Positional Velar Fronting: An updated articulatory analysis

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

2. Acknowledgements • Adam Albright • Edward Flemming • Donca Steriade • Yvan Rose • Katherine Demuth • Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel • Magdi Sobeih • Haiyan Su • B and family International Child Phonology Conference 2010

3. Positional velar fronting • 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): Prosodically strong contexts Prosodically weak contexts International Child Phonology Conference 2010

4. 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. International Child Phonology Conference 2010

5. 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 2010

6. 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. International Child Phonology Conference 2010

7. 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: • New case study data show that fronting can be conditioned by finer-grained differences than the strong-weak dichotomy. • Expanded role for child-specific limitations on speech-motor control is proposed. International Child Phonology Conference 2010

8. Case study • Subject 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 International Child Phonology Conference 2010

9. Data coding • Observed output categories: • *Segmented production was specifically linked to velar place; never observed for coronal place. International Child Phonology Conference 2010

10. Analysis • All 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). International Child Phonology Conference 2010

11. Results: Prosodic context • Main effect of prosodic context: Weak > strong (Fisher’s Exact p < .000). • Consistent with previous literature. * Bars show standard error. International Child Phonology Conference 2010

12. Results: Voicing • Main 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. * Bars show standard error. International Child Phonology Conference 2010

13. 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? International Child Phonology Conference 2010

14. Unifying the conditioning factors • 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. International Child Phonology Conference 2010

15. Unifying the conditioning factors • 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. International Child Phonology Conference 2010

16. 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). International Child Phonology Conference 2010

17. Undifferentiated gestures • Jaw-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. International Child Phonology Conference 2010

18. Role of gestural force • Recall 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

19. Conclusions • Move-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. International Child Phonology Conference 2010

20. References Bills, 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, 337-346 Elliott, 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. Journalof Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 382–397. International Child Phonology Conference 2010

21. References Hayes, 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. International Child Phonology Conference 2010