Lexically conditioned variation in Harmonic Grammar

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The generalization: (33) The probability of schwa deletion is greater for words like semaine than for words like semestre Further evidence of finer distinctions than optional application vs. non-application: (34) a. Dictionaries find the two-way categorization inadequate (Walker 1996) b. Corpus-based studies note that some words show greater frequency of deletion than others (e.g. Hansen 1994, Eychenne 2007, Eychenne and Pustka 2007) c. Racine and Grosjean (2002) provide data from a production study showing a wide range of deletion frequencies across words
Dell (1973) notes that exceptions to schwa deletion tend to be rarely used or literary words (as well as proper names) He also claims to have systematically looked for phonological generalizations, and came up empty-handed (see also Walker 1996) Is it “just” usage frequency that determines deletability of schwa?
Page 1 and 2: OCP-5, Toulouse-Le Mirail, 01-26-08
Page 3 and 4: Lexically conditioned variation is
Page 5 and 6: However, since speakers do at least
Page 7 and 8: 1. HG, variation, exceptionality, a
Page 9 and 10: Boersma’s (1997 et seq.) theory o
Page 11 and 12: In HG, the difference between the C
Page 13 and 14: To account for exceptions to e-dele
Page 15 and 16: The HG-GLA is a very simple learnin
Page 17 and 18: The grammar model was run in Linear
Page 19: In general, schwa deletion is block
Page 23 and 24: Racine’s (2007, in prep.) judgmen
Page 25 and 26: elon -5.4 semestre -4.6 semaine 0.0
Page 27 and 28: The constraint weights found by the
Page 29 and 30: (39) *[ә] LIC-C MAX /sәmɛn/ 1 2.
Page 31 and 32: 5. Broader consequences of lexicall
Page 33 and 34: The fine-grained lexical conditioni
Page 35 and 36: Boersma, Paul and David Weenink. 20
Page 37 and 38: Cooperative Research Report 3288. V

Lexically conditioned variation in Harmonic Grammar

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?