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