Are phonological representations of printed and spoken language isomorphic? Evidence from the restrictions on unattested onsets.
Are phonological representations of printed and spoken language isomorphic? Evidence from the restrictions on unattested onsets.
复制标题
印刷语言和口语的语音表征是否同构？
DOI：
10.1037/0096-1523.34.5.1288
复制
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Berent,Iris
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Berent,Iris
印刷词和口语词的语音表征是同构的吗？这个问题是通过调查发病的限制。跨语言研究表明，响度上升的开始比响度平稳期更受欢迎，而响度平稳期又比响度福尔斯下降更受欢迎（例如，bnif，bdif，lbif）。有趣的是，这些语法偏好是否限制了英语使用者对听觉和印刷词的识别--在英语中，这种起始是未经证实的。五个实验比较语音词汇的决策反应，非词，包括未经证实的发作，通过听觉或视觉呈现。结果表明，听者和读者都对未经证实的起始音的音位结构敏感。然而，听话者和读者的语音归纳在范围和来源上有所不同。听者区分了所有三种类型的起始（例如，bnif，bdif和lbif），他们的行为涉及语法和统计限制。相比之下，读者能够区分只有那些结构相似的证明英语发作从不同的结构（即，bnif与bdif或lbif），他们的喜好反映了统计知识。这些发现表明，语音表征通知词汇决定口语和印刷词是不同构的。（PsycINFO数据库记录（c）2016阿帕，保留所有权利）
Are the phonological representations of printed and spoken words isomorphic? This question is addressed by investigating the restrictions on onsets. Cross-linguistic research suggests that onsets of rising sonority are preferred to sonority plateaus, which, in turn, are preferred to sonority falls (eg, bnif, bdif, lbif). Of interest is whether these grammatical preferences constrain the recognition of auditory and printed words by speakers of English--a language in which such onsets are unattested. Five experiments compare phonological lexical decision responses to nonwords, including unattested onsets, through either aural or visual presentation. Results suggest that both hearers and readers are sensitive to the phonotactics of unattested onsets. However, the phonotactic generalizations of hearers and readers differ on their scope and source. Hearers differentiated all three types of onsets (eg, bnif, bdif, and lbif), and their behavior implicated both grammatical and statistical constraints. In contrast, readers were able to differentiate only those structures similar to attested English onsets from dissimilar structures (ie, bnif vs. bdif or lbif), and their preferences reflected statistical knowledge alone. These findings suggest that the phonological representations informing lexical decision to spoken and printed words are not isomorphic.(PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)