Durational information in word-initial lexical embeddings in spoken Dutch

There is a growing body of research showing the importance of durational information for the disambiguation of temporarily ambiguous speech due to lexical embedding (e.g., rye in rises) in laboratory settings. The current research investigates whether durational differences are present in nonlaboratory speech. We focus on two types of speech: read speech and speech taken from interviews. Durations of thousands of instances of monosyllabic words and the same phonemic string embedded as the first syllable of a polysyllabic word (so-called embedded words) were obtained from the Spoken Dutch Corpus. These durations were first adjusted to many known sources of durational differences. A subsequent statistical analysis on these adjusted durations showed a significant difference in durations between monosyllabic words and embedded words for both speaking styles, suggesting that the presence of durational differences between monosyllabic words and embedded words is a general characteristic of spoken Dutch. Although the differences are small, it is argued that these durational differences are perceptually relevant.

[1]  Jan P. H. van Santen,et al.  Contextual effects on vowel duration , 1992, Speech Commun..

[2]  Lou Boves,et al.  Experiences from the Spoken Dutch Corpus Project , 2002, LREC.

[3]  Odette Scharenborg,et al.  Lexical embedding in spoken dutch , 2009, INTERSPEECH.

[4]  R. Baayen,et al.  Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items , 2008 .

[5]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Leading Up the Lexical Garden Path: Segmentation and Ambiguity in Spoken Word Recognition , 2002 .

[6]  Anne Cutler,et al.  Competition and segmentation in spoken word recognition , 1994, ICSLP.

[7]  Laura J. Blazej,et al.  Can we hear morphological complexity before words are complex? , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  Anne Cutler,et al.  Words within words in a real-speech corpus , 1994 .

[9]  Ian Maddieson,et al.  Patterns of sounds , 1986 .

[10]  Hugo Quené,et al.  On the just noticeable difference for tempo in speech , 2004, J. Phonetics.

[11]  Anne Pier Salverda,et al.  The role of prosodic boundaries in the resolution of lexical embedding in speech comprehension , 2003, Cognition.

[12]  Ellenor Shoemaker,et al.  La résolution de la liaison en français par des locuteurs natifs et non-natifs , 2008 .

[13]  Ulrich Hans Frauenfelder,et al.  Lexical alignment and activation in spoken word recognition , 1991 .

[14]  Anne Cutler,et al.  Phonemic repertoire and similarity within the vocabulary , 2004, INTERSPEECH.

[15]  Hugo Queué Durational cues for word segmentation Dutch , 1992 .

[16]  Laurence White,et al.  English words on the Procrustean bed: Polysyllabic shortening reconsidered , 2010, J. Phonetics.

[17]  Anne Cutler,et al.  Words within words: lexical statistics and lexical access , 1992, ICSLP.

[18]  Taehong Cho,et al.  Prosodically driven phonetic detail in speech processing: The case of domain-initial strengthening in English , 2007, J. Phonetics.

[19]  Mariapaola D'Imperio,et al.  Phonetics and phonology of main stress in Italian , 1999, Phonology.

[20]  Keren B. Shatzman,et al.  The modulation of lexical competition by segment duration , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[21]  A. Cutler,et al.  Processing resyllabified words in French , 2003 .

[22]  Lou Boves,et al.  Acoustic reduction in conversational Dutch: A quantitative analysis based on automatically generated segmental transcriptions , 2011, J. Phonetics.

[23]  S. Blumstein,et al.  The effect of subphonetic differences on lexical access , 1994, Cognition.