Class 8: Phonological typology Adam Albright (albright@mit.edu) LSA - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

SLIDE 1

Class 8: Phonological typology

Adam Albright (albright@mit.edu)

LSA 2017 Phonology University of Kentucky

SLIDE 2

Announcements

▶ For those taking this class for credit

▶ Please upload assignments (option 1 or option 2) by PDF to

Canvas by tonight ▶ T

• day

▶ Questions? ▶ Phonological typology

References 1/38

SLIDE 3

From specific languages to typology

▶ So far: main focus has been on providing rankings that yield set

• f outputs attested in a specific language

▶ However, arguments for constraint formulation and ranking have

been partly language-internal, and partly cross-linguistic

▶ Language-internal: Korean allows laryngeal contrasts on

consonants before a vowel, but not before another consonant

▶ Cross-linguistic: if a language allows laryngeal contrasts before a

consonant, it allows them before a vowel

*[voice]/

¬[+son] ≫ *[voice]/ ¬[−son]

• r: Ident([±voi])/[+son] ≫ *Ident([±voi])/

[+son]

▶ Or in some cases, almost entirely cross-linguistic

▶ Low-ranked markedness constraints ▶ E.g., Limbu: Ident([±voi]) ≫ *

[ −sonorant +voice ]

References 2/38

SLIDE 4

Using typological data to inform constraint formulation

Implicational asymmetries give us insight into…

▶ Which constraints to include

▶ Conjecture (not verified): if a language allows initial #ŋV, it also

allows initial #mV and #nV

▶ *#ŋ constraint without corresponding *#m, *#n: predicts two

type of languages, depending on ranking w.r.t. Ident(place) ▶ Fixed rankings

▶ Verified by Steriade (1999): if a language allows laryngeal

contrasts before a consonant, it allows them before a vowel

▶ *[voice]/

¬[+son] ≫ *[voice]/ ¬[−son]

References 3/38

SLIDE 5

Universal CON?

▶ This reasoning is most straightforward if we can guarantee that

no grammar would ever contain a constraint that would ‘subvert’ the predicted asymmetry

▶ Hypothesis: set of constraints (and, perhaps, a priori rankings) is

fixed and universal (Prince and Smolensky, 2002)

▶ Or, subject to limitations that guarantee asymmetries (Hayes,

1999; Hayes and Steriade, 2004; Smith, 2003) ▶ Assumed by RCD (must be able to identify all L’s from the start)

References 4/38

SLIDE 6

Factorial typology

▶ Space of possible grammars = set of possible rankings ▶ Deriving the set of predicted languages ▶ Virtually guaranteed to be fewer languages than rankings (why?) ▶ Enormous space, but much smaller than possible sets of ordered

rules

References 5/38

SLIDE 7

Evaluating typological predictions of a proposed constraint

▶ Can only be assessed through interaction

▶ In practice, often assessed for just a limited set of constraints

(‘mini-typology’) ▶ T

ypological predictions are independent of lexicon (Richness of the Base)

▶ Assessing fit to attested typology

Predicted/Attested Yes No Yes Correctly analyzable Accidental gap No Exception Correctly excluded

▶ Eliminating exceptions: descriptive adequacy ▶ Minimizing “accidental” gaps → restrictive theory

References 6/38

SLIDE 8

The typology of stress systems

▶ In principle, all of the constraints that we’ve used up until this

point could be submitted to factorial typology and evaluated

▶ Interactions → enormous set of possible languages ▶ Stress assignment: somewhat ‘insulated’ from other parts of the

grammar

▶ Easier to document independently of other features of the

language (modulo morphology)

▶ Easier to assess mini-typology with some confidence

References 7/38

SLIDE 9

Stress

▶ An abstract (“hidden”) property

▶ Liberman (1975); Liberman and Prince (1977): linguistic

manifestation of rhythmic structure

▶ Prosodic prominence = ‘strength’

▶ Behavioral diagnostics (tapping, text alignment) ▶ English: eligibility for phrasal prominences (‘nuclear intonation

tones’, marked with pitch accents)

▶ Diagnosis through pitch accent: calling contour, surprise

redundancy contour

▶ Compare: collàborátion, clàssificátion

▶ Conditions phonological processes

▶ Contrast: e.g., vowel reduction in stressless syllables ▶ Other reductions: e.g., flapping in English

References 8/38

SLIDE 10

Stress

▶ Acoustic correlates: mostly indirect in English (pitch accent)

▶ Inherent: duration, possibly voice quality, following C duration ▶ Accent: intensity/amplitude, pitch

▶ Probably also mostly indirect cues in other languages, though

remarkably few studies dissociating stress from pitch accent

▶ NB: when the most straightforward diagnostics (e.g., stress-based

meter) are unavailable or irrelevant for a given language, the position of stress can be notoriously difficult for non-native listeners to identify!

▶ Misidentification of duration, pitch, etc. associated with position in

word or phrase (French, Welsh)

▶ An interesting problem: difficult also for learners

References 9/38

SLIDE 11

T ypological properties of stress: some universal properties

(Hayes, 1995, chap. 3)

▶ Culminativity: every word or phrase has a single strongest (most

prominent) syllable

▶ Hierarchical organization

▶ Primary, secondary, tertiary stress: Constantinople 23010 vs.

sensationality 32010 ▶ Rhythmic organization

▶ Alternating stressed/stressless syllables ▶ If there are multiple stresses in a given domain, they are generally

spaced at regular intervals: 102020 not *122000

▶ Regular stresses every two (or sometimes three) syllables

▶ No assimilation

▶ Unlike voicing, place, etc., no tendency for adjacent syllables to

agree in stress

▶ In fact, assimilation would destroy rhythmic organization ▶ Often taken as an argument for a distinct representation (not a

feature)

References 10/38

SLIDE 12

Parameters of stress systems

▶ Is the position of stress determined phonologically? (lexical (free)

• vs. fixed stress)

▶ What determines position?

▶ Edges of the word: stress left, right, penultimate, peninitial,

antepenultimate…

▶ Weight: stress ‘heavier’ syllables (long vowel, CVN, CVC, etc.)

(Quantity sensitivity) ▶ Stress just the syllable(s) with relevant property (free stress) or

regularly alternating syllables (bounded stress)

▶ If alternating: binary or ternary?

▶ Morphological sensitivity

References 11/38

SLIDE 13

The representation of stress

▶ Featural (but: no assimilation) ▶ Grid (Prince, 1983; Selkirk, 1984)

× × ×

σ σ σ σ σ a bra ca da bra

▶ Feet: binary vs. ternary, head position

(σ̀ σ) σ (σ́ σ) abra ca dabra

References 12/38

SLIDE 14

Where does stress fall?

Quantity insensitive systems (Gordon, 2002)

▶ Final: Atayal, Moghol, Mazatec ▶ Penultimate: Mohawk, Albanian, Jaqaru ▶ Antepenultimate: Macedonian ▶ Initial: Arabela, Chitimacha, Nenets ▶ Peninitial: Lakhota, Koryak ▶ Postpeninitial: Hocąk (a.k.a. Winnebago) ▶ Rarer: ‘dual’ systems, at/near L and R (one primary, one

secondary) (Not discussed here: quantity sensitive systems, where position of stress depends on vowel length or syllable type)

References 13/38

SLIDE 15

Capturing stress placement with constraints

Gordon (2002): Align(Level n,Edge) Level 2:

×

Level 1:

× ×

Syllables: σ σ σ σσ

▶ Levels: {1,2}, Edges: {L,R} ▶ Every grid mark on Level n must be aligned with the grid mark on

the named edge of Level n-1

▶ Align(Level 1,L): there must be a stress on the leftmost syllable

▶ Example above: satisfies Align(Level 1,L), but violates Align(Level

1,R) ▶ Align(Level 2,L): the leftmost stress must be primary (cf. Hayes,

1995 ‘End Rule Left’)

▶ Example above: violates Align(Level 2,L), but satisfies Align(Level

2,R)

References 14/38

SLIDE 16

Evaluating Align(Level n,Edge): Gordon (2002, p. 499)

(5) Evaluation of the ALIGN constraints

References 15/38

SLIDE 17

Rhythmic stress and windows

▶ *Clash

▶ No sequences of two stressed syllables: *σ́σ́

▶ *Lapse

▶ No sequences of two stressless syllables: *σσ

▶ *Extended Lapse

▶ No sequences of three stressless syllables: *σσσ

▶ Position: *Lapse(R), *Lapse(L), *ExtLapse(R), possibly also

*ExtLapse(L)

References 16/38

SLIDE 18

Rhythmic stress and windows

▶ The idea behind windows: stress wants to be at one edge of the

word, but is prohibited from being more than one/two syllables from the opposite end

▶ Antepenultimate: *ExtLapse(R) ≫ Align(Level 1,L) ≫ Align(Level

1,R) ▶ *Lapse(R), *Lapse(L): penultimate, peninitial stress ▶ *ExtLapse(R): antepenultimate (and *ExtLapse(L) if postpenititial

exists)

▶ Gradient violations: must be better to stay ‘at outer edge of

window’ than to go all the way to opposite edge /σσσσσ/ *ExtLapse(R) Align(Level 1,L) Align(Level 1,R) a. σ́σσσσ *! W **** b. σσ́σσσ *! W * *** c. σσσ́σσ ** ** d. σσσσ́σ ***! * e. σσσσσ́ ***!*

References 17/38

SLIDE 19

Culminativity

▶ Exactly one primary stress ▶ Grids: assign violation for multiple grid marks at highest grid level ▶ Since never violated, perhaps not a rankable constraint?

(requires fancier Gen: intrinsic limitation on grid representations that can be generated)

References 18/38

SLIDE 20

An example: Sibutu Sama (Malayo-Polynesian)

a. bɪssála ‘talk’ b. bɪ̀ssaláhan ‘persuading’ c. bɪ̀ssalahánna ‘he is persuading’ d. bɪ̀ssalahankámi ‘we are persuading’

▶ Initial and penultimate stress (dual system), except in three

syllable words

▶ Initial and penultimate: *Lapse(R) ≫ Align(Level 1,Edges) ≫

Align(Level 1,L), Align(Level 1,R)

▶ Primary stress is the rightmost stress: Align(Level 2,R) ▶ Avoiding *bɪ̀ssála: *Clash

▶ No sequences of two stressed syllables

References 19/38

SLIDE 21

NonFinal

▶ Stress (a level 1 grid mark) does not fall on the final syllable ▶ Violated if final syllable is stressed ▶ Not needed for anything so far, but Gordon includes as a way of

deriving penultimate stress

▶ Only becomes important in systems that require regularly

alternating stress (“bounded stress”)

References 20/38

SLIDE 22

The typology so far

▶ T

welve constraints

▶ Align(Level 1, L), Align(Level 1, R), Align(Level 1, Edges) ▶ Align(Level 2, L), Align(Level 2, R) ▶ *Clash ▶ *Lapse, *Lapse(L), *Lapse(R) ▶ *ExtLapse, *ExtLapse(R) ▶ NonFinality

▶ 12! = 479,001,600 possible rankings ▶ Gordon (2002): calculated possible combinations of stress

placement for words of 1 through 8 syllables

▶ For words of each length, candidates with all possible stress

positions (respecting culminativity) were considered

▶ Yields 10,823,318,000,000 logically possible languages!

References 21/38

SLIDE 23

The typology so far

▶ Result: only 152 combinations actually emerge as optimal under

some ranking

▶ 79 different stress placements, 73 others that switch which stress

is primary and which is secondary ▶ Single stress systems: just 6 predicted (see T

able IV, p. 512)

▶ 5 attested in quantity-insensitive systems ▶ One unattested, but found in a quantity-sensitive language (Hopi)

among words with all light syllables: Penititial stress, but non-finality forces initial stress in words of 2 syllables ▶ Dual stress systems: 34 predicted possibilities (17 placements,

primary at left or right)

▶ Of these, only about 6 are attested ▶ Another 6 have their “opposite side” counterparts attested (same

stress placement, but differs in which side is primary)

References 22/38

SLIDE 24

The typology so far

▶ Some systems are predicted to be impossible, and are unattested

▶ Antepenultimate + penitial: would require simultaneously

highest-ranked Align(Level 1,L) and Align(Level 1,R)

▶ Can’t be derived, and do not occur

▶ Gordon argues that the others are generally ‘close’ to attested

systems

▶ Only 14 dual stress systems attested in total, so accidental gaps

are very likely (no explanation for general rarity)

▶ Many gaps involve independently rare properties (clashes,

penitial stress, etc.)

▶ See Gordon §2.2.3 regarding another possible principle ruling out

some unattested patterns: Uniformity of Primary Stress Placement

References 23/38

SLIDE 25

Summary so far

▶ A pretty good match for fixed stress systems! ▶ Gordon discusses some (small) advantages of Align(Edges)

rather than independent Align(L), Align(R) for dual systems

▶ For fixed stress, feet are unlikely to help make the predictions

even better, since we are not dealing with alternating stresses

References 24/38

SLIDE 26

Assessing fit

▶ Undergeneration: fatal, if true (empirical adequacy)

▶ But apparent exceptions merit careful scrutiny

▶ Overgeneration

▶ Accidental gaps? (low expected probability, or historical

‘accident’)

▶ Additional pressures, such as learnability

References 25/38

SLIDE 27

The midpoint pathology (Kager, 2012; Stanton, 2016)

▶ For short words, possible to satisfy both *(Extended)Lapse(L) and

*(Extended)Lapse(R), by keeping stress towards the middle of the word /σσσσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R)

☞

a. σσσ́σσ b. σσσσσ́ *! W c. σ́σσσσ *! W

▶ For longer words, can’t satisfy both, so satisfy the higher-ranked

• ne and keep stress at the relevant edge

/σσσσσσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) a. σσσσ́σσσ *! W *

☞

b. σ́σσσσσσ * c. σσσσσσσ́ *! W L

References 26/38

SLIDE 28

A ‘midpoint-stress’ language

*ExtendedLapse(L) ≫ *ExtendedLapse(R) ≫ Align(L) ≫ Align(R) 2 syl σ́σ 3 syl σ́σσ 4 syl σσ́σσ 5 syl σσσ́σσ 6 syl σ́σσσσσ 7 syl σ́σσσσσσ 8 syl σ́σσσσσσσ

▶ *ExtLapse(L/R) ≫ Align(L/R): stress can move inside word to

avoid extended lapse

▶ *ExtLapse(L) ≫ *ExtLapse(R): when the word is too long to

satisfy both, it moves to the left side of the word

▶ Align(L) ≫ Align(R): when it’s on the left side of the word, it falls

• n the very first syllable

References 27/38

SLIDE 29

Stanton’s observation

/σσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) Align(R)

☞ a. σ́σ

*

• b. σσ́

*! W L /σσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) Align(R)

☞ a. σ́σσ

**

• b. σσ́σ

*! W * L

• c. σσσ́

*!* W L /σσσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) Align(R)

• a. σ́σσσ

*! W L *** W

☞ b. σσ́σσ

* **

• c. σσσ́σ

**! W * L

• d. σσσσ́

*! W *** W L /σσσσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) Align(R)

• a. σ́σσσσ

*! W L **** W

• b. σσ́σσσ

*! W * L *** W

☞ c. σσσ́σσ

** **

• d. σσσσ́σ

*! W *** W * L

• e. σσσσσ́

*! W **** W L /σσσσσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) Align(R)

☞ a. σ́σσσσσ

* *****

• b. σσ́σσσσ

* * W **** L

• c. σσσ́σσσ

* ** W *** L

• d. σσσσ́σσ

*! W L *** W ** L

• e. σσσσσ́σ

*! W L **** W * L

• f. σσσσσσ́

*! W L ***** W L /σσσσσσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) Align(R)

☞ a. σ́σσσσσσ

* ******

• b. σσ́σσσσσ

* * W ***** L

• c. σσσ́σσσσ

* ** W **** L

• d. σσσσ́σσσ

*! W * *** W *** L

• e. σσσσσ́σσ

*! W L **** W ** L

• f. σσσσσσ́σ

*! W L ***** W * L

• g. σσσσσσσ́

*! W L ****** W L

▶ Clear evidence for Align(L)

≫ Align(R) in 2,3,4-syllable

words

▶ Evidence for *ExtLapse(R) ≫

Align(L) from 5-syllable words

▶ Evidence for *ExtLapse(L) ≫

*ExtLapse(R) only from 6-syllable words and longer

References 28/38

SLIDE 30

On the relative scarcity of long words

Figure 1. Results of the survey of text corpora from 102 languages (see the appendices for more details).

▶ Rough estimate of relative proportion of words of different lengths

in texts of 102 languages

▶ With a few notable exceptions, words of six syllables or longer

make up a very small proportion of the linguistic input

▶ A further caveat not reflected here: long words tend to be

morphologically complex (may show other patterns)

References 29/38

SLIDE 31

Learning from short words

/σσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) Align(R)

☞ a. σ́σ

*

• b. σσ́

* W L /σσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) Align(R)

☞ a. σ́σσ

**

• b. σσ́σ

* W * L

• c. σσσ́

** W L /σσσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) Align(R)

• a. σ́σσσ

* W L *** W

☞ b. σσ́σσ

* **

• c. σσσ́σ

** W * L

• d. σσσσ́

* W *** W L /σσσσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) Align(R)

• a. σ́σσσσ

* W L **** W

• b. σσ́σσσ

* W * L *** W

☞ c. σσσ́σσ

** **

• d. σσσσ́σ

* W *** W * L

• e. σσσσσ́

* W **** W L

▶ Applying RCD

: *ExtLapse(L), *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) Close, but leaves open ranking of *ExtLapse(L), *ExtLapse(R)

References 30/38

SLIDE 32

Learning from short words

/σσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) Align(R)

☞ a. σ́σ

*

• b. σσ́

* W L /σσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) Align(R)

☞ a. σ́σσ

**

• b. σσ́σ

* W * L

• c. σσσ́

** W L /σσσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) Align(R)

• a. σ́σσσ

* W L *** W

☞ b. σσ́σσ

* **

• c. σσσ́σ

** W * L

• d. σσσσ́

* W *** W L /σσσσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) Align(R)

• a. σ́σσσσ

* W L **** W

• b. σσ́σσσ

* W * L *** W

☞ c. σσσ́σσ

** **

• d. σσσσ́σ

* W *** W * L

• e. σσσσσ́

* W **** W L

▶ Applying RCD: *ExtLapse(L), *ExtLapse(R) ≫ Align(L), Align(R)

Close, but leaves open ranking of *ExtLapse(L), *ExtLapse(R)

References 30/38

SLIDE 33

Learning from short words

/σσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) Align(R)

☞ a. σ́σ

*

• b. σσ́

* W L /σσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) Align(R)

☞ a. σ́σσ

**

• b. σσ́σ

* W * L

• c. σσσ́

** W L /σσσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) Align(R)

• a. σ́σσσ

* W L *** W

☞ b. σσ́σσ

* **

• c. σσσ́σ

** W * L

• d. σσσσ́

* W *** W L /σσσσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) Align(R)

• a. σ́σσσσ

* W L **** W

• b. σσ́σσσ

* W * L *** W

☞ c. σσσ́σσ

** **

• d. σσσσ́σ

* W *** W * L

• e. σσσσσ́

* W **** W L

▶ Applying RCD: *ExtLapse(L), *ExtLapse(R) ≫ Align(L) ≫ Align(R) ▶ Close, but leaves open ranking of *ExtLapse(L), *ExtLapse(R)

References 30/38

SLIDE 34

T wo possible refinements

(☹= preferred by generating grammar, losing in acquired grammar)

*ExtLapse(L) ≫ *ExtLapse(R)

/σσσσσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) Align(R)

☞ a. σ́σσσσσσ

* ******

• b. σσ́σσσσσ

* * W ***** L

• c. σσσ́σσσσ

* ** W **** L

• d. σσσσ́σσσ

*! W * *** W *** L

• e. σσσσσ́σσ

*! W L **** W ** L

• f. σσσσσσ́σ

*! W L ***** W * L

• g. σσσσσσσ́

*! W L ****** W L /σσσσσσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) Align(R)

☞ a. σ́σσσσσσσ

* *******

• b. σσ́σσσσσσ

* * W ****** L

• c. σσσ́σσσσσ

* ** W ***** L

• d. σσσσ́σσσσ

*! W * *** W **** L

• e. σσσσσ́σσσ

*! W * **** W *** L

• f. σσσσσσ́σσ

*! W L ***** W ** L

• g. σσσσσσσ́σ

*! W L ****** W * L

• h. σσσσσσσσ́

*! W L ******* W L

Midpoint system

2 syl σ́σ 3 syl σ́σσ 4 syl σσ́σσ 5 syl σσσ́σσ 6 syl σ́σσσσσ 7 syl σ́σσσσσσ

*ExtLapse(R) ≫ *ExtLapse(L)

/σσσσσσ/ *ExtLapse(R) *ExtLapse(L) Align(L) Align(R) ☹ a. σ́σσσσσσ *! W L ****** W

• b. σσ́σσσσσ

*! W * L ***** W

• c. σσσ́σσσσ

*! W ** L **** W

• d. σσσσ́σσσ

*! W * *** L *** W

☞ e. σσσσσ́σσ

* **** **

• f. σσσσσσ́σ

* *****! W * L

• g. σσσσσσσ́

* *****!* W L /σσσσσσσ/ *ExtLapse(R) *ExtLapse(L) Align(L) Align(R) ☹ a. σ́σσσσσσσ *! W ******* W

• b. σσ́σσσσσσ

*! W * L ****** W

• c. σσσ́σσσσσ

*! W ** L ***** W

• d. σσσσ́σσσσ

*! W * *** L **** W

• e. σσσσσ́σσσ

*! W * **** L *** W

☞ f. σσσσσσ́σσ

* ***** **

• g. σσσσσσσ́σ

* ******! W * L

• h. σσσσσσσσ́

* ******!* W L

Antepenultimate stress

2 syl σ́σ 3 syl σ́σσ 4 syl σσ́σσ 5 syl σσσ́σσ 6 syl σσσσ́σσ 7 syl σσσσσ́σσ

References 31/38

SLIDE 35

Ambiguity in short words

▶ The consequence: based on data from words less than 6

syllables, learners exposed to a midpoint system might infer that they are learning antepenultimate stress instead

▶ Hoped-for claim: the midpoint system is ‘unstable’, in that

learners may not reliably recover it, and go for antepenultimate stress instead ▶ But a problem: since midpoint and antepenultimate stress are

ambiguous in short words, learners exposed to antepenultimate stress might just as well assume that they are learning the midpoint system!

▶ Where we are actually at now: predict variability or changes in

both directions ▶ Where does the antepenultimate bias come from?

References 32/38

SLIDE 36

The learning algorithm matters

▶ RCD does not explain the antepenultimate stress bias, because in

short words, both *ExtLapse(L) and *ExtLapse(R) are ‘W-only’ constraints, so remain highly ranked

▶ Stanton’s conjecture: human learners actually use a ranking

algorithm that doesn’t just demote L’s, but also promotes W’s (Boersma, 1997; Magri, 2012)

▶ Why this will help:

▶ Short words give a lot of evidence for Align(L) ≫ Align(R) ▶ If this evidence is used to demote Align(R) and promote Align(L),

then Align(L) will end up above other markedness constraints

▶ Similarly, 4- and 5-syllable words provide evidence for

*ExtLapse(R) ≫ Align(L), causing it to be promoted as well

▶ Consequence: *ExtLapse(L) is ‘left in the dust’ (not promoted until

you get 6+ syllable words, at which point it might be too late ▶ Background: the Gradual Learning Algorithm, slides 43–46 from

Class 7

References 33/38

SLIDE 37

Learning from short words: promotion and demotion

/σσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R)

←Align(L)

Align(R)→

☞ a. σ́σ

*

• b. σσ́

* W L /σσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R)

←Align(L)

Align(R)→

☞ a. σ́σσ

**

• b. σσ́σ

* W * L

• c. σσσ́

** W L /σσσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R)

←Align(L)

Align(R)→

• a. σ́σσσ

* W L *** W

☞ b. σσ́σσ

* **

• c. σσσ́σ

** W * L

• d. σσσσ́

* W *** W L /σσσσσ/ *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R)

←Align(L)

Align(R)→

• a. σ́σσσσ

* W L **** W

• b. σσ́σσσ

* W * L *** W

☞ c. σσσ́σσ

** **

• d. σσσσ́σ

* W *** W * L

• e. σσσσσ́

* W **** W L

▶ The shortest and most frequent words give lots of unambiguous

evidence to demote Align(R), and now we also promote Align(L)

References 34/38

SLIDE 38

Learning from short words: promotion and demotion

/σσ/ Align(L)← *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R)

→Align(R)

☞ a. σ́σ

*

• b. σσ́

* W L /σσσ/ Align(L)← *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R)

→Align(R)

☞ a. σ́σσ

**

• b. σσ́σ

* W * L

• c. σσσ́

** W L /σσσσ/ Align(L)← *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R)

→Align(R)

• a. σ́σσσ

L * W *** W

☞ b. σσ́σσ

* **

• c. σσσ́σ

** W * L

• d. σσσσ́

*** W * W L /σσσσσ/ Align(L)← *ExtLapse(L) *ExtLapse(R)

→Align(R)

• a. σ́σσσσ

L * W **** W

• b. σσ́σσσ

* L * W *** W

☞ c. σσσ́σσ

** **

• d. σσσσ́σ

*** W * W * L

• e. σσσσσ́

**** W * W L

▶ The shortest and most frequent words give lots of unambiguous

evidence to demote Align(R), and now we also promote Align(L)

References 34/38

SLIDE 39

Learning from short words: promotion and demotion

/σσ/

←Align(L)→

*ExtLapse(L)

←*ExtLapse(R) ←Align(R)→

☞ a. σ́σ

*

• b. σσ́

* W L /σσσ/

←Align(L)→

*ExtLapse(L)

←*ExtLapse(R) ←Align(R)→

☞ a. σ́σσ

**

• b. σσ́σ

* W * L

• c. σσσ́

** W L /σσσσ/

←Align(L)→

*ExtLapse(L)

←*ExtLapse(R) ←Align(R)→

• a. σ́σσσ

L * W *** W

☞ b. σσ́σσ

* **

• c. σσσ́σ

** W * L

• d. σσσσ́

*** W * W L /σσσσσ/

←Align(L)→

*ExtLapse(L)

←*ExtLapse(R) ←Align(R)→

• a. σ́σσσσ

L * W **** W

• b. σσ́σσσ

* L * W *** W

☞ c. σσσ́σσ

** **

• d. σσσσ́σ

*** W * W * L

• e. σσσσσ́

**** W * W L

▶ 4- and 5-syllable words provide evidence that *ExtLapse(R) or

Align(R) must outrank Align(L)

▶ But we know Align(L) ≫ Align(R), reinforced by lots more data ▶ So eventually just *ExtLapse(R) is promoted

References 34/38

SLIDE 40

Learning from short words: promotion and demotion

/σσ/ *ExtLapse(R)←

←Align(L)→

*ExtLapse(L)

←Align(R)→

☞ a. σ́σ

*

• b. σσ́

* W L /σσσ/ *ExtLapse(R)←

←Align(L)→

*ExtLapse(L)

←Align(R)→

☞ a. σ́σσ

**

• b. σσ́σ

* W * L

• c. σσσ́

** W L /σσσσ/ *ExtLapse(R)←

←Align(L)→

*ExtLapse(L)

←Align(R)→

• a. σ́σσσ

* W L *** W

☞ b. σσ́σσ

* **

• c. σσσ́σ

** W * L

• d. σσσσ́

*** W * W L /σσσσσ/ *ExtLapse(R)←

←Align(L)→

*ExtLapse(L)

←Align(R)→

• a. σ́σσσσ

* W L **** W

• b. σσ́σσσ

* W * L *** W

☞ c. σσσ́σσ

** **

• d. σσσσ́σ

*** W * W * L

• e. σσσσσ́

**** W * W L

▶ 4- and 5-syllable words provide evidence that *ExtLapse(R) or

Align(R) must outrank Align(L)

▶ But we know Align(L) ≫ Align(R), reinforced by lots more data ▶ So eventually just *ExtLapse(R) is promoted

References 34/38

SLIDE 41

The resulting grammar

*ExtLapse(R) ≫ Align(L) ≫ *ExtLapse(L) ≫ Align(R)

▶ This ranking works for words of 2–5 syllables (see previous slide) ▶ But it predicts antepenultimate stress for longer words

/σσσσσσ/ *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) *ExtLapse(L) Align(R) ☹ a. σ́σσσσσ *! W L L ***** W

• b. σσ́σσσσ

*! W * L L **** W

• c. σσσ́σσσ

*! W ** L L *** W

☞ d. σσσσ́σσ

*** * **

• e. σσσσσ́σ

****! W * * L

• f. σσσσσσ́

****!* W * L /σσσσσσσ/ *ExtLapse(R) Align(L) *ExtLapse(L) Align(R) ☹ a. σ́σσσσσσ *! W L L ****** W

• b. σσ́σσσσσ

*! W * L L ***** W

• c. σσσ́σσσσ

*! W ** L L **** W

• d. σσσσ́σσσ

*! W *** L * *** W

☞ e. σσσσσ́σσ

**** * **

• f. σσσσσσ́σ

*****! W * * L

• g. σσσσσσσ́

*****!* W * L

▶ Result: regardless of whether the learner was trained on midpoint

• r antepenultimate stress, it learns an antepenultimate grammar

▶ …at least, until long words are encountered, if it’s not too late

References 35/38

SLIDE 42

Stepping back: the approach, more generally

▶ Some unattested systems may be possible to capture

grammatically, but are difficult to learn

▶ Goal: theory of grammatical learning that predicts that learners,

when exposed to typical input from a ‘difficult’ pattern, systematically misacquire it as a different, more commonly attested pattern

▶ Potential to explain not only unattested systems, but also rare

systems (which we can’t exclude as impossible grammars, anyway)

▶ Converging evidence: acquisition data, learning in the lab?

References 36/38

SLIDE 43

References

Boersma, P . (1997). How we learn variation, optionality, and probability. Proceedings

• f the Institute of Phonetic Sciences of the University of Amsterdam 21, 43–58.

http://fon.hum.uva.nl/paul/. Gordon, M. (2002). A factorial typology of quantity-insensitive stress. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20, 491–552. Hayes, B. (1995). Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hayes, B. (1999). Phonological restructuring in Yidiɲ and its theoretical consequences. In B. Hermans and M. van Oostendorp (Eds.), The Derivational Residue in Phonological Optimality Theory, pp. 175–205. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hayes, B. and D. Steriade (2004). The phonetic basis of phonological markedness. In

• B. Hayes, R. Kirchner, and D. Steriade (Eds.), Phonetically based phonology, pp.

1–33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kager, R. (2012). Stress in windows: Language typology and factorial typology. Lingua 122, 1454–1493. Liberman, M. (1975). The Intonational System of English. Ph. D. thesis, MIT. Liberman, M. and A. Prince (1977). On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 249–336.

References 37/38

SLIDE 44

References

Magri, G. (2012). Convergence of error-driven ranking algorithms. Phonology 29(2), 213–269. Prince, A. (1983). Relating to the grid. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 19–100. Prince, A. and P . Smolensky (1993/2002). Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. T echnical report, Rutgers RuCCS-TR-2/University of Colorado, Boulder CU-CS-696-93. ROA 537, 8/2002 version. Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Smith, J. (2003). T

• wards a compositional treatment of positional constraints: The

case of positional augmentation. In A. Carpenter, A. Coetzee, and P . de Lacy (Eds.), UMass Occasional Papers in Linguistics (UMOP) 26, pp. 337–370. Amherst, MA: GLSA. Stanton, J. (2016). Learnability shapes typology: the case of the midpoint pathology. Language 92, 753–791. Steriade, D. (1999). Phonetics in phonology: The case of laryngeal neutralization. In

• M. K. Gordon (Ed.), UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, Number 2: Papers in

Phonology 3, pp. 25–146. http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/steriade/papers/phoneticsinphonology.pdf.

References 38/38