LINGUIST List 18.1118
Thu Apr 12 2007
Diss: Phonology: Borroff: 'A Landmark Underspecification Account of...'
Editor for this issue: Hunter Lockwood
<hunterlinguistlist.org>
Directory
1. Marianne
Borroff,
A Landmark Underspecification Account of the Patterning of Glottal Stop
Final Standing: Top 5 Schools in LL Grad School Challenge:1. Stanford University $32702. University of Massachusetts at Amherst $20273. University of Arizona $18354. University of Washington $14745. University of California, Santa Barbara $1006To see the full list, go to: http://linguistlist.org/donation/fund-drive2007/allschools.cfm
*******************************************************************************
Message 1: A Landmark Underspecification Account of the Patterning of Glottal Stop
Date: 11-Apr-2007
From: Marianne Borroff <mlborroffgmail.com>
Subject: A Landmark Underspecification Account of the Patterning of Glottal Stop
Institution: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Program: Department of Linguistics
Dissertation Status: Completed
Degree Date: 2007
Author: Marianne L. Borroff
Dissertation Title: A Landmark Underspecification Account of the Patterning of Glottal Stop
Dissertation URL: http://roa.rutgers.edu/view.php3?id=1289
Linguistic Field(s):
Phonology
Dissertation Director:
Ellen Broselow
Marie K. Huffman
Dissertation Abstract:
This dissertation addresses the asymmetry in patterning between laryngealand supralaryngeal consonants. In this dissertation, I consider fourpatterns: (1) required identity-across-glottals (in V1?V2, V1 = V2); (2)hiatus resolution-like processes in V?V(V?V patterns with VV); (3)prohibition of glottal stop from syllable onset or coda; and (4) temporalinstability of sequences with glottal stop (e.g. vowel intrusion: Vx?C ->Vx?VxC,coalescence of C? to C'). I present a unified analysis of thesepatterns within the frameworks of Articulatory Phonology (Browman andGoldstein 1986, et seq.) and Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993),in which utterances are comprised of abstract articulatory gestures (ratherthan segments or features).
I argue that the exceptional behavior of glottal stop is a function of itsacoustic properties: in contrast to oral stop consonants, glottal stop doesnot condition formant transitions, and therefore lacks the landmarks ofONSET (marking the beginning of the gesture) and OFFSET (marking the end ofthe gesture.) Based on data on temporal relations within syllables andsequences (e.g. in Browman and Goldstein 2000, and others), I propose thatthe ONSET and OFFSET landmarks are points of alignment for phasingrelations that underlie syllabification and sequentiality. Because it lacksthese crucial landmarks (the Landmark Underspecification proposal), glottalstop cannot participate unambiguously in syllabic or sequential phasingrelations.
This approach provides an account of each of the patterns described above.Hiatus resolution-across-glottals occurs because the glottal stop cannotsatisfy the constraint that requires syllable onsets to be precisely phasedwith respect to the following vowel; glottal stop is therefore not asatisfactory syllable onset. Languages in which the vowels flankinglaryngeal consonants are required to be identical exhibit a subset case ofthe hiatus resolution pattern, differing only in the strategies employed torepair hiatus. Similarly, glottal stop is disallowed pre- orpostvocalically in some languages because it cannot obey the constraints onphasing of onset or coda consonants with respect to syllable nuclei.Finally, the lack of clear cues to the temporal position of glottal stoplead underlying sequences with glottal stop to surface non-sequentially,manifested as vowel intrusion or as coalescence of the glottal stop with avowel or consonant.
Among the languages discussed are Yatzachi Zapotec (Otomanguean), YucatecMaya (Mayan), Kekchi (Mayan), Arbore (Cushitic), Tukang Besi(Malayo-Polynesian), Kashaya (Pomoan) and Yurok (Algic).
|