Boise State Linguistics Lab

Sources of Non-conformity in Phonology: Variation and Exceptionality in Modern Hebrew Spirantization (Dissertation)

Michal Temkin Martinez — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 13:13:00 PST

This dissertation investigates the integration of two sources of non-conformity – exceptionality and variation – in a single phonological system. Exceptionality manifests itself as systematic non-conformity, and variation as partial or variable non-conformity. When both occur within the same phenomenon, this is particularly challenging for the linguistic system. Modern Hebrew spirantization provides an apt case study for the investigation of the interaction of these two sources of non-conformity where exceptional (non-alternating) segments are frequent, and variation in alternating segments has been reported (Adam 2002). This dissertation makes contributions in the forms of both data and analysis. Its goals are to provide a description of exceptionality and variation in Modern Hebrew spirantization and an analysis which incorporates alternation, exceptionality and variation.

To collect data for the description of Modern Hebrew spirantization in verbal paradigms, an experimental rating task was conducted. Its goal was to examine speakers’ acceptance of variation in both alternating and exceptional segments in Modern Hebrew spirantization, where stops and fricatives alternate, with the latter occurring in post-vocalic contexts and the former occurring elsewhere. The results establish that variation is at least somewhat acceptable in both alternating and exceptional segments, and is significantly more acceptable in alternating segments than in exceptional ones. Moreover, speakers showed a preference for the expected forms of both types of segments (i.e. the non-alternating form in exceptions, and post-vocalic fricatives or word-initial and post-consonantal stops in alternating segments). Importantly, the results also show that variation in both types of segments is gradient.

To account for alternation, exceptionality, and variation in relation to a single phonological process, I propose a model combining the set-indexation approach for exceptionality (Pater 2000) with stochastic OT and the Gradual Learning Algorithm for gradience in variation (Boersma 1998; Boersma & Hayes 2001; Hayes & Londe 2006; Hayes & MacEachern 1998; Zuraw 2000). I call this the ‘combined model’. I show that neither approach is able to account for both sources of non-conformity on its own; set-indexation allows only for categorical distinctions between alternation and exceptionality, whereas ranking distributions in stochastic OT limit the possible range of constraint interactions to account only for variation.

Looking forward, implementing the acquisition of these patterns in current models of the learning algorithms results in a paradox. In particular, set-indexation and stochastic constraint rankings both presuppose that the mechanism they do not account for is established by a different mechanism – set-indexation is only implemented once variation and speech errors have been ruled out as the cause for non-alternation, whereas in order to provide the stochastic constraint rankings accounting for acceptability of variation in all tokens, set-indexation must have already been implemented. This study therefore opens new avenues for research directions involving learning algorithms, which are open to future refinement in handling patterns of non-conformity.

An Experimental Investigation of Variation in Modern Hebrew

Michal Temkin Martinez — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 13:12:58 PST

This paper reports the results of an experimental rating task testing the acceptability of variation in Modern Hebrew spirantization. Modern Hebrew spirantization is manifested by the alternation of the stops [p], [b], and [k] with their

fricative counterparts [f], [v], and [x], in which fricatives occur post-vocalically and root-finally, and stops occur elsewhere, as in (1).

(1) /p/ to [f] /pgS/ [lifgoS] [pagaS] ‘to meet’

/b/ to [v] /bgd/ [livgod] [bagad] ‘to betray’

/k/ tp [x] /ktb/ [lixtov] [katav] ‘to write’

Due to historical sound mergers and more recent borrowings, there are acoustically identical stops and fricatives that do not alternate and which may surface as exceptions with respect to their environment (i.e. stops in post-vocalic position, fricatives in word-initial position). In addition to these cases of exceptional non-alternation, variation in alternating sounds has also been reported (Adam 2002, Temkin Martínez 2008). As with the non-alternating segments, variation manifests itself as stops and fricatives surfacing in positions where they are not expected given spirantization. It has been argued that this variation stems from the high frequency of non-alternating segments, driving alternating segments towards non-alternation (Adam 2002). To examine the nature of variation in Modern Hebrew

spirantization, an experimental rating task was conducted with 74 native speakers. The results show that variation is acceptable not only in alternating segments, but in non-alternating segments as well. However, variation is significantly more acceptable in alternating segments than in non-alternating ones, suggesting that speakers still distinguish between alternating and non-alternating segments. Additionally, trends in participants’ acceptability of variation reveal that it is impossible to determine

directionality as to whether alternating segments are becoming non-alternating.

Acceptability of Variation in Modern Hebrew Spirantization

Michal Temkin Martinez — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 13:12:56 PST

Modern Hebrew spirantization is an allophonic distribution where the stops [p], [b], and [k] regularly alternate with [f], [v], and [x], respectively, with the fricatives surfacing post-vocalically. There are exceptions to spirantization, with stops occurring post-vocalically and fricatives surfacing elsewhere. Additionally, variation has been attested in the regularly alternating pairs. Seventy-four native Hebrew speakers rated the acceptability of variation in regularly alternating pairs and exceptional segments. Results showed that, as hypothesized, variation was less natural than the expected form of a given word. Furthermore, variation in exceptional segments was rated less natural than variation in regularly alternating segments.

Razing the Standards: Building and Implementing a Linguistically Informed K-12 Curriculum in a Climate of Ignorance

Kristin Denham et al. — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 08:16:39 PST

Language study in K‐12 settings should provide a platform for children to develop an awareness of language and its nature; their natural curiosity is well-documented. But in the context of the standards movement, standards set for “the language arts” in the schools neither encourage nor engender such development. Although not alone in such a disciplinary decline—in both general knowledge and the failure to distinguish between ideology and understanding (see, e.g., Battistella 2010)—the news from linguistics seems bleaker. As Mark Liberman noted in his 2007 LSA address, “The current state of ignorance about language among intellectuals is historically unprecedented, functionally maladaptive, and contrary to human nature.” But even with some efforts to bring the study of language into K-12 classrooms, the nature of the language arts curriculum in schools continues to be defined by standards typically reflecting neither knowledge of, or interest in treating language as an object of inquiry, or in building on the small successes that linguists have had toward this end, working both with children and their K‐12 teachers. And insofar the voices behind the Common Core Standards (http://www.corestandards.org/), are deemed “the language arts experts,” the result is predictable: a set of standards that defines the territory of language as fundamentally usage conventions and vocabulary. And it is such standards that determine how programs are funded and how teachers are prepared. The National Governors’ Association (NGA) Common Core Standards are, moreover, not the first encounter we’ve had with impoverished treatments of language. In the past, however, we have largely ignored the collective poverty of such standards and have considered the creation of test items and the testing enterprise in general as “noise,” confident that our own respective research programs and the teaching we do at colleges and universities were independent of and unscathed by such pursuits. But in fact, we do need to take the standards seriously and respond to them. This LiSC sponsored session provides a collective linguistic educational manifesto of sorts, and thus a serious, explicit, and systematic response to the gauntlet the recently approved standards present. While there have been curricular initiatives in the direction of well‐designed programs that would provide young children with the opportunity to develop an informed and rational disposition toward language, there has been little public discussion of either the full design or implementation of such curriculum, from a range of perspectives. The range of presenters’ work in this session does this, addressing curriculum both for K-12 classrooms—providing the foundation for sustained inquiry about language—and for teachers preparing for, or already in such classrooms, so that they can encourage, as well as respond, to children’s curiosity and inquiry: a desirable outcome in any discipline. Importantly, we welcome critical voices and experiences from both Great Britain and Australia. The session also seeks to engender discussion about the issues raised and the possibility for collaborative and sustained responses.