Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Exceptionality and derived environment effects: a comparison of Korean and Turkish

  • Adam J. Chong (a1)

Abstract

Morphologically derived environment effects (MDEEs) are well-known examples where phonotactic patterns in the lexicon mismatch with what is allowed at morphological boundaries – alternations. Analyses of MDEEs usually assume that the alternation is morphologically general, and that the sequences ‘repaired’ across morpheme boundaries are phonotactically well-formed in the lexicon. This paper examines the phonotactic patterns in the lexicon of two languages with MDEEs: Korean palatalisation and Turkish velar deletion. I show that Korean heteromorphemic sequences that undergo palatalisation are underattested in the lexicon. A computational learner learns a markedness constraint that drives palatalisation, suggesting a pattern of exceptional non-undergoing. This contrasts with Turkish, where the relevant constraint motivating velar deletion at the morpheme boundary is unavailable from phonotactic learning, and where the alternation is an example of exceptional triggering. These results indicate that MDEEs are not a unitary phenomenon, highlighting the need to examine these patterns in closer quantitative detail.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Footnotes

Hide All

This work has benefited from discussion and feedback from Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, Robert Daland, Bruce Hayes, Sharon Inkelas, Karen Jesney, Sharon Peperkamp, Stephanie Shih, Brian Smith, Megha Sundara, Kie Zuraw and audiences at the University of Melbourne, UC Berkeley, UCLA, University of Hawaii, NYU, QMUL, the University of Manchester, SCaMP 2016 at UCSD and AMP 2016 at USC. I am grateful to Joo Hee Oom for help processing parts of the NAKL corpus. Finally, I would also like to thank three anonymous reviewers, an associate editor and the editors at Phonology, whose comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this manuscript have greatly improved it. An earlier version of this work appeared as a chapter of Chong (2017). This work was funded by a UCLA Dissertation Year Fellowship. All remaining faults are my own.

Footnotes

References

Hide All
Albright, Adam (2002). Islands of reliability for regular morphology: evidence from Italian. Lg 78. 684709.
Anttila, Arto (2006). Variation and opacity. NLLT 24. 893944.
Anttila, Arto (2009). Derived environment effects in colloquial Helsinki Finnish. In Hanson & Inkelas (2009). 433459.
Bailey, Todd M. & Hahn, Ulrike (2001). Determinants of wordlikeness: phonotactics or lexical neighborhoods? Journal of Memory and Language 44. 568591.
Becker, Michael & Gouskova, Maria (2016). Source-oriented generalizations as grammar inference in Russian vowel deletion. LI 47. 391425.
Becker, Michael, Ketrez, Nihan & Nevins, Andrew (2011). The surfeit of the stimulus: analytic biases filter lexical statistics in Turkish laryngeal alternations. Lg 87. 84125.
Burzio, Luigi (2000). Cycles, non-derived-environment blocking, and correspondence. In Dekkers, Joost, van der Leeuw, Frank & van de Weijer, Jeroen (eds.) Optimality Theory: phonology, syntax, and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 4787.
Cho, Hyesun (2012). Statistical learning of Korean phonotactics. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 18. 339370.
Cho, Namho (2003). Hangwukeo hakseupyong eohwi seonceong kjeolkwa pogoseo. [Vocabulary list for learning Korean.] The National Academy of the Korean Language.
Cho, Taehong (2001). Effects of morpheme boundaries on intergestural timing: evidence from Korean. Phonetica 58. 129162.
Cho, Young-Mee Yu (2009). A historical perspective on nonderived environment blocking: the case of Korean palatalization. In Hanson & Inkelas (2009). 461486.
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.
Chong, Adam (2017). On the relation between phonotactic and alternation learning. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Chung, Sandra (1983). Transderivational relationships in Chamorro phonology. Lg 59. 3566.
Clements, George N. & Sezer, Engin (1982). Vowel and consonant disharmony in Turkish. In van der Hulst, Harry & Smith, Norval (eds.) The structure of phonological representations. Part 2. Dordrecht: Foris. 213255.
Coetzee, Andries W. & Pater, Joe (2008). Weighted constraints and gradient restrictions on place co-occurrence in Muna and Arabic. NLLT 26. 289337.
Coleman, John & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (1997). Stochastic phonological grammars and acceptability. In Coleman, John (ed.) Proceedings of the 3rd Meeting of the ACL Special Interest Group in Computational Phonology. Somerset, N.J.: Association for Computational Linguistics. 4956. Available (August 2019) at http://arxiv.org/abs/cmp-lg/9707017.
Daland, Robert, Hayes, Bruce, White, James, Garellek, Marc, Davis, Andrea & Norrmann, Ingrid (2011). Explaining sonority projection effects. Phonology 28. 197234.
Daland, Robert, Oh, Mira & Kim, Syejeong (2015). When in doubt, read the instructions: orthographic effects in loanword adaptation. Lingua 159. 7092.
Eychenne, Julien & Jang, Tae-Yeoub (2015). On the merger of Korean mid front vowels: phonetic and phonological evidence. Journal of the Korean Society of Speech Sciences 7:2. 119129.
Frisch, Stefan A., Large, Nathan R. & Pisoni, David B. (2000). Perception of wordlikeness: effects of segment probability and length on the processing of nonwords. Journal of Memory and Language 42. 481496.
Frisch, Stefan A., Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Broe, Michael B. (2004). Similarity avoidance and the OCP. NLLT 22. 179228.
Frisch, Stefan A. & Zawaydeh, Bushra (2001). The psychological reality of OCP-place in Arabic. Lg 77. 91106.
Göksel, Aslı & Kerslake, Celia (2005). Turkish: a comprehensive grammar. London & New York: Routledge.
Halle, Morris (1979). Formal vs. functional considerations in phonology. In Brogyanyi, Bela (ed.) Studies in diachronic, synchronic, and typological linguistics: Festschrift for Oswald Szemérenyi on the occasion of his 65th birthday. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 325341.
Hammond, Michael (1992). Deriving the Strict Cycle Condition. CLS 28:2. 126140.
Hanson, Kristin & Inkelas, Sharon (eds.) (2009) The nature of the word: studies in honor of Paul Kiparsky. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Hay, Jennifer, Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Beckman, Mary E. (2003). Speech perception, well-formedness and the statistics of the lexicon. In Local, John, Ogden, Richard & Temple, Rosalind (eds.) Phonetic interpretation: papers in laboratory phonology VI. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 5874.
Hayes, Bruce (2004). Phonological acquisition in Optimality Theory: the early stages. In Kager, René, Pater, Joe & Zonneveld, Wim (eds.) Constraints in phonological acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 158203.
Hayes, Bruce & White, James (2013). Phonological naturalness and phonotactic learning. LI 44. 4575.
Hayes, Bruce & Wilson, Colin (2008). A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. LI 39. 379440.
Hulst, Harry van der & van de Weijer, Jeroen (1991). Topics in Turkish phonology. In Boeschoten, Hendrik & Verhoeven, Ludo (eds.) Turkish linguistics today. Leiden: Brill. 1159.
Inkelas, Sharon (2011). Another look at velar deletion in Turkish, with special attention to the derived environment condition. In Erguvanlı Taylan, Eser & Rona, Bengisu (eds.) Puzzles of language: essays in honour of Karl Zimmer. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 3753.
Inkelas, Sharon (2015). Confidence scales: a new approach to Derived Environment effects. In Hsiao, Yuchau E. & Wee, Lian-Hee (eds.) Capturing phonological shades within and across languages. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 4575.
Inkelas, Sharon, Küntay, Aylin, Sprouse, Ronald & Orhan Orgun, C. (2001). TELL: Turkish Electronic Living Lexicon (TELL). Turkic Languages 4. 253275.
Inkelas, Sharon & Orgun, Cemil Orhan (1995). Level ordering and economy in the lexical phonology of Turkish. Lg 71. 763793.
Inkelas, Sharon & Zoll, Cheryl (2007). Is grammar dependence real? A comparison between cophonological and indexed constraint approaches to morphologically conditioned phonology. Linguistics 45. 133171.
Itô, Junko & Mester, Armin (1999). The phonological lexicon. In Tsujimura, Natsuko (ed.) The handbook of Japanese linguistics. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell. 62100.
Itô, Junko & Mester, Armin (2008). Lexical classes in phonology. In Miyagawa, Shigeru & Saito, Mamoru (eds.) The Oxford handbook of Japanese linguistics. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. 84106.
Iverson, Gregory K. & Wheeler, Deirdre W. (1988). Blocking and the Elsewhere condition. In Hammond, Michael & Noonan, Michael (eds.) Theoretical morphology: approaches in modern linguistics. San Diego: Academic Press. 325338.
Jarosz, Gaja (2018). Indexed morphemes and locality conditions on Polish yer deletion. Paper presented at the 26th Manchester Phonology Meeting. Handout available (August 2019) at https://blogs.umass.edu/jarosz/files/2018/05/26mfm_final.pdf.
Jun, Jongho & Lee, Jeehyun (2007). Multiple stem-final variants in Korean native nouns and loanwords. Eoneohag [Journal of the Linguistic Society of Korea] 47. 159187.
Jurgec, Peter & Bjorkman, Bronwyn M. (2018). Indexation to stems and words. Phonology 35. 577615.
Kager, René & Shatzman, Keren (2007). Phonological constraints in speech processing. In Los, Bettelou & van Koppen, Marjo (eds.) Linguistics in the Netherlands 2007. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 99111.
Karlsson, Fred (1982). Suomen kielen äänne- ja muotorakenne. [The phonological and morphological structure of Finnish.] Helsinki: Söderström.
Kenstowicz, Michael & Kisseberth, Charles (1977). Topics in phonological theory. New York: Academic Press.
Kenstowicz, Michael & Kisseberth, Charles (1979). Generative phonology: description and theory. New York: Academic Press.
Kim, Byeongchang, Lee, Gary Geunbae & Lee, Jong-Hyeok (2002). Morpheme-based grapheme to phoneme conversion using phonetic patterns and morphophonemic connectivity information. ACM Transactions on Asian Language Information Processing 1. 6582.
Kiparsky, Paul (1973). Phonological representations. In Fujimura, Osamu (ed.) Three dimensions of linguistic theory. Tokyo: TEC. 3135.
Kiparsky, Paul (1982). Explanation in phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.
Kiparsky, Paul (1993). Blocking in nonderived environments. In Hargus, Sharon & Kaisse, Ellen M. (eds.) Studies in lexical phonology. San Diego: Academic Press. 277313.
Kiparsky, Paul (2003). Finnish noun inflection. In Nelson, Diane & Manninen, Satu (eds.) Generative approaches to Finnic and Saami linguistics. Stanford: CSLI. 109161.
Kirchner, Robert (1993). Turkish vowel harmony and disharmony: an Optimality Theoretic account. Paper presented at the Rutgers Optimality Workshop 1. Available as ROA-4 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.
Lantz, Björn (2013). The large sample size fallacy. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences 27. 487492.
Lee, Ki-Moon & Robert Ramsey, S. (2011). A history of the Korean language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lees, Robert B. (1961). The phonology of Modern Standard Turkish. Bloomington: Indiana University.
Legendre, Géraldine, Miyata, Yoshiro & Smolensky, Paul (1990). 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. 884891.
Lewis, G. L. (1967). Turkish grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.
Łubowicz, Anna (2002). Derived environment effects in Optimality Theory. Lingua 112. 243280.
McCarthy, John J. (2002). A thematic guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, John J. (2003). Comparative markedness. Theoretical Linguistics 29. 151.
Martin, Andrew (2007). The evolving lexicon. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Martin, Andrew (2011). Grammars leak: modeling how phonotactic generalizations interact within the grammar. Lg 87. 751770.
Meeussen, A. E. (1959). Essai de grammaire rundi. Tervuren: Musée Royal du Congo Belge.
Moore-Cantwell, Claire & Pater, Joe (2016). Gradient exceptionality in Maximum Entropy Grammar with lexically specific constraints. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 15. 5366.
NAKL (2003). Hyeondae gug-eo sayong bindo josa gyeolgwa pail. [Modern Korean language usage frequency findings.] National Academy of Korean Language. http://www.korean.go.kr/.
Oh, Mira (1995). A prosodic analysis of nonderived-environment blocking. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4. 261279.
Paster, Mary (2013). Rethinking the ‘duplication problem’. Lingua 126. 7891.
Pater, Joe (2007). The locus of exceptionality: morpheme-specific phonology as constraint indexation. In Bateman, Leah, O'Keefe, Michael, Reilly, Ehren & Werle, Adam (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory III. Amherst: GLSA. 259296.
Pater, Joe & Tessier, Anne-Michelle (2005). Phonotactics and alternations: testing the connection with artificial language learning. In Flack, Katherine & Kawahara, Shigeto (eds.) UMOP 31: Papers in experimental phonetics and phonology. Amherst: GLSA. 116.
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (2003). Phonetic diversity, statistical learning, and acquisition of phonology. Language and Speech 46. 115154.
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (2004). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.
Pycha, Anne (2008). Morphological sources of phonological length. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Pycha, Anne, Inkelas, Sharon & Sprouse, Ronald (2007). Morphophonemics and the lexicon: a case study from Turkish. In Solé, Maria-Josep, Beddor, Patrice Speeter & Ohala, Manjari (eds.) Experimental approaches to phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 369385.
Richtsmeier, Peter T. (2011). Word-types, not word-tokens, facilitate extraction of phonotactic sequences by adults. Laboratory Phonology 2. 157183.
Rodegem, F. M. (1970). Dictionnaire rundi–français. Tervuren: Musée Royal de l'Afrique Central.
Rubach, Jerzy (1984). Cyclic and Lexical Phonology: the structure of Polish. Dordrecht: Foris.
Ryu, Ju-Yeon (2012). The L1 acquisition of the imperfective aspect markers in Korean: a comparison with Japanese. International Journal of Asian Language Processing 22. 147159.
Sezer, Engin (1981). The k/Ø alternation in Turkish. In Clements, G. N. (ed.) Harvard studies in phonology. Vol. 2. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. 354382.
Sezer, Engin (1986). An autosegmental analysis of compensatory lengthening in Turkish. In Wetzels, Leo & Sezer, Engin (eds.) Studies in compensatory lengthening. Dordrecht: Foris. 227250.
Shin, Jiyoung, Kiaer, Jieun & Cha, Jaeeun (2013). The sounds of Korean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, Jennifer L. (2001). Lexical category and phonological contrast. In Kirchner, Robert, Pater, Joe & Wikely, Wolf (eds.) PETL 6: Workshop on the Lexicon in Phonetics and Phonology. Edmonton: University of Alberta. 6172.
Sohn, Ho-Min (1999). The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tesar, Bruce & Prince, Alan (2007). Using phonotactics to learn phonological alternations. CLS 39:2. 241269.
Ünal-Logacev, Öslem, Żygis, Marzena & Fuchs, Susanne (2017). Phonetics and phonology of soft ‘g’ in Turkish. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 49. 183206.
Wilson, Colin & Obdeyn, Marieke (2009). Simplifying subsidiary theory: statistical evidence from Arabic, Muna, Shona, and Wargamay. Ms, Johns Hopkins University.
Wolf, Matthew (2008). Optimal interleaving: serial phonology–morphology interaction in a constraint-based model. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Zimmer, Karl E. & Abbott, Barbara (1978). The k/Ø alternation in Turkish: some experimental evidence for its productivity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 7. 3546.
Zymet, Jesse (2018). Lexical propensities in phonology: corpus and experimental evidence, grammar, and learning. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

Exceptionality and derived environment effects: a comparison of Korean and Turkish

  • Adam J. Chong (a1)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed