A Multiple- Trace-Based -Proposal for Linguistically Unconditioned Variability

1. A Multiple- Trace-Based -Proposal for Linguistically Unconditioned Variability Yasser Al- Tamimi

2. Research Problem • In his phonological study of the casual and formal speech of some East London English speakers (ELE),Tamimi (2002) finds unconditioned variability in the phonetic behavior of ‘h’ under a number of linguistic conditions, including stress phonetic environment, positions in the utterance/word, and speech rates.

3. Examples of Unpredictability • Stressed Lexical Items • Set 1: ‘h’-full Stressed Items : • Put your hand in and get the key out. • Even to our eating habits and everything else.. • But they used to have them the whole year… • But I’ve never heard my parents say ‘don’t go off with anybody”. • Set 2 : Unpredictability of the Same Stressed Items: A. Realized ‘h’ B. Unrealized ‘h’

4. Examples of Unpredictability A. Realized ‘h’: • 1.a. I was fourteen when I met my husband. • 1.b. And then I met my husband. • 1.c. We used to stay with this husband and wife. • 1.d. Years ago we never [ 0]ad a key to our house. • 1.e. And that was their holiday as well. B. Unrealized ‘h’ • 2.a. I didn’t see my [0]usband a lot. • 2.b. Though my ([0]usband is an East Ender [0]is family was a bit affluent. • 2.c. I started going with my [0]usband. • 2.d. Always in someone’s [0]ouse. • 2.e. No one was barred from our [0]ouse. • 2.f. Because people started [0]aving little [0]olidays at Clacton.

5. Examples of Unpredictability • Set 3 :‘h’-less Stressed Items • She used to do quarter money and [0] alf-year money • They used to spend about five or six weeks like down in Kent [0]op-picking. • Can I see you ([0]ome? • She used to want to know [0]ow they cooked. • At that time Bethnal Green [0]ad quite a lot of youth clubs.

6. Research Purpose • The purpose of this study is to examine how a number of available phonological theories can accommodate unconditioned variability. • It also aims at introducing a multiple-traced-based- proposal that may provide better insight into the subject matter.

7. Phonological Theories • Co-existent Phonemic System. (Pike and Fries (1948). • Standard Generative phonology (SGP). • Variable Rules. • Bailey’s Poly-lectal Grammar (1973). • Lexical Diffusion (Chen and Wang, 1975). • Articulatory Phonology (Browman and Goldstein, 1986-1993). • Optimality Theory.

8. Longstanding Assumptions in Phonology • Before, I introduce the Multiple-Trace Model (MTM) and present my proposal (based on it), I touch briefly, for relevance, on a longstanding assumption in phonology. • Invariant Lexical representation and Phonological Rules. “Uniqueness Hypothesis”

9. Longstanding Assumptions in Phonology • Views Casting Doubts on these Longstanding Assumptions: • Neurophysiological and Psychological Indications. • Usage-Based approach. • Perception and Production Indications.

10. MTM: Basic Assumptions • Multiple-trace model (also called ‘exemplar’ or ‘episodic’, Goldinger, 1997: 33) is a subset of Parallel Distributed Devices. • Computer based. • Class formation. • Data maps. • Automatic speech recognition. • Calculating goodness of fit.

11. MTM: Basic Assumptions • Multiple –Trace theory assumes that a lexical item in the human brain is trained through hearing repetitions of it and that the ‘map’ made of the lexical item is used to recognize ensuing tokens as well as providing a target for speech production. • listeners do store specific instances of words that they have heard/recognized.

12. MTM: Implication • Variability is directly encoded in the lexical representation.

13. Literature corroborating MTM • The theory is supported by a growing quantity of evidence, which suggests that indexical information (such as speakers’ voice, gender, accent, etc), held to be unconnected to speech perception or word recognition, do appear to play a significant role in decoding the linguistic properties of the speech signal. • Geiselman and Bellezza (1976)

14. Literature Corroborating MTM • The multiple-trace model is “a reasonably plausible theory of lexical representation”. • Docherty and Foulkes (2000: 119)

15. Traces of ‘house’ Traces of ‘[0]ous MTM: Variability is directly encoded The lexical representation of the word ‘house’ is equal to the sum of traces being stored for the word. Figure (1): An illustration of variable traces for the same lexical entry

16. MTM: Variability is directly encoded • For an East Ender, for example, the lexical representation of the word ‘house’, for instance, is equal to the sum of traces being stored for the word, This view applies in theory to all lexical entries. • For example, the lexical representation for ‘economics’ may include traces for the word ‘ with the mid-close vowel’ and with the high front one. This view thus poses a challenge to the long-standing assumption that “ speakers’ knowledge of their lexicon is embedded exclusively in a set of unique representations for lexical items” . • The theory provides a reasonable potential for accommodating variability.

17. Variable Input Complex Lexical Representations Entry (1) FTs………….. LFTs…. Entry (2) FTs………….. LFTs…... Entry (3) FTs………….. LFTs….. Entry (4) FTs………….. LFTs….. Phonetic Forms FTs Output LFTs Output MTM- Based- Proposal Different Accessing Figure (2): An MTM-Based Proposal for Unconditioned Variability

18. Applicability • This proposal accounts for the ELE speakers’ unconditioned variability in stressed non-initial content words categorized into the three sets stated above. • In Explaining the absence of ‘h’ from many items (set 3 items), we suggest that the ELE speakers followed the norm of accessing the frequent traces of these items (which are ‘h’-less-trace- represented). :) :)

19. Applicability 2. In accounting for set 1items (i.e. those pronounced solely with ‘h’), we suggest that the speakers were accessing the LFTs of these items as they have strong h-ful-trace representations. • Finally, the variability in pronouncing set 2 items (items pronounced sometimes with ‘h’ and sometimes without it), is the consequence of the speakers’ accessing of either their FTs or LFTs, where these items are almost equally trace-represented. That is they have the choice of accessing either source. The same argument can be used to explain unconditioned variability in different linguistic data.

20. REFERENCES • Bailey, C. J. (1973). Variation and Linguistic Theory. Arlington, Virginia: Center for Applied Linguistics. • Boersma, P. (1998). Functional Phonology: Formalising the Interaction between Articulatory and Perceptual Drives. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. • Browman, C. & Goldstein, L. (1986). ‘Towards an Articulatory Phonology’. Phonology Yearbook 3. 219-52. • Browman, C. & Goldstein, L. (1989). ‘Articulatory Gestures as Phonological Units’. Phonology 6. 201-52. • Browman, C. & Goldstein, L. (1990) ‘Tiers in Articulatory Phonology, with some Implications for Casual Speech’. In Kingston, J. & Beckman, M. E. (eds.) Papers in Laboratory Phonology 1: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 341-76. • Browman, C. & Goldstein, L. (1991). ‘Gestural Structures: Distinctiveness, Phonological Processes, and Historical Change’. In Mattingly, I. G. & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (eds.) Modularity and the Motor Theory of Speech Perception. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. 313-38. • Browman, C. & Goldstein, L. (1992) ‘Articulatory Phonology: An Overview’. Phonetica 49. 153-80. • Browman, C. & Goldstein, L. (1993). ‘Dynamics and Articulatory Phonology’. In Haskins Laboratories’ Status Report on Speech Research, SR-113, Jan.-. Mar., 1993. New Haven: Dept of Linguistics, Yale University. 51-62. • Bybee, J. (2000). ‘Lexicalization of Sound Change and Alternating Environments’. In Broe, M. B. & Pierrhumbert, J. B. (eds.) Papers in Laboratory Phonology V: Acquisition and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 250-68. • Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Chen, M. W. & Wang, W. (1975). ‘Sound Change: Actuation and Implementation’. Language 51. 255-81.