Advertisement

Memory & Cognition

, Volume 38, Issue 8, pp 1137–1146 | Cite as

Repetition is easy: Why repeated referents have reduced prominence

  • Tuan Q. Lam
  • Duane G. Watson
Article

Abstract

The repetition and the predictability of a word in a conversation are two factors that are believed to affect whether it is emphasized: Predictable, repeated words are less acoustically prominent than unpredictable, new words. However, because predictability and repetition are correlated, it is unclear whether speakers lengthen unpredictable words to facilitate comprehension or whether this lengthening is the result of difficulties in accessing a new (nonrepeated) lexical item. In this study, we investigated the relationship between acoustic prominence, repetition, and predictability in a description task. In Experiment 1, we found that repeated referents are produced with reduced prominence, even when these referents are unexpected. In Experiment 2, we found that predictability and repetition both have independent effects on duration and intensity. However, word duration was primarily determined by repetition, and intensity was primarily determined by predictability. The results are most consistent with an account in which multiple cognitive factors influence the acoustic prominence of a word.

Keywords

Target Word Critical Trial Training Block Pitch Accent Lexical Retrieval 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anderson, A. H., & Howarth, B. (2002). Referential form and word duration in video-mediated and face-to-face dialogues. In J. Bos, M. E. Foster, & C. Matheson (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (pp. 13–20). Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, J. E. (1998). Reference form and discourse patterns. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  3. Aylett, M., & Turk, A. (2004). The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language & Speech, 47, 31–56. doi:10.1177/00238309040470010201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, R. E., & Bradlow, A. R. (2009). Variability in word duration as a function of probability, speech style, and prosody. Language & Speech, 52, 391–413. doi:10.1177/0023830909336575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bard, E. G., Anderson, A. H., Sotillo, C., Aylett, M., Doherty-Sneddon, G., & Newlands, A. (2000). Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory & Language, 42, 1–22. doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bard, E. G., & Aylett, M. P. (1999). The disassociation of deaccenting, givenness, and syntactic role in spontaneous speech. In J. J. Ohala, Y. Hasegawa, M. Ohala, D. Granville, & A. C. Bailey (Eds.), Proceedings of the XIV International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 1753–1756). San Francisco.Google Scholar
  8. Bell, A., Brenier, J. M., Gregory, M. L., Girand, C., & Jurafsky, D. (2009). Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory & Language, 60, 92–111. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2008.06.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bell, A., Jurafsky, D., Fosler-Lussier, E., Girand, C., Gregory, M. L., & 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, 1001–1024. doi:10.1121/1.1534836CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bock, J. K., & Levelt, W. (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 945–983). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2007). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 4.5.14) [Computer program]. Retrieved February 5, 2007, from www.praat.org/.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, P. M., & Dell, G. S. (1987). Adapting production to comprehension: The explicit mention of instruments. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 441–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dahan, D., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Chambers, C. G. (2002). Accent and reference resolution in spoken-language comprehension. Journal of Memory & Language, 47, 292–314. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00001-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dell, G. S. (1990). Effects of frequency and vocabulary type on phonological speech errors. Language & Cognitive Processes, 5, 313–349. doi: 10.1080/01690969008407066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fosler-Lussier, E., & Morgan, N. (1999). Effects of speaking rate and word predictability on conversational pronunciations. Speech Communication, 29, 137–158. doi:10.1016/S0167-6393(99)00035-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fowler, C. A. (1988). Differential shortening of repeated context words produced in various communicative contexts. Language & Speech, 31, 307–319.Google Scholar
  17. Fowler, C. A., & Housum, J. (1987). Talkers’ signaling of “new” and “old” words in speech and listeners’ perception and use of the distinction. Journal of Memory & Language, 26, 489–504. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(87)90136-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frank, A., & Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Speaking rationally: Uniform information density as an optimal strategy for language production. In B. C. Love, K. McRae, & V. M. Sloutsky (Eds.), The 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 933–938). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  19. Gregory, M. L., Raymond, W. D., Bell, A., Fosler-Lussier, E., & Jurafsky, D. (1999). The effects of collocational strength and contextual predictability in lexical production. In Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society (Vol. 35, pp. 151–166). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Griffin, Z. M., & Bock, J. K. (1998). Constraint, word frequency, and the relationship between lexical processing levels in spoken word production. Journal of Memory & Language, 38, 313–338. doi:10.1006/jmla.1997.2547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59, 91–117. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(96)81418-1CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Isaacs, A. M., & Watson, D. G. (2009, March). Speakers and listeners don’t agree: Audience design in the production and comprehension of acoustic prominence. Poster presentation at CUNY 2009: Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Davis, CA.Google Scholar
  23. Isaacs, A. M., & Watson, D. G. (2010). Accent detection is a slippery slope: Direction and rate of f0 change drives listeners’ comprehension. Language & Cognitive Processes, 25, 1178–1200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Isaacs, E. A., & Clark, H. H. (1987). References in conversations between experts and novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jaeger, T. F. (2010). Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology, 61, 23–62. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jescheniak, J. D., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20, 824–843. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.20.4.824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jurafsky, D., Bell, A., Gregory, M., & Raymond, W. D. (2001). Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 229–254). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  28. Kidd, C., & Jaeger, T. F. (2008, April). Prosodic phrasing and function word pronunciation. Paper presented at Experimental and Theoretical Advances in Prosody, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  29. Lieberman, R. (1963). Some effects of the semantic and grammatical context on the production and perception of speech. Language & Speech, 6, 172–175. doi:10.1121/1.1918465Google Scholar
  30. Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  31. Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
  32. Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. Pollack (Eds), Intentions in communication (pp. 271–311). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Pluymaekers, M., Ernestus, M., & Baayen, R. H. (2005a). Articulatory planning is continuous and sensitive to informational redundancy. Phonetica, 62, 146–159. doi:10.1159/000090095CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Pluymaekers, M., Ernestus, M., & Baayen, R. H. (2005b). Lexical frequency and acoustic reduction in spoken Dutch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 2561–2569. doi:10.1121/1.2011150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Rossion, B., & Pourtois, G. (2001). Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart’s object database: Color and texture improve object recognition. Journal of Vision, 1(3), 413a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 6, 174–215. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.6.2.174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Watson, D. G. (2010). The many roads to prominence: Understanding emphasis in conversation. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 52, pp. 163–183). Burlington: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Watson, D. G., Arnold, J. E., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2008). Tic Tac TOE: Effects of predictability and importance on acoustic prominence in language production. Cognition, 106, 1548–1557. doi:10.1016/ j.cognition.2007.06.009CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Wingfield, A. (1968). Effect of frequency on identification and naming objects. American Journal of Psychology, 81, 226–234. doi:10.2307/1421267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Zipf, G. K. (1929). Relative frequency as a determinant of phonetic change. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 15, 1–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChampaign

Personalised recommendations