Metrical Segmentation in Dutch: Vowel Quality or Stress?

Abstract

Previous experiments using a word-spotting task suggest that English listeners use metrically strong syllables to segment continuous speech into discrete words (Cutler & Norris, 1988). The present study is concerned with this metrical segmentation strategy in Dutch. Although Dutch and English share general metrical properties, they differ in ways that may affect segmentation. First, the acoustic cues for metrically strong syllables are less salient in Dutch than in English; hence a metrical segmentation strategy is less likely to be applied by Dutch listeners. Second, vowel quality depends less on metrical structure in Dutch than in English; hence segmentation in Dutch is presumably triggered by other acoustic cues, namely, those related to stress. Experiment 1 shows that stress strongly affects Dutch listeners' ability and speed in spotting Dutch monosyllabic words in disyllabic nonwords. Experiment 2, however, finds the same stress effect when only the target words are presented, without a subsequent syllable triggering segmentation. A third experiment shows a small effect of vowel quality on error scores, but not on latencies. These results suggest that Dutch listeners do not apply a metrical segmentation strategy. The discrepancy between the two languages suggests that segmentation strategies may depend on language-specific regularities in the phonology and in the lexicon.

Effects of Timing Regularity and Metrical Expectancy on Spoken-Word Perception

“…The strong syllable at word onset is used to drive spoken-word perception, by activating a tentative set of appropriate candidates in the mental lexicon [Norris et al, 1995]. Stressed syllables are more effective than unstressed syllables for this purpose, because their vowels are less reduced and hence more salient than the vowels in unstressed syllables, at least in English and in Dutch [Kager, 1989;Sluijter, 1995;Sluijter and Van Heuven, 1996;Quené and Koster, 1998]. …”

“…Indeed, stressed syllables contribute more than unstressed syllables to spokenword perception [e.g. Van Leyden and Van Heuven, 1996;Quené and Koster, 1998;Cutler and Van Donselaar, 2001].…”

Acoustic cues to lexical segmentation: A study of resynthesized speech

“…To date, this question has not been addressed directly, and we are only offered a few conflicting leads from studies that have manipulated acoustic parameters to assess their impact on the more general issues of speech intelligibility and perception. Some of these variables include fundamental frequency contour ͑Laures and Weismer, 1999; Mens andPovel, 1986͒, segment duration ͑Hammen et al, 1994;Hertrich and Ackermann, 1998;Mens andPovel, 1986͒, andvowel quality ͑Bond, 1981;Fear et al, 1995;Quené and Koster, 1998͒. When it comes to speech segmentation, the available information is sparse. In general, the presence of multiple stress parameters is shown to be more effective for segmentation than that of isolated ones ͑Streeter, 1978͒, at least for adult listeners ͑Thiessen and Saffran, 2003.…”

Lexical boundary error analysis in hypokinetic and ataxic dysarthria

“…Hypokinetic dysarthria was chosen as an entry point for this line of research because it was believed that the cardinal speech features, by their very nature, serve to diminish syllabic strength contrastivity. Although the precise acoustic correlates of syllabic strength have yet to be determined, there is evidence that they lie in the domains of relative syllable duration, intersyllabic pitch and loudness differences, and vowel quality or vowel strength ͑Cutler and Butterfield, 1990Butterfield, , 1991Butterfield, , 1992Fear et al, 1995;Halle and Keyser, 1971;Klatt, 1980;Lehiste, 1972;Nakatani and Schaffer, 1978;Quené and Koster, 1998;van Ooijen et al, 1997͒. Thus, the hypokinetic dysarthric speech features of rapid speaking rate, a tendency toward monotony and monoloudness, and phoneme imprecision ͑Ackermann and Ziegler, 1991; Adams, 1991;Darley et al, 1969;Duffy, 1995;Forrest et al, 1989;Logemann and Fisher, 1981;Ludlow and Bassich, 1984;Ramig, 1992;Weismer, 1984 should reduce syllabic strength contrastivity.…”