Fortuna 2013 Vowel length in Icelandic compounds and the ... · SGP account Gussmann (2002, 2006b): a syllabification algorithm which makes use of empty nuclei (SGP) Regularity: •

Vowel length in Icelandic Vowel length in Icelandic compounds and the role of FENscompounds and the role of FENs

Marcin FortunaMarcin Fortuna

LudwigLudwig--MaximiliansMaximilians--UniversitUniversitäät Mt Müünchennchen

[email protected]@lipp.lmu.de

Government Phonology Round Table 9 Budapest, 20.04.2013

# 2Government Phonology Round Table 9, Budapest, 20 April 2013

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


Introduction

Icelandic:� a language with tonic lengthening

� all stressed vowels in open syllables are long:�bú [pu:] ‘farm’�búa [ˈpu:a] ‘to live’�taka [ˈtha:kha] ‘to take’�sötra [ˈsø:thra] ‘to slurp’�götva [ˈkø:thva] ‘to discover

� word-final consonants are extrametrical�þak [θa:kh] ‘roof’, hús [hu:s] ‘house’, vor [vɔ:r] ‘spring’


� 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


� 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


� 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


1) The data

Data set #1: CVC words ending in {H}-less segments

von [vɔ:n] ‘hope’ von+legur [ˈvɔnlɛɣʏr] ‘reliable’von+laus [ˈvɔnlœʏs] ‘hopeless’

haf [ha:v] ‘ocean’ haf+kola [ˈhavkɔla] ‘sea breeze’

vor [vɔ:r] ‘spring’ vor+kuldi [ˈvɔr ̥kʏltɪ] ‘spring chill’

rauður [ˈrœʏ:ðʏr] ‘red’ rauð+leitur [ˈrœʏðlɛithʏr] ‘reddish’


Data set #2: CVC words ending in segments contaning {H}

bak [pa:kh] ‘back’ bak+poki [ˈpa:khphɔchi] ‘rucksack’

hvítur [ˈkhvi:thʏr] ‘white’ hvít+leitur [ˈkhvi:thlɛithʏr] ‘whitish’

brosa [ˈprɔ:sa] ‘to smile’ bros+legur [ˈprɔ:slɛɣʏr] ‘smiling’

kátur [ˈkhau:thʏr] ‘merry’ kát+legur [ˈkhau:thlɛɣʏr] ‘funny’


� 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)


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


• 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


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


� rauð+leitur [ˈrœʏðlɛithʏr] ‘reddish’

• [ð] can be syllabified in the coda


� hvít+leitur [ˈkhvi:thlɛithʏr] ‘whitish’

• [th] cannot be syllabified in the coda; it lands in the onset; the

preceding nucleus branches


� „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 syllableis 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!


� 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:

• /Vth+l/ > [V:thl] (lengthening, post-aspirated plosive)

• /khvith/ + /lɛithʏr/ → [ˈkhvi:thlɛithʏr]

� Morpheme-internally/across a weak boundary:

• /Vthl/ > [Vhtl] (no lengthening, preaspiration)

• ætla ‘intend’ /aithla/ → [ˈaihtla]


� 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!


� 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 [ˈthaska] ‘bag’, veisla [ˈveisla]

‘party’

• onset on the boundary: bros+gjarn [ˈpro:scartn̥] ‘funny’,

bros+legur [ˈprɔ:slɛɣʏr] ‘smiling’


� 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


� 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



� 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


� 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!


The point of departure:� phonology cannot manipulate boundaries

• therefore Gussmann (1985) and Booij (1986) are unacceptable

• boundaries are provided by morphosyntax

� rauð+leitur [ˈrœʏðlɛithʏr] ‘reddish’ and hvít+leitur[ˈkhvi:thlɛithʏr] ‘whitish’ must have the same kind of boundary

� there must be a phonological reason why the vowel is lengthened in one case but not the other

� the necessity of some kind of syllabification algorithm, which takes the boundary into account


� The present proposal:

• couched within a modified model of Strict CV (introduced in

Fortuna 2013ab), which eliminates Proper Government and

heavily enhances the role of licensing

• a blend of Strict CV with Cyran’s CSL + a few innovations

• clusters are established via Leftward and Rightward Interonset

Government

• both relations belong to computation, which invariably operates

right to left (=a kind of syllabification algorithm)

• both possible only when the consonant is Government-Licensed

by a nucleus


• Rightward Interonset Government – corresponds to branching

onsets (steep TR clusters) and replaces Infrasegmental

Government

• Leftward Interonset Government: can be established in all other

clusters: RT, RR, TT, flat TR (in Strict CV with a nucleus silenced

by PG)

• SGP and CSL three-way distinction (branching onsets vs. coda-

onsets clusters vs. bogus clusters) eliminated – in terms of

phonological behaviour there are only two types of clusters,

branching onsets vs. other


• all nuclei license both preceding onsets and preceding nuclei

• nuclei enclosed within LIO lose their licensing abilities

• hence, nuclei before LIO domains (=in closed syllables) end up

unlicensed

• this is responsible for closed vs. open syllable effects

• the presence of licensing is assumed to be a prerequisite for

vowel lengthening


• Direct Interface needs to be adjusted to the Icelandic data

• the output of translation is not empty syllabic space!

• Translator’s Office manipulates Final Empty Nuclei; it may choose

to flag a FEN as a ‘true FEN’

• if it doesn’t, the concatenation is synthetic (‘weak boundary’):

– both types of IO can be established across the cluster arising on a boundary

– the cluster behaves exactly like a morpheme-internal cluster

• if it does, the concatenation is analytic (‘strong boundary’):

– the FEN after the first morpheme becomes a true ‘FEN’ and may block IO (To what extent? It’s language-specific!)


• LIO per definitionem can be established in all clusters which are

not the domain of RIO (regardless of sonority slopes and other

factors), but there are language-specific deviations

� Icelandic compounds:

• all of the examples are concatenated analytically

• so: FEN is a ‘true FEN’

• RIO is impossible across a true FEN

• LIO is possible across a true FEN only if the governee is not too

complex


�[ð] is easily governable within LIO both across a ‘normal’empty nucleus and a FEN

�It is of small complexity, so even FEN cannot save it

�Hence, FEN is governed and cannot license the preceding nucleus


� but… [th] guarded by a FEN is too difficult a target for the following consonant to establish LIO across

�therefore, FEN is ungoverned and may license the preceding nucleus

�[th] is ungoverned itself and may be postaspirated


� However, morpheme-internally LIO can always be established, no matter what consonant is the governee

� fortis plosives always undergo some kind of lenition when governed:

• preaspiration: /thth/ > [ht]

• spirantisation: /phth/ > [ft]

• deaspiration ~ spirantisation: /phs/ > [ps] ~ [fs]

� the second consonant enforces LIO, therefore it leads to melodic depletion of its target


� also /s/ (containing {H}) is governable morpheme-internally, but not across a FEN

� the patterning of /s/ with fortis plosives poses an important question: is it the matter of complexity calculus, or just the presence of {H}?

� both statements seem to work� other fricatives pattern with sonorants; probably they don’t

contain {H}� /s/ is problematic in very many ways

� the question will be left open


Conclusion

� The paper provided an alternative way of handling post-lexical syllabification in Icelandic: a process which appears to violate modularity

� It was demonstrated that it is necessary to take into account communication between melodies: an argument against anti-melodism

� An alternative application of Direct Interface was proposed: if the Translator’s Office can upgrade the FENs and there is LIO (instead of Proper Government), it’s possible to explain why Icelandic compounds appear to contain sometimes one, sometimes two domains


Addendum: arguments for the model

� The presented model of phonology openly takes issues with anti-melodism present in Strict CV

� argument for anti-melodism: there are languages in which there are no restrictions on possible consonant clusters (e.g. Moroccan Arabic – Scheer 2004: 459-467)

� this can be incorporated within the present model: Moroccan Arabic chooses not to place restrictions on consonants involved in LIO – anything can govern anything

� but other languages do choose it!� the existence of more specific phonotactic restrictions is

inexpressible in models with Proper Government


� for instance:

• coronals at word edges in English and German: Herbst, Arzt

• super-heavy rhymes in English involve only coronal clusters

• vowel ~ zero alternations which function differently in different

melodic configurations of neighbouring consonants (Scandinavian

languages – Fortuna 2013ab)

� these phenomena become much easier to explain when the responsibility for establishing clusters is shifted to consonants themselves


� parametric choices include:• is there LIO or not?

– if YES: what can govern what?

• is there RIO or not? (the existence of RIO presupposes the existence of LIO! – 2010)

– if YES: what can govern what?

• what is the influence of LIO or RIO on the intervening nucleus?– default: LIO deprives the nucleus of licensing abilities, RIO does

not– there may be language-specific deviations, may involve specific

melodic primes!– ideally: the whole phonotactics of any language should be

definable with these means– Probably a more elaborated theory of melodic primes is

necessary


Bibliography

Árnason, Kristján. 2011. The Phonology of Icelandic and Faroese. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Charette, Monik. 1990. Licence to govern. Phonology 7: 233-253.Booij, Geert. 1986. Icelandic vowel lengthening and prosodic phonology. In F.

Beukema & A. Hulk (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1986, 9-18. Dordrecht: Foris.

Cyran, Eugeniusz. 2010. Complexity Scales and Licensing in Phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Fortuna, Marcin. 2013a. Icelandic and Faroese tonic lengthening in CV phonology: towards an alternative account. Paper presented at the ConSOLE XXI, Potsdam, 9-11 January.

Fortuna, Marcin. 2013b. Why Icelandic and Faroese tonic lengthening is not a lengthening. Paper presented at the Old World Conference in Phonology 10, Istanbul, 16-19 January.

Gussmann, Edmund. 1985. The Morphology of a Phonological Rule: Icelandic Vowel Length. In: Gussmann, Edmund (ed.), Phono-Morphology. Lublin: RW KUL, 75-94.

Gussmann, Edmund. 2002. Phonology: Analysis and Theory. Cambridge: CUP.


Gussmann, Edmund. 2006a. Icelandic vowel length and governing relations in phonology. Lingua Posnaniensis XLVIII, 21-41.

Gussmann, Edmund. 2006b. Icelandic and Universal Phonology. Greifswald: Ernst-Moritz-Arndt Universität Greifswald.

Kiparsky, Paul. 1985. On the lexical phonology of Icelandic. In: Elert, C., I. Johansson, E. Strangert (eds.), Nordic Prosody III. Stockholm: University of Umeå.

Oresnik, Janez. 1971. On the phonological boundary between constituents of Modern Icelandic compound words. Linguistica 11: 51-59.

Scheer, Tobias. 2004. A Lateral Theory of Phonology. Volume I: What Is CVCV, and Why Should It Be? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Scheer, Tobias. 2012a. Direct Interface and One-Channel Translation. A non-diacritic theory of morphosyntax-phonology interface. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Scheer, Tobias. 2012b. Melody-free syntax and two Phonologies. Paper presented at the 10th Colloque du Réseau Phonologique Français (RFP), Paris, 25-27 June.

Scheer, Tobias. 2013. Melody-free syntax. Paper presented at the Workshop on complexity at UQAM, Montreal, 8 February.


Takk fyrir!Thank you!

Documents

Fortuna 2013 Vowel length in Icelandic compounds and the ... · SGP account Gussmann (2002, 2006b): a syllabification algorithm which makes use of empty nuclei (SGP) Regularity: •