Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 62, Issue 4, pp 834–842 | Cite as

Adaptation to time-compressed speech: Phonological determinants

  • Núria Sebastián-Gallés
  • Emmanuel Dupoux
  • Albert Costa
  • Jacques Mehler
Article
  • 295 Downloads

Abstract

Perceptual adaptation to time-compressed speech was analyzed in two experiments. Previous research has suggested that this adaptation phenomenon is language specific and takes place at the phonological level. Moreover, it has been proposed that adaptation should only be observed for languages that are rhythmically similar. This assumption was explored by studying adaptation to different time-compressed languages in Spanish speakers. In Experiment 1, the performances of Spanish-speaking subjects who adapted to Spanish, Italian, French, English, and Japanese were compared. In Experiment 2, subjects from the same population were tested with Greek sentences compressed to two different rates. The results showed adaptation for Spanish, Italian, and Greek and no adaptation for English and Japanese, with French being an intermediate case. To account for the data, we propose that variables other than just the rhythmic properties of the languages, such as the vowel system and/or the lexical stress pattern, must be considered. The Greek data also support the view that phonological, rather than lexical, information is a determining factor in adaptation to compressed speech.

References

  1. Abercrombie, D. (1967).Elements of general phonetics. Edinbugh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Altmann, G. T. M., & Young, D. (1993, September).Factors affecting adaptation to time-compressed speech. Paper presented at Eurospeech ’93, Berlin.Google Scholar
  3. Best, C. T., McRoberts, G. W., &Sithole, N. N. (1988). The phonological basis of perceptual loss for non-native contrasts: Maintenance of discrimination among Zulu clicks by English-speaking adults and infants.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,14, 345–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Charpentier, F. J., & Stella, M. G. (1986, April).Diphone synthesis using an overlap-add technique for speech waveforms concatenation. Paper presented at the IEEE International Conference ASSP, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  5. Costa, A., Cutler, A., &Sebastián-Gallés, N. (1998). Effects of phoneme repertoire on phoneme decision.Perception & Psychophysics,60, 1022–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cutler, A., &Mehler, J. (1993). The periodicity bias.Journal of Phonetics,21, 103–108.Google Scholar
  7. Cutler, A., Mehler, J., Norris, D., &Seguí, J. (1983). A language specific comprehension strategy.Nature,304, 159–160.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cutler, A., Mehler, J., Norris, D., &Seguí, J. (1989). Limits on bilingualism.Nature,320, 229–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cutler, A., &Norris, D. G. (1988). The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,14, 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dauer, R. M. (1983). Stress-timing and syllable-timing reanalysed.Journal of Phonetics,11, 51–62.Google Scholar
  11. Dupoux, E., Christophe, P., Sebastián, N., &Mehler, J. (1997). A distressing deafness in French.Journal of Memory & Language,36, 406–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dupoux, E., &Green, K. (1997). Perceptual adjustment to highly compressed speech: Effects of talker and rate changes.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,23, 914–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Finegan, E. (1987). English. In B. Comrie (Ed.),The world’s major languages (pp. 77–109). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Goto, H. (1971). Auditory perception by normal Japanese adults of the sounds “l” and “r.”Neuropsychologia,9, 317–323.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Houde, J. F., &Jordan, M. I. (1998). Sensorimotor adaptation in speech production.Science,279, 1213–1216.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Mann, V. A. (1986). Distinguishing universal and language-dependent levels of speech perception: Evidence from Japanese listeners’ perception of English [l] and [r].Cognition,24, 169–196.CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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. Mehler, J., Sebastián-Gallés, N., Altmann, G., Dupoux, E., Christophe, A., &Pallier, P. (Eds.) (1993). Understanding compressed sentences: The role of rhythm and meaning. In P. Tallal, R. R. Llinás, & C. von Euler (Eds.),Temporal information processing in the nervous system: Special reference to dyslexia and dysphasia (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 682, pp. 272–282). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  19. Miyawaki, K., Strange, W., Verbrugge, R., Liberman, A. M., Jenkins, J. J., &Fujimura, O. (1975). An effect of linguistic experience: The discrimination of /r/ and /l/ by native speakers of Japanese and English.Perception & Psychophysics,18, 331–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Norris, D. G., McQueen, J. M., &Cutler, A. (1995). Competition and segmentation in spoken word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 1209–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Otake, T., Hatano, G., Cutler, A., &Mehler, J. (1993). Mora or syllable? Speech segmentation in Japanese.Journal of Memory & Language,32, 258–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pallier, C., Bosch, L., &Sebastián, N. (1997). A limit on behavioral plasticity in vowel acquisition.Cognition,64, B9-B17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Pallier, C., Sebastián, N., Felguera, T., Christophe, A., &Mehler, J. (1993). Attentional allocation within syllabic structure of spoken words.Journal of Memory & Language,32, 373–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pallier, C., Sebastián-Gallés, N., Dupoux, E., Christophe, A., &Mehler, J. (1998). Perceptual adjustment to time-compressed speech: A cross-linguistic study.Memory & Cognition,26, 844–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pike, K. L. (1946).The intonation of American English. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  26. Schwab, E. C., Nusbaum, H. C., &Pisoni, D. B. (1985). Some effects of training on the perception of synthetic speech.Human Factors,27, 395–408.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Sebastián-Gallés, N., Martí, A., Cuetos, F., &Carreiras, M. (1996). LEXESP. Una base de datos informatizada del español [LEXESP: A computerized data-base of Spanish], Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona, Departamento de Psicologia Bàsica.Google Scholar
  28. Sebastián-Gallés, N., &Soto-Faraco, S. (1999). On-line processing of native and non-native phonemic contrasts in early bilinguals.Cognition,72, 111–123.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Werker, J. E., &Tees, R. C. (1984). Phonemic and phonetic factors in adult cross-language speech perception.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,75, 1866–1878.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Núria Sebastián-Gallés
    • 1
  • Emmanuel Dupoux
    • 2
  • Albert Costa
    • 1
  • Jacques Mehler
    • 2
  1. 1.Universitat de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Laboratoire de Sciences Cognitives et PsycholinguistiqueEHESS-CNRSParisFrance

Personalised recommendations