Cargando…

Phonemes: Lexical access and beyond

Phonemes play a central role in traditional theories as units of speech perception and access codes to lexical representations. Phonemes have two essential properties: they are ‘segment-sized’ (the size of a consonant or vowel) and abstract (a single phoneme may be have different acoustic realisatio...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kazanina, Nina, Bowers, Jeffrey S., Idsardi, William
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5902519/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28875456
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1362-0
_version_ 1783314768829874176
author Kazanina, Nina
Bowers, Jeffrey S.
Idsardi, William
author_facet Kazanina, Nina
Bowers, Jeffrey S.
Idsardi, William
author_sort Kazanina, Nina
collection PubMed
description Phonemes play a central role in traditional theories as units of speech perception and access codes to lexical representations. Phonemes have two essential properties: they are ‘segment-sized’ (the size of a consonant or vowel) and abstract (a single phoneme may be have different acoustic realisations). Nevertheless, there is a long history of challenging the phoneme hypothesis, with some theorists arguing for differently sized phonological units (e.g. features or syllables) and others rejecting abstract codes in favour of representations that encode detailed acoustic properties of the stimulus. The phoneme hypothesis is the minority view today. We defend the phoneme hypothesis in two complementary ways. First, we show that rejection of phonemes is based on a flawed interpretation of empirical findings. For example, it is commonly argued that the failure to find acoustic invariances for phonemes rules out phonemes. However, the lack of invariance is only a problem on the assumption that speech perception is a bottom-up process. If learned sublexical codes are modified by top-down constraints (which they are), then this argument loses all force. Second, we provide strong positive evidence for phonemes on the basis of linguistic data. Almost all findings that are taken (incorrectly) as evidence against phonemes are based on psycholinguistic studies of single words. However, phonemes were first introduced in linguistics, and the best evidence for phonemes comes from linguistic analyses of complex word forms and sentences. In short, the rejection of phonemes is based on a false analysis and a too-narrow consideration of the relevant data.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5902519
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59025192018-04-24 Phonemes: Lexical access and beyond Kazanina, Nina Bowers, Jeffrey S. Idsardi, William Psychon Bull Rev Theoretical Review Phonemes play a central role in traditional theories as units of speech perception and access codes to lexical representations. Phonemes have two essential properties: they are ‘segment-sized’ (the size of a consonant or vowel) and abstract (a single phoneme may be have different acoustic realisations). Nevertheless, there is a long history of challenging the phoneme hypothesis, with some theorists arguing for differently sized phonological units (e.g. features or syllables) and others rejecting abstract codes in favour of representations that encode detailed acoustic properties of the stimulus. The phoneme hypothesis is the minority view today. We defend the phoneme hypothesis in two complementary ways. First, we show that rejection of phonemes is based on a flawed interpretation of empirical findings. For example, it is commonly argued that the failure to find acoustic invariances for phonemes rules out phonemes. However, the lack of invariance is only a problem on the assumption that speech perception is a bottom-up process. If learned sublexical codes are modified by top-down constraints (which they are), then this argument loses all force. Second, we provide strong positive evidence for phonemes on the basis of linguistic data. Almost all findings that are taken (incorrectly) as evidence against phonemes are based on psycholinguistic studies of single words. However, phonemes were first introduced in linguistics, and the best evidence for phonemes comes from linguistic analyses of complex word forms and sentences. In short, the rejection of phonemes is based on a false analysis and a too-narrow consideration of the relevant data. Springer US 2017-09-05 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC5902519/ /pubmed/28875456 http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1362-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Theoretical Review
Kazanina, Nina
Bowers, Jeffrey S.
Idsardi, William
Phonemes: Lexical access and beyond
title Phonemes: Lexical access and beyond
title_full Phonemes: Lexical access and beyond
title_fullStr Phonemes: Lexical access and beyond
title_full_unstemmed Phonemes: Lexical access and beyond
title_short Phonemes: Lexical access and beyond
title_sort phonemes: lexical access and beyond
topic Theoretical Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5902519/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28875456
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1362-0
work_keys_str_mv AT kazaninanina phonemeslexicalaccessandbeyond
AT bowersjeffreys phonemeslexicalaccessandbeyond
AT idsardiwilliam phonemeslexicalaccessandbeyond