1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Perspectives on Phonological Theory and Development
  4. Chapter

A faithfulness conspiracy

The selection of unfaithful mappings in Amahl’s grammar

image of A faithfulness conspiracy

Children frequently reduce marked target structures to unmarked outputs. However, multiple reduction strategies are often available, and pinpointing a principle that unifies them can be difficult. This paper examines several markedness-reducing processes in Amahl’s developing phonology (Smith 1973), showing that seemingly unrelated repairs actually had a coherent objective: to avoid the accumulation of multiple repairs. This finding is significant on two levels: first, the pattern challenges analyses that rely on ranked constraints, in which violations cannot accumulate across constraints; second, it appears that multiple phonological processes (unfaithful by definition) conspire to preserve faithfulness. This pattern is defined as a faithfulness conspiracy, and the concept is fleshed out with other examples from Amahl’s development as well as cases from fully-developed languages.

  • Affiliations: 1: Simon Fraser University

References

  1. Beckman, J.
    1998 Positional Faithfulness. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Boersma, P.
    1998  Functional Phonology: Formalizing the Interaction Between Articulatory and Perceptual Drives . The Hague: HAG.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Boersma, P. & Hayes, B.
    2001 Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 45–86. 10.1162/002438901554586.
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438901554586. [Google Scholar]
  4. Clements, G.N.
    1990 The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Papers in Laboratory Phonology, 1: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech , J. Kingston & M. Beckman (eds), 283–333. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Dinnsen, D.A.
    2011 On the unity of children’s phonological error patterns: Distinguishing symptoms from the problem. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 25: 968–974. 10.3109/02699206.2011.599473.
     https://doi.org/10.3109/02699206.2011.599473. [Google Scholar]
  6. Dinnsen, D.A. & Barlow, J.A.
    1998 On the characterization of a chain shift in normal and delayed phonological acquisition. Journal of Child Language 25: 61–94. 10.1017/S0305000997003322.
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000997003322. [Google Scholar]
  7. Dinnsen, D.A. , O’Connor, K.M. & Gierut, J.A.
    2001 The puzzle-puddle-pickle problem and the Duke-of-York gambit in acquisition. Journal of Linguistics 37: 503–525. 10.1017/S0022226701001062.
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226701001062. [Google Scholar]
  8. Farris-Trimble, A.W.
    2008 Cumulative Faithfulness Effects. PhD dissertation, Indiana University at Bloomington.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 2009 Weighted constraints and faithfulness cumulativity in phonological acquisition. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development , J. Chandlee , M. Franchini , S. Lord & G.-M. Rheiner (eds), 151–162. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 2010 Nothing is better than being unfaithful in multiple ways. In Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society 44, M. Bane , J.J. Bueno Holle , T. Grano , A.L. Grotberg & Y. McNabb (eds), 79–93. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistics Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Gnanadesikan, A.
    2004 Markedness and faithfulness constraints in child phonology. In Fixing Priorities: Constraints in Phonological Acquisition, R. Kager , J. Pater & W. Zonneveld (eds), 73–108. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Jesney, K.
    2011 Cumulative Constraint Interaction in Phonological Acquisition and Typology. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. 10.1007/s11049‑010‑9104‑2.
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9104-2. [Google Scholar]
  13. Jesney, K. & Tessier, A-M.
    2011 Biases in Harmonic Grammar: The road to restrictive learning. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 251–290.10.1007/s11049‑010‑9104‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9104-2 [Google Scholar]
  14. Kirchner, R.
    1996 Synchronic chain shifts in optimality theory. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 341–350.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Kisseberth, C.
    1970 On the functional unity of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 291–306.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Legendre, G. , Miyata, Y. & Smolensky, P.
    1990a Harmonic Grammar—A formal multi-level connectionist theory of linguistic well-formedness: Theoretical foundations. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 388–395. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 1990b Harmonic grammar —a formal multi-level connectionist theory of linguistic well-formedness: An application. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , 884–891. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Legendre, G. , Sorace, A. & Smolensky, P.
    2006 The Optimality Theory–Harmonic Grammar connection. In The Harmonic Mind: From Neural Computation to Optimality-Theoretic Grammar, P. Smolensky & G. Legendre (eds), 903–966. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Łubowicz, A.
    2002 Derived environment effects in optimality theory. Lingua 112: 243–280. 10.1016/S024‑3841(01)00043‑2.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S024-3841(01)00043-2. [Google Scholar]
  20. Marantz, A.
    1982 Re reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 435–482.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. McCarthy, J. & Prince, A.
    1995 Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory , J. Beckman , L. Walsh Dickey & S. Urbanczyk (eds), 249–384. Amherst MA: GLSA.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. McCarthy, J.
    2002  A Thematic Guide to Optimality Theory . Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. McMurray, B. , Cole, J.S. & Munson, C.
    2011 Features as an emergent product of computing perceptual cues relative to expectations. In Where Do Phonological Features Come From? [Language Faculty & Beyond 6], G.N. Clements & R. Ridouane (eds), 197–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lfab.6.08mcm
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.6.08mcm [Google Scholar]
  24. McMurray, B. & Jongman, A.
    2011 What information is necessary for speech categorization? Harnessing variability in the speech signal by integrating cues computed relative to expectations. Psychological Review 188: 219–246. 10.1037/a0022325.
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022325. [Google Scholar]
  25. Moreton, E. & Smolensky, P.
    2002 Typological consequences of local constraint conjunction. In Proceedings of the 21st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics , L. Mikkelsen & C. Potts (eds), 306–319. Cambridge MA: Cascadilla Press (Available on Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-525).
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Pater, J.
    1999 Austronesian nasal substitution and other NC effects. In The Prosody Morphology Interface , H. van der Hulst , R. Kager , & W. Zonneveld (eds), 310–343. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511627729.009.
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627729.009. [Google Scholar]
  27. 2001 Austronesian nasal substitution revisited. In Segmental Phonology in Optimality Theory: Constraints and Representations , L. Lombardi (ed.), 159–182. Cambridge: CUP.10.1017/CBO9780511570582.006
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511570582.006 [Google Scholar]
  28. Pater, J. & Barlow, J.
    2003 Constraint conflict in cluster reduction. Journal of Child Language 30: 487–526. 10.1017/S0305000903005658.
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000903005658. [Google Scholar]
  29. Prince, A. & Smolensky, P.
    1993/2004  Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar . Malden MA: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Smith, N.V.
    1973  The Acquisition of Phonology: A Case Study . Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Smolensky, P.
    1995 On the structure of the constraint component Con of UG. Ms, University of California at Los Angeles. ROA 86.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. 1996 The initial state and ‘‘richness of the base’’ in Optimality Theory. Technical report JHU-CogSci-96–4, Department of Cognitive Science, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore MD.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 2006 Optimality in phonology II: Harmonic completeness, local constraint conjunction, and feature domain markedness. In The Harmonic Mind: From Neural Computation to Optimality-Theoretic Grammar, P. Smolensky & G. Legendre (eds), 27–160. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Toscano, J. & McMurray, B.
    2010 Cue integration with categories: Weighting acoustic cues in speech using unsupervised learning and distributional statistics. Cognitive Science 34: 434–464. 10.1111/j.1551‑6709.2009.01077.x.
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01077.x. [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Beckman, J.
    1998 Positional Faithfulness. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Boersma, P.
    1998  Functional Phonology: Formalizing the Interaction Between Articulatory and Perceptual Drives . The Hague: HAG.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Boersma, P. & Hayes, B.
    2001 Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 45–86. 10.1162/002438901554586.
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438901554586. [Google Scholar]
  4. Clements, G.N.
    1990 The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Papers in Laboratory Phonology, 1: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech , J. Kingston & M. Beckman (eds), 283–333. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Dinnsen, D.A.
    2011 On the unity of children’s phonological error patterns: Distinguishing symptoms from the problem. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 25: 968–974. 10.3109/02699206.2011.599473.
     https://doi.org/10.3109/02699206.2011.599473. [Google Scholar]
  6. Dinnsen, D.A. & Barlow, J.A.
    1998 On the characterization of a chain shift in normal and delayed phonological acquisition. Journal of Child Language 25: 61–94. 10.1017/S0305000997003322.
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000997003322. [Google Scholar]
  7. Dinnsen, D.A. , O’Connor, K.M. & Gierut, J.A.
    2001 The puzzle-puddle-pickle problem and the Duke-of-York gambit in acquisition. Journal of Linguistics 37: 503–525. 10.1017/S0022226701001062.
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226701001062. [Google Scholar]
  8. Farris-Trimble, A.W.
    2008 Cumulative Faithfulness Effects. PhD dissertation, Indiana University at Bloomington.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 2009 Weighted constraints and faithfulness cumulativity in phonological acquisition. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development , J. Chandlee , M. Franchini , S. Lord & G.-M. Rheiner (eds), 151–162. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 2010 Nothing is better than being unfaithful in multiple ways. In Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society 44, M. Bane , J.J. Bueno Holle , T. Grano , A.L. Grotberg & Y. McNabb (eds), 79–93. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistics Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Gnanadesikan, A.
    2004 Markedness and faithfulness constraints in child phonology. In Fixing Priorities: Constraints in Phonological Acquisition, R. Kager , J. Pater & W. Zonneveld (eds), 73–108. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Jesney, K.
    2011 Cumulative Constraint Interaction in Phonological Acquisition and Typology. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. 10.1007/s11049‑010‑9104‑2.
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9104-2. [Google Scholar]
  13. Jesney, K. & Tessier, A-M.
    2011 Biases in Harmonic Grammar: The road to restrictive learning. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 251–290.10.1007/s11049‑010‑9104‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9104-2 [Google Scholar]
  14. Kirchner, R.
    1996 Synchronic chain shifts in optimality theory. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 341–350.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Kisseberth, C.
    1970 On the functional unity of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 291–306.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Legendre, G. , Miyata, Y. & Smolensky, P.
    1990a Harmonic Grammar—A formal multi-level connectionist theory of linguistic well-formedness: Theoretical foundations. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 388–395. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 1990b Harmonic grammar —a formal multi-level connectionist theory of linguistic well-formedness: An application. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , 884–891. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Legendre, G. , Sorace, A. & Smolensky, P.
    2006 The Optimality Theory–Harmonic Grammar connection. In The Harmonic Mind: From Neural Computation to Optimality-Theoretic Grammar, P. Smolensky & G. Legendre (eds), 903–966. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Łubowicz, A.
    2002 Derived environment effects in optimality theory. Lingua 112: 243–280. 10.1016/S024‑3841(01)00043‑2.
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S024-3841(01)00043-2. [Google Scholar]
  20. Marantz, A.
    1982 Re reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 435–482.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. McCarthy, J. & Prince, A.
    1995 Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory , J. Beckman , L. Walsh Dickey & S. Urbanczyk (eds), 249–384. Amherst MA: GLSA.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. McCarthy, J.
    2002  A Thematic Guide to Optimality Theory . Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. McMurray, B. , Cole, J.S. & Munson, C.
    2011 Features as an emergent product of computing perceptual cues relative to expectations. In Where Do Phonological Features Come From? [Language Faculty & Beyond 6], G.N. Clements & R. Ridouane (eds), 197–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lfab.6.08mcm
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.6.08mcm [Google Scholar]
  24. McMurray, B. & Jongman, A.
    2011 What information is necessary for speech categorization? Harnessing variability in the speech signal by integrating cues computed relative to expectations. Psychological Review 188: 219–246. 10.1037/a0022325.
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022325. [Google Scholar]
  25. Moreton, E. & Smolensky, P.
    2002 Typological consequences of local constraint conjunction. In Proceedings of the 21st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics , L. Mikkelsen & C. Potts (eds), 306–319. Cambridge MA: Cascadilla Press (Available on Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-525).
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Pater, J.
    1999 Austronesian nasal substitution and other NC effects. In The Prosody Morphology Interface , H. van der Hulst , R. Kager , & W. Zonneveld (eds), 310–343. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511627729.009.
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627729.009. [Google Scholar]
  27. 2001 Austronesian nasal substitution revisited. In Segmental Phonology in Optimality Theory: Constraints and Representations , L. Lombardi (ed.), 159–182. Cambridge: CUP.10.1017/CBO9780511570582.006
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511570582.006 [Google Scholar]
  28. Pater, J. & Barlow, J.
    2003 Constraint conflict in cluster reduction. Journal of Child Language 30: 487–526. 10.1017/S0305000903005658.
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000903005658. [Google Scholar]
  29. Prince, A. & Smolensky, P.
    1993/2004  Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar . Malden MA: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Smith, N.V.
    1973  The Acquisition of Phonology: A Case Study . Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Smolensky, P.
    1995 On the structure of the constraint component Con of UG. Ms, University of California at Los Angeles. ROA 86.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. 1996 The initial state and ‘‘richness of the base’’ in Optimality Theory. Technical report JHU-CogSci-96–4, Department of Cognitive Science, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore MD.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 2006 Optimality in phonology II: Harmonic completeness, local constraint conjunction, and feature domain markedness. In The Harmonic Mind: From Neural Computation to Optimality-Theoretic Grammar, P. Smolensky & G. Legendre (eds), 27–160. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Toscano, J. & McMurray, B.
    2010 Cue integration with categories: Weighting acoustic cues in speech using unsupervised learning and distributional statistics. Cognitive Science 34: 434–464. 10.1111/j.1551‑6709.2009.01077.x.
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01077.x. [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027270542-lald.56.16far
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027270542-lald.56.16far
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027270542
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error