1. Ch 12 Slide 1 Ch 12 – Abstractness We have been doing concrete phonological analyses. There are also abstract analyses. Polish!

2. Ch 12 Slide 2 Ch 12 – Abstractness

3. Ch 12 Slide 3 Ch 12 – Abstractness To explain these 2 different patterns – we have 2 hypotheses

4. Ch 12 Slide 4 Ch 12 – Abstractness

5. Ch 12 Slide 5 Ch 12 – Abstractness But we have a lot of exceptions!

6. Ch 12 Slide 6 Ch 12 – Abstractness

7. Ch 12 Slide 7 Ch 12 – Abstractness Surface vowels Abstract underlying vowels

8. Ch 12 Slide 8 Ch 12 – Abstractness Abstract underlying vowels

9. Ch 12 Slide 9 Ch 12 – Abstractness Abstract underlying vowels – explains the data

10. Ch 12 Slide 10 Ch 12 – Abstractness This abstract analysis explains the odd patterns in Polish, and it fits well with historical accounts of language. BUT how does an L1 speaker of Polish acquire this abstract and purely theoretical vowel that never surfaces? Is this the best account? Hayes believes maybe a better account is that children learning Polish may acquire a complex epenthesis rule but that would also have exceptions Which is better then – an abstract analysis with an underlying form that never surfaces? OR a rule that has many exceptions which would have to be captured within the lexicon?

11. Ch 12 Slide 11 Ch 12 – Abstractness English stress – if we assume predictable, then need abstract analysis Most disyllabic nouns have stress on first syllable Some exceptions: So we come up with a non-surfacing underlying form to explain

12. Ch 12 Slide 12 Ch 12 – Abstractness It explains other exceptions to stress rules: But there are still other patterns of stress in English that are unpredictable. So Hayes suggests that this analysis is unnecessary if we assume that Phonemic stress is part of the phoneme system acquired and that it doesn’t have to be predictable (language change perhaps?)