Tara McAllister Montclair State University, NJ April 10th, 2010 Positional Velar Fronting: An updated articulatory analysis

Tara McAllisterMontclair State University,

NJ April 10th, 2010

Positional Velar Fronting:An updated articulatory

analysis

AcknowledgementsAdam AlbrightEdward FlemmingDonca SteriadeYvan RoseKatherine DemuthStefanie Shattuck-HufnagelMagdi SobeihHaiyan SuB and family

4/10/2010International Child Phonology Conference 2010

Velar fronting is frequently observed to apply in word-initial/pretonic but not word-final/posttonic contexts (Ingram, 1974; Chiat, 1983; Stoel-Gammon, 1996; Bills & Golston, 2002; Morisette, Dinnsen, & Gierut, 2003; Inkelas & Rose, 2003, 2008).

Examples of positional velar fronting (PVF):

Positional velar fronting

Prosodically strong contexts

Prosodically weak contexts

International Child Phonology Conference 2010

4/10/2010

Neutralization in strong position

Puzzling pattern in child phonology: Phonemic contrast can emerge in weak/final before strong/initial position (Buckley, 2003; Inkelas & Rose, 2003, 2008; Dinnsen & Farris-Trimble, 2008).

Reverses a strong generalization across adult phonologies: Phonemes with limited distribution occur in strong position only.Has roots in perceptual asymmetry favoring

initial/prevocalic over final/postvocalic contexts (Fujimura, Macchi, & Streeter, 1978).

Continuity problem: If we write formal constraints flexible enough to accommodate child patterns, we predict patterns that are unattested in adult phonological typology.


4/10/2010

Neutralization in strong position

Possible solution if we adopt a phonetically-based version of phonology (Hayes, Kirchner & Steriade, 2004):

We know that children and adults face significantly different phonetic pressures.Perceptual sensitivity (Elliott & Hammer, 1988)Articulatory anatomy (Crelin, 1987)Speech-motor control abilities (Kent, 1992)

If children and adults are subject to different low-level phonetic pressures, their phonologies should look different as well.

Child-specific constraints become inactive as child-specific phonetic pressures are eliminated in normal maturation.International Child Phonology Conference

20104/10/2010

Articulatory account of velar fronting:Inkelas & Rose (2003, 2008)

In adult speech, consonants in strong position are produced with larger, stronger gestures than in weak contexts (Fougeron & Keating, 1996).

Child perceives prosodically enhanced gesture in adult speech and tries to replicate it.

Constraints on child speech: Larger, more anteriorly placed tongue (Crelin, 1987); decreased motor control (Kent, 1992).

The child’s attempted velar closure extends into the alveolar region, creating a coronal release.

Phonetically-motivated process is then phonologized.


4/10/2010

Articulatory account of velar fronting

I take up Inkelas & Rose’s insight that velar fronting is driven by child-specific articulatory phonetic factors.

Two new views:

1.New case study data show that fronting can be conditioned by finer-grained differences than the strong-weak dichotomy.

2.Expanded role for child-specific limitations on speech-motor control is proposed.


4/10/2010

Case studySubject B, 4 years, male, monolingual American

English learner.

Receiving therapy for severe speech sound disorder.

Followed longitudinally in biweekly sessions from 3;9 to 4;5.

Patterns of neutralization in strong position: positional velar fronting, positional fricative gliding.

All words containing a target velar were isolated from the transcript of B’s speech therapy sessions. Total N = 2,408


4/10/2010

Observed output categories:

*Segmented production was specifically linked to velar place; never observed for coronal place.

Data coding


4/10/2010

AnalysisAll targets were coded for five factors:

Prosodic context (strong vs weak); Voicing (voiced versus voiceless target); Vowel context (back vs nonback); Harmony context (other velar present vs absent); Time of elicitation (four estimated developmental

stages).

Data were fitted to a five-predictor logistic model with faithful velar place as the dependent variable.

Tested partial significance of predictors with χ-square statistic.

All main terms were significant predictors of variance (p < .001).


4/10/2010

Results: Prosodic context

Main effect of prosodic context: Weak > strong (Fisher’s Exact p < .000).

Consistent with previous literature.


4/10/2010

*

Bars show standard error.

Results: VoicingMain effect of voicing:

Voiced target > Voiceless target (Fisher’s Exact p < .000).

New finding.From 4;2 on, fully faithful

voiced targets contrasted systematically with segmented voiceless targets.

*


4/10/2010

Bars show standard error.

Unifying the conditioning factors

One old question and two new ones:

Why are velars more accurate in weak than strong position?

Why are voiced velars more accurate than voiceless velars?

Why does “segmented production” precede fully faithful velar production?


4/10/2010


All of the contexts associated with greater accuracy have relatively lower level of gestural force.

Consonant gestures are more forceful in prosodically strong position (Browman & Goldstein, 1995; Fougeron & Keating, 1996).

Gestural force is greater in voiceless than voiced plosives (Wakumoto et al., 1998; Mooshammer et al., 2007). Voiceless stops have greater airflow (McGlone and Shipp,

1972); more forceful gesture is needed to offset intraoral pressure/avoid spirantization

“Segmented” production: Valving at glottis limits intraoral pressure (Clements & Osu, 2002), allows lighter articulatory contact.


4/10/2010


How can we modify phonetically-influenced grammar to capture general conditioning by gestural strength?

Violable phonological constraint MOVE-AS-UNIT: “Achieve linguopalatal contact by moving the tongue-jaw complex.”

Three pieces to the proposal:Why child speakers favor jaw-controlled movements.How jaw-controlled movement drives fronting.Why MOVE-AS-UNIT is sensitive to gradient

differences in articulatory force.


4/10/2010

Speech-motor limitations

Child lacks skill to plan movements with a large number of degrees of freedom (Fletcher, 1992).

Tongue is motorically complex; imposes simultaneous "skeletal, movement, and shaping requirements" (Kent, 1992).

Jaw is motorically simple (bilaterally hinged joint) .

In early stages of development, tongue may ride passively on active jaw (MacNeilage & Davis, 1990).


4/10/2010

Undifferentiated gesturesJaw-controlled movement is linked to an

undifferentiated pattern of linguopalatal contact.

Undifferentiated gestures: Midsagittal linguopalatal contact spanning alveolar through velar regions (Gibbon, 1999).Reflects inability to control discrete functional

regions of the tongue.Proposal: Fronted velars are not true coronals

but undifferentiated lingual gestures.


4/10/2010

Role of gestural forceRecall tongue’s "skeletal, movement, and shaping

requirements"When low and close to the mandible, some of the

tongue’s shaping needs are filled by the lower teeth.

For a higher target, shaping requirements must increasingly be filled by lingual musculature.Multiplies complexity of motor task. Increases predisposition to use a jaw-controlled

gesture.Magnitude of MOVE-AS-UNIT violation is

proportional to height of articulatory target. International Child Phonology Conference 2010

4/10/2010

ConclusionsMOVE-AS-UNIT makes it possible to model B’s

output across prosodic and voicing contrasts in all documented stages of development.

When child-specific articulatory limitations cease to apply, the constraint will be eliminated from the grammar.

Goals: Model other problematic child processes (especially

neutralization in strong position) using phonetically-sensitive constraint MOVE-AS-UNIT.

Look for direct evidence of undifferentiated gestures in velar fronting.


4/10/2010

ReferencesBills, S., & Golston, C. (2002). Prosodic and linear licensing in English acquisition. In Carmichael, L., Huang, C.-H., & Samiian, V. (eds.), Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics (2001), 13–26. Fresno: California State University, Fresno. Browman, C. P. & Goldstein, L. (1995) Gestural syllable position effects in American English. In F. Bell-Berti & L. J. Raphael (Eds.), Producing Speech: Contemporary Issues (for Kathering Safford Harris) (pp. 19-33). Woodbury, NY: AIP Press.Buckley, E. L. (2003). Children’s unnatural phonology. Berkeley Linguistics Society 29.523–34.Chiat, S. (1983) Why Mikey's right and My key's wrong: the significance of stress and word boundaries in a child's output system. Cognition, 14, 275-300.Clements, G. N., & Osu, S. (2002). Explosives, implosives, and nonexplosives: the linguistic function of air pressure differences in stops. In C. Gussenhoven & N. Warner (Eds.), Laboratory Phonology 7 (pp. 299-350). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Crelin, E. S. (1987). The human vocal tract: Anatomy, function, development, and evolution. New York: Vantage Press.Dinnsen, D. A., & Farris-Trimble, A. W. (2008). The prominence paradox. In Dinnsen, D. A., & Gierut, J. A. Optimality Theory, Phonological Acquisition and Disorders, pp. 277-308. London, Equinox Publishing Ltd.Fletcher, S. G. (1992). Articulation: A physiological approach. San Diego, CA: Singular.Fougeron, C., & Keating, P. (1996). Articulatory strengthening in prosodic domain-initial position. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 92, 61-87.Fujimura, O., Macchi, M. J., & Streeter, L. (1978). Perception of stop consonants with conflicting transitional cues: A cross-linguistic study. Language and Speech, 21, 337-346Elliott, L. L., & Hammer, M. A. (1988). Longitudinal changes in auditory discrimination in normal children and children with language-learning problems. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 53, 467-474.Gibbon, F. (1999). Undifferentiated Lingual Gestures in Children with Articulation/Phonological Disorders. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 382–397.


4/10/2010

ReferencesHayes, B., Kirchner R., & Steriade, D. (Eds). (2004). Phonetically-Based Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Inkelas, S., & Rose, Y. (2003) Velar Fronting Revisited. In B. Beachley, A. Brown, & F. Conlin (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 334-345). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Inkelas, S., & Rose, Y. (2008). Positional Neutralization: A Case Study from Child Language. Language, 83, 707-736.Ingram, D. (l974). Fronting in child phonology. Journal of Child Language, 1, 233-241.Kent, R. D. (1992). The biology of phonological maturation. In Ferguson, C. A., Menn, L., & Stoel-Gammon, C. (eds.), Phonological Development: Models, Research, Implications, 65-90. Timonium, MD: York Press.MacNeilage, P. F., & Davis, B. L. (1990). Acquisition of speech production: Frames, then content. In M. Jeannerod (Ed.), Attention and performance: Vol. 13, Motor representation and control (pp. 453-475). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.McGlone, R. E., & Shipp, T. (1972). Comparison of subglottal air pressures associated with /p/ and /b/. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 51, 664.Morisette, M. L., Dinnsen, D. A., & Gierut, J. A. (2003). Markedness and Context Effects in the Acquisition of Place Features. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 48, 329-355.Mooshammer, C., Hoole, P. & Geumann, A. (2007). Jaw and order. Language & Speech, 50, 145-176.Stoel-Gammon, C. (1996). On the acquisition of velars in English. Proceedings of the UBC International Conference on Phonological Acquisition, 201–214. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Wakumoto, M., Masaki, S., Honda, K. & Ohue, T. (1998). A pressure sensitive palatography: application of new pressure sensitive sheet for measuring tongue-palatal contact pressure. In Proceedings of the 5rd International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 3151-3154). Sydney.


4/10/2010

Documents

Tara McAllister Montclair State University, NJ April 10th, 2010 Positional Velar Fronting: An updated articulatory analysis