Four experiments examined Dutch listeners' use of suprasegmental information in spoken-word recognition. Isolated syllables excised from minimal stress pairs such as VOORnaam/voorNAAM could be reliably assigned to their source words. In lexical decision, no priming was observed from one member of minimal stress pairs to the other, suggesting that the pairs' segmental ambiguity was removed by suprasegmental information. Words embedded in nonsense strings were harder to detect if the nonsense string itself formed the beginning of a competing word, but a suprasegmental mismatch to the competing word significantly reduced this inhibition. The same nonsense strings facilitated recognition of the longer words of which they constituted the beginning, but again the facilitation was significantly reduced by suprasegmental mismatch. Together these results indicate that Dutch listeners effectively exploit suprasegmental cues in recognizing spoken words. Nonetheless, suprasegmental mismatch appears to be somewhat less effective in constraining activation than segmental mismatch.
Baayen,R.H.,Piepenbrock,R.,& Rijn,H.van (1993). The CELEX lexical database(CD-ROM). Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
2.
Bond, Z.S. (1981 ). Listening to elliptic speech: Pay attention to stressed vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 9, 89-96.
3.
Bond,Z.S.,& Small,L.H.( 1983).Voicing, vowel and stress mis pronunciations in continuous speech. Perception and Psychophysics ,34, 470-474.
4.
Booij, G. (1995). The phonology of Dutch. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
5.
Chen H-C., & Cutler, A. (1997). Auditory priming in spoken and printed word recognition . In H.C. Chen (Ed.), The cognitive processing of Chinese and related Asian languages (pp. 77 - 81). Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.
6.
Connine,C.M. .,Blasko,D.G.,& Wang,J.( 1994).Vertical similarity in spoken word recognition: Multiple lexical activation, individual differences, and the role of sentence context . Perception and Psychophysics ,56, 624-636.
7.
Cutler, A. (1986). Forbear is a homophone: Lexical prosody does not constrain lexical access. Language and Speech, 29, 201-220.
8.
Cutler, A., & Butterfield, S. (1992). Rhythmic cues to speech segmentation: Evidence from juncture mis perception. Journal of Memory and Language,31, 218-236.
9.
Cutler, A., & Carter, D.M. (1987). The predominance of strong initial syllables in the English vocabulary. Computer Speech and Language, 2, 133-142.
10.
Cutler, A., & Chen H-C. (1995). Phonological similarity effects in Cantonese word recognition. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Vol. 1 (pp. 106-109). Stockholm.
11.
Cutler, A., & Chen H.-C. (1997). Lexical tone in Cantonese spoken-word processing . Perception and Psychophysics, 59, 165-179.
12.
Cutler, A., & Clifton, C.E. (984). The use of prosodic information in word recognition . In H. Bouma, & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and performance X. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13.
Cutler, A., Dahan, D.,& Donselaar, W., van (1997). Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and Speech, 40, 141-201.
14.
Cutler, A., & Koster, M. (2000). Stress and lexical activation in Dutch. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Vol. 1 (pp.593-596). Beijing.
15.
Cutler, A., & Norris, D.G. (1988). The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 113 - 121.
16.
Cutler, A., Ooijen, B. van, & Norris, D. (1999). Vowels, consonants, and lexical activation. Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Vol. 3 (pp.2053-2056). San Francisco.
17.
Cutler, A., & Otake, T. (1999). Pitch accent in spoken-word recognition in Japanese . Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 105, 1877-1888.
18.
Fear, B.D., Cutler, A., & Butterfield, S. (1995). The strong/weak syllable distinction in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 1893-1904.
19.
Fox, R.A., & Unkefer, J. (1985). The effect of lexical status on the perception of tone. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 13, 69-90.
20.
Goldinger, S.D., Luce, P.A., & Pisoni, D.B. (1989). Priming lexical neighbors of spoken words: Effects of competition and inhibition. Journal of Memory and Language , 28, 501-518.
21.
Goldinger, S.D.,Luce,P.A.,Pisoni, D.B., & Marcario, J.K. (1992). Form-based priming in spoken word recognition: The roles of competition and bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1211-1238.
22.
Gow, D.W., & Gordon, P.C. (1995). Lexical and prelexical influences on word segmentation: Evidence from priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 344-359.
23.
Heuven, V. J. van (1985). Perception of stress pattern and word recognition: Recognition of Dutch words with incorrect stress position. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 78, s21.
24.
Heuven, V. J. van (1988). Effects of stress and accent on the human recognition of word fragments in spoken context: Gating and shadowing, Proceedings of Speech '88, 7th FASE symposium (pp. 811-818). Edinburgh.
25.
Heuven, V. J.van, & Hagman,P.J.( 1988). Lexical statistics and spoken word recognition in Dutch . In P. Coopmans, & A. Hulk (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands, 1988 (pp. 59 - 68). Dordrecht: Foris .
26.
Jongenburger, W. (1996). The role of lexical stress during spoken-word processing. (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leiden. )The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
27.
Jongenburger, W., & Heuven, V.J. van (1995a). The role of linguistic stress in the time course of word recognition in stress-accent languages. Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (pp.1695-1698). Madrid.
28.
Jongenburger, W., & Heuven, V. J. van (1995b). The role of lexical stress in the recognition of spoken words: Prelexical or postlexical?Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 368 - 371 ). Stockholm.
29.
Koster, M., & Cutler, A. (1997). Segmental and suprasegmental contributions to spoken-word recognition in Dutch. Proceedings of EUROSPEECH 97 (pp.2167-2170). Rhodes.
30.
Kuijk, D.van (1996).Does lexical stress or metrical stress better predict word boundaries in Dutch?Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of Spoken Language Processing, Vol. 3 (pp. 1585-1588). Philadelphia.
31.
Leyden, K. van, & Heuven, V. J. van (1996). Lexical stress and spoken word recognition: Dutch versus English. In C. Cremers, & M. den Dikken (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands, 1996 (pp. 159-170). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
32.
Lugt, A. H. van der( 1999). From speech to words (Ph.D. dissertation University of Nijmegen). Wageningen: Ponsen and Looijen.
33.
Maddieson, I. (1984). Patterns of sounds. Cambridge , U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
34.
Marslen-Wilson, W., & Warren, P. (1994). Levels of perceptual representation and process in lexical access, words, phonemes, and features. Psychological Review, 101, 653-675.
35.
Marslen-Wilson,W.D.,& Zwitserlood,P.( 1989).Accessing spoken words: The importance of word onsets . Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15,576-585.
36.
Mattys, S.L., & Samuel, A.G. (1997). How lexical stress affects speech segmentation and interactivity: Evidence from the migration paradigm. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 87-116.
37.
McQueen,J.M., Norris, D.G., & Cutler, A. (1994). Competition in spoken word recognition: Spotting words in other words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20, 621-638.
38.
McQueen,J.M.,Norris,D.,& Cutler, A. (1999). Lexical influence in phonetic decision- making: Evidence from subcategorical mismatches. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1363-1389.
39.
Monsell, S. (1985). Repetition and the lexicon. In A. W. Ellis (Ed.), Progress in the psychology of language, Vol. II. (pp. 147-195). London: Erlbaum.
40.
Norris, D.G. (1994). Shortlist: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition, 52, 189-234.
41.
Norris, D.G., McQueen, J.M., Cutler, A., & Butterfield, S. (1997). The possible-word constraint in the segmentation of continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology , 34, 191-243.
42.
Pallier, C., Sebastián-Gallés, N., & Colomé, A. (1999).Phonological representations and repetition priming . Proceedings of EUROSPEECH' 99 (pp.1907-1910). Budapest.
43.
Quené, H., & Koster, M.L. (1998). Metrical segmentation in Dutch: Vowel quality or stress? Language and Speech, 41, 185-202.
44.
Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R.H. (1994). Prefix stripping rerevisited. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 357-375.
45.
Sekiguchi,T.,Nakajima,Y.( 1999).The use of lexical prosody for lexical access of the Japanese language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 439-454.
46.
Shillcock, R.C. (1990). Lexical hypotheses in continuous speech. In G.T. M. Altmann (Ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives (pp.24-49). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47.
Slowiaczek, L.M. (1990). Effects of lexical stress in auditory word recognition . Language and Speech, 33, 47-68.
48.
Slowiaczek, L.M. (1991). Stress and context in auditory word recognition . Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 465-481.
49.
Slowiaczek, L.M., & Hamburger, M.( 1992).Prelexical facilitation and lexical interference in auditory word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1239-1250.
50.
Small, L.H., Simon, S.D., & Goldberg, J.S. (1988). Lexical stress and lexical access: Homographs versus non homographs. Perception and Psychophysics , 44, 272-280.
51.
Soto,S.,Sebastian-Gallés,N.,& Cutler,A.( 2001).Segmental and supra segmental mismatch in lexical access . Journal of Memory and Language, 45.
52.
Strange, W. (1989). Dynamic specification of coarticulated vowels spoken in sentence context. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85, 2135-2153.
53.
Tabossi, P., Burani, C., & Scott, D. (1995). Word identification in fluent speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 440-467.
54.
Trommelen, M., & Zonneveld, W. (1999). Word stress in West-Germanic languages. In H. van der Hulst (Ed.), Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe (pp.478-515). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
55.
Vroomen,J., & Gelder, B., de (1995). Metrical segmentation and lexical inhibition in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21,98-108.
56.
Vroomen, J., Zon, M.van & Gelder, B. de (1996). Cues to speech segmentation: Evidence from juncture misperceptions and word spotting. Memory and Cognition, 24, 744-755.
57.
Zwitserlood, P. (1996). Form priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 589-596.
