Meghan Sumner
JASA Express Letters (2013)
Sheng-Fu @2015/04/23
Cannot be simply explained by frequency effect
Possibility: Variants may be linked with how a word is pronounced (phonetic composition/context)
all words were pronounced in three conditions:
careful [nt], careful [n], casual [n]
Participants: 60 undergraduates, monolinguals of AE
Stimuli:
48 critical primes with medial /nt/
144 filler primes and targets
48 real-real pairs, 96 pseudo-real pairs
all words were pronounced in three conditions:
careful [nt], careful [n], casual [n]
Within-subject, blocked by condition
One trial:
auditory prime -> 100 ISI -> visual target -> response
next trial: 1000 ms after a response, or 3000 ms
Lexical decision on the target
If canonical bias is independent of phonetic context
careful [nt] > careful [n_] and casual [n_]
If word-level phonetic context drives the difference
careful [nt] and casual [n_] > careful [n_]
Participants: 48 native AE speakers
three groups (between-subject design)
careful [nt], careful [n_], casual [n_]
target: [nn] pseudowords (e.g., splinner)