Memory & Cognition

, Volume 31, Issue 5, pp 715–727 | Cite as

Constraints on definite article alternation in speech production: To “thee” or not to “thee”?

  • M. Gareth Gaskell
  • Helen Cox
  • Katherine Foley
  • Helen Grieve
  • Rachel O’Brien
Article

Abstract

A recent study showed that the pronunciation of the definite article in English (as either a reduced “thuh” or an unreduced “thee”) depends on a number of different factors, including the pronunciation, spelling, and stress assignment of the following word (Raymond, Fisher, & Healy, 2002). However, it is not clear from previous research whether these factors influenced performance implicitly in normal speech production or whether explicit knowledge of the object of the experiment was relied on. In Experiment 1, we examined implicit performance on pronunciation of the definite article and found more systematic behavior than had previously been observed but, again, an influence of the pronunciation, spelling, and stress assignment of the following word. In Experiment 2, we tested the influence of the following word on definite article production during language development for two groups of children 8 and 10 years of age. This experiment showed increasing use of the unreduced form during development and a further influence of orthography. We interpret these results in terms of an interaction between perception and production in which the production system makes use of generalizations on the basis of both phonological and orthographic representations generated in perception.

References

  1. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, A., Jurafsky, D., Fosler -Lussier, E., Girand, C., & Gildea, D. (1999). Forms of English function words: Effects of disfluencies, turn position, age and sex, and predictability. InProceedings of the XIV International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 395–398). Berkeley: University of California, Linguistics Department.Google Scholar
  3. Browman, C. P., & Goldstein, L. (1992). Articulatory phonology: An overview.Phonetica,49, 155–180.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruck, M. (1992). Persistence of dyslexics’ phonological awareness deficits.Developmental Psychology,28, 874–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bybee, J. [L.] (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon.Language & Cognitive Processes,10, 425–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bybee, J. L., & Slobin, D. I. (1982). Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense.Language,58, 265–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Damian, M. F., & Bowers, J. S. (2003). Effects of orthography on speech production in a form preparation paradigm.Journal of Memory & Language,49, 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dijkstra, T., Roelofs, A., & Fieuws, S. (1995). Orthographic effects on phoneme monitoring.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,49, 264–271.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,35, 116–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fox Tree, J., & Clark, H. (1997). Producing “the” as “thee” to signal problems in speaking.Cognition,16, 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Godfrey, J., Holliman, E., & McDaniel, J. (1992). SWITCHBOARD: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. InIEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, & Signal Processing ’92 (pp. 517–520). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  12. Goswami, U., & Bryant, P. E. (1990).Phonological skills and learning to read. Hove, U. K.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Guy, G., & Boyd, S. (1990). The development of a morphological class.Language Variation & Change,2, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hallé, P. A., Chéreau, C., & Segui, J. (2000). Where is the /b/ in “absurde” [apsyrd]? It is in French listeners’ minds.Journal of Memory & Language,43, 618–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hare, M., & Elman, J. L. (1995). Learning and morphological change.Cognition,56, 61–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Jakobson, R., Fant, G., & Halle, M. (1952).Preliminaries to speech analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Jurafsky, D., Bell, A., Fosle-Lussier, E., Girand, C., & Raymond, W. (1998). Reduction of English function words in Switchboard. In R. H. Mannell & J. Robert-Ribes (Eds.),Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 3111–3114). Sydney: Australian Speech Science and Technology Association.Google Scholar
  18. Keating, P., Byrd, D., Fleming, E., & Todaka, Y. (1994). Phonetic analysis of the TIMIT corpus of American English.Speech Communications,14, 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuÿcera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967).Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Labov, W. (1969). Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula.Language,45, 715–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,22, 1–38.Google Scholar
  22. Lukatela, G., Eaton, T., Lee, C., & Turvey, M. T. (2001). Does visual word identification involve a sub-phonemic level?Cognition,78, B41-B52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lukatela, G., & Turvey, M. T. (1994). Visual lexical access is initially phonological: 2. Evidence from phonological priming by homophones and pseudohomophones.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,123, 331–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maratsos, M. (2000). More overregularizations after all: New data and discussion on Marcus, Pinker, Ullman, Hollander, Rosen & Xu.Journal of Child Language,27, 183–212.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Marcus, G. F., Pinker, S., Ullman, M., Hollander, M., Rosen, T. J., & Xu, F. (1992). Overregularization in language-acquisition.Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,57, R5-R165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mathews, R. C., Buss, R. R., Stanley, W. B., Blanchard-Fields, F., Cho, J. R., & Druhan, B. (1989). Role of implicit and explicit processes in learning from examples: A synergistic effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 1083–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McClelland, J. L., & Patterson, K. (2002). Rules or connections in past-tense inflections: What does the evidence rule out?Trends in Cognitive Sciences,6, 465–472.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Morais, J., & Kolinsky, R. (1994). Perception and awareness in phonological processing: The case of the phoneme.Cognition,50, 287–297.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Pinker, S., & Ullman, M. T. (2002). The past and future of the past tense.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,6, 456–463.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Raymond, W. D., Fisher, J. A., & Healy, A. F. (2002). Linguistic knowledge and language performance in English article variant preference.Language & Cognitive Processes,17, 613–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reber, A. S. (1997). Implicit ruminations.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,4, 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Seidenberg, M. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1979). Orthographic effects on rhyme monitoring.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,5, 546–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Selkirk, E. (1984).Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Serwatka, M., & Healy, A. F. (1998). On the status of the count-mass distinction in the mental grammar. In A. F. Healy & L. E. Bourne, Jr. (Eds.),Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (pp. 113–158). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Stone, G. O., Vanhoy, M., & Van Orden, G. C. (1997). Perception is a two-way street: Feedforward and feedback phonology in visual word recognition.Journal of Memory & Language,36, 337–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Todaka, Y. (1992). Phonetic variants of the determiner “the”.UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics,81, 39–47.Google Scholar
  37. Treiman, R., & Cassar, M. (1997). Can children and adults focus on sound as opposed to spelling in a phoneme counting task?Developmental Psychology,33, 771–780.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. vanOrden, G. C. (1987). A ROWS is a ROSE: Spelling, sound, and reading.Memory & Cognition,15, 181–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wulf, G., McNevin, N., & Shea, C. H. (2001). The automaticity of complex motor skill learning as a function of attentional focus.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,54A, 1143–1154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ziegler, J. C., & Ferrand, L. (1998). Orthography shapes the perception of speech: The consistency effect in auditory word recognition.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,5, 683–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Gareth Gaskell
    • 1
  • Helen Cox
    • 1
  • Katherine Foley
    • 1
  • Helen Grieve
    • 1
  • Rachel O’Brien
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of YorkYorkEngland

Personalised recommendations