How does prosody influence speech categorization?

Journal of Phonetics

Volumn 54, Issue , 2016, Pages 68-79

  Mitterer, Holger ^a   Cho, Taehong ^b   Kim, Sahyang ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MALTA   (Malta)

^b Hanyang University   (South Korea)

^c Hong Ik University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

English and Korean listeners; English stops; Perceptual compensation; Phonetic categorization; Phrase final lengthening; Prosody; Speaking rate normalization

Indexed keywords

EID: 84943574922     PISSN: 00954470     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2015.09.002     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Abramson, A. S., & Lisker, L. (1964). A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: Acoustical measurements. Retrieved from . http://www.researchgate.net/publication/208032881_A_Cross-Language_Study_of_Voicing_in_Initial_Stops_Acoustical_Measurements.
2. Barr D.J., Levy R., Scheepers C., Tily H.J. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 2013, 68(3):255-278. 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001.
3. Beckman M., Pierrehumbert J. Intonational Structure inn Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook 1986, 3:255-309.
4. Brown M., Salverda A.P., Dilley L.C., Tanenhaus M.K. Expectations from preceding prosody influence segmentation in online sentence processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2011, 18(6):1189-1196.
5. Byrd D., Saltzman E. The elastic phrase: Modeling the dynamics of boundary-adjacent lengthening. Journal of Phonetics 2003, 31:149-180.
6. Byrd D., Krivokapić J., Lee S. How far, how long: On the temporal scope of prosodic boundary effects. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2006, 120(3):1589-1599. 10.1121/1.2217135.
7. Cho, T. (2011). Laboratory phonology. In N. C. Kula, B. Botma, & K. Nasukawa (Eds.), Bloomsbury companion to phonology (pp. 343-368). London/New York: Continuum. Retrieved from . http://www.books.google.com.
8. Cho T. Language effects on timing at the segmental and suprasegmental levels. The handbook of speech production 2015, 505-529. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ. M.A. Redford (Ed.).
9. Cho T., Keating P. Effects of initial position versus prominence in English. Journal of Phonetics 2009, 37(4):466-485.
10. Cho T., Kim J., Kim S. Preboundary lengthening and preaccentual shortening across syllables in a trisyllabic word in English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2013, 133(5):EL384-EL390.
11. Cho T., Lee Y., Kim S. Communicatively driven versus prosodically driven hyper-articulation in Korean. Journal of Phonetics 2011, 39(3):344-361.
12. Cho T., Lee Y., Kim S. Prosodic strengthening on the /s/-stop cluster and the phonetic implementation of an allophonic rule in English. Journal of Phonetics 2014, 46:128-146.
13. Cho T., McQueen J.M., Cox E.A. Prosodically driven phonetic detail in speech processing: The case of domain-initial strengthening in English. Journal of Phonetics 2007, 35(2):210-243.
14. Christophe A., Peperkamp S., Pallier C., Block E., Mehler J. Phonological phrase boundaries constrain lexical access I. Adult data. Journal of Memory and Language 2004, 51(4):523-547.
15. Clayards, M. (2015). Prominence enhances voicelessness and not place distinction in English voiceless sibilants. In Proceedings of ICPhS 2015. Glasgow.
16. De Ruiter J.P., Mitterer H., Enfield N.J. Projecting the end of a speaker's turn: A cognitive cornerstone of conversation. Language 2006, 82(3):515-535. 10.1353/lan.2006.0130.
17. Embick D., Poeppel D. Towards a computational (ist) neurobiology of language: Correlational, integrated and explanatory neurolinguistics. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 2014, 30(4):1-10. 10.1080/23273798.2014.980750.
18. Fletcher J. The prosody of speech: Timing and rhythm. The Handbook of Phonetic Sciences, Second Edition 2010, 521-602.
19. Fougeron C., Keating P.A. Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1997, 101(6):3728-3740.
20. Gow D.W. Feature parsing: Feature cue mapping in spoken word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics 2003, 65:575-590. 10.3758/BF03194584.
21. Jaeger T.F. Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 59:434-446. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007.
22. Jun S.-A. Korean intonational phonology and prosodic transcription. Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing 2005, 1:201.
23. Jun S.-A. The implicit prosody hypothesis and overt prosody in English. Language and Cognitive Processes 2010, 25(7-9):1201-1233.
24. Kessinger R.H., Blumstein S.E. Effects of speaking rate on voice-onset time in Thai, French, and English. Journal of Phonetics 1997, 25(2):143-168.
25. Kim S., Broersma M., Cho T. The use of prosodic cues in learning new words in an unfamiliar language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 2012, 34(03):415-444.
26. Kim S., Cho T. The use of phrase-level prosodic information in lexical segmentation: Evidence from word-spotting experiments in Korean. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2009, 125(5):3373-3386.
27. Kim S., Cho T. Prosodic boundary information modulates phonetic categorization. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2013, 134(1):EL19-EL25.
28. Kingston J., Diehl R.L. Phonetic knowledge. Language 1994, 70(3):419-454. 10.2307/416481.
29. Kuzla C., Ernestus M., Mitterer H. Compensation for assimilatory devoicing and prosodic structure in German fricative perception. Laboratory phonology 2010, 10:731-758. Mouton, Berlin.
30. Ladd, D. R. (2008). Intonational phonology. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from 〈https://books.google.com/books?hl=de&lr=&id=T0aIk3GUJoQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Ladd+intonational+Phonology+2008&ots=B6UsxdL6yg&sig=yjl5aM2rn6s23xZ_nAR984xKW9k〉.
31. Ladd D.R., Schepman A. "Sagging transitions" between high pitch accents in English: Experimental evidence. Journal of Phonetics 2003, 31(1):81-112.
32. Ladefoged P., Broadbent D.E. Information conveyed by vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1957, 27:98-104.
33. Ladefoged, P., & Johnson, K. (2014). A course in phonetics. Cengage Learning. Retrieved from . http://www.books.google.com/books?hl=de&lr=&id=U4XaAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=ladefoged+Johnson&ots=KZjUj9OE4R&sig=HjHNj45MqSqKc9G9wD7jjw9uu5U.
34. Lotto A.J., Kluender K.R., Holt L.L. Perceptual compensation for coarticulation by Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1997, 102:1134-1140. 10.1121/1.419865.
35. Mann V.A. Influence of preceding liquid on stop consonant perception. Perception & Psychophysics 1980, 28:407-412.
36. Mann V.A. Distinguishing universal and language-dependent levels of speech perception: Evidence from Japanese listeners perception of English "l" and "r". Cognition 1986, 24:169-196. 10.1016/S0010-0277(86)80001-4.
37. Massaro D.W. Perceiving talking faces: From speech perception to a behavioral principle 1998, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
38. Michelas A., D'Imperio M. Prosodic boundary strength guides syntactic parsing of French utterances. Laboratory Phonology 2015, 6(1):119-146. 10.1515/lp-2015-0003.
39. Miller J.L., Volaitis L.E. Effect of speaking rate on the perceptual structure of a phonetic category. Perception & Psychophysics 1989, 46(6):505-512. 10.3758/BF03208147.
40. Mitterer H., Blomert L. Coping with phonological assimilation in speech perception: Evidence for early compensation. Perception & Psychophysics 2003, 65(6):956-969. 10.3758/BF03194826.
41. Mitterer H., Csépe V., Honbolygo F., Blomert L. The recognition of phonologically assimilated words does not depend on specific language experience. Cognitive Science 2006, 30(3):451-479. 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_57.
42. Mücke D., Grice M., Cho T. More than a magic moment-Paving the way for dynamics of articulation and prosodic structure. Journal of Phonetics 2014, 44:1-7.
43. Nagao K., de Jong K. Perceptual rate normalization in naturally produced rate-varied speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2007, 121(5):2882. 10.1121/1.2713680.
44. Newman R.S., Sawusch J.R. Perceptual normalization for speaking rate III: Effects of the rate of one voice on perception of another. Journal of Phonetics 2009, 37(1):46-65. 10.1016/j.wocn.2008.09.001.
45. Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation (Ph.D. dissertation). Cambridge MA: MIT.
46. Pierrehumbert J., Talkin D. Lenition of /h/and glottal stop. Papers in Laboratory Phonology II: Gesture, Segment, Prosody 1992, 90-117.
47. Ramus F., Nespor M., Mehler J. Correlates of linguistic rhythm in the speech signal. Cognition 1999, 73(3):265-292. 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00058-X.
48. Reetz, H., & Jongman, A. (2011). Phonetics: Transcription, production, acoustics, and perception (Vol. 34). John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from . http://www.books.google.com/books?hl=de&lr=&id=LpxJL1tJajgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA19&dq=Reetz+Jongman&ots=RG85J95FAg&sig=EZiHNeToUKiUE_ZBFhCOIQAwPiI.
49. Reinisch E., Jesse A., McQueen J.M. Speaking rate affects the perception of duration as a suprasegmental lexical-stress cue. Language and Speech 2011, 54(2):147-165.
50. Reinisch E., Sjerps M.J. The uptake of spectral and temporal cues in vowel perception is rapidly influenced by context. Journal of Phonetics 2013, 41(2):101-116. 10.1016/j.wocn.2013.01.002.
51. Rietveld A.C.M., van Heuven V.J. Algemene fonetiek 1997, Coutinho, Bussum, The Netherlands.
52. Schertz J., Cho T., Lotto A.J., Warner N. Individual differences in phonetic cue use in production and perception of a non-native sound contrast. Journal of Phonetics 2015, 52:183-204.
53. Shattuck-Hufnagel S., Turk A.E. A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 1996, 25(2):193-247.
54. Summerfield Q. Articulatory rate and perceptual constancy in phonetic perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1981, 7(5):1074.
55. Toscano J.C., McMurray B. Cue-integration and context effects in speech: Evidence against speaking-rate normalization. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 2012, 74(6):1284-1301. 10.3758/s13414-012-0306-z.
56. Turk A.E., Shattuck-Hufnagel S. Multiple targets of phrase-final lengthening in American English words. Journal of Phonetics 2007, 35(4):445-472.
57. Tyler M.D., Cutler A. Cross-language differences in cue use for speech segmentation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2009, 126:367-376. 10.1121/1.3129127.
58. Wagner M., Klassen J. Accessibility is no alternative to alternatives. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 2015, 30(1-2):212-233. 10.1080/23273798.2014.959532.
59. Welby P. The role of early fundamental frequency rises and elbows in French word segmentation. Speech Communication 2007, 49(1):28-48.
60. White L., Mattys S.L., Wiget L. Language categorization by adults is based on sensitivity to durational cues, not rhythm class. Journal of Memory and Language 2012, 66(4):665-679.
61. Wong P.C.M., Diehl R.L. Perceptual normalization for inter- and intratalker variation in Cantonese level tones. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2003, 46:413-421.