Effects of subsequent sentence context in auditory word recognition: Temporal and linguistic constrainst

1991 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 234-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia M Connine ◽  
Dawn G Blasko ◽  
Michael Hall
2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 508-517 ◽  
Author(s):  
EVELYNE LAGROU ◽  
ROBERT J. HARTSUIKER ◽  
WOUTER DUYCK

Until now, research on bilingual auditory word recognition has been scarce, and although most studies agree that lexical access is language-nonselective, there is less consensus with respect to the influence of potentially constraining factors. The present study investigated the influence of three possible constraints. We tested whether language nonselectivity is restricted by (a) a sentence context in a second language (L2), (b) the semantic constraint of the sentence, and (c) the native language of the speaker. Dutch–English bilinguals completed an English auditory lexical decision task on the last word of low- and high-constraining sentences. Sentences were pronounced by a native Dutch speaker with English as the L2, or by a native English speaker with Dutch as the L2. Interlingual homophones (e.g., lief “sweet” – leaf /liːf/) were always recognized more slowly than control words. The semantic constraint of the sentence and the native accent of the speaker modulated, but did not eliminate interlingual homophone effects. These results are discussed within language-nonselective models of lexical access in bilingual auditory word recognition.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Furgoni ◽  
Antje Stoehr ◽  
Clara D. Martin

PurposeIn languages with alphabetical writing systems, the relationship between phonology and orthography is strong. Phonology-to-orthography mappings can be consistent (i.e., one phonological unit corresponds to one orthographic unit) or inconsistent (i.e., one phonological unit corresponds to multiple orthographic units). This study investigates whether the Orthographic Consistency Effect (OCE) emerges at the phonemic level during auditory word recognition, regardless of the opacity of a language’s writing system.MethodsThirty L1-French (opaque language) and 30 L1-Spanish (transparent language) listeners participated in an L1 auditory lexical decision task which included stimuli with either only consistently-spelled phonemes or both consistently-spelled and a number of inconsistently-spelled phonemes. ResultsThe results revealed that listeners were faster at recognizing consistently-spelled words than inconsistently-spelled words. This implies that consistently-spelled words are recognized more easily than inconsistent ones. As for pseudoword processing, there is a numerical trend that might indicate a higher sensibility of French listeners to phoneme-to-grapheme inconsistencies. ConclusionsThese findings have theoretical implications: inconsistent phoneme-to-grapheme mappings, like inconsistencies at the level of the syllable or rhyme, impact auditory word recognition. Moreover, our results suggest that the OCE should occur in all languages with alphabetical writing systems, regardless of their level of orthographic opacity.


1999 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 735-743 ◽  
Author(s):  
James W. Montgomery

In this study we examined the lexical mapping stage of auditory word recognition in children with specific language impairment (SLI). Twenty-one children with SLI, 21 children matched for chronological age (CM), and 21 vocabulary-matched (VM) children participated in a forward gating task in which they listened to successive temporal chunks of familiar monosyllabic nouns. After each gate, children guessed the identity of the word and provided a confidence rating of their word guess. Results revealed that the children with SLI performed comparably to the CM and VM children on all seven dependent measures related to lexical mapping. The findings were interpreted to suggest that children with SLI and their normally developing peers demonstrate a comparable lexical mapping phase (i.e., acoustic-phonetic analysis) of auditory word recognition.


Author(s):  
Béryl Schulpen ◽  
Ton Dijkstra ◽  
Herbert J. Schriefers ◽  
Mark Hasper

Author(s):  
Henrike K. Blumenfeld ◽  
Scott R. Schroeder ◽  
Susan C. Bobb ◽  
Max R. Freeman ◽  
Viorica Marian

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document