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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |