Fieldwork and Linguistic Analysis in Indigenous ... - ScholarSpace

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Gemination and Tonal Feet in Weledeh Dogrib 213 a High-Low sequence from the input. That being the case, the other constraints in Table 7 serve to decide what repair strategy should be used. 5 The constraint which forces some sort of deletion is maxassoc(v, tone), based on Myers 1997. table 7. Tone-conditioned vowel deletion (stem level) /bò-kà-e-wìd-t’è/ nocntr-ft maxassoc (v, tone) a. bò-kà-(ewì)t’è *! maxassoc (μ, v) max(l) max (μ) b. bò-kà-(èwì)t’è *! * c. bò-kà-(ewi)t’è *! * d. bò-kà-(wìì)t’è *! * e. bò-kà-(ee)t’è *! * f. bò-kà-(e)t’è *! * ☞g. bò-kà-(wì)t’è * * maxassoc(V, Tone) (informally): For every vowel associated with a tone in the input, it must remain associated with its tone in the output. For every output vowel not associated to its input tone, assign a violation mark. max (h) Crucially, this constraint is violated by any output vowel which has been de-linked from its tone; therefore, it cannot be violated if there is no output vowel. In this way, the constraint maxassoc(v, tone) is able to force vowel deletion: just as a captain goes down with the ship, a vowel must go down with its tone. In a similar fashion, moras are also forbidden from de-linking from their input vowels. maxassoc(μ, V) (informally): For every mora associated with a vowel in the input, it must remain associated with its vowel in the output. For every output mora not associated to its input vowel, assign a violation mark. The constraint maxassoc(μ, v) serves to rule out candidates such as (d) and (e) in Table 7, in which compensatory lengthening has taken place. This is because the nature of compensatory lengthening is that some segment deletes and its mora re-associates to 5 Gemination is, in principle, another possible strategy, though in my analysis, it is available only at the Word Level. The constraint ranking at both the stem level and postlexical level forbids altering consonant length (though the relevant constraints are not shown in Figure 9). fieldwork and linguistic analysis in indigenous languages of the americas
Gemination and Tonal Feet in Weledeh Dogrib 214 another segment. That tones and moras should behave this way leads us to a rather curious conclusion: the autosegmental phonology of Dogrib doesn’t seem very autosegmental at all, and tones and moras behave like properties of segments. Why should this be? There is of course no a priori reason to expect that tones and moras should float around freely on their own tier, any more than place or manner of articulation. On the other hand, the most typical situation is for tones and moras to be stable, that is, to remain behind even after their segment deletes. Furthermore, if some sequence of tones is ill-formed in a language, generally the repair strategy will be to fix the tone sequence, e.g. by spreading or downstepping, and not alter anything on the segmental tier. Why should Dogrib be any different? The answer, in my opinion, has to do with the relatively recent tonogenesis in Athabaskan languages (Krauss 2005). Before tonogenesis, vowels which in modern Dogrib have Low tone were followed by a glottal stop (ʔ), while modern High tones were not. This means that Low toned vowels necessarily formed closed syllables, while High tones were mostly open syllables. This means, in other words, that modern (High-Low) sequences were historically (light-heavy) sequences. This would suggest that, originally, syncope in Dogrib was based on stress and weight: the syncope rule targeted the weak branch of an iambic foot. With tonogenesis, the final glottals were lost, and with it was lost any transparent motivation for syncope in terms of weight. Instead, the syncope rule was re-interpreted as being based on tone, which gave rise to the constraint nocontour-ft. Finally, one should note that the winning candidate in Table 7 represents the output to the Stem Level phonology, and is not the final output. Specifically, the glide w in candidate (g) will be deleted as part of a process of vowel coalescence, to be shown in section 6.2, and thus the actual output is bòkàìt’è. 6. COALESCENCE PROCESSES. A majority of morphophonemic alternations in Dogrib involve some form of coalescence. Marinakis (2004) argues that coalescence is driven by constraints of the type *struc(σ), which seek to reduce the overall number of syllables within the word. While it is true that coalescence processes almost invariably do reduce the overall number of syllables, this analysis makes relatively few predictions about which syllables should be the targets of coalescence. Here I propose instead how coalescence can be derived from tonal feet. The driving force here, I argue, is the Stress-to-Weight principle, or SWP (Borrelli 2000). This is a constraint which requires, if a syllable bears primary lexical stress, that it be heavy, i.e. have two moras. This constraint poses problems for a moraic trochee system, in that by simply lengthening stressed syllables, one incurs violations of foot binarity. A light-light trochee of the form (μ . μ), which bears primary lexical stress, satisfies footbinarity but violates Stress-to-Weight, while, conversely, a heavy-light trochee of the form (μ μ . μ) satisfies Stress-to-Weight but violates footbinarity. There is a way around this problem, however. Recall that, in a moraic trochee language, a well-formed trochee can consist of either two light syllables (light-light) or a single heavy syllable (heavy). A solution, therefore, is to coalesce both syllables of a (lightlight) trochee into a single, heavy syllable. The stressed syllable is then heavy, while at the same time the foot is still binary. In Dogrib, this is accomplished by deleting intervocalic consonants, and merging together the newly adjacent vowels. The consonants which delete fieldwork and linguistic analysis in indigenous languages of the americas
Page 2 and 3:
Fieldwork and Linguistic Analysis i
Page 5:
Contents Foreword iii Marianne Mith
Page 8 and 9:
Another fading boundary is that bet
Page 10 and 11:
languages: Akawaio (Kapóng), Akuri
Page 12:
Acknowledgments The editors are dee
Page 15 and 16:
Introduction 2 COMMUNITY COLLABORAT
Page 17 and 18:
Introduction 4 confined themselves
Page 19 and 20:
Introduction 6 Often, what turns ou
Page 21 and 22:
Introduction 8 references boas, fra
Page 23 and 24:
The Discourse Marker vet in Ixil Ma
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
fieldwork and linguistic analysis i
Page 47 and 48:
Classifying Clitics in Sm’algyax
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Noun Class and Number in Kiowa-Tano
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
fieldwork and linguistic analysis i
Page 105 and 106:
The Story of *ȏ in the Cariban Fam
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
124 fieldwork and linguistic analys
Page 139 and 140:
Zapotec Determiners 126 System of O
Page 141 and 142:
Zapotec Determiners 128 and most at
Page 143 and 144:
Zapotec Determiners 130 do often oc
Page 145 and 146:
Zapotec Determiners 132 The minimal
Page 147 and 148:
Zapotec Determiners 134 (14) (MMC,
Page 149 and 150:
Zapotec Determiners 136 In the text
Page 151 and 152:
Zapotec Determiners 138 b. bɛn gun
Page 153 and 154:
Zapotec Determiners 140 rɛ’ɛbi-
Page 155 and 156:
Zapotec Determiners 142 (29) (LGL,
Page 157 and 158:
Zapotec Determiners 144 APPENDIX: T
Page 159 and 160:
146 fieldwork and linguistic analys
Page 161 and 162:
Middles and Reflexives in Yucatec M
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176: Middles and Reflexives in Yucatec M
Page 185 and 186: 172 fieldwork and linguistic analys
Page 187 and 188: Dena’ina Discourse Markers 174 On
Page 189 and 190: Dena’ina Discourse Markers 176 (4
Page 191 and 192: Dena’ina Discourse Markers 178
Page 193 and 194: Dena’ina Discourse Markers 180 5
Page 203 and 204: Dena’ina Discourse Markers 190 Th
Page 207 and 208: Dena’ina Discourse Markers 194 Q
Page 211 and 212: Dena’ina Discourse Markers 198 co
Page 213 and 214: Dena’ina Discourse Markers 200 RE
Page 215 and 216: Dena’ina Discourse Markers 202 Pe
Page 217 and 218: Gemination and Tonal Feet in Welede
Page 225: Gemination and Tonal Feet in Welede
Page 237 and 238: Dependent Verbs in Sierra Popoluca
show all

Fieldwork and Linguistic Analysis in Indigenous ... - ScholarSpace

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?