Abstract
We examined the contributions of segment type (consonants vs. vowels) and segment ratio to word recognition in Arabic sentences, a language that has a nonconcatenative morphological system in which consonants indicate semantic information, while vowels indicate structural information. In two experiments (with a balanced vowel-to-consonant ratio in Experiment 1 and an imbalanced ratio in Experiment 2), we presented participants with spoken sentences in Modern Standard Arabic, in which either consonants or vowels had been replaced by silence, and asked them to report what they could understand. The results indicate that consonants play a much greater role than vowels, both for balanced and also imbalanced sentences. The results also show greater word recognition for stimuli that contained a higher ratio of consonants to vowels. These results support and supplement previous findings on the role of consonantal roots in word recognition in Semitic languages, but clearly differ from those previously reported for non-Semitic languages which highlight the role of vowels in word recognition at the sentence level. We interpret this within the framework of root-and-pattern morphology, and further argue that segmental effects on word recognition and speech processing are crucially modulated by morphological structure.
Funding source: Researchers Supporting Project number (RSPD2023R580), King Saud University, Saudi Arabia
-
Research funding: Researchers Supporting Project number (RSPD2023R580), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
References
Abu-Rabia, Salim. 1997. Reading in Arabic orthography: The effect of vowels and context on reading accuracy of poor and skilled native Arabic readers. Reading and Writing 9(1). 65–78.10.1023/A:1007962408827Search in Google Scholar
Abu-Rabia, Salim. 2012. The role of morphology and short vowelization in reading morphological complex words in Arabic: Evidence for the domination of the morpheme/root-based theory in reading Arabic. Creative Education 3(4). 486–494. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.34074.Search in Google Scholar
Abu-Rabia, Salim. 2002. Reading in a root–based–morphology language: The case of Arabic. Journal of Research in Reading 25(3). 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.00177.Search in Google Scholar
Abu-Rabia, Salim & Awwad Jasmin. 2004. Morphological structures in visual word recognition: The case of Arabic. Journal of Research in Reading 27(3). 321–336.10.1111/j.1467-9817.2004.00235.xSearch in Google Scholar
Aldholmi, Yahya. 2018. Segmental contributions to speech intelligibility in nonconcatenative vs. concatenative languages (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). USA: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.Search in Google Scholar
Benmamoun, Elabbas. 1999. Arabic morphology: The central role of the imperfective. Lingua 108(2-3). 175–201.10.1016/S0024-3841(98)00045-XSearch in Google Scholar
Benmamoun, Elabbas. 2003. The role of the imperfective template in Arabic morphology. In J. Shimron (ed.), Language processing and language acquisition in a root-based morphology, 99–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lald.28.05benSearch in Google Scholar
Bentin, Shlomo & Laurie B. Feldman. 1990. The contribution of morphological and semantic relatedness to repetition priming at short and long lags: Evidence from Hebrew. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 42(4). 693–711. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749008401245.Search in Google Scholar
Bird, Sonya, Qian Wang, Sky Onosson & Allison Benner. 2019. The acoustic phonetics lab manual (Praat). University of Victoria, Department of Linguistics Available at: https://www.uvic.ca/humanities/linguistics/assets/docs/LabManual_2015.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2022. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.3.02. Available at: http://www.praat.org/.Search in Google Scholar
Bonatti, Luca L., Marcela Pena, Marina Nespor & Jacques Mehler. 2005. Linguistic constraints on statistical computations: The role of consonants and vowels in continuous speech processing. Psychological Science 16(6). 451–459.10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01556.xSearch in Google Scholar
Boudelaa, Sami & William D. Marslen-Wilson. 2000. Non-concatenative morphemes in language processing: Evidence from modern standard Arabic. In Anne Cutler, James M. McQueen & Rian Zondervan (eds.), Proceedings of SWAP (Workshop on Spoken Word Access Processes), vol. 1, 23–26. Nijmegen, Netherlands: Max-Planck Institute for Psycholonguistics.Search in Google Scholar
Boudelaa, Sami & William Marslen-Wilson. 2001. The time-course of morphological, phonological and semantic processes in reading Modern Standard Arabic. In Johanna D. Moore & Keith Stenning (eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-third annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 138–143. Edinburgh, Scotland: Human Communication Research Center - University of Edinburgh.Search in Google Scholar
Boudelaa, Sami & William D. Marslen-Wilson. 2004a. Abstract morphemes and lexical representation: The CV-Skeleton in Arabic. Cognition 92(3). 271–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2003.08.003.Search in Google Scholar
Boudelaa, Sami & William D. Marslen-Wilson. 2004b. Allomorphic variation in Arabic: Implications for lexical processing and representation. Brain and Language 90(1-3). 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0093-934x(03)00424-3.Search in Google Scholar
Boudelaa, Sami & William D. Marslen-Wilson. 2005. Discontinuous morphology in time: Incremental masked priming in Arabic. Language & Cognitive Processes 20. 207–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960444000106.Search in Google Scholar
Boudelaa, Sami & William D. Marslen-Wilson. 2011. Productivity and priming: Morphemic decomposition in Arabic. Language & Cognitive Processes 26(4–6). 624–652. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.521022.Search in Google Scholar
Boudelaa, Sami & William D. Marslen-Wilson. 2013. Morphological structure in the Arabic mental lexicon: Parallels between standard and dialectal Arabic. Language & Cognitive Processes 28(10). 1453–1473. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.719629.Search in Google Scholar
Boudelaa, Sami & William D. Marslen-Wilson. 2015. Structure, form, and meaning in the mental lexicon: Evidence from Arabic. Language, cognition and neuroscience 30(8). 955–992. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1048258.Search in Google Scholar
Boudelaa, Sami, Friedemann Pulvermüller, Olaf Hauk, Yury Shtyrov & William Marslen-Wilson. 2010. Arabic morphology in the neural language system. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 22(5). 998–1010. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21273.Search in Google Scholar
Brame, Michael K. 1970. Arabic phonology: Implications for phonological theory and historical semitic (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). USA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Search in Google Scholar
Burkle, T. Zachary, Diane Kewley-Port, Humes Larry & Jae Hee Lee. 2004. Contribution of consonant versus vowel information to sentence intelligibility by normal and hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 115. 2601. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4784589.Search in Google Scholar
Caramazza, Alfonso, Alessandro Laudanna & Cristina Romani. 1988. Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition 28(3). 297–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(88)90017-0.Search in Google Scholar
Chen, Fei, Lena L. N. Wong & Eva Y. W. Wong. 2013. Assessing the perceptual contributions of vowels and consonants to Mandarin sentence intelligibility. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 134(2). EL178–EL184. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4812820.Search in Google Scholar
Chen, Fei, Michelle L. Y. Wong, Shufeng Zhu & Lena L. N. Wong. 2015. Relative contributions of vowels and consonants in recognizing isolated Mandarin words. Journal of Phonetics 52. 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2015.04.003.Search in Google Scholar
Cole, Ronald A., Yonghong Yan, Brian Mak, Mark Fanty & Troy Bailey. 1996. The contribution of consonants versus vowels to word recognition in fluent speech. In International conference on acoustics, speech, and signal processing (ICASSP’96). Atlanta, GA: IEEE.10.1121/1.417028Search in Google Scholar
Cutler, Anne & Donald J. Foss. 1977. On the role of sentence stress in sentence processing. Language and Speech 20(1). 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383097702000101.Search in Google Scholar
Cutler, Anne, Jacques Mehler, Dennis Norris & Juan Segui. 1987. Phoneme identification and the lexicon. Cognitive Psychology 19(2). 141–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(87)90010-7.Search in Google Scholar
Cutler, Anne, Nuria Sebastián-Gallés, Olga Soler-Vilageliu & Brit Van Ooijen. 2000. Constraints of vowels and consonants on lexical selection: Cross-linguistic comparisons. Memory & Cognition 28(5). 746–755. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03198409.Search in Google Scholar
Deutsch, Avital & Ram Frost. 2003. Lexical organization and lexical access in a non-concatenated morphology. Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 28. 165–186.10.1075/lald.28.09deuSearch in Google Scholar
Deutsch, Avital, Ram Frost, Alexander Pollatsek & Keith Rayner. 2000. Early morphological effects in word recognition in Hebrew: Evidence from parafoveal preview benefit. Language & Cognitive Processes 15(4-5). 487–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960050119670.Search in Google Scholar
Feldman, Laurie Beth. 2000. Are morphological effects distinguishable from the effects of shared meaning and shared form? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 26(6). 1431. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.6.1431.Search in Google Scholar
Feldman, Laurie Beth, Ram Frost & Tamar Pnini. 1995. Decomposing words into their constituent morphemes: Evidence from English and Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 21(4). 947. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.4.947.Search in Google Scholar
Fogerty, Daniel. 2019. The perceptual contribution of consonants and vowels to sentence recognition: Effect of dialect variation in American English. In Proceedings of the 19th international congress of phonetic sciences, 3240–3244. Melbourne, Australia: Australasian Speech Science and Technology Association Inc.Search in Google Scholar
Fogerty, Daniel & Larry E. Humes. 2012. The role of vowel and consonant fundamental frequency, envelope, and temporal fine structure cues to the intelligibility of words and sentences. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 131(2). 1490–1501. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3676696.Search in Google Scholar
Fogerty, Daniel & Diane Kewley-Port. 2009. Perceptual contributions of the consonant- vowel boundary to sentence intelligibility. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126(2). 847–857. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3159302.Search in Google Scholar
Fogerty, Daniel, Diane Kewley-Port & Larry E. Humes. 2012. The relative importance of consonant and vowel segments to the recognition of words and sentences: Effects of age and hearing loss. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 132(3). 1667–1678. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4739463.Search in Google Scholar
Fu, Qian-Jie, Meimei Zhu & Xiaosong Wang. 2011. Development and validation of the Mandarin speech perception test. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 129(6). EL267–EL273. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3590739.Search in Google Scholar
Garofolo, John S., Lori F. Lamel, William M. Fisher, Jonathan G. Fiscus, David S. Pallett & Nancy L. Dahlgren. 1993. DARPA TIMIT acoustic-phonetic continuous speech corpus. NIST speech disc 1-1.1.10.6028/NIST.IR.4930Search in Google Scholar
Goral, Mira & Loraine K. Obler. 2003. Root-morpheme processing during word recognition in Hebrew speakers across the adult life-span. In Joseph Shimron (ed.), Language processing and language acquisition in root-based, semitic, morphology, 223–242. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s.10.1075/lald.28.12gorSearch in Google Scholar
Grant, Ken W. & Philip, F. Seitz. 2000. The recognition of isolated words and words in sentences: Individual variability in the use of sentence context. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 107(2). 1000–1011.10.1121/1.428280Search in Google Scholar
Holes, Clive. 2004. Modern Arabic: Structures, functions, and varieties. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kewley-Port, Diane, T. Zachary Burkle & Jae Hee Lee. 2007. Contribution of consonant versus vowel information to sentence intelligibility for young normal-hearing and elderly hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 122(4). 2365–2375. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2773986.Search in Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, William D. & Welsh. Alan. 1978. Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology 10(1). 29–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(78)90018-x.Search in Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1981. A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry 12(3). 373–418.Search in Google Scholar
Norris, Dennis. 1994. Shortlist: A connectionist model of continuous speech intelligibility. Cognition 52(3). 189–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90043-4.Search in Google Scholar
Norris, Dennis, James M. McQueen & Anne Cutler. 2000. Merging information in speech recognition: Feedback is never necessary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23(3). 299–325. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00003241.Search in Google Scholar
Owren, Michael J. & Gina C. Cardillo. 2006. The relative roles of vowels and consonants in discriminating talker identity versus word meanings. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119(3). 1727–1739. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2161431.Search in Google Scholar
Van Engen, Kristin J., Jasmine E. B. Phelps, Rajka Smiljanic & Bharath Chandrasekaran. 2014. Enhancing speech intelligibility: Interactions among context, modality, speech style, and masker. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 57(5). 1908–1918.10.1044/JSLHR-H-13-0076Search in Google Scholar
Van Ooijen, Brit. 1996. Vowel mutability and lexical selection in English: Evidence from a word reconstruction task. Memory & Cognition 24(5). 573–583. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03201084.Search in Google Scholar
Ratcliffe, Robert R. 1998. The broken plural problem in Arabic and comparativesemitic: Allomorphy and analogy in non-concatenative morphology, vol. 168. Amsterdam, Netherland: John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/cilt.168Search in Google Scholar
Ravid, Dorit. 2003. A developmental perspective on root perception in Hebrew and Palestinian Arabic. In Joseph Shimron (ed.), Language processing and language acquisition in root-based, semitic, morphology, 293–320. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s.10.1075/lald.28.14ravSearch in Google Scholar
Reetz, Henning & Allard Jongman. 2020. Acoustic characteristics of speech sound (Chapter 10). In Reetz & Jongman (eds.), Phonetics: Transcription, production, acoustics, and perception, 2nd edn. Hoboken, NJ: Willy Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Samuel, Arthur G.. 1997. Lexical activation produces potent phonemic percepts. Cognitive Psychology 32(2). 97–127. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1997.0646.Search in Google Scholar
Samuel, Arthur G. 2001. Knowing a word affects the fundamental perception of the sounds within it. Psychological Science 12(4). 348–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00364.Search in Google Scholar
Sevald, Christine Ann. 1996. Evidence for the representation of syllables and syllable structure in the production of normal speech (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). USA: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Search in Google Scholar
Shields, Joyce L., Astrid McHugh & James G. Martin. 1974. Reaction time to phoneme targets as a function of rhythmic cues in continuous speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology 102(2). 250. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035855.Search in Google Scholar
Shimron, Joseph. 2003. Semitic languages: Are they really root-based? In Joseph Shimron (ed.), Language processing and language acquisition in root-based, semitic, morphology, 1–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s.10.1075/lald.28.01shiSearch in Google Scholar
Taft, Marcus. 1985. The decoding of words in lexical access: A review of the morphographic approach. In Derek Besner, T. G. Gary Waller & G. E. MacKinnon (eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice, vol. 5. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Taft, Marcus & Kenneth I. Forster. 1975. Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14. 638447. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(75)80051-x.Search in Google Scholar
Tajima, Keiichi & Robert F. Port. 2003. Speech rhythm in English and Japanese. Phonetic Interpretation: Papers in Laboratory Phonology VI. 317–334.Search in Google Scholar
Toro, Juan M., Marina Nespor, Jacques Mehler & Luca L. Bonatt. 2008. Finding words and rules in a speech stream: Functional differences between vowels and consonants. Psychological Science 19(2). 137–144.10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02059.xSearch in Google Scholar
Watson, Janet C. E. 2007. The phonology and morphology of Arabic. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Wright, Richard & David Nichols. 2016. Measuring vowel duration UW phonetics/sociolinguistics lab Wiki. University of Washington. Available at: https://depts.washington.edu/phonlab/resources/measuring-duration.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
