Disentangling phonological well-formedness and attestedness: An ERP study of onset clusters in English

Disentangling the roles of phonological well-formedness and lexical attestedness in phonotactic processing has proven challenging. In this study, we present results from a passive listening ERP study showing that English speakers exhibit distinct neural responses to CCVC nonce words according to the phonological well-formedness and attestedness (in English) of the onset cluster. Clusters with poor sonority sequencing evoked an N400 effect compared to those without poor sonority sequencing, regardless of whether the well-formed clusters were attested in English. In contrast, unattested clusters, regardless of whether they were well-formed or ill-formed in terms of sonority sequencing, evoked a late positivity compared to attested clusters. The results suggest that listeners first perform a phonological analysis on potential words before submitting them to a lexical search.

[1]  Lisa Davidson,et al.  The relationship between the perception of non-native phonotactics and loanword adaptation* , 2007, Phonology.

[2]  Hellmuth Obrig,et al.  Electrophysiological evidence for modulation of lexical processing after repetitive exposure to foreign phonotactic rules , 2013, Brain and Language.

[3]  Phillip M. Alday,et al.  Structural Principles or Frequency of Use? An ERP Experiment on the Learnability of Consonant Clusters , 2017, Front. Psychol..

[4]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Recognizing Spoken Words: The Neighborhood Activation Model , 1998, Ear and hearing.

[5]  John Coleman,et al.  Stochastic phonological grammars and acceptability , 1997, SIGMORPHON@EACL.

[6]  Otto Jespersen,et al.  Lehrbuch der Phonetik , 1904 .

[7]  Larry M. Hyman,et al.  How autosegmental is phonology? , 2013 .

[8]  P. Luce,et al.  When Words Compete: Levels of Processing in Perception of Spoken Words , 1998 .

[9]  Emmanuel Dupoux,et al.  Where Do Illusory Vowels Come from , 2011 .

[10]  S. Frisch,et al.  The Psychological Reality of OCP-Place in Arabic , 2001 .

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

[12]  Michael S Vitevitch,et al.  A Web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[13]  S. Peperkamp.  Do we have innate knowledge about phonological markedness? Comments on Berent, Steriade, Lennertz, and Vaknin , 2007, Cognition.

[14]  B. Hayes,et al.  Natural and Unnatural Constraints in Hungarian Vowel Harmony , 2009 .

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

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

[17]  Cynthia R Hunter.  Is the time course of lexical activation and competition in spoken word recognition affected by adult aging? An event-related potential (ERP) study , 2016, Neuropsychologia.

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

[19]  Guy Dove,et al.  Linking Brainwaves to the Brain: An ERP Primer , 2005, Developmental neuropsychology.

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

[21]  Adam Albright,et al.  Feature-based generalisation as a source of gradient acceptability* , 2009, Phonology.

[22]  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.

[23]  Bruce Hayes.  Interpreting Sonority-Projection Experiments: The Role of Phonotactic Modeling , 2011, ICPhS.

[24]  Lisa Davidson,et al.  Phonology, phonetics, or frequency: Influences on the production of non-native sequences , 2006, J. Phonetics.

[25]  Harry van der Hulst,et al.  Syllable Structure and Stress in Dutch , 1985 .

[26]  Mary E. Beckman,et al.  Phonetic Interpretation Papers in Laboratory Phonology VI: Speech perception, well-formedness and the statistics of the lexicon , 2004 .

[27]  Janet B. Pierrehumbert,et al.  Similarity Avoidance and the OCP , 2004 .

[28]  Sharon Peperkamp,et al.  On the perceptual origin of loanword adaptations: experimental evidence from Japanese* , 2008, Phonology.

[29]  D. Steriade,et al.  What we know about what we have never heard: Evidence from perceptual illusions , 2007, Cognition.

[30]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Some controversial questions in phonological theory , 1965, Journal of Linguistics.

[31]  Bruce Hayes,et al.  A Maximum Entropy Model of Phonotactics and Phonotactic Learning , 2008, Linguistic Inquiry.

[32]  M. Kutas,et al.  Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. , 1980, Science.

[33]  P. Luce,et al.  Probabilistic Phonotactics and Neighborhood Activation in Spoken Word Recognition , 1999 .

[34]  D. Steriade.  Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification , 1982 .

[35]  J. McCarthy.  OCP effects: Gemination and antigemination , 1986 .

[36]  Gaja Jarosz,et al.  Sonority Sequencing in Polish: the Combined Roles of Prior Bias & Experience , 2017 .

[37]  Ava J. Senkfor,et al.  Memory for words and novel visual patterns: repetition, recognition, and encoding effects in the event-related brain potential. , 1996, Psychophysiology.

[38]  Bruce Hayes,et al.  Explaining sonority projection effects* , 2011, Phonology.

[39]  Walter Ritter,et al.  Repetition and semantic priming of nonwords: implications for theories of N400 and word recognition. , 2004, Psychophysiology.

[40]  S. Coulson.  Electrifying results: ERP data and cognitive linguistics , 2007 .

[41]  M. Rugg,et al.  Event-related potentials and recognition memory , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[42]  Todd M. Bailey,et al.  Determinants of wordlikeness: Phonotactics or lexical neighborhoods? , 2001 .

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

[44]  Michael Becker,et al.  The Surfeit of the Stimulus: Analytic Biases Filter Lexical Statistics in Turkish Laryngeal Alternations , 2011 .

[45]  Bruce Hayes,et al.  Phonological Naturalness and Phonotactic Learning , 2013, Linguistic Inquiry.

[46]  Cynthia R Hunter,et al.  Early effects of neighborhood density and phonotactic probability of spoken words on event-related potentials , 2013, Brain and Language.

[47]  R. Charach.  The Appendix , 1948, The Lancet.

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

[49]  Stefan A. Frisch,et al.  Similarity and Frequency in Phonology , 1996 .

[50]  Elliott Moreton,et al.  Structural constraints in the perception of English stop‐sonorant clusters , 2001 .

[51]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[52]  H. Goad.  sC Clusters are (almost always) coda-initial , 2012 .