Limits on learning phonotactic constraints from recent production experience.

Adults can learn new artificial phonotactic constraints by producing syllables that exhibit the constraints. The experiments presented here tested the limits of phonotactic learning in production using speech errors as an implicit measure of learning. Experiment 1 tested a constraint in which the placement of a consonant as an onset or coda depended on the identity of a nonadjacent consonant. Participant speech errors reflected knowledge of the constraint but not until the 2nd day of testing. Experiment 2 tested a constraint in which consonant placement depended on an extralinguistic factor, the speech rate. Participants were not able to learn this constraint. Together, these experiments suggest that phonotactic-like constraints are acquired when mutually constraining elements reside within the phonological system.

[1]  Dani Byrd,et al.  Dynamic action units slip in speech production errors , 2007, Cognition.

[2]  G S Dell,et al.  A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. , 1986, Psychological review.

[3]  Jennifer Cole,et al.  On learnability and naturalness as constraints on phonological grammar , 2006, ExLing.

[4]  Jennifer Hay,et al.  Factors influencing speech perception in the context of a merger-in-progress , 2006, J. Phonetics.

[5]  Robert M. Gonyea,et al.  Learning at a Distance : , 2009 .

[6]  E. Newport,et al.  Learning at a distance I. Statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies , 2004, Cognitive Psychology.

[7]  G. Dell,et al.  Speech errors, phonotactic constraints, and implicit learning: a study of the role of experience in language production. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[8]  Rachel Walker,et al.  A Typology of Consonant Agreement as Correspondence , 2004 .

[9]  Victoria A. Fromkin,et al.  The Non-Anomalous Nature of Anomalous Utterances , 1971 .

[10]  J. Sawusch,et al.  Perceptual normalization for speaking rate: Effects of temporal distance , 1996, Perception & psychophysics.

[11]  D. G. MacKay.  The Problems of Flexibility, Fluency, and Speed-Accuracy Trade-Off in Skilled Behavior. , 1982 .

[12]  C. Fisher,et al.  Learning phonotactic constraints from brief auditory experience , 2002, Cognition.

[13]  Kristine H. Onishi,et al.  Infants learn phonotactic regularities from brief auditory experience , 2003, Cognition.

[14]  Sarah C. Creel,et al.  Heeding the voice of experience: The role of talker variation in lexical access , 2008, Cognition.

[15]  Joe Barcroft,et al.  Stimulus variability and the phonetic relevance hypothesis: effects of variability in speaking style, fundamental frequency, and speaking rate on spoken word identification. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  S. Goldinger.  Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. , 1998, Psychological review.

[17]  George Houghton,et al.  Learning artificial phonotactic constraints: time course, durability, and relationship to natural constraints. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[18]  P. Jusczyk,et al.  Infants′ Sensitivity to the Sound Patterns of Native Language Words , 1993 .

[19]  Matthew Goldrick,et al.  Phonological features and phonotactic constraints in speech production , 2004 .

[20]  Meredith Larson,et al.  Constraints on the acquisition of variation , 2010 .

[21]  Gary S Dell,et al.  Speech errors reflect newly learned phonotactic constraints. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.