Regularity is overrated: Stochastic competition in grammar and the primacy of the lexicon
Vsevolod Kapatsinski
Department of Linguistics, University of Oregon
Introduction
Velar palatalization in Pseudo-Russian:
Replicating the effect in the lab (Kapatsinski
Regular system: for every input, the grammar produces only one
output
Experimental data
A classroom dictation task. Graded. Non-speeded.
Subjects should retrieve the rule if they know it.
Subjects are college students, extensively trained on the rule.
No errors for raz- but at chance for bez- with unknown words:
2010a)
Native English speakers
Ways to achieve regularity
•Minimize competition between generalizations
Restricting structural description of rules so that no rules
compete for the same input
•Resolve competition in a winner-take-all manner
Strict ranking in Optimality Theory
The relevant grammar
Same examples of palatalization
Exposed to one of the following languages:
Don’t spell ‘z’
A stem should have
a constant spelling
More support for nonpalatalizing rule in LgII
Linguistic description: Maximizing regularity
This paper: Some cases where speakers do not
Should see less velar
palatalization in LgII if
the rule is overgeneral
(applies to velars) and
if the competition with
the palatalizing rule
is resolved stochastically
since the palatalizing rule
is stronger in both
languages
Case I: Velar palatalization in Russian
(Kapatsinski 2010a)
Spell what you hear
A phoneme should have
a constant spelling
Result
*
Rule: {k;g}{tᶘ;ᶚ}/_-itj
Summary of Case II
Adjectival inflection is regular  whole wordforms need not be stored
Masculine singular
forms predictable
given stress
The preposition bez (always spelled with ‘z’)
Native lexicon: No exceptions
Nonce borrowings (web data):
Palatalization fails often
Summary of Case I
(e.g., to book  bukitj)
A linguistic description of the morphophonology of velar palatalization
has rules that are too specific compared to what the learners acquire
Why?
Hypothesis: Russian speakers acquire an “overly”-general rule “just add –itj”
that competes with {k;g}{tᶘ;ᶚ}itj
The more –itj attaches to non-velars, the more reliable “just add –itj” will be.
Thus the more likely it will be to outcompete {k;g}{tᶘ;ᶚ}itj
if competition is resolved stochastically.
Prediction: palatalization should fail in front of suffixes that often attach to stems
that end in consonants that are ineligible for palatalization
Crucial test case: Masculine diminutives
Three suffixes: -ik, -ok, -ek.
In the native lexicon, palatalization always applies to velars
Competition between rules is resolved by the learners stochastically (they
don’t always go for the most reliable rule)
The adjectives seem derived from the PP’s: A bez- adjective always has a
corresponding PP but sometimes lacks a corresponding bez-less adjective
Since the preposition and the prefix are spelled differently, this may
make bez- especially hard to spell if the writer is uncertain whether
they are spelling a PP or an adjective at some processing stage,
compared, e.g., to the verbal prefix raz-, which does not have a
corresponding preposition it could be confused with
For native Russian speakers, velar palatalization is not very productive
before –i and –ik. How come the lexicon contains no exceptions to the
rule then?
This would in turn cause Russian writers to rely on retrieving
orthographic forms of adjectives from memory
I suggest the speakers rely on lexical retrieval to produce the forms that
seem to be obeying the rule (Butterworth 1983, Halle 1973, Zuraw 2000,
Albright & Hayes 2003). Plus, rule-violating forms may be perceived as
awkward (Zuraw 2000).
Google data
bez-
Mean 1%
Mean 35%
Mean 0%
raz-
Conclusions
Systems that look regular from a linguistic description
sometimes aren’t for the language users.
Human language learners do not maximize regularity to the
extent that linguists do.
Thus the learned grammars do not provide as much information
about the correct output as the grammar a linguist would
generate.
Future work: When are seemingly regular systems not? (e.g.,
Bybee 2008: morphologization  reliance on retrieval)
References
Why look at orthography?
Orthography is designed to be and taught as a regular rule system
Much higher error rate for bezMuch stronger correlation of error rate with word frequency for bez-, esp. within lexemes:
e.g., countless .PL is more common than countless.SG and is spelled more accurately too
Bez-
Bez-
Raz-
In Russian, obstruents devoice before voiceless obstruents
Prediction confirmed
There may be competition even in what looks like a regular
system when the applicability of the rule is difficult to evaluate in
processing due to uncertainty regarding whether the input meets
the structural description
(Kapatsinski 2010b)
The rules:
-ik mostly attaches to
non-velars
This is likely due to competition between the spelling rules or
orthographic forms of bez-the-prefix and bez-the-preposition,
which are probably the same lexical entry
To cope with ambiguity in the output of the grammar, learners
rely on lexical retrieval whenever they can.
Case II: A regular spelling rule in Russian
-ik is the only
diminutive
suffix in front
of which velar
palatalization
often (35%) fails
While the same rule describes the spelling of bez- and raz-, the
spelling of bez- relies on lexical retrieval rather than rule
application but the spelling of raz- is largely rule-based
Albright, Adam, & Bruce Hayes . 2003. Rules vs. analogy
A computational/experimental study. Cognition, 90, 119–161.
in
English
past
tenses:
Butterworth, B. 1983. Lexical representation. In B. Butterworth (ed.), Language production ( Vol. II ):
Development, writing, and other language processes, 257–294. London: Academic Press.
Bybee, Joan. 2008. Formal universals as emergent phenomena: The origins of structure preservation.
In Jeff Good (ed.), Linguistic universals and language change, 108–121. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Halle, Morris. 1973. Prolegomena to a theory of word formation. Linguistic Inquiry, 4, 3-16.
For prefixes ending in /z/, the devoicing is supposed to be reflected in the
spelling
Kapatsinski, V. 2010a. Velar palatalization in Russian and artificial grammar: Constraints on models of
morphophonology. Laboratory Phonology, 1, 361-393.
Kapatsinski, V. 2010b. What is it I am writing? Lexical frequency effects in spelling Russian prefixes:
Uncertainty and competition in an apparently regular system. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic
Theory, 6, 157-215.
Prefixes ending in other consonants and all stems, including prepositions, always
have a constant spelling independent of phonological context
Zuraw, Kie. 2000. Patterned exceptions in phonology. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA dissertation.
Conclusion: Reliance on inflected form retrieval to spell bez- but not raz-