Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5d6d958fb5-jkwcl Total loading time: 2.284 Render date: 2022-11-27T20:13:18.082Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Cumulative context effects and variant lexical representations: Word use and English final t/d deletion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 June 2016

William D. Raymond
Affiliation:
University of Colorado, Boulder
Esther L. Brown
Affiliation:
University of Colorado, Boulder
Alice F. Healy
Affiliation:
University of Colorado, Boulder

Abstract

Word production variability is widespread in speech, and rates of variant production correlate with many factors. Recent research suggests mental representation of both canonical word forms and distinct reduced variants, and that production and processing are sensitive to variant frequency. What factors lead to frequency-weighted variant representations? An experiment manipulated following context and word repetition for final t/d words in read, narrative English speech. Modeling the experimentally generated data statistically showed higher final-segment deletion in tokens followed by consonant-initial words, but no evidence of increased deletion with repetition, regardless of context. Deletion rates were also higher the greater a word's cumulative exposure to consonant contexts (measured from distributional statistics), but there was no effect of word frequency. Token effects are interpreted in terms of articulation processes. The type-level context effect is interpreted within exemplar and usage-based models of language to suggest that experiences with word variants in contexts register as frequency-weighted representations.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arnon, Inbal, & Snider, Neal. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 62:6782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Audacity Team. (2008). Audacity (version 1.2.3) [Computer program]. Available at: http://audacity.sourceforge.net/. Accessed July 2006.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Davidson, Donald J., & Bates, Douglas M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59:390412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas. (2005). Fitting linear mixed models in R. R News 5(1):2730.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Maechler, Martin, & Bolker, Benjamin. (2011). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-40. Available at: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4. Accessed November 2014.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul, & Weenink, David. (2005). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (version 5.2.18) [Computer program]. Available at: http://www.praat.org/. Accessed March 2011.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P., & Goldstein, Louis. (1990). Gestural specification using dynamically-defined articulatory structures. Journal of Phonetics 18:299320.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P., & Goldstein, Louis. (1992). Articulatory phonology: An overview. Phonetica 49:155180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, Esther L. (2004). Reduction of syllable-initial /s/ in the Spanish of New Mexico and Southern Colorado: A usage-based approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of New Mexico.Google Scholar
Brown, Esther L., & Raymond, William D. (2012). How discourse context shapes the lexicon: Explaining the distribution of Spanish f-/h- words. Diachronica 29(2):139161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Esther L., & Raymond, William D. (2014). Contextual frequency effects in Spanish phonology. Paper presented at the Georgetown University Round Table, Washington, D.C., March.Google Scholar
Brown, Esther L., & Rivas, Javier. (2012). Grammatical relation probability: How usage patterns shape analogy. Language Variation and Change 24:317341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bürki, Audrey, Ernestus, Mirjam, & Frauenfelder, Ulrich H. (2010). Is there only one “fenêtre” in the production lexicon? On-line evidence on the nature of phonological representations of pronunciation variants in French schwa words. Journal of Memory and Language 62:421437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bürki, Audrey, Ernestus, Mirjam, Gendrot, Cédric, Fougeron, Cécile, & Frauenfelder, Ulrich. (2011). What affects the presence versus absence of schwa and its duration: A corpus analysis of French connected speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 130(6):39803991.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bürki, Audrey, & Gaskell, M. Gareth. (2012). Lexical representation of schwa words: Two mackerels, but only one salami. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory, and Cognition 38:617631.Google ScholarPubMed
Bybee, Joan L. (2000). The phonology of the lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion. In Barlow, M. & Kemmer, S. (eds.), Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CSLI. 6585.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. (2002). Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change 14:261290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrd, Dani. (1994). Relations of sex and dialect to reduction. Speech Communication 15:3954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrd, Dani. (1996). Influences on articulatory timing in consonant sequences. Journal of Phonetics 4:5974.Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. (2009). An integrated grammatical/non-grammatical model of phonological variation. In Kang, Y.-S., Yoon, J.-Y., Yoo, H., Tang, S.-W., Kang, Y.-S., Jang, Y., Kim, C., Kim, K.-A., & Kang, H.-K. (eds.), Current issues in linguistic interfaces. Vol. 2. Seoul: Hankookmunhuasa. 267294.Google Scholar
Connine, Cynthia M. (2004). It's not what you hear but how often you hear it: On the neglected role of phonological variant frequency in auditory word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 11:10841089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connine, Cynthia M., & Pinnow, Eleni. (2006). Phonological variation in spoken word recognition: Episodes and abstractions. Linguistic Review 23:235245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connine, Cynthia M., Ranbom, Larissa J., & Patterson, David J. (2008). On the representation of phonological variant frequency in spoken word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics 70:403411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark. (2008–). The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990–present. Available at: http://corpus.byu.edu/8. Accessed August 2012.Google Scholar
de Jong, Kenneth. (1998). Stress-related variation in the articulation of coda alveolar stops: Flapping revisited. Journal of Phonetics 26:283310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Peter. (2008). Models of accuracy in repeated-measures design. Journal of Memory and Language 59:447456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eddington, David, & Channer, Caitlin. (2010). American English has go? a lo? of glottal stops: Social diffusion and linguistic motivation. American Speech 85:338351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam. (2014). Acoustic reduction and the roles of abstraction and exemplars in speech processing. Lingua 142:2741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam, Lahey, Mybeth, Verhees, Femke, & Baayen, R. Harald. (2006). Lexical frequency and voice assimilation. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 120:10401051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falahati, Reza, & Mielke, Jeff. (2011). An ultrasound study of coronal stop deletion in Persian. Canadian Acoustics/Acoustique Canadienne 39:172173.Google Scholar
Fasold, R. (1972). Tense marking in Black English: A linguistic and social analysis. Urban Language Series 8. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
File-Muriel, Richard J., & Brown, Earl K. (2011). The gradient nature of s-lenition in Caleño Spanish. Language Variation and Change 23:223243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fosler-Lussier, Eric, & Morgan, Nelson. (1999). Effects of speaking rate and word frequency on conversational pronunciations. Speech Communication 29:11371158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, Carol A., Levy, Elena T., & Brown, Julie M. (1997). Reductions of spoken words in certain discourse contexts. Journal of Memory and Language 37:2440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gahl, Susanne. (2008). “Thyme” and “time” are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language 84:474496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaskell, M. Gareth, & Marslen-Wilson, William D. (1998). Mechanisms of phonological inference in speech perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24:380396.Google Scholar
Godfrey, John J., Holliman, Edward C., & McDaniel, Jane. (1992). SWITCHBOARD: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing 1:517520.Google Scholar
Goldinger, Stephen D. (1996). Words and voices: Episodic traces in spoken word identification and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22:11661183.Google ScholarPubMed
Grosjean, François. (1998). Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1:131149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. (1980). Variation in the group and the individual: The case of final stop deletion. In Labov, W. (ed.), Locating language in time and space. Academic Press: New York. 136.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R., & Boberg, Charles. (1997). Inherent variability and the obligatory contour principle. Language Variation and Change 9:149164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, Gregory R., Hay, Jennifer, & Walker, Abby. (2008). Phonological, lexical, and frequency factors in coronal stop deletion in early New Zealand English. Poster presented at The 11th Conference on Laboratory Phonology, Wellington, July.Google Scholar
Hanique, Iris, Ernestus, Mirjam, & Schuppler, Barbara. (2013). Informal speech processes can be categorical in nature, even if they affect many different words. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 133:16441655.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janse, Esther, Nooteboom, Sieb G., & Quené, Hugo. (2007). Coping with gradient forms of /t/-deletion and lexical ambiguity in spoken word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes 22:161200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Keith. (1997). Speech perception without speaker normalization: An exemplar model. In Johnson, K., & Mullennix, J. W. (eds.), Talker variability in speech processing. San Diego: Academic. 145165.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel, Bell, Alan, Fosler-Lussier, Eric, Girand, Cynthia, & Raymond, William D. (1998). Reduction of English function words in Switchboard. Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing 7:31113114.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel, Bell, Alan, Gregory, Michelle, & Raymond, William D. (2001a). The effect of language model probability on pronunciation reduction. Proceedings of ICASSP-01 2:801804.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel, Bell, Alan, Gregory, Michelle, & Raymond, William D. (2001b). Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In Bybee, J., & Hopper, P. (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 229254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kliegl, Reinhold, Wei, Ping, Dambacher, Michael, Yan, Ming, & Zhou, Xiaolin. (2011). Experimental effects and individual differences in linear mixed models: Estimating the relationship between spatial, object, and attraction effects in visual attention. Frontiers in Psychology 1:238.Google ScholarPubMed
Labov, William. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lichtman, Karen. (2010). Testing articulatory phonology: Variation in gestures for coda /t/. Paper presented at ILLS (Illinois Language and Linguistic Society) 2, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne, May.Google Scholar
Marin, Stefania, & Pouplier, Marianne. (2010). Temporal organization of complex onsets and codas in American English: Testing the predictions of a gestural coupling model. Motor Control 14:380407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitterer, Holger, & Ernestus, Mirjam. (2006). Listeners recover /t/'s that speakers reduce: Evidence from /t/-lenition in Dutch. Journal of Phonetics 34:73103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neu, Helene. (1980). Ranking of constraints on American /t,d/ deletion in American English: A statistical analysis. In Labov, W. (ed.), Locating language in time and space. Academic Press: New York. 3754.Google Scholar
Oshika, Beatrice T., Zue, Victor W., Weeks, Rollin V., Neu, Helene, & Auerbach, Joseph. (1975). The role of phonological rules in speech understanding research. IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing ASSP-23:104112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patrick, Peter L. (1991). Creoles at the intersection of variable processes: -t, -d deletion and past-tense marking in the Jamaican mesolect. Language Variation and Change 32:171189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Betty S. (2006). Word frequency and lexical diffusion. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert., Janet B. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition, and contrast. In Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 137157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert., Janet B. (2006). The statistical basis of unnatural alternation. In Goldstein, L., Whalen, D. H., & Best, C. (eds.), Laboratory phonology VIII, varieties of phonological competence. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. 81107.Google Scholar
Pinnow, Eleni, & Connine, Cynthia M. (2014). Phonological variant recognition: Representation and rules. Language and Speech 57:4267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pitt, Mark. (2009). How are pronunciation variants of spoken words recognized? A test of generalization to newly learned words. Journal of Memory and Language 61:1936.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pitt, Mark, Dilley, Laura, Johnson, Keith, Kiesling, Scott, Raymond, William, Hume, Elizabeth, & Fosler-Lusier, Eric. (2007). Buckeye corpus of conversational speech. 2nd release. Columbus: Department of Psychology, Ohio State University. Available at: www.buckeyecorpus.edu. Accessed November 2003.Google Scholar
Pitt, Mark, Dilley, Laura, & Tat, Michael. (2011). Exploring the role of production frequency in recognizing pronunciation variants. Journal of Phonetics 39:304311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Development Core Team. (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed April 2011.Google Scholar
Ranbom, Larissa J., & Connine, Cynthia M. (2007). Lexical representation of phonological variation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 57:278298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, William D., & Brown, Esther L. (2012). Are effects of word frequency effects of context of use? An analysis of initial fricative reduction in Spanish. In Th. Gries, S. & Divjak, D. S. (eds.), Frequency effects in language. Vol. 2: Learning and processing. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. 3552.Google Scholar
Raymond, William D., Dautricourt, Robin, & Hume, Elizabeth (2006). Word-medial /t-d/ deletion in spontaneous speech: Modeling the effects of extra-linguistic, lexical, and phonological factors. Language Variation and Change 18:5597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, Richard A. (1992). Flapping in American English. In Dressler, W. U., Prinzhorn, M., & Dennison, J. R. (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Phonology Meeting. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier. 217232.Google Scholar
Santa Ana, Otto. (1991). Phonetic simplification processes in the English of the Barrio: A cross-generational study of the Chicanos of Los Angeles. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (Access Order No. 9200383).Google Scholar
Seyfarth, Scott. (2014). Word informativity influences acoustic duration: Effects of contextual predictability on lexical representation. Cognition 133:140155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sumner, Meghan, Kim, Seung Kyung, & McGowan, Kevin B. (2014). The socially weighted encoding of spoken words: A dual route approach to speech perception. Frontiers in Psychology 4:1015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sumner, Meghan, & Samuel, Arthur G. (2009). The effect of experience on the perception and representation of dialect variants. Journal of Memory and Language 60:487501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali, & Temple, Rosalind. (2005). New perspectives on an ol’ variable: (t,d) in British English. Language Variation and Change 17:281302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamminga, Meredith J. (2014). Persistence in the production of linguistic variation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. (1978). Uniform and alternating environments in phonological change. Folia Slavica 2:312328.Google Scholar
Torreira, Francisco, & Ernestus, Mirjam. (2011). Vowel elision in casual French: The case of vowel /e/ in c’était. Journal of Phonetics 39:5058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Heuven, Walter J. B., Mandera, Paveł, Keuleers, Emmanuel, & Brysbaert, Mark. (2014). Subtlex-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 67:11761190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walker, James A. (2012). Form, function, and frequency in phonological variation. Language Variation and Change 24:397415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, Natasha, & Tucker, Benjamin V. (2011). Phonetic variability of stops and flaps in spontaneous and careful speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 130:16061617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfram, Walt. (1969). A sociolinguistic description of Detroit Negro speech. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Wright, Richard. (1996). Consonant clusters and cue preservation in Tsou. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Zimmerer, Frank, Scharinger, Mathias, & Reetz, Henning. (2011). When BEAT becomes HOUSE: Factors of word final /t/-deletion in German. Speech Communication 53:941954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerer, Frank, Scharinger, Mathias, & Reetz, Henning. (2014). Phonological and morphological constraints on German /t/-deletions. Journal of Phonetics 45:6475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zue, Victor W., & Laferriere, Martha. (1979). Acoustic study of internal /t,d/ in American English. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 66:10391050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Raymond supplementary material

Raymond supplementary material

Download Raymond supplementary material(File)
File 2 MB
17
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Cumulative context effects and variant lexical representations: Word use and English final t/d deletion
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Cumulative context effects and variant lexical representations: Word use and English final t/d deletion
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Cumulative context effects and variant lexical representations: Word use and English final t/d deletion
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *