Questions for the Week

Questions

Can (all?) modifications in foreign language production be explained as transfer from the native language grammar? Does universal markedness play a role? Language-independent phonetic factors?

Questions, continued

Why are some foreign structures mastered more quickly than other (equally new) structures?

Japanese: chiimu ‘team’ shiifuudo ‘seafood’

shiitibanku ‘Citibank’never: *siichibanku

Questions, continued

What determines how illegal structures are modified?

‘Christmas’

Japanese: kurisumasu

Hawaiian: kalikimaki

Maori: kirihimete

Samoan: kilisimasi

Questions, continued

How much of foreign language modification is a result of misperception? Of misproduction? And how can we tell?

For example…

Does a Japanese speaker who pronounces ‘Christmas’ as [kurisumasu] actually HEAR the English pronunciation as [kurisumasu]?

English Japanese

[krɪsməs] = [kurisumasu] ?

Grammar

Acoustic Form

|| perception (e.g.,Boersma 1998, V Pater 2004)

Phonological Representation => UR =>

|| production

V

Phonetic Representation

(1) Modification= Misproduction (e.g., Paradis and LaCharité 1997)

Adapters correctly identify FL phonemes, map to UR.

Production grammar repairs underlying representations to conform to native language constraints.

Problems with claim that all modification = misproduction

Modification may be influenced by subphonemic information.

e.g., Kang 2003: Vowels in Korean loans may be inserted even after legal stop codas. Likelihood of insertion is related to likelihood of the release of that stop in the English source.

(2) Modification=Misperception (e.g., Peperkamp & Dupoux 2003)

Japanese listeners hear [ebzo] as [ebuzo].

Cf. Dupoux et al. 1999, Dehaene-Lambertz et al. 2000, Jacquemot et al. 2003 for experimental support.

Not a lexical effect: Dupoux et al. 2001

Lexical decision task:

nonword stimulireal words

sokdo sokudo ‘speed’

mikdo mikado ‘emperor’

Sokdo classified as real words, mikdo as nonwords

Problems with claim that all adaptation = misperception

Some perception is accurate (e.g. Berent et al. syllable-counting experiments)

Still must explain direction of misperception: why kurisumasu and not kilihimete, etc.?

(3) Modification = misproduction, but guided by phonetic similarity

P-map Hypothesis (Steriade 2001, etc.): Learners perceive FL phonological forms accurately, but the production grammar contains constraints that enforce phonetic similarity between UR and PR.

Problem with claim that adaptation = production + perceptual similarity

Even after adding perceptual similarity constraints to the production grammar, we are left with a residue of cases that must be analyzed as misperception (inaccurate mapping from foreign acoustic form to adapter’s UR).

(4) Dual-level model(e.g., Silverman 1992, Yip 2002, 2006)

Listeners misperceive less salient features (partially inaccurate mapping to UR).

Listeners accurately perceive more salient features, but production grammar may still make changes in mapping from UR to PR.

Problem with Dual-Level Model of adaptation

Lack of clear criteria for deciding whether a particular modification pattern is a function of

Misperception Misproduction

Questions, continued

If foreign forms are misperceived, at what level of processing does this misperception occur?

Questions, continued

To what extent is perception determined by early language experience?

Is there a ‘neural commitment’ to L1 contrasts?

Questions, continued

Can formal theories of grammar shed light on foreign language production patterns?

One Potential Criterion for perception vs. production: Learnability

OT aims to define What is a possible grammar (set of ranked

constraints).

What is a learnable grammar (rankings can be derived from input data, using an error-driven algorithm).

Modification patterns that cannot be described in terms of learnable production grammar rankings must be a function of

Misperception, or Other factors (frequency, timeline of

exposure to FL, etc.).

Today

Models of Acquisition: First Language and Foreign Languages

To build a phonological grammar, children must learn…

What is linguistically significant in the target language (possible contrasts).

What is legal in the target language (possible structures, phonotactics).

Morphemes and allomorphs (alternations).

Stages of Acquisition (e.g., Hayes 2004)

Birth to 6 months: can distinguish all possible phoneme contrasts.

6-8 months: begin to form sound categories (perceptual magnet effects).

8-10 months: begin to form a lexicon; begin to learn phoneme categories of ambient language.

Older: begin to learn morphological processes, alternations.

Perception vs. Production: Common Assumptions

Children generally perceive L1 accurately.

Many of children’s simplifications of adult forms are due to misproduction rather than misperception.

Example: One Argument for Accurate Perception

Gnanadesikan (2004): Productions by G, 27-33 months

Simplification of onset clusters

G Adult

a. s-stop

gaj skaj ‘sky’

bɪw spɪl ‘spill’

dɔ star ‘star’

b. s-sonorant

so sno ‘snow’

sip slip ‘sleep’

s-obstruent > obstruent (‘sky’ > [gaj]) s-sonorant > s (‘snow’ > [so])

Onset C of lowest sonority is maintained.

Clusters containing labial [r] or [w]

G Adult

a. pi tri ‘tree’

b. bɪk drɪŋk ‘drink’

c. paj kraj ‘cry’

d. bep grep ‘grape’

e. pajt kwajt ‘quite’

f. fɛ'Də swɛ'Də ‘sweater’

g. fɛw smɛl ‘smell’

pr, tr, kr, kw > p (‘tree’ > [pi])

br, dr, gr > b (‘grape’ > [bep])

sm, sw > f (‘smell’ > [fɛw]

Labial articulation is always maintained, though labial segment may disappear.

G’s perception: [bep] ‘grape’

Does G actually hear (e.g.) [gr] as [b]?

Replacement of initial unstressed syllable

G Adult

a. fiténə kənténər ‘container’

b. figɛ'Di spəgɛ'Di ‘spaghetti’

c. fibɛ'kə rəbɛ'kə ‘Rebecca’

d. fimáwo təmáro ‘tomorrow’

Accurate perception?

Does G actually hear the material in the initial syllable replaced by [fi]?

Preference for obstruent onsets

G Adult

a. fikálə koálə ‘koala’

b. fibún bəlún ‘balloon’

c. fipís pəlís ‘police’

d. fibó bəló ‘below’

When the syllable following [fi] begins with a high sonority onset (liquid, glide) or no onset, the word-initial onset is recruited

‘balloon’ > fibún

G’s Perception

Although G replaces initial unstressed syllables with [fi], she apparently does hear the segmental content (at least the onset) of these syllables--because features of that onset may appear elsewhere in the word.

fibɪ’jə gərɪ’lə ‘gorilla’

It seems unlikely that G hears [g…r] in ‘gorilla’ as [b], since G seems to hear that ‘gorilla’ contains 3 syllables.

Gnanadesikan’s analysis

G’s modifications result from a grammar that differs from the adult grammar.

These modfications result from a preference for less marked surface structures.

Each feature of G’s grammar is attested in some adult NL grammar.

OT is intended as a theory of

typology—defines possible grammars.

learnability--defines how a grammar is learned from exposure to a set of data.

Architecture of the theory

Markedness constraints (or well-formedness constraints, structural constraints) define possible surface structures.

e.g. NoCoda, NoComplexOnset

Faithfulness constraints define possible mappings from lexical representations to surface representations.

e.g. Dep (no insertion), Max (no deletion)

Ranking Tableau: M>>F

/sno/ NoComplexOnset

(Markedness)

Max (no deletion)

(Faithfulness)

a. sno *!

> b. so *

Ranking Tableau: F>>M

/sno/ Max (no deletion)

(Faithfulness)

NoComplexOnset

(Markedness)

> a. sno *

b. so *!

Rankings determine surface structures

M >>F suppresses surface contrasts.

NoComplexOnset >> Max:

/so/ > [so]

/sno/ > [so]

(no CV-CCV contrast is possible)

F >> M preserves lexical contrasts.

Max >> NoComplexOnset:

/so/ > [so]

/sno/ > [sno]

(CV-CCV contrast is possible)

Rankings determine preferred repair

Dep >> Max: /sno/ > [so]

(deletion is preferred to insertion)

Max >> Dep: /sno/ > [sVno]

(insertion is preferred to deletion)

Rankings determine…

Choice of deletion vs. insertion

Which C is deleted (/sno/ > [so] vs. [no])

Which V is inserted (/sno/ > [sino], [sono], etc.)

Assumptions (‘classical’ OT)

Constraint set is universal.

Rankings are language-specific.

Each possible ranking defines a possible grammar.

‘Classical’ OT model of First Language Acquisition

Constraints are innate.

Rankings must be learned.

Corollary

Each developing grammar (each stage of language acquisition) must represent a possible human grammar, since grammars differ only in ranking of constraints.

Parallels between G’s grammar and adult grammars

onset simplification to lowest-sonority C: [gay] for ‘sky’, [so] for ‘snow’

Sanskrit reduplication pa-prach, tha-stha

Coalescence of segments

[bep] for 'grape', [fɛw] for 'smell’

Navajo: d+x => g, Luganda: m+u => mw, Kirundi: t+u => tkw

Preference for trochaic feet, aligned with left edge : [fibún] for ‘balloon’

Fikkert 1994, Demuth 1996

Dutch: ó:xant (ólifant), ándə, ánRə (andere),

bálə (bal)

Sesotho: kolo (sekolo) ‘school’

K’iche’ (word-final stress): lóm (jolóm) ‘head’

Melodic overwriting: [fi]

Kolami: pal-gil, kota-gita, maasur-giisur

Chinese secret language: may ka for ma, xway kwey for xwey

Child grammar = possible adult grammar

Each developing grammar should reflect some possible constraint ranking.

Question

Is there an initial state/default constraint ranking?

Answer from Gnanadesikan and others: M>>F

Arguments for Default M>>F

1. Children’s modifications are generally in the direction of reduced markedness.

Subset Problem (Angluin 1980, Baker 1979)

2. If children can only use positive evidence (actual linguistic forms) in constructing a grammar, they must begin with the most restrictive grammar possible—otherwise their grammars will overgenerate.

Illustration

Child C (for conservative) assumes M>>F NoComplexOnset >> Faithfulness.

Child C’s grammar allows only CV syllables.

Child R (for reckless) assumes F>>M

Faithfulness >> NoComplexOnset.

Child R’s grammar allows both CV and CCV syllables.

If Child C (M>>F) is born to

Hawaiian-speaking parents, Child’s grammar = adult grammar

English-speaking parents, Child’s grammar ≠ adult grammar, but no

worries--child gets positive evidence (CCV) telling her to rerank constraints.

If Child R (F>>M) is born to

English-speaking parents, Child’s grammar = adult grammar

Hawaiian-speaking parents,

☹ Child’s grammar ≠ adult grammar, AND

no positive evidence can ever trigger

reranking.

Learning is error-driven

Default ranking = M>>F.

Other rankings (M>>M, F>>F) must be learned from data.

What is default for language contact situations?

Presumably, the learner/adapter begins from the NL rankings.

Therefore, adaptation/error patterns should be explainable as either

• transfer of NL rankings, or• universal default rankings.

Potential Problems in Language Contact Phonology

1. M >>M rankings (differential difficulty)

NL bans 2 structures

FL allows both structures

BUT learners/adapters master one structure more easily.

e.g. Japanese shiitibanku (both [ti] and [si] are illegal in Japanese).

2. F>>F rankings (differential repair)

NL has no inputs with illegal structures, so no evidence for repair preference

• BUT learners/adapters adopt specific repairs,

• AND these repairs may vary across languages (therefore not universal),

• AND different repairs may be used within a single language in different contexts.

Dehu (Tryon 1970)

a. Obstruent__Sonorant: copy V peleit ‘plate’ galas ‘glas’

b. Obstruent__Obstruent: default [i] sipö ‘spur’ sipun ‘spoon’

3. Ranking Reversals

Korean NL: stop+nasal > nasal + nasal

/kuk+mul/ > [kuŋmul] ‘soup’

But in SLA, Koreans often insert vowel:

/tegnal/ > [tegɨnal] (Hwang 2006).

Proposal

Where modification patterns would require a grammar with unlearnable rankings, these patterns have their source in factors such as

misperception

frequency

orthography

time course of language contact

etc.