Phonological trends in the lexicon - Evelin 2012 · PDF fileEnglish progressive: talk ∼talking, sleep ... ku buku:ni ‘book (western) ... mono "paw "paws hpaui ‘stick

1 / 30

Phonological trends in the lexicon

Michael BeckerUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst

[email protected]

EVELIN 2012UNICAMP / MIT

Campinas, Brazil

Overview

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends

Speakers’ knowledge

Limits of speakers’knowledge

Is grammar notenough?

Summary

2 / 30

• The empirical domain (today and Terça)

◦ Relations between words and morphophonology

◦ What are phonological trends in the lexicon?

◦ What do native speakers know?◦ What can phonological trends teach us about grammar?

• Theory (Quarta)

◦ A grammatical model of lexical trends in Optimality Theory

◦ Grammatical vs. representational approaches (+rules)

◦ Problems with analogical models

• Practicum (Quinta)

◦ Finding lexical trends

◦ Designing, running and interpreting experiments

◦ Relating theoretical and experimental work

Morphophonology

• Overview

Morphophonology

• Morphologicalrelations• Morphologicalknowledge

• The wug test

• Regular affixation

• Irregular affixation

Lexical trends




Summary

3 / 30

Morphological relations

• Overview

Morphophonology


• The wug test



Lexical trends




Summary

4 / 30

• English speakers understand that some words are related to

each other

• Some words are not related in the same way


• Overview

Morphophonology


• The wug test



Lexical trends




Summary

4 / 30


each other

◦ “dog” and “dogs” are related:

“Dogs” contains the sound and the meaning of “dog”.

◦ “Dogs” and “cats” are also related:

• they share the meaning “plural”

• they share a presence of a final alveolar strident —

[z] in [dOgz], [s] in [kæts].



• Overview

Morphophonology


• The wug test



Lexical trends




Summary

4 / 30


each other


◦ “Dog” and “cat” don’t share anything (beyond being nouns)

◦ “Scissors” does not have the singular “scissor”.It is not a plural of anything.

◦ Similarly, “fairness” is not related to a plural

Morphological knowledge

• Overview

Morphophonology


• The wug test



Lexical trends




Summary

5 / 30

• What do native speakers know about plurals?

• How do we know they know this?

• Why should we care?


• Overview

Morphophonology


• The wug test



Lexical trends




Summary

5 / 30


◦ They know singular words (“cat”, “dog”, “fairness”), and they

know plural words (“cats”, “dogs”, “scissors”).◦ They know about connections between singulars and plurals:

[kæts]PLURAL←−−−→ [kæt], [dOgz]

PLURAL←−−−→ [dOg], etc.

◦ They know about the connections between plural forms:

[s], [z], [Iz] all express plurality in [kæts], [dOgz], [sænwIÙIz]

(also [aI] in [maIs], [laIs]).◦ They know the distribution of the plural forms: the plural of

“car” is [kAôz], *[kAôs], *[kAôIz].




• Overview

Morphophonology


• The wug test



Lexical trends




Summary

5 / 30



◦ We test how they use real words (1):“What word better describes this picture, ‘house’ or ‘houses’?”

◦ We test how they use real words (2):

“What is a better plural for ‘car’, [kAôz] or [kAôs]?”

◦ We test how they use made-up words (1):

“This is a wug. Now there is another one.There are two .”

◦ We test how they use made-up words (2):

“Is [splIks] a good description of this picture?”

“Is [splIgz] a good description of this picture?”



• Overview

Morphophonology


• The wug test



Lexical trends




Summary

5 / 30




◦ Because children show that the task is far from trivial.

The wug test

• Overview

Morphophonology


• The wug test



Lexical trends




Summary

6 / 30

• This technique was pioneered by Berko (1958)

• What did the kids do?

• Real words are different from novel words.

The wug test

• Overview

Morphophonology


• The wug test



Lexical trends




Summary

6 / 30




The wug test

• Overview

Morphophonology


• The wug test



Lexical trends




Summary

6 / 30



◦ The kids were very good at pluralizing wug (why?)◦ but not very good at pluralizing niz

◦ At the same age, most of them were able to say and use the

plural glasses.


The wug test

• Overview

Morphophonology


• The wug test



Lexical trends




Summary

6 / 30




Possible explanations for the wug/niz difference:

◦ Something special about the distribution of [Iz] plurals?

◦ Something special about the phonological operation?

◦ Other?

Kids need time to master this aspect of the plural morphology.

How do adults relate real words and nonce words?

Regular affixation

• Overview

Morphophonology


• The wug test



Lexical trends




Summary

7 / 30

• Regular morpheme concatenation

• Regular concatenation with allomorphy

• Regular stem changes

Regular affixation

• Overview

Morphophonology


• The wug test



Lexical trends




Summary

7 / 30


◦ English progressive: talk ∼ talking, sleep ∼ sleeping, etc.

Completely exceptionless: have ∼ having, be ∼ being

◦ Arabic 1st person plural: [kitab-na] ‘our book’, [fihim-na] ‘we

understood’ or ‘he understood us’◦ Turkish relativizer [-ki]

◦ Romance adverbs: [-mã] / [-mente] / [-meÙi]



Regular affixation

• Overview

Morphophonology


• The wug test



Lexical trends




Summary

7 / 30



◦ English indefinite article: [@n] before vowels, [@] otherwise

◦ Berber reciprocal: [n-] if the base has a labial, e.g. [n-kaddab],

[m-] otherwise, e.g. [m-qarrad]

Mostly regular:

◦ English plural: [Iz] after stridents, otherwise [s] after voiceless

obstruents, [z] otherwise

◦ Portuguese plural: [s] after vowels, [is] otherwise


Regular affixation

• Overview

Morphophonology


• The wug test



Lexical trends




Summary

7 / 30




◦ Chimwiini locative [-ni] (Kisseberth & Abasheikh 2004)

base noun locative

Ùuwo Ùuwo:ni ‘book’

bu:ku buku:ni ‘book (western)’

qalbi qalbi:ni ‘heart’

◦ Slovenian adjectival [-@n] (Toporišic 2000, Jurgec p.c.)

base noun adjective

ba"Rók ba"RóÙ-@n ‘Baroque’/‘baroque’

o"tROk o"tRòÙ-@n ‘child’/‘childish’

"znák "znáÙ-@n ‘sign’/‘marked’

["p@k@w] ‘hell’ / ["Ùúk-@ţ] ‘owl.DIM’

Irregular affixation

• Overview

Morphophonology


• The wug test



Lexical trends




Summary

8 / 30

• Irregular morpheme concatenation

• Irregular allomorphy

• Irregular stem changes


• Overview

Morphophonology


• The wug test



Lexical trends




Summary

8 / 30


◦ French feminine: [gKã-d] ‘big’, [blã-S] ‘white’, [gKi-z] ‘gray’,

[vEK-t] ‘green’, [du-s] ‘soft’, [p@ti-t] ‘small’

• Irregular allomorphy• Irregular stem changes


• Overview

Morphophonology


• The wug test



Lexical trends




Summary

8 / 30



◦ Persian plural: [zan-An] ‘woman’ vs. [ketAb-hA] ‘book’,

[baÙe-hA] ‘child’

◦ Hebrew plural: ["giK ∼ gi"K-im] ‘chalk’ vs. ["kiK ∼ ki"K-ot] ‘wall’(Becker 2009; Berent et al. 1999, 2002)

◦ Turkish aorist: [kapat-Wr] ‘close’, [sa"t-ar] ‘sell’, [da"l-ar] ‘knit’

vs. [ka"l-Wr] ‘stay’ (Napikoglu & Ketrez 2006; Becker 2009)



• Overview

Morphophonology


• The wug test



Lexical trends




Summary

8 / 30




◦ Portuguese plural: [saw ∼ sajs] ‘salt’ vs. [paw ∼ paws] ‘stick’

(Huback 2007; Gomes & Manoel 2010;Becker, Clemens & Nevins to appear)

◦ French plural: [Sakal ∼ Sakal] ‘jackal’ vs. [ZuKnal ∼ ZuKno]

‘newspaper’ (Becker, Clemens & Nevins to appeara)

◦ Spanish verbs: (Albright et al. 2001)[mon"tar ∼ "monto] ‘mount’ [po"ðar ∼ "poðo] ‘prune’

vs. [kon"tar ∼ "kwento] ‘count’ [po"ðer ∼ "pweðo] ‘be able’◦ Russian genitive: ["kot ∼ ko"t-a] ‘cat’ vs. ["rot ∼ "rt-a] ‘mouth’

(Gouskova & Becker 2011)

◦ etc. etc. etc.

Lexical trends

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends

• Portuguese plurals

• The trend

• Trend productivity

• Interim summary




Summary

9 / 30

Portuguese plurals

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends


• The trend


• Interim summary




Summary

10 / 30

Becker, Clemens & Nevins (to appear).http://becker.phonologist.org/projects/FrenchPortuguese/.*Thanks to Filomena Sandalo for her help with this project.

See also Huback (2007), Gomes & Manoel (2010).

• Predictable plurals after consonants, vowels, [j]• Some final [w]’s stay faithful• Some final [w]’s alternate with [j] (unfaithful to [back])• A few final [w]’s alternate with [ë] (unfaithful to [lateral])• Final [@w] is even crazier

http://becker.phonologist.org/projects/FrenchPortuguese/

Portuguese plurals

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends


• The trend


• Interim summary




Summary

10 / 30

• Predictable plurals after consonants, vowels, [j]

◦ Nouns that end in [H] or [s] take the suffix form [-is]

floH floRis ‘flower’ 〈flor〉vO(j)s vOzis ‘voice’ 〈voz〉

◦ Nouns that end in [j] or a vowel take [-s]

e"ROj e"ROjs ‘hero’ 〈herói〉"ife "ifes ‘hyphen’ 〈hífen〉

◦ No suffix on nouns that already end in an unstressed V + [s]

"lapis "lapis ‘pencil’ 〈lápis〉"õnibus "õnibus ‘bus’ 〈ônibus〉

• Some final [w]’s stay faithful

• Some final [w]’s alternate with [j] (unfaithful to [back])

• A few final [w]’s alternate with [ë] (unfaithful to [lateral])

• Final [@w] is even crazier

Portuguese plurals

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends


• The trend


• Interim summary




Summary

10 / 30



shape singular plural spelling

mono "paw "paws 〈pau〉 ‘stick’

"pnEw "pnEws 〈pneu〉 ‘tire’

"gow "gows 〈gol〉 ‘goal’

iamb ka."kaw ka."kaws 〈cacau〉 ‘cocoa’

mu."zew mu."zews 〈museu〉 ‘museum’fu.Ùi."bow fu.Ùi."bows 〈futbol〉 ‘football’

trochee "aw.kow "aw.kows 〈alcool〉 ‘alcohol’




Portuguese plurals

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends


• The trend


• Interim summary




Summary

10 / 30




shape singular plural spelling

mono "saw "sajs 〈sal〉 ‘salt’

"mEw "mEjs 〈mel〉 ‘honey’"pROw "pROjs 〈prol〉 ‘advantage’

iamb ZoH."naw ZoH."najs 〈jornal〉 ‘newspaper’a."nEw a."nEjs 〈anel〉 ‘ring’

ba."hiw ba."his 〈barril〉 ‘barrel’

trochee "ni.vew "ni.vejs 〈nível〉 ‘level’

"hEp.Ùiw "hEp.Ùejs 〈réptil〉 ‘reptile’



Portuguese plurals

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends


• The trend


• Interim summary




Summary

10 / 30





mono "maw "maëis 〈mal〉 ‘evil’iamb ab"Riw ab"Riëis 〈abril〉 ‘April’


Portuguese plurals

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends


• The trend


• Interim summary




Summary

10 / 30




• A few final [w]’s alternate with [ë] (unfaithful to [lateral])• Final [@w] is even crazier

Let’s not worry about it today. See Huback (2007),

Gomes & Manoel (2010).

The trend

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends


• The trend


• Interim summary




Summary

11 / 30

• Distribution of plurals in the real words of the language:

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

mono iamb trochee

7

265

45

8

6

17

372

faithful

intermediate

alternating

• Nouns may or may not alternate, regardless of size

• There is a trend for more alternations in polysyllables• Why should we care?

Trend productivity

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends


• The trend


• Interim summary




Summary

12 / 30

• Variability / innovation

• Loanwords

• Wug-test

Trend productivity

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends


• The trend


• Interim summary




Summary

12 / 30


◦ Monosyllables move to faithful plurals:

["sajs]→ ["saws] ‘salt’◦ Polysyllables move to unfaithful plurals:

[de"gRaws]→ [de"gRajs] ‘steps’

[Sa"pEws]→ [Sa"pEjs] ‘hats’

[tRo"fEws]→ [tRo"fEjs] ‘trophy’

“The rich get richer”

• Loanwords

• Wug-test

Trend productivity

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends


• The trend


• Interim summary




Summary

12 / 30


• Loanwords

◦ Monosyllables get faithful plurals:["gow ∼ "gows] ‘goal’

["ZEw ∼ "ZEws] ‘gel’

◦ Polysyllables get unfaithful plurals:

[koke"tEw ∼ koke"tEjs] ‘cocktail’

◦ What is the plural of 〈skol〉?[skow ∼ skows, skojs]

[eskow ∼ eskows, eskojs]

• Wug-test

Trend productivity

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends


• The trend


• Interim summary




Summary

12 / 30


• Loanwords

• Wug-test

◦ 89 target items (47 monosyllables, 42 polysyllables)

["daw] [bi"ñaw] ["tOmew]

["gROw] [zu"gow] ["Sastow]

◦ Results:

faithful

alternating

mono trochee iamb

Interim summary

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends


• The trend


• Interim summary




Summary

13 / 30

• Phonological trends are a part of the grammar

• These are not “exceptions”

Interim summary

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends


• The trend


• Interim summary




Summary

13 / 30


◦ Phonological trends change the behavior of existing words

◦ Phonological trends affect loanwords◦ Phonological trends extend productively to nonce words

◦ → they are a part of speaker’s knowledge

◦ → they are a part of a full analysis of the language


Interim summary

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends


• The trend


• Interim summary




Summary

13 / 30



◦ Which [w]-final words of Portuguese are exceptional?◦ Both patterns get extended productively.

◦ The grammar allows multiple conflicting behaviors; the

grammar is irregular; the treatment of lexical items is not fully

predictable.


• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends

Speakers’ knowledge• How much dospeakers know?• Tagalog nasalsubstitution

• Dutch voicing

• Turkish voicing

• Interim summary



Summary

14 / 30

How much do speakers know?

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends


• Dutch voicing

• Turkish voicing

• Interim summary



Summary

15 / 30

• The evolutionary phonology/usage-based view (Blevins, Bybee,

Ohala, Wedel, others): speakers can learn any pattern given to

them.

Clearly wrong (we’ll see why soon).

• The universalist view (Becker, Nevins, others): speakers can only

learn universal/natural patterns.

Probably correct ,

(Related question: which patterns are universal/natural?)

• The natural bias view (Hayes, Zuraw, others): speakers are

biased to prefer universal/natural patterns

(Related questions: which patterns are universal/natural?

And how do speakers do both kinds of learning?)

Tagalog nasal substitution

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends


• Dutch voicing

• Turkish voicing

• Interim summary



Summary

16 / 30

Zuraw (2000)

• The alternation

• The lexical trend• Extension to nonce words


• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends


• Dutch voicing

• Turkish voicing

• Interim summary



Summary

16 / 30

Zuraw (2000)

• The alternation

Prefix causes initial obstruent to become nasal — in some words,but not others

b mag-bi"gaj ‘to give’ ma-mi"gaj ‘to distribute’

big"kas ‘pronouncing’ mam-bi-big"kas ‘reciter’

d da"la:Nin ‘prayer’ Pa-pi-na"laNin ‘to pray’

di"nig ‘audible’ pan-di"nig ‘sense of hearning’

• The lexical trend

• Extension to nonce words


• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends


• Dutch voicing

• Turkish voicing

• Interim summary



Summary

16 / 30

Zuraw (2000)

• The alternation

• The lexical trend

pa!- (noun)

27 20 7

125 11

8

7

18 13

5 2717

26

3 8 6

7

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

p t s k b d g

Unsubstituted

Varies

Substituted



• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends


• Dutch voicing

• Turkish voicing

• Interim summary



Summary

16 / 30

Zuraw (2000)

• The alternation

• The lexical trend• Extension to nonce words

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

p t s k b d g

Dutch voicing

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends


• Dutch voicing

• Turkish voicing

• Interim summary



Summary

17 / 30

Ernestus & Baayen (2003)

• The alternation

• Lexicon (CELEX, Baayen et al. 1995) & nonce words

Dutch voicing

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends


• Dutch voicing

• Turkish voicing

• Interim summary



Summary

17 / 30


• The alternation

Voiceless obstruents word-finally (“final devoicing”).

Before a vowel, obstruents become voiced in some words, but

not others.

imperative infinitive

[vErVEit] [vErVEit@n] ‘reproach’ faithful

[vErVEit] [vErVEid@n] ‘widen’ alternating


Dutch voicing

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends


• Dutch voicing

• Turkish voicing

• Interim summary



Summary

17 / 30


• The alternation


P T S F X P T S F X

lexical data experimental data

% [+voice]

040

80

% [+voice]

040

80

The effect of place in the lexicon is very different from Tagalog,but speakers learn it equally well.

Turkish voicing

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends


• Dutch voicing

• Turkish voicing

• Interim summary



Summary

18 / 30

Becker, Ketrez & Nevins (2011)

• The phenomenon

• The lexical trend (place and size)• Extension to nonce words

Turkish voicing

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends


• Dutch voicing

• Turkish voicing

• Interim summary



Summary

18 / 30


• The phenomenon

Voiceless obstruents word-finally (“final devoicing”).

Before a vowel, obstruents become voiced in some words, but

not others.

nominative accusative

[anaÙh] [anaÙh-1] ‘female cub’ faithful

[amaÙh] [amaÃ-1] ‘target’ alternating

• The lexical trend (place and size)


Turkish voicing

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends


• Dutch voicing

• Turkish voicing

• Interim summary



Summary

18 / 30


• The phenomenon

• The lexical trend (place and size)

DOR

PAL

COR

LABCVC

CVCC

CVCVC

alternatingvacillatingnon-alternating


Turkish voicing

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends


• Dutch voicing

• Turkish voicing

• Interim summary



Summary

18 / 30


• The phenomenon

• The lexical trend (place and size)• Extension to nonce words

DOR

PAL

COR

LAB

CVC CVCC CVCVC

Interim summary

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends


• Dutch voicing

• Turkish voicing

• Interim summary



Summary

19 / 30

• Speakers track trends (lexical statistics) for each place of

articulation

• Each place of articulation is tracked separately

• Turkish: Speakers track trends for each place within eachphonological size

• Humans are good statistical learners

“LAW OF FREQUENCY MATCHING

Speakers of languages with variable lexical patterns respond

stochastically when tested on such patterns. Their responses

aggregately match the lexical frequencies.” (Hayes et al. 2009)

Limits of speakers’ knowledge

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends



• Turkish again

• English plurals

• Interim summary

• Beyond wug-testing


Summary

20 / 30

Turkish again

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends



• Turkish again

• English plurals

• Interim summary



Summary

21 / 30


• Lexicon: more alternations after back vowels

• Experiment: no effect• Our explanation: universal bias

Turkish again

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends



• Turkish again

• English plurals

• Interim summary



Summary

21 / 30



+back

!back

• Experiment: no effect

• Our explanation: universal bias

Turkish again

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends



• Turkish again

• English plurals

• Interim summary



Summary

21 / 30



• Experiment: no effect

+back

!back

• Our explanation: universal bias

Turkish again

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends



• Turkish again

• English plurals

• Interim summary



Summary

21 / 30



• Experiment: no effect• Our explanation: universal bias

◦ Phonetics: Vowel backness is not related to voicing

◦ Typology: no known interactions of backness and voicing

◦ Speakers only track statistics that are motivated by universalgrammar

Surfeit of the stimulus = speakers ignore data if their grammar

isn’t set up to capture it.

This is a problem for linguists who think that humans can learn

any kind of pattern.

English plurals

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends



• Turkish again

• English plurals

• Interim summary



Summary

22 / 30

Becker, Nevins & Levine (to appear)

• The alternation

• The lexical trend (dictionary study)• The lexical trend (experimentally)


English plurals

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends



• Turkish again

• English plurals

• Interim summary



Summary

22 / 30


• The alternation

singular plural

naIf naIvz, *naIfs ‘knife’ alternating

pæT pæðz, *pæTs ‘path’

stIf stIfs, *stIvz ‘stiff’ faithfuldET dETs, *dEðz ‘death’

• The lexical trend (dictionary study)

• The lexical trend (experimentally)


English plurals

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends



• Turkish again

• English plurals

• Interim summary



Summary

22 / 30


• The alternation

• The lexical trend (dictionary study)

CMU dictionary: 126 nouns [f/T]-final nouns

Monosyllables: 28% alternate

Polysyllables: no alternatiosd, 100% faithful

The opposite of Portuguese, Turkish, French, Russian...

• The lexical trend (experimentally)• Extension to nonce words

English plurals

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends



• Turkish again

• English plurals

• Interim summary



Summary

22 / 30


• The alternation


200 speakers rated our 126 items (Amazon’s Mechanical Turk)

voiceless

voiced

mono iamb trochee


English plurals

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends



• Turkish again

• English plurals

• Interim summary



Summary

22 / 30


• The alternation


200 speakers rated our 126 items (Amazon’s Mechanical Turk)

voiceless

voiced

mono iamb trochee

stiffref

briefserf cuffstrengthsniff

bluff graphbreathprofmonthdeathcoughgrowth

chef cliffgoofoafpuffclefstaffgaffe nymphmythlaugh skiffquafffifeproof safeheath

turf waifwhiffspoofslothtiff reefgulffaith

fourth hearthearthchief troughberthroofbrothboothGoth

widthsleuth

youthclothtruth

swathoathbathwreathmouthwraithmoth

wharfsheath

path

sheaf

knife

dwarfloaf wife

thiefwolfleafselfhoofhalf

scarfshelf calfelf life

belief

earmuff midriff

eighteenthhandcuffparagraphcastoff

blacksmithmotifcarafepilafepitaphsabertooth

polymath aftermathcoelacanthgiraffe

reliefpsychopath

behalfvermouth

hieroglyphgoliathsherifftriumphtariffcaliphpontiffazimuthserif

bailiffmonolithmastiff plaintiffhyacinth absinthbilliontheightieth mammothseraph

zenithSabbath

kerchiefBehemoth


English plurals

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends



• Turkish again

• English plurals

• Interim summary



Summary

22 / 30


• The alternation


• Extension to nonce wordsvoiceless

voiced

mono iamb trochee

Interim summary

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends



• Turkish again

• English plurals

• Interim summary



Summary

23 / 30

• Observation: monosyllables can’t be less faithful than

polysyllables

• Our explanation: surfeit of the stimulus

Interim summary

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends



• Turkish again

• English plurals

• Interim summary



Summary

23 / 30


polysyllables

◦ Portuguese, Turkish, French, Russian lexicon: monosyllablesmore faithful

◦ Portuguese, Turkish, French, Russian nonce words:

monosyllables more faithful

◦ English lexicon: monosyllables less faithful

◦ English nonce words: monosyllables just as faithful aspolysyllables

• Our explanation: surfeit of the stimulus

Interim summary

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends



• Turkish again

• English plurals

• Interim summary



Summary

23 / 30


polysyllables

• Our explanation: surfeit of the stimulusSpeakers can’t learn that monosyllables alternate more thanpolysyllables

Preview of our Optimality Theory analysis:

◦ Faith≫ Markedness≫ Faith-monoFaith≫ Faith-mono≫ Markedness

◦ Markedness≫ Faith≫ Faith-mono

Markedness≫ Faith-mono≫ Faith

◦ Faith-mono≫ Markedness≫ Faith

If we assume Universal Grammar doesn’t have a constraintthat protects polysyllables, then we get the correct range of

languages.

Beyond wug-testing

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends



• Turkish again

• English plurals

• Interim summary



Summary

24 / 30

• Artificial Language experiment (Becker, Nevins & Levine)

• Result: Monosyllables protected

• Result: Monosyllables protected (stats)

• Conclusion

Beyond wug-testing

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends



• Turkish again

• English plurals

• Interim summary



Summary

24 / 30


monosyllabic training iambic training

Training 10 stop-final monos 10 stop-final iambs"mip "mibni t@"gep t@"gebni"stut "studni g@"Sut g@"Sudni

5 sonorant-finals: "muN-ni, n@"Ãol-ni

Testing 10 stop-final monos 10 stop-final monos"gaIp "gaIp"klet "klet

10 stop-final iambs 10 stop-final iambsf@"Ùop f@"Ùopb@"git b@"git

10 sonorant-finals: "pler, Z@"taIm


• Result: Monosyllables protected (stats)• Conclusion

Beyond wug-testing

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends



• Turkish again

• English plurals

• Interim summary



Summary

24 / 30



Monosyllabic training group

voiceless

voiced

mono iamb

Iambic training group

voiceless

voiced

mono iamb


• Conclusion

Beyond wug-testing

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends



• Turkish again

• English plurals

• Interim summary



Summary

24 / 30




What is the probability of an alternating response given that theresponse ...

... came from a participant in the monosyllabic training group?

... came from a participant in the iambic training group?

... was to an item of the shape seen in training?

... was to an item of the shape not seen in training?

β SE(β) z p-value

(Intercept) .49 .32 1.59 >.1

group −.28 .31 −.92 >.1

untrained −.30 .07 −4.16 <.0001

group:untrained −.21 .08 −2.79 <.01

• Conclusion

Beyond wug-testing

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends



• Turkish again

• English plurals

• Interim summary



Summary

24 / 30




• Conclusion

◦ When given a chance, English speakers prefer a

Portuguese-style language.

◦ What do English speakers know?

• Lexicon: many alternating monosyllables, few/no

alternating polysyllables.

• Nonce words: alternation applied to monosyllables and

polysyllables equally.

• New alternation/language: monosyllables are protected.

◦ Speakers do not treat all patterns equally.

◦ Explanation: Grammar filters the lexical trends.

Is grammar not enough?

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends




• Hebrew plurals

• Hungarian genitive

Summary

25 / 30

Hebrew plurals

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends




• Hebrew plurals


Summary

26 / 30

• Allomorph selection: masculines often take [–im], rarely [–ot]

• Lexicon: more [–ot] after masculines with [o]

• Experiment (Becker 2009)

• Experiment (Berent et al. 1999, 2002)• Analogy? Lexical magnet(?)

Hebrew plurals

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends




• Hebrew plurals


Summary

26 / 30


singular plural

majority pattern "giK gi"Kim ‘chalk’

a"lon alo"nim ‘oak’

minority pattern "kiK ki"Kot ‘wall’

Xa"lon Xalo"not ‘window’

• Lexicon: more [–ot] after masculines with [o]• Experiment (Becker 2009)

• Experiment (Berent et al. 1999, 2002)

• Analogy? Lexical magnet(?)

Hebrew plurals

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends




• Hebrew plurals


Summary

26 / 30



f

a e io u

m

a e i o u

im

ot

8822 nouns from a dictionary (Bolozky & Becker 2006)




Hebrew plurals

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends




• Hebrew plurals


Summary

26 / 30




◦ More [ot] when stem contains [o]



Hebrew plurals

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends




• Hebrew plurals


Summary

26 / 30





◦ Items designed based on real [ot]-takers:

real word same place different place many features

SikoK (-im) SigoK SiboK midov

ţinoK (-ot) ţiloK ţikoK bikov

◦ Most [ot] with nouns that are almost identical to real words

◦ Significantly less [ot] with moderate similarity

◦ Berent’s interpretation: [ot]-takers subject to analogy, [im]

affixed by rule (Pinker’s dual model)


Hebrew plurals

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends




• Hebrew plurals


Summary

26 / 30




• Experiment (Berent et al. 1999, 2002)• Analogy? Lexical magnet(?)

Berent et al. (1999, 2002) assume that nonce words take [ot] due

to analogy, including nouns that only resemble [ot] takers just by

having an [o]. But that’s different from overall similarity.

ţinoK←→ midov (takes [ot] by analogy...?)

ţinoK←→ ţinaK (analogy doesn’t work...?)

My interpretation:

◦ selection of [ot] by a grammar (vowel harmony)

◦ “lexical magnets” (cf. perceptual magnet) — a real word pulls

stronger than the grammar 6= analogy.

More against analogy in Albright & Hayes (2003).

Hungarian genitive

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends




• Hebrew plurals


Summary

27 / 30

Another case of allomorph selection (Hayes & Londe 2006;

Hayes et al. 2009)

• Lexical exceptions after front unrounded vowels [i:, e:, i, E]• Natural factors: vowel height, number of front unrounded vowels

• Unnatural factors: final consonants, clusters


• Hayes et al.’s interpretation: naturalness bias

• My response(?)

Hungarian genitive

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends




• Hebrew plurals


Summary

27 / 30


Hayes et al. 2009)

• Lexical exceptions after front unrounded vowels [i:, e:, i, E]

ţi:m ţi:m-nEk ‘address’hi:d hi:d-nOk ‘bridge’

• Natural factors: vowel height, number of front unrounded vowels



• Hayes et al.’s interpretation: naturalness bias• My response(?)

Hungarian genitive

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends




• Hebrew plurals


Summary

27 / 30


Hayes et al. 2009)


◦ Most [nEk] after [E], less after [e:], least after [i, i:]

◦ More [nEk] after two front unrounded vowels: [kErt] ‘garden’

vs. [rEpEs] ‘splint’




• My response(?)

Hungarian genitive

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends




• Hebrew plurals


Summary

27 / 30


Hayes et al. 2009)



◦ More [nEk] after labials [p, b, m] (the opposite of labial

attraction!)◦ More [nEk] after sibilants [s, z, S, Z, ţ, Ù, Ã] (makes no sense)

◦ More [nEk] after clusters (makes no sense)



• My response(?)

Hungarian genitive

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends




• Hebrew plurals


Summary

27 / 30


Hayes et al. 2009)




◦ Speakers extend the natural factors◦ Speakers also extend the unnatural factors, but more weakly


• My response(?)

Hungarian genitive

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends




• Hebrew plurals


Summary

27 / 30


Hayes et al. 2009)





◦ Hayes et al.: speakers can learn any pattern, but they prefer

natural patterns

◦ Hayes et al.: Becker & Nevins are too radical

• My response(?)

Hungarian genitive

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends




• Hebrew plurals


Summary

27 / 30


Hayes et al. 2009)





• My response(?)

◦ Maybe many items in Hayes et al.’s experiment were “lexical

magnets” (needs to be tested)

◦ Maybe the trends speakers track for allomorph selection

(Hungarian, Hebrew) 6= trends speakers track for stem

changes (Portuguese, English, etc.)◦ Question: what kind of theory allows both natural and

unnatural factors, and prefers natural factors?

Summary

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends




Summary• Nonce words are aneffect of grammar

• References

28 / 30

Nonce words are an effect of grammar

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends





• References

29 / 30

• In irregular morphophonology, speakers track lexical statistics

• Detailed statistical tracking: place, size

• Limits: protection of monosyllables

• Limits: unnatural factors

• Theory?


• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends





• References

29 / 30


◦ “Law of Frequency Matching”

◦ No notion of exception

• Detailed statistical tracking: place, size• Limits: protection of monosyllables


• Theory?


• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends





• References

29 / 30



◦ Speakers track each place separately (Tagalog, Dutch,

Turkish)

◦ Speakers track each place within each size (Turkish)



• Theory?


• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends





• References

29 / 30




◦ Portuguese, French, Russian, etc.: monosyllables protected

◦ English lexicon: monos less protected than polys◦ English nonce words: equal protection for monos and polys

◦ English speakers, artificial grammar: monos protected

◦ English speakers can’t learn the counter-typological trend

• Limits: unnatural factors• Theory?


• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends





• References

29 / 30





◦ Turkish lexicon: more voicing after back vowels◦ Turkish nonce words: equal voicing after back and front

vowels

◦ Hungarian lexicon: more [nEk] after sibilants

◦ Hungarian nonce words: a little bit more [nEk] after sibilants

◦ Requirement/preference for natural patterns◦ Hebrew: lexical magnets(?)

• Theory?


• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends





• References

29 / 30





• Theory?

◦ Speakers track lexical statistics→ traditional generative

grammar is too strict

◦ Speakers track natural lexical statistics→ pure statistics are

too permissive

◦ Solution: statistics + generative grammar

References

• Overview

Morphophonology

Lexical trends





• References

30 / 30

Albright, Adam, Argelia Andrade & Bruce Hayes (2001). Segmentalenvironments of Spanish diphthongization. In Adam Albright & TaehongCho (eds.) UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 7 (Papers in Phonology5), UCLA. 117–151.

Albright, Adam & Bruce Hayes (2003). Rules vs. Analogy in English pasttenses: a computational/experimental study. Cognition 90. 119–161.

Baayen, R. Harald, Richard Piepenbrock & Leon Gulikers (1995). TheCELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM). Linguistic Data Consortium,University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

Becker, Michael (2009). Phonological Trends in the Lexicon: The Role ofConstraints. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Becker, Michael, Lauren Eby Clemens & Andrew Nevins (to appeara).The monosyllabicity effect in French and Brazilian Portuguese. NaturalLanguage and Linguistic Theory Ms. University of MassachusettsAmherst.

Becker, Michael, Nihan Ketrez & Andrew Nevins (2011). The surfeit of thestimulus: Analytic biases filter lexical statistics in Turkish laryngealalternations. Language 87. 84–125.

Documents

Phonological trends in the lexicon - Evelin 2012 · PDF fileEnglish progressive: talk ∼talking, sleep ... ku buku:ni ‘book (western) ... mono "paw "paws hpaui ‘stick