An avalanche of linguistically relevant cartoons this morning. I’ll pick out a few individually, then post a collection. First, an old Doonesbury, relevant to one of the occasions of the week in my house, the anniversary of my husband-equivalent Jacques’s death in 2003; the relevance will soon become clear.
Archive for the ‘Perception’ Category
That’s the title of a recent article (November 26) in Nature by Bryan Gick and Donald Derrick (Linguistics, Univ. of British Columbia), reported by science journalists around that time: for example, on National Public Radio; in New Scientist; in the New York Times; and in Scientific American.
The main result is that the perception of initial voiceless stops p and t (which in English are aspirated) is improved when a slight puff of air on a listener’s skin accompanies the production (and the perception of the voiced stops b and d is confounded by such an accompanying puff of air). That is, tactile information is integrated with auditory information in speech perception.
There are long-known parallels having to do with integrating visual information with auditory information in speech perception: being able to see articulations improves speech perception in noisy environments, and if the two sorts of information are at odds, perception is confounded (in the McGurk Effect).
These cross-modal interactions are consistent with some form of the motor theory of speech perception, which holds that speech perception is guided by identifying the vocal tract gestures involved in speech production — a hypothesis that gets some support from the discovery of mirror neurons, which respond both to performing an action and to observing the action being performed by others.
(Comments are off on this one because it’s significantly out of my field of expertise, so I’m mostly just providing links.)
It’s sometimes difficult to work out the words that someone is saying, and it can be especially difficult to work out the words that someone is singing. We get mondegreens, and there are disputes about the words to songs, even when we have recordings that can be played over and over (in “Live and Let Die”, did Paul McCartney sing “in this world in which we live in” or “in this world in which we’re livin’”? — some Language Log discussion here). Now, in the latest Harper’s Magazine (March 2009), a spectacular display of disagreement about lyrics, in an exchange in the Letters section (pp. 4-5).
The problem clearly lies in the articulation of the singer, Geeshie Wiley. One of the disputants, John Jeremiah Sullivan, actually takes the opacity of Wiley’s articulation to be a positive feature of her performances:
Part of those early recordings’ profundity and aliveness is that they’ll never close themselves to our guesses.