Abstract
Idiosyncratic perceptual compensation behaviors are considered to have a bearing on the perceptual foundation of sound change. We investigate how compensation processes driven by lexical and coarticulatory contexts simultaneously affect listeners’ perception of a single segment and the individual differences in the compensation patterns. Sibilants on an /s-ʃ/ continuum were embedded into four lexical frames that differed in whether the lexical context favored /s/ or /ʃ/ perceptually and whether the vocalic context favored /s/ or not. Forty-two participants took a lexical decision task to decide whether each stimulus was a word or not. They also completed the autism-spectrum quotient questionnaire. The aggregate results of the lexical decision task show coexistence of lexically induced and coarticulatorily induced perceptual shifts in parallel. A negative correlation was found between the two kinds of perceptual shifts for individual listeners in lexical decisions, lending support to a potential trade-off between compensation magnitudes on different levels of cue integration.
Funding source: Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences
Award Identifier / Grant number: NSF #1627972
Acknowledgments
This paper is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number 1627972, “Cognitive characteristics of the leaders of language change”. The ideas in this paper have been improved by feedback from audiences at the 5th Workshop of Sound Change. Special thanks go to Pam Beddor and Alan Yu for their helpful feedback.
-
Research funding: This work was supported by the Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences (grant number NSF #1627972).
References
Ainsworth, William & Kuldip Paliwal. 1984. Correlation between the production and perception of the English glides /w, r, l, j/. Journal of Phonetics 12(3). 237–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0095-4470(19)30880-0.Suche in Google Scholar
Arnon, Inbal. 2020. Do current statistical learning tasks capture stable individual differences in children? An investigation of task reliability across modality. Behavior Research Methods 52(1). 68–81. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01205-5.Suche in Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, Simon, Sally Wheelwright, Richard Skinner, Joanne Martin & Emma Clubley. 2001. The autism-spectrum quotient (AQ): Evidence from Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism, males, females, scientists and mathematicians. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 31. 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005653411471.10.1023/A:1005653411471Suche in Google Scholar
Barutchu, Ayla, Sheila G. Crewther, Patricia Kiely, Melanie J. Murphy & David P. Crewther. 2008. When /b/ill with /g/ill becomes /d/ill: Evidence for a lexical effect in audiovisual speech perception. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 20(1). 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440601125623.Suche in Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Bolker Ben & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.Suche in Google Scholar
Beddor, Patrice Speeter. 2009. A coarticulatory path to sound change. Language 85. 785–821. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0165.Suche in Google Scholar
Beddor, Patrice Speeter, James D. Harnsberger & Stephanie Lindemann. 2002. Language-specific patterns of vowel-to-vowel coarticulation: Acoustic structures and their perceptual correlates. Journal of Phonetics 30(4). 591–627. https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.2002.0177.Suche in Google Scholar
Beddor, Patrice Speeter & Rena Arens Krakow. 1999. Perception of coarticulatory nasalization by speakers of English and Thai: Evidence for partial compensation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106(5). 2868–2887. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.428111.Suche in Google Scholar
Best, Catherine T., Barbara Morrongiello & Rick Robson. 1981. Perceptual equivalence of acoustic cues in speech and nonspeech perception. Perception & Psychophysics 29(3). 191–211. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03207286.Suche in Google Scholar
Brancazio, Lawrence. 2004. Lexical influences in audiovisual speech perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 30(3). 445–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.30.3.445.Suche in Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W., Patrice Speeter Beddor, Kerby Shedden, Will Styler & Daan Wissing. 2018. Plosive voicing in Afrikaans: Differential cue weighting and tonogenesis. Journal of Phonetics 66. 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2017.09.009.Suche in Google Scholar
Diehl, Randy L., Andrew J. Lotto & Lori L. Holt. 2004. Speech perception. Annual Review of Psychology 55. 149–179. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142028.Suche in Google Scholar
Drummond, Alex. 2017. Ibex: Internet based experiments. https://github.com/addrummond/ ibexfarm (accessed 30 April 2020).Suche in Google Scholar
Fitch, Hollis L., Donna M. Erickson Terry Halwes & Alvin M. Liberman. 1980. Perceptual equivalence of two acoustic cues for stop-consonant manner. Perception & Psychophysics 27(4). 343–350. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03206123.Suche in Google Scholar
Flege, James Emil, Ocke-Schwen Bohn & Sunyoung Jang. 1997. Effects of experience on non-native speakers’ production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics 25(4). 437–470. https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1997.0052.Suche in Google Scholar
Fowler, Carol A. 1984. Segmentation of coarticulated speech in perception. Perception & Psychophysics 36(4). 359–368. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03202790.Suche in Google Scholar
Fowler, Carol A. 1986. An event approach to the study of speech perception from a direct–realist perspective. Journal of Phonetics 14(1). 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0095-4470(19)30607-2.Suche in Google Scholar
Fowler, Carol A. 2006. Compensation for coarticulation reflects gesture perception, not spectral contrast. Perception & Psychophysics 68(2). 161–177. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193666.Suche in Google Scholar
Fowler, Carol A. & Julie M. Brown. 2000. Perceptual parsing of acoustic consequences of velum lowering from information for vowels. Perception & Psychophysics 62(1). 21–32. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03212058.Suche in Google Scholar
Ganong, William F. 1980. Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 6(1). 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.6.1.110.Suche in Google Scholar
Gow, David W. 2003. Feature parsing: Feature cue mapping in spoken word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics 65(4). 575–590. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03194584.Suche in Google Scholar
Grosvald, Michael. 2009. Interspeaker variation in the extent and perception of long-distance vowelto- vowel coarticulation. Journal of Phonetics 37(2). 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2009.01.002.Suche in Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Paul Warren & Katie Drager. 2006. Factors influencing speech perception in the context of a merger-in-progress. Journal of Phonetics 34(4). 458–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2005.10.001.Suche in Google Scholar
Kataoka, Reiko. 2011. Phonetic and cognitive bases of sound change. Berkeley: University of California Dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Kingston, John, Joshua Levy, Amanda Rysling & Adrian Staub. 2016. Eye movement evidence for an immediate Ganong effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 42(12). 1969–1988. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000269.Suche in Google Scholar
Kuang, Jianjing & Aletheia Cui. 2018. Relative cue weighting in production and perception of an ongoing sound change in Southern Yi. Journal of Phonetics 71. 194–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2018.09.002.Suche in Google Scholar
Lee, Hyunjung, Stephen Politzer-Ahles & Jongman Allard. 2013. Speakers of tonal and non-tonal Korean dialects use different cue weightings in the perception of the three-way laryngeal stop contrast. Journal of Phonetics 41(2). 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2012.12.002.Suche in Google Scholar
Liberman, Alvin M. & Ignatius G. Mattingly. 1985. The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition 21(1). 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(85)90021-6.Suche in Google Scholar
Magnuson, James S., Bob McMurray, Michael K. Tanenhaus & Richard N. Aslin. 2003. Lexical effects on compensation for coarticulation: The ghost of Christmash past. Cognitive Science 27(2). 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2702_6.Suche in Google Scholar
Mann, Virginia A. & Bruno H. Repp. 1980. Influence of vocalic context on perception of the [ʃ]-[s] distinction. Perception & Psychophysics 28(3). 213–228. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03204377.Suche in Google Scholar
McClelland, James L. & Jeffrey L. Elman. 1986. The trace model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology 18(1). 1–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90015-0.Suche in Google Scholar
McClelland, James L., Daniel Mirman & Lori L. Holt. 2006. Are there interactive processes in speech perception? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(8). 363–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.06.007.Suche in Google Scholar
McGurk, Harry & John MacDonald. 1976. Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature 264(5588). 746–748. https://doi.org/10.1038/264746a0.Suche in Google Scholar
McQueen, James M., Alexandra Jesse & Dennis Norris. 2009. No lexical-prelexical feedback during speech perception or: Is it time to stop playing those Christmas tapes? Journal of Memory and Language 61(1). 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.03.002.Suche in Google Scholar
McQueen, James M., Dennis Norris & Anne Cutler. 2006. Are there really interactive processes in speech perception? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(12). 533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.10.004.Suche in Google Scholar
Mitterer, Holger, Sahyang Kim & Taehong Cho. 2013. Compensation for complete assimilation in speech perception: The case of Korean labial-to-velar assimilation. Journal of Memory and Language 69(1). 59–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.02.001.Suche in Google Scholar
Norris, Dennis, James M. McQueen & Anne Cutler. 2000. Merging information in speech recognition: Feedback is never necessary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23. 299–325. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00003241.Suche in Google Scholar
Pitt, Mark A. 1998. Phonological processes and the perception of phonotactically illegal consonant clusters. Perception & Psychophysics 60(6). 941–951. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03211930.Suche in Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2015. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Suche in Google Scholar
Sams, Mikko, Petri Manninen, Veikko Surakka, Pia Helin & Riitta Kättö. 1998. McGurk effect in Finnish syllables, isolated words, and words in sentences: Effects of word meaning and sentence context. Speech Communication 26(1–2). 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-6393(98)00051-x.Suche in Google Scholar
Samuel, Arthur G. & Mark A. Pitt. 2003. Lexical activation (and other factors) can mediate compensation for coarticulation. Journal of Memory and Language 48(2). 416–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-596x(02)00514-4.Suche in Google Scholar
Schertz, Jessamyn & Emily Clare. 2019. Phonetic cue weighting in perception and production. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 11. e1521. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1521.Suche in Google Scholar
Shultz, Amanda A., Alexander L. Francis & Fernando Llanos. 2012. Differential cue weighting in perception and production of consonant voicing. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 132(2). EL95–EL101. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4736711.Suche in Google Scholar
Stephens, Joseph D. W. & Lori L. Holt. 2003. Preceding phonetic context affects perception of nonspeech (L). The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 114(6). 3036–3039. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1627837.Suche in Google Scholar
Stewart, Mary E. & Mitsuhiko Ota. 2008. Lexical effects on speech perception in individuals with “autistic” traits. Cognition 109. 157–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.010.Suche in Google Scholar
Ullas, Shruti, Elia Formisano, Eisner Frank & Anne Cutler. 2020. Audiovisual and lexical cues do not additively enhance perceptual adaptation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 27(4). 707–715. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01728-5.Suche in Google Scholar
Wade, Lacey, Wei Lai & Tamminga Meredith. 2021. The reliability of individual differences in vot imitation. Language and Speech 64(3). 576–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830920947769.Suche in Google Scholar
Wickham, Hadley. 2016. ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag. Available at: http://ggplot2.org.10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4Suche in Google Scholar
Yu, Alan C. L. 2010. Perceptual compensation is correlated with individuals’ “autistic” traits: Implications for models of sound change. PLoS One 5(8). e11950. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011950.Suche in Google Scholar
Yu, Alan C. L. 2013. Individual differences in socio-cognitive processing and the actuation of sound change. In Alan C. L. Yu (ed.), Origins of sound change: Approaches to phonologization, chap. 10, 201–227. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573745.003.0010Suche in Google Scholar
Yu, Alan C. L. 2019. On the nature of the perception-production link: Individual variability in English sibilant-vowel coarticulation. Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology 10(1). 1–29. https://doi.org/10.5334/labphon.97.Suche in Google Scholar
Yu, Alan C. L., Julian Grove, Martina Martinović & Sonderegger Morgan. 2011. Effects of working memory capacity and “autistic” traits on phonotactic effects in speech perception. International Congress of the Phonetic Sciences 17. 2236–2239.Suche in Google Scholar
Yu, Alan C. L. & Hyunjung Lee. 2014. The stability of perceptual compensation for coarticulation within and across individuals: A cross-validation study. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 136(1). 382–388. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4883380.Suche in Google Scholar
Yu, Alan C. L. & Georgia Zellou. 2019. Individual differences in language processing: Phonology. Annual Review of Linguistics 5. 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-033815.Suche in Google Scholar
Zehr, Jeremy & Florian Schwarz. 2018. PennController for internet based experiments (Ibex). https://www.pcibdex.net/ (accessed 30 April 2020).Suche in Google Scholar
Zellou, Georgia. 2017. Individual differences in the production of nasal coarticulation and perceptual compensation. Journal of Phonetics 61. 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2016.12.002.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Editorial 2022
- Research Articles
- Perceptual similarity is not all: online perception of English coda stops by Korean listeners
- How Russian speakers express evolution in Pokémon names: an experimental study with nonce words
- Individual differences in simultaneous perceptual compensation for coarticulatory and lexical cues
- Phonetic change over the career: a case study
- Quantifying the importance of morphomic structure, semantic values, and frequency of use in Romance stem alternations
- The syntax of the diminutive morpheme -aaj in Egyptian Arabic, Syrian Arabic, and Jordanian Arabic
- Length, position, and functions of inter-clausal Chinese–English code-switching in a bilingual novel
- Discourse connectives and their arguments: an experiment on anaphoricity in German
- Modeling (im)precision in context
- The landscape of non-canonical ‘only’ in German
- Introducing Construction Semantics (CxS): a frame-semantic extension of Construction Grammar and constructicography
- Defining numeral classifiers and identifying classifier languages of the world
- A multivariate analysis of causative do and causative make in Middle English
- Unstressed versus stressed German additive auch – what determines a speaker’s choice?
- Metaphors are embodied otherwise they would not be metaphors
- A word-based account of comprehension and production of Kinyarwanda nouns in the Discriminative Lexicon
- Accounting for the relationship between lexical prevalence and acquisition with Bayesian networks and population dynamics
- L2 motivation and willingness to communicate: a moderated mediation model of psychological shyness
- Why are multiword units hard to acquire for late L2 learners? Insights from cognitive science on adult learning, processing, and retrieval
- Regularization in the face of variable input: Children’s acquisition of stem-final fricative plurals in American English
- The Manchester Voices Accent Van: taking sociolinguistic data collection on the road
- Interpreting the order of operations in a sociophonetic analysis
- Individual variation in performing reading-aloud speech among deaf speakers
- Generating hypotheses for alternations at low and intermediate levels of schematicity. The use of Memory-based Learning
- How can complex graphemes be identified in German?
- The Menzerath-Altmann law on the clause level in English texts
- A cognitive semantic analysis of ‘eat’ verb usages in Bangla
- Metonymy in the Korean internally headed relative clause construction
- Corpus linguistic and experimental studies on the meaning-preserving hypothesis in Indonesian voice alternations
- Monomodal and multimodal metaphors in editorial cartoons on the coronavirus by Jordanian cartoonists
- Corrigendum
- Corrigendum to: repetition in Mandarin-speaking children’s dialogs: its distribution and structural dimensions
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Editorial 2022
- Research Articles
- Perceptual similarity is not all: online perception of English coda stops by Korean listeners
- How Russian speakers express evolution in Pokémon names: an experimental study with nonce words
- Individual differences in simultaneous perceptual compensation for coarticulatory and lexical cues
- Phonetic change over the career: a case study
- Quantifying the importance of morphomic structure, semantic values, and frequency of use in Romance stem alternations
- The syntax of the diminutive morpheme -aaj in Egyptian Arabic, Syrian Arabic, and Jordanian Arabic
- Length, position, and functions of inter-clausal Chinese–English code-switching in a bilingual novel
- Discourse connectives and their arguments: an experiment on anaphoricity in German
- Modeling (im)precision in context
- The landscape of non-canonical ‘only’ in German
- Introducing Construction Semantics (CxS): a frame-semantic extension of Construction Grammar and constructicography
- Defining numeral classifiers and identifying classifier languages of the world
- A multivariate analysis of causative do and causative make in Middle English
- Unstressed versus stressed German additive auch – what determines a speaker’s choice?
- Metaphors are embodied otherwise they would not be metaphors
- A word-based account of comprehension and production of Kinyarwanda nouns in the Discriminative Lexicon
- Accounting for the relationship between lexical prevalence and acquisition with Bayesian networks and population dynamics
- L2 motivation and willingness to communicate: a moderated mediation model of psychological shyness
- Why are multiword units hard to acquire for late L2 learners? Insights from cognitive science on adult learning, processing, and retrieval
- Regularization in the face of variable input: Children’s acquisition of stem-final fricative plurals in American English
- The Manchester Voices Accent Van: taking sociolinguistic data collection on the road
- Interpreting the order of operations in a sociophonetic analysis
- Individual variation in performing reading-aloud speech among deaf speakers
- Generating hypotheses for alternations at low and intermediate levels of schematicity. The use of Memory-based Learning
- How can complex graphemes be identified in German?
- The Menzerath-Altmann law on the clause level in English texts
- A cognitive semantic analysis of ‘eat’ verb usages in Bangla
- Metonymy in the Korean internally headed relative clause construction
- Corpus linguistic and experimental studies on the meaning-preserving hypothesis in Indonesian voice alternations
- Monomodal and multimodal metaphors in editorial cartoons on the coronavirus by Jordanian cartoonists
- Corrigendum
- Corrigendum to: repetition in Mandarin-speaking children’s dialogs: its distribution and structural dimensions