Hostname: page-component-6dbcb7884d-fw45b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-13T19:05:52.124Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Illusory vowels in perceptual epenthesis: the role of phonological alternations*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2016

Karthik Durvasula  and
Jimin Kahng
Karthik Durvasula*
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Jimin Kahng*
Affiliation:
Northeastern Illinois University
*
E-mail: durvasul@msu.edu, jkahng@neiu.edu.
E-mail: durvasul@msu.edu, jkahng@neiu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Listeners often perceive illusory vowels when presented with consonant sequences that violate phonotactic constraints in their language. Previous research suggests that the phenomenon motivates speech-perception models that incorporate surface phonotactic information and the acoustics of the speech tokens. In this article, inspired by Bayesian models of speech perception, we claim that the listener attempts to identify target phonemic representations during perception. This predicts that the phenomenon of perceptual illusions will be modulated not only by surface phonotactics and the acoustics of the speech tokens, but also by the phonological alternations of a language. We present the results of three experiments (an AX task, an ABX task and an identification task) with native Korean listeners, and native English listeners as a control group, showing that Korean listeners perceive different sets of illusory vowels in different phonological contexts, in accordance with the phonological processes of vowel deletion and palatalisation in the language.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , December 2015 , pp. 385 - 416
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This article was made possible by the help and support of many individuals. We would like to thank: first and foremost, the associate editor, three anonymous reviewers and the editors for valuable criticism that helped to improve the article greatly; second, Bill Idsardi, Alan Beretta, Yen-Hwei Lin and the members of the phonology-phonetics group at Michigan State University for many helpful discussions; third, Hongjun Seo and Boram Koo for helping us with experiment design; fourth, Alan Munn, Cristina Schmitt and Suzanne Wagner for help with experimental equipment; and finally, the audiences of NELS 43 and the 22nd Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference for probing questions and helpful discussion.

References

REFERENCES

Ahn, Sang-Cheol (1985). The interplay of phonology and morphology in Korean. PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Berent, Iris, Lennertz, Tracy, Jun, Jongho, Moreno, Miguel A. & Smolensky, Paul (2008). Language universals in human brains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105. 5321–5325.Google Scholar
Berent, Iris, Lennertz, Tracy, Smolensky, Paul & Vaknin-Nusbaum, Vered (2009). Listeners’ knowledge of phonological universals: evidence from nasal clusters. Phonology 26. 75–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berent, Iris, Steriade, Donca, Lennertz, Tracy & Vaknin, Vered (2007). What we know about what we have never heard: evidence from perceptual illusions. Cognition 104. 591–630.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Best, Catherine T. (1994). The emergence of native-language phonological influences in infants: a perceptual assimilation model. In Goodman, Judith C. & Nusbaum, Howard C. (eds.) The development of speech perception: the transition from speech sounds to spoken words. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. 167–224.Google Scholar
Bever, Thomas G. & Poeppel, David (2010). Analysis by synthesis: a (re-)emerging program of research for language and vision. Biolinguistics 4. 174–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David (2012). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (version 5.3.20). http://www.praat.org.Google Scholar
Boomershine, Amanda, Hall, Kathleen Currie, Hume, Elizabeth & Johnson, Keith (2008). The impact of allophony versus contrast on speech perception. In Avery, Peter, Dresher, B. Elan & Rice, Keren (eds.) Contrast in phonology: theory, perception, acquisition. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 145–171.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi (1994). Principles of English stress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Caporello Bluvas, Emily & Gentner, Timothy Q. (2013). Attention to natural auditory signals. Hearing Research 305. 10–18.Google Scholar
Chung, Hyunsong, Kim, Kyongsok & Huckvale, Mark (1999). Consonantal and prosodic influences on Korean vowel duration. In Proceedings of EuroSpeech99. Vol. 2. Budapest, Hungary. 707–710.Google Scholar
Davidson, Lisa (2007). The relationship between the perception of non-native phonotactics and loanword adaptation. Phonology 24. 261–286.Google Scholar
Davidson, Lisa & Shaw, Jason A. (2012). Sources of illusion in consonant cluster perception. JPh 40. 234–248.Google Scholar
Dehaene-Lambertz, Ghislaine, Dupoux, Emmanuel & Gout, Ariel (2000). Electrophysiological correlates of phonological processing: a cross-linguistic study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 12. 635–647.Google Scholar
Dupoux, Emmanuel, Kakehi, Kazuhiko, Hirose, Yuki, Pallier, Christophe & Mehler, Jacques (1999). Epenthetic vowels in Japanese: a perceptual illusion? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 25. 1568–1578.Google Scholar
Dupoux, Emmanuel, Parlato, Erika, Frota, Sónia, Hirose, Yuki & Peperkamp, Sharon (2011). Where do illusory vowels come from? Journal of Memory and Language 64. 199–210.Google Scholar
Feldman, Naomi H. & Griffiths, Thomas L. (2007). A rational account of the perceptual magnet effect. In McNamara, Danielle S. & Trafton, J. Gregory (eds.) Proceedings of the 29th Annual Cognitive Science Society. Austin: Cognitive Science Society. 257–262.Google Scholar
Gerrits, E. & Schouten, M. E. H. (2004). Categorical perception depends on the discrimination task. Perception and Psychophysics 66. 363–376.Google Scholar
Hallé, Pierre A., Segui, Juan, Frauenfelder, Uli & Meunier, Christine (1998). Processing of illegal consonant clusters: a case of perceptual assimilation? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24. 592–608.Google ScholarPubMed
Han, Mieko S. (1964). Duration of Korean vowels. Los Angeles: Acoustics Phonetics Research Laboratory, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Hong, Soonhyun (1997). Palatalization and umlaut in Korean. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4:3. 87–132.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. (1976). An introduction to natural generative phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Huang, Tsan (2001). The interplay of perception and phonology in Tone 3 sandhi in Chinese Putonghua. OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 55. 23–42.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth & Johnson, Keith (2003). The impact of partial phonological contrast on speech perception. In Solé et al. (2003). 2385–2388.Google Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. (1993). (Post) lexical rule application. In Hargus, Sharon & Kaisse, Ellen M. (eds.) Studies in lexical phonology. San Diego: Academic Press. 255–275.Google Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. (2004). Deriving the Derived Environment Constraint in non-derivational phonology. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 11. 1–23.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Haike & Gussenhoven, Carlos (2000). Loan phonology: perception, salience, the lexicon and OT. In Dekkers, Joost, van der Leeuw, Frank & van de Weijer, Jeroen (eds.) Optimality Theory: phonology, syntax, and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 193–210.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto (1904). Lehrbuch der Phonetik. Leipzig & Berlin: Teubner.Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith & Babel, Molly (2010). On the perceptual basis of distinctive features: evidence from the perception of fricatives by Dutch and English speakers. JPh 38. 127–136.Google Scholar
Kabak, Barış & Idsardi, William J. (2007). Perceptual distortions in the adaptation of English consonant clusters: syllable structure or consonantal contact constraints? Language and Speech 50. 23–52.Google Scholar
Kang, Yoonjung (2003). Perceptual similarity in loanword adaptation: English postvocalic word-final stops in Korean. Phonology 20. 219–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Kong-On (1974). Temporal structure of Spoken Korean: an acoustic phonetic study. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Kim-Renaud, Young-Key (1987). Fast speech, casual speech and restructuring. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 2. 341–359.Google Scholar
Kuhl, Patricia K. (1993). Innate predispositions and the effects of experience in speech perception: the native language magnet theory. In de Boysson-Bardies, Bénédicte, de Schonen, Scania, Jusczyk, Peter W., MacNeilage, Peter & Morton, John (eds.) Developmental neurocognition: speech and face processing in the first year of life. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 259–274.Google Scholar
LaCharité, Darlene & Paradis, Carole (2005). Category preservation and proximity versus phonetic approximation in loanword adaptation. LI 36. 223–258.Google Scholar
Lahiri, Aditi & Reetz, Henning (2002). Underspecified recognition. In Gussenhoven, Carlos & Warner, Natasha (eds.) Laboratory Phonology 7. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 637–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahiri, Aditi & Reetz, Henning (2010). Distinctive features: phonological underspecification in representation and processing. JPh 38. 44–59.Google Scholar
McClelland, James L. & Elman, Jeffrey L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology 18. 1–86.Google Scholar
Macmillan, Neil A. & Creelman, C. Douglas (2005). Detection theory: a user's guide. 2nd edn. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Monahan, Philip J., Takahashi, Eri, Nakao, Chizuru & Idsardi, William J. (2009). Not all epenthetic contexts are equal: differential effects in Japanese illusory vowel perception. In Iwasakai, Shoichi, Hoji, Hajime, Clancy, Patricia M. & Sohn, Sung-Ock (eds.) Japanese/Korean linguistics. Vol. 17. Stanford: CSLI. 391–405.Google Scholar
Moreton, Elliott (2002). Structural constraints in the perception of English stop-sonorant clusters. Cognition 84. 55–71.Google Scholar
Norris, Dennis & McQueen, James M. (2008). Shortlist B: a Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. Psychological Review 115. 357–395.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole & LaCharité, Darlene (1997). Preservation and minimality in loanword adaptation. JL 33. 379–430.Google Scholar
Peperkamp, Sharon (2005). A psycholinguistic theory of loanword adaptations. BLS 30. 341–352.Google Scholar
Peperkamp, Sharon & Dupoux, Emmanuel (2003). Reinterpreting loanword adaptations: the role of perception. In Solé et al. (2003). 367–370.Google Scholar
Pisoni, David B. (1973). Auditory and phonetic memory codes in the discrimination of consonants and vowels. Perception and Psychophysics 13. 253–260.Google Scholar
Poeppel, David & Monahan, Phillip J. (2011). Feedforward and feedback in speech perception: revisiting analysis by synthesis. Language and Cognitive Processes 26. 935–951.Google Scholar
Pollack, Irwin & Norman, Donald A. (1964). A non-parametric analysis of recognition experiments. Psychonomic Science 1. 125–126.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1984). On the major class features and syllable theory. In Aronoff, Mark & Oerhle, Richard T. (eds.) Language sound structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 107–136.Google Scholar
Sievers, Eduard (1881). Grundzüge der Phonetik, zur Einführung in das Studium der Lautlehre der indogermanischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-Min (1999). The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Solé, M. J., Recasens, D. & Romero, J. (eds.) (2003). Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Barcelona: Causal Productions.Google Scholar
Sonderegger, Morgan & Yu, Alan C. L. (2010). A rational account of perceptual compensation for coarticulation. In Ohlsson, Stellan & Catrambone, Richard (eds.) Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin: Cognitive Science Society. 375–380.Google Scholar
Stanislaw, Harold & Todorov, Natasha (1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 31. 137–149.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (1982). Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Uffmann, Christian (2006). Epenthetic vowel quality in loanwords: empirical and formal issues. Lingua 116. 1079–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Colin & Davidson, Lisa (in press). Bayesian analysis of non-native cluster production. NELS 40.Google Scholar
Yu, Alan C. L. (2011). On measuring phonetic precursor robustness: a response to Moreton. Phonology 28. 491–518.Google Scholar