Percepción emotiva del Boulevard, explicada mediante el uso de cinco

As with the previous two studies, we will first focus on the error rates of consonants and vowels. This will allow us to understand whether vowels have a stronger position within the syllable hierarchy as opposed to consonants. HN makes a higher number of structural simplifications. JT on the other hand has more neutral changes than simplifications or complications.

Table 45 Structure Changes in the Errors made by HN and JT

Syllable Structural Errors

Table 46 Consonant and Vowel Error for HN and JT

Cons. Vow. Cons. % % of cons. in stim. % of vow. in stim. χ² p

144 The results from JT are consistent with those from CS, the only difference being a higher percentage of vowel substitutions. His lack of vowel insertion and deletion is consistent with his lower rates of structural simplification. However, HN shows an interesting pattern where she has a higher percentage of vowel substitutions. This could be accounted for by her high rate of phonetic errors. Her consonant deletions are on a par with vowel deletions.

However, her vowel insertions are lower than consonant insertions, indicating that her simplifications are coming from deletions rather than insertions. We then considered errors in different syllable positions.

Figure 35. Syllable position based error rates for HN

Figure 36. Syllable position based error rates for JT

0.0%

145 Figure 35and Figure 36 present the rate of deletions and substitutions from HN and JT.

The data from these two patients is ambiguous compared to CS. Onset satellites are deleted more often than onset cores. This supports the hypothesis that satellite positions are more vulnerable than core positions. However, coda satellites do not show the same pattern.

Substitution errors are also not clear as the onset substitutions made by JT and the coda substitutions made by HN have almost equal proportions in satellite and core positions. The data shows the clear vulnerability of onset satellites to deletion, but is less clear about premarginals or coda satellites. The lack of errors involving premarginals may be due to the smaller size of the sample. However, even in the errors made by CS, there are only 8 deletions and 1 substitution of premarginals. However, the hypothesis that core positions (at least in onsets) have a stronger link within the syllable hierarchy finds some justification from the data.

Next we turn to the rate of syllable restructuring within consonant clusters. If syllable structure is a factor in organising segments within the mental lexicon we should see clusters (heterosyllabic and homosyllabic) preserve their structure in the errors made by the patients.

Table 47 Percentage of Cluster Errors to Total Occurrences in Stimuli for HN and JT Preserves syllable structure Violates syllable structure

het>het hom>hom hom>het het>hom

N % N % N % N %

HN 10 3.57% 3 0.55% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

JT 4 1.43% 5 0.91% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

The results from cluster errors show a much clearer pattern of structure preservation.

Both heterosyllabic and homosyllabic clusters maintain their original structure even after errors. To find this pattern with JT is interesting as he could be categorised as a fluent patient according to the criteria set by Romani et al., (2011). These criteria include rates of

146 simplification and phonetic errors (lower than 5%). As fluent patients are assumed to make errors within the lexicon, if syllabification is only after this stage, we could reasonably expect that their errors would deviate from their original syllable structure more often than not. This is due to the simple fact that no syllable template would exist to preserve in the first place.

The cluster errors from JT show this to be not the case and the fact that syllable structure is preserved even in a fluent patient adds weight to the hypothesis that syllable structure may be present within the lexicon.

5.7. Phonological markedness

While presenting the general characteristics of the two patients, it was shown that HN had an inclination towards structural simplification, while JT’s simplifications and complications were almost equally likely. Here we will look at segmental simplifications as defined by markedness. Phonological simplification is not evident in HN or JT. JT has almost equal rates of simplification and complication but higher rates of neutral transformations.

This is similar to his structural changes. This makes JT closer to CS in terms of phonological markedness.

Table 48 General characteristics of segment errors for HN and JT

Segmental Errors Difference between

less and more marked segments

Less marked More marked Neutral

N % N % N % χ² p

HN 24 54.50% 12 27.30% 8 18.20% 2.06 .151

JT 9 25.00% 7 19.40% 20 55.60% 0.125 .723

The small number of errors from HN and JT (when compared to CS) prevents us from categorising them further based on place, manner and voice. However, the general pattern is enough to indicate that simplification of structure and segments can be linked to fluency as measured by the rate of phonetic errors.

147

5.8. Conclusion

This chapter augmented the data from the last chapter to include more evidence from two more English patients. When looking at the data from the fluency categorisation given by Romani et al., (2011), this chapter allowed us to contrast the results from a mixed patient (CS) with fluent (JT) and non-fluent (HN) patients. There rates of structural and phonological simplification concurs with the criteria set by Romani and her colleagues.

The main objective of this chapter was to see whether the error patterns seen in the last chapter in a single case study could be found in other patients as well. The fact that CS could be categorised as a mixed patient meant that the locus of his error production could not be firmly categorised to either within the lexicon or outside it. It is possible that both stages played a role in the errors that he produced. JT and HN, however, can be categorised at either extreme as fluent and non-fluent. Fluent patients are assumed to produce errors within the lexicon (most likely during phonological retrieval). Non-fluent patients, on the other hand, are assumed to produce errors after word retrieval from the lexicon. This makes error patterns from HN and JT more intriguing as it is those two stages that hold the key to understanding the place of syllable structure during speech production.

The LRM model (Levelt et al., 1999) makes a specific claim that syllabification occurs solely outside the lexicon at the moment of output. If errors were to occur at this stage, then a syllable template would be in place due to online syllabification. This would allow errors to preserve syllable structure. However, if errors were to occur within the lexicon, there is no syllable frame to keep the phonemes in place (only a syllable template to attest the number of syllables in a particular word). Errors should have greater freedom to deviate from their original syllable structure in fluent patients. However, the fact that both fluent and non-fluent patient errors preserve syllable structure supports the view that syllabic information is present

148 within the lexicon during phonological retrieval. This challenges the LRM model’s assertion that syllabification is a post-lexical online process.

It must be noted that the data collected from JT and HN are not as strongly supportive of our hypothesis as CS’s data. This may be due to the smaller sample of errors. These two patients do not show a clear syllable structural hierarchy based on head-licensing (i.e., errors are not more concentrated on satellite or pre-marginal positions). More data from a wider variety of patients is needed to answer this question with greater confidence.

In conclusion, this chapter supports the findings from the previous two chapters that syllable structure may be present within the mental lexicon. However, the results from HN and JT are not as clear as those collected from CS. This may be due to the smaller sample of errors. The results from English suggest that a high rate of resyllabification is not a justification for not storing syllabic information within the lexicon. With this empirical data, we now see if the data from these patients can be explained with an independent linguistic theory that doesn’t take into account a hierarchical syllable structure model.

149

CHAPTER 6