ASYMMETRIES IN GENERALIZING ALTERNATIONS TO AND FROM INITIAL SYLLABLES
ASYMMETRIES IN GENERALIZING ALTERNATIONS TO AND FROM INITIAL SYLLABLES
复制标题
DOI：
10.1353/lan.2012.0049
复制
发表时间：
2012-06-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.1
通讯作者：
Levine, Jonathan
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Becker, Michael;Nevins, Andrew;Levine, Jonathan
In the English lexicon, laryngeal alternations in the plural (e.g. leaf similar to leaves) impact monosyllables more than finally stressed polysyllables.这与类型学上发生的情况相反，因此与音节忠实的预测相反。 Despite the lexical pattern, in a wug test we found monosyllables to be impacted no more than finally stressed polysyllables were-a 'surfeit of the stimulus' effect, in which speakers fail to learn a statistical generalization present in the lexicon. We present two artificial-grammar experiments in which English speakers indeed manifest a universal bias for protecting monosyllables, and initial syllables more generally. The conclusion, therefore, is that speakers can exhibit spontaneous learning that goes directly against the evidence offered by the ambient language, a result we attribute to formal and substantive biases in phonological acquisition.*
In the English lexicon, laryngeal alternations in the plural (e.g. leaf similar to leaves) impact monosyllables more than finally stressed polysyllables. This is the opposite of what happens typologically, and would thereby run contrary to the predictions Of INITIAL-SYLLABLE FAITHFULNESS. Despite the lexical pattern, in a wug test we found monosyllables to be impacted no more than finally stressed polysyllables were-a 'surfeit of the stimulus' effect, in which speakers fail to learn a statistical generalization present in the lexicon. We present two artificial-grammar experiments in which English speakers indeed manifest a universal bias for protecting monosyllables, and initial syllables more generally. The conclusion, therefore, is that speakers can exhibit spontaneous learning that goes directly against the evidence offered by the ambient language, a result we attribute to formal and substantive biases in phonological acquisition.*