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 26

John Anderson 26 in any case the derivational machinery invoked by Hale & White Eagle (1980) and Halle & Vergnaud (1989) seems to be quite unnecessary. In the pre-word-accent zone, according to the marking of accents in Miner’s examples (1979: 30), ‘fast sequences’ can be said to behave as follows: (59) pre-accentual ‘fast sequences’ in Winnebago they count as two successive Vs, as illustrated by (60.a), unless they are preceded by a vowel, in which case they count as one V, as in (59.b), unless the sequence is final in a di- or mono-syllable, and so must bear the word accent, in which case it behaves as two Vs, as in (59.c); in short, count so as to maximise the pre-accentual domain, consistent with (56): a. kèrekéreš ‘colourful’ kèrejųsep ‘Black Hawk’ b. hikòrohó ‘prepare’ wikìripáras ‘cockroach’ c. hokèwé ‘enter’ d. pàrás ‘flat’ In all these cases Miner marks the first occurrence of the V in the ‘fast sequence’ (which are italicised in the forms in (60)) as bearing a secondary accent; and this he does even when the ‘fast sequence’ constitutes the only V component of the word, as in (60.d). These phenomena seem to me to illustrate rather forcibly the ambivalence of the ‘fast sequence’ – one or two Vs? On this assumption, accentuation in the forms in (60) is much more regular than in their presentation by Miner, who apparently abandons an attempt at a synchronic formulation (1979: 30). As concerns word-accent and post-primary-accent, ‘fast sequences’ behave as follows: (60) post-accentual ‘fast sequences’ in Winnebago Fast sequences count as one V unless final or accented: a. harakíšurujìkšąną ‘you are sick’ b. hirakórohò ‘he gets ready’ c. wakiripóropòro ‘spherical bug’ d. hirat’át’ašąnąšąną ‘you are talking’ The unaccented medial ‘fast sequence’ in (60.a) counts as one V if it is to conform to Hale & White Eagle’s (1980) alternating stress rule, but the final ‘fast sequence’ therein counts as two and receives secondary accent on the second part, as would a separate V. The accented ‘fast sequence’ in (60.b) behaves like two Vs, permitting the final secondary in accordance with alternating stress. The accented ‘fast sequences in (60.c) also behave like two Vs. Seemingly problematical is (60.d), where one would expect a secondary accent on the first ‘fast sequence’ as well as the second (unless the preceding apparent reduplication offers a clue here). However that may be, I think that the present account leaves fewer loose ends than Miner’s or Hale & White Eagles. And, overall, we have further evidence of the segmental ambivalence of ‘fast sequences’ in Winnebago. We certainly don’t seem to have evidence of ‘automatic’ disyllabification. I suggest that an account involving a dislocation in timing

27 Structural analogy in language, and its limits (without disyllabification) fits best with the evidence. I am suggesting here that this reflects loss of the dependency relation that guarantees coordination of timing. This concludes my discussion of the role of dependency in coordinating the timing of elements in the representation. This I have illustrated by both segmental representations, especially the internal structure of nasal consonants, and suprasegmental, the representation of ‘fast sequences’. Both kinds of phenomena discussed are not uncommon. As Steriade (1990: §27.2.6) observes, phenomena of the character of Dorsey’s Law are not limited to Winnebago. Miner (1979: §1.1) notes that in Winnebago one can also observe the intervention ‘of a slight schwa (or more precisely, a barely audible intrusive vowel having more or less the quality of a short version of the following full vowel)’ between and obstruent and sonorant at morphological boundaries. He is careful to differentiate between this phenomenon (also found in other Mississippi Valley Siouan languages) and the behaviour of ‘fast sequences’; but it is clearly a minor instantiation of dislocation in coordination. 17 Complete dislocation occurs in a language when the sonorant overlaps only the final portion of the centre, and we have metathesis, involving a different kind of (diachronic) restructuring from that involved with the development of disyllabicity. What I am suggesting here is that it may be that dislocation of timing in general follows from lack of regulation by the dependency relation, whereas coordination of two elements follows from the existence of a dependency relation between them. If this is so, then timing is an interface property that is not contrastive. 2 Structural analogy, and some (more) analogies I have used throughout the discussion in §1 some terms which are more familiar from the syntax, namely the head-based terms complement and transitivity, adjunct, and specifier. As indicated, these are used advisedly, for this seems to me to be appropriate; and I have alluded to syntactic analogues already in what precedes. For, apart from the configurational parallelism with the equivalents in syntax which we can associate with the preceding representations, and which I shall illustrate (for the syntax) in a moment, these terms have the same content in both domains: a transitive element is a head that takes an obligatory complement; an adjunct is an optional modifier of a head. The specifier is perhaps the most contentious identification, but this is largely due to the lack of clarity on what constitutes a specifier in syntax. However, well-established and lexically categorised syntactic specifiers like that preceding the adjective in (61) shares various properties with what I have designated a phonological specifier: (61) very difficult It is an adjunct, so optional, as is initial pre-plosive /s/; it belongs to a small class, as does /s/, in that case a class of one; it selects only some of the primary class that it is adjoined to, in that it occurs only with gradable adjectives, just as /s/ selects the minimal plosives, the neutralisations of /p/ ≠ /b/ etc. As a result of this, the specifier is an indicator of that subclass. 18 Anderson (in press a) regards the appropriateness of these concepts in both syntax and phonology as an illustration of the viability of the structural analogy assumption, given in (62) (from Anderson 1992a: 2; see Anderson in press a, for references to other discussions of structural analogy):

Contrast in phonology, structural analogy, and the interfaces
Structural analogy and universal grammar
Structural Realism: Continuity and Its Limits - Ioannis Votsis
1 Finegan, Edward, Language. Its Structure and Use. 3rd edition ...
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 ...