How linguistic chickens help spot spoken-eggs: Phonological constraints on speech identification

Frontiers in Psychology

Volumn 2, Issue SEP, 2011, Pages

  Berent, Iris ^a   Balaban, Evan ^b,c   Vaknin Nusbaum, Vered ^d,e  

^a NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c SISSA   (Italy)

^d UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA   (Israel)

^e WESTERN GALILEE COLLEGE   (Israel)

Author keywords

Encapsulation; Modularity; Non speech; Phonological theory; Phonology; Speech; Well formedness

Indexed keywords

EID: 84866532685     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16641078     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00182     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Abrams, D. A., Bhatara, A., Ryali, S., Balaban, E., Levitin, D. J., and Menon, V. (2010). Decoding temporal structure in music and speech relies on shared brain resources but elicits different fine-scale spatial patterns. Cereb. Cortex 21, 1507-1518.
2. Azadpour, M., and Balaban, E. (2008). Phonological representations are unconsciously used when processing complex, non-speech signals. PLoS ONE 3, e1966. doi: 10.1371/journal. pone.0001966.
3. Berent, I., Balaban, E., Lennertz, T., and Vaknin-Nusbaum, V. (2010). Phonological universals constrain the processing of nonspeech. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 139, 418-435.
4. Berent, I., Bibi, U., and Tzelgov, J. (2005). The autonomous computation of linguistic structure in reading: evidence from the Stroop task. Mental Lex. 1, 201-230.
5. Berent, I., Everett, D. L., and Shimron, J. (2001a). Do phonological representations specify variables? Evidence from the obligatory contour principle. Cogn. Psychol. 42, 1-60.
6. Berent, I., Shimron, J., and Vaknin, V. (2001b). Phonological constraints on reading: evidence from the obligatory contour principle. J. Mem. Lang. 44, 644-665.
7. Berent, I., and Lennertz, T. (2010). Universal constraints on the sound structure of language: phonological or acoustic? J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 36, 212-223.
8. Berent, I., Lennertz, T., Smolensky, P., and Vaknin-Nusbaum, V. (2009). Listeners' knowledge of phonological universals: evidence from nasal clusters. Phonology 26, 75-108.
9. Berent, I., Marcus, G. F., Shimron, J., and Gafos, A. I. (2002). The scope of linguistic generalizations: evidence from Hebrew word formation. Cognition 83, 113-139.
10. Berent, I., and Shimron, J. (1997). The representation of Hebrew words: evidence from the obligatory contour principle. Cognition 64, 39-72.
11. Berent, I., Steriade, D., Lennertz, T., and Vaknin, V. (2007a). What we know about what we have never heard: evidence from perceptual illusions. Cognition 104, 591-630.
12. Berent, I., Vaknin, V., and Marcus, G. (2007b). Roots, stems, and the universality of lexical representations: evidence from Hebrew. Cognition 104, 254-286.
13. Berent, I., Wilson, C., Marcus, G., and Bemis, D. (in press). On the role of variables in phonology: remarks on Hayes and Wilson. Linguist. Inq. 43.
14. Brentari, D., Coppola, M., Mazzoni, L., and Goldin-Meadow, S. (2011). When does a system become phonological? Handshape production in gestures, signers and homesigners. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory. doi: 10.1007/s11049-011-9145-1. [Epub ahead of print].
15. Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and Representations. New York: Columbia University Press.
16. Dehaene-Lambertz, G., Pallier, C., Semiclaes, W., Sprenger-Charolles, L., Jobert, A., and Dehaene, S. (2005). Neural correlates of switching from auditory to speech perception. Neuroimage 24, 21-33.
17. Fodor, J. (1983). The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. Goldinger, S. D., and Azuma, T. (2003). Puzzle-solving science: the quixotic quest for units in speech perception. J. Phon. 31, 305-320.
19. Greenberg, J. H. (1950). The patterning of morphemes in semitic. Word 6, 162-181.
20. Iverson, J. R., and Patel, A. D. (2008). Perception of rhythmic grouping depends on auditory experience. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 124, 2263-2271.
21. Iverson, P., Kuhl, P. K., Akahane-Yamada, R., Diesch, E., Tohkura, Y., Kettermann, A., and Siebert, C. (2003). A perceptual interference account of acquisition difficulties for non-native phonemes. Cognition 87, B47-B57.
22. Kirk, R. (1982). Experimental Design: Procedures For the Behavioral Sciences. Pacific grove: Brooks/Cole.
23. Liberman, A. M., Cooper, F. S., Shankweiler, D. P., and Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1967). Perception of the speech code. Psychol. Rev. 74, 431-461.
24. Liberman, A. M., and Mattingly, I. G. (1989). A specialization for speech perception. Science 243, 489-494.
25. Liebenthal, E., Binder, J. R., Piorkowski, R. L., and Remez, R. E. (2003). Shortterm reorganization of auditory analysis induced by phonetic experience. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 15, 549-558.
26. Lukatela, G., Eaton, T., Sabadini, L., and Turvey, M. T. (2004). Vowel duration affects visual word identification: evidence that the mediating phonology is phonetically informed. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 30, 151-162.
27. Lukatela, G., Eaton, T., and Turvey, M. T. (2001). Does visual word identification involve a sub-phonemic level? Cognition 78, B41-B52.
28. Maddieson, I. (2006). "In search of universals," in Linguistic Universals, eds R. Mairal and J. Gil (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 80-100.
29. Marcus, G. (2001). The Algebraic Mind: Integrating Connectionism and Cognitive Science. Cambridge: MIT press.
30. McCarthy, J. J. (1986). OCP effects: gemination and antigemination. Linguist. Inq. 17, 207-263.
31. Meyer, M., Zaehle, T., Gountouna, V.-E., Barron, A., Jancke, L., and Turk, A. (2005). Spectro-temporal processing during speech perception involves left posterior auditory cortex. Neuroreport 16, 1985-1989.
32. Molfese, D. L., and Molfese, V. J. (1980). Cortical response of preterm infants to phonetic and nonphonetic speech stimuli. Dev. Psychol. 16, 574-581.
33. Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct. New York: Morrow.
34. Pinker, S., and Jackendoff, R. (2005). The faculty of language: what's special about it? Cognition 95, 201-236.
35. Prince, A., and Smolensky, P. (1993/2004). Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
36. Prince, A., and Smolensky, P. (1997). Optimality: from neural networks to universal grammar. Science 275, 1604-1610.
37. Remez, R. E., Pardo, J. S., Piorkowski, R. L., and Rubin, P. E. (2001). On the bistability of sine wave analogues of speech. Psychol. Sci. 12, 24-29.
38. Remez, R. E., Rubin, P. E., Pisoni, D. B., and Carrell, T. D. (1981). Speech perception without traditional speech cues. Science 212, 947-949.
39. Rogalsky, C., Rong, F., Saberi, K., and Hickock, G. (2011). Functional anatomy of language and music perception: temporal and structural factors investigated using functional magnetic resonance imaging. J. Neurosci. 31, 2843-3852.
40. Rumelhart, D. E., and McClelland, J. L. (1986). "On learning past tense of english verbs: implicit rules or parallel distributed processing?" in Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, Vol. 2, eds D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland, and T. P. R. Group (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 216-271.
41. Sandler, W., Aronoff, M., Meir, I., and Padden, C. (2011). The gradual emergence of phonological form in a new language. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 29, 505-543.
42. Sandler, W., and Lillo-Martin, D. C. (2006). Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. Shultz, S., and Vouloumanos, A. (2010). Three-month-olds prefer speech to other naturally occurring signals. Lang. Learn. Dev. 6, 241-257.
44. Suzuki, K. (1998). A Typological Investigation of Dissimilation. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona.
45. Telkemeyer, S., Rossi, S., Koch, S. P., Nierhaus, T., Steinbrink, J., Poeppel, D., Obrig, H., and Wartenburger, I. (2009). Sensitivity to newborn auditory cortex to the temporal structure of sounds. J. Neurosci. 29, 14726-14733.
46. Trout, J. (2003). Biological specialization for speech: what can the animals tell us? Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 12, 155-159. Van Orden, G. C., Pennington, B. F., and Stone, G. O. (1990). Word Berent et al. Phonological constraints on speech identification.
47. identification in reading and the promise of subsymbolic psycholinguistics. Psychol. Rev. 97, 488-522.
48. Vouloumanos, A., Hauser, M. D., Werker, J. F., and Martin, A. (2010). The tuning of human neonates' preference for speech. Child Dev. 81, 517-527.
49. Vouloumanos, A., Kiehl, K. A., Werker, J. F., and Liddle, P. F. (2001). Detection of sounds in the auditory stream: event-related fMRI evidence for differential activation to speech and nonspeech. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 13, 994-1005.
50. Vouloumanos, A., and Werker, J. F. (2007). Listening to language at birth: evidence for a bias for speech in neonates. Dev. Sci. 10, 159-164.
51. Yip, M. (1988). The obligatory contour principle and phonological rules: a loss of identity. Linguist. Inq. 19, 65-100.
52. Yoshida, K. A., Iversen, J. R., Patel, A. D., Mazuka, R., Nito, H., Gervain, J., and Werker, J. F. (2010). The development of perceptual grouping biases in infancy: a Japanese-English cross-linguistic study. Cognition 115, 356-361.