Kõnetaju kategoriaalsus ehk hüpotees sellest, kuidas me keelelisi üksusi tajume

  • Nele Salveste Tartu Ülikool
Keywords: kategoriaalne taju, identifikatsioonikatse, diskriminatsioonikatse, välde, foneetiline varieerumine kõnetajus

Abstract

Erinevate häälikute laad meie igapäevases kõnes varieerub tugevalt, kuid häälduse varieeruvus ei ole enamasti kõneeristusele takistuseks. See annab alust oletada, et kõnetaju on välja arendanud süsteemi, millega tuvastada foneeme väga suure varieeruvusega kõnesignaalist. See süsteem tegeleb kõne varieeruvusega nii tõhusalt ja kiiresti, et me ei ole sellest enamasti teadlikud. Seda süsteemi võiks nimetada kategoriaalseks tajuks (ingl Categorical Perception), kuid kuna taju on uurimisele üksnes kaudselt kättesaadav, siis tähistab see termin pigem eksperimentaalset mudelit või meetodit, millega uuritakse taju võimet foneeme kõnesignaalist eristada. (Schouten jt 2003) Käesolevas artiklis arutatakse kategoriaalse taju kui mudeli ja katsemeetodi üle, mille teoreetilised lähtekohad on olnud nii muudes keeltes kui eesti keeles läbi viidud tajukatsete ülesehituse ja järelduste eeldusteks.

Categorical perception or the hypothesis of how we perceive linguistic units. The acoustic signal of everyday speech is very variable, but it seldom distracts the normal speech communication. This motivates the hypothesis that the speech perception must have developed a special mechanism for extracting phonemes from highly variable speech signal. This mechanism extracts phonemes so efficiently and quickly that we are often unaware of it. We would like to call this mechanism “categorical perception of speech”, but since the perceptual processes are only indirectly accessible for investigation, the term refers rather to a theoretical model or an experimental method for investigating our perceptual ability to distinguish phonemes from the speech signal so efficiently (Schouten et al. 2003). In this paper the Categorical Perception as an experimental method and its theoretical statements will be discussed in connection to perception experiments and findings in other languages as well as in Estonian language.

References

Bradlow, R. Ann, Tessa Bent (2008) “Perceptual adaptation to non-native speech”. Cognition 106, 707–729. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.005

Clayards, Meghan, Michael K. Tanenhaus, Richard N. Aslin, Robert A. Jacobs (2008) “Perception of speech reflects optimal use of probabilistic speech cues”. Cognition 108, 804–809. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.04.004

Dahan, Delphine, Sarah J. Drucker ja Rebecca A. Scarborough (2008) “Talker adaptation in speech perception: adjusting the signal or the representations?” Cognition 108, 710–718. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.06.003

Davidoff, Jules, Ian Davies ja Debi Roberson (1999) “Colour categories in a stone-age tribe”. Nature 398, 203–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/18335

Eek, Arvo (1980a) “Estonian quantity: notes on the perception of duration”. In A. Eek, ed. Estonian papers in phonetics, 5–30. Tallinn: Academy of Sciences of the Estonian S.S.R.

Eek, Arvo (1980b) “Further information on the perception of Estonian quantity”. A. Eek, ed. Estonian papers in phonetics, 31–57. Tallinn: Academy of Sciences of the Estonian S.S.R.

Eek, Arvo, Einar Meister (1994) „Eesti vokaalide sihtväärtused hääldus- ja tajuruumis”. Keel ja Kirjandus 7, 404–413, 8, 476–483, 9, 548–553.

Eek, Arvo, Einar Meister (1996) „Eesti sõnaalguliste sulghäälikute akustika ja tajumine”. Keel ja Kirjandus, 3, 164–170, 4, 241–253, 5, 314–321.

Eek, Arvo, Einar Meister (2003) „Foneetilisi katseid ja arutlusi kvantiteedi alalt (I). Häälikukestusi muutvad kontekstid ja välde”. Keel ja Kirjandus 11, 815–837, 12, 904–918.

Etcoff, Nancy L., J. John Magee (1992) “Categorical perception of facial expressions”. Cognition 44, 227–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90002-Y

Feldman, H. Naomi, Thomas L. Griffiths, James L. Morgan (2009) “The influence of categories on perception: explaining the perceptual magnet effect as optimal statistical inference”. Psychological Review 116, 4, 752–782. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017196

Gerrits, Ellen, Marten Egbertus, Hendri Schouten (2004) “Categorical perception depends on the discrimination task”. Perception & Psychophysics 66, 3, 363–376. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03194885

Johnson, Keith (2007) “Decisions and mechanisms in exemplar-based phonology”. In M. J. Sole, P. Beddor, M. Ohala, eds. Experimental approaches to phonology: in honor of John Ohala, 25–40. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kraljic, Tanya, Susan E. Brennan, Arthur G. Samuel (2008) “Accommodating variation: dialects, idiolects, and speech processing”. Cognition 107, 54–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.013

Lehiste, Ilse (1960) “Segmental and syllabic quantity in Estonian”. In Thomas Sebeok, ed. American studies in Uralic linguistics, 21–82. (Uralic and Altaic Series, 1.) Bloomington: Indiana University Publications.

Lehiste, Ilse (1970-1975) “Experiments with synthetic speech concerning quantity in Estonian”. In Valmen Hallap, ed. Congressus Tertius Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum, Tallinae habitus, 17-23. VIII 1970. Pars I: Acta Linguistica, 254–269. Tallinn: Valgus.

Lehiste, Ilse (1997) “Search for phonetic correlates in Estonian prosody”. In I. Lehiste, J. Ross, eds. Estonian prosody: papers from a symposium, 11–35. Tallinn: Institute of Estonian Language.

Liberman, Alvin M., Katherine Safford Harris, Howard S. Hoffman, Belver C. Griffith (1957) “The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries”. Journal of Experimental Psychology 54, 5, 358–368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0044417

Liberman, Alvin M., Franklin S. Cooper, Katherine Safford Harris, Peter F. MacNeilage, Michael Studdert-Kennedy (1967) “Perception of the speech code”. Psychological Review 74, 431–461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0020279

Liberman, Alvin M., Ignatius G. Mattingly (1985) “The motor theory of speech perception revised”. Cognition 21, 1, 1–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(85)90021-6

Lippus, Pärtel, Karl Pajusalu, Jüri Allik (2007) “The tonal component in perception of the Estonian quantity”. The Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Saarbrücken, 6-10 August 2007, 1049–1052. <http://www.icphs2007.de/conference/Papers/1029/1029.pdf> Vaadatud 29.10.2012.

Lippus, Pärtel, Karl Pajusalu, Jüri Allik (2009) “The tonal component of Estonian quantity in native and non-native perception”. Journal of Phonetics 37, 388–396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2009.07.002

Lippus, Pärtel, Karl Pajusalu, Jüri Allik (2011) “The role of the pitch cue in the perception of the Estonian long quantity”. In S. Frota, G. Elodieta, P. Prieto, eds. Prosodic categories: production, perception and comprehension, 231–242. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer.

Meister, Lya (2009) „Eesti vokaalikategooriate piirid vene ja eesti emakeelega kõnelejate tajuruumis”. Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühingu aastaraamat = Estonian Papers in Applied Linguistics 5, 143–156.

Norris, Dennis, James M. Queen, Anne Cutler (2003) “Perceptual learning in speech”. Cognitive Psychology 47, 2, 204–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00006-9

Pineda, Marisa, Meghan Sumner (2010) “A distributional analysis of VOT in French-accented English”. Ettekanne konverentsil „159th Annual Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America”, Baltimore, MD. <http://www.stanford.edu/~middyp/media/non-native-vot-asa-2010.pdf> Vaadatud 29.10.2012.

Repp, Bruno H. (1984) “Categorical Perception: issues, methods, findings”. In Norman J. Lass, ed. Speech and language: advances in basic research and practice 10, 243–335. Orlando: Academic Press.

Salveste, Nele (2010) “Variation of pitch cues in the perception of quantities”. In S. Werner, T. Kinnunen, eds. XXVI Fonetiikan päivät 2010, Soome, Mekrijärve, 25.-26.02.2010. University of Eastern Finland, <http://epublications.uef.fi/pub/urn_isbn_978­952­61­0391­4/urn_isbn_978­952-61-0391-4.pdf> Vaadatud 29.10.2012..

Schouten, Bert, Ellen Gerrits, Arjan van Hessen (2003) “The end of categorical perception as we know it”. Speech Communication 41, 71–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6393(02)00094-8

Stevens, Kenneth Noble (1972) “The quantal nature of speech: evidence from articulatory-acoustic data”. In Edward E. David ja Peter B. Denes, eds. Human communication: a unified view, 51–66. New York: McGraw­ Hill.

Stevens, Kenneth Noble (1989) “On the quantal theory of speech”. Journal of Phonetics 17, 3–45.

Stevens, Kenneth Noble (2005) “Features in speech perception and lexical access”. D. B. Pisoni, R. E. Remez, eds. The handbook of speech perception, 125–154. Malden, Oxford, Carlton: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Sumner, Meghan (2011) “The role of variation in the perception of accented speech”. Cognition 119, 1, 131–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.018

Published
2013-06-20