Li6 Phonology and Morphology Rule ordering

Today’s topics Rule ordering How this relates to the general cognitive problems of: intermediate representations opacity

Opacity in computing 10 for N = 1 to 10 20 N = N - 5 30 N = N/2 Any evidence for the intermediate reps created by lines 20 and 30? 10 for N = 1 to 10 20 N = N - 5 30 N = N/2 40 next 1 2 -4 -3 -2 -1.5 Any crucial ordering relationship between lines 20 and 30?

What happens when we have two or more rules? they may not interfere with one another e.g. aspiration and nasal assimilation however, they sometimes do interfere with one another

English syllabification and glottalization Surface representations: σ σ σ σ σ σ ha[?t] a[th]ain A[?t]lantic

English flapping, lengthening, and Canadian Raising What happens for people whose flapping rule neutralizes the underlying voicing distinction? i.e. both /t, d/ → [R] a. mat : mad cot : cod leaf : leave suit : sued b. writer : rider (NB flapping wrt Canadian Raising) otter : odder latter : ladder

Homshetsma stress, epenthesis, and lowering a. kherál king kheralnér kings kheralluγús my kingdom b. ergán long ergenthsenél lengthen ergenthsenelóv lengthening c. kheráles this king im bábes my father im bábs-al my father also d. ásdaγ star asdγér stars

Modern Hebrew a. šavar he broke yi-žbor he will break taval he immersed ti-dbol you will immerse pazal he squirted yi-vzol he will squirt bzil-a squirting b. yi-dafes it will be printed (h)i-tpis he printed sagur closed (sg) zgur-im closed (pl) batuax confident (sg) ptux-im confident (pl) c. kišat-eti ~ kišat-ti I decorated kišat-etem ~ kišat-tem you (pl) decorated d. yarad-eti ~ yarat-ti I descended yarad-etem ~ yarat-tem you (pl) descended

Shona UR surface form gloss compare n-puka mhuka animal kapuka ‘small animal’ n-tume nhume messenger -tuma (verb stem) n-kuni (ŋ)huni firewood rukuni ‘log’ n-bereko mbereko cradleskin -bereka ‘bear’

Ordering relationships feeding R1 creates environment relevant for application of R2 English syllabification vs glottalisation Hamshen epenthesis vs lowering bleeding R1 removes environment relevant for application of R2 Hebrew voice assimilation vs e-insertion counterfeeding opposite ordering compared to feeding NB ≠ bleeding! Hamshen epenthesis vs stress assignment counterbleeding opposite ordering compared to bleeding NB ≠ feeding! English flapping vs lengthening Shona place assimilation vs debuccalization can a pair of rules be in more than one relationship at once?

Karok (Bright 1957) imv. 1st sing. 3d sing. gloss pasip ni-pasip ?u-pasip shoot kifnuk ni-kifnuk ?u-kifnuk stoop si:tva ni-Si:tva ?u-si:tva steal suprih ni-Suprih ?u-suprih measure ?aktuv ni-?aktuv ?u-?aktuv pluck at ?axjar ni-xjar ?u-xjar fill ?iSkak ni-Skak ?uskak jump ?uksup ni-kSup ?u-ksup point ?ikSah ni-kSah ?u-ksah laugh † 15-10-2006 RULES vowel truncation V → Ø / V_ glottal insertion Ø → ? / #_V palatalization s → S / i(C)_ PROBLEMS? in /u-iskak/, palatalization could conceivably apply but doesn’t in /ni-uksup/, palatalization could conceivably not apply but does SAMPLE DERIVATIONS

Psychological aspects of rule ordering

Opacity in cognition How to get up the tree?

Origins of opacity Counterbleeding has simple historical origin, e.g. e  a / _ r wrt coda r deletion in English: [sta:v] < sterv-, [va:]sity < (uni)versity, parson, derby, Cherwell… E lowering: late Middle English period (<1500) R deletion: by 17th century

Acquisition of ordering First learn rules/generalisations independently When confronted with a situation where two or more generalisations come in conflict, a decision needs to be made Arbitrary choice: pigeons Is the ordering chosen ever non-arbitrary? E.g. do humans always pick transparent ordering if possible?

Opacity in L1 acquisition Figures from Jesney 2005

Opacity in L2 acquisition Counterfeeding chain shift substitution Cho and Lee 2001, Idsardi 2002 on opacity in Korean acq of English sin → sjin + thin → sin Counterbleeding repairs Weinberger 1987:412—Mandarin learners of English who apply final epenthesis before final C-cluster simplification, e.g. <and>  [aenә] Counterfeeding and counterbleeding in toy L2 acq…

Opacity in toy L2 acq Vaux, Nevins, Dye, and Keren (ongoing) Learners exposed to PLD providing evidence for two generalizations: V  Ø / _ V s  š / _ i How do these interact in absence of evidence for interaction in PLD? DES, SO… SATA SATI SATO KOP KOPI KOPO KOPO

Opacity in toy L2 acq Predictions of canonical DP for NES, BASA Possible systems {neši, basi, nešo, baso} (CF+CB) [SP >> VD] {neši, baši, neso, baso} (transparent) [VD >> SP] {neši, baši, nešo, bašo} (CB) [VD&SP cycl., either order] Impossible systems Any set including [nesi] {neši, baši, nešo, baso}, {neši, baši, neso, bašo}, {neši, basi, neso, baso}, {neši, basi, nešo, bašo}, {neši, basi, neso, bašo} Predictions of canonical OT Nothing with basi (CF), bašo (CB), nešo (CB) Preliminary results 

Opacity in toy L2 acq Preliminary results form # of Ss DP predicts? OT predicts? nešo 1/8, 1/12  x basi 8/12

Predictions: levels that can be targeted by phonological processes /UR/ rule 1 rule 2 rule 3 rule 4 rule 5 rule 6 … rule 567 rule 568 rule 569 [SR] some such processes: writing systems rhyme, meter, etc. priming/access effects language games monostratalists derivationalists Turkish accesses post-devoicing, Russian is pre-devoicing no palatalization in Japanese orthography

Korean speech errors Nominative case: /-ka/ when stem is V-final /-i/ elsewhere From Norvin Richard’s lecture notes

Welsh speech errors Mutations with carreg ‘stone’: radical soft nasal aspirate p b mh ph f m t d nh th dd n c g ngh ch Ø ng ll l rh r Mutations with carreg ‘stone’: y garreg ‘the stone’ (soft mutation) fy ngharreg ‘my stone’ (nasal mutation) ei charreg ‘her stone’ (aspirate mutation) Meara and Ellis 1981 Say you have a sequence as x bn y, where: a,b = words triggering mutation in following word s = soft mutation, n = nasal mutation x,y = words undergoing mutation Say you have a speech error xy, yielding as y bn x Such errors happen, with each of the following outcomes: transposed C’s undergo the mutation of their new environment, C’s mutate BEFORE reversing. Conclusion: errors can target UR, SR, or PR (phonetic rep).

Cuna Sherzer 1970, Talking backwards in Cuna /b:, d:, g:/  [p,t,k] no initial or final clusters no initial or final p,t,k neg ‘house + gine ‘inside’  nekine ‘inside the house’ Parallels for underlying gemination contrast surfacing as voicing contrast or vice versa: Veneto, Pirahã (Everett 1988, Topintzi 2004), Swiss German (Ham 2001, Kraehenmann 2001), ?Hittite, Yolngu Djapu (Morphy 1983) NB some speakers have ban.sa, de.sa, ge.da for the last three forms Cf. rule reordering in Korean? Why does it happen? Cuna reversed gloss i.na na.i medicine da.ge ge.da come sa.ban ban.sa belly ob.sa sa.ob bathed ar.gan ga.nar hand go.e e.go deer sa.pan ban.sab firewood sa.te de.sad no da.ke ge.dag see UR /sabban/ /sadde/ /dagge/ syllabification sab.ban sad.de dag.ge reversal ban.sab de.sad ge.dag devoicing -- degemination SR [bansab] [desad] [gedag] UR /sabban/ /sadde/ /dagge/ syllabification sab.ban sad.de dag.ge degemination sa.ban sa.de da.ge reversal ban.sa de.sa ge.da devoicing -- SR [bansa] [desa] [geda]

Anisfeld 1969 Chomsky and Halle 1968:229 /d/ z [s] decide  decis-ive /t/ [s] permit  permiss-ive Is this intermediate stage (z) psychologically real? Nonce forms garlude, yermit, etc. Forced choice for -ive derivative: garluzive : garlushive : garluthive : garlufive yermizive : yermishive : yermithive : yermifive Results preference: z > sh > th > f Ss chose [z] significantly more for /d/-final verbs than for /t/-final verbs Judgements weren’t based on sound similarity (stimuli controlled for this) Anisfeld attributes preference to accessing intermediate -z- representation

Conclusions Chomsky’s insight in his 1951 MA thesis: Synchronic grammar may mirror historical grammar in having temporally ordered application of rules Linguistic generalizations can be opaque (non-surface-true) There is strong psycholinguistic evidence for this claim

Sample derivations: Karok UR ni-pasip ni-si:tva u-iskak ni-uksup vowel truncation — uskak niksup glottal insertion ?uskak palatalization niSi:tva nikSup SR nipasip

References Anisfeld, Moshe. 1969. Psychological evidence for an intermediate stage in a morphological derivation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 8:191-195. Bright, William. 1957. The Karok language. Berkeley: University of California Press. Butterworth, Brian. 1981. Speech errors—old data in search of new theories. Linguistics 19.7/8:627-662. Cho, Mi-Hui and Shinsook Lee. 2003. The acquisition of fricatives: chain shift cases of English and Korean. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 9.2:485-498. Chomsky, Noam. 1951. The morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew. Master’s thesis, University of Pennsylvania. Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Random House. Dinnsen, Daniel and Jessica Barlow. 1998. On the characterization of a chain shift in normal and delayed phonological acquisition. Journal of Child Language 25:61-94. Idsardi, William. 2002. Further Opacity Issues: Spontaneous L2 Opacity. Proceedings of the 2002 Linguistic Society of Korean International Summer Conference volume II, pp. 259-265. Jesney, Karen. 2005. Chain shift in phonological acquisition. Master’s thesis, University of Calgary. Meara, Paul and Andrew Ellis. 1981. The psychological reality of deep and surface phonological representations: Evidence from speech errors in Welsh. Linguistics 19:797-804. Min, Haesik. 1997. Syllabification in Korean: Evidence from speech errors. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 7:167-180. Sankoff, David & Pascale Rousseau. 1989. Statistical evidence for rule ordering. Language Variation and Change 1:1-18. Sherzer, Joel. 1970. Talking backwards in Cuna: the sociological reality of phonological descriptions. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 26:343-353. Smith, Neilson. 1973. The Acquisition of Phonology: A Case Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Velten, Harry. 1943. The growth of phonemic and lexical patterns in infant language. Language 19.4:281-292. Weinberger, Steven. 1987. The influence of linguistic context on syllable simplification. In G. Ioup & S. Weinberger, eds., Interlanguage phonology. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.