Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 695–729

Gradient phonotactics and the Complexity Hypothesis

Original paper

Abstract

Lexical items can be more or less well-formed depending on the phoneme combinations they contain. This phenomenon is called gradient phonotactics. We propose an approach to gradient phonotactics based on Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993/2004). At the heart of the proposal is the Complexity Hypothesis that attributes the relative well-formedness of a lexical item to its relative grammatical complexity measured in terms of ranking information: the more complex the lexical item, the less well-formed it is. The theory orders linguistic structures in an implicational hierarchy that reflects their relative well-formedness. Some implications are universal; others depend on language-specific rankings. The Complexity Hypothesis is supported by phonotactic data from Muna (Austronesian) as recently analyzed by Coetzee and Pater (2008).

Keywords

Gradient phonotactics Implicational universals Factorial typologies Optimality Theory 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albright, Adam. 2006. Gradient phonotactic effects: Lexical? Grammatical? Both? Neither? Paper presented at the 80th annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, January 5–8, in Albuquerque, NM. Google Scholar
  2. Anttila, Arto. 2002. Morphologically conditioned phonological alternations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 1–42. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anttila, Arto. 2007. Word stress in Finnish. Paper presented at the 81st annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, January 4–7, in Anaheim, CA. Google Scholar
  4. Anttila, Arto. 2008. Phonological constraints on constituent ordering. In Proceedings of the 26th west coast conference on formal linguistics, eds. Charles B. Chang and Hannah Haynie, 51–59. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Google Scholar
  5. Anttila, Arto, and Curtis Andrus. 2006. T-order generator [Computer program]. Stanford University. http://www.stanford.edu/~anttila/research/software.html. Accessed 4 May 2008.
  6. Anttila, Arto, Vivienne Fong, Stefan Benus, and Jennifer Nycz. 2008. Variation and opacity in Singapore English consonant clusters. Phonology 25(2). Google Scholar
  7. Bailey, Todd M., and Ulrike Hahn. 2001. Determinants of wordlikeness: phonotactics or lexical neighborhoods? Journal of Memory and Language 44: 568–591. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Becker, Michael, Joseph Pater, and Christopher Potts. 2007. OT-Help (Version 1.1) [Computer program]. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. http://web.linguist.umass.edu/~OTHelp/. Accessed 4 May 2008.
  9. Berkley, Deborah Milam. 1994a. Variability and Obligatory Contour Principle effects. In Proceedings of the 30th annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. 2: the parasession on variation and linguistic theory, eds. Katharine Beals, Jeannette M. Denton, Robert Knippen, Lynette Melnar, Hisami Suzuki, and Erica Zeinfeld, 1–12. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Google Scholar
  10. Berkley, Deborah Milam. 1994b. The OCP and gradient data. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 24: 59–72. Google Scholar
  11. Berkley, Deborah Milam. 2000. Gradient Obligatory Contour Principle effects. PhD dissertation, Northwestern University. Google Scholar
  12. Boersma, Paul. 2004. A stochastic OT account of paralinguistic tasks such as grammaticality and prototypicality judgments. [ROA-648]. Google Scholar
  13. Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink. 2007. Praat: a system for doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Institute of Phonetic Sciences of the University of Amsterdam. http://www.praat.org/. Accessed 4 May 2008.
  14. Brasoveanu, Adrian, and Alan Prince. 2005. Ranking and necessity, Part I: the fusional reduction algorithm. [ROA-794]. Google Scholar
  15. Coetzee, Andries W. 2008. Grammaticality and ungrammaticality in phonology. Language 84(2): 218–257. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coetzee, Andries W., and Joe Pater. 2006. Lexically ranked OCP-Place constraints in Muna. Ms, University of Michigan and University of Massachusetts, Amherst. [ROA-842]. Google Scholar
  17. Coetzee, Andries W., and Joe Pater. 2008. Weighted constraints and gradient restrictions on place co-occurrence in Muna and Arabic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory (to appear). [ROA-950]. Google Scholar
  18. Coleman, John, and Janet Pierrehumbert. 1997. Stochastic phonological grammars and acceptability. In Computational phonology: third meeting of the ACL special interest group in computational phonology, eds. John Coleman, 49–56. Somerset: Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar
  19. Cowan, J. Milton. 1979. Hans Wehr: a dictionary of modern written Arabic. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz. Google Scholar
  20. De Lacy, Paul. 2002. The formal expression of markedness. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. [ROA-542]. Google Scholar
  21. Frisch, Stefan, and Bushra Zawaydeh. 2001. The psychological reality of OCP-Place in Arabic. Language 77: 91–106. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frisch, Stefan A., Nathan R. Large, and David B. Pisoni. 2000. Perception of wordlikeness: Effects of segment probability and length on the processing of nonwords. Journal of Memory and Language 42: 481–496. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frisch, Stefan A., Janet B. Pierrehumbert, and Michael B. Broe. 2004. Similarity avoidance and the OCP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22(1): 179–228. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goldsmith, John. 1976. Autosegmental phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT. Google Scholar
  25. Greenberg, Joseph. 1950. The patterning of root morphemes in Semitic. Word 6: 162–181. Google Scholar
  26. Greenberg, Joseph H., and James J. Jenkins. 1964. Studies in the psychological correlates of the sound system of American English. Word 20: 157–177. Google Scholar
  27. Hammond, Michael. 2004. Gradience, phonotactics, and the lexicon in English phonology. International Journal of English Studies 4(2): 1–24. Google Scholar
  28. Hay, Jennifer, Janet Pierrehumbert, and Mary Beckman. 2004. Speech perception, well-formedness, and the statistics of the lexicon. In Papers in laboratory phonology VI, eds. John Local, Richard Ogden, and Rosalind Temple, 58–74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  29. Hayes, Bruce, Bruce Tesar, and Kie Zuraw. 2003. OTSoft (Version 2.1) [Computer program]. http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/otsoft/. Accessed 4 May 2008.
  30. Karlsson, Fred. 1982. Suomen kielen äänne- ja muotorakenne [The phonological and morphological structure of Finnish]. Helsinki: Werner Söderström Osakeyhtiö. Google Scholar
  31. Keller, Frank. 2006. Linear Optimality Theory as a model of gradience in grammar. In Gradience in grammar: generative perspectives, eds. Gisbert Fanselow, Caroline Féry, Ralph Vogel, and Matthias Schlesewsky, 270–287. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  32. Kiparsky, Paul. 1994. Remarks on markedness. Handout from TREND 2 (Trilateral Phonology Weekend), January 22, University of California, Santa Cruz. http://www.stanford.edu/~kiparsky/Papers/trend.pdf. Accessed 4 May 2008.
  33. Kiparsky, Paul. 1995. The phonological basis of sound change. In The handbook of phonological theory, ed. John A. Goldsmith, 640–670. Cambridge: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  34. Kiparsky, Paul. 2008. Dvandvas, blocking, and the associative: the bumpy ride from phrase to word. Ms, Stanford University. Google Scholar
  35. Klamer, Marian. 2002. Semantically motivated lexical patterns: a study of Dutch and Kambera expressives. Language 78(2): 258–286. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kruskal, J.B. 1983. An overview of sequence comparison: time warps, string edits, and macromolecules. SIAM Review 25(2): 201–237. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leben, William R. 1973. Suprasegmental phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT. Google Scholar
  38. Legendre, Géraldine, Yoshiro Miyata, and Paul Smolensky. 1990. Harmonic Grammar—a formal multi-level connectionist theory of linguistic well-formedness: theoretical foundations. In Proceedings of the 12th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 388–395. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  39. Legendre, Géraldine, Sorace Antonella, and Paul Smolensky. 2006. The Optimality Theory—harmonic grammar connection. In The harmonic mind: from neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar, vol. 2, eds. Paul Smolensky and Géraldine Legendre, 339–402. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  40. Manning, Christopher D., and Hinrich Schütze. 1999. Foundations of statistical natural language processing. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  41. McCarthy, John. 1988. Feature geometry and dependency: a review. Phonetica 45: 84–108. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McCarthy, John. 1994. The phonetics and phonology of Semitic pharyngeals. In Phonological structure and phonetic form: papers in laboratory phonology 3, eds. Patricia Keating, 191–233. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  43. McCarthy, John. 2002. A thematic guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  44. Ohala, John, and Manjari Ohala. 1986. Testing hypotheses regarding the psychological manifestation of morpheme structure constraints. In Experimental psychology, eds. John Ohala and Jeri J. Jaeger, 239–252. San Diego: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  45. Padgett, Jaye. 1995. Stricture in feature geometry. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Google Scholar
  46. Pater, Joe, and Andries Coetzee. 2005. Lexically specific constraints: Gradience, learnability, and perception. In Proceedings of the 3rd Seoul international conference on phonology, 85–119. Seoul: Phonology-Morphology Circle of Korea. Google Scholar
  47. Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1993. Dissimilarity in the Arabic verbal roots. In NELS 23: Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, ed. Amy Schafer, 367–381. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Google Scholar
  48. Prince, Alan. 2002a. Entailed ranking arguments. [ROA-500]. Google Scholar
  49. Prince, Alan. 2002b. Arguing optimality. [ROA-562]. Google Scholar
  50. Prince, Alan. 2006. Implication and impossibility in grammatical systems: what it is and how to find it. [ROA-880]. Google Scholar
  51. Prince, Alan. 2007. The pursuit of theory. In The Cambridge handbook of phonology, ed. Paul de Lacy, 33–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  52. Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 1993/2004. Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  53. Samek-Lodovici, Vieri, and Alan Prince. 2005. Fundamental properties of Harmonic Bounding. [ROA-785]. Google Scholar
  54. Smith, Jennifer L. 1998. Noun faithfulness: on the privileged status of nouns in phonology. [ROA-242]. Google Scholar
  55. Smolensky, Paul, and Géraldine Legendre. 2006. The harmonic mind: from neural computation to Optimality-Theoretic grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  56. van den Berg, René. 1989. A grammar of the Muna language. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  57. van den Berg, René, and La Ode Sidu. 1996. Muna-English dictionary. Leiden: KITLV Press. Google Scholar
  58. van der Wyk, Brent C., and James L. McClelland. 2007. Graded constraints on English word forms. Poster presented at the workshop on variation, gradience and frequency in phonology, July 7, Stanford University. Google Scholar
  59. Vitevitch, Michael S., Paul A. Luce, Jan Charles-Luce, and David Kemmerer. 1997. Phonotactics and syllable stress: implications for the processing of spoken nonsense words. Language and Speech 40: 47–62. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations