Li6 Phonology and Li6 Phonology and MorphologyMorphology

Rule ordering

Today’s topicsToday’s topics

Rule ordering How this relates to the general cognitive

problems of: intermediate representations opacity

Opacity in computingOpacity in computing

10 for N = 1 to 10

20 N = N - 5

30 N = N/2

40 next

Any crucial ordering relationship between lines 20 and 30?

Any crucial ordering relationship between lines 20 and 30?

Any evidence for the intermediate reps created by lines 20 and 30?

Any evidence for the intermediate reps created by lines 20 and 30?

1 2

-4 -3

-2 -1.5

What happens when we have What happens when we have two or more rules?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 English syllabification and glottalizationglottalization

Surface representations:

σ σ σ σ σ σ

ha[t] a[th]ain A[t]lantic

English flapping, lengthening, English flapping, lengthening, and Canadian Raisingand Canadian Raising

What happens for people whose flapping rule neutralizes the underlying voicing distinction? i.e. both /t, d/ → []

a. mat : madcot : codleaf : leavesuit : sued

b. writer : rider (NB flapping wrt Canadian Raising)

otter : odderlatter : ladder

Homshetsma stress, epenthesis, Homshetsma stress, epenthesis, and loweringand lowering

a. kherál kingkheralnér kingskheralluγús my kingdom

b. ergán longergenthsenél lengthenergenthsenelóv lengthening

c. kheráles this kingim bábes my fatherim bábs-al my father also

d. ásdaγ starasdγér stars

Modern HebrewModern Hebrew

a. šavar he broke yi-žbor he will breaktaval he immersed ti-dbol you will immersepazal he squirted yi-vzol he will squirt

bzil-a squirtingb. yi-dafes it will be printed (h)i-tpis he printed

sagur closed (sg) zgur-im closed (pl)batuax confident (sg) ptux-im confident (pl)

c. kišat-eti ~ kišat-ti I decoratedkišat-etem ~ kišat-tem you (pl) decorated

d. yarad-eti ~ yarat-ti I descendedyarad-etem ~ yarat-tem you (pl) descended

ShonaShona

UR surface form gloss compare

n-puka mhuka animal kapuka ‘small animal’

n-tume nhume messenger -tuma (verb stem)

n-kuni (ŋ)huni firewood rukuni ‘log’

n-bereko mbereko cradleskin -bereka ‘bear’

Ordering relationshipsOrdering relationships feeding

R1 creates environment relevant for application of R2 English syllabification vs glottalisation Hamshen epenthesis vs lowering

bleeding R1 removes environment relevant for application of R2 Hebrew voice assimilation vs e-insertion

counterfeeding opposite ordering compared to feeding NB ≠ bleeding! Hamshen epenthesis vs stress assignment

counterbleeding 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)Karok (Bright 1957)

imv. 1st sing. 3d sing. gloss

pasip ni-pasip u-pasip shoot

kifnuk ni-kifnuk u-kifnuk stoop

si:tva ni-i:tva u-si:tva steal

suprih ni-uprih u-suprih measure

aktuv ni-aktuv u-aktuv pluck at

axjar ni-xjar u-xjar fill

ikak ni-kak uskak jump

uksup ni-kup u-ksup point

ikah ni-kah u-ksah laugh

RULESvowel truncation V → Ø /

V_glottal insertion Ø → /

#_Vpalatalization s → /

i(C)_

SAMPLE DERIVATIONS

PROBLEMS?• in /u-iskak/, palatalization could

conceivably apply but doesn’t• in /ni-uksup/, palatalization could

conceivably not apply but does

† 15-10-2006

Psychological aspects Psychological aspects of rule orderingof rule ordering

Opacity in cognitionOpacity in cognition

How to get up the tree?

Origins of opacityOrigins 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 orderingAcquisition 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 acquisitionOpacity in L1 acquisition

Figures from Jesney 2005

Opacity in L2 acquisitionOpacity in L2 acquisition Counterfeeding chain shift substitution

Cho and Lee 2001, Idsardi 2002 on opacity in Korean acq of English

sin → sjin + thin → sin Counterbleeding repairs

Weinberger 1987:412—Mandarin learners of English who apply final epenthesis before final C-cluster simplification, e.g. <and> [aenә]

Counterfeeding and counterbleeding in toy L2 acq…

Vaux, Nevins, Dye, and Keren (ongoing) Learners exposed to PLD providing evidence for two

generalizations:V Ø / _ Vs š / _ i

How do these interact in absence of evidence for interaction in PLD?

DES, SO…

Opacity in toy L2 acqOpacity in toy L2 acq

KOP KOPI KOPO KOPO

SATA SATI SATO

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 systemsAny 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 acqOpacity in toy L2 acq

Preliminary results

Opacity in toy L2 acqOpacity in toy L2 acq

form # of Ss DP predicts? OT predicts?

nešo 1/8, 1/12 x

basi 8/12 x

Predictions: levels that can be Predictions: levels that can be targeted by phonological targeted by phonological processesprocesses

/UR/rule 1rule 2rule 3rule 4rule 5rule 6…rule 567rule 568rule 569[SR]

monostratalistsmonostratalists

derivationalistsderivationalists

some such processes:• writing systems• rhyme, meter, etc.• priming/access effects• language games

some such processes:• writing systems• rhyme, meter, etc.• priming/access effects• language games

• Turkish accesses post-devoicing, Russian is pre-devoicing

• no palatalization in Japanese orthography

Korean speech errorsKorean speech errors

Nominative case: /-ka/ when stem is V-final /-i/ elsewhere

From Norvin Richard’s lecture notes

Welsh speech errorsWelsh speech errors Mutations with carreg ‘stone’:

y garreg ‘the stone’ (soft mutation) fy ngharreg ‘my stone’ (nasal mutation) ei charreg ‘her stone’ (aspirate mutation)

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 xy, 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).

radical soft nasal aspirate

p b mh ph

b f m

t d nh th

d dd n

c g ngh ch

g Ø ng

m f

ll l

rh r

Sherzer 1970, Talking backwards in Cuna /b:, d:, g:/ [p,t,k]

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?

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

UR /sabban/ /sadde/ /dagge/

syllabification sab.ban sad.de dag.ge

reversal ban.sab de.sad ge.dag

devoicing -- -- --

degemination -- -- --

SR [bansab] [desad] [gedag]

UR /sabban/ /sadde/ /dagge/

syllabification sab.ban sad.de dag.ge

degemination sa.ban sa.de da.ge

reversal ban.sa de.sa ge.da

devoicing -- -- --

SR [bansa] [desa] [geda]

CunaCuna

Anisfeld 1969Anisfeld 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 -z-

representation

ConclusionsConclusions

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 (non-

surface-true) There is strong psycholinguistic evidence for

this claim

Sample derivations: KarokSample derivations: Karok

UR ni-pasip ni-si:tva u-iskak ni-uksup

vowel truncation

— — uskak niksup

glottal insertion

— — uskak —

palatalization — nii:tva — nik

SR nipasip nii:tva uskak nik

ReferencesReferencesAnisfeld, 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.