1. CNtrast in Phonology: Toronto 2002
Laboratoire de Sciences Cognitives et Psycholinguistique EHESS-ENS-CNRS
The Phonetic Filter Hypothesis: How phonology impacts speech perception (and vice versa)
Emmanuel Dupoux
Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris
Sharon Peperkamp Université de Paris VIII
CNtrast in Phonology: Toronto 2002

2. Perception - Production
Lemma
Lexeme retrieval
Underlying form
Phonological encoding
Surface form
Phonetic encoding
Phonetic plan

3. Perception - Production
Lemma
Lemma
Lemma retrieval
Lexeme retrieval
Underlying form
Underlying form
Phonological decoding
Phonological encoding
Surface form
Surface form
Phonetic decoding
Phonetic encoding
Acoustic/Phonetic code
Phonetic plan

4. Modeling the Task Phonetic decoding Phonetic encoding Lemma Lemma
Lemma retrieval
Lexeme retrieval
Underlying form
Underlying form ?
Phonological decoding
Phonological encoding
Central Executive
Decision Making
Surface form
Surface form
Phonetic decoding
Phonetic encoding
Response
Acoustic/Phonetic code
Phonetic plan

5. Modeling the Task Phonetic decoding Phonetic encoding Lemma Lemma
Lemma retrieval
Lexeme retrieval
Underlying form
Underlying form
Phonological decoding
Phonological encoding
Central Executive
AAAX: no variability
Surface form
Surface form
Phonetic decoding
Phonetic encoding
Response
Acoustic/Phonetic code
Phonetic plan

6. Modeling the Task Phonetic decoding Phonetic encoding Lemma Lemma
Lemma retrieval
Lexeme retrieval
Underlying form
Underlying form
Phonological decoding
Phonological encoding
Central Executive
ABX: talker change
Surface form
Surface form
Phonetic decoding
Phonetic encoding
Response
Acoustic/Phonetic code
Phonetic plan

7. Modeling the Task Phonetic decoding Phonetic encoding Lemma Lemma
Lemma retrieval
Lexeme retrieval
Underlying form
Underlying form
Phonological decoding
Phonological encoding
Central Executive
Lexical Decision
Surface form
Surface form
Phonetic decoding
Phonetic encoding
Response
Acoustic/Phonetic code
Phonetic plan

8. Perception - Production
Lemma
Lemma
Lemma retrieval
Lexeme retrieval
Underlying form
Underlying form
Phonological decoding
Phonological encoding
Surface form
Surface form
Phonetic decoding
Phonetic encoding
Acoustic/Phonetic code
Phonetic plan

9. I. Segments

10. Continuous signal - finite segment inventories

11. Continuous signal - finite segment inventories
6 consonants
92 consonants XU

12. Language-specific segment detectors TRACE, McClelland & Elman, 1986, SHORLIST, Norris et al., 2000; Kuhl, 1996; Best, 1994 …
English
Japanese
|a|
|la|
[a] t p m s i k a  e
. . .
Kuhl (1996)
|a|
|la|
[ra]
[la] t p m s i k a r l

13. Early Acquisition of segments
Werker & Tees (1984)
Mechanism: statistical prototype extraction
Maye and Gerken (2002)

14. Plasticity : L2 acquisition
Spanish-Catalan bilinguals (L2 started at age 4) (Pallier et al, 1998)
[e] vs [] classification
Lexical decision: long term repetition priming
|pera| ... |pera|
|pra| ... |pera|

15. Plasticity : L2 acquisition
Spanish-Catalan bilinguals (L2 started at age 4) (Pallier et al, 1998)
[e] vs [] classification
Lexical decision: long term repetition priming
|pera| ... |pera|
|pra| ... |pera|

16. Phonetic decoding (I) Surface form Phonetic Decoding
Phonological Decoding
Surface form
Underlying form
Acoustic/Phonetic code
|la, a|
[a]
Japanese
Spanish
|e, |
[]
Catalan
|e, |
[e,]
Assimilate to the phonetically closest segment
Consonants & vowels
- acquired early & bottom up -non plastic in L2

17. II. Phonotactics

18. What counts as a segment? The influence of phonotactics
Vowel epenthesis in Japanese
legal syllables: V, CV, VN, CVN
illegal syllables: *CVC, *CCV, ...
loanwords:
“Sphinx”  [sufikusu]
“Christmas”  [kurisutomasu]
 insert /u/ after coda consonant, or inside onset cluster (insert /o/ after dental stop)
A perceptual effect? (Polivanov, 1974; Sapir, 1925)
Vowel degemination in French
no contrast between long vs. short vowel
loanwords:
[tokjo]  [tokjo]
[kjoto]  [kjoto]

19. Illusory vowels? Vowel detection task Speeded ABX task [ebazo] [ebzo]
% u detection A B
time S1 S2 S3
Response: A or B
female voice
male voice
Conditions:
cluster: ebuzo-ebzo
vowel length: ebuzo-ebuzo
Cluster - Vowel score (%)
French Japanese
[ebzo]
[ebuzo]
[ebazo]
Dupoux, Kakehi, Hirose, Pallier, & Mehler (1997)

20. Modeling the Task Phonetic decoding Lemma Lemma retrieval
Underlying form
Phonological decoding
Central Executive
Segment Identification
Surface form
Phonetic decoding
*epenthesis*
Response
Acoustic/Phonetic code

21. Modeling the Task Phonetic decoding Lemma Lemma retrieval
Underlying form
Phonological decoding
Phoneme-grapheme
*epenthesis*
Central Executive
Segment Identification
Surface form
Orthographic code
Phonetic decoding
Response
Acoustic/Phonetic code

22. Phonological decoding
Modeling the Task
Lemma
Lemma retrieval
Underlying form
Phonological decoding
Central Executive
multi-talker ABX
Surface form
Phonetic decoding
*epenthesis*
Response
Acoustic/Phonetic code

23. Phonological decoding
Modeling the Task
Lemma
Lemma retrieval
Underlying form
Phonological decoding
Articulatory loop
Central Executive
multi-talker ABX
Surface form
Surface form
Phonetic decoding
Phonetic encoding
*epenthesis*
Response
Acoustic/Phonetic code
Phonetic plan

24. Phonological decoding
Modeling the Task
Lemma
Lemma
Lemma retrieval
*epenthesis*
Phonetic encoding
Underlying form
Phonological decoding
Central Executive
multi-talker ABX
Surface form
Surface form
Phonetic decoding
Response
Acoustic/Phonetic code

25. Prelexical effect? LEXICON mikado sokudo [sokdo] [mikdo]
% u detection
% word decision
Transcription task
Lexical decision
Dupoux, Pallier, Kakehi & Mehler (in press)

26. Prelexical effect! LEXICON mikado sokudo /sokudo/ /mikudo/ |mikdo|
% u detection
% word decision
/sokudo/
/mikudo/
Vowel epenthesis
Transcription task
Lexical decision
|mikdo|
|sokdo|
Dupoux, Pallier, Kakehi & Mehler (in press)

27. Phonological decoding
Modeling the Task
Lemma
Lemma retrieval
Underlying form
Phonological decoding
*epenthesis*
Central Executive
Lexical decision
Surface form
Phonetic decoding
*epenthesis*
Response
Acoustic/Phonetic code

28. How early? High density ERPs
Ebuzo …Ebizo
Ebzo … Ebizo
Ebuzo … Ebzo
Ebzo … Ebuzo
Ebuzo …Ebuzo
Ebzo … Ebzo
Japanese
French
Time
600 ms S1 B A S2 S3 S4 S5
Deviant
Control
6 female voices
male voice
400
800
200 + mv
-400
|ebuzo| vs |ebzo| _ + p
.001
.01
.05
Mismatch Negativity
Dehaene-Lambertz, Dupoux & Gout (2000)

29. Where in the brain ? an fMRI study
TR = 3.3 sec A B
time
acquisition S1 S2 S3
Deviant
Control
AAX task:
Conditions: French (N=7) Japanese (N=7)
ebuzo-ebzo phonological acoustic
ebuzo-ebuzo acoustic phonological
Stimuli:
20 items, same talker, no phonetic variability
Behavioral Results:
Jacquemot, Pallier, Dehaene, Lebihan and Dupoux (submitted)

30. Difference detection circuit
Phonological
Acoustic
p<.001
Phonological - Acoustic
p<.005
Jacquemot, Pallier, Dehaene, Lebihan and Dupoux (submitted)

31. Phonetic effects
Japanese: |ebno|[ebuno], but |edno|[edono]; |du|[dzu]
Brazilian Portuguese: CV, CLV, CVs, CVn, CVr
European Portuguese: idem, but unstressed vowel deletion
complex phonetic syllables
If phonetic syllables matter, vowel epenthesis in BP, not EP
[ebzo]
[ebizo]
[ebazo]
Work in progress with Parlato & Frota

32. Plasticity: L2 acquisition
French-Japanese fluent bilinguals (N=7)
native Japanese speakers
late learners of French
between 2 and 7 years in France
Nakamura & Dupoux (work in progress)

33. Phonetic decoding (II)
Phonological Decoding
Surface form
Underlying form
Acoustic/Phonetic code
Brazilian Portuguese
|ebzo|
[e.bi.zo]
[e.bu.zo, en.zo]
|ebzo, enzo|
Japanese
Assimilate to the phonetically closest legal form
Segments
Phonotactics
- acquired early & bottom up -non plastic in L2

34. III. Suprasegmentals

35. Another dimension of phonetic decoding: suprasegmentals
Suprasegmentals: tones, stress, pitch accent
French
Spanish
(Dupoux, Pallier, Sebastian, Mehler, 1997)
Stress ‘ deafness ’
ABX discrimination task
Difficulties for English hearers with Chinese tones (Wang et al. 2000)
Tokyo dialect versus non-accented Mito & Kumamoto dialect (Otake & Cutler, 1999).
significantly less sensitivity to pitch accent in making lexical judgments
more reliance on guessing (based on vocabulary statistics)
Duration ‘ deafness’: (Dupoux et al. 1997)
|to:kjoo|  [tokjo]
|kjo:to|  [kjoto]

36. Perception of stress Sequence repetition: Predictable stress:
AABAB  answer 11212
conditions:
phoneme: [muku - munu]
stress: [nmi - numi]
Predictable stress:
French, Finnish, Hungarian
Contrastive stress
Spanish
Peperkamp, Vendelin & Dupoux (in preparation)

37. Phonological Decoding
Modeling the Task
Phonetic Decoding
Phonological Decoding
Surface form
Underlying form
Acoustic/Phonetic code
Sequence repetition
[mipa]
Dupoux, Peperkamp & Sebastián-Gallés (2001)

38. Plasticity: L2 acquisition
Sequence repetition
AABA  answer 1121
Late bilinguals (N=20):
native French
learned Spanish after age 11
Peperkamp, Sebastián-Gallés & Dupoux (in preparation)

39. Phonetic decoding (III)
Phonological Decoding
Surface form
Underlying form
Acoustic/Phonetic code
|bébe, bebé|
[bebe]
French
Spanish
[bébe, bebé]
|bébe, bebé|
Phonotactics
Segments
Assimilate to the phonetically closest legal surface form
- acquired early & bottom up -non plastic in L2
Suprasegmentals

40. IV. Consequences for Phonology

41. Consequences for Phonology (or Why Loanword Phonology Does Not Exist)
French
‘walkman’ /wkman/
Korean
‘baby’ /bebi/
Engl.
‘pepsi’ /ppsi/
White Hmong
‘sphinx’ /sfinks/
Japanese
Phonetic encoding
Phonological Encoding
Surface form
Underlying form
Acoustic/Phonetic code
[wkman]
[pejbi]
[pe(p)si]
[su.fi.ku.su]
Apply phonology or loanword phonology (hidden rankings)
|wkman|
|pejbi|
|pesi|
|su.fi.ku.su|

42. Problem #1: where does the underlying form come from?
historical loanwords
used by monolingual speakers
no direct psychological reality of input-output analysis
diachronic interpretation
 Original underlying form not available
on-line adaptations (Shinohara 1997, Kenstowicz & Sohn 2001)
foreign words that are borrowed ‘here-and-now’
for illegal forms, unfaithful perception, even in bilinguals
 Original underlying form not available

43. Note: adaptation of legal forms
Korean: [sinema] < Engl. cinema
(cf. native [kámani] ‘rice bag’)
over-application of a default pattern in the language
similar to overgeneralization processes with native forms (child phonology, language change)
 Loanword adaptations of legal forms does not motivate a special ‘loanword phonology’ component (rules or hidden rankings)

44. Problem #2: The role of phonetics
Choice of adaptation is not necessarily driven by phonological markedness in the borrowing language:
Adaptation of [, ]
European French: [s, z] vs. Canadian French: [t, d]
Hindi: [t, d]
Adaptation of consonant clusters
Japanese: insertion of [u]
Brazilian Portuguese: insertion of [i]
White Hmong: deletion
 Why would a phonetic distance metrics matter?

45. Problem #3: Learnability
White Hmong
Japanese, Brazilian Portuguese
No universal ranking of Fill and Parse
No independent evidence for one ranking or the other in a given language

46. Solution: illegal forms
Phonetic decoding
Phonological decoding
Surface form
Acoustic/Phonetic code
Underlying form
[su.fi.ku.su]
|sfinks| ‘sphinx’
/su.fi.ku.su/
Phonetic encoding
Phonological encoding
Surface form
Phonetic plan
Underlying form
[su.fi.ku.su]
|su.fi.ku.su|
- Perceptual assimilation
- Phonetically based
- Learnable bottom-up

47. Solution: legal forms Phonetic decoding Phonetic encoding
Phonological decoding
Surface form
Acoustic/Phonetic code
Underlying form
[sinéma]
/sínema/
|sinéma|
Phonetic encoding
Phonological encoding
Surface form
Phonetic plan
Underlying form
|sínema|
[sínema]
- Overapplication of common pattern - No special loanword component

48. Predictions Adaptations of illegal forms Adaptations of legal forms
can involve processes that do not otherwise occur in the language
can only be accounted for in terms of phonetic distance to legal forms
choice between epenthesis and deletion depends upon the presence vs. absence of phonetically reduced vowels
non-adaptation occurs only with forms that are relatively distant from the closest legal form
Adaptations of legal forms
involve default phonological rules that are otherwise present in the language

49. CON clusion Phonology heavily impacts perception
perception is not faithful
phonetically-based perceptual assimilation
for illegal segments, phonotactics, suprasegmentals
learnable bottom-up during 1st year of life
not plastic (still exists in late bilinguals)
Perception heavily impacts phonology
no loanword phonology (phonetics in perception + phonology in production)
no child phonology (see Peperkamp, this afternoon)
language change (Peperkamp, submitted)