Dissertation - Michael Becker

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Bat-El, Outi (1993). Parasitic metrification in the modern hebrew stress system. TheLinguistic Review 10. 189–210.Bat-El, Outi (2008a). A gap in the feminine paradigm of Hebrew: A consequenceof identity avoidance in the suffix domain. In Curt Rice (ed.) When Nothing Wins:Modelling Ungrammaticality in OT, London: Equinox.Bat-El, Outi (2008b). Morphologically conditioned V-∅ alternation in Hebrew: Distinctionamong nouns, adjectives & participles, and verbs. In Sharon Armon-Lotem, Gabi Danon& Susan Rothstein (eds.) Generative Approaches to Hebrew Linguistics.Becker, Michael (2003). Lexical statification of Hebrew: The disyllabic maximum. InYehuda N. Falk (ed.) Proceedings of the Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics19.Becker, Michael (2007). From the lexicon to a stochastic grammar. Workshop on Variation,Gradience and Frequency in Phonology, Stanford Univesity.Becker, Michael, Nihan Ketrez & Andrew Nevins (2007). The surfeit of the stimulus:Analytic biases filter lexical statistics in Turkish devoicing neutralization. Ms. UMassAmherst.Beckman, Jill (1997). Positional faithfulness, positional neutralisation and Shona vowelharmony. Phonology 14. 1–46.Beckman, Jill (1998). Positional Faithfulness. Ph.D. dissertation, UMass, Amherst.Beckman, Jill N. & Catherine O. Ringen (2004). Contrast and redundancy in OT. In VineetaChand, Ann Kelleher, Angelo J. Rodríguez & Benjamin Schmeiser (eds.) Proceedingsof WCCFL 23, Cascadilla Press. 85–98.Benua, Laura (1997). Transderivational Identity: Phonological Relations between Words.Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Berent, Iris, Steven Pinker & Joseph Shimron (1999). Default nominal inflection inHebrew: Evidence for mental variables. Cognition 72. 1–44.Berent, Iris, Steven Pinker & Joseph Shimron (2002). The nature of regularity andirregularity: Evidence from Hebrew nominal inflection. Journal of PsycholinguisticResearch 31. 459–502.Berko, Jean (1958). The child’s learning of english morphology. Word 14. 150–177.Blevins, Juliette (2004). Evolutionary phonology: the emergence of sound patterns.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Boersma, Paul (1997). How we learn variation, optionality, and probability. In IFAProceedings.229
Boersma, Paul (2001). Phonology-semantics interaction in ot, and its acquisition. In RobertKirchner, Wolf Wikeley & Joe Pater (eds.) Papers in Experimental and TheoreticalLinguistics, University of Alberta, vol. 6. 24–35.Boersma, Paul & Bruce Hayes (2001). Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm.Linguistic Inquiry 32. 45–86.Boersma, Paul & David Weenink (2008). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (version5.0.24). [Computer program].Bolozky, Shmuel & Michael Becker (2006). Living Lexicon of Hebrew Nouns. Ms. UMassAmherst.Borowsky, Toni (1987). Antigemination in English phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 18.671–678.Breiman, Leo, Jerome Friedman, R. A. Olshen & Charles J. Stone (1984). Classificationand regression trees. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth International Group.Cassimjee, Farida & Charles Kisseberth (1998). Optimal domains theory and bantutonology: A case study from isixhosa and shingazidja. In Larry Hyman & CharlesKisseberth (eds.) Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Tone, Stanford: CSLI. 33–132.Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle (1968). The Sound Pattern of English. the MIT press.Clayton, Mary L. (1976). The redundance of underlying morpheme-structure conditions.Language 52. 295–313.Coetzee, Andries W. (2008).Language 84. 218–257.Grammaticality and ungrammaticality in phonology.Daelemans, Walter, Jakub Zavrel, Ko Van Der Sloot & Antal Van Den Bosch (2002). Timbl:Tilburg memory based learner reference guide, version 4.2. Tilburg: ComputationalLinguistics, Tilburg University.de Lacy, Paul (2004). Markedness conflation in optimality theory. Phonology 21. 145–199.Ernestus, Miriam & R. Harald Baayen (2003). Predicting the Unpredictable: InterpretingNeutralized Segments in Dutch. Language 79. 5–38.Faust, Noam (2008). In a position to spell out: The syntactic structure of vocalic patternsin Hebrew. Ms. University of Paris VII.Féry, Caroline (2003). Final devoicing and the stratification of the lexicon in german.In Jeroen van de Weijer, Vincent J. van Heuven & Harry van der Hulst (eds.) ThePhonological Spectrum 1: Segmental Structure, John Benjamins. 145–169.Flack, Kathryn (2007a). The sources of phonological markedness. Ph.D. dissertation,UMass Amherst.230
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 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: BIBLIOGRAPHYAharoni, Moti (2007). D
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?