This material is based upon work supported by NIH under Grant No. F32MH68204-01A1.

1. The effect of experience on the perception and representation of dialects Meghan Sumner Stony Brook University University of California, Berkeley This material is based upon work supported by NIH under Grant No. F32MH68204-01A1.

2. The basic questions • How do listeners accommodate the variation found in the speech signal? • What representations are used to perceive and understand speech? • What is the effect of experience on perception and representation?

3. The basic questions • How do listeners accommodate the variation found in the speech signal? • Is a surface pattern generalization made across dialectal variants? • Are all variants equally able to map to meaning? • What representations are used to perceive and understand speech? • What is the effect of experience on perception and representation?

4. The basic questions • How do listeners accommodate the variation found in the speech signal? • What representations are used to perceive and understand speech? • What is the effect of experience on perception and representation?

5. The basic questions • How do listeners accommodate the variation found in the speech signal? • What representations are used to perceive and understand speech? • In the long-term, are variants mapped to a single abstract representation, or to individual, exemplar representations? • What is the effect of experience on perception and representation?

6. The basic questions • How do listeners accommodate the variation found in the speech signal? • What representations are used to perceive and understand speech? • What is the effect of experience on perception and representation?

7. The basic questions • How do listeners accommodate the variation found in the speech signal? • What representations are used to perceive and understand speech? • What is the effect of experience on perception and representation? • Does experience with a particular dialect affect perception and representation?

8. How can dialects help? • Consider slender • Variation: • Compare cross-dialectal variants in immediate and long-term tasks • slend-er vs. slend-[] • Experience: • Control participant experience with a particular dialect • Compare r-full forms of General American (GA) with r-less forms of New York City dialect (NYC) using psycholinguistic tasks • GA = participants who do not r-drop or exhibit other regionally-marked characteristics

9. What can priming tasks tell us? Form priming: Do listeners generalize a pattern for cross-dialectal variants independent of dialect? • How well does slend-er prime an identical item slend-er or a cross-dialect item slend-[]? Semantic priming: Are cross-dialectal variants mapped onto by meaning by listeners independent of dialect? • Is slend-[] as effective in activating ‘thin’ as slend-er? Long-term repetition priming: Are cross-dialectal variants mapped onto a single abstract representation, or stored as individual concrete, or exemplar, representations? • Does slend-er exhibit the same level of identity priming after 20 minutes as slend-[]? Immediate processing Long-term representation

10. The effect of experience: Participants • Post-experiment interview & questionnaire • Interview: Productive r-dropping, yes or no? • Questionnaire: • Born in what city, state, country (participants, parents, grandparents) • Languages spoken (participants, parents, grandparents) • Other locations lived (including dates) • 3 listener populations • Needed 144 participants, ran 207 • Some exclusion criteria • Lived outside NYC area, bilingual, not 1st semester SB students

11. Three populations • GA • Never lived in the NYC/Tri-State area, or any other r-dropping region • First-semester Stony Brook students (run in 1st month on campus) • NYC R-less • Lifelong NYC-area residents • Prominent r-dropping • NYC R-full • Lifelong NYC-area residents • No r-dropping What’s the difference? 96% of R-less listeners’ parents and grandparents are NYC natives * * * * * * 3% of R-full listeners’ parents and/or grandparents are NYC natives

12. Familiar voices facilitate processing Stimuli created with FOUR speakers Primes produced by two females (one GA, one NYC) Targets produced by two males (one GA, one NYC)

13. Experiment 1: Form priming Do listeners generalize a pattern for cross dialectal variants independent of dialect? • Typical trial: • Auditory prime-target pairs separated by a short interval • Lexical decision made for targets Prime ISI Target Response (GA Voice 1) (GA Voice 2) runn-errunn-er“Word” 100ms [ggi] [ggi] “Pseudoword”

14. Experiment 1: Form priming design • Four conditions Condition Related Prime Target Control Prime GA – GA runn-errunn-er bak-er NYC – GA run[] runn-erbak-[] GA – NYC runn-errun[] bak-er NYC – NYC run[] run[] bak-[] • 48 participants (16 for each population) • 160 –er final words • No item or variant presented in more than 1 trial • Counterbalanced lists • Fillers avoid response bias 1. 2. 3. 4. GA Identity NYC Identity

15. Experiment 1: Form priming predictions If pattern between variants is internalized Priming in all conditions, strongest in identity conditions If pattern between variants is internalized Priming in all conditions, strongest in identity conditions If pattern not internalized (arbitrary ornew) Benefit for within-dialect variants If pattern between variants is internalized Priming in all conditions, strongest in identity conditions If pattern not internalized (arbitrary ornew) Benefit for within-dialect variants If experience with a variation is critical Differences among three listener groups e.g., Difference between NYC R-Less and GA in facilitation of NYC targets

16. Condition Prime – Target • GA – GA runn-er – runn-er • NYC – GA run[] – runn-er • GA – NYC runn-er – run[] • NYC – NYC run[] – run[] Experiment 1: Form priming results • NYC R-Less • Strong identity priming in both dialects • Reduced variant priming • NYC R-Full • Similar to R-Less participants • Exposure facilitates processing • GA • Priming only for GA targets • Surface variation not internalized Short-term mapping between all variants for NYC participants No mapping to NYC variants for GA Lack of experience has clear processing cost

17. Experiment 2: Semantic Priming Do all variants facilitate the recognition of a semantically-related target? • Typical trial: • Auditory prime-target pairs separated by a short interval • Lexical decision made for targets Prime ISI Target Response (GA Voice 1) (GA Voice 2) slend-erthin “Word” 100ms [bo]guggy “Pseudoword”

18. Experiment 2: Semantic priming design • Four conditions Condition Related Prime Target Control 1. GA – GAslend-er(GA voice 1)thin(GA voice 2)filt-er 2. NYC – GA slend[]thin filt[] 3. GA – NYC slend-erthin filt-er 4. NYC – NYC slend[](NYC voice 1)thin (NYC voice 2)filt[] • 48 participants (16 for each population) • 160 –er final words and semantically-related targets • Targets chosen via large-scale mass testing experiment • No item or variant presented in more than 1 trial • Fillers included to avoid response biases

19. Experiment 2: Semantic priming predictions If non-dialect variants do not activate semantically-related items: • Native dialect primes should facilitate recognition of related targets • Non-dialect primes should not yield facilitation • If lack of exposure prohibits lexical activation for variants: • Only GA primes should facilitate lexical activation for GA listeners (Cost) • All variant primes should facilitate lexical activation for NYC listeners (Benefit)

20. Experiment 2: Semantic priming results • NYC R-Less • All variants equally effective in lexical activation • Benefit for GA prime • NYC R-Full • Pattern similar to R-Less participants • Strong semantic priming independent of variant dialect • GA • Priming only for GA primes • NYC primes are unable to activate lexicon • Condition Prime Target • GA -GA slend-er thin • NYC -GA slend[] thin • GA -NYC slend-er thin • NYC -NYC slend[] thin Exposure to two dialects results in equivalent lexical activation across dialects NYC variant inconsistent with representation resulting in processing cost

21. How do listeners process cross-dialect variants? Listeners exposed to both dialects … • generalize surface pattern • form processing • lexical activation in the short-term

22. The issue of representation • Striking similarity between R-Less and R-Full in the short term • Listeners able to generalize surface pattern with experience • Tasks do not inform us about nature of representations • Issue of representation on backburner • Surface generalizations derived from abstract representations • Evidence that representations (and information they carry) have a role in speech perception Question: What do listeners actually represent?

23. Experiment 3: Long-term repetition priming Do listeners store a single abstract representation, or multiple, concrete representations? • Typical trial: • Individual words presented • Lexical decision made for each word • Primes and targets presented in different blocks or lists • Effect based on long-term activation of phonological representations

24. Experiment 3: Long-term repetition priming design Condition Block 1: Primes Block 2: Targets • GA GA repeated slend-er slend-er control — filt-er 2. NYC GA repeated slend-[]slend-er control — filt-er • GA NYC repeated slend-er slend-[] control — filt-[] 4. NYC NYC repeated slend-[] slend-[] control — filt-[] Condition Block 1: Primes Block 2: Targets • GA GA repeated — slend-er control filt-er filt-er 2. NYC GA repeated — slend-er control filt-[] filt-er • GA NYC repeated — slend-[] control filt-er filt-[] 4. NYC NYC repeated — slend-[] control filt-[] filt-[] • 48 participants, 16 of each listener group • 160 –er final words • No variant present in more than 1 trial • Fillers used to eliminate response biases

25. Experiment 3: Long-term repetition priming predictions Expect GA participants to store one representation Strong within-dialect identity priming If listeners store multiple, concrete representations: Strong within- and cross-dialect identity priming If experience affects representation Differences among three listener groups (expected)

26. Condition Prime – Target • GA – GA slend-er – slend-er • NYC – GA slend[] – slend-er • GA – NYC slend-er – slend[] • NYC – NYC slend[] – slend[] Long-term priming: Results • NYC R-Less • Strong identity priming in both dialects • Two variants stored • NYC R-Full • Similar to GA –single abstract representation • Representations differ from Overt-NYC • GA • Priming only for GA-GA condition • Single representation Type of experience plays role Language use  representation

27. Language useis not equivalent to representation Two critical distinctions can be made: • Production and representation • Process and representation • NYC R-Less Participants • Produced one form in interview but store two representations • Representations not necessarily equivalent • NYC R-Full and GA Participants • Same representation, different immediate ability to generalize variant pattern

28. To sum up … • Language use is not a predictor of representation • Evident cost of lack of experience with surface variation • Experience influences • Immediate processing and representations • Benefit for canonical form

29. Thank You!

30. Do these patterns generalize to within-dialect phonetic variation?

31. Long-term repetition priming of phonetic variants Are multiple phonetic variants stored as independent forms? Primes Targets flu[t] flu[t] flu[] flare --- Basic Unreleased Glottal Repeated Control New Control flu[t] flu[t] flu[] flare flare Basic Identity Most frequent Unreleased Identity Glottal Identity Repeated Identity If multiple, concrete representations are stored … we should find identity priming for all variants

32. Basic Unreleased Glottal Control Identity Identity Identity Identity Are multiple phonetic variants stored as independent forms? • Only Basic [t] identity as strong as repeated control • Low frequency form encoded most efficiently • Identity priming indicative of concrete representations Prime Target Basic identity flu[t] flu[t] Unreleased identity flu[t] flu[t] Glottal identity flu[] flu[] Control identity flare flare Benefit for canonical form, even when it is not the most frequent

33. Implications and new directions

34. Implications and important questions • Benefit for canonical form • Is something about [t] simply more memorable? • Are certain acoustic cues more salient? • Are abstract generalizations made over sounds or words? • Specificity of representations? • Rethink role and nature of representations • At what level do multiple representations exist? • What and where do listeners learn? • Specific acoustic cues or robust generalizations? • Is learning pre-lexical or lexical? Learning and generalization of non-native acoustic cues

35. Voicing contrast in native and non-native English • Native English voicing contrast made with vowel-consonant duration ratio • Consider beat and bead • In Polish, final devoicing leads to near neutralization • Contrast made in voicing into closure duration • Pilot studies • Native Polish speaker of English transfer this cue to English • Native English listeners perceive beat and bead as beat “Bad Map”

36. Learning and generalization of non-native cues How do listeners learn to move from reliance on a native acoustic cue to the use of a new non-native cue? • Where does learning occur? • Is a cue learned and remapped at the pre-lexical or lexical level? • What is generalized? • Once a cue is learned, does it generalize to: • New words? Once beat/bead contrast learned … Generalize to seat/seed and to tack/tag? • New speakers? Learn contrast for speakers A & B … Generalize to C & D? • New L1 with same cue? Contrast learned for Native Polish speakers of English: Generalize to native Korean?

37. Conclusions Listeners: • Represent forms other than those they produce • Process variants depending on prior experience • Store multiple concrete representations • Benefit from a canonical form (even if it is not the most frequent) A listener’s knowledge is not autonomous, but bound by experience and through experience, multiple representations are promoted

38. Thank You!

40. Example illustration of priming Long-term Representation /-er/ /-/ Long-term repetition priming //   Phonemes or Phoneme Chunks      Feature Bundles -er features features Prime: slend-er Target: slend-er Speech Signal: Prime: slend-[] Target: slend-[]

41. Error Rates show GA benefit Error rates collapsed across form priming and long-term priming experiments Hearing a GA prime improves target recognition accuracy even for Overt-NYC participants

42. Dialect atlas • (Kurath, 1939; Labov et al., 2006) • Social factors • (Giles, 1970; Labov, 1972; Preston, 1986) • Acoustic analysis • Dialect identification • (Clopper & Pisoni, 2003) • Dialect variation in OT • (Anttila & Cho, 1998) • Perceptual learning & speaker adaptation • (Dahan & Scarborough, 2005; Kraljic & Samuel, 2005 ; Norris, McQueen, & Cutler, 2003) • Perception of merged and unmerged dialects • (Bowie, 2000; Janson & Schulman, 1983; Labov, Karan, & Miller, 1991; )

43. Experiment 2: Semantic Priming Schema(Covert-NYC perspective) Semantic priming // // Lexical ?   Phoneme      Feature Bundles  features  features Speech Signal: [] [] []

44. Coping with variation White or dark meat? What was produced? [dk] What did I hear? dog [dk] ~ [dak] variation not surprising

45. Crossing the threshold What changed? Do I now treat [dk] as a systematic variant of /dk/? Did I learn to map a variant (e.g., [dk]) onto an existing representation, or did I create a new exemplar representation?

46. Examining linguistic issues with psycholinguistic tasks: Priming • What is priming? • Preparing a sound, chunk, word • Benefit on the later recognition of a related stimulus • What happens in a typical experiment • Prime is presented (e.g., horse) • Prime activates • Sounds ([h], [o], etc.) • Representation (//) • Meaning horse, barn, cow, etc. • Measure: Reaction time to target • Benefits of priming paradigm • Sensitivity to subtle acoustic deviations • Manipulate delay: Immediate (processing) and long-term (representation) effects • Target presented • Form-sharing: course • Identical: horse • Meaning-related: barn

47. Example illustration of priming Long-term Representation /-er/ //   Phonemes or Phoneme Chunks      Form priming Feature Bundles -er features features Prime: slend-er Target: slend-er Speech Signal: Target: slend-[]

48. Example illustration of priming Long-term Representation /-er/ // Semantic Priming   Phonemes or Phoneme Chunks      Feature Bundles -er features features Prime: slend-er Target: thin Speech Signal:

49. Long-term Representation /-er/ Long-term priming   Phonemes or Phoneme Chunks      Feature Bundles -er features features Prime: slend-er Speech Signal:

50. What’s ahead • Experiment design and results • Generalization to within-dialect phonetic variation • Discussion of models of representation • Implications and future directions