A Study of Speech A Study of Speech Perception:Perception:

Julie LangevinJulie Langevin

Communication Communication Sciences and Sciences and

DisordersDisordersFaculty Mentor: Timothy BryantFaculty Mentor: Timothy Bryant

The Psychological Reality of The Psychological Reality of the Obligatory Contour the Obligatory Contour

PrinciplePrinciple

What is the Obligatory Contour What is the Obligatory Contour Principle?Principle?

A linguistic constraint first developed by A linguistic constraint first developed by Leben (1973) to account for tones in Leben (1973) to account for tones in languageslanguages– It was extended to accommodate grammatical It was extended to accommodate grammatical

factors by McCarthy 1988.factors by McCarthy 1988.

Is a part of our phonological grammarIs a part of our phonological grammar

Shapes the linguistic performance of Shapes the linguistic performance of English listenersEnglish listeners

Speech Language TriangleSpeech Language Triangle

Production

Lexicon

Perception

Purpose of the StudyPurpose of the Study

The study was done to replicate theThe study was done to replicate the

work done by Coetzee, 2001 and to work done by Coetzee, 2001 and to demonstrate that:demonstrate that:

• There is a phonological There is a phonological grammar (phonotactics)grammar (phonotactics)

• The OCP has ‘psychological reality’ (i.e. influences how words are pronounced and is thus an inherent part of a phonological grammar) for English speakers.

Specific Research QuestionsSpecific Research Questions

Does the OCP influence English speakers Does the OCP influence English speakers acceptability of nonsense words?acceptability of nonsense words?

Prediction:Prediction: OCP factors do influence production: thus perception plays a OCP factors do influence production: thus perception plays a

role in shaping English wordsrole in shaping English words

English makes a distinction for coronal place /t/ English makes a distinction for coronal place /t/

Continuum ConstructionContinuum ConstructionThree stimulus sets of two continua Three stimulus sets of two continua each were constructed. Each each were constructed. Each continuum had a range of tokens continuum had a range of tokens ambiguous between two ‘words’. ambiguous between two ‘words’. The stimulus sets are shown below:The stimulus sets are shown below:

[K]~[P][K]~[P] [P]~[T][P]~[T] [K]~[T][K]~[T]

Continua fromContinua from [sKaK] to [sKaK] to [sKaP][sKaP]

[sPaP] to [sPaP] to [sPaK][sPaK]

[sTuT]~[sTuP][sTuT]~[sTuP]

[sPuP]~[sPuT][sPuP]~[sPuT][sKeK]~[sKeT][sKeK]~[sKeT]

[sTeT]~[sTeK][sTeT]~[sTeK]

Construction of the Construction of the ExperimentExperiment

Each non-word was recorded in the carrier sentence, John said ____again to me. Using an audio program each token word was spliced so that either 40% or 60% of the vowel was cut out.

Each continuum was presented independently over the course of 2 trials

Filler items were included for each of the continuums

ExperimentationExperimentationSetting-The setting for the experiment took place in a

small, quite lab room. Each participant listened to the experiment through noise reduction headphones and pressed a button on the computer key board indicating the final consonant that they heard

Subjects- Subjects for this experiment were 40 undergraduate native speakers of English from the University of New Hampshire.

[P]~[K] Continuum[P]~[K] Continuum

[P]~[K] [P]~[K] Bias Bias TowardsTowards

PredictionPrediction

[sKaP] to [sKaP] to [sKaK][sKaK]

[sPaP] to [sPaP] to [sPaK][sPaK]

pp

kk

Bias will be towards [p] because [skak] goes against OCP

Bias will be towards [k] because [spap] goes against OCP

0

20

40

60

80

100

P Bias

picked p

picked k

[sKaP] to [sKaK] continuum

[sPaP] to [sPaK] continuum

0

20

40

60

80

100

K Bias

picked p

picked k

[P]~[T] Continuum[P]~[T] Continuum

[P]~[T] [P]~[T] Bias Bias TowardTowardss

PredictionPrediction

[sPuT] [sPuT] to to [sPuP][sPuP]

[sTuT] [sTuT] to to [sTuP][sTuP]

tt

pp

Bias will be towards [t] because [spup] goes against OCP

Bias is uncertain because both [stup] and [stut] follow the OCP

0

20

40

60

80

100

P Bias

picked t

picked p

[sPuT] to [sPuP] continuum

[sTuT] to [sTuP] continuum

0

20

40

60

80

100

T Bias

picked t

picked p

[K]~[T] Continuum[K]~[T] Continuum

[K]~[T] [K]~[T] Bias Bias TowardsTowards

PredictionPrediction

[sKeT] to [sKeT] to [sKeK][sKeK]

[sTeT] to [sTeT] to [sTeK][sTeK]

tt

kk

Bias will be towards [t] because [skek] goes against the OCP.

Bias is uncertain because both [stek] and [stet] follow the OCP

0

20

40

60

80

100

K Bias

picked t

picked k

[sKeT] to [sKeK] continuum

[sTeT] to [sTeK] continuum

0

20

40

60

80

100

T Bias

picked t

picked k

DiscussionDiscussion

Our results do support the earlier work Our results do support the earlier work done by Coetzee (2001). There does done by Coetzee (2001). There does appear to be categorical speech appear to be categorical speech recognition of nonsense words.recognition of nonsense words.

Thus, like Coetzee we conclude that Thus, like Coetzee we conclude that the OCP does play a role in speech the OCP does play a role in speech production.production.

ImplicationsImplicationsA growing body of work (e.g. Guy &

Boberg 1997; Bybee, 2000, 2004) have all shown that the OCP can account for variable output data. This converging evidence suggests that gradience has to be accommodated for within formal theories of Phonology.

Clinical Implications: When assessing the linguistic competence of individuals, clinicians must consider the roleperception plays in word learning.

Acquisition work must take perception into account normal word learning

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

The Hamel Center for Undergraduate Research whose financial support made this research possible

Thanks to my faculty mentor, Professor Bryant for his guidance and support.

ReferencesReferences Alan Prince & Paul Smolensky (1993): Optimality Theory: Constraint

Interaction in Generative Grammar. Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science Technical Report 2.

Bleile, Ken., (2004). Manual of Articulation and Phonological Disorders: Infancy Through Adulthood 2d ed. Clifton Park, NY:  Thompson/Delmar Learning,

Coetzee, A. W., (2003). In Prosodies. Selected papers from the Phonetics and Phonologicy in Iberia Conference, 2003. Sonia Frota, Marina Vigario and Maria Jolio Freitas, eds. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Leben, W., (1978). The representation of tone. In Tone: A Linguistic Survey. Victoria Fromkin (ed.), 177-219. New York Academic Press.

McCarthy, John J. (1986). OCP Effects: Gemination and antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry 17:207-263

Presentation (2008). Neurobehavioral Systems. <http://www.neurobs.com/nbs_online>

Questions?Questions?