Class 8: Phonological typology - Linguistic Society

Class 8: Phonological typology

Adam Albright ([email protected])

LSA 2017 PhonologyUniversity of Kentucky

[email protected]

Announcements

▶ For those taking this class for credit▶ Please upload assignments (option 1 or option 2) by PDF to

Canvas by tonight

▶ Today▶ Questions?▶ Phonological typology

References 1/38

From specific languages to typology

▶ So far: main focus has been on providing rankings that yield setof outputs attested in a specific language

▶ However, arguments for constraint formulation and ranking havebeen partly language-internal, and partly cross-linguistic

▶ Language-internal: Korean allows laryngeal contrasts onconsonants before a vowel, but not before another consonant

▶ Cross-linguistic: if a language allows laryngeal contrasts before aconsonant, it allows them before a vowel

*[voice]/ ¬[+son]≫ *[voice]/ ¬[−son]

or: Ident([±voi])/[+son]≫ *Ident([±voi])/ [+son]

▶ Or in some cases, almost entirely cross-linguistic▶ Low-ranked markedness constraints▶ E.g., Limbu: Ident([±voi])≫ *

[−sonorant+voice

]

References 2/38

Using typological data to inform constraint formulation

Implicational asymmetries give us insight into…▶ Which constraints to include

▶ Conjecture (not verified): if a language allows initial #ŋV, it alsoallows initial #mV and #nV

▶ *#ŋ constraint without corresponding *#m, *#n: predicts twotype of languages, depending on ranking w.r.t. Ident(place)

▶ Fixed rankings▶ Verified by Steriade (1999): if a language allows laryngeal

contrasts before a consonant, it allows them before a vowel▶ *[voice]/ ¬[+son]≫ *[voice]/ ¬[−son]

References 3/38

Universal CON?

▶ This reasoning is most straightforward if we can guarantee thatno grammar would ever contain a constraint that would ‘subvert’the predicted asymmetry

▶ Hypothesis: set of constraints (and, perhaps, a priori rankings) isfixed and universal (Prince and Smolensky, 2002)

▶ Or, subject to limitations that guarantee asymmetries (Hayes,1999; Hayes and Steriade, 2004; Smith, 2003)

▶ Assumed by RCD (must be able to identify all L’s from the start)

References 4/38

Factorial typology

▶ Space of possible grammars = set of possible rankings▶ Deriving the set of predicted languages

▶ Virtually guaranteed to be fewer languages than rankings (why?)▶ Enormous space, but much smaller than possible sets of ordered

rules

References 5/38

Evaluating typological predictions of a proposed constraint

▶ Can only be assessed through interaction▶ In practice, often assessed for just a limited set of constraints

(‘mini-typology’)

▶ Typological predictions are independent of lexicon (Richness ofthe Base)

▶ Assessing fit to attested typology

Predicted/Attested Yes NoYes Correctly analyzable Accidental gapNo Exception Correctly excluded

▶ Eliminating exceptions: descriptive adequacy▶ Minimizing “accidental” gaps→ restrictive theory

References 6/38

The typology of stress systems

▶ In principle, all of the constraints that we’ve used up until thispoint could be submitted to factorial typology and evaluated

▶ Interactions→ enormous set of possible languages▶ Stress assignment: somewhat ‘insulated’ from other parts of the

grammar▶ Easier to document independently of other features of the

language (modulo morphology)▶ Easier to assess mini-typology with some confidence

References 7/38

Stress

▶ An abstract (“hidden”) property▶ Liberman (1975); Liberman and Prince (1977): linguistic

manifestation of rhythmic structure▶ Prosodic prominence = ‘strength’

▶ Behavioral diagnostics (tapping, text alignment)▶ English: eligibility for phrasal prominences (‘nuclear intonation

tones’, marked with pitch accents)▶ Diagnosis through pitch accent: calling contour, surprise

redundancy contour▶ Compare: collàborátion, clàssificátion

▶ Conditions phonological processes▶ Contrast: e.g., vowel reduction in stressless syllables▶ Other reductions: e.g., flapping in English

References 8/38

Stress

▶ Acoustic correlates: mostly indirect in English (pitch accent)▶ Inherent: duration, possibly voice quality, following C duration▶ Accent: intensity/amplitude, pitch

▶ Probably also mostly indirect cues in other languages, thoughremarkably few studies dissociating stress from pitch accent

▶ NB: when the most straightforward diagnostics (e.g., stress-basedmeter) are unavailable or irrelevant for a given language, theposition of stress can be notoriously difficult for non-nativelisteners to identify!

▶ Misidentification of duration, pitch, etc. associated with position inword or phrase (French, Welsh)

▶ An interesting problem: difficult also for learners

References 9/38

Typological properties of stress: some universal properties(Hayes, 1995, chap. 3)

▶ Culminativity: every word or phrase has a single strongest (mostprominent) syllable

▶ Hierarchical organization▶ Primary, secondary, tertiary stress: Constantinople 23010 vs.

sensationality 32010

▶ Rhythmic organization▶ Alternating stressed/stressless syllables▶ If there are multiple stresses in a given domain, they are generally

spaced at regular intervals: 102020 not *122000▶ Regular stresses every two (or sometimes three) syllables

▶ No assimilation▶ Unlike voicing, place, etc., no tendency for adjacent syllables to

agree in stress▶ In fact, assimilation would destroy rhythmic organization

▶ Often taken as an argument for a distinct representation (not afeature)

References 10/38

Parameters of stress systems

▶ Is the position of stress determined phonologically? (lexical (free)vs. fixed stress)

▶ What determines position?▶ Edges of the word: stress left, right, penultimate, peninitial,

antepenultimate…▶ Weight: stress ‘heavier’ syllables (long vowel, CVN, CVC, etc.)

(Quantity sensitivity)

▶ Stress just the syllable(s) with relevant property (free stress) orregularly alternating syllables (bounded stress)

▶ If alternating: binary or ternary?

▶ Morphological sensitivity

References 11/38

The representation of stress

▶ Featural (but: no assimilation)▶ Grid (Prince, 1983; Selkirk, 1984)

×× ×σ σ σ σ σa bra ca da bra

▶ Feet: binary vs. ternary, head position

(σ̀ σ) σ (σ́ σ)abra ca dabra

References 12/38

Where does stress fall?

Quantity insensitive systems (Gordon, 2002)▶ Final: Atayal, Moghol, Mazatec▶ Penultimate: Mohawk, Albanian, Jaqaru▶ Antepenultimate: Macedonian▶ Initial: Arabela, Chitimacha, Nenets▶ Peninitial: Lakhota, Koryak▶ Postpeninitial: Hocąk (a.k.a. Winnebago)▶ Rarer: ‘dual’ systems, at/near L and R (one primary, one

secondary)

(Not discussed here: quantity sensitive systems, where position ofstress depends on vowel length or syllable type)

References 13/38

Capturing stress placement with constraintsGordon (2002): Align(Level n,Edge)

Level 2: ×Level 1: × ×Syllables: σ σσσσ

▶ Levels: {1,2}, Edges: {L,R}▶ Every grid mark on Level n must be aligned with the grid mark on

the named edge of Level n-1▶ Align(Level 1,L): there must be a stress on the leftmost syllable

▶ Example above: satisfies Align(Level 1,L), but violates Align(Level1,R)

▶ Align(Level 2,L): the leftmost stress must be primary (cf. Hayes,1995 ‘End Rule Left’)

▶ Example above: violates Align(Level 2,L), but satisfies Align(Level2,R)

References 14/38

Evaluating Align(Level n,Edge): Gordon (2002, p. 499)

A FACTORIAL TYPOLOGY OF QUANTITY-INSENSITIVE STRESS 499

are several violations of a constraint committed by a form, the number ofviolations appears in parentheses.

Adopting the ALIGN (x2, X, 1, PrWd) constraints as opposed to con-straints which count absolute distance of the primary stress from an edge(cf. McCarthy and Prince 1993) has the empirical advantage of creatinga more constrained factorial typology of stress systems12 as well as theformal advantage (in a grid-based theory of representation) of being moreprincipled, assuming that all grid marks above level 0 must dominate alower level grid mark (Prince’s (1983) Continuous Column Constraint).

(5) Evaluation of the ALIGN constraints

Before proceeding with analyses employing the ALIGN constraints, itshould be noted that, although the ALIGN constraints discussed in thispaper will make reference to the word as the stress domain, it is assumedthat other members of the ALIGN constraint family sensitive to differentstress domains, such as the root and different phrasal levels, also exist.These ALIGN constraints play an important role in characterizing mor-phologically sensitive stress (see Alderete 1999 for morphological stress

12 The ALIGN (x2, {R/L}, 1, PrWd) constraints adopted here generate only 79 distinctstress systems as opposed to 93 generated by their hypothetical counterparts which countabsolute distance of the main stress from an edge. The extra patterns, none of which areattested, fall under the class of fixed stress systems displaying two stresses per domain (seesection 2.2 for the factorial typology of fixed stress).

References 15/38

Rhythmic stress and windows

▶ *Clash▶ No sequences of two stressed syllables: *σ́σ́

▶ *Lapse▶ No sequences of two stressless syllables: *σσ

▶ *Extended Lapse▶ No sequences of three stressless syllables: *σσσ

▶ Position: *Lapse(R), *Lapse(L), *ExtLapse(R), possibly also*ExtLapse(L)

References 16/38

Rhythmic stress and windows▶ The idea behind windows: stress wants to be at one edge of the

word, but is prohibited from being more than one/two syllablesfrom the opposite end

▶ Antepenultimate: *ExtLapse(R)≫ Align(Level 1,L)≫ Align(Level1,R)

▶ *Lapse(R), *Lapse(L): penultimate, peninitial stress▶ *ExtLapse(R): antepenultimate (and *ExtLapse(L) if postpenititial

exists)▶ Gradient violations: must be better to stay ‘at outer edge of

window’ than to go all the way to opposite edge

/σσσσσ/ *ExtLapse(R) Align(Level 1,L) Align(Level 1,R)

a. σ́σσσσ *! W ****b. σσ́σσσ *! W * ***c. σσσ́σσ ** **d. σσσσ́σ ***! *e. σσσσσ́ ***!*

References 17/38

Culminativity

▶ Exactly one primary stress▶ Grids: assign violation for multiple grid marks at highest grid level▶ Since never violated, perhaps not a rankable constraint?

(requires fancier Gen: intrinsic limitation on grid representationsthat can be generated)

References 18/38

An example: Sibutu Sama (Malayo-Polynesian)

a. bɪssála ‘talk’b. bɪs̀saláhan ‘persuading’c. bɪs̀salahánna ‘he is persuading’d. bɪs̀salahankámi ‘we are persuading’

▶ Initial and penultimate stress (dual system), except in threesyllable words

▶ Initial and penultimate: *Lapse(R)≫ Align(Level 1,Edges)≫Align(Level 1,L), Align(Level 1,R)

▶ Primary stress is the rightmost stress: Align(Level 2,R)▶ Avoiding *bɪs̀sála: *Clash

▶ No sequences of two stressed syllables

References 19/38

NonFinal

▶ Stress (a level 1 grid mark) does not fall on the final syllable▶ Violated if final syllable is stressed▶ Not needed for anything so far, but Gordon includes as a way of

deriving penultimate stress▶ Only becomes important in systems that require regularly

alternating stress (“bounded stress”)

References 20/38

The typology so far

▶ Twelve constraints▶ Align(Level 1, L), Align(Level 1, R), Align(Level 1, Edges)▶ Align(Level 2, L), Align(Level 2, R)▶ *Clash▶ *Lapse, *Lapse(L), *Lapse(R)▶ *ExtLapse, *ExtLapse(R)▶ NonFinality

▶ 12! = 479,001,600 possible rankings▶ Gordon (2002): calculated possible combinations of stress

placement for words of 1 through 8 syllables▶ For words of each length, candidates with all possible stress

positions (respecting culminativity) were considered▶ Yields 10,823,318,000,000 logically possible languages!

References 21/38

The typology so far

▶ Result: only 152 combinations actually emerge as optimal undersome ranking

▶ 79 different stress placements, 73 others that switch which stressis primary and which is secondary

▶ Single stress systems: just 6 predicted (see Table IV, p. 512)▶ 5 attested in quantity-insensitive systems▶ One unattested, but found in a quantity-sensitive language (Hopi)

among words with all light syllables: Penititial stress, butnon-finality forces initial stress in words of 2 syllables

▶ Dual stress systems: 34 predicted possibilities (17 placements,primary at left or right)

▶ Of these, only about 6 are attested▶ Another 6 have their “opposite side” counterparts attested (same

stress placement, but differs in which side is primary)

References 22/38

The typology so far

▶ Some systems are predicted to be impossible, and are unattested▶ Antepenultimate + penitial: would require simultaneously

highest-ranked Align(Level 1,L) and Align(Level 1,R)▶ Can’t be derived, and do not occur

▶ Gordon argues that the others are generally ‘close’ to attestedsystems

▶ Only 14 dual stress systems attested in total, so accidental gapsare very likely (no explanation for general rarity)

▶ Many gaps involve independently rare properties (clashes,penitial stress, etc.)

▶ See Gordon §2.2.3 regarding another possible principle ruling outsome unattested patterns: Uniformity of Primary StressPlacement

References 23/38

Summary so far

▶ A pretty good match for fixed stress systems!▶ Gordon discusses some (small) advantages of Align(Edges)

rather than independent Align(L), Align(R) for dual systems▶ For fixed stress, feet are unlikely to help make the predictions

even better, since we are not dealing with alternating stresses

References 24/38

Assessing fit

▶ Undergeneration: fatal, if true (empirical adequacy)▶ But apparent exceptions merit careful scrutiny

▶ Overgeneration▶ Accidental gaps? (low expected probability, or historical

‘accident’)▶ Additional pressures, such as learnability

References 25/38

The midpoint pathology (Kager, 2012; Stanton, 2016)

▶ For short words, possible to satisfy both *(Extended)Lapse(L) and*(Extended)Lapse(R), by keeping stress towards the middle of theword

/σσσσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R)

+ a. σσσ́σσb. σσσσσ́ *! Wc. σ́σσσσ *! W

▶ For longer words, can’t satisfy both, so satisfy the higher-rankedone and keep stress at the relevant edge

/σσσσσσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R)

a. σσσσ́σσσ *! W *+ b. σ́σσσσσσ *

c. σσσσσσσ́ *! W L

References 26/38

A ‘midpoint-stress’ language*ExtendedLapse(L)≫ *ExtendedLapse(R)≫ Align(L)≫ Align(R)

2 syl σ́σ3 syl σ́σσ4 syl σσ́σσ5 syl σσσ́σσ6 syl σ́σσσσσ7 syl σ́σσσσσσ8 syl σ́σσσσσσσ

▶ *ExtLapse(L/R)≫ Align(L/R): stress can move inside word toavoid extended lapse

▶ *ExtLapse(L)≫ *ExtLapse(R): when the word is too long tosatisfy both, it moves to the left side of the word

▶ Align(L)≫ Align(R): when it’s on the left side of the word, it fallson the very first syllable

References 27/38

Stanton’s observation/σσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) Align(R)

+ a. σ́σ *b. σσ́ *! W L

/σσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) Align(R)

+ a. σ́σσ **b. σσ́σ *! W * Lc. σσσ́ *!* W L

/σσσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) Align(R)

a. σ́σσσ *! W L *** W+ b. σσ́σσ * **

c. σσσ́σ **! W * Ld. σσσσ́ *! W *** W L

/σσσσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) Align(R)

a. σ́σσσσ *! W L **** Wb. σσ́σσσ *! W * L *** W

+ c. σσσ́σσ ** **d. σσσσ́σ *! W *** W * Le. σσσσσ́ *! W **** W L

/σσσσσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) Align(R)

+ a. σ́σσσσσ * *****b. σσ́σσσσ * * W **** Lc. σσσ́σσσ * ** W *** Ld. σσσσ́σσ *! W L *** W ** Le. σσσσσ́σ *! W L **** W * Lf. σσσσσσ́ *! W L ***** W L

/σσσσσσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) Align(R)

+ a. σ́σσσσσσ * ******b. σσ́σσσσσ * * W ***** Lc. σσσ́σσσσ * ** W **** Ld. σσσσ́σσσ *! W * *** W *** Le. σσσσσ́σσ *! W L **** W ** Lf. σσσσσσ́σ *! W L ***** W * Lg. σσσσσσσ́ *! W L ****** W L

▶ Clear evidence for Align(L)≫ Align(R) in 2,3,4-syllablewords

▶ Evidence for *ExtLapse(R)≫Align(L) from 5-syllablewords

▶ Evidence for *ExtLapse(L)≫*ExtLapse(R) only from6-syllable words and longer

References 28/38

On the relative scarcity of long words

24, they would have to be exposed to words that are six syllables or longer. A survey oftext corpora from 102 languages reveals that this situation is, on average, unrealistic:long words are infrequent (on the distribution of word lengths, see also Hatzigeorgiu etal. 2001, Sigurd et al. 2004, Piantadosi et al. 2011, Kalimeri et al. 2015). The results ofthis word-length study are presented in Figure 1: each thin gray line represents the fre-quency distribution of an individual language, while the thicker black line representsthe median values. More details about how the survey was conducted, as well as moreinformation on the surveyed languages (including frequencies by language, geneticclassification information, and sources of the data), are given in the appendices.

Learnability shapes typology: The case of the midpoint pathology 765

The important point to take away from Fig. 1 is that, assuming the median values rep-resent approximately what the average learner would be exposed to, words of five or more syllables make up only 4% of the learner’s input, and words of six or more syl-lables make up only 1%. What this means, then, is that for a learner attempting to learna midpoint system like 23 or 24, evidence as to the relative ranking of the anti-lapseconstraints comes from a small minority of forms present in the input. Since there isreason to believe that long words are even less frequent in child-directed speech (seee.g. Vihman et al. 1994:656 for properties of child-directed speech in English, French,and Swedish, where one-to-two-syllable words predominate), patterns where crucialrankings are available only in these longer words might therefore be difficult for a childto acquire.

The rest of this subsection focuses on the following question: if a learner sampleslong words at the rate they are attested crosslinguistically, does it have a difficult timelearning midpoint systems? To address this question, we focus on the learner’s behavioras the number of long words that it encounters is steadily decreased. To model this de-crease in the number of long words, I selected five word-length distributions from theword-length study, detailed in Table 5. Here, Portuguese represents the ‘average’ lan-guage, since its distribution is closest to the median. Inuktitut represents the upperbound, since it has more long words than any other language in the study; Haitian rep-resents the lower bound, since it has very few. English and Ganda represent intermedi-ate points along the continuum.

Each of the word-length distributions in Table 5 represents a learner that encounterswords of different lengths at different rates. To probe the effects of the word-length dis-tribution on learning different stress systems, I taught each learner five different sys-

Figure 1. Results of the survey of text corpora from 102 languages (see the appendices for more details).

▶ Rough estimate of relative proportion of words of different lengthsin texts of 102 languages

▶ With a few notable exceptions, words of six syllables or longermake up a very small proportion of the linguistic input

▶ A further caveat not reflected here: long words tend to bemorphologically complex (may show other patterns)References 29/38

Learning from short words/σσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) Align(R)

+ a. σ́σ *b. σσ́ * W L


+ a. σ́σσ **b. σσ́σ * W * Lc. σσσ́ ** W L


a. σ́σσσ * W L *** W+ b. σσ́σσ * **

c. σσσ́σ ** W * Ld. σσσσ́ * W *** W L


a. σ́σσσσ * W L **** Wb. σσ́σσσ * W * L *** W

+ c. σσσ́σσ ** **d. σσσσ́σ * W *** W * Le. σσσσσ́ * W **** W L

▶ Applying RCD

: *ExtLapse(L), *ExtLapse(R)≫ Align(L)▶ Close, but leaves open ranking of *ExtLapse(L), *ExtLapse(R)

References 30/38


+ a. σ́σ *b. σσ́ * W L




a. σ́σσσ * W L *** W+ b. σσ́σσ * **





▶ Applying RCD: *ExtLapse(L), *ExtLapse(R)≫ Align(L), Align(R)

▶ Close, but leaves open ranking of *ExtLapse(L), *ExtLapse(R)

References 30/38


+ a. σ́σ *b. σσ́ * W L




a. σ́σσσ * W L *** W+ b. σσ́σσ * **





▶ Applying RCD: *ExtLapse(L), *ExtLapse(R)≫ Align(L)≫ Align(R)▶ Close, but leaves open ranking of *ExtLapse(L), *ExtLapse(R)

References 30/38

Two possible refinements(☹= preferred by generating grammar, losing in acquired grammar)

*ExtLapse(L)≫ *ExtLapse(R)/σσσσσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) Align(R)

+ a. σ́σσσσσσ * ******b. σσ́σσσσσ * * W ***** Lc. σσσ́σσσσ * ** W **** Ld. σσσσ́σσσ *! W * *** W *** Le. σσσσσ́σσ *! W L **** W ** Lf. σσσσσσ́σ *! W L ***** W * Lg. σσσσσσσ́ *! W L ****** W L

/σσσσσσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) Align(R)

+ a. σ́σσσσσσσ * *******b. σσ́σσσσσσ * * W ****** Lc. σσσ́σσσσσ * ** W ***** Ld. σσσσ́σσσσ *! W * *** W **** Le. σσσσσ́σσσ *! W * **** W *** Lf. σσσσσσ́σσ *! W L ***** W ** Lg. σσσσσσσ́σ *! W L ****** W * Lh. σσσσσσσσ́ *! W L ******* W L

Midpoint system2 syl σ́σ3 syl σ́σσ4 syl σσ́σσ5 syl σσσ́σσ6 syl σ́σσσσσ7 syl σ́σσσσσσ

*ExtLapse(R)≫ *ExtLapse(L)/σσσσσσ/ *ExtLapse(R) *ExtLapse(L) Align(L) Align(R)

☹ a. σ́σσσσσσ *! W L ****** Wb. σσ́σσσσσ *! W * L ***** Wc. σσσ́σσσσ *! W ** L **** Wd. σσσσ́σσσ *! W * *** L *** W

+ e. σσσσσ́σσ * **** **f. σσσσσσ́σ * *****! W * Lg. σσσσσσσ́ * *****!* W L

/σσσσσσσ/ *ExtLapse(R) *ExtLapse(L) Align(L) Align(R)

☹ a. σ́σσσσσσσ *! W ******* Wb. σσ́σσσσσσ *! W * L ****** Wc. σσσ́σσσσσ *! W ** L ***** Wd. σσσσ́σσσσ *! W * *** L **** We. σσσσσ́σσσ *! W * **** L *** W

+ f. σσσσσσ́σσ * ***** **g. σσσσσσσ́σ * ******! W * Lh. σσσσσσσσ́ * ******!* W L

Antepenultimate stress2 syl σ́σ3 syl σ́σσ4 syl σσ́σσ5 syl σσσ́σσ6 syl σσσσ́σσ7 syl σσσσσ́σσ

References 31/38

Ambiguity in short words

▶ The consequence: based on data from words less than 6syllables, learners exposed to a midpoint system might infer thatthey are learning antepenultimate stress instead

▶ Hoped-for claim: the midpoint system is ‘unstable’, in thatlearners may not reliably recover it, and go for antepenultimatestress instead

▶ But a problem: since midpoint and antepenultimate stress areambiguous in short words, learners exposed to antepenultimatestress might just as well assume that they are learning themidpoint system!

▶ Where we are actually at now: predict variability or changes inboth directions

▶ Where does the antepenultimate bias come from?

References 32/38

The learning algorithm matters

▶ RCD does not explain the antepenultimate stress bias, because inshort words, both *ExtLapse(L) and *ExtLapse(R) are ‘W-only’constraints, so remain highly ranked

▶ Stanton’s conjecture: human learners actually use a rankingalgorithm that doesn’t just demote L’s, but also promotes W’s(Boersma, 1997; Magri, 2012)

▶ Why this will help:▶ Short words give a lot of evidence for Align(L)≫ Align(R)▶ If this evidence is used to demote Align(R) and promote Align(L),

then Align(L) will end up above other markedness constraints▶ Similarly, 4- and 5-syllable words provide evidence for

*ExtLapse(R)≫ Align(L), causing it to be promoted as well▶ Consequence: *ExtLapse(L) is ‘left in the dust’ (not promoted until

you get 6+ syllable words, at which point it might be too late

▶ Background: the Gradual Learning Algorithm, slides 43–46 fromClass 7

References 33/38

Learning from short words: promotion and demotion/σσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) ←Align(L) Align(R)→+ a. σ́σ *

b. σσ́ * W L/σσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) ←Align(L) Align(R)→+ a. σ́σσ **

b. σσ́σ * W * Lc. σσσ́ ** W L

/σσσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) ←Align(L) Align(R)→a. σ́σσσ * W L *** W

+ b. σσ́σσ * **c. σσσ́σ ** W * Ld. σσσσ́ * W *** W L

/σσσσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) ←Align(L) Align(R)→a. σ́σσσσ * W L **** Wb. σσ́σσσ * W * L *** W


▶ The shortest and most frequent words give lots of unambiguousevidence to demote Align(R), and now we also promote Align(L)

References 34/38

Learning from short words: promotion and demotion/σσ/ Align(L)← *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) →Align(R)

+ a. σ́σ *b. σσ́ * W L

/σσσ/ Align(L)← *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) →Align(R)


/σσσσ/ Align(L)← *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) →Align(R)

a. σ́σσσ L * W *** W+ b. σσ́σσ * **

c. σσσ́σ ** W * Ld. σσσσ́ *** W * W L

/σσσσσ/ Align(L)← *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) →Align(R)

a. σ́σσσσ L * W **** Wb. σσ́σσσ * L * W *** W

+ c. σσσ́σσ ** **d. σσσσ́σ *** W * W * Le. σσσσσ́ **** W * W L

▶ The shortest and most frequent words give lots of unambiguousevidence to demote Align(R), and now we also promote Align(L)

References 34/38

Learning from short words: promotion and demotion/σσ/ ←Align(L)→ *ExtLapse(L) ←*ExtLapse(R) ←Align(R)→+ a. σ́σ *

b. σσ́ * W L/σσσ/ ←Align(L)→ *ExtLapse(L) ←*ExtLapse(R) ←Align(R)→+ a. σ́σσ **


/σσσσ/ ←Align(L)→ *ExtLapse(L) ←*ExtLapse(R) ←Align(R)→a. σ́σσσ L * W *** W

+ b. σσ́σσ * **c. σσσ́σ ** W * Ld. σσσσ́ *** W * W L

/σσσσσ/ ←Align(L)→ *ExtLapse(L) ←*ExtLapse(R) ←Align(R)→a. σ́σσσσ L * W **** Wb. σσ́σσσ * L * W *** W


▶ 4- and 5-syllable words provide evidence that *ExtLapse(R) orAlign(R) must outrank Align(L)

▶ But we know Align(L)≫ Align(R), reinforced by lots more data▶ So eventually just *ExtLapse(R) is promoted

References 34/38

Learning from short words: promotion and demotion/σσ/ *ExtLapse(R)← ←Align(L)→ *ExtLapse(L) ←Align(R)→+ a. σ́σ *

b. σσ́ * W L/σσσ/ *ExtLapse(R)← ←Align(L)→ *ExtLapse(L) ←Align(R)→+ a. σ́σσ **


/σσσσ/ *ExtLapse(R)← ←Align(L)→ *ExtLapse(L) ←Align(R)→a. σ́σσσ * W L *** W

+ b. σσ́σσ * **c. σσσ́σ ** W * Ld. σσσσ́ *** W * W L

/σσσσσ/ *ExtLapse(R)← ←Align(L)→ *ExtLapse(L) ←Align(R)→a. σ́σσσσ * W L **** Wb. σσ́σσσ * W * L *** W


▶ 4- and 5-syllable words provide evidence that *ExtLapse(R) orAlign(R) must outrank Align(L)

▶ But we know Align(L)≫ Align(R), reinforced by lots more data▶ So eventually just *ExtLapse(R) is promoted

References 34/38

The resulting grammar*ExtLapse(R)≫ Align(L)≫ *ExtLapse(L)≫ Align(R)

▶ This ranking works for words of 2–5 syllables (see previous slide)▶ But it predicts antepenultimate stress for longer words

/σσσσσσ/ *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) *ExtLapse(L) Align(R)

☹ a. σ́σσσσσ *! W L L ***** Wb. σσ́σσσσ *! W * L L **** Wc. σσσ́σσσ *! W ** L L *** W

+ d. σσσσ́σσ *** * **e. σσσσσ́σ ****! W * * Lf. σσσσσσ́ ****!* W * L

/σσσσσσσ/ *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) *ExtLapse(L) Align(R)

☹ a. σ́σσσσσσ *! W L L ****** Wb. σσ́σσσσσ *! W * L L ***** Wc. σσσ́σσσσ *! W ** L L **** Wd. σσσσ́σσσ *! W *** L * *** W

+ e. σσσσσ́σσ **** * **f. σσσσσσ́σ *****! W * * Lg. σσσσσσσ́ *****!* W * L

▶ Result: regardless of whether the learner was trained on midpointor antepenultimate stress, it learns an antepenultimate grammar

▶ …at least, until long words are encountered, if it’s not too lateReferences 35/38

Stepping back: the approach, more generally

▶ Some unattested systems may be possible to capturegrammatically, but are difficult to learn

▶ Goal: theory of grammatical learning that predicts that learners,when exposed to typical input from a ‘difficult’ pattern,systematically misacquire it as a different, more commonlyattested pattern

▶ Potential to explain not only unattested systems, but also raresystems (which we can’t exclude as impossible grammars,anyway)

▶ Converging evidence: acquisition data, learning in the lab?

References 36/38

References

Boersma, P. (1997). How we learn variation, optionality, and probability. Proceedingsof the Institute of Phonetic Sciences of the University of Amsterdam 21, 43–58.http://fon.hum.uva.nl/paul/.

Gordon, M. (2002). A factorial typology of quantity-insensitive stress. NaturalLanguage & Linguistic Theory 20, 491–552.

Hayes, B. (1995). Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Hayes, B. (1999). Phonological restructuring in Yidiɲ and its theoretical consequences.In B. Hermans and M. van Oostendorp (Eds.), The Derivational Residue inPhonological Optimality Theory, pp. 175–205. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hayes, B. and D. Steriade (2004). The phonetic basis of phonological markedness. InB. Hayes, R. Kirchner, and D. Steriade (Eds.), Phonetically based phonology, pp.1–33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kager, R. (2012). Stress in windows: Language typology and factorial typology.Lingua 122, 1454–1493.

Liberman, M. (1975). The Intonational System of English. Ph. D. thesis, MIT.

Liberman, M. and A. Prince (1977). On stress and linguistic rhythm. LinguisticInquiry 8, 249–336.

References 37/38

http://fon.hum.uva.nl/paul/

References

Magri, G. (2012). Convergence of error-driven ranking algorithms. Phonology 29(2),213–269.

Prince, A. (1983). Relating to the grid. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 19–100.

Prince, A. and P. Smolensky (1993/2002). Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction inGenerative Grammar. Technical report, Rutgers RuCCS-TR-2/University of Colorado,Boulder CU-CS-696-93. ROA 537, 8/2002 version.

Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Smith, J. (2003). Towards a compositional treatment of positional constraints: Thecase of positional augmentation. In A. Carpenter, A. Coetzee, and P. de Lacy (Eds.),UMass Occasional Papers in Linguistics (UMOP) 26, pp. 337–370. Amherst, MA:GLSA.

Stanton, J. (2016). Learnability shapes typology: the case of the midpoint pathology.Language 92, 753–791.

Steriade, D. (1999). Phonetics in phonology: The case of laryngeal neutralization. InM. K. Gordon (Ed.), UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, Number 2: Papers inPhonology 3, pp. 25–146.http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/steriade/papers/phoneticsinphonology.pdf.

References 38/38

http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/steriade/papers/phoneticsinphonology.pdf

Class 8: Phonological typology - Linguistic Society

Documents

Transcript of Class 8: Phonological typology - Linguistic Society