Usage-based phonology

High frequency words are shorter than low frequency words High frequency words are shorter than low frequency words time (hi) time (hi) dime (lo) dime (lo)

Usage-based phonology High frequency words are shorter than low frequency words High frequency words are shorter than low frequency words time (hi) time (hi) dime (lo) dime (lo) Why? Why?

Usage-based phonology Theory 1: Articulatory practice Theory 1: Articulatory practice more practiced forms are produced faster more practiced forms are produced faster UR of time is passed to motor production which has practiced it more so it's faster UR of time is passed to motor production which has practiced it more so it's faster UR of dime is passed to motor production which hasn't produced it as often UR of dime is passed to motor production which hasn't produced it as often

Usage-based phonology Theory 2: Examplar model Theory 2: Examplar model All experienced instances stored with phonetic detail All experienced instances stored with phonetic detail Instances of time are heard, produced, and stored in shorter experienced form Instances of time are heard, produced, and stored in shorter experienced form Instances of dime are heard, produced, stored as longer words Instances of dime are heard, produced, stored as longer words

Usage-based phonology Theory 2: Examplar model Theory 2: Examplar model All experienced instances stored with phonetic detail All experienced instances stored with phonetic detail Instances of time are heard, produced, and stored in shorter experienced form Instances of time are heard, produced, and stored in shorter experienced form Instances of dime are heard, produced, stored as longer words Instances of dime are heard, produced, stored as longer words (This assumes articulatory practice, but goes a step further) (This assumes articulatory practice, but goes a step further)

Usage-based phonology Which theory is correct? Which theory is correct?

Usage-based phonology Which theory is correct? Which theory is correct? Homophones are the key to the answer Homophones are the key to the answer time thyme time thyme need knead need knead right write right write would wood would wood

Usage-based phonology Which theory is correct? Which theory is correct? Homophones are the key to the answer Homophones are the key to the answer time thyme time thyme need knead need knead right write right write would wood would wood Are they stored as phonemes? (identical storage) Are they stored as phonemes? (identical storage) Are they stored in phonetic form? (storage is different for individual words) Are they stored in phonetic form? (storage is different for individual words)

Usage-based phonology Experiment Experiment Measure length of spoken homophones Measure length of spoken homophones

Usage-based phonology Experiment Experiment Measure length of spoken homophones Measure length of spoken homophones Homophones have different lengths Homophones have different lengths Hi freq members are shorter Hi freq members are shorter Lo freq members are longer Lo freq members are longer

Usage-based phonology Experiment Experiment Measure length of spoken homophones Measure length of spoken homophones Homophones have different lengths Homophones have different lengths Hi freq members are shorter Hi freq members are shorter Lo freq members are longer Lo freq members are longer This is evidence for storage with phonetic details, not storage in phonemic form This is evidence for storage with phonetic details, not storage in phonemic form

Phoneme So are phonemes real or not? So are phonemes real or not? Can phonemes be real yet storage is not phonemic? Can phonemes be real yet storage is not phonemic? Could storage be phonetic, yet people can form phonemic units when needed? Could storage be phonetic, yet people can form phonemic units when needed?

Phoneme Definitions of the phoneme Definitions of the phoneme Jones: family of sounds that are the same for practical purposes Jones: family of sounds that are the same for practical purposes

Phoneme Definitions of the phoneme as physical reality Definitions of the phoneme as physical reality Jones: family of sounds that are the same for practical purposes Jones: family of sounds that are the same for practical purposes Bloomfield: The features in the sound wave that all allophones have in common Bloomfield: The features in the sound wave that all allophones have in common (In many cases there is no phonetic constant) (In many cases there is no phonetic constant)

Phoneme Definitions of the phoneme as physical reality Definitions of the phoneme as physical reality Jones: family of sounds that are the same for practical purposes Jones: family of sounds that are the same for practical purposes Bloomfield: The features in the sound wave that all allophones have in common Bloomfield: The features in the sound wave that all allophones have in common (In many cases there is no phonetic constant) (In many cases there is no phonetic constant) Phonemes are a collection of allophones Phonemes are a collection of allophones

Phoneme Definitions of the phoneme as psychological reality Definitions of the phoneme as psychological reality A unit perceived to be the same thing by speakers A unit perceived to be the same thing by speakers Mental images of a sound (or collection of sounds) Mental images of a sound (or collection of sounds)

Phoneme Definitions of the phoneme as psychological reality Definitions of the phoneme as psychological reality A unit perceived to be the same thing by speakers A unit perceived to be the same thing by speakers Mental images of a sound (or collection of sounds) Mental images of a sound (or collection of sounds)

Phoneme Definitions of the phoneme as psychological reality Definitions of the phoneme as psychological reality A unit perceived to be the same thing by speakers A unit perceived to be the same thing by speakers Mental images of a sound (or collection of sounds) Mental images of a sound (or collection of sounds) The intentions of the speaker The intentions of the speaker

a phoneme [...] is an underlying intention shared by the speaker and the listener (who are always “two in one”). The shared knowledge of intentions guarantees communication between the speaker and the listener within a given language, even if the actually pronounced forms diverge substantially from what is intended...In other words, phonemes are fully specified, pro- nounceable percepts.

Phoneme Is the phoneme just a convenient fiction invented by phonologists? Is the phoneme just a convenient fiction invented by phonologists?

Phoneme What are phonemes made up of? What are phonemes made up of? Underspecified phoneme: Underspecified phoneme: Phonemes made up of all features that contrast it with other phonemes Phonemes made up of all features that contrast it with other phonemes

Phoneme What are phonemes made up of? What are phonemes made up of? Underspecified phoneme: Underspecified phoneme: Phonemes made up of all features that contrast it with other phonemes Phonemes made up of all features that contrast it with other phonemes Phonemes defined in terms of how they contrast with other phonemes Phonemes defined in terms of how they contrast with other phonemes Fall all features of that phoneme X has that distiguish it from other phonemes Fall all features of that phoneme X has that distiguish it from other phonemes

Phoneme What are phonemes made up of? What are phonemes made up of? Underspecified phoneme: Underspecified phoneme: Phonemes made up of all features that contrast it with other phonemes Phonemes made up of all features that contrast it with other phonemes Phonemes defined in terms of how they contrast with other phonemes Phonemes defined in terms of how they contrast with other phonemes Fall all features of that phoneme X has that distiguish it from other phonemes Fall all features of that phoneme X has that distiguish it from other phonemes Phonemes are underspecified since they only contain contrastive features Phonemes are underspecified since they only contain contrastive features

Phoneme What are phonemes made up of? What are phonemes made up of? Underspecified phoneme: Underspecified phoneme: Example: What features needed to distinguish /a, i, u/? Example: What features needed to distinguish /a, i, u/? Only high and round Only high and round /i/ + high -round /i/ + high -round /a/ - high – round /a/ - high – round /u/ + high +round /u/ + high +round No need to mention, back, tense, ATR, low No need to mention, back, tense, ATR, low

Phoneme What are phonemes made up of? What are phonemes made up of? Fully-specified phoneme: Fully-specified phoneme: One of the allophones is identical to phoneme One of the allophones is identical to phoneme It contains all features, not just contrastive ones It contains all features, not just contrastive ones

Phoneme What are phonemes made up of? What are phonemes made up of? Fully-specified phoneme: Fully-specified phoneme: One of the allophones is identical to phoneme One of the allophones is identical to phoneme It contains all features, not just contrastive ones It contains all features, not just contrastive ones What features needed to define /a, i, u/? What features needed to define /a, i, u/?

Phoneme Some theories don't distinguish/separate phonetic level and phonemic level Some theories don't distinguish/separate phonetic level and phonemic level OT and some exemplar/usage-based theories OT and some exemplar/usage-based theories

Phoneme How do you identify phonemes? How do you identify phonemes? Conmutation test: interchange phones Conmutation test: interchange phones If meaning doesn't change they are in complementary distribution (same phoneme) If meaning doesn't change they are in complementary distribution (same phoneme)

Phoneme How do you identify phonemes? How do you identify phonemes? Conmutation test: interchange phones Conmutation test: interchange phones If meaning doesn't change they are in complementary distribution (same phoneme) If meaning doesn't change they are in complementary distribution (same phoneme) If meaning changes they belong to different phoneme (constrastive distribution) If meaning changes they belong to different phoneme (constrastive distribution)

Phoneme Problem: This test works for phones that are very similar like [t] and [t h ] Problem: This test works for phones that are very similar like [t] and [t h ] [t h ] and [p] are also in complementary distribution, but don't belong to same phoneme [t h ] and [p] are also in complementary distribution, but don't belong to same phoneme

Phoneme Problem: This test works for phones that are very similar like [t] and [t h ] Problem: This test works for phones that are very similar like [t] and [t h ] [t h ] and [p] are also in complementary distribution, but don't belong to same phoneme [t h ] and [p] are also in complementary distribution, but don't belong to same phoneme Resolution (?) check the orthography. Phonemes are written with same letter Resolution (?) check the orthography. Phonemes are written with same letter

Phoneme Problem: This test works for phones that are very similar like [t] and [t h ] Problem: This test works for phones that are very similar like [t] and [t h ] [t h ] and [p] are also in complementary distribution, but don't belong to same phoneme [t h ] and [p] are also in complementary distribution, but don't belong to same phoneme Resolution (?) check the orthography. Phonemes are written with same letter Resolution (?) check the orthography. Phonemes are written with same letter Well, in written language, with phonetic symbols yes Well, in written language, with phonetic symbols yes

Phoneme Problem: Some phonemes share allophones Problem: Some phonemes share allophones In Chuckchee /i u e/ have two allophones: In Chuckchee /i u e/ have two allophones: [e o a] in words with low vowels [e o a] in words with low vowels [i u e] elsewhere [i u e] elsewhere

Phoneme [i] and [e] aren't in complementary distribution [i] and [e] aren't in complementary distribution [i] of /i/ and [e] of /e/ occur in same context [i] of /i/ and [e] of /e/ occur in same context So, [i] and [e] must not belong to same phoneme So, [i] and [e] must not belong to same phoneme If you swithc [i] and [e] in word without low vowel, meaning would change If you swithc [i] and [e] in word without low vowel, meaning would change

Phoneme Evidence that phonemes are real Evidence that phonemes are real Existence of alphabets (none are phonetic) Existence of alphabets (none are phonetic) Pauite speaker who learned to transcribe phonetically transcribed things phonemically Pauite speaker who learned to transcribe phonetically transcribed things phonemically

Phoneme Evidence that phonemes are real Evidence that phonemes are real Existence of alphabets (none are phonetic) Existence of alphabets (none are phonetic) Pauite speaker who learned to transcribe phonetically transcribed things phonemically Pauite speaker who learned to transcribe phonetically transcribed things phonemically Speech errors involve phoneme manipulation Speech errors involve phoneme manipulation  fish grotto > frish gotto (or are you just switching sounds, not phonemes?) (or are you just switching sounds, not phonemes?)

Phoneme Evidence that phonemes are real Evidence that phonemes are real People can count number of phonemes in a word People can count number of phonemes in a word  (But are they just counting phones?)  (Is this based on spelling knowledge?) Contra: People who don't know alphabetic writing can't add, delete, manipulate phonemes in words Contra: People who don't know alphabetic writing can't add, delete, manipulate phonemes in words  (Even if you can add, delete, manipulate sound in a words just means you can identify sound, not that you see them as phonemes)

Phoneme Evidence that phonemes are real Evidence that phonemes are real Language games involve moving phonemes around Language games involve moving phonemes around

Phoneme Evidence that phonemes are real Evidence that phonemes are real Language games involve moving phonemes around Language games involve moving phonemes around  (Is identifying sounds the same as identifying phomemes?)

Phoneme Evidence that phonemes are real Evidence that phonemes are real Neurological evidence (Magnetic electroencephalogram) Neurological evidence (Magnetic electroencephalogram)  Russians and Koreans heard [ta] [da]  Russians produced different brainwaves  Koreans brainwaves stayed the same. Why?

Phoneme Evidence that phonemes are real Evidence that phonemes are real Neurological evidence (Magnetic electroencephalogram) Neurological evidence (Magnetic electroencephalogram)  Russians and Koreans heard [ta] [da]  Russians produced different brainwaves  Koreans brainwaves stayed the same. Why?  RussianKorean /t//d//t/ | |/ \ | |/ \ [t][d] [t] [d]

Phoneme Russians versus Koreans Russians versus Koreans They both heard tones that changed They both heard tones that changed KoreanRussian

Phoneme Russians versus Koreans Russians versus Koreans Then they heard change from [t] to [da] Then they heard change from [t] to [da] KoreanRussian

Phoneme Sound change is hard without phonemes Sound change is hard without phonemes sound change affects all instances of a phoneme in a particular environment sound change affects all instances of a phoneme in a particular environment  x > y / __ z So you change all phoneme x in language So you change all phoneme x in language  if there are no phonemes you'd have to go word by word exemplar by exemplar and change each one (No problem for usage-based, words are connected to each other based on phonetic similarity so connection propagate change) (No problem for usage-based, words are connected to each other based on phonetic similarity so connection propagate change)

Phoneme Chain shifts Chain shifts e.g. t: > t > d > ð > ∅ e.g. t: > t > d > ð > ∅ Sounds interact with each other Sounds interact with each other  e.g t > d forcing d > ð If words are stored as phonemes, shift is simple If words are stored as phonemes, shift is simple If they aren't how is chain shift possible? If they aren't how is chain shift possible?

Phoneme Phonetic processes refer to phonetic environments not to words Phonetic processes refer to phonetic environments not to words Processes apply to unknown/new words Processes apply to unknown/new words If words are stored not phonemes processes shouldn't apply to new words If words are stored not phonemes processes shouldn't apply to new words

Phoneme In Polish and Spanish, stress is contrastive, not (completely) predicable In Polish and Spanish, stress is contrastive, not (completely) predicable In French and Finnish, stress is completely predictable, never contrastive In French and Finnish, stress is completely predictable, never contrastive

Phoneme In Polish and Spanish, stress is contrastive, not (completely) predicable In Polish and Spanish, stress is contrastive, not (completely) predicable In French and Finnish, stress is completely predictable, never contrastive In French and Finnish, stress is completely predictable, never contrastive In experiment, speakers taught words with different stress patterns In experiment, speakers taught words with different stress patterns Spanish and Polish speakers made few mistakes with nonce words Spanish and Polish speakers made few mistakes with nonce words Finnish and French words made lots of stress mistakes Finnish and French words made lots of stress mistakes

Phoneme Interpretation of results: Interpretation of results: Spanish and Polish speakers store words with stress pattern Spanish and Polish speakers store words with stress pattern French and Finnish speakers don't store stress pattern but apply rule to get stress on words French and Finnish speakers don't store stress pattern but apply rule to get stress on words

Phoneme Interpretation of results: Interpretation of results: Spanish and Polish speakers store words with stress pattern, so they stored stress of nonce words Spanish and Polish speakers store words with stress pattern, so they stored stress of nonce words French and Finnish speakers don't store stress pattern but apply rule to get stress on words, so they didn't store stress on nonce words and made more mistakes French and Finnish speakers don't store stress pattern but apply rule to get stress on words, so they didn't store stress on nonce words and made more mistakes

Phoneme Other interpretation of results: Other interpretation of results: Spanish and Polish speakers stress words on many different syllables, they are ambidextreous Spanish and Polish speakers stress words on many different syllables, they are ambidextreous Finnish and French speakers only stress one place, they are monodextreous, and have a hard time using both “hands” Finnish and French speakers only stress one place, they are monodextreous, and have a hard time using both “hands”

Phoneme Other interpretation of results: Other interpretation of results: Spanish and Polish speakers stress words on many different syllables, they are ambidextreous Spanish and Polish speakers stress words on many different syllables, they are ambidextreous Finnish and French speakers only stress one place, they are monodextreous, and have a hard time using both “hands” Finnish and French speakers only stress one place, they are monodextreous, and have a hard time using both “hands” It's a matter of habit not rule versus storage It's a matter of habit not rule versus storage

Phoneme If we store words with details, when we hear female Aussie say new word, we would repeat it with a high pitched Aussie accent. If we store words with details, when we hear female Aussie say new word, we would repeat it with a high pitched Aussie accent. We don't because we don't store it with details but phonemically We don't because we don't store it with details but phonemically

Phoneme This assumes exemplar models can't handle sub-word units, but they do/can This assumes exemplar models can't handle sub-word units, but they do/can Words are stored with connections to the same word said by different people at different times Words are stored with connections to the same word said by different people at different times Words are stored with connections to other words that are phonetically similar Words are stored with connections to other words that are phonetically similar

Phoneme Kids make systematic substitutions that they don't hear adults do Kids make systematic substitutions that they don't hear adults do thin > fin, three > free thin > fin, three > free This is only possible if they are substituting one phoneme for another. This is only possible if they are substituting one phoneme for another. If words aren't stored phonemically how could this happen? If words aren't stored phonemically how could this happen?

Phoneme In exemplar theory, all words beginning with [Θ] would be connected to all other words with [Θ] which could account for this fact In exemplar theory, all words beginning with [Θ] would be connected to all other words with [Θ] which could account for this fact

Phoneme Phonetic processes refer to phonetic environments not to words Phonetic processes refer to phonetic environments not to words Processes apply to unknown/new words Processes apply to unknown/new words If words are stored not phonemes processes shouldn't apply to new words If words are stored not phonemes processes shouldn't apply to new words (Actually they can by analogy) (Actually they can by analogy)

What is the truth? My take on it My take on it People store words with phonetic details not as phonemes People store words with phonetic details not as phonemes People can also groups sounds into phonemic-like units (and shades of color into colors, and can categorize many things too) People can also groups sounds into phonemic-like units (and shades of color into colors, and can categorize many things too)  Alphabets helps people with these phonetic groupings People can view things in multiple ways People can view things in multiple ways

The phoneme in different theories Structuralism: phonemes are defined in terms of how they contrast with each other and their distribution (complementary or contrastive) Structuralism: phonemes are defined in terms of how they contrast with each other and their distribution (complementary or contrastive)

The phoneme in different theories Structuralism: phonemes are defined in terms of how they contrast with each other and their distribution (complementary or contrastive) Structuralism: phonemes are defined in terms of how they contrast with each other and their distribution (complementary or contrastive) Generativism: phonemes are defined in terms of the features they contain Generativism: phonemes are defined in terms of the features they contain

The phoneme in different theories Structuralism: phonemes are defined in terms of how they contrast with each other and their distribution (complementary or contrastive) Structuralism: phonemes are defined in terms of how they contrast with each other and their distribution (complementary or contrastive) Generativism: phonemes are defined in terms of the features they contain Generativism: phonemes are defined in terms of the features they contain Cognitive linguistics: phonemes are mental images related to articulation of the sounds Cognitive linguistics: phonemes are mental images related to articulation of the sounds

The phoneme in different theories Usage-based: phonemes are categories. Sounds that belong to the same category belong to the same phoneme. Similarity can be articulatory and/or acoustic Usage-based: phonemes are categories. Sounds that belong to the same category belong to the same phoneme. Similarity can be articulatory and/or acoustic

The phoneme in different theories Usage-based: phonemes are categories. Sounds that belong to the same category belong to the same phoneme. Similarity can be articulatory and/or acoustic Usage-based: phonemes are categories. Sounds that belong to the same category belong to the same phoneme. Similarity can be articulatory and/or acoustic Prototype theory: one sound is chosen as the central/prototypical (abstract) member of the category against which all others are defined by. Prototype theory: one sound is chosen as the central/prototypical (abstract) member of the category against which all others are defined by.

The phoneme in different theories Exemplar theory: categorization of sounds into phoneme-like units may be done, but it isn't necessary to store, produce, undestand speech. No abstract prototype stored. Exemplar theory: categorization of sounds into phoneme-like units may be done, but it isn't necessary to store, produce, undestand speech. No abstract prototype stored.