1. Li6 Phonology and Morphology
Rule ordering

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

3. 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
Any crucial ordering relationship between lines 20 and 30?

4. 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

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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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’

10. 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?

11. 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 †
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

12. Psychological aspects of rule ordering

13. Opacity in cognition
How to get up the tree?

14. 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

15. 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?

16. Opacity in L1 acquisition
Figures from Jesney 2005

17. 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…

18. 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

19. 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 

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

21. 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

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

23. 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).

24. 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]

25. 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

26. 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

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

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