Displaying 1 - 18 of 18
-
Cutler, A., & Broersma, M. (2005). Phonetic precision in listening. In W. J. Hardcastle, & J. M. Beck (
Eds. ), A figure of speech: A Festschrift for John Laver (pp. 63-91). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. -
Cutler, A., Klein, W., & Levinson, S. C. (2005). The cornerstones of twenty-first century psycholinguistics. In A. Cutler (
Ed. ), Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones (pp. 1-20). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. -
Cutler, A. (2005). The lexical statistics of word recognition problems caused by L2 phonetic confusion. In Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (pp. 413-416).
-
Cutler, A., McQueen, J. M., & Norris, D. (2005). The lexical utility of phoneme-category plasticity. In Proceedings of the ISCA Workshop on Plasticity in Speech Perception (PSP2005) (pp. 103-107).
-
Cutler, A. (2005). Lexical stress. In D. B. Pisoni, & R. E. Remez (
Eds. ), The handbook of speech perception (pp. 264-289). Oxford: Blackwell. -
Goudbeek, M., Smits, R., Cutler, A., & Swingley, D. (2005). Acquiring auditory and phonetic categories. In H. Cohen, & C. Lefebvre (
Eds. ), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science (pp. 497-513). Amsterdam: Elsevier. -
Chen, H.-C., & Cutler, A. (1997). Auditory priming in spoken and printed word recognition. In H.-C. Chen (
Ed. ), Cognitive processing of Chinese and related Asian languages (pp. 77-81). Hong Kong: Chinese University Press. -
Cutler, A. (1997). Prosody and the structure of the message. In Y. Sagisaka, N. Campbell, & N. Higuchi (
Eds. ), Computing prosody: Computational models for processing spontaneous speech (pp. 63-66). Heidelberg: Springer. -
Koster, M., & Cutler, A. (1997). Segmental and suprasegmental contributions to spoken-word recognition in Dutch. In Proceedings of EUROSPEECH 97 (pp. 2167-2170). Grenoble, France: ESCA.
Abstract
Words can be distinguished by segmental differences or by suprasegmental differences or both. Studies from English suggest that suprasegmentals play little role in human spoken-word recognition; English stress, however, is nearly always unambiguously coded in segmental structure (vowel quality); this relationship is less close in Dutch. The present study directly compared the effects of segmental and suprasegmental mispronunciation on word recognition in Dutch. There was a strong effect of suprasegmental mispronunciation, suggesting that Dutch listeners do exploit suprasegmental information in word recognition. Previous findings indicating the effects of mis-stressing for Dutch differ with stress position were replicated only when segmental change was involved, suggesting that this is an effect of segmental rather than suprasegmental processing. -
McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (1997). Cognitive processes in speech perception. In W. J. Hardcastle, & J. D. Laver (
Eds. ), The handbook of phonetic sciences (pp. 556-585). Oxford: Blackwell. -
Pallier, C., Cutler, A., & Sebastian-Galles, N. (1997). Prosodic structure and phonetic processing: A cross-linguistic study. In Proceedings of EUROSPEECH 97 (pp. 2131-2134). Grenoble, France: ESCA.
Abstract
Dutch and Spanish differ in how predictable the stress pattern is as a function of the segmental content: it is correlated with syllable weight in Dutch but not in Spanish. In the present study, two experiments were run to compare the abilities of Dutch and Spanish speakers to separately process segmental and stress information. It was predicted that the Spanish speakers would have more difficulty focusing on the segments and ignoring the stress pattern than the Dutch speakers. The task was a speeded classification task on CVCV syllables, with blocks of trials in which the stress pattern could vary versus blocks in which it was fixed. First, we found interference due to stress variability in both languages, suggesting that the processing of segmental information cannot be performed independently of stress. Second, the effect was larger for Spanish than for Dutch, suggesting that that the degree of interference from stress variation may be partially mitigated by the predictability of stress placement in the language. -
Butterfield, S., & Cutler, A. (1988). Segmentation errors by human listeners: Evidence for a prosodic segmentation strategy. In W. Ainsworth, & J. Holmes (
Eds. ), Proceedings of SPEECH ’88: Seventh Symposium of the Federation of Acoustic Societies of Europe: Vol. 3 (pp. 827-833). Edinburgh: Institute of Acoustics. -
Cutler, A. (1988). The perfect speech error. In L. Hyman, & C. Li (
Eds. ), Language, speech and mind: Studies in honor of Victoria A. Fromkin (pp. 209-223). London: Croom Helm. -
Hawkins, J. A., & Cutler, A. (1988). Psycholinguistic factors in morphological asymmetry. In J. A. Hawkins (
Ed. ), Explaining language universals (pp. 280-317). Oxford: Blackwell. -
Cutler, A. (1982). Prosody and sentence perception in English. In J. Mehler, E. C. Walker, & M. Garrett (
Eds. ), Perspectives on mental representation: Experimental and theoretical studies of cognitive processes and capacities (pp. 201-216). Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum. -
Scott, D. R., & Cutler, A. (1982). Segmental cues to syntactic structure. In Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics 'Spectral Analysis and its Use in Underwater Acoustics' (pp. E3.1-E3.4). London: Institute of Acoustics.
-
Cutler, A. (1977). The context-dependence of "intonational meanings". In W. Beach, S. Fox, & S. Philosoph (
Eds. ), Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 104-115). Chicago, Ill.: CLS. -
Cutler, A. (1977). The psychological reality of word formation and lexical stress rules. In E. Fischer-Jørgensen, J. Rischel, & N. Thorsen (
Eds. ), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences: Vol. 2 (pp. 79-85). Copenhagen: Institute of Phonetics, University of Copenhagen.
Share this page