Abstract
A wide range of reduction phenomena have been described in the literature as predictability effects, in which more predictable units (i.e. words, syllables, vowels) are reduced in duration or other acoustic dimensions relative to less predictable units. The goal of the current study was to critically evaluate these predictability effects on vowel duration in read speech to explore the extent to which they reflect a single underlying phenomenon. The results revealed shorter vowel duration for words with high phonotactic probability, for high-frequency words (in clear speech only), and for words in plain lab speech relative to clear speech. However, the results also revealed qualitatively different effects of three measures of contextual probability (cloze probability, written trigram probability, and spoken trigram probability). Greater spoken trigram probability predicted longer vowel duration, contrary to expectations, and this effect was limited to high-frequency words in first mentions and in plain speech. Cloze probability and written trigram probability exhibited even more complex interactions with other predictability measures. These results provide evidence for fundamental differences in these measures of predictability, suggesting that a more nuanced perspective on predictability effects and the mechanisms underlying them is necessary to account for the complexity of the empirical data.
Funding source: Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences
Award Identifier / Grant number: BCS-1056409
Funding statement: National Science Foundation, Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, Funder Id: 10.13039/100000169, Grant Number: BCS-1056409.
Appendix
Summary of the fixed effects in the model with cloze probability.
| Factor | Estimate | t-value |
|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 0.024 | 0.90 |
| Frequency | −0.031 | −1.66 |
| Phonotactic probability | −0.058 | −3.08 |
| Cloze probability | 0.003 | 0.21 |
| Mention | −0.001 | −0.14 |
| Style | 0.058 | 4.71 |
| Frequency × Phonotactic probability | −0.013 | −0.65 |
| Frequency × Cloze probability | −0.005 | −0.43 |
| Frequency × Mention | −0.006 | −0.77 |
| Frequency × Style | −0.008 | −3.25 |
| Phonotactic probability × Cloze probability | −0.007 | −0.60 |
| Phonotactic probability × Mention | −0.001 | −0.19 |
| Phonotactic probability × Style | 0.002 | 0.63 |
| Cloze probability × Mention | 0.001 | 0.11 |
| Cloze probability × Style | 0.001 | 0.60 |
| Mention × Style | 0.002 | 0.98 |
| Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Cloze probability | 0.000 | −0.01 |
| Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Mention | 0.005 | 0.66 |
| Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Style | −0.002 | −0.60 |
| Frequency × Cloze probability × Mention | 0.020 | 2.60 |
| Frequency × Cloze probability × Style | −0.003 | −1.20 |
| Frequency × Mention × Style | 0.001 | 0.75 |
| Phonotactic probability × Cloze probability × Mention | −0.008 | −0.88 |
| Phonotactic probability × Cloze probability × Style | 0.005 | 2.29 |
| Phonotactic probability × Mention × Style | 0.000 | 0.27 |
| Cloze probability × Mention × Style | 0.002 | 1.40 |
| Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Cloze probability × Mention | 0.009 | 1.15 |
| Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Cloze probability × Style | −0.004 | −1.71 |
| Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Mention × Style | 0.002 | 1.37 |
| Frequency × Cloze probability × Mention × Style | 0.000 | −0.01 |
| Phonotactic probability × Cloze probability × Mention × Style | −0.003 | −1.63 |
| Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Cloze probability × Mention × Style | −0.004 | −2.31 |
Significant effects (|t| > 2) are shown in bold.
Summary of the fixed effects in the model with Google 1T probability.
| Factor | Estimate | t-value |
|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 0.027 | 1.01 |
| Frequency | −0.031 | −1.56 |
| Phonotactic probability | −0.055 | −2.83 |
| Google 1T probability | 0.001 | 0.10 |
| Mention | −0.005 | −0.65 |
| Style | 0.059 | 4.81 |
| Frequency × Phonotactic probability | −0.009 | −0.44 |
| Frequency × Google 1T probability | −0.011 | −0.88 |
| Frequency × Mention | −0.005 | −0.64 |
| Frequency × Style | −0.010 | −3.68 |
| Phonotactic probability × Google 1T probability | 0.001 | 0.10 |
| Phonotactic probability × Mention | −0.003 | −0.41 |
| Phonotactic probability × Style | 0.002 | 0.63 |
| Google 1T probability × Mention | 0.000 | 0.05 |
| Google 1T probability × Style | 0.004 | 1.84 |
| Mention × Style | 0.001 | 0.46 |
| Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Google 1T probability | −0.010 | −0.69 |
| Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Mention | 0.005 | 0.56 |
| Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Style | −0.002 | −0.73 |
| Frequency × Google 1T probability × Mention | 0.014 | 1.77 |
| Frequency × Google 1T probability × Style | −0.004 | −1.81 |
| Frequency × Mention × Style | 0.002 | 0.94 |
| Phonotactic probability × Google 1T probability × Mention | −0.009 | −0.86 |
| Phonotactic probability × Google 1T probability × Style | 0.001 | 0.60 |
| Phonotactic probability × Mention × Style | 0.000 | −0.13 |
| Google 1T probability × Mention × Style | 0.001 | 0.35 |
| Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Google 1T probability × Mention | 0.006 | 0.67 |
| Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Google 1T probability × Style | −0.003 | −1.18 |
| Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Mention × Style | 0.005 | 2.50 |
| Frequency × Google 1T probability × Mention × Style | 0.002 | 1.00 |
| Phonotactic probability × Google 1T probability × Mention × Style | −0.007 | −2.96 |
| Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Google 1T probability × Mention × Style | 0.001 | 0.44 |
Significant effects (|t| > 2) are shown in bold.
Summary of the fixed effects in the model with Fisher/Buckeye probability.
| Factor | Estimate | t-value |
|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 0.008 | 0.28 |
| Frequency | −0.027 | −1.28 |
| Phonotactic probability | −0.081 | −3.80 |
| Fisher/Buckeye probability | 0.001 | 0.07 |
| Mention | −0.006 | −0.83 |
| Style | 0.061 | 4.92 |
| Frequency × Phonotactic probability | −0.025 | −1.10 |
| Frequency × Fisher/Buckeye probability | 0.030 | 2.07 |
| Frequency × Mention | −0.016 | −1.75 |
| Frequency × Style | −0.008 | −2.76 |
| Phonotactic probability × Fisher/Buckeye probability | 0.016 | 0.96 |
| Phonotactic probability × Mention | 0.004 | 0.51 |
| Phonotactic probability × Style | 0.003 | 0.90 |
| Fisher/Buckeye probability × Mention | 0.015 | 1.64 |
| Fisher/Buckeye probability × Style | 0.000 | 0.17 |
| Mention × Style | 0.001 | 0.67 |
| Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Fisher/Buckeye probability | 0.037 | 2.31 |
| Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Mention | −0.004 | −0.37 |
| Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Style | −0.001 | −0.27 |
| Frequency × Fisher/Buckeye probability × Mention | 0.015 | 2.30 |
| Frequency × Fisher/Buckeye probability × Style | −0.005 | −2.42 |
| Frequency × Mention × Style | 0.000 | 0.08 |
| Phonotactic probability × Fisher/Buckeye probability × Mention | 0.005 | 0.51 |
| Phonotactic probability × Fisher/Buckeye probability × Style | 0.001 | 0.22 |
| Phonotactic probability × Mention × Style | −0.001 | −0.30 |
| Fisher/Buckeye probability × Mention × Style | 0.002 | 0.95 |
| Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Fisher/Buckeye probability × Mention | 0.000 | −0.07 |
| Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Fisher/Buckeye probability × Style | −0.004 | −1.66 |
| Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Mention × Style | 0.004 | 1.76 |
| Frequency × Fisher/Buckeye probability × Mention × Style | 0.000 | 0.02 |
| Phonotactic probability × Fisher/Buckeye probability × Mention × Style | −0.003 | −1.27 |
| Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Fisher/Buckeye probability × Mention × Style | 0.001 | 0.33 |
Significant effects (|t| > 2) are shown in bold.
References
Arnold, J. E. 2008. Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Language and Cognitive Processes 23. 495–527.10.1080/01690960801920099Search 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. 31–56.10.1177/00238309040470010201Search in Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., D. J. Davidson & D. M. Bates. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59. 390–412.10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005Search 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
Baker, R. E. & A. R. Bradlow. 2009. Variability in word duration as a function of probability, speech style, and prosody. Language and Speech 52. 391–413.10.1177/0023830909336575Search in Google Scholar
Bard, E. G., A. H. Anderson, C. Sotillo, M. Aylett, G. Doherty-Sneddon & A. Newlands. 2000. Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language 42. 1–22.10.1006/jmla.1999.2667Search in Google Scholar
Bard, E. G., A. J. Lowe & G. T. M. Altmann. 1989. The effect of repetition on words in recorded dictations. Proceedings of Eurospeech 89. 573–576.10.21437/Eurospeech.1989-301Search 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. 92–111.10.1016/j.jml.2008.06.003Search in Google Scholar
Brants, T. & A. Franz. 2006. Web 1T 5-gram version 1. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Search in Google Scholar
Burdin, R. S. & C. G. Clopper. 2015. Phonetic reduction, vowel duration, and prosodic structure. Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. 378.Search in Google Scholar
Burdin, R. S., R. Turnbull & C. G. Clopper. 2015. Interactions among lexical and discourse characteristics in vowel production. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics 22. 060005.10.1121/2.0000084Search in Google Scholar
Cieri, C., D. Graff, O. Kimball, D. Miller & K. Walker. 2005. Fisher English Training Part 2. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Search in Google Scholar
Clopper, C. G. & R. Turnbull. 2018. Exploring variation in phonetic reduction: Linguistic, social, and cognitive factors. In F. Cangemi, M. Clayards, O. Niebuhr, B. Schuppler & M. Zellers (eds.), Rethinking reduction, 25–72. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110524178-002Search in Google Scholar
Cohen Priva, U. 2015. Informativity affects consonant duration and deletion rates. Laboratory Phonology 6. 243–278.10.1515/lp-2015-0008Search in Google Scholar
Cohen Priva, U. & F. Jaeger. 2018. The interdependence of frequency, predictability, and informativity. Linguistics Vanguard 4(S2).10.1515/lingvan-2017-0028Search 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
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
Fowler, C. A. 1988. Differential shortening of repeated content words produced in various communicative contexts. Language and Speech 31. 307–319.10.1177/002383098803100401Search in Google Scholar
Fowler, C. A. & J. Housum. 1987. Talkers’ signalling of “new” and “old” words in speech and listeners’ perception and use of the distinction. Journal of Memory and Language 26. 489–504.10.1016/0749-596X(87)90136-7Search in Google Scholar
Fowler, C. A., E. T. Levy & J. M. Brown. 1997. Reductions of spoken words in certain discourse contexts. Journal of Memory and Language 37. 24–40.10.1006/jmla.1996.2504Search in Google Scholar
Hawker, T., M. Gardiner & A. Bennetts. 2007. Practical queries of a massive n-gram database. Proceedings of the Australasian Language Technology Workshop. 40–48.Search in Google Scholar
Lam, T. Q. & D. G. Watson. 2010. Repetition is easy: Why repeated referents have reduced prominence. Memory and Cognition 38. 1137–1146.10.3758/MC.38.8.1137Search 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
Nusbaum, H. C., D. B. Pisoni & C. K. Davis. 1984. Sizing up the Hoosier mental lexicon: Measuring the familiarity of 20,000 words. In Research on Speech Perception Progress Report no. 10, 357–376. Bloomington, IN: Speech Research Laboratory, Indiana University.Search in Google Scholar
Pitt, M. A., L. C. Dilley, K. Johnson, S. Kiesling, W. Raymond, E. Hume & E. Fosler-Lussier. 2007. Buckeye corpus of conversational speech. Columbus, OH: Department of Psychology, Ohio State University.Search in Google Scholar
Seyfarth, S. 2014. Word informativity influences acoustic duration: Effects of contextual predictability on lexical representation. Cognition 133. 140–155.10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.013Search in Google Scholar
Shaw, J. A. & S. Kawahara. in press. Effects of surprisal and entropy on vowel duration in Japanese. Language and Speech.10.1177/0023830917737331Search in Google Scholar
Smith, N. J. & R. Levy. 2011. Cloze but no cigar: The complex relationship between cloze, corpus, and subjective probabilities in language processing. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. 1637–1642.Search in Google Scholar
Stolcke, A. 2002. SRILM – An extensible language modeling toolkit. Proceedings of Interspeech. 901–904.10.21437/ICSLP.2002-303Search in Google Scholar
Stolcke, A., J. Zheng, W. Wang & V. Abrash. 2011. SRILM at sixteen: Update and outlook. Proceedings of IEEE Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding Workshop.Search in Google Scholar
Tomaschek, F., M. Wieling, D. Arnold & H. Baayen. 2013. Word frequency, vowel length and vowel quality in speech production: An EMA study of the importance of experience. Proceedings of Interspeech. 1302–1306.10.21437/Interspeech.2013-347Search 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).10.1515/lingvan-2017-0018Search in Google Scholar
Tremblay, A. & B. V. Tucker. 2011. The effects of N-gram probabilistic measures on the recognition and production of four-word sequences. The Mental Lexicon 6. 302–324.10.1075/ml.6.2.04treSearch in Google Scholar
Turnbull, R. J. 2015. Assessing the listener-oriented account of predictability-based phonetic reduction. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Turnbull, R. 2017. The role of predictability in intonational variability. Language and Speech 60. 123–153.10.1177/0023830916647079Search 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., R. S. Burdin, C. G. Clopper & J. Tonhauser. 2015. Contextual predictability and the prosodic realisation of focus: A cross-linguistic comparison. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30. 1061–1076.10.1080/23273798.2015.1071856Search in Google Scholar
Vitevitch, M. S. & P. A. Luce. 1999. Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood activation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 40. 374–408.10.1006/jmla.1998.2618Search in Google Scholar
Vitevitch, M. S. & P. A. Luce. 2004. A web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 36. 481–487.10.3758/BF03195594Search in Google Scholar
Watson, D. G. 2010. The many roads to prominence: Understanding emphasis in conversation. Psychology of Learning and Motivation 52. 163–183.10.1016/S0079-7421(10)52004-8Search in Google Scholar
Yuan, J. & M. Liberman. 2008. Speaker identification on the SCOTUS corpus. Proceedings of Acoustics ’08. 5687–5690.10.1121/1.2935783Search in Google Scholar
©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
