Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:58:51.047Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Revisiting neighborhood density: Adult perception of phonological similarity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2015

SKOTT E. FREEDMAN ,
MEREDITH GENNARO  and
AMANDA DITOMASO
SKOTT E. FREEDMAN*
Affiliation:
Ithaca College
MEREDITH GENNARO
Affiliation:
Ithaca College
AMANDA DITOMASO
Affiliation:
Ithaca College
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Skott E. Freedman, Department of Speech–Language Pathology and Audiology, Ithaca College, 953 Danby Road, Ithaca, NY 14850. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Phonological similarity (i.e., neighborhood density) has been operationalized in the literature as a single phonemic difference between words. However, few studies have assessed the validity of such a measure. In the present study, 50 typical adults were presented with 70 nonwords and asked to name a similar-sounding real word for each item. Results indicated that participants changed an average of one segment per word, although a fifth of productions involved changing more than one of the segments; substitutions were the most common change. Targets that received a wide variety of responses and that did not phonologically resemble many real words resulted in the greatest number of changes. Using a single-segmental metric to index phonological similarity has its limitations, and may inadequately incorporate other influential elements of a word such as the frequencies of its neighbors.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , May 2016 , pp. 627 - 642
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baus, C., Costa, A., & Carreiras, M. (2008). Neighbourhood density and frequency effects in speech production: A case for interactivity. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 866–888.Google Scholar
Cluff, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (1990). Similarity neighborhoods of spoken two-syllable words: Retroactive effects on multiple activation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16, 551–563.Google Scholar
Edwards, J., Beckman, M. E., & Munson, B. (2004). The interaction between vocabulary size and phonotactic probability effects on children's production accuracy and fluency in nonword repetition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 421–436.Google Scholar
French, N. R., Carter, C. W., & Koenig, W. (1930). The words and sounds of telephone conversations. Bell System Technical Journal, 9, 290–324.Google Scholar
Hoover, J. R., Storkel, H. L., & Hogan, T. P. (2010). A cross-sectional comparison of the effects of phonotactic probability and neighborhood density on word learning by preschool children. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 100–116.Google Scholar
Kessler, B., & Treiman, R. (1997). Syllable structure and the distribution of phonemes in English syllables. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 295–311.Google Scholar
Kucera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
Landauer, T. K., & Streeter, L. A. (1973). Structural differences between common and rare words: Failure of equivalence assumptions for theories of word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 119–131.Google Scholar
Luce, P. A., & Large, N. R. (2001). Phonotactics, density and entropy in spoken word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16, 565–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighbourhood activation model. Ear and Hearing, 19, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Boukrina, O. V. (2008). Sensitivity to phonological similarity within and across languages. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 37, 141–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Metsala, J. L. (1997). Spoken word recognition in reading disabled children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 159–169.Google Scholar
Munson, B., & Solomon, N. P. (2004). The effect of phonological neighborhood density on vowel articulation. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 1048–1058.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murdock, B. B. (1962). The serial position effect of free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 482–488.Google Scholar
Nusbaum, H. C., Pisoni, D. B., & Davis, C. K. (1984). Sizing up the Hoosier Mental Lexicon: Measuring the familiarity of 20,000 words. Research on Speech Perception (Progress Report No. 10, pp. 357–376). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Stamer, M. K., & Vitevitch, M. S. (2012). Phonological similarity influences word learning in adults learning Spanish as a foreign language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 490–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storkel, H. L., Armbruster, J., & Hogan, T. P. (2006). Differentiating phonotactic probability and neighborhood density in adult word learning. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 1175–1192.Google Scholar
Storkel, H. L., & Rogers, M. A. (2000). The effect of probabilistic phonotactics on lexical acquisition. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 14, 407–425.Google Scholar
Vitevitch, M. S. (2008). What can graph theory tell us about word learning and lexical retrieval? Journal of Speech Language Hearing Research, 51, 408–422.Google Scholar
Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (1999). Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood activation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 374–408.Google Scholar
Vitevitch, M. S., & Rodríguez, E. (2005). Neighborhood density effects in spoken word recognition in Spanish. Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders, 3, 64–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitevitch, M. S., & Sommers, M. S. (2003). The facilitative influence of phonological similarity and neighborhood frequency in speech production in younger and older adults. Memory & Cognition, 31, 491–504.Google Scholar