24.3159, Review: Language Acquisition; Psycholinguistics: Cutler (2012)

[linguist at linguistlist.org]

LINGUIST List: Vol-24-3159. Mon Aug 05 2013. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 24.3159, Review: Language Acquisition; Psycholinguistics: Cutler (2012)

Moderator: Damir Cavar, Eastern Michigan U <damir at linguistlist.org>

Reviews: Veronika Drake, U of Wisconsin Madison
Monica Macaulay, U of Wisconsin Madison
Rajiv Rao, U of Wisconsin Madison
Joseph Salmons, U of Wisconsin Madison
Mateja Schuck, U of Wisconsin Madison
Anja Wanner, U of Wisconsin Madison
       <reviews at linguistlist.org>

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Do you want to donate to LINGUIST without spending an extra penny? Bookmark
the Amazon link for your country below; then use it whenever you buy from
Amazon!

USA: http://www.amazon.com/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-20
Britain: http://www.amazon.co.uk/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-21
Germany: http://www.amazon.de/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistd-21
Japan: http://www.amazon.co.jp/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-22
Canada: http://www.amazon.ca/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistc-20
France: http://www.amazon.fr/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistf-21

For more information on the LINGUIST Amazon store please visit our
FAQ at http://linguistlist.org/amazon-faq.cfm.

Editor for this issue: Rajiv Rao <rajiv at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  


Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 14:53:58
From: Robert Port [port at indiana.edu]
Subject: Native Listening

E-mail this message to a friend:
http://linguistlist.org/issues/emailmessage/verification.cfm?iss=24-3159.html&submissionid=16896385&topicid=9&msgnumber=1
 
Discuss this message: 
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=16896385


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/23/23-4603.html

AUTHOR: Anne  Cutler
TITLE: Native Listening
SUBTITLE: Language Experience and the Recognition of Spoken Words
PUBLISHER: MIT Press
YEAR: 2012

REVIEWER: Robert F. Port, Indiana University Bloomington

SUMMARY

‘Native Listening’ offers a thoughtful review of a large body of the
psychological literature relevant to understanding what knowledge and skills
speakers apply when they listen to the language they know best. Dr. Cutler has
devoted her career to many of the issues relating to this problem. The book
reflects her broad knowledge and experience in this interdisciplinary field
that includes language development in children, linguistics, psychology of
memory, second language studies and the perceptual processing of speech. Her
primary conclusion is implicit in her title, that all of us native speakers
acquire a specialized system for interpreting the language we have grown up
with that is directly analogous to the richly detailed knowledge and skills of
``native speakers’’ in producing their own language. What native listeners
hear when their language is spoken is vastly different from what non-natives
hear listening to another language.  Native listeners are finely tuned to the
detailed speech habits and the statistical distributions of the speech
community they belong to. Although this might sound uncontroversial to some
readers, this conclusion is at odds with the assumptions of many linguists
(e.g. Chomsky and Halle, 1968 and most generative linguists), i.e., that all
children come to language learning with a uniform (and universal) phonetic
alphabet for the mental representation of speech. According to this view, we
all hear the phonetics of every language in essentially the same way, so the
notion of “native listening’’ hardly makes any sense.

The writing in ‘Native Listening’ is nearly always clear and, just as the
reader might be thinking “So what am I supposed to take from this section?,’’
the section closes with a helpful summary of its main points. In addition,
each chapter also closes with a review of its main argument.

The introductory chapter, on “listening and native language,” reviews basic
articulatory phonetics and the basics of linguistic speech systems. However,
there is almost nothing on human hearing. The second chapter is about what
spoken language is like, touching upon topics such as categorical perception
and within- and cross-word ‘embeddings’ (of one word within another), since
the pronunciation of any simple phrase like “we start” contains acoustic
patterns that match other words such as “we, wee, Weese, east, star, Dar,
dart,” etc. The next two chapters look at how words are recognized, given very
difficult problems such as embedding. It reviews phonetic cues to word
boundaries and various experimental methods like ‘lexical decision,’ ‘eye
tracking,’ and various kinds of ‘priming.’  Chapter 5 explores evidence for
the “possible word constraint’’ (i.e. the phonological patterns of word shape
that are characteristic of each language) and its role in making word
segmentation more reliable despite the widespread occurrence of embedding.
The following chapter discusses the fine structure of speech, including both
subtle dialect variation and individual pronunciation differences.  Chapter 7
discusses prosody, especially stress and pitch accent and their role in native
speech understanding. The discussion also includes surprising cases where
native listeners seem to ignore aspects of the prosody that they produce.
Chapter 8 provides an overview of speech acquisition in children and the great
importance of statistics in the acquisition of native listening skills.
Chapters 9 and 10 deal with the acquisition of a second language as an adult
and evaluate such problems as the difficulties experienced by second-language
speakers listening in noisy situations. It also reviews data on bilinguals who
appear to speak two languages with equal skill, with one conclusion being that
there is nearly always some detectible asymmetry between the languages of a
bilingual. Chapter 11, on the plasticity of adult speech perception, offers an
extensive review of pronunciation changes in adults due to ongoing change in
the ambient language or due to contact with another language. The final
chapter is a 40 page overview of Cutler’s final views on how people recognize
speech in context by exploiting the many aspects of their “exquisitely
tailored’’ skills in listening to their native language. She successfully
makes her case for the importance of “native listening,” which helps us
understand how we are able to follow speech as well as we all do.  There are
no simple tricks or methods for “universal feature” extraction that account
for the data published over the past 50 years. Overall, this concluding
chapter pulls everything together and effectively presents the author’s
summary about speech perception and acquisition.

EVALUATION

One challenge for the author and publisher of this book was how to indicate
the exact pronunciation of English and Dutch test words and pseudo-words.
Although there is a 4-page appendix presenting the basic International
Phonetic Association (IPA) alphabet (the standard tool for this purpose),
there was almost no use of the IPA alphabet in the volume. Instead, the author
relies primarily on English or Dutch orthographic representations for test
words and pseudo-orthographic spellings for non-words. But the orthographic
spellings of English and Dutch are generally ambiguous about pronunciation
details, especially if one has weak knowledge of how to pronounce Dutch
orthography (as this reviewer does). Many uncertainties resulted.  To give an
example (p. 87), in one experiment the author employs English words like
“mask” and nonsense words like “maskek” as stimuli. This begs the question of
how the pseudo-orthographic form “maskek” is pronounced.  Is the second
syllable pronounced like “cake” (with aspirated [k] and a tense vowel) or like
“skeck” (without aspiration and a lax vowel)?  A representation in IPA would
have made that explicit, even though it would demand a little more of the
typesetter and the reader. These confusions arose multiple times in almost
every chapter of the book. In fact, given the number of Dutch words and
phrases, an additional appendix introducing readers to the pronunciation of
Dutch orthography would have been welcome.

One theoretical issue puzzled me. The author makes a persuasive case for the
richness of the skills of the native listener (and speaker) and for the
necessity of both an abstract memory representation of words and also storage
of many alternative pronunciations and speaker-specific variants (e.g. p.
423). Among the evidence for detailed, exemplar-like memory (see
Pierrehumbert, 2001) is that recognition memory (where the participant’s task
is to decide for each item in a list whether or not it occurred earlier in the
list) for aurally presented words shows that repetition of a word in the same
voice improves accuracy relative to repetition of a word spoken by a different
voice (Palmeri et al., 1993). This shows that speakers are not relying on an
abstract phonological memory, but rather a concrete, detailed memory that
includes information about speakers’ voices. Other evidence is a demonstration
that listeners can recognize speech better in noise when they are familiar
with the speaker’s voice than when they are not (Nygaard, Sommers and Pisoni,
1994). In addition to evidence that speakers store fairly detailed records of
speech that they hear, Cutler also makes a clear case for some degree of
abstraction and generalization in memory representations, and therefore, for
the insufficiency of a pure exemplar memory that stores only detailed records
of heard utterances. For example, she cites evidence that listeners can be
taught that one speaker’s idiosyncratic productions of a lisping fricative
that is acoustically midway between /f/ and /s/ should be interpreted as an
/s/. One way to do this is to present participants with a short story
containing many /s/s, all of which are replaced with the ambiguous fricative
(and, of course, for another listener group, all the /f/s are replaced with
the ambiguous fricative). Of course, each subject group uses context in the
story to infer what words the speaker intends (Norris, McQueen and Cutler,
2003; Eisner and McQueen, 2006). But now if this ambiguous lispy-sounding /s/
is inserted in the productions of words in the voice of a different speaker,
listeners do not show the adaptation that they learned (Eisner and McQueen,
2005).   The generalization of the odd pronunciation to new words, while not
making the generalization to a new voice, is evidence that listeners are able
to adapt to speaker idiosyncracies and to project a pronunciation from heard
words to new words.

Elsewhere, Cutler has used the cautious term “prelexical abstraction” to
refer, apparently, to some kind of abstract patterns smaller than words that
are sufficiently identical from word to word to allow generalization of an
acoustic pattern from a few words to other, unheard words (Cutler et al.,
2006). She may be roughly correct about “prelexical” (or “sublexical’’)
abstractions of some sort, but using the word “phoneme” for them, as she does
in the book under review, may cause confusion.  Phoneme implies much more.
There are many further assumptions about phonemes or phonological segments
made by linguists. Most approaches to phonology assume that phonemes are
completely context-free (except as constrained by formal rules) and serially
ordered (with no internal temporal structure or temporal overlap) and,
crucially, are very limited in number for any language (believed to be fewer
than about 50 in most cases). Then, these letter-like objects are employed so
as to provide a single, unique memory representation for each lexical item in
a language (Chomsky and Halle, 1968; see Port and Leary, 2005; Port, 2011).
However, no research has been conducted by anyone to verify most of these
assumptions. Cutler’s linguistic memory representations, which include some
kind of abstract representation as well as speakers’ “extensive records of the
specifics of their speech processing experience” (p. 421), imply a model of
phonological memory that differs greatly from the ideas underlying traditional
linguistics. Of course, she is a psycholinguist, not a formal phonologist, but
the results she cites have implications that seriously undermine some major
tenets of linguistic theory. There is no problem with her informal use of the
term “phoneme” to point out some aspects of this complex representational
system, but linguists should beware that she is proposing memory structures
that are quite incompatible with what linguists generally assume when they
propose formal phonological rules or formal constraints.

Leaving that issue aside, Cutler has produced a clearly written exposition of
the state of understanding of the enormous challenges faced by native
listeners and the spectacular ease they exhibit in understanding speech as
well as they do. As one of the leaders in the field, she focuses, quite
naturally, on the work done in her very productive laboratory over the past
third of a century, at roughly the time when she herself has moved on to a new
laboratory in Australia. This book deserves close attention by all who are
interested in the psychological representation of language and the development
of human speaking and listening skills.

REFERENCES

Chomsky, N. and Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. Harper-Row,
New York.

Eisner, F. and McQueen, J. M. (2005). The specificity of perceptual learning
in speech processing.  Perception and Psychophysics 67, 224-238.

Eisner, F. and McQueen, J. M. (2006). Perceptual learning in speech: Stability
over time.  Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 1950-1953.

Norris, D.,  McQueen, J. M.  and Cutler, A. (2003).  Perceptual learning in
speech. Cognitive Psychology 47, 204-238.

Nygaard, L. C.,  Sommers, M. S. &  Pisoni, D. B. (1994) Speech perception as a
talker contingent process. Psychological Science 56, 42-46.

Palmeri, T. J., Goldinger, S. D. & Pisoni, D. B. (1993)    Episodic encoding
of voice attributes and recognition memory for spoken words. J. Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 19, 309-328.

Pierrehumbert, J. (2001) Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and
contrast. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds)  Frequency effects and the emergence
of lexical structure. (pp. 137-157)  Amsterdam: John Benjamin.

Port, R. (2011) Language as a social institution:  Why phonemes and words do
not have explicit psychological form. Ecological Psychology 22, 304-326.

Port, R. and Leary, A. (2005) Against formal phonology.  Language 81, 927-964.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Robert Port is Emeritus Professor of Linguistics and Cognitive Science at
Indiana University.  His research has focused on phonetics, especially on
issues related to speech timing and the dynamics of speech production and
perception. He has conducted research especially on the phonetics of English,
Japanese and German.  In recent years he has emphasized the implausibility of
a universal phonetic alphabet and the necessity of representing language in
memory in a much richer form than is customary in linguistics.








----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-24-3159	
----------------------------------------------------------