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 42 d.

John Anderson 42 d. kurd-lar ‘worm’ pl. e. son-lar-Èn ‘end’ pl. gen. (See e.g. Goldsmith 1990 and Carr 1993, for further exemplification, discussion and references.) I interpret {u} as an extrasegmental feature that comes to be associated with the accented vowel, generally the final one (Poser 1984: 128, cited in Halle & Vergnaud 1987: 53), but is manifested throughout the form. In initial syllables we have a contrast between [a] and [o], however, as illustrated in (92.b), in which both forms also seem to show the {u} extrasegmental. I take {a} to be opaque with respect to {u}, as is also evident in affixed forms such as the plural in (92.d) compared with the first genitive in (c). And the genitive plural in (92.e) shows that {a} blocks the further ‘spread’ of the extrasegmental. Since the accent in Turkish is specifically word-final, the domain for the ‘spread’ of the {u} feature is presumably morphologically rather than accentually determined, as ‘moving’ rightwards through the affixes in a word, where not blocked by an opaque vowel.. Turkish also exhibits acuteness harmony, which again ‘moves’ rightwards from the base, as illustrated by the possessed forms in (93.a) and the plurals in (93.b), compared with the possessed forms in (93.c) and plurals in (93.d), which lack the acuteness extrasegmental: (93) a. iz-i ‘his footprint, demir-i ‘his anchor’, gyl-y ‘his rose’, čøl-i ‘his desert’ b. iz-ler ‘footprints’, gyl-ler ‘roses’ c. baš-È ‘his head’, kÈč-È ‘his rump’, kurd-u ‘his worm’ d. baš-lar ‘heads’, kÈč-lar ‘rumps’, kurd-lar ‘worms’ So that the set of lexical segmental vowels is small. Indeed, it is limited to that in (94.a), where, as indicated in (94.c), {a} is manifested as [a] and (with acuteness extrasegmental of (94.b)) [e]; the partially specified vowel {a, }, realised as [o] (with gravity extrasegmental) or [ø] (with both); and the unspecified vowel { } is manifested as the rest of the possibilities – [È] (without extrasegmental), [u] (with gravity only), [i] (with acuteness only) and [y] (with both): (94) a. lexical segmental vowels of Turkish {a} {a, } { } b. Turkish extrasegmentals {i} {u} c. Turkish extrasegmental associations and realisations segment extra realisation example o = {a, } {u} {u,a} son ‘end’ u = { } {u} {u} kurd ‘worm’ e = {a} {i} {i,a} sebep ‘reason’ i = { } {i} {i} is ‘footprint’ ø = {a, } {i,u} {i,u,a} čøl ‘desert’ y = { } {i,u} {i,u} gyl ‘rose’ a = {a} {a} baš ‘head’ È = { } { } kÈč ‘rump’

43 Structural analogy in language, and its limits All of the vowels which are associated with extrasegmentals are manifestly incomplete, and it is addition of the extrasegmentals that renders them realisable, as shown again in (94.c). Only the colourless vowel [È], with no associated extrasegmental, emerges as incomplete, as a default vowel. 25 Parallel to {i}, which is extrasegmental in the preceding examples, the secondary category {past}, as well as being clausal, can also occur ‘non-clausally’, the equivalent of ‘intra-segmentally’. For instance, one can interpret in such terms the proposal that central instances of the ‘perfect have’ construction involve an ‘embedded past’ (e.g. Poutsma 1926: 209, Jespersen 1931: §4.1, Huddleston 1969: §4, McCawley 1971, Anderson 1972: §XVI, 1973, 1976). So that had + ‘past participle’ in (88) or (95.a) involves both a clausal {past}, as has just been suggested, and an ‘inherent’ one, whereas has/have + ‘past participle’ in (95.b-c) contain only an inherent one: (95) a. She had left b. She has left (*last Tuesday) c. She may have left (last Tuesday) A finite like that in (95.b) is interpreted as having clausal non-past reference in the absence of the {past} feature; hence (95.b) has ‘present relevance’ (as its sometimes put) as well as past time reference for the event itself. However, the non-finite in (95.c) may or may not be interpreted in this way. Hence, as is familiar, there is a reading for (95.c) on which it is compatible with definite past time reference (as indicated by the acceptability of the bracketed temporal. The unacceptability of the corresponding temporal in (95.b) illustrates the usual incompatibility of the finite perfect with such time reference. The inherent {past} of ‘perfect have’ may nevertheless be deictic; and it may ‘spread’. So that it can establish a new domain, as illustrated by (96.a), where the form was reflects the inherent {past} of the has construction (cf. again Declerck 1988): (96) a. John has never said that Mary was stupid b. John has never said that Mary is stupid In (96.b), on the other hand, is is deictic, and is not part of the domain of the clausal deictic. In so far as there is in the phonology spreading of ‘inherent’ (segmental) features, this would constitute an analogy to the inherent {past} of English have + ‘past participle’ construction. Other items in English with inherent past time reference are former and last and ex-. Other items involve an inherent past-time existential, as late in late President and the like. In some languages nouns can be marked as involving past possession by someone, as in Kwakw´ala (97.a) vs. (b): (97) a. x´n x w ak w ´nxda ‘my past canoe’ b. x´n x w ak w ´´na ‘my canoe’ (Anderson 1985: 179). These all involve inherent rather than clausal {past}. The ‘sequence of tense’ phenomenon provides a rather striking analogy to harmony processes in phonology, an analogy which only the separateness of the too-infrequentlyinteracting traditions of syntactic and phonological investigations has rendered opaque.

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 ...