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.
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
©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston