MPhil Seminar: Evaluating MPhil Seminar: Evaluating OTOT

Constraint

OverviewOverviewTwo attacks on constraints

OTROTB-LO: no constraints on URs Reiss, NoBanana: no surface (or other) constraints Basic problem:

Can one extract generalizations from surface (especially static/non-alternating) patterns?

Evidence for extraction of generalizations from the lexicon Best-known case: goed stage of L1 acquisition Also Ohala, Pierrehumbert, Hayes, etc. on statistical knowledge Marcus et al. 1999, Guasti 2002, Kuhl 2004 on child language: infants are

able to perform statistical analysis over pre-lexical representations, e.g. compute distributional regularities and find the most frequent word shapes.

Claims: Humans form phonological generalizations over their lexicons, often best

modelled as MSCs or surface constraints Often statistical in origin, but may be deterministic

OTROTB-LO wrongly predicts this to be impossible and creates other problems

Where are linguistic Where are linguistic generalizations generalizations captured?captured?

lexicon/underlying representation

surface representation

transfo

rmatio

ns

DP OT(GEN; no generalizations)

¿constraints on GEN?

rules

“Control” constraints

( ineffability, Tonkawa

*CCC...)

MSCs

cons

train

ts

Hale and Reiss: only here (no constraints)

Morpheme Structure Morpheme Structure ConstraintsConstraints

Initially employed to capture static phonological generalizations about morpheme structure, as opposed to alternations being captured by rules Root Harmony (Kiparsky 1968)

C0 V[atr] … C0 V[atr] C0 (Akan and Wolof, K 1994:351)

Japanese: all post-nasal obstruents must be voiced in native words tombo ‘dragonfly’ (*tompo) mi-te ‘seeing’ vs. šin-de ‘dying’ Can be modeled as an OT output constraint *NT

(though Itō, Mester, and Padgett 1995:819 call it an MSC…)

See Kenstowicz and Kisseberth 1979:425-433, Kenstowicz 1994:351-3, 524-8 for discussion

Early arguments for Early arguments for MSCsMSCs

Halle 1959, 1962, Chomsky and Halle 1968, etc. account for native speakers’ intuitions of

what constitutes a well-formed word in their language

Esper 1925Esper 1925Method

Ss learn names of 16 objects, each having one of four different shapes and one of four different colors

Ss trained on 14 object-name associations but tested on 16 to see if they generalize what they learned

3 experimental conditions: names presented to Group 1:

naslig, sownlig, nasdeg, sowndeg, where nas- and sown- coded color and -lig and -deg coded shape Since these names consisted of two phonologically legal morphemes, this group could simplify their task by learning

not 16 names but 8 morphemes (if they could discover them) plus the simple rule that the color morpheme preceded the shape morpheme in each name.

Names presented to Group 2: bi-morphemic names, as with Group 1 unlike group 1, the morphemes were not phonologically legal for English, e.g., nulgen, nuzgub, pelgen, pezgub (where

nu- and pe- were color morphemes and -lgen and -zgub were shape morphemes, the latter two violating English morpheme structure constraints)

Names presented to Group 3 (a control group): names with no morphemic structure no recourse but to learn 16 idiosyncratic names

Results As expected, group 1 learned their names much faster and more accurately than group 3. Performance of Group 2 was similar to (and marginally worse than) that of group 3 Analysis of the errors of group 2, including how they generalized what they’d learned to the two object-name

associations excluded from the training session, revealed that they tried to make phonologically legal morphemes from the ill-formed ones. 

Demonstrates (i) psychological reality of MSCs; (ii) ability to conduct morphological analysis

Problems languages do not always make URs conform to surface phonotactics, e.g. Homshetsma ‘hit’, Maori final consonants,

Hebrew consonantal roots, Turkish epenthesis the semantic/ morphological shape of the compound words to be learned in this system is basically unnatural. It is

unnatural because languages almost never attach color words to shape words to form compounds or derived words (Tahny, 1977). Although we occasionally find "frozen forms" (Newport & Bellugi, 1978) like greenhouse or blackbird, we almost never find a productive process that turns the concept "red square" into the single word "redsquare."

Arguments against Arguments against MSCsMSCs

Duplication Problem (Kisseberth 1970 et seqq.) Japanese MSC *NT for *tompo and rule for šin-de vs. mi-te “there is good reason to doubt the basic assumption…that the harmony

found in roots and affixes is the product of two separate grammatical mechanisms: a morpheme structure condition and a feature-changing rule…it implies the existence of [i] languages in which all the suffixes systematically harmonize to the root but the roots show no restrictions on vowel combinations or in which the opposite state of affairs holds (i.e. [ii] the root vowels harmonize but affixes fail to alternate).” (K 1994:353)

“this formal similarity and functional redundancy between MSCs and rules is a significant liability of the classic theory. If MSCs and rules really are distinct components of linguistic theory, then they should be cleanly differentiated in form and function, but they are not.” (McCarthy 1998)

“This stance makes maximal use of theoretical resources already required, avoiding the loss of generalization entailed by adding further language-particular apparatus devoted to input selection. (In this we pursue ideas implicit in Stampe 1969, 1973/79, and deal with Kisseberth’s grammar/lexicon “duplication problem” by having no duplication.)” (P and S 1993/2002:209)

Wellformedness judgements MSCs predict that speakers can only make ternary distinctions in well-

formedness, whereas speakers in fact make scalar judgements (Greenberg and Jenkins 1964, Ohala & Ohala 1986:242; see Pierrehumbert 2003 for literature review).

(i) Turkish (Kaun and Harrison 1999)

(ii) Marash (Vaux 1998)

Faulty conception of MSCs Faulty conception of MSCs II

Kie Zuraw presents typical OT misconception that MSCs are required to capture any surface-true generalization

http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/zuraw/200A_2004/11SurfaceConstraints.pdf

Zuraw’s take on DP analysis of these data:

•MSC for ‘green’ etc.•rule for ‘old man’ etc.She sees this as

“Duplication Problem” (!)

Actual DP analysis (assuming new loans are exempt):

•Single rule for both ‘green’ and ‘old man’ etc.

•Not subject to DEC

Faulty conception of MSCs Faulty conception of MSCs IIII

McCarthy 1998

“According to the premises of classic generative phonology, final devoicing in L is a result of a phonological rule. In L’, though, devoicing is attributed to a morpheme structure constraint (MSC), the name given to restrictions on underlying representations.”

BV: in the absence of evidence from loanwords, language games, etc. showing that the lack of final D in URs is the product of an active MSC (which McCarthy doesn’t provide), such cases actually involve “Stampean Occultation”:

“Suppose some rule consistently replaces the structure /A/ by [B]. Finding no surface [A]s, language learners will not be tempted to set up underlying /A/s in the lexicon, positing only underlying /B/s instead. In this way, /B/ hides or ‘occults’ /A/, obtaining the same descriptive effect as an anti-/A/ MSC without invoking any actual restrictions on the lexicon.” [McCarthy 1998:1]

Here:• A = voiced stop• B = voiceless

stop

Faulty conception of MSCs Faulty conception of MSCs IIIIII

“Under the thesis of richness of the base, OT does not countenance morpheme structure constraints. This paper shows that some phenomena that have been attributed to morpheme structure constraints can be analyzed with constraints that forbid alternations within paradigms.”

Given what I’ve already proposed, how do you think we should deal with Dialect B?

Given what I’ve already proposed, how do you think we should deal with Dialect B?

ROTB and Lexicon ROTB and Lexicon OptimizationOptimization

“OT attributes linguistic generalizations to the grammar, not the lexicon...this thesis is called ‘richness of the base’: inputs are unrestricted, but the grammar is responsible for mapping all inputs onto pronounceable forms of the language.” (McCarthy 2003:53)

“if the grammar yields an inventory with only unvoiced obstruents, no segments in lexical forms will contain [voice] without [sonorant] — even though all feature combinations are universally available as inputs.” (Smolensky 1996)

Lexicon Optimization (Inkelas 1994, based on P&S 1993/2002:209)

“Given a grammar G and a set S = {S1, S2, ... Si} of surface phonetic forms for a morpheme M, suppose that there is a set of inputs I = {I1, I2, ... Ij}, each of whose members has a set of surface realizations equivalent to S. There is some Ii I such that the mapping between Ii and the members of S is the most harmonic with respect to G, i.e. incurs the fewest marks for the highest ranked constraints. The learner should choose Ii as the underlying representation for M.” (Inkelas 1994)

ROTB and Lexicon ROTB and Lexicon OptimizationOptimization

Turkish final devoicing (to be discussed in more detail later) [vɑth] ‘watt’ : [vɑthɯ] ‘watt-accusative’ [thɑth] ‘taste’ : [thɑdɯ] ‘taste-accusative’

One can force UR SR by having alternations in the paradigm (P&S 1993/2002:210, Inkelas 1994:7), but if there is no evidence for alternations (e.g. with a nonce word), ROTB-LO (wrongly) predicts UR = SR.

/thɑd/ Voice Coda

MaxF DepF

[thɑth] : [thɑthɯ]

**! **

[thɑth] : [thɑdɯ]

* *

[thɑd] : [thɑdɯ] *!

/vɑth/ Voice Coda

MaxF DepF

[vɑth] : [vɑthɯ]

[vɑth] : [vɑdɯ] *! *

[vɑd] : [vɑdɯ] *! ** **

[guruph] Voice Coda

MaxF

DepF

/gruph/

/grub/ *! *

[thjub] Voice Coda

MaxF

DepF

/thyph/ * *! *

/thyb/ *

LO casesLO cases

Response to response to Response to response to MSCsMSCs

The duplication argument, which is the heart of the attack on MSCs, only holds ceteris paribus, but in fact all else is not equal

1. ROTB-LO incorrectly predicts the nonexistence of productive lexical generalizations utilized by speakers in constructing underlying representations.

2. ROTB-LO incorrectly predicts (assuming universal markedness constraint hierarchies; cf. Prince and Smolensky 1993, Steriade 1999:42, Lombardi 2003) the absence of languages containing the marked but not the unmarked member of a phonemic opposition Cf. Russian has palatalized /čj/ but not plain */č/

3. ROTB-LO incorrectly predicts conformity of URs to surface phonotactics

4. ROTB-LO incorrectly requires full spec. in non-alternating cases

5. ROTB-LO requires stipulation that certain GEN alterations (e.g. syllabification) are invisible to Faith and Ident constraints

DeneutralizationDeneutralizationPredictions for picking UR from ambiguous input:

OTROTB-LO: pick transparent UR Hayes 1995: pick base form as UR whether or not there are alternations Gallistel 2003: When animals and humans have to solve problems with

incomplete knowledge, they use stochastic/probabilistic models NB deterministic generalization may be spawned from statistical knowledge In a language with 60% s and 40% t, s may be picked 60% or 100% of the time;

choice may be arbitrary with insufficiently skewed statistics, e.g. with pigeons

Type 1 (structure-preserving) English final /r/

Several nonrhotic Englishes productively assign final /r/ to all low-vowel-final roots (Mohanan 1985, Stampe 1991, Harris 1994)

English backformation wrt Velar Softening (Pierrehumbert 2002) 2 subjects backformed e.g. hovacity hova[k], 33% and 75% of the time

Devoicing languages (German, Russian, Polish; Turkish, Lac Simon, Dutch)

Korean word-final [t] /s/ Japanese [ŋ] /g/ (Ito, McCarthy)

Type 2 (non-structure-preserving) English flapping

sporadic for some: antidote for anecdote, calisthentics, etc. systematic: SN’s flap /t/

Korean borrowing of Coda Korean borrowing of Coda [t][t]

Korean word-final [t] /t, th, t’, č, čh, č’, s, s’/ Surface word-final postvocalic [t] in loans and nonce words invariably assigned to /s/ (Martin 1992, Kang 1998, Hayes 1998, Iverson & Lee 2004)

supermarket nom. [supəmakhet], dat. [supəmakhese]

OTROTB-LO wrongly predicts assignment to /t/

basic problem: OTROTB-LO does not allow for statistical generalizing over the lexicon to play a role in the construction of URsWhat appears to be involved in the Korean case is that speakers know that surface word-final [t]s most often come from underlying /s/ in their native lexicon, and they therefore assign new words to the same pattern.

Turkish final [voice]Turkish final [voice]source voiced

URhits voiceless

URhits

E tube tübü 147 tüpü 6330

E club kulübü 145,000

kulüpü 7

klübü 35,300 klüpü 4

E/F group(e)

gurubu 18,000 gurupu 17 (0.1%)

grubu 327,000

grupu 448 (0.1%)

F principe prensibi 16,600 prensipi 76

All [polysyllabic] forms that have a voiceless obstruent when final have a voiced one when suffixed (Lewis 1967:11)

The converse has now developed for monosyllables (Inkelas, Pycha, and Sprouse 2004)

TELL: 19 monosylls with final voiced stop; 145 with voiceless; current MSC plausibly extracted from this

NB

these

overr

ide v

oic

e

speci

fica

tion in s

ourc

e

language

Lac Simon AlgonquianLac Simon Algonquian1. underlying voicing contrast2. rule of initial obstruent devoicing3. all new stem-initial obstruents underlyingly

voiced (Nykiel and Nykiel 1979, Kaye 1979, Iverson 1983).

French banane [banan] LSA [pa:na:n] ‘banana’, but nba:na:nm ‘my banana’

English coffee LSA [ko:fi:ke] ‘he makes coffee’, but nigo:fi:ke ‘I make coffee’

segment UR SR w/ devoicing SR w/o devoicing

a. /g/ /ga:zo:tm/ ka:zo:tm ‘he hides’ n-ga:zo:tm ‘I hide’

b. /k/ /ka:t/ n-ka:t ‘my leg’

not *n-ga:t; note that the same 1st person prefix conditions the voiced

allophone in (a)

NB the relevant frequency facts for Lac Simon are not

known.

Statistical knowledgeStatistical knowledgeThe basic problem:

OTROTB-LO does not allow for generalizations extracted from statistical properties of the lexicon to play a role in the grammar

Counterevidence (cf. Skousen 1989): Greenberg and Jenkins 1964, Ohala and Ohala 1986, Frisch, Large,

and Pisoni 2000, Hay, Pierrehumbert, and Beckman 2004, etc. etc. on the well-formedness of English nonce words

Hayes 1995 on Turkish Pierrehumbert 2002 on English velar softening Polish speakers assign masculine gender to all consonant-final

words and feminine gender to all [a]-final words (Baran 2000) Statistical knowledge (categorical?) linguistic generalizations:

“All other things being equal, the cognitive system prefers generalizations which yield more information about the outcome over those which yield less.” (Pierrehumbert 2002)

“speakers extend morphological patterns based on abstract structural properties, of a kind appropriately described with rules” (Albright and Hayes 2003)

More deterministic…More deterministic…German chooses -s as its productive plural, though it isn’t most frequent (though frequency does affect its productivity–Bybee 1995)Moreton 1999:

English speakers aware of MSC banning final lax vowels “phonotactic knowledge consists of categorical, rule-like

prohibitions, rather than emerging from statistical properties of the lexicon”

Inkelas, Pycha, and Sprouse 2004 on Turkish voice alternations: not conditioned by lexical neighborhood density or frequency

mono- vs. polysyllabicity is best predictor of (non-)alternation

Underlying Underlying -structure-structure“CV-language learners will never insert into the lexicon any underlying forms that violate the (surface) syllable structure constraints of their language” (P&S 2002:210)Problem: Turkish and other languages that do not postulate underlying epenthesis, even though doing so does not conform to their surface syllable canon vakith ‘time’ : acc. vakth-i (< Arabic wakt) istop ‘stop’ : acc. istop-u

(not *istob-u, the expected polysyllabic treatment)

ROTB-LO requires full ROTB-LO requires full specification in non-specification in non-alternating casesalternating cases

OTROTB-LO requires that all non-alternating surface forms have fully specified lexical entriesDisproven by Kaun and Harrison 1999 with respect to root-internal harmony in Tuvan, Finnish, and Turkish After application of relevant language games, harmonic

roots re-harmonize but disharmonic roots don’t

Cf. Krämer 2004 for German glottal stop insertion and English laxing (He argues that LO actually can’t decide between fully

specified and underspecified form as UR, since identity constraints are stipulated to not penalize underspecified URs)

StipulationStipulationIncorporating ROTB into OT requires stipulating that GEN be able to alter inputs in ways that are invisible to faithfulness constraints (McCarthy 2002:38) and Ident constraints (Krämer 2004).

McCarthy 2002:38: this is the only way to account for the universal non-contrastiveness of certain phonological distinctions

syllabification of tautomorphemic sequences is never contrastive, e.g. hab.la vs. ha.bla

“A necessary condition for ensuring that syllabification is never contrastive is that syllabification is faithfulness-free, so an unsyllabified input like /maba/ or a syllabified input like /mab.a/ will be associated by GEN with all of the following fully faithful and fully syllabified candidates: m.a.b.a, ma.b.a, m.a.ba, m.aba, m.ab.a, ma.ba, mab.a, maba. Many of these candidates are sure losers for markedness reasons, such as the absurd monosyllable maba. But they are still fully faithful in the sense that they incur no faithfulness violations.”

ROTB doesn’t follow ROTB doesn’t follow from OT architecturefrom OT architecture

IO constraints allow reference to input forms OT has the power to evaluate I constraints (constraints

on inputs without reference to corresponding outputs) in fact, these are less computationally complex than IO

constraints

*{#[…D]#}I : no monosyllabic URs ending in voiced obstruentNB I constraints don’t do any work in IO mappings; only involved in UR construction

[thjub] *{#[…D]#}I Voice Coda

MaxF

DepF

/thyph/ * * *

/thyb/ *! *

Summary of OTSummary of OTROTB-LOROTB-LO problemsproblems1. Incorrectly predicts the nonexistence of

MSCs2. Incorrectly predicts the absence of

languages containing the marked but not the unmarked member of a phonemic opposition

3. Incorrectly predicts conformity of URs to surface phonotactics

4. Incorrectly requires full specification in non-alternating cases

5. Stipulates invisibility to Faith and Ident constraints

SolutionSolutionThe problems presented here are resolved straightforwardly by assuming that humans can extract generalizations from the structure of their lexicon.

NB generalizations can be extracted in the absence of alternations (cf. Dell et al. 2000), e.g. from statistical knowledge

This move is consistent with what we know about human and primate cognition:

Pierrehumbert 2002, 2003, etc. on statistical knowledge in phonology

Marcus et al. 1999, Guasti 2002, etc. on child language Kirkham et al. 2002 on vision in infants Ramus et al. 2000 and Hauser et al. 2002 on primates

Grounded in the fundamental linguistic tenet that extracting generalizations is the heart of grammar construction.

Surface constraintsSurface constraintsDell et al. and Goldrick 2004 on speech errors (as we saw in the speech errors lecture) NB implies that humans can learn

constraints on representations in the absence of alternations (cf. English learning of h and engma distribution)

Identity constraints and Identity constraints and ineffability (Control ineffability (Control constraints)constraints)

schm reduplication Q19 Schmuck

Ø (70), shluck (8), schnuck (5), schmuck (4), fluck (3), shpuck (1), fuck, smuck, shfuck, shvuck, schmluck, shnook

Q20 Schmooze Ø (59), shnooze (10), shmooze (4), flooze (4), shpooze (4),

shlooze (3), shmmooze, commooze, shplooze, mooze, wooze

Q22 Schmidt Ø (66), shlidt (4), shpidt (4), shmidt (3), shnidt (3), flidt (2),

vlidt, smidt, midt

morpheme sequencing *lightninging German Berlin-er ‘person from Berlin’ vs. Münster-aner

(*Münster-er) Lenin-akan-yan vs. *Lenin-akan-akan

ConclusionsConclusionsHumans can and do extract constraints (both surface and underlying) from phonological and morphological data (both alternating and static) Important component of animal cognition:

cf. conditioning studies NB at least some constraints are inviolable

Theories attacking such constraints (especially OT) misunderstand use of MSCs and ignore much of the relevant data.

Booij, Geert. 1999. Morpheme structure constraints and the phonotactics of Dutch. In Harry van der Hulst & Nancy Ritter (eds.) The Syllable. Views and Facts. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 53-68.

Christdas, P. 1986. Morpheme Structure Constraints and Underspecification. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, New York, NY.

Dell, Gary, K. Reed, D. Adams, and A. Mejer. 2000. Speech errors, phonotactic constraints, and implicit learning: a study of the role of experience in language production. Journal of Experimental Psychology (LMC) 26.6:1355-1367.

Dinnsen, Daniel and Laura McGarrity. 2004. On the nature of alternations in phonological acquisition. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology, & Morphology 11:23-42.Esper, Erwin. 1925. A technique for the experimental investigation of associative interference in artificial linguistic material. Language Monographs, no. 1.

Goldrick, Matthew. 2004. Phonological features and phonotactic constraints in speech production. Journal of Memory & Language 51.4:586.Greenberg and Jenkins 1964. they derive well-formedness judgements from comparison to forms in the lexicon, not MSCsHalle, Morris. 1959. The Sound Pattern of Russian. The Hague: Mouton.Hauser, Marc, Daniel Weiss, and Gary Marcus. 2002. Rule learning by cotton-top tamarins. Cognition 86:B15-22.Hayes, Bruce. 1998. On the Richness of Paradigms, and the Insufficiency of Underlying Representations in Accounting for them. Lecture presented at Stanford

University. http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/talks/RichnessOfParadigms.pdfInkelas, Sharon. 1994. The Consequences of Optimization for Underspecification. In NELS 25. 287-302.Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 1999. On the Sources of Opacity in German. Coda Processes in German. Manuscript, UCSC and responded to in van

Oostendorp paperIverson, Greg. 1983. Voice Alternations in Lac Simon Algonquin. Journal of Linguistics 19:161-164.Iverson, Greg. 2004. Deriving the Derived Environment Constraint in Non-Derivational Phonology. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 11:1-23. Katamba, Francis and Larry Hyman. 1991. Nasality and morpheme structure constraints in Luganda. Africanistische Arbeitspapiere 25. 175-211.Kaun, Abigail. 1998. Input constraints in Tamil. Paper presented at CLS 34, April 17, 1998.Kaun, Abigail and David Harrison. 1999. Pattern-Responsive underspecification. In Proceedings of the 30th Conference of the North Eastern Linguistics Society.Kawasaki, H. 1982. An acoustical basis for universal constraints on sound sequences. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Kaye, Jonathan. 1979. On the alleged correlation of markedness and rule function. In D. Dinnsen (ed.) Current Approaches to Phonological Theory, pp. 272-

280, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.Keating, Patricia. 1985. Linguistic and nonlinguistic effects on the perception of vowel duration. UCLA working papers in phonetics 60:20-39.Kenstowicz, Michael, and Charles Kisseberth. 1979. Generative phonology. San Diego: Academic Press.Kerkhoff, Annemarie and Elise de Bree Kuhl. 2005. Acquisition of Morphophonology in Children with Specific Language Impairment and Typically Developing

Children. Ms., Utrecht.Kirkham, Natasha, Jonathan Slemmer, and Scott Johnson. 2002. Visual statistical learning in infancy: Evidence for a domain general learning mechanism.

Cognition 83.2.B35–42.Krämer, Martin. 2004. Optimal underlying representations. NELS 35, University of Connecticut. http://nels.uconn.edu/abstracts/MartinKraemer.pdfLarson, M. 1982. Referring to one’s lexicon for judgments on morpheme structure constraints: evidence from the issue of frequency. Manuscript, San Jose, CA,

referred to in Ohala and Ohala 1986.Marcus, Gary, S. Vijayan, S. Bandirao, and P. Vishton. 1999. Rule learning by seven-month old infants. Science 283:77-80.

References IReferences I

References IIReferences IIMcCarthy, John. 1998. Morpheme structure constraints and paradigm occultation. In M. Catherine Gruber, Derrick Higgins, Kenneth Olson and Tamra Wysocki

(eds.) CLS 32, Part 2: The Panels. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society. 123-150.McCarthy, John. 2003. Comparative markedness [short version]. Theoretical Linguistics (to appear).McCarthy, John. 2003. Richness of the Base and the determination of underlying representations. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Mester, Armin. 1992. Morpheme structure constraints. Topic article in International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, by W. Bright, Oxford University Press, Vol. 3, pp.

3-4.Moreton, Elliott. 1999. Evidence for Phonotactic Grammar in Speech Perception. Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Congress of Phonetic Sciences,

San Francisco.Napoli, Donna Jo and Jeff Wu. 2003. Morpheme structure constraints on two-handed signs in American Sign Language: Notions of symmetry. Sign Language &

Linguistics 6.2:123–205.Nykiel, J. and B. Nykiel. 1979. Loan words and abstract phonotactic constraints. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 24:71-93.Ohala, John, and Manjari Ohala. 1986. Testing hypotheses regarding the psychological manifestation of morpheme structure constraints. In: J. J. Ohala, J. J.

Jaeger (eds.), Experimental phonology, 239-52. San Diego: Academic Press.Paradis, Carole & Jean Franois Prunet (1993). On the validity of morpheme structure constraints. In Carole Paradis & Darlene LaCharit (1993). 235-256.Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2003. Probabilistic phonology: discrimation and robustness. In R. Bod, J. Hay and S. Jannedy (eds.), 2002. Probability Theory in

Linguistics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Port, Robert. 1981. Linguistic timing factors in combination. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 69:262-74. Port, Robert and Penny Crawford. 1989. Incomplete neutralization and pragmatics in German. Journal of Phonetics 17:257-82.Ramus, Frank, Marc Hauser, Cory Miller, Dylan Morris, and Jacques Mehler. 2000. Language discrimination by human newborns and by cotton-top tamarin

monkeys. Science 288:349-51.Redford, Michael. 2000. The question of Inputs in OT: A constraint-based, computational model of English meter. Manuscript, Leiden University.Reiss, Charles. 2000. Optimality Theory from a Cognitive Science Perspective. The Linguistic Review.Saffran, Jenny, Richard Aslin, and Elissa Newport. 1996. Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 274:1926-28.Scobbie, J., John Coleman, and S. Bird. 1996. Key Aspects of Declarative Phonology.Skousen, Royal. 1989. Analogical modeling of language. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Smolensky, Paul. 1996. The Initial State and Richness of the Base in Optimality Theory. Technical Report, JHU CogSci 96 4.Smolensky, Paul, Lisa Davidson, and Peter Jusczyk. 2000. The Initial and Final State: Theoretical Implications and Empirical Explorations of Richness of the

Base. ROA.Stanley, Richard. 1967. Redundancy rules in phonology. Language 43:393-436.Steriade, Donca. 1997. Phonetics in Phonology: The Case of Laryngeal Neutralization. Manuscript, UCLA.Vaysman, Olga. 2002. Against Richness of the Base: Evidence from Nganasan (NAPhC 2, 2002)Vijayakrishnan, K. 1984. Morpheme Structure Constraints on Vowels and the Prosodic Foot in Tamil. CIEFL Occasional Papers 1.Wilbur, R. B. (1982) The development of morpheme structure constraints in deaf children. The Volta Review 84, 7-16.Yip, Moira. 1998. Lexicon optimization in languages without alternations. In Current Trends in Phonology, Jacques Durand, ed. Paris: Royaumont.Zimmer, Karl. 1969. Psychological correlates of some Turkish morpheme structure conditions. Language 45:309-321.

Ambiguity and animal wug Ambiguity and animal wug teststests

Ga

llist

el,

C.

20

03

. C

on

diti

on

ing

fro

m a

n in

form

atio

n p

roce

ssin

g

pe

rsp

ect

ive

. B

eh

avi

ou

ral P

roce

sse

s 6

1.3

:12

34

1-1

3.