Cross-language evidence for three factors in speech perception

Abstract

A continuing controversy concerns whether speech perception can be best explained by singlefactor psychoacoustic models, single-factor specialized linguistic models, or dual-factor models including both phonetic and psychoacoustic processes. However, our recent cross-language speech perception research has provided data suggesting that a three-factor model, including auditory, phonetic, and phonemic processing, may be necessary to accommodate existing findings. In the present article, we report the findings from three experiments designed to determine whether three separate processing factors are used in speech perception. In these experiments, English and Hindi subjects were tested in a same-different (AX) discrimination procedure. The duration of the interstimulus interval, the number of trials, and the experimental context were manipulated when testing the English-speaking subjects. The combined results from the three experiments provide support for the existence of three distinct speech-perception factors.

Cross-language speech perception: Initial capabilities and developmental change.

“…Limited training facilitated discrimination of the nonnative voicing distinction, but was totally ineffective at facilitating discrimination of the non-English retroflex/dental place distinction in this procedure (Werker et al, 1981). This set of results has been replicated using an additional non-English pla-ce-of-articulation distinction, the Interior Salish (Thompson or, in its native term, Inslekepmx) glottalized velar versus uvular distinction (/ki/-/qi/) (Werker & Tees, 1984a).…”

“…However, the Hindi informants reported that all these stimuli sounded like retroflex rather than dental stops. In subsequent synthesis attempts, stimuli were thus modeled more closely on the naturally produced retroflex and dental stops used in our previous work (Werker, Gilbert, Humphrey, & Tees, 1981;Werker & Logan, 1985;Werker & Tees, 1984a).…”

“…In some crosslanguage research, young infants have been shown to be able to discriminate phonetic pairs that may occur as allophones, but are not used phonemically in their language-learning environment (Aslin, Pisoni, Hennessy, & Perry, 1981;Lasky et al, 1975;Streeter, 1976). Other cross-language research has shown young infants to be able to discriminate phonetic contrasts containing at least one phone that is not even produced as an allophone in their language-learning environment (Trehub, 1976;Werker, Gilbert, Humphrey, & Tees, 1981). Although the research indicates that some phonetic contrasts may be perceptually easier for young infants than others (see Aslin et al, 1981;Best, McRoberts, & Sithole, 1988;Eilers, Gavin, & Wilson, 1979), it is clear that, if sensitive-enough procedures are used, young infants can discriminate nearly every phonetic contrast, native or nonnative, on which they have been tested.…”

“…It varied between 1660 and 1700 Hz for the retroflex exemplars and between 1430 and 1500 Hz for the dental exemplars. This within-category similarity also applied to other acoustic cues, such as the starting frequency of the third formant and the frequency range and intensity of the burst (acoustic characteristics can be found in Werker & Tees, 1984b, or Werker & Logan, 1985.…”

Psycholinguistics in our time

“…I am far from the only one, because just as there were others in the 1980s who were looking at the psycholinguistic implications of cross-linguistic variation (e.g. Byrne and Davidson 1985;Werker and Logan 1985), so there have been many since, across a wide spectrum of psycholinguistic approaches, who have wrestled with the reconciliation of the universal and language-specific (Bowerman 1994;Emmorey 2002;Grimshaw 1997;Imai and Gentner 1997;Newmeyer 1998;Thornton et al 1998). The difference with the point where I started is that it would be unthinkable now to counter an experiment in Language A with an experiment in Language B without any mention of the language switch; even more satisfyingly, cross-language comparisons are found in all the psycholinguistic journals.…”