Prosodic Prominence in Karuk by Clare Scoville Sandy a Dissertation
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Prosodic Prominence in Karuk by Clare Scoville Sandy A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Andrew Garrett, Co-chair Professor Sharon Inkelas, Co-chair Associate Professor Darya Kavitskaya Summer 2017 Prosodic Prominence in Karuk Copyright 2017 by Clare Scoville Sandy 1 Abstract Prosodic Prominence in Karuk by Clare Scoville Sandy Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California, Berkeley Professor Andrew Garrett, Co-chair Professor Sharon Inkelas, Co-chair This study focuses on word-level prosodic prominence in Karuk (kyh), a Hokan isolate of Northern California. Prosodic prominence in Karuk is made up of sparse tone and stress, and there are two main influences on its placement: the alignment of high tone and certain syllable structures, and the use of prosodic prominence to mark stem edges. These influences are at times in conflict, with the resolution depending on criteria specific to particular sets of morphology. The study is based on analysis of a corpus combining recent fieldwork and historical data. Specific findings include: 1) the placement of prominence in a Karuk word is largely dependent on CV-skeleton syllable structure and far more predictable than previ- ously thought; 2) while one tone-syllable alignment is the unmarked output of constraints, a different tone-syllable alignment on the input blocks its surfacing; 3) various sets of morphol- ogy interfere with the basic placement of prominence by triggering stem-final prominence; and 4) the predictable placement of basic prominence only applies within the prosodic stem, from which certain morphemes are excluded. The prosodic system of Karuk bears some striking resemblances to those of other lan- guages known as accent languages, but has important differences and added complexities. An unmarked high-tone-before-long-vowel alignment in Karuk is typologically unusual, as is a dispreferred high-tone-on-CVC alignment. Although tone and stress generally coincide, reference to both tone and metrical structure is required in defining preferred and avoided structures. The complexity of Karuk word prosody poses a challenge for approaches which seek to limit the role of morphology to either the phonology or the syntax, as well as for those which seek to implement a wholly parallel or a wholly derivational model of the phonology- morphology interface. The Karuk case shows that phonology and morphology must be interleaved, and I find that a cophonology approach best accounts for the complex patterns seen. Other challenges for an Optimality Theoretic approach raised by the Karuk data are opacity in a non-surface-apparent constraint driving placement of prosody, and the need for special faithfulness to account for the protected status of a particular tone-syllable alignment. i To the memory of my father Stephen M. Sandy (1933–2016) ii Contents Contents ii List of figures and tables vi Abbreviations vii Acknowledgments x I Setting the stage 1 1 Introduction 2 1.1 Introduction.................................... 2 1.1.1 Word-prosodictypology ......................... 3 1.1.2 Theoreticalframework .......................... 4 1.1.3 Findings.................................. 6 1.2 Languagebackground............................... 7 1.2.1 Vitality . 7 1.2.2 Documentation .............................. 7 1.3 Dataandmethodology .............................. 9 1.3.1 Sourcesofdata .............................. 9 1.3.2 Methodology ............................... 11 1.4 Organization of following chapters . 13 2 Overview of Karuk phonology and morphology 14 2.1 Basics ....................................... 14 2.1.1 Phonemeinventory ............................ 14 2.1.2 Vowellength................................ 15 2.1.3 Syllablestructure............................. 17 2.1.4 Suprasegmentals ............................. 17 2.2 Morphology .................................... 21 2.2.1 Verbalmorphology ............................ 21 2.2.2 Nominalmorphology ........................... 23 2.3 Variousphonologicalprocesses. .. 23 CONTENTS iii 2.3.1 Sibilant palatalization . 23 2.3.2 th + s → ch ................................ 24 2.3.3 Diminutive consonant symbolism . 25 2.3.4 Nasalization................................ 25 2.3.5 Glide deletion . 31 2.3.6 h Deletionandepenthesis ........................ 33 2.3.7 Haplology ................................. 35 2.3.8 Additional irregular processes . 36 2.4 Processesattheleftedgeoftheword . ... 37 2.4.1 Glottalstops ............................... 37 2.4.2 Word-initial vowel deletion and coalescence . 38 2.4.3 Proclitics . 39 2.5 Prosody ...................................... 42 2.5.1 Word-level prosody (a.k.a. Accent) . 42 2.5.2 Phrasalprosody.............................. 44 3 Processes affecting TBUs 48 3.1 Introduction.................................... 48 3.2 Vowelepenthesis ................................. 49 3.2.1 Reduplication............................... 50 3.2.2 Suffixation................................. 52 3.2.3 Summary ................................. 53 3.3 Word-finalvowels................................. 54 3.3.1 Deletionoffinalvowels.......................... 54 3.3.2 Retentionoffinalvowels ......................... 56 3.3.3 Mutationoffinalvowels ......................... 57 3.3.4 Summary ................................. 60 3.4 Vowelhiatusresolution.............................. 60 3.4.1 Vowel hiatus principles . 61 3.4.2 Glide deletion . 62 3.4.3 Suffixation................................. 65 3.4.4 Prefixationandcompounding . 71 3.5 Discussion..................................... 78 3.5.1 Syllable structure principles . 78 3.5.2 Affix faithfulness and root faithfulness . 78 3.5.3 Recoverability............................... 79 3.5.4 Feeding and constraint ranking reversal . 80 3.5.5 Gradientvowelstrength . .. .. 80 II Influence of syllable structure on prominence 82 4 Root accentuation 83 CONTENTS iv 4.1 Introduction.................................... 83 4.2 LexicaltoneinKaruk............................... 83 4.2.1 Possibleroottonepatterns. 83 4.2.2 Gaps.................................... 84 4.2.3 Skewed distribution in disyllabic roots . 85 4.2.4 Differences in distributions between nouns and verbs . 87 4.3 ConstraintsonplacementofHtone . 87 4.4 Ambiguity..................................... 91 4.5 Summary ..................................... 91 5 Basic derived accentuation 92 5.1 Introduction.................................... 92 5.1.1 Basic word-level accentuation . 93 5.1.2 Anunusualfoot.............................. 95 5.2 Basic constraint rankings and justifications . .... 97 5.2.1 Wordswithnolongvowels........................ 97 5.2.2 Wordswithonelongvowel........................ 99 5.2.3 Wordswithmorethanonelongvowel. 101 5.2.4 Words with limited prosodic domain . 102 5.3 Summary ..................................... 104 6 Protected HL structure 106 6.1 Introduction.................................... 106 6.2 Protectedconfiguration. 107 6.2.1 WhereeffectsofprotectedHLcanbeseen . 107 6.2.2 SourcesofHLconfiguration . 111 6.2.3 Keyfeatures................................ 114 6.3 Analysis ...................................... 115 6.3.1 SpecialFaithfulness............................ 115 6.4 Alternativeapproaches .............................. 120 6.4.1 Comparativemarkedness. 120 6.4.2 Constraintconjunction . 122 6.4.3 Blockingbyfooting............................ 122 6.5 Summary ..................................... 127 III Influence of morphological structure on prominence 129 7 Interaction of derivational morphology and prominence 130 7.1 Introduction.................................... 130 7.2 Level1:Innerstemmorphology . 131 7.2.1 Reduplication ............................... 131 7.2.2 Innerstemlevelsuffixes . .. .. 134 7.2.3 Orderingofmorphology . .. .. 138 CONTENTS v 7.2.4 Evidence for intermediate assignment of prominence . 140 7.2.5 Discussion................................. 141 7.3 Level2:Derivationalmorphology . 142 7.3.1 Derivationalprefixes . .. .. 142 7.3.2 Derivationalsuffixes ........................... 144 7.3.3 Summary ................................. 153 7.4 Level 3: Semi-derivational morphology . 153 7.4.1 Prosodicallyweaksuffixes . 153 7.4.2 Variableeffectsuffix ........................... 154 7.5 Multi-levelstrongaffixes ............................. 155 7.5.1 Accent-erasingsuffixes . 155 7.5.2 Note on variable placement of -va .................... 156 7.6 Flipped feet and ‘unstable accent’ . 157 7.6.1 Flipped initial-heavy feet . 158 7.6.2 ‘Unstableaccent’ ............................. 158 7.6.3 Roots following ‘unstable’ pattern . 160 7.7 Discussion..................................... 161 8 Interaction of inflectional morphology and prominence 163 8.1 Introduction.................................... 163 8.2 Theprosodicdomainwindow .......................... 164 8.3 Level4:Inflectionalmorphology. 167 8.3.1 Inflectionalsuffixes ............................ 167 8.3.2 Agreementprefixes ............................ 168 8.4 Prefixesandtheprosodicstem. 171 8.4.1 Incorporation of prefixes into the prosodic stem . 174 8.4.2 Cohering vs. non-cohering prefixes . 178 8.5 Suffixesandtheprosodicstem. 180 8.5.1 Exceptions................................. 182 8.5.2 Stem-final prominence with zero-prefixation . 184 8.6 Alternativeanalyses ............................... 184 8.6.1 Levelordering............................... 184 8.6.2 Accented/unaccented prefixes