Category Archives: LLL

LingLang Lunch (2/26/2020): Casey Lew-Williams (Princeton)

Casey Lew-Williams is Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology and director of Baby Lab at Princeton University. He and his lab study domain-general learning mechanisms and specific features of learning environments in order to understand the beginnings of human cognition and their consequences on children’s outcomes. For more information, his website is here.

Infants learn from meaningful structure in their communicative environments

During natural communication, caregivers pitch statistics at infants, and infants figure out what to pay attention to across milliseconds and months. In doing so, they make progress in detecting and then running with meaningful, naturally variable structure in their environments. I will present a few recent studies examining how caregivers package language to infants, how infants process patterns in the complexities of their input, and how infant-adult dyads align their brains and behaviors during natural play. I will also present preliminary analyses suggesting that such alignment is relevant to children’s learning of new information. The data collectively suggest that fine-grained, predictable statistics embedded in everyday communication are key to understanding the dynamic and consequential nature of early learning.

LingLang Lunch (2/19/2020): Maksymilian Dąbkowski (Brown)

Maksymilian Dąbkowski is a senior student concentrating Linguistics at Brown Universty. This is a practice talk for West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 36.

The morphophonology of A’ingae verbal stress

Stress assignment in A’ingae (or Cofán, isolate, ISO 639: con) is remarkably complex. In the first investigation into the nature of this complexity, I report on the existence of six distinct accentual patterns associated with verbal morphemes, propose that stress assignment is determined by a combination of phonological and morphological factors, and develop a formal analysis of the data.

I analyze A’ingae stress assignment as determined by factors from two domains: (i) phonological, where I propose a typologically unattested glottal accent assigned at the level of the prosodic foot, and (ii) morphological, with accentual specification of suffixal lexemes. By attributing a part of the observed complexity to independently motivated glottal accent, I reduce the number of distinct lexical specifications needed to explain the six distinct accentual patterns to four suffix types. I further analyze the four different suffix types as an interaction between two binary parameters that characterize each suffix: recessive vs. dominant; and plain vs. prestressing.

The analysis is carried out in the framework of Cophonology Theory, a restrictive Optimality Theoretic approach, which allows for a parsimonious account of complex patterns emergent from interactions between phonology and morphology.

LingLang Lunch (1/29/2020): Joanna Morris (Hampshire College & RISD)

Joanna Morris is a professor of cognitive science in the school of Cognitive Science at Hampshire College is is also teaching at RISD. Her work focuses on the cognitive processes that underlie reading. Her current research is focused on examining how complex words—words with multiple parts like sing-er and un-happy are represented in the mental dictionary. For more information, her website is here.

Is there a ‘moth’ in mother? How we read complex words (and those that are just pretending to be).

Skilled readers identify words with remarkable speed and accuracy, and fluent word identification is a prerequisite for comprehending sentences and longer texts. Although research on word reading has tended to focus on simple words, models of word recognition must nevertheless also be able to account for complex words with multiple parts or morphemes. One theory of word reading is that we break complex words into their component parts depending on whether the meaning of the whole word can be figured out from its components. For example, a ‘pay-ment’ is something (the ‘-ment’ part) that is paid ( the ‘pay-’ part); a ‘ship-ment’ is something that is shipped. However a ‘depart-ment’ is not something that departs! Thus ‘payment’ and ‘shipment’ are semantically transparent, while ‘department’ is semantically opaque. One model of word reading holds that only semantically transparent words are broken down. Other models claim that not only are all complex words —both transparent and opaque—decomposed, but so are words that are not even really complex but only appear to be, i.e. pseudo-complex words such as ‘mother’. My research examines the circumstances under which we break complex words into their component parts and in this talk I will address how this process may be instantiated in the brain.

LingLang Lunch (11/7/2019): Judith Kroll (UC Irvine)

Judith Kroll is a Distinguished Professor in the Department of Language Science at the University of California, Irvine. Her research employs bilingualism as a tool to reveal the interplay between language and cognition. For more information, her website is here.

The fate of the native language in second language learning:
A new hypothesis about bilingualism, mind, and brain

In the last two decades there has been an upsurge of research on the bilingual mind and brain. Although the world is multilingual, only recently have cognitive and language scientists come to see that the use of two or more languages provides a unique lens to examine the neural plasticity engaged by language experience. But how? Bilinguals proficient in two languages appear to speak with ease in each language and often switch between the two languages, sometimes in the middle of a sentence. In this last period of research we have learned that the two languages are always active, creating a context in which there is mutual influence and the potential for interference. Yet proficient bilinguals rarely make errors of language, suggesting that they have developed exquisite mechanisms of cognitive control. Contrary to the view that bilingualism adds complication to the language system, the new research demonstrates that all languages that are known and used become part of the same language system. A critical insight is that bilingualism provides a tool for examining aspects of the cognitive and neural architecture that are otherwise obscured by the skill associated with native language performance in monolingual speakers. In this talk I illustrate this approach and consider the consequences that bilingualism holds more generally for cognition and learning.

LingLang Lunch (10/30/2019): Joshua Hartshorne (Boston College)

Joshua Hartshorne is an assistant professor of psychology and the director of Language Learning Lab at Boston College Department of Psychology. His research in language development covers a variety of phenomena in syntax, semantics, and pragmatics, and has lately been focusing on bootstrapping language acquisition, language and common sense, and critical periods. For more information, her website is here.

Critical periods in language, cognitive development, and massive online experiments

Only a few years ago, it was widely accepted that cognitive abilities develop during childhood and adolescence, with cognitive decline beginning at around 20 years old for fluid intelligence and in the 40s for crystalized intelligence. The obvious outlier was language learning, which appeared to begin its decline in early childhood. All these claims have been challenged by a recent flurry of studies — both from my lab and others. In particular, the ability to collect large-scale datasets has brought into sharp relief patterns in the data that were previously indiscernible. The fluid/crystalized intelligence distinction has broken down: at almost any age between 20 and 60, some abilities are still developing, some are at their peak, and some are in decline (Hartshorne & Germine, 2015). Most surprisingly, evidence suggests that the ability to learn syntax is preserved until around 18 (Hartshorne, Tenenbaum, & Pinker, 2018). This has upended our understanding of language learning and its relationship to the rest of cognitive development. In this talk, I review recent published findings, present some more recent unpublished findings, and try to point a path forwards. I also discuss the prospects for massive online experiments not just for understanding cognitive development, but for understanding cognition in general.

LingLang Lunch (10/23/2019): Uriel Cohen Priva (Brown University)

Understanding lenition through its causal structure

Consonant lenition refers to a list of seemingly unrelated processes that are grouped together by their tendency to occur in similar environments (e.g. intervocalically) and under similar conditions (e.g. in faster speech). These processes typically include degemination, voicing, spirantization, approximantization, tapping, debuccalization, and deletion (Hock 1986). So, we might ask: What are the commonalities among all these processes and why do they happen? Different theories attribute lenition to assimilation (Smith 2008), effort-reduction (Kirchner 1998), phonetic undershoot (Bauer 2008), prosodic smoothing (Katz 2016), and low informativity (Cohen Priva 2017). We argue that it is worthwhile to focus on variable lenition (pre-phonologized processes) in conjunction with two phonetic characteristic of lenition: reduced duration and increased intensity. Using mediation analysis, we find causal asymmetries between the two, with reduced duration causally preceding increased intensity. These results are surprising as increased intensity (increased sonority) is often regarded as the defining property of lenition. The results not only simplify the assumptions associated with effort-reduction, prosodic smoothing, and low informativity, but they are also compatible with phonetic undershoot accounts.

LingLang Lunch (10/16/2019): Jeff Mielke (NC State)

Jeff Mielke is professor of the department of English at North Carolina State University. His main research interests include linguistic sound patterns and segmental phonology. For more information, his website is here.

Phonetic studies of vowels in two endangered languages

I report acoustic and articulatory studies of two endangered languages with typologically unusual vowel systems. Bora, a Witotoan language spoken in Peru and Colombia, has been described as having a three-way backness contrast between unrounded high vowels /i ɨ ɯ/. An audio-video investigation of Bora vowels reveals that while none of these vowels are produced with lip rounding, the vowel described as /ɨ/ is actually a front vowel with extreme lingual-dental contact. This appears to be a previously unknown vowel type. Kalasha, a Dardic language spoken in Pakistan, has been described as having 20 vowel phonemes: plain /i e a o u/, nasalized /ĩ ẽ ã õ ũ/, retroflex /i˞ e˞ a˞ o˞ u˞/, and retroflex nasalized /ĩ˞ ẽ˞ ã˞ õ˞ ũ˞/. An ultrasound study of Kalasha vowels shows that the vowels described as retroflex are produced not with retroflexion but with various combinations of tongue bunching and other tongue shape differences, raising questions about if and how these phonetic dimensions should be integrated with notions of basic vowel quality. I discuss implications of the Bora and Kalasha data for models of vowel features.

LingLang Lunch (10/2/2019): Lisa Davidson (NYU)

Lisa Davidson is professor and chair of linguistics at New York University. Her main research interests include laboratory phonology, speech production & perception, language acquisition. For more information, her website is here.

The link between syllabic nasals and glottal stops in American English

Examples of syllabic nasals in English abound in phonological studies (e.g., Hammond 1999, Harris 1994, Wells 1995), but there is little explicit discussion about the surrounding consonant environments that condition syllabic nasals. In this talk, we examine the production of potential word-final syllabic nasals in American English following preceding consonants including oral stops, glottal stops, fricatives, flap, and laterals. The data come from a laboratory study of read speech with speakers from New York and other regions. Acoustic analysis indicates that [n̩] is only prevalent after [ʔ], with some extension to /d/. The results suggest that /ən/ is the appropriate underlying representation for syllabic nasals, and an articulatory sketch to account for the prevalence of [n̩] after coronal stops is laid out. To provide a link between the [ʔ] allophone and syllabic nasals, previous analyses of acoustic enhancement proposed for glottally-reinforced [tʔ] in coda position (e.g. Keyser and Stevens 2006) are extended to the syllabic nasal case.

LingLang Lunch (9/18/2019): Stefan Kaufmann (UConn)

Stefan Kaufmann is Associate Professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Connecticut. His main research interests lie in the area of semantics, pragmatics, and computational linguistics. For more information, his website is here.

How fake is fake Past?

English subjunctive conditionals have a Past or Past Perfect form on the modal scoping over the consequent (typically ‘would’ or ‘might’), which is echoed in the tense marking on the antecedent. This Past (Perfect) does not seem to have its ordinary temporal interpretation, as it even shows up when the constituents refer to future times. This phenomenon is known as “Fake Past” or “Fake Tense”. Much recent work on Fake Past concerns its relationship with temporal Past. There are two schools of thought on this issue: “Past-as-Past” approaches rely on models of branching time and interpret counterfactuals by “re-running” history from an earlier time at which the antecedent was still a possibility; thus the Past is not (entirely) fake after all. “Past-as-Modal” approaches assume instead that on its fake use, the Past is “redirected” from the temporal dimension in which it normally enables reference to different times, to the perpendicular modal dimension, now enabling reference to different worlds. A question that has not received nearly as much attention is how a theory of either stripe is to be integrated with an overall account of tense and temporal reference in conditionals, including indicatives. This paper argues that such a unified account can be achieved by extending Kaufmann’s (2005b) treatment of tense and temporal reference in indicatives to subjunctives. A significant amount of evidence for this analysis comes from observations on English and Japanese counterfactuals. I argue that despite the many differences between these languages, the basic tenets of the analysis carry over surprisingly well. Part of this talk is based on joint with Teruyuki Mizuno (UConn grad student).

LingLang Lunch (5/2/2019): Lynnette Arnold & Paja Faudree (Brown University)

Lynnette Arnold is a Mellon Postdoctoral Fellow affiliated with the Department of Anthropology and the Swearer Center of Brown. Her research focuses on how language both produces and contests the political-economic marginalization of geographically mobile populations, in particular cross-border Latin American communities.
Paja Faudree is associate professor of Anthropology at Brown. Her research interests include language and politics, indigenous literary and social movements, the interface between music and language, the ethnohistory of New World colonization, and the global marketing of indigenous rights discourses, indigenous knowledge, and plants.

Language and Social Justice: Teaching About the “Word Gap”

Contemporary work in sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology is increasingly taking up social justice as an explicit framework, building on historical scholarship that laid the foundation for understanding how language use is tied to social inequality. In such efforts, educational contexts are crucial settings for intervention, sites where sharing scholarly insights about language can provoke effective public conversations about the roots and contemporary manifestations of social inequality linked to language. Inspired by this work, we suggest that conducting such language-related educational efforts within our institutions of higher education can make crucial contributions to the advancement of social justice.

In this talk, we describe our efforts to offer workshops on language and social justice for students involved in service learning, as part of the Swearer Center co-curriculum. We discuss in detail a workshop that focused on the topic of the “word gap”: research on disparities in how children perform in school that is based on the notion that the vocabulary of children from low-income communities lags behind that of their more affluent peers. This research claims that by the time they enter kindergarten, low-income children display a 30 million word deficit when compared to higher-income students. Narratives about this so-called “word gap” are among the most pervasive discourses about language and social inequality in the United States today, and have inspired programs around the country designed to illuminate this disparity—including, here in Providence, the 5 million dollar initiative Providence Talks. However, such interventions, and the research on which they are based, have also been the target of substantive critiques by linguistic anthropologists and sociolinguists. We suggest that teaching students and others about the word gap” debate can help them gain a deeper understanding of how language works to uphold and continually reproduce social inequalities, while also inspiring them to think about how language can be used as a tool for challenging these injustices.