39
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Online perception of glottalized coda stops in American English

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In American English, voiceless codas /t/ and /p/ are often glottalized: They have glottal constriction that results in creaky voice on the preceding vowel. Previous claims suggest that such glottalization can serve to enhance /t/ or, more generally, voicelessness of coda stops. In this study, we examine the timecourse of word recognition to test whether glottalization facilitates the perception of words ending in voiceless /t/ and /p/, which is expected if glottalization is in fact enhancing. Sixty American English listeners participated in an eye-tracking study, where they heard resynthesized glottalized and non-glottalized versions of CVC English words ending in /p, t, b, d/ while looking at a display with two words presented orthographically. Target words were presented with a minimal pair differing in place of articulation (e.g., cop-cot), or voicing, (e.g., bat-bad, cap-cab). Although there is little evidence that glottalization facilitates recognition of words ending in /t/ or /p/, there is a strong inhibitory effect: Words ending in voiced stops are recognized more slowly and poorly when the preceding vowel was glottalized. These findings lend little support to a listener-driven, enhancement-based explanation for the occurrence of coda glottalization in American English. On the other hand, they suggest that glottalized instances of coda /t/ and /p/, but not of coda /d/ and /b/, are perceived as equally good variants of these sounds.

          Related collections

          Most cited references62

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found
          Is Open Access

          Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4

          Maximum likelihood or restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimates of the parameters in linear mixed-effects models can be determined using the lmer function in the lme4 package for R. As for most model-fitting functions in R, the model is described in an lmer call by a formula, in this case including both fixed- and random-effects terms. The formula and data together determine a numerical representation of the model from which the profiled deviance or the profiled REML criterion can be evaluated as a function of some of the model parameters. The appropriate criterion is optimized, using one of the constrained optimization functions in R, to provide the parameter estimates. We describe the structure of the model, the steps in evaluating the profiled deviance or REML criterion, and the structure of classes or types that represents such a model. Sufficient detail is included to allow specialization of these structures by users who wish to write functions to fit specialized linear mixed models, such as models incorporating pedigrees or smoothing splines, that are not easily expressible in the formula language used by lmer. Journal of Statistical Software, 67 (1) ISSN:1548-7660
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: a critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English.

            Word frequency is the most important variable in research on word processing and memory. Yet, the main criterion for selecting word frequency norms has been the availability of the measure, rather than its quality. As a result, much research is still based on the old Kucera and Francis frequency norms. By using the lexical decision times of recently published megastudies, we show how bad this measure is and what must be done to improve it. In particular, we investigated the size of the corpus, the language register on which the corpus is based, and the definition of the frequency measure. We observed that corpus size is of practical importance for small sizes (depending on the frequency of the word), but not for sizes above 16-30 million words. As for the language register, we found that frequencies based on television and film subtitles are better than frequencies based on written sources, certainly for the monosyllabic and bisyllabic words used in psycholinguistic research. Finally, we found that lemma frequencies are not superior to word form frequencies in English and that a measure of contextual diversity is better than a measure based on raw frequency of occurrence. Part of the superiority of the latter is due to the words that are frequently used as names. Assembling a new frequency norm on the basis of these considerations turned out to predict word processing times much better than did the existing norms (including Kucera & Francis and Celex). The new SUBTL frequency norms from the SUBTLEX(US) corpus are freely available for research purposes from http://brm.psychonomic-journals.org/content/supplemental, as well as from the University of Ghent and Lexique Web sites.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              R: A language and environment for statistical computing

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                1868-6354
                Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology
                Ubiquity Press
                1868-6354
                14 February 2018
                2018
                : 9
                : 1
                : 4
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Linguistics, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
                [2 ]Department of Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles, California, US
                [3 ]Department of Linguistics, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, US
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2475-5219
                Article
                10.5334/labphon.70
                71391f0c-70af-4d53-bbf9-fc9778057091
                Copyright: © 2018 The Author(s)

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 10 January 2017
                : 29 November 2017
                Categories
                Journal article

                Applied linguistics,General linguistics,Linguistics & Semiotics
                phonological variants,enhancement,eye-tracking,glottalization

                Comments

                Comment on this article