Literature DB >> 7699171

The strong/weak syllable distinction in English.

B D Fear1, A Cutler, S Butterfield.   

Abstract

Strong and weak syllables in English can be distinguished on the basis of vowel quality, of stress, or of both factors. Critical for deciding between these factors are syllables containing unstressed unreduced vowels, such as the first syllable of automata. In this study 12 speakers produced sentences containing matched sets of words with initial vowels ranging from stressed to reduced, at normal and at fast speech rates. Measurements of the duration, intensity, F0, and spectral characteristics of the word-initial vowels showed that unstressed unreduced vowels differed significantly from both stressed and reduced vowels. This result held true across speaker sex and dialect. The vowels produced by one speaker were then cross-spliced across the words within each set, and the resulting words' acceptability was rated by listeners. In general, cross-spliced words were only rated significantly less acceptable than unspliced words when reduced vowels interchanged with any other vowel. Correlations between rated acceptability and acoustic characteristics of the cross-spliced words demonstrated that listeners were attending to duration, intensity, and spectral characteristics. Together these results suggest that unstressed unreduced vowels in English pattern differently from both stressed and reduced vowels, so that no acoustic support for a binary categorical distinction exists; nevertheless, listeners make such a distinction, grouping unstressed unreduced vowels by preference with stressed vowels.

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7699171     DOI: 10.1121/1.412063

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  17 in total

1.  Lexical and metrical stress in word recognition: lexical or pre-lexical influences?

Authors:  Louisa M Slowiaczek; Emily G Soltano; Hilary L Bernstein
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2006-11

2.  Cross-language differences in cue use for speech segmentation.

Authors:  Michael D Tyler; Anne Cutler
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Orthographic cues to lexical stress: effects on naming and lexical decision.

Authors:  M H Kelly; J Morris; L Verrekia
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1998-07

4.  The Effects of Topic Knowledge on Intelligibility and Lexical Segmentation in Hypokinetic and Ataxic Dysarthria.

Authors:  Rene L Utianski; Kaitlin L Lansford; Julie M Liss; Tamiko Azuma
Journal:  J Med Speech Lang Pathol       Date:  2011-12-01

5.  The Role of Secondary-Stressed and Unstressed-Unreduced Syllables in Word Recognition: Acoustic and Perceptual Studies with Russian Learners of English.

Authors:  Elina Banzina; Laura C Dilley; Lynne E Hewitt
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2016-08

6.  Amplitude fluctuations in a masker influence lexical segmentation in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Trevor T Perry; Bomjun J Kwon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  English Listeners Use Suprasegmental Cues to Lexical Stress Early During Spoken-Word Recognition.

Authors:  Alexandra Jesse; Katja Poellmann; Ying-Yee Kong
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2017-01-01       Impact factor: 2.297

8.  Low-frequency fine-structure cues allow for the online use of lexical stress during spoken-word recognition in spectrally degraded speech.

Authors:  Ying-Yee Kong; Alexandra Jesse
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Recognition memory for foreign language lexical stress.

Authors:  Lidia Suárez; Winston D Goh
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2013-08

10.  Metrical expectations from preceding prosody influence perception of lexical stress.

Authors:  Meredith Brown; Anne Pier Salverda; Laura C Dilley; Michael K Tanenhaus
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2015-01-26       Impact factor: 3.332

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.