Cover not available
Part of
Polylogues on The Mental Lexicon: An exploration of fundamental issues and directions
Edited by Gary Libben, Gonia Jarema and Victor Kuperman
[Not in series 238] 2021
► pp. 77–108

Chapter 4
Why we need to investigate casual speech to truly understand language production, processing and the mental lexicon

| University of Alberta
| Radboud University
Article outline
  • Thesis
  • Commentaries on Tucker and Ernestus thesis
    • Ray Jackendoff commentary on Tucker and Ernestus thesis
    • James Myers commentary on Tucker and Ernestus thesis
    • Dorit Ravid commentary on Tucker and Ernestus thesis
    • Russel Richie commentary on Tucker and Ernestus thesis
    • Chris Westbury commentary on Tucker and Ernestus thesis
  • The article
    • Why casual speech has attracted so little attention within psycholinguistics
    • Relevance of differences between casual and careful speech for psycholinguistics
      • Differences in word choice
      • Differences at the syntactic level
      • Differences in tones and intonation
      • Phonological assimilation
      • Single sound substitutions and the absence of sounds
      • Continua of pronunciation variation
    • Challenges and opportunities for research on the production of casual speech
      • Experimental paradigms
      • Compiling and working with corpora of casual speech
      • Statistical modeling of casual speech data
    • Challenges and opportunities for research on the comprehension of casual speech
      • The stimuli in comprehension experiments
      • Experimental paradigms
    • Where do we think psycholinguistic research should go?
  • References
Published online: 13 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.238.04tuc
References (97)
References
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing Linguistic Data. A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., van Rij, J., de Cat, C. and Wood, S. N. (to appear) Autocorrelated errors in experimental data in the language sciences: Some solutions offered by Generalized Additive Mixed Models. In Speelman, D., Heylen, K. and Geeraerts, D. (eds), Mixed Effects Regression Models in Linguistics. Berlin, Springer. Retrieved from [URL]. DOI logo
Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S. and Baayen, R. H. (submitted) Parsimonious mixed models.
Bates, E., & Liu, H. (1996). Cued shadowing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11(6), 577–582. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bentum, M., Ernestus, M., ten Bosch, L. & van den Bosch, A. (submitted) How do speech registers differ in the predictability of words?
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Bernhard, D., & Tucker, B. (2015). The effects of duration on human processing of reduced speech. Canadian Acoustics, 43(3).Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brand, Sophie & Ernestus, Mirjam. (submitted) How do native listeners and learners of French comprehend French word pronunciation variants?
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Brenner, D. S. (2015). The phonetics of Mandarin tones in conversation. Retrieved from [URL]
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Connine, C. M., & Titone, D. (1996). Phoneme monitoring. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11(6), 635–646. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Chat, C. (2007). French Dislocation. Interpretation, syntax, acquisition. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics, 17. Oxford University Press, Oxford, (288pp).Google Scholar
Dilts, P. C. (2013). Modelling phonetic reduction in a corpus of spoken English using Random Forests and Mixed-Effects Regression (Thesis). Retrieved from [URL]
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. DOI logo
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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
(2012). Message related variation: Segmental within speaker variation. In: A. C. Cohn, C. Fougeron, & M. Huffman (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Laboratory Phonology, 92–102. OUP, Oxford.Google Scholar
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.), pages 374–400. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, West Sussex. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ernestus, M., Baayen, R. H., & Schreuder, R. (2002). The recognition of reduced word forms. Brain and Language, 81, 162–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Fowler, C. A., & Turvey, M. T. (1981). Immediate compensation in bite-block speech. Phonetica, 37(5–6), 306–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Galliano, S., Georois, E., Mostefa, D., Choukri, K., Bonastre, J.-F., and Gravier, J. (2005). ESTER phase II evaluation campaign for the rich transcription of French broadcast news. Proc. Interspeech 2005, 2453–2456.Google Scholar
Gaskell, Gareth and William Marslen-Wilson. (1998). Mechanisms of phonological inference in speech perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24: 380–396.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Gick, B. (2002). The use of ultrasound for linguistic phonetic fieldwork. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 32(02), 113–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, S. (1999). Speaking in shorthand – A syllable-centric perspective for understanding pronunciation variation. Speech Communication, 29, 159–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Hastie, T. J. & Tibshirani, R. J. (2002). Generalized additive models. Vol. 43. CRC Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Heylighen, F., & Dewaele, J.-M. (2002). Variation in the contextuality of language: An empirical measure. Foundations of Science, 7(3), 293–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. (1955). A manual of phonology. Baltimore: Waverly Press.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1992). The concept of communicative competence revisited. Thirty years of linguistic evolution. Studies in honour of René Dirven on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, 31–57.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Kruschke, J. K. (2010). What to believe: Bayesian methods for data analysis. Trends in cognitive sciences, 14(7), 293–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Doing Bayesian data analysis: A tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan. Academic Press.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lahiri, A., & Reetz, H. (2002). ‘Underspecified recognition’, in Carlos Gussenhoven, Natasha Warner, and Toni Rietveld (eds.), Phonology & Phonetics: Laboratory Phonology VII. Berlin, Mouton, pp. 637–676. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, B. (1963). Spectrographic study of vowel reduction. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 35(11), 1773–1781. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, S.; Samuel, A. G. (2004). Perception of Mandarin lexical tones when F0 information is neutralized. Language & Speech, 47: 109–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk. Third Edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
McQueen, J. (1996). Word spotting. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11(6), 695–699. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mehta, G., & Cutler, A. (1988). Detection of target phonemes in spontaneous and read speech. Language and Speech, 31 (Pt 2), 135–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Mulder, K., ten Bosch, L., & Boves, L. (submitted) Comparing different methods for analyzing ERP signals. DOI logo
Munson, B., & Solomon, N. P. (2004). The Effect of Phonological Neighborhood Density on Vowel Articulation. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 47(5), 1048–1058. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Oostdijk, N. (2000). The Spoken Dutch Corpus Project. The ELRA Newsletter, 5, 4–8.Google Scholar
Pitt, M. A., Dilley, L., Johnson, K., Kiesling, S., Raymond, W., Hume, E., & Fosler-Lussier, E. (2007). Buckeye Corpus of Conversational Speech (2nd release) [[URL]] Columbus, OH: Department of Psychology. Ohio State University (Distributor).
Pluymaekers, M., Ernestus, M., & Baayen, R. (2006). Articulatory planning is continuous and sensitive to informational redundancy. Phonetica, 62(2–4), 146–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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).
Pollack, I., & Pickett, J. M. (1963). Intelligibility of excerpts from conversational speech. Language and Speech, 6, 165–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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, 87–90. Bonn: Scheur.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Stampe, D. (1973). A Dissertation on Natural Phonology. PhD Diss. University of Chicago.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Taft, M., & Chen, H. C. (1992). Judging homophony in Chinese: The influence of tones. Advances in Psychology, 90, 151–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Torreira, F., Adda-Decker, M., and Ernestus, M. (2010). The Nijmegen Corpus of Casual French. Speech Communication, 52:201–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tucker, B. V. (2007). Spoken word recognition of the reduced American English Flap. The University of Arizona. Retrieved from [URL]
(2011). The effect of reduction on the processing of flaps and /g/ in isolated words. Journal of Phonetics, 39(3), 312–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tyrone, M. E., & Mauk, C. E. (2010). Sign lowering and phonetic reduction in American Sign Language. Journal of Phonetics, 38(2), 317–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.
Ven, M. van de, 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.Google Scholar
Viebahn, M., M. Ernestus, & J. McQueen. (2015). Syntactic predictability in the recognition of carefully and casually produced speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41 (6), 1684–1702.Google Scholar
Wagner, P., Trouvain, J., & Zimmerer, F. (2015). In defense of stylistic diversity in speech research. Journal of Phonetics, 48, 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 1866–1891). John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Methods for studying spontaneous speech. In A. Cohn, C. Fougeron, & M. Huffman (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Laboratory Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 621–633.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 (366–373). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Wood, S. N. (2006). Generalized Additive Models. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 from [URL]
Xu, Y. (2010). In defense of lab speech. Journal of Phonetics, 38(3), 329–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar