Tracy Lennertz

Universal Constraints on the Sound Structure of Language: Phonological or Acoustic?.

Languages are known to exhibit universal restrictions on sound structure. The source of such restrictions, however, is contentious: Do they reflect abstract phonological knowledge, or properties of linguistic experience and auditory perception? We address this question by investigating the restrictions on onset structure. Across languages, onsets of small sonority distances are dispreferred (e.g., lb is dispreferred to bn). Previous research with aural materials demonstrates such preferences modulate the perception of unattested onsets by English speakers: Universally ill-formed onsets are systematically misperceived (e.g., lba --> leba) relative to well-formed onsets (e.g., bn). Here, we show that the difficulty to process universally ill-formed onsets extends to printed materials. Auxiliary tests indicate that such difficulties reflect phonological, rather than orthographic knowledge, and regression analyses demonstrate such knowledge goes beyond the statistical properties of the lexicon. These findings suggest that speakers have abstract, possibly universal, phonological knowledge that is general with respect to input modality.

Language universals and misidentification: a two-way street.

Certain ill-formed phonological structures are systematically under-represented across languages and misidentified by human listeners. It is currently unclear whether this results from grammatical phonological knowledge that actively recodes ill-formed structures, or from difficulty with their phonetic encoding. To examine this question, we gauge the effect of two types of tasks on the identification of onset clusters that are unattested in an individual’s language. One type calls attention to global phonological structure by eliciting a syllable count (e.g., does medif include one syllable or two?). A second set of tasks promotes attention to local phonetic detail by requiring the detection of specific segments (e.g., does medif include an e?). Results from five experiments show that, when participants attend to global phonological structure, ill-formed onsets are misidentified (e.g., mdif→medif) relative to better-formed ones (e.g., mlif). In contrast, when people attend to local phonetic detail, they identify ill-formed onsets as well as better-formed ones, and they are highly sensitive to non-distinctive phonetic cues. These findings suggest that misidentifications reflect active recoding based on broad phonological knowledge, rather than passive failures to extract acoustic surface forms. Although the perceptual interface could shape such knowledge, the relationship between language and misidentification is a two-way street.

Phonological universals constrain the processing of nonspeech stimuli.

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 2 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 language-particular, 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-general accounts of cognition.

Phonological Universals in Early Childhood: Evidence from Sonority Restrictions

Across languages, onsets with large sonority distances are preferred to those with smaller distances (e.g., bw>bd>lb; Greenberg 1978). Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky 2004) attributes such facts to grammatical restrictions that are universally active in all grammars. To test this hypothesis, here we examine whether children extend putatively universal sonority restrictions to onsets unattested in their language. Participants (M = 4;03) were presented with pairs of auditory words—either identical (e.g., lbif⇉lbif) or epenthetically related (e.g., lbif⇉lebif)—and asked to judge their identity. Results showed that, like adults, childrens ability to detect epenthetic distortions was monotonically related to sonority distance (bw>bd>lb), and their performance was inexplicable by several statistical and phonetic factors. These findings suggest that sonority restrictions are active in early childhood, and their scope is broad.