Phonology Seminar Erica Cei and Bruce Hayes March 7, 2012 UCLA

Multiple factors affecting Italian word stress

PURPOSE

1. Detail in Italian word stress

• Italian word stress has a generativist research literature dating from ca. 1970. • Modern digital resources permit us to analyze it in more detail. • Why bother?

2. Ryan on weight

• Ryan, Kevin (2011) Gradient weight in phonology, UCLA diss. • Where phonology is simple, weight criteria are sharp.  Latin stress, with all and only CVC, CVː heavy. • Where phonology allows variation, weight criteria get blurry.  But not arbitrary! Rather, you get a melange of the weight criteria that are categorical in various languages: — vowel length — coda consonant count — coda sonority — onset consonant count — vowel height (lower = heavier) • Ryan’s evidence:  Quantitative meter in various languages  Corpus study and wug test study of English disyllables • “Individual languages are like microcosms of the crosslinguistic typology in the gradient realm.”

3. Italian stress and gradience

• The language abounds in gradient factors that make stress semi-predictable.  On semi-predictability see Bresnan et al. (2007), Hayes and Moore-Cantwell (2011) • Traditional work has averted its eyes to the gradience problem. • Example: the half-dozen words that have a heavy penult and antepenultimate stress

[ˈmandorla] ‘almond’ [ˈakanto] ‘acanthus’ [ˈotranto] (place name) [ˈlepanto] (place name) Cei/Hayes Multiple factors affecting Italian word stress p. 2

[ˈtaranto] (place name) [ˈpolittsa] ‘little note’

 den Os and Kager (1986): they’re grammatical; “Italian is not quantity sensitive”  D’Imperio and Rosenthall (1999): they’re ungrammatical. “These forms are exceptions that are not accounted for here.”  Us: probably somewhere in between; heavy penult is an exceptionally strong factor for semi-predicting Italian stress.

4. The naturalness debate

• Are people unbiased inductive sponges for phonology or do they favor natural generalizations or do they only consider natural generalizations?

 Inductive-sponge theorists: Ohala (xxx add ref), Blevins (2004)  True-blue generative grammarians: Becker et al. (Language 2011)  Bias theorists: natural is easier; unnatural sometimes possible. Berent et al. 2007, Wilson 2006, Albright 2007, Finley 2008, Kawahara 2008, Moreton 2008, Finley and Badecker 2009, Hayes et al. 2009

5. Summing up the goals

• For now, find generalizations about Italian stress that might bear on these two issues. • If successful, we turn to wug testing.

6. Strategy for the data-analysis phase

• Lexical database, created and continually updated and polished by Erica. • Simplify the problem: just predict penultimate vs. antepenultimate stress.  Final and preantepenultimate are rare  Mostly confined to particular morphological circumstances. • Develop a stochastic grammar that does a decent job of quasi-predicting Italian stress.

7. We’re trying open-notebook science

• This is done by various people in science today;  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_notebook_science • Our notebook:  http://italianstressstudy.blogspot.com/

BASICS OF THE ITALIAN STRESS PATTERN

8. Two good reference sources with analysis

• den Os, Els and René Kager (1986) Extrametricality and stress in Spanish and Italian. Lingua 69:23-48. Cei/Hayes Multiple factors affecting Italian word stress p. 3

• D’Imperio, Mariapaola and Sam Rosenthall (1999) Phonetics and phonology of main stress in Italian. Phonology 16: 1-28.

9. Stress is phonemic

[ˈankora] ‘anchor’ [anˈkora] ‘still’

10. Three-syllable window

• Stress respects a three-syllable window at the right edge of the word.

11. (Trivial) exception to the three-syllable window

• Inflected verbs, accounted for in OT by paradigm uniformity.  [ˈindikano] ‘they indicate’  cf. 1 sg. [ˈindiko]

12. Heavy penults

• Vowel length is allophonic in Italian, so only CVC counts as heavy. • Heavy penults are very strongly stress-attracting, with just few exceptions ((3)),given above. • Only [ˈmandorla] and [ˈpolittsa] made it into our corpus.

13. Final syllables

• Of the ca. 1500 cases of final stress in our corpus, the great majority are accountable by just a few morphemes:

[-ˈo] ‘3rd sg. preterite, 1 sg. future’ [-ˈa] ‘3rd sg. future’ [-ˈi] ‘1 sg. preterite’ [-iˈta] ‘-ity’ [-ˈu] ‘-itude’ (4 examples)

THE D’IMPERIO/ROSENTHALL ANALYSIS

14. Goals

• Let phonemic stress override the rule-imposed default — but only when it is legal. • Legality:  the three-syllable window Cei/Hayes Multiple factors affecting Italian word stress p. 4

 no antepenultimate stress where penult is heavy — [ˈmandorla] is considered simply illegal. • Characterize normal stress as stress without lexical stress markings.

15. Basic constraints

• NONFINAL: don’t foot the final syllable • EDGEMOST: penalize for every syllable after the stress

• FOOTFORM:  disyllabic trochees best (no violations)  bimoraic monosyllabic trochees second best (1 violation)  monomoraic monosyllabic trochees worst (2 violations)

• *LONG VOWEL

16. CVCVCV words, no lexical mark

• Penultimate stress wins, with a pretty-good foot produced by vowel lengthening:

/lavoro/ NONFINAL EDGEMOST FOOTFORM *Vː ‘work’  la(ˈvoː)ro * * * la(ˈvo)ro * **! (ˈlavo)ro **! la(ˈvoro) *! lavo(ˈro) *! **

• FOOTFORM must dominate *Vː • EDGEMOST must dominate FOOTFORM and *Vː

17. CVCVCCV words, no lexical mark

/suzanna/ NONFINAL EDGEMOST FOOTFORM *V:  su(zan)na * * su(zaːn)na * * *! (suzan)na **! (suː)(zan)na * ** * (suː)zanna ** * *

• No need to lengthen the vowel since the penult is already heavy.

Cei/Hayes Multiple factors affecting Italian word stress p. 5

18. Non-default stress

In outline:

• It can prevail because of the constraint IDENT(stress). • IDENT(stress) is carefully ranked:  High enough to allow non-default patterns where listed.  Low enough to exclude unattested patterns.

19. What do we think of this?

• It looks like a reasonable starting-point framework. • It makes a three-way distinction of well-formedness  ✓ default output  ? output only because of a lexical marking  * illegal (including some existing forms) Empirical work might justify a richer set of distinctions.

THEORY

20. Zurovian lexical projection (Zuraw 2000)

• The language learner processes the data, learns  what the actual words are  what words are likely to be — probabilistic grammar • How to do it?  treat the lexical data as if they were free-variation data  Use accurate frequency-matching learning algorithms  Resulting grammars assigns a probability to each word, reflecting its well- formedness or typicality. • Assessing the truth of a Zurovian analysis  Don’t bother with existing words! — they are memorized  But wug-testing, loan adaptation, diachronic change provide suitable tests.

21. The default expectation when you wug-test a lexicon-based stochastic grammar

• “Law of frequency matching” (Hayes, Zuraw et al. 2009):  “Speakers of languages with variable lexical patterns respond stochastically when tested on such patterns. Their responses aggregately match the lexical frequencies.” • Caveat: we expect deviation from the law under learning biases (e.g. naturalness, complexity).

Cei/Hayes Multiple factors affecting Italian word stress p. 6

22. Frameworks for stochastic grammar

• Stochastic OT (Boersma 1997), Noisy Harmonic Grammar (Boersma and Pater 2008), Maxent grammars (Goldwater and Johnson 2003) • We’re using maxent grammars here, based on their proven (and provable) record in achieving close frequency matching.

23. Logistic regression as mini-maxent

• The standard statistical technique of logistic regression is, apparently, the equivalent of Maxent when there are just two candidates. • Constraint weights penalizing Candidate A are positive, those penalizing Candidate B are negative. • Otherwise, weights come out exactly the same (I’ve tried it). • Discussion (and loose ends): www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/ItalianStress/Text/AboutLogisticRegression.pdf

24. Why go with logistic regression?

• You can select constraints one by one for appearance in the grammar, based on which one offers the biggest explanatory boost.  = biggest improvement by the Akaike Information Criterion • R offers a significance test for each constraint.

25. Doing two-candidate analysis with Italian: penult vs. antepenult

• Final/preantepenultimate stress uncommon and affiliated mostly with particular affixes; see above • We ignore it. • We look only at words with at least three syllables, which provide a choice.

DATA CORPUS

26. Goal

• We seek to approximate the lexical knowledge of a typical Italian Mechanical Turk participant. • Method: assess lexical knowledge of one reference speaker (Erica Cei) • A “living lexicon” will probably work better than using a dictionary  Dictionaries contain many old words.  Compare the Turkish Electronic Living Lexicon (http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/TELL/AboutTELL.html); based on two speakers of Turkish

Cei/Hayes Multiple factors affecting Italian word stress p. 7

27. The reference speaker

• Fluent heritage speaker, monolingual in Italian to preschool age • Reads in Italian, visits Italy, Italians judge that she has no accent.

28. The supplementary consultants

• We conjecture that the target subject population may have a slightly larger vocabulary than the reference speaker. • So a modest number of additional words were added on the basis of elicitation from EC’s consultants, mostly her parents.

29. Sources for Italian words

• 73,573 words used in Italian television subtitles, as gathered in 2008 and compiled/uploaded to Wiktionary.org by Mathias Buchmeier.  Source: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Matthias_Buchmeier#Italian_frequency_list  Rationale: this helps us achieve a more synchronically-valid lexicon.  We selected all words occurring at least six times in the corpus; remaining words often unassimilated borrowings or nonsense.  From the above, about 7000 words were outright removed (not tagged): typos, roman numerals, and completely foreign words or names.  Remaining words: 27611

• The complete text of the novel La coscienza di Zeno by Italo Svevo  http://www.manybooks.net/titles/svevoiother06consicenza_di_zeno.html  Text in other languages (German, Spanish, Venetian) was removed.  This added 5705 words not in the Buchmeier corpus.

• Hence, 33,316 words

30. Tagging the corpus

• We used these tags:  COS = “consulted other speakers”; included in corpus because known to EC’s consultants (2027 words)  ANTQ = obsolete words (168 words)  FLW= words judged to be unassimilated foreign loan words (998 words)  PNC = word ends in pronominal clitic; not relevant for a study of word stress (3149)

31. Trimming further, using the tags

• We left in the “COS” words, but omitted the ANTQ, FLW and PNC words

Cei/Hayes Multiple factors affecting Italian word stress p. 8

32. Producing the pronunciation entries

• Word searches used to split the words into their constituent graphemes (often multiliteral, such as ch or gli). • Excel REPLACE() function used iteratively to to get a rough approximation to Italian phonemic transcription.  “Rule ordering” used; e.g. ci → /tʃ i/ before c → /k/. • The following distinctions were hand entered:

 e = /e/ or /ɛ/  o = /o/ or /ɔ/  s = /s/ or /z/  zz, z = /tts/ or /ddz/  stress location (except final, where orthography provides it)  tags (as above)  This work was aided by a custom-designed editor, so changes were one-click.

DESIGNING A GRAMMAR: A MODEST START

33. Ignoring words with stressed lower-mid vowels — why?

• Italian is a modest vowel-reduction language.  /ɛ/, /ɔ/ → [e], [o] when stressless.  E.g. [ˈlɛtto] ‘bed’ ~ [letˈtino] ‘bed-dimin.’ • Result: virtually all cases of [ɛ] or [ɔ] bear main stress. • This is not stress prediction! • Currently, we’re just taking out the words with [ɛ] and [ɔ]; a more principled solution awaits fixes for an R problem of no interest here.

34. Strategy at this stage of the talk

• Follow Ryan (2011) and look for natural patterns of stress. • Traditional-weight (CVC), vowel height, onset count1

35. Another idealization

• We will do a straight statistical analysis, with raw descriptors of the data like “penultimate vowel is [i]”. • Later: try to integrate our findings with a theory-based analysis like D’Imperio and Rosenthall’s.

1 Italian has so few branching codas it would never matter. Cei/Hayes Multiple factors affecting Italian word stress p. 9

36. Assessing constraint violations

• We used “English Phonology Search”, adapted to Italian.  http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/EnglishPhonologySearch/ • = a simple string matching program, permitting storage of user-defined natural classes; output format easily fed into R. • We also used it to sort out penult/antepenult stressed words.

37. General plan of the work

• Polish and trim the corpus. • Feed into English Phonology Search to find relevant factors. • Feed the factors into R, which finds appropriate maxent (a.k.a. logistic regression) weights and significance values.

38. First grammar: only natural Ryanian constraints

• Grammar all in one place:

Weight p (Intercept) 0.31 8.54e-11 HeavyPenult 5.83 < 2e-16 PenultHeightLow 1.33 < 2e-16 DoubleOnsetPenult 1.08 < 2e-16 HeavyAntepenult 0.25 6.27e-05 HeavyAntSonorant 0.04 0.6594 PenultHeightUpperMid 0.10 0.0615 AntepenultHeightLow 0.01 0.8135 DoubleOnsetAntepenult 0.12 0.0624 TripleOnsetPenult 0.03 0.9414 TripleOnsetAntepenult 0.43 0.0233

• We will re-present them with discussion.

39. Constraints and weights I: the intercept

• This means, in effect “Have penultimate stress.”  in context, = D’Imperio and Rosenthall’s EDGEMOST. • Including such an intercept is normal in logistic regression. • Here, it’s small.

Weight p (Intercept) 0.31 8.54e-11

40. Constraints and weights II: the ones that matter most

• Penultimate weight, of course, matters hugely:

HeavyPenult 5.83 < 2e-16

• A Ryanian height effect: lowest vowel gets biggest weight: Cei/Hayes Multiple factors affecting Italian word stress p. 10

PenultHeightLow 1.33 < 2e-16

• Another Ryanian effect: branching onsets make penult heavier

DoubleOnsetPenult 1.08 < 2e-16

41. A bunch of little constraints that mostly didn’t work out

(low weight and/or not significant):

Weight p HeavyAntepenult 0.25 6.27e-05 HeavyAntSonorant 0.04 0.6594 PenultHeightUpperMid 0.10 0.0615 AntepenultHeightLow 0.01 0.8135 DoubleOnsetAntepenult 0.12 0.0624 TripleOnsetPenult 0.03 0.9414 TripleOnsetAntepenult 0.43 0.0233

• Note that all three constraints based on the antepenult go backwards: heavier antepenults yield more penultimate stress. • Cf. Trochaic Shortening effects in classical metrical stress theory (Hayes 1995).

42. One more constraint: a shocker

• Big fat weight for [e, o] in antepenult:

Weight p AntepenultHeightUpperMid 1.45 < 2e-16

• They are far more stress-rejecting than [i,u]. Or [a], for that matter.

• Here are the raw numbers and percentages.

High Low UpperMid Antepenultimate 1138 1163 417 Penultimate 4512 4474 6754

High Low UpperMid Antepenultimate 0.201 0.206 0.058 Penultimate 0.799 0.794 0.942

(Recall that due to vowel reduction, essentially every antepenulimate [ɛ, ɔ] is stressed)

• What gives?

Cei/Hayes Multiple factors affecting Italian word stress p. 11

THINKING ABOUT ITALIAN STRESS AND DIACHRONY

43. Italian and Latin

• Romance stress was fully regular in the days of lions and gladiators. • Much of the patterning of Modern Italian stress can be traced through the history of the Italian language from Latin origins. • We’ve been reading a nice old book: Grandgent (1927) From Latin to Italian. • Grandgent makes observations that explain the surprising “antiweight of upper mid vowel.”

44. The basic Classical-Vulgar Latin sound correspondences

Latin VL arranged by source VL as a system

i iː u uː e i o u i u e eː o oː ɛ e ɔ o = e o a aː a a ɛ ɔ a

• Relevant sound changes  Lowering of short nonlow vowels: [i, u, e, o ] > [e, o, ɛ, ɔ]  Neutralization of all length (but long vowels allophonic in stressed open syllables)  Thus 10 vowels down to seven, with mergers of [a, aː], [i, eː], [u, oː]

45. Latin vocabulary in Italian

• After the Dark Ages were over literate speakers continued to introduce Latin loanwords into Italian. • They went primarily from orthographic evidence — just five vowel symbols.

46. Grandgent on antepenults

(Phonetic transcription adjusted to present practice.)

p. 20 “In reading Latin, the Italians give the open sound [BH/EC =[ɛ, ɔ]] to accented [eː] and [oː], as well as to [e] and [o] [BH/EC: since they were all spelled with e and o]… It is natural, then, that book-words should have [ɛ] and [ɔ], in place of [e] and [o].

hereːdem > εˈrɛde gloːria > ˈglɔria

Cei/Hayes Multiple factors affecting Italian word stress p. 12

Furthermore, inasmuch as all proparoxytones, whether of learned or popular origin, have a 2 certain rhetorical ring, suggesting Latin, such words not infrequently open an [e] or [o] into [ɛ] or [ɔ]: [Gr. ] sínapi > ˈsɛnape, fŭlĭca > ˈfɔlaga”.

• So:  Some lowering in penultimately-stressed words; e.g. areːna > aˈrɛna  Much lowering in antepenultimately-stressed words.

47. Consequence of Grandgent’s observation

• Italian gradually became depleted of [e, o] in stressed antepenults. • Hence, if you observe [e, o] in an antepenult, it is a good probabilistic cue for penulimate stress. • Compare [i, u]: spelled unambiguously in Latin, and thus stable in antepenults.

48. Is the Grandgent case a perfect example of arbitrary phonology?

• It has nice earmarks: a random orthographic accident — pursued asymmetrically because antepenultimate stress felt Latin-like. • An alternative is that Italian had something like English Trisyllabic Shortening

ˈe, ˈo → ˈɛ, ˈɔ / ___ C V C V

• … in which case Trisyllabic Shortening is just like Vowel Reduction in its skewing of vowels. • It hinges on whether “Trisyllabic Shortening” has lots of “exceptions” in non-learned forms.

MORE DIACHRONY: THE ROLE OF HISTORICAL GLIDE FORMATION

49. Creating a rising diphthong in the final syllable

CVCVCiV ur-form CVˈCVCiV, never ˈCVCVCiV Latin stress CVˈCVCjV, never ˈCVCVCjV prevocalic glide formation creates rising diphthong

So: rising diphthong in final syllable is a likely factor predicting penultimate stress.

2 Why so? We suspect it has to do with lots of Syncope reducing antepenultimate to penultimate stress in the native vocabulary. Cei/Hayes Multiple factors affecting Italian word stress p. 13

50. Creating a rising diphthong in the penultimate syllable

CVCiVCV ur-form CVˈCiVCV, never ˈCVCiVCV Latin stress CVˈCjVCV, never ˈCVCjVCV prevocalic glide formation, with accent shift (cf. Kaisse 1974 on Greek) creates rising diphthong3

So: rising diphthong in penultimate syllable is a likely factor predicting penultimate stress.

51. What are the lexical facts?

• Rising diphthong in penult

no yes pen. 2676 42 ante. 14159 1591

no yes pen. 0.159 0.026 ante. 0.841 0.974

• Rising diphthong in final

no yes pen. 2718 0 ante. 15630 120

no yes pen. 0.148 0.026 ante. 0.852 0.974

52. What happens to a logistic-regression model when in you include factors with rising diphthongs?

• The more salient factors are given in bold. (Intercept) 0.404867 0.048322 8.378 < 2e-16 *** HeavyPenult 5.878761 0.541559 10.855 < 2e-16 *** HeavyAntepenult 0.026054 0.065316 0.399 0.68998 HeavyAntSonorant 0.215707 0.080824 2.669 0.00761 ** PenultHeightLow 1.276562 0.057777 22.095 < 2e-16 *** PenultHeightUpperMid -0.020737 0.054699 -0.379 0.70461 AntepenultHeightLow -0.006944 0.051947 -0.134 0.89366 AntepenultHeightUpperMid 1.470353 0.063897 23.011 < 2e-16 *** DoubleOnsetPenult 0.164679 0.093649 1.758 0.07867 . DoubleOnsetAntepenult 0.104253 0.066729 1.562 0.11821 TripleOnsetPenult 0.435030 0.379882 1.145 0.25214 TripleOnsetAntepenult 0.463013 0.189440 2.444 0.01452 * RisingDiphthPenult 2.312078 0.186722 12.382 < 2e-16 *** RisingDiphthFinal 2.860865 1.477634 1.936 0.05285 .

3 Grandgent mentions cases of leftward accent shift; we need to study them more carefully before discussing. Cei/Hayes Multiple factors affecting Italian word stress p. 14

• They have fat weights, but RisingDiphthongFinal is non-significant, perhaps due to small numbers.

53. Is behavior of rising diphthongs “unnatural”?

• Diachronically, they are telescoped (Kenstowicz and Kisseberth 1977) • We might be able to “naturalize” them, in two ways.  Recapitulationist derivational phonology, “setting up” all [jV] as /iV/ — hard to do in OT (McCarthy 2005, “Free ride”)  Representational solution, whether [jV] counts as two things and stress sees both of them4

σ σ σ σ σ σ | | | | μ ˈμ μ μ μ ˈμ μ μ | | | | | | | | C V C j V C V C V C V C j V

“Stress may not fall on a syllable preceding the antepenultimate mora.”

54. Seeking more arbitrary constraints: do consonants matter?

• Let’s try putting in a constraint based on …VkV(c)# — singleton /k/ after penult. • Results:

(Intercept) 0.55 < 2e-16 HeavyPenult 5.83 < 2e-16 HeavyAntepenult -0.01 0.82563 HeavyAntSonorant 0.24 0.00227 PenultHeightLow 1.15 < 2e-16 PenultHeightUpperMid -0.16 0.00377 AntepenultHeightLow 0.00 0.95837 AntepenultHeightUpperMid 1.42 < 2e-16 DoubleOnsetPenult 0.30 0.00252 DoubleOnsetAntepenult 0.15 0.02401 TripleOnsetPenult 0.35 0.36586 TripleOnsetAntepenult 0.41 0.02945 RisingDiphthPenult 2.18 < 2e-16 RisingDiphthFinal 2.78 0.05862 K -2.50 < 2e-16

• So, /k/ in this position is very antepenultimate-favoring. • Raw data:

no yes pen. 2498 220 ante. 15701 49

4 See de Chene (1979), who sees moras as diachronically-restructured syllables. E.g. pataka > patka by Syncope; CVC is bimoraic. pavatka > paːtka by intervocalic consonant loss; only CVV(C) is bimoraic. Cei/Hayes Multiple factors affecting Italian word stress p. 15

no yes pen. 0.137 0.818 ante. 0.863 0.182

55. But isn’t this just due to -ic?

• Italian has the suffix [-ik{o,i,a,e}], just like English. • Words with -ic always take antepenultimate stress. • More generally, Italian stress appears to be very suffix-centered (like English), so we should be including these in the model.

56. Adding in a factor for -ic

• Intriguingly, -ic is not the whole story. In the augmented grammar:

K -1.75 < 2e-16 *** IC -2.64 < 2e-16 ***

• Both the /k/ factor and -ic (a subset) play a role. • Here is -ic:

no yes pen. 2529 189 ante. 15701 11

no yes pen. 0.137 0.818 ante. 0.863 0.182

• Non-ic /k/’s are about 60% antepenultimate, which is still a big disparity.

LETTING IT ALL HANG OUT

57. All consonants in environment / V ___ V (C) #

(Intercept) 0.54 4.95E-12 HeavyPenult 6.14 < 2e-16 HeavyAntepenult -0.17 0.026 HeavyAntSonorant 0.33 0.0004 PenultHeightLow 0.58 < 2e-16 PenultHeightUpperMid -0.46 6.30E-12 AntepenultHeightLow 0.07 0.20 AntepenultHeightUpperMid 1.45 < 2e-16 DoubleOnsetPenult 0.46 5.54E-05 DoubleOnsetAntepenult 0.02 0.78 TripleOnsetPenult 0 0.982914 TripleOnsetAntepenult 0.17 0.404207 Cei/Hayes Multiple factors affecting Italian word stress p. 16

RisingDiphthPenult 2.97 < 2e-16 RisingDiphthFinal 2.97 0.045294 FallingDiphthPenult 0.02 0.991062 FallingDiphtAntep -0.35 0.321574 -ic -2.53 4.55E-14 Individual Consonants (sorted by weight) P -2.77 9.84E-05 B -1.86 0.001186 F -1.46 0.049959 L -1.29 < 2e-16 D -1.23 9.41E-13 K -0.8 0.598494 K -0.8 0.598494 M -0.65 8.72E-09 N -0.65 2.36E-14 CH -0.2 0.273365 G 0.65 0.101868 R 0.85 < 2e-16 Z 1.94 3.92E-07 J 2.11 0.010176 T 2.21 < 2e-16 S 3.37 < 2e-16 V 3.64 < 2e-16

• The consonants range from highly antepenultimate-favoring [p, b, l, f, d] to highly penult-favoring [z, dʒ, t, s, v]. • The weights are high. • Some of the earlier conclusions are drawn into question.  low vowels in penults are now less stress-attracting  upper mid penultimate vowels are less stress-attracting than high (see PenultHeightUpperMid) • To sort this out, we need to look at all of the data more closely, with factors for particular suffixes.

HOW PREDICTABLE IS ITALIAN STRESS?

58. Data as a whole

• Caveat: this is from a slightly different earlier grammar. • Correlation between probabilities output by grammar and an observed variable 0 = antepenultimate, 1 = penultimate: .472 • A “sort-then-plot” of the model scores can give you an intuitive sense:

Cei/Hayes Multiple factors affecting Italian word stress p. 17

• Note that the real penults have many model scores close to 1; real antepenults have very few.

59. Do the violable constraints matter?

• We removed all the inviolable constraints and examined only words unexplained by them. • R = .122 • Similar chart:

• These effects are very modest, but we’ve only been looking for constraints very briefly; we think we can do better.

Cei/Hayes Multiple factors affecting Italian word stress p. 18

WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?

60. Italian stress is semipredictable

• Factors exist which play a modest role in “semipredicting” the difference between penultimate and final stress in Italian.

61. Where do these constraints come from?

• History

 Rising diphthongs  Upper mid vowels in the antepenult (really weird history)

• Phonetics (following Ryan)

 Low vowel in penult  Double onset in penult

• As-yet-unknown origin

 K after penult, etc.

62. Where to go from here?

• Do more searching

 Our literature search has only just begun, including the historical stuff.  We haven’t systematically tried arbitrary constraints (an obvious one to consider would be vowel backness)  Controlling for all suffixes will probably be helpful.

• Wug testing

 Will this yield a difference between natural Ryanian constraints and arbitrary (historical, unknown) constraints in the role they play in native speaker intuition?

Cei/Hayes Multiple factors affecting Italian word stress p. 19

References

Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Paul Boersma and Joe Pater (2008) Convergence properties of a gradual learning algorithm for Harmonic Grammar. Rutgers Optimality Archive 970. Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina & R. Harald Baayen (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In Gerlof Bouma, Irene Kra¨mer & Joost Zwarts (eds.) Cognitive foundations of interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. 69–94. den Os, Els and René Kager (1986) Extrametricality and stress in Spanish and Italian. Lingua 69:23-48. D'Imperio, Mariapaola and Sam Rosenthall (1999) Phonetics and phonology of main stress in Italian. Phonology 16: 1-28. Grandgent Grandgent, Charles H. (1927) From Latin to Italian: An historical outline of the phonology and morphology of the Italian language. New York: Russell and Russell. Hayes, Bruce (1995) Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 15 + 455 pp. Hayes, Bruce, Kie Zuraw, Péter Siptár, and Zsuzsa Londe (2009), “Natural and unnatural constraints in Hungarian vowel harmony”. Language 85: 822-863. Kenstowicz, Michael and Charles Kisseberth (1977) Topics in phonological Theory. Academic Press. McCarthy, John J. (2005) Taking a free ride in morphophonemic learning. Linguistics Department Faculty Publication Series. Paper 81.http://scholarworks.umass.edu/linguist_faculty_pubs/81 Ryan, Kevin (2011) Gradient weight in phonology, UCLA diss. Zuraw, Kie (2000) Patterned exceptions in phonology. UCLA dissertation.