On the relation of speech to language

Liberman, Alvin M.; Whalen, D. H.

doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01471-6

Cited by 395 publications

(273 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

238

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several models of speech perception, positing a basis in articulatory or gestural representations, have been formulated (Fowler 1996;Rizzolatti & Arbib 1998;Liberman & Whalen 2000;MacNeilage & Davis 2001). The motor theory of speech perception is unlikely to hold in its orthodox form (e.g.…”

Section: The Beginnings Of Voice-specific and Speech-specific Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The motor theory of speech perception is unlikely to hold in its orthodox form (e.g. Liberman & Whalen 2000), but more moderate positions that acknowledge at least preliminary domain-general auditory processing of the speech signal also propose that speech perception and production are linked (Kluender & Lotto 1999). This is seen most clearly during development where imitation plays an important role in children's acquisition of spoken language (Kuhl 1994;Doupe & Kuhl 1999) but sensorimotor development would have an impact on the organization of speech perception in the adult brain.…”

Section: The Beginnings Of Voice-specific and Speech-specific Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Functional imaging of the auditory processing applied to speech sounds

Patterson

Johnsrude

2007

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we describe domain-general auditory processes that we believe are prerequisite to the linguistic analysis of speech. We discuss biological evidence for these processes and how they might relate to processes that are specific to human speech and language. We begin with a brief review of (i) the anatomy of the auditory system and (ii) the essential properties of speech sounds. Section 4 describes the general auditory mechanisms that we believe are applied to all communication sounds, and how functional neuroimaging is being used to map the brain networks associated with domaingeneral auditory processing. Section 5 discusses recent neuroimaging studies that explore where such general processes give way to those that are specific to human speech and language.

show abstract

Section: The Beginnings Of Voice-specific and Speech-specific Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Beginnings Of Voice-specific and Speech-specific Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Functional imaging of the auditory processing applied to speech sounds

Patterson

Johnsrude

2007

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The drive to find parity between production and perception reflects the fact that humans are both producers and perceivers of speech (Liberman and Whalen, 2000;Casserly and Pisoni, 2010). One of the central questions in speech perception is whether and to what extent our perception of an acoustic speech signal maps onto the physical mechanisms utilized to produce that sound (Liberman and Mattingly, 1989).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensorimotor adaptation affects perceptual compensation for coarticulation

Schuerman

Nagarajan

McQueen

et al. 2017

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A given speech sound will be realized differently depending on the context in which it is produced. Listeners have been found to compensate perceptually for these coarticulatory effects, yet it is unclear to what extent this effect depends on actual production experience. In this study, whether changes in motor-to-sound mappings induced by adaptation to altered auditory feedback can affect perceptual compensation for coarticulation is investigated. Specifically, whether altering how the vowel [i] is produced can affect the categorization of a stimulus continuum between an alveolar and a palatal fricative whose interpretation is dependent on vocalic context is tested. It was found that participants could be sorted into three groups based on whether they tended to oppose the direction of the shifted auditory feedback, to follow it, or a mixture of the two, and that these articulatory responses, not the shifted feedback the participants heard, correlated with changes in perception. These results indicate that sensorimotor adaptation to altered feedback can affect the perception of unaltered yet coarticulatorily-dependent speech sounds, suggesting a modulatory role of sensorimotor experience on speech perception.

show abstract

“…The notion of parity of representation is controversial but has been advocated by a wide range of researchers working in very different domains (Calvert et al 1997;Liberman & Whalen 2000;MacKay 1987;Mattingly & Liberman 1988). For example, Goldinger (1998) demonstrated that speech "shadowers" imitate the perceptual characteristics of a shadowed word (i.e., their repetition is judged acoustically more similar to the shadowed word than to another production of the same word by the shadower).…”

Section: Parity Between Comprehension and Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7.1). It also serves as an explanation of why syntactic priming in production occurs when the speaker has only heard the prime (Branigan et al 2000; Potter & Lombardi 1998), as well as when he has produced the prime (Bock 1986b;Pickering & Branigan 1998).The notion of parity of representation is controversial but has been advocated by a wide range of researchers working in very different domains (Calvert et al 1997;Liberman & Whalen 2000;MacKay 1987;Mattingly & Liberman 1988). For example, Goldinger (1998) demonstrated that speech "shadowers" imitate the perceptual characteristics of a shadowed word (i.e., their repetition is judged acoustically more similar to the shadowed word than to another production of the same word by the shadower).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Some notes on priming, alignment, and self-monitoring

Schiller

Ruiter

2004

Behav. Brain Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditional mechanistic accounts of language processing derive almost entirely from the study of monologue. Yet, the most natural and basic form of language use is dialogue. As a result, these accounts may only offer limited theories of the mechanisms that underlie language processing in general. We propose a mechanistic account of dialogue, the interactive alignment account, and use it to derive a number of predictions about basic language processes. The account assumes that, in dialogue, the linguistic representations employed by the interlocutors become aligned at many levels, as a result of a largely automatic process. This process greatly simplifies production and comprehension in dialogue. After considering the evidence for the interactive alignment model, we concentrate on three aspects of processing that follow from it. It makes use of a simple interactive inference mechanism, enables the development of local dialogue routines that greatly simplify language processing, and explains the origins of self-monitoring in production. We consider the need for a grammatical framework that is designed to deal with language in dialogue rather than monologue, and discuss a range of implications of the account.Keywords: common ground; dialogue; dialogue routines; language comprehension; language production; monitoring; perception-behavior link leagues (e.g., Brennan & Clark 1996;Wilkes-Gibbs & Clark 1992; also Brennan & Schober 2001;Horton & Keysar 1996). Well-controlled studies of language production in dialogue may require some ingenuity, but such experimental ingenuity has always been a strength of psychology.The theoretical reason why psycholinguistics has ignored dialogue is that psycholinguistics has derived most of its predictions from generative linguistics, and generative linguistics has developed theories of isolated, decontextualized sentences that are used in texts or speeches, that is, in monologue. In contrast, dialogue is inherently interactive and contextualized: Each interlocutor both speaks and comprehends during the course of the interaction; each interrupts both others and himself; on occasion two or more speakers collaborate in producing the same sentence (Coates 1990). So it is not surprising that generative linguists commonly view dialogue as being of marginal grammaticality, contaminated by theoretically uninteresting complexities. Dialogue sits ill with the competence/performance distinction assumed by most generative linguistics (Chomsky 1965), because it is hard to determine whether a particular utterance is "well-formed" or not (or even whether that notion is relevant to dialogue). Thus, linguistics has tended to concentrate on developing generative grammars and related theories for isolated sentences; and psycholinguistics has tended to develop processing theories that draw upon the rules and representations assumed by generative linguistics. So far as most psycholinguists have thought about dialogue, they have tended to assume that the results of experiments on monologue can be...

show abstract

On the relation of speech to language

Cited by 395 publications

References 52 publications

Functional imaging of the auditory processing applied to speech sounds

Functional imaging of the auditory processing applied to speech sounds

Sensorimotor adaptation affects perceptual compensation for coarticulation

Some notes on priming, alignment, and self-monitoring

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About