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 94 (iv) a.

John Anderson 94 (iv) a. {V} | {V} {C\{V}} : : : : {i,u} : : : : : * : : : : : l y s b. {V/C} | {V/C} {C\{V}} : : : : {a} {V;} : : : : : : : : * : : : : : : : d a m p c. {V} : : {a : : : i} : : : : : * : : : : d e g The diphthong in (iv.c) is intransitive, but it contains an element, i, associated with sonorance which is a complement of a: recall the discussion of (33) above. Some speakers also show further variation with words where the rhyme consists of two sonorant consonants, such as jarl ‘earl’, such that the stød may be associated with either sonorant, the complement or the adjunct. In this case stød may be said to be associated not just with a complement but any rhymal dependent of the stressed vowel. In general, we have, as with distribution of the negative feature, alternative loci for an extrasegmental/clausal element. I do not attempt here to provide a categorial characterisation for stød, which is not germane to our present purposes. For more details on this and other aspects, see particularly Staun (1987), who also provides a review of other accounts, including (of most rele-

95 Structural analogy in language, and its limits vance here) those in Clements & Keyser (1983), Anderson et al. (1985: §3) and Anderson (1987: §3). I differ from his account (and follow Anderson 1987) in not associating stød with particular segments lexically, the ‘stød basis’: this association is not contrastive, but reflects a phonological redundancy, and so should not be incorporated into lexical representations. 25 This brief account of an analysis of Turkish vowel harmony omits of course some important details. We should note, for instance, the existence of such a suffix as is illustrated by the progressive in (i), which is both not fully unspecified and which introduces a new roundness/gravity domain: (i) a. ÈsÈnÈ-jorum ‘warming-I am’ b. soru-jorum ‘asking-I am’ c. geli-jorum ‘coming-I am’ d. gyly-jorum ‘laughing-I am’ In (i.a) the base does not show gravity; it is a property of the affix, whose first vowel is, segmentally, {a, }. In (i.b) both the base and the affix show gravity, but presumably independently. (i.c-d) show that this affix blocks further ‘spread’ of the acuteness extrasegmental of the base; they differ in that the base in (d) is grave, while that in (c) is not. This affix thus introduces a new domain as far as both extrasegmentals are concerned. 26 The examples in (95), which include only ‘short’ monophthongal vowels, are from Lass & Anderson (1975: ch.IV, §2) and Hogg (1992: ch.5, §VI; for more traditional accounts see Brunner (1965: 95-107), Campbell (1959: 190-204); for a succinct overview see Lass (1994: §3.8). I return to some questions raised by the ‘long’ monophthongs in note 27, as well as, in §2.5, to the pre-nasal short-vowel system. 27 Umlaut of the ‘long’ vowels differs in that the ‘long’ vowel which when unumlauted is spelled æ in West Saxon does not undergo it: West Saxon dæd deed’, mære ‘famous’. This vowel seems to be absent from the inventory of the Anglian dialects, where West Saxon dæd, for instance, is spelled ded; the Anglian vowel contains {i, } contrastively, and also fails to undergo i-umlaut as a consequence of this. This anomaly can be resolved if we adopt Colman’s (2003) suggestion concerning the differences between the ‘long’ and ‘short’ vowel systems. She argues that the ’long’ low vowel equivalent to ‘short’ {a} has not developed as such as this point, but remains diphthongal (its ancestor is Germanic /ai/). In this case, the ‘long’ monophthong system is different from the ‘short’, in lacking the ‘long’ low vowel, as shown in (i.a), underspecified, and (b), fully specified. (i) a. {i} ‘i’ {u} ‘u’ {i, } ‘e’ {u, } ‘o’ { , } ‘æ’ b. {i} ‘i’ {u} ‘u’ {i;a} ‘e’ {u,a} ‘o’ {a;i} ‘æ’ The system in (i.a) lacks a vowel with a. We can therefore simplify the requirements of iumlaut, as formulated in (96), as in (ii):

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 ...