88
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    9
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Nasal place assimilation trades off inferrability of both target and trigger words

      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 English, nasal place assimilation occurs across word boundaries, such as ten bucks pronounced as te[m] bucks. Assimilation can be viewed as a reduction or loss of the assimilation target’s place cue (/n/ in ten), and simultaneously as an enhancement of the assimilation trigger’s place cue (/b/ in bucks) by spreading its place cue earlier in the signal. A message-oriented phonological approach predicts that assimilation is sensitive to the relative contextual inferrability of both the target and trigger words: More assimilation should be observed for more contextually predictable target words, while less assimilation should be observed for contextually more predictable trigger words. These predictions deviate from accounts that view assimilation solely as reduction. To test these predictions, sequences which license assimilation were extracted from a conversational speech corpus. Both categorical assimilation (based on close phonetic transcription) and gradient acoustic assimilation (based on F2) were analyzed. As predicted, assimilation was more likely both when a target like ten was high in predictability and when its trigger bucks was low in predictability. Assimilation thus serves as both reduction and enhancement, and can be used to manage redundancy in the speech signal. More broadly, this constitutes evidence for the influence of communicative pressures on phonology.

          Related collections

          Most cited references93

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            From Usage to Grammar: The Mind's Response to Repetition

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The fallacy of placing confidence in confidence intervals

              Interval estimates – estimates of parameters that include an allowance for sampling uncertainty – have long been touted as a key component of statistical analyses. There are several kinds of interval estimates, but the most popular are confidence intervals (CIs): intervals that contain the true parameter value in some known proportion of repeated samples, on average. The width of confidence intervals is thought to index the precision of an estimate; CIs are thought to be a guide to which parameter values are plausible or reasonable; and the confidence coefficient of the interval (e.g., 95 %) is thought to index the plausibility that the true parameter is included in the interval. We show in a number of examples that CIs do not necessarily have any of these properties, and can lead to unjustified or arbitrary inferences. For this reason, we caution against relying upon confidence interval theory to justify interval estimates, and suggest that other theories of interval estimation should be used instead. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0947-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                1868-6354
                Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology
                Ubiquity Press
                1868-6354
                20 September 2018
                2018
                : 9
                : 1
                : 15
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Linguistics, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, US
                [2 ]Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University, US
                [3 ]Department of Linguistics, University of Canterbury, NZ
                [4 ]Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, University of Rochester, US
                [5 ]Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester, US
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2574-9064
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6499-7119
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1158-7308
                Article
                10.5334/labphon.119
                b14d8c12-1598-4b4f-b2a0-4d501bf7a75b
                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
                : 01 October 2017
                : 30 July 2018
                Categories
                Journal article

                Applied linguistics,General linguistics,Linguistics & Semiotics
                predictability,English,assimilation,nasals,message-oriented phonology

                Comments

                Comment on this article