Accessible Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton August 10, 2018

Assessing predictability effects in connected read speech

Cynthia G. Clopper, Rory Turnbull and Rachel Steindel Burdin
From the journal Linguistics Vanguard

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

Table A1:

Summary of the fixed effects in the model with cloze probability.

FactorEstimatet-value
Intercept0.0240.90
Frequency−0.031−1.66
Phonotactic probability−0.058−3.08
Cloze probability0.0030.21
Mention−0.001−0.14
Style0.0584.71
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 × Style0.0020.63
Cloze probability × Mention0.0010.11
Cloze probability × Style0.0010.60
Mention × Style0.0020.98
Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Cloze probability0.000−0.01
Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Mention0.0050.66
Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Style−0.002−0.60
Frequency × Cloze probability × Mention0.0202.60
Frequency × Cloze probability × Style−0.003−1.20
Frequency × Mention × Style0.0010.75
Phonotactic probability × Cloze probability × Mention−0.008−0.88
Phonotactic probability × Cloze probability × Style0.0052.29
Phonotactic probability × Mention × Style0.0000.27
Cloze probability × Mention × Style0.0021.40
Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Cloze probability × Mention0.0091.15
Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Cloze probability × Style−0.004−1.71
Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Mention × Style0.0021.37
Frequency × Cloze probability × Mention × Style0.000−0.01
Phonotactic probability × Cloze probability × Mention × Style−0.003−1.63
Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Cloze probability × Mention × Style−0.004−2.31

  1. Significant effects (|t| > 2) are shown in bold.

Table A2:

Summary of the fixed effects in the model with Google 1T probability.

FactorEstimatet-value
Intercept0.0271.01
Frequency−0.031−1.56
Phonotactic probability−0.055−2.83
Google 1T probability0.0010.10
Mention−0.005−0.65
Style0.0594.81
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 probability0.0010.10
Phonotactic probability × Mention−0.003−0.41
Phonotactic probability × Style0.0020.63
Google 1T probability × Mention0.0000.05
Google 1T probability × Style0.0041.84
Mention × Style0.0010.46
Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Google 1T probability−0.010−0.69
Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Mention0.0050.56
Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Style−0.002−0.73
Frequency × Google 1T probability × Mention0.0141.77
Frequency × Google 1T probability × Style−0.004−1.81
Frequency × Mention × Style0.0020.94
Phonotactic probability × Google 1T probability × Mention−0.009−0.86
Phonotactic probability × Google 1T probability × Style0.0010.60
Phonotactic probability × Mention × Style0.000−0.13
Google 1T probability × Mention × Style0.0010.35
Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Google 1T probability × Mention0.0060.67
Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Google 1T probability × Style−0.003−1.18
Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Mention × Style0.0052.50
Frequency × Google 1T probability × Mention × Style0.0021.00
Phonotactic probability × Google 1T probability × Mention × Style−0.007−2.96
Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Google 1T probability × Mention × Style0.0010.44

  1. Significant effects (|t| > 2) are shown in bold.

Table A3:

Summary of the fixed effects in the model with Fisher/Buckeye probability.

FactorEstimatet-value
Intercept0.0080.28
Frequency−0.027−1.28
Phonotactic probability−0.081−3.80
Fisher/Buckeye probability0.0010.07
Mention−0.006−0.83
Style0.0614.92
Frequency × Phonotactic probability−0.025−1.10
Frequency × Fisher/Buckeye probability0.0302.07
Frequency × Mention−0.016−1.75
Frequency × Style−0.008−2.76
Phonotactic probability × Fisher/Buckeye probability0.0160.96
Phonotactic probability × Mention0.0040.51
Phonotactic probability × Style0.0030.90
Fisher/Buckeye probability × Mention0.0151.64
Fisher/Buckeye probability × Style0.0000.17
Mention × Style0.0010.67
Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Fisher/Buckeye probability0.0372.31
Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Mention−0.004−0.37
Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Style−0.001−0.27
Frequency × Fisher/Buckeye probability × Mention0.0152.30
Frequency × Fisher/Buckeye probability × Style−0.005−2.42
Frequency × Mention × Style0.0000.08
Phonotactic probability × Fisher/Buckeye probability × Mention0.0050.51
Phonotactic probability × Fisher/Buckeye probability × Style0.0010.22
Phonotactic probability × Mention × Style−0.001−0.30
Fisher/Buckeye probability × Mention × Style0.0020.95
Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Fisher/Buckeye probability × Mention0.000−0.07
Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Fisher/Buckeye probability × Style−0.004−1.66
Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Mention × Style0.0041.76
Frequency × Fisher/Buckeye probability × Mention × Style0.0000.02
Phonotactic probability × Fisher/Buckeye probability × Mention × Style−0.003−1.27
Frequency × Phonotactic probability × Fisher/Buckeye probability × Mention × Style0.0010.33

  1. 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. Search 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. Search 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. Search in Google Scholar

Baese-Berk, M. & M. Goldrick. 2009. Mechanisms of interaction in speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes 24. 527–554. Search 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. Search 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. Search 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. 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. 92–111. Search 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. Search 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. 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. & F. Jaeger. 2018. The interdependence of frequency, predictability, and informativity. Linguistics Vanguard 4(S2). 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

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). Search in Google Scholar

Fowler, C. A. 1988. Differential shortening of repeated content words produced in various communicative contexts. Language and Speech 31. 307–319. Search 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. Search 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. Search 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. 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. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Search 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. Search in Google Scholar

Shaw, J. A. & S. Kawahara. in press. Effects of surprisal and entropy on vowel duration in Japanese. Language and Speech. Search 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. Search 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. 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

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. Search 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. Search in Google Scholar

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

Watson, D. G. 2010. The many roads to prominence: Understanding emphasis in conversation. Psychology of Learning and Motivation 52. 163–183. Search in Google Scholar

Yuan, J. & M. Liberman. 2008. Speaker identification on the SCOTUS corpus. Proceedings of Acoustics ’08. 5687–5690. Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2017-04-28
Accepted: 2018-06-04
Published Online: 2018-08-10

©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston