Phonetics and Speech Sciences (말소리와 음성과학)

Korean Society of Speech Sciences (한국음성학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Processing of allophonic variants from optional vs. obligatory phonological processes

  • Received : 2015.07.17
  • Accepted : 2015.08.25
  • Published : 2015.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the lexical representation of phonological variants derived from optional vs. obligatory phonological processes. Given that place assimilation is optionally processed, whereas nasal assimilation is obligatory in Korean, a long-term repetition priming experiment was conducted, using a shadowing task. Korean speakers shadowed words containing either assimilated or unassimilated consonants in three priming conditions and their shadow responses were evaluated. It was shown that in both place and nasal assimilations, shadowing latencies for unassimilated stimuli were longer than those for assimilated stimuli in the mismatched condition. These results suggest that even in the optional assimilation, assimilated variants were processed more easily and faster than the canonical variants. The present results argue against the frequency-based account of multiple lexical representation (Connine, 2004; Connine & Pinnow, 2006; Ranbom & Connine, 2007; $B{\ddot{u}rki$, Ernestus, & Frauenfelder, 2010; $B{\ddot{u}rki$, Alario, & Frauenfelder, 2011).

Keywords

References

  1. Burki, A., Ernestus, M., & Frauenfelder, U. H. (2010). Is there only one "fenetre" in the production lexicon? On-line evidence on the nature of phonological representations of pronunciation variants of French schwa words. Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 62, 421-437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.01.002
  2. Burki, A., Alario, F.-X., & Frauenfelder, U. H. (2011). Lexical representation of phonological variants: Evidence from pseudohomophone effects in different regiolects. Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 64, 424-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.01.002
  3. Connine, C. M. (2004). It's not what you hear, but how often you hear it: On the neglected role of phonological variant frequency in auditory word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, Vol. 11, 1084-1089. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196741
  4. Connine, C. M. & Pinnow, E. (2006). Phonological variation in spoken word recognition: Episodes and abstractions. The Linguistic Review, Vol. 23, 235-245.
  5. Cutler, A. (2012) Native listening. MIT Press.
  6. Cutler, A. & Otake, T. (1998) Assimilation of place in Japanese and Dutch. In R. H. Mannell & J. Robert-Ribes (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Sydney (Vol. 5, pp. 1751-1754). Canberra; Australian Speech Science and Technology Association.
  7. Darcy, I., Daidon, D., & Kojima, C. (2013) Asymmetric lexical access and fuzzy lexical representations in second language learners. The Mental Lexicon, Vol. 8(3), 372-420. https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.8.3.06dar
  8. Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, Vol. 93, 283-321. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.283
  9. Ernestus, M., Lahey, M., & Femke, V. (2006) Lexical frequency and voice assimilation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 120(2), 1040-1051. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2211548
  10. Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1996). Phonological variation and inference in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 22, 144-158. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.22.1.144
  11. Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1998). Mechanisms of phonological inference in speech perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 24, 380-396. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.24.2.380
  12. Gow, D. W. (2001). Assimilation and anticipation in continuous spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 45, 133-159. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2764
  13. Gow, D. W. (2002). Does English coronal place assimilation create lexical ambiguity? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 28, 163-179. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.28.1.163
  14. Gow, D. W. (2003). Feature parsing: Feature cue mapping in spoken word recognition. Perception and Psychophysics, Vol. 65, 575-590. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194584
  15. Gow, D. W., & Im, A. M. (2004). A cross-linguistic examination of assimilation context effects. Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 51, 279-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.004
  16. Jun, J. (1995). Perceptual and articulatory factors in place assimilation: An optimality theoretic approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.
  17. Kim-Renaud, Y.-K. (1991). Korean consonantal phonology. Seoul: Hanshin.
  18. Kochetov, Al., & Pouplier, M. (2009). Phonetic variability and grammatical knowledge: An articulatory study of Korean place assimilation. Phonology, Vol. 25, 399-431.
  19. Lahiri, A., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1991). The mental representation of lexical form: A phonological approach to the recognition lexicon. Cognition, Vol. 38, 245-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90008-R
  20. Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 22, 1-75.
  21. LoCasto P. C. & Connine, C. M. (2002). Rule-governed missing information in spoken word recognition: Schwa vowel deletion. Perception and Psychophysics, Vol. 64, 208-219. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195787
  22. McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 18, 1-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90015-0
  23. Mitterer, H., & Blomert, L. (2003). Coping with phonological assimilation in speech perception: Evidence for early compensation. Perception and Psychophysics, Vol. 65, 956-969. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194826
  24. Ogasawara, N. (2012). Lexical representation of Japanese vowel devoicing. Language and Speech, Vol. 56(1), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830911434118
  25. Ogasawara, N. & Warner, N. (2009). Processing missing vowels: Allophonic processing in Japanese. Language and Cognitive Processes, Vol. 24, 376-411. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802084028
  26. Patterson, D. & Connine, C. M. (2001). Variant frequency in flap production: A corpus analysis of variant frequency in American English flap production. Phonetica, Vol. 58, 254-275. https://doi.org/10.1159/000046178
  27. Ranbom, L. J. & Connine, C. M. (2007). Lexical representation of phonological variation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 57, 273-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.04.001
  28. Renwick, M. E. L., Ladan B.-R., Temple, R., & Coleman, J. S. (2013). Assimilation of word-final nasals to following word-initial place of articulation in UK English, ICA 2013 Montreal, Montreal, Canada 2-7 Jun.
  29. Sohn, H.-M. (1999). The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  30. Zsiga, E. (2011). External sandhi in a second language: The phonetics and phonology of obstruent nasalization in Korean-accented English, Language, Vol. 87(2), 289-345. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0031