Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:44:08.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exceptional prosodification effects revisited in Gradient Harmonic Grammar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2019

Brian Hsu
Brian Hsu*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
*
E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents an analysis of exceptional prosodification effects, in which exceptional lexical items appear to follow a regular pattern that is found in a different prosodic context. These patterns have been analysed as cases of prosodic prespecification, where morphemes select a non-default prosodic representation. I argue that prespecification approaches should be reconsidered, and that such patterns are predicted without morpheme-specific prosody in Gradient Harmonic Grammar, a weighted constraint system with gradiently active symbols. Exceptional prosodification effects result from the interaction of two influences on constraint penalties: (i) scaling of constraint violations by prosodic context and (ii) contrastive activity values in underlying forms. This interaction is illustrated with the distribution of French nasal vowels and linking [n]. This approach reduces the amount of structure posited for URs, and provides new arguments for a more uniform syntax–prosody mapping.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , May 2019 , pp. 225 - 263
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

For their helpful discussion at various stages of this work, I thank Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, Jennifer Boehm, Mykel Brinkerhoff, Matt Goldrick, Emily Moeng, Elliott Moreton, Charlie O'Hara, Katya Pertsova, Amy Reynolds, Nicholas Rolle, Brian Smith, Caitlin Smith, Jennifer Smith, Paul Smolensky, the P-Side Research Group at UNC-CH and audiences at WCCFL 36 and AMP 2018. I am particularly grateful to Karen Jesney and Rachel Walker, who guided me through the earliest iterations of this project. This paper has also been greatly improved by three anonymous reviewers and the editorial team at Phonology. This research has been supported by the Carolina Postdoctoral Program for Faculty Diversity at UNC-CH. All errors are my own.

References

Bennett, Ryan, Harizanov, Boris & Henderson, Robert (2018). Prosodic smothering in Macedonian and Kaqchikel. LI 49. 195–246.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (2018). In defence of underlying representations: Latin rhotacism, French liaison, Romanian palatalization. Probus 30. 171–214.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert & Rubach, Jerzy (1984). Morphological and prosodic domains in Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 1. 1–27.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan (2001). Frequency effects on French liaison. Bybee, Joan & Hopper, Paul (eds.) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 337–359.Google Scholar
Cho, Hyesun (2011). The timing of phrase-initial tones in Seoul Korean: a weighted-constraint model. Phonology 28. 293–330.Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. & Kawahara, Shigeto (2013). Frequency biases in phonological variation. NLLT 31. 47–89.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2002). The formal expression of markedness. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Dell, François (1970). Les règles phonologiques tardives et la morphologie dérivationnelle du français. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Dell, François (1973). Les règles et les sons: introduction à la phonologie générative. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Durand, Jacques & Lyche, Chantal (2008). French liaison in the light of corpus data. Journal of French Language Studies 18. 33–66.Google Scholar
Elfner, Emily (2012). Syntax–prosody interactions in Irish. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Encrevé, Pierre (1986). Variation et structure: études de phonologie et de pragmatique sociolinguistiques. PhD dissertation, Université de Paris VIII.Google Scholar
Encrevé, Pierre (1988). La liaison avec et sans enchaînement: phonologie tridimensionnelle et usages du français. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Farris-Trimble, Ashley W. (2008). Cumulative faithfulness effects in phonology. PhD dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Flack, Kathryn (2009). Constraints on onsets and codas of words and phrases. Phonology 26. 269–302.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward (2001). Scalar and categorical phenomena in a unified model of phonetics and phonology. Phonology 18. 7–44.Google Scholar
Hajek, John (1997). Universals of sound change in nasalization. Oxford & Boston, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hannahs, S. J. (1995). The phonological word in French. Linguistics 33. 1125–1144.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1989). Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. LI 20. 253–306.Google Scholar
Hsu, Brian (2014). Unifying phonotactics and derived environment blocking through prosodic constraint indexation. In Kingston, John, Moore-Cantwell, Claire, Pater, Joe & Staubs, Robert (eds.) Supplemental proceedings of the 2013 Meeting on Phonology. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/amp.v1i1.19.Google Scholar
Hsu, Brian (2015). Constraining exceptionality as prosody-morphology mismatch: a study of French nasal vowels. CLS 49. 169–184.Google Scholar
Hsu, Brian & Jesney, Karen (2016). Scalar positional markedness and faithfulness in Harmonic Grammar. CLS 51. 241–255.Google Scholar
Hsu, Brian & Jesney, Karen (2017). Loanword adaptation in Québec French: evidence for weighted scalar constraints. WCCFL 34. 249–258.Google Scholar
Hsu, Brian & Jesney, Karen (2018). Weighted scalar constraints capture the typology of loanword adaptation. In Gallagher, Gillian, Gouskova, Maria & Yin, Sora Heng (eds.) Proceedings of the 2017 Annual Meeting on Phonology. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/amp.v5i0.4246.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon (1989). Prosodic constituency in the lexicon. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon (2015). Confidence scales: a new approach to derived environment effects. In Hsiao, Yuchau E. & Wee, Lian-Hee (eds.) Capturing phonological shades within and across languages. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 45–75.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Wilbanks, Eric (2018). Directionality effects via distance-based penalty scaling. In Gallagher, Gillian, Gouskova, Maria & Yin, Sora Heng (eds.) Proceedings of the 2017 Annual Meeting on Phonology. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/amp.v5i0.4256.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2013). Prosodic subcategories in Japanese. Lingua 124. 20–40.Google Scholar
Jesney, Karen (2011). Cumulative constraint interaction in phonological acquisition and typology. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Jesney, Karen (2015). Counterbled-counterfeeding in Harmonic Grammar. NELS 45:2. 59–72.Google Scholar
Kaisse, Ellen M. (1985). Connected speech: the interaction of syntax and phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kimper, Wendell A. (2011). Competing triggers: transparency and opacity in vowel harmony. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine, Miyata, Yoshiro & Smolensky, Paul (1990). Can connectionism contribute to syntax? Harmonic Grammar, with an application. CLS 26:1. 237–252.Google Scholar
McAllister Byun, Tara (2011). A gestural account of a child-specific neutralisation in strong position. Phonology 28. 371–412.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura Walsh & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst: GLSA. 249–384.Google Scholar
McCollum, Adam G. (2018). Vowel dispersion and Kazakh labial harmony. Phonology 35. 287–326.Google Scholar
McPherson, Laura & Hayes, Bruce (2016). Relating application frequency to morphological structure: the case of Tommo So vowel harmony. Phonology 33. 125–167.Google Scholar
Malécot, André (1975). French liaison as a function of grammatical, phonetic and paralinguistic variables. Phonetica 32. 161–179.Google Scholar
Mallet, Géraldine-M. (2008). La liaison en français: descriptions et analyses dans le corpus PFC. PhD dissertation, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense.Google Scholar
Moreton, Elliott, Smith, Jennifer L., Pertsova, Katya, Broad, Rachel & Prickett, Brandon (2017). Emergent positional privilege in novel English blends. Lg 93. 347–380.Google Scholar
Myrberg, Sara (2013). Sisterhood and prosodic branching. Phonology 30. 73–124.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Odden, David (1987). Kimatuumbi phrasal phonology. Phonology Yearbook 4. 13–36.Google Scholar
Pak, Marjorie (2008). The postsyntactic derivation and its phonological reflexes. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole & Prunet, Jean-François (2000). Nasal vowels as two segments: evidence from borrowings. Lg 76. 324–357.Google Scholar
Paster, Mary (2006). Phonological conditions on affixation. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe (2000). Non-uniformity in English secondary stress: the role of ranked and lexically specific constraints. Phonology 17. 237–274.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe (2009). Morpheme-specific phonology: constraint indexation and inconsistency resolution. In Parker, Steve (ed.) Phonological argumentation: essays on evidence and motivation. London: Equinox. 123–154.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe (2012). Serial Harmonic Grammar and Berber syllabification. In Borowsky, Toni, Kawahara, Shigeto, Shinya, Takahito & Sugahara, Mariko (eds.) Prosody matters: essays in honor of Elisabeth Selkirk. London: Equinox. 43–72.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe (2016). Universal Grammar with weighted constraints. In McCarthy, John J. & Pater, Joe (eds.) Harmonic Grammar and Harmonic Serialism. London: Equinox. 1–46.Google Scholar
Poser, William J. (1990). Word-internal phrase boundary in Japanese. In Inkelas, Sharon & Zec, Draga (eds.) The phonology–syntax connection. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 279–287.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher, Pater, Joe, Jesney, Karen, Bhatt, Rajesh & Becker, Michael (2010). Harmonic Grammar with linear programming: from linear systems to linguistic typology. Phonology 27. 77–117.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder. Published 2004, Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Prunet, Jean-François (1986). Spreading and locality domains in phonology. PhD dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Rosen, Eric (2016). Predicting the unpredictable: capturing the apparent semi-regularity of rendaku voicing in Japanese through Harmonic Grammar. BLS 42. 235–249.Google Scholar
Ryan, Kevin M. (2011). Gradient syllable weight and weight universals in quantitative metrics. Phonology 28. 413–454.Google Scholar
Sampson, Rodney (2001). Liaison, nasal vowels and productivity. Journal of French Language Studies 11. 241–258.Google Scholar
Schane, Sanford (1968). French phonology and morphology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schane, Sanford (1973). The treatment of phonological exceptions: the evidence from French. In Kachru, Braj B., Lees, Robert B., Malkiel, Yakov, Pietrangeli, Angelina & Saporta, Sol (eds.) Issues in linguistics: papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 822–835.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1972). The phrase phonology of English and French. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1980). Prosodic domains in phonology: Sanskrit revisited. In Aronoff, Mark & Kean, Mary-Louise (eds.) Juncture. Saratoga: Anma Libri. 107–129.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1981). On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. In Fretheim, Thorstein (ed.) Nordic Prosody II. Trondheim: Tapir. 111–140.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1996). The prosodic structure of function words. In Morgan, James L. & Demuth, Katherine (eds.) Signal to syntax: bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 187–213.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (2009). On clause and intonational phrase in Japanese: the syntactic grounding of prosodic constituent structure. Gengo Kenkyu 136. 35–73.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth (2011). The syntax–phonology interface. In Goldsmith, John, Riggle, Jason & Yu, Alan C. L. (eds.) The handbook of phonological theory. 2nd edn. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 435–484.Google Scholar
Shih, Stephanie S & Inkelas, Sharon (2016). Morphologically-conditioned tonotactics in multilevel Maximum Entropy grammar. In Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur, Farris-Trimble, Ashley, McMullin, Kevin & Pulleyblank, Douglas (eds.) Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Meeting on Phonology. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/amp.v3i0.3659.Google Scholar
Smith, Brian W. (2015). Phonologically conditioned allomorphy and UR constraints. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Smith, Caitlin (2018). Harmony in gestural phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer L. (2011). Category-specific effects. In van Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.) The Blackwell companion to phonology. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell. 2439–2463.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer L. (2014). Prototypical predicates have unmarked phonology. In Kingston, John, Moore-Cantwell, Claire, Pater, Joe & Staubs, Robert (eds.) Proceedings of the 2013 Meeting on Phonology. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/amp.v1i1.37.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul & Goldrick, Matthew (2016). Gradient symbolic representations in grammar: the case of French liaison. Ms, Johns Hopkins University & Northwestern University. Available as ROA-1286 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul, Goldrick, Matthew & Mathis, Donald (2014). Optimization and quantization in gradient symbol systems: a framework for integrating the continuous and the discrete in cognition. Cognitive Science 38. 1102–1138.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul & Legendre, Géraldine (eds.) (2006). The harmonic mind: from neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (1999). Lexical conservatism in French adjectival liaison. In Authier, Jean-Marc, Bullock, Barbara E. & Reed, Lisa A. (eds.) Formal perspectives on Romance linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 243–270.Google Scholar
Tranel, Bernard (1974). The phonology of nasal vowels in Modern French. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Tranel, Bernard (1976). A generative treatment of the prefix in- of Modern French. Lg 52. 345–369.Google Scholar
Tranel, Bernard (1981). Concreteness in generative phonology: evidence from French. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Tranel, Bernard (1987). The sounds of French: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tranel, Bernard (1992). On suppletion and French liaison. In Hirschbühler, Paul & Koerner, E. F. K. (eds.) Romance languages and modern linguistic theory: selected papers from the 20th linguistic symposium on Romance languages, University of Ottawa, April 10–14, 1990. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 269–308.Google Scholar
Tranel, Bernard (1995). French final consonants and nonlinear phonology. Lingua 95. 131–167.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert (1999). On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. LI 30. 219–255.Google Scholar
Tyler, Matthew (2019). Simplifying Match Word: evidence from English functional categories. Glossa 4(1):15. http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.631.Google Scholar
Zec, Draga (2005). Prosodic differences among function words. Phonology 22. 77–112.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Eva (2018). Gradient symbolic representations in the output: a case study from Moses Columbian Salishan stress. NELS 48:1. 275–288.Google Scholar
Zuraw, Kie & Hayes, Bruce (2017). Intersecting constraint families: an argument for Harmonic Grammar. Lg 93. 497–548.Google Scholar
Zymet, Jesse (2018). Lexical propensities in phonology: corpus and experimental evidence, grammar, and learning. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar