The influence of phonotactics and phonological similarity on speech production

Abstract

Phonotactic probability refers to the frequency with which segments and sequences of segments appear in a word or syllable. Neighborhood density refers to the number of words that are phonologically similar to a target word. These variables have been shown to influence word recognition, but little work has examined how these variables influence speech production. Although these two variables are positively correlated in English, words that varied orthogonally on these characteristics were selected and presented in a picture-naming task to assess the speed and accuracy of lexical retrieval during speech production. The results suggest that both facilitative and competitive processes operate during lexical retrieval in speech production. The implications for models of speech production are discussed. [Work funded by NIH-NIDCD R03 DC 04259.]

The ageing neighbourhood: phonological density in naming

“…A. H. D. Chan, Chan, & Vitevitch, 2010; Vitevitch, 2002a; Vitevitch et al, 2004). One difference might be that most of the adult studies have been conducted with undergraduates, almost always from introductory psychology courses.…”

“…Middleton & Schwartz, 2011; Perez, 2007), or by analyzing small sets of tightly controlled stimuli. Vitevitch (2002a) demonstrated facilitative effects of density in picture naming by younger adults, even when other lexical variables (frequency, neighbourhood frequency, familiarity, and phonotactic probability) were held relatively constant. Perez (2007) replicated this facilitative effect, this time in Spanish-speaking young adults.…”

“…The larger this ‘neighborhood’ is, the more difficult it is to recognize a word (Luce & Pisoni, 1998). In word production, paradoxically, having more neighbors may make a word easier to produce (Gordon, 2002; Vitevitch, 2002a). A number of hypotheses have been proposed to account for these apparently contradictory findings, but there has been little effort to reconcile them within the same explanatory framework (but see Chen & Mirman, 2012; Dell & Gordon, 2003).…”

“…Although the effects of phonological neighborhood density in word production are widely cited to be facilitative, there have only been only a few studies of non-brain-damaged adults which show robust facilitation effects (most notably Perez, 2007; and Vitevitch, 2002a, Experiment 4), and several which call this result into question (e.g. Frank et al, 2007; Newman & German, 2005; Sadat et al, submitted; Vitevitch et al, 2004).…”

“…However, addressing this issue in the typical way, by using small sets of tightly controlled stimuli (e.g. Garlock, Walley, & Metsala, 2001; Mirman, Kittredge, & Dell, 2010; Vitevitch, 2002a, 2003; Vitevitch et al, 2004; Vitevitch & Rodriguez, 2005; Vitevitch & Stamer, 2006; Vitevitch, Stamer, & Sereno, 2008) may carry its own problems, as this accentuates the impact of item-specific stimulus characteristics, and may reduce the replicability of the findings (cf. Baus et al, 2008; Spieler & Balota, 2000; Vitevitch & Stamer, 2006).…”