Speaking rate affects the perception of duration as a suprasegmental lexical-stress cue

Language and Speech

Volumn 54, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 147-165

  Reinisch, Eva ^a   Jesse, Alexandra ^a   McQueen, James M ^b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS   (Netherlands)

^b RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

lexical stress; speaking rate; spoken word recognition; suprasegmental cues

Indexed keywords

EID: 79957655636     PISSN: 00238309     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0023830910397489     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Allen, J., & Miller, J.L. (2001). Contextual influences on the internal structure of phonetic categories: A distinction between lexical status and speaking rate. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 798-810.
2. Baayen, H., Davidson, D.J., & Bates, D.M. (2008). Mixed-effect modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390-412.
3. Baayen, H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
4. Bates, D.M., & Sarkar, D. (2007). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes, version 0.999375-27. Cooper, N., Cutler, A., & Wales, R. (2002). Constraints of lexical stress on lexical access in English: Evidence from native and non-native listeners. Language and Speech, 45, 207-228.
5. Cutler, A., & Pasveer, D. (2006). Explaining cross-linguistic differences in effects of lexical stress on spoken-word recognition. In R. Hoffmann & H. Mixdorff (Eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2006 (pp. 237-240). Dresden: TUD Press.
6. Cutler, A., & Van Donselaar, W. (2001). Voornaam is not (really) a homophone: Lexical prosody and lexical access in Dutch. Language and Speech, 44, 171-195.
7. Cutler, A., Wales, R., Cooper, N., & Janssen, J. (2007). Dutch listeners' use of suprasegmental cues to English stress. In J. Trouvain & W. J. Barry (Eds.), Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 1913-1916). Dudweiler: Pirrot.
8. Dahan, D., Magnuson, J.S., Tanenhaus, M.K., & Hogan, E.M. (2001). Subcategorical mismatches and the time course of lexical access: Evidence for lexical competition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16, 507-534.
9. Fry, D.B. (1955). Duration and intensity as physical correlates of linguistic stress. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 27, 765-768.
10. Gordon, P.C. (1988). Induction of rate-dependent processing by coarse-grained aspects of speech. Perception & Psychophysics, 43, 137-146.
11. Mattys, S.L. (2000). The perception of primary and secondary stress in English. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 253-265.
12. Miller, J.L. (1981). Effects of speaking rate on segmental distinctions. In P. D. Eimas & J. L. Miller (Eds.), Perspectives on the study of speech (pp. 39-74). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
13. Miller, J.L. (1987). Rate-dependent processing in speech perception. In A. W. Ellis (Ed.), Progress in the psychology of language (Vol. 3, pp. 119-157). London: Erlbaum Associates.
14. Miller, J.L., & Dexter, E.R. (1988). Effects of speaking rate and lexical status on phonetic perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 369-378.
15. Miller, J.L., & Liberman, A.M. (1979). Some effects of later-occurring information on the perception of stop consonant and semivowel. Perception & Psychophysics, 25, 457-465.
16. Newman, R.S., & Sawusch, J.R. (2009). Perceptual normalization for speaking rate III: Effects of the rate of one voice on perception of another. Journal of Phonetics, 37, 46-65.
17. Nooteboom, S.G., & Doodeman, G.J.N. (1980). Production and perception of vowel length in spoken sentences. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 67, 276-287.
18. Norris, D., & McQueen, J.M. (2008). Shortlist B: A Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. Psychological Review, 115, 357-395.
19. Port, R. (1979). The influence of tempo on stop closure duration as a cue for voicing and place. Journal of Phonetics, 7, 45-56.
20. Reinisch, E., Jesse, A., & McQueen, J.M. (2008). Lexical stress information modulates the time-course of spoken-word recognition. Proceedings of Acoustics '08 (CD-ROM) (pp. 3183-3188). Paris: Société Française d'Acoustique.
21. Reinisch, E., Jesse, A., & McQueen, J.M. (2010). Early use of phonetic information in spoken word recognition: Lexical stress drives eye movements immediately. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(4), 772-783.
22. Repp, B.H., Liberman, A.M., Eccardt, T., & Pesetsky, D. (1978). Perceptual integration of acoustic cues for stop, fricative, and affricate manner. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 621-637.
23. Rietveld, T., Kerkhoff, J., & Gussenhoven, C. (2004). Word prosodic structure and vowel duration in Dutch. Journal of Phonetics, 32, 349-371.
24. Sawusch, J.R., & Newman, R.S. (2000). Perceptual normalization for speaking rate II: Effects of signal discontinuities. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 285-300.
25. Slootweg, A. (1988). Metrical prominence and syllable duration. In P. Coopmans & A. Hulk (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1988 (pp. 139-148). Dordrecht: Fortis.
26. Sluijter, A.M.C., & Van Heuven, V.J. (1995). Effects of focus distribution, pitch accent and lexical stress on the temporal organization of syllables in Dutch. Phonetica, 52, 71-89.
27. Sluijter, A.M.C., & Van Heuven, V.J. (1996). Spectral balance as an acoustic correlate of linguistic stress. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100, 2471-2485.
28. Smits, R., Warner, N., McQueen, J.M., & Cutler, A. (2003). Unfolding of phonetic information over time: A database of Dutch diphone perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113, 563-574.
29. Summerfield, Q. (1981). Articulatory rate and perceptual constancy in phonetic perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 1074-1095.
30. Tanenhaus, M.K., Spivey-Knowlton, M.J., Eberhard, K.M., & Sedivy, J.C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632-1634.
31. Van Donselaar, W., Koster, M., & Cutler, A. (2005). Exploring the role of lexical stress in lexical recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 251-273.
32. Van Heuven, V.J., & Hagman, P. (1988). Lexical statistics and spoken word recognition in Dutch. In P. Coopmans & A. Hulk (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1988 (pp. 59-68). Dordrecht: Fortis.
33. Van Heuven, V.J., & Menert, L. (1996). Why stress position bias? Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100, 2439-2451.
34. Van Leyden, K., & Van Heuven, V.J. (1996). Lexical stress and spoken word recognition: Dutch vs. English. In M. Den Dikken & C. Cremers (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1996 (pp. 159-170). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.