Hostname: page-component-76dd75c94c-vpfzz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T09:21:20.392Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Listeners' knowledge of phonological universals: evidence from nasal clusters*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2009

Iris Berent ,
Tracy Lennertz ,
Paul Smolensky  and
Vered Vaknin-Nusbaum
Iris Berent
Affiliation:
Northeastern University
Tracy Lennertz
Affiliation:
Northeastern University
Paul Smolensky
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins University
Vered Vaknin-Nusbaum
Affiliation:
University of Haifa and The Western Galilee College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Optimality Theory explains typological markedness implications by proposing that all speakers possess universal constraints penalising marked structures, irrespective of the evidence provided by their language (Prince & Smolensky 2004). The account of phonological perception sketched here entails that markedness constraints reveal their presence by inducing perceptual ‘repairs’ to structures ungrammatical in the hearer's language. As onset clusters of falling sonority are typologically marked relative to those of rising sonority (Greenberg 1978), we examine English speakers' perception of nasal-initial clusters, which are lacking in English. We find greater accuracy for rising-sonority clusters, evidencing knowledge of markedness constraints favouring such onset clusters. The misperception of sonority falls cannot be accounted for by stimulus artefacts (the materials are perceived accurately by speakers of Russian, a language allowing nasal-initial clusters) nor by phonetic failure (English speakers misperceive falls even with printed materials) nor by putative relations of such onsets to the statistics of the English lexicon.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , May 2009 , pp. 75 - 108
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albright, Adam (2007). Natural classes are not enough: biased generalization in novel onset clusters. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Alonzo, Angelo & Taft, Marcus (2002). Sonority constraints on onset-rime cohesion: evidence from native and bilingual Filipino readers of English. Brain and Language 81. 368–383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, Alan D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Barlow, Jessica A. (2001). The structure of /s/-sequences: evidence from a disordered system. Journal of Child Language 28. 291–324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barlow, Jessica A. (2005). Sonority effects in the production of consonant clusters by Spanish-speaking children. In Eddington, David (ed.) Selected proceedings of the 6th conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and Second Languages. Somerville: Cascadilla. 1–14.Google Scholar
Berent, Iris & Lennertz, Tracy (2008). Universal constraints on the sound structure of language: phonological or acoustic? Ms, Florida Atlantic University.Google Scholar
Berent, Iris, Lennertz, Tracy, Jun, Jongho, Moreno, Miguel A. & Smolensky, Paul (2008). Language universals in human brains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105. 5321–5325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berent, Iris & Perfetti, Charles A. (1995). A rose is a REEZ: the two cycles model of phonology assembly in reading English. Psychological Review 102. 146–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berent, Iris, Steriade, Donca, Lennertz, Tracy & Vaknin, Vered (2007). What we know about what we have never heard: evidence from perceptual illusions. Cognition 104. 591–630.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boersma, Paul (1998). Functional phonology: formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul (2007). Some listener-oriented accounts of h-aspiré in French. Lingua 117. 1989–2054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Hamann, Silke (2008). Loanword adaptation as first-language phonological perception. Available as ROA-975 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Hamann, Silke (to appear). Introduction to ‘Phonology in perception’. In Boersma, Paul & Hamann, Silke (eds.) Phonology in perception. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broselow, Ellen, Chen, Su-I & Wang, Chilin (1998). The emergence of the unmarked in second language phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20. 261–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broselow, Ellen & Finer, Daniel (1991). Parameter setting in second language phonology and syntax. Second Language Research 7. 35–59.Google Scholar
Broselow, Ellen & Xu, Zheng (2004). Differential difficulty in the acquisition of second language phonology. International Journal of English Studies 4. 135–163.Google Scholar
Buchwald, Adam (2005). Representing sound structure: evidence from aphasia. WCCFL 24. 79–87.Google Scholar
Byrd, Dani (1992). Perception of assimilation in consonant clusters: a gestural model. Phonetica 49. 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1990). The role of sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Kingston, John & Beckman, Mary E. (eds.) Papers in laboratory phonology I: between the grammar and physics of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 282–333.Google Scholar
Crosswhite, Katherine (1999). Vowel reduction in Optimality Theory. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Davidson, Lisa (2000). Experimentally uncovering hidden strata in English phonology. In Gleitman, Lila & Joshi, Aravind (eds.) Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 1023.Google Scholar
Davidson, Lisa (2006). Phonotactics and articulatory coordination interact in phonology: evidence from nonnative production. Cognitive Science 30. 837–862.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davidson, Lisa, Jusczyk, Peter & Smolensky, Paul (2006). Optimality in language acquisition I: the initial and final states of the phonological grammar. In Smolensky & Legendre (2006: vol. 2). 231–278.Google Scholar
Davis, Stuart & Hammond, Michael (1995). On the status of onglides in American English. Phonology 12. 159–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2007a). The interaction of tone, sonority, and prosodic structure. In de Lacy (2007b). 281–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (ed.) (2007b). The Cambridge handbook of phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupoux, Emmanuel, Kakehi, Kazuhiko, Hirose, Yuki, Pallier, Christophe & Mehler, Jacques (1999). Epenthetic vowels in Japanese: a perceptual illusion? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 25. 1568–1578.Google Scholar
Dupoux, Emmanuel, Pallier, Christophe, Kakehi, Kazuhiko & Mehler, Jacques (2001). New evidence for prelexical phonological processing in word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes 16. 491–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, Carol A., Treiman, Rebecca & Gross, Jennifer (1993). The structure of English syllables and polysyllables. Journal of Memory and Language 32. 115–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz J. (1992). English phonology: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gierut, Judith A. (1999). Syllable onsets: clusters and adjuncts in acquisition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 42. 708–726.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldsmith, John A. (1976). Autosegmental phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Gouskova, Maria (2001). Falling sonority onsets, loanwords, and Syllable Contact. CLS 37:1. 175–185.Google Scholar
Gouskova, Maria (2004). Relational hierarchies in Optimality Theory: the case of syllable contact. Phonology 21. 201–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. (1978). Some generalizations concerning initial and final consonant clusters. In Greenberg, Joseph H., Ferguson, Charles A. & Moravcsik, Edith A. (eds.) Universals of human language. Vol. 2: Phonology. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 243–279.Google Scholar
Hallé, Pierre A., Segui, Juan, Frauenfelder, Uli & Meunier, Christine (1998). Processing of illegal consonant clusters: a case of perceptual assimilation? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24. 592–608.Google ScholarPubMed
Hayes, Bruce (in press). New methods for studying UG in phonology. NELS 38.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & Wilson, Colin (2008). A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. LI 39. 379–440.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. (1976). An introduction to natural generative phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kawasaki-Fukumori, Haruko (1992). An acoustical basis for universal phonotactic constraints. Language and Speech 35. 73–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiparsky, Paul (1979). Metrical structure assignment is cyclic. LI 10. 421–441.Google Scholar
LaCharité, Darlene & Paradis, Carole (2002). Addressing and disconfirming some predictions of phonetic approximation for loanword adaptation. Langues et linguistique 28. 71–91.Google Scholar
Leben, William (1973). Suprasegmental phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Levitt, Andrea, Healy, Alice F. & Fendrich, David W. (1991). Syllable-internal structure and the sonority hierarchy: differential evidence from lexical decision, naming, and reading. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 20. 337–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loftus, Gregory R. & Masson, Michael E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 1. 476–490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarthy, John J. (1979). Formal problems in Semitic phonology and morphology. PhD dissertation, MIT. Published 1985, New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Massaro, Dominic W. & Cohen, Michael M. (1983). Phonological context in speech perception. Perception and Psychophysics 34. 338–348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morelli, Frida (1999). The phonotactics and phonology of obstruent clusters in Optimality Theory. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Moreton, Elliott (2002). Structural constraints in the perception of English stop-sonorant clusters. Cognition 84. 55–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moreton, Elliott (2007). Competition in perception grammar. Paper presented at the Workshop on Experimental Approaches to Optimality Theory (ExpOT).Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. (1990). Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmental sequential constraints. CLS 26:2. 319–338.Google Scholar
Oudeyer, Pierre-Yves (2005). The self-organization of speech sounds. Journal of Theoretical Biology 233. 435–449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, Stephen G. (2002). Quantifying the sonority hierarchy. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe (2004). Bridging the gap between receptive and productive development with minimally violable constraints. In Kager, René, Pater, Joe & Zonneveld, Wim (eds.) Constraints in phonological acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 219–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peperkamp, Sharon (2007). Do we have innate knowledge about phonological markedness? Comments on Berent, Steriade, Lennertz, and Vaknin. Cognition 104. 631–637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peperkamp, Sharon, Pettinato, Michèle & Dupoux, Emmanuel (2003). Reinterpreting loanword adaptations: the role of perception. In Beachley, Barbara, Brown, Amanda & Conlin, Francis (eds.) Proceedings of the 27th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville: Cascadilla. 650–661.Google Scholar
Peperkamp, Sharon, Vendelin, Inga & Nakamura, Kimihiro (2008). On the perceptual origin of loanword adaptations: experimental evidence from Japanese. Phonology 25. 129–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pertz, D. L. & Bever, T. G. (1975). Sensitivity to phonological universals in children and adolescents. Lg 51. 149–162.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven & Birdsong, David (1979). Speakers' sensitivity to rules of frozen word order. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18. 497–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitt, Mark (1998). Phonological processes and the perception of phonotactically illegal consonant clusters. Perception and Psychophysics 60. 941–951.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (2004). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romani, Cristina & Calabrese, Andrea (1998). Syllabic constraints on the phonological errors of an aphasic patient. Brain and Language 64. 83–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saussure, Ferdinand de (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Lausanne & Paris: Payot. Translated 1959 as Course in general linguistics. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. (1984). On the major class features and syllable theory. In Aronoff, Mark & Oerhle, Richard T. (eds.) Language sound structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 107–136.Google Scholar
Silverman, Daniel (1992). Multiple scansions in loanword phonology: evidence from Cantonese. Phonology 9. 289–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smolensky, Paul (2006). Optimality in phonology II: harmonic completeness, local constraint conjunction, and feature domain markedness. In Smolensky & Legendre (2006: vol. 2). 27–160.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul & Legendre, Géraldine (eds.) (2006). The harmonic mind: from neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stemberger, Joseph Paul & Treiman, Rebecca (1986). The internal structure of word-initial consonant clusters. Journal of Memory and Language 25. 163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenneken, Prisca, Bastiaanse, Roelien, Huber, Walter & Jacobs, Arthur M. (2005). Syllable structure and sonority in language inventory and aphasic neologisms. Brain and Language 95. 280–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steriade, Donca (1982). Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (1988). Reduplication and syllable transfer in Sanskrit and elsewhere. Phonology 5. 73–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surprenant, Aimée M. & Goldstein, Louis (1998). The perception of speech gestures. JASA 104. 518–529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tesar, Bruce (1997). An iterative strategy for learning metrical stress in Optimality Theory. In Hughes, Elizabeth, Hughes, Mary & Greenhill, Annabel (eds.) Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville: Cascadilla. 615–626.Google Scholar
Tesar, Bruce (1998). An iterative strategy for language learning. Lingua 104. 131–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tesar, Bruce (1999). Robust interpretive parsing in metrical stress theory. WCCFL 17. 625–639.Google Scholar
Treiman, Rebecca (1984). On the status of final consonant clusters in English syllables. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 23. 343–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treiman, Rebecca, Bowey, Judith A. & Bourassa, Derrick (2002). Segmentation of spoken words into syllables by English-speaking children as compared to adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 83. 213–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Treiman, Rebecca & Danis, Catalina (1988). Syllabification of intervocalic consonants. Journal of Memory and Language 27. 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Orden, Guy C., Pennington, Bruce F. & Stone, Gregory O. (1990). Word identification in reading and the promise of subsymbolic psycholinguistics. Psychological Review 97. 488–522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vennemann, Theo (1972). On the theory of syllabic phonology. Linguistische Berichte 18. 1–18.Google Scholar
Wright, Richard (2004). A review of perceptual cues and robustness. In Hayes, Bruce, Kirchner, Robert & Steriade, Donca (eds.) Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 34–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yip, Moira (2006). The symbiosis between perception and grammar in loanword phonology. Lingua 116. 950–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zec, Draga (2007). The syllable. In de Lacy (2007b). 161–194.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Berent supplementary material

Appendices.pdf

Download Berent supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 1.8 MB