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 38 (82)

John Anderson 38 (82) {i} : : {V} | {V} {V} {V} : : : {C} {u} {C} {C} {a} {C} {C} {a} : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : t y h m ä [s t ä] This, of course, greatly simplifies the treatment of Finnish accent placement; (82) also omits the dependencies involving consonants, which are not our concern here. This ‘spreading’ of an extrasegmental element to affixes is not something demanded directly by interface considerations. It is therefore to be expected that there are syntactic analogies to such phenomena, unless they are inhibited by properties of the syntactic interface. Before turning to consider this, however, I need to comment on another aspect of extrasegmentals. In terms of exponence different extrasegmental elements are localised with varying specificity, and varyingly perceived as localised. Thus extrasegmental vowel elements such as that we have been looking at are generally invasive, given the extended exponence of vowels – as recognised in for instance Steriade’s diagram of (52), repeated here, and as highlighted by a range of discussions by proponents of articulatory phonology (such as Browman & Goldstein 1986, 1988, 1992): (52) Tiers Gestures a tongue body [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ] r tongue tip [ - - - -] → p lips [ - - - - - - ] Thus, for instance, Rialland and Djamouri (1984: §2) observe concerning the {i} extrasegmental in Khalkha Mongolian that its effects can be perceived in intervening consonants in words with which the harmonic element is associated. Other extrasegmentals are expounded rather more locally. Here I shall recall a case where an element that comes itself to occupy a segmental position is nevertheless contrastively associated only with the lexical item as a whole, or some systematic part of it; and it is not linearised by any of the regular rules for sequencing that we have considered. Anderson (1986b, 2001a) argues that /h/ in English is lexically extrasegmental, in that its location in the word can be predicted from the rest of the structure of the word concerned. Thus, lexically in words like hiatus or Ahab, /h/ is outside the syllabic sequence, as represented in (83) (which appeals to the conventions of (75)):

39 Structural analogy in language, and its limits (83) a. h ((i) + (a) + (t(us))) b. h ((a) + (ab)) Anderson (2001a: 205) formulates the regularity as follows as in (84): (84) h-sequencing in English Serialise /h/ in an empty onset in accordance with the hierarchy: a) in a syllable bearing secondary stress (hiatus, Ahab) b) in an accented syllable (Hyams, ahoy, jojoba) c) in a word-initial syllable (hysterical, jojoba) The example in common between (84.b) and (c) here illustrates that more than one instance of the extrasegmental may be associated with a single formative. 22 But the point of this is simply to illustrate an extrasegmental that comes, by rule, to occupy and be expounded at a specific single linear position in a word, as illustrated in (85): (85) {V} | {V} {V/C} | | {V} {V/C} : | : {V.C} {V/C} : : : : : : {C;V} : : : : : : : : a h a b The configuration associated with /h/ is predictable. Again, the detailed positioning of /h/ in English does not seem to be driven directly by interface considerations. It is plausible, in terms of the structural analogy assumption, to expect a syntactic analogy. And such there seems to be. Consider the alternative constructions in (86), for instance: (86) a. Someone is in that cupboard b. There is someone in that cupboard c. Is there someone in that cupboard? d. There are people in that cupboard (86.b) is the so-called ‘existential’ construction, with ‘expletive’ syntactic subject there, which, as such, may be ‘inverted’, as in (86.c), whereas the post-nominal morphosyntactic subject controls concord, as shown by (86.d), compared with (86.a). Anderson (1986c: 113, 1988c: §5, 1992a: 101-2, 1997a: 119), for example, argues that regular syntactic subject-formation, which selects an argument of the predicator and places it in subject position (and to which we return below), has failed to apply in (86.b). 23 I suggest that there is the equivalent of an extrasegmental element: associated with the clause, but not part of the argument structure of the clause or, indeed, even a circumstantial in it, and thus not sequenced by any of the regular rules determining dependencies and word order in the clause.

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 ...