The effect of phonological neighborhood density on vowel articulation.

Recent literature suggests that phonological neighborhood density and word frequency can affect speech production, in addition to the well-documented effects that they have on speech perception. This article describes 2 experiments that examined how phonological neighborhood density influences the durations and formant frequencies of adults' productions of vowels in real words. In Experiment 1, 10 normal speakers produced words that covaried in phonological neighborhood density and word frequency. Infrequent words with many phonological neighbors were produced with shorter durations and more expanded vowel spaces than frequent words with few phonological neighbors. Results of this experiment confirmed that this effect was not related to the duration of the vowels constituting the high- and low-density words. In Experiment 2, 15 adults produced words that varied in both word frequency and neighborhood density. Neighborhood density affected vowel articulation in both high- and low-frequency words. Moreover, frequent words were produced with more contracted vowel spaces than infrequent words. There was no interaction between these factors, and the vowel duration did not vary as a function of neighborhood density. Taken together, the results suggest that neighborhood density affects vowel production independent of word frequency and vowel duration.

[1]  A. House,et al.  The Influence of Consonant Environment upon the Secondary Acoustical Characteristics of Vowels , 1953 .

[2]  H. Kucera,et al.  Computational analysis of present-day American English , 1967 .

[3]  C. Wright,et al.  Duration differences between rare and common words and their implications for the interpretation of word frequency effects , 1979, Memory & cognition.

[4]  E. Zwicker,et al.  Analytical expressions for critical‐band rate and critical bandwidth as a function of frequency , 1980 .

[5]  David B. Pisoni,et al.  Speech perception, word recognition and the structure of the lexicon , 1985, Speech Commun..

[6]  M. Picheny,et al.  Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing. II: Acoustic characteristics of clear and conversational speech. , 1986, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[7]  M. Fourakis,et al.  An Acoustic Study of the Effects of Tempo and Stress on Segmental Intervals in Modern Greek , 1986, Phonetica.

[8]  Björn Lindblom,et al.  Explaining Phonetic Variation: A Sketch of the H&H Theory , 1990 .

[9]  B. Lindblom,et al.  Interaction between duration, context, and speaking style in English stressed vowels , 1994 .

[10]  J. Hillenbrand,et al.  Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  David B. Pisoni,et al.  Intelligibility of normal speech I: Global and fine-grained acoustic-phonetic talker characteristics , 1996, Speech Commun..

[12]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Recognizing Spoken Words: The Neighborhood Activation Model , 1998, Ear and hearing.

[13]  B. Munson,et al.  Phonological pattern frequency and speech production in adults and children. , 2001, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[14]  Janet B. Pierrehumbert,et al.  Word-specific phonetics , 2001 .

[15]  Ann R. Bradlow Confluent talker- and listener-oriented forces in clear speech production , 2002 .

[16]  Michael S Vitevitch,et al.  The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on speech production. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[17]  Dan Jurafsky,et al.  Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  R. Wright Phonetic Interpretation Papers in Laboratory Phonology VI: Factors of lexical competition in vowel articulation , 2004 .

[19]  Benjamin Munson,et al.  Variability in /s/ production in children and adults: evidence from dynamic measures of spectral mean. , 2004, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.