Li6 Phonology and Morphology

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 40 next Any evidence for the intermediate reps created by lines 20 and 30? 1 2 -4 -3 -2 -1.5 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: σσσσσσ 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. ásdaγstar 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) † 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

12. Psychological aspects of rule ordering

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

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

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’: • 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?

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: Karok

28. 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.