Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:07:49.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exceptionality and derived environment effects: a comparison of Korean and Turkish

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2020

Adam J. Chong
Adam J. Chong*
Affiliation:
Queen Mary University of London
*
*E-mail: a.chong@qmul.ac.uk.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Morphologically derived environment effects (MDEEs) are well-known examples where phonotactic patterns in the lexicon mismatch with what is allowed at morphological boundaries – alternations. Analyses of MDEEs usually assume that the alternation is morphologically general, and that the sequences ‘repaired’ across morpheme boundaries are phonotactically well-formed in the lexicon. This paper examines the phonotactic patterns in the lexicon of two languages with MDEEs: Korean palatalisation and Turkish velar deletion. I show that Korean heteromorphemic sequences that undergo palatalisation are underattested in the lexicon. A computational learner learns a markedness constraint that drives palatalisation, suggesting a pattern of exceptional non-undergoing. This contrasts with Turkish, where the relevant constraint motivating velar deletion at the morpheme boundary is unavailable from phonotactic learning, and where the alternation is an example of exceptional triggering. These results indicate that MDEEs are not a unitary phenomenon, highlighting the need to examine these patterns in closer quantitative detail.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , November 2019 , pp. 543 - 572
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020

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.)

Footnotes

This work has benefited from discussion and feedback from Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, Robert Daland, Bruce Hayes, Sharon Inkelas, Karen Jesney, Sharon Peperkamp, Stephanie Shih, Brian Smith, Megha Sundara, Kie Zuraw and audiences at the University of Melbourne, UC Berkeley, UCLA, University of Hawaii, NYU, QMUL, the University of Manchester, SCaMP 2016 at UCSD and AMP 2016 at USC. I am grateful to Joo Hee Oom for help processing parts of the NAKL corpus. Finally, I would also like to thank three anonymous reviewers, an associate editor and the editors at Phonology, whose comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this manuscript have greatly improved it. An earlier version of this work appeared as a chapter of Chong (2017). This work was funded by a UCLA Dissertation Year Fellowship. All remaining faults are my own.

References

REFERENCES

Albright, Adam (2002). Islands of reliability for regular morphology: evidence from Italian. Lg 78. 684–709.Google Scholar
Anttila, Arto (2006). Variation and opacity. NLLT 24. 893–944.Google Scholar
Anttila, Arto (2009). Derived environment effects in colloquial Helsinki Finnish. In Hanson & Inkelas (2009). 433–459.Google Scholar
Bailey, Todd M. & Hahn, Ulrike (2001). Determinants of wordlikeness: phonotactics or lexical neighborhoods? Journal of Memory and Language 44. 568–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Michael & Gouskova, Maria (2016). Source-oriented generalizations as grammar inference in Russian vowel deletion. LI 47. 391–425.Google Scholar
Becker, Michael, Ketrez, Nihan & Nevins, Andrew (2011). The surfeit of the stimulus: analytic biases filter lexical statistics in Turkish laryngeal alternations. Lg 87. 84–125.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi (2000). Cycles, non-derived-environment blocking, and correspondence. In Dekkers, Joost, van der Leeuw, Frank & van de Weijer, Jeroen (eds.) Optimality Theory: phonology, syntax, and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 47–87.Google Scholar
Cho, Hyesun (2012). Statistical learning of Korean phonotactics. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 18. 339–370.Google Scholar
Cho, Namho (2003). Hangwukeo hakseupyong eohwi seonceong kjeolkwa pogoseo. [Vocabulary list for learning Korean.] The National Academy of the Korean Language.Google Scholar
Cho, Taehong (2001). Effects of morpheme boundaries on intergestural timing: evidence from Korean. Phonetica 58. 129–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cho, Young-Mee Yu (2009). A historical perspective on nonderived environment blocking: the case of Korean palatalization. In Hanson & Inkelas (2009). 461–486.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Chong, Adam (2017). On the relation between phonotactic and alternation learning. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra (1983). Transderivational relationships in Chamorro phonology. Lg 59. 35–66.Google Scholar
Clements, George N. & Sezer, Engin (1982). Vowel and consonant disharmony in Turkish. In van der Hulst, Harry & Smith, Norval (eds.) The structure of phonological representations. Part 2. Dordrecht: Foris. 213–255.Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. & Pater, Joe (2008). Weighted constraints and gradient restrictions on place co-occurrence in Muna and Arabic. NLLT 26. 289–337.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, N.J.: Association for Computational Linguistics. 49–56. Available (August 2019) at http://arxiv.org/abs/cmp-lg/9707017.Google Scholar
Daland, Robert, Hayes, Bruce, White, James, Garellek, Marc, Davis, Andrea & Norrmann, Ingrid (2011). Explaining sonority projection effects. Phonology 28. 197–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daland, Robert, Oh, Mira & Kim, Syejeong (2015). When in doubt, read the instructions: orthographic effects in loanword adaptation. Lingua 159. 70–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eychenne, Julien & Jang, Tae-Yeoub (2015). On the merger of Korean mid front vowels: phonetic and phonological evidence. Journal of the Korean Society of Speech Sciences 7:2. 119–129.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frisch, Stefan A., Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Broe, Michael B. (2004). Similarity avoidance and the OCP. NLLT 22. 179–228.Google Scholar
Frisch, Stefan A. & Zawaydeh, Bushra (2001). The psychological reality of OCP-place in Arabic. Lg 77. 91–106.Google Scholar
Göksel, Aslı & Kerslake, Celia (2005). Turkish: a comprehensive grammar. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris (1979). Formal vs. functional considerations in phonology. In Brogyanyi, Bela (ed.) Studies in diachronic, synchronic, and typological linguistics: Festschrift for Oswald Szemérenyi on the occasion of his 65th birthday. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 325–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, Michael (1992). Deriving the Strict Cycle Condition. CLS 28:2. 126–140.Google Scholar
Hanson, Kristin & Inkelas, Sharon (eds.) (2009) The nature of the word: studies in honor of Paul Kiparsky. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Beckman, Mary E. (2003). 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.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (2004). Phonological acquisition in Optimality Theory: the early stages. In Kager, René, Pater, Joe & Zonneveld, Wim (eds.) Constraints in phonological acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 158–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & White, James (2013). Phonological naturalness and phonotactic learning. LI 44. 45–75.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & Wilson, Colin (2008). A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. LI 39. 379–440.Google Scholar
Hulst, Harry van der & van de Weijer, Jeroen (1991). Topics in Turkish phonology. In Boeschoten, Hendrik & Verhoeven, Ludo (eds.) Turkish linguistics today. Leiden: Brill. 11–59.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon (2011). Another look at velar deletion in Turkish, with special attention to the derived environment condition. In Erguvanlı Taylan, Eser & Rona, Bengisu (eds.) Puzzles of language: essays in honour of Karl Zimmer. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 37–53.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon (2015). Confidence scales: a new approach to Derived Environment effects. In Hsiao, Yuchau E. & Wee, Lian-Hee (eds.) Capturing phonological shades within and across languages. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 45–75.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon, Küntay, Aylin, Sprouse, Ronald & Orhan Orgun, C. (2001). TELL: Turkish Electronic Living Lexicon (TELL). Turkic Languages 4. 253–275.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Orgun, Cemil Orhan (1995). Level ordering and economy in the lexical phonology of Turkish. Lg 71. 763–793.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Zoll, Cheryl (2007). Is grammar dependence real? A comparison between cophonological and indexed constraint approaches to morphologically conditioned phonology. Linguistics 45. 133–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itô, Junko & Mester, Armin (1999). The phonological lexicon. In Tsujimura, Natsuko (ed.) The handbook of Japanese linguistics. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell. 62–100.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko & Mester, Armin (2008). Lexical classes in phonology. In Miyagawa, Shigeru & Saito, Mamoru (eds.) The Oxford handbook of Japanese linguistics. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. 84–106.Google Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. & Wheeler, Deirdre W. (1988). Blocking and the Elsewhere condition. In Hammond, Michael & Noonan, Michael (eds.) Theoretical morphology: approaches in modern linguistics. San Diego: Academic Press. 325–338.Google Scholar
Jarosz, Gaja (2018). Indexed morphemes and locality conditions on Polish yer deletion. Paper presented at the 26th Manchester Phonology Meeting. Handout available (August 2019) at https://blogs.umass.edu/jarosz/files/2018/05/26mfm_final.pdf.Google Scholar
Jun, Jongho & Lee, Jeehyun (2007). Multiple stem-final variants in Korean native nouns and loanwords. Eoneohag [Journal of the Linguistic Society of Korea] 47. 159–187.Google Scholar
Jurgec, Peter & Bjorkman, Bronwyn M. (2018). Indexation to stems and words. Phonology 35. 577–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kager, René & Shatzman, Keren (2007). Phonological constraints in speech processing. In Los, Bettelou & van Koppen, Marjo (eds.) Linguistics in the Netherlands 2007. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 99–111.Google Scholar
Karlsson, Fred (1982). Suomen kielen äänne- ja muotorakenne. [The phonological and morphological structure of Finnish.] Helsinki: Söderström.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael & Kisseberth, Charles (1977). Topics in phonological theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael & Kisseberth, Charles (1979). Generative phonology: description and theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kim, Byeongchang, Lee, Gary Geunbae & Lee, Jong-Hyeok (2002). Morpheme-based grapheme to phoneme conversion using phonetic patterns and morphophonemic connectivity information. ACM Transactions on Asian Language Information Processing 1. 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1973). Phonological representations. In Fujimura, Osamu (ed.) Three dimensions of linguistic theory. Tokyo: TEC. 3–135.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1982). Explanation in phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1993). Blocking in nonderived environments. In Hargus, Sharon & Kaisse, Ellen M. (eds.) Studies in lexical phonology. San Diego: Academic Press. 277–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (2003). Finnish noun inflection. In Nelson, Diane & Manninen, Satu (eds.) Generative approaches to Finnic and Saami linguistics. Stanford: CSLI. 109–161.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Robert (1993). Turkish vowel harmony and disharmony: an Optimality Theoretic account. Paper presented at the Rutgers Optimality Workshop 1. Available as ROA-4 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Lantz, Björn (2013). The large sample size fallacy. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences 27. 487–492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, Ki-Moon & Robert Ramsey, S. (2011). A history of the Korean language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lees, Robert B. (1961). The phonology of Modern Standard Turkish. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine, Miyata, Yoshiro & Smolensky, Paul (1990). Harmonic Grammar: a formal multi-level connectionist theory of linguistic well-formedness: an application. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. 884–891.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. L. (1967). Turkish grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Łubowicz, Anna (2002). Derived environment effects in Optimality Theory. Lingua 112. 243–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2002). A thematic guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2003). Comparative markedness. Theoretical Linguistics 29. 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Andrew (2007). The evolving lexicon. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Martin, Andrew (2011). Grammars leak: modeling how phonotactic generalizations interact within the grammar. Lg 87. 751–770.Google Scholar
Meeussen, A. E. (1959). Essai de grammaire rundi. Tervuren: Musée Royal du Congo Belge.Google Scholar
Moore-Cantwell, Claire & Pater, Joe (2016). Gradient exceptionality in Maximum Entropy Grammar with lexically specific constraints. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 15. 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NAKL (2003). Hyeondae gug-eo sayong bindo josa gyeolgwa pail. [Modern Korean language usage frequency findings.] National Academy of Korean Language. http://www.korean.go.kr/.Google Scholar
Oh, Mira (1995). A prosodic analysis of nonderived-environment blocking. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4. 261–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paster, Mary (2013). Rethinking the ‘duplication problem’. Lingua 126. 78–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pater, Joe (2007). The locus of exceptionality: morpheme-specific phonology as constraint indexation. In Bateman, Leah, O'Keefe, Michael, Reilly, Ehren & Werle, Adam (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory III. Amherst: GLSA. 259–296.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe & Tessier, Anne-Michelle (2005). Phonotactics and alternations: testing the connection with artificial language learning. In Flack, Katherine & Kawahara, Shigeto (eds.) UMOP 31: Papers in experimental phonetics and phonology. Amherst: GLSA. 1–16.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (2003). Phonetic diversity, statistical learning, and acquisition of phonology. Language and Speech 46. 115–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (2004). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pycha, Anne (2008). Morphological sources of phonological length. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Pycha, Anne, Inkelas, Sharon & Sprouse, Ronald (2007). Morphophonemics and the lexicon: a case study from Turkish. In Solé, Maria-Josep, Beddor, Patrice Speeter & Ohala, Manjari (eds.) Experimental approaches to phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 369–385.Google Scholar
Richtsmeier, Peter T. (2011). Word-types, not word-tokens, facilitate extraction of phonotactic sequences by adults. Laboratory Phonology 2. 157–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodegem, F. M. (1970). Dictionnaire rundi–français. Tervuren: Musée Royal de l'Afrique Central.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy (1984). Cyclic and Lexical Phonology: the structure of Polish. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryu, Ju-Yeon (2012). The L1 acquisition of the imperfective aspect markers in Korean: a comparison with Japanese. International Journal of Asian Language Processing 22. 147–159.Google Scholar
Sezer, Engin (1981). The k/Ø alternation in Turkish. In Clements, G. N. (ed.) Harvard studies in phonology. Vol. 2. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. 354–382.Google Scholar
Sezer, Engin (1986). An autosegmental analysis of compensatory lengthening in Turkish. In Wetzels, Leo & Sezer, Engin (eds.) Studies in compensatory lengthening. Dordrecht: Foris. 227–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shin, Jiyoung, Kiaer, Jieun & Cha, Jaeeun (2013). The sounds of Korean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer L. (2001). Lexical category and phonological contrast. In Kirchner, Robert, Pater, Joe & Wikely, Wolf (eds.) PETL 6: Workshop on the Lexicon in Phonetics and Phonology. Edmonton: University of Alberta. 61–72.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-Min (1999). The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tesar, Bruce & Prince, Alan (2007). Using phonotactics to learn phonological alternations. CLS 39:2. 241–269.Google Scholar
Ünal-Logacev, Öslem, Żygis, Marzena & Fuchs, Susanne (2017). Phonetics and phonology of soft ‘g’ in Turkish. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 49. 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Colin & Obdeyn, Marieke (2009). Simplifying subsidiary theory: statistical evidence from Arabic, Muna, Shona, and Wargamay. Ms, Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
Wolf, Matthew (2008). Optimal interleaving: serial phonology–morphology interaction in a constraint-based model. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Zimmer, Karl E. & Abbott, Barbara (1978). The k/Ø alternation in Turkish: some experimental evidence for its productivity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 7. 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zymet, Jesse (2018). Lexical propensities in phonology: corpus and experimental evidence, grammar, and learning. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar