1. Abstraction versus exemplars1

2. Normalization
Word is stripped of irrelevant info and stored as an abstract, normalized entity 2

3. Normalization Experiment 1 People heard words spoken by 1 or 10 people
When the words were presented with noise there were fewer correct identifications with 10 speakers voices 3

4. Normalization Experiment 2 People repeated the word they heard
They were slower to repeat with 10 voices than with one 4

5. Normalization
If different voices were irrelevant, they all were normalized you would not expect differences between hearing one or 10 voices
This sounds like evidence against normalization
Authors concluded that a normalization process caused this, and words are stored as abstract normalized entities 5

6. Normalization
If they found no effect of # of voices they’d also conclude that normalization occurs 6

7. Normalization
If they found no effect of # of voices they’d also conclude that normalization occurs
There is no evidence that would be a problem for their theory. Not falsifiable 7

8. Exemplar storage Evidence for storage of the irrelevant
People remember where word was on page
People remember the person, voice, context a word was said in
People remember the font or case a word was presented in 8

9. Exemplar storage People heard 150 words
Later (5 minutes, day week) they heard 300 words and decided if the words were new or old.
Some words presented in same voice others in different voice
There were 2, 6, 10 different voices 9

10. Exemplar storage 10

11. Exemplar model
Mental representations of phonology are built up through experience, addition of exemplars 11

12. Abstract model
Words stored in phonemic form, then pass through rules which give it its phonetic detail 12

13. Abstract model
In formal theories the mental lexicon (storage) is separate from processing
In formal theories words stored with small inventory of phonemes
Phonemes are identical in all words
Fact that rules can apply to new words is “evidence” for existence of rule 13

14. Abstract model
In formal theories sound changes apply to all words with same phonemes
So, all words must be comprised of same units 14

15. Exemplar dynamics In exemplar theory words stored in surface form
The mental lexicon (UR) and processing (rules) are not separate but interrelated
A word or phone or morpheme is a category 15

16. Exemplar dynamics
Members of the category are stored in a cloud of related exemplars
More similar exemplar are stored “closer” to each other (or with stronger connections) 16

17. Exemplar dynamics
Exemplar are related/belong to same cloud/category because they are perceived to be the same thing
A form can belong to different categories
e.g. shoot
stored under different meanings
stored with relationships to frustration
stored with voice of person who says it a lot 17

18. Exemplar dynamics Can you store everything you've ever said/heard?
Possibilities
Older memories decay
Many exemplars are so similar they fuse into the same thing 18

19. Exemplar dynamics
Exemplar: a memory trace of an experience 19

20. Prototype Theory Prototype: Most central member of category
The one new exemplars are compared with to determine what category it belongs to

21. Exemplar Theory No real single prototype, Instead
Densely populated part of cloud
Many exemplars
High frequency exemplar
Lots of connections between exemplar

22. Exemplar Theory No real single prototype, Instead
Densely populated part of cloud
Many exemplars
High frequency exemplar
Lots of connections between exemplar

23. Exemplar Theory There is competition between clouds of exemplars
“the probability for a label is influenced both by the activation of exemplars having that label, and by competition from other labels having exemplars in the same area of the cognitive map.”

24. Exemplar Theory
“In perception, the encoded phonetic character of an incoming stimulus locates it in the parameter space. Activation of exemplars in the neighborhood is passed upwards to the labels, with the most probable label winning in competition with alternatives. Production proceeds in the opposite direction.”

25. Exemplar Theory
“The likelihood that a particular exemplar will be selected is proportionate to its strength. Production is taken to be sensitive to strength in exactly the same way that perceptual classification is.”

26. Frequency effects Schwa deletion Occurs more in high frequency words
Every, family 26

27. Frequency effects Schwa deletion Occurs more in high frequency words
Every, family
In mid-frequency words it gives syllabic /r/
Memory, salary 27

28. Frequency effects Schwa deletion Occurs more in high frequency words
Every, family
In mid-frequency words it gives syllabic /r/
Memory, salary
In low frequency words is gives schwa plus /r/
Mammary, artillery 28

29. Frequency effects Final /t, d/ deletion
Occurs more in high frequency words
And, went 29

30. Frequency effects Final /t, d/ deletion
Occurs more in high frequency words
And, went
Abstract rule models can’t explain frequency effects 30

31. Exemplar theory
Phonological patterns arise from language use/experience
Words stored with phonetic details
This explains frequency effects 31

32. Exemplar theory All exemplars are categorized
As same sound, word, meaning
Exemplars have different strengths
Depending on how recently they were activated 32

33. Exemplar theory Frequency effect happen because
Frequent categories have more members
Frequent categories have more highly activated exemplars 33

34. Exemplar theory
Prototype
No need to calculate and store prototype 34

35. Exemplar theory
Exemplar cloud for two categories 35

36. Exemplar theory Consider vowel categorization as example
Exemplars of two vowels. Height is strength. Distance is phonetic similarity
Exemplar to be categorized is * 36

37. Exemplar theory
In perception,most activated exemplars determine the category
New exemplar is added to cloud 37

38. Exemplar theory
In perception,most activated exemplars determine the category
New exemplar is added to cloud
In production a random exemplar from labeled cloud is chosen and the stored motor program for that exemplar is used
Stronger exemplars are more likely to be chosen 38

39. Exemplar theory Modeling lenition Spirantization
Not hitting full closure
Voicing VCV
V voicing encroaches on C
Degemination
Shortening of duration of C 39

40. Exemplar theory Example k > x Occasional instances of x produced
Over time more instances of x are produced
Distributions shifts
toward x 40

41. Exemplar theory
If exemplars are words, high frequency words have more exemplars hence more that are lenited
They are farther along
in historical change 41

42. Exemplar theory Model will eventually spread out too far
How do you prevent that? 42

43. Exemplar theory Model will eventually spread out too far
How do you prevent that?
Instead of choosing single exemplar as model of production, randomly choose a space in the exemplar cloud
All close and highly activated exemplars influence production 43

44. Exemplar theory Model will eventually spread out too far
How do you prevent that?
Instead of choosing single exemplar as model of production, randomly choose a space in the exemplar cloud
All close and highly activated exemplars influence production 44

45. Exemplar theory
Regression toward the mean eliminates wide flat distribution 45

46. Exemplar theory
Hearing exemplars of people with same speech causes entrenchment
Hearing people with novel speech causes shift in own speech 46

47. Exemplar theory
Hearing exemplars of people with same speech causes entrenchment
Hearing people with novel speech causes shift in own speech
Older people have more exemplar of older speech variant than young people which is why they don’t adopt newer patterns 47

48. Exemplar theory Merger: voiced and voiceless stops word finally
It’s hard to maintain voicing
Phonetic trend is toward devoicing
There are more voiceless than voiced stops 48

49. Exemplar theory 49