Usage-based phonology Why are lines in grocery store about equal?

Usage-based phonology Why are lines in grocery store about equal? Generativists say stores do this to be efficient (e.g. languages are symmetrical, try to have CV)

Usage-based phonology Why are lines in grocery store about equal? Generativists say stores do this to be efficient (e.g. languages are symmetrical, try to have CV) Usage-based say it result of customers trying to be efficient, not store trying to be efficient

Usage-based phonology Why are lines in grocery store about equal? Generativists say stores do this to be efficient (e.g. languages are symmetrical, try to have CV) Usage-based say it result of customers trying to be efficient, not store trying to be efficient Languages don't have motivations, or goals People have motivations and goals

Usage-based phonology Usage by speakers creates structure Structure isn't innate

Usage-based phonology Usage by speakers creates structure Structure isn't innate Usage-based tries to be psychologically plausible Formal theories (generative, OT) don't care about plausibility, learnability, real-time processing.

Usage-based phonology Usage by speakers creates structure Structure isn't innate Usage-based tries to be psychologically plausible Formal theories (generative, OT) don't care about plausibility, learnability, real-time processing. Formal theories see patterns and generalizations as primary data Usage-based say patterns emerge as people learn language. They aren't primary evidence

German In German, [x] and [ ç ] appear to be in complementary distribution [ ç ] appears before front vowels and [n, r, l] [x] appears elsewhere

German In German, [x] and [ ç ] appear to be in complementary distribution [ ç ] appears before front vowels and [n, r, l] [x] appears elsewhere But it's more complex because the suffix -chen always has [ ç ] REGARDLESS of what precedes it

German In German, [x] and [ ç ] appear to be in complementary distribution [ ç ] appears before front vowels and [n, r, l] [x] appears elsewhere But it's more complex because the suffix -chen always has [ ç ] REGARDLESS of what precedes it So the alternation isn't purely phonological It is morphological This suggests words are stored with pronunciation and don't get it from a rule

German Remember that [ ç ] appears before [r, l, n] as a kind of assimilation to front sounds.

German Remember that [ ç ] appears before [r, l, n] as a kind of assimilation to front sounds. But [r] became uvular [R], and [ ç ] still appears before [R] even [R] can't be causing assimilation to front of mouth The alternation isn't phonetic any more

German Remember that [ ç ] appears before [r, l, n] as a kind of assimilation to front sounds. But [r] became uvular [R], and [ ç ] still appears before [R] even [R] can't be causing assimilation to front of mouth The alternation isn't phonetic any more It looks like [ ç ] isn't just a phonetic variant of [x] anymore

German How do you model this with rules or constraints? You can't without ad hoc mechanisms

Granada Spanish Final /s/ is [h] or deleted (-s marks plural) When that happens, all vowels in word open

Granada Spanish This looks like it's phonetically motivated What happens to singulars ending in -s? martes, wlunes If vowels open when s > h then it's phonetic If vowels open on plural but not on singular then it's morphological

Usage-based Processes start out phonetic They are analyzed by people as morphological

Word frequency What is role of frequency in generative?

Word frequency What is role of frequency in generative? Non-existent

Word frequency What is role of frequency in generative? Non-existent But frequency influences phonetics

-t -d deletion 1.There is a phonetic tendency to delete -t -d

-t -d deletion 1.There is a phonetic tendency to delete -t -d 2.Each instance of a word is stored 1.with -t -d 2.or without -t -d

-t -d deletion 1.There is a phonetic tendency to delete -t -d 2.Each instance of a word is stored 1.with -t -d 2.or without -t -d 3.Hi freq words used more, deletion process has more chances of applying than to lo freq 4.All words are stored so there are more instances of deletion in hi freq words

-t -d deletion In generative invariant UR has deletion rule applied rule application doesn't refer to frequency words aren't stored with deleted -t -d

-t -d deletion In generative invariant UR has deletion rule applied rule application doesn't refer to frequency words aren't stored with deleted -t -d In usage-based all instances of experience are stored words are stored with phonetic detail not as phonemes

Don't reduction Don't reduces drastically in “don't know” “I uh oh” It also reduces a lot before, want, care, like It doesn't reduce before other words “don't cows” “don't enunciate” Hi freq collocations reduce Rules/constraints can't explain this

Spanish vowel raising In some verbal forms e > i, o > u menti, mentimos, mintieron dormi, dormimos, durmieron

Spanish vowel raising In some verbal forms e > i, o > u menti, mentimos, mintieron dormi, dormimos, durmieron The same rule could “explain” both of them

Spanish vowel raising In some verbal forms e > i, o > u menti, mentimos, mintieron dormi, dormimos, durmieron The same rule could “explain” both of them But in nonce word study people applied e > i, never o > u  pertir > pirtio, but portir > *purtio

Spanish vowel raising In some verbal forms e > i, o > u menti, mentimos, mintieron dormi, dormimos, durmieron The same rule could “explain” both of them But in nonce word study people applied e > i, never o > u  pertir > pirtio, but portir > *purtio

Spanish vowel raising Why? Only 2 verbs have o > u (dormir, morir) 60+ verbs have e > i (pedir)

Spanish vowel raising Why? Only 2 verbs have o > u (dormir, morir) 60+ verbs have e > i (pedir) Generative approaches don't encode type frequency Usage-based approaches do

Universals “All languages have CV so it is universal”

Rule/Constraint Approaches Details of speech not stored Words stored in phonemic form Hearing entails stripping irrelevant detail then matching to phonemic form

Rule/Constraint Approaches Details of speech not stored Words stored in phonemic form Hearing entails stripping irrelevant detail then matching to phonemic form Production takes phonemic form and adds detail with rules

Rule/Constraint Approaches Details of speech not stored Words stored in phonemic form Hearing entails stripping irrelevant detail then matching to phonemic form Production takes phonemic form and adds detail with rules Frequency is irrelevant Newly formed words don't affect memory

Exemplar Theory Words stored with phonetic detail Same words has many stored instances Frequency is important Hi freq words recognized faster than lo freq words

Exemplar Theory Can frequency of phonetic patterns influence speech processing? Abstract/formal/generative says no Exemplar models say yes

-t -d releasing In speech 59% of -t -d are released, and 41% are not released

-t -d releasing In speech 59% of -t -d are released, and 41% are not released Task: Press button when you hear -t or -d in a word A words pronounced with a released stop recognized faster than when it is heard with an unreleased stop

Word medial flaps 96% of words like pretty, city have flap [t] is very uncommon

Word medial flaps Experiment VOT manipulated to create words that varied between People asked to determine if word was -p or -b

Word medial flaps Abstract theories say that existence of flap or -t- shouldn't influence perception of initial p- or b-

Word medial flaps Abstract theories say that existence of flap or -t- shouldn't influence perception of initial p- or b- Exemplar theories say forms with flap should be biased toward p- because flap is more commonly experienced in this context than [t] Exemplar theories say forms with [t] weren't perceived to begin with p- as often pre[t]y / bri[t]y versus pre[ ɾ ]y / bri[ ɾ ]y

Word medial flaps Results – Words that varied between were heard as p- more often – Word that varied between were not heard as p- more often

Schwa perception Words like history have schwa Words manipulated to give forms with different lengths of schwa (hist[ Ə ]ry) to complete deletion of schwa (histry)

Schwa perception Words like history has schwa Words manipulated to give forms with different lengths of schwa (history) to complete deletion of schwa (histry) People listened to forms and judged if schwa was there or not

Schwa perception Words like history has schwa Words manipulated to give forms with different lengths of schwa (history) to complete deletion of schwa (histry) People listened to forms and judged if schwa was there or not Some words (history) have high deletion Some words (mammary) have low deletion

Schwa perception Words like history has schwa Words manipulated to give forms with different lengths of schwa (history) to complete deletion of schwa (histry) People listened to forms and judged if schwa was there or not Some words (history) have high deletion Some words (mammary) have low deletion People heard more schwa in mammary and less in history REGARDLESS of actual length of schwa.

Formal vs. Usage-based  Formal includes generative, OT, lexical phonology  Usage-based includes connectionism, exemplar models, construction grammar

Formal vs. Usage-based  What must be stored and what is computed?  Formal theories  Regularities are computed  Morphology: walked, starved  Phonology: aspiration, flapping  Idiosyncrasies are stored  Morphology: went, worse  Phonology: Samari[t]an is exceptional

Formal vs. Usage-based  How is language change viewed?  Formal  Rules/constraints are added, deleted, reranked  Language changes happens in rule system

Final -t deletion  -t is deleted more often in irregulars (swept, kept) than in regulars (walked)  Lexical Phonology explains this  Irregulars have two chances for deletion to happen sweep talk Stratum 1 Irregular derivation swept --- -t deletion (optional) swep--- Stratum 2 Regular derivation ---talked -t deletion (optional) sweptalk---

Final -t deletion  In OT variation is due to constraint ranking  Dialect 1: FAITHC >> *C[t]#  Dialect 2: *C[t]# >> FAITHC Input: sweptFAITHC*C[t]# > swept* swep*! *C[t]#FAITHC swept*! > swep*

Formal vs. Usage-based  What must be stored and what is computed?  Usage-based theories  Everything is stored  Regularities are stored  Morphology: walked, starved  Phonology: aspiration, flapping  Idiosyncrasies are stored  Morphology: went, worse  Phonology: Samari[t]an is exceptional

Formal vs. Usage-based  What must be stored and what is computed?  Usage-based theories  Language structure arises from use  Storage explains frequency effects  Words and sentences are stored and connected to each other in networks

Formal vs. Usage-based  What must be stored and what is computed?  Usage-based theories  Language structure arises from use  Storage explains frequency effects  Words and sentences are stored and connected to each other in networks  There are no innate cognitive language entities

Formal vs. Usage-based  What must be stored and what is computed?  Usage-based theories  Language structure arises from use  Storage explains frequency effects  Words and sentences are stored and connected to each other in networks  There are no innate cognitive language entities  Language is bridge between semantics and phonetics

Formal vs. Usage-based  Mental lexicon in usage-based theories  Words stored with connections to other words based on  Sound  Meaning  Spelling  Context of usage  All experienced instances of a word stored with phonetic detail

Formal vs. Usage-based  Mental lexicon in usage-based theories  Words stored with connections to other words based on  Sound  Meaning  Spelling  Context of usage  All experienced instances of a word stored with phonetic detail  Words with many instances (hi freq) are recognized faster  Patterns among many words are productive  Plural -s, -ing vs. -en

Formal vs. Usage-based  Rule vs. schema  Rule tells you what to do  Add -ed to a verb  Schema describes a pattern  Some past tenses end in -ew

Formal vs. Usage-based  Rule vs. schema  Rule tells you what to do  Add -ed to a verb  Schema describes a pattern  Some past tenses end in -ew  Rules apply whenever their environment exists  Schema are gradient