Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast

By Janet B. Pierrehumbert. 2000

1,283 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9ab5da5801e0459ac0531a845ba6933feac7116e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Word-specific phonetics (2001, background): “The reader is referred to Pierrehumbert (2000) and Pierrehumbert, Beckman and Ladd (2001) for a more detailed defense this stance.”
Homophony and morphology: The acoustics of word-final S in English 1 (2015, background): “An alternative to a prosodic account is exemplar-based models (e.g. Goldinger 1998; Bybee 2001; Pierrehumbert 2001, 2002; Johnson 2004; Gahl & Yu 2006), which seem to be better equipped to deal with the kind of variation we find in our data.”
Specificity and abstractness of VOT imitation (2011, background): “Other lessextreme, and linguistically more informed, exemplar-based models include Johnson (1997), Pierrehumbert (2001, 2002, 2006), and Coleman (2002).”
Communicative efficiency in language production: Optional case-marking in Japanese (2015, background): “There are alternative (though related) interpretations of our findings that deserve discussion (e.g., exemplar-based accounts, Pierrehumbert, 2001, and similarity-based interference accounts of grammatical encoding, MacDonald, 2013).”
Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation in spontaneous speech (2009, background): “The linguistic units in question include structures at all levels of linguistic representation and varying degrees of abstraction (see e.g. Borensztajn et al. 2009; Pierrehumbert 2001, 2002; Bybee 2002, 2006; Johnson 1997).”
Locating object knowledge in the brain: comment on Bowers's (2009) attempt to revive the grandmother cell hypothesis. (2010, background): “For many researchers this approach has been appealing (e.g., Johnson, 1997; Pierrehumbert, 2001), and it may seem at first glance to be an escape for the localist approach.”
Prosodic cues for morphological complexity in Dutch and English (2005, background): “The probabilistic, exemplar-based framework by Pierrehumbert (2001, 2003) offers a symbolic account of the representation of word-specific phonetic detail in the mental lexicon.”
Interlingual influence in bilingual speech: Cognate status effect in a continuum of bilingualism* (2011, methodology): “Finally, this paper considers the applicability of the Exemplar Model of Lexical Representation (Bybee, 2001; Pierrehumbert, 2001) to account for cognate effects on VOT and to models of bilingual speech processing and storage.”
Phonological Abstraction in the Mental Lexicon (2006, background): “Our results also challenge more recent extreme episodic theories that share the assumption with LAFS that there is no phonological abstraction prior to lexical access (Bybee, 2001; Goldinger, 1998; Hawkins, 2003; Johnson, 1997a, 1997b; Pierrehumbert, 2001, 2002 ).”
Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech (2012, background): “Previous authors have also noted other possible explanations for the increased vowel dispersion for words in dense neighborhoods, based articulatory target drift (Pierrehumbert, 2001) and perceptual factors unrelated to speakers’ attempts to modify intelligibility (Baese-Berk & Goldrick, 2009; Munso”