Rules versus Analogy

Two different camps Tons of studies done Evidence goes both ways

Rule Approaches ● Only the bare minimum is stored in the brain ● Storage is costly (like first computers) ● Processing is cheap

Rule Approaches ● Only the bare minimum is stored in the brain ● Storage is costly (like first computers) ● Processing is cheap – It would be dumb to store sentences when they can be built up with rules – It would be dumb to store phonetic detail when it can be predicted (e.g. aspiration, flapping)

Rule Approaches ● Acquisition entails learning rules then storing them and applying them as needed – /kæt/ is stored – rules convert it into [k h æ]

Rule Approaches ● Acquisition entails learning rules then storing them and applying them as needed – /kæt/ is stored – rules convert it into [k h æ] – morphemes are stored (walk and -ed) – rule adds -ed to walk to produce walked ● Why store walked and take up the space?

Analogical Approaches ● Everything is stored ● Storage is cheap (like modern computers) ● Processing is costly – Storing sentences as wholes is OK – Storing phonetic detail is OK

Analogical Approaches ● Acquisition entail making connections between words, sentences, morphemes that are similar – similar meaning (rob, steal) – similar sound (flip, blip) – similar spelling (phantom, physical) – associatively related (doctor, nurse) – contextually related (like, like, like, teen girls)

Analogical Approaches ● No need to make rules, store them, or apply them ● Production is using stored information or finding patterns between words, sentences and applying them to new contexts

Analogical Approaches ● No need to make rules, store them, or apply them ● Production is using stored information or finding patterns between words, sentences and applying them to new contexts – analogy ● drive is to drove as dive is to ? ● ring is to rang as bring is to ?

Rules vs. Analogy in Phonology ● /t/ has many allophones – [ ɾ ]butter – [ ʔ ]gotten – [ ∅ ]percent of – [t]star – [t = ]cat – [t ʰ ]take

Rules vs. Analogy in Phonology ● /t/ has many allophones – [ ɾ ]butter – [ ʔ ]gotten – [ ∅ ]percent of – [t]star – [t = ]cat – [t ʰ ]take ● How do we know which one to use?

Rules vs. Analogy in Phonology ● Rules say we learn generalizations, store them, and apply them – [ ɾ ] is used between vowels when second is unstressed – [ ʔ ] is used word finally or in a syllable coda – [t]is used after /s/ or before a stressless syllable – [t ʰ ] is used word initially or before a stressed syllable

Rules vs. Analogy in Phonology ● Rules say we learn generalizations, store them, and apply them – Given a new word hetpal we apply rule to determine /t/ is pronounced [ ʔ ] – If rules weren't real how could we know how to pronounce it?

Rules vs. Analogy in Phonology ● Rules say we learn generalizations, store them, and apply them – Given a new word hetpal we apply rule to determine /t/ is pronounced [ ʔ ] – If rules weren't real how could we know how to pronounce it? – Problem: pronunciation varies: [k h æt][k h æ] – Solution: make certain rules variable

Rules vs. Analogy in Phonology ● Analogy says we store things with massive connections to similar things – Given a new word hetpal, words that are similar are activated and we apply the pattern in the stored words to determine /t/ is pronounced [ ʔ ] – If rules weren't real how could we know how to pronounce it? Because there are patterns among stored words – Problem: pronunciation varies: [k h æt][k h æ] – Solution: words are stored with both, so the pattern is variable

Can you predict pronunciation with analogy? ● 3,719 instances of /t/ taken from read sentences. ● Context of each /t/ put in database. The encoding of the /t/ of meet as a flap in the sentence – I know I didn't meet her... early enough – 1) ɾ, 2) word boundary, 3) m, 4) i, 5) word boundary, 6) ɚ, 7) pause 8) primary stress, 9) unstressed, 10) meet

Leave one out simulation ● Most “errors” are actually possible pronunciations. – Chest can be [ ʧɛ s] as easily as [ ʧɛ st = ] – The final /t/ in comment on can be deleted or realized as an aspirate or unreleased stop. – [ ʔ ] is most often predicted to be [t = ]; they are often interchangeable. ● Vietnam, nightmare, and light.

Are rules or analogy more robust/ ● Rules require specific information to make predictions – If the info isn't there no prediction can be made

Are rules or analogy more robust? ● Rules require specific information to make prediction – If the info isn't there no prediction can be made ● Analogy just needs some information, not specific info – If some info is missing, the rest can be used

How to predict flap ● Analogy doesn't require specific info, just some info ● What if we delete stress info? – I know I didn't meet her... early enough – 1) ɾ, 2) word boundary, 3) m, 4) i, 5) word boundary, 6) ɚ, 7) pause 8) primary stress, 9) unstressed, 10) meet

How to predict flap ● Analogy doesn't require specific info, just some info ● What if we delete stress info? – I know I didn't meet her... early enough – 1) ɾ, 2) word boundary, 3) m, 4) i, 5) word boundary, 6) ɚ, 7) pause 8) primary stress, 9) unstressed, 10) meet ● 64% correct with stress, 62% without ● Rules can't even make a prediction

Which sounds better? ● nobler more noble ● commoner more common ● carefuler more careful ● harder more hard ● greenermore green ● accuratermore accurate ● angriermore angry ● mellowermore mellow ● unhappiermore unhappy

English comparative adjectives (Elzinga) ● Some adjectives take the suffix -er while others are preceded by more – more important, *importanter, more fake, *faker ● How do you know which one?

English comparative adjectives (Elzinga) ● Rules say: – Add -er if the adjective is monosyllabic. – Use more if the adjective is disyllabic and if it’s stressed on the first syllable and ends in -y, le, ow. – Otherwise use more.

English comparative adjectives (Elzinga) ● Rules say: – Add -er if the adjective is monosyllabic. – Use more if the adjective is disyllabic and if it’s stressed on the first syllable and ends in -y, le, ow. – Otherwise use more. ● Analogy says: – Find similar words and apply the pattern they have.

English comparative adjectives (Elzinga) ● Of 485 test cases, 93.6% are correctly predicted by these rules – Problems: ● How can people follow rules they can’t formulate? ● How do you account for variation? ● Requires lots of computation, little storage (problem?) ● If you leave a variable out, you can’t make good predictions

English comparative adjectives (Elzinga) ● Analogy to other adjectives predicted 92.6% correct (leave on out simulation) – 93.6 vs not different

English Past Tense ● What is the past tense of: – queed – nace – bize – lum – fleep – shilk – gleed – scoil – flet – tesh – spling – chake – gude – gare – nold – chind

Dual-route model ● Regular verbs are derived by rule: add -ed – Regular past tense formed are not stored (walked, regarded) – Regular past tense forms are not connected to other regular past tense forms (no analogy) ● Irregular verbs are stored as wholes with connections to other irregular past tense forms (analogy)

Dual-route model ● People asked to give past tense

Dual-route Model

● People appear to use analogy for irregulars ● People appear not to use analogy for regulars

Single-route Model ● Analogy is used for both regulars and irregulars ● Can it replicate findings?