Class 8: Phonological typology Adam Albright ([email protected]) LSA 2017 Phonology University of Kentucky Announcements I For those taking this class for credit I Please upload assignments (option 1 or option 2) by PDF to Canvas by tonight I Today I Questions? I Phonological typology References 1/38 From specific languages to typology I So far: main focus has been on providing rankings that yield set of outputs attested in a specific language I However, arguments for constraint formulation and ranking have been partly language-internal, and partly cross-linguistic I Language-internal: Korean allows laryngeal contrasts on consonants before a vowel, but not before another consonant I Cross-linguistic: if a language allows laryngeal contrasts before a consonant, it allows them before a vowel *[voice]/ :[+son] ≫ *[voice]/ :[−son] or: Ident([±voi])/[+son] ≫ *Ident([±voi])/ [+son] I Or in some cases, almost entirely cross-linguistic I Low-ranked markedness constraints[ ] −sonorant I E.g., Limbu: Ident([±voi]) ≫ * +voice References 2/38 Using typological data to inform constraint formulation Implicational asymmetries give us insight into… I Which constraints to include I Conjecture (not verified): if a language allows initial #ŋV, it also allows initial #mV and #nV I *#ŋ constraint without corresponding *#m, *#n: predicts two type of languages, depending on ranking w.r.t. Ident(place) I Fixed rankings I Verified by Steriade (1999): if a language allows laryngeal contrasts before a consonant, it allows them before a vowel I *[voice]/ :[+son] ≫ *[voice]/ :[−son] References 3/38 Universal CON? I This reasoning is most straightforward if we can guarantee that no grammar would ever contain a constraint that would ‘subvert’ the predicted asymmetry I Hypothesis: set of constraints (and, perhaps, a priori rankings) is fixed and universal (Prince and Smolensky, 2002) I Or, subject to limitations that guarantee asymmetries (Hayes, 1999; Hayes and Steriade, 2004; Smith, 2003) I Assumed by RCD (must be able to identify all L’s from the start) References 4/38 Factorial typology I Space of possible grammars = set of possible rankings I Deriving the set of predicted languages I Virtually guaranteed to be fewer languages than rankings (why?) I Enormous space, but much smaller than possible sets of ordered rules References 5/38 Evaluating typological predictions of a proposed constraint I Can only be assessed through interaction I In practice, often assessed for just a limited set of constraints (‘mini-typology’) I Typological predictions are independent of lexicon (Richness of the Base) I Assessing fit to attested typology Predicted/Attested Yes No Yes Correctly analyzable Accidental gap No Exception Correctly excluded I Eliminating exceptions: descriptive adequacy I Minimizing “accidental” gaps ! restrictive theory References 6/38 The typology of stress systems I In principle, all of the constraints that we’ve used up until this point could be submitted to factorial typology and evaluated I Interactions ! enormous set of possible languages I Stress assignment: somewhat ‘insulated’ from other parts of the grammar I Easier to document independently of other features of the language (modulo morphology) I Easier to assess mini-typology with some confidence References 7/38 Stress I An abstract (“hidden”) property I Liberman (1975); Liberman and Prince (1977): linguistic manifestation of rhythmic structure I Prosodic prominence = ‘strength’ I Behavioral diagnostics (tapping, text alignment) I English: eligibility for phrasal prominences (‘nuclear intonation tones’, marked with pitch accents) I Diagnosis through pitch accent: calling contour, surprise redundancy contour I Compare: collàborátion, clàssificátion I Conditions phonological processes I Contrast: e.g., vowel reduction in stressless syllables I Other reductions: e.g., flapping in English References 8/38 Stress I Acoustic correlates: mostly indirect in English (pitch accent) I Inherent: duration, possibly voice quality, following C duration I Accent: intensity/amplitude, pitch I Probably also mostly indirect cues in other languages, though remarkably few studies dissociating stress from pitch accent I NB: when the most straightforward diagnostics (e.g., stress-based meter) are unavailable or irrelevant for a given language, the position of stress can be notoriously difficult for non-native listeners to identify! I Misidentification of duration, pitch, etc. associated with position in word or phrase (French, Welsh) I An interesting problem: difficult also for learners References 9/38 Typological properties of stress: some universal properties (Hayes, 1995, chap. 3) I Culminativity: every word or phrase has a single strongest (most prominent) syllable I Hierarchical organization I Primary, secondary, tertiary stress: Constantinople 23010 vs. sensationality 32010 I Rhythmic organization I Alternating stressed/stressless syllables I If there are multiple stresses in a given domain, they are generally spaced at regular intervals: 102020 not *122000 I Regular stresses every two (or sometimes three) syllables I No assimilation I Unlike voicing, place, etc., no tendency for adjacent syllables to agree in stress I In fact, assimilation would destroy rhythmic organization I Often taken as an argument for a distinct representation (not a feature) References 10/38 Parameters of stress systems I Is the position of stress determined phonologically? (lexical (free) vs. fixed stress) I What determines position? I Edges of the word: stress left, right, penultimate, peninitial, antepenultimate… I Weight: stress ‘heavier’ syllables (long vowel, CVN, CVC, etc.) (Quantity sensitivity) I Stress just the syllable(s) with relevant property (free stress) or regularly alternating syllables (bounded stress) I If alternating: binary or ternary? I Morphological sensitivity References 11/38 The representation of stress I Featural (but: no assimilation) I Grid (Prince, 1983; Selkirk, 1984) × × × σ σ σ σ σ a bra ca da bra I Feet: binary vs. ternary, head position (σ̀ σ) σ (σ́ σ) abra ca dabra References 12/38 Where does stress fall? Quantity insensitive systems (Gordon, 2002) I Final: Atayal, Moghol, Mazatec I Penultimate: Mohawk, Albanian, Jaqaru I Antepenultimate: Macedonian I Initial: Arabela, Chitimacha, Nenets I Peninitial: Lakhota, Koryak I Postpeninitial: Hocąk (a.k.a. Winnebago) I Rarer: ‘dual’ systems, at/near L and R (one primary, one secondary) (Not discussed here: quantity sensitive systems, where position of stress depends on vowel length or syllable type) References 13/38 Capturing stress placement with constraints Gordon (2002): Align(Level n,Edge) Level 2: × Level 1: × × Syllables: σ σ σ σσ I Levels: {1,2}, Edges: {L,R} I Every grid mark on Level n must be aligned with the grid mark on the named edge of Level n-1 I Align(Level 1,L): there must be a stress on the leftmost syllable I Example above: satisfies Align(Level 1,L), but violates Align(Level 1,R) I Align(Level 2,L): the leftmost stress must be primary (cf. Hayes, 1995 ‘End Rule Left’) I Example above: violates Align(Level 2,L), but satisfies Align(Level 2,R) References 14/38 AFACTORIALTYPOLOGYOFQUANTITY-INSENSITIVESTRESS 499 are several violations of a constraint committed by a form, the number of violations appears in parentheses. Adopting the ALIGN (x2,X,1,PrWd)constraintsasopposedtocon- straints which count absolute distance of the primary stress from an edge (cf. McCarthy and Prince 1993) has the empirical advantage of creating amoreconstrainedfactorialtypologyofstresssystems12 as well as the formal advantage (in a grid-based theory of representation) of being more principled, assuming that all grid marks above level 0 must dominate a Evaluatinglower levelAlign grid mark(Level (Prince’s n,Edge): (1983) ContinuousGordon (2002 Column, Constraint). p. 499) (5) Evaluation of the ALIGN constraints References 15/38 Before proceeding with analyses employing the ALIGN constraints, it should be noted that, although the ALIGN constraints discussed in this paper will make reference to the word as the stress domain, it is assumed that other members of the ALIGN constraint family sensitive to different stress domains, such as the root and different phrasal levels, also exist. These ALIGN constraints play an important role in characterizing mor- phologically sensitive stress (see Alderete 1999 for morphological stress 12 The ALIGN (x2,{R/L},1,PrWd)constraintsadoptedheregenerateonly79distinct stress systems as opposed to 93 generated by their hypothetical counterparts which count absolute distance of the main stress from an edge. The extra patterns, none of which are attested, fall under the class of fixed stress systems displaying two stresses per domain (see section 2.2 for the factorial typology of fixed stress). Rhythmic stress and windows I *Clash I No sequences of two stressed syllables: *σ́σ́ I *Lapse I No sequences of two stressless syllables: *σσ I *Extended Lapse I No sequences of three stressless syllables: *σσσ I Position: *Lapse(R), *Lapse(L), *ExtLapse(R), possibly also *ExtLapse(L) References 16/38 Rhythmic stress and windows I The idea behind windows: stress wants to be at one edge of the word, but is prohibited from being more than one/two syllables from the opposite end I Antepenultimate: *ExtLapse(R) ≫ Align(Level 1,L) ≫ Align(Level 1,R) I *Lapse(R), *Lapse(L): penultimate, peninitial stress I *ExtLapse(R): antepenultimate (and *ExtLapse(L) if postpenititial exists) I Gradient violations: must be better to stay ‘at outer edge of window’ than to go all the way