Phonetica was published by Karger Publishers up to and including 2020. If you or your institution subscribed to Phonetica during that period, you might still have access to the full text of this article on the Karger platform if you cannot access it here.
Abstract
This study supports claims of a relationship between speech perception and phonology with evidence from a crosslinguistic perception experiment involving /h/ deletion in Turkish. Turkish /h/ is often deleted in fast speech, but only in a specific set of segmental contexts which defy traditional explanation. It is shown that /h/ deletes in environments where lower perceptibility is predicted. The results of the perception experiment verify these predictions and further show that language background has a significant impact on speech perception. Finally, this perceptual account of Turkish /h/ deletion points to an empirical means of testing the conflicting hypotheses that perception is active in the synchronic grammar or that its influence is limited to diachrony.
verified
References
1 Aslin, R.N.; Pisoni, D.B.: Some developmental processes in speech perception; in Yeni-Komshian, Kavanagh, Ferguson, Child phonology, vol. 2, Perception, pp. 67–96 (Academic Press, NewYork 1980).Search in Google Scholar
2 Best, C.T.; McRoberts, G.W.; Sithole, N.M.: Examination of perceptual reorganization for nonnative speech contrasts: Zulu click discrimination by English-speaking adults and infants. J. exp. Psychol. Learning Memory Cognition 14: 345–360 (1988).10.1037/0096-1523.14.3.345Search in Google Scholar
3 Bladon, A: Phonetics for hearers; in McGregor, Language for hearers, pp. 1–24 (Pergamon, Oxford 1986).Search in Google Scholar
4 Coble, S.F.; Robinson, D.E.: Discriminability of bursts of reproducible noise. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 92: 2630–2635 (1992).10.1121/1.404402Search in Google Scholar
5 Delgutte, B.; Kiang, N.Y.S.: Speech coding in the auditory nerve: III. Voiceless fricative consonants. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 85: 887–896 (1984).10.1121/1.390598Search in Google Scholar
6 Fujimura, O.; Macchi, M.J.; Streeter, L.A.: Perception of stop consonants with conflicting transitional cues: a cross-linguistic study. Lang. Speech 21: 337–346 (1978).10.1177/002383097802100408Search in Google Scholar
7 Green, D.M.; Swets, J.A.: Signal detection theory and psychophysics (Wiley, New York 1966).Hume, E.; Johnson, K.: A model for the interplay of speech perception and phonology; in Hume, Johnson, The role of speech perception in phonology, pp. 3–26 (Academic Press, New York 2001).Search in Google Scholar
8 Hura, S.L.; Lindblom, B.; Diehl, R.: On the role of perception in shaping phonological assimilation rules. Lang. Speech 35: 59–72 (1992).10.1177/002383099203500206Search in Google Scholar
9 Jannedy, S.: Gestural phasing as an explanation for vowel devoicing in Turkish; in Jannedy, Papers from the linguistic laboratory. OSU Working Papers Ling. 45: 56–84 (1995).Search in Google Scholar
10 Kavitskaya, D.: Compensatory lengthening: phonetics, phonology, diachrony; PhD diss. University of California, Berkeley (2001).Search in Google Scholar
11 Kohler, K.: Segmental reduction in connected speech: phonological facts and phonetic explanations; in Hardcastle, Marchal, Speech production and speech modeling, pp. 69–92 (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht 1990).10.1007/978-94-009-2037-8_4Search in Google Scholar
12 Kuhl, P.K.; Williams, K.A.; Lacerda, F.; Stevens, K.N.; Lindblom, B: Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science 255: 606–608 (1992).10.1126/science.1736364Search in Google Scholar
13 Lewis, G.L.: Turkish grammar (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1967).Search in Google Scholar
14 Lindblom, B.: Economy of speech gestures; in MacNeilage, The production of speech (Springer, New York 1983).10.1007/978-1-4613-8202-7_10Search in Google Scholar
15 Lindblom, B.: Can the models of evolutionary biology be applied to phonetic problems? in Van den Broecke, Cohen, Proc. 10th Int. Congr. Phonet. Sci., pp. 67–81 (Foris, Dordrecht 1984).10.1515/9783110884685-010Search in Google Scholar
16 Lisker, L.; Abramson, A.S: A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: acoustical measurements. Word 20: 384–422 (1964).10.1080/00437956.1964.11659830Search in Google Scholar
17 MacMillan, N.A.; Creelman, D.: Responses bias: characteristics of detection theory, threshold theory, and ‘nonparametric’ indexes. Psychol. Bull. 107: 401–413 (1990).Search in Google Scholar
18 MacMillan, N.A.; Creelman, D.: Detection theory: a user’s guide (Cambridge, New York 1991).Search in Google Scholar
19 Mielke, J.: Explaining directional asymmetry in Turkish [h] deletion: a crosslinguistic study of perceptibility; in Hume, Johnson, Studies in the interplay of speech perception and phonology. OSU Working Papers Ling. 55: 117–171 (2001).Search in Google Scholar
20 Mielke, J.: Formalizing the perception-phonology interaction: looking for evidence of the P-map in speech style variation. Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto Phonology Workshop, Montréal 2002a.Search in Google Scholar
21 Mielke, J.: Interplay between perceptual salience and contrast: /h/ perceptibility in Turkish, Arabic, English, and French. 2nd Int. Conf. on Contrast in Phonol., 2002b.Search in Google Scholar
22 Mielke, J.: The diachronic influence of perception: experimental evidence from Turkish. Proc. BLS 29, 2003.10.3765/bls.v29i1.1024Search in Google Scholar
23 Ohala, J.: The listeners as a source of sound change; in Masek, Hendrik, Miller, Chicago Linguistics Society, CLS 17, pp. 178–203 (Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago 1981).Search in Google Scholar
24 Ohala, J.: Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmental sequential constraints. Chicago Linguistics Society: Papers from the Parasession on the Syllable, CLS 28, pp. 319–338 (Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago 1992).Search in Google Scholar
25 Ohala, J.: The perceptual basis of some sound patterns; in Connell, Arvaniti, Papers in Laboratory Phonology. IV: Phonology and phonetic evidence, pp. 87–94 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1993).10.1017/CBO9780511554315.007Search in Google Scholar
26 Ovcharova, O. A perception-based study of consonant deletion in Turkish. Poster, ICPhS satellite meeting The Role of Speech Perception Phenomena in Phonology, 1999.Search in Google Scholar
27 Pickles, J.O.: An introduction to the physiology of hearing (Academic Press, San Diego 1988).Search in Google Scholar
28 Sezer, E.: An autosegmental analysis of compensatory lengthening in Turkish; in Wetzels, Sezer, Studies in compensatory lengthening (Foris, Dordrecht 1986).10.1515/9783110821666-011Search in Google Scholar
29 Steriade, D.: Phonetics in phonology: the case of laryngeal neutralization. UCLA (unpublished, 1997).Search in Google Scholar
30 Steriade, D.: Directional asymmetries in place assimilation: a perceptual account; in Hume, Johnson, The role of speech perception in phonology, pp. 219–250 (Academic Press, New York 2001).Search in Google Scholar
31 Steriade, D.: The phonology of perceptibility effects: the P-map and its consequences for constraint organization; in Inkelas, Khanson, A festschrift for Paul Kiparsky (CLSI Publications, Stanford, in press).Valdman, A.: Introduction to French phonology and morphology (Newbury House Publishers, Rowley 1976).Search in Google Scholar
32 Vihman, M.M.: Phonological development: the origins of language in the child (Blackwell, Cambridge 1996).Search in Google Scholar
33 Volaitis, L.E.; Miller, J.L.: Phonetic prototypes: influence of place of articulation and speaking rate on the internal structure of voicing categories. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 92: 723–735 (1992).10.1121/1.403997Search in Google Scholar
34 Werker, J.F.; Logan, J.S.: Cross-language evidence for three factors in speech perception. Perception Psychophysics 37: 35–44 (1985).10.3758/BF03207136Search in Google Scholar
35 Werker, J.F.; Tees, R.C.: Cross-language speech perception: evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behav. Dev. 7: 49–63 (1984).10.1016/S0163-6383(84)80022-3Search in Google Scholar
36 Winer, B.J.: Statistical principles in experimental design (McGraw-Hill, New York 1971).Search in Google Scholar
37 Wright, R.: Consonant clusters and cue preservation in Tsou; UCLA PhD diss. (1996).Search in Google Scholar
38 Zawadowski, Y.N.: The Maghrib Arabic dialects (Central Department of Oriental Literature, Moscow 1978).Search in Google Scholar
39 Zimmer, K.; Orgun, O.: Turkish; in Handbook of the International Phonetic Association (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1999).Search in Google Scholar
© 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel
