Constancy and Variation in Speech: Phonetic Realisation and Abstraction

References

1 Baese-Berk, M. M., Bradlow, A. R., & Wright, B. A. (2013). Accent-independent adaptation to foreign accented speech.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133(3), EL174–EL180. 10.1121/1.47898640001-4966Search in Google Scholar PubMed

2 Baker, R. E., Baese-Berk, M., Bonnasse-Gahot, L., Kim, M., Van Engen, K. J., & Bradlow, A. R. (2011). Word Durations in Non-Native English.Journal of Phonetics, 39(1), 1–17. 10.1016/j.wocn.2010.10.0060095-4470Search in Google Scholar PubMed

3 Bent, T., & Bradlow, A. R. (2003). The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114(3), 1600–1610. 10.1121/1.16032340001-4966Search in Google Scholar PubMed

4 Best, C. T. (1995). A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In W.Strange (Ed.),Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-language Research (pp. 171–204). Baltimore: York Press.Search in Google Scholar

5 Best, C. T. (2015). Devil or angel in the details? Complementary principles of phonetic variation provide the key to phonological structure. In J.Romero & M.Riera (Eds.),The phonetics-phonology interface: Representations and methodologies. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory (pp. 3–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.335.01besSearch in Google Scholar

6 Best, C. T., Tyler, M. D., Gooding, T. N., Orlando, C. B., & Quann, C. A. (2009). Development of phonological constancy: Toddlers’ perception of native- and Jamaican-accented words.Psychological Science, 20(5), 539–542. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02327.x0956-7976Search in Google Scholar PubMed

7 Blevins, J. (2004). Evolutionary Phonology: The Emergence of Sound Patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486357Search in Google Scholar

8 Browman, C. P., & Goldstein, L. (1992). Articulatory phonology: An overview.Phonetica, 49(3-4), 155–180. 10.1159/0002619130031-8388Search in Google Scholar PubMed

9 Bybee, J. L. (2001). Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511612886Search in Google Scholar

10 Docherty, G. J., & Foulkes, P. (2014). An evaluation of usage-based approaches to the modelling of sociophonetic variability.Lingua, 142, 42–56. 10.1016/j.lingua.2013.01.0110024-3841Search in Google Scholar

11 Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791147Search in Google Scholar

12 Foulkes, P., & Docherty, G. (2006). The social life of phonetics and phonology.Journal of Phonetics, 34(4), 409–438. 10.1016/j.wocn.2005.08.0020095-4470Search in Google Scholar

13 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. 10.1037/0278-7393.22.5.11660278-7393Search in Google Scholar PubMed

14 Goldinger, S. D. (1998). Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access.Psychological Review, 105(2), 251–279. 10.1037/0033-295X.105.2.2510033-295XSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

15 Graham, C., & Brechtje, P. (2018). Second language acquisition of intonation: Peak alignment in American English.Journal of Phonetics, 66, 1–14. 10.1016/j.wocn.2017.08.0020095-4470Search in Google Scholar

16 Graham, C., & Williams, J. N. (2016). Implicit learning of Latin stress regularities.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 1–27.0272-2631Search in Google Scholar

17 GureckisTM, GoldstoneRL (2008): The effect of the internal structure of categories on perception; in LoveBC, McRaeK, SloutskyVM(eds): Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, Cognitive Science Society, pp 1876–1881.Search in Google Scholar

18 GuyGR (1994): The phonology of variation; in Beals K (ed): CLS 30: Vol 2, Parasession on Variation in Linguistics Theory. Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society, pp 133–149.Search in Google Scholar

19 Hawkins, S. (2003). Roles and representations of systematic fine phonetic detail in speech understanding.Journal of Phonetics, 31(3-4), 373–405. 10.1016/j.wocn.2003.09.0060095-4470Search in Google Scholar

20 Hawkins, S. (2010). Phonetic variation as communicative system: Perception of the particular and the abstract. In C.Fougeron, B.Kuehnert, M.Imperio, & N.Vallee (Eds.),Laboratory Phonology (Vol. 10, pp. 479–510). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

21 Hawkins, S., & Nguyen, N. (Eds.). (2003). Temporal integration in the perception of speech[Special Issue]. Journal of Phonetics, 31, 276–626.0095-4470Search in Google Scholar

22 Hawkins, S., & Smith, R. (2001). Polysp: A polysystemic, phonetically-rich approach to speech understanding.Rivista di Linguistica, 13, 99–188.1120-2726Search in Google Scholar

23 Hay, J., Warren, P., & Drager, K. (2006). Factors influencing speech perception in the context of a merger-in-progress.Journal of Phonetics, 34(4), 458–484. 10.1016/j.wocn.2005.10.0010095-4470Search in Google Scholar

24 Hintzman, D. L. (1986). Schema abstraction in a multiple-trace memory model.Psychological Review, 93(4), 411–428. 10.1037/0033-295X.93.4.4110033-295XSearch in Google Scholar

25 Jakobson, R., Fant, G. M., & Halle, M. (1963). Preliminaries to Speech Analysis: The Distinctive Features and their Correlates. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

26 Johnson, K. (1997). Speech perception without speaker normalization: An exemplar model. In K.Johnson & J. W.Mullennix (Eds.),Talker Variability in Speech Processing (pp. 145–165). San Diego: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

27 Johnson, K. (2006). Resonance in an exemplar-based lexicon: The emergence of social identity and phonology.Journal of Phonetics, 34(4), 485–499. 10.1016/j.wocn.2005.08.0040095-4470Search in Google Scholar

28 Kapatsinski, V. (2018). Changing Minds Changing Tools: From Learning Theory to Language Acquisition to Language Change. Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/11400.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

29 KirbyJ (2010): Cue Selection and Category Restructuring in Sound Change. PhD Dissertation, University of Chicago.Search in Google Scholar

30 Klatt, D. H. (1979). Speech perception: A model of acoustic-phonetic analysis and lexical access.Journal of Phonetics, 7, 279–312.0095-447010.1016/S0095-4470(19)31059-9Search in Google Scholar

31 Kruschke, J. K. (1992). ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning.Psychological Review, 99(1), 22–44. 10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.220033-295XSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

32 Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Search in Google Scholar

33 Labov, W. (2001). Principles of Linguistic Change.: Vol. 2. Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

34 Ladefoged, P., & Broadbent, D. E. (1957). Information conveyed by vowels.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 29(1), 98–104. 10.1121/1.19086940001-4966Search in Google Scholar PubMed

35 LaturnusR (2018): Perceptual adaptation to non-native speech: The effects of bias, exposure, and input variation. PhD Dissertation, New York, New York University.Search in Google Scholar

36 Liberman, A. M., & Mattingly, I. G. (1985). The motor theory of speech perception revised.Cognition, 21(1), 1–36. 10.1016/0010-0277(85)90021-60010-0277Search in Google Scholar PubMed

37 Liberman, A. M., Cooper, F. S., Shankweiler, D. P., & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1967). Perception of the speech code.Psychological Review, 74(6), 431–461. 10.1037/h00202790033-295XSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

38 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 (pp. 403–439). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. 10.1007/978-94-009-2037-8_16Search in Google Scholar

39 Local, J. (2003). Variable domains and variable relevance: Interpreting phonetic exponents.Journal of Phonetics, 31(3-4), 321–339. 10.1016/S0095-4470(03)00045-70095-4470Search in Google Scholar

40 Logan, J. S., Lively, S. E., & Pisoni, D. B. (1991). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: A first report.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89(2), 874–886. 10.1121/1.18946490001-4966Search in Google Scholar PubMed

41 Mann, V. A. (1980). Influence of preceding liquid on stop-consonant perception.Perception & Psychophysics, 28(5), 407–412. 10.3758/BF032048840031-5117Search in Google Scholar PubMed

42 Mann, V. A., & Repp, B. H. (1981). Influence of preceding fricative on stop consonant perception.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 69(2), 548–558. 10.1121/1.3854830001-4966Search in Google Scholar PubMed

43 Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1987). Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition.Cognition, 25(1-2), 71–102. 10.1016/0010-0277(87)90005-90010-0277Search in Google Scholar PubMed

44 Mattys, S. L., Davis, M. H., Bradlow, A. R., & Scott, S. K. (2012). Speech recognition in adverse conditions: A review.Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(7-8), 953–978. 10.1080/01690965.2012.7050060169-0965Search in Google Scholar

45 Miller, J. D. (1989). Auditory-perceptual interpretation of the vowel.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85(5), 2114–2134. 10.1121/1.3978620001-4966Search in Google Scholar PubMed

46 Munro, M. J. (1998). The effects of noise on the intelligibility of foreign-accented speech.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(02), 139–154. 10.1017/S02722631980020220272-2631Search in Google Scholar

47 Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1999). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners.Language Learning, 49, 285–310. 10.1111/0023-8333.49.s1.80023-8333Search in Google Scholar

48 Nathan, L., Wells, B., & Donlan, C. (1998). Children’s comprehension of unfamiliar regional accents: A preliminary investigation.Journal of Child Language, 25(2), 343–365. 10.1017/S03050009980034440305-0009Search in Google Scholar PubMed

49 Niedzielski, N. (1999). The effect of social information on the perception of sociolinguistic variables.Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18(1), 62–85. 10.1177/0261927X990180010050261-927XSearch in Google Scholar

50 Nolan, F. (1983). The Phonetic Bases of Speaker Recognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

51 Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (2003). Perceptual learning in speech.Cognitive Psychology, 47(2), 204–238. 10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00006-90010-0285Search in Google Scholar PubMed

52 Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship.Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 115(1), 39–61. 10.1037/0096-3445.115.1.390096-3445Search in Google Scholar PubMed

53 Nusbaum, H., & Magnuson, J. (1997). Talker normalization: Phonetic constancy as a cognitive process. In K. A.Johnson & J. W.Mullennix (Eds.),Talker Variability and Speech Processing (pp. 109–132). New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

54 OhalaJJ (1974): Experimental historical phonology; in AndersonJM, JonesC(eds): Proceedings of the First International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Edinburgh, 2 - 7 Sept. 1973. Amsterdam, North-Holland, pp 353–389.Search in Google Scholar

55 Ohala, J. J. (1981). The listener as a source of sound change. In C. S.Masek, R. A.Hendrick, & M. F.Miller (Eds.),Papers from the Parasession on Language and Behavior (pp. 178–203). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Search in Google Scholar

56 Orton, H. (1962). Survey of English Dialects: Introduction. Leeds: EJ Arnold & Son.Search in Google Scholar

57 Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In J. L.Bybee & P. J.Hopper (Eds.),Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure (pp. 137–157). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.45.08pieSearch in Google Scholar

58 Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2003). Phonetic diversity, statistical learning, and acquisition of phonology.Language and Speech, 46(Pt 2-3), 115–154. 10.1177/002383090304600205010023-8309Search in Google Scholar PubMed

59 PisoniDB (1978): Speech perception; in Estes WK (ed): Handbook of Learning and Cognitive Processes (Volume 6): Linguistic Functions in Cognitive Theory. Oxford, Lawrence Erlbaum, pp 167–233.Search in Google Scholar

60 Samuel, A. G., & Kraljic, T. (2009). Perceptual learning for speech.Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 71(6), 1207–1218. 10.3758/APP.71.6.12071943-3921Search in Google Scholar PubMed

61 Scharenborg, O., Kakouros, S., Post, B., & Meunier, F. (2019). Cross-linguistic Influences on Sentence Accent Detection in Background Noise.Language and Speech, 23830918819573. 10.1177/00238309188195730023-8309Search in Google Scholar PubMed

62 Schmidt, E., & Post, B. (2015). The development of prosodic features and their contribution to rhythm production in simultaneous bilinguals.Language and Speech, 58(Pt 1), 24–47. 10.1177/00238309145658090023-8309Search in Google Scholar PubMed

63 SmithB, BradlowAR, BentT (2003): Production and perception of temporal contrasts in foreign-accented English; in Solé MJ, Recasens D, Romero J (eds): Proceedings of the 15th International Congress on Phonetic Science. Adelaide, Causal Productions, pp 519–522.Search in Google Scholar

64 Sóskuthy, M. (2015). Understanding change through stability: A computational study of sound change actuation.Lingua, 163, 40–60. 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.05.0100024-3841Search in Google Scholar

65 Stevens, K. N. (1989). On the quantal nature of speech.Journal of Phonetics, 17, 3–45.0095-447010.1016/S0095-4470(19)31520-7Search in Google Scholar

66 Stevens, K. N. (2002). Toward a model for lexical access based on acoustic landmarks and distinctive features.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111(4), 1872–1891. 10.1121/1.14580260001-4966Search in Google Scholar PubMed

67 Stevens, K. N., & House, A. S. (1972). Speech perception. In J. V.Tobias (Ed.),Foundations of Modern Auditory Theory (Vol. 11, pp. 1–62). New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

68 Strand, E. A. (1999). Uncovering the role of gender stereotypes in speech perception.Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18(1), 86–99. 10.1177/0261927X990180010060261-927XSearch in Google Scholar

69 Sumner, M., Kim, S. K., King, E., & McGowan, K. B. (2014). The socially weighted encoding of spoken words: A dual-route approach to speech perception.Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1015. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.010151664-1078Search in Google Scholar PubMed

70 van Wijngaarden, S. J. (2001). Intelligibility of native and non-native Dutch speech.Speech Communication, 35(1-2), 103–113. 10.1016/S0167-6393(00)00098-40167-6393Search in Google Scholar

71 Vigário, M., Butler, J., & Cruz, M. S. (2015). Phonologically constrained variability in L1 and L2 production and perception[Special Issue]. Phonetica, 72(2-3), 69–75. 10.1159/0004417300031-8388Search in Google Scholar PubMed

72 Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. C. (1984). Cross-language speech perception: Evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life.Infant Behavior and Development, 7(1), 49–63. 10.1016/S0163-6383(84)80022-30163-6383Search in Google Scholar