Transcript Linguistics 460

Li6 Phonology and
Morphology
Rule ordering
Today’s topics


Rule ordering
How this relates to the general cognitive
problems of:


intermediate representations
opacity
Opacity in computing
Any crucial ordering
relationship between
lines 20 and 30?
10
20
30
40
for N = 1 to 10
N=N-5
N = N/2
next
Any evidence for the
intermediate reps
created by lines 20
and 30?
1
2
-4 -3
-2 -1.5
What happens when we have
two or more rules?
they may not interfere with one another



e.g. aspiration and nasal assimilation
however, they sometimes do interfere with
one another
English syllabification and
glottalization
Surface representations:
σ
ha[?t]
σ σ
a[th]ain
σ
σ σ
A[?t]lantic
English flapping, lengthening,
and Canadian Raising

What happens for people whose flapping rule
neutralizes the underlying voicing distinction?

i.e. both /t, d/ → [R]
a. mat
cot
leaf
suit
b. writer
otter
latter
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
mad
cod
leave
sued
rider (NB flapping wrt Canadian Raising)
odder
ladder
Homshetsma stress, epenthesis,
and lowering
a. kherál
kheralnér
kheralluγús
b. ergán
ergenthsenél
ergenthsenelóv
c. kheráles
im bábes
im bábs-al
d. ásdaγ
asdγér
king
kings
my kingdom
long
lengthen
lengthening
this king
my father
my father also
star
stars
Modern Hebrew
a.
šavar
taval
pazal
he broke
he immersed
he squirted
b.
yi-dafes
sagur
batuax
kišat-eti ~ kišat-ti
kišat-etem ~ kišat-tem
yarad-eti ~ yarat-ti
yarad-etem ~ yarat-tem
it will be printed
closed (sg)
confident (sg)
I decorated
you (pl) decorated
I descended
you (pl) descended
c.
d.
yi-žbor
ti-dbol
yi-vzol
bzil-a
(h)i-tpis
zgur-im
ptux-im
he will break
you will immerse
he will squirt
squirting
he printed
closed (pl)
confident (pl)
Shona
UR
n-puka
n-tume
n-kuni
n-bereko
surface form
mhuka
nhume
(ŋ)huni
mbereko
gloss
animal
messenger
firewood
cradleskin
compare
kapuka ‘small animal’
-tuma (verb stem)
rukuni ‘log’
-bereka ‘bear’
Ordering relationships

feeding




bleeding





opposite ordering compared to feeding
NB ≠ bleeding!
Hamshen epenthesis vs stress assignment
counterbleeding





R1 removes environment relevant for application of R2
Hebrew voice assimilation vs e-insertion
counterfeeding


R1 creates environment relevant for application of R2
English syllabification vs glottalisation
Hamshen epenthesis vs lowering
opposite ordering compared to bleeding
NB ≠ feeding!
English flapping vs lengthening
Shona place assimilation vs debuccalization
can a pair of rules be in more than one relationship at once?
Karok (Bright 1957)
imv.
pasip
kifnuk
si:tva
suprih
1st sing.
ni-pasip
ni-kifnuk
ni-Si:tva
niSuprih
?aktuv ni?aktuv
?axjar ni-xjar
?iSkak ni-Skak
3d sing.
?u-pasip
?u-kifnuk
?u-si:tva
?u-suprih
?u?aktuv
?u-xjar
?uskak
gloss
shoot
stoop
steal
measure
pluck at
fill
jump
† 15-10-2006
RULES
vowel truncation V → Ø / V_
glottal insertion Ø → ? / #_V
palatalization
s → S / i(C)_
PROBLEMS?
•
•
in /u-iskak/, palatalization could
conceivably apply but doesn’t
in /ni-uksup/, palatalization could
conceivably not apply but does
SAMPLE DERIVATIONS
Psychological aspects
of rule ordering
Opacity in cognition

How to get up the tree?
Origins of opacity

Counterbleeding has simple historical origin,
e.g. e  a / _ r wrt coda r deletion in English:



[sta:v] < sterv-, [va:]sity < (uni)versity, parson,
derby, Cherwell…
E lowering: late Middle English period (<1500)
R deletion: by 17th century
Acquisition of ordering
First learn rules/generalisations
independently
 When confronted with a situation where
two or more generalisations come in
conflict, a decision needs to be made



Arbitrary choice: pigeons
Is the ordering chosen ever non-arbitrary?

E.g. do humans always pick transparent
ordering if possible?
Opacity in L1 acquisition
Figures from Jesney 2005
Opacity in L2 acquisition

Counterfeeding chain shift substitution

Cho and Lee 2001, Idsardi 2002 on opacity in
Korean acq of English
 sin

Counterbleeding repairs


→ sjin + thin → sin
Weinberger 1987:412—Mandarin learners of
English who apply final epenthesis before final Ccluster simplification, e.g. <and>  [aenә]
Counterfeeding and counterbleeding in toy L2
acq…
Opacity in toy L2 acq

Vaux, Nevins, Dye, and Keren (ongoing)

Learners exposed to PLD providing evidence for two
generalizations:
VØ/_V
sš/_i

SATA
KOP
 How
KOPI
KOPO
SATI
SATO
KOPO
do these interact in absence of evidence for
interaction in PLD?

DES, SO…
Opacity in toy L2 acq

Predictions of canonical DP for NES, BASA

Possible systems
{neši, basi, nešo, baso} (CF+CB) [SP >> VD]
 {neši, baši, neso, baso} (transparent) [VD >> SP]
 {neši, baši, nešo, bašo} (CB) [VD&SP cycl., either order]


Impossible systems
Any set including [nesi]
 {neši, baši, nešo, baso}, {neši, baši, neso, bašo}, {neši,
basi, neso, baso}, {neši, basi, nešo, bašo}, {neši, basi,
neso, bašo}


Predictions of canonical OT


Nothing with basi (CF), bašo (CB), nešo (CB)
Preliminary results 
Opacity in toy L2 acq

Preliminary results
form
nešo
basi
# of Ss
1/8, 1/12
8/12
DP predicts?


OT predicts?
x
x
Predictions: levels that can be
targeted by phonological
processes
monostratalists
• Turkish accesses postdevoicing, Russian is predevoicing
• no palatalization in
Japanese orthography
/UR/
rule 1
rule 2
rule 3
rule 4
rule 5
rule 6
…
rule 567
rule 568
rule 569
[SR]
some such processes:
• writing systems
• rhyme, meter, etc.
• priming/access effects
• language games
derivationalists
Korean speech errors

Nominative case:


/-ka/ when stem is V-final
/-i/ elsewhere
From Norvin Richard’s lecture notes
Welsh speech errors

Mutations with carreg ‘stone’:




y garreg ‘the stone’ (soft mutation)
fy ngharreg ‘my stone’ (nasal mutation)
ei charreg ‘her stone’ (aspirate mutation)
radical
soft
nasal
aspirate
p
b
mh
ph
b
f
m
t
d
nh
d
dd
n
c
g
ngh
g
Ø
ng
m
f
ll
l
rh
r
th
ch
Meara and Ellis 1981




Say you have a sequence as x bn y, where:
 a,b = words triggering mutation in following word
 s = soft mutation, n = nasal mutation
 x,y = words undergoing mutation
Say you have a speech error xy, yielding as y bn x
Such errors happen, with each of the following outcomes:
 transposed C’s undergo the mutation of their new environment,
 C’s mutate BEFORE reversing.
Conclusion: errors can target UR, SR, or PR (phonetic rep).
Cuna

Sherzer 1970, Talking backwards in Cuna
/b:, d:, g:/  [p,t,k]
Cuna
reversed
gloss
i.na
na.i
medicine
da.ge
ge.da
come
sa.ban
ban.sa
belly
ob.sa
sa.ob
bathed
ar.gan
ga.nar
hand
go.e
e.go
deer
sa.pan
ban.sab
firewood
sa.te
de.sad
no

da.ke
ge.dag
see







no initial or final clusters
no initial or final p,t,k
neg ‘house + gine ‘inside’  nekine ‘inside the house’
Parallels for underlying gemination contrast surfacing as
voicing contrast or vice versa: Veneto, Pirahã (Everett
1988, Topintzi 2004), Swiss German (Ham 2001,
Kraehenmann 2001), ?Hittite, Yolngu Djapu (Morphy 1983)
NB some speakers have ban.sa, de.sa, ge.da for the last
three forms
Cf. rule reordering in Korean?
Why does it happen?
UR
/sabban/
/sadde/
/dagge/
UR
/sabban/
/sadde/
/dagge/
syllabification
sab.ban
sad.de
dag.ge
syllabification
sab.ban
sad.de
dag.ge
reversal
ban.sab
de.sad
ge.dag
degemination
sa.ban
sa.de
da.ge
devoicing
--
--
--
reversal
ban.sa
de.sa
ge.da
degemination
--
--
--
devoicing
--
--
--
SR
[bansab]
[desad]
[gedag]
SR
[bansa]
[desa]
[geda]
Anisfeld 1969




Chomsky and Halle 1968:229
 /d/
z
[s]
decide  decis-ive
 /t/
[s]
permit  permiss-ive
 Is this intermediate stage (z) psychologically real?
Nonce forms garlude, yermit, etc.
Forced choice for -ive derivative:
 garluzive : garlushive : garluthive : garlufive
 yermizive : yermishive : yermithive : yermifive
Results
 preference: z > sh > th > f
 Ss chose [z] significantly more for /d/-final verbs than for /t/-final
verbs
 Judgements weren’t based on sound similarity (stimuli controlled for
this)
 Anisfeld attributes preference to accessing intermediate -zrepresentation
Conclusions

Chomsky’s insight in his 1951 MA thesis:



Synchronic grammar may mirror historical grammar
in having temporally ordered application of rules
Linguistic generalizations can be opaque (nonsurface-true)
There is strong psycholinguistic evidence for
this claim
Sample derivations: Karok
UR
ni-pasip ni-si:tva
u-iskak
ni-uksup
vowel
—
truncation
glottal
—
insertion
palatalization —
—
uskak
niksup
—
?uskak
—
niSi:tva
—
nikSup
SR
niSi:tva
?uskak
nikSup
nipasip
References
Anisfeld, Moshe. 1969. Psychological evidence for an intermediate stage in a morphological derivation. Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 8:191-195.
Bright, William. 1957. The Karok language. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Butterworth, Brian. 1981. Speech errors—old data in search of new theories. Linguistics 19.7/8:627-662.
Cho, Mi-Hui and Shinsook Lee. 2003. The acquisition of fricatives: chain shift cases of English and Korean.
Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 9.2:485-498.
Chomsky, Noam. 1951. The morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew. Master’s thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Random House.
Dinnsen, Daniel and Jessica Barlow. 1998. On the characterization of a chain shift in normal and delayed
phonological acquisition. Journal of Child Language 25:61-94.
Idsardi, William. 2002. Further Opacity Issues: Spontaneous L2 Opacity. Proceedings of the 2002 Linguistic
Society of Korean International Summer Conference volume II, pp. 259-265.
Jesney, Karen. 2005. Chain shift in phonological acquisition. Master’s thesis, University of Calgary.
Meara, Paul and Andrew Ellis. 1981. The psychological reality of deep and surface phonological representations:
Evidence from speech errors in Welsh. Linguistics 19:797-804.
Min, Haesik. 1997. Syllabification in Korean: Evidence from speech errors. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics
7:167-180.
Sankoff, David & Pascale Rousseau. 1989. Statistical evidence for rule ordering. Language Variation and Change
1:1-18.
Sherzer, Joel. 1970. Talking backwards in Cuna: the sociological reality of phonological descriptions.
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 26:343-353.
Smith, Neilson. 1973. The Acquisition of Phonology: A Case Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Velten, Harry. 1943. The growth of phonemic and lexical patterns in infant language. Language 19.4:281-292.
Weinberger, Steven. 1987. The influence of linguistic context on syllable simplification. In G. Ioup & S.
Weinberger, eds., Interlanguage phonology. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.