1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Linguistics
  4. Volume 2, 2016
  5. Article

Annual Review of Linguistics

Volume 2, 2016

Phonological Neighborhood Effects in Spoken Word Perception and Production

Abstract

Research on spoken word perception and production has identified two hallmarks of spoken word processing: multiple activation of representations of the sound patterns of words in memory and subsequent competition among these patterns. Evidence for this activation-competition process has come, in part, from experimental studies examining the effects of phonological neighborhoods, which are collections of similar-sounding words that are activated in memory during both perception and production. In this article, we review more than 20 years of research on phonological neighborhood effects in spoken word processing that has demonstrated that the speed and accuracy of spoken word perception and production are, in large part, a function of the density and frequency of neighborhoods of spoken words. We conclude our review with a discussion of new avenues of research—based on recent advances in network science—that hold the promise of deepening our understanding of the mental operations involved in our uniquely human capacity for communicating with the spoken word.

Keyword(s): clustering coefficient, neighborhood density, network science, phonotactic probability, spoken word production, spoken word recognition
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030514-124832
2016-01-14
2024-04-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/2/1/annurev-linguistics-030514-124832.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030514-124832&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Albright A. 2007. Gradient phonological acceptability as a grammatical effect Work. pap., Dep. Linguist., MIT
  2. Allopenna PD, Magnuson JS, Tanenhaus MK. 1998. Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: evidence for continuous mapping models. J. Mem. Lang. 38:419–39 [Google Scholar]
  3. Arbesman S, Strogatz SH, Vitevitch MS. 2010. Comparative analysis of networks of phonologically similar words in English and Spanish. Entropy 12:327–37 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bailey T, Hahn U. 2001. Determinants of wordlikeness: phonotactics or lexical neighborhoods?. J. Mem. Lang. 44:568–91 [Google Scholar]
  5. Barabási AL. 2009. Scale-free networks: a decade and beyond. Science 325:412–13 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bates E, D'Amico S, Jacobsen T, Szekely A, Andonova E. et al. 2003. Timed picture naming in seven languages. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 10:344–80 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bond ZS. 1999. Slips of the Ear: Errors in the Perception of Casual Conversation New York: Academic
  8. Brown R, McNeill D. 1966. The “tip of the tongue” phenomenon. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 5:325–37 [Google Scholar]
  9. Burke DM, MacKay DG, Worthley JS, Wade E. 1991. On the tip of the tongue: What causes word finding problems in young and older adults?. J. Mem. Lang. 30:542–79 [Google Scholar]
  10. Chan KY, Vitevitch MS. 2009. The influence of the phonological neighborhood clustering-coefficient on spoken word recognition. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 35:1934–49 [Google Scholar]
  11. Chan KY, Vitevitch MS. 2010. Network structure influences speech production. Cogn. Sci. 34:685–97 [Google Scholar]
  12. Charles-Luce J, Luce PA. 1990. Some structural properties of words in young children's lexicons. J. Child Lang. 17:205–15 [Google Scholar]
  13. Charles-Luce J, Luce PA. 1995. An examination of similarity neighbourhoods in young children's receptive vocabularies. J. Child Lang. 22:727–35 [Google Scholar]
  14. Chen Q, Mirman D. 2012. Competition and cooperation among similar representations: toward a unified account of facilitative and inhibitory effects of lexical neighbors. Psychol. Rev. 199:417–30 [Google Scholar]
  15. Chen HC, Vaid J, Boas DA, Bortfeld H. 2011. Examining the phonological neighborhood density effect using near infrared spectroscopy. Hum. Brain Mapp. 32:1363–70 [Google Scholar]
  16. Cluff M, Luce PA. 1990. Similarity neighborhoods of spoken two-syllable words: retroactive effects on multiple activation. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 16:551–63 [Google Scholar]
  17. Cutler A. 1981. Making up materials is a confounded nuisance, or: Will we able to run any psycholinguistic experiments at all in 1990?. Cognition 10:65–70 [Google Scholar]
  18. Cutler A, Norris D. 1988. The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 14:113–21 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dell GS. 1986. A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychol. Rev. 93:283–321 [Google Scholar]
  20. Dell GS. 1988. The retrieval of phonological forms in production: tests of predictions from a connectionist model. J. Mem. Lang. 27:124–42 [Google Scholar]
  21. Dell GS, Gordon JK. 2003. Neighbors in the lexicon: friends or foes?. Phonetics and Phonology in Language Comprehension and Production: Differences and Similarities NO Schiller, AS Meyer 9–37 New York: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  22. Dirks DD, Takayanagi S, Moshfegh A, Noffsinger PD, Fausti SA. 2001. Examination of the neighborhood activation theory in normal and hearing-impaired listeners. Ear Hear. 22:1–13 [Google Scholar]
  23. Dufour S, Brunelliere A, Frauenfelder UH. 2012. Tracking the time course of word-frequency effects in spoken word recognition with event-related potentials. Cogn. Sci. 37:489–507 [Google Scholar]
  24. Dufour S, Frauenfelder UH. 2010. Phonological neighbourhood effects in French spoken-word recognition. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 63:226–38 [Google Scholar]
  25. Frisch SA, Large NR, Pisoni DB. 2000. Perception of wordlikeness: effects of segment probability and length on the processing of nonwords. J. Mem. Lang. 42:481–96 [Google Scholar]
  26. German DJ, Newman RS. 2004. The impact of lexical factors on children's word-finding errors. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 47:624–36 [Google Scholar]
  27. Goldinger SD, Luce PA, Pisoni DB. 1989. Priming lexical neighbors of spoken words: effects of competition and inhibition. J. Mem. Lang. 28:501–18 [Google Scholar]
  28. Gordon JK. 2002. Phonological neighborhood effects in aphasic speech errors: spontaneous and structured contexts. Brain Lang. 82:113–45 [Google Scholar]
  29. Gordon JK, Dell GS. 2001. Phonological neighborhood effects: evidence from aphasia and connectionist models. Brain Lang. 79:21–23 [Google Scholar]
  30. Greenberg JH, Jenkins JJ. 1964. Studies in the psychological correlates of the sound system of American English. Word 20:157–77 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hahn U, Bailey TM. 2005. What makes words sound similar?. Cognition 97:227–67 [Google Scholar]
  32. Harley TA, Bown HE. 1998. What causes a tip-of-the-tongue state? Evidence for lexical neighbourhood effects in speech production. Br. J. Psychol. 89:151–74 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hills TT, Maouene M, Maouene J, Sheya A, Smith L. 2009. Longitudinal analysis of early semantic networks: preferential attachment or preferential acquisition?. Psychol. Sci. 20:729–39 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hoover JR, Storkel HL, Rice ML. 2012. The interface between neighborhood density and optional infinitives: normal development and specific language impairment. J. Child Lang. 39:835–62 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hunter CR. 2013. Early effects of neighborhood density and phonotactic probability of spoken words on event-related potentials. Brain Lang. 127:462–74 [Google Scholar]
  36. James LE, Burke DM. 2000. Phonological priming effects on word retrieval and tip-of-the-tongue experiences in young and older adults. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 26:1378–91 [Google Scholar]
  37. Kučera H, Francis WN. 1967. Computational Analysis of Present Day American English Providence, RI: Brown Univ. Press
  38. Landauer TK, Streeter LA. 1973. Structural differences between common and rare words: failure of equivalence assumptions for theories of word recognition. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 12:119–31 [Google Scholar]
  39. Lemhöfer K, Dijkstra T, Schriefers H, Baayen RH, Grainger J, Zwisterlood P. 2008. Native language influences on word recognition in a second language: a megastudy. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 34:12–31 [Google Scholar]
  40. Levelt WJM, Roelofs A, Meyer AS. 1999. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behav. Brain Sci. 22:1–75 [Google Scholar]
  41. Luce PA. 1986. A computational analysis of uniqueness points in auditory word recognition. Percept. Psychophys. 39:155–58 [Google Scholar]
  42. Luce PA, Goldinger SD, Auer ET Jr, Vitevitch MS. 2000. Phonetic priming, neighborhood activation, and PARSYN. Percept. Psychophys. 62:615–25 [Google Scholar]
  43. Luce PA, Large NR. 2001. Phonotactics, density and entropy in spoken word recognition. Lang. Cogn. Process. 16:565–81 [Google Scholar]
  44. Luce PA, Pisoni DB. 1987. Speech perception: new directions in research, theory, and applications. Human Communication and Its Disorders, A Review 1 H Winitz 1–87 Westport, CT: Ablex [Google Scholar]
  45. Luce PA, Pisoni DB. 1998. Recognizing spoken words: the neighborhood activation model. Ear Hear. 19:1–36 [Google Scholar]
  46. Luce RD. 1961. A choice theory analysis of similarity judgments. Psychometrika 26:151–63 [Google Scholar]
  47. Marian V, Bartolotti J, Chabal S, Shook A. 2012. CLEARPOND: Cross-Linguistic Easy-Access Resource for Phonological and Orthographic Neighborhood Densities. PLOS ONE 7:e43230 [Google Scholar]
  48. Marslen-Wilson WD. 1987. Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition. Cognition 25:71–102 [Google Scholar]
  49. Marslen-Wilson WD, Welsh A. 1978. Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech. Cogn. Psychol. 10:29–63 [Google Scholar]
  50. McClelland JL, Elman JL. 1986. The TRACE model of speech perception. Cogn. Psychol. 18:1–86 [Google Scholar]
  51. Mehler J, Dommergues JY, Frauenfelder U, Segui J. 1981. The syllable's role in speech segmentation. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 20:298–305 [Google Scholar]
  52. Morton J. 1969. Interaction of information in word recognition. Psychol. Rev. 76:165–78 [Google Scholar]
  53. Munson B, Solomon NP. 2004. The effect of phonological neighborhood density on vowel articulation. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 47:1048–58 [Google Scholar]
  54. Neal ZP. 2013. The Connected City: How Networks Are Shaping the Modern Metropolis New York: Routledge
  55. Newman RS, German DJ. 2002. Effects of lexical factors on lexical access among typical language-learning children and children with word-finding difficulties. Lang. Speech 45:285–317 [Google Scholar]
  56. Newman RS, German DJ. 2005. Life span effects of lexical factors on oral naming. Lang. Speech 48:123–56 [Google Scholar]
  57. Newman RS, Sawusch JR, Luce PA. 1997. Lexical neighborhood effects in phonetic processing. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 23:873–89 [Google Scholar]
  58. Norris D. 1994. Shortlist: a connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition 52:189–234 [Google Scholar]
  59. Norris D, McQueen JM. 2008. Shortlist B: a Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. Psychol. Rev. 115:357–95 [Google Scholar]
  60. Otake T, Hatano G, Cutler A, Mehler J. 1993. Mora or syllable? Speech segmentation in Japanese. J. Mem. Lang. 32:258–78 [Google Scholar]
  61. Pylkkänen L, Stringfellow A, Marantz A. 2002. Neuromagnetic evidence for the timing of lexical activation: an MEG component sensitive to phonotactic probability but not to neighborhood density. Brain Lang. 81:666–78 [Google Scholar]
  62. Roodenrys S, Hulme C, Lethbridge A, Hinton M, Nimmo LM. 2002. Word-frequency and phonological-neighborhood effects on verbal short-term memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 28:1019–34 [Google Scholar]
  63. Sadat J, Martin CD, Costa A, Alario FX. 2014. Reconciling phonological neighborhood effects in speech production through single trial analysis. Cogn. Psychol. 68:33–58 [Google Scholar]
  64. Siew CSQ. 2013. Community structure in the phonological network. Front. Psychol. 4:533 [Google Scholar]
  65. Sommers MS. 1996. The structural organization of the mental lexicon and its contributions to age-related declines in spoken word recognition. Psychol. Aging 11:333–41 [Google Scholar]
  66. Sommers MS, Danielson SE. 1999. Inhibitory processes and spoken word recognition in young and older adults: the interaction of lexical competition and semantic context. Psychol. Aging 14:458–72 [Google Scholar]
  67. Sommers MS, Lewis BP. 1999. Who really lives next door: creating false memories with phonological neighbors. J. Mem. Lang. 40:83–108 [Google Scholar]
  68. Stemberger JP. 2004. Neighbourhood effects on error rates in speech production. Brain Lang. 90:413–22 [Google Scholar]
  69. Storkel HL. 2004. Do children acquire dense neighborhoods? An investigation of similarity neighborhoods in lexical acquisition. Appl. Psycholinguist. 25:201–21 [Google Scholar]
  70. Strauss TJ, Harris HD, Magnuson JS. 2007. jTRACE: a reimplementation and extension of the TRACE model of speech perception and spoken word recognition. Behav. Res. Methods 39:19–30 [Google Scholar]
  71. Vitevitch MS. 1997. The neighborhood characteristics of malapropisms. Lang. Speech 40:211–28 [Google Scholar]
  72. Vitevitch MS. 2002a. Influence of onset density on spoken-word recognition. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 28:270–78 [Google Scholar]
  73. Vitevitch MS. 2002b. Naturalistic and experimental analyses of word frequency and neighborhood density effects in slips of the ear. Lang. Speech 45:407–34 [Google Scholar]
  74. Vitevitch MS. 2003. The influence of sublexical and lexical representations on the processing of spoken words in English. Clin. Linguist. Phon. 17:487–99 [Google Scholar]
  75. Vitevitch MS. 2008. What can graph theory tell us about word learning and lexical retrieval?. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 51:408–22 [Google Scholar]
  76. Vitevitch MS. 2012. What do foreign neighbors say about the mental lexicon?. Biling. Lang. Cogn. 15:167–72 [Google Scholar]
  77. Vitevitch MS, Castro N. 2015. Using network science in the language sciences and clinic. Int. J. Speech Lang. Pathol. 17:13–25 [Google Scholar]
  78. Vitevitch MS, Chan KY, Goldstein R. 2014a. Insights into failed lexical retrieval from network science. Cogn. Psychol. 68:1–32 [Google Scholar]
  79. Vitevitch MS, Chan KY, Goldstein R. 2014b. Using English as a ‘model language’ to understand language processing. Motor Speech Disorders A Cross-Language Perspective N Miller, A Lowit 58–73 Bristol, UK: Multiling. Matters [Google Scholar]
  80. Vitevitch MS, Chan KY, Roodenrys S. 2012. Complex network structure influences processing in long-term and short-term memory. J. Mem. Lang. 67:30–44 [Google Scholar]
  81. Vitevitch MS, Ercal G, Adagarla B. 2011. Simulating retrieval from a highly clustered network: implications for spoken word recognition. Front. Lang. Sci. 2:369 [Google Scholar]
  82. Vitevitch MS, Luce PA. 1999. Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood activation in spoken word recognition. J. Mem. Lang. 40:374–408 [Google Scholar]
  83. Vitevitch MS, Luce PA. 1998. When words compete: levels of processing in spoken word perception. Psychol. Sci. 9:325–29 [Google Scholar]
  84. Vitevitch MS, Luce PA. 2005. Increases in phonotactic probability facilitate spoken nonword repetition. J. Mem. Lang. 52:193–204 [Google Scholar]
  85. Vitevitch MS, Luce PA, Charles-Luce J, Kemmerer D. 1997. Phonotactics and syllable stress: implications for the processing of spoken nonsense words. Lang. Speech 40:47–62 [Google Scholar]
  86. Vitevitch MS, Luce PA, Pisoni DB, Auer ET. 1999. Phonotactics, neighborhood activation and lexical access for spoken words. Brain Lang. 68:306–11 [Google Scholar]
  87. Vitevitch MS, Rodríguez E. 2005. Neighborhood density effects in spoken word recognition in Spanish. J. Multiling. Commun. Disord. 3:64–73 [Google Scholar]
  88. Vitevitch MS, Siew CSQ, Castro N, Goldstein R, Gharst JA. et al. 2015. Speech error and tip of the tongue diary for mobile devices. Front. Psychol. 6:1190 [Google Scholar]
  89. Vitevitch MS, Sommers M. 2003. The facilitative influence of phonological similarity and neighborhood frequency in speech production. Mem. Cogn. 31:491–504 [Google Scholar]
  90. Vitevitch MS, Stamer MK. 2006. The curious case of competition in Spanish speech production. Lang. Cogn. Process. 21:760–70 [Google Scholar]
  91. Vitevitch MS, Stamer MK. 2009. The influence of neighborhood density (and neighborhood frequency) in Spanish speech production: a follow-up report Spoken Lang. Lab. tech. rep., Univ. Kans., Lawrence 6 [Google Scholar]
  92. Vitevitch MS, Stamer MK, Sereno JA. 2008. Word length and lexical competition: Longer is the same as shorter. Lang. Speech 51:361–83 [Google Scholar]
  93. Watts DJ, Strogatz SH. 1998. Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature 393:409–10 [Google Scholar]
  94. Wright R. 2004. Factors of lexical competition in vowel articulation. Laboratory Phonology 6 JJ Local, R Ogden, R Temple 75–87 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  95. Yarkoni T, Balota DA, Yap MJ. 2008. Beyond Coltheart's N: a new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 15:971–79 [Google Scholar]
  96. Yates M, Locker L Jr, Simpson GB. 2004. The influence of phonological neighborhood on visual word perception. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 11:452–57 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030514-124832
Loading
Phonological Neighborhood Effects in Spoken Word Perception and Production
Annual Review of Linguistics 2, 75 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030514-124832
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030514-124832
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030514-124832
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error