Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T14:32:39.497Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Phonetics

Spontaneous Speech

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 January 2023

Benjamin V. Tucker  and
Yoichi Mukai
Benjamin V. Tucker
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University
Yoichi Mukai
Affiliation:
University of Alberta and Vancouver Island University

Summary

Phonetic research investigates how speakers and listeners use speech to convey messages. The speech produced to encode a particular message can vary wildly. Understanding and explaining the phonetic variability embodied in this example is one of the main motivations for this Element. Why and how do speakers produce this variability and how does it impact listeners? This Element focuses on spontaneous speech and its relationship with phonetic research. The authors discuss background and describe research investigating the variation that occurs when speakers and listeners are engaged in spontaneous, conversational speech. As a result, this Element explores aspects of spontaneous speech from the phonetic perspective using both production and perception areas of phonetics. This Element focuses on spontaneous speech and its relationship with phonetic research, exploring aspects of spontaneous speech from the phonetic perspective using both production and perception areas of phonetics.
Get access

Keywords

spontaneous speechreductionspeech productionspeech perceptionphonetics
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Phonetics
Online ISBN: 9781108943024
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 23 February 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahn, J. S., Van Lancker Sidtis, D., and Sidtis, J. J. (2014). Effects of deep brain stimulation on pausing during spontaneous speech in Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Medical Speech-Language Pathology, 21(3):179–186.Google Scholar
Alderete, J., Baese-Berk, M., Leung, K., and Goldrick, M. (2021). Cascading activation in phonological planning and articulation: Evidence from spontaneous speech errors. Cognition, 210:104577.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, A. H., Bader, M., Bard, E. G. et al. (1991). The HCRC Map Task Corpus. Language and Speech, 34(4):351–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appelbaum, I. (1996). The lack of invariance problem and the goal of speech perception. In Proceeding of Fourth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing. ICSLP ’96, volume 3, pages 1541–1544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arai, T. (1999). A case study of spontaneous speech in Japanese. In Fourteenth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, volume 1, pages 615–618.Google Scholar
Arai, T., Warner, N., and Greenberg, S. (2007). Analysis of spontaneous Japanese in a multi-language telephone-speech corpus. Acoustical Science and Technology, 28(1):46–48.Google Scholar
Arnold, D. and Tomaschek, F. (2016). The Karl Eberhards Corpus of spontaneously spoken southern German in dialogues – audio and articulatory recordings. In Draxler, C. and Kleber, F., eds., Tagungsband der 12: Tagung Phonetik und Phonologie im deutschsprachigen Raum. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, pages 911.Google Scholar
Arnold, D., Tomaschek, F., Sering, K., Lopez, F., and Baayen, R. H. (2017). Words from spontaneous conversational speech can be recognized with human-like accuracy by an error-driven learning algorithm that discriminates between meanings straight from smart acoustic features, bypassing the phoneme as recognition unit. PLOS ONE, 12(4):e0174623.Google Scholar
Aylett, M. and Turk, A. (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.Google Scholar
Aylett, M. and Turk, A. (2006). Language redundancy predicts syllabic duration and the spectral characteristics of vocalic syllable nuclei. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(5):3048–3058.Google Scholar
Bailey, G. (2016). Automatic detection of sociolinguistic variation using forced alignment. In Selected Papers from New Ways of Analyzing Variation, volume 22(2), pages 11–20. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol22/iss2/3Google Scholar
Baker, R. and Hazan, V. (2011). DiapixUK: Task materials for the elicitation of multiple spontaneous speech dialogs. Behavior Research Methods, 43(3):761–770.Google Scholar
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., and Cortese, M. J. (2012). Megastudies: What do millions (or so) of trials tell us about lexical processing. In Adelman, J. S. (Ed.), Visual word recognition: Models and methods, orthography and phonology. In Visual Word Recognition Volume 1: Models and Methods, Orthography and Phonology, page 90–115. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Bard, E. G., Shillcock, R. C., and Altmann, G. T. M. (1988). The recognition of words after their acoustic offsets in spontaneous speech: Effects of subsequent context. Perception & Psychophysics, 44(5):395–408.Google Scholar
Barry, W. and Andreeva, B. (2001). Cross-language similarities and differences in spontaneous speech patterns. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 31(1):51–66.Google Scholar
Bates, R. A., Ostendorf, M., and Wright, R. A. (2007). Symbolic phonetic features for modeling of pronunciation variation. Speech Communication, 49(2):83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batliner, A., Kompe, R., Kießling, A., Nöth, E., and Niemann, H. (1995). Can you tell apart spontaneous and read speech if you just look at prosody? In Ayuso, A. J. R. and Soler, J. M. L., eds., Speech Recognition and Coding, NATO ASI Series, pages 321–324. Springer, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauernfeind, G., Haumann, S., and Lenarz, T. (2016). fNIRS for future use in auditory diagnostics. Current Directions in Biomedical Engineering, 2(1):229–232. Publisher: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Beckman, M. E. (1997). A typology of spontaneous speech. In Sagisaka, Y., Campbell, N., and Higuchi, N., eds., Computing Prosody: Computational Models for Processing Spontaneous Speech, pages 7–26. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
Bell, A., Brenier, J. M., Gregory, M., Girand, C., and Jurafsky, D. (2009). Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language, 60(1):92–111.Google Scholar
Bell, A., Jurafsky, D., Fosler-Lussier, E. et al. (2003). Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113:1001–1024.Google Scholar
Birkholz, P., Jackel, D., and Kroger, B. (2006). Construction and control of a three-dimensional vocal tract model. In 2006 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speed and Signal Processing Proceedings, volume 1, pages 873–876.Google Scholar
Blaauw, E. (1994). The contribution of prosodic boundary markers to the perceptual difference between read and spontaneous speech. Speech Communication, 14(4):359–375.Google Scholar
Bóna, J. (2011). Disfluencies in the spontaneous speech of various age groups: Data from Hungarian. Govor, 28(2):95–115. Publisher: Odjel za fonetiku Hrvatskoga filološkoga društva.Google Scholar
Bortfeld, H., Leon, S. D., Bloom, J. E., Schober, M. F., and Brennan, S. E. (2001). Disfluency rates in conversation: Effects of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender. Language and Speech, 44(2):123–147.Google Scholar
Bradlow, A. R. and Bent, T. (2002). The clear speech effect for non-native listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112(1):272–284. Publisher: Acoustical Society of America.Google Scholar
Braunwald, S. R. and Brislin, R. W. (1979). The diary method updated. In Ochs, E. and Schieffelin, B. B., eds., Developmental Pragmatics, pages 21–42. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Brennan, S. E. and Schober, M. F. (2001). How listeners compensate for disfluencies in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(2):274–296.Google Scholar
Brouwer, S., Mitterer, H., and Huettig, F. (2010). Shadowing reduced speech and alignment. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128(1):EL32–EL37. Publisher: Acoustical Society of America.Google Scholar
Brouwer, S., Mitterer, H., and Huettig, F. (2012a). Can hearing puter activate pupil? Phonological competition and the processing of reduced spoken words in spontaneous conversations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(11):2193–2220. Publisher: Sage.Google Scholar
Brouwer, S., Mitterer, H., and Huettig, F. (2012b). Speech reductions change the dynamics of competition during spoken word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(4):539–571. Publisher: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.555268.Google Scholar
Brouwer, S., Mitterer, H., and Huettig, F. (2013). Discourse context and the recognition of reduced and canonical spoken words. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34(3):519–539. Publisher: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browman, C. P. and Goldstein, L. (1992). Articulatory phonology: An overview. Phonetica, 49(3–4):155–180.Google Scholar
Brown, G., Anderson, A., Shillcock, R., and Yule, G. (1985). Teaching Talk: Strategies for Production and Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Byrd, D. (1993). 54,000 American stops. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 83:97–116.Google Scholar
Cangemi, F. and Niebuhr, O. (2018). Rethinking reduction and canonical forms. In Cangemi, F., Clayards, M., Niebuhr, O., Schuppler, B., and Zellers, M., eds., Rethinking Reduction, pages 277–302. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, T.-Y. and Tucker, B. V. (2013). Sonorant onset pitch as a perceptual cue of lexical tones in Mandarin. Phonetica, 70(3):207–239.Google Scholar
Clifton, C., Meyer, A. S., Wurm, L. H., and Treiman, R. (2013). Language comprehension and production. In Healy, A. F., and Proctor, R. W., R. W., eds., Handbook of Psychology, 2nd ed. American Cancer Society, pages 523–547. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cohen, C. (2014). Probabilistic reduction and probabilistic enhancement. Morphology, 24(4):291–323.Google Scholar
Cohen, C. (2015). Context and paradigms: Two patterns of probabilistic pronunciation variation in Russian agreement suffixes. The Mental Lexicon, 10(3):313–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen Priva, U. and Gleason, E. (2020). The causal structure of lenition: A case for the causal precedence of durational shortening. Language, 96(2):413–448. Publisher: Linguistic Society of America.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen Priva, U. and Jaeger, T. F. (2018). The interdependence of frequency, predictability, and informativity in the segmental domain. Linguistics Vanguard, 4 (s2).Publisher: De Gruyter Section: Linguistics Vanguard. https://doi-org.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/10.1515/lingvan-2017-0028Google Scholar
Coleman, J. (2003). Discovering the acoustic correlates of phonological contrasts. Journal of Phonetics, 31(3):351–372.Google Scholar
Collard, P., Corley, M., MacGregor, L. J., and Donaldson, D. I. (2008). Attention orienting effects of hesitations in speech: Evidence from ERPs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(3):696–702. Publisher: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Connine, C. M., Ranbom, L. J., and Patterson, D. J. (2008). Processing variant forms in spoken word recognition: The role of variant frequency. Perception & Psychophysics, 70(3):403–411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corley, M. and Hartsuiker, R. J. (2011). Why um helps auditory word recognition: The temporal delay hypothesis. PLOS ONE, 6(5):e19792. Publisher: Public Library of Science.Google Scholar
Corley, M., MacGregor, L. J., and Donaldson, D. I. (2007). It’s the way that you, er, say it: Hesitations in speech affect language comprehension. Cognition, 105(3):658–668.Google Scholar
Corley, M. and Stewart, O. W. (2008). Hesitation Disfluencies in Spontaneous Speech: The Meaning of um. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(4):589–602. _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00068.x.Google Scholar
Coupland, N. (2007). Style: Language Variation and Identity. Cambridge University Press. Google-Books-ID: oJE462b0kv4C.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, T. H. and House, A. S. (1990). Articulation rate and the duration of syllables and stress groups in connected speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88(1):101–112. Publisher: Acoustical Society of America.Google Scholar
Cutler, A. (1998). The Recognition of Spoken Words with Variable Representations. In Proceedings of ESCA workshop on sound patterns of spontaneous speech, pages 83–92.Google Scholar
Cutler, A., Dahan, D., and van Donselaar, W. (1997). Prosody in the Comprehension of Spoken Language: A Literature Review. Language and Speech, 40(2):141–201.Google Scholar
Cutler, A. and Weber, A. (2007). Listening Experience and the Phonetic-to-Lexical Mapping in L2. ICPhS XVI, page 6.Google Scholar
Dall, R., Brognaux, S., Richmond, K., Valentini-Botinhao, C., Henter, G. E., Hirschberg, J., Yamagishi, J., and King, S. (2016). Testing the consistency assumption: Pronunciation variant forced alignment in read and spontaneous speech synthesis. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 5155–5159. ISSN: 2379-190X.Google Scholar
de Boer, B. (2000). Emergence of vowel systems through self-organisation. AI communications, 13:27–39.Google Scholar
Dell, G. S., Chang, F., and Griffin, Z. M. (1999). Connectionist Models of Language Production: Lexical Access and Grammatical Encoding. Cognitive Science, 23:517–542.Google Scholar
Dellwo, V. (2006). Rhythm and Speech Rate: A Variation Coefficient for deltaC. In Karnowski, P. and Szigeti, I., editors, Language and language-processing, pages 231–241. Peter Lang, Frankfurt/Main.Google Scholar
Dellwo, V., Leemann, A., and Kolly, M.-J. (2015). The recognition of read and spontaneous speech in local vernacular: The case of Zurich German. Journal of Phonetics, 48:13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiCanio, C., Nam, H., Amith, J. D., García, R. C., and Whalen, D. H. (2015). Vowel variability in elicited versus spontaneous speech: Evidence from Mixtec. Journal of Phonetics, 48:45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiCanio, C., Nam, H., Whalen, D. H., Timothy Bunnell, H., Amith, J. D., and García, R. C. (2013). Using automatic alignment to analyze endangered language data: Testing the viability of untrained alignment. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 134(3):2235–2246.Google Scholar
Diehl, R. L., Lotto, A. J., and Holt, L. L. (2004). Speech Perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1):149–179. Publisher: Annual Reviews.Google Scholar
Dilts, P. C. (2013). Modelling phonetic reduction in a corpus of spoken English using Random Forests and Mixed-Effects Regression. Thesis, University of Alberta.Google Scholar
Duez, D. (1995). On spontaneous French speech: aspects of the reduction and contextual assimilation of voiced stops. Journal of Phonetics, 23(4):407–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernestus, M. (2000). Voice assimilation and segment reduction in casual Dutch. A corpus-based study of the phonology-phonetics interface. LOT, Utrecht.Google Scholar
Ernestus, M. (2014). Acoustic reduction and the roles of abstractions and exemplars in speech processing. Lingua, 142:27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernestus, M., Baayen, H., and Schreuder, R. (2002). The Recognition of Reduced Word Forms. Brain and Language, 81(1):162–173.Google Scholar
Ernestus, M. and Baayen, R. H. (2007). The comprehension of acoustically reduced morphologically complex words: The roles of deletion, duration, and frequency of occurrence. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, pages 773–776.Google Scholar
Ernestus, M., Dikmans, M. E., and Giezenaar, G. (2017a). Advanced second language learners experience difficulties processing reduced word pronunciation variants. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1):1–20. Publisher: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ernestus, M., Kouwenhoven, H., and van Mulken, M. (2017b). The direct and indirect effects of the phonotactic constraints in the listener’s native language on the comprehension of reduced and unreduced word pronunciation variants in a foreign language. Journal of Phonetics, 62:50–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernestus, M. and Warner, N. (2011). An introduction to reduced pronunciation variants. Journal of Phonetics, 39(SI):253–260.Google Scholar
Ferguson, S. H. and Kewley-Port, D. (2007). Talker Differences in Clear and Conversational Speech: Acoustic Characteristics of Vowels. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50(5):1241–1255. Publisher: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.Google Scholar
Fowler, C. A. and Housum, J. (1987). Talkers’ signaling of “new” and “old” words in speech and listeners’ perception and use of the distinction. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(5):489–504.Google Scholar
Fox Tree, J. E. (1995). The Effects of False Starts and Repetitions on the Processing of Subsequent Words in Spontaneous Speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(6):709–738.Google Scholar
Fox Tree, J. E. (2001). Listeners’ uses ofum anduh in speech comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 29(2):320–326.Google Scholar
Freeman, V., Levow, G.-A., Wright, R., and Ostendorf, M. (2015). Investigating the Role of ‘yeah’ in Stance-Dense Conversation. INTERSPEECH 2015, pages 3076–3080.Google Scholar
Frisch, S. A. and Wright, R. (2002). The phonetics of phonological speech errors: An acoustic analysis of slips of the tongue. Journal of Phonetics, 30(2):139–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fromkin, V., editor (1984). Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence. Number 77 in Janua Linguarum. De Gruyter Mouton. Publication Title: Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence.Google Scholar
Fromkin, V. A. (1971). The Non-Anomalous Nature of Anomalous Utterances. Language, 47(1):27–52. Publisher: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Fuchs, R. and Maxwell, O. (2016). The effects of mp3 compression on acoustic measurements of fundamental frequency and pitch range. In Speech Prosody 2016. ISCA. ISSN: 2333-2042.Google Scholar
Fujisaki, H. (1997). Prosody, Models, and Spontaneous Speech. In Sagisaka, Y., Campbell, N., and Higuchi, N., editors, Computing Prosody: Computational Models for Processing Spontaneous Speech, pages 27–42. Springer US, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Gabrea, M. and O’Shaughnessy, D. (2000). Detection of filled pauses in conversational speech. In ICSLP 2000, page 4, Beijing, China.Google Scholar
Gahl, S., Yao, Y., and Johnson, K. (2012). Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4):789–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galantucci, B., Fowler, C. A., and Turvey, M. T. (2006). The motor theory of speech perception reviewed. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3):361–377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garrett, M. F. (1975). The analysis of sentence production. In Bower, G. H., editor, The psychology of learning and motivation, pages 133–178. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Gaskell, M. G. (2003). Modelling regressive and progressive effects of assimilation in speech perception. Journal of Phonetics, 31(3-4):447–463.Google Scholar
Godfrey, J. J., Holliman, E. C., and McDaniel, J. (1992). SWITCHBOARD: telephone speech corpus for research and development. In [Proceedings] ICASSP-92: 1992 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, volume 1, pages 517–520 vol. 1. ISSN: 1520-6149.Google Scholar
Goldinger, S. D. (1996). Words and voices: Episodic traces in spoken word identification and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(5):1166–1183. Place: US Publisher: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Goldinger, S. D. (2007). A Complementary-Systems Approach to Abstract and Episodic Speech Perception. ICPhS XVI, page 6.Google Scholar
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics: Experiments in Spontaneous Speech. Academic P. Google-Books-ID: BAsNAAAAIAAJ.Google Scholar
Gonzalez, J., Cervera, T., and Llau, M. J. (2003). Acoustic Analysis of Pathological Voices Compressedwith MPEG System. Journal of Voice, 17(2):126–139.Google Scholar
Greenberg, S. (1999). Speaking in shorthand – A syllable-centric perspective for understanding pronunciation variation. Speech Communication, 29(2):159–176.Google Scholar
Greenberg, S., Hollenback, J., and Ellis, D. (1996). Insights into spoken language gleaned from phonetic transcription of the Switchboard corpus. In International Conference on Spoken Language Processing.Google Scholar
Gregory, M. L., Raymond, W. D., Bell, A., Fosler-Lussier, E., and Jurafsky, D. (1999). The effects of collocational strength and contextual predictability in lexical production. In Chicago Linguistic Society, volume 35, pages 151–166.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. and Frauenfelder, U. H. (1996). A Guide to Spoken Word Recognition Paradigms: Introduction. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11(6):553–558.Google Scholar
Guenther, F. H. (2016). Neural Control of Speech. MIT Press. Google-Books-ID: aRSvDAAAQBAJ.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, L. S. and Huth, A. G. (2018). The revolution will not be controlled: natural stimuli in speech neuroscience. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35(5):573–582.Google Scholar
Hanique, I. and Ernestus, M. (2011). Final /t/ Reduction in Dutch Past-Participles: The Role of Word Predictability and Morphological Decomposability. INTERSPEECH 2011, pages 2849–2852.Google Scholar
Hannun, A., Case, C., Casper, J., Catanzaro, B., Diamos, G., Elsen, E., Prenger, R., Satheesh, S., Sengupta, S., Coates, A., and Ng, A. Y. (2014). Deep Speech: Scaling up end-to-end speech recognition. arXiv:1412.5567 [cs]. arXiv: 1412.5567.Google Scholar
Harley, T. A. (2013). The Psychology of Language: From Data to Theory. Psychology Press. Google-Books-ID: Ax5iAgAAQBAJ.Google Scholar
Hawkins, S. (2003). Roles and representations of systematic fine phonetic detail in speech understanding. Journal of Phonetics, 31(3):373–405.Google Scholar
Hickok, G. (2014a). The architecture of speech production and the role of the phoneme in speech processing. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(1):2–20.Google Scholar
Hickok, G. (2014b). Towards an integrated psycholinguistic, neurolinguistic, sensorimotor framework for speech production. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(1):52–59.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, N. P. (1998). Documentary and descriptive linguistics. Linguistics, 36(1):161–195. Publisher: Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / New York Section: Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hintzman, D. L. (1986). ‘Schema extraction’ in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 95:528–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschberg, J. (2000). A Corpus-Based Approach to the Study of Speaking Style. In Horne, M., editor, Prosody: Theory and Experiment, volume 14, pages 335–350. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht. Series Title: Text, Speech and Language Technology.Google Scholar
Howell, P. and Kadi-Hanifi, K. (1991). Comparison of prosodic properties between read and spontaneous speech material. Speech Communication, 10(2):163–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. H. (1962). On Studying the History of Anthropology. Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers, 26:81–86.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. and Buz, E. (2017). Signal Reduction and Linguistic Encoding. In The Handbook of Psycholinguistics, pages 38–81. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jannedy, S., Weirich, M., and Helmeke, L. (2015). Acoustic analyses of differences in [ç] and [\textipa{S}] productions in Hood German. In Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Glasgow, Scotland.Google Scholar
Jannetts, S., Schaeffler, F., Beck, J., and Cowen, S. (2019). Assessing voice health using smartphones: bias and random error of acoustic voice parameters captured by different smartphone types. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 54(2):292–305. _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1460-6984.12457.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. (1997). The auditory/perceptual basis for speech segmentation. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics, 50:101–113.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. (2004). Massive reduction in conversational American English. In Spontaneous speech: data and analysis. Proceedings of the 1st session of the 10th international symposium, pages 29–54, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
Järvikivi, J. and Tucker, B. V. (2015). Corpus of Spontaneous Multimodal Interactive Language (CoSMIL).Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D., Bell, A., Gregory, M., and Raymond, W. (2001). Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In Bybee, J. and Hopper, P., editors, Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, pages 229–254. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D., Bell, A., and Gyrand, C. (2002). The Role of the Lemma in Form Variation. In Gussenhoven, C. and Warner, N., editors, Papers in Laboratory Phonology VII, pages 1–34. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Beatty, J. (1966). Pupil Diameter and Load on Memory. Science, 154(3756):1583–1585. Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science Section: Reports.Google Scholar
Keating, P. A. (1990). The window model of coarticulation: articulatory evidence. In Kingston, J. and Beckman, M. E., editors, Papers in Laboratory Phonology: Volume 1: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech, volume 1 of Papers in Laboratory Phonology, pages 451–470. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kempler, D. and Lancker, D. V. (2002). Effect of Speech Task on Intelligibility in Dysarthria: A Case Study of Parkinson’s Disease. Brain and Language, 80(3):449–464.Google Scholar
Kemps, R., Ernestus, M., Schreuder, R., and Baayen, H. (2004). Processing reduced word forms: The suffix restoration effect. Brain and Language, 90(1):117–127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendall, T. and Fridland, V. (2021). Sociophonetics, Style and Identity. In Sociophonetics, Key Topics in Sociolinguistics, pages 126–155. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Keszler, B. and Bóna, J. (2019). Pausing and disfluencies in elderly speech: Longitudinal case studies. In Rose, R. L. and Eklund, R., editors, Proceedings of DiSS 2019, pages 67–70, Budapest, Hungary. ELTE Faculty of Humanities.Google Scholar
Keune, K., Ernestus, M., Hout, R. v., and Baayen, R. H. (2005). Variation in Dutch: From written MOGELIJK to spoken MOK. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(2):183–223. Publisher: Walter de Gruyter Section: Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory.Google Scholar
Kiefte, M. and Nearey, T. M. (2019). Theories and models of speech perception. In Katz, W. F. and Assmann, P. F., editors, The Routledge Handbook of Phonetics, pages 289–313. Routledge. Pages: 289-313 Publication Title: The Routledge Handbook of Phonetics.Google Scholar
Klatt, D. H. and Klatt, L. C. (1990). Analysis, synthesis, and perception of voice quality variations among female and male talkers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 87:820–857.Google Scholar
Koch, X. and Janse, E. (2016). Speech rate effects on the processing of conversational speech across the adult life span. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 139(4):1618–1636.Google Scholar
Kohler, K. (1996). Labelled data bank of spoken standard German: the Kiel corpus of read/spontaneous speech. In Proceeding of Fourth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing. ICSLP ’96, volume 3, pages 1938–1941 vol. 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohler, K. J. (1990). Segmental reduction in connected speech in German: phonological effects and phonetic explanations. In Hardcastle, W. J. and Marchal, A., editors, Speech production and speech modelling, pages 21–33. Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Kohler, K. J., Peters, B., and Scheffers, M. (2018). The Kiel Corpus of spoken German: Read and spontaneous speech.Google Scholar
Kominek, J., Bennett, C. L., and Black, A. W. (2003). Evaluating and Correcting Phoneme Segmentation for Unit Selection Synthesis. In Eurospeech 2003, pages 313–316, Geneva.Google Scholar
Kuperman, V., Pluymaekers, M., Ernestus, M., and Baayen, H. (2007). Morphological predictability and acoustic duration of interfixes in Dutch compounds. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121(4):2261–2271.Google Scholar
Laan, G. P. M. (1997). The contribution of intonation, segmental durations, and spectral features to the perception of a spontaneous and a read speaking style. Speech Communication, 22(1):43–65.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press. Google-Books-ID: hD0PNMu8CfQC.Google Scholar
Laeng, B., Sirois, S., and Gredebäck, G. (2012). Pupillometry: A Window to the Preconscious? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(1):18–27. Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc.Google Scholar
Lansford, K. L. and Liss, J. M. (2014). Vowel Acoustics in Dysarthria: Mapping to Perception. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57(1):68–80. Publisher: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.Google Scholar
Le Grézause, E. (2017). Um and Uh, and the Expression of Stance in Conversational Speech. PhD thesis, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14(1):41–104.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking. From intention to articulation. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1999). Models of word production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(6):223–232.Google Scholar
Levin, H., Schaffer, C. A., and Snow, C. (1982). The Prosodic and Paralinguistic Features of Reading and Telling Stories. Language and Speech, 25(1):43–54.Google Scholar
Liberman, A. M., Cooper, F. S., Shankweiler, D. P., and Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1967). Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review, 74(6):431–461. Place: US Publisher: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Lickley, R. J. (1994). Detecting disfluency in spontaneous speech. PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh. Accepted: 2017-04-20T10:46:43Z Publisher: The University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Lickley, R. J. and Bard, E. G. (1998). When Can Listeners Detect Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech? Language and Speech, 41(2):203–226.Google Scholar
Lindblom, B. (1963). Spectrographic Study of Vowel Reduction. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 35(11):1773–1781.Google Scholar
Lindblom, B. (1990). Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H&H theory. In Hardcastle, W. J. and Marchal, A., editors, Speech production and speech modeling, pages 403–440. Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Linke, M. and Ramscar, M. (2020). How the Probabilistic Structure of Grammatical Context Shapes Speech. Entropy, 22(1):90. Number: 1 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.Google Scholar
Lisker, L. and Abramson, A. S. (1964). A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: acoustical measurements. Word, 20(3):384–422.Google Scholar
Local, J. K., Kelly, J., and Wells, W. H. G. (1986). Towards a phonology of conversation: turn-taking in Tyneside English1. Journal of Linguistics, 22(2):411–437. Publisher: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lowit, A., Marchetti, A., Corson, S., and Kuschmann, A. (2018). Rhythmic performance in hypokinetic dysarthria: Relationship between reading, spontaneous speech and diadochokinetic tasks. Journal of Communication Disorders, 72:26–39.Google Scholar
Luce, P. A. and Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognizing Spoken Words: The Neighborhood Activation Model. Ear and hearing, 19(1):1–36.Google Scholar
MacGregor, L. J., Corley, M., and Donaldson, D. I. (2009). Not all disfluencies are are equal: The effects of disfluent repetitions on language comprehension. Brain and Language, 111(1):36–45.Google Scholar
Maekawa, K. (2003). Corpus of Spontaneous Japanese: Its design and evaluation. In ISCA & IEEE Workshop on Spontaneous Speech Processing and Recognition.Google Scholar
Maekawa, K. (2005). Toward a pronunciation dictionary of Japanese: Analysis of CSJ. In Proceedings of Symposium on Large-Scale Knowledge Resources (LKR2005), pages 43–48.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W., Nix, A., and Gaskell, G. (1995). Phonological variation in lexical access: Abstractness, inference and english place assimilation. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(3-4):285–308. Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969508407097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. G. and Strange, W. (1968). The perception of hesitation in spontaneous speech. Perception & Psychophysics, 3(6):427–438.Google Scholar
McAllister, J. (1991). The Processing of Lexically Stressed Syllables in Read and Spontaneous Speech. Language and Speech, 34(1):1–26.Google Scholar
McAuliffe, M., Socolof, M., Mihuc, S., Wagner, M., and Sonderegger, M. (2017). Montreal Forced Aligner: Trainable Text-Speech Alignment Using Kaldi. In Interspeech 2017, pages 498–502. ISCA.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L., Mirman, D., and Holt, L. L. (2006). Are there interactive processes in speech perception? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(8):363–369.Google Scholar
McLennan, C. T., Luce, P. A., and Charles-Luce, J. (2003). Representation of lexical form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(4):539–553.Google Scholar
McQueen, J. M. (2007). Eight questions about spoken word recognition. The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics, pages 37–53.Google Scholar
McQueen, J. M., Norris, D., and Cutler, A. (2006). Are there really interactive processes in speech perception? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(12):533. Publisher: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Megyesi, B. and Gustafson-Capkova, S. (2002). Production and Perception of Pauses and Their Linguistic Context in Read and Spontaneous Speech in Swedish. In ICSLP2002, page 4, Denver, Colorado, USA.Google Scholar
Mehta, G. and Cutler, A. (1988). Detection of Target Phonemes in Spontaneous and Read Speech. Language and Speech, 31(2):135–156.Google Scholar
Meringer, R. and Mayer, C. (1895). Versprechen und Verlesen: eine psychologisch-linguistische Studie. G.I. Göschen’sche Verlagshandlung, Stuttgart.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitterer, H. and Ernestus, M. (2006). Listeners recover /t/s that speakers reduce: Evidence from /t/-lenition in Dutch. Journal of Phonetics, 34(1):73–103.Google Scholar
Mitterer, H. and McQueen, J. M. (2009). Processing reduced word-forms in speech perception using probabilistic knowledge about speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 35(1):244–263.Google Scholar
Mitterer, H. and Tuinman, A. (2012). The Role of Native-Language Knowledge in the Perception of Casual Speech in a Second Language. Frontiers in Psychology, 3. Publisher: Frontiers.Google Scholar
Moniz, H., Batista, F., Mata, A. I., and Trancoso, I. (2014). Speaking style effects in the production of disfluencies. Speech Communication, 65:20–35.Google Scholar
Mukai, Y. (2020). Production and perception of reduced speech and the role of phonological-orthographic consistency. Ph.D., University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
Mukai, Y. and Tucker, B. V. (2017). The phonetic reduction of nasals and voiced stops in Japanese across speech styles. In Proceedings of the 31st General Meeting of the Phonetic Society of Japan, pages 31–36, Tokyo. The Phonetic Society of Japan.Google Scholar
Munson, B. and Solomon, N. P. (2004). The Effect of Phonological Neighborhood Density on Vowel Articulation. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(5):1048–1058.Google Scholar
Nearey, T. M. (1995). A double-weak view of trading relations. Papers in Laboratory phonology IV: Phonology and Phonetic Evidence, pages 28–39.Google Scholar
Niedzielski, N. (1999). The Effect of Social Information on the Perception of Sociolinguistic Variables. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18(1):62–85.Google Scholar
Norris, D. and McQueen, J. M. (2008). Shortlist B: a Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. Psychological Review, 115(2):357–395.Google Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M. (1990). Relations between exemplar similarity and likelihood models of classification. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 34:393–418.Google Scholar
Ochshorn, R. M. and Sloetjes, H. (2017). Gentle.Google Scholar
Oostdijk, N. (2000). The Spoken Dutch Corpus Project. The ELRA Newsletter, 5:4–8.Google Scholar
Papesh, M. H. and Goldinger, S. D. (2015). Pupillometry and Memory: External Signals of Metacognitive Control. In Gendolla, G. H., Tops, M., and Koole, S. L., editors, Handbook of Biobehavioral Approaches to Self-Regulation, pages 125–139. Springer, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Pickett, J. M. and Pollack, I. (1963). Intelligibility of Excerpts from Fluent Speech: Effects of Rate of Utterance and Duration of Excerpt. Language and Speech, 6(3):151–164.Google Scholar
Pitt, M. A. (2009). How are pronunciation variants of spoken words recognized? A test of generalization to newly learned words. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(1):19–36.Google Scholar
Pitt, M. A., Dilley, L., Johnson, K., Kiesling, S., Raymond, W., Hume, E., and Fosler-Lussier, E. (2007). Buckeye Corpus of Conversational Speech (2nd release)[http://www.buckeyecorpus.osu.edu] Columbus, OH: Department of Psychology. Ohio State University (Distributor).Google Scholar
Plag, I., Homann, J., and Kunter, G. (2017). Homophony and morphology: The acoustics of word-final S in English 1. Journal of Linguistics, 53(1):181–216. Publisher: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pluymaekers, M., Ernestus, M., and Baayen, R. H. (2005a). Articulatory planning is continuous and sensitive to informational redundancy. Phonetica, 62:146–159.Google Scholar
Pluymaekers, M., Ernestus, M., and Baayen, R. H. (2005b). Lexical frequency and acoustic reduction in spoken Dutch. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118(4):2561–2569.Google Scholar
Podlubny, R. G., Nearey, T. M., Kondrak, G., and Tucker, B. V. (2018). Assessing the importance of several acoustic properties to the perception of spontaneous speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 143(4):2255–2268.Google Scholar
Pollack, I. and Pickett, J. M. (1963). The Intelligibility of Excerpts from Conversation. Language and Speech, 6(3):165–171.Google Scholar
Pollack, I. and Pickett, J. M. (1964). Intelligibility of excerpts from fluent speech: Auditory vs. structural context. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 3(1):79–84.Google Scholar
Pols, L. C. W. (1996). Analysis and Perception of Dynamic Events and of Reduction Phenomena in Speech. In ABSP-1996, pages 17–22, Keele, England, UK. ISCA.Google Scholar
Prins, R. and Bastiaanse, R. (2004). Analyzing the spontaneous speech of aphasic speakers. Aphasiology, 18(12):1075–1091. Place: United Kingdom Publisher: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Ranbom, L. J. and Connine, C. M. (2007). Lexical representation of phonological variation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(2):273–298.Google Scholar
Rao, R. (2009). Deaccenting in Spontaneous Speech in Barcelona Spanish. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 2(1):31–76. Publisher: De Gruyter Mouton Section: Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics.Google Scholar
Rapp, B., Buchwald, A., and Goldrick, M. (2014). Integrating accounts of speech production: the devil is in the representational details. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(1):24–27.Google Scholar
Raymond, W. D., Dautricourt, R., and Hume, E. (2006). Word-internal /t,d/ deletion in spontaneous speech: Modeling the effects of extra-linguistic, lexical, and phonological factors. Language Variation and Change, 18(1):55–97. Publisher: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Renkema, J. (2009). Discourse, of Course: An overview of research in discourse studies. John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
Renkema, J. and Schubert, C. (2018). Introduction to Discourse Studies. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Publication Title: z.219.Google Scholar
Roelofs, A. (2014). Integrating psycholinguistic and motor control approaches to speech production: where do they meet? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(1):35–37.Google Scholar
Saltzman, E. L. and Munhall, K. G. (1989). A Dynamical Approach to Gestural Patterning in Speech Production. Ecological Psychology, 1(4):333–382.Google Scholar
Samuel, A. G. (2011). Speech Perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1):49–72. _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131643.Google Scholar
Schachter, S., Christenfeld, N., Ravina, B., and Bilous, F. (1991). Speech disfluency and the structure of knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(3):362–367. Place: US Publisher: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Schilling, N. (2013). Investigating Stylistic Variation. In The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, pages 325–349. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar
Schnadt, M. J. and Corley, M. (2006). The Influence of Lexical, Conceptual and Planning Based Factors on Disfluency Production. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 28(28).Google Scholar
Schuppler, B., Ernestus, M., Scharenborg, O., and Boves, L. (2011). Acoustic reduction in conversational Dutch: A quantitative analysis based on automatically generated segmental transcriptions. Journal of Phonetics, 39(1):96–109.Google Scholar
Schwab, S. and Avanzi, M. (2015). Regional variation and articulation rate in French. Journal of Phonetics, 48:96–105.Google Scholar
Shafaei-Bajestan, E., Moradipour-Tari, M., Uhrig, P., and Baayen, R. H. (2021). LDL-AURIS: a computational model, grounded in error-driven learning, for the comprehension of single spoken words. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 0(0):1–28. Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2021.1954207.Google Scholar
Shannon, C. E. (1948). A Mathematical Theory of Communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27:379–423.Google Scholar
Shockey, L. (2008). Sound Patterns of Spoken English. John Wiley & Sons. Google-Books-ID: 9OWQGsOB62UC.Google Scholar
Shriberg, E. (2001). To ‘errrr’ is human: ecology and acoustics of speech disfluencies. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 31(1):153–169. Publisher: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shriberg, E. (2005). Spontaneous speech: How people really talk and why engineers should care. In Ninth European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology.Google Scholar
Shriberg, E. E. (1994). Preliminaries to a Theory of Speech Disfluencies. PhD Thesis, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Sims, M. N. (2016). The Role of Acoustic Detail in the Production and Processing of Vowels in Spontaneous Speech. PhD Thesis, University of Alberta.Google Scholar
Smiljanić, R. and Bradlow, A. R. (2005). Production and perception of clear speech in Croatian and English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118(3):1677–1688. Publisher: Acoustical Society of America.Google Scholar
Sonderegger, M., Bane, M., and Graff, P. (2017). The medium-term dynamics of accents on reality television. Language, 93(3):598–640. Publisher: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Steen, F. and Turner, M. (2021). Red Hen Lab.Google Scholar
Stemberger, J. P. (2017). Morphology in Language Production with Special Reference to Connectionism. In The Handbook of Morphology, pages 428–452. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar
Story, B. H. (2005). A parametric model of the vocal tract area function for vowel and consonant simulation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 117(5):3231–3254. Publisher: Acoustical Society of America.Google Scholar
Sumner, M. (2013). A phonetic explanation of pronunciation variant effects. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 134(1):EL26–EL32. Publisher: Acoustical Society of America.Google Scholar
Sumner, M. and Samuel, A. G. (2005). Perception and representation of regular variation: The case of final /t/. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(3):322–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, K. and Bennett, R. (2018). Contextual predictability influences word and morpheme duration in a morphologically complex language (Kaqchikel Mayan). The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 144(2):997–1017. Publisher: Acoustical Society of America.Google Scholar
Taschenberger, L., Tuomainen, O., and Hazan, V. (2019). Disfluencies in spontaneous speech in easy and adverse communicative situations: The effect of age. In Rose, R. L. and Eklund, R., editors, Proceedings of DiSS 2019, pages 55–58, Budapest, Hungary. ELTE Faculty of Humanities.Google Scholar
Tily, H. and Kuperman, V. (2012). Rational phonological lengthening in spoken Dutch. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 132(6):3935–3940. Publisher: Acoustical Society of America.Google Scholar
Tomaschek, F., Plag, I., Ernestus, M., and Baayen, R. H. (2021a). Phonetic effects of morphology and context: Modeling the duration of word-final S in English with naïve discriminative learning. Journal of Linguistics, 57(1):123–161. Publisher: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tomaschek, F. and Tucker, B. V. (2021). The role of coarticulatory acoustic detail in the perception of verbal inflection. JASA Express Letters, 1(8):085201.Google Scholar
Tomaschek, F., Tucker, B. V., Ramscar, M., and Harald Baayen, R. (2021b). Paradigmatic enhancement of stem vowels in regular English inflected verb forms. Morphology, 31(2):171–199.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. and Stahl, D. (2004). Sampling children’s spontaneous speech: how much is enough? Journal of Child Language, 31(1):101–121. Publisher: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Torreira, F., Adda-Decker, M., and Ernestus, M. (2010). The Nijmegen Corpus of Casual French. Speech Communication, 52(3):201–212.Google Scholar
Trouvain, J., Koreman, J., Erriquez, A., and Braun, B. (2001). Articulation Rate Measures and Their Relation to Phone Classification in Spontaneous and Read German Speech. In Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of the Phonetic Sciences, pages 155–158.Google Scholar
Tucker, B. V. (2007). Processing of fine phonetic detail in American English flaps. In Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, volume 121, page 3170.Google Scholar
Tucker, B. V. (2011). The effect of reduction on the processing of flaps and /g/ in isolated words. Journal of Phonetics, 39(3):312–318.Google Scholar
Tucker, B. V., Brenner, D., Danielson, D. K., Kelley, M. C., Nenadić, F., and Sims, M. (2019a). The Massive Auditory Lexical Decision (MALD) database. Behavior Research Methods, 51(3):1187–1204.Google Scholar
Tucker, B. V. and Ernestus, M. (2016). Why we need to investigate casual speech to truly understand language production, processing and the mental lexicon. The Mental Lexicon, 11(3):375–400.Google Scholar
Tucker, B. V., Sims, M., and Baayen, R. H. (2019b). Opposing forces on acoustic duration. Technical report, PsyArXiv.Google Scholar
Tucker, B. V. and Warner, N. (2007). Inhibition of processing due to reduction of the American English flap. In Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of the Phonetic Sciences, pages 1949–1952.Google Scholar
Tucker, B. V. and Wright, R. (2020). Introduction to the special issue on the phonetics of under-documented languages. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 147(4):2741–2744. Publisher: Acoustical Society of America.Google Scholar
Tuinman, A., Mitterer, H., and Cutler, A. (2012). Resolving ambiguity in familiar and unfamiliar casual speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4):530–544.Google Scholar
Turnbull, R. (2018). Patterns of probabilistic segment deletion/reduction in English and Japanese. Linguistics Vanguard, 4(s2). Publisher: De Gruyter Section: Linguistics Vanguard.Google Scholar
Uchanski, R. M. (2005). Clear Speech. In The Handbook of Speech Perception, pages 207–235. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Section: 9 _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9780470757024.ch9.Google Scholar
Van de Ven, M. and Ernestus, M. (2018). The role of segmental and durational cues in the processing of reduced words. Language and Speech, 61(3):358–383.Google Scholar
Van de Ven, M., Ernestus, M., and Schreuder, R. (2012). Predicting acoustically reduced words in spontaneous speech: The role of semantic/syntactic and acoustic cues in context. Laboratory Phonology, 3(2):455–481. Publisher: De Gruyter Section: Laboratory Phonology.Google Scholar
Van de Ven, M., Tucker, B. V., and Ernestus, M. (2010). Semantic facilitation in bilingual everyday speech comprehension. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, pages 1245–1248.Google Scholar
Van de Ven, M., Tucker, B. V., and Ernestus, M. (2011). Semantic context effects in the comprehension of reduced pronunciation variants. Memory & Cognition, 39(7):1301–1316.Google Scholar
van den Oord, A., Dieleman, S., Zen, H., Simonyan, K., Vinyals, O., Graves, A., Kalchbrenner, N., Senior, A., and Kavukcuoglu, K. (2016). WaveNet: A Generative Model for Raw Audio. arXiv:1609.03499 [cs]. arXiv: 1609.03499.Google Scholar
Van Engen, K. J., Baese-Berk, M., Baker, R. E., Choi, A., Kim, M., and Bradlow, A. R. (2010). The Wildcat Corpus of Native-and Foreign-accented English: Communicative Efficiency across Conversational Dyads with Varying Language Alignment Profiles. Language and Speech, 53(4):510–540.Google Scholar
van Son, R., Koopmans-van Beinum, F., and Pols, L. C. W. (1998). Efficiency As An Organizing Principle Of Natural Speech. In ICSLP-1998, page 0203, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
Vance, T. J. (2008). The Sounds of Japanese with Audio CD. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
VanDam, M., Warlaumont, A. S., Bergelson, E., Cristia, A., Soderstrom, M., De Palma, P., and MacWhinney, B. (2016). HomeBank: An Online Repository of Daylong Child-Centered Audio Recordings. Seminars in speech and language, 37(2):128–142.Google Scholar
Vaughan, N., Storzbach, D., and Furukawa, I. (2006). Sequencing versus Nonsequencing Working Memory in Understanding of Rapid Speech by Older Listeners. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 17(07):506–518. Publisher: American Academy of Audiology.Google Scholar
Wagner, P., Trouvain, J., and Zimmerer, F. (2015). In defense of stylistic diversity in speech research. Journal of Phonetics, 48:1–12.Google Scholar
Ward, W. (1989). Understanding Spontaneous Speech. In Speech and Natural Language: Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, February 21-23, 1989.Google Scholar
Warner, N. (2011). Reduction. In van Oostendorp, M., Ewen, C., Hume, E., and Rice, K., editors, The Blackwell Companion to Phonology: General issues and segmental phonology, volume 1, pages 1866–1891. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Warner, N. (2012). Methods for studying spontaneous speech. In The Oxford Handbook of Laboratory Phonology, pages 621–633. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Warner, N., Fountain, A., and Tucker, B. V. (2009). Cues to perception of reduced flaps. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125(5):3317–3327. Publisher: Acoustical Society of America.Google Scholar
Warner, N. and Park, S. (2018). Spontaneous speech in the teaching of phonetics and speech perception. In ISAPh 2018 International Symposium on Applied Phonetics, pages 32–38. ISCA.Google Scholar
Warner, N. and Tucker, B. V. (2011). Phonetic variability of stops and flaps in spontaneous and careful speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(3):1606–1617.Google Scholar
Weber, A. and Scharenborg, O. (2012). Models of spoken-word recognition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3(3):387–401.Google Scholar
Wenke, R. J., Cornwell, P., and Theodoros, D. G. (2010). Changes to articulation following LSVT® and traditional dysarthria therapy in non-progressive dysarthria. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12(3):203–220. Publisher: Taylor & Francis _eprint: https://doi.org/10.3109/17549500903568468.Google Scholar
Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag New York.Google Scholar
Wieling, M., Grieve, J., Bouma, G., Fruehwald, J., Coleman, J., and Liberman, M. (2016). Variation and Change in the Use of Hesitation Markers in Germanic Languages. Language Dynamics and Change, 6(2):199–234. Publisher: Brill Section: Language Dynamics and Change.Google Scholar
Winn, M. B., Wendt, D., Koelewijn, T., and Kuchinsky, S. E. (2018). Best Practices and Advice for Using Pupillometry to Measure Listening Effort: An Introduction for Those Who Want to Get Started. Trends in Hearing, 22:233121651880086.Google Scholar
Wright, R. (2004). Factors of lexical competition in vowel articulation. In Local, J., Ogden, R., and R, T., editors, Papers in Laboratory Phonology 6, pages 75–87. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Xu, Y. (2010). In defense of lab speech. Journal of Phonetics, 38(3):329–336.Google Scholar
Yuan, J., Lai, W., Cieri, C., and Liberman, M. (2018). Using Forced Alignment for Phonetics Research. Chinese Language Resources and Processing: Text, Speech and Language Technology.Google Scholar
Yuan, J. and Liberman, M. (2008). Speaker identification on the SCOTUS corpus. Proceedings of Acoustics ‘08, pages 5687–5690.Google Scholar
Zekveld, A. A., Kramer, S. E., and Festen, J. M. (2010). Pupil Response as an Indication of Effortful Listening: The Influence of Sentence Intelligibility. Ear and Hearing, 31(4):480–490.Google Scholar
Zellers, M., Schuppler, B., and Clayards, M. (2018). Introduction, or: why rethink reduction? In Cangemi, F., Clayards, M., Niebuhr, O., Schuppler, B., and Zellers, M., editors, Rethinking reduction, pages 1–23. De Gruyter Mouton. Publisher: de Gruyter Mouton Berlin.Google Scholar
Zevin, J. D. and Balota, D. A. (2000). Priming and attentional control of lexical and sublexical pathways during naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(1):121–135. Place: US Publisher: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Zimmerer, F. and Reetz, H. (2014). Do listeners recover “deleted” final /t/ in German? Frontiers in Psychology, 5. Publisher: Frontiers.Google Scholar
Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human Behavior and the Principle of the Least Effort. An Introduction to Human Ecology. Hafner, New York.Google Scholar
Zue, V., Seneff, S., and Glass, J. (1990). Speech database development at MIT: Timit and beyond. Speech Communication, 9(4):351–356.Google Scholar
Zue, V. W. and Laferriere, M. (1979). Acoustic study of medial /t,d/ in American English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 66(4):1039–1050.Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, P. (2018). Processing and Representation of Morphological Complexity in Native Language Comprehension and Production. In Booij, G., editor, The Construction of Words: Advances in Construction Morphology, Studies in Morphology, pages 583–602. Springer International Publishing, Cham.Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Spontaneous Speech
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Spontaneous Speech
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Spontaneous Speech
Available formats
×