University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2012-09-26 When nothing exists: The role of zero in the prosodic hierarchy Windsor, Joseph William Windsor, J. W. (2012). When nothing exists: The role of zero in the prosodic hierarchy (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/28694 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/227 master thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY When nothing exists: The role of zero in the prosodic hierarchy by Joseph W. Windsor A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS CALGARY, ALBERTA SEPTEMBER, 2012 © Joseph W. Windsor, 2012 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS The undersigned certify that they have read and recommended to the Faculty of Graduate Studies for acceptance, a thesis entitled 'When nothing exists: The role of zero in the prosodic hierarchy' submitted by Joseph W. Windsor in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Linguistics. _____________________________________________ Supervisor, Dr. Darin Flynn, Department of Linguistics ____________________________________________ Dr. Karsten Koch, Department of Linguistics ____________________________________________ Dr. Richard Zach, Department of Philosophy _____________________ Date Abstract Zero (Ø) has been a phonological tool for over a century used to explain linguistic phenomena where language-specific rules either under or over-apply. This tool has often been argued to be 'dangerous' since it gives 'additional power to the system' (Stanley 1967). This long-standing controversy has lead to many authors arguing against analyses of phenomena that rely on Ø. This opposition to Ø often leads those authors to relegate a given phenomenon to the lexicon rather than maintaining a phonological explanation for a given sound change. While the skepticism of those authors may be warranted, what is lacking from the field is a list of criteria by which to evaluate proposals of Ø. This thesis examines cases of proposed Øs in several languages to propose a list of four criteria which can be used as a general guideline for either warranting or eliminating Ø in a particular phonological analysis. iii Acknowledgements For the past two years, I've been asked 'what do you study?' to which I would answer, 'nothing... literally.' It has become an inside joke to talk about the student who specializes in nothing, and such an abstract topic is without doubt difficult to supervise. Because of this, I would like to extend my deepest thanks to my supervisor, Dr. Darin Flynn for his unwavering encouragement and support. No matter how crazy the idea, Darin never once told me I was wrong. He listened to each hypothesis, discussed it with me, and pointed me toward an article that I should read. This often lead me to reconsider what I had previously thought, and each time, Darin made sure I was well read on a topic before committing the idea to paper. This work is a direct result of his support, direction, and enthusiasm. Additionally, I would like to thank the members of my examining committee: Dr. Karsten Koch, Dr. Richard Zach, and my neutral chair Dr. Amanda Pounder. Your questions and comments on my thesis were both insightful and challenging, and they helped me to identify avenues for future research. There are many other members of the Department of Linguistics who deserve to be thanked as well, too many to be individually named. At one point or another, almost every graduate student or faculty member helped me to formalize the ideas that are presented in this thesis. Whether it was directly tied to a class, or thinking of my thesis while reading a related article and emailing me the reference, or just sitting in front of a whiteboard and helping me to sort out my ideas. They all provided one of the most supportive and friendly environments to study in that I've ever known. Finally, no one person ever truly writes a thesis on their own. It is not just the student who stays up late at night or pulls their hair out when something just doesn't quite fit. Their family is always right there with them, feeling every set back or celebrating any achievement. In my family, this was my grandmother – who made sure I was looking after myself; my grandfather – who taught me to fix my own vehicles because "I can't help you with school, but I can make sure you get there;" my father – who listened to every crazy idea, smiled, and told me to go for it; my mother – who both worried and supported as only a mother can; my step-mother – who wanted nothing more than to see me succeed; and my step-father who made sure I arrived by driving with me 5133 of the 5212km (the tow truck was responsible for the last 79km, but he was there for that too) from Stellarton to Calgary; iv and, of course, Alanna – who stepped in and made sure I was living on more than just ramen noodles and coffee, and looked after both her share of the housework and mine, just so I wouldn't be distracted. I never could have done this on my own, and I hope you all know how large your role was in this process. v This thesis is dedicated in memory of Dr. Kenneth E. Nilsen who inspired my love of Celtic languages, literatures, and cultures. His enthusiasm and love for language is what started me down this path. Go soilsí Dia solas na bhFlaitheas dhó vi Table of Contents Approval page ii Abstract iii Acknowledgements iv Dedication vi Table of Contents vii List of Numbered Examples ix List of Abbreviations and Symbols xiv Epigraph xv CHAPTER 1: Introduction 1 1.1: Phonological frameworks 4 1.2: Interface and syntactic frameworks 8 1.3: Ø in feature theory 10 1.4: Acoustic Ø 14 CHAPTER 2: Where is Ø expected in phonological theory? 18 2.1: Ø segments 19 2.2: Ø mora 34 2.3: Ø syllables 39 2.4: Ø feet 45 2.5: Ø words 46 2.6: Ø phrases 50 2.7: Ø intonational phrases 54 2.8: Interim conclusion I 60 CHAPTER 3: Case studies of Ø 62 3.1: 'Ghost' vowels in Russian (Jer vowels) 62 3.1.1: Competing models of representation for Jer vowels 64 3.1.2: Predictions of the exceptional word analysis 69 3.1.3: 'Ghost' segments in Seri 73 3.1.4: Consequences of Seri Ø for Russian 80 3.1.5: Ø inputs and outputs for Russian Jers 83 3.1.6: Summary 86 3.2: A Ø prosodic word in Irish 88 3.2.1: Consonantal lenition to Ø in Irish mutations 88 3.2.1.2: A brief history of Irish lenitions and interface theories 89 3.2.1.3: Phonological realization of Irish lenitions 92 3.2.1.4: Lenition to palatalized Ø 98 3.2.1.5: Interim conclusion II 102 3.2.2: Phonological environment for Irish lenition 103 3.2.2.2: Past tense and a Ø prosodic word 109 3.2.2.3: Irish syntax-phonology interface and a Ø word 110 3.2.3: Summary 122 CHAPTER 4: Conclusion 124 5: References 126 6: Appendices 136 vii 6.1: Optimality theory: The basics 136 6.2: Scans of Steele (1775: 25-8) (reproduced from Google eBook) 139 6.3: Scottish Gaelic nasal fricatives: the phonology/phonetics interface 143 6.4: Index of constraints (alphabetical) 147 6.5: Index of languages (alphabetical) 152 viii List of Numbered Examples 1) Syntactic Ø 2 2) Syntactic copies and Ø 2 3) Comparison of prosodic hierarchies 6 4) The prosodic hierarchy (preliminary sketch) 7 5) Irish minimal pairs (stress) 8 6) Syntactically derived Irish minimal pairs (stress) 9 7) Somali consonant contrastive hierarchy 12 8) Possible feature matrix for Somali phonemes 12 9) Definition of featural Ø (Ø-specification) 13 10) Definition of prosodic Ø (empty elements) 13 11) Comparative F2 value for Blackfoot silent morphology 15 12) Comparative tongue height for Blackfoot silent morphology 16 13) Comparative lip aperture for Blackfoot silent morphology 16 14) The commonly posited prosodic hierarchy 18 15) H-aspiré compared to true vowels 21 16) Whole morpheme exception hypothesis (WMEH) 22 17) ANCHOR (word, σ R/L)h-aspiré 24 18) ANCHOR (word, σ R/L) 24 19) Enchaînment in h-aspiré & true vowels 24 20) CV 25 21) ONSET 25 22) DEP I-O 26 23) MAXIMALITY 27 24) MAX I-O 27 25) MPARSE 28 26) Under-application of a counter feeding rule due to Ø 28 27) The phonemic inventory of Blackfoot 30 28) ENHANCE-R φ 30 29) Vowel reduction to Ø in Blackfoot (first attempt) Mistapoota 'go away' 31 30) ENHANCE-R φ (revisited and specific to Blackfoot) 31 31) Spectrogram of Mistapoota 'go away' 33 32) Defective syllables in Friulian 34 33) /CVCαCβ/ → [CVVCα] in Friulian 35 34) *μ / –VD_STOP 35 35) Hierarchy for consonant voicing patterns in Friulian 36 36) SPREAD-R-μ 36 37) CRISPEDGEσ 36 38) Σ-BIN 37 39) An empty mora in Italian 37 40) Filling the empty mora in Italian 37 41) ANCHOR I-O 38 42) Minimal pairs in Standard Chinese 39 43) ONSET 40 ix 44) DEP I-O 40 45) Mono-syllabic words followed by a Ø beat in English verse 41 46) Poetry skewing rhyme 41 47) Weight to stress principle (WSP) 42 48) Tableau for a Ø syllable output 43 Nuc 49) FILL 43 50) NUC 44 51) Mono-syllabic words followed by a Ø beat in English verse 44 52) A Ø foot in 18th century English 45 53)