Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-g98kq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-21T19:08:25.800Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The metrical parse is guided by gradient phonotactics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 September 2018

Paul Olejarczuk  and
Vsevolod Kapatsinski
Paul Olejarczuk*
Affiliation:
University of Oregon
Vsevolod Kapatsinski*
Affiliation:
University of Oregon
*
E-mail: polejarczuk@csuchico.edu, vkapatsi@uoregon.edu.
E-mail: polejarczuk@csuchico.edu, vkapatsi@uoregon.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Phonotactic generalisations can be computed at different levels of granularity, from a coarse-grained legal/illegal dichotomy (blick, dwick ≻ *bnick, *lbick) to a fine-grained gradient of acceptability (blick ≻ dwick ≻ bnick ≻ lbick). This article investigates the sensitivity of the English metrical parse to the granularity of medial onset phonotactics. We present two experiments that feature pseudo-words with medial consonants and CC clusters varying in word-edge frequency and sonority (e.g. vatablick, vatadwick, vatabnick, vatalbick). The metrical parse is inferred from a hyphenation experiment and an online stress-assignment experiment. The results of both studies indicate that the parse is stochastic, and guided by relatively fine-grained phonotactic dependencies. Vocabulary simulations suggest that this level of granularity may arise because the gradient parser consistently outperforms the coarse-grained alternative across the developing lexicon.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , August 2018 , pp. 367 - 405
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Albright, Adam (2009). Feature-based generalisation as a source of gradient acceptability. Phonology 26. 9–41.Google Scholar
Apoussidou, Diana (2007). The learnability of metrical phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Arnold, Hayley S., Conture, Edward G. & Ohde, Ralph N. (2005). Phonological neighborhood density in the picture naming of young children who stutter: preliminary study. Journal of Fluency Disorders 30. 125–148.Google Scholar
Baertsch, Karen (2012). Sonority and sonority-based relationships within American English monosyllabic words. In Parker (2012). 3–37.Google Scholar
Bailey, Todd M. & Hahn, Ulrike (2001). Determinants of wordlikeness: phonotactics or lexical neighborhoods? Journal of Memory and Language 44. 568–591.Google Scholar
Baker, Robert G. & Smith, Philip T. (1976). A psycholinguistic study of English stress assignment rules. Language and Speech 19. 9–27.Google Scholar
Barr, Dale J., Levy, Roger, Scheepers, Christoph & Tily, Harry J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68. 255–278.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Maechler, Martin, Bolker, Ben & Steven Walker (2014). lme4: linear mixed-effects models using ‘Eigen’ and S4. R package (version 1.1-5). cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4.Google Scholar
Berent, Iris, Lennertz, Tracy, Jun, Jongho, Moreno, Miguel A. & Smolensky, Paul (2008). Language universals in human brains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105. 5321–5325.Google Scholar
Berent, Iris & Shimron, Joseph (1997). The representation of Hebrew words: evidence from the Obligatory Contour Principle. Cognition 64. 39–72.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Hayes, Bruce (2001). Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. LI 32. 45–86.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, Marc & New, Boris (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: a critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods 41. 977–990.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Angela C. (2010). A naturalness bias in learning stress. Phonology 27. 345–392.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Angela C. (2016). The role of a domain-specific language mechanism in learning natural and unnatural stress. Open Linguistics 2. 105–131.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1990). The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Kingston, John & Beckman, Mary E. (eds.) Papers in laboratory phonology I: between the grammar and physics of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 283–333.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. & Keyser, Samuel J. (1983). CV phonology: a generative theory of the syllable. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. (2009). Grammar is both categorical and gradient. In Parker, Steve (ed.) Phonological argumentation: essays on evidence and motivation. London & Oakville, Conn.: Equinox. 9–42.Google Scholar
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, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics. 49–56.Google Scholar
Côté, Marie-Hélène & Kharlamov, Viktor (2011). The impact of experimental tasks on syllabification judgments: a case study of Russian. In Cairns, Charles E. & Raimy, Eric (eds.) Handbook of the syllable. Leiden & Boston: Brill. 273–294.Google Scholar
Cser, András (2012). The role of sonority in the phonology of Latin. In Parker (2012). 39–65.Google Scholar
Cutler, Anne (2005). Lexical stress. In Pisoni, David B. & Remez, Robert E. (eds.) The handbook of speech perception. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. 264–289.Google Scholar
Cutler, Anne & Carter, David M. (1987). The predominance of strong initial syllables in the English vocabulary. Computer Speech and Language 2. 133–142.Google Scholar
Daland, Robert, Hayes, Bruce, White, James, Garellek, Marc, Davis, Andrea & Norrmann, Ingrid (2011). Explaining sonority projection effects. Phonology 28. 197–234.Google Scholar
Davidson, Lisa (2006). Phonology, phonetics, or frequency: influences on the production of non-native sequences. JPh 34. 104–137.Google Scholar
Davidson, Lisa, Jusczyk, Peter & Smolensky, Paul (2004). The initial and final states: theoretical implications and experimental explorations of Richness of the Base. In Kager, René, Pater, Joe & Zonneveld, Wim (eds.) Constraints in phonological acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 321–368.Google Scholar
Eddington, David, Treiman, Rebecca & Elzinga, Dirk (2013a). Syllabification of American English: evidence from a large-scale experiment. Part I. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 20. 45–67.Google Scholar
Eddington, David, Treiman, Rebecca & Elzinga, Dirk (2013b). Syllabification of American English: evidence from a large-scale experiment. Part II. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 20. 75–93.Google Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam & Neijt, Anneke (2008). Word length and the location of primary word stress in Dutch, German, and English. Linguistics 46. 507–540.Google Scholar
Ettlinger, Marc, Finn, Amy S. & Kam, Carla L. Hudson (2011). The effect of sonority on word segmentation: evidence for the use of a phonological universal. Cognitive Science 36. 655–673.Google Scholar
Fallows, Deborah (1981). Experimental evidence for English syllabification and syllable structure. JL 17. 309–317.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Goldwater, Sharon & Johnson, Mark (2003). Learning OT constraint rankings using a Maximum Entropy model. In Spenader, Jennifer, Eriksson, Anders & Dahl, Östen (eds.) Proceedings of the Stockholm Workshop on Variation within Optimality Theory. Stockholm: Stockholm University. 111–120.Google Scholar
Goslin, Jeremy & Floccia, Caroline (2007). Comparing French syllabification in preliterate children and adults. Applied Psycholinguistics 28. 341–367.Google Scholar
Guion, Susan G., Clark, J. J., Harada, Tetsuo & Wayland, Ratree P. (2003). Factors affecting stress placement for English nonwords include syllabic structure, lexical class, and stress patterns of phonologically similar words. Language and Speech 46. 403–427.Google Scholar
Hall, T. A. (2001). The distribution of superheavy syllables in Modern English. Folia Linguistica 35. 399–442.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris (1959). The sound pattern of Russian: a linguistic and acoustical investigation. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger (1987). An essay on stress. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael (2004). Gradience, phonotactics, and the lexicon in English phonology. International Journal of English Studies 4. 1–24.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael (1999). The phonology of English: a prosodic optimality-theoretic approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harmon, Zara & Kapatsinski, Vsevolod (2017). Putting old tools to novel uses: the role of form accessibility in semantic extension. Cognitive Psychology 98. 22–44.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer (2003). Causes and consequences of word structure. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1982). Extrametricality and English stress. LI 13. 227–276.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1995). Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & Wilson, Colin (2008). A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. LI 39. 379–440.Google Scholar
Hirsch, Aron (2014). What is the domain for weight computation: the syllable or the interval? In John Kingston, Claire Moore-Cantwell, Joe Pater & Robert Staubs (eds.) Proceedings of the 2013 Meeting on Phonology. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/amp.v1i1.21.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, Leah & Greenberg, Steven (2001). Vowel height is intimately associated with stress-accent in spontaneous American English discourse. In Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (Eurospeech-2001). Vol. 1. Aalborg. 79–82.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. (1972). The syllable in phonological theory. Lg 48. 525–540.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko (1989). A prosodic theory of epenthesis. NLLT 7. 217–259.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto (1904). Lehrbuch der Phonetik. Leipzig & Berlin: Teubner.Google Scholar
Kager, René (1989). A metrical theory of stress and destressing in English and Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kahn, Daniel (1976). Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Kapatsinski, Vsevolod (2010). Velar palatalization in Russian and artificial grammar: constraints on models of morphophonology. Laboratory Phonology 1. 361–393.Google Scholar
Kehoe, Margaret (1998). Support for metrical stress theory in stress acquisition. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 12. 1–23.Google Scholar
Kelly, Michael H. (2004). Word onset patterns and lexical stress in English. Journal of Memory and Language 50. 231–244.Google Scholar
Kessler, Brett & Treiman, Rebecca (1997). Syllable structure and the distribution of phonemes in English syllables. Journal of Memory and Language 37. 295–311.Google Scholar
Keuleers, Emmanuel (2013). vwr: useful functions for visual word recognition research. R package version 0.3.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vwr.Google Scholar
Keuleers, Emmanuel & Brysbaert, Marc (2010). Wuggy: a multilingual pseudoword generator. Behavior Research Methods 42. 627–633.Google Scholar
Levenshtein, V. I. (1966). Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady 10. 707–710.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark & Prince, Alan (1977). On stress and linguistic rhythm. LI 8. 249–336.Google Scholar
Luce, Paul A. & Pisoni, David B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: the neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing 19. 1–36.Google Scholar
Maye, Jessica, Werker, Janet F. & Gerken, LouAnn (2002). Infant sensitivity to distributional information can affect phonetic discrimination. Cognition 82. B101–B111.Google Scholar
Moore-Cantwell, Claire (2015). The phonological grammar is probabilistic: new evidence pitting abstract representations against analogy. Paper presented at the 2015 Annual Meeting on Phonology, Vancouver.Google Scholar
Moore-Cantwell, Claire (2016). The representation of probabilistic phonological patterns: neurological, behavioral, and computational evidence from the English stress system. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Moreton, Elliott & Pater, Joe (2012). Structure and substance in artificial-phonology learning. Part 1: Structure. Language and Linguistics Compass 6. 686–701.Google Scholar
Norris, Dennis, McQueen, James M., Cutler, Anne & Butterfield, Sally (1997). The possible-word constraint in the segmentation of continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology 34. 191–243.Google Scholar
Ohala, Diane K. (1999). The influence of sonority on children's cluster reductions. Journal of Communication Disorders 32. 397–422.Google Scholar
Parker, Stephen G. (2002). Quantifying the sonority hierarchy. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Parker, Stephen G. (ed.) (2012). The sonority controversy. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (1994). Syllable structure and word structure: a study of triconsonantal clusters in English. In Keating, Patricia A. (ed.) Phonological structure and phonetic form: papers in laboratory phonology III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 168–188.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (2001). Why phonological constraints are so coarse-grained. Language and Cognitive Processes 16. 691–698.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder. Published 2004, Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pulgram, Ernst (1970). Syllable, word, nexus, cursus. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Raffelsiefen, Renate (1999). Phonological constraints on English word formation. Yearbook of Morphology 1998. 225–287.Google Scholar
Redford, Melissa A. (2008). Production constraints on learning novel onset phonotactics. Cognition 107. 785–816.Google Scholar
Redford, Melissa A. & Oh, Grace E. (2016). Children's abstraction and generalization of English lexical stress patterns. Journal of Child Language 43. 338–365.Google Scholar
Redford, Melissa A. & Randall, Patrick (2005). The role of juncture cues and phonological knowledge in English syllabification judgments. JPh 33. 27–46.Google Scholar
Ryan, Kevin M. (2011). Gradient weight in phonology. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Saffran, Jenny R., Aslin, Richard N. & Newport, Elissa L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 274. 1926–1928.Google Scholar
Scholes, Robert J. (1966). Phonotactic grammaticality. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1982). The syllable. In van der Hulst, Harry & Smith, Norval (eds.) The structure of phonological representations. Part 2. Dordrecht: Foris. 337–383.Google Scholar
Shelton, Michael, Gerfen, Chip & Palma, Nicolás Gutiérrez (2012). The interaction of subsyllabic encoding and stress assignment: a new examination of an old problem in Spanish. Language and Cognitive Processes 27. 1459–1478.Google Scholar
Sievers, Eduard (1881). Grundzüge der Phonetik, zur Einführung in das Studium der Lautlehre der indogermanischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar
Smith, Katherine L. & Pitt, Mark A. (1999). Phonological and morphological influences in the syllabification of spoken words. Journal of Memory and Language 41. 199–222.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (2012). Intervals vs. syllables as units of linguistic rhythm. Handout from the École d'Automne de Linguistique (EALING), Paris. Available (May 2018) at http://ealing.cognition.ens.fr/ealing2012/handouts/Steriade/EALING-DS-TOC.pdf.Google Scholar
Stockall, Linnaea & Marantz, Alec (2006). A single route, full decomposition model of morphological complexity: MEG evidence. The Mental Lexicon 1. 85–123.Google Scholar
Titone, Debra & Connine, Cynthia M. (1997). Syllabification strategies in spoken word processing: evidence from phonological priming. Psychological Research 60. 251–263.Google Scholar
Treiman, Rebecca & Danis, Catalina (1988). Syllabification of intervocalic consonants. Journal of Memory and Language 27. 87–104.Google Scholar
Treiman, Rebecca, Straub, Kathleen & Lavery, Patrick (1994). Syllabification of bisyllabic nonwords: evidence from short-term memory errors. Language and Speech 37. 45–59.Google Scholar
Turk, Alice E., Jusczyk, Peter W. & Gerken, LouAnn (1995). Do English-learning infants use syllable weight to determine stress? Language and Speech 38. 143–158.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo (1972). On the theory of syllabic phonology. Linguistische Berichte 18. 1–18.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo (1988). Preference laws for syllable structure and the explanation of sound change: with special reference to German, Germanic, Italian, and Latin. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 14. 779–804.Google Scholar
Weide, Robert L. (1994). CMU pronouncing dictionary. http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/cmudict.Google Scholar
Wilson, Colin, Davidson, Lisa & Martin, Sean (2014). Effects of acoustic–phonetic detail on cross-language speech production. Journal of Memory and Language 77. 1–24.Google Scholar
Wright, Richard (2004). A review of perceptual cues and robustness. In Hayes, Bruce, Kirchner, Robert & Steriade, Donca (eds.) Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 34–57.Google Scholar
Yarkoni, Tal, Balota, David & Yap, Melvin (2008). Moving beyond Coltheart's N: a new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 15. 971–979.Google Scholar
Zec, Draga (1995). Sonority constraints on syllable structure. Phonology 12. 85–129.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Olejarczuk and Kapatsinski supplementary material

Appendices A and B

Download Olejarczuk and Kapatsinski supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 69.5 KB