Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
Cancel
×
×
Home
  • Home
Article
  • Cited by 45
  • Cited by
    Crossref Citations
    Crossref logo
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.
    Chandlee, Jane and Heinz, Jeffrey 2018. Strict Locality and Phonological Maps. Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 49, Issue. 1, p. 23.
    Wilson, Colin and Gallagher, Gillian 2018. Accidental Gaps and Surface-Based Phonotactic Learning: A Case Study of South Bolivian Quechua. Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 49, Issue. 3, p. 610.
    Olejarczuk, Paul and Kapatsinski, Vsevolod 2018. The metrical parse is guided by gradient phonotactics. Phonology, Vol. 35, Issue. 03, p. 367.
    Fuchs, Martín 2018. Antepenultimate stress in Spanish: In defense of syllable weight and grammatically-informed analogy. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, Vol. 3, Issue. 1,
    Dautriche, Isabelle Mahowald, Kyle Gibson, Edward Christophe, Anne and Piantadosi, Steven T. 2017. Words cluster phonetically beyond phonotactic regularities. Cognition, Vol. 163, Issue. , p. 128.
    Jarosz, Gaja 2017. Defying the stimulus: acquisition of complex onsets in Polish. Phonology, Vol. 34, Issue. 02, p. 269.
    Adriaans, Frans and Kager, René 2017. Learning novel phonotactics from exposure to continuous speech. Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology, Vol. 8, Issue. 1, p. 12.
    Jarosz, Gaja Calamaro, Shira and Zentz, Jason 2017. Input frequency and the acquisition of syllable structure in Polish. Language Acquisition, Vol. 24, Issue. 4, p. 361.
    Linzen, Tal and Gallagher, Gillian 2017. Rapid generalization in phonotactic learning. Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology, Vol. 8, Issue. 1,
    Futrell, Richard Albright, Adam Graff, Peter and O’Donnell, Timothy J. 2017. A Generative Model of Phonotactics. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Vol. 5, Issue. , p. 73.
    Durvasula, Karthik and Kahng, Jimin 2016. The role of phrasal phonology in speech perception: What perceptual epenthesis shows us. Journal of Phonetics, Vol. 54, Issue. , p. 15.
    Caselli, Naomi K. Caselli, Michael K. and Cohen-Goldberg, Ariel M. 2016. Inflected words in production: Evidence for a morphologically rich lexicon. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 69, Issue. 3, p. 432.
    Anttila, Arto 2016. Phonological Effects on Syntactic Variation. Annual Review of Linguistics, Vol. 2, Issue. 1, p. 115.
    Richtsmeier, Peter 2016. Phonological and Semantic Cues to Learning from Word-Types. Laboratory Phonology, Vol. 7, Issue. 1,
    Pertsova, Katya 2016. Transderivational relations and paradigm gaps in Russian verbs. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, Vol. 1, Issue. 1,
    Gow, David W. and Olson, Bruna B. 2015. Lexical mediation of phonotactic frequency effects on spoken word recognition: A Granger causality analysis of MRI-constrained MEG/EEG data. Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 82, Issue. , p. 41.
    Gouskova, Maria Newlin-Łukowicz, Luiza and Kasyanenko, Sofya 2015. Selectional restrictions as phonotactics over sublexicons. Lingua, Vol. 167, Issue. , p. 41.
    Lentz, Tomas O. and Kager, René W. J. 2015. Categorical phonotactic knowledge filters second language input, but probabilistic phonotactic knowledge can still be acquired. Language and Speech, Vol. 58, Issue. 3, p. 387.
    Lennertz, Tracy and Berent, Iris 2015. On the sonority levels of fricatives and stops. The Mental Lexicon, Vol. 10, Issue. 1, p. 88.
    Domahs, Ulrike Plag, Ingo and Carroll, Rebecca 2014. Word stress assignment in German, English and Dutch: Quantity-sensitivity and extrametricality revisited. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, Vol. 17, Issue. 1, p. 59.
    Download full list
    ×
  • Get access
    Add to cart USD25.00
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
    Log in Register

Feature-based generalisation as a source of gradient acceptability*

  • Adam Albright (a1)
Abstract

Phonological judgements are often gradient: blick>?bwick>*bnick>**bzick. The mechanisms behind gradient generalisation remain controversial, however. This paper tests the role of phonological features in helping speakers evaluate which novel combinations receive greater lexical support. A model is proposed in which the acceptability of a string is based on the most probable combination of natural classes that it instantiates. The model is tested on its ability to predict acceptability ratings of nonce words, and its predictions are compared against those of models that lack features or economise on feature specifications. The proposed model achieves the best balance of performance on attested and unattested sequences, and is a significant predictor of acceptability even after the other models are factored out. The feature-based model's predictions do not completely subsume those of simpler models, however. This may indicate multiple levels of evaluation, involving segment-based phonotactic probability and feature-based gradient phonological grammaticality.

Copyright
COPYRIGHT: © Cambridge University Press 2009
References
Hide All
Albright, Adam (2002a). Islands of reliability for regular morphology: evidence from Italian. Lg 78. 684–709.
Albright, Adam (2002b). The lexical bases of morphological well-formedness. In Bendjaballah, Sabrina, Dressler, Wolfgang U., Pfeiffer, Oskar E. & Voeikova, Maria D. (eds.) Morphology 2000. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 5–15.
Albright, Adam & Hayes, Bruce (2002). Modeling English past tense intuitions with minimal generalization. In Maxwell, Mike (ed.) Proceedings of the 6th Meeting of the ACL Special Interest Group on Computational Phonology. Philadelphia: Association for Computational Linguistics. 58–69.
Albright, Adam & Hayes, Bruce (2003). Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: a computational/experimental study. Cognition 90. 119–161.
Auer, Edward T. Jr. & Luce, Paul A. (2005). Probabilistic phonotactics in spoken word recognition. In Pisoni, David B. & Remez, Robert E. (eds.) The handbook of speech perception. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell. 610–630.
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, Richard & van Rijn, Hedderik (1993). The CELEX lexical data base. [CD-ROM.] Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
Bailey, Todd M. & Hahn, Ulrike (2001). Determinants of wordlikeness: phonotactics or lexical neighborhoods? Journal of Memory and Language 44. 568–591.
Bates, David, Maechler, Martin & Dai, Bin (2008). The lme4 Package (Version 0.999375-28): linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. Available (March 2009) at http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/lme4.pdf.
Berent, Iris, Steriade, Donca, Lennertz, Tracy & Vaknin, Vered (2007). What we know about what we have never heard: evidence from perceptual illusions. Cognition 104. 591–630.
Berko, Jean (1958). The child's learning of English morphology. Word 14. 150–177.
Berwick, Robert C. (1986). Learning from positive-only examples: the subset principle and three case studies. In Carbonell, Jaime Guillermo, Michalski, Ryszard S. & Mitchell, Tom M. (eds.) Machine learning: an artificial intelligence approach. Vol. 2. Los Altos, Ca.: Kaufmann. 625–645.
Buchwald, Adam (2007). Determining well-formedness in phonology: type vs. token frequency. Paper presented at the 81st Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Anaheim.
Bybee, Joan (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10. 425–455.
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.
Clements, G. N. & Keyser, Samuel J. (1983). CV phonology: a generative theory of the syllable. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Coleman, John & Pierrehumbert, Janet (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, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics. 49–56.
Coltheart, Max, Davelaar, Eileen, Jonasson, Jon Torfi & Besner, Derek (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In Dornic, Stan (ed.) Attention and performance. Vol. 6. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 535–555.
Davis, Stuart (1984). Some implications of onset-coda constraints for syllable phonology. CLS 20. 46–51.
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. 481–496.
Greenberg, Joseph H. & Jenkins, James J. (1964). Studies in the psychological correlates of the sound system of American English. Word 20. 157–177.
Hammond, Michael (1999). The phonology of English: a prosodic optimality-theoretic approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hay, Jennifer (2003). Causes and consequences of word structure. New York & London: Routledge.
Hay, Jennifer, Pierrehumbert, Janet & Beckman, Mary E. (2004). 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. 58–74.
Hayes, Bruce (2004). Phonological acquisition in Optimality Theory: the early stages. In Kager et al. (2004). 158–203.
Hayes, Bruce & Wilson, Colin (2008). A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. LI 39. 379–440.
Jurafsky, Daniel & Martin, James H. (2000). Speech and language processing: an introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Jusczyk, Peter W., Luce, Paul A. & Charles-Luce, Jan (1994). Infants' sensitivity to phonotactic patterns in the native language. Journal of Memory and Language 33. 630–645.
Kager, René, Pater, Joe & Zonneveld, Wim (eds.) (2004). Constraints in phonological acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kendall, Maurice G. (1990). Rank correlation methods. 5th edn. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kessler, Brett & Treiman, Rebecca (1997). Syllable structure and the distribution of phonemes in English syllables. Journal of Memory and Language 37. 295–311.
Luce, Paul A. (1986). Neighborhoods of words in the mental lexicon. Technical report, Speech Research Laboratory, Department of Psychology, Indiana University.
Luce, Paul A. & Pisoni, David B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: the neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing 19. 1–36.
Newman, Rochelle S., Sawusch, James R. & Luce, Paul A. (1997). Lexical neighborhood effects in phonetic processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 23. 873–889.
Nosofsky, Robert M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification–categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 115. 39–57.
Ohala, John J. & Ohala, Manjari (1986). Testing hypotheses regarding the psychological manifestation of morpheme structure constraints. In Ohala, John J. & Jaeger, Jeri (eds.) Experimental phonology. Orlando: Academic Press. 239–252.
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: word frequency, lenition and contrast. In Bybee, Joan & Hopper, Paul (eds.) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 137–157.
Pinheiro, José C. & Bates, Douglas M. (2000). Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer.
Pitt, Mark A. & McQueen, James M. (1998). Is compensation for coarticulation mediated by the lexicon? Journal of Memory and Language 39. 347–370.
Prasada, Sandeep & Pinker, Steven (1993). Generalization of regular and irregular morphological patterns. Language and Cognitive Processes 8. 1–56.
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (2004). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.
Prince, Alan & Tesar, Bruce (2004). Learning phonotactic distributions. In Kager, et al. (2004). 245–291.
R Development Core Team (2008). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available (March 2009) at http://www.r-project.org.
Ramscar, Michael & Yarlett, Daniel (2003). Semantic grounding in models of analogy: an environmental approach. Cognitive Science 27. 41–71.
Saul, Lawrence & Pereira, Fernando (1997). Aggregate and mixed-order Markov models for statistical language processing. In Cardie, Claire & Weischedel, Ralph (eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Somerset, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics. 81–89.
Scholes, Robert J. (1966). Phonotactic grammaticality. The Hague: Mouton.
Schütze, Carson T. (2005). Thinking about what we are asking speakers to do. In Kepser, Stephan & Reis, Marga (eds.) Linguistic evidence: empirical, theoretical and computational perspectives. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 457–484.
Selkirk, Elizabeth O. (1982). The syllable. In Hulst, Harry van der & Smith, Norval (eds.) The structure of phonological representations. Part 2. Dordrecht: Foris. 337–384.
Sendlmeier, Walter F. (1987). Auditive judgements of word similarity. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 40. 538–547.
Shademan, Shabnam (2006). Is phonotactic knowledge grammatical knowledge? WCCFL 25. 371–379.
Shademan, Shabnam (2007). Grammar and analogy in phonotactic well-formedness judgments. PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.
Sheskin, David J. (2004). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. 3rd edn. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall.
Tessier, Anne-Michelle (2006). Biases and stages in phonological acquisition. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Vitevitch, Michael S. & Luce, Paul A. (1998). When words compete: levels of processing in perception of spoken words. Psychological Science 9. 325–329.
Vitevitch, Michael S. & Luce, Paul A. (1999). Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood activation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 40. 374–408.
Vitevitch, Michael S. & Luce, Paul A. (2004). A web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 36. 481–487.
Vitevitch, Michael S. & Luce, Paul A. (2005). Increases in phonotactic probability facilitate spoken nonword repetition. Journal of Memory and Language 52. 193–204.
Vitevitch, Michael S., Luce, Paul A., Charles-Luce, Jan & Kemmerer, David (1996). Phonotactic and metrical influences on adult ratings of spoken nonsense words. Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP). 82–85.
Vitevitch, Michael S., Luce, Paul A., Charles-Luce, Jan & Kemmerer, David (1997). Phonotactics and syllable stress: implications for the processing of spoken nonsense words. Language and Speech 40. 47–62.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Phonology
  • ISSN: 0952-6757
  • EISSN: 1469-8188
  • URL: /core/journals/phonology
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *

CAPTCHA *

Skip to the audio challenge
×

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

Cancel
Confirm
×