QUANTIFYING the SONORITY HIERARCHY a Dissertation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
QUANTIFYING THE SONORITY HIERARCHY A Dissertation Presented by STEPHEN G. PARKER Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May 2002 Linguistics © Copyright by Stephen G. Parker 2002 All Rights Reserved QUANTIFYING THE SONORITY HIERARCHY A Dissertation Presented by STEPHEN G. PARKER Approved as to style and content by: _______________________________________________________ John Kingston, Chair _______________________________________________________ John McCarthy, Member _______________________________________________________ Elisabeth Selkirk, Member _______________________________________________________ Shelley Velleman, Member ____________________________________ Elisabeth Selkirk, Department Head Department of Linguistics DEDICATION To my beloved wife, Mónica. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This is the section of the dissertation where you’re supposed to tell everyone you know how grateful you are for everything they’ve done for you. Flattery and exaggeration are typical devices, and even seem to be somewhat expected. Since most of these acknowledgement sections begin with the doctoral committee, I guess that’s where I have to start. My chair, John Kingston, spent countless hours with me in the phonetics lab. Without his constant technical support, my experiment never would have gotten off the ground. I had so many meetings with him that I can actually say I learned as much from him outside the classroom as inside (not that he’s a bad teacher). During the course of my six years here at UMass, I’ve come to appreciate him not only as a mentor and colleague, but also as a friend. John McCarthy has been a true role model and has taught me more about phonology than I could sometimes absorb. He patiently answered every question I could dream up, some of which were devious, dastardly, and duplicitous. He also holds the distinction of reading and commenting on virtually everything I’ve written while here at UMass, leading to much-needed improvements in my work. For this I will always be thankful. Lisa Selkirk has always challenged me to look at things in new ways that I had not previously considered. While this is not always easy to do, it is really the best way to discover new insights that will take your work to the next level of proficiency. In addition, her support as chair of the department was completely instrumental(!) in allowing us to acquire the equipment we needed to run my v experiment. I am also grateful to her for permitting me to be funded through the department for my sixth year. Shelley Velleman kindly agreed to be the outside member of my committee even though she barely knew me when I first approached her. All of my meetings with her were pleasant and productive. She has a good eye for detail and made many valuable suggestions about my writing style, punctuation, and grammar. My thanks also to the remaining members of the faculty, as well as to Kathy Adamczyk and Lynne Ballard, for making my time here very memorable. I am further indebted to the Interlibrary Loan team of the main library for helping me access tons of obscure references. I wouldn’t have made it this far without the encouragement of my classmates. I especially want to recognize Ania Lubowicz, Mariko Sugahara, Elisabeth Villalta, Mike Terry, and Pius Tamanji (the vulture of the soccer field). I’ve also been helped on many occasions by the other members of our informal phonology group, including John Alderete, Brett Baker, Angela Carpenter, Della Chambless, Ioana Chitoran, Andries Coetzee, Ben Gelbart, Maria Gouskova, Nancy Hall, Caroline Jones, Cecilia Kirk, Elliott Moreton, Joe Pater, Samira Rguibi, Jen Smith, Caro Struijke, Anne-Michelle Tessier, Rachel Walker, and Adam Werle. I’ve reserved a separate accolade for Paul de Lacy. He has selflessly read and commented on more of my papers than any other fellow graduate student here at UMass. He also answered my numerous questions and always impresses me with his theoretical cogency and insight (this is the flattery part). vi Next I come to numerous SIL colleagues and friends who have encouraged me through the years and provided much-needed spiritual counsel and support: Andy and Cheri Black, Beth Bryson, Don Burquest, Mike Cahill, Bob Carlson, Bob Dooley, Andy Eatough, George and Mary Huttar, Mark Karan, Steve and Cathy Marlett, Bob Mugele, David Payne, Jim Roberts, Stephen Walker, David Weber, Lindsay Whaley, and Mary Ruth Wise. John Clifton taught the first linguistics course I ever took, back in 1978 at Indiana University. I also wish to thank our supporting churches in Massachusetts, Indiana, and Peru, and especially the three one-on-one prayer partners who have shared with me the ups and downs of life here in Amherst: Don Lenze, Craig Nicolson, and Frank Massey. Craig in particular single-handedly taught me everything there is to know about using Microsoft Excel (exaggeration). Special thanks are due to Henry Tehrani and the rest of the Scicon R&D team for making available the PCquirer hardware and software, and for answering many questions about their use. Peter Ladefoged also gave us important technical advice. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant no. 0003947 to John Kingston and myself. I am indebted to several anonymous NSF reviewers, one of whom identified herself to me as Lisa Lavoie (she shared her dissertation with me as well). I also wish to acknowledge a grant from the SIL Fund for Scholarly Advancement, administered by Mickey Brussow. I could never have obtained all of these results without the many volunteer subjects who filled in vii my torturous list of 99 hypothetical words and grunted into our facial masks in the lab. I especially appreciate all of the amigos colombianos who participated in my experiment. To make a long story longer, I mustn’t forget Arnie Well for letting me audit his statistics courses, and Jeff Sickmeier for being my best friend and best man. Throughout my life I have been blessed to have a wonderful and supportive family: father, mother, siblings, in-laws, etc. I am grateful to each one of you for your part in my upbringing. And then there is Mónica — my wife, my encourager, my lover, my peor es nada, my soulmate. Thanks for your patience as I spent hundreds of hours in the lab, in the library, and at the computer. As the poet said, “Por primera vez vivíamos juntos en la misma casa. En aquel sitio de embriagadora belleza nuestro amor se acrecentó. Ya no pudimos nunca más separarnos.” Thanks for being by my side all these years. This dissertation is offered as a sacrifice to Him who is the way, and the truth, and the life: “Jesus then said to those Jewish people who had believed in him, ‘If you abide in my word, then you are really my disciples, and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.’” (John 8:31-32) viii ABSTRACT QUANTIFYING THE SONORITY HIERARCHY MAY 2002 STEPHEN PARKER, B.A., INDIANA UNIVERSITY M.A., UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON Ph.D., UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST Directed by: Professor John Kingston A long-standing controversy in the interface between phonetics and phonology involves the nature of sonority. This dissertation seeks to help resolve this problem by showing that the sonority hierarchy is both physically and psychologically real. This is accomplished by reporting the results of two rigorous and in-depth experiments. The first of these involves phonetic (instrumental) measurements of five acoustic and aerodynamic correlates of sonority in English and Spanish: intensity, frequency of the first formant, total segmental duration, peak intraoral air pressure, and combined oral plus nasal air flow. Intensity values are found to consistently yield a correlation of at least .97 with typical sonority indices. Consequently, sonority is best defined in terms of a linear regression equation derived from the observed intensity results. The second major experiment — this one psycholinguistic in nature — involves a common process of playful reduplication in English. A list of 99 hypothetical rhyming pairs such as roshy-toshy was evaluated by 332 native speakers. Their task was to judge which order sounds more natural, e.g., roshy- ix toshy or toshy-roshy. The data again confirm the crucial importance of sonority in accounting for the observed results. Specifically, the unmarked (preferred) pattern is for the morpheme beginning with the more sonorous segment in each pair to occur in absolute word-initial position. A generalized version of the Syllable Contact Law is utilized in the formal analysis of this phenomenon in terms of Optimality Theory. Finally, a complete and universal sonority hierarchy is posited by building on the findings of the two experiments as a whole. x TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................. v ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... ix LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xv LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ xxiv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................................... xxv CHAPTER INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................