Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T10:54:11.979Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Durational cues to word recognition in spoken French

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2012

ELLENOR SHOEMAKER
ELLENOR SHOEMAKER*
Affiliation:
Université Sorbonne Nouvelle
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Ellenor Shoemaker, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle, Paris 3, Laboratoire de Phonétique et Phonologie (CNRS/UMR 7018), 5, rue de l'Ecole de médecine, Paris 75006, France. E-mail: ellenor.shoemaker@univ-paris3.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In spoken French, the phonological processes of liaison and resyllabification can render word and syllable boundaries ambiguous (e.g., un air “an air”/un nerf “a nerve,” both [.nɛʁ]). Production data have demonstrated that speakers of French vary the duration of consonants that surface in liaison environments relative to consonants produced word initially. Further research has suggested that listeners exploit these durational differences in the processing of running speech, although no study to date has directly tested this hypothesis. The current study examines the exploitation of duration in word recognition processes by manipulating this single acoustic factor while holding all other factors in the signal constant. The pivotal consonants in potentially ambiguous French sequences (e.g., /n/ in un nerf) were instrumentally shortened and lengthened and presented to listeners in two behavioral tasks. The results suggest that listeners are sensitive to segmental duration and use this information to modulate the lexical interpretation of spoken French.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , March 2014 , pp. 243 - 273
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Andruski, J., Blumstein, S., & Burton, M. (1994). The effect of subphonetic differences on lexical access. Cognition, 52, 163–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2007). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 4.6.36) [Computer software]. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Bradlow, A., Nygaard, L., & Pisoni, D. (1999). Effects of talker, rate, and amplitude variation on recognition memory for spoken words. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 206–219.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cho, T., & Keating, P. (2001). Articulatory and acoustic studies on domain-initial strengthening in Korean. Journal of Phonetics, 29, 155–190.Google Scholar
Cho, T., McQueen, J., & Cox, E. (2007). Prosodically driven phonetic detail in speech processing: The case of domain-initial strengthening in English. Journal of Phonetics, 35, 210–243.Google Scholar
Content, A., Kearns, R., & Frauenfelder, U. (2001). Boundaries versus onsets in syllabic segmentation. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 177–199.Google Scholar
Content, A., Meunier, C., Kearns, R., & Frauenfelder, U. (2001). Sequence detection in pseudo-words in French: Where is the syllable effect? Language and Cognitive Processes, 16, 609–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A., Mehler, J., Norris, D., & Segui, J. (1989). Limits of bilingualism. Nature, 340, 229–230.Google Scholar
Cutler, A., & Norris, D. (1988). The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 113–121.Google Scholar
Cutler, A., & Butterfield, S. (1992). Rhythmic cues to speech segmentation: Evidence from juncture misperception. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 218–236.Google Scholar
Davis, M., Marslen-Wilson, W., & Gaskell, M. (2002). Leading up the lexical garden-path: Segmentation and ambiguity in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 218–244.Google Scholar
Dejean de la Bâtie, B. (1993). Word boundary ambiguity in spoken French. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Monash University.Google Scholar
Delattre, P. (1951). Principes de phonétique française: à l'usage des étudiants anglo-américains (2nd ed.). Middlebury, VT: Ecole française d'été.Google Scholar
Delattre, P. (1966). Studies in French and comparative phonetics. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Diehl, R., Souther, A., & Convis, C. (1980). Conditions on rate normalization in speech perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 27, 435–443.Google Scholar
Douchez, C., & Lancia, L. (2008). Caractéristiques articulatoires des consonnes de liaison: Etude pilote. Paper presented at Journées d'Etudes sur la Parole, Avignon, June 9–13.Google Scholar
Dumay, N., Frauenfelder, U., & Content, A. (2002). The role of the syllable in lexical segmentation in French: Word-spotting data. Brain and Language, 81, 144–161.Google Scholar
Durand, J., & Lyche, C. (2008). French liaison in the light of corpus data. French Language Studies, 18, 33–66.Google Scholar
Fougeron, C. (2001). Articulatory properties of initial segments in several prosodic constituents in French. Journal of Phonetics, 29, 109–135.Google Scholar
Fougeron, C., & Keating, P. (1997). Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 3728–3740.Google Scholar
Fougeron, C., Bagou, O., Stefanuto, M., & Frauenfelder, U. (2003). Looking for acoustic cues of resyllabification in French. Paper presented at the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona.Google Scholar
Gaskell, G., Spinelli, E., & Meunier, F. (2002). Perception of resyllabification in French. Memory and Cognition. 30, 798–810.Google Scholar
Goldinger, S. (1996). Words and voices: Episodic traces in spoken word identification and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1166–1183.Google Scholar
Gow, D., & Gordon, P. (1995). Lexical and prelexical influences on word segmentation: Evidence from priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 344–359.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1980). Spoken word recognition processes and the gating paradigm. Perception and Psychophysics, 28, 267–283.Google Scholar
Huggins, A. (1972). Just noticeable differences for segment durations in natural speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 51, 1270–1278.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. (1997). Speech perception without speaker normalization: An exemplar model. In Johnson, K. & Mullennix, J. W. (Eds.), Talker variability in speech processing (pp. 145–165). San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
Jun, S.-A., & Fougeron, C. (2002). Realizations of accentual phrase in French intonation. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Kawai, N., & Carrell, T. (2005). Discrimination of phoneme length differences in word and sentence contexts. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 2033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klatt, D. (1976). Linguistic uses of segmental duration in English: Acoustic and perceptual evidence. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 59, 1208–1221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klatt, D., & Cooper, W. (1975). Perception of segment duration in sentence contexts. In Cohen, A. & Nooteboom, S. G. (Eds.), Structure and process in speech perception. Berlin: Nootboom Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Lachs, L., McMichael, K., & Pisoni, D. (2003). Speech perception and implicit memory: Evidence for detailed episodic encoding of phonetic events. In Bowers, J. & Marsolek, C. (Eds.), Rethinking implicit memory (pp. 215–235). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehiste, I. (1961). Acoustic studies of boundary signals. Paper presented at the 4th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences.Google Scholar
Lehiste, I. (1972). The timing of utterances and linguistic boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 6, 2018–2024.Google Scholar
Léon, P. (1992). Phonétisme et prononciations du français avec des travaux d'application et leurs corrigés. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
Luce, P., & Pisoni, D. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear & Hearing, 19, 1–36.Google Scholar
Mattys, S. (2003). Stress-based speech segmentation revisited. Paper presented at Eurospeech: The 8th Annual Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, Geneva.Google Scholar
Mattys, S. (2004). Stress versus coarticulation: Towards an integrated approach to explicit speech segmentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 397–408.Google Scholar
Mattys, S., White, L., & Melhorn, J. (2005). Integration of multiple speech segmentation cues: A hierarchical framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 477–500.Google Scholar
McClelland, J., & Elman, J. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1–86.Google Scholar
McQueen, J. (1998). Segmentation of continuous speech using phonotactics. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 21–46.Google Scholar
Mehler, J., Dommergues, J. Y., Frauenfelder, U., & Segui, J. (1981). The syllable's role in speech segmentation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 298–305.Google Scholar
Miller, J. (1987). Rate-dependent processing in speech perception. In Ellis, A. (Ed.), Progress in the psychology of language (pp. 119–157). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Nakatani, L., & Dukes, K. (1977). Locus of Segmental Cues to Word Juncture. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 62, 714–719.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
New, B., Pallier, C., Ferrand, L., & Matos, R. (2001). Une base de données lexicales du français contemporain sur internet: LEXIQUE. L'Année Psychologique, 101, 447–462.Google Scholar
Nguyen, N., Wauquier, S., Lancia, L., & Tuller, B. (2007). Detection of liaison consonants in speech processing in French: Experimental data and theoretical implications. In Prieto, P., Mascaró, J., & Solé, M.-J. (Eds.), Segmental and prosodic issues in Romance phonology (pp. 3–23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Norris, D. (1994). Shortlist: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition, 52, 189–234.Google Scholar
Norris, D., McQueen, J., Cutler, A., & Butterfield, S. (1997). The possible-word constraint in the segmentation of continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 34, 191–243.Google Scholar
Peperkamp, S., Pettinato, M., & Dupoux, E. (2003). Allophonic variation and the acquisition of phoneme categories. In Beachley, B., Brown, A., & Conlin, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (Vol. 2, pp. 650–661). Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Pisoni, D. (1997). Some thoughts on “normalization” in speech perception. In Johnson, K. & Mullennix, J. (Eds.), Talker variability in speech processing (pp. 9–32). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Quené, H. (1992). Durational cues for word segmentation in Dutch. Journal of Phonetics, 20, 331–350.Google Scholar
Salverda, A., Dahan, D., & McQueen, J. (2003). The role of prosodic boundaries in the resolution of lexical embedding in speech comprehension. Cognition, 90, 51–89.Google Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime user's guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.Google Scholar
Shatzman, K., & McQueen, J. (2006). Segment duration as a cue to word: Boundaries in spoken-word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 1–16.Google Scholar
Shoemaker, E., & Birdsong, D. (2008.) La résolution de la liaison par des locuteurs natifs et non-natifs. Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Etrangère, 27, 43–62.Google Scholar
Spinelli, E., McQueen, J., & Cutler, A. (2003). Processing resyllabified words in French. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 233–254.Google Scholar
Spinelli, E., Welby, P., & Schaegis, A. (2007). Fine-grained access to targets and competitors in phonemically identical spoken sequences: The case of French elision. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 828–859.Google Scholar
Summerfield, A. (1975). How a full account of segmental perception depends on prosody and vice versa. In Cohen, A. & Nooteboom, S. G. (Eds.), Structure and process in speech perception. New York: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Summerfield, A. (1981). On articulatory rate and perceptual constancy in phonetic perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 1074–1095.Google Scholar
Tabossi, P., Collina, S., Mazzetti, M., & Zoppello, M. (2000). Syllables in the processing of spoken Italian. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 758–775.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A. (2011). Learning to parse liaison-initial words: An eye-tracking study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14, 257–279.Google Scholar
Tyler, L., & Wessels, J. (1983). Quantifying contextual contributions to word-recognition processes. Perception and Psychophysics, 34, 409–420.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vroomen, J., & de Gelder, B. (1997). Activation of embedded words in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 710–720.Google Scholar
Wauquier-Gravelines, S. (1996). Organisation phonologique et traitement de la parole continue: Contraintes prosodiques et phonologiques de l'accès lexical. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université Paris 7.Google Scholar
Welby, P. (2003). French intonational rises and their role in speech segmentation. Paper presented at Eurospeech: The 8th Annual Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, Geneva.Google Scholar