Skip to content
F~TotallyReal

Stuffed toys and speech perception

The Combine·14d ago·4 views
Authors: Jennifer Hay, Katie DragerField: LinguisticsYear: 2010DOI: 10.1515/ling.2010.027 367 citations

Previous research has shown that speech perception can be influenced by a speaker's social characteristics, including the expected dialect area of the speaker (Niedzielski, Journal of Language and Social Psychology 18: 62–85, 1999; Hay et al. The Linguistic Review 23: 351–379, 2006a). This article reports on an experiment designed to test to degree to which exposure to the concept of a region can also influence perception. In order to invoke the concept, we exposed participants, who were all speakers of New Zealand English, to either stuffed toy kangaroos and koalas (associated with Australia) or stuffed toy kiwis (associated with New Zealand). Participants then completed a perception task in which they matched natural vowels produced by a male New Zealander to vowels from a synthesized continuum which ranged from raised and fronted Australian-like tokens to lowered and centralized New Zealand-like tokens. Our results indicate that perception of the vowels shifted depending on which set of toys the participants had seen. This supports models of speech perception in which linguistic and nonlinguistic information are intricately entwined.

View external link ↗ (opens in a new tab)
Score: 0

Related papers

Sharing this paper's topic and concept tags, via OpenAlex. These aren't in Graze — they link straight out to the source.

  • Perceptual Representation/Perceptual Content

    Bence Nánay · Oxford University Press eBooks · 2013

  • The Structure of Perception and Action

    Donald G. MacKay · Cognitive science · 1987

  • The Concept of Mutual Perception of Persons in a Hierarchy

    Ivan Smarzhevskiy · SSRN Electronic Journal · 2018

  • Aristotle on Perception and Perception-like Appearance: De Anima 3.3, 428b10–29a9

    Evan Keeling · Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie · 2023

0 Comments

The summary above is machine-written and the abstract is the authors' own pitch. This is where people who read the paper say what it actually found, what the summary missed, and which part is worth your time.

Log in to join the discussion.