Co-phonology vs. Indexed constraint theory: a case study of Perak dialect partial reduplication

This paper presents co-phonologies and indexed constraint theory developed within Optimality theory (Prince and Smolensky, 1993) to account for partial reduplication in Perak dialect of Malay. It is found that the dialect has two patterns of reduplicative morphemes, i.e. light and heavy reduplication. In the co-phonology developed by Orgun (1996), Antilla (2002), Inkelas and Zoll (2005, 2007) and many others, each morphological construction is associated with a different phonological grammar, and the idea of ‘Markedness Reversal’, where a markedness constraint can be re-ranked in different morphological constructions in the same language, is used to account for morphologically conditioned phonology. In indexed constraint theory on the other hand, one constraint ranking is used to define the grammar of the entire language (cf. Alderrete,1999, 2001; Itô and Mester, 1999, 2003). Unlike co-phonology, this theory handles morphologically-conditioned phonology cases by splitting the phonology constraints into a particular morphological context, which results in different indexed versions, such as MAX-CROOT, MAX-CAFFIX and so forth (Ibid.). In the analysis, I will demonstrate how the ideas proposed in both theories can handle light and heavy reduplication. The results of the analysis favour co-phonology rather than indexed constraint theory, as the former offers a better account of morphologically conditioned phonology.Australian National Universit

Phonology and intonation

The encoding standards for phonology and intonation are designed to facilitate consistent annotation of the phonological and intonational aspects of information structure, in languages across a range ofprosodic types. The guidelines are designed with the aim that a nonspecialist in phonology can both implement and interpret the resulting annotation

Speech vocoding for laboratory phonology

Using phonological speech vocoding, we propose a platform for exploring relations between phonology and speech processing, and in broader terms, for exploring relations between the abstract and physical structures of a speech signal. Our goal is to make a step towards bridging phonology and speech processing and to contribute to the program of Laboratory Phonology. We show three application examples for laboratory phonology: compositional phonological speech modelling, a comparison of phonological systems and an experimental phonological parametric text-to-speech (TTS) system. The featural representations of the following three phonological systems are considered in this work: (i) Government Phonology (GP), (ii) the Sound Pattern of English (SPE), and (iii) the extended SPE (eSPE). Comparing GP- and eSPE-based vocoded speech, we conclude that the latter achieves slightly better results than the former. However, GP - the most compact phonological speech representation - performs comparably to the systems with a higher number of phonological features. The parametric TTS based on phonological speech representation, and trained from an unlabelled audiobook in an unsupervised manner, achieves intelligibility of 85% of the state-of-the-art parametric speech synthesis. We envision that the presented approach paves the way for researchers in both fields to form meaningful hypotheses that are explicitly testable using the concepts developed and exemplified in this paper. On the one hand, laboratory phonologists might test the applied concepts of their theoretical models, and on the other hand, the speech processing community may utilize the concepts developed for the theoretical phonological models for improvements of the current state-of-the-art applications

What tone teaches us about language

In ‘Tone: Is it different?’ (Hyman 2011a), I suggested that ‘tone is like segmental phonology in every way—only more so’, emphasizing that there are some things that only tone can do. In this presidential address my focus extends beyond phonology, specifically addressing what tone tells us about the integration (vs. compartmentalization) of grammar. I discuss some rather striking examples that demonstrate problems for the strict separation of phonology, morphology, and syntax, each time posing the question, ‘What else is like this outside of tone?’. A particularly interesting property that is strictly limited to tone is what I term syntagmatic relativity. I suggest that the uniqueness of tonal phenomena is due to the versatility of pitch, which can be manipulated with a wide range of linguistic functions. Given this versatility, I end by considering the question, ‘Why isn’t tone universal?’.*

Phonology is Fundamental in Skilled Reading

There is controversy about the importance of phonology in skilled reading. Event-related potential (ERP) evidence from the initial moments of visual word recognition indicates that processing sub-lexical phonology is fundamental to skilled reading. The early timecourse of this phonological activation explains the predictive power of phonological awareness for early reading development, affirms the importance of phonological processing in learning to read, and illuminates the persistent challenges of dyslexia

Stochastic phonological grammars and acceptability

In foundational works of generative phonology it is claimed that subjects can reliably discriminate between possible but non-occurring words and words that could not be English. In this paper we examine the use of a probabilistic phonological parser for words to model experimentally-obtained judgements of the acceptability of a set of nonsense words. We compared various methods of scoring the goodness of the parse as a predictor of acceptability. We found that the probability of the worst part is not the best score of acceptability, indicating that classical generative phonology and Optimality Theory miss an important fact, as these approaches do not recognise a mechanism by which the frequency of well-formed parts may ameliorate the unacceptability of low-frequency parts. We argue that probabilistic generative grammars are demonstrably a more psychologically realistic model of phonological competence than standard generative phonology or Optimality Theory.Comment: compressed postscript, 8 pages, 1 figur