Abstract
Listeners incrementally process words as they hear them, progressively updating inferences about what word is intended as the phonetic signal unfolds in time. As a consequence, phonetic cues positioned early in the signal for a word are on average more informative about word-identity because they disambiguate the intended word from more lexical alternatives than cues late in the word. In this contribution, we review two new findings about structure in lexicons and phonological grammars, and argue that both arise through the same biases on phonetic reduction and enhancement resulting from incremental processing.
(i) Languages optimize their lexicons over time with respect to the amount of signal allocated to words relative to their predictability: words that are on average less predictable in context tend to be longer, while those that are on average more predictable tend to be shorter. However, the fact that phonetic material earlier in the word plays a larger role in word identification suggests that languages should also optimize the distribution of that information across the word. In this contribution we review recent work on a range of different languages that supports this hypothesis: less frequent words are not only on average longer, but also contain more highly informative segments early in the word.
(ii) All languages are characterized by phonological grammars of rules describing predictable modifications of pronunciation in context. Because speakers appear to pronounce informative phonetic cues more carefully than less informative cues, it has been predicted that languages should be less likely to evolve phonological rules that reduce lexical contrast at word beginnings. A recent investigation through a statistical analysis of a cross-linguistic dataset of phonological rules strongly supports this hypothesis. Taken together, we argue that these findings suggest that the incrementality of lexical processing has wide-ranging effects on the evolution of phonotactic patterns.
References
Allopenna, Paul, James Magnuson & Michael Tanenhaus. 1998. Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language 38(4). 419–439. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2558.Search in Google Scholar
Arnon, Inbal & Uriel Cohen Priva. 2013. More than words: The effect of multi-word frequency and constituency on phonetic duration. Language and speech 56(3). 349–371.10.1177/0023830913484891Search in Google Scholar
Aylett, Matthew & Alice Turk. 2004. The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech 47(1). 31–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309040470010201.Search in Google Scholar
Aylett, Matthew & Alice Turk. 2006. Language redundancy predicts syllabic duration and the spectral characteristics of vocalic syllable nuclei. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119(5). 3048–3058.https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309040470010201Search in Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Richard Piepenbrock & Léon Gulikers. 1995. The CELEX lexical database (release 2). Distributed by the linguistic data consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Search in Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486357Search in Google Scholar
Buz, Esteban, Michael Tanenhaus & T. Florian Jaeger. 2016. Dynamically adapted contextspecific hyper-articulation: Feedback from interlocutors affects speakers’ subsequent pronunciations. Journal of Memory and Language 89. 68–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.12.009.Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2002. Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change 14. 261–290. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954394502143018.Search in Google Scholar
Cohen Priva, Uriel. 2015. Informativity affects consonant duration and deletion rates. Laboratory Phonology 6(2). 243–278. https://doi.org/10.1515/lp-2015-0008.Search in Google Scholar
Cohen Priva, Uriel. 2017. Informativity and the actuation of lenition. Language 93(3). 569–597. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2017.0037.Search in Google Scholar
Dahan, Delphine & James Magnuson. 2006. Spoken word recognition. In Matthew Traxler & Morton A. Gernsbacher (eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics, Second edn., 249–283. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-012369374-7/50009-2Search in Google Scholar
Dahan, Delphine, James Magnuson, Michael Tanenhaus & Ellen Hogan. 2001. Subcategorical mismatches and the time course of lexical access: Evidence for lexical competition. Language and Cognitive Processes 16(5–6). 507–534. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960143000074.Search in Google Scholar
Fernald, Anne, Daniel Swingley & John Pinto. 2001. When half a word is enough: Infants can recognize spoken words using partial phonetic information. Child Development 72(4). 1003–1015. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00331.Search in Google Scholar
Gahl, Susanne, Yao Yao & Keith Johnson. 2012. Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language 66(4). 789.https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00331Search in Google Scholar
Hall, Kathleen C., T. Elizabeth Hume, Florian Jaeger & Andrew Wedel. 2016. The message shapes phonology. Manuscript. University of British Columbia, University of Canterbury, University of Rochester & University of Arizona. PsyArXiv. psyarxiv.com/sbyqk.Search in Google Scholar
Hall, Kathleen C., T. Elizabeth Hume, Florian Jaeger & Andrew Wedel. 2018. The role of predictability in shaping phonological patterns. Linguistics Vanguard 4(S2). 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2017-0027.Search in Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1960. The origin of speech. Scientific American 203. 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0960-88.Search in Google Scholar
Houlihan, Kathleen. 1975. The role of word boundary in phonological processes. Austin: University of Texas PhD dissertation. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/68636.Search in Google Scholar
Houlihan, Kathleen & Gregory Iverson. 1979. Functionally-constrained phonology. In Daniel A. Dinnsen (ed.), Current approaches to phonological theory, 50–73. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, Gunnar Fant & Morris Halle. 1965. Preliminaries to speech analysis: The distinctive features and their correlates. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kanwal, Jasmeen, Kenny Smith, Jennifer Culbertson & Simon Kirby. 2017. Zipf’s law of abbreviation and the principle of least effort: Language users optimise a miniature lexicon for efficient communication. Cognition 165. 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.001.Search in Google Scholar
King, Adam & Andrew Wedel (under review). Early disambiguating information for low predictability words: The lexicon is shaped by incremental processing.Search in Google Scholar
Köhler, Reinhard. 1987. System theoretical linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics 14(2–3). 241–258. https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.1987.14.2-3.241.Search in Google Scholar
Köhler, Reinhard. 1993. Synergetic linguistics. In Reinhard Köhler & Burghard Rieger (eds.), Contributions to quantitative linguistics, 41–51. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-011-1769-2_4Search in Google Scholar
Levi, Susannah V. 2015. Generalization of phonetic detail: Cross-segmental, within-category priming of VOT. Language and Speech 58(4). 549–562. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830914567973.Search in Google Scholar
Mahowald, Kyle, Evelina Fedorenko, Steven T. Piantadosi & Edward Gibson. 2013. Info/information theory: Speakers choose shorter words in predictive contexts. Cognition 126. 313–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.010.Search in Google Scholar
Nielsen, Kuniko. 2011. Specificity and abstractness of VOT imitation. Journal of Phonetics 39(2). 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.12.007.Search in Google Scholar
Nooteboom, Sieb G. 1981. Lexical retrieval from fragments of spoken words: Beginnings vs. endings. Journal of Phonetics 9(4). 407–424.10.1016/S0095-4470(19)31017-4Search in Google Scholar
Phillips, Betty. 2006. Word frequency and lexical diffusion. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.10.1057/9780230286610Search in Google Scholar
Piantadosi, Steven. T., Harry Tily & Edward Gibson. 2011. Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(9). 3526–3529. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1012551108.Search in Google Scholar
Piantadosi, Steven T., Harry Tily & Edward Gibson. 2009. The communicative lexicon hypothesis. The 31st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci09), 2582–2587. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Search in Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2002. Word-specific phonetics. In Carlos Gussenhoven & Natasha Warner (eds.), Laboratory phonology VII, 101–139. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197105.101.Search in Google Scholar
Ritt, Nikolaus 2004. Selfish sounds and linguistic evolution: A Darwinian approach to language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo978051148644910.1017/CBO9780511486449Search in Google Scholar
Seyfarth, Seth. 2014. Word informativity influences acoustic duration: Effects of contextual predictability on lexical representation. Cognition 133(1). 140–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.013.Search in Google Scholar
Seyfarth, Seth, Esteban Buz & T. Florian Jaeger. 2016. Dynamic hyperarticulation of coda voicing contrasts. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 139(2). EL31–37.10.1121/1.4942544Search in Google Scholar
Shannon, Claude E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27. 623–656. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb00917.x.Search in Google Scholar
Shannon, Claude E. 1949. Communication in the presence of noise. Proceedings of the IRE 37. 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1109/jrproc.1949.232969.Search in Google Scholar
Sóskuthy, Marton & Jennifer Hay. 2017. Changing word usage predicts changing word durations in New Zealand English. Cognition 166. 298–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.032.Search in Google Scholar
Taft, Lori A. 1984. Prosodic constraints and lexical parsing strategies. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Ph.D. Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Van Son, R. J. J. H. & P. H. Jan Van Santen. 2005. Duration and spectral balance of intervocalic consonants: A case for efficient communication. Speech Communication 47(1–2). 100–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2005.06.005.Search in Google Scholar
van Son, R. J. J. H. & Louis C. W. Pols. 2003. How efficient is speech. In Proceedings of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences 25. 171–184.Search in Google Scholar
Wang, William. 1969. Competing changes as a cause of residue. Language 45(1). 9–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/411748.Search in Google Scholar
Wedel, Andrew, Adam Ussishkin & Adam King (in press). Crosslinguistic evidence of a strong statistical universal: phonological neutralization rules target word ends. Language.Search in Google Scholar
Zipf, George K. 1935. The psychobiology of language. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Search in Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, Pienie. 1989. The locus of the effects of sentential-semantic context in spoken-word processing. Cognition 32(1). 25–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(89)90013-9.Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
