Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T07:57:38.843Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some views on speech perception

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2009

Natalie Waterson
Natalie Waterson
Affiliation:
(School of Oriental and African Studies, London)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Speech perception is of interest to linguists and psychologists alike. Psychologists seek for linguistic units to enable them to explain processes involved in speech; linguists try to establish what these units may be, whether distinctive features, phonemes, syllables, words or even larger units. Although the phoneme was for some time considered to be the most likely candidate, experimental evidence is increasingly pointing to some larger unit, particularly in view of the fact that no one-to-one acoustic correlation with the phoneme nor with distinctive features can be found (cf. Reddy, 1967: 336, Ladefoged, 1967: 146, Denes, 1963: 892). Furthermore, if the phoneme were to be the unit of perception, in any sort of processing involving matching a perceived pattern with one already stored, far too many operations would be involved because of the large size of vocabularies and large number of sentence types in a language; such processing would have to be too rapid to be feasible, bearing in mind the constraints of memory span. There is now more sympathy for the syllable or larger stretch as the unit of perception (e.g. Laver, 1970: 68, Maclay and Osgood, 1959, Ladefoged, 1959: 402), and there seems to be good evidence for the planning of speech to be in stretches longer than a word, e.g. Ladefoged's experiments with placing ‘dot’ at different parts of a sentence (Ladefoged, 1959).

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the International Phonetic Association , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , December 1971 , pp. 81 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © Journal of the International Phonetic Association 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bruce, D. J. (1956). ‘Effects of context upon the intelligibility of heard speech’, in Cherry, C. (ed.), Information theory: third London Symposium, 245–252, Butterworth. Reprinted in R. C. Oldfield and J. C. Marshall, (eds.), Language, Penguin Modern Psychology, 1968.Google Scholar
Campbell, R., and Wales, R. (1970). ‘The study of language acquisition’, in Lyons, J. (ed.), New Horizons in Linguistics, 242–260. Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Delattre, P. (1968). ‘From acoustic cues to distinctive features’, Phonetica. 18. 198–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denes, P. B. (1963). ‘On the statistics of spoken English’. JASA, 35.6., 892–904.Google Scholar
Denes, P. B. and Pinson, E. N. (1963). The speech chain. Bell Telephone Laboratories.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). ‘The case for case’, in Bach, E. and Harms, R. T. (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Francis, H. (1971). An investigation into the structure and development of the speech, reading and writing of a young child. Thesis for Ph.D., Leeds University.Google Scholar
Fromkin, V. (1968). ‘Speculations on performance models’, J.L. 4.1., 47–68.Google Scholar
Fry, D. B. (1956). ‘Perception and recognition in speech’, in Halle, M., Lunt, H. G., McLean, H., and Van Schooneveld, C. H. (eds.), For Roman Jakobson—Essays on the occasion of his 60th birthday, 169–172.Google Scholar
Fry, D. B. (1970). ‘Speech perception and recognition’ in Lyons, J. (ed.), New Horizons in Linguistics, 29–62.Google Scholar
Hörmann, H. (1971). Psycholinguistics. An introduction to research and theory. Berlin, etc.: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. (1959). ‘The perception of speech’. Proc. Symp. Mechanization of thought processes, 1. London: H.M. Stationery Office. 399–409.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. (1967). Three areas of experimental phonetics. O.U.P.Google Scholar
Laver, J. (1970). ‘The production of speech’ in Lyons, J. (ed.), New Horizons in Linguistics, 53–75.Google Scholar
MaClay, H., and Osgood, C. E. (1959). ‘Hesitation phenomena in spontaneous English speech’, Word. 15. 19–44.Google Scholar
Malécot, A. (1968). ‘The force of articulation of American stops and fricatives as a function of position’, Phonetica 18. 95–102.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. and Nicely, P. E. (1955), ‘An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants’, JASA. 27. 338–52. Reprinted in Sol Saporta (ed.) Psycholinguistics. A book of readings.(1961). 153–175. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, R. W. (1963). ‘Dimensions of perception for consonants’, JASA, 35. 12. 1985–9.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1959), reprint 1967. The language and thought of the child. Transl. M., and Gabain, R.. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Reddy, D. R. (1967). ‘Computer recognition of connected speech’, JASA, 42.2. 329–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robins, R. H. (1967). A short history of linguistics. Longmans.Google Scholar
Savin, H. B. (1963). ‘Word-frequency effect and errors in the perception of speech’, JASA, 35.2. 200–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waterson, N. (1971). ‘Child phonology: a prosodic view’, J.L. 7.2.Google Scholar
Waterson, N. (1970). ‘Some speech forms of an English child: a phonological study’, TPS (Forthcoming).Google Scholar
Wickelgren, W. A. (1965). ‘Distinctive features and errors in Short-Term Memory for English vowels’, JASA, 38.4. 583–588.Google Scholar
Wickelgren, W. A. (1966). ‘Distinctive features and errors in Short-Term Memory for English consonants; JASA, 39.2. 388–398.Google Scholar
Wells, G. (1970). ‘Some suggestions for the theoretical orientation of research on language acquisition’. Paper given at the annual conference of the British Psychological Society, Education Section, at Nottingham.Google Scholar