]
  11. 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(1), 92–111. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2008.06.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.06.003 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bell, A. , Jurafsky, D. , Fosler-Lussier, E. , Girand, C. , Gregory, M. , & Gildea, D.
    (2003) Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113(2), 1001–1024. doi: 10.1121/1.1534836
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1534836 [Google Scholar]
  13. Blazej, L. J. , & Cohen-Goldberg, A. M.
    (2015) Can We Hear Morphological Complexity Before Words Are Complex ?Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 41(1), 50–68.10.1037/a0038509
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038509 [Google Scholar]
  14. Boersma, P. , & Weenink, D.
    (2015) Praat: doing phonetics by computer. Retrieved fromwww.praat.org
  15. Brysbaert, M. , New, B. , & Keuleers, E.
    (2012) Adding part-of-speech information to the SUBTLEX-US word frequencies. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 991–997. doi: 10.3758/s13428‑012‑0190‑4
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0190-4 [Google Scholar]
  16. Cohen, C.
    (2014) Probabilistic reduction and probabilistic enhancement. Morphology, 24(4), 291–323. doi: 10.1007/s11525‑014‑9243‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-014-9243-y [Google Scholar]
  17. (2015) Context and paradigms: Two patterns of probabilistic pronunciation variation in Russian agreement suffixes. The Mental Lexicon, 10(3), 313–338.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Connine, C. M. , Titone, D. , & Wang, J.
    (1993) Auditory word recognition: Extrinsic and intrinsic effects of word frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. doi: 10.1037/0278‑7393.19.1.81
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.19.1.81 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dahan, D. , Swingley, D. , Tanenhaus, M. K. , & Magnuson, J. S.
    (2000) Linguistic gender and spoken-word recognition in French. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(4), 465–480. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1999.2688
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2688 [Google Scholar]
  20. Davis, M. H. , Marslen-Wilson, W. D. , & Gaskell, M. G.
    (2002) Leading up the lexical garden path: Segmentation and ambiguity in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(1), 218–244. doi: 10.1037/0096‑1523.28.1.218
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.28.1.218 [Google Scholar]
  21. Ferreira, F. , Henderson, J. M. , Anes, M. D. , Weeks, P. A. , & McFarlane, D. K.
    (1996) Effects of lexical frequency and syntactic complexity in spoken-language comprehension: Evidence from the auditory moving-window technique. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(2), 324–335. doi: 10.1037/0278‑7393.22.2.324
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.2.324 [Google Scholar]
  22. Gahl, S. , & Garnsey, S. M.
    (2004) Knowledge of Grammar, Knowledge of Usage: Syntactic Probabilities Affect Pronunciation Variation. Language, 80(4), 748–775. doi: 10.1353/lan.2004.0185
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0185 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gregory, M. L. , Raymond, W. D. , Bell, A. , Fosler-Lussier, E. , & Jurafsky, D.
    (1999) The effects of collocational strength and contextual predictability in lexical production. InChicago Linguistics Society (Vol.35, pp.151–166).
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Heinrich, A. , Flory, Y. , & Hawkins, S.
    (2010) Influence of English r-resonances on intelligibility of speech in noise for native English and German listeners. Speech Communication, 52(11–12), 1038–1055. doi: 10.1016/j.specom.2010.09.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2010.09.009 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hyönä, J. , Vainio, S. , & Laine, M.
    (2002) A morphological effect obtains for isolated words but not for words in sentence context. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14(4), 417–433. doi: 10.1080/09541440143000131
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440143000131 [Google Scholar]
  26. Jurafsky, D. , Bell, A. , Gregory, M. , & Raymond, W. D.
    (2001) Probabilistic Relations between Words: Evidence from Reduction in Lexical Production. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, 229–254.10.1075/tsl.45.13jur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.13jur [Google Scholar]
  27. Kemps, R. J. J .K. , Ernestus, M. , Schreuder, R. , & Baayen, R. H.
    (2005) Prosodic cues for morphological complexity: the case of Dutch plural nouns. Memory & Cognition, 33(3), 430–446. doi: 10.3758/BF03193061
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193061 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kemps, R. J. J .K. , Wurm, L. H. , Ernestus, M. , Schreuder, R. , & Baayen, R. H.
    (2005) Prosodic cues for morphological complexity in Dutch and English. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20(1/2), 43–73. doi: 10.3758/BF03193061
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193061 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kuperman, V. , & Bresnan, J.
    (2012) The effects of construction probability on word durations during spontaneous incremental sentence production. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4), 588–611. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.04.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kuperman, V. , Pluymaekers, M. , Ernestus, M. , & Baayen, R. H.
    (2007) Morphological predictability and acoustic duration of interfixes in Dutch compounds. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121(4), 2261–2271. doi: 10.1121/1.2537393
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2537393 [Google Scholar]
  31. Lehiste, I.
    (1972) {T}he timing of utterances and linguistic boundaries. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 51(6.2), 2018–2024. doi: 10.1121/1.1913062
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1913062 [Google Scholar]
  32. Lukyanenko, C. , & Fisher, C.
    (2016) Where are the cookies? Two- and three-year-olds use number-marked verbs to anticipate upcoming nouns. Cognition, 146, 349–370. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.10.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.10.012 [Google Scholar]
  33. Magnuson, J. S. , Dixon, J. A. , Tanenhaus, M. K. , & Aslin, R. N.
    (2007) The dynamics of lexical competition during spoken word recognition. Cognitive Science, 31(1), 133–156. doi: 10.1080/03640210709336987
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210709336987 [Google Scholar]
  34. Mathôt, S. , Schreij, D. , & Theeuwes, J.
    (2012) OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 314–324. doi: 10.3758/s13428‑011‑0168‑7
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0168-7 [Google Scholar]
  35. Mattys, S. L. , Barden, K. , & Samuel, A. G.
    (2014) Extrinsic cognitive load impairs low-level speech perception. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(3), 748–754. doi: 10.3758/s13423‑013‑0544‑7
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0544-7 [Google Scholar]
  36. Mattys, S. L. , Brooks, J. , & Cooke, M.
    (2009) Recognizing speech under a processing load: Dissociating energetic from informational factors. Cognitive Psychology, 59(3), 203–243. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.04.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  37. Mattys, S. L. , & Wiget, L.
    (2011) Effects of cognitive load on speech recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(2), 145–160. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2011.04.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  38. Matuschek, H. , Kliegl, R. , Vasishth, S. , Baayen, R. H. , & Bates, D.
    (2017) Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 305–315. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  39. Molinaro, N. , Barber, H. A. , & Carreiras, M.
    (2011) Grammatical agreement processing in reading: ERP findings and future directions. Cortex, 47(8), 908–930. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2011.02.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2011.02.019 [Google Scholar]
  40. Moscoso Del Prado Martín, F. , Kostić, A. , & Baayen, R. H.
    (2004) Putting the bits together: An information theoretical perspective on morphological processing. Cognition, 94(1), 1–18. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.015 [Google Scholar]
  41. Osterhout, L. , & Mobley, L. A.
    (1995) Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 739–773.10.1006/jmla.1995.1033
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1033 [Google Scholar]
  42. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved fromwww.r-project.org/
  43. Salverda, A. P. , Dahan, D. , & McQueen, J. M.
    (2003) The role of prosodic boundaries in the resolution of lexical embedding in speech comprehension. Cognition, 90(1), 51–89. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(03)00139‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00139-2 [Google Scholar]
  44. Schuppler, B. , Van Dommelen, W. A. , Koreman, J. , & Ernestus, M.
    (2012) How linguistic and probabilistic properties of a word affect the realization of its final /t/: Studies at the phonemic and sub-phonemic level. Journal of Phonetics, 40(4), 595–607. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2012.05.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2012.05.004 [Google Scholar]
  45. Tabak, W. , Schreuder, R. , & Baayen, R. H.
    (2005) Lexical statistics and lexical processing: semantic density, information complexity, sex, and irregularity in Dutch. Linguistic evidence – Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives (1993), 529–555.10.1515/9783110197549.529
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197549.529 [Google Scholar]
  46. (2010) Producing inflected verbs: A picture naming study. The Mental Lexicon, 5(1), 22–46. doi: 10.1075/ml.5.1.02tab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.5.1.02tab [Google Scholar]
  47. Tily, H. , Gahl, S. , Arnon, I. , Snider, N. , Kothari, A. , & Bresnan, J.
    (2009) Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation in spontaneous speech. Language and Cognition, 1(2), 147–165. doi: 10.1515/LANGCOG.2009.008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LANGCOG.2009.008 [Google Scholar]
  48. Tily, H. , & Kuperman, V.
    (2012) {R}ational phonological lengthening in spoken {D}utch. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 132(6), 3935–3940.10.1121/1.4765071
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4765071 [Google Scholar]
  49. Van Petten, C. , Coulson, S. , Rubin, S. , Plante, E. , & Parks, M.
    (1999) Time course of word identification and semantic integration in spoken language. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition. doi: 10.1037//0278‑7393.25.2.394
    https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.25.2.394 [Google Scholar]
  50. White, L. , & Turk, A. E.
    (2010) English words on the Procrustean bed: Polysyllabic shortening reconsidered. Journal of Phonetics, 38(3), 459–471. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2010.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.05.002 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ml.16029.coh
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.16029.coh
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cognitive resources , morphology , perception , phonetics , probability and pronunciation variation
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