1 / 30
Phonological trends in the lexicon
Michael BeckerUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst
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
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
3 / 30
Morphological relations
• Overview
Morphophonology
• Morphologicalrelations• Morphologicalknowledge
• The wug test
• Regular affixation
• Irregular affixation
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
4 / 30
• English speakers understand that some words are related to
each other
• Some words are not related in the same way
Morphological relations
• Overview
Morphophonology
• Morphologicalrelations• Morphologicalknowledge
• The wug test
• Regular affixation
• Irregular affixation
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
4 / 30
• English speakers understand that some words are related to
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].
• Some words are not related in the same way
Morphological relations
• Overview
Morphophonology
• Morphologicalrelations• Morphologicalknowledge
• The wug test
• Regular affixation
• Irregular affixation
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
4 / 30
• English speakers understand that some words are related to
each other
• Some words are not related in the same way
◦ “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
• Morphologicalrelations• Morphologicalknowledge
• The wug test
• Regular affixation
• Irregular affixation
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
5 / 30
• What do native speakers know about plurals?
• How do we know they know this?
• Why should we care?
Morphological knowledge
• Overview
Morphophonology
• Morphologicalrelations• Morphologicalknowledge
• The wug test
• Regular affixation
• Irregular affixation
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
5 / 30
• What do native speakers know about plurals?
◦ 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].
• How do we know they know this?
• Why should we care?
Morphological knowledge
• Overview
Morphophonology
• Morphologicalrelations• Morphologicalknowledge
• The wug test
• Regular affixation
• Irregular affixation
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
5 / 30
• What do native speakers know about plurals?
• How do we know they know this?
◦ 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?”
• Why should we care?
Morphological knowledge
• Overview
Morphophonology
• Morphologicalrelations• Morphologicalknowledge
• The wug test
• Regular affixation
• Irregular affixation
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
5 / 30
• What do native speakers know about plurals?
• How do we know they know this?
• Why should we care?
◦ Because children show that the task is far from trivial.
The wug test
• Overview
Morphophonology
• Morphologicalrelations• Morphologicalknowledge
• The wug test
• Regular affixation
• Irregular affixation
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
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
• Morphologicalrelations• Morphologicalknowledge
• The wug test
• Regular affixation
• Irregular affixation
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
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
• Morphologicalrelations• Morphologicalknowledge
• The wug test
• Regular affixation
• Irregular affixation
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
6 / 30
• This technique was pioneered by Berko (1958)
• What did the kids do?
◦ 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.
• Real words are different from novel words.
The wug test
• Overview
Morphophonology
• Morphologicalrelations• Morphologicalknowledge
• The wug test
• Regular affixation
• Irregular affixation
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
6 / 30
• This technique was pioneered by Berko (1958)
• What did the kids do?
• Real words are different from novel words.
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
• Morphologicalrelations• Morphologicalknowledge
• The wug test
• Regular affixation
• Irregular affixation
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
7 / 30
• Regular morpheme concatenation
• Regular concatenation with allomorphy
• Regular stem changes
Regular affixation
• Overview
Morphophonology
• Morphologicalrelations• Morphologicalknowledge
• The wug test
• Regular affixation
• Irregular affixation
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
7 / 30
• Regular morpheme concatenation
◦ 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 concatenation with allomorphy
• Regular stem changes
Regular affixation
• Overview
Morphophonology
• Morphologicalrelations• Morphologicalknowledge
• The wug test
• Regular affixation
• Irregular affixation
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
7 / 30
• Regular morpheme concatenation
• Regular concatenation with allomorphy
◦ 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 stem changes
Regular affixation
• Overview
Morphophonology
• Morphologicalrelations• Morphologicalknowledge
• The wug test
• Regular affixation
• Irregular affixation
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
7 / 30
• Regular morpheme concatenation
• Regular concatenation with allomorphy
• Regular stem changes
◦ 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
• Morphologicalrelations• Morphologicalknowledge
• The wug test
• Regular affixation
• Irregular affixation
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
8 / 30
• Irregular morpheme concatenation
• Irregular allomorphy
• Irregular stem changes
Irregular affixation
• Overview
Morphophonology
• Morphologicalrelations• Morphologicalknowledge
• The wug test
• Regular affixation
• Irregular affixation
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
8 / 30
• Irregular morpheme concatenation
◦ 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
Irregular affixation
• Overview
Morphophonology
• Morphologicalrelations• Morphologicalknowledge
• The wug test
• Regular affixation
• Irregular affixation
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
8 / 30
• Irregular morpheme concatenation
• Irregular allomorphy
◦ 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)
• Irregular stem changes
Irregular affixation
• Overview
Morphophonology
• Morphologicalrelations• Morphologicalknowledge
• The wug test
• Regular affixation
• Irregular affixation
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
8 / 30
• Irregular morpheme concatenation
• Irregular allomorphy
• Irregular stem changes
◦ 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
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
9 / 30
Portuguese plurals
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
• Portuguese plurals
• The trend
• Trend productivity
• Interim summary
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
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
Portuguese plurals
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
• Portuguese plurals
• The trend
• Trend productivity
• Interim summary
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
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
• Portuguese plurals
• The trend
• Trend productivity
• Interim summary
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
10 / 30
• Predictable plurals after consonants, vowels, [j]
• Some final [w]’s stay faithful
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’
• 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
• Portuguese plurals
• The trend
• Trend productivity
• Interim summary
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
10 / 30
• Predictable plurals after consonants, vowels, [j]
• Some final [w]’s stay faithful
• Some final [w]’s alternate with [j] (unfaithful to [back])
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’
• A few final [w]’s alternate with [ë] (unfaithful to [lateral])
• Final [@w] is even crazier
Portuguese plurals
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
• Portuguese plurals
• The trend
• Trend productivity
• Interim summary
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
10 / 30
• 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])
mono "maw "maëis 〈mal〉 ‘evil’iamb ab"Riw ab"Riëis 〈abril〉 ‘April’
• Final [@w] is even crazier
Portuguese plurals
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
• Portuguese plurals
• The trend
• Trend productivity
• Interim summary
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
10 / 30
• 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
Let’s not worry about it today. See Huback (2007),
Gomes & Manoel (2010).
The trend
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
• Portuguese plurals
• The trend
• Trend productivity
• Interim summary
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
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
• Portuguese plurals
• The trend
• Trend productivity
• Interim summary
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
12 / 30
• Variability / innovation
• Loanwords
• Wug-test
Trend productivity
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
• Portuguese plurals
• The trend
• Trend productivity
• Interim summary
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
12 / 30
• Variability / innovation
◦ 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
• Portuguese plurals
• The trend
• Trend productivity
• Interim summary
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
12 / 30
• Variability / innovation
• 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
• Portuguese plurals
• The trend
• Trend productivity
• Interim summary
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
12 / 30
• Variability / innovation
• 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
• Portuguese plurals
• The trend
• Trend productivity
• Interim summary
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
13 / 30
• Phonological trends are a part of the grammar
• These are not “exceptions”
Interim summary
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
• Portuguese plurals
• The trend
• Trend productivity
• Interim summary
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
13 / 30
• Phonological trends are a part of the grammar
◦ 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
• These are not “exceptions”
Interim summary
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
• Portuguese plurals
• The trend
• Trend productivity
• Interim summary
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
13 / 30
• Phonological trends are a part of the grammar
• These are not “exceptions”
◦ 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.
Speakers’ knowledge
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge• How much dospeakers know?• Tagalog nasalsubstitution
• Dutch voicing
• Turkish voicing
• Interim summary
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
14 / 30
How much do speakers know?
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge• How much dospeakers know?• Tagalog nasalsubstitution
• Dutch voicing
• Turkish voicing
• Interim summary
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
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
Speakers’ knowledge• How much dospeakers know?• Tagalog nasalsubstitution
• Dutch voicing
• Turkish voicing
• Interim summary
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
16 / 30
Zuraw (2000)
• The alternation
• The lexical trend• Extension to nonce words
Tagalog nasal substitution
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge• How much dospeakers know?• Tagalog nasalsubstitution
• Dutch voicing
• Turkish voicing
• Interim summary
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
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
Tagalog nasal substitution
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge• How much dospeakers know?• Tagalog nasalsubstitution
• Dutch voicing
• Turkish voicing
• Interim summary
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
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
• Extension to nonce words
Tagalog nasal substitution
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge• How much dospeakers know?• Tagalog nasalsubstitution
• Dutch voicing
• Turkish voicing
• Interim summary
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
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
Speakers’ knowledge• How much dospeakers know?• Tagalog nasalsubstitution
• Dutch voicing
• Turkish voicing
• Interim summary
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
17 / 30
Ernestus & Baayen (2003)
• The alternation
• Lexicon (CELEX, Baayen et al. 1995) & nonce words
Dutch voicing
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge• How much dospeakers know?• Tagalog nasalsubstitution
• Dutch voicing
• Turkish voicing
• Interim summary
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
17 / 30
Ernestus & Baayen (2003)
• 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
• Lexicon (CELEX, Baayen et al. 1995) & nonce words
Dutch voicing
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge• How much dospeakers know?• Tagalog nasalsubstitution
• Dutch voicing
• Turkish voicing
• Interim summary
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
17 / 30
Ernestus & Baayen (2003)
• The alternation
• Lexicon (CELEX, Baayen et al. 1995) & nonce words
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
Speakers’ knowledge• How much dospeakers know?• Tagalog nasalsubstitution
• Dutch voicing
• Turkish voicing
• Interim summary
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
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
Speakers’ knowledge• How much dospeakers know?• Tagalog nasalsubstitution
• Dutch voicing
• Turkish voicing
• Interim summary
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
18 / 30
Becker, Ketrez & Nevins (2011)
• 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)
• Extension to nonce words
Turkish voicing
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge• How much dospeakers know?• Tagalog nasalsubstitution
• Dutch voicing
• Turkish voicing
• Interim summary
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
18 / 30
Becker, Ketrez & Nevins (2011)
• The phenomenon
• The lexical trend (place and size)
DOR
PAL
COR
LABCVC
CVCC
CVCVC
alternatingvacillatingnon-alternating
• Extension to nonce words
Turkish voicing
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge• How much dospeakers know?• Tagalog nasalsubstitution
• Dutch voicing
• Turkish voicing
• Interim summary
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
18 / 30
Becker, Ketrez & Nevins (2011)
• 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
Speakers’ knowledge• How much dospeakers know?• Tagalog nasalsubstitution
• Dutch voicing
• Turkish voicing
• Interim summary
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
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
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
• Turkish again
• English plurals
• Interim summary
• Beyond wug-testing
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
20 / 30
Turkish again
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
• Turkish again
• English plurals
• Interim summary
• Beyond wug-testing
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
21 / 30
Becker, Ketrez & Nevins (2011)
• Lexicon: more alternations after back vowels
• Experiment: no effect• Our explanation: universal bias
Turkish again
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
• Turkish again
• English plurals
• Interim summary
• Beyond wug-testing
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
21 / 30
Becker, Ketrez & Nevins (2011)
• Lexicon: more alternations after back vowels
+back
!back
• Experiment: no effect
• Our explanation: universal bias
Turkish again
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
• Turkish again
• English plurals
• Interim summary
• Beyond wug-testing
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
21 / 30
Becker, Ketrez & Nevins (2011)
• Lexicon: more alternations after back vowels
• Experiment: no effect
+back
!back
• Our explanation: universal bias
Turkish again
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
• Turkish again
• English plurals
• Interim summary
• Beyond wug-testing
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
21 / 30
Becker, Ketrez & Nevins (2011)
• Lexicon: more alternations after back vowels
• 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
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
• Turkish again
• English plurals
• Interim summary
• Beyond wug-testing
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
22 / 30
Becker, Nevins & Levine (to appear)
• The alternation
• The lexical trend (dictionary study)• The lexical trend (experimentally)
• Extension to nonce words
English plurals
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
• Turkish again
• English plurals
• Interim summary
• Beyond wug-testing
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
22 / 30
Becker, Nevins & Levine (to appear)
• 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)
• Extension to nonce words
English plurals
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
• Turkish again
• English plurals
• Interim summary
• Beyond wug-testing
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
22 / 30
Becker, Nevins & Levine (to appear)
• 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
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
• Turkish again
• English plurals
• Interim summary
• Beyond wug-testing
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
22 / 30
Becker, Nevins & Levine (to appear)
• The alternation
• The lexical trend (dictionary study)• The lexical trend (experimentally)
200 speakers rated our 126 items (Amazon’s Mechanical Turk)
voiceless
voiced
mono iamb trochee
• Extension to nonce words
English plurals
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
• Turkish again
• English plurals
• Interim summary
• Beyond wug-testing
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
22 / 30
Becker, Nevins & Levine (to appear)
• The alternation
• The lexical trend (dictionary study)• The lexical trend (experimentally)
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
• Extension to nonce words
English plurals
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
• Turkish again
• English plurals
• Interim summary
• Beyond wug-testing
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
22 / 30
Becker, Nevins & Levine (to appear)
• The alternation
• The lexical trend (dictionary study)• The lexical trend (experimentally)
• Extension to nonce wordsvoiceless
voiced
mono iamb trochee
Interim summary
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
• Turkish again
• English plurals
• Interim summary
• Beyond wug-testing
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
23 / 30
• Observation: monosyllables can’t be less faithful than
polysyllables
• Our explanation: surfeit of the stimulus
Interim summary
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
• Turkish again
• English plurals
• Interim summary
• Beyond wug-testing
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
23 / 30
• Observation: monosyllables can’t be less faithful than
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
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
• Turkish again
• English plurals
• Interim summary
• Beyond wug-testing
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
23 / 30
• Observation: monosyllables can’t be less faithful than
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
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
• Turkish again
• English plurals
• Interim summary
• Beyond wug-testing
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
24 / 30
• Artificial Language experiment (Becker, Nevins & Levine)
• Result: Monosyllables protected
• Result: Monosyllables protected (stats)
• Conclusion
Beyond wug-testing
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
• Turkish again
• English plurals
• Interim summary
• Beyond wug-testing
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
24 / 30
• Artificial Language experiment (Becker, Nevins & Levine)
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
• Result: Monosyllables protected (stats)• Conclusion
Beyond wug-testing
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
• Turkish again
• English plurals
• Interim summary
• Beyond wug-testing
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
24 / 30
• Artificial Language experiment (Becker, Nevins & Levine)
• Result: Monosyllables protected
Monosyllabic training group
voiceless
voiced
mono iamb
Iambic training group
voiceless
voiced
mono iamb
• Result: Monosyllables protected (stats)
• Conclusion
Beyond wug-testing
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
• Turkish again
• English plurals
• Interim summary
• Beyond wug-testing
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
24 / 30
• Artificial Language experiment (Becker, Nevins & Levine)
• Result: Monosyllables protected
• Result: Monosyllables protected (stats)
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
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
• Turkish again
• English plurals
• Interim summary
• Beyond wug-testing
Is grammar notenough?
Summary
24 / 30
• Artificial Language experiment (Becker, Nevins & Levine)
• Result: Monosyllables protected
• Result: Monosyllables protected (stats)
• 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
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
• Hebrew plurals
• Hungarian genitive
Summary
25 / 30
Hebrew plurals
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
• Hebrew plurals
• Hungarian genitive
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
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
• Hebrew plurals
• Hungarian genitive
Summary
26 / 30
• Allomorph selection: masculines often take [–im], rarely [–ot]
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
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
• Hebrew plurals
• Hungarian genitive
Summary
26 / 30
• Allomorph selection: masculines often take [–im], rarely [–ot]
• Lexicon: more [–ot] after masculines with [o]
f
a e io u
m
a e i o u
im
ot
8822 nouns from a dictionary (Bolozky & Becker 2006)
• Experiment (Becker 2009)
• Experiment (Berent et al. 1999, 2002)
• Analogy? Lexical magnet(?)
Hebrew plurals
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
• Hebrew plurals
• Hungarian genitive
Summary
26 / 30
• Allomorph selection: masculines often take [–im], rarely [–ot]
• Lexicon: more [–ot] after masculines with [o]
• Experiment (Becker 2009)
◦ More [ot] when stem contains [o]
• Experiment (Berent et al. 1999, 2002)
• Analogy? Lexical magnet(?)
Hebrew plurals
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
• Hebrew plurals
• Hungarian genitive
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)
◦ 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)
• Analogy? Lexical magnet(?)
Hebrew plurals
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
• Hebrew plurals
• Hungarian genitive
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(?)
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
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
• Hebrew plurals
• Hungarian genitive
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
• Extension to nonce words
• Hayes et al.’s interpretation: naturalness bias
• My response(?)
Hungarian genitive
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
• Hebrew plurals
• Hungarian genitive
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]
ţi:m ţi:m-nEk ‘address’hi:d hi:d-nOk ‘bridge’
• Natural factors: vowel height, number of front unrounded vowels
• Unnatural factors: final consonants, clusters
• Extension to nonce words
• Hayes et al.’s interpretation: naturalness bias• My response(?)
Hungarian genitive
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
• Hebrew plurals
• Hungarian genitive
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
◦ Most [nEk] after [E], less after [e:], least after [i, i:]
◦ More [nEk] after two front unrounded vowels: [kErt] ‘garden’
vs. [rEpEs] ‘splint’
• Unnatural factors: final consonants, clusters
• Extension to nonce words
• Hayes et al.’s interpretation: naturalness bias
• My response(?)
Hungarian genitive
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
• Hebrew plurals
• Hungarian genitive
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
◦ 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)
• Extension to nonce words
• Hayes et al.’s interpretation: naturalness bias
• My response(?)
Hungarian genitive
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
• Hebrew plurals
• Hungarian genitive
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
• Extension to nonce words
◦ Speakers extend the natural factors◦ Speakers also extend the unnatural factors, but more weakly
• Hayes et al.’s interpretation: naturalness bias
• My response(?)
Hungarian genitive
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
• Hebrew plurals
• Hungarian genitive
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
• Extension to nonce words
• Hayes et al.’s interpretation: naturalness bias
◦ 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
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
• Hebrew plurals
• Hungarian genitive
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
• Extension to nonce words
• Hayes et al.’s interpretation: naturalness bias
• 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
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary• Nonce words are aneffect of grammar
• References
28 / 30
Nonce words are an effect of grammar
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary• Nonce words are aneffect of grammar
• References
29 / 30
• In irregular morphophonology, speakers track lexical statistics
• Detailed statistical tracking: place, size
• Limits: protection of monosyllables
• Limits: unnatural factors
• Theory?
Nonce words are an effect of grammar
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary• Nonce words are aneffect of grammar
• References
29 / 30
• In irregular morphophonology, speakers track lexical statistics
◦ “Law of Frequency Matching”
◦ No notion of exception
• Detailed statistical tracking: place, size• Limits: protection of monosyllables
• Limits: unnatural factors
• Theory?
Nonce words are an effect of grammar
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary• Nonce words are aneffect of grammar
• References
29 / 30
• In irregular morphophonology, speakers track lexical statistics
• Detailed statistical tracking: place, size
◦ Speakers track each place separately (Tagalog, Dutch,
Turkish)
◦ Speakers track each place within each size (Turkish)
• Limits: protection of monosyllables
• Limits: unnatural factors
• Theory?
Nonce words are an effect of grammar
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary• Nonce words are aneffect of grammar
• References
29 / 30
• In irregular morphophonology, speakers track lexical statistics
• Detailed statistical tracking: place, size
• Limits: protection of monosyllables
◦ 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?
Nonce words are an effect of grammar
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary• Nonce words are aneffect of grammar
• References
29 / 30
• In irregular morphophonology, speakers track lexical statistics
• Detailed statistical tracking: place, size
• Limits: protection of monosyllables
• Limits: unnatural factors
◦ 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?
Nonce words are an effect of grammar
• Overview
Morphophonology
Lexical trends
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary• Nonce words are aneffect of grammar
• References
29 / 30
• In irregular morphophonology, speakers track lexical statistics
• Detailed statistical tracking: place, size
• Limits: protection of monosyllables
• Limits: unnatural factors
• 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
Speakers’ knowledge
Limits of speakers’knowledge
Is grammar notenough?
Summary• Nonce words are aneffect of grammar
• 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.
Top Related