The colon as a separate prosodic category: Tonal evidence from Paic - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

The colon as a separate prosodic category: Tonal evidence from Paicî (Oceanic, New Caledonia)

Florian Lionnet flionnet@princeton.edu

Princeton University

WCCFL 36, UCLA, 20-22 April 2018

1 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

Introduction

Prosodic Hierarchy (PH, up to Prosodic Word): Prosodic Word (ω) [{(σσ)Ft(σσ)Ft}κ]ω | Foot (Ft) (σσ)Ft(σσ)Ft | Syllable (σ) σσσσ | Mora (µ)

2 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

PH + Colon = Constituent made of two feet: {Ft + Ft}κ [Stowell 1979; Halle and Clements 1983: 18-19; Hammond 1987; Hayes 1995: 119; Green 1997; a.o.] Prosodic Word (ω) [{(σσ)Ft(σσ)Ft}κ]ω | Colon (κ) {(σσ)Ft(σσ)Ft}κ | Foot (Ft) (σσ)Ft(σσ)Ft | Syllable (σ) σσσσ | Mora (µ)

3 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

Justifjcation for the colon (κ): mostly tertiary stress. “It is clear that in order to derive four levels of stress (primary, secondary, tertiary, unstressed), four levels of structure (prosodic word, colon, foot, syllable) are called for.” (Green 1997: 102) Example: Hungarian [Hammond 1987] Pr.Word: [x ] Colon: {x }{x } Foot: (x .)(x .)(x .)(x ) kíʃ.kuːn.fèː.lɛɟ.hâː.zaː.bɔ̀n ‘in Kiskúnfélegyháza’

4 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

Colon-based analysis proposed for a dozen languages so far:

Passamaquoddy [Stowell 1979; Hayes 1995: 215-216; Green 1997: 104-109] Tiberian Hebrew [Dresher 1981] Garawa [Halle and Clements 1983: 20-21; Halle and Vergnaud 1987: 43; Hayes 1995: 202] Hungarian [Hammond 1987; Hayes 1995: 330; Green 1997: 102-104] Maithili [Hayes 1995: 149-162] Eastern Ojibwa [Hayes 1995: 216-218; Green 1997: 109-112] Asheninca [Hayes 1995: 288-296; Green 1997: 112-114] Neo-Štokavian (Serbo-Croatian) [Green 1997: 115, 116] 3 Goidelic varieties [Green 1997: 120-133]

5 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

The colon is controversial:

Unnecessary in Garawa and Maithili [Green 1997: 116-120] Empirical evidence contested in at least two cases:

Passamaquoddy [LeSourd 1993] Hungarian [Siptár and Törkenczy 2000: 21-22]

In general tertiary stress is controversial

Thus rejected by most recent metrical theories:

either implicitly [Elenbaas and Kager 1999; Hyde 2002]

• r explicitly [Martínez-Paricio 2012, 2013;

Martínez-Paricio and Kager 2015, 2016].

6 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

In this paper: Claim: we need to include the colon in the PH. Evidence: tonal processes, including an unusual downstep pattern, attested in Paicî (Oceanic, New Caledonia). This is the fjrst piece of tonal evidence in favor of the colon.

7 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

Road map:

1

Downstep in Paicî

2

Colon-based Analysis

3

Evaluating the colon analysis and alternatives

4

Conclusion

8 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

• 1. Downstep in Paicî

9 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

Paicî

Oceanic, New Caledonia, tonal All data from Jean-Claude Rivierre’s research [Rivierre 1974, 1983; Bensa and Rivierre 1994] Data confjrmed in Dec. 2017 in Tchamba (NC) with native speaker Hélène Nimbaye

10 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

Paicî: tonal inventory

Two contrastive tones: H vs. L Rivierre Reanalysis H H M L L ꜜL TBU: mora Most lexical items are monotonal, i.e. either all H or all L. Monomorphemic lexical items are rarely longer than 5µ.

11 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

Tonal processes

H tones are stable, not afgected by any tonal processes L tones are targeted by two tonal processes:

Downstep (H-spread, as we will see later)

12 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

Paicî: Downstep

1 ∼ 3µ words: no downstep µ̀: ù

‘breath’

pwʌ̰̀

‘turtle’

µ̀µ̀: nèè

‘name’

cʌ̰̀mì

‘to plant’

µ̀µ̀µ̀: pwààì

‘tree sp.’

ùdʌ̀rɨ̀

‘to disjoin’

4µ+ words: downstep after 2nd mora: µ̀µ̀ꜜµ̀µ̀: àùꜜkɔ̀ɔ̀

▲

)

)

)

‘cagou’

pʌ̀ɟàꜜɟìì

‘molar tooth’

µ̀µ̀ꜜµ̀µ̀µ̀: ɛ̀àꜜàràbwà

‘crab sp.’

pwèrèꜜtɔ̀ɔ̀tɨ̀

▲

)

)

)

‘wind’

13 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

Paicî: Downstep

Lower register is then maintained throughout the utterance: /è tèàpàà nà̰à̰ cá̰bà/ [e³ te³a³pa¹a¹ na̰¹a̰¹ ca̰³ba¹]

▲

)

)

)

(s)he arrive at Tchamba

⇓ [è tèàꜜpàà nà̰à̰ cá̰bà]

14 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

Paicî: Downstep

Questions to solve:

Why downstep after 2nd mora?

= initial bimoraic foot (µ̀µ̀)

Why no downstep after 2nd mora in 2 ∼ 3µ words, i.e. why does there need to be at least 4µ?

15 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

• 2. Analysis

16 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

Hypothesis 1: foot-based

Hypothesis 1a: Downstep after initial L-toned bimoraic foot Does not work: Prediction Facts 1µ: µ̀ µ̀ pwʌ̰̀ ! 2µ: (µ̀µ̀)ꜜ µ̀µ̀ cʌ̰̀mì * 3µ: (µ̀µ̀)ꜜµ̀ µ̀µ̀µ̀ ùdʌ̀rɨ̀ * 4µ: (µ̀µ̀)ꜜ(µ̀µ̀) µ̀µ̀ꜜµ̀µ̀ pʌ̀ɟàꜜɟìì !

17 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

Hypothesis 1: foot-based

Hypothesis 1b: Downstep between fjrst two L-toned bimoraic feet (OCP) Works with data presented so far: Prediction Facts 1µ: µ̀ µ̀ pwʌ̰̀ ! 2µ: (µ̀µ̀) µ̀µ̀ cʌ̰̀mì ! 3µ: (µ̀µ̀)µ̀ µ̀µ̀µ̀ ùdʌ̀rɨ̀ ! 4µ: (µ̀µ̀)ꜜ(µ̀µ̀) µ̀µ̀ꜜµ̀µ̀ pʌ̀ɟàꜜɟìì ! So far: no need for colon

18 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

Problem: Juncture H-spread

Head+Complement phrases

Genitive Aspect + Verb (a.o.) Derivational pfx + Verb/Noun

Cv̀ head + L-toned complement: Cv̀+LL... → Cv̀+HL... H-tone morpheme between Hd and Cp, realized on Cp. /rʌ̀ wà̰dò/ → [rʌ̀ wà̰dò]

▲

)

)

)

they drink

‘They drink.” /rʌ̀ pì- +H+ wà̰dò/ → [rʌ̀ pì-wá̰dò]

▲

)

)

)

they mid- drink

‘They are getting drunk.”

19 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

Problem: Juncture H-spread

1 ∼ 3µ: L→H only afgects initial µ 1µ /pì-+H+cɔ̀/ [pì-cɔ́] ‘move forward’ 2µ /pì-+H+wà̰dò/ [pì-wá̰dò]

▲

)

)

)

‘get drunk’ 3µ /pì-+H+tʌ̀mʌ̰̀rḭ̀/ [pì-tʌ́mʌ̰̀rḭ̀] ‘give birth’ 4µ+: L→H only afgects fjrst two µ 4µ /pì-+H+nʌ̰̀ɟàìrì/ [pì-(nʌ̰́ɟá)ìrì] ‘to curse’ /pì-+H+tɔ̰̀ɔ̰̀wà̰rḭ̀/ [pì-(tɔ̰́ɔ̰́)wà̰rḭ̀]

▲

)

)

)

‘reimburse’ Conclusion: Juncture-H spreads within foot: *(HL) → (HH)

20 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

Problem: Juncture H-spread

Hypothesis 1 (foot-based): wrong predictions Prediction Facts H+1µ̀: µ́ µ́ pì-cɔ́ ! H+2µ̀: (µ́µ́) µ́µ̀ pì-wá̰dò * H+3µ̀: (µ́µ́)µ̀ µ́µ̀µ̀ pì-tʌ́mʌ̰̀rḭ̀ * H+ 4µ̀: (µ́µ́)(µ̀µ̀) µ́µ́µ̀µ̀ pì-tɔ̰́ɔ̰́wà̰rḭ̀ ! Conclusion:

There is no foot parsing in 1 ∼ 3µ words: Foot parsing requires at least 4µ, i.e. at least two feet.

21 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

Analysis (2): colon-based

Solution: Foot parsed only if dominated by a colon: ∗κ ∗Ft Ft 2 ∼ 3µ̀: *( µ̀ µ̀ ) µ̀ κ Ft Ft 4µ̀+: {( µ̀ µ̀ ) ( µ̀ µ̀ )}

22 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

Analysis (2): colon-based

Fully accounts for downstep AND Juncture H-spread: Prediction Facts H+1µ̀: µ́ µ́ pì-cɔ́ ! H+2µ̀: µ́µ́ µ́µ̀ pì-wá̰dò ! H+3µ̀: µ́µ́µ̀ µ́µ̀µ̀ pì-tʌ́mʌ̰̀rḭ̀ ! H+ 4µ̀: {(µ́µ́)(µ̀µ̀)} µ́µ́µ̀µ̀ pì-tɔ̰́ɔ̰́wà̰rḭ̀ !

23 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

OT account

*Ft ̸⊂ κ: penalizes any foot that is not licensed by a colon *LFtLFt: two adjacent feet cannot both be L (= OCP)

24 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

OT account

25 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

OT account

26 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

• 3. Evaluation and alternatives

27 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

Potential weaknesses

Weakness 1: Why make use of the colon if words are at most 5 ∼ 6µ long? Actually: PrWd = lexical item + all following tonal enclitics (functional words)

28 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

/tɔ́pwɔ́ =boo =na̰a̰ =wee/ → [tɔ́pwɔ́ =bóó =ná̰á̰ =wéé]ω

put down at there

/gèè =mḛ =na̰a̰ =nḭ =boo/ → [{(gèè) =ꜜ(mḛ̀ =nà̰)}à̰ =nḭ̀ =bòò]ω

cross to.here at here down

However: downstep limited to one per PrWd: → *[{(gèè) =ꜜ(mḛ̀ =nà̰)} {(à̰ =nḭ̀) =ꜜ(bòò)}]ω

29 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

Potential weaknesses

Weakness 2: The colon is used only as a licensor

It is not targeted by any process It does not itself directly trigger any process

Addition of a new prosodic category for very little work...

30 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

Alternative 1: Binary Foot + extrametricality

Alternative 1a:

Downstep after initial L-toned bimoraic foot (µ̀µ̀)ꜜ Last two µ are extrametrical

Prediction Facts 1µ̀: ⟨µ̀⟩ µ̀ pwʌ̰̀ ! 2µ̀: ⟨µ̀⟩⟨µ̀⟩ µ̀µ̀ cʌ̰̀mì ! 3µ̀: µ̀⟨µ̀⟩⟨µ̀⟩ µ̀µ̀µ̀ ùdʌ̀rɨ̀ ! 4µ̀: (µ̀µ̀)ꜜ⟨µ̀⟩⟨µ̀⟩ µ̀µ̀ꜜµ̀µ̀ pʌ̀ɟàꜜɟìì ! Problem: only ONE extrametrical prosodic category allowed at the edge of a posodic domain

31 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

Alternative 1: Binary Foot + extrametricality

Alternative 1b:

Downstep after initial L-toned bimoraic foot (µ̀µ̀)ꜜ Last Foot is extrametrical

Prediction Facts 1µ̀: ⟨µ̀⟩ µ̀ pwʌ̰̀ ! 2µ̀: ⟨µ̀µ̀⟩ µ̀µ̀ cʌ̰̀mì ! 3µ̀: µ̀⟨µ̀µ̀⟩ µ̀µ̀µ̀ ùdʌ̀rɨ̀ ! 4µ̀: (µ̀µ̀)ꜜ⟨µ̀µ̀⟩ µ̀µ̀ꜜµ̀µ̀ pʌ̀ɟàꜜɟìì !

32 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

Alternative 1: Binary Foot + extrametricality

Problem: contradiction!

Downstep is triggered by a bimoraic foot What we need extrametricality for: prevent the last two morae from being parsed into a foot (which would feed downstep) This is not extrametricality!

33 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

Alternative 1: Binary Foot + extrametricality

Rescue attempt:

fjnal foot is not extrametrical but simply stipulated not to count for the application of downstep

Still problematic: Implies existence of two difgerent kinds

• f feet, parsed at two difgerent edges of the PrWd:

word-fjnal foot (inert) word-initial foot (causes downstep)

34 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

Alternative 1: Binary Foot + extrametricality

Conclusion: Foot+extrametricality analysis is

more stipulative unnecessarily complicated explanatorily weak

35 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

Alternative 2: Recursive Foot parsing

The relevant consitutent is not a separate category, but a type of foot = superfoot (aka “layered foot”) Recursive foot-parsing: µµµ → (µµ)Ftµ → ((µµ)Ftµ)Ft [Selkirk 1980; Prince 1980; McCarthy 1982; Shih 1986; Martínez-Paricio 2012, 2013; Martínez-Paricio and Kager 2015, 2016, a.o.] Slight disadvantage: violates the Strict Layer Hypothesis Advantage: does not add a new category.

36 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

Alternative 2: Recursive Foot parsing

Prosodic Word (ω) [((σσ)Ft σ)Ft]ω | Superfoot ((σσ)Ft σ)Ft Foot (Ft) | Foot (σσ)Ft σ Syllable (σ) σσσ | Mora (µ)

37 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

Alternative 2: Recursive Foot parsing

Paicî downstep: double recursion µ̀µ̀µ̀µ̀ → (µ̀µ̀)µ̀µ̀ → ((µ̀µ̀)µ̀)µ̀ → (((µ̀µ̀)µ̀)µ̀) ⇓ (((µ̀µ̀)ꜜµ̀)µ̀) What is the generalization? Downstep occurs between a foot and the next mora within the same superfoot, only if it is followed by another mora parsed within that same superfoot?

Unrestricted No evidence for the intermediate iteration (fjrst recursion) Stipulative Unexplanatory

38 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

Conclusion

39 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

Conclusion

Disadvantages of the colon analysis:

Adds a new category in the Prosodic Hierarchy The colon does very little work in Paicî

Advantages:

Both descriptively and explanatorily adequate Restrictive: parsing can only be conditional on the presence of at most one adjacent foot. Beats all the alternatives (proposed so far)

Paicî might be the most solid argument to date in favor of the colon

40 / 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction Paicî Colon-based Analysis Alternatives Conclusion

THANK YOU!

Special thanks to Hélène Nimbaye: olé! (References upon request)

41 / 41