Phonetica was published by Karger Publishers up to and including 2020. If you or your institution subscribed to Phonetica during that period, you might still have access to the full text of this article on the Karger platform if you cannot access it here.
Abstract
Background/Aims: Evidence from spoken word recognition suggests that for English listeners, distinguishing full versus reduced vowels is important, but discerning stress differences involving the same full vowel (as in mu- from music or museum) is not. In Dutch, in contrast, the latter distinction is important. This difference arises from the relative frequency of unstressed full vowels in the two vocabularies. The goal of this paper is to determine how this difference in the lexicon influences the perception of stressed versus unstressed vowels. Methods: All possible sequences of two segments (diphones) in Dutch and in English were presented to native listeners in gated fragments. We recorded identification performance over time throughout the speech signal. The data were here analysed specifically for patterns in perception of stressed versus unstressed vowels. Results: The data reveal significantly larger stress effects (whereby unstressed vowels are harder to identify than stressed vowels) in English than in Dutch. Both language-specific and shared patterns appear regarding which vowels show stress effects. Conclusion: We explain the larger stress effect in English as reflecting the processing demands caused by the difference in use of unstressed vowels in the lexicon. The larger stress effect in English is due to relative inexperience with processing unstressed full vowels.
verified
References
1 Baayen RH, Piepenbrock R, van Rijn H (1993): The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia, Linguistic Data Consortium.Search in Google Scholar
2 Boersma P (2001): Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot Int 5:341-345.Search in Google Scholar
3 Broersma M (2005): Perception of familiar contrasts in unfamiliar positions. J Acoust Soc Am 117:3890-3901.10.1121/1.1906060Search in Google Scholar PubMed
4 Bolinger DL (1981): Two Kinds of Vowels, Two Kinds of Rhythm. Bloomington, Indiana University Linguistics Club.Search in Google Scholar
5 Bond ZS, Small LH (1983): Voicing, vowel, and stress mispronunciations in continuous speech. Percept Psychophys 34:470-474.10.3758/BF03203063Search in Google Scholar PubMed
6 Cooper N, Cutler A, Wales R (2002): Constraints of lexical stress on lexical access in English: evidence from native and nonnative listeners. Lang Speech 45:207-228.10.1177/00238309020450030101Search in Google Scholar PubMed
7 Cutler A (1986): Forbear is a homophone: lexical prosody does not constrain lexical access. Lang Speech 29:201-220.10.1177/002383098602900302Search in Google Scholar
8 Cutler A (2005): Lexical stress; in Pisoni DB, Remez RE (eds): The Handbook of Speech Perception. Oxford, Blackwell, pp 264-289.10.1111/b.9780631229278.2004.00014.xSearch in Google Scholar
9 Cutler A (2009): Greater sensitivity to prosodic goodness in non-native than in native listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 125:3522-3525.10.1121/1.3117434Search in Google Scholar PubMed
10 Cutler A, Clifton C (1984): The use of prosodic information in word recognition; in Bouma H, Bouwhuis DG (eds): Attention and Performance X: Control of Language Processes. Hillsdale, Erlbaum, pp 183-196.Search in Google Scholar
11 Cutler A, Koster M (2000): Stress and lexical activation in Dutch; in Yuan B, Huang T, Tang X (eds): Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing. Beijing, China Military Friendship Publishing, vol 1, pp 593-596.Search in Google Scholar
12 Cutler A, Norris D, Sebastián-Gallés N (2004): Phonemic repertoire and similarity within the vocabulary; in Kim S, Bae M (eds): Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Jeju Island, Korea. Seoul, Sunjin Printing Co, vol 1, pp 65-68.Search in Google Scholar
13 Cutler A, Pasveer D (2006): Explaining cross-linguistic differences in effects of lexical stress on spoken-word recognition; in Hoffmann R, Mixdorff H (eds): Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Speech Prosody. Dresden, TUDpress, pp 237-240.Search in Google Scholar
14 Cutler A, van Donselaar W (2001): Voornaam is not (really) a homophone: lexical prosody and lexical access in Dutch. Lang Speech 44:171-195.10.1177/00238309010440020301Search in Google Scholar PubMed
15 Cutler A, Wales R, Cooper N, Janssen J (2007): Dutch listeners' use of suprasegmental cues to English stress; in Trouvain J, Barry WJ (eds): Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Saarbrücken, Pirrot, pp 1913-1916.Search in Google Scholar
16 Dupoux E, Pallier C, Sebastián-Gallés N, Mehler J (1997): A destressing ‘deafness' in French? J Mem Lang 36:406-421.10.1006/jmla.1996.2500Search in Google Scholar
17 Fear BD, Cutler A, Butterfield S (1995): The strong/weak syllable distinction in English. J Acoust Soc Am 97:1893-1904.10.1121/1.412063Search in Google Scholar PubMed
18 Frost R, Katz L (1992): The reading process is different for different orthographies: the orthographic depth hypothesis. Haskins Lab Status Rep Speech Res SR111/112:140-160.10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62789-2Search in Google Scholar
19 Jongenburger W, van Heuven VJ (1995): The role of lexical stress in the recognition of spoken words: prelexi cal of postlexical? Proc 13th Int Congr Phonet Sci, Stockholm, vol 4, pp 368-371.Search in Google Scholar
20 Ladefoged P, Johnson K (2014): A Course in Phonetics, ed 7. Nelson Education. Stamford, Cengage Learning.Search in Google Scholar
21 Lehiste I (1970): Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
22 McQueen JM, Cutler A, Briscoe T, Norris D (1995): Models of continuous speech recognition and the contents of the vocabulary. Lang Cogn Process 10:309-331.10.1080/01690969508407098Search in Google Scholar
23 Norris D, McQueen JM, Cutler A (2016): Prediction, Bayesian inference and feedback in speech recognition. Lang Cogn Neurosci 31:4-18.10.1080/23273798.2015.1081703Search in Google Scholar PubMed
24 Peperkamp S, Vendelin I, Dupoux E (2010): Perception of predictable stress: a cross-linguistic investigation. J Phon 38:422-430.10.1016/j.wocn.2010.04.001Search in Google Scholar
25 Piantadosi ST, Tily H, Gibson E (2012): The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition 122:280-291.10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.004Search in Google Scholar PubMed
26 Raphael LJ (1972): Preceding vowel duration as a cue to the perception of the voicing characteristic of word- final consonants in American English. J Acoust Soc Am 51:1296-1303.10.1121/1.1912974Search in Google Scholar PubMed
27 Sherbecoe RL, Studebaker GA (2004): Supplementary formulas and tables for calculating and interconverting speech recognition scores in transformed arcsine units. Int J Audiol 43:442-448.10.1080/14992020400050056Search in Google Scholar PubMed
28 Slowiaczek LM (1990): Effects of lexical stress in auditory word recognition. Lang Speech 33:47-68.10.1177/002383099003300104Search in Google Scholar PubMed
29 Slowiaczek LM (1991): Stress and context in auditory word recognition. J Psycholinguist Res 20:465-481.10.1007/BF01067638Search in Google Scholar PubMed
30 Sluijter AMC, van Heuven VJ (1996): Acoustic correlates of linguistic stress and accent in Dutch and American English. Proc 4th Int Congr Spoken Lang Process, Philadelphia, pp 630-633.10.1109/ICSLP.1996.607440Search in Google Scholar
31 Small LH, Simon SD, Goldberg JS (1988): Lexical stress and lexical access: homographs versus nonhomographs. Percept Psychophys 44:272-280.10.3758/BF03206295Search in Google Scholar PubMed
32 Smits R, Warner N, McQueen JM, Cutler A (2003): Unfolding of phonetic information over time: a database of Dutch diphone perception. J Acoust Soc Am 113:563-574.10.1121/1.1525287Search in Google Scholar PubMed
33 Trommelen M, Zonneveld W (1999): Word-stress in West-Germanic: English and Dutch; in van der Hulst H (ed): Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, pp 478-515.Search in Google Scholar
34 Van Donselaar W, Koster M, Cutler A (2005): Exploring the role of lexical stress in lexical recognition. Q J Exp Psychol 58A:251-273.10.1080/02724980343000927Search in Google Scholar PubMed
35 Van Heuven VJ, Hagman P (1988): Lexical statistics and spoken word recognition in Dutch; in Coopmans P, Hulk A (eds): Linguistics in the Netherlands 1988. Dordrecht, Foris, pp 59-68.Search in Google Scholar
36 Van Leyden K, van Heuven VJ (1996): Lexical stress and spoken word recognition: Dutch vs English; in Cremers C, den Dikken M (eds): Linguistics in the Netherlands 1996. Amsterdam, Benjamins, pp 159-170.10.1075/avt.13.16leySearch in Google Scholar
37 Warner N, McQueen JM, Cutler A (2014): Tracking perception of the sounds of English. J Acoust Soc Am 135:2295-3006.10.1121/1.4870486Search in Google Scholar PubMed
38 Warner N, Smits R, McQueen JM, Cutler A (2005): Phonological and statistical effects on timing of speech perception: insights from a database of Dutch diphone perception. Speech Commun 46:53-72.10.1016/j.specom.2005.01.003Search in Google Scholar
39 Zsiga EC (2013): The Sounds of Language: An Introduction to Phonetics and Phonology. Malden, Wiley-Blackwell.10.1017/S0025100315000237Search in Google Scholar
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
