Cognitive Factors Involved in Preserving a Phonemic Contrast

Previous research has demonstrated that semantics and pragmatics influence durational modifications in words and segments. The present research investigated specifically how semantics and pragmatics influence preservation of a phonemic contrast. Experiment 1 examined alveolar flapping in American English. Potentially flapped words, for example, writer and rider, were embedded in each of two types of semantic passages: semantically biasing and semantically neutral passages. In addition, these passages were produced in one of two pragmatic conditions: listener-present and listener-absent. The results showed that the phonemic voicing distinction between /t/ and /d/ was preserved in biasing passages and in the listener-present condition. The /t/-/d/ distinction was not preserved in neutral passages or in the listener-absent condition. Experiment 2 examined whether listeners could use the durational differences found to distinguish phonemic voicing in Experiment 1. Our investigation demonstrates that semantics and pragmatics interact with phonological processes in speech production. We speculate that phonological processes may be affected both by speakers' decision processes to adjust their articulation for the benefit of the listener and by speakers' internal structure and interactive activation among linguistic units.

[1]  Matthew Y. Chen.  Vowel Length Variation as a Function of the Voicing of the Consonant Environment , 1970 .

[2]  D. Dinnsen,et al.  Phonological neutralization, phonetic implementation and individual differences , 1984 .

[3]  Robert A. Fox,et al.  Dental flaps, vowel duration and rule ordering in American English , 1977 .

[4]  M. Fourakis,et al.  On the ‘Incomplete Neutralization’ of German Final Obstruents , 1984 .

[5]  Sarah Hawkins,et al.  Phonetic influences on the intelligibility of conversational speech , 1994 .

[6]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 2. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model. , 1982, Psychological review.

[7]  J. Charles-Luce,et al.  Word-final devoicing in German: effects of phonetic and sentential contexts , 1985 .

[8]  P. Lieberman.  Some Effects of Semantic and Grammatical Context on the Production and Perception of Speech , 1963 .

[9]  M. Picheny,et al.  Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing , 1979 .

[10]  W. Cooper,et al.  Acoustical aspects of contrastive stress in question-answer contexts. , 1985, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  D. Balota,et al.  Repetition and Associative Context Effects in Speech Production , 1991, Language and speech.

[12]  C. Fowler,et al.  Talkers' signaling of new and old. words in speech and listeners' perception and use of the distinction , 1987 .

[13]  V. Zue,et al.  Acoustic study of medial /t,d/ in American English , 1979 .

[14]  Björn Lindblom,et al.  Explaining Phonetic Variation: A Sketch of the H&H Theory , 1990 .

[15]  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.

[16]  R. Port,et al.  Neutralization of syllable-final voicing in German , 1985 .

[17]  R. Gelman,et al.  The development of communication skills: modifications in the speech of young children as a function of listener. , 1973, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development.

[18]  J. Charles-Luce,et al.  The Effects of Semantic Context on Voicing Neutralization , 1993, Phonetica.

[19]  Sharon Hunnicutt,et al.  Intelligibility Versus Redundancy - Conditions of Dependency , 1985 .

[20]  I. Mattingly,et al.  Production and perception of phonetic contrast during phonetic change , 1981 .

[21]  D. Aaronson,et al.  Performance Theories for Sentence Coding: Some Quantitative Evidence. , 1976 .

[22]  Anne Cutler.  Speaking for listening , 1987 .

[23]  W. Eefting.  The effect of ‘‘information value’’ and ‘‘accentuation’’ on the duration of Dutch words, syllables, and segments , 1991 .

[24]  N I Durlach,et al.  Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing I: Intelligibility differences between clear and conversational speech. , 1985, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[25]  G S Dell,et al.  A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. , 1986, Psychological review.

[26]  Marios Fourakis,et al.  Should neutralization be redefined , 1984 .

[27]  C. Fowler.  Differential Shortening of Repeated Content Words Produced in Various Communicative Contexts , 1988, Language and speech.

[28]  R. H. Bernacki,et al.  Effects of noise on speech production: acoustic and perceptual analyses. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  Julie E. Boland,et al.  Priming in pronunciation: Beyond pattern recognition and onset latency , 1989 .

[30]  M. Picheny,et al.  Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing. II: Acoustic characteristics of clear and conversational speech. , 1986, Journal of speech and hearing research.