Phonological trends in the lexicon Michael Becker University of Massachusetts Amherst michael.becker@phonologist.org EVELIN 2012 UNICAMP / MIT Campinas, Brazil 1 / 30
Overview • • Overview The empirical domain (today and Terça) Morphophonology ◦ Relations between words and morphophonology Lexical trends ◦ What are phonological trends in the lexicon? Speakers’ knowledge ◦ What do native speakers know? Limits of speakers’ knowledge ◦ What can phonological trends teach us about grammar? Is grammar not enough? • Theory (Quarta) Summary ◦ A grammatical model of lexical trends in Optimality Theory ◦ Grammatical vs. representational approaches (+rules) ◦ Problems with analogical models • Practicum (Quinta) ◦ Finding lexical trends ◦ Designing, running and interpreting experiments ◦ Relating theoretical and experimental work 2 / 30
• Overview Morphophonology • Morphological relations • Morphological knowledge • The wug test • Regular affixation • Irregular affixation Lexical trends Morphophonology Speakers’ knowledge Limits of speakers’ knowledge Is grammar not enough? Summary 3 / 30
Morphological relations • • Overview English speakers understand that some words are related to Morphophonology each other • Morphological • relations Some words are not related in the same way • Morphological knowledge • The wug test • Regular affixation • Irregular affixation Lexical trends Speakers’ knowledge Limits of speakers’ knowledge Is grammar not enough? Summary 4 / 30
Morphological relations • • Overview English speakers understand that some words are related to Morphophonology each other • Morphological relations • Morphological ◦ “dog” and “dogs” are related: knowledge “Dogs” contains the sound and the meaning of “dog”. • The wug test • Regular affixation ◦ “Dogs” and “cats” are also related: • Irregular affixation Lexical trends they share the meaning “plural” • Speakers’ knowledge they share a presence of a final alveolar strident — • Limits of speakers’ [z] in [d Og z], [s] in [kæts]. knowledge Is grammar not enough? • Some words are not related in the same way Summary 4 / 30
Morphological relations • • Overview English speakers understand that some words are related to Morphophonology each other • Morphological • relations Some words are not related in the same way • Morphological knowledge ◦ “Dog” and “cat” don’t share anything (beyond being nouns) • The wug test • Regular affixation ◦ “Scissors” does not have the singular “scissor”. • Irregular affixation It is not a plural of anything. Lexical trends ◦ Similarly, “fairness” is not related to a plural Speakers’ knowledge Limits of speakers’ knowledge Is grammar not enough? Summary 4 / 30
Morphological knowledge • • Overview What do native speakers know about plurals? Morphophonology • How do we know they know this? • Morphological relations • Why should we care? • Morphological knowledge • The wug test • Regular affixation • Irregular affixation Lexical trends Speakers’ knowledge Limits of speakers’ knowledge Is grammar not enough? Summary 5 / 30
Morphological knowledge • • Overview What do native speakers know about plurals? Morphophonology • Morphological ◦ They know singular words (“cat”, “dog”, “fairness”), and they relations • Morphological know plural words (“cats”, “dogs”, “scissors”). knowledge ◦ They know about connections between singulars and plurals: • The wug test • Regular affixation PLURAL PLURAL ← − − − → [kæt], [d Og z] ← − − − → [d Og ], etc. [kæts] • Irregular affixation ◦ They know about the connections between plural forms: Lexical trends [s], [z], [ I z] all express plurality in [kæts], [d Og z], [sænw IÙI z] Speakers’ knowledge Limits of speakers’ (also [a I ] in [ma I s], [la I s]). knowledge ◦ They know the distribution of the plural forms: the plural of Is grammar not enough? “car” is [k Aô z], *[k Aô s], *[k AôI z]. Summary • How do we know they know this? • Why should we care? 5 / 30
Morphological knowledge • • Overview What do native speakers know about plurals? Morphophonology • How do we know they know this? • Morphological relations • Morphological ◦ We test how they use real words (1): knowledge “What word better describes this picture, ‘house’ or ‘houses’?” • The wug test • Regular affixation ◦ We test how they use real words (2): • Irregular affixation “What is a better plural for ‘car’, [k Aô z] or [k Aô s]?” Lexical trends ◦ We test how they use made-up words (1): Speakers’ knowledge Limits of speakers’ “This is a wug . Now there is another one. knowledge There are two .” Is grammar not enough? ◦ We test how they use made-up words (2): Summary “Is [spl I ks] a good description of this picture?” “Is [spl Ig z] a good description of this picture?” • Why should we care? 5 / 30
Morphological knowledge • • Overview What do native speakers know about plurals? Morphophonology • How do we know they know this? • Morphological relations • Why should we care? • Morphological knowledge ◦ Because children show that the task is far from trivial. • The wug test • Regular affixation • Irregular affixation Lexical trends Speakers’ knowledge Limits of speakers’ knowledge Is grammar not enough? Summary 5 / 30
The wug test • • Overview This technique was pioneered by Berko (1958) Morphophonology • What did the kids do? • Morphological relations • Real words are different from novel words. • Morphological knowledge • The wug test • Regular affixation • Irregular affixation Lexical trends Speakers’ knowledge Limits of speakers’ knowledge Is grammar not enough? Summary 6 / 30
The wug test • • Overview This technique was pioneered by Berko (1958) Morphophonology • Morphological relations • Morphological knowledge • The wug test • Regular affixation • Irregular affixation Lexical trends Speakers’ knowledge Limits of speakers’ knowledge Is grammar not enough? Summary • What did the kids do? • Real words are different from novel words. 6 / 30
The wug test • • Overview This technique was pioneered by Berko (1958) Morphophonology • What did the kids do? • Morphological relations • Morphological ◦ The kids were very good at pluralizing wug (why?) knowledge ◦ but not very good at pluralizing niz • The wug test • Regular affixation ◦ At the same age, most of them were able to say and use the • Irregular affixation plural glasses . Lexical trends Speakers’ knowledge • Real words are different from novel words. Limits of speakers’ knowledge Is grammar not enough? Summary 6 / 30
The wug test • • Overview This technique was pioneered by Berko (1958) Morphophonology • What did the kids do? • Morphological relations • Real words are different from novel words. • Morphological knowledge • The wug test Possible explanations for the wug/niz difference: • Regular affixation • Irregular affixation ◦ Something special about the distribution of [ I z] plurals? Lexical trends ◦ Something special about the phonological operation? Speakers’ knowledge ◦ Other? Limits of speakers’ knowledge Kids need time to master this aspect of the plural morphology. Is grammar not enough? Summary How do adults relate real words and nonce words? 6 / 30
Regular affixation • • Overview Regular morpheme concatenation Morphophonology • Regular concatenation with allomorphy • Morphological • relations Regular stem changes • Morphological knowledge • The wug test • Regular affixation • Irregular affixation Lexical trends Speakers’ knowledge Limits of speakers’ knowledge Is grammar not enough? Summary 7 / 30
Regular affixation • • Overview Regular morpheme concatenation Morphophonology • Morphological English progressive: talk ∼ talking , sleep ∼ sleeping , etc. ◦ relations • Morphological Completely exceptionless: have ∼ having , be ∼ being knowledge Arabic 1 st person plural: [kitab-na] ‘our book’, [fihim-na] ‘we ◦ • The wug test • Regular affixation understood’ or ‘he understood us’ • Irregular affixation ◦ Turkish relativizer [-ki] Lexical trends ◦ Romance adverbs: [-mã] / [-mente] / [-m˜ e Ù i] Speakers’ knowledge Limits of speakers’ knowledge • Regular concatenation with allomorphy Is grammar not • Regular stem changes enough? Summary 7 / 30
Regular affixation • • Overview Regular morpheme concatenation Morphophonology • Regular concatenation with allomorphy • Morphological relations • Morphological ◦ English indefinite article: [ @ n] before vowels, [ @ ] otherwise knowledge ◦ Berber reciprocal: [n-] if the base has a labial, e.g. [n-kaddab], • The wug test • Regular affixation [m-] otherwise, e.g. [m-qarrad] • Irregular affixation Lexical trends Mostly regular: Speakers’ knowledge ◦ Limits of speakers’ English plural: [ I z] after stridents, otherwise [s] after voiceless knowledge obstruents, [z] otherwise Is grammar not enough? ◦ Portuguese plural: [s] after vowels, [is] otherwise Summary • Regular stem changes 7 / 30
Recommend
More recommend
