SCHWA, SYLLABLES, AND EXTRAMETRICALITY IN DUTCH. RENÉ KAGER and WIM ZONNEVELD - PDF

Description
The Linguistic Review: SCHWA, SYLLABLES, AND EXTRAMETRICALITY IN DUTCH RENÉ KAGER and WIM ZONNEVELD Most theories of modern phonology now seem to recognize that words consist of concatenations

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 21
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information
Category:

Automotive

Publish on:

Views: 14 | Pages: 21

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Share
Transcript
The Linguistic Review: SCHWA, SYLLABLES, AND EXTRAMETRICALITY IN DUTCH RENÉ KAGER and WIM ZONNEVELD Most theories of modern phonology now seem to recognize that words consist of concatenations of syllables, as in (1), where each separate syllable conforms to the syllable restrictions of the language, be they linear, hierarchical, filterlike, template-like, or what have you. Furthermore, some models, such as the metrical phonology model adopted here, allow for larger possibilities at the left and right word-edges in the form of extrasyllabic elements, such as the final dentals of Herbst 'autumn' in German (Halle and Vergnaud 1980:95, after Haugen 1956). Schematically: (1) [ex] a a a [ex] I L.Z.L Thus, words are concatenations of possible syllables , while extrasyllabic elements are subject to the probably universal condition that they appear at the edges of relevant domains; see also Harris (1983) on the Spanish syllable and similar work by Hayes (1982) on English stress. Taking this concatenative view of syllable structure as our point of departure, we discuss in this paper a body of data from Dutch, which concern the situation depicted in (2). We will discuss the syllabic and metrical possibilities, including sonority and stress, of the right-hand word-edge containing and preceding schwa: (2) a Z\ 3?Id The behavior of schwa in Dutch is the subject of a lively debate in phonological analyses of the language, and our specific purpose here will be to show how the various aspects of its behavior can be correlated within the metrical syllabic and accentual framework. *This paper was read in a preliminary version at the Leiden Non-Linear Phonology Meeting of May 3, We are grateful to the participants for useful comments. In particular, we would like to thank first and foremost Mieke Trommelen, for continuously reminding us of the relevant data, and Kees-Jan Backhuys, Egon Berendsen, Wim de Haas, Jan Nijen Twilhaar, Ellis Visch, and two anonymous referees for critical notes on previous versions of the analysis presented, here. 1 The Linguistic Review 5 ( ) /88/500732X/$ Copyright by Foris Publications. Dordrecht, Holland. U.S.A., 198 A number of further assumptions are in the background of our discussion. First, let us for clarity's sake repeat the cliché that the phenomenon of syllable division will be seen here as universal to the largest extent possible, and languageparticular only if required. This implies that we will not be concerned here with the syllable division of typically derived examples like those in (3) from Dutch, since they can be syllabified mechanically by universal principles of maximal onset, sonority, and sensitivity of syllabification to morphological domains in derived words. (3) held 'hero', -en 'pl.': baard 'beard', -ig 'with': twaalf 'twelve', -de 'ordinal': beheers 'control', -d 'past', -st `superl.', -e 'adj.': hel-den 'heroes' baar-dig 'bearded' twaalf-de 'twelfth' beheersd-ste 'most controlled' The first three examples of (3) show the perfectly plausible interaction between the maximal onset principle and the sonority hierarchy, which together cannot provide a syllabification other than the one indicated. The fourth shows how morphological structure comes into play in ambiguous cases. Thus, a framework which takes derived structure as the input for syllabification appears on the one hand to disregard the independent contents of universal syllabic theory, while on the other it leads one to posit as regular, for a language such as Dutch, as many as five language-particular rime positions (h-eersd in the final example of (3)). Such a framework has been put forward recently for instance in Van der Hu 1st (1984), who proposes (p. 66)) that R]he set of syllables that occur in underived and uncompounded stems is a proper subset of the set of syllables that occur in (complex) words. By characterizing the larger set we characterize the smaller set as well. He then goes on to develop an account which not only leaves the subset undefined, but also suffers from the disadvantages noted above. More promising seems to us the position taken in Trommelen (1983) for Dutch, who assumes that the syllabification of all derived structure is governed by the universal principles accounting for the data in (3). This means that the interesting language-particular action takes place in underived structure (see also Hyman 1985:2), where we will have to account for two types of data, typically relating to syllable breaks in consonant clusters, and the quantitative contents of syllables. As regards the former, (4a) below shows that word-initial clusters are not automatically internal syllableinitial clusters as well; and, as shown in (4b), there are restrictions on the sheer number of segments allowed in a syllable, especially, in this case, in the rime. (4) a. sloom 'dreary' os-lo 'Oslo' kloof 'precipice' cy-cloop 'cyclops' slaap 'sleep' is-lam 'Islam' klier 'gland' e-clips 'eclipse' kneed 'knead' ac-ne 'acne' praat 'talk' le-pra 'leprosy' knie 'knee' pic-nic prei 'leek' lam-prei 'lamprey' b. os-lo *oos-lo tem-po 'speed' *teem-po ac-ne *aac-né sal-to 'somersault' *saal-to One of the tasks of our theory of the (Dutch) syllable will therefore be to account for the facts in (4). Second, we will say that the underlying syllable division will equal the phonetic or intuitive syllable division unless there are compelling reasons, say from alternations or distributional patterns, to deviate from it. Again, this reflects the usual generative practice of saying that minimal pairs like graat 'fish-bone' and graad 'degree' (both [t] in FINAL-DEVOICING Dutch) differ in their underlying forms because their plurals graten and graden differ, but this time applied to syllable structure. So when we propose, as we will do below, underlying or phonological syllabifications that differ clearly from surface facts or surface intuitions, implicit in our approach will be the assumption of late , or phonetic , or post-cyclic resyllabification. In the ideal case, which we think holds to a considerable degree, this resyllabification will boil down precisely to the principles underlying (3). We now turn to the main body of this paper, which deals with three areas of investigation with respect to the representation under (2). We will discuss a. a number of filters on Dutch syllable structure defining syllable-bound collocational restrictions; b. a number of distributional facts regarding the occurrence of relatively long or heavy rimes, in relation to syllabic sonority; and c. properties of Dutch stress assignment, especially with respect to the behavior of schwa. We will tackle these issues in this order. 199 I. FILTERS Consider the four restrictions in (5) holding in Dutch on the occurrence of r, h, and 13. (5) ro h-filter: *h a rater: *ViVir IC# a *kah *kahs *kahar *eir *aurs *uiral abraham alhambra aurora aureool 'Abraham' 'Alhambra' 'aurora' 'halo' ng-filter: *rji anvora 'angora' If C# *arjv *eros *orjvar X magyaan 'manganese' a n-filter: *gv (for V 0 a) N/ rin 'ring' bank 'bank' egal 'angel' *agora The first of these is a well-known restriction on the occurrence of h, which may occur, in effect, before vowels only, but not before schwa. The second is a similar restriction on the occurrence of post-diphthongal r (post-au r in particular). The third and the fourth restrictions follow from the analysis of ng [u] in Dutch as an underlying velar nasal rather than a cluster, a position defended in several places in the recent literature (for an overview see Trommelen 1983:ch.5). The ng-filter excludes the cluster from all positions where it occurs in the same syllable as well as from the pre-schwa position; the g-filter accounts for the complementary distribution of the velar nasal. 200 It is our specific purpose to explain by our analysis below the curious restrictions mentioned in these filters between braces and parentheses, i.e. the occurrences of consonant (C), boundary (#), and schwa (a) in the first three filters, and the non-schwa restriction in the fourth. Notice, however, that the occurrence of C and # in the first three suggests syllable sensitivity for these restrictions but, on the other hand, the intuitive syllabifications of *ka-har and abra-ham, *ui-ral and au-rora, and *ag-yar and ag-vora is the same in each case; yet the distributional facts do not fall in line with these intuitive syllabifications. Put slightly differently, generally speaking we know why C behaves like a word boundary, because often the syllable break lies before C, but now we would like to know why schwa behaves like a word boundary as well, and this is what we try to explain below. 2. DISTRIBUTIONAL FACTS 2.1. Heavy rimes For further distributional facts that shed light on our discussion, first consider the data in (6). (6) lust 'desire' las-ter 'slander' pas-ta 'paste' *lust-ko disk 'disc' mas-ker 'mask' es-kimo 'Eskimo' *ask-mer ramp 'disaster' dom-per 'damper' kam-pong 'kampong' *lamp-tong darm 'intestine' mor-mel 'freak' mar-mot 'marmot' *darm-pol ze:m 'shammy' ze:-mel 'bran' ka:-meel 'camel' *te:m-po ta:k 'task' be:-ker 'cup' ci:-cloop `cyclops' *pa:k-tal These data show a number of things about the prevailing patterns of Dutch syllable structure, of which the following are presently most important: Dutch rimes have only two positions; the difference between schwa and full vowels does not influence the shape of the preceding rime in this respect; and wordfinal rimes have an additional (consonantal) position. The simplest view of Dutch syllable structure that follows from these observations is that of (7): (7) jonset [X X]Rime [C]App Although our main concern in this paper will not be with the onset of Dutch syllables, we note that we adopt here the relatively constrained view of it proposed in Trommelen (1983), who allows only [C(L)], where L is a liquid (subject to further filters). Data such as those in (8) illustrate the positive effect of this constraint: (8) ci:-cloop 'Cyclops' ma:-kreel 'mackerel' fol-klore 'folklore' pa:-prika 'pepper' ta:-blet 'tablet' ze:-bra 'zebra' i:-glo 'igloo' ma:-tras 'mattress' L 201 sja:-bloon 'stencil' som-brero 'sombrero' pam-flet 'pamphlet' pel-grim 'pilgrim' es-planade 'esplanade' man-dril 'mandrill' li:-vrei 'livery' oc-trooi 'patent' On the negative side, nasals are banned from appearing in second position, as in (9): (9) jas-mijn pris-ma schis-ma kos-mos mag-ma pig-mee `jasmin' 'prism' 'schism' 'cosmos' 'magma' 'pygmy' et-na ac-ne pic-nic mag-neet mag-nolia ag-naat 'etna' 'acne' 'picnic' 'magnet' 'magnolia' 'agnate' The possibilities and so on: are constrained further by specific filters against *tl-, *sl-, (10) at-las 'atlas' at-leet 'athlete' bet-lehem 'Bethlehem' is-lam os-lo mos-lim 'Islam' 'Oslo' `moslem' This analysis accounts straightforwardly for the facts under (4), with the understanding that the analysis interacts with the notion of extrasyllabicity mentioned in the introduction. Recall that one of the most interesting constraints on this notion is its hypothesized occurrence on the edges of relevant domains only: it is precisely there that (7) contains its extrametrical appendix , and it is precisely this restriction that accounts for the difference between the leftand right-hand columns of (4a). If left-hand s is always extrasyllabic in Dutch, and initial k is always extrasyllabic before n (or nasals in general), we account both for the occurrence of knie alongside the internal syllabification of acne, and for the occurrence of sloom in spite of the ban on *sl- reflected in os-lo versus ck-cloop and le:-pra. As for the rime, the restriction to two positions only accounts for the data under (4b), repeated in the rightmost column of (6). No doubt the fact that the leftmost position of the rime is always occupied by a vowel follows from universal considerations, while the rightmost position appears simply to be free: it may be a vowel as second half of a long vowel, it may be the second half of a diphthong (which pattern with long vowels in Dutch; see Zonneveld and Trommelen 1980), and it may be a sonorant or an obstruent consonant, as in (8) and (9). Especially with regard to the latter we differ from Trommelen (1983), who has an XX-rime if a sonorant occupies second position, but allows XXX if there is an obstruent in third position (pamflet, plank-ton). Below we will review the evidence which led her to this proposal, indicating that there is no reason to differentiate between sonorants and obstruents in this respect, and concluding that the facts support our bipositional rime. 202 Finally, (6) shows us that word-finally, as noted, the syllabic possibilities are more elaborate than word-internally. In principle, a consonant may be freely added to an XX-rime, creating a relatively heavy rime in this position. This is expressed in (7) by the addition of a consonantal right-hand appendix (terminology taken from Halle and Vergnaud 1980), at the right-hand periphery. Given this, consider the facts in (11). (11) lijst 'list' lijs-ter 'thrush' *eesk *ees-ker borst 'breast' bors-tel 'brush' *goesp *goes-pel koest 'timid' koes-ter 'cherish' *laamp *laam-per worst 'sausage' wors-tel 'wrestle' *daarm *daar-mel So far, all of (11) is excluded by (7): words such as lijst and borst are excluded because their rimes exceed the upper limit of three imposed by (7) wordfinally; words such as lijster and borstel are excluded because there is simply no internal syllable division that conforms simultaneously to the bipositional rime requirement and the C(L) onset condition. However, typical for the data in (11) are two observations: they have VX before dental obstruent clusters word-finally (left-hand column), or they have VX word-internally before dental obstruents followed by schwa. Further data illustrating these two classes are those in (12): (12) be:st 'beast' he:ster 'shrub' fi:ts 'bicycle' schni:tzel 'scallop' puist 'pimple' bu:ste 'breast' beits 'mordant' bijster 'very' fonds 'fund' venster 'window' rijst 'rice' glinster 'glitter' ha:st 'hurry' hamster 'hamster' hulst 'holly' holster 'holster' Of course, this implies neither that if schwa follows dentals, the preceding rime must be overlong, nor that schwa can only follow dentals. Thus, examples like las-ter and mas-ker from (6) can be extended with those in (13). (13) kas-te 'caste' has-pel 'reel' dis-tel 'thistle' ok-sel 'armpit' ves-te 'stronghold' kwis-pel 'wag' ripos-te 'riposte' sec-te 'sect' met-sel 'build' scep-ter 'scepter' knut-sel 'potter' ach-ter 'behind' The data do imply, however, that if a full vowel follows a cluster, the preceding vowel must be short, since our extra possibilities are bestowed upon schwa only: 203 (14) pas-ta 'paste' mos-kee 'mosque' kas-teel 'castle' es-kimo 'Eskimo' swas-tika `swaktika' mas-cotte 'mascot' kas-tijden 'chastise' wod-ka 'vodka' hos-tie 'host' nek-tar 'nectar' mus-tang 'mustang' ec-zeem 'eczema' fat-soen 'decency' rep-tiel 'reptile' mes-ties 'mestizo' rhap-sodie 'rhapsody' (14) shows the validity of this generalization for internal obstruent clusters, but precisely the same holds, of course, if the internal cluster is fully sonorant, or a sonorant followed by an obstruent, as in (15). (15) kal-koen 'turkey' al-manak 'almanac' or-chidee 'orchid' bil-jet 'ticket' aor-ta 'aorta' gal-joen 'galleon' gam-biet 'gambit' for-nuis 'furnace' en-zym 'enzyme' for-mule 'formula' man-gaan 'manganese' kar-wats 'horsewhip' ran-cune 'rancor' am-nestie 'amnesty' The only context where our analysis predicts that VX may precede a cluster (before a full vowel in the next syllable) occurs when the cluster is of the CL shape allowed by the onset template. The data provided under (8) corroborate this prediction: ta:-blet, som-brero, and so on. Thus, the proper generalization as regards excessive rime length appears to boil down to the following observation: (16) Excessive rime weight is allowed before dental obstruents (-st, -ts) wordfinally, and if schwa follows (-st-a, -ts-a). Or, conversely, a syllable with schwa may follow any syllable with a bipositional rime, but also those syllables occurring only word-finally otherwise. Thus, (7) must be extended to (17) in order to capture generalization (16); we add illustrations. (17)... [X X] Rime App2 App2 1 C (a) +cor11-1-cor 1(b) 1-- son - son] -ar -al -a z e e 'sea' z e e m 'shammy' z e e m al 'bran' b e e s t 'beast' h e e s t ar 'shrub' 204 This template is a first attempt to capture the empirical observation above about the co-occurrence restrictions of Dutch heavy rimes and the type of vowel following. Below we will refine it on the basis of further observations, but in the meantime consider the following minimal pairs or near-minimal pairs, which are all intended to lend credence to the view that (17) means to express: schwa-initials (our App2) follow existing words . (18) lui 'lazy' lui-ar 'napkin' stom `stupid' stomrn-al 'clatter' lek `leaky' lekk-ar 'delicious' zo:-m 'seam' zo:-m-ar 'summer' teu-g 'gulp' teu-g-al 'rein' hel-d 'hero' hel-d-ar 'clear' scham-p 'graze' scham-p-ar 'scornful' nor-m 'norm' mor-m-al 'freak' wes-p `wasp' kwis-p-al 'wag' tek-st 'text' ek-st-ar 'magpie' pac-t 'pact' ac-t-a 'act' A number of additional remarks can be made on these issues. First, note that all data with obstruent clusters above share three interesting constraints. Two of these were already explicitly mentioned in Zonneveld (1983), who noted, first, that obstruent clusters in underived words in Dutch are generally voiceless, and, second, that they do not exceed the number of two. In sum, they are subject to the restrictions depicted schematically in (19). (19) Restrictions for [voice] in obstruent(cluster)s - voice +voice x x x - - _ Exceptions to these conditions are scarce, and are often loanwords. A voiced cluster of two is found in labda 'lambda' and Bagdad, but we have not found a voiced cluster of three. Marked voiceless clusters of three occur in tekst and ekster in (18), and words such as godzpe 'gudzpa', oogst 'harvest', and a few others. These conditions are relevant to (17) for two reasons. First, they explain the observational gap that if the appendix contains a dental obstruent cluster, the (free) second position of the rime cannot be filled by an obstruent itself (given a small handful of exceptions such as tekst). Second, they explain why the obstruent cluster appendix, if it is there, is always voiceless. Given (19), there is no need to burden our theory of the syllable with additional machinery to capture these facts. Independent of the contraint on [voice] is, furthermore, the apparent condition that in a cluster of obstruents one of them is always dental, in mirror image. 205 (20) -son -son [ ] [ ] -cor -cor The loan Afghaan 'Afghan' is among the very few exceptions, and note that even the three marked obstruent clusters in tekst, and so on, have only one non-dental. We also assume that words like obstruent and extase 'ecstasy' contain Latin/Greek prefixes, synchronically motivatable as such. Second, this view of the Dutch syllable is sufficiently restricted to expect various classes of exceptions. They come in various degrees of interest: some of them are only superficially exceptional, while others must be marked as irregular in the lexicon. At least three phonological rules are the source of surface exceptions to the bipositional rime restriction. Examples like pi(:)stool 'pistol' in (21a) led Trommelen (1983) to allow a tripositional rime for obstruents in third position. As far as we can see, however, these data result from the interference of a phonological rule (unknown to us from the literature) that lengthens (unstressed) i before a dental cluster. Alternations such as those in (21b) support this view. (21) a. pi(:)stool 'pistol' bi(:)strn 'bistro' sy(:)stéem 'system' pi(:)stache 'pistachio' b. register 'register' regi(:)streren `to register' magister 'mas
Related Search
Similar documents
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks