Advertisement

Perceptual features predict word frequency asymmetry across modalities

  • Sin Hang LauEmail author
  • Yaqian Huang
  • Victor S. Ferreira
  • Edward Vul
Perceptual/Cognitive Constraints on the Structure of Speech Communication: In Honor of Randy Diehl
First Online:

Abstract

The relationships between word frequency and various perceptual features have been used to study the cognitive processes involved in word production and recognition, as well as patterns in language use over time. However, little work has been done comparing spoken and written frequencies against each other, which leaves open the question of whether there are modality-specific relationships between perceptual features and frequency. Words have different frequencies in speech and written texts, with some words occurring disproportionately more often in one modality than the other. In the present study, we investigated whether perceptual features predict this frequency asymmetry across modalities. Our results suggest that perceptual features such as length, neighborhood density, and positional probability differentially affect speech and writing, which reveals different online processing constraints and considerations for communicative efficiency across the two modalities. These modality-specific effects exist above and beyond formality differences. This work provides arguments against theories that assume that words differing in frequency are perceptually equivalent, as well as models that predict little to no influence of perceptual features on top-down processes of word selection.

Keywords

Perceptual features Word frequency Language production Rational model 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

References

  1. Andrews, S. (1997). The effect of orthographic similarity on lexical retrieval: Resolving neighborhood conflicts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 439–461.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214334 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bates, E., D’Amico, S., Jacobsen, T., Székely, A., Andonova, E., Devescovi, A., … Tzeng, O. (2003). Timed picture naming in seven languages. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 344–380.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196494 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baus, C., Costa, A., & Carreiras, M. (2008). Neighbourhood density and frequency effects in speech production: A case for interactivity. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 866–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bock, J. K. (1987). Exploring levels of processing in sentence production. In G. Kempen (Ed.), Natural language generation (pp. 351–363). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brysbaert, M., & Diependaele, K. (2013). Dealing with zero word frequencies: A review of the existing rules of thumb and a suggestion for an evidence-based choice. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 422–430.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0270-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977–990.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.977 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, Q., & Mirman, D. (2012). Competition and cooperation among similar representations: Toward a unified account of facilitative and inhibitory effects of lexical neighbors. Psychological Review, 119, 417–430.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027175 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Dell, G. S., & Reich, P. A. (1981). Stages in sentence production: An analysis of speech error data. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 611–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dingemanse, M., Blasi, D. E., Lupyan, G., Christiansen, M. H., & Monaghan, P. (2015). Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 603–615.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Forster, K. I., & Chambers, S. M. (1973). Lexical access and naming time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 627–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frauenfelder, U. H., Baayen, R. H., & Hellwig, F. M. (1993). Neighborhood density and frequency across languages and modalities. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 781–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fromkin, V. (1971). The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Language, 47, 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gahl, S., Yao, Y., & Johnson, K. (2012). Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 789–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garrett, M. F. (1975). The analysis of sentence production. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 9, pp. 133–177). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Garrett, M. F. (1980). Levels of processing in sentence production. In B. Butterworth (Ed.), Language production (Vol. 1, pp. 177–220). London, UK: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Garrett, M. F. (1982). Production of speech: Observations from normal and pathological language use. In A. Ellis (Ed.), Normality and pathology in cognitive functions (pp. 19–76). London, UK: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. Goldrick, M., Folk, J. R., & Rapp, B. (2010). Mrs. Malaprop’s neighborhood: Using word errors to reveal neighborhood structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 113–134.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldrick, M., & Larson, M. (2008). Phonotactic probability influences speech production. Cognition, 107, 1155–1164.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Harley, T. A. (1984). A critique of top-down independent levels models of speech production: Evidence from non-plan-internal speech errors. Cognitive Science, 8, 191–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hayes, D. P. (1988). Speaking and writing: Distinct patterns of word choice. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 572–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  22. Jescheniak, J. D., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 824–843.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.4.824 Google Scholar
  23. Jusczyk, P. W., Luce, P. A., & Charles-Luce, J. (1994). Infants’ sensitivity to phonotactic patterns in the native language. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 630–645.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Klapp, S. T., Anderson, W. G., & Berrian, R. W. (1973). Implicit speech in reading: Reconsidered. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 100, 368–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Landauer, T. K., & Streeter, L. A. (1973). Structural differences between common and rare words: failure of equivalence assumptions for theories of word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 119–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leech, G., Rayson, P., & Wilson, A. (2001). Word frequencies in written and spoken English: Based on the British National Corpus. Basingstoke, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Luce, P. A., & Large, N. R. (2001). Phonotactics, density, and entropy in spoken word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16, 565–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing, 19, 1–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2013). Modality exclusivity norms for 400 nouns: The relationship between perceptual experience and surface word form. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 516–526.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0267-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Mahowald, K., Fedorenko, E., Piantadosi, S. T., & Gibson, E. (2013). Info/information theory: Speakers choose shorter words in predictive contexts. Cognition, 126, 313–318.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Marian, V., Bartolotti, J., Chabal, S., & Shook, A. (2012). CLEARPOND: Cross-linguistic easy-access resource for phonological and orthographic neighborhood densities. PLoS ONE, 7, e43230.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043230 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. New, B., Ferrand, L., Pallier, C., & Brysbaert, M. (2006). Reexamining the word length effect in visual word recognition: New evidence from the English Lexicon Project. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 45–52.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193811 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pollatsek, A., Perea, M., & Binder, K. S. (1999). The effects of “neighborhood size” in reading and lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1142–1158.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.25.4.1142 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H., & Gibson, E. (2011). Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 3526–3529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H., & Gibson, E. (2012). The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition, 122, 280–291.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Pitt, M. A., & McQueen, J. M. (1998). Is compensation for coarticulation mediated by the lexicon? Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 347–370.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2571 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Roelofs, A. (2002). Syllable structure effects turn out to be word length effects: Comment on Santiago et al.(2000). Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sadat, J., Martin, C. D., Costa, A., & Alario, F. X. (2014). Reconciling phonological neighborhood effects in speech production through single trial analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 68, 33–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Santiago, J., MacKay, D. G., Palma, A., & Rho, C. (2000). Sequential activation processes in producing words and syllables: Evidence from picture naming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Scarborough, R. (2012). Lexical similarity and speech production: Neighborhoods for nonwords. Lingua, 122, 164–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Scarborough, R. (2013). Neighborhood-conditioned patterns in phonetic detail: Relating coarticulation and hyperarticulation. Journal of Phonetics, 41, 491–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Scarborough, R., & Zellou, G. (2013). Clarity in communication: “Clear” speech authenticity and lexical neighborhood density effects in speech production and perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 134, 3793–3807.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Szekely, A., Jacobsen, T., D’Amico, S., Devescovi, A., Andonova, E., Herron, D., … Bates, E. (2004). A new on-line resource for psycholinguistic studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 247–250.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.03.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Vitevitch, M. S. (2002). The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 735–747.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.28.4.735 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Vitevitch, M. S., Armbrüster, J., & Chu, S. (2004). Sublexical and lexical representations in speech production: Effects of phonotactic probability and onset density. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 514–529.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.514 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (1999). Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood activation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 374–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vitevitch, M. S., Luce, P. A., Pisoni, D. B., & Auer, E. T. (1999). Phonotactics, neighborhood activation, and lexical access for spoken words. Brain and Language, 68, 306–311.  https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1999.2116 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Vitevitch, M. S., & Sommers, M. S. (2003). The facilitative influence of phonological similarity and neighborhood frequency in speech production in younger and older adults. Memory & Cognition, 31, 491–504.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196091 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vitevitch, M. S., & Stamer, M. K. (2006). The curious case of competition in Spanish speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 760–770.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960500287196 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Wright, R. (2004). Factors of lexical competition in vowel articulation. In J. J. Local, R. Ogden, & R. Temple (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology VI (pp. 75–87). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Zipf, G. (1936). The psychobiology of language. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Zipf, G. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sin Hang Lau
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yaqian Huang
    • 2
  • Victor S. Ferreira
    • 1
  • Edward Vul
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of California, San DiegoLa JollaUSA
  2. 2.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of California, San DiegoLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options