Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistics Vanguard

A Multimodal Journal for the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: Bergs, Alexander / Cohn, Abigail C. / Good, Jeff

CiteScore 2018: 0.95

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.381
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.841

See all formats and pricing
More options …

Loci and locality of informational effects on phonetic implementation

Robert Daland / Kie Zuraw
Published Online: 2018-08-10 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2017-0045


Recent evidence suggests that the phonetic realization of linguistic units is sensitive to informational context. For example, the duration of a word is shorter when it is probable given the following word. Word-specific phonetic variation is unexpected according to modular/feedforward models. We consider various challenges to identifying the loci of informational effects on phonetic implementation – do they arise in production, perception, memory, or some combination? Section 2 addresses a theoretical issue: what are the right measure(s) of predictability/informativity? An urgent direction for future work is to understand what kinds of context matter and why. Section 3 reviews second-mention reduction and other non-local discourse effects, which strongly suggest a production locus (rather than arising in speech perception or memory). Important future directions include modeling discourse/topic in corpus studies, and experimentally assessing the role of nonlocal context in perception and memory. Section 4 addresses the role of computational modeling. We call for integrated, implemented end-to-end models which include speech perception, lexical representation, and speech production components.

Keywords: predictability; informativity; information; duration


  • Altmann, Eduardo G., Janet B. Pierrehumbert & Adilson E. Motter. 2009. Beyond word frequency: Bursts, lulls, and scaling in the temporal distributions of words. PLoS ONE 4(11). e7678. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007678.Google Scholar

  • Anderson, Anne H. & Barbara Howarth. 2002. Referential form and word duration in video-mediated and face-to-face dialogues. In Johan Bos, Mary Ellen Foster & Colin Matheson (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (EDILOG 2002), Edinburgh, UK, 4–6 September 2002, pp. 13–20. Edinburgh: Cognitive Science Centre, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar

  • Baker, Rachel E. & Ann R. Bradlow. 2009. Variability in word duration as a function of probability, speech style, and prosody. Language and Speech 52(4). 391–413.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bard, Ellen G., Anne H. Anderson, Catherine Sotillo, Matthew Aylett, Gwyneth Doherty-Sneddon & Alison Newlands. 2000. Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language 42. 1–22.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bard, Ellen G., A. Lowe & Gerry T.M. Altmann. 1989. The effects of repetition on words in recorded dictations. In Jean-Pierre Tubach & Joseph Mariani (Eds.), Proceedings of EUROSPEECH-1989 First European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (EUROSPEECH ’89), Paris, France, September 27–29, 1989 (pp 573–576). Paris: European Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar

  • Bishop, Jason. 2012. Information structural expectations in the perception of prosodic prominence. In G. Elordieta & P. Prieto (Eds.) Prosody and Meaning (Interface Explorations). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Bell, Alan, Jason M. Brenier, Michelle Gregory, Cynthia Girand & Dan Jurafsky. 2009. Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language 60(1). 92–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.06.003.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Blei, David M., Andrew Y. Ng & Michael I. Jordan. 2003. Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research 3. 993–1022.Google Scholar

  • Braun, Bettina, Greg Kochanski, Esther Grabe & Burton S. Rosner. 2006. Evidence for attractors in English intonation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119(6). 4006–4015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.2195267.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Carbary, Kathleen, Meredith Brown, Christine Gunlogson, Joyce M. McDonough, Aleksandra Fazlipour & Michael K. Tanenhaus. 2015. Anticipatory deaccenting in language comprehension. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience 30(1–2). 197–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2014.885534.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Church, Kenneth. 2000. Empirical estimates of adaptation: The chance of two Noriega’s is closer to p/2 than p2. COLING, pp. 173–179.Google Scholar

  • Cohen Priva, Uriel. 2008. Using information content to predict phone deletion. In Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited by Natasha Abner & Jason Bishop, 90–98. Somerville, MA, USA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

  • Cohen Priva, Uriel. 2012. Sign and signal: Deriving linguistic generalizations from information utility. Unpublished dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar

  • Cohen Priva, Uriel. 2017. Informativity and the actuation of lenition. Language 93(3). 569–597.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Daland, Robert. 2013. Variation in child-directed speech: A case study of manner class frequencies. Journal of Child Language 40(5). 1091–1122.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Daland, Robert, Mira Oh & Syejeong Kim. 2015. When in doubt, read the instructions: Orthographic effects in loanword adaptation. Lingua 159. 70–92. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.03.002.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dupoux, Emmanuel, Kazuhiko Kakehi, Yuki Hirose, Christophe Pallier & Jacques Mehler. 1999. Epenthetic vowels in Japanese: A perceptual illusion? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 25(6). 1568–1578.Google Scholar

  • Ernestus, Mirjam, Haarald R. Baayen & Robert Schreuder. 2002. The recognition of reduced word forms. Brain and Language 81(1–3). 162–173. doi: 10.1006/brln.2001.2514.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fink, Angela & Matthew Goldrick. 2015. The influence of word retrieval and planning on phonetic variation: Implications for exemplar models. Linguistics Vanguard 1. 215–225. doi: 10.1515/lingvan-2015-1003.Google Scholar

  • Flege, James E. 2007. Language contact in bilingualism: Phonetic system interactions. In Jennifer Cole & Jose Hualde (Eds.), Laboratory Phonology 9, 353–380. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Fosler-Lussier, Eric & Nelson Morgan. 1999. Effects of speaking rate and word predictability on conversational pronunciations. Speech Communication 29. 137–158.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fowler, Carol A. 1988. Differential shortening of repeated context words produced in various communicative contexts. Language and Speech 31. 307–319.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fowler, Carol A., Elena T. Levy & Julie M. Brown. 1997. Reductions of spoken words in certain discourse contexts. Journal of Memory and Language 37. 24–40.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • German, James. 2009. Prosodic strategies for negotiating reference in discourse. Doctoral thesis, Department of Linguistics, Northwestern University.Google Scholar

  • Hale, John. 2003. The information conveyed by words in sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32(2). 101–123. doi: 10.1023/A:1022492123056.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Hall, Kathleen, Elizabeth Hume, T. Florian Jaeger & Andrew Wedel. Under review. The message shapes phonology.Google Scholar

  • Kello, Christopher T. & David C. Plaut. 2004. A neural network model of the articulatory-acoustic forward mapping trained on recordings of articulatory parameters. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116. 2354–2364.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kirchner, Robert, Roger K. Moore & Tsung-Ying Chen. 2010. Computing phonological generalization over real speech exemplars. Journal of Phonetics 38(4). 540–547. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2010.07.005.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lam, Tuan Q. & Duane G. Watson. 2015. Repetition reduction: Lexical repetition in the absence of referent repetition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 40(3). 829–843. doi: 10.1037/a0035780.Google Scholar

  • Levelt, William J. M., Ardi Roelofs, & Antje S. Meyer. 1999. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22. 1–75.Google Scholar

  • Levy, Roger, Klinton Bicknell, Tim Slattery & Keith Rayner. 2009. Eye movement evidence that readers maintain and act on uncertainty about past linguistic input. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(50). 21086–21090. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0907664106.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Luce, R. Duncan 1959. Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

  • McClelland, James L. & Jeffrey L. Elman. 1986. The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology 18. 1–86.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Munson, Benjamin. 2001. Phonological pattern frequency and speech production in children and adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 44. 778–792.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Niyogi, Partha. 2006. The computational nature of language learning and evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1012551108.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition, and contrast. In Joan Bybee & Paul Hopper (Eds.) Frequency effects and the emergence of lexical structure, 137–157. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2002. Word-specific phonetics. Laboratory Phonology VII, 101–139. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2006. The next toolkit. Journal of Phonetics 34(4). 516–530. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2006.06.003.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Plaut, David C. & Christopher T. Kello. 1999. The emergence of phonology from the interplay of speech comprehension and production: A distributed connectionist approach. In Brian MacWhinney (Ed.), The emergence of language, 381–415. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Roelofs, Ardi. 2005. From Popper to Lakatos: A case for cumulative computational modeling. In Anne Cutler (Ed.), Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones, 313–330. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar

  • Roy, Brandon C., Michael C. Frank, & Deb Roy. 2012. Relating activity contexts to early word learning in dense longitudinal data. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Sapporo, Japan.Google Scholar

  • Schreuder, Robert & Haarald R. Baayen. 1995. Modeling morphological processing. In Laurie B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing, 131–154. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Shaw, Jason & Shigeto Kawahara. 2017. Effects of surprisal and entropy on vowel duration in Japanese. Language and Speech. doi:10.1177/0023830917737331.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Seyfarth, Scott. 2014. Word informativity influences acoustic duration: Effects of contextual predictability on lexical representation. Cognition 133(1). 140–155. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.013.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Strauss, Ted. J., Harlan D. Harris & James S. Magnuson. 2007. jTRACE: A reimplementation and extension of the TRACE model of speech perception and spoken word recognition. Behavior Research Methods 39. 19–30.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Tanaka, Yu. 2015. The perceptual basis of the skewed distributions of Japanese palatalized consonants. In Thuy Bui & Deniz Ozyldz (Eds.) Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 45(3). 131–144.Google Scholar

  • Tomasello, Michael & Daniel Stahl. 2004. Sampling children’s spontaneous speech: How much is enough? Journal of Child Language 31(1). 101–121.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Vajrabhaya, Prakiwan & Vsevolod Kapatsinsky. Under review. First time’s the charm: First-mention lengthening as an automated act.Google Scholar

  • Van Son, Rob J. J. H. & Louis C. W. Pols. 2003. How efficient is speech? Proceedings of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences (Instituut voor Fonetische Wetenschappen, Universiteit van Amsterdam) 25: 171–184.Google Scholar

  • Zipf, George. 1935. The psychobiology of language: An introduction to dynamic philology. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2017-05-05

Accepted: 2018-01-02

Published Online: 2018-08-10

Citation Information: Linguistics Vanguard, Volume 4, Issue s2, 20170045, ISSN (Online) 2199-174X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2017-0045.

Export Citation

©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Kathleen Currie Hall, Elizabeth Hume, T. Florian Jaeger, and Andrew Wedel
Linguistics Vanguard, 2018, Volume 4, Number s2
Fabian Tomaschek, Benjamin V. Tucker, Matteo Fasiolo, and R. Harald Baayen
Linguistics Vanguard, 2018, Volume 4, Number s2
Paul Foulkes, Gerry Docherty, Stefanie Shattuck Hufnagel, and Vincent Hughes
Linguistics Vanguard, 2018, Volume 4, Number s2

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in