Suprasegmental Phonology: Length - Doreen Georgi Phonology: Length ... L òkù-tòkà ‘be enraged’ òkù-kòk:à ‘ask riddles ... Ilokano: /bagi-en/ ! [bag:jen]

Suprasegmental Phonology: Length(P�� III)

Propädeutikum: Theoretical Linguistics

SS 2014, Eva Zimmermann

Propädeutikum: Theoretical Linguistics Length (PIII) 1 / 52

�estion

What do phonological processes tell us about the representations ofsegments?

⌅ What is the representational di�erence between a long and a shortsegment?

⌅ Why can some processes a�ect more than one ‘segment’?


Phonological length

Phonological length


Phonological length

Long vs. short segments

(1) Minimal pairs in Guajiro (Alvarez 2005)kena: ‘firefly’ ke:na: ‘spill’ajata: ‘stay the same’ aja:ta: ‘travel for goods’aÙita: ‘hit’ aÙi:ta: ‘defecate’

(2) Minimal pairs in Japanese (Davis 2011, Olsen)saka ‘hill’ sak:a ‘author’neko ‘cat’ nek:o ‘root’mama ‘mother’ mam:a ‘baby food’bata: ‘bu�er’ bat:a: ‘ba�er’


Phonological length

Length as a phonological category, not necessarily a phoneticallymeasurable e�ect

⌅ pre-voiced length:

(3) English minimal pairsbead beat[bi:d] [bit]

bid bit[bI:d] [bIt]

⌅ length ⇠ tenseness⌅ length and stress


Phonological length Representation of length?

Representation of length?



Long vs. short segments

Ÿ How to represent such a distinction?

(4)

as a feature number of segments number of timingelements

•[–long] •[+long] • •••

x

•

x x

short long short long short long

Ÿ 1 segment Ÿ 2 segments Ÿ 1 segment, 2 supra-segmental entities



X: ⇠ XX 6= XSchein& Steriade 1986, Hayes 1986, Odden 1988+2011, Davis 2011

Ÿ problems for a featural [±long] distinction

⌅ LithuanianV: and diphtongs carry contour tones; V level tones H or L/vaikas/ ‘child’ & /mati:s/ ‘he will see’ but /dúri:s/ ‘door’ & */duri:s/

⌅ Southern Paiutedevoicing of one half of a V:manÙáa

˚qàa

˚‘he hold out one’s hand’

⌅ Hungarianfinal cluster and geminates followed by a C-su�ix: epenthesis/önt-s/! [öntes] ‘you pour’ and /fyg:-s/! [fyg:es] but /kap-s/! [kaps] ‘you receive’



XX 6= X:Schein& Steriade 1986, Hayes 1986, Odden 1988+2011, Davis 2011

Ÿ problems for a two-segmental representation

⌅ West Greenlandiclowering before uvulars a�ects whole V:/aluq/! [aloq] ‘sole’ and /pu:q/! [po:q] ‘bag’

⌅ Ghayl Bawazir Arabicword-final clusters are avoided, word-final geminates not/gird/! [girid] ‘monkey’ and /rab:/ ! [rab:] ‘lord’

⌅ Persianv!w weakening never applies to geminate/novru:z/ ! [nowru:z] ‘new year’ but /morov:æt/! [morov:æt] ‘generosity’



Conclusion

Ÿ not one representation for one language/type of long segment


One suprasegmental theory for length: Moras




� theory

⌅ �’s indicate s weight and segmental length

⌅ light s = 1 �, heavy s = 2 �’s

⌅ many languages have a 2-�-maximum for a s

⌅ V’s must be dominated by at least one �:long V are dominated by two �’s, short V’s by one �



One � model of the sHall 2000

(5)short vowel long vowel geminates

�

k O

s

� �

d i

s s

� � �

f a t 5

moraic coda non-moraic codas

� �

t I k

s

�

t I k

(language-specific)



Another � model of the s(Broselow et al. 1997, Bermúdez-Otero 2001)

(6)short vowel long vowel geminates

�

k O

s

� �

d i

s s

� � �

f a t 5

moraic coda non-moraic codas

� �

t I k

s

�

t I k

(language-specific)

Ÿ all rime segments are dominated by a �Propädeutikum: Theoretical Linguistics Length (PIII) 14 / 52


Weightless geminates (Tranel 1991, Broselow et al. 1997, Bermúdez-Otero 2001)

Ÿ this model allows a distinction:

(7) weight-less G. weight-contributing G.s s

� �

f a t 5

s s

� � �

f a t 5

⌅ evidence for weight-less geminates (Tranel 1991)

– Selkup has a quantity-sensitive stress system and counts CVC as lighteven if the coda is the first half of a geminate (also: Malayam)

– in Tübatulabal V’s become long if they are non-adjacent to a heavysyllable: again, CVCGem counts as light



Weight by position (Rosenthall&Hulst 1999,Zec 1995+2011)

⌅ a language-specific choice whether coda consonants contribute to theweight of the s (=moraic) or not

⌅ it is context-dependent in some languages⌅ not all coda consonant behave the same with respect to WbP: thesegment quality is relevant



Weight by position and consonant quality (Zec 1995)

1. all CVC s’s are heavy (Latin, Arabic dialects, Koya,. . . )2. all CVC s’s are light (Khalka Mongolian, Lardil,. . . )3. some CVC s’s are light, some are heavy (Lithuanian,

Kwakwala,. . . )



Lithuanian syllable weight (Zec 1995)

⌅ the ‘circumflex accent’ (rising tone) only appears on s’s with a long Vor a sonorant coda

(8) Circumflex accentCV: viina ‘wine’ peilis ‘knife’CVL garsas ‘sound’ balsas ‘voice’CVN Siñtas ‘hundred’ lañkas ‘rainbow’

⌅ long V’s shorten before a sonorant coda (‘Ostho�’s law’)

(9) s inventoryCV CV:CVO CV:OCVS *CV:S

Ÿ Sonorant are moraic in coda position, obstruents arenot



Weight by position (Rosenthall&Hulst 1999, Moren 2003)

(10) *�/C��Assign a violation mark for every moraic coda.*A��Assign a violation mark for every nonmoraic syllable appendix.

(11) *M��[O��]� *M��[S��]



Arguments for � theory

⌅ s weight and stress⌅ �’s as TBU’s⌅ phonetic correlate⌅ compensatory lengthening


One suprasegmental theory for length: Moras s weight and stress

s weight and stress



s weight and stress: Latin

(12) Stress (for words of minimally 3 s’s)

a.i.ni.mí:.kus ‘enemy’re:k.sís.tis ‘You reigned’

b.í:n.su.la ‘island’fá.bu.la ‘li�le bean’

Ÿ Stress penult if heavyŸ Else stress antepenult

(13) s’s in Latina. Heavy: CVC, CV:b. Light: CV



sWeight in � theory

⌅ a heavy s has two �’s, a light one � (a superheavy 3 �’s)⌅ a s with a long vowel cannever be light

(14) Stress systems and weight (Zec 2011)Heavy LightCV:, CVC CV LatinCV: CV, CVC MongolianCVC CV, CV: —


One suprasegmental theory for length: Moras �’s as TBU’s

�’s as TBU’s


One suprasegmental theory for length: Moras �’s as TBU’s

�’s as TBU’s

Ÿ prediction from moraic model of the syllable: languages where onlyheavy s’s can bear a ‘contour’ tone (1 � =1 tone)

(15) Tone in Luganda (Paster&Dutcher 2008)

CV CVTL òkù-tòkà ‘be enraged’ òkù-kòk:à ‘ask riddles’H òkù-kókà ‘clean out’ –HL – ! òkù-côp:à ‘become poor’

CVD CV:L òkù-kòg:à ‘get thin’ òkù-kò:tà ‘choke’H – –HL òkù-bôb:à ‘throb’ òkù-kóò:kà ‘cry’


One suprasegmental theory for length: Moras Phonetic evidence

Phonetic evidence



Phonetic evidence (Broselow et al. 1997)

Ÿ segments that share a � with another segment are phoneticallyshorter than segments dominated by their own �.

(16) Hindi: weight-contributing codass

� �

C V C

s

� � �

C V C

(17) Malayalam: weightless codass

�

C V C

s

� �

C V C



Phonetic length of segments in Hindi and Malayalam

(18) Hindi

Vowels � � � � � �V: = V:C � V = VC

Consonants � �V:C = VC

(19) Malayalam

Vowels � � � +shared � � shared �V: � V:C � V � VC

Consonants shared � shared �V:C = VC

Ÿ these predictions are borne out


One suprasegmental theory for length: Moras Compensatory Lengthening

Compensatory Lengthening



Compensatory lengthening(Hayes 1989, Kavitskaya 2002, Gess 2011, Topintzi 2012)

the loss/reduction of a segment is compensated by the lengthening ofanother segment.

(20) Old Frenchblazmer bla:mer ‘to blame’ãngl@ ã:gl@ ‘angel’laKdZ@ la:dZ@ ‘wide’



Compensatory lengthening as preservation of a �

(21) Opaque �-projection in CL contexts: a rule-based account

1. Underlying:b l a z m e r

� �

2. Weight-by-position:b l a z m e r

� ��

3. Coda deletion:b l a m e r

� ��

4. Association of everyunassociated � to a V: b l a m e r

� ��



a potential opacity problem in OT!

⌅ CL as � preservation relies on the fact that �’s (on coda C’s and V’s) arepresent in the input – given Richness of the Base, this is not necessarilyso!

– intermediate derivation stages in OT (enriched inputs (Sprouse 1997), stratal OT(Kiparsky 2011, Bermudez-Otero ip), sympathy theory (McCarthy 2003), OT-CC(McCarthy 2007, Shaw 2009), Harmonic Serialism McCarthy 2000, Samko 2011,Torres-Tamarit 2012))– proposals that abandon the idea that CL is � preservation (CL is preservation of rootnodes in (Campos-Astorkiza 2003) or the preservation of segmental positions in(Topintzi 2006+2010))– a concept of comparative faithfulness (Yun 2006)– Turbidity Theory (Goldrick 2000)



Hayes 1985

⌅ CL is a prosodic phenomenon: which elements deletion triggers CLand which element gets lengthened depends on their prosodic position



A typology of CL in Hayes 1989

⌅ V lengthens since a following C is deletedLatin: /kasnus/! [ka:nus] ‘gray’

⌅ Cl from Glide formationIlokano: /bagi-en/! [bag:jen] ‘to have as one’s own’

⌅ triggered by prenasalizationRunyambo: /o-mu-ntu/! [omu:ntu] ‘person’

⌅ total assimilation of CBengali: /bOrSa/! [bOS:a] ‘rainy season’

⌅ V lengthens since a following C is deletedAncient Greek: /odwos/! [o:dos] ‘treshold’

⌅ CL from Vowel LossMiddle English: /tal@/ ! [ta:l]

⌅ vowel deletes/shortens with lengthening of the following CLuganda: /aika/! [ak:a]



Impossible type of CL in Hayes 1989:V-lengthening a�er onset deletion

Ÿ impossible in a �-model given that onsets are never moraic



Vs. Segmental theories of length

Ÿ CL a�er onset deletion is possible in a segment-based model whereevery segment has its own timing slot

– CV (McCarthy 1979) and X-Slots (Levin 1985, Lowenstamm&Kaye 1986)= number of prosodic elements corresponds to number of segments

Ÿ every element could trigger and undergo CL

(22) CL a�er onset deletion in a segment-based model

k æ t

X X X!

<k> æ t

X X X=

[kæt] [æ:t]



Impossible type of CL in Hayes 1989:Le�-right asymmetry for V – V

V-deletion never triggers lengthening of a following V, only of a preceding V

Ÿ follows in the Hayes model given assumptions about parasitic delinkingand no-crossing



Possible type of CL in Hayes 1989: V triggers V-lengthening

(23) 1. V-deletion :

t a p <e>

� �

s s

2. s-deletion (parasitic delinking):

t a p

� �

s

3. Resyllabification:

t a p

� �

s



Impossible type of CL in Hayes 1989: V triggers V-lengthening

(24) 1. V-deletion :

t ap <e>

��

ss

2. s-deletion (parasitic delinking):

t ap

��

s

3. Resyllabification:

t ap

��

s

x



Cl a�er onset deletion exists! (Topintzi 2010)

(25) Samothraki Greek’ra�s ’a:�s ‘tailor’M��’ruxa ’u:xa ‘clothes’’protos ’po:tus ‘first’



Another typology: asymmetries in CL (Gess 2011)



CL in � theory: predictions and problems

⌅ CL a�er onset deletionŸ onsets can indeed be moraic

⌅ how to account for all the asymmetries in Gess 2011?(e.g. the rarity of CL a�er V-deletion)

Ÿ first caveat: he (as nearly everybody else) mixes synchronicanddiachronic data on CL


One suprasegmental theory for length: Moras A complex case: Leti

A complex case: Leti



A complex case: Leti (Hume et al. 1997)

(26)

Ÿ geminates occur in word-initial position: as C-cluster




(27)

Ÿ geminates trigger metathesis (to avoid initial cluster): as do C-clusters




(28)

Ÿ no deletion before CV-initial morpheme for initial geminates andC-cluster

Ÿ Geminates pa�ern with consonant clusters




(29)

Ÿ integrity e�ects in reduplication: in C-cluster-initial words, thereduplicant occurs between the C’s – it never occurs inside a geminate




(30)

Ÿ geminates pa�ern with long vowels in blocking the (optional) process ofdowngrading, in contrast to simple C’s

Ÿ Geminates are prosodically multiply linked




(31)

Ÿ in stress-assignment, syllables containing a geminate count as light

Ÿ Geminates are non-moraicPropädeutikum: Theoretical Linguistics Length (PIII) 49 / 52


The proposal for Leti (Hume et al. 1997)

Ÿ A combined model representing weight and segmental length isproposed: a skeletal tier and a � tier

(32)

V: V GV VG VCs

� �

X X

Root

s

�

X

Root

s

�

X X X

Root

s s

�

X X X

Root

s

�

X X

Root


Summary

Summary


Summary

Summary

⌅ no universal representation for segmental length: multiple segments or‘prosodically long’ segments (=two timing positions)

⌅ one standard model for prosodical length: �’s

⌅ no agreement on the ‘right’ �-model – asymmetries (andinconsistencies) in CL data


References

Álvarez, José (2005), Vocalic mora augmentation in the morphology of Guajiro/Wayuunaiki, in ‘Proceedings from the Eighth Workshop onAmerican Indigenous Languages (2005)’, Santa Barbara Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 16.

Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (2001), ‘Underlyingly nonmoraic coda consonants, faithfulness, and sympathy’, Ms. University of Manchester, onlineavailable at http://www.bermudez-otero.com/DEP-mora.pdf.

Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (in preparation), Stratal Optimality Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Broselow, Ellen, Su-I Chen and Marie Hu�man (1997), ‘Syllable weight: Convergence of phonology and phonetics’, Phonology 14, 47–82.Campos-Astorkiza, Rebeka (2003), Compensatory lengthening as root number preservation: Codas in Eastern Andalusian Spanish, in E.Hajicová,A.Kotešovecová and J.Mírovský, eds, ‘Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Congress of Linguistics’, Matfyzpress andMFFUK, pp. 1–11.

Davis, Stuart (2011), Geminates, inM.van Oostendorp, C. J.Ewen, E.Hume and K.Rice, eds, ‘Companion to Phonology’, Wiley Blackwell, MaldenMA, chapter 37.

Gess, Randall (2011), Compensatory lengthening, inM.van Oostendorp, C. J.Ewen, E.Hume and K.Rice, eds, ‘The Blackwell Companion to Phonol-ogy’, Wiley Blackwell, Malden MA, chapter 64.

Goldrick, Matthew (2000), Turbid output representations and the unity of opacity, inA.Coetzee, N.Hall and J.Kim, eds, ‘NELS 30’, GLSA, Amherst,MA, pp. 231–245.

Hall, T. Alan (2000), Phonologie: eine Einfuehrung, Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Hayes, Bruce (1986), ‘Inalterability in CV phonology’, Language 62, 321–351.Hayes, Bruce (1989), ‘Compensatory Lengthening in moraic phonology’, Linguistic Inquiry 20, 253–306.Hume, Elizabeth, Jennifer Muller and Aone van Engelenhoven (1997), ‘Non-moraic geminates in Leti’, Phonology 14, 371–402.Kavitskaya, Darya (2002), Compensatory Lengthening, Routledge.Kiparsky, Paul (2011), Compensatory lengthening, in C.Cairns and E.Raimy, eds, ‘Handbook on the Syllable’, Brill, Leiden, pp. 33–69.Levin, Juliette (1985), A metrical theory of syllabicity, PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Lowenstamm, Jean and Jonathan Kaye (1986), Compensatory lengthening in Tiberian Hebrew, in L.Wetzels, E.Sezer, L.Wetzels and E.Sezer, eds,‘Studies in Compensatory Lengthening’, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 97–146.

McCarthy, J. (1979), Formal Problems in Semitic Phonology and Morphology, PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.McCarthy, John (2000), Harmonic serialism and parallelism, in M.Hirotani, A.Coetzee, N.Hall and J.Kim, eds, ‘NELS 30’, GLSA, Amherst, MA,pp. 501–524.

McCarthy, John (2003), Sympathy, cumulativity, and the Duke-of-York gambit, in C.Féry and R.van de Vijver, eds, ‘The Syllable in OptimalityTheory’, Cambridge University Press, pp. 23–76.

McCarthy, John (2007), ‘Slouching towards optimality: Coda reduction in ot-cc’, Phonological Studies (Journal of the Phonoloigcal Society of Japan)7.

Odden, David (1988), ‘Anti antigemination and the OCP’, Linguistic Inquiry 19, 451–475.

Odden, David (2011), The representation of vowel length, in M.van Oostendorp, C. J.Ewen, E.Hume and K.Rice, eds, ‘The Blackwell Companionto Phonology’, Wiley Blackwell, chapter 20.

Olsen, Mike (n.d.), ‘Japanese phonemic contrasts involving phone length’, online available at http://michaelkolsen.weebly.com/uploads/3/0/1/8/3018178/japanese_phonemic_contrasts_involving_phone_length.pdf.Paster, Mary and Katherine Dutcher (2008), Contour tone distribution in Luganda, in N.Abner and J.Bishop, eds, ‘Proceedings of the 27th WestCoast Conference on Formal Linguistics’, Cascadilla Proceedings Project, Somerville, MA, pp. 123–131.

Picard, Marc (2004), ‘/s/-deletion in old french and the aftermath of compensatory lengthening’, French Language Studies 14, 1–7.Rosenthall, Sam and Harry van der Hulst (1999), ‘Weight-by-position by position’, NLLT 17, 499–540.Samko, Bern (2011), ‘Compensatory lengthening in harmonic serialism’, qualifying paper, UCSC.Schein, Barry and Donca Steriade (1986), ‘On geminates’, LI 17, 691–744.Shaw, Jason (2009), Compensatory lengthening via mora preservation in OT-CC: Theory and predictions, inA.Schardl and M.Walkow, eds, ‘NELS38’, pp. 323–336.

Sprouse, Ronald L. (1997), ‘A case for enriched input’, Handout of a presentation at TREND, 3, available online as ROA 193.Topintzi, Nina (2006), ‘A (not so) paradoxical instance of compensatory lengthening: Samothraki Greek and theoretical implications’, Journal ofGreek Linguistics 7, 71–119.

Topintzi, Nina (2010), Onsets: Suprasegmental and prosodic behaviour, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Topintzi, Nina (2012), ‘Compensatory lengthening’, invited talk at the 20th Manchester Morphology Meeting, Manchester, 24th-26th May 2012.Torres-Tamarit, Francesc (2012), ‘Compensatory lengthening and opaque gemination in harmonic serialism’, talk, given at the OCP 9.Tranel, Bernard (1991), ‘CVC light syllables, geminates and moraic theory’, Phonology 8, 291–302.Yun, Gwanhi (2006), ‘Comparative faithfulness: evidence from compensatory lengthening in Bantu’, Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphol-ogy 12, 339–360.

Zec, Draga (1995), ‘Sonority constraints on syllable structure’, Phonology 12, 85–129.Zec, Draga (2011), Quantity sensitivity, in ‘The Blackwell Companion to Phonology’, Wiley Blackwell, chapter 57.

Documents

Suprasegmental Phonology: Length - Doreen Georgi Phonology: Length ... L òkù-tòkà ‘be enraged’ òkù-kòk:à ‘ask riddles ... Ilokano: /bagi-en/ ! [bag:jen]