[SaDPhIG] paper for Monday?

[Sharon Rose]

Sounds good to me except for the bit about starting at 11 on Mar 2 - I
have office hours until 12. I could potentially move them...
Also Feb. 23 we have another job candidate whom I'd quite like to have
lunch with.

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