Phonological features and phonotactic constraints in speech production

Goldrick, Matthew

doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.07.004

Cited by 79 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While broadly compatible with exemplar-based accounts (Johnson, 1997;Pierrehumbert, 2001), findings like these show that, at least for articulation, an account that solely relies on processes taking place across interlocutors is not sufficient to capture speakers' ability to learn from their own productions (for further evidence that speakers can learn from their own productions, see Dell, Reed, Adams, & Meyer, 2000;Goldrick, 2004;Warker & Dell, 2006).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

Communicative efficiency in language production: Optional case-marking in Japanese

Kurumada

Jaeger

2015

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

Communicative efficiency in language production: Optional case-marking in Japanese

Kurumada

Jaeger

2015

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…One factor that may contribute to this effect may be the phonological status of the error outcome. That phonotactic constraints will influence the error outcome has repeatedly been shown in the auditory analyses of errors (e.g., Dell et al, 2000;Goldrick, 2004) -although instrumental studies have questioned whether these constraints operate as strongly in errors as previously assumed. In the case of stop consonants, the intrusion bias leads to simultaneous production of two consonant gestures in the same prevocalic position.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

The role of a coda consonant as error trigger in repetition tasks

Pouplier

2008

Journal of Phonetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speech errors are known to exhibit an intrusion bias in that segments are added rather than deleted; also, a shared final consonant can cause an interaction of the initial consonants. A principled connection between these two phenomena has been drawn in a gestural account of errors: Articulatory measures revealed a preponderance of errors in which both the target and intruding gesture are coproduced, instead of one replacing the other. This gestural intrusion bias has been interpreted as an errorful coupling of gestures in a dynamically stable coordination mode (1:1, in-phase), triggered by the presence of a shared coda consonant. Capturing tongue motion with ultrasound, the current paper investigates whether shared gestural composition other than a coda can trigger gestural co-production errors. Subjects repeated two-word phrases with alternating initial stop or fricative consonants in a coda condition (e.g., top cop), a nocoda condition (e.g., taa kaa) and a three-word phrase condition (e.g., taa kaa taa). The no-coda condition showed a lower error rate than the coda condition. The three-word phrase condition elicited an intermediate error rate for the stop consonants, but a high error rate for the fricative alternations. While all conditions exhibited both substitution and coproduction errors, a gestural intrusion bias emerged mainly for the coda condition. The findings suggest that the proportion of different error types (substitutions, co-production errors) differs as a function of stimulus type: not all alternating stimulus patterns that trigger errors result in an intrusion bias.

show abstract

“…Phonotactic patterns can also be acquired in the lab: Participants familiarized with stimuli conforming to a particular pattern come to distinguish in performance between novel pattern-conforming and pattern-nonconforming stimuli. Such effects have been observed in learners as young as four months (Chambers et al, 2003;Saffran and Thiessen, 2003;Seidl and Buckley, 2005;Cristià et al, 2011), and in paradigms as diverse as phoneme restoration (Ohala and Feder, 1994), explicit categorization (Pycha et al, 2003;Wilson, 2003;Endress et al, 2005), allomorph selection (Peperkamp et al, 2006), speeded repetition (Onishi et al, 2002), induced speech errors (Dell et al, 2000;Goldrick, 2004;Warker and Dell, 2006), language-game responses (Wilson, 2006), and immediate recall (Majerus et al, 2004). These experiments are essentially conceptformation tasks in which participants learn to categorize stimuli, explicitly or implicitly, according to whether they conform to the target phonotactic pattern.…”

Section: Phonotactic Learning As Concept Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inter- and intra-dimensional dependencies in implicit phonotactic learning

Moreton

2012

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is phonological learning subject to the same inductive biases as learning in other domains? Previous studies of non-linguistic learning found that intradimensional dependencies (between two instances of the same feature) were learned more easily than inter-dimensional ones. This study compares implicit learning of intra-and inter-dimensional phonotactic dependencies. A series of six unsupervised implicit-learning experiments shows that a pattern based on agreement between two instances of the same feature is easier to learn than one based on correlation between instances of two different features. The results are interpreted as evidence for domain-general restrictions on the form of domainspecific learning primitives.

show abstract

Phonological features and phonotactic constraints in speech production

Cited by 79 publications

References 43 publications

Communicative efficiency in language production: Optional case-marking in Japanese

Communicative efficiency in language production: Optional case-marking in Japanese

The role of a coda consonant as error trigger in repetition tasks

Inter- and intra-dimensional dependencies in implicit phonotactic learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About