The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 9:30 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 1 hour.
2013
DOI: 10.1353/lan.2013.0003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Conspiring to Mean: Experimental and Computational Evidence for a Usage-Based Harmonic Approach to Morphophonology

Abstract: This article reports on an experiment with miniature artificial languages that provides support for a synthesis of ideas from USAGE-BASED PHONOLOGY (Bybee 1985, 2001, Nesset 2008) and HARMONIC GRAMMAR (Legendre et al. 1990, Smolensky & Legendre 2006). All miniature artificial languages presented to subjects feature velar palatalization ( k → tſ ) before a plural suffix, - i . I show that (i) examples of - i simply attaching to a [tſ]-final stem help palatalization (supporting t → tſi over t → ti and p → … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
43
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 87 publications
2
43
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This is not an uncontroversial choice and we do not wish to claim that logistic regression is necessarily the best framework for formu lating grammars across the board, either in terms of ELanguage or ILanguage. Conditional inference trees in particular remain a serious contender (see Edding ton 2010; Kapatsinski 2013aKapatsinski , 2013bStrobl et al 2008;Tagliamonte and Baayen 2012 for a discussion of advantages and disadvantages). Multimodel inference (broadly speaking) is available for conditional inference trees in the form of ran dom forests (Breiman 2001;Strobl et al 2008).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is not an uncontroversial choice and we do not wish to claim that logistic regression is necessarily the best framework for formu lating grammars across the board, either in terms of ELanguage or ILanguage. Conditional inference trees in particular remain a serious contender (see Edding ton 2010; Kapatsinski 2013aKapatsinski , 2013bStrobl et al 2008;Tagliamonte and Baayen 2012 for a discussion of advantages and disadvantages). Multimodel inference (broadly speaking) is available for conditional inference trees in the form of ran dom forests (Breiman 2001;Strobl et al 2008).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…matter of fact, recent psycholinguistic studies support the idea that learners do not exclusively follow source-oriented (IP) rules in the production of morphologically complex words (cf. Kapatsinski 2012Kapatsinski , 2013.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They may well generalize from their knowledge of English to the miniature artificial language they are exposed to and, perhaps, even impose English patterns on the language (e.g., Finn & Hudson Kam, 2008). Using native English speakers as the study population allows us to compare results to perceptual data from Guion (1998) and to previous results on palatalization learning obtained by Wilson (2006), Kapatsinski (2012Kapatsinski ( , 2013, and Stave et al (2013). However, it also leaves the observed biases susceptible to explanations based on first language phonological experience rather than differences in change magnitudes (see also Skoruppa et al, 2011, for similar concerns regarding their alternations; though cf.…”
Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning
confidence: 95%