Converging evidence for [coronal] underspecification in English-speaking adults

Abstract

The goal of this study was to test the predictions of the Featurally Underspecified Lexicon (FUL) theory by examining event-related potential (ERP) indices of phonological representation. Two English consonants differing in place of articulation were selected: [labial] /b/ and [coronal] /d/. It was assumed that the phonological representation of /d/ contained less distinctive feature information due to its [coronal] place of articulation, as compared to /b/. English-speaking adults were presented with two syllables, /bɑ/ and /dɑ/, in an ERP oddball paradigm where both syllables served as the standard and deviant stimulus in opposite stimulus sets. Three types of analyses were conducted: traditional mean amplitude measurements, cluster-based permutation tests, and single-trial general linear model (GLM) analyses of group-level and single-subject data. The less specified /dɑ/ deviant elicited a large MMN while no MMN was elicited by the more specified deviant /bɑ/. Additionally, the /dɑ/ standard syllable elicited larger responses than did the /bɑ/ standard, while deviant syllables did not differ. This implies that the MMN was driven by responses elicited by the standards rather than the deviants. At the single-subject level, not all participants demonstrated significant MMN responses, though all had measurable differences between the standard syllables. Thus, to continue to propose that [coronal] underspecification is a language universal phenomenon, ERP indices other than the MMN should be examined.

Evidence for [Coronal] Underspecification in Typical and Atypical Phonological Development

“…On the other hand, in the children with PD, the /bA/ mismatch response was significantly more positive than was the mismatch response to /dA/. Both of these findings were contrary to previous to adult [coronal] underspecification findings (Cummings et al, 2017) wherein the underspecified /dA/ elicited a larger MMN than did the specified /bA/.…”

“…As a result, even though the specified phoneme has a contrasting feature, a no-mismatch occurs when it is the deviant-resulting in a small or no mismatch response. The adults in Cummings et al (2017) followed this response pattern. This proposed developmental model is consistent with previous proposals of children's speech processing (Bernhardt, 1992;Kuhl, 2000).…”

“…The most prominent mismatch response was observed in both groups 200-300 ms post-syllable onset. As this was consistent with the timing of the adult MMN response (Cummings et al, 2017), this time window was selected for data analysis. Phonological underspecification in the identity difference waves was analyzed using a Group (TD, PD) x Phoneme Type (/bA/, /dA/) x Anterior-Posterior (four levels) × Left-Right (seven levels) repeated measure ANOVA.…”

Context and perceptual asymmetry effects on the mismatch negativity (MMNm) to speech sounds: an MEG study

“…we therefore propose that the explanations put forth by the proponents of the FUL (Lahiri & Reetz, 2002; fit our findings and the asymmetries in the linguistic MMN literature the best. In this relation, a number of studies have found support for [coronal] as an underspecified place of articulation feature in German for both plosives and vowels (Cornell et al, 2011;Eulitz & Lahiri, 2004;Scharinger et al, 2010;2012a), and in English for plosives and fricatives (Cummings et al, 2017;Schluter et al, 2016), and, as already mentioned, for [voice] as an underspecified laryngeal feature in English (Hestvik & Durvasula, 2016;Phillips et al, 2000). To these findings, our present study adds an investigation of the laryngeal feature…”

“…compare "lea [m] bacon" (instead of "lea[n] bacon") with "la [m]e duck" (and not "la[n]e duck") (examples are from Lahiri & Reetz, 2002;Scharinger, Bendixen, Trujillo-Barreto, & Obleser, 2012a). Using the MMN to probe predictions from the FUL framework, several studies have found asymmetries in the MMN to English, German and Dutch stimuli in support of certain underspecified phonological features (Cornell, Lahiri, & Eulitz, 2011;Cummings, Madden, & Hefta, 2017;Diesch & Luce, 1997;Eulitz & Lahiri, 2004;Hestvik & Durvasula, 2016;Scharinger et al, 2012a;Scharinger, Lahiri, & Eulitz, 2010;Schluter, Politzer-Ahles, & Almeida, 2016;Walter & Hacquard, 2004). However, Scharinger et al (2011) reported nonsupportive findings, Tavabi et al (2009) only found partially supportive effects, and Bonte et al (2005) found evidence of a phonotactic effect rather than of underspecification.…”