Phonology Seminar Diane Brentari, Purdue University City University & DCAL, June 14, 2006.

Phonology Seminar

Diane Brentari, Purdue UniversityCity University & DCAL, June 14, 2006

Preliminaries

What is the difference between phonetic, phonological, and morphological elements in SL?examples

Selected fingers Joints Non-selected fingers

“bent-B” and “straight B” forms of . . . (ASL) know, (BSL) vehicle

1. How to tell the difference

Phonetics, phonology, and morphology are not mutually exclusive!!

Consider a pair of forms that are minimally different for the element in question

Ask if there is a difference in meaning:– Y/N -- word level & in what context– Y/N -- morphological level & in what

context


If there is no morphological or lexical difference in meaning in any context, the property is phonetic.

Sometimes phonetic properties can be indicators of dialectal variation


If there is morphological or lexical differences between the two minimally different forms, delineate the contexts in these differences occur

Typically it is the task of the phonologist to determine the systematic nature of these differences. (Consider the spoken-L example from English “s”)

Goals of a phonological model for cognitive science

1. provide structures analogous to those of spoken languages to use experimentally for psycholinguistic comparisons between signed and spoken languages -- e.g., the syllable, the segment, the feature, the word

2. provide a basis for explaining modality differences between signed and spoken languages

3. provide a basis for explaining the neural mapping of language in SLs

4. provide a testable model for language acquisition and language breakdown

Goals of a phonological model for linguistics1. Create an inventory of structures in the phonology of a

language or language family : features, syllables, morae, words, phrase types. Which ones does a given language use?

2. Provide a means of distinguishing between elements that are phonetic, morphological and phonological using phonological processes and specify the phonologically relevant properties and only those. (e.g., What is the morpho-phonemic status of each property of phonological structure “F” in ASL?)

3. Create the simplest structure and set of rules/constraints for describing a particular language or language family. a. 2-handed signs and constraints on themb. classifiers and how they differ from core lexical itemsc. the manual alphabet and words derived from it vs. lexical items.

Today’s goals:

1. Which structures do we need?--the syllable and related issues

2. What Modality differences are in these structures--syllable, segment, word, foot

3. How these knowledge of these structures helps in designing good psycholinguistic experiments?--word segmentation

Structure of the Prosodic Model

Heavy vs. light syllables

Distinction between heavy and light syllables as movements with more than one component (ASL examples)

1. Evidence for the syllable

The role of the heavy and light syllables in word order changes; heavy syllables gravitate to clause-final position.

Example: BOOK, 1GIVE3 JOHN *BOOK 1GIVE3 (continuative) JOHN *BOOK 1GIVE3 (habitual) JOHN

2. Evidence for the syllable

Nominal reduplication occurs only in stems with light syllables:

Evidence from ASL:– SIT/CHAIR, CLOSE-WINDOW/WINDOW,

GO-BY-PLANE/AIRPLANE, SUPPORT, DEBT, NAME, APPLICATION, ASSISTANT

– *DREAM, *THROW, *CATCH, *LEARN

One example of a modality effect: Morpheme-to-syllable ratio

monosyllabic polysyllabic

monomorphemic Chinese English,German, Hawaiian

polymorphemic sign languages West Greenlandic Turkish, Navajo,

simultaneity: 6 morphemes in one syllable2+bent-over + upright-beings + go-forward + side-by-side+ with care

How to use the syllable in psycholinguistic experimentsChoose a phenomenon well-studied in

spoken languages. Why?Use a design with a precedent in

spoken languages, but tailor it for sign data. This can be easy or difficult.

Utilize the linguistic structures on which we have the most consensus. Why?

In this case we will look at “word segmentation.”

Word segmentation

What it is . . .?

What it is not:– Pauses between words– Lexical access– Exclusively based on the “segment”

What influences word segmentation in SLs and Sp-Ls?Language experience

– Expected result would be that speakers would use their Sp-L strategies to segment sign

Modality effects– Expected result would be that speakers use the

same (or similar) strategies to segment sign as signers do

General properties of UG– The properties exploited for word segmentation in

SLs and Sp-Ls are the same.

For SpLs and SLs, we know . . .

SLs Sp-L

General Word segmentation

General Word segmentation

segment Yes//less ? Yes//more Yes//night rate vs. nitrate

syllable Yes//less ? Yes//more Yes//it involves rhythm

foot ? ? Yes Yes//crucial

word Yes// a lot ? Yes Yes//Harmony effects

Some signs are disyllablic: DESTROY (ASL)

vertical

horizontall

midsagital

The syllable has a function in SLs, but how much?Not all languages use all units equally.Some rely more heavily on the word

(Finnish), or on the mora (Japanese), or on the foot (English) or on the syllable (French).

Not only that, but languages use different units for different purposes.

demoJSL,demoHZJ,demoBSL

Experimental Design

Native signers (13); native English Speakers (13)

Nonsense movie clips (168), based on principles of word formation in ASL)

Forced choice task “Is this 1 sign or 2 signs?”

Hypotheses

Signers will have sharper judgments than non-signers about where the break between 2 signs belongs; language experience will matter.

Speakers will not use the rules of Sp-Ls for segmenting an SL; there will be a modality effect

Segmentation in signed and spoken languages require different strategies; the strategies will not be a part of UG

Stimuli: 168 nonsense forms:5 HS x 6 M x 2 POA counterbalanced to create cue conflict

1HS HSm+HSm HSu+HSu HSu+HSm 1HS+aperture Δ

1 MOV 1 P (3OA )2 P (3OA )

1 P (3OA )2 P (3OA )

1 P (3OA )2 P (3OA )

1 P (3OA )2 P (3OA )

1 P (3OA )2 POS (3)

ORΔ+HSΔ 1 P (3OA )2 P (3OA

1 P (3OA )2 P (3OA

1 P (3OA )2 P (3OA

1 P (3OA )2 P (3OA

path+path 1 P (3OA )2 P (3OA

1 P (3OA )2 P (3OA

1 P (3OA )2 P (3OA

1 P (3OA )2 P (3OA

1 P (3OA )2 P (3OA

path+HSΔ 1 P (3OA )2 P (3OA

1 POA (3)2 P (3OA

1 P (3OA )2 P (3OA

1 P (3OA )2 P (3OA

path+ O R Δ 1 POA (3)2 P (3OA )

1 P (3OA )2 P (3OA

1 P (3OA )2 P (3OA

1 P (3OA )2 P (3OA

1 P (3OA )2 P (3OA

2 M 1 P (3OA )2 P (3OA

1 P (3OA )2 P (3OA

1 P (3OA )2 P (3OA

1 POA (3)2 P (3OA

1 P (3OA )2 P (3OA )

MOVEMENT conditions

1. 1 movement: one movement in the form 2. * orΔ+hsΔan illicit combination of orientation

change+handshape change. *path+path: a combination of two illicit path movements (e.g.

straight+arc)4.* path+hsΔan illicit combination of path+handshape change5. * path+ orΔan illicit combination of path+orientation change6. 2 legal movements: a grammatical combination of two path

movements

HANDSHAPE conditions

1. 1 handshape: one handshape in the form2. * 2 HSs (m) 2 handshapes in the form; both marked3. * 2 HSs (u): 2 handshapes in the form; both unmarked 4. * 2 HSs (1+1): 2 handshapes in the form; one marked and one unmarked5. 1 HS (aperture change): 2 handshapes in the form; both have the same selected fingers

Sample stimulus: cell 5/1 *path+orΔ x 1HS x 1POA

QuickTime™ and aSorenson Video decompressorare needed to see this picture.

Sample stimulus: cell 6/2 2 legal Ms x *2 HSs(m) x *2POAs


Sample stimulus: cell 4/5 *path+HSΔ x 1HS(ap Δ) x 1POA


RESULTS (ANOVAs)

Main effects:-PARAMETER (HS, M, POA)—significant

F(3,72)=55.8, p < .001)

-STIMULUS VALUE (1- vs 2-values)—significant F(1,24)=42.5, p < .001)

-GROUP (signing,non-signing)—not significant

2-way interactions-STIMULUS x PARAMETER F(3,72)=6.78, p < .001 (HS, M, POA)

-GROUP x PARAMETER F(3,72)=2.9 , p < .04 (HS only)

Mean percentages of 2-sign judgments for 1- and 2- value stimuli

1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 HS1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 POA1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 M

Mean percentages of 2-sign judgments across all HS conditions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1 2 3 4 5

% 2-sign judgments

signers

nonsigners

1 HS 2 HS 2 HS 2 HS 2 HS HSm HSu HSu HSm HSu HSm

Mean percentages of 2-sign judgments across all movement conditions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1 2 3 4 5 6

% 2-sign judgments

signers

nonsigners

1 mov 2mov 2mov 2 mov 2 mov 2mov HSΔ PATH HSΔ ORΔ ORΔ PATH PATH PATH

Results

Regarding language exposure, signers will have sharper judgments than non-signers about where the break between 2 signs belongs, so there is an increased sensitivity, but the grammar of SLs matters only for HS. (slight effect of language exposure)

Speakers do not use Sp-L strategies to segment the sign stream For visual languages the basic strategy is 1 value=1 word (Modality effects)

Segmentation in signed and spoken languages require different strategies. (Not UG)

Implications for SL phonology

• HS is special in sign language phonology; --signers pay more attention to it than non-signers in

word segmentation --more categorical --between gesture and sign there is a big difference

in HS inventory• There is a stronger modality effect in POA and

MOV. This means that signers and nonsigners use this property.

Implications for Word segmentation in signed & spoken languages (1)

Word segmentation strategies in signed and spoken languages are different.

spoken language word segmentation relies heavily on rhythmic cues--trochaic feet (children, breakfast). This is more “syllable-based.”

sign languages use domain based cues, which are more word-based (1 value=1 word).

Implications for Word segmentation in signed & spoken languages (2)

Signers approach the task differently

Signers paid attention first to movement most, then handshape, then place of articulation.Non-signers paid attention first to movement most, then place of articulation, and ignored handshape.

Future directions

Is modality conditioning itself part of UG?-Do hearing babies and deaf babies have the same modality specific skills at birth?-How much of our modality conditioning influences how languages are formed?

Acknowledgments

• Petra Eccarius• RobinShay• Stefan Goldschmidt• Pradit Mittrapiyanuruk• Sam Supalla• Ronnie Wilbur• Purdue University Faculty Scholars Fund

Thank you!!

Phonology Seminar Diane Brentari, Purdue University City University & DCAL, June 14, 2006.

Documents