A typological study of stress ‘deafness’

Previous research has shown that native speakers of French, as opposed to those of Spanish, exhibit stress 'deafness', i.e. have difficulties distinguishing stress contrasts. In French, stress is non-contrastive, while in Spanish, stress is used to make lexical distinctions. We examine three other languages with non-contrastive stress, Finnish, Hungarian and Polish. In two experiments with a short-term memory sequence repetition task, we find that speakers of Finnish and Hungarian are like French speakers (i.e. exhibit stress 'deafness'), but not those of Polish. We interpret these findings in the light of an acquisition framework, that states that infants decide whether or not to keep stress in their phonological representation during the first two years of life, based on information extractable from utterance edges. In particular, we argue that Polish infants, unlike French, Finnish and Hungarian ones, cannot extract the stress regularity of their language on the basis of what they have already learned. As a consequence, they keep stress in their phonological representation, and as adults, they do not have difficulties in distinguishing stress contrasts. 1. Introduction It has long been known that speech perception is influenced by phonological properties of the listener's native language (Sapir 1921; Polivanov 1974). Much experimental evidence has been gathered concerning this influence, suggesting that listeners use a set of language-specific phoneme categories during speech perception. For instance, Goto (1971) has documented that Japanese listeners map American [l] and [r] onto their own, single, [ä] category, and, as a result, have a lot of difficulties in discriminating between them. Similarly, the contrast between the retroflex and dental stops [ÿ] – [t° ] is very difficult for the English, but not for the Hindi speaker (Werker & Tees 1984b). This contrast is, in fact, phonemic in Hindi, whereas neither of the stop consonants involved occurs in English; rather, English uses the alveolar stop [t]. The influence of suprasegmental properties of the native language has also been investigated. found that French subjects exhibit great difficulties in discriminating non-words that differ only in the location of stress. In French, stress does not carry lexical information, but predictably falls on the word's final vowel. Speakers of French, then, do not need to process stress to identify lexical items; given its fixed position, stress may instead be used as a cue to word segmentation (Rietveld 1980). The term 'deafness' is meant to designate the effect of listeners having difficulties in discriminating …

[1]  Kenneth Ward Church,et al.  Phonological parsing and lexical retrieval , 1987, Cognition.

[2]  Dennis H. Klatt,et al.  Speech perception: a model of acoustic–phonetic analysis and lexical access , 1979 .

[3]  J. Werker,et al.  Cross-language speech perception: Evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life , 1984 .

[4]  Jack Gandour,et al.  Tone perception in Far Eastern languages. , 1983 .

[5]  G. A. Miller,et al.  An Analysis of Perceptual Confusions Among Some English Consonants , 1955 .

[6]  Paul D. Allopenna,et al.  Phonological and acoustic bases for earliest grammatical category assignment: a cross-linguistic perspective , 1998, Journal of Child Language.

[7]  Pierre A. Hallé,et al.  Emergence of an early receptive lexicon: Infants' recognition of words , 1994 .

[8]  Sanford A. Schane,et al.  French phonology and morphology , 1969 .

[9]  C. Kiriloff,et al.  On the Auditory Perception of Tones in Mandarin , 1969 .

[10]  W Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Levels of perceptual representation and process in lexical access: words, phonemes, and features. , 1994, Psychological review.

[11]  P. Jusczyk From general to language-specific capacities: the WRAPSA Model of how speech perception develops , 1993 .

[12]  H. Nusbaum,et al.  Processing interactions between segmental and suprasegmental information in native speakers of English and Mandarin Chinese , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[13]  S. Goldinger Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. , 1998, Psychological review.

[14]  Robert Michael Vago,et al.  The Sound Pattern of Hungarian , 1980 .

[15]  J. Mehler,et al.  A destressing deafness in French , 1997 .

[16]  Maurice Grammont,et al.  Traité de phonétique , 1939 .

[17]  A. Jongman,et al.  Training American listeners to perceive Mandarin tones. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  Emmanuel Dupoux,et al.  Constraining models of lexical access: the onset of word recognition , 1991 .

[19]  Emmanuel Dupoux,et al.  Two typological gaps in stress systems: arguments from early language acquisition , 2000 .

[20]  J. Mehler,et al.  Language discrimination by newborns: toward an understanding of the role of rhythm. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  Albert J. Schütz The Fijian language , 1985 .

[22]  F. Ramus,et al.  Correlates of linguistic rhythm in the speech signal , 1999, Cognition.

[23]  G. Booij,et al.  Postcyclic versus postlexical rules in lexical phonology , 1987 .

[24]  A. Rietveld,et al.  Word Boundaries in the French Language , 1980 .

[25]  H. Benedict,et al.  Early lexical development: comprehension and production , 1979, Journal of Child Language.

[26]  L. Frazier Structure in auditory word recognition , 1987, Cognition.

[27]  J. Werker,et al.  Developmental changes in perception of nonnative vowel contrasts. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[28]  Fred Karlsson Finnish: An Essential Grammar , 1999 .

[29]  A. Cutler Forbear is a Homophone: Lexical Prosody Does Not Constrain Lexical Access , 1986 .

[30]  William P. Fifer,et al.  Two-day-olds prefer their native language , 1993 .

[31]  C. Habel,et al.  Language , 1931, NeuroImage.

[32]  P. Jusczyk,et al.  Clauses are perceptual units for young infants , 1987, Cognition.

[33]  K. Stevens,et al.  Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. , 1992, Science.

[34]  Robert Dixon,et al.  A Grammar of Boumaa Fijian , 1977 .

[35]  C. Best,et al.  Examination of perceptual reorganization for nonnative speech contrasts: Zulu click discrimination by English-speaking adults and infants. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[36]  P. Jusczyk,et al.  A precursor of language acquisition in young infants , 1988, Cognition.

[37]  C. Pallier,et al.  A limit on behavioral plasticity in speech perception , 1997, Cognition.

[38]  J. Mehler,et al.  The role of suprasegmentals in speech perception and acquisition , 1996 .

[39]  J. Mehler,et al.  Fossil markers of language development: phonological ‘deafnesses’ in adult speech processing , 1999 .

[40]  Geert Booij,et al.  A grid theory of stress in Polish , 1985 .

[41]  P. Jusczyk,et al.  When prosody fails to cue syntactic structure: 9-month-olds' sensitivity to phonological versus syntactic phrases , 1994, Cognition.

[42]  J. Werker,et al.  Phonemic and phonetic factors in adult cross-language speech perception. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[43]  P. Jusczyk,et al.  Infants′ Sensitivity to the Sound Patterns of Native Language Words , 1993 .

[44]  A. Cutler,et al.  Voornaam is not (really) a Homophone: Lexical Prosody and Lexical Access in Dutch , 2001, Language and speech.

[45]  H. Goto,et al.  Auditory perception by normal Japanese adults of the sounds "L" and "R". , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[46]  J. Mehler,et al.  Epenthetic vowels in Japanese: A perceptual illusion? , 1999, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.

[47]  J. Mehler,et al.  Do infants perceive word boundaries? An empirical study of the bootstrapping of lexical acquisition. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.