Speech production: Evidence for syntactically and phonologically determined units

Lackner, James R.; Levine, Kenneth B.

doi:10.3758/bf03204008

Cited by 13 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although there was no indication of a recall deficit due to the imposition of an experimenter-controlled speech rate, per se, in Experiment 2, maintaining a particular rate with larger units of speech may be easier than with small segments. Lackner and Levine (1975) found that their subjects could control the durations of repeated sentences much more precisely than they could control the durations of repeated word lists. It thus appears possible that the timing requirement itself may have added a constant amount of forgetting with the single letters but not with the longer sequences.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Levels of processing in speech production.

Aldridge¹

1981

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When subjects repeated short alphabetic sequences at experimenter-controlled rates while retaining consonant trigrams, subsequent recall was unrelated to speech rate if single letters or a long sequence was repeated, but recall was inversely related to speech rate for sequences three or five letters in length. The latter effect was predicted by a model in which sequences were organized as single response units in a central phonetic processor but independently executed by means of mechanisms not requiring the services of the central processor. Quantitative predictions were generated from this model by estimating organization time for the sequences and assuming that the probability of forgetting would be equal to the organization time/execution time ratio. All obtained recall probabilities were as predicted for sequences three of five letters in length with both experimenter- and subject-controlled speech rates. Repetition of a nine-letter sequence from the end of the alphabet produced forgetting patterns clearly out of accord with any organization time/execution time ratio, but a similar sequence from the beginning of the alphabet produced evidence of being a marginal case with unstable organization.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Levels of processing in speech production.

Aldridge¹

1981

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Third, extensive research on coarticulation patterns in adults (Kent & Minifie, 1977; Whalen, 1990) has indicated that the way a word is produced depends to a large extent on the words that are adjacent to it. In fact, when word lists are reversed to form sentences, they are read faster and much more accurately (Lackner & Levine, 1975), most likely because of coarticulation effects. That is, when people speak in sentences, the configuration of the vocal tract necessary for the next word is simultaneously implemented by commands sent to the appropriate muscles, before the final syllable of the word being uttered.…”

Section: Stuttering As Suprasegmental Sentence Plan Alignment (Spa)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Accounting For the Effects Ofdafmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, DAF and white noise both lead to changes in suprasegmental features of speech, including changes in voice fundamental frequency (Brayton & Conture, 1978;Fairbanks & Guttman, 1958;Lackner & Levine, 1975;Lechner, 1979;Ringel & Steer, 1963) and changes in the duration of words or syllables (Fonagy & Fonagy, 1966;Ringel & Steer, 1963). Moreover, there is evidence (Lackner & Levine, 1975) that when participants know precisely what they are going to say, including both the syntactic and the prosodic intonation required, white noise has no adverse effects on their speech. The fact that the disruptive effects that DAF usually produces in nonstutterers do not occur with very young children in the presyntactic stage (e.g., Yeni-Komshian, Chase, & Mobley, 1968) or in the production of single words (MacKay, 1987) and the concomitant finding that DAF is more disruptive for 5-and 8-year-old children than for adults (Siegel, Fehst, Garber, & Pick, 1980) provides further support for this analysis.…”

Section: Accounting For the Effects Ofdafmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, when word lists are reversed to form sentences, they are read faster and much more accurately (Lackner & Levine, 1975), most likely because of coarticulation effects. That is, when people speak in sentences, the configuration of the vocal tract necessary for the next word is simultaneously implemented by commands sent to the appropriate muscles, before the final syllable of the word being uttered.…”

Section: Words Are Produced Differently In Sentence Contexts Than In mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations