“自然”应力模式和边缘对齐和数量敏感性之间的依赖关系

Megan J. Crowhurst, L. Faircloth, Allison Wetterlin, L. Wheeldon
{"title":"“自然”应力模式和边缘对齐和数量敏感性之间的依赖关系","authors":"Megan J. Crowhurst, L. Faircloth, Allison Wetterlin, L. Wheeldon","doi":"10.3765/pda.v4art6.65","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We conducted an artificial language learning experiment to study learning asymmetries that might reveal latent preferences relating to, and any dependencies between, the edge alignment and quantity sensitivity (QS) parameters in stress patterning. We used a poverty of the stimulus approach to teach American English speakers an unbounded QS stress rule (stress a single CV: syllable) and either a left- or right-aligning QI rule if only light syllables were present. Forms with two CV: syllables were withheld in the learning phase and added in the test phase, forcing participants to choose between left- and right-aligning options for the QS rule. Participants learned the left- and right-edge QI rules equally well, and also the basic QS rule. Response patterns for words with two CV: syllables suggest biases favoring a left-aligning QS rule with a left-edge QI default. Our results also suggest that a left-aligning QS pattern with a rightedge QI default was least favored. We argue that stress patterns shown to be preferred based on evidence from ease-of-learning and participants’ untrained generalizations can be considered more natural than less favored opposing patterns. We suggest that cognitive biases revealed by artificial stress learning studies may have contributed to shaping stress typology.","PeriodicalId":293354,"journal":{"name":"Phonological Data and Analysis","volume":"35 2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Natural” stress patterns and dependencies between edge alignment and quantity sensitivity\",\"authors\":\"Megan J. Crowhurst, L. Faircloth, Allison Wetterlin, L. Wheeldon\",\"doi\":\"10.3765/pda.v4art6.65\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We conducted an artificial language learning experiment to study learning asymmetries that might reveal latent preferences relating to, and any dependencies between, the edge alignment and quantity sensitivity (QS) parameters in stress patterning. We used a poverty of the stimulus approach to teach American English speakers an unbounded QS stress rule (stress a single CV: syllable) and either a left- or right-aligning QI rule if only light syllables were present. Forms with two CV: syllables were withheld in the learning phase and added in the test phase, forcing participants to choose between left- and right-aligning options for the QS rule. Participants learned the left- and right-edge QI rules equally well, and also the basic QS rule. Response patterns for words with two CV: syllables suggest biases favoring a left-aligning QS rule with a left-edge QI default. Our results also suggest that a left-aligning QS pattern with a rightedge QI default was least favored. We argue that stress patterns shown to be preferred based on evidence from ease-of-learning and participants’ untrained generalizations can be considered more natural than less favored opposing patterns. We suggest that cognitive biases revealed by artificial stress learning studies may have contributed to shaping stress typology.\",\"PeriodicalId\":293354,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Phonological Data and Analysis\",\"volume\":\"35 2 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Phonological Data and Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3765/pda.v4art6.65\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Phonological Data and Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3765/pda.v4art6.65","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们进行了一项人工语言学习实验,以研究学习不对称性,这种不对称性可能揭示与重音模式中边缘对齐和数量敏感性(QS)参数相关的潜在偏好,以及它们之间的任何依赖关系。我们使用刺激的贫困方法来教美国英语使用者一个无界的QS重音规则(重音一个音节)和一个左对齐或右对齐的QI规则,如果只有轻音节存在。有两个简历音节的表格在学习阶段被保留,在测试阶段被添加,迫使参与者在QS规则的左对齐和右对齐选项之间做出选择。参与者对左边和右边的QI规则以及基本的QS规则都学得很好。有两个CV音节的单词的反应模式表明,人们倾向于使用左对齐的QS规则和左对齐的QI默认值。我们的结果还表明,左对齐的QS模式与右对齐的QI默认是最不受欢迎的。我们认为,基于易于学习的证据和参与者未经训练的概括,压力模式被认为比不受欢迎的相反模式更自然。我们认为,人工压力学习研究揭示的认知偏差可能有助于形成压力类型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
“Natural” stress patterns and dependencies between edge alignment and quantity sensitivity
We conducted an artificial language learning experiment to study learning asymmetries that might reveal latent preferences relating to, and any dependencies between, the edge alignment and quantity sensitivity (QS) parameters in stress patterning. We used a poverty of the stimulus approach to teach American English speakers an unbounded QS stress rule (stress a single CV: syllable) and either a left- or right-aligning QI rule if only light syllables were present. Forms with two CV: syllables were withheld in the learning phase and added in the test phase, forcing participants to choose between left- and right-aligning options for the QS rule. Participants learned the left- and right-edge QI rules equally well, and also the basic QS rule. Response patterns for words with two CV: syllables suggest biases favoring a left-aligning QS rule with a left-edge QI default. Our results also suggest that a left-aligning QS pattern with a rightedge QI default was least favored. We argue that stress patterns shown to be preferred based on evidence from ease-of-learning and participants’ untrained generalizations can be considered more natural than less favored opposing patterns. We suggest that cognitive biases revealed by artificial stress learning studies may have contributed to shaping stress typology.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信