The structure of words and syllables: Evidence from errors in speech

COGNITIVE

PSYCHOLOGY

The Structure

3, 210-227

(1972)

of Words

and

Syllables:

Evidence

from

Errors in Speech DONALD G. MACKAYI University

of California,

Los Angeles

This study examines syllabic and morphological determinants of synonymic intrusions such as BEHORTMENT, an inadvertent combination of BEHAVIOR and DEPORTMENT. Statistical analyses of 133 synonymic intrusions in German suggested that syllables are composed of at least three subunits: segments (consonants and vowels), consonant clusters, and a subunit consisting of vowel and final consonant(s). Similar analyses of 46 synonymic intrusions in English suggested that mechanisms underlying this class of error may be universal or common to all speakers. A hierarchic model of the serial order of speech was advanced to explain the structure of words and syllables suggested by these findings. Independent support for the model was noted in the rules governing abbreviations, Pig Latin, poetic rhyme, and other types of errors in speech.

This research deals with the structure of words and syllables as indicated by a class of errors in speech known as synonymic intrusions. When a speaker inadvertently combines two words or phrases having roughly the same meaning, the result is a synonymic intrusion, Consider the synonymic intrusion “Don’t shell,” an involuntary combination of “Don’t shout” and “Don’t yell” (from Hackett, 1967). Clearly the speaker began with a segment from SHOUT (defined here as the initial word) but continued with segments from YELL (the sequel word). The resulting SHELL is a synonymic intrusion at the word or lexical level (abbreviated SIL) .3 ‘This research was supported in part by USPHS Grant 16668-01 and UCLA Grant 2428. * SILs have a long history under various names, blends being the most common. But the term blend has been used to describe so many other linguistic phenomena, that the scientific usefulness of the word becomes questionable (a point applying to many terms in studies of speech errors). The label has been applied to analogic errors (e.g., “He goed” for “He went”), portmanteaus (e.g., Lewis Carrel’s SLITHY, an intentional combination of SLIMY and LITHE), and the SIG (synonymic intrusion at the syntactic or grammar level, e.g., “He has gifted at that” instead of either “He has a gift for that” or “He is gifted at that”). The term blend has even been used to describe perfectly normal utterances such as “It is hard to convince 210 @ 1972 by Academic Press, Inc.

STRUCTURE

OF

WORDS

AND

SYLLABLES

211

SILs provide crucial information for understanding the output mechanisms in speech. For example, SILs indicate that more than one word can be simultaneously activated in speech production. We were interested in the relevauce of SILs to theories of the serial order of speech. Note that the sequel word cannot intrude at any point in the sequence of segments composing the initial word: YEOUT stems an unlikely SIL for YELL and SHOUT, and YSHOUT stems out of the question. What determines where the initial word leaves off and the sequel word begins in a SIL? WC defined this point as the break and made it the dependent variable in this study. In Hackett’s SHELL, for example, the break follows SH in the initial word, SHOUT, and precedes E in the sequel word, YELL.” \Ve examined the breaks in a large corpus of German SILs, searching first for possible syllabic determinants. Our specific questions at the syllabic level were as follows: (1) Do breaks usually fall between rather than within syllables when initial and sequel words contain more than one syllable? An affirmative answer to this question would suggest that syllables represent cohesive units in the production of speech. (2) Are syllables undifferentiated units or do they contain an internal structure of their own? Spe’cifically, can consonant clusters be considered cohesive units at some level in the structure of syllables? WC tested this question by determining whether breaks within syllables fall within consonant clusters less often than would be expected by chance. (3) Do breaks falling within syllables precede vowels more often than follow them? If breaks usually fall before the vowel (as in the example above), it may be because vowels form a more cohesive group with final than initial consonants. A similar set of questions was designed to test for morphemic determinants of breaks in German SILs. We then carried out identical analyses on an English corpus to determine whether mechanisms underlying SILs are universal or invariant for speakers of different languages. The

him” (Bolinger, 1961). But since completely diverse mechanisms must govern these various phenomena, we introduce the more specific term SIL to describe the errors examined in this study. 3 The exact location of the break might be considered ambiguous in some cases, For example, consider the SIL SOTALLY, a combination of SOLELY and TOTALLY in the context “He was sotally responsible for that.” The break either precedes or follows the 0 in these words. In the data to be presented we always placed the break at the latest point where the initial word could be considered to stop. However, we obtained the same basic results when these ambiguous cases were eliminated or when we defined the break as the earliest possible point where the initial word left off.

212

DONALD G. MACKAY

answers to these questions led us to formulate the serial production of speech.

a hierarchic

model for

METHOD

Our main source of data consisted of 133 SILs published (in German) by Meringer and Mayer (1895) and Meringer ( 1906). The 266 initial and sequel words that combined to form these SILs we defined as the corpus. For the most part the corpus consisted of common German words that would be highly familiar to the speakers who made the errors (mainly professors at the University of Vienna). We report as subsidiary results our analyses of the less extensive collection of English SILS. Our independent variable was the syllabic and morphological form of the words in the corpus. Syllabic form is defined as the ordered sequence of consonants and vowels in the syllables of a word. For example, the syllabic form of BEGAN (in German or English) is CV + CVC where + represents the syllable boundary. Two native speakers of German determined this independent variable by marking where they felt the syllable boundaries occurred in the 266 words of our corpus.4 In no case did our judges differ in where they marked a syllable boundary. Morphological form is defined as the ordered sequence of affixes and stems in a word. For example, the morphological form of UNGENTLEMANLY is PREFIX (UN) + STEM (GENTLE) + STEM (MAN) + ( LY) , where + represents a morphological SUFFIX boundary. The morphological form of the 266 words in our corpus was determined from a standard German dictionary (Wahrig, 1966). Our two judges checked the dictionary analysis for all 266 words, concurring in every instance. Analytical procedures and problems. Our general procedure was to construct a null hypothesis, based on the frequency of a specific factor in the corpus. We then used statistical procedures to determine whether this factor played a greater or less than chance role in the occurrence of the errors. Such analyses are necessary but problematical: errors in speech present statistical problems that are not common in psychology. One is termed the fragmentary data problem (cf. Brown & McNeil, 1966). The fact that different individuals may contribute varying numbers of errors to a corpus represents one aspect of this problem. For ‘This procedure ensured that our independent variable was independent of the data. The same goal might have been achieved by following the sylIabic representations of a dictionary except that these are based usually on orthographic rather than phonetic considerations.

STBUClTJBE

OF

WORDS

AND

213

SYLLABLES

example, Meringer himself contributed 36 SILs to his corpus, his wife 13, and a close friend, Dr. Much, 11. But this aspect of the fragmentary data problem is probably not serious, at least for Meringer’s corpus, since we found no difference in results for individuals contributing several errors and those contributing only one. In general, however, the fragmentary data problem necessitates multiple analyses of the data (using different statistical methods) and a procedure known as “converging operations.” Converging operations are sets of two or more analytical procedures that aim to establish a principle under a variety of conditions, thereby ruling out alternative interpretations. Comparison of SILs produced by speakers of German and English represents one of the converging operations of the present study. A second problem in studies of errors in speech concerns data reliability: the possibility of inaccuracy or selectivity in collecting and recording the errors. The reliability problem necessitates a detailed examination of how the errors in a corpus were collected. When reliability is dubious or unknown, errors collected by several independent observers should be examined, so as to avoid the possibility of individual-specific selectivity. This was our approach in analyzing English SILs. On the other hand, Meringer’s German corpus seemed self-sufficient, representing probably the most extensive and reliable collection published to date (see MacKay (1970) f or a detailed discussion of Meringer’s methods of data collection). MAIN

RESULTS

The Structure of Syllables Syllabic efects. Do breaks occur within syllables less often than chance expectation? Only blends of multisyllabic words were considered in this analysis. Our null hypothesis held that breaks will fall at random between or within the syllables of these words. Note that for 3-syllable words like DEPORTMENT, there are 2 chances for a break to fall at a syllable juncture, and 3 chances within a syllable. So under our null hypothesis, 2 out of 5 breaks will fall between syllables in a 3-syllable word. The average chance expectancy was computed for the multisyllabic words in our corpus (N = 228) and is shown along with the data in Table 1.5 Sixty percent of the breaks in multisyllabic words fell between syllables, as compared to the 36% expected by chance. This difference was significant beyond the 961 level (X2( 1) = 17.63). A similar analysis for initial words alone was significant at the 665 level (X2( 1) = 8.82). ’ Statistical tests were carried out in all cases on the raw given in the text and tables so as to facilitate exposition.

data. Percentages

are

214

DONALD G.~ACKAY

The Frequency

of Breaks within

TABLE 1 and between

Breaks within Data y0 Chance y$,

syllables

Syllables

in German SILS

Breaks between

40 64

syllables

60 36

Consonant cluster effects. Do breaks fall within consonant clusters less often than would be expected by chan,ce? Only breaks occurring within syllables in the initial and sequel words of our corpus (N = 126) were considered in this analysis. Under the null hypothesis that breaks will fall with equal frequency between any phonemes in these syllables, breaks should fall between two consonants 22% of the time.6 This null hypothesis is shown along with the data in Table 2. Only 6% of the breaks occurred within consonant clusters, as compared to the 22% expected by chance. This difference was significant beyond the .OOl level (X2( 1) = 11.11). However there were too few breaks within ,consonant clusters to allow a similar statistical analysis of initial words by themselves. Initial consonant e&xts. Our next question concerned the grouping of consonants and consonant clusters with the vowel of syllables. When breaks fall within syllables, do they more often precede than follow the vowel? Breaks within consonant cIusters were excluded in this analysis. Our null hypothesis maintained that breaks will fall with equal frequency at any other point in the syllables of our corpus. And since CV and VC transitions in the syllables of the ‘corpus were about equally frequent, our chance hypothesis was 50%.

Within-Syllable

Breaks:

TABLE 2 Inside vs Outeide Consonant Clusters following the Vowel in Syllables

Breaks inside rs outside consonant clusters

Data y0 Chance y0

and Preceding

vs

Breaks before vs after the vowel

Inside consonant clusters

Outside consonant clusters

Breaks before the vowel

Breaks after the vowel

6 22

94 78

70 50

30 50

‘This null hypothesis seems to overlook the well established principle that errors in speech rarely violate the phonological rules of a language. However we will show in our subsidiary results that phonological rules are applied after the formation of SILS, making this the only correct null hypothesis.

STRUCTURE

The Syllabic

Form of Syllables

OF

WORDS

AND

TABLE 3 before and after the Break in Initial Before break ~___

Breaks between syllables (TO same) Breaks within syllables (7; same) CLKxpressed

as 7; same syllabic

63 9.5

215

SYLLABLES

and Sequel Words” After

break 21 41

form.

The data are shown in Table 2. Excluding breaks within consonant clusters, about 70% of the remaining breaks within syllables (N = 118) immediately preceded the vowel, and 30% immediately followed it. This outcome differed from chance beyond the .OOl level (X2( 1) = 19.53). A similar analysis on initial words alone was also reliable beyond the .OOl level (X2( 1) = 10.10). For some reason breaks within syllables usually preceded the vowel rather than followed it. Syllable structure effects. In this section we examine the possibility that divergence in syllabic form in the initial and sequel word played a role in where our breaks o,ccurred. Consider for example the SIL HINPEDE, as in “He didn’t want to hinpede their program.” The initial word HINDER has the syllabic form CVC + CVC, and the sequel word, IMPEDE, VC + CVC, the break occurring at the syllabic juncture in both words. So the syllables following the break in these words have identical syllabic form, but those preceding the break have different syllabic form. We wondered whether this might be true in general. In the first analysis we only considered cases where breaks occurred at a syllable juncture in initial and sequel words (N = 70). The data are shown in Table 3. Only 21% of the syllables immediately folloudng the break had identical syllabic form in the initial and sequel word, whereas 63% of the syllables immediately preceding the break in these same words had identical syllabic form. This difference was significant beyond the .OOl level (X2( 1) = 14.25). Clearly divergence in syllable structure must play a role in where these breaks occurred. A similar analysis was carried out for breaks within syllables (N = 63) with the results shown in Table 3. When breaks occurred within syllables, the part of the syllable preceding the break had identical syllabic form in the initial and sequel word 95% of the time, as compared to 41% identity after the break. This difference was significant beyond the .005 level (x2( 1) = 11.12), corroborating the finding reported immediately above. The Structure of Words Morphological effects. In this analysis we wished to determine whether morphological boundaries play a role in where the breaks occur, over

216

DONALD G. MACKAY

The Frequency

of Breaks following

TABLE Prefixes

Breaks following Data % Chance yO

4 or preceding

prefixes

87 44 --

Suffixes in German SILS Breaks preceding

suffixes

13 56

and above the effect of syllable boundaries demonstrated above. Only breaks between syllables were considered in this analysis since morphologircal boundaries in the corpus usually coincided with syllable boundaries. Our chance hypothesis was based on the ratio of morphological to syllable boundaries. For example in UNGENTLEMANLY, 3 of the 4 syllable boundaries are morphological boundaries, so that the chance of a syllable-break falling in a morphological boundary is 75%. The average chance hypothesis for the corpus containing syllable-breaks was 38%. However 63% of the syllable breaks in the same words occupied morphological junctures. This outcome differed from chance beyond the .03 level (X2(1) = 6.52). A semi ‘. ‘1ar analysis excluding sequel words was significant beyond the 67 level (X2( 1) = 3.26). Prefix eflects. Do breaks usually fall between the prefix and stem of words or between the stem and sufllx? Only breaks within morphological boundaries were considered in this analysis (N = 42). Our null hypothesis took into consideration the greater opportunity for breaks at suffix boundaries, which were slightly more common than prefix boundaries in our corpus. The data and null hypothesis are shown in Table 4. About 87% of the breaks at morphological junctures followed the prefix, as compared to 13%preceding the suffix. This outcome differed from chance expectation beyond the .OOl level (X2( 1) = 31.62). The small number of breaks at suffix boundaries prevented statistical analysis of initial words by themselves. Stem compounds. Breaks between stem compounds, e.g., between GUEST and HOUSE in GUESTHOUSE were so infrequent (N = 1) as to prevent statistical analyses. SUBSIDIARY

RESULTS

The first two subsidiary analyses deal with the appearance of novel phonemes, phonemes present in neither the initial nor sequel word of the German SILs. The third set of subsidiary analyses considers a corpus of English SILs to determine whether syllabic and morphological factors conditioning SILs are common to all speakers regardless of language. Phoneme fusions. It is often assumed that different phonemes can

STBUCTURl3

OF

WORDS

AND

SYLLABLES

217

only be produced sequentially, never simultaneously ( Hackett, 1967). Instances of phoneme fusion represent exceptions to this rule. Phoneme fusions are defined for cases where two simultaneously activated phonemes (A and B) are competing for the same slot in the final output, and the final output is a novel phoneme sharing some (but not all) features of A and some (but not all) features of B. In addition, an unambiguous instance of phoneme fusion must not fit the criteria for phonological accommodation (defined in the next section). Phoneme fusion can be seen in GESHIMMERT, a combination of GESHERT and GEKUMMERT. The competing phonemes are E and U, and the novel phoneme is I, which shares the frontal articulation of E and 0, but has the height of 0 and the unroundedness of E. We noted three similar examples that could only be explained as phoneme fusions. Such cases support the assumption that initial and sequel words are activated simultaueously rather than sequentially prior to the formation of SILs. As such, these cases contradict the common assumption that SILs reflect a sequential decis;on-a decision to switch from one word program to another (Sturtevant, 1961). Phoneme fusions also contradict the sequential hypothesis proposed by Hackett (1967): that speakers unconsciously generate a set of possible SILs (e.g., YEOUT, SHELL, YET, SHET) and then choose the “most appropriate” one. Phonological accommodations. Phonological accommodations are defined for cases where an error results in an una,cceptable phonological sequence that is changed to a phonologically permissible one for final production. In addition, an unambiguous case of phonological accommodation must not satisfy the feature-sharing criterion of phonemic fusion. Phonological accommodation can be seen in SLEBUTIERT, a combination of SPIELT and DEBUTIERT. Note that the postbreak phonemes D and P (for the initial and sequel word, respectively) can only fuse as B or T, so that the novel L fails the feature-sharing criterion of phoneme fusion. Unlike phoneme fusions, a sequential process underlies phonological accommodations. The initial word must first combine with the sequel word to form a prototype SIL not appearing in the output (SDEBUTIERT). Phonological rules must follow the formation of this prototype SIL, preventing the production of the unacceptable sequence (SD). Phonological accommodations therefore contradict the view that phonological rules precede and determine the formation of SILs ( Hackett, 1967). Phonological accommodations also present problems for the widely held theory that phonemes represent a cluster of independent distinctive features. For example with initial SD (as in SDEBWTIERT), no

218

DONALD

G. MACKAY

feature of D taken independently is prohibited from combining with initial S; ST, SL, and SP are permissible sequences in German, but T has the same place of articulation as D, L the same voicing, and P the same manner of articulation. Clearly we cannot explain the switch from SD to SL if the features of D are analyzed and produced as independent entities. Phonetic accommodations contradict the Independent Feature Theory. The usual explanation of phonological accommodation in terms of a monitoring device can also be questioned. According to these theories a monitor inspects pairs of phonemes before their final production. If a phoneme pair violates the phonological rules (e.g., initial SD), one of the phonemes is changed so as to form a permissible sequence (e.g., SL). But what is the purpose of such a short-sighted monitor that only becomes active when an unpermissible sequence has been programmed? What is the purpose of an error-correcting device whose output is still in error at the lexical and semantic levels (SLEBUTIERT)? In view of such difficulties we suggest a general process of output recording as a tentative explanation of phonological accommodations. In Recoding theories a low level mechanism actively alters the configuration of a phoneme to fit its prior and subsequent context. This recoding mechanism is responsible for context-dependent changes in a phoneme, e.g., the aspiration of P in initial positions as in PIN but not in noninitial positions as in SPIN. Being constantly fed with signals that must be adjusted within the phonological bounds of the language the recoding mechanism is continually active during speech production. Phonological accommodations represent just another context-dependent adjustment resulting from a general recoding process rather than a special monitoring process that only becomes active when a higher level error occurs. And since the SD in SDEBTIERT is changed to SL without a detection device to indicate the incongruence of SD with linguistic possibilities, recoding theories have no problem explaining adjustments that allow violations of lexical, semantic and syntactic rules. English SZLs. In this section we examine the universality question: are the determinants of SILs similar for all speakers regardless of language? As a preliminary test of this question we analyzed a limited corpus of English SILs (N = 46). Sources for this corpus were Bawden ( 1900)) Wells ( 1951), Simioni ( 1956) and Fromkin (1971). Exclusive reliance on a corpus such as this seemed inadvisable: none of the collections met all of the criteria for reliability (outlined in MacKay, 1970)) and some met none of the criteria. But this corpus allowed an initial test of the universality question, and despite our reservations, the English data turned out remarkably similar to the German. When breaks fell

STRUCTURE

OF

WORDS

AND

SYLLABLES

219

within syllables in the English corpus, only 11% fell within consonant clusters (as compared to 6% in the German data). The remaining breaks within syllables in the English corpus fell before (rather than after) the vowel 78%of the time ( as compared to 70%in the German corpus). Finally about 63% of the breaks in the multisyllabic English words (N = 25) fell between rather than within syllables (as compared to 60% in the German data). These findings suggest that syllabic factors play a similar role in German and English SILs, and that certain aspects of the structure of syllables may be universal. Further research on the universality question is needed, but if our present findings hold for other languages we might be encouraged to speculate that certain syllabic rules are innate, or at least strongly constrained by inbuilt physiological factors. DISCUSSION

The Structure of Syllables The theoretical status of the syllable has long been a matter of debate. Some phoneticians have ignored the syllable entirely, some have denied its reality as a unit, and some have viewed the syllable as an afterthought-the result of timing or grouping factors imposed after the generation of segments. Others have considered syllables ‘the basic smallest units in speech production.” Our data call for considerable revision of these theories of the syllable. The fact that breaks fell inside syllables with less than ,chance probability suggests that speech segments are grouped into syllables in the production of speech. At the same time, syllables cannot be “the basic smallest units in speech production,” but must themselves be composed of at least two smaller groups of segments. The consonant cluster must represent one of these groups since breaks separated consonant clusters less often than would be expected by chance. Final consonant(s) must form another group with the vowel since breaks rarely fell between final consonant(s) and the vowel. We can represent these groups in the structure of syllables with either a tree diagram or a set of brackets. Thus the grouping structure of a syllable such as STAND (as in UNDERSTAND) can be represented as w ere the round brackets enclose a consonant group, (ST)[A(ND)l h and the square brackets a voca1i.c group. Figure 1 represents the equivalent structure for STAND in the form of a tree diagram. Why do syllables have the structure shown in Fig. I? On first inspection it might appear possible to explain Fig. 1 without going above the vocal tract. In this view consonant clusters represent a cohesive group at this articulatory level, so that breaks are unlikely at that point. Vowels and final consonants represent another cohesive group at the articulatory

220

DONALD

G. MACKAY

Syllable

S

T

A

N

D

FIG. 1. The structure of the syllable STAND (as in understand). The nodes in the tree might be labeled (from the top down) syllable, vowel group and consonant groups.

level, explaining why breaks usually preceded rather than followed the vowel. But this account fails to explain one of our results: the divergence in syllable structure immediately following the break in initial and sequel words. This finding suggests a higher level process in the formation of SILs, a process like that described below. Syllabic Recoding The Syllabic Recoding model is chiefly addressed to the problem of serial order in behavior (after Lashley, 1951). In this model a hierarchy of abstract recoding rules determines the serial order of segments in a syllable. For example, in producing the syllable STAND a sequence of steps similar to l-9 would be followed. The arrows in these rules stand for “is recoded as.” 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Syllable(S) + Initial Consonant Group (ICG) + Vocalic Group ICG-+Cl + C2 Cl -+ (S) C2 -+ (T) VG + Vowel Nucleus (VN) + Final Consonant Group (FCG) VN + (A) FCG-+Cl+C2 Cl ---f (N) C2 --+ (D)

(VG)

The general nature of these recoding rules is quite simple: the series begins by expanding a single unit (S) into two or more subunits (ICG + VG). Then the ‘leftmost” subunit is expanded until “terminal elements” are reached. At the syllabic level the terminal elements are segments

STBUCTUBE

OF

WORDS

AND

SYLLABLES

221

such as S and K. Rules that generate these terminal segments are syllable-specific whereas others such as S + ICG + VG are universal or apply in the production of any syllable. Once a terminal rule is reached, rules for the next unexpanded unit are applied. The Recoding theory therefore generates the segments of a syllable in proper serial order. But segments cannot represent the terminal symbols in a comprehensive model of speech production: phoneme fusions demand a further hierarchy of rules for transforming segments into distinctive features. And phonological accommodations indicate that phonological rules precede the final motor commands, the terminal symbols for a general theory. However, an understanding of these lower level processes may simplify rather than complicate the Syllabic Recoding theory. For example, the phonological rule that initial consonants in English syllables have one and only one possible order could eliminate Rule 2 (Initial Consonant Group ( ICG) -+ Cl + C2) for the recoding of English syllables. All of our data is consistent with the Syllabic Recoding theory. Since consonant clusters remain single entities until late in the recoding of syllables, they are less likely to be broken up in SILs. Similarly, since the vowel group (VG) remains a single entity until late in the production of syllables, breaks usually fall outside the VG. Explaining the divergence in syllable structure following the break in initial and sequel words is more complex and might best be illustrated through detailed examination of a single example. Consider the SIL, SYMBLEM, a combination of SYMBOL and EMBLEM. Note that the second syllable of SYMBOL takes the form CVC (expanded in l-6), and the second syllable of EMBLEM takes the form CCVC (expanded in la-7a). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Sg-)ICG+VG ICG + Cl Cl -+ (B) VG + VN + FCG VN + (0) FCG + (L)

la. Si -+ ICG + VG 2% ICC, + Cl + c2 3a. Cl -+ (B) 4a. C2 --) (L) Fin. VG + VN + FCG 6a. VN --t (E) 7a. FCG + (M)

The two hierarchies are in complete agreement until Rules 4 and 4a. At this point one or the other of these simultaneously act;vated rules must be expanded (Phoneme fusion is impossible here). If the wrong expansion is followed at this conflict point, a SIL results. And since this conflict point represents the point of divergence in the syllable structure of the initial and sequel words, our model explains the divergence phenomenon in terms of a conflict in the recoding or expansion of a unit in the hierachy.

222 Independent

DONALD

Support

for

G. MACKAY

Syllabic Recoding

The Syllabic recoding theory clarifies several unexplained phenomena in Psycholinguistics. Here we consider the syllabic effects in spoonerisms; the nature of abbreviation; the rules for Pig Latin; the structure of poetic rhyme; and the universality of the CV syllable. Spoonerisms. The Recoding theory views the spoonerism as a misexpansion of a term appearing twice in the coding hierarchy. Expansions for the two ICG’s in CONFESS have been exchanged in the spoonerism FONCESS. According to this view syllabic-initial consonants can never transpose with syllabic-final consonants: the C and N (in CONFESS ) will never be transposed, since these segments represent expansions for different terms (ICG vs FCG). Similarly vowels and consonants will never be transposed, although transpositions of a consonant with a consonant group are possible in this theory, e.g., COAT THRUTTING where THR is transposed with C. The theory also predicts transposition of vowel groups, even entire syllables and words. In short, if two sets of segments represent expansions of the same term or “natural unit” in the recoding hierarchy, they can be transposed. Data on Spoonerisms in German ( MacKay, 1970)) English (Fromkin, 1971) and Dutch (Nooteboom, 1968) strongly support these predictions. Transposed consonants usually originate in the same syllabic position: a syllabic-final consonant is almost always transposed with another syllabic-final consonant and almost never with a syllabic-initial consonant. Vowels never transpose with consonants, although vowel groups interchange, as do entire syllables. We only find transposition of “natural units” as defined in the Syllabic Recoding model. Pig Latin. Everyone can speak ig-Pay atin-Lay (Lashley, 1951). For some reason we can readily reverse the order of certain phonemes or groups of phonemes in words. Three major problems confront a theory of Pig Latin: explaining what phonemes will be reversed; explaining the nonequivalence of Pig Latin for words such as STREET and TREATS (after Hackett, 1967); and explaining the Pig Latin for words beginning with a vowel (AT for example is coded in Pig Latin as AT + AY) . All three problems are solved by viewing Pig Latin as the intentional misexpansion of the ICG’s in two syllables: the first syllable of each word (S) and the dummy syllable (So) consisting of the null element ($3) and the vowel AY. This interpretation explains why words like AT are encoded AT + AY, and accurately predicts the Pig Latin for TREATS (rules 1-14) and STREET (rules la-14a) :

STRUCTURE

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

W(TREATS) Sl--) ICG + ICG --) (9) VG+VN + VN -+ (E) FCG + C, + Cl + (‘I3 C, + (S) So + ICG + ICG + C, + Cl -+ (T) Cz + (R) VG + VN VN --f (AY)

OF

+ S1 + S, VG FCG C,

VG Cz

WORDS

AND

223

SYLLABLES

la. 2a. 3a. 4a. 5a. 6a. 7a. 8a. 9a. 10a. lla. 12a. 13a. 14a.

W(STREET) SL + ICG + ICG + ($3) VG + VN + VN --) (E:) FCG + Cl Cl + (T) So + ICG + ICG --) Cl + CI + (S) Cz -+ (T) Ct + (1~) VG + VN VN + (AY)

+ S1 + So VG FCG

VG Cz + CI

Poetic rhyme. Why do some forms rhyme while others don’t? Why does TASK rhyme with BASQUE but not with CATS, TANK, BACKS, TACKLE, or BATS, despite their shared elements? We suggest that a single principle underlies poetic rhyme-the identical expansion of a term or natural unit in two different syllables. We predict that no language will have rhymes involving unnatural units (e.g., identity of C and V in two C VC or C C V syllables). In support of this view, Deutsch ( 1963) notes that the one universally recognized rule of poetic rhyme requires identical VGs in the final syllables of words: BAND and STAND rhyme in any language but BAND and STINK, START or STUND do not. Poets have attempted other forms of rhyme (e.g., consonant rhyme, vowel rhyme) but these are uncommon, even nonexistent in some languages, and in any case never involve unnatural units as defined in our model. Abbreviation: Word abbreviation (e.g., contr. for contracted) is also related to the notion of natural units. We examined a large collection of abbreviations in Webster (1904). Wh en such abbreviations stopped within a syllable (e.g., manuf. for manufacturing), they usually stopped after the ICG (e.g., SW. for Swedish). Like the breaks in SILs, abbreviations virtually never stop within a consonant cluster or a vowel group. Such abbreviations rarely break up the natural units in syllables, Universality of the CV syllable. Two phenomena set the CV syllable apart from other syllables: children find CV syllables easiest to remember and produce (Jakobson, 1966); and the CV syllable seems to represent a universal syllable type, present in all languages of the world (Jakobson, 1966). Both phenomena support the Syllabic Recoding theory, where CV syllables result from the simplest expansion of the one universal or obligatory rule in the model: S -+ ICG + VG. Since CV represents the simplest possible syllable according to our model it is little

224

DONALD

G. MACKAY

wonder that CV syllables are both universal and easy to learn and produce. Coarticulation. Coarticulation data cannot prove or refute the Syllabic Recoding theory since recoding is clearly supraphonetic. But the theory can be readily adapted to predict certain types of coarticulation. It will not predict passive coarticulation i.e., interactions between segments that can be attributed to mechanical constraints associated with the mass and inertia of the articulators. Effects that depend on the dynamics of the peripheral vocal structures are of little or no interest to theories of syllable structure. Of more interest are active coarticulation effects-programmed modifications of a segment to fit its prior or subsequent context. Unfortunately it is difficult to separate active from passive coarticulation in EMG and vocal tract data. But under the Recoding model we might expect large and active coarticulation effects between consonants in a consonant cluster, a phenomenon suggested in Kozhevnikov and Chistovich ( 1965). We m:ght also expect greater active coarticulation between final consonants and the vowel than between initial consonants and the vowel. However Mac Neilage and De Clerk (1969) argue that in CVC syllables, the right to left effects of the vowel on the initial consonant tended to be more prominent in electromyographic terms and more reflected in movement than the effects of the final consonant on the vowel. This finding encourages the tentative conclusion that in this type of syllable the CV component is a somewhat more cohesive or interdependent portion . . . than is the VC component. (p. 1233.)

We feel that this conclusion is at present unwarranted. First, the analyses did not separate the effects of active and passive coarticulation as defined above. Second, the analyses compared coarticulation effects on a consonant with those on a vowel. This comparison seems questionable. Perhaps consonants are simply more susceptible to coarticulation than vowels. Surely we must compare vowels with vowels and consonants with consonants. We therefore examined the electromyographic (EMG) data of MacNeilage and De Clerk for effects of various initial consonants on the vowel and of various final consonants on the vowel. According to the theory of Ma.cNeilage and De Clerk, different initial consonants should cause greater variations in the vowel (as measured in EMG microvolts) than do final consonants. The data showted the exact opposite. Initial consonants caused smaller maximal variations in the vowel than did final consonants, a difference significant for all electrode placements ( p < 92, sign test with vowels as the unit of analysis). Similar results were found using measures of coarticulation other than maximal EMG variation. This aspect of the MacNeilage and De Clerk data therefore

STRUCTURE

appears sonants vowel. syllable

OF

WORDS

AND

225

SYLLABLES

to contradict the view that coarticulation between initial conand the vowel is greater than between final consonants and the Further research on the relation between coarticulation and structure therefore seems needed.

The Structure of Words Our data suggest that words such as UNGENTLEMANLY are composed of at least two subgroups. The stem compound (GENTLE + MAN) represents one subgroup (since breaks rarely separate two stems). The stem (or stem compound) forms another subgroup with the suffix (since breaks rarely separated these). Thus the grouping structure of UNGENTLEMANLY can be represented as UN[ (GENTLEMAN)LY] where the stem compound is ermlosed by round brackets, and the stem group by square brackets. Figure 2 indicates in the form of a tree diagram the possible complexity of these morphological structures. To explain our data on the structure of words, we postulate that the serial production of words such as UNGENTLEMANLY proceeds through a sequence of recoding rules such as the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. .5. 6. 7.

Word + PREFIX + STEhl GIIOIJP PREFIX + (UN) STEh/I GROUP ---$ STEM SUBGROUP + SUFFIX STEM SUBGROUP ---) STEM I+ STEM 2 STEM 1 + (GENTLE) STEM 2 + (MAN) SUFFIX --f (LY)

We have represented the terminal elements of our recoding rules in brackets. These terminal elements are really abstract syllable markers that become the input to the Syllabic Recoding model discussed above. WORD

UN

BE

COME

ING

LY

FIG. 2. The structure of the word UNBECOMINGLY. The nodes in the tree might be labeled (from the top down) word, stem group, stem subgroup and stem compound. The terminal elements of the tree structure are meant to be abstract syllable markers, although we have filled in the phonemes here.

226

DONALD

G. MACKAY

The actual integration of these two hierarchies is in some cases neither simple nor direct. For example, DICTATOR consists of the stem DICTATE plus the suffix OR. With a simple integration of our models the syllabic form of DICTATOR would be CVC + CVC + VC. The fact that the syllabic form of DICTATOR is CVC + CV + CVC suggests a process of syllabic regrouping. But the theoretical mechanisms for syllabic regrouping seem to present no major problems for a general model. And in addition to accounting for our data, this general model would explain why Fromkin (1971) and Nooteboom (1968) collected no errors where a prefix of one word substituted with a suffix or stem of another. Such substitutions are impossible in our model since prefixes, suffixes and stems are called upon by different retrieval rules and at different points in the hierarchical elaboration of words. Areas for Further Research The Recoding model raises several questions for further research. Probably a major test of the model will arise in the field of speech perception. If the production of words and syllables proceeds in the hierarchic manner suggested above, we might expect perception to proceed in similar fashion. Do we perceptually segment speech input into consonant clusters, vocalic groups, and finally into syllabic clusters? One means of testing this question might be the ingenious “click technique,” originally devised by Ladefoged and Broadbent (1960) and developed by Fodor and Bever (1965) for studying the perceptual segmentation of sentences. By applying this technique to syllables, we may be able to demonstrate a perceptual shift of clicks toward the “major break” in syllables. The “click technique” could also be used to test the perceptual structure of morphological units predicted by our theory. REFERENCES BAWDEN, H. H. A Study of lapses. Psychological Monographs, 1900, 3, l-121. BOUNCER, D. L. Syntactic blends and other matters. Language, 1961, 37, 366-381. BROWN, R. W., & MCNEILL, D. The tip of the tongue phenomenon. Journal Verbal

Learning

and Verbal

Behaviol;

1966, 5, 325-337.

DEUTSCH, B. Poetry handbook. New York: Funk and Wagnals, 1962. FODOR, J. A., & BEVER, T. G. The psychological reality of linguistic segments.

Jousnal Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1965, 4, 414420. FROMKIN, V. A. The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Language, 1971, 47, 2752. HOCKETT, C. F. Where the tongue slips, there slip I. In To honor Roman Jakobson, Vol. II, Janua Linguarum, Series Major XxX11, The Hague: Mouton, 1967. JAKOBSON, R. Imphcations of language universals for linguistics. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed. ) Universals of Language. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1966.

STRUCTURE

OF WORDS

AND

SYLLABLES

227

V. A., & CHISTOVICH, L. A. Speech: Articulation and Perception. Washington: 1965, Joint Publications Research Service. LADEFOGED, P., & BROADUENT, D. E. Perception of sequence in auditory events. Quarterly Journal Experimental Psychology, 1960, 12, 162-170. LASHLEY, K. S. The problem of serial order in behavior. In L. A. Jeffress (Ed.) Cerebral mechanisms in behavior. New York: Wiley, 1951. ~~;OOTEBOOM, S. C. The tongue slips into patterns. IPO Annual Progress Report, 1968, 147, l-16. MACNEILAGE, P. F., & DE CLERK, J. L. On the motor control of coarticulation in CVC monosyllables. Journal Acozutical Society of America, 1969, 45, 1217-33. MACKAY, D. G. Spoonerisms: the structure of errors in the serial order of speech. Neuropsychologia, 1970, 8, 323-350. MERINGER, R. Aus dem Leben der Sprache. Berlin: Behrs Verlag, 1906. MERINGER, R. & MAYER, K. Versprechen und Verlesen. Stuttgart: Goschensche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1895. STUHTEVANT, E. H. Linguistic Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. SIMIONI, R. C. Phonemic and analogic lapses in radio and television speech. American Speech, 1956, 31, 252-263. WAHRIG, G. (Ed.) Das grosse deutsche Worterbuch. hlunchen: Bertelsmann Verlag, 1966. WEBSTER, N. Dictionary of the English language. Springfield: 1904, Merriam. WELLS, R. Predicting slips of the tongue. The Yale Scientific Magazine, 1951, 26, 3. 9-30. KOZHEVNIKOV,

(Accepted

May 22, 1971)