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 36 (76) a.

John Anderson 36 (76) a. {i} {V,V} {V} : {C} {a,u} {u} {C} {a} : : : : : : : : : : p ö y t ä b. {i} : : {V,V} | {V,V} {V} : {C} {a,u} {u} {C} {a} : : : : : : : : : : p ö y t ä The extrasegmental is manifested by any eligible segment within its domain, defined in terms of (76.b) by the construction subordinate to the accent. The neutral vowels are apparently indifferent to the presence/absence of the extrasegmental element. This is because presence or absence of the extrasegmental {i}does not affect their realisation, but merely ensures surface contrast between e and ä, as shown by comparison of the representations in (77), which shows the results of (74), where applicable: (77) a. i = {i} b. e = {i,a} c. ä = {i}…..{a} i and e are optionally associated with a harmonic {i}, specified in angles in (77a-b); ä is always associated with harmonic {i}: cf. (77.c). e and ä are thus in contrast only in ‘acute +’ words, wherein the former contains a higher proportion of i than the latter, and they are thus perceived as differing as respectively {i;a} vs. {a;i}, as in (72). We thus might say that the contrastive vowel system of Finnish is as in (78), given that the other vowels – {u,i}, {u,a,i} and {a,i} – are products of harmony, the presence of the extrasegmental {i}: (78) the lexical vowel system of Finnish {u} {u,a} {a} unspecified { } ‘i’ { , } ‘e’

37 Structural analogy in language, and its limits extrasegmental {i} We have a linear system, as far as substantively specified segments are concerned. But the system in (78) is still overspecified; minimal specification results in (79), which is symmetrical about { }: (79) the lexical vowel system of Finnish { } {u, } {u} { ,a} {a} extrasegmental {i} That is, o is conceived as spelling an underspecified vowel, represented {u, } rather than the fully specified {u,a}. The full specification results from application of (74.a). In ‘acute +’ words, the corresponding vowel, spelled ö, is specified as {i}…..{u, }, with the a again being added by (74.a). As observed, the proposal of a minimally specified system is also motivated by the pursuit of contrastivity: the fully specified system of (72) preserves redundancies eliminated in (73) – and (78) and (79). Minimal specification is also, perhaps, not for the fainthearted. But it is a consequence of the application of contrastivity to substantive representations as well as to the other aspects of phonological structure. Suffixes in Finnish agree with their base/stem in presence versus absence of {i}. Thus, the suffix in (80.a) is manifested as in (b) or (c): (80) a. -st{a} illative b. tyhmä-stä ‘stupid’ illative c. tuhma ‘naughty’ illative The extrasegmental thus ‘spreads’ to suffixes. This of course is not affected by whether or not the base/stem or an intervening affix contains an under-specified vowel, as in (81.a); and, of course, these latter have no acuteness to ‘spread’ in the absence of the extrasegmental, as in (81.b): (81) a. lyö-dä-kse-ni-kö ‘for me to hit’ b. tuoli-lla ‘on the chair’, luo-da-kse-ni-ko ‘for me to create’ Thus, if we assume base configurations like (77), further suffixes, as further dependents of the accented {V}, simply come within the domain of the extrasegmental associated with the accent, and it is unnecessary to think of this as ‘spreading’; the ‘spreading’ in (82) is simply a consequence of the suffix vowel being included in the accentual domain:

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 ...