This paper attempts to show frequency effect on English word stress with corpus-based study, and to incorporate frequency into Optimality Theoretic grammar. I propose the constraint ID-Stress (f≤t) and the hierarchy ID-Stress (f≤t) >> *Clash-Head >> ID-Stress. Even though frequency alone is not the absolute factor in stress assignment in that other factors such as morpheme-specificity are also influential, it is clearly an interesting aspect in English stress phenomena.Supported by the Grant for the Reform of University Education under the BK21 Project of SNU

Cho, HyeSun

SNU Open Repository and Archive

Frequenw and stress preservation: Encoding Frequency in OT Hye-Sun Cho (Seoul National University) Cho, Hye-Sun. 2004. Frequency and stress preservation - Encoding Frequency into OT. SNU Workinx Papers in En,qlis/r Lan~tinxe and Linxtiistics 3, #-#. This paper attempts to show frequency effect on English word stress with corpus-based study, and to incorporate frequency into Optimality Theoretic grammar. I propose the constraint ID-Stress (fg and the hierarchy ID-Stress ( fg  >> *Clash-Head >> ID-Stress. Even though frequency alone is not the absolute factor in stress assignment in that other factors such as morpheme-specificity are also influential, it is clearly an interesting aspect in English stress phenomena. (Seoul National University) Keywords: frequency, stress, cyclicity, ID-Stress, Stress Clash, primary stress, secondary stress, reduction 1. Introduction Since English stress is involved with various idiosyncratic patterns, it is almost impossible to give a complete account despite the volume of studies that have been done so far. The first pioneering work by Chomsky and Halle (1968) explains English stress as a product of interaction between cyclic and non-cyclic rules. This account, however, cannot be applied to all English word; it is not difficult to find apparent exceptions. The rule-based theory like this is destined to fail especially in case of English stress since it has abundant exceptions that cannot be measured by only a set of rules. In this sense, it is not exaggeration that Optimality Theory is more suitable than rule-based approach in explaining English stress pattern. Optimality Theory has succeeded in giving more improved account for, for example, metrical stress by Generalized Alignment (McCarthy and Prince 1993). Nevertheless, English stress is yet far from being fully explained. Since English stress is basically involved with lots of lexical-idiosyncrasies, we need a tool to handle these lexical differences. Against this backdrop, Pater (2000) proposes a lexically-specific constraint, which is applied to a set (Sl or S2) of words to explain lexically-specific English secondary stress. This is one-step advanced 12 12 3 13 4 11 22 13 1ˊ ˋ ˋ ˊ ˋˊ ˋ ˊˋ ˊ ˋ ˊ ˋ ˊ ˋ ˊ ˋ ˊˋ ˊ ˋ ˊ ˋ ˊ ˋ ˊ ˋ ˊˊ ˊ ˊ ˊ ˊ ˊ ˊˊ ˊ ˊˊ ˋ ˊˋ ˊ ˋ ˊˋ ˊ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˊˊ ˋˊ ˋˊ ˋ ˋ ˊˋ ˋ ˊ ˋ ˋ ˊˋ ˊ ˋ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˋ ˊ ́ˋ ˊ ˋ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˋ ˊˋ ˋ ˋ ˊˋ ˊ ˋ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˊˊ ˋˊ ˋ ˊ ˊˋ ˊˋˋ ˊˋ ˋ ˊˋ ˊˋ ˋ ˊbe encoded in the grammar?" Each subject is discussed in the following subsections 3.1 and 3.2 respectively. The tool and corpora used are as follows: > Tool: Wordsmith 4.0.0.93 (2003-11-24)for Windows gdg8/NT/2ooo/XP > Corpora: I BROWN l ~ r o w n  Corpus of American English I i million words I 1960's I For larger data size, I use two corpora, BROWN and FROWN together (total 2 million words). They are American English words from 196Ws and 1 W s .  FROWN 3.1 Frequency effect Freiburg-Brown Corpus English Americanl i million words 1 iggob The fact that frequency is influential in stress assignment is apparent on the basis of the previous studies such as Fidelholtz (1975) and Hammond (2003). To verify that frequency is iduential, I perform a corpus-based research with the data from Pater (2000: 264). The original data is slightly modified: I reclassified the words that show variations in both (1%) and (c) into @). Three groups are classified according to stressness of initial vowel: (a) stressless (b) stressless or stressed (variable) and (c) stressed. The number on the right of each word is raw counts searched in BROWN and FROWN Corpus. The assumption is that less frequent words have initial stress in order to make the word distinctive and sound clear. (12) (a) Stressless: example except entire concern advantage executive advance exetreme protect convention conduct express enjoy promote obtain exact extend congressional excuse companion observe embrace exceed convenient engage propose expose advise compassion admire (b) Stressless / stressed (variable): project produce conflict accept object concrete admit abstract profound acknowledg~  obscure proceed absurd adverse absorb eccentric accessible accelerate administer adversity abnormal profess adhere abdominal obscene emphatic extraneous obstruct accessory obsequious enlarge compose compulsion condemn concur confer convention endow propel embody compress enlighten entice excursion prolong accentuate admonish adverbial proliferate absolve abstruse concoct concordance obverse progenitor abduct abhor abstemious admixture concelebrate endeavour enjoin extinguish extravagance admonitory combust confection conflate excrete exhume obtrude obtuse obvert exhale pronominal obsess obstetric concretion conglobate empire emporium enteric protract (c) Stressed exogamy 2 abscissa 1 asnomen 1 excursus 1 extrinsic 1 protrude 1 abscond 0 admeasure 0 adsorb 0 advection excreta expropriate exsect extorse obtest obtund proscenium prosector What we expect is the frequency average to be (a)>@)>(+ The result average is (a) = 55.03, @)=25.53, (c) = 0.39. This is exactly as we expected. The more frequent a word is, the more likely the initial vowel is reduced. We can also see that the distribution of frequency is different from each group as shown in the following graph (13). Each dot represents each word in (12). The words with no stress in the initial position (121) show wide distribution and the highest frequency. The words in (12b) appear in between two groups. The words of (124 have strikingly low frequency, emerging at the bottom line. Frequency distribution by stress group 700 600 500 X K4m 3 - Stressedt'Stressle g 300 L + -A- Stressed 200 100 The graph (13) apparently shows the tendency that stress-initial words are d q u e n t .  Now let us turn to English secondary stress, which is the ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˊˋ ˊ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˊˋ ˊ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˊˋ ˋ ˊˋ ˊ ́ ˋ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˋ ˊ ́ˊ ́ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˋ ˊˋ ˋ ˊ ˋ ˋ ˊ ́ˊ ˋ ˋ ˊˋ ˊ ˋ ˋ ˊˋ ˊ ˋ ˋ ˊ ́ˊ ˋ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˋ ˊ ́ˊ ˋ ˋ ˊ ́ˊ ˋ ˋ ˊ ́ˊ ˋ ˋ ˊ ́do not preserve the stemstress are distributed with high fiquency. Stress Preservation by Frequency What differs from Hamrnond is that only the frequency of derived word is the concern. I assume that the frequency of stem has no- to do with the stress of derived word, which means stem and derived word exist independently. There is possibility that this may be wrong. However, the advantage of my assumption is that we do not have to womy about the inverse function of lexical frequency, mentioned 2.4. In other words, secondary stress that takes place despite of stress clash depends on how fresuent that derived word is, not how frequent the stem of the derived word is. The diagram (17) below will make clear what I argue. Frequency means familiarity. If we are familiar to a word, we do not need to refer to its stem any more. Conversely, if we are not familiar to a word, which means that the word has lower-frequency, we should depend on any related word, i.e. stem NOTE: m: primary stress A: secondary stress Each rectangle is a word. Rectangles with bold lines are frequent, familiar words. The rectangle with thin lines is infrequent, unfamiliar word. The stress of the stem does not need to be preserved when we are familiar with the derived words. For infrequent words, however, the stem stress should be preserved in order to make the derived word easier to recognize. Assumably, we depend on the more familiar words to understand less familiar words. To prove this requires considerable work in cognitive science field, which is beyond the scope of this paper. 3.3 Encoding frequency in the grammar As we have seen, frequency is an influential factor for stress assignment. Now the final task is to incorporate frequency into the grammar. To do this, I propose the following constraint and ranking. (18) ID-Stress(f 5 t) Preserve stem-stress if the frequency x of the input is smaller than f (threshold). Tlzreshold is the minimum frequency that stem-stress may not be preserved. Instead of lexically-specifymg a constraint, frequency determines whether the ID- Stress (f 5 constraint is applied or not. The value f is the ˋ ˊˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˊˊ ˋ ˊˋ ˊˋ ˊnon--ation examples. Both of them have the same ending -ation, which means that morphology cannot explain them as in the case of cosmetician. In our theory, f should be bigger than f, for both (244 and (24b) belong to the same stress non-preservation group. Therefore, we can assume that the frequency of (244 confirmation is counted wrong in the first place. To prove this, I extended corpora with LOB and JXOB in addition to BROWN and FROW)). The total number of words is now 40000, doubled from 20000.1 search for confirmation again and get the raw count of 44. The f value is then 44 /~0 .oo l1=0 .11% (f=O.ll). Since the corpora are extended double, the threshold must also be recalculated on the basis of 40000 words. The threshold word creativity is researched in the extended corpora and found the raw count of 33. The f value is then 33/40000=0.0033=0.08% (f=0.08=t). Now that t4.08, ID-Stress(f 5 D8) is not applicable to confirmation since f=0.11 (f>t). What we know from the above is that the larger and more precise the corpus is, the more c o m t  result we get. We have seen that the frequency of m # m t i o n  is different when researched with 2000 words and w i t h 4 0  words. Thus the problem is with the size and preciseness of the corpom, not with the frequency theory in this paper. 4. Conclusion Chornsky and Halle (1%8) and Halle and Kenstowicz (1991) provide cyclicity account for English primary and secondary stress. To account for English secondary stress, Pater (2000) proposes the lexically-specific constraint. Recently, Hammond (2003) argues that frequency is crucial in determining stress placement. English secondary stress is a result of interaction of two forces: one for stem-stress preservation, the other for avoidance of stress clash. To avoid stress clash is more natural. However, infrequent words keep stem-stress to make them distinctive, tolerating stress clash. This paper tried to show frequency effect on English word stress with 3) LOB and FLOB are British English corpora, which contains 1 million words each LOB FLOB London-Oslo-Bagen Corpus Freiburg-LOB 1 million words 1 million words 1960's 1990's corpus-based study, and to incorporate frequency into Optimality Theoretic grammar, proposing the constraint ID-Stress (f 5 and the hierarchy ID-Stress (f 5 >> *Clash-Head >> ID-Stress. Even though frequency alone is the absolute element in stress assignment in that other factors such as morpheme-specificity are also influential, it is clearly an interesting aspect in English stress phenomena. References Benua, L. 1997. Transderivntionnl Identity: Phonologicnl Rehtions between Words. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst. Chomsky, N. and M. Halle. 1968. rile Sound Pattern of Endish. Harper and Row: New Y ork Fidelholtz, J. 1975. Wordfrequency and m e t  reduction in English. CIS 11: 2W213 Fudge, E. 1984. English mrd-stress. George Allen and Unwin, London. Halle, M. and M. Kenstowicz. 191. The free element condition and cyclic versus noncyclic stress. Linguistic inquiry 22,457-501. Halle, M. and J. Vergnaud. 1987. Stress and the Cycle, Linpisfic inqrti y 18.45-84. Hammond, M. 2003. Frequency, cyclicity, and optimality. Proceedings of the 2nd Korean International Conference on Phonology, Seoul. Lee, J.-Y. 2002. Suffix Classes and Stress Patterns in English. The Jo~rrnnl of English h n p a g e  and Litmture &(I): 215-241. The English Language and Literature Association of Korea. McCarthy, J, and A. Prince. 1993. Generalized Alignment. Ms.,U of Massachusetts, Amherst, and Rutgers University. %ter, J. 20M3. Non-uniformity in English secondary stress: the role of ranked and lexically sperific constraints. Phonolo~y 17: 237-274. Hyesun Cho subylily@knou.ac.kr 

Frequency and stress preservation : Encoding Frequency in OT

https://s-space.snu.ac.kr/bitstream/10371/2039/3/workingpapers_v3_187.pdf

Frequency and stress preservation : Encoding Frequency in OT

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

SNU Open Repository and Archive