Literature DB >> 12597194

Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation.

Alan Bell1, Daniel Jurafsky, Eric Fosler-Lussier, Cynthia Girand, Michelle Gregory, Daniel Gildea.   

Abstract

Function words, especially frequently occurring ones such as (the, that, and, and of), vary widely in pronunciation. Understanding this variation is essential both for cognitive modeling of lexical production and for computer speech recognition and synthesis. This study investigates which factors affect the forms of function words, especially whether they have a fuller pronunciation (e.g., thi, thaet, aend, inverted-v v) or a more reduced or lenited pronunciation (e.g., thax, thixt, n, ax). It is based on over 8000 occurrences of the ten most frequent English function words in a 4-h sample from conversations from the Switchboard corpus. Ordinary linear and logistic regression models were used to examine variation in the length of the words, in the form of their vowel (basic, full, or reduced), and whether final obstruents were present or not. For all these measures, after controlling for segmental context, rate of speech, and other important factors, there are strong independent effects that made high-frequency monosyllabic function words more likely to be longer or have a fuller form (1) when neighboring disfluencies (such as filled pauses uh and um) indicate that the speaker was encountering problems in planning the utterance; (2) when the word is unexpected, i.e., less predictable in context; (3) when the word is either utterance initial or utterance final. Looking at the phenomenon in a different way, frequent function words are more likely to be shorter and to have less-full forms in fluent speech, in predictable positions or multiword collocations, and utterance internally. Also considered are other factors such as sex (women are more likely to use fuller forms, even after controlling for rate of speech, for example), and some of the differences among the ten function words in their response to the factors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12597194     DOI: 10.1121/1.1534836

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  29 in total

1.  Robust Speech Rate Estimation for Spontaneous Speech.

Authors:  Dagen Wang; Shrikanth S Narayanan
Journal:  IEEE Trans Audio Speech Lang Process       Date:  2007-11-01

2.  Stop-like modification of the dental fricative /ð/: an acoustic analysis.

Authors:  Sherry Y Zhao
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  The effect of phonological neighborhood density on vowel articulation.

Authors:  Benjamin Munson; Nancy Pearl Solomon
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 2.297

Review 4.  Observing the what and when of language production for different age groups by monitoring speakers' eye movements.

Authors:  Zenzi M Griffin; Daniel H Spieler
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2005-11-10       Impact factor: 2.381

5.  Tic Tac Toe: effects of predictability and importance on acoustic prominence in language production.

Authors:  Duane G Watson; Jennifer E Arnold; Michael K Tanenhaus
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2007-08-13

6.  Word Durations in Non-Native English.

Authors:  Rachel E Baker; Melissa Baese-Berk; Laurent Bonnasse-Gahot; Midam Kim; Kristin J Van Engen; Ann R Bradlow
Journal:  J Phon       Date:  2011-01-01

7.  Redundancy and reduction: speakers manage syntactic information density.

Authors:  T Florian Jaeger
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  ASL-LEX: A lexical database of American Sign Language.

Authors:  Naomi K Caselli; Zed Sevcikova Sehyr; Ariel M Cohen-Goldberg; Karen Emmorey
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2017-04

9.  The role of linguistic experience in the processing of probabilistic information in production.

Authors:  Erin Gustafson; Matthew Goldrick
Journal:  Lang Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2017-09-11       Impact factor: 2.331

10.  Mechanisms of interaction in speech production.

Authors:  Melissa Baese-Berk; Matthew Goldrick
Journal:  Lang Cogn Process       Date:  2009-05-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.