Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Gemination as non-local lengthening

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Gemination as non-local lengthening"— Presentation transcript:

1 Gemination as non-local lengthening
Anne Pycha, UC Berkeley

2 Geminates Phonology Phonetics C C C C /t/  [t:] [rel = ]
Complex segments with internal detail Characterize what gemination “does”

3 Overview Problem: Release features… Phonetic study: Hungarian…
Seem to play no role in length contrasts Even though they “should” Phonetic study: Hungarian… Source of lengthening comes from the right Most likely to lengthen frication, but doesn’t Phonological problems, and possible solutions… Affricate representations Geminate representations

4 Overview Proposal: Gemination as morpheme strengthening Predictions
Degrees of fortification Degrees of lengthening Predictions Cross-linguistic Hungarian-internal

5 Release features Problem (Part 1): Release features seem to play no role in length contrasts. Closure duration as primary perceptual cue to singleton-geminate contrast. Lisker 1958: Swedish, Marathi, Telugu Pickett & Decker 1968: English Obrecht 1965: Arabic Repp 1983: English Suggests diminished role for release.

6 Affricates Reasonable: Release features play bigger (or different) role when they are distinctive Example: Affricates, where release corresponds to frication Expectation: Frication portion of affricate might lengthen under gemination

7 Affricates Shilluk (Eastern Sudanic, Sudan)
“it should be clarified that the lengthening [of t] is evidenced on the closure phase” (Gilley 1992: 27). Anejom (Malayo-Polynesian, Vanuatu) “Geminate /t/ also occurs, with the stop onset, but not the fricative release, being lengthened – thus [t:]” (Lynch 2000: 24)

8 Affricates Attested: C C T S Unattested?: *C C T S

9 Affricates Problem (Part 2) Reasons to think frication should lengthen under gemination Affricates can pattern like fricatives Hungarian, Yucatec Maya Segmental status for frication (S) Fricative segments lengthen under gemination, so frication should too

10 Affricates Perception of affricate does not require stop closure portion Fricatives: gradual rise in noise Affricates: abrupt rise in noise Noise alone suffices for affricate percept English listeners (Repp et al. 1978) Hungarian listeners (Tarnóczy 1987) Suggests ‘independence’ of S

11 Affricates 3. Listeners appear to need it!
Pattani Malay: singleton/geminate contrast in initial position Abramson (1986 et seq.): Listeners make length distinction in utterance-initial position True for all consonants, even voiceless stops where no apparent cues are present, as well as fricatives Exception: Affricates, at 50% Why not lengthen the S?

12 Release features Turkish (Lahiri & Hankamer 1988) Articulatory data:
 closure duration: significant  VOT: significant

13 Phonetic study Goal: test reality of constraint on lengthened S within an affricate Context: Affricates in geminate environment Source of gemination: rightmost (S) side Most likely to produce lengthened frication. Method: duration measurements.

14 Phonetic study Language: Hungarian
Affricates: [ts, t, dz, d, ty, dy] Previous research Magdics (1969) Szende (1974) Tarnóczy (1987)

15 Phonetic study Affixal gemination in Hungarian Root Instrumental
kert ‘hat’ kert-tel piros ‘red’ piros-sal baj ‘trouble’ baj-jal ketrec ‘cage’ ketrec-cel etc…

16 Phonetic study Affixal singletons Superessive case
[tat-on] ‘buckle-Sup’, [va-on] ‘iron-Sup’ [kat-on] ‘fringe-Sup’ Affixal geminates Instrumental case [tat-tal] ‘buckle-Instr’, [va-al] ‘iron-Instr’ [kat-tal] ‘fringe-Instr’

17 Stimuli (from Papp 1969) Noun roots ending in…
Affricates /t, ts/ Corresponding obstruent /t/ Corresponding sibilants /s, / Stop-sibilant clusters /ps, p, ks, k/ Monosyllabic roots: /kat/ ‘fringe’ Disyllabic roots: /pamat/ ‘mop’

18 Stimuli 8 word shapes (CVC, CV:C, etc)
x 5 segment types /ts, t, t, s, / x 2 repetitions of each shape x 3 speakers = 240  189 noun roots

19 Stimuli: Clusters All noun roots ending in clusters  11 Shapes:
CVCC /gips/ CVNCC /skunks/ C(C)VC(C)VCC /kyklops/

20 Data: Environments Each noun root (n=200) in two different environments: Intervocalic singleton: /kat-on/ (Super) Intervocalic geminate: /kat-Cal/ (Instr)

21 Results: Raw durations
All consonants T T: S S: TS T:S

22 Results: Raw durations
Within affricates T T: S S:

23 Calculation: Ratio in disyllable
aton (Subject 4) k a t  o n  = 0.1 aton

24 Results: Ratio in disyllable

25 Results: Ratio in disyllable

26 Discussion Affricates under affixal gemination Duration of T changes
Duration of S stays basically the same …even in “rightmost” environment that (according to locality) should affect S  Constraint on lengthened S seems to be real

27 Discussion Typical account: * C V C - C V C k a t  a l
Instrumental suffix has empty slot, /-Cal/ Spreading fills C with features * C V C C V C k a t  a l Locality problem

28 Rethinking affricates
Re-think representation of affricates? Traditional representation is ordered: C T S

29 Rethinking affricates
Phonology: Unordered representation (Lombardi 1990) T C S Phonetics: Universal ordering = TS

30 Rethinking affricates
Evidence: “anti-edge effects” (Lombardi 1990) Sensitivity to T from right Basque Turkish Sensitivity to S from the left Yucatec Maya MSCs Hungarian

31 Rethinking affricates
Gemination as an “anti-edge effect”? Source of lengthening: right (next to S) Target of lengthening: left (T) ….TS-al Problem: Gemination can target both T and S independently (not just T) Unordered representation doesn’t help

32 Rethinking affricates
Closure feature with dependent release C C T [rel = S]

33 Rethinking affricates
Problem: we lose unity of behavior between affricates and fricatives C versus C T S [rel = S]

34 Rethinking affricates
Root node spreading X X T S Problem: lost fact of lengthened T

35 Rethinking affricates
No good solution for affricate representation Geminate representation: Is the C-slot the problem?

36 Rethinking geminates Alternative: suffix -al triggers strengthening in the root Intuition: -al is “weak” Converse: Root is “strong” Suppose that: Strong-weak relationships are manifested during morpheme concatenation Manifestation is violable

37 Rethinking geminates Strength relationship Roots > Suffix -al
kat > al Manifestation: Fortification, and/or Lengthening

38 Rethinking geminates Multiple ways for roots to be fortified
Have stress (cf. Smith 2001) Segments have more stricture: J S T

39 Rethinking geminates Multiple ways to for roots to be longer:
Have a mora (cf. Hayes 1992) Have a coda Have a longer segment

40 Analysis Proposal for Hungarian Length requirement for roots:
Have a coda Strength requirement for roots: Have coda = T (most stricture) Implemented as subcategorization frame […VC]σ-al T

41 Analysis […VC]σ-al T /lat-al/  lat.Cal  lat.tal
Continuous syllabification to template (Itô 1986)

42 Analysis Stricture requirement is violable: lat lat.tal
vas vas.sal *vat.sal baj baj.jal *bat.jal Faith [stricture] >> T “Keep underlying stricture.”

43 Analysis Stricture requirement is violable: /n:-el/  *n:tel
Dep [stricture] >> T “Do not insert stricture.”

44 Analysis Stricture requirement becomes apparent … S S Phonetics
/kaC-al/  kaC Cal  kaC Cal T T T S

45 Analysis Clusters /gips-el/  gip.sel

46 Analysis Alignment: Requires morpheme and syllable edges to coincide
Simple segments (same) Affricates (unclear) [kat][al]  kat.Xal  *kat.al,  *kat.al Clusters (different) [gips][el]  gips.Xel  *gips.sel

47 Predictions Morphology as determining factor Roots > Suffixes:
Meithei (Tibeto-Burman, India) Acooli (Nilotic; Uganda) Ibibio (Eastern Sudanic; Nigeria) Hup and Yuhup (Maku; Brazil) Maithili (Indo-Iranian; India) Mokilese (Malayo-Polynesian, Micronesia)

48 Predictions 2. Preference for strong strictures
“The presence of a geminate continuant consonant in the segment inventory implies the presence of a corresponding non-continuant” (Kirchner 2001) Language 1: TT Language 2: TT, SS *Language 3: SS

49 Predictions 3. Gemination is one degree of lengthening
Cross-linguistic evidence These (Nilotic, Sudan; Yip 2004) à-kw ‘I plant’ -kw ‘you (sg) plant’ á-kw ‘I planted’ Hungarian evidence

50 Predictions /gips-el/  gip.sel C-slot analysis: Lengthening analysis:
No gemination because *CCC No root lengthening Lengthening analysis: No gemination because σ templates satisfied Degrees of lengthening could still occur Target = [p]

51 Data: Clusters Hungarian noun roots ending in clusters PS, KS PS KS
/gips/ /skunks/ /tap/ /teks/ /naps/ /boks/ /mumps/ /vok/ /tritseps/ /uviks/ /kyklops/

52 Results: Ratio in disyllable
“Non-lengtheners”:2/3 of cluster tokens

53 Results: Ratio in disyllable
“Non-lengtheners”:2/3 of cluster tokens

54 Results: Ratio in disyllable
“Lengtheners”:1/3 of cluster tokens

55 Results: Ratio in disyllable
“Lengtheners”:1/3 of cluster tokens

56 Conclusions Problems for affricate representation remain (/t- t/  t:) Gemination as morpheme strengthening addresses locality problem in Hungarian Makes testable predictions Cross-linguistic patterns of morpheme combinations Cross-linguistic patterns of preference for T over S Gemination as a degree of lengthening

Download ppt "Gemination as non-local lengthening"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google