Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
Vsevolod Kapatsinski Indiana University email@example.com. The influence of syllabic constituency on learning CV-affix vs. VC-affix associations: Constituency is more than dependency. Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting January 3-6, 2008. Chicago, IL.
Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting
January 3-6, 2008.
b d g
b d g
d b g
st a nd
st a ndMain question
What is constituency?
(e.g., Fudge 1987)
Constituency is unithood.
A constituent is allocated
a node in the hierarchy.
(e.g., Vennemann 1988)
Constituency is connection strength.
Connections between parts of a
constituent are stronger than
connections that cross constituent
A node is something that can be linked to / associated with something else
than the body is, we need to make sure that this is not because
the coda is more associable than the onset before we argue for a
Parts of the stem Affixes
mn-C C-mnXOR learning: making parts and wholes compete
Subjects exposed to rime-affix pairings
Subjects exposed to body-affix pairings
17 native English speakers in each condition (68 total)
Accuracy on rimes should be better than on bodies
Even if syllables containing familiar rimes or bodies are novel and
Even if accuracy on codas and onsets does not differ
/mn/-// /mn/-// /num/-/g/ /num/-/g/
Accuracy with novel syllables
containing familiar rimes (72%)
is not lower than accuracy with
familiar syllables containing
familiar rimes (69%).
Subjects are not just memorizing
No evidence for an adjacency effect: rime-prefix associations learned as well as rime-suffix ones.
The lack of a difference between onset and coda also suggests that the rime/body difference is not
due to the fact that the rime occurs after the body.
Not all rimes are equally likely to be extracted from the signal
Not all instances of the same rime or body are equally likely to be extracted from the signal
Bybee, J. L. 2002. Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In T. Givon and B. F. Malle, eds. The Evolution of language out of pre-language. Benjamins.
Cutler, A., McQueen, J. M., Norris, D., & Somejuan, A. 2001. The roll of the silly ball. In E. Dupoux (ed.), Language, Brain, and Cognitive Development: Essays in Honor of Jacques Mehler (pp.181-94). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fudge, E. 1987. Branching structure within the syllable. Journal of Linguistics, 23, 359-377.
Goldinger, S. D., and T. Azuma. 2003. Puzzle-solving science: The quixotic quest for units in speech perception. Journal of Phonetics, 31, 305-20.
Healy, A.F. (1994). Letter detection: A window to unitization and other cognitive processes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 333-344.
Kessler, B., and R. Treiman. 1997. Syllable structure and the distribution of phonemes in English syllables. Journal of Memory and Language 37: 295-311.
Lee, Y. 2006. Sub-syllabic constituency in Korean and English, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Northwestern University.
Nosofsky, R. M., T. J. Palmeri, and S. C. McKinley. 1994. Rule-plus-exception model of classi
Saavedra, M. A. 1975. Pavlovian conditioning in the rabbit. Learning and Motivation, 6, 314-26.
Treiman, R., & Danis, C. 1988. Short-term memory errors for spoken syllables are affected by the linguistic structure of the syllables. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 145-52.
Vennemann, T. 1988. The rule dependence of syllable structure. In On language: Rhetorica, Phonologica, Syntactica: A Festschrift for Robert P. Stockwell from his Friends and Colleagues, edited by C. Duncan-Rose and T. Vennemann, 257-83. London: Routledge.
Yoon, Y. B., and B. L. Derwing. 2001. A language without a rhyme: Syllable structure experiments in Korean. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 46: 187-237.