UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

On testing the psychological reality of phonological rules Reid, Heather Jean 1976

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1976_A6_7 R43.pdf [ 8.29MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093706.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093706-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093706-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093706-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093706-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093706-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093706-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093706-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093706.ris

Full Text

ON TESTING THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REALITY OF PHONOLOGICAL RULES by HEATHER JEAN REID B.A., Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y , 1974  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE DIVISION OF AUDIOLOGY-AND•SPEECH SCIENCES in THE DEPARTMENT OF PEDIATRICS  We accept t h i s t h e s i s , as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard  Andre-Pierre  Benguerel  John G i l b e r t  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August, 19 76 (cT)  Heather Jean Reid, 1976  In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s  thesis  in p a r t i a l  fulfilment of  the requirements f o r  an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, the I  Library shall  make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e  f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n  for  f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s  this  representatives. thesis  It  study. thesis  i s understood that copying o r p u b l i c a t i o n  f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l  written permission.  Department of The  r e f e r e n c e and  that  s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or  by h i s of  for  I agree  I A^Yl  University of B r i t i s h  2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5  C S j  Columbia  not be allowed without my  ABSTRACT T h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n was  motivated by the growing d i s s a t i s -  f a c t i o n with the i n c o n s i s t e n t use of e m p i r i c a l methodology i n transformational generative  phonology  r e s u l t i n g l i m i t e d value which TGP f i e l d s of study.  The  (TGP)  has  and  f o r other  by  the  scientific  i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s concerned w i t h  a p a r t i c u l a r experimental  judging  paradigm f o r i t s v a l i d i t y as a  confirmation/disconfirmation  procedure with the i n t e n t i o n of  consequently c o n f i r m i n g or d i s c o n f i r m i n g the  psychological  r e a l i t y of c e r t a i n p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s . As r e v e a l e d i n the review of the r e l e v a n t l i t e r a t u r e , c o u l d j u s t i f y the v i o l a t i o n of TGP's i d e a l  one  speaker-listener  framework—which would r e s u l t from t e s t i n g some of TGP s 1  h y p o t h e s e s — b y using r e a l s p e a k e r - l i s t e n e r s .  Previous t e s t i n g  f o r the use of c e r t a i n of Chomsky and  (1968)  Halle's  phonologi-  c a l r u l e s has r a i s e d doubts about the v a l i d i t y of claims c e r n i n g these r u l e s ' p s y c h o l o g i c a l The  method used i n the present  s u b j e c t s to d e r i v e and of p e n c i l and  reality. study c o n s i s t e d of r e q u i r i n g  pronounce novel words (without  the  paper) from e x i s t i n g E n g l i s h stem-words  and  s u f f i x e s a u r a l l y presented  con-  to them.  One  group of s u b j e c t s  exposed to e x i s t i n g E n g l i s h d e r i v a t i o n s which e x e m p l i f i e d p a t t e r n s accounted f o r by Chomsky and under i n v e s t i g a t i o n .  T h i s group was  d e r i v a t i o n s which showed no phonetic  was sound  H a l l e through the r u l e s a l s o exposed to example change.  A second group of  s u b j e c t s were exposed o n l y to examples showing no change.  use  phonetic  A n a l y s i s o f the r e s u l t s show, f i r s t  (with r e s p e c t t o the  present experiment's d e s i g n ) , t h a t the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the number o f p r e d i c t e d responses  ( i . e . the responses p r e d i c t e d by  the r u l e s under i n v e s t i g a t i o n ) i n each group o f s u b j e c t s i s very  similar.  I t i s concluded  s i m i l a r a b i l i t y i n performing  t h a t each group showed a the novel d e r i v a t i o n task and  t h a t the s u b j e c t s were r e p r e s e n t a t i v e samples o f the p o p u l a t i o n under study.  The g r e a t e r occurrence  o f p r e d i c t e d sound  p a t t e r n s i n the responses o f the f i r s t group o f s u b j e c t s i s a t t r i b u t e d t o t h a t group's exposure t o example d e r i v a t i o n s showing p r e d i c t e d phonetic  changes.  The o v e r a l l p r o d u c t i o n o f  p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n s i n each group cannot be a t t r i b u t e d t o j u s t a few s u b j e c t s .  A t r e n d appears i n which  stem-suffix  s e t s which were most o f t e n i n v o l v e d i n given p r e d i c t e d changes were the same i n both groups' Conclusions  phonetic  responses.  a r e a l s o drawn with r e s p e c t t o the v a l i d i t y o f  the experimental  paradigm as a v a l i d procedure f o r c o n f i r m i n g  or d i s c o n f i r m i n g the p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s i n q u e s t i o n .  First,  the l o g i c a l argument which uses the p o s i t i v e consequences o f an h y p o t h e s i s ,  known as "the f a l l a c y o f a f f i r m i n g the conse-  quent," i s i n v a l i d . egies  Thus, none o f the v a r i o u s p o s s i b l e s t r a t -  o f sound p a t t e r n p r o d u c t i o n which were c o n s i d e r e d ( i n  order t o account f o r s u b j e c t s ' responses) c o u l d be a f f i r m e d . Secondly, a v a l i d argument o f the type modus t o l l e n s can be used when the consequences o f an hypothesis  are negative.  The  v a l i d c o n c l u s i o n p e r m i t t e d by t h i s argument i s the d i s c o n f i r m a t i o n o f the h y p o t h e s i s .  Some o f the problems encountered with  -iv-  t h i s argument a r e d i s c u s s e d :  (a) i t i s impossible t o d e t e r -  mine the exact number o f times t h a t an hypothesis  i s discon-  firmed i n a s e t of data i n which some o f the data c o n s i s t o f p o s i t i v e consequences;  (b) the argument must be c a r e f u l l y  q u a n t i f i e d i n order to permit v a l i d c o n c l u s i o n s t o be drawn from data t h a t i s d e r i v e d from r e a l c o n d i t i o n s o f the world; frequency  o f (non-)use  ( i . e . non-idealized)  and (c) there e x i s t s no c r i t e r i o n f o r the ( d i s ) c o n f i r m a t i o n o f the  'psychological r e a l i t y of a phonological r u l e ' . p o s s i b l e to e x p l i c i t l y  s p e c i f y the e x t e n s i o n o f a r u l e ' s use,  such a c r i t e r i o n frequency motivated.  I f i t were  o f a r u l e ' s (non-)use might be w e l l  In i t s absence, the p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y of phono-  l o g i c a l r u l e s c o u l d not even be d i s c o n f i r m e d i n t h i s  study.  -  V  -  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Page  ABSTRACT  .  i i  LIST OF TABLES  ix  LIST OF FIGURES  xi  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  xii  Chapter  I  INTRODUCTION  1  Chapter  II  REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE  9  2.1 The meaning of the phrase 'psychological r e a l i t y of phonological rules 1  2.1.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n  9 9  2.1.2 The p s y c h o l o g i c a l nature of the d e s c r i p t i o n  9  2.1.3 Rules i n the d e s c r i p t i o n . .  11  2.1.4  Knowledge o f r u l e s  13  2.1.5 The r e a l i t y o f a t h e o r y . . . 2.2 Whether experiments on r e a l speakers can apply t o t h e o r i e s on ideal speaker-listeners  16 18  2.2.1 M o t i v a t i o n f o r adhering t o the i n e x p l i c i t theory based on the i d e a l s p e a k e r - l i s t e n e r frame  18  2.2.2 Whether Chomsky and H a l l e ' s m e n t a l i s t i c and e m p i r i c a l theory can be maintained..  21  S t e i n b e r g doubts the v a l i d i t y of the t h e o r y ' s m e n t a l i s t i c nature  21  Botha q u e s t i o n s TGP's s t a t u s as a m e n t a l i s t i c and as an e m p i r i c a l theory  23  2.2.3 How experiments on r e a l speakers cannot apply t o t h e o r i e s about i d e a l speakerlisteners  35  -viPage 2.2.4  P o s s i b l e j u s t i f i c a t i o n of experimentation e x t e r n a l to the i d e a l speakerl i s t e n e r frame  2.3 Independent v e r i f i c a t i o n procedures for phonological rules  38  2.3.1 D i r e c t experiments as a means-of v e r i f i c a t i o n o f phonological rules  39  2.3.2 Evidence from other sources which i s r e l e v a n t t o the f i n d i n g s of d i r e c t e x p e r i mentation  65  2.4 Conclusions CHAPTER I I I  36  68  METHOD  69  3.1 Aims o f the i n v e s t i g a t i o n  69  3.2 Experimental  72  plan  3.3 Subjects  73  3.4 Composition o f the word l i s t s  ..  76  ....  76  task s t i m u l i .  78  3.4.1 P r a c t i c e task s t i m u l i 3.4.2 Experimental  3.4.3 V e r i f i c a t i o n of the app r o p r i a t e n e s s of combining the stem-words and s u f f i x e s  80  3.5 A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and r e c o r d i n g o f the experiments  82  '3.5.1 The s t i m u l i  82  3.5.2 D i r e c t i o n s to the s u b j e c t s 3.5.3 Order o f p r e s e n t a t i o n i n the experiments  84 86  3.5.4 Method o f p r e s e n t a t i o n  88  3.5.5 Recording  the data  ...  89  -viiPage CHAPTER IV  ANALYSIS AND RESULTS OF THE DATA  90  4.1 Checking the r e l i a b i l i t y transcriptions  o f the  90  4.2 E s t i m a t i o n s o f the l e n g t h s o f response l a t e n c i e s  91  4.3 The " p r o d u c t i v i t y " o f the phonological rules  93  4.3.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n  93  4.3.2 The occurrence o f sound p a t t e r n s i n each group o f subjects  94  The vowel l a x i n g r u l e V t-tense]/ CVCV  (VLR.. ) : 106  The primary s t r e s s r u l e (PSRV.: V ->• [1 s t r e s s ] / C + a f f i x 109 The vowel t e n s i n g V -* t+tense]/  rule  (VTR,):  V  109  The vowel t e n s i n g r u l e (VTR ): V [+tense]/ C i V 112 [-high] The v e l a r s o f t e n i n g (VSOR): / d/. .+ / _ j k  ;  rule 115  s  The u n d e r l y i n g vowel i n the second s y l l a b l e o f o b t a i n and p e r t a i n The / s / - v o i c i n g r u l e / s / -> [+voice]/ V  115  (/s/VR): V 118  [+tense] Summary 4.4 Attempts to determine the means by which a sound p a t t e r n was produced 4.4.1 The i n f l u e n c e o f example d e r i v a t i o n s on ' s i m i l a r ' s t e m - s u f f i x sets 4.4.2 The i n f l u e n c e o f a p r e v i o u s response on a l a t e r response  120 123 123 126  -viiiPage 4.4.3 The i n f l u e n c e o f d i f f e r e n t example d e r i v a t i o n s on responses i n v o l v i n g one stem-word 4.5 F u r t h e r  CHAPTER V  observations  12 8 133  4.5.1 Subjects' p r o d u c t i v i t y with sound p a t t e r n s and w i t h phonological rules  133  4.5.2 Stem-suffix sets most and l e a s t often involved i n pred i c t e d sound p a t t e r n s  138  4.5.3 S u f f i x e s and vowels most . often involved i n predicted sound p a t t e r n s  142  DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS  144  BIBLIOGRAPHY  156  APPENDIX  159  I  APPENDIX I I  164  -ix-  LIST OF TABLES Table I  II III  IV  V VI  Page Arrangement o f the experiments i n t o groups, the contents o f each experiment and the number of s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n each experiment  74  Estimated range, median and upper v a l u e s o f response l a t e n c i e s  92  quartile  V-» .[-tense]/ CVCV. The number o f responses i n each c a t e g o r y and the percentage o f o c c u r r e n c e of each category f o r the l i s t s of s t i m u l i r e l e v a n t to the r u l e mentioned. The data f o r the s h o r t l i s t of s t i m u l i are on the l e f t s i d e o f each column w h i l e the data f o r the long l i s t are on the r i g h t s i d e  107  V -* [1 s t r e s s ] / C + affix. (See Table I l l ' s legend.) The 'S' i n SSSS+SS i n the c a t e g o r i e s above stands f o r ' s y l l a b l e . '  110  V +  [+tense]/  V.  (See Table I l l ' s  legend.)  I l l  V [+tense]/ C i v . The number o f [-high] responses i n each category and the percentage of o c c u r r e n c e o f each category f o r the s i n g l e l i s t o f s t i m u l i r e l e v a n t to the r u l e mentioned  114  VII  / k / -> s/  116  VIII  V ->• [ - t e n s e ] / _ (cvcvl .  d  I.  (See Table I l l ' s ICC  legend.)  A b i l i t y t o extend the  j  double consonant sound p a t t e r n i n the c o n t e x t -ion was assumed. (See Table V I s legend.) 1  IX  s  -*[+voice]/  legend.) X XI  XII  V [+tense]  V.  119  (See Table VI's 121  The m a t r i x used f o r the c h i - s q u a r e measure o f both groups' responses t o s l a v e + - i f y  124  Example o f a m a t r i x arrangement f o r an i n d i v i d u a l group's responses t o a p a i r o f s t e m - s u f f i x sets...  127  2 X and r l e v e l s o f s i g n i f i c a n c e o f d i f f e r e n t p a i r s o f s t e m - s u f f i x sets.  129  t  -X-  Table XIII  XIV  XV  Page The percentages of occurrence of u n p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n s i n the responses (long l i s t s ) of Group B which were r e l e v a n t to each r u l e . . .  137  Ranges i n the percentages o f u n p r e d i c t e d re-s sponses, the mean percentages and the average d e v i a t i o n s from the means f o r Group B (long lists)  139  S t e m - s u f f i x s e t s whose responses most o f t e n showed the p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n . The % i s based on the number o f times (out o f the t o t a l number o f responses to t h a t set) t h a t the s e t e l i c i t e d a p r e d i c t e d response. Note t h a t /s/VR i s not l i s t e d s i n c e Group B d i d not produce any response p r e d i c t e d by i t  140  -xi-  LIST OF FIGURES Page An example o f an argument. Botha, 1970 . ..  Figure  Cumulative number (N) o f p r e d i c t e d (short l i s t ) f o r each group  from 26 responses  Cumulative percentage o f p r e d i c t e d responses (short l i s t ) f o r Group A ( ) and Group B (——)  102  103  -xii-  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish t o thank P r o f . A.-P. Benguerel f o r h i s constant guidance, encouragement and humour d u r i n g the course o f t h i s project. digital  In a d d i t i o n , I am a p p r e c i a t i v e o f h i s work with a computer i n programming the v a r i o u s s t a t i s t i c a l mea-  sures and i n determining  the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t e t r a c h o r i c  c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t values.  I would a l s o l i k e t o thank  P r o f . J.H.V. G i l b e r t f o r h i s examination to  thank P r o f . J.B. Delack who amiably  suggested  o f the t h e s i s .  o f f e r e d advice and  readings t o a i d i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n .  a l s o t o Amy Fleming  I wish  I am g r a t e f u l  f o r her h e l p i n r e t r a n s c r i b i n g s e v e r a l o f  the s u b j e c t i n t e r v i e w s and t o Marion Jacques f o r her competent t y p i n g o f the t h e s i s .  And o f course  I extend  my thanks,  last  but not l e a s t , t o the students who p a r t i c i p a t e d as s u b j e c t s i n the study. One f u r t h e r acknowledgment:  I have g r e a t l y a p p r e c i a t e d t h e  o p p o r t u n i t y d u r i n g the l a s t two years t o study dents from d i f f e r e n t  fields.  alongside s t u -  CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Tranformational  generative  grammar has as i t s g o a l the  d e s c r i p t i o n o f a system o f r u l e s which s p e c i f i e s the soundmeaning correspondences i n language  (Chomsky and H a l l e , 1968, p.  The sound-meaning correspondences r e f e r to the r e l a t i o n between an i d e a l phonetic form and an a s s o c i a t e d i n t r i n s i c  semantic  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f each sentence w i t h i n the s e t o f p o s s i b l e sentences f o r a language.  The r u l e - s y s t e m s p e c i f y i n g a l a n - .  guage's sound-meaning r e l a t i o n s h i p s i s assumed to be a n a t i v e speaker's i n t e r n a l i z e d "knowledge" "knowledge" speaker.  o f the language.  i s a l s o c a l l e d the "competence"  This  o f the n a t i v e  Whereas a speaker's "performance" r e f e r s t o the  a c t u a l use of the language i n c o n c r e t e s i t u a t i o n s (Chomsky, 1965; p. 3 ) • the knowledge- or^competence•of  the s p e a k e r - i s  found  i n an i d e a l i z e d s p e a k e r - l i s t e n e r r e l a t i o n s h i p .  This  s h i p i n v o l v e s an i d e a l i z e d s p e a k e r - l i s t e n e r who  (a) i s p a r t o f  a completely homogenous speech community,  relation-  (b) knows the l a n -  guage p e r f e c t l y and  (c) i s u n a f f e c t e d  by grammatically i r -  revelant conditions  such as memory l i m i t s , d i s t r a c t i o n , i n a t -  t e n t i o n and n o n - l i n g u i s t i c knowledge and b e l i e f s i n a p p l y i n g h i s "knowledge"  o f the language i n a c t u a l performance.  Chomsky b e l i e v e s t h a t i t i s o n l y w i t h i n the framework o f the  i d e a l speaker-listener r e l a t i o n s h i p that i t i s possible  f o r a speaker's performance to d i r e c t l y r e f l e c t h i s competence (Chomsky, 1965, p. 4 ) .  The d i s t i n c t i o n between competence and  performance i s b e l i e v e d to permit the study o f -1-  uncontaminated  3).  -2-  l i n g u i s t i c knowledge by a b s t r a c t i n g away o t h e r n o n - l i n g u i s t i c f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d i n the use o f language. said,  As Chomsky r e c e n t l y  "The s c i e n t i s t wanting t o study r u l e s  [of grammar] must  c l e a n away a l l o f the i n t e r a c t i o n s . . . " o r n o n - l i n g u i s t i c phenomena from the i n t e r n a l i z e d knowledge o f the speaker. The d i s t i n c t i o n between competence and performance m o t i v a t i o n from r a t i o n a l i s t  derives  p h i l o s o p h y which h o l d s t h a t the mind  (or reason) i s the s o l e source o f human knowledge (Lyons, 1970/ p. 96) .  In t h i s view i t is" h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t much o f the  human's l i n g u i s t i c knowledge i s i n n a t e .  The i n n a t e  linguistic  knowledge i s c a l l e d u n i v e r s a l grammar and i s thought t o be comprised o f p r i n c i p l e s s t a t i n g what k i n d s o f r u l e s f o r l a n guages may e x i s t .  Exposure to a given language permits the  c h i l d w i t h h i s innate o r u n i v e r s a l knowledge t o determine language s p e c i f i c r u l e s o r  competence.  The u l t i m a t e goal o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l g e n e r a t i v e grammar seems t o be t o study u n i v e r s a l grammar which h o p e f u l l y can be i n f e r r e d from the study o f the p a r t i c u l a r grammars o f many l a n guages.  In t h i s r a t i o n a l i s t t r a d i t i o n i t i s thought t h a t one  may approach the age-old e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l problem o f g a i n i n g knowledge o f what one knows.  That i s t o say, by s t r i p p i n g  away the phenomena o f language performance and c o n s i d e r i n g only the i d e a l i z e d s p e a k e r - l i s t e n e r ' s competence,  i t i s thought  p o s s i b l e to i n f e r the p r i n c i p l e s o f u n i v e r s a l grammar. Both u n i v e r s a l grammar and the grammar f o r a p a r t i c u l a r language are m e n t a l i s t i c i n n a t u r e . quotes Chomsky as s a y i n g :  Botha  (1971, p. 117)  -3-  Thus, at s e v e r a l l e v e l s the l i n g u i s t i s i n v o l v e d i n a c o n s t r u c t i o n o f explanatory t h e o r i e s , and at each l e v e l there i s a c l e a r p s y c h o l o g i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f o r h i s t h e o r e t i c a l and d e s c r i p t i v e work. At the l e v e l of a p a r t i c u l a r grammar, he i s attempting to c h a r a c t e r i z e the knowledge o f a language, a c e r t a i n c o g n i t i v e system t h a t has been d e v e l o p e d — u n c o n s c i o u s l y , o f c o u r s e — b y the normal speaker-hearer. At the l e v e l of u n i v e r s a l grammar he i s t r y i n g to e s t a b l i s h c e r t a i n general p r o p e r t i e s of human intelligence. L i n g u i s t i c s , so c h a r a c t e r i z e d , i s simply the s u b f i e l d of psychology t h a t deals w i t h these aspects o f mind. (Chomsky, 1964, p. 24.) The m e t a p h y s i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n between competence and  per-  formance d i c t a t e s t h a t the r u l e systems of a language w i l l considered  from the p o i n t o f view o f the i d e a l  relationship.  be  speaker-listener  T h i s means t h a t the e m p i r i c a l study o f grammar  w i l l exclude v e r i f i c a t i o n of i t s t h e o r i e s by evidence gained from experimentation done on r e a l s p e a k e r - l i s t e n e r s . t h a t t h i s i s because Chomsky i s not phenomena i n t e r a c t i n g with and  interested in  Recall  studying  "contaminating" competence i n a  speaker's performance. The  study o f the p h o n o l o g i c a l  t i o n a l generative  sub-component of  transforma-  grammer i s c a l l e d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l  phonology  (and i s h e n c e f o r t h  searchers  i n phonetics  r e f e r r e d to as TGP).  generative  Many r e -  and phonology are opposed to TGP's  m e t a p h y s i c a l c o n s t r a i n t s denying them access to experimental paradigms o u t s i d e the realm o f the i d e a l s p e a k e r - l i s t e n e r . general  ideas from t r a d i t i o n a l empiricism  are represented  the o b j e c t i o n s to the p r o h i b i t i o n of v e r i f i c a t i o n e x t e r n a l t o the i d e a l s p e a k e r - l i s t e n e r frame. t h a t a l l t h e o r i e s must be t e s t e d e x p e r i m e n t a l l y maldevelopment.  Linell  (1974, p. v i i ) c l a i m s  One  in  procedures idea i s  or e l s e that  Two  risk  -4i  A theory runs the r i s k o f degenerating i n t o a mere s y s t e m a t i z a t i o n of data, unless one t r i e s to f i n d e m p i r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s f o r the v a r i o u s t h e o r e t i c a l e n t i t i e s t h a t are proposed. Ohala l i k e w i s e proposes t h a t " . . . a l l hypotheses r e q u i r e mental v e r i f i c a t i o n "  (1973, p . l ) .  In cases of TGP  experi-  where i t has  been e m p i r i c a l l y concluded without experimentation t h a t phonol o g i c a l r u l e s and  r u l e c o n s t r a i n t s are p a r t of the r e a l  l i s t e n e r ' s knowledge, Ohala  (1974,.p. 19)  claims  speaker-  that" the r e s u l t  seems to be a " . . . t h e o r e t i c a l e d i f i c e t h a t i s enormous, e l a b o r ate and  very,  very  fragile."  A second idea r e p r e s e n t i n g of TGP  o b j e c t i o n s to the  to experimentation on n o n - i d e a l  speakers i s t h a t a  must p l a y a r o l e i n e x p l a i n i n g i t as w e l l . by Chomsky to e x p l a i n the data i s one  inaccessibility  The  route  where there  theory  chosen  is first  developed a r u l e system or s t r u c t u r a l d e s c r i p t i o n f o r a l a n guage which i s i n accordance w i t h the p r i n c i p l e s o f u n i v e r s a l grammar studying  (Greene 1972,  p. 34).  U n i v e r s a l grammar may  be d e r i v e d  d i f f e r e n t languages with the p l a n of i d e n t i f y i n g  p r i n c i p l e s common to them a l l which c o u l d p l a u s i b l y be s i d e r e d to be p a r t of the c h i l d ' s innate  con-  l i n g u i s t i c knowledge.  Chomsky a l s o b e l i e v e s t h a t the p r i n c i p l e s of u n i v e r s a l grammar may  be d i s c o v e r e d  which a s s i g n s The  through the use of the  " e v a l u a t i o n measure"  a value to a grammar or to a sequence of r u l e s .  f u n c t i o n of the e v a l u a t i o n measure i s to s e l e c t the most  h i g h l y valued  of competing a l t e r n a t i v e grammars of a language  on the assumption t h a t t h i s grammar w i l l be the one c h i l d r e n would develop i n l e a r n i n g the language.  which  Greene (p.  30)  d e s c r i b e s Chomsky's b e l i e f t h a t c h i l d r e n must have some innate  by  -5-  l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t y p e r m i t t i n g them t o choose one type o f grammar which i s a p p r o p r i a t e f o r a n a l y z i n g language i n g e n e r a l . Chomsky h o l d s , f o r i n s t a n c e , t h a t t h i s one type o f grammatical a n a l y s i s t h a t c h i l d r e n are programmed t o develop must be u n i v e r s a l t o a l l languages.  "This u n i v e r s a l grammatical t h e o r y would  g i v e an account o f the grammatical forms and r e l a t i o n s  that  are common t o a l l languages..." (Greene, 1972, p. 31). v e r s a l grammar t h e r e f o r e accounts f o r o r ' e x p l a i n s ' Linell  Uni-  ( i n what  (1974, pp. 147-149) c a l l s a weak sense o f "'explanation'")  the grammatical forms and r e l a t i o n s o f a language  specific  grammar which i n t u r n accounts f o r o r e x p l a i n s the o b s e r v a b l e phenomena.  A c c o r d i n g t o L i n e l l , g e n e r a t i v e theory presupposes  a sense o f e x p l a n a t i o n i n which o b s e r v a b l e phenomena are subsumed under a " ' c o v e r i n g ' " t h e o r e t i c a l p r i n c i p l e .  The  t h e o r e t i c a l p r i n c i p l e must c o r r e c t l y p r e d i c t the o b s e r v a b l e phenomena. L i n e l l b e l i e v e s t h a t e x p l a n a t i o n s such as these are weak s i n c e c o r r e c t p r e d i c t i o n s can be produced by f a l s e theory j u s t as w e l l as by t r u e theory and by t h e o r i e s which are intended t o r e p r e s e n t r e a l i t y i n v a r y i n g degrees. omena  E x p l a n a t i o n s o f phen-  (by means o f a t h e o r e t i c a l p r i n c i p l e which  correctly  p r e d i c t s the phenomena) can be strengthened i f independent reasons are found which l e a d one t o b e l i e v e t h a t the t h e o r e t i c a l principle i s true. the data f i r s t  Some l i n g u i s t s p r e f e r t o ' e x p l a i n '  i n t h i s s t r o n g e r sense and then proceed t o  develop u n i v e r s a l p r i n c i p l e s f o r language.  For instance,  Lindblom doubts the e x p l a n a t o r y power o f Chomsky and H a l l e ' s  -6-  (1968) p h o n o l o g i c a l  theory  wherein l i n g u i s t i c form has primacy  over the " v a r i a b l e s o f language use and i t s s u b s t a n t i v e (1971, p . 5 ) . Lindblom H a l l e t h a t one should  (1971, p.8) d i s a g r e e s  bases"  with Chomsky and  t r y t o develop an a b s t r a c t t h e o r e t i c a l  apparatus t o account f o r phenomena without r e l a t i n g the p o s t u l a t e d mental s t r u c t u r e s and processes t o the p h y s i o l o g i c a l mechanism.  Concerned with e x p l a i n i n g the p h y s i c a l phenomena  of language, Lindblom  (pp.7-8) suggests r e - e v a l u a t i n g the  n o t i o n o f ' l i n g u i s t i c a l l y r e l e v a n t f a c t s ' (and l i n g u i s t i c a l l y r e l e v a n t phonetic  f a c t s ) w h i l e keeping i n mind the p o s s i b i l i t y  of a s s i g n i n g phonetics inquiry. and  a less peripheral role i n l i n g u i s t i c  H i s a l t e r n a t i v e t o the a b s t r a c t theory  H a l l e would be a theory  phonological  which uses phonetics  o f Chomsky to predict  phenomena by b e g i n n i n g with hypotheses f o r  p h y s i c a l l y based p r e c o n d i t i o n s  o f speech communication and  development. Ohala  (1974,,pp. 1-3) s t a t e s t h a t the f i r s t task i n phonology  i s t o d i s c o v e r the sound p a t t e r n s to give a c a u s a l e x p l a n a t i o n  and t h a t the second task i s  o f some aspect  Language and speech, he reasons  o f the p a t t e r n s .  (Ohala 1974, pp. 18-19), are phys  i c a l l y and p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y r e a l systems and t h e r e f o r e are l i m i t e d systems.  He b e l i e v e s t h a t "The problem, then, i s t o  c o n s t r a i n the range o f hypotheses we e n t e r t a i n i n the same way t h a t the r e a l world i s c o n s t r a i n e d . "  Since he b e l i e v e s  there  are s t r i c t e r o r more numerous c o n s t r a i n t s on what can be exp l a i n e d by p h y s i c a l phonetic of phonetics  f a c t o r s , Ohala recommends the use  (over psychology, h i s t o r y o r other  possible  -7-  s u b - d i s c i p l i n e s o f phonology) as a t o o l f o r e x p l a i n i n g of p h o n o l o g i c a l An  aspects  rules.  i m p l i c a t i o n o f the above o b j e c t i o n s  to experimental v e r i f i c a t i o n on n o n - i d e a l l i m i t a t i o n of the number and  to TGP s immunity 1  speakers i s the  form of independent  s t r a t e g i e s a v a i l a b l e to those who  research  would study phonology w i t h i n  the i d e a l i z e d s p e a k e r - l i s t e n e r frame.  The  absence of  research  s t r a t e g i e s of a non-formal nature i s a p o s s i b l e r i s k f o r the g e n e r a l i t y of any  theory which, from the p o i n t of view of  t r a d i t i o n a l empiricism,  must be d e r i v e d  '"independent m o t i v a t i o n , science and  i n general  f n . 29),  from g r e a t e r numbers of  argumentation or reasoning  o f which are  229-230  use o f . . . concepts must  be motivated by showing t h a t they are r e q u i r e d  The  Empirical  r e q u i r e s , i n Botha's words (1971, pp.  t h a t " . . . p o s t u l a t i o n and  reasons, no two  V.  for diverse  interdependent."  main o b j e c t i v e s o f t h i s p r o j e c t are f i r s t to c a r r y  an experiment on r e a l speakers to t e s t the p s y c h o l o g i c a l f o r t h a t group of speakers o f some o f Chomsky and (1968) general conclusions  phonological  rules.  reality  Halle's  Another o b j e c t i v e i s to draw  on the v a l i d i t y of the experimental paradigm i t -  s e l f as a c o n f i r m a t i o n  of d i s c o n f i r m a t i o n procedure.  periment w i l l c o n s i s t of g i v i n g a w o r d - d e r i v a t i o n  The  form o f t h e i r responses r e f l e c t s  the use of c e r t a i n g e n e r a l  phonological  ex-  task—that  of s u f f i x a t i o n — t o a d u l t , n a t i v e E n g l i s h speakers t o see phonetic  (or does not  i f the  reflect)  rules.  I t w i l l be h e l p f u l to f u r t h e r c l a r i f y the m o t i v a t i o n and  out  the goals of r e s e a r c h  of those groups o f l i n g u i s t s who  for are  -8-  opposed i n t h e i r views toward v e r i f i c a t i o n procedures i n The  experiment of the present  Chomsky and work of TGP.  H a l l e as a method o f v a l i d a t i o n w i t h i n the Therefore,  (1968/ p. 104),  f o l l o w i n g the recommendation  attempts w i l l - b e made  experiments on n o n - i d e a l the case may  study would not be i n c l u d e d  be)  apply  t o t h e o r i e s on i d e a l  t h a t explanation)  frameof Botha  for confirming  (or cannot, as  speaker-listeners; or  the m e n t a l i s t i c c l a i m s o f c e r t a i n p h o n o l o g i c a l to give an e x p l a n a t i o n  by  (a) to e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e  s p e a k e r - l i s t e n e r s can  (b) to give e x p l i c i t c r i t e r i a  TGP.  disconfirming r u l e s ; and  (c)  (as w e l l as the method f o r a r r i v i n g a t  of the occurrence of both p o s i t i v e and nega- '  t i v e evidence f o r the p h o n o l o g i c a l of s i n g l e speakers and  groups of  r u l e s w i t h i n the  speakers.  responses  how  9  CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.1  The meaning o f the phrase phonological r u l e s ' 2.1.1  'psychological r e a l i t y of  Introduction  In a recent paper e n t i t l e d Fischer-JjzJrgensen of p h o n o l o g i c a l  'Perspectives  i n Phonology',  (1975, p.221) c h a r a c t e r i z e s the present  theory  state  as one i n which most o f the b a s i c  assumptions are the o b j e c t o f s e r i o u s c r i t i c i s m and i n which many p o i n t s are being theory.  r e v i s e d by p r o f e s s e d  adherents o f the  Some o f the p o i n t s on which l i n g u i s t s d i s a g r e e are  i n v o l v e d i n "the very b a s i s o f g e n e r a t i v e  phonology, the c l a i m  t h a t the d e s c r i p t i o n has p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y " Jo'rgensen, 1975 ,  p. 219) .  (Fischer-  Before d e s c r i b i n g the attempts o f  t h i s and other p r o j e c t s t o f i n d evidence f o r o r a g a i n s t t h e psychological r e a l i t y of phonological must be made on the v a r i o u s  d e s c r i p t i o n , comment  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f the phrase 'the  psychological r e a l i t y of phonological  rules.'  2.1.2 The p s y c h o l o g i c a l nature o f the d e s c r i p t i o n I t was mentioned i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n t h a t both the u n i v e r s a l grammar and t h e grammar f o r a p a r t i c u l a r language are m e n t a l i s t i c i n nature.  Botha  (1971, p. 116) p o i n t s t h i s out  i n saying t h a t the o b j e c t o f study o f a p a r t i c u l a r grammar and  t h a t o f the general  The  mental e n t i t y which a " l a n g u a g e - p a r t i c u l a r "  language-specific)  l i n g u i s t i c theory  grammar r e p r e s e n t s  tence, the i n t e r n a l i z e d rule-system  are mental  faculties.  (that i s ,  i s linguistic  compe-  by means o f which t h e i d e a l  s p e a k e r - l i s t e n e r r e l a t e s the sound s i g n a l s o f an i n d e f i n i t e -9-  -10-  number of sentences to t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e semantic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s and the  vice versa.  U n i v e r s a l grammar i s meant to  represent  o  ' f a c u l t e de langage' o f an i d e a l s p e a k e r - l i s t e n e r which  i s taken to be a language independent mental'! c a p a c i t y the s p e a k e r - l i s t e n e r to a c q u i r e  linguistic  competence.  Chomsky does not make c l e a r which a s p e c t s — f o r m , s t r u c t u r e , or anything  e l s e — o f the  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the u n i v e r s a l and  language-specific  "Katz regards the  p. 119). should  Kiparsky,  of isomorphism"  grammars. relation  relationand  that  (Botha, 19 71,  on the other hand, b e l i e v e s t h a t a grammar  c o r r e c t l y represent  both the substance and  the f l u e n t n a t i v e speaker's l a n g u a g e - s p e c i f i c  the form of  knowledge.  concludes t h a t the isomorphic r e l a t i o n between theory tal  are  the  s h i p between the s t r u c t u r e o f the l i n g u i s t i c theory o f the mental mechanism as one  substance,  'mental f a c u l t i e s '  Other l i n g u i s t s have been more e x p l i c i t concerning of grammars and mental e n t i t i e s .  enabling  f a c u l t y found i n the approaches o f Katz and  t h a t l i n g u i s t i c theory  f o r them i s a conceptual  Botha  and men-  Kiparsky  means  analogue to  mental s t r u c t u r e s . In h i s m e t a p h y s i c a l assumptions f o r the l i n g u i s t i c representation  theory's  of p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y , L i n e l l proposes t h a t  the grammar' s i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e "be_ isomorphic to the speaker' s underlying  p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y " with r e s p e c t  to forms  as the d i f f e r e n t forms or l e x i c a l u n i t s which are there)  (such and  o  structures and  (such as p r o p e r t i e s o f the forms, r e l a t i o n s between  g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s over the forms, etc.)  ( L i n e l l , 1974, p . l ) .  -11-  2.1.3  Rules i n the d e s c r i p t i o n  Another fundamental concept i n TGP which e l i c i t s  disagree-  ment amongst l i n g u i s t s i s the n o t i o n o f ' r u l e ' .  Linell  pp.  30-32) r e p o r t s t h a t  i n science  and  i n ordinary  ' r u l e ' i s a vague n o t i o n  (1974,  language.  In g e n e r a l , a ' r u l e ' i s a p r o p o s i t i o n , the f o r m u l a t i o n o f which i n c l u d e s i n d i c a t i o n s o f a c l a s s o f human a c t i o n s , a c l a s s o f persons who perform these a c t i o n s and a m o d a l i t y f o r t h e a c t i o n s i n v o l v e d ( r e q u i r e d , forbidden, permitted). ( L i n e l l , 1974, p. 30.) L i n e l l r e f e r s t o Black who s t a t e s t h a t the uses o f t h e term range from  "'explicit  norms'" t o the "'degenerate'" sense i n which  ' r u l e ' i s almost synonymous with " ' g e n e r a l i z a t i o n ' " and "'general Linell for of  a s s e r t i o n s about matter o f f a c t . ' " mentions some performance evidence c i t e d by Black  the ' p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y '  of r u l e s .  The evidence c o n s i s t s  speakers' r e a d i n e s s t o c o r r e c t themselves and o t h e r s , t h e i r w i l l i n g n e s s t o b e l i e v e t h a t there i s a r u l e even i f they do not know what i t i s , and t h e i r endorsement of r u l e s a f t e r they have been formulated by an onlooker. ( L i n e l l , 1971, p. 31.).  To t h i s L i n e l l adds t h a t second language l e a r n e r s r e a l i z e it  that  i s not enough merely t o be understood, as there are r u l e s  f o r what counts as c o r r e c t which go beyond t h a t . t i o n s f u r t h e r p o s s i b l e support f o r the e x i s t e n c e i s s u p p l i e d by S e a r l e .  Linell  men-  o f r u l e s which  S e a r l e proposes t h a t p h o n o l o g i c a l  rules  are not j u s t r e g u l a r i t i e s which may be d e s c r i b e d by an observer; he  f e e l s t h a t they a r e a l s o " ' c o n s t i t u t i v e ' " o f language s i n c e  "'we recognize  departures as m i s p r o n u n c i a t i o n s ' "  r u l e p r o j e c t s t o cover new cases  and s i n c e the  ( L i n e l l , 1974, p. 31)..  -12-  A q u e s t i o n which i s fundamental t o the use of l i n g u i s t i c theory  i s whether language behaviour i s r u l e - g u i d e d  or whether, on the other hand, i t i s merely ( L i n e l l , 1974, represent  p.31).  rule-conforming  In the l a t t e r case the r u l e s would o n l y  r e g u l a r i t i e s t h a t an observer  language behaviour. occupies  'rule' in  c o u l d e x t r a c t from  Chomsky b e l i e v e s t h a t l i n g u i s t i c behaviour  an intermediate  p o s i t i o n between conscious  dance and mere conformity  to r u l e s .  rule gui-  T h i s b e l i e f might be  paraphrased by s a y i n g t h a t the speaker i s d i r e c t e d by r u l e s but i s not c o n s c i o u s l y aware of the The  rules.  sense o f r u l e which L i n e l l p r e f e r s i s the weak sense i n  which r u l e s are only r e g u l a r i t i e s i n the observed data. reaches t h i s c o n c l u s i o n a f t e r d e c i d i n g t h a t there are many types of awareness covered g u i s t s say t h a t a speaker  by the verb  probably  'know' when l i n -  'knows' the .'rules' of h i s language.  That i s to say, L i n e l l does not appear to be prepared sider  He  to con-  ' r u l e ' as b e i n g c o n s t i t u t i v e of human language u n t i l  there i s c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the term  'to know' (a r u l e ) .  L i n e l l q u a l i f i e s h i s n o t i o n o f the sense o f r u l e by r e j e c t i n g Katz's  "weak" or " r e g u l a t i v e "  i d e a t h a t r u l e s are  isomor-  p h i c to c a u s a l l y e f f i c i e n t n e u r o p h y s i o l o g i c a l p r o c e s s e s . s t a t e s t h a t " r u l e s " and l e v e l s of e x p l a n a t i o n "causes."  " c a u s a l processes"  i n the same way  His f i n a l n o t i o n o f  are on  as are  He  different  "reasons"  and  'rule' i s that rules  govern l i n g u i s t i c behaviour i n the sense t h a t the speaker chooses ( c o n s c i o u s l y or u n c o n s c i o u s l y , d e l i b e r a t e l y or h a b i t u a l l y ) to f o l l o w them. L i n g u i s t i c competence i s not a c a u s a l l y e f f i c i e n t f o r c e i n speech p r o d u c t i o n ; r a t h e r i t d e f i n e s the l i n g u i s t i c c o n d i t i o n s which must be met...(pp.31-32).  -13-  L i n e 11 s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f r u l e s governing l i n g u i s t i c 1  behaviour i s a l s o ambiguous  i n the sense t h a t i t i s not c l e a r  whether the speaker chooses e i t h e r  "consciously  11  and " d e l i b e r -  a t e l y " o r "unconsciously" and " h a b i t u a l l y " ; or whether i t would be p o s s i b l e f o r the speaker t o choose " c o n s c i o u s l y " and " h a b i t u a l l y " o r " u n c o n s c i o u s l y " and " d e l i b e r a t e l y " ; and whether the  choosing i s c o n s i s t e n t l y o f one nature, whatever that might  be. 2.1.4. Knowledge o f r u l e s Rules a r e the t h i n g s which a n a t i v e speaker i s assumed to know, o r i n o t h e r words, t o be aware o f .  In order t o d i s c u s s  f u r t h e r the sense o f r u l e i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e t o d i s c u s s  lin-  g u i s t s ' use o f the f o l l o w i n g f r e q u e n t l y interchanged terms: "knowledge,"  "to know," "awareness" and "to be aware o f " .  Once again, as i n the case o f " r u l e , " the words a r e a s s i g n e d d i f f e r e n t meanings which a r e not always e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d by the  authors. Zimmer  (1969, p.309) r e f e r s t o the phrase " t o know a l i n -  g u i s t i c r u l e " i n t h e sense o f knowing a mathematical formula. He does not say whether knowing a formula i n v o l v e s t h e sense of  'knowing how  1  t o use the formula, the sense o f 'knowing  what' the formula i s or the sense o f merely 'knowing t h a t ' the formula e x i s t s . Hockett  (1968) i n t e r p r e t s Chomsky's (1965) sense o f "know-  ledge" t o be an e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l sense, whatever t h a t might be. In  Language  and Mind  (1972) Chomsky r e f e r s t o "knowledge" as  an u n d e r l y i n g system o f b e l i e f s .  An e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l sense o f  -14-  "knowledge" i s r e f e r r e d t o by C a r t e r e t t e and Friedman (1974, p.7).  They s t a t e t h a t the C a r t e s i a n  doctrine of perception psychophysical  (that i s , r a t i o n a l i s t )  and b e l i e f h o l d s t h a t knowledge i s a  judgement t h a t i s s e l f - w a r r a n t e d .  Chomsky (1965) s t a t e s t h a t when a speaker "knows" t h e grammar o f h i s language he has "knowledge" o f t h a t grammar which cannot e x p l i c i t l y be d e s c r i b e d by the speaker. t h a t t h i s knowledge, c o n s i d e r e d  He b e l i e v e s  as p a r t o f the mind's p r o p e r -  t i e s and content, may not even be a c c e s s i b l e t o the speaker's introspection Linell  ( L i n e l l , 1974, p.13).  (1974, p.162, fn.23) d e s c r i b e s another l a t e r  discus-  s i o n by Chomsky o f h i s use o f the word'"'knowledge. ' " Chomsky purports  t o meaning n e i t h e r "'knowledge t h a t ' "nor "'knowledge  how.'" Rather, he intends "'something i n between' " such as " ' t a c i t o r unconscious knowledge.'". J u s t as i n d e f i n i n g the sense of'''rule,' Chomsky here s i t u a t e s h i s n o t i o n  i n between  two p o l a r senses and then r e s t r i c t s the i n d e f i n i t e meaning by r e f e r r i n g t o the t a c i t nature o f the o b j e c t o f d e f i n i t i o n (such as ' r u l e ' o r 'knowledge' ) . Some a u t h o r s ' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f 'knowledge' r e f l e c t the view which sees language as "something which the speaker uses f o r communication with other people and with h i m s e l f ,  and...  [which] i s shaped by i t s f u n c t i o n s i n communication" ( L i n e l l , 1974, p.27). a "behavioural  They d e f i n e and use l i n g u i s t i c perspective."  63) s t a t e s h i s p r e f e r e n c e  'knowledge' from  F o r i n s t a n c e , Hockett  (1968, p.  as t h e "know how t o " sense o f the word  -15-  'know.'  Rather than use the ambiguous word  Hockett s u b s t i t u t e s the word " h a b i t . "  'knowledge'  "The term  'habit' i s  l i t t l e more than a paraphrase o f t h e know how to...sense o f 'to  know'."  Hockett f i n d s the phrase "to have the h a b i t o f  one's grammar" as l e s s m i s l e a d i n g , from an e m p i r i c a l p o i n t o f view, than Chomsky's "have knowledge o f " sense.  This i s  because although a h a b i t may p r o v i d e t h e b a s i s f o r and the p r e d i c t i o n s from a given g e n e r a l i z a t i o n , i t may not, as p a r t o f e m p i r i c a l evidence, endure f o r e v e r and so i s s u b j e c t t o modification.  In o t h e r words, a h a b i t i s not a "Law o f Nature" as  Hockett f e e l s Chomsky's sense o f s e l f - w a r r a n t e d "knowledge" i s apt  t o imply. Linell  (19 74, p.27) contends t h a t l i n g u i s t i c knowledge  should i n c l u d e what he c a l l s "grammatical competence" and "general l i n g u i s t i c competence."  Grammatical  r e f e r s t o the 'know t h a t ' sense o f knowledge.  competence The speaker  'knows' a system o f o b l i g a t o r y c o n d i t i o n s which u t t e r a n c e s must meet i n o r d e r t o be r e c o g n i z e d as grammatical. his  Linell  qualifies  sense o f 'knowledge t h a t ' by s t a t i n g t h a t t h i s knowledge  i s not always e x p l i c i t .  "Sometimes the speaker knows ex-  p l i c i t r u l e s , but t y p i c a l l y he i s not able t o formulate r u l e s e x p l i c i t l y " . (p..  162, fn.23).  General l i n g u i s t i c  competence,  on the o t h e r hand, concerns the speaker's s k i l l o r a b i l i t y "to  manipulate the language a c t i v e l y , w i t h p r e c i s i o n and  v a r i a t i o n w i t h i n t h e grammatical r u l e s . "  T h i s sense o f know-  ledge i s o f course t h e 'know how t o ' sense and i s i n d i c a t i v e of  a 'behavioural p e r s p e c t i v e ' on language.  -16-  Wang  (1968, p.707) b e l i e v e s t h a t a speaker has d i f f e r e n t  degrees o f "awareness"  (or 'knowledge')  of l i n g u i s t i c  rules.  He suggests t h a t the d i s p a r i t i e s i n awareness may be dependent on s e v e r a l f a c t o r s :  the formal c h a r a c t e r o f the r u l e , the  complexity o f the r u l e , the number o f items i n the l e x i c o n f o r which the r u l e i s r e l e v a n t , a combination o f t h e p r e c e d i n g f a c t o r s or p o s s i b l y some other f a c t o r .  U n f o r t u n a t e l y Wang does  not say which sense o f knowledge he i s r e f e r r i n g t o — t h e  'know  how t o ' sense, the 'know t h a t ' sense or some amalgamation o f the two. F i n a l l y , Ladefoged (1970) expresses a concern with the term "knowledge" which i s founded on h i s b e l i e f t h a t a speaker's "knowledge" may have d i f f e r e n t sources:  a preliterate  a s p e l l i n g - i n f l u e n c e d source and a grammatically say, l i n g u i s t i c a l l y )  i n f l u e n c e d source.  source,  (that i s t o  Ladefoged complains  t h a t the vaguesness o f t h e n o t i o n o f "knowledge" p r e v e n t s t h e grammarian  from knowing which knowledge o f which d i f f e r e n t  sources should be i n c l u d e d i n o r excluded from p h o n o l o g i c a l models. 2.1.5  The r e a l i t y o f a theory  I t has been seen t h a t many l i n g u i s t s do n o t agree on t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f " p s y c h o l o g i c a l " theory, " r u l e " and "knowledge."  Some i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s are vaguely d e f i n e d .  In p a r t i c u -  l a r , Chomsky's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , which are most r e l e v a n t t o the aims o f t h i s study, are i n d e f i n i t e .  He makes no statement r e -  garding which aspect o f t h e mental f a c u l t y the p s y c h o l o g i c a l l i n g u i s t i c d e s c r i p t i o n s should r e f e r t o .  His description of  -17-  " r u l e " as an unconscious speaker  b e l i e f t h a t i m p l i c i t l y guides  i s somewhat more c l e a r .  But the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of  "knowledge" as being " i n between 'knowledge t h a t ledge how " 1  ( L i n e l l , 1974,  1  and  'know-  p.162, fn.23) l e a v e s h i s readers  w i t h the t a s k o f imagining the nature of t h i s concept  the  intermediary  of knowledge.  The vague nature of the phrase  under d i s c u s s i o n i s yet  i n c r e a s e d by the p e r m i s s i v e d e f i n i t i o n of the theory accepted by p h i l o s o p h e r s o f s c i e n c e . r e f e r s to a statement  ' r e a l i t y ' of a Linell  (1974,  made by Harre t h a t a " ' r e a l i s t i c ' "  " ' r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l ' " concept  or  of a theory can be supported  c l a i m i n g t h a t a l l o f the components of the theory are Yet r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l theory contends t h a t "the e n t i t i e s and processes r e f e r to r e a l  p.12)  without  real.  theoretical  (though non-observable  or  i n a c c e s s i b l e ) e n t i t i e s and processes which are assumed to stand i n a c a u s a l r e l a t i o n to the observable phenomena" ( L i n e l l , p.155, f n . l ) .  1974,  Thus the theory i s p e r m i t t e d to d e p i c t or r e p r e -  sent o n l y c e r t a i n c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s i n an i n a c c e s s i b l e  reality.  L i n e l l s t a t e s t h a t "Chomsky, H a l l e , P o s t a l and o t h e r  gen-  e r a t i v i s t s conceive of g e n e r a t i v e phonology as a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l theory of p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y " . (1974, p.12).  He adds  t h a t Chomsky and H a l l e p r e f e r t o t h i n k of the r e l a t i o n  be-  tween competence and performance as r a t h e r a b s t r a c t and  so  they might d e s c r i b e t h e i r theory as being one of "moderate" realism'.  They t h e r e f o r e wish to take advantage of the  flexi-  b i l i t y o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l theory to r e p r e s e n t o n l y c e r t a i n  -18-  causal r e l a t i o n s i n r e a l i t y . On the o t h e r hand, a c l a i m i s sometimes made f o r a l l o f the components of g e n e r a t i v e grammar to have m e n t a l l y r e a l referents.  L i n e l l c i t e s a statement by Katz who  says t h a t  "'every aspect o f the m e n t a l i s t i c theory i n v o l v e s p s y c h o l o g i c a l reality'"  ( L i n e l l , 1974, p.13).  He a l s o mentions Whitaker's  b e l i e f t h a t "'hypotheses about the p h o n o l o g i c a l , s y n t a c t i c  and  semantic s t r u c t u r e o f language i n f a c t r e p r e s e n t an u n d e r l y i n g psychological r e a l i t y ' "  ( L i n e l l , 1974,  p.13).  In c o n c l u s i o n , the terms used i n the phrase  'the psycho-  l o g i c a l r e a l i t y o f p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s ' are o f t e n a s s i g n e d d i f f e r e n t senses by d i f f e r e n t l i n g u i s t s .  The whole phrase  t h e r e f o r e takes d i f f e r e n t senses depending on the l i n g u i s t who  uses i t or on the reader who  must- f i l l  of the i n d e f i n i t e p o i n t s o f the phrase.  i n f o r h i m s e l f some  The terms and the  statement when used by Chomsky are vague on c e r t a i n p o i n t s mentioned e a r l i e r .  T h i s i s due i n p a r t to the statement and  i t s terms having been d e r i v e d from a body o f theory which i s r i d d l e d with t h e o r e t i c a l ; components which are i n e x p l i c i t l y described.  One n a t u r a l l y asks, f i r s t , why  such an  inexplicitly  d e f i n e d theory i s maintained and second, how t h e t h e o r y i s maintained i n an e m p i r i c a l i n d u c t i v e approach t o problem s o l v i n g by an orthodox s c h o o l o f l i n g u i s t s . 2.2 Whether: experiments on r e a l speakers- can apply t o t h e o r i e s on i d e a l s p e a k e r - l i s t e n e r s " ~ ' 2.2.1  M o t i v a t i o n f o r adhering to the i n e x p l i c i t t h e o r y based on the i d e a l s p e a k e r - l i s t e n e r frame  L i n g u i s t s who  d i f f e r i n t h e i r o p i n i o n s on the use o f the  -19-  i d e a l s p e a k e r - l i s t e n e r frame f o r v e r i f i c a t i o n o f g e n e r a t i v e grammar's t h e o r i e s none the l e s s would probably share Chomsky's view t h a t man i s endowed w i t h a number o f s p e c i a l f a c u l t i e s which p l a y a c r u c i a l r o l e i n our a c q u i s i t i o n o f knowledge and enable us to a c t as f r e e agents, undetermined (though not n e c e s s a r i l y u n a f f e c t e d ) by e x t e r n a l s t i m u l i i n the environment (Lyons, 1970, p.98). They do not, however, agree w i t h Chomsky's c a t e g o r i c a l r e j e c t i o n of S k i n n e r i a n b e h a v i o u r i s t psychology and h i s consequent d i s m i s s a l o f e x p e r i e n t i a l phenomena such as i n s t r u m e n t a l and i m p r e s s i o n i s t i c data gained from o b s e r v i n g the language performance o f a r e a l speaker. it  i s important t o c o n s i d e r  Chomsky's opponents  feel  that  'experience' f o r numerous reasons.  One reason i s t h a t the use of language, i n communication  with  o t h e r s and w i t h s e l f , probably has a r o l e i n shaping language. Chomsky might answer t h a t the use o f language may  shape language-  s p e c i f i c grammars but would not i n f l u e n c e u n i v e r s a l grammar, the d i s c o v e r y o f which i s the goal o f h i s t h e o r y . synchronic p o i n t of view, language may " f a c u l t e de langage."  From a  not a f f e c t the human  However, speaking from a broad d i a -  c h r o n i c view, t h a t i s t o say, an e v o l u t i o n a r y view, language use would be expected t o p l a y a r o l e i n shaping the i n n a t e l y endowed grammar i n man.  To r e s o l v e t h i s p o t e n t i a l a r e a o f  disagreement l i n g u i s t s should decide whether system o f man,  the c o g n i t i v e  i n which the " f a c u l t e de langage" i s presumed  to p l a y some r o l e , i s to be c o n s i d e r e d on an e v o l u t i o n a r y o r a static  basis.  Another reason why  e x p e r i e n t i a l language data i s not  -2 0-  ignored  by some o f Chomsky's opponents i s the b e l i e f , men-  tioned before,  t h a t the range o f hypotheses on language must  be c o n s t r a i n e d  i n the  d e l i m i t e d i n humans.  same r e a l way Since  t h a t language systems are  language i s p h y s i c a l l y  the data used f o r h y p o t h e s i s formation  should  observable,  a l s o d e a l with  the p h y s i c a l l y observable phenomena of speech and  language.  Another motive f o r c o n s i d e r i n g e x p e r i e n t i a l data i s t h e i r r e p r o v a l of Chomsky's r e p u d i a t i o n of b e h a v i o u r i s t theory a means of e x p l a i n i n g human behaviour.  Chomsky r e j e c t s the  b e h a v i o u r i s t approach s i n c e i t does not d e a l with describe)  the p r i n c i p l e s of innate knowledge.  because b e h a v i o u r i s t theory  (nor t r y t o  However, j u s t  i s " p r i m i t i v e " i n the  foregoing  sense does not r e q u i r e i t to be r e j e c t e d by a type o f e l s e argument."  According  t o Botha, the  as  "how-  "how-else" argument  of Chomsky and H a l l e would s t a t e t h a t the a b s t r a c t i d e a l i z e d l i s t e n e r - s p e a k e r frame i s the c o r r e c t t h e o r e t i c a l approach s i n c e i t i s the only approach which can d e s c r i b e p l e s of innate knowledge. argument by p o i n t i n g out  Botha r e f u t e s the  the  princi-  "how-else"  that  The f a c t t h a t , i n a given f i e l d of i n q u i r y , there i s a t a s p e c i f i c moment o n l y one theory t h a t works and t h a t no a l t e r n a t i v e can be proposed i s no more than a c o i n c i d e n c e (1971, pp.125-126). The  d i f f e r e n t approaches to the study of TGP  portance e i t h e r t o a b s t r a c t mental p r i n c i p l e s and the one ceived theory,  give  entities,  hand, or to the sounds a c t u a l l y pronounced and ( L i n e l l , 1974,  p.150).  with i t s obscure and  Transformational i n d e f i n i t e aspects,  imon  per-  generative i s maintained  -21-  by c e r t a i n l i n g u i s t s because i t s u c c e s s f u l l y propagates abs t r a c t mental p r i n c i p l e s and e n t i t i e s which are r a t i o n a l i s t i c constructs. theory  Chomsky (1965) regards h i s general  as "a s p e c i f i c hypothesis,  linguistic  o f an e s s e n t i a l l y r a t i o n a l -  i s t case, as t o the nature o f mental s t r u c t u r e s and  processes"  (p.53). Chomsky and H a l l e  (1968) f e e l t h a t s i n c e the e m p i r i c a l  v e r i f i c a t i o n o f a b s t r a c t mental e n t i t i e s w i l l r e q u i r e and  indirect  s u b t l e means o f v e r i f i c a t i o n , t h e i r a b s t r a c t theory  be maintained.  They say (p. 332) t h a t  should  " f o r the f o r e s e e a b l e  f u t u r e , the study o f language and mental processes w i l l have to be c a r r i e d out a t such a l e v e l o f a b s t r a c t i o n i f i t i s t o make s i g n i f i c a n t  progress."  2.2.2 Whether Chomsky and H a l l e ' s m e n t a l i s t i c and e m p i r i c a l theory can be maintained Steinberg doubts the v a l i d i t y o f the theory's m e n t a l i s t i c nature C r i t i c i s m of transformational and  generative  grammar i n g e n e r a l  o f TGP i n p a r t i c u l a r as v a l i d m e n t a l i s t i c and e m p i r i c a l  t h e o r i e s i s growing.  Steinberg  (1975) claims  t h a t Chomsky has  i n v a l i d a t e d h i s p o s i t i o n as a m e n t a l i s t by i n c l u d i n g some "formalisms" i n h i s intended t i c " theory  m e n t a l i s t i c theory.  i s h e l d by S t e i n b e r g  of the theory  are h e l d t o be p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t ;  A " f o r m a l i s t i c " theory,  o n l y c e r t a i n aspects o f the theory significant.  "mentalis-  t o be one i n which a l l aspects  i s t o say, a l l aspects o f the theory speaker.  A  that  r e l a t e t o ideas o f the  on the other hand, r e q u i r e s t o be p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y  I t was s t a t e d e a r l i e r t h a t Chomsky and H a l l e ' s  -22concept of the  ' r e a l i t y ' of a theory  was  a  'representational'  concept i n which, indeed, not a l l components o f the theory claimed  to be  Steinberg  real. proposes t h a t a c e r t a i n f u n c t i o n i n g of Chomsky's  t h e o r e t i c a l grammar—the competence process o f derivations—does the  are  constructing  not r e l a t e to the p s y c h o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n of  speaker: while a t h e o r e t i c a l grammar i s s a i d to c o n s t r u c t d e r i v a t i o n s a c c o r d i n g t o a process which begins with the symbol S and proceeds to the Base and from there to the T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l , Semantic, and P h o n o l o g i c a l (sub)components, a grammar i n t e r n a l i z e d by a speaker i s not hypothesized to have t h i s process. Derivat i o n s are s a i d to be c o n s t r u c t e d by speakers i n some other way. Chomsky i n d i c a t e s t h a t a speaker would r e q u i r e a set of h e u r i s t i c s or [else] Use r u l e s , i n a d d i t i o n to the grammar, i n order to produce d e r i v a t i o n s (1975, p.246). The  fact that psychological  s i g n i f i c a n c e i s not given  the process by which the grammar p r o v i d e s  derivations results  in inconsistency  f o r a theory  which i s supposed to be  with mentalism.  T h i s formalism i n Chomsky's m e n t a l i s t i c  a l s o r e s u l t s i n a r b i t r a r i n e s s as no t r e a t i n g the process u n d e r l y i n g i n s i g n i f i c a n t component. j u s t i f i c a t i o n were given m e n t a l i s t i c theory, theory  was  concerned  for  the grammar as a p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y  Steinberg  b e l i e v e s t h a t even i f  f o r i n c o r p o r a t i n g formalisms i n t o a  ( f o r i n s t a n c e Chomsky might c l a i m t h a t h i s  meant to be a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l one  of r e a l i t y ) ,  r e s u l t i n the  l o g i c a l i n v a l i d i t y of s e v e r a l components of the theory. given t h a t the u n d e r l y i n g  denied p s y c h o l o g i c a l  theory  j u s t i f i c a t i o n i s given  p o s i t i n g of those formalisms c o u l d s t i l l  instance,  to  the  psychoFor  process o f competence i s  s i g n i f i c a n c e , the nature o f the  process  -23a f f e c t s the c h a r a c t e r derivation. invalid.  and composition o f s t r u c t u r e s i n a  The r e s u l t i n g d e r i v a t i o n s would be p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y  In a d d i t i o n , he s t a t e s t h a t i t would be absurd t o  t h i n k t h a t a p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y i n v a l i d process c o u l d provide  a  determining b a s i s f o r the d i s c o v e r y o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y v a l i d rules.  Steinberg  a l s o b e l i e v e s t h a t the o r g a n i z a t i o n o f the  grammar—that i s , the input and output r e l a t i o n s among the s y n t a c t i c , semantic and p h o n o l o g i c a l psychologically invalid.  This follows f i r s t  the grammatical o r g a n i z a t i o n i n v a l i d generative  c o m p o n e n t s — i s rendered from the f a c t  that  i s i n accord with the mentally  process which u n d e r l i e s the grammar;  second, from the f a c t t h a t the grammar's d e r i v a t i o n s are a r e f l e c t i o n o f the g e n e r a t i v e tion.  F i n a l l y , Steinberg  process and grammatical  organiza-  proposes t h a t l i n g u i s t i c g e n e r a t i v i t y  cannot be p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y meaningful i n l i n g u i s t i c s when the d e r i v a t i o n s which a grammatical theory cally  invalid.  Steinberg  o f f e r s two d i f f i c u l t remedies f o r " c o r r e c t i n g t h e  i n h e r e n t l y c o n t r a d i c t o r y theory (p.250). and  generates are p s y c h o l o g i -  which Chomsky has developed"  One s o l u t i o n i s f o r Chomsky t o "renunciate  mentalism"  d e c l a r e t h a t the grammar and i t s output d e r i v a t i o n s are  non-psychological  formalisms.  r a d i c a l r e v i s i o n o f the theory,  Another s o l u t i o n i n v o l v e s a which S t e i n b e r g  only  briefly  o u t l i n e s , so t h a t i t conforms with how speakers might reasonably be claimed  to c o n s t r u c t  derivations.  Botha questions TGP' s s t a t u s as a m e n t a l i s t i c and as an e m p i r i c a l theory TGP's s t a t u s both as a m e n t a l i s t i c and as an e m p i r i c a l  -24-  theory has been censured by Botha i n numerous works 1970 of  and 1971).  (1968,  In g e n e r a l , h i s c r i t i c i s m i s based on a l i n e  r e a s o n i n g which p o i n t s out t h a t the p a t t e r n s of argumenta-?  tion  used t o j u s t i f y l i n g u i s t i c hypotheses are  invalid.  In The M e t h o d o l o g i c a l Status o f Grammatical (19 70) Botha d e r i v e s h i s c r i t e r i a f o r a v a l i d p a t t e r n from Toulmin.  Argumentation  argumentation  (Although Toulmin's arguments are  mainly concerned with j u r i s p r u d e n c e , Botha c l a i m s t h a t h i s c o n c l u s i o n s on the l o g i c a l  s t r u c t u r e o f an argument are v a l i d  f o r argumentation i n e m p i r i c a l s c i e n c e (1970, p.19).) The components o f T o u l m i n s well-formed argument a r e : 1  (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)  a c l a i m or c o n c l u s i o n , data, a warrant, a qualifier, c o n d i t i o n s o f r e b u t t a l , and  (6) a b a c k i n g . The c l a i m or c o n c l u s i o n i s an h y p o t h e s i s o f which the c o r r e c t ness or i n c o r r e c t n e s s i s a f f i r m e d or denied.  The data are the  f a c t s p r o v i d e d t o support o r c o n t r a d i c t the c l a i m .  The  i s a " r u l e " or " i n f e r e n c e - l i c e n c e " g i v e n t o show why  the data  can be taken as support or c o n t r a d i c t i o n o f the c l a i m . d e s c r i b e s the warrant as a " b r i d g e - l i k e ment t h a t has the form:  i f X, then Y"  hypothetical (p.20).  warrant  Botha state-  Different  warrants can be seen to c o n f e r d i f f e r e n t degrees of f o r c e on the  c l a i m which they attempt to a u t h o r i z e .  The q u a l i f i e r i s  t h e r f o r e b u i l t i n t o the argument t o s p e c i f y e x p l i c i t l y the degree o f f o r c e which the data c o n f e r on the c l a i m through the use o f the warrant.  In the case where a p a r t i c u l a r  qualifier  i s used, the c o n d i t i o n s o f r e b u t t a l s t a t e the reasons f o r u s i n g  -25-  it.  That i s , the c o n d i t i o n s of r e b u t t a l s p e c i f y the  stances under which the warrant has to know why  no a u t h o r i t y .  circum-  Finally,  a warrant i s g e n e r a l l y v a l i d , the grounds from  which i t d e r i v e s i t s v a l i d i t y i s s p e c i f i e d e x p l i c i t l y , as a " c a t e g o r i c a l a s s e r t i o n of f a c t , " by the backing.  See  Figure  1  f o r Botha's e x e m p l i f i c a t i o n o f the components o f t h i s argument. A well-formed argument r e q u i r e s t h a t a l l o f the of the argument be e x p l i c i t l y presented and way.  To ensure t h a t the c o n c l u s i o n  components  r e l a t e d i n a proper  of an argument i s c o r r e c t ,  the argument must both be well-formed and have c o r r e c t s t a t e ments p r e s e n t i n g  the data, backing and  c o n d i t i o n s of r e b u t t a l .  Botha f i n d s t h a t the i n v a l i d i t y of many l i n g u i s t i c ments stems i n p a r t from the l a c k o f proof of the of the backings of grammatical warrants.  He  correctness  concludes t h a t  grammatical argumentation f a i l s to q u a l i f y as a procedure a l s o because "the c o r r e c t n e s s  argu-  confirmation  o f many claims  about  h y p o t h e t i c a l data cannot be e s t a b l i s h e d beyond doubt" (19 70, p.62). To d i s c u s s whether TGP  i s v a l i d as a m e n t a l i s t i c  theory  Botha i n v e s t i g a t e s i n what ways the m e n t a l i s t i c hypotheses of the theory  can be v e r i f i e d .  F i r s t he o u t l i n e s the  types o f norms used i n e m p i r i c a l s c i e n c e of t h e o r i e s .  f o r the  verification  Then he enumerates the means by which  l i n g u i s t s attempt to v e r i f y t h e i r t h e o r i e s .  basic  mentalist  Finally,  he  d i s c u s s e s whether or not the v e r i f i c a t i o n procedures are acceptable The  from a l o g i c a l and  epistemological  p o i n t of view.  norms of t r u t h used i n v a l i d a t i n g e m p i r i c a l  theories  -26-  DATA:  CLAIM/CONCLUSION:  Harry was born i n Bermuda.  Harry i s a B r i t i s h subject.  -» so, presumably,  WARRANT;  CONDITIONS OF REBUTTAL: unless  since I f a man was born i n Bermuda, then he w i l l be a B r i t i s h subject.  (i) H i s parents were a l i e n s , ( i i ) He has become a n a t u r a l i s e d American.  BACKING: On account o f the f a c t  that  The B r i t i s h and Bermudan s t a t u t e s and l e g a l p r o v i s i o n s A,B,C, and D s p e c i f y t h a t a man born i n Bermuda w i l l be a B r i t i s h subject.  F i g u r e 1. An example o f an argument.  Figure  from Botha, 19 70.  -27-  are  norms o f correspondence, norms o f coherence and pragmatic  norms.  Correspondence  i n which  norms are based on a concept o f t r u t h  "the t r u t h o f a statement depends on whether the  s t a t e o f a f f a i r s r e f e r r e d t o by t h i s statement corresponds t o what i t a s s e r t s about the s t a t e o f a f f a i r s "  (Botha, 1971, p.122).  T h e r e f o r e a statement w i l l be t r u e i f i t " f i t s the f a c t s . " Correspondence  norms are thought to be "more fundamental" than  pragmatic norms o r coherence norms s i n c e s c i e n c e i s g e n e r a l l y governed by a r e a l i t y p r i n c i p l e .  The t r u t h o f correspondence  norms i s c a l l e d e m p i r i c a l t r u t h s i n c e the correspondence between what a theory a s s e r t s and the s t a t e o f a f f a i r s i s d e t e r mined by e x p e r i e n c e . Norms o f coherence are based on the e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l t h a t the t r u t h o f a t h e o r y depends on whether i t f i t s body o f theory o r a system o f p r e v i o u s l y - e s t a b l i s h e d statements.  thesis  into a scientific  With these norms o f t r u t h , a statement i s c o n s i d e r e d  to  be t r u e i f i t "coheres w i t h o t h e r s , and i f these are known  to  be t r u e "  (Botha, 1971, p.123).  Botha mentions  a r i s i n g with the use o f coherence norms. plicit  problems  One i s t h a t an ex-  c r i t e r i o n i s needed by which t o determine whether two  t h e o r i e s "cohere." of  two  Another problem i s t h a t o f determining which  two o r more opposing bodies o f i n t e r n a l l y c o n s i s t e n t theory  i s the " v a l i d " t h e o r e t i c a l  system.  F i n a l l y , pragmatic norms s p e c i f y a concept o f t r u t h the  wherein  t r u t h o f a theory i s r e f l e c t e d by the way i n which the  theory guides and s t i m u l a t e s the c o n t i n u a t i o n o f s c i e n t i f i c inquiry.  Botha s t a t e s , however, t h a t although s c i e n t i s t s do  -28-  appreciate theories f o r t h e i r f r u i t f u l n e s s with t r u t h . advocated  " f r u i t f u l n e s s , " they do not equate  Consequently  pragmatic  norms are not  by many p h i l o s o p h e r s of s c i e n c e as conceptions  of  truth. Botha goes on to d e s c r i b e the modes of argument used by m e n t a l i s t l i n g u i s t s to v e r i f y t h e i r t h e o r i e s . d i s c u s s i o n and i n Chapter  (His d e t a i l e d  s c h e m a t i z a t i o n of these arguments may  4 of M e t h o d o l o g i c a l  Generative Phonology  (1971).)  be  found  Status of T r a n f o r m a t i o n a l One  mode o f argument i s the  "how-else argument" i n which l i n g u i s t s argue t h a t t h e i r  theory  i s v a l i d because there i s p r e s e n t l y no o t h e r theory which accounts  f o r the data.  of counts:  Botha r e j e c t s t h i s argument on a number  i t c o n t a i n s no backing; the norm of t r u t h used  i s the " p r i m i t i v e " pragmatist norm; and there i s a p o s s i b i l i t y f o r o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e t h e o r i e s to be l a t e r developed  by o t h e r  scholars. A common mode of v e r i f i c a t i o n i n l i n g u i s t i c study i s t e s t i n g the p r e d i c t i o n s of grammars.  Norms of  are used i n t h i s v e r i f i c a t i o n procedure.  correspondence  The warrant f o r the  argument i n t h i s v e r i f i c a t i o n process can be s t a t e d i n two ways.  In one  case, the warrant might s t a t e t h a t a theory i s  c o r r e c t i f the data i t p r e d i c t s are c o r r e c t .  Botha, however,  s t a t e s t h a t a theory which c o r r e c t l y p r e d i c t s some events  does  not n e c e s s a r i l y c o r r e c t l y d e s c r i b e or r e p r e s e n t the s t r u c t u r e o f the mechanism whose o p e r a t i o n r e s u l t s i n the p r e d i c t e d events.  He c i t e s examples from the h i s t o r y of s c i e n c e and  t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l g e n e r a t i v e grammar to support h i s r e b u t t a l  from  (1970, p.130).  These examples are i n s t a n c e s  of competing  hypotheses which a l l p r e d i c t e d c o r r e c t d a t a .  He a l s o  cites  i n s t a n c e s where a given h y p o t h e s i s has been p r e f e r r e d over r i v a l hypotheses even though the former's p r e d i c t i o n s were incorrect. On the o t h e r hand, the warrant could be i n t e r p r e t e d as the statement t h a t "unobservable events cause effects."  measureable  T h i s i s a statement of "causal e f f i c a c y " used i n  ontological arguments—that prove the e x i s t e n c e  i s , arguments which attempt to  o f some unobservable e n t i t y .  Psycholin-  g u i s t i c experiments o f t e n use o n t o l o g i c a l arguments.  The  warrant, as a statement of c a u s a l e f f i c a c y , i s l o g i c a l l y i n v a l i d and i s known as "the f a l l a c y o f a f f i r m i n g the consequent "(Botha, 1971, p.134).  The warrant i s g e n e r a l l y o f the  form " i f an e m p i r i c a l g e n e r a l i z a t i o n 'g' f o l l o w s from h y p o t h e s i s 'h', and i f 'g* i s t r u e , then 'h* i s t r u e . "  I t i s not v a l i d ,  from a l o g i c a l p o i n t o f view, to simply assume t h a t 'g' and  *g* i m p l i e s  logical  statement.  'h' i m p l i e s  'h' without c a r e f u l q u a n t i f i c a t i o n o f the  Other types o f arguments which are based on norms o f c o herence are c a r e f u l l y o u t l i n e d by Botha.  These  arguments  o b t a i n t h e i r evidence from numerous sources such as h i s t o r y , psychology, metatheory, neurophysiology, and o t h e r f i e l d s o f study.  Each argument d i s c u s s e d  i s r e f u t e d as a v a l i d  t i o n technique f o r m e n t a l i s t i c hypotheses.  verifica-  In g e n e r a l i t  might be s a i d t h a t the c r i t i c i s m s of these arguments stem from the arguments' mentioned  f a i l u r e t o meet c o n d i t i o n s o f "well-formedness"  earlier.  (The reader i s r e f e r r e d once again t o  -30Chapter 4 (Botha, 1971) f o r f u r t h e r d e t a i l s . ) A f t e r demonstrating  the c o n d i t i o n s d i s q u a l i f y i n g grammatical  arguments as v a l i d v e r i f i c a t i o n procedures, Botha a m p l i f i e s the s e r i o u s nature o f the s i t u a t i o n i n two ways.  F i r s t , he p r o -  poses t h a t even i f the arguments u s i n g coherence and c o r r e s p o n dence norms were v a l i d , the s u p p o r t i n g evidence o f p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c t e s t i n g i s "scant" and o f t e n (Botha, 1971, p.167).  "mutually c o n t r a d i c t o r y "  Secondly, Botha's d i s c u s s i o n s o f  grammatical argumentation assume t h a t the t h e o r y ' s formal dev i c e s " c a t e g o r i c a l l y " c h a r a c t e r i z e l i n g u i s t i c competence.  A  c a t e g o r i c a l c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f competence r e j e c t s t h e n o t i o n t h a t the speaker's a c q u s i t i o n o f language i s i n s t a n t a n e o u s . Rather, the c a t e g o r i c a l statement o f l i n g u i s t i c  competence  assumes t h a t language a c q u i s i t i o n takes p l a c e over a p e r i o d o f time and Requires t h a t m e n t a l i s t i c l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r i e s take i n t o account the order i n which primary l i n g u i s t i c data are used by the  child. Chomsky and H a l l e s p e c i f y t h a t the m e n t a l i s t i c a s s e r t i o n s .  of t h e i r hypotheses are not c a t e g o r i c a l statements o f l i n g u i s t i c competence but are i n s t e a d p.331) o f competence.  "conditional assertions"  The c o n d i t i o n a l a s s e r t i o n o f competence  r e l i e s on the a p r i o r i assumption guage i n s t a n t a n e o u s l y .  (1968,  t h a t a speaker a c q u i r e s  lan-  Chomsky and H a l l e s t a t e t h a t i t would  be more d i f f i c u l t t o study the c a t e g o r i c a l statement o f a speaker's competence and the m e n t a l i s t i c nature o f hypotheses r e s u l t i n g from t h a t statement s i n c e the o r d e r i n which primary l i n g u i s t i c data are used by the c h i l d would have t o be taken  -31-  i n t o account. Botha then argues t h a t i f there are thus f a r no v a l i d cedures of v e r i f i c a t i o n f o r those hypotheses sed)  (which he  discus-  i n v o l v i n g the more complex c a t e g o r i c a l statement of  g u i s t i c mentalism, there  c o u l d not p r e s e n t l y e x i s t any  cedure to t e s t Chomsky and mental r e a l i t y f o r Botha claims  theory  lin-  pro- .  statement of  TGP.  to r e j e c t the t h e s i s of mentalism i n t r a n s f o r  mational generative transformational  Halle's conditional  pro-  grammar.  generative  i s untestable  He  does c l a i m , however, t h a t  grammar as a m e n t a l i s t i c l i n g u i s t i  at present.  He  suggests t h a t the  theory'  m e n t a l i s t i c claims might become t e s t a b l e i f l i n g u i s t s would i d e n t i f y and  c o r r e c t the weak methodology of argumentation.  In other words, the arguments must meet the c o n d i t i o n s of w e l l formedness and  the statements o f the arguments* warrants  backings must be  correct.  Consequently Botha goes on to l a b o r i o u s l y c o n s i d e r e m p i r i c a l s t a t u s o f TGP and  Halle  of TGP  and  as a n o n - m e n t a l i s t i c  theory.  the Chomsky  (1968) s t a t e e x p l i c i t l y t h a t they wish t h e i r  to be an e m p i r i c a l one.  They say t h a t even with  assumption t h a t the grammar s h a l l c o n s i d e r grammaticalness as  theory  deviations  the  from  " c o r r e c t , " the problem to be s o l v e d i s  of an e m p i r i c a l nature: t i o n measure must be  a set of formal  devices  and  an  one  evalua  s e l e c t e d which  j o i n t l y meet the e m p i r i c a l c o n d i t i o n t h a t the h i g h e s t valued grammar o f the a p p r o p r i a t e form i s , i n f a c t , the one s e l e c t e d by the c h i l d on the b a s i s of primary l i n g u i s t i c data (Chomsky and H a l l e , 1968, p.331).  -32They continue to s t r e s s the e m p i r i c a l nature o f the i n saying t h a t such a theory  theory  which  s p e c i f i e s formal d e v i c e s and an e v a l u a t i o n procedure can be proven f a l s e . . . b y c o n f r o n t i n g i t with e m p i r i c a l evidence r e l a t i n g t o the grammar t h a t a c t u a l l y u n d e r l i e s the speaker's performance. There i s such a grammar, and i t i s an e m p i r i c a l problem to d i s c o v e r it...However d i f f i c u l t i t may be to f i n d r e l e v a n t evidence f o r or a g a i n s t a proposed theory, t h e r e can be no doubt whatsoever about the e m p i r i c a l nature of the problem. Before c o n s i d e r i n g the e m p i r i c a l s t a t u s of TGP m e n t a l i s t i c theory makes no claims formal  Botha d e s c r i b e s  f o r mentalism.  the aim o f a theory  Such a theory  aims to  c o r r e c t l y describe linguistic  i n some way  The  devices  which construct  do not need to  the mental mechanism  underlying  data.  Botha approaches the i s s u e of TGP's m e r i t s  as an  empirical  by o u t l i n i n g the f a c t o r s which determine and bear  i n f l u e n c e on i t s e m p i r i c a l s t a t u s . t h a t a theory  i s e m p i r i c a l i s the  One  Hempel  (Botha, 1971,  p.174).  fact that i t i s t e s t a b l e . are borrowed from  Hempel b e l i e v e s t h a t a  theory  " t e s t a b i l i t y " i f e x p l i c i t t e s t i m p l i c a t i o n s can be  from t h a t theory  and  c o n s t i t u t e favourable implications.  i f the experimenter can and  an  f a c t o r which determines  Botha's requirements f o r a t e s t a b l e theory  has  non-  d e v i c e s which can c o r r e c t l y "account f o r " the data which  constitute l i n g u i s t i c r e a l i t y .  theory  as a  derived  s t a t e what would  unfavourable evidence f o r those t e s t  T e s t a b i l i t y would be  confirmed by  confronting  t e s t i m p l i c a t i o n s w i t h experimental evidence. Another v a r i a b l e which i n f l u e n c e s the e m p i r i c a l s t a t u s a theory  are c e r t a i n f a c t o r s which can a d v e r s e l y  theory's  testability.  of  a f f e c t the  Such a f a c t o r would a r i s e i n a  theory  -33-  which i s so i n e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d t h a t no t e s t i m p l i c a t i o n s can be d e r i v e d from i t .  Another f a c t o r i s the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t i t  c o u l d be impossible and  to s p e c i f y j u s t what e v i d e n c e — b o t h  r e l i a b l e — w o u l d be able to c o n f i r m or d i s c o n f i r m a  In a d d i t i o n , i t i s p o s s i b l e f o r a theory  relevant theory.  to be c o n s t r u c t e d  so  as to enable i t to be upheld even i n the face of evidence which contradicts i t .  In t h i s s i t u a t i o n ad hoc hypotheses are i n -  corporated  i n t o the theory  the theory  against contradictory  In Chapter 5 Botha  f o r the s i n g l e purpose of p r o t e c t i n g  (19 71)  evidence.  i n v e s t i g a t e s whether the  a v a i l a b l e f o r some of TGP's formal d e v i c e s reliable.  evidence  i s relevant  A l s o , he d i s c u s s e s the i n c l u s i o n of ad hoc  potheses i n c e r t a i n p r i n c i p l e s o f the theory.  and hy-  His main con-  c l u s i o n s on the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f evidence are, f i r s t , t h a t evidence i s indeed  not a v a i l a b l e f o r the hypothesized  f u n c t i o n o f the e v a l u a t i o n measure.  ( B r i e f l y , the  the  form  and  evaluation  measure i s a s i m p l i c i t y m e t r i c used f o r e v a l u a t i n g r u l e s . "The  'value' of a sequence of r u l e s i s the r e c i p r o c a l of  the  number of symbols i n i t s minimal r e p r e s e n t a t i o n  " (Chomsky and  H a l l e , 1968,  evaluation  p.335).)  TGP  o f t e n depends on the  measure to p l a y a key r o l e i n l i n g u i s t i c v e r i f i c a t i o n  pro-  cedures as the warrant of the grammatical argument. Secondly, he  f i n d s t h a t Chomsky and H a l l e  s p e c i f y what evidence would c o n f i r m phonetic i f t h e i r composite phonetic  (196 8) do  not  representations  f e a t u r e s were viewed as  being  e i t h e r mental i n s t r u c t i o n s to the a r t i c u l a t o r y apparatus o r r e p r e s e n t i n g aspects  of v o c a l t r a c t behaviour.  Further,  the  as  -34-  e m p i r i c a l s t a t u s of Chomsky and H a l l e ' s phonetic i s found by Botha to be q u e s t i o n a b l e  when the  representations  representations  are c o n s i d e r e d t o be a d e s c r i p t i o n of p e r c e p t u a l r e a l i t y .  This  f o l l o w s from what he c o n s i d e r s to be i r r e l e v a n t p h y s i c a l e v i dence, as w e l l as i r r e l e v a n t and u n r e l i a b l e p e r c e p t u a l  evidence,  which i s o f f e r e d by Chomsky and H a l l e to c o n f i r m or d i s c o n f i r m the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s as r e f e r r i n g to p e r c e p t u a l  reality.  Botha a l s o p o i n t s out s e v e r a l d i f f i c u l t i e s i n h e r e n t i n i n g an i n d i r e c t mode of v a l i d a t i n g phonetic the b a s i s o f the n o t i o n  "systematic  develop-  representations  theory."  on  This v a l i d a t i o n  procedure would i n v o l v e a l i m i t e d number o f data about the placement o f primary s t r e s s being o f f e r e d as evidence c o r r e c t n e s s o f complex s t r e s s contours.  The  mentation based on the n o t i o n of "systematic  f o r the  pattern of theory"  argu-  i s not  proposed and defended by Chomsky and H a l l e ; i t s e x i s t e n c e i s o n l y suggested by them and t h e r e a f t e r e x p l o r e d by Botha. Botha d i s c u s s e s four t h e o r i e s i n TGP t h a t they c o n t a i n ad hoc hypotheses which dence from a p p l y i n g t o them.  from the p o i n t of view block  adverse e v i -  (These t h e o r i e s are the  principle  of the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l c y c l e , l i n g u i s t i c u n i v e r s a l s , the theory o f e x c e p t i o n s , nomena.  and d e v i c e s accounting  f o r s t r e s s phe-  For the d e t a i l s o f h i s d i s c u s s i o n the reader i s  r e f e r r e d to Botha, 1971,  Chapter 5.)  The  ad hoc hypotheses or  "blocking d e v i c e s " i n v o l v e d i n the four cases he  describes  serve to b l o c k the process o f t e s t i n g the t h e o r i e s which i n corporate  them by n e u t r a l i z i n g c o n t r a d i c t o r y evidence.  f o r e the t h e o r i e s ' t e s t a b i l i t y i s denied  There-  and Botha d i s q u a l i f i e s  -35-  them as e m p i r i c a l t h e o r i e s . Chomsky and H a l l e f e e l t h a t i t i s q u i t e u s u a l i n e m p i r i c a l s c i e n c e t o employ b l o c k i n g d e v i c e s great g e n e r a l i t y .  t o p r o t e c t hypotheses o f  Botha r e f u t e s t h e i r attempt t o j u s t i f y the  use o f b l o c k s by saying t h a t the mere use o f a p r i n c i p l e i n e m p i r i c a l s c i e n c e does not imply t h a t i t i s l o g i c a l l y o r e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l l y sound. I t i s important t o mention t h a t Botha f e e l s t h a t h i s conc l u s i o n s , i f c o r r e c t , do not "show t h a t TGP i s a completely unempirical  approach t o the study o f p h o n o l o g i c a l  n a t u r a l language" (1971, p.247).  properties of  He s t a t e s c l e a r l y t h a t h i s  d i s c u s s i o n d e a l t with o n l y a small number o f t h e o r e t i c a l dev i c e s used i n p h o n o l o g i c a l c o n s t i t u t i n g a theory  2.2.3  " I f some o f the hypotheses  have a q u e s t i o n a b l e  does n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y pect with r e s p e c t  theory.  empirical status, i t  f o l l o w t h a t the remainder are a l s o sus-  to t h e i r t e s t a b i l i t y "  (p. 247).  How experiments on r e a l speakers cannot apply to t h e o r i e s about i d e a l s p e a k e r - l i s t e n e r s  Given t h a t doubt has been c a s t on the v a l i d i t y o f TGP as a m e n t a l i s t i c theory  and on the e m p i r i c a l s t a t u s o f some com-  ponents o f TGP, c e r t a i n ideas behind the requests mentation o u t s i d e  the i d e a l s p e a k e r - l i s t e n e r frame are r e i n f o r c e d .  Those ideas are, f i r s t , s i n c e a theory  t h a t a l l t h e o r i e s should  be t e s t e d ,  does n o t have e m p i r i c a l s t a t u s u n l e s s  t e s t a b l e and s i n c e an untested The  for experi-  theory  i t is  r i s k s maldevelopment.  second idea i s t h a t a l l t h e o r i e s should be t e s t e d and  v e r i f i e d i n as many independent ways as p o s s i b l e i n order t o i n c r e a s e the t h e o r i e s ' g e n e r a l i t y .  -36-  The  i n d i v i d u a l s t u d y i n g TGP  i s t h e r e f o r e g r e a t l y tempted  to expose v a r i o u s hypotheses to experimentation  on the t r u e  source of a l l l i n g u i s t i c data, the r e a l speaker.  Yet  the  bothersome o b s t a c l e to the v e r i f i c a t i o n of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l g e n e r a t i v e grammar's t h e o r i e s through language performance remains:  i n p r i n c i p l e , a theory  system which i s based on  i d e a l i z e d s p e a k e r - l i s t e n e r i s immune to evidence the performance o f a r e a l speaker.  gained  data an  from  A r e a l speaker, r e c a l l ,  does not meet the c o n d i t i o n s o f coming from a "'homogeneous'" speech community; i t i s q u i t e p o s s i b l e t h a t he does not know the language " ' p e r f e c t l y ' " ; i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t he w i l l  not  remain u n i n f l u e n c e d by memory l i m i t s , d i s t r a c t i o n s , i n a t t e n t i o n and n o n - l i n g u i s t i c knowledge and b e l i e f s .  Short of hoping t h a t  Chomsky and h i s f o l l o w e r s w i l l have a sudden turn-about e i t h e r renounce the m e n t a l i s t i c nature  and  of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l  g e n e r a t i v e grammar o r d i s c a r d the i d e a l s p e a k e r - l i s t e n e r framework, one  i s i n c l i n e d t o s i t back and ponder Botha's  systematic  d i s m a n t l i n g of the theory system and hope f o r a m i r a c l e . 2.2.4  P o s s i b l e j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f experimentation the i d e a l s p e a k e r - l i s t e n e r frame  However, i t may  external to  be p o s s i b l e t o reach some compromising  so-  l u t i o n to the s i t u a t i o n which, given the t r u t h o f Botha's c o n c l u s i o n s on the n o n - e m p i r i c a l hypotheses, w i l l continue  s t a t u s o f some o f TGP's  to propagate u n t e s t a b l e t h e o r i e s .  Would the p o s s i b i l i t y of r e n d e r i n g t e s t a b l e some of TGP's hypotheses by experimentation r i s k o f v i o l a t i n g the theory's speaker framework?  The  on a r e a l speaker be worth the s t i p u l a t i o n f o r an  idealized  q u e s t i o n s to be answered are what can  -37-  be  l o s t and what can be gained i n such a step towards t r a n s -  g r e s s i n g TGP's m e t a p h y s i c a l assumptions and which i s o f value  greater  (or f o r t h a t matter, which i s o f l e s s damage) t o  the  theory. That which would be immediately l o s t by s u b m i t t i n g  theories  of TGP. to v e r i f i c a t i o n procedures e x t e r n a l to the i d e a l i z e d framework i s c o n s i s t e n c y  i n d e a l i n g with the  assumptions of the theory. ready d i s s i p a t e d .  Steinberg  But  metatheoretical  t h i s consistency  (19 75)  may  have a l -  proposed t h a t Chomsky,  without j u s t i f i c a t i o n , maintained formalisms w i t h i n h i s supposedly m e n t a l i s t i c framework.  Botha m e t i c u l o u s l y  demonstrated  the v a r y i n g a b i l i t i e s o f hypotheses to be t e s t a b l e and e m p i r i c a l i n a theory w i t h the  "doubtless  system which purports  t o be  hence  concerned  e m p i r i c a l problem" o f w r i t i n g grammars.  In a d d i t i o n , the r u l e s and p r i n c i p l e s of TGP  h y p o t h e s i z e d by  l i n g u i s t s , the h y p o t h e t i c a l grammatical models w i t h apparent d e s c r i p t i v e and  explanatory  p h y s i c a l assumptions o f TGP of various  adequacy and e v e n t u a l l y the metawould be submitted to the  independent v e r i f i c a t i o n procedures and  course c o u l d be m o d i f i e d  or abandoned  scrutiny  so o f  altogether.  That which c o u l d be gained, on the other hand, would be increase  an  i n the e x p l i c i t n e s s of d e s c r i p t i o n s of a l l aspects of  the theory.  T h i s would be achieved  by means of independent  sources of evidence r e f l e c t i n g back on the t h e o r i e s and their e x p l i c i t modification.  The  forcing  e x p l i c i t n e s s would a l s o  brought about by means of the need f o r c o n t i n u i n g  be  experimenta-  t i o n to develop on the b a s i s of t e s t i m p l i c a t i o n s which c o u l d  -38o n l y be d e r i v e d The  from t h e o r i e s t h a t were more f u l l y s p e c i f i e d .  gain would l i k e l y be a !self-propagating  development of more e x p l i c i t theory.  cycle of  T e s t i n g the hypotheses  and modifying them s p e c i f i c a l l y would produce the to d e r i v e  the  opportunity  f u r t h e r t e s t i m p l i c a t i o n s which might, i n t u r n ,  r e s u l t i n f u r t h e r m o d i f i c a t i o n and  s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f the  Ohala p o i n t s out Chomsky's admission t h a t i t w i l l  theory.  be  necessary to d i s c o v e r c o n d i t i o n s on theory c o n s t r u c t i o n s , coming presumably from experimental psychology or from neurology, which w i l l r e s o l v e the a l t e r n a t i v e s [that i s , a l t e r n a t i v e hypotheses] t h a t can be a r r i v e d at by the k i n d of s p e c u l a t i v e theory c o n s t r u c t i o n s l i n g u i s t s can do on the b a s i s o f the data a v a i l a b l e to them ( J . Ohala, 1970, p.10). His and  H a l l e ' s most c o n s i s t e n t p o s i t i o n , however, i s t h a t  f o r the f o r e s e e a b l e f u t u r e , the study o f language and mental processes w i l l have to be c a r r i e d out at such a l e v e l of a b s t r a c t i o n [the a b s t r a c t i o n of an i d e a l s p e a k e r - l i s t e n e r who i n s t a n t a n e o u s l y acquires language] i f i t i s to make s i g n i f i c a n t progress (Chomsky and H a l l e , 1968, p.332). Chomsky and TGP  H a l l e , however, f a i l  must reach before  to s p e c i f y the p o i n t  s p e c u l a t i v e theory  constructions  submitted t o independent means of v e r i f i c a t i o n . reason to begin t e s t i n g theory crease  constructions,  the r i s k t h a t the m e n t a l i s t i c theory  that  can  be  Here i s another  i f o n l y to  de-  w i l l develop e r -  roneously. 2.3  Independent v e r i f i c a t i o n procedures f o r p h o n o l o g i c a l Ways o f approaching the c u r r e n t c h a l l e n g e  p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y of g e n e r a t i v e Fischer-JjzJrgensen  (1975).  To her,  of v e r i f y i n g  phonology are reviewed  [some e q u i v a l e n t  the by  the n o t i o n of the r e a l i t y  m e n t a l i s t i c claims presupposes t h a t the speaker somehow command of  rules  o f ] the u n i t s and  "has  r u l e s set up  by  of  -39the l i n g u i s t " (p.224)..  She  p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y " and  calls this reality  "functional  surveys the types of  linguistic  data from which i n f e r e n c e s can be drawn f o r the problems o f theory's  mental r e a l i s m .  The  sources of data which she  are from v a r i o u s types of l i n g u i s t i c change such as l i n g u i s t i c data, f i r s t and  tion.  cites  diachronic  a c q u i s i t i o n of  l a t e r languages; speech e r r o r s , such as s l i p s of  tongue and puns and  accomodation o f loanwords and  aphasic  disturbances;  metrics  and  l i n g u i s t i c games; orthography; and  Following  from v a r i o u s  rhyme,  the  phonetic  d i r e c t experimenta-  are some cases where i n f e r e n c e s were drawn  types o f l i n g u i s t i c behaviour on the  r e a l i t y of c e r t a i n aspects o f 2.3.1  the  psychological  TGP.  D i r e c t experiments as a means o f v e r i f i c a t i o n phonological rules  of  T h i s means of v e r i f y i n g the p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y o f phonol o g i c a l r u l e s d e f i e s the i d e a l s p e a k e r - l i s t e n e r frame of s i n c e the experiments are done on n o n - i d e a l with the performance data being  considered  TGP  speaker-listeners as d i r e c t l y  relevant  to the speakers * competence. An experiment i n v o l v i n g the use of nonsense words i s r e ported  by Zimmer (1969) .  Zimmer s t a t e s t h a t speakers may  have an awareness of the p r i n c i p l e u n d e r l y i n g  some  phonological  r e g u l a r i t y seen i n t h e i r language i f the p h o n o l o g i c a l accounting Further,  he  f o r the r e g u l a r i t y i s not suggests t h a t i t may  synchronically  sometimes be  process productive.  impossible  determine the r e l a t i v e p r o d u c t i v i t y o f aspects of  not  to  linguistic  structure. He  s e t s out to t e s t s u b j e c t s ' awareness of three  Turkish  -40morpheme s t r u c t u r e c o n d i t i o n s vowel harmony.  The p a l a t a l i t y MSC holds t h a t vowels i n bases  of words agree i n p a l a t a l i t y / e t i / meat ).  (MSC's) i n v o l v e d i n T u r k i s h  ( f o r i n s t a n c e , / i t i / dog and  The l a b i a l consonant MSC s t a t e s t h a t a f t e r / a / ,  a high vowel agrees i n l a b i a l i t y with an i n t e r v o c a l i c consonant  ( f o r example,  palm o f hand).  Several  /karpuz/ watermelon  labial  and /avuc/  (62) morphemes were found conforming  to t h i s MSC and many o f them were f r e q u e n t l y used i n everyday speech.  In a d d i t i o n , 13 uncommon morphemes were found t o be  counter-examples o f the l a b i a l consonant MSC.  These morphemes  had t h e form / . . . a . . . C ^ . . . i . . . / where C^ i s a l a b i a l  consonant.  They can be accounted f o r by the g e n e r a l l a b i a l i t y MSC.  This  r u l e s t a t e s t h a t a n o n - f i r s t vowel i n the base agrees w i t h the l a b i a l i t y o f the f i r s t vowel i n the base i f both are h i g h v o w e l s — e x c e p t i f the p r e c e d i n g vowel i s / a / and a l a b i a l consonant i n t e r v e n e s between the two vowels. The f i r s t t e s t c o n s i s t e d o f p a i r s o f s i n g l e morpheme T u r k i s h nonsense words. the  Each p a i r was designed t o t e s t one o f  three MSC's mentioned above.  The l i s t o f words was m a i l e d  as a q u e s t i o n n a i r e to T u r k i s h students a t B e r k e l e y w i t h the i n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t they were t o pronounce the word p a i r s aloud and check which word sounded  l i k e a p o s s i b l e T u r k i s h word.  They were p e r m i t t e d t o check both words i f both sounded p o s s i b l e T u r k i s h words.  like  Twenty-three students r e p l i e d and  t h e i r responses were c o n s i d e r e d . F i v e o f the 16 word p a i r s were r e l e v a n t t o the l a b i a l sonant MSC.  con-  Only 23.5% o f the responses f o r these 5 p a i r s were  i n accord with t h i s r u l e ' s p r e d i c t i o n , while  50.4% o f the  responses were not those which would have been p r e d i c t e d by the r u l e and 26.1% o f the responses showed no p r e f e r e n c e word i n the p a i r s . any  for either  Two p a i r s o f words were not r e l e v a n t t o  of the MSC's under c o n s i d e r a t i o n .  Nine p a i r s were r e l e v a n t  e i t h e r f o r the g e n e r a l l a b i a l i t y MSC o r the p a l a t a l i t y Zimmer c o n s i d e r e d  MSC.  the r e s u l t s o f the responses t o word p a i r s  which were r e l e v a n t t o these two MSC's together,  he s a i d , s i n c e  t h e i r responses were what one might expect on the b a s i s o f r e g u l a r i t i e s i n the harmonic p o r t i o n o f the l e x i c o n .  In these  9 word p a i r s , 88.4% of the responses were those p r e d i c t e d by the MSC's, 4.4% o f the responses were i n disagreement with the r u l e s ' p r e d i c t i o n s and 7.2% were i n d i c a t i v e o f no p r e f e r e n c e f o r e i t h e r word i n the p a i r s . The recorded  second t e s t c o n s i s t e d o f 18 p a i r s o f nonsense words twice by a n a t i v e T u r k i s h speaker.  s u b j e c t s f o r producing  allowed  responses was l i m i t e d as the p r e s e n t a t i o n  of word p a i r s o c c u r r e d with between the p a i r s .  The time  i n t e r v a l s o f l e s s than f o u r seconds  A second p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the l i s t was  given.  I t i n v o l v e d the same word p a i r s but the order of the words i n each p a i r was r e v e r s e d .  There was a f i f t e e n minute  between the two t e s t p r e s e n t a t i o n s and  interval  d u r i n g which the examiner  the s u b j e c t t a l k e d of matters u n r e l a t e d to the t e s t . S i x t e e n n a t i v e speakers o f T u r k i s h were asked t o i n d i c a t e  a unique p r e f e r e n c e  by checking  an " ( a ) " ( f o r the f i r s t  word)  or " ( b ) " (for the second word) on a sheet o f paper a f t e r l i s t e n i n g t o each p a i r o f words. In order t o t e s t s u b j e c t s ' awareness o f an MSC not r e l a t e d  -42-  to vowel harmony, Zimmer i n c l u d e d two p a i r s o f words where one member had a consonant c l u s t e r o c c u r r i n g n e i t h e r i n T u r k i s h nor i n l o a n words accepted  by T u r k i s h .  The answers were i n  favour o f t h e member with the reduced consonant c l u s t e r - i o n l y 5 responses favoured The  the words with unreduced c l u s t e r s .  r e s u l t s o f the second t e s t showed 84% o f responses  r e l e v a n t t o the p a l a t a l i t y MSC t o be i n accord w i t h the r u l e ; 65.6%  o f responses agreed with the general l a b i a l consonant  r u l e ; and 48.1% o f responses which were r e l e v a n t t o the medial l a b i a l consonant MSC were i n accord with t h a t r u l e . Zimmer draws two c o n c l u s i o n s .  F i r s t , d e s p i t e the g r e a t  number o f non-harmonic loan words i n T u r k i s h , s u b j e c t s showed a " c o n s i d e r a b l e p r e f e r e n c e "  f o r nonsense words conform-  i n g t o the p a l a t a l i t y and general l a b i a l i t y MSC's. p l a i n s t h i s preference  by proposing  still  Zimmer ex-  t h a t s u b j e c t s need  p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s t o use t h e i r language p r o d u c t i v e l y .  these Second,  a n a l y s i s o f i n d i v i d u a l s u b j e c t ' s responses i n d i c a t e d a n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between the p r e f e r e n c e  o f words accounted f o r by  the l a b i a l c o u l d be d i v i d e d i n t o two groups.  In each group the  s u b j e c t s tended t o ignore one MSC and more o f t e n e v a l u a t e t h e word forms on t h e b a s i s o f the other MSC. two MSC's c o n f l i c t e d w i t h each o t h e r .  Furthermore, the  Zimmer b e l i e v e s t h a t  s u b j e c t s p r e f e r r e d t o use only one o f two o v e r g e n e r a l i z e d — r a t h e r than both o f two complementary—MSC's concerning the aspect o f l a b i a l i t y o f vowels i n vowel harmony.  The degree o f  i n t e r f e r e n c e between c o n f l i c t i n g MSC's was measured i n terms o f the percentage o f responses by a given s u b j e c t where t h e f i r s t  -43-  r a t h e r than the second MSC was a p p l i e d .  For i n s t a n c e , the  i n t e r f e r e n c e o f the g e n e r a l i z e d l a b i a l i t y MSC with t h e l a b i a l consonant MSC ranged from 40% t o 100%.  To c o n f i r m the hy-  p o t h e s i s o f c o n f l i c t i n g MSC's Zimmer suggests t e s t i n g a l a r g e number o f s u b j e c t s r e p e a t e d l y over an extended p e r i o d o f time to see i f the amount o f i n t e r f e r e n c e o f an MSC f o r a given  sub-  j e c t appears s t a b l e . Since the r e s u l t s showed t h a t one group o f s u b j e c t s more f r e q u e n t l y used an o v e r g e n e r a l i z e d l a b i a l consonant MSC w h i l e another group p r e f e r r e d t o use an o v e r g e n e r a l i z e d l a b i a l i t y MSC (that i s , the g e n e r a l l a b i a l i t y MSC with the "except i f " c l a u s e dropped), Zimmer concludes p h o n o l o g i c a l models.  t h a t h i s s u b j e c t s had d i f f e r e n t  In a d d i t i o n , t h e i r p h o n o l o g i c a l models  were i n c o r r e c t as the o v e r g e n e r a l i z e d use o f e i t h e r r u l e cannot account f o r a l l o f the word forms i n T u r k i s h .  Zimmer a t t r i b u t e s  the erroneous o v e r g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s t o the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t unp r o d u c t i v e p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s are i n v o l v e d i n the MSC's under discussion.  In t h i s case he f e e l s t h a t the s u b j e c t s  l e a r n l e x i c a l items i n t h e i r f u l l y s p e c i f i e d form. i n q u e s t i o n do not f i l l  i n values  f o r incompletely  probably The MSC's  specified  segments. Zimmer f i n a l l y s t a t e s t h a t A p r e c i s e statement o f the r e l e v a n t MSC's, which we might want t o i n c o r p o r a t e i n a phonology o f T u r k i s h , a p p a r e n t l y does not p r o v i d e a r e a l i s t i c analog o f the knowledge i n t e r n a l i z e d by the n a t i v e speaker, and o f course f a i l s completely t o r e f l e c t the d i f ferences which seem t o e x i s t between speakers (p.320). An experiment done by M. Ohala  (1974) i n v o l v e d unusual  -44-  d e r i v a t i o n s of e x i s t i n g words. purely  s t r u c t u r a l evidence was  Ohala was  not  She  attempts to  experimental evidence f o r the p s y c h o l o g i c a l  i n surface  that  s u f f i c i e n t proof t h a t grammars  are p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y r e a l c o n s t r u c t s .  t a i n segment i n u n d e r l y i n g  convinced  provide  r e a l i t y of a c e r -  forms which does not  always appear  structures.  Ohala s t a t e s t h a t f o r a group of forms i n H i n d i reasonable to p o s i t an u n d e r l y i n g  form c o n t a i n i n g  i t is  a schwa.  Before a medial consonant c l u s t e r the morpheme c o u l d drop i t s schwa by a . a - d e l e t i o n  r u l e of the  f o l l o w i n g form:  T h i s system c o u l d account f o r words such as (catch/caught),  [p isal]/[p isla] h  h  a  -*• 0/VC  [paksr]/[pakra]  (slip/slipped), etc.  Certain  s u f f i x e s such as - i y a (which forms a d j e c t i v e s from nouns) the a p p l i c a t i o n o f the as  produce such forms  [ka:sar]/ [ks-.sariya] . Ohala e x p l a i n s  f o r the  t h a t a p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e way  forms mentioned above i s to use  Then the u n d e r l y i n g and  0  - d e l e t i o n r u l e and  block  t o account  a[a]-epenthesis  forms would be /pakr/, / k a s : r / ,  rule.  etcetera  the  [a] would be i n s e r t e d i n the f o l l o w i n g way: f # 1 -*a/VC Cs +C r . U n f o r t u n a t e l y t h i s r u l e would i n c o r . +iya,  r e c t l y i n s e r t schwas i n a l l H i n d i words w i t h f i n a l clusters.  consonant  I t would be too extravagant to mark the H i n d i words  showing f i n a l [a]-epenthesis  c u l s t e r s as not b e i n g r e c e p t i v e to  the  rule.  Ohala proposes t h a t evidence f o r the presence o r absence of schwa i n u n d e r l y i n g  forms c o u l d be t e s t e d by o b s e r v i n g  d e r i v a t i o n s of nonsense words.  For  instance,  the  the nonsense  CV.  -45-  words [masak] and -6 and - i y a .  [mask] could be d e r i v e d by u s i n g the morphemes  I f the [a]-epenthesis r u l e was  of - i y a to both stems would produce  used, the a d d i t i o n  [masakiya:] f o r the under-  l y i n g forms of both stems would be /mask/.  I f speakers used a  a - d e l e t i o n r u l e , the u n d e r l y i n g forms would be /masak/ and /mask/ and the responses c o u l d be expected to be  [masakiya:]  (since the a - d e l e t i o n r u l e i s b l o c k e d by - i y a ) and  [maskiya:]  respectively. After finding  t h a t one a d u l t n a t i v e speaker o f H i n d i  gave  [masko:] as the response when the o b l i q u e p l u r a l morpheme -o was  added t o both  -iya yielded  [masak] and  [masakiya:] and  s - d e l e t i o n r u l e was  [mask] and t h a t the a d d i t i o n o f [maskiya:]., Ohala f e l t t h a t the  l i k e l y used.  She sets out to t e s t  whether  a schwa should be p o s i t e d i n u n d e r l y i n g forms of c e r t a i n morphemes which have c l u s t e r s a t the p h o n e t i c l e v e l but which have no a l t e r n a t i n g word forms c o n t a i n i n g [ a ] . The forms used were nouns i n common use i n everyday speech: f o r example,  [g S:sla:]  (nest),  [ke:kra:] ( c r a b ) .  The task  was  to add - i y a t o the nouns, producing n o n - e x i s t e n t but s e m a n t i c a l l y reasonable forms.  In a p r e l i m i n a r y t e s t seven c o l l e g e - e d u c a -  t e d n a t i v e speakers o f Standard H i n d i added - i y a t o f i v e They were v e r b a l l y g i v e n two warm-up examples;  nouns.  o f the two,  o n l y one stem and i t s d e r i v a t i o n c o n t a i n e d schwas.  F i v e o f the  seven s u b j e c t s c o n s i s t e n t l y gave responses c o n t a i n i n g schwas i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the u n d e r l y i n g schwa was p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y  real.  The o t h e r two gave forms w i t h consonant c l u s t e r s o n l y . A second t e s t was performed i n which 2 7 n a t i v e speakers o f  -46-  Standard H i n d i added - i y a t o 30 common H i n d i nouns.  (Of the  30 words 9 were o f no i n t e r e s t t o the t e s t but were i n s e r t e d to prevent  s u b j e c t s from answering a u t o m a t i c a l l y i n a c e r t a i n  pattern.)  Subjects were t o l d t h a t adding - i y a might r e s u l t i n  words t h a t don't e x i s t i n H i n d i but t h a t n e v e r t h e l e s s make some sense.  " O c c a s i o n a l l y " Ohala gave the meaning o f a new  d e r i v a t i o n t o prevent  the s u b j e c t from adding - i y a a u t o m a t i c a l l y  to nonsense words. Assuming t h a t s u b j e c t s would f o r g e t t h e i r responses a f t e r an i n t e r v e n i n g a c t i v i t y , Ohala assigned task a f t e r completing corded  some items,  the t e s t .  the s u b j e c t s a b r i e f  Then, c l a i m i n g t o have  misre-  she asked the s u b j e c t s once again t o d e r i v e  c e r t a i n o f the words.  Two new words were added which have  e x i s t i n g forms i n H i n d i c o n t a i n i n g - i y a .  One o f the e x i s t i n g  H i n d i d e r i v a t i o n s with - i y a d i d and one d i d not c o n t a i n a schwa. The  e x i s t i n g d e r i v a t i o n s were given a t the beginning  o f the  second l i s t t o see whether the speakers would be i n f l u e n c e d by t h e i r form.  The responses were reocrded  throughout both t e s t  p r e s e n t a t i o n s by n o t i n g a 0 i f s u b j e c t s d i d not add o r r e t a i n a schwa. The  r e s u l t s showed t h a t most s u b j e c t s p r e f e r r e d t o keep the  bases unchanged.  To i n v e s t i g a t e whether s u b j e c t s were i n f l u -  enced by the two cue words, the change i n d i s t r i b u t i o n o f 0 and schwa responses was considered words. two  f o r the words f o l l o w i n g the cue  The data showed a small change i n the i n c i d e n c e o f the  types o f responses;  f o r the m a j o r i t y o f the words, the  change was i n the d i r e c t i o n o f conformity  t o the cue words *  -47-  patterns.  Chi-square t e s t s o f the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f the d i f -  ference between the observed d i s t r i b u t i o n o f responses and the expected d i s t r i b u t i o n i f s u b j e c t s had responded  identical-  l y both times showed t h a t s u b j e c t s ' responses were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d by cue words. With the i n t e n t i o n o f making some i n t e r e s t i n g p o i n t s , Ohala t e n t a t i v e l y assumes the sample o f the responses i n the t e s t t o be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f d e r i v a t i o n s which might be made i n e v e r y day speech. a schwa.  Three s u b j e c t s ' responses predominantly c o n t a i n e d  She groups these s u b j e c t s i n t o a " a - d i a l e c t " .  Another t h r e e s u b j e c t s ' responses were predominatly l a c k i n g schwas and were grouped i n t o a "jzJ-dialect".  The remaining 21  s u b j e c t s showed c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n i n t h e i r responses. Ohala observes t h a t f o r those s u b j e c t s i n the _a_-dialect, the assumption t h a t - i y a b l o c k s the a - d e l e t i o n r u l e i s wrong. She h y p o t h e s i z e s t h a t the environment is s t i l l  changing from t h e context mentioned  g e n e r a l environment. might  o f the a - d e l e t i o n  rule  e a r l i e r t o a more  The v a r i a t i o n i n s u b j e c t s ' responses  i n d i c a t e , she f e e l s , t h a t the change has not been com-  pleted. For the 21 s u b j e c t s g i v i n g mixed responses, - i y a sometimes does and sometimes does not b l o c k the a - d e l e t i o n r u l e .  There  i s no c l e a r - c u t evidence f o r t h e absence o r presence o f an u n d e r l y i n g schwa i n the t e s t ' s words.  Ohala suggests t h a t the  words do perhaps have an u n d e r l y i n g schwa s i n c e the s p o r a d i c appearance  o f the schwa i n s u r f a c e forms could be caused by  the f a c t t h a t the - i y a s u f f i x i s being removed as a b l o c k t o  -48the a-deletion  rule.  L i k e Zimmer, Ohala observes t h a t  "speakers who  forms which are i d e n t i c a l p h o n e t i c a l l y may d i f f e r e n t grammars" (1974, J . Ohala  still  produce  have q u i t e  p.223).  (1973) r e p o r t s t e s t i n g t o see i f speakers use  c e r t a i n sound p a t t e r n s p r o d u c t i v e l y .  Proof o f the p r o d u c t i v -  i t y of sound p a t t e r n s would be, a c c o r d i n g to Ohala, the demons t r a t e d a b i l i t y o f speakers t o extend the p a t t e r n t o new o r t o e x i s t i n g words i n a new was  situation.  I f the sound  words  pattern  shown t o be p r o d u c t i v e , Ohala f e e l s t h a t the next step i n  the study would be t o determine how  i t was  productive.  c o n s i d e r s two p o s s i b l e means o f p r o d u c t i v i t y :  He  independent  p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s such as are h y p o t h e s i z e d by Chomsky and Halle  (1968) and a n a l o g i c a l p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s which  require  e x p l i c i t r e f e r e n c e to e x i s t i n g words which m a n i f e s t a g i v e n sound p a t t e r n .  For example, i f a speaker i s asked to d e r i v e  a new word u s i n g the stem word s l a v e and the s u f f i x - i t y he might produce  [slaevlti] .  have produced  [slaevlti] through an analogy with the word p a i r  sane/sanity.  Ohala b e l i e v e s t h a t the speaker  On the o t h e r hand the speaker may  have used an w  independent p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e such as V -*• [-tense]/ which Chomsky and H a l l e  may  1  CVCV  (1968) propose.  Ohala t e s t s the p r o d u c t i v i t y of s i x p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s p r o posed by Chomsky and H a l l e  (1968) by g i v i n g s u b j e c t s a word  d e r i v a t i o n task i n v o l v i n g s u f f i x a t i o n .  There were 6 3 stem-words.  V was used by Ohala, and s h a l l be used i n the d i s c u s s i o n o f the p r e s e n t study, t o r e p r e s e n t V [-stress]"  -49-  Forty-one o f these were t e s t words, t h a t i s , words which Ohala thought would l i k e l y undergo a phonetic change i n the stem when s u b j e c t s combined them with a s u f f i x . "filler"  Twenty-two were  words, or words which were not expected by Ohala t o  undergo phonetic change when a s u f f i x was added t o them. f i l l e r words were i n c l u d e d i n the l i s t  The  to prevent s u b j e c t s  from t h i n k i n g t h a t a phonetic change i n the stem of the d e r i v e d word should be necessary.  Subects' responses to the  filler  words were not i n c l u d e d i n the a n a l y s i s . A t o t a l of ten s u f f i x e s were used. (such as -ment, -hood and -dom)  Some o f the s u f f i x e s  were not expected to t r i g g e r a  phonetic change i n the stem o f the new word.  A l t o g e t h e r ten  stem-words were t o be combined with these t h r e e f i l l e r  suf-  f i x e s and the responses t o t h e i r combinations were a l s o not i n c l u d e d i n the a n a l y s i s .  T h e r e f o r e a t o t a l o f 32 out o f 62  responses i n the s u f f i x a t i o n task i n O h a l a s experiment were 1  not  counted i n h i s a n a l y s i s . A f t e r the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a new  s u f f i x which was t o be  added to a f o l l o w i n g s e t of stem-words, of  two examples o f the use  t h a t s u f f i x i n E n g l i s h were given t o the s u b j e c t .  Most o f  the  examples o f s u f f i x a t i o n e x h i b i t e d no phonetic change i n  the  stem  ( f o r example, o d d / o d d i t y ) ; two example  derivations  demonstrated a change i n vowel q u a l i t y i n the stem wherein tense vowels became l a x ( f o r i n s t a n c e ,  detain/detention,  e x p l a i n / e x p l a n a t o r y ) ; some examples showed two changes wherein a p r e v i o u s l y u n s t r e s s e d schwa was r e a l i z e d as another l a x vowel which c a r r i e d primary s t r e s s  (solid/solidify).  -50-  The  s u b j e c t s were 26 Berkeley  majors i n a r t or a r c h i t e c t u r e . h e l p was  undergraduate or graduate  They were informed  that t h e i r  needed i n c o n s t r u c t i n g an e x t r a p o l a t e d or extended  d i c t o n a r y of E n g l i s h and were reminded o f the formation of  new  E n g l i s h words through s u f f i x a t i o n and given an example of i t . The  s u b j e c t s were d i r e c t e d to pronounce the word r e s u l t i n g  the a d d i t i o n o f the s u f f i x and word s u p p l i e d to them. order to d i s t r a c t s u b j e c t s ' a t t e n t i o n from the  In  pronounciation  task, s u b j e c t s were a l s o d i r e c t e d to say what the new would mean and  from  word  to t e l l whether they would be l i k e l y to use  the  word. In a d m i n i s t e r i n g the t e s t , the s u b j e c t s were individually.  The  pronouncing i t and t h a t s u f f i x ' s use  interviewed  examiner i n t r o d u c e d a p a r t i c u l a r s u f f i x s p e l l i n g i t aloud.  Then two  by  examples o f  i n e x i s t i n g E n g l i s h words were g i v e n .  F i n a l l y s e v e r a l stem-words (to which t h a t s u f f i x had not been added b e f o r e i n E n g l i s h ) were presented,  one  at a time,  m i t t i n g the s u b j e c t to perform h i s tasks a f t e r the of each stem-word. the time allowed  per-  presentation  Ohala does not mention i n h i s r e p o r t t h a t  f o r responding  communication), t h e r e was  was  limited.  In f a c t  (personal  no time l i m i t i n which s u b j e c t s  had  to respond. The jects.  e n t i r e t e s t was The  presented  o r a l l y to i n d i v i d u a l  s u b j e c t s ' responses were tape-recorded  phonetically transcribed.  and  sublater  In the case where a s u b j e c t gave  two  responses and a p r e f e r e n c e between them, the p r e f e r r e d form  was  counted.  I f no p r e f e r e n c e was  i n d i c a t e d the l a s t form given  -51-  was  counted. In g e n e r a l ,  the r e s u l t s showed the  i n v e s t i g a t i o n to be unproductive. found i n i n v e s t i g a t i n g new  independent r u l e s under  In a d d i t i o n , as M.  Ohala  d e r i v a t i o n s i n H i n d i , there was  "overwhelming" tendency f o r J . Ohala's s u b j e c t s  an  to keep the  stem-words p h o n e t i c a l l y unchanged. The  majority  of responses which were r e l e v a n t to the  r e p r e s e n t e d by V -»-,. [-tense]/ the  stem.  CVCV r e t a i n e d a tense vowel i n  To d i s c u s s whether s u b j e c t s  used t h e i r f i r s t  sponses as a model f o r a response t h a t f o l l o w e d , s i d e r e d the adjacent words methane+ - i t y and w e l l as d e f i n e + - i t y and  rule  iodine + - i t y .  re-  Ohala con-  s u s t a i n + - i t y as  The  tetrachoric cor-  r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t measure used with responses f o r these words showed t h a t the c o r r e l a t i o n s of e i t h e r both l a x or both tense vowels i n the  stems of each of the above mentioned p a i r s of  d e r i v a t i o n s were h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t . Ohala t h a t s u b j e c t s were basing  T h e r e f o r e i t appeared to  t h e i r responses f o r  j.  s u s t a i n + - i t y and  i o d i n e + - i t y on t h e i r responses f o r  methane + - i t y and  define + - i t y r e s p e c t i v e l y .  Ohala concludes  t h a t s u b j e c t s were l i k e l y u s i n g a n a l o g i c a l p h o n o l o g i c a l by using t h e i r f i r s t  response as a model f o r the  each of the p a i r s of  derivations.  The  sound p a t t e r n of one  V -* [+tense]/  Civ  type of vowel  rules  second i n  tensing,  ( f o r example, mammal/mammalian) , was  to be very unproductive with l e s s than 4% of responses h i b i t i n g the p r e d i c t e d tense vowel i n the stem of derivations.  . .  shown ex-  relevant  -52-  Another case of vowel t e n s i n g , V•'•*• [+ t e n s e ] / example, a l g e b r a / a l g e b r a i c )  showed l i t t l e  V (for  evidence o f produc-  t i v i t y with o n l y 13% o f responses having the p r e d i c t e d vowel.  The  responses which o c c u r r e d  more f r e q u e n t l y were the  d e l e t i o n of the s t e m - f i n a l vowel and stop between the  s t e m - f i n a l vowel and  the  suffix.  3/(6  a l t e r n a t i o n might be  'conspiracy'  OhahaAs impression  tense  the i n s e r t i o n of a g l o t t a l the i n i t i a l vowel o f  of these r e s u l t s i s t h a t  "the dominant s t r a t e g y i n the  the  English  to a v o i d vowel c l u s t e r s " (p.43) as there are a  number of e x i s t i n g E n g l i s h words showing t h i s p a t t e r n as c h o l e r a / c h o l e r i c ,  (such  parabola/parabolic).  The /s/ was  ' s - v o i c i n g ' sound p a t t e r n , wherein .,. ; .... V -»• [+ v o i c e ] /[+ tense], V (for example, gymnast/gymnasium) , [- high] very unproductive with such e l i g i b l e stems as space  f l e e c e where the preceding Only 29%  vowel was  and  produced as a tense vowel.  of responses t h a t c o u l d have e x h i b i t e d v e l a r d 2  s o f t e n i n g , the p a t t e r n wherein /k /->-/s/ /  I (for example,  c r i t i c / c r i t i c i s m ) , d i d so.  the percentage f o r  Ohala d e s c r i b e s  v e l a r s o f t e n i n g as i n d i c a t i v e of "marginal" p r o d u c t i v i t y f o r the r u l e , given  the c o n d i t i o n s of the experiment.  Ohala a l s o sought to d i s c o v e r whether the u n d e r l y i n g i n the second s y l l a b l e s o f o b t a i n and eligibility  p e r t a i n are marked f o r  f o r vowel s h i f t when the vowels are l a x e d .  a r i l y , underlying  vowel  tense vowels such as those i n d i v i n e  Ordinand  Ohala (1973,.p.44) uses /k / to r e f e r to what Chomsky and H a l l e c a l l " d e r i v a b l e " /k/ which i s i n o p p o s i t i o n to o r d i n a r y /k/'s (such as t h a t i n keep which does not s o f t e n ) .  -53-  serene undergo vowel s h i f t o n l y i f they remain tense.  Oc-  c a s i o n a l l y , however, as i n words such as d e t a i n / d e t e n t i o n r e t a i n / r e t e n t i o n , Chomsky and H a l l e to hypothesize  (1968) f i n d i t convenient .  t h a t u n d e r l y i n g tense vowels are e l i g i b l e f o r  vowel s h i f t even a f t e r being vowels appearing  laxed  (by the r u l e t h a t l a x e s  b e f o r e consonant c l u s t e r s ) .  Ohala presented occasions.  the stem-words p e r t a i n and o b t a i n on  On each o c c a s i o n , a d i f f e r e n t example of an  i s t i n g d e r i v a t i o n was  given.  The  two  i n the second s y l l a b l e s o f t h e i r stems.  had  these  ex-  d i f f e r e n t vowels  Subjects d i d not show  c o n s i s t e n t behaviour i n d e r i v i n g each o f p e r t a i n and with the s u f f i x e s - i o n and  two  d e r i v e d examples  (explain/explanatory, detain/detention)  done had  and  obtain  - a t o r y as they would l i k e l y have  there been a s p e c i f i e d u n d e r l y i n g vowel i n each of  stem words.  Instead,  s u b j e c t s appeared to make t h e i r  d e r i v a t i o n s a c c o r d i n g to the p a t t e r n p r o v i d e d them i n the example d e r v a t i o n s . [ae]  In a l l ,  9 of 26 s u b j e c t s produced  as the second vowel i n the new  the example s u p p l i e d them.  [fc] and  word i n accordance with  Ohala concludes  that " I t i s c l e a r  t h a t the treatment of the vowel i n these words depends not  on  i t s u n d e r l y i n g s p e c i f i c a t i o n but r a t h e r on what e x i s t i n g ,  sur-  face a l t e r n a t i o n the d e r i v a t i o n i s p a t t e r n e d a f t e r " Perhaps a b e t t e r way  to v e r i f y the i n f l u e n c e of example  d e r i v a t i o n s showing a p p r o p r i a t e to g i v e two  t e s t s to two  (p.44).  s u r f a c e a l t e r n a t i o n s would be  d i f f e r e n t groups o f s u b j e c t s .  group would be given examples o f d e r i v a t i o n s r e l e v a n t to d e r i v a t i o n s they were r e q u i r e d to make.  The  One the  o t h e r group would  -54-  not be exposed to these  l e a d i n g examples,  Then a check c o u l d  be made to f i n d the t o t a l number of a l l s u b j e c t s ' responses wherein a phonetic provided.  change was  made a c c o r d i n g to the examples  T h i s number c o u l d be compared with the number of  responses with i d e n t i c a l phonetic  changes made by s u b j e c t s  were not s u p p l i e d with the examples.  Then some i d e a of  who  the  i n f l u e n c e of s u b j e c t s ' exposure to l e a d i n g examples of d e r i v a t i o n s c o u l d be gained.  From t h i s i n f l u e n c e one might draw  i n f e r e n c e s on the p o s s i b l e use of a n a l o g i c a l r u l e s i n the derivations tasks. For i n s t a n c e , i f the s u b j e c t s who  were exposed to examples  of d e r i v a t i o n s i l l u s t r a t i n g given sound p a t t e r n s happened t o produce more responses showing those  sound p a t t e r n s than the  a l t e r n a t e group o f s u b j e c t s , one might conclude t h a t the presence or absence of l e a d i n g examples i n f l u e n c e d form o f s u b j e c t s ' u t t e r a n c e s . analyze  the  The next task would be  the data to see i f the i n f l u e n c e of those  phonetic to  examples  was  caused by the examples' i l l u s t r a t i o n of s u r f a c e phonetic a l t e r n a t i o n s or by t h e i r i l l u s t r a t i o n of a b s t r a c t p h o n o l o g i c a l rules.  T h i s might be done by checking  to see i f s u b j e c t s  produce vowels of s i m i l a r q u a l i t y i n the stems o f d e r i v a t i o n s o r i g i n a l l y composed of i d e n t i c a l stems but d i f f e r e n t  suffixes.  The  environ-  d i f f e r e n t s u f f i x e s would, of course,  serve as an  ment i n which the same independent p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e was p o t h e s i z e d to apply.  For example, Ohala checked to  hy-  see  whether the second vowel i n the stem-words o b t a i n and p e r t a i n , (which were each administered  twice to be combined once with  -55-  the s u f f i x - i o n and once with - a t o r y ) , underwent the same phonetic  change i n each d e r i v a t i o n using a d i f f e r e n t s u f f i x .  He found that the responses o f i n d i v i d u a l s u b j e c t s  for either  p e r t a i n o r o b t a i n d i d not agree i n the q u a l i t y o f the second vowel.  Rather, as was mentioned e a r l i e r , the vowels were i n  accordance with the vowel a l t e r n a t i o n demonstrated i n the example d e r i v a t i o n s .  Ohala concludes t h a t s u b j e c t s were not  aware o f an i d e n t i c a l u n d e r l y i n g pertain.  This conclusion  vowel i n e i t h e r o b t a i n o r  i s based on the assumption t h a t  the same r u l e would be a p p l i e d t o the s p e c i f i e d u n d e r l y i n g vowel i n the d e r i v a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g , f o r example,  pertain,  producing an i d e n t i c a l s u r f a c e vowel i n those d e r i v a t i o n s . Ohala t h i n k s t h a t the treatment o f the vowel i n each stemword was not determined by an u n d e r l y i n g  vowel and a phono-  logical rule.  instead directed  He b e l i e v e s t h a t s u b j e c t s  t h e i r a t t e n t i o n t o the s u r f a c e a l t e r n a t i o n of the vowel i n .the example d e r i v a t i o n s and t o the s u r f a c e vowel o f the stem-word. Subjects  might then have produced the new d e r i v a t i o n by a n a l o g i -  cal rule. Ohala suggests a p o s s i b l e means o f o p e r a t i o n  for analogical  rules: The e s s e n t i a l p a r t of the procedure i s f i n d i n g a form i n the l e x i c o n o f e x i s t i n g words which can serve as a model f o r the d e r i v a t i o n o f the input stem. The model stem and i n p u t stem must be d i v i d e d i n t o d i s s i m i l a r p a r t s and s i m i l a r parts....Then the d i s s i m i l a r p a r t of the model stem i s s u b t r a c t e d from the model d e r i v a t i o n and r e p l a c e d with the d i s s i m i l a r p a r t o f the i n put stem, i . e . , [fckspl-] i s s u b t r a c t e d from [fckspl«n»bori] l e a v i n g [-aenatori] and then r e p l a c e d by the d i s s i m i l a r p a r t o f the input stem [Abt-] which y i e l d s U b t x n a t o r i L (1973, p.46).  -56Ano.ther: means of o p e r a t i o n i n v o l v e s the s u r f a c e phonetic  f o r a n a l o g i c a l r u l e s which a l s o forms of a p p r o p r i a t e  the p r o p o r t i o n a l equation mentioned by Esper  words i s  (1973, p.40).  The  p r o p o r t i o n a l equation r e q u i r e s three words, each of which must e i t h e r have a "formal" or " m a t e r i a l " correspondence with other, o f the words i n the equation. i s as f o l l o w s : and may way  explain  The  : explanatory  form o f the  :: o b t a i n  :  equation '  be read as e x p l a i n i s r e l a t e d to explanatory  as o b t a i n  i s r e l a t e d to  Whereas Ohala c o n s i d e r s  one  , i n the same  . his hypothetical operation  of  a n a l o g i c a l r u l e s to have m e n t a l i s t i c s i g n i f i c a n c e , Esper b e l i e v e s t h a t the p r o p o r t i o n a l equation has status.  The  l a t t e r states that  diagram a n a l o g i e s  " l o g i c i a n s and  as p r o p o r t i o n a l equations,  suppose t h a t such o p e r a t i o n s i n language"  only a f o r m a l i s t i c linguists  but  may  i t i s absurd t o  are i m p l i e d by a n a l o g i c a l changes  (1973, p.153).  Returning to the d i s c u s s i o n of O h a l a s t e s t r e s u l t s , i t 1  should  be noted t h a t one  (a p a r t of the (1968)), was  rule, V  tl stress]/  C + affix,  s t r e s s r u l e s p o s i t e d by Chomsky and  shown to be  "highly" productive  Halle  f o r c e r t a i n forms.  Ohala f e e l s t h a t the p r o d u c t i v i t y o f t h i s r u l e i n words r i v e d with the s u f f i x - i a n may  be accounted f o r by the  o f t h i s s u f f i x which e x h i b i t e d the s t r e s s p a t t e r n . r u l e was  also productive  examples  Yet,  the  i n words d e r i v e d with - i t y , whose  example d e r i v a t i o n s d i d not d i t i o n , two  de-  show the  stress pattern.  In ad- .  words showing "marginal" p r o d u c t i v i t y of the r u l e  (thermos, Thomas) c o n t a i n reduced f i n a l vowels and  have no  -57-  a l t e r n a t i n g word forms w i t h reduced vowels. w i t h a reduced vowel i n the  One  word (human)  f i n a l s y l l a b l e o f the  great p r o d u c t i v i t y f o r the  stress rule.  stem showed  I t , however, does have  an a l t e r n a t i n g form i n which t h i s "same " v o w e l i s unreduced and  c a r r i e s primary s t r e s s  Ohala, "This  (that i s , humanity).  suggests t h a t  of a word i s only  i f a p a r t i c u l a r vowel i n the  stem  r e a l i z e d as an u n s t r e s s e d completely reduced  vowel, then i t i s d i f f i c u l t on  A c c o r d i n g to  i t in derivations"  f o r speakers to put primary  stress  (p.43).  Ohala concludes t h a t the p r o d u c t i v i t y o f a g i v e n r u l e depending on the p a r t i c u l a r r u l e and  on the examples of  sound p a t t e r n  which are given to the  subjects  the  f e e l s t h a t i n t h i s study a n a l o g i c a l  rule.  He  to  s t r o n g e r than independent r u l e s i n forming new As was  varies  the  illustrate r u l e s were  derivations.  mentioned above, however, t h i s h y p o t h e s i s should  be  t e s t e d when the r e s u l t s o f a t e s t such as Ohala's can be compared with the  responses of a s i m i l a r group of s u b j e c t s  have not been s u p p l i e d with examples on which t o model t h e i r d e r i v a t i o n s . and  omitting  portunity  the  they may  possibly  A d m i n i s t e r i n g such a t e s t as Ohala's  l e a d i n g examples might a l s o p r o v i d e the  to check f o r s u b j e c t s  r e f e r r i n g not  who  using  analogical rules  to the examiner's examples but  op-  by  t o examples which  have drawn from t h e i r l e x i c o n .  Ohala expects t h a t p a t t e r n s  not  showing high  i n t h i s t e s t c o u l d be made to show g r e a t e r appropriate  examples were s u p p l i e d  productivity  productivity i f  to s u b j e c t s .  Ohala concludes t h a t the presumed u n d e r l y i n g  Finally,  forms i n c e r t a i n  -58-  words (such as o b t a i n and p e r t a i n ) appeared to not be what c e r t a i n l i n g u i s t s would have thought. S t e i n b e r g and Krohn's (1975) study attempts t o f i n d  evi-  dence f o r or a g a i n s t the p r o d u c t i v i t y of the Vowel S h i f t Rule (VSR)  proposed by Chomsky and H a l l e  (1968) .  The  general  nature  o f the r u l e can be i l l u s t r a t e d by c o n s i d e r i n g the words extreme and extremity, respectively. /e/.  The  whose second vowels are  [ I ] and  [e]  Y  a b s t r a c t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of both vowels i s  S t e i n b e r g and Krohn say t h a t " i n the case of extreme,  the u n d e r l y i n g /e/ undergoes Chomsky and H a l l e ' s D i p t h o n g i z a t i o n (e  e )  and then t h e i r Vowel S h i f t Rule  y  case of extremity,  y  t I ) .  In the  Y  the u n d e r l y i n g /e/ undergoes a l a x i n g r u l e  (e -> e) " (Steinberg and Krohn, 1975, general r u l e .  (i~  p.234).  The  T h i s means t h a t i t a p p l i e s to any  VSR  is a  underlying  p h o n o l o g i c a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of a l e x i c a l item having proper  the  s t r u c t u r a l d e s c r i p t i o n , except when the item i s spe-  c i a l l y marked to not undergo the r u l e .  S t e i n b e r g and Krohn  believe that since underlying phonological representations p o s i t e d to accommodate the a p p l i c a t i o n of the VSR,  an  are  extensive  r e v i s i o n o f Chomsky and H a l l e ' s u n d e r l y i n g forms would be r e q u i r e d i f the VSR's g e n e r a l i t y was The  authors  proven  mention three experimental  been done t o v e r i f y the VSR  invalid. s t u d i e s which have  and which produced evidence  con-  t r a r y to the theory t h a t speakers i n t e r n a l i z e t h i s r u l e . of these was which was  the unpublished  study  done by J . Ohala  (One  (19 7 3)  d i s c u s s e d above.)  L i k e the experiments of M. Ohala  (1974) and J . Ohala  t h a t o f S t e i n b e r g and Krohn i n v o l v e d novel d e r i v a t i o n s .  (1973), In  -59-  g e n e r a l , the experiment's s u b j e c t s ~ were r e q u i r e d t o s e l e c t , w i t h i n the context of a meaningful sentence, one a p p r o p r i a t e s u f f i x of two given them, a t t a c h i t to a base word and p r o nounce the n o v e l d e r i v e d form. a p p r o p r i a t e s u f f i x was  The task o f s e l e c t i n g the  intended to d i s t r a c t the s u b j e c t s '  a t t e n t i o n from pronouncing the new  word.  F i v e vowels which were p r e d i c t e d by Chomsky and H a l l e t o undergo change  (when the base word i n which the vowel occurs  i s combined w i t h a s u f f i x ) were used i n the t e s t . and t h e i r a l t e r n a t i o n s were:  The vowels  [a^] - [ i ] ( d i v i n e / d i v i n i t y ) ,  [1"^] - [e] (extreme/extremity) \  [e^] - [ae] (sane/sanity), ,  [5*] - [a] (verbose/verbosity) and [ a ] - [ A ] (pronounce/prow  nunciation) . -ity,  F i v e s u f f i x e s were s e l e c t e d :  -iC/ - i c a l ,  -ify,  - i s h . A l l but - i s h are p r e d i c t e d by Chomsky and H a l l e  to cause vowel a l t e r n a t i o n s i n d e r i v a t i o n s of the base words. The s u f f i x - i s h was used to see i f i t would t r i g g e r the a l t e r n a t i o n seen i n Spain/Spanish. The base forms were 26 i n number and were composed o f o r d i n a r y E n g l i s h words. s u f f i x , each s u f f i x base forms.  I f the s u b j e c t s chose the a p p r o p r i a t e  (except -ian) would be combined w i t h  five  An a d d i t i o n a l base form was used w i t h the s u f f i x  -ian. ^  •  r  •  -  ir  i  •  i  •  .  i  i  ,  .  . i  S t e i n b e r g and Krohn appear to use [ I ] and [ T ] i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y f o r the vowel i n the second s y l l a b l e o f extreme and [e] and [e] f o r the vowel i n the second s y l l a b l e o f e x t r e m i t y . Y  y  -60-  The t e s t d i r e c t i o n s and s t i m u l i were tape-recorded. 26 items were arranged i n random o r d e r .  The  Subjects were f u r t h e r  d i s t r a c t e d from the p r o n u n c i a t i o n task by being t o l d t h a t the t e s t ' s purpose was word and the two graph  to investigate s u f f i x preference.  s u f f i x e s were i n t r o d u c e d a f t e r a b r i e f  i n which the l a s t sentence was  r e q u i r e d t o r e p e a t the l a s t sentence with the word  The  subject  aloud and  " F i l l the blank  ( f o r example) maze p l u s e i t h e r - i c or  was  pre-recorded.  s p e c i f i e d by the authors. t h a t the time l i m i t was  One  para-  deleted.  The time the s u b j e c t s had i n which t o respond was the experiment  Each base  was  -ity".  limited  T h i s time l i m i t was  as  not  might c o n s e r v a t i v e l y estimate  probably w i t h i n f o u r seconds as the  s u b j e c t s , a f t e r h e a r i n g the stem and the s u f f i x e s , heard f i n a l sentence o f the paragraph,  the  a pause, the q u e s t i o n "Ready?"  and a c l i c k b e f o r e they were t o begin t h e i r response. a t t h a t p o i n t the p r o n u n c i a t i o n of the new  word was  Even  delayed by  the s u b j e c t having t o repeat the f i n a l sentence b e f o r e  filling  i n the blank at the end of the sentence with the p r o n u n c i a t i o n of the new  derivation.  Before the a c t u a l t e s t began, s u b j e c t s were r e q u i r e d t o repeat aloud a l l o f the base forms and s u f f i x e s f o r the aminer t o ensure determine The  ex-  t h a t they r e c e i v e d the intended s t i m u l i and to  t h e i r p r o n u n c i a t i o n of the  forms.  s u b j e c t s were n a t i v e E n g l i s h speakers randomly chosen  from i n t r o d u c t o r y psychology  courses.  They were t e s t e d i n -  d i v i d u a l l y and t h e i r responses were tape-recorded. the responses was  done by two people who  S c o r i n g of  t r a n s c r i b e d the s u b j e c t s '  p r o n u n c i a t i o n of the base words, the s u f f i x e s and the  derived  words. In Experiment I, 12 male and The  experiment was  12 female s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t e d  conducted e n t i r e l y a u d i t o r i l y .  Experiment I I  i n a d d i t i o n to the a u d i t o r y s t i m u l i d i s c u s s e d above, i n v o l v e d s t i m u l i of an o r t h o g r a p h i c  nature.  The  8 males and  8 females  p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n Experiment I I were d i v i d e d i n t o two of 4 males and  4 females each.  groups  These groups were submitted  d i f f e r e n t t e s t c o n d i t i o n s and were c a l l e d C o n d i t i o n 1 and  to  2  respectively.  The  s u b j e c t s of C o n d i t i o n 1 r e c e i v e d , f o r each  paragraph, one  c a r d on which the base word and the two s u f f i x e s  were w r i t t e n .  The  s u b j e c t s o f C o n d i t i o n 2 r e c e i v e d two  f o r each paragraph. 1.  One  c a r d was  cards  i d e n t i c a l to t h a t i n C o n d i t i o n  On the second c a r d were w r i t t e n the two  d e r i v e d forms.  s u b j e c t s of Experiment I I were i n s t r u c t e d to t u r n over ( s i l e n t l y ) read the card(s) when a new  s u f f i x was  The  and  introduced  at the end of the paragraph. Responses were d i s c a r d e d i f they contained d e l e t e d or an added s y l l a b l e ,  odd  " d i s j u n c t u r e " between stem  s u f f i x , a f a b r i c a t e d s u f f i x or i f no response was S t e i n b e r g and Krohn do not say why were d i s c a r d e d .  stress, a and  given.  the above types o f responses  Granted t h e i r c r i t e r i a  for disqualifying  cer-  t a i n responses leaves the data with a much simpler n a t u r e . can then be analyzed phonetic  i n t o three c a t e g o r i e s :  responses with  changes i n the stem p r e d i c t e d by Chomsky and H a l l e ,  responses with phonetic  changes not p r e d i c t e d by Chomsky and  H a l l e , and responses with no phonetic  change.  The  discarded  It  -62-  responses may of  have been c o n s i d e r e d as  'accidents'  since,  the 50 d i s c a r d s out of 504 responses i n Experiment  were a t t r i b u t e d to 1/6 Experiment  I, 29  (that i s , 4) of the s u b j e c t s .  In  I I , o n l y 3 o f the t o t a l 16 8 responses were d i s c a r d e d .  (The t o t a l numbers o f responses mentioned responses f o r the s u f f i x  -ish..  above do not  include  They were not i n c l u d e d i n the  f i n a l a n a l y s i s because o n l y 1 of 120 responses i n Experiment and 1 o f 80 responses i n Experiment i n the stem.) not  I  I I showed a p h o n e t i c change  I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t many o f these responses are  'mistakes' but are the b e s t answers the .subjects;could have  produced.  In t h i s  sense, they should have been c o n s i d e r e d as  v a l i d data along with the responses showing  p r e d i c t e d and  un-  p r e d i c t e d changes and no change i n the stem. The r e s u l t s o f both experiments w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d together s i n c e the authors r e p o r t t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e between the  distri-  b u t i o n o f responses f o r the two Experiments was s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant.  Of the t o t a l v a l i d responses f o r the  two  Experiments, 3.5% o f the responses showed vowel changes i n agreement with the VSR.  An a d d i t i o n a l 6.6%  o f the responses  showed p h o n e t i c changes not i n accord with the VSR. t r e n d - o f no change i n the vowels o f the d e r i v e d words most predominant  —  89.9%  A was  of responses f i t i n t h i s  category. There were 2 7 responses p r e d i c t e d by the VSR these i n v o l v e d <the base vowel  [a ] . Y  and 20 of •  Of the 51 u n p r e d i c t e d vowel  -63-  changes, 29 were made i n response to base items vowel of  [T ]. Y  of The  S t e i n b e r g and Krohn r e p o r t t h a t the  the p r e d i c t e d responses to  responses to  c o n t a i n i n g the  [ a ] and of the Y  frequencies  unpredicted  [ i J are s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r than the J  frequencies  p r e d i c t e d and u n p r e d i c t e d responses to the other base vowels. 2 7 p r e d i c t e d vowel changes o c c u r r e d more f r e q u e n t l y w i t h  s u f f i x e s - i c (13 times) and frequency  between - i c and  -ical  -ical  (5 t i m e s ) .  The  the  difference in  i s not s i g n i f i c a n t ; however, the  d i f f e r e n c e between -ic_ and the other s u f f i x e s  (which were i n -  r  v o l v e d 3 times each with p r e d i c t e d vowel changes) i s ly significant.  The  authors  d i f f e r e n c e s are not due  suggest  statistical-  t h a t the s i g n i f i c a n t  suffix  to an e f f e c t of the - i c s u f f i x alone  as  most of the -ic_ responses o c c u r r e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n with the base vowel C a?] .  Since a l l o f the -ic_ responses with [ a ] Y  base ;  vowels were responses to a s i n g l e word, sapphire, they say t h a t "the p o s s i b i l i t y remains t h a t the observed  d i f f e r e n c e s are  1  due...to the e f f e c t o f some i d i o s y n c r a t i c f e a t u r e of t h a t p a r t i c u l a r word"  (p.250).  S t e i n b e r g and Krohn conclude  t h a t the f i n d i n g s o f  their  study i n d i c a t e t h a t vowel a l t e r n a t i o n as p r e d i c t e d by the is  " l a r g e l y non-productive."  t h a t speakers the "VSR  Therefore,  i f one  still  VSR  assumes  have r u l e s to account f o r vowel a l t e r n a t i o n s ,  accounts  p a t t e r n , which we  only f o r exceptions,  i . e . , to the c r e a t i v e  s t a t e here; there i s no  change i n d e r i v e d forms"  (p.252).  (productive) vowel  They j u s t i f y t h i s  conclu-  s i o n i n saying t h a t the n o t i o n of the p r o d u c t i v i t y of a r u l e " i s e s s e n t i a l f o r d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between g e n e r a t i v e phonology  -64-  (the c r e a t i v e g e n e r a t i v i t y o f l i v i n g language) and Therefore  they t h i n k i t should be assigned  i n judging  etymology."  an important r o l e  the r e g u l a r i t y of a r u l e .  They a l s o conclude t h a t s i n c e vowel a l t e r n a t i o n was produced and  s i n c e the VSR's p r e r e q u i s i t e r u l e o f vowel l a x i n g  seldom appeared to apply vironment and of claims the VSR  seldom  ( i n the p r e d i c t e d t r i s y l l a b i c  en-  i n base forms t a k i n g the -ic_ s u f f i x ) , the  f o r the g e n e r a l i t y and  validity  the p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y  of  i s h i g h l y dubious.  Steinberg  and  o f sound p a t t e r n s  Krohn go on to q u e s t i o n  whether a l t e r n a t i o n s  e x i s t i n g i n the language are to be  f o r a t a l l by r u l e s . that representations  accounted  They suggest t h a t i t i s p o s s i b l e of both the base and  l i s t e d i n the l e x i c o n and  the d e r i v e d  instead form are  t h a t no r u l e s are i n v o l v e d i n vowel  a l t e r n a t i o n s o f e x i s t i n g r e l a t e d word forms. F i n a l l y , they d i s c u s s and to the experiment and be t h a t p h o n o l o g i c a l  dismiss  some p o t e n t i a l o b j e c t i o n s  t h e i r conclusions.  One  o b j e c t i o n might  r u l e s do not operate f o r novel  forms as they are meaningless.  Steinberg  and Krohn r e f u t e  t h i s c r i t i c i s m by p o i n t i n g out what they c o n s i d e r dence f o r the meaningful nature o f the d e r i v e d p o i n t out, which was  first,  appropriate  The  to be  forms.  t h a t s u b j e c t s g e n e r a l l y s e l e c t e d the to the context  s u b j e c t s g e n e r a l l y assigned tions.  derived  of the sentence.  c o r r e c t s t r e s s to the novel  l a t t e r argument i s perhaps weak.  eviThey suffix Secondly, deriva-  Speakers might  e a s i l y be shown to a s s i g n E n g l i s h s t r e s s p a t t e r n s  i n attempting  to pronounce f o r e i g n phrases which were meaningless to them.  -65-  One  might a l s o o b j e c t t h a t a non-formative word boundary  appeared between the base form and was  the s u f f i x when the  VSR  supposed to o p e r a t e , b l o c k i n g the a p p l i c a t i o n of the r u l e .  However, the authors p o i n t out t h a t i f t h i s were the the Main S t r e s s Rule would a l s o be blocked. r e s u l t s show t h a t i n g e n e r a l , the new  s t r e s s was  The  case,  Experiments'  c o r r e c t l y assigned  to  derivations.  2.3.2  Evidence from other sources which i s r e l e v a n t to f i n d i n g s o f d i r e c t experimentation  Zimmer  (1969) and M.  Ohala  (1974), i n t h e i r attempts t o  d i r e c t l y t e s t speaker's awareness of p h o n o l o g i c a l found t h a t speakers d i d not a l l appear to use logical rules.  Sherzer  (19 70)  s c r i p t i o n o f a word game played  the  was  r u l e s , both  the same phono-  w r i t i n g a s t r u c t u r a l de-  by the Cuna Indians of Panama.  L i k e Zimmer and M.  Ohala, he a l s o concluded t h a t speakers o f  a same d i a l e c t had  d i f f e r e n t ;phonological  models.  He  observed  t h a t some models might have been, from a l i n g u i s t i c p o i n t view, " b e t t e r " or "more c o r r e c t " than the o t h e r s . found t h a t h i s speakers' r u l e s f o r the aspect vowel harmony were not In any  of  Zimmer a l s o  of l a b i a l i t y i n  "correct."  experiment which attempts to t e s t s u b j e c t s ' awareness  o f r u l e s , the examiner should not l i m i t h i s e x p e c t a t i o n s  to  f i n d i n g , as Chomsky and H a l l e would l e a d one  to b e l i e v e , t h a t  speakers have i d e n t i c a l sets of p h o n o l o g i c a l  r u l e s and  that  - .  these r u l e s are as e f f i c i e n t as those, of the l i n g u i s t i n a c counting  for phonological  data.  Evidence which may  i n e x p l a i n i n g speakers' d i f f e r e n t and  be  useful  "incorrect" phonological  -66-  models i s r e p o r t e d by Wang, Chen and Wang, and Hsieh. Wang (1969) surveys d i a c h r o n i c l i n g u i s t i c data f o r phonol o g i c a l change i n many languages  and concludes t h a t there a r e  " c r o s s - c u r r e n t s o f sound change v y i n g f o r the p h o n o l o g i c a l f u t u r e o f every word i n the l e x i c o n " o f a language  (p.23).  If  the sound changes are not c o n s i d e r e d over a long enough time, he doubts whether one c o u l d t e l l  i f the tendencies toward change  are s p o r a d i c , p e r s i s t e n t , o l d , new o r r e c e d i n g .  In a d d i t i o n  Wang hypothesizes t h a t r u l e s f o r p h o n o l o g i c a l change, w h i l e b e i n g p h o n e t i c a l l y abrupt, would be l e x i c a l l y d i f f u s e .  In  other words, the change would occur a b r u p t l y f o r a given word but might not s i m u l t a n e o u s l y apply t o a l l o f t h e a p p r o p r i a t e words i n the l e x i c o n .  Another i n f e r e n c e drawn from the data he  c o n s i d e r s i s t h a t p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s may o f t e n be dependent on m o r p h o l o g i c a l and s y n t a c t i c f a c t o r s . understanding  He suggests  f i n a l l y that  the "complex dynamic s i t u a t i o n ' ' o f competing  c r o s s - c u r r e n t s o f sound change w i l l r e q u i r e the " c a r e f u l  analysis  each o f the v a r i o u s i n t e r w o v e n / f a c t o r s — t h e p h y s i o l o g i c a l , the s t r u c t u r a l , the s o c i e t a l , and y e t o t h e r s "  (p.24).  Chen and Wang (1975) c o n s i d e r d i a c h r o n i c data from E n g l i s h and Swedish as w e l l as evidence  Chinese,  from language a c q u i s i t i o n  to d e s c r i b e how a sound change implements i t s e l f .  Their claim  i s t h a t t h i s implementation  diffusion  occurs through  o f the sound change; the change propagates morpheme t o morpheme.  lexical  g r a d u a l l y from  They a l s o comment on the " a c t u a t i o n " o f  a sound change, or why i t assumes a p a r t i c u l a r form and f o l l o w s a schedule.  Chen and Wang's source o f evidence  f o r t h i s problem  -67i s consonantal a t t r i t i o n i n Chinese d i a l e c t s and languages.  Indo-European  They c l a i m t h a t the a c t u a t i o n of a p h o n o l o g i c a l  process i s to be sought  i n the "inherent c o n s t r a i n t s of the  p h y s i o l o g i c a l and p e r c e p t u a l apparatus of the language (p.255).  They p r o v i d e experimental evidence  user"  (both p e r c e p t u a l  and p h y s i o l o g i c a l ) i n support o f t h e i r t h e o r y . Chen and Wang r e v e a l t h a t the aims of t h e i r study were not o n l y t o prove a c e r t a i n p o i n t but to exemplify the p h i l o s o p h y of experimental r e s e a r c h i n l i n g u i s t i c study. t h a t t h e i r approach  proved  They b e l i e v e  "more rewarding than the p u r s u i t of  •explanatory adequacy' i n terms of a - p r i o r i s t i c and n o t i o n s of s i m p l i c i t y and economy" (p.279).  The  sterile  "pursuit of  'explanatory adequacy'" which they mention r e f e r s o f course to the r e s e a r c h s t r a t e g y o f Chomsky and H a l l e mental  r e s e a r c h performed  t e r n a t i v e approach  (1968).  The  experi-  by Chen and Wang i s the type of a l -  l i n g u i s t s such as Ohala  (1974) and  Lindblom  (19 71) have i n mind when they c r i t i c i z e the poor methodology and e x p l a n a t o r y power of Chomskyan t h e o r y . In a d d i t i o n to h i s t o r i c a l data as a source of evidence  from  l i n g u i s t i c change i s the data a v a i l a b l e i n s t u d y i n g the phonol o g i c a l development i n c h i l d r e n a c q u i r i n g language.  In o r d e r  to support Wang's concept t h a t sound change i s l e x i c a l l y gradual Hsieh  (19 72) c i t e s c h i l d language  w i t h two advantages.  a c q u i s i t i o n as a data source  He b e l i e v e s t h a t c h i l d r e n ' s p h o n o l o g i c a l  development p r o v i d e s cases of sound change t h a t are both com-., p l e t e d w i t h i n a p e r i o d of a few years  (and so are p r a c t i c a b l y  observable) and t h a t are immune to borrowing  from o t h e r d i a e c t s .  -68-  2.4 C o n c l u s i o n s 1.  The experimental v e r i f i c a t i o n o f some o f TGP's hypotheses,  which r e q u i r e s v i o l a t i o n o f the i d e a l  s p e a k e r - l i s t e n e r frame, can be j u s t i f i e d . 2.  C e r t a i n p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s f o r m a l i z e d by Chomsky and H a l l e (1968), a t l e a s t i n given experimental c o n d i t i o n s , are not productive  ( J . Ohala, 1973; S t e i n b e r g and Krohn, 1975).  The v a l i d i t y o f c l a i m s f o r those r u l e s ' p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y and g e n e r a l i t y i s t h e r e f o r e q u e s t i o n a b l e . 3.  D i f f e r e n t speakers have d i f f e r e n t p h o n o l o g i c a l models (according t o evidence from d i r e c t experimentation by Zimmer (1969) and M. Ohala  (1974) and from o b s e r v a t i o n s  of a l i n g u i s t i c game by Sherzer  (1970)).  These phono-  l o g i c a l models, furthermore, are not always from t h e p o i n t o f view o f an economical  "correct"  linguistic  description. 4.  P h o n o l o g i c a l change d i f f u s e s slowly a c r o s s the l e x i c o n (according_to evidence presented by Wang (1969), Chen and Wang (1975) and Hsieh  (1972)).  69 Chapter I I I METHOD 3.1  Aims of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n I t was  mentioned i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n t h a t one  j e c t i v e s of t h i s study  of the  i s to v e r i f y the p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y  f o r a given group o f speakers o f some of Chomsky and ,(1968) p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s .  T h i s aim might be  p r o v i d i n g s u b j e c t s with the o p p o r t u n i t y , c o n d i t i o n s , to produce novel u t t e r a n c e s whether the phonetic  fulfilled  rule  and by checking  test see  forms of those u t t e r a n c e s r e f l e c t the  use  rules.  p o i n t e d out t h a t the phrase " p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y  In the experimental  of  different  s t u d i e s mentioned e a r l i e r , a  (or sometimes an u n d e r l y i n g p h o n o l o g i c a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f  a word) was  considered  to be p a r t of the speaker's mental  chanisms u n d e r l y i n g h i s speech p r o d u c t i o n r u l e was  and  me-:  p e r c e p t i o n i f the  used i n the speaker's g e n e r a t i o n o f responses i n the  test situation.  The  'use' of a given r u l e i n past s t u d i e s  been based on the assumption t h a t the appearance of a form  by  under d i f f e r e n t  p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s " i s assigned d i f f e r e n t senses by linguists.  Halle's  to  of c e r t a i n phonological I t was  ob-  has  phonetic  (which i s p r e d i c t e d by the a p p l i c a t i o n of t h a t r u l e to  some u n d e r l y i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ) ployed the r u l e .  The  i m p l i e s t h a t the speaker  em-  s t u d i e s p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d r e f e r r e d to  the p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y of a r u l e f o r i n d i v i d u a l speakers a l s o groups o f speakers.  The  extent of the r u l e ' s use  i n the  t e s t s i t u a t i o n , .(or i n other words, the percentage of times t h a t the r u l e was  used w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e -69-  and  stimuli), i s called  -70-  the  rule's productivity  f o r the  test.  However, a minimum  amount o f p r o d u c t i v i t y which would q u a l i f y the psychologically  r e a l e i t h e r f o r one  never s p e c i f i e d .  or f o r many speakers,  to be  demonstrated by  f o r i t to q u a l i f y as being p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y  a r u l e i n order  real.  T h i s minimum  i s u l t i m a t e l y needed to judge the v a l i d i t y  claims f o r i n c l u d i n g the s p e c i f i c language. r e a l i t y w i l l be  rule in a mentalistic  Some of the r u l e s whose  tested  i n t h i s study are  g e n e r a l r u l e s by Chomsky and  Halle  psychological  c o n s i d e r e d to  (1968) and  t h e i r i n c l u s i o n i n a grammar i s j u s t i f i e d .  so would  H a l l e as g e n e r a l r u l e s .  productivity,  j u s t i f y i n g the  might depend on  before  described  by  i n c l u s i o n of a r u l e i n a grammar,  such c o n s i d e r a t i o n s  the members of a d i a l e c t , e t c . ,  as the number of  f o r which the  speakers,  a dialect, a l l  grammar was  meant  representative.  In the present study, d i s c u s s i o n use  be  A s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i o n of  f o r example, an i n d i v i d u a l , a small group w i t h i n  to be  be  Other r u l e s which  c o n s i d e r e d i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n are not  Chomsky and  of  grammar f o r a  expected to demonstrate a h i g h degree of p r o d u c t i v i t y  w i l l be  was  I t i s important to decide upon a s p e c i f i c  amount of p r o d u c t i v i t y  productivity  r u l e as being  of an  w i l l c e n t e r on whether  "independent p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e "  p o t h e s i z e d by Chomsky and  (such as those  H a l l e ) can be assumed i f the  produces a response p r e d i c t e d  by the h y p o t h e t i c a l  hy-  speaker  application  of t h a t r u l e to some, u n d e r l y i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i o n  of the word.  A l s o to be d i s c u s s e d i s whether the  independent  p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e can  be  refuted  use  (as was  of the  the  done by J . Ohala,  1973)  -71-  if  i t can be shown s t a t i s t i c a l l y t h a t the forms o f the  speakers' responses have high c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h the forms o f adjacent  responses o r o f recent d e r i v a t i o n s .  the p o s s i b i l i t y  In a d d i t i o n ,  f o r the a p p l i c a t i o n o f a r u l e  (other than t h a t  h y p o t h e s i z e d by Chomsky and H a l l e ) t o r e s u l t i n the response p r e d i c t e d by them w i l l a l s o be c o n s i d e r e d . discussed  by Botha  (1970):  R e c a l l the n o t i o n  t h e f a c t t h a t a theory  i s able t o c o r -  r e c t l y p r e d i c t data i s not s u f f i c i e n t evidence f o r the proof o f t h a t theory.  He b e l i e v e s t h a t i t i s no more than a  t h a t a t a given moment there and  i s o n l y one theory  coincidence  that  "works"  t h a t no a l t e r n a t i v e can be proposed. Steinberg  and Krohn  (19 75)  appear t o d i s t i n g u i s h between the  " p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y " and the " v a l i d i t y " o f the Vowel S h i f t Rule f o r t h e i r group o f s u b j e c t s .  The r u l e was shown t o be  " l a r g e l y non-productive" i n the responses o f t h e i r Steinberg  and Krohn concede .that the r u l e may be p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y  r e a l f o r t h e i r speakers. has  subjects.  "generality."  They deny, however, t h a t the r u l e  They s t a t e t h a t  "C&H's [Chomsky and H a l l e ' s ]  c l a i m t h a t the VSR i s a p s y c h o l o g i c a l l r e a l and general i s . . . h i g h l y dubious"  (p.252).  Judging from t h e i r  rule  concession  t h a t speakers may have such r u l e s as t h e VSR t o account f o r vowel a l t e r n a t i o n s which are exceptions  t o t h e more  c r e a t i v e p a t t e r n o f no vowel change i n d e r i v e d  general  forms, t h e  authors probably mean t h a t Chomsky and H a l l e ' s c l a i m t h a t t h e VSR  i s p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y r e a l as a general  r u l e i s , "highly >  dubious." At t h i s time i t i s impossible  to n o n - a r b i t r a r i l y s t a t e i n  -72-  advance, f o r the purpose of t h i s study, a minimum amount of p r o d u c t i v i t y o f a r u l e which would q u a l i f y t h a t r u l e as being p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y r e a l f o r a group of speakers  and as b e i n g  v a l i d l y assigned the r o l e of a g e n e r a l or ' l e s s - t h a n - g e n e r a l r u l e i n the grammar f o r a group of 3.2  Experimental  1  speakers.  plan  In g e n e r a l , s u b j e c t s were r e q u i r e d to combine, without  the  use of p e n c i l and paper, E n g l i s h stem-words w i t h s u f f i x e s i n o r d e r to c r e a t e a new The  word ;and to t h e r e a f t e r pronounce i t aloud.  s u b j e c t s ' spoken responses  provided data on the  frequency  of p r o d u c t i o n of c e r t a i n sound p a t t e r n s i n novel u t t e r a n c e s . The  data should permit one  to i n f e r whether c e r t a i n types of  r u l e s were used i n the p r o d u c t i o n of the new The purpose of the p i l o t  experiments was  words. to check s e v e r a l  aspects o f the methodology o f the proposed main experiment. The problems encountered  with c e r t a i n methods and the c o n c l u -  s i o n s drawn from the r e s u l t s o f the p i l o t s w i l l e v e n t u a l l y be discussed. In each o f the two  p i l o t experiments  ( c a l l e d P i l o t I and  P i l o t II> r e s p e c t i v e l y ) one group of s u b j e c t s (Group a )  were  1  p r o v i d e d with two  example d e r i v a t i o n s f o r each s u f f i x .  The  example d e r i v a t i o n s demonstrated the use of the s u f f i x i n English.  Some o f the examples e x h i b i t e d p h o n e t i c changes i n  Group a s h a l l r e f e r to Group a' and Group a " o f P i l o t I and Pilot II, respectively. Group b s h a l l l i k e w i s e correspond r e s p e c t i v e l y to Group b' and Group b " of P i l o t I and P i l o t I I .  -73-  the stem and/or i n ;the s u f f i x of the d e r i v a t i o n and not.  Another group of s u b j e c t s  experiments was  i n each o f the  pilot  p r o v i d e d w i t h no d e r i v a t i o n s e x e m p l i f y i n g  use of the s u f f i x e s . groups and  (Group b)  some d i d  The  the  arrangement of the experiments i n t o  the contents of each group's experiment i s o u t l i n e d  i n Table I. In the main experiment, one were provided,  f o r each s u f f i x , with one  t h a t showed no phonetic  Often the phonetic  example demon-  change, i n t h e i r stems and/or changes i l l u s t r a t e d by the example  d e r i v a t i o n s were those p r e d i c t e d by Chomsky and when an h y p o t h e s i z e d p h o n o l o g i c a l pothesized Ohala  underlying (19 73)  (Group A)  example d e r i v a t i o n  change, as w e l l as one  s t r a t i n g a p o s s i b l e phonetic suffixes.  group of s u b j e c t s  r u l e was  H a l l e to occur  a p p l i e d t o an  hy-  representation.  h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t r u l e s showing low  productivity  i n h i s t e s t c o u l d be made to show g r e a t e r p r o d u c t i v i t y i f app r o p r i a t e example d e r i v a t i o n s were s u p p l i e d to the Therefore  some of the example d e r i v a t i o n s used by Ohala were  s u b s t i t u t e d w i t h more a p p r o p r i a t e phonetic  subjects.  examples i l l u s t r a t i n g  changes p r e d i c t e d by Chomsky and  the use o f t h e i r hypothesized r u l e s .  the  H a l l e to occur with  These more  appropriate  examples were i n c l u d e d i n the l i s t of examples s u p p l i e d to  the  s u b j e c t s of Group A i n the main experiment. 3.3  Subjects In a l l ,  41 s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the s t u d i e s .  As  can  seen i n T a b l e I, a t o t a l of 9 s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the  be  -74-  Experiment:  Pilot  Group  a'  I  Pilot  II  Main  b'  a"  b"  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes yes  example, d e r i v a t i o n s w i t h phonetic change  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes yes  example d e r i v a t i o n s without phonetic change  yes  yes  yes  yes  yes yes  example d e r i v a t i o n s with phonetic change  yes  no .  yes  no -  yes no  example d e r i v a t i o n s without phonetic change  yes  no  yes  no  yes yes  A  B  Contents: P r a c t i c e task  Experimental  task  Subjects: Number o f female  0  3  1  1  13  10  Number o f male  3  0  1  0  4  5  T o t a l number  3  3  2  1  Table I.  17 ; 15  Arrangement o f the experiments i n t o groups, the contents of each experiment and the number o f s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n each experiment.  -75-  p i l o t experiments and  32 s u b j e c t s took p a r t i n the main e x p e r i -  ment. Twenty-eight of the t o t a l number of s u b j e c t s used i n the experiments were females and  13 were males.  Table I a l s o shows  the numbers of female and male s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n each experiment. I t was  intended t h a t the s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the  periments should meet the f o l l o w i n g q u a l i f i c a t i o n s :  (a)  ex-  they  should have been born and/or have l i v e d most of t h e i r l i v e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia;  (b) E n g l i s h should be t h e i r n a t i v e language;  (c) they should have taken no l i n g u i s t i c s courses;  (d)  should be working towards o r have completed a Bachelor o r Bachelor  o f Education  Columbia.  Some o f the s u b j e c t s d i d not f u l f i l l  a l l of the above  F i r s t o f a l l , with r e s p e c t to q u a l i f i c a t i o n  three s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d t h a t they language simultaneously  with E n g l i s h .  quently than the a l t e r n a t e language.  Before  i n the l i s t e n i n g and  language.  subjects  b e i n g used more f r e subjects  Faculties.  F a c u l t y of Science, two was  speaking  reported o n l y minimal  s k i l l s o f the  other  Secondly, ten s u b j e c t s were not students w i t h i n A r t s  o r Education  one  The  the  the time o f the experiments t h a t they possessed  facility  (b),  f i r s t began to l e a r n another  began primary s c h o o l , however, E n g l i s h was  at  of Arts  degree at one o f t h r e e u n i v e r s i t i e s i n  the lower mainland of B r i t i s h  qualifications.  they  F i v e s u b j e c t s were s t u d y i n g i n a were s t u d y i n g i n a F a c u l t y o f Commerce,  s t u d y i n g i n a F a c u l t y of P h y s i c a l Education  R e c r e a t i o n and two  and  were s t u d y i n g i n a F a c u l t y of F i n e A r t s .  -76T h i r t y - n i n e o f the t o t a l 41 s u b j e c t s were w i t h i n the bracket  18-29  years.  The  remaining  age  2 s u b j e c t s were i n t h e i r  mid-forties. All  41 s u b j e c t s had been exposed to the study of a language  other than E n g l i s h .  A l t o g e t h e r , 20 s u b j e c t s had  second language i n secondary school o n l y and another language at u n i v e r s i t y as w e l l . 7 s u b j e c t s i n Group A and  21 had  8 s u b j e c t s i n Group B had  7 i n Group B had  Ten  subjects i n  F i n a l l y , i n ad- .  d i t i o n to the 3 s u b j e c t s mentioned e a r l i e r who  in  studied  s t u d i e d a second language i n  secondary school as w e l l as at u n i v e r s i t y .  l e a r n E n g l i s h simultaneously  studied  In the main experiment  a second language i n secondary school o n l y . Group A and  studied a  had begun to ;  with another language, 2 s u b j e c t s  Group A o f the main experiment had been exposed t o a l a n -  guage other than E n g l i s h at home some time d u r i n g t h e i r 3.4  lives.  Composition of the word l i s t s The  list  o f word forms used:.in a l l of the experiments con-  s i s t e d o f E n g l i s h words (henceforth c a l l e d stem-words to d i f - f e r e n t i a t e - from d e r i v a t i o n s ) , s u f f i x e s and d e r i v a t i o n s (composed o f stem-words and forms comprised two  suffixes).  The  total l i s t  successive s u b - l i s t s :  of  these  a s e c t i o n o f stem-  words, s u f f i x e s and d e r i v a t i o n s which served as s t i m u l i f o r a p r a c t i c e task and a l i s t  comprising  the experimental  task  stimuli. 3.4.1 The  P r a c t i c e task p r a c t i c e task was  stimuli i n c l u d e d i n both the p i l o t and main  experiments i n o r d e r to give s u b j e c t s p r a c t i c e at d e r i v i n g  new  -77-  new words u s i n g e x i s t i n g stem-words  and s u f f i x e s .  Ohala's  format, wherein a s u f f i x and two example d e r i v a t i o n s precede the p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a group o f stem-words, was used.  The  responses f o r the p r a c t i c e task were not t o be i n c l u d e d i n the a n a l y s i s o f the responses from the experimental t a s k . The l i s t o f word forms used as s t i m u l i i n the p r a c t i c e task c o n s i s t e d o f 9 stem-words, stem-words  and d e r i v a t i o n s .  3 s u f f i x e s and 6 e x i s t i n g couples o f Only 3 o f the 9 stem-words were  g r e a t l y expected t o undergo a phonetic change i n t h e stem when they were combined w i t h a s u f f i x .  These were l o c a t e d towards  the end o f the p r a c t i c e task i n an attempt t o proceed from e a s i e r t o more d i f f i c u l t d e r i v a t i o n s .  Not a l l o f the 6 example  d e r i v a t i o n s showed a p h o n e t i c change i n the stem.  T h i s was  arranged t o prevent s u b j e c t s from e x p e c t i n g a l l d e r i v a t i o n s t o e i t h e r undergo o r not undergo a phonetic change. examples e x h i b i t e d any p h o n e t i c change.  Only two o f the  The two examples  i n d u s t r y / i n d u s t r i o u s and a n g e l / a n g e l i c both showed a change i n the l o c a t i o n o f s t r e s s and a l s o a change i n the q u a l i t y o f one and two vowels, r e s p e c t i v e l y . Two example d e r i v a t i o n s were used w i t h each s u f f i x . p a r t i c u l a r stem-words  The  t o be combined with the s u f f i x - i c and  -ous were expected t o p o s s i b l y undergo a phonetic change. i n c l u s i o n o f stem-words  The  l i k e l y t o undergo changes when d e r i v e d  w i t h s u f f i x e s i n the p r a c t i c e task was arranged to i n t r o d u c e s u b j e c t s t o the n o t i o n that a s u f f i x being i l l u s t r a t e d by an example  showing a phonetic change i n the stem d i d not  -78-  r e q u i r e the d e r i v a t i o n task to n e c e s s a r i l y i n v o l v e a phonetic change. is  The  list  of word forms comprising the p r a c t i c e  task  given i n Appendix I. 3.4.2  The  Experimental  task s t i m u l i  l i s t o f s t i m u l i i n the two  used by J . Ohala  (1973) and  p i l o t s was  i d e n t i c a l to t h a t  i s given i n the Appendix.  there were 60 d i f f e r e n t stem-words i n the l i s t , these  three of  ( o b t a i n , p e r t a i n and trade) were s t a t e d twice, making a  t o t a l of 6 3 stem-words. twelve groups.  There was  These stem-words were arranged one  (Although there were o n l y  10 d i f f e r e n t s u f f i x e s i n Ohala"s l i s t , and  into  s u f f i x a v a i l a b l e to be combined  w i t h the stem-words i n each group.  (-ic  Although  two  of the  suffixes  - i t y ) were l i s t e d twice, making a t o t a l of 12  suffixes  a v a i l a b l e f o r s t i m u l i to accommodate the 12 groups of stemwords.) of  In a d d i t i o n , the l i s t contained 20 d i f f e r e n t examples  e x i s t i n g stem-words and d e r i v a t i o n s .  Two  of  these  (odd/oddity and Darwin/Darwinian) were each g i v e n twice, b r i n g ing  the t o t a l number of example d e r i v a t i o n s to 22.  T h i s meant  t h a t 10 groups of stem-words were e x e m p l i f i e d with two d e r i v a t i o n s while two  groups were i l l u s t r a t e d with o n l y  example one  example. Twenty-two of the stem-words and  3 of the s u f f i x e s  (which  were combined with an a d d i t i o n a l 10 stem-words) i n O h a l a s 1  list  were d e s c r i b e d by him as " f i l l e r "  suffixes, respectively.  words and  "filler"  Ohala d i d not expect d e r i v a t i o n s i n -  v o l v i n g these word forms to show any phonetic change and d i d  -79-  not  i n c l u d e the responses f o r these s t i m u l i i n h i s a n a l y s i s .  The purpose o f i n c l u d i n g these s t i m u l i was t o prevent s u b j e c t s from b e l i e v i n g t h a t the a d d i t i o n o f a s u f f i x n e c e s s a r i l y r e q u i r e d a p h o n e t i c change i n the stem.  In a d d i t i o n , 8 o f the 20  d i f f e r e n t example d e r i v a t i o n s showed a p h o n e t i c change i n the stem. change.  One example  (explain/explanatory) showed o n l y a vowel  One showed o n l y a consonant change  (fuse/fusion).  Another showed change i n a vowel and i n a consonant detention).  (detain/  F i v e examples demonstrated a change from an un-  s t r e s s e d schwa t o another l a x vowel which was s t r e s s e d s t u p i d i t y , Darwin/Darwinian, s o l i d / s o l i d i f y , realist / realistic).  (stupid/  artist/artistic,  One example d e r i v a t i o n demonstrated a  change from an u n s t r e s s e d schwa to another vowel with primary s t r e s s as w e l l as a change i n a consonant (music/musician). Although the l i s t  o f s t i m u l i used i n the main experiment  i n c l u d e d the stem-words and s u f f i x e s mentioned above, the l i s t of  example d e r i v a t i o n s was not i d e n t i c a l t o Ohala's l i s t .  In  order t o exemplify each s u f f i x w i t h one d e r i v a t i o n showing a phonetic change i n the stem and one d e r i v a t i o n showing no change, 9 examples  i n Ohala*s l i s t were r e p l a c e d by d i f f e r e n t example  derivations.  Four o f the new examples  vowel q u a l i t y .  The examples  demonstrated a change i n  s a n e / s a n i t y and r a t e / r a t i f y were  adopted t o i l l u s t r a t e vowel l a x i n g , w h i l e mamma1/mamma1ian and a l g e b r a / a l g e b r a i c were intended t o exemplify a vowel rule.  One example,  softening rule.  tensing  c r i t i c / c r i t i c i s m , demonstrated the v e l a r  Four o f the new examples,  Kant / K a n t i a n ,  f a l s e / f a l s i f y , r e b e l / r e b e l l i o n and graph/graphic were i n c l u d e d  -80-  to ensure  t h a t each s u f f i x was  e x e m p l i f i e d by one  d e r i v a t i o n e x h i b i t i n g no phonetic change: mentioned above are l i s t e d  A l l of the  stimuli  i n Appendix I.  I t should be noted t h a t the combination and t h e i r s u f f i x e s  example  of two  stem-words  (between + - i t y and probe + - i t y ) i n the  experimental task c o u l d r e s u l t i n words t h a t e x i s t i n E n g l i s h . The word betweenity  i s r a r e l y used.  A c c o r d i n g t o Oxford E n g l i s h  D i c t i o n a r y , i t i s pronounced with a tense vowel i n the syllable position. Halle  second  The word p r o b i t y i s c i t e d by Chomsky and  (1968, p.181) as an e x c e p t i o n to the words to which the  vowel l a x i n g r u l e V  [-tense]/  CVCV a p p l i e s .  These stem-  words were r e t a i n e d i n the s e t of forms t o be combined w i t h the s u f f i x - i t y i n order to see how  subjects' pronunciations  of t h e i r d e r i v a t i o n s compared with the e x i s t i n g p r o n u n c i a t i o n s . 3.4.3  V e r i f i c a t i o n of the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of combining stem-words and s u f f i x e s  S t u d i e s by N i c h o l s o n  (1916) and Marchand  the  (1960) demonstrate  t h a t e x i s t i n g E n g l i s h d e r i v a t i o n s show trends f o r stem-words and  s u f f i x e s to have been r e s t r i c t e d i n t h e i r  combinations  a c c o r d i n g to such f a c t o r s as the language of t h e i r o r i g i n t h e i r grammatical  function.  and  For i n s t a n c e , Marchand s t a t e s t h a t  the s u f f i x - i t y forms a b s t r a c t s u b s t a n t i v e s from i t s combination with a d j e c t i v e s (most of which are of L a t i n o r i g i n ) and  with  nouns. The grammatical  f u n c t i o n and the language o r i g i n of each o f  the stem-words and the s u f f i x e s i n both the p r a c t i c e task and the experimental task were examined i n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r t h e i r  -81-  being r e t a i n e d i n the l i s t s .  T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was o b t a i n e d from  the works o f N i c h o l s o n and Marchand mentioned E n g l i s h Word Speculum  (Dolby and R e s n i k o f f , 1967),  Oxford D i c t i o n a r y o f E n g l i s h Etymology English Dictionary.  above, from The from the  (1966) and from Webster's  I t was then p o s s i b l e t o v e r i f y whether the  stem-words' c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were a p p r o p r i a t e f o r the i n d i v i d u a l d e r i v a t i o n a l tendencies o f the s u f f i x e s with which they were to be combined.  Most o f the stem-words seemed to match the q u a l i -  t i e s r e q u i r e d by t h e i r s u f f i x e s .  Some of t h e stem-words, how-  ever, had seemingly i n a p p r o p r i a t e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which c o u l d have i n f l u e n c e d the form o f t h e i r d e r i v a t i o n s w i t h the s u f f i x e s s p e c i f i c a l l y a s s i g n e d t o them i n the experiments. Some stem-words' grammatical f o r the s p e c i f i c s u f f i x .  f u n c t i o n s were i n a p p r o p r i a t e  The verbs d e f i n e and s u s t a i n were  combined w i t h the s u f f i x - i t y which forms s u b s t a n t i v e s from nouns and a d j e c t i v e s .  Less than 10 d e r i v a t i o n s comprised o f a  verb stem and - i t y were found i n Dolby and R e s n i k o f f .  The verb  trample was combined with the s u f f i x - i f y which forms verbs from i t s combination with nouns and a d j e c t i v e s . d e r i v a t i o n s formed w i t h - i f y were found  Only two  (1 i n Marchand and 1  i n Dolby and R e s n i k o f f ) to c o n t a i n a verb as a stem. sapphire was combined w i t h the s u f f i x - a t o r y .  The noun  This s u f f i x  a c t u a l l y has the form -ory (according t o Marchand and the Oxford E n g l i s h D i c t i o n a r y o f Etymology) and has been combined w i t h verbs of L a t i n o r i g i n ending i n - a t e . In some i n s t a n c e s the i n a p p r o p r i a t e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e stem-word arose from i t s language  origin.  The noun Buddha, o f  -82-  S a n s k r i t o r i g i n , may -Ic  not be an a p p r o p r i a t e stem f o r the  s i n c e a l l the words i n Dolby and R e s n i k o f f ending i n  V + - i c were of Greek or L a t i n o r i g i n . Germanic o r i g i n , was The  suffix  The noun t r a d e , of  combined with the L a t i n s u f f i x  -ian(us).  s u f f i x - i a n i s most o f t e n combined w i t h proper nouns  (Marchand) o r , as was  observed  i n Dolby and R e s n i k o f f , w i t h  nouns o n l y of Greek or L a t i n background. The  semantic  f e a t u r e s of some of the stem-words c o u l d  p o s s i b l y serve as a problematic source f o r t h e i r d e r i v a t i o n with certain suffixes.  Apple  i s an inanimate noun.  w i t h the s u f f i x -hood which was to  be predominantly  observed  s u f f i x -dom.  inanimate, was  The a b s t r a c t noun joy was The  s u f f i x -dom  appeared  combined  i n Dolby and R e s n i k o f f  combined with animate nouns.  v a t i o n with -hood, whose stem was and R e s n i k o f f .  I t was  Only one  deri-  l i s t e d i n Dolby  combined w i t h the  i n Dolby and R e s n i k o f f to  be d e r i v e d o n l y with noun stems which had the semantic  quality  'animate.' All  of the stem-words mentioned above were r e t a i n e d i n the  experimental t a s k ' s word l i s t .  The responses  and t h e i r s u f f i x e s were observed while keeping  t o these stem-words i n mind the  possibly inappropriate c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s discussed. 3.5  A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and r e c o r d i n g of the 3.5.1  The  experiments  stimuli  The type of s t i m u l i g i v e n to each group o f s u b j e c t s i s o u t l i n e d i n Table I.  The  s u b j e c t s of the two p i l o t s were given  the word forms of the p r a c t i c e task and those i n J . Ohala's of  stimuli.  In each p i l o t , however, there were two  list  groups of  -83-  s u b j e c t s who were g i v e n d i f f e r e n t t e s t c o n d i t i o n s . of  One group  s u b j e c t s (Group a) i n each p i l o t were given a l l o f the ex-  ample d e r i v a t i o n s i n Ohala's l i s t o f t e s t s t i m u l i .  The o t h e r  group o f s u b j e c t s (Group b) i n each p i l o t heard  no example d e r i -  v a t i o n s other than those i n the p r a c t i c e t a s k .  For them,  Ohala's example d e r i v a t i o n s were omitted. As was mentioned e a r l i e r , the s u b j e c t s o f the main e x p e r i ment were a l s o members o f one o f two groups ( e i t h e r Group A o r Group B ) .  Each group was a d m i n i s t e r e d the e n t i r e p r a c t i c e t a s k .  The experimental t a s k ' s word-stems and s u f f i x e s were taken Ohala's l i s t .  from  When i t came.to example d e r i v a t i o n s , however,  Group A was given t w o — o n e example demonstrating  phonetic i  change and one showing no phonetic c h a n g e — t o i l l u s t r a t e each suffix.  Group B, on the other hand, r e c e i v e d o n l y one example  d e r i v a t i o n , showing no phonetic change, f o r each s u f f i x i n the experimental It  task.  should be noted t h a t J . Ohala repeated o n l y one o f a  s u f f i x ' s example d e r i v a t i o n s upon p r e s e n t i n g t h a t s u f f i x t o s u b j e c t s f o r the second of  the experiments  time.  In the f i r s t c o n d i t i o n o f each  d e s c r i b e d here  (that i s , i n Groups a", a " ,  and A) where two example d e r i v a t i o n s were s u p p l i e d with each s u f f i x , both o f the s u f f i x ' s examples were repeated t o the s u b j e c t s when the s u f f i x was presented on a second o c c a s i o n . T h i s was done i n an e f f o r t t o keep the c o n d i t i o n s o f the e x p e r i mental task the same f o r each s e t o f stem-words with which the repeated s u f f i x e s were t o be combined.  -84-  3.5.2 D i r e c t i o n s t o the s u b j e c t s The d i r e c t i o n s t o each group o f s u b j e c t s may be found i n Appendix I.  Except f o r a few a l t e r a t i o n s , they are the  d i r e c t i o n s c i t e d by J . Ohala  (1973) which were used i n h i s t e s t .  In b r i e f , the d i r e c t i o n s f o r a l l o f the s t u d i e s had the f o l l o w i n g p o i n t s i n common.  Subjects were t o l d t h a t the examiner needed  t h e i r h e l p i n forming an extended o r e x t r a p o l a t e d d i c t i o n a r y o f English.  They were reminded  o f a process c a l l e d  by which new words i n E n g l i s h are o f t e n formed an example o f a word d e r i v e d by s u f f i x a t i o n .  "suffixation"  and were given They were then  t o l d t h a t the examiner would read aloud a s u f f i x , some examples of E n g l i s h words c o n t a i n i n g t h a t s u f f i x and some E n g l i s h words which had not been used with the s u f f i x b e f o r e .  Finally,  they  were asked t o c r e a t e and then pronounce the new word formed by the combination o f the s u f f i x and the E n g l i s h word p r o v i d e d them, to d e f i n e the word and t o say whether they would use the word. The d i f f e r e n c e s i n the d i r e c t i o n s given t o the s u b j e c t s of the d i f f e r e n t experiments mainly concerns the d i f f e r e n t words used t o convey  the process o f s u f f i x a t i o n .  For i n s t a n c e ,  both groups o f s u b j e c t s i n P i l o t I were t o l d t h a t new words can be formed  by the " a d d i t i o n " o f s u f f i x e s o r endings t o the end  of e x i s t i n g words.  They were a l s o then asked to pronounce the  word r e s u l t i n g from the " a d d i t i o n " o f the s u f f i x t o the stemword.  The responses o f the s u b j e c t s o f Group b' i n d i c a t e d t h a t  s u b j e c t s were l i k e l y f o l l o w i n g the d i r e c t i o n s e x p l i c i t l y and adding or t a c k i n g on the s u f f i x to the stem-word without making any phonetic changes r e g a r d l e s s o f any tendencies they f e l t t o  -85-  making phonetic changes.  F o r i n s t a n c e , t h e r e was a predomin-  ant t r e n d o f no p h o n e t i c change i n the responses o f these subjects.  In a d d i t i o n , two o f t h e s u b j e c t s d u r i n g the t e s t  asked the examiner i n r h e t o r i c a l f a s h i o n whether t h e s u b j e c t was t o " j u s t add on t h e ending" t o the stem-word. i n P i l o t I I and i n t h e main experiment,  Therefore  the word " a d d i t i o n "  was changed t o "combination" i n reminding s u b j e c t s o f the p r o cess o f s u f f i x a t i o n .  The s u b j e c t s were a l s o asked t o take the  word and the ending and "put them t o g e t h e r somehow" i n o r d e r to c r e a t e the new word.  I t was hoped t h a t the i m p l i c a t i o n s  of no o r o f minimal p h o n e t i c change i n v o l v e d i n the n o t i o n of "adding" the s u f f i x t o the stem would thus be e l i m i n a t e d . The i d e a o f "combining" o r "somehow p u t t i n g t o g e t h e r " the wordstem and the s u f f i x was intended to broaden  subjects' expecta-  t i o n s t o i n c l u d e the p o s s i b i l i t y f o r p h o n e t i c change t o be i n v o l v e d i n the word c r e a t i o n t a s k . Another d i f f e r e n c e i n the d i r e c t i o n s c o n s i s t e d o f reminding s u b j e c t s i n t h e main experiment  t h a t the study i n which they  were p a r t i c i p a t i n g was s i m i l a r t o a "survey" i n that a l l o f t h e i r responses were v a l i d and would n o t be c o n s i d e r e d as " r i g h t " o r "wrong."  The s u b j e c t s had been t o l d t h i s once b e f o r e when  arrangements were made f o r t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e main experiment.  The examiner e x p l i c i t l y r e f e r r e d t o t h e experiment  as a "survey" f o r two reasons.  One reason was based on a  s u b j e c t i v e impression t h a t the s u b j e c t s o f both p i l o t s were concerned with the v a l i d i t y o f t h e i r responses.  For instance,  some s u b j e c t s i n the p i l o t s r e p e a t e d l y a p o l o g i z e d f o r t h e i r  -86-  "poor knowledge of E n g l i s h " and o f t e n responded  d u r i n g the  i n t e r v i e w i n a h e s i t a n t manner w i t h anxious e x p r e s s i o n s on  their  faces. The d i r e c t i o n s f o r the two  groups o f s u b j e c t s i n each of  the two p i l o t s d i f f e r e d s l i g h t l y i n a way  which accounted f o r  the absence o f d e r i v a t i o n examples i n the experimental These d i f f e r e n c e s may i n Appendix I.  be seen i n the d i r e c t i o n s which are  The cutback  was  not mentioned i n the  d i r e c t i o n s to the s u b j e c t s as each s u f f i x i n the  3.5.3  experimental  e x e m p l i f i e d once. Order of p r e s e n t a t i o n i n the  The contents of each experiment presented i n the f o l l o w i n g o r d e r . read t o the s u b j e c t .  experiments  (except P i l o t I I b " ) were F i r s t the d i r e c t i o n s were  Then the examiner presented the word forms  of the p r a c t i c e task and then those of the experimental There was task.  listed  i n the number of examples given  to Group B i n the main experiment  task was  task.  no break between the p r a c t i c e task and the  Subjects were not.informed  task.  experimental  t h a t t h e i r responses  f o r the  f i r s t nine stem-words were o n l y p r a c t i c e d e r i v a t i o n s t h a t would not be counted  i n the r e s u l t s .  The order of p r e s e n t a t i o n w i t h i n both the p r a c t i c e experimental t a s k s was then one or two word-stem was  the f o l l o w i n g .  F i r s t the s u f f i x  example d e r i v a t i o n s were presented.  given.  f o r the combination  and and  Then a  F i n a l l y the s u b j e c t made h i s / h e r responses o f the word-stem and  he/she pronounced the new  word, attempted  s a i d whether he/she might use i t .  suffix.  That i s ,  to d e f i n e i t and  The next stem-word  was  then  -87-  presented,  the s u b j e c t made h i s responses,  and  so on..  This  order of p r e s e n t a t i o n of the s u f f i x , the example d e r i v a t i o n ( s ) and  the  stem-words i s i d e n t i c a l to t h a t used by Ohala i n h i s  test. In P i l o t I I b " , j e c t ' s opportunity,  the examiner's i n s t r u c t i o n s , and the f o r d e f i n i n g the new  whether the s u b j e c t would use the new  words and  sub-  f o r saying  words were delayed.  When  the s u b j e c t had pronounced a l l of the words c r e a t e d from the s t i m u l i i n both the p r a c t i c e and she was  informed  experimental  tasks'  t h a t the examiner would g i v e the s u f f i x ,  example d e r i v a t i o n , the stem-word and then the new s u b j e c t had  suggested.  (The new  words had been recorded.)  use the new The  words the the  t r a n s c r i p t i o n i n which the  F i n a l l y the s u b j e c t was  d i r e c t e d to  word would mean and whether or not she would  word.  delay i n d e f i n i n g and commenting on the use of the  words was  new  i n t e r p o s e d i n an attempt to see i f the predominant  t r e n d of no phonetic  change i n the responses of P i l o t  l b '  s u b j e c t s had been i n f l u e n c e d by the p o s s i b l y d i f f i c u l t having  the  words were pronounced by  examiner a c c o r d i n g to the phonetic  t e l l what the new  lists,  to d e f i n e and  job of  comment on the s u b j e c t ' s use o f the  word immediately a f t e r pronouncing the word.  Phonetic  's  new  change  d i d occur more f r e q u e n t l y i n the responses o f the s i n g l e subj e c t i n Group b " jects.  than i n the responses of Group b'  's sub-  However, t h i s s e p a r a t i o n of the p r o n u n c i a t i o n task from  the o t h e r two  r e q u i r e d responses almost doubled the time needed  to complete the i n t e r v i e w .  Therefore  the method was  not  -88-  adopted  f o r use i n the main  3.5.4  experiment.  Method of p r e s e n t a t i o n  With one e x c e p t i o n , the s t u d i e s were presented o r a l l y the examiner.  by  The d i r e c t i o n s and the word forms were read  aloud by the examiner from a sheet on which the s u b j e c t ' s responses were t o be recorded.  In the p i l o t experiments  the  s u f f i x e s , i n a d d i t i o n to being pronounced a l o u d , were s p e l t aloud.  The  s u f f i x e s were presented once at the b e g i n n i n g of the  l i s t of stem-words which were to be combined w i t h t h a t s u f f i x . The one e x c e p t i o n to the o r a l p r e s e n t a t i o n o c c u r r e d i n the main experiment.  In t h i s case, the s u f f i x e s were not pronounced  and s p e l t aloud.  Rather,  each s u f f i x was  form on a 3 i n c h by 5 i n c h c a r d . c a r d i n f r o n t of him throughout the combination c a r d was was  s u b j e c t r e t a i n e d the  the time needed to respond  turned face-down b e f o r e the card with the next  presented.  to  of the s u f f i x with each of the stem-words.  The  the main experiment p i l o t experiments was  The  presented i n p r i n t e d  The  suffix  s u f f i x e s were presented i n p r i n t e d form i n because i t was  found t h a t s u b j e c t s i n the  had t r o u b l e remembering the s u f f i x when i t  spoken and s p e l t o n l y once a t the beginning o f a s e r i e s of  stem-words.  In a d d i t i o n , the f a c t t h a t a given s u f f i x i s p r o -  nounced d i f f e r e n t l y i n d i f f e r e n t d e r i v a t i o n s made i t d i f f i c u l t to decide on how  the examiner should pronounce the s u f f i x i n  i s l o a t i o n without b i a s i n g the s u b j e c t s ' p r o n u n c i a t i o n of the s u f f i x i n d i f f e r e n t new  words.  A l l the s u b j e c t s were i n t e r v i e w e d i n d i v i d u a l l y . by J . Ohala,  i n the case where a s u b j e c t produced  As was  more than  done one  -89p r o n u n c i a t i o n o f a new word without  i n d i c a t i n g h i s preference,  the examiner asked the s u b j e c t which p r o n u n c i a t i o n he p r e f e r r e d . 3.5.5 Recording The  the data  s u b j e c t s responses were recorded  tape r e c o r d i n g and by phonetic  i n two ways:  transcription.  by a  Tape r e c o r d i n g s  were made o f the examiner's p r e s e n t a t i o n o f and t h e s u b j e c t s ' responses t o the p r a c t i c e task and t o t h e experimental stimuli.  task  The d e f i n i t i o n s o f the new words and the comments on  the use o f these words were a l s o tape recorded  to distract  s u b j e c t s ' a t t e n t i o n from the p r o n u n c i a t i o n t a s k . equipment used was an Ampex Micro  The r e c o r d i n g  10 tape r e c o r d e r powered  e i t h e r by b a t t e r i e s o r by a P h i l i p s CP 9140 A power The Ampex Micro  source.  10 microphone was c l i p p e d onto the s u b j e c t ' s  c l o t h i n g j u s t below the neck.  Most o f the s u b j e c t s  (in a l l  the experiments except P i l o t I I b " ) r e q u i r e d about 40 minutes to complete the experimental Subjects* broad phonetic interview. tion  pronunciations  session. o f each new word were recorded i n  t r a n s c r i p t i o n on a response form d u r i n g t h e  The symbols o f the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Phonetic  (19 72) were used i n t h i s t r a n s c r i p t i o n .  Associa-  The t r a n s c r i p t i o n  was broad i n the sense t h a t i n a d d i t i o n t o the segmental symb o l s , o n l y the s i g n s f o r the extended l e n g t h o f a sound [:], f o r the s y l l a b i c i t y o f a c o n t o i d f a l l i n g on a s y l l a b l e  [,] and f o r primary s t r e s s  [ ' s y l l a b l e ] were used.  To f u r t h e r d i s t r a c t s u b j e c t s from the p r o n u n c i a t i o n  task,  comments made by the s u b j e c t i n d e f i n i n g the new words and t h e i r d e c i s i o n s about p o s s i b l y u s i n g t h e new words were r a n domly noted on the response form.  Chapter IV ANALYSIS AND 4.1 Checking the r e l i a b i l i t y  RESULTS OF THE DATA of the t r a n s c r i p t i o n s  Since the p h o n e t i c t r a n s c r i p t i o n s of responses were done by the experimenter d u r i n g the i n t e r v i e w , an attempt was made to the  i n f o r m a l l y check the r e l i a b i l i t y main experiment.  o f the t r a n s c r i p t i o n s of  The tape recorded responses o f 3 s u b j e c t s  each from Group A and from Group B were played on a h i g h q u a l i t y r e p r o d u c t i o n system and were t r a n s c r i b e d by a second person. T h i s person was d i r e c t e d to t r a n s c r i b e , as the experimenter had done d u r i n g the i n t e r v i e w , the d i f f e r e n t l y pronounced responses for  the given s t e m - s u f f i x sets and t o note the p r o n u n c i a t i o n  p r e f e r r e d by the s u b j e c t . Only the responses to the experimental task whose stimulus was r e l e v a n t to one o f the r u l e s , and whose form was by the s u b j e c t , were c o n s i d e r e d .  Disagreements between the two  t r a n s c r i p t i o n s of responses were counted. involved:  preferred  The disagreements  (a) a d i f f e r e n c e i n the l o c a t i o n of primary s t r e s s ;  (b) a d i f f e r e n c e i n the number of s y l l a b l e s i n the response; (c)  a d i f f e r e n c e i n a consonant and/or a vowel which was p r e -  dicted  (by Chomsky and H a l l e , 1968)  t o undergo p h o n e t i c change;  (d) a d i f f e r e n c e i n which response was  p r e f e r r e d by the s u b j e c t .  The two t r a n s c r i p t i o n s showed disagreement i n an average o f 3-4  responses f o r the t o t a l of 39 items which were c o n s i d e r e d  i n each o f the s i x i n t e r v i e w s . Two  interviews  (one from each group) were a r b i t r a r i l y  -90-  chosen  -91-  to  be t r a n s c r i b e d a second time by the experimenter and the  second t r a n s c r i b e r i n order t o check the r e l i a b i l i t y person's t r a n s c r i p t i o n s .  o f each  There were t h r e e disagreements  tween the two second t r a n s c r i p t i o n s o f one i n t e r v i e w and  befour  disagreements between the two second t r a n s c r i p t i o n s of the o t h e r interview.  These disagreements r e p r e s e n t e d an i n c r e a s e o f one  disagreement f o r each i n t e r v i e w over those found a f t e r the f i r s t t r i a l of t r a n s c r i p t i o n s .  The d i f f e r e n c e s between the  second t r a n s c r i p t i o n s d i d not i n v o l v e many o f the same r e sponses which produced disagreement i n the f i r s t t r i a l . meant t h a t each t r a n s c r i b e r was,  on o c c a s i o n , i n c o n s i s t e n t i n  t r a n s c r i b i n g some responses over the two I t was  This  trials.  not a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t the t r a n s c r i p t i o n s by each p e r -  son would become c o n s i s t e n t a f t e r f u r t h e r t r i a l s o f l i s t e n i n g to  and t r a n s c r i b i n g the tape r e c o r d e d responses.  In the case  of  the two i n t e r v i e w s which were t r a n s c r i b e d a t o t a l o f f o u r  times, disagreements were r e s o l v e d when one ^phonetic form f o r a given s t e m - s u f f i x set o c c u r r e d once and the o t h e r form o c c u r r e d t h r e e times.  In the two i n t e r v i e w s , a t o t a l o f 5  disagreements i n responses were r e s o l v e d i n t h i s way.  The  o r i g i n a l t r a n s c r i p t i o n s of the examiner were r e t a i n e d f o r the remaining disagreements. 4.2  E s t i m a t i o n s of the l e n g t h s of response l a t e n c i e s Word d e r i v a t i o n experiments conducted by Zimmer  S t e i n b e r g and Krohn  (1969) and  (1975) i n v o l v e d time l i m i t s f o r s u b j e c t s '  to make t h e i r responses.  Since the p r e s e n t study d i d not im-  pose a l i m i t on the time which s u b j e c t s had to pronounce  the  -92-  new word, an e s t i m a t e o f the range i n the l e n g t h o f response l a t e n c i e s and an estimate of median and upper q u a r t i l e response l a t e n c i e s were made i n two i n t e r v i e w s  (one l a s t i n g the g r e a t e s t  and one l a s t i n g the l e a s t amount of time) from each of Group A and Group In  B.  each i n t e r v i e w the time l a t e n c y between the end o f the  examiner's p r e s e n t a t i o n of the stem-word and the b e g i n n i n g of the  s u b j e c t ' s p r e f e r r e d response was measured  the  p r a c t i c e and i n the experimental task .  f o r each item i n C o n s i d e r i n g the  s h o r t e s t and the l o n g e s t i n t e r v i e w s does not o f course guarantee t h a t the range o f response l a t e n c i e s o r the median o r the upper q u a r t i l e response l a t e n c i e s found i n those i n t e r v i e w s w i l l r e s p e c t i v e l y l e a s t and g r e a t e s t f o r a group of s u b j e c t s . should, however,give a t l e a s t a f a i r encountered.  be It  i d e a of the range t o be  The r e s u l t s can be seen i n Table I I Group A  Group B i  o v e r a l l duration of i n t e r v i e w  30 min. (shortest)  42 min. (longest)  i 2 8 min. (shortest)  4 5 min. (longest)  response l a t e n c i e s ( i n sec.) 1.0-48.8  .2-24.5  1.2-33.7  range  .7-6.2  median  1.3  3.8  .8  3.3  1.8  8.5  1.3  6.3  upper  Table I I .  quartile  Estimated range, median and upper q u a r t i l e v a l u e s o response l a t e n c i e s .  -93-  The  r e s u l t s show a c o n s i d e r a b l e range o f response l a t e n c i e s  f o r the s u b j e c t s w i t h i n each group. values  i n d i c a t e t h a t h a l f o f the p r e f e r r e d responses f o r the  s u b j e c t s o f both groups were probably about 4 seconds. limits  made w i t h i n a p e r i o d o f  T h i s p e r i o d o f time i s s i m i l a r t o the time  (mentioned e a r l i e r ) which were a f f o r d e d the s u b j e c t s i n  the experiments o f Zimmer The  The median response l a t e n c y  (1969) and S t e i n b e r g and Krohn  upper q u a r t i l e values,  (1975).  however, vary c o n s i d e r a b l y between  the s h o r t e s t and l o n g e s t i n t e r v i e w s o f each group. 4.3  The " p r o d u c t i v i t y " o f the p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s 4.3.1  Introduction  Authors such as Zimmer (1969), Krohn and  S t e i n b e r g and Krohn  p h o n o l o g i c a l processes i t i e s i n language.  (19 75)  (1972), J . Ohala  (1973)  r e f e r t o the " p r o d u c t i v i t y " o f  accounting  These authors  f o r the p h o n o l o g i c a l r e g u l a r s ' tend f i r s t to r e f e r t o t h e  " p r o d u c t i v i t y " o f a p h o n o l o g i c a l r e g u l a r i t y , o f a sound p a t t e r n or o f a vowel a l t e r n a t i o n . the  Only afterwards  do they  " p r o d u c t i v i t y " o f a formal r u l e which has been  discuss hypothesized  to d e s c r i b e the r e g u l a r i t i e s i n sound p a t t e r n s observed a t the surface structure l e v e l .  They do t h i s because, as was men-  t i o n e d i n Chapter 3, they equate the " p r o d u c t i v i t y " o f a r u l e with the frequency which they  o f speakers'  presumed  i n t u r n i n f e r from the " p r o d u c t i v i t y " o r occurrence  of a given sound p a t t e r n . quency o f occurrence  In the present  rules.  study  also, the f r e -  o f given sound p a t t e r n s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d  before t r y i n g t o i n f e r the s u b j e c t s ' cal  'use' o f t h a t r u l e ,  'use' o f c e r t a i n p h o n o l o g i -  -94-  Krohn s t a t e s :  "By p r o d u c t i v i t y , we a r e r e f e r r i n g to the  a b i l i t y of a r u l e to apply to new a grammar" (1972, p.17).  items t h a t have been added to  I t seems p e c u l i a r to use the words  " p r o d u c t i v i t y " as w e l l as " a b i l i t y " with r e f e r e n c e to animate nouns such as and  "rule."  Therefore  used i n the present  "phonological r e g u l a r i t y , "  non-  "sound p a t t e r n "  the word " p r o d u c t i v i t y " w i l l o n l y  be  d i s c u s s i o n with r e f e r e n c e to the a b i l i t y  of  i n d i v i d u a l s u b j e c t s or groups of s u b j e c t s to produce a sound p a t t e r n or to apply a r u l e to new  items.  Furthermore, i t w i l l  be s p e c i f i e d whether the a b i l i t y of s u b j e c t s i n v o l v e d i n t h i s " p r o d u c t i v i t y " r e f e r s to the a b i l i t y o n l y to produce a sound p a t t e r n by u n s p e c i f i e d means or t o the a b i l i t y to produce a sound p a t t e r n by using a c e r t a i n r u l e .  Otherwise, r e f e r e n c e to  a sound p a t t e r n w i l l concern the n o t i o n o f t h a t p a t t e r n ' s quency of occurrence.  Reference to a r u l e w i l l concern  sound p a t t e r n s ' i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the corresponding  fre-  the  frequency  of use of t h a t r u l e . 4.3.2 One  The occurrence subjects"  of sound p a t t e r n s i n each group of  purpose f o r c o n s i d e r i n g the d i f f e r e n t sound p a t t e r n s  and the number of times t h a t they o c c u r r e d of each group was  to determine i f the d i f f e r e n t  c o n d i t i o n s experienced The  i n the responses experimental  by each group i n f l u e n c e d the  s t e m - s u f f i x s e t s whose responses were c o n s i d e r e d  occurrence by Ohala  of d i f f e r e n t sound p a t t e r n s were those (1973).  responses. f o r the  considered  In a d d i t i o n , some s e t s which had not been  c o n s i d e r e d by Ohala happened i n t h i s study to e l i c i t  responses  e x h i b i t i n g the p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n and were t h e r e f o r e  -95-  i n c l u d e d i n the a n a l y s i s .  A l l o f the s t e m - s u f f i x s e t s men-  t i o n e d above a r e given i n Appendix I I and comprise what be r e f e r r e d t o as the 'long'  shall  list.  Most o f the s t e m - s u f f i x s e t s c o n s i d e r e d i n the a n a l y s i s were preceded i n t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f Main Experiment A by an example d e r i v a t i o n demonstrating  the p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n .  (In order f o r an example d e r i v a t i o n t o q u a l i f y as 'preceding' a s t e m - s u f f i x s e t , the example had t o be presented  at the  beginning o f the group o f s e t s i n which the s e t under cons i d e r a t i o n occurred.)  Some s e t s (noted i n Appendix II)  were not preceded by an a p p r o p r i a t e example d e r i v a t i o n . The purpose o f c o n s i d e r i n g the occurrence  o f sound p a t t e r n s was t o  determine i f t h e responses were i n f l u e n c e d by s u b j e c t s  1  ex-  posure o r l a c k o f exposure to a p p r o p r i a t e example d e r i v a t i o n s . Therefore of  i t seemed important  t o c o n s i d e r as w e l l t h e occurrence  sound p a t t e r n s i n a s h o r t e r l i s t o f s t e m - s u f f i x s e t s which  i n c l u d e d o n l y those s e t s which had been preceded by an approp r i a t e example d e r i v a t i o n i n Main Experiment A. l i s t w i l l be c a l l e d the 'short' It i s possible that  This shorter  list.  (a) the v a r i e t y o f sound p a t t e r n s and  (b) t h e percentage o f occurrence  o f a given sound p a t t e r n i n  the t o t a l responses c o n s i d e r e d w i l l vary under t h e i n f l u e n c e of  the number o f responses c o n s i d e r e d i n the a n a l y s i s .  and Krohn  Steinberg  (1975) e l i m i n a t e d s e v e r a l forms o f responses (see  Chapter 2) from the data which was c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e i r a n a l y s i s . U n l i k e the s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n S t e i n b e r g and Krohn's experiments, the s u b j e c t s i n the present study were not  -96-  s y s t e m a t i c a l l y l i m i t e d i n t h e time which they had t o make t h e i r responses, ..and so probably always produced the response they intended t o make.  I f they d i d make a s l i p o f t h e tongue  and were c o n s c i o u s o f i t , they had t h e time t o c o r r e c t response.  their  T h e r e f o r e a l l o f t h e responses made by the s u b j e c t s  i n the p r e s e n t study were analyzed.  I t was b e l i e v e d t h a t  s i d e r i n g a l l o f the responses would more f a i r l y r e f l e c t jects' a b i l i t i e s  t o produce p r e d i c t e d  con-  sub-  (and unpredicted) sound  p a t t e r n s and t h e r e f o r e t o use p r e d i c t e d  (and unpredicted) r u l e s  i n novel utterances. Another v a r i a b l e which can i n f l u e n c e the v a r i e t y o f sound p a t t e r n s and t h e i r frequency o f occurrence i s t h e c h o i c e and the number o f c a t e g o r i e s t o which the d i f f e r e n t responses a r e assigned. of  The c a t e g o r i e s were based upon t h e d i f f e r e n t  types  responses produced by t h e s u b j e c t s f o r t h e s t e m - s u f f i x s e t s  r e l e v a n t t o one r u l e . vowel o r consonant  The responses d i f f e r e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e  i n t h e stem o f the d e r i v a t i o n which had been  p r e d i c t e d t o undergo phonetic change. methane + - i t y e l i c i t e d  For instance,  responses c o n t a i n i n g d i f f e r e n t vowels  such as are seen i n [rns&aenati ], [ma'8elnati  ] , [ ma'B. mat M l  and t o x i c + -ism r e s u l t e d i n t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f d i f f e r e n t  con-  sonants such as can be observed i n [/ta ksa slz-m] and ['taksak-izm]* Some responses  (such as s u s t a i n + - i t y [s/\sta'nlnad;i ] e x h i b i t e d  an a d d i t i o n a l segment or segments and were counted i n an .'Addition ' c a t e g o r y . 1  Responses were counted i n a ' S u b s t i t u t i o n  category when t h e stem o f the response d i f f e r e d from t h a t o f the s t i m u l u s y e t appeared t o c l o s e l y resemble  another  existing  1  -97-  stera.  For example,  [bu'distik]  ( d e r i v e d from Buddha + - i c but [ ae'd 'va-t L z.m] ( d e r i v e d from  resembling Buddhist + - i c ) and  adverse + -ism but resembling a d v e r t ( i s e ) + -ism) i n a ' S u b s t i t u t i o n ' category. f o r responses  such as  A  were  counted  ' D e l e t i o n ' category was  used  ['sowfiz-m] ( d e r i v e d from s o f a + -ism)  [ baVo. I a CI3 1 k 3 (from b i o l o g i s t + - i c ) which appeared  and  t o drop  one or more segments. (e.g. [ bo.1 QI a  Some responses and  1  1 s 11 k]  (from b i o l o g i s t + - i c )  ['6'a-masij'a'n ] (from thermos + -ian) ) showed, a c c o r d i n g t o  the primary s t r e s s rule"*" t e s t e d i n t h i s study, an placement of primary s t r e s s .  I t may  incorrect  seem presumptuous t o c a t e -  g o r i z e responses being c o n s i d e r e d as r e l e v a n t t o c e r t a i n  rules,  a c c o r d i n g t o another r u l e which i s i t s e l f being i n v e s t i g a t e d i n t h i s study.  However, those vowels which are p r e d i c t e d t o undergo  a phonetic change  (according to a l l o f the r u l e s p r e d i c t i n g a  phonetic change i n a vowel, with the e x c e p t i o n of the r u l e V  [+tense]/  V) happen t o be those vowels which are l o c a t e d i n the  s y l l a b l e immediately  preceding the s u f f i x .  These vowels are  t h e r e f o r e those which, a c c o r d i n g to the primary s t r e s s r u l e , r e 2 c e i v e primary  s t r e s s when d e r i v e d w i t h . c e r t a i n s u f f i x e s  order t o a v o i d u n f a i r l y c o u n t i n g responses category when the vowel was  .  In  i n one o r another vowel  not p r e d i c t e d t o change u n l e s s i t was  s t r e s s e d , the primary s t r e s s r u l e was given the b e n e f i t of the doubt,- t h a t i s , responses with an-.unpredicted s t r e s s -'-The f o r m a l i z e d primary s t r e s s r u l e c o n s i d e r e d here i s V •*• [1 s t r e s s ] / . C + a f f i x . Chomsky and H a l l e l i s t some a f f i x e s which are e x c e p t i o n s t o t h i s r u l e , one of which, -ism, i s combined with c e r t a i n stem-words i n t h i s study.  -98p a t t e r n were p l a c e d i n a separate category and  The  separate  was f e l t t o be warranted by the f a c t t h a t Groups A  B each produced the p r e d i c t e d s t r e s s p a t t e r n i n about 67%  of t h e i r responses  (to the long l i s t of s t i m u l i ) which were  hypothetically eligible The  f o r a change i n the s t r e s s l o c a t i o n .  'Wrong S t r e s s ' category  each o f the other  categories.  contain a predicted  ['saef  LJ atDjii  ]  was not mutually  e x c l u s i v e from  For i n s t a n c e , a response  could  (e.g. tense or lax) vowel y e t show ' i n c o r -  rect' stress location: and  category.  f o r example,  (from sapphire  [ bi'doian]  + -atory) .  from bed + - i a n  The response  [ m 3 0a'n L n a t i ] (from methane + - i t y ) c o u l d be counted i n e i t h e r of the ' A d d i t i o n ' o r the 'Wrong S t r e s s ' c a t e g o r i e s [ baValad"} ik]  while  (from b i o l o g i s t + - i c ) c o u l d be counted i n e i t h e r  o f the ' D e l e t i o n ' o r 'Wrong S t r e s s ' c a t e g o r i e s .  Such responses  were counted i n the ' A d d i t i o n ' and ' D e l e t i o n ' c a t e g o r i e s r e r spectively.  In the ' A d d i t i o n ' case, one c o u l d not t e l l  subject considered [SAStancn-]  i f the  the stem o f the d e r i v a t i o n t o be [SASt3n-] or  and t h e r e f o r e c o u l d not say whether the s t r e s s r u l e  was c o r r e c t l y a p p l i e d .  In the ' D e l e t i o n ' case, on the o t h e r  hand, one c o u l d not know i f the l o c a t i o n o f s t r e s s was  assigned  before or a f t e r the s y l l a b l e was dropped and t h e r e f o r e one c o u l d not f a i r l y judge the f i n a l s t r e s s assignment. The for  responses t o the s t e m - s u f f i x  sets which were  considered  the primary s t r e s s r u l e were counted i n c a t e g o r i e s  s t r e s s f a l l i n g on d i f f e r e n t s p e c i f i e d s y l l a b l e s .  with  F o r example,  [ 'Barmaaijan] (from thermos + -ian) was counted i n the category where s t r e s s f e l l  upon the i n i t i a l  syllable.  Two responses with  -99-  the  form ['tami jasan] (derived from Thomas + -ian) n e c e s s i t a t e d  the  adoption o f the c a t e g o r y c a l l e d  not  tell  whether  'Metathesis' s i n c e one  could  the assignment of s t r e s s o c c u r r e d b e f o r e or  a f t e r the t r a n s p o s i t i o n o f segments i n the stem and the s u f f i x . (This category was used f o r data r e l e v a n t to the primary s t r e s s r u l e as w e l l as t o the r u l e which tensed vowels p r e c e d i n g CiV.) Two  responses o f the form  Paed'varSizm]  (from adverse + -ism)  r e q u i r e d the adoption of a category c a l l e d  'Equal S t r e s s  1  in  which two s y l l a b l e s c o n t a i n e d heavy s t r e s s o f equal s t r e n g t h . Each group's responses t o the s t i m u l i which were r e l e v a n t to  a g i v e n r u l e were f i r s t  c a t e g o r i z e d i n m a t r i c e s which con-  s i d e r e d the responses to one s t e m - s u f f i x s e t .  The columns o f  the  m a t r i x c o n t a i n e d the d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s o f responses t o  the  s e t w h i l e the rows r e f e r r e d t o the responses o f the s u b j e c t s  in  the group.  These m a t r i c e s served as the b a s i s f o r a l l  l a t e r measures of the occurrence of sound p a t t e r n s . The cumulative number o f p r e d i c t e d responses i n each group Each s u b j e c t ' s p r e d i c t e d responses f o r a given r u l e were counted f o r the long l i s t o f s t i m u l i . or  'Predicted- responses  sound p a t t e r n s s h a l l h e n c e f o r t h r e f e r t o those sound  p a t t e r n s p r e d i c t e d by the p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s under which were h y p o t h e s i z e d by Chomsky and H a l l e  discussion  (1968).  For each  r u l e , the s u b j e c t s i n each group were a s s i g n e d an average rank a c c o r d i n g t o the number o f p r e d i c t e d responses they produced. However, s i n c e a d i f f e r e n t number o f s t e m - s u f f i x s e t s was  con-  s i d e r e d f o r each r u l e , f i n d i n g the unweighted mean rank of the  seven  (average) ranks i n j u s t l y gave equal weight to each  -100-  (average) rank.  T h e r e f o r e each r u l e was a s s i g n e d a weight  equal t o the number o f s t e m - s u f f i x s e t s c o n s i d e r e d r e l e v a n t to the r u l e .  The number o f sets c o n s i d e r e d f o r the / s / - v o i c i n g  r u l e v a r i e d f o r each s u b j e c t a c c o r d i n g t o the number o f e l i g i b l e responses ( c o n t a i n i n g  [.  V  + s + V. ])' he produced.  The  T+tense] / s / - v o i c i n g r u l e was a s s i g n e d a weight o f 3 i n both groups even though the average number of e l i g i b l e responses per s u b j e c t was 2.5 i n Group A and 2.3 i n Group B. 2 found f o r each s u b j e c t .  A weighted mean rank was  The unweighted and weighted mean ranks o f each s u b j e c t were then compared.  The two ranks never d i f f e r e d by more than 5.0  mean ranks i n e i t h e r group o f s u b j e c t s . ranks o f a s u b j e c t were e q u a l .  Often the two mean  Another i n f o r m a l check on t h e  two mean ranks was made by grouping s u b j e c t s a c c o r d i n g t o a combination o f t h e 'statuses' ( i . e . , low, medium, high) o f the average ranks which s u b j e c t s achieved f o r each r u l e .  When t h e  unweighted and weighted mean ranks were than c o n s i d e r e d f o r these grouped s u b j e c t s , both ranks corresponded f a i r l y w e l l t o the s t a t u s o f the grouping, w i t h o n l y a few cases where, 2  The formula used f o r t h e weighted mean rank was:  weighted mean rank  =  i=7 £ 1=1 E i=l  w. • r . 1  1  w. 1  where w. r e f e r s t o the weight o f a given r u l e and r ^ r e f e r s t o a s u b j e c t ' s average rank f o r t h a t r u l e .  -101-  according placed the  t o e i t h e r mean rank, t h e s u b j e c t  i n another grouping.  Therefore  should  have been  one might conclude t h a t  f a c t t h a t a v a r y i n g number o f s t e m - s u f f i x  s e t s were con-  s i d e r e d f o r the d i f f e r e n t r u l e s d i d n o t g r e a t l y i n f l u e n c e subj e c t s ' mean ranks i n t h e group's p r o d u c t i v i t y o f a l l o f t h e p r e d i c t e d sound The  patterns.  d i f f e r e n c e i n the two groups' o v e r a l l p r o d u c t i v i t y o f  p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n s  can be shown by comparing the cumula-  t i v e histogram o f each group's t o t a l number o f p r e d i c t e d patterns. i n order  sound  The responses to the s h o r t l i s t o f s t i m u l i were used t o take the o p p o r t u n i t y  to a t t r i b u t e the d i f f e r e n c e i n  the two groups' cumulative number o f p r e d i c t e d responses t o the d i f f e r e n t experimental c o n d i t i o n s . according  t o t h e i r mean unweighted ranks.  lowest and t h e h i g h e s t order The  The s u b j e c t s were ordered  ranks i n Group A were e l i m i n a t e d i n  t o keep the number o f s u b j e c t s  r e s u l t s can be seen i n F i g u r e  group a r e p l o t t e d along •worst' rank  The s u b j e c t s w i t h the  2.  i n the two groups  equal.  The s u b j e c t s o f each  the a b s c i s s a w i t h the s u b j e c t with the  ( i . e . with the s m a l l e s t number o f p r e d i c t e d r e -  sponses) a t the f a r l e f t and t h e s u b j e c t with the 'best'  rank  ( i . e . the g r e a t e s t number o f p r e d i c t e d responses) a t the f a r right. along  The cumulative number o f p r e d i c t e d responses i s p l o t t e d the o r d i n a t e .  group's p r o d u c t i o n  There c l e a r l y i s a d i f f e r e n c e i n each o f p r e d i c t e d responses.  In order  t r i b u t e the d i f f e r e n c e t o t h e d i f f e r e n c e experimental one  to a t conditions,  needs t o know t h a t the two groups o f s u b j e c t s were e q u a l l y  -102-  F i g u r e 2.  Cumulative number (short l i s t )  (N) o f p r e d i c t e d " r e s p o n s e s  f o r each group.  -103-  Vadept' i n the p r a c t i c a l matter o f producing n o v e l d e r i v a t i o n s . Such an assumption c o u l d be v e r i f i e d s t a t i s t i c a l l y i f s e v e r a l groups o f s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t e d  ( i n d i f f e r e n t orders) i n the  two experiments on two d i f f e r e n t o c c a s i o n s . was beyond the scope o f t h i s study.  T h i s type o f check  However, a l e s s formal  check on the d i f f e r e n c e i n the w o r d - d e r i v a t i o n s k i l l o f each group can be made by comparing  each group's cumulative h i s t o -  gram o f percentage o f p r e d i c t e d changes versus s u b j e c t rank. The data from the s h o r t l i s t o f s t e m - s u f f i x sets were used. (The data from the long l i s t are  o f s t i m u l i produced curves which  v e r y s i m i l a r t o those shown f o r the s h o r t l i s t . )  j e c t s o f each group were ranked a c c o r d i n g t o the t o t a l of  The subnumber  p r e d i c t e d responses they made f o r the s i x r u l e s under  s i d e r a t i o n i n the short l i s t .  con-  Once a g a i n , the s u b j e c t s i n  Group A w i t h the h i g h e s t and lowest ranks were e l i m i n a t e d .  For  each group, the cumulative percentage o f p r e d i c t e d responses were p l o t t e d on the o r d i n a t e . order on the a b s c i s s a far  The s u b j e c t s were p l o t t e d i n rank  (with the worst r a n k i n g s u b j e c t on the  l e f t and the best r a n k i n g s u b j e c t on the f a r r i g h t ) .  The  curves are shown i n F i g u r e 3. The curves f i t very c l o s e l y , s u g g e s t i n g t h a t the t o t a l of  number  p r e d i c t e d responses was d i s t r i b u t e d s i m i l a r l y among the mem-  bers i n each group.  T h i s d i s t r i b u t i o n which i s seen i n the two  groups i s l i k e l y what would be expected i f the groups  repre-  sented a normal sampling o f the p o p u l a t i o n — t h a t i s , a few s u b j e c t s produced a l a r g e number o f p r e d i c t e d responses, a few produced an i n t e r m e d i a t e number and a few produced a small  -104-  % predicted responses 100 T  •Worst' Figure 3,  'Best'  Cumulative percentage of predicted responses (short l i s t ) for Group A ( ) and Group B (--  -105-  number. One  c o u l d l i k e l y conclude t h a t the two  groups were s i m i l a r  i n t h e i r a b i l i t y to perform the experimental d i t i o n , each group of s u b j e c t s was  task.  In  ad-  l i k e l y representative of  p o p u l a t i o n of young u n i v e r s i t y students  from which they were  drawn.  So,  conclude t h a t the  ference  i n the cumulative  two  i n t u r n , one  groups was  tions:  c o u l d probably  the  dif-  number of p r e d i c t e d responses i n the  a r e s u l t of the d i f f e r e n t experimental  condi-  namely, the presence o f absence of example d e r i v a t i o n s  showing r e l e v a n t sound p a t t e r n s . Whereas S t e i n b e r g and Krohn  (19 75)  found t h a t a small  number of s u b j e c t s were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the p r o d u c t i o n of d i c t e d responses,  i n the present  study 13 out o f 15 s u b j e c t s i n  each group were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r approximately group's p r e d i c t e d responses.  The  pre-  80% o f  their  data used to c o n s t r u c t F i g u r e  3 showed t h a t 13 s u b j e c t s i n Group A produced 80.4%  of t h a t  group's t o t a l number (short l i s t ) o f p r e d i c t e d responses while 13 s u b j e c t s i n Group B produced 77.3%  of t h a t group's p r e d i c t e d  responses. The v a r i o u s sound p a t t e r n s and t h e i r frequency i n each group The  responses counted i n each category  s u f f i x s e t were t o t a l l e d and entered  of  f o r a given  occurrence stem-  i n a matrix which con-  t a i n e d the c a t e g o r i z e d responses t o a l l of the s t i m u l i r e l e v e n t to a given r u l e .  The  columns of the matrix  r e f e r r e d to the  c a t e g o r i e s of responses and the rows r e f e r r e d to the stems u f f i x sets.  The  percentage of occurrence  o f each given  cate-  gory of response w i t h r e s p e c t to the t o t a l number of responses  -106-  (considered f o r a r u l e ) was  found.  The r e s u l t s , seen i n  Tables I I I through IX, show f o r each group o f s u b j e c t s the percentage o f o c c u r r e n c e o f g i v e n c a t e g o r i e s o f responses f o r each r u l e .  R e s u l t s f o r the s h o r t l i s t  of s t i m u l i are shown  on the l e f t  s i d e o f each column w h i l e the r e s u l t s f o r the long  l i s t o f s t i m u l i are shown on the r i g h t s i d e o f each column i n the  tables.  The data which w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n the t e x t  be-  low w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o each r u l e w i l l be t h a t d e r i v e d from the short  list.  The vowel  laxing rule  (henceforth VLR^) :  V -> [-tense]  CVCV  As can be seen i n Table I I I , the sound p a t t e r n p r e d i c t e d by VLR^  (e.g. ['spaesati ] from space + - i t y ) o c c u r r e d i n a  g r e a t e r percentage of responses i n Group A responses of Group B (e.g.  The  The  (57.2%).  the  of  (e.g. [ f l i ' s i d a t i  segments which were added i n the new [-el-] and  [-acs-] .  stem and the s u f f i x - i t y .  containing for  (74.9%) than i n those of  Both groups produced a few responses c a t e -  'Additions'  [-err] , [ - i d - ] ,  [ sup'jimafal] from  However, t h i s p a t t e r n o c c u r r e d more  o f t e n i n the responses o f Group B  g o r i z e d as  pattern  o c c u r r e d most o f t e n i n the t o t a l responses o f  each of the two groups.  Group A  'tense vowel' sound  ] from b r i b e +. - i t y . and  ['bjidftbati  supreme + - i f y )  (20.4%).  (38.1%) than i n the  [-in-],  [-id-] and  1 from f l e e c e +  -ity).  d e r i v a t i o n s were  They always appeared between  The occurrence o f the responses [-ei-J  might  i  n  p a r t be accounted  by the number o f e x i s t i n g E n g l i s h d e r i v a t i o n s c o n t a i n i n g these s y l l a b l e s and the s u f f i x - i t y (e.g. v a l i d i t y ,  one  timidity;  -107-  TOTAL RESPONSES  LAX VOWEL  TENSE VOWEL  ADDITION  DELETION  SUBSTITUTION  1  no.  283  300  Q. •&  100  100  108  115  38.1 38.3  162  GROUP A 6 170  57.2 56.6  6  5  2  1.8  6  6  3  2.3  2.2  1.2  2.1  5  2  1.7 0.7  4  1.3  GR DUP B no.  255  270  Q.  100  100  Table I I I .  52  57  191  201  20.4 21.1  74.9  74.4  3  2  1.1 0.7  2  0.7  V -*• [-tense]/ CVCV. The number o f responses i n each category and the percentage o f occurrence o f each category f o r the l i s t s o f s t i m u l i r e l e v a n t t o the r u l e mentioned. The data f o r the s h o r t l i s t o f s t i m u l i a r e on the l e f t s i d e o f each column while the data f o r the long l i s t a r e on the r i g h t s i d e .  -108-  v i c i n i t y , v i r g i n i t y , f e m i n i n i t y ; omneity, and homogeneity).  spontaneity, d e i t y  S u b j e c t s may have a n a l o g i z e d t h e i r  a f t e r the s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e o f words such as these.  responses Or perhaps  they used an independent p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e , by which those e x i s t i n g words were p a r t l y generated, t o produce The i n s e r t i o n o f the four s y l l a b l e s i n i t i a l l y  such responses. listed  above  might be due t o a s t r a t e g y which c a l l e d f o r segment o r s y l l a b l e reduplication.  T h i s f o l l o w s from o b s e r v i n g , f i r s t ,  that  [-In-]  was i n s e r t e d a f t e r a sequence o f [-V+n-] i n [ ma 8annuit\i3 tLJ , J  [SASta'ntn  a t i ] . and [ bitw"i n u n a t i ] . 1  Secondly,  [-ej-] was i n -  s e r t e d a f t e r a s y l l a b l e c o n t a i n i n g a s i m i l a r l y tense diphthong in  [ t u c u ' t e i a t i ] . T h i r d l y , [-ae+s-] o c c u r r e d a f t e r t h e s e -  quence o f [-ej+s-] i n  [spet'saesat i ] .  Both groups a l s o produced category  (e.g. ['saefato^i  a few responses i n the ' D e l e t i o n '  ] from sapphire + -atory) .  The d e l e - ;  t i o n o f a s y l l a b l e might be due t o s u b j e c t s ' c o n s c i o u s o r unconscious d e s i r e t o make one o r more phonetic changes i n the second s y l l a b l e o f the stem but being unable t o make a change which would be ' s a t i s f a c t o r y ' t o them. drop the 'awkward' s y l l a b l e .  They might t h e r e f o r e  On the other hand, they may have  had a ' d i s t a s t e ' f o r words c o n t a i n i n g more than four Group A produced In  responses i n the 'Substitution' c a t e g o r y .  t h i s case, two s u b j e c t s responded with [  between + - i t y .  syllables.  bi'twiKsadi] for  T h i s response may have o c c u r r e d because  j e c t s wished t o l a x the vowel p r e c e d i n g the s u f f i x . hand, they may have produced  sub-  On the o t h e r  [- ks-] i n the new d e r i v a t i o n by  c o n s i d e r i n g the s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e o f betwixt, a word t h a t i s  -109-  c l o s e i n sound  s t r u c t u r e and meaning to the stem between.  In  a d d i t i o n , the two stems occur t o g e t h e r i n the phrase, "betwixt and between," and so might have some c o l l o c a t i n g One  association.  s u b j e c t i n Group B p l a c e d s t r e s s on a wrong s y l l a b l e i n  j u s t one  response.  The primary s t r e s s r u l e (henceforth PSR) : V -> [1 s t r e s s ] / C + a f f i x The sound p a t t e r n p r e d i c t e d by the PSR  (e.g. [ alow d m a t i ]  from i o d i n e + - i t y ) o c c u r r e d i n an almost equal percentage o f the responses of both groups: ( c f . Table I V ) .  64% i n Group A and 61.4%  Furthermore, t h i s sound p a t t e r n was the most  frequent one i n both groups' responses.  The response category  which ranked second i n the number o f responses was category  i n Group B  the  (e.g. [ bdl'oiladj ik] from b i o l o g i s t + - i c ) .  'Deletion'  The p e r -  centages o f occurrence o f ' D e l e t i o n ' responses were a l s o c l o s e f o r the two groups, being 22.8% Group B.  quite  i n Group A and 19.2% i n  One might mention and t r y to e x p l a i n the occurrence  of o t h e r sound p a t t e r n s produced f o r the s t i m u l i under c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r the PSR.  However, such e x p l a n a t i o n , as i n the cases  of the e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r the u n p r e d i c t e d c a t e g o r i e s o f responses f o r VLR^,  i s not exhaustive and would o n l y be  The vowel t e n s i n g r u l e  (henceforth VTR^  speculative.  : V-> [+ t e n s e ] /  Table V shows t h a t the 'tense vowel' sound p a t t e r n  V  (e.g.  [ z i ' b j e i a k ] from zebra + -ic_) p r e d i c t e d by t h i s r u l e o c c u r r e d most o f t e n  (41.1%) i n the responses of Group A w h i l e the  ' D e l e t i o n ' category o f response o f t e n i n Group B (4 3.3%).  (e.g. [Vibj»i.k]) o c c u r r e d most .  A c l u e t o the common o c c u r r e n c e of  TOTAL RESPONSES  SSSS+SS  SSSS+SS  SSSS+SS  SSSS+SS  SSSS+SS  DELETION  ADDITION  SUBSTITUTION  METATHESIS  EQUAL STRESS  GROUP A no.  153  221  4  13  %  100  100  2.6  6.3  : l  0.7  1  0  0  98  0.4  0  0  64 67.4  149  5  5  3.3  2.2  35  40  2  3  22.8  18  1-3  1.3  1  1  0.7  0.5  8  9  0  0  0  1  4.1  0  0  0  0.7  4  4  1  1  0  1  2.9  2  0  0.5  5.2 .  GROUP B  no.  135  195  10  18  %  100  100  7.4  9.2  1  1  1  1  0.7  0.5  0.7  0.5  TABLE IV. V ->• [1 s t r e s s ] / for 'syllable.'  C + affix.  83  132  61.4 67.6  (See T a b l e I l l ' s  8  8  5.9 4.1  legend.)  26  19.2  30  15.4  0.7 0.5  The 'S' i n SSSS+SS i n t h e c a t e g o r i e s above  stands  -111-  TOTAL RESPONSES  TENSE VOWEL  LAX VOWEL  ADDITION  SUBSTITUTION  DELETION  GROUP A no.  .34  51  100  100  14  16  41.1 31.1  0  0  0  0  12  2.9  11.8  35.2  22  7  7  43.1 20.6 13.7  GROUP B no.  30  45  12  13  100  100  40  28.9 3.3 4.4  TABLE V.  V  1  [+ t e n s e ] /  2  V.  3.3  20  13  18  43.3  40  (See Table I l l ' s  10  legend.)  6.6  -112-  t h i s sound p a t t e r n  i n both groups might be the f a c t t h a t  (as  was  mentioned by Ohala) there are s e v e r a l words e x i s t i n g i n E n g l i s h t h a t demonstrate t h i s sound p a t t e r n , e.g.  saliva/salivic,  g u e r r i l l a / g u e r r i l l i c , c h o l e r a / c h o l e r i c , oedema/oedemic vulva/vulvic.  The  percentage of occurrence of the  response i n Group B  (40%)  percentage i n Group A.  was,  response group.  (the The  'tense vowel'  however, almost as great as i t s  In a d d i t i o n , the p r e d i c t e d  responses i n Group B occurred  and  'tense vowel'  almost as o f t e n as the most common  ' D e l e t i o n ' category of response, 43.3%) i n t h a t  ' S u b s t i t u t i o n ' responses  Group B) a l l had  (20.6% i n Group A and  the form [ b.u'dList a kJ  possible explanation  (from Buddha + - i c ) .  of t h i s sound p a t t e r n i s t h a t  were c o n s i d e r i n g the stem-word to be Buddhist.  The  T h i s may  stem-word Buddha and  the  not  suffix - i c .  r e s u l t i n g from the combination of Buddha + - i c .  This  One  [kt ]  strategy vowels  might a l s o  note t h a t there are a number of E n g l i s h d e r i v a t i o n s ending i n [-aakttk]  (e.g. d i d a c t i c , p r o p h y l a c t i c , c l i m a c t i c ) whose sound  patterns  the  have r e c a l l e d and  extended by some  means. The  be  (e.g.  [?] or  probably used to separate the sequence of the two  s u b j e c t s may  One  c o n t a i n the stem Buddhist.  ' A d d i t i o n ' responses i n v o l v e d the i n s e r t i o n o f  between the was  Buddhistical)  in  subjects  s u r p r i s i n g , as a l l three E n g l i s h d e r i v a t i o n s o f Buddha Buddhist, B u d d h i s t i c ,  10%  vowel t e n s i n g r u l e (henceforth V + [+ t e n s e ] / CiV "[-high]  VTR ): 2  Although the p r e d i c t e d tense vowel sound p a t t e r n [ 8»'mo>wsijanj from thermos + -ian) occurred  in a  (e.g.  higher  -113-  percentage of the responses of Group A (8.3%),  i t was  i n e i t h e r group  not,  (23.5%) than i n Group B  by f a r , the most common category of response  ( c f . Table V I ) .  The  'tense vowel' response  the second h i g h e s t percentage o f occurrence i n Group A and the t h i r d h i g h e s t percentage i n Group B. t a i n i n g a l a x vowel [ia'mus  (e.g.  [ Bzr'm a s i ja n]  only  A sound p a t t e r n  con-  from thermos + - i a n  ] from Thomas + -ian) occurred  occurred 70.8%  pattern.  The  and  most o f t e n i n each  groups' responses, i n f a c t three to four times as o f t e n as second r a n k i n g  had  the  'lax vowel' c a t e g o r y o f response  almost as o f t e n i n each group  (69.9% i n Group A  and  i n Group B).  A speculative explanation  of the  ' D e l e t i o n ' responses  (e.g.  [ V J U S m i ja n ] from Christmas + -ian) might be t h a t s u b j e c t s were dropping what they f e l t were 'awkward' s y l l a b l e s . so, they c o u l d e l i m i n a t e the  ' p r e d i c t e d ' need  (a) f o r a change  i n the l o c a t i o n of primary s t r e s s i n a l l of the stem-words and  In doing  two-syllable  (b) f o r a change to a tense vowel i n  Christmas + - i a n and  thermos + - i a n  (due  to the double consonant  In Group B, responses counted i n the  'Wrong S t r e s s ' category  context).  (15%)  numbered almost twice as many as those i n the  'tense vowel' category. made by Group A and primary s t r e s s being -ian  (e.g.  Six of. e i g h t  s i x o f eighteen  predicted  'Wrong S t r e s s ' responses  made by Group B  involved  l o c a t e d on the f i r s t vowel of the  [ t am a'si j an] ,  speculative explanation  [faa'dijan]  and  suffix  [ uow ba'ti j an] ) .  i s t h a t s u b j e c t s may  One  have been extending,  by some means, the sound p a t t e r n seen i n E n g l i s h d e r i v a t i o n s  -114-  TOTAL RESPONSES  TENSE VOWEL  LAX VOWEL  DELETION  METATHESIS  WRONG STRESS  1  8  0  8  0.7  5.8  0  5.8  ADDITION GROUP A  no.  136  32  Q.  100  23.5  87  63.9  GROUP B no.  120  10  85  0  5  2  18  o.  100  8.3  70.8  0  4.1.  1.6  15  Table V I .  V -»••[+• tense]/. C i V . The number o f [-high] responses i n each c a t e g o r y and the percentage of o c c u r r e n c e o f each c a t e g o r y f o r t h e s i n g l e l i s t o f s t i m u l i r e l e v a n t t o the r u l e mentioned.  -115-  such as p l e b i a n , European consonant.  and Jacobean, whose stems end i n a  T h i s sound p a t t e r n a l s o o c c u r s i n many e x i s t i n g  d e r i v a t i o n s whose stems end i n a vowel  (such as Chaldean and  Galilean). The v e l a r s o f t e n i n g r u l e The p r e d i c t e d [dow'mtstastzm]  (henceforth VSOR) : /k / -»• s/_ I  ' v e l a r s o f t e n i n g ' sound p a t t e r n (e.g.  from domestic + -ism) showed the h i g h e s t p e r -  centage o f occurrence i n Group A's responses the  second h i g h e s t percentage o f occurrence i n Group B's  responses of  (52.9%) but o n l y  (42.2%) ( c f . Table V I I ) .  Conversely, the category  response which r e t a i n e d the [k] o f the stem (e.g.  [ dow'mesia kcT.m ] from domestic + -ism) ranked second i n the percentage o f occurrence (33.3%) i n Group A's responses but first  i n percentage o f occurrence (48.8%) i n the responses o f  Group B. The u n d e r l y i n g vowel pertain \  i n the second s y l l a b l e o f o b t a i n and  Chomsky and H a l l e s t a t e t h a t o r d i n a r y u n d e r l y i n g vowels undergo the vowel [+ t e n s e ] .  shift rule  (VSR) o n l y i f the vowel i s  They propose t h a t some vowels  (such as those i n the  u n d e r l y i n g forms o f r e t a i n and d e t a i n ) remain e l i g i b l e f o r the  a p p l i c a t i o n o f the VSR even i f the vowel has been l a x e d  i n the environment  d i r e c t l y preceding a double  consonant.  Ohala b e l i e v e s t h a t i f the u n d e r l y i n g vowel i n the second s y l l a b l e o f o b t a i n and p e r t a i n are marked i n e l i g i b i l i t y f o r vowel s h i f t on laxed vowels, then one would expect o b t a i n + i o n to p o s s i b l y be rendered [AbtCnSan ]/ but o b t a i n + a t o r y should then l i k e w i s e be rendered [ A bt t n a t o a i ] (1973, p.44).  -116-  TOTAL RESPONSES  /s/  [k];  ADDITION  DELETION  GROUP A no.  o, *5  51  100  68  100  27  30  17  52.9  44.1  33.3  20  1  2  29.4  1.9  2.9  6  11.7  16  23.5  GROUP B no.  %  45  60  19  20  22  28  1  1  3  11  100  100  42.2  33.3  48.8  47  2.2  1.7  6.6  18.3  TABLE V I I .  A / d  - s/__I  (See Table I I I s legend.)  -117-  I f the u n d e r l y i n g vowel i s not marked t o undergo the a f t e r being laxed, then  VSR  [ ae ] might be expected to appear i n  the second s y l l a b l e of the s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e of o b t a i n + - i o n and o b t a i n + - a t o r y . the vowel preceding  The  s u f f i x - a t o r y i s p r e d i c t e d to cause  i t to become l a x a c c o r d i n g to VLR^.  s u f f i x v i o n i s p r e d i c t e d to l a x the vowel preceding the epenthesis  of a d e n t a l consonant  The  i t after  (between a stem such as  r e t a i n , ending i n a d e n t a l n a s a l , and a s u f f i x ) which c r e a t e s a consonant c l u s t e r .  The  i s V ->- [-tense]/  henceforth  CC,  r u l e which p r e d i c t s the l a x vowel c a l l e d VLR . 2  I f the  subjects  were unable t o , or d i d not wish t o , extend the sound p a t t e r n i n which the vowel i s laxed i n the environments preceding or CC,  then presumably the tense vowel [ e l ] i n the stem-word  would be r e t a i n e d i n the s u b j e c t s ' responses. of  CVGV  [et] i n Group B's  appearance  responses to s t i m u l i combining with  s u f f i x - i o n c o u l d l e a d t o two j e c t s may  The  conclusions.  First,  the  the sub-  not have laxed the vowel because they c o u l d not  or d i d not extend the sound p a t t e r n wherein a vowel i s l a x e d before a consonant c l u s t e r . may  On  the other hand, the  not have extended a consonant c l u s t e r  subjects  sound p a t t e r n i n  the d e r i v a t i o n s i n c e they were given no l e a d i n g example d e r i v a t i o n s and  s i n c e the w r i t t e n form of the s u f f i x which  they were given d i d not i n c l u d e a " t " . For the present,  d i s c u s s i o n of the responses to p e r t a i n  and o b t a i n w i l l be l i m i t e d to the occurrence  of l a x or  tense  vowels which would r e f l e c t on the p r e d i c t i o n s f o r a 'lax vowel' sound p a t t e r n as w e l l as the o p p o r t u n i t y  to i n s e r t a  [t] or  -118-  a [§] b e f o r e the s u f f i x - i o n .  I t w i l l be assumed t h a t  j e c t s can extend the double consonant sound p a t t e r n .  subIn o t h e r  words, responses without t h e double consonant p a t t e r n w i l l not be excluded from the a n a l y s i s f o r tense o r l a x vowels.  Com-  ments on t h e u n d e r l y i n g vowel i n q u e s t i o n i n these stem-words w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n a l a t e r  section.  Table V I I I shows t h a t the p r e d i c t e d pattern  'lax vowel'  (e.g. [ pa*'t E n a to J 1 ] from p e r t a i n + - a t o r y and  [ f t b ' t t n ^ n ] from o b t a i n + -ion) o c c u r r e d most o f t e n the A,  sound  responses o f Group A.  (70.5%) i n  One 'lax vowel' response i n Group  [ pa-'ttn jan ] , o c c u r r e d i n the environment p r e c e d i n g C i V ...  which i s p r e d i c t e d by Chomsky and H a l l e t o e l i c i t  a tense vowel.  Twenty percent o f the responses o f Group B were counted i n the 'lax  vowel' c a t e g o r y .  A l l o f the l a x vowel responses made by  Group B t o the s t i m u l i combining w i t h the s u f f i x - i o n o c c u r r e d d i r e c t l y p r e c e d i n g a consonant c l u s t e r environment which i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t o e l i c i t The  'tense vowel' response  Group B.  tense vowels.  ri^n]  a l a x vowel. (e.g. [ Ab't el n j a n ] and  [ pa- 'tel n at 3 J i ]) o c c u r r e d most o f t e n of  [  (76.6%) i n the responses  Some o f Group A's responses (27.9%)  contained  Both groups o f s u b j e c t s a l s o produced a few  ' D e l e t i o n ' responses such as ['pa-tatoai  1.  The / s / - v o i c i n g r u l e (henceforth /s/VR): / s / •* [+ v o i c e ] / V _ V [+ tense] ' The sound p a t t e r n p r e d i c t e d by t h i s r u l e cannot s t r i c t l y be i n c l u d e d i n the a n a l y s i s which c o n s i d e r s the e f f e c t s o f the d i f f e r e n t experimental c o n d i t i o n s .  None o f t h e s t i m u l i  -119-  TOTAL RESPONSES  ..LAX VOWEL  TENSE VOWEL  DELETION  GROUP A 68  48  19  100  70.5  27.9  1.5  GROUP B  60  12  46  100  20  76.6  Table VIII,  V -* [- t e n s e ] /  3.3  JCVCVI . A b i l i t y ICC } to extend the double consonant sound p a t t e r n i n the c o n t e x t - i o n was assumed. (See Table VI's legend.)  - u n -  c o n s i d e r e d f o r t h i s r u l e were preceded i n Main Experiment A by example d e r i v a t i o n s demonstrating t h e 'voiced / s / ' sound pattern. Some i d e a o f the s u b j e c t s ' a b i l i t y t o extend the sound p a t t e r n t o n o v e l u t t e r a n c e s might be gained from c o n s i d e r i n g the numbers i n Table IX.  In new d e r i v a t i o n s i n which  [s] was  preceded by a tense vowel, Group A produced the p r e d i c t e d pattern  sound  (e.g. [ 8 v 'mow s"» jan] from thermos + -ian) i n 7% o f  t h e i r responses w h i l e Group B f a i l e d t o produce the sound pattern.  One might s p e c u l a t e t h a t the reason t h a t even a few  o f Group A's e l i g i b l e responses e x h i b i t e d the ' v o i c e d - / s / ' sound p a t t e r n was t h a t Group A had been exposed t o example d e r i v a t i o n s showing p h o n e t i c change and were, on the whole, producing more responses i n v o l v i n g phonetic changes.  Perhaps  i n a l i m i t e d sense, t h e r e f o r e , the responses e l i g i b l e t o be analyzed f o r the occurrence o f the v o i c e d / s / can be i n c l u d e d i n t h e comparison o f each group's responses. F u r t h e r evidence f o r the sound p a t t e r n o c c u r r e d i n responses to prose + - i f y wherein a few s u b j e c t s i n each group l a x e d the vowel i n the stem of the d e r i v a t i o n .  One o f these four  'lax vowel' responses made by Group A and one i n three p r o duced by Group B devoiced the [z] and produced  [ pjasafatl.  Summary The sound p a t t e r n s p r e d i c t e d by each o f the r u l e s o c c u r r e d more o f t e n i n the responses o f Group A whose s u b j e c t s were exposed t o example d e r i v a t i o n s which demonstrated a l l but one  -121-  TOTAL ELIGIBLE RESPONSES  [-VOICE]  [+VOICE]  GROUP A no.  %  42  39  3  100  93  7  GROUP B no.  Q,  "6  31  31  0  100  100  0  Table IX.  s -* [ + v o i c e ] /  V V. [+tense] (See Table VI's legend.)  -122-  of the p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n s .  Since the two groups were  e q u a l l y adept i n h a n d l i n g the experimental percentage o f occurrence  task, the g r e a t e r  o f p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n s i n the  responses o f Group A can l i k e l y be a t t r i b u t e d t o t h a t Group's exposure t o l e a d i n g example d e r i v a t i o n s .  T h i s hypothesis  will  be f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t e d l a t e r i n r e l a t i o n t o the means by which s u b j e c t s extended given sound p a t t e r n s . If  the r e s u l t s o f the /s/VR are a r e l i a b l e i n d i c a t i o n f o r  each group's tendency t o make p r e d i c t e d phonetic trend towards or away from making phonetic  changes, the  changes ( p r e d i c t e d  by some r u l e s ) might a l s o bear an i n f l u e n c e on the occurrence of p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n s f o r another r u l e , independent from the o t h e r s .  One might a l s o c o n s i d e r the r e l a t i o n of the t o t a l  number o f phonetic to  changes (whether p r e d i c t e d o r  the number of p r e d i c t e d changes made.  I t c o u l d be t h a t as  the number o f responses i n v o l v i n g a phonetic or decreases,  unpredicted)  change i n c r e a s e s  so does the number o f p r e d i c t e d phonetic  changes.  F i n d i n g the t o t a l number o f responses i n v o l v i n g a phonetic change i n the stem o f the d e r i v a t i o n would be very  difficult.  I t would be d e s i r a b l e t o c a t e g o r i z e responses a c c o r d i n g t o the number o f phonetic  changes made.  For example, should not  [maBa'ni-nati ] (from methane + - i t y ) count as having been subm i t t e d t o more phonetic  changes than  d i f f i c u l t t o t e l l which phonetic  [ rna'B el n a 11 ]  ?  It i s  changes are d i s c r e t e from one  another and so a s s i g n t o them a u n i t v a l u e .  With s t i m u l i  as s u s t a i n + - i t y and p e r t a i n + - i o n i t would a l s o be to  such  impossible  t e l l whether a s u b j e c t l e f t the primary s t r e s s on the  -123-  h y p o t h e t i c a l l y appropriate  s y l l a b l e because he was o b l i v i o u s  to the s t r e s s p a t t e r n o r because he f e l t t h a t the s t r e s s should remain i n the same l o c a t i o n i n the new d e r i v a t i o n . Despite  the apparent t r e n d f o r p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n s  to occur more o f t e n when s u b j e c t s are exposed t o example d e r i v a t i o n s i l l u s t r a t i n g the sound p a t t e r n s , one cannot s p e c i f y whether the sound p a t t e r n s are produced through the use o f a n a l o g i c a l p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s , the independent p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s under i n v e s t i g a t i o n or through some other means. 4.4 Attempts t o determine the means by which a sound p a t t e r n was produced 4.4.1 The i n f l u e n c e o f example d e r i v a t i o n s on ' s i m i l a r ' stem-suffix sets A f u r t h e r check t o see i f the more frequent occurrence o f p r e d i c t e d responses i n Group A was due t o the presence o f r e l e vant example d e r i v a t i o n s was attempted by c o n s i d e r i n g each group's chi-square  value  f o r the number o f p r e d i c t e d and un-  p r e d i c t e d responses f o r c e r t a i n s t e m - s u f f i x s e t s . of  The stem-word  each s e t was s i m i l a r t o the stem o f the preceding  (with the r e l e v a n t sound pattern)  example  i n t h a t i t c o n t a i n e d the same  s t r a t e g i c vowel o r consonant as t h a t i n the example.  I t was  expected t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e i n the number o f p r e d i c t e d responses might a l s o have some i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the s u b j e c t s o f Group A having  used a given example d e r i v a t i o n as a s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e  form on which t o model t h e i r responses t o a given set.  That i s , i f the occurrence  stem-suffix  o f the p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n  was s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r i n Group A's responses t o a given s t e m - s u f f i x s e t , there would be a p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the  -124-  d i f f e r e n c e was caused by s u b j e c t s ' exposure t o an example derivation i l l u s t r a t i n g  the p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n w i t h the  vowel o r consonant which was common t o the example and the stimulus. The c h i - s q u a r e measure was taken on s e v e r a l s t e m - s u f f i x s e t s by e n t e r i n g the number o f p r e d i c t e d responses number of remaining  and the  responses made by one group t o a given stem-  s u f f i x s e t i n one row o f a 2 x 2 matrix.  The matrix i s exempli-  f i e d i n Table X u s i n g the data from the two groups' to  responses  slave + - i f y . No. P r e d i c t e d Responses  Group A  8  Group B  4  Tot. Table X.  Due  12  No. Remaining Responses  Tot.  17  9 11  15  20  32  The matrix used f o r the chi-square measure o f both groups' responses t o s l a v e + - i f y . t o the small number o f each group's responses  t o a stem-  s u f f i x s e t many o f the matrices c o n t a i n e d e n t r i e s with a small number.  The q u e s t i o n s as t o how s m a l l expected  frequencies could  be b e f o r e u s i n g c e r t a i n c h i - s q u a r e c o r r e c t i o n formulae  and before  abandoning the use o f the chi-square measure a l t o g e t h e r were answered d i f f e r e n t l y i n d i f f e r e n t sources. c o r r e c t i o n formulae were used,  T h e r e f o r e two  i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e formula f o r  the t e t r a c h o r i c c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t  (see f n . 3, p.126), t o  -125-  determine whether the values obtained  f o r a given s e t c o n s i s -  t e n t l y remained s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t with r e s p e c t to confidence  level.  The  are mentioned below.  s e t s whose values d i d remain c o n s i s t e n t The  l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e mentioned f o r  each set i s the most c o n s e r v a t i v e one There were s t a t i s t i c a l l y  obtained  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the  number of p r e d i c t e d responses f o r only a few those preceded by mammal/mammalian  .001) , p e r t a i n + - i o n (p  obtain + -atory  < .05)  reached s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l s i s , f i r s t ,  t-eln] ; secondly, Likewise,  <  and p e r t a i n + - a t o r y  stem-words of the s t i m u l i and  of  .05))  A possible explanation for  o b t a i n + - i o n (p '<  a l l having  s e t s . Only one  (Thomas + - i a n (p <  showed a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e .  (p  for i t .  .05), (p  <  .005)  t h a t the  those of the examples ended i n  they were composed of stems and p r e f i x e s .  a possible explanation  f o r methane + - i t y arid  s u s t a i n + - i t y , which were preceded by s a n e / s a n i t y , reached l e v e l s of s i g n i f i c a n c e (both at p  < .005)  having i s that  t h e i r stems c o n t a i n e d the same V + C sequence as the example's stem-word. P r e d i c t e d responses o c c u r r e d Group A's  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more o f t e n i n  responses to the s t e m - s u f f i x s e t s which were s i m i l a r  to  t h e i r preceding  at  first  example d e r i v a t i o n s .  glance appear as evidence  T h i s c o n c l u s i o n might  t h a t the s u b j e c t s o f Group  A were using the s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e of the example d e r i v a t i o n s ( p a r t i c u l a r l y of those whose stems contained on which to base analogous responses.  [-eln] ) as models  This idea i s r e i n f o r c e d  by the f a c t t h a t many of the s t e m - s u f f i x s e t s whose numbers o f  -126-  p r e d i c t e d responses d i d n o t reach s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l s had o n l y a vowel  i n common with t h e i r p r e c e d i n g example d e r i v a t i o n ' s  surface structures.  However, the p o s s i b i l i t y s t i l l  remains  t h a t the example d e r i v a t i o n s served t o i l l u s t r a t e the independent p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e f o r m a l i z e d by Chomsky and H a l l e . i n s t a n c e , s a n e / s a n i t y c o u l d have i l l u s t r a t e d VLR^ more  For effectively  f o r p a i r s such as methane + - i t y and s u s t a i n + - i t y than f o r p a i r s whose stem-words d i d n o t c o n t a i n [ e l ] . 4.4.2 The i n f l u e n c e o f a p r e v i o u s response on a l a t e r response J . Ohala sought t o check whether a n a l o g i c a l p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s were the means by which a sound p a t t e r n was p r o d u c t i v e by c o n s i d e r i n g the c o r r e l a t i o n o f responses t o s u c c e s s i v e o r nearby s t e m - s u f f i x s e t s .  The s t a t i s t i c a l measure t h a t he used  and t h a t was used i n t h i s study i s the t e t r a c h o r i c  correlation  3  coefficient  .  In the present study, the responses c o n s i d e r e d  were those t h a t were counted i n two sound p a t t e r n s t h a t (a) were common t o both groups' responses to. the two s t e m - s u f f i x s e t s and  (b) most f r e q u e n t l y o c c u r r e d i n both groups' responses t o  the two s e t s .  F o r each group, the data f o r a p a i r o f s t e m - s u f f i x  s e t s were arranged i n a matrix such as t h e f o l l o w i n g  (which  uses data from methane + - i t y and s u s t a i n + - i t y ) : The t e t r a c h o r i c c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t measures the r e l a t e d ness o f events t a l l i e d i n a 2 x 2 matrix, u s i n g t h e formula: IT  r^  = sin  /ad - /be  /ad + /be The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r was o b t a i n e d by g e n e r a t i n g (2500 times) random 2 x 2 m a t r i c e s , f o r each value o f N (sum o f the e n t r i e s ) from 10 to 17 and from 30 t o 32. The l e v e l s o f c o n f i d e n c e were i n f e r r e d from these d i s t r i b u t i o n s . t  t  2  -127-  Group A (methane + - i t y ) . tense, vowel . . l a x vowel tense  vowel  (sustain + - i t y )  lax  vowel  Table XI.  a = 1  b = 1  c = 3  d = 10  Example o f a m a t r i x arrangement f o r an i n d i v i d u a l group's' responses t o a p a i r o f s t e m - s u f f i x s e t s .  The p a i r s o f s t e m - s u f f i x s e t s whose responses showed a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n i n v o l v e s i g n i f i c a n t l y more p a i r s o f responses which are e i t h e r both sound p a t t e r n 'x' or both sound p a t t e r n  *y'.  Those p a i r s whose responses showed  a s i g n i f i c a n t l y negative c o r r e l a t i o n involved  significantly  more p a i r s o f responses which were comprised o f two d i f f e r e n t sound p a t t e r n s .  When the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was non-  s i g n i f i c a n t , the responses t o the p a i r s were u s u a l l y  comprised  of more equal numbers of 'both the same' responses and ' d i f f e r e n t ' responses. I t i s p o s s i b l e , i n the cases o f the s t e m - s u f f i x s e t s ( p a r t i c u l a r l y s u c c e s s i v e sets) whose responses showed a s i g n i f i cant p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n , t h a t the form o f the f i r s t i n f l u e n c e d the form o f the f o l l o w i n g response.  response  This could  support both the h y p o t h e s i s of an independent p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e or t h a t o f a model whose s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e was the o b j e c t of analogy.  A l t e r n a t i v e l y , the i n f l u e n c e o f the e a r l i e r  response  -128-  c o u l d have o c c u r r e d statistical  in s t i l l  some other way.  However, a high  c o r r e l a t i o n does not imply a c a u s a l r e l a t i o n  tween the two  events c o n s i d e r e d .  Therefore,  checking  be-  the  r e l a t i o n of s i m i l a r responses i n p a i r s of s t e m - s u f f i x  cor-  sets  cannot even prove a cause and e f f e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s e t s , l e t alone  i n f e r the means by which the r e l a t i o n s h i p took  place. The  p a i r s of s t e m - s u f f i x s e t s , t h e i r p o s i t i o n s ( r e l a t i v e t o  each other) gories  i n the experimental  t a s k , the sound p a t t e r n  ( i . e . , parameters) c o n s i d e r e d  i n Table X I I .  The  and the r e s u l t s are  r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e whether the values  t e t r a c h o r i c c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t and sure both remained a t a confidence  catelisted  f o r the  f o r the chi-square mea-  l e v e l b e t t e r than p =  .05.  (The c h i - s q u a r e measure's v a l u e s were taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n as w e l l s i n c e the t e t r a c h o r i c c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t  reaches  i t s maximum or minimum values of 1.0  entry  i n a matrix concerning  i s 0.)  or -1.0  when one  No c o n c l u s i o n s can be drawn i n these  the r e l a t i o n of the l e v e l s of s i g n i f i c a n c e of  data the  p a i r s of s t e m - s u f f i x s e t s to t h e i r l o c a t i o n ( r e l a t i v e to each other)  and  4.4.3  to t h e i r common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The i n f l u e n c e of d i f f e r e n t example d e r i v a t i o n s on responses i n v o l v i n g one stem-word  J . Ohala  (1973) exposed h i s s u b j e c t s to two  example d e r i -  v a t i o n s whose sound p a t t e r n s d i f f e r e d i n such a way gest t h a t the VSR example  had been used i n the d e r i v a t i o n of  (detain/detention)  explanatory).  but not i n the other  as to sugone  (explain/  S e v e r a l of h i s s u b j e c t s ' responses t o d i f f e r e n t  PAIRS OF STEM-SUFFIX SETS  PARAMETERS  GROUP  BOTH % AND r VALUES REACH .05 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE  t  (identical  CO EH W CO w > H CO CO w u u CO  vowel)  define + -ity/iodine + - i t y it  II  trade + - i t y / s p a c e + - i t y  II  sublime + - i f y / p r i d e + - i f y  II  II  II  O  H Q H  H g H CO EH EH C O W CO  ( i d e n t i c a l Vowel o f consonant) bed + - i a n / F r e d + - i a n II  >H  w  II  II n  Christmas + -ian/thermos + - i a n  II  II  t o x i c + -ism/public  + -ism  Ik] vs [s] •I  II  zebra + -ic/Buddha + - i c II  tense vowel vs D e l e t i o n II  ( d i f f e r e n t vowel) d e f i n e + -ity/methane + - i t y ( i d e n t i c a l vowel) obtain + -ion/obtain + -atory II  tense vowel vs l a x vowel II  II  n  p e r t a i n + -ion/pertain + -atory  II  n  ti  probe + - i t y / p r o s e + - i f y  ii  it  Table X I I . x  no no no no no yes no no  A B  no  A B A  yes no no  TD E>  n  CO EH H CO  II  A B A B A B A B  vowel)  i o d i n e + -ity/methane + - i t y  PH  H  n  (different  S CO W d, •« HD w o  ii  methane + - i t y / s u s t a i n + - i t y ii  EH  tense vowel vs l a x vowel  II  no  A B A B  yes no no yes  A B  yes no  A B A B A B  yes yes no no no no  and r. l e v e l s o f s i g n i f i c a n c e o f d i f f e r e n t p a i r s of s t e m - s u f f i x  sets.  -130-  derivations  ( c o n t a i n i n g one  stem-word) f o l l o w e d the sound p a t -  t e r n s of the c o n f l i c t i n g example d e r i v a t i o n s .  Since the sub-  j e c t s ' responses p r o v i d e d c o n t r a d i c t o r y evidence  f o r the use  of  a s i n g l e i d e n t i c a l u n d e r l y i n g form f o r a given stem-word, Ohala r u l e s out the use of the p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s hypothesized Chomsky and H a l l e .  He  by  does not c o n s i d e r the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t some  other independent p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s were used.  Instead, he  turns  to another means of p r o d u c t i o n , t h a t of a n a l o g i c a l p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s , and concludes  t h a t t h i s was  s u b j e c t s ' responses supported In the present  this  study Group A's  the means i n use  s i n c e the  hypothesis. responses "followed" the  i n g example d e r i v a t i o n s q u i t e f r e q u e n t l y .  Nine of 17  subjects  d e r i v e d o b t a i n and 10 of 17 s u b j e c t s d e r i v e d p e r t a i n by the l a x vowel and  [£] when the preceding  [ae] when the example was  example was  explain/explanatory.  lead-  producing  detain/detention The  fact that  the vowels i n the responses to the p a i r s of s t e m - s u f f i x s e t s were not the same i n v o l v e d two  i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Chomsky and  p h o n o l o g i c a l theory.  responses c o u l d i n d i c a t e e i t h e r (a)  The  t h a t Chomsky and H a l l e ' s hypothesized not used or pothesized  Halle's  s i n g l e u n d e r l y i n g form  (b) t h a t the u n d e r l y i n g form was  used but t h e i r  was hy-  r u l e s were not a p p l i e d to i t . However, r e j e c -  t i o n of Chomsky and H a l l e ' s theory does not serve, as Ohala would have i t , as an u n c o n d i t i o n a l warrant f o r a c c e p t i n g the  theory  of a n a l o g i c a l r u l e s .  preclude  Such a "how-else" argument would  other p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r the p r o d u c t i o n  of the sound p a t t e r n s to  have been i n f l u e n c e d by the example d e r i v a t i o n s . One  asks i f the s u b j e c t s of Group A p o s s i b l y f e l t o b l i g e d t o  -131f o l l o w the example d e r i v a t i o n s , and patterns  i f so, one  they would have produced had  answer might be which were not  found by c o n s i d e r i n g  wonders what sound  they not  f e l t t h i s way.  An  the responses of Group A  s i m i l a r to the examples  sound p a t t e r n s  1  the responses of Group B, whose s u b j e c t s  were not  as w e l l  exposed to  as  the  examples. i  One  f i n d s t h a t the  stem-suffix  two  groups d e r i v e d  sets i n c o n s i s t e n t l y  (that i s , without the  i n each member of the p a i r of d e r i v a t i o n s ) mentioned above.  T h i s o c c u r r e d i n 7 of the  s u f f i x s e t s i n Group A and only  3 of the  i n 8 o f the  7 p a i r s i n Group A and  by Chomsky and  Halle.  For  involving a  response and total  a l a x vowel  34 p a i r s of stem-  30 p a i r s i n Group B.  i n 5 of the  instance,  appear i n the environment p r e c e d i n g CiV p e r t a i n + ion)  and  f o r e CVCV (e.g. hand, 4 o f the volved  8 p a i r s i n Group B  [ par'telnja n] from  (e.g.  (e.g.  ,  responses i n c l u d e d  one  the  other  [ pa-'t eln j a n ] from  [pa 'teinat:>jti ] from p e r t a i n + - a t o r y environments.  On  be-  3 of 8 p a i r s i n Group B i n -  'lax vowel' responses  p e r t a i n + - i o n and c a l l y appropriate  patterns  a tense vowel would  [ pe/te.natxn ] from p e r t a i n + -atory) .  'tense' or  In  a l a x vowel would appear i n the environment  7 p a i r s i n Group A and  of  same vowel  d i d these i n c o n s i s t e n t d e r i v a t i o n s agree w i t h the sound predicted  pairs  i n other ways than t h a t  Most o f t e n the p a i r of d e r i v a t i o n s  given stem c o n t a i n e d a tense vowel i n one i n the o t h e r .  each of the two  Other sets of  derivation containing  in  hypotheti-  inconsistent  a tense vowel and  the  other d e r i v a t i o n w i t h a d e l e t e d s y l l a b l e i n Group A w h i l e i n Group B, 2 p a i r s o f s e t s were comprised of one d e r i v a t i o n w i t h a l a x vowel and the o t h e r w i t h a d e l e t e d . s y l l a b l e . A few  subjects  i n each group c o n s i s t e n t l y used the  or l a x vowel i n t h e i r responses to a p a i r of s t e m - s u f f i x In response to the p a i r of s e t s i n v o l v i n g o b t a i n ,  3  same tense sets.  -132-  s u b j e c t s i n Group A produced 1 produced [£,]).  'tense vowel' sound p a t t e r n s  'lax vowel' sound p a t t e r n s  and  ( c o n t a i n i n g the vowel  In response to the p a i r s o f d e r i v a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g p e r t a i n ,  3 s u b j e c t s i n Group A and sound p a t t e r n s .  8 i n Group B produced  However, most  (25 of 26)  'tense vowel*  of the c o n s i s t e n t p a i r s  of responses mentioned above c o n t a i n one member response which c o n t r a d i c t s the sound p a t t e r n s p r e d i c t e d by Chomsky and (e.g. a tense vowel preceding CiV).  While the occurrence  seemed to support the occurrence  CVCV or a l a x vowel  preceding  o f i d e n t i c a l vowels might have  the hypothesis  of u n p r e d i c t e d  for i d e n t i c a l underlying  sound p a t t e r n s i n one  the hypothesized Ohala  p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s (VLR^  (19 73, p.45)  uses the low frequency  and  forms,  member of  2 6 c o n s i s t e n t p a i r s of responses showed c o n t r a d i c t o r y for  Halle  evidence  VTR ). 2  o f occurrence  the p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n s i n h i s study as evidence  of  that  s u b j e c t s i n f r e q u e n t l y used the p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s i n q u e s t i o n . He b e l i e v e s , on the b a s i s of the r e s u l t s of the t e t r a c h o r i c c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t measure of s u c c e s s i v e and  nearby  responses as w e l l as the r e s u l t s o f responses t o o b t a i n  and  p e r t a i n , t h a t s u b j e c t s were using a n a l o g i c a l p h o n o l o g i c a l Ohala f i n a l l y concludes  that "analogical phonological rules  seem to be stronger i n determining  the form of a new  than are independent p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s " however, t h a t i t was  rules.  derivation  (1973, p.45).  shown i n t h i s study t h a t no  conclusions  c o u l d be made on the p a r t i c u l a r means of sound p a t t e r n by c o n s i d e r i n g the occurrence  Recall,  production  of d i f f e r e n t sound p a t t e r n s  the e x i s t e n c e of high s t a t i s t i c a l  correlations.  and  In o t h e r words,  -133-  Ohala's c o n c l u s i o n p r e c l u d e s  the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t independent  p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s (other than those  f o r m a l i z e d by Chomsky and  H a l l e ) or t h a t some o t h e r means of sound p a t t e r n  production,  not yet proposed i n l i n g u i s t i c theory, were being used by  the  subjects. 4.5  Further 4.5.1  observations  S u b j e c t s ' p r o d u c t i v i t y with sound p a t t e r n s and phonological rules  Other authors  i n v e s t i g a t i n g the p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y  with of  p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s d i s c u s s whether the r u l e s under i n v e s t i g a t i o n were f r e q u e n t l y used by s u b j e c t s and "productive.  11  In essence, they are saying t h a t a  p h o n o l o g i c a l rule, was occurred  so were shown t o be hypothesized  used i f the sound p a t t e r n i t p r e d i c t e d  i n s u b j e c t s ' responses.  T h i s form of argument which  they use to make p o s i t i v e statements about the r u l e ' s use i t ' s p r o d u c t i v i t y commits a l o g i c a l f a l l a c y  and  (discussed i n  Chapter 2) known as "the f a l l a c y of a f f i r m i n g the  consequent."  As p o i n t e d out by Caws (1965) , t h i s argument cannot be used to v e r i f y hypotheses.  Therefore  one  cannot d i s c u s s whether the  s u b j e c t s are p r o d u c t i v e with the r u l e s under i n v e s t i g a t i o n .  A  p o s i t i v e statement about s u b j e c t s ' " p r o d u c t i v i t y " w i l l have to be r e s t r i c t e d to t h e i r p r o d u c t i v i t y with p a r t i c u l a r  sound  patterns. For example, one  c o u l d d i s c u s s whether any of the p r e d i c t e d  sound p a t t e r n s have a ' s p e c i a l s t a t u s ' i n so f a r as they were produced, and c o u l d i n s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s be expected to be produced, more o f t e n than other sound p a t t e r n s .  Then i f any  -134-  d i d have a ' s p e c i a l s t a t u s , ' i t would be i n t e r e s t i n g i n f u r t h e r study  t o check f o r the frequent e x t e n s i o n o f these  sound p a t t e r n s i n other s i t u a t i o n s t o see i f subjects more g e n e r a l l y have a s p e c i a l of these these  "awareness," whatever t h a t might be,  sound p a t t e r n s .  I f , furthermore,  s u b j e c t s d i d extend  sound p a t t e r n s i n o t h e r s i t u a t i o n s , then i t would be i n -  t e r e s t i n g t o t r y t o d i s c o v e r why they d i d . In order t o a s s i g n a ' s p e c i a l s t a t u s produced by s u b j e c t s , i t i s necessary percentage o f occurrence frequency  o f occurrence  1  t o a sound p a t t e r n  t o decide on a minimum  f o r the sound p a t t e r n .  This  criterion  should depend on the probable  distribu-  t i o n o f the p o s s i b l e sound p a t t e r n s f o r a given  stimulus.  However, i t i s not p o s s i b l e a t t h i s time t o know t h e i r p r o b a b i l i t y o f occurrence  s i n c e the number o f sound p a t t e r n s and t h e i r  f r e q u e n c i e s o f occurrence  depend on such f a c t o r s as the p r e -  sence or absence o f example d e r i v a t i o n s , on the v a r i o u s stems u f f i x s e t s , t h e i r number, as w e l l as the time p e r m i t t e d f o r responding,  the d u r a t i o n o f the experiment, memory f a c t o r s ,  etcetera. A more i n f o r m a l way t o approach the problem would be t o c o n s i d e r how many s u b j e c t s produced the sound p a t t e r n d i c t e d by a given r u l e i n a t l e a s t 2/3 o f h i s / h e r Two-thirds i s a severe  pre-  responses.  c r i t e r i o n t h a t would l i k e l y i n s u r e t h a t  the s p e c i a l s t a t u s o f a sound p a t t e r n was not Two-thirds was chosen as the c r i t e r i o n  overestimated.  s i n c e one-half  would  be j u s t a t chance l e v e l i n the case where o n l y two sound  -135-  patterns  were p o s s i b l e .  Using t h i s c r i t e r i o n , the  responses  of Group B were c o n s i d e r e d  as t h i s group seemed e q u a l l y  at  d e r i v a t i o n s as Group A.  the production  of novel  'adept'  In a d d i t i o n ,  they were not exposed to l e a d i n g example d e r i v a t i o n s and  so  their  responses may have been c l o s e r to the responses which would be produced by speakers i n a n a t u r a l s i t u a t i o n when there for  a novel d e r i v a t i o n .  s t i m u l i were c o n s i d e r e d know t h e i r p r o d u c t i o n  Group B's  responses t o the long l i s t  i n t h i s case s i n c e i t i s p r e f e r a b l e  of sound p a t t e r n s  g r e a t e s t number o f s t i m u l i p o s s i b l e . were d e r i v e d  i s a need  i n response to  Data f o r VLR^  from e l i g i b l e responses to o b t a i n and  to  the  and  V T R 2  pertain  as w e l l as from each r u l e ' s separate l i s t of s t e m - s u f f i x In t h i s case, the r e l e v a n t data from both l i s t s o f  of  sets.  stimuli  were combined f o r each r u l e . Nine s u b j e c t s reached the c r i t e r i o n of 6 7% i n producing sound p a t t e r n p r e d i c t e d by the PSR.  Five subjects  the  'tense vowel' sound p a t t e r n p r e d i c t e d by VTR^  2/3  of t h e i r responses.  Four s u b j e c t s reached the  produced i n over criterion  percentage i n producing the v e l a r s o f t e n i n g sound p a t t e r n p r e d i c t e d by VSOR.  No  s u b j e c t s produced the  sound p a t t e r n p r e d i c t e d by VLR^, p r e d i c t e d by VTR /s/VR  i n 2/3  2  nor the v o i c e d - / s /  or more of h i s / h e r  To be s a f e , one pattern the  the  'tense vowel' p a t t e r n pattern predicted  by  responses.  c o u l d conclude t h a t o n l y  which a m a j o r i t y of the  'lax vowel'  that  s u b j e c t s extended  sound (that i s ,  sound p a t t e r n p r e d i c t e d by PSR), by unknown means, i n  or more of t h e i r responses c o u l d be given  'special  2/3  status*  the  -136-  for  the s u b j e c t s o f Group B.  In a d d i t i o n , however, four  s u b j e c t s produced 6 responses t o s e t s i n v o l v i n g o b t a i n and p e r t a i n t h a t were r e l e v a n t t o VLF^. were the p r e d i c t e d  A l l 6 of the responses  'lax vowel' sound p a t t e r n .  then, t h a t t h i s sound p a t t e r n may  It i s possible,  a l s o be e l i g i b l e f o r s p e c i a l  ' s t a t u s ' f o r the s u b j e c t s o f Group B. A v a l i d argument may  be used i n the case where the conse-  quences are not what the h y p o t h e s i s says they ought t o be. In  Caw's words, "while a h y p o t h e s i s cannot be v e r i f i e d  (that  is,  shown to be true) by r e f e r e n c e to i t s consequences, i t  may  be f a l s i f i e d c o n c l u s i v e l y i f the consequences  (1965, p.112). sequence  fail  to occur"  So examining the responses i n which the con-  ( i . e . , the p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n ) f a i l e d t o occur  w i l l i n d i c a t e how  o f t e n the h y p o t h e s i z e d r u l e was not used.  T h e r e f o r e one may  say how o f t e n s u b j e c t s were 'unproductive'  with a given r u l e .  The percentage o f responses (from the l o n g  l i s t ) which showed u n p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n s p a t t e r n o t h e r than the p r e d i c t e d one) in  Table X I I I .  ( i . e . , any  i s l i s t e d f o r each  sound rule  Only the responses of Group B were c o n s i d e r e d  as t h i s group was not submitted t o the i n f l u e n c e o f l e a d i n g example d e r i v a t i o n s .  The data f o r each o£ VLR^  and  VT^'  from e l i g i b l e responses to p e r t a i n and o b t a i n and from each r u l e ' s s e p a r a t e l i s t o f s t i m u l i , were once again combined for  each o f those r u l e s . The r e s u l t s show t h a t , as a group, the s u b j e c t s o f Group  B d i d not use the f o l l o w i n g r u l e s i n a c l e a r m a j o r i t y o f the responses c o n s i d e r e d :  VLR^  VTR , VSOR and /s/VR. 2  -137-  TOTAL NO. ELIGIBLE RESPONSES  UNPREDICTED RESPONSES  % UNPREDICTED RESPONSES  300  237  79  195  63  32.3  VTRj^  45  32  71.1  VTR  144  110  76.4  60  40  66.7  6  0  0  31  31  RULE  VLR  r  PSR  2  VSOR VLR  2  /s/VR  Table X I I I .  100  The percentages o f occurrence o f u n p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n s i n the responses (long l i s t s ) of Group B which were r e l e v a n t t o each r u l e .  -138-  The  occurrence of u n p r e d i c t e d  s i d e r e d f o r each s u b j e c t  sound p a t t e r n s was  a l s o con-  i n Group B to determine i f some sub-  jects failed  to use a given r u l e more o f t e n than other  For Group B,  the range i n the percentages of occurrence of  p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n s for  and  each r u l e i n Table XIV.  the responses to o b t a i n and  the mean percentage are  subjects. un-  listed  In t h i s case a l s o , the data from p e r t a i n and  t h a t from each r u l e ' s  separate l i s t o f s t i m u l i were combined f o r each o f VLR^  and  VTR^.  /s/VR  The  and VLR . 2  ranges are q u i t e broad f o r a l l r u l e s except T h i s suggests, f i r s t ,  t h a t the s u b j e c t s d i d  i n the number o f responses i n which they f a i l e d rule.  t o use  vary a  given  Secondly, s i n c e the s u b j e c t s ' l a c k o f p r o d u c t i v i t y with  each r u l e v a r i e s , i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e i r s t r a t e g i e s f o r novel word d e r i v a t i o n s and  hence t h e i r p h o n o l o g i c a l  models  are not e x a c t l y the same. 4.5.2  Stem-suffix s e t s most and p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n s  I t was  least often involved i n  observed i n t h i s study t h a t the s t e m - s u f f i x  (within the group of those s e t s considered  f o r each r u l e ) which  most o f t e n underwent the p r e d i c t e d phonetic be the same f o r each group of s u b j e c t s .  change tended to  The  stem-suffix  which most o f t e n underwent the p r e d i c t e d phonetic (in each group) and  One  the  set  sets  XV.  can probably conclude from the r e s u l t s l i s t e d  t a b l e t h a t s i n c e the s t e m - s u f f i x  sets  changes  the percentages o f times t h a t the  underwent the changes are l i s t e d i n Table  set  i n the  (which most o f t e n showed  sound p a t t e r n p r e d i c t e d by a given r u l e )  frequently  remained the same i n both groups' responses, the  different  -139-  % OCCURRENCE OF UNPREDICTED RESPONSES  RULE  MEAN  RANGE highest  PSR VTR  35  79  13.6  61..6  7.7  33.3  15.9  100  33.3  71.1  27.2  100  60  76.1  8.5  100  25  66.7  28.9  0  0  0  0  100  100  100  0  2  VSOR VLR  lowest  100  X  VTR  AVERAGE DEVIATION  2  /s/VR  Table XIV.  Ranges i n the percentages o f u n p r e d i c t e d responses, the mean percentages and the average d e v i a t i o n s from the means f o r Group B (long l i s t ) .  RULE  GROUP A Short stem-suffix set  :VLR  define  X  VTR  1  VTR  88.2  zebra + - i c  64.7  cop + - i a n  2  domestic + - i s m p u b l i c + -ism  VKQK  76.4  47 64.7 64.7  Short  List  stem-suffix set  %  +-ian  robot  PSR  + -ity  GROUP B Long  List  stem-suffix set  %  ->  76.4  methane + - i t y iodine +- i t y robot + - i a n  100 94.1 88.2  —-—.  ——  >  ——  >  t Long  %  List  stem-suffix s e t  % 60  60  100 100 100  100  methane + - i t y iodine +- i t y robot + - i a n  64.7.  , / 6.6  ——,—^  47  20 , / 6.6 40  46.6 40  26  26  —  >  64.7 64.7  •  >  82  >  List  robot  +-ian  ^  46.6 20  VLR * X  *  VLR  obtain  +-ion  82  pertain + -ion  2  T a b l e XV.  S t e m - s u f f i x s e t s whose r e s p o n s e s most o f t e n showed t h e p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n . The % i s b a s e d on t h e number o f t i m e s (out o f t h e t o t a l number o f r e s p o n s e s t o t h a t s e t ) t h a t t h e s e t e l i c i t e d a p r e d i c t e d response. Note t h a t /s/VR i s n o t l i s t e d s i n c e Group B d i d n o t produce any r e s p o n s e p r e d i c t e d by i t .  -141-  experimental  c o n d i t i o n s d i d not p l a y a strong r o l e i n d e t e r -  mining these s e t s .  Rather, the given s t e m - s u f f i x  s e t s must  have been determined as a r e s u l t o f the sound p a t t e r n f o r which they were c o n s i d e r e d ,  the stem-word o r the s u f f i x com-  p r i s i n g the s e t o r a combination o f these f a c t o r s . For example, the s e t d e f i n e + - i t y may have demonstrated the p r e d i c t e d  'lax vowel' sound p a t t e r n so o f t e n as a r e s u l t  of the sound p a t t e r n being demonstrated i n the e x i s t i n g English derivation divinity.  T h i s d e r i v a t i o n i s comprised  of a stem, which i s i n minimal phonemic c o n t r a s t with and  o f the same s u f f i x .  played  define,  So the stem and the s u f f i x may have  a r o l e i n i n d u c i n g the l a x vowel sound p a t t e r n .  Another p o s s i b i l i t y i s t h a t many o f the e x i s t i n g E n g l i s h d e r i v a t i o n s i n which the stem-word d e f i n e i s i n v o l v e d a l a x vowel i n the second s y l l a b l e o f the stem:  contain  e.g.  definition, definite, definitely, definiteness, definitive. In t h i s case the stem i t s e l f in e l i c i t i n g  may have played  an important r o l e  the 'lax vowel' sound p a t t e r n s i n c e t h a t stem con-  t a i n s a l a x vowel when d e r i v e d with  several different s u f f i x e s .  In the data from the short and the long l i s t s which were considered  f o r each group o f s u b j e c t s , the s t e m - s u f f i x  l e a s t o f t e n underwent the p r e d i c t e d phonetic the same o n l y i n the case o f two r u l e s . for  VLR , the s t e m - s u f f i x X  long l i s t s o f s t i m u l i .  PSR, the s t e m - s u f f i x  change remained  In the s e t s  considered  s e t b r i b e + - i t y showed the p r e d i c t e d  change l e a s t o f t e n i n both groups' data and  s e t which  from both the short  In the s e t s c o n s i d e r e d  f o r the  s e t i n a l l f o u r l i s t s o f s t i m u l i was  -142-  Buddha + - i c . .. T h i s set a l s o showed the l e a s t occurrence of phonetic A and  change i n the short l i s t s '  B's  As  responses f o r  data comprised from Group  VTR^.  i n the case of the  s e t s showing the most frequent  currence of p r e d i c t e d phonetic  oc-  change, the s e t s c o n s i s t e n t l y  showing the p r e d i c t e d changes the  l e a s t o f t e n may  be  determined  from a combination of such f a c t o r s as the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a given  s e t ' s stem-word and  suffix.  For  i n s t a n c e , the  low  frequency o f Buddha + - i c undergoing the p r e d i c t e d change i n primary s t r e s s and explained  by the  the p r e d i c t e d tense vowel change might  f a c t t h a t the  stem-word i s of S a n s k r i t  origin  w h i l e the s u f f i x combines with proper nouns u s u a l l y o n l y Greek or L a t i n o r i g i n .  be  of  Another p o s s i b i l i t y i s t h a t none o f  the E n g l i s h d e r i v a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g Buddha (e.g.  Buddhist,  Buddhistic,  f i n a l vowel of  Buddhistical)  r e t a i n and  a l t e r the  the stem-word. 4.5.3  S u f f i x e s and vowels most o f t e n i n v o l v e d i n p r e d i c t e d sound patterns"  Steinberg  and  Krohn  (1975) s p e c i f i e d the  suffixes in their  study which were most o f t e n i n v o l v e d i n d e r i v a t i o n s showing the p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n .  I t was  p o s s i b l e f o r them to do  this  s i n c e i n t h e i r experiments an equal number of stem-words d e r i v e d an equal number of times with each s u f f i x . the d e r i v a t i o n s were considered  present  study prevent the  p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n s  A l l of  f o r the. occurrence of a  sound p a t t e r n p r e d i c t e d by the VSR.  The  was  conditions of  given the  s u f f i x e s most o f t e n i n v o l v e d i n from being  specified.  used a d i f f e r e n t number of times with the  Each s u f f i x  stem-words  was  -143-  c o n s i d e r e d r e l e v a n t t o each r u l e .  None o f the stem-words  was p a i r e d an equal number of times with each s u f f i x . S t e i n b e r g and Krohn's experimental design a l s o p e r m i t t e d them t o i d e n t i f y which vowel of the stem-words most o f t e n underwent a p r e d i c t e d p h o n e t i c change.  In t h e i r d e s i g n , the  given vowels were a l l (with one exception) r e p r e s e n t e d an equal number o f times i n the corpus o f stem-words and were a l l i n tended t o be p a i r e d with each s u f f i x an equal number o f times. In the present study, however, a l l o f the g i v e n vowels oc-^ c u r r i n g i n the l i s t of stem-words d i d not occur an equal  number  of times i n the experimental task l i s t nor i n those stem-words c o n s i d e r e d f o r each r u l e .  CHAPTER V DISCUSSION AND  CONCLUSIONS  Three secondary o b j e c t i v e s f o r t h i s study, mentioned at end  of Chapter I, were f u l f i l l e d by the l i t e r a t u r e review  by the r e s u l t s d i s c u s s e d First,  11  i t was  stated  ideal speaker-listeners.  c o u l d apply  to t h e o r i e s on i d e a l s p e a k e r - l i s t e n e r s was  "How"  f u r t h e r d i s c u s s e d below.  such experiments should  present  reason  theories  f i e l d s of study.  One  linguistics  might s t i l l  about t e s t i n g Chomsky and H a l l e ' s p h o n o l o g i c a l  procedure draws on some of the very n o t i o n s notions)  lack and to  f e e l uneasy  theory  the i d e a l i z e d speaker frame f o r the b a s i c reason t h a t  "behavioural"  "why"  l i n g u i s t i c theory  the consequently l i m i t e d value of g e n e r a t i v e scientific  limited  s a i d to be e s s e n t i a l l y the  of s c i e n t i f i c methodology i n g e n e r a t i v e  other  The  be conducted i n r e l a t i o n to  on i d e a l s p e a k e r - l i s t e n e r s was  to  such experiments  to a d i s c u s s i o n of the experiment undertaken i n the s h a l l be  "why"  s p e a k e r - l i s t e n e r s c o u l d apply  t h e o r i e s on  study and  and  above i n an unforeseen manner.  i n a d d i t i o n to s t a t i n g "how,  experiments on n o n - i d e a l  the  outside this  (that i s ,  which Chomsky set out t o d i s p r o v e .  Any  r e s i d u a l uneasiness might be d i s p e l l e d by c o n s i d e r i n g Kuhn's (1962) b e l i e f t h a t arguments f o r p a r t i c u l a r s c i e n t i f i c  -144-  -145-  paradigms  are n e c e s s a r i l y  circular:  When paradigms enter, as they must, i n t o a debate about paradigm c h o i c e , t h e i r r o l e i s n e c e s s a r i l y c i r c u l a r . Each group uses i t ' s own paradigm to argue i n t h a t paradigm's defense. The r e s u l t i n g c i r c u l a r i t y does not make arguments wrong o r i n e f f e c t u a l . The paradigms' arguments w i l l show what s c i e n t i f i c p r a c t i c e w i l l be l i k e f o r those a d o p t i n g the paradigm (p.93). I f one s c i e n t i f i c paradigm has reached the " c r i s i s " stage (wherein the e x p l i c i t and fundamental g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s o f the paradigm are q u e s t i o n e d and o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s , mentioned by Kuhn, o c c u r ) , then a new paradigm—whether  an e n t i r e l y new one o r a  compromise of former o n e s — s h o u l d be adopted.  The t e s t i n g o f  Chomsky and H a l l e ' s p h o n o l o g i c a l theory i n the present  investi-  g a t i o n i s based on the presumption,that, as i n c r i s e s of o t h e r s c i e n t i f i c paradigms, the present c r i s i s generative phonological theories  situation in verifying  (by s t r u c t u r a l evidence) c a l l s  f o r a t l e a s t some compromise o f the opposing paradigms.  Kuhn  suggests t h a t "paradigm choice can never be u n e q u i v o c a l l y s e t t l e d by l o g i c and experiment alone"  (1962, p.93).  According  to him, i n the end the q u e s t i o n of paradigm c h o i c e i s answered i n terms o f c r i t e r i a o u t s i d e of normal s c i e n c e by the assent of the r e l e v a n t community who  d i c t a t e s which problems are more  s i g n i f i c a n t to have s o l v e d .  ''"Kuhn uses "paradigm" i n the sense of study p a t t e r n s used, by s c i e n t i s t s i n a p a r t i c u l a r f i e l d o f r e s e a r c h . A paradigm i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the unprecedented achievement o f s c i e n t i s t s employing the study p a t t e r n s which " a t t r a c t s an enduring group of adherents away from competing modes o f s c i e n t i f i c a c t i v i t y " and by the open-ended q u a l i t y o f the study p a t t e r n s which l e a v e s a l l s o r t s o f problems to be r e s o l v e d (Kuhn, 1962, p.10).  -146-  Secondly,  the s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f e x p l i c i t c r i t e r i a which  c o u l d serve t o c o n f i r m or d i s c o n f i r m the m e n t a l i s t i c c l a i m s o f the p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s was d i s c u s s e d .  While evidence  was  s p e c i f i e d which c o u l d serve t o d i s c o n f i r m the use o f phonol o g i c a l r u l e s , none c o u l d be given t o c o n f i r m the use o f the rules.  T h i s was due t o the nature o f the v a l i d l o g i c a l  argu-  ment, modus t o l l e n s , used i n s c i e n t i f i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n , which i s o n l y able t o d i s c o n f i r m and thus e l i m i n a t e i n c o r r e c t hypotheses.  I t was shown t h a t c o n f i r m a t i o n and d i s c o n f i r m a t i o n  of the use o f p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s were not c o n c l u s i o n s which c o u l d stand i n a complementary r e l a t i o n s h i p . i n the case where the hypothesized  In Other, words,  use o f a r u l e was not d i s -  conf irmed, i t ' s use was not consequently  confirmed.  T h i r d l y , the l o g i c a l i m p o s s i b i l i t y o f s p e c i f y i n g evidence which would c o n f i r m the use o f independent p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s (or any other means o f sound p a t t e r n production)  prevented  the r e c o g n i t i o n , and hence the e x p l a n a t i o n , o f the means o f p r o d u c t i o n which were used. occurrence and  The few attempts t o e x p l a i n the  o f c e r t a i n sound p a t t e r n s were, indeed, s p e c u l a t i v e  inexhaustive. Thus one o f the main o b j e c t i v e s o f t h i s study, which was t o  draw c o n c l u s i o n s on the v a l i d i t y o f the experimental a c o n f i r m a t i o n o r d i s c o n f i r m a t i o n procedure,  was  paradigm as  fulfilled.  I t was p o i n t e d out t h a t the form o f the l o g i c a l argument used i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o u l d at best be used t o d i s c o n f i r m given hypotheses.  The other main o b j e c t i v e , which was t o decide  -147-  whether c e r t a i n p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s were p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y r e a l for  a given group of speakers, was  more d i f f i c u l t to  Three problems c u r r e n t l y stand i n the way  fulfill.  of c o n f i r m i n g or  d i s c o n f i r m i n g the p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y of the r u l e s under investigation. One  problem concerns the unknown maximum frequency  which a p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e can f a i l of and  a group of speakers still  with  to be used i n the responses  (or i n those of an i n d i v i d u a l  be d e s c r i b e d as p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y r e a l .  speaker)  T h i s problem  might be r e s o l v e d i f g e n e r a t i v e p h o n o l o g i s t s c o u l d s p e c i f y the extent to which hypothesized Halle  r u l e s are used.  (Chomsky and  (1968) merely s t a t e t h a t t h e i r r u l e s are a p p l i e d to a l l  p r e r e q u i s i t e u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e s and then g i v e what i s p r e sumably an i n e x h a u s t i v e l i s t of exceptions to the application.) to  Before p h o n o l o g i s t s s p e c i f y the exact  1  extent  which p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s are used, the adoption of a maximum  frequency due  rules  f o r the non-use of a r u l e can only be ad hoc  and,  to the problem to be d i s c u s s e d next, c o u l d cause one  to  draw f a l s e c o n c l u s i o n s . The use was  second problem i s t h a t even i f the r u l e ' s extent  of  c l e a r l y s p e c i f i e d , a c o n c l u s i o n on the p s y c h o l o g i c a l  r e a l i t y of the r u l e could not always be made. exact number of times t h a t a given r u l e was  Indeed, the  not used i n a  group of responses remains unknown when the p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n occurs at l e a s t once i n those responses.  Therefore  s i t u a t i o n could occur  disconfirmed  in  i n which the r u l e ' s use was  a  a number of responses x% short of the c r i t e r i o n percentage  -148-  and  the p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n  production)  occurred  (and the unknown means o f  i n a t l e a s t x% o f the responses.  For  example, i f the c r i t e r i o n percentage o f 'non-use' a t which a r u l e was d i s c o n f i r m e d  as p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y r e a l was 80%, 77%  o f the responses c o u l d p o s s i b l y c o n t a i n u n p r e d i c t e d while  sound  patterns  23% c o u l d p o s s i b l y show the p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n .  the case, on the other hand, wherein the s t i m u l i relevant to a r u l e e l i c i t e d unpredicted  In  considered  sound p a t t e r n s  i n 100%  o f the responses, one c o u l d s t a t e the exact number o f times t h a t the r u l e was not used by the group.  In t h i s study t h i s o c -  c u r r e d i n the case o f the responses which were c o n s i d e r e d f o r the /s/VR. extension  However, there was some p o t e n t i a l evidence f o r the o f the p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n when one s u b j e c t  a tense vowel preceding  [z] and devoiced  laxed  the [z] as w e l l .  This  evidence c o u l d p o s s i b l y weaken the c e r t a i n t y t h a t the r u l e f a i l e d t o be used a t a l l by the group. A t h i r d problem i n v o l v e s the f a c t t h a t the percentages o f unpredicted  sound p a t t e r n s  f o r the r u l e s were d e r i v e d  d i f f e r e n t numbers o f responses.  from  I t would not be f a i r t o con-  s i d e r the p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y of the r u l e s when the d e c i s i o n s f o r o r a g a i n s t the p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y were based on a d i f f e r e n t number o f responses r e l e v a n t t o the r u l e s and consequently  on percentages (of u n p r e d i c t e d  d i d not vary Still  sound p a t t e r n s )  that  i n a s i m i l a r l y d i s c r e t e way.  another d i f f i c u l t y which might be considered  i n the  attempt t o determine r u l e s * p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y i s t h a t the l o g i c a l argument modus t o l i e n s accepted  for this investigation  -149-  has a p o t e n t i a l flaw which, i f Chomsky and  Halle's  idealized  framework were not the frame under c o n s i d e r a t i o n , c o u l d the wrong c o n c l u s i o n to be drawn.  Consider  Caw's (1965)  e x e m p l i f i c a t i o n of the modus t o l i e n s argument. pothesizes  t h a t i f a man  the man...does not d i e :  Someone hy-  takes a r s e n i c , he w i l l d i e . we may  allow  "Suppose  then conclude with c e r t a i n t y  t h a t he d i d not take a r s e n i c , or at l e a s t not enough"  (Caw,  1965,  either  p.112).  the man  At l e a s t two  conclusions  are p o s s i b l e :  d i d not take a r s e n i c or e l s e he d i d not take enough  a r s e n i c to k i l l  him.  S i m i l a r l y , more than one the negative  c o n c l u s i o n c o u l d be drawn from  consequence of hypothesized  phonological  the r u l e s were removed from Chomsky and H a l l e ' s framework.  rules i f  idealized  For i n s t a n c e , suppose t h a t the f o l l o w i n g p o i n t s i n  Chomsky and H a l l e ' s theory were abandoned: speakers of an hypothesized  (a)  that a l l  homogenous speech community possess  i d e n t i c a l p h o n o l o g i c a l models;  (b)  t h a t the use of a phono-  l o g i c a l r u l e i m p l i e s the use of a s p e c i f i c p r e r e q u i s i t e underl y i n g form; and underlying  (c)  t h a t a given r u l e i s a p p l i e d to a l l  forms with p r e r e q u i s i t e s t r u c t u r e s .  Then i n the  case where the p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n d i d not occur, argument modus t o l l e n s would be  incapable o f p e r m i t t i n g a  s i n g l e c o n c l u s i o n d i s c o n f i r m i n g the use of the r u l e . c o n c l u s i o n c o u l d be,  as was  the  suggested by Sherzer  A possible  (19 70)  and  Zimmer (1969), t h a t speakers o f the same d i a l e c t have d i f f e r e n t p h o n o l o g i c a l models.  Therefore  d i f f e r e n t r u l e s or  s t r a t e g i e s of sound p a t t e r n p r o d u c t i o n  other  could be used by  -150-  d i f f e r e n t speakers i n response t o the same s t i m u l u s .  This  p o s s i b i l i t y might be e x p l a i n e d by the i d e a put f o r t h by Wang (1969), Hsieh changes  (1972) and Chen and Wang (1975) t h a t  phonetic  (and hence p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s ) d i f f u s e g r a d u a l l y  speakers'  lexicons.  Therefore  across  speakers might not apply a given  p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e t o a l l o f the word forms with the p r e r e q u i s i t e u n d e r l y i n g form.  Nor might a l l speakers apply the same phono-  l o g i c a l r u l e , o r use the same s t r a t e g y f o r sound p a t t e r n  pro-  d u c t i o n , .in response t o the same word form. In order t o d e r i v e one c o n c l u s i o n o f the hypothesis) the hypothesis  from negative  (that i s , d i s c o n f i r m a t i o n  consequences, the statement o f  should l i k e l y be q u a n t i f i e d .  Caw's example o f an h y p o t h e s i s  For example,  c o u l d be s t a t e d :  takes enough a r s e n i c , he w i l l d i e . t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n might be s t a t e d :  I f a man  The hypothesis  tested i n  I f and o n l y i f a g i v e n  p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e i s used, then a p a r t i c u l a r sound p a t t e r n w i l l be produced. The  present  i n v e s t i g a t i o n might be improved, f i r s t , by  l i m i t i n g the time f o r s u b j e c t s t o respond i n o r d e r t o prevent them from r e p e a t i n g one form o f a response t o a stimulus times, thus s h o r t e n i n g the d u r a t i o n o f the i n t e r v i e w . l i m i t which might be generous enough t o permit respond without  several  A time  subjects to  making " s l i p s o f the tongue" might be 4  seconds, the estimated  p e r i o d w i t h i n which h a l f o f the responses  were made by the two groups i n the present  study.  Secondly,  s u b j e c t s ' responses c o u l d be t r a n s c r i b e d a f t e r , not d u r i n g , the i n t e r v i e w so t h a t the t r a n s c r i b e r might have a b e t t e r  -151-  opportunity fered.  to judge how  the phonetic  forms of responses  T h i r d l y , those stem-words and  dif-  s u f f i x e s which i n Chapter  I I I were mentioned to have c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n a p p r o p r i a t e t h e i r combination i n a d e r i v a t i o n might be  r e p l a c e d by  for  stem- .  s u f f i x s e t s whose members d i d have a p p r o p r i a t e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . F o u r t h l y , the example d e r i v a t i o n Kant/Kantian, showing no phonetic and  change i n i t s stem, was  u n f a m i l i a r to most  subjects  c o u l d be r e p l a c e d with Marx/Marxian. One  r e s u l t o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n which warrants f u r t h e r  study i s t h a t both groups produced a p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n (in those responses r e l e v a n t to PSR to VTR^)  almost e q u a l l y as o f t e n .  and One  a l s o i n those r e l e v a n t c o u l d check to see i f  t h i s r e s u l t remained when d i f f e r e n t groups of s u b j e c t s longer  l i s t s o f s t i m u l i were i n v o l v e d .  p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n s two  groups, one  continues  might suspect  and/or  I f the occurrence o f  to be very c l o s e f o r the  t h a t the presence or absence  of l e a d i n g example d e r i v a t i o n s i s not i n f l u e n c i n g the numbers of p r e d i c t e d responses.  To  investigate this  groups' hypothesis,  the l e a d i n g example d e r i v a t i o n s preceding  Group A's  s t i m u l i c o u l d be r e p l a c e d to see  l e a d i n g examples  i f other  list  make a d i f f e r e n c e to the group's numbers of p r e d i c t e d In a d d i t i o n , more than two  of  responses.  groups c o u l d be submitted to  the  l i s t s of s t i m u l i f o r each r u l e w h i l e exposing each group to a d i f f e r e n t number of l e a d i n g examples. suggest t h a t each group's p r o d u c t i o n i s l i m i t e d i n that t h i s production  The  r e s u l t s might  of p r e d i c t e d sound  would not  increase  patterns  after a  c e r t a i n number o f l e a d i n g examples had been s u p p l i e d them.  -152-  The  t r e n d f o r the s t e m - s u f f i x  set most o f t e n i n v o l v e d i n  a p r e d i c t e d response t o be the same i n each group's l i s t s  of  data could be f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t e d to determine i f such a t r e n d occurs and/or  (a) when more s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t e i n the  (b) when the l i s t s c o n t a i n more s t e m - s u f f i x s e t s .  such a t r e n d d i d remain i n the two a few  study  stem-suffix  c o n d i t i o n s mentioned above,  s e t s i n a l i s t of s t i m u l i of given  c o u l d be r e p l a c e d , one  If  at a time, with o t h e r  sets.  length T h i s might  serve as a check to see whether the number of times t h a t were i n v o l v e d i n p r e d i c t e d responses remained f a i r l y Such a check might a l s o have i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the t h a t the s t e m - s u f f i x  On  constant.  possibilities  set most o f t e n i n v o l v e d i n p r e d i c t e d  responses i s somehow s e l f - d e t e r m i n e d by other  sets  s e t s i n the group of  another o c c a s i o n ,  or i s somehow determined  stimuli.  the corpus of s t e m - s u f f i x s e t s c o u l d  be c o n t r o l l e d f o r the number o f sets which were r e l e v a n t to each r u l e , the numbers o f d i f f e r e n t s t r a t e g i c vowels  represented  i n the stem-words and the number of stem-words, as w e l l as number of stem-words c o n t a i n i n g given s t r a t e g i c vowels, to each s u f f i x .  assigned  T h i s should help to o b t a i n equal numbers of  responses which are to be considered should  the  f o r the v a r i o u s r u l e s  f a c i l i t a t e the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the s u f f i x and o f  and the  s t r a t e g i c vowel which are most o f t e n i n v o l v e d i n p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n s . Another method which could be used t o check f o r the t e n s i o n of p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n s would be t o present j e c t s with e x i s t i n g or novel d e r i v a t i o n s and  exsub-  r e q u i r e them to  -153-  r e t r i e v e the component stem-word and s u f f i x . was used by Hsieh  T h i s method  (1975) with the purpose o f comparing i t s  r e s u l t s with those o f the novel d e r i v a t i o n t a s k . Although  t h e consequences o f the n o v e l d e r i v a t i o n task  cannot be used t o confirm any hypothesized  means o f sound  p a t t e r n p r o d u c t i o n , the consequences might be v a l u a b l e as evidence  f o r which sound p a t t e r n s speakers  wish t o , extend  are able t o , or  i n c e r t a i n phonetic c o n t e x t s .  L i n g u i s t s might  be i n t e r e s t e d i n knowing which sound p a t t e r n s a r e o r a r e n o t extended f o r the purpose o f a s s i g n i n g d i f f e r e n t s t a t u s e s t o the p h o n o l o g i c a l r e g u l a r i t i e s o f a language which they d e s c r i b e . Such i n f o r m a t i o n c o u l d be used i n a grammar which i s a t some intermediate p o s i t i o n between ones which are p u r e l y  formalistic  and ones which a r e m e n t a l i s t i c . I t has been p o i n t e d out t h a t the v a l i d i t y o f the modus t o l l e n s argument, employed when the consequences o f an h y p o t h e s i s are n e g a t i v e , l i m i t s the c o n c l u s i o n s t h a t may be drawn i n the o n t o l o g i c a l experiment p a r t i c u l a r t o t h i s study.  The s t r a t e g i e s  o f sound p a t t e r n p r o d u c t i o n used by t h e s u b j e c t s c o u l d not be determined.  I t was o n l y p o s s i b l e t o determine, through  consequences, when the hypothesized  r u l e was not used.  negative Thus,  when some o f the consequences were p o s i t i v e , i t was impossible to determine the exact number o f times t h a t the hypothesis  (i.e.,  the use o f a g i v e n r u l e ) was d i s c o n f i r m e d . I t has been suggested mum  frequency  above t h a t one cannot s p e c i f y a maxi-  f o r the non-use o f a p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e ,  which t h a t r u l e w i l l no longer be c o n s i d e r e d t o be  (above  -154-  p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y r e a l ) , u n t i l the hypothesized  extension  r u l e s i s made c l e a r by g e n e r a t i v e p h o n o l o g i s t s . c r i t e r i o n frequency  of  Since a  of non-use of a r u l e c o u l d not at t h i s time  have been w e l l motivated,  the p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y of  given  p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s f o r an i n d i v i d u a l or f o r a group o f speakers c o u l d not be determined. I f the modus to11ens argument were t o be used w i t h phonol o g i c a l t h e o r i e s which do not employ c e r t a i n i d e a l s o f Chomsky and H a l l e ' s (196 8) t h e o r e t i c a l framework, then the statement o f the argument's hypothesis with the e x i s t e n c e of more than one  would be  compatible  possible conclusion.  With r e s p e c t to the p a r t i c u l a r experimental i n t h i s study,  unquantified  design  employed  the s i m i l a r d i s t r i b u t i o n of numbers of p r e d i c t e d  responses i n each group showed t h a t the two i n t h e i r a b i l i t y to perform the experimental  groups were s i m i l a r task, and were  t h e r e f o r e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e samples of the p o p u l a t i o n under  study.  Within each group, the o v e r a l l p r o d u c t i o n of p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n s was  not a t t r i b u t a b l e t o j u s t a few  o v e r a l l occurrence  o f p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n s was  be g r e a t e r f o r the group of s u b j e c t s posed to l e a d i n g example d e r i v a t i o n s . similar a b i l i t i e s g r e a t e r occurrence Group A's  subjects.  (Group A) who Due  shown to were ex-  to the two  i n h a n d l i n g the experimental  The  task,  groups' the  of the p r e d i c t e d responses i n the t o t a l of  responses was  a t t r i b u t e d to t h a t group's exposure  to l e a d i n g example d e r i v a t i o n s . However, i n the group's responses which were f o r j u s t one  r u l e at a time, the occurrence  considered  of p r e d i c t e d sound  -155-  p a t t e r n s was not, i n the case o f each r u l e , much g r e a t e r f o r Group A.  The reason f o r the c l o s e n e s s  i n t h e two groups'  numbers o f sound p a t t e r n s which were p r e d i c t e d by each o f PSR and VTR^ r e q u i r e s f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The t r e n d f o r the same s t e m - s u f f i x s e t ( i n both groups' l o n g and s h o r t l i s t s o f s t i m u l i ) t o be most o f t e n i n v o l v e d i n a p r e d i c t e d phonetic speculatively.  change c o u l d o n l y be e x p l a i n e d  Much f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n would be r e q u i r e d t o  determine whether such a t r e n d would  always e x i s t and i f so,  to s u c c e s s i v e l y e l i m i n a t e some o f the hypotheses proposed t o account f o r the t r e n d . I t appeared t h a t a s m a l l v a r i a t i o n i n the number o f stems u f f i x s e t s which were considered  f o r a r u l e d i d not g r e a t l y  i n f l u e n c e s u b j e c t s ' mean ranks f o r the o v e r a l l p r o d u c t i o n o f p r e d i c t e d responses. Since the p r o b a b i l i t y o f occurrence o f sound p a t t e r n s  could  not be determined, the procedure used t o a s s i g n a ' s p e c i a l s t a t u s ' t o c e r t a i n p r e d i c t e d sound p a t t e r n s  (those p r e d i c t e d  by PSR and p o s s i b l y a l s o t h a t p r e d i c t e d by VLR„) was ad hoc.  -156-  BIBLIOGRAPHY Botha, R. 196 8. The F u n c t i o n o f t h e L e x i c o n i n T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l Generative Grammar. (Janua Linguarum, S e r i e s Maior, Nr. 38.) The Hague: Mouton & Co. Botha, R. 19 70. The M e t h o d o l o g i c a l Status o f Grammatical Argumentation" (Janua Linguarum, S e r i e s Minor, Nr. TO5.) The Hague: Mouton & Co. Botha, R. 1971. M e t h o d o l o g i c a l Aspects of T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l Generative Phonology. (Janua Linguarum, S e r i e s Minor, Nr. 112.) The Hague: Mouton & Co. C a r t e r e t t e , E. and M. Friedman, eds. 1974. Handbook o f P e r c e p t i o n , V o l . One. H i s t o r i c a l and P h i l o s o p h i c a l Roots o f P e r c e p t i o n . New York: Academic P r e s s . Caws, P. 1965. The P h i l o s o p h y o f S c i e n c e , a s y s t e m a t i c account. P r i n c e t o n : Van Nostrand. Chen, M. and W. Wang. 1975. 'Sound change: implementation.' Language 51, 2 (June):  activation 255-281.  and  Chomsky, N. 1964. Current Issues i n L i n g u i s t i c Theory. (Janua Linguarum^ S e r i e s Minor, Nr.38.) The Hague: Mouton & Co. Chomsky, N. 1965. Massachusetts:  Aspects o f the Theory o f Syntax. M.I.T. P r e s s .  Chomsky, N. 196 8. Language arid Mind. Brace and World. Chomsky, N. and M. H a l l e . New York: Harper and  1968. Row.  New  York:  Harcourt,  The Sound P a t t e r n o f E n g l i s h .  Dolby, J . and H. R e s n i k o f f . 11967. The E n g l i s h Word V o l . Three. The Hague: Mouton & Co.  Speculum.  Esper, E. 1973. Analogy and A s s o c i a t i o n i n L i n g u i s t i c s Psychology. Athens: U n i v e r s i t y of Georgia P r e s s .  and  F i s c h e r - J 0 r g e n s e n , E. 19 75. ' P e r s p e c t i v e s i n phonology.' Annual Report, I n s t i t u t e o f P h o n e t i c s . ARIPUC 9: 215-236. U n i v e r s i t y o f Copenhagen. Greene, J . 1972. Psycholinguistics, England: Penguin Books, L t d .  Chomsky and Psychology.  Hockett, C. 1968. The S t a t e o f the A r t . (Janua Linguarum, S e r i e s Minor, Nr~ 73.) The Hague: Mouton & Co. Hsieh, .H.-I. 1972. 'Lexical d i f f u s i o n : language a c q u i s i t i o n . ' Glossa 6, 1:  evidence from c h i l d 89-103.  -157-  Hsieh, H.-I. 19 75. 'How g e n e r a t i v e i s phonology?' The T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l - G e n e r a t i v e Paradigm and Modern L i n g u i s t i c Theory, ed. E. Koerner, e t a l . Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V. Krohn, R. 1972. 'The vowel s h i f t r u l e and i t s p r o d u c t i v i t y . ' Language Sciences 20: 16-18. Kuhn, T. 1962. The S t r u c t u r e Of S c i e n t i f i c Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s .  Revolutions.  Ladefoged, P. 19 70. 'The phonetic framework o f g e n e r a t i v e phonology. Working Papers i n Phonetics-UCLA 14 (March): 25-32. 1  Lindblom, B. 1971. Numerical Models i n the Study o f Speech P r o d u c t i o n and Speech P e r c e p t i o n . Some P h o n o l o g i c a l Implications. Department o f Speech Communication, Royal I n s t i t u t e of Technology, 10044 Stockholm 70, Sweden and I n s t i t u t e of L i n g u i s t i c s , Department o f P h o n e t i c s , U n i v e r s i t y o f Stockholm. L i n e l l , P. 1974. Problems o f P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e a l i t y i n Generative Phonology. A C r i t i c a l Assessment. Reports from Uppsala U n i v e r s i t y Department o f L i n g u i s t i c s (RUUL), Nr. 4. Lyons, J . Ltd.  1970.  Chomsky.  Great B r i t a i n :  Wm.  C o l l i n s & Co.  Marchand, H. 1960. The C a t e g o r i e s and Types o f Present-Day E n g l i s h Word-Formation. Wiesbaden: Otto H a r r a s s o w i t z . N i c h o l s o n , G. 1916. E n g l i s h Words w i t h N a t i v e Roots and w i t h Greek, L a t i n o r Romance S u f f i x e s . Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s . Ohala, J . 19 70. 'Aspects of the c o n t r o l and p r o d u c t i o n o f speech.' Working Papers i n Phonetics-UCLA 15. Ohala, J . 1973. 'On the design o f p h o n o l o g i c a l experiments I I . ' Mimeographed v e r s i o n o f an unpublished paper read at the Winter 1972 L i n g u i s t i c S o c i e t y o f America meeting i n A t l a n t a . Ohala, J . 1974. 'Phonetic e x p l a n a t i o n i n phonology.' Paper d e l i v e r e d a t the N a t u r a l Phonology P a r a s e s s i o n , Chicago L i n g u i s t i c S o c i e t y , 18 A p r i l , 1974. Ohala, M. 1974. 'The a b s t r a c t n e s s c o n t r o v e r s y : e x p e r i m e n t a l input from H i n d i . ' Language 50, 2 (June): 225-235. Onions, C , ed. 1966. Oxford E n g l i s h D i c t i o n a r y o f Etymology. London: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .  -158-  Th e P r i n c i p l e s o f the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Phonetic A s s o c i a t i o n . 1949 tReprinted Ll f£) . i n t e r n a t i o n a l Phonetic A s s o c i a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y C o l l e g e , Gower S t r e e t , London WC1E 6BT. T  Sherzer, J . 1970. ' T a l k i n g backwards i n Cuna: the s o c i o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y of phonological descriptions.' Southwestern J o u r n a l o f Anthropology 26: 343-353. S t e i n b e r g , D. 1975. and p s y c h o l o g i c a l  'Chomsky: from formalism t o mentalism invalidity.' Glossa 9, 2: 218-252.  S t e i n b e r g , D. and R. Krohn. 1975. 'The p s y c h o l o g i c a l v a l i d i t y o f Chomsky and H a l l e ' s vowel s h i f t r u l e . ' The Transformat i o n a l - G e n e r a t i v e Paradigm and Modern L i n g u i s t i c Theory, ed. E. Koerner, e t a l . Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V. Wang, W. 1968. 'Vowel f e a t u r e s , p a i r e d v a r i a b l e s , and the E n g l i s h vowel s h i f t . ' Language 44, 4 (December): 695-708. Wang, W. 1969. 'Competing changes as a cause o f r e s i d u e . " Language 45, 1 (March): 9-26. Zimmer, K. 1969. ' P s y c h o l o g i c a l c o r r e l a t e s o f some T u r k i s h morpheme s t r u c t u r e c o n d i t i o n s . ' Language 45, 2 (June): 309-321.  APPENDIX I DIRECTIONS AND LIST 0? WORD FORMS FOR Pilot I  EACH EXPERIMENT  P i l o t II  Main  Directions I would like your help i n a project of mine which i s to construct an extended or • extrapolated dictionary of English. A 3 you know, English allows the formation of new words by the addition of suffiexes or endings such as noss, - i t y and so on to the end of existing words. For example, odd can have - i t y added to i t to give oddity.  I would l i k e your help i n a project of mine which i s to construct an extended or extrapolated dictionary of English. As you know, English allows the formation, of hew words by the combination of suffixes or endings with existing word3. For example, the word odd combined with the ending - i t y gives oddity.  We'll proceed as follows: I ' l l give a particular suffix, then give some examples of i t s use with existing words, and then" give a number or words which that suffix lias not been added to before. (Later on, I ' l l give just the suffix and then words to which the suffix has never been added.)!  We'll proceed as follows: to begin with, I ' l l give a particular ending, then give some examples of i t s use with existing words, and then give a number or words which that ending has never been combined with before. Later on, though, I ' l l give just the ending and the words which the ending i s to be combined with.)2 So, to help me i n my survey, would you please take the word and the ending, put them together somehow and pronounce the new word. (Then would you t e l l me what y.ou think the new word would mean and l a s t l y t e l l me whether or not you would be l i k e l y to use this new word.)'  Would you please pronounce the word that would result from the addition of that suf- . f i x , t e l l me what you think this new word might mean, and then t e l l me whether or not you would be l i k e l y to use this new word.  Kow let's return to the new words you proposed. I ' l l give the ending, the word, and the new word you suggested. Thi3 time, to help me i n my survey, would you t e l l me what you think this new word would mean and then t e l l me whether or not you would be l i k e l y to use this new word.  May I remind you that this experiment i s l i k e a survey i n that the responses that you give are neither right nor wrong; rather, they are a l l v a l i d . I would like your help i n a project of mine which i s to construct an extended or extrapolated dictionary of English. As you know, English allows the formation of new words by the combination of suffixes or endings with existing words. For example, the word odd combined with the ending - i t y gives oddity. We'll proceed as follows: I ' l l give a particular ending, then give a number of words which that ending has never been combined with before. To helpraei n my survey, would you please take the word and the ending, put them together somehow and pronounce the new word. Then would you t e l l me what you think the new word would mean, and lastly t e l l me whether or not you would be l i k e l y to use this new word.  ;  1 the 2 3  The directions to Groups a' and b' i n Pilot I were identical except that the sentence enclosed^in parentheses was included i n directions to Group b* only. The directions to Group b " i n P i l o t II included the sentence i n parentheses. The directions to Group a'' did not. The directions to Croup b " i n Pilot I I ommitted the sentence i n parentheses and included the next paragraph.  Pilot I  Word Lists Practice Task *-y' burglar master  burglary mastery  P i l o t II  (the same)  rider mover faller '-0U3  burglar master,  burglary mastery  rider mover faller  1  pore industry  porrous industrious  (the same)  worm bubble oil •-ic' scene rhapsodyovary celery, nunnery Experimental. Task  Main  '-hood' brotherfather apple scholar normal  pore industry  porrous industrious  worm bubble oil scenic rhapsodic  brotherhood fatherhood  (the Same)  scene angel  (the same)  ovary celery nunnery  (the same)  brother. father apple scholar normal  scenic angelic  brotherhood fatherhood  O I  Pilot I '-ity' odd stupid  oddity stupidity^  shred fad between probe rod , trade space bribe mop fleece '-dom' king |(serf)  kingdom _ (serfdom)  bird man house joy  Pilot II  Main,  (the sane)  odd (sane)  (the same)  shred fad between probe rod trade space bribe mop fleece  (the same)  king (serf)  (the same)  bird man house joy <  oddity c (sanity)  kingdom (serfdom)  ••"dan'  Darwin music trade crime bed Thomas prude robot Fred I human  Darwinian musician  (the same) (the same)  Cant (mammal) trade crime bed Thoma3  prude robot Fred human  4 Recall that no example derivations were given to group b i n the two pilots. 5 The example derivations enclosed i n parentheses were witheld from Group B i n the main experiment.  Kantian (mammalian)  Pilot I rify» beauty solid  beautify solidify  slave sublime pride supreme prose trample ?'-ion' fuse detain  fusion detention  obtain cruise pertain pact -ism' fad radical  faddism radicalism  school buck sofa • domestic ' brain toxic adverse public ' -ment' amend (agree) face rate flinch  amendment (agreement)  Pilot II  Main  (the same)  false (rate)  (the same)  slave sublime pride supreme prose trample  (the - same),  rebel (detain)  (the same)  obtain cruise pertain pact  (the same)  fad (critic)  (the same)  school buck sofa domestic brain toxic adverse public  (the same) (the same)  falsify (ratify)  rebellion (detention)  faddism (criticism)  (the same)  face rate flinch  '-ian' Darwin music  Pilot II  Darwinian musician  •(the same)  Kant (mammal)  (the same)  thermos artistic cop Christmas  (the same)  graph (algebra)  (the same)  dust zebra biologist Buddha incite  (the same)  conserve (explain)  (the same)  obtain sapphire pertain  (the same)  odd (sane)  (the same)  define iodine methane sustain trite  thermos artistic cop Christmas -ic' artist realist  artistic realistic  dust zebra biologist Buddha incite '-atory' conserve (explain)  conservatory (explanatory)  obtain sapphire pertain '-ity' odd stupid define iodine methane sustain trite  Kain  Pilot.II  oddity stupidity  .'Kantian (mammalian)  graphic (algebraic)  conservatory (explanatory)  oddity (sanity)  -164-  APPENDIX I I STEM-SUFFIX Rule:  V -> [-tense]/  SETS CONSIDERED FOR EACH RULE CVCV  Rule:  V  [ttense]/  V  Rule:  / k / -» s / _ I Q  domestic + -ism t o x i c + -ism p u b l i c + -ism * a r t i s t i c + -ian Underlying  Rule;  vowels i n p e r t a i n and obtain ~~  obtain + - i o n pertain + -ion obtain + -atory p e r t a i n + -atory  V [-high]  [+tense]/  CiV  bed + - i a n Thomas + - i a n robot + - i a n Fred + - i a n human + - i a n cop + - i a n thermos + - i a n Christmas + - i a n  * s o f a + -ism zebra + - i c Buddha + - i c Rule :  C + affix  Thomas + - i a n robot + - i a n human + - i a n thermos + - i a n artistic + -ian Christmas + - i a n *adverse + -ism zebra + - i c biologist + - i c Buddha + - i c *sapphire + -atory *iodine + - i t y *methane + - i t y  between + - i t y trade + - i t y space + - i t y bribe + - i t y fleece + - i t y define + - i t y iodine + - i t y methane + - i t y sustain + - i t y trite + -ity probe + - i t y *incite + -ic sapphire + - a t o r y slave + - i f y sublime + - i f y prose + - i f y pride + - i f y Rule:  V -> [1 S t r e s s ] /  /s/  [+voice]/  V [ttense]  *space + - i t y *fleece + - i t y *Thomas + - i a n *thermos + - i a n *Christmas + - i a n *artistic + -ian  "marks those s t e m - s u f f i x s e t s which were not preceded i n Main Experiment A by an example d e r i v a t i o n demonstrating the sound p a t t e r n p r e d i c t e d by the r u l e f o r which the s e t s were considered. o  V  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093706/manifest

Comment

Related Items