Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2018 / Auditory disruption improves word segmentation: A functional basis for lenition phenomena

Auditory disruption improves word segmentation: A functional basis for lenition phenomena

Paper · 2018 · Jonah Katz and Melinda Fricke

Summary

The paper asks whether lenition, where consonants are weaker or more vowel-like inside words than at their edges, actually helps listeners. It tests this with an artificial-language word segmentation task. Adult American English speakers heard about ten minutes of continuous synthesized speech built from nonce words. In each condition the stream either followed a common lenition pattern or its mirror image, an "anti-lenition" pattern unattested across languages. Two patterns were studied: spirantization (stops at word onset, approximant-like continuants word-medially, e.g. [ɡuβa] vs. [ɣuba]) and obstruent voicing (voiceless onsets, voiced medial obstruents).

Spirantization clearly improved segmentation over the inverse pattern. Voicing produced no reliable difference. The authors argue that English does not show spirantization in these contexts, so the advantage likely reflects general auditory grouping rather than transfer from the native language. The results give partial support to Katz's (2016) boundary-disruption theory, under which disruptive sounds mark constituent edges and smooth sounds mark their interiors. The study also shows that segmentation tasks can probe perceptual "disruption."

Key points

  • Typological motivation: Gurevich's survey finds spirantization-type lenition in a total of 76 languages, while voicing lenition appears in 39. Intervocalic position is the most frequent trigger for both.
  • Design: each lenition pattern was paired with an inverted control language. There were spirantization conditions (Spir1, Spir2) versus anti-spirantization, and voicing versus anti-voicing.
  • Result: spirantization helped segmentation substantially. Both voicing conditions performed at roughly the anti-spirantization level.
  • A small subgroup with extensive experience of a similar spirantization pattern scored about 88% (spirantization) vs. 53% (anti). The remaining participants scored about 83% vs. 66%, so the effect was larger with prior experience but still present without it.
  • Raw data are released as tab-delimited files (DataX1.txt for spirantization, DataX2.txt for voicing) with a field explanation file. A replication with West Virginia schoolchildren was underway.

Interesting ideas

  • I1. Each real pattern is compared against its exact mirror image, so the same segments appear in both conditions and only their position differs; this isolates positional structure from segment content.
  • I2. Boundaries are treated as points of maximal disruption in an otherwise continuous stream, with constituents defined by internal smoothness, in the spirit of Gestalt grouping.
  • I3. The authors rebut the "prior Spanish exposure" explanation by deriving its consequences for another condition (voicing should also have benefited) and showing those consequences fail.
  • I4. Results are split by how much relevant prior experience participants had, showing the effect grows with exposure but survives without it.
  • I5. A null result for one manipulation (voicing) is reported alongside the positive one and treated as information about which phonetic properties matter.

For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

  • I1 (learn): Evaluations of repair rules or parser features could include position-swapped or role-swapped controls, so a gain is credited only if it disappears when the structure is inverted.
  • I2 (tokens): Sentence and clause splitting for messy text could score candidate breaks by how sharply local cues change between adjacent spans, rather than relying on fixed punctuation lists alone.
  • I3 (answer): When a reader commits to an explanation of a story event, it could check that explanation's side predictions elsewhere in the text and drop it if they are contradicted.
  • I4 (learn): Evaluation could be stratified by how close test items are to the silver training data, to separate memorized patterns from genuinely general ones.
  • I5 (learn): Keeping a log of features or rules that did not help, with the conditions tested, would stop the same dead ends being retried and sharpen which cues matter for each stage.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

 Institutions

🎓University of PittsburghPittsburgh · United States65 works · 23,401 citations🎓West Virginia UniversityMorgantown · United States2 works · 21 citations

 Fields, topics and concepts

📚 Shelves 5The field of science this work belongs to (OpenAlex fields).Arts and Humanities · 17,450 worksLanguage and Linguistics · 17,296 worksPsychology · 1,649 worksExperimental and Cognitive Psychology · 930 worksDevelopmental and Educational Psychology · 523 works

🧭 Topics 1Research subjects and languages the work is about.Tokenization & segmentation · 124 works

Cite

Cite as Jonah Katz and Melinda Fricke. 2018. Auditory disruption improves word segmentation: A functional basis for lenition phenomena. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.5334/gjgl.443

@article{katz2018auditory,
  title = {{Auditory disruption improves word segmentation: A functional basis for lenition phenomena}},
  author = {Jonah Katz and Melinda Fricke},
  journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
  year = {2018},
  doi = {10.5334/gjgl.443},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.443}
}

References

61 references, 2 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Armstrong, Blair C., Ram Frost & Morten H. Christiansen. 2017. The long road of statistical learning research: Past, present and future. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 372. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0047 ↗
  2. Bagou, Odile, Cécile Fougeron & Uli Frauenfelder. 2002. Contribution of prosody to the segmentation and storage of “words” in the acquisition of a new mini-language. Presented at Speech Prosody. Aix-En-Provence. find
  3. Barr, Dale, Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers & Harry Tilly. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68. 255–278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 ↗
  4. Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48. ↗
  5. Bauer, Laurie. 1988. What is lenition? Journal of Linguistics 24. 381–392. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222670001183X Borgman, Donald. 1990. Sanuma. In Desmond Derbyshire & Geoff Pullum (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages II. 15–248. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ↗
  6. Bouavichith, Dominique. 2014. Segmental and prosodic effects on intervocalic voiceless stop lenition in connected speech. New York: New York University BA Thesis. find
  7. Bouavichith, Dominique & Lisa Davidson. 2013. Segmental and prosodic effects on intervocalic voiced stop reduction in connected speech. Phonetica 70. 182–206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000355635 ↗
  8. Chong, Adam. 2011. Lenition in Gaalpu: an Optimality Theoretic analysis. Australian Journal of Linguistics 31. 473–490. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2011. 625601 Cohen Priva, Uriel. 2017. Informativity and the actuation of lenition. Language 93(3). 569–597. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2017.0037 ↗
  9. Cooper, Franklin, Pierre Delattre, Alvin Liberman, John Borst & Louis Gerstman. 1952. Some experiments on the perception of synthetic speech sounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 24. 597–606. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1906940 ↗
  10. De Jong, Kenneth. 2011. Flapping in American English. In Marc Oostendorp, Colin Ewen & Elizabeth Hume (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, 2711–2729. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444335262. wbctp0113 Donegan, Patricia & David Stampe. 1979. The study of Natural Phonology. In Daniel Dinnsen (ed.), Current approaches to phonological theory, 126–173. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. ↗
  11. Ennever, Thomas, Felicity Meakins & Erich Round. 2017. A replicable acoustic measure of lenition and the nature of variability in Gurindji stops. Laboratory Phonology 8(1). 1–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/labphon.18 ↗
  12. Fisher, Cynthia & Hisayo Tokura. 1996. Acoustic cues to grammatical structure in infant‐directed speech: Cross‐linguistic evidence. Child Development 67(6). 3192– 3218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1131774 ↗
  13. Frank, Michael, Sharon Goldwater, Thomas Griffiths & Joshua Tenenbaum. 2010. Modeling human performance in statistical word segmentation. Cognition 117. 107–125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.07.005 ↗
  14. Gleitman, Lila R. & Eric Wanner. 1982. Language acquisition: the state of the art. In Eric Wanner & Lila Gleitman (eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art, 3–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  15. Gurevich, Naomi. 2003. Functional constraints on phonetically conditioned sound changes. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois dissertation. find
  16. Harris, John. 2003. Grammar-internal and grammar-external assimilation. In Maria Josep Solé, Daniel Recasens & Joaquín Romero (eds.), Proceedings of the 15 th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 281–294. Barcelona: Futurgraphic. find
  17. Haugen, Einar. 1938. Notes on “voiced t” in American English. Dialect Notes 6. 627– 634. find
  18. Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. find
  19. Hayes, John R. & Herbert H. Clark. 1970. Experiments in the segmentation of an artificial speech analog. Cognition and the Development of Language, 221–234. find
  20. Honeybone, Patrick. 2008. Lenition, weakening, and consonantal strength: Tracing concepts through the history of phonology. In Joaquim Brandão de Carvalho, Tobias Scheer & Philippe Ségéral (eds.), Lenition and fortition, 9–93. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. find
  21. Hualde, José, Miquel Simonet & Marianna Nadeu. 2011. Consonant lenition and phonological recategorization. Laboratory Phonology 2. 301–329. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/labphon.2011.011 Hunyadi, László. 2006. Grouping, the cognitive basis of recursion in language. Argumentum 2. 67–114. ↗
  22. Hyman, Larry. 1972. A phonological study of Fe’fe’-Bamileke. Los Angeles, CA: University of California dissertation. find
  23. Jeon, Hae-Sung & Francis Nolan. 2013. The role of pitch and timing cues in the perception of phrasal grouping in Seoul Korean. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 133(5). 3039–3049. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4798663 ↗
  24. Johnson, Elizabeth & Peter Jusczyk. 2001. Word segmentation by 8-month-olds: When speech cues count more than statistics. Journal of Memory & Language 44(4). 548–567. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2755 ↗
  25. Jusczyk, Peter, Elizabeth Hohne & Angela Bauman. 1999. Infants’ sensitivity to allophonic cues for word segmentation. Perception and Psychophysics 61. 1465–1476. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213111 ↗
  26. Kahn, Daniel. 1976. Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. find
  27. Katz, Jonah. 2016. Lenition, perception, and neutralisation. Phonology 33(1). 43–85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675716000038 ↗
  28. Kawahara, Shigeto. 2006. A faithfulness ranking projected from a perceptibility scale: The case of [+voice] in Japanese. Language 82. 536–574. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/ lan.2006.0146 Keating, Patricia. 2006. Phonetic encoding of prosodic structure. In Jonathan Harrington & Marija Tabain (eds.), Speech production: Models, phonetic processes, and techniques, 167–186. New York: Psychology Press. ↗
  29. Kentner, Gerrit & Caroline Féry. 2013. A new approach to prosodic grouping. The Linguistic Review 30(2). 277–311. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2013-0009 ↗
  30. Kim, Sahyang. 2004. The role of prosodic phrasing in Korean word segmentation. Los A ngeles, CA: University of California dissertation. find
  31. Kingston, John. 2008. Lenition. In Laura Colantoni & Jeffrey Steele (eds.), Proceedings of the 3 rd Conference on Laboratory Approaches to Spanish Phonology, 1–31. Somerville: Cascadilla. find
  32. Kirchner, Robert. 1998. An effort-based approach to consonant lenition. Los Angeles, CA: University of California dissertation. find
  33. Klatt, Dennis & Laura Klatt. 1990. Analysis, synthesis, and perception of voice q uality variations among female and male talkers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 87. 820–857. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.398894 ↗
  34. Ladd, D. Robert & Jim Scobbie. 2003. External sandhi as gestural overlap? Counter-evidence from Sardinian. In John Local, Richard Ogden & Rosalind Temple (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology VI, 164–182. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. find
  35. Lavoie, Lisa. 2001. Consonant strength: Phonological patterns and phonetic manifestations. New York: Garland. find
  36. Lisker, Leigh. 1957. Closure duration and the intervocalic voiced-voiceless distinction in English. Language 33. 42–49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/410949 ↗
  37. Lisker, Leigh. 1978. Rapid vs. rabid: A catalogue of acoustic features that may cue the distinction. In Haskins Laboratories status report on speech research, SR-54, 127–132. New Haven, CT: Haskins Laboratories. find
  38. Lisker, Leigh & Arthur Abramson. 1964. A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: Acoustical measurements. Word 20. 384–422. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0043795 6.1964.11659830 Luce, Paul A. & Jan Charles-Luce. 1985. Contextual effects on vowel duration, closure duration, and the consonant/vowel ratio in speech production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 78. 1949–1957. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.392651 ↗
  39. Mareschal, Denis & Robert M. French. 2017. TRACX2: A connectionist autoencoder using graded chunks to model infant visual statistical learning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 372. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0057 ↗
  40. Mathôt, Sebastian, Daniel Schreij & Jan Theeuwes. 2012. OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods 44(2). 314–324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0168-7 ↗
  41. Nakatani, Lloyd & Kathleen Dukes. 1977. Locus of segmental cues for word juncture. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 62. 714–719. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.381583 ↗
  42. Parker, Steve. 2002. Quantifying the sonority hierarchy. Amherst, MA: UMass dissertation. find
  43. Romero, Joaquín. 1996. Gestural organization in Spanish: An experimental study of spirantization and aspiration. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation. find
  44. Saffran, Jenny, Elissa Newport & Richard Aslin. 1996b. Word segmentation: The role of distributional cues. Journal of Memory & Language 35(4). 606–621. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.0032 Saffran, Jenny, Richard Aslin & Elissa Newport. 1996a. Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 274. 1926–1928. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.274.5294.1926 ↗
  45. Scharf, Donald. 1960. Distinctiveness of “voiced t” words. American Speech 35. 105–109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/453733 ↗
  46. Ségéral, Philippe & Tobias Scheer. 2008. Positional factors in lenition and fortition. In Joaquim Brandão de Carvalho, Tobias Scheer & Philippe Ségéral (eds.), Lenition and fortition, 131–172. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. find
  47. Sheldon, D. R. 1973. A short experimental investigation of the phonological view of the writer – rider contrast in U.S. English. Journal of Phonetics 1. 339–346. find
  48. Smith, Jennifer. 2008. Markedness, faithfulness, positions, and contexts: Lenition and fortition in Optimality Theory. In Joaquim Brandão de Carvalho, Tobias Scheer & Philippe Ségéral (eds.), Lenition and fortition, 519–560. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ↗
  49. Szigetvári, Péter. 2008. What and where? In Joaquim Brandão de Carvalho, Tobias Scheer & Philippe Ségéral (eds.), Lenition and fortition, 93–130. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ↗
  50. Trager, George & Henry Smith. 1951. An outline of English structure. Norman, OK: Battenburg Press. find
  51. Turk, Alice. 1992. The American English flapping rule and the effect of stress on stop consonant durations. Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 7. 103–133. ↗
  52. Tyler, Michael D. & Anne Cutler. 2009. Cross-language differences in cue use for speech segmentation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126(1). 367–376. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3129127 ↗
  53. Umeda, Noriko. 1977. Consonant duration in American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 61. 846–858. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.381374 ↗
  54. Walter, Mary Ann. 2007. Repetition avoidance in human language. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. find
  55. Warner, Natasha & Benjamin Tucker. 2011. Phonetic variability of stops and flaps in spontaneous and careful speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 130(3). 1606–1617. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3621306 ↗
  56. Wertheimer, Max. 1938 [English translation of 1923 essay]. Laws of organization in perceptual forms. In Willis Ellis (ed.), A source book of Gestalt psychology, 71–88. London: Routledge. find
  57. Wightman, Colin, Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel, Mari Ostendorf & Patti Price. 1992. Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 91(3). 1707–1717. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.402450 ↗
  58. Zue, Victor & Martha Laferriere. 1979. Acoustic study of medial /t, d/ in American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 66. 1039–1050. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.383323 ↗
  59. How to cite this article: Katz, Jonah and Melinda Fricke. 2018. Auditory disruption improves word segmentation: A functional basis for lenition phenomena. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3(1): 38. 1–25, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.443 ↗
  60. Accepted: 09 January 2018 find
  61. Copyright: © 2018 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics is a peer-reviewed open access journal published by Ubiquity Press. OPEN ACCESS ↗

Updated

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/katz-2018-auditory-disruption-improves-word-segmentation/