The role of linguistic experience in the processing of probabilistic information in production

References

• Altmann, E. G., Pierrehumbert, J. B., & Motter, A. E. (2009). Beyond word frequency: Bursts, lulls, and scaling in the temporal distributions of words. PLoS ONE, 4(11), e7678. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007678
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aoyama, K., & Guion, S. G. (2007). Prosody in second language acquisition: Acoustic analyses of duration and F0 range. In O.-S. Bohn, & M. Munro (Eds.), Language experience in second language speech learning (pp. 281–297). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
   Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E. (2008). THE BACON not the bacon: How children and adults understand accented and unaccented noun phrases. Cognition, 108, 69–99. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.01.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E., Kahn, J. M., & Pancani, G. C. (2012). Audience design affects acoustic reduction via production facilitation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(3), 505–512. doi: 10.3758/s13423-012-0233-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., Altmann, R. J., & Fagnano, M. (2004). The old and thee, uh, new: Disfluency and reference resolution. Psychological Science, 15(9), 578–582. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00723.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold, J. E., & Watson, D. G. (2015). Synthesising meaning and processing approaches to prosody: Performance matters. Language and Cognitive Processes, 30, 88–102. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2013.840733
   Google Scholar
• Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 67–82. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aylett, M., & 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. doi: 10.1177/00238309040470010201
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2010.10.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, R. E., & Bradlow, A. R. (2009). Variability in word duration as a function of probability, speech style, and prosody. Language and Speech, 52(4), 391–413. doi: 10.1177/0023830909336575
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bard, E. G., Anderson, A. H., Sotillo, C., Aylett, M., Doherty-Sneddon, G., & Newlands, A. (2000). Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 1–22. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1999.2667
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, A., Brenier, J. M., Gregory, M., Girand, C., & Jurafsky, D. (2009). Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language, 60(1), 92–111. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2008.06.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, A., Jurafsky, D., Fosler-Lussier, E., Girand, C., Gregory, M., & Gildea, D. (2003). Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113(2), 1001–1024. doi: 10.1121/1.1534836
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock, K., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 954–984). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2016). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 6.0.16) [Computer program]. Retrieved April 6, 2016, from http://www.praat.org/
   Google Scholar
• Brodeur, M. B., Dionne-Dostie, E., Montreuil, T., & Lepage, M. (2010). The bank of standardized stimuli (BOSS), a new set of 480 normative photos of objects to be used as visual stimuli in cognitive research. PloS ONE, 5(5), 1–13. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010773
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks, S. P., & Gelman, A. (1997). General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 7, 434–455.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burki, A., Laganaro, M., & Alario, F.-X. (2014). Phonologically driven variability: The case of determiners. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1348–1362. doi: 10.1037/a0036351
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caramazza, A., Miozzo, A., Costa, A., Schiller, N. O., & Alario, F.-X. (2001). A crosslinguistic investigation of determiner production. In E. Dupoux (Ed.), Language, brain and cognitive development: Essays in honor of Jacques Mehler (pp. 209–226). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Colomé, A., & Miozzo, M. (2010). Which words are activated during bilingual word production? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(1), 96–109. doi: 10.1037/a0017677
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colomé, À. (2001). Lexical activation in bilinguals’ speech production: Language-specific or language-independent? Journal of Memory and Language, 45(4), 721–736. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2001.2793
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa, A., Caramazza, A., & Sebastian-Galles, N. (2000). The cognate facilitation effect: Implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(5), 1283–1296. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.26.5.1283
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahan, D., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Chambers, C. G. (2002). Accent and reference resolution in spoken-language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 292–314. doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00001-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dell, G. S. (1990). Effects of frequency and vocabulary type on phonological speech errors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5(4), 313–349. doi: 10.1080/01690969008407066
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diependaele, K., Lemhöfer, K., & Brysbaert, M. (2013). The word frequency effect in first- and second-language word recognition: A lexical entrenchment account. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(5), 843–863. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2012.720994
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fowler, C. A. (1988). Differential shortening of repeated content words produced in various communicative contexts. Language and Speech, 31(4), 307–319. doi: 10.1177/002383098803100401
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fowler, C. A., & 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, 489–504. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(87)90136-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraundorf, S. H., Watson, D. G., & Benjamin, A. S. (2014). Reduction in prosodic prominence predicts speakers’ recall: Implications for theories of prosody. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 606–619. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2014.966122
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gahl, S. (2008). Time and thyme are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language, 84(3), 474–496. doi: 10.1353/lan.0.0035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gahl, S., & Garnsey, S. M. (2004). Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. Language, 80(4), 748–775. doi: 10.1353/lan.2004.0185
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrett, M. F. (1975). The analysis of sentence production. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 133–175). San Diego: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gollan, T. H., Montoya, R. I., Cera, C., & Sandoval, T. C. (2008). More use almost always a means a smaller frequency effect: Aging, bilingualism, and the weaker links hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(3), 787–814. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.07.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gollan, T. H., Montoya, R. I., Fennema-Notestine, C., & Morris, S. K. (2005). Bilingualism affects picture naming but not picture classification. Memory & Cognition, 33(7), 1220–1234. doi: 10.3758/BF03193224
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gollan, T. H., Slattery, T. J., Goldenberg, D., Van Assche, E., Duyck, W., & Rayner, K. (2011). Frequency drives lexical access in reading but not in speaking: The frequency-lag hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(2), 186–209. doi: 10.1037/a0022256
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guion, S. G., Flege, J. E., Liu, S. H., & Yeni-Komshian, G. H. (2000). Age of learning effects on the duration of sentences produced in a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21(2), 205–228. doi: 10.1017/S0142716400002034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gustafson, E., Engstler, C., & Goldrick, M. (2013). Phonetic processing of non-native speech in semantic vs non-semantic tasks. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 134(6), EL506. doi: 10.1121/1.4826914
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hadfield, J. (2010). MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: The MCMCglmm R package. Journal of Statistical Software, 33(2), 1–22. doi: 10.18637/jss.v033.i02
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hermans, D., Bongaerts, T., De Bot, K., & Schreuder, R. (1998). Producing words in a foreign language: Can speakers prevent interference from their first language? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(3), 213–229. doi: 10.1017/S1366728998000364
   Google Scholar
• Hernández, M., Costa, A., & Arnon, I. (2016). More than words: Multiword frequency effects in non-native speakers. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 3798(April), 1–16. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2016.1152389
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobs, C. L., Yiu, L. K., Watson, D. G., & Dell, G. S. (2015). Why are repeated words produced with reduced durations? Evidence from inner speech and homophone production. Journal of Memory and Language, 84, 37–48. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2015.05.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssen, N., Schiller, N. O., & Alario, F. X. (2014). The selection of closed-class elements during language production: A reassessment of the evidence and a new look on new data. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 695–708. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2012.693617
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jescheniak, J. D., Schriefers, H., & Lemhöfer, K. (2014a). Selection of freestanding and bound gender-marking morphemes in speech production: a review. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 684–694. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2012.654645
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jescheniak, J. D., Schriefers, H., & Lemhöfer, K. (2014b). What data from the simple-picture naming task tell us about lexical competition—A rejoinder to Janssen, Schiller, and Alario. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 709–713. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2012.734379
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jurafsky, D., Bell, A., Gregory, M., & Raymond, W. 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 (pp. 229–254). Amsterdam: Benjamin.
   Google Scholar
• Kahn, J. M., & Arnold, J. E. (2012). A processing-centered look at the contribution of givenness to durational reduction. Journal of Memory and Language, 67(3), 311–325. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.07.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahn, J. M., & Arnold, J. E. (2015). Articulatory and lexical repetition effects on durational reduction: Speaker experience vs. Common ground. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(1-2), 103–119. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2013.848989
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lam, T. Q., & Marian, V. (2015). Repetition reduction during word and concept overlap in bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 84, 88–107. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2015.05.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lam, T. Q., & Watson, D. G. (2010). Repetition is easy: Why repeated referents have reduced prominence. Memory & Cognition, 38(8), 1137–1146. doi: 10.3758/MC.38.8.1137
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lam, T. Q., & Watson, D. G. (2014). Repetition reduction: Lexical repetition in the absence of referent repetition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(3), 829–843.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lapointe, S. G., & Dell, G. S. (1989). A synthesis of some recent work in sentence production. In G. N. Carlson, & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Linguistic structure in language processing (pp. 107–156). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lemhöfer, K., & Broersma, M. (2012). Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid lexical test for advanced learners of English. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 325–343. doi: 10.3758/s13428-011-0146-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levelt, W. J., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 1–75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2007). Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In B. Schlökopf, J. Platt, & T. Hoffman (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems (NIPS) 19 (pp. 849–856). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lew-Williams, C., & Fernald, A. (2010). Real-time processing of gender-marked articles by native and non-native spanish speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(4), 447–464. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2010.07.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liberman, P. (1963). Some effects of semantic and grammatical context on the production and perception of speech. Language and Speech, 6(3), 172–187. doi: 10.1177/002383096300600306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindblom, B. (1990). Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H&H theory. In W. J. Hardcastle, & A. Marchal (Eds.), Speech production and speech, modeling (pp. 403–439). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Meagher, B. R., & Fowler, C. A. (2014). Embedded articulation: Shifts in location influence speech production. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(5), 1–7. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2013.791704
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, A. S., & Damian, M. F. (2007). Activation of distractor names in the picture-picture interference paradigm. Memory & Cognition, 35(3), 494–503. doi: 10.3758/BF03193289
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitterer, H., & Russell, K. (2013). How phonological reductions sometimes help the listener. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(3), 977–984. doi: 10.1037/a0029196
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morsella, E., & Miozzo, M. (2002). Evidence for a cascade model of lexical access in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(3), 555–563. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.28.3.555
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1995). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 45(1), 73–97. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00963.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munson, B., & Solomon, N. P. (2004). The effect of phonological neighborhood density on vowel articulation. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 1048–1058. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2004/078)
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pate, J. K., & Goldwater, S. (2015). Talkers account for listener and channel characteristics to communicate efficiently. Journal of Memory and Language, 78, 1–17. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2014.10.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2007). Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(3), 105–110. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.12.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In J. L. Bybee, & P. J. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency effects and emergent grammar (pp. 137–157). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
   Google Scholar
• Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2002). Word-specific phonetics. In C. Gussenhoven, & N. Warner (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 7 (pp. 101–139). Berlin: Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Puckette, M., Zicarelli, D., Sussman, R., Clayton, J. K., Bernstein, J., Nevile, B., … Schabtach, A. (2011). MAX/MSP [Computer program] (Version 5.1.9). Retrieved from https://cycling74.com/downloads/older/#.V7UrUWUqafQ
   Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing [Computer program] (Version 3.2.4). Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Rosa, E. C., Finch, K. H., Bergeson, M., & Arnold, J. E. (2015). The effects of addressee attention on prosodic prominence. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(1-2), 48–56. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2013.772213
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runnqvist, E., Gollan, T. H., Costa, A., & Ferreira, V. S. (2013). A disadvantage in bilingual sentence production modulated by syntactic frequency and similarity across languages. Cognition, 129(2), 256–263. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.07.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadat, J., Martin, C. D., Alario, F. X., & Costa, A. (2012). Characterizing the bilingual disadvantage in noun phrase production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 41(3), 159–179. doi: 10.1007/s10936-011-9183-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scarborough, R. A. (2010). Lexical and contextual predictability: Confluent effects on the production of vowels. In C. Fougeron, M. Kuhnert, & M. D’Imperio (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 10 (pp. 557–586). Berlin: De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Schertz, J., & Ernestus, M. (2014). Variability in the pronunciation of non-native English the: Effects of frequency and disfluencies. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 10(2), 329–345. doi: 10.1515/cllt-2014-0024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selkirk, E. (1996). The prosodic structure of function words. In J. L. Morgan, & K. Demuth (Eds.), Signal to syntax: Bootstraping from speech to grammar in early acquisition (pp. 187–213). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Seyfarth, S. (2014). Word informativity influences acoustic duration: Effects of contextual predictability on lexical representation. Cognition, 133(1), 140–155. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379–423. doi: 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x
   Google Scholar
• Shi, R., Morgan, J. L., & Allopenna, P. (1998). Phonological and acoustic bases for earliest grammatical category assignment: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Child Language, 25(1), 169–201. doi: 10.1017/S0305000997003395
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar