David Eddington Brigham Young University Paradigm Uniformity and Analogy: The Capitalistic versus Militaristic Debate David Eddington Brigham Young University

càpitalálistic capi[ɾ]alistic mìlitarístic mili[th]aristic Same prosodic structure, but different realizations of /t/.

càpitalálistic capi[ɾ]alistic mìlitarístic mili[th]aristic Same prosodic structure, but different realizations of /t/. Why the difference?

Paradigm Uniformity! If a base has a particular non-contrastive phonetic feature, derivatives of that base will tend to keep that feature (Steriade 2000) capi[ɾ]al explains the flap in capi[ɾ]alistic mili[th]ary explains the stop in mili[th]aristic

Steriade's Experiment Subjects read list of 10 words including: ro[ɾ]ary volun[th]ary Then they read neologisms based on those word such as: rotaristic voluntaristic

Steriade's Experiment 11 of 12 subjects used same allophone in base word as in neologism: If ro[ɾ]ary then ro[ɾ]aristic If ro[th]ary then ro[th]aristic

Riehl's Study (2003) Reihl's subjects repeated four bases and derived forms 12 times (negative/istic, positive/istic, primitive/istic, relative/istic)

Riehl's Study (2003) Reihl's subjects repeated four bases and derived forms 12 times (negative/istic, positive/istic, primitive/istic, relative/istic) Some intersubject variability was found (e.g. primi[th]ivistic vs. primi[ɾ]ivistic). Reihl claims this invalidates the influence of the base form.

Riehl's Study (2003) Riehl expected all or nothing behavior. Human behavior isn't all or nothing, but stochastic.

Riehl's Study (2003) Riehl expected all or nothing behavior. Human behavior isn't all or nothing, but stochastic. A correlation between use of flap in base and in derived is highly significant (r (14) = .748, p < .0005, two-tailed) So, analogical influence isn't nullified by the slight variation Riehl found. Riehl's Study (2003)

Rule and Analogy Interactions Steriade (2000) and Davis (2005) claim analogy (paradigm uniformity) interrupt the application of the flap rule.

Rule and Analogy Interactions Steriade (2000) and Davis (2005) claim analogy (paradigm uniformity) interrupt the application of the flap rule. For Steriade, militaristic and capitalistic should both be flapped. The [th] in militaristic is analogical. For Davis, both should contain [th] and the flap in capitalistic is analogical. Rule and Analogy Interactions

The Point of this Presentation There is no interplay between analogy and rules.

The Point of this Presentation There is no interplay between analogy and rules. It's all analogy

Problems with Traditional Analogy Analogy only serves to patch up cases rules can't account for. No constraints are put on analogy. No computationally specific method is used.

Linguistic Behavior is Analogical Speakers store all past linguistic experience. Phonetic detail and redundant features stored also. Stored exemplars are consulted rather than abstract rules or constraints. Semantic, phonetic, and orthographic similarity are used to find relevant analogs.

Linguistic Behavior is Analogical In determining the pronunciation of /t/ in capitalistic, many stored words are consulted. These words may influence it in varying degrees to be either [ɾ] or [th]. Since capital shares so many characteristics with capitalistic it is a major analog. Analogical pull is gradient: 90% [ɾ] and 10% [th] This accounts for some of the variability found in experiments.

Traditional Allophonic Distribution Generalizations are gleaned from input during acquisition Generalizations are stored as rules or constraints. Rules are used in subsequent linguistic processing.

Analogical Modeling A theory and computer algorithm (Skousen 1989) Determines outcome (e.g. [ɾ] or [th]) based on the similarity of the test form to a database of stored instances.

The Database 3,719 instances of allophones of /t/ taken from TIMIT 630 speakers read 10 sentences. Utterances transcribed 644 [ɾ ], 234 [ʔ ], 284 [Ø], 760 [t], 860 [t˭], and 969 [th], 48 [d].

The Database Each instance of /t/ is encoded to include its allophonic realization and the context it appears in.

The Database Each instance of /t/ is encoded to include its allophonic realization and the context it appears in. The phones or boundaries three slots to the left and right of /t/, and stress are encoded. e.g. I know I didn't meet her 1) [ɾ], 2) word boundary, 3) [m], 4) [i], 5) word boundary, 6) [ɚ], 7)pause, 8) primary stress, 9) unstressed

How the Algorithm Works

How the Algorithm Works The details would put you to sleep so I'll spare you.

How the Algorithm Works The details would put you to sleep so I'll spare you. To predict the pronunciation of /t/ in capitalistic, look for similar words in the database and see how they are pronounced. Apply that pronunciation.

How the Algorithm Works The details would put you to sleep so I'll spare you. To predict the pronunciation of /t/ in capitalistic, look for similar words in the database and see how they are pronounced. Apply that pronunciation. Outcome is stochastic (e.g. 90% [ɾ], 10% [th]). Highest probability considered the “winner”.

Results of Previous Simulations Allophone of all 3,719 database items predicted by analogy. Most predictions were either correct or the “error” was a possible alternative pronunciation. e.g. amoun[th] of or amoun[Ø] of

Results of Previous Simulations Allophone of all 3,719 database items predicted by analogy. Most predictions were either correct or the “error” was a possible alternative pronunciation. e.g. amoun[th] of or amoun[Ø] of Little change in predictive power when only fraction of database used. Little change when “critical” variables such as stress are eliminated.

Present Simulations Test words: capitalistic, negativistic, positivistic, primitivistic, relativistic, habitability, irritability, immutability, dissatisfaction. Two simulations: Base words of test words contain [ɾ] in database. Base words of test words contain [th] in database.

Results of the Simulation The pronunciation of the base form influences that of the derived for per analogy (paradigm uniformity).

Results of the Simulation The pronunciation of the base form influences that of the derived for per analogy (paradigm uniformity). The variability seen in Riehl's experiment is seen in predicted probabilities less than 100%.

Results of the Simulation The pronunciation of the base form influences that of the derived for per analogy (paradigm uniformity). The variability seen in Riehl's experiment is seen in predicted probabilities les than 100%. The base form is not the only word influencing the derived form. capi[th]alistic predicted at 90%, yet capital only accounts for 30% of this. Words such as appetite, hepatitis, and particular also influence the outcome.

What about Morphologically Simple Words? Mediterranean and Navratilova have same stress as capitalistic and militaristic, yet have no base form. Steriade's rule incorrectly predicts Medi[ɾ]erranean and Navra[ɾ]ilova. Davis' rule correctly predicts Medi[th]erranean and Navra[th]ilova.

What about Morphologically Simple Words? Mediterranean and Navratilova have same stress as capitalistic and militaristic, yet have no base form. Steriade's rule incorrectly predicts Medi[ɾ]erranean and Navra[ɾ]ilova. Davis' rule correctly predicts Medi[th]erranean and Navra[th]ilova. Analogy correctly predicts Medi[th]erranean and Navra[th]ilova.

So, is Davis' or Steriade's Rule Correct? Analogy corresponds with the outcome of Davis' rule for these two words. But, analogy works on a case-by-case basis unlike rules which are global generalizations. Analogy can't be used to verify the “correctness” of a rule.

Conclusions Previous simulations show analogy alone can account for the realizations of /t/. No need to posit a rule plus analogy dichotomy.

Conclusions Previous simulations show analogy alone can account for the realizations of /t/. No need to posit a rule plus analogy system. Analogy accounts for influence of base forms on derived forms. Analogy account for monomorphemic forms also. Analogy accounts for variability in pronunciation.

My Rant: Why Rules Suck They can't be proven or disproved so they fall outside of the realm of scientific investigation. L2 speakers may know the rules but can't apply them to speak. Some rules are extremely complex for linguists to arrive at, yet are assumed to be “subconsciously” learned by preschoolers. Rules can't account for variability. Same goes for constraints.