Advertisement

Memory & Cognition

, Volume 28, Issue 5, pp 746–755 | Cite as

Constraints of vowels and consonants on lexical selection: Cross-linguistic comparisons

  • Anne Cutler
  • Nuria Sebastián-Gallés
  • Olga Soler-Vilageliu
  • Brit Van Ooijen
Article

Abstract

Languages differ in the constitution of their phonemic repertoire and in the relative distinctiveness of phonemes within the repertoire. In the present study, we asked whether such differences constrain spoken-word recognition, via two word reconstruction experiments, in which listeners turned nonwords into real words by changing single sounds. The experiments were carried out in Dutch (which has a relatively balanced vowel—consonant ratio and many similar vowels) and in Spanish (which has many more consonants than vowels and high distinctiveness among the vowels). Both Dutch and Spanish listeners responded significantly faster and more accurately when required to change vowels as opposed to consonants; when allowed to change any phoneme, they more often altered vowels than consonants. Vowel information thus appears to constrain lexical selection less tightly (allow more potential candidates) than does consonant information, independent of language-specific phoneme repertoire and of relative distinctiveness of vowels.

Keywords

Real Word Lexical Selection English Listener Matched Subset Vowel Information 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., &van Rijn, H. (1993).The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
  2. Bond, Z. S., &Garnes, S. (1980). Misperceptions of fluent speech. In R. Cole (Ed.),Perception and production of fluent speech. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Booij, G. (1995).The phonology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Connine, C. M., Blasko, D. G., &Wang, J. (1994). Vertical similarity in spoken word recognition: Multiple lexical activation, individual differences, and the role of sentence context.Perception & Psychophysics,56, 624–636.Google Scholar
  5. Costa, A., Cutler, A., &Sebastián-Gallés, N. (1998). Effects of phoneme repertoire on phoneme decision.Perception & Psychophysics,60, 1022–1031.Google Scholar
  6. Cutler, A., & Otake, T. (2000).Rhythmic categories in spoken-word recognition: Evidence from Japanese. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  7. Cutler, A., van Ooijen, B., Norris, D., &Sánchez-Casas, R. (1996). Speeded detection of vowels: A cross-linguistic study.Perception & Psychophysics,58, 807–822.Google Scholar
  8. Gow, D. W., &Gordon, P. C. (1995). Lexical and prelexical influences on word segmentation: Evidence from priming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 344–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hillenbrand, J., Getty, L. A., Clark, M. J., &Wheeler, K. (1995). Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,97, 3099–3111.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Keating, P. A., &Huffman, M. K. (1984). Vowel variation in Japanese.Journal of Phonetics,41, 191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Koopmans-van Beinum, F. J. (1980).Vowel contrast reduction: An acoustic and perceptual study of Dutch vowels in various speech conditions. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  12. Maddieson, I. (1984).Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Marks, E. A., Moates, D. R., Bond, Z. S., & Vazquez, L. (2000). Vowel mutability: The case of Spanish. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  14. Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1990). Activation, competition, and frequency in lexical access. In G. T. M. Altmann (Ed.),Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives (pp. 148–172). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Marslen-Wilson, W. D., &Warren, P. (1994). Levels of perceptual representation and process in lexical access: Words, phonemes, and features.Psychological Review,101, 653–675.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Marslen-Wilson, W. D., &Zwitserlood, P. (1989). Accessing spoken words: The importance of word onsets.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,15, 576–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McQueen, J. M., Norris, D. G., &Cutler, A. (1994). Competition in spoken word recognition: Spotting words in other words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition,20, 621–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McQueen, J. M., Norris, D. G., &Cutler, A. (1999). Lexical influence in phonetic decision-making: Evidence from subcategorical mismatches.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 1363–1389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nooteboom, S. G., &Doodeman, G. J. N. (1984). Speech quality and the gating paradigm. In M. P. R. van den Broecke & A. Cohen (Eds.),Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 481–485). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  20. Pallier, C., Dupoux, E., &Jeannin, X. (1997). EXPE: An expandable programming language for on-line psychological experiments.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,29, 322–327.Google Scholar
  21. Peterson, G. E., &Barney, H. L. (1952). Control methods used in a study of the vowels.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,24, 175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Radeau, M., Morais, J., &Segui, J. (1995). Phonological priming between monosyllabic spoken words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 1297–1311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rosner, B. S., &Pickering, J. B. (1994).Vowel perception and production. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sebastián-Gallés, N., Martí, M. A., Cuetos, F., & Carreiras, M. (1996).LEXESP: Base de datos informatizada de la lengua española [LEXESP: Computerized database of the Spanish language]. Universitat de Barcelona, Departament de Psicologia Basica.Google Scholar
  25. Shillcock, R. C. (1990). Lexical hypotheses in continuous speech. In G. T. M. Altmann (Ed.),Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives (pp. 24–49). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Slowiaczek, L. M., &Hamburger, M. (1992). Prelexical facilitation and lexical interference in auditory word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 1239–1250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Slowiaczek, L. M., McQueen, J. M., Soltano, E. G., & Lynch, M. (in press). Phonological representations in prelexical speech processing: Evidence from form-based priming.Journal of Memory & Language.Google Scholar
  28. Stockwell, R. P., &Bowen, J. D. (1965).The sounds of English and Spanish. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. Tabossi, P., Burani, C., &Scott, D. (1995). Word identification in fluent speech.Journal of Memory & Language,34, 440–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. van Ooijen, B. (1996). Vowel mutability and lexical selection in English: Evidence from a word reconstruction task.Memory & Cognition,24, 573–583.Google Scholar
  31. van Ooijen, B., Cutler, A., Sánchez-Casas, R., & Norris, D. (2000). Vowel and consonant detection in English and Spanish. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  32. Whalen, D. H. (1991). Subcategorical phonetic mismatches and lexical access.Perception & Psychophysics,50, 351–360.Google Scholar
  33. Zwitserlood, P. (1989). The locus of the effects of sentential—semantic context in spoken-word processing.Cognition,32, 25–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic SOciety, Inc 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne Cutler
    • 1
  • Nuria Sebastián-Gallés
    • 2
  • Olga Soler-Vilageliu
    • 3
  • Brit Van Ooijen
    • 4
  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for PsycholinguisticsNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Universitat Autonoma de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  4. 4.Laboratoire de Sciences Cognitives et PsycholinguistiqueCNRSParisFrance

Personalised recommendations