Domain generalisation in artificial language learning* | Phonology | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract

Many languages have restrictions on word-final segments, such as a requirementthat any word-final obstruent be voiceless. There is a phonetic basis for suchrestrictions at the ends of utterances, but not the ends of words. Historicallinguists have long noted this mismatch, and have attributed it to an analogicalgeneralisation of such restrictions from utterance-final to word-final position.To test whether language learners actually generalise in this way, twoartificial language learning experiments were conducted. Participants heardnonsense utterances in which there was a restriction on utterance-finalobstruents, but in which no information was available about word-finalutterance-medial obstruents. They were then tested on utterances that includedobstruents in both positions. They learned the pattern and generalised it toword-final utterance-medial position, confirming that learners are biased towardword-based distributional patterns.

References

Andrzejewski, B. W. (1955). The problem of vowel representation in the Isaaq dialect of Somali. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 17.567–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald, Davidson, D. J. & Bates, Douglas M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items.Journal of Memory and Language 59.390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barr, Dale J., Levy, Roger, Scheepers, Christoph & Tily, Harry J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal.Journal of Memory and Language 68.255–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Becker, Lee A. (1977). Perceptually motivated phonetic change. CLS 13.45–57.Google Scholar

Becker, Lee A. (1979). A contribution to an explanation of the Neo-Stokavian accent retraction. Zbornik za Filologiju i Lingvistiku 22.87–94.Google Scholar

Beckman, Jill, Dickey, Laura Walsh & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.) (1995). Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst:GLSA.Google Scholar

Benua, Laura (1995). Identity effects in morphological truncation. In Beckman et al. (1995). 77–136.Google Scholar

Blevins, Juliette (2006). A theoretical synopsis of Evolutionary Phonology. Theoretical Linguistics 32.117–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boersma, Paul (1997). How we learn variation, optionality, and probability. Proceedings of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences of the University of Amsterdam 21.43–58.Google Scholar

Boersma, Paul & Hayes, Bruce (2001). Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. LI 32.45–86.Google Scholar

Borowsky, Toni, Kawahara, Shigeto, Shinya, Takahito & Sugahara, Mariko (eds.) (2012). Prosody matters: essays in honor of Elisabeth Selkirk. London:Equinox.Google Scholar

Brent, Michael R. & Siskind, Jeffrey Mark (2001). The role of exposure to isolated words in early vocabulary development.Cognition 81.B33–B34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Carpenter, Angela C. (2010). A naturalness bias in learning stress. Phonology 27.345–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chafe, Wallace L. (1959). Internal reconstruction in Seneca. Lg 35.477–495.Google Scholar

Cutler, Anne & Norris, Dennis (1988). The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 14.113–121.Google Scholar

Docherty, Gerard J. (1992). The timing of voicing in British English obstruents. Berlin & New York: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edwards, Jan, Beckman, Mary E. & Munson, Benjamin (2004). The interaction between vocabulary size and phonotactic probability effects on children's production accuracy and fluency in nonword repetition.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47.421–436.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ernestus, Mirjam & Baayen, R. Harald (2007). Intraparadigmatic effects on the perception of voice. In van de Weijer, Jeroen & van der Torre, Erik Jan (eds.) Voicing in Dutch: (de)voicing – phonology, phonetics, and psycholinguistics.Amsterdam & Philadelphia:Benjamins.153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ewert, Alfred (1943). The French language.London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar

Finley, Sara & Badecker, William (2009). Artificial language learning and feature-based generalization. Journal of Memory and Language 61.423–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Flack, Kathryn (2009). Constraints on onsets and codas of words and phrases. Phonology 26.269–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gafos, Adamantios I. (2006). Dynamics in grammar: comment on Ladd and Ernestus & Baayen. In Goldstein, Louis, Whalen, D. H. & Best, Catherine T. (eds.) Laboratory phonology 8.Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.51–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haggard, M. (1978). The devoicing of voiced fricatives. JPh 6.95–102.Google Scholar

Hansen, Kenneth C. & Hansen, Lesley E. (1969). Pintupi phonology. Oceanic Linguistics 8.153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hayes, Bruce (1995). Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Hock, Hans Henrich (1991). Principles of historical linguistics. 2nd edn. Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hualde, José Ignacio (2013). Intervocalic lenition and word-boundary effects: evidence from Judeo-Spanish.Diachronica 30.232–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hyman, Larry M. (1976). Phonologization. InJuilland, Alphonse (ed.) Linguistic studies offered to Joseph Greenberg on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday. Vol. 2:Phonology .Saratoga: Anma Libri.407–418.Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry M. (1978a). Historical tonology. In Fromkin, Victoria A. (ed.) Tone: a linguistic survey.New York: Academic Press.257–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hyman, Larry M. (1978b). Word demarcation. In Greenberg, Joseph H., Ferguson, Charles A. & Moravcsik, Edith A. (eds.) Universals of human language. Vol. 2: Phonology .Stanford: Stanford University Press.443–470.Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry M. (2013). Enlarging the scope of phonologization. In Yu, Alan C. L. (ed.) Origins of sound change: approaches to phonologization. Oxford:Oxford University Press.3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ingram, David (1989). Phonological disability in children. 2nd edn:London: Cole & Whurr.Google Scholar

Iverson, Gregory K. & Salmons, Joseph C. (2007). Domains and directionality in the evolution of German final fortition. Phonology 24.121–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jassem, Wiktor & Richter, Lutosława (1989). Neutralization of voicing in Polish obstruents. JPh 17.317–325.Google Scholar

Jespersen, Otto (1904). Lehrbuch der Phonetik.Leipzig & Berlin:Teubner.Google Scholar

Jessen, Michael (1998). Phonetics and phonology of tense and lax obstruents in German. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:Benjamins.Google Scholar

Jessen, Michael & Ringen, Catherine (2002). Laryngeal features in German. Phonology 19.189–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kenstowicz, Michael & Kisseberth, Charles (1979). Generative phonology: description and theory. New York:Academic Press.Google Scholar

Kerkhoff, Annemarie (2004). Acquisition of voicing alternations. In van Kempen, Jacqueline & Baauw, Sergio (eds.) Proceedings of GALA 2003 (Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition). Vol. 2.Utrecht:LOT.269–280.Google Scholar

Klatt, Dennis H. & Klatt, Laura C. (1990). Analysis, synthesis, and perception of voice quality variations among female and male talkers. JASA 87.820–857.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Legendre, Géraldine, Miyata, Yoshiro & Smolensky, Paul (1990a). Harmonic Grammar: a formal multi-level connectionist theory of linguistic well-formedness: an application. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.Hillsdale:Erlbaum.884–891.Google Scholar

Legendre, Géraldine, Miyata, Yoshiro & Smolensky, Paul (1990b). Harmonic Grammar: a formal multi-level connectionist theory of linguistic well-formedness: theoretical foundations. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.Hillsdale:Erlbaum.388–395.Google Scholar

Lehtonen, Jaakko (1970). Aspects of quantity in Standard Finnish.Jyväskylä:Jyväskylä University Press.Google Scholar

Liberman, Mark & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (1984). Intonational invariance under changes in pitch range and length. In Aronoff, Mark & Oehrle, Richard T. (eds.) Language sound structure.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.157–233.Google Scholar

Lightner, Theodore M. (1972). Problems in the theory of phonology. Vol. 1: Russian phonology and Turkish phonology.Edmonton: Linguistic Research.Google Scholar

Lindblom, Björn (1983). Economy of speech gestures. In MacNeilage, Peter F. (ed.) The production of speech.New York:Springer.217–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lisker, Leigh, Abramson, Arthur S., Cooper, Franklin S. & Schvey, Malcolm H. (1969). Transillumination of the larynx in running speech. JASA 45.1544–1546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lombardi, Linda (1995). Laryngeal neutralization and syllable wellformedness. NLLT 13.39–74.Google Scholar

McCarthy, John J. (2005). Optimal paradigms. In Downing, Laura J., Hall, T. Alan & Raffelsiefen, Renate (eds.) Paradigms in phonological theory.Oxford: Oxford University Press.170–210.Google Scholar

McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman_et al_. (1995).249–384.Google Scholar

Miller, George A. (1958). Free recall of redundant strings of letters. Journal of Experimental Psychology 56.485–491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Moreton, Elliott (2009). Underphonologization and modularity bias. In Parker, Steve (ed.) Phonological argumentation: essays on evidence and motivation. London:Equinox.79–101.Google Scholar

Moreton, Elliott & Pater, Joe (2012a). Structure and substance in artificial-phonology learning. Part 1: Structure.Language and Linguistics Compass 6.686–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moreton, Elliott & Pater, Joe (2012b). Structure and substance in artificial-phonology learning. Part 2: Substance.Language and Linguistics Compass 6.702–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Morgan, James L., Meier, Richard P. & Newport, Elissa L. (1987). Structural packaging in the input to language learning: contributions of prosodic and morphological marking of phrases to the acquisition of language.Cognitive Psychology 19.498–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Myers, Scott (1999). Tone association and f0 timing in Chichewa. Studies in African Linguistics 28.215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Myers, Scott (2005). Vowel duration and neutralization of vowel length contrasts in Kinyarwanda. JPh 33.427–446.Google Scholar

Myers, Scott (2012). Final devoicing: production and perception studies. In Borowsky et al. (2012). 148–180.Google Scholar

Myers, Scott & Hansen, Benjamin B. (2007). The origin of vowel length neutralization in final position: evidence from Finnish speakers. NLLT 25.157–193.Google Scholar

Ohala, John J. (1993). The phonetics of sound change. In Jones, Charles (ed.) Historical linguistics: problems and perspectives. London & New York: Longman.237–278.Google Scholar

Padgett, Jaye (2012). The role of prosody in Russian voicing. In Borowsky_et al_. (2012). 181–207.Google Scholar

Peperkamp, Sharon, Skoruppa, Katrin & Dupoux, Emmanuel (2006). The role of phonetic naturalness in phonological rule acquisition. InBamman, David, Magnitskaia, Tatiana & Zaller, Colleen (eds.) Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.Somerville:Cascadilla.464–475.Google Scholar

Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (2003). Probabilistic phonology: discrimination and robustness. In Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer & Jannedy, Stefanie (eds.) Probabilistic linguistics.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.177–228.Google Scholar

Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Beckman, Mary E. (1988). Japanese tone structure.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Port, Robert F. & O'Dell, Michael L. (1985). Neutralization of syllable-final voicing in German. JPh 13.455–471.Google Scholar

Prieto, Pilar, Santen, Jan van & Hirschberg, Julia (1995). Tonal alignment patterns in Spanish. JPh 23.429–451.Google Scholar

Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder. Published 2004,Malden, Mass. & Oxford:Blackwell.Google Scholar

Pycha, Anne, Nowak, Pawel, Shin, Eurie & Shosted, Ryan (2003). Phonological rule-learning and its implications for a theory of vowel harmony.WCCFL 22.423–435.Google Scholar

Pycha, Anne, Shin, Eurie & Shosted, Ryan (2006). Directionality of assimilation in consonant clusters: an experimental approach. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report.152–166.Google Scholar

Schane, Sanford A., Tranel, Bernard & Lane, Harlan (1974/75). On the psychological reality of a natural rule of syllable structure.Cognition 3.351–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Seidl, Amanda & Buckley, Eugene (2005). On the learning of arbitrary phonological rules. Language Learning and Development 1.289–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Seidl, Amanda & Johnson, Elizabeth K. (2006). Infant word segmentation revisited: edge alignment facilitates target extraction.Developmental Science 9.565–573.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Shadle, Christine H. (1997). The aerodynamics of speech. In Hardcastle, William J. & Laver, John (eds.) The handbook of phonetic sciences.Oxford & Cambridge, Mass.:Blackwell.33–64.Google Scholar

Sievers, Eduard (1901). Grundzüge der Phonetik, zur Einführung in das Studium der Lautlehre der indogermanischen Sprachen. 5th edn.Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar

Silverman, Kim E. A. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (1990). The timing of prenuclear high accents in English. In Kingston, John & Beckman, Mary E. (eds.) Papers in laboratory phonology I: between the grammar and physics of speech.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.72–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Slifka, Janet (2006). Some physiological correlates to regular and irregular phonation at the end of an utterance.Journal of Voice 20.171–186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Smith, Caroline L. (1997). The devoicing of /z/ in American English: effects of local and prosodic context. JPh 25.471–500.Google Scholar

Smith, Caroline L. (1999). Marking the boundary: utterance-final prosody in French questions and statements. In Ohala, John J., Hasegawa, Yoko, Ohala, Manjari, Granville, Daniel & Bailey, Ashlee C. (eds.) Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Vol. 5.Berkeley: University of California.1181–1184.Google Scholar

Smith, Caroline L. (2003). Vowel devoicing in contemporary French. Journal of French Language Studies 13.177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Steriade, Donca (2000). Paradigm uniformity and the phonetics–phonology boundary. In Broe, Michael B. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (eds.) Papers in laboratory phonology V: acquisition and the lexicon. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.313–334.Google Scholar

Sundara, Megha, Demuth, Katherine & Kuhl, Patricia K. (2011). Sentence-position effects on children's perception and production of English third person singular s. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 54.55–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sweet, Henry (1877). A handbook of phonetics.Oxford:Clarendon.Google Scholar

Tessier, Anne-Michelle (2012). Testing for OO-faithfulness in the acquisition of consonant clusters. Language Acquisition 19.144–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vennemann, Theo (1974). Words and syllables in Natural Generative Grammar. In Bruck, Anthony, Fox, Robert A. & Galy, Michael W. La (eds.) Papers from the parasession on natural phonology. Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society.346–374.Google Scholar

Wackernagel, Jakob (1957). Altindische grammatik. Vol. 1: Lautlehre. Reprinted from the 1896 edition.Göttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar

Warner, Natasha, Jongman, Allard, Sereno, Joan & Kemps, Rachèl (2004). Incomplete neutralization and other sub-phonemic durational differences in production and perception: evidence from Dutch. JPh 32.251–276.Google Scholar

Westbury, John R. & Keating, Patricia A. (1986). On the naturalness of stop consonant voicing. JL 22.145–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

White, James (2013). Evidence for a learning bias against saltatory phonological alternations. Cognition 130.96–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Wilson, Colin (2003). Experimental investigation of phonological naturalness. WCCFL 22.533–546.Google Scholar

Wilson, Colin (2006). Learning phonology with substantive bias: an experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science 30.945–982.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Yu, Alan C. L. (2004). Explaining final obstruent voicing in Lezgian: phonetics and history. Lg 80.73–97.Google Scholar