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

Three steps forward for predictability. Consideration of methodological robustness, indexical and prosodic factors, and replication in the laboratory

Paul Foulkes, Gerry Docherty, Stefanie Shattuck Hufnagel and Vincent Hughes
From the journal Linguistics Vanguard

Abstract

There is now abundant evidence that phonetic forms are shaped by probabilistic effects reflecting predictability or informativity. We outline a number of challenges for such work, where theoretical claims are often based on small differences in acoustic measurements, or interpretations of small statistical effect sizes. We outline caveats about the methods and assumptions encountered in many studies of predictability effects, particularly regarding corpus-based approaches. We consider the wide range of factors that influence patterns of variability in phonetic forms, taking a broad perspective on what is meant by “the message” in order to show that predictability effects need to be considered alongside many others, including indexical and prosodic factors. We suggest a number of ways forward to extend our understanding of the form-predictability relationship.

Acknowledgement

We record our thanks to Márton Sóskuthy, two anonymous reviewers and the editors for their helpful suggestions.

References

Babel, M. 2012. Evidence for phonetic and social selectivity in spontaneous phonetic imitation. Journal of Phonetics 40(1). 177–189.Search in Google Scholar

Bell, A. 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13. 145–204.Search in Google Scholar

Berkovits, R. 1993. Progressive utterance-final lengthening in syllables with final fricatives. Language and Speech 36(1). 89–98.Search in Google Scholar

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

Brognaux, S., S. Roekhaut, T. Drugman & R. Beaufort. 2012. Automatic phone alignment: A comparison between speaker-independent models and models trained on the corpus to align. In H. Isahara & K. Kanzaki (eds.), Advances in natural language processing (Japtal 2012. Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 7614), 300–311. Berlin: Springer.Search 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.Search in Google Scholar

Byrne, C. & P. Foulkes. 2004. The mobile phone effect on vowel formants. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 11. 83–102.Search in Google Scholar

Chodroff, E. & C. Wilson. 2017. Structure in talker-specific phonetic realization: Covariation of stop consonant VOT in American English. Journal of Phonetics 61. 30–47.Search in Google Scholar

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

Cohen Priva, U. 2015. Informativity affects consonant duration and deletion rates. Laboratory Phonology 6. 243–278.Search in Google Scholar

Cohen Priva, U. 2017. Informativity and the actuation of lenition. Language 93(3). 569–597.Search in Google Scholar

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

Das, R., J. Izak, J. Yuan & M. Liberman 2010. Forced alignment under adverse conditions. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, CIS Dept.Search in Google Scholar

De Decker, P. 2016. An evaluation of noise on LPC-based vowel formant estimates: Implications for sociolinguistic data collection. Linguistics Vanguard 2(1). 83–101.Search in Google Scholar

Deng, L., X. Cui, R. Pruvenok, Y. Chen, S. Momen & A. Alwan. 2006. A database of vocal tract resonance trajectories for research in speech processing. Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing 2006. 369–372.Search in Google Scholar

Duckworth, M., K. McDougall, G. de Jong & L. Shockey. 2011. Improving the consistency of formant measurement. International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law 18. 35–51.Search in Google Scholar

Foulkes, P. & G. J. Docherty. 2006. The social life of phonetics and phonology. Journal of Phonetics 34. 409–438.Search in Google Scholar

Franco-Pedroso, J. & J. Gonzalez-Rodriguez. 2016. Linguistically-constrained formant-based i-vectors for automatic speaker recognition. Speech Communication 76. 61–81.Search in Google Scholar

Fromont, R. & K. Watson. 2016. Factors influencing automatic segmental alignment of sociophonetic corpora. Corpora 11. 401–431.Search in Google Scholar

Gordon, E., M. Maclagan & J. B. Hay. 2007. The ONZE corpus. In J. Beal, K. Corrigan & H. Mosil (eds.), Creating and digitizing language corpora (vol. 1), 82–104. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar

Harrington, J. 2010. Phonetic analysis of speech corpora. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Harrison, P. 2013. Making accurate formant measurements: An empirical investigation of the influence of the measurement tool, analysis settings and speaker on formant measurement. York: University of York PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Hawkins, S. 2003. Roles and representations of systematic fine phonetic detail in speech understanding. Journal of Phonetics 31. 373–405.Search in Google Scholar

Hay, J. B. & P. Foulkes. 2016. The evolution of medial (-t-) over real and remembered time. Language 92. 298–330.Search in Google Scholar

Hay, J. B., J. B. Pierrehumbert, A. L. Walker & P. LaShell. 2015. Tracking word frequency effects through 130 years of sound change. Cognition 139. 83–91.Search in Google Scholar

Hughes, V. 2014. The definition of the relevant population and the collection of data for likelihood ratio-based forensic voice comparison. York: University of York PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Hughes, V. & P. Foulkes. 2015. The relevant population in forensic voice comparison: Effects of varying delimitations of social class and age. Speech Communication 66. 218–230.Search in Google Scholar

Johnson, K., E. A. Strand & M. D’Imperio. 1999. Auditory-visual integration of talker gender in vowel perception. Journal of Phonetics 27. 359–384.Search in Google Scholar

Kleinschmidt, D. F. & T. F. Jaeger. 2015. Robust speech perception: Recognize the familiar, generalize to the similar, and adapt to the novel. Psychological Review 122. 148–203.Search in Google Scholar

Künzel, H. J. 2001. Beware of the ‘telephone effect’: The influence of telephone transmission on the measurement of formant frequencies. Forensic Linguistics 8. 80–99.Search in Google Scholar

Ladefoged, P. 2003. Phonetic data analysis: An introduction to fieldwork and instrumental techniques. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Lam, T. Q. & D. G. Watson. 2014. Repetition reduction: Lexical repetition in the absence of referent repetition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 40. 829–843.Search in Google Scholar

Lindblom, B. 1963. Spectrographic study of vowel reduction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 35(11). 1773–1781.Search 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. Amsterdam: Kluwer.Search in Google Scholar

Local, J. & G. Walker. 2012. How phonetic features project more talk. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 42. 255–280.Search in Google Scholar

Nygaard, L. C., M. S. Sommers & D. B. Pisoni. 1994. Speech perception as a talker-contingent process. Psychological Science 5. 42–46.Search in Google Scholar

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

Pardo, J. S., A. Urmanche, S. Wilman & J. Wiener. 2017. Phonetic convergence across multiple measures and model talkers. Attention, Perception and Psychophysics 79(2). 637–659.Search in Google Scholar

Rathcke, T., J. Stuart-Smith, B. Torsney & J. Harrington. 2017. The beauty in a beast: Minimising the effects of diverse recording quality on vowel formant measurements in sociophonetic real-time studies. Speech Communication 86. 24–41.Search in Google Scholar

Schleef, E. & Turton, D. 2016. Sociophonetic variation of like in British dialects: Effects of function, context and predictability. English Language & Linguistics 22(1). 35–75.Search in Google Scholar

Schuppler, B., W. A. van Dommelen, J. Koreman & M. Ernestus. 2012. How linguistic and probabilistic properties of a word affect the realization of its final /t/: Studies at the phonemic and sub-phonemic level. Journal of Phonetics 40. 595–607.Search in Google Scholar

Shaw, J. A. & S. Kawahara. 2018. Predictability and phonology: past, present & future. Linguistics Vanguard 4(S2).Search in Google Scholar

Sonderegger, M. & J. Keshet. 2012. Automatic measurement of voice onset time using discriminative structured prediction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 132(6). 3965–3979.Search in Google Scholar

Stevens, K. N. 2000. Acoustic phonetics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Stevens, K. N. 2002. Toward a model for lexical access based on acoustic landmarks and distinctive features. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 111(4). 1872–1891.Search in Google Scholar

Stuart-Smith, J., M. Sonderegger, T. Rathcke & R. Macdonald. 2015. The private life of stops: VOT in a real-time corpus of spontaneous Glaswegian. Laboratory Phonology 6. 505–549.Search in Google Scholar

Tabachnick, B. G. & L. S. Fidell. 1996. Using multivariate statistics (3rd edn.). New York: Harper Collins.Search in Google Scholar

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

Turk, A. & L. White. 1999. Structural influences on accentual lengthening in English. Journal of Phonetics 27. 171–206.Search in Google Scholar

Turk, A. & S. Shattuck-Hufnagel. 2007. Multiple targets of phrase-final lengthening in American English words. Journal of Phonetics 42. 444–472.Search in Google Scholar

Walker, A. & J. B. Hay. 2011. Congruence between ‘word age’ and ‘voice age’ facilitates lexical access. Laboratory Phonology 2. 219–237.Search in Google Scholar

Wedel, A., S. Jackson & A. Kaplan. 2013. 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.Search in Google Scholar

West, P. 1999. Perception of distributed coarticulatory properties of English /l/ and /r/. Journal of Phonetics 27. 405–426.Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, C., G. S. Morrison, E. Enzinger & F. Ochoa. 2013. Effects of telephone transmission on the performance of formant-trajectory-based forensic voice comparison–female voices. Speech Communication 55. 796–813.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2017-07-06
Accepted: 2018-06-28
Published Online: 2018-09-13

©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston