The Phoneme

One of Life’s Little Uncertainties
  • Harry Levitt
Chapter
Part of the Cognition and Language: A Series in Psycholinguistics book series (CALS)

Abstract

Living with uncertainty is one of the few established facts of modern life (or any life for that matter). Although death and taxes do not fall far behind, the only thing we know for certain is that we know nothing for certain. The earliest philosophers were quick to recognize the nature of uncertainty, but it is only in recent times that attempts have been made to provide a rigorous description of uncertainty, at least for those less uncertain aspects of uncertainty that are amenable to mathematical description. Heisenberg’s1 uncertainty principle represents one such attempt. A related form of uncertainty is that of time-frequency uncertainty in spectrum analysis (Gabor, 1946). The entire field of statistics is concerned with the practical problem of reducing uncertainty in measurement and analysis and the relatively new field of information theory follows from the simple but far-reaching proposition that uncertainty can be quantified, bit by bit, so to speak.

Keywords

Speech Signal Acoustical Society Speech Perception Acoustic Characteristic Physical Correlate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Also a man of uncertain principles, he was Germany’s leading scientist during the Hitler period.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    “The speech of man is like embroidered tapestries, since like them this too has to be extended in order to display its patterns, but when it is rolled up it conceals and distorts them.” (Plutarch: Lives: Themistocles, sec. 29).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    “Speech is a mirror of the soul: as a man speaks, so is he.” (Publilius Syrus: Maxim 1073).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    “With the sense of sight, the idea communicates the emotion, whereas with sound, the emotion communicates the idea, which is more direct and therefore more powerful.” (Alfred North Whitehead: Dialogues, p. 231).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    “Speech is civilization itself. The word, even the most contradictory word, preserves contact—it is silence which isolates.” (Thomas Mann: The Magic Mountain: Chapter 6).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Socrates was put to death for his iconoclastic views. We hope the reader will not be as harsh.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    In order to calculate the information transmitted per phoneme it is necessary to consider all of the possible alternatives, including all of the phonemes of the language as well as silence.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Interaural phase is also an important consideration in binaural speech perception.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    “The game’s going on rather better now,” she [Alice] said, by way of keeping up the conversation a little. “’Tis so‚” said the Duchess: “and the moral of that is—‘Oh‚’ tis love‚’ tis love‚ that the world go round!’” “Somebody said,” Alice whispered, “that it’s done by everybody minding their own business!” “Ah well! It means much the same thing,” said the Duchess, digging her sharp little chin into Alice’s shoulder as she added, “and the moral of that is—‘Take care of the sense, and the sounds will take care of themselves.’” (Lewis Carroll: Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, 1865, Chapter 9).Google Scholar

References

  1. Boothroyd, A. Statistical theory of the speech discrimination score. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1968, 43, 362–367.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bronstein, A. J. The pronunciation of American English. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1960.Google Scholar
  3. Denes, P. B. On the statistics of spoken English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1963, 35, 892–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dubno, J. R. & Levitt, H. Predicting consonant confusions from acoustic analysis. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1981, 69, 249–261.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Erber, N. P. Auditory, visual, and auditory-visual recognition of consonants by children with normal and impaired hearing. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1972, 15, 413–422.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Fant, G. Speech sounds and features. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  7. Gabor, D. Theory of communication. Journal of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, 1946, 93, 429–457.Google Scholar
  8. Green, D. M., & Birdsall, T. G. The effect of vocabulary size on articulation score. Technical Report #81, Engineering Research Institute, University of Michigan, 1958.Google Scholar
  9. Jacobson, R., Fant, G., & Halle, M. Preliminaries to speech analysis: The distinctive features and their correlates. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1951.Google Scholar
  10. Kalikow, D. N., Stevens, K. N., & Elliot, L. L. Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1977, 61, 1337–1351.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kewley-Port, D. & Pisoni, D. B. Discrimination of rise time in nonspeech signals: Is it categorical or noncategorical? Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1982, 71, S36 (Abstract).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Klatt, D. H. Linguistic uses of segmental duration in English: Acoustic and perceptual evidence. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1976, 59, 1208–1221.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Levitt, H. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1971, 49, 467–477.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Levitt, H. Acoustic analysis of deaf speech using digital processing techniques. IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics, 1972, AU-20, 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Miller, G. A., Heise, G. A., & Lichten, D. Intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test material. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1951, 41, 329–335.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Miller, G. A., & Nicely, P. E. An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1955, 27, 338–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Osberger, M. J. A comparison between procedures used to locate segment boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1979, 65, S66 (Abstract).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Peterson, G. E., & Lehiste, I. Duration of syllable nuclei in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1960, 32, 693–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pollack, I. Message probability and message reception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1964, 36, 937–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shannon, E. C, & Weaver, W. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1949.Google Scholar
  21. Waiden, B. E., Prosek, R. A., & Worthington, W. W. Predicting audiovisual consonant recognition performance of hearing-impaired adults. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1974, 17, 270–278.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harry Levitt
    • 1
  1. 1.The Ph.D. Program in Speech and Hearing SciencesGraduate School of the City University of New YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations