Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T07:18:21.021Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

17 - Psycholinguistic Aspects

from Section IV - Audition and Perception

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2021

By
Meghan Sumner  and
Seung Kyung Kim
Edited by
Rachael-Anne Knight  and
Jane Setter
Rachael-Anne Knight
Affiliation:
City, University of London
Jane Setter
Affiliation:
University of Reading
Get access

Summary

This chapter provides an overview of research that combines phonetics and psycholinguistics. It underscores a number of papers that highlight a story about the history, issues and trends in the field. In doing so, papers that can serve as good pointers to different subfields are examined. The chapter oscillates between foundational work and more recent work, hoping that it can provide a broad introduction to this area of research. This chapter particularly focuses on issues that merge phonetic variation, spoken word recognition, memory, and sociolinguistics. Research in this area has not only raised questions about the assumptions made about how listeners understand spoken language, but is also ripe for investigations that have a broad impact across psychology and linguistics more generally.

Keywords

experience-based modelsmemoryphonetic variationsocial factorssociolinguisticsspoken word recognition
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Phonetics , pp. 430 - 456
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

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

17.7 References

Allen, J. S. & Miller, J. L. (2004). Listener sensitivity to individual talker differences in voice-onset-time. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115(6), 3171–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andruski, J. E., Blumstein, S. E. & Burton, M. (1994). The effect of subphonetic differences on lexical access. Cognition, 52(3), 163–87.Google Scholar
Bowers, J. S. (2000). In defense of abstractionist theories of repetition priming and word identification. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(1), 83–99.Google Scholar
Bradlow, A. R., Nygaard, L. C. & Pisoni, D. B. (1999). Effects of talker, rater, and amplitude variation on recognition memory for spoken words. Perception & Psychophysics, 61(2), 206–19.Google Scholar
Cai, Z. G., Gilbert, R. A., Davis, M. H., Gaskell, M. G., Farrar, L., Adler, S. et al. (2017). Accent modulates access to word meaning: Evidence for a speaker-model account of spoken word recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 98, 73–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell-Kibler, K. (2007). Accent, (ING), and the social logic of listener perceptions. American Speech, 82(1), 32–64.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, K. (2009). The nature of sociolinguistic perception. Language Variation and Change, 21, 135–56.Google Scholar
Church, B. A. & Schacter, D. L. (1994). Perceptual specificity of auditory priming: Implicit memory for voice intonation and fundamental frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(3), 521–33.Google Scholar
Clayards, M., Tanenhaus, M., Aslin, R. & Jacobs, R. (2008). Perception of speech reflects optimal use of probabilistic speech cues. Cognition, 108, 804–9.Google Scholar
Connine, C. M. (2004). It’s not what you hear but how often you hear it: On the neglected role of phonological variant frequency in auditory word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(6), 1084–9.Google Scholar
Cooper, A., Brouwer, S. & Bradlow, A. R. (2015). Interdependent processing and encoding of speech and concurrent background noise. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 77(4), 1342–57.Google Scholar
Creel, S. C., Aslin, R. N. & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2012). Word learning under adverse listening conditions: Context-specific recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 1021–38.Google Scholar
Dahan, D., Drucker, S. J. & Scarborough, R. A. (2008). Talker adaptation in speech perception: Adjusting the signal or the representations? Cognition, 108(3), 710–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dilley, L., Wieland, E., Gamache, J., McAuley, J. D. & Redford, M. (2013). Age-related changes to spectral voice characteristics affect judgments of prosodic, segmental, and talker attributes for child and adult speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56, 159–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D’Onofrio, A. (2015). Perceiving personae: Effects of social information on perceptions of TRAP-backing. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 21(2), 31–9.Google Scholar
D’Onofrio, A. (in press). Sociolinguistic signs as cognitive representations. In Hall-Lew, L., Podesva, E. &Moore, R. J., eds., Social Meaning in Linguistic Variation: Theorizing the Third Wave. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dumay, N. & Gaskell, M. G. (2005). Do words go to sleep? Exploring consolidation of spoken forms through direct and indirect measures. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 28, 69–70.Google Scholar
Dumay, N. & Gaskell, M. G. (2007). Sleep-associated changes in the mental representation of spoken words. Psychological Science, 18, 35–9.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(4), 453–76.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (2012). Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41(1), 87–100.Google Scholar
Freeman, J. B. & Ambady, N. (2011). A dynamic interactive theory of person construal. Psychological Review, 118(2), 247–79.Google Scholar
Ganong, W. F. (1980). Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6(1), 110–25.Google Scholar
Gaskell, M. G. & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1996). Phonological variation and inference in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22(1), 144–58.Google Scholar
Goh, W. D. (2005). Talker variability and recognition memory: Instance-specific and voice-specific effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(1), 40–53.Google Scholar
Goldinger, S. D. (1996). Words and voices: Episodic traces in spoken word identification and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(5), 1166–83.Google Scholar
Goldinger, S. D. (1998). Echoes of echoes: An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review, 105, 251–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gordon, M., Barthmaier, P. & Sands, K. (2002). A cross-linguistic acoustic study of voiceless fricatives. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 32(2), 141–74.Google Scholar
Gow, D. W. (2001). Assimilation and anticipation in continuous spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(1), 133–59.Google Scholar
Gow, D. W. (2002). Does English coronal place assimilation create lexical ambiguity? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(1), 163–79.Google Scholar
Gow, D. W. (2003). Feature parsing: Feature cue mapping in spoken word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 65(4), 575–90.Google Scholar
Gow, D. W. & Im, A. M. (2004). A cross-linguistic examination of assimilation context effects. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(2), 279–96.Google Scholar
Grossberg, S. (2013). Adaptive Resonance Theory: How a brain learns to consciously attend, learn, and recognize a changing world. Neural Networks, 37, 1–47.Google Scholar
Halpern, D. F. & Hakel, M. D. (2003). Applying the science of learning to the university and beyond. Change Magazine. July/August, pp. 36–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, J., Podlubny, R., Drager, K. & McAuliffe, M. (2017). Car-talk: Location-specific speech production and perception. Journal of Phonetics, 65, 94–109.Google Scholar
Howe, M. L., Wimmer, M. C., Gagnon, N. & Plumpton, S. (2009). An associative-activation theory of children’s and adults’ memory illusions. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 229–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K. (1997). Speech perception without speaker normalization: An exemplar model. In Johnson, K. & Mullennix, J. W., eds., Talker Variability in Speech Processing. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 145–65.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. (2005). Speaker normalization in speech perception. In Pisoni, D. B. & Remez, R. E., eds., The Handbook of Speech Perception. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 363–89.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. (2006). Resonance in an exemplar-based lexicon: The emergence of social identity and phonology. Journal of Phonetics, 34, 485–99.Google Scholar
Keating, P. A. (1998). Word-level phonetic variation in large speech corpora. In A. Alexiadou, N. Fuhrop, U. Kleinhenz & P. Law, eds., ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 11, 35–50.Google Scholar
Kim, S. K. (2015). Speech, Variation, and Meaning: The Effects of Emotional Prosody on Word Recognition. PhD thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Kim, S. K. & Sumner, M. (2017). Beyond lexical meaning: The effect of emotional prosody on spoken word recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 142(1), EL49–55.Google Scholar
King, E. & Sumner, M. (2015). Voice-specific effects in semantic association. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 37, 1111–16.Google Scholar
Klatt, D. H. (1979). Speech perception: A model of acoustic-phonetic analysis and lexical access. Journal of Phonetics, 7, 279–312.Google Scholar
Kleinschmidt, D. F. & Jaeger, T. F. (2015). Robust speech perception: Recognize the familiar, generalize to the similar, and adapt to the novel. Psychological Review, 122(2), 148–203.Google Scholar
Kong, E. J., Kang, S. & Seo, M. (2014). Gender difference in the affricate productions of young Seoul Korean speakers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 136(4), EL329–EL335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraljic, T. & Samuel, A. G. (2006). Generalization in perceptual learning for speech. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(2), 262–8.Google Scholar
Kumaran, D. and McClelland, J. L. (2012). Generalization through the recurrent interaction of episodic memories: A model of the hippocampal system. Psychological Review 119(3), 573–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladefoged, P. & Broadbent, D. E. (1960). Perception of sequence in auditory events. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12(3), 162–70.Google Scholar
Lahiri, A. & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1991). The mental representation of lexical form: A phonological approach to the recognition lexicon. Cognition, 38, 245–94.Google Scholar
Liberman, A. M. & Mattingly, I. G. (1985). The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition, 21(1), 1–36.Google Scholar
Liberman, A. M., Cooper, F. S., Shankweiler, D. P. & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1967). Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review, 74(6), 431–61.Google Scholar
Lindblom, B. E. & Studdert‐Kennedy, M. (1967). On the role of formant transitions in vowel recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 42(4), 830–43.Google Scholar
Lindblom, B. (1990). Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H&H theory. In Hardcastle, W. J. & Marchal, A., eds., Speech Production and Speech Modeling. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 403–39.Google Scholar
LoCasto, P. C. & Connine, C. M. (2002). Rule-governed missing information in spoken word recognition: Schwa vowel deletion. Perception & Psychophysics, 64(2), 208–19.Google Scholar
LoCasto, P. C. & Connine, C. M. (2011). Processing of no-release variants in connected speech. Language and Speech, 54(2), 181–97.Google Scholar
Luce, P. A. & Lyons, E. (1998). Specificity of memory representation for spoken words. Memory & Cognition, 26, 708–15.Google Scholar
Luce, P. A. & McLennan, C. T. (2005). Spoken word recognition: The challenge of variation. In Pisoni, D. B. & Remez, R. E., eds., The Handbook of Speech Perception. Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar
Maida, C. (2014). Project-based learning: A critical pedagogy for the twenty-first century. Policy Futures in Education, 9, 759–68.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. & Warren, P. (1994). Levels of perceptual representation and process in lexical access: Words, phonemes, and features. Psychological Review, 101(4), 653.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W., Nix, A. & Gaskell, G. (1995). Phonological variation in lexical access: Abstractness, inference and English place assimilation. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 285–308.Google Scholar
Mattys, S. L., Davis, M. H., Bradlow, A. R. & Scott, S. K. (2012). Speech recognition in adverse conditions: A review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(7–8), 953–78.Google Scholar
Maye, J., Asline, R. N. & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2008). The weckud wetch of the wast: Lexical adaptation to a novel accent. Cognitive Science, 32(3), 543–62.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L. & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1–86.Google Scholar
McGowan, K. B. & Sumner, M. (2014). The effect of contextual mismatches on lexical activation of phonetic variants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 135(4), 2199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niedzielski, N. (1999). The effect of social information on the perception of sociolinguistic variables. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18(1), 62–85.Google Scholar
Noelle, D. C., Dale, R., Warlaumont, A. S., Yoshimi, J., Matlock, T., Jennings, C. D. et al. (2015). Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Norris, D. (1994). Shortlist: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition, 52(3), 189–234.Google Scholar
Norris, D., McQueen, J. M. & Cutler, A. (2003). Perceptual learning in speech. Cognitive Psychology, 47(2), 204–38.Google Scholar
Nygaard, L. C. & Lunders, E. R. (2002). Resolution of lexical ambiguity by emotional tone of voice. Memory & Cognition, 30(4), 583–93.Google Scholar
Nygaard, L. C. & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Talker-specific learning in speech perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 60(3), 355–76.Google Scholar
Otgaar, H., Peters, M. & Howe, M. L. (2012). Dividing attention lowers children’s, but increases adults’ false memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(1), 204–10.Google Scholar
Palmeri, T. J., Goldinger, S. D. & Pisoni, D. B. (1993). Episodic encoding of voice attributes and recognition memory for spoken words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(2), 309–28.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In Bybee, J. & Hopper, P., eds., Frequency Effects and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 137–58.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2016). Phonological representation: Beyond abstract versus episodic. Annual Review of Linguistics, 2, 33–52.Google Scholar
Pitt, M. A. (2009). The strength and time course of lexical activation of pronunciation variants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(3), 896–910.Google Scholar
Pufahl, A. & Samuel, A. G. (2014). How lexical is the lexicon? Evidence for integrated auditory memory representations. Cognitive Psychology, 70, 1–30.Google Scholar
Salverda, A. P., Kleinschmidt, D. & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2014). Immediate effects of anticipatory coarticulation in spoken-word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 71(1), 145–63.Google Scholar
Samuel, A. G. & Kraljic, T. (2009). Perceptual learning for speech. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71(6), 1207–18.Google Scholar
Schacter, D. L. & Church, B. A. (1992). Auditory priming: Implicit and explicit memory for words and voices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(5), 915–30.Google Scholar
Steen, S., Bader, C. & Kubrin, C. (1999). Rethinking the graduate seminar. Teaching Sociology, 27(2), 167–73.Google Scholar
Strand, E. A. (2000). Gender Stereotype Effects in Speech Processing. Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Strori, D., Zaar, J., Cooke, M. & Mattys, S. L. (2018). Sound specificity effects in spoken word recognition: The effect of integrality between words and sounds. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 80, 222–41.Google Scholar
Sumner, M. (2015). The social weight of spoken words. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(5), 238–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sumner, M., and Kataoka, R. (2013). Effects of phonetically cued talker variation on semantic-encoding. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 134, EL485–491.Google Scholar
Sumner, M. & Samuel, A. G. (2007). Lexical inhibition and sublexical facilitation are surprisingly long lasting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(4), 769–90.Google Scholar
Sumner, M. & Samuel, A. G. (2009). The effect of experience on the perception and representation of dialect variants. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 487–501.Google Scholar
Sumner, M., Kurumada, C., Gafter, R. & Casillas, M. (2013). Phonetic variation and the recognition of words with pronunciation variants. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 35, 3486–91.Google Scholar
Sumner, M., Kim, S. K., King, E. & McGowan, K. B. (2014). The socially weighted encoding of spoken words: A dual-route approach to speech perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(January), 1–13.Google Scholar
Toscano, J. C. & McMurray, B. (2010). Cue integration with categories: Weighting acoustic cues in speech using unsupervised learning and distributional statistics. Cognitive Science, 34, 434–64.Google Scholar
Toscano, J. C. & McMurray, B. (2015). The time-course of speaking rate compensation: effects of sentential rate and vowel length on voicing judgments. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(5), 529–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vitevitch, M. S. (2003). Change deafness: The inability to detect changes between two voices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 333–42.Google Scholar
Warren, P. (2016). Uptalk: The Phenomenon of Rising Intonation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zhao, Y. (2009). Statistical Inference in Learning of Novel Phonetic Categories. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, CA.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book 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.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

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

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

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

Available formats
×