The feature [sonorant] in auditory word identification
Danny R. Moates, Russell Fox, Chao‐Yang Lee, Sara Kellgreen
Abstract
Danny R. Moates, Russell Fox, Chao‐Yang Lee, Sara Kellgreen
Abstract
The distinctive feature [sonorant] separates resonants and obstruents. Does this feature mark a difference in the perceptual processing of these consonants? Marks et al. [Marks et al., ‘‘Word reconstruction and consonant features in English and Spanish,’’ Linguistics, 40, 421–438 (2002)] showed such an influence in a word reconstruction task. Target words containing an obstruent segment were harder to reconstruct when the obstruent was replaced by a resonant (mismatch condition) than when it was replaced by another obstruent (match condition). Resonant target words showed no such effect. The present study extended Marks et al. (2002) using an auditory priming lexical decision task. Participants heard a nonword prime 50 msec prior to another word or nonword target. The prime differed from the target item in just one consonant which either matched the target segment on the feature [sonorant] or mismatched it. Listeners judged whether the target item was a real word or nonword. The obstruents were divided into fricatives and stops, which were compared with resonants in both cases. Latencies for the fricative target words were significantly slower in the mismatch condition than in the match condition but not for stops. The present study validates the effect found by Marks et al. (2002) with an online task but shows that it is limited to fricatives.
OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
The distinctive feature [sonorant] separates resonants and obstruents. Does this feature mark a difference in the perceptual processing of these consonants? Marks et al. [Marks et al., ‘‘Word reconstruction and consonant features in English and Spanish,’’ Linguistics, 40, 421–438 (2002)] showed such an influence in a word reconstruction task. Target words containing an obstruent segment were harder to reconstruct when the obstruent was replaced by a resonant (mismatch condition) than when it was replaced by another obstruent (match condition). Resonant target words showed no such effect. The present study extended Marks et al. (2002) using an auditory priming lexical decision task. Participants heard a nonword prime 50 msec prior to another word or nonword target. The prime differed from the target item in just one consonant which either matched the target segment on the feature [sonorant] or mismatched it. Listeners judged whether the target item was a real word or nonword. The obstruents were divided into fricatives and stops, which were compared with resonants in both cases. Latencies for the fricative target words were significantly slower in the mismatch condition than in the match condition but not for stops. The present study validates the effect found by Marks et al. (2002) with an online task but shows that it is limited to fricatives.
Key concepts: Obstruent, Consonant, Voice, Speech recognition, Feature (linguistics), Word (group theory), Priming (agriculture), Lexical decision task