Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton September 13, 2018

The role of predictability in shaping phonological patterns

Kathleen Currie Hall EMAIL logo , Elizabeth Hume EMAIL logo , T. Florian Jaeger EMAIL logo and Andrew Wedel EMAIL logo
From the journal Linguistics Vanguard

Abstract

A diverse set of empirical findings indicate that word predictability in context influences the fine-grained details of both speech production and comprehension. In particular, lower predictability relative to similar competitors tends to be associated with phonetic enhancement, while higher predictability is associated with phonetic reduction. We review evidence that these in-the-moment biases can shift the prototypical pronunciations of individual lexical items, and that over time, these shifts can promote larger-scale phonological changes such as phoneme mergers. We argue that predictability-associated enhancement and reduction effects are based on predictability at the level of meaning-bearing units (such as words) rather than at sublexical levels (such as segments) and present preliminary typological evidence in support of this view. Based on these arguments, we introduce a Bayesian framework that helps generate testable predictions about the type of enhancement and reduction patterns that are more probable in a given language.

Acknowledgement

T. Florian Jaeger would like to acknowledge support from an NSF career grant: NSF IIS-1150028 CAREER.

References

Allopenna, P. D., J. S. Magnuson & M. K. 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). 419–439.10.1006/jmla.1997.2558Search in Google Scholar

Anderson, J. R. 1990. The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Archangeli, D. & D. Pulleyblank. 1994. Grounded phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Arnon, I. & U. 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

Arnon, I. & N. Snider. 2010. More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 62(1). 67–82.10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005Search in Google Scholar

Aylett, M. & A. 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). 31–56.10.1177/00238309040470010201Search in Google Scholar

Aylett, M. & A. Turk. 2006. Language redundancy predicts syllabic duration and the spectral characteristics of vocalic syllable nuclei. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119(5). 3048–3058.10.1121/1.2188331Search in Google Scholar

Babinski, S. & C. Bowern. 2018. Mergers in Bardi: Contextual probability and predictors of sound change. Linguistics Vanguard 4(S2).10.1515/lingvan-2017-0024Search in Google Scholar

Baese-Berk, M. & M. Goldrick. 2009. Mechanisms of interaction in speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes 24. 527–554.10.1080/01690960802299378Search in Google Scholar

Baese-Berk, M., T. Morill & L. Dilley. 2018. Predictability and perception for native and non-native listeners. Linguistics Vanguard 4(S2).10.1515/lingvan-2017-0022Search in Google Scholar

Bates, E. & B. MacWhinney. 1982. Functionalist approaches to grammar. In E. Wanner & L. R. Gleitman (eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art, 173–218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Beckman, J. 1998. Positional faithfulness. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Bell, A., J. M. Brenier, M. Gregory, C. Girand & D. Jurafsky. 2009. Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language 60(1). 92–111.10.1016/j.jml.2008.06.003Search in Google Scholar

Blevins, J. 2004. Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486357Search in Google Scholar

Blevins, J. & A. Wedel. 2009. Inhibited sound change: An evolutionary approach to lexical competition. Diachronica 26. 143–183.10.1075/dia.26.2.01bleSearch in Google Scholar

Boersma, P. 1998. Functional phonology: Formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Search in Google Scholar

Boersma, P. 2011. A programme for bidirectional phonology and phonetics and their acquisition and evolution. In A. Benz & J. Mattausch (eds.), Bidirectional optimality theory, 33–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.180.02boeSearch in Google Scholar

Boersma, P. & S. Hamann. 2008. The evolution of auditory dispersion in bidirectional constraint grammars. Phonology 25(2). 217–270.10.1017/S0952675708001474Search in Google Scholar

Browman, C. P. & L. M. Goldstein. 1986. Towards an articulatory phonology. In C. Ewen & J. Anderson (eds.), Phonology yearbook 3, 219–252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/S0952675700000658Search in Google Scholar

Burchill, Z. J. & T. F. Jaeger. 2017. Grounding sound change in ideal observer models of perception. Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics 2017. 20–28.10.18653/v1/W17-0703Search in Google Scholar

Buz, E., M. K. Tanenhaus & T. F. Jaeger. 2016. Dynamically adapted context-specific hyper-articulation: Feedback from interlocutors affects speakers’ subsequent pronunciations. Journal of Memory and Language 89. 68–86.10.1016/j.jml.2015.12.009Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, J. L. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511612886Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, J. L. 2002. Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change 14. 261–290.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.003.0011Search in Google Scholar

Clayards, M., M. K. Tanenhaus, R. N. Aslin & R. A. Jacobs. 2008. Perception of speech reflects optimal use of probabilistic speech cues. Cognition 108(3). 804–809.10.1016/j.cognition.2008.04.004Search in Google Scholar

Clopper, C. G., R. Turnbull & R. S. Burdin. 2018. Assessing predictability effects in connected read speech. Linguistics Vanguard 4(S2).10.1515/lingvan-2017-0044Search in Google Scholar

Cohen Priva, U. 2012. Sign and signal: Deriving linguistic generalizations from information utility. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Cohen Priva, U. 2015. Informativity affects consonant duration and deletion rates. Laboratory Phonology 6(2). 243–278.10.1515/lp-2015-0008Search in Google Scholar

Cohen Priva, U. 2017. Informativity and the actuation of lenition. Language 93(3). 569–597.10.1353/lan.2017.0037Search in Google Scholar

Cohen Priva, U. & T. F. Jaeger. 2018. The interdependence of frequency, predictability, and informativity. Linguistics Vanguard 4(S2).10.1515/lingvan-2017-0028Search in Google Scholar

Dahan, D., J. S. Magnuson & M. K. Tanenhaus. 2001. Time course of frequency effects in spoken-word recognition: Evidence from eye movements. Cognitive Psychology 42(4). 317–367.10.1006/cogp.2001.0750Search in Google Scholar

Daland, R. & K. Zuraw. 2018. Loci and locality of informational effects on phonetic implementation. Linguistics Vanguard 4(S2).10.1515/lingvan-2017-0045Search in Google Scholar

DeLong, K. A., T. P. Urbach & M. Kutas. 2005. Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience 8. 1117–1121.10.1038/nn1504Search in Google Scholar

Demberg, V. & F. Keller. 2008. Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity. Cognition 109. 193–210.10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.008Search in Google Scholar

Eisner, F. & J. M. McQueen. 2005. The specificity of perceptual learning in speech processing. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics 67(2). 224–238.10.3758/BF03206487Search in Google Scholar

Ernestus, M. 2014. Acoustic reduction and the roles of abstractions and exemplars in speech processing. Lingua 142. 27–41.10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.006Search in Google Scholar

Ernestus, M. & R. H. Baayen. 2007. The comprehension of acoustically reduced morphologically complex words: the roles of deletion, duration, and frequency of occurrence. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. 773–776.Search in Google Scholar

Ernestus, M. & N. Warner. 2011. An introduction to reduced pronunciation variants. Journal of Phonetics 39(3). 253–260.10.1016/S0095-4470(11)00055-6Search in Google Scholar

Fedzechkina, M., T. F. Jaeger & E. L. Newport. 2012. Language learners restructure their input to facilitate efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(44). 17897–17902.10.1073/pnas.1215776109Search in Google Scholar

Feldman, N. H., T. L. Griffith, S. Goldwater & J. L. Morgan. 2013. A role for the developing lexicon in phonetic category acquisition. Psychological Review 120(4). 751–778.10.1037/a0034245Search in Google Scholar

Feldman, N. H., T. L. Griffiths & J. L. Morgan. 2009. The influence of categories on perception: Explaining the perceptual magnet effect as optimal statistical inference. Psychological Review 116(4). 752–782.10.1037/a0017196Search in Google Scholar

Fernald, A., D. Swingley & J. P. Pinto. 2001. When half a word is enough: Infants can recognize spoken words using partial phonetic information. Child Development 72(4). 1003–1015.10.1111/1467-8624.00331Search in Google Scholar

Fleischhacker, H. 2001. Cluster-dependent epenthesis asymmetries. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 7, Papers in Phonology 5. 71–116.Search in Google Scholar

Flemming, E. 1995. Auditory representations in phonology. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Flemming, E. 2004. Contrast and perceptual distinctiveness. In B. Hayes, R. Kirchner & D. Steriade (eds.), Phonetically based phonology, 232–276. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486401.008Search in Google Scholar

Flemming, E. 2010. Modeling listeners. In C. Fougeron, B. Kühnert, M. D’Imperio & N. Vallée (eds.), Laboratory phonology 10, 587–606. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

Foley, J. 1977. Foundations of theoretical phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Foulkes, P., G. Docherty, S. Shattuck-Hufnagel & V. Hughes. 2018. Three steps forward for predictability: Consideration of methodological robustness, indexical and prosodic factors, and replication in the laboratory. Linguistics Vanguard 4(S2).10.1515/lingvan-2017-0032Search in Google Scholar

Fourtassi, A. & E. Dupoux. 2014. A rudimentary lexicon and semantics help bootstrap phoneme acquisition. In Proceedings of the 18th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL), 191–200. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Computational Linguistics.10.3115/v1/W14-1620Search in Google Scholar

Fox, N. P., M. Reilly & S. E. Blumstein. 2015. Phonological neighborhood competition affects spoken word production irrespective of sentential context. Journal of Memory and Language 83. 97–117.10.1016/j.jml.2015.04.002Search in Google Scholar

Frank, S. L. & R. Bod. 2011. Insensitivity of the human sentence-processing system to hierarchical structure. Psychological Science 22(6). 829–834.10.1177/0956797611409589Search in Google Scholar

Frank, S. L., L. J. Otten, G. Galli & G. Vigliocco. 2015. The ERP response to the amount of information conveyed by words in sentences. Brain and Language 140. 1–11.10.1016/j.bandl.2014.10.006Search in Google Scholar

Fricke, M., M. Baese-Berk & M. Goldrick. 2016. Dimensions of similarity in the mental lexicon. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience 31(5). 639–645.10.1080/23273798.2015.1130234Search in Google Scholar

Gahl, S., Y. Yao & K. Johnson. 2012. Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language 66(4). 789–806.10.1016/j.jml.2011.11.006Search in Google Scholar

Geisler, W. S. 2011. Contributions of ideal observer theory to vision research. Vision Research 51(7). 771–781.10.1016/j.visres.2010.09.027Search in Google Scholar

Goldinger, S. D. 2000. The role of perceptual episodes in lexical processing. In A. Cutler, J. McQueen & R. Zondervan (eds.), Proceedings of SWAP (Spoken Word Access Processes), 155–158. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Goldsmith, J. & J. Riggle. 2012. Information theoretic approaches to phonology: The case of Finnish vowel harmony. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30(3). 859–896.10.1007/s11049-012-9169-1Search in Google Scholar

Goldwater, S., T. L. Griffiths & M. Johnson. 2009. A Bayesian framework for word segmentation: Exploring the effects of context. Cognition 112(1). 21–54.10.1016/j.cognition.2009.03.008Search in Google Scholar

Groppe, D. M., M. Choi, T. Huang, J. Schilz, B. Topkins, T. P. Urbach & M. Kutas. 2010. The phonemic restoration effect reveals pre-N400 effect of supportive sentence context in speech perception. Brain Research 18(1361). 54–66.10.1016/j.brainres.2010.09.003Search in Google Scholar

Grosjean, F. 1980. Spoken word recognition processes and the gating paradigm. Perception and Psychophysics 28. 267–283.10.3758/BF03204386Search in Google Scholar

Guy, G. 1996. Form and function in linguistic variation. In G. Guy, C. Feagin, D. Schiffrin & J. Baugh (eds.), Towards a social science of language: Papers in honor of William Labov, 221–252. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.127.15guySearch in Google Scholar

Hall, K. C. 2009. A probabilistic model of phonological relationships from contrast to allophony. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Hall, K. C. 2012. Phonological relationships: A probabilistic model. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 22(1). https://www.mcgill.ca/mcgwpl/files/mcgwpl/curriehall2012.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Hall, K. C., E. Hume, T. F. Jaeger & A. Wedel. unpublished. The message shapes phonology.Search in Google Scholar

Hammond, M. 1999. The phonology of English: A prosodic Optimality-Theoretic approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hay, J. & M. Maclagan. 2012. /r/-sandhi in early 20th-century New Zealand English. Linguistics 50(4). 745–763.10.1515/ling-2012-0023Search in Google Scholar

Hayes, B., R. Kirchner & D. Steriade. 2004. Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486401Search in Google Scholar

Hong, S.-H. 2011. Information-theoretic account of vowel epenthesis in Korean. Paper presented at the Information-Theoretic Approaches to Linguistics Conference, University of Colorado, Boulder, 16–17 July 2011.Search in Google Scholar

Houlihan, K. 1975. The role of word boundary in phonological processes. Austin, TX: University of Texas dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Huettig, F. & N. Mani. 2016. Is prediction necessary to understand language? Probably not. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience 31(1). 80–93.10.1080/23273798.2015.1072223Search in Google Scholar

Hume, E. 1998. The role of perceptibility in consonant/consonant metathesis. Proceedings of West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 17. 293–307.Search in Google Scholar

Hume, E. 2004. The indeterminacy/attestation model of metathesis. Language 80(2). 203–237.10.1353/lan.2004.0083Search in Google Scholar

Hume, E. 2005. Deconstructing markedness: A predictability-based approach. In M. Ettlinger, N. Fleisher & M. Park-Doob (eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 182–198. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.10.3765/bls.v30i1.948Search in Google Scholar

Hume, E. 2008. Markedness and the language user. Phonological Studies 11. 295–310.Search in Google Scholar

Hume, E. & I. Bromberg. 2005. Predicting epenthesis: an information-theoretic account. Paper presented at the 7th Annual Meeting of the French Network of Phonology, Aix-en-Provence, 2–4 June 2005.Search in Google Scholar

Hume, E. & K. Johnson. 2001. A model of the interplay of speech perception and phonology. In E. Hume & K. Johnson (eds.), The role of speech perception in phonology, 3–26. San Diego: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004454095Search in Google Scholar

Hume, E., K. C. Hall, A. Wedel, A. Ussishkin, M. Adda-Decker & C. Gendrot. 2013. Anti-markedness patterns in French epenthesis: An information-theoretic approach. In C. Cathcart, I.-H. Chen, G. Finley, S. Kang, C. S. Sandy & E. Stickles (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 104–123. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.10.3765/bls.v37i1.3196Search in Google Scholar

Hume, E., K. C. Hall & A. Wedel. 2016. Perceptually strong and weak unmarked patterns: A message-based approach. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of Phonology. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/amp.v3i0.3772.10.3765/amp.v3i0.3772Search in Google Scholar

Jaeger, T. F. 2013. Production preferences cannot be understood without reference to communication. Frontiers in Psychology 4(230). 1–4.10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00230Search in Google Scholar

Jaeger, T. F. & E. Buz. 2017. Signal reduction and linguistic encoding. In E. M. Fernandez & H. S. Cairns (eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics, 38–81. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118829516.ch3Search in Google Scholar

Jaeger, T. F. & V. S. Ferreira. 2013. Seeking predictions from a predictive framework. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(4). 31–32.10.1017/S0140525X12002762Search in Google Scholar

Jun, J. 1995. Perceptual and articulatory factors in place assimilation: An optimality theoretic approach. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Kanwal, J., K. Smith, J. Culbertson & S. Kirby. 2017. Zipf’s law of abbreviation and the principle of least effort: Language users optimise a miniature lexicon for efficient communication. Cognition 165. 45–52.10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.001Search in Google Scholar

Kawahara, S. & S. Lee. 2018. Truncation in message-oriented phonology: A case study using Korean vocative truncation. Linguistics Vanguard 4(S2).10.1515/lingvan-2017-0016Search in Google Scholar

King, A. 2017. Word probability affects segmental information. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona MA thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Kingston, J. 2007. The phonetics-phonology interface. In P. de Lacy (ed.), The handbook of phonology, 401–434. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486371.018Search in Google Scholar

Kirby, J. 2010. Cue selection and category restructuring in sound change. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Kirchner, R. 2001. An effort-based approach to consonant lenition. New York, NY: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Kirov, C. & C. Wilson. 2012. The specificity of online variation in speech production. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. 587–592.Search in Google Scholar

Kirov, C. & C. Wilson. 2013. Bayesian speech production: Evidence from latency and hyperarticulation. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. 788–793.Search in Google Scholar

Kleinschmidt, D. F. & T. F. Jaeger. 2015. Robust speech perception: Recognizing the familiar, generalizing to the similar, and adapting to the novel. Psychological Review 122(2). 148–203.10.1037/a0038695Search in Google Scholar

Kleinschmidt, D. F. & T. F. Jaeger. 2016. Re-examining selective adapatation: Fatiguing feature detectors, or distributional learning? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 23(3). 678–691.10.3758/s13423-015-0943-zSearch in Google Scholar

Knill, D. C. & W. Richards (eds.). 1996. Perception as Bayesian inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511984037Search in Google Scholar

Kochetov, A. 2002. Production, perception, and emergent phonotactic patterns. New York, NY: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Kohler, K. 1990. Segmental reduction in connected speech in German: Phonological factors and phonetic explanations. In W. J. Hardcastle & A. Marchal (eds.), Speech production and speech modeling, 69–92. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-009-2037-8_4Search in Google Scholar

Kronrod, Y., E. Coppess & N. H. Feldman. 2016. A unified account of categorical effects in phonetic perception. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 23(6). 1681–1712.10.3758/s13423-016-1049-ySearch in Google Scholar

Kuperberg, G. R. & T. F. Jaeger. 2016. What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? Language Cognition and Neuroscience 31(1). 32–59.10.1080/23273798.2015.1102299Search in Google Scholar

Kuperman, V. & J. Bresnan. 2012. The effects of construction probability on word durations during spontaneous incremental sentence production. Journal of Memory and Language 66. 588–611.10.1016/j.jml.2012.04.003Search in Google Scholar

Kurumada, C. & T. F. Jaeger. 2015. Communicative efficiency in language production: Optional case-marking in Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language 83. 152–178.10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.003Search in Google Scholar

Levi, S. V. 2015. Generalization of phonetic detail: Cross-segmental, within-category priming of VOT. Language and Speech 58(4). 549–562.10.1177/0023830914567973Search in Google Scholar

Lindblom, B. 1990. Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H & H theory. In W. J. Hardcastle & A. Marchal (eds.), Speech production and speech modelling, 403–439. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-009-2037-8_16Search in Google Scholar

Luce, R. D. 1959. Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. New York: Wiley.Search in Google Scholar

Manin, D. 2006. Experiments on predictability of word in context and information rate in natural language. Journal of Information Processes 6(3). 229–236.Search in Google Scholar

Martinet, A. 1952. Function, structure, and sound change. Word 8(1). 1–32.10.1080/00437956.1952.11659416Search in Google Scholar

McDonald, S. A. & R. C. Shillcock. 2003. Eye movements reveal the on-line computation of lexical probabilities during reading. Psychological Science 14(6). 648–652.10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.psci_1480.xSearch in Google Scholar

Meylan, S. C. & T. L. Griffiths. 2017. Word forms – not just their lengths – are optimized for efficient communication. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.01694.Search in Google Scholar

Nelson, N. R. & A. Wedel. 2017. The phonetic specificity of competition: Contrastive hyperarticulation of voice onset time in conversational English. Journal of Phonetics 64. 51–70.10.1016/j.wocn.2017.01.008Search in Google Scholar

Ní Chiosáin, M. & J. Padgett. 2001. Markedness, segment realization, and locality in spreading. In L. Lombardi (ed.), Segmental phonology in optimality theory: Constraints and representations, 118–156. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511570582.005Search in Google Scholar

Nielsen, K. 2011. Specificity and abstractness of VOT imitation. Journal of Phonetics 39(2). 132–142.10.1016/j.wocn.2010.12.007Search in Google Scholar

Nooteboom, S. 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

Norris, D. & J. M. McQueen. 2008. Shortlist B: A Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. Psychological Review 115(2). 357–395.10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.357Search in Google Scholar

Norris, D., J. M. McQueen & A. Cutler. 2016. Prediction, Bayesian inference and feedback in speech recognition. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 31(1). 4–18.10.1080/23273798.2015.1081703Search in Google Scholar

Ohala, J. J. 1981. The listener as a source of sound change. In C. S. Masek, R. A. Hendrick & M. F. Miller (eds.), Papers from the parasession on language behavior, 178–203. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Search in Google Scholar

Ohala, J. J. 1989. Sound change is drawn from a pool of synchronic variation. In L. E. Breivik & E. H. Jahr (eds.), Language change: Contributions to the study of its causes, 173–198. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

Olejarczuk, P., R. H. Baayen & V. Kapatsinski. 2018. Distributional learning is error-driven: The role of surprise in the acquisition of phonetic categories. Linguistics Vanguard 4(S2).10.1515/lingvan-2017-0020Search in Google Scholar

Padgett, J. 1995. Stricture in feature geometry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Padgett, J. 2009. Systemic contrast and Catalan rhotics. The Linguistic Review 26(4). 431–463.10.1515/tlir.2009.016Search in Google Scholar

Piantadosi, S. T., H. Tily & E. Gibson. 2011. Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(9). 3526–3529.10.1073/pnas.1012551108Search in Google Scholar

Phillips, B. 2006. Word frequency and lexical diffusion. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.10.1057/9780230286610Search in Google Scholar

Pickering, M. J. & S. Garrod. 2013. An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(4). 329–347.10.1017/S0140525X12001495Search in Google Scholar

Pierrehumbert, J. B. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition, and contrast. In J. L. Bybee & P. Hopper (eds.), Frequency effects and the emergence of lexical structure, 137–157. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.45.08pieSearch in Google Scholar

Pierrehumbert, J. B. 2002. Word-specific phonetics. In C. Gussenhoven & N. Warner (eds.), Laboratory phonology VII, 101–139. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197105.1.101Search in Google Scholar

Pitt, M. A., L. Dilley, K. Johnson, S. Kiesling, W. Raymond, E. Hume & E. Fosler-Lussier. 2007. Buckeye Corpus of Conversational Speech (2nd Release). Columbus, OH: Department of Psychology, Ohio State University.Search in Google Scholar

Pluymaekers, M., M. Ernestus & R. H. Baayen. 2005. Articulatory planning is continuous and sensitive to informational redundancy. Phonetica 62(2–4). 146–159.10.1159/000090095Search in Google Scholar

Purnell, T., D. Tepeli & J. Salmons. 2005. German substrate effects in Wisconsin English: Evidence for final fortition. American Speech 80. 135–64.10.1215/00031283-80-2-135Search in Google Scholar

Raymond, W., R. Dautricourt & E. Hume. 2006. Word-internal t/d deletion in spontaneous speech: The effects of lexical, phonological, and extra-linguistic factors. Language Variation and Change 18(1). 55–97.10.1017/S0954394506060042Search in Google Scholar

Samuel, A. G. 1997. Lexical activation produces potent phonemic percepts. Cognitive Psychology 32(2). 97–127.10.1006/cogp.1997.0646Search in Google Scholar

Samuel, A. G. 2010. Phoneme restoration. Language and Cognitive Processes 11(6). 647–654.10.1080/016909696387051Search in Google Scholar

Sano, S.-i. 2018. Durational contrast in gemination and informativity. Linguistics Vanguard 4(S2).10.1515/lingvan-2017-0011Search in Google Scholar

Seyfarth, S. 2014. Word informativity influences acoustic duration: Effects of contextual predictability on lexical representation. Cognition 133(1). 140–155.10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.013Search in Google Scholar

Seyfarth, S., E. Buz & T. F. Jaeger. 2016. Dynamic hyperarticulation of coda voicing contrasts. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 139(2). EL31–EL37.10.1121/1.4942544Search in Google Scholar

Shaw, J. & S. Kawahara. 2018. Predictability and phonology: Past, present & future. Linguistics Vanguard 4(S2).10.1515/lingvan-2018-0042Search in Google Scholar

Silverman, D. 1997. Tone sandhi in Comaltepec Chinantec. Language 73(3). 473–492.10.2307/415881Search in Google Scholar

Smith, J. L. 2002. Phonological augmentation in prominent positions. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Smith, N. J. & R. Levy. 2013. The effect of word predictability on reading time is logarithmic. Cognition 128(3). 302–319.10.1016/j.cognition.2013.02.013Search in Google Scholar

Sonderegger, M. & A. Yu. 2010. A rational account of perceptual compensation for coarticulation. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 375–380. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Search in Google Scholar

Sóskuthy, M. 2015. Understanding change through stability: A computational study of sound change actuation. Lingua 163. 40–60.10.1016/j.lingua.2015.05.010Search in Google Scholar

Sóskuthy, M. & J. Hay. 2017. Changing word usage predicts changing word durations in New Zealand English. Cognition 166. 298–313.10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.032Search in Google Scholar

Steriade, D. 2008 [2001]. The phonology of perceptibility effects: The P-map and its consequences for constraint organization. In K. Hanson and S. Inkelas (eds.), The nature of the word: Studies in honor of Paul Kiparsky, 151–179. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262083799.003.0007Search in Google Scholar

Tily, H. & V. Kuperman. 2012. Rational phonological lengthening in spoken Dutch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 132. 3935–3940.10.1121/1.4765071Search in Google Scholar

Taft, L. A. 1984. Prosodic constraints and lexical parsing strategies. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Tomaschek, F., B. Tucker, M. Fasiolo & R. H. Baayen. 2018. Practice makes perfect: The consequences of lexical proficiency for articulation. Linguistics Vanguard 4(S2).10.1515/lingvan-2017-0018Search in Google Scholar

Toscano, J. C. & R. McMurray. 2010. Cue integration with categories: Weighting acoustic cues in speech using unsupervised learning and distributional statistics. Cognitive Science 34(3). 434–464.10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01077.xSearch in Google Scholar

Turnbull, R. 2018. Patterns of probabilistic segment deletion/reduction in English and Japanese. Linguistics Vanguard 4(S2).10.1515/lingvan-2017-0033Search in Google Scholar

Turnbull, R., S. Seyfarth, E. Hume & T. F. Jaeger. To appear. Nasal place assimilation trades off inferrability of both target and trigger words. Laboratory Phonology.Search in Google Scholar

Vaden, K. I., H. R. Halpin & G. S. Hickok. 2009. Irvine phonotactic online dictionary, v. 2.0. www.iphod.com.Search in Google Scholar

Van Berkum, J. J. A., C. M. Brown, P. Zwitserlood, V. Kooijman & P. Hagoort. 2005. Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 31(3). 443–467.10.1037/0278-7393.31.3.443Search in Google Scholar

van Son, R. J. J. H. & L. C. W. Pols. 2003. How efficient is speech? Proceedings of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences 25. 171–184.Search in Google Scholar

van Son, R. J. J. H. & J. P. H. van Santen. 2005. Duration and spectral balance of intervocalic consonants: A case for efficient communication. Speech Communication 47. 100–123.10.1016/j.specom.2005.06.005Search in Google Scholar

Wang, W. S.-Y. 1969. Competing changes as a cause of residue. Language 45(1). 9–25.10.2307/411748Search in Google Scholar

Wedel, A. 2006. Exemplar models, evolution, and language change. The Linguistic Review 23. 247–274.10.1515/TLR.2006.010Search in Google Scholar

Wedel, A. 2012. Lexical contrast maintenance and the organization of sublexical contrast systems. Language and Cognition 4(4). 319–355.10.1515/langcog-2012-0018Search in Google Scholar

Wedel, A., S. Jackson & A. Kaplan. 2013a. Functional load and the lexicon: Evidence that syntactic category and frequency relationships in minimal lemma pairs predict the loss of phoneme contrasts in language change. Language and Speech 56(3). 395–417.10.1177/0023830913489096Search in Google Scholar

Wedel, A., A. Kaplan & S. Jackson. 2013b. High functional load inhibits phonological contrast loss: A corpus study. Cognition 128(2). 179–186.10.1016/j.cognition.2013.03.002Search in Google Scholar

Wedel, A, N. R. Nelson & R. Sharp. 2018. The phonetic specificity of contrastive hyperarticulation in natural speech. Journal of Memory and Language 100. 61–88.10.1016/j.jml.2018.01.001Search in Google Scholar

Wedel, A., A. Ussishkin, A. King, J. Martin & J. Geary. 2018. Phonological grammars evolve to preserve information at word beginnings. Talk at the Evolution of Language (EVOLANG) Conference 2018, Torun, Poland, 16–19 April 2018.Search in Google Scholar

Willems, R. M., S. L. Frank, A. D. Nijhof, P. Hagoort & A. van den Bosch. 2016. Prediction during natural language comprehension. Cerebral Cortex 26(6). 2506–2516.10.1093/cercor/bhv075Search in Google Scholar

Xie, X., F. S. Earle & E. B. Myers. 2017. Sleep facilitates generalisation of accent adaptation to a new talker. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 332(2). 1–15.10.1080/23273798.2017.1369551Search in Google Scholar

Yan, S., G. R. Kuperberg & T. F. Jaeger. 2017. Prediction (or not) during language processing: A commentary on Nieuwland et al. (2017) and DeLong et al. (2005). https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/30/143750.Search in Google Scholar

Yao, Y. 2011. The effects of phonological neighborhoods on pronunciation variation in conversational speech. Berkeley, CA: University of California Berkeley dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Zeelenberg, R., D. Pecher, R. M. Shiffrin & J. G. Raaijmakers. 2003. Semantic context effects and priming in word association. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 10(3). 653–660.10.3758/BF03196528Search in Google Scholar

Zipf, G. K. 1932. Selected studies of the principle of relative frequency in language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674434929Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2017-05-15
Accepted: 2018-01-15
Published Online: 2018-09-13

©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 27.11.2022 from frontend.live.degruyter.dgbricks.com/document/doi/10.1515/lingvan-2017-0027/html
Scroll Up Arrow