Evidence against a link between learning phonotactics and learning phonological alternations

Abstract

Phonological alternations often happen to conform to phonotactic regularities, from which a single mechanism for phonotactics and alternations has been claimed. We note, however, that empirical evidence supporting the link between phonotactics and alternations comes only from English native speakers whose first language (L1) does exhibit phonotactically motivated alternation patterns. This article examines whether the link between phonotactics and alternations is universally available. To do so, we test learning of phonotactics and alternations with Cantonese native speakers, whose L1 provides no evidence for or against the link. We address learning of a vowel harmony pattern through the use of three artificial languages; one with a harmony pattern both within and across stems, another with a harmony pattern only across stems; and the other with a disharmony pattern within stems but harmony across stems. Learners successfully acquired harmony phonotactics according to input patterns, but they showed no difference in learning alternation patterns across the three languages. Our results suggest that the link between phonotactics and alternations might be language-specific: Only upon receiving L1 evidence, learners can use a unified mechanism to encode phonotactics and alternations.

Morphology in a Parallel, Distributed, Interactive Architecture of Language Production

“…Psychological reality of paradigmatic mappings is also suggested by speakers being sensitive to differences in reliability between such mappings, i.e., the probability of the product given the source. Such effects have been observed in child paradigm leveling, where less reliable mappings take longer to learn and are more likely to be leveled (Krajewski et al, 2011 ; Do, 2013 ) and in elicited production tests with adults (Pierrehumbert, 2006 ).…”

Phonological Variation in Child-Directed Speech is Modulated by Lexical Frequency

“…How does a child internalize the grammar of adult language and what role does language input play in this process? Although children's early production grammar differs from that of adults' phonology (Do, 2013;Hayes, 2004), their production patterns eventually conform to adult grammar. How does a child learn the different realizations of the same morpheme in various phonological contexts?…”

Cumulative markedness effects and (non-)linearity in phonotactics

“…This leaves open the question of how to model such phenomena. The question of how closely tied phonological repairs are to phonotactic restrictions is an area of long-standing debate (Sommerstein 1974;McCarthy 2002: p. 77;Pizzo 2015;Chong 2017;Do & Yeung 2021). We see several possible answers to this question that can accommodate super-linearity in phonotactics, while also producing repairs.…”