Article published in:
The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 13:1 (2018) ► pp. 38–73

Flexible perceptual sensitivity to acoustic and distributional cues

| University of Glasgow | University of California, Berkeley
| The George Washington University | University of California, Berkeley
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.
Keywords: probability, perception, pronunciation variation, cognitive resources, phonetics, morphology
Article outline
  • Experiment 1a
    • Methods
      • Participants
      • Materials
      • Design
      • Procedure
    • Results
      • Accuracy
      • Reaction time
    • Discussion
  • Experiment 1b
    • Methods
      • Participants
      • Materials
      • Design
      • Procedure
      • Results
      • Accuracy
      • Reaction time
    • Discussion
  • Experiment 2
    • Methods
      • Participants
      • Materials
      • Design
      • Procedure
    • Results
      • Accuracy
      • Reaction time
    • Discussion
  • Experiment 3
    • Methods
      • Participants
      • Materials
      • Design
      • Procedure
    • Results
      • Accuracy
      • Reaction time
    • Discussion
  • General discussion
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 August 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.16029.coh
References
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y.
(1999) Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73(3), 247–264. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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, 431, 1–29.Google Scholar
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, 941, 206–234. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D.
(2015) Praat: doing phonetics by computer. Retrieved from http://​www​.praat​.org
Brysbaert, M., New, B., & Keuleers, E.
(2012) Adding part-of-speech information to the SUBTLEX-US word frequencies. Behavior Research Methods, 441, 991–997. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, C.
(2014) Probabilistic reduction and probabilistic enhancement. Morphology, 24(4), 291–323. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Context and paradigms: Two patterns of probabilistic pronunciation variation in Russian agreement suffixes. The Mental Lexicon, 10(3), 313–338. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gahl, S., & Garnsey, S. M.
(2004) Knowledge of Grammar, Knowledge of Usage: Syntactic Probabilities Affect Pronunciation Variation. Language, 80(4), 748–775. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. In Chicago Linguistics Society (Vol. 351, pp. 151–166).Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehiste, I.
(1972) {T}he timing of utterances and linguistic boundaries. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 51(6.2), 2018–2024. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lukyanenko, C., & Fisher, C.
(2016) Where are the cookies? Two- and three-year-olds use number-marked verbs to anticipate upcoming nouns. Cognition, 1461, 349–370. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mattys, S. L., Barden, K., & Samuel, A. G.
(2014) Extrinsic cognitive load impairs low-level speech perception. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(3), 748–754. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mattys, S. L., & Wiget, L.
(2011) Effects of cognitive load on speech recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(2), 145–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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, 941, 305–315. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Molinaro, N., Barber, H. A., & Carreiras, M.
(2011) Grammatical agreement processing in reading: ERP findings and future directions. Cortex, 47(8), 908–930. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Osterhout, L., & Mobley, L. A.
(1995) Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language, 341, 739–773. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team
(2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://​www​.r​-project​.org/
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Producing inflected verbs: A picture naming study. The Mental Lexicon, 5(1), 22–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tily, H., & Kuperman, V.
(2012) {R}ational phonological lengthening in spoken {D}utch. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 132(6), 3935–3940. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
White, L., & Turk, A. E.
(2010) English words on the Procrustean bed: Polysyllabic shortening reconsidered. Journal of Phonetics, 38(3), 459–471. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Lohmann, Arne & Benjamin V. Tucker
2021. Testing the storage of prosody-induced phonetic detail via auditory lexical decision. The Mental Lexicon 16:1 ► pp. 133 ff. Crossref logo
Schlechtweg, Marcel & Greville G. Corbett
2021. The duration of word-final s in English: A comparison of regular-plural and pluralia-tantum nouns. Morphology 31:4 ► pp. 383 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.