1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. The Mental Lexicon
  4. Volume 16, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 16, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1871-1340
  • E-ISSN: 1871-1375
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article reports the results of an auditory lexical decision task, testing the processing of phonetic detail of English noun/verb conversion pairs. The article builds on recent findings showing that the frequent occurrence in certain prosodic environments may lead to the storage of prosody-induced phonetic detail as part of the lexical representation. To investigate this question with noun/verb conversion pairs, ambicategorical stimuli were used that exhibit systematic occurrence differences with regard to prosodic environment, as indicated by either a strong verb-bias, e.g., (N/V) or a strong noun-bias, e.g., (N/V). The auditory lexical decision task tests whether acoustic properties reflecting either the typical or the atypical prosodic environment impact the processing of recordings of the stimuli. In doing so assumptions about the storage of prosody-induced phonetic detail are tested that distinguish competing model architectures. The results are most straightforwardly accounted for within an abstractionist architecture, in which the acoustic signal is mapped onto a representation that is based on the canonical pronunciation of the word.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ml.19025.loh
2021-10-08
2024-09-09

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ml.19025.loh
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baayen, H. R., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H.
    (2001) WebCelex. Online resource. Retrieved fromcelex.mpi.nl
  2. 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]
  3. Bates, D. M., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S.
    (2014) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4 [Computer software]. Retrieved fromCRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
  4. Black, M., & Chiat, S.
    (2003) Noun-verb dissociations: a multi-faceted phenomenon. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 16, 231–250. 10.1016/S0911‑6044(02)00017‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0911-6044(02)00017-9 [Google Scholar]
  5. 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. doi:  10.1037/a0038509
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038509 [Google Scholar]
  6. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D.
    (2016) Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer software]. Retrieved fromwww.praat.org
  7. 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(4), 421–437. doi:  10.1016/j.jml.2010.01.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  8. Cohen, C., & Kang, S.
    (2018) Flexible perceptual sensitivity to acoustic and distributional cues. The Mental Lexicon, 13(1), 38–73. doi:  10.1075/ml.16029.coh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.16029.coh [Google Scholar]
  9. Conwell, E.
    (2015) Neural responses to category ambiguous words. Neuropsychologia, 69, 85–92. doi:  10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.01.036
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.01.036 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2017) Token Frequency Effects in Homophone Production: An Elicitation Study. Language and Speech, 23830917737108. doi:  10.1177/0023830917737108
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830917737108 [Google Scholar]
  11. Conwell, E., & Morgan, J. L.
    (2012) Is It a Noun or Is It a Verb? Resolving the Ambicategoricality Problem. Language Learning and Development, 8(2), 87–112. doi:  10.1080/15475441.2011.580236
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2011.580236 [Google Scholar]
  12. Davies, M.
    (2014) The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990–2012.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Ernestus, M.
    (2000) Voice assimilation and segment reduction in casual Dutch, a corpus-based study of the phonology-phonetics interface. Utrecht: LOT.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. (2014) Acoustic reduction and the roles of abstractions and exemplars in speech processing. Lingua, 142, 27–41. 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.006 [Google Scholar]
  15. Goldinger, S. D.
    (1996) Auditory Lexical Decision. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11(6), 559–568. doi:  10.1080/016909696386944
     https://doi.org/10.1080/016909696386944 [Google Scholar]
  16. (1997) Words and Voices: Perception and Production in an Episodic Lexicon. InK. Johnson (Ed.), Talker variability in speech processing (pp.33–66). San Diego: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Kemps, R. [Rachel], Ernestus, M., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, H. R.
    (2005) Prosodic cues for morphological complexity: The case of Dutch plural nouns. Memory & Cognition, 33(3), 430–446. 10.3758/BF03193061
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193061 [Google Scholar]
  18. Kemps, R. [Rachèl], Ernestus, M., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, H.
    (2004) Processing reduced word forms: The suffix restoration effect. Brain and Language, 90(1–3), 117–127. doi:  10.1016/S0093‑934X(03)00425‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00425-5 [Google Scholar]
  19. Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M.
    (2010) Wuggy: A multilingual pseudoword generator. Behavior Research Methods, 42(3), 627–633. 10.3758/BRM.42.3.627
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.3.627 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kisler, T., Reichel, U., & Schiel, F.
    (2017) Multilingual processing of speech via web services. Computer Speech and Language, 45, 326–347. 10.1016/j.csl.2017.01.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2017.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B.
    (2014) lmerTest [Computer software]. Retrieved fromcran.r-project.org/web/packages/lmerTest/index.html
  22. Lahiri, A., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D.
    (1991) The mental representation of lexical form: A phonological appraoch to the recognition lexicon. Cognition, 38, 245–294. 10.1016/0010‑0277(91)90008‑R
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90008-R [Google Scholar]
  23. Lohmann, Arne
    (2020) Nouns and verbs in the speech signal: Are there phonetic correlates of grammatical category?Linguistics58(6), 1877–1911. 10.1515/ling‑2020‑0249
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0249 [Google Scholar]
  24. McQueen, J. M.
    (2005) Speech Perception. InK. Lamberts & R. L. Goldstone (Eds.), Handbook of cognition (pp.255–275). London: SAGE. 10.4135/9781848608177.n11
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608177.n11 [Google Scholar]
  25. Mitterer, H., & McQueen, J. M.
    (2009) Processing reduced word-forms in speech perception using probabilistic knowledge about speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 35(1), 244–263. doi:  10.1037/a0012730
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012730 [Google Scholar]
  26. Nearey, T. M.
    (2001) Phoneme-like units and speech perception. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16(5–6), 673–681. doi:  10.1080/01690960143000173
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960143000173 [Google Scholar]
  27. Pierrehumbert, J.
    (2001) Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. InJ. Bybee & P. J. Hopper (Eds.), Typological studies in language: v. 45. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure (pp.137–157). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/tsl.45.08pie
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.08pie [Google Scholar]
  28. Politzer-Ahles, S., & Piccinini, P.
    (2018) On visualizing phonetic data from repeated measures experiments with multiple random effects. Journal of Phonetics, 70, 56–69. doi:  10.1016/j.wocn.2018.05.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2018.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  29. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2014) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing} [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved fromwww.R-project.org/
  30. Ranbom, L., & Connine, C.
    (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]
  31. 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]
  32. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A.
    (2015) E-Prime Professional (Version 2.0) [Computer software]. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 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]
  34. Seyfarth, S., Garellek, M., Gillingham, G., Ackerman, F., & Malouf, R.
    (2017) Acoustic differences in morphologically-distinct homophones. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 88(2), 1–18. doi:  10.1080/23273798.2017.1359634
     https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2017.1359634 [Google Scholar]
  35. Shatzman, K. B., & McQueen, J. M.
    (2006) Prosodic knowledge affects the recognition of newly acquired words. Psychological Science, 17(5), 372–377. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑9280.2006.01714.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01714.x [Google Scholar]
  36. Sorensen, J. M., Cooper, W. E., & Paccia, J. M.
    (1978) Speech timing of grammatical categories. Cognition, 6(2), 135–153. doi:  10.1016/0010‑0277(78)90019‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(78)90019-7 [Google Scholar]
  37. Sóskuthy, M., & Hay, J.
    (2017) Changing word usage predicts changing word durations in New Zealand English. Cognition, 166, 298–313. doi:  10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.032
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.032 [Google Scholar]
  38. Tucker, B. V.
    (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]
  39. Tucker, B. V., Brenner, D., Danielson, D. K., Kelley, M. C., Nenadić, F., & Sims, M.
    (2019) The Massive Auditory Lexical Decision (MALD) database. Behavior Research Methods, 51(3), 1187–1204. doi:  10.3758/s13428‑018‑1056‑1
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1056-1 [Google Scholar]
  40. Turk, A. E., & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S.
    (2007) Multiple targets of phrase-final lengthening in American English words. Journal of Phonetics, 35(4), 445–472. doi:  10.1016/j.wocn.2006.12.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2006.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  41. Ussishkin, A., Dawson, C. R., Wedel, A., & Schluter, K.
    (2015) Auditory masked priming in Maltese spoken word recognition. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(9), 1096–1115. doi:  10.1080/23273798.2015.1005635
     https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1005635 [Google Scholar]
  42. Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Druks, J., Barber, H., & Cappa, S. F.
    (2011) Nouns and verbs in the brain: A review of behavioural, electrophysiological, neuropsychological and imaging studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(3), 407–426. doi:  10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.04.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.04.007 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.19025.loh
Loading
Testing the storage of prosody-induced phonetic detail via auditory lexical decision
The Mental Lexicon 16, 133 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.19025.loh
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.19025.loh
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.19025.loh
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): grammatical category; homophones; phonetic detail; prosody

Most Cited

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