The (in)dependence of articulation and lexical planning during isolated word production

ABSTRACT The number of phonological neighbours to a word (PND) can affect its lexical planning and pronunciation. Similar parallel effects on planning and articulation have been observed for other lexical variables, such as a word's contextual predictability. Such parallelism is frequently taken to indicate that effects on articulation are mediated by effects on the time course of lexical planning. We test this mediation assumption for PND and find it unsupported. In a picture naming experiment, we measure speech onset latencies (planning), word durations, and vowel dispersion (articulation). We find that PND predicts both latencies and durations. Further, latencies predict durations. However, the effects of PND and latency on duration are independent: parallel effects do not imply mediation. We discuss the consequences for accounts of lexical planning, articulation, and the link between them. In particular, our results suggest that ease of planning does not explain effects of PND on articulation.

[1]  Jennifer E. Arnold,et al.  Tic Tac TOE: Effects of predictability and importance on acoustic prominence in language production , 2008, Cognition.

[2]  Miguel A. Perez.  Age of acquisition persists as the main factor in picture naming when cumulative word frequency and frequency trajectory are controlled , 2007, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[3]  Gregory R. Guy.  From and function in linguistic variation , 1996 .

[4]  T. Jaeger,et al.  Production preferences cannot be understood without reference to communication , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[5]  A. Meyer.  The time course of phonological encoding in language production: Phonological encoding inside a syllable , 1991 .

[6]  E. Yund,et al.  Measuring consonant identification in nonsense syllables, words, and sentences. , 2010, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[7]  Mariapaola D'Imperio,et al.  Lexical and contextual predictability: Confluent effects on the production of vowels , 2010 .

[8]  Julie E. Boland,et al.  Priming in pronunciation: Beyond pattern recognition and onset latency , 1989 .

[9]  M. Aylett,et al.  Language redundancy predicts syllabic duration and the spectral characteristics of vocalic syllable nuclei. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Alice Turk,et al.  The Smooth Signal Redundancy Hypothesis: A Functional Explanation for Relationships between Redundancy, Prosodic Prominence, and Duration in Spontaneous Speech , 2004, Language and speech.

[11]  Victor S Ferreira,et al.  Phonological Influences on Lexical (Mis)Selection , 2003, Psychological science.

[12]  A. Wedel.  Exemplar models, evolution and language change , 2006 .

[13]  P. Luce,et al.  Probabilistic Phonotactics and Neighborhood Activation in Spoken Word Recognition , 1999 .

[14]  Rebecca Scarborough,et al.  Lexical similarity and speech production: Neighborhoods for nonwords , 2012 .

[15]  Steven T Piantadosi,et al.  Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[16]  S. Brennan,et al.  Attenuating Information in Spoken Communication: For the Speaker, or for the Addressee?. , 2010 .

[17]  E. Bard,et al.  Controlling the Intelligibility of Referring Expressions in Dialogue , 2000 .

[18]  G. Dell,et al.  The sequential cuing effect in speech production , 1994, Cognition.

[19]  Ann R Bradlow,et al.  Variability in Word Duration as a Function of Probability, Speech Style, and Prosody , 2009, Language and speech.

[20]  S. G. Guion,et al.  Clear speech production of Korean stops: changing phonetic targets and enhancement strategies. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  Matthew Goldrick,et al.  The effects of lexical neighbors on stop consonant articulation. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  K. Bock.  An Effect of the Accessibility of Word Forms on Sentence Structures , 1987 .

[23]  Dmitrii Manin,et al.  Experiments on predictability of word in context and information rate in natural language , 2006, ArXiv.

[24]  Kyle Gorman,et al.  Prosodylab-aligner: A tool for forced alignment of laboratory speech , 2011 .

[25]  Holly P. Branigan,et al.  Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production , 2008 .

[26]  James S. Magnuson,et al.  The Dynamics of Lexical Competition During Spoken Word Recognition , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[27]  Christo Kirov,et al.  The Specificity of Online Variation in Speech Production , 2012, CogSci.

[28]  Amanda Stent,et al.  Adapting speaking after evidence of misrecognition: Local and global hyperarticulation , 2008, Speech Commun..

[29]  Jessamyn Schertz,et al.  Exaggeration of featural contrasts in clarifications of misheard speech in English , 2013, J. Phonetics.

[30]  Esteban Buz,et al.  Dynamic hyperarticulation of coda voicing contrasts. , 2016, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  Jean E. Fox Tree,et al.  Pronouncing “the” as “thee” to signal problems in speaking , 1997, Cognition.

[32]  Keith Johnson,et al.  Resonance in an exemplar-based lexicon: The emergence of social identity and phonology , 2006, J. Phonetics.

[33]  Christopher T. Kello,et al.  Parallel processing and initial phoneme criterion in naming words : Evidence from frequency effects on onset and rime duration , 1999 .

[34]  Thomas Wasow.  End-Weight from the Speaker's Perspective , 1997 .

[35]  Neal P. Fox,et al.  Phonological Neighborhood Competition Affects Spoken Word Production Irrespective of Sentential Context. , 2015, Journal of memory and language.

[36]  Duane G. Watson,et al.  Repetition is easy: Why repeated referents have reduced prominence , 2010, Memory & cognition.

[37]  Jake Kurczek,et al.  The ageing neighbourhood: phonological density in naming , 2014, Language and cognitive processes.

[38]  John J. Ohala,et al.  Discussion of Björn Lindblom's ‘Phonetic Invariance and the Adaptive Nature of Speech’ , 1989 .

[39]  T. Florian Jaeger,et al.  Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density , 2010, Cognitive Psychology.

[40]  B. Lindblom,et al.  Role of articulation in speech perception: clues from production. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[41]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Contextual confusability leads to targeted hyperarticulation , 2014, CogSci.

[42]  Matthew Goldrick,et al.  Grammatical constraints on phonological encoding in speech production , 2014, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[43]  Antje S. Meyer,et al.  Exploring the time course of lexical access in language production : Picture word interference studies , 1990 .

[44]  Michael S Vitevitch,et al.  The facilitative influence of phonological similarity and neighborhood frequency in speech production in younger and older adults , 2003, Memory & cognition.

[45]  P. O'Seaghdha,et al.  Phonological competition and cooperation in form-related priming: sequential and nonsequential processes in word production. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[46]  Maryellen C. MacDonald,et al.  How language production shapes language form and comprehension , 2012, Front. Psychol..

[47]  M. Vitevitch,et al.  Sublexical and lexical representations in speech production: effects of phonotactic probability and onset density. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[48]  D. Plaut,et al.  The task dependence of staged versus cascaded processing: an empirical and computational study of Stroop interference in speech production. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[49]  Jennifer E. Arnold,et al.  A processing-centered look at the contribution of givenness to durational reduction , 2012 .

[50]  Sarah C. Creel,et al.  Heeding the voice of experience: The role of talker variation in lexical access , 2008, Cognition.

[51]  Jennifer E. Arnold,et al.  Articulatory and lexical repetition effects on durational reduction: speaker experience vs. common ground , 2015 .

[52]  Rebecca Scarborough,et al.  Clarity in communication: "clear" speech authenticity and lexical neighborhood density effects in speech production and perception. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

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

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

[56]  A. House.  On Vowel Duration in English , 1961 .

[57]  T. Florian Jaeger,et al.  Incremental Phonological Encoding during Unscripted Sentence Production , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[58]  A. House,et al.  Characterization and modeling of speech-segment durations , 1986, ICASSP '86. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing.

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

[60]  T Florian Jaeger,et al.  Phonological overlap affects lexical selection during sentence production. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[61]  Matthew Goldrick,et al.  Mechanisms of interaction in speech production , 2009, Language and cognitive processes.

[62]  Victor S Ferreira,et al.  Given-New Ordering Effects on the Production of Scrambled Sentences in Japanese , 2003, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[63]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Approaches to studying world-situated language use : bridging the language-as-product and language-as-action traditions , 2005 .

[64]  Elizabeth Shriberg.  DISFLUENCIES IN SWITCHBOARD , 1996 .

[65]  K. Drager.  Speaker Age and Vowel Perception , 2011, Language and speech.

[66]  R. Newman,et al.  The role of selected lexical factors on confrontation naming accuracy, speed, and fluency in adults who do and do not stutter. , 2007, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

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

[68]  Yuan Zhao,et al.  The effect of lexical frequency and Lombard reflex on tone hyperarticulation , 2009, J. Phonetics.

[69]  Kara D. Federmeier,et al.  Timed picture naming in seven languages , 2003, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[70]  A. Lahiri,et al.  Prosodic Units in Speech Production , 1997 .

[71]  Sarah Brown-Schmidt,et al.  The rapid use of gender information: evidence of the time course of pronoun resolution from eyetracking , 2000, Cognition.

[72]  G. Dell,et al.  Effect of Ambiguity and Lexical Availability on Syntactic and Lexical Production , 2000, Cognitive Psychology.

[73]  Albert Costa,et al.  Neighbourhood density and frequency effects in speech production: A case for interactivity , 2008 .

[74]  Christo Kirov,et al.  Bayesian Speech Production: Evidence from Latency and Hyperarticulation , 2013, CogSci.

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

[76]  T. Florian Jaeger,et al.  Signal Reduction and Linguistic Encoding , 2017 .

[77]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking , 2002, Cognition.

[78]  Susanne Gahl,et al.  Lexical competition in vowel articulation revisited: Vowel dispersion in the Easy/Hard database , 2015, J. Phonetics.

[79]  G S Dell,et al.  A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. , 1986, Psychological review.

[80]  Duane G. Watson,et al.  The Effect of Phonological Encoding on Word Duration: Selection Takes Time , 2015 .

[81]  David L Woods,et al.  Consonant identification in consonant-vowel-consonant syllables in speech-spectrum noise. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[82]  B. Rapp,et al.  Discreteness and interactivity in spoken word production. , 2000, Psychological review.

[83]  William Labov,et al.  Towards a social science of language: papers in honour of William Labov , 1999 .

[84]  B. Munson,et al.  The effect of phonological neighborhood density on vowel articulation. , 2004, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[85]  H. Traunmüller.  Analytical expressions for the tonotopic sensory scale , 1990 .

[86]  Duane G. Watson,et al.  Why are repeated words produced with reduced durations? Evidence from inner speech and homophone production. , 2015, Journal of memory and language.

[87]  Jason M. Brenier,et al.  Predictability Effects on Durations of Content and Function Words in Conversational English , 2009 .

[88]  M. Damian.  Articulatory duration in single-word speech production. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[89]  Julia F Strand,et al.  Phi-square Lexical Competition Database (Phi-Lex): An online tool for quantifying auditory and visual lexical competition , 2014, Behavior research methods.

[90]  Keith Johnson,et al.  Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech , 2012 .

[91]  Melissa K. Stamer,et al.  The curious case of competition in Spanish speech production , 2006, Language and cognitive processes.

[92]  Janet B. Pierrehumbert,et al.  Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast , 2000 .

[93]  Melissa Baese-Berk,et al.  Phonological Neighborhood Effects in Spoken Word Production: An fMRI Study , 2011, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[94]  Willem J. M. Levelt,et al.  A theory of lexical access in speech production , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[95]  Jennifer E. Arnold,et al.  Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes , 2008 .

[96]  Melissa K. Stamer,et al.  The influence of neighborhood density (and neighborhood frequency) in Spanish speech production: A follow-up report , 2009 .

[97]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English , 2009, Behavior research methods.

[98]  B. Munson.  Lexical Access , Lexical Representation , and Vowel Production , 2006 .

[99]  P. Luce,et al.  When Words Compete: Levels of Processing in Perception of Spoken Words , 1998 .

[100]  Bradford Z. Mahon,et al.  Lexical selection is not by competition: a reinterpretation of semantic interference and facilitation effects in the picture-word interference paradigm. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[101]  Christopher T. Kello,et al.  Control over the time course of cognition in the tempo-naming task. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[102]  Jennifer E. Arnold,et al.  Synthesising meaning and processing approaches to prosody: performance matters , 2015, Language, cognition and neuroscience.

[103]  D. Mirman,et al.  Competition and cooperation among similar representations: toward a unified account of facilitative and inhibitory effects of lexical neighbors. , 2012, Psychological review.

[104]  A. Meyer.  The time course of phonological encoding in language production: The encoding of successive syllables of a word ☆ , 1990 .

[105]  Clara D. Martin,et al.  Reconciling Phonological Neighborhood Effects in Speech Production through Single Trial Analysis Reconciling Phonological Neighborhood Effects in Speech Production through Single Trial Analysis , 2022 .

[106]  Rebecca Scarborough,et al.  Neighborhood-conditioned patterns in phonetic detail: Relating coarticulation and hyperarticulation , 2013, J. Phonetics.

[107]  Jennifer E. Arnold,et al.  Audience design affects acoustic reduction via production facilitation , 2012, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[108]  J. Hay.  Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? , 2001 .