Vowel length in Icelandic Vowel length in Icelandic compounds and - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Government Phonology Round Table 9 Budapest, 20.04.2013 Vowel length in Icelandic Vowel length in Icelandic compounds and the role of FENs compounds and the role of FENs Marcin Fortuna Marcin Fortuna Ludwig- -Maximilians Maximilians- -Universit Universitä ät M t Mü ünchen nchen Ludwig marcin.fortuna@lipp.lmu.de marcin.fortuna@lipp.lmu.de

The purpose of this paper: � to discuss the phenomenon of ‘post-lexical’ syllabification in Icelandic � to argue for a modified model of Strict CV which eliminates Proper Government � to elaborate on the mechanism of Direct Interface # 2 Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013

Introduction Icelandic: � a language with tonic lengthening � all stressed vowels in open syllables are long: � bú [pu:] ‘farm’ � búa [ ˈ pu:a] ‘to live’ � taka [ ˈ t h a:k h a] ‘to take’ � sötra [ ˈ sø:t h ra] ‘to slurp’ � götva [ ˈ kø:t h va] ‘to discover � word-final consonants are extrametrical � þak [ θ a:k h ] ‘roof’, hús [hu:s] ‘house’, vor [v ɔ :r] ‘spring’ # 3 Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013

� The last group: the object of the present study � CVC words display untypical behaviour when they are the first member of a compound � What can happen with the vowel in a compound? � Intuitively: • If the second member is concatenated analytically, the vowel is lengthened • If the second member is concatenated synthetically, the vowel is in a closed syllable and hence resists lengthening # 4 Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013

� This should be decided by the morphosyntax and be a property of a given morpheme � Morphemes induce spell-out or not � Sometimes: semantic factors play a role (e.g. whether the meaning is compositional) � But… spell-out cannot be melodically conditioned # 5 Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013

� Scheer (2012b, 2013): melody-free syntax � there is some communication between morphosyntax and prosody � morphosyntactic computation cannot make reference to melodic primes � this violates modularity � however… melodic conditioning for spell-out is what Icelandic seems to display # 6 Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013

1) The data Data set #1: CVC words ending in {H}-less segments von [v ɔ :n] ‘hope’ von+legur [ ˈ v ɔ nl ɛɣʏ r] ‘reliable’ von+laus [ ˈ v ɔ nlœ ʏ s] ‘hopeless’ haf [ha:v] ‘ocean’ haf+kola [ ˈ havk ɔ la] ‘sea breeze’ vor [v ɔ :r] ‘spring’ vor+kuldi [ ˈ v ɔ r ̥ k ʏ lt ɪ ] ‘spring chill’ rauður [ ˈ rœ ʏ :ð ʏ r] ‘red’ rauð+leitur [ ˈ rœ ʏ ðl ɛ it h ʏ r] ‘reddish’ # 7 Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013

Data set #2: CVC words ending in segments contaning {H} bak [pa:k h ] ‘back’ bak+poki [ ˈ pa:k h p h ɔ c h i] ‘rucksack’ hvítur [ ˈ k h vi:t h ʏ r] ‘white’ hvít+leitur [ ˈ k h vi:t h l ɛ it h ʏ r] ‘whitish’ brosa [ ˈ pr ɔ :sa] ‘to smile’ bros+legur [ ˈ pr ɔ :sl ɛɣʏ r] ‘smiling’ kátur [ ˈ k h au:t h ʏ r] ‘merry’ kát+legur [ ˈ k h au:t h l ɛɣʏ r] ‘funny’ # 8 Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013

� An empirically adequate generalisation: • If the last consonant of the first member of the compound ends in a fortis plosive or /s/ (=contains {H}), then concatenate the second member analytically • If the last consonant of the first member of the compound is any other consonant (=does not contain {H}), then concatenate the second member synthetically � In other words: spell-out is melodically conditioned � (an unacceptable conclusion) # 9 Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013

2) Interpretations � Árnason (2011): • two versions of the rule of lengthening: lexical and post-lexical • the lexical rule applies: – morpheme-internally – on boundaries with inflectional endings – on boundaries with some derivational morphemes • the post-lexical rule applies: – on boundaries with some other derivational morphemes – in compounds – it may apply between any two adjacent words in a sentence (precise morphosyntactic contexts call for more research) • no attempt of explanation of the post-lexical syllabification algorithm; only a general description # 10 Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013

• older approaches: – Oresnik (1971): compounds may have a # boundary - explains the behaviour of clusters with {H} but not of the other group – Gussmann (1985: 90): - individual morphemes come with a given type of boundary - compounds have #, later: boundary weakening after voiced consonants – Booij (1986: 14) transforms this rule into the one which merges two phonological words into one when the first one ends in a voiced consonant # 11 Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013

3) Gussmann’s SGP account � Gussmann (2002, 2006b): a syllabification algorithm which makes use of empty nuclei (SGP) � Regularity: • stressed rhymes always need to branch • aspirated plosives can never be syllabified in the coda • therefore they land in the onset and the preceding nucleus branches # 12 Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013

� rauð+leitur [ ˈ rœ ʏ ðl ɛ it h ʏ r] ‘reddish’ • [ð] can be syllabified in the coda # 13 Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013

� hvít+leitur [ ˈ k h vi:t h l ɛ it h ʏ r] ‘whitish’ • [t h ] cannot be syllabified in the coda; it lands in the onset; the preceding nucleus branches # 14 Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013

� „Within the syllabic approach we need to say nothing in addition to what has already been established, namely that aspirated plosives canonly appear in the onset. When this principle is followed, it is obvious that the preceding syllable is open and its nucleus has to branch. No separate generalisations for simplex and complex words are necessary.” (2002: 183) � Gussmann tries to be as representational as possible � His proposal works only because he refers to surface aspirated plosives! # 15 Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013

� There are also underlying fortis plosives in the preconsonantal position � On the surface they behave differently when the cluster is domain-internal and when it is an effect of concatenation � Across a (strong) morpheme boundary: • /Vt h +l/ > [V:t h l] (lengthening, post-aspirated plosive) • /k h vit h / + /l ɛ it h ʏ r/ → [ ˈ k h vi:t h l ɛ it h ʏ r] � Morpheme-internally/across a weak boundary: • /Vt h l/ > [Vhtl] (no lengthening, preaspiration) • ætla ‘intend’ /ait h la/ → [ ˈ aihtla] # 16 Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013

� If Gussmann’s (2002) syllabification algorithm operated blindly (on underlying plosives), it would not distinguish between hvítleitur and ætla � Gussmann fails to recognize the importance of the morpheme boundary in syllabification � A syllabification algorithm which does not consider the boundary makes a wrong prediction! # 17 Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013

� A similar problem: the syllabification of /s/ � Gussmann (2002: 187-193) calls it a ‘double agent’ � it sometimes syllabifies as a coda, sometimes as an onset � no attempt of explanation which way is preferred when � Actually: • coda morpheme-internally: taska [ ˈ t h aska] ‘bag’, veisla [ ˈ veisla] ‘party’ • onset on the boundary: bros+gjarn [ ˈ pro:scartn ̥ ] ‘funny’, bros+legur [ ˈ pr ɔ :sl ɛɣʏ r] ‘smiling’ # 18 Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013

� Acc. to Scheer (2012a: 145): SGP has never had a way to represent morpheme/word boundary � neither syllabic arborescence nor skeleton qualify � this fact is evident from the Icelandic data! � they are insolvable with SGP tools # 19 Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013

� How much can Direct Interface (Scheer 2012a) help us? � Morpheme boundaries materialise themselves in the representation as empty syllabic space � This may be easily made responsible for the length phenomena in Icelandic compounds � The presence of an empty CV assures that the FEN of the first member is ungoverned, hence it may licence the preceding nucleus # 20 Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013

# 21 Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013

� Advantages: • the role of the morpheme boundary is recognised • it materialises itself as a truly phonological object � Disadvantages: • the motivation for translating the boundary into an empty CV is still unclear • it still appears to be dependent on melody # 22 Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013

� Comparison: • Gussmann’s syllabification algorithm correctly recognizes the importance of melody, but does not consider the role of boundaries • Direct Interface: provides a way to represent the morpheme boundary, but it is a mystery how melody can be a trigger for translation � A successful account of the phenomenon should be able to consider both melody and boundary information – it is clear that both play a role! # 23 Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013