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.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
Arnold, J. E. (1998). Reference form and discourse patterns. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
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:10.1177/00238309040470010201
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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:10.1177/0023830909336575
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.1999.2667
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.
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.2008.06.003
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:10.1121/1.1534836
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.
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2007). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 4.5.14) [Computer program]. Retrieved February 5, 2007, from www.praat.org/.
Brown, P. M., & Dell, G. S. (1987). Adapting production to comprehension: The explicit mention of instruments. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 441–472.
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)00001-3
Dell, G. S. (1990). Effects of frequency and vocabulary type on phonological speech errors. Language & Cognitive Processes, 5, 313–349. doi: 10.1080/01690969008407066
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)00035-7
Fowler, C. A. (1988). Differential shortening of repeated context words produced in various communicative contexts. Language & Speech, 31, 307–319.
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)90136-7
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.
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.
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.1997.2547
Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59, 91–117. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(96)81418-1
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.
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.
Isaacs, E. A., & Clark, H. H. (1987). References in conversations between experts and novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 26–37.
Jaeger, T. F. (2010). Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology, 61, 23–62. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002
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:10.1037/0278-7393.20.4.824
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.
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.
Lieberman, R. (1963). Some effects of the semantic and grammatical context on the production and perception of speech. Language & Speech, 6, 172–175. doi:10.1121/1.1918465
Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
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.
Pluymaekers, M., Ernestus, M., & Baayen, R. H. (2005a). Articulatory planning is continuous and sensitive to informational redundancy. Phonetica, 62, 146–159. doi:10.1159/000090095
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:10.1121/1.2011150
Rossion, B., & Pourtois, G. (2001). Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart’s object database: Color and texture improve object recognition. Journal of Vision, 1(3), 413a.
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:10.1037/0278-7393.6.2.174
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.
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.2007.06.009
Wingfield, A. (1968). Effect of frequency on identification and naming objects. American Journal of Psychology, 81, 226–234. doi:10.2307/1421267
Zipf, G. K. (1929). Relative frequency as a determinant of phonetic change. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 15, 1–95.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This project was supported by Grant R01 DC008774 from the National Institutes of Health.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lam, T.Q., Watson, D.G. Repetition is easy: Why repeated referents have reduced prominence. Mem Cogn 38, 1137–1146 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.8.1137
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.8.1137