420 Englisch
Refine
Document Type
- Part of a Book (3)
- Article (1)
Language
- English (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Keywords
- Phonologie (3)
- Englisch (2)
- Wortbildung (2)
- Diphthong (1)
- English (1)
- Kontrastive Phonetik (1)
- Phonology (1)
- Prosodie (1)
- Suffigierung (1)
- Suffix (1)
Publicationstate
- Postprint (1)
- Veröffentlichungsversion (1)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (1)
- Peer-Review (1)
We present evidence for the analysis of the vowels in English <say> and <so> as biphonemic diphthongs /ɛi/ and /əu/, based on neutralization patterns, regular alternations, and foot structure. /ɛi/ and /əu/ are hence structurally on a par with the so called “true diphthongs” /ɑi/, /ɐu/, /ɔi/, but also share prosodic organization with the monophthongs /i/ and /u/. The phonological evidence is supported by dynamic measurements based on the American English TIMIT database.
Calculations of F2-slopes proved to be especially suited to distinguish the relevant groups in accordance with their phonologically motivated prosodic organizations.
Word-formation rules differ from syntactic rules in that they, apart from obeying morphological and semantic constraints, can also be − and often are − restricted phonologically. The present article includes an overview of the relevant phenomena in English and discusses the consequences for the representation of words in the mental lexicon and for grammar.
In this paper I explore the theoretical significance of phonologically conditioned gaps in word formation. The data support the original approach to gaps in Optimality Theory proposed by Prince & Smolensky (1993), which crucially involves MPARSE as a ranked and violable constraint. The alternative CONTROL model proposed by Orgun & Sprouse (1999) is found to be inadequate because of lost generalisations and technical flaws. It is shown that a careful distinction between various morphophonological effects (e.g. paradigm uniformity effects, phonological repair and ‘stem selection’) is necessary to shed light on the morphology–phonology interface. The data investigated here support affixspecific constraint rankings, but argue against any stratal organisation of morphology.