말소리와 음성과학 (Phonetics and Speech Sciences)

  • 제5권4호
  • /
  • Pages.157-169
  • /
  • 2013
  • /
  • 2005-8063(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2586-5854(eISSN)
한국음성학회 (Korean Society of Speech Sciences)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

말지각의 기초표상: 음소 또는 변별자질

The Primitive Representation in Speech Perception: Phoneme or Distinctive Features

  • 투고 : 2013.11.09
  • 심사 : 2013.12.17
  • 발행 : 2013.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Using a target detection task, this study compared the processing automaticity of phonemes and features in spoken syllable stimuli to determine the primitive representation in speech perception, phoneme or distinctive feature. For this, we modified the visual search task(Treisman et al., 1992) developed to investigate the processing of visual features(ex. color, shape or their conjunction) for auditory stimuli. In our task, the distinctive features(ex. aspiration or coronal) corresponded to visual primitive features(ex. color and shape), and the phonemes(ex. /$t^h$/) to visual conjunctive features(ex. colored shapes). The automaticity is measured by the set size effect that was the increasing amount of reaction time when the number of distracters increased. Three experiments were conducted. The laryngeal features(experiment 1), the manner features(experiment 2), and the place features(experiment 3) were compared with phonemes. The results showed that the distinctive features are consistently processed faster and automatically than the phonemes. Additionally there were differences in the processing automaticity among the classes of distinctive features. The laryngeal features are the most automatic, the manner features are moderately automatic and the place features are the least automatic. These results are consistent with the previous studies(Bae et al., 2002; Bae, 2010) that showed the perceptual hierarchy of distinctive features.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Bae, M -J. (2003). The perceptual structure of distinctive features in Korean consonants. Ph. D. dissertation, Seoul National University (배문정(2003). 한국어 변별자질의 지각적 표상구조. 서울대학교 박사학위논문)
  2. Bae, M. -J. (2009a). Perceptual Structure of Korean Consonants in High Vowel Contexts, Journal of the Korean Society of Speech Sciences, 1(2), 95-103. (배문정(2009a), 고설 모음 환경에서 한국어 자음의 지각적 구조, 말소리와 음성과학, 1(2), 95-103)
  3. Bae, M. -J. (2009b). Nonlinear Interaction between Consonant and Vowel Features in Korean Syllable Perception, Journal of the Korean Society of Speech Sciences, 1(4), 29-38. (배문정(2009b), 한국어 단음절에서 자음과 모음자질의 비선형적 지각, 말소리와 음성과학, 1(4), pp. 29-38)
  4. Bae, M. -J. (2010). The perceptual hierachy of distinctive features in Korean consonants, Journal of the Korean society of speech sciences, 2(4), 109-118. (배문정(2010), 한국어 자음에서 변별자질들의 지각적 위계, 말소리와 음성과학, 2(4), 109-118)
  5. Bae, M. -J. & Kim, J.-O. (2002). The Perceptual Structure of Korean Consonants, Journal of Korean Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, 14(4), 375-408. (배문정․김정오, (2002). 한국어 자음의 지각적 구조, 한국심리학회지: 실험 및 인지, 14(4), 375-408.)
  6. Boersma, P. (1998). Functional Phonology: formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
  7. Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and Communication. Pergammon Press.
  8. Browman, C., & Goldstein, L. (1992). Articulatory phonology: An overview. Phonetica, 49, 155-180. https://doi.org/10.1159/000261913
  9. Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row. (MIT Press, 1991.)
  10. Clements, G. N. (1985). The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook, 2, 225-252. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700000440
  11. Cutler, A. & Norris, D. (1988). The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 113-121. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.14.1.113
  12. Dahan, D., & Magnuson, J. S. (2006). Spoken-word recognition. In M. J. Traxler &M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 249-283). Amsterdam: Academic Press.
  13. Eimas P D., Tartter V. C., Miller, J. L., Keuthen, N. J. (1978) Asymmetric dependencies in processing phonetic features. Perception & Psychophysics, 23(1), 12-20. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214289
  14. Eimas, P. D., Tartter, V. C., & Miller, J. L. (1981). Dependency Relations During the Processing of Speech. In Eimas, P. D, Miller, J. L. (Eds.) Perspectives in the Study of Speech (pp. 283-309). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.
  15. Fowler, C. A. (1995). Speech production. In J. L. Miller & P. D. Eimas (eds.), Handbook of Perception and Cognition: Speech, Language and Communication (vol 11), NY: Academic Press.
  16. Frauenfelder, U. H., & Segui, J. (1989). Phoneme monitoring and lexical processing: Evidence for associative context effects. Memory and Cognition, 17, 134-140. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197063
  17. Goldinger, S. D., Pisoni, D. B., & Luce, P. A. (1996). Speech perception and spoken word recognition. In N. J. Lass (Eds.) Principles of Experimental Phonetics. (pp. 277-327).
  18. Goldsmith, J. (1976). Autosegmental phonology, Ph. D. Dissertation. MIT.
  19. Jakobson, R., Fant, C. G. M., & Halle, M. (1952). Preliminaries to Speech Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  20. Kim, K. H. (1987). The Phonological Representation of Distinctive Features: Korean Consonantal Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, the University of Iowa.
  21. Koh, Y. J. (2000). The Birth and Life of Distinctive Features, Seoul: Tongin. (고영진 (2000). 변별자질 그 탄생과 활약. 서울: 동인.)
  22. Kohler, K. (1990). Segmental reduction in connected speech in German: phonological facts and phonetic explanations. In Hardcastle W. J. & A. Marchal (eds.) Speech production and speech modelling (pp. 69-92). Netherlands: Kluwer.
  23. Lahiri, A. & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1992). Lexical processing and phonological representa- tion. In G. J. Docherty & D. R. Ladd (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology II: Gesture, segment, prosody. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (pp. 229-260).
  24. Lahiri, A. & Reetz, H. (2010). Distinctive features: Phonological underspecification in representation and processing. Journal of Phonetics, 38, 44-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.01.002
  25. Lee. K. O. & Park, H. S. (1977). The restoration of deep syllables and the role of syllables in Korean speech perception. Journal of Korean Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, 9. 73-94 (이광오와 박현수(1997). 음성지각 과정에서 음절의 역할과 기저음절의 복원. 한국심리학회지: 실험 및 인지, 9, 73-94.)
  26. Liberman, A. M, & Mattingly, I. G. (1985). The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition, 21, 136.
  27. Lindblom, B. (1998). Systemic constraints and adaptive change in the formation of sound structure. In Hurford, J. R., Studdert-Kennedy, M. & Knight C. (Eds.). Approaches to the evolution of language: social and cognitive bases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  28. Lindblom, B. (2000). Developmental origins of adult phonology: The interplay between phonetic emergents and the evolutionary adaptations of sound patterns. Phonetica, 57, 297-314. https://doi.org/10.1159/000028482
  29. Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Warren, P. (1994). Levels of perceptual representation and process in lexical access: Words, phonemes, and features. Psychological Review, 101, 653-675. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.653
  30. McCarthy, J. J. (1994). The phonetics and phonology of semitic pharyngeals. In Patricia Keating, Papers in Laboratory Phonology III: Phonological Structure and Phonetic Form (pp. 191-233). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  31. Miller, G. A. and Nicely, P. E. (1955). An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 27, 623-638.
  32. Mitchell, L. M. & Singh, S. (1974). Perceptual structure of 16 prevoclaic English consonants sententially embedded. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 55, 1355-1357. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1914714
  33. Pitt, M. A., & Samuel, A. G. (1990). The use of rhythm in attending to speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 564-573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.16.3.564
  34. Port, R. (2006) The graphical basis of phones and phonemes. In Murray Munro and Ocke-Schwen Bohn (Eds.). Second language speech learning: The role of language experience in speech perception and production. (pp. 349-365). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  35. Prince, A. & Smolensky. P. (1993). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science Technical Report 2.
  36. Repp, B. H. & Liberman, A. M. (1987). Phonetic categories are flexible. In S. Harnad (Ed.) Categorical perception. (pp. 89-112). Cambridge University Press.
  37. Sehneider, W. & Shiffrin, R..M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psych. Rev. 84, 1-66. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.1.1
  38. Stevens, K. N. (1986). Models of phonetic recognition II: A feature-based model of speech recognition. In P. Mermelstein (eds.), Proceedings of the Montreal Satellite Symposium on Speech Recognition, Twelfth International Congress on Acoustics.
  39. Treisman, A., & Paterson, R., (1984). Emergent features, attention and object perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 12-21. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.10.1.12
  40. Treisman, A., Vieira, A., & Hayes, A. (1992). Automatic and preattentive processing. American Journal of Psychology, 105, 341-362. https://doi.org/10.2307/1423032
  41. Wang, M. D. & Bilger, R. C. (1973). Consonant confusions in noise: a study of perceptual features. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 54, 1248-1266. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1914417