The storage of indenical information across segmental length utterances

Autores/as

  • Richard J. File-Murier, Ph.D
  • Samuel Turiciano

Palabras clave:

Speech perception, indexicality, gender, phonology

Resumen

This study examines the ability of listeners to store and recall indexical properties in segmental- length utterances, including details regarding the socially-constructed category “gender” as well as information about individual voices. The idea that indexical properties are irrelevant to speech recognition is a core assumption of generative phonological theory, which emphasizes the role of abstraction and categorization in identifying symbolic-like phonemic strings that are serially ordered. On the other hand, Pisoni (1997) and subsequent work have shown convincingly that this is not the case; indexical information is highly relevant and stored in lexical memory, evidenced by the fact that speakers recognize words uttered by familiar voices faster than unfamiliar voices. This study reports on a simple listening task, in which participants heard segmental-length stimuli (a-i-r-l-m-n-z-s) produced by both familiar and unfamiliar voices. Our results show that listeners store information regarding both gender classification and individual gestural behavior on utterances even as small as the segment. Higher correct identification scores are reported for the voiced sound /z/ than the voiceless /s/, indicating that listeners store information regarding individual speakers’ fundamental frequency and/or vocal cord physiology. At the same time, the identification scores for the voiceless sound /s/ was well above chance, indicating that listeners also store information regarding the configuration of individual speaker’s oral tracts. Our findings contribute to the growing body of research that phonological representation goes well beyond serially-ordered abstract symbols; it is rich and detailed (Pisoni, 1997; Port, 2010). At the same time, our results could also be taken as supportive of the Motor Theory of phonological representation, given that our results indicate storage of physiological differences and gestural properties of meaningless sounds (Galantucci et al., 2006). We also report an unexpected, albeit preliminary finding: Female listeners seem to recall more accurately acoustic detail regarding other female voices, as their identification scores for female stimuli were significantly higher than the scores achieved by male listeners.

Descargas

Los datos de descarga aún no están disponibles.

Referencias

Altieri, N. A., David, B. Pisoni & James T. (2011).Some normative data on lip-reading skills.Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 130,1-4. Townsend.

Chomsky, N., & HaUe, M. (1968). The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.

Clements, G. (1990). The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. Papers in Laboratory Phonology 1: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech, ed. by J. Kingston 8f M. Beckman, 288-333. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Forrest, K., Weismer, G., Milenkovic, P. &c Ronald N. (1988). Statistical analysis of word-initial voiceless obstruents: Preliminary data. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 84,115-123.

Gallantucci, B., Carol, A., Fowler & M. T. Turvey. (2006). The motor theory of speech perception reviewed. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13, 361-377.

Halle, M. (1954). The strategy of phonemics. Word, 10,197-209.

Hankamer, J., 8c Aissen, J. (1974). The sonority hierarchy. Papers from the Regional Meetings, Chicago Linguistic Society, 131-145.

Kenstowicz, M. 8c Kissebert, Ch. (1986). Generative Phonology: Description and Theory. New York: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Koenig, L. (2000). Laryngeal Factors in Voiceless Consonant Production in Men, Women, and 5- Year-Olds. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43,1211-1128.

Lekach, A. (1979). Phonological markedness and the sonority hierarchy. MIT. Working Papers in Linguistics, 1,172-177.

Levitt, A., Healy, A., 8c Fendrich, D. (1992). Syllable- internal structure and the sonority hierarchy: Differential evidence from lexical decision, naming, and reading. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research, 109-110(-), 73-88.

Lucero, J. 8c Koenig, L. (2005). Phonation thresholds as a function of laryngeal size in a two-mass model of the vocal folds (L). Journal of Acoustical Society of America 118.2798-801.

McCarthy, J. (2008). Doing Optimality Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Ohala, J. (1990). Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmental sequential constraints. Papers from the Regional Meetings, Chicago Linguistic Society, 2, 319-338.

Pisoni, D. B. (1997). Some thoughts on normalisation in speech production. In K. Johnson 8c J. W. Mullennix (Eds.), Talker variability in speech processing (pp. 9-32). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Pisoni, D. B. & Robert, R. (eds) 2007. The Handbook of Speech Perception. Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Pisoni, D., Paul A. Luce, (1987). Acoustic-phonetic representations in word recognition. Cognition, Volume 25, Issues (1-2), Marchl987, Pages 21-52.

Port, Robert F. 2010. Rich memory and distributed phonology. Language Sciences 32, 43-55.

Prince, A. & Paul, S. (1993). Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Rutgers: Rutgers Optimality Archive, 537- 0802.

Silbert, N. 8t Kenneth de Jong. (2008). Focus, prosodic context, and phonological feature specification: Patterns of variation in fricative production. Acoustical Society of America 123, 2769-2779.

Stephen, P. (2002). Quantifying the sonority hierarchy (January 1). Electronic Doctoral Dissertations for UMass Amherst. Paper AAI3056268.

Sumby 8c Pollack, I. (1954). Visual contribution to speech intelligibility in noise. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 26,12-15.

Descargas

Publicado

2012-10-31

Cómo citar

The storage of indenical information across segmental length utterances. (2012). Interacción, 11, 13-20. https://revistas.unilibre.edu.co/index.php/interaccion/article/view/2248