Hostname: page-component-5f7774ffb-cpcbk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-02-19T07:10:43.713Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When lexical statistics and the grammar conflict: Learning and repairing weight effects on stress

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Guilherme Duarte Garcia
Guilherme Duarte Garcia*
Affiliation:
Ball State University
*
gdgarcia@bsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In weight-sensitive languages, stress is influenced by syllable weight. As a result, heavy syllables should attract, not repel, stress. The Portuguese lexicon, however, presents a case where weight seems to negatively impact stress: antepenultimate stress is more frequent in light antepenultimate syllables than in heavy ones. This pattern is phonologically unexpected and appears to contradict the typology of weight and stress: it is a case where lexical statistics and the grammar conflict. Portuguese also contains gradient, not categorical, weight effects, which weaken as we move away from the right edge of the word. In this article, I examine how native speakers' grammars capture these subtle weight effects, and whether the negative antepenultimate weight effect is learned or repaired. I show that speakers learn the gradient weight effects in the language, but do not learn the unnatural negative effect. Instead, speakers repair this pattern and generalize a positive weight effect to all syllables in the stress domain. This study thus provides empirical evidence that speakers may not only ignore unnatural patterns, but also learn the opposite pattern.

Keywords

stressweightlexical statisticsBayesprobabilistic grammarMaxEnt

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 95 , Issue 4 , December 2019 , pp. 612 - 641
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Araújo, Gabriel Antunes (ed.) 2007. O acento em portugûes: Abordagens fonológicas. São Paulo: Parábola.Google Scholar
Araújo, Gabriel Antunes, Guimarães-Filho, Zwinglio Oliveira, Oliveira, Leonardo; and Viaro, Mário Eduardo. 2011. Algumas observações sobre as proparoxítonas e o sistema acentual do português. Cadernos de Estudos Lingüísticos 50. 69–90. DOI: 10.20396/cel.v50i1.8637239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Michael, Ketrez, Nihan; and Nevins, Andrew. 2011. The surfeit of the stimulus: Analytic biases filter lexical statistics in Turkish laryngeal alternations. Language 87. 84–125. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2011.0016.10.1353/lan.2011.0016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Michael, Nevins, Andrew; and Levine, Jonathan. 2012. Asymmetries in generalizing alternations to and from initial syllables. Language 88. 231–68. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2012.0049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Jill N. 1997. Positional faithfulness, positional neutralisation and Shona vowel harmony. Phonology 14. 1–46. DOI: 10.1017/S0952675797003308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beguš, Gašper. 2018. Unnatural phonology: A synchrony-diachrony interface approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University dissertation. Online: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:40050094.Google Scholar
Bisol, Leda. 1992. O acento e o pé métrico binário. Cadernos de Estudos Linguísticos 22. 69–80. DOI: 10.20396/cel.v22i0.8636897.Google Scholar
Bisol, Leda. 2013. O acento: Duas alternativas de análise. Organon 28. 281–321. DOI: 10.22456/2238-8915.41192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul. 1998. Functional phonology: Formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and Weenink, David. 2019. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Online: http://www.praat.org/.Google Scholar
Brooks, Stephen P., and Gelman, Andrew. 1998. General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 7. 434–55. DOI: 10.1080/10618600.1998.10474787.10.1080/10618600.1998.10474787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language 82. 711–33. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2006.0186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantoni, Maria Mendes. 2013. O acento no português brasileiro: Uma abordagem experimental. Belo Horizonte: Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais dissertation.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Angela C. 2010. A naturalness bias in learning stress. Phonology 27. 345–92. DOI: 10.1017/S0952675710000199/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, Bob, Gelman, Andrew, Hoffman, Matthew, Lee, Daniel, Goodrich, Ben, Betancourt, Michael, Brubaker, Marcus, Guo, Jiqiang, Li, Peter; and Riddell, Allen. 2017. Stan: A probabilistic programming language. Journal of Statistical Software 76. 1–32. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v076.i01.10.18637/jss.v076.i01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. 2008. Grammaticality and ungrammaticality in phonology. Language 84. 218–57. DOI: 10.1353/lan.0.0000.10.1353/lan.0.0000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Lacy, Paul. 2002. The formal expression of markedness. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul. 2004. Markedness conflation in optimality theory. Phonology 21. 145–99. DOI: 10.1017/S0952675704000193.10.1017/S0952675704000193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, Stefan A., and Zawaydeh, Bushra Adnan. 2001. The psychological reality of OCP-Place in Arabic. Language 77. 91–106. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2001.0014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, Guilherme D. 2014. Portuguese stress lexicon: Comprehensive list of non-verbs in Portuguese. Online: http://guilhermegarcia.github.io/psl.html.Google Scholar
Garcia, Guilherme D. 2015. Word generator: An R script for generating nonce words. Commented code available at http://github.com/guilhermegarcia/r/blob/master/word_generator.md.Google Scholar
Garcia, Guilherme D. 2017. Weight gradience and stress in Portuguese. Phonology 34. 41–79. DOI: 10.1017/S0952675717000033. Project materials available at http://guilhermegarcia.github.io/garcia_phon_2017.html.10.1017/S0952675717000033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew. 2008. Objections to Bayesian statistics. Bayesian Analysis 3. 445–49. DOI: 10.1214/08-BA318.10.1214/08-BA318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, Carlin, John B., Stern, Hal S., Dunson, David B., Vehtari, Aki; and Rubin, Donald B.. 2014. Bayesian data analysis, vol. 2. 3rd edn. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Glewwe, Eleanor. 2017. Substantive bias in phonotactic learning: Positional extension of an obstruent voicing contrast. Talk presented at the 53rd meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Goldwater, Sharon J., and Johnson, Mark. 2003. Learning OT constraint rankings using a maximum entropy model. Proceedings of the Stockholm Workshop on Variation within Optimality Theory, ed. by Spenader, Jennifer, Eriksson, Anders, and Dahl, Östen, 111–20.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew. 2006. Syllable weight: Phonetics, phonology, typology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Thomas L., and Tenenbaum, Joshua B.. 2006. Optimal predictions in everyday cognition. Psychological Science 17. 767–73. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01780.x.10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01780.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hay, Jennifer, Pierrehumbert, Janet; and Beckman, Mary E.. 2003. Speech perception, well-formedness and the statistics of the lexicon. Phonetic interpretation: Papers in laboratory phonology 6, ed. by Local, John, Ogden, Richard, and Temple, Rosalind, 58–74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, and Londe, Zsuzsa Cziráky. 2006. Stochastic phonological knowledge: The case of Hungarian vowel harmony. Phonology 23. 59–104. DOI: 10.1017/S0952675706000765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Siptár, Péter, Zuraw, Kie; and Londe, Zsuzsa. 2009. Natural and unnatural constraints in Hungarian vowel harmony. Language 85. 822–63. DOI: 10.1353/lan.0.0169.10.1353/lan.0.0169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, and White, James. 2013. Phonological naturalness and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry 44. 45–75. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00119.10.1162/LING_a_00119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, and Wilson, Colin. 2008. A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry 39. 379–440. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2008.39.3.379.10.1162/ling.2008.39.3.379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houaiss, Antônio, Villar, Mauro; and Franco, Francisco Manoel de Mello. 2001. Dicionário eletrônico houaiss da língua portuguesa. Rio de Janeiro: Objetiva.Google Scholar
Jarosz, Gaja. 2017. Defying the stimulus: Acquisition of complex onsets in Polish. Phonology 34. 269–98. DOI: 10.1017/S0952675717000148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kager, René. 2012. Stress in windows: Language typology and factorial typology. Lingua 122. 1454–49. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.06.005.10.1016/j.lingua.2012.06.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kass, Robert E., Carlin, Bradley P., Gelman, Andrew; and Neal, Radford M.. 1998. Markov chain Monte Carlo in practice: A roundtable discussion. The American Statistician 52. 93–100. DOI: 10.1080/00031305.1998.10480547.10.1080/00031305.1998.10480547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Phonology in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kruschke, John K. 2010. Bayesian data analysis. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 1. 658–76. DOI: 10.1002/wcs.72.Google ScholarPubMed
Kruschke, John K. 2013. Bayesian estimation supersedes the t test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 142. 573–603. DOI: 10.1037/a0029146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruschke, John K. 2015. Doing Bayesian data analysis: A tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan. 3rd edn. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kruschke, John K., Aguinis, Herman; and Joo, Harry. 2012. The time has come: Bayesian methods for data analysis in the organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods 15. 722–52. DOI: 10.1177/1094428112457829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Michael D., and Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan. 2014. Bayesian cognitive modeling: A practical course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Seung-Hwa. 1994. A regra de acento do português: Outra alternativa. Letras de Hoje 24. 37–42. Online: http://revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br/ojs/index.php/fale/article/view/15770/10387.Google Scholar
Lee, Seung-Hwa. 2007. O acento primário no português: Uma análise unificada na Teoria da Otimalidade. O acento em português: Abordagens fonológicas, ed. by Araújo, Gabriel Antunes, 120–43. São Paulo: Parábola.Google Scholar
Magalhães, José, de, Sueli. 2004. O plano multidimensional do acento na teoria da otimidade. Porto Alegre: Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul dissertation.Google Scholar
Major, Roy C. 1985. Stress and rhythm in Brazilian Portuguese. Language 61. 259–82. DOI: 10.2307/414145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McElreath, Richard. 2016. Statistical rethinking: A Bayesian course with examples in R and Stan. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Moore-Cantwell, Claire, and Pater, Joe. 2016. Gradient exceptionality in maximum entropy grammar with lexically specific constraints. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 15. 53–66. DOI: 10.5565/rev/catjl.183.10.5565/rev/catjl.183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreton, Elliott, and Pater, Joe. 2012. Structure and substance in artificial-phonology learning, part I: Structure. Language and Linguistics Compass 6. 686–701. DOI: 10.1002/lnc3.363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagy, William E., and Anderson, Richard C.. 1984. How many words are there in printed school English? Reading Research Quarterly 19. 304–30. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/747823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan. 1990. Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization. Chicago Linguistic Society (Parasession on the syllable in phonetics and phonology) 26(2). 355–98.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 2004 [1993]. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell. [Revision of 1993 Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science technical report.].Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2019. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Online: http://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Ryan, Kevin M. 2014. Onsets contribute to syllable weight: Statistical evidence from stress and meter. Language 90. 309–41. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2014.0029.10.1353/lan.2014.0029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shelton, Michael. 2007. An experimental approach to syllable weight and stress in Spanish. State College: Pennsylvania State University dissertation.Google Scholar
Shih, Stephanie S., and Inkelas, Sharon. 2016. Morphologically-conditioned tonotactics in multilevel maximum entropy grammar. Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Meeting on Phonology. DOI: 10.3765/amp.v3i0.3659.10.3765/amp.v3i0.3659.10.3765/amp.v3i0.3659.10.3765/amp.v3i0.3659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skoruppa, Katrin, and Peperkamp, Sharon. 2011. Adaptation to novel accents: Feature-based learning of context-sensitive phonological regularities. Cognitive Science 35. 348–66. DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01152.x.10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01152.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steriade, Donca. 1994. Positional neutralization. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, ms.Google Scholar
Tang, Kevin. 2012. A 61 million word corpus of Brazilian Portuguese film subtitles as a resource for linguistic research. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 24. 208–14.Google Scholar
Wetzels, W. Leo. 1992. Mid vowel neutralization in Brazilian Portuguese. Cadernos de Estudos Linguísticos 23. 19–55. DOI: 10.20396/cel.v23i0.8636844.Google Scholar
Wetzels, W. Leo. 2007. Primary word stress in Brazilian Portuguese and the weight parameter. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 5. 9–58. DOI: 10.5334/jpl.144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Colin. 2006. Learning phonology with substantive bias: An experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science 30. 945–82. DOI: 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_89.10.1207/s15516709cog0000_89CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zuraw, Kie. 2018. Beyond trochaic shortening: A survey of Central Pacific languages. Language 94.e1–e42. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2018.0011.10.1353/lan.2018.0011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuraw, Kie, and Hayes, Bruce. 2017. Intersecting constraint families: An argument for harmonic grammar. Language 93. 497–548. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2017.0035.10.1353/lan.2017.0035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zymet, Jesse. 2018. Lexical propensities in phonology: Corpus and experimental evidence, grammar, and learning. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar