Intrinsic advantage for canonical forms in spoken word recognition: myth or reality?

ABSTRACT In connected speech, many words are produced with a pronunciation that differs from the canonical form. How the speech recognition system deals with this variation is a fundamental issue in the language processing literature. The present study examines the roles of variant type, variant frequency, and context in the processing of French words with a canonical (schwa variant, e.g. semaine “week”) and a non-canonical pronunciation (no-schwa variant, s’maine). It asks whether the processing of canonical pronunciations is faster than the processing of non-canonical ones. Results of three lexical decision experiments reveal that more frequent variants are recognised more quickly, and that there is no advantage for canonical forms once variant frequency is accounted for. Two of these experiments further failed to find evidence that the context in which the words are presented modulate the effect of variant type. These findings are discussed in the light of spoken word recognition models.

[1]  D. Cox,et al.  An Analysis of Transformations , 1964 .

[2]  W. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Phonological Variation in Lexical Access: Abstractness, Inference, and English Place Assimilation. , 1995 .

[3]  S. Goldinger.  Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. , 1998, Psychological review.

[4]  Meghan Sumner,et al.  A phonetic explanation of pronunciation variant effects. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  André Malécot,et al.  The Effect of Linguistic and Paralinguistic Variables on the Elision of the French Mute-e , 1976 .

[6]  Cynthia M. Connine,et al.  Phonological variation in spoken word recognition: Episodes and abstractions , 2006 .

[7]  M. Grammont.  Traité pratique de prononciation française , 1914 .

[8]  Meghan Sumner,et al.  Perception and representation of regular variation: The case of final /t/ , 2005 .

[9]  Isabelle Racine,et al.  Influence de l'effacement du schwa sur la reconnaissance des mots en parole continue , 2000 .

[10]  Kiyoko Yoneyama,et al.  How we hear what is hardly there: Mechanisms underlying compensation for /t/-reduction in speech comprehension , 2008 .

[11]  Elsa Spinelli,et al.  Phonotactic constraints help to overcome effects of schwa deletion in French , 2007, Cognition.

[12]  H. Goldstein,et al.  Multilevel Models in Educational and Social Research. , 1989 .

[13]  Cynthia M Connine,et al.  Processing variant forms in spoken word recognition: The role of variant frequency , 2008, Perception & psychophysics.

[14]  M. Lawrence.  How we hear. , 1966, JAMA.

[15]  Isabelle Racine,et al.  Le coût de l'effacement du schwa lors de la reconnaissance des mots en français , 2005 .

[16]  Resolution of liaison for lexical access in French , 2002 .

[17]  Susanne Brouwer,et al.  Discourse context and the recognition of reduced and canonical spoken words , 2012, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[18]  Anita Berit Hansen,et al.  Etude du E caduc — stabilisation en cours et variations lexicales , 1994, Journal of French Language Studies.

[19]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

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

[21]  Richard D. Morey,et al.  Confidence Intervals from Normalized Data: A correction to Cousineau (2005) , 2008 .

[22]  Mark A. Pitt,et al.  Exploring the role of exposure frequency in recognizing pronunciation variants , 2011, J. Phonetics.

[23]  R. Schreuder,et al.  The Recognition of Reduced Word Forms , 2002, Brain and Language.

[24]  A. Malécot,et al.  Introduction à la phonétique française , 1978 .

[25]  Natasha Warner,et al.  Inhibition of Processing Due to Reduction of the American English Flap , 2007 .

[26]  Cynthia M. Connine,et al.  Lexical representation of phonological variation in spoken word recognition , 2007 .

[27]  Geoffrey Stewart Morrison,et al.  The nature of the schwa/zero alternation in French clitics: experimental and non-experimental evidence , 2007, Journal of French Language Studies.

[28]  Isabelle Racine,et al.  The implication of spelling and frequency in the recognition of phonological variants: evidence from pre-readers and readers , 2014 .

[29]  Pierre A. Hallé,et al.  On the role of regular phonological variation in lexical access: Evidence from voice assimilation in French , 2008, Cognition.

[30]  Cédric Gendrot,et al.  What affects the presence versus absence of schwa and its duration: a corpus analysis of French connected speech. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  V. Zue,et al.  Acoustic study of medial /t,d/ in American English , 1979 .

[32]  P. Brockhoff,et al.  lmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package) , 2014 .

[33]  Mark A Pitt,et al.  How are pronunciation variants of spoken words recognized? A test of generalization to newly learned words. , 2009, Journal of memory and language.

[34]  Ulrich H. Frauenfelder,et al.  Producing and recognizing words with two pronunciation variants: Evidence from novel schwa words , 2012, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[35]  Lisa Davidson,et al.  Schwa Elision in Fast Speech: Segmental Deletion or Gestural Overlap? , 2006, Phonetica.

[36]  W. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Phonological variation and inference in lexical access. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[37]  C. Connine,et al.  Processing pronunciation variants: the role of probabilistic knowledge about lexical form and segmental co-occurrence , 2017 .

[38]  Le statut lexical des consonnes de liaison , 2005 .

[39]  Elizabeth Bates,et al.  Effects of acoustic distortion and semantic context on lexical access , 2004 .

[40]  W. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Lexical Ambiguity Resolution and Spoken Word Recognition: Bridging the Gap , 2001 .

[41]  Isabelle Racine,et al.  La production du E caduc facultatif est-elle prévisible? Un début de réponse , 2002, Journal of French Language Studies.

[42]  Mirjam Ernestus,et al.  Is there only one "fenêtre" in the production lexicon? On-line evidence on the nature of phonological representations of pronunciation variants for French schwa words , 2010 .

[43]  P. Boersma.  Praat : doing phonetics by computer (version 4.4.24) , 2006 .

[44]  William D. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Mechanisms of phonological inference in speech perception. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[45]  David W. Gow,et al.  A cross-linguistic examination of assimilation context effects , 2004 .

[46]  Paul Boersma,et al.  Praat: doing phonetics by computer , 2003 .

[47]  François Grosjean,et al.  Can semantic constraint reduce the role of word frequency during spoken-word recognition? , 1984 .

[48]  Elisabeth Dévière,et al.  Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R , 2009 .

[49]  Mirjam Ernestus,et al.  Acoustic reduction and the roles of abstractions and exemplars in speech processing , 2014 .

[50]  Allard Jongman,et al.  An acoustic and perceptual analysis of /t/ and /d/ flaps in American English , 2010, J. Phonetics.

[51]  Cynthia M. Connine,et al.  Rule-governed missing information in spoken word recognition: Schwa vowel deletion , 2002, Perception & psychophysics.

[52]  Cédric Gendrot,et al.  Phonetic reduction versus phonological deletion of French schwa: Some methodological issues , 2011, J. Phonetics.