[SaDPhIG] paper for Monday?

[Eric Bakovic]

SaD-PhIGgies,

I suggest the following schedule for the remainder of the quarter, a 
minimal change from what we agreed on at our first meeting.

Feb. 9 -- discuss the Caballero paper Sharon pointed us to, in 
preparation for her visit and job talk on Feb 13.

Feb. 16 -- relax, it being President's Day.

Feb. 23 -- discuss Rebecca's very interesting questions below, perhaps 
with something to read in preparation -- other than Hayes & Wilson.

Mar. 2 -- discuss something relevant to Ryan's job talk that very day? 
(Maybe we can start at 11, during my class, so that Sharon and I can 
join the Ryan and the rest of the faculty for lunch?)

Mar. 9 -- Noah's practice poster for the pharyngealisation [sic, sic, 
sic!] workshop

What say you?

-- Eric


colavin at ling.ucsd.edu wrote:
> Well, I like the idea but at some point, I a chance to get input about
> these questions (this is just a draft of some ideas i have been struggling
> with):
> 
> 
> Hayes and Wilson use frequency information over natural classes to model
> judgments over attested and unattested sequences.
> 
> 
> 1)In classic generative models, phonotactics are modeled as restrictions
> only. Why? Is there psycholinguistic evidence for this? Or is it theory
> internal?
> 
> 2)Usually, attested sequences are assumed to be the reflection of  type
> and token frequency of segments while unattested sequences are the
> reflection of grammatical constraints that are not frequency based
> (because speakers have no frequency information to distinguish unattested
> sequences). Hayes and Wilson use frequency information over natural
> classes to model judgments over attested and unattested sequences.  Why is
> this not surprising?
> 
> 3)Assuming different processes for attested and unattested sequences
> implies that  there must be two different processes for harmony and
> disharmony:
> 1.Disharmony (OCP in semitic languages) can naturally be modeled with
> restrictions
> 2.reflecting restrictions on co-occurrence
> 3.Harmony, which is a pattern apparent in attested sequences, would have
> to be modeled as frequencies over segments or, rather unintuituively, as
> large set of restrictions on disharmony.
> 
> 4)In fact, Hayes and Wilson do not really model attested sequences in a
> satisfactory manner and my own research  shows that incorporating the
> small restrictions that reflect over-representation sequences reduces the
> correlation of the model with unattested sequences.
> 
> 
> Rebecca
> 
>> May I suggest that we read this paper for Monday by Gabriela Caballero,
>> a paper which will be the basis of her job talk on Friday?
>>
>> http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~caballero/Site/Papers_files/morphology_paper_november08.pdf
>>
>> Sharon
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SaDPhIG mailing list
>> SaDPhIG at ling.ucsd.edu
>> http://pidgin.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/sadphig
>>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SaDPhIG mailing list
> SaDPhIG at ling.ucsd.edu
> http://pidgin.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/sadphig