[SaDPhIG] paper for Monday?

[Bozena Pajak]

Sounds great to me.

Bozena


> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> SaDPhIG mailing list
> SaDPhIG at ling.ucsd.edu
> http://pidgin.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/sadphig
>