Dissertation - Michael Becker

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION1.1 Lexical trends and constraint cloningIn a wide variety of languages, there are cases of morphological categories that areexpressed in more than one way. In English, for instance, the past tense is expressed on themajority of verbs by adding –ed, but on some verbs, the past tense is expressed by changinga vowel to [E], e.g. feed ∼ fed, hold ∼ held.A common theme in such limited-scope processes is their reported applicability to novelwords. English speakers, for instance, are willing to offer pred as the past tense of preed,productively extending the limited pattern of changing a root vowel to [E] (Albright &Hayes 2003).Furthermore, speakers’ willingness to apply a limited process to some novel form Xdepends on the number of existing base forms like X that do and don’t undergo the minorityprocess. Speakers are aware of the proportion of the words that undergo a minority processout of the total number of eligible words, i.e. speakers identify a trend in the applicationof the process in their lexicon (henceforth, a lexical trend), and apply this trend to novelitems. Results of this type are reported by Zuraw (2000), Albright & Hayes (2003), Hayes& Londe (2006), <strong>Becker</strong>, Ketrez & Nevins (2007), and several others.The wish to account for lexical trends in grammatical terms goes back at least asfar as SPE (Chomsky & Halle 1968), where some lexical trends were derived by minorrules, i.e. rules that are formulated using the same mechanisms that are used for regularrules, but with a limited lexical scope. Other grammatical mechanisms, such as stochasticgrammars, were offered in Zuraw (2000) and Hayes & Londe (2006), among others. There1
are several reasons for thinking about lexical trends in grammatical terms: One reason isthat lexical trends are stated with reference to the same objects that are characteristic ofregular grammatical phenomena, such as phonological elements (features, syllables, etc.)and morphological elements (noun, root, etc.). Another, related reason is that lexical trendsin one language are often found as regular grammatical processes in other languages: Forexample, intervocalic voicing is regular in Korean, but is a trend in Turkish, affecting stemfinalstops in some words but not others.Much work on lexical trends assumes a grammar-external mechanism, such as Pinker& Prince’s (1988) dual model. In this line of work, grammar (as constrained by UniversalGrammar) is in charge of the “regular rules” of the language, while minority patterns aretaken care of by associative networks.This view makes the prediction that UniversalGrammar effects will not be visible in lexical trends – a prediction not borne out byobservation.A study of the distribution of voicing alternations in Turkish (chapter 2, see also <strong>Becker</strong>,Ketrez & Nevins 2007) shows that speakers are constrained by Universal Grammar whenthey learn this distribution. Turkish speakers replicate the effect of grammatical principleson the distribution, such as initial syllable faithfulness and place of articulation, and ignorenon-grammatical principles, such as a relationship between vowel height and the voicingof a following consonant.In work on plural selection in Hebrew (chapter 3), I show that speakers select pluralsuffixes based on the surface form of the plural stem rather than based on the stem’sunderlying representation, even though there is no evidence in the existing words ofHebrew for stating the generalization over surface forms. This preference is attributedto the markedness component of Universal Grammar, which is biased towards statinggeneralization over surface forms.The product-oriented aspect of lexical trends was also noted in Albright & Hayes(2003). In the English past tense, several vowels in the present change to [o] in the past: [aI]2
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 and 10: of voicing alternations in the lexi
Page 11 and 12: 2.4.3 The size effect . . . . . . .
Page 13: 4.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . .
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?