Ch 12Ch 12Slide 1

Ch 12 – AbstractnessWe have been doing concrete phonological analyses. There are also abstract

analyses. Polish!

Ch 12Ch 12Slide 2

Ch 12 – Abstractness

Ch 12Ch 12Slide 3

Ch 12 – AbstractnessTo explain these 2 different patterns – we have 2 hypotheses

Ch 12Ch 12Slide 4

Ch 12 – Abstractness

Ch 12Ch 12Slide 5

Ch 12 – AbstractnessBut we have a lot of exceptions!

Ch 12Ch 12Slide 6

Ch 12 – Abstractness

Ch 12Ch 12Slide 7

Ch 12 – AbstractnessSurface vowels

Abstract underlying vowels

Ch 12Ch 12Slide 8

Ch 12 – AbstractnessAbstract underlying vowels

Ch 12Ch 12Slide 9

Ch 12 – AbstractnessAbstract underlying vowels – explains the data

Ch 12Ch 12Slide 10

Ch 12 – AbstractnessThis abstract analysis explains the odd patterns in Polish, and it fits well with

historical accounts of language.

BUT how does an L1 speaker of Polish acquire this abstract and purely theoretical vowel that never surfaces? Is this the best account? Hayes believes maybe a better account is that children learning Polish may acquire a complex epenthesis rule but that would also have exceptions

Which is better then – an abstract analysis with an underlying form that never surfaces? OR a rule that has many exceptions which would have to be captured within the lexicon?

Ch 12Ch 12Slide 11

Ch 12 – AbstractnessEnglish stress – if we assume predictable, then need abstract analysis

Most disyllabic nouns have stress on first syllable

Some exceptions:

So we come up with a non-surfacing underlying form to explain

Ch 12Ch 12Slide 12

Ch 12 – AbstractnessIt explains other exceptions to stress rules:

But there are still other patterns of stress in English that are unpredictable. So Hayes suggests that this analysis is unnecessary if we assume that Phonemic stress is part of the phoneme system acquired and that it doesn’t have to be predictable (language change perhaps?)