Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-skzmx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T09:22:35.857Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Testing theories of linguistic constituency with configural learning: The case of the English syllable

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Vsevolod Kapatsinski
Vsevolod Kapatsinski*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
*
Speech Research Laboratory, Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405-1301 [vkapatsi@indiana.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article proposes and tests an experimental method to assess the psychological reality of hierarchical theories of constituent structure in particular domains. I show that a hierarchical theory of constituent structure necessarily makes the prediction that an association between constituents should be easier to learn than an association between strings that cross constituent boundaries, whereas dependency-based theories of constituency predict that constituents cannot have associations that their parts do not have. Previous research has shown that the major division within an English syllable is between the onset and the nucleus, rather than between the nucleus and the coda. Thus, the nucleus forms a constituent (the rime) with the coda rather than the onset. The hierarchical theory of constituency thus proposes that English speakers should learn rime-affix associations more easily than body-affix associations and that the rime can have associations that its parts do not have. These predictions are confirmed in the present study. Applications of the experimental method and its variants to linguistic constituency in other domains are discussed.

Keywords

constituencyconfigural learningsyllable structurerimeEnglish

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 85 , Issue 2 , June 2009 , pp. 248 - 277
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, John Mathieson, and Ewen, Colin J.. 1987. Principles of dependency phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendrien, T. A. 1992. Sound similarity judgments in English CVC's. Edmonton: University of Alberta BA honors thesis.Google Scholar
Benki, José. 2003. Quantitative evaluation of lexical status, word frequency, and neighborhood density as context effects in spoken word recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113. 1689–705.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berg, Thomas. 1989. Intersegmental cohesiveness. Folia Linguistica 23. 245–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Thomas. 1995. Sound change in child language: A study of inter-word variation. Language and Speech 38. 331–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bod, Rens. 1998. Beyond grammar: An experience-based theory of language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bonatti, Luca L., Peña, Marcela, Nespor, Marina; and Mehler, Jacques. 2005. Linguistic constraints on statistical computations: The role of consonants and vowels in continuous speech processing. Psychological Science 16. 451–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boothroyd, Arthur, and Nittrouer, Susan. 1988. Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 84. 101–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coltheart, Max. 1981. The MRC Psycholinguistic Database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 33A.497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corrigan, Roberta, Eckman, Fred R.; and Noonan, Michael (eds.) 1989. Linguistic categorization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creel, Sarah C., Aslin, Richard N.; and Tanenhaus, Michael K.. 2006. Acquiring an artificial lexicon: Segment type and order information in early lexical entries. Journal of Memory and Language 54. 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, Anne, McQueen, James M., Norris, Dennis; and Somejuan, A.. 2001. The roll of the silly ball. Language, brain, and cognitive development: Essays in honor of Jacques Mehler, ed. by Dupoux, Emmanuel, 181–94. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dahan, Delphine, Magnuson, James S.; and Tanenhaus, Michael K.. 2001. Time course of frequency effects in spoken word recognition: Evidence from eye movements. Cognitive Psychology 42. 317–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dahl, Östen. 1980. Some arguments for higher nodes in syntax: A reply to Hudson's ‘Constituency and dependency’. Linguistics 18. 485–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Stuart. 1989. On a non-argument for the rime. Journal of Linguistics 25. 211–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, Bruce L. 1987. A cross-linguistic experimental investigation of syllable structure. Part I: Background and methodology. Proceedings of the third annual meeting of the Pacific Linguistics Conference, ed. by DeLancey, Scott and Tomlin, Russell S., 93–102. Eugene: Department of Linguistics, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Derwing, Bruce L., and Nearey, Terrance M.. 1986. Experimental phonology at the University of Alberta. Experimental phonology, ed. by Ohala, John J., 187–209. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dow, Maureen L., and Derwing, Bruce L.. 1989. Experimental evidence for syllable-internal structure. In Corrigan, et al., 81–92.Google Scholar
Elman, Jeffrey L. 1990. Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science 14. 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, Carol A. 1987. Consonant-vowel cohesiveness in speech production as revealed by initial and final consonant exchanges. Speech Communication 6. 231–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fudge, Erik C. 1969. Syllables. Journal of Linguistics 5. 253–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fudge, Erik C. 1987. Branching structure within the syllable. Journal of Linguistics 23. 350–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geudens, Astrid, and Sandra, Dominiek. 2003. Beyond implicit phonological knowledge: No support for an onset-rime structure in children's expdicit phonological awareness. Journal of Memory and Language 49. 157–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geudens, Astrid, Sandra, Dominiek, Martensen, Heike; and Nation, Kate. 2004. No support for an onset-rime in English and Dutch-speaking children's recall errors. Poster presented at the eleventh meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Geudens, Astrid, Sandra, Dominiek; and Martensen, Heike. 2005. Rhyming words and onset-rime constituents: An inquiry into structural breaking points and emergent boundaries in the syllable. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 92. 366–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldsmith, John A. 1990. Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goldstone, Richard E. 2000. Unitization during category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26. 86–112.Google ScholarPubMed
Hockema, Stephen A. 2006. Finding words in speech: An investigation of American English. Language Learning and Development 2. 119–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1980a. Constituency and dependency. Linguistics 18. 179–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1980b. A second attack on constituency: A reply to Dahl. Linguistics 18. 489–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, G. Keith, and Wheeler, Deirdre W.. 1989. Phonological categories and constituents. In Corrigan, et al., 93–114.Google Scholar
Jaeger, Jeri J. 2005. Kids' slips: What young children's slips of the tongue reveal about language development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kapatsinski, Vsevolod M. 2006. Phonological similarity relations: Network organization of the mental lexicon. Memoria del VIII Encuentro Internacional de Lingüística en el Noroeste, tomo III, ed. by Morúa Leyva and María del Carmen. Hermosillo: Unison.Google Scholar
Kessler, Brett, and Treiman, Rebecca. 1997. Syllable structure and the distribution of phonemes in English syllables. Journal of Memory and Language 37. 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Yongeun. 2006. Sub-syllabic constituency in Korean and English. Chicago: Northwestern University dissertation.Google Scholar
Lee, Yongeun, and Goldrick, Matthew. 2008. The emergence of sub-syllabic representations. Journal of Memory and Language 59. 155–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehler, Jacques. 1981. The role of syllables in speech processing: Infant and adult data. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 295. 333–52.Google Scholar
Minsky, Marvin L., and Papert, Seymour A.. 1969. Perceptrons. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nearey, Terrance. 1990. The segment as a unit of speech perception. Journal of Phonetics 18. 347–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nearey, Terrance. 2003. On the factorability of phonological units in speech perception. Laboratory phonology 6, ed. by Ogden, Richard, Local, John, and Temple, Rosalind, 197–221. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, D. L., and Nelson, L. D.. 1970. Rated acoustic (articulatory) similarity for word pairs varying in number and ordinal position of common letters. Psychonomic Science 19. 81–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newport, Elyssa L., and Aslin, Richard N.. 2004. Learning at a distance 1: Statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies. Cognitive Psychology 48. 127–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Dennis, McQueen, James M., Cutler, Anne; and Butterfield, Sally. 1997. The possible-word constraint in the segmentation of continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology 34. 191–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nusbaum, Howard G., Pisoni, David B.; and Davis, Christopher K.. 1984. Sizing up the Hoosier mental lexicon: Measuring the familiarity of 20,000 words. Research on Speech Perception Progress Report 10. 357–76.Google Scholar
Onishi, Kristine H., Chambers, Kyle E.; and Fisher, Cynthia. 2002. Learning phonotactic constraints from brief auditory experience. Cognition 83.B13–B23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, John M. 1987. A model for stimulus generalization in Pavlovian conditioning. Psychological Review 94. 61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perruchet, Pierre, and Vinter, Annie. 1998. PARSER: A model for word segmentation. Journal of Memory and Language 39. 246–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pertsova, Katya. 2007. Towards learning form-meaning correspondences of inflectional morphemes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Anaheim, CA.Google Scholar
Port, Robert F., and Leary, Adam P.. 2005. Against formal phonology. Language 81. 927–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saavedra, Maria A. 1975. Pavlovian conditioning in the rabbit. Learning and Motivation 6. 314–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1982. The syllable. The structure of phonological representations (part 2), ed. by van, Harry Hulst, der and Smith, Norval, 337–83. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Snider, Neal. 2007. Evidence from priming for hierarchical representation in syntactic structure. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Anaheim, CA. Online: http://www.hlp.rochester.edu/~nsnider/pubs/snider,lsa,2007.pdf.Google Scholar
Stemberger, Joseph P. 1983. Speech errors and theoretical phonology: A review. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Sylvester, James J. 1878. On an application of the new atomic theory to the graphical representation of the invariants and covariants of binary quantics, with three appendices. American Journal of Mathematics 1. 64–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treiman, Rebecca. 1983. The structure of spoken syllables: Evidence from novel word games. Cognition 15. 49–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Treiman, Rebecca. 1986. The division between onsets and rimes in English syllables. Journal of Memory and Language 25. 476–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treiman, Rebecca, and Danis, Catalina. 1988. Short-term memory errors for spoken syllables are affected by the linguistic structure of the syllables. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 14. 145–52.Google ScholarPubMed
Vennemann, Theo. 1988. The rule dependence of syllable structure. On language: Rhetorica, phonologica, syntactica: A festschrift for Robert P. Stockwell from his friends and colleagues, ed. by Duncan-Rose, Caroline and Vennemann, Theo, 257–83. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vitz, Paul C., and Winkler, Brenda Spiegel. 1973. Predicting the judged ‘similarity of sound’ of English words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12. 373–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, A. R. 1971. Elementary associations. Essays in Neobehaviorism: A memorial volume to Kenneth W. Spence, ed. by Kendler, Howard H. and Spence, J. Taylor, 187–213. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Warker, Jill A., and Dell, Gary S.. 2006. Speech errors reflect newly learned phonotactic constraints. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 32. 387–98.Google ScholarPubMed
Warker, Jill A., Dell, Gary S., Whalen, Christine A.; and Gereg, Samantha. 2008. Limits on learning phonotactic constraints from recent production experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 34. 1289–95.Google ScholarPubMed
Williams, Douglas A., and Braker, Daniel S.. 1999. Influence of past experience on the coding of compound stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 25. 461–74.Google Scholar
Wilson, Colin. 2006. Learning phonology with substantive bias: An experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science 30. 945–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yoon, Yeo Bom, and Derwing, Bruce L.. 2001. A language without a rhyme: Syllable structure experiments in Korean. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 46. 187–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar