Publication

Variation in the strength of lexical encoding across dialects

Clapper, C. G., Tamati, T. N. & Pierrehumbert, J. B., Sep-2016, In : Journal of Phonetics. 58, p. 87-103 17 p.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

APA

Clapper, C. G., Tamati, T. N., & Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2016). Variation in the strength of lexical encoding across dialects. Journal of Phonetics, 58, 87-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2016.06.002

Author

Clapper, Cynthia G. ; Tamati, Terrin N. ; Pierrehumbert, Janet B. / Variation in the strength of lexical encoding across dialects. In: Journal of Phonetics. 2016 ; Vol. 58. pp. 87-103.

Harvard

Clapper, CG, Tamati, TN & Pierrehumbert, JB 2016, 'Variation in the strength of lexical encoding across dialects', Journal of Phonetics, vol. 58, pp. 87-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2016.06.002

Standard

Variation in the strength of lexical encoding across dialects. / Clapper, Cynthia G.; Tamati, Terrin N.; Pierrehumbert, Janet B.

In: Journal of Phonetics, Vol. 58, 09.2016, p. 87-103.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Vancouver

Clapper CG, Tamati TN, Pierrehumbert JB. Variation in the strength of lexical encoding across dialects. Journal of Phonetics. 2016 Sep;58:87-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2016.06.002


BibTeX

@article{89a810eb4e294622a8e39cc06aa2b95b,
title = "Variation in the strength of lexical encoding across dialects",
abstract = "Lexical processing is slower and less accurate for unfamiliar dialects than familiar dialects. The goal of the current study was to test the hypothesis that dialect differences in lexical processing reflect differences in lexical encoding strength across dialects. Lexical encoding (i.e., updating the cognitive lexical representation to reflect the current token) was distinguished from lexical recognition (i.e., mapping the incoming acoustic signal to the target lexical category) in a series of lexical processing tasks with Midland and Northern American English. The experiments were conducted in the Midland region with Midland and Northern listeners. The results confirmed differential processing of the two dialects: the Midland dialect was processed more quickly than the Northern dialect. The results further revealed significantly larger repetition benefits (i.e., priming) and cross-dialect lexical interference effects for lexical forms in the Midland dialect than in the Northern dialect for both listener groups, particularly when the stimulus materials were presented in noise. These results suggest that lexical information is more strongly encoded for the contextually-local Midland dialect than for the non-local Northern dialect. We interpret these effects as reflecting cognitive processing costs associated with normalization for dialect variation, which lead to weaker lexical encoding under more difficult processing conditions. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.",
keywords = "Dialect variation, Word recognition, Recognition memory, Lexical encoding, SPOKEN-WORD RECOGNITION, SPEECH RECOGNITION, MEMORY, PERCEPTION, FREQUENCY, INTELLIGIBILITY, IDENTIFICATION, REPRESENTATION, VOICE, CLASSIFICATION",
author = "Clapper, {Cynthia G.} and Tamati, {Terrin N.} and Pierrehumbert, {Janet B.}",
year = "2016",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1016/j.wocn.2016.06.002",
language = "English",
volume = "58",
pages = "87--103",
journal = "Journal of Phonetics",
issn = "0095-4470",
publisher = "ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Variation in the strength of lexical encoding across dialects

AU - Clapper, Cynthia G.

AU - Tamati, Terrin N.

AU - Pierrehumbert, Janet B.

PY - 2016/9

Y1 - 2016/9

N2 - Lexical processing is slower and less accurate for unfamiliar dialects than familiar dialects. The goal of the current study was to test the hypothesis that dialect differences in lexical processing reflect differences in lexical encoding strength across dialects. Lexical encoding (i.e., updating the cognitive lexical representation to reflect the current token) was distinguished from lexical recognition (i.e., mapping the incoming acoustic signal to the target lexical category) in a series of lexical processing tasks with Midland and Northern American English. The experiments were conducted in the Midland region with Midland and Northern listeners. The results confirmed differential processing of the two dialects: the Midland dialect was processed more quickly than the Northern dialect. The results further revealed significantly larger repetition benefits (i.e., priming) and cross-dialect lexical interference effects for lexical forms in the Midland dialect than in the Northern dialect for both listener groups, particularly when the stimulus materials were presented in noise. These results suggest that lexical information is more strongly encoded for the contextually-local Midland dialect than for the non-local Northern dialect. We interpret these effects as reflecting cognitive processing costs associated with normalization for dialect variation, which lead to weaker lexical encoding under more difficult processing conditions. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

AB - Lexical processing is slower and less accurate for unfamiliar dialects than familiar dialects. The goal of the current study was to test the hypothesis that dialect differences in lexical processing reflect differences in lexical encoding strength across dialects. Lexical encoding (i.e., updating the cognitive lexical representation to reflect the current token) was distinguished from lexical recognition (i.e., mapping the incoming acoustic signal to the target lexical category) in a series of lexical processing tasks with Midland and Northern American English. The experiments were conducted in the Midland region with Midland and Northern listeners. The results confirmed differential processing of the two dialects: the Midland dialect was processed more quickly than the Northern dialect. The results further revealed significantly larger repetition benefits (i.e., priming) and cross-dialect lexical interference effects for lexical forms in the Midland dialect than in the Northern dialect for both listener groups, particularly when the stimulus materials were presented in noise. These results suggest that lexical information is more strongly encoded for the contextually-local Midland dialect than for the non-local Northern dialect. We interpret these effects as reflecting cognitive processing costs associated with normalization for dialect variation, which lead to weaker lexical encoding under more difficult processing conditions. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

KW - Dialect variation

KW - Word recognition

KW - Recognition memory

KW - Lexical encoding

KW - SPOKEN-WORD RECOGNITION

KW - SPEECH RECOGNITION

KW - MEMORY

KW - PERCEPTION

KW - FREQUENCY

KW - INTELLIGIBILITY

KW - IDENTIFICATION

KW - REPRESENTATION

KW - VOICE

KW - CLASSIFICATION

U2 - 10.1016/j.wocn.2016.06.002

DO - 10.1016/j.wocn.2016.06.002

M3 - Article

VL - 58

SP - 87

EP - 103

JO - Journal of Phonetics

JF - Journal of Phonetics

SN - 0095-4470

ER -

ID: 38880784