Processes in Connected Speech

doi:10.1017/9781108644198.006

5 - Processes in Connected Speech

from Section I - Segmental Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 November 2021

Natasha Warner

Edited by

Rachael-Anne Knight and

Jane Setter

Show author details

Rachael-Anne Knight: Affiliation:
City, University of London
Jane Setter: Affiliation:
University of Reading

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Connected speech is defined here as any speech in units larger than single words, including phenomena that happen at word boundaries even in careful speech, as well as phenomena of spontaneous or conversational speech. The former includes abstract phonological processes that are triggered by word boundaries (e.g. insertion of /r/ in some English dialects, as in Australia[ɹ] is) but that are accompanied by sub-phonemic, phonetic effects. The latter topic covers acoustic characteristics and perception of connected speech, regardless of word boundaries. For example, the vowel space appears to shrink in more connected and/or spontaneous speech, phonemically voiced stop consonants are often reduced to approximants, and segmental deletions and reduction in the number of syllables are common. It is often difficult to believe the extent of the reduction that one finds in spontaneous speech, and even when listening to recordings, one frequently fails to notice the reductions until one zooms in and examines individual syllables. Providing an array of examples (audio available online) may help to demonstrate the pervasiveness of reduction in connected speech.

Keywords

connected speech reduced speech spontaneous speech speech styles reduction speech production speech perception

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Phonetics , pp. 133 - 156

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108644198.006 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2021

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.)

References

5.7 References

Anderson, A. H., Bader, M., Bard, E. G., Boyle, E., Doherty, G., Garrod, S. et al. (1991). The HCRC map task corpus. Language and Speech, 34(4), 351–66.Google Scholar

Arai, T. (1999). A case study of spontaneous speech in Japanese. In Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS). Berkeley, CA: Department of Linguistics, University of California, pp. 615–18.Google Scholar

Barry, W. & Andreeva, B. (2001). Cross-language similarities and differences in spontaneous speech patterns. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 31, 51–66.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bouavichith, D. & Davidson, L. (2013). Acoustic characteristics of intervocalic stop lenition in American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133(5), 3565.Google Scholar

Bradlow, A. R. & Bent, T. (2002). The clear speech effect for non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112(1), 272–84.Google Scholar

Brand, S. & Ernestus, M. (2017). Listeners’ processing of a given reduced word pronunciation variant directly reflects their exposure to this variant: Evidence from native listeners and learners of French. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(5), 1240–59.Google Scholar

Brouwer, S., Mitterer, H. & Huettig, F. (2012). Speech reductions change the dynamics of competition during spoken word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(4), 539–71.Google Scholar

Browman, C. P. & Goldstein, L. (1992). Articulatory phonology: An overview. Phonetica, 49(3–4), 155–80.Google Scholar

Bürki, A., Ernestus, M., Gendrot, C., Fougeron, C. & Frauenfelder, U. H. (2011). What affects the presence versus absence of schwa and its duration: A corpus analysis of French connected speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(6), 3980–91.Google Scholar

Cruttenden, A. (2014). Gimson’s Pronunciation of English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Crystal, T. H. & House, A. S. (1982). Segmental durations in connected speech signals: Preliminary results. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 72(3), 705–16.Google Scholar

Crystal, T. H. & House, A. S. (1988a). Segmental durations in connected‐speech signals: Current results. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 83(4), 1553–73.Google Scholar

Crystal, T. H. & House, A. S. (1988b). A note on the durations of fricatives in American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84(5), 1932–5.Google Scholar

Davidson, L. (2011). Characteristics of stop releases in American English spontaneous speech. Speech Communication, 53(8), 1042–58.CrossRef Google Scholar

Davidson, L. (2016). Variability in the implementation of voicing in American English obstruents. Journal of Phonetics, 54, 35–50.Google Scholar

Davidson, L. (2018). Phonation and laryngeal specification in American English voiceless obstruents. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 48(3), 331–56.Google Scholar

Dilley, L. C. & Pitt, M. A. (2007). A study of regressive place assimilation in spontaneous speech and its implications for spoken word recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122(4), 2340–53.Google Scholar

Ernestus, M. & Warner, N. (2011). An introduction to reduced pronunciation variants. Journal of Phonetics, 39(SI), 253–60.Google Scholar

Ernestus, M., Baayen, H. & Schreuder, R. (2002). The recognition of reduced word forms. Brain and Language, 81(1–3), 162–73.Google Scholar

Ernestus, M., Kouwenhoven, H. & Van Mulken, M. (2017). The direct and indirect effects of the phonotactic constraints in the listener’s native language on the comprehension of reduced and unreduced word pronunciation variants in a foreign language. Journal of Phonetics, 62, 50–64.Google Scholar

Gahl, S., Yao, Y. & Johnson, K. (2012). Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4), 789–806.Google Scholar

Gick, B. (1999). A gesture-based account of intrusive consonants in English. Phonology, 16(1), 29–54.CrossRef Google Scholar

Godfrey, J. J., Holliman, E. C. & McDaniel, J. (1992). SWITCHBOARD: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. In Proceedings of ICASSP-92: 1992 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (Vol. 1, pp. 517–20).Google Scholar

Greenberg, S. (1999). Speaking in shorthand: A syllable-centric perspective for understanding pronunciation variation. Speech Communication, 29(2–4), 159–76.Google Scholar

Hanique, I., Ernestus, M. & Schuppler, B. (2013). Informal speech processes can be categorical in nature, even if they affect many different words. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133(3), 1644–55.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Johnson, K. (2004). Massive reduction in conversational American English. In Spontaneous Speech: Data and Analysis. Proceedings of the 1st Session of the 10th International Symposium, pp. 29–54.Google Scholar

Kharlamov, V. (2014). Incomplete neutralization of the voicing contrast in word-final obstruents in Russian: Phonological, lexical, and methodological influences. Journal of Phonetics, 43, 47–56.Google Scholar

Kharlamov, V. (2015). Perception of incompletely neutralized voicing cues in word-final obstruents: The role of differences in production context. Laboratory Phonology, 6(2), 147–65.Google Scholar

Kiefte, M. & Nearey, T. M. (2017). Modeling consonant-context effects in a large database of spontaneous speech recordings. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 142(1), 434–43.Google Scholar

Koopmans-van Beinum, F. J. (1980). Vowel Contrast Reduction: An Acoustic and Perceptual Study of Dutch Vowels in Various Speech Conditions. Amsterdam: Academische Press B.V.Google Scholar

Kuo, C. & Weismer, G. (2016). Vowel reduction across tasks for male speakers of American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 140(1), 369–83.Google Scholar

Liu, Y. F., Tseng, S. C. & Jang, J. S. R. (2016). Deriving disyllabic word variants from a Chinese conversational speech corpus. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 140(1), 308–21.Google Scholar PubMed

Mattys, S. L. & Melhorn, J. F. (2007). Sentential, lexical, and acoustic effects on the perception of word boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122(1), 554–67.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Mehta, G. & Cutler, A. (1988). Detection of target phonemes in spontaneous and read speech. Language and Speech, 31, 135–56.Google Scholar

Mitterer, H. & Blomert, L. (2003). Coping with phonological assimilation in speech perception: Evidence for early compensation. Perception & Psychophysics, 65(6), 956–69.Google Scholar

Mitterer, H. & Ernestus, M. (2006). Listeners recover/t/s that speakers reduce: Evidence from/t/-lenition in Dutch. Journal of Phonetics, 34(1), 73–103.Google Scholar

Niebuhr, O. & Kohler, K. J. (2011). Perception of phonetic detail in the identification of highly reduced words. Journal of Phonetics, 39(3), 319–29.CrossRef Google Scholar

Pitt, M. A., Johnson, K., Hume, E., Kiesling, S. & Raymond, W. (2005). The Buckeye Corpus of conversational speech: Labeling conventions and a test of transcriber reliability. Speech Communication, 45(1), 89–95.Google Scholar

Pollack, I. & Pickett, J. M. (1964). Intelligibility of excerpts from fluent speech: Auditory vs. structural context. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 3(1), 79–84.Google Scholar

Smiljanić, R. & Bradlow, A. R. (2005). Production and perception of clear speech in Croatian and English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118(3), 1677–88.Google Scholar

Smiljanić, R. & Bradlow, A. R. (2011). Bidirectional clear speech perception benefit for native and high-proficiency non-native talkers and listeners: Intelligibility and accentedness. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(6), 4020–31.Google Scholar

Spinelli, E., Cutler, A. & McQueen, J. M. (2002). Resolution of liaison for lexical access in French. Revue française de linguistique appliquée, 7(1), 83–96.Google Scholar

Spinelli, E., McQueen, J. M. & Cutler, A. (2003). Processing resyllabified words in French. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(2), 233–54.Google Scholar

Torreira, F., Adda-Decker, M. & Ernestus, M. (2010). The Nijmegen corpus of casual French. Speech Communication, 52(3), 201–12.Google Scholar

Tuinman, A., Mitterer, H. & Cutler, A. (2011). Perception of intrusive/r/in English by native, cross-language and cross-dialect listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(3), 1643–52.Google Scholar

Vasilyeva, L., Arnhold, A. & Järvikivi, J. (2016). Phonetic correlates of phonological vowel quantity in Yakut read and spontaneous speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 139(5), 2541–50.Google Scholar

Warner, N. (2011). Reduction. In van Oostendorp, M., Ewen, C., Hume, E. & Rice, K., eds., The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Warner, N. (2012). Methods for studying spontaneous speech. In Cohn, A., Fougeron, C. & Huffman, M., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Laboratory Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 621–33.Google Scholar

Warner, N. & Tucker, B. V. (2011). Phonetic variability of stops and flaps in spontaneous and careful speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(3), 1606–17.Google Scholar

Warner, N., Jongman, A., Sereno, J. & Kemps, R. (2004). Incomplete neutralization and other sub-phonemic durational differences in production and perception: Evidence from Dutch. Journal of Phonetics, 32(2), 251–76.Google Scholar

Warner, N., Good, E., Jongman, A. & Sereno, J. (2006). Orthographic vs. morphological incomplete neutralization effects. Journal of Phonetics, 34(2), 285–93.Google Scholar

Zimmerer, F., Reetz, H. & Lahiri, A. (2009). Place assimilation across words in running speech: Corpus analysis and perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125(4), 2307–22.Google Scholar