CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 17

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Listener sensitivity to probabilistic conditioning of sociolinguistic variables: The case of (ING)

Vaughn, Charlotte, Kendall, Tyler·2018·Journal of Memory and Language
DOI 10.1016/j.jml.2018.07.006
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jml.2018.07.006

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 61

  1. Abramowicz, Ł. (2007). Sociolinguistics meets exemplar theory: Frequency and recency effects in (ing). University of Pennsylvania working papers in linguistics, 13(2), 3.
  2. Allen, 2004, Listener sensitivity to individual talker differences in voice-onset-time, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115, 3171, 10.1121/1.1701898 · DOI
  3. Allopenna, 1998, Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models, Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 419, 10.1006/jmla.1997.2558 · DOI
  4. Baayen, 2013, Sidestepping the combinatorial explosion: An explanation of n-gram frequency effects based on naive discriminative learning, Language and Speech, 56, 329, 10.1177/0023830913484896 · DOI
  5. Bender, 2005, On the boundaries of linguistic competence: Matched-guise experiments as evidence of knowledge of grammar, Lingua, 115, 1579, 10.1016/j.lingua.2004.07.005 · DOI
  6. Bresnahan, 2002, Attitudinal and affective response toward accented English, Language & Communication, 22, 171, 10.1016/S0271-5309(01)00025-8 · DOI
  7. Bresnan, 2010, Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English, Language, 86, 168, 10.1353/lan.0.0189 · DOI
  8. Brouwer, 2013, Discourse context and the recognition of reduced and canonical spoken words, Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 519, 10.1017/S0142716411000853 · DOI
  9. Bürki, 2010, Is there only one “fenêtre” in the production lexicon? On-line evidence on the nature of phonological representations of pronunciation variants for French schwa words, Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 421, 10.1016/j.jml.2010.01.002 · DOI
  10. Campbell-Kibler, 2007, Accent, (ING), and the social logic of listener perceptions, American Speech, 82, 32, 10.1215/00031283-2007-002 · DOI
  11. Clayards, 2008, Perception of speech reflects optimal use of probabilistic speech cues, Cognition, 108, 804, 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.04.004 · DOI
  12. Connine, 2004, It’s not what you hear but how often you hear it: On the neglected role of phonological variant frequency in auditory word recognition, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 1084, 10.3758/BF03196741 · DOI
  13. Connine, 1987, Interactive use of lexical information in speech perception, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 291
  14. Connine, 2008, Processing variant forms in spoken word recognition: The role of variant frequency, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 70, 403, 10.3758/PP.70.3.403 · DOI
  15. Davis, 2007, Hearing speech sounds: Top-down influences on the interface between audition and speech perception, Hearing Research, 229, 132, 10.1016/j.heares.2007.01.014 · DOI
  16. Docherty, 2013, Listener evaluation of sociophonetic variability: Probing constraints and capabilities, Linguistics, 51, 355, 10.1515/ling-2013-0014 · DOI
  17. Fine, 2013, Rapid expectation adaptation during syntactic comprehension, PLoS One, 8, e77661, 10.1371/journal.pone.0077661 · DOI
  18. Fischer, 1958, Social influences on the choice of a linguistic variant, Word-Journal of the International Linguistic Association, 14, 47
  19. Forrest, 2015, Community rules and speaker behavior: Individual adherence to group constraints on (ING), Language Variation and Change, 27, 377, 10.1017/S0954394515000137 · DOI
  20. Foulkes, 2015, The emergence of sociophonetic structure, The Handbook of Language Emergence, 292, 10.1002/9781118346136.ch13 · DOI
  21. Ganong, 1980, Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6, 110
  22. Garnsey, 1997, The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences, Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 58, 10.1006/jmla.1997.2512 · DOI
  23. Goldinger, 1996, Words and voices: Episodic traces in spoken word identification and recognition memory, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1166
  24. Goldinger, 2004, Episodic memory reflected in printed word naming, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 716, 10.3758/BF03196625 · DOI
  25. Hazen, 2008, (ING): A vernacular baseline for English in Appalachia, American Speech, 83, 116, 10.1215/00031283-2008-008 · DOI
  26. Hothorn, 2008, Simultaneous inference in general parametric models, Biometrical Journal, 50, 346, 10.1002/bimj.200810425 · DOI
  27. Houston, A. (1985). Continuity and change in English morphology: The variable (ING). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
  28. Hura, 1992, On the role of perception in shaping phonological assimilation rules, Language and Speech, 35, 59, 10.1177/002383099203500206 · DOI
  29. Kleinschmidt, 2015, Robust speech perception: Recognize the familiar, generalize to the similar, and adapt to the novel, Psychological Review, 122, 148, 10.1037/a0038695 · DOI
  30. Kuperberg, 2016, What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension?, Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 32, 10.1080/23273798.2015.1102299 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P., & Christensen, R. (2014). LmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models. R package, version 2.0-3. · DOI
  32. Labov, 2011, Properties of the sociolinguistic monitor, Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15, 431, 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2011.00504.x · DOI
  33. Levon, 2014, Social salience and the sociolinguistic monitor: A case study of ing and th-fronting in Britain, Journal of English Linguistics, 42, 185, 10.1177/0075424214531487 · DOI
  34. Levy, 2008, Expectation-based syntactic comprehension, Cognition, 106, 1126, 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006 · DOI
  35. Loudermilk, B. C. (2013). Cognitive mechanisms in the perception of sociolinguistic variation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Davis.
  36. Marslen-Wilson, 1989, Accessing spoken words: The importance of word onsets, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and performance, 15, 576
  37. McAuliffe, 2016, Stimulus-directed attention attenuates lexically-guided perceptual learning, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 140, 1727, 10.1121/1.4962529 · DOI
  38. McAuliffe, M., Socolof, M., Mihuc, S., Wagner, M., & Sonderegger, M. (2017). Montreal Forced Aligner: Trainable text-speech alignment using Kaldi. In Proceedings of Interspeech. · DOI
  39. McMurray, 2011, What information is necessary for speech categorization? Harnessing variability in the speech signal by integrating cues computed relative to expectations, Psychological Review, 118, 219, 10.1037/a0022325 · DOI
  40. McQueen, 2012, Changing only the probability that spoken words will be distorted changes how they are recognized, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131, 509, 10.1121/1.3664087 · DOI
  41. Pierrehumbert, 2006, The next toolkit, Journal of Phonetics, 4, 516, 10.1016/j.wocn.2006.06.003 · DOI
  42. Pinnow, 2014, Phonological variant recognition: Representations and rules, Language and Speech, 57, 42, 10.1177/0023830913479105 · DOI
  43. Pitt, 2009, How are pronunciation variants of spoken words recognized? A test of generalization to newly learned words, Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 19, 10.1016/j.jml.2009.02.005 · DOI
  44. Pitt, 2011, Exploring the role of exposure frequency in recognizing pronunciation variants, Journal of Phonetics, 39, 304, 10.1016/j.wocn.2010.07.004 · DOI
  45. Pitt, 1993, An empirical and meta-analytic evaluation of the phoneme identification task, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 699
  46. Rácz, 2017, Social salience discriminates learnability of contextual cues in an artificial language, Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 51, 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00051 · DOI
  47. Ranbom, 2007, Lexical representation of phonological variation in spoken word recognition, Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 273, 10.1016/j.jml.2007.04.001 · DOI
  48. Sumner, 2013, A phonetic explanation of pronunciation variant effects, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 134, EL26-EL32, 10.1121/1.4807432 · DOI
  49. Sumner, M., Kurumada, C., Gafter, R., & Casillas, M. (2013). Phonetic variation and the recognition of words with pronunciation variants. In The 35th annual meeting of the cognitive science society (pp. 3486–3492). Cognitive Science Society.
  50. Sumner, 2014, The socially weighted encoding of spoken words: A dual-route approach to speech perception, Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1, 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.01015 · DOI
  51. Tamminga, 2017, Matched guise effects can be robust to speech style, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 142, EL18-EL23, 10.1121/1.4990399 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Theodore, 2015, Attention modulates specificity effects in spoken word recognition: Challenges to the time-course hypothesis, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77, 1674, 10.3758/s13414-015-0854-0 · DOI
  53. Theodore, 2015, Talker-specific influences on phonetic category structure, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 138, 1068, 10.1121/1.4927489 · DOI
  54. Traunmüller, 1990, Analytical expressions for the tonotopic sensory scale, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88, 97, 10.1121/1.399849 · DOI
  55. Trueswell, 1993, Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 19, 528
  56. Van Berkum, 2008, The neural integration of speaker and message, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 580, 10.1162/jocn.2008.20054 · DOI
  57. Walker, 2011, Congruence between ‘word age’ and ‘voice age’ facilitates lexical access, Laboratory Phonology, 2, 219, 10.1515/labphon.2011.007 · DOI
  58. Warren, 1970, Perceptual restoration of missing speech sounds, Science, 167, 392, 10.1126/science.167.3917.392 · DOI
  59. Weiss, 2009, Speech segmentation in a simulated bilingual environment: A challenge for statistical learning?, Language Learning and Development, 5, 30, 10.1080/15475440802340101 · DOI
  60. Wild, 2012, Effortful listening: The processing of degraded speech depends critically on attention, Journal of Neuroscience, 32, 14010, 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1528-12.2012 · DOI
  61. Zarcone, 2016, Salience and attention in surprisal-based accounts of language processing, Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 17

Metadata

Authors
Vaughn, C., & Kendall, T.
ORCID
Vaughn, Charlotte
Venue
Journal of Memory and Language
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-12
Volume
103
Pages
58-73
ISSN
0749-596X
DOI
10.1016/j.jml.2018.07.006
Cited by
17
References
3
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Listener sensitivity to probabilistic conditioning of sociolinguistic variables: The case of (ING). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jml.2018.07.006
The paper
Vaughn, C., & Kendall, T. (2018). Listener sensitivity to probabilistic conditioning of sociolinguistic variables: The case of (ING). Journal of Memory and Language. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2018.07.006