Element of functional phonology.pdf

7/29/2019 Element of functional phonology.pdf

1/88


2/88


3/88


4/88


5/88


6/88


7/88


8/88


9/88


10/88


11/88


12/88


13/88


14/88


15/88


16/88


17/88


18/88


19/88


20/88


21/88


22/88


23/88


24/88


25/88

47 Paul Boersma

[0] [260] [470] [740] [1000]

*CATEG (470), *CATEG (740)*CATEG (260)

*CATEG (280, 510, 590, ...)

PERCEIVE

Acoustic inputfac

Perceptionfperc/0/-/140/ /260/ /470/ /605/ /740/ /860/-/1000/

Constraintranking

Fig. 6.2 Categorization along a one-dimensional continuum, if the *C ATEG constraints for the poor

categories are ranked rather low.

being correct; other, lower-ranked, candidates have lower probabilities, and a global

optimization algorithm will find the best time path through the candidates.

6.5 Special case: weak categories

If the *CATEG constraints of the poor categories are ranked low enough, they can interactwith *WARP constraints. In this case, highly distorted categorizations will not take place.

Instead, inputs that are far away from the centre of the equivalence class of a strong

category, will be recognized into one of the poor categories:

[590] PERC *W(400) *W(110) *C(280)*C(510)*C(590)

*W(100) *C(260) *C(470)*C(740)

*W(30)

/260/ *! * * *

/470/ *! * * *

+ /590/ *

/740/ *! * * *

nothing *!

(6.12)

Figure 6.2 shows the classification of any input between [0] and [1000] in the case of low

poor-category constraints.

The Elements of Functional Phonology 48

[0] [260] [470] [740] [1000]

*CATEG (470), *CATEG (740)*CATEG (260)

*CATEG (280, 510, 590, ...)

PERCEIVE

Acoustic inputfac

Perceptionfperc/-/ /260/ /470/ /-/ /740/ /-/

Constraintranking

Fig. 6.3 Categorization along a one-dimensional continuum, if the P ERCEIVE constraint is ranked

low. Non-recognition is denoted as /-/.

6.6 Special case: unparsed features

If the PERCEIVE constraint is ranked low, it is allowed to interact with the *W ARP

constraints. In this case, highly distorted categorizations will not take place; instead,

inputs that are far away from the centre of the equivalence class will not be recognized(/-/ stands for not recognized):

[590] *W(400) *C(280)*C(510)*C(590)

*W(110) PERC *W(100) *C(260) *C(470)*C(740)

*W(30)

/260/ *! * * *

/470/ *! * * *

/590/ *!

/740/ *! * * *

+ /-/ *

(6.13)

Figure 6.3 shows the classification of any input between [0] and [1000] in the case of a

low PERCEIVE constraint.


26/88


27/88


28/88


29/88


30/88


31/88


32/88


33/88


34/88


35/88


36/88


37/88


38/88


39/88


40/88


41/88


42/88


43/88


44/88


45/88


46/88


47/88


48/88


49/88


50/88


51/88


52/88


53/88


54/88


55/88


56/88


57/88


58/88


59/88


60/88


61/88

121 Paul Boersma

PARSE (+nas C / _V)


The functional view of the phonologization of functional constraints


62/88

PARSE (nas C / _V)PARSE (+nas C / _C)

PARSE (nas C / _C)(11.31)

The presence of C in the argument of PARSE makes this an explicitly segmental

formulation, a shorthand for PARSEPATH (nasal & root) or PARSEPATH (nasal & timing),

though it could be replaced with a formulation involving higher prosodic units (by

replacing C with or , for instance).According to the local-ranking principle, all rankings not shown with straight lines in

(11.31) are free. Sanskrit makes the following choice:

PARSE (+nas C / _V)

PARSE (nas C / _V)PARSE (+nas C / _C)

PARSE (nas C / _C)

*SYNC (velum)

(11.32)

The relevant articulatory constraint is not from the *GESTURE family, but from the

*SYNC family, and militates against a velar movement inside a CC cluster.

We expect the following typology:

(a) Nothing assimilates (most languages).(b) Plosives assimilate to a following nasal (Sanskrit).

(c) Coda consonants assimilate their nasality to the following [nas] consonant(spreading of [nas] is found in the North-Germanic sound change/Nk//k/).

(d) Plosives assimilate to a nasal on either side. (11.33)

There are only four (not six) possibilities, because (c) and (d) both already satisfy *S YNC

(velum). Note that none of the four violates F ILL (+nas).

The typology (11.33) is equivalent to the following set of independent implicational

universals for nasal spreading within consonant clusters:

(a) If [nas] spreads, so does [+nas].

(b) If [+nas] spreads rightward, it also spreads leftward. (11.34)

11.14 Conclusion

Starting from a typological interpretation of the local-ranking principle, we derived a

successful strategy for simplification of the grammar:

From all the grammars allowed by the local-ranking principle, languages

tend to choose a grammar in which many constraints can be generalized

over their arguments or environments. (11.35)


63/88


64/88


65/88

129 Paul Boersma

The constraints OCP (place: dor; side | [s] | burst) and NCC (place: dor; side | _ | burst)are probably ranked quite low. We also see that the NCC constraint in this tableau is


The OCP-based account described here manages the data of Limburgian and English well


66/88

are probably ranked quite low. We also see that the NCC constraint in this tableau is

superfluous: the branching [dor] would be ruled out because it violates PARSE (dor). Note

that association lines cross in the fourth candidate, for there is a single perceptual place

tier.

Consider now the English past tenses/hEd-Id/ headed versus/kQn-d/ canned.Epenthesis is forced only between homorganic plosives:

cor cor

d d+

OCP (place: dor;trans | _ | burst)

PARSE (cor) FILL () OCP (place: dor;side | _ | burst)

cor cor

d d *!

cor

d d

*!

+

cor cor

d dI

*

cor

d dI

*! *

(12.15)

Between a nasal and a plosive, no epenthesis occurs:

cor cor

n d+

OCP (place: dor;trans | _ | burst)

PARSE (cor) FILL () OCP (place: dor;side | _ | burst)

+

cor cor

n d

cor

n d

*! *

cor cor

n dI

*!

cor

n dI

*! *

(12.16)

and does the typological prediction that if heteromorphemic homorganic nasal-plosive

clusters undergo epenthesis, then plosive-plosive clusters undergo epenthesis as well.

But there is still a problem. There seems to be a segmental intuition that theperceptual loss of identity of the first/d/ in/d+d//d/ is greater than the loss ofidentity of/n/ in/n+d//nd/. It would be nice if we could express this intuition witha variation in the ranking of a faithfulness constraint, instead of burdening the listener

with a dual-coronal representation of/nd/.We can respect the perceptual OCP (place) in/nd/ if we notice that no identity is lost

on the combined place and nasal tiers. We can rewrite (12.5) as

a m p a a m p anask

labi

plosl

labj

nask

labj

plosl+

m mn n

(12.17)

On the combined labial-nasal tiers, correspondence is between feature combinations, not

between the separate features: it is (nas lab)m, not (nasklabi), and the former is preserved

in the output, though PARSE (lab) is still violated. With a homogeneous unviolated OCP,

violations, (12.16) becomes:

cor cor

n d

+OCP (place: dor) PARSE

(nas & cor)FILL()

PARSE(cor)

cor cor

n d

*!

+

cor

n d

*

cor cor

n dI

*!

cor

n dI*! *

(12.18)

The analogue of (12.17) for plosive-plosive clusters is:


67/88


68/88


69/88


70/88


71/88


72/88


73/88


74/88


75/88


76/88


77/88


78/88


79/88


80/88


81/88


82/88


83/88


84/88


85/88


86/88


87/88


88/88

Documents

Element of functional phonology.pdf