The Simon Fraser University Speech Error Database (SFUSED) is a multi-purpose database designed to support both language production and linguistic research. This talk reviews some recent research results from English and Cantonese (http://www.sfu.ca/people/alderete/sfused) as a way of explaining the logic of the database and how it can be used in new projects. It also identifies some of the current limitations of the SFUSED and sketches how planned developments of lexical, morpho-syntactic, and phonological structure can address them.

Day & time: Mondays 12-1pm (unless otherwise noted)
Location: AP&M 4218 and occasionally (also) Zoom

Day & time: Mondays 1-2pm (unless otherwise noted)
Location: AP&M 4218 and occasionally (also) Zoom

Day & time: Mondays 1-2pm (unless otherwise noted)
Location: AP&M 4218 and occasionally (also) Zoom

(joint work with Sarah Creel and Michael Obiri-Yeboah)

Recent research suggests that speaking a tone language confers benefits in processing pitch in nonlinguistic contexts such as music. This research largely compares speakers of non-tone European languages (English, French) with speakers of tone languages in East Asia (Mandarin, Cantonese, Vietnamese, Thai). However, tone languages exist on multiple continents, notably languages indigenous to Africa and the Americas. With one exception (Bradley, 2016), no research has assessed whether these tone languages also confer pitch processing advantages. The current pair of studies examined pitch perception using a melody change detection task in speakers of Akan, a tone language of Ghana, plus speakers from previously-tested populations (non-tone language speakers and East Asian tone language speakers). In both cases, Akan speakers showed no musical pitch processing advantage over non-tone speakers, despite comparable or better in instrument change detection. Results suggest limits on the inference that tone languages automatically confer pitch processing benefits.

Day & time: Mondays 12-1pm (unless otherwise noted)
Location: AP&M 2452 4218 [note the change!] and Zoom (unless otherwise noted)

“Checked” has been a term that is reported in various languages, but lacks a clear definition. It usually refers to syllables or vowels that are closed by oral or glottal stops; associated with distinct tones; have glottalized quality; and/or have shorter duration. My study asks: is “checked” a meaningful phonological feature in languages where it is reported? How do “checked” syllables differ from closed syllables? How do “checked” tones differ from glottalized tones? How do “checked” vowels differ from short vowels? And how does “checked” phonation differ from creaky phonation? To answer these questions, I have surveyed Chinese and Zapotecan languages. The focuses of my presentations are 1) how to determine the phonological structure that “checked” feature is assigned to; 2) how to determine whether the glottal stop in Vʔ structure is a segment or a suprasegment; 3) how to determine whether “checked” is a meaningful phonological feature when it is a syllable type vs. when it is a phonation type.

Period doubling (PD) is a type of creaky voice that contains two alternating periods, which contribute to an indeterminate pitch with a low and rough quality. By presenting data from Mandarin Chinese read speech recordings, this study probes the articulatory properties of period-doubled voice and its tonal distribution based on time-domain measures using electroglottography (EGG). Besides the alternation of frequency and amplitude in two adjacent glottal cycles, alternation of contact quotient and symmetry quotient was also seen in a few samples, suggesting that PD is likely articulated through two alternating pulses with distinct voice qualities and pitches. Preliminary data also suggest H1*-H2* is the most salient cue differentiating PD, vocal fry, and modal voice.

In a couple of recent short squibs, Reiss (2021a, 2021b) claims to have solved the related problems of describing chain shifts (e.g. Kirchner 1996) and saltations (see e.g. Hayes & White 2015) in Optimality Theory using underspecified underlying representations and Max-F/Dep-F featural faithfulness constraints. With a focus on the formal definitions of featural faithfulness constraints as they apply to fully-specified and underspecified representations, we show that (a) Reiss’s solutions do not in fact require Max-F/Dep-F constraints, and that (b) they require less underspecification than Reiss posits. Reiss’s singular focus on establishing “existence proofs” and the consequent inattention to the details of his solutions leads him to miss these facts. Time permitting, we will also show some preliminary analysis of the factorial typologies predicted by Reiss’s solutions and variations on them.

I think everyone in this group agrees that signed languages should be incorporated into linguistics education, so this isn’t going to be a talk about why this should be done (though I can answer that if need be). Instead, the hope is for this to be more of an informal discussion about how to start incorporating signed languages into our phonology and phonetics courses (and how to keep going with it). While I am by no means an expert on the topic, especially as a hearing L2 signer, it is my focus in research and in teaching. So, I can go over how I teach this content in LIGN7, what readings for students (undergrads and grads) and resources for instructors may be useful, and some concrete things we can all do to be inclusive in how we teach phonology & phonetics throughout our curricula. Everyone who attends is encouraged to ask questions, provide suggestions, and discuss ideas. This is not meant to be an exhaustive discussion but I hope for this to be a start and at least help us all feel a little more equipped to keep working towards an inclusive cross-modal education for all future linguists.