There's an old paper by John Ohala caled something like "careful speech
does not exaggerate phonemic contrast" or something of the sort that might
be vaguely relevant. Don't know bibliographical details.
Presumably work by people like Anne Cutler is also relevant to these
questions.
Bob Ladd
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, Linda Shockey wrote:
> Yesterday I was talking to Mark Huckvale about the general belief among
> non-linguists that if you include all the sounds that are supposed to be
> there (i.e. saying [t e s t m ae tS] instead of [t e s m ae tS] or fully
> pronouncing 'and'), but in everything you say, not just random phrases,
> speech will be easier to understand. Offhand, we couldn't think of any
> evidence that this is true. There are papers on times when people use
> hyperarticulation (speaking to children, correcting misperceptions, etc),
> but nothing on how easy the speech is to understand if someone
> hyperarticulates all the time.
>
> Does anyone have answers or evidence?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Linda Shockey
> School of Languages and European Studies
> University of Reading
> Whiteknights, RG6 6AA
> 0118 - 378-7469
>
|