1887
Volume 3, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2589-1588
  • E-ISSN: 2589-1596
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper presents a computational account of nonderived environment blocking (NDEB) that indicates the challenges it has posed for phonological theory do not stem from any inherent complexity of the patterns themselves. Specifically, it makes use of input strictly local (ISL) functions, which are among the most restrictive (i.e., lowest computational complexity) classes of functions in the subregular hierarchy (Heinz 2018) and shows that NDEB is ISL provided the derived and nonderived environments correspond to unique substrings in the input structure. Using three classic examples of NDEB from Finnish, Polish, and Turkish, it is shown that the distinction between derived and nonderived sequences is fully determined by the input structure and can be achieved without serial derivation or intermediate representations. This result reveals that such cases of NDEB are computationally unexceptional and lends support to proposals in rule- and constraint-based theories that make use of its input-oriented nature.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00031.cha
2021-11-05
2021-12-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aksënova, A., Graf, T. & Moradi, S.
    (2016) Morphotactics as tier-based strictly local dependencies. InM. Elsner & S. Kuebler (eds.), Proceedings of the 14th SIGMORPHON Workshop on Computational Research in Phonetics, Phonology, and Morphology (pp.121–130). Berlin: Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/W16‑2019
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W16-2019 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anttila, A.
    (2006) Variation and opacity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 24, 893–944. 10.1007/s11049‑006‑0002‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-0002-6 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2009) Derived environment effects in colloquial Helsinki Finnish. InK. Hanson & S. Inkelas (eds.), The nature of the word: essays in honor of Paul Kiparsky (pp.433–460). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baković, E.
    (2007) A revised typology of opaque generalisations. Phonology24, 217–259. 10.1017/S0952675707001194
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675707001194 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bale, A. & Reiss, C.
    (2018) Phonology: A formal introduction. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bhaskar, S., Chandlee, J., Jardine, A., & Oakden, C.
    (2020) Boolean monadic recursive schemes as a logical characterization of the subsequential functions. InA. Leporati, C. Martín-Vide, D. Shapira, & C. Zandron (eds.), Language and automata theory and applications, 14th international conference (pp.157–169). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑40608‑0_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40608-0_10 [Google Scholar]
  7. Burness, P., McMullin, K., & Chandlee, J.
    (to appear). Long-distance phonological processes as tier-based strictly local functions. to appear in Glossa.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Burzio, L.
    (2000) Cycles, non-derived-environment blocking, and correspondence. InJ. Dekkers, F. van der Leeuw, & J. van de Weijer (eds.), Optimality theory: Phonology, syntax, and acquisition (pp.47–87). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chandlee, J.
    (2014) Strictly local phonological processes (Doctoral thesis, University of Delaware).
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chandlee, J. & Jardine, A.
    (2019) Quantifier-free least-fixed point functions for phonology. InP. de Groote, F. Drewes, & G. Penn (eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Meeting on the Mathematics of Language (pp.50–62). Toronto: Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/W19‑5705
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W19-5705 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2021) Computational universals in linguistic theory: Using recursive programs for phonological analysis. To appear inLanguage. 10.1353/lan.2021.0045
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2021.0045 [Google Scholar]
  12. Chandlee, J., Heinz, J. & Jardine, A.
    (2018) Input strictly local opaque maps. Phonology, 35(2), 171–205. 10.1017/S0952675718000027
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675718000027 [Google Scholar]
  13. Chomsky, N.
    (1956) Three models for the description of language. IRE Transactions on Information Theory, 2(3), 113–124. 10.1109/TIT.1956.1056813
    https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1956.1056813 [Google Scholar]
  14. Chomsky, N. and Halle, M.
    (1968) The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gainor, B., Lai, R., & Heinz, J.
    (2012) Computational characterizations of vowel harmony patterns and pathologies. InJ. Choi, E. Alan Hogue, J. Punske, D. Tat, J. Schertz, & A. Trueman (eds.), WCCFL 29: Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp.63–71). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Graf, T.
    (2019) A subregular bound on the complexity of lexical quantifiers. InJ. J. Schlöder, D. McHugh, & F. Roelofsen (eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Amsterdam Colloquium (pp.455–464). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Graf, T. & Kostyszyn, K.
    (2021) Multiple wh-movement is not special: The subregular complexity of persistent features in minimalist grammars. InA. Ettinger, E. Pavlich, & B. Prickett (eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics Volume 4 (pp.275–285). Amherst: MA: University of Massachusetts.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Halle, M.
    (1978) Formal versus functional considerations in phonology. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Heinz, J.
    (2010) Learning long-distance phonotactics. Linguistic Inquiry, 41(4), 623–661. 10.1162/LING_a_00015
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00015 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2018) The computational nature of phonological generalizations. InL. Hyman & F. Plank (Eds.), Phonological typology: Phonetics and phonology (pp.126–195). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110451931‑005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110451931-005 [Google Scholar]
  21. Heinz, J. & Idsardi, W.
    (2011) Sentence and word complexity. Science, 333(6040), 295–297. 10.1126/science.1210358
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1210358 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2013) What complexity differences reveal about domains in language. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5(1), 111–131. 10.1111/tops.12000
    https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12000 [Google Scholar]
  23. Heinz, J. & Lai, R.
    (2013) Vowel harmony and subsequentiality. InA. Kornai & M. Kuhlmann (eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Meeting on the Mathematics of Language (pp.52–63). Sofia, Bulgaria: Association for Computational Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Inkelas, S.
    (2001) Phonotactic blocking through structural immunity. InB. Stiebels & D. Wunderlich (eds.), Lexicon in focus. Studia grammatica 45 (pp.7–40). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (2009) Another look at velar deletion in Turkish, with special attention to the derived environment condition. UC Berkeley PhonLab Annual Report, 5, 387–403.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Inkelas, S. & Orgun, C. O.
    (1995) Level ordering and economy in the lexical phonology of Turkish. Language, 71, 763–793. 10.2307/415744
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415744 [Google Scholar]
  27. Inkelas, Sharon
    (2011) “Another look at velar deletion in Turkish, with special attention to the derived environment condition.” InEser Taylan and Bengisu Rona (eds.), Puzzles of Language: Essays in honour of Karl Zimmer. Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Inkelas, S., Orgun, C. O. & Zoll, C.
    (1997) Implications of lexical exceptions for the nature of grammar. InI. Roca (ed.), Constraints and derivations in phonology (pp.393–418). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Itô, J. & Mester, A.
    (1996, October). Structural economy and OCP interactions in local domains. Paper presented at theWestern Conference on Linguistics, University of California, Santa Cruz.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Iverson, G. K. & D. Wheeler
    (1988) Blocking and the elsewhere condition. InM. Hammond & M. Noonan (Eds.), Theoretical morphology (pp.325–338). San Diego: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Jardine, A.
    (2016) Computationally, tone is different. Phonology, 33(2), 247–283. 10.1017/S0952675716000129
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675716000129 [Google Scholar]
  32. Ji, J. & Heinz, J.
    (2020) Input strictly local tree transducers. InA. Leporati, C. Martín-Vide, D. Shapira, & C. Zandron (eds.), Language and automata theory and applications, 14th international conference (pp.369–381). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑40608‑0_26
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40608-0_26 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kaplan, Ronald and Martin Kay
    (1994)  Regular models of phonological rule systems. Computational Linguistics20. 331–78.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kiparsky, P.
    (1973) Phonological representations: Abstractness, opacity, and global rules. InO. Fujimura (ed.), Three dimensions of linguistic theory (pp.57–86). Tokyo: TEC.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. (1982) Lexical morphology and phonology. InI.-S. Yang (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp.3–91). Seoul: Hanshin.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. (1993) Blocking in nonderived environments. InE. M. Kaisse & S. Hargus (eds.), Phonetics and phonology 4: Studies in lexical phonology (pp.277–313). San Diego: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑325071‑1.50016‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-325071-1.50016-9 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2003) Finnish noun inflection. InD. Nelson & S. Manninen (eds.), Generative approaches to Finnic and Saami linguistics (pp.109–161). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Johnson, C. Douglas
    (1972) Formal aspects of phonological description. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110876000
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110876000 [Google Scholar]
  39. Kula, N.
    (2008) Derived environment effects: A representation approach. Lingua, 118, 1328–1342. 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.09.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.09.011 [Google Scholar]
  40. Łubowicz, A.
    (2002) Derived environment effects in Optimality Theory. Lingua, 112, 243–280. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(01)00043‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(01)00043-2 [Google Scholar]
  41. Luo, H.
    (2017) Long-distance consonant agreement and subsequentiality. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1), 52. 10.5334/gjgl.42
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.42 [Google Scholar]
  42. Mascaró, J.
    (1976) Catalan phonology and the phonological cycle (Doctoral thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
    [Google Scholar]
  43. McCarthy, J. J.
    (2003) Comparative markedness. Theoretical Linguistics, 29, 1–51. 10.1515/thli.29.1‑2.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.29.1-2.1 [Google Scholar]
  44. McCollum, A., Baković, E., Mai, A., & Meinhardt, E.
    (2020) Unbounded circumambient patterns in segmental phonology. Phonology, 37(2), 215–255. 10.1017/S095267572000010X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S095267572000010X [Google Scholar]
  45. Mohri, M.
    (1997) Finite-state transducers in language and speech processing. Computational Linguistics, 23, 269–311.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Moschovakis, Y.
    (2019) Abstract recursion and intrinsic complexity, Lecture Notes in Logic, volume 48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Oakden, C.
    (2021) Modeling phonological interactions using recursive schemes (Doctoral thesis, Rutgers University).
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Odden, D.
    (2019, March). Radical substance free phonology and feature learning. Paper presented atPhonology Theory Agora, Nice, France.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Payne, A.
    (2017) All dissimilation is computationally subsequential. Language: Phonological Analysis, 93(4), e353–e371. 10.1353/lan.2017.0076
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2017.0076 [Google Scholar]
  50. Prince, A. & Smolensky, P.
    (1993) Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. (ROA 537). Rutgers Optimality Archive.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Prince, A. and Smolensky, P.
    (2004) Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470759400
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470759400 [Google Scholar]
  52. Rasin, E.
    (2016) A rule-ordering theory of blocking in nonderived environments. InG. O. Hansson, A. Farris-Trimble, K. McMullin, & D. Pulleyblank (eds.), Supplemental Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Meeting on Phonology. Vancouver: Linguistic Society of America. Retrieved from. doi:  10.3765/amp.v3i0.3689
    https://doi.org/10.3765/amp.v3i0.3689 [Google Scholar]
  53. Rasin, E., Shefi, I., & Katzir, R.
    (2020) A unified approach to several learning challenges in phonology. InM. Asatryan, Y. Song, & A. Whitmal (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 50 Volume 3 (pp.73–87). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts GLSA.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Rogers, J. & Pullum, G. K.
    (2011) Aural pattern recognition experiments and the subregular hierarchy. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 20, 329–342. 10.1007/s10849‑011‑9140‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-011-9140-2 [Google Scholar]
  55. Rogers, J., Heinz, J., Fero, M., Hurst, J., Lambert, D., & Wibel, S.
    (2013) Cognitive and subregular complexity. InG. Morrill & M.-J. Nederhof (eds.), Formal grammar, Lecture notes in computer science, Volume 8036 (pp.90–108). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Rubach, J.
    (1984) Cyclic and lexical phonology: The structure of Polish. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783111392837
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111392837 [Google Scholar]
  57. Sezer, E.
    (1981) The k/Ø alternation in Turkish. InG. Clements (ed.), Harvard studies in phonology (pp.354–382). Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Smolensky, P.
    (1993) Harmony, markedness, and phonological activity. Paper presented atRutgers Optimality Workshop-1, New Brunswick, NJ.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. van Oostendorp, M.
    (2007) Derived environment effects and consistency of exponence. InS. Blaho, P. Bye, & M. Kraemer (eds.), Freedom of Analysis? (pp.123–148). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Vu, M. H., Shafiei, N., & Graf, T.
    (2019) Case assignment in TSL syntax: A case study. InG. Jarosz, M. Nelson, B. O’Connor, & J. Pater (eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics Volume 2 (pp.267–276). Amherst: MA: University of Massachusetts.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Wolf, M.
    (2008) Optimal interleaving: Serial phonology-morphology interaction in a constraint-based model (Doctoral thesis, University of Massachusetts).
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Zimmer, K. & Abbott, B.
    (1978) The k/Ø alternation in Turkish: some experimental evidence for its productivity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 7, 35–46. 10.1007/BF01068044
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01068044 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00031.cha
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00031.cha
Loading

Data & Media 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