Skip to main content
×
×
Home

The metrical parse is guided by gradient phonotactics

  • Paul Olejarczuk (a1) and Vsevolod Kapatsinski (a1)
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 (blickdwickbnicklbick). 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.

Copyright
Corresponding author
References
Hide All
Albright, Adam (2009). Feature-based generalisation as a source of gradient acceptability. Phonology 26. 941.
Apoussidou, Diana (2007). The learnability of metrical phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
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. 125148.
Baertsch, Karen (2012). Sonority and sonority-based relationships within American English monosyllabic words. In Parker (2012). 3–37.
Bailey, Todd M. & Hahn, Ulrike (2001). Determinants of wordlikeness: phonotactics or lexical neighborhoods? Journal of Memory and Language 44. 568591.
Baker, Robert G. & Smith, Philip T. (1976). A psycholinguistic study of English stress assignment rules. Language and Speech 19. 927.
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. 255278.
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.
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. 53215325.
Berent, Iris & Shimron, Joseph (1997). The representation of Hebrew words: evidence from the Obligatory Contour Principle. Cognition 64. 3972.
Berent, Iris, Steriade, Donca, Lennertz, Tracy & Vaknin, Vered (2007). What we know about what we have never heard: evidence from perceptual illusions. Cognition 104. 591630.
Boersma, Paul & Hayes, Bruce (2001). Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. LI 32. 4586.
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. 977990.
Bybee, Joan (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carpenter, Angela C. (2010). A naturalness bias in learning stress. Phonology 27. 345392.
Carpenter, Angela C. (2016). The role of a domain-specific language mechanism in learning natural and unnatural stress. Open Linguistics 2. 105131.
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. 283333.
Clements, G. N. & Keyser, Samuel J. (1983). CV phonology: a generative theory of the syllable. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
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. 942.
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. 4956.
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. 273294.
Cser, András (2012). The role of sonority in the phonology of Latin. In Parker (2012). 39–65.
Cutler, Anne (2005). Lexical stress. In Pisoni, David B. & Remez, Robert E. (eds.) The handbook of speech perception. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. 264289.
Cutler, Anne & Carter, David M. (1987). The predominance of strong initial syllables in the English vocabulary. Computer Speech and Language 2. 133142.
Daland, Robert, Hayes, Bruce, White, James, Garellek, Marc, Davis, Andrea & Norrmann, Ingrid (2011). Explaining sonority projection effects. Phonology 28. 197234.
Davidson, Lisa (2006). Phonology, phonetics, or frequency: influences on the production of non-native sequences. JPh 34. 104137.
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. 321368.
Eddington, David, Treiman, Rebecca & Elzinga, Dirk (2013a). Syllabification of American English: evidence from a large-scale experiment. Part I. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 20. 4567.
Eddington, David, Treiman, Rebecca & Elzinga, Dirk (2013b). Syllabification of American English: evidence from a large-scale experiment. Part II. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 20. 7593.
Ernestus, Mirjam & Neijt, Anneke (2008). Word length and the location of primary word stress in Dutch, German, and English. Linguistics 46. 507540.
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. 655673.
Fallows, Deborah (1981). Experimental evidence for English syllabification and syllable structure. JL 17. 309317.
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.
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. 111120.
Goslin, Jeremy & Floccia, Caroline (2007). Comparing French syllabification in preliterate children and adults. Applied Psycholinguistics 28. 341367.
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. 403427.
Hall, T. A. (2001). The distribution of superheavy syllables in Modern English. Folia Linguistica 35. 399442.
Halle, Morris (1959). The sound pattern of Russian: a linguistic and acoustical investigation. The Hague: Mouton.
Halle, Morris & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger (1987). An essay on stress. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Hammond, Michael (2004). Gradience, phonotactics, and the lexicon in English phonology. International Journal of English Studies 4. 124.
Hammond, Michael (1999). The phonology of English: a prosodic optimality-theoretic approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harmon, Zara & Kapatsinski, Vsevolod (2017). Putting old tools to novel uses: the role of form accessibility in semantic extension. Cognitive Psychology 98. 2244.
Hay, Jennifer (2003). Causes and consequences of word structure. New York & London: Routledge.
Hayes, Bruce (1982). Extrametricality and English stress. LI 13. 227276.
Hayes, Bruce (1995). Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hayes, Bruce & Wilson, Colin (2008). A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. LI 39. 379440.
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.
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. 7982.
Hooper, Joan B. (1972). The syllable in phonological theory. Lg 48. 525540.
Itô, Junko (1989). A prosodic theory of epenthesis. NLLT 7. 217259.
Jespersen, Otto (1904). Lehrbuch der Phonetik. Leipzig & Berlin: Teubner.
Kager, René (1989). A metrical theory of stress and destressing in English and Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.
Kahn, Daniel (1976). Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Kapatsinski, Vsevolod (2010). Velar palatalization in Russian and artificial grammar: constraints on models of morphophonology. Laboratory Phonology 1. 361393.
Kehoe, Margaret (1998). Support for metrical stress theory in stress acquisition. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 12. 123.
Kelly, Michael H. (2004). Word onset patterns and lexical stress in English. Journal of Memory and Language 50. 231244.
Kessler, Brett & Treiman, Rebecca (1997). Syllable structure and the distribution of phonemes in English syllables. Journal of Memory and Language 37. 295311.
Keuleers, Emmanuel (2013). vwr: useful functions for visual word recognition research. R package version 0.3.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vwr.
Keuleers, Emmanuel & Brysbaert, Marc (2010). Wuggy: a multilingual pseudoword generator. Behavior Research Methods 42. 627633.
Levenshtein, V. I. (1966). Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady 10. 707710.
Liberman, Mark & Prince, Alan (1977). On stress and linguistic rhythm. LI 8. 249336.
Luce, Paul A. & Pisoni, David B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: the neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing 19. 136.
Maye, Jessica, Werker, Janet F. & Gerken, LouAnn (2002). Infant sensitivity to distributional information can affect phonetic discrimination. Cognition 82. B101B111.
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.
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.
Moreton, Elliott & Pater, Joe (2012). Structure and substance in artificial-phonology learning. Part 1: Structure. Language and Linguistics Compass 6. 686701.
Norris, Dennis, McQueen, James M., Cutler, Anne & Butterfield, Sally (1997). The possible-word constraint in the segmentation of continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology 34. 191243.
Ohala, Diane K. (1999). The influence of sonority on children's cluster reductions. Journal of Communication Disorders 32. 397422.
Parker, Stephen G. (2002). Quantifying the sonority hierarchy. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Parker, Stephen G. (ed.) (2012). The sonority controversy. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
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. 168188.
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (2001). Why phonological constraints are so coarse-grained. Language and Cognitive Processes 16. 691698.
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.
Pulgram, Ernst (1970). Syllable, word, nexus, cursus. The Hague: Mouton.
Raffelsiefen, Renate (1999). Phonological constraints on English word formation. Yearbook of Morphology 1998. 225287.
Redford, Melissa A. (2008). Production constraints on learning novel onset phonotactics. Cognition 107. 785816.
Redford, Melissa A. & Oh, Grace E. (2016). Children's abstraction and generalization of English lexical stress patterns. Journal of Child Language 43. 338365.
Redford, Melissa A. & Randall, Patrick (2005). The role of juncture cues and phonological knowledge in English syllabification judgments. JPh 33. 2746.
Ryan, Kevin M. (2011). Gradient weight in phonology. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Saffran, Jenny R., Aslin, Richard N. & Newport, Elissa L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 274. 19261928.
Scholes, Robert J. (1966). Phonotactic grammaticality. The Hague: Mouton.
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1982). The syllable. In van der Hulst, Harry & Smith, Norval (eds.) The structure of phonological representations. Part 2. Dordrecht: Foris. 337383.
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. 14591478.
Sievers, Eduard (1881). Grundzüge der Phonetik, zur Einführung in das Studium der Lautlehre der indogermanischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.
Smith, Katherine L. & Pitt, Mark A. (1999). Phonological and morphological influences in the syllabification of spoken words. Journal of Memory and Language 41. 199222.
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.
Stockall, Linnaea & Marantz, Alec (2006). A single route, full decomposition model of morphological complexity: MEG evidence. The Mental Lexicon 1. 85123.
Titone, Debra & Connine, Cynthia M. (1997). Syllabification strategies in spoken word processing: evidence from phonological priming. Psychological Research 60. 251263.
Treiman, Rebecca & Danis, Catalina (1988). Syllabification of intervocalic consonants. Journal of Memory and Language 27. 87104.
Treiman, Rebecca, Straub, Kathleen & Lavery, Patrick (1994). Syllabification of bisyllabic nonwords: evidence from short-term memory errors. Language and Speech 37. 4559.
Turk, Alice E., Jusczyk, Peter W. & Gerken, LouAnn (1995). Do English-learning infants use syllable weight to determine stress? Language and Speech 38. 143158.
Vennemann, Theo (1972). On the theory of syllabic phonology. Linguistische Berichte 18. 118.
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.
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. 4762.
Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 14. 779804.
Weide, Robert L. (1994). CMU pronouncing dictionary. http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/cmudict.
Wilson, Colin, Davidson, Lisa & Martin, Sean (2014). Effects of acoustic–phonetic detail on cross-language speech production. Journal of Memory and Language 77. 124.
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. 3457.
Yarkoni, Tal, Balota, David & Yap, Melvin (2008). Moving beyond Coltheart's N: a new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 15. 971979.
Zec, Draga (1995). Sonority constraints on syllable structure. Phonology 12. 85129.
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? *
×
Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary materials

Olejarczuk and Kapatsinski supplementary material
Appendices A and B

 PDF (70 KB)
70 KB

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