An orthographic effect in phoneme processing, and its limitations

被引:17
作者
Cutler, Anne [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Davis, Chris [3 ]
机构
[1] Max Planck Inst Psycholinguist, Language Comprehens Dept, NL-6500 AH Nijmegen, Netherlands
[2] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Donders Inst Brain Cognit & Behav, NL-6525 ED Nijmegen, Netherlands
[3] Univ Western Sydney, MARCS Auditory Labs, Sydney, NSW, Australia
来源
FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY | 2012年 / 3卷
关键词
speech recognition; phonemes; orthography; spelling; top-down versus bottom-up processing; strategies; SPOKEN WORD RECOGNITION; INTERNAL STRUCTURE; SPEAKING RATE; MODEL; ACTIVATION; SHORTLIST;
D O I
10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00018
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
In three phoneme goodness rating experiments, listeners heard phonetic tokens varying along a continuum centered on /s/, occurring finally in isolated word or non-word tokens. An effect of spelling appeared in Experiment 1: native English-speakers' goodness ratings for the best /s/ tokens were significantly higher in words spelled with S (e.g., bless) than in words spelled with C (e.g., voice). Since the tokens were in fact identical in each word, this effect indicates less than optimal evaluation performance. No spelling effect appeared when non-native speakers rated the same materials in Experiment 2, indicating that the observed difference could not be due to acoustic characteristics of the S- versus C-words. In Experiment 3, native English-speakers' ratings for /s/ did not differ in non-words rhyming with words consistently spelled with S (e.g., pless) or with words consistently spelled with C (e.g., floice); i.e., no effects of lexical rhyme analogs appeared. It is concluded that the findings are better explained in terms of phonemic decisions drawing upon lexical information where convenient than by obligatory influence of lexical knowledge upon pre-lexical processing.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 28 条
[1]   Contextual influences on the internal structure of phonetic categories: A distinction between lexical status and speaking rate [J].
Allen, JS ;
Miller, JL .
PERCEPTION & PSYCHOPHYSICS, 2001, 63 (05) :798-810
[2]   Similarity mapping in spoken word recognition [J].
Connine, CM ;
Titone, D ;
Deelman, T ;
Blasko, D .
JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE, 1997, 37 (04) :463-480
[3]   Vowel perception: Effects of non-native language vs. non-native dialect [J].
Cutler, A ;
Smits, R ;
Cooper, N .
SPEECH COMMUNICATION, 2005, 47 (1-2) :32-42
[4]   PHONEME IDENTIFICATION AND THE LEXICON [J].
CUTLER, A ;
MEHLER, J ;
NORRIS, D ;
SEGUI, J .
COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY, 1987, 19 (02) :141-177
[5]   Strategic Deployment of Orthographic Knowledge in Phoneme Detection [J].
Cutler, Anne ;
Treiman, Rebecca ;
van Ooijen, Brit .
LANGUAGE AND SPEECH, 2010, 53 :307-320
[6]   ORTHOGRAPHIC EFFECTS ON PHONEME MONITORING [J].
DIJKSTRA, T ;
ROELOFS, A ;
FIEUWS, S .
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-REVUE CANADIENNE DE PSYCHOLOGIE EXPERIMENTALE, 1995, 49 (02) :264-271
[7]   Distinctive phonological features differ in relevance for both spoken and written word recognition [J].
Ernestus, M ;
Mak, WM .
BRAIN AND LANGUAGE, 2004, 90 (1-3) :378-392
[8]   Integrating form and meaning: A distributed model of speech perception [J].
Gaskell, MG ;
Marslen-Wilson, WD .
LANGUAGE AND COGNITIVE PROCESSES, 1997, 12 (5-6) :613-656
[9]   Grapheme-phoneme probabilities in British English [J].
Gontijo, PFD ;
Gontijo, I ;
Shillcock, R .
BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS INSTRUMENTS & COMPUTERS, 2003, 35 (01) :136-157
[10]   SOUND AND SPELLING IN SPOKEN WORD RECOGNITION [J].
JAKIMIK, J ;
COLE, RA ;
RUDNICKY, AI .
JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE, 1985, 24 (02) :165-178