Displaying 1 - 11 of 11
-
Tuinman, A., & Cutler, A. (2011). L1 knowledge and the perception of casual speech processes in L2. In M. Wrembel, M. Kul, & K. Dziubalska-Kolaczyk (
Eds. ), Achievements and perspectives in SLA of speech: New Sounds 2010. Volume I (pp. 289-301). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Abstract
Every language manifests casual speech processes, and hence every second language too. This study examined how listeners deal with second-language casual speech processes, as a function of the processes in their native language. We compared a match case, where a second-language process t/-reduction) is also operative in native speech, with a mismatch case, where a second-language process (/r/-insertion) is absent from native speech. In each case native and non-native listeners judged stimuli in which a given phoneme (in sentence context) varied along a continuum from absent to present. Second-language listeners in general mimicked native performance in the match case, but deviated significantly from native performance in the mismatch case. Together these results make it clear that the mapping from first to second language is as important in the interpretation of casual speech processes as in other dimensions of speech perception. Unfamiliar casual speech processes are difficult to adapt to in a second language. Casual speech processes that are already familiar from native speech, however, are easy to adapt to; indeed, our results even suggest that it is possible for subtle difference in their occurrence patterns across the two languages to be detected,and to be accommodated to in second-language listening -
Cutler, A. (2009). Psycholinguistics in our time. In P. Rabbitt (
Ed. ), Inside psychology: A science over 50 years (pp. 91-101). Oxford: Oxford University Press. -
Blumstein, S., & Cutler, A. (2003). Speech perception: Phonetic aspects. In W. Frawley (
Ed. ), International encyclopaedia of linguistics (pp. 151-154). Oxford: Oxford University Press. -
Cutler, A., & Butterfield, S. (2003). Rhythmic cues to speech segmentation: Evidence from juncture misperception. In J. Field (
Ed. ), Psycholinguistics: A resource book for students. (pp. 185-189). London: Routledge. -
Cutler, A. (2003). The perception of speech: Psycholinguistic aspects. In W. Frawley (
Ed. ), International encyclopaedia of linguistics (pp. 154-157). Oxford: Oxford University Press. -
McQueen, J. M., Dahan, D., & Cutler, A. (2003). Continuity and gradedness in speech processing. In N. O. Schiller, & A. S. Meyer (
Eds. ), Phonetics and phonology in language comprehension and production: Differences and similarities (pp. 39-78). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. -
Otake, T., & Cutler, A. (2003). Evidence against "units of perception". In S. Shohov (
Ed. ), Advances in psychology research (pp. 57-82). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science. -
Cutler, A. (1991). Linguistic rhythm and speech segmentation. In J. Sundberg, L. Nord, & R. Carlson (
Eds. ), Music, language, speech and brain (pp. 157-166). London: Macmillan. -
Cutler, A. (1989). Auditory lexical access: Where do we start? In W. Marslen-Wilson (
Ed. ), Lexical representation and process (pp. 342-356). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Abstract
The lexicon, considered as a component of the process of recognizing speech, is a device that accepts a sound image as input and outputs meaning. Lexical access is the process of formulating an appropriate input and mapping it onto an entry in the lexicon's store of sound images matched with their meanings. This chapter addresses the problems of auditory lexical access from continuous speech. The central argument to be proposed is that utterance prosody plays a crucial role in the access process. Continuous listening faces problems that are not present in visual recognition (reading) or in noncontinuous recognition (understanding isolated words). Aspects of utterance prosody offer a solution to these particular problems. -
Patterson, R. D., & Cutler, A. (1989). Auditory preprocessing and recognition of speech. In A. Baddeley, & N. Bernsen (
Eds. ), Research directions in cognitive science: A european perspective: Vol. 1. Cognitive psychology (pp. 23-60). London: Erlbaum. -
Cutler, A. (1987). Speaking for listening. In A. Allport, D. MacKay, W. Prinz, & E. Scheerer (
Eds. ), Language perception and production: Relationships between listening, speaking, reading and writing (pp. 23-40). London: Academic Press.Abstract
Speech production is constrained at all levels by the demands of speech perception. The speaker's primary aim is successful communication, and to this end semantic, syntactic and lexical choices are directed by the needs of the listener. Even at the articulatory level, some aspects of production appear to be perceptually constrained, for example the blocking of phonological distortions under certain conditions. An apparent exception to this pattern is word boundary information, which ought to be extremely useful to listeners, but which is not reliably coded in speech. It is argued that the solution to this apparent problem lies in rethinking the concept of the boundary of the lexical access unit. Speech rhythm provides clear information about the location of stressed syllables, and listeners do make use of this information. If stressed syllables can serve as the determinants of word lexical access codes, then once again speakers are providing precisely the necessary form of speech information to facilitate perception.
Share this page