Information to Users
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell InfoTmation Company 300 North Zed) Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 T he R epresentation o f V o w el H eig h t in P h o n o lo g y D issertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By- Frederick Brooke Parkinson, B.A., M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 1996 Dissertation Committee: Approved by David Odden, Adviser Elizabeth V. Hume Adviser Keith Johnson Department of Linguistics UMI Number: 9639323 UMI Microfcrm 9639323 Copyright 1996, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 A b st r a c t A new model for the representation of phonological vowel height is introduced, motivated, and implemented to account for vowel height alternations. This model charac terizes vowel height in terms of a single phonetic scale where oppositions are treated as steps along that scale. Recognizing the continual nature of vowel height is consistent with both the phonetic and phonological facts. Vowel height contrasts are described as incre ments along an acoustic, articulatory, or perceptual scale. Vowel height is posited to be described in terms of the monovalent feature [closed]. The feature [closed] is defined in terms of increased constriction. The lowest vowels of a language are specified for no occurrences of this feature, but the next to lowest vowels are specified for a single instance of [closed]. Each higher vowel is specified for an additional occurrence of [closed] so that the highest vowels of a language are specified for the greatest number of [closed] specifications. As [closed] is monovalent, the proposed model is more restrictive than a binary alternative since only one value of [closed] is active in the phonology. This leads to a reduced set of possible assimilations. Reducing that set even further, [closed] is the only height feature in this proposal so that all assimilations make reference only to this feature, spreading either a single occurrence or all occurrences of this feature. The strongest support for the proposed model are partial height assimilations, in which a vowel moves toward, but does not reach, the height of the vowel to which it harmonizes. An examination of all cases of partial height harmony reveals a previously unmentioned generalization: all partial height harmonies raise their targets one step. Unattested in the world’s languages are partial lowerings or two-step raisings. Only the model presented here captures this generalization since [closed] is monovalent, any assimilation for just this feature will raise a vowel one step. Since [closed] is the only height feature in this model, all height harmonies involve an assimilation of one or all instances of [closed]. Partial height is correctly predicted to raise a target one step. This proposal is also implemented to account for complete height harmony, coalescence, and diphthongization, all or which can be described in terms of the current proposal. Diphthongization lends further support to the notion that vowel height is a single phonetic scale since many languages exhibit shifts of one step along the height dimension. in For Elizabeth, my wife and best friend. IV A cknowledgments I am greatly indebted to many people. David Odden, my advisor, mentor, and friend, commented on many drafts. His comments were invaluable, greatly improving all aspects of this work. Beth Hume and Keith Johnson also provided helpful comments and insights. These words are hardly commensurate with the value I place on their thoughts, patience, and encouragement. All of my colleagues at OSU have assisted me in innumerable ways. Mary Beckman, Mary Bradshaw, Mike Cahill, Mike Calcagno, Kevin Cohen, Karin Golde, Aaron Halpem, Rebecca Herman, Kathleen Hubbard, Bob Kasper, No-Ju Kim, Mutonyi, and Robert Poletto graciously provided support or information when I needed it. Brian Joseph and Claudia Stephens also provided much needed assistance, countless times and in countless ways. Jignesh Patel also provided crucial technical assistance. In a very different way, I also owe a great deal to my family for their support and belief in me. I am also indebted to Nick Clements and Sandy Schane, who have inspired me more than they know. I respect them and their work very much and enjoyed my all-too-brief opportunity to discuss my work with them. I would like to believe that what I present here builds on their work (perhaps contributing an incremental step), rather than departs from it. Despite any appearance to the contrary, I hold the greatest respect for the tremendous contributions made by these extraordinary phonologists. In many ways, I owe my wife, Elizabeth Strand, the greatest thanks of all since it is she who has encouraged, assisted, cheered, fed, distracted, and tolerated me on a daily basis. She has helped me in every facet of my life, and done so in a way that proves I am the world’s luckiest person. In spite of the noble efforts of those mentioned (or omitted) above, some errors will remain hidden until after I have turned in this work. Responsibility for these errors is mine alone. VI V ita April 3, 1965 ..............Born, Washington. D. C. 1986 ........................... B.A. Interdisciplinary Studies, University of Maryland, Baltimore 1992........................... M.A. Linguistics, Ohio State University 1989-1996................. Graduate Teaching and Research Associate, Ohio State University P ublications 1. 1996. The incremental constriction model for the description of vowel height, in D. Dowty, R. Herman, E. Hume, and P. Pappas (eds.) Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics 48; 149-81. 2. 1994. Constraints on the theory of vowel height, to appear in A. Dobley, S. Gahl, and C. Johnson (eds.) Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 20, Berkeley, California, Berkeley Linguistics Society, 420-30. 3. 1994. Contributing author to the Langwagej F//e5; Materials for an Introduction to Language and Linguistics 6th edition, Columbus, Ohio State University Press, S. Jannedy, R. Poletto, and T. Weldon (eds.). 4. 1993. The problem of guttural transparency, in M. Bernstein and A. Kathol (eds.) Proceedings of Eastern States Conference in Linguistics 10:259-67. 5. 1992. The feature [pharyngeal] in Rwaili Arabic: a case for long distance multiple linking, in E. Hume (ed.) Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics 41:101 -34. F ields O f Study Major Field: Linguistics VII T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s Dedication .............................................................................................................................iv Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................v Vita..................................................................................................................................... vii List of Tables ....................................................................................................................... xi Chapters 1............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.0 Introduction ..............................................................................................................1 2 The Incremental Constriction Model ................................................................................ 8 2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 8 2.1 Properties of the Model ..........................................................................................10 2.1.1 Defining [closed] ..........................................................................................11 2.1.2 Incremental Features .................................................................................... 12 2.1.3 Monovalent Features .................................................................................... 13 2.1.4 High-Based Features ...................................................................................