Untitled

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Strict CV17casual relation between the relevant environment and the observed phenomena.To put it differently, in the previous approaches the fact thatconsonants decomplexify in the coda must be regarded as a pure coincidence.On the other hand, in the Strict CV model the explanation of suchphenomena falls out naturally from the syllable structure. Note that,since the traditional coda is replaced here by a position before a governedempty nucleus, the weakness of the former follows from the emptinessof the latter. This implication seems quite natural as it is generallyaccepted by almost all GP researchers that empty nuclei are devoid oflicensing power or, at least, that it is smaller than that of a filled one.Another consequence of dismantling the syllable structure which deservescomment is the increase in the number of empty nuclei. Since it iscommonly agreed that you cannot get an empty category for free, thismodel has to come up with means to keep such nuclei quiet. Interestinglyenough, the doubled number of empty positions does not call for extradevices or heavy machinery. On the contrary, the facts can be neatly coveredby means of the two aforementioned relations, that is, Governmentand Licensing.Finally, it must be clarified here that the theoretical model adoptedin this book is the one developed by Scheer (1998a, 1999a, 2004). Itdoes not mean, however, that this is the only option to choose from. Onthe contrary, there are quite a few versions of the Strict CV model whichsometimes differ quite radically from the one advocated here. Thus, theidea that the syllable structure boils down to a strict alternation of nonbranchingnuclei and onsets has been pursued by many phonologists, forexample, Polgárdi (1998, 1999, 2002, 2003), Rennison (1999a),Rowicka (1999a, 2001), Szigetvári (1999, 2001), Dienes andSzigetvári (1999), and Cyran (2001, 2003).In the remainder of this work we shall look more deeply at certainphenomena in Polish and English phonotactics. It will become clear thatin situations where certain facts have already received a GP explanation,e.g. Polish word-initial consonant sequences (Gussmann and Cyran1998, Cyran and Gussmann 1999), the Strict CV alternativeproposal is not just a theoretical exercise boiling down to mere repartitioningof the branching constituents into non-branching ones. On thecontrary, there are some reasons why we believe this step is necessary.Firstly, the model adopted here is not only able to capture the same factsas GP, but it does it better from the explanatory and simplicity point ofview. After all, the GP analysis of Polish word-initial clusters resemblesthe Strict CV account in that the vast majority of complex initial sequencesmust be represented as a strict alternation of non-branching onsetsand non-branching nuclei. Secondly and more importantly, the Strict CV2 Polish...
18 The frameworkmodel is able to handle the problems previous theories could not resolve(see also the following section). Additionally, it addresses questions whichhave rarely been raised in the past and provides satisfactory answers.Thus, for example, the fact that English, unlike Polish, does not tolerateempty nuclei at the left edge of the word and lacks clusters with thefalling-sonority slope in this position receives a coherent explanation.Finally, some problems which have been left unsolved or simply overlookedby previous theories acquire a new theoretical status, e.g. trappedand syllabic consonants, bogus clusters and vowel syncope. Before wefocus our attention on the analysis of Polish and English data, let usbriefly discuss the evolution of the boundary markers in phonologicaltheory. The discussion in the following section will point to the superiorityof the Strict CV model over GP. Additionally, and more importantly, itwill introduce a problem which is one of the chief issues of this study,namely, the legitimisation and some consequences of Lowenstamm’s(1999) idea of replacing initial boundary marker ‘#’ with a fully phonologicalobject, that is, the initial empty CV unit.3. Boundary markers in phonological theory3.1. IntroductionThe theory of domains in phonology dates back to the publication of theby now classic work by Chomsky and Halle (1968) The Sound Patternof English (SPE). Since morphology as a separate component didnot exist in the early model of Generative Grammar, phonological rulesin SPE operate on syntactic rather than on morphological structures.The syntax-phonology mapping is accomplished by means of three differentdevices, namely, labelled bracketing, morphological boundaries andreadjustment rules. For our purposes we shall focus our attention onlyon the morphological boundaries, or to be more precise, on the internalword boundary ‘#’. 3 For an overview and the critical discussion of thephonology-morphology interaction in early generative theories see A n -derson (1985), Szpyra (1989). Apart from the aforementioned in-3Since in this book we make reference only to the internal word boundary #, we usea shorter name, that is, word boundary.
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: 16 The frameworksion in section 3 b
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 69 and 70:
68 The phonological nature of the b
Page 71 and 72:
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:
III. Bogus clusters, syllabic conso
Page 103 and 104:
102 Bogus clusters, syllabic conson
Page 105 and 106:
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:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
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?