Class 6: Underlying forms Adam Albright (albright@mit.edu) LSA 2017 Phonology University of Kentucky
Announcements ▶ For those taking this class for credit ▶ Option 1: assignment 2 due today, assignment 3 will be posted today (due next Monday 7/31) ▶ Option 2: short paper/squib due next Monday 7/31 ▶ Game plan for the last few sessions ▶ T oday: underlying forms ▶ Thursday: learning constraint rankings ▶ Next Monday: phonological typology References 1/46
Step 2: notice that root-final voicing is unpredictable Step 3: notice that root-final voicing is contextually neutralized Step 4: hypothesize underlying representations (UR’s) for morphemes /diːb/, /liːd/, /kʁiːɡ/, /pʁɪntsiːp/, /ɡəbiːt/ Step 5: devise rules/constraint rankings that change UR’s into observed surface forms in the right contexts Final devoicing A pedagogically conventional phonology problem Sg. Pl. Gloss Sg. Pl. Gloss diːp diːbə ‘thief’ pʁɪntsiːp pʁɪntsiːpjən ‘principle’ liːt liːdɐ ‘song’ gəbiːt ɡəbiːtə ‘area’ kriːk kriːɡə ‘war’ blɪk blɪkə ‘glance’ braːf braːvə ‘good’ (adj.) ʃaːf ʃaːfə ‘sheep’ kraɪs kraɪzə ‘circle’ ɡlaɪs ɡlaɪsə ‘track’ ▶ Step 1: morpheme segmentation References 2/46
Step 3: notice that root-final voicing is contextually neutralized Step 4: hypothesize underlying representations (UR’s) for morphemes /diːb/, /liːd/, /kʁiːɡ/, /pʁɪntsiːp/, /ɡəbiːt/ Step 5: devise rules/constraint rankings that change UR’s into observed surface forms in the right contexts Final devoicing A pedagogically conventional phonology problem Sg. Pl. Gloss Sg. Pl. Gloss diːp diːb–ə ‘thief’ pʁɪntsiːp pʁɪntsiːp–jən ‘principle’ liːt liːd–ɐ ‘song’ gəbiːt ɡəbiːt–ə ‘area’ kriːk kriːɡ–ə ‘war’ blɪk blɪk–ə ‘glance’ braːf braːv–ə ‘good’ (adj.) ʃaːf ʃaːf–ə ‘sheep’ kraɪs kraɪz–ə ‘circle’ ɡlaɪs ɡlaɪs–ə ‘track’ ▶ Step 1: morpheme segmentation ▶ Step 2: notice that root-final voicing is unpredictable References 2/46
Step 4: hypothesize underlying representations (UR’s) for morphemes /diːb/, /liːd/, /kʁiːɡ/, /pʁɪntsiːp/, /ɡəbiːt/ Step 5: devise rules/constraint rankings that change UR’s into observed surface forms in the right contexts Final devoicing A pedagogically conventional phonology problem Sg. Pl. Gloss Sg. Pl. Gloss diːp diːb–ə ‘thief’ pʁɪntsiːp pʁɪntsiːp–jən ‘principle’ liːt liːd–ɐ ‘song’ gəbiːt ɡəbiːt–ə ‘area’ kriːk kriːɡ–ə ‘war’ blɪk blɪk–ə ‘glance’ braːf braːv–ə ‘good’ (adj.) ʃaːf ʃaːf–ə ‘sheep’ kraɪs kraɪz–ə ‘circle’ ɡlaɪs ɡlaɪs–ə ‘track’ ▶ Step 1: morpheme segmentation ▶ Step 2: notice that root-final voicing is unpredictable ▶ Step 3: notice that root-final voicing is contextually neutralized References 2/46
Step 5: devise rules/constraint rankings that change UR’s into observed surface forms in the right contexts Final devoicing A pedagogically conventional phonology problem Sg. Pl. Gloss Sg. Pl. Gloss diːp diːb–ə ‘thief’ pʁɪntsiːp pʁɪntsiːp–jən ‘principle’ liːt liːd–ɐ ‘song’ gəbiːt ɡəbiːt–ə ‘area’ kriːk kriːɡ–ə ‘war’ blɪk blɪk–ə ‘glance’ braːf braːv–ə ‘good’ (adj.) ʃaːf ʃaːf–ə ‘sheep’ kraɪs kraɪz–ə ‘circle’ ɡlaɪs ɡlaɪs–ə ‘track’ ▶ Step 1: morpheme segmentation ▶ Step 2: notice that root-final voicing is unpredictable ▶ Step 3: notice that root-final voicing is contextually neutralized ▶ Step 4: hypothesize underlying representations (UR’s) for morphemes ▶ /diːb/, /liːd/, /kʁiːɡ/, /pʁɪntsiːp/, /ɡəbiːt/ References 2/46
A pedagogically conventional phonology problem Sg. Pl. Gloss Sg. Pl. Gloss diːp diːb–ə ‘thief’ pʁɪntsiːp pʁɪntsiːp–jən ‘principle’ liːt liːd–ɐ ‘song’ gəbiːt ɡəbiːt–ə ‘area’ kriːk kriːɡ–ə ‘war’ blɪk blɪk–ə ‘glance’ braːf braːv–ə ‘good’ (adj.) ʃaːf ʃaːf–ə ‘sheep’ kraɪs kraɪz–ə ‘circle’ ɡlaɪs ɡlaɪs–ə ‘track’ ▶ Step 1: morpheme segmentation ▶ Step 2: notice that root-final voicing is unpredictable ▶ Step 3: notice that root-final voicing is contextually neutralized ▶ Step 4: hypothesize underlying representations (UR’s) for morphemes ▶ /diːb/, /liːd/, /kʁiːɡ/, /pʁɪntsiːp/, /ɡəbiːt/ ▶ Step 5: devise rules/constraint rankings that change UR’s into observed surface forms in the right contexts ▶ Final devoicing References 2/46
Reverse engineering phonological systems ▶ We observe the set of forms that speakers produce ▶ We wish to infer ▶ A grammar: determines set of potential forms ▶ A lexicon: determines what speakers actually produce ▶ Division of labor ▶ We have argued that grammar should be restrictive : concentrate probability mass on the type of outputs that are seen ▶ However, it’s likely that not all unattested strings/words are ungrammatical: English [gæt], [kɪf], [dæk], … ▶ Evidence: acceptability judgments (the blick test), readily adopted as names, truncations, loan words, and slang terms ▶ Some differences in attestedness are accidents of the lexicon References 3/46
Reverse engineering grammars and lexicons The data that we observe imposes certain conditions on the analysis ▶ The set of surface forms liːt, braːf, ʃaːfə, kraɪzə, liːdɐ, kriːk, braːvə, ɡlaɪsə, ɡəbiːtə, blɪk, pʁɪntsiːp, diːbə, kriːgə, ʃaːf, diːp, kraɪs, blɪkə, gəbiːt, ɡlaɪs, pʁɪntsiːpjən ▶ Condition: they must be in the range of the function ▶ I.e., grammar must assign non-zero probability to these outputs, given some input(s) ▶ We don’t know what input(s), and it doesn’t matter for purposes of satisfying this condition ▶ Paradigmatic relations liːt ∼ liːd-, gəbiːt ∼ gəbiːt ▶ Desideratum: analyze morphologically related forms as derived from the same input ▶ Creates an additional condition: there must be input(s) for which the grammar favors these pairs of surface forms, depending on context ▶ Again, we don’t know what input(s) References 4/46
Reverse engineering grammars and lexicons ▶ Other information about mappings: loan adaptation, etc. English [klʌb] ⇒ German [klʊp] ▶ Condition: for some input like the source form, grammar must favor surface form ▶ These sources of data impose conditions on the solution (the range of the function, and, to a lesser extent, mappings), but do not directly tell us how speakers represent the actual morphemes of their language. References 5/46
Underdetermination ▶ German: voiced pulmonic stops (b,d,g) do not contrast with voiced implosive stops (ɓ,ɗ,ɠ) ▶ Conjecture: implosives map to their pulmonic counterparts /ɗa/ *[ + implos] Ident ([±voi]) *[voi]/ [ + son] Ident ([±implos]) a. ɗa *! W * L ☞ b. da * * c. ta *! W L * ▶ German has voiced obstruents before sonorants, but not before obstruents or word-finally /bad/ *[voi]/ ¬ [ + son] Ident ([±voi]) *[voi]/ [ + son] a. bad *! W L b. bat * * ☞ c. pat **! W L References 6/46
Ident Ident Ident Ident Underdetermination Putting this together /ɓaɗ/ *[ + implos] *[voi] *[voi] / ¬ [ + son] (±voi) / [ + son] (±implos) a. ɓaɗ *!* W * W L * L b. ɓad *! W * W L * * L c. ɓat *! W * * * L d. baɗ *! W * W L * * L e. bad *! W L * ** ☞ f. bat * * ** g. pat **! W L ** /ɓaɗ + ə/ *[ + implos] *[voi] *[voi] / ¬ [ + son] (±voi) / [ + son] (±implos) a. ɓaɗə *!* W ** L b. baɗə *! W ** * L ☞ c. badə ** ** d. batə *! W * L ** References 7/46
Ident Ident Ident Ident Underdetermination Putting this together /bad/ *[ + implos] *[voi] *[voi] / ¬ [ + son] (±voi) / [ + son] (±implos) a. ɓaɗ *!* W * W L * ** W b. ɓad *! W * W L * * W c. ɓat *! W * * * W d. baɗ *! W * W L * * W e. bad *! W L * ☞ f. bat * * g. pat **! W L /bad + ə/ *[ + implos] *[voi] *[voi] / ¬ [ + son] (±voi) / [ + son] (±implos) a. ɓaɗə *!* W ** ** W b. baɗə *! W ** * W ☞ c. badə ** d. batə *! W * L References 8/46
Underdetermination ▶ Intuitively: since Ident ([±implos]) is ranked below all Markedness constraints on [±implos], output does not depend on whether input is [ + implos] or [ − implos] ▶ Therefore, this grammar is consistent with multiple assumptions about the lexicon ▶ Different considerations favor different solutions ▶ Economy: since [±implosive] is predictable in German, omit specification from the lexicon altogether ▶ Transparency/concreteness: since segments are always [ − implosive] in German, represent them as such in the lexicon References 9/46
Output-Driven Maps T esar (2008, et seq) ▶ T ableaux above illustrate a nice property of the “core” OT system that we’ve been using here ▶ If /A/ maps unfaithfully to [B], then /B/ must also map to [B] ▶ T esar: output-driven map ▶ Intuition about why: harmonic bounding ▶ This reduces the search space for underlying forms, and can also helps learners break into the system to start making inferences about rankings References 10/46
Recommend
More recommend
