Phonetik / Phonologie
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (7)
- Article (3)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
- Review (1)
Keywords
- Phonologie (13) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (6)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (4)
- Postprint (1)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (6)
- Peer-Review (3)
Publisher
- de Gruyter (2)
- Akademie Verlag (1)
- Cambridge Univ. Press (1)
- Institut für Romanistik der Universität Wien & Institut für Schallforschung der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (1)
- Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS) (1)
- Ministerstvo prosveščenija RSFSR; Omskij gosudarstvenny pedagogičeskij institut imeni A. M. Gor´kogo (1)
- Schwann (1)
- Steiner (1)
- Wiley & Sons (1)
- Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (1)
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’).
The shortening of linguistic expressions naturally involves some sort of correspondence between short forms and (some portion of) the respective full forms. Based mostly on data from English and Hebrew this article explores the hypothesis that such correspondence concerns necessary sameness of symbolic form, referring either to graphemic or to a specific level of phonological representation. That level indicates a degree of abstractness defined by language-specific contrastiveness (i.e. “phonemic”). Reference to written form can be shown to be highly systematic in certain contexts, including cases where full forms consist of multiple stems. Specific asymmetries pertaining to the targeting of material by correspondence (e.g. initial vs. non-initial position) appear to be alike for both types of representation, a claim supported by a study based on a nomenclature strictly confined to writing (chemical element symbols).
Identity effects in phonology are deviations from regular phonological form (i.e. canonical patterns) which are due to the relatedness between words. More specifically, identity effects are those deviations which have the function to enhance similarity in the surface phonological form of morphologically related words. In rule-based generative phonology the effects in question are described by means of the cycle. For example, the stress on the second syllable in cond[ɛ]nsation as opposed to the stresslessness of the second syllable in comp[ǝ]nsation is described by applying the stress rules initially to the sterns thereby yielding condénse and cómpensàte. Subsequently the stress rules are reapplied to the affixed words with the initial stress assignment (i.e. stress on the second syllable in condense, but not in compensate) leaving its mark in the output form (cf. Chomsky and Halle 1968). A second example are words like lie[p]los 'unloving' in German, which shows the effects of neutralization in coda position (i.e. only voiceless obstruents may occur in coda position) even though the obstruent should 'regularly' be syllabified in head position (i.e. bl is a wellformed syllable head in German). Here the stern is syllabified on an initial cycle, obstruent devoicing applies (i.e. lie[p]) and this structure is left intact when affixation applies (i.e. lie[p ]Ios ) (cf. Hall 1992). As a result the stern of lie[p]los is identical to the base lie[p].
Sogenannte „Pragmatikalisierte Mehrworteinheiten“ sind im Deutschen hochfrequent und unterliegen bisweilen tiefgreifenden phonetischen Reduktionsprozessen. Diese können Realisierungsvarianten hervorbringen, die in der Rückschau auf mehr als eine lexematische Ursprungsform zurückführbar sind. Die vorliegende Studie untersucht mit [ˈzɐmɐ] einen besonders prägnanten Fall dieser Art anhand eines Perzeptionsexperimentes.
In diesem Aufsätz wird anhand von überwiegend deutschen Beispielen gezeigt, daß sich phonotaktische Beschränkungen sowohl auf die Silbe als auch auf das Morphem beziehen können. Es wird die Hypothese aufgestellt, daß nur die Beschränkungen, die das Morphem als Domäne haben, Ausnahmen zulassen können.
Zur Aussprache nicht haupttoniger Vorsilben mit <e> in Lehnwörtern im deutschen Gebrauchsstandard
(2018)
Vortoniges <e> in Lehnwörtern in offenen Silben (demonstrieren, Elefant) ist in den traditionellen deutschen Aussprachewörterbüchern durchgängig mit gespanntem/geschlossenem [e] kodifiziert. Die Auswertung von insgesamt 17 entsprechenden Belegwörtern aus dem Korpus „Deutsch heute“ zeigt für den deutschen Gebrauchsstandard jedoch eine ausgeprägte Variation zwischen den Lauttypen [e], [ɛ] und [ə], die je nach Lexem in ganz unterschiedlichen Anteilen vorkommen. Als Erklärungsansätze für das differierende Variationsverhalten lassen sich Faktoren wie Wortakzentmuster, Folgekonsonanz, Formalitätsgrad und semantisch-morphologische Durchsichtigkeit der Wortbildung anführen. Außerdem zeigt die Variation auch eine ausgeprägte diatopische Dimension: Während im Norden Deutschlands, aber auch im mittelbairisch geprägten Sprachraum und in der Ostschweiz die [e]-Aussprache dominiert, überwiegen in der südlichen Mitte und im Südwesten Deutschlands, im südbairisch geprägten Sprachraum und vor allem in der Westschweiz Belege mit [ɛ]-Aussprache. Die Ergebnisse von „Deutsch heute“ zeigen sich in ähnlicher Weise auch in zusätzlich ausgewerteten Sprachdaten (Nachrichtensendungen, FOLK-Korpus).
American English and German AI, AU observed in cognates such as Wein, wine, Haus, house are usually treated on a par, represented with the same initial vowel (cf. [ai], [au] for Am. Engl, and German [1]). Yet, acoustic measurements indicate differences as the relevant trajectories characteristically cross in Am. Engl, but not in German. These data may indicate consistency with the same initial target for these diphthongs in German, supporting the choice of the same Symbol /a/ in phonemic representation, as opposed to distinct targets (and distinct initial phonemes) in American English.