Segmentation of Continuous Speech Using Phonotactics

Models of word recognition differ with respect to where the effects of sentential-semantic context are to be located. Using a crossmodal priming technique, this research investigated the availability of lexical entries as a function of stimulus information and contextual constraint. To investigate the exact locus of the effects of sentential contexts, probes that were associatively related to contextually appropriate and inappropriate words were presented at various positions before and concurrent with the spoken word. The results show that sentential contexts do not preselect a set of contextually appropriate words before any sensory information about the spoken word is available. Moreover, during lexical access, defined here as the initial contact with lexical entries and their semantic and syntactic properties, both contextually appropriate and inappropriate words are activated. Contextual effects are located after lexical access, at a point in time during word processing where the sensory input by itself is still insufficiently informative to disambiguate between the activated entries. This suggests that sentential-semantic contexts have their effects during the process of selecting one of the activated candidates for recognition.

Monolingual French speakers employ a syllable-based procedure in speech segmentation; monolingual English speakers use a stress-based segmentation procedure and do not use the syllable-based procedure. In the present study French-English bilinguals participated in segmentation experiments with English and French materials. Their results as a group did not simply mimic the performance of English monolinguals with English language materials and of French monolinguals with French language materials. Instead, the bilinguals formed two groups, defined by forced choice of a dominant language. Only the French-dominant groups showed syllabic segmentation and only with French language materials. The English-dominant group showed no syllabic segmentation in either language. However, the English-dominant group showed stress-based segmentation with English language materials; the French-dominant group did not. We argue that rhythmically based segmentation procedures are mutually exclusive, as a consequence of which speech segmentation by bilinguals is, in one respect at least, functionally monolingual.