Structural Principles or Frequency of Use? An ERP Experiment on the Learnability of Consonant Clusters

Phonological knowledge of a language involves knowledge about which segments can be combined under what conditions. Languages vary in the quantity and quality of licensed combinations, in particular sequences of consonants, with Polish being a language with a large inventory of such combinations. The present paper reports on a two-session experiment in which Polish-speaking adult participants learned nonce words with final consonant clusters. The aim was to study the role of two factors which potentially play a role in the learning of phonotactic structures: the phonological principle of sonority (ordering sound segments within the syllable according to their inherent loudness) and the (non-) existence as a usage-based phenomenon. EEG responses in two different time windows (adversely to behavioral responses) show linguistic processing by native speakers of Polish to be sensitive to both distinctions, in spite of the fact that Polish is rich in sonority-violating clusters. In particular, a general learning effect in terms of an N400 effect was found which was demonstrated to be different for sonority-obeying clusters than for sonority-violating clusters. Furthermore, significant interactions of formedness and session, and of existence and session, demonstrate that both factors, the sonority principle and the frequency pattern, play a role in the learning process.

[1]  Eberhard Stock,et al.  Phonologie der deutschen Gegenwartssprache , 1980 .

[2]  B. Munson,et al.  Phonological pattern frequency and speech production in adults and children. , 2001, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[3]  W. Marslen-Wilson.  Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition , 1987, Cognition.

[4]  E. Sievers,et al.  Grundzüge der Phonetik: Zur Einführung in das Studium der Lautlehre der indogermanischen Sprachen , 2009 .

[5]  Alan H. Sommerstein,et al.  On phonotactically motivated rules , 1974, Journal of Linguistics.

[6]  A.C.M. Rietveld,et al.  On the relation between pitch excursion size and prominence , 1985 .

[7]  G. Clements.  Papers in Laboratory Phonology: The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification , 1990 .

[8]  Jutta L. Mueller,et al.  Native and Nonnative Speakers' Processing of a Miniature Version of Japanese as Revealed by ERPs , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[9]  D. Bates,et al.  Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 , 2014, 1406.5823.

[10]  Isabell Wartenburger,et al.  Implicit Processing of Phonotactic Cues: Evidence from Electrophysiological and Vascular Responses , 2011, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[11]  R. Gómez,et al.  Artificial grammar learning by 1-year-olds leads to specific and abstract knowledge , 1999, Cognition.

[12]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The Sound Pattern of English , 1968 .

[13]  Janet B. Pierrehumbert,et al.  Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast , 2000 .

[14]  Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky,et al.  The P600 as a correlate of ventral attention network reorientation , 2015, Cortex.

[15]  J. Mehler,et al.  New evidence for prelexical phonological processing in word recognition , 2001 .

[16]  J. Stemberger,et al.  Optimality Theory , 2003 .

[17]  Monica L. Bennett,et al.  Language Universals Engage Broca's Area , 2014, PloS one.

[18]  John Laver,et al.  Principles of Phonetics: Principles of transcription , 1994 .

[19]  Melissa A. Redford,et al.  Production constraints on learning novel onset phonotactics , 2008, Cognition.

[20]  Grover Hudson,et al.  PHONOLOGY AND LANGUAGE USE , 2004 .

[21]  Samuel Jay Keyser,et al.  CV Phonology: A Generative Theory of the Syllable , 1988 .

[22]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  From Usage to Grammar: The Mind's Response to Repetition , 2007 .

[23]  P. Hoole,et al.  Consonant clusters and structural complexity , 2012 .

[24]  Cristina Romani,et al.  Effects of syllabic complexity in predicting accuracy of repetition and direction of errors in patients with articulatory and phonological difficulties , 2005, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[25]  Phillip M. Alday,et al.  The role of phonotactic principles in language processing , 2016 .

[26]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  Knowledge of Grammar, Knowledge of Usage: Syntactic Probabilities Affect Pronunciation Variation , 2004 .

[27]  M. Schlesewsky,et al.  Event-related Potentials Reflecting the Processing of Phonological Constraint Violations , 2009, Language and speech.

[28]  J. Pernier,et al.  ERP Manifestations of Processing Printed Words at Different Psycholinguistic Levels: Time Course and Scalp Distribution , 1999, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[29]  R. Gómez,et al.  Infant artificial language learning and language acquisition , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[30]  Natalie Boll-Avetisyan,et al.  Is speech processing influenced by abstract or detailed phonotactic representations? The case of the Obligatory Contour Principle , 2016 .

[31]  E. Vajda.  Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A Guide to the Use of the International Phonetic Alphabet , 2000 .

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

[33]  A. Anwander,et al.  The brain differentiates human and non-human grammars: Functional localization and structural connectivity , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[34]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Hierarchical artificial grammar processing engages Broca's area , 2008, NeuroImage.

[35]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  A theory of cortical responses , 2005, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[36]  Paula Orzechowska.  In search of phonotactic preferences , 2016 .

[37]  Erich Schröger,et al.  High-pass filters and baseline correction in M/EEG analysis-continued discussion , 2016, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[38]  R. Verleger.  Event-related potentials and cognition: A critique of the context updating hypothesis and an alternative interpretation of P3 , 1988, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[39]  Marshall C. Yovits,et al.  Ohio State University , 1974, SGAR.

[40]  Stephen G. Parker.  The sonority controversy , 2012 .

[41]  D Friedman,et al.  Event‐related potential (ERP) studies of memory encoding and retrieval: A selective review , 2000, Microscopy research and technique.

[42]  Nivja H. Jong,et al.  Praat script to detect syllable nuclei and measure speech rate automatically , 2009, Behavior research methods.

[43]  S. Nooteboom,et al.  THE PROSODY OF SPEECH: MELODY AND RHYTHM , 2001 .

[44]  R. Baayen,et al.  Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items , 2008 .

[45]  E. Moreton.  Structural constraints in the perception of English stop-sonorant clusters , 2002, Cognition.

[46]  J. Kilner,et al.  Bias in a common EEG and MEG statistical analysis and how to avoid it , 2013, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[47]  T. Givón,et al.  Brain Plasticity in Learning Visual Words , 1997, Cognitive Psychology.

[48]  S. Goldinger.  Words and voices: episodic traces in spoken word identification and recognition memory. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[49]  Phillip M. Alday,et al.  A common misapplication of statistical inference: Nuisance control with null-hypothesis significance tests , 2016, Brain and Language.

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

[51]  M. Schlesewsky,et al.  The P600-as-P3 hypothesis revisited: Single-trial analyses reveal that the late EEG positivity following linguistically deviant material is reaction time aligned , 2014, Brain and Language.

[52]  N. Brown,et al.  Sounds of the neighborhood: False memories and the structure of the phonological lexicon , 2002 .

[53]  Keren Rice,et al.  On deriving sonority: a structural account of sonority relationships , 1992, Phonology.

[54]  P. Jusczyk,et al.  Infants' sensitivity to phonotactic patterns in the native language. , 1994 .

[55]  J. Hooper.  An introduction to natural generative phonology , 1976 .

[56]  John Kingston,et al.  Between the grammar and physics of speech , 1994 .

[57]  Dawid Pietrala,et al.  Phonotactics and morphonotactics of Polish and English. Theory, description, tools and applications , 2016 .

[58]  I. Berent,et al.  Universal constraints on the sound structure of language: phonological or acoustic? , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[59]  P. Smolensky,et al.  Language universals in human brains , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[60]  C. Wright,et al.  Duration differences between rare and common words and their implications for the interpretation of word frequency effects , 1979, Memory & cognition.

[61]  Kara D. Federmeier,et al.  Thirty years and counting: finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). , 2011, Annual review of psychology.

[62]  P. Smolensky,et al.  Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar , 2004 .

[63]  Rebecca Treiman,et al.  Syllable Structure or Word Structure? Evidence for Onset and Rime Units with Disyllabic and Trisyllabic Stimuli , 1995 .

[64]  H. Seiler.  Laut und sinn: Zur struktur der deutschen einsilbler , 1962 .

[65]  Jerzy Rubach,et al.  Nonsyllabic analysis of voice assimilation in polish , 1996 .

[66]  D. Kemmerer,et al.  Phonotactics and Syllable Stress: Implications for the Processing of Spoken Nonsense Words , 1997, Language and speech.

[67]  J. Mehler,et al.  Epenthetic vowels in Japanese: A perceptual illusion? , 1999, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.

[68]  Nikolaj Sergejevič Trubeckoj.  Grundzüge der Phonologie , 1989 .

[69]  Richard Wiese,et al.  Preferences and variation in word-initial phonotactics: A multi-dimensional evaluation of German and Polish , 2015 .

[70]  W. Idsardi,et al.  Perceptual Distortions in the Adaptation of English Consonant Clusters: Syllable Structure or Consonantal Contact Constraints? , 2007, Language and speech.

[71]  Marcela Peña,et al.  ON THE DIFFERENT ROLES OF VOWELS AND CONSONANTS IN SPEECH PROCESSING AND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION , 2003 .

[72]  Emmanuel Dupoux,et al.  Electrophysiological Correlates of Phonological Processing: A Cross-linguistic Study , 2000, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[73]  Manfred R. Schroeder.  Speech Processing , 1999 .

[74]  Geert Booij,et al.  Edge of constituent effects in Polish , 1990 .