Phonetica was published by Karger Publishers up to and including 2020. If you or your institution subscribed to Phonetica during that period, you might still have access to the full text of this article on the Karger platform if you cannot access it here.
Abstract
This study utilized two conversational speech databases to generate statistics about the frequency of occurrence of schwa deletion. Overall, the results showed a low frequency of schwa deletion in conversational American English. We investigated a number of factors that could have a potential effect on the propensity to delete schwa. The most pervasive factor was stress environment (pre-stress vs. post-stress), which showed a greater frequency of schwa deletion in the post-stress environment. The results are discussed with reference to processing spoken words and the role for corpus statistics in constraining models of word recognition.
verified
References
1 Anderson, A.H.; Bader, M.; Bard, E.G.; Boyle, E.; Doherty, G.; Garrod, S.; Isard, S.; Kowtko, J.; McAllister, J.; Miller, J.; Sotillo, C.; Thompson, H.S.; Weinert, R.: The H.C.R.C. Map Task Corpus. Lang. Speech 34: 351–366 (1991).10.1177/002383099103400404Search in Google Scholar
2 Beckman, M.; Shoji, A.: Spectral and perceptual evidence for CV coarticulation in devoiced /si/ and /syu/ in Japanese. Phonetica 41: 61–71 (1984).10.1159/000261712Search in Google Scholar
3 Bergem, D.R. van: Acoustic vowel reduction as a function of sentence accent, word stress, and word class. Speech Commun. 12: 1–23 (1993).Search in Google Scholar
4 Brown, G.: Listening to spoken English (Longman, London 1977).Search in Google Scholar
5 Chomsky, N.; Halle, M.: The sound pattern of English (MIT Press, Cambridge 1968).Search in Google Scholar
6 Coltheart, M.: The MRC psycholinguistics database. Q.J. exp. Psychol. hum. exp. Psychol. 33A: 497–505 (1981).10.1080/14640748108400805Search in Google Scholar
7 Connine, C.M.; Clifton, C., Jr.; Cutler, A.: Effects of lexical stress on phonetic categorization. Phonetica 44: 133–146 (1987).10.1159/000261790Search in Google Scholar
8 Cutler, A.; Norris, D.G.: The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. J. exp. Psychol. hum. Perception Performance 14: 113–121 (1988).10.1037/0096-1523.14.1.113Search in Google Scholar
9 Dalby, J.: Phonetic structure of fast speech in American English (Indiana Univ. Linguist. Club, Bloomington 1986).Search in Google Scholar
10 Deelman, T.; Connine, C.M.: Missing information in spoken word recognition: non-released stop consonants. J. exp. Psychol. hum. Perception Performance 27: 656–663 (2001).10.1037/0096-1523.27.3.656Search in Google Scholar
11 Fokes, J.; Bond, Z.S.: The elusive/illusive syllable. Phonetica 50: 102–123 (1993).10.1159/000261929Search in Google Scholar
12 Fougeron, C.; Steriade D.: Does deletion of French schwa lead to neutralization of lexical distinctions? Proc. Eurospeech 97, 1997, vol. 2, pp. 943–946.10.21437/Eurospeech.1997-332Search in Google Scholar
13 Fowler, C.A.; Housum, J.: Talkers’ signaling of ‘new’ and ‘old’ words in speech and listeners’ perceptions and use of the distinction. J. Memory Lang. 36: 489–504 (1987).10.1016/0749-596X(87)90136-7Search in Google Scholar
14 Francis, W.N.; Kucera, H.: Frequency analysis of English usage: lexicon and grammar (Houghton Mifflin, 1982).Search in Google Scholar
15 Gaskell, M.G.; Marslen-Wilson, W.D.: Phonological variation and inference in lexical access. J. exp. Psychol. hum. Perception Performance 22: 144–158 (1996).10.1037/0096-1523.22.1.144Search in Google Scholar
16 Godfrey, J.; McDaniel, J.; Holliman, J.: SWITCHBOARD: a telephone speech corpus for research and development. ICASSP Proc., San Francisco 1992. pp. 517–520.10.1109/ICASSP.1992.225858Search in Google Scholar
17 Hewlett, N.: Phonetic realization rules in generative phonology. J. Phonet. 9: 63–77 (1981).10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30927-1Search in Google Scholar
18 Hooper, J.B.: Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change; in Christie, Current progress in historical linguistics (North Holland, Amsterdam 1976).Search in Google Scholar
19 Hooper, J.B.: Constraints on schwa deletion in American English; in Fisiak, Historical phonology (Mouton, The Hague 1978).10.1515/9783110810929.183Search in Google Scholar
20 Joos, M.: The isolation of styles; in Fishman, Readings in the sociology in language (Mouton, The Hague 1970).Search in Google Scholar
21 Kager, R.: Rhythmic vowel deletion in Optimality Theory; in Roca, Derivations and constraints in phonology (OUP, Oxford 1997).Search in Google Scholar
22 Kaisse, E.M.: Connected speech: the interaction of syntax and phonology (Academic Press, Orlando 1985).Search in Google Scholar
23 Kohler, K.J.: Segmental reduction in connected speech in German: phonological facts and phonetic explanations; in Hardcastle, Marchal, Speech production and speech modelling (Kluwer, Dordrecht 1990).10.1007/978-94-009-2037-8_4Search in Google Scholar
24 Kreidler, C.W.: The pronunciation of English (Blackwell, New York 1989).Search in Google Scholar
25 Kuijpers, C.; van Donselaar, W.: The influence of rhythmic context on schwa epenthesis and schwa deletion in Dutch. Lang. Speech 41: 87–108 (1997).10.1177/002383099804100105Search in Google Scholar
26 LoCasto, P.C.; Connine, C.M.: Rule-governed missing information in spoken word recognition: schwa vowel deletion. Perception Psychophysics 64: 208–219 (2002).10.3758/BF03195787Search in Google Scholar
27 Luce, P.A.; Pisoni, D.B.: Recognizing spoken words: the neighborhood activation model. Ear Hear. 19: 1–36 (1998).10.1097/00003446-199802000-00001Search in Google Scholar
28 McClelland, J.L.; Elman, J.L.: The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognit Psychol. 18: 1–86 (1986).10.1016/0010-0285(86)90015-0Search in Google Scholar
29 Nolan, F.: The descriptive role of segments: evidence from assimilation; in Docherty, Ladd, Papers in Laboratory Phonology II: Gesture, segment, prosody (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1992).10.1017/CBO9780511519918.011Search in Google Scholar
30 Norris, D.; McQueen, J.; Cutler, A.: Merging information in speech recognition: feedback is never necessary. Brain behav. Sci., 23: 299–325 (2000).10.1017/S0140525X00003241Search in Google Scholar
31 Patterson, D.; Connine, C.M.: A corpus analysis of variant frequency in American English flap production. Phonetica 58: 254–275 (2001).10.1159/000046178Search in Google Scholar
32 Shockey, L.; Bond, Z.S.: Phonological processes in speech addressed to children. Phonetica 37: 267–274 (1980).10.1159/000259996Search in Google Scholar
33 Utman, J.A.; Blumstein, S.E.; Burton, M.W.: Effects of subphonetic and syllable structure variation on word recognition. Perception Psychophysics 62: 1297–1311 (2000).10.3758/BF03212131Search in Google Scholar
34 Wade, E.; Clark, H.H.: Reproduction and demonstration in quotations. J. Memory Lang. 32: 805–819 (1993).10.1006/jmla.1993.1040Search in Google Scholar
35 Zwicky, A.: Note on a phonological hierarchy in English; in Stockwell, Macaulay, Linguistic change and generative theory (Indiana University Press, Bloomington 1972a).Search in Google Scholar
36 Zwicky, A.: On casual speech. 8th Regional Meet. Chicago Linguistic Society (Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago 1972b).Search in Google Scholar
© 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel
