The (in)dependence of articulation and lexical planning during isolated word production (original) (raw)

Abstract

Words differ in the number of phonologically similar neighbors they have in the lexicon. The density of a word’s phonological neighborhood has been argued to affect lexical planning and articulation. Here, we investigate whether the effects of phonological neighborhood density on articulation is mediated through its effects on lexical planning or whether phonological neighborhood density has as an independent affect on articulation. In a picture naming experiment, we investigate the effect of neighborhood density on both lexical planning and articulation. We then test the extent to which the time course of lexical planning predicts a word’s articulation and whether potential effects of density on articulation can be reduced to its effects on planning. We find that planning does influence articulation but there is an independent effect of neighborhood density on articulation. This leads us to review and discuss competing accounts of lexical planning, articulation, the link between them, and the locus of phonological neighborhood densities effects on the two. Keywords: language production; lexical planning; articulation; neighborhood density; confusability

Figures (10)

Figure 1. Possible relations between production ease and articulation. Panel (a) Radical production ease predicts that any systematic (i. e. non-random) variation in articulation is caused by production ease. Panel (b) Moderate production ease accounts predict that pro- duction ease is one of several factors that cause systematic variation in articulation. Panel (c) It is also possible that articulation is not affected by production ease.

Figure 1. Possible relations between production ease and articulation. Panel (a) Radical production ease predicts that any systematic (i. e. non-random) variation in articulation is caused by production ease. Panel (b) Moderate production ease accounts predict that pro- duction ease is one of several factors that cause systematic variation in articulation. Panel (c) It is also possible that articulation is not affected by production ease.

Figure 2. Some possible influences of PND on lexical planning and articulation under production ease accounts. In all of (a)—(c), pro- duction ease affects articulation. The panels differ, however, in the extent to which production ease explains effects of PND on articula- tion. Panel (a) shows the prediction of radical production ease accounts: the effect of PND on articulation is fully mediated by its effect on planning (e.g. if PND reduces lexical planning time it also reduces pronunciation detail). Panels (b) and (c) show the predictions of two different types of moderate production ease accounts. In (b), production ease explains some of the effect of PND on articulation: there are both an independent and mediated effects of PND on articulation. In (c), production ease affects articulation, but the effect of PND is independent of that.

Figure 2. Some possible influences of PND on lexical planning and articulation under production ease accounts. In all of (a)—(c), pro- duction ease affects articulation. The panels differ, however, in the extent to which production ease explains effects of PND on articula- tion. Panel (a) shows the prediction of radical production ease accounts: the effect of PND on articulation is fully mediated by its effect on planning (e.g. if PND reduces lexical planning time it also reduces pronunciation detail). Panels (b) and (c) show the predictions of two different types of moderate production ease accounts. In (b), production ease explains some of the effect of PND on articulation: there are both an independent and mediated effects of PND on articulation. In (c), production ease affects articulation, but the effect of PND is independent of that.

Table 1. Mean values and standard errors of control variables by high vs. low log-frequency-weighted PND. In addition to the 40 minimal pair pictures, there were 60 filler pictures. Fillers were pictures whose dominant labels were mono (9), bi-syllabic (42), tri-syllabic (7), or quadri-syllabic (2). Finally, eight pictures served as

Table 1. Mean values and standard errors of control variables by high vs. low log-frequency-weighted PND. In addition to the 40 minimal pair pictures, there were 60 filler pictures. Fillers were pictures whose dominant labels were mono (9), bi-syllabic (42), tri-syllabic (7), or quadri-syllabic (2). Finally, eight pictures served as

Figure 3. Schematic illustration of trial structure (a) and trial ordering within a minimal pair (b) for the picture naming experiment. Our minimal pair design holds constant syllable, coda, and onset complexity, all of which could influence word durations and vowel dispersion. However, differences in consonant contexts are known to affect vowel duration, specifically voicing and manner (House, 1961). Chi- squared tests of independence show that, across the density groups, our stimuli pairs did not significantly differ in manner (plosive, nasal, fricative, lateral), place (bilabial, labial, labio-dental, alveolar, velar), or voicing (p's >.1). In addition, we balanced (log-transformed) fre- quency, average biphone log probability, number of alternative picture labels for paired pictures, and pro- portion of usage of the dominant label (no difference assessed by paired t-tests). The mean (and standard devi- ation) of these measures by high vs. low log-frequency- weighted PND condition are provided in Table 1. We report log-frequency-weighted PND based on IPhOD2, a lexical database of 54,000 tokens of English from the SUBTLEXus corpus (Brysbaert & New, 2009). All results reported below replicated robustly when log-fre- quency-weighted PND was calculated based on CELEX (Baayen, Piepenbrock, & van Rijn, 1993), as in, for example, Scarborough (2010, 2012). Dies co cel cd Sao ce a ee ol ee Cw fe practice trials, following instructions and preceding the main session. Fillers and practice labels were chosen as to not be phonological neighbours with any of the criti- cal or filler items.

Figure 3. Schematic illustration of trial structure (a) and trial ordering within a minimal pair (b) for the picture naming experiment. Our minimal pair design holds constant syllable, coda, and onset complexity, all of which could influence word durations and vowel dispersion. However, differences in consonant contexts are known to affect vowel duration, specifically voicing and manner (House, 1961). Chi- squared tests of independence show that, across the density groups, our stimuli pairs did not significantly differ in manner (plosive, nasal, fricative, lateral), place (bilabial, labial, labio-dental, alveolar, velar), or voicing (p's >.1). In addition, we balanced (log-transformed) fre- quency, average biphone log probability, number of alternative picture labels for paired pictures, and pro- portion of usage of the dominant label (no difference assessed by paired t-tests). The mean (and standard devi- ation) of these measures by high vs. low log-frequency- weighted PND condition are provided in Table 1. We report log-frequency-weighted PND based on IPhOD2, a lexical database of 54,000 tokens of English from the SUBTLEXus corpus (Brysbaert & New, 2009). All results reported below replicated robustly when log-fre- quency-weighted PND was calculated based on CELEX (Baayen, Piepenbrock, & van Rijn, 1993), as in, for example, Scarborough (2010, 2012). Dies co cel cd Sao ce a ee ol ee Cw fe practice trials, following instructions and preceding the main session. Fillers and practice labels were chosen as to not be phonological neighbours with any of the criti- cal or filler items.

Table 2. PND models for (log-transformed) speech onset latencies, (log-transformed) word duration, and vowel dispersion.

Table 2. PND models for (log-transformed) speech onset latencies, (log-transformed) word duration, and vowel dispersion.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of speech onset latencies, word durations, and vowel dispersion across conditions. The results are summarised in Table 4 and visualised in Figure 5. Speech onset latencies had a significant

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of speech onset latencies, word durations, and vowel dispersion across conditions. The results are summarised in Table 4 and visualised in Figure 5. Speech onset latencies had a significant

Figure 4. Model estimates of influence of log-frequency-weighted PND on planning and articulatory measures. Error bar represents 95% bootstrapped confidence interval of group difference.

Figure 4. Model estimates of influence of log-frequency-weighted PND on planning and articulatory measures. Error bar represents 95% bootstrapped confidence interval of group difference.

Table 4. Effect of (log) speech onset latencies and PND on (log) word durations. A comparison of the effects of PND on word duration and vowel dispersion, depending on whether speech onset latencies were included in the model (Table 4) or not (Table 2, Columns 2 and 3), further shows that the effects of PND on articulation are orthogonal to the

Table 4. Effect of (log) speech onset latencies and PND on (log) word durations. A comparison of the effects of PND on word duration and vowel dispersion, depending on whether speech onset latencies were included in the model (Table 4) or not (Table 2, Columns 2 and 3), further shows that the effects of PND on articulation are orthogonal to the

Figure 5. Raw data and model estimates of influence of log-transformed speech onset latency and log-frequency-weighted PND or articulatory measures. our results suggest that the effect of PND on articulation is orthogonal to whatever effect lexical planning has on articulation (supporting the architecture illustrated in Figure 2(c)). correlation between speech onset latencies and articula- tion (both the estimated effect sizes of PND and their standard errors remained virtually unchanged). Indeed, the fixed effect correlations between speech onset latency and both word duration and vowel dispersion were very low (fixed effect r<0.084 and r< 0.086, respectively). This is unexpected under any form of partial or full mediation.

Figure 5. Raw data and model estimates of influence of log-transformed speech onset latency and log-frequency-weighted PND or articulatory measures. our results suggest that the effect of PND on articulation is orthogonal to whatever effect lexical planning has on articulation (supporting the architecture illustrated in Figure 2(c)). correlation between speech onset latencies and articula- tion (both the estimated effect sizes of PND and their standard errors remained virtually unchanged). Indeed, the fixed effect correlations between speech onset latency and both word duration and vowel dispersion were very low (fixed effect r<0.084 and r< 0.086, respectively). This is unexpected under any form of partial or full mediation.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (116)

  1. Arnold, J. E. (2008). Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(4), 495-527. doi:10.1080/01690960801920099
  2. Arnold, J. E., Eisenband, J. G., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Trueswell, J. C. (2000). The rapid use of gender information: Evidence of the time course of pronoun resolution from eyetracking. Cognition, 76(1), B13-B26. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(00) 00073-1
  3. Arnold, J. E., Kahn, J. M., & Pancani, G. C. (2012). Audience design affects acoustic reduction via production facilitation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(3), 505-512. doi:10.3758/ s13423-012-0233-y
  4. Arnold, J. E., & Watson, D. G. (2015). Synthesising meaning and processing approaches to prosody: Performance matters.
  5. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(1-2), 88-102. doi:10.1080/01690965.2013.840733
  6. Aylett, M. P., & Turk, A. E. (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. doi:10.1177/00238309040470010201
  7. Aylett, M. P., & Turk, A. E. (2006). Language redundancy predicts syllabic duration and the spectral characteristics of vocalic syllable nuclei. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(5), 3048. doi:10.1121/1.2188331
  8. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390-412. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
  9. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX lexical database. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
  10. Baese-Berk, M., & Goldrick, M. (2009). Mechanisms of interaction in speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24 (4), 527-554. doi:10.1080/01690960802299378
  11. Baker, R. E., & Bradlow, A. R. (2009). Variability in word duration as a function of probability, speech style, and prosody. Language and Speech, 52(4), 391-413. doi:10.1177/ 0023830909336575
  12. Balota, D. A., Boland, J. E., & Shields, L. W. (1989). Priming in pro- nunciation: Beyond pattern recognition and onset latency. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(1), 14-36. doi:10.1016/ 0749-596X(89)90026-0
  13. Bard, E. G., Anderson, A. H., Sotillo, C., Aylett, M. P., Doherty- Sneddon, G., & Newlands, A. (2000). Controlling the intelligibil- ity of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(1), 1-22. doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2667
  14. Bard, E. G., & Aylett, M. P. (2005). Referential form, word dur- ation, and modeling the listener in spoken dialogue model- ing listeners while speaking. In J. C. Trueswell & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Approaches to studying world-situated language use: Bridging the language-as-product and language-as-action traditions (pp. 173-191). Cambridge: MIT Press.
  15. Bates, E., D'Amico, S., Jacobsen, T., Székely, A., Andonova, E., Devescovi, A., … Tzeng, O. (2003). Timed picture naming in seven languages. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(2), 344- 380. doi:10.3758/BF03196494
  16. Baus, C., Costa, A., & Carreiras, M. (2008). Neighbourhood density and frequency effects in speech production: A case for interactivity. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(6), 866-888. doi:10.1080/01690960801962372
  17. Bell, A., Brenier, J. M., Gregory, M., Girand, C., & Jurafsky, D. S. (2009). Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language, 60(1), 92-111. doi:10.1016/j.jml. 2008.06.003
  18. Bock, J. K. (1987). An effect of the accessibility of word forms on sentence structures. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 119-137. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(87)90120-3
  19. Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Tanaka, M. N. (2008). Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assign- ment and word order during production. Lingua, 118(2), 172-189. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.003
  20. Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word fre- quency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977-990. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.977
  21. Buz, E., Jaeger, T. F., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2014). Contextual con- fusability leads to targeted hyperarticulation. In Proceedings of the 36th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Quebec City, QC: Cognitive Science Society.
  22. Buz, E., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Jaeger, T. F. (2015 AQ7 ¶ ). Miscommunication leads to context specific hyper- articulation.
  23. Chen, Q., & Mirman, D. (2012). Competition and cooperation among similar representations: Toward a unified account of facilitative and inhibitory effects of lexical neighbors. Psychological Review, 119(2), 417-430. doi:10.1037/a0027175
  24. Clark, H. H., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2002). Using uh and um in spon- taneous speaking. Cognition, 84(1), 73-111. doi:10.1016/ S0010-0277(02)00017-3
  25. Creel, S. C., Aslin, R. N., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2008). Heeding the voice of experience: The role of talker variation in lexical access. Cognition, 106(2), 633-664. doi:10.1016/j.cognition. 2007.03.013
  26. Crystal, T. H., & House, A. S. (1986). Characterization and model- ing of speech-segment durations. In ICASSP '86. IEEE inter- national conference on acoustics, speech, and signal processing (Vol. 11, 6, pp. 1057-1066). doi:10.1109/ICASSP. 1986.1168564
  27. Damian, M. F. (2003). Articulatory duration in single-word speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(3), 416-431. doi:10. 1037/0278-7393.29.3.416
  28. Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93(3), 283-321. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.283
  29. Drager, K. (2011). Speaker age and vowel perception. Language and Speech, 54(Pt 1), 99-121. doi:10.1177/0023830910388017
  30. Ferreira, V. S., & Dell, G. S. (2000). Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology, 40(4), 296-340. doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0730
  31. Ferreira, V. S., & Griffin, Z. M. (2003). Phonological influences on lexical (mis)selection. Psychological Science, 14(1), 86-90. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.01424
  32. Ferreira, V. S., & Yoshita, H. (2003). Given-new ordering effects on the production of scrambled sentences in Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32(6), 669-692. doi:10. 1023/A:1026146332132
  33. Fox, N. P., Reilly, M., & Blumstein, S. E. (2015). Phonological neighborhood competition affects spoken word production irrespective of sentential context. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 97-117. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2015.04.002
  34. Fox Tree, J. E., & Clark, H. H. (1997). Pronouncing "the" as "thee" to signal problems in speaking. Cognition, 62(2), 151-167. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00781-0
  35. Gahl, S. (2015). Lexical competition in vowel articulation revisited: Vowel dispersion in the Easy/Hard database. Journal of Phonetics, 49, 96-116. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2014. 12.002
  36. Gahl, S., Yao, Y., & Johnson, K. (2012). Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spon- taneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4), 789-806. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2011.11.006
  37. Galati, A., & Brennan, S. E. (2010). Attenuating information in spoken communication: For the speaker, or for the addressee? Journal of Memory and Language, 62(1), 35-51. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.002
  38. Goldrick, M., Vaughn, C., & Murphy, A. (2013). The effects of lexical neighbors on stop consonant articulation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 134(2), EL172- EL177. doi:10.1121/1.4812821
  39. Gordon, J. K., & Kurczek, J. C. (2014). The aging neighborhood: Phonological density in naming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 29(3), 326-344. doi:10.1080/01690965.2013. 837495
  40. Gorman, K., Howell, J., & Wagner, M. (2011). Prosodylab-Aligner: A tool for forced alignment of laboratory speech. In Proceedings of acoustics week in Canada (pp. 4-5). Quebec City.
  41. Guy, G. R. (1996). Form and function in linguistic variation. In G. R. Guy, C. Feagin, D. Schiffrin, & J. Baugh (Eds.), Towards a social science of language: Papers in honor of William Labov. Volume 1: Variation and change in language and society (pp. 221-252). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  42. Hay, J. (2001). Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics, 39(6), 1041-1070. doi:10.1515/ling. 2001.041
  43. Heller, J. R., & Goldrick, M. (2014). Grammatical constraints on phonological encoding in speech production. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(6), 1576-1582. doi:10.3758/s13423- 014-0616-3
  44. House, A. S. (1961). On vowel duration in English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 33(9), 1174. doi:10.1121/1. 1908941
  45. Jacobs, C. L., Yiu, L. K., Watson, D. G., & Dell, G. S. (2015). Why are repeated words produced with reduced durations? Evidence from inner speech and homophone production. Journal of Memory and Language, 84, 37-48. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2015.05. 004
  46. Jaeger, T. F. (2006). Redundancy and syntactic reduction in spon- taneous speech (Doctoral). Stanford University.
  47. Jaeger, T. F. (2010). Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology, 61(1), 23-62. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002
  48. Jaeger, T. F. (2011). Corpus-based research on language production: Information density and reducible subject rela- tives.
  49. In E. M. Bender & J. E. Arnold (Eds.), Language from a cognitive perspective: Grammar, usage, and processing. Studies in honor of Tom Wasow (pp. 161-197). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
  50. Jaeger, T. F. (2013). Production preferences cannot be under- stood without reference to communication. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 230. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00230
  51. Jaeger, T. F., & Buz, E. (2016). Signal reduction and linguistic encoding. In E. M. Fernandez & H. S. Cairns (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics. Wiley-Blackwell.
  52. AQ8 ¶ Jaeger, T. F., Furth, K., & Hilliard, C. (2012a). Incremental phono- logical encoding during unscripted sentence production. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(November), 481. doi:10.3389/ fpsyg.2012.00481
  53. Jaeger, T. F., Furth, K., & Hilliard, C. (2012b). Phonological overlap affects lexical selection during sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(5), 1439-1449. doi:10.1037/a0027862
  54. Johnson, K. (1997). Speech perception without speaker normal- ization: An exemplar model. Talker Variability in Speech Processing, 145-165.
  55. AQ9 ¶ Johnson, K. (2006). Resonance in an exemplar-based lexicon: The emergence of social identity and phonology. Journal of Phonetics, 34, 485-499. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2005.08.004
  56. Kahn, J. M., & Arnold, J. E. (2012). A processing-centered look at the contribution of givenness to durational reduction. Journal of Memory and Language, 67(3), 311-325. doi:10. 1016/j.jml.2012.07.002
  57. Kahn, J. M., & Arnold, J. E. (2015). Articulatory and lexical rep- etition effects on durational reduction: Speaker experience vs. common ground. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(1-2), 103-119. doi:10.1080/01690965.2013.848989
  58. Kang, K.-H., & Guion, S. G. (2008). Clear speech production of Korean stops: Changing phonetic targets and enhancement strategies. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 124(6), 3909-3917. doi:10.1121/1.2988292
  59. Kawamoto, A. H., Kello, C. T., Higareda, I., & Vu, J. V. Q. (1999). Parallel processing and initial phoneme criterion in naming words: Evidence from frequency effects on onset and rime dur- ation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(2), 362-381. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.25.2.362
  60. Kello, C. T. (2004). Control over the time course of cognition in the tempo-naming task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(5), 942-955. doi:10. 1037/0096-1523.30.5.942
  61. Kello, C. T., Plaut, D. C., & MacWhinney, B. (2000). The task dependence of staged versus cascaded processing: An empirical and computational study of Stroop interference in speech perception.. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(3), 340-360. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.129.3.340
  62. Kirov, C., & Wilson, C. (2012). The specificity of online variation in speech production. In Proceedings of the 34th annual confer- ence of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 587-592). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
  63. Kirov, C., & Wilson, C. (2013). Bayesian speech production: Evidence from latency and hyperarticulation. In Proceedings of the 35th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 788-793). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
  64. Lam, T. Q., & Watson, D. G. (2010). Repetition is easy: Why repeated referents have reduced prominence. Memory & Cognition, 38(8), 1137-1146. doi:10.3758/MC.38.8.1137
  65. Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 1-38.
  66. Lindblom, B. (1990). Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H&H theory. In W. J. Hardcastle & A. Marchal (Eds.), Speech production and speech modeling (pp. 403-439). Kluwer Academic.
  67. AQ10 ¶
  68. Lindblom, B. (1996). Role of articulation in speech perception: Clues from production. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99(3), 1683-1692. doi:10.1121/1.414691
  69. Lombard, E. (1911). Le signe de l'elevation de la voix. Ann Maladies Oreille, Larynx, Nez, Pharynx, 37(25), 101-119.
  70. Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing, 19(1), 1-36.
  71. MacDonald, M. C. (2013). How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(April), 226. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00226
  72. Magnuson, J. S., Dixon, J. A., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Aslin, R. N. (2007). The dynamics of lexical competition during spoken word recognition. Cognitive Science, 31(1), 133-156. doi:10. 1080/03640210709336987
  73. Mahon, B. Z., Costa, A., Peterson, R., Vargas, K. A., & Caramazza, A. (2007). Lexical selection is not by competition: A reinter- pretation of semantic interference and facilitation effects in the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(3), 503-535. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.503
  74. Manin, D. Y. (2006). Experiments on predictability of word in context and information rate in natural language. Information Processes, 6(3), 229-236.
  75. Meyer, A. S. (1991). The time course of phonological encoding in language production: Phonological encoding inside a syl- lable. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 69-89.
  76. Munson, B. (2007). Lexical access, lexical representation, and vowel production. In J. Cole & J. I. Hualde (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 9 (pp. 201-228). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  77. Munson, B., & Solomon, N. P. (2004). The effect of phonological neighborhood density on vowel articulation. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(5), 1048-1058. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2004/078)
  78. Newman, R. S., & Bernsetin Ratner, N. (2007). The role of selected lexical factors on confrontation naming accuracy, speed, and fluency in adults who do and do not Sutter. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50(1), 196-214. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2007/016)
  79. Ohala, J. J. (1989). Discussion of Bjorn Lindblom's 'phonetic invariance and the adaptive nature of speech'. In B. A. G. Elsendoorn & H. Bouma (Eds.), Working models of human per- ception (pp. 175-183). London: Academic Press.
  80. O'Seaghdha, P. G., & Marin, J. W. (2000). Phonological compe- tition and cooperation in form-related priming: Sequential and nonsequential processes in word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(1), 57-73. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.26.1.57
  81. Peramunage, D., Blumstein, S. E., Myers, E. B., Goldrick, M., & Baese-Berk, M. (2011). Phonological neighborhood effects in spoken word production: An fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(3), 593-603. doi:10.1162/jocn. 2010.21489
  82. Pérez, M. A. (2007). Age of acquisition persists as the main factor in picture naming when cumulative word frequency and fre- quency trajectory are controlled. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(1), 32-42. doi:10.1080/ 17470210600577423
  83. Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H. J., & Gibson, E. (2011). Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(9), 3526-3529. doi:10.1073/pnas.1012551108
  84. Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2001
  85. AQ11 ¶ ). Exemplar dynamics: Word fre- quency, lenition and contrast. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (Hooper 1976, pp. 137-157). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  86. Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2002). Word-specific phonetics. In C. Gussenhoven & N. Warner (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 7 (pp. 101-139). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  87. Rapp, B., & Goldrick, M. (2000). Discreteness and interactivity in spoken word production. Psychological Review, 107(3), 460- 499. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.107.3.460
  88. Sadat, J., Martin, C. D., Costa, A., & Alario, F.-X. (2014). Reconciling phonological neighborhood effects in speech production through single trial analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 68, 33-58. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych. 2013.10.001
  89. Scarborough, R. (2010). Lexical and contextual predictability: Confluent effects on the production of vowels. In C. Fougeron, B. Kuehnert, M. Imperio, & N. Vallee (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 10 (Vol. 10, pp. 557-586). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  90. Scarborough, R. (2012). Lexical similarity and speech pro- duction: Neighborhoods for nonwords. Lingua, 122(2), 164- 176. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2011.06.006
  91. Scarborough, R. (2013). Neighborhood-conditioned patterns in phonetic detail: Relating coarticulation and hyperarticula- tion. Journal of Phonetics, 41(6), 491-508. doi:10.1016/j. wocn.2013.09.004
  92. Scarborough, R., & Zellou, G. (2013). Clarity in communication: "Clear" speech authenticity and lexical neighborhood density effects in speech production and perception. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 134(5), 3793- 3807. doi:10.1121/1.4824120
  93. Schertz, J. L. (2013). Exaggeration of featural contrasts in clarifi- cations of misheard speech in English. Journal of Phonetics, 41(3-4), 249-263. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2013.03.007
  94. Schriefers, H., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1990). Exploring the time course of lexical access in language production: Picture- word interference studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 86-102. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(90)90011-N
  95. Sevald, C. A., & Dell, G. S. (1994). The sequential cuing effect in speech production. Cognition, 53, 91-127. doi:10.1016/0749- 596X(90)90011-N Seyfarth, S., Buz, E., & Jaeger, T. F. (2015 AQ12 ¶ ). Dynamic hyperarticula- tion of Coda voicing contrasts.
  96. Shriberg, E. (1996). Disfluencies in switchboard. In Proceedings of international conference on spoken language processing (pp. 11-14).
  97. Stent, A. J., Huffman, M. K., & Brennan, S. E. (2008). Adapting speaking after evidence of misrecognition: Local and global hyperarticulation. Speech Communication, 50(3), 163-178. doi:10.1016/j.specom.2007.07.005
  98. Strand, J. F. (2014). Phi-square Lexical Competition Database (Phi-Lex): An online tool for quantifying auditory and visual lexical competition. Behavior Research Methods, 46(1), 148- 158. doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0356-8
  99. Traunmüller, H. (1990). Analytical expressions for the tonotopic sensory scale. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88(1), 97-100. doi:10.1121/1.399849
  100. Vitevitch, M. S. (2002). The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(4), 735-747. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.28.4.735
  101. Vitevitch, M. S., Armbrüster, J., & Chu, S. (2004). Sublexical and lexical representations in speech production: Effects of pho- notactic probability and onset density. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 514-529. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.514
  102. Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (1998). When words compete: Levels of processing in perception of spoken words. Psychological Science, 9(4), 325-329. doi:10.1111/1467-9280. 00064
  103. Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (1999). Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood activation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(3), 374-408. doi:10. 1006/jmla.1998.2618
  104. Vitevitch, M. S., & Sommers, M. S. (2003). The facilitative influ- ence of phonological similarity and neighborhood frequency in speech production in younger and older adults. Memory & Cognition, 31(4), 491-504. doi:10.3758/BF03196091
  105. Vitevitch, M. S., & Stamer, M. K. (2006). The curious case of com- petition in Spanish speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(6), 760-770. doi:10.1080/ 01690960500287196
  106. Vitevitch, M. S., & Stamer, M. K. (2009). The influence of neighbor- hood density (and neighborhood frequency) in Spanish speech production: A follow-up report (Tech. Rep. No. 1). Lawrence: University of Kansas.
  107. Wasow, T. (1997). End-weight from the speaker's perspective. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26(3), 347-361. doi:10. 1023/A:1025080709112
  108. Watson, D. G., Arnold, J. E., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2008). Tic Tac Toe: Effects of predictability and importance on acoustic pro- minence in language production. Cognition, 106(3), 1548-1557. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.06.009
  109. Watson, D. G., Buxó-Lugo, A., & Simmons, D. C. (2015). The effect of phonological encoding on word duration: Selection takes time. In E. Gibson & L. Frazier (Eds.), Explicit and implicit prosody in sentence processing.
  110. AQ13 ¶ Wedel, A. (2006). Exemplar models, evolution and language change. The Linguistic Review, 23, 247-274. doi:10.1515/TLR. 2006.010
  111. Wheeldon, L. R., & Lahiri, A. (1997). Prosodic units in speech pro- duction. Journal of Memory and Language, 37(3), 356-381. doi:10.1006/jmla.1997.2517
  112. Woods, D. L., Yund, E. W., & Herron, T. J. (2010). Measuring con- sonant identification in nonsense syllables, words, and sen- tences. The Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 47(3), 243. doi:10.1682/JRRD.2009.04.0040
  113. Woods, D. L., Yund, E. W., Herron, T. J., & Ua Cruadhlaoich, M. a. I. (2010). Consonant identification in consonant-vowel-conso- nant syllables in speech-spectrum noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 127(3), 1609-1623. doi:10. 1121/1.3293005
  114. Wright, R. (2004). Factors of lexical competition in vowel articu- lation. In J. J. Local, R. Ogden, & R. Temple (Eds.), Papers in lab- oratory phonology vi (Chap. 4, pp. 75-87). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  115. Zhao, Y., & Jurafsky, D. S. (2009). The effect of lexical frequency and Lombard reflex on tone hyperarticulation. Journal of Phonetics, 37(2), 231-247. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2009.03.002
  116. Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of lease effort. Oxford: Addison-Wesley Press.