CHAPTER 9:
ABSTRACTNESS &
PSYCHOLOGICAL REALITY
Main Topics
 Abstract Analysis:
 When Underlying Representations ≠ Surface
Forms
 Valid motivations/evidence or limits for
Abstract Analysis
 Empirical Data
 Synchronic
 Diachronic (Historical Linguistics)
 Extra Linguistic Data
 Language acquisition
Abstractness
 Underlying Representations (UR) are usually
connected to their Surface Forms (SF): they
appear as one form of the SF.
MengMe-
Men-
Mem-
Meny-
Menj-
Meng-
Abstractness
 Abstract Analysis refers to when the UR never
shows up in the SF:
X
A
B
C
 Problem: How abstract can you go?
Abstractness
 Motivations for limiting abstractness:
 Restriction of distinctive features.
 Mental reality & language acquisition:
 How children acquire language & make abstract
connections between SF & UR.
Abstractness
 Motivations for limiting abstractness:
 Abstractness and phonemic representation: URs
usually have broader SF distributions, based on
distinctive features.
mə- / _____[l, r, w, y, m, n, ny] = + sonorant
məŋ / __ [k,h,g,a,i] = no natural class
Thus, [məŋ] has a broader distribution.
Initial Principles Limiting
Abstractness
1. The UR of a morpheme must actually be
pronounced as such in some SF containing
the morpheme.

Problem: Too restrictive in some languages.
Example: Palauan. Initial vowels unstressed -> ə
Initial Principles Limiting
Abstractness
2. The UR of a morpheme must contain only
segments actually pronounced as such in
some related word containing the morpheme.

Problem: There are some languages with examples
where this doesn’t happen.
Example of Abstract Analysis:
Kimatuumbi
 Focus:


Lexical class 3 prefix /mu/. Never surfaces as /mu/
Surfaces as [m], [n], [ŋ], [mw]
Example of Abstract Analysis:
Kimatuumbi
 Analysis:

2 processes for nasals. Examples

Prefix /ɲ-/ -> noun & adjectives class 9

Prefix /mu-/ -> second plural subjects
 Comparison between the phonological process of
these two prefixes in comparison to lexical class 3
prefix /mu-/
Example of Abstract Analysis:
Kimatuumbi
 Differences between /ɲ-/ and /mu-/
1. /ɲ-/ assimilates to place of articulation of C, while
/mu-/ deletes [u], assimilates and nasalizes C (this
is optional)
/ɲ-/




bowaana -> m-bomwaana
goloka -> ŋ-goloka
/mu -/


buundike -> m-muundike or mu-buundike
laabuke -> n-naabuke or mu-laabuke
Example of Abstract Analysis:
Kimatuumbi
2. /mu -/ + nasal consonant = deletion of [u]. Whereas
/ɲ-/ + nasal consonant = deletion
/ɲ/ -> ∅



mimina -> mimina
/mu -/

mimiine - > m-mimiine
3. /ɲ-/ assimilates and turns voiceless C into voiced,
/mu-/ only assimilates, no voicing change.
/ɲ/


tinika -> ndinika
/mu-/


teleke -> nteleke
Example of Abstract Analysis:
Kimatuumbi
4. /ɲ-/ causes following glide to become a voiced stop,
while /mu -/ changes glide to nasal.
/ɲ/



wikilya - > ŋ-gwikilya
/mu -/

yikiti -> ɲ-ɲikiti
5. /ɲ-/ has no effect on vowel length, /mu-/ become
[mw] and vowel is lengthened
/ɲ/


epeesi -> ɲ-epeesi
/mu-/


eleew -> mw-eeleew
Example of Abstract Analysis:
Kimatuumbi

So what about /mu-/ class 3 noun prefix? It
behaves the same way as nouns & adjectives
class 9 prefix /mu-/
Nasalizes voiced consonants
1.

2.

3.

4.


laabuka -> n-naabuka
[u] deletes before following nasal
mulika -> m-mulika
Does not voice following voiceless Cs.
teleka -> n-teleka
Shows up as [mw] before vowels & lengthens the
vowel.
epuka -> mw-eepuka
Thus the UR of this prefix should be /mu-/ even if
it never surfaces as [mu-].
Questionable Abstract Analysis:
English
 Chomsky & Halle (1968): dipthong [ɔy]
derives from [ɶ].
 Problem: does not account well for
alternation, compared to Kimatuumbi
analysis.
 Alternation is based on sets of words in
which have questionable synchronic
relatedness. E.g. joint-juncture, pointpuncture, boil-bullion (pg 271).
Independent evidence: Historical
Restructuring
 Paul Kiparsky (1968):
a) Absolute neutralization: distinction between
phonemes in morphemes neutralized in all
cases.
b) Contextual neutralization: distinction between
phonemes in morphemes neutralized in specific
contexts. E.g. in, im, iŋ, iɲ = in only for this
specific English prefix.
 Contextual neutralization more common and
more ‘real’, absolute neutralization seen as
constructed.
Independent evidence: Historical
Restructuring
 Kiparsky: Historical sound change can be
used as a test of abstract analysis.
 Case of Yiddish, language of Jewish
immigrants in Germany.
 Picked up rule of devoicing final stem consonant
from German
 tag -> tak (day)
 tagn (days)
 But was later lost in Northeastern Yiddish =>
reversal of sound change
 tok -> tog based on the plural togn
Independent evidence: Historical
Restructuring
 Exception:
 gelt (money) did not reverse to geld.
 Analyis:
 no plural form with the voiced consonant, unlike
tagn/togn.
 The singular form subject to devoicing rule, plural
was not.
 In the case of tak/tok - tagn/togn, Yiddish children
could abstract from the plural the UR of tag/tog
which was resurfaces when devoicing rule was lost.
 Yiddish children never heard the UR of ‘geld’ during
language acquisition.
Conclusions
 Two methods of abstract analysis has been
shown:
a. Domain-internal: Kimatuumbi example, based on
feature constraints.
b. Domain-external: Yiddish example, based on data
from historical language change and not synchronic
phonological data.
Conclusions
 Abstract analysis of URs must be motivated
by:


Limitations of distinctive feature theory, in the
case of domain-internal analysis.
Principles of child language acquisition. Explains
whether the URs are plausible based on how
children learn language from spoken experience.
 Abstract analysis is often abstract, in the
sense that it is often difficult or even
impossible to truly prove the psychological
reality of proposed URs.