Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T05:47:04.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The power of locality domains in phonology*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 August 2017

Thomas Graf
Thomas Graf*
Affiliation:
Stony Brook University
*
E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Domains play an integral role in linguistic theories. This paper combines locality domains with current models of the computational complexity of phonology. The first result is that if a specific formalism – strictly piecewise grammars – is supplemented with a mechanism to enforce first-order definable domain restrictions, its power increases so much that it subsumes almost the full hierarchy of subregular languages. However, if domain restrictions are based on linguistically natural intervals, we instead obtain an empirically more adequate model. On the one hand, this model subsumes only those subregular classes that have been argued to be relevant for phonotactic generalisations. On the other hand, it excludes unnatural generalisations that involve counting or elaborate conditionals. It is also shown that strictly piecewise grammars with interval-based domains are theoretically learnable, unlike those with arbitrary, first-order domains.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , August 2017 , pp. 385 - 405
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

*

I am greatly indebted to two anonymous reviewers and the editors of this issue. Their detailed feedback led to major changes that hopefully have resulted in a much more accessible and phonologically grounded paper. This paper has also profited tremendously from regular discussions of subregular phonology with Alëna Aksënova, Hyunah Baek, Aniello De Santo and Chikako Takahashi.

References

REFERENCES

Applegate, Richard B. (1972). Ineseño Chumash grammar. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Baek, Hyunah (to appear). Computational representation of unbounded stress: tiers with structural features. CLS 53.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert & Rubach, Jerzy (1984). Morphological and prosodic domains in Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 1. 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandlee, Jane (2014). Strictly local phonological processes. PhD dissertation, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Chandlee, Jane, Eyraud, Rémi & Heinz, Jeffrey (2014). Learning Strictly Local subsequential functions. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 2. 491–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandlee, Jane, Eyraud, Rémi & Heinz, Jeffrey (2015). Output strictly local functions. In Kuhlmann, Marco, Kanazawa, Makoto & Kobele, Gregory M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 14th Meeting on the Mathematics of Language. Association for Computational Linguistics. 112–125.Google Scholar
De Santo, Aniello & Graf, Thomas (2017). Structure sensitive tier projection: applications and formal properties. Ms, Stony Brook University. Available (May 2017) at http://thomasgraf.net/doc/papers/DeSantoGraf17.pdf.Google Scholar
Ebbinghaus, H.-D., Flum, J. & Thomas, W. (1996). Mathematical logic. 2nd revised edn. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Enderton, Herbert B. (2001). A mathematical introduction to logic. 2nd edn. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gold, E. M. (1967). Language identification in the limit. Information and Control 10. 447–474.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. (1976). Autosegmental phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Graf, Thomas (2010a). Comparing incomparable frameworks: a model theoretic approach to phonology. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 16:1. Available (May 2017) at http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol16/iss1/10.Google Scholar
Graf, Thomas (2010b). Logics of phonological reasoning. MA thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Graf, Thomas & Heinz, Jeffrey (2015). Commonality in disparity: the computational view of syntax and phonology. Paper presented at the GLOW Workshop on Computation, Learnability and Phonological Theory, Paris. Slides available (May 2017) at http://thomasgraf.net/doc/talks/GrafHeinz15GLOWtalk.pdf.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1995). Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heinz, Jeffrey (2007). The inductive learning of phonotactic patterns. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Heinz, Jeffrey (2009). On the role of locality in learning stress patterns. Phonology 26. 303–351.Google Scholar
Heinz, Jeffrey (2010). Learning long-distance phonotactics. LI 41. 623–661.Google Scholar
Heinz, Jeffrey (2014). Culminativity times harmony equals unbounded stress. In van der Hulst, Harry (ed.) Word stress: theoretical and typological issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 255–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinz, Jeffrey (to appear). The computational nature of phonological generalizations. In Hyman, Larry M. & Plank, Frans (eds.) Phonological typology. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heinz, Jeffrey, Rawal, Chetan & Tanner, Herbert G. (2011). Tier-based strictly local constraints in phonology. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Vol. 2. Association for Computational Linguistics. 58–64.Google Scholar
Jardine, Adam (2016). Computationally, tone is different. Phonology 33. 247–283.Google Scholar
Jardine, Adam & Heinz, Jeffrey (2016). Learning Tier-based Strictly 2-Local languages. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 4. 87–98.Google Scholar
Jardine, Adam & McMullin, Kevin (2017). Efficient learning of tier-based strictly k-local languages. In Drewes, Frank, Martín-Vide, Carlos & Truthe, Bianca (eds.) Language and automata theory and applications: 11th International Conference, Proceedings. Cham: Springer. 64–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, John T. (1974). A constraint on variables in phonology. Lg 50. 675–686.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. Douglas (1972). Formal aspects of phonological description. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald & Kay, Martin (1994). Regular models of phonological rule systems. Computational Linguistics 20. 331–378.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan (1995). Derivations and interfaces. In Durand, Jacques & Katamba, Francis (eds.) Frontiers of phonology: atoms, structures, derivations. London & New York: Longman. 289–332.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1982). From cyclic to lexical phonology. In van der Hulst, Harry & Smith, Norval (eds.) The structure of phonological representations. Part 1. Dordrecht: Foris. 131–175.Google Scholar
Lai, Regine (2015). Learnable vs. unlearnable harmony patterns. LI 46. 425–451.Google Scholar
McMullin, Kevin (2016). Tier-based locality in long-distance phonotactics: learnability and typology. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
McNaughton, Robert & Papert, Seymour A. (1971). Counter-free automata. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Odden, David (1994). Adjacency parameters in phonology. Lg 70. 289–330.Google Scholar
Rogers, James, Heinz, Jeffrey, Bailey, Gil, Edlefsen, Matt, Visscher, Molly, Wellcome, David & Wibel, Sean (2010). On languages piecewise testable in the strict sense. In Ebert, Christian, Jäger, Gerhard & Michaelis, Jens (eds.) The mathematics of language. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer. 255–265.Google Scholar
Rogers, James, Heinz, Jeffrey, Fero, Margaret, Hurst, Jeremy, Lambert, Dakotah & Wibel, Sean (2013). Cognitive and sub-regular complexity. In Morrill, Glyn & Nederhof, Mark-Jan (eds.) Formal grammar. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer. 90–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, James & Pullum, Geoffrey K. (2011). Aural pattern recognition experiments and the subregular hierarchy. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 20. 329–342.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy (2008). An overview of Lexical Phonology. Language and Linguistics Compass 2. 456–477.Google Scholar
Scheer, Tobias (2012). Chunk definition in phonology: prosodic constituency vs. phrase structure. In Bloch-Trojnar, Maria & Bloch-Rozmej, Anna (eds.) Modules and interfaces. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL. 221–253.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1984). Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (2011). The syntax–phonology interface. In Goldsmith, John, Riggle, Jason & Yu, Alan C. L. (eds.) The handbook of phonological theory. 2nd edn. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 435–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shwayder, Kobey (2015). Words and subwords: phonology in a piece-based syntactic morphology. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger (1977). Formal properties of phonological rules. In Butts, Robert E. & Hintikka, Jaakko (eds.) Basic problems in methodology and linguistics. Dordrecht: Reidel. 299–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar