Term
The author of
Phonology in Generative Grammar |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
The author of
Optimality Theory |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| The five distinctive features of vowels, which make up a sort of 6-way rectangle. |
|
Definition
+/- low
+/- high
+/- ATR
+/- round
+/- back |
|
|
Term
| In terms of distinctive features, these are the three major class features of all sounds. |
|
Definition
+/- syllabic
+/- sonorant
+/- consonantal |
|
|
Term
| Stress: Stress has no uniform phonetic correlates; it may correspond to any of these three things. |
|
Definition
| -increased duration (vowel length) -higher pitch -more subtle aspects of vocal cord quality Stress is an abstract phonological category of prominence whose presence is signaled thru other features. Location of stress is a crucial determinant for many sound changes. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
"The enormous productive capacity of human language is made possible by its discrete recombinatorial structure:
a small number of basic elements recombine to form the limitless possible utterances we use. Distinctive features are those basic elements.
-SNS |
|
|
Term
| A major source of evidence are psychological studies like this man's, and the fact that they divide speech sounds into natural classes that provide simple explanations for phonological phenomena. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
Roman Jakobson (1896-1982), working with Nikolai Trubetzkoy (1890-1938) discovered the notion of
these. |
|
Definition
They discovered the notion of
distinctive features. |
|
|
Term
The basic notion of
lenition and fortition. |
|
Definition
Lenition- The shift on the stop-fricative-approximant scale (toward approx.)
Fortition-also known as spirantization; the slide on that same scale, toward stops. |
|
|
Term
| Stuart Milliken's notes on judging between 2 hypotheses. |
|
Definition
a. Simplicity
b. Predictiveness
c. Naturalness
d. Ad hocity
e. Integration
(Simply predict naturalness and hock integration.) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| 'all other things being equal' |
|
|
Term
Phonologically speaking,
1. This is the most common fricative.
2. This is the the kind of stops that every language has.
3. These vowels prefer to be unrounded. |
|
Definition
1. /s/
2. voiceless stops (that is, no language has ONLY voiced stops)
3. back vowels |
|
|
Term
The classical generative model of phonology was based on this work. Name the authors and date.
Give an example of a basic generative rule. |
|
Definition
Chomsky & Halle (1968) The Sound Pattern of English
SPE uses rules like: x-->y/__z.
A palatalization rule: s-->š/__i |
|
|
Term
| As a major class feature of sounds, SONORANT can be defined in a few different ways. |
|
Definition
-Sounds that are +sonorant involve resonance in the oral cavity. So this does NOT include obstruents.
-Sonorant may also be defined in terms of intra-oral pressure: obstuents involve greater intra-oral pressure than sonorants.
-The feature +sonorant also correlates with spontaneous voicing. They are sounds in which the configuration of the vocal tract allows for spontaneous voicing (obsturents=the opposite!) |
|
|
Term
| As a major class feature of sounds, CONSONANTAL... |
|
Definition
-Functions to group glides and vowels together as a natural class.
-The classification of [h] and glottal stop as +sonorant is controversial; their +consonantal classification is NOT.
-Involves a radical obstruction along the mid-sagittal plane in the supralaryngeal cavity. (here, radical = at least as much as a fricative) |
|
|
Term
| SPE say is the 'neutral' vowel. |
|
Definition
According to the SPE chart for sonorant/consonantal, the [ɛ] is 'minus every feature'. SPE treats it as neutral, and as the basis by which all other vowels are defined.
(This is not really the neutral vowel cross-linguistically. Schwa is.) |
|
|
Term
| Regarding rule-ordering relationships, which relationships did Kiparsky label as 'transparent' and which did he label as 'opaque'? |
|
Definition
Kiparsky (1968) labeled
feeding/bleeding as transparent, and
counterfeeding/counterbleeding as opaque |
|
|
Term
| In terms of rule-ordering relationships, what does it mean for a relationship to be opaque? |
|
Definition
Opaque rules are rules that produce outputs that appear to violate other pohonological rules in that language.
(Counterfeeding and counterbleeding relationships both involve rule B ordered first!) |
|
|
Term
| Describe the differences between the four rule ordering relationships (Kiparsky 1968) |
|
Definition
This is how to differentiate the four relationships:
At the outset of (right before a rule applies), could both rules POTENTIALLY apply to the same form?
YES: In the observed derivation, did both the rules ACTUALLY apply? YES: Counterbleeding (CB), NO: Bleeding (B).
NO:In the observed derivation, did both rules ACTUALLY apply to the same form? YES: Feeding (F), NO: Counterfeeding (CF) |
|
|
Term
| In terms of rule ordering, what is displaced contrast? |
|
Definition
Displaced contrast is where the contrast between two different URs shows up somewhere else in their PRs.
This is indicative of a counterbleeding relationship. |
|
|
Term
| What is Boyle's Law? Why is it significant predictions we can make about languages' voiceless stop inventories? |
|
Definition
Cross-linguistically, if consonant inventories are asymmetrical, /p/ is the sound most likely to be missing. This relates to BOYLE'S LAW:
-pressure is inversely proportional to volume.
That is, a fundamental significance of consonants is that they contrast maximally with vowels. A /k/ produces much more intrnaoral pressure than a /p/, since the velar /k/ occlusion is so much closer to the clottis. More pressure =greater distinction from vowels upon release. |
|
|
Term
| What cross-linguistic tendency do languages have with regard to voiced stop inventories? |
|
Definition
| More pressure built up behind the place of articulation means voicing is less likely, so among the stops, /g/ is most likely to be missing from a language's voiced stop inventory. |
|
|
Term
Fricativization = spirantization = lenition.
In other words... |
|
Definition
| This basically means less contrast with a vowel, or one step closer to being a vowel or being deleted. |
|
|
Term
| Provide an example of the results of a coutnerfeeding (opaque) rule-ordering relationship. |
|
Definition
Somali:
surface contrast: [bada] and [baða]
underlying forms: /bad-ta/ and /bada/
(The counterfeeding relationship makes it look like a rule has not applied. 'underapplication') |
|
|
Term
| Why are coronals cross-linguistically prefered? |
|
Definition
-There are more places of articulation, so they are statistically more likely.
-The tongue tip and blade are more massive and mobile articulators. |
|
|
Term
| What is stray epenthesis? |
|
Definition
Introducing a vowel to rescue a contrast which cannot be parsed into a syllable coda.
This is a teleological process. The rule is triggered by looking ahead to the state of affairs after the rule applies. Because of this, it is difficult if not impossible to formalize this using the Classical Model. --Using a syllable boundary in the classical rule would imply that the final consonant is part of the syllable in question, but the fact that the stry consonant has NOT been syllabified is the very trigge of the rule to begin with. |
|
|
Term
| What does 'persistent resyllabification' refer to? |
|
Definition
| Syllabification is a persistent process: it applies over and over again as other rules apply. |
|
|
Term
| Feature geometry! (find the tree elsewhere...) Who is responsible for this? |
|
Definition
Halle (1983, 1992)
After the root node, all other nodes have an inherent PLUS value, but no minus value. If they don't apply, they are simply not present. |
|
|
Term
| There are two general approaches to phonological features. |
|
Definition
1. See them as realizing certain action or movement of the vocal apparatus. (generative phonology, feature geometry)
2. See them as static targets or regions of the vocal tract. (IPA) |
|
|
Term
| Note: The drive toward phonetic accuracy risks overlooking the phonological realities that group sounds differently; though [v] lies phonetically between [β] and [ð], it patterns with the labials, not the interdentals. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| The IPA has two major failings. |
|
Definition
1. It is not an accurate description of the position of the tongue.
-The highest part of the tongue for [ɪ] is lower than for e].
2. It does not provide a uniform set of categories for both consonants and vowels.
-We don't have two mouths, one for each type of sound. |
|
|
Term
| Note: According to Halles's (1983) Articulator model, phonetic and phonological features are drawn together because features are hierarchically arranged. |
|
Definition
| (cont.) The same articulatory gestrue, e.g., stiffening of the vocal folds, can lead to different accoustic effects depending on the nature of the supralaryngeal constriction--with minimal constriction, it leads to tone; with more restriction, devoicing of consonants! |
|
|
Term
| NOTE: Halle's (1983) Articulator model explains why many tonal languages don't distinguish voicing in stops: |
|
Definition
-Higher tones are associated with devoicing, and lower with voicing.
-That is, the vocal stiffness of the onset C affects the tone of the following vowel.
(So all else being equal, /da/ is more likely to be Low and /ta/ High. |
|
|
Term
Note: Feature geometry's node structure mostly prevents unlikely or impossible combinations of features from occuring.
It also provides natural formalisms to explain how some features dominate others, and for grouping features and segments into natural classes.
Segments can only be combined if their features share a node on the tree. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Feature geiometry trees naturally explain numerous phonological processes (four). |
|
Definition
Assimilation- spreading by creation of one new association line between trees.
Reduction- Delinking of the original tree and possible relinking with another.
Dissimilation
Tiers and adjacency |
|
|
Term
| Besides Halle (1983), name two other big names in Feature Geometry. |
|
Definition
| Clements (1985) and Segey (1986) |
|
|
Term
| There are 6 reasons why Feature Geometry is better than SPE. (assimilation) |
|
Definition
| 1. The formalism of spreading more directly describes assimilation as sharing of the same articulatory gesture than simply changin a value in the feature matrix. |
|
|
Term
| There are 6 reasons why Feature Geometry is better than SPE. (naturalness) |
|
Definition
| 2. FG makes natural processes easy to formalize and largely prohibits unnatural pricesses from being formalized. (If features don't share a common node, they can't be associated.) |
|
|
Term
| There are 6 reasons why Feature Geometry is better than SPE. (hierarchy) |
|
Definition
| 2. The hierarchical arrangement allows us to manipulate more than one feature at atime because they're bundled. |
|
|
Term
| There are 6 reasons why Feature Geometry is better than SPE. (constraint) |
|
Definition
4. The FG mechanism is more constrained:
-more restricted, less powerful
-therefore, avoides (unnatural) abuse |
|
|
Term
| There are 6 reasons why Feature Geometry is better than SPE. (prediction) |
|
Definition
| 5. FG better predicts why certain segments don't exist in certain languages. For example, the universal redundancy rule: [+round]-->[+labial] |
|
|
Term
| There are 6 reasons why Feature Geometry is better than SPE. (OCP) |
|
Definition
6. SPE's model of assimilation regularly violates the OCP, which says that at the melodic level, adjacent identical elements (features) are prohibited.
FG obeys this by showing assimilation as multiple segments attached to the SAME feature. |
|
|
Term
| Who is responsible for Lexical Phonology? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| What is Lexical phonology (Kiparsky 1982) all about? |
|
Definition
Lexical phonology (Kiparsky 1982) addresses the relation between phonology and morphology.
The key idea is that phonological rules and morphological rules can interact with each other: they both apply in tandem and mutually feed each other. |
|
|
Term
| How do phonological and morphological rules interact in Lexical phonology (Kiparsky 1982)? |
|
Definition
They apply cyclically to ever larger constituents. Every time anew morpheme is added, a new cycle is begun.
Once the cycles of morphological and phonological rules are complete, the derived lexical entry is the output.
The output is then fed into the syntax and postlexical phonological rules. |
|
|
Term
| In terms of lexical phonology (Kiparsky 1982), what is the Strict Cycle Condition? |
|
Definition
| SCC: cyclic phonological rules apply only in derived environments. |
|
|
Term
| In terms of lexical phonology (Kiparsky 1982), what is Structure Preservation? |
|
Definition
| Structure Preservation: you can't introduce new sounds that aren't present in the underlying form as part of a lexical rule. |
|
|
Term
| In terms of lexical phonology, what is the bracket erasure convention? |
|
Definition
The Bracket Erasure Convention:
At the end of each level of morphological addition, the word-internal morpheme boundaries (brackets) are deleted. |
|
|
Term
| 15 distinctions between lexical and postlexical rules...(see notebook) |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| In terms of lexical phonology (Kiparsky 1982), which rules cross word boundaries, and which rules deal with one word at a time? |
|
Definition
Postlexical rules are the only rules that can cross word boundaries.
Lexical rules deal with one word at a time. |
|
|
Term
| In terms of the ordering of phonological, morphological and syntactic rules what is the difference between SPE and Lexical phonology? |
|
Definition
In classical SPE, syntax and morphology are put BEFORE phonological rules.
In Lexical phonology, lexical and morphological rules coexist in the lexicon, and syntactic rules and postlexical rules occur later. |
|
|
Term
| Lexical phonology recognizes three forms of a word. |
|
Definition
1. UR
2. Lexical representation (very useful for orthography development)
3. Phonemic representation |
|
|
Term
| What did Aranoff (1976) contribute to (rule-based) phonology? |
|
Definition
Aronoff (1976) was the first phonologist to deal with morphology for its own sake. He introduced the notion that morphemes need not have semantic content (like the PER in PERmission) to sill be treated as morphemes.
He also introduced MORPHOLOGICAL BLOCKING: a more specific idiosyncratic, less productive rule blocks the application of a more general rule. (so 'sang' ablaut blocks regular 'sing-ed') |
|
|
Term
| The results of this phonologist's studies led to the BRACKET ERASURE CONVENTION. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Kiparsky's (1982) Lexical Phonology has 2 classes of rules. |
|
Definition
-cyclic, lexical rules inside the lexicon
-non-cyclic, postlexical rules that apply after syntactic operations (everywhere in the language) |
|
|
Term
| In terms of Lexical phonology, this is STRUCTURE PRESERVATION. |
|
Definition
| The Structure Preservation constrant holds that rules which introduce or refer to non-contrastive segments can only apply postlexically. |
|
|
Term
| In terms of Lexical phonology (Kiparsky (1982, the Panini Relationship is also known as this. |
|
Definition
The Panini Relationship = the Elsewhere Condition.
-All else being equal, start by applying the most specific rule and end with the least specific. |
|
|
Term
| This phonologist is responsible for the theory of Autosegmental Phonology. |
|
Definition
Goldsmith (1976) Autosegmental Phonology
He also contributes:
-5 reasons autosegments are better than SPE
-WFC
-OCP (well, he named it anyway) |
|
|
Term
| In terms of Autosegmental Phonology (Goldsmith 1976), Keith Snider provides several (thirteen) Tone phenomena common in African languages. |
|
Definition
1. tone melodies (word-level melodies)
2. tone spreading
3. floating tone morphemes
4. toneless morphemes
5. automatic downstep
6. non-automatic downstep
7. consonant-tone interaction
8. 'polar' tones
9. nonreplacive grammatical tone
10. replacive grammatical tone
11. boundary tones
12. tone shift
13. super Hi |
|
|
Term
| In terms of tone (and autosegmental phonology), AUTOMATIC DOWNSTEP is when the following conditions are met: |
|
Definition
(automatic downstep)
a. The L of a HL sequence is relized lower than the preceding H, and
b. The H of a LH sequence is relized at the same level as the L.
(The phonological phrase/utterance keeps lowering.) |
|
|
Term
| In terms of tone (and autosegmental phonology), NON-AUTOMATIC DOWNSTEP is this. |
|
Definition
(non-automatic downstep)
The lowering of a H from a previous, adjacent floating L.
This often happens wen the L has been delinked by the spreading of a non-L tone. |
|
|
Term
| In terms of consonant-tone interaction (think autosegmental phonology), Kera, a Chadic language, demonstrates 3 classes of consonants. |
|
Definition
a. depressors (make toneless morphemes have a L tone)
b, d, dʒ, g, v, z, h
b. raisers (cause underlying Ls to be realized as M)
p, t, tʃ, k, f, s, ɓ, ɗ, r
c. neutrals (no effect on the tone system)
m, n, ŋ, l, y, w |
|
|
Term
| In terms of tone (think autosegmental phonology), this is UPSTEP. |
|
Definition
| Upstep- if it's real, occurs when a H has an extra high pitch before a L. It has been suggested that this may simply be a case of "not-downstep". |
|
|
Term
| When you think of Halle & Vergnaud (1987), you should think of this. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Halle & Verbnaud (1987) came up with these Parameters for Grid Construction (think metrical phonology). |
|
Definition
Parameters for Grid Construction:
1. Stressable elements (syllable, mora)
2. Foot constituency (bounded, unbounded)
-'Do we impose a limit on the # of SBUs per foot?'
3. Direction of parsing (L-to-R, R-to-L)
4. Headedness (left-trochaic, right, iambic, medial(?)-amphibrach, non-branching-degenerate)
5. Relevance of weight (quant-sensitive, quant-insensitive)
6. Extrametricality (on, off)
7. Clash removal (on, off)
8. Line conflation (on, off) |
|
|
Term
| In terms of metrical phonology, this is the EXHAUSTIVITY CONDITION. |
|
Definition
Every SBU (stress-bearing unit) must be included in some constituent (except those licensed by extrametricality).
"Every foot has to have a head." |
|
|
Term
| These guys are responsible for the Classical OT model of phonology. |
|
Definition
| Prince & Smolensky (1993) |
|
|
Term
| These are three of the most important properties of OT constraints. |
|
Definition
OT contstraints...
-directly encoded markedness.
-are universal.
-may conflict with each other. |
|
|
Term
| These are the three basic pieces of OT. |
|
Definition
GEN
CON
EVAL
(The grammar of a particular language includes
-basic forms for morphemes
-a ranking of constraints in CON) |
|
|
Term
| Note: In terms of OT, each input gives rise to a CANDIDATE SET. |
|
Definition
| This candidate set is the same for all grammars. (cf. richness of the base) |
|
|
Term
| In terms of OT, how (or why) might a specific language violate a constraint? |
|
Definition
| For each language, each/any constraint is violated, MINIMALLY, if such violateion leads to the satisfaction of a higher-ranked constraint. |
|
|
Term
| In terms of OT, they are responsible for Generalized Alignment. |
|
Definition
| McCarthy & Prince (1993) "Generalized Alignment" |
|
|
Term
Note: Some common constraints (usually written in small caps)
ParseSyllable: parse every syllable into some foot
AllFeetLeft: every foot should be aligned with the word's left edge
AllFeetRight: (the opposite) |
|
Definition
MainLeft: primary stress will be in the left-most foot)
MainRight: (the opposite)
NonFinality: encodes extrametricality, "the last syl. cannot be parsed into a foot"
FootBinary: leftover lone syllables will not be parsed into degenerate feet. |
|
|
Term
Note: Some common constraints (usually written in small caps)
AlignLeft: "the left edge of every grammatical word coincides with the left edge of some prosodic word." -a way to conflict with onset, if you add a prosodic [t] onset to a new word (X, L, Y, L)-->(GramWd, L, PrWd, L)
The Alignment constrainst could specify grammatical and prosodic words, stems and syllables, tones and prosodic words...) |
|
Definition
| NoFloat: every tone that's unattached AND every syllable that's unattached violates NoFloat. |
|
|
Term
| In terms of OT, this is HARMONIC BOUNDING. |
|
Definition
| The winning candidate violates a subset of the violations of the losing candidates. |
|
|
Term
| In terms of OT, they were responsible for Correspondence Theory. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| In terms of OT, this is the idea behind MAX constraints. |
|
Definition
| The MAX constraint family ('anti-deletion') replaces PARSE. "every input segment corresponds to every output segment." |
|
|
Term
| In terms of OT, this is what the constraint Max-IO (input-output) means. |
|
Definition
| "Every segment of the Input has a correspondent in the Output" (no phonological deletion) |
|
|
Term
| In terms of OT, this is what the constraint Max-BR (base-reduplicant) means. |
|
Definition
| "Every segment of the Base has a correspondent in the Reduplicant." (reduplication is total) |
|
|
Term
| Note: In terms of OT, the Dep constraint family ("anti-epenthesis") replaces Fill (opposite of Max) "no insertion" |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| In terms of OT, this is what the constraint Dep-IO means. |
|
Definition
| "Every segment of the Output has a correspondent in the Input" (no phonological epenthesis) |
|
|
Term
| In terms of OT, this is what the constraint Dep-BR means. |
|
Definition
| "Every segment of the Reduplicant has a correspondent in the Base" (prohibits partial reduplication) |
|
|
Term
| Note: In terms of OT, the the Ident(feature) constraint family says "do not change a particular segment into another segment" |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| In terms of OT, this is what the constraint Linearity means. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| In terms of OT, this is what the constraint Contiguity means. |
|
Definition
No skipping.
(I-Contiguity = no skipping)
(O-Contiguity = no intrusion) |
|
|
Term
| In terms of OT, this is what the constraint Uniformity means. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| In terms of OT, this is what the constraint Integrity means. |
|
Definition
| no breaking or diphthongization |
|
|
Term
| These are the three basic tenets of OT in a nutshell. (think constraints) |
|
Definition
1. Grammars consist of constraints (not rules)
2. Constraints are violable
3. Constraints are ranked in a language-particular hierarchy. |
|
|
Term
| This author wrote Tone (2002). She is a good one to cite for tone in general, and tone in OT. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Say what you can about Richness of the Base (ROTB), including who authored this hypothesis. |
|
Definition
Richness of the Base (ROTB)
McCarthy (2002)
"the hypothesis that the free combination of linguistic primitives and the input are identical"
-That is, constraints govern only surface forms (output), but input forms (in the lexicon, morpheme structure, etc.) is unlimited!
-That is, the only differences between languages is their idiosyncratic ranking of CON. |
|
|
Term
OT:
Given the winning candidate, how do you determine the actual underlying form?
In other words, define LEXICON OPTIMIZATION. |
|
Definition
Lexicon Optimization (Prince & Smolensky 1993)
All else being equal, posit the input which most closely matches the optimal output. |
|
|
Term
| In terms of OT, this is what the tonal constraint Max(tone) means. |
|
Definition
Every tone in the Input has a correspondent in the Output. "don't delete tones"
This can be general, or specific to a particular tone, such as Max(high), Max(low), etc. |
|
|
Term
| In terms of OT, this is what the tonal constraint Dep(tone) means. |
|
Definition
Every tone in the Output has a correspondent in the Input. "do not insert tones"
Dep(high), Dep(low), etc. |
|
|
Term
| In terms of OT, this is what the tonal constraint Ident(tone) means. |
|
Definition
Don't change the tonal specifications.
Ident(high), Ident(low, etc. |
|
|
Term
Note: In terms of OT, these are some other tone-related constrains to remember (fairly self explanatory):
NoFloatingTone
NoTonelessTBU
NoContourTone
NoSpreadTone |
|
Definition
Also...
*High
*Low
AlignLeft (T, L, PrWd, L)
etc. |
|
|
Term
| In terms of OT, this is what Positional Faithfulness means. |
|
Definition
| Positional Faithfulness is sort of another way to look at 'coda neutralization'--positions of higher salience are less likely to undergo neutralization. |
|
|
Term
In terms of syllable structure and syllabification,
comment on the purpose of CV-phonology. |
|
Definition
The discovery of the Timing Tier or Timing Skeleton led to CV-phonology.
C/V/X = the timing tier, separate from other segmental features.
The OCP says we can't have two adjacent instances of the same element (like [att]). CV-phonology helps us explain the Icelandic change:
/att/--> [a:t]
(...where the UR associates one timing unit to /a/ and two to /t/. then in the surface form, one timing unit is linked to [a] and delinked from [t].) |
|
|
Term
| Note: By using the timing tier CV representation in phonology, the features Syllabic, Long, and Delayed Release were done away with because they all have to do with timing. |
|
Definition
| Eventually, the Cs and Vs were replaced by Xs, and then the X-tier was replaced by the concept of the mora, represented by the Greek letter 'mu'. |
|
|
Term
This is a MORA.
-what it means
-how it relates to syllables |
|
Definition
Mora- a hierarchical unit of syllable weight or timing by which a light syllable contains only one mora and a heavy syllable contains two or more morae.
The vowel nucleus always projects a mora, while coda consonants may or may not project a mora.
light syl=1 mora, heavy syl=2 or more |
|
|
Term
Note: Coda consonants do NOT automatically count as heavy/weight-bearing/moraic.
In Latin, for example, the weight of a syllable includes only its vowels--final/coda consonants don't count. |
|
Definition
This model is called Moraic Theory:
Onset consonants NEVER contribute to syllable weight in terms of attracting stress. Coda consonants MAY. (THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE SONORITY HIERARCHY.)
The generalization is that the higher a segment is in sonority, the more likely it is to pattern as a stress-bearing unit (SBU) or moraic unit. |
|
|
Term
| Note: In terms of syllable weight, some languages make distinctions among certain types of coda consonants. (sonorants vs. obstruents) |
|
Definition
Some languages even distinguish vowel classes depending on sonority:
a>e,o>ə>barred i
moraic<--->non-moraic |
|
|
Term
| Give a couple examples of a Maximal Syllable Template. |
|
Definition
Huariapano (an extinct language of Peru): [CGVC]σmax
(This is a bimoraic syllable.)
Ashénica: [CVVN]σmax
(This can be a trimoraic syllable. Also, the onset is obligatory for this language.) |
|
|
Term
| Note: Theoretically, a language will have a different Max. Syllable Template at the phonetic and phonemic levels. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| In terms of OT, this is what the Obligatory Onset Condition means. |
|
Definition
A consonantal onset is required except word-initially.
Many languages allow the first syllable of a word to have no onset. |
|
|
Term
| In terms of phonology, this is what the Sonority Sequencing Principle (SSP) means. |
|
Definition
Sonority should rise in the onset toward the nucleus and fall off in the coda.
[s] is the one segment that routinely violates the SSP cross-linguistically. |
|
|
Term
| In terms of phonology (think syllables and syllabification), this is what Extrasyllabicity means. |
|
Definition
A given segment should be regarded as unsyllabified.
This (OT) constraint is restricted by the Periphery condition, which states that only segments on the periphery of a domain can possibly be extrasyllabic (i.e., "shielded from the syllabic parse"). That is, Extrasyllabicity may only apply to initial and final segments. |
|
|
Term
| Note: Most do not see syllabification these days in terms of rule-based. Instead, TEMPLATIC SYLLABIFICATION. |
|
Definition
That is, language-specific syllabification according to that language's maximal syllable template. The template is overlaid onto the actual segments, then adjustments are made thru epenthesis, deletion, resyllabification, etc.
So, syllabification is template-matching. |
|
|
Term
| In terms of phonology, this is the Sonority Dispersion Principle (SDP). |
|
Definition
| Sonority slope from onset to nucleus tends to be maximized. |
|
|
Term
| In terms of syllabification, there are two ways to achieve prosodic licensing of segments. |
|
Definition
1. Association to the Syllable template
2. Declaration as extrasyllabic.
Syllabification and resyllabification are continuous and exhaustive.
Material NOT prosodically licensed by either of these two ways is deleted via STRAY ERASURE. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
An early definition of sonority had problems--it was based on the amount of oral obstruction. However, obstruents have less obstruction than nasals, but nasals are more sonorant...
Another definition was based on vocal tract configuration that leads to spontaneous voicing. However, [h] and [ʔ] are often considered to be +sonorant through they are voiceless.
Another view regards auditory impact, loudness, energy.
Sonorants are most likely to undergo deletion (weak). Obstruents are mostly likely to resist deletion (strong).
Thus strong ≠ sonorant (they're opposites) |
|
|
Term
| Concepts that accompany Lexical Phonology (Kiparsky 1982): |
|
Definition
-Rules occur in strata/levels
-Conjunctive rules-apply sequentially to same segments
-Disjunctive rules-apply to complementary portions of all possible input
-Elsewhere condition (stems from disjunctive relationships)
-Strict Cycle Condition (stems from Elsewhere condition) |
|
|
Term
| In terms of Lexical phonology (Kiparsky 1982), this is Structure Preservation. |
|
Definition
The forms in the lexicon, and the rules that operate on those forms, can only make changes using the language's phonemic inventory.
(phonetic, non0contrastive changes are post-lexical) |
|
|
Term
| See Kenstowicz (1994) page 232 for Lexical phonology example derivation for 'damn'--damning, damnation. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| These authors are responsible for Metrical Phonolgoy (which uses bracketed grid formalism--now, though, parentheses indicate the metrical feet) |
|
Definition
| Halle & Vergnaud (1987) Metrical Phonolgy |
|
|
Term
| Universal Association Convention |
|
Definition
| Based on Goldsmith's WFC and TLP |
|
|
Term
| The Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP) was first described by this guy, but was named by this other guy. |
|
Definition
| The Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP) was first described by Leben (1973), but was named by Goldsmith (1976). |
|
|
Term
| These are some of Goldsmith's significant contributions to phonology. |
|
Definition
Autosegmental Phonology (1976)
Well Formedness Conditions
Tone Language Priniple (L-R, 1-1 defaults)
Standard Tone Principle |
|
|
Term
Note: Sonority is not binary, but a relative point on a continuum. Here are Parker's 17 sonority distinctions:
17. Low Vowels
16. Mid Peripheral Vowels (not ə)
15. High Peripheral Vowels (not barred i)
14. Mid Interior Vowels
13. High Interior vowels |
|
Definition
12. Glides
11. Rhotic approximants (ɹ)
10. Flaps
9. Laterals
8. Trills
7. Nasals
6. voiced fricatives
5. voiced affricates
4. voiced stops
3. voiceless fricatives (incl. h)
2. voiceless affricates
1. voiceless stops (incl. ʔ) |
|
|
Term
| This is why Parker's sonority continuum is significant. |
|
Definition
| 17 is the maximum number of distinctions humans can make, and no language makes all of them. they usually are grouped together into classes, and different languages come up with different classes (conflate them differently). |
|
|
Term
| These are the three elements of the Sonority Sequencing Principle (SSP). |
|
Definition
1. With any given syllable, there can be only one peak of sonority.
2. Every peak of sonority must correspond to a distinct syllable.
3. Within the onset, sonority must rise; within the coda, it must fall. |
|
|
Term
| The Sonority Sequencing Principle can explain Serbo-Croatian codas. |
|
Definition
In Serbo-Croatian, codas that violate the SSP like /dobr/ require epenthesis
/dobr/-->[dóbar]
whereas those that don't violate it /púst/ stay the same.
Stray Epenthesis: the insertion of a vowel to rescue an unsyllabifiable consonant. |
|
|
Term
| These are four ways that prosodically unlicensed consonants can be dealt with. |
|
Definition
1. Become syllabic (prisM)
2. Stray epenthesis (C'=stray consonant)
3. Stray erasure (which is automatically/ universally ordered last--a 'mopping up' operation)
4. Metathesis: /j-kama/-->[kjama] |
|
|
Term
| Note: The Sonority Sequencing Principle may be turned on or off, and may apply to onsets and/or codas. |
|
Definition
| [s] univerally often violates SSP--some phonologists claim it ismore sonorant than voiced fricatives. |
|
|
Term
| Sonority Dispersion Principle |
|
Definition
| In the onset, we prefer the sonority to be as low as possible. In the coda, as high as possible. |
|
|
Term
| This phonological model is associated with Goldsmith (1976) |
|
Definition
Autosegmental phonology
SPE grouped +/-pitch with all other segmental features, not distinguishing segmental and melodic features.
Goldsmith (1976) argued that tone should be considered (and formalized) as residing above the segments. |
|
|
Term
| Phonologist Goldsmith (1976) proposed the Well-Formedness Conditions to govern tone-to-segment associations. These are the the three parts. |
|
Definition
1. Every tone must be associated with at least 1 vowel (TBU).
2. Every vowel must be associated with at least 1 tone.
3. Association lines may not cross.
He also proposed the Tone Language Principle: Given more than one way to satisfy the WFC, the default/unmarked way is 1-to-1, L-to-R. |
|
|
Term
| Goldsmith's (1976) theory of Autosegmental Phonology was based on 5 arguments. |
|
Definition
1. Controu tone behavior (esp. Africa)
2. Tone stability
3. Floating tones
4. Word-level tone melodies
5. Automatic spreading
(Guaraní has nasality as an autosegment on its own tier--it spreads independently as far as it can in both directions. A segment like this on its own tier is also subject to WFC.) |
|
|
Term
| UAC (Universal Association Convention) is based on Goldsmith (1976), and says this. |
|
Definition
All else being equal, match tones to TBUs 1-to-1, L-to-R.
(But the association of floating tones is language-specific, not universal.)
(The UAC replaced the WFC and TLC.) |
|
|
Term
Note: Tone
In a two-tone system, the default is usually L.
In a 3-tone system, the default is usually H. |
|
Definition
Standard Tone Principle:
also from Goldsmith's (1976) findings of the stability of tone--a tone set free by the deletion of its TBU will be associated to an adjacent TBU via UAC. |
|
|
Term
Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP): adjacent identical tones are prohibited.
Two tones are adjacent IFF.. |
|
Definition
1. No distinct tones are between them
2. They are associated to the segmental tier.
Consequence: a multisyllabic, default-toned word must have lexical representation with a single tone. |
|
|
Term
| There are three ways a TBU may acquire its initial association. |
|
Definition
Unpredictable linking in the lexical representation
The UAC-direct matching OR spreading parameter
A default tone |
|
|
Term
Some useful Autosegmental terms...
Downdrift
Downstep
Vowel harmony |
|
Definition
Downdrift: pitch register drops in absolute value as the phrase is articulated.
Downstep: the lower absolute value of a H tone with no apparent preceding L tone (i.e., H lowers after a floating L)
All issues of vowel harmony can and have been explained as autosegmental features.
Dumping: a rule requiring that a leftover tone attache to a TBU that has already been associated with a tone. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
At the melodic level, adjacent identical segments/features are prohibited.
melodic level specifically excludes C/V/X and morae (i.e., it excludes the timing tier) |
|
|
Term
| This person proposed the OCP in 1973, and this other person named it in 1976. |
|
Definition
| Leben proposed the OCP in 1973, and Goldsmith named it in 1976. |
|
|
Term
| The UAC replaces these two of Goldsmith's principles/conditions. |
|
Definition
| The UAC replaces the Tone Language Principle and the WFC. |
|
|
Term
| UAC says this. (it allows for flexibility by specifying a default) |
|
Definition
Associate tones with TBUs
L-to-R (default) OR R-to-L, and
1-to-1 (default) OR many-to-1.
-automatically applies first in every derivation, by default. |
|
|
Term
| In terms of tone, this is what INTERPOLATION means. |
|
Definition
| When a trisyllabic word has H tones on the first and last syllables but none assigned to the medial, the medial is not L, because that would imply an absolute target. Rather, the medial syllable is simply lower by a predictable amount than the surrounding Hs. |
|
|
Term
| There are a few different senses of a "floating" tone. |
|
Definition
1. when a tone becomes unassociated via deletion or devocaliztion of its TBU.
2. an unassociated tone whose presence can (only) be felt by downstep.
3. a morpheme that contain (only) a tonal specification, but no segmental specification.--a 'tonal particle' |
|
|
Term
Note: In general, African tones are more studied and understood than Asian systems.
In many Asian languages, the pitch range splits into upper and lower registers. |
|
Definition
| Also in Asian languages, contour tones can enjoy much freer distribution than African contours. |
|
|
Term
| UAC and OCP apply only WITHIN (not across) words. |
|
Definition
So if you have
bu,LH and la,L
and you assigning right-to-left, the H would be unassociated. |
|
|
Term
| There are six key motivations for Metrical Phonology grids (think stress) over Classical SPE model. |
|
Definition
syllable structure
stress affects consonants
secondary stress
stress is different
less powerful
penultimate stress |
|
|
Term
There were two approaches to dealing with stress in the early days of Metrical Phonology.
1. Grid approach
2. Tree approach |
|
Definition
Grid approach: Mark every syllable with an x; mark secondary stress with another x; mark primary stress with yet another.
Tree approach: Group syllables into binary constituents labeled with S(trong) and W(eak). Primary stress gets another strong, unstressed gets another weak. So secondary stress ends up with a weak and a strong. |
|
|
Term
| The two early approaches to metrical grid construction were Grid Approach and Tree approach. Why was the tree approach not as effective? |
|
Definition
In the word Mississippi,
Mi(s)ssi(w)(W) ssi(s)ppi(w)(S)
the problem is that the final syllable (which is actually unstressed) ends up with a (w) AND a (S). |
|
|
Term
| What is Iambic Reversal (think metrical phonology) and what is an example? |
|
Definition
The phrase 'thirTEEN SOLDiers' produces a stress clash, such that the stress in 'thirteen' retracts back to the first syllable.
This process is called Iambic Reversal.
It is represented in a metrical grid by circling the moving x, and drawing an arrow to where it moves. |
|
|
Term
| What sets stress apart from other features? |
|
Definition
There is NO ASSIMILATION with stress. This shows that stress is different from other phonological phenomena.
Also, in longer words, the stress usually alternates on every [other] syllable.
Likewise, primary stress is usually limited to one occurrence per word. (culminative) |
|
|
Term
| In terms of metrical phonology, why is Lexical Stress significant? |
|
Definition
| Lexical stress is unpredictable stress on a given word, marked in the underlying form. |
|
|
Term
These two are responsible for Metrical Phonology.
It was proposed with the bracketed grid convention (s, w); now, parentheses indicate the metrical feet (xx) |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| These are the 8 parameters of the metrical grid construction. |
|
Definition
1. stressable element (syllable, mora)
2. foot constituency(bounded, unbounded)
3. direction of parsing (L-R, R-L)
4. headedness (trochaic, iambic, amphibrach, degenerate)
5. relevance of weight (q-sensitive, q-insensitive)
6. extrametricality (on, off)
7. clash removeal (on, off)
8. line conflation (on, off) |
|
|
Term
| In terms of metrical grid parameters, what are the different types of Extrametricality? |
|
Definition
extrasyllabicity
extratonality
extrametricality |
|
|
Term
| In terms of metrical grid parameters, what is Clash Removal for? |
|
Definition
-a language either allows clash or it doesn't
-if not, it deletes a clashing grid mark |
|
|
Term
| In terms of metrical grid parameters, what is line conflation for? |
|
Definition
| -it deletes every secondary stress, even on heavy syllables, by basically removing line 1 of the grid. |
|
|
Term
| In terms of metrical grid parameters, what is Relevance of Weight for? |
|
Definition
-it asks the question "Does the heaviness of a syllable attract stress?"
-when the mora is the SBU, the langauge is necessarily quantity-sensitive (more morae attract more stress)
-when the syllable is the SBU, the langauge may be quantity-sensitive OR quantity-insensitive. |
|
|
Term
| In terms of metrical grid parameters, what is extrametricality for? |
|
Definition
-an otherwise stressable element is invisible to the metrical parse
-limited to one stressable unit at the periphery of a domain (morpheme or word boundary) |
|
|
Term
| In terms of metrical grid parameters, what is Headedness for? |
|
Definition
| -it decides the headedness of each metrical foot, since each foot must have a head |
|
|
Term
| In terms of metrical grid parameters, what is Direction of Parsing for? |
|
Definition
| -it determines which edge of the word the foot parsing starts (left to right, right to left, edge-in) |
|
|
Term
| In terms of metrical grid parameters, what is Food Constituency for? |
|
Definition
-it asks the question "Do we impose an inherent limit on the number of stress-bearing units in each foot?"
Bounded feet are normally binary.
Bounded is the default for line 0.
Unbounded is the default for line 1. |
|
|
Term
| In terms of metrical grid parameters, what is Stressable Elements for? |
|
Definition
| -it determines whether the syllable or the mora will be the SBU. |
|
|
Term
| In terms of metrical phonology, this is the Exhaustivity Condition. |
|
Definition
| Every stress-bearing unit must be included in some constituent (except those which are licensed by extrametricality. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Why would Sherlock Holmes have made a good phonologist? |
|
Definition
1. Deductive reasoning
2. Not jumping to conclusions
3. Detail oriented
4. A simple solution might have a complex explanation and v.versa.
5. Well-read in the literature of his field
6. Passionate about his job |
|
|
Term
| Why is Metrical Phonology a superior model for stress rules? (seven reasons) |
|
Definition
1. The classical model ignores the notion of the SYLLABLE (structure).
2. In the classical model ONLY VOWELS are considered affected by stress.
3. SECONDARY STRESS is cross-linguistically unmarked.
4. Metrical Phonology captures that STRESS IS DIFFERENT (culminative, iterative/alternating)
5. Grids are LESS POWERFUL, more restrained (but morphology can be a complication)
6. The classical model makes final stress easier than PENULTIMATE.
7. The Classical model completely ignores METRICAL FEET AS A CONSTITUENT. |
|
|
Term
| In terms of OT, there are two types of constraints. |
|
Definition
Faithfulness constraints
-monitor input-output mapping
-"don't change anything"
-Parse "don't delete anything"
-Dep "don't insert anything"
Markedness
-Onset "every syl. must begin with a consonant--prohibits syllable-initial vowels
-NoCoda "no syl. can end with a consonant"--prohibits syllable-final consonants
With only these constraints, every langauge must have CV syllables and NO language will syllabify the string /VCV/ as *[VC.V], unless some other markedness constraint is involved. |
|
|
Term
| The main formal device in OT is this. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
lexical phonology + OT
(classical OT is non-derivational) |
|
|
Term
| Whose 1993 paper started OT? |
|
Definition
| Prince & Smolensky (1993) |
|
|
Term
| These are five important properties of OT constraints. |
|
Definition
1. They directly encode markedness *[-son,+voice].
2. They are universal.
3. They may conflict with each other.
4. They are rankable.
5. The constraint set is large, but finite. (never created or deleted) |
|
|
Term
| In terms of OT, how do you explain free variation? |
|
Definition
| Free variation is made possible by two (or more) constraints which are not crucially ranked with regard to each other. |
|
|
Term
There are four main theses of OT:
1. Liberation thesis
2. Output orientation thesis
3. Inventory thesis
4. Interaction thesis |
|
Definition
1. Liberation thesis: constraints! no more parochial rule packages! not language-specific!
2. Output orientation thesis: what is crucial is NOT input orientation; it is the output configuration that must be achieved.
3. Inventory thesis: ROTB! there are no constrains on underlying forms!
4. Interaction thesis: variation lies not in the constraints themselves (parameterization) but in their possibilities of interaction. OT is not a parametric theory. All constrains are ON, all the time. |
|
|
Term
Note: Some big names in OT
Alan Prince
Paul Smolensky
John McCarthy |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| In terms of OT, this is Generalized Alignment (McCarthy & Prince 1993) |
|
Definition
Generalized Alignment (McCarthy & Prince 1993):
4 aspects:
First, it may apply to word, stem, root, affix (grammatical), prosodic word, foot, syllable, mora (prosodic).
Second, may begin at left or right edge.
Third, it's asymmetrical. That is, Align(Stem, R, Syl, R) is not the same as (Syl, R, Stem, R). |
|
|
Term
In terms of OT, these some important concepts:
Cancellation lemma
Gradient constraints
Categorical constraints |
|
Definition
Cancellation lemma: corresponding violations by two candidates of the same constraint cancel each other out.
Gradient constraints: can be violated more than once by a candidate.
Categorical constraint: can be violated only once per candidate (like NonFinality 'the last syl can't be parsed into a foot') |
|
|
Term
Other OT constraints that might be good to know:
MainRight
MainLeft
ParseSyllable
FootBinary |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Note: Exception clauses in constraints are a no-no! Those issues must be dealt with by interaction with other constraints. |
|
Definition
Factorial typology: every combination of all constraints should produce a possible human langauge.
Harmonic bounding: If one candidate (1) violates a subset of the violateions of another candidate (2), the second candidate (2) can NEVER win. We say that the first harmonically bounds the second.
Harmonic bounding thus rules out 99.999...% of candidates automatically. |
|
|
Term
| Note: Some constraints are in a universally-fixed hierarchical order, e.g., the sonority hierarchy |
|
Definition
| *onset/glide>>*onset/liquid>>*onset/nasal>>*onset/stop |
|
|
Term
In terms of OT, describe the following:
Correspondence theory
Positional Faithfulness
Lexicon optimization
Rendaku & local conjunction
Opacity
Laryngeal codas |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Note: In the classical SPE model of phonology, '+' indicates this a morpheme boundary. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| In terms of phonology, this is Gemination. |
|
Definition
-when a sound completely assimilates to another sound.
With Arabic Sun and Moon letters, /l/ completely assimilates to the following coronal.
C[+lateral]-->[ɑFT]/__C[+coronal, ɑFT] |
|
|
Term
| Why did the PHONEME come to be the basic unit in phonology? |
|
Definition
| One of the chief motivations for the discovery of the phoneme was the fact that speakers tend to judge as 'same' sounds that clearly contrast phonetically. |
|
|
Term
| Note: As would later seem apparent in lexical phonology (think disjunctive rule-ordering, the Elsewhere condition...)... |
|
Definition
| ...Whenever two phonological rules compete for the same sequence, Sanskrit grammarians stipulated a principle that the rule with the more specific context will win over a more general one. |
|
|
Term
| Note: In terms of OT, this is is how a tonal (H,L) language would rank constraints, compared to how they would be ranked in English. |
|
Definition
A tonal language with only H and L:
*Mid>>Max(tone),Ident(tone)>>*High,*Low
And for English:
*High,*Low,*Mid>>Max(tone),Ident(tone) |
|
|
Term
In terms of all the Phonology general topics you might see on Comps, these are them. ...
Distinctive features
Morphophonemic analysis
rule-ordering relationships
Feature geometry theory
Lexical phonology
Syllable structure & syllabification
Sonority
Tone
Metrical phonology |
|
Definition
(cont)
OT
Generalized alignment
Correspondence theory
Tone in OT
Richness of the Base/Lexicon Optimization
Positional faithfulness
Laryngealization
Rendaku & local conjunction
Opacity
Laryngeal codas
(good luck!) |
|
|
