Advertisement

The Effect of Phonological Encoding on Word Duration: Selection Takes Time

  • Duane G WatsonEmail author
  • Andrés Buxó-Lugo
  • Dominique C Simmons
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 46)

Abstract

In this chapter, we investigate whether the process of phonological encoding plays a role in determining the duration of a word. We explore whether points of complexity in word production as predicted by a simple recurrent network also predict points within a word at which speakers slow down. Simple recurrent networks were trained to produce two different words under two conditions: In the first condition, the two words in the sequence overlapped in their initial morphemes (e.g., layover layout) and in the second condition, the words overlapped in their final morpheme (e.g., overlay outlay). The network experienced the most error for words that overlapped initially and at points of word non-overlap. Participants who produced these same sequences in a repetition task exhibited lengthening at points of complexity predicted by the network. We propose that lengthening may be partly a result of the phonological encoding system needing processing time.

Keywords

Prosody Production Phonological encoding Simple recurrent network Duration Modeling Phonology 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank John Hummel and Gary Dell for their comments and advice on the modeling component of the chapter. This work was supported by NIH grant R01 DC008774 and a grant from the James S. McDonnell foundation.

References

  1. 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 and Speech, 47, 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure in mixed-effects models: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell, A., Brenier, J. M., Gregory, M., Girand, C., & Jurafsky, D. (2009). Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 92–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2012). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 5.3.32. http://www.praat.org/. Accessed 17 Oct 2012.
  5. Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dell, G. S., Juliano, C., & Govindjee, A. (1993). Structure and content in language production: A theory of frame constraints in phonological speech errors. Cognitive Science, 17, 149–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elman, J. L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fowler, C. A., & Housum, J. (1987). Talkers’ signaling of “new” and “old” words in speech and listener’s perception and use of the distinction. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 489–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jaeger, T. F. (2010). Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology, 61, 23–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jaeger, T. F., Furth, K., & Hillard, C. (n.d.). Phonological overlap affects lexical selection during sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition (in press).Google Scholar
  11. Jordan, M. I. (1986). Serial order: A parallel distributed processing approach. Tech. Rep. No. 8604. San Diego: University of California, Institute for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
  12. 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: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  13. Kahn, J., & Arnold, J. E. (n.d.). Speaker-internal processes drive durational reduction. Language and Cognitive Processes (in press).Google Scholar
  14. Kahn, J., & Arnold, J. E. (2012). A processing-centered look at the contribution of givenness to durational reduction. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 311–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lam, T. Q., & Watson, D. G. (n.d.). Repetition reduction? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition (in press).Google Scholar
  16. Lam, T. Q., & Watson, D. G. (2010). Repetition is easy: Why repeated referents have reduced prominence. Memory & Cognition, 38, 1137–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. O’Seaghdha, P. G., & Marin, J. W. (2000). Phonological competition and cooperation in form-related priming: Sequential and nonsequential processes in word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human, Perception, and Performance, 26, 57–73.Google Scholar
  18. Pluymaekers, M., Ernestus, M., & Baayen, R. H. (2005). Lexical frequency and acoustic reduction in spoken Dutch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 2561–2569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & Williams, R. J. (1986). Learning internal representations by error propogation. In D. E. Rumelhart & J. L. McClelland (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 318–362). Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  20. Sevald, C. A., & Dell, G. S. (1994). The sequential cuing effect in speech production. Cognition, 53, 91–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Duane G Watson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andrés Buxó-Lugo
    • 1
  • Dominique C Simmons
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Illinois Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of California RiversideRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations