Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-hbs24 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-12T02:14:11.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is phonological consonant epenthesis possible? A series of artificial grammar learning experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2018

Rebecca L. Morley
Rebecca L. Morley*
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
*
E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Consonant epenthesis is typically assumed to be part of the basic repertoire of phonological grammars. This implies that there exists some set of linguistic data for which epenthesis is the best analysis. However, a series of artificial grammar learning experiments found no evidence that learners ever selected an epenthesis analysis. Instead, phonetic and morphological biases were revealed, along with individual variation in how learners generalised and regularised their input. These results, in combination with previous work, suggest that synchronic consonant epenthesis may only emerge very rarely, as a result of a gradual accumulation of changes over time. It is argued that stored stem–allomorph pairs should be adopted as the null hypothesis in cases of potential epenthesis, and that a universal criterion is needed for rejecting this hypothesis. Such a criterion requires a formal theory of exceptions, a necessity for falsifiability in phonological theory.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , November 2018 , pp. 649 - 688
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.)

Footnotes

This work was supported by the Targeted Investment in Excellence from the OSU College of Humanities. I would like to thank MarDez Desmond, Christina Heaton, Lark Hovey, Dahee Kim, Karen Kuhn, Sara Pennington and others for their work in the lab. Special thanks to Emily Clem for her assistance in coding and analysing the data, as well as thinking about the results. Thanks also to Björn Köhnlein for his advice, and the ‘Phonies’ discussion group at the Ohio State University for input on earlier versions of this work. I would also like to thank Peter Staroverov, the anonymous reviewers and the associate editor at Phonology for their substantial contributions in making this a better paper.

References

Berent, Iris, Lennertz, Tracy, Smolensky, Paul & Vaknin-Nusbaum, Vered (2009). Listeners’ knowledge of phonological universals: evidence from nasal clusters. Phonology 26. 75–108.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek (1984). The language bioprogram hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7. 173–188.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette (2008). Consonant epenthesis: natural and unnatural histories. In Good, Jeff (ed.) Linguistic universals and language change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 79–107.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David (2016). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (version 6.0.21). http://www.praat.org.Google Scholar
Broadbent, Judith (1991). Linking and intrusive r in English. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 3. 281–302.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. & Goldstein, Louis (1990). Tiers in articulatory phonology, with some implications for casual speech. In Kingston, John & Beckman, Mary E. (eds.) Papers in laboratory phonology I: between the grammar and physics of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 341–376.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. & Hume, Elizabeth V. (1995). The internal organization of speech sounds. In Goldsmith, John A. (ed.) The handbook of phonological theory. Cambridge, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell. 245–306.Google Scholar
Culbertson, Jennifer & Legendre, Géraldine (2011). Investigating the evolution of agreement systems using an artificial language learning paradigm. In Bailey, Dina & Telig, Victoria (eds.) Proceedings of the 39th Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL 96). Fresno: Department of Linguistics, California State University, Fresno. 46–58.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2006). Markedness: reduction and preservation in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dimov, Svetlin, Katseff, Shira & Johnson, Keith (2012). Social and personality variables in compensation for altered auditory feedback. In Solé, Maria-Josep & Recasens, Daniel (eds.) The initiation of sound change: perception, production, and social factors. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 185–209.Google Scholar
Durand, Jacques (1997). Linking R in English: constraints, principles and parameters, or rules? Histoire Épistémologie Langage 19. 43–72.Google Scholar
Estes, William K. (1972). Research and theory on the learning of probabilities. Journal of the American Statistical Association 67. 81–102.Google Scholar
Finley, Sara (2011). Generalization to novel consonants in artificial grammar learning. In Carlson, Laura, Hoelscher, Christoph & Shipley, Thomas F. (eds.) Expanding the space of cognitive science: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin: Cognitive Science Society. 3268–3273.Google Scholar
Foulkes, Paul (1997). English [r]-sandhi: a sociolinguistic perspective. Histoire Épistémologie Langage 19. 73–96.Google Scholar
Fowler, Carol A. (1984). Segmentation of coarticulated speech in perception. Perception and Psychophysics 36. 359–368.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, Jakulin, Aleks, Pittau, Maria Grazia & Su, Yu-Sung (2008). A weakly informative default prior distribution for logistic and other regression models. The Annals of Applied Statistics 2. 1360–1383.Google Scholar
Gick, Bryan (1999). A gesture-based account of intrusive consonants in English. Phonology 16. 29–54.Google Scholar
Goldrick, Matthew (2004). Phonological features and phonotactic constraints in speech production. Journal of Memory and Language 51. 586–603.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth (1973). Deep–surface canonical disparities in relation to analysis and change: an Australian example. In Sebeok, Thomas (ed.) Current trends in linguistics. Vol. 11. The Hague: Mouton. 401–458.Google Scholar
Harris, John (1994). English sound structure. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hudson Kam, Carla L. & Newport, Elissa L. (2005). Regularizing unpredictable variation: the roles of adult and child learners in language formation and change. Language Learning and Development 1. 151–195.Google Scholar
Hudson Kam, Carla L. & Newport, Elissa L. (2009). Getting it right by getting it wrong: when learners change languages. Cognitive Psychology 59. 30–66.Google Scholar
Jackson, George (1830). Popular errors in English Grammar, particularly in pronunciation, familiarly pointed out: for the use of those persons who want either opportunity or inclination to study this science. Effingham Wilson.Google Scholar
Johansson, Stig (1973). Linking and intrusive /r/ in English: a case for a more concrete phonology. Studia Linguistica 27. 53–68.Google Scholar
Jones, Daniel (1956). The pronunciation of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kapatsinski, Vsevolod (2010). Velar palatalization in Russian and artificial grammar: constraints on models of morphophonology. Laboratory Phonology 1. 361–393.Google Scholar
Kirby, Simon (2001). Spontaneous evolution of linguistic structure: an iterated learning model of the emergence of regularity and irregularity. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 5. 102–110.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda (2002). Coronal epenthesis and markedness. Phonology 19. 219–251.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (1993). A case of surface constraint violation. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 38. 169–195.Google Scholar
MacKay, Carolyn J. (1999). A grammar of Misantla Totonac. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
MacKay, Donald G. (1970). Spoonerisms: the structure of errors in the serial order of speech. Neuropsychologia 8. 323–350.Google Scholar
Milroy, James & Milroy, Lesley (1985). Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation. JL 21. 339–384.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
Morley, Rebecca L. (2011). Phonetics to phonology: learning epenthesis. CLS 47. 137–151.Google Scholar
Morley, Rebecca L. (2012). The emergence of epenthesis: an incremental model of grammar change. Language Dynamics and Change 2. 59–97.Google Scholar
Morley, Rebecca L. (2015). Deletion or epenthesis? On the falsifiability of phonological universals. Lingua 154. 1–26.Google Scholar
Myers, Scott (2002). Gaps in factorial typology: the case of voicing in consonant clusters. Ms, University of Texas, Austin. Available as ROA-509 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Peperkamp, Sharon, Calvez, Rozenn Le, Nadal, Jean-Pierre & Dupoux, Emmanuel (2006). The acquisition of allophonic rules: statistical learning with linguistic constraints. Cognition 101. B31–B41.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
Rischel, Jörgen (1974). Topics in West Greenlandic phonology: regularities underlying the phonetic appearance of wordforms in a polysynthetic language. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy (2000). Glide and glottal stop insertion in Slavic languages: a DOT analysis. LI 31. 271–317.Google Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie (1986). The representation of phonological information during speech production planning: evidence from vowel errors in spontaneous speech. Phonology Yearbook 3. 117–149.Google Scholar
Shetler, Joanna (1976). Notes on Balangao grammar. Huntington Beach, Calif.: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (2009). The phonology of perceptibility effects: the P-map and its consequences for constraint organization. In Hanson, Kristin & Inkelas, Sharon (eds.) The nature of the word: studies in honor of Paul Kiparsky. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 151–179.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo (1972). Rule inversion. Lingua 29. 209–242.Google Scholar
Wells, J. C. (1982). Accents of English. Vol. 1: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Whalen, D. H. (1984). Subcategorical phonetic mismatches slow phonetic judgments. Perception and Psychophysics 35. 49–64.Google Scholar
Wilson, Colin (2000). Targeted constraints: an approach to contextual neutralization in Optimality Theory. PhD dissertation, Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
Wilson, Colin (2006). Learning phonology with substantive bias: an experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science 30. 945–982.Google Scholar
Yang, Charles (2005). On productivity. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 5. 265–302.Google Scholar
Yang, Charles (2011). A statistical test for grammar. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistic. Association for Computational Linguistics. 30–38.Google Scholar
Yu, Alan C. L. (2013). Individual differences in socio-cognitive processing and the actuation of sound change. In Yu, Alan C. L. (ed.) Origins of sound change: approaches to phonologization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 201–227.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Morley supplementary material

Tables S18 and S19

Download Morley supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 144.6 KB