Reduplication-sensitive phonology is regular Response to Hayes & Jo 2019 ms. Hossep Dolatian, Ayla Karakas, Jeffrey Heinz Stony Brook University October 22, 2020 1
Introduction Table of Contents Introduction 1 Pseudo-reduplication 2 Balinese with boundaries 3 Computation of copying 4 Conclusion 5 2
Introduction What is at Issue Heinz and colleagues have been arguing that phonological patterns (phonotactics and transformations) are not only regular, but actually belong to specific subregular regions (Heinz 2007, et seq.) Hayes and Jo (HJ) draw attention to a phonotactic pattern in Balinese and argue that it is not even regular. Consequently, the subregular hypothesis is wrong. Today we provide an alternative analysis of the Balinese pattern, one that allows morphology to transfer information to phonology via boundaries ∼ . A consequence of this traditional modularization of the grammar is that the phonotactics of Balinese is regular. 3
Introduction Is phonology regular? Regular language : definable with FSAs, regex, MSO( < ) Rational relation : definable with 1-way FSTs Regular relation : definable with 2-way FSTs 1(Johnson, 1972; Kaplan and Kay, 1994; Chandlee, 2014; Chandlee and Heinz, 2012) 4
Introduction Is phonology regular? Regular language : definable with FSAs, regex, MSO( < ) Rational relation : definable with 1-way FSTs Regular relation : definable with 2-way FSTs What about M-Phono ? 1 Most patterns are regular langauges Most processes are rational functions This includes partial reduplication Consequently phonotactic constraints are also regular Except total reduplication Indonesian wanita → wanita ∼ wanita ‘woman’ → ‘women’ 1(Johnson, 1972; Kaplan and Kay, 1994; Chandlee, 2014; Chandlee and Heinz, 2012) 4
Introduction What’s wrong with total reduplication? As a language : Multiple-Context-Free (MCF) 2 2(Gazdar and Pullum, 1985; Seki et al., 1991; Albro, 2005; Clark and Yoshinaka, 2016) 3(Koskenniemi, 1983; Beesley and Karttunen, 2003) 5
Introduction What’s wrong with total reduplication? As a language : Multiple-Context-Free (MCF) 2 As a function : requires 2-way FSTs (Dolatian and Heinz, 2020) Recognizing copies is harder than making copies. 2(Gazdar and Pullum, 1985; Seki et al., 1991; Albro, 2005; Clark and Yoshinaka, 2016) 3(Koskenniemi, 1983; Beesley and Karttunen, 2003) 5
Introduction What’s wrong with total reduplication? As a language : Multiple-Context-Free (MCF) 2 As a function : requires 2-way FSTs (Dolatian and Heinz, 2020) Recognizing copies is harder than making copies. → RED -based phonology is also MCF & requires 2-way FST 2(Gazdar and Pullum, 1985; Seki et al., 1991; Albro, 2005; Clark and Yoshinaka, 2016) 3(Koskenniemi, 1983; Beesley and Karttunen, 2003) 5
Introduction What’s wrong with total reduplication? As a language : Multiple-Context-Free (MCF) 2 As a function : requires 2-way FSTs (Dolatian and Heinz, 2020) Recognizing copies is harder than making copies. → RED -based phonology is also MCF & requires 2-way FST special tonal contours morpheme-specific rules c´ opy → c´ opy ∼ c` opy book → book ∼ schmook (Downing, 2003) (Inkelas and Zoll, 2005) 2(Gazdar and Pullum, 1985; Seki et al., 1991; Albro, 2005; Clark and Yoshinaka, 2016) 3(Koskenniemi, 1983; Beesley and Karttunen, 2003) 5
Introduction What’s wrong with total reduplication? As a language : Multiple-Context-Free (MCF) 2 As a function : requires 2-way FSTs (Dolatian and Heinz, 2020) Recognizing copies is harder than making copies. → RED -based phonology is also MCF & requires 2-way FST special tonal contours morpheme-specific rules c´ opy → c´ opy ∼ c` opy book → book ∼ schmook (Downing, 2003) (Inkelas and Zoll, 2005) Intersection language of Red &phonology isn’t regular, but... 2(Gazdar and Pullum, 1985; Seki et al., 1991; Albro, 2005; Clark and Yoshinaka, 2016) 3(Koskenniemi, 1983; Beesley and Karttunen, 2003) 5
Introduction What’s wrong with total reduplication? As a language : Multiple-Context-Free (MCF) 2 As a function : requires 2-way FSTs (Dolatian and Heinz, 2020) Recognizing copies is harder than making copies. → RED -based phonology is also MCF & requires 2-way FST special tonal contours morpheme-specific rules c´ opy → c´ opy ∼ c` opy book → book ∼ schmook (Downing, 2003) (Inkelas and Zoll, 2005) Intersection language of Red &phonology isn’t regular, but... Finite-state compromise = modulate the grammar: 3 Morphology : reduplicates, applies Red morpheme boundary ∼ Phonology : reads ∼ boundary, applies constraints/rules 2(Gazdar and Pullum, 1985; Seki et al., 1991; Albro, 2005; Clark and Yoshinaka, 2016) 3(Koskenniemi, 1983; Beesley and Karttunen, 2003) 5
Introduction Data (Balinese) CC sequences are homorganic NT sequences ... naNkil sampun tamban * meptik * ranbap * lumtik 6
Introduction Data (Balinese) CC sequences are homorganic NT sequences ... naNkil sampun tamban * meptik * ranbap * lumtik ... unless the two syllables are identical: 6
Introduction Data (Balinese) CC sequences are homorganic NT sequences ... naNkil sampun tamban * meptik * ranbap * lumtik ... unless the two syllables are identical: patpat nemnem kenken 6
Introduction Data (Balinese) CC sequences are homorganic NT sequences ... naNkil sampun tamban * meptik * ranbap * lumtik ... unless the two syllables are identical: patpat nemnem kenken “Pseudo-reduplication” : RED words aren’t derived from words 6
Introduction Data (Balinese) CC sequences are homorganic NT sequences ... naNkil sampun tamban * meptik * ranbap * lumtik ... unless the two syllables are identical: patpat nemnem kenken “Pseudo-reduplication” : RED words aren’t derived from words * pat * nem * ken 6
Introduction HJ’s Account Pseudo-reduplicated forms are computationally beyond regular Pattern: Non-homorganic CC is only permitted in ww words patpat nemnem kenken Theory : Lexicon divided into Core and Reduplicated strata MaxEnt grammar gives different weights to CodaCondition ”an adequate phonotactic analysis of Balinese must have access to the information of whether a stem is pseudoreduplicated or not; which implies that the phonotactic assessment in general must include the capacity to detect copied strings.” { ww ∶ w ∈ Σ ∗ } is not regular → Balinese phonotactics isn’t regular 7
Introduction Rebuttal Inherently reduplicated forms in Balinese (and in many other cases) are instances of morphological pseudo-reduplication Morphological pseudo-reduplication puts morph boundaries into the representation. pat ∼ pat nem ∼ nem ken ∼ ken 8
Introduction Rebuttal Inherently reduplicated forms in Balinese (and in many other cases) are instances of morphological pseudo-reduplication Morphological pseudo-reduplication puts morph boundaries into the representation. pat ∼ pat nem ∼ nem ken ∼ ken C ∼ C does not match the environment specified by *CC → *CC is a regular language HJ rely heavily on Zuraw’s theory of pseudo-reduplication as ‘aggressive’ phonological reduplication. Essentially, this counter-argument says that not all pseudo reduplication is of this ‘aggressive’ variety. 8
Introduction Going forward Goal: explain how our encoding is plausible pat ∼ pat nem ∼ nem ken ∼ ken 9
Introduction Going forward Goal: explain how our encoding is plausible pat ∼ pat nem ∼ nem ken ∼ ken 9
Introduction Going forward Goal: explain how our encoding is plausible pat ∼ pat nem ∼ nem ken ∼ ken Note: 9
Introduction Going forward Goal: explain how our encoding is plausible pat ∼ pat nem ∼ nem ken ∼ ken Note: Data: We rely a lot on Clynes (1995) (Cl), a large-scale study of Balinese HJ talk more about statistics and metrics for treating phonology as regular (appendix) 9
Pseudo-reduplication Table of Contents Introduction 1 Pseudo-reduplication 2 Balinese with boundaries 3 Computation of copying 4 Conclusion 5 10
Pseudo-reduplication Types of reduplication Reduplicative constructs based on lexical meaning: Red (“meaningful”) reduplicated ww is derived from lexical item w Indonesian wanita → wanita ∼ wanita ‘woman’ → ‘women’ 11
Pseudo-reduplication Types of reduplication Reduplicative constructs based on lexical meaning: Red (“meaningful”) reduplicated ww is derived from lexical item w Indonesian wanita → wanita ∼ wanita ‘woman’ → ‘women’ Pseudo- Red (“meaningless”) no lexical item w English orangutan → orangutang , hodge podge Chamorro lamlam ‘glare’ 11
Pseudo-reduplication Types of reduplication Reduplicative constructs based on lexical meaning: Red (“meaningful”) reduplicated ww is derived from lexical item w Indonesian wanita → wanita ∼ wanita ‘woman’ → ‘women’ Pseudo- Red (“meaningless”) no lexical item w English orangutan → orangutang , hodge podge Chamorro lamlam ‘glare’ We distinguish two types of pseudo- Red (HJ & Zuraw (2002) do not make this distinction) 11
Pseudo-reduplication Types of pseudo-reduplication Phonological pseudo- Red a single morph becomes internally repetitive due to phonological changes (Zuraw, 2002; Inkelas and Zoll, 2005) English : orangutan → orangutang Tagalog : /kalos + in/ → [kalus-in] but /todo + in/ → [todo-hin] (see appendix) 12
Recommend
More recommend
