Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-xt4p2 Total loading time: 0.274 Render date: 2022-05-27T03:36:39.700Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Sonority as a constraint on word identification processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Sarah S. Christman*
Affiliation:
University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center
Rory A. Depaolis
Affiliation:
University of Wales, Bangor
*
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK 73190

Abstract

This study was undertaken as a sequel to DePaolis (1991) to explore the role of sonority in constraining the word identification errors of normal listeners. The data from 9 subjects from DePaolis's study were used to examine the phonological relationships, defined by the Sonority Sequencing Principle (Jespersen, 1904), between response errors and stimulus targets - a methodology previously employed in the analysis of target-related neologisms (Christman, 1992b, 1994). The present study found that, although sonority may constrain onset-driven word-search processes, sonority and lexical phonostatistics may constrain coda-driven word-search processes. These findings are consistent with those obtained from the productive errors of aphasic subjects (Christman, 1994). Taken together, the results of these studies support a role for sonority in phonologically based aspects of word identification and word production.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American National Standards institute (ANSI). (1977). Criteria for permissible ambient noise during audiometric tesring (ANSI S3.l). New York: ANSI.Google Scholar
American National Standards institute (ANSI). (1989). Method for measuring intelligibility of speech over communication systems (ANSI S3.2). New York: ANSI.Google Scholar
Berg, T. (1989). Intersegmental cohesiveness. Folia Linguistica, 23, 245280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browman, C. P., & Goldstein, L. (1992). Articulatory phonology: An overview. Phonetica, 49, 155180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buckingham, H. W. (1989). Phonological paraphasia. In Code, C. (Ed.), The characteristics of aphasia (pp. 89110). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Buckingham, H. W. (1992). The mechanisms of phonemic paraphasia. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 6(1/2), 4163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buckingharn, H. W., & Yule, G. (1987). Phonemic false evaluation: Theoretical and clinical aspects. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 1(2), 113125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calabrese, A., & Romani, C. (1991). Syllable structure in aphasia: A case study. In Bertinetto, P. M., Kentowicz, M., & Loporcaro, M. (Eds.), Certamen Phonologium II. Torino: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google ScholarPubMed
Caramazza, A., Berndt, R. S., & Basili, A. G. (1983). The selective impairment of phonological processing: A case study. Brain and Language, 18, 128174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christman, S. S. (1992a). Abstruse neologism formation: Parallel processing revisited. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 6, 6576.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christman, S. S. (1992b). Uncovering phonological regularity in neologisms: Contributions of sonority theory. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 6, 219247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christman, S. S. (1994). Target-related neologism formation in jargon aphasia. Brain and Language, 46, 109128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christman, S. S., & Buckingham, H. W. (1989). Jargonaphasia. In Code, C. (Ed.), The characteristics of aphasia (pp. 111130). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1990). The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Kingston, J. & Beckman, M. (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology I: Between the grammar and the physics of speech (pp. 283333). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connine, C. M., Blasko, D. C., & Titione, D. (1993). Do the beginnings of spoken words have a special status in auditory word recognition? Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 193210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DePaolis, R. A. (1991). The intelligibility of words, sentences, and continuous discourse using the articulation index. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1904). Lehrbuch der Phonetik. Leipzig & Berlin: B. G. Teubner.Google Scholar
Kent, R. D. (1993). Sonority theory and syllable pattern as keys to sensory-motor-cognitive interactions in infant vocal development. In de Boysson-Bardies, B., de Schonen, S., Jusczyk, P., MacNeilage, P., & Morton, J (Eds.), Developmental neurocognition: Speech and face processing in the first year of life (pp. 329339). Dordrecht: Kiuwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacerda, F. (1993). Young infant's discrimination of confusable speech signals. In van Heuven, V. (Ed.), Audition, speech, and language. Berlin: Mouton-DeGruyter.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. (1993). A course in phonetics. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.Google Scholar
Lecours, A. R., & Lhermitte, F. (1969). Phonemic paraphasias: Linguistic structures and tentative hypotheses. Cortex, 5, 193228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, A. M., & Mattingly, I. G. (1985). The motor theory of speech perception - Revised. Cognition, 21, 136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1987). Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition. Cognition, 25, 71102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martohardjono, G. (1989). The sonority cycle in the acquisition of phonology. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 28, 131139.Google Scholar
Mines, M., Hanson, B., & Shoup, J. (1978). Frequency of occurrence of phonemes in conversational English. Language and Speech, 21, 221241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchum, C., Ritgert, B., Sandson, J., & Berndt, R. (1990). The use of response analysis in confrontation naming. Aphasiology, 4(3), 261280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oden, G. C., & Massaro, D. W. (1978). Integration of featural information in speech perception. Psychological Review, 85(3), 172191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ohala, J. J. (1990). Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining the shape of morphemes. In Ziolkowski, M. et al. (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on the syllable (Vol. 2, pp. 319338). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J., & Kawasaki, H. (1984). Prosodic phonology and phonetics. In Phonology Yearbook ( Vol. 1, pp 113127). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Picard, M. (1992). Syllable structure, sonority, and speech errors: A critical assessment. Folia Linguistica, 26(3/4), 453465.Google Scholar
Price, P. J. (1980). Sonority and syllabicity: Acoustic correlates of perception. Phonetica, 37, 327343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romani, C., & Calabrese, A. (1990). The representation of syllable structure: Evidence from an aphasia patient. Poster presentation at the BABBLE Conference, Montreal.Google Scholar
Sievers, E. (1881). Grundzuge der Phonetik. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel.Google Scholar
Stemberger, J. P. (1985). An interactive model of language production. In Ellis, A. W. (Ed.), Progress in the psychology of language (Vol. 1). London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Stemberger, J. P. (1990). Wordshape errors in language production. Cognition, 35, 123157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Treiman, R. (1983). The structure of spoken syllables: Evidence from novel word games. Cognition, 15, 4974.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wayland, S., Wingfield, A., & Goodglass, H. (1989). Recognition of isolated words: The dynamics of cohort reduction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 475487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, D. W., & Touretzky, D. S. (in press). A parallel licensing model of normal slips and phonemic paraphasias. Brain and Language.Google Scholar
1
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Sonority as a constraint on word identification processes
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Sonority as a constraint on word identification processes
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Sonority as a constraint on word identification processes
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *