Class 8: Phonological typology Adam Albright (albright@mit.edu) LSA 2017 Phonology University of Kentucky
Announcements ▶ For those taking this class for credit ▶ Please upload assignments (option 1 or option 2) by PDF to Canvas by tonight ▶ T oday ▶ Questions? ▶ Phonological typology References 1/38
From specific languages to typology ▶ So far: main focus has been on providing rankings that yield set of outputs attested in a specific language ▶ However, arguments for constraint formulation and ranking have been partly language-internal, and partly cross-linguistic ▶ Language-internal: Korean allows laryngeal contrasts on consonants before a vowel, but not before another consonant ▶ Cross-linguistic: if a language allows laryngeal contrasts before a consonant, it allows them before a vowel *[voice]/ ¬ [ + son] ≫ *[voice]/ ¬ [ − son] or: Ident ([±voi])/[ + son] ≫ * Ident ([±voi])/ [ + son] ▶ Or in some cases, almost entirely cross-linguistic ▶ Low-ranked markedness constraints [ ] − sonorant ▶ E.g., Limbu: Ident ([±voi]) ≫ * + voice References 2/38
Using typological data to inform constraint formulation Implicational asymmetries give us insight into… ▶ Which constraints to include ▶ Conjecture (not verified): if a language allows initial #ŋV, it also allows initial #mV and #nV ▶ *#ŋ constraint without corresponding *#m, *#n: predicts two type of languages, depending on ranking w.r.t. Ident (place) ▶ Fixed rankings ▶ Verified by Steriade (1999): if a language allows laryngeal contrasts before a consonant, it allows them before a vowel ▶ *[voice]/ ¬ [ + son] ≫ *[voice]/ ¬ [ − son] References 3/38
Universal CON? ▶ This reasoning is most straightforward if we can guarantee that no grammar would ever contain a constraint that would ‘subvert’ the predicted asymmetry ▶ Hypothesis: set of constraints (and, perhaps, a priori rankings) is fixed and universal (Prince and Smolensky, 2002) ▶ Or, subject to limitations that guarantee asymmetries (Hayes, 1999; Hayes and Steriade, 2004; Smith, 2003) ▶ Assumed by RCD (must be able to identify all L’s from the start) References 4/38
Factorial typology ▶ Space of possible grammars = set of possible rankings ▶ Deriving the set of predicted languages ▶ Virtually guaranteed to be fewer languages than rankings (why?) ▶ Enormous space, but much smaller than possible sets of ordered rules References 5/38
Evaluating typological predictions of a proposed constraint ▶ Can only be assessed through interaction ▶ In practice, often assessed for just a limited set of constraints (‘mini-typology’) ▶ T ypological predictions are independent of lexicon (Richness of the Base) ▶ Assessing fit to attested typology Predicted/Attested Yes No Yes Correctly analyzable Accidental gap No Exception Correctly excluded ▶ Eliminating exceptions: descriptive adequacy ▶ Minimizing “accidental” gaps → restrictive theory References 6/38
The typology of stress systems ▶ In principle, all of the constraints that we’ve used up until this point could be submitted to factorial typology and evaluated ▶ Interactions → enormous set of possible languages ▶ Stress assignment: somewhat ‘insulated’ from other parts of the grammar ▶ Easier to document independently of other features of the language (modulo morphology) ▶ Easier to assess mini-typology with some confidence References 7/38
Stress ▶ An abstract (“hidden”) property ▶ Liberman (1975); Liberman and Prince (1977): linguistic manifestation of rhythmic structure ▶ Prosodic prominence = ‘strength’ ▶ Behavioral diagnostics (tapping, text alignment) ▶ English: eligibility for phrasal prominences (‘nuclear intonation tones’, marked with pitch accents) ▶ Diagnosis through pitch accent: calling contour, surprise redundancy contour ▶ Compare: collàborátion , clàssificátion ▶ Conditions phonological processes ▶ Contrast: e.g., vowel reduction in stressless syllables ▶ Other reductions: e.g., flapping in English References 8/38
Stress ▶ Acoustic correlates: mostly indirect in English (pitch accent) ▶ Inherent: duration, possibly voice quality, following C duration ▶ Accent: intensity/amplitude, pitch ▶ Probably also mostly indirect cues in other languages, though remarkably few studies dissociating stress from pitch accent ▶ NB: when the most straightforward diagnostics (e.g., stress-based meter) are unavailable or irrelevant for a given language, the position of stress can be notoriously difficult for non-native listeners to identify! ▶ Misidentification of duration, pitch, etc. associated with position in word or phrase (French, Welsh) ▶ An interesting problem: difficult also for learners References 9/38
T ypological properties of stress: some universal properties (Hayes, 1995, chap. 3) ▶ Culminativity: every word or phrase has a single strongest (most prominent) syllable ▶ Hierarchical organization ▶ Primary, secondary, tertiary stress: Constantinople 23010 vs. sensationality 32010 ▶ Rhythmic organization ▶ Alternating stressed/stressless syllables ▶ If there are multiple stresses in a given domain, they are generally spaced at regular intervals: 102020 not *122000 ▶ Regular stresses every two (or sometimes three) syllables ▶ No assimilation ▶ Unlike voicing, place, etc., no tendency for adjacent syllables to agree in stress ▶ In fact, assimilation would destroy rhythmic organization ▶ Often taken as an argument for a distinct representation (not a feature) References 10/38
Parameters of stress systems ▶ Is the position of stress determined phonologically? (lexical (free) vs. fixed stress) ▶ What determines position? ▶ Edges of the word: stress left, right, penultimate, peninitial, antepenultimate… ▶ Weight: stress ‘heavier’ syllables (long vowel, CVN, CVC, etc.) (Quantity sensitivity) ▶ Stress just the syllable(s) with relevant property (free stress) or regularly alternating syllables (bounded stress) ▶ If alternating: binary or ternary? ▶ Morphological sensitivity References 11/38
The representation of stress ▶ Featural (but: no assimilation) ▶ Grid (Prince, 1983; Selkirk, 1984) × × × σ σ σ σ σ a bra ca da bra ▶ Feet: binary vs. ternary, head position (σ̀ σ) σ (σ́ σ) abra ca dabra References 12/38
Where does stress fall? Quantity insensitive systems (Gordon, 2002) ▶ Final: Atayal, Moghol, Mazatec ▶ Penultimate: Mohawk, Albanian, Jaqaru ▶ Antepenultimate: Macedonian ▶ Initial: Arabela, Chitimacha, Nenets ▶ Peninitial: Lakhota, Koryak ▶ Postpeninitial: Hocąk (a.k.a. Winnebago) ▶ Rarer: ‘dual’ systems, at/near L and R (one primary, one secondary) (Not discussed here: quantity sensitive systems, where position of stress depends on vowel length or syllable type) References 13/38
Capturing stress placement with constraints Gordon (2002): Align (Level n,Edge) Level 2: × Level 1: × × Syllables: σ σ σ σσ ▶ Levels: {1,2}, Edges: {L,R} ▶ Every grid mark on Level n must be aligned with the grid mark on the named edge of Level n-1 ▶ Align (Level 1,L): there must be a stress on the leftmost syllable ▶ Example above: satisfies Align (Level 1,L), but violates Align (Level 1,R) ▶ Align (Level 2,L): the leftmost stress must be primary (cf. Hayes, 1995 ‘End Rule Left’) ▶ Example above: violates Align (Level 2,L), but satisfies Align (Level 2,R) References 14/38
Evaluating Align (Level n,Edge): Gordon (2002, p. 499) (5) Evaluation of the A LIGN constraints References 15/38
Rhythmic stress and windows ▶ * Clash ▶ No sequences of two stressed syllables: *σ́σ́ ▶ * Lapse ▶ No sequences of two stressless syllables: *σσ ▶ * Extended Lapse ▶ No sequences of three stressless syllables: *σσσ ▶ Position: * Lapse (R), * Lapse (L), * ExtLapse (R), possibly also * ExtLapse (L) References 16/38
Rhythmic stress and windows ▶ The idea behind windows: stress wants to be at one edge of the word, but is prohibited from being more than one/two syllables from the opposite end ▶ Antepenultimate: * ExtLapse (R) ≫ Align (Level 1,L) ≫ Align (Level 1,R) ▶ * Lapse (R), * Lapse (L): penultimate, peninitial stress ▶ * ExtLapse (R): antepenultimate (and * ExtLapse (L) if postpenititial exists) ▶ Gradient violations: must be better to stay ‘at outer edge of window’ than to go all the way to opposite edge /σσσσσ/ * ExtLapse (R) Align (Level 1,L) Align (Level 1,R) a. σ́σσσσ *! W **** b. σσ́σσσ *! W * *** c. σσσ́σσ ** ** d. σσσσ́σ ***! * e. σσσσσ́ ***!* References 17/38
Culminativity ▶ Exactly one primary stress ▶ Grids: assign violation for multiple grid marks at highest grid level ▶ Since never violated, perhaps not a rankable constraint? (requires fancier Gen : intrinsic limitation on grid representations that can be generated) References 18/38
An example: Sibutu Sama (Malayo-Polynesian) a. bɪssála ‘talk’ b. bɪ̀ssaláhan ‘persuading’ c. bɪ̀ssalahánna ‘he is persuading’ d. bɪ̀ssalahankámi ‘we are persuading’ ▶ Initial and penultimate stress (dual system), except in three syllable words ▶ Initial and penultimate: * Lapse (R) ≫ Align (Level 1,Edges) ≫ Align(Level 1,L), Align (Level 1,R) ▶ Primary stress is the rightmost stress: Align (Level 2,R) ▶ Avoiding *bɪ̀ssála: * Clash ▶ No sequences of two stressed syllables References 19/38
Recommend
More recommend
