thescopeofgeneralizationinphonology(編輯修改稿)
2024-11-29 17:01 本頁面
【文章內(nèi)容簡介】 136 37 .69 /n/ [+cor, cont] 337 46 .73 One shared feature /f,v/ [son] 45 29 .55 /l/ [+cor] 182 32 .45 /m,?/ [cont] 9 11 .33 No shared features /r/ 86 7 .13 vowels (nearly categorical retention, ., ) Conclusion: OCP is gradient The disharmony of an OCP violation increases in proportion to the phonological similarity between adjacent elements. Lexical scope … .. in some lexical domain k … .. Lexical issues for phonology ? Lexical exceptions ? Lexical frequency ? Historical borrowings with distinct phonology (., Latinate vocabulary of English, Chineseorigin vocabulary of Japanese) ? Recent borrowings ? Proper names Defining lexical scope: generalizations over part of the lexicon Two strategies for handling lexicallyrestricted properties: ? Tweak the phonology ? Tweak the underlying representations Tweaking the phonology ? Exception features: coindex phonological rules with lexical items they apply to (cf. Chomsky amp。 Halle) ? Cophonologies, lexical classes: different constraints or constraint rankings for different subsets of the lexicon (cf. Inkelas, Ito amp。 Mester…) Tweaking underlying representations ? The (lexically partial) generalization is already encoded in the UR, not generated by the phonology ? Items that fail to show some generalization get URs that block that oute ? Variable lexical class membership (cf. Coetzee, this afternoon) Example: English plurals with fv alternations Regular pattern: final C is invariant in plural: catcats, chiefchiefs, puffpuffs, etc. Exceptional pattern: final fv in plural leafleaves, wifewives, loafloaves, etc. ? Tweak the phonology: – Special rule for fv in plurals – Exception feature specifies all the words that undergo this rule ? Tweak the lexicon: – URs of leaves, wives, loaves have /v/ – URs of leaf, wife, loaf, etc. are underspecified for voice, with appropriate conventions to fill in specification. Lexical exceptions in variation Many variable processes are known to exhibit unusual frequencies of occurrence in particular lexical items. ., coronal stop deletion in English is exceptionally frequent in ?and? (Exceptional because deletion occurs significantly more often in and than in phonologically parable words like sand, band, hand, etc.) The two strategies applied to lexical exceptions to variable processes ? Phonological tweak: exceptional lexical items have a featu
教學(xué)課件相關(guān)推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號-1