Directional adposition use in English, Swedish and Finnish

Directional adpositions such as to the left of describe where a Figure is in relation to a Ground. English and Swedish directional adpositions refer to the location of a Figure in relation to a Ground, whether both are static or in motion. In contrast, the Finnish directional adpositions edellä (in front of) and jäljessä (behind) solely describe the location of a moving Figure in relation to a moving Ground (Nikanne, 2003). When using directional adpositions, a frame of reference must be assumed for interpreting the meaning of directional adpositions. For example, the meaning of to the left of in English can be based on a relative (speaker or listener based) reference frame or an intrinsic (object based) reference frame (Levinson, 1996). When a Figure and a Ground are both in motion, it is possible for a Figure to be described as being behind or in front of the Ground, even if neither have intrinsic features. As shown by Walker (in preparation), there are good reasons to assume that in the latter case a motion based reference frame is involved. This means that if Finnish speakers would use edellä (in front of) and jäljessä (behind) more frequently in situations where both the Figure and Ground are in motion, a difference in reference frame use between Finnish on one hand and English and Swedish on the other could be expected. We asked native English, Swedish and Finnish speakers’ to select adpositions from a language specific list to describe the location of a Figure relative to a Ground when both were shown to be moving on a computer screen. We were interested in any differences between Finnish, English and Swedish speakers. All languages showed a predominant use of directional spatial adpositions referring to the lexical concepts TO THE LEFT OF, TO THE RIGHT OF, ABOVE and BELOW. There were no differences between the languages in directional adpositions use or reference frame use, including reference frame use based on motion. We conclude that despite differences in the grammars of the languages involved, and potential differences in reference frame system use, the three languages investigated encode Figure location in relation to Ground location in a similar way when both are in motion. Levinson, S. C. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslingiuistic evidence. In P. Bloom, M.A. Peterson, L. Nadel & M.F. Garrett (Eds.) Language and Space (pp.109-170). Massachusetts: MIT Press. Nikanne, U. (2003). How Finnish postpositions see the axis system. In E. van der Zee & J. Slack (Eds.), Representing direction in language and space. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Walker, C. (in preparation). Motion encoding in language, the use of spatial locatives in a motion context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Lincoln, Lincoln. United Kingdo

Prosody and speech perception

The major concern of this thesis is with models of speech perception. Following Gibson's (1966) work on visual perception, it seeks to establish whether there are sources of information in the speech signal which can be responded to directly and which specify the units of information of speech. The treatment of intonation follows that of Halliday (1967) and rhythm that of Abercrombie (1967) . By "prosody" is taken to mean both the intonational and the rhythmic aspects of speech.Experiments one to four show the interdependence of prosody and grammar in the perception of speech, although they leave open the question of which sort of information is responded to first. Experiments five and six, employing a short-term memory paradigm and Morton's (1970) "suffix effect" explanation, demonstrate that prosody could well be responded to before grammar. Since the previous experiments suggested a close connection between the two, these results suggest that information about grammatical structures may well be given directly by prosody. In qthe final two experiments the amount of prosodic information in fluent speech that can be perceived independently of grammar and meaning is investigated. Although tone -group division seems to be given clearly enough by acoustic cues, there are problems of interpretation with the data on syllable stress assignments.In the concluding chapter, a three-stage model of speech perception is proposed, following never (1970), but incorporating prosodic analysis as an integral part of the processing. The obtained experimental results are integrated within this model

Meta-Analysis on the Identification of Linguistic and Emotional Prosody in Cochlear Implant Users and Vocoder Simulations

Objectives: This study quantitatively assesses how cochlear implants (CIs) and vocoder simulations of CIs influence the identification of linguistic and emotional prosody in nontonal languages. By means of meta-analysis, it was explored how accurately CI users and normal-hearing (NH) listeners of vocoder simulations (henceforth: simulation listeners) identify prosody compared with NH listeners of unprocessed speech (henceforth: NH listeners), whether this effect of electric hearing differs between CI users and simulation listeners, and whether the effect of electric hearing is influenced by the type of prosody that listeners identify or by the availability of specific cues in the speech signal. Design: Records were found by searching the PubMed Central, Web of Science, Scopus, Science Direct, and PsycINFO databases (January 2018) using the search terms “cochlear implant prosody” and “vocoder prosody.” Records (published in English) were included that reported results of experimental studies comparing CI users’ and/or simulation listeners’ identification of linguistic and/or emotional prosody in nontonal languages to that of NH listeners (all ages included). Studies that met the inclusion criteria were subjected to a multilevel random-effects meta-analysis. Results: Sixty-four studies reported in 28 records were included in the meta-analysis. The analysis indicated that CI users and simulation listeners were less accurate in correctly identifying linguistic and emotional prosody compared with NH listeners, that the identification of emotional prosody was more strongly compromised by the electric hearing speech signal than linguistic prosody was, and that the low quality of transmission of fundamental frequency (f0) through the electric hearing speech signal was the main cause of compromised prosody identification in CI users and simulation listeners. Moreover, results indicated that the accuracy with which CI users and simulation listeners identified linguistic and emotional prosody was comparable, suggesting that vocoder simulations with carefully selected parameters can provide a good estimate of how prosody may be identified by CI users. Conclusions: The meta-analysis revealed a robust negative effect of electric hearing, where CIs and vocoder simulations had a similar negative influence on the identification of linguistic and emotional prosody, which seemed mainly due to inadequate transmission of f0 cues through the degraded electric hearing speech signal of CIs and vocoder simulations