Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2024 / Apparent-time variation in the use of multiple cues for perception of anticipatory nasal coarticulation in California English

Apparent-time variation in the use of multiple cues for perception of anticipatory nasal coarticulation in California English

Paper · 2024 · Georgia Zellou and Michelle Cohn

Summary

Zellou and Cohn ask whether Californians of different ages draw on the same acoustic evidence when they hear a vowel that anticipates an upcoming nasal consonant. Earlier work had found that some younger California speakers barely nasalize such vowels. In the experiment, 89 listeners aged 18–58 were split into three birth-year cohorts. They heard syllables cut from CVN and CVC words, with the final consonant removed, and had to guess which word was meant. The six talkers were taken from Zellou (2022): three produced heavy anticipatory coarticulation and three produced very little. Coarticulation showed up as more nasality, a wider F1 bandwidth and more diphthongization.

Every age group was near ceiling on the extensive talkers and on oral vowels. For the minimal talkers' nasalized vowels, accuracy was worst among the oldest listeners and rose in younger cohorts. Cue-weighting models explain the gap: older listeners leaned on F1 bandwidth, and younger ones leaned on acoustic nasality. The authors read this as gradual perceptual cue reweighting across generations. They see it as a possible route to sound change, not as simple misperception.

Key points

  • The study used 89 listeners aged 18–58, grouped into three apparent-time categories by year of birth.
  • Stimuli came from six California English undergraduate talkers aged 18–20 reading words. Three were "Minimal Coarticulators" and three were "Extensive Coarticulators", a classification taken from Zellou (2022).
  • Three coarticulatory cues were analysed: vowel nasalization, F1 bandwidth and diphthongization. Measurements from several time points within each vowel were collapsed into one value, and the authors list this as a limitation.
  • The only condition that separated the age groups was the Minimal Coarticulators' nasalized vowels. Accuracy there rose from older to younger listeners, while all other conditions were at ceiling.
  • Data, models and code are on OSF (doi 10.17605/OSF.IO/E5BW2). The work was funded by NSF grant BCS-2140183.

Interesting ideas

  • I1. The coda was cut off so listeners could rely only on anticipatory cues, which shows what they can infer once the explicit trigger is gone.
  • I2. Because most conditions sat at ceiling, the age differences only became visible in the single hard condition built from innovative talkers.
  • I3. Rather than reporting accuracy alone, the authors estimated how heavily each acoustic cue drove each group's decisions, revealing different strategies behind similar outcomes.
  • I4. Younger listeners coped with both the old and the new pronunciation patterns because their cue weighting was more flexible, while older listeners failed on the new variant.

For Mova

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

  • I1 (learn): Use "remove the explicit marker" stimuli as negative controls, for example deleting a conjunction or case cue, to see whether a component truly uses the redundant earlier evidence.
  • I2 (answer): Report accuracy separately on a deliberately difficult slice, such as unusual phrasings, so that all-at-ceiling aggregate scores do not hide real differences between system versions.
  • I3 (tree): Compare feature-weight profiles of the perceptron parser and gparse, or of different training rounds, to explain why they diverge on particular constructions.
  • I4 (tokens): Test the tagger and lemmatizer on both conservative and innovative variants of word forms, so that over-reliance on a single cue does not break recognition of newer usage.

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 California, DavisDavis · United States28 works · 41,916 citations

 Fields, topics and concepts

📚 Shelves 4The field of science this work belongs to (OpenAlex fields).Arts and Humanities · 16,039 worksLanguage and Linguistics · 15,891 worksPsychology · 1,552 worksExperimental and Cognitive Psychology · 870 works

🧭 Topics 1Research subjects and languages the work is about.English · 2,263 works

Cite

Cite as Georgia Zellou and Michelle Cohn. 2024. Apparent-time variation in the use of multiple cues for perception of anticipatory nasal coarticulation in California English. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.16995/glossa.10831

@article{zellou2024apparent,
  title = {{Apparent-time variation in the use of multiple cues for perception of anticipatory nasal coarticulation in California English}},
  author = {Georgia Zellou and Michelle Cohn},
  journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
  year = {2024},
  doi = {10.16995/glossa.10831},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.10831}
}

References

97 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Ali, Latif & Gallagher, Tanya & Goldstein, Jeffrey & Daniloff, Raymond. 1971. Perception of coarticulated nasality. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 49(2B). 538–540. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1912384 ↗
  2. Arai, Takayuki. 2006. Cue parsing between nasality and breathiness in speech perception. Acoustical science and technology 27(5). 298–301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1250/ast.27.298 ↗
  3. Bailey, Guy. 2002. Real and apparent time. In Chambers, Jack K. & Trudgill, Peter & Schilling-Estes, Natalie (eds.), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, 312–332. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/b.9781405116923.2003.00018.x ↗
  4. Baker, Adam & Archangeli, Diana & Mielke, Jeff. 2011. Variability in American English s-retraction suggests a solution to the actuation problem. Language Variation and Change 23(3). 347–374. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394511000135 ↗
  5. Baker, Adam & Mielke, Jeff & Archangeli, Diana. 2008. More velar than /g/: Consonant coarticulation as a cause of diphthongization. In Proceedings of the 26th West Coast conference on formal linguistics, 60–68. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. find
  6. Barreda, Santiago. 2020. Vowel normalization as perceptual constancy. Language 96(2). 224– 254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2020.0018 ↗
  7. Bates, Douglas & Mächler, Martin & Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steven. 2014. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-7. 2014. find
  8. Becker, Kara & Khan, Sameer ud Dowla & Zimman, Lal. 2022. Beyond binary gender: creaky voice, gender, and the variationist enterprise. Language Variation and Change 34(2). 215–238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394522000138 ↗
  9. Beddor, Patrice S. 1993. The perception of nasal vowels. In Nasals, nasalization, and the velum, 171–196. Academic Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-360380-7.50011-9 ↗
  10. Beddor, Patrice S. 2009. A coarticulatory path to sound change. Language. 785–821. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40492954. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0165 ↗
  11. Beddor, Patrice S. & Coetzee, Andries W. & Styler, Will & McGowan, Kevin B., & Boland, Julie E. 2018. The time course of individuals’ perception of coarticulatory information is linked to their production: Implications for sound change. Language 94(4). 931–968. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2018.0051 ↗
  12. Beddor, Patrice S. & Krakow, Rena A. 1999. Perception of coarticulatory nasalization by speakers of English and Thai: Evidence for partial compensation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106(5). 2868–2887. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.428111 ↗
  13. Beddor, Patrice S. & Krakow, Rena A. & Goldstein, Louis M. 1986. Perceptual constraints and phonological change: A study of nasal vowel height. Phonology Yearbook 3. 197–217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700000646 ↗
  14. Beddor, Patrice S. & McGowan, Keven B. & Boland, Julie E. & Coetzee, Andries W. & Brasher, Anthony. 2013. The time course of perception of coarticulation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 133(4). 2350–2366. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4794366 ↗
  15. Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0010-054F-2 ↗
  16. Blevins, Juliette & Garrett, Andrew. 1993. The evolution of Ponapeic nasal substitution. Oceanic Linguistics 32(2). 199–236. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3623193. DOI: https://doi. org/10.2307/3623193 ↗
  17. Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2018. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0.40, retrieved January 1, 2018 from http://www.praat.org/. ↗
  18. Bongiovanni, Silvina. 2021. Acoustic investigation of anticipatory vowel nasalization in a Caribbean and a non-Caribbean dialect of Spanish. Linguistics Vanguard 7(1). 20200008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2020-0008 ↗
  19. Brotherton, Chloe & Cohn, Michelle & Zellou, Georgia & Barreda, Santiago. 2019. Sub-regional variation in positioning and degree of nasalization of/æ/allophones in California. In Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS 2019), 2373–2377. find
  20. Carignan, Christopher. 2014. An acoustic and articulatory examination of the ‘oral’ in ‘nasal’: The oral articulations of French nasal vowels are not arbitrary. Journal of Phonetics 46. 23–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2014.05.001 ↗
  21. Carignan, Christopher. 2017. Covariation of nasalization, tongue height, and breathiness in the realization of F1 of Southern French nasal vowels. Journal of Phonetics 63. 87–105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2017.04.005 ↗
  22. Carignan, Christopher. 2021. A practical method of estimating the time-varying degree of vowel nasalization from acoustic features. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 149(2). 911– 922. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0002925 ↗
  23. Carignan, Christopher & Coretta, Stefano & Frahm, Jens & Harrington, Jonathan & Hoole, Phil & Joseph, Arun & Kunay, Esther & Voit, Dirk. 2021. Planting the seed for sound change: Evidence from real-time MRI of velum kinematics in German. Language 97(2). 333–364. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2021.0020 ↗
  24. Carignan, Christopher & Zellou, Georgia. 2023. Sociophonetics and vowel nasality. In The Routledge Handbook of Sociophonetics, 237–259. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003034636-12 ↗
  25. Chen, Marilyn Y. 1997. Acoustic correlates of English and French nasalized vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 102(4). 2360–2370. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.419620 ↗
  26. Chen, Matthew Y. & Wang, William S-Y. 1975. Sound change: actuation and implementation. Language 51(2). 255–281. https://www.jstor.org/stable/412854. DOI: https://doi. org/10.2307/412854 ↗
  27. Clumeck, Harold. 1976. Patterns of soft palate movements in six languages. Journal of Phonetics 4(4). 337–351. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(19)31260-4 ↗
  28. Coetzee, Andries W. & Beddor, Patrice S. & Shedden, Kerby & Styler, Will & Wissing, Daan. 2018. Plosive voicing in Afrikaans: Differential cue weighting and tonogenesis. Journal of Phonetics 66. 185–216. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2017.09.009 ↗
  29. Coetzee, Andries W. & Beddor, Patrice S. & Styler, Will & Tobin, Stephen & Bekker, Ian & Wissing, Daan. 2022. Producing and perceiving socially structured coarticulation: Coarticulatory nasalization in Afrikaans. Laboratory Phonology 13(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.16995/ labphon.6450 ↗
  30. Cohn, Abigail C. 1990. Phonetic and phonological rules of nasalization. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles. find
  31. Cohn, Michelle & Zellou, Georgia. 2023. Selective tuning of nasal coarticulation and hyperarticulation across slow-clear, casual, and fast-clear speech styles. JASA Express Letters 3(12). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0023841 ↗
  32. Dahan, Delphine & Magnuson, James S. & Tanenhaus, Michael K. & Hogan, Ellen M. 2001. Subcategorical mismatches and the time course of lexical access: Evidence for lexical competition. Language and Cognitive Processes 16(5–6). 507–534. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960143 000074 ↗
  33. Delvaux, Véronique & Demolin, Didier & Harmegnies, Bernard & Soquet, Alain. 2008. The aerodynamics of nasalization in French. Journal of Phonetics 36(4). 578–606. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2008.02.002 ↗
  34. Dimock, Michael. 2019. Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins. Pew Research Center 17(1). 1–7. find
  35. Eckert, Penelope. 2008. Where do ethnolects stop?. International Journal of Bilingualism 12(1–2). 25–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069080120010301 ↗
  36. Farnetani, Edda. 1990. VCV lingual coarticulation and its spatiotemporal domain. In Speech production and speech modelling (pp. 93–130). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2037-8_5 ↗
  37. Fowler, Carol A. 1984. Segmentation of coarticulated speech in perception. Perception & Psychophysics 36(4). 359–368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202790 ↗
  38. Fowler, Carol A. 2005. Parsing coarticulated speech in perception: Effects of coarticulation resistance. Journal of Phonetics 33(2). 199–213. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2004.10.003 ↗
  39. Fox, Robert A. & Jacewicz, Ewa. 2009. Cross-dialectal variation in formant dynamics of American English vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126(5). 2603–2618. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3212921 ↗
  40. Garellek, Marc. 2014. Voice quality strengthening and glottalization. Journal of Phonetics 45. 106–113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2014.04.001 ↗
  41. Garellek, Marc & Ritchart, Amanda & Kuang, Jianjing. 2016. Breathy voice during nasality: A cross-linguistic study. Journal of Phonetics 59. 110–121. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. wocn.2016.09.001 ↗
  42. Hajek, John. 1997. Universals of sound change in nasalization, Vol. 31. Oxford: Blackwell. find
  43. Hall-Lew, Lauren & Cardoso, Amanda & Kemenchedjieva, Yova & Wilson, Kieran & Purse, Ruaridh & Saigusa, Julie. 2015. San Francisco English and the California Vowel Shift. In Proceedings of The 18th International Conference of the Phonetic Sciences. find
  44. Harrington, Jonathan. 2012. The relationship between synchronic variation and diachronic change. Handbook of Laboratory Phonology, 321–332. find
  45. Harrington, Jonathan & Kleber, Felicitas & Reubold, Ulrich. 2011. The contributions of the lips and the tongue to the diachronic fronting of high back vowels in Standard Southern British English. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 41(2). 137–156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100310000265 ↗
  46. Harrington, Jonathan & Kleber, Felicitas & Reubold, Ulrich & Schiel, Florian & Stevens, Mary. 2019. The phonetic basis of the origin and spread of sound change. In The Routledge Handbook of Phonetics, 401–426. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429056253-15 ↗
  47. Harrington, Jonathan & Kleber, Felicitas & Stevens, Mary. 2016. The relationship between the (mis)-parsing of coarticulation in perception and sound change: Evidence from dissimilation and language acquisition. Recent Advances in Nonlinear Speech Processing, 15–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28109-4_3 ↗
  48. Hyman, Larry. 1976. Phonologization. In Larry Hyman & Alphonse Juilland (eds.), Linguistic Studies Presented to Joseph H. Greenberg, 407–418. Saratoga: Anma Libri. find
  49. Imatomi, Setsuko. 2005. Effects of breathy voice source on ratings of hypernasality. The Cleft Palate – Craniofacial Journal 42(6). 641–648. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1597/03-146.1 ↗
  50. Kawasaki, Haruko. 1986. Phonetic explanation for phonological universals: The case of distinctive vowel nasalization. In Ohala, John J. & Jaeger, Jeri J. (eds.), Experimental Phonology, 81–103. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. find
  51. Kleber, Felicitas. 2018. VOT or quantity: What matters more for the voicing contrast in German regional varieties? Results from apparent-time analyses. Journal of Phonetics 71. 468–486. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2018.10.004 ↗
  52. Kleber, Felicitas & Harrington, Jonathan & Reubold, Ulrich. 2012. The relationship between the perception and production of coarticulation during a sound change in progress. Language and Speech 55(3). 383–405. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830911422194 ↗
  53. Krakow, Rena A. & Beddor, Patrice S. & Goldstein, Louis M. 1988. Coarticulatory influences on the perceived height of nasal vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 83(3). 1146– 1158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.396059 ↗
  54. Kuang, Jianjing & Cui, Aletheia. 2018. Relative cue weighting in production and perception of an ongoing sound change in Southern Yi. Journal of Phonetics 71. 194–214. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2018.09.002 ↗
  55. Lahiri, Aditi & Marslen-Wilson, William. 1991. The mental representation of lexical form: A phonological approach to the recognition lexicon. Cognition 38(3). 245–294. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90008-R Lindblom, Björn & Guion, Susan & Hura, Susan & Moon, Seung-Jae & Willerman, Raquel. 1995. Is sound change adaptive? Rivista di Linguistica 7. 5–36. ↗
  56. Lu, Youyi & Cooke, Martin. 2008. Speech production modifications produced by competing talkers, babble, and stationary noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 124(5). 3261–3275. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2990705 ↗
  57. Lüdecke, Daniel & Ben-Shachar, Mattan S. & Patil, Indrajeet & Waggoner, Phillip & Makowski, Dominique. 2021. performance: An R package for assessment, comparison and testing of statistical models. Journal of Open Source Software 6(60). DOI: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03139 ↗
  58. Mann, Virginia A. 1980. Influence of preceding liquid on stop-consonant perception. Perception & Psychophysics 28(5). 407–412. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204884 ↗
  59. Mann, Virginia A. & Repp, Bruno H. 1980. Influence of vocalic context on perception of the [∫]-[s] distinction. Perception & Psychophysics 28(3). 213–228. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204377 ↗
  60. Marslen-Wilson, William & Warren, Paul. 1994. Levels of perceptual representation and process in lexical access: words, phonemes, and features. Psychological Review 101(4). 653–675. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.653 ↗
  61. Martin, James G. & Bunnell, H. Timothy. 1981. Perception of anticipatory coarticulation effects. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 69(2). 559–567. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.385484 ↗
  62. Matisoff, James A. 1975. Rhinoglottophilia: the mysterious connection between nasality and glottality. In Nasálfest: Papers from a symposium on nasals and nasalization, 265–287. Stanford: Language Universals Project, Department of Linguistics, Stanford University. find
  63. Mielke, Jeff & Carignan, Christopher & Thomas, Eric R. 2017. The articulatory dynamics of pre-velar and pre-nasal/æ/-raising in English: An ultrasound study. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 142(1). 332–349. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4991348 Ohala, John. ↗
  64. J. 1974. Experimental historical phonology. In Anderson, John M. & Jones, Charles (eds.), Historical Linguistics, Vol. 2, 353–389. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Ohala, John. find
  65. J. 1975. Phonetic explanations for nasal sound patterns. In Ferguson, Charles A. & Hyman, Larry M. & Ohala, John J. (eds.), Nasálfest: Papers from a Symposium on Nasals and Nasalization, 289–316. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Language Universals Project. Ohala, John. find
  66. J. 1993. Coarticulation and phonology. Language and Speech 36(2–3). 155–170. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099303600303 ↗
  67. Ohala, John J. & Busà, M. Grazia. 1995. Nasal loss before voiceless fricatives: a perceptually-based sound change. Rivista di Linguistica 7. 125–144. find
  68. Ohala, John J. & Ohala, Manjari. 1995. Speech perception and lexical representation: The role of vowel nasalization in Hindi and English. Phonology and phonetic evidence. Papers in Laboratory Phonology IV. 41–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554315.004 ↗
  69. Parkinson, Stephen. 1983. Portuguese nasal vowels as phonological diphthongs. Lingua 61(2–3). 157–177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(83)90031-1 ↗
  70. Pinget, Anne-France & Kager, René & Van de Velde, Hans. 2020. Linking variation in perception and production in sound change: Evidence from Dutch obstruent devoicing. Language and Speech 63(3). 660–685. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830919880206 ↗
  71. Podesva, Robert J. & D’onofrio, Annette & Van Hofwegen, Janneke & Kim, Seung Kyung. 2015. Country ideology and the California vowel shift. Language Variation and Change 27(2). 157–186. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S095439451500006X ↗
  72. Recasens, Daniel. 2014. Coarticulation and Sound Change in Romance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.329 ↗
  73. Sankoff, Gillian & Blondeau, Hélène. 2007. Language change across the lifespan: /r/ in Montreal French. Language 83(3). 560–588. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2007.0106 ↗
  74. Scarborough, Rebecca & Zellou, Georgia. 2013. Clarity in communication: “Clear” speech authenticity and lexical neighborhood density effects in speech production and perception. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 134(5). 3793–3807. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4824120 ↗
  75. Scarborough, Rebecca & Zellou, Georgia & Mirzayan, Armik & Rood, David S. 2015. Phonetic and phonological patterns of nasality in Lakota vowels. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 45(3). 289–309. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100315000171 ↗
  76. Solé, Maria-Josep. 1992. Phonetic and phonological processes: The case of nasalization. Language and Speech 35(1–2). 29–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099203500204 ↗
  77. Solé, Maria-Josep. 2007. Controlled and mechanical properties in speech. Experimental Approaches to Phonology. 302–321. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199296675.003.0018 ↗
  78. Stoakes, Hywel M. & Fletcher, Janet M. & Butcher, Andrew R. 2020. Nasal coarticulation in Bininj Kunwok: An aerodynamic analysis. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 50(3). 305–332. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100318000282 ↗
  79. Styler, Will. 2017. On the acoustical features of vowel nasality in English and French. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 142(4). 2469–2482. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5008854 ↗
  80. Tamminga, Meredith & Zellou, Georgia. 2015. Cross-dialectal differences in nasal coarticulation in American English. In ICPhS. find
  81. Ushijima, T., & Hirose, H. 1974. Electromyographic study of the velum during speech. Journal of Phonetics 2(4). 315–326. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(19)31301-4 ↗
  82. Walker, Douglas C. 1984. The pronunciation of Canadian French, 51–65. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. find
  83. Wetzels, W. Leo, & Menuzzi, Sergio, & Costa, João. 2020. The Handbook of Portuguese Linguistics. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. find
  84. Woods, Kevin J. & Siegel, Max H. & Traer, James & McDermott, Josh H. 2017. Headphone screening to facilitate web-based auditory experiments. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 79. 2064–2072. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1361-2 ↗
  85. Yu, Alan C. L. 2019. On the nature of the perception-production link: Individual variability in English sibilant-vowel coarticulation. Laboratory Phonology 10(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ labphon.97 ↗
  86. Yu, Alan C. L. 2023. The Actuation Problem. Annual Review of Linguistics 9. 215–231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-101336 ↗
  87. Yu, Alan C. L. & Zellou, Georgia. 2019. Individual differences in language processing: Phonology. Annual Review of Linguistics 5. 131–150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-033815 ↗
  88. Zellou, Georgia. 2017. Individual differences in the production of nasal coarticulation and perceptual compensation. Journal of Phonetics 61. 13–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. wocn.2016.12.002 ↗
  89. Zellou, Georgia. 2022. Coarticulation in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009082488 ↗
  90. Zellou, Georgia & Brotherton, Chloe. 2021. Phonetic imitation of multidimensional acoustic variation of the nasal split short-a system. Speech Communication 135. 54–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2021.10.005 ↗
  91. Zellou, Georgia & Cohn, Michelle & Block, Aleese. 2020. Does top-down information about speaker age guise influence perceptual compensation for coarticulatory/u/-fronting? In CogSci. find
  92. Zellou, Georgia & Dahan, Delphine. 2019. Listeners maintain phonological uncertainty over time and across words: The case of vowel nasality in English. Journal of Phonetics 76. 100910. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2019.06.001 ↗
  93. Zellou, Georgia & Pycha, Anne & Cohn, Michelle. 2023. The perception of nasal coarticulatory variation in face-masked speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 153(2). 1084– 1093. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0017257 ↗
  94. Zellou, Georgia & Scarborough, Rebecca. 2015. Lexically conditioned phonetic variation in motherese: age-of-acquisition and other word-specific factors in infant-and adult-directed speech. Laboratory Phonology 6(3–4). 305–336. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lp-2015-0010 ↗
  95. Zellou, Georgia & Scarborough, Rebecca. 2019. Neighborhood-conditioned phonetic enhancement of an allophonic vowel split. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 145(6). 3675–3685. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5113582 ↗
  96. Zellou, Georgia & Scarborough, Rebecca & Kemp, Renee. 2020. Secondary Phonetic Cues in the Production of the Nasal Short-a System in California English. In INTERSPEECH, 631–635. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2020-1322 ↗
  97. Zellou, Georgia & Tamminga, Meredith. 2014. Nasal coarticulation changes over time in Philadelphia English. Journal of Phonetics 47. 18–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. wocn.2014.09.002 ↗

Updated

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/zellou-2024-apparent-time-variation-use-multiple/