Abstract
Most models of word recognition concerned with prosody are based on a distinction between strong syllables (containing a full vowel) and weak syllables (containing a schwa). In these models, the possibility that listeners take advantage of finer grained prosodie distinctions, such as primary versus secondary stress, is usually rejected on the grounds that these two categories are not discriminable from each other without lexical information or normalization of the speaker’s voice. In the present experiment, subjects were presented with word fragments that differed only by their degree of stress— namely, primary or secondary stress (e.g., /prasi/ vs. /prasi/). The task was to guess the origin of the fragment (e.g., “prosecutor” vs. “prosecution”). The results showed that guessing performance significantly exceeds the chance level, which indicates that making fine stress distinctions is possible without lexical information and with minimal speech normalization. This finding is discussed in the framework of prosody-based word recognition theories.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Beckman, M. E. (1986).Stress and non-stress accent. Dordrecht: Fions.
Brandt, J. F., Ruder, K. P., &Shipp, I., Jr. (1969). Vocal loudness and effort in continuous speech.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,46, 1543–1548.
Burzio, L. (1994).Principles of English stress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carlson, R., Grandstrom, B., Lindblom, B., &Rapp, K. (1973). Some timing and fundamental frequency characteristics of Swedish sentences: Data, rules, and perceptual evaluation.Speech Transmission Laboratory Quarterly Progress Status Report,4, 11–19.
Cole, R. A., &Jakimik, J. (1980a). How are syllables used to recognize words?Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,67, 965–970.
Cole, R. A., &Jakimik, J. (1980b). A model of speech perception. In R. Cole (Ed.),Perception and production of fluent speech (pp. 133–163). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cutler, A. (1986). Forbear is an homophone: Lexical prosody does not constrain lexical access,language & Speech,29, 201–220.
Cutler, A., &Butterfield, S. (1992). Rhythmic cues to speech segmentation: Evidence from juncture misperception.Journal of Memory & Language,31, 218–236.
Cutler, A., &Carter, D. M. (1987). The predominance of strong initial syllables in the English vocabulary.Computer Speech & Language,2, 133–142.
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.
Echols, C. H., Crowhurst, M. J., &Childers, J. B. (1997). Perception of rhythmic units in speech by infants and adults.Journal of Memory & Language,36, 202–225.
Fear, B. D., Cutler, A., &Butterfield, S. (1995). The strong/weak syllable distinction in English.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,97, 1893–1904.
Fry, D. B. (1955). Duration and intensity as physical correlates of linguistic stress.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,27, 765–768.
Fry, D. B. (1958). Experiments in the perception of stress.Language & Speech,1, 126–152.
Grosjean, F., &Gee, J. P. (1987). Prosodie structure and spoken word recognition.Cognition,25, 135–155.
Hayes, B. (1995).Metrical stress theory. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Hermes, D. J., &Rump, H. H. (1994). Perception of prominence in speech intonation induced by rising and falling pitch movements.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,96, 83–92.
Hermes, D. J., &Van Gestel, J. C. (1991). The frequency scale of speech intonation.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,90, 97–102.
Jusczyk, P. W., Cutler, A., &Redanz, N. (1993). Preference for the predominant stress patterns of English words.Child Development,64, 675–687.
Klatt, D. H. (1980). Speech perception: A model of acoustic-phonetic analysis and lexical access. In R. A. Cole (Ed.),Perception and production of fluent speech (pp. 243–288). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kucera, H., &Francis, W. (1967).Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Lehiste, I. (1970).Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Liberman, A. M., &Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1978). Phonetic perception. In R. Held, H. W. Leibowicz, & H. L. Teuber (Eds.),Handbook of sensory physiology (pp. 143–178). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Liberman, M. Y., &Prince, A. (1977). On stress and linguistic rhythm.Linguistic Inquiry,8, 249–336.
Liberman, M. Y, &Streeter, L. A. (1978). Use of nonsense-syllable mimicry in the study of prosodie phenomena.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,63, 231 -233.
Lieberman, P. (1960). Some acoustic correlates of word stress in American English.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,32, 451 -454.
Lieberman, P. (1965). On the acoustic basis of perception of stress by linguists.Word,21, 40–54.
Luce, P. A. (1986). A computational analysis of uniqueness points in auditory word recognition.Perception & Psychophysics,39, 155–158.
Luce, P. A., &Cluff, M. S. (1998). Delayed commitment in spoken word recognition: Evidence from cross-modal priming.Perception & Psychophysics,60, 484–490.
Marcus, S. M. (1984). Recognizing speech: On the mapping from sound to word. In H. Bouma & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds),Attention and performance X: Control of language processes (pp. 151–163). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mattys, S. L., Jusczyk, P. W., Luce, P. A., &Morgan, J. L. (1999). Phonotactic and prosodie effects on word segmentation in infants.Cognitive Psychology,38, 465–494.
Mattys, S. L., &Samuel, A. G. (1997). How lexical stress affects speech segmentation and interactivity: Evidence from the migration paradigm.Journal of Memory & Language,36, 87–116.
Mattys, S. L., & Samuel, A. G. (in press). Implications of stress pattern differences in spoken word recognition.Journal of Memory & Language.
McQueen, J. M., Cutler, A., Briscoe, T., &Norris, D. (1995). Models of continuous speech recognition and the contents of the vocabulary.Language & Cognitive Processes,10, 309–331.
Meltzer, R. H., Martin, J. G., Mills, C B., Imhoff, D. L., &Zohar, D. (1976). Anticipatory coarticulation and reaction time to phoneme targets in spontaneous speech.Phonetica,37, 159–168.
Mens, L. H., &Povel, D.-J. (1986). Evidence against a predictive role for rhythm in speech perception.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,38A, 177–192.
Morgan, J. L. (1996). A rhythmic bias in preverbal speech segmentation.Journal of Memory & Language,35, 666–688.
Morton, J., &Jassem, W. (1965). Acoustic correlates of stress.Language & Speech,8, 148–158.
Nakatani, L. H., &Schaffer, J. A. (1978). Hearing ‘words’ without words: Prosodie cues for word perception.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,63, 234–245.
Nooteboom, S. G., Brokx, J. P. L., &De Rooij, J. J. (1978). Contribution of prosody to speech perception. In W. J. M. Levelt & G. B. Flores d’Arcais (Eds.),Studies in the perception of language (pp. 75–107). New York: Wiley.
Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., &Cutler, A. (1995). Competition and segmentation in spoken word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 1209–1228.
Pierrehumbert, J. (1979). The perception of fundamental frequency declination.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,66, 363–369.
Pitt, M. A., &Samuel, A. G. (1990). The use of rhythm in attending to speech.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,16, 564–573.
Rietveld, A. C. M., &Koopmans-Van Beinum, F. J. (1987). Vowel reduction and stress.Speech Communication,6, 217–230.
Selkirk, E. O. (1984).Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Shields, J. L., McHugh, A., &Martin, J. G. (1974). Reaction time to phoneme targets as a function of rhythmic cues in continuous speech.Journal of Experimental Psychology,102, 250–255.
Sluijter, A. M. C. &Van Heuven, V. J. (1996). Spectral balance as an acoustic correlate of linguistic stress.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,100, 2471–2485.
Sluijter, A. M. C, Van Heuven, V. J., &Pacilly, J. J. A. (1997). Spectral balance as a cue in the perception of linguistic stress.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,101, 503–513.
Strange, W., &Gottfried, T. (1980). Task variables in the study of vowel perception.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,68, 1622–1625.
Strange, W., Verbrugge, R., Shankweiler, D., &Edman, T. (1976). Consonant environment specifies vowel identity.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,60, 213–224.
Van Bergem, D. R., Pols, L. C. W., &Koopmans-Van Beinum, F. J. (1988). Perceptual normalization of the vowels of a man and a child in various contexts.Speech Communication,7, 1–20.
Van Heuven, V. J., &Menert, L. (1996). Why stress position bias?Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,100, 2439–2451.
Vroomen, J., & De Gelder, B. (1997).Trochaic rhythm in speech segmentation. Paper presented at the 38th Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Philadelphia.
Vroomen, J., Tuomainen, J., &De Gelder, B. (1998). The roles of word stress and vowel harmony in speech segmentation.Journal of Memory & Language,38, 133–149.
Waibel, A. (1986). Suprasegmentals in very large vocabulary word recognition speech perceptions. In E. C. Schwab & H. C. Nusbaum (Eds.),Pattern recognition by humans and machines (pp. 159–186). New York: Academic Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant ROI MH5166301.
—Accepted by previous editor. Myron L. Braunstein
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mattys, S.L. The perception of primary and secondary stress in English. Perception & Psychophysics 62, 253–265 (2000). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205547
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205547