Speakers’ knowledge of phonological universals: Evidence from nasal clusters

1. Speakers’ knowledge of phonological universals: Evidence from nasal clusters Iris Berent Florida Atlantic University Tracy Lennertz Florida Atlantic University Paul Smolensky Johns Hopkins University

2. blif • lbif • Challenge: What kinds of knowledge and learning mechanisms support linguistic generalizations?

3. Two answers

4. Answer 2: a specialized language acquisition system Domain-general learning (e.g., statistical learning) Linguistic experience: b l i f l b i f Blif *lbif • Universal Grammar • Specialized language-acquisition device • Universal restrictions on language structure

5. Two answers L4:bl≻ lb L3: bl≻ lb L2: bl≻ lb L1: bl≻ lb

6. Answer 2: a specialized language acquisition system Domain-general learning (e.g., statistical learning) Linguistic experience: b l i f l b i f Blif *lbif Prince & Smolensky (1993/2004): Avoid lb (markedness Constraint) • Markedness constraints are universal • all grammars ban lb • regardless of whether bl/lb attested lb *lb (marked) Do speakers possess universal grammatical preferences for unattested structures?

7. What’s wrong with lb?

8. What’s wrong with lbif? Phonological knowledge: Sonority profile • Greenberg’s typology (1978): (Berent, Steriade, Lennertz & Vaknin, 2007): • Frequency: large rise>small rise>plateau>fall • Implications: • Fall-->plateau • Plateau-->small rise • Small rise-->large rise H1: small sonority distances are universally marked in the grammars of all speakers

9. What’s wrong with lbif? Phonological knowledge: Sonority profile Non-grammatical sources Articulation Grammar Audition Statistical knowledge H1: small sonority distances are universally marked in the grammars of all speakers

10. What’s wrong with lbif? • Source: • Are speakers equipped with grammatical restrictions on sonority • Scope: • Do speakers extend sonority restrictions to unattested clusters?

11. Unattested obstruent sonorant sequences Infer markedness from perceptual illusions Ill-formed onsets are misperceived (e.g., Pitt, 1998) Misperception is inversely related to sonority distance Misperception is not due to Phonetic failure Statistical knowledge Conclusion: grammatical preference Misperception is inversely related to sonority profile Lbif—>lebif Bnif—>benif Misperception is not due to Phonetic failure English speakers can perceive lbif accurately when attention to phonetic information is encouraged Misperception observed also with printed materials Statistical knowledge Conclusion: grammatical preference Previous research (Berent, Steriade, Lennertz & Vaknin, 2007) Markedness hierarchy Blif≻ bnif ≻ bdif ≻ lbif Large rise>small rise>plateau>fall English lb Grammar leb

12. Why does the grammar favor bn?

13. UG: sonority distance ob-son L4: rise>fall L3: rise>fall L2: rise>fall L1: rise>fall GEnglish: ob-son

14. Obstruent-initial (Greenberg, 1978, Universal 17) Nasal-initial (Greenberg, 1978, Universal 24) Typological evidence: Broad preference for rises

15. Do English speakers extend the preference for sonority rises to nasal-initial onsets?

16. Test: nasal onsets Is mlif>mdif

17. Assume: Ill formed onsets are repaired epenthetically (e..g, Berent et al., 2007) If the grammar broadly disfavors falls Then, compared to rises Falls should be more likely to undergo epenthetic repair Be misperceived as disyllabic Hypothesis: If the grammfavor rises to falls Falls should be more likely to be misperceived as disyllabic mdif Rationale:Infer markedness from repair Grammar medif

18. Is mdif medif?

19. One syllable or two? Experiment 1syllable count

20. 12 pairs Labial-coronal Coronal-labial Generated by splicing Melif-->mlif Method • Fillers: mnif/nmif OCP manner (Greenberg, 1978)

21. procedure • Hear a word • One syllable or two? 2 Two syllables 1 One syllable

22. Prediction Two syllables Mdif (falls) Grammar medif

23. Exp. 1: Syllable judgment of nasal clusters medif melif mlif mlif mdif mdif—>medif

24. Experiment 2 • Does sonority profile affect the interpretation of ambiguous CeC sequences?

25. Incremental splicing Full vowel

26. Incremental splicing Cut 1

27. Incremental splicing Cut 6 No vowel

28. task • Hear an auditory word • Is there an “e”? 1 yes 2 No

29. Prediction • If falls trigger repair, then people should be more likely to perceive epenthesis in falls relative to rises

30. results CCVC CeCVC

31. Is mdif=medif

32. Exp. 3: Identity judgment medif

33. Nonidentity trials mlif-melif mdif-medif

34. Are falls represented less faithfully?

35. Experiment 4 • Spelling of auditory words • Question: Is mlif spelled less accurately?

36. Correct spelling responses

37. Conclusion • Sonority falls are encoded less faithfully than rises • Falls undergo epenthesis mdif medif

38. Why? ? mdif medif Nonlinguistic sources Grammar *Falls

39. Stimulus artifacts: Failure to remove the epenthetic vowel Do Russian speakers misperceive falls? Alternative explanations Syllable count (monosyllabic items) Russian English

40. Stimulus artifacts: Failure to remove the epenthetic vowel Do Russian speakers misperceive falls? Phonetic failure Alternative explanations Identity judgment (nonidentity trials) Russian English

41. Stimulus artifacts: Failure to remove the epenthetic vowel Do Russian speakers misperceive falls? Phonetic failure Alternative explanations Identity judgment (nonidentity trials) Russian English

42. Repair or phonetic failure? repair Phonetic analysis Grammar mdif—>medif Phonetic form mdif Phonological form (repaired) lebif

43. Repair or phonetic failure? Phonetic failure repair Phonetic analysis Grammar mdif—>medif Phonetic form mdif Phonological form (repaired) lebif

44. Do markedness effects extend to printed words? Identity judgment: * Word1 XXXX word2: Identical? * mdif XXXX MEDIF 100ms 500ms 2500ms No

45. nonidentity trials

46. Alternative explanations • UG • Stat. knowledge Phonetic analysis Phonetic form Lbif Linguistic knowledge Lbif—>lebif Phonological form (repaired) lebif

47. Segment co-occurrence Two statistical accounts

48. Segment co-occurrence Familiarity/legality of C2 Mlif Mdif Mnif Prediction: mnif>mdif Two statistical accounts

49. Segment co-occurrence Familiarity/legality of C2 Mlif Mdif Mnif Prediction: mnif>mdif Two statistical accounts

50. Segment co-occurrence Familiarity/legality of C2 Mlif Mdif Mnif Statistical prediction: mnif>mdif Two statistical accounts mnif mdif