Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Discourse context and the recognition of reduced and canonical spoken words

  • SUSANNE BROUWER (a1), HOLGER MITTERER (a1) and FALK HUETTIG (a2)

Abstract

In two eye-tracking experiments we examined whether wider discourse information helps the recognition of reduced pronunciations (e.g., “puter”) more than the recognition of canonical pronunciations of spoken words (e.g., “computer”). Dutch participants listened to sentences from a casual speech corpus containing canonical and reduced target words. Target word recognition was assessed by measuring eye fixation proportions to four printed words on a visual display: the target, a “reduced form” competitor, a “canonical form” competitor, and an unrelated distractor. Target sentences were presented in isolation or with a wider discourse context. Experiment 1 revealed that target recognition was facilitated by wider discourse information. It is important that the recognition of reduced forms improved significantly when preceded by strongly rather than by weakly supportive discourse contexts. This was not the case for canonical forms: listeners’ target word recognition was not dependent on the degree of supportive context. Experiment 2 showed that the differential context effects in Experiment 1 were not due to an additional amount of speaker information. Thus, these data suggest that in natural settings a strongly supportive discourse context is more important for the recognition of reduced forms than the recognition of canonical forms.

Copyright

Corresponding author

ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Susanne Brouwer, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, P.O. Box 310, 6500 AH Nijmegen, The Netherlands. E-mail: s-brouwer@northwestern.edu

References

Hide All
Aglioti, S. M., Cesari, P., Romani, M., & Urgesi, C. (2008). Action anticipation and motor resonance in elite basketball players. Nature Neuroscience, 11, 11091116.
Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247264.
Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (2004). Now you see it, now you don't: Mediating the mapping between language and visual world. In Henderson, J. & Ferreira, F. (Eds.), The interface of language, vision, and action: Eye movements and the visual world. New York: Psychology Press.
Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (2007). The real-time mediation of visual attention by language and world knowledge: Linking anticipatory (and other) eye movements to linguistic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 502518.
Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (2009). Discourse-mediation of the mapping between language and the visual world: Eye-movements and mental representation. Cognition, 111, 5571.
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390412.
Barr, D. J. (2008). Analyzing “visual world” eye tracking data using multilevel logistic regression. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 457474.
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. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113, 10011024.
Boersma, P. (2001). PRAAT, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International, 5, 341345.
Bradlow, A. R., Nygaard, L. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1999). Effects of talker, rate, and amplitude variation on recognition memory for spoken words. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 206219.
Connine, C. M., Ranbom, L. J., & Patterson, D. J. (2008). Processing variant forms in spoken word recognition: The role of variant frequency. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 403411.
Connolly, J. F., & Phillips, N. A. (1994). Event-related potential components reflect phonological and semantic processing of the terminal word of spoken sentences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 6, 256266.
Cooper, R. M. (1974). The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language. A new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory, and language processing. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 84107.
Dahan, D., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2004). Continuous mapping from sound to meaning in spoken-language comprehension: Evidence from immediate effects of verb-based constraints. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 498513.
De Ruiter, J. P., Mitterer, H., & Enfield, N. (2006). Projecting the end of a speaker's turn: A cognitive cornerstone of conversation. Language, 82, 515535.
Eisner, F., & McQueen, J. M. (2005). The specificity of perceptual learning in speech processing. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 224238.
Ernestus, M. (2000). Voice assimilation and segment reduction in casual Dutch. A corpus based study of the phonology-phonetics interface. Utrecht: LOT.
Ernestus, M., Baayen, H., & Schreuder, R. (2002). The recognition of reduced word forms. Brain and Language, 81, 162173.
Federmeier, K. D. (2007). Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 44, 491505.
Floccia, C., Goslin, J., Girard, F., & Konopczynski, G. (2006). Does a regional accent perturb speech processing? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 12761293.
Gaskell, M. G., & Snoeren, N. D. (2008). The impact of strong assimilation on the perception of connected speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 16321647.
Goldinger, S. D. (1998). Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review, 105, 251279.
Gow, D. W. (2002). Does English coronal place assimilation create lexical ambiguity? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 163179.
Huettig, F., & Altmann, G. T. M. (2007). Visual-shape competition during language-mediated attention is based on lexical input and not modulated by contextual appropriateness. Visual Cognition, 15, 9851018.
Huettig, F., & McQueen, J. M. (2007). The tug of war between phonological, semantic and shape information in language-mediated visual search. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 460482.
Huettig, F., Rommers, J., & Meyer, A. S. (2011). Using the visual world paradigm to study language processing: A review and critical evaluation. Acta Psychologica, 137, 151171.
Huettig, F., Singh, N., & Mishra, R. K. (2010). Language-mediated prediction is modulated by formal literacy. Paper presented at the Brain, Speech, and Orthography Workshop, October 15–16, Brussels.
Johnson, K. (1997). Speech perception without speaker normalization: An exemplar model. In Johnson, K. & Mullennix, J. W. (Eds.), Talker Variability in Speech Processing (pp. 145165). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Johnson, K. (2004). Massive reduction in conversational American English. In Yoneyama, K. & Maekawa, K. (Eds.), Spontaneous speech: Data and analysis. Proceedings of the 1st session of the 10th International Symposium (pp. 2954). Tokyo: National International Institute for Japanese Language.
Jurafsky, D., Bell, A., Gregory, M., & Raymond, W. D. (2001). Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 229254). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T. M., & Haywood, S. L. (2003). Prediction and thematic information in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 133156.
Kamide, Y., Scheepers, C., & Altmann, G. T. M. (2003). Integration of syntactic and semantic information in predictive processing: Cross-linguistic evidence from German and English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32, 3755.
Kemps, R., Ernestus, M., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, H. (2004). Processing reduced word forms: The suffix restoration effect. Brain and Language, 90, 117127.
Kraljic, T., Brennan, S. E., & Samuel, A. G. (2008). Accommodating variation: Dialects, idiolects, and speech processing. Cognition, 107, 5181.
Kraljic, T., & Samuel, A. G. (2005). Perceptual learning for speech: Is there a return to normal? Cognitive Psychology, 51, 141178.
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307, 161163.
Ladefoged, P., & Broadbent, D. E. (1957). Information conveyed by vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 27, 98104.
Lahiri, A., & Reetz, H. (2002). Underspecified recognition. In Gussenhoven, C., Warner, N., & Rietveld, T. (Eds.), Labphon 7 (pp. 637676). Berlin: Mouton.
Lieberman, P. (1963). Some effects of semantic and grammatical context on the production and perception of speech. Language and Speech, 6, 172187.
Lindblom, B. (1990). Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H and H theory. In Hardcastle, W. & Marchal, A. (Eds.), Speech production and speech modelling (pp. 403439). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Matin, E., Shao, K. C., & Boff, K. R. (1993). Saccadic overhead: Information-processing time with and without saccades. Perception and Psychophysics, 53, 372380.
McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 186.
McQueen, J. M., & Viebahn, M. (2007). Tracking recognition of spoken words by tracking looks to printed words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 661671.
Mitterer, H. (2006). Is vowel normalization independent of lexical processing? Phonetica, 63, 209229.
Mitterer, H. (2011). The mental lexicon is fully specified: Evidence from eye-tracking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 496513.
Mitterer, H., & Blomert, L. (2003). Coping with phonological assimilation in speech perception: Evidence for early compensation. Perception and Psychophysics, 65, 956969.
Mitterer, H., Chen, Y., & Zhou, X. (2011). Phonological abstraction in processing lexical tone variation: Evidence from a learning paradigm. Cognitive Science, 35, 184197.
Mori, S., Ohtani, Y., & Imanaka, K. (2002). Reaction times and anticipatory skills of karate athletes. Human Movement Science, 21, 213220.
Mullennix, J. W., Pisoni, D. B., & Martin, C. S. (1989). Some effects of talker variability on spoken word recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85, 365378.
Newman, R. S., & Sawusch, J. R. (1996). Perceptual normalization for speaking rate: Effects of temporal distance. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 540560.
Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (2003). Perceptual learning in speech. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 204238.
Norris, D. G. (1994). Shortlist: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition, 52, 189234.
Nygaard, L. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Talker-specific learning in speech perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 335376.
Nygaard, L. C., Sommers, M. S., & Pisoni, D. B. (1994). Speech perception as a talker-contingent process. Psychological Science, 5, 4246.
Oostdijk, N. (2000). The Spoken Dutch Corpus Project. ELRA Newsletter, 5, 48.
Palmeri, T. J., Goldinger, S. D., & Pisoni, D. B. (1993). Episodic encoding of voice attributes and recognition memory for spoken words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 309328.
Pitt, M. A. (2009). How are pronunciation variants of spoken words recognized? A test of generalization to newly learned words. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 1936.
Ranbom, L. J., & Connine, C. M. (2007). Lexical representation of phonological variation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 273298.
Samuel, A. G., & Kraljic, T. (2009). Perceptual learning in speech perception. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 71, 12071218.
Schiller, N. O., Horemans, I., Ganushchak, L., & Koester, D. (2009). Event-related brain potentials during the monitoring of speech errors. NeuroImage, 44, 520530.
Swinney, D. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re) consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645659.
Tabossi, P. (1988). Accessing lexical ambiguity in different types of sentential context. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 324340.
Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension, Science, 268, 16321634.
Van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V., & Hagoort, P. (2005). Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 443467.
Van den Brink, D., Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (2001). Electrophysiological evidence for early contextual influences during spoken-word recognition: N200 versus N400 effects. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13, 967985.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Discourse context and the recognition of reduced and canonical spoken words

  • SUSANNE BROUWER (a1), HOLGER MITTERER (a1) and FALK HUETTIG (a2)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.