Presentation on theme: "Gemination as non-local lengthening"— Presentation transcript:
1Gemination as non-local lengthening Anne Pycha, UC Berkeley
2Geminates Phonology Phonetics C C C C /t/ [t:] [rel = ] Complex segments with internal detailCharacterize what gemination “does”
3Overview Problem: Release features… Phonetic study: Hungarian… Seem to play no role in length contrastsEven though they “should”Phonetic study: Hungarian…Source of lengthening comes from the rightMost likely to lengthen frication, but doesn’tPhonological problems, and possible solutions…Affricate representationsGeminate representations
4Overview Proposal: Gemination as morpheme strengthening Predictions Degrees of fortificationDegrees of lengtheningPredictionsCross-linguisticHungarian-internal
5Release featuresProblem (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, TeluguPickett & Decker 1968: EnglishObrecht 1965: ArabicRepp 1983: EnglishSuggests diminished role for release.
6AffricatesReasonable: Release features play bigger (or different) role when they are distinctiveExample: Affricates, where release corresponds to fricationExpectation: Frication portion of affricate might lengthen under gemination
7Affricates 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)
9AffricatesProblem (Part 2) Reasons to think frication should lengthen under geminationAffricates can pattern like fricativesHungarian, Yucatec MayaSegmental status for frication (S)Fricative segments lengthen under gemination, so frication should too
10AffricatesPerception of affricate does not require stop closure portionFricatives: gradual rise in noiseAffricates: abrupt rise in noiseNoise alone suffices for affricate perceptEnglish listeners (Repp et al. 1978)Hungarian listeners (Tarnóczy 1987)Suggests ‘independence’ of S
11Affricates 3. Listeners appear to need it! Pattani Malay: singleton/geminate contrast in initial positionAbramson (1986 et seq.): Listeners make length distinction in utterance-initial positionTrue for all consonants, even voiceless stops where no apparent cues are present, as well as fricativesException: Affricates, at 50%Why not lengthen the S?
13Phonetic studyGoal: test reality of constraint on lengthened S within an affricateContext:Affricates in geminate environmentSource of gemination: rightmost (S) sideMost likely to produce lengthened frication.Method: duration measurements.
26Discussion 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
27Discussion 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 Ck a t a lLocality problem
28Rethinking affricates Re-think representation of affricates?Traditional representation is ordered:CT S
30Rethinking affricates Evidence: “anti-edge effects” (Lombardi 1990)Sensitivity to T from rightBasqueTurkishSensitivity to S from the leftYucatec Maya MSCsHungarian
31Rethinking affricates Gemination as an “anti-edge effect”?Source of lengthening: right (next to S)Target of lengthening: left (T)….TS-alProblem: Gemination can target both T and S independently (not just T)Unordered representation doesn’t help
32Rethinking affricates Closure feature with dependent releaseC CT[rel = S]
33Rethinking affricates Problem: we lose unity of behavior between affricates and fricativesC versus CT S[rel = S]
34Rethinking affricates Root node spreadingX XT SProblem: lost fact of lengthened T
35Rethinking affricates No good solution for affricate representationGeminate representation: Is the C-slot the problem?
36Rethinking geminatesAlternative: suffix -al triggers strengthening in the rootIntuition: -al is “weak”Converse: Root is “strong”Suppose that: Strong-weak relationships are manifested during morpheme concatenationManifestation is violable
48Predictions 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: TTLanguage 2: TT, SS*Language 3: SS
49Predictions 3. Gemination is one degree of lengthening Cross-linguistic evidenceThese (Nilotic, Sudan; Yip 2004)à-kw ‘I plant’-kw ‘you (sg) plant’á-kw ‘I planted’Hungarian evidence
50Predictions /gips-el/ gip.sel C-slot analysis: Lengthening analysis: No gemination because *CCCNo root lengtheningLengthening analysis:No gemination because σ templates satisfiedDegrees of lengthening could still occurTarget = [p]
52Results: Ratio in disyllable “Non-lengtheners”:2/3 of cluster tokens
53Results: Ratio in disyllable “Non-lengtheners”:2/3 of cluster tokens
54Results: Ratio in disyllable “Lengtheners”:1/3 of cluster tokens
55Results: Ratio in disyllable “Lengtheners”:1/3 of cluster tokens
56ConclusionsProblems for affricate representation remain (/t- t/ t:)Gemination as morpheme strengthening addresses locality problem in HungarianMakes testable predictionsCross-linguistic patterns of morpheme combinationsCross-linguistic patterns of preference for T over SGemination as a degree of lengthening