DOCSLIB.ORG

Age Semantics Syntax Pragmatics Morphology Phonology 12-24

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Age Semantics Syntax Pragmatics Morphology Phonology Receptive: Receptive: Receptive: Receptive: Expressive : • Perceives other’s • Follows directions • Acknowledges • First 50 words: Most emotions using one/two word • Follows directions often have CV shape; speech using one or two • Follows simple one-step spatial concepts of another by giving use commands conceptsspatial —in/on Expressive: eye same consonants used in • Comprehends approximately 300 words • MLU 1.0-2.0 (12-26 contact, vocally early babbling; use of months) Expressive : reduplication, syllable (1 ½-2 years) responding, or • Brown’s Stage I: repeating a word said • Possessive deletion, assimilation, • Listens to short stories (1 Basic Expressive: (18emerging-24 months) and final consonant ½-2 years) Semantic Roles and • Locutionary intents deletion; words are Expressive: Relations (18-24 express same • First true word selected or avoided for • Average expressive months) functions emerges (10-14 expression based on vocabulary size: 50-100 • Two-word utterances with words that were months) favored and avoided words at 18 months emerge (18-24 months) expressed before with • Yes/no asked with sounds (12-18 months) • Semantic roles • Word order is preverbal means (12- rising intonation on • Some echolalia (12-18 months) expressed in one-word consistent (18- 18 singlea word; what and • Basically 12-24 speech include the 24 months) months) where (12-22 months) following: agent, action, • Frequency of unintelligible with months • Utterances are object, location, “telegraphic” with few communicative acts: • Combines 2 exception of a few possession, denial, grammatical markers 5/min of free play words into phrase words (12-18 months) rejection, (12- 18 months) (18-24 months) (18-24 months) • Vocalized pleasure and disappearance, •Negation is used in the • Frequency of word displeasure (12-18 nonexistence (12-18 form of “no” use months) months) • Refers to self with increases over • Accurately imitates • Words are understood pronoun and name. preverbal some words (12-18 outside of routine Example: “Me Sarah”. communication (i.e. months) games; still need (18-24 months) requesting • By 24 months 9-10 contextual support for • Uses negation in the information, initial and 5-6 final lexical comprehension form of “no”. answering questions, consonants are used (18- (12-18 months) Example: acknowledging) (18- 24 months) “No bed”. (18-24 24 • Speech is 50% months) months) intelligible (18-24 •Frequency of months) communicative acts: 7.5/min of free play (18-24 months) • Brings object to show an adult • Requests objects by pointing and vocalizing or possibly using word approximation • Average expressive • 33% of utterances are • 70% of consonants are vocabulary size: 200- nouns (18-24 months) correct (18-24 months) 300 words at 24 months • Agent+action, • Says “bye” and a • CVC and two-syllable • Understand single agent+object, otherfew conversational words emerge (18-24 words for objects out of agent+location (18-24 ritual words such as months) sight (18-24 months) months) “thank“hi”, you” and “please” • Jargon babble emerges • Understand two-word • Improvement in relations similar to those •Answers simple wh- intelligibility expressed (18-24 questions with vocal (approximately 65% months) response intelligible) by 2 years • Prevalent relations • Much verbal turn- expressed as follows: taking agent-action, agent- object, action-object, • Begins using single action-location, entity- words and two word location, possessor- phrases to command possession, (move), indicate demonstrative-entity, possession (mine), attribute-entity (18-24 express problems months) (owee) • Points to one to three body parts on command •Identifies two or more objects/pictures from a group • Turns head in response to hearing his/her name •Begins to claim certain objects • Answers question “what’s this?” • Asks for “more” (emerging recurrence) • Uses names of most familiar objects • Verbalizes toilet needs (closer to 2 years) may verbalize need before, during, or after act Receptive: Receptive: Receptive: Receptive: Expressive: • Comprehends • Understands concept • Understands when • Understands –est and • Awareness of rhyme approximately 500 of first and second clarification is needed other superlatives emerges (24-30 months) words (2-2 ½ years) person pronouns (I, converin sation you) • Comprehends first • May omit final • Listens to 5 to 10 Expressive: person pronouns (ex. consonant, reduce minute story (2-2 ½ • Understands what, • Frequency of topic shehe, ) consonant blends; years) where, and why continuations increase, substitute one consonant questions about basic mostly through Expressive: for another (24-30 24-36 • Carries out 2-step events repetition (24-30 • Articles “a” and months) commands months) appear“the” in sentences Expressive: • Speech is 75% months • Has concept of “one” • Present progressive – •”Please” used for • And appears (22-26 intelligible at 36 and “all” ing (no auxiliary polite requests (24-30 months) months (30-36 verb).Example : Mommy months) months) • Comprehends driving. (19-28 •New intents include • Regular plural • Ability to produce approximately 900 months) following:the symbolic emergingforms (24-30 rhyme emerges (30-36 words (2 ½-3 years) • Subject+ verb+ play, talk about months) months) appearsobject (22-26 objects,absent Expressive: months) realitymisrepresenting (24-30 months) • Combines 3-4 words • Consonants mastered: • Understanding and use • Brown’s Stage II: (24-30 months) /p/, /m/, /n/, /w/, /h/ of questions about Grammatical •Narrative are “heap (30-36 months) object (what?), people (24Morphemes-30 months) stories” primarily • But, so, or, and if (who?), basic events andlabels descriptions (24- appear (31-32 months) 30 (what (x) doing? Where • Use of no, not, can’t, months) (x) going?) (24-30 don’t as negation • In. Example: Ball months) between subject and • Topic continuation cup.in (27-30 months) (24verb-30 months) nears 50% (30-36 • Uses 200 intelligible months) • On. Example: words (24-30 months) • Questions formed onDoggie sofa. (27 -30 risingwith intonation only • Topics are months) • Use and understanding (24-30 months) bycontinued adding new • Regular plural –s. of “why” questions (30- information (30-36 Example: Kitties eat 36 months) • Sentences with semi- months) icemy cream. (27-33 auxiliaries gonna, months) • Understanding and use wanna, gotta, hafta • Some requests for of basic spatial terms appear (24-30 clarification provided (30-36 months) months) (30-36 months) • MLU 2.0-2.5 (27- • Responds months)30 • Use of language in appropriately to yes/no play increases (30-36 questions • Subject+ copula+ months) complement appears • Points to five body (27-28 months) • Narratives are parts on self or doll “sequences” with theme • Uses 500 intelligible • Basic subject-verb- but no plot words (30-36 months) object used by most • Expresses emotion children (28-30 • Repeats two numbers months) • Begins using correctly • Subject+ auxiliary+ inlanguage imaginative ways verb+ object appears • Names 6 objects by use (31-31 months) • Brown’s Stage III: Modulation of Simple Sentences (30-36 months) •Asks basic questions (Daddy gone?) • MLU 2.5-3.0 (31-34 months) • 25% of utterances are nouns, 25% are verbs • Auxiliary verb appears with copula in subject+ auxiliary+ copula+ x Rec e p t i v e : Expressive: Expressive: Expressive: Expressive: • Listens to 20 minute • Regular past –ed. • More flexibility in • Combines 4-5 words • Use of reduplication, story Example: Mommy requesting, including: sentencesin syllable deletion, thepulled wagon. (26-48 permission directives assimilation and final • Comprehends months) and indirect requests • Irregular past. consonant deletion is approximately 1,200 (36-42 months) Example: Came, fell, less common (36-42 words (36-42 months) • Uncontractible broke, sat, went (25- months) (verbcopula to be as main • Direct requests months)46 • Comprehends 1,500- verb). Example: He is. decrease in frequency, • Use of stopping, 2,000 words (42-48 (response to “Who’s as indirect requests • Posessive ‘s. fronting, cluster months) sick?) (27-39 months) increase (36-42 MommyExample’s :ballo on reduction, and liquid •months) Narratives are (26broke.-40 months simplification 36-48 • Understands basic • Articles. “primitive” with theme (36continues-42 months) months color words seeExample a kitty. :(28 I -40 and some months) temporal • Use of cluster Expressive: organization (36- reduction decreases • Semantic relations • Uncontractible 42 months) 48(42 months)- between adjacent and auxiliary. Example: • New functions emerge conjoined sentences is.He (response to Who’s including: reporting • 90% of children have include the following: wearing your hat?) paston events, reasoning, mastered /b/, /d/, /k/, additive, temporal, 48(29 months)- predicting, expressing /g/, /ng/, /f/, /s/, and causal, contrastive (36- empathy, creating /w/ 42 months) • Brown’s Stage Late imaginary roles/ EarlyIV- V (42-48 andprops, maintaining • Phonological • Understanding of basic months) interactions (36-42 disappearingprocesses by 36 color words (36-42 • Beginning to use “is” months) months: consonant months) at beginning of assimilation, questions • Engages in longer diminutization, • Use and understanding of dialogues finaldoubling, consonant basic kinship terms deletion, • (36-42 months) Use and understanding • Uses “and” as prevocalic voicing, of “when” and “how” conjunction • Begins code reduplication, questions (36-42 whenswitching talking to very unstressed
Recommended publications
  • Logophoricity in Finnish

    Logophoricity in Finnish

    Open Linguistics 2018; 4: 630–656 Research Article Elsi Kaiser* Effects of perspective-taking on pronominal reference to humans and animals: Logophoricity in Finnish https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0031 Received December 19, 2017; accepted August 28, 2018 Abstract: This paper investigates the logophoric pronoun system of Finnish, with a focus on reference to animals, to further our understanding of the linguistic representation of non-human animals, how perspective-taking is signaled linguistically, and how this relates to features such as [+/-HUMAN]. In contexts where animals are grammatically [-HUMAN] but conceptualized as the perspectival center (whose thoughts, speech or mental state is being reported), can they be referred to with logophoric pronouns? Colloquial Finnish is claimed to have a logophoric pronoun which has the same form as the human-referring pronoun of standard Finnish, hän (she/he). This allows us to test whether a pronoun that may at first blush seem featurally specified to seek [+HUMAN] referents can be used for [-HUMAN] referents when they are logophoric. I used corpus data to compare the claim that hän is logophoric in both standard and colloquial Finnish vs. the claim that the two registers have different logophoric systems. I argue for a unified system where hän is logophoric in both registers, and moreover can be used for logophoric [-HUMAN] referents in both colloquial and standard Finnish. Thus, on its logophoric use, hän does not require its referent to be [+HUMAN]. Keywords: Finnish, logophoric pronouns, logophoricity, anti-logophoricity, animacy, non-human animals, perspective-taking, corpus 1 Introduction A key aspect of being human is our ability to think and reason about our own mental states as well as those of others, and to recognize that others’ perspectives, knowledge or mental states are distinct from our own, an ability known as Theory of Mind (term due to Premack & Woodruff 1978).
  • Applying Phonology in Lexicography: Variant-Synonym Classification In

    Applying Phonology in Lexicography: Variant-Synonym Classification In

    Applying phonology in lexicography: variant-synonym classification in Czech Sign Language Hana Strachoňová, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic, [email protected] Lucia Vlášková, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic, [email protected] Sign language (SL) lexicography, as a young field of study within SL linguistics, faces a lot of challenges that have already been answered for the audio-oral language material. In this talk we present a method that is being applied in the ongoing process of data classification for the first Czech SL online dictionary (part of the platform Dictio). Problem: For audio-oral languages, a dictionary entry standardly contains the citation form of a lexeme and all the variants (Čermák 1995). See for example the gender variants in Czech: brambor (potato- masculine) / brambor-a (potato-feminine), hadr (cloth-masculine) / hadr-a (cloth-feminine). However, two (or more) expressions of a different word-forming nature are not considered variants but synonyms (Filipec 1995). See the example pairs in Czech - the first expression comes from the traditional Czech lexicon and the latter originates in English/Latin: jazykověda (linguistics; Czech origin) / lingvistika (linguistics; foreign origin), poradce (consultant; Czech origin) / konzultant (consultant; foreign origin). The common ground of the variant- and synonym-pairs is their shared meaning (brambor has the same meaning as brambora; jazykověda has the same meaning as lingvistika) and in the lexicographic work it is essential to assign each of them the right place in the dictionary entry. What seems as a simple task for spoken languages (basically - common root for variants, different roots for synonyms) becomes a challenge for SLs (still ongoing discussion about the definition of morphemes and lexical roots; see e.g.
  • II Levels of Language

    II Levels of Language

    II Levels of language 1 Phonetics and phonology 1.1 Characterising articulations 1.1.1 Consonants 1.1.2 Vowels 1.2 Phonotactics 1.3 Syllable structure 1.4 Prosody 1.5 Writing and sound 2 Morphology 2.1 Word, morpheme and allomorph 2.1.1 Various types of morphemes 2.2 Word classes 2.3 Inflectional morphology 2.3.1 Other types of inflection 2.3.2 Status of inflectional morphology 2.4 Derivational morphology 2.4.1 Types of word formation 2.4.2 Further issues in word formation 2.4.3 The mixed lexicon 2.4.4 Phonological processes in word formation 3 Lexicology 3.1 Awareness of the lexicon 3.2 Terms and distinctions 3.3 Word fields 3.4 Lexicological processes in English 3.5 Questions of style 4 Syntax 4.1 The nature of linguistic theory 4.2 Why analyse sentence structure? 4.2.1 Acquisition of syntax 4.2.2 Sentence production 4.3 The structure of clauses and sentences 4.3.1 Form and function 4.3.2 Arguments and complements 4.3.3 Thematic roles in sentences 4.3.4 Traces 4.3.5 Empty categories 4.3.6 Similarities in patterning Raymond Hickey Levels of language Page 2 of 115 4.4 Sentence analysis 4.4.1 Phrase structure grammar 4.4.2 The concept of ‘generation’ 4.4.3 Surface ambiguity 4.4.4 Impossible sentences 4.5 The study of syntax 4.5.1 The early model of generative grammar 4.5.2 The standard theory 4.5.3 EST and REST 4.5.4 X-bar theory 4.5.5 Government and binding theory 4.5.6 Universal grammar 4.5.7 Modular organisation of language 4.5.8 The minimalist program 5 Semantics 5.1 The meaning of ‘meaning’ 5.1.1 Presupposition and entailment 5.2
  • Language Development Language Development

    Language Development Language Development

    Language Development rom their very first cries, human beings communicate with the world around them. Infants communicate through sounds (crying and cooing) and through body lan- guage (pointing and other gestures). However, sometime between 8 and 18 months Fof age, a major developmental milestone occurs when infants begin to use words to speak. Words are symbolic representations; that is, when a child says “table,” we understand that the word represents the object. Language can be defined as a system of symbols that is used to communicate. Although language is used to communicate with others, we may also talk to ourselves and use words in our thinking. The words we use can influence the way we think about and understand our experiences. After defining some basic aspects of language that we use throughout the chapter, we describe some of the theories that are used to explain the amazing process by which we Language9 A system of understand and produce language. We then look at the brain’s role in processing and pro- symbols that is used to ducing language. After a description of the stages of language development—from a baby’s communicate with others or first cries through the slang used by teenagers—we look at the topic of bilingualism. We in our thinking. examine how learning to speak more than one language affects a child’s language develop- ment and how our educational system is trying to accommodate the increasing number of bilingual children in the classroom. Finally, we end the chapter with information about disorders that can interfere with children’s language development.
  • Toward a Shared Syntax for Shifted Indexicals and Logophoric Pronouns

    Toward a Shared Syntax for Shifted Indexicals and Logophoric Pronouns

    Toward a Shared Syntax for Shifted Indexicals and Logophoric Pronouns Mark Baker Rutgers University April 2018 Abstract: I argue that indexical shift is more like logophoricity and complementizer agreement than most previous semantic accounts would have it. In particular, there is evidence of a syntactic requirement at work, such that the antecedent of a shifted “I” must be a superordinate subject, just as the antecedent of a logophoric pronoun or the goal of complementizer agreement must be. I take this to be evidence that the antecedent enters into a syntactic control relationship with a null operator in all three constructions. Comparative data comes from Magahi and Sakha (for indexical shift), Yoruba (for logophoric pronouns), and Lubukusu (for complementizer agreement). 1. Introduction Having had an office next to Lisa Travis’s for 12 formative years, I learned many things from her that still influence my thinking. One is her example of taking semantic notions, such as aspect and event roles, and finding ways to implement them in syntactic structure, so as to advance the study of less familiar languages and topics.1 In that spirit, I offer here some thoughts about how logophoricity and indexical shift, topics often discussed from a more or less semantic point of view, might have syntactic underpinnings—and indeed, the same syntactic underpinnings. On an impressionistic level, it would not seem too surprising for logophoricity and indexical shift to have a common syntactic infrastructure. Canonical logophoricity as it is found in various West African languages involves using a special pronoun inside the finite CP complement of a verb to refer to the subject of that verb.
  • Phonetic and Phonological Research Sharing Methods

    Phonetic and Phonological Research Sharing Methods

    The Kabod Volume 3 Issue 3 Summer Article 1 January 2017 Phonetic and Phonological Research Sharing Methods Cory C. Coogan Liberty University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/kabod Part of the Modern Languages Commons, and the Reading and Language Commons Recommended Citations MLA: Coogan, Cory C. "Phonetic and Phonological Research Sharing Methods," The Kabod 3. 3 (2017) Article 1. Liberty University Digital Commons. Web. [xx Month xxxx]. APA: Coogan, Cory C. (2017) "Phonetic and Phonological Research Sharing Methods" The Kabod 3( 3 (2017)), Article 1. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/kabod/vol3/iss3/1 Turabian: Coogan, Cory C. "Phonetic and Phonological Research Sharing Methods" The Kabod 3 , no. 3 2017 (2017) Accessed [Month x, xxxx]. Liberty University Digital Commons. This Individual Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Crossing. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Kabod by an authorized editor of Scholars Crossing. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Coogan: Phonetic and Phonological Research Sharing Methods Running Head: PHONETIC AND PHONOLOGICAL RESEARCH SHARING METHODS 1 Phonetic and Phonological Research Sharing Methods Cory Coogan Liberty University Published by Scholars Crossing, 2017 1 The Kabod, Vol. 3, Iss. 3 [2017], Art. 1 PHONETIC AND PHONOLOGICAL RESEARCH SHARING METHODS 2 Phonetic and Phonological Research Sharing Methods Most linguists affirm the observation that human language is innate; the human mind has a capacity for grammar that is inherent from birth. This notion implies that a singular grammar produces all human languages; therefore, to appropriately understand the scope of the human capacity for grammar, a single model must cohesively describe the various processes of all human languages.
  • 24.900 Intro to Linguistics Lecture Notes: Phonology Summary

    24.900 Intro to Linguistics Lecture Notes: Phonology Summary

    Fall 2012 Phonology Summary • Speakers of English learned something from the data they were presented with as (contains all examples from class slides, and more!) babies that caused them to internalize (learn) the rule exemplified in (1) — just as Tojolabal speakers learned from the data that they heard as babies, and ended up with 1. Phonology vs. phonetics the rule exemplified in (2). • The path from memory (lexical access) to speech is mediated by phonology. • The English rule is real and active "on-line", governing creative linguistic behavior. A • Phonology = system of rules that apply when speech sounds are put together to form native speaker of English will apply it to new words they have never heard. The /t/ in morphemes and words. tib will be aspirated, and the /t/ in stib (both nonsense words, I hope) will not be. Probably Tojolabal speakers will show similar behavior with respect to their rule. (1) stop consonant aspiration in English: initial within a stressed syllable ASPIRATED UNASPIRATED 2. What phonetic distinctions are made in lexical entries? initial within a stressed syllable after s or initial within an word-final (therefore syllable- Part 1: phonological rules that eliminate distinctions from the lexicon unstressed syllable final) pan span nap tone stone note • English: lexicon does not need to distinguish aspirated from unaspirated stops. kin skin nick There is no reason to suppose that information about aspiration forms part of the sound field of lexical entries of English words, since it is entirely predictable. Though pan is upon supping pronounced /pʰæn/ and span /spæn/, there is no reason to distinguish the aspirated and unaspirated bilabial stops in the lexical entries of the two words.
  • Chapter 1 Basic Categorial Syntax

    Chapter 1 Basic Categorial Syntax

    Hardegree, Compositional Semantics, Chapter 1 : Basic Categorial Syntax 1 of 27 Chapter 1 Basic Categorial Syntax 1. The Task of Grammar ............................................................................................................ 2 2. Artificial versus Natural Languages ....................................................................................... 2 3. Recursion ............................................................................................................................... 3 4. Category-Governed Grammars .............................................................................................. 3 5. Example Grammar – A Tiny Fragment of English ................................................................. 4 6. Type-Governed (Categorial) Grammars ................................................................................. 5 7. Recursive Definition of Types ............................................................................................... 7 8. Examples of Types................................................................................................................. 7 9. First Rule of Composition ...................................................................................................... 8 10. Examples of Type-Categorial Analysis .................................................................................. 8 11. Quantifiers and Quantifier-Phrases ...................................................................................... 10 12. Compound Nouns
  • Intro to Linguistics – Syntax 1 Jirka Hana – November 7, 2011

    Intro to Linguistics – Syntax 1 Jirka Hana – November 7, 2011

    Intro to Linguistics – Syntax 1 Jirka Hana – November 7, 2011 Overview of topics • What is Syntax? • Part of Speech • Phrases, Constituents & Phrase Structure Rules • Ambiguity • Characteristics of Phrase Structure Rules • Valency 1 What to remember and understand: Syntax, difference between syntax and semantics, open/closed class words, all word classes (and be able to distinguish them based on morphology and syntax) Subject, object, case, agreement. 1 What is Syntax? Syntax – the part of linguistics that studies sentence structure: • word order: I want these books. *want these I books. • agreement – subject and verb, determiner and noun, . often must agree: He wants this book. *He want this book. I want these books. *I want this books. • How many complements, which prepositions and forms (cases): I give Mary a book. *I see Mary a book. I see her. *I see she. • hierarchical structure – what modifies what We need more (intelligent leaders). (more of intelligent leaders) We need (more intelligent) leaders. (leaders that are more intelligent) • etc. Syntax is not about meaning! Sentences can have no sense and still be grammatically correct: Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. – nonsense, but grammatically correct *Sleep ideas colorless furiously green. – grammatically incorrect Syntax: From Greek syntaxis from syn (together) + taxis (arrangement). Cf. symphony, synonym, synthesis; taxonomy, tactics 1 2 Parts of Speech • Words in a language behave differently from each other. • But not each word is entirely different from all other words in that language. ⇒ Words can be categorized into parts of speech (lexical categories, word classes) based on their morphological, syntactic and semantic properties. Note that there is a certain amount of arbitrariness in any such classification.
  • The Syntax of Word Order Derivation and Agreement in Najrani Arabic: a Minimalist Analysis

    The Syntax of Word Order Derivation and Agreement in Najrani Arabic: a Minimalist Analysis

    English Language Teaching; Vol. 10, No. 2; 2017 ISSN 1916-4742 E-ISSN 1916-4750 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education The Syntax of Word Order Derivation and Agreement in Najrani Arabic: A Minimalist Analysis Abdul-Hafeed Ali Fakih1 & Hadeel Ali Al-Sharif2 1 Department of English, University of Ibb, Yemen & Department of English, University of Najran, Saudi Arabia 2 Department of English, University of Najran, Saudi Arabia Correspondence: Abdul-Hafeed Ali Fakih, Department of English, University of Najran, Saudi Arabia. E-mail: [email protected] Received: December 1, 2016 Accepted: January 7, 2017 Online Published: January 9, 2017 doi: 10.5539/elt.v10n2p48 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n2p48 Abstract The paper aims to explore word order derivation and agreement in Najran Arabic (henceforth, NA) and examines the interaction between the NA data and Chomsky’s (2001, 2005) Agree theory which we adopt in this study. The objective is to investigate how word order occurs in NA and provide a satisfactorily unified account of the derivation of SVO and VSO orders and agreement in the language. Furthermore, the study shows how SVO and VSO word orders are derived morpho-syntactically in NA syntax and why and how the derivation of SVO word order comes after that of VSO order. We assume that the derivation of the unmarked SVO in NA takes place after applying a further step to the marked VSO. We propose that the default unmarked word order in NA is SVO, not VSO. Moreover, we propose that the DP which is base-generated in [Spec-vP] is a topic, not a subject.
  • Phonological Typology, Rhythm Types and the Phonetics-Phonology Interface

    Phonological Typology, Rhythm Types and the Phonetics-Phonology Interface

    Zurich Open Repository and Archive University of Zurich Main Library Strickhofstrasse 39 CH-8057 Zurich www.zora.uzh.ch Year: 2012 Phonological typology, rhythm types and the phonetics-phonology interface. A methodological overview and three case studies on Italo-Romance dialects Schmid, Stephan Posted at the Zurich Open Repository and Archive, University of Zurich ZORA URL: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-73782 Book Section Published Version Originally published at: Schmid, Stephan (2012). Phonological typology, rhythm types and the phonetics-phonology interface. A methodological overview and three case studies on Italo-Romance dialects. In: Ender, Andrea; Leemann, Adrian; Wälchli, Bernhard. Methods in contemporary linguistics. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, 45-68. Phonological typology, rhythm types and the phonetics-phonology interface. A methodological overview and three case studies on Italo- Romance dialects Stephan Schmid 1. Introduction Phonological typology has mainly concentrated on phoneme inventories and on implicational universals, whereas the notion of ‘language type’ ap- pears to be less appealing from a phonological perspective. An interesting candidate for establishing language types on the grounds of phonological or phonetic criteria would have come from the dichotomy of ‘stress-timing’ vs. ‘syllable-timing’, if instrumental research carried out by a number of phoneticians had not invalidated the fundamental claim of the so-called ‘isochrony hypothesis’. Nevertheless, the idea of classifying languages according to their rhythmic properties has continued to inspire linguists and phoneticians, giving rise to two diverging methodological perspectives. The focus of the first framework mainly lies on how phonological processes relate to prosodic domains, in particular to the syllable and to the phonolog- ical word.
  • Introduction to Phonology École D’Automne De Linguistique, ENS

    Introduction to Phonology École D’Automne De Linguistique, ENS

    Introduction to Phonology École d’automne de linguistique, ENS Class coordinates Time : 14:30-15:50 (Session 4), Sept. 24, 25, 26, 27 (Monday to Thursday) Place : Salle des Résistants (45 rue d’Ulm, 1er étage, couloir A-B) Instructor coordinates Name : Kie Zuraw [ ka z ] Affiliation : UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) Department of Linguistics E-mail : [email protected] Web page : www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/zuraw Course description What do we know about our language’s sound pattern, and how do we know it? This course will begin with a quick overview of characteristics of sound patterns that linguists have noticed (alternations and phonotactics), and of the approach to explanatory adequacy that will be adopted here. We will then look at research that has sought to determine what phonological generalizations speakers extract from the learning data, and follow the consequences of these findings for achieving a descriptively adequate grammatical framework (that is, a framework that can express speakers’ implicit phonological knowledge): basic rule notation, features, and constraint interaction. Next we will consider why determining what speakers know is so difficult, and review a range of methods that have been tried. Finally, we will examine some recent work that moves towards explanatory adequacy—what kind of learner can, on exposure to typical learning data, choose a grammar similar to the one that human learners choose? Prerequisites : None! Course outline Day 1: 24 September sound patterns conceptual framework Day 2: 25 September descriptive adequacy: methods and consequences Day 3: 26 September explanatory adequacy: methods Day 4: 27 September explanatory adequacy: theoretical developments Suggestions for further reading are included at the ends of the first two handouts Language : In accordance with EALing policy, I’ll lecture in English, but feel free to make comments or pose questions in French, to ask me to try to express something into French if it’s not clear in English, to talk to me after class in French..