The recognition of phonologically assimilated words does not depend on specific language experience

Cognitive Science

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 451-479

  Mitterer, Holger ^a,b   Csépe, Valéria ^c   Honbolygo, Ferenc ^c   Blomert, Leo ^a  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS   (Netherlands)

^c INSTITUTE OF EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE   (Hungary)

Author keywords

Continuous speech; Dutch; Hungarian; Phonological assimilation; Phonology; Speech perception

Indexed keywords

EID: 33745922107     PISSN: 03640213     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_57     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Beddor, P. S., & Krakow, R. A. (1999). Perception of coarticulatory nasalization by speakers of English and Thai: Evidence for partial compensation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 2868-2887.
2. Boersma, P. (1998). Functional Phonology. Formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
3. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2001). Praat (Version4.0) [Computer software and manual]. Retrieved from http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat
4. Booij, G. (1995). The phonology of Dutch. Oxford, England: Clarendon.
5. Bregman, A. S. (1990). Auditory scene analysis: The perceptual organization of sound. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. Coady J. A., Kluender, K. R., & Rhode, W. S. (2003). Effects of contrast between onsets of speech and other complex spectra. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114, 2225-2235.
8. Coenen, E., Zwitserlood, P., & Bölte, J. (2001). Consequences of assimilation for word recognition and lexical representation. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 535-564.
9. Cutting, J. E., & Rosner, B. S. (1974). Categories and boundaries in speech and music. Perception and Psychophysics, 16, 564-570.
10. Darcy, I. (2002). Online processing of phonological variation in speech comprehension: The case of assimilation. In S. Hawkins & N. Nguygen (Eds.), Temporal integration is the perception of speech (p. 32). Baixas, France: International Speech Communication Association.
11. Dawkins, R. (1989). The selfish gene (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
12. de Boer, B. (2000). Self-organisation in vowel systems. Journal of Phonetics, 28, 441-465.
13. Delgutte, B. (1997). Auditory neural processing of speech. In W. J. Hardcastle & J. Laver (Eds.), The handbook of phonetic sciences (pp. 507-538). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
14. Ernestus, M. (2000). Voice assimilation and segment reduction in Dutch. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics, Utrecht.
15. Evans, B., & Iverson, P. (2004). Vowel normalization for accent: An investigation of best exemplar locations in northern and southern British English sentence. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115, 352-361.
16. Farnetani, E. (1997). Coarticulation and connected speech processes. In W. J. Hardcastle (Ed.), Handbook of phonetic sciences (pp. 371-403). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
17. Fowler, C. A. (1996). Listeners do hear sounds, not tongues. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99, 1730-1741.
18. Fowler, C. A., Best, C. T., & McRoberts, G. W. (1990). Young infants' perception of liquid coarticulatory influences on following stop consonants. Perception and Psychophysics, 48, 559-570.
19. Fowler, C. A., & Brown, J. M. (2000). Perceptual parsing of acoustic consequences of velum lowering from information for vowels. Perception and Psychophysics, 62, 21-32.
20. Fowler, C. A., Brown, J. M., & Mann, V. A. (2000). Contrast effects do not underlie effects of preceding liquids on stop-consonant identification by humans. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 877-888.
21. Ganong, W. F. (1980). Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6, 110-125.
22. Gaskell, M. G. (2003). Modelling regressive and progressive effects of assimilation in speech perception. Journal of Phonetics, 31, 447-463.
23. Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1996). Phonological variation and inference in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 144-158.
24. Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2001). Lexical ambiguity resolution and spoken word recognition: Bridging the gap. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 325-349.
25. Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1998). Mechanisms of phonological inference in speech perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 380-396.
26. Gow, D. W. (2001). Assimilation and anticipation in continuous spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 133-159.
27. Gow, D. W. (2002). Does English coronal place assimilation create lexical ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 163-179.
28. Gow, D. W. (2003). Feature parsing: Feature cue mapping in spoken word recognition. Perception and Psychophysics, 65, 575-590.
29. Gow, D. W., & Im, A. M. (2004). A cross-linguistic examination of assimilation context effects. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 279-296.
30. Gussenhoven, C., & Jacobs, H. (1998). Understanding phonology. London: Arnold.
31. Holt, L. L., Lotto, A. J., & Kluender, K. R. (2001). Influence of fundamental frequency on stop-consonant voicing perception: A case of learned covariation or auditory enhancement? Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109, 764-774.
32. Howell, P., & Rosen, S. (1984). Natural auditory sensitivities as universal determiners of phonemic contrast. Lingusitics, 21, 205-235.
33. Hume, E., & Johnson, K. (2001). The interplay of perception and phonology. In E. Hume & K. Johnson (Eds.), The role of speech perception in phonology (pp. 3-26). New York: Academic.
34. Hura, S. L., Lindblom, B., & Diehl, R. (1992). On the role of perception in shaping phonological assimilation rules. Language and Speech, 35, 59-72.
35. Jakobson, R., Fant, G., & Halle, M. (1963). Preliminaries to speech analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36. Jufrasky, D., Bell, A., & Girand, C. (2002). The role of the lemma in form variation. In C. Gussenhoven and N. Warner (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 7 (pp. 3-34). Berlin, Germany: Mouton.
37. Kohler, K. J. (1990). Segmental reduction in connected speech in German: Phonological facts and phonetic explanations. In W. J. Hardcastle & A. Marchal (Eds.), Speech production and speech modelling (pp. 69-92). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
38. Kuhl, P. (1991). Human adults and human infants show a "perceptual magnet effect" for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not. Perception & Psychophysics, 50, 524-536.
39. Ladefoged, P. (1996). Elements of acoustic phonetics (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40. Ladefoged P., & Broadbent, D. E. (1957). Information conveyed by vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 29, 98-104.
41. Ladefoged, P., & Maddieson, I. (1996). Sounds of the world's languages. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
42. Lahiri, A., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1991). The mental representation of lexical form: A phonological approach to the lexicon. Cognition, 38, 245-294.
43. Lahiri, A., & Reetz, H. (2002). Underspecified recognition. In C. Gussenhoven & N. Warner (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 7 (pp. 637-676). Berlin, Germany: Mouton.
44. Lerner, J., & Loewe, F. (1956). My fair lady: A musical play in two acts. New York: Coward-McCann.
45. Liberman, A. M. (1996). Speech: A special code. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
46. Lindblom, B. (1990). Explaining phonetic variation: a sketch of the H&H theory. In W. J. Hardcastle & A. Marchal (Eds.), Speech production and speech modeling (pp. 403-439). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
47. Lindblom, B. (1996). Role of articulation in speech perception: Clues from production. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 99, 1683-1692.
48. Lotto, A. J., & Kluender, K. R. (1998). General contrast effects in speech perception: Effect of preceding liquid on stop consonant identification. Perception and Psychophysics, 60, 602-619.
49. Lotto, A. J., Kluender, K. R., & Holt, L. L. (1997). Perceptual compensation for coarticulation by Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102, 1134-1140.
50. Magnuson, J., McMurray, B., Tanenhaus, M., & Aslin, R. N. (2003). Lexical effects on compensation for coarticulation: A tale of two systems? Cognitive Science, 27, 801-805.
51. Mann, V. A. (1980). Influence of preceding liquid on stop-consonant perception. Perception and Psychophysics. 28, 407-412.
52. Mann, V. A. (1986). Distinguishing universal and language-dependent levels of speech perception: Evidence from Japanese listeners perception of English 'I' and 'r'. Cognition, 24, 169-196.
53. Mann, V A., & Repp, B. H. (1981). Influence of preceding fricative on stop-consonant perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 69, 548-558.
54. Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Warren, P. (1994). Levels of perceptual representations and processes in lexical access: Words, phonemes, and features. Psychological Review, 101, 653-675.
55. Massaro, D. (1998). Perceiving talking faces: From speech perception to a behavioral principle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
56. McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (2001). Spoken word access processes: An introduction. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16, 469-490.
57. McQueen, J. M., Dahan, D. L., & Cutler, A. (2003). Continuity and gradedness is speech processing. In N. O. Schiller & A. S. Meyer (Eds.), Phonetic and phonology in language comprehension and production: Differences and similarities (pp. 39-78). Berlin, Germany: Mouton.
58. Mitterer, H., & Blomert, L. (2003). Coping with phonological assimilation in speech perception: Evidence for early compensation. Perception and Psychophysics, 65, 956-969.
59. Mitterer, H., Csépe, V., & Blomert, L. (in press). The role of perceptual integration in the perception of assimilated word forms. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A: Human Experimental Psychology.
60. Mitterer, H., & Ernestus, M. (2006). Listeners hear /t/s that speakers reduce. Journal of Phonetics, 34, 73-103.
61. Näätänen, R. (1992). Attention and brain function. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
62. Näätänen, R. (1995). The mismatch negativity: A powerful tool for cognitive neuroscience. Ear and Hearing, 16, 6-18.
63. 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.
64. Näätänen, R., Lehtokoski, A., Lennes, M., Cheour, M., Huotilainen, M., Iivonen, A., et al. (1997). Language specific phoneme representation revealed by electric and magnetic brain responses. Nature, 385, 432-434.
65. Näätänen, R., Schröger, E., Karakas, S., Tervaniemi, M., & Paavilainen, P. (1993). Development of a memory trace for a complex sound in the human brain. Neuroreport, 4, 503-506.
66. Näätänen, R., Tervaniemi, M., Sussman, E., Paavilainen, P., & Winkler, I. (2001). "Primitive intelligence" in the auditory cortex. Trends in Neuroscience, 24, 283-289.
67. Näätänen, R., & Winkler, I. (1999). The concept of auditory stimulus representation in cognitive neuroscience. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 826-859.
68. Nearey, T. D. (1989). Static, dynamic, and relational properties in vowel perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85, 2088-2113.
69. Nolan, F. (1992). The descriptive role of segments: Evidence from assimilations. In G. J. Docherty & R. D. Ladd (Eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology: II. Gestures segment, prosody (pp. 261-280). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
70. Ohala, J. J. 1990. The phonetics and phonology of aspects of assimilation. In J. Kingston & M. Beckman (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology I: Between the grammar and the physics of speech (pp. 258-275). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
71. Olsson, M. (1992). Hungarian phonology and morphology. Lund, Sweden: Lund University Press.
72. Otake, T., Yoneyama, K., Cutler, A., & Van der Lugt, A. H. (1996). The representation of Japanese moraic nasals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100, 3831-3842.
73. Pastore, R. E. (1987). Categorical perception: Some psychophysical models. In S. Harnad (Ed.), Categorical perception: The groundwork of cognition (pp. 29-53). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
74. Pepperkamp, S. (2003). Phonological acquisition: Recent attainments and new challenges. Language and Speech, 46, 87-114.
75. Phillips, C. (2001). Levels of representation in the electrophysiology of speech perception. Cognitive Science, 25, 711-731.
76. Schröger, E. (1998). Measurement and interpretation of the mismatch negativity. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 30, 131-145.
77. Schwartz, J.-L., Boë, L. J., Valleé, N., & Abry, C. (1997). Major trends in vowel system inventories. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 233-253.
78. Sinnott, J. M., & Saporita, T. A. (2000). Differences in American English, Spanish, and monkey perception of the say-stay trading relation. Perception and Psychophysics, 62, 1312-1319.
79. Siptár, P., & Törkenczy, M. (2000). The phonology of Hungarian. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
80. Steriade, D. (2001). Directional asymmetries in place assimilation: A perceptual account. In E. Hume & K. Johnson (Eds.), The role of speech perception in phonology (pp. 219-250). New York: Academic.
81. Sussman, H. M., Fruchter, D., Hilbert, J., & Sirosh, J. (1998). Linear correlates in the speech signal: The orderly output constraint. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 241-299.
82. Traunmüller, H., & Eriksson A. (2000). Acoustic effects of variation in vocal effort by men, women, and children. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107, 3438-3451.
83. van Bezooijen, R. (1995). Sociocultural aspects of pitch differences between Japanese and Dutch women. Language and Speech, 38, 253-266.
84. Weber, A. (2001). Help or hindrance: How violation of different assimilation rules affects spoken-language processing. Language and Speech, 44, 95-118.
85. Winkler, I., Lehtokoski, A., Alku, P., Vaiiio, M., Czigler, I., Csepe, V., et al. (1999). Preattentive detection of vowel contrasts uses both phonetic and auditory memory representations. Cognitive Brain Research, 7, 357-369.