Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T22:08:18.699Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On Detecting Words and Word Boundaries in Finnish: A Survey of Potential Word Boundary Signals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Kari Suomi
Affiliation:
University of Turku, Department of Finnish and General Linguistics/Phonetics, Henrikinkatu 2, 20500 Turku, Finland
Get access

Abstract

Two models are presented of how the listener detects words in utterances. The first model assumes that the listener takes advantage of phonetic word boundary signals (WBSs), non-phonetic information not being necessary for word detection. The second model assumes that word detection relies on the use of non-phonetic knowledge of the language, words being detected through the recognition of the preceding word. Thus WBSs may not be necessary for word detection. The WBSs suggested for Finnish are evaluated against this background. The phonotactic WBSs are found unreliable or useless, the others limited in applicability or experimentally unsupported. The models and the results of the survey will direct future investigations of word detection and recognition in Finnish.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Cole, R. & Jakimik, J. 1980. A Model of Speech Perception. In Cole, R. (ed.) 1980: Perception and Production of Fluent Speech. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 133163.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. 1980. Spoken Word Recognition Processes and the Gating Paradigm. Perception & Psychophysics 28, 267283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Häkkinen, K. 1978. Eräistä suomen kielen äännerakenteen luonteenomaisista piirteistä ja niiden taustasta. Unpublished Licentiate thesis, Department of Finnish and General Linguistics, University of Turku.Google Scholar
Itkonen, T. 1980. Lisiä suomen rajausoppiin. Virittäjä 84, 101115.Google Scholar
Karlsson, F. 1977. Morphotactic Structure and Word Cohesion in Finnish. In Sajavaara, K. & Lehtonen, J. (eds.) 1977: Contrastive Papers. Reports from the Department of English 4, University of Jyväskylä, pp. 5974.Google Scholar
Karlsson, F. 1983. Suomen kielen äänne- ja muotorakenne. Helsinki: WSOY.Google Scholar
Karlsson, F. & Lehtonen, J. 1977. Alkukahdennus. Publications of the Department of Finnish and General Linguistics of the University of Turku 2.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. 1975. A Course in Phonetics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. 1973 a. Linguistic Structure and Speech Shadowing at Very Short Latencies. Nature 244, 522523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marslen-Wilson, W. 1973 b. Speech Shadowing and Speech Perception. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Department of Psychology, MIT.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. 1984. Function and Process in Spoken Word Recognition. A Tutorial Review. In Bouma, H. & Bouwhuis, D. (eds.) 1980: Attention and Performance X. Control of Language Processes. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 125150.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. & Tyler, L. 1980. The Temporal Structure of Spoken Language Understanding. Cognition 8, 171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marslen-Wilson, W. & Welsh, A. 1978. Processing Interactions and Lexical Access during Word-Recognition in Continuous Speech. Cognitive Psychology 10, 2963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. & Isard, S. 1963. Some Perceptual Consequences of Linguistic Rules. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 15, 217228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suomi, K. 1983. Palatal Vowel Harmony: A Perceptually Motivated Phenomenon? Nordic Journal of Linguistics 6, 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. 1939 (1971). Grundzüge der Phonologie. Fifth impression. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar