Literature DB >> 21822340

Exploring the role of exposure frequency in recognizing pronunciation variants.

Mark A Pitt1, Laura Dilley, Michael Tat.   

Abstract

Words can be pronounced in multiple ways in casual speech. Corpus analyses of the frequency with which these pronunciation variants occur (e.g., Patterson & Connine, 2001) show that typically, one pronunciation variant tends to predominate; this raises the question of whether variant recognition is aligned with exposure frequency. We explored this issue in words containing one of four phonological contexts, each of which favors one of four surface realizations of word-medial /t/: [t], [ʔ], [ɾ], or a deleted variant. The frequencies of the four realizations in all four contexts were estimated for a set of words in a production experiment. Recognition of all pronunciation variants was then measured in a lexical decision experiment. Overall, the data suggest that listeners are sensitive to variant frequency: Word classification rates closely paralleled production frequency. The exceptions to this were [t] realizations (i.e., canonical pronunciations of the words), a finding which confirms other results in the literature and indicates that factors other than exposure frequency affect word recognition.

Entities:  

Year:  2011        PMID: 21822340      PMCID: PMC3150572          DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2010.07.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Phon        ISSN: 0095-4470


  11 in total

1.  Variant frequency in flap production. A corpus analysis of variant frequency in American English flap production.

Authors:  D Patterson; C M Connine
Journal:  Phonetica       Date:  2001 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 1.759

2.  Corpora analyses of frequency of schwa deletion in conversational American English.

Authors:  David Patterson; Paul C LoCasto; Cynthia M Connine
Journal:  Phonetica       Date:  2003 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 1.759

3.  Representation of lexical form.

Authors:  Conor T McLennan; Paul A Luce; Jan Charles-Luce
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 3.051

4.  It's not what you hear but how often you hear it: on the neglected role of phonological variant frequency in auditory word recognition.

Authors:  Cynthia M Connine
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2004-12

5.  Representation of lexical form: evidence from studies of sublexical ambiguity.

Authors:  Conor T McLennan; Paul A Luce; Jan Charles-Luce
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Processing reduced word-forms in speech perception using probabilistic knowledge about speech production.

Authors:  Holger Mitterer; James M McQueen
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 3.332

7.  Processing variant forms in spoken word recognition: the role of variant frequency.

Authors:  Cynthia M Connine; Larissa J Ranbom; David J Patterson
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2008-04

8.  Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception.

Authors:  W F Ganong
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1980-02       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  The strength and time course of lexical activation of pronunciation variants.

Authors:  Mark A Pitt
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 3.332

Review 10.  Phonetic diversity, statistical learning, and acquisition of phonology.

Authors:  Janet B Pierrehumbert
Journal:  Lang Speech       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 1.500

View more
  2 in total

1.  The Bilingual Disadvantage in Speech Understanding in Noise Is Likely a Frequency Effect Related to Reduced Language Exposure.

Authors:  Jens Schmidtke
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-05-13

2.  Glottal stops do not constrain lexical access as do oral stops.

Authors:  Holger Mitterer; Sahyang Kim; Taehong Cho
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-11-19       Impact factor: 3.240

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.