c o "'0 oC --l ~ ..:::L ... o >­ ~ cu (6)l~ c :c '" ~"~ Nl.WYt'l~~~!~~" 11·••••••••• _ DEDICATION Copyright © 1988 Stuart Davis All Rights Reserved To my parents and brothers. Library of Congress Cataloging-in.publication Data Davis, Stuart. Topics in syllable geometry JStuart Davis. p. em. - (Outstanding dissertations in linguistics) Originally presented as the author's thesis (ph. D. -University of Arizona, 1985) 8ibliography: p. ISBN 0-8140-5181-5 1. Grammar, Comparative and general-Syllable. I. Rhyme. 3. Accents and accentuation. I. Title. II. Series. PI36.D38 1988 414-dc19 88--16509 Printed on acid-free, ISO-year.life paper Manufactured in the United States of America ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank several people for making the completion of this dissertation possible. I thank the three members of my cOmMittee, Dick Demers, Dick Oehrle, and Deirdre Wheeler, as well as Richard Janda and Natsuko Tsujimura for their valuable comments and encouragement. Much of the dissertation was shaped through discussion with them. I would also like to thank Susan Steele and Ann Farmer for their input on earlier versions of Chapter two. Furthermore, I offer thanks to the Graduate College of the Univer­ sity of Arizona and to Sigma xi for financial support. r~ NllNY;;k~~!!~D" Ill•••••••••••••••• TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER 1. OVERVIEW 1 1.0. Introduction 1 1.1. Brief Background of the Syllable in Phonological Theory . • . 1 1.2. Background on Syllable-Internal Constituency . 8 2. ON THE ARGUMENTS FOR THE RHYME AS A SUB SYLLABIC CONSTITUENT 17 2.0. Introduction 17 2.1. Phonotactics 19 2.1.0. Introduction 19 2.1.1. Constraints between Onset and Other Syllable Parts for English . • . 23 2.1.2. Constraints between Onset and Nucleus for Other Languages . 27 2.1.3. Constraints between Onset and Coda for Other Languages 29 2.1.4. Conclusion . 30 2.2. Rule Types Referring to the Rhyme 31 2.2.1. Stress Rules .....• 32 2.2.2. Phonetic-Spreading Rules 46 2.2.3. Compensatory Lengthening Rules . 48 2.2.4. Conclusion . 55 2.3. The Rhyme as a Durational Unit 56 2.3.1. Background on Durational Experiments of VC-Sequences 58 2.3.2. English •.••.• 64 2.3.3. Korean •..... 68 2.3.4. French and Russian 70 2.3.5. Other Languages 72 2.3.6. Surrnnary 74 2.4. Conclusion . 75 ............- N!W 'i'n.... ••':;-:'::::.""" ,,---------­ TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued CHAPTER 1 Page OVERVIEW S~LABLE STRUCTURE AND STRESS RULES FROM DIFFERENT LANGUAGES 79 1.0. Introduction The goal of this cha~ter is to furnish back­ 3 • 0 • Introduction . 79 3.1. Standard Stress Systems 82 3.1.0. Introduction •. 82 ground information on the role of the syllable in recent 3.1.1. Same Syllab:e Stress S3 3.1.2. Long Vowel Stress B5 phonologlcal theory, and, then. to put my thesis in proper 3.1.3. Closed Syllable stresS 87 3.1.4. Heavy syllable Stress B9 perspective by presentin9 vdxious views on the nature of Oncet-Sensi~ive Stress Languages 97 3. 2. ~yllable-internal con~tituency. 3.2.0. IntrOductio~. 97 In this dissertation, 3.2.1. Western Aranda 97 3.2.2. Alyawarra 107 : arque ~hat none of these various Views provides an 3.2.3. Madimadi :16 3.2.4. Piraha' 127 adequate representation of the syllable. 1 prOpose that 3.3. Conclusion •• 132 the syllable universally consists ot three (sister) "MOVEMENT" PHENOMENA AS EVIDENCE FOR SYLLABLE-INTBRNAL CONSTITUENCY 13' components: an onset (o~tional), a nucleus, and a coda 4.0 • Introduction • • • • 138 (optional) • 4 • 1 • Speech Errors .,. 139 4.1.0. Introduction 139 4.1.1. Some Problems With the Use of 1.1. Brief Background of the Syllable speech Errors as E~idence 143 in Phonolosical Theory 4.1.2. Speech Error Evidence and the Rhyme • • • • • • • • • • 146 Much recent work in phonology has focused on the 4.:.3. Speech Error E~idence and sUbsy11abic Constituency 151 ntudy Of the syllable. In the early years of generative 4.1.4. Conclusion. 161 4.2. Lan9uage Games • • • • • • • • • 162 phonology, though, the role of the syllable in phonolo­ 4.2.0. Introduction •.•••• 162 4.2.1. Typology of Language Games 163 qiC~l description was largely ignored. one reason for 4.2.1.1. Expunsion 163 4.2.1.2. Contraction 167 this was that the structuralists never l>ucceeded il1 4.2_1.3. substitution 168 4.2.1.4. Rearrangement 169 ~aoqudtely defil1ing the syllable as a physical ~eality. 4.2.1.5. Combinations •• 173 4.2.2. Language Games and subsy11abic '!/(ttnon 11951:21. for e~ample, attempted to define the Constituency 176 4 • 3 • Concl\:sion 184 !lVl J.'lblo Physically by associating it with a chest pulse 1ST OF REFERENCES . 185 1 2 3 induced by muscular activity. "careful experimentation consonant clusters do not break down into a combination with all types of syllables and consonants makes it cer­ of a ~ossible word-final cluster followed by a word­ l tain that every syllable has its chest pulse delimited initial cluster. by chest muscles (intercostals) or by the constriction Even though the syllable cannot be defined (complete or partial) of the consonant or by both_" physically, it can still function as a relevant phonolo­ Contrary to Stetson's experiments, Ladefoged (1967) has gical unit. And, in fact, significant phonological shown that chest pulses are not always an accurate generalizations are missed when phonological rules are diagnostic for the syllable: some syllables are produced not allowed to refer to syllables. Por example, it has without a chest pulse, and some chest pulses do not been noted by Kahn (1976) and others that many rules correspond to syllables. Jespersen, as cited in Pulgram that are written with the environment {i} miss the (1970) defined the syllable in terms of vocalic sonority; generalization that the environment for the rules is in other words, te believed that sounds grouped themselves actually a syllable boundary. Another case of a missed into syllables by their sonority. However, this view has qeneralization, discussed both by Vennemann (1972) and also been criticized (e.g., in Ladefoged 1975) since Wheeler (1981) among others, relates to Chomsky and sonority can either increase or decrease before reaching llJlle's (1968) formulation of the main stress rule in the syllabic peak - e.g., in the word ££l there is an ~nglish. Main stress for nouns and certain adjectives in increase in sonority between the Ikl and the /r/, but J<;nglish is usually assigned to a penultimate vowel if it in the word ~ there is a decrease in sonority between tn tensed or followed by at least two consonants; the lsi and the /p/. Yet both words constitute a single syllable. Haugen (1956) and others defined the syllable 1. Not all structuralists, however, accepted Ilw oyllable. For example, Malmberg (1955) cites a number in terms of distribution of phonemes. In other words, fI(1 ,1.inguists who view the syllable as not being signifi­ I~nt since no physical correlate of it could be found. they viewed the syllable as a unit over which phonotactic !ilmJ,larly, Kohler (1966) conclUdes that the syllable is "1mpQusible" and "harmful. II He argues this on the basis constraints hold. This view, though, has been criticized 1/1' the claim that syllable division is often not discer­ lIn)J10 and is arbitrary. For further discussion of the by Bell (1976) for several reasons. One reason is that (I I ff'oring views on the phonetic reality of the syllable rH1f1 1)u19ram (1970) and Vogel (1977). such a view is unable to handle languages in which medial ~ '':~ 5 4 Another example of a generalization that is missed utherwise, the antepenultimate vowel is stressed. The wlthout reference to the syllable is found in Hooper's oxnmples in (1) illustrate this: / (1972) discussion of Harris' (1969) analysis of Spanish (1) Ariz6na ag~nda vigilant nasalization. Harris observes that nasals assimilate llowever, note the following exceptions: before adjacent obstruents in the same word or across (2) discipline IGdicrous ~loquent word boundaries as is shown below (examples from Hooper Exceptions, like those in (2), led Chomsky and Halle to formulate the concept of "weak cluster" which is essen­ 1972:525) : [umbeso] 'a kiss' tially defined as in (3): (4) un beso [uncarko] 'a pool' (3) Weak cluster un charco [u'jgato] 'a cat' v Cl un gato o ['" voc ] [-tense] rA cons Harris also observes that, before glides, nasal assimi­ They then refer to the notion of weak cluster in their lation takes place only across word boundaries and not main stress rule (as well as in four other rules ­ word internally, as the two examples in (5) illustrate: Auxiliary Reduction, Pre-Cluster Laxing, u-Tensing, and (5) a. miel [myel] 'honey' Tensing before CIV). But by not recognizing the syllable b. un hielo [unyelo] 'an ice' Chomsky and Halle miss a generalization. Weak clusters Hooper notes that in Harris' system the rules for the are just those clusters that are possible syllable-initial two cases of nasal assimilation (in (4) and (5b) above) clusters. That is, both their members are syllabified cannot be collapsed, although they describe the same with the following (ultimate) vowel, so that the penulti­ process. Hooper argues, however, that once the syllable mate vowel is in an open syllable. Thus, in the data is recognized (and it is formally recognized by syllable above, stress is on the antepenultimate vowel when the boundary insertion rules), an obvious generalization penultimate vowel is both lax and in an open syllable. follows: Nasal assimilation occurs before a consonant This generalization was missed by Chomsky and Halle or a glide if a syllable boundary intervenes.