Models of connected speech production in Mandarin Chinese must specify how lexical tone, speech segments, and phrase-level prosody are integrated in speech production. This study used tongue twisters to test predictions of the two different models of word form encoding. Tongue twisters were constructed from 5 sets of characters that rotated pairs of initial segments or pairs of tones, or both, across format (ABAB, ABBA), and across position of the characters in four-character tongue twister strings. Fifty two native Mandarin Chinese speakers read aloud 120 tongue twisters, repeating each one six times in a row. They made a total of 3503 (2.34%) segment errors and 1372 (.92%) tone errors. Segment errors occurred on the onsets of the first and third characters in the ABBA but not ABAB segment-alternating tongue twisters, and on the onsets of the second and fourth characters of the tone-alternating tongue twisters. Tone errors were highest on the third and fourth characters in the tone-alternating tongue twisters. The pattern of tone errors is consistent with the claim that tone is associated to a metrical frame prior to segment encoding, while the format by position interaction found for the segment-alternating tongue twisters suggest articulatory gestures oscillate in segment production as proposed by gestural phonology.
BaarsB. J.MotleyM. T.MacKayD. G. (1975). Output editing for lexical status in artificially elicited slips of the tongue. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 382–391.
2.
BarnesS. L.KemberH. R.CrootK. P. (2009). Prosodic structure and tongue-twister errors. Paper presented at the 36th Australiasian Experimental Psychology Conference, 17–19 April 2009, Wollongong, Australia. In VoudourisN.MrowinskiV. (Eds.), Combined abstracts of 2009 Australian psychology conferences (p. 5).
3.
BoersmaP.WeeninkD. (2014). Praat: doing phonetics by computer. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org
4.
BrookeJ.CoppolaG.LeeT. Y. V.ZhaoY. (2009). Phrasing, tempo, and focus: A prosodic-hierarchy approach to Mandarin Tone Sandhi domains. In BrookeJ.CoppolaG.GörgülüE.MameniM.MilevaE.MortonS.RimrottA. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on East Asian Linguistics.
5.
BrowmanC. P.GoldsteinL. (2000). Competing constraints on intergestural coordination and self-organization of phonological structures. Cahiers de l’ICP, Bulletin de la communication parlée, 5, 25–34.
6.
BrowmanC. P.GoldsteinL. M. (1986). Towards an articulatory phonology. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 219–252.
7.
ChenJ.-Y. (1999). The representation and processing of tone in Mandarin Chinese: Evidence from slips of the tongue. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 289–301.
8.
ChenJ.-Y. (2000). Syllable errors from naturalistic slips of the tongue in Chinese. Psychologia, 43, 15–26.
9.
ChenJ.-Y.ChenT.-M.DellG. (2002). Word-form encoding in Mandarin Chinese as assessed by the implicit priming task. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 751–781.
10.
ChenJ.-Y.DellG. (2006). Word-form encoding in Chinese speech production. In LiP.TanL. H.BatesE.TzengO. J. L. (Eds.), The handbook of East Asian psycholinguistics (Vol. 1, pp. 165–174). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11.
ChenJ.-Y.LinW.-C.FerrandL. (2003). Masked priming of the syllable in Mandarin Chinese speech production. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 45, 107–120.
12.
ChenM. Y. (2000). Tone Sandhi: Patterns across Chinese dialects. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13.
ChenT.-M.DellG.ChenJ.-Y. (2004). A cross-linguistic study of phonological units: Syllables emerge from the statistics of Mandarin Chinese but not not from the statistics of English. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp.216–220.
14.
ChenY.GussenhovenC. (2008). Emphasis and tonal implementation in Standard Chinese. Journal of Phonetics, 36, 724–746.
15.
ChoeW. K.RedfordM. (2010). The relationship between speech errors and prosodic phrase boundaries. In 12th Conference on Laboratory Phonology, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
16.
CrootK.AuC.HarperA. (2010) Prosodic structure and tongue twister errors. In FougeronC.KuehnertB.d’ImperioM. (Eds.), laboratory phonology 10 : Phonology and Phonetcis (pp. 433–459). Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.
17.
CrootK.ChilkoN.KemberH.AutonJ.BarnesS. L. (2010). Initialness in the prosodic hierarchy and tongue twister errors. In TabainM.FletcherJ.GraydenD.HajekJ.ButcherA. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Australasian International Conference on Speech Science and Technology, 14–16 December 2010. Melbourne: ASSTA.
18.
DeFrancisJ. (1989). Visible speech: The diverse oneness of writing systems. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
19.
DellG. S. (1986). A spreading activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321.
20.
ForsterK. I.ForsterJ. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116–124.
21.
FougeronC.KeatingP. (1997). Articulatory strengthening at the edges of prosodic domains. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 3728–3740.
22.
GandourJ. (1977). Counterfeit tones in the speech of Southern Thai bidialectals. Lingua, 41, 125–143.
23.
GaoM. (2004). Gestural analysis on Mandarin tongue twisters. In Laboratory Phonology IX, Urbana-Champaign, IL.
24.
GaoM. (2006). Gestural representation and alignment patterns of Mandarin tones. In Laboratory Phonology X, Paris, France.
GaoM.ChangY.-C.HsiehF.-F.NamH.TiedeM.GoldsteinL. (2009). Gestural intrusions in Taiwanese and English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125, 2499.
27.
GoldrickM. (2004). Phonological features and phonotactic constraints in speech production. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 586–603.
28.
GoldrickM. (2006). Limited interaction in speech production: Chronometric, speech error, and neuropsychological evidence. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 817–855.
29.
GoldrickM. (2014). Phonological processing: The retrieval and encoding of word form information in speech production. In GoldrickM.FerreiraV.MiozzoM.(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language production. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
30.
GoldrickM.BlumsteinS. (2006). Cascading activation from phonological planning to articulatory processes: Evidence from tongue twisters. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 649–683.
31.
GoldsteinL.PouplierM.ChenL.SaltzmanE.ByrdD. (2007). Dynamic action units slip in speech production. Cognition, 103, 386–412.
32.
HowieJ. M. (1976). Acoustical studies of Mandarin vowels and tones. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
33.
KeatingP. (2004). Phonetic encoding of prosodic structure. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 103, 48–63.
34.
KeatingP.Shattuck-HufnagelS. (2002). A prosodic view of word form encoding for speech production. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 101, 112–156.
35.
KemberH. (2013). Specifying the structure of the speech system: Tongue twister studies of segment, tone and phrase-level prosodic planning in Mandarin Chinese. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), University of Sydney, Sydney.
36.
KemberH.CrootK. (in preparation). An investigation of gestural structure in Mandarin Chinese.
37.
KentR. D. (1997). Gestural phonology: basic concepts and applications in speech-language pathology. In BallM. J.KentR. D. (Eds.), The new phonologies (pp. 247–268). San Diego, CA: Singular.
38.
LaddD. R. (1996). Intonational phonology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
39.
LadefogedP.MaddiesonI. (1996). The sounds of the world’s languages. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
40.
LeveltW. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41.
LeveltW. J. M. (1992). Accessing words in speech production: Stages, processes and representations. Cognition, 42, 1–22.
42.
LeveltW. J. M.RoelofsA.MeyerA. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75.
43.
LinM. (2004). On production and perception of boundary tone in Chinese intonation. In International Symposium on Tonal Aspects of Languages with Emphasis on Tone Languages, Beijing.
44.
LiuF.XuY. (2005). Parallel encoding of focus and interrogative meaning in Mandarin intonation. Phonetica, 62, 70–87.
45.
McMillanC. T.CorleyM. (2010). Cascading influences on the production of speech: Evidence from articulation. Cognition, 117, 243–260.
46.
MeyerA. S. (1990). The time course of phonological encoding in language production: The encoding of successive syllables of a word. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 524–525.
47.
MeyerA. S. (1991). The time course of phonological encoding in language production: Phonological encoding inside a syllable. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 69–89.
48.
MeyerA. S. (1992). Investigation of phonological encoding through speech error analyses: Achievements, limitations, and alternatives. Cognition, 42, 181–211.
49.
Modern Chinese Word Frequency Dictionary (1986). Beijing, China: Language Institute Press.
50.
MoserD. (1991). Slips of the tongue and pen in Chinese. Sino-Platonic Papers, 22, 1–45.
51.
NamH. (2007). Syllable-level intergestural timing model: Split gesture dynamics focusing on positional asymmetry and moraic structure. In ColeJ.HualdeJ. (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 9 (phonology and phonetics) (Vol. 9, pp. 483–506). Berlin, Germany/New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter.
52.
NozariN.DellG. S. (2012). Feature migration in time: Reflection of selective attention on speech errors. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 38, 1084–1090.
53.
O’SeaghdhaP. G.ChenJ.-Y. (2009). Toward a language-general account of word production: The proximate units principle. In TaatgenN. A.van RijnH. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 68–73). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
54.
O’SeaghdhaP. G.ChenJ.-Y.ChenT.-M. (2010). Proximate units in word production: Phonological encoding begins with syllables in Mandarin Chinese but with segments in English. Cognition, 115, 282–302.
55.
PostmaA.KolkH.PovelD.-J. (1990). On the relation among speech errors, discfluencies, and self-repairs. Language & Speech, 33, 19–29.
56.
PouplierM. (2004). An ultrasound investigation of speech errors. Working Papers and Technical Reports, Vocal Tract Visualisation Laboratory, 6, 1–17.
57.
PouplierM. (2005). Articulatory perspectives on errors. In Linguistics Society of America Summer Institute, MIT/Harvard.
58.
PouplierM. (2007). Tongue kinematics during utterances elicited with the SLIP technique. Language and Speech, 50, 311–341.
59.
PouplierM. (2008). The role of a coda consonant as error trigger in repetition tasks. Journal of Phonetics, 36, 114–140.
60.
PouplierM.GoldsteinL. (2005). Asymmetries in the perception of speech production errors. Journal of Phonetics, 33, 47–75.
61.
PouplierM.GoldsteinL. (2010). Intention in articulation: Articulatory timing in alternating consonant sequences and its implications for models of speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 616–649.
62.
PouplierM.HardcastleW. (2005). A re-evaluation of the nature of speech errors in normal and disordered speakers. Phonetica, 62, 227–243.
63.
SevaldC. A.DellG. S. (1994). The sequential cuing effect in speech production. Cognition, 53, 91–127.
64.
Shattuck-HufnagelS. (1992). The role of word structure in segmental serial ordering. Cognition, 42, 213–259.
65.
Shattuck-HufnagelS.KlattD. H. (1979). The limited use of distinctive features and markedness in speech production: Evidence from speech error data. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 18, 41–55.
66.
Shattuck-HufnagelS.TurkA. E. (1996). A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 193–247.
67.
StembergerJ. P. (1992). The reliability and replicability of naturalistic speech error data: A comparison with experimentally induced errors. In BaarsB. J. (Ed.), Experimental slips and human error: Exploring the architecture of volition (pp. 195–215). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
68.
WanI.-P.JaegerJ. (1998). Speech errors and the representation of tone in Mandarin Chinese. Phonology, 15, 417–461.
69.
WilshireC. (1998). Serial order in phonological encoding: An exploration of the ‘word onset effect’ using laboratory-induced errors. Cognition, 68, 143–166.
70.
WilshireC. (1999). The “tongue twister” paradigm as a technique for studying phonological encoding. Language and Speech, 42, 57–82.
71.
XuL. (2004). Manifestation of informational focus. Lingua, 114, 277–299.
72.
XuY. (1997). Contextual tonal variations in Mandarin. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 61–83.
73.
XuY. (1999). Effects of tone and focus on the formation and alignment of F0 contours. Journal of Phonetics, 27, 55–105.
74.
XuY. (2004). Understanding tone from the perspective of production and perception. Language and Linguistics, 5, 757–797.
75.
XuY.XuC. X. (2005). Phonetic realization of focus in English declarative intonation. Journal of Phonetics, 33, 159–197.
76.
YehS.-L.LiJ.-L. (2002). Role of structure and component in judgements of visual similarity of Chinese characters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 933–947.
