Representation, Repair, and Well-Formedness
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SOUND STRUCTURE REPRESENTATION, REPAIR AND WELL-FORMEDNESS: GRAMMAR IN SPOKEN LANGUAGE PRODUCTION by Adam B. Buchwald A dissertation submitted to The Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Baltimore, Maryland September 2005 © Adam B. Buchwald All rights reserved Sound structure representation, repair and well-formedness: Grammar in spoken language production ABSTRACT Among the set of processes posited in psycholinguistic theories of spoken language production is the translation (or ‘mapping’) from a basic representation of sound structure retrieved from long-term memory to a more elaborated representation that may engage motor planning and implementation subsystems. In linguistic theory, the phonological grammar is defined as the computation required to generate the set of well-formed ‘output’ representations from a (typically less-elaborated) ‘lexical’ representation. This dissertation is concerned with unifying these ideas, and characterizing the ‘grammar’ in the spoken language production system, focusing on the representations active in the spoken production grammar as well as the well-formedness constraints on the ‘output’ representations. The data used to address these issues are primarily from the spoken production patterns of a brain-damaged individual, VBR. VBR’s impairment is shown to reflect impairment to the spoken production ‘grammar,’ and the pattern of errors she produces are characterized as ‘repairs’ instituted by this grammar. One notable pattern is the insertion of a vowel into word-initial obstruent-sonorant consonant clusters (e.g., bleed → [bəlid]). An acoustic and articulatory investigation presented here suggests that this error arises from a discrete insertion of a vowel, and not from either articulatory ‘noise’ or from a ‘mis’-timing of the articulations associated with the consonants. It is argued that this requires a system of sound structure representation that permits the grammar to insert discrete sound structure units into the articulatory plan. VBR does not insert a vowel on every production token of these forms, and there is variability in the rate of vowel insertion depending on the identity of the onset consonants. This variability is taken to reflect that a speaker’s spoken production grammar distinguishes ‘degrees of well-formedness’ among forms that occur in their language. Another investigation seeks to identify the source of this type of grammatical knowledge. Based on a consonant cluster production study with VBR, it is argued that the spoken production grammar encodes both cross-linguistic regularities of sound structure representation as well as language-particular regularities reflecting the frequency of certain sound structure sequences in the words in a speaker’s lexicon. Jakobson (1941/1968) has famously argued that the same principles that govern cross-linguistic regularities of sound structure also govern patterns of production in cases of ‘language loss.’ A novel test of this claim is presented, in which it is shown that VBR’s grammar is constrained by the same principles that account for the grammar of English. Crucially, it is shown that vowel insertion is the strategy used to repair consonant clusters, while a different strategy is used to repair other complex forms which her grammatical impairment causes her to avoid. The results of these studies are integrated with a view of the spoken production processing system that contains a ‘grammar’ component. This proposal unifies the rich representational descriptions of sound structure and well-formedness constraints in linguistic theory with the process-oriented descriptions of psycholinguistic theory. Advisors: Drs. Brenda Rapp and Paul Smolensky ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As with all work of this scope, this dissertation was made possible by the help and support of many people. I would like to first thank VBR for her enthusiastic participation in this research, and for her great sense of humor and kindness, making the research time as enjoyable as possible. For my training as a cognitive scientist, I am deeply grateful to my advisors, Brenda Rapp and Paul Smolensky, as each are among the most clear-thinking and insightful people I have ever encountered. Brenda’s guidance throughout my tenure at Hopkins has been invaluable. She has taught me – both explicitly and by example – how to think through academic problems thoroughly. Although it is nearly unthinkable that I won’t be popping my head in her office daily in the coming years, it is reassuring that her influence on me will last throughout my tenure in academia and beyond. Paul has been equally influential in my growth throughout my time in graduate school. Paul is deeply committed to cognitive science, and his absurdly keen sense of the ‘big picture’ continuously points me toward exciting ways to ask the types of questions necessary to integrate work from different disciplines. I am particularly grateful for our powwows – our regular conversations epic in both length and scope that always leave me with a sense that my work is important (an easy thing to lose track of in graduate school). This work would also not have been possible without Maureen Stone and the entire Vocal Tract Visualization lab – particularly Marianne Pouplier and Melissa Epstein. Maureen is a pleasure to work with, and her kindness in taking on a student that knew nothing regarding phonetics at the time was matched by her ability both as a scientific collaborator and as a mentor. I could not have chosen a more appropriate and supportive academic environment than the Cognitive Science department at Johns Hopkins. Among the faculty, I am extremely appreciative to Mike McCloskey, Luigi Burzio, Geraldine Legendre, and Bob Frank for their insightful commentary on my work over the last five years. I would also like to thank Matt Goldrick, who has been an unofficial academic mentor of mine since I started at Hopkins. Moreover, I cannot overstate how appreciative I am to all of the undergraduate research assistants that have helped me over the years, especially Joanna Kochaniak. Equally important as the academic influences, I am also grateful to the many friends who have helped make my time in Baltimore more enjoyable than I could have imagined five years ago. Within the department, I am extremely grateful to have had the opportunity to ‘grow up with’ (in alphabetical order): Danny Dilks, Jared Medina, Laura Lakusta, Lisa Davidson, Matt Goldrick, Oren Schwartz, Tamara Nicol and Virginia Savova; as well as my ‘newer’ friends Ari Goldberg, Becca Morley, and Ehren Reilly. I also thank Vanessa Bliss and especially Louisa Conklin for keeping me sane outside of school while writing this thesis. Thanks also to my dissertation committee – Brenda Rapp, Paul Smolensky, Maureen Stone, Greg Ball, and Justin Halberda. Thank you for taking time out to read my thesis and for your useful and insightful commentary. Lastly, I’d like to thank my mother Mary, my father Charles, and my brother David for being there for me throughout the ups and downs of life before, during, and iii after graduate school. Their continuing emotional support has led me to forget at times the unfortunate fact that we live in different cities. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………....ii Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………….....iv Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………….........v List of Tables.…………………………………………………………………………....vii List of Figures……………………………………………………………………...........viii Chapter One: Introduction ______________________________________________ 1 1.1 ‘Grammar’ in spoken production _______________________________________ 1 1.1.1 Representations of sound structure __________________________________________ 2 1.1.2 Well-formedness conditions ________________________________________________ 3 1.1.3 The source of grammatical knowledge in spoken production _____________________ 4 1.2 Outline of the dissertation _____________________________________________ 6 Chapter Two. Representations, constraints, and repairs in Phonological Processing _____________________________________________________________________ 8 2.0 Introduction_________________________________________________________ 8 2.1 Representations of sound structure______________________________________ 8 2.1.1 Subsegmental representations ______________________________________________ 9 2.1.2 Segmental representations ________________________________________________ 10 2.1.3 Suprasegmental representations ___________________________________________ 11 2.1.4 Formal theories of Grammar ______________________________________________ 12 2.1.5 Summary ______________________________________________________________ 18 2.2 Well-formedness of sound structure representations ______________________ 18 2.3 Phonological processing: Representations and Frameworks ________________ 22 2.3.1 Levels of representation in spoken production processes _______________________ 23 2.3.2 Cognitive Architecture of Spoken Production ________________________________ 26 2.4 Phonological processing and aphasia ___________________________________ 30 2.4.1 Markedness and aphasic speech errors: Group studies_________________________ 31 2.4.2 Markedness and Aphasia: Single-case and case series studies ___________________ 33 2.5 Summary __________________________________________________________ 36 Chapter Three. Case Report ____________________________________________ 37 3.1 Case Report: VBR___________________________________________________