Although research examining the use of prosodic information in the processing of spoken words has increased in recent years, results from these studies have been inconclusive. The present series of experiments systematically examines the importance of one prosodic variable (lexical stress) in the recognition of isolated spoken words. Data collected in an identification task suggest that segmental information may be more heavily relied upon when appropriate lexical stress information is not available. Results of subsequent reaction time experiments support the hypothesis that lexical stress influences the processing of auditorily presented words. in three shadowing experiments, correctly stressed items were produced faster than incorrectly stressed items, and in a lexical decision experiment, correctly stressed words were classified faster than incorrectly stressed words. Thus, this work provides evidence across several experimental tasks for the use of lexical stress information in the processing of spoken words. Moreover, the data suggest that lexical stress should be an important aspect of the representation of words in an interactive model of auditory word recognition.
Bolinger, D. (1986). Intonation and Its Parts: Melody in Spoken English.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
2.
Cole, R.A., and Jakimik, J. (1978). Understanding speech: How words are heard. In G. Underwood (ed.), Strategies of Information Processing (pp. 67–116). New York: Academic Press.
3.
Connine, C.M., Clifton, C. Jr., and Cutler, A. (1987). Effects of lexical stress on phonetic categorization. Phonetica, 44, 133–146.
4.
Cutler, A. (1986). Forbear is a homophone: Lexical prosody does not constrain lexical access. Language and Speech, 29, 201–220.
5.
Cutler, A. (1989). Auditory lexical access: Where do we start? In W. Marslen-Wilson (ed.), Lexical Representations and Process (pp. 342–356). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
Cutler, A., and Clifton, C.E. Jr. (1985). The use of prosodic information in word recognition. In H. Bouma and D.G. Bouwhuis (eds.), Attention and Performance X (pp. 183–196). Hills-dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
Cutler, A., and Foss, D.J. (1977). On the role of sentence stress in sentence processing. Language and Speech, 20, 1–10.
8.
Cutler, A., and Norris, D. (1988). The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 113–121.
9.
Forster, K.I., and Chambers, S.M. (1973). Lexical access and naming time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 627–635.
10.
Grosjean, F. (1980). Spoken word recognition processes and the gating paradigm. Perception & Psychophysics, 28, 267–283.
11.
Grosjean, F., and Gee, J.P. (1987). Prosodic structure and spoken word recognition. Cognition, 25, 135–156.
12.
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 (Abstract).
13.
Heuven, V.J. van (1988). Effects of stress and accent on the human recognition of word fragments in spoken context: Gating and shadowing. In Proceedings of FASE/SPEECH-88, Edinburgh.
14.
Jackson, A., and Morton, J. (1984). Facilitation of auditory word recognition. Memory & Cognition, 12, 568–574.
15.
Jakimik, J., Cole, R.A., and Rudnicky, A.I. (1985). Sound and spelling in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 165–178.
16.
Kozhevnikov, V., and Chistovich, L. (1965). Speech: Articulation and Perception. US Department of Commerce Translation, IPRS, 30, 543, Washington, D.C.
17.
Kucera, H., and Francis, W.N. (1967). Computational Analysis of Present-Day American English.Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
18.
Lehiste, I. (1970). Suprasegmentals.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19.
Lehiste, I., Olive, J., and Streeter, L. (1976). Role of duration in disambiguating syntactically ambiguous sentences. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 60, 1199–1202.
20.
Luce, P.A., and Carrell, T.D. (1981). Creating and editing waveforms using WAVES.Research on Speech Perception. Progress Report No. 7 (pp. 287–297). Bloomington, IN: Speech Research Laboratory, Indiana University.
21.
Marslen-Wilson, W.D. (1984). Function and process in spoken word recognition: A tutorial review. In H. Bouma and D.G. Bouwhuis (eds.), Attention and Performance X. Control of Language Processes (pp. 125–150). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
22.
Marslen-Wilson, W.D., and Tyler, L.K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8, 1–71.
23.
Marslen-Wilson, W.D., and Welsh, A. (1978). Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 10, 29–63.
24.
McClelland, J.L., and Elman, J.L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1–86.
25.
Morton, J. (1969). Interaction of information in word recognition. Psychological Review, 76, 165–178.
26.
Morton, J. (1979). Word recognition. In J. Morton and J.C. Marshall (eds.), Psycholinguistics 2: Structures and Processes (pp. 107–156). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27.
Morton, J., and Jassem, W. (1965). Acoustic correlates of stress. Language and Speech, 8, 159–181.
28.
Nooteboom, S.G. (1981). Lexical retrieval from fragments of spoken words: Beginnings versus endings. Journal of Phonetics, 9, 407–424.
29.
Nusbaum, H.c., and Pisoni, D.B. (1985). Constraints on the perception of synthetic speech generated by rule. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 17, 235–242.
30.
Pisoni, D.B., Nusbaum, H.C., Luce, P.A., and Slowiaczek, L.M. (1985). Speech perception, word recognition and the structure of the lexicon. Speech Communication, 4, 75–95.
31.
Rumelhart, D.E., and McClelland, J.L. (1986). Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
Salasoo, A., and Pisoni, D.B. (1985). Sources of knowledge in spoken word identification. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 210–231.
33.
Slowiaczek, L.M. (1987). On the role of lexical stress in auditory word recognition. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.
34.
Slowiaczek, L.M., and Nusbaum, H.C. (1985). Effects of speech rate and pitch contour on the perception of synthetic speech. Human Factors, 27, 701–712.
35.
Slowiaczek, L.M., Nusbaum, H.C., and Pisoni, D.B. (1987). Phonological priming in auditory word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 13, 64–75.
36.
Sorin, C. (1983). Evaluation of F0 contribution to speech intelligibility. Paper presented at the 10th International Congress of Phonetic Science. Utrecht, August.
37.
Taft, L.A. (1984). Prosodic constraints and lexical parsing strategies. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
