Views
4 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 24 (28)

John Anderson 24 (28) shows the ‘maximisation’ of dependencies alluded to in §1.2. I am now saying that this ‘maximisation’ is what ensures coordination of segments. In (53) the second consonant is dependent on the first and coordinated with it, so that a portion of the sonorant articulation can be perceived after the plosive has been released. But the sonorant is not dependent on the centre of the syllable (though it is subordinate to it, via the obstruent), so its sequencing is not coordinated with it, as it is in, say, (28); but it is free to ‘slide rightwards’, so that we have (54): (54) {V} | {C\{V}} {V} | {C\{V}} {C\{C}} The articulatory exponence of the centre, which, given the status of the centre as head of the syllable, is co-terminous with the syllable (cf. e.g. Coleman 1992: §6), is heard on both sides of the sonorant, reflected in the perceived sequencing of (55): (55) • | • • | • • : : : : {C\{V}} + {V- + {C\C}} + -V} : : : : : : : : k e r e In (55) I revert to a notation (cf. Anderson 1986) which separates the categorial specifications, which are lexical, from the derived dependency tree, thus clarifying graphically their relations to each other and to the sequencing. It is easy to see how this could lead to disyllabicity, i.e. re-interpretation of each of the two perceptible exponents of V as a centre; but the observations in (49) and (50/51) seem to support a monosyllabic analysis, along the lines of (55), of the ‘fast sequences’ of Winnebago. I thus interpret Dorsey’s Law synchronically not as some kind of structure-changing rule that leads to restructuring of the forms in which it applicable (as in Hale & White Eagle 1980 and Halle & Vergnaud 1982), but rather as the timing that results from the absence in Winnebago of the potential for undergoing (16) of onset sonorants preceded by a voiceless obstruent of the set given in (49.a). The structure in (55) does indeed interact in an intricate way with the rules for accent placement in Winnebago, but not so as to call into question the monosyllabic status of these sequences. Rather, at most the singular/plural ambivalence of the V becomes evident therein. Let us look at the operation of the accent rules, firstly in forms lacking ‘fast sequences’, in what Miner calls ‘regular words’ (1979: 28). Placement of the word, or primary, accent is formulated by Miner (1979: 28); I paraphrase in terms compatible with our ongoing discussion as in (56):

25 Structural analogy in language, and its limits (56) Winnebago word accent Accent the syllable containing the third V from the left; If the form contains fewer than 2 Vs, accent the syllable containing the second V from the left a. hipirák ‘belt’ b. haračábra ‘the taste’ c. waarúč ‘table’ d. mąąčáire ‘they cut a piece off’ e. wasgé ‘dish, plate’ f. xée ‘dig, hill’ (56) also gives some examples, again from Miner (1979: 28-9), wherein location of the word accent is indicated by the acute. (56.a-d) illustrate application of the first clause in the accent rule: the accent on (a) and (b) is on the third syllable, which contains the third V; that in (c) and (d) is on the second syllable, containing the third V, since the first syllable contains two Vs. (56.e) illustrates placement on the second syllable, containing the second and last V; and in (56.f) the accent is on the first (and only syllable), which contains the second V. 15 There is some disagreement over the placement of accents other than that allowed for by (56). Miner suggests (1979: 28) that further accents are added to longer forms by iteration to the right from the end of the accented syllable of (his equivalent of) (56). These further accents show down-stepping from the primary one, and I shall follow Hale & White Eagle (1980), and depart from Miner’s practice, in marking them as secondary accents, with a grave. Miner’s account would assign accents as in (57) – i.e. on the third vowel following the primary accent, otherwise on the second if there is one: (57) a. hiižúgokirùsge ‘double-barrelled shotgun’ b. wiirágųšgerà ‘the stars’ c. waipérasgà ‘linen’ And this is how he marks these forms (apart from my substitution of the grave for acute). According to Hale & White Eagle (1980), however, the post-primary accent pattern is alternating: accent occurs on every second V, as they are marked in the form in (58), which they invoke as an example of ‘regular’ stress (though we might note that it does end in a ‘fast sequence’): 16 (58) haakítujìkšąną ‘I pull it taut (declarative)’ Hale & White Eagle (1980: 117, fn.3) disagree on the placing of the accent in (57.b), which they hear as having a penultimate secondary (in accordance with their expectations). And they analyse (57.a) as a compound with two word accents. (57.c) is neutral between the two accounts. In what follows I shall adopt Hale & White Eagle’s (1980) view that (in the terms adopted here, every second V after the word accent bears a secondary. Firstly, however, I want to focus on the accentual behaviour of ‘fast sequences’ in the left margin, before the word stress, of which Hale & White Eagle (1980) offer no account. What follows immediately, then, relies entirely on Miner (1979). It has seemed to me unnecessary, given the present focus of our interests, to formalise the representation of accent in Winnebago. And

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 ...