The Effect of Phonological Encoding on Word Duration: Selection Takes Time
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.
KeywordsProsody Production Phonological encoding Simple recurrent network Duration Modeling Phonology
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.
- Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2012). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 5.3.32. http://www.praat.org/. Accessed 17 Oct 2012.
- 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
- Lam, T. Q., & Watson, D. G. (n.d.). Repetition reduction? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition (in press).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
- 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