Phonology Seminar - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Phonology Seminar PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 10949-MmU0N



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Phonology Seminar

Description:

monomorphemic Chinese English,German, Hawaiian. polymorphemic sign languages West Greenlandic ... deaf babies have the same modality specific skills at birth? ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:95
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 39
Provided by: dianebr
Learn more at: http://www.staff.city.ac.uk
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Phonology Seminar


1
Phonology Seminar
  • Diane Brentari, Purdue University
  • City University DCAL, June 14, 2006

2
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

3
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

4
2. How to tell the difference
  • 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

5
3. How to tell the difference
  • 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)

6
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

7
Goals of a phonological model for linguistics
  • 1. 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 them
  • b. classifiers and how they differ from core
    lexical items
  • c. the manual alphabet and words derived from
    it vs. lexical items.

8
Todays 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

9
Structure of the Prosodic Model
10
Heavy vs. light syllables
  • Distinction between heavy and light syllables as
    movements with more than one component (ASL
    examples)

11
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

12
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

13
One example of a modality effect
Morpheme-to-syllable ratio
  • monosyllabic
    polysyllabic
  • monomorphemic Chinese English,German,
  • Hawaiian
  • polymorphemic sign languages West
    Greenlandic
  • Turkish, Navajo,

14
simultaneity 6 morphemes in one
syllable2bent-over upright-beings
go-forward side-by-side with care
15
How to use the syllable in psycholinguistic
experiments
  • Choose 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.

16
Word segmentation
  • What it is . . .?
  • What it is not
  • Pauses between words
  • Lexical access
  • Exclusively based on the segment

17
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.

18
For SpLs and SLs, we know . . .
19
Some signs are disyllablic DESTROY (ASL)
20
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

21
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?

22
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

23
Stimuli 168 nonsense forms5 HS x 6 M x 2 POA
counterbalanced to create cue conflict
24
MOVEMENT conditions
  • 1. 1 movement one movement in the form
  • 2. or?hs????an illicit combination of
    orientation changehandshape change
  • ?. ?pathpath a combination of two illicit path
    movements (e.g. straightarc)
  • 4. pathhs???an illicit combination of
    pathhandshape change
  • 5. path or???an illicit combination of
    pathorientation?change
  • 6. 2 legal movements a grammatical combination
    of two path movements

25
HANDSHAPE conditions
  • 1. 1 handshape one handshape in the form
  • 2. 2 HSs (m) 2 handshapes in the form both
    marked
  • 3. 2 HSs (u) 2 handshapes in the
  • form both unmarked
  • 4. 2 HSs (11) 2 handshapes in the form one
  • marked and one unmarked
  • 5. 1 HS (aperture change) 2 handshapes in the
  • form both have the same selected fingers

26
Sample stimulus cell 5/1 pathorD?x 1HS x
1POA
27
Sample stimulus cell 6/2 2 legal Ms x 2 HSs(m)
x 2POAs
28
Sample stimulus cell 4/5 pathHSD?x 1HS(ap D)
x 1POA
29
RESULTS (ANOVAs)
  • Main effects
  • -PARAMETER (HS, M, POA)significant
  • F(3,72)55.8, p
  • -STIMULUS VALUE (1- vs 2-values)significant
  • F(1,24)42.5, p
  • -GROUP (signing,non-signing)not significant
  • 2-way interactions
  • -STIMULUS x PARAMETER F(3,72)6.78, p (HS, M, POA)
  • -GROUP x PARAMETER F(3,72)2.9 , p only)

30
Mean percentages of 2-sign judgments for 1- and
2- value stimuli
31
Mean percentages of 2-sign judgments across all
HS conditions
32
Mean percentages of 2-sign judgments across all
movement conditions
1 mov 2mov 2mov 2 mov 2 mov
2mov HSD??????????PATH
HSD ORD
ORD??????????PATH PATH
PATH
33
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 value1 word (Modality effects)
  • Segmentation in signed and spoken languages
    require different strategies. (Not UG)

34
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.

35
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 value1 word).

36
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.

37
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?

38
Acknowledgments
  • Petra Eccarius
  • RobinShay
  • Stefan Goldschmidt
  • Pradit Mittrapiyanuruk
  • Sam Supalla
  • Ronnie Wilbur
  • Purdue University Faculty Scholars Fund
  • Thank you!!
About PowerShow.com