1 Linking speech errors and phonological grammars :

Phonological grammars characterize distinctions between relatively well-formed (unmarked) and relatively ill-formed (marked) phonological structures. We review evidence that markedness influences speech error probabilities. Specifically, although errors result in both unmarked as well as marked structures, there is a markedness asymmetry: errors are more likely to produce unmarked outcomes. We show that stochastic disruption to the computational mechanisms realizing a Harmonic Grammar (HG) can account for the broad empirical patterns of speech errors. We demonstrate that our proposal can account for the general markedness asymmetry. We also develop methods for linking particular HG proposals to speech error distributions, and illustrate these methods using a simple HG and a set of initial consonant errors in English. 1. Phonological markedness and linguistic behavior A central concern of generative phonological theory is to characterize the relative well-formedness of phonological structures. In this paper we will use the term markedness to refer to distinctions in well-formedness (where well-formed structures are unmarked and ill-formed structures are marked). We adopt a broad definition of markedness, encompassing binary as well as gradient well-formedness distinctions both within a language and across languages. The characterization of markedness distinctions has played a central role in accounting for ‘internal’ evidence (Zwicky, 1980) regarding the distribution of phonological structures within and across human languages. However, many theorists have claimed that markedness plays a central role in all aspects of phonological cognition—i.e., the production, perception, and acquisition of phonological structures and patterns (e.g., Jakobson, 1941/1968; Smolensky, Legendre, & Tesar, 2006). * This research was supported by National Institutes of Health grant DC0079772. Portions of this work were presented at the Experimental Approaches to Optimality Theory workshop (ExpOT; Ann Arbor, MI, 2007); we thank the workshop participants for helpful feedback. For helpful feedback on the proof in the Appendix we thank Alexander Getmanenko and Marta Sales. Andries Coetzee and Joe Pater provided invaluable feedback on the manuscript. Finally, for helpful discussions on this work and related issues over many years, we thank Adam Buchwald, Brenda Rapp, Paul Smolensky, and Colin Wilson.