Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "The Role of the Syllable in Speech Production Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel Speech Group RLE, MIT."— Presentation transcript:

1

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

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

4 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

5 The syllable: obvious We know where they are and we can count em

6 The syllable: obvious We know where they are and we can count em –Tap to the rhythm

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

8 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

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

10 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

11 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

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

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 syllabic subconstituents, not whole syllables

14 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

15 Syllables clear in waveform With sonorant consonants

16 Sometimes less clear With stop bursts, fricatives

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

18 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

19 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?

20 The syllable in phonology Glottalization of word- or syllable-final voiceless stops –Particularly /t/ fit, cant Glottalization of word-medial /t/ – syllable final? butler, subtler, Hitler, battling cartwright –syllable-initial? Clinton, mountain Glottalization of selected word-medial /k/ technical

21 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

22 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

23 Syllables in production processing Are they units of serial ordering?

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

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

26 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?

27 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?

28 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

29 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

30 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] (from alone) Persev seg addition [l] (from placed)

31 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 Cs Incompletes: intermediate

32 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

33 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

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

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

36 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?

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

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

39 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

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 another structure: Word Stress foot Other?

41 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

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

43 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

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

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

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

47 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

48 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

49 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

50 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

51 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

52 Stored syllable motor programs Proposed by Levelt, Roelofs and Meyer 1999 –see also Crompton 1982, Browman and Goldstein Syllabification occurs during phonetic encoding –Retrieve unsyllabified lexical specifications –Form syllables for each prosodic word of a particular utterance –Retrieve their stored motor programs Why within the prosodic word? –Rampant resyllabification within this constituent

53 Stored syllable motor programs Arguments for rampant resyllabification –Intuitions: British English: deciding = de.ci.ding –Phonetic observations British English: escort us = es.cor.tus Noisy stop release characteristic of onset stops –Candidate contexts: 1 per 6 words FWds ~ 50% of texts; most of these FWds are V-init monosyllables (Shattuck-Hufnagel and Veilleux 2000) Is this actually resyllabification in British English? Does resyllabification occur in American English?

54 Stored syllable motor programs Its not certain that resyllabification occurs in this context in British English: escort us Noisy release of voiceless stop is not in itself evidence of resyllabification Need to look more closely at the acoustics –Does this noisy release also occur utterance- finally? if so, then its not evidence of resyllabification –Does it contain frication without aspiration? if so, then its not produced as a typical onset stop

55 Typical onset release noise Transient, frication, aspiration

56 Onset noise take potato

57 Stored syllable motor plans Argument for resyllabification across lexical word boundaries within prosodic words is weak –Acoustic evidence needed for Brit Engl –Acoustic analysis of Amer Engl does not indicate such resyllabification (Shattuck-Hufnagel 2007)

58 Stored syllable motor plans Argument for resyllabification across lexical word boundaries within prosodic words is weak –Acoustic evidence needed for Brit Engl –Acoustic analysis of Amer Engl does not indicate such resyllabification (Shattuck-Hufnagel 2007) Argument for phonetic encoding one PWd at a time is weak (Keating and Shattuck-Hufnagel 2002) –There are phonological interactions between PWds E.g. stress shift/early pitch accent –Interaction errors typically occur between PWds

59 Stored syllable motor plans An alternative to LRM99s prosody last model with prosody built from the bottom up A prosody first model: Develop the prosodic framework from the top down (Keating and Shattuck- Hufnagel 2002) Retrieve lexical information as needed at each level –number of words, stress pattern, segments

60 Stored syllable motor plans Prosodic shape of whole phrase or utterance is available to influence phonological/phonetic encoding Supporting evidence: phrase-level pitch accent pattern influences segmental error pattern (Croot and colleagues 2006) Suggests whole-phrase prosody is in place when phonological/phonetic coding occurs

61 Stored syllable motor plans LRM99s arguments for phonological/phonetic encoding one PWd at a time, and building higher-level prosody on that structure, are not entirely persuasive

62 Stored syllable motor plans LRM99s arguments for phonological/phonetic encoding one PWd at a time, and buildikng higher-level prosody on that structure, are not entirely persuasive However, their arguments for the retrieval stored syllable-sized motor plans are promising –See Cholin talk at this workshop, Sat 3:30 Increasingly supported by additional results from new methods

63 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

64 Syllables in production processing New sources of evidence –Syllable frequency effects (e.g. Carreiras and Perea 2002) –Syllable priming effects (e.g. Cholin, Schiller and Levelt 2004) –ERP studies: locus and timing of these effects (e.g. Goslin, Grainger and Holcomb 2006)

65 Syllables in production processing What have we learned? –Apparent evidence for an active role for syllables and syllable structure should be considered with care e.g. do syllabic subconstituents mean syllables? e.g. do apparent syllable position effects require syllables? –There may be alternative accounts e.g. phonological context vs. syllable structure e.g. word structure vs. syllable structure –Evidence from a widening variety of methods e.g. production priming, syllable frequency, brain imaging

66 Acknowledgments Support from NIH, NSF Alicia Patterson and MITs Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program My mentors: Merrill Garrett, Dennis Klatt, Ken Stevens My collaborators: Pat Keating, Alice Turk, Nanette Veilleux Victoria Fromkin, who rediscovered 1900s speech error studies (Merringer, Freud), and showed us how to apply them to modern linguistic and psycholinguistic questions


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

Similar presentations


Ads by Google