Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T14:24:57.303Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Learning lexical indexation*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2009

Andries W. Coetzee
Andries W. Coetzee
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Morphological concatenation often triggers phonological processes. For instance, addition of the plural suffix /-ən/ to Dutch nouns causes vowel lengthening in some nouns due to the stress-to-weight principle ([xɑt] vs. [ˈxaː.tən] ‘hole’). These kinds of processes often apply only to a subset of words – not all Dutch nouns undergo this process ([kɑt] vs. [ˈkɑ.tən] ‘cat’). Nouns need to be lexically indexed as either undergoing this process or not. I investigate how phonological grammar and lexical indexation are learned when learners are confronted with data like these. Based on learnability considerations, I hypothesise that learners acquire a grammar with default non-alternation, so that novel items are treated as non-alternating. I report the results of artificial language learning experiments compatible with this hypothesis, and model these results in a version of the Biased Constraint Demotion algorithm (Prince & Tesar 2004).

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , May 2009 , pp. 109 - 145
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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

REFERENCES

Anttila, Arto (2002). Morphologically conditioned phonological alternations. NLLT 20. 1–42.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harold, Piepenbrock, Richard & Gulikers, Leon (1995). The CELEX lexical database. Release 2. [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Bailey, Todd M. & Hahn, Ulrike (2001). Determinants of wordlikeness: phonotactics or lexical neighborhoods? Journal of Memory and Language 44. 568–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Michael (2009). Phonological trends in the lexicon: the role of constraints. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Berent, Iris, Steriade, Donca, Lennertz, Tracy & Vaknin, Vered (2007). What we know about what we have never heard: evidence from perceptual illusions. Cognition 104. 591–630.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berwick, Robert C. (1985). The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David (2007). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (version 5.0.02). http://www.praat.org/.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi (1996). Surface constraints versus underlying representation. In Durand & Laks (1996). 123–141.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Angela (2006). Acquisition of a natural versus an unnatural stress system. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. (2008). Grammaticality and ungrammaticality in phonology. Lg 84. 218–257.Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. (to appear). Grammar is both categorical and gradient. In Parker (to appear).Google Scholar
Durand, Jacques & Laks, Bernard (eds.) (1996). Current trends in phonology: models and methods. 2 vols. Salford: ESRI.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline (2003). Final devoicing and the stratification of the lexicon in German. In de Weijer, Jeroen van, van Heuven, Vincent J. & Hulst, Harry van der (eds.) The phonological spectrum. Vol. 1: Segmental structure. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 145–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gnanadesikan, Amalia (2004). Markedness and faithfulness constraints in child phonology. In Kager et al. (2004). 73–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (2004). Phonological acquisition in Optimality Theory: the early stages. In Kager et al. (2004). 158–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon, Orgun, C. Orhan & Zoll, Cheryl (1997). The implications of lexical exceptions for the nature of grammar. In Roca, Iggy (ed.) Derivations and constraints in phonology. Oxford: Clarendon. 393–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itô, Junko & Mester, Armin (1999). The phonological lexicon. In Tsujimura, Natsuko (ed.) The handbook of Japanese linguistics. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell. 62–100.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko & Mester, Armin (2002). One phonology or many? Issues in stratal faithfulness theory. In The Phonological Society of Japan (ed.) Phonological studies 5. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. 121–126.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman (1968). Child language, aphasia and phonological universals. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kager, René (2008). Lexical irregularity and the typology of contrast. In Hanson, Kristin & Inkelas, Sharon (eds.) The nature of the word: studies in honor of Paul Kiparsky. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 397–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kager, René, Pater, Joe & Zonneveld, Wim (eds.) (2004). Constraints in phonological acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael (1996). Base-Identity and Uniform Exponence: alternatives to cyclicity. In Durand & Laks (1996). 363–393.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (1998). Morpheme structure constraints and paradigm occultation. CLS 34:2. 125–150.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2005). Optimal paradigms. In Downing, Laura J., Hall, T. Alan & Raffelsiefen, Renate (eds.) Paradigms in phonological theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 170–210.Google Scholar
Moreton, Elliott (2002). Structural constraints in the perception of English stop-sonorant clusters. Cognition 84. 55–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ota, Mitsuhiko (2004). The learnability of the stratified phonological lexicon. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 20. 19–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, Steven (ed.)(to appear). Phonological argumentation. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe (2000). Non-uniformity in English secondary stress: the role of ranked and lexically specific constraints. Phonology 17. 237–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pater, Joe (2005). Learning a stratified grammar. In Brugos, Alejna, Clark-Cotton, Manuella R. & Ha, Seungwan (eds.) Proceedings of the 29th Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville: Cascadilla. 482–492.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe (to appear). The locus of exceptionality: morpheme-specific phonology as constraint indexation. In Parker (to appear).Google Scholar
Pater, Joe & Tessier, Anne-Michelle (2006). L1 phonotactic knowledge and the L2 acquisition of alternations. In Slabakova, Roumyana, Montrul, Silvina A. & Prévost, Philippe (eds.) Inquiries in linguistic development: studies in honor of Lydia White. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prasada, Sandeep & Pinker, Steven (1993). Generalization of regular and irregular morphological patterns. Language and Cognitive Processes 8. 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan (1990). Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization. CLS 26:2. 355–398.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Tesar, Bruce (2004). Learning phonotactic distributions. In Kager et al. (2004). 245–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saffran, Jenny R., Newport, Elissa L. & Aslin, Richard N. (1996). Word segmentation: the role of distributional cues. Journal of Memory and Language 35. 606–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smolensky, Paul (1996). The initial state and ‘Richness of the Base’ in Optimality Theory. Ms, Johns Hopkins University. Available as ROA-154 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Tesar, Bruce & Smolensky, Paul (2000). Learnability in Optimality Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tessier, Anne-Michelle (2007). Biases and stages in phonological acquisition. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Walter, Mary Ann (2006). Grammatical gender via lexical statistics: the case of Arabic-to-Spanish loanwords. In Hsieh, Feng-fan & Kenstowicz, Michael (eds.) Studies in loanword phonology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 52. 201–225.Google Scholar
Wilson, Colin (2006). Learning phonology with substantive bias: an experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science 30. 945–982.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed