An intonational cue to word segmentation in phonemically identical sequences

Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

Volumn 72, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 775-787

  Spinelli, Elsa ^a   Grimault, Nicolas ^b   Meunier, Fanny ^c   Welby, Pauline ^a  

^a CNRS   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ LYON 1   (France)

^c UNIVERSITÉ LUMIÈRE LYON 2   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; PHONETICS; REACTION TIME; SOUND DETECTION; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

CUES; HUMANS; PHONETICS; REACTION TIME; SOUND SPECTROGRAPHY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VOCABULARY;

EID: 77955300973     PISSN: 19433921     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/APP.72.3.775     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Bagou, O., Fougeron, C., & Frauenfelder, U. H. (2002). Contribution of prosody to the segmentation and storage of "words" in the acquisition of a new mini-language. In B. Bel & I. Marlien (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2002 (pp. 159-162). Aix-en Provence: Laboratoire Parole et Langage.
2. Bagou, O., & Frauenfelder, U. H. (2006). Stratégie de segmentation prosodique: Rôle des proéminences initiales et finales dans l'acquisition d'une langue artificielle. In Actes des XXVIèmes Journées d'Étude sur la Parole (pp. 571-574). Dinard, France.
3. Banel, M.-H., & Bacri, N. (1994). On metrical patterns and lexical parsing in French. Speech Communication, 15, 115-126.
4. Barnes, J., Brugos, A., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., & Veilleux, N. (2008, April). Turning points, tonal targets, and the English L phrase accent. Paper presented at the Conference on Experimental and Theoretical Advances in Prosody, Cornell University.
5. Beckman, M. E., & Pierrehumbert, J. B. (1986). Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 255-310.
6. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2004). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 4.2.20) [Computer program]. Available at www.praat.org.
7. Cho, T., McQueen, J., & Cox, E. (2007). Prosodically driven phonetic detail in speech processing: The case of domain-initial strengthening in English. Journal of Phonetics, 35, 210-243.
8. Christophe, A. (1993). Rôle de la prosodie dans la segmentation en mots. PhD disseration, École des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales.
9. Christophe, A., Dupoux, E., Bertoncini, J., & Mehler, J. (1994). Do infants perceive word boundaries? An empirical study of the boot strapping of lexical acquisition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 1570-1580.
10. Christophe, A., Guasti, T., Nespor, M., Dupoux, E., & Van Ooyen, B. (1997). Reflections on phonological bootstrapping: Its role for lexical and syntactic acquisition. Language & Cognitive Processes, 12, 585-612.
11. Church, B. A., & Schacter, D. L. (1994). Perceptual specificity of auditory priming: Implicit memory for voice intonation and fundamental frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20, 521-533.
12. Cutler, A., & Norris, D. (1988). The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 14, 113-121.
13. Cutler, A., & van Donselaar, W. (2001). Voornaam is not (really) a homophone: Lexical prosody and lexical access in Dutch. Language & Speech, 44, 171-195.
14. Di Cristo, A. (2000). Vers une modélisation de l'accentuation du français: Seconde partie. French Language Studies, 10, 27-44.
15. Dilley, L. C., & McAuley, J. D. (2008). Distal prosodic context affects word segmentation and lexical processing. Journal of Memory & Language, 59, 294-311.
16. D'Imperio, M. (2000). The role of perception in defining tonal targets and their alignment. PhD dissertation, Ohio State University.
17. Fosler-Lussier, E., & Morgan, N. (1999). Effects of speaking rate and word predictability on conversational pronunciations. Speech Communication, 29, 137-158.
18. Gahl, S. (2008). Time and thyme are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language, 84, 474-496.
19. Gerken, L., Jusczyk, P. W., & Mandel, D. R. (1994). When prosody fails to cue syntactic structure: 9-month-olds' sensitivity to phonological versus syntactic phrases. Cognition, 51, 237-265.
20. Gerken, L., & McIntosh, B. J. (1993). Interplay of function morphemes and prosody in early language. Developmental Psychology, 29, 448-457.
21. Goldinger, S. (1998). Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review, 105, 251-279.
22. Hirst, D., & Di Cristo, A. (1998). A survey of intonation systems. In D. Hirst & A. Di Cristo (Eds.), Intonation systems: A survey of twenty languages (pp. 1-44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Johnson, K. (1997). Speech perception without speaker normalization: An exemplar model. In K. Johnson & J. W. Mullennix (Eds.), Talker variability in speech processing (pp. 145-165). San Diego: Academic Press.
24. Jun, S.-A., & Fougeron, C. (2000). A phonological model of French intonation. In A. Botinis (Ed.), Intonation: Analysis, modeling and technology (pp. 209-242). Boston: Kluwer.
25. Jun, S.-A., & Fougeron, C. (2002). The realizations of the accentual phrase in French intonation. Probus, 14, 147-172.
26. Kawahara, H., Masuda-Katsuse, I., & de Cheveigné, A. (1999). Restructuring speech representations using a pitch-adaptive time frequency smoothing and an instantaneous-frequency-based f0 extraction: Possible role of a repetitive structure in sounds. Speech Communication, 27, 187-207.
27. Kim, S. (2004a). The role of prosodic cues in word segmentation in Korean. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 3005-3008), Jeju Island, Korea.
28. Kim, S. (2004b). The role of prosodic phrasing in Korean word segmentation. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
29. Kim, S., & Cho, T. (2009). The use of phrase-level prosodic information in lexical segmentation: Evidence from word-spotting experiments in Korean. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125, 3373-3386.
30. Lavoie, L. (2002). Some influences on the realization of for and four in American English. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 32, 175-202.
31. Local, J. (2003). Variable domains and variable relevance: Interpreting phonetic exponents. Journal of Phonetics, 31, 321-339.
32. Mattys, S. L., & Melhorn, J. F. (2007). Sentential, lexical, and acous-tic effects on the perception of word boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122, 554-567.
33. Mattys, S. L., White, L., Melhorn, J. F. (2005). Integration of multiple speech segmentation cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 477-500.
34. McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1-86.
35. McQueen, J. (1998). Segmentation of continuous speech using phonotactics. Journal of Memory & Language, 39, 21-46.
36. Meunier, C., & Espesser, R. (2010).Vowel reduction in conversational speech in French: The role of lexical factors. Manuscript submitted for publication.
37. Millotte, S., René, A., Wales, R., & Christophe, A. (2008). Phonological phrase boundaries constrain the online syntactic analysis of spoken sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 34, 874-885.
38. Muthusamy, Y. K., Cole, R. A., & Oshika, B. T. (1992). The OGI multi-language telephone speech corpus. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 895-898). Banff, AB.
39. Niebuhr, O. (2007). The signalling of German rising-falling intonation categories-The interplay of synchronization, shape, and height. Phonetica, 64, S. 174-193.
40. Norris, D. G. (1994). Shortlist: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition, 52, 189-234.
41. Norris, D., & McQueen, J. M. (2008). Shortlist B: A Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. Psychological Review, 115, 357-395.
42. Peterson, G. E., & Lehiste, I. (1960). Duration of syllable nuclei in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 32, 693-703.
43. Pierrehumbert, J. B. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English Intonation. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Distributed 1987 by Indiana University Linguistics Club.
44. Pierrehumbert, J. B., & Beckman, M. E. (1988). Japanese tone structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
45. Quené, H. (1992). Integration of acoustic-phonetic cues in word segmentation. In M. E. H. Schouten (Ed.), The auditory processing of speech: From sounds to words (pp. 349-356). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
46. Reinisch, E., Jesse, A., & McQueen, J. M. (in press). Early use of phonetic information in spoken word recognition: Lexical stress drives eye-movements immediately. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.
47. Rietveld, A. C. M. (1980). Word boundaries in the French language. Language & Speech, 23, 289-296.
48. Saffran, J., Newport, E., & Aslin, R. (1996). Word segmentation: The role of distributional cues. Journal of Memory & Language, 35, 606-621.
49. Salverda, A. P., Dahan, D., & McQueen, J. M. (2003). The role of prosodic boundaries in the resolution of lexical embedding in speech comprehension. Cognition, 90, 51-89.
50. Selkirk, E. (1995). The prosodic structure of function words. In J. Beckman, L. Walsh Dickey, & S. Urbanczyk (Eds.), Papers in optimality theory (pp. 439-470). Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications. Also in J. L. Morgan & K. Demuth (Eds.), Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition (pp. 187-214). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
51. Shafer, V., Gerken, L. A., Shucard, J., & Shucard, D. (1992). "The" and the brain: An electrophysiological study of infants' sensitivity to English function morphemes. Paper presented at the Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston. [Cited in Christophe et al. (1997)]
52. Shatzman, K. B., & McQueen, J. M. (2006). Segment duration as a cue to word boundaries in spoken-word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 1-16.
53. Shukla, M., Nespor, M., & Mehler, J. (2007). An interaction between prosody and statistics in the segmentation of fluent speech. Cognitive Psychology, 54, 1-32.
54. Simpson, G. B. (1994). Context and the processing of ambiguous words. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 359-374. San Diego: Academic Press.
55. Spinelli, E., McQueen, J., & Cutler, A. (2003). Processing resyllabified words in French. Journal of Memory & Language, 48, 233-254.
56. Spinelli, E., Welby, P., & Schaegis, A. L. (2007). Fine-grained access to targets and competitors in phonemically identical spoken sequences: The case of French elision. Language & Cognitive Processes, 22, 828-859.
57. Vaissière, J. (1983a). Language-independent prosodic features. In A. Cutler & D. R. Ladd (Eds.), Prosody: Models and measurements (pp. 53-66). Berlin: Springer.
58. Vaissière, J. (1983b). The search for language-independent prosodic features. In La percezione del linguaggio (pp. 311-388). Florence: Presso l'Accademia Della Crusca.
59. Vaissière, J. (1997). Langues, prosodies et syntaxe. Traitement Automatique des Langues, 38, 53-82.
60. van Donselaar, W., Koster, M., & Cutler, A. (2005). Exploring the role of lexical stress in lexical recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 251-273.
61. Warner, N., Otake, T., & Arai, T. (2010). Intonational structure as a word-boundary cue in Tokyo Japanese. Language & Speech, 53, 107-131.
62. Welby, P. (2003). The slaying of Lady Mondegreen, being a study of French tonal association and alignment and their role in speech segmentation. PhD dissertation, Ohio State University.
63. Welby, P. (2006). French intonational structure: Evidence from tonal alignment. Journal of Phonetics, 34, 343-371.
64. Welby, P. (2007). The role of early fundamental frequency rises and elbows in French word segmentation. Speech Communication, 49, 28-48.
65. Welby, P., & Lœvenbruck, H. (2006). Anchored down in Anchorage: Syllable structure and segmental anchoring in French. Rivista di Linguistica/Italian Journal of Linguistics, 18, 74-124.