1 / 65

Today

Today. Misanalysis of Foreign Language Prosody (word size, word segmentation, tone) 2. Order of Acquisition based on perceptual salience. Selayarese. Native Language: add copy vowel after /r,l,s/ Loan adaptation: add copy vowel after /r,l,s/

baker-york
Download Presentation

Today

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Today Misanalysis of Foreign Language Prosody (word size, word segmentation, tone) 2. Order of Acquisition based on perceptual salience

  2. Selayarese • Native Language: add copy vowel after /r,l,s/ • Loan adaptation: add copy vowel after /r,l,s/ BUT add high vowel (copy [round]) after /s/ in monosyllable BI kípas > kípasa BI pas > pási

  3. Conservative Learning? Alderete and Tesar (2002): two possible learning paths for child who hears only occasional antepenultimate stress: 1.Reckless: Assume all stress is lexically marked. But then child can never retreat. 2.Conservative: Assume antepenultimate stress forms are epenthetic.

  4. Selayarese learners: superconservative? Selayarese speakers are accustomed to alternations like lámbere~lambér-aŋ i.e., the combination of antepenultimate stress plus copy V following /r,l,s/ indicates inserted V.

  5. But Selayarese speakers will NEVER hear alternations in their NL like pása ~ pás-aŋ (There are no monosyllabic roots in Selayarese)

  6. BUT • Alderete & Tesar’s procedure could not produce such a restrictive grammar. • Would we even want it to?

  7. Difference related to stress? Perhaps the generalization is: • Copy vowel after unstressed syllable • High vowel after stressed syllable and following /s/.

  8. NL Stress Grammar FtBin: Feet must contain two syllables. Head-Dep (Alderete 1995): Main stress foot may not contain an epenthetic V. Align-Right (Word, Foot): The right edge of the word must coincide with the right edge of a foot.

  9. But with two epenthetic vowels, violating HeadDep is unavoidable (Broselow 1999).

  10. Hasan Basri (and wife) “if I were asked to say these words in Selayarese, without a moment hesitation I'd definitely say: orokese, marakasa, borokasa, and porokasawith penultimate stress respectively.”

  11. Word Size Restrictions? Hypothesis: Minimal word size constraint in Selayarese leads listeners to hear CVC as CVCV.

  12. Why high V after [s]? • [s] release interpreted as high. • More cues to quality of preceding V in liquid than in [s].

  13. Needs to be tested experimentally: Can word size restrictions trigger misperception?

  14. More on Words

  15. Problem One English speakers misanalyze Cairene Arabic VC#V miʃ ana ‘not I’ (VC#V) heard as mi ʃana (V#CV) (=nonexistent words)

  16. English Word-Syllable Relationships ‘a name’ ‘an aim’ Possible phonetic differences: glottal stop before ‘aim’ longer /n/ in ‘name’ (Lehiste 1960)

  17. Kahn 1975: ambisyllabicity a. ‘a Neil’ = c. ‘anneal’ b. ‘an eel’ /n/ is solely in onset: ‘a Neil’, ‘anneal’ /n/ is ambisyllabic: ‘an eel’ (effect of constraints Onset and Align-R (Morpheme, Syllable)

  18. Syll Syll | |\\ ‘a Neil’, ‘anneal’ a n i l Syll Syll |\ / | \ a n i l ‘an eel’

  19. Cross-linguistic differences in word-syllable alignment English Syll Syll |\ / | \ a n i l ‘an eel’ Cairene Arabic (French, Spanish) Syll Syll | / | \ a n i l ‘an eel’

  20. Evidence of Misanalysis Cajun music ‘zydeco’ [zajdəko] Origin: ‘les haricots’ [lez aRiko] (Cajun French)

  21. Cairene Arabic: VC#V syllabified as (V)(C#V) (full resyllabification) English: VC#V syllabified as (V(C#)V) (partial resyllabification)

  22. Source of Misanalysis English listener: hears acoustic cues signalling syllable structure (V)(CV). this structure is not compatible with word structure VC#V in English.

  23. Problem Two English speakers misanalyze Cairene Arabic V#CCV binti ‘my girl’ simiina ‘heavy (fem.)’ binti s_miina ‘my heavy girl’ (/i/ deletes in the context VC_CV)

  24. binti smiina ‘my heavy girl’(V#CCV) heard as bintis miina (VC#CV)(=nonexistent words)

  25. Cairene syllable structure Each syllable must have an onset. VC#V > V.C#V phrase-initial V > [ʔV] No complex onsets are permitted. V#CCV > V#C.CV (leftward resyllabification)

  26. Compare English night rate VC#CV Vt.ret Nye trait V#CCV V.thret In English, syllabification VC.CV is not compatible with V#CCV.

  27. Interim Summary Selayarese interpretation of Bahasa Indonesian monosyllables: misanalysis of CVC as CVCV, based on NL word structure requirements English interpretation of Cairene Arabic syllable structure: misananalysis of V.C#V as V.#CV and of V#C.CV as VC#.CV, based on English requirements on word-syllable alignment.

  28. More on Prosody:Intonation Mandarin Tones Tone 1 ma ‘mother’ Tone 2 ma ‘hemp’ Tone 3 ma ‘horse’ Tone 4 ma ‘scold’

  29. Production Errors (Shen 1989) Error Rate (NL English, 4 months of study) Tone 4 (falling) 55.6% Tone 1 (high) 16.7% Tone 3 (fall-rise) 9.4% Tone 2 (rising) 8.9%

  30. Perception ErrorsBroselow Hurtig & Ringen 1987 Error Rate, Single syllables Tone 2 (rising) 33% Tone 3 (fall-rise) 22% Tone 1 (high) 11% Tone 4 (falling) 6%

  31. BUT Tone 4 was more accurately perceived than other tones in single syllables. But in strings of 2 and 3 syllables, Tone 4 had LEAST accurate perception.

  32. Only Tone 3 and Tone 4 had a significant difference in perception accuracy by position. Tone 3 has allophonic variation in Mandarin: final position: fall-rise nonfinal position: abbreviated rise

  33. Similarity of Tone 4 to English Declarative Fall Intonation

  34. Misanalysis of Lexical Tone Mandarin lexical Tone 4 (fall = HL) is misanalyzed by English speakers as English H*L% contour H* = associated with accented syllable L% = boundary tone associated with end of declarative (Pierrehumbert)

  35. Hsieh et al. 2000, Klein et al. 2001 • Chinese speakers: tones processed in left hemisphere • English speakers: tones processes in right hemisphere • (Methodology: PET)

  36. Wang, Jongman, Sereno, & Hirsch Adult English speakers, beginning learners of Chinese Tone identification task before and after 2 weeks training on tone identification

  37. Wang, Jongman, & Sereno “improvements in performance were associated with an increase in activation in Wernicke’s area (left STG, Brodmann’s area 22) and emergence of additional activity within adjacent regions (right STG, Brodmann’s area 42)…findings indicate that the early cortical effects of learning a second language involve both the expansion of preexisting language-related area and recruitment of additional cortical regions, suggesting the plasticity of the human brain in the acquisition of Mandarin tone.”

  38. And now for something completely different…

  39. Problem: ‘Hidden Rankings’ (Davidson 2001) M>>M (differential difficulty)

  40. Case Study 1: Jamaican Creole (Meade 2001, Ito & Mester 2001) Basilect: dat tik ‘that stick’ Mesolect: dat stik Acrolect: ðat stik --------------------------------------------------- Not found: *ðat tik ---------------------------------------------------- [st] onset easier than [ð].

  41. Meade (2001, 46) “A speaker whose language competence allows her to regularly produce dental fricatives…can be assumed to also regularly produce /s/-stop clusters…” WHY?

  42. Jamaican Creole subgrammars • Basilect: *[ð] >> *[sT]Onset >> F • Mesolect: *[ð] >> F >>*[sT]Onset • Acrolect: F >> *[ð] >> *[sT]Onset • The ranking *[ð] >> *[sT]Onset (M>>M) ensures that if /ð/ is faithfully realized, then /sT/ is also faithfully realized. (Ito & Mester 1995, 2001, etc.)

  43. Subgrammars Ito & Mester (1995, 2001): Subgrammars may differ with respect to ranking of faithfulness constraints, but not markedness constraints.

  44. Problems with ranking answer • The analysis crucially relies on M>>M rankings. • Where did these rankings come from?

  45. Rankings • Constraint rankings are (at least to some extent) language-specific. • M>>F represents default. • Some other rankings may be universally specified for specific constraints.

  46. Learnability Problem • This M>>M rankings can’t be learned from the NL/basilect data (where neither structure is allowed).

More Related