rule reliability and productivity n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Rule reliability and productivity PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Rule reliability and productivity

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 31

Rule reliability and productivity - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 121 Views
  • Uploaded on

Vsevolod Kapatsinski Indiana University vkapatsi@indiana.edu http://mypage.indiana.edu/~vkapatsi/. Rule reliability and productivity. Velar palatalization in Russian and artificial grammar. Laboratory Phonology XI 30 June – 2 July 2008. Work supported by NIH Training Grant DC-00012

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Rule reliability and productivity' - ulfah


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
rule reliability and productivity

Vsevolod Kapatsinski

Indiana University

vkapatsi@indiana.edu

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

Rule reliability and productivity

Velar palatalization in Russian and artificial grammar

Laboratory Phonology XI30 June – 2 July 2008

Work supported by NIH Training Grant DC-00012

and NIH Research Grant DC-00111

the puzzle of productivity loss
The puzzle of productivity loss
  • Morphophonemic rules can lose productivity while having no exceptions in the lexicon
  • How does this happen? If there are a lot of examples supporting a rule, why would it fail?
case study velar palatalization in russian
Case study: Velar palatalization in Russian

kt /_ -i (verbal stem extension)

g -ek/ik (nominal diminutive)

-ok (nominal diminutive)

Exceptionless in the lexicon (Levikova 2003, Sheveleva 1974)

Fully productive before -ek and -ok.

but

Partially productive before –i and -ik.

Why?

hypothesis
Hypothesis
  • Rules are extracted from the lexicon
  • Rules compete for inputs
  • Competition is resolved by relative reliability
  • Reliability = number of inputs that undergo the rule divided by the number of inputs that could undergo the rule

(Albright and Hayes 2003, Pierrehumbert 2006)

For []  ed , # of verbs that take –ed / # of verbs in English

rule based learner albright and hayes 2003
Rule-Based Learner(Albright and Hayes 2003)
  • Takes in a lexicon of pairs of morphologically related words

blok, bloti-

sok, soti-

sobak, sobati-

zavtrak, zavtraka-

  • Generalizes rules from it and weights them by reliability

k  ti / o_ (1.0)

k  ti / V[+back;-high]__(0.75)

[]  a / ak_ (0.5)

rule based learner albright and hayes 20031
Rule-Based Learner(Albright and Hayes 2003)
  • Generalizes rules from it and weights them by reliability

k  ti / o_ (1.0)

k  ti / V[+back;-high]__(0.75)

[]  a / ak_ (0.5)

  • For each distinct output that an input can become, there will be one rule that’s more reliable than other rules producing that output from that input

bok  boti

k  ti / o_ (1.0)

k  ti / V[+back;-high]__(0.75)

  • The probability of an output given an input is given by dividing the reliability of the most reliable applicable rule producing that output by the sum of reliabilities of the most reliable rules leading to different outputs

bok 

boti 1/(1+0.5) = 67%

boka 0.5/(1+0.5) = 33%

slide7
blok, bloti-

sok, soti-

lak, lati-

zavtrak, zavtraka-

k  ti / o_ (1.0)

k  ti / V[+back;-high]__(0.75)

[]  a / ak_ (0.5)

  • bak 
  • bati 0.75/(0.75+0.5) = 60%
  • baka 0.5/(0.5+0.75) = 40%
  • *baki  palatalization never fails before -i
slide8

plat plati-

kos kosi-

trub trubi-

var vari-

ver veri-

sol soli-

voz vozi-

sor sori-

ar ari-

blok, bloti-

sok, soti-

sobak, sobati-

zavtrak, zavtraka-

k  ti / o_ (1.0)

k  ti / V[+back;-high]__(0.75)

[]  i / C_ (0.69)

[]  a / ak_ (0.5)

  • bak 
  • bati 0.75/(0.75+0.5+0.69) = 39%
  • baka 0.5/(0.5+0.75+0.69) = 26%
  • baki 0.69/(0.5+0.75+0.69) = 36%  palatalization fails
slide9

-i is preceded by an alveopalatal in the output

-i is preceded by a velar in the output

Stored words derived from

a non-velar input

and bearing -i

Stored words derived from

a velar-final input

and bearing -i

New inputs that end

in a velar

and take -i

slide10

-ek

-ok

-i is preceded by an alveopalatal in the output

-i is preceded by a velar in the output

Stored words derived from

a non-velar input

and bearing -i

Stored words derived from

a velar-final input

and bearing -i

New inputs that end

in a velar

and take -i

slide11

-i

-ik

-i is preceded by an alveopalatal in the output

-i is preceded by a velar in the output

Stored words derived from

a non-velar input

and bearing -i

Stored words derived from

a velar-final input

and bearing -i

New inputs that end

in a velar

and take -i

testing the hypothesis
Testing the hypothesis
  • Borrowings from English in online communication
    • Inputs:
      • Take all verbs and nouns that end in /k/ or /g/ from the British National Corpus, e.g., lock
      • Plus a sample of verbs and nouns ending in other stops (for nouns, matched preceding vowel proportions)
    • Outputs:
      • Choose suffix
        • For a verb, -i, -a, or –ova
        • For a noun, -ik, -ek, or –ok
      • Choose whether to change the stem
        • For a verb: lokatj, lokovatj, lotitj, lokitj,
        • For a noun: lotok, lokok, lotek, lokek, lotik, lokik
    • Count:
      • Submit the possible outputs to Google
      • Rate of vel.pal. failure: lokitj / (lotitj + lokitj)

56 velar-final, 140 non-velar-final

20 velar-final, 40 non-velar-final

results stem extensions
Results: Stem extensions

Likelihood of taking -i

Velars favor –a over –i while –i is favored elsewhere

Velar-final Labial-final Coronal-final

Base

results stem extensions1
Results: Stem extensions

Mean

44%

Velar palatalization is likely to fail before –i despite being exceptionless; AND –i is favored by non-velar-final inputs

results diminutives
Results: Diminutives

Mean 1%

Mean 35%

Mean 0%

-ik is favored by

non-velars

-ok and –ek are favored by velars

Velar palatalization

fails only before -ik

results diminutives1
Results: Diminutives

-ek -ik -ok

Mean 1%

Mean 35%

Mean 0%

Mean 0%

Mean 100%

Mean 10%

-ik is favored by

non-velars

-ok and –ek are favored by velars

Velar palatalization

fails only before -ik

g

k

p,b,t,d

evidence from artificial grammar
Evidence from artificial grammar
  • Issue:
      • speakers avoid using –i after velars because vel.pal. is unproductive before –i

OR

      • vel.pal. is unproductive before –i because

-i is mostly used after non-velars

evidence from artificial grammar1
Evidence from artificial grammar
  • Native English speakers exposed to two artificial languages:

Language

BLUERED

{k;g}{t;d}i 100%

30

{t;d;p;b} {t;d;p;b}i 25%75%

824

{t;d;p;b} {t;d;p;b}a 75%25%

248

paradigm
Paradigm

The subject repeats the singular-plural pair

paradigm2
Paradigm

The subject says the plural

results
Results

***

BLUE RED

As expected, -i is more productive in the red language with non-velars

results1
Results

100%

30

Rate of velar

palatalization

is lower

in Red Language

than in Blue Language

Prediction confirmed

*

BLUE RED

results2
Results

***

The more productive

-i is with non-velar-final

inputs for a subject,

the less productive is

velar palatalization for

the same subject.

constraining the model processing stages
Constraining the model:Processing stages
  • Two-stage model:
    • Stage I:

-i vs. –a

    • Stage II:

g  vs. ‘do nothing’

  • One-stage model:
    • g i vs.
    • g  ga vs.
    • C  Ci
context effects
Context effects

Velar palatalization is likely to fail before –i despite being exceptionless

Mean

44%

27

explaining context effects
Explaining context effects

Context effects are due to differences in the relative reliabilities of specific velar-changing rules

g i/V[+back;-high]_ (.475) log: .475 vs. .232

g i/V[-high]_ (.350)

g i/V_ (.272)

g i/[+voice]_ (.195) ping: .195 vs. .232

[]  i/C[+voiced]_ (.232)

Suppose that the decision on whether to change the stem is made in the context of an already chosen suffix (-i)

In this context, all velar-changing rules are completely reliable (they are exceptionless).

Thus, relative reliability predicts context effects only if the suffix and the stem change are chosen simultaneously.

g /V[+back;-high]_i (1.0) log: 1.0 vs. .756

g /V[-high]_i (1.0)

g /V_i (1.0)

g /[+voice]_i (1.0) ping: 1.0 vs. .756

[]  []/C[+voiced]_i (.756)

28

constraining the model decision rule
Constraining the model:Decision rule
  • Rule-Based Learner relies on a stochastic decision between competing rules
  • The speaker cannot go for the most reliable rule all the time
    • The most reliable rule in both the blue language and the red language is palatalizing  the L’s should not differ
    • Albright and Hayes (2003)
      • Novel verbs that are similar to many regular English verbs are more likely to take the regular past tense than novel verbs that are similar to neither regular nor irregular English verbs
      • Regular rule is the most reliable one in both cases
      • The two classes of words should not differ
summary
Summary

If

  • Rules compete
  • The outcome of competition is influenced by reliability (Albright and Hayes 2003, Pierrehumbert 2006)
  • Known words are retrieved from the lexicon not generated by the grammar

Then

  • An exceptionless rule loses productivity but can remain exceptionless if the triggering affix comes to be used mostly with segments that cannot undergo the rule.

To account for the present results,

  • Competition between rules must be resolved stochastically.
  • The suffix and the stem shape must be chosen during a single decision stage.
references
References

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

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

Kapatsinski, V. M. 2005. Characteristics of a rule-based default are dissociable: Evidence against the Dual Mechanism Model. In S. Franks, F. Y. Gladney, and M. Tasseva-Kurktchieva, eds. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 13: The South Carolina Meeting, 136-46. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.

Levikova, S. I. 2003. Bol’shoj slovar’ molodezhnogo slenga. [The big dictionary of youth slang]. Moscow: Fair-Press.

Pierrehumbert, J. B. 2006. The statistical basis of an unnatural alternation. In L. Goldstein, D.H. Whalen, and C. Best (eds), Laboratory Phonology VIII: Varieties of Phonological Competence, 81-107. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Sheveleva, M. S. 1974. Obratnyj slovar’ russkogo jazyka. [Reverse dictionary of Russian]. Moscow: Sovetskaja Enciklopedija.