Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Explicit and Implicit Prosody in Sentence Processing

Part of the book series: Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics ((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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2012). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 5.3.32. http://www.praat.org/. Accessed 17 Oct 2012.

  • Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elman, J. L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14, 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger, T. F. (2010). Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology, 61, 23–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Kahn, J., & Arnold, J. E. (n.d.). Speaker-internal processes drive durational reduction. Language and Cognitive Processes (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, T. Q., & Watson, D. G. (n.d.). Repetition reduction? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lam, T. Q., & Watson, D. G. (2010). Repetition is easy: Why repeated referents have reduced prominence. Memory & Cognition, 38, 1137–1146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sevald, C. A., & Dell, G. S. (1994). The sequential cuing effect in speech production. Cognition, 53, 91–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, 603 E. Daniel St., 61820, Champaign, IL, USA

    Duane G Watson & Andrés Buxó-Lugo

  2. Department of Psychology, University of California Riverside, Riverside, CA, USA

    Dominique C Simmons

Authors
  1. Duane G Watson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrés Buxó-Lugo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dominique C Simmons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Duane G Watson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA

    Lyn Frazier

  2. Department of Psychology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

    Edward Gibson

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Items

Initial overlap: layover layout

Final overlap: overlay outlay

  • (1) Initial baseline: layover handout

  • (1) Final baseline: overlay handout

  • (2) Initial baseline: layout handover

  • (2) Final baseline: outlay handover

Initial overlap: turndown turnover

Final overlap: downturn overturn

  • (1) Initial baseline: turndown takeover

  • (1) Final baseline: downturn takeover

  • (2) Initial baseline: turnover takedown

  • (2) Final baseline: overturn takedown

Initial overlap: setoff setup

Final overlap: offset upset

  • (1) Initial baseline: setoff holdup

  • (1) Final baseline: offset holdup

  • (2) Initial baseline: setup handoff

  • (2) Final baseline: upset handoff

Initial overlap: overcross overhang

Final overlap: hangover crossover

  • (1) Initial baseline: overcross crisscross

  • (1) Final baseline: hangover crisscross

  • (2) Initial baseline: overhang uphang

  • (2) Final baseline: crossover uphang

Initial overlap: outstand outbreak

Final overlap: standout breakout

  • (1) Initial baseline: outstand daybreak

  • (1) Final baseline: standout daybreak

  • (2) Initial baseline: outbreak kickstand

  • (2) Final baseline: breakout kickstand

Initial overlap: outlook outsell

Final overlap: lookout sellout

  • (1) Initial baseline: outlook undersell

  • (1) Final baseline: lookout undersell

  • (2) Initial baseline: outsell overlook

  • (2) Final baseline: sellout overlook

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Watson, D., Buxó-Lugo, A., Simmons, D. (2015). The Effect of Phonological Encoding on Word Duration: Selection Takes Time. In: Frazier, L., Gibson, E. (eds) Explicit and Implicit Prosody in Sentence Processing. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, vol 46. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12961-7_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation