Skip to content

Phonemes: Lexical access and beyond

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Phonemes : Lexical access and beyond. / Kazanina, Nina; Bowers, Jeffrey S.; Idsardi, William.

In: Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, Vol. 25, No. 2, 01.04.2018, p. 560-585.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Kazanina, N, Bowers, JS & Idsardi, W 2018, 'Phonemes: Lexical access and beyond', Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 560-585. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1362-0

APA

Kazanina, N., Bowers, J. S., & Idsardi, W. (2018). Phonemes: Lexical access and beyond. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 25(2), 560-585. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1362-0

Vancouver

Kazanina N, Bowers JS, Idsardi W. Phonemes: Lexical access and beyond. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. 2018 Apr 1;25(2):560-585. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1362-0

Author

Kazanina, Nina ; Bowers, Jeffrey S. ; Idsardi, William. / Phonemes : Lexical access and beyond. In: Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. 2018 ; Vol. 25, No. 2. pp. 560-585.

Bibtex

@article{52b250157d844ba8a10faf84e63f7157,
title = "Phonemes: Lexical access and beyond",
abstract = "Phonemes play a central role in traditional theories as units of speech perception and access codes to lexical representations. Phonemes have two essential properties: they are ‘segment-sized’ (the size of a consonant or vowel) and abstract (a single phoneme may be have different acoustic realisations). Nevertheless, there is a long history of challenging the phoneme hypothesis, with some theorists arguing for differently sized phonological units (e.g. features or syllables) and others rejecting abstract codes in favour of representations that encode detailed acoustic properties of the stimulus. The phoneme hypothesis is the minority view today. We defend the phoneme hypothesis in two complementary ways. First, we show that rejection of phonemes is based on a flawed interpretation of empirical findings. For example, it is commonly argued that the failure to find acoustic invariances for phonemes rules out phonemes. However, the lack of invariance is only a problem on the assumption that speech perception is a bottom-up process. If learned sublexical codes are modified by top-down constraints (which they are), then this argument loses all force. Second, we provide strong positive evidence for phonemes on the basis of linguistic data. Almost all findings that are taken (incorrectly) as evidence against phonemes are based on psycholinguistic studies of single words. However, phonemes were first introduced in linguistics, and the best evidence for phonemes comes from linguistic analyses of complex word forms and sentences. In short, the rejection of phonemes is based on a false analysis and a too-narrow consideration of the relevant data.",
keywords = "Access codes to lexicon, lexical access, lexical representation, phonemes, phonological form, speech perception, speech segmentation, units of speech perception",
author = "Nina Kazanina and Bowers, {Jeffrey S.} and William Idsardi",
year = "2018",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3758/s13423-017-1362-0",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "560--585",
journal = "Psychonomic Bulletin and Review",
issn = "1069-9384",
publisher = "Springer US",
number = "2",

}

RIS - suitable for import to EndNote

TY - JOUR

T1 - Phonemes

T2 - Lexical access and beyond

AU - Kazanina, Nina

AU - Bowers, Jeffrey S.

AU - Idsardi, William

PY - 2018/4/1

Y1 - 2018/4/1

N2 - Phonemes play a central role in traditional theories as units of speech perception and access codes to lexical representations. Phonemes have two essential properties: they are ‘segment-sized’ (the size of a consonant or vowel) and abstract (a single phoneme may be have different acoustic realisations). Nevertheless, there is a long history of challenging the phoneme hypothesis, with some theorists arguing for differently sized phonological units (e.g. features or syllables) and others rejecting abstract codes in favour of representations that encode detailed acoustic properties of the stimulus. The phoneme hypothesis is the minority view today. We defend the phoneme hypothesis in two complementary ways. First, we show that rejection of phonemes is based on a flawed interpretation of empirical findings. For example, it is commonly argued that the failure to find acoustic invariances for phonemes rules out phonemes. However, the lack of invariance is only a problem on the assumption that speech perception is a bottom-up process. If learned sublexical codes are modified by top-down constraints (which they are), then this argument loses all force. Second, we provide strong positive evidence for phonemes on the basis of linguistic data. Almost all findings that are taken (incorrectly) as evidence against phonemes are based on psycholinguistic studies of single words. However, phonemes were first introduced in linguistics, and the best evidence for phonemes comes from linguistic analyses of complex word forms and sentences. In short, the rejection of phonemes is based on a false analysis and a too-narrow consideration of the relevant data.

AB - Phonemes play a central role in traditional theories as units of speech perception and access codes to lexical representations. Phonemes have two essential properties: they are ‘segment-sized’ (the size of a consonant or vowel) and abstract (a single phoneme may be have different acoustic realisations). Nevertheless, there is a long history of challenging the phoneme hypothesis, with some theorists arguing for differently sized phonological units (e.g. features or syllables) and others rejecting abstract codes in favour of representations that encode detailed acoustic properties of the stimulus. The phoneme hypothesis is the minority view today. We defend the phoneme hypothesis in two complementary ways. First, we show that rejection of phonemes is based on a flawed interpretation of empirical findings. For example, it is commonly argued that the failure to find acoustic invariances for phonemes rules out phonemes. However, the lack of invariance is only a problem on the assumption that speech perception is a bottom-up process. If learned sublexical codes are modified by top-down constraints (which they are), then this argument loses all force. Second, we provide strong positive evidence for phonemes on the basis of linguistic data. Almost all findings that are taken (incorrectly) as evidence against phonemes are based on psycholinguistic studies of single words. However, phonemes were first introduced in linguistics, and the best evidence for phonemes comes from linguistic analyses of complex word forms and sentences. In short, the rejection of phonemes is based on a false analysis and a too-narrow consideration of the relevant data.

KW - Access codes to lexicon

KW - lexical access

KW - lexical representation

KW - phonemes

KW - phonological form

KW - speech perception

KW - speech segmentation

KW - units of speech perception

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85028995845&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3758/s13423-017-1362-0

DO - 10.3758/s13423-017-1362-0

M3 - Article

C2 - 28875456

AN - SCOPUS:85028995845

VL - 25

SP - 560

EP - 585

JO - Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

JF - Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

SN - 1069-9384

IS - 2

ER -