Phonotactics and Articulatory Coordination Interact in Phonology: Evidence from Nonnative Production

Davidson, Lisa

doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0000_73

Cited by 51 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One possibility is that, for stop-initial sequences, talkers adjust the timing between consonants at a phonological level. That is, consonant clusters are pulled apart in time, not because of low level motor error but as a way to avoid phonotactic violation (Davidson, 2006b;Gafos, 2002). In the context of the current modeling paradigm this could be tested by manipulating the k ipi parameter.…”

Section: [ ( ) T D $ F I G ]mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptual similarity in input–output mappings: A computational/experimental study of non-native speech production

Shaw

Davidson

2011

Lingua

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: [ ( ) T D $ F I G ]mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptual similarity in input–output mappings: A computational/experimental study of non-native speech production

Shaw

Davidson

2011

Lingua

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A large body of experimental research indicates that onsets with large sonority clines are, indeed preferable (for reviews, see Berent et al, 2007;Berent et al, 2009; but c.f., Davidson, 2006aDavidson, , 2006bPeperkamp, 2007;Redford, 2008), but because such onsets also tend to be more frequent in language use, the precise source of such preferences-sonority or frequency-is difficult to ascertain. A recent series of experiments, however, demonstrated that speakers favor onsets with large sonority clines to those with smaller clines even when both types of onsets are unattested in their language (Berent et al, 2007;Berent et al, 2008;Berent et al, 2009;Berent, 2008).…”

Section: Sonority Restrictions As a Putative Output Universalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phonological universals constrain the processing of nonspeech stimuli

Berent¹,

Balaban²,

Lennertz³

et al. 2009

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Domain-specific systems are hypothetically specialized with respect to the outputs they compute and the inputs they allow (Fodor, 1983). Here, we examine whether these two conditions for specialization are dissociable. An initial experiment suggests that English speakers could extend a putatively universal phonological restriction to inputs identified as nonspeech. A subsequent comparison of English and Russian participants indicates that the processing of nonspeech inputs is modulated by linguistic experience. Striking, qualitative differences between English and Russian participants suggest that they rely on linguistic principles, both universal and languageparticular, rather than generic auditory processing strategies. Thus, the computation of idiosyncratic linguistic outputs is apparently not restricted to speech inputs. This conclusion presents various challenges to both domain-specific and domain-generalist accounts of cognition.The nature of the human capacity for language is one of the most contentious issues in cognitive science. The debate specifically concerns the specialization of the language system -whether people are innately equipped with mechanisms dedicated to the computation of linguistic structure (e.g., Chomsky, 1980;, or whether language processing relies only on domain-general systems (Rumelhart & McClelland, 1986;Elman et al., 1996;McClelland, 2009).Of the various behavioral hallmarks of specialization, the test from design is arguably the strongest. If language were the product of a specialized system, then one would expect all languages to share universal design principles (Chomsky, 1980;Fodor, 1983;Jackendoff, 2002;. Moreover, if the language system emerged by natural selection, these principles should be functionally adaptive (Pinker & Bloom, 1994;Pinker, 2003). To the extent that such universal adaptive principles exist, and they are demonstrably robust with respect to the statistical properties of linguistic experience and input modality, this would Address for correspondence: Iris Berent, Department of Psychology, Northeastern University, 125 Nightingale Hall, 360 Huntington Ave. Boston, MA 02115-5000, i.berent@neu.edu. Publisher's Disclaimer: The following manuscript is the final accepted manuscript. It has not been subjected to the final copyediting, fact-checking, and proofreading required for formal publication. It is not the definitive, publisher-authenticated version. The American Psychological Association and its Council of Editors disclaim any responsibility or liabilities for errors or omissions of this manuscript version, any version derived from this manuscript by NIH, or other third parties. The published version is available at www.apa.org/pubs/journals/xge NIH Public Access Author Manuscript J Exp Psychol Gen. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 January 13. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript provide strong suggestive evidence for constraints inherent to the language system itself (but cf. Blevins, 2004;Bybee, 2008;E...

show abstract

“…These nonnative clusters were chosen because they were most likely to induce errors that could be easily perceived by a listener (i.e., the experimenter) for whom the clusters are nonnative (Davidson, 2006a(Davidson, , 2006b). This consideration was critical for providing accurate online feedback to participants.…”

Section: Present Investigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Feedback Frequency on Performance in a Novel Speech Motor Learning Task

Lowe

Buchwald

2017

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study investigated whether whole nonword accuracy, phoneme accuracy, and acoustic duration measures were influenced by the amount of feedback speakers without impairment received during a novel speech motor learning task. Method Thirty-two native English speakers completed a nonword production task across 3 time points: practice, short-term retention, and long-term retention. During practice, participants received knowledge of results feedback according to a randomly assigned schedule (100%, 50%, 20%, or 0%). Changes in nonword accuracy, phoneme accuracy, nonword duration, and initial-cluster duration were compared among feedback groups, sessions, and stimulus properties. Results All participants improved phoneme and whole nonword accuracy at short-term and long-term retention time points. Participants also refined productions of nonwords, as indicated by a decrease in nonword duration across sessions. The 50% group exhibited the largest reduction in duration between practice and long-term retention for nonwords with native and nonnative clusters. Conclusions All speakers, regardless of feedback schedule, learned new speech motor behaviors quickly with a high degree of accuracy and refined their speech motor skills for perceptually accurate productions. Acoustic measurements may capture more subtle, subperceptual changes that may occur during speech motor learning. Supplemental Materials https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.5116324

show abstract

Phonotactics and Articulatory Coordination Interact in Phonology: Evidence from Nonnative Production

Cited by 51 publications

References 48 publications

Perceptual similarity in input–output mappings: A computational/experimental study of non-native speech production

Perceptual similarity in input–output mappings: A computational/experimental study of non-native speech production

Phonological universals constrain the processing of nonspeech stimuli

The Impact of Feedback Frequency on Performance in a Novel Speech Motor Learning Task

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About