Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (20)
- Article (3)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (25)
Keywords
- Deutsch (11)
- Prosodie (8)
- Morphologie <Linguistik> (6)
- Phonologie (5)
- Englisch (3)
- Grammatik (3)
- Wortbildung (3)
- Akzent (2)
- Apokope (2)
- Bedeutungswandel (2)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (14)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (7)
- Postprint (5)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (25) (remove)
Publisher
- de Gruyter (7)
- Benjamins (2)
- Linguistic Analysis (2)
- Mouton de Gruyter (2)
- Akademie Verlag (1)
- Buske (1)
- Kluwer (1)
- Language Science Press (1)
- Linguistic Society of America (1)
- Narr (1)
Evaluating phonological status: significance of paradigm uniformity vs. prosodic grouping effects
(2007)
A central concern of linguistic phonetics is to define criteria for determining the phonological status of sounds or sound properties observed in phonetic surface form. Based on acoustic measurements we show that the occurrence of syllabic sonorants vs. schwa-sonorant sequences in German is determined exclusively by segmental and prosodic structure, with no paradigm uniformity effects. We argue that these findings are consistent with a uniform representation of syllabic sonorants as schwa sonorant sequences in the lexicon. The stability of schwa in CVC-suffixes (e.g. the German diminutive suffix -chen), as opposed to its phonetic absence in a segmentally comparable underived context, is argued to be conditioned by the prosodic organisation of such suffixes external to the phonological word of the stem.
Die wortinitialen Segmente in Deutsch ja, jung sowie die Zweitkomponenten in den so genannten schließenden Diphthongen wie in Hai, Heu, Hau weisen im Vergleich zu hohen Vokalen in Kuh, Knie eine stark variierende Artikulation auf – zudem treten diese Laute in unterschiedlichen Kontexten auf. Die hier beobachtbaren Zusammenhänge zwischen Distribution und Aussprache lassen auf durch unterschiedliche silbische Positionen bedingte Allophonie schließen (Morciniec 1958; Shannon 1984; Hall 1992; für Englisch: Jakobson/Fant/Halle 1952, S. 20). Eine solche Analyse, die zudem eine erhebliche Reduktion des Phoneminventars beinhaltet, konnte sich bislang für das Deutsche nicht durchsetzen: Gewöhnlich sind sowohl die schließenden Diphthonge als auch [j] im deutschen Phoneminventar aufgeführt; letzteres Segment wird sogar meist als Frikativ klassifiziert. Der Sprachvergleich ergibt neue phonologische Generalisierungen, die eine durch Silbenstruktur bedingte allophonische Analyse stützen. Insbesondere lassen sich Abstufungen erkennen, die auf durch Sonorität bestimmte Silbifizierungsbedingungen schließen lassen.
Der Begriff Wortprosodie bezeichnet hier die Organisation von Segmenten in die hierarchisch geordneten Konstituenten Silbe, Fuß und phonologisches Wort. Evidenz für solch eine Organisation und die ihr zugrundeliegenden Regeln findet sich in gewissen distributioneilen sowie phonetischen Besonderheiten von Segmenten. In diesem Beitrag versuche ich eine Darstellung der wesentlichen Züge der deutschen Wortprosodie als Interaktion miteinander in Konflikt stehender Beschränkungen im Sinne der Optimalitätstheorie. Im Mittelpunkt steht die Herausarbeitung unmarkierter prosodischer Strukturen auf der phonologisch-lexikalischen Ebene, da unmarkierte Strukturen einen wichtigen Bezugspunkt für die Beurteilung von Varianten bilden. Zugleich ergibt sich eine neue Perspektive auf das Verhältnis von Norm und Regel.
Perhaps the biggest challenge in derivational morphology is to reconcile morphological idiosyncrasy with semantic regularity. How can it be explained that words with dead affixes and irregulär allomorphy can nonetheless exhibit straightforward and stable semantic relations to their etymological bases (cf. strength ‘property of being strong’, obedience ‘act of obeying’, ‘property of being obedient’)? Theories based on the idea of capturing regularity in terms of synthetic rules for building up complex words out of morphemes along with rules for interpreting such structures in a compositional fashion have not made - and arguably cannot make - sense of this phenomenon. Taking the perspective of the learner in acquisition, I propose an alternative approach to meaning assignment based, not on syntagmatic relations among their constituent morphemes, but on paradigmatic relations between whole words. This approach not only explains the conditions under which meaning relations between words are expected to be stable but also accounts for another notorious mystery in derivational morphology, the frequent occurrence of total synonymy among affixes, as opposed to words.
Gaps in Word Formation
(1996)
Trubetzkoy's recognition of a delimitative function of phonology, serving to signal boundaries between morphological units, is expressed in terms of alignment constraints in Optimality Theory, where the relevant constraints require specific morphological boundaries to coincide with phonological structure (Trubetzkoy 1936, 1939, McCarthy & Prince 1993). The approach pursued in the present article is to investigate the distribution of phonological boundary signals to gain insight into the criteria underlying morphological analysis. The evidence from English and Swedish suggests that necessary and sufficient conditions for word-internal morphological analysis concern the recognizability of head constituents, which include the rightmost members of compounds and head affixes. The claim is that the stability of word-internal boundary effects in historical perspective cannot in general be sufficiently explained in terms of memorization and imitation of phonological word form. Rather, these effects indicate a morphological parsing mechanism based on the recognition of word-internal head constituents. Head affixes can be shown to contrast systematically with modifying affixes with respect to syntactic function, semantic content, and prosodic properties. That is, head affixes, which cannot be omitted, often lack inherent meaning and have relatively unmarked boundaries, which can be obscured entirely under specific phonological conditions. By contrast, modifying affixes, which can be omitted, consistently have inherent meaning and have stronger boundaries, which resist prosodic fusion in all phonological contexts. While these correlations are hardly specific to English and Swedish it remains to be investigated to which extent they hold cross-linguistically. The observation that some of the constituents identified on the basis of prosodic evidence lack inherent meaning raises the issue of compositionality. I will argue that certain systematic aspects of word meaning cannot be captured with reference to the syntagmatic level, but require reference to the paradigmatic level instead. The assumption is then that there are two dimensions of morphological analysis: syntagmatic analysis, which centers on the criteria for decomposing words in terms of labelled constituents, and paradigmatic analysis, which centers on the criteria for establishing relations among (whole) words in the mental lexicon. While meaning is intrinsically connected with paradigmatic analysis (e.g. base relations, oppositeness) it is not essential to syntagmatic analysis.