1932

Abstract

Individual variation is ubiquitous and empirically observable in most phonological behaviors, yet relatively few studies aim to capture the heterogeneity of language processing among individuals, as opposed to those focusing primarily on group-level patterns. The study of individual differences can shed light on the nature of the cognitive representations and mechanisms involved in phonological processing. To guide our review of individual variation in the processing of phonological information, we consider studies that can illuminate broader issues in the field, such as the nature of linguistic representations and processes. We also consider how the study of individual differences can provide insight into long-standing issues in linguistic variation and change. Since linguistic communities are made up of individuals, the questions raised by examining individual differences in linguistic processing are relevant to those who study all aspects of language.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-033815
2019-01-14
2024-04-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/5/1/annurev-linguistics-011516-033815.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-033815&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abdullaev YG, Melnichuk KV 1997. Cognitive operations in the human caudate nucleus. Neurosci. Lett. 234:151–55
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Allen JS, Miller JL, DeSteno D 2003. Individual talker differences in voice-onset-time. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113:544–52
    [Google Scholar]
  3. APA (Am. Psychiatr. Assoc.) 2013. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Washington, DC: APA 5th ed.
  4. Ausburn LJ, Ausburn FB 1978. Cognitive styles: some information and implications for instructional design. Educ. Commun. Technol. 26:337–54
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Babel M 2012. Evidence for phonetic and social selectivity in spontaneous phonetic imitation. J. Phon. 40:177–89
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bailey TM, Hahn U 2001. Determinants of wordlikeness: phonotactics or lexical neighborhoods?. J. Mem. Lang. 44:568–91
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Baker A, Archangeli D, Mielke J 2011. Variability in American English s-retraction suggests a solution to the actuation problem. Lang. Var. Change 23:347–74
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S, Skinner R, Martin J, Clubley E 2001. The autism-spectrum quotient (AQ): evidence from Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism, males, females, scientists and mathematicians. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 31:5–17
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Beddor P, Krakow RA 1999. Perception of coarticulatory nasalization by speakers of English and Thai: evidence for partial compensation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106:2868–87
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Beddor PS 2009. A coarticulatory path to sound change. Language 85:785–832
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bidelman GM, Moreno S, Alain C 2013. Tracing the emergence of categorical speech perception in the human auditory system. NeuroImage 79:201–12
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bishop J 2012. Focus, prosody, and individual differences in autistic traits: evidence from cross modal semantic priming. UCLA Work. Pap. Phon. 111:1–26
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bishop J 2013. Prenuclear accentuation: phonetics, phonology, and information structure PhD thesis Univ. Calif. Los Angel.:
  14. Bishop J, Chong A, Jun SA 2015. Individual differences in prosodic strategies to sentence parsing. Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences London: Int. Phon. Assoc.5
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bonnel A, Mottron L, Peretz I, Trudel M, Gallun E, Bonnel AM 2003. Enhanced pitch sensitivity in individuals with autism: a signal detection analysis. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 15:226–35
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Bradlow AR, Pisoni DB, Akahane-Yamada R, Tohkura Y 1997. Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/. IV. Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101:2299–310
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Byrd D 1992. Preliminary results on speaker-dependent variation in the TIMIT database. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 92:593–96
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Cangemi F, Krüger M, Grice M 2015. Listener-specific perception of speaker-specific production in intonation. Individual Differences in Speech Production and Perception S Fuchs, D Pape, C Petrone, P Perrier123–45 Bern, Switz.: Peter Lang
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Chandrasekaran B, Kraus N 2010. The scalp-recorded brainstem response to speech: neural origins and plasticity. Psychophysiology 47:236–46
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Chandrasekaran B, Krishnan A, Gandour JT 2009. Relative influence of musical and linguistic experience on early cortical processing of pitch contours. Brain Lang. 108:1–9
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Chodroff E, Wilson C 2017. Structure in talker-specific phonetic realization: covariation of stop consonant VOT in American English. J. Phon. 61:30–47
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Coetzee AW, Beddor PS, Shedden K, Styler W, Wissing D 2018. Plosive voicing in Afrikaans: differential cue weighting and tonogenesis. J. Phon. 66:185–216
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Constantino JN, Todd RD 2003. Autistic traits in the general population. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 60:524–30
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Conway ARA, Cowan N, Bunting MF 2001. The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: the importance of working memory capacity. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 8:331–35
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Davidson L 2011. Phonetic, phonemic, and phonological factors in cross-language discrimination of phonotactic contrasts. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 37:270–82
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Dell GS 1986. A spreading activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychol. Rev. 93:283–321
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Díaz B, Baus C, Escera C, Costa A, Sebastián-Gallés N 2008. Brain potentials to native phoneme discrimination reveal the origin of individual differences in learning the sounds of a second language. PNAS 105:16083–88
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Eckert P 1989. The whole woman: sex and gender differences in variation. Lang. Var. Change 1:245–67
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Eichenbaum H 2001. The hippocampus and declarative memory: cognitive mechanisms and neural codes. Behav. Brain Res. 127:199–207
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Eichenbaum H, Cohen NJ 2001. From Conditioning to Conscious Recollection: Memory Systems of the Brain Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  31. Escudero P, Boersma P 2004. Bridging the gap between L2 speech perception research and phonological theory. Stud. Second Lang. Acquis. 26:551–85
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Ettlinger M, Bradlow AR, Wong PCM 2012. Variability in learning of complex morphophonology. Appl. Psycholinguist. 35:1–25
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Flege JE, Bohn OS, Jang S 1997. Effects of experience on non-native speakers’ production and perception of English vowels. J. Phon. 25:437–70
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Foulkes P, Docherty G 2006. The social life of phonetics and phonology. J. Phon. 34:409–38
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Fowler C 2006. Compensation for coarticulation reflects gesture perception, not spectral contrast. Percept. Psychophys. 68:161–77
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Fowler CA, Brown JM 2000. Perceptual parsing of acoustic consequences of velum lowering from information of vowels. Percept. Psychophys. 62:21–32
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Francis AL, Nusbaum HC 2002. Selective attention and the acquisition of new phonetic categories. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 28:349–66
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Frisch SA, Large NR, Zawaydeh B, Pisoni DB et al. 2001. Emergent phonotactic generalizations in English and Arabic. Typol. Stud. Lang. 45:159–80
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Ganong WF 1980. Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 6:110–25
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Garrett A, Johnson K 2013. Phonetic biases in sound change. See Yu 2013 51–97
  41. 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]
  42. Gordon PC, Eberhardt JL, Rueckl JG 1993. Attentional modulation of the phonetic significance of acoustic cues. Cogn. Psychol. 25:1–42
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Grosvald M, Corina D 2012. Perception of long-distance coarticulation: an event-related potential and behavioral study. Appl. Psycholinguist. 33:55–82
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Happé F 1999. Autism: cognitive deficit or cognitive style?. Trends Cogn. Sci. 3:216–22
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Happé F, Frith U 2006. The weak coherence account: detail-focused cognitive style in autism spectrum disorders. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 36:5–25
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Hornickel J, Skoe E, Nicol T, Zecker S, Kraus N 2009. Subcortical differentiation of stop consonants relates to reading and speech-in-noise perception. PNAS 106:13022–27
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Huang HC 2007. Lexical context effects on speech perception in Chinese people with autistic traits MA thesis Univ. Edinburgh UK:
  48. Idemaru K, Holt LL, Seltman H 2012. Individual differences in cue weights are stable across time: the case of Japanese stop lengths. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 132:3950–64
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Johnson K, Ladefoged P, Lindau M 1993. Individual differences in vowel production. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 94:701–14
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Jun SA, Bishop J 2015. Prominence in relative clause attachment: evidence from prosodic priming. Explicit and Implicit Prosody in Sentence Processing: Studies in Honor of Janet Dean Fodor L Frazier, E Gibson217–40 Stud. Theor. Psycholinguist. 46 Berlin: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Kapnoula EE 2016. Individual differences in speech perception: sources, functions, and consequences of phoneme categorization gradiency PhD thesis Univ. Iowa Iowa City:
  52. Kataoka R 2011. Phonetic and cognitive bases of sound change PhD thesis Univ. Calif. Berkeley:
  53. Kim YH, Hazan V 2010. Individual variability in the perceptual learning of L2 speech sounds and its cognitive correlates. New Sounds 2010: Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second Language Speech251–56 Poznan, Pol.: Univ. Adama Mickiewicza Poznaniu
    [Google Scholar]
  54. King J, Just MA 1991. Individual differences in syntactic processing: the role of working memory. J. Mem. Lang. 30:580–602
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Klatt DH 1986. The problem of variability in speech recognition and in models of speech perception. Invariance and Variability in Speech Processes JS Perkell, DH Klatt300–19 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Kong EJ, Edwards J 2016. Individual differences in categorical perception of speech: cue weighting and executive function. J. Phon. 59:40–57
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Kong EJ, Lee H 2018. Attentional modulation and individual differences in explaining the changing role of fundamental frequency in Korean laryngeal stop perception. Lang. Speech. 61:384–408
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Kraljic T, Samuel AG 2006. Generalization in perceptual learning for speech. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 13:262–68
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Labov W 1979. Locating the frontier between social and pscyhological factors in linguistic variation. Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behavior CJ Fillmore, D Kempler, WSY Wang327–40 New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Labov W 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change, vol. 1: Internal Factors Oxford, UK: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Labov W 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change, vol. 2: Social Factors Oxford, UK: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Labov W, Ash S, Boberg C 2006. Atlas of North American English: Phonetics, Phonology, and Sound Change Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
  63. Labov W, Ash S, Ravindranath M, Weldon T, Nagy N 2011. Properties of the sociolinguistic monitor. J. Socioling. 15:431–63
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Large NR, Frisch S, Pisoni DB 1998. Perception of wordlikeness: effects of segment probability and length on subjective ratings and processing of nonword sound patterns. Res. Spoken Lang. Proc. 22:95–125
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Lavie N, Hirst A, de Fockert JW, Viding E 2004. Load theory of selective attention and cognitive control. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 133:339–54
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Lev-Ari S 2018. The influence of social network size on speech perception. Q. J. Exp. Physiol. 71:2249–60
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Lev-Ari S, Peperkamp S 2013. Low inhibitory skill leads to non-native perception and production in bilinguals’ native language. J. Phon. 41:320–31
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Lev-Ari S, Peperkamp S 2014. The influence of inhibitory skill on phonological representations in production and perception. J. Phon. 47:36–46
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Lev-Ari S, Peperkamp S 2016. How the demographic makeup of our community influences speech perception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 139:3076–87
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Levon E, Fox S 2014. Salience and the sociolinguistic monitor: a case study of ING and TH fronting in Britain. J. Engl. Linguist. 42:185–217
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Lewellen MJ, Goldinger SD, Pisoni DB, Greene BG 1993. Lexical familiarity and processing efficiency: individual differences in naming, lexical decision, and semantic categorization. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 122:316–30
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Liberman A, Mattingly IG 1985. The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition 21:1–36
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Lisker L 1986. “voicing” in English: a catalogue of acoustic features signaling /b/ versus /p/ in trochees. Lang. Speech 29:3–11
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Lisker L, Abramson A 1964. A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: acoustical measurements. Word 20:384–422
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Lisker L, Abramson A 1970. The voicing dimension: some experiments in comparative phonetics. Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences569–73 Prague: Academia
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Lotto AJ, Holt LL 2006. Putting phonetic context effects into context: commentary on Fowler (2005). Percept. Psychophys. 68:178–83
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Lundström S, Chang Z, Råstam M, Gillberg C, Larsson H et al. 2012. Autism spectrum disorders and autistic like traits: similar etiology in the extreme end and the normal variation. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 69:46–52
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Massaro DW, Cohen MM 1983. Evaluation and integration of visual and auditory information in speech perception. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 9:753–71
    [Google Scholar]
  79. McMurray B, Munson C, Tomblin JB 2014. Individual differences in language ability are related to variation in word recognition, not speech perception: evidence from eye movements. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 57:1344–62
    [Google Scholar]
  80. McMurray B, Samelson VM, Lee SH, Tomblin JB 2010. Individual differences in online spoken word recognition: implications for SLI. Cogn. Psychol. 60:1–39
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Messick S 1976. Individuality in Learning San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
  82. Mielke J, Baker A, Archangeli D 2016. Individual-level contact limits phonological complexity: evidence from bunched and retroflex //. Language 92:101–40
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Milroy J, Milroy L 1985. Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation. J. Linguist. 21:339–84
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Miyake A, Friedman NP 2012. The nature and organization of individual differences in executive functions: four general conclusions. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 21:8–14
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Mottron L, Dawson M, Soulières I, Hubert B, Burack J 2006. Enhanced perceptual functioning in autism: an update, and eight principles of autistic perception. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 36:27–43
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Myers EB, Blumstein SE 2007. The neural bases of the lexical effect: an fMRI investigation. Cereb. Cortex 18:278–88
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Näätänen R 2001. The perception of speech sounds by the human brain as reflected by the mismatch negativity (MMN) and its magnetic equivalent (MMNm). Psychophysiology 38:1–21
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Newman RS 1997. Individual differences and the link between speech perception and speech production PhD thesis SUNY Buffalo
  89. Newman RS, Clouse SA, Burnham JL 2001. The perceptual consequences of within-talker variability in fricative production. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 109:1181–96
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Norris D, McQueen JM, Cutler A 2003. Perceptual learning in speech. Cogn. Psychol. 47:204–38
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Nycz J 2011. Second dialect acquisition: implications for theories of phonological representation PhD thesis NYU
  92. Ohala JJ 1981. The listener as a source of sound change. Papers from the Parasession on Language and Behavior CS Masek, RA Hendrick, MF Miller178–203 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Society
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Ohala JJ 1993. Coarticulation and phonology. Lang. Speech 36:155–70
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Ohala JJ 1994. The frequency codes underlies the sound symbolic use of voice pitch. Sound Symbolism L Hinton, J Nichols, JJ Ohala325–47 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Perkell JS, Guenther FH, Lane H, Matthies ML, Stockmann E et al. 2004.a The distinctness of speakers’ productions of vowel contrasts is related to their discrimination of the contrasts. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116:2338–44
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Perkell JS, Matthies ML, Tiede M, Lane H, Zandipour M et al. 2004.b The distinctness of speakers’ /s/–/∫/ contrast is related to their auditory discrimination and use of an articulatory saturation effect. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 47:1259–69
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Peterson GE, Barney HL 1952. Control methods used in a study of the vowels. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 24:175–84
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Pierrehumbert J 2002. Word specific phonetics. Laboratory Phonology VII C Gussenhoven, N Warner101–39 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Pitt M 1998. Phonological processes and the perception of phonotactically illegal consonant clusters. Percept. Psychophys. 60:941–51
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Prichard H, Tamminga M 2012. The impact of higher education on Philadelphia vowels. Univ. Pa. Work. Pap. Linguist. 18:11
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Repp BH 1981. Two strategies in fricative discrimination. Percept. Psychophys. 30:217–27
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Riding RJ, Rayner S 2000. International Perspectives on Individual Differences, vol. 1: Cognitive Styles New York: Ablex
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Sachs J, Lieberman P, Erickson D 1973. Anatomical and cultural determinants of male and female speech. Language Attitudes: Current Trends and Prospects RW Shuy, RW Fasold74–84 Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Scarborough R 2012. Lexical similarity and speech production: neighborhoods for nonwords. Lingua 122:164–76
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Schertz J, Cho T, Lotto A, Warner N 2015. Individual differences in phonetic cue use in production and perception of a non-native sound contrast. J. Phon. 52:183–204
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Shankweiler D, Strange W, Verbrugge R 1977. Speech and the problem of perceptual constancy. Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology R Shaw, J Bransford315–45 New York: Erlbaum
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Shultz AA, Francis AL, Llanos F 2012. Differential cue weighting in perception and production of consonant voicing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Express Lett. 132:95–101
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Skoe E, Kraus N 2010. Auditory brainstem response to complex sounds: a tutorial. Ear Hear. 31:302–24
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Sonderegger M, Bane M, Graff P 2017. The medium-term dynamics of accents on reality television. Language 93:598–640
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Song JH, Nicol T, Kraus N 2011. Test-retest reliability of the speech-evoked auditory brainstem response. Clin. Neurophysiol. 122:346–55
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Stevens M, Harrington J 2014. The individual and the actuation of sound change. Loquens 1:e003
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Stewart ME, Ota M 2008. Lexical effects on speech perception in individuals with “autistic” traits. Cognition 109:157–62
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Stoesz BM, Jakobson LS 2008. The influence of processing style on face perception. J. Vis. 8:1138
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Tettamanti M, Moro A, Messa C, Moresco RM, Rizzo G et al. 2005. Basal ganglia and language: Phonology modulates dopaminergic release. NeuroReport 16:397–401
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Tilsen S, Cohn A 2016. Shared representations underlie metaphonological judgments and speech motor control. Lab. Phonol. 7:14
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Toscano J, McMurray B, Dennhardt J, Luck SJ 2010. Continuous perception and graded categorization: electrophysiological evidence for a linear relationship between the acoustic signal and perceptual encoding of speech. Psychol. Sci. 21:1532–40
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Trehub SE 1976. The discrimination of foreign speech contrasts by adults and infants. Child Dev. 47:466–72
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Tremblay K, Kraus N, McGee T 1998. The time course of auditory perceptual learning: neurophysiological changes during speech-sound training. NeuroReport 9:3557–60
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Turnbull RJ 2015. Assessing the listener-oriented account of predictability-based phonetic reduction PhD thesis Ohio State Univ. Columbus:
  120. Ullman MT 1999. Acceptability rating of regular and irregular past-tense forms: evidence for a dual-system model of language from word frequency and phonological neighborhood effects. Lang. Cogn. Process. 14:47–67
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Viswanathana N, Magnusona JS, Fowler CA 2010. Compensation for coarticulation: disentangling auditory and gestural theories of perception of coarticulatory effects in speech. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 36:1005–15
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Vitevich M, Luce P 1998. When words compete: levels of processing in perception of spoken words. Psychol. Sci. 9:325–29
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Vitevitch MS, Luce PA 2016. Phonological neighborhood effects in spoken word perception and production. Annu. Rev. Linguist. 2:75–94
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Vorperian HK, Wang S, Schimek EM, Durtschi RB, Kent RD et al. 2011. Development sexual dimorphism of the oral and pharyngeal portions of the vocal tract: an imaging study. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 54:995–1010
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Wagner SE 2012. Real-time evidence for age grad(ing) in late adolescence. Lang. Var. Change 24:179–202
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Weinreich U, Labov W, Herzog M 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. Directions for Historical Linguistics W Lehmann, Y Malkiel95–188 Austin: Univ. Tex. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Werker J, Tees RC 1994. Cross-language speech perception: evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behav. Dev. 7:49–63
    [Google Scholar]
  128. WHO (World Health Organ.) 1994. International Classification of Diseases Geneva, Switz.: WHO 10th ed.
  129. Witkin HA, Moore CA, Goodenough DR, Cox PW 1977. Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Rev. Educ. Res. 47:1–64
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Wong PC, Ettlinger M, Zheng J 2013. Linguistic grammar learning and DRD2-TAQ-IA polymorphism. PLOS ONE 8:e64983
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Wong PC, Perrachione TK, Parrish TB 2007. Neural characteristics of successful and less successful speech and word learning in adults. Hum. Brain Mapp. 28:995–1006
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Wong PCM, Perrachione TK 2007. Learning pitch patterns in lexical identification by native English–speaking adults. Appl. Psycholinguist. 28:565–85
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Yu ACL 2010. Perceptual compensation is correlated with individuals’ “autistic” traits: implications for models of sound change. PLOS ONE 5:e11950
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Yu ACL 2013. Individual differences in socio-cognitive processing and the actuation of sound change. Origins of Sound Change: Approaches to Phonologization ACL Yu201–27 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Yu ACL 2016. Vowel-dependent variation in Cantonese /s/ from an individual-difference perspective. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 139:1672–90
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Yu ACL, Lee H 2014. The stability of perceptual compensation for coarticulation within and across individuals: a cross-validation study. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 136:382–88
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Yu ACL, Abrego-Collier C, Phillips J, Pillion B 2015. Investigating variation in English vowel-to-vowel coarticulation in a longitudinal phonetic corpus. Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences London: Int. Phon. Assoc.5
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Zellou G 2017. Individual differences in the production of nasal coarticulation and perceptual compensation. J. Phon. 61:13–29
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Zellou G, Scarborough R, Nielsen K 2016. Phonetic imitation of coarticulatory vowel nasalization. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 140:3560–75
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Zellou G, Tamminga M 2014. Nasal coarticulation changes over time in Philadelphia English. J. Phon. 47:18–35
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-033815
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
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