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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. Segments

Continuous signal - finite segment inventories

Continuous signal - finite segment inventories 6 consonants 92 consonants XU

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

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

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|

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|

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

II. Phonotactics

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]

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

III. Suprasegmentals

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]

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)

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

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)

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

IV. Consequences for Phonology

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|

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

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)

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?

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

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

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

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

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)