Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:05:55.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variation awaiting bias: Substantively biased learning of vowel harmony variation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2021

Youngah DO Open the ORCID record for Youngah DO [Opens in a new window]  and
Shannon MOONEY
Youngah DO*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, The University of Hong Kong
Shannon MOONEY
Affiliation:
Center for New Designs in Learning and Scholarship, Georgetown University, USA
*
Address for correspondence: Youngah Do, Department of 930 Run Run Shaw Tower, Department of Linguistics, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines whether children alter a variable phonological pattern in an artificial language towards a phonetically-natural form. We address acquisition of a variable rounding harmony pattern through the use of two artificial languages; one with dominant harmony pattern, and another with dominant non-harmony pattern. Overall, children favor harmony pattern in their production of the languages. In the language where harmony is non-dominant, children's subsequent production entirely reverses the pattern so that harmony predominates. This differs starkly from adults. Our results compare to the regularization found in child learning of morphosyntactic variation, suggesting a role for naturalness in variable phonological learning.

Keywords

learning biasesphonologysubstantive biasvariationartificial language learning
Type
Brief Research Report
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , March 2022 , pp. 397 - 407
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barnes, J. A. (2002). Positional neutralization: A phonologization approach to typological patterns (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from <https://escholarship.org/content/qt82v7g3d2/qt82v7g3d2.pdf?t=nmcvw0>..>Google Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-8, http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. (2004). Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, A. C. (2005). Acquisition of a natural vs. An unnatural stress system. In Brugos, A., Clark-Cotton, M. R., & Ha, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 134–143). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Carpenter, A. C. (2006). Acquisition of a natural versus an unnatural stress system (Doctoral dissertation).Google Scholar
Carpenter, A. C. (2010). A naturalness bias in learning stress. Phonology, 27(3), 345–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cedergren, H. J., & Sankoff, D. (1974). Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language, 50(2), 333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, K. E., Onishi, K. H., & Fisher, C. (2010). A vowel is a vowel: Generalizing newly learned phonotactic constraints to new contexts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(3), 821–828.Google ScholarPubMed
Cristià, A., & Seidl, A. (2008). Is infants’ learning of sound patterns constrained by phonological features? Language Learning and Development, 4(3), 203–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culbertson, J. (2012). Typological universals as reflections of biased learning: Evidence from artificial language learning. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(5), 310–329. doi: 10.1002/lnc3.338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culbertson, J., & Newport, E. L. (2015). Harmonic biases in child learners: In support of language universals. Cognition, 139, 71–82. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.02.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Culbertson, J., Smolensky, P., & Legendre, G. (2011). Learning biases predict a word order universal. Cognition, 122(3), 306–329. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.017CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. H. (Ed.), Universals of language (pp. 73–113). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Guy, G. R., & Boberg, C. (1997). Inherent variability and the obligatory contour principle. Language Variation and Change, 9(2), 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, M., & Reiss, C. (2000). Phonology as cognition. In Burton-Roberts, N., Carr, P., & Docherty, G. J. (Eds.), Phonological knowledge: Conceptual and empirical issues (pp. 161–184). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harrison, K. D., & Kaun, A. (2001). Patterns, pervasive patterns and specification. In Hall, T. A. (Ed.), Distinctive feature theory (pp. 211–236). Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kam, C. L. H., & Newport, E. L. (2005). Regularizing unpredictable variation: The roles of adult and child learners in language formation and change. Language Learning and Development, 1(2), 151–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kam, C. L. H., & Newport, E. L. (2009). Getting it right by getting it wrong: When learners change languages. Cognitive Psychology, 59(1), 30–66. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.01.001Google ScholarPubMed
Kaun, A. R. (1995). The typology of rounding harmony: An optimality theoretic approach (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from < https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/38305/PDF/1/play/>..>Google Scholar
Kaun, A. R. (2004). The typology of rounding harmony. In Bronson, B. S. (Ed.), Phonetically based phonology (pp. 87–116). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koo, H. (2007). Change in the adult phonological processing system by learning non-adjacent phonotactic constraints from brief experience: An experimental and computational study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from < https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/3468/k?sequence=2>..>Google Scholar
Kuo, L.-J. (2008). The role of natural class features in the acquisition of phonotactic regularities. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38(2), 129–150. doi: 10.1007/s10936-008-9090-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Labov, W. (1989). The child as linguistic historian. Language Variation and Change, 1(1), 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (2001). Principles of linguistic change: Volume 2: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Mintz, T. H., Walker, R. L., Welday, A., & Kidd, C. (2017). Infants’ sensitivity to vowel harmony and its role in segmenting speech. Cognition, 171, 95–107. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.10.020CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mooney, S., & Do, Y. (2018). Learners change artificial languages to constrain free variation in line with typological principles. Paper presented at the 15th Old World Conference on Phonology (OCP15), London, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Moreton, E. (2008). Analytic bias and phonological typology. Phonology, 25(1), 83–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreton, E., & Pater, J. (2012a). Structure and substance in artificial-phonology learning, Part I: Structure. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(11), 686–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreton, E., & Pater, J. (2012b). Structure and substance in artificial-phonology learning, Part II: Substance. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(11), 702–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevin, B. (2010). Noam and Zellig. In Kibbee, D. A. (Ed.), Chomskyan (r)evolutions (pp. 103–168). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newport, E. L. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14(1), 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (1993a). The phonetics of sound change. In Jones, C. (Ed.), Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives (pp. 237–278). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (1993b). Sound change as nature's speech perception experiment. Speech Communication, 13(1), 155–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, J., Gray, J. R., Simpson, S., MacAskill, M., Höchenberger, R., Sogo, H., Kastman, E., & Lindeløv, J. K. (2019). PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 195–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peperkamp, S., & Bouchon, C. (2011). The relation between perception and production in L2 phonological processing. Paper presented at the 12th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Florence, Italy.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pycha, A., Nowak, P., Shin, E., & Shosted, R. (2003). Phonological rule-learning and its implications for a theory of vowel harmony. In Garding, G. & Tsujimura, M. (Eds.), WCCFL 22: Proceedings of the 22nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 423–435). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R., & Thiessen, E. D. (2003). Pattern induction by infant language learners. Developmental Psychology, 39(3), 484–494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sankoff, D. (1978). Probability and linguistic variation. Synthese, 37(2), 217–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuler, K. D., Yang, C., & Newport, E. L. (2016). Testing the Tolerance Principle: Children form productive rules when it is more computationally efficient to do so. In Papafragou, A., Grodner, D., Mirman, D., & Trueswell, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2321–2326). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Singleton, J. L., & Newport, E. L. (2004). When learners surpass their models: The acquisition of American Sign Language from inconsistent input. Cognitive Psychology, 49(4), 370–407. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.05.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skoruppa, K. (2009). Mécanismes de l'acquisition phonologique précoce (Doctoral dissertation).Google Scholar
Suomi, K. (1983). Palatal vowel harmony: A perceptually motivated phenomenon? Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 6(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. A., & D'Arcy, A. (2009). Peaks beyond phonology: Adolescence, incrementation, and language change. Language, 85(1), 58–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toro, J. M., Shukla, M., Nespor, M., & Endress, A. D. (2008). The quest for generalizations over consonants: Asymmetries between consonants and vowels are not the by-product of acoustic differences. Perception & Psychophysics, 70(8), 1515–1525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W., & Herzog, M. I. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, W. P. & Malkiel, Y. (Eds.), Directions for historical linguistics: A symposium (pp. 95–195). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, C. (2003). Experimental investigation of phonological naturalness. In Garding, G. & Tsujimura, M. (Eds.), WCCFL 22: Proceedings of the 22nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 533–546). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, C. (2006). Learning phonology with substantive bias: An experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science, 30(5), 945–982.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zaba, A. (2008). Relative frequency of patterns and learnability: The case of phonological harmony (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from < https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aleksandra_Zaba/publication/317350725_On_the_relative_frequency_of_patterns_and_learnability_The_case_of_phonological_harmony_PhD_dissertation/links/5aecaa16458515f59982e36b/On-the-relative-frequency-of-patterns-and-learnability-The-case-of-phonological-harmony-PhD-dissertation.pdf>.Google Scholar