Patterned Exceptions in Phonology - UCLA Department of Linguistics

More documents

Recommendations

Info

proposal that “overapplication” of nasal substitution in F=-E-ECD=JE( results from reduplicative correspondence. Note that the overapplication shows that a nasal resulting from substitution belongs to the stem (although it may also belong to the prefix in some sense; see the discussion of coalescence in §2.4), whereas a prefix nasal that merely assimilates is not part of the stem. Second, it is not clear whether nasal substitution is possible on nasal-initial stems: nasal-initial stems are rare to begin with, and among those that do exist, it is not always possible to tell what the prefix is. For example, in ma-=DE(@ ‘to become numb’, from =DE(@ ‘numb’, it is not clear whether the prefix is simply ma- (which can also form verbs, with similar semantics), or =- with nasal substitution. 17 There do exist unambiguous constructions (such as =+REDUPLICATION—there is no potentially confusable ma+REDUP), but no cases of nasal-initial stems in these constructions. Third, glottal stop is problematic. Many researchers have assumed that initial glottal stop in Tagalog is simply predictably inserted in vowel-initial words (since there are no strictly vowel-initial words); the preservation of initial glottal stop in prefixed words like mag-=(M= ‘to fight’ (or =K() would then be regarded as the effect of a tendency to align morpheme boundaries with syllable boundaries (for a formal theory of alignment, see McCarthy & Prince 1993, Cohn & McCarthy 1998). And a word like 17 Schachter and Otanes (1972) argue that these verbs are =-prefixed, because their gerunds are formed by changing m to p and reduplicating, as are the gerunds of uncontroversially =-prefixed verbs (J=J ‘fear’, ma-=(J ‘to intimidate’, pa-na-=(J ‘intimidating’). In contrast, ma- verbs’ gerunds are formed by replacing ma- with pagka- (=->K( ‘to get involved’, F=C=->K( ‘getting involved’). But Carrier (1979) points out that some m → p & RCV gerunds do come from ma- verbs (pa-li-E(C ‘bathing’ from ma- E(C ‘to take a bath’). Carrier (1979) argues against the =-with-substitution analysis for nasal-initial stems, because some of the nasal-initial stems that take ma-/=- do not substitute when combined with F=-, and so should not substitute with =- (F=-(@ ‘for watching’). But, I have found many stems that substitute with =- but not with F=- (>KJ(J ‘tail end’, ma-KJ(J ‘to finish last’, pam->KJ(J ‘tailpiece’). 21
=EEI@=( would be failure of alignment rather than true nasal substitution, either with the nasal of the prefix becoming associated to the stem, or with reduplicative correspondence causing the second to be inserted. 18 Since glottal stop is phonemic word-finally, I prefer to regard word-initial glottal stop as phonemic rather than epenthetic (why pick glottal stop as the epenthetic segment rather than something else?), and I view =EEI@=( as nasal-substituted, although, as will be seen below, the distribution of “substituted” glottal stops in the lexicon is puzzling. 2.2.2. Distribution of exceptions I collected all 1,736 words from English (1986) that had an obstruent-initial stem and a potentially nasal-substituting prefix, and found two trends. First, substitution is most likely with a front stem-initial consonant (p or b) and least likely with a back consonant (k or g). Second, substitution is more likely if the stem-initial consonant is voiceless than if voiced. Both trends can be seen in (8), which combines data from all constructions (t and s are also combined, to better illustrate the two trends; t and s are separated in the more detailed charts that follow). 19 18 A similar proposal, considered and rejected by Carrier (1979), is that there is a phonemic difference between truly glottal-stop-initial and truly vowel-initial stems, which determines whether or not nasal substitution will appear to occur. Thus EI@=( would be underlyingly /EI@=(/, and K( underlyingly /K(/. There are some glottal/vowel-initial stems whose derivatives vary in whether or not they substitute, but this does not refute Carrier’s idea: such stems would be underlyingly vowel-initial, but in some derivatives morpheme-specific alignment constraints would force an epenthetic glottal stop. 19 Previous accounts of the lexical distribution of nasal substitution have noted (not quite correctly) that g never substitutes (Bloomfield 1917, Schachter & Otanes 1972); that d and g rarely substitute (Blake 1925); that voiceless consonants substitute more than voiced ones (De Guzman 1978, but see fn. 20); and that morphology matters (Schachter & Otanes 1972, De Guzman 1978). 22
Page 1 and 2: UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angele
Page 3 and 4: The dissertation of Kie Ross Zuraw
Page 5 and 6: 2.7.3. Generating a novel form.....
Page 7 and 8: (36) Distribution of consonants in
Page 9 and 10: (122) Syncope .....................
Page 11 and 12: This dissertation draws mainly on d
Page 13 and 14: VITA March 29, 1973 Born, Montreal,
Page 15 and 16: ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Patter
Page 17 and 18: xvi
Page 19 and 20: (introduced by Halle 1959 as “mor
Page 21 and 22: (1) Under- and overspecification /k
Page 23 and 24: learn the regularity in order to pr
Page 25 and 26: 1.2.1. Regularities in a separate s
Page 27 and 28: The ranking tendencies of these sub
Page 29 and 30: are still in use. During the time o
Page 31 and 32: (5) Examples of Tagalog affixes bar
Page 33 and 34: the surface representation. The ran
Page 35 and 36: 2. The model as applied to nasal su
Page 37: nonsubstitution, using a variety of
Page 41 and 42: The constructions illustrated in (9
Page 43 and 44: 100% 50% 0% 100% 50% 0% =- (adversa
Page 45 and 46: To determine the statistical signif
Page 47 and 48: constructions, and that within ever
Page 49 and 50: We can perform a χ 2 test for the
Page 51 and 52: (17) Semantic unpredictability with
Page 53 and 54: 2.3.1. Introduction 2.3. An experim
Page 55 and 56: KC=(J (no substitution, no assimila
Page 57 and 58: (22) Rates of substitution on novel
Page 59 and 60: lexical-frequency data against whic
Page 61 and 62: highly significant—p < 0.0001 by
Page 63 and 64: substituted word and unsubstituted
Page 65 and 66: (27) Constraints against coalescenc
Page 67 and 68: of outputs for each input that is a
Page 69 and 70: There are two ways of implementing
Page 71 and 72: suggested in Pater 1999b. I suspect
Page 73 and 74: Hayes and Stivers propose that the
Page 75 and 76: (36) Distribution of consonants in
Page 77 and 78: or learned) would disfavor substitu
Page 79 and 80: (39) Constraints affecting nasal su
Page 81 and 82: dorsals do not. The ranking of NASS
Page 83 and 84: or front-initial stem: PU and MORPH
Page 85 and 86: 2.5.1. Substitution diacritics Rath
Page 87 and 88: But in any case, as discussed in §
Page 89 and 90:
2.6. The Learner Section 2.4.7 prop
Page 91 and 92:
(46) Mini-lexicon for learning init
Page 93 and 94:
Using an initial learning increment
Page 95 and 96:
2.7. The Speaker Section 2.6 presen
Page 97 and 98:
Probabilities of Ci>>Cj for integer
Page 99 and 100:
P(/=/+/RCV/+/puntol/ → [mampupunt
Page 101 and 102:
The high ranking values of USELISTE
Page 103 and 104:
Because the output is held constant
Page 105 and 106:
Since the denominators are the same
Page 107 and 108:
where Listedness(whole word) is the
Page 109 and 110:
adjective) 71 word is almost comple
Page 111 and 112:
For example, if Listedness(/mamumun
Page 113 and 114:
The difference between (66) and (67
Page 115 and 116:
(68) Probability of listener’s gu
Page 117 and 118:
[mampupuntol] actually decreases (0
Page 119 and 120:
anked constraints that are relevant
Page 121 and 122:
@E(E> ‘sew fishing nets’ (not f
Page 123 and 124:
To see how this applies to our case
Page 125 and 126:
(77) P(Ci >> Cj) = P(Mi - Mj > -0.5
Page 127 and 128:
constraints. Since each of the thre
Page 129 and 130:
& USELISTED>>ENTRYLIN & PU>>ENTRYLI
Page 131 and 132:
3. Simulating the adoption of a new
Page 133 and 134:
Spanish loanwords as an indication
Page 135 and 136:
3.3. Model of the speech community
Page 137 and 138:
The usual result of competition bet
Page 139 and 140:
mampupuntol/ or /mamumuntol/ was th
Page 141 and 142:
3.5. Simulation results The simulat
Page 143 and 144:
Clearly, b-initial stems are not be
Page 145 and 146:
3.7. Appendix: Functions used in th
Page 147 and 148:
epresented in lexical entries. Sect
Page 149 and 150:
The second systematic source of non
Page 151 and 152:
A(JA ‘cord’ A(J ‘leprosy’ (
Page 153 and 154:
The operation of the constraints is
Page 155 and 156:
The analysis is not complete, howev
Page 157 and 158:
Tagalog has a large vocabulary of w
Page 159 and 160:
(101) Over- and underapplication in
Page 161 and 162:
‘loathing’; =@=(@ ‘unfolded
Page 163 and 164:
4.4.1. Analysis I call the constrai
Page 165 and 166:
correspondent in representation B b
Page 167 and 168:
syllables to be identical. Suzuki
Page 169 and 170:
4.5. Distribution of exceptions in
Page 171 and 172:
There are several possible explanat
Page 173 and 174:
(111) Effect of proximity 100% 90%
Page 175 and 176:
internal correspondence relation th
Page 177 and 178:
First, note that the reduplicative
Page 179 and 180:
4.6. Similarity along other dimensi
Page 181 and 182:
(117) Effect of onset voicing on ra
Page 183 and 184:
(120) Effect of vowel length on rai
Page 185 and 186:
4.7. Representations Chapter 2 assu
Page 187 and 188:
(122) Syncope syncope alone (many e
Page 189 and 190:
speakers must be able to reason abo
Page 191 and 192:
construction of lexical entries for
Page 193 and 194:
(127) Vowel height in a novel word:
Page 195 and 196:
which a word with less similar mid-
Page 197 and 198:
glottal deletion 141 (/=C/+/RED2syl
Page 199 and 200:
4.10. Chapter summary This chapter
Page 201 and 202:
To test the significance of the dif
Page 203 and 204:
words (in the production grammar, t
Page 205 and 206:
associative network (see, e.g., Rum
Page 207 and 208:
Perhaps today new loanwords’ beha
Page 209 and 210:
should be of the form Xt in the pas
Page 211 and 212:
to swamp the effect of the others;
Page 213 and 214:
When a listener hears a past tense
Page 215 and 216:
6. Summary The preceding chapters h
Page 217 and 218:
References The American Heritage La
Page 219 and 220:
Dempwolff, Otto (1969). Vergleichen
Page 221 and 222:
Pater, Joseph (1996). “Austronesi
Page 223:
phonological neighbourhood effects.
show all

Patterned Exceptions in Phonology - UCLA Department of Linguistics

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?