Views
5 years ago

Structural analogy in language and its limits [Contrast and analogy v.2]

Structural analogy in language and its limits [Contrast and analogy v.2]

John Anderson 10 ciple

John Anderson 10 ciple of such ‘extrametricality’. Again, we have here a formal determination of sequence, involving the relationship of adjunction. I assume that the more specific adjunction of (22) applies after (16), resulting in representations like those in (20). In what the elderly or literate reader might see a curious reversal in some cases of application of the rule-ordering principle known as ‘Proper Inclusion Precedence’ (see e.g. Koutsoudas et al 1974, and contributions to Koutsoudas 1975), I am suggesting that the order of adjunction of elements within a domain is determined by the relative simplicity of the primary categorisation (including ‘retro-complementation’), with the simpler taking precedence over the less so. But this relative simplicity does seem to correlate with the relative integration of the element in the construction. It is also necessary to appeal to (22) only word-finally. Moreover, from a ‘top-down’ perspective, ‘Proper Inclusion Precedence’ is indeed ensured. Now, if order of application and relative closeness to the centre are determined in this way, it is unnecessary, after all, to include linearisation as part of (22), since it follows from projectivity (‘no-tangling’) requirements. ‘Tangling’ involves the crossing of lines (dependency arcs or association lines) in the graph,. Projectivity is preserved in the present case only if the coronal obstruent, which is attached last, also comes in final position, as can be verified by inverting any of the non-vocalic elements in (20). The order of application determines the sequencing, which need not be stipulated, so that we can substitute (22)’ for (22): (22)’ {cor,obs} ⇒ { \{|V|}}*, in environment {C} dropping the linearisation symbol. A return to the sonority sequencing discrepancy illustrated by (11.a), repeated here as a reminder: (11) a. sport, strip, squeeze brings us to a consideration of the possibilities at the pre-centre position. Let us look first at such of these as do not present a problem with respect to sonority sequencing requirements. In accordance with the account suggested by Anderson (1994), involving lexical partial non-sequencing within the syllable, a consonant in a monosyllable whose sequencing with regard to the vowel is not lexically stipulated will be sequenced before that vowel. Again, in English, such a consonant is clearly an adjunct to the vowel; it seeks a vowel to modify, as represented in (16), again repeated here: (16) consonant adjunction {C} ⇒ { \{|V|}} If, in terms of (3), with partial non-sequencing, segments lexically linearised with respect to the centre are adjoined before the lexically unlinearised, this will give us structures like (24), for camps:

11 Structural analogy in language, and its limits (24) {V} | {C\{V}} {V} : | : {V} {cor,obs\{V}} : | : : {V/{C}} {C\{V}} : : : : : : : {C} : : : : : : : : : : : : k + a + m + p + s We can say that the onset is the highest adjunct of the centre, {V}; the rhyme is everything else subordinate to a {V}. /N/ is exceptional with regard to both applications of (16). We can generalise over the two exceptions as in (25): (25) /N/ ≠ {C\{V}} /N/ is never an adjunct. For /h/, on the other hand, (16) is obligatory, and, moreover, its serialisation is never stipulated lexically (Anderson 1986b, 2001a), so that it is limited to onsets. Both these exceptional constraints on linearisation thus reflect a formal property, the complement/adjunct distinction. If we adopt the more ‘radical’ approach to sequencing proposed by Anderson (1987), i.e. total non-sequencing, then the order of the applications of (16) follows from the closeness of association between the consonant and the centre, as reflected in representations such as (6.a): (6)a. k,l(p,m,a) The most closely associated consonants, co-members of the inner subset, the inner domain, i.e. those in the rhyme, are adjoined first. This is consistent with the notion that order of adjunction reflects degree of integration of the dependent with the head. Consider now sonority-respecting two-consonant onsets. Much work on dependencies in phonology assumes that dependency follows sonority (cf. e.g. Anderson & Ewen 1987): of two elements joined by a dependency arc, the more sonorous will be the governor. This is embodied in (24) in the dependency relations that hold between the centre of the syllable and consonantal elements. Anderson (1986a: §6) argues, however, that consonant-to-consonant dependencies reverse this relationship: in the case of two consonants linked by a dependency arc, the less sonorous governs the more. Just as the optimal position for a consonant is before the vocalic centre, so the optimal consonant is the one furthest in sonority from the vowel: the optimal syllable contains a plosive, and specifically voiceless, onset (cf. e.g. Cairns & Feinstein 1982). The unmarked syllable structure should thus be expressed as (4)′ rather than (4): (4)’ unmarked syllable structure {|C|} + {|V|}

Contrast in phonology, structural analogy, and the interfaces
Structural analogy and universal grammar
Structural Realism: Continuity and Its Limits - Ioannis Votsis
The Structure and Content of the Body of an OLIF v.2 File
Correlation Between Structure of Bcl-2 and Its Inhibitory Function of ...
Correlation Between Structure of Bcl-2 and Its Inhibitory Function of ...