Cargando…
Segmentation Cues in Conversational Speech: Robust Semantics and Fragile Phonotactics
Multiple cues influence listeners’ segmentation of connected speech into words, but most previous studies have used stimuli elicited in careful readings rather than natural conversation. Discerning word boundaries in conversational speech may differ from the laboratory setting. In particular, a spea...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Research Foundation
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3464055/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23060839 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00375 |
_version_ | 1782245355944935424 |
---|---|
author | White, Laurence Mattys, Sven L. Wiget, Lukas |
author_facet | White, Laurence Mattys, Sven L. Wiget, Lukas |
author_sort | White, Laurence |
collection | PubMed |
description | Multiple cues influence listeners’ segmentation of connected speech into words, but most previous studies have used stimuli elicited in careful readings rather than natural conversation. Discerning word boundaries in conversational speech may differ from the laboratory setting. In particular, a speaker’s articulatory effort – hyperarticulation vs. hypoarticulation (H&H) – may vary according to communicative demands, suggesting a compensatory relationship whereby acoustic-phonetic cues are attenuated when other information sources strongly guide segmentation. We examined how listeners’ interpretation of segmentation cues is affected by speech style (spontaneous conversation vs. read), using cross-modal identity priming. To elicit spontaneous stimuli, we used a map task in which speakers discussed routes around stylized landmarks. These landmarks were two-word phrases in which the strength of potential segmentation cues – semantic likelihood and cross-boundary diphone phonotactics – was systematically varied. Landmark-carrying utterances were transcribed and later re-recorded as read speech. Independent of speech style, we found an interaction between cue valence (favorable/unfavorable) and cue type (phonotactics/semantics). Thus, there was an effect of semantic plausibility, but no effect of cross-boundary phonotactics, indicating that the importance of phonotactic segmentation may have been overstated in studies where lexical information was artificially suppressed. These patterns were unaffected by whether the stimuli were elicited in a spontaneous or read context, even though the difference in speech styles was evident in a main effect. Durational analyses suggested speaker-driven cue trade-offs congruent with an H&H account, but these modulations did not impact on listener behavior. We conclude that previous research exploiting read speech is reliable in indicating the primacy of lexically based cues in the segmentation of natural conversational speech. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3464055 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | Frontiers Research Foundation |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-34640552012-10-11 Segmentation Cues in Conversational Speech: Robust Semantics and Fragile Phonotactics White, Laurence Mattys, Sven L. Wiget, Lukas Front Psychol Psychology Multiple cues influence listeners’ segmentation of connected speech into words, but most previous studies have used stimuli elicited in careful readings rather than natural conversation. Discerning word boundaries in conversational speech may differ from the laboratory setting. In particular, a speaker’s articulatory effort – hyperarticulation vs. hypoarticulation (H&H) – may vary according to communicative demands, suggesting a compensatory relationship whereby acoustic-phonetic cues are attenuated when other information sources strongly guide segmentation. We examined how listeners’ interpretation of segmentation cues is affected by speech style (spontaneous conversation vs. read), using cross-modal identity priming. To elicit spontaneous stimuli, we used a map task in which speakers discussed routes around stylized landmarks. These landmarks were two-word phrases in which the strength of potential segmentation cues – semantic likelihood and cross-boundary diphone phonotactics – was systematically varied. Landmark-carrying utterances were transcribed and later re-recorded as read speech. Independent of speech style, we found an interaction between cue valence (favorable/unfavorable) and cue type (phonotactics/semantics). Thus, there was an effect of semantic plausibility, but no effect of cross-boundary phonotactics, indicating that the importance of phonotactic segmentation may have been overstated in studies where lexical information was artificially suppressed. These patterns were unaffected by whether the stimuli were elicited in a spontaneous or read context, even though the difference in speech styles was evident in a main effect. Durational analyses suggested speaker-driven cue trade-offs congruent with an H&H account, but these modulations did not impact on listener behavior. We conclude that previous research exploiting read speech is reliable in indicating the primacy of lexically based cues in the segmentation of natural conversational speech. Frontiers Research Foundation 2012-10-04 /pmc/articles/PMC3464055/ /pubmed/23060839 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00375 Text en Copyright © 2012 White, Mattys and Wiget. http://www.frontiersin.org/licenseagreement This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in other forums, provided the original authors and source are credited and subject to any copyright notices concerning any third-party graphics etc. |
spellingShingle | Psychology White, Laurence Mattys, Sven L. Wiget, Lukas Segmentation Cues in Conversational Speech: Robust Semantics and Fragile Phonotactics |
title | Segmentation Cues in Conversational Speech: Robust Semantics and Fragile Phonotactics |
title_full | Segmentation Cues in Conversational Speech: Robust Semantics and Fragile Phonotactics |
title_fullStr | Segmentation Cues in Conversational Speech: Robust Semantics and Fragile Phonotactics |
title_full_unstemmed | Segmentation Cues in Conversational Speech: Robust Semantics and Fragile Phonotactics |
title_short | Segmentation Cues in Conversational Speech: Robust Semantics and Fragile Phonotactics |
title_sort | segmentation cues in conversational speech: robust semantics and fragile phonotactics |
topic | Psychology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3464055/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23060839 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00375 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT whitelaurence segmentationcuesinconversationalspeechrobustsemanticsandfragilephonotactics AT mattyssvenl segmentationcuesinconversationalspeechrobustsemanticsandfragilephonotactics AT wigetlukas segmentationcuesinconversationalspeechrobustsemanticsandfragilephonotactics |