The role of variation in the perception of accented speech

Cognition

Volumn 119, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 131-136

  Sumner, Meghan ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Accented speech; Perceptual learning; Phonetic categories; Phonetic variation; Speech perception; VOT

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; HUMAN; LANGUAGE ABILITY; LEARNING; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PHONETICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPEECH ANALYSIS; SPEECH ARTICULATION; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH THERAPY; WORD RECOGNITION;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LEARNING; SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 79951945388     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.018     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Allen J.S., Miller J., DeSteno D. Individual talker differences in voice-onset-time. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2003, 113:544-552.
2. Archangeli D. Aspects of underspecification theory. Phonology 1988, 5:183-207.
3. Boersma P. Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International 2001, 5:341-345.
4. Bradlow A.R., Bent T. Perceptual adaptation to non-native speech. Cognition 2008, 106:707-729.
5. Bybee J. Phonology and language use 2001, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
6. Caramazza A., Yeni-Komshian G.H. Voice onset time in two French dialects. Journal of Phonetics 1974, 2:239-245.
7. Caramazza A., Yeni-Komshian G.H., Zurif E.B., Carbone E. The acquisition of a new phonological contrast: The case of stop consonants in French-English bilinguals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1973, 54:421-428.
8. Clarke-Davidson C., Luce P.A., Sawusch J.R. Does perceptual learning in speech reflect changes in phonetic category representation or decision bias?. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics 2008, 70:604-618.
9. Clayards M., Tanenhaus M.K., Aslin R.N., Jacobs R.A. Perception of speech reflects optimal use of probabilistic speech cues. Cognition 2008, 804-809.
10. Cutler A., McQueen J., Norris D. Phonological abstraction in the mental lexicon. Cognitive Science 2006, 30:1113-1126.
11. Deelman T., Connine C.M. Missing information in spoken word recognition: Nonreleased stop consonants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2001, 27:656-663.
12. Eisner F., McQueen J.M. Perceptual learning in speech: Stability over time. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2006, 119(4):1950-1953.
13. Flege J. The detection of French accent by American listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1984, 76:692-707.
14. Flege J.E. Production and perception of a novel, second-language phonetic contrast. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1993, 93:1589-1608.
15. Flege J.E., Hillenbrand J.M. A differential effect of release bursts on the stop voicing judgments of native French and English listeners. Journal of Phonetics 1987, 15:68-73.
16. Ganong W.F. Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1980, 6:110-125.
17. Goldinger S.D. Words and voices: Episodic traces in spoken word identification and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1996, 22:1166-1183.
18. Goldinger S.D. Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review 1998, 105:251-279.
19. Goldstone R.L. Perceptual learning. Annual Review of Psychology 1998, 49:585-612.
20. Gow D.W. Assimilation and anticipation in continuous spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 2001, 45:133-159.
21. Gow D.W. Feature parsing: Feature cue mapping in spoken word recognition. Perception and Psychophysics 2003, 65:575-590.
22. Green K.P., Tomiak G.R., Kuhl P.K. The encoding of rate and talker information during phonetic perception. Perception and Psychophysics 1997, 59:675-692.
23. Hallé P.A., Chéreau C., Segui J. Where is the /b/ in "absurde" [apsyrd]? It is in French listeners' minds. Journal of Memory Language 2000, 43:618-639.
24. Johnson K. Speech perception without speaker normalization: An exemplar model. Talker variability in speech processing 1997, 145-165. Academic, San Diego, CA. K. Johnson, J.W. Mullennix (Eds.).
25. Kessinger R.H., Blumstein S.E. Effects of speaking rate on voice-onset time and vowel production: Some implications for perception studies. Journal of Phonetics 1998, 26:117-128.
26. Kraljic T., Samuel A.G. Perceptual learning for speech: Is there a return to normal?. Cognitive Psychology 2005, 51:141-178.
27. Kraljic T., Samuel A.G. How general is perceptual learning for speech. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2006, 13:262-268.
28. Ladefoged P. A course in phonetics 1975, Hartcourt Brace Janovich, Inc., New York.
29. Lahiri A., Marslen-Wilson W.D. The mental representation of lexical form: A phonological approach to the recognition lexicon. Cognition 1991, 38:245-294.
30. Liberman A., Cooper F., Shankweiler D., Studdert-Kennedy M. Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review 1967, 74:431-461.
31. Lisker L., Abramson A.S. A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: Acoustical measurements. Word 1964, 20:384-422.
32. Lively S.E., Logan J.S., Pisoni D.B. Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/: II. The role of phonetic environment and talker variability in learning new perceptual categories. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1993, 94:1242-1255.
33. McClelland J.L., Mirman D., Holt L.L. Are there interactive processes in speech perception?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2006, 10(8):363-369.
34. McMurray B., Aslin R.N. Infants are sensitive to within-category variation in speech perception. Cognition 2005, 95:B15-B26.
35. McMurray B., Tanenhaus M.K., Aslin R.N. Within-category VOT affects recovery from "lexical" garden paths: Evidence against phoneme-level inhibition. Journal of Memory and Language 2009, 60:65-91.
36. McQueen J.M., Cutler A., Norris D. Phonological abstraction in the mental lexicon. Cognitive Science 2006, 30(6):1113-1126.
37. Mitterer H., McQueen J.M. Processing reduced word-forms in speech perception using probabilistic knowledge about speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2009, 35:244-263.
38. Munro M.J., Derwing T.M. Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning 1999, 49:285-310.
39. Norris D., McQueen J.M., Cutler A. Perceptual learning in speech. Cognitive Psychology 2003, 47:204-238.
40. Nygaard L.C., Pisoni D.B. Talker-specific learning in speech perception. Perception & Psychophysics 1998, 60:355-376.
41. Nygaard L.C., Sommers M.S., Pisoni D.B. Speech perception as a talker contigent processes. Psychological Science 1994, 5:42-46.
42. Pierrehumbert J. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition, and contrast. Frequency effects and the emergence of linguistic structure 2001, 137-157. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. J. Bybee, P. Hopper (Eds.).
43. Pierrehumbert J. Word-specific phonetics. Laboratory Phonology 2002, 7:101-139.
44. Pineda, M., & Sumner, M. (2010). Non-native long-lag VOT: Insights from a distributional analysis. In 159th Meeting of the acoustical society of America, Baltimore, MD.
45. Samuel A.G. Phonemic restoration: Insights from a new methodology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1981, 110:474-494.
46. Samuel A.G. Knowing a word affects the fundamental perception of the sounds within it. Psychological Science 2001, 12:348-351.
47. Studdert-Kennedy M., Liberman A.M., Harris K.S., Cooper F.S. Motor theory of speech perception: A reply to Lane's critical review. Psychological Review 1970, 77:234-249.
48. Sumner M., Samuel A.G. Perception and representation of regular variation: The case of final /t/. Journal of Memory and Language 2005, 52:322-338.
49. Sumner M., Samuel A.G. The effect of experience on the perception and representation of dialect variants. Journal of Memory and Language 2009, 60:487-501.
50. Taft M. Orthographically influenced abstract phonological representation: Evidence from non-rhotic speakers. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2006, 35:67-78.