I Scream for Ice Cream: Resolving Lexical Ambiguity with Sub-phonemic Information

This study uses a response mouse-tracking paradigm to examine the role of sub-phonemic information in online lexical ambiguity resolution of continuous speech. We examine listeners’ sensitivity to the sub-phonemic information that is specific to the ambiguous internal open juncture /s/-stop sequences in American English (e.g., “place kin” vs. “play skin”), that is, voice onset time (VOT) indicating different degrees of aspiration (e.g., long VOT for “ k in” vs. short VOT for “s k in”) in connected speech contexts. A cross-splicing method was used to create two-word sequences (e.g., “place kin” or “play skin”) with matching VOTs (long for “ k in”; short for “s k in”) or mismatching VOTs (short for “ k in”; long for “s k in”). Participants (n = 20) heard the two-word sequences, while looking at computer displays with the second word in the left/right corner (“KIN” and “SKIN”). Then, listeners’ click responses and mouse movement trajectories were recorded. Click responses show significant effects of VOT manipulation, while mouse trajectories do not. Our results show that stop-release information, whether temporal or spectral, can (mis)guide listeners’ interpretation of the possible location of a word boundary between /s/ and a following stop, even when other aspects in the acoustic signal (e.g., duration of /s/) point to the alternative segmentation. Taken together, our results suggest that segmentation and lexical access are highly attuned to bottom-up phonetic information; our results have implications for a model of spoken language recognition with position-specific representations available at the prelexical level and also allude to the possibility that detailed phonetic information may be stored in the listeners’ lexicons.

[1]  Ilse Lehiste,et al.  An Acoustic – Phonetic Study of Internal Open Juncture , 1959 .

[2]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[3]  R. Baayen,et al.  Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items , 2008 .

[4]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Leading Up the Lexical Garden Path: Segmentation and Ambiguity in Spoken Word Recognition , 2002 .

[5]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Recognizing Spoken Words: The Neighborhood Activation Model , 1998, Ear and hearing.

[6]  Anders Löfqvist,et al.  Laryngeal adjustments in the production of consonant clusters and geminates in American English , 1981 .

[7]  Jonathan B Freeman,et al.  MouseTracker: Software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method , 2010, Behavior research methods.

[8]  Hugo Queué Durational cues for word segmentation Dutch , 1992 .

[9]  Dani Byrd,et al.  Influences on articulatory timing in consonant sequences , 1996 .

[10]  D. Norris Shortlist: a connectionist model of continuous speech recognition , 1994, Cognition.

[11]  William D. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Integrating Form and Meaning: A Distributed Model of Speech Perception. , 1997 .

[12]  D. Gow Does English coronal place assimilation create lexical ambiguity , 2002 .

[13]  P. Luce,et al.  Contextual effects on vowel duration, closure duration, and the consonant/vowel ratio in speech production. , 1985, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  M. Mack Voicing‐dependent vowel duration in English and French: Monolingual and bilingual production , 1982 .

[15]  W. Christie Some cues for syllable juncture perception in English. , 1974, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  S. Soto-Faraco,et al.  Journal of Memory and Language , 2001 .

[17]  L. Lisker,et al.  Some Effects of Context On Voice Onset Time in English Stops , 1967, Language and speech.

[18]  James L. McClelland,et al.  The TRACE model of speech perception , 1986, Cognitive Psychology.

[19]  T H Crystal,et al.  Segmental durations in connected speech signals: preliminary results. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  Michael J. Spivey,et al.  Continuous attraction toward phonological competitors. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[21]  A. Cutler,et al.  Processing resyllabified words in French , 2003 .

[22]  Colin W. Wightman,et al.  Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  Keren B. Shatzman,et al.  Segment duration as a cue to word boundaries in spoken-word recognition , 2006, Perception & psychophysics.

[24]  Eva Gårding Internal juncture in Swedish , 1967 .

[25]  Anne Pier Salverda,et al.  The role of prosodic boundaries in the resolution of lexical embedding in speech comprehension , 2003, Cognition.

[26]  Mark Davies The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) , 2012 .

[27]  J. Mehler,et al.  Phonological phrase boundaries constrain lexical access II. Infant data , 2004 .

[28]  R. H. Stetson Motor phonetics : a study of speech movements in action , 1951 .

[29]  S. Goldinger Words and voices: episodic traces in spoken word identification and recognition memory. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[30]  Kevin G. Munhall,et al.  Gestural aggregation in speech: Laryngeal gestures , 1992 .

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

[32]  K. D. de Jong,et al.  The Perception of Syllable Affiliation of Singleton Stops in Repetitive Speech , 2004, Language and speech.

[33]  P. Keating,et al.  Word-level asymmetries in consonant articulation , 2001 .

[34]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Within-category VOT affects recovery from "lexical" garden paths: Evidence against phoneme-level inhibition. , 2009, Journal of memory and language.

[35]  L. Nakatani,et al.  Locus of segmental cues for word juncture. , 1977, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[36]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Subcategorical mismatches and the time course of lexical access: Evidence for lexical competition , 2001 .

[37]  S. Blumstein,et al.  The effect of subphonetic differences on lexical access , 1994, Cognition.

[38]  C. Fowler A Relationship between Coarticulation and Compensatory Shortening , 1981, Phonetica.

[39]  Anne Cutler,et al.  Continuity and gradedness in speech processing , 2003 .

[40]  Laura J. Blazej,et al.  Can we hear morphological complexity before words are complex? , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[41]  Sahyang Kim,et al.  Prosodic strengthening on the /s/-stop cluster and the phonetic implementation of an allophonic rule in English , 2014, J. Phonetics.

[42]  William D. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Activation, competition, and frequency in lexical access , 1991 .

[43]  Louis Goldstein,et al.  Towards an articulatory phonology , 1986, Phonology.

[44]  D. Bates,et al.  Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 , 2014, 1406.5823.

[45]  James Bartolotti,et al.  Language Learning and Control in Monolinguals and Bilinguals , 2012, Cogn. Sci..

[46]  A. Liberman,et al.  Some effects of later-occurring information on the perception of stop consonant and semivowel , 1979, Perception & psychophysics.

[47]  A. Christophea,et al.  Phonological phrase boundaries constrain lexical access I . Adult data q , 2003 .

[48]  D. Norris,et al.  The Possible-Word Constraint in the Segmentation of Continuous Speech , 1997, Cognitive Psychology.

[49]  Sarah Hawkins,et al.  “Compensatory shortening” in monosyllables of spoken English , 1992 .

[50]  Sarah Hawkins,et al.  Roles and representations of systematic fine phonetic detail in speech understanding , 2003, J. Phonetics.

[51]  Sarah C. Creel,et al.  On-line acoustic and semantic interpretation of talker information , 2011 .