Untitled

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Bogus clusters and vowel syncope117here to propose a solution to the occurrence of the clusters in question.Conversely, we shall confine ourselves to introducing the relevantdata and pinpointing some problematic areas in previous accounts.The analysis proper will appear later on in the second part of this chapter.A starting point for discussion is the set of variable forms first introducedin Vennemann (1968) and analysed within the GP frameworkby Brockhaus (1995). Specifically, Vennemann’s (1968) setrepresents consonant clusters which undergo the general rule ofFinal Obstruent Devoicing (henceforth FOD) in one dialect, NorthernStandard German, but which refuse to undergo devoicing in anotherone, Hochlautung. This set is of particular interest to us as the fluctuatingobstruent is always the first consonant of the bogus cluster.Moreover, the German case is interesting as it seems to challengethe general ban on the word-initial bogus clusters. The latter observation,if true, runs counter to our prediction which says that a languagepossessing the active word-initial empty CV unit does not allowfor consonant clusters separated by the empty governed nucleusat the left margin (see Chapter One). Finally, it will become evidentthat the three phenomena, i.e. syllabic consonants, bogus clusters andvowel syncope, are, as in English, closely related in German. In whatfollows we draw heavily on Brockhaus’s (1995) analysis of FOD inGerman.3.2.2. Bogus clusters in GermanIn her meticulous, book-length analysis of Final Obstruent Devoicingin German, Brockhaus (1995) proposes to explain the phenomenonin question by a single claim, namely, that FOD in German appears beforethe empty nucleus. The reason why we mention this study is twofold.Firstly, it presents the analysis of German consonant clusters couchedwithin Government Phonology. Secondly and more importantly, Brockhaus(1995) in her analysis discusses a set of words which she classifies(after Vennemann (1968:140)) as variable items. The latter are crucialto our study as they represent bogus clusters. Thus, the words representedin (11) have at least two different pronunciations. The forms in (11a) arecharacteristic of Hochlautung, while those in (11b) of Northern StandardGerman (NSG). The data in (11) have been collected from Brockhaus(1995:186).
118 Bogus clusters, syllabic consonants and vowel syncope. . .(11)RodlerAdlerPendlerbiblischzwiebligKüblerübleBüglerKuglerSchmugglerReglereignenregnetSegnungebnenOrdnunga. Hochlautung[ ® roÉdlŒ][ ® /AÉdlŒ][ ® pEndlŒ][ ® biÉblIS][ ® tsviÉblI][ ® kyÉblŒ][ ® /yÉbl«][ ® byÉglŒ][ ® kuÉglŒ][ ® SmUglŒ][ ® reÉglŒ][ ® /aIgn«n][ ® reÉgn«t][ ® zeÉgnUN][ ® /eÉbn«n][ ® /OŒ8dnUN]b. NSG[ ® roÉtlŒ][ ® /AÉtlŒ][ ® pEntlŒ][ ® biÉplIS][ ® tsviÉplI][ ® kyÉplŒ][ ® /yÉpl«][ ® byÉklŒ][ ® kuÉklŒ][ ® SmUklŒ][ ® reÉklŒ][ ® /aIkn«n][ ® reÉkn«t][ ® zeÉknUN][ ® /eÉpn«n][ ® /OŒ8tnUN]‘tobogganist’‘eagle’‘commuter’‘biblical’‘oniony’‘cooper’‘bad, fem. sg.’‘sb. who irons’‘surname’‘smuggler’‘regulator’‘suit’‘it rains’‘blessing’‘level’‘order’It must be clarified here that even though the forms illustrated aboveare morphologically complex, in none of the examples is the obstruentadjacent to the domain boundary. This simply means that the bogus clustersare not the result of a concatenation of separate morphemes. Moreover,the difference between both dialects consists in obstruent devoicing.Thus, in NSG the obstruent is found to undergo devoicing, while in Hochlautungthere is no change in the obstruent voicing specification. Whenfaced with the data in (11), Brockhaus (1995) tests three different possibilitiesfor the [dl] cluster available within the GP model. Thus, she considersthe following representations: a coda-onset sequence, a branchingonset and two onsets separated by the empty nucleus. She eliminates thefirst two options by pointing to the fact that the coda in Germancannot license the laryngeal node due to the application of FOD whichtraditionally occurs in the coda. Thus, the obstruents in Hochlautungcannot belong to the coda. Moreover, even if the obstruent becomes neutralised,just as in NSG, it cannot occupy the coda position simply becauseit would be followed by the sonorant onset which is less complex. Consequently,the inter-constituent government within the coda-onset sequencecould not be contracted. Furthermore, Brockhaus (1995) indicatesthat the [dl] cluster is not able to appear in a branching onset either.She claims, following Harris (1990), that segments forming a branchingonset have to meet certain complexity requirements, i.e. identical
Page 2 and 3:
Polish and EnglishConsonantal Clust
Page 4 and 5:
Artur KijakPolish and EnglishConson
Page 6 and 7:
ContentsPreface . . . . . . . . . .
Page 8 and 9:
PrefaceThe phonotactic peculiaritie
Page 10 and 11:
Preface92000), Ploch (1999), van de
Page 12:
List of abbreviationsBrODIdim.FODge
Page 15 and 16:
14 The frameworkemploying the simpl
Page 17 and 18:
16 The frameworksion in section 3 b
Page 19 and 20:
18 The frameworkmodel is able to ha
Page 21 and 22:
20 The frameworkhanan 1986). Thus,
Page 23 and 24:
22 The frameworkare not derived at
Page 25 and 26:
24 The frameworkWhat is interesting
Page 27 and 28:
26 The frameworklateral relations,
Page 29 and 30:
28 The frameworkIn general, we can
Page 31 and 32:
30 The frameworkobstruents followed
Page 33 and 34:
32 The frameworkLet us look more de
Page 35 and 36:
34 The framework(7) PGO N O N O N O
Page 37 and 38:
36 The frameworkby all sounds. Thus
Page 39 and 40:
38 The frameworkexist. What is a Br
Page 41 and 42:
40The frameworkLowenstamm’s (1999
Page 43 and 44:
42 The frameworksky and Halle’s (
Page 45 and 46:
44 The phonological nature of the b
Page 47 and 48:
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: 66 The phonological nature of the b
Page 101 and 102: III. Bogus clusters, syllabic conso
Page 103 and 104: 102 Bogus clusters, syllabic conson
Page 117: 116 Bogus clusters, syllabic conson
Page 153 and 154: 152 Conclusionnisms available in th
Page 155 and 156: 154 ReferencesBotma, B. (2004) Phon
Page 157 and 158: 156 ReferencesGussmann, E. (1998) D
Page 159 and 160: 158 ReferencesPawelec, P. (1989) Cy
Page 161 and 162: 160 ReferencesScheer, T. (1997) Vow
Page 164 and 165: Author indexAbercrombie, David 103A
Page 166 and 167: Artur KijakGrupy spó³g³oskowe w
Page 168 and 169:
Zusammenfassung167für alle anderen
show all

Untitled

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?