Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T17:47:11.732Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feedback and regularity in the lexicon*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2007

Andrew B. Wedel
Andrew B. Wedel
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Phonologies are characterised by regularity, from the stereotyped phonetic characteristics of allophones to the contextually conditioned alternations between them. Most models of grammar account for regularity by hypothesising that there is only a limited set of symbols for expressing underlying forms, and that an independent grammar algorithm transforms symbol sequences into an output representation. However, this explanation for regularity is called into question by research which suggests that the mental lexicon records rich phonetic detail that directly informs production. Given evidence for biases favouring previously experienced forms at many levels of production and perception, I argue that positive feedback within a richly detailed lexicon can produce regularity over many cycles of production and perception. Using simulation as a tool, I show that under the influence of positive feedback, gradient biases in usage can convert an initially gradient and variable distribution of lexical behaviours into a more categorical and simpler pattern.

Type
Research Article
Information
Phonology , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , May 2007 , pp. 147 - 185
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albright, Adam (2002). The lexical bases of morphological well-formedness. In Bendjaballah, Sabrina, Dressier, Wolfgang U., Pfeiffer, Oskar E. & Voeikova, Maria D. (eds.) Morphology 2000. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albright, Adam & Hayes, Bruce (2002). Modeling English past tense intuitions with minimal generalization. In Maxwell, Mike (ed.) Proceedings of the 6th Meeting of the ACL Special Interest Group in Computational Phonology. Philadelphia: Association for Computational Linguistics. 58–69.Google Scholar
Alegre, Maria & Gordon, Peter (1999). Frequency effects and the representational status of regular inflections. Journal of Memory and Language 40. 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almor, Amit (2002). Past tense learning. In Arbib, Michael (ed.) The handbook of brain theory and neural networks. 2nd edn. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 848–851.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. (1985). Phonology in the twentieth century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana & Pulleyblank, Douglas (1994). Grounded phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Barton, David (1980). Phonemic perception in children. In Yeni-Komshian, Grace H., Kavanagh, James F. & Ferguson, Charles A. (eds.) Child phonology. Vol. 2: Perception. New York: Academic Press. 97–116.Google Scholar
Batali, John (2002). The negotiation and acquisition of recursive grammars as a result of competition among exemplars. In Briscoe (2002). 111–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette (2004). Evolutionary Phonology: the emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette (2005). Understanding antigemination. In Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, Hodges, Adam & Rood, David S. (eds.) Linguistic diversity and language theories. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 203–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette (2006a). New perspectives on English sound patterns: ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ in evolutionary phonology. Journal of English Linguistics 34. 6–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette (2006b). A theoretical synopsis of Evolutionary Phonology. Theoretical Linguistics 32. 117–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette (2006c). Phonetically-based sound patterns: typological tendencies or phonological universals? Paper presented at the 10th Conference on Laboratory Phonology (LabPhon 10), Paris.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette & Andrew, Garrett (1998). The origins of consonant–vowel metathesis. Lg 74. 508–556.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert (2007). Disyllabic attractors and anti-antigemination in Austronesian sound change. Phonology 24. 1–36 (this issue).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bod, Rens (2006). An all-subtrees approach to unsupervised parsing. Proceedings of International Conference on Computational Linguistics and Association for Computational Linguistics 2006. Sydney: Association for Computational Linguistics. 865–872.Google Scholar
Boer, Bart de (2001). The origins of vowel systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brighton, Henry, Kirby, Simon & Smith, Kenny (2005). Cultural selection for learnability: three principles underlying the view that language adapts to be learnable. In Tallerman, Maggie (ed.) Language origins: perspectives on evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briscoe, Ted (ed.) (2002). Linguistic evolution through language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broe, Michael (1996). A generalized information-theoretic measure for systems of phonological classification and recognition. In Sproat, Richard (ed.) Computational Phonology in Speech Technology: 2nd meeting of the ACL Special Interest Group in Computational Phonology, Proceedings of the Workshop. Philadelphia: Association for Computational Linguistics. 17–24.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi (2005). Sources of Paradigm Uniformity. In Downing, Laura J., Hall, T. A. & Raffelsiefen, Renate (eds.) Paradigms in phonological theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 65–106.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan (1985). Morphology: a study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan (2002a). Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change 14. 261–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan (2002b). Phonological evidence for exemplar storage of multiword sequences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24. 215–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camazine, Scott, Deneubourg, Jean-Louis, Franks, Nigel R., Sneyd, James, Theraulaz, Guy & Bonabeau, Eric (2001). Self-organization in biological systems. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Carter, Paul (1999). Abstractness in phonology and extrinsic phonetic interpretation: the case of liquids in English. In Ohala, John J., Hasegawa, Yoko, Ohala, Manjari, Granville, Daniel & Bailey, Ashlee C. (eds.) Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Berkeley: University of California. 105–108.Google Scholar
Chitoran, Ioana & Ignacio Hualde, José (2007). From hiatus to diphthong: the evolution of vowel sequences in Romance. Phonology 24. 37–75 (this issue).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Chene, Brent & Anderson, Stephen R. (1979). Compensatory lengthening. Lg 55. 505–535.Google Scholar
Dell, Gary S., Reed, Kristopher D., Adams, David R. & Meyer, Antje S. (2000). Speech errors, phonotactic constraints, and implicit learning: a study of the role of experience in language production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 26. 1355–1367.Google ScholarPubMed
Donegan, Patricia J. & David, Stampe (1979). The study of natural phonology. In Dinnsen, Daniel A. (ed.) Current approaches to phonological theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 126–173.Google Scholar
Elenius, Kjell & Branderud, Peter (eds.) (1995). Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Vol. 2. Stockholm: KTH and Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam & Harald Baayen, R. (2003). Predicting the unpredictable: interpreting neutralized segments in Dutch. Lg 79. 5–38.Google Scholar
Frisch, Stefan A. (1996). Similarity and frequency in phonology. PhD dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Gerken, LouAnn (2006). Decisions, decisions: infant language learning when multiple generalizations are possible. Cognition 98. B67–B74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldinger, Stephan D. (1996). Words and voices: episodic traces in spoken word identification and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22. 1166–1183.Google ScholarPubMed
Goldinger, Stephen D. (2000). The role of perceptual episodes in lexical processing. In Cutler, Anne, McQueen, James M. & Zondervan, Rian (eds.) Proceedings of SWAP (Spoken Word Access Processes). Nijmegen: Max-Planck-Institute for Psycholinguistics. 155–158.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Louis, Byrd, Dani & Saltzman, Elliot (2006). The role of vocal tract gestural action units in understanding the evolution of phonology. In Arbib, Michael (ed.) Action to language via the mirror neuron system. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 215–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Matthew (1999). Syllable weight: phonetics, phonology, and typology. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew (2002). A phonetically driven account of syllable weight. Lg 78. 51–80.Google Scholar
Guenther, Frank H. & Gjaja, Marin N. (1996). The perceptual magnet effect as an emergent property of neural map formation. JASA 100. 1111–1121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guenther, Frank H., Nieto-Castanon, Alfonso, Ghosh, Satrajit S. & Jason, A. Tourville (2004). Representation of sound categories in auditory cortical maps. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 47. 46–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur (2007). On the evolution of consonant harmony: the case of secondary articulation agreement. Phonology 24. 77–120 (this issue).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, Mary & L. Elman, Jeffrey (1995). Learning and morphological change. Cognition 56. 61–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrington, Jonathan, Palethorpe, Sallyanne & Watson, Catherine I. (2000). Does the Queen speak the Queen's English? Nature 408. 927–928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes, Bruce (1995). Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1999). Phonetically driven phonology: the role of Optimality Theory and inductive grounding. In Darnell, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith, Newmeyer, Frederick, Noonan, Michael & Wheatley, Kathleen (eds.) Functionalism and formalism in linguistics. Vol. 1: General papers. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 243–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & Steriade, Donca (2004). The phonetic bases of phonological markedness. In Hayes, Bruce, Kirchner, Robert & Steriade, Donca (eds.) Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickey, Raymond (2004). Irish English: phonology. In W. Schneider, Edgar, Burridge, Kate, Kortmann, Bernd, Mesthrie, Rajend & Upton, Clive (eds.) A handbook of varieties of English. Vol. 1: Phonology. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 68–97.Google Scholar
Hintzman, Douglas L. (1986). ‘Schema abstraction’ in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review 93. 411–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. (1976). Phonologization. In Juilland, Alphonse (ed.) Linguistic studies offered to Joseph Greenberg on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday. Vol. 2: Phonology. Saratoga: Anma Libri. 407–418.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2003). Japanese morphophonemics: markedness and word structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacoby, Larry L. & Lee, Brooks (1984). Nonanalytic cognition: memory, perception and concept learning. In Bower, Gordon H. (ed.) The psychology of learning and motivation: advances in research and theory. Vol. 18. San Diego: Academic Press. 1–47.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman C., Fant, Gunnar M. & Halle, Morris (1952). Preliminaries to speech analysis: the distinctive features and their correlates. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Joanisse, Marc F. & Mark, S. Seidenberg (1997). [i e a u] and sometimes [o]: perceptual and computational constraints on vowel inventories. In G. Shafto, Michael & Langley, Pat (eds.) Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. 331–336.Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith (1997). Speech perception without speaker normalization: an exemplar model. In Johnson, Keith & Mullennix, John W. (eds.) Talker variability in speech processing. San Diego: Academic Press. 145–165.Google Scholar
Johnston, Paul (1997). Regional variation. In Jones, Charles (ed.) The Edinburgh history of the Scots language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 433–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. (1996). How general are our generalizations? What speakers actually know and what they actually do. In Green, Anthony Dubach & Motopanyane, Virginia (eds.) Proceedings of the 13th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics '96. Ithaca: Cornell University. 148–160.Google Scholar
Kelso, J. A. Scott (1995). Dynamic patterns: the self-organization of brain and behavior. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael (1994). Phonology in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kirby, Simon & James, R. Hurford (2002). The emergence of linguistic structure: an overview of the iterated learning model. In Cangelosi, Angelo & Parisi, Dominic (eds.) Simulating the evolution of language. London: Springer. 121–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhl, Patricia K. (1991). Human adults and human infants show a ‘perceptual magnet effect’ for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not. Perception and Psychophysics 50. 93–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhl, Patricia K. (1995). Mechanisms of developmental change in speech and Language. In Elenius, & Branderud, (1995). 132–139.Google Scholar
Lacerda, Franciso (1995). The perceptual-magnet effect: an emergent consequence of exemplar-based phonetic memory. In Elenius, & Branderud, (1995). 140–147.Google Scholar
Labov, William (1994). Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford & Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter (2006). A course in phonetics. 5th edn. Boston: Thomson.Google Scholar
Lee, Sungbok, Potamianos, Alexandros & Narayanan, Shrikanth (1999). Acoustics of children's speech: developmental changes of temporal and spectral parameters. JASA 105. 1455–1468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levelt, Willem J. M. (1989). Speaking: from intention to articulation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn (1998). Systemic constraints and adaptive change in the formation of sound structure. In Hurford, James R., Studdert-Kennedy, Michael & Knight, Christopher (eds.) Approaches to the evolution of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 242–264.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn, MacNeilage, Peter & Studdert-Kennedy, Michael (1984). Self-organizing processes and the explanation of phonological universals. In Butterworth, Brian, Comrie, Bernard & Dahl, Osten (eds.) Explanations for language universals. Berlin: Mouton. 181–203.Google Scholar
Luce, Paul A. & Pisoni, David B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: the neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing 19. 1–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacWhinney, Brian (1998). Models of the emergence of language. Annual Review of Psychology 49. 199–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maye, Jessica, Werker, Janet F. & Gerken, LouAnn (2002). Infant sensitivity to distributional information can affect phonetic discrimination. Cognition 82. B101–B111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mendoza-Denton, Norma (forthcoming). Homegirls: language and symbolic practice in the making of Latina youth styles. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mielke, Jeff (2004). The emergence of distinctive features. PhD dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Nosofsky, Robert M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification–categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 115. 39–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nosofsky, Robert M. (1988). Similarity, frequency, and category representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 14. 54–65.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. (1981). The listener as a source of sound change. In Masek, C. S., Hendrick, R. A. & Miller, M. F. (eds.) Papers from the parasession on language and behavior. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 178–203.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. (1983). The origin of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints. In F. MacNeilage, Peter (ed.) The production of speech. New York: Springer. 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J. (1989). Sound change is drawn from a pool of synchronic variation. In Egil Breivik, Leiv & Håkon Jahr, Ernst (eds.) Language change: contributions to the study of its causes. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 173–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J. (1990). The phonetics and phonology of aspects of assimilation. In Kingston, John J. & Beckman, Mary E. (eds.) Papers in laboratory phonology I: between the grammar and physics of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 258–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliphant, Michael (2002). Learned systems of arbitrary reference: the foundation of human linguistic uniqueness. In Briscoe (2002). 23–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oudeyer, Pierre-Ives (2002). Phonemic coding might be a result of sensory-motor coupling dynamics. In Hallam, Bridget, Floreano, Dario, Hallam, John, Hayes, Gillian & Meyer, Jean-Arcady (eds.) Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on the Simulation of Adaptive Behavior. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 406–416.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye (2002). Constraint conjunction versus grounded constraint subhierarchies in Optimality Theory. Ms, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (2001a). Exemplar dynamics: word frequency, lenition and contrast. In Bybee, Joan & Hopper, Paul (eds.) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 137–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (2001b). Why phonological constraints are so coarse-grained. Language and Cognitive Processes 16. 691–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (2002). Word-specific phonetics. In Gussenhoven, Carlos & Warner, Natasha (eds.) Laboratory Phonology 7. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 101–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (2003). Phonetic diversity, statistical learning, and acquisition of phonology. Language and Speech 46. 115–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plaut, David C. & Kello, Christopher T. (1999). The emergence of phonology from the interplay of speech comprehension and production: a distributed connectionist approach. In MacWhinney, Brian (ed.) Emergence of language. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. 381–415.Google Scholar
Pouplier, Marianne, Chen, Larissa, Goldstein, Louis & Byrd, Dani (1999). Kinematic evidence for the existence of gradient speech errors. JASA 106. 2242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan & Paul, Smolensky (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder. Published 2004, Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Redford, Melissa A., Chen, Chun C. & Miikkulainen, Risto (2001). Constrained emergence of universals and variation in syllable systems. Language and Speech 44. 27–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saffran, Jenny R. & Thiessen, Erik D. (2003). Pattern induction by infant language learners. Developmental Psychology 39. 484–494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sancier, Michele L. & A. Fowler, Carol (1997). Gestural drift in a bilingual speaker of Brazilian Portuguese and English. JPh 25. 421–436.Google Scholar
Saltzman, Elliot & Munhall, Kevin G. (1989). A dynamical approach to gestural patterning in speech production. Ecological Psychology 1. 333–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie & Dennis, H. Klatt (1979). The limited use of distinctive features and markedness in speech production: evidence from speech error data. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18. 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Andrew D. M. (2005). The inferential transmission of language. Adaptive Behavior 13. 311–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sproat, Richard & Osamu, Fujimura (1993). Allophonic variation in English /l/ and its implications for phonetic implementation. JPh 21. 291–311.Google Scholar
Steels, Luc (1998). The origins of syntax in visually grounded robotic agents. Artificial Intelligence 103. 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steels, Luc & Frederic, Kaplan (2002). Bootstrapping grounded word semantics. In Briscoe (2002). 53–73.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (1999). Phonetics in phonology: the case of laryngeal neutralization. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 2: Papers in Phonology 3. 25–145.Google Scholar
Tenpenny, Patricia L. (1995). Abstractionist versus episodic theories of repetition priming and word identification. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2. 339–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai S. (1939). Grundzüge der Phonologie. Göttingen: van der Hoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Tschenkéli, Kita (1958). Einführung in die Georgische Sprache. Zürich: Amirani.Google Scholar
Tuller, Betty, Case, Pamela, Ding, Mingzhou & Scott Kelso, J. A. (1994). The nonlinear dynamics of speech categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 20. 3–16.Google ScholarPubMed
Wedel, Andrew B. (2004). Self-organization and categorical behavior in phonology. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Wedel, Andrew B. (2006). Exemplar models, evolution and language change. The Linguistic Review 23. 247–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Richard & Frisch, Stefan A. (2002). The phonetics of phonological speech errors: an acoustic analysis of slips of the tongue. JPh 30. 139–162.Google Scholar
Zanone, P. G. & Scott Kelso, J. A. (1997). Coordination dynamics of learning and transfer: collective and component levels. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 23. 1454–1480.Google ScholarPubMed
Zec, Draga (1988). Sonority constraints on prosodic structure. PhD dissertation, Stanford University. Published 1994, New York: Garland.Google Scholar