1. This material is based upon work supported by NIH under Grant No. F32MH68204-01A1. The effect of experience on the perception and representation of dialects Meghan Sumner Stony Brook University University of California, Berkeley

2. The basic questions 1.How do listeners accommodate the variation found in the speech signal? 2.What representations are used to perceive and understand speech? 3.What is the effect of experience on perception and representation?

3. The basic questions 1.How do listeners accommodate the variation found in the speech signal? –Is a surface pattern generalization made across dialectal variants? –Are all variants equally able to map to meaning? 2.What representations are used to perceive and understand speech? 3.What is the effect of experience on perception and representation?

4. The basic questions 1.How do listeners accommodate the variation found in the speech signal? 2.What representations are used to perceive and understand speech? 3.What is the effect of experience on perception and representation?

5. The basic questions 1.How do listeners accommodate the variation found in the speech signal? 2.What representations are used to perceive and understand speech? –In the long-term, are variants mapped to a single abstract representation, or to individual, exemplar representations? 3.What is the effect of experience on perception and representation?

6. The basic questions 1.How do listeners accommodate the variation found in the speech signal? 2.What representations are used to perceive and understand speech? 3.What is the effect of experience on perception and representation?

7. The basic questions 1.How do listeners accommodate the variation found in the speech signal? 2.What representations are used to perceive and understand speech? 3.What is the effect of experience on perception and representation? –Does experience with a particular dialect affect perception and representation?

8. How can dialects help? Consider slender –Variation: Compare cross-dialectal variants in immediate and long-term tasks –slend- er vs. slend-[  ] –Experience: Control participant experience with a particular dialect –Compare r-full forms of General American (GA) with r-less forms of New York City dialect (NYC) using psycholinguistic tasks GA = participants who do not r-drop or exhibit other regionally-marked characteristics

9. What can priming tasks tell us? Form priming : Do listeners generalize a pattern for cross-dialectal variants independent of dialect? »How well does slend- er prime an identical item slend- er or a cross-dialect item slend-[  ]? Semantic priming : Are cross-dialectal variants mapped onto by meaning by listeners independent of dialect? »Is slend-[  ] as effective in activating ‘thin ’ as slend- er ? Long-term repetition priming: Are cross-dialectal variants mapped onto a single abstract representation, or stored as individual concrete, or exemplar, representations? »Does slend- er exhibit the same level of identity priming after 20 minutes as slend-[  ]? Immediate processing Long-term representation

10. The effect of experience: Participants Post-experiment interview & questionnaire – Interview : Productive r-dropping, yes or no? – Questionnaire : Born in what city, state, country (participants, parents, grandparents) Languages spoken (participants, parents, grandparents) Other locations lived (including dates) 3 listener populations Needed 144 participants, ran 207 –Some exclusion criteria Lived outside NYC area, bilingual, not 1 st semester SB students

11. GA –Never lived in the NYC/Tri-State area, or any other r-dropping region –First-semester Stony Brook students (run in 1 st month on campus) NYC R-less –Lifelong NYC-area residents –Prominent r-dropping NYC R-full –Lifelong NYC-area residents –No r-dropping What’s the difference? 96% of R-less listeners’ parents and grandparents are NYC natives * * * 3% of R-full listeners’ parents and/or grandparents are NYC natives Three populations

12. Familiar voices facilitate processing Stimuli created with FOUR speakers Primes produced by two females (one GA, one NYC) Targets produced by two males (one GA, one NYC)

13. Experiment 1: Form priming Do listeners generalize a pattern for cross dialectal variants independent of dialect? Typical trial: Auditory prime-target pairs separated by a short interval Lexical decision made for targets PrimeISITargetResponse (GA Voice 1)(GA Voice 2) runn- er runn- er “Word” 100ms [g  gi][g  gi]“Pseudoword”

14. Experiment 1: Form priming design Four conditions ConditionRelated PrimeTargetControl Prime GA – GA runn- er runn- er bak- er NYC– GArun[  ]runn- er bak-[  ] GA – NYCrunn- er run[  ]bak- er NYC– NYCrun[  ]run[  ]bak-[  ] 48 participants (16 for each population) 160 –er final words No item or variant presented in more than 1 trial Counterbalanced lists Fillers avoid response bias GA Identity NYC Identity 1. 2. 3. 4.

15. Experiment 1: Form priming predictions If pattern between variants is internalized Priming in all conditions, strongest in identity conditions If pattern between variants is internalized Priming in all conditions, strongest in identity conditions If pattern not internalized ( arbitrary or new ) Benefit for within-dialect variants If pattern between variants is internalized Priming in all conditions, strongest in identity conditions If pattern not internalized ( arbitrary or new ) Benefit for within-dialect variants If experience with a variation is critical Differences among three listener groups e.g., Difference between NYC R-Less and GA in facilitation of NYC targets

16. Experiment 1: Form priming results ConditionPrime – Target GA– GArunn- er – runn- er NYC– GArun[  ] – runn- er GA – NYCrunn- er – run[  ] NYC– NYCrun[  ] – run[  ] Short-term mapping between all variants for NYC participants No mapping to NYC variants for GA Lack of experience has clear processing cost NYC R-Less Strong identity priming in both dialects Reduced variant priming NYC R-Full Similar to R-Less participants Exposure facilitates processing GA Priming only for GA targets Surface variation not internalized

17. Experiment 2: Semantic Priming Do all variants facilitate the recognition of a semantically-related target? Typical trial: Auditory prime-target pairs separated by a short interval Lexical decision made for targets PrimeISITargetResponse (GA Voice 1)(GA Voice 2) slend- er thin “Word” 100ms [bo  ] guggy “Pseudoword”

18. Experiment 2: Semantic priming design Four conditions ConditionRelated PrimeTargetControl 1. GA– GA slend- er (GA voice 1) thin (GA voice 2) filt- er 2. NYC– GA slend[  ] thinfilt[  ] 3. GA – NYC slend- er thinfilt- er 4. NYC– NYC slend[  ] (NYC voice 1) thin (NYC voice 2) filt[  ] 48 participants (16 for each population) 160 –er final words and semantically-related targets Targets chosen via large-scale mass testing experiment No item or variant presented in more than 1 trial Fillers included to avoid response biases

19. Experiment 2: Semantic priming p redictions Native dialect primes should facilitate recognition of related targets Non-dialect primes should not yield facilitation If lack of exposure prohibits lexical activation for variants: Only GA primes should facilitate lexical activation for GA listeners (Cost) All variant primes should facilitate lexical activation for NYC listeners (Benefit) If non-dialect variants do not activate semantically-related items:

20. Experiment 2: Semantic priming results Exposure to two dialects results in equivalent lexical activation across dialects NYC variant inconsistent with representation resulting in processing cost ConditionPrimeTarget GA -GAslend- er thin NYC -GA slend[  ] thin GA -NYCslend- er thin NYC -NYC slend[  ] thin NYC R-Less All variants equally effective in lexical activation Benefit for GA prime NYC R-Full Pattern similar to R-Less participants Strong semantic priming independent of variant dialect GA Priming only for GA primes NYC primes are unable to activate lexicon

21. How do listeners process cross-dialect variants ? Listeners exposed to both dialects … –generalize surface pattern form processing lexical activation in the short-term

22. The issue of representation Striking similarity between R-Less and R-Full in the short term Listeners able to generalize surface pattern with experience Tasks do not inform us about nature of representations –Issue of representation on backburner –Surface generalizations derived from abstract representations –Evidence that representations (and information they carry) have a role in speech perception Question: What do listeners actually represent?

23. Experiment 3: Long-term repetition priming Do listeners store a single abstract representation, or multiple, concrete representations? Typical trial: Individual words presented Lexical decision made for each word Primes and targets presented in different blocks or lists Effect based on long-term activation of phonological representations

24. ConditionBlock 1: Primes Block 2: Targets 1.GA GArepeated — slend- er control filt- er filt- er 2. NYC GArepeated — slend- er control filt-[  ] filt- er 3.GA NYCrepeated — slend-[  ] control filt- er filt-[  ] 4. NYC NYCrepeated — slend-[  ] control filt-[  ] filt-[  ] ConditionBlock 1: Primes Block 2: Targets 1.GA GArepeatedslend- er slend- er control —filt- er 2. NYC GArepeatedslend- [  ] slend- er control —filt- er 3.GA NYCrepeatedslend- er slend-[  ] control —filt-[  ] 4. NYC NYCrepeatedslend-[  ] slend-[  ] control —filt-[  ] Experiment 3: Long-term repetition priming design 48 participants, 16 of each listener group 160 –er final words No variant present in more than 1 trial Fillers used to eliminate response biases

25. Experiment 3: Long-term repetition priming predictions Expect GA participants to store one representation Strong within-dialect identity priming If listeners store multiple, concrete representations: Strong within- and cross-dialect identity priming If experience affects representation Differences among three listener groups (expected)

26. Long-term priming: Results Type of experience plays role Language use  representation NYC R-Less Strong identity priming in both dialects Two variants stored NYC R-Full Similar to GA – single abstract representation Representations differ from Overt-NYC GA Priming only for GA-GA condition Single representation ConditionPrime – Target GA– GAslend- er – slend- er NYC– GAslend[  ] – slend- er GA – NYCslend- er – slend[  ] NYC– NYCslend[  ] – slend[  ]

27. Two critical distinctions can be made: 1.Production and representation 2.Process and representation Language use is not equivalent to representation NYC R-Less Participants Produced one form in interview but store two representations Representations not necessarily equivalent NYC R-Full and GA Participants S ame representation, different immediate ability to generalize variant pattern

28. To sum up … Language use is not a predictor of representation Evident cost of lack of experience with surface variation Experience influences –Immediate processing and representations Benefit for canonical form

29. Thank You!

30. Do these patterns generalize to within-dialect phonetic variation?

31. Long-term repetition priming of phonetic variants flu[t] flu[  t  ] flu[  ] flare --- flu[t] flu[  t  ] flu[  ] flare Basic Unreleased Glottal Repeated Control New Control Most frequent Are multiple phonetic variants stored as independent forms? PrimesTargets If multiple, concrete representations are stored … we should find identity priming for all variants Basic Identity Unreleased Identity Glottal Identity Repeated Identity

32. Are multiple phonetic variants stored as independent forms? Basic Unreleased Glottal Control IdentityIdentity Identity Identity Only Basic [t] identity as strong as repeated control Low frequency form encoded most efficiently Identity priming indicative of concrete representations PrimeTarget Basic identity flu[t]flu[t] Unreleased identityflu[  t  ]flu[  t  ] Glottal identityflu[  ]flu[  ] Control identityflareflare Benefit for canonical form, even when it is not the most frequent

33. Implications and new directions

34. Implications and important questions 1.Benefit for canonical form –Is something about [t] simply more memorable? Are certain acoustic cues more salient? –Are abstract generalizations made over sounds or words? 2.Specificity of representations? –Rethink role and nature of representations –At what level do multiple representations exist? 3.What and where do listeners learn? –Specific acoustic cues or robust generalizations? –Is learning pre-lexical or lexical? Learning and generalization of non-native acoustic cues

35. Voicing contrast in native and non-native English Native English voicing contrast made with vowel-consonant duration ratio –Consider beat and bead In Polish, final devoicing leads to near neutralization –Contrast made in voicing into closure duration Pilot studies 1.Native Polish speaker of English transfer this cue to English 2.Native English listeners perceive beat and bead as beat “Bad Map”

36. Learning and generalization of non-native cues How do listeners learn to move from reliance on a native acoustic cue to the use of a new non-native cue? Where does learning occur? –Is a cue learned and remapped at the pre-lexical or lexical level? What is generalized? –Once a cue is learned, does it generalize to: New words? Once beat/bead contrast learned … Generalize to seat/seed and to tack/tag ? New speakers?Learn contrast for speakers A & B … Generalize to C & D? New L1 with same cue? Contrast learned for Native Polish speakers of English: Generalize to native Korean?

37. Conclusions Listeners : –Represent forms other than those they produce –Process variants depending on prior experience –Store multiple concrete representations –Benefit from a canonical form (even if it is not the most frequent) A listener’s knowledge is not autonomous, but bound by experience and through experience, multiple representations are promoted

38. Thank You!

40. Example illustration of priming -er features Speech Signal: Feature Bundles Phonemes or Phoneme Chunks Long-term Representation    /  - er /    /  / Prime: slend- er  features  Long-term repetition priming Target: slend- er Prime: slend-[  ]Target: slend-[  ] /  -  /

41. Comment on error rates Error rates examined for form and long-term priming tasks Strong benefit for GA form across groups – independent of native dialect Form priming Long- term priming Introduction Preliminaries Dialect Experiments Generalization to past results New Directions Conclusion

42. Error Rates show GA benefit Error rates collapsed across form priming and long-term priming experiments Hearing a GA prime improves target recognition accuracy even for Overt-NYC participants

43. The problem of variation Consider the word card –Boston [k h ad] –New York [k h  d] –German-English[k h a  t] CARD or … cod ? cawed ? cart ?

44. –Dialect atlas –(Kurath, 1939; Labov et al., 2006) –Social factors –(Giles, 1970; Labov, 1972; Preston, 1986) –Acoustic analysis – –Dialect identification –(Clopper & Pisoni, 2003) –Dialect variation in OT –(Anttila & Cho, 1998) –Perceptual learning & speaker adaptation –(Dahan & Scarborough, 2005; Kraljic & Samuel, 2005 ; Norris, McQueen, & Cutler, 2003) – –Perception of merged and unmerged dialects –(Bowie, 2000; Janson & Schulman, 1983; Labov, Karan, & Miller, 1991; )

45. Experiment 2: Semantic Priming Schema (Covert-NYC perspective)  features  features Speech Signal: Feature Bundles Phoneme Lexical    /  /    /  /  [  ][  ][  ] ? Semantic priming

46. Coping with variation White or dark meat? What was produced?[d  k] What did I hear? dog [d  k] ~ [da  k] variation not surprising

47. Crossing the threshold What changed? Do I now treat [d  k] as a systematic variant of /d  k/? Did I learn to map a variant (e.g., [d  k]) onto an existing representation, or did I create a new exemplar representation?

48. Examining linguistic issues with psycholinguistic tasks: Priming What is priming? –Preparing a sound, chunk, word –Benefit on the later recognition of a related stimulus What happens in a typical experiment – Prime is presented (e.g., horse ) – Prime activates Sounds([h], [o], etc.) Representation (/  /) Meaninghorse, barn, cow, etc. –Measure: Reaction time to target Benefits of priming paradigm –Sensitivity to subtle acoustic deviations –Manipulate delay: Immediate ( processing ) and long-term ( representation ) effects Target presented Form-sharing: course Identical: horse Meaning-related: barn

49. Example illustration of priming -er features Speech Signal: Feature Bundles Phonemes or Phoneme Chunks Long-term Representation    /  - er /    /  / Prime: slend- er Form priming Target: slend- er Target: slend-[  ]  features 

50. Example illustration of priming -er features Speech Signal: Feature Bundles Phonemes or Phoneme Chunks Long-term Representation    /  - er /    /  / Prime: slend- er Target: thin  features  Semantic Priming

51. -er features Speech Signal: Feature Bundles Phonemes or Phoneme Chunks Long-term Representation    /  - er /    Prime: slend- er  features  Long-term priming

52. What’s ahead Experiment design and results Generalization to within-dialect phonetic variation Discussion of models of representation Implications and future directions

53. What is the comparison? Comparison –Reaction time to TARGET preceded by related PRIME to –Reaction time to TARGET preceded by unrelated CONTROL PRIME PrimeTargetReaction Time (Target) Control Trial: runnyrunn-er960 Critical Trial: runn-errunn-er880 Difference :80 msec Priming Effect PrimeTargetReaction Time (Target) Control Trial: runnyrunn-er960 Critical Trial: run[  ] runn-er920 Difference :40 msec Priming Effect

54. Experiment 1: Form priming error rates Hearing a GA prime improves recognition of NYC target across the board GA – NYC runn- er – run[  ] NYC – NYC run[  ] – run[  ]

55. What can we learn through priming tasks? Form priming : Do listeners generalize a pattern for cross-dialectal variants independent of dialect? Semantic priming : Are cross-dialectal variants mapped onto by meaning by listeners independent of dialect? Long-term repetition priming: Are cross-dialectal variants mapped onto a single abstract representation, or stored as individual concrete, or exemplar, representations? Immediate processing Long-term representation