UC Santa Cruz UC Santa Cruz Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Foot-conditioned phonotactics and prosodic constituency Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0hj9f173 Author Bennett, Ryan Thomas Publication Date 2012 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ FOOT-CONDITIONED PHONOTACTICS AND PROSODIC CONSTITUENCY A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in LINGUISTICS by Ryan T. Bennett September 2012 The Dissertation of Ryan T. Bennett is approved: Professor Junko Itô, Chair Professor Jaye Padgett, Chair Professor Armin Mester Assistant Professor Grant McGuire Dean Tyrus Miller Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies Copyright © by Ryan T. Bennett 2012 Table of Contents List of Figures vi List of Tables vii Abstract ix Dedication xi Acknowledgments xii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background .................................. 8 1.1.1 Thecrucibleoffoot-conditionedphonotactics . .. 9 1.2 Empiricalcontributions. 13 1.3 Theoreticaloverview:thebasics . 14 1.3.1 Themetricalfoot ........................... 14 1.3.2 Non-accentualevidenceforfooting . 20 1.4 Twometricalframeworks........... ........... ..... 26 1.4.1 Prosodichierarchytheory . 26 1.4.2 Simplifiedbracketedgridtheory . 35 2 Rhythmicity, prominence, and the uniqueness of footing 44 2.1 Huariapano................................... 44 2.2 PhonologyofHuariapano. 45 2.2.1 Segmentalinventory ......... ........... ..... 45 2.2.2 Syllablestructure ........................... 46 2.2.3 Stressplacement ........................... 47 2.2.4 Coda [h] epenthesis.......................... 50 2.3 DisjointfootinginHuariapano? . .. 54 2.3.1 Stressplacement ........................... 55 2.3.2 Coda [h] epenthesis.......................... 56 2.4 TowardsaunifiedaccountofHuariapano . 59 2.4.1 Stressplacement ........................... 61 iii 2.4.2 Coda [h] epenthesis.......................... 67 2.4.3 Are epenthetic [h]smoraic? ..................... 76 2.4.4 OTimplementation.......................... 81 2.4.5 Exceptionalstress........................... 96 2.4.6 Exceptionalepenthesisblocking. 103 2.4.7 ComparisonwithGonzález(2003) . 107 2.4.8 Huariapano as an argument for prosodic constituency . 114 2.4.9 A derivational alternative to foot-initial prominence? . ... 119 2.4.10 Interimconclusion . 123 2.5 Evidenceforfoot-initialprominence . ... 124 2.5.1 Yupik.................................. 125 2.5.2 Russian................................. 127 2.5.3 TataltepecChatino .......... ........... ..... 129 2.5.4 Canela ................................. 131 2.5.5 Karo .................................. 132 2.5.6 Kaapor ................................. 136 2.5.7 TokyoJapanese ............................ 137 2.5.8 Initialprominenceinotherprosodicdomains . 138 2.5.9 Foot-initial augmentation and the weight-to-stress principle . 141 2.5.10 Foot-initial strengthening vs. weak branch weakening . ..... 143 2.6 Onrecursivefooting.............................. 144 2.6.1 Recursion atotherlevelsof theprosodichierarchy . ... 144 2.7 Projection, tiers, and metrical organization: mismatches in tonal lan- guages...................................... 149 2.7.1 MetricalorganizationinBamana . 150 2.8 Conclusion................................... 159 3 ‘Unbounded’ stress, bounded phonotactics: binary feet in non-rhythmic lan- guages 161 3.1 Introduction .................................. 161 3.2 Uspanteko ................................... 162 3.2.1 StressandtoneinUspanteko . 162 3.2.2 FootinginUspanteko. 168 3.2.3 Conclusion............................... 175 3.3 Digression: Uspanteko as an argument for parallel evaluation. 176 3.3.1 UspantekoinHarmonicSerialism. 177 3.3.2 Conclusion............................... 193 3.4 Irish....................................... 194 3.5 Irishplurals .................................. 194 3.5.1 A subregularity: -(e)anna and -(e)acha ............... 196 3.5.2 -(e)anna and -(e)acha ascontextualallomorphs . 199 3.5.3 TheIrishstresssystem . 202 3.5.4 The exceptional status of /ax/ .................... 207 iv 3.5.5 AnOTanalysisofIrishpluralallomorphy . 222 3.6 Moreon wspFt:sonority-drivenepenthesis . 242 3.7 Conclusion................................... 249 3.8 Someremainders ............................... 250 3.8.1 Syncope ................................ 250 3.8.2 Munsterplurals ............................ 251 3.9 Generaldiscussion .............................. 254 4 Foot structure and cognitive bias: an artificial grammar investigation 257 4.1 Introduction .................................. 257 4.2 Background .................................. 258 4.3 Thepervasivenessoffootstructure . 259 4.3.1 EOS systems and foot structure: case studies . 262 4.3.2 Thepuzzle............................... 263 4.4 Explanation and experimentation . 266 4.4.1 Artificialgrammarexperiments . 269 4.5 Experiment1.................................. 271 4.5.1 Stimuli ................................. 271 4.5.2 Design ................................. 276 4.5.3 Predictions............................... 280 4.5.4 Results ................................. 281 4.5.5 Experiment1discussion . 288 4.6 Computational modeling: the Hayes & Wilson Maximum Entropy Phono- tacticLearner ................................. 293 4.6.1 MaxEntresults ............................ 296 4.7 Experiment2.................................. 302 4.7.1 Design ................................. 304 4.7.2 Results ................................. 306 4.7.3 MaxEntmodelingofExperiment2 . 313 4.8 Generaldiscussion .............................. 315 4.8.1 Alternative explanations for footing in EOS languages . 316 4.8.2 Arethereanylanguageswithoutfeet? . 320 4.8.3 Consequencesforprosodicconstituency . 325 4.8.4 Conclusions .............................. 328 5 Conclusion 332 A MaxEnt specifications 336 v List of Figures 1.1 Theprosodichierarchy ............................ 28 2.1 Hasse diagram of core ranking arguments for stress-related constraints 95 3.1 Partial selectional structure of Irish plural morphology . ........ 201 4.1 Spectrogram, pitch track, and intensity contour for [sí.ki.tu] ....... 275 vi List of Tables 2.1 Huariapanovowelinventory . 46 2.2 Huariapanoconsonantinventory . 46 3.1 SomeIrishnominalparadigms. 195 3.2 Distributions of -(e)anna [-@n@] and -(e)acha [-@x@] ............. 198 3.3 CompoundingprefixesinIrish. 203 3.4 Quantity-sensitivity in Munster Irish . 208 3.5 Epenthesizingforms ............................. 242 3.6 Non-epenthesizingforms. 243 4.1 Schematic 3σ training phase stimuli (with assumed foot boundaries) . 272 4.2 Schematic 5σ test stimuli (initial stress only) . 278 4.3 d′ results, 3σ condition,Exp.1........................ 283 4.4 d′ results, 5σ condition, initial stress, Exp. 1 . 283 4.5 d′ results, 5σ condition, peninitial stress, Exp. 1 . 283 4.6 MeanRTs,3σ condition,Exp.1(inms). 284 4.7 MeanRTs,5σ condition,Exp.1(inms). 285 4.8 Significant fixed-effects in RT model for 3σ test stimuli, Exp. 1 . 286 4.9 Significant fixed-effects in RT model for 5σ test stimuli, Exp. 1 . 287 4.10 Versions of target phonotactic for Exp. 1 appearing in MaxEnt grammars 297 4.11 Correlation levels for MaxEnt scores (40 constraints) and empirical well- formedness scores from Exp. 1 (Spearman’s ρ)............... 298 4.12 Correlation levels for MaxEnt scores (100 constraints) and empirical well-formedness scores from Exp. 1 (Spearman’s ρ)............ 299 4.13 d′ results, 3σ condition,Exp.2........................ 307 4.14 d′ results, 5σ condition, initial stress, Exp. 2 . 307 4.15 d′ results, 5σ condition, peninitial stress, Exp. 2 . 307 4.16 Mean RTs, 3σ condition,Exp.2(inms). 308 4.17 Mean RTs, 5σ condition,Exp.2(inms). 308 4.18 Significant fixed-effects in RT model for 3σ test stimuli, Exp. 2 . 309 4.19 Significant fixed-effects in RT model for 5σ test stimuli, Exp. 2 . 310 4.20 Correlation levels for MaxEnt scores (40 constraints) and empirical well- formedness scores from Exp. 2 (Spearman’s ρ)............... 314 vii 4.21 Correlation levels for MaxEnt scores (100 constraints) and empirical well-formedness scores from Exp. 2 (Spearman’s ρ)............ 314 4.22DestressinginSBG .............................. 328 4.23 Prohibited phonotactic configuration from Experiments 1 and 2 in three prosodicframeworks .. ........... ........... ..... 329 A.1 Feature specifications for MaxEnt models (Chapter 4) . 337 viii Abstract Foot-conditioned phonotactics and prosodic constituency by Ryan T. Bennett There has been a recurrent debate in generative phonology concerning the inclusion of hierarchical prosodic structure in phonological representations. On one side, there are those who argue that prosodic structure plays an indispensable role in the conditioning of phonological phenomena, especially stress, intonation, and segmental phonotactics. On the other side of the divide are researchers who suggest that all such phenomena yield to empirically adequate non-structural analyses, which are independently fa- vored by criteria of theoretical parsimony. This dissertation focuses on one aspect of the larger debate over prosodic orga- nization: the existence of the metrical foot. In standard conceptions of phonological structure the foot is a prosodic constituent, falling between the syllable and the word, which mediates the assignment of word-level stress. The foot obviously has no role to play in non-structural theories of prosody. Such frameworks assume that stress