Paradigm Uniformity is not part of Phonology Noam
- Slides: 52
Paradigm Uniformity is not part of “Phonology” Noam Faust Université Paris 8
Architecture Word formation (UR formation) /UR/ phonology has a say inside here Phonology has a say in this process Phonetic form Is it the same Phonology ? Possibly not!
Paradigm uniformity « a phonological process is triggered or blocked throughout the word-forms of a paradigm if it is triggered or blocked only in one » (my definition)
Paradigm uniformity « a phonological process is triggered or blocked throughout the word-forms of a paradigm if it is triggered or blocked only in one » Raffelsiefen (1995): Schwa economy in German /tʁɔkən/ ‘dry’ /tʁɔkənə/ ‘dry (fem. acc)’ /tʁɔkənən/ ‘dry (ms. acc)’
Paradigm uniformity « a phonological process is triggered or blocked The occurence of throughout the word-forms of a paradigm if it is these schwas is triggered or blocked only in one » determined by PU Raffelsiefen (1995): Schwa economy in German /tʁɔkən/ ‘dry’ /tʁɔkənə/ ‘dry (fem. acc)’ /tʁɔkənən/ ‘dry (ms. acc)’
Paradigm uniformity « a phonological process is triggered or blocked throughout the word-forms of a paradigm if it is phonologically triggered or blocked only in one » unnecessary here: /tʁɔknə/ is fine. Raffelsiefen (1995): Schwa economy in German /tʁɔkən/ ‘dry’ /tʁɔkənə/ ‘dry (fem. acc)’ /tʁɔkənən/ ‘dry (ms. acc)’
Paradigm uniformity phonologically « a phonological process is triggered or blocked necessary here: throughout the word-forms of a paradigm if it is */tʁɔknən/ is phonologically triggered or blocked only in one » impossible. unnecessary here: /tʁɔknə/ is fine. Raffelsiefen (1995): Schwa economy in German /tʁɔkən/ ‘dry’ /tʁɔkənə/ ‘dry (fem. acc)’ /tʁɔkənən/ ‘dry (ms. acc)’
Paradigm uniformity phonologically « a phonological process is triggered or blocked necessary here: throughout the word-forms of a paradigm if it is */tʁɔknən/ is and therefore Phonologically (? ? ) triggered or blocked only in one » impossible. unnecessary here Raffelsiefen (1995): Schwa economy in German /tʁɔkən/ ‘dry’ /tʁɔkənə/ ‘dry (fem. acc)’ /tʁɔkənən/ ‘dry (ms. acc)’
Paradigm uniformity « a phonological process is triggered or blocked throughout the word-forms of a paradigm if it is triggered or blocked only in one » Raffelsiefen (1995): Schwa economy in German /tʁɔkən/ ‘dry’ /tʁɔkənə/ ‘dry (fem. acc)’ /tʁɔkənən/ ‘dry (ms. acc)’
Paradigm uniformity phonologically « a phonological process is triggered or blocked « SHELL » necessary here: throughout the word-forms of a paradigm if it is a sequence CLiəLi is out if C<L */tʁɔknən/ is triggered or blocked only in one » and L=L in sonority impossible. (L=sonorant) Raffelsiefen (1995): Schwa economy in German /tʁɔkən/ ‘dry’ /tʁɔkənə/ ‘dry (fem. acc)’ /tʁɔkənən/ ‘dry (ms. acc)’
Paradigm uniformity « a phonological process is triggered or blocked throughout the word-forms of a paradigm if it is triggered or blocked only in one » when SHELL is not violated in the paradigm, [ə] is not inserted. Raffelsiefen (1995): Schwa economy in German /dʊnkəl/ ‘dark’ /dʊnklə/ ‘dark (fem. acc)’ */dʊŋkələ/ /dʊnklən/ ‘dark (ms. acc)’ */dʊŋkələn/
(Raffelsiefen 1995 in fact claims, as I will claim here, that paradigm uniformity operates at the phonemic level, where no C is syllabic in German, and yields): /tʁɔkən, tʁɔkənən. . / /dʊnkəl, dʊnk_lən…/ For this reason, Raffelsiefen must say that Unsuffixed base must not be part of the paradigm…
(Raffelsiefen 1995 in fact claims, as I will claim here, that paradigm uniformity operates at the phonemic level, where no C is syllabic in German, and yields): /tʁɔkən, tʁɔkənən. . / /dʊnkəl, dʊnk_lən…/ For this reason, Raffelsiefen must say that Unsuffixed base must not be part of the paradigm…
Paradigm uniformity Meanwhile, in Standard Yiddish Same impossibility as German [ofn ] ‘open’ [ofənə] ‘open. pl’ [ofnə] unattested adj. but
Paradigm uniformity Meanwhile, in Standard Yiddish Same impossibility as German [ofn ] ‘open’ [ofənə] ‘open. pl’ [ofnə] unattested adj. but a) the suffix /-n/ surfaces as [m] after [n] [ofənəm] (Cnəm not a SHELL violation!)
Paradigm uniformity Meanwhile, in Standard Yiddish Same impossibility as German [ofn ] ‘open’ [ofənə] ‘open. pl’ [ofnə] unattested adj. but a) the suffix /-n/ surfaces as [m] after [n] [ofənəm] (Cnəm not a SHELL violation!) b) [Cnəm] is phonologically OK if [ə] is in base: [modnə] ‘strange’ [modnəm] ‘ms. dat’, [modənəm] unattested
Paradigm uniformity Meanwhile, in Standard Yiddish The base must be important Same impossibility as German [ofn ] ‘open’ [ofənə] ‘open. pl’ [ofnə] unattested adj. but a) the suffix /-n/ surfaces as [m] after [n] [ofənəm] (Cnəm not a SHELL violation!) b) [Cnəm] is phonologically OK if [ə] is in base: [modnə] ‘strange’ [modnəm] ‘ms. dat’, [modənəm] unattested
Proposal Given the phonetic form of the bases [ofn ] ‘open’ [modnə] ‘strange’ Language seeks to stabilize one underlying form for the entire paradigm. For [ofn ] there are two candidates: /ofn/ => [ofn ] /ofən/ => [ofn ] (CəL# is generally ruled out in Yiddish)
Proposal For [ofn ] there are two candidates: /ofn/ => [ofn ] /ofən/ => [ofn ] (CəL# is generally ruled out in Yiddish) These two candidates are confronted with the set of suffixes /ə/ and /-N, -ʁ/ (without /ə/): /ofn, ofn-ə, ofn-N, ofn-ʁ/ vs. /ofən, ofən-ə, ofən-N, ofən-ʁ/
Proposal For [ofn ] there are two candidates: /ofn/ => [ofn ] /ofən/ => [ofn ] (CəL# is generally ruled out in Yiddish) These two candidates are confronted with the set of suffixes /ə/ and /-N, -ʁ/ (without /ə/): /ofn, ofn-ə, ofn-N, ofn-ʁ/ vs. /ofən, ofən-ə, ofən-N, ofən-ʁ/ A bad UR, n cannot be the nucleus of N#
Proposal The selected base being /ofən/ The lexicon therefore delivers /ofən, ofən-ə, ofən-N, ofən-ʁ/ The phonology gives [ofn , ofən-əm, ofən-əʁ]
Proposal For [modnə] there is only one candidate /modnə/ (As we already saw /modənə/ will give unattested [modənə]) Thes lexicon therefore delivers /modnə, modnə-N, modnə-ʁ/ And phonology gives [modnə, modnəm, modnəʁ]
Crucially Language seeks to stabilize one underlying form for the entire paradigm = Lexicon-optimization, rather than phonology = Paradigm Uniformity as an anti-allomorphy force (Raffelsiefen 2016)
Architecture PU effects Word formation (UR formation) belong here /UR/ phonology has a say inside here Phonology has a say in this process Phonetic form Is it the same Phonology ? Apparently not!
More about Proposal Joins the view that PU happens in learning: Speakers learn that stems ending in /Cn / are illicit adjectival stems. In other words, in order to enter the verbal system of Yiddish, there are phonological requirements (see appendix for Modern Hebrew analogue). Prediction: these requirements will not necessarily hold for /Cl / (appendix abour [ejdl ] ‘genteel’)
Thank you!
Yiddish [ejdl ] ‘genteel’ Adj verb (+[zix]) ‘play it genteel’ [ejdələ] [ejdl ] [ejdəln ] [ejdl t] [ejdələʁ] [ejdl st] [ejdlən] COMPARE!!
Yiddish [ejdl ] ‘genteel’ Adj verb (+[zix]) ‘play it genteel’ [ejdələ] [ejdl ] no -ʁ in the [ejdəln ] [ejdl t] verbal [ejdələʁ] [ejdl st] paradigm! [ejdlən] COMPARE!!
Yiddish [ejdl ] ‘genteel’ Adj verb (+[zix]) ‘play it genteel’ [ejdələ] [ejdl ] no -ʁ in the [ejdəln ] [ejdl t] verbal [ejdələʁ] [ejdl st] paradigm! [ejdlən] adj: /ejdl/ or /ejdəl/ given /ejdl-n, ejdl-ə, ejdl-ʁ/
Yiddish [ejdl ] ‘genteel’ Adj verb (+[zix]) ‘play it genteel’ [ejdələ] [ejdl ] no -ʁ in the [ejdəln ] [ejdl t] verbal [ejdələʁ] [ejdl st] paradigm! [ejdlən] adj: /ejdl/ or /ejdəl/ given /ejdl-n, ejdl-ə, *ejdl-ʁ/ A bad UR, l cannot be the nucleus of ʁ#
Yiddish [ejdl ] ‘genteel’ Adj verb (+[zix]) ‘play it genteel’ [ejdələ] [ejdl ] no -ʁ in the [ejdəln ] [ejdl t] verbal [ejdələʁ] [ejdl st] paradigm! [ejdlən] verb: /ejdl/ or /ejdəl/ given /ejdl-t, ejdl-st, ejdl-n/
Yiddish [ejdl ] ‘genteel’ Adj verb (+[zix]) ‘play it genteel’ [ejdələ] [ejdl ] no -ʁ in the [ejdəln ] [ejdl t] verbal [ejdələʁ] [ejdl st] paradigm! [ejdlən] verb: /ejdl/ or /ejdəl/ given /ejdl-t, ejdl-st, ejdl-n/ no problem, no need to insert schwa for now
Yiddish [ejdl ] ‘genteel’ Adj verb (+[zix]) ‘play it genteel’ /ejdəl/ /ejdəl+ə/ => [ejdələ] /ejdl+ø/ => [ejdl ] /ejdəl+n/ => [ejdəln ] /ejdl+t/ => [ejdl t] /ejdəl+ʁ/ =>[ejdələʁ] /ejdl+t/ => [ejdl st] /ejdl+n/ =>[ejdlən]
Two underlying forms for the same morpheme? ? ? ? verb adj /ejdəl/ /ejdəl+ə/ => [ejdələ] /ejdəl+n/ => [ejdəln ] /ejdəl+ʁ/ =>[ejdələʁ] /ejdl/ /ejdl+ø/ => [ejdl ] /ejdl+t/ => [ejdl t] /ejdl+t/ => [ejdl st] /ejdl+n/ =>[ejdlən] Same item, two different URs?
Two underlying forms for the same morpheme? √ejdl verb adj /ejdəl/ /ejdəl+ə/ => [ejdələ] /ejdəl+n/ => [ejdəln ] /ejdəl+ʁ/ =>[ejdələʁ] /ejdl/ /ejdl+ø/ => [ejdl ] /ejdl+t/ => [ejdl t] /ejdl+t/ => [ejdl st] /ejdl+n/ =>[ejdlən] Phonological Index ≠ UR
Noun => Verb in Modern Hebrew Noun Verb Katalog + i e
Noun => Verb in Modern Hebrew Noun Verb Katalog + i e => [kitleg]
Noun => Verb in Modern Hebrew Noun Verb Katalog i e
Noun => Verb in Modern Hebrew Noun Verb K ta l g i e
Noun => Verb in Modern Hebrew Noun Verb K t l g i e
Noun => Verb in Modern Hebrew Noun Verb xantariʃ + => [xintreʃ] i e ‘charlatan’ ‘charlatanize’
Noun => Verb in Modern Hebrew Noun Verb e xantariʃ i
Noun => Verb in Modern Hebrew Noun Verb e x ntar ʃ i
Noun => Verb in Modern Hebrew Noun Verb e x nt r ʃ i
Noun => Verb in Modern Hebrew Noun Verb e x nt r ʃ i The derivation may create a novel branching onset
Noun => Verb in Modern Hebrew Noun Verb ramatkal + => ? ? ? i e ‘chief of army’ ‘act as Co. A”
Noun => Verb in Modern Hebrew Noun Verb ramatkal + => *** i e (*rimtkel) Not everything is possible: phonology blocks some stem formations.
Architecture Stem formation Word formation (UR formation) /UR/ phonology has a say Phonology has a say in this process Phonetic form Is it the same Phonology ? Apparently not!
Inflection cannot create branching onset sg. kiteʁ pl. kitʁu kinter kinteʁu, *kintʁu ‘complain incessantly’ ‘taunt’
Inflection cannot create branching onset sg. kiteʁ kinter pl. kitʁu ‘complain incessantly’ syncope kinteʁu, *kintʁu ‘taunt’ Phonological rules cannot create branching onsets.
Inflection cannot create branching onset sg. kiteʁ kinter pl. kitʁu ‘complain incessantly’ syncope kinteʁu, *kintʁu ‘taunt’ n o i t a Phonological rules cannot create m r fo branching onsets. R U e k i l Un
Architecture PU effects Word formation (UR formation) belong here /UR/ phonology has a say inside here Phonology has a say in this process Phonetic form Is it the same Phonology ? Apparently not! This phonology cannot create branching onsets
- Old paradigm
- Longitudinal uniformity street lighting
- Photo response non uniformity
- Inspect uniformity of skin color rationale
- Carrier ethernet performance benchmarking
- Permaglass me 730
- Content uniformity usp
- Wafer uniformity formula
- Difference between disintegration and dissolution
- Content uniformity test definition
- Esrlight
- Large volume parenterals means
- Factors affecting friability of tablets
- Content uniformity test for tablets
- Noam brown
- Noam chomsky cryptocurrency
- Noam goldberg
- Noam goldberg
- Noam tractinsky
- Nnn stages
- Chomsky normal form
- Chomsky normal form 설명
- Eli noam
- Noam čomski
- Chomsky ap psychology
- Noam rathaus
- Sadlier unit 1 level d synonyms
- Study of speech sound
- Dissimilation definition
- Differences between phonetics and phonology
- Example of phonology
- Allophones examples
- Phonology
- Dissimilation phonetics
- Vowel phonological processes
- Phonetics and phonology
- A concise introduction to linguistics
- Non segmental phonology
- Difference between phonetics and phonology
- What is phonology in linguistics
- Introduction to general phonetics and phonology
- Autosegmental phonology
- Natural classes of sounds
- Contrastive distribution definition
- Discourse analysis and phonology
- Distinctive features phonology
- Alpha notation phonology
- Phonetics vs phonology
- Complementary distribution examples
- Alternation in phonology
- Phonological features chart
- Phonology examples sentences
- Linking in phonology