Affiliation:
1. Glasgow University Laboratory of Phonetics , University of Glasgow, Glasgow, and b English Language and Linguistics , University of Kent, Canterbury , UK
Abstract
Abstract
Timing cues are important in many aspects of speech processing, fromidentifying segments to locating word and phrase boundaries. They vary across accents, yet representation and processing of this variation are poorly understood. We investigated whether an accent difference in vowel duration affects lexical segmentation and access. In Glasgow English (GE), /i u e o/ are shorter than in Leeds English (LE), especially for /i u/ before voiced stops and nasals. In a word-spotting experiment, GE and LE participants heard nonsense sequences (e.g. pobegloomezh) containing embedded words (gloom, glue), with segmental qualities intermediate between GE and LE. Critical vowel durations were manipulated according to accent (GE-appropriate vowels shorter than LE-appropriate ones) and phonological context (vowels shortest before voiceless stops < voiced stops/nasals < voiced fricatives). GE participants generally spotted words like gloom more accurately with GE-appropriate than LE-appropriate vowels. LE participants were less accurate than GE participants to spot words like gloom with GE-appropriate vowels, but more likely to spot embeddings like glue. These results were broadly as predicted based on the accent differences, but depended less than expected on the accent-specific phonological constraints. We discuss theoretical implications regarding the representation of duration and the time course of lexical access.
Subject
Linguistics and Language,Acoustics and Ultrasonics,Language and Linguistics
Reference101 articles.
1. Abercrombie D (1979): The accents of standard English in Scotland; in Aitken AJ, McArthur T (eds): Languages of Scotland. Edinburgh, Chambers, pp 68-84.
2. Adank P, Evans BG, Stuart-Smith J, Scott SK (2009): Comprehension of familiar and unfamiliar native accents under adverse listening conditions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 35:520-529.
3. Adank P, Smits R, van Hout R (2004): A comparison of vowel normalization procedures for language variation research. J Acoust Soc Am 116:3099-3107.
4. Agutter A (1988): The not-so-Scottish Vowel Length Rule; in Anderson JM, MacLeod N (eds): Edinburgh Studies in the English Language. Edinburgh, Donald, pp 120-132.
5. Ainsworth WA (1972): Duration as a cue in the recognition of synthetic vowels. J Acoust Soc Am 51:648-651.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献