Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of ... - Michael Becker

Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsInitial-syllable faithfulnessas the best model ofword-size effects in alternationsMichael Becker & Andrew NevinsHarvard UniversityNELS 40 @ MITNovember 13–15, 2009Michael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsHighlightsSurprisingly, whether a noun undergoes voicing alternation isnot 50%∼50%; it is often a function of word-length(henceforth, “a size effect”).The regulation of phonological behavior is a subject of currentdebate in the study of language: Do large-scale trendsrepresent the result of grammaticalized usage pressures or not?We compare the ability of different measures to predictvoicing alternations in Turkish and Russian.We show that monosyllabicity, a discrete grammatical factor,is better than gradient grammatical measures, and muchbetter than word-similarity measures such as neighborhooddensity.Michael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsSources of size effectsSources of size effectsMichael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsSources of size effectsIn Turkish, voicing alternations affect some short words,taÙ ∼ taÃ-1saÙ ∼ saÙ-1and some long words:amaÙ ∼ amaÃ-1anaÙ ∼ anaÙ-1‘crown nom/poss’‘hair nom/poss’‘goal nom/poss’‘cub nom/poss’The shorter words, however, are much less likely to alternate (Lees1961; Inkelas & Orgun 1995; Inkelas et al. 1997; Hayes 1995;Pycha et al. 2007; among others).Michael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsSources of size effectsWhat is the best characterization of this size effect?1. Initial-syllable faithfulness: Monosyllables are more likely to beprotected from alternations than polysyllables (Becker, Ketrez& Nevins 2008)2. Moraic-based markedness:Minimal CVC words are syllabified early, thereby escaping analternation pressure that applies to larger-than-minimal words(Inkelas & Orgun 1995; Inkelas et al. 1997; Pycha et al. 2007)Michael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsSources of size effects3. Neighborhood density:Neighbors (Luce & Pisoni 1998): Words that are only onesegment’s deletion, addition, or substitution away.Short = competitive: Words in dense lexical neighborhoodsare protected from alternations (Wedel 2002; Ussishkin &Wedel to appear). Shorter words keep their shape constant tofacilitate lexical access in the face of manyphonologically-close competitors (though see Pycha et al.2007).Michael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsSources of size effectsOther potential predictors:Structural/grammatical factors: Alternation is correlated withsyllable count, mora count, segment count, etc.Lexicon-based/similarity-based factors: Alternation iscorrelated with cohort size, uniqueness point (Marslen-Wilson& Welsh 1978; Luce 1986; Gaskell & Marslen-Wilson 2002),etc.Michael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsTurkish voicing alternationsTurkish voicing alternationsMichael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

% alternatorsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsTurkish voicing alternationsThe Turkish lexiconTurkish alternation rates by syllable0% 25% 50% 75% 100%1 2 3 4 5 6 7length in syllablesMichael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsTurkish voicing alternationsThe Turkish lexiconTurkish alternation rates by segment0% 25% 50% 75% 100%% alternators2 4 6 8 10 12 14length in segmentsMichael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

% alternatorsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsTurkish voicing alternationsThe Turkish lexiconTurkish alternation rates by neighborhood size0% 25% 50% 75% 100%0 5 10 15number of neighborsMichael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

alternation rate R!Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsTurkish voicing alternationsThe Turkish lexiconTurkish: Correlation scores for three models of alternations0.00 0.04 0.08monosyllabicityCVCminimalityneighborhooddensityMichael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsTurkish voicing alternationsThe Turkish lexiconMonosyllabicity consistently achieves a significantly higher R 2value than CVC minimality (Wilcoxon rank sum test,W = 10 6 , p < .001).Syllable/mora/segment count have R 2 of less than 1%,because the additional increase in size does not correlate withan increase in alternation rate.The alternation rates in the Turkish lexicon are best modeled bymonosyllabicity, rather than by word-minimality or neighborhooddensity.Michael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsTurkish voicing alternationsTurkish-speaking humansIs the Turkish pattern just limited to the lexicon, or are speakersattuned to it, and use it in their treatment of novel items?In Becker, Ketrez & Nevins (2008), 24 speakers were asked tochoose alternating or non-alternating forms for 72 novel nouns:shape no. of items % alternatingCVC 24 35%CVCC 24 44%CVVC 2 49%CVCVC 22 61%Michael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsTurkish voicing alternationsTurkish-speaking humansWhat correlates best with the speaker’s behavior?predictor alternation R 2 alternation R 2 with placemonosyllabicity 8% 14%length in segments 8% 12%CVC minimality 5% 8%neighborhood density 2% 4%uniqueness point 1% 5%cohort size

alternation rate R!Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsTurkish voicing alternationsTurkish-speaking humansTurkish wugs: Correlations for three models of alternations0.00 0.05 0.10monosyllabicityCVCminimalityneighborhooddensityMichael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsRussian voicing alternationsRussian voicing alternationsMichael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsRussian voicing alternationsIn Russian, like in Turkish, voicing alternations affect some shortwords,snóp ∼ snób-asnóp ∼ snap-áand some long words:‘snob nom.sg/gen.sg’‘sheaf nom.sg/gen.sg’sugróp ∼ sugrób-a ‘snowdrift nom.sg/gen.sg’xalóp ∼ xalóp-a ‘slave nom.sg/gen.sg’Data from Sharoff’s (2005) electronic dictionary (3905 stop-finalnouns): In Russian, shorter words are more likely to alternate —the mirror image of Turkish.Michael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

% alternatorsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsRussian voicing alternationsRussian alternation rates by syllable0% 10% 20% 30% 40%observationsconfidence intervalno. of observations1 2 3 4 5 6 7length in syllablesMichael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

% alternatorsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsRussian voicing alternationsRussian alternation rates by segment0% 25% 50% 75% 100%2 4 6 8 10 12 14length in segmentsMichael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

% alternatorsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsRussian voicing alternationsRussian alternation rates by neighborhood size0% 25% 50% 75% 100%0 5 10 15number of neighborsMichael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsRussian voicing alternationsRussian: Correlation scores for four models of alternations0.00 0.04 0.08alternation rate R!monosyllabicityCVCminimalityneighborhooddensitytokenfrequencyMichael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsRussian voicing alternationsMonosyllabicity is more strongly correlated with voicingalternations than CVC minimality (Wilcoxon rank sum test,W =8∗ 10 5 , p < .001).Because shorter words have more neighbors, and shorter words aremore likely to alternate in Russian, neighborhood density ispositively correlated with alternations in Russian, not negatively asin Turkish.Michael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsComparing Turkish and Russian alternationsComparing Turkish andRussian alternationsMichael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsComparing Turkish and Russian alternationsDifferences between Russian and Turkish:Direction of the size effect: Size is positively correlated withalternations in Turkish, negatively correlated in Russian.Turkish has a three-way contrast: Nicolae & Nevins (beforelunch) show that Turkish uses [sg] and [voice] (withalternators unspecified), whereas Russian only uses [voice](with alternators specified for [voice]).Orthography: Turkish reflects alternations in the spelling,Russian doesn’t.Lower overall alternation rate in Russian.Michael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsComparing Turkish and Russian alternationsTurkish and Russian commonalities:In both languages, neighborhood density is poorly correlatedwith alternations.In both languages, monosyllabicity is well correlated withalternations.The relationship between size and neighborhood densities areessentially the same in both languages (unlike Hebrew, wheremonosyllables are rarer; data from Bolozky & Becker 2006).Michael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

mean no. of neighborsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsComparing Turkish and Russian alternationsDistribution of neighborhood densities0 5 10 15TurkishRussianHebrew2 4 6 8 10 12length in segmentsMichael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsMonosyllabicity as an initial-syllable effectMonosyllabicity as aninitial-syllable effectMichael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsMonosyllabicity as an initial-syllable effectWhat is the typology of size effects, particularly with respect to thelaryngeal alternations?Michael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsMonosyllabicity as an initial-syllable effectInstructive examplesEnglish (Hayes 2009; p. 195):Plurals and denominal verbs create a three-way voicingdistinction in labio-dental and inter-dental fricatives:[sIv ∼ sIvz], [motif ∼ motifs], [dwoôf ∼ dwoôvz].Alternations (including historically innovative ones) arerestricted to monosyllables for many speakers, i.e.polysyllabicity is negatively correlated with alternations.Michael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsMonosyllabicity as an initial-syllable effectInstructive examplesCatalan (Wedel 2002; Ussishkin & Wedel to appear):Alternations are positively correlated with size, as in Turkish:[sErt ∼ sErt@] ‘certain m./f.’ vs. [likit ∼ likið@] ‘liquid m./f.’Catalan contrasts voiceless unaspirates with voiced stops(which can spirantize), as in Russian.Michael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsMonosyllabicity as an initial-syllable effectGrammar or word-similarity?“Words undergo, or resist, morphophonemic alternation in amanner unrelated to the nouns relationship to other lexicalitems.” (Pycha et al. 2007; p. 385)Whether a word-final stop alternates does not depend onglobal phonemic similarity to other words in the lexicon.Rather, such patterns should be accounted for in grammaticalterms, specifically, monosyllabicity.Michael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsMonosyllabicity as an initial-syllable effectThe role of initial-syllable faithfulnessInitial-syllable faithfulness (Steriade 1994; Beckman1997, 1998; Casali 1998) protects the word-initial syllable fromneutralizations and alternations.This includes the initial syllable’s onset and nucleus, but also itscoda (see Beckman 1998’s analysis of Tamil).In monosyllables, the only syllable is also the initial one.Michael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsMonosyllabicity as an initial-syllable effectThe role of initial-syllable faithfulnessTurkish: an alternating monosyllable/ÃoB+I/ [Ãop] *VTV OO-Id(voice) σ1 OO-Id(voice)a. ☞ Ão.bu * *b. Ão.pu *!Turkish: an alternating polysyllable/SaraB+I/ [Sa.rap] *VTV OO-Id(voice) σ1 OO-Id(voice)a. ☞ Sa.ra.b1 *b. Sa.ra.p1 *!Michael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsMonosyllabicity as an initial-syllable effectThe grammar projects lexical statisticsConstraint cloning (Pater 2006, 2009; Becker 2009): Givenevidence for inconsistent ranking, lexical items get listed with themost specific ranking they require.Grammar with cloned initial-syllable faithfulness:Ident σ1 p of monosyllables , Ident q elsewhere≫ *VTV ≫Ident σ1 1-p of monosyllables , Ident 1-q elsewhereIn Turkish, p > q, whereas in Russian, p < q; these allowgeneralizations to novel items in wug-tests.This analysis prevents a host of possible grammars:Syllable-counting based alternations, distinction betweendi-syllables and tri-syllables, etc.Michael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsMonosyllabicity as an initial-syllable effectFurther questions to pursueWhat do Russian speakers do with novel words?Ident(voice) σ1 should protect monosyllables fromalternations, all else being equal. Are Turkish and Catalanmore natural than Russian and English?We are running an artificial grammar learning experiment,testing generalization tasks in languages with asymmetricdistributions of alternations.Michael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsConclusionsConclusionsMichael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsConclusionsSkewed distributions of these voicing alternations (and resultsin novel generalization tasks) are best modeled byinitial-syllable faithfulness, which allows for differentialtreatment of monosyllabic and polysyllabic wordsOther analyses (in terms of moras, segments, or lexicon-basedmeasures) offer less coverage of the variation, or fail to extendto the distribution of alternations in Russian.Initial-syllable faithfulness, originally motivated by staticdistributional evidence, is a multi-purpose formal tool that cankeep track within the grammar of distributional asymmetriesin alternations.Michael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects

Initial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effectsConclusionsThank you!Michael Becker & Andrew NevinsInitial-syllable faithfulness as the best model of word-size effects