Dissertation - Michael Becker

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TABLE OF CONTENTSPageACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viiiCHAPTER1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 Lexical trends and constraint cloning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1.1 Identifying lexical trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.1.2 Lexical trends and conflicting grammars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.1.3 Constraint cloning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.1.4 Replicating lexical statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111.2 Structure of the dissertation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172. UNIVERSAL LEXICAL TRENDS IN TURKISH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192.2 Turkish lexicon study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232.3 Speakers’ knowledge of the lexicon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322.3.1 Materials and method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332.3.1.1 Speakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332.3.1.2 Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332.3.1.3 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352.3.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362.3.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412.4 Analysis with cloned constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422.4.1 Constraint cloning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432.4.2 The place effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47x
2.4.3 The size effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512.4.4 Combining place and size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 562.4.5 The complex coda effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592.4.6 Voicing alternations and k∼∅ alternations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612.4.7 Summary of the analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642.5 General-purpose learning with the MGL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 652.5.1 Materials and method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662.5.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 672.5.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 682.6 UR-based approaches to final devoicing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 692.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 713. SURFACE-BASED LEXICAL TRENDS IN HEBREW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 743.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 743.2 Hebrew plurals: Lexicon study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 763.3 Speakers’ knowledge of lexical trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823.3.1 Materials and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823.3.2 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843.3.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843.3.4 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883.4 Using markedness constraints to learn lexical trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903.4.1 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913.4.2 Ranking conflicts trigger the formation of generalizations . . . . . . . . . . 993.4.3 Learning specific patterns first . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043.4.4 Vowel harmony and [o]-licensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1093.5 Product-orientedness in an artificial language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1123.5.1 Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1153.5.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1163.5.3 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1193.5.4 Transcription and encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1203.5.5 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1213.5.5.1 Generalization differences between the groups . . . . . . . . . . 1223.5.5.2 No memorization differences between the groups . . . . . . . 1263.5.5.3 Bias towards –im . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1283.5.5.4 Errors and vowel perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1303.5.5.5 Summary of the experimental results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131xi
Page 1 and 2: PHONOLOGICAL TRENDS IN THE LEXICON:
Page 3 and 4: PHONOLOGICAL TRENDS IN THE LEXICON:
Page 5 and 6: ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWorking on this diss
Page 7 and 8: For saving my life, I thank Dr. Deb
Page 9: of voicing alternations in the lexi
Page 13 and 14: 4.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . .
Page 15 and 16: are several reasons for thinking ab
Page 17 and 18: etween conflicting grammars, which
Page 19 and 20: (2)/sprEd + d/ *DD DEP MAXa. ☞ sp
Page 21 and 22: (4)/gaId + d/ *DD MAX DEPa. ☞ gaI
Page 23 and 24: At this point, the ranking algorith
Page 25 and 26: pattern is. Speakers use their gram
Page 27 and 28: once two segments are merged into o
Page 29 and 30: Similarly for the Ù -final nouns,
Page 31 and 32: the singular or only in the plural.
Page 33 and 34: of the final stop, but they do not
Page 35 and 36: IDENT(voice) σ1 . The existence of
Page 37 and 38: Of the 3002 nouns in TELL whose bar
Page 39 and 40: (22) Height of stem-final vowel n %
Page 41 and 42: A closer examination of vowel round
Page 43 and 44: While high has a larger R 2 than si
Page 45 and 46: ackness of final stem vowels are al
Page 47 and 48: syllable of the CVCVC words were re
Page 49 and 50: faithfully. The participants saw an
Page 51 and 52: (32) Differences between high and n
Page 53 and 54: to alternating responses than the b
Page 55 and 56: contrasted with general-purpose sta
Page 57 and 58: RCD takes winner-loser pairs such a
Page 59 and 60: RCD. Pater (2006, 2008b) proposes a
Page 61 and 62:
To replicate the effect that place
Page 63 and 64:
(45)ID(voice) *VtV *VÙV amaÙ *VÙ
Page 65 and 66:
generally don’t alternate, regard
Page 67 and 68:
(51)IDENT IDENT σ1saÙ IDENT σ1ta
Page 69 and 70:
To summarize, the analysis of the s
Page 71 and 72:
with clones of the specific IDENT(v
Page 73 and 74:
vowel, namely *RpV, *RtV, *RÙV, an
Page 75 and 76:
(60) bare stem possessivea. ok ok-u
Page 77 and 78:
Since the deleting dorsals and the
Page 79 and 80:
The MGL works by reading in pairs o
Page 81 and 82:
(66) The difference in rates of alt
Page 83 and 84:
(67) a. The UR’s of [at] and [tat
Page 85 and 86:
Speakers chose voicing alternations
Page 87 and 88:
CHAPTER 3SURFACE-BASED LEXICAL TREN
Page 89 and 90:
-ot with nouns that have [o] in the
Page 91 and 92:
(71) a. Natural gender: Whenever a
Page 93 and 94:
The data in (75) shows that ot-taki
Page 95 and 96:
will stay agnostic about the status
Page 97 and 98:
a-a a-o i-o o-axaSáS (-ót) makór
Page 99 and 100:
∼ morad-ót ‘slope’, gág ∼
Page 101 and 102:
(83) Nonce words and the percent of
Page 103 and 104:
experiment 1 of Berent et al. 1999,
Page 105 and 106:
The licensing effect emerges when s
Page 107 and 108:
(86)xalon MASC + {im MASC , ot FEM
Page 109 and 110:
stress stays on the root 11 , so an
Page 111 and 112:
(96)Sem MASC + {im MASC , ot FEM }
Page 113 and 114:
frequency of ot-taking in the lexic
Page 115 and 116:
(100) LOCAL(o) xalon ≫ φ-MATCH
Page 117 and 118:
3.4.3 Learning specific patterns fi
Page 119 and 120:
The problem here is that a single l
Page 121 and 122:
As the speaker learns the rest of t
Page 123 and 124:
Under this view, three kinds of Heb
Page 125 and 126:
that distinguishes local licensing
Page 127 and 128:
(114) “surface” language “dee
Page 129 and 130:
garlic, carrots, loquats, zucchinis
Page 131 and 132:
(118) Here’s one MASC on the righ
Page 133 and 134:
3.5.4 Transcription and encodingFor
Page 135 and 136:
in §3.5.5.2, (c) Speakers were bia
Page 137 and 138:
for the combined stem vowel change
Page 139 and 140:
the ability to observe any vowel ef
Page 141 and 142:
(128)memorization score0 5 10 15 20
Page 143 and 144:
3.5.5.4 Errors and vowel perception
Page 145 and 146:
3.6.1 The role of Universal Grammar
Page 147 and 148:
that is indifferent to the vowel of
Page 149 and 150:
changes could apply in two differen
Page 151 and 152:
The experimental results cannot be
Page 153 and 154:
ode) to form the past tense of nove
Page 155 and 156:
output is not present due to faithf
Page 157 and 158:
[o] often choose -ot, or one can sa
Page 159 and 160:
trends in the lexicon and allows th
Page 161 and 162:
pair from the Support, but leaving
Page 163 and 164:
simple minimal conflict, which can
Page 165 and 166:
While this grammar will correctly d
Page 167 and 168:
(139) or (141), the choice of const
Page 169 and 170:
(150)C1 C2 C3a. winner1 ≻ loser1
Page 171 and 172:
that the likelihood of ot-taking in
Page 173 and 174:
(155)C1 C2 C3 C4a. winner1 ≻ lose
Page 175 and 176:
introduced, the clone, are discusse
Page 177 and 178:
*VÙV and ONSET below IDENT(voice)
Page 179 and 180:
(161)*VÙV 〈taÙ,IDENTσ1 〉 IDE
Page 181 and 182:
The cloning subroutine in described
Page 183 and 184:
ability to learn a morphological ca
Page 185 and 186:
(165)*VÙVIDENT(voice)a. anaÙ-1 PO
Page 187 and 188:
c. Make ∅ the domain of C W and C
Page 189 and 190:
three listed possessive forms. Sinc
Page 191 and 192:
A fully general mechanism for findi
Page 193 and 194:
cloning. Subjecting the Support in
Page 195 and 196:
Adding the feature that causes an u
Page 197 and 198:
one tested. Each hypothesis in turn
Page 199 and 200:
and the learner’s form are differ
Page 201 and 202:
irrelevant for the derivation of y1
Page 203 and 204:
from its distribution, and if two c
Page 205 and 206:
My approach is in keeping with a ce
Page 207 and 208:
In the UR-based analysis, the gramm
Page 209 and 210:
of phonological primitives that con
Page 211 and 212:
preference for frequent mappings wi
Page 213 and 214:
that the vowel of the accusative su
Page 215 and 216:
(195) IDENT(cont) IDENT(voice) IDEN
Page 217 and 218:
To summarize, the Korean case shows
Page 219 and 220:
In the approach that attributes hid
Page 221 and 222:
Both ways of dealing with [sOt] - c
Page 223 and 224:
following a (non-high) long vowel o
Page 225 and 226:
(200) Affixation neutralizes a cont
Page 227 and 228:
d/ → gaIdId), while some verbs re
Page 229 and 230:
[-Er] only appears when it’s insi
Page 231 and 232:
It might be worth noting that the d
Page 233 and 234:
CHAPTER 5CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIR
Page 235 and 236:
stem or only in the plural stem for
Page 237 and 238:
5.2.2 The search for underlying rep
Page 239 and 240:
fact, unbounded at the phrasal leve
Page 241 and 242:
BIBLIOGRAPHYAharoni, Moti (2007). D
Page 243 and 244:
Boersma, Paul (2001). Phonology-sem
Page 245 and 246:
Inkelas, Sharon & Cemil Orhan Orgun
Page 247 and 248:
Merchant, Nazarré (2008). Discover
Page 249 and 250:
Tesar, Bruce (1998). Using the mutu
show all

Dissertation - Michael Becker

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?