The Role of the Syllable in Speech Production

1. The Role of the Syllable in Speech Production Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel Speech Group RLE, MIT

2. The Role of the Syllable in Speech Production in American English Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel Speech Group RLE, MIT

3. Outline • The syllable seems obvious as a unit • But, caveats • Role of the syllable in production processing • Units of serial ordering • Phonological planning framework • Units of stored motor programs • New ideas and methods

4. The syllable: obvious • We know where they are and we can count ‘em

5. The syllable: obvious • We know where they are and we can count ‘em • Tap to the rhythm

6. The syllable: obvious • We know where they are and we can count ‘em • Tap to the rhythm • Imitate in reiterant speech • Replace each syllable in the target utterance with /ma/ • Take a potato to Susie and Sasha

7. The syllable: obvious • We know where they are and we can count ‘em • Tap to the rhythm • Imitate in reiterant speech • Replace each syllable in the target utterance with /ma/ • Take a potato to Susie and Sasha • One male lion ran more than a mile

8. The syllable: obvious • We know where they are and we can count ‘em • Tap to the rhythm • Imitate in reiterant speech • Caveat: sometimes the number is uncertain

9. The syllable: obvious • We know where they are and we can count ‘em • Tap to the rhythm • Imitate in reiterant speech • Caveat: sometimes the number is uncertain • We can manipulate ‘em • Language games

10. Language Manipulation Games in English • Onset movement • Pig Latin • An-kay oo-yay alk-tay ike-lay iss-they? • Rhyme replacement • Ubbie dubbie • Cub-an yub-ou tub-alk lub-ike thub-is? • Op • Cop-an yop-ou top-alk lop-ike thop-is? • Whole-syllable manipulation? • Uncommon in American English

11. The syllable: obvious • We know where they are and we can count ‘em • Tap to the rhythm • Imitate in reiterant speech • Caveats: sometimes the number is uncertain sometimes boundaries are uncertain • We can manipulate ‘em • Language games • Experimental manipulation tasks

12. The syllable: obvious • We know where they are and we can count ‘em • Tap to the rhythm • Imitate in reiterant speech • Caveats: sometimes the number is uncertain sometimes boundaries are uncertain • We can manipulate ‘em • Language games • Experimental manipulation tasks • Caveat: American English evidence is strongest for syllabic subconstituents, not whole syllables

13. The syllable: obvious • We know where they are and we can count ‘em • Tap to the rhythm • Imitate in reiterant speech • Caveats: sometimes the number is uncertain sometimes boundaries are uncertain • We can manipulate ‘em • Language games • Experimental manipulation tasks • Caveat: American English evidence is strongest for subunits • They are clear in the waveform display

14. Syllables clear in waveform • With sonorant consonants

15. Sometimes less clear • With stop bursts, fricatives

16. The syllable: obvious • We know where they are and we can count ‘em • Tap to the rhythm • Imitate in reiterant speech • Caveats: sometimes the number is uncertain sometimes boundaries are uncertain • We can manipulate ‘em • Language games • Experimental manipulation tasks • Caveat: American English evidence is strongest for subunits • They are clear in the waveform display • Caveat: sometimes not so clear

17. The syllable: obvious • We know where they are and we can count ‘em • Tap to the rhythm • Imitate in reiterant speech • Caveats: sometimes the number is uncertain sometimes boundaries are uncertain • We can manipulate ‘em • Language games • Experimental manipulation tasks • Caveat: American English evidence is strongest for subunits • They are clear in the waveform display • Caveat: sometimes not so clear • They play a role in phonology

18. The syllable in phonology • Phonotactic constraints e.g. No /tl/ onset In what constituent? • Positional allophones e.g. Non-aspirated voiceless stops In what positions? Spin, lop, guppy e.g. Glottalization of final /t/ Final in what constituent?

19. The syllable in phonology • Glottalization of word- or syllable-final voiceless stops • Particularly /t/ • fit, can’t • Glottalization of word-medial /t/ • syllable final? • butler, subtler, Hitler, battling • cartwright • syllable-initial? • Clinton, mountain • Glottalization of selected word-medial /k/ • technical

20. The syllable: obvious • We know where they are and we can count ‘em • Tap to the rhythm • Imitate in reiterant speech • Caveats: sometimes the number is uncertain sometimes boundaries are uncertain • We can manipulate ‘em • Language games • Experimental manipulation tasks • Caveat: American English evidence is strongest for subunits, not whole syl • They are clear in the waveform display • Caveat: sometimes not so clear • They play a role in phonology • Caveat: unclear how widespread; other accounts often possible

21. Outline • The syllable seems obvious as a unit • But, caveats • Role of the syllable in production processing • Units of serial ordering • Phonological planning framework • Units of stored motor programs • New ideas and methods

22. Syllables in production processing • Are they units of serial ordering?

23. Syllables in production processing • Are they units of serial ordering? • Speech error evidence suggests that phonological planning includes a serial ordering process for sublexical elements

24. Syllables in production processing • Are they units of serial ordering? • Speech error evidence suggests that phonological planning includes a serial ordering process for sublexical elements • These elements can become misordered: • Features: tomato -> ponato • Segments: your car towed -> your tar cowed • Syllable subcomponents: borth and fack • Morphemes: intelephoning stalls

25. Syllables in production processing • Are they units of serial ordering? • Speech error evidence suggests that phonological planning includes a serial ordering process for sublexical elements • These elements can become misordered: • Features: tomato -> ponato • Segments: your car towed -> your tar cowed • Syllable subcomponents: borth and fack • Morphemes: intelephoning stalls • Are syllables one of those units?

26. Syllables in production processing • Data source: • Large corpora of errors heard in spontaneous speech • UCLA SEC, MIT SEC, Spanish etc. • Findings • Almost no unambiguous syllable-sized error units • Many syllable subcomponents: • Onset: speak fast -> feak spast (But see sprit blain) • Nucleus: milk burning -> murk bilning • Coda: sit down -> sin dowt • Does this imply syllable constituents as well?

27. Syllables in production processing • MIT SEC • 10,000+ errors categorized for • Error unit (feature, segment, string, syl, morph..) • Error type (exch, subst, addn, omis, blend) • For interaction errors: direction of influence from source to target (anticipatory, perseveratory) • Why categorize so extensively? • Document the extensive nature of ambiguity

28. Why categorizing is important • Document the rampant ambiguity re • Error unit • Error type • Factors influencing interaction errors • Direction of influence (source to target) • Position similarity of interacting elements • Position biases • Unrecognized ambiguity in error patterns can lead to unwarranted assumptions in production planning models

29. Rampant ambiguity in speech error categorization • He placed the highly paid players alone. • He placed the highly [pled] players alone. • Possible categorizations • Whole word substitution (paid -> played) • Anticipatory morpheme subst [ple] (from players) • Perseveratory string subst [ple-] (from placed) • Anticipatory onset subst [pl] (from players) • Persev onset subst [pl] (from placed) • Antic seg addition [l] (from players) • Antic seg addition [l] (fromalone) • Persev seg addition [l] (from placed)

30. Why categorizing is important (1) Direction of influence • Claim: Anticipations are more common than perseverations • Compare position preference for: • Complete exchanges: shop talk -> top shalk • Complete anticipations: -> top talk • Incompletes: -> top---shop talk • Results: • Exchanges 70-80% word-initial Cs • Anticipations 40-50% word-initial C’s • Incompletes: intermediate

31. Why categorizing is important (1) Direction of influence • Incomplete errors include some incipient exchanges, some incipient antic substs • Can estimate proportion of anticipations • They are actually rarer than perseverations • Implications for models • Less support: models based on early activation of later elements in the sentence • More support: models based on mis-selection among similar candidate elements

32. Outline • The syllable seems obvious as a unit • But, caveats • Role of the syllable in production processing • Units of serial ordering • Phonological planning framework • Units of stored motor programs • New ideas and methods

33. Syllables in production processing • Do they form the planning framework for the sublexical serial ordering process?

34. Syllables in production processing • Do they form the planning framework for the sublexical serial ordering process? • Speech error evidence might help to answer this question

35. Syllables in production processing • Do they form the planning framework for the sublexical serial ordering process? • Speech error evidence might help to answer this question • Do sublexical interaction errors obey a syllable position similarity constraint?

36. Why categorizing is important (2) Position similarity constraint • ‘Syllable position’ similarity constraint on errors: ‘Interacting error segments share syllable position’ • Onsets with onsets, nuclei with nuclei, etc. • Very few cases of onset-coda interactions • Surprisingly, these few cases are within-word: fish --> shif

37. Why categorizing is important (2) Position similarity constraint • ‘Syllable position’ similarity constraint on errors: ‘Interacting error segments share syllable position’ • Onsets with onsets, nuclei with nuclei, etc. • Very few cases of onset-coda interactions • Surprisingly, these few cases are within word: fish --> shif • But is the syllable necessarily the domain? • find the park -> pind the fark • Onset of word, morpheme, syllable, foot; pre-stressed-V

38. Why categorizing is important (2) Position similarity constraint • ‘Syllable position’ similarity constraint on errors: ‘Interacting error segments share syllable position’ • Onsets with onsets, nuclei with nuclei, etc. • Very few cases of onset-coda interactions • Surprisingly, these few cases are within word: fish --> shif • But is the syllable necessarily the domain? • find the park -> pind the fark • Onset of word, morpheme, syllable, foot; pre-stressed-V • Caveat: For most interaction errors, other units would serve just as well to characterize the domain of the position similarity constraint

39. Why categorizing is important (2) Position similarity constraint • Implications for models • If adopt the syllable-based view, leads to syllable-based planning frames • But perhaps the planning frame is based on another structure: • Word • Stress foot • Other?

40. Why categorizing is important (2) Position similarity constraint • Implications for models • If adopt the syllable-based view, leads to syllable-based planning frames • But perhaps the planning frame is based on word structure, foot structure, other • Elicitation experiment (Shattuck-Hufnagel 1992) • Compare effects of word-position similarity vs. syllable-position similarity

41. What is the domain of the position similarity constraint? • Most errors in natural corpora = ambiguous • Word-initial and stressed-syllable onset • speak fast -> feak spast • Word-medial and stressed-syllable nucleus • come back -> cam buck • Word-final and stressed-syllable coda • blot up -> blop utt

42. What is the domain of the position similarity constraint? • Most errors in natural corpora = ambiguous • Word-initial and stressed-syllable onset • speak fast -> feak spast • Word-medial and stressed-syllable nucleus • come back -> cam buck • Word-final and stressed-syllable coda • blot up -> blop utt • Very few can distinguish between word and str-syl • math review -> rath meview: Word position, not str-syl • may renew -> nay remew: Str-syl position, not word

43. What is the domain of the position similarity constraint? • Elicitation stimuli • Share both word and str-syl position peril fad foot parrot

44. What is the domain of the position similarity constraint? • Elicitation stimuli • Share both word and str-syl position peril fad foot parrot • Share word but not str-syl position parade fad foot parole

45. What is the domain of the position similarity constraint? • Elicitation stimuli • Share both word and str-syl position peril fad foot parrot • Share word but not str-syl position parade fad foot parole • Share str-syl position but not word repeat fad foot repair

46. What is the domain of the position similarity constraint? • Elicitation stimuli • Share both word and str-syl position peril fad foot parrot • Share word but not str-syl position parade fad foot parole • Share str-syl position but not word repeat fad foot repair • Share neither word nor str-syl position ripple fad foot rapid

47. What is the domain of the position similarity constraint? • Results of elicitation experiment: • Most frequent interaction errors: • Both shared onset positions: peril fad foot parrot • Medium frequency of interaction errors: • One shared onset position: parade fad foot parole repeat fad foot repair • Negligible number of errors: • No shared onset positions: ripple fad foot rapid

48. What is the domain of the position similarity constraint? • Interpretation of results • Some kind of shared position matters • Not just presence of confusable pair in context • Word onset and str-syl onset both plausible • Str-syl onset = pre-stressed-vowel position • May be two separate similarity constraints • They are additive: significantly more errors if target segments share both positions • i.e. not just shared syllable onset position

49. Implications of error data • Evidence for syllabic subconstituents in production planning is reasonably strong • Evidence for whole-syllable constituents is non-existent • Evidence for syllable structure as a factor governing sublexical interaction errors is equivocal

50. Outline • The syllable seems obvious as a unit • But, caveats • Role of the syllable in production processing • Units of serial ordering • Phonological planning framework • Units of stored motor programs • New sources of evidence