Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T12:23:12.059Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paradigm uniformity bias in the learning of Korean verbal inflections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2018

Youngah Do
Youngah Do*
Affiliation:
University of Hong Kong
*
E-mail: youngah@hku.hk.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study explores the role of paradigm uniformity bias in the acquisition of Korean verbal inflections. Paradigm uniformity bias has been proposed in a constraint-based phonological framework, but has rarely been supported by experimental data. This paper provides experimental evidence for paradigm uniformity bias from four- to seven-year-old Korean children learning their native language phonology. Experiment 1 demonstrates that children alter morphological structures in order to produce non-alternating verb forms. Experiment 2 shows that the tendency to adjust morphological structures is rooted in children's preference for uniform paradigms, not in their ignorance of alternations. The results suggest that paradigm uniformity bias plays a role in determining children's preferred production patterns, which favour non-alternating forms even after they have acquired adult-like knowledge of the patterns of alternations.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , November 2018 , pp. 547 - 575
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

For helpful comments and discussion, I would like to thank Adam Albright, Michael Kenstowicz, Donca Steriade, three anonymous reviewers, the associate editor, members of the MIT phonology circle and audiences at the 87th annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America.

References

REFERENCES

Albright, Adam (2002). The identification of bases in morphological paradigms. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Albright, Adam (2008). Explaining universal tendencies and language particulars in analogical change. In Good, Jeff (ed.) Language universals and language change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 144–181.Google Scholar
Albright, Adam & Kang, Yoonjung (2008). Predicting innovative alternations in Korean verb paradigms. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.) Current issues in unity and diversity of languages: collection of the papers selected from the 18th International Congress of Linguists. Republic of Korea: Dongam. 1–20.Google Scholar
Baer-Henney, Dinah & van de Vijver, Ruben (2012). On the role of substance, locality, and amount of exposure in the acquisition of morphophonemic alternations. Laboratory Phonology 3. 221–249.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Mächler, Martin, Bolker, Benjamin M. & Walker, Steven C. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67. 1–48.Google Scholar
Becker, Michael, Ketrez, Nihan & Nevins, Andrew (2011). The surfeit of the stimulus: analytic biases filter lexical statistics in Turkish laryngeal alternations. Lg 87. 84–125.Google Scholar
Benua, Laura (1997). Transderivational identity: phonological relations between words. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Published 2000 as Phonological relations between words, New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Bernhardt, Barbara H. & Stemberger, Joseph P. (1998). Handbook of phonological development from the perspective of constraint-based nonlinear phonology. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul (1997). How we learn variation, optionality, and probability. Proceedings of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences of the University of Amsterdam 21. 43–58.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Hayes, Bruce (2001). Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. LI 32. 45–86.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi (1998). Multiple correspondence. Lingua 104. 79–109.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Angela C. (2010). A naturalness bias in learning stress. Phonology 27. 345–392.Google Scholar
Cho, Young-mee Yu (2016). Korean phonetics and phonology. In Aronoff, Mark (ed.) Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.176.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Cristià, Alejandrina & Seidl, Amanda (2008). Is infants’ learning of sound patterns constrained by phonological features? Language Learning and Development 4. 203–227.Google Scholar
Do, Youngah (2013). Biased learning of phonological alternations. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris (1959). The sound pattern of Russian: a linguistic and acoustical investigation. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (2004). Phonological acquisition in Optimality Theory: the early stages. In Kager, et al. (2004). 158–203.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Zuraw, Kie, Siptár, Péter & Londe, Zsuzsa (2009). Natural and unnatural constraints in Hungarian vowel harmony. Lg 85. 822–863.Google Scholar
Jesney, Karen & Tessier, Anne-Michelle (2011). Biases in Harmonic Grammar: the road to restrictive learning. NLLT 29. 251–290.Google Scholar
Jun, Jongho (2010). Stem-final obstruent variation in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19. 137–179.Google Scholar
Kager, René, Pater, Joe & Zonneveld, Wim (eds.) (2004). Constraints in phonological acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kang, Beom-mo & Hung-gyu, Kim (2004). Hankwuke hyengtayso mich ehwi sayong pintouy pwunsek. [Frequency analysis of Korean morpheme and word usage.] Vol. 2. Seoul: Institute of Korean Culture, Korea University.Google Scholar
Kazazis, Kostas (1969). Distorted modern Greek phonology for foreigners. Glossa 3. 198–209.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael (1997). Uniform exponence: exemplification and extension. In Miglio, Viola & Morén, Bruce (eds.) University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 5. Selected Phonology Papers from the Hopkins Optimality Theory Workshop 1997 / University of Maryland Mayfest 1997. 139–155.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael & Sohn, Hyangsook (2008). Paradigmatic uniformity and contrast: Korean liquid verb stems. Phonological Studies 11. 99–110.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1974). Remarks on analogical change. In Anderson, John M. & Jones, Charles (eds.) Historical linguistics II: theory and description in phonology. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 257–275.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1978). Analogical change as a problem for linguistic theory. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 8:2. 77–96.Google Scholar
Lee, Iksop & Ramsey, S. Robert (2000). The Korean language. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Sam-Hyung, Lee, Phil-Young & Im, Yoo-Jong (2003). Emalemiuy suptuk kwacengey kwanhan yenkwu. [The study on the process of the acquisition of final endings: a case of Korean children under 36 months (translation as given)]. Kwukekyoyukhakyenkwu 18. 320–346.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (1998). Morpheme structure constraints and paradigm occultation. CLS 34:2. 125–150.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2005). Optimal paradigms. In Downing, Laura J., Hall, T. Alan & Raffelsiefen, Renate (eds.) Paradigms in phonological theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 170–210.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian (2000). The CHILDES project: tools for analyzing talk. 2 vols. 3rd edn. Mahwah, NJ & London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Martin, Samuel E. (1992). A reference grammar of Korean: a complete guide to the grammar and history of the Korean language. Singapore: Tuttle.Google Scholar
Moreton, Elliott (2008). Analytic bias and phonological typology. Phonology 25. 83–127.Google Scholar
Moreton, Elliott & Pater, Joe (2012). Structure and substance in artificial-phonology learning. Part 2: Substance. Language and Linguistics Compass 6. 702–718.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe & Moreton, Elliot (2012). Structurally biased phonology: complexity in learning and typology. The EFL Journal 3:2. 1–44.Google Scholar
Peperkamp, Sharon, Le Calvez, Rozenn, Nadal, Jean-Pierre & Dupoux, Emmanuel (2006). The acquisition of allophonic rules: statistical learning with linguistic constraints. Cognition 101. B31–B41.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder. Published 2004, Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Tesar, Bruce (2004). Learning phonotactic distributions. In Kager, et al. (2004). 245–291.Google Scholar
Pycha, Anne, Nowak, Pawel, Shin, Eurie & Shosted, Ryan (2003). Phonological rule-learning and its implications for a theory of vowel harmony. WCCFL 22. 423–435.Google Scholar
Saffran, Jenny R. & Thiessen, Erik D. (2003). Pattern induction by infant language learners. Developmental Psychology 39. 484–494.Google Scholar
Skoruppa, Katrin, Lambrechts, Anna & Peperkamp, Sharon (2011). The role of phonetic distance in the acquisition of phonological alternations. NELS 39:2. 717–729.Google Scholar
Skoruppa, Katrin & Peperkamp, Sharon (2011). Adaptation to novel accents: feature-based learning of context-sensitive phonological regularities. Cognitive Science 35. 348–366.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-Min (1999). The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stanley, Richard (1967). Redundancy rules in phonology. Lg 43. 393–436.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (2000). Paradigm uniformity and the phonetics–phonology boundary. In Broe, Michael B. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (eds.) Papers in laboratory phonology V: acquisition and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 313–334.Google Scholar
Tesar, Bruce & Smolensky, Paul (2000). Learnability in Optimality Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tessier, Anne-Michelle (2012). Testing for output–output faithfulness in the acquisition of consonant clusters. Language Acquisition 19. 144–173.Google Scholar
White, James (2013). Bias in phonological learning: evidence from saltation. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Wilson, Colin (2003). Experimental investigation of phonological naturalness. WCCFL 22. 533–546.Google Scholar
Wilson, Colin (2006). Learning phonology with substantive bias: an experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science 30. 945–982.Google Scholar
Yoon, James Hye Suk (1997). Coordination (a)symmetries. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 7. 3–30.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Do supplementary material

Tables S2 and S3

Download Do supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 43.4 KB