Prosodic Hierarchy and Domains for Segmental Rules: An Overview, Study notes of Spanish Language

Download Prosodic Hierarchy and Domains for Segmental Rules: An Overview and more Study notes Spanish Language in PDF only on Docsity! Proseminar on the prosodic word, Fall 2006, Zuraw Class 1, Sept. 28 1 Class 1: Introduction Outline of today and next week • The prosodic hierarchy as source of domains for segmental rules • Other jobs of prosodic constituents • P-word case studies and counteranalyses I. The prosodic hierarchy as source of domains for segmental rules A. The hierarchy (1) Prosodic hierarchy—many variants exist, of course U: utterance | I: intonational phrase |
: phonological phrase | : p-word (aka phonological word, prosodic word) | F: foot | : syllable | segment (2) Bibliographic note Papers by Selkirk in the late 1970s and early 1980s first proposed this hierarchy: • Elizabeth Selkirk (1978). On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. In T. Fretheim (ed.) Nordic Prosody II. Trondheim: TAPIR. • Elizabeth Selkirk (1980). Prosodic domains in phonology: Sanskrit revisited. In Mark Aronoff & Mary-Louise Kean (eds.) Juncture. Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri. • Elizabeth Selkirk (1980). The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. Linguistic Inquiry 11, 563-605. • Elizabeth Selkirk (1981). On the nature of phonological representation. In J. Anderson, J. Laver & T. Meyers (eds.) The Cognitive Representation of Speech. Amsterdam: North Holland. Unfortunately for readers, these papers defer discussion of various questions to a forthcoming synthesisi, and by the time iti came out,1 Selkirk had changed her mind and decided against the foot, p-word, and p-phrase. For a more comprehensive presentation of the idea, see • Marina Nespor & Irene Vogel (1986). Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. 1 Elizabeth Selkirk (1984). Phonology and Syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Proseminar on the prosodic word, Fall 2006, Zuraw Class 1, Sept. 28 2 (3) Example (loosely adapted from Nespor & Vogel 1986, henceforth N&V) U I I I | |



           / \ | | | | / \ | | | \ | F F F F F F F F F F F F F | \ | \ | | | \ | | \ | | | | | | \                       Eu- ro- pe- an wild cats are of- ten mis- cla- ssi- fied in old text-books a- bout a- ni- mals B. The theory of domains Selkirk’s main motivation in proposing the hierarchy was to account for the domains of segmental rules. She proposed that there are three ways a rule can relate to its domain. (4) Rule types (not Selkirk’s original notation) • domain span rules: the structural description must be contained within a certain domain D A  B / ...X__Y... • domain juncture rules: the structural description spans the boundary between two domains D, and is contained within a domain D’ (D’ is higher than D, but not necessarily the immediately dominating level) D’ D’ D D D D A  B / ... ... X __Y Z ... ... or A  B / ... ... X Y __Z ... ... • domain limit rules: the structural description is at the edge of a domain D D D A  B / ...X__Y or A  B / X__Y... Proseminar on the prosodic word, Fall 2006, Zuraw Class 1, Sept. 28 5 (10) Counteranalysis: boundary symbols Let’s use a richer inventory of symbols than SPE: %: utterance boundary @: intonational-phrase boundary $: p-phrase boundary #: p-word boundary (and of course we need a set of rules to insert these boundary symbols in the right places) Final Voicing (p-word-juncture on utterance domain) [–son]  [+voice] / __# ($* @*)* # [+voice] Final Deaspiration/Devoicing (p-word-limit) [–son] 
    –voice –s.g. / __# Classical nati (p-word-span)—if syllable and foot boundaries exist, assume that they’re allowed to occur anywhere in string matching the structural description.   6 / {), , +, 7} [–cor]0 __ {V, , , , }  Vedic nati (p-phrase-span)   6 / {), , +, 7}#* ([–cor]0 #*)* __ #* {V, , , , }  (11) Selkirk on boundary symbols Selkirk objects to the duplication of boundary symbols that occurs in domain-span rules with long structural descriptions: Hypothetical intonational-phrase-span rule: int-phrase (i) A  B / ...XY__WZ ... becomes (ii) A  B / X (#* $*)* Y (#* $*)* __ (#* $*)* W (#* $*)* Z This is no more valued (by the brevity metric of SPE) than, say, (iii) A  B / X (#* $*)* Y (#* )* __ (#* $*)* W ($* )* Z Proseminar on the prosodic word, Fall 2006, Zuraw Class 1, Sept. 28 6 which type of rule Selkirk claims doesn’t occur. (In Selkirk’s theory this would translate into a messy disjunction of cases, some of which may be uninstantiable by well-formed prosodic trees—we can try to draw it). Selkirk suggests that boundary theory could be modified with some additional conventions to work more cleanly (following earlier work of McCawley and of Stanley). For domain-span rules, for example, we could just write (iv) A  B / %...XY__WZ...% with the stipulation that in a rule whose structural description is surrounded by matching boundary symbols, boundaries of lower “strength” are understood to occur optionally anywhere else in the string. o Ideas on how we can modify the theory to deal neatly with domain-juncture rules and domain-limit rules? (12) Counteranalysis: lexical phonology sat, aha 1  & 1 )&   &!1! suffixation -- --   -- --   -- nati (word-span) -- -- -- -- -- 6 -- Final Deaspiration/Devoicing (word-limit) -- -- -- lap, sye ) -- -- compounding sat+aha -- -- lap+sye -- -- &! ! syntax --  -- -- -- -- -- Final Voicing (word- juncture on utterance domain) sadaha 
$           9  -- (why not?) -- -- -- -- o How can we deal with intermediate domains (p-phrase, intonational phrase)? o Selkirk proposes that all rules are domain-span, domain-juncture, or domain-limit, as given above. Does this limitation on rules follow from the prosodic hierarchy, or must it be an additional stipulation? How about in lexical phonology? C. Case study: Italian (N&V, various chapters—I don’t know if there’s one dialect with all) (13) Utterance-span rule: Gorgia Toscana (Tuscan variety) • Rules for utterance construction thought to allow lots of variation and to be similar or identical across languages. • Utterance  sentence, but sentences can combine into an utterance if they’re in certain semantic relationships. Proseminar on the prosodic word, Fall 2006, Zuraw Class 1, Sept. 28 7 N&V treat Gorgia Toscana as an intonational-phrase-span rule, but say that their data show occasional spirantization across intonational-phrase boundaries, too. Vogel 19972 treats the rule as utterance-span. utterance     p t k     
 h / ...[–cons] __ [–cons]... [((lo 'sai ho'm  dif'fiile)IP (ho'noe k'kweste 'hse)IP)] /k/ /k/ /k/ it know how is difficult know these things ‘You know how difficult it is to know these things.’ (medial IP boundaries assumed because of “filled pause” (final lengthening) in this token—data from Vogel 1997 p. 66, but originally from others) o What would this look like with boundary symbols? Lexical phonology? (14) Intonational phrase? • Rules for intonational-phrase construction thought to allow lots of variation and to be similar or identical across languages. • Parenthetical items, nonrestrictive relatives, tag questions, vocatives, exclamations, and some dislocated items tend strongly to form intonational phrases. Items in a list may also form intonational phrases, and what would otherwise be long intonational phrases may be broken down into smaller units that respect p-phrase boundaries. Unclear whether there’s a good example for this domain—N&V give data where Tuscan Intervocalic Spirantization applies within but not across intonational phrases: ((Santo []elo)IP ([t]’e un verme in questa []ilie[]a)IP)U /t/ /t/ /d/ holy sky there’s a worm in this cherry ‘Good heavens, there’s a worm in this cherry.’ intonational phrase     t d        / ...[–cons] __ [–cons]... ...but Vogel 1997, without mentioning Intervocalic Spirantization, says that “rules that were originally interpreted as IPh rules are more accurately analysed as PU [phonological utterance] rules, and that the IPh only serves as the domain of intonational contours, not phonological rules” (p. 65) so perhaps the situation is the same as with Gorgia Toscana. 2 Irene Vogel (1997). Prosodic Phonology. In M. Maiden & M. Parry (eds.) The Dialects of Italy. London: Routledge. Proseminar on the prosodic word, Fall 2006, Zuraw Class 1, Sept. 28 10 (p. 3732) B. Domain of final lengthening Notice in the right-side graphs above that contact is less for [o] in final position of the three measurable domains—i.e., the vowel is lower or backer. Could reflect final lengthening. A frequently-cited word on final lengthening is Wightman & al. 19924—see next page. 0  word-clitic boundary 3  p-phrase or intermediate-phrase boundary 1  p-word boundary 4  intonational-phrase boundary 2  accentual-phrase boundary 5  “superior major tone group” boundary 6  utterance boundary 4 Colin Wightman, Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel, Mari Ostendorf, Patti J. Prince (1992). Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. JASA 91: 1707-1717. Proseminar on the prosodic word, Fall 2006, Zuraw Class 1, Sept. 28 11 (p. 1714) C. Intonation Sun-Ah offers a whole course on this, so all I’ll say is that, as you know, boundary tones are aligned with the edges of utterances and intonational phrases (and maybe other units like accentual phrases). D. Phonotactic domain The syllable and, less often the foot are sometimes proposed as the domains over which certain phonotactic—i.e., static—generalizations hold. Less common as a domain is the p-word. Booij 1999:5 Dutch prohibition on non-prevocalic obstruent-liquid sequences—can’t be a property of (root) morphemes, because it’s violated within some bound roots (p. 50): (celebr-eer) ‘to celebrate’ (emigr-eer) ‘to emigrate’ 5 Geert Booij (1999). The role of the prosodic word in phonotactic generalizations. In T. Alan Hall (ed.) Studies on the Phonological Word. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Proseminar on the prosodic word, Fall 2006, Zuraw Class 1, Sept. 28 12 Dutch prohibition on Ci
Ci (pp. 56-57): (sted-[]ling) ‘city dweller’ *(kal-[]ling) ‘bald person’ (stem suffix) (sted-[]lijk) ‘city-’ *(taal-[]lijk) ‘linguistic’ (formul[])-(lijst) ‘formula list’ (stem) (stem) (final[])-(lied) ‘final song’ We’ll see more in the Dutch case study next week. E. Stress assignment syllable: may bear stress, but doesn’t have to foot: may bear stress, but doesn’t have to p-word: must bear stress (in stress languages) p-phrase: can be domain of stress-adjustment rules (English, Italian examples above) p-phrase and higher: relative prominence is assigned to the stresses contained within the domain I

/ \     | | | | F F F F | \ | \ | | \        Bel- gian far- mers grow tur- nips x . x . x x . x x x adapted from Hayes (1995)6 F. Prosodic morphology (19) Dutch coordinate reduction (see N&V pp. 137-138) land en tuinbouw < (land)(bouw) en tuinbow ‘agri- and horticulture’ een elf, twaalfjarige jongen < een (elf)(jarige), twaalfjarige jongen ‘an 11-, 12-year-old boy’ twee en drieteningen < (twee)(tenigen) en drietenigen ‘two- and three-toed (ones)’ *blauw- en rodig < (blauw-ig) en rod-ig ‘blue- and reddish’ *absurd- en banaliteit < (absurd-iteit) en banal-iteit ‘absurd- and banality’ (20) Diyari (and many others) reduplication (McCarthy Prince 1986/19967 p. 28) $ : $ : $ : $     & ;< ; ;< , , , , & % <:: < <:: "   McCarthy & Prince describe the reduplication pattern as copying the minimal p-word in Diyari, which must be at least a foot (which, in Diyari, must be disyllabic). Why not say that a foot is copied? Because while feet in general may be consonant-final in Diyari, p-words may not. 6 Bruce Hayes (1995). Metrical Stress Theory: principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 7 John McCarthy & Alan Prince (1986/1996). Prosodic Morphology 1986. Ms., UMass Amherst and Rutgers University.