Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton September 26, 2018

Patterns of probabilistic segment deletion/reduction in English and Japanese

  • Rory Turnbull EMAIL logo
From the journal Linguistics Vanguard

Abstract

Probabilistic phonetic reduction is widely attested in a variety of languages, acoustic domains, and interpretations of predictability. Less well-studied is the categorical effect of probabilistic segment deletion, which in principle is subject to similar pressures. This paper presents the results of an exploratory study into patterns of segment deletion in corpora of spontaneous speech in English and Japanese. Analysis at the word level reveals that words with more phonemes and higher-frequency words tend to have more of their segments deleted. Analysis at the phoneme level reveals that high-probability phonemes are more likely to be deleted than low-probability phonemes. For Japanese only, this analysis also shows effects of word length, frequency, and neighborhood density on deletion probability. Taken together, these results suggest that several large-scale patterns of probabilistic segment deletion mirror the processes of phonetic reduction and apply to both languages. Some patterns, though, appear to be language-specific, and it is not clear to what extent languages can and do differ in this regard. These findings are discussed in terms of our understanding of the universality of proposed predictability effects, and in terms of probabilistic reduction more broadly.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Mary Beckman, Cynthia Clopper, Shigeto Kawahara, Rebecca Morley, Shari Speer, and three anonymous reviewers for feedback on previous versions of this paper, and to Adriana Guevara Rukoz for discussions on this topic. All errors and shortcomings are my own.

  1. Funding: This work was partially supported by an Ohio State University Presidential Fellowship.

References

Arai, T. 1999. A case study of spontaneous speech in Japanese. In J. J. Ohala, Y. Hasegawa, M. Ohala, D. Granville & A. C. Bailey (eds.), 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 615–618. San Francisco, CA: International Phonetic Association.Search in Google Scholar

Aylett, M. & A. E. 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(1). 31–56.10.1177/00238309040470010201Search 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

Cock, P. J. A., T. Antao, J. T. Chang, B. A. Chapman, C. J. Cox, A. Dalke, I. Friedberg, T. Hamelryck, F. Kauff, B. Wilczynski & M. Hoon. 2009. Biopython: Freely available python tools for computational molecular biology and bioinformatics. Bioinformatics 25(11). 1422–1423.10.1093/bioinformatics/btp163Search in Google Scholar

Coetzee, A. W. & S. Kawahara. 2013. Frequency biases in phonological variation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31. 47–89.10.1007/s11049-012-9179-zSearch in Google Scholar

Cohen Priva, U. 2015. Informativity affects consonant duration and deletion rates. Laboratory Phonology 6(2). 243–278.10.1515/lp-2015-0008Search in Google Scholar

Cohen Priva, U. & T. F. Jaeger. 2018. The interdependence of frequency, predictability, and informativity. Linguistics Vanguard 4(S2).10.1515/lingvan-2017-0028Search in Google Scholar

Dupoux, E., K. Kakehi, Y. Hirose, C. Pallier & J. Mehler. 1999. Epenthetic vowels in Japanese: A perceptual illusion? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 25(6) 1568–1578.10.1037/0096-1523.25.6.1568Search in Google Scholar

Ernestus, M. & R. H. Baayen. 2007. The comprehension of acoustically reduced morphologically complex words: The roles of deletion, duration, and frequency of occurrence. In J. Trouvain & W. J. Barry (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Congress of the Phonetic Sciences, 773–776. Saarbrücken: International Phonetic Association.Search in Google Scholar

Faber, A. & T. J. Vance. 2000. More acoustic traces of “deleted” vowels in Japanese. In M. Nakayama & C. J. Quinn (eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics: volume 9, 100–113. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Ferrer-i-Cancho, R. 2018. Optimization models of natural communication. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 25(3). 207–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2017.1366095.10.1080/09296174.2017.1366095Search 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

Fujimoto, M. 2015. Vowel devoicing. In H. Kubozono (ed.), The handbook of Japanese language and linguistics: Phonetics and phonology, 167–214. Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9781614511984.167Search in Google Scholar

Furui, S., K. Maekawa & H. Isahara. 2000. A Japanese national project on spontaneous speech corpus and processing technology. Proceedings of ISCA ITRW ASR2000. 244–248.Search in Google Scholar

Gahl, S. 2008. Time and thyme are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language 84(3). 474–496.10.1353/lan.0.0035Search in Google Scholar

Gahl, S., Y. Yao & K. Johnson. 2012. Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language 66(4). 789–806.10.1016/j.jml.2011.11.006Search in Google Scholar

Hall, K. C., E. V. Hume, T. F. Jaeger & A. Wedel. 2018. The role of predictability in shaping phonological patterns. Linguistics Vanguard 4(S2).10.1515/lingvan-2017-0027Search in Google Scholar

Johnson, K. 2004. Massive reduction in conversational American English. In K. Yoneyama & K. Maekawa (eds.), Spontaneous speech: Data and analysis. Proceedings of the 1st session of the 10th International Symposium. Tokyo: The National Institute for Japanese Language.Search in Google Scholar

Jurafsky, D., A. Bell, M. Gregory & W. D. Raymond. 2001. Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 229–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.45.13jurSearch 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

Maekawa K. 2003. Corpus of spontaneous Japanese: Its design and evaluation In Proceedings of ISCA and IEEE workshop on spontaneous speech processing and recognition, 7–12.Search in Google Scholar

Maekawa, K. 2004. Design, compilation, and some preliminary analyses of the corpus of spontaneous Japanese. In K. Maekawa & K. Yoneyama (eds.), Spontaneous speech: Data and analysis, vol. 3, 87–108. Tokyo: The National Institute of Japanese Language.Search in Google Scholar

Maekawa, K., H. Koiso, S. Furui & H. Isahara. 2000. Spontaneous speech corpus of Japanese. Proceedings of LREC 2000. 947–952.Search in Google Scholar

Munson, B. & N. P. Solomon. 2004. The effect of phonological neighborhood density on vowel articulation. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47. 1048–1058.10.1044/1092-4388(2004/078)Search in Google Scholar

Pitt, M. A., L. C. Dilley, K. Johnson, S. Kiesling, W. Raymond, E. V. Hume & E. Fosler-Lussier. 2007. Buckeye corpus of conversational speech. Columbus, OH: Department of Psychology, Ohio State University.Search in Google Scholar

Raymond, W. D., R. Dautricourt & E. Hume. 2006. Word-internal /t,d/ deletion in spontaneous speech: Modeling the effects of extra-linguistic, lexical, and phonological factors. Language Variation and Change 18. 55–97.10.1017/S0954394506060042Search in Google Scholar

Sano, S. 2018. Durational contrast in gemination and informativity. Linguistics Vanguard 4(S2).10.1515/lingvan-2017-0011Search 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

Shockey, L. 2003. Sound patterns of spoken English. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9780470758397Search in Google Scholar

Turnbull, R. 2015. Assessing the listener-oriented account of predictability-based phonetic reduction. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Turnbull, R. 2017. The role of predictability in intonational variation. Language and Speech 60(1). 123–153.10.1177/0023830916647079Search in Google Scholar

Turnbull, R., R. S. Burdin, C. G. Clopper & J. Tonhauser. 2015. Contextual information and the prosodic realization of focus: A cross-linguistic comparison. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30(9). 1061–1076.10.1080/23273798.2015.1071856Search in Google Scholar

Tyrone, M. E. & C. E. Mauk. 2010. Sign lowering and phonetic reduction in American Sign Language. Journal of Phonetics 38(2). 317–328.10.1016/j.wocn.2010.02.003Search in Google Scholar

Vance, T. J. 1987. An introduction to Japanese phonology. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Search in Google Scholar

Wright, R. 2004. Factors of lexical competition in vowel articulation. In J. Local, R. Ogden & R. Temple (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology IV: Phonetic interpretation, 75–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Wurm, L. H. & S. A. Fisicaro. 2014. What residualizing predictors in regression analyses does (and what it does not do). Journal of Memory and Language 72. 37–48.10.1016/j.jml.2013.12.003Search in Google Scholar

York, R. 2012. Residualization is not the answer: Rethinking how to address multicollinearity. Social Science Research 41. 1379–1386.10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.05.014Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2017-05-02
Accepted: 2018-07-05
Published Online: 2018-09-26

©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 30.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/lingvan-2017-0033/html
Scroll to top button