Positional Neutralization - Linguistics - University of California ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

syllabification syllable. Crosswhite assumes two “phonetic” scales, one of accentual prominence, the other of vowel prominence, as shown in (7) 21 : (7) Phonetic Scales for prominence-reducing UVR a. Accentual Prominence: stressed prom> unstressed b. Vowel Prominence a prom> , prom> e, o prom> i,u prom> The first scale encodes the fact that stressed syllables are more prominent than unstressed, while the second encodes the familiar Sonority Hierarchy. These scales are then "crossed" to produce the relevant constraint families, resulting in fixed rankings of markedness constraints such as that shown in (8): (8) Prominence reduction family of constraints *Unstressed/a >> *Unstressed/, >> *Unstressed/e,o >> *Unstressed/i,u >>*Unstressed/ The result is a set of constraints banning high sonority vowels from unstressed positions in a ranking from most sonorous to least. Crossing the scales in the other direction (producing, e.g., *stressed/) would create constraints that could be used to 21 The scales assumed by P & S were Syllabic Prominence, distinguishing the Peak from the Margin, and Segmental Prominence, based as here on sonority. 80
attract stress to sonorous vowels, or to raise the sonority of stressed vowels, à la Kenstowicz (1994). Crosswhite exemplifies prominence-reducing UVR with Bulgarian, presented, as noted above, in the form of its eastern dialects, in which neutralizations are in fact categorical. See section 2.3.1 for discussion of the crucial differences between systems of UVR in Bulgarian dialects. Bulgarian, as presented by Crosswhite, has six contrastive vowels under stress: /i, e, , a, u/. In unstressed syllables, however, the mid vowels are raised to merge with the high vowels as [i, u], and the low vowel /a/ is raised to merge with the mid central vowel as // 22 . In other words, constraints against prominent (non-high) vowels in unstressed syllables interact with Faithfulness constraints to cause the raising of /e, a, o/ to merge with /i, , u/. Crucially, the way in which this system differs from that of Belorussian (aside from the obvious raising vs. lowering of the mid vowels), is in the realization of the low vowel as schwa. The fact that the high sonority vowel [a] is not allowed in non-prominent positions is what marks Bulgarian as prominence-reducing rather than contrast- enhancing. 22 It is interesting to note that most of the dialects which actually have this system of vowel reduction also have automatic palatalization of consonants before front vowels, which may not be an accidental correlation in light of the reduction of /e/ to [i] present here and absent or weak in other dialects. There are, however, dialects with more pronounced palatalization than in these and only weaker, non-neutralizing reduction of mid vowels; the correlation is thus not automatic. 81
Page 1 and 2:
Positional Neutralization: A Phonol
Page 3 and 4:
Abstract Positional Neutralization:
Page 5 and 6:
Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introd
Page 7 and 8:
3.6.3. Mixed Systems 224 3.6.4. Nas
Page 9 and 10:
Acknowledgements The thanks I owe t
Page 11 and 12:
Chapter 1. Introduction In this stu
Page 13 and 14:
divorced from their phonetic origin
Page 15 and 16:
neutralization such that some combi
Page 17 and 18:
Pure Prominence advocates to assume
Page 19 and 20:
1.1.1.1. Phonetic arbitrariness in
Page 21 and 22:
1.1.2. Phonetically-driven Phonolog
Page 23 and 24:
since it too brings the phonetic fo
Page 25 and 26:
asymmetries are relatively unambigu
Page 27 and 28:
crucial and common to all and adopt
Page 29 and 30:
duration such as unstressed syllabl
Page 31 and 32:
targets for F1). In environments su
Page 33 and 34:
neutralized. Indeed, we would speak
Page 35 and 36:
applying to a single phonological e
Page 37 and 38:
(passim, but especially 1981 and 19
Page 39 and 40: will treat as the alteration or add
Page 41 and 42: lengthening, together potentially w
Page 43 and 44: through four. I conclude that the s
Page 45 and 46: sort demonstrated in Lindblom (1963
Page 47 and 48: predictable according to the phonol
Page 49 and 50: steady across UVR systems, the mapp
Page 51 and 52: inventories”, the only other opti
Page 53 and 54: direct result of the phonologizatio
Page 55 and 56: does not, therefore represent a leg
Page 57 and 58: question. The point is that the rel
Page 59 and 60: Another direction might explore the
Page 61 and 62: monomoraic and bimoraic vowels. Fro
Page 63 and 64: The preceding sections have shown t
Page 65 and 66: to perceptual proximity to one anot
Page 67 and 68: unstressed vowel (Crosswhite 2001:
Page 69 and 70: Bulgarian has six vowels in stresse
Page 71 and 72: elsewhere, depending on the informa
Page 73 and 74: Pettersson and Wood started their i
Page 75 and 76: discussed below in the context of R
Page 77 and 78: (known as ‘akanje’, ‘[a]-sayi
Page 79 and 80: neutralization occurring as a resul
Page 81 and 82: eduction of pretonic vowels as a si
Page 83 and 84: 2.4. A UG-based approach to UVR typ
Page 85 and 86: formants to approach and enhance on
Page 87 and 88: Steriade in particular, in her semi
Page 89: emoval of “particularly loud and
Page 93 and 94: which it is a priori impossible to
Page 95 and 96: Again, since the low vowel of preto
Page 97 and 98: If it is correct that, however, tha
Page 99 and 100: 2.5.1. Facts Contemporary Standard
Page 101 and 102: compared to /a/, he writes that “
Page 103 and 104: tendency for domain-initial segment
Page 105 and 106: Each instance of the failure of red
Page 107 and 108: sentences was a real-word trisyllab
Page 109 and 110: (10) Russian second pretonic /a/, /
Page 111 and 112: vowel, and phrase-final position),
Page 113 and 114: phonetic implementations as a funct
Page 115 and 116: lengthening of vowels in first pret
Page 117 and 118: story of articulatory approximation
Page 119 and 120: pretonic syllables, however, only o
Page 121 and 122: unstressed /e/ toward [u], finally
Page 123 and 124: phonetic and phonological perspecti
Page 125 and 126: should not, and those predictions a
Page 127 and 128: position as a licenser of contrasts
Page 129 and 130: insofar as we have seen how positio
Page 131 and 132: elevant to the present study for th
Page 133 and 134: effect which is potentially univers
Page 135 and 136: word-final syllables. Still, the pr
Page 137 and 138: to be restricted in many languages
Page 139 and 140: their realizations, determined by b
Page 141 and 142:
(17) Hausa medial short vowels a. [
Page 143 and 144:
Penny (1969: 148-149) gives the vow
Page 145 and 146:
To this we can add facts from neigh
Page 147 and 148:
notion of umlaut or metaphony being
Page 149 and 150:
dialects, Walker notes the differen
Page 151 and 152:
position in the way that, e.g., ret
Page 153 and 154:
is illustrative, but by no means ex
Page 155 and 156:
d. Brazilian Portuguese (Romance) (
Page 157 and 158:
h. English (Germanic)(Hammond 1997)
Page 159 and 160:
hence subphonemic durational featur
Page 161 and 162:
n. Timugon Murut (Austronesian, NE
Page 163 and 164:
(underlying) long vowels 71 , and p
Page 165 and 166:
final lengthening have detected the
Page 167 and 168:
the ends of phrases. They hypothesi
Page 169 and 170:
opposite pattern in both phonetic s
Page 171 and 172:
With respect to the syllable-struct
Page 173 and 174:
strengthened significantly, while v
Page 175 and 176:
strength effects in final position,
Page 177 and 178:
equivalent of unstressed vowel redu
Page 179 and 180:
asymmetry plays a role as well. In
Page 181 and 182:
final strength effects are often fo
Page 183 and 184:
internal unstressed syllables in th
Page 185 and 186:
application (in whatever form) is n
Page 187 and 188:
syllable vowel (that which appeared
Page 189 and 190:
unified phonologization scenario ac
Page 191 and 192:
As for the non-high vowels in preto
Page 193 and 194:
ack” (Kroeger 1992: 280). Kroeger
Page 195 and 196:
stressed [o], preventing it from be
Page 197 and 198:
schwa in normal speech (1993: 38).
Page 199 and 200:
environment, deriving a number of d
Page 201 and 202:
are responsible for the phonologica
Page 203 and 204:
section). A second generalization w
Page 205 and 206:
latter case the same feature is imp
Page 207 and 208:
well-known, for example, that short
Page 209 and 210:
language Dasenech (Sasse 1976), wou
Page 211 and 212:
Another possibility is that devoici
Page 213 and 214:
contexts, however, h-epenthesis is
Page 215 and 216:
supralaryngeal strengthening in thi
Page 217 and 218:
inherently problematic from a produ
Page 219 and 220:
lengthening in Dutch by Cambier-Lan
Page 221 and 222:
contradictions this entails describ
Page 223 and 224:
preceding consonants, etc.). It see
Page 225 and 226:
Gordon and Ladefoged mention alloph
Page 227 and 228:
In other words, the creak appears o
Page 229 and 230:
phrase-final devoicing seems to be
Page 231 and 232:
targeted, and hence realized as glo
Page 233 and 234:
their common properties, restoring
Page 235 and 236:
when following voiced consonants or
Page 237 and 238:
(Brame 1972), and D’irayta (Haywa
Page 239 and 240:
monolithic weakening environment. H
Page 241 and 242:
Another study, in fact, that of Vas
Page 243 and 244:
velic opening. There has been much
Page 245 and 246:
The same pattern is found in anothe
Page 247 and 248:
lengthening-plus-intrinsic-nasaliza
Page 249 and 250:
commonly enough resolved with glott
Page 251 and 252:
nasal consonant, and the vowel rema
Page 253 and 254:
. Ongota (affiliation uncertain - C
Page 255 and 256:
combination of phonetic strengtheni
Page 257 and 258:
mentioned. Often deletion is preced
Page 259 and 260:
f. Kandahari Pashto (Elfenbein 1997
Page 261 and 262:
for some speakers of Brazilian Port
Page 263 and 264:
discussion of devoicing, above, tha
Page 265 and 266:
(36) Russian phrase-final [blot] 's
Page 267 and 268:
drastically decreased, as an alread
Page 269 and 270:
lengthening the latter parts of the
Page 271 and 272:
Avoidance of length contrasts word-
Page 273 and 274:
While the non-finality of stress ap
Page 275 and 276:
points out the case of Luganda (Hym
Page 277 and 278:
syllables are apparently required t
Page 279 and 280:
with non-modal phonation or devoici
Page 281 and 282:
3.7.2. Final short vowel avoidance
Page 283 and 284:
generally between 95 and 125 in the
Page 285 and 286:
e considered from a crosslinguistic
Page 287 and 288:
Chapter 4. Initial Syllables Domain
Page 289 and 290:
know of the relevant phonetic facts
Page 291 and 292:
lengthening or lowering the sonorit
Page 293 and 294:
asymmetries it carries, is what Smi
Page 295 and 296:
phonological licensing in question
Page 297 and 298:
eason to favor the one strategy ove
Page 299 and 300:
Before turning to the attested case
Page 301 and 302:
initial consonant serves to enhance
Page 303 and 304:
existence of the former, and I will
Page 305 and 306:
since the majority of phonological
Page 307 and 308:
eduction to schwa in Russian and in
Page 309 and 310:
assumption that in providing a comp
Page 311 and 312:
initial and non-initial vowels from
Page 313 and 314:
durational asymmetry was absent alt
Page 315 and 316:
low mid vowels to become unpredicta
Page 317 and 318:
of the typology of initial-syllable
Page 319 and 320:
there could in principle be a phone
Page 321 and 322:
ackness of non-initial vowels is ge
Page 323 and 324:
fricatives, which in retrospect may
Page 325 and 326:
(44) Mean vowel durations for Engli
Page 327 and 328:
initial strengthening in languages
Page 329 and 330:
Word-initial: U[Phr[istanbuldaki W[
Page 331 and 332:
syllables than the other speakers.
Page 333 and 334:
Concerning the language-specific na
Page 335 and 336:
4.5.3. Consequences of domain-initi
Page 337 and 338:
All these cases, while not in fact
Page 339 and 340:
in chapter 2, however, among the un
Page 341 and 342:
advice for teachers of non-standard
Page 343 and 344:
Inkelas et al. (2001), building on
Page 345 and 346:
demonstrated above, however, initia
Page 347 and 348:
Assuming now that Vowels 1 and 2 in
Page 349 and 350:
This account derives palatal vowel
Page 351 and 352:
vowels in Luganda and Runyambo. Hub
Page 353 and 354:
the UVR systems of Yakan, Timugon M
Page 355 and 356:
4.6. Summary In this chapter I have
Page 357 and 358:
why we find such systems in Turkic
Page 359 and 360:
Chapter 5. Conclusions 5.1. Phonolo
Page 361 and 362:
perfectly understandable in the pho
Page 363 and 364:
as the durational asymmetries in qu
Page 365 and 366:
model of phonetics-phonology incorp
Page 367 and 368:
of effort necessary to reach a low
Page 369 and 370:
(specified by Minimum Distance cons
Page 371 and 372:
duration for /a/~/o/ in this positi
Page 373 and 374:
unstressed syllables in a given lan
Page 375 and 376:
patterns such as those treated in t
Page 377 and 378:
References Abondolo, Daniel. 1998a.
Page 379 and 380:
Balasubramanian, T. 1981. Duration
Page 381 and 382:
Blevins, Juliette. 1993. A tonal an
Page 383 and 384:
Browman, Catherine P. and Louis Gol
Page 385 and 386:
Chen, Matthew. 1973. Nasals and nas
Page 387 and 388:
Dauer, Rebecca M. 1987. Phonetic an
Page 389 and 390:
Farnetani, Edda and Shiro Kori. 199
Page 391 and 392:
Garrett, Andrew and Juliette Blevin
Page 393 and 394:
Hayes, Bruce. 1997. Phonetically-dr
Page 395 and 396:
Hyde, Villiana. 1971. An introducti
Page 397 and 398:
Janiak, BronisΩawa. 1995. Polsko-U
Page 399 and 400:
Keating, Patricia, Richard Wright a
Page 401 and 402:
Kroeger, Paul. 1992. Vowel harmony
Page 403 and 404:
Liphola, Marcelino M. 2001. Aspects
Page 405 and 406:
Miller, Carolyn. 1993 Kadazan/Dusun
Page 407 and 408:
Nord, Lennart. 1987. Acoustic studi
Page 409 and 410:
Penny, Ralph. 1986. Sandhi phenomen
Page 411 and 412:
Rietveld, A. C. M. and U. H. Frauen
Page 413 and 414:
Schuh, Russell G. and Lawan D. Yalw
Page 415 and 416:
Steriade, Donca. 2001. Directional
Page 417 and 418:
Tuttle, Siri. 2000. Duration, inton
Page 419 and 420:
Wolgemuth, Carl. 1969. Isthmus Vera
show all

Positional Neutralization - Linguistics - University of California ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?