{"content":[{"text":"2","bbox":{"left":0.26491,"top":0.142323,"width":0.00817000000000001,"height":0.016842999999999997}},{"text":"UCLA Working Papers In Linguistics, vol.0","bbox":{"left":0.441789,"top":0.143611,"width":0.286405,"height":0.015417000000000014}},{"text":"may surface unpredictably as prefixes or infixes. The example I will \n focus on is person marking in Lakhota, as illustrated in (1):","bbox":{"left":0.26491,"top":0.168523,"width":0.470469,"height":0.03073199999999998}},{"text":"(1)","bbox":{"left":0.294322,"top":0.208927,"width":0.019052000000000013,"height":0.016842999999999997}},{"text":"Variable position of first singular subject marker -wa-: \n a. Prefixed: \n lówan ‘he sings’ ~ wa-lówan ‘I sing’ \n núwe ‘he swims’ ~ wa-núwe ‘I swim’ \n káge ‘he does/makes’ ~ wa-káge ‘I do/make’ \n b. Infixed: \n máni ‘he walks’ ~ ma-wá-ni ‘I walk’ \n aphé ‘he hits’ ~ a-wá-phe ‘I hit’ \n hoxpé ‘he coughs’ ~ ho-wá-xpe ‘I cough’","bbox":{"left":0.323734,"top":0.208927,"width":0.37815399999999993,"height":0.13142600000000002}},{"text":"Such morphological irregularity poses not only an analytical problem \n for the linguist, but also a learning problem for the language learner. \n At the most basic level, for each word the learner must learn whether \n that word takes prefixation or infixation. However, this task might be \n simplified considerably if one could predict the behavior of words \n somehow, and if one pattern could be designated as a “default” to cover \n the majority of cases. In order to do this, we must be able to generalize \n over individual lexical items in some fashion. One scheme for how \n children might do this is the “Minimal Generality” hypothesis, outlined \n out by Albright and Hayes (1998) — namely, that children attempt to \n make sense of apparently arbitrary morphological patterns by paying \n careful attention to the phonological form of the roots involved. Under \n this view, the acquisition process is seen as a deliberate search for \n patterns which help predict class membership; as Zubin and Köpcke \n (1981, p.439) phrase it, “[w]e know that children are not passive \n consumers of morphological irregularity.” The end result is that \n languages have phonological regularities which line up with \n morphological irregularity, to produce a class system where \n membership is sort of — but not completely — arbitrary.","bbox":{"left":0.26491,"top":0.350657,"width":0.471024,"height":0.26684300000000005}},{"text":"The relationship between morphological irregularity and \n phonological form has been investigated for languages like English \n (Prasada and Pinker 1993) and for Italian verb classes (Albright 1998), \n but it has never been tested in a language with variably positioned \n morphemes. The goal of this paper, therefore, is to extend this line of \n investigation to Lakhota, in order to test the influence of phonology on \n morphology in a typologically different language. I will start with an \n overview of the place of affixation in existing Lakhota words, offering \n evidence that it is in fact a form of morphological irregularity, and \n reviewing some insights from Boas and Deloria (1941) on this matter. \n Next, I will outline an attempt to discover statistical tendencies \n computationally, using an automated pattern-discoverer developed by \n Albright and Hayes (1998). The goal of this section will be to uncover","bbox":{"left":0.26491,"top":0.627172,"width":0.4710230000000001,"height":0.18350900000000014}}],"images_bbox":[],"images_bbox_not_text_overlap":[]}