1887
Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-6834
  • E-ISSN: 2211-6842
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper presents a model that connects phonotactic exceptionality to perceptibility, more specifically to functional load and acoustic detail. I identify two patterns in exceptionality: lexical exceptions and phonotactic vacillation, where the former is restricted to specific lexical items, while the latter affects two contrastive sound categories as a whole. Through the example of Hungarian word-final phonotactics, the Model of Perceptual Categorization associates these two patterns with different functional load and acoustic properties of contrasts, that lead to two categorizational malfunctions. On the one hand, phonotactic vacillation is a result of a frequent failure to categorize ambiguous tokens: low functional load coinciding with little acoustic difference. On the other hand, lexical exceptions are systematic categorizational mistakes brought about by salient categories – in this case distributional generalizations are hindered by interference from mislabeled tokens.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lv.16011.sza
2020-01-21
2020-11-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anttila, Arto
    2002 Morphologically conditioned phonological alternations. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory20(1). 1–12. 10.1023/A:1014245408622
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014245408622 [Google Scholar]
  2. Blevins, Juliette & Andrew Wedel
    2009 Inhibited Sound Change: An evolutionary approach to lexical competition. Diachronica26(2). 143–183. 10.1075/dia.26.2.01ble
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.26.2.01ble [Google Scholar]
  3. Boersma, Paul & Joe Pater
    2016 Convergence properties of a gradual learning algorithm for Harmonic Grammar. InJohn McCarthy & Joe Pater (eds.), Harmonic grammar and harmonic serialism, London: Equinox Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Boersma, Paul & David Weenink
    2010 Praat: doing phonetics by computer Computer program.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bybee, Joan
    2001Phonology and language use, vol.94. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511612886
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612886 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cedergren, Henrietta J. & David Sankoff
    1974 Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language50(2). 333–355. 10.2307/412441
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412441 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle
    1968The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Clements, George N. & Elizabeth V. Hume
    1995 The Internal Organization of Speech Sounds. InGoldsmith, John (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 245–306. Cambridge Massachusetts: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Feldman, Naomi & Thomas L. Griffiths
    2007 A rational account of the perceptual magnet effect. InProceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Gervain, Judit & Jacques Mehler
    2010 Speech perception and language acquisition in the first year of life. Annual review of psychology61. 191–218. 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100408
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100408 [Google Scholar]
  11. Gouskova, Maria
    2003Deriving economy: Syncope in Optimality Theory:Graduate Linguistics Student Association, University of Massachusetts dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Halácsy, Péter, András Kornai, László Németh, András Rung, István Szakadát & Viktor Trón
    2004 Creating open language resources for Hungarian In Proceedings of Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, 203–210.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Harris, John
    1990 Segmental complexity and phonological government. Phonology7(01). 255–300. 10.1017/S0952675700001202
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700001202 [Google Scholar]
  14. Hayes, Bruce
    1995Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hayes, Bruce, Kie Zuraw, Péter Siptár & Zsuzsa Cziráky Londe
    2009 Natural and unnatural constraints in Hungarian vowel harmony. Language85. 822–863. 10.1353/lan.0.0169
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0169 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hockett, Charles Francis
    1955A manual of phonology. Waverly Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Itô, Junko & Armin Mester
    1999 The Phonological Lexicon. InNatsuko Tsujimura (ed.), The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, 62–100. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kaplan, Abby
    2011 How much homophony is normal?Journal of linguistics47(03). 631–671. 10.1017/S0022226711000053
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226711000053 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kay, Paul
    1978 Variable rules, community grammar, and linguistic change. InDavid Sankoff (ed.), Linguistic variation: Models and methods, 71–83. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Kay, Paul & Chad K. McDaniel
    1979 On the logic of variable rules. Language in society8(2–3). 151–187. 10.1017/S0047404500007429
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500007429 [Google Scholar]
  21. Liberman, Alvin M., Katherine Safford Harris, Howard S. Hoffman & Belver C. Griffith
    1957 The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology54(5). 358–68. 10.1037/h0044417
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044417 [Google Scholar]
  22. Mády, Katalin
    2010 Shortening of long high vowels in Hungarian: a perceptual loss?InProceedings of Sociophonetics at the crossroads of speech variation, processing and communication, Pisa.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Mády, Katalin & Uwe D. Reichel
    2007 Quantity distinction in the Hungarian vowel system – just theory or also reality?InProceedings of International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, www.phonetik.uni-muenchen.de/~mady/#p_pub.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Martin, Andrew, Sharon Peperkamp & Emmanuel Dupoux
    2013 Learning phonemes with a proto-lexicon. Cognitive Science37(1). 103–124. 10.1111/j.1551‑6709.2012.01267.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01267.x [Google Scholar]
  25. Martinet, André
    1952 Function, structure, and sound change. Word8(1). 1–32. 10.1080/00437956.1952.11659416
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1952.11659416 [Google Scholar]
  26. 1968Phonetics and linguistic evolution464–487.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. McCarthy, John J. & Alan Prince
    1993 Generalized alignment. InYearbook of morphology 1993, 79–153. Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑3712‑8_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3712-8_4 [Google Scholar]
  28. Mielke, Jeff
    2008The Emergence of Distinctive Features. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Nádasdy, Ádám & Péter Siptár
    1994 A magánhangzók. InKiefer Ferenc (ed.), Strukturális magyar nyelvtan, vol.2. Fonológia, 42–182. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Ohala, John J.
    1981 The listener as a source of sound change. Papers from the Parasession on Language and Behavior178–203.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 1993 Sound change as nature’s speech perception experiment. Speech Communication13(1). 155–161. 10.1016/0167‑6393(93)90067‑U
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6393(93)90067-U [Google Scholar]
  32. Pater, Joe
    1994 Against the underlying specification of an ‘exceptional’ English stress pattern. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics13.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 2000 Non-uniformity in English secondary stress: the role of ranked and lexically specific constraints. Phonology17(2). 237–274. 10.1017/S0952675700003900
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700003900 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2004 Exceptions in optimality theory: Typology and learnability. InConference on Redefining Elicitation: Novel Data in Phonological Theory.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 2009 Weighted constraints in generative linguistics. Cognitive Science33(6). 999–1035. 10.1111/j.1551‑6709.2009.01047.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01047.x [Google Scholar]
  36. Pierrehumbert, Janet
    2001 Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition, and contrast. InJoan Bybee & Paul Hopper (eds.), Frequency effects and the emergence of lexical structure, 137–157. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. 10.1075/tsl.45.08pie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.08pie [Google Scholar]
  37. Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky
    1993. 2004Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Pulleyblank, Douglas
    2003 Covert Feature Effects. InWCCFL 22: Proceedings of the 22nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, vol.22, 398–422.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Sankoff, David & William Labov
    1979 On the uses of variable rules. Language in society8(2–3). 189–222. 10.1017/S0047404500007430
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500007430 [Google Scholar]
  40. Siptár, Péter & Miklós Törkenczy
    2000The Phonology of Hungarian. The Phonology of the World’s languages. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Steriade, Donca
    1999 Phonetics in phonology: The case of laryngeal neutralization. InMatthew Gordon (ed.), Papers in Phonology, vol.3UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 2, 25–146. Los Angeles: UCLA Department of Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Studdert-Kennedy, Michael, Alvin Liberman, Katherine Harris & Franklin Cooper
    1970 Motor theory of speech perception: a reply to Lane’s critical review. Psychological Review77. 234–249. 10.1037/h0029078
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029078 [Google Scholar]
  43. Szabó, Ildikó Emese
    2015Phonotactics of word-final vowels – Predictability of exceptional patterns in Hungarian. Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest MA thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Törkenczy, Miklós
    2006The Phonotactics of Hungarian:Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest Dsc dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Trubetzkoy, Nikolai
    1939Grundzüge der Phonologie. Prague. [Bd 7, der Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague.]. English transl. byC. Baltaxe (1969) Principles of phonology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Wedel, Andrew
    2004Self-organization and categorical behavior in phonology:UC Santa Cruz dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Wedel, Andrew, Scott Jackson & Abby Kaplan
    2013a Functional load and the lexicon: Evidence that syntactic category and frequency relationships in minimal lemma pairs predict the loss of phoneme contrasts in language change. Language and speech56(3). 395–417. 10.1177/0023830913489096
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830913489096 [Google Scholar]
  48. Wedel, Andrew, Abby Kaplan & Scott Jackson
    2013b High functional load inhibits phonological contrast loss: A corpus study. Cognition128(2). 179–186. 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.03.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  49. Werker, Janet F. & Richard C. Tees
    1984 Cross-language speech perception: Evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant behavior and development7(1). 49–63. 10.1016/S0163‑6383(84)80022‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(84)80022-3 [Google Scholar]
  50. White, James, Megha Sundara, Yun Jung Kim & Adam J. Chong
    2014 Infant learning of phonological alternations is biased by phonetic similarity. InPoster presentation at the 65th Workshop on Learning Biases in Natural and Artificial Language Acquisition at the Annual meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Zipf, George Kingsley
    1949Human Behaviour and the Principle of Least-Effort. Addison-Wesley, Reading.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lv.16011.sza
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lv.16011.sza
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): exceptionality , functional load , Hungarian , perception and phonotactics
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