Harvard Linguistics 110 - Class 12 Neutralization Continued + Features
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Harvard Linguistics 110 - Class 12 Neutralization Continued + Features as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 575
- Pages: 3
Linguistics 110 Class 12 (10/30/02)
Zhang/Öztürk/Quinn
Neutralization Continued (1) What is neutralization? What causes it? Examples?
POLISH VOWEL ALTERNATIONS (2) Class I examples1 [sveteR] [vjadeR] [meandeR] [RobeR] [bimbeR] [vihaisteR] [sen] [len] [mex] [tew]
‘sweater’ ‘pail-gen. pl.’ ‘meander’ ‘rubber’ ‘moonshine’ ‘thingummy’ ‘dream’ ‘flax’ ‘moss’ ‘background-gen.pl.’
[svetR-ˆ] [vjadR-o] [meandR-a] [RobR-em] [bimbR-u] [vihaistR-a] [sn-u] [ln-u] [mx-u] [tw-o]
‘sweater-nom. pl.’ ‘pail-nom. sg.’ ‘meander-gen. sg.’ ‘rubber-instr. sg.’ ‘moonshine-gen. sg.’ ‘thingummy-gen. sg.’ ‘dream-gen. sg.’ ‘flax-gen. sg.’ ‘moss-gen. sg.’ ‘background-nom. sg.’
[kRateR-ˆ] [lideR-a] [oRdeR-u] [vapje¯-a] [teRen-u] [t˛enj-a] [kRet-a] [SmeR-u] [bjes-a]
‘crater-nom. pl.’ ‘leader-gen. sg.’ ‘order-gen. sg.’ ‘limestone-gen. sg.’ ‘terrain-gen. sg.’ ‘shadow-gen. sg.’ ‘mole-gen. sg.’ ‘rustle-gen. sg.’ ‘devil-gen. sg.’
(3) Class II examples [kRateR] [lideR] [oRdeR] [vapje¯] [teRen] [t˛enj] [kRet] [SmeR] [bjes]
‘crater’ ‘leader’ ‘order’ ‘limestone’ ‘terrain’ ‘shadow’ ‘mole’ ‘rustle’ ‘devil’
(4) Polish: Socratic queries • • • 1
From the data given so far, epenthesis or deletion? Is the underlying form the isolation form? What is the neutralizing rule?
All unaffixed forms are nominative singulars.
1
(5) What’s the procedure that we followed for Polish? a) Split up root and affixes: [sveteR] ~ [svetR-ˆ], [krateR-ˆ], [sen] ~ [sn-u], [t˛enj] ~ [t˛enj-a] b) Locate all allomorphs of roots and/or affixes: [sveteR] ~ [svetR], [krateR], [sen] ~ [sn], [t˛enj]. (Affixes don’t alternate.) c) Determine which segments alternate: [e] ~ ∅. d) Hypothesize underlying forms (consider multiple hypothesis where useful). e) The “Two Hypothesis Method”: if A alternates with B, consider deriving B from underlying A, and A from underlying B: either ∅ → e, or e → ∅ f) Reconstruct underlying representations by stringing together underlying forms, following the rules of the morphology: if insertion, these are /svetR/, /svetR-ˆ/, /krateR/, /krateR-ˆ/, /sn/, /sn-u/, /t˛enj/, /t˛enj-a/. Where no alternation, assume “what you hear is what you get.” Where alternation, go by the hypothesis you are working with. g) Figure out rules and environments. If necessary, sort environments in the same way one does for allophonics problems. (6) Tonkawa [picen] [picno/] [wepceno/] [kepceno/] [picnano/] [wepcenano/] [kepcenano/]
‘castrated one; steer’ ‘he cuts it’ ‘he cuts them’ ‘he cuts me’ ‘he’s cutting it’ ‘he’s cutting them’ ‘he’s cutting me’
(7) Degrees of complexity in diagnosing underlying forms • • •
Degree 1: take the isolation form, and undo allophonic rules. Degree 2: take an affixed form and peel off the affix, and undo allophonic rules. Degree 3: cobble the underlying form together from multiple allomorphs.
2
Phonological Representation—Features (8) Representation = formal device intended as a model of internalized knowledge • • •
There are mental representations for vision2, music3, etc. Representations are the common currency of cognitive science. They help to present the analysis in an explicit fashion so as to make precise and testable predictions. Intuition and insights are great, but only useful to science when presented explicitly.
In one phonological theory, representations are sequences of columns of features, each column forming a segment: mop:
=
-syllabic +sonorant +contin. +nasal +labial +voice
+syllabic +sonorant +contin. -nasal +low +back -round
-syllabic +sonorant -contin. -nasal +labial -voice , abbreviated /mA*p/
➥ What are the claims of this representation? (9) What is the main justification for features in phonological theory? • •
Because phonological rules manipulate natural classes (see previous lectures, readings). The features are a way of stating our understanding of natural classes: How are sounds categorized into groups in languages?
2
See, for example, Vision, by David Marr. See A Generative Theory of Tonal Music, by Fred Lerdahl (a composer) and Ray Jackendoff (a linguist). 3
3
Zhang/Öztürk/Quinn
Neutralization Continued (1) What is neutralization? What causes it? Examples?
POLISH VOWEL ALTERNATIONS (2) Class I examples1 [sveteR] [vjadeR] [meandeR] [RobeR] [bimbeR] [vihaisteR] [sen] [len] [mex] [tew]
‘sweater’ ‘pail-gen. pl.’ ‘meander’ ‘rubber’ ‘moonshine’ ‘thingummy’ ‘dream’ ‘flax’ ‘moss’ ‘background-gen.pl.’
[svetR-ˆ] [vjadR-o] [meandR-a] [RobR-em] [bimbR-u] [vihaistR-a] [sn-u] [ln-u] [mx-u] [tw-o]
‘sweater-nom. pl.’ ‘pail-nom. sg.’ ‘meander-gen. sg.’ ‘rubber-instr. sg.’ ‘moonshine-gen. sg.’ ‘thingummy-gen. sg.’ ‘dream-gen. sg.’ ‘flax-gen. sg.’ ‘moss-gen. sg.’ ‘background-nom. sg.’
[kRateR-ˆ] [lideR-a] [oRdeR-u] [vapje¯-a] [teRen-u] [t˛enj-a] [kRet-a] [SmeR-u] [bjes-a]
‘crater-nom. pl.’ ‘leader-gen. sg.’ ‘order-gen. sg.’ ‘limestone-gen. sg.’ ‘terrain-gen. sg.’ ‘shadow-gen. sg.’ ‘mole-gen. sg.’ ‘rustle-gen. sg.’ ‘devil-gen. sg.’
(3) Class II examples [kRateR] [lideR] [oRdeR] [vapje¯] [teRen] [t˛enj] [kRet] [SmeR] [bjes]
‘crater’ ‘leader’ ‘order’ ‘limestone’ ‘terrain’ ‘shadow’ ‘mole’ ‘rustle’ ‘devil’
(4) Polish: Socratic queries • • • 1
From the data given so far, epenthesis or deletion? Is the underlying form the isolation form? What is the neutralizing rule?
All unaffixed forms are nominative singulars.
1
(5) What’s the procedure that we followed for Polish? a) Split up root and affixes: [sveteR] ~ [svetR-ˆ], [krateR-ˆ], [sen] ~ [sn-u], [t˛enj] ~ [t˛enj-a] b) Locate all allomorphs of roots and/or affixes: [sveteR] ~ [svetR], [krateR], [sen] ~ [sn], [t˛enj]. (Affixes don’t alternate.) c) Determine which segments alternate: [e] ~ ∅. d) Hypothesize underlying forms (consider multiple hypothesis where useful). e) The “Two Hypothesis Method”: if A alternates with B, consider deriving B from underlying A, and A from underlying B: either ∅ → e, or e → ∅ f) Reconstruct underlying representations by stringing together underlying forms, following the rules of the morphology: if insertion, these are /svetR/, /svetR-ˆ/, /krateR/, /krateR-ˆ/, /sn/, /sn-u/, /t˛enj/, /t˛enj-a/. Where no alternation, assume “what you hear is what you get.” Where alternation, go by the hypothesis you are working with. g) Figure out rules and environments. If necessary, sort environments in the same way one does for allophonics problems. (6) Tonkawa [picen] [picno/] [wepceno/] [kepceno/] [picnano/] [wepcenano/] [kepcenano/]
‘castrated one; steer’ ‘he cuts it’ ‘he cuts them’ ‘he cuts me’ ‘he’s cutting it’ ‘he’s cutting them’ ‘he’s cutting me’
(7) Degrees of complexity in diagnosing underlying forms • • •
Degree 1: take the isolation form, and undo allophonic rules. Degree 2: take an affixed form and peel off the affix, and undo allophonic rules. Degree 3: cobble the underlying form together from multiple allomorphs.
2
Phonological Representation—Features (8) Representation = formal device intended as a model of internalized knowledge • • •
There are mental representations for vision2, music3, etc. Representations are the common currency of cognitive science. They help to present the analysis in an explicit fashion so as to make precise and testable predictions. Intuition and insights are great, but only useful to science when presented explicitly.
In one phonological theory, representations are sequences of columns of features, each column forming a segment: mop:
=
-syllabic +sonorant +contin. +nasal +labial +voice
+syllabic +sonorant +contin. -nasal +low +back -round
-syllabic +sonorant -contin. -nasal +labial -voice , abbreviated /mA*p/
➥ What are the claims of this representation? (9) What is the main justification for features in phonological theory? • •
Because phonological rules manipulate natural classes (see previous lectures, readings). The features are a way of stating our understanding of natural classes: How are sounds categorized into groups in languages?
2
See, for example, Vision, by David Marr. See A Generative Theory of Tonal Music, by Fred Lerdahl (a composer) and Ray Jackendoff (a linguist). 3
3
Related Documents
Harvard Linguistics 110 - Class 02 Intro Continued
April 2020 3
