Chapter 9: abstractness & psychological reality

1. Phonology, November 2012 Chapter 9:abstractness & psychological reality

2. Main Topics • Abstract Analysis: • When Underlying Representations ≠ Surface Forms • Valid motivations/evidence or limits for Abstract Analysis • Empirical Data • Synchronic • Diachronic (Historical Linguistics) • Extra Linguistic Data • Language acquisition

3. Abstractness • Underlying Representations (UR) are usually connected to their Surface Forms (SF): they appear as one form of the SF.

4. Abstractness • Abstract Analysis refers to when the UR never shows up in the SF: • Problem: How abstract can you go?

5. Abstractness • Motivations for limiting abstractness: • Restriction of distinctive features. • Mental reality & language acquisition: • How children acquire language & make abstract connections between SF & UR. Tutup + Consonant Deletion Məng- + Nasal Assimilation Mənutup

6. Abstractness • Motivations for limiting abstractness: • Abstractness and phonemic representation: URs usually have broader SF distributions, based on distinctive features. mə- / _____[l, r, w, y, m, n, ny] = + sonorant məŋ / __ [k,h,g,a,i] = no natural class Thus, [məŋ] has a broader distribution.

7. Initial Principles Limiting Abstractness • The UR of a morpheme must actually be pronounced as such in some SF containing the morpheme. • Problem: Too restrictive in some languages. Example: Palauan. Initial vowels unstressed -> ə daŋob mə - daŋəb dəŋəball dəŋobl

8. Initial Principles Limiting Abstractness • The UR of a morpheme must contain only segments actually pronounced as such in some related word containing the morpheme. • Problem: There are some languages with examples where this doesn’t happen.

9. Example of Abstract Analysis:Kimatuumbi • Focus: • Lexical class 3 prefix /mu/. Never surfaces as /mu/ • Surfaces as [m], [n], [ŋ], [mw] mu m n ŋ mw

10. Example of Abstract Analysis:Kimatuumbi • Analysis: • 2 processes for nasals. Examples • Prefix /ɲ-/ -> noun & adjectives class 9 • Prefix /mu-/ -> second plural subjects • Comparison between the phonological process of these two prefixes in comparison to lexical class 3 prefix /mu-/

11. Example of Abstract Analysis:Kimatuumbi • Differences between /ɲ-/ and /mu-/ • /ɲ-/ assimilates to place of articulation of C, while /mu-/ deletes [u], assimilates and nasalizes C (this is optional) • /ɲ-/ • bowaana -> m-bomwaana • goloka -> ŋ-goloka • /mu -/ • buundike -> m-muundike or mu-buundike • laabuke -> n-naabuke or mu-laabuke

12. Example of Abstract Analysis:Kimatuumbi • /mu -/ + nasal consonant = deletion of [u]. Whereas /ɲ-/ + nasal consonant = deletion • /ɲ/ -> ∅ • mimina -> mimina • /mu -/ • mimiine - > m-mimiine • /ɲ-/ assimilates and turns voiceless C into voiced, /mu-/ only assimilates, no voicing change. • /ɲ/ • tinika -> ndinika • /mu-/ • teleke -> nteleke

13. Example of Abstract Analysis:Kimatuumbi • /ɲ-/ causes following glide to become a voiced stop, while /mu -/ changes glide to nasal. • /ɲ/ • wikilya - > ŋ-gwikilya • /mu -/ • yikiti -> ɲ-ɲikiti • /ɲ-/ has no effect on vowel length, /mu-/ become [mw] and vowel is lengthened • /ɲ/ • epeesi -> ɲ-epeesi • /mu-/ • eleew -> mw-eeleew

14. Example of Abstract Analysis:Kimatuumbi • So what about /mu-/ class 3 noun prefix? It behaves the same way as nouns & adjectives class 9 prefix /mu-/ • Nasalizes voiced consonants • laabuka -> n-naabuka • [u] deletes before following nasal • mulika -> m-mulika • Does not voice following voiceless Cs. • teleka -> n-teleka • Shows up as [mw] before vowels & lengthens the vowel. • epuka -> mw-eepuka • Thus the UR of this prefix should be /mu-/ even if it never surfaces as [mu-].

15. Questionable Abstract Analysis:English • Chomsky & Halle (1968): dipthong [ɔy] derives from [ɶ]. • Problem: does not account well for alternation, compared to Kimatuumbi analysis. • Alternation is based on sets of words in which have questionable synchronic relatedness. E.g. joint-juncture, point-puncture, boil-bullion (pg 271).

16. Independent evidence: Historical Restructuring • Paul Kiparsky (1968): • Absolute neutralization: distinction between phonemes in morphemes neutralized in all cases. • Contextual neutralization: distinction between phonemes in morphemes neutralized in specific contexts. E.g. in, im, iŋ, iɲ = in only for this specific English prefix. • Contextual neutralization more common and more ‘real’, absolute neutralization seen as constructed.

17. Independent evidence: Historical Restructuring • Kiparsky: Historical sound change can be used as a test of abstract analysis. • Case of Yiddish, language of Jewish immigrants in Germany. • Picked up rule of devoicing final stem consonant from German • tag -> tak (day) • tagn (days) • But was later lost in Northeastern Yiddish => reversal of sound change • tok -> tog based on the plural togn

18. Independent evidence: Historical Restructuring • Exception: • gelt (money) did not reverse to geld. • Analyis: • no plural form with the voiced consonant, unlike tagn/togn. • The singular form subject to devoicing rule, plural was not. • In the case of tak/tok - tagn/togn, Yiddish children could abstract from the plural the UR of tag/tog which was resurfaces when devoicing rule was lost. • Yiddish children never heard the UR of ‘geld’ during language acquisition.

19. Conclusions • Two methods of abstract analysis has been shown: • Domain-internal: Kimatuumbi example, based on feature constraints. • Domain-external: Yiddish example, based on data from historical language change and not synchronic phonological data.

20. Conclusions • Abstract analysis of URs must be motivated by: • Limitations of distinctive feature theory, in the case of domain-internal analysis. • Principles of child language acquisition. Explains whether the URs are plausible based on how children learn language from spoken experience. • Abstract analysis is often abstract, in the sense that it is often difficult or even impossible to truly prove the psychological reality of proposed URs.