Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-tbj44 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-29T17:44:41.526Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Word-internal /t,d/ deletion in spontaneous speech: Modeling the effects of extra-linguistic, lexical, and phonological factors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2006

William D. Raymond ,
Robin Dautricourt  and
Elizabeth Hume
William D. Raymond
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
Robin Dautricourt
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
Elizabeth Hume
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The deletion of word-internal alveolar stops in spontaneous English speech is a variation phenomenon that has not previously been investigated. This study quantifies internal deletion statistically using a range of linguistic and extra-linguistic variables, and interprets the results within a model of speech production. Effects were found for speech rate and fluency, word form and word predictability, prominence, and aspects of the local phonological context. Results of the study are compared to results from the numerous studies of word-final alveolar stop deletion, internal deletion in laboratory speech, and also to another internal alveolar stop process, flapping. Our findings suggest that word-internal alveolar stop deletion is not a unitary phenomenon, but two different processes that arise at different points during speech production. In syllable codas, deletion results from cluster simplification to achieve gestural economy and is introduced during segment planning. In syllable onsets, deletion is one outcome of gradient lenition that results from gestural reduction during articulation.The research reported here was supported by NIDCD grant DC004330 to Mark Pitt, Keith Johnson, and Elizabeth Hume. Our thanks to Mark Pitt, Keith Johnson, William Labov, David Sankoff, two anonymous reviewers, and numerous participants of NWAV02 for useful comments and constructive feedback that helped us develop the article.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , March 2006 , pp. 55 - 97
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Baayen, H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]. Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania, PA.
Bush, Nathan. (2001). Frequency effects and word-boundary palatalization in English. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Typological studies in language 45. Philadelphia: Benjamins. 255–280
Bybee, Joan. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(5):425–455.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. (2000). Lexicalization of sound change and alternating environments. In M. Broe & J. Pierrehumbert (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology V: Acquisition and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 250–268.
Bybee, J., & Scheibman, J. (1999). The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don't in English. Linguistics 37:575–596.Google Scholar
Byrd, Dani., & Tan, Cheng (1996). Saying consonant clusters quickly. Journal of Phonetics 24:263–282.Google Scholar
Cedergren, Henrietta, & Sankoff, David. (1974). Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language 50:333–355.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1990). The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In J. Kingston & M. Beckman (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology I: Between the grammar and physics of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 283–333.
Coleman, J., & Pierrehumbert, J. (1997). Stochastic phonological grammars and acceptability. Computational phonology: Proceedings of the 3rd Meeting of the ACL Special Interest Group in Computational Phonology. Somerset, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics. 49–56.
Cooper, W. E., Egido, C., & Paccia, J. M. (1978). Grammatical control of a phonological rule: Palatalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 4:264–272.Google Scholar
Fasold, R. (1972). Tense marking in Black English. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Fosler-Lussier, E., & Morgan, N. (1999). Effects of speaking rate and word frequency on pronunciations in conversational speech. Speech Communication 29:137–158.Google Scholar
Fox Tree, Jean E., & Clark, Herbert H. (1997). Pronouncing “the” as “thee” to signal problems in speaking. Cognition 62:151–167.Google Scholar
Frauenfelder, U. H., Baayen, R. H., Hellwig, F. M., & Schreuder, R. (1993). Neighborhood density and frequency across languages and modalities. Journal of Memory and Language 32:781–804.Google Scholar
Frisch, S., Large, N., & Pisoni, D. (2000). Perception of wordlikeness: Effects of segment probability and length on the processing of nonwords. Journal of Memory and Language 42:481–496.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Steven. (1999). Speaking in shorthand—A syllable-centric perspective for understanding pronunciation variation. Speech Communication 29:159–176.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Steven, Carvey, H., & Hitchcock, L. (2002). The relation between stress accent and pronunciation variation in spontaneous American English discourse. Proceedings of the International Speech Communication Association Workshop on Prosody and Speech Processing 2002. 351–354.
Guy, Gregory R. (1980). Variation in the group and the individual. In W. Labov (ed.), Locating language in time and space. New York: Academic Press. 1–36.
Guy, Gregory R. (1991). Contextual conditioning in variable lexical phonology. Language Variation and Change 3:223–239.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. (1992). Explanation in variable phonology: An exponential model of morphological constraints. Language Variation and Change 3:1–22.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. (1997). Violable is variable: Optimality theory and linguistic variation. Language Variation and Change 9:333–347.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R., & Boberg, Charles. (1997). Inherent variability and the obligatory contour principle. Language Variation and Change 8:149–164.Google Scholar
Hay, J. B. (2000). Causes and consequences of word structure. Ph.D. Dissertation, Northwestern University.
Hooper, J. B. (1976). Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. In W. Christie (ed.), Current progress in historical linguistics. Amsterdam: North Holland. 96–105.
Jurafsky, Daniel, Bell, Alan, Fosler-Lussier, Daniel, Girand, Cynthia, & Raymond, William D. (1998). Reduction of English function words in Switchboard. Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Sydney. 7: 3111–3114.
Jurafsky, Daniel, Bell, Alan, Gregory, M., & Raymond, William D. (2001). Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Typological studies in language 45. Philadelphia: Benjamins. 229–254.
Keating, P. A. (1998). Word-level phonetic variation in large speech corpora. In A. Alexiadou, N. Fuhrop, U. Kleinhenz, & P. Law (eds.), ZAS Papers in Linguistics 11. Berlin: ZAS. 35–50
Ladefoged, Peter (1982). A course in phonetics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Labov, William. (1967). Some sources of reading problems for Negro speakers of non-standard English. In A. Frazier (ed.), New directions in elementary English. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Labov, William. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov, William. (1975). The quantitative study of linguistic structure. In K. H. Dahlstedt (ed.), The Nordic languages and modern linguistics. Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell. 188–234.
Labov, William. (1995). Resyllabification. In R. Van Hout & F. Hinskens (eds.), Proceedings of the International Workshop on Language Variation and Linguistic Theory. 145–179.
Labov, William, & Cohen, P. (1967). Systematic relations of standard and non-standard rules in the grammars of Negro speakers. Project literacy reports 8. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Labov, William, Cohen, P., Robins, C., & Lewis, J. (1968). A study of the non-standard English of Negro and Puerto Rican speakers in New York City (vol. 1). Final research report, Cooperative Research Project No. 3288. Washington, DC: US Office of Education.
Landauer, Thomas K., & Streeter, L. A. (1973). Structural differences between common and rare words: Failure of equivalence assumptions for theories of word recognition. Journal of Verbal Behavior 12:119–131.Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Luce, P. A. (1986). Neighborhoods of words in the mental lexicon. Research on Speech Perception. Technical Report No. 6, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
Makashay, Matthew. (2001). Lexical effects in the perception of obstruent ordering. Studies on the Interplay of Speech Perception and Phonology, The Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 55:88–116.Google Scholar
Neu, Helen. (1980). Ranking of constraints on /t,d/ deletion in American English: A statistical analysis. In W. Labov (ed.), Locating language in time and space. New York: Academic Press. 37–54.
Phillips, B. S. (1984). Word frequency and the actuation of sound change. Language 60:320–342.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. (1994). Knowledge of variation. Papers from the Parasession on Variation. 30th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, CLS 30. 232–256.
Pitt, Mark, Johnson, Keith, Hume, Elizabeth, Kiesling, Scott, & Raymond, William D. (2005). The Buckeye corpus of conversational speech: Labeling conventions and a test of transcriber reliability. Speech Communication 45:90–95.Google Scholar
Pitt, Mark A., & McQueen, James M. (1998). Is compensation for coarticulation mediated by the lexicon? Journal of Memory and Language 39:347–370.Google Scholar
Pitt, Mark, & Samuel, Authur. (1990). Attentional allocation during speech perception: How fine is the focus? Journal of Memory and Language 29:611–632.Google Scholar
Pollack, I., & Pickett, J. (1964). Intelligibility of excerpts from fluent speech: Auditory vs. structural content. Journal of Verbal Learning and Memory 3:79–84.Google Scholar
Raymond, W. D., Jurafsky, D., & Bell, A. (2001). The asymmetric effect of local context on word duration: Consequences for models of production. Paper presented at Architectures and Mechanisms of Language Processing, Saarbrucken. September, 2001.
Raymond, W. D., Pitt, Mark, Johnson, Keith, Hume, Elizabeth, Makashay, Matthew, Dautricourt, Robin, & Hilts, Craig. (2002). An analysis of transcription consistency in spontaneous speech from the Buckeye corpus. Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing. 1125–1128.
Rhodes, Richard A. (1992). Flapping in American English. In W. U. Dressler, M. Prinzhorn, & J. R. Dennison (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Phonology Meeting. 271–232.
Saffran, Jenny, Newport, Elissa, & Aslin, Richard. (1996). Word segmentation: The role of distributional cues. Journal of Memory and Language 35:606–621.Google Scholar
Savin, H. B. (1963). Word-frequency effect and errors in the perception of speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 35:200–206.Google Scholar
Shriberg, Elizabeth E. (1999). Phonetic consequences of speech disfluency. Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, San Francisco. 619–622.
Turk, Alice E., & White, Laurence. (1999). Structural influences on accentual lengthening in English. Journal of Phonetics 27:171–206.Google Scholar
Van Santen, J. P. H. (1992). Contextual effects on vowel duration. Speech Communication 11:513–546.Google Scholar
Vitevitch, Michael S., & Luce, Paul A. (1999). Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood activation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 40:374–408.Google Scholar
Wolfram, W. (1969). A sociolinguistic description of Detroit Negro speech. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Wright, Richard. (1996). Consonant clusters and cue preservation in Tsou. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California–Los Angeles.
Zue, Victor W., & Laferriere, Martha. (1979). Acoustic study of internal /t,d/ in American English. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 66:1039–1050.Google Scholar