3Our job in processing speech… Turn sound waves (vibration of air molecules) into meaning.To do this, we need to interpret the acoustic cues in the sound waves in order to translate sound waves into phonological representations.
4From sound to meaning Acoustic Form (perception) Phonological Representation(production)Phonetic Representation
5QuestionsWhen a speaker mispronounces a foreign word, is the mispronunciation due tomisproduction?misperception?
7First Possibility: Accurate Perception, Inaccurate Production Japanese listener hears [beɪsbɔl]./beɪsbɔl/ is input to Japanese production grammar, which disallows certain segments and consonant codas.Production grammar transforms /beɪsbɔl/ to [be:suboro].
8Second Possibility: Inaccurate Perception, Accurate Production Japanese listener hears [be:suboru]./be:suboru/ is input to Japanese production grammar, and is a legal Japanese structure.Output of production grammar is [be:suboru].
9Evidence for Misperception of /r-l/ Miyagawa et al. (1975) (and others):English listeners perceived /r-l/ continuum categorically;Japanese listeners did not have clear category boundaries for /r/ vs. /l/.
10Effect of Native Language In English, the [r] –[l] contrast is significant:‘rip’ vs. ‘lip’In Japanese, this contrast is not significant:Japanese employs a single liquid pronounced more like [r] in certain contexts, more like [l] in other contexts.
11Misperception even with good production Sheldon & Strange (1982):Japanese students of English who produced an English-like /r/-/l/ contrast still performed poorly on discrimination (even of their own [ra], [la] tokens).
12Evidence for misperception of consonant sequences as CVC Dupoux et al. (1999):Japanese listeners did not reliably distinguish forms like [ebzo] – [ebuzo] (they heard ‘illusory vowels’).French listeners DID distinguish [ebzo]-[ebuzo].
13Effect of Native Language In French (and English), the contrast betweenVCCV and VCVCV is significant:‘NAFTA’ vs. ‘taffeta’In Japanese, no such contrast exists because obstruents ([f], [b], [z], etc.) are not possible in syllable coda.
14Persistent misperception Takagi & Mann (1995): adult Japanese speakers who had lived in the US and been using English daily for more than 12 years still performed below English speakers on perception tests.
15Our basic questionDo foreign language modification patterns come from misperception or misproduction?And how can you tell (short of doing perception experiments for each case)?
16Criterion: Learnability OT provides a model of acquisition.This model allows us to determine whether a particular grammar is learnable from a set of input data.
17Acquisition of a production grammar THE LEARNER’S TASK: To discover constraint rankings.
18DEFAULT RANKING M >> F e.g., NoComplexOnset >> Max (don’t delete)Predicts underlying /sno/ mapped to [so].
19Constraint reranking: error-driven If the learner hears a marked structure (e.g. [sno]), (s)he will rerank the constraints.Max >> NoComplexOnset
20Learning Fx >> Fy In order to learn relative ranking of faithfulness constraints, learner must have evidence of unfaithful mappings.
21F >> FIf /sno/ > [so], then deletion is the preferred repair.Dep (don’t insert) >> Max (don’t delete)If /sno/ > [sono], then insertion is the preferred repair.Max (don’t delete) >> Dep (don’t insert)
22Is a grammar learnable?Rankings must be either universal default (M>>F) or learnable from the data
29Alternative analysis: misperception Kenstowicz 2003: Word-initial Fijian stops are often only slightly prenasalized (or not at all prenasalized).NL perception grammar interprets word-initial voiced stop as prenasalized. (Voicing is a cue for prenasalization).
30Fijian stop adaptation as NL transfer Fijian NL perception grammar interprets the English /p-b/ contrast in terms of Fijian /p-mb/ contrast.
36Learnability problemEvidence for reranking of length faithfulness and voicing faithfulnessNo evidence from MalayalamNo evidence from English
37BUT--The adaptation pattern is explainable as transfer of Malayalam perception grammar.
38Malayalee English, continued English intervocalic voiced stops bæ:bu:n ‘baboon’ iRigeet ‘irrigate’ figaR ‘figure’
39Alternative analysis: misperception Malayalam speakers interpreted English contrast in terms of Malayalam contrast English Malayalam voice contrast length contrast VkV /VkkV/ > [VkkV] VgV /VkV/ > [VgV]
40Malayalam cues for singleton-geminate contrast (Local & Simpson (1999) 1. Voicing: singletons are voiced intervocalically. 2. Vowel duration: vowels longer before singletons than before geminates mean V duration: 76.5 msec before singleton 58.8 msec before geminates
41English cues for voicing contrast 2. Vowel duration: vowel is longer before voiced consonant.
43Note: English voice contrast is not maintained in all contexts ‘possible’ > [pɔ:sibL]‘impossible’ > [imbɔ:sibL]Malayalee English ranking:*NC[-voice] >> Ident(voice)Foreign>>*V[-voice]VHow could this be learned?
44Interim summaryFijian and Malayalee English adaptation patterns required specific production grammar rankings.These rankings were not learnable from the data of either the native or the foreign language.
45In Fijian, the adaptation rankings contradicted putative universal rankings (so they cannot be default).In Malayalee English, the adaptation rankings contradicted the NL rankings.
46In both languages, the adaptation pattern could be better understood as interpretation of the foreign language acoustic cues in terms of a native language contrast.
47If misproduction does stem from misperception… At what level of processing does misperception occur?
48Sources of Misperception Do listenersaccurately perceive the acoustic differences, but miscategorize them?ORfail to perceive acoustic differences that are relevant for native language contrasts?
49Native Language Neural Commitment Hypothesis (Kuhl 2004) Early exposure to a language produces a “neural commitment” to the acoustic cues that are important for that language.This neural commitment leads to efficient processing of NL contrasts (but not of FL contrasts).
50But what if you start early? Pallier et al. (1997) tested ability of fluent Spanish-Catalan bilinguals to discriminate [e] and [ɛ], which contrast in Catalan but not in Spanish.
51Subjects included 2 groups bilinguals with Spanish as first languagebilinguals with Catalan as first languageBoth groupsused both languages dailywere highly proficient in both languageshad been exposed to the second language by age 6
52Even for fluent bilinguals, mother tongue shaped perception Subjects whose first language exposure was to Spanish were unable to reliably perceive the e/ɛ distinction.In contrast, subjects whose first exposure was to Catalan DID perceive this contrast.
53HypothesisEarly exposure to a language makes the speech processing system sensitive (only?) to those acoustic cues that distinguish linguistically significant contrasts in the native language.
54Case Study 3: Korean Pronunciation of English [r], [l]
55[r] – [l] alternations in Korean tal ‘moon’tar-i ‘moon (nominative)’
56/l/ and /r/ do not contrast in Korean /l/ occurs in syllable coda(word-finally and before a consonant)/r/ occurs in syllable onset(word-initially and between vowels)
58How do Korean speakers interpret the English /l/ - /r/ contrast?
59Possibility One: Accurate Perception, Inaccurate Production According to Korean grammar:Both /l/ and /r/ should be pronouncedas /l/ in syllable coda,as /r/ in syllable onset.
60Possibility One: Accurate Perception, Inaccurate Production Korean production grammar forces intervocalic [l] and [r] to be pronounced as [r] in syllable onset:‘cherry’ heard as /ceri/ pronounced as [ce.ri]?‘cello’ heard as /celo/ pronounced as [ce.ro]?
61Possibility Two: Inaccurate Perception, Accurate Production Koreans do not perceive [r] – [l] contrast:‘cherry’ heard as /ceri/ pronounced as [ce.ri]?‘cello’ heard as /cero/ pronounced as [ce.ro]?
62If Korean speakers simply map English phonemes to Korean phonemes… The [r] – [l] contrast should not be maintained by Korean speakers—it should be lost either in perception or in production.But what actually happens?
63Korean Adaptation of English liquids (Kenstowicz 2005, Oh 2005) intervocalic /r/ > [r]kʰo:rasɨ ‘chorus’orenʒi ‘orange’misɨtʰeri ‘mystery’
65Though there is some variation [kilo, killo] ‘kilo’Oh (2005): influence of spellingorthographic ‘ll’ > [ll] 99.9%orthographic ‘l’ > [ll] 84%So strong trend toward [ll], regardless of spelling.
66Puzzle/r/ - /l/ contrast is not significant in Korean, but Koreans maintain it in English words.English [r] > Korean [r] (kʰo:rasɨ ‘chorus’)English [l] > Korean [ll] (kʰolla ‘cola’)
67But Korean has [r] – [ll] contrast Oh (2005)mu.ri ‘group’ mul.li ‘physics’mə.ri ‘head’ məl.li ‘far’
68English Contrast Korean Contrast /r/ > /r ~ l//l/ > /ll/although English (initial) [r] has longer F1 transition than [l] (O’Connor et al. 1957)
69Does the change from /l/ to /ll/ take place in production? Optimality Theory says it can’t.
70Korean Native Language Grammar Lee (2001)[l] only if moraic (attached to coda) >>DepMora (don’t change duration) >>Ident[lateral] (don’t change laterality)(=>To repair illegal structure V[l]V, change it to V[r]V)
71To get pattern in which V[l]V is repaired by changing it to V[ll]V, we would need to rerank the constraints.
72Reranking to describe /l/ > [ll] Native Language ranking:[l]=moraic >> Ident(length) >> Ident(lat)Interlanguage Ranking:[l] =moraic >> Ident(lat) >> Ident(length)
73ProblemThere is no data that would cause the learner to rerank these constraints in this way—nothing about English provides evidence that changing duration is a better way to repair an illegal structure than changing laterality.
74So..Analysis assuming accurate perception, inaccurate production is ruled out.The theory of grammar learning provides no way for learners to come up with a grammar that would transform V[l]V to V[ll]V.
75Inaccurate perception? Do Korean listeners actually hear English [VlV] as [VllV]?
76The relevant cues for Korean listeners: 1. presence/absence of laterality (mainly F3)2. consonant durationmuri = [-lateral, short] ‘group’mulli = [+lateral, long] ‘physics’
77QuestionsHow important is duration in signalling the VrV – VllV contrast for Korean listeners?Would a difference in laterality alone be enough to signal this contrast?
78Kim (2007): [lateral] alone is enough Subjects: monolingual speakers of Korean
79Kim (2007) Stimuli 1. Real words containing VllV, e.g. [mulli] (legal in Korean).2. Real words containing VrV, e.g. [muri] (legal in Korean).3. ‘Words’ containing VlV, e.g. [muli] (illegal in Korean), made by shortening the [l] in V[ll]V words.
80Kim (2007) Task Listeners heard (edited) words like [muli]. Forced choice: Did you hear[muri] (‘group’) or [mulli] (‘physics’)?
82Kim (2007) results suggest that Korean listeners pay at least as much attention to the laterality as to consonant duration.Laterality alone is enough to cause Korean listeners to classify even a short [l] as [ll].
83BUTDoes this mean that Korean listeners actually do not hear the differences between English [l] and Korean [ll]?
84ERPEvent-Related Potentials: A non-invasive method of measuring electrical activity in the brain during low level processing (Luck 2005).
86Mismatch NegativityThe Mismatch Negativity (MMN) indicates brain response to change in an auditory stimulus.MMN is elicited even in the absence of attention to stimulus (e.g., while watching a silent movie).
87Oddball Paradigm ba - ba - ba - ba - pa standard deviant MMN is typically elicited msec after onset of deviance.
88Discrimination tasks tap into conscious categorization. ERP taps into involuntary, pre-attentive brain reactions to change in auditory stimuli.
89MMN and ContrastVarious experiments have shown much stronger MMN to acoustic differences that cross NL phoneme boundaries.
90Phillips et al. 2000MEG investigation of stimuli varying on [tæ-dæ] continuum.English listeners responded differently when standard/deviant boundary crossed [t-d] phoneme boundary than when it fell within a category, though degree of acoustic variation was the same.
91Stronger MMN/MMF with NL contrast Japanese, French: [ebzo] vs. [ebuzo](Dehaene-Lambertz et. al. 2000)Japanese, English: [ra] vs. [la](Zhang et. al. 2003)Hungarian, Finnish: [æ] vs. [e](Winkler et. al. 1999)Hindi, English: [pa] vs. [ba](Sharma and Dorman 2000)
92Hwang, Broselow, Squires tested Korean responses to 1. enne vs. ene (possible NL contrast)[kannan] ‘newborn’ vs. [kanan] ‘poverty’2. elle vs. ele (not a possible NL contrast,because *[ele] is illegal)Supported by NSF grant BCS
93Subjects10 native speakers of Korean, now students at SUNY Stony Brook, in US 6months – 3 yearsAll proficient speakers of English
94Task Subjects watched a silent movie. Subjects heard through headphones:enne – enne - enne- enne- ene – enne… orelle – elle – elle – elle – ele – elle – elle …(8 blocks of 300 trials = 2400 trials)onset of deviance: 88ms.
95Same acoustic difference Both the [ene] and [ele] stimuli were created by shortening the duration of the long consonants in [enne], [elle].Exactly the SAME durational change for[enne] = [elle] 98ms.[ene] = [ele] 48ms.
96Same acoustic difference, but different MMN responses (preliminary results) Change from [enne] to [ene]: Stronger MMNChange from [elle] to [ele]: Weaker MMNSTRONGER MMN RESPONSE to the cross-category change ([enne] – [ene]) than to the within-category change ([elle]-[ele]).
97Grand Average of responses to Standards and Deviants eleStandardDeviantene
98Black line: response to ele after ele, or ene after eneRed line: response to ele after elle,or ene after enne
99Grand Average of responses to Standards and Deviants eleStandardDeviantene
104Our original question: Why VrV > VrV, but VlV > VllV?kʰo:rasɨ ‘chorus’kʰolla ‘cola’
105Inaccurate Perception: Why Korean listeners interpret ‘cola’ as [kolla] Korean listeners hear laterality of ‘cola’.This is a stronger cue than durational cue—in Korean, any lateral segment between vowels must be long.
106Mishearing in early processing? ERP data suggests Korean speakers’ brains respond less strongly to the durational difference in [ele] vs. [elle] than in [ene] vs. [enne].Native Language Neural Commitment Hypothesis (Kuhl 2004).
107Implications for Foreign Language Teaching If students can’t even hear some of the FL contrasts, will perception training help them?
108It’s not all bad newsDehaene-Lambertz et al. (2000): at later time windows (where conscious processing may be involved), Japanese speakers responded to ebzo-ebuzo contrast more like French speakers .
109It’s not all bad newsTremblay et al. (1997): training DID improve MMN response to non-native contrast.But problems do persist, at least for some non-native contrasts.
110Interim SummaryFormal phonology tells you which production grammar patterns are learnable.3 unlearnable patterns (in Fijian, Malayalee English, Korean) result from transfer of perception grammar—foreign language acoustic cues are interpreted in terms of NL contrasts.
111This misperception seems to occur at early levels of processing, and to persist even after extensive exposure to foreign language.However, listeners may be able to overcome this at higher levels of processing.