lec5ds_lexical

lec5ds_lexical - MIT OpenCourseWare http:/ocw.mit.edu...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–21. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
MIT OpenCourseWare http://ocw.mit.edu 24.941J / 6.543J / 9.587J / HST.727J The Lexicon and Its Features Spring 2007 For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms .
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Distinctive features in lexical entries 24.9 4 1/6.729 1
Background image of page 2
Underspecification, briefly From signal to underspecified lexical entries: Lahiri and Marslen-Wilson 1991 Lahiri and Reetz 2002 Underspecification in more detail 2
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Underspecification • Feature values present in SR are absent in UR seen : SR [s i n], UR /si n/ [+nas] [-nas][+nas] 3
Background image of page 4
Surface underspecification • Throughout the segment, F-value is determined by external context. Cohn 1989: nasal airflow in English V: Permanent underspecification: no evidence of F value at UR or SR NV C; CV N; N VN 4
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Relates to contrast French, also in Cohn 1989: N V C; CV N; N V N Oral vowels are fully oral in French because they contrast with nasal vowels. 5
Background image of page 6
Temporary underspecification E.g. Hungarian [i], [e:] act as if they lack [-back]. Why omit feature values from UR? (a) Can’t tell what they are (b) To shrink the lexicon “unmarked” feature values targeted for omission (c) To solve the invariance/variability problem: if surface value of F varies between [+F] and [-F] and the lexical entry contains [0F], neither surface value will contradict the lexical specification. These reasons correspond to different theories of underspecification: data may support some but not others. Lahiri and Marslen-Wilson invoke (b) and (c). 6
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Can’t tell UR value • Segment alternates Turkish ACC: k ¨ z- ¨ , kul-u, di S -i, gyl-y All SR values are guaranteed by context sensitive rules. FH: V -> [ α back]/ V[ α back]C 0 _ RH: [+high] -> [ α rd]/ V[ α rd]C 0 _ 7
Background image of page 8
Shrink the lexicon • For any binary feature, one SR value can be left out of lexicon and entered by rule V -> [+nas] / _[+nas] s[i ) n] [+cont] -> [-nas]/ s[i] • Sometimes both values: [+son, -cont] -> [+nasal] 8
Background image of page 9

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
UR s i n sonorant - + + continuant + + - consonantal + - + nasal 9
Background image of page 10
[+son, -cont, -lateral] -> [+nasal] s i n sonorant - + + continuant + + - consonantal + - + nasal + 10
Background image of page 11

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
[-cons] -> [+nasal]/_[+nasal] s i) n sonorant - + + continuant + + - consonantal + - + nasal + + 11
Background image of page 12
[+cont] -> [-nasal] s i) n sonorant - + + continuant + + - consonantal + - + nasal - + + 12
Background image of page 13

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
13 Basic hypothesis of phonological analysis: ". ..every linguistic item has a single unique underlying representation which is minimally specified in its phonetic description." Courtesy of Elsevier, Inc., http://www.sciencedirect.com . Used with permission. For more complete definition, see page 252 of Lahiri, Aditi, and William Marslen-Wilson. "The Mental Representation of Lexical Form: A Phonological Approach to the Recognition Lexicon." Cognition 38 (1991): 245-294.
Background image of page 14
Many ways to shrink the lexicon Why leave [±nasal] values out of UR when we can do that with [±sonorant] values? • Redundancy Rules and URs: /n/ = [+nasal]: [+nasal] -> [+sonorant] /s/ = [-nasal, +cons]: [-nasal, +cons] -> [-sonorant] /i/ = [-cons]: [-cons] -> [+sonorant]; [-cons] -> [-nasal] [-cons] -> [+nasal]/ __[+nasal] 14
Background image of page 15

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
UR s i n nasal + continuant + + - consonantal + - + sonorant 15
Background image of page 16
[+nasal] -> [+sonorant] s i n nasal + continuant + + - consonantal + - + sonorant + 16
Background image of page 17

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
[-nasal, +cons] -> [-sonorant] s i n nasal - + continuant + + - consonantal + - + sonorant - + 17
Background image of page 18