Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (29)
- Article (8)
- Conference Proceeding (3)
Keywords
- Deutsch (19)
- Phonologie (12)
- Prosodie (10)
- Morphologie <Linguistik> (8)
- Englisch (7)
- Wortbildung (7)
- Grammatik (5)
- Phonetik (4)
- Vokal (4)
- Diphthong (3)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (19)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (7)
- Postprint (5)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (25)
- Peer-Review (4)
- Peer-Revied (1)
Publisher
Optimality theory (henceforth OT) models natural language competence in terms of interactions of universal constraints, notably markedness and faithfulness constraints. This article illustrates some of the major advances in the understanding of word-formation phenomena originating from this theory, including the prosodic organization of morphologically complex words, neutralization patterns in derivational affixes, allomorphy, and infixation.
Words originating from shortening, including acronyms and clippings, constitute a treasure trove of insight into phonological grammar. In particular, they serve as an ideal testing ground for Optimality Theory (OT) and its view of grammar as an interaction of markedness constraints, which express (dis-) preferences regarding phonological structure in output forms, and faithfulness constraints, which require output forms to correspond to input structure (Prince and Smolensky 1993). This is because shortenings are characterised by a sharply diminished role of faithfulness, allowing for markedness constraints to make their force felt (“The Emergence of the Unmarked”). This article aims to demonstrate the heuristic value of shortening data for testing the OT model and for shedding light on various controversies in German phonology. A particular concern is to draw attention to the need for properly sorting the shortening data, to identify influences on phonological structure due to internal domain boundaries or to special correspondence effects potentially obscuring the view on the maximally unmarked patterns.
Silbenkurzwort
(2022)
Prosodische Morphologie
(2022)
Morphophonological asymmetries in affixation concern systematic correlations between morphological properties of affixes (e.g. combination with bound versus free stems, position relative to stem (suffixes versus prefixes)) and their phonological properties (e.g. stress behaviour). The arguably most insightful approach to capturing relevant asymmetries invokes a notion of affix coherence, first introduced by Dixon in connection with his work on Yidiɲ, a nearly extinct language spoken in Northern Australia. This notion is based on a categorical division of affixes into ones that integrate into the phonological word of the stem and ones that do not. The integration of affixes is envisioned as being fully determined by phonological and morphological structure in a given language and verifiable by diagnostics relevant to phonological word domains (primarily the syllable and the foot structure). The assumption of two types of prosodic domains characterized by integrated versus non-integrated affixes is manifest in consistent asymmetries that pertain to morphophonological, phonological, and phonetic rules. This consistency constitutes compelling evidence for the structure-based analysis of the impact of various affixes on derived words, as opposed to alternative approaches to capturing these effects by associating affixes with diacritics (morpheme versus word boundary, class 1 versus class 2, stratum 1 versus stratum 2). The present entry aims to demonstrate, mostly on the basis of data from Germanic languages, the breadth of the empirical evidence in support of a fundamental role of affix coherence. Moreover, it aims to draw attention to the various implications of affix coherence for modeling relevant generalizations, in particular the necessary reference to a level of phonological representation characterized by a specific degree of abstractness (‘phonemic’).
In diesem Beitrag werden drei quantitative Studien vorgestellt, mit deren Hilfe untersucht wird, ob neben dem robusten Längenunterschied auch Qualitätsunterschiede für die deutschen <a>-Laute vorhanden sind (z.B. <Saat> versus <satt>). Auf Basis von ausgewählten Korpora und instrumentalphonetischen Messungen kann dieser Zusammenhang bestätigt werden. Zudem zeigen sich signifikante Unterschiede in den dynamischen
Verläufen der beiden Vokale.