1 / 31

Tobias Scheer Fabien Mathy Fanny Meunier

How to determine whether an alleged phonological process is real. 15th Old World Conference in Phonology 12-14 January UCL, London. Tobias Scheer Fabien Mathy Fanny Meunier all Université Côte d'Azur, CNRS, Bases Corpus Langage (BCL ). phonologists compare apples and pears.

baris
Download Presentation

Tobias Scheer Fabien Mathy Fanny Meunier

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. How to determine whether an alleged phonological process is real 15th Old World Conference in Phonology 12-14 January UCL, London Tobias Scheer Fabien Mathy Fanny Meunier all Université Côte d'Azur, CNRS, Bases Corpus Langage (BCL)

  2. phonologists compare apples and pears • today phonology is a blindman'sbusiness • a theoryis about a set of phenomena to beexplained. • the theory of phonologyis about the set of phonologicalphenomena, i.e. about those alternations thatinvolvephonological computation. • nobodyknowswhatthis set looks like • bigisbeautiful: (neo-)SPE – all alternations are the result of phonological computation. • smallisbeautiful (e.g. GP): high hurdles for an alternation to count as phonological. Maybe 5% of what SPE thoughtisphonologicalreallyis. • anyintermediate position is or maybetaken. • differentcomputational system: morpho-phonology • outsourcing: an alternation maybe the result of • two distinct lexical entries • allomorphy • phonetics • spell-out (phoneticinterpretation) • analogy

  3. phonologists compare apples and pears • For decades, phonologists have tried to establish a set of criteria (called evaluation measure or evaluation metrics) that is able to tell alternations that are phonological in kind from those that are not. • ==> in vain: all efforts remain inconclusive (Bermúdez-Otero & McMahon 2006: 383ff) • example: velarsoftening • electri[k] – electri[s]-ity • no agreement todaydespite massive study and literature • Chomsky & Halle (1968: 219ff, 426f), Hooper (1975: 544f), Kiparsky (1982: 40f), Halle & Mohanan (1985), Harris (1994: 21ff), Kaye (1995: 312, 328), Coleman (1995: 375ff), Halle (2005) and McMahon (2007). Overviews: Hayes (1995) and Green (2007: 172ff). • the popperian competition among theories is significantly biased: a theory that accounts for velar softening in the phonology cannot be compared to a theory considering that this process has nothing to do with phonology. • The set of things to be explained is not the same, and wildly diverges already at the scale of a language. Before theories can compete, the question what a true phonological phenomenon is thus needs to be assessed.

  4. phonologists compare apples and pears • When you are unable to distinguish stone from plastic • currently phonologists are in the position of, say, geologists who aim to make a theory of the characteristics of stone, but are unable to distinguish stone from plastic. • They thus collect samples on which they build their theory, some of which contain 10% of plastic, others 30%, still others 60% and so on. • Unsurprisingly enough, competing theories built on these wildly varying sets of empirical material then significantly diverge – • not because of the theorizing itself but because of the plastic.

  5. whatwewant to find out For anygiven production : ismorphologyinvolved ? isphonologyinvolved ?

  6. experimentalprotocoladaptedformSahin et al. (2009) • Sahin et al. (2009) • intra-cranial EEG (deep electrodes) • 3 patients implanted for medical evaluation (epilepsy) • experimental protocol adapted to behavioural measurements of RT Sahin, Ned T., Steven Pinker, Sidney S. Cash, Donald Schomer & Eric Halgren 2009. Sequential Processing of Lexical, Grammatical, and Phonological Information Within Broca's Area. Science 326: 445-449.

  7. Fig. 2 (A) Main results: sequential processing of lexical, grammatical, and phonological information in overlapping circuits. N T Sahin et al. Science 2009;326:445-449 Published by AAAS

  8. hypothesis • movingfrom EEG to behaviouralmeasures (Reaction Time) • doing more thingstakes more time • all otherthingsbeingequal, the RT hierarchyis • Read < NullInflect < OvertInflect

  9. four phenomenastudied

  10. stimuli selection linguistic restrictions 1. represent all floating consonants: -t (petit), -s (gros), -kt (distinct) 2. caveat schwa-ɛ: inf. empaqueter, but 3sg empacte / empaquète

  11. Method Instruction 650ms + 1100ms 40 participants aged 25 on average 154 words split into 4 phenomena (plus fillers): 68 float.Cconjug, 68 float.C adj., 5 schwa, 5 ik-sité, 8 fillers. 3 conditions (Overtinflect, Nullinflect, Read) × 154 words = 462 trials Trial : Stimulus 250ms + 1500ms Production of the targetexpectedhere

  12. Method Ils sont __ 650ms + 1100ms électrique 250ms + Example (NullInflect) 1500ms Production of « électriques » expectedhere Dependent variable : RT from the visualonset of the stimulus word(vocal key : CHRONOS, synchronizedwith E-PRIME).

  13. Results MeanRTs 412 ms 460 ms 489 ms Estimated gaussians and mean RTs in msfor the conditionsRead, Null Inflect andOvert Inflect Macro-granularity(across 4 phenomena) : RTs as predictedaccording to condition: Read < NullInflect < OvertInflect

  14. Results * Includingwordfrequencies as covariateinto the model did not change the pattern of significance. * RT (ms) Error bars are+/- 1 SE * * * * A mixed-effects model showed a significant effect of Condition (F(2,5617.4) = 34.7, p < .001), a significant effect of Phenomena (F(3,5745.0) = 32.7, p < .001), and a significant interaction between Condition and Phenomena (F(6,5594.8) = 6.8, p < .001). • All phenomena showed a slight raise of RTs between Read and Null conditions. • Between the Null and the Overt conditions, the following differences were observed : • Float C. adj. and schwa- did not differ significantly, • Float C. conjand ik-[sité] increased significantly (t(39) = 3.2, p = .003 and t(39) = 2,5, p = .018). • High deviation for schwa-and ik-[sité]: individual items submitted to Bayesian analysis .

  15. Results Estimated gaussian distributions used for computing Bayes factors MeanRTs 412 ms 460 ms 489 ms

  16. Results BF (individuals)1.3 / 1 / 4.6 Bayes factors (highlighted in grey when phonological computation was not obvious): NB 1. The magnitude of the Bayes Factors (BF) canbeinterpreted as: 1 < BF < 3 = anecdotal; 3 < BF < 10 = moderate; 10 < BF < 30 = strong; 30 < BF < 100 = verystrong; BF > 100 = extreme. NB 2. For the 68 words of the categoryfloat C. adj, the frequencies of the best hypothesesNull, Overt, and Read wererespectively 11, 14 and 43 (goodness of fit chi-square test : χ2 = 27.6, p < .001), showingthatmostoften the words of thiscategorydid not seem to requirephonology.

  17. Results rare words go with the Overt condition, i.e. involvephonology frequentwords go with the Read or Null condition, i.e. do not involvephonology

  18. Discussion • Macro-granularity (across 4 phenomena) : • RTs as predictedaccording to condition: • Read < NullInflect < OvertInflect

  19. Discussion Intermediategranularity(4 phenomenaindividuized)

  20. Discussion • Intermediate and Macro-granularity • significant RT effectscannotbe due to (lemma) frequencyof wordssincefor eachcontrasting group the same lexical items wereused. • Example Macro-granularity: Read vs. NullInflect vs. OvertInflect • the set of lexical items used are the same in the three conditions. • statistical confirmation: pattern of significanceunchangedwhencontrolling for (lemma) frequency (i.e. includingfrequency as covariant). • ==> RT latencies are governed by another factor.

  21. Discussion • Micro-granularity • token (=lexical) frequencyis a relevant factor for intra-phenomenon distinctions: the more frequent, the greater the chance for a phonological alternation to beallomorphized or lexicalized (listed). • unsurprisingly, morphologically complex words stand a better chance to become lexicalized over time when they are frequent. • thismeansthat the phonological instructions thattransform the input into the output are part of the linguisticcompetence of presentday natives, whowill use themfor less frequent or unknown words. • ==> velarsofteningis in the phonology of French speakers.

  22. Outlook • we'llbe back with EEG-based data • sameexperimental setup • no interferenceof behaviouralfactors • differentphenomena • English sg.-pl. controlled for the voicing of stem-final consonants • English velarsoftening (electric-electricity) • English trisyllabicshortening (Christ – christian) • a crazyrule • goal • to build a machine thatis able to tell whetheranygiven alternation • does or does not involveconcatenation • does or does not involvephonological computation

  23. References Balota, David A. & James I. Chumbley 1985. The locus of word-frequency effects in the pronunciation task: lexical access and/or production? Journal of Memory and Language 24: 89-106. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo 2012. The architecture of grammar and the division of labor in exponence. The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence, edited by JochenTrommer, 8-83. Oxford: OUP. Bien, Heidrun, R. Harald Baayen & Willem J. M. Levelt 2011. Frequency effects in the production of Dutch deverbal adjectives and inflected verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes 26: 683-715. Bock, J. K. 1982. Toward a cognitive psychology of of syntax. Psychological Review 89: 1-47. Butterworth, B. 1983. Lexical representation. Language production. Vol. 2. Development, writing and other language processes, edited by B. Butterworth, 257-294. London: Academic Press. Chomsky, Noam 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Dell, Gary S. 1986. A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review 93: 283-321. Gahl, S. 2008. Time and thyme are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language 84: 474-496. Graves, W. W., T. J. Grabowski, S. Mehta & J. K. Gordon 2007. A neural signature of phonological access: distinguishing the effects of word frequency from familiarity and length in overt picture naming. Journal of cognitive neuroscience 19: 617-631. Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz 1993. Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. The view from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, edited by Kenneth Hale & Samuel Keyser, 111-176. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Janssen, N., Y. Bi & A. Caramazza 2008. A tale of two frequencies: Determining the speed of lexical access in Mandarin Chinese and English compounds. Language and Cognitive Processes 23: 1191-1223. Jescheniak, Jörg D. & Willem J. M. Levelt 1994. Word frequency effects in speech production: retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory, and Cognition 20: 824-843. Kiparsky, Paul 1968-1973. How abstract is phonology? Manuscript circulated since 1968 and published 1973 in: Three Dimensions of Linguistic Theory, edited by Osamu Fujimura, 5-56. Tokyo: TEC.

  24. References Kiparsky, Paul 1974. On the Evaluation Measure. Papers from the parasession on Natural Phonology, edited by A.Bruck, R.Fox & M.LaGaly, 328-337. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Laganaro, M., S. Morand, V. Schwitter, C. Zimmermann, C. Camen & A. Schnider 2009. Electrophysiological correlates of different anomic patterns in comparison with normal word production. Cortex 45: 697-707. Levelt, Willem J. M. 1989. Speaking: from intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Levelt, Willem J. M. 2001. Spoken word production: A theory of lexical access. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98: 13464-13513. Levelt, Willem J. M., ArdiRoelofs & Antje S. Meyer 1999. A theory of lexical access in speech production. The Behavioral and brain sciences 22: 1-75. Meyer, A.S. 1992. Investigation of phonological encoding through speech error analyses: achievements, limitations, and alternatives. Cognition 42: 181-211. Prabhakaran, R., S. E. Blumstein, E. B. Myers, E. Hutchison & B. Britton 2006. An event-related fMRI investigation of phonological–lexical competition. Neuropsychologia 44: 2209-2221. Roelofs, Ardi 1992. A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition 42: 107-142. Roelofs, Ardi 1993. Testing a non-decompositional theory of lemma retrieval in speaking: retrieval of verbs. Cognition 47: 59-87. Roelofs, Ardi 1997. The WEAVER model of word-form encoding in speech production. Cognition 64: 249-284. Sahin, Ned T., Steven Pinker, Sidney S. Cash, Donald Schomer & Eric Halgren 2009. Sequential Processing of Lexical, Grammatical, and Phonological Information Within Broca's Area. Science 326: 445-449. Strijkers, K., A. Costa & G. Thierry 2010. Tracking lexical access in speech production: Electrophysiological correlates of word frequency and cognate effects. Cerebral Cortex 20: 912-928. Williams, Edwin 2007. Dumping Lexicalism. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, edited by Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss, 353-381. Oxford: OUP.

  25. studies in language production • convergent views of • (generative-sceptic) psycho-linguistic experimental analysis • and (generative) linguistic analysis • 1. sequence of events • lexical access before • concatenation (grammatical encoding) before • phonological interpretation (phonological encoding) before • phonetics (phonetic encoding) • Chomsky (1965), Bock (1982), Levelt (1989) • 2. late insertion = lemma vs. lexeme • morpho-syntactic (grammatical) and phonological information is stored independently in the mental lexicon (long term memory) and accessed at two distinct stages in the production process: • lemma (containsmorpho-syntactic information) vs. lexeme (containsphonological information) • lemma retrieval before morpho-syntactic computation (grammatical encoding) before lexeme retrieval before phonological computation (phon. encoding) • Levelt (1989), Jescheniak & Levelt (1994), Halle & Marantz (1993)

  26. studies in language production • evidence used • non-experimental • speech errors • Dell (1986), Meyer (1992) • experimental • behavioural: frequency effects detected by reaction time • Jescheniak & Levelt (1994) etc. • electrophysiological (EEG, MEEG) • Laganaroet al. (2009), Strijkers et al. (2010) • neuro-imaging (MRI) • Prabhakaranet al. (2006), Graves et al. (2007)

  27. studies in language production protocols used naming task: measure naming latencies (reaction time) 2. delayed naming task Balota& Chumbley (1985) etc. 3. homophone naming task Gahl(2008) etc. 4. naming & translation (from language X to language Y) Jescheniak & Levelt (1994, exp. #6,#7)

  28. Results float. C adj. (grand – grande) recallthat the global resultfor thisphenomenonis "not Overt". out of 68 words, the best Bayesianhypothesiswas Read 43 words Null 11 words Overt14 words goodness of fit chi-square test : χ2 = 27.6, p < .001) mêmes stats pour schwa-e?

  29. studies in language production • goals: what people want to find out • identify the locus of frequency effects: at which processing stage does it occur? • Balota & Chumbley (1985), Jescheniak & Levelt(1994), Gahl (2008) • 2. identify the different steps / routines in production and provide evidence for their reality • Bock (1982), Dell (1986), Roelofs(1992, 1993, 1997), Levelt (1989), Leveltet al. (1999) • 3. decomposition vs. full listing: how many pieces are involved in morphologically complex items? • Butterworth (1983), Janssen et al. (2008), Levelt(2001), Levelt et al. (1999)

  30. studies in language production linguistic granularity often the only differentiation is between morphologically complex vs. morphologically simple other parameter used: length of words (one vs. two or more syllables) sometimes different constructions are tested (in the decomposition vs. full listing debate): a. inflection b. derivation c. compounds but these differences are then scrambled and taken to equally represent the "morphologically complex" class: "There is converging evidence that the production of complex words involves access to the constituent morphemes, irrespective of transparency conditions in these experiments." Bien et al. (2011: 684) summary idea that the construction of all morphologically complex items has the same cognitive workings. different constructions are used, but without using linguistic evidence for their selection, classification or significance (e.g. class 1 vs. class 2 affixes).

  31. background of ourexperiment new experimentalprotocol in behaviouralstudies (adaptedfrom EEG-basedSahin et al. 2009) not all morphologicallycomplex items are the same: a. someinvolveonly one piece (lexicalized) b. othersinvolvetwopieces but no phonologicalactivity (allomorphy) c. stillothersinvolvetwopieces plus phonologicalactivity (morpho-phon.) 3. whatwe are after: for each construction (eachmorpheme), find out about 2a-c. stimuli sets selectedaccording to theirlinguisticcharacteristics: different constructions are more or less likely to instantiate 2a-c.

More Related