Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.

Makalah Phonological Construction

2 871 vues

Publié le

Makalah English Department STKIP BARUS TAPANULI TANGAH

Publié dans : Formation, Technologie
  • Soyez le premier à commenter

  • Soyez le premier à aimer ceci

Makalah Phonological Construction

  1. 1. Phonological Construction By : Jerusman Marbun Grade : Semester IV ( Four ) Department : Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Course Title/ Subject : Phonology Lecturer : Subono Hutagalung, S.Pd SEKOLAH TINGGI KEGURUAN DAN ILMU PENDIDIKAN ( STKIP ) BARUS TAPANULI TENGAH T.A 2013/2014
  2. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages FREFACE ............................................................................................................... i BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................... iii CHAPTER I A. Cognitive Phonology .................................................................................. 1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 Knowledge of Linguistic Sound ............................................................. 2-5 CHAPTER II B. Phonological Constructions ....................................................................... 6 Groups of Sound ..................................................................................... 6-9 The Internal Structure of Syllable ............................................................ 10 CHAPTER III C. The Role Of Abstraction In Constructing Phonological Structure ...........11 The Origins Of Syllable Structure ............................................................11 Cross Linguistic Variation In Subsyllabic ............................................... 12 Subsyllabic Structure In Korean And Japanese ....................................... 12 CHAPTER IV D. Phonology III: Syllable Structure, Stress ................................................. 13 Syllable Structure ( Universal ) ................................................................ 13 Vowels Are Nuclear ( English ) .......................................................... 14-16 Syllable Structure II ............................................................................ 16-17 Stress ................................................................................................... 18-22 CONCLUSION SUGGESTION REFERENCES iii
  3. 3. PREFACE Praise be to the God, The cherisher and sustainer of the worlds; God who has been giving His blessing and mercy to the writer to complete the paper entitled “PHONOLOGY” This paper is submitted to fullfil one of the requirements to gain college degree of English Study Faculty in STKIP – BARUS TAPANULI TENGAH In finishing this paper, the writer really gives his regards and thanks for people who has given guidance and help the writer to finish this paper. Finally, the writer realizes there are unintended errors in writing this paper. He really allows all readers to give their suggestion to improve its content in order to be made as one of the good examples for the next paper. Barus, April 2014 Writer, i
  4. 4. BACKGROUND This paper is arranged to introductory on Phonological Construction of the sort taught in the first year of The English Language. The students on such courses can struggle with phonetics and phonology ; it is sometimes difficult to see past the new symbols and terminology, and the apparent assumption that we can immediately become consciously aware of movements of the vocal organs which we have been making almost automatically for the last eighteen or more years. This paper attempts to show us why we need to know about phonetics and phonology, if we are interested in language and our knowledge of it, as well as introducing the main units and concepts we require to describe speech sounds accurately. When it’s arranged to presenting the details of phonology, I have also chosen to use verbal descriptions rather than diagrams and pictures in most cases. The reason for this is we need to learn to use our own intuitions, and this is helped by encouraging us to introspect and think about our own vocal organs, rather than seeing disembodied pictures of structures which don’t seem to belong to them at all. Our hope is that a through grounding in the basics will help us approach more abstract theoretical and met theoretical issues in more advanced courses with greater understanding of what the theories intend to do and to achieve, and with more chance of evaluating competing models realistically. ii
  5. 5. CHAPTER 1 A. Cognitive Phonology 1. Introduction Phonology is usually thought of as the study of the ‘sound systems’ of languages. In this article the writer will make an attempt to explain what that means for mean why the writer refer to the approach that the writer favor as ‘cognitive’. Frankly, the writer have no idea how phonology could ever be anything but cognitive. However, there is a certain view that explanation in this domain must be crucially built upon our understanding of how sounds are produced and perceived. The writer do not dispute that insight into linguistic sound systems can be derived from such understanding. My point is that some fundamental properties of sound systems cannot be understood in this way, but rather must come from theories about the cognitive representations that underlie sound systems. Hence ‘cognitive phonology’. As we will see, phonology, being cognitive, is not fully encapsulated in the mind, as there must also be a system for externalizing the phonological representations. In section 2 the writer first discuss what it means to say someone knows linguistic sound events. Section 3 argues for a strong parallelism between grammatical components (phonology, syntax and semantics) and contains a brief excursion on the evolution of language. Sections 4 and 5 home in on the phonological component, discussing static (i.e. phonotactic) and dynamic (i.e. allomorphy) phenomena, respectively. In section 6, the writer argue that even though the phonological system is non-derivational and constraint-based, two levels (in different planes) are necessary. Section 7 offers some conclusions. This article can be read as an attempt on my part to explain to interested parties (linguists who are not, or not primarily, phonologists, scholars in other fields, colleagues, friends, relatives) what it is that the writer studying and why the writer hold certain beliefs or guiding ideas about this subject. Hence the writer do not presuppose much prior knowledge of phonology, although the exposition becomes increasingly more involved and complex, all of which, the writer hope is not offending Hans den Besten, to whom the writer offer this article as a token of both my esteem for him as a linguist as well as my friendship as a colleague. 1
  6. 6. 2. Knowledge of linguistic sounds Humans do not appear to be very good at communicating telepathically, i.e. by reading the thoughts in each other’s minds. To travel from one mind to the other, thoughts need carriers that are perceptible. Most human languages make use of carriers that are audible, although communication (taken as a broader concept) also uses a great deal of visual information, notably in the gestures and ‘body languages’ that humans display when they express their thoughts. In addition, sign languages, as used in Deaf communities, are human languages that are totally based on visual forms. Other sensory channels (smell, taste and touch) play a much smaller role in human communication (while being quite significant among other animal species), although tactile communication can reach quite sophisticated levels, even as an alternative to spoken or signed language. (See Finnegan 2002 for a comprehensive overview of the different channels of communication.) I will confine the discussion here to that part of communicative acts that is taken care of by spoken language. Human languages, then, contain an inventory of ‘sound events’ that are conventionally(and largely arbitrarily) linked to ‘meanings’ or ‘concepts’ that constitute the building blocks out of which we construct our thoughts. By stringing these sound events together we construct complex words and sentences that represent our hidden thoughts. If the listener knows the conventional linkage between sound events and their meanings, as well as the grammatical rules for decomposing complex expressions that encode the complex thoughts of the speaker, communication can proceed successfully. What does it mean to say that the language user knows the sound events that are linked to meanings? Clearly, sound events as such (i.e. as physical acoustic events) do not form part of cognition. There is no part of the brain that literally contains an inventory of acoustic events that somehow can be released upon command. Rather, human produce sounds every time they speak. Sounds are produced by specific actions or movements of certain body parts. How this works in detail is studied under the heading of ‘articulatory phonetics’. Speakers apparently know these specific movements (as appropriate for achieving certain acoustic targets) and it might therefore be assumed that it is this (largely unconscious) knowledge (rather than the sounds themselves) that forms part of human cognition. But this cannot be enough. 2
  7. 7. Language users do not recognize sounds by visually identifying the movements that produce them(although such visual information is used in speech recognition when available). If ‘speech’ recognition was totally based on the visual perception of articulatory movements, spoken languages would be sign languages! Rather they identify the sounds as such (which is why can talk over the telephone or listen to the radio). In other words, language users have a mental, perceptual (i.e. a psycho-acoustic) image of the sounds that allows them to parse the acoustic speech signal into units that can be matched with words or meaningful parts of complex words. It would seem, then, that knowledge of sound events has two aspects, an articulatory plan and a perceptual or psycho-acoustic image. It is a widely accepted view that the knowledge of sound events that correspond to morphemes and words is quite specific, in that it takes the form of a mental representation that is compositional (rather than holistic). This means that the cognitive representation is built out of smaller parts or ‘atoms’ that are in themselves meaningless. At one time it was believed that the atoms corresponded roughly to complete slices of the acoustic signal and the atoms were thus called phonemes(since X-emes are fundamental units in the component that deals with X). Subsequent research revealed, however, that phonemes themselves consist of smaller parts, and these were called features. There has been a long debate on the question as to whether the articulatory aspects or the perceptual aspects of features are more fundamental. For a revealing discussion, I refer to Fowler and Galantucci (2002). In their view, the articulatory plan is fundamental. The articulatory basis of features is also clearly present in most work on feature theory since Chomsky and Halle (1968), especially in its ‘feature geometric’ descendants (cf. Halle 1983, 2003). A consequence of taking articulation as basic is that in speech perception, listeners must be assumed to crucially draw on their articulatory knowledge. The idea is that perceived stimuli are internally linked to the corresponding articulatory plan which then can be matched with the articulatory - based phonological form of lexical items. This proposal is known as the ‘motor theory of speech perception’ advocated by Liberman and Mattingly (1985). (Ina way, it is claimed then that hearers mentally ‘see’ the articulatory movements that underlie the acoustic events.) This theory forms the basis of the “articulatory phonology” model (cf. Browman & Goldstein 1986). 3
  8. 8. Others (among them, Roman Jakobson) believe that the perceptual image is fundamental, mainly because of its presumed close relationship to the acoustic aspect of sounds, which is shared by speaker (through feedback) and listener. See Harris (1994) as well as Anderson and Ewen (1987) for a defense of this position. I will not enter into this debate here, and keep a neutral stand on the issue, in that I will assume that the cognitive representation of sounds simply has two layers, an articulatory plan and a perceptual image. In fact, my own views on the true atoms of phonology involves the postulation of just two units which can hardly be said to have any phonetic definition, articulatory or perceptual. (See van der Hulst 2000, in press d, in prep a.) In any event, it seems safe to conclude that knowledge of sound events involves compositional mental representations of these events, and that makes the ‘sound side’ of linguistic signs as abstract and cognitive as the meaning side. Just like (word) meaning can be thought of in terms of concepts that stand in some relationship to real world objects, phonology must also be understood as a conceptual system that stands in somesort of relationship to real world objects (namely certain types of noises, or certain types of behavior, i.e. articulatory behavior); see van der Hulst (in press b) for a more detailed discussion. But wait, says the philosopher. We know that not all word meanings or concepts that constitute them correspond to something in the real world. And I was hoping that he would say that because if he is right (and I think we all agree that he is, although the case can more easily be made for compositional conceptual structures than for the ‘atomic’ concepts), then there is no reason to assume that all phonological concepts stand in a direct referential relationship to some real world noise or behavior. I will return to this point below when we will see that a phonology that is limited to concepts that correlate with phonetic events fails to provide insight into many phonological phenomena. According to some, the phonological primes (i.e. features) are hard-wired as part of an innate human language capacity, rather than being ‘constructed’ from scratch in the course of cognitive development and language acquisition. This view must rely on somesort of evolutionary development whereby skills to make certain kinds of sounds become hard-wired, presumably because of adaptive advantages of somesort ( more on that below ) 4
  9. 9. However, if this is so, and if spoken language ‘phonetics’ has determined the nature of the primes in the evolutionary past, how can this same endowment be helpful to a deaf person? Clearly, it cannot, and I am assuming here without discussion that sign languages are true human languages that, as far as we know now, share all essential structural properties with spoken languages. As a consequence, deaf people either must construct their phonology in some other way (perhaps using some non-specialized general cognitive ability that allows them to construct a phonology-like conceptual system) or they have no compositional conceptual system comparable to phonology at all, which implies that conceptual representations of articulatory movements and perceptible forms of signs are stored in the lexicon holistically. The first option is logically consistent, although it predicts differences between the course of acquisition of the phonologies of spoken and signed languages. There appears to be little support for any significant differences. If anything, the contrary is true. Striking similarities between the acquisition course of languages in both modalities have been put forward as ‘evidence’ for the claim that sign languages and spoken languages are both natural human languages, stemming from the same innate capacity (Klima and Bellugi 1979, Emmorey 2002, Meier,Cormier and Quinto-Pozos 2002). The second option (sign languages have no phonology) flies in the face of the results that installed the idea that sign languages are natural languages in the first place. Stokoe’s seminal work (Stokoe 1960) lead to the recognition of the fact that sign languages, in fact, have a phonology. This finding lead to an explosion of work on sign languages, especially American Sign Language (Klima and Bellugi 1979, Emmorey 2002, Fischer and van der Hulst 2003; see van der Hulst (1993, 1995, 1996, 2000), van der Kooij (2002) for detailed discussion of phonological compositionality in signs and many references to current work). The conclusion must be that phonological categories are constructed in the course of language acquisition. Elsewhere I propose that the innate language faculty (or some more general faculty) provides a universal mechanism for constructing the set of primitives and I specify the properties of that mechanism in some detail (van der Hulst 1993, 2000, to appear d, in prep a). 5
  10. 10. CHAPTER 2 B. Phonological Construction 1. Groups of sounds The fact that sounds do not come out of our mouths one segment at a time has been known for a long time. In fact, many people have argued that segments per se actually only exist as abstractions, because it appears that the smallest piece of sound we can comfortably produce is larger than a single segment. If you think about it, when you try to say a consonant, and particularly a stop, you are most likely to say [thә] or [gә], and it’s really very hard to say [g] in isolation. Furthermore, although the Roman alphabet (which is the basis for most writing systems in the world) expresses segments directly, many other writing systems don’t, but instead express units consisting of (at least) a consonant and a vowel together, and may also include a following consonant. In the Japanese syllabaries hiragana and katakana, and the Sanskrit and other writing systems based on the Brahmi script each symbol stands for a consonant and vowel in an indissoluble unit. The term used to describe this supra segmental unit is the well - known term syllable. There has been an enormous controversy about the status of this unit, with opinions varying between those, on the one hand, who argued that it was an unnecessary addition to the inventory of linguistic units (this was most strongly argued for in Chomsky & Halle (1968), but other American Structuralists also felt this way) and others, on the other hand, who have argued that segments are inventions of linguists spoiled by the unnatural Roman writing system, and that syllables are the smallest real linguistic units. One of the problems with the concept of the syllable is that it is not a purely physical entity (like a vowel or a consonant), in the sense that it does not correspond to any single physical gesture of the articulators, nor to any single stretch of sound. This has led phoneticians to be skeptical of its existence – one cannot see syllables in a spectrogram, nor in a waveform. Similarly, syllables do not appear in x-ray films of people speaking. Of course, for cognitive linguists (and in fact, for most linguists of any stripe) language is not a physical event in any case but a cognitive one, so that the inability to define a purely physical unit like the syllable is not a drawback. 6
  11. 11. Normally the easiest part of thinking about syllables is recognizing them in words. If we take a word like anthropology we can easily see that it has five syllables, and when we learn to spell (at least in English) we learn how to divide the word into syllables: anthropology. Of course, things are rarely that simple. The syllable division rules that we learned in school were orthographic rules – rules for dividing the spelling of words. For example, we divide sitting as sit-ting, but, of course, there aren’t two phonetic /t/’s in the word, only two spelled 〈t〉’s. One of the facts that we find about syllables is that while we often know how many syllables there are in the word, and can say the word syllable by syllable, we find some difficulty in saying exactly where one syllable ends and the other begins. Try saying satire one syllable at a time and you will happily say [sæ.tʰaır]. On the other hand, if you divide our earlier example sitting you might be less comfortable with [sɪ.tʰIŋ]. Perhaps you said [sIt.tʰɪŋ], with a double [t], reflecting the spelling, curiously enough. But of course neither pronunciation reflects the undivided pronunciation of the word, which is without any kind of [t]: [sɪɾnIŋ]. The problem is that we can’t say either [*sɪɾ.ɪŋ] or [*sɪ.ɾɪŋ]. So where does the syllable divide? Later we’ll see that both before and after as well as in the middle of the flap have been proposed as answers to the question. Most linguists argue that syllables are organizational units of sound. That means that they unite individual segments into constituents, much the same way as words are organized into phrases, and phrases into clauses and so on. Thus, it is argued, syllables have a hierarchical structure. This organizing principle recurs not only in syntax (where clauses are made up of phrases which are made up of words) but also in morphology, where words are made up of suffixes and prefixes: deny(a verb) suffixed with – able makes a new adjective, and then - ity can be added to make a new noun out of the new adjective: deniability. The traditional pieces of the syllable are the onset and the rhyme (sometimes spelled rime). The onset consists of every segment up to but not including the vowel, while the rhyme includes the rest of the syllable. The term rhyme is, of course, familiar from poetry, 1. The period is normally used to divide syllables. Other symbols that are found in the literature are the dollar sign $, and more complex notations representing tree structure. We will discuss these below. 7
  12. 12. (1) Hickory dickory dock The mouse ran up the clock Notice that it is only the vowel plus all following segments that must match – what precedes is irrelevant. The rhyme is divided into the nucleus and the coda. In the most simple terms, the nucleus is the vowel and the remaining consonants are the coda. In the above example, the nucleus is /ɑ/, the coda is /k/. What complicates the matter in English is that both the nucleus and the coda can be rather more complex (as can, for that matter, the onset). In a word like tasks there are three consonants in the coda, and in sixths there are four: [ksθs]. English, incidentally, is relatively unusual in permitting so many consonants in the coda. Four is near the top permitted in the languages of the world, and in fact, in many languages the limit is zero. well-known language that has such a limit is Hawai‘ian. If you think of Hawai‘ian words (you probably know half a dozen) you will notice that every consonant is followed by a vowel: (2) Ho.no.lu.lu Ha.le.a.ka.la Ki.la.u.e.a Ma.u.na Ke.a We can classify the phonology of languages with respect to exactly what they allow in their codas, with languages like Hawai‘ian representing one extreme (zero consonants in the coda), and languages like English (up to four) representing the other extreme. Other languages appear part way along this continuum. One interesting set of restrictions is not on the number but on the kindof consonant permitted in the coda. For example, in Japanese, there can be one consonant in the coda, but there are heavy restrictions on what that consonant can be. It can be either a nasal (Hon.da, Shim.bun) or a consonant identical to the consonant following: tep.pan, Nip.pon, gak.kai.No other consonants are permitted in the coda. Mandarin permits only nasals /n/ and /ŋ/, and in some dialects, /r/. In general, languages make no restrictions on what can occur in nuclei, except that it should be a vowel. Two vowels in a nucleus constitute one definition of a diphthong, although defining a diphthong this way doesn’t distinguish between rising and falling diphthongs (the /ju/ in cute vs the /aI/ in bite). The one complication involving nuclei involves whether things other than vowels can occur in the nucleus. In some languages, such as English and German, nasals can occupy the nucleus in unstressed syllables: hidden [hIdn̩ ], German geben [gebm̩ ]. 8
  13. 13. In other languages the restriction is not quite so strict. In Czech /r/ can be a stressed nucleus: the city of Brno [ˈbr̩ no]. A language that has been the subject of much recent inquiry is Imdlawn Tashlhiyt Berber (spoken in North Africa) where apparently anyconsonant can be the nucleus of a syllable. Some famous examples are /txznt/ meaning ‘you stored’, which is syllabified [tx̩ .zn̩ t] and /tftkt/ (‘you suffered a strain’), which comes out [tf̩ .t k̩ t] (Prince & Smolensky 1994). This is, of course, a highly unusual case – languages greatly prefer relatively open segments to count as the center of syllables. As I mentioned above, a common assumption is that the parts of a syllable have a hierarchical structure: (3) σ Onset Rhyme Nucleus Coda The reasons for this assumption include the fact that many languages have rhyme (in the poetic sense) as a linguistic device. Other languages have alliteration, which involves identity among Onsets. Old English was famous for this device. In any line of Old English poetry there had to be at least two stressed words with the same onset in one of their syllables (one in each half of the line): (4) Stræt wæs stanfah, stig wisode gúmum ætgædere. Gúðbyrne scan However, there doesn’t seem to be any language whose poetry requires identity between words which are identical in Onset+Nucleus while ignoring the coda. In addition, there are many cases in languages where there are restrictions between the nucleus and the coda. For example, in English /ŋ/ forbids a preceding tense vowel: [*iŋ, *eŋ] etc. However, onsets normally do not set restrictions on what follows – any consonant in English can be followed by any vowel. 9
  14. 14. 2. The internal structure of the syllable One of the main reasons for arguing that we need a syllable as a linguistic unit is that manyphonological patterns appear to pay attention to syllable structure. For example, it is simplest to describe the operation of aspiration in English by making it sensitive to syllable structure. Consider the following data (5) pie p h aI spy spaI pacific p h ә.ˈsI.fIk specific spә.ˈsI.fIk appear ә.p h ir aspire ә.spaIr Note that whether the /p/ begins an accented or unaccented syllable, as long as it is at the beginning of the onset it is aspirated. If something else precedes it (and, of course, that something could only be an /s/) in the onset it is unaspirated. Similarly, in German, obstruents are devoiced syllable-finally: (6) abgehen ˈap.ge.әn ‘walk away’ wegfahren ˈvεk.fɑr.әn ‘drive away’ Burgmeister ˈb~rk.mai.stәr ‘mayor’ One additional issue that has been extensively discussed in the phonological literature deals with how many consonants are permitted to occur in onsets and codas. We have already seen the limiting case above – none, along with the fact that many languages permit only limited kinds of (single) consonants in codas. Every language permits at least one consonant in onsets. In fact, there are languages which forbid empty onsets – Arabic requires that every syllable begin with a consonant, although some have argued that syllable initial glottal stop is simply an empty consonant fulfilling the function of being an onset. 10
  15. 15. CHAPTER 3 C. The Role of Abstraction in Constructing Phonological Structure 1. The Origins of Subsyllabic Structure Syllables play a critical role in many domains of language processing, including speech perception (Álvarez, Carreiras, & Perea, 2004), production (Cholin, Levelt, & Schiller, 2006; Laganaro & Alario, 2006) and short-term memory (Nimmo & Roodenrys, 2002). In this work, we focus on the internal structure of syllabic units. We review evidence that subsyllabic structure varies cross-linguistically. English and other Indo-European languages group together vowels and codas into an unit (‘rime’) distinct from the onset (Kessler & Treiman, 1997). For example, the English syllable for ‘cat’ /kæt/ is argued to be composed of onset /k/ and rime /æt/. In contrast, Korean (Yoon & Derwing, 2001) and Japanese (Katada, 1990)group onsets and vowels into a unit (‘body’) distinct from the coda(such that the Korean syllable for ‘feather’ /kis/ is decomposed as body /ki/ vs. coda /s/). In this work, we argue that speakers construct these structures to account for associations between segments that are not attributable to other, more general, phonological patterns. We first review research showing that in both Korean and English the distribution of segments provides robust statistical cues to their contrasting subsyllabic structures; furthermore, speakers are sensitive to these statistical cues (Lee & Goldrick, 2008). We then present an analysis of a new, larger lexicon of Korean. This shows that robust cues to subsyllabic structure are not found when considering representations that incorporate the influence of more general phonological patterns. This is consistent with the claim that learners postulate subsyllabic structures only after correcting for other potential sources of phonological patterns. 11
  16. 16. 2. Cross linguistic Variation in Subsyllabic Structure A variety of types of behavioral data suggest that subsyllabic structures differ across languages. We focus on two prominent subtypes involving alternate groupings of the nucleus and margin positions: onset-rime (dividing a CVC syllable into C-VC) vs. body-coda (CV-C). Subsyllabic Structure in Indo-European Languages Indo-European languages- specifically, both Germanic (Dutch, English, German) and Romance (French)—have been argued to group together the nucleus and coda into a unit (rime) to the exclusion of the onset. The presence of this rime unit has been used to account or the greater prevalence of phonotactic restrictions governing vowel-coda vs. onset-vowel sequences (e.g., Dutch: Martensen, Maris, & Dijkstra, 2000; English: Kessler & Treiman, 1997; French: Perruchet & Peereman, 2004). In metalinguistic tasks, English speakers judge syllables sharing the vowel and coda (but not onset) to be more similar than syllables sharing the onset and vowel (but not coda; Yoon & Derwing, 1994). Finally, spontaneously occurring speech errors (e.g., MacKay, 1972) as well as those produced in short-term memory tasks (e.g., Treiman & Danis, 1988) are more likely to involve the simultaneous misordering of the vowel and coda (i.e., the rime unit) vs. the onset and vowel. 3. Subsyllabic Structure in Korean and Japanese Similar evidence has been used to argue that Korean and Japanese have a different subsyllabic structure, grouping the vowel and onset together to the exclusion of the coda. With respect to metalinguistic tasks, Katada (1990) documents a Japanese language game that involves reuse of onset-vowel sequences, excluding any following codas. Yoon & Derwing (2001) show that in contrast to the English pattern discussed above Korean speakers judge syllables sharing the onset and vowel (but not coda) to be more similar than those sharing only the vowel and coda. Kureta, Fushimi, & Tastumi (2006) find that Japanese speakers use onset-vowel sequences to prepare responses in an implicit priming paradigm (in contrast, Dutch speakers can rely on singleton onsets; Meyer, 1991). As discussed in more detail below, Korean speech errors are more likely to involve simultaneous misorderings of onsets and vowels than vowels and codas (Lee & Goldrick, 2008). 12
  17. 17. CHAPTER 4 D. Phonology III: Syllable Structure, Stress Words consist of syllables. The structure of syllables is determined partly by universal and partly by language specific principles. In particular we shall discuss the role of the sonoricity hierarchy in organising the syllabic structure, and the principle of maximal onset. Utterances are not mere strings of sounds. They are structured into units larger than sounds. A central unit is the syllable. Words consist of one or several syllables. Syllables in English begin typically with some consonants. Then comes a vowel or a diphthong and then some consonants again. The first set of consonants is the onset, the group of vowels the nucleus and the second group of consonants the coda. The combination of nucleus and coda is called rhyme. So, syllables have the following structure: (75) [onset [nucleus coda]] For example, /strength/ is a word consisting of a single syllable: (76) [stɹ [ԑ ŋθ]] Onset Nucleus Coda Rhyme Syllable Thus, the onset consists of three consonants: [s], [t] and [ɹ], the nucleus consists just of [ԑ], and the coda has [ŋ] and [θ]. We shall begin with some fundamental principles. The first concerns the structure of the syllable. a. Syllable Structure I (Universal ) Every syllable has a nonempty nucleus. Both coda and onset may however be empty. A syllable which has an empty coda is called open. Examples of open syllables are /a/ [e] (onset is empty), /see/ [si] (onset is nonempty). A syllable that is not open is closed. Examples are /in/ [ın] (onset empty) and /sit/ [sıt] (onset nonempty). The second principle identifies the nuclei for English. 13
  18. 18. b. Vowels are Nuclear ( English ) A nucleus can only contain a vowel or a diphthong. This principle is not fully without problems and that is the reason that we shall look below at a somewhat more general principle. The main problem is the unclear status of some sounds, for example [ɚ]. They are in between a vowel and consonant, and indeed sometimes end up in onset position (see above) and sometimes in nuclear position, for example in /bird/ [bɚd]. The division into syllables is clearly felt by any speaker, although there sometimes is hesitation as to exactly how to divide a word into syllables. Consider the word /atmosphere/. Is the /s/ part of the second syllable or part of the third? The answer is not straightforward. In particular the stridents ( that is, the sounds [s], [ʃ] ) enjoy a special status. Some claim that they are extrasyllabic (not part of any syllable at all), some maintain that they are ambisyllabic (they belong to both syllables). We shall not go into that here. The existence of rhymes can be attested by looking at verses (which also explains the terminology): words that rhyme do not need to end in the same syllable, they only need to end in the same rhyme: /fun/ – /run/ – /spun/ – /shun/. Also, the coda is the domain of a rule that affects many languages: For example, in English and Hungarian, within the coda the obstruents must either all be voiced or unvoiced; in German and Russian, all obstruents in coda must be voiceless. (Here is an interesting problem caused among other by nasals. Nasals are standardly voiced. Now try to find out what is happening in this case by pronouncing words with a sequence nasal+voiceless stop in coda, such as /hump/, /stunt/, /Frank/.) Germanic verse in the Middle Ages used a rhyming technique where the onsets of the rhyming words had to be the same. (This is also called alliteration. It allowed to rhyme two words of the same stem; German had a lot of Umlaut and ablaut, that is to say, it had a lot of root vowel change making it impossible to use the same word to rhyme with itself (say /run/ – /ran/). It is worthwhile to remain with the notion of the domain of a rule. 14
  19. 19. Many phonological constraints are seen as conditions that concern two adjacent sounds. When these sounds come into contact, they undergo change to a smaller or greater extent, for some sound combinations are better pronounceable than others. We have discussed sandhi at length in Lecture 4. For example, the Latin word /in/ ‘in’ is a verbal prefix, which changes in writing (and therefore in pronunciation) to /im/ when it precedes a labial (/impedire/). Somewhat more radical is the change from [ml] to [mpl] to avoid the awkward combination [ml] (the word /templum/derives from /temlom/, with /tem/ being the root, meaning ‘to cut’). There is an influential theory in phonology, auto segmental phonology, which assumes that. Table 10: The Sonoricity Hierarchy dark vowels [a], [o] > mid vowels [æ], [œ] > high vowels [i], [y] > r-sounds [r]; [ɹ] > nasals; laterals [m], [n]; [l] > vd. fricatives [z], [ӡ] > vd. plosives [b], [d] > vl. fricatives [s], [ʃ] > vl. plosives [p], [t] phonological features are organized on different scores (tiers) and can spread to adjacent segments independently from each other. Think for example of the feature [±voiced]. The condition on the coda in English is expressed by saying that the feature [±voiced] spreads along the coda. Clearly, we cannot allow the feature to spread in discriminately, otherwise the total utterance is affected. Rather, the spreading is blocked by certain constituent boundaries; these can be the coda, onset, nucleus, rhyme, syllable, foot or the word. To put that on its head: the fact that features are blocked indicates that we are facing a constituent boundary. So, voicing harmony indicates that English has a coda. 15
  20. 20. The nucleus is the element that bears the stress. We have said that in English it is a vowel, but this applies only to careful speech. In general this need not be so. Consider the standard pronunciation of /beaten/: [ ‘bi:t h ᶇ] (with a syllabic[n]). For my ears the division is into two syllables: [bi:] and [t h ᶇ]. (In German this is certainly so; the verb /retten/ is pronounced [вԑt h ᶇ]. The [n] must therefore occupy the nucleus of the second syllable.) There are more languages like this. (Slavic languages are full of consonant clusters and syllables that do not contain a vowel. Consider the island /Krk/, for example.) In general, phonologists have posited the following conditions on syllable structure. Sounds are divided as follows. The sounds are aligned into a so-called sonoricity hierarchy, which is shown in Table 10 (vd. = voiced, vl. = voiceless). The syllable is organized as follows. c. Syllable Structure II Within a syllable the sonoricity strictly increases and then decreases again. It is highest in the nucleus. This means that a syllable must contain at least one sound which is at least as sonorous as all the others in the syllable. It is called the sonoricity peak and is found in the nucleus. Thus, in the onset consonants must be organized such that the sonority rises, while in the coda it is the reverse. The conditions say nothing about the nucleus. In fact, some diphthongs are increasing ([ıǝ] as in the British English pronunciation of /here/) others are decreasing ([aı], [oı]). This explains why the phonotactic conditions are opposite at the beginning of the syllable than at the end. You can end a syllable in [ɹt], but you cannot begin it that way. You can start a syllable by [tɹ], but you cannot end it that way (if you to make up words with [tɹ], automatically, [ɹ] or even [tɹ] will be counted as part of the following syllable). Let me briefly note why diphthongs are not considered problematic in English: it is maintained that the second part is actually a glide (not a vowel), and so would have to be part of the coda. Thus, /right/ would have the following structure: 16
  21. 21. (77) The sonoricity of [j] is lower than that of [a], so it is not nuclear. A moment’s reflection now shows why the position of stridents is problematic: the sequence [ts] is the only legitimate onset according to the sonoricity hierarchy, [st] is ruled out. Unfortunately, both are attested in English, with [ts] only occurring in non-native words (eg /tse-tse/, /tsunami/). There are phonologists who even believe that [s] is part of its own little structure here (‘extrasyllabic’). In fact, there are languages which prohibit this sequence; Spanish is a case in point. Spanish avoids words that start with [st]. Moreover, Spanish speakers like to add [e] in front of words that do and are therefore difficult to pronounce. Rather than say [stɹenӡ] (/strange/) they will say [estôen ]. The effect of this maneuver is that [s] is now part of the coda of an added syllable, and the onset is reduced (in their speech) to just [tô], or, in their pronunciation most likely [tr]. Notice that this means that Spanish speakers apply the phonetic rules of Spanish to English, because if they applied the English rules they would still end up with the onset [stɹ] (see below). French is similar, but French speakers are somehow less prone to add the vowel. (French has gone through the following sequence: from [st] to [est] to [et]. Compare the word /étoile/ ‘star’, which derives from Latin /stella/ ‘star’.) 17 r a j t O N C C
  22. 22. d. Stress Syllables are not the largest phonological unit. They are themselves organized into larger units. A group of two, sometimes three syllables is called a foot. A foot contains one syllable that is more prominent than the others in the same foot. Feet are grouped into higher units, where again one is more prominent than the others, and so on. Prominence is marked by stress. There are various ways to give prominence to a syllable. Ancient Greek is said to have marked prominence by pitch (the stressed syllable was about a fifth higher (3/2 of the frequency of an unstressed syllable). Other languages (like German) use loudness. Other languages use combination of the two (Swedish). Within a given word there is one syllable that is the most prominent. In IPA it is marked by a preceding [ˈ]. We say that it carries primary stress. Languages differ with respect to the placement of primary stress. Finnish and Hungarian place the stress on the first syllable, French on the last. Latin put the stress on the last but one (penultimate), if it was long (that is to say, had a long vowel or was closed); otherwise, if was a syllable that preceded it (the antepenultimate) then that syllable got primary stress. Thus we had pe.re.gri.nus (‘foreign’) with stress on the penultimate (gri) since the vowel was long, but in.fe.ri.or with stress on the antepenultimate /fe/ since the /i/ in the penultimate was short. (Obviously, monosyllabic words had the stress on the last syllable.) Sanskrit was said to have free stress, that is to say, stress was free to fall anywhere in the word. Typically, within a foot the syllables like to follow in a specific pattern. If the foot has two syllables, it consists either in an unstressed followed by a stressed syllable (iambic metre), or vice versa (trochaic metre). 18
  23. 23. Sometimes a foot carries three syllables (a stressed followed by two unstressed ones, a dactylus). So, if the word has more than three syllables, there will be a syllable that is more prominent than its neighbours but not carrying main stress. You may try this with the word /antepenultimate/. You will find that the first syllable is more prominent than the second but less than the fourth. We say that it carries secondary stress: [̩antԑpǝn'˄ltımԑt]. Or [ǝ'sımǝ'leıʃn]. The so-called metrical stress theory to account for stress as follows. The syllables are each represented by a cross (×). This is a Layer 0 stress. Then, in a sequence of cycles, syllables get assigned more crosses. The more crosses, the heavier the syllable. The number of crosses is believed to correspond to the absolute weight of a syllable. So, a word that has a syllable of weight 3 (three crosses) is less prominent than one with a syllable of weight 4. Let’s take tries to account for stress as follows. The syllables are each represented by a cross (×). This is a Layer 0 stress. Then, in a sequence of cycles, syllables get assigned more crosses. The more crosses, the heavier the syllable. The number of crosses is believed to correspond to the absolute weight of a syllable. So, a word that has a syllable of weight 3 (three crosses) is less prominent than one with a syllable of weight 4. Let’s take (78) We have five syllables. Some syllables get extra crosses. The syllable [sı] carries primary stress in /assimilate/. Primary stress is always marked in the lexicon, and this mark tells us that the syllable must get a cross. Further, heavy syllables get an additional cross. 19 Layer 0 X X X X X ǝ sl mǝ lel ʃn
  24. 24. A syllable counts as heavy in English if it has a coda or a diphthong or long vowel. So, [leı] gets an extra cross. [ʃn] is not heavy since the [n] is nuclear. So this is now the situation at Layer 1: (79) Next, the nominalisation introduces main stress on the fourth syllable. So this syllable gets main stress and is therefore assigned another cross. The result is this: (80) If larger units are considered, there are more cycles. The word /maintain/ for example has this representation by itself: (81) To get this representation, all we have to know is where the primary stress falls. Both syllables are heavy and therefore get an extra cross at Layer 1. Then the main syllable gets a cross at Layer 2. Now, if the two are put together, a decision must be made which of the two words is more prominent. It is the second, and this is therefore what we get: 20 Layer 1 X X Layer 2 X X X X X ǝ sl mǝ lel ʃn Layer 2 X Layer 1 X X Layer 0 X X X X X ǝ sl mǝ lel ʃn Layer 2 X Layer 1 X X Layer 0 X X meln teln
  25. 25. (82) Notice that the stress is governed by a number of heterogeneous factors. The first is the weight of the syllable; this decides about Layer 1 stress. Then there is the position of the main stress (which in English must to a large extent be learned - equivalently, it must explicitly be given in the representation, unlike syllable structure). Third, it depends on the way in which the word is embedded into larger units (so syntactic criteria play a role here). Also, morphological formation rules can change the location of the main stress! For example, the suffix (a)tion attracts stress (['kǝm'baın] and ['kǝmbı'neıʃn]) so does the suffix ee (as in /employee/), but /ment/ does not (['gavɚn] and ['gavɚnment]). The suffix /al/ does move the accent without attracting it (['ænԑkdot] versus ['ænԑk'dotal]). Finally, we mention a problem concerning the representations that keeps coming up. It is said that certain syllables cannot receive stress because they contain a vowel that cannot be stressed (for example, schwa: [ǝ]). On the other hand, we can also say that a vowel is schwa because it is unstressed. Take, for example, the pair ['ɹiǝlaız] and [̩ɹiǝlı'zeıʃn]. When the stress shifts, the realisation of /i/ changes. So, is it rather the stress that changes and makes the vowel change quality or does the vowel change and make the stress shift? Often, these problems find no satisfactory answer. 21 Layer 3 X Layer 2 X X Layer 1 X X X X Layer 0 X X X X X X X meln teln ǝ sl mǝ lel ʃn
  26. 26. In this particular example it seems that the stress shift is first, and it induces the vowel change. It is known that unstressed vowels undergo reduction in time. The reason why French stress in always on the last syllable is because it inherited the stress pattern from Latin, but the syllables following the stressed syllable eventually got lost. Here the stress was given and it drove the development. 22
  27. 27. 1. CONCLUSION Modeling Phonological Construction of speech is a critical issue in speech recognition. In this paper, we report our recent development of an overlapping feature based phonological model that represents long-span contextual dependency in speech acoustics. In this model, high-level linguistic constraints are incorporated in automatic construction of the patterns of feature overlapping and of the hidden Markov model (HMM) states induced by such patterns. The main linguistic information explored includes groups of sound, syllable structure (Universal ), The internal structure of syllable, vowels are nuclear, and word stress. A consistent computational framework developed for the construction of the feature-based model and the major components of the model are described. Experimental results on the use of the overlapping-feature model in an HMM- based system for speech recognition show improvements over the conventional triphone - based phonological model. 2. SUGGESTION The aim of this study all reader be able to explore The Phonological Construction Comprehensible to examine whether the sentence comprehension of this features are affected by limitation of Phonological Construction, and if so, which types of sentences are affected. More specifically, the reader could declarative or developing the sentences in this case. The participants to create the students have motivated.
  28. 28. REFERENCES Hulst,H. van der. 2003. Cognitive Phonology. University of Connecticut Nathan, Geoffrey S. 2008. Phonology A Cognitive Grammar Introduction ( Cognitive Linguistic in Practice [ CLP ] 3 ). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Goldrick, Matthew. 2016. The Role of Abstraction in Constructing Phonological Structure. Northwestern University. Evanston, IL 60208 USA Kracht, Marcus. Introduction to Linguistics. Los Angeles, CA 90095 – 1543

×