The contrastive hierarchy in phonology 2009 Dresher.pdf - CUNY ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(6.17) Full specification of all features: all MAX constra<strong>in</strong>ts promoted to the top Input: [–low, +coronal, –labial, +ATR, –back, +high, –nasal] (fully specified /i/) Candidates MAX [low] a. [–low, +cor, –lab, +ATR, –bck, +hi, –nas] b. [–low, +cor, –lab, +ATR, –bck, +hi] MAX [cor] MAX [lab] MAX [ATR] MAX [bck] MAX [hi] MAX [nas] *[F, Φ] *... *! *... c. [–low, +cor, –lab, +ATR] *! * * * *... d. [–low, +cor] *! * * * * *... (6.18) Full specification of ‘relevant’ features: some MAX constra<strong>in</strong>ts promoted to the top Input: [–low, +coronal, –labial, +ATR, –back, +high, –nasal] (fully specified /i/) Candidates MAX [low] MAX [cor] MAX [lab] MAX [ATR] *[F, Φ] *[F] MAX [G] a. [–low, +cor, –lab, +ATR, –bck, +hi, –nas] *... *****!** b. [–low, +cor, –lab, +ATR, –bck, +hi] *... *****!* c. [–low, +cor, –lab, +ATR] *... **** *... d. [–low, +cor] *! * *... 254
(6.20) Underspecification by means of the Pairwise Algorithm Input: [–low,–labial, +ATR, +coronal] (overspecified /i/) Candidates *[+low, –lab] *[–low, +lab] a. [–low, –lab, +ATR, +cor] b. [–low, –lab, +ATR] *[–low, +ATR] *[+low, –ATR] *[–lab, +ATR] *[+lab, –ATR] MAX [low] MAX [lab] MAX [ATR] *[F] *! * **** *! * *** c. [–low, +cor] *! * ** d. [–low, –lab] * ** e. [–lab, +ATR] *! * ** f. [+cor] *! * * * 255
Page 1:
The Contrastive Hierarchy in Phonol
Page 4 and 5:
course with Keren Rice at the Cente
Page 7 and 8:
Table of Contents Acknowledgements
Page 9:
6.7. Underspecified inputs.........
Page 12 and 13:
(Chen 1972). In final open syllable
Page 14 and 15:
For example, given a language in wh
Page 16 and 17:
difficulty Czech speakers have in r
Page 18 and 19:
four-vowel system /i, e, a, u/. Eve
Page 20 and 21:
sonority (say, /a/) and one of less
Page 22 and 23:
Halle (1959) against the structural
Page 24 and 25:
former approach, pairwise compariso
Page 26 and 27:
Chapter 7 presents a series of case
Page 28 and 29:
these features. And yet, none of th
Page 30 and 31:
2.2. Contrastive specification by p
Page 32 and 33:
to /p/, that is, a voiceless nasal
Page 34 and 35:
collaborators. Rather than make pai
Page 36 and 37:
. If the set is found to consist of
Page 38 and 39:
This kind of reasoning, which I wil
Page 40 and 41:
edundancy, and this conflation of t
Page 42 and 43:
in (2.13). /p/ is characterized as
Page 44 and 45:
voiced, and the same holds for [nas
Page 46 and 47:
The problem of too many features do
Page 48 and 49:
(2.21) Three-vowel system, features
Page 50 and 51:
[+back]. The addition of the featur
Page 52 and 53:
. Specifications according to the p
Page 54 and 55:
pairwise method. One might reason t
Page 56 and 57:
the program generated up to 52 colu
Page 58 and 59:
properly contrastive specifications
Page 60 and 61:
discussion here, because they inter
Page 62 and 63:
There are different kinds of binary
Page 64 and 65:
(2.30) Contrastive specifications:
Page 66 and 67:
algorithm that assigns feature valu
Page 68 and 69:
feature ordering, for there is empi
Page 70 and 71:
contrastive in a given language; th
Page 72 and 73:
(3.1) Different phonetics, similar
Page 74 and 75:
the wrong place in the pattern of D
Page 76 and 77:
c. Consonants obstruent sonorant vo
Page 78 and 79:
proposing certain contrastive relat
Page 80 and 81:
The phonologically relevant marks o
Page 82 and 83:
1. First, divide the inventory by t
Page 84 and 85:
[T]he opposition d-n (as in French)
Page 86 and 87:
that these features are contrastive
Page 88 and 89:
a contrastive hierarchy, but not in
Page 90 and 91:
only the fact that lips and tip of
Page 92 and 93:
ts, s, z/ and /k, x, ƒ/, respectiv
Page 94 and 95:
3.3.3.2. Vowel systems Polabian In
Page 96 and 97:
(3.14) Triangular system with schwa
Page 98 and 99:
three vertical sets, as in (3.18).
Page 100 and 101:
Though the above analysis is the ty
Page 102 and 103:
In these examples there appears to
Page 104 and 105:
classify them according to their fu
Page 106 and 107:
Trubetzkoy’s criteria, variation
Page 108 and 109:
o o^ O O^ a) e) o) O) ´ Vocality +
Page 110 and 111:
Subtree (3.28b) depicts the contras
Page 112 and 113:
Twaddell (1935)…’ 16 Second, th
Page 114 and 115:
After considering the merits of eac
Page 116 and 117:
3.6.2. Hockett’s approach in prac
Page 118 and 119:
decisions here are not arbitrary (t
Page 120 and 121:
obstruent and sonorant coming secon
Page 122 and 123:
chapter). I have argued that issues
Page 124 and 125:
(3.39) Diagnostics used in identify
Page 126 and 127:
(3.41) Contrast and phonological ac
Page 128 and 129:
and (2) contrastive features are as
Page 130 and 131:
emphasis on dichotomies as a fundam
Page 132 and 133:
implication’ that are ‘universa
Page 134 and 135:
in the low vowels (0.11121). These
Page 136 and 137:
they observe that a set of eight ph
Page 138 and 139:
illustrates that the concept of the
Page 140 and 141:
esult in all phonemes receiving a v
Page 142 and 143:
n m n@ r l l’ i u e o a Vocality
Page 144 and 145:
approach. Perhaps because of this J
Page 146 and 147:
(4.10) Contrastive hierarchy: Stand
Page 148 and 149:
acoustics. Halle sets out a number
Page 150 and 151:
allophonic realizations of phonemes
Page 152 and 153:
tS S Z k kJ g x j r rJ l lJ vocalic
Page 154 and 155:
the sonorant l). The rule that chan
Page 156 and 157:
and redundant features: only the fo
Page 158 and 159:
Phonological theory, however, did n
Page 160 and 161:
. Phonological rules i. [ ] [-g] i
Page 162 and 163:
Stanley (1967: 416) considers the c
Page 164 and 165:
edundant features. This argument wo
Page 166 and 167:
equire a different tree in which [s
Page 168 and 169:
158
Page 170 and 171:
c. Consonants: velopalatal vs. labi
Page 172 and 173:
arguments of Bloomfield 1933). Inst
Page 174 and 175:
ules to which a purely formal evalu
Page 176 and 177:
nevertheless interact with the phon
Page 178 and 179:
the rule replacing [m F] as the com
Page 180 and 181:
(5.4) Markedness matrices for vowel
Page 182 and 183:
emains /a, i, u/. The vowels /i, u/
Page 184 and 185:
d. XI [u high] [-high] / Kean prop
Page 186 and 187:
capture co-occurrence restrictions
Page 188 and 189:
distinguish between contrastive and
Page 190 and 191:
manipulates only +/- values, not m/
Page 192 and 193:
Linking crucially depends on the fe
Page 194 and 195:
of underspecification theory and le
Page 196 and 197:
marked on sonorants in the lexicon
Page 198 and 199:
Kiparsky’s analysis thus mirrors
Page 200 and 201:
constrain this process by a hierarc
Page 202 and 203:
RU does not fully adopt the Contras
Page 204 and 205:
minimality. This leaves us with the
Page 206 and 207:
Similar results can be shown to be
Page 208 and 209:
for example, the underlying vowel s
Page 210 and 211:
5.3.3. Contrastive Specification St
Page 212 and 213:
(5.31) Pasiego Spanish vowels: Poss
Page 214 and 215: all logical redundancies, nor does
Page 216 and 217: Hume 1995, Halle 1995), Government
Page 218 and 219: .Vocoids laryngeal [spread] [constr
Page 220 and 221: 5.4.2. Terminal features and the co
Page 222 and 223: A fourth difference is that the var
Page 224 and 225: Intuitively, the two segments diffe
Page 226 and 227: epresentations beyond the needs of
Page 228 and 229: 218
Page 230 and 231: 6.2. Optimality Theory OT (Prince a
Page 232 and 233: convert the coda into an onset, and
Page 234 and 235: eing equal, this implies that a son
Page 236 and 237: 6.3.2. Contrast as an emergent Kirc
Page 238 and 239: 6.4. The contrastive hierarchy in O
Page 240 and 241: 6.4.2. Inputs What should be the in
Page 242 and 243: (6.12) Contrastive hierarchy for Cl
Page 244 and 245: (6.14) Classical Manchu constraint
Page 246 and 247: epresentation because it, too, viol
Page 248 and 249: We can mimic the effect of the Pair
Page 250 and 251: limiting specifications to those th
Page 252 and 253: and the rest of the features are re
Page 254 and 255: to adopt privative features, where
Page 256 and 257: 6.7. Underspecified inputs The noti
Page 258 and 259: (6.29) Implicational constraints fo
Page 260 and 261: In (6.31), these constraints are ad
Page 262 and 263: 252
Page 266 and 267: (6.21) Underspecification by means
Page 268 and 269: (6.24) Illicit fully specified inpu
Page 270 and 271: (6.27) Underspecified input Input:
Page 272 and 273: 262
Page 274 and 275: value: the fact that all the alloph
Page 276 and 277: 7.2.1. Contrast and markedness MCS
Page 278 and 279: (7.2) Contrastive features for dial
Page 280 and 281: analysis is ‘abstract’ with res
Page 282 and 283: universal; we will see in §7.4 tha
Page 284 and 285: feature [high], the contrastively [
Page 286 and 287: phonological analysis. This should
Page 288 and 289: 7.3.2. Implicit feature hierarchies
Page 290 and 291: elations among features. This is no
Page 292 and 293: dialects with similar-looking inven
Page 294 and 295: this burden exists independently of
Page 296 and 297: (7.12) Classical Manchu vowel syste
Page 298 and 299: 7.4.1.1. ATR harmony All vowels in
Page 300 and 301: (7.17) Stems with only /i/: Suffixe
Page 302 and 303: no surprise, therefore, to see this
Page 304 and 305: [coronal] is contributed by /i/, bu
Page 306 and 307: 296 c. Xibe: [low] > [coronal] > [l
Page 308 and 309: (7.24) Turkish vowel system coronal
Page 310 and 311: (7.26) ATR harmony: /Q/ alternates
Page 312 and 313: ordered before one based on place (
Page 314 and 315:
hierarchy we arrived at earlier; in
Page 316 and 317:
(7.37) Role of IO-IDENT[back] (adap
Page 318 and 319:
contrastive features to the stem-fi
Page 320 and 321:
(7.40) Pasiego metaphony does not a
Page 322 and 323:
O/, but its scope is limited to the
Page 324 and 325:
one step further, arguing that the
Page 326 and 327:
spreading [high] to a mid vowel uns
Page 328 and 329:
(7.47) Bumo Izon labial and alveola
Page 330 and 331:
and, in the framework of generative
Page 332 and 333:
French contrastive feature hierarch
Page 334 and 335:
(7.54) NZ Ma#ori adaptation of Engl
Page 336 and 337:
obstruent, not /k/: /h/ is not sono
Page 338 and 339:
While the contrastive hierarchy has
Page 340 and 341:
fundamental perceptual-cognitive bu
Page 342 and 343:
their perceptual system to the cont
Page 344 and 345:
figure in the phonology. I conclude
Page 346 and 347:
the postlexical or phonetic compone
Page 348 and 349:
However, when /r&/ devoices it does
Page 350 and 351:
340
Page 352 and 353:
342
Page 354 and 355:
theory is indirectly sensitive to t
Page 356 and 357:
Constraint (8.1a) provokes labial h
Page 358 and 359:
8.3. Dispersion-theoretic approache
Page 360 and 361:
evaluation of phonetic distance app
Page 362 and 363:
specified [+back]. The vowels /i/ a
Page 364 and 365:
change, traditionally known as the
Page 366 and 367:
primarily signalled by the second v
Page 368 and 369:
fronting. To implement this idea fo
Page 370 and 371:
allophone of /i/, as shown in (8.13
Page 372 and 373:
In the analysis sketched above what
Page 374 and 375:
emerge as one of the five contrasti
Page 376 and 377:
give the correct results for any ar
Page 378 and 379:
vowel [ˆ] as having 100% of the co
Page 380 and 381:
as noncontrastive for [back], the a
Page 382 and 383:
on). Of the possible potential clas
Page 384 and 385:
symmetrical. The choice of a featur
Page 386 and 387:
(Broe 1993, Frisch 1996), I have gi
Page 388 and 389:
(8.23) Features for Bumo Izon stops
Page 390 and 391:
(8.26) Similarity measures for Hawa
Page 392 and 393:
essentially the same as the one ass
Page 394 and 395:
Clements argues that the robustness
Page 396 and 397:
feature specifications, a major wea
Page 398 and 399:
observed by Stevens, Keyser & Kawas
Page 400 and 401:
there are vowels that are [+high, -
Page 402 and 403:
. Features that make each other log
Page 404 and 405:
[round] > [back] (8.38b). This may
Page 406 and 407:
and contradicts the intuition, shar
Page 408 and 409:
Thus, the lack of voiced sonorants
Page 410 and 411:
uniting phonologists who do not oth
Page 412 and 413:
short back (or central) low vowel i
Page 414 and 415:
In a hierarchical conception of con
Page 416 and 417:
406
Page 418 and 419:
These two concepts have not always
Page 420 and 421:
410
Page 422 and 423:
Archangeli, Diana and Douglas Pulle
Page 424 and 425:
Bolognesi, Roberto (1998). The phon
Page 426 and 427:
Cherry, E. Colin, Morris Halle and
Page 428 and 429:
Linguistics (Special Issue on Contr
Page 430 and 431:
Association, 82-93. Département de
Page 432 and 433:
Fikkert, Paula (1994). On the Acqui
Page 434 and 435:
Hall, Beatrice L. and R. M. R. Hall
Page 436 and 437:
Heffernan, Kevin (2007). The role o
Page 438 and 439:
Itô, Junko and Armin Mester (1986)
Page 440 and 441:
Kaisse, Ellen M. and Patricia A. Sh
Page 442 and 443:
Kuhl, Patricia, K. A. Williams, Fra
Page 444 and 445:
Martinet, André (1960). Éléments
Page 446 and 447:
Paradis, Carole (1988). On constrai
Page 448 and 449:
Radis&ic@, Milica (2007). Velar /g/
Page 450 and 451:
Rose, Sharon (1993). Coronality and
Page 452 and 453:
Steriade, Donca (1995). Underspecif
Page 454 and 455:
Walker, Rachel (2001). Round licens
show all

The contrastive hierarchy in phonology 2009 Dresher.pdf - CUNY ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?