Untitled

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Three-consonant sequences67emphasised here that consonants flanking a trapped sonorant alwaysagree in voicing, e.g. [drv]al ‘wood-cutter’, [krt]añ ‘larynx’, etc. The latterobservation was one of the main reasons why Polish trapped sonorantscaught the attention of phonologists in the past. Many analyseshave been offered for the behaviour of trapped sonorants with respect tovoicing (Bethin 1984, Rubach and Booij 1987, 1990a, b, R u -bach 1996, 1997a, b, Gussmann 1992). Very briefly, trapped sonorantswere claimed to be transparent to voice assimilation or voice neutralisation.In the latter situation a voiced obstruent which occurs beforea word-final trapped sonorant undergoes word-final devoicing, althoughit is not final at all (24).(24)a.bó[pr] — bo[br]a¿u[pr] — ¿u[br]aka[tr] — ka[dr]ub.mieli[sn] — mieli[zn]aboja[‚] — boja[ó]imechani[sm] — mechani[zm]y‘beaver, nom.sg./gen.sg.’‘bison, nom.sg./gen.sg.’‘frame, nom.sg./gen.sg.’‘shallows, gen.pl./nom.sg.’‘fear, nom.sg./gen.sg.’‘mechanism, sg./pl.’It was observed that although an obstruent preceding a trapped consonantis underlyingly voiced, it undergoes neutralisation when the casemarker is zero. Moreover, despite the fact that in Polish the rule of voiceneutralisation applies to obstruents only, trapped sonorants were observedto undergo devoicing too, and the familiar example bóbr shouldactually be transcribed [bup °r], with the whole final cluster devoiced.Unsurprisingly, the same ‘transparency’ was observed in the word-internal/initialposition. The general conclusion was that obstruents flankinga sonorant always agree in voicing. In Polish, unlike in Czech, for instance,TrD clusters (where ‘D’ is a voiced obstruent) are not possible.However, the reason why Polish was such an eagerly studied languagewas that in this language voice assimilation across the sonorant can beboth regressive and progressive, e.g. [kref] — [k °rfi] — [krevné] ‘blood,nom.sg./gen.sg./relative’, [bref] — [brvi] ‘eyebrow, nom.sg./nom.pl.’,[jent °rka] — [jendrek] (a name, gen.sg./nom.sg.). In the case of [kref] thefinal fricative must be voiced phonologically, vis. /v/, because of the form[krevné]. Since /v/ in /krev/ is reduced to [f] due to the general rule ofword-final neutralisation, the one in [k °rfi] must arise due to a progressiveassimilation. In other words, the devoicing of /v/ must be ascribed tothe presence of the initial [k] that precedes the trapped [r]. On the other5*
68 The phonological nature of the beginning of the wordhand, the form [jent °rka] demonstrates regressive assimilation, thus, in[jendrek] both the dental plosive [d] and [r] are voiced. However, thecluster [dr] undergoes devoicing when it occurs in a direct contact withthe following voiceless [k]. The voice value of [k] imposes its voicelesscharacteristic on the entire cluster. It must be clarified here that theidentical voicing specification of obstruents separated by the trapped [r]does not constitute any problem for models like GP or the Strict CV framework,where the sonorants lack the laryngeal element. Moreover, in[bup °r] the bilabial plosive /b/ is devoiced due to the following empty nucleus,which cannot license the laryngeal node in Polish. Finally, the explanationof the devoiced character of /r/ both in the former and the lattercontext, rather than being a pure phonological phenomenon, falls underthe scope of phonetics. 18Additionally, it should be noted here that the forms [jent °rka] – [jendrek]are peculiar in another respect. Specifically, in the previous analysestrapped sonorants were claimed to be extrasyllabic (Rubach andBooij 1990a, Rubach 1996, 1997a, b). However, as pointed out byScheer (2004), in all studied cases extrasyllabicity and extrametricallityoccur only at word-edges. This observation follows from the fact thatword-margins behave in a peculiar, often unpredictable way. If trappedsonorants are extrasyllabic, Polish is the only language which allows forword-internal extrasyllabicity, e.g. Jêdrka [jent °rka] (a name), piosnka[pjos °nka] ‘song’, czosnku [t¡Sos °nku] ‘garlic, gen.sg.’ It follows that previousaccounts relying on the syllabification algorithm left word-medialtrapped sonorants such as [n] in czosnku unsyllabified. Note that [n] canneither form a branching onset with the following [k], nor qualify asa second member of a branching coda [sn]. Both options violate the SonoritySequencing Principle. Needless to say, the same argumentation appliesto word-final TR clusters such as [p °r] in bóbr. The latter clustercannot be interpreted as a branching onset as such constituents do notoccur word-finally. The problem was solved by assigning the [b] to thecoda, which left the final [r] unsyllabified. This analysis was then extendedto cover word-initial trapped sonorants. The representation of[jent °rka] and [bup °r] is given below in (25).In (25a) the extrasyllabic character assigned to the word-internal [r]is the reason why the flanking obstruents agree in voicing. Generallyspeaking, extrasyllabicity explains the transparent character of the wordinternaltrapped sonorants. Both obstruents, i.e. /d/ and /k/, are adjacentat the early stage of syllabification, hence voice assimilation occurs. Thenthe unsyllabified segment is linked to the higher prosodic constituent,18I owe this note to Eugeniusz Cyran
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 67: 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 119 and 120:
118 Bogus clusters, syllabic conson
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?