Lexical retrieval in read speech: The effect of speech prosody

Document Type : Research

Authors

1 Associate Professor of linguistics in Department of English language, Imam Khomeini International University of Qazvin، Iran

2 MA Graduated of Linguistics, Imam Khomeini International University of Qazvin. Iran.

Abstract

For spoken information transfer to be successful, the listener needs to understand the meaning of the spoken utterance, thus, the message. The message a listener receives is encoded in an acoustic signal, which results from the physiological movements involved in speech production. The process of listening begins once this signal reaches the ear. After the initial psychoacoustic processing of the input, the listener separates speech from other sensory input that might reach the ear (see Bregman: 1990, for a review). The acoustic signal is sent to the auditory cortex via the auditory nerves and is then converted into an abstract representation used to access the mental lexicon, the stored representations of words. The next processing stage is called word recognition. At this stage, the listener has to segment the signal into meaningful discrete units. Once the words are recognized, the following processing stages are concerned with integration: listeners determine the syntactic and semantic properties of individual words and the syntactic and semantic relationships among them, and use this knowledge as well as pragmatic and world knowledge to understand and interpret the utterance.
As such, listeners employ a variety of linguistic patterns, including phonological, morphological, syntactic, and semantic ones to identify word boundaries in speech recognition. Based on the Metrical Segmentation Hypothesis, when linguistic information is not available, listeners use patterns of prosodic variation to identify word boundaries.

Keywords

References

  1. Abolhasani Zade, V., Gussenhoven, C., & Bijankhan, M. (2012). The Persian pitch accent and its retention after the focus. Lingua. 122 (13), 1380-1394.
  2. Bijankhan, M. (2020). Phonetic system of the Persian Language. Tehran: SAMT [In Persian].
  3. Bijankhan, M., Sheykhzadegan, J., Bahrani, M., & Ghayoomi, M. (2011). Lessons from building a Persian written corpus: Peykare. Language Resources and Evaluation. 45 (2), 143-164.
  4. Cutler, A. (1986). Forbear is a homophone: Lexical prosody does not constrain lexical access. Language and Speech 29, 201–220.
  5. Cutler, A. (2005). Lexical stress. In D. B. Pisoni, & R. E. Remez (Eds.), The handbook of speech perception (pp. 264-289). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
  6. Cutler, A., & van Donselaar, W. (2001). Voornam is not (really) a homophone:  Lexical prosody and lexical access in Dutch. Language and Speech 44(2),171-195.
  7. Cutler, A., and Carter, D. M. (1987). The Predominance of strong initial syllables in the English vocabulary. Computer Speech & Language, 2, 133-142.
  8. Cutler, Anne., & Butterfield, S. (1992). Rhythmic cues to speech segmentation: Evidence from juncture misperception. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 218-236.
  9. Cutler, Anne., & Pasveer, D. (2006). Explaining cross-linguistic differences in Effects of lexical stress on spoken-word recognition, In R. Hoffmann, & H. Mixdorff (Eds.), Proceeding of the Third International Conference on Speech Prosody: (pp. 237- 240, Vol. 40). Dresden: Speech Prosody Special Interest Group Press.
  10. De Gelder, B., & Vroomen, J. (1995). Memory deficits for heard and lip-read speech in young and adult poor readers. In B. de Gelder & J.Morais (Eds.), Speech and reading: A comparative approach (pp. 125-138). Hove: Erlbaum.
  11. Dupoux, E., & Sharon P. (2002). Fossil markers of language development: Phonological “deafness” in adult speech processing. In J. Durand & b. Laks (Eds.), Phonetics, phonology, and cognition (pp.168-90). Oxford- Oxford University Press.
  12. Dupoux, E., Sebastián-Gallés, N., & Peperkamp, S. (2007). Persistent stress ‘deafness’: The case of French learners of Spanish. Cognition, 106 (2), 682-706.
  13. Eslami, M. (2009). Stress in Persian. Journal of Signal and Data Processing, 1(11), 3-12 [In Persian].
  14. Faust, M. (2012). The handbook of the neuropsychology of the language. Volume Language Processing in the Brain: Basic Science.
  15. Feizabadi, Parvin. S., & Bijankhan, M. (2013). Investigation of the effect of lexical stress pattern on the achievement of mental vocabulary in Persian speakers. Journal of researches in linguistics, 5(1), 49-62 [In Persian].
  16. Ferguson, C. A. (1957). Word Stress in Persian. Language, 33 (2), 123-36.
  17. Hyman, L. M. (2014). Do all languages have word accent? In van der Hulst, H. (Ed.) Word stress: Theoretical and typological Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/cbo978139600408.004
  18. Lazard, G. )1992(. A grammar of contemporary Persian. (Shirly Lyons, Trans). California: Mazda Pub.
  19. Mattys, S. L. (2004). Stress versus co-articulation: towards an integrated approach to explicit speech segmentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 397-408. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.30.2.397.
  20. Mohammadi, M., & Bijankhan, M. (2001). Investigation of the cognitive processes of Persian-speaking children in recognizing spoken words. Journal of Advance in Cognitive Sciences, Institute for Cognitive Science Studies (ICSS), 10, 15-20 [In Persian].
  21. Rahmani, H. (2018). Persian 'word stress' is a syntax-driven tone. Paper presented at 6th International Symposium on Tonal Aspects of Languages (TAL). 18-20 June. Berlin, Germany.
  22. Rahmani, H., Bijankhan, M., & Ghajargar, M. (2012). Stress deafness in Persian speakers. Audiology, 21(3), 86-102 [In Persian].
  23. Rahmani, H., Rietveld, T., & Gussenhoven, C. (2015). Stress “Deafness” reveals absence of lexical marking of stress or tone in the adult grammar. PLos One, 10(12), 1-16.
  24. Rahmani, H., Rietveld, T., & Gussenhoven, C. (2018). Post-focal and factive deaccentuation in Persian. Glossa. A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1), 1–36. doi: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.328.
  25. Sadeghi, V. (2012). The effects of prosodic cues on disambiguation in Persian. Journal of Researches in Linguistics, 4 (6), 67-80 [In Persian].
  26. Sadeghi, V. (2013). The acoustical study of lexical stress in Persian. Journal of Language Research, 5(9), 97-124[I n Persian].
  27. Sadeghi, V. (2017). Word-level prominence in Persian: An experimental study. Lang Speech. 60 (4), 571-596.
  28. Sadeghi, V. (2018). The prosodic structure of the Persian Language: Lexical stress and intonation. Tehran: SAMT[In Persian].
  29. Spitzer, S. M., Liss, J., & Mattys, s.l. (2007). Acoustic cues to lexical segmentation: A study of resynthesized speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122, 3678-3687. Doi: 10.1121/1.2801545
  30. Windfuhr, G. L. (1979). Persian grammar: History and state of its study, Mouton, The Hague.
ZABANPAZHUHI (Journal of Language Research)
Volume 14, Issue 44 - Serial Number 44
September 2022
Pages 59-85

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics