The current research explores the role of lexical representations and processing in the recognition of phonological variants. Two alternative approaches for variant recognition are considered: a representational approach that posits frequency-graded lexical representations for variant forms and inferential processes that mediate between the spoken variant and the lexical representation. In a lexical decision task (Experiment 1) and in a phoneme identification task (Experiment 2) using real words, low-frequency variants, but not high-frequency variants, show improved recognition rates following additional experience with the variants. This knowledge generalized to novel variant forms. Experiment 3 replicated these results using an artificial lexicon and showed that recognition of low-frequency variants was influenced by similarity to a high-frequency variant form. Similarity to a high-frequency variant alone, however, was insufficient to explain recognition of the infrequent variants (Experiments 4 and 5). The results support a hybrid account of variant recognition that relies on both multiple frequency-graded representations and inference processes.
AllopennaP. D.MagnusonJ. S.TanenhausM. K. (1998). Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 419–439.
2.
BaayenR.H.PiepenbrockR.RlijnH. (1993). The CELEX Lexical Data Base on CD-ROM.
3.
ConnineC.M.CliftonC.Jr. (1987). Interactive use of lexical information in speech perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 291–299.
4.
ConnineC. M. (2004). It’s not what you hear but how often you hear it: On the neglected role of phonological variant frequency in auditory word recognition. Psychological Bulletin and Review, 11, 1084–1089.
5.
ConnineC. M.PinnowE. (2006). Phonological variation in spoken word recognition: Episodes and abstractions. The Linguistic Review, 23, 235–245.
6.
ConnineC. M.RanbomL.PattersonD. (2008). On the representation of phonological variant frequency in spoken word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 403–411.
7.
CreelS. C.AslinR. N.TanenhausM. K. (2006). Acquiring an artificial lexicon: Segment type and order information in early lexical entries. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 1–19.
8.
CutlerA.WeberA. (2007). Listening experience and phonetic-to-lexical mapping in L2. In TrouvainJ.BarryW. J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS 2007) (pp. 43–48). Dudweiler, Germany: Pirrot.
9.
FrancisW.KuceraH. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
10.
GaskellM. G.DumayN. (2003). Lexical competition and the acquisition of novel words. Cognition, 89, 105–132.
11.
GaskellM. G.Marslen-WilsonW. D. (1998). Mechanisms of phonological inference in speech perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 380–396.
12.
GoldingerS. (1998). Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review, 105, 251–279.
13.
HazanV. (2007). Second language acquisition and exemplar theory. In TrouvainJ.BarryW. J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS 2007) (pp. 43–48). Dudweiler, Germany: Pirrot.
14.
JohnsonK. (1997) Speech perception without speaker normalization: An exemplar model. In JohnsonMullennix (Eds.), Talker variability in speech processing (pp. 145–165). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
15.
LoCastoP. C.ConnineC. M. (2002). Rule-governed missing information in spoken word recognition: Schwa vowel deletion. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 208–219.
16.
MacmillanN. A.CreelmanC. D. (2005). Detection theory: A users guide (2nd edition). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17.
MagnusonJ. S.TanenhausM. K.AslinR. N.DahanD. (2003). The time course of spoken word recognition and learning: Studies with artificial lexicons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 202–227.
18.
McLennanC.LuceP. A.Charles-LuceJ. (2003.) Representation of lexical form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, 29, 539–553.
19.
PattersonD.LoCastoP. C.ConnineC. M. (2003). A corpus analysis of schwa vowel deletion frequency in American English. Phonetica, 60, 45–68.
20.
PierrehumbertJ. B. (2003). Phonetic diversity, statistical learning and acquisition of phonology. Language and Speech, 46, 115–154.
21.
PierrehumbertJ. B. (2006a). The next toolkit. Journal of Phonetics, 34, 516–530.
22.
PierrehumbertJ. B. (2006b). The statistical basis of an unnatural alternation. In GoldsteinL.WhalenD. H.BestC. (Eds.), Laboratory phonology VIII, varieties of phonological competence (pp. 81–107). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
23.
PittM. A. (2009). How are pronunciation variants of spoken words recognized? A test of generalization to newly learned words. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 19–36.
24.
RanbomL. R.ConnineC. M. (2007). Lexical representation of phonological variation. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 273–298.
25.
SalasooA.ShiffrinR. M.FeustelT. C. (1985). Building permanent memory codes: Codification and repetition effects in word identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 50–77.
26.
SumnerM.SamuelA. G. (2005). Perception and representation of regular variation: The case of final-/t/. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 322–338.
27.
SumnerM.SamuelA. G. (2009). The effect of experience on the perception and representation of dialect variants. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 487–501.
28.
TamminenJ.GaskellM. G. (2008). Newly learned spoken words show long-term lexical competition effects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 361–371.
29.
TanenhausM. K.MagnusonJ. S.DahanD.ChambersC. (2000). Eye movements and lexical access in spoken-language comprehension: Evaluating a linking hypothesis between fixations and linguistic processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 557–580.
