Experimental evidence for product oriented and source oriented generalizations
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 33

Experimental evidence for product-oriented and source-oriented generalizations PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 38 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Experimental evidence for product-oriented and source-oriented generalizations. Vsevolod Kapatsinski Indiana University Dept. of Linguistics Cognitive Science Program Speech Research Laboratory [email protected] http://mypage.iu.edu/~vkapatsi/.

Download Presentation

Experimental evidence for product-oriented and source-oriented generalizations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Experimental evidence for product oriented and source oriented generalizations

Experimental evidence for product-oriented and source-oriented generalizations

Vsevolod Kapatsinski

Indiana University

Dept. of Linguistics

Cognitive Science Program

Speech Research Laboratory

[email protected]

http://mypage.iu.edu/~vkapatsi/


Product oriented vs source oriented generalizations

Product-oriented vs. source-oriented generalizations

  • Bybee (2001:126)

    “Generative rules express source-oriented generalizations. That is, they act on a specific input to change it in well-defined ways into an output of a certain form. Many, if not all, schemas are product-oriented rather than source-oriented. A product-oriented schema generalizes over forms of a specific category, but does not specify how to derive that category from some other.”

Source oriented: k]sg ti]pl

Product-oriented: ‘plurals must end in ti’


Present study

Present study

  • Given a lexicon and a particular training paradigm what generalizations do the learners extract?


The paradigm bybee newman 1995

The paradigm(Bybee & Newman 1995)


The artificial languages

The artificial languages

Two plural suffixes –i and -a

If –i attached to a velar ({k;g}), the velar changes to an alveopalatal

This is velar palatalization


Velar palatalization

Velar palatalization

The process:

  • k  t /_i

    Productivity:

  • p(k  ti) / ( p(k  ti) + p(kki) )

Coding scheme:

BLUE – velar palatalization applies

RED – velar palatalization fails


Research question

Research question

  • Does the productivity of velar palatalization differ in the BLUE language and the RED language?

  • Depends on your model of grammar.


Research question1

Research question

/62


Non competing rules

Triggers velar palatalization

Does not compete with anything

Equally supported in both languages

Non-competing rules

BLUE = RED

e.g., Hale and Reiss 2008, Plag 2003


Constraints

Triggers velar palatalization

/ki/ less expected in the blue language

 its absence is less notable

Constraints

BLUE < RED


Positive product oriented generalizations

Positive product-oriented generalizations

Triggers vel.pal.

Attaches –i with or without vel.pal.

BLUE > RED

Bybee & Slobin 1982, Bybee & Moder 1983, Bybee 2001


Competing weighted rules

Triggers velar palatalization

Competes with

Competition stronger in red

Competing weighted rules

BLUE > RED

Albright & Hayes 2003

Iff the choice between the rules is stochastic.


Results

Results

BLUERED


Experimental evidence for product oriented and source oriented generalizations

Results

Non-competing rules

Constraints

Positive product-oriented

Competing weighted rules

100%

30

*

BLUE RED


Individual subject data

Individual subject data


Competing weighted rules positive product oriented

Competing weighted rulesPositive product-oriented

{p;b;t;d}

{p;b;t;d}

Albright & Hayes 2003


Results1

Results

***

ANCOVA:

This correlation is significant

F(1,27)=14.23, p<.001,

while Language is not,

F(1,27)=.082, p>.5).

The predicted explanatory variable

accounts for all the variance

in velar palatalization rate

attributable to the artificial language

21


Natural language data kapatsinski in press

Natural language data (Kapatsinski, in press)

  • In Russian loanword adaptation (English  Russian on the web not in dictionary), vel.pal is fully productive before the suffixes

    • -ek, -ok

      but only partially productive before

    • -ik, -i.

      Why?

      - Despite no exceptions in the dictionary

      - Despite /i/ being a more natural trigger of vel.pal than /o/, /e/ (Bhat 1974, Guion 1998, Wilson 2006)


Natural language data kapatsinski in press1

Natural language data (Kapatsinski, in press)

  • In Russian loanword adaptation (English  Russian on the web not in dictionary), vel.pal is fully productive before the suffixes

    • -ek, -ok

      but only partially productive before

    • -ik, -i.

      Why?

      -ik, –i tend not to attach to velars

      -ok, -ek mostly attach to velars


Positive product oriented generalizations vs competing weighted rules

Positive product-oriented generalizations vs.competing weighted rules


Experimental evidence for product oriented and source oriented generalizations

Product-oriented generalizations


Competing weighted rules1

Competing weighted rules


Experimental evidence for product oriented and source oriented generalizations

Competing weighted rules

Product-oriented

The addition of tti hurts palatalization

t(33)=2.88, p=.007


Perception rating

Perception / rating


Experimental evidence for product oriented and source oriented generalizations

Perception: The addition of tti helps palatalization

{t;d}{t;dӡ}i vs.

{t;d}{t;d}i

*

Competing weighted rules

Product-oriented


Experimental evidence for product oriented and source oriented generalizations

Perception: The addition of tti helps palatalization

Because ratings of {t;dӡ}i increase

(t(51)=2.245, p<.05)

Competing weighted rules

Product-oriented

*


Is perception purely product oriented no

Is perception purely product-oriented? No.

  • Listeners know at least that singular-final velars are the changeable segments:

    • {k;g}  {t;dӡ}i better than {t;d}{t;dӡ}i (p<.001) in every language

    • {k;g} {k;g}V better than {t;dӡ}{k;g}V (p<.00001) in every language


Summary

Learners extract competing rules, which they use to derive a word from a morphologically related word (Albright & Hayes 2003)

The outcome of competition between rules is influenced by reliability or type frequency (Albright and Hayes 2003, Pierrehumbert 2006)

The choice between rules is stochastic

Learners also learn about what a typical plural sounds like (product-oriented generalizations, Bybee 2001)

Product-oriented generalizations are used more by the listener to evaluate the goodness of a paradigmatic mapping than by the speaker to form a word from a morphologically related word (perception is more liberal than production)

Caveat: source-oriented paradigm

Summary

32


References

References

Albright, A., and B. Hayes. 2003. Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition, 90, 119-61.

Bhat, D. N. S. 1974. A general study of palatalization. Working Papers on Language Universals 14: 17-58.

Bybee, J. L. 2001. Phonology and language use. CUP.

Bybee, J. L., & C. L. Moder. 1983. Morphological classes as natural categories. Language, 59, 251-70.

Bybee, J. L., & J. E. Newman. 1995. Are stem changes as natural as affixes? Linguistics, 33, 633-54.

Bybee, J. L., & D. I. Slobin. 1982. Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past. Language 58: 265-89.

Guion, S. G. 1998. The role of perception in the sound change of velar palatalization. Phonetica 55: 18-52.

Hale, M., & C. Reiss. 2008. The phonological enterprise. OUP.

Kapatsinski, V. M. In press. Rule reliability and productivity: Velar palatalization in Russian and artificial grammar. Proceedings of LabPhon 11.

Köpcke, K.-M. 1988. Schemas in German plural formation. Lingua, 74, 303-35.

Lobben, M. 1991. Pluralization of Hausa nouns, viewed from psycholinguistic experiments and child language data. M.Phil Thesis, University of Oslo.

Pierrehumbert, J. B. 2006. The statistical basis of an unnatural alternation. In Laboratory Phonology 8, 81-107. Mouton de Gruyter.

Plag, I. 1999. Word formation in English. Mouton de Gruyter.

Wilson, C. 2006. Learning phonology with substantive bias: An experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science 30: 945-82.


  • Login