Vowel epenthesis in loanword adaptation: Representational and phonetic considerations

Rose, Yvan; Demuth, Katherine

doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2005.06.011

Cited by 49 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 24 publications

(24 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Epenthesis into complex onsets will not be discussed. Hence, directionality effects as discussed in Rose and Demuth (2006) cannot be found, final epenthesis only interacting with preceding sounds across corpora; for an analysis that includes onsets and finds such effects, see Uffmann (2004).…”

Section: Database and Methodologymentioning

confidence: 97%

“…This default segment has received different motivations, depending on the author's theoretical affiliation. On the more phonetic side, it has been argued that default vowels are phonetically shortest and perceptually least salient (Byarushengo, 1976;Shinohara, 1997;Steriade, 2001;Kenstowicz, 2003), while approaches that are more phonological in nature have alluded to underspecification (Pulleyblank, 1988;Abaglo and Archangeli, 1989;Rose and Demuth, 2006) or to segmental markedness (Lombardi, 2003;Bermúdez-Otero and Börjars, in press). Other scholars made additional observations which demonstrate that default insertion alone cannot account for all attested patterns of vowel epenthesis.…”

Section: Epenthesis Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Epenthetic vowel quality in loanwords: Empirical and formal issues

Uffmann

2006

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Database and Methodologymentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Epenthesis Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epenthetic vowel quality in loanwords: Empirical and formal issues

Uffmann

2006

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Kang (2003:253) states that the English word jeep is borrowed with a phonetically detailed underlying form, namely variably (in our notation) as | _ and §4; no phonetic detail appears in the economical underlying form, and the underlying form honours all filterings by the perception process, including the insertion of a vowel. The existence of a high-ranked MAX (often with a low-ranked DEP) in loanword adaptation has been raised to the status of a "preservation principle", according to which elements that are present in the form provided by the donor language tend to survive in the receiving language (Paradis & LaCharité 1997Rose & Demuth 2006). In our model, this "principle" has a direct explanation in terms of high-ranked cue constraints for positive auditory cues (and concomitant low-ranked cue constraints against inserting 'illusory' phonological material) (Boersma 2007a: footnotes 26 and 27).…”

Section: The "All Phonology Is Production" Assumptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Loanword adaptation as first-language phonological perception

Boersma

Hamann

2009

Current Issues in Linguistic Theory

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We show that loanword adaptation can be understood entirely in terms of phonological and phonetic comprehension and production mechanisms in the first language. We provide explicit accounts of several loanword adaptation phenomena (in Korean) in terms of an Optimality-Theoretic grammar model with the same three levels of representation that are needed to describe L1 phonology: the underlying form, the phonological surface form, and the auditory-phonetic form. The model is bidirectional, i.e., the same constraints and rankings are used by the listener and by the speaker. These constraints and rankings are the same for L1 processing and loanword adaptation. Figure 1 shows a simplified version of an existing model for first-language (L1) processing (Boersma 1998(Boersma , 2000.1 The model is bidirectional, i.e., it accounts for the behaviour of the listener (on the left) as well as the speaker (on the right). In both directions, processing is assumed to be handled by the interaction of OptimalityTheoretic constraints. Phonological production (top right) is described in terms of an interaction between structural and faithfulness constraints (McCarthy & Prince 1995). Perception (bottom left) is described in terms of an interaction between structural and cue constraints (Boersma 2000. The remaining two processes, word recognition (top left) and phonetic implementation (bottom right), are (in this simplified version) described by one set of constraints each (faithfulness and cue constraints, respectively).

show abstract

“…We show an example in Table 2. There has been substantial prior work in linguistics on borrowing in the OT paradigm (Yip, 1993;Davidson & Noyer, 1997;Jacobs & Gussenhoven, 2000;Kang, 2003;Broselow, 2004;Adler, 2006;Rose & Demuth, 2006;Kenstowicz & Suchato, 2006;Kenstowicz, 2007;Mwita, 2009), but none of it has led to computational realizations.…”

Section: Ot: Constraint-based Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-Lingual Bridges with Models of Lexical Borrowing

Tsvetkov

Dyer

2016

jair

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Linguistic borrowing is the phenomenon of transferring linguistic constructions (lexical, phonological, morphological, and syntactic) from a "donor" language to a "recipient" language as a result of contacts between communities speaking different languages. Borrowed words are found in all languages, and-in contrast to cognate relationships-borrowing relationships may exist across unrelated languages (for example, about 40% of Swahili's vocabulary is borrowed from the unrelated language Arabic). In this work, we develop a model of morpho-phonological transformations across languages. Its features are based on universal constraints from Optimality Theory (OT), and we show that compared to several standard-but linguistically more naïve-baselines, our OT-inspired model obtains good performance at predicting donor forms from borrowed forms with only a few dozen training examples, making this a cost-effective strategy for sharing lexical information across languages. We demonstrate applications of the lexical borrowing model in machine translation, using resource-rich donor language to obtain translations of out-of-vocabulary loanwords in a lower resource language. Our framework obtains substantial improvements (up to 1.6 BLEU) over standard baselines.

show abstract

Vowel epenthesis in loanword adaptation: Representational and phonetic considerations

Cited by 49 publications

References 24 publications

Epenthetic vowel quality in loanwords: Empirical and formal issues

Epenthetic vowel quality in loanwords: Empirical and formal issues

Loanword adaptation as first-language phonological perception

Cross-Lingual Bridges with Models of Lexical Borrowing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About