VOT and word duration: effects of frequency
Main Point
This study investigates how voice onset
time (VOT) and word duration are affected
by lexical frequency for words read in
isolation and in phrasal context. The VOT is
shorter for hi frequency words in phrasal
context, and the word duration is shorter for
both hi frequency words and for words in
phrasal context.
hi-frequency
lo-frequency
phrasal context
isolated context
73.8
77.8
71.6
79.9
change in
duration (ms)
−4.0 ms
−8.3 ms
change in
duration (%)
−5.2 %
−10.4 %
average
duration (ms)
hi-frequency
lo-frequency
phrasal context
isolated context
378.3
399.9
311.3
466.9
change in
duration (ms)
−21.6 ms
−155.6 ms
change in
duration (%)
−5.4 %
−33.3 %
Results can be accounted for in a usage-based
model (e.g., exemplar, prototype), but pose
substantial theoretical and implementation
problems for a traditional linguistic model.
Background
1. The traditional linguistic model depends on
a. discrete, invariant features
b. economy of linguistic/phonetic features
c. lexical representation similar to orthography
d. a 'competence' versus 'performance' dichotomy
2. The traditional model does not systematically account for
variation due to any of the following:
a. non-Neogrammarian diachronic sound or lexical change
(Labov 1981, Phillips 1984)
b. sociolinguistic factors such as language contact (MeyersScotton 2002), ethnography (Eckert 2000)
c. timing, rhythm, prosody (Browman and Goldstein 1992,
Hayes 1995, Goldinger and Azuma 2003, Port 2003)
d. tone and related prosodic phenomena (Goldsmith 1976)
e. linguistic context: phonological (Luce 1985), syntactic
(Gahl and Garnsey 2004), metrical (Hayes 1995), syllabic
(Davis 1984)
f. effects of type and token usage frequency (Bloomfield 1884,
Francis and Kučera 1982, Bybee 2001)
3. The factors above have been observed in several domains:
quality (vowels, voicing, etc), alteration (truncation, substitution,
assimilation, metathesis, etc), and quantity (elision, shortening,
etc)—but relatively little literature on VOT.
480
lo-frequency (≤1)
tusk
toque
tab
tort
tuft
tier
taint
tights
taupe
tint
tyke
toil
talc
tote
tiff
tinge
teak
tongs
tome
tine
85
80
78.9
76.7
75
phrasal
isolation
70
66.6
65
medially in partially redundant phrases:
phrasal
isolation
360
270
327.4
1, 949
.355
.552
context
1, 949
57.74
<.001
context * frequency
3, 949
31.40
<.001
ANOVA
Word duration
all Talkers
d.f.
F-value
p-value
frequency
context
1, 949
1, 949
14.87
706.85
.001
<.001
context * frequency
3, 949
2.63
.105
p-value
lo-frequency
hi-frequency
Talker-2
lo-frequency
Talker-1
Talker-2
100
100
95
95
90
90
480
480
85
85
450
450
80
80
524.4
98.3
510
92.3
75.3
75
71.5
70
65
64.5
510
505.7
55
77.8
75
70
420
390
360
330
60
TALKERS:
54.9
497.3
92.6
65
60
506.8
390
360.4
360
References
306.3
300
277.9
50
50
hi-frequency
-4 talkers: 2 male (age 24, 54), 2 female (age 19, 55)
-native English with no obvious regional dialect
-all report normal hearing and speech
lo-frequency
270
hi-frequency
Talker-3
MEASUREMENTS: based on waveform, spectral
lo-frequency
270
hi-frequency
Talker-4
100
100
95
95
lo-frequency
hi-frequency
lo-frequency
Talker-4
Talker-3
510
510
489.7
90
representations, and audio playback. Accuracy was
confirmed via random subset sampling.
480
480
90
461.0
85
85
80
80
75
69.7
70
65
70.5
68.5
83.2
79.7
79.8
75
70
70.1
65
63.5
60
60
55
55
450
420
390
380.4
377.5
360
450
420
390
360
330
330
300
295.3
351.0
318.5
300
278.1
50
50
hi-frequency
lo-frequency
270
270
hi-frequency
lo-frequency
hi-frequency
lo-frequency
3. Since frequency information is apparently
stored with each lexical item, these effects
support a "usage-based model" that records
frequency information in memory.
420
330
300
55
1. The duration of hi-frequency words is slightly
shorter than lo-frequency words (about 5%), and
much shorter in phrasal context than in isolation
(about 30%).
2. The VOT of hi-frequency words is not
systematically shorter, but was shorter by 18%,
or about 12 ms, in phrasal context. We do not
know why.
295.2
303.8
Word duration was measured from release of the
word-initial stop consonant to the final glottal pulse (if
ending in a voiced segment) or release burst (if ending
in voiceless segment).
frequency
F-value
Conclusions
390
50
Talker-1
mixed blocks. Trials consisted of a word or phrase, a
1600 ms of silence, a tone, and the talker's production.
VOT was measured from release of the stop
consonant to onset of voicing.
d.f.
420
300
hi-frequency
PROCEDURE: materials randomly presented in
450
55
knowing test materials will help you pass
any town in that country is small
every tome by that author is difficult reading
oily teak is highly prized in Washington
20 lo-frequency tokens (×8 repetitions)
+ 10 hi-frequency tokens (×8 repetitions)
× 4 talkers
960 total tokens
ANOVA
VOT
all Talkers
474.2
330
60
SAMPLE PHRASAL CONTEXT: target words
TOTAL CORPUS:
items in red are significant, p<.05
461.4
80.9
MATERIALS:
times
tell
town
talk
test
ten
table
take
teeth
too
510
90
Methods
hi-frequency (>100)
Word
Duration
95
word duration
Word Length (ms)
VOT
average
duration (ms)
VOT
Word Length (ms)
Summary of results:
100
Word Length (ms)
venom can taint the blood supply
1. Is VOT shorter in high frequency
words?
2. Is overall word duration shorter in
high frequency words?
3. Is the frequency effect the same
for words read in phrasal context
as in words in isolation?
Word Length(ms)
a fancy table is made of oak
Results
Word Length (ms)
phrasal context
Research Questions:
VOT (ms)
taint
Acoustical Society of America
5pSC33
Vancouver, BC, May 2005
VOT (ms)
table
Department of Linguistics, Indiana University
VOT (ms)
isolation
mvandam@indiana.edu, port@indiana.edu
VOT (ms)
lo-frequency
Mark VanDam & Robert Port
VOT (ms)
hi-frequency
Statistical Reports
hi-frequency
lo-frequency
Bloomfield, M. 1884. On the probability of the existence of phonetic law. American Journal of
Philology V.
Browman, C. P., and Goldstein, L. M. 1992. "Articulatory phonology: an overview". Phonetica
49:159-180.
Bybee, J. 2001. Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 94. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Davis, S. 1984. "Some Implications of Onset-Coda Constraints For Syllable Phonology." CLS
20 (Part One): 46-51.
Eckert, P. 2000. Linguistic Variation as Social Practice. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell.
Francis, W. N., and Kučera, H. 1982. Frequency Analysis of English Usage. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Gahl, S., and Garnsey, S. M. 2004. "Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: syntactic
probabilities affect pronunciation variation". Language 80:748-775.
Goldinger, S. D., and Azuma, T. 2003. "Puzzle-solving science: the quixotic quest for units in
speech perception". Journal of Phonetics 31:305-320.
Hayes, B. 1995. Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Huckvale, M. 2005. ProRec 1.01: Speech Prompt and Record System: University College
London.
Labov, W. 1981. "Resolving the Neogrammarian controversy". Language 57:267-308.
Luce, P.A. 1985. Structural distinctions between high and low frequency words in auditory word
recognition. unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.
Meyers-Scotton, C. 2002. Contact Linguistics: Bilingual Encounters and Grammatical Outcomes.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Phillips, B. 1984. "Word frequency and the actuation of sound change". Language 60: 320-342.
Port, R. 2003. "Meter and Speech". Journal of Phonetics 31: 599-611.