Stress Effects in Vowel Perception as a Function of Language-Specific Vocabulary Patterns

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.

[1]  Faculteit der Letteren,et al.  Lexical statistics and spoken word recognition in Dutch , 1988 .

[2]  Mirjam Broersma,et al.  Perception of familiar contrasts in unfamiliar positions. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Sharon Peperkamp,et al.  Perception of predictable stress: A cross-linguistic investigation , 2010, J. Phonetics.

[4]  Anne Cutler,et al.  Stress and lexical activation in dutch , 2000, Interspeech.

[5]  Anne Cutler,et al.  Prediction, Bayesian inference and feedback in speech recognition , 2015, Language, cognition and neuroscience.

[6]  L. Raphael Preceding vowel duration as a cue to the perception of the voicing characteristic of word-final consonants in American English. , 1972, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  Anne Cutler,et al.  Unfolding of phonetic information over time: a database of Dutch diphone perception. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  Anne Cutler,et al.  Tracking perception of the sounds of English. , 2014, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  Stephen D. Simon,et al.  Lexical stress and lexical access: Homographs versus nonhomographs , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[11]  A. Cutler,et al.  Constraints of Lexical Stress on Lexical Access in English: Evidence from Native and Non-native Listeners , 2002, Language and speech.

[12]  Paul Boersma,et al.  Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer , 2002 .

[13]  Vincent J. van Heuven,et al.  Acoustic correlates of linguistic stress and accent in Dutch and American English , 1996, Proceeding of Fourth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing. ICSLP '96.

[14]  Anne Cutler,et al.  Phonological and statistical effects on timing of speech perception: Insights from a database of Dutch diphone perception , 2005, Speech Commun..

[15]  A. Cutler,et al.  Exploring the Role of Lexical stress in Lexical Recognition , 2005, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[16]  Louisa M. Slowiaczek,et al.  Effects of Lexical Stress in Auditory Word Recognition , 1990, Language and speech.

[17]  Louisa M. Slowiaczek,et al.  Stress and context in auditory word recognition , 1991, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[18]  Joris H. Janssen,et al.  Dutch listeners' use of suprasegmental cues to English stress , 2007 .

[19]  A. Cutler Greater sensitivity to prosodic goodness in non-native than in native listeners (L). , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  Anne Cutler,et al.  The use of prosodic information in word recognition , 1984 .

[21]  G. Studebaker,et al.  Supplementary formulas and tables for calculating and interconverting speech recognition scores in transformed arcsine units , 2004, International journal of audiology.

[22]  A. Cutler,et al.  Explaining cross-linguistic differences in effects of lexical stress on spoken-word recognition , 2006, Speech Prosody 2006.

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

[24]  R. H. Baayen,et al.  The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM) , 1996 .

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

[26]  A Cutler,et al.  The strong/weak syllable distinction in English. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  L. Katz,et al.  The reading process is different for different orthographies : the orthographic depth hypothesis , 1992 .

[28]  Elizabeth C. Zsiga,et al.  The Sounds of Language: An Introduction to Phonetics and Phonology , 2013 .

[29]  Vincent J. van Heuven,et al.  Lexical stress and spoken word recognition: Dutch vs. English , 1996 .

[30]  Anne Cutler,et al.  Phonemic repertoire and similarity within the vocabulary , 2004, INTERSPEECH.

[31]  Vincent J. van Heuven,et al.  The role of lexical stress in the recognition of spoken words: prelexical or postlexical? , 1995 .

[32]  Ted Briscoe,et al.  Models of continuous speech recognition and the contents of the vocabulary , 1995 .

[33]  Z. Bond,et al.  Voicing, vowel, and stress mispronunciations in continuous speech , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[34]  Steven T. Piantadosi,et al.  The communicative function of ambiguity in language , 2011, Cognition.

[35]  D. Bolinger Two kinds of vowels, two kinds of rhythm , 1981 .