Intermediate Spanish SPAN 6
Popular in Course
Popular in Spanish
This 11 page Class Notes was uploaded by Johnpaul Bradtke on Friday September 4, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to SPAN 6 at University of California - Los Angeles taught by Staff in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 27 views. For similar materials see /class/177794/span-6-university-of-california-los-angeles in Spanish at University of California - Los Angeles.
Reviews for Intermediate Spanish
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
Date Created: 09/04/15
Proseminar on the prosodic word Fall 2006 Zuraw Class 1 Sept 28 Class 1 Introduction Outline of today and next week 0 The prosodic hierarchy as source of domains for segmental rules 0 Other jobs of prosodic constituents 0 P word case studies and counteranalyses I The prosodic hierarchy as source of domains for segmental rules A The hierarchy 1 Prosodic hierarchy many variants exist of course U utterance I intonational phrase q phonological phrase m p word aka phonological word prosodic word F foot I o syllable segment 2 Bibliographic note Papers by Selkirk in the late 1970s and early 1980s first proposed this hierarchy 0 Elizabeth Selkirk 1978 On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure In T Eretheim ed Nordic Prosody II Trondheim TAPIR Elizabeth Selkirk 1980 Prosodic domains in phonology Sanskrit reVisited In Mark Aronoff amp Mary Louise Kean eds Juncture Saratoga CA Anma Libri Elizabeth Selkirk 1980 The role of prosodic categories in English word stress Linguistic Inquiry 11 563 605 Elizabeth Selkirk 1981 On the nature of phonological representation In J Anderson J Laver amp T Meyers eds The Cognitive Representation of Speech Amsterdam North Holland Unfortunately for readers these papers defer discussion of various questions to a forthcoming synthesis and by the time iti came out1 Selkirk had changed her mind and decided against the foot p word and p phrase For a more comprehensive presentation of the idea see 0 Marina Nespor amp Irene Vogel 1986 Prosodic Phonology Dordrecht Foris 1 Elizabeth Selkirk 1984 Phonology and Syntax the relation between sound and structure Cambridge MA MIT Proseminar on the prosodic word Fall 2006 Zuraw Class 1 Sept 28 3 Example loosely adapted from Nespor amp Vogel 1986 henceforth NampV U a a a a a a a a a a a F F F F F F F F F F F F F o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Eu ro pe an wild cats are of ten miscla ssi fiedin 01d textbooks a bout a ni mals B The theory of domains Selkirk s main motivation in proposing the hierarchy was to account for the domains of segmental rules She proposed that there are three ways a rule can relate to its domain 4 Rule types not Selkirk s original notation 0 domain span rules the structural description must be contained within a certain domain D A gt B X7Y 0 domain juncture rules the structural description spans the boundary between two domains D and is contained within a domain D D is higher than D but not necessarily the immediately dominating level D7 D D or A gtB X Y7Z 0 domain limit rules the structural description is at the edge of a domain D D D A gt B X7Y or A gt B X7Y Praseminar 0n the prosodic ward Fall 2006 Zuraw Class 1 Sept 28 5 Sanskrit pwora39 domain Selkirk 1980 0 A non compound N A or V constitutes a p word 0 In a compound the first stem constitutes a p word and the second stem plus suffixes constitute another p word 0 Exception not discussed in the paperijust mentioned in a footnote a pada suffix forms its own p word 0 Not sure how prefixes fit in 6 Example of wordjuncture rule Final Voicing p 115 utterance wd wd ison gt Voice i i l Voice sternusternm compound sat e aha gt sadraha good day samyak uktarn gt samyag uktarn spoken correctly sternusternu parivraf ayarn gt parivrad ayarn tat namas gt tad namas that homage stern suffix pr cah gt pr cah vacya gt vacya maruti gt maruti wind 10c o How do we know that a p word juncture must intervene between the target and the following segment Why do we have to specify the superordinate domain of utterance Selkirk claims that there are word juncture rules in other languages whose superordinate domain in the p phrase that is the two p words in question must be in the same p phrase for this Sanskrit rule they only have to be in the same utterance 7 Example of wordlimit rule Final DeaspirationDevoicing p 120 p wd a 106 sternusternu labhesye gt lapesye lshallseize agnirnath gt agnirnat producingfire byfriction trisfubh gt trisfup sternu virudh gt virut plant tad gt tat suhrd gt suhrt Crucially these changes are supposed to occur regardless of the words context eg utterance medial vs utterance final Praseminar 0n the prosodic ward Fall 2006 Zuraw Class 1 Sept 28 8 Exercise 0 What is the domain of Visarga sr gt h and where is it ordered There are other rules involved too StemwU devas gt devah godquot 1 punar gt punah again stem suffixuU abibhart gt abibhah akar jyotih gt akar jyotih punar api gt punar api bhratar dehi gt bhratar dehi dvar esa gt dvar esa nalas nama gt nalo nama tapas 7 nidhi gt tapoenidhi s a quotC voice devas gacchati gt devo gacchati stemustemuU a vas iva gt as39Va iva s a W V devas uvaca gt deva uvaca a vas vahanti gt as39Va vahanti hatas gajah gt hata gajah s a W devas cuh gt deva cuh avis mama gt avir mama dhenus iva gt dhenur iva s flowquotvoice gunais yuktah gt gunair yuktah 9 Example of wordspan rule nati in Classical Sanskrit p 123 p word n gt n s r r f 4or0 7 V n my karmana gt karmana Stem suf x d sanam gt d sanam brmhanam gt brmhanam mun5ti gt musnati brahman e yah gt brahmanyah stemmstemu kip 7 Huh gt kipnuh The data here are faked Selkirk gives data from Vedic Sanskrit where nati was a p phrase span rule and mentions that in Classical Sanskrit the rule was p word span though it remained fossilized in some compounds I ve just taken her Vedic data and modified the compound examples so it s probably wrong in various ways Proseminar on the prosodic word Fall 2006 Zuraw Class 1 Sept 28 10 Counteranalysis boundary symbols Let s use a richer inventory of symbols than SPE utterance boundary intonational phrase boundary 2 p phrase boundary p word boundary and of course we need a set of rules to insert these boundary symbols in the right places Final Voicing p word juncture on utterance domain ison gt Voice i Voice Final DeaspirationDevoicing p word limit ism gt7V0106 i sg Classical nati p word spaniif syllable and foot boundaries exist assume that they re allowed to occur anywhere in string matching the structural description 11 gt n s r r f 4oroi V n m y v Vedic nati p phrase span n gt n s r r f oro 7 V n m y v 11 Selkirk on boundary symbols Selkirk objects to the duplication of boundary symbols that occurs in domain span rules with long structural descriptions Hypothetical intonational phrase span rule int phrase i A gt B XYiWZ becomes ii A gt B X Y i W Z This is no more valued by the breVity metric of SPE than say iii A gt B X Y i W 58 Z Praseminar 0n the prosodic ward Fall 2006 Zuraw Class 1 Sept 28 which type of rule Selkirk claims doesn t occur In Selkirk s theory this would translate into a messy disjunction of cases some of which may be uninstantiable by well formed prosodic treesiwe can try to draw it Selkirk suggests that boundary theory could be modified with some additional conventions to work more cleanly following earlier work of McCawley and of Stanley For domain span rules for example we could just write iv A gt B XYiWZ with the stipulation that in a rule whose structural description is surrounded by matching boundary symbols boundaries of lower strength are understood to occur optionally anywhere else in the string 0 Ideas on how we can modify the theory to deal neatly with domain juncture rules and domain limit rules 12 Counteranalysis lexical phonology DeaspirationDevoicing juncture on utterance why o How can we deal with intermediate domains p phrase intonational phrase O Selkirk proposes that all rules are domain span domain juncture or domain lirnit as given above Does this limitation on rules follow from the prosodic hierarchy or must it be an additional stipulation How about in lexical phonology C Case study Italian NampV various chapters I don t know if there s one dialect with all 13 Utterancespan rule Gorgia Toscana Tuscan variety 0 Rules for utterance construction thought to allow lots of variation and to be similar or identical across languages 0 Utterance Z sentence but sentences can combine into an utterance if they re in certain semantic relationships Praseminar 0n the prosodic ward Fall 2006 Zuraw Class 1 Sept 28 NampV treat Gorgia Toscana as an intonational phrase span rule but say that their data show occasional spirantization across intonational phrase boundaries too Vogel 19972 treats the rule as utterancespan utterance p ltIgt t gt 9 7consi7cons k h 10 39sai ho39m 8 dif39fijile1p ho39no e k39kweste 39hose1p k k k it know how is difficult know these things You know how difficult it is to know these things medial lP boundaries assumed because of filled pause final lengthening in this tokenidata from Vogel 1997 p 66 but originally from others 0 What would this look like with boundary symbols Lexical phonology 14 Intonational phrase 0 Rules for intonational phrase construction thought to allow lots of variation and to be similar or identical across languages 0 Parenthetical items nonrestrictive relatives tag questions vocatives exclamations and some dislocated items tend strongly to form intonational phrases Items in a list may also form intonational phrases and what would otherwise be long intonational phrases may be broken down into smaller units that respect p phrase boundaries Unclear whether there s a good example for this domainiNampV give data where Tuscan lntervocalic Spirantization applies within but not across intonational phrases Santo j 10p t e un verme in questa ilie3a1pU tj tj d3 holy sky there s a worm in this cherry Good heavens there s a worm in this cherry intonational phrase as but Vogel 1997 without mentioning lntervocalic Spirantization says that rules that were originally interpreted as lPh rules are more accurately analysed as PU phonological utterance rules and that the lPh only serves as the domain of intonational contours not phonological rules p 65 so perhaps the situation is the same as with Gorgia Toscana 2 Irene Vogel 1997 Prosodic Phonology In M Maiden amp M Parry eds The Dialects ofltaly London Routledge Proseminar on the prosodic word Fall 2006 Zuraw Class I Sept 28 15 Phonologicalphrasespan rule Northern Italian Stress Retraction 0 Rules for phonological phrase construction thought to allow little variation and to differ parametrically across languages chief parameter direction of p phrase formation thought to be derivable from syntax 0 Italian Moving from right to left start a p phrase with a constituent containing a lexical head X prepositions don t count copulas and auxiliary verbs are iffy and end it when you hit a constituent containing a lexical head outside of X s maximal projection or the beginning of a sentence Optionally if X s complement forms a non branching ie single word p phrase to the right of X join it into X s p phrase 16 English examples same rule as Italian J ennifer discovered that her attic had been invaded last winter by a family of squirrelsRD The barriers boxed In the crowdgD The sluggers boxed a0n the crowdgD I ve been glossing over this but for every domain NampV label one daughter as metrically strong usu left or rightmost For English the rightmost member of the p phrase is strong When in is the strong element of its p phrase it resists reduction when in is weak with respect to crowd it undergoes Selkirk s Monosyllable Rule that reduces weak monosyllabic function words Restructuring the English Rhythm Rule is p phrase span thirteen me n gt thirteen me n My sister commandeers trucks for fungD or My sister commandeers trucks for fungD My sister connnand ered Harry s truck this morninggD but My sister commandeered Harm s truck this morninggD the fact that Harry is metrically subordinate to truck is perhaps a confound Data like this are subtle enough that we probably don t want to rely on intuition like thisibut the above is the prediction anyway 17 Back to Northern Italian Stress Retraction Sara stata ammazzatagD la viperagD lt sara willhave been killed the adder the adder has probably been killed le cittaz gmolto nordiche non mi piaccionogD ci tta the cities very nordic not me please I don t like very Nordic cities le citta nordiche non mi piaccionogD ci tta the cities nordic not me please I don t like Nordic cities 0 What would this look like with boundary symbols Lexical phonology Praseminar 0n the prosodic ward Fall 2006 Zuraw Class 1 Sept 28 18 Pword domain rule primary stress 0 Rules for p word construction thought to allow little variation and to differ across languages 0 Italian each stem forms its own p word suffixes are included but not prefixes unless fossilized or consonant final we ll reconsider the prefix question when we look at intervocalic s Voicing ltalian primary stress is partly unpredictable but must fall on one of the last three syllables Primary stress can be diagnosed by Vowel Raising 8 o are allowed only in primary stressed syllables stemu t6sta toast stem suffix tosta tore toaster stemu stemu t6sta pane bread toaster toast bread Vowel Lengthening vowels in primary stressed open nonfinal syllables lengthen stemu papero duck stemu prefix is fossilized param trico parametric stem suffix abbaia Va it was barking prefixu stemu para militare paramilitary stemu stemu capo popolo chief Also s Voicing which we ll discuss in detail next week 11 Other jobs of the prosodic hierarchy A Domain of initial strengthening Fougeron amp Keating 19973 see there too for brief literature reView explicitly compares domain initial medial and final positions for utterance intonational phrase p phrase and p word Reiterant speech versions using the syllable no of sentences like 89898989 a lot eightYninem PlusmeightYnine timesm eight ninem p1usmeightYninemgu1pa 10t1pu Linguopalatal contact for n electrodes in electropalate contacted was greater in initial position left side graphs for utterance intonational phrase and phonological phrase though not so much for p word 3 Cecile Fougeron amp Patricia Keating 1997 Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains JASA 101 37283740 Pmmmamn shepmmafx wand Fall 2006 2mm Clan 1 Sept 28 5er w ltw wmgmmmu 70 m mum 3mmquot nd at n Mammy lnghlmlhls mm may mm amquot m m lmma mum van39 71 1 It my WEEWHMMK may a mum a p 3732 a Domain 0mm lengthening HMr n mquot Hpno wmn a 7 m o r lzprwurdbumdm y Azmtumuumlrphmse u my accenmalrphmse boundary u n penur or one groupquot buundary a utterance buundary A Vm w Mm n vmmly ufpmmdxc phrase bumdanes 1m 91 17074717 10 Pmmmamn repmwdw wand Fall 2006 Zumw Clan 1 Sept 28 E m m 1 m m M um mu van mm mm mm m umm mm mm m mum Lia mun My Man mmmlmd dummn vuun m Wk vmkx arm mun n5 o permum boundary Mlhm ml p unal a mlr maqu regwm mm m m m m man mmmmm uf u m mum bum mummy m we Vw nudcmmhthmlwllmgmmz mm m man In x e g um lmdlncnmlwwdnd my lhc uusuesaadvuwd berm mama hm m in quotnew mu m m r Thucrhmimscumwnd umn lznumxmnk lmtmun m n mmmmmmnmnammumhummusmumumm m mum uxmxmul lyuxm unl was plmedwn mu p 1714 Intomm39ort Hm m r 111m h vmdr mquot r accentual phrases n Pharmth domain T h U H MI m n mun phunumcuci ev stamAgenemhzauuns hum Less common as a damn 15 the prwurdv E001 19995 Dutch pruhlbmun an nunrprevucahc ubstruentrhqmd sequencesican39t be a r r m celebrree m tu ueIebmte39 emgrree m tu emxgmte39 5 n w 1 Mn anmlogtcd Wm Amsmxdamthhdejpma yum Eanjamms 11