Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T17:20:02.971Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phonological structure in speech recognition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

Anne Cutler
Anne Cutler*
Affiliation:
MRC, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two bodies of recent research from experimental psycholinguistics are summarised, each of which is centred upon a concept from phonology: LEXICAL STRESS and the SYLLABLE. The evidence indicates that neither construct plays a role in prelexical representations during speech recognition. Both constructs, however, are well supported by other performance evidence. Testing phonological claims against performance evidence from psycholinguistics can be difficult, since the results of studies designed to test processing models are often of limited relevance to phonological theory.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Phonology , Volume 3 , May 1986 , pp. 161 - 178
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

§§ 2 and 3 of this paper describe a number of joint research projects, in which the collaboration of Chuck Clifton, Jacques Mehler, Dennis Norris and Juan Segui is acknowledged with deep gratitude. The paper itself has benefited greatly from discussions with, and criticisms from, Chris Caning, John Kingston, Bob Ladd, Peter Ladefoged, Terry Moore, Dennis Norris, John Ohala and Bill Sloman. The faults which remain despite the efforts of this galaxy of talent are only the author's responsibility.

References

Bansal, R. K. (1966). The intelligibility of Indian English. PhD thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
Bell, A. & Hooper, J. B. (eds.) (1978). Syllables and segments. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. L. (1981). Two kinds of vowels, two kinds of rhythm. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Bond, Z. S. & Small, L. H. (1983). Voicing, vowel and stress mispronunciations in continuous speech. Perception and Psychophysics 34. 470–474.Google Scholar
Browman, C. P. (1978). Tip of the tongue and slip of the ear: implications for language processing. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 42.Google Scholar
Brown, R. & McNeill, D. (1966). The ‘tip of the tongue’ phenomenon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 5. 325–337.Google Scholar
Cena, R. M. (1978). When is a phonological generalization psychologically real? Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Cohen, D. & Wirth, J. R. (eds.) (1975), Testing linguistic hypotheses. New York: Halsted.Google Scholar
Crompton, A. (1982). Syllables and segments in speech production. In Cutler, A. (ed.) Slips of the tongue and language production. The Hague: Mouton. 109–162.Google Scholar
Cutler, A. (1979). The psychological reality of word formation and lexical stress rules. Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Copenhagen. Vol. 2. 79–85.Google Scholar
Cutler, A. (1980). .Errors of stress and intonation. In Fromkin, V. A. (ed.) Errors in linguistic performance: slips of the tongue, ear, pen, and hand. New York: Academic Press. 67–80.Google Scholar
Cutler, A. (forthcoming). Forbear is a homophone: lexical prosody does not constrain lexical access. Language and Speech 29.Google Scholar
Cutler, A. & Clifton, C. E. (1983). Lexical stress effects on phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. Paper presented at the 10th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Utrecht.Google Scholar
Cutler, A. & Clifton, C. E. (1984). The use of prosodic information in word recognition. In Bouma, H. & Bouwhuis, D. G. (eds.) Attention and performance. X: control of language processes. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Cutler, A.Mehler, J.Norris, D. G. & Segui, J. (1983). A language-specific comprehension strategy. Nature 304. 159–160.Google Scholar
Cutler, A.Mehler, J.Norris, D. G. & Segui, J. (1986). The syllable's differing role in the segmentation of French and English. Journal of Memory and Language 25. 385–400.Google Scholar
Derwing, B. L. (1979). Psycholinguistic evidence and linguistic theory. In Prideaux, G. D. (ed.) Perspectives in experimental linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 113–138.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D. (1985). A re-examination of phonological neutralization. JL 21. 265–279.Google Scholar
Faure, G.Hirst, D. & Chafcouloff, M. (1980). Rhythm in English: isochronism, pitch, and perceived stress. In Waugh, L. R. & van Schooneveld, C. H. (eds.) The melody of language. Baltimore: University Park Press. 71–79.Google Scholar
Fay, D. & Cutler, A. (1977). Malapropisms and the structure of the mental lexicon. LI 8. 505–520.Google Scholar
Fromkin, V. A. (1975). When does a test test a hypothesis, or, what counts as evidence? In Cohen & Wirth (1975). 43–64.Google Scholar
Fromkin, V. A. (1977). On putting the emPHAsis on the wrong sylLABle. In Hyman (1977). 15–26.Google Scholar
Gabelentz, G. von der (1891). Die Sprachwissenschaft: ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse. Leipzig: Weigel.Google Scholar
Ganong, W. F. (1980). Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 6. 110–125.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. M. (ed.) (1977). Studies in stress and accent. Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics 4.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1894). Progress in language, with special reference to English. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1975) What are phonological theories about? In Cohen & Wirth (1975). 187–209.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. (1980). What are linguistic sounds made of? Lg 56. 485–502.Google Scholar
Lagerquist, L. M. (1980). Linguistic evidence for paronomasia. CLS 16. 185–191.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1980). Speech understanding as a psychological process. In Simon, J. C. (ed.) Spoken language generation and understanding. Dordrecht: Reidel. 39–67.Google Scholar
Mehler, J. (1981). The role of syllables in speech processing: infant and adult data. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B295. 333–352.Google Scholar
Mehler, J.Dommergues, J.Frauenfelder, U. & Segui, J. (1981). The syllable's role in speech segmentation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 20. 298–305.Google Scholar
Meltzer, R.Martin, J.Mills, C. B.Imhoff, D. & Zohar, D. (1976). Reaction time to temporally displaced phoneme targets in continuous speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2. 277–290.Google Scholar
Meringer, R. & Mayer, K. (1895). Versprechen und verlesen: eine psychologischlinguistische Studie. Stuttgart: Goschen. Reissue edited by Cutler, A. & Fay, D. A. (1978). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nessly, L. (1977). On the value of phonological experiments in the study of English stress. In Hyman (1977). 121–141.Google Scholar
Norris, D. G. & Cutler, A. (1985). Juncture detection. Linguistics 23. 689–705.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (1974). Experimental historical phonology. In Anderson, J. M. & Jones, C. (eds.) Historical linguistics. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 353–389.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. & Kawasaki, H. (1984). Prosodic phonology and phonetics. PhY 1. 113–127.Google Scholar
Paul, H. (1880). Principien der Sprachgeschichte. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Robinson, G. M. (1977). Rhythmic organisation in speech processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 3. 83–91.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1980). The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. LI II. 563–606.Google Scholar
Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18. 645–649.Google Scholar