Vowel length in Icelandic Vowel length in Icelandic compounds and the role of FENs compounds and the role of FENs Marcin Fortuna Marcin Fortuna Ludwig Ludwig - - Maximilians Maximilians - - Universit Universit ä ä t M t M ü ü nchen nchen [email protected][email protected]Government Phonology Round Table 9 Budapest, 20.04.2013
40
Embed
Fortuna 2013 Vowel length in Icelandic compounds and the ... · SGP account Gussmann (2002, 2006b): a syllabification algorithm which makes use of empty nuclei (SGP) Regularity: •
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Vowel length in Icelandic Vowel length in Icelandic compounds and the role of FENscompounds and the role of FENs
# 9Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013
� An empirically adequate generalisation:
• If the last consonant of the first member of the compound ends in a
fortis plosive or /s/ (=contains {H}), then concatenate the second
member analytically
• If the last consonant of the first member of the compound is any
other consonant (=does not contain {H}), then concatenate the
second member synthetically
� In other words: spell-out is melodically conditioned � (an unacceptable conclusion)
# 10Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013
2) Interpretations
� Árnason (2011):
• two versions of the rule of lengthening: lexical and post-lexical
• the lexical rule applies:
– morpheme-internally– on boundaries with inflectional endings– on boundaries with some derivational morphemes
• the post-lexical rule applies:
– on boundaries with some other derivational morphemes– in compounds– it may apply between any two adjacent words in a sentence
(precise morphosyntactic contexts call for more research)
• no attempt of explanation of the post-lexical syllabification algorithm;
only a general description
# 11Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013
• older approaches:
– Oresnik (1971): compounds may have a # boundary- explains the behaviour of clusters with {H} but not of the other
group– Gussmann (1985: 90):
- individual morphemes come with a given type of boundary- compounds have #, later: boundary weakening after voiced
consonants
– Booij (1986: 14) transforms this rule into the one which merges two phonological words into one when the first one ends in a voiced consonant
# 12Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013
3) Gussmann’s SGP account
� Gussmann (2002, 2006b): a syllabification algorithm which makes use of empty nuclei (SGP)
� Regularity:
• stressed rhymes always need to branch
• aspirated plosives can never be syllabified in the coda
• therefore they land in the onset and the preceding nucleus
branches
# 13Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013
� rauð+leitur [ˈrœʏðlɛithʏr] ‘reddish’
• [ð] can be syllabified in the coda
# 14Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013
� hvít+leitur [ˈkhvi:thlɛithʏr] ‘whitish’
• [th] cannot be syllabified in the coda; it lands in the onset; the
preceding nucleus branches
# 15Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013
� „Within the syllabic approach we need to say nothing in addition to what has already been established, namely that aspirated plosives canonly appear in the onset. When this principle is followed, it is obvious that the preceding syllableis open and its nucleus has to branch. No separate generalisations for simplex and complex words are necessary.” (2002: 183)
� Gussmann tries to be as representational as possible� His proposal works only because he refers to surface
aspirated plosives!
# 16Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013
� There are also underlying fortis plosives in the preconsonantal position
� On the surface they behave differently when the cluster is domain-internal and when it is an effect of concatenation
# 17Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013
� If Gussmann’s (2002) syllabification algorithm operated blindly (on underlying plosives), it would not distinguish between hvítleitur and ætla
� Gussmann fails to recognize the importance of the morpheme boundary in syllabification
� A syllabification algorithm which does not consider the boundary makes a wrong prediction!
# 18Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013
� A similar problem: the syllabification of /s/� Gussmann (2002: 187-193) calls it a ‘double agent’� it sometimes syllabifies as a coda, sometimes as an
onset� no attempt of explanation which way is preferred when� Actually:
� the second consonant enforces LIO, therefore it leads to melodic depletion of its target
# 33Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013
� also /s/ (containing {H}) is governable morpheme-internally, but not across a FEN
� the patterning of /s/ with fortis plosives poses an important question: is it the matter of complexity calculus, or just the presence of {H}?
� both statements seem to work� other fricatives pattern with sonorants; probably they don’t
contain {H}� /s/ is problematic in very many ways
� the question will be left open
# 34Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013
Conclusion
� The paper provided an alternative way of handling post-lexical syllabification in Icelandic: a process which appears to violate modularity
� It was demonstrated that it is necessary to take into account communication between melodies: an argument against anti-melodism
� An alternative application of Direct Interface was proposed: if the Translator’s Office can upgrade the FENs and there is LIO (instead of Proper Government), it’s possible to explain why Icelandic compounds appear to contain sometimes one, sometimes two domains
# 35Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013
Addendum: arguments for the model
� The presented model of phonology openly takes issues with anti-melodism present in Strict CV
� argument for anti-melodism: there are languages in which there are no restrictions on possible consonant clusters (e.g. Moroccan Arabic – Scheer 2004: 459-467)
� this can be incorporated within the present model: Moroccan Arabic chooses not to place restrictions on consonants involved in LIO – anything can govern anything
� but other languages do choose it!� the existence of more specific phonotactic restrictions is
inexpressible in models with Proper Government
# 36Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013
� for instance:
• coronals at word edges in English and German: Herbst, Arzt
• super-heavy rhymes in English involve only coronal clusters
• vowel ~ zero alternations which function differently in different
melodic configurations of neighbouring consonants (Scandinavian
languages – Fortuna 2013ab)
� these phenomena become much easier to explain when the responsibility for establishing clusters is shifted to consonants themselves
# 37Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013
� parametric choices include:• is there LIO or not?
– if YES: what can govern what?
• is there RIO or not? (the existence of RIO presupposes the existence of LIO! – 2010)
– if YES: what can govern what?
• what is the influence of LIO or RIO on the intervening nucleus?– default: LIO deprives the nucleus of licensing abilities, RIO does
not– there may be language-specific deviations, may involve specific
melodic primes!– ideally: the whole phonotactics of any language should be
definable with these means– Probably a more elaborated theory of melodic primes is
necessary
# 38Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013
Bibliography
Árnason, Kristján. 2011. The Phonology of Icelandic and Faroese. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Charette, Monik. 1990. Licence to govern. Phonology 7: 233-253.Booij, Geert. 1986. Icelandic vowel lengthening and prosodic phonology. In F.
Beukema & A. Hulk (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1986, 9-18. Dordrecht: Foris.
Cyran, Eugeniusz. 2010. Complexity Scales and Licensing in Phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fortuna, Marcin. 2013a. Icelandic and Faroese tonic lengthening in CV phonology: towards an alternative account. Paper presented at the ConSOLE XXI, Potsdam, 9-11 January.
Fortuna, Marcin. 2013b. Why Icelandic and Faroese tonic lengthening is not a lengthening. Paper presented at the Old World Conference in Phonology 10, Istanbul, 16-19 January.
Gussmann, Edmund. 1985. The Morphology of a Phonological Rule: Icelandic Vowel Length. In: Gussmann, Edmund (ed.), Phono-Morphology. Lublin: RW KUL, 75-94.
Gussmann, Edmund. 2002. Phonology: Analysis and Theory. Cambridge: CUP.
# 39Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013
Gussmann, Edmund. 2006a. Icelandic vowel length and governing relations in phonology. Lingua Posnaniensis XLVIII, 21-41.
Gussmann, Edmund. 2006b. Icelandic and Universal Phonology. Greifswald: Ernst-Moritz-Arndt Universität Greifswald.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1985. On the lexical phonology of Icelandic. In: Elert, C., I. Johansson, E. Strangert (eds.), Nordic Prosody III. Stockholm: University of Umeå.
Oresnik, Janez. 1971. On the phonological boundary between constituents of Modern Icelandic compound words. Linguistica 11: 51-59.
Scheer, Tobias. 2004. A Lateral Theory of Phonology. Volume I: What Is CVCV, and Why Should It Be? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Scheer, Tobias. 2012a. Direct Interface and One-Channel Translation. A non-diacritic theory of morphosyntax-phonology interface. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Scheer, Tobias. 2012b. Melody-free syntax and two Phonologies. Paper presented at the 10th Colloque du Réseau Phonologique Français (RFP), Paris, 25-27 June.
Scheer, Tobias. 2013. Melody-free syntax. Paper presented at the Workshop on complexity at UQAM, Montreal, 8 February.
# 40Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013