Experimental evidence for product-oriented and source-oriented

generalizationsVsevolod Kapatsinski

Indiana UniversityDept. of Linguistics

Cognitive Science ProgramSpeech Research Laboratory

vkapatsi@indiana.eduhttp://mypage.iu.edu/~vkapatsi/

Product-oriented vs. source-oriented generalizations

• Bybee (2001:126)

“Generative rules express source-oriented generalizations. That is, they act on a specific input to change it in well-defined ways into an output of a certain form. Many, if not all, schemas are product-oriented rather than source-oriented. A product-oriented schema generalizes over forms of a specific category, but does not specify how to derive that category from some other.”

Source oriented: k]sg ti]pl

Product-oriented: ‘plurals must end in ti’

Present study

• Given a lexicon and a particular training paradigm what generalizations do the learners extract?

The paradigm(Bybee & Newman 1995)

The artificial languages BLUE RED

{k;g}{t;d}i 100%

30

{t;d;p;b} {t;d;p;b}i 25%

8

75%

24

{t;d;p;b} {t;d;p;b}a

75%

24

25%

8

Two plural suffixes –i and -a

If –i attached to a velar ({k;g}), the velar changes to an alveopalatalThis is velar palatalization

Velar palatalization

The process:

• k t /_i

Productivity:

• p(k ti) / ( p(k ti) + p(kki) )

Coding scheme:BLUE – velar palatalization appliesRED – velar palatalization fails

Research question

• Does the productivity of velar palatalization differ in the BLUE language and the RED language?

• Depends on your model of grammar.

Research question

BLUE RED

{k;g}{t;d}i 100%

30

{t;d;p;b} {t;d;p;b}i 25%

8

75%

24

{t;d;p;b} {t;d;p;b}a

75%

24

25%

8

/62

Non-competing rules

BLUE RED

{k;g}{t;d}i 100%

30

{t;d;p;b} {t;d;p;b}i 25%

8

75%

24

{t;d;p;b} {t;d;p;b}a

75%

24

25%

8

Triggers velar palatalizationDoes not compete with anything

Equally supported in both languages

BLUE = RED

e.g., Hale and Reiss 2008, Plag 2003

Constraints

BLUE RED

{k;g} {t;d}i 100%

30

*ki 0

{t;d;p;b}

{t;d;p;b}i 25%

8

75%

24

Ci 38 54

{t;d;p;b}

{t;d;p;b}a 75%

24

25%

8

Triggers velar palatalization

/ki/ less expected in the blue language its absence is less notable

BLUE < RED

Positive product-oriented generalizations

BLUE RED

{k;g} {t;d}i 100%

30

i 38 54

a 24 8

{t;d;p;b}

{t;d;p;b}i 8 24

{t;d;p;b}

{t;d;p;b}a 24 8

BLUE > RED

Bybee & Slobin 1982, Bybee & Moder 1983, Bybee 2001

Triggers vel.pal.

Attaches –i with or without vel.pal.

Competing weighted rules

BLUE RED

{k;g}{t;d}i 100%

30

C Ci 25%

8

75%

24

C Ca 75%

24

25%

8

Triggers velar palatalization

BLUE > RED

Competes withCompetition stronger in red

Albright & Hayes 2003Iff the choice between the rules is stochastic.

Results

BLUE RED

Results

*

100%30

BLUE RED

Non-competing rules

Constraints Positive product-oriented

Competing weighted rules

Individual subject data

Competing weighted rulesPositive product-oriented

BLUE RED

{k;g}{t;d}i 100%

30

C Ci 25%

8

75%

24

C Ca 75%

24

25%

8Albright & Hayes 2003

{p;b;t;d}

{p;b;t;d}

21

Results***

ANCOVA:This correlation is significantF(1,27)=14.23, p<.001, while Language is not, F(1,27)=.082, p>.5).

The predicted explanatory variableaccounts for all the variancein velar palatalization rateattributable to the artificial language

Natural language data (Kapatsinski, in press)

• In Russian loanword adaptation (English Russian on the web not in dictionary), vel.pal is fully productive before the suffixes– -ek, -ok

but only partially productive before- -ik, -i.

Why?

- Despite no exceptions in the dictionary- Despite /i/ being a more natural trigger of vel.pal

than /o/, /e/ (Bhat 1974, Guion 1998, Wilson 2006)

Natural language data (Kapatsinski, in press)

• In Russian loanword adaptation (English Russian on the web not in dictionary), vel.pal is fully productive before the suffixes– -ek, -ok

but only partially productive before- -ik, -i.

Why?

-ik, –i tend not to attach to velars

-ok, -ek mostly attach to velars

Positive product-oriented generalizations vs.

competing weighted rules

BLUE RED

{k;g} {t;d}i Support

vel.pal

Support

vel.pal{t;d} {t;d}i{t;d;p;b}

{t;d;p;b}i 8/38 24/54

{t;d;p;b}

{t;d;p;b}a 1 1

Product-oriented generalizations

Competing weighted rules

BLUE RED

{k;g}{t;d}i 100%

30

{t;d}{t;d}i Oppose

vel.pal

Oppose

vel.palC Ci

C Ca 75%

24

25%

8

The addition of tti hurts palatalization

t(33)=2.88, p=.007

Competing weighted rulesProduct-oriented

Perception / rating

Competing weighted rulesProduct-oriented

Perception: The addition of tti helps palatalization

*

{t;d}{t;dӡ}i vs.{t;d}{t;d}i

Competing weighted rulesProduct-oriented

Perception: The addition of tti helps palatalization

*

Because ratings of {t;dӡ}i increase(t(51)=2.245, p<.05)

Is perception purely product-oriented? No.

• Listeners know at least that singular-final velars are the changeable segments:

– {k;g} {t;dӡ}i better than {t;d}{t;dӡ}i (p<.001) in every language

– {k;g} {k;g}V better than {t;dӡ}{k;g}V (p<.00001) in every language

32

• Learners extract competing rules, which they use to derive a word from a morphologically related word (Albright & Hayes 2003)

• The outcome of competition between rules is influenced by reliability or type frequency (Albright and Hayes 2003, Pierrehumbert 2006)

• The choice between rules is stochastic

• Learners also learn about what a typical plural sounds like (product-oriented generalizations, Bybee 2001)

• Product-oriented generalizations are used more by the listener to evaluate the goodness of a paradigmatic mapping than by the speaker to form a word from a morphologically related word (perception is more liberal than production)

• Caveat: source-oriented paradigm

Summary

ReferencesAlbright, A., and B. Hayes. 2003. Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A

computational/experimental study. Cognition, 90, 119-61.Bhat, D. N. S. 1974. A general study of palatalization. Working Papers on Language

Universals 14: 17-58.Bybee, J. L. 2001. Phonology and language use. CUP.Bybee, J. L., & C. L. Moder. 1983. Morphological classes as natural categories. Language,

59, 251-70.Bybee, J. L., & J. E. Newman. 1995. Are stem changes as natural as affixes? Linguistics, 33,

633-54.Bybee, J. L., & D. I. Slobin. 1982. Rules and schemas in the development and use of the

English past. Language 58: 265-89.Guion, S. G. 1998. The role of perception in the sound change of velar palatalization.

Phonetica 55: 18-52.Hale, M., & C. Reiss. 2008. The phonological enterprise. OUP.Kapatsinski, V. M. In press. Rule reliability and productivity: Velar palatalization in Russian

and artificial grammar. Proceedings of LabPhon 11.Köpcke, K.-M. 1988. Schemas in German plural formation. Lingua, 74, 303-35.Lobben, M. 1991. Pluralization of Hausa nouns, viewed from psycholinguistic experiments

and child language data. M.Phil Thesis, University of Oslo.Pierrehumbert, J. B. 2006. The statistical basis of an unnatural alternation. In Laboratory

Phonology 8, 81-107. Mouton de Gruyter.Plag, I. 1999. Word formation in English. Mouton de Gruyter.Wilson, C. 2006. Learning phonology with substantive bias: An experimental and

computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science 30: 945-82.