2. Speakers knowledge of phonological universals: Evidence from nasal clusters Iris Berent Florida Atlantic University Tracy Lennertz Florida Atlantic University Paul Smolensky Johns Hopkins University

3. blif lbif Challenge: What kinds of knowledge and learning mechanisms support linguistic generalizations?

4. Two answers

5. Answer 2: a specialized language acquisition system Domain-general learning (e.g., statistical learning) Linguistic experience: b l i f l b i f Blif *lbif Universal Grammar Specialized language- acquisition device Universal restrictions on language structure

6. Two answers L4:bl lb L3: bl lb L2: bl lb L1: bl lb

7. Answer 2: a specialized language acquisition system Domain-general learning (e.g., statistical learning) Linguistic experience: b l i f l b i f Blif *lbif Prince & Smolensky (1993/2004): *lb (marked) Avoid lb (markedness Constraint) Markedness constraints are universal all grammars ban lb regardless of whether bl/lb attested Do speakers possess universal grammatical preferences for unattested structures? lb

8. Whats wrong with lb?

9. Obstruentsp,b,k,g,t,d 1 Nasalsn,m2 Liquidsl,r3 Glides y,w 4 Phonological knowledge: Sonority profile Whats wrong with lbif? Large rise Obstruent- liquid bl2 Small rise Obstruent- nasal bn1 plateauObstruent- Obstruent bd0 fallLiquid- Obstruent lb-2 H 1 : small sonority distances are universally marked in the grammars of all speakers Greenbergs typology (1978): (Berent, Steriade, Lennertz & Vaknin, 2007): Frequency: large rise>small rise>plateau>fall Implications: Fall-->plateau Plateau-->small rise Small rise-->large rise

10. Obstruentsp,b,k,g,t,d 1 Nasalsn,m2 Liquidsl,r3 Glides y,w 4 Phonological knowledge: Sonority profile Whats wrong with lbif? H 1 : small sonority distances are universally marked in the grammars of all speakers Grammar Audition Articulation Statistical knowledge Non-grammatical sources

11. Whats wrong with lbif? Source: –Are speakers equipped with grammatical restrictions on sonority Scope: –Do speakers extend sonority restrictions to unattested clusters?

12. Previous research (Berent, Steriade, Lennertz & Vaknin, 2007) Unattested obstruent sonorant sequences Infer markedness from perceptual illusions –Ill-formed onsets are misperceived (e.g., Pitt, 1998) –Misperception is inversely related to sonority distance Misperception is not due to –Phonetic failure –Statistical knowledge Conclusion: grammatical preference –Misperception is inversely related to sonority profile Lbif>l e bif Bnif>b e nif Misperception is not due to –Phonetic failure English speakers can perceive lbif accurately when attention to phonetic information is encouraged Misperception observed also with printed materials –Statistical knowledge Conclusion: grammatical preference Grammar lb lebleb Markedness hierarchy Blif bnif bdif lbif Large rise>small rise>plateau>fall English

13. Why does the grammar favor bn?

14. UG: sonority distance L4: rise>fall L3: rise>fall L2: rise>fall L1: rise>fall G English: ob-son ob-son

15. Typological evidence: Broad preference for rises Obstruent-initial (Greenberg, 1978, Universal 17) Nasal-initial (Greenberg, 1978, Universal 24) OL~OL LO120 ~ LO6515 NL~NL LN7(1) ~ LN1666

16. Do English speakers extend the preference for sonority rises to nasal-initial onsets?

17. Risemlif Fallmdif Test: nasal onsets Is mlif>mdif

18. Rationale : Infer markedness from repair Assume: Ill formed onsets are repaired epenthetically (e..g, Berent et al., 2007) If the grammar broadly disfavors falls –Then, compared to rises Falls should be more likely to –undergo epenthetic repair –Be misperceived as disyllabic Hypothesis: –If the grammfavor rises to falls –Falls should be more likely to be misperceived as disyllabic m e d if *falls Faith fall mdif** medif* Grammar mdif

19. Is mdif medif?

20. Experiment 1 syllable count One syllable or two? Risesfalls monosyllabic mlifmdif disylalbic melifmedif

21. Method 12 pairs –Labial-coronal –Coronal-labial Generated by splicing –Melif-->mlif Risemlifmelif fallmdifmedif Fillers: mnif/nmif OCP manner (Greenberg, 1978)

22. procedure Hear a word One syllable or two? 1 One syllable 2 Two syllables

23. Prediction Mdif (falls) Grammar medif Two syllables

24. Exp. 1: Syllable judgment of nasal clusters mlif mdif melif medif mlif mdif>medif

25. Experiment 2 Does sonority profile affect the interpretation of ambiguous CeC sequences?

26. Incremental splicing Full vowel

27. Incremental splicing Cut 1

28. Incremental splicing Cut 6 No vowel

29. task Hear an auditory word Is there an e? 1 yes 2 No

30. Prediction If falls trigger repair, then people should be more likely to perceive epenthesis in falls relative to rises

31. results CCVCCeCVC

32. Is mdif=medif

33. Exp. 3: Identity judgment Markedness of monosyllabic form Word 1Word 2Identical *MelifMlifno **medifmdifNo *Mlif Yes **mdif Yes medif

34. Nonidentity trials mlif- melif mdif- medif

35. Are falls represented less faithfully?

36. Experiment 4 Spelling of auditory words Question: Is mlif spelled less accurately?

37. Correct spelling responses

38. Conclusion mdif medif Sonority falls are encoded less faithfully than rises Falls undergo epenthesis

39. Why? mdif medif ? Grammar *Falls Nonlinguistic sources

40. Alternative explanations Stimulus artifacts: –Failure to remove the epenthetic vowel –Do Russian speakers misperceive falls? Syllable count (monosyllabic items) Russian English

41. Alternative explanations Stimulus artifacts: –Failure to remove the epenthetic vowel –Do Russian speakers misperceive falls? Phonetic failure Identity judgment (nonidentity trials) Russian English

42. Alternative explanations Stimulus artifacts: –Failure to remove the epenthetic vowel –Do Russian speakers misperceive falls? Phonetic failure Identity judgment (nonidentity trials) Russian English

43. Phonetic analysis Grammar mdif>medif Phonetic form mdif Phonological form (repaired) lebif Repair or phonetic failure? repair

44. Phonetic analysis Grammar mdif>medif Phonetic form mdif Phonetic form mdif Phonological form (repaired) lebif Repair or phonetic failure? repair Phonetic failure

45. Do markedness effects extend to printed words? Identity judgment: *Word1XXXXword2: Identical? *mdif XXXX MEDIF 100ms500ms2500ms No

46. nonidentity trials

47. Alternative explanations Phonetic analysis Linguistic knowledge Lbif>lebif Phonetic form Lbif Phonological form (repaired) lebif UG Stat. knowledge

48. Two statistical accounts Segment co- occurrence

49. Two statistical accounts Segment co- occurrence Familiarity/legalit y of C2 –Mlif –Mdif –Mnif Prediction: mnif>mdif

50. Two statistical accounts Segment co- occurrence Familiarity/legalit y of C2 –Mlif –Mdif –Mnif Prediction: mnif>mdif

51. Two statistical accounts Segment co- occurrence Familiarity/legalit y of C2 –Mlif –Mdif –Mnif Statistical prediction: mnif>mdif mnif mdif

52. Phonetic analysis Grammar Phonetic form Lbif Phonological form (repaired) lebif Statistical learning

53. Phonetic analysis Grammar Rises>falls Phonetic form Lbif Phonological form (repaired) lebif Statistical learning Rises>falls

54. Some unanswered questions: How does the grammar constrain unattested onsets? Contribution of experience to grammatical knowledge: Experience-independent Inferred from experience –How is inference obtained –What kind of experience is necessary –Domain- and species- specificity of learning mechanism Take home: –English speakers manifest broad sonority preferences that extend to unattested clusters –Consistent with hypothesis of universal markedness preferences –Source of markedness preferences remains to be seen UG Rises>falls?

55. Thank you!