Four cross-modal priming experiments and two forced-choice identification experiments investigated the use of suprasegmental cues to stress in the recognition of spoken English words, by native (English-speaking) and nonnative (Dutch) listeners. Previous results had indicated that suprasegmental information was exploited in lexical access by Dutch but not by English listeners. For both listener groups, recognition of visually presented target words was faster, in comparison to a control condition, after stress-matching spoken primes, either monosyllabic ( mus-from MUsic/muSEum) or bisyllabic (admi-from ADmiral/admiRAtion ). For native listeners, the effect of stress-mismatching bisyllabic primes was not different from that of control primes, but mismatching monosyllabic primes produced partial facilitation. For non-native listeners, both bisyllabic and monosyllabic stress-mismatching primes produced partial facilitation. Native English listeners thus can exploit suprasegmental information in spoken-word recognition, but information from two syllables is used more effectively than information from one syllable. Dutch listeners are less proficient at using suprasegmental information in English than in their native language, but, as in their native language, use mono- and bisyllabic information to an equal extent. In forced-choice identification, Dutch listeners outperformed native listeners at correctly assigning a monosyllabic fragment (e.g., mus-) to one of two words differing in stress.
Baayen, R.H., Piepenbrock, R., & Rijn, H., van (1993). The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM). Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
2.
Bond, Z.S. (1981). Listening to elliptic speech: Pay attention to stressed vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 9, 89-96.
3.
Bond, Z.S., & Small, L.H. (1983). Voicing, vowel and stress mispronunciations in continuous speech. Perception & Psychophysics, 34, 470-474.
4.
Booij, G. (1995). The phonology of Dutch. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
5.
Broersma, M. (2002). Comprehension of non-native speech: Inaccurate phoneme processing and activation of lexical competitors. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 261-264), Denver.
6.
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.
7.
Connine, C.M., Titone, D., Deelman, T., & Blasko, D. (1997). Similarity mapping in spoken word recognition . Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 463-480.
8.
Cutler, A. (1986). Forbear is a homophone: Lexical prosody does not constrain lexical access. Language and Speech, 29, 201-220.
9.
Cutler, A., & Butterfield, S. (1992). Rhythmic cues to speech segmentation: Evidence from juncturemisperception. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 218-236.
10.
Cutler, A., & Carter, D.M. (1987). The predominance of strong initial syllables in the English vocabulary. Computer Speech and Language, 2, 133-142.
11.
Cutler, A., & Clifton, C.E. (1984). The use of prosodic information in word recognition . In H. Bouma & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and performance X (pp. 183-196). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12.
Cutler, A., Dahan, D., & Donselaar, W. Van (1997). Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and Speech , 40, 141-201.
13.
Cutler, A., & Donselaar, W., Van (2001). Voornaam is not a homophone: Lexical prosody and lexical access in Dutch. Language and Speech, 44, 171-195.
14.
Cutler, A., & Koster, M. (2000). Stress and lexical activation in Dutch. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Beijing, October; Vol. 1, pp. 593-596.
15.
Cutler, A., Mehler, J., Norris, D.G., & Segui, J. (1986). The syllable's differing role in the segmentation of French and English. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 385-400.
16.
Cutler, A., & Norris, D.G. (1988). The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 113-121.
17.
Cutler, A., & Otake, T. (1994). Mora or phoneme? Further evidence for language-specific listening. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 824-844.
18.
Cutler, A., & Otake, T. (1999).Pitch accent in spoken-word recognition in Japanese . Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 105, 1877-1888.
19.
Donselaar, W., Van, Koster , M ., & Cutler, A. (under revision). Exploring the role of lexical stress in lexical recognition . Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.
20.
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.
21.
Goldinger, S.D., Luce, P.A., & Pisoni, D.B. (1989). Priming lexical neighbors of spoken words: Effects of competition and inhibition. Journal of Memory and Language , 28, 501-518.
22.
Heuven, V. J., Van (1985). Perception of stress pattern and word recognition: Recognition of Dutch words with incorrect stress position. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 78, s21.
23.
Heuven, V. J., Van (1988). Effects of stress and accent on the human recognition of word fragments in spoken context: Gating and shadowing, Proceedings of Speech '88, 7th FASE symposium, Edinburgh, pp.811-818.
24.
Jongenburger, W. (1996). The role of lexical stress during spoken-word processing. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leiden. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
25.
Jongenburger, W., & Heuven, V. J., Van (1995). The role of lexical stress in the recognition of spoken words: Prelexical or postlexical?, Proceedings of the 13 th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences , pp. 368-371.
26.
Koster, M., & Cutler, A. (1997). Segmental and suprasegmental contributions to spoken-word recognition in Dutch. Proceedings of EUROSPEECH 97, Rhodes; pp.2167-2170.
27.
Leyden, K., Van, & Heuven, V. J., Van (1996). Lexical stress and spoken word recognition: Dutch versus English. In C. Cremers & M. den Dikken (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands, 1996. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
28.
Lieberman, P. (1965). On the acoustic basis of the perception of intonation by linguists. Word, 21, 40-54.
29.
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.
30.
Marslen-Wilson, W., & Warren, P. (1994).Levels of perceptual representation and process in lexical access: Words, phonemes, and features. Psychological Review, 101, 653-675.
31.
Mattys, S.L., & Samuel, A.G. (1997). How lexical stress affects speech segmentation and interactivity: Evidence from the migration paradigm. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 87-116.
32.
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 and Cognition, 20, 621- 638.
33.
McQueen, J.M., Norris, D.G., & Cutler, A. (1999). Lexical influence in phonetic decision-making : Evidence from sub categorical mismatches. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1363-1389.
34.
Otake, T., & Cutler, A. (1999). Perception of suprasegmental structure in a non-native dialect. Journal of Phonetics, 27, 229-253.
35.
Otake, T., Hatano, G., Cutler, A., & Mehler, J. (1993). Mora or syllable? Speech segmentation in Japanese . Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 358-378.
36.
Otake, T., Hatano, G., & Yoneyama, K. (1996). Speech segmentation by Japanese listeners. In T. Otake & A. Cutler (Eds.), Phonological Structure and language processing: cross- linguistic studies (pp. 183-201). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
37.
Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R.H. (1994). Prefix stripping re-revisited. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 357-375.
38.
Sekiguchi, T., & Nakajima, Y. (1999). The use of lexical prosody for lexical access of the Japanese language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research , 28, 439-454.
39.
Slowiacek, L.M. (1990). Effects of lexical stressin auditory word recognition . Language and Speech, 33, 47-68.
40.
Slowiaczek, L.M. (1991). Stress and context in auditory word recognition . Journal of Psycho linguistic Research, 20, 465-481.
Sotio-Far Aco, S., Sebastián-Gallés, N., & Cutler, A. (2001). Segmental and suprasegmental mismatch in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 412-432.
43.
Spivey, M., & Marian, V. (1999).Crosstalk between native and second languages: Partial activation of an irrelevant lexicon. Psychological Science, 10, 281-284.
44.
Strange, W. (1989). Dynamic specification of coarticulated vowels spoken in sentence context. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85, 2135-2153.
45.
Strange, W. (Ed.). (1995). Speech perception and linguistic experience. Baltimore: York Press.
46.
Streeter, L.A., & Nigro, G.N. (1979). The role of medial consonant transitions in word perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society pf America, 65, 1533-1541.
47.
Trommelen, M., & Zonneveld, W. (1999). Word stressin West Germanic languages. In H. van der Hulst (Ed.), Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe (pp.478-515). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
48.
Vroomen, J., Zon, M. Van, & Gelder, B. de( 1996). Cues to speech segmentation, Evidence from juncture misperceptions and word spotting. Memory & Cognition, 24, 744-755.
49.
Weber, A. (2001). Language-specific listening: The case of phonetic sequences. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Nijmegen; MPI Series in Psycholinguistics 16.
Zanten, E. A. Van, & Heuven, V. J. Van (1998). Word stress in Indonesian: Its communicative relevance. Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia and Oceania [Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde], 154, 129-147.
52.
Zwitserlood, P. (1989). The locus of the effects of sentential-semantic context in spoken-word processing. Cognition, 32, 25-64.
53.
Zwitserlood, P. (1996). Form priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 589-596.
