Perception, Processing and Storage of Subphonemic and Extralinguistic Features in Spoken Word Recognition - An Argument from Language Variation and Change

• Authors: Elżbieta Łukasiewicz
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Recent research on speech perception and word recognition has shown that fine-grained sub-phonemic as well as speaker- and episode-specific characteristics of a speech signal are integrally connected with segmental (phonemic) information; they are all most probably processed in a non-distinct manner, and stored in the lexical memory. This view contrasts with the traditional approach holding that we operate on abstract phonemic representations extracted from a particular acoustic signal, without the need to process and store the multitude of its individual features. In the paper, I want to show that this turn towards the "particulars" of a speech event was in fact quite predictable, and the so-called traditional view would most probably have never been formulated if studies on language variation and language change-in-progress had been taken into account when constructing models of speech perception. In part one, I discuss briefly the traditional view ("abstract representations only"), its theoretical background, and outline some problems, internal to the speech perception theory, that the traditional view encounters. Part two will demonstrate that what we know about the implementation of sound changes has long made it possible to answer, once and for all, the question of integrated processing and storage of extralinguistic, phonemic and subphonemic characteristics of the speech signal.

Keywords

EN

speech perception; subphonemic features; extralinguistic features; language variation; sound change

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Psychology of Language and Communication
• Year: 2012
• Volume: 16
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 1-19

Dates

published

2012-01-01

online

2012-07-02

Contributors

author

Elżbieta Łukasiewicz

• Kazimierz Wielki University, Bydgoszcz

References

• Andruski, J. E., Blumstein, S. E. & Burton, M. (1994). The effect of subphonetic differences on lexical access. Cognition, 52, 163-87.[PubMed][Crossref]
• Chen, M. Y. & Wang, W. S-Y. (1975). Sound change: actuation and implementation. Language, 51, 255-292.[Crossref]
• Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
• Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.
• Galantucci, B., Fowler, C. A. & Turvey, M. T. (2006). The motor theory of speech perception reviewed. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13 (3), 361-377.[Crossref]
• Gaskell, M. G. & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1997). Integrating form and meaning: a distributed model of speech perception. Language and Cognitive Process, 12, 613-656.
• Goldinger, S. D. (1998). Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review, 105, 251-279.[Crossref][PubMed]
• Goldinger, S. D., Pisoni, D. B. & Logan, D. B. (1991). The nature of talker variability effect on recall of spoken word lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 17, 152-162.
• Halle, M. (1985). Speculation about the representation of words in memory. In V. Fromkin (Ed.) Phonetic Linguistics (pp. 101-114). New York: Academic Press.
• Johnson, K. (1997). Speech perception without speaker normalization: an exemplar model. In K. Johnson & J. W. Mullennix (Eds.), Talker Variability in Speech Processing. (pp. 145-166). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
• Johnson, K. (2005). Speaker normalization in speech perception. In D. B. Pisoni & R. E. Remez (Eds.), The Handbook of Speech Perception (pp. 363-389). Oxford: Blackwell.
• Joos, M. A. (1948). Acoustic phonetics. Language, 24, supplement 2, 1-136.
• Jusczyk, P. W. (1993). From language general to language specific capacities. The WRAPSA model of how speech perception develops. Journal of Phonetics, 21, 3-28.
• Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Labov, W. (1981). Resolving the Neogrammarian controversy. Language, 57, 267-308.[Crossref]
• Labov, W. (1994). Principles of Linguistic Change, Volume 1: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Labov, W. (2001). Principles of Linguistic Change, Volume 2: Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Labov, W., Yaeger, M. & Steiner, R. (1972). [LYS] A Quantitative Study of Sound Change in Progress. Philadelphia: U.S. Regional Survey.
• Leach, E. (1998). Lvi-Strauss. 3rd edn. Translated by Piotr Niklewicz. Warszawa: Prószyński i S-ka.
• Liberman, A. M., Delattre, P. & Cooper, F. S. (1954). The role of consonant-vowel transitions in the perception of stop and nasal consonants. Psychological Monographs, 68, 1-13.[Crossref]
• Liberman, A. M. & Mattingly, I. G. (1985). The motor theory revisited. Cognition, 21, 1-36.[Crossref]
• Luce, P. A., Goldinger, S. D., Auer, E. T. & Vitevitch, M. S. (2000). Phonetic priming, neighborhood, activation, and PARSYN. Perception and Psychophysics, 62, 615-625.[PubMed]
• Luce, P. A. & McLennan, C. T. (2005). Spoken word recognition: the challenge of variation. In D. B. Pisoni & R. E. Remez (Eds.), The Handbook of Speech Perception (pp. 591-609). Oxford: Blackwell.
• Lyons, J. (1998). Chomsky. 3rd edn. Translated by Barbara Stanosz. Warszawa: Prószyński i S-ka
• McClelland, J. L. & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 10, 1-86.[Crossref]
• Mullennix, J. W. & Pisoni, D. B. (1990). Stimulus variability and processing dependencies in speech perception. Perception and Psychophysics, 47, 379-390.[PubMed]
• Mullennix, J. W., Pisoni, D. B. & Martin, C. S. (1989). Some effects of talker variability on spoken word recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85, 365-378.[WoS]
• Nygaard, L. C. (2005). Perceptual integration of linguistic and nonlinguistic properties of speech. In D. B. Pisoni & R. E. Remez (Eds.), The Handbook of Speech Perception (pp. 390-413). Oxford: Blackwell.
• Nygaard, L. C., Sommers, M. S. & Pisoni, D. B. (1992). Effects of speaking rate and talker variability on the representation of spoken words in memory. Proceedings 1992 International Conference on Spoken language Processing, (pp. 209-212). Banff, Canada.
• Nygaard, L. C., Sommers, M. S. & Pisoni, D. B. (1994). Speech perception as a talker-contingent process. Psychological Science, 5, 42-46.[PubMed][Crossref]
• Paul, H. ([1880] 1891). Principles of the History of Language. Translated by H. A. Strong from the 2nd ed. (1886) of Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Halle: Max Niemeyer.
• Paul, H. ([1880] 1978). On sound change. In P. Baldi & R. N. Werth (Eds.) Readings in Historical Phonology: Chapters in the Theory of Sound Change. (pp. 3-22). University Park Philadelphia: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
• Pisoni, D. B. (1993). Long-term memory in speech perception: some new findings on talker variability, speaking rate and perceptual learning. Speech Communication, 13, 109-125.[Crossref][PubMed]
• Pisoni, D. B. (1997). Some thoughts on "normalization" in speech perception. In K. Johnson & J. W. Mullennix (Eds.) Talker Variability in Speech Processing. (pp. 9-32). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
• Pisoni, D. B. & Levi, S. V. (2007). Representations and representational specificity in speech perception and spoken word recognition. In M. G. Gaskell (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 3-18). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Port, R. & Leary, A. (2005). Against formal phonology. Language, 81, 927-964.[Crossref]
• Saussure, F. de (1959). Course in General Linguistics. Translated by Wade Baskin. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Saussure, F. de (1991). Kurs językoznawstwa ogólnego. 2nd edn. Translated by Krystyna Kasprzyk. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
• Stevens, K. N. (2005). Features in speech perception and lexical access. In D. B. Pisoni & R. E. Remez (Eds.), The Handbook of Speech Perception (pp. 125-155). Oxford: Blackwell.
• Studdert- Kennedy, M. (1976). Speech perception. In N. J. Lass (Ed.) Contemporary Issues in Experimental Phonetics (pp. 243-293). New York: Academic Press.
• Twaddell, W. F. (1952). Phonemes and allophones in speech analysis. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 24, 607-611.
• Wang, W. S. Y. (1978). Competing changes as a cause of residue. In P. Baldi & R. N. Werth (Eds.), Readings in Historical Phonology: Chapters in the Theory of Sound Change. (pp. 236-259). University Park Philadelphia: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
• Weinreich, U., Labov, W. & Herzog, M. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In W. P. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel (Eds.), Directions for Historical Linguistics. (pp. 95-195). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10057-012-0001-0