1 / 16

What is a regular morphological pattern?

Elena Tkachenko | juni 2009 Kognitivt sommerseminar (Hamar). What is a regular morphological pattern?. The Dual Mechanism Account Two distinct mechanisms for processing of regular and irregular forms:

kalil
Download Presentation

What is a regular morphological pattern?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Elena Tkachenko | juni 2009 Kognitivt sommerseminar (Hamar) What is a regular morphological pattern?

  2. The Dual Mechanism Account Two distinct mechanisms for processing of regular and irregular forms: Irregular verbs are processed in the associative memory, while regular verbs are computed in the rule-processing system. Only irregular verbs will be sensitive to input factors. The Single Mechanism Account Both regular and irregular forms are processed by one single mechanism in associative memory. Both regular and irregular verbs will be sensitive to input factors. Models

  3. Terminological discrepancies • What is a regular pattern? • pattern that occurs in the majority of cases, i.e. the most frequent pattern • pattern that applies to new words (productivity?) • pattern in which the suffix is easily segmentable from the stem (segmentability?) • Default = most general/phonologically open? • (= default) pattern which is used in cases where no other pattern is possible • operates as a symbolic rule and can uniformly represent an entire class, regardless the distinctions between different items

  4. 21 circumstances where the default pattern apply (Marcus et al. 1995) • No entries in memory: novel words (snarfed, wugs), low frequency words (stinted, eked), unusual-sounding words (ploamphed, krilged) • Competing or similar entries in memory: homophones (lied/lay, hanged/hung), rhymes (blinked, glowed) • Non-canonical roots: onomatopoeia (dinged, peeped), quatations (“man’s”, “woman’s”), surnames (the Childs, the Manns), unassimilated borrowings (Latkes, cappuccinos), truncations (synched, man’s), acronyms (PACs, OXes) • Root cannot be marked for inflectional feature: denominal verbs (high-sticked, spitted), deadjectival verbs (righted), nominalizations (ifs, ands, buts) • Words with exocentric structure: verbs based on nouns based on verbs (grandstanded, flied out), nouns based on names based on nouns (Mickey Mouses, Batmans, Renault Elfs, Toronto Maple Leafs), bahuvrihi compounds (sabre-tooths, low-lifes, walkmans), nouns based on phrases (bag-a-leafs, shear-a-sheeps) • Memory failures in children, adults, Alzheimers’ and aphasia patients, etc.

  5. Norwegian Verb Morphology

  6. Russian Verbal Morphology • No clear-cut division between regular and irregular paradigms. • 11 verb classes (according to one-stem description). • The suffix of the verb class determines all the parameters of the inflectional paradigm (conjugational type, consonant mutations, stress shift, suffix alternations etc. • Productive classes: • aj-: igrat’ – igraj-u, igraj-ut (play) • ej-: belet’ – belej-u, belej-ut (be white) • i-: prosit’ – prosh-u – pros’-at (ask, beg) • ova-: risovat’ – risuj-u, risuj-ut • nu-: prygnut’ – prygn-u, prygn-ut

  7. Experimental evidence of memory failure NORWEGIAN • Children’s overgeneralizations (Ragnarsdóttir, Simonsen & Plunkett 1999): • GEN>WL (37-52%), GEN>WS (12-44%), GEN>S (2-13%) • Adult’s overgeneralizations (Simonsen&Bjerkan 1998) • GEN>WL (10%), GEN>WS (47%), GEN>S (17%) • Aphasia patients (Lind, Moen, Simonsen 2007): • GEN>WL (9.3%), GEN>WS (10.4%), GEN>S (1.5%) • Alzheimer’s patients (Dalby, 2007): • GEN>WS (26.5%), GEN>S (6.5%) • Responses to nonce verbs: GEN>WL (25-50%), GEN>WS (20-65%), GEN>S (5-15%)

  8. Experimental evidence of memory failure RUSSIAN • Children’s overgeneralizations (Gor & Chernigovskaya 2004): • A>AJ (39%), AJ>A (4%), OVA>AJ (22%), AJ>UJ/OVA (14%), A>Uj/OVA (10%), I>Ij (11%) • Responses to nonce verbs in my study: GEN>A (3-12%), GEN>OVA (16-36%), GEN>I (13-24%), GEN>AJ (26-50%) • Adult’s overgeneralizations (Gor & Chernigovskaya 2005) • A>AJ (80%), AJ>A (0.6%), OVA>AJ (40%), Avaj->OVA (9%), Ij>I (16%) • Aphasia patients (Chernigovskaya, Gor, Petrova, Svistunova 2005): a great variety of different models is applied • Alzheimer’s patients (Dalby, 2007): • Generalization of several classes (AJ, A, I, OVA)

  9. NORWEGIAN Nonsense words: delpet, gåvet, søpet (WL) delpte, gåvde, søpte (WS) dalp, gåv (S) Low frequency words: omkalfatret (WL) eksponerte (WS) erla (S) Transition to a different class: Skar -> skjærte RUSSIAN Nonsense words: gl’asaju, glakomaju (-AJ-) gl’ashu (-A-) glakoml’u (-I-) drobuju (-OVA-) Low frequency words: ischerpaju (-AJ) rokochu (-A-) uvedoml’u (-I-) oznamenuju (-OVA) Transition to a different class: Kapat’ – kaplet/kapajet No entries in memory

  10. NORWEGIAN Homophones Hang/hengte, brant/brente (S/WS) gjelde (S/WL-WS?) Rhymes Tittet(WL) – sitte (S) skinte(WS) – vinne (S) lyste (WS) – fryse (S) RUSSIAN Homophones Poloskat’ – poloschu (-A-) polaskat’ - polaskaju (-AJ-) Posidet’ – posizhu (-E-) posedet’ – posedeju (-EJ-) Rhymes Chitat’ – chitaju (-AJ-) Pisat’ – pishu (-A-) Risovat’ – risuju (-OVA-) Competing or similar entries in memory

  11. NORWEGIAN Onomatopoeia Mjauet(WL) Suste(WS) Pep (S) Unassimilated borrowings backupet (468), googlet/googlte (59400/2), dealet/dealte (431/ca.40), releaste (129), scoret/scorte (1300000/37400) Truncations Synchet (av synkronisere), kompet, dimmet (av dimittere), perset (av sette personlig rekord), disket (av diskvalifisere) RUSSIAN Onomatopoeia M’aukajet/m’auchit (-AJ-/-A-) taratorit (-I-), shurshit (-ZHA-) gogochet (-A-) Unassimilated borrowings: All verbs have to be assimilated (verb suffix -> class membership) Juzat’ – juzaju (-AJ-) Apgrejdit’ – apgreizhu (-I-) S’orfit’ – s’orfl’u (-I-) Kliknut’ – kliknu(-NU-) Liberalisovat’– liberalizuju (-OVA) Truncations Piarit’ – piar’u (-I-) Kserit’ – kser’u (from ”xerox” –I-) Non-canonical roots

  12. NORWEGIAN Denominal verbs Vi skidde nedover, bilte, sjefet, matet, busset, solet/solte, ringet (av ring), dinerte (av diner) RUSSIAN Denominal verbs kurortnichaju (from ’kurort’ ”resort”) –AJ- Mor’achit’ – mor’achu (from ’mor’ak’ ”seaman”) –I- Root cannot be marked for inflectional feature

  13. So, what is the default? • Argument from the Dual Mechanism Account: • The above named circumstances should provoke the application of a symbolic rule, i.e.use of the default regular pattern • In Norwegian and Russian, there is no single default regular pattern that occurs in all these default circumstances • Consequently, no default pattern for Norwegian past tense formation and Russian present tense formation? • BUT: then all patterns are to be considered irregular? • So, irregular inflections can actually occur in the default circumstances? (this contradicts the original argument)

  14. An attempt to clarify the terminology • Regular pattern: • A pattern derived simply by suffixation, when no changes happen to the stem of a verb (matter of degree?) • Norwegian: WL, WS; Russian: -AJ-, -OVA- • Irregular pattern: • Pattern in which changes happen to the stem when a form is derived (matter of degree?) • Productive pattern: • Pattern that can be applied to new words (matter of degree) • Norwegian: WL, WS, (S); Russian: -AJ-, -OVA-, -I-

  15. Schemas for Norwegian PT formation

  16. Schemas for Russian Pres.T. Morphology

More Related