University of Calgary

LING 713/09W

Submitted by dflynn on Wed, 2007-01-31 16:23.
  • Class time, location:  Wedmesdays 9:00–12:00, Seminar Room
  • Office hours, location:  Mondays 12:30–2 or by appointment, SS 806
  • Schedule:
  • Course description (overview for Jan. 14): As a core discipline in modern (generative) linguistics, phonology has two main goals. First, to discover the universals concerning sound patterns in language, i.e., the common ele-ments of all phonological systems. Second, to place these elements in a theoretical framework that will describe sound patterns that occur in speakers’ minds, and also predict what sound patterns can-not occur in speakers’ minds.
    Current phonological theory is sharply divided into two areas: segmental and prosodic. Segmental phonology focuses on “melody”: speech sounds (segments), their internal composition and external interactions. One of the greatest discoveries in this area is that segments consist of features, and it is through these that segments interact with each other. Segmental phonology is therefore concerned with phonological features: what are they, and how are they organised inside segments and between segments? These questions were addressed extensively from the “linear” generative perspective of the 1960’s and from the “autosegmental” perspective of the 1970’s and 1980’s. LING 613 focusses on segmental phonology.
    The other major area is prosodic phonology. Of the various insights provided by phonological theory into the nature of our human language faculty, this area is perhaps the least obvious, and therefore potentially the most informative. Prosody refers to all aspects of the sound system above the level of segmental sounds, such as pitch, timing, stress and rhythm. Research into the nature and patterning of these phenomena suggests that speech sounds are not just arranged linearly, but are hierarchi-cally organized into prosodic structure: segments into moras and syllables, syllables into stress feet, metrical feet into phonological words, phonological words into phonological phrases, and phonologi-cal phrases into phonological utterances. For example, the prosodic structure associated with the ut-terance ‘Too few theoreticians recognize real diversity’  might be represented as follows:

utteranceThis prosodic hierarchy contributes to the organisational structure of utterances, hence presumably to the overall efficiency of human language. But much remains to be learned about this construct: is its internal architecture fully justified, what roles can its constituents play in individual grammars, and what relations obtain between them?
To answer such questions empirically, we will study genetically diverse languages which happen to be uniquely rich in theoretically-revealing prosodic patterns. In our study we will adopt the conceptual frame-work of Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1997, 2004) since much recent work has rendered its propositions on the prosodic hierarchy considerably more plausible than known alternatives. Optimality Theory treats grammars as language-particular rankings of otherwise universal constraints (for details on OT, see Kager 1999, McCarthy 2002). To give a “local” example, Shaw (1985a, 1985b) describes an unusual pattern of stress in the Stoney dialect spoken near Calgary:  a secondary stress (marked with a grave accent) is as-signed to the second syllable, and a primary stress (marked ) is assigned to the second-to-last syllable.

mùhmudáktač    ‘I’m going to eat’
ĩyìktõktõðábič   ‘we (pl.) are sawing’
akìdabišíktač     ‘they will not look at it’

stoneyAssuming a right-headed foot (Hayes 1995:267), this stress pattern may be seen as a compromise between several competing demands on the pro-sodic hierarchy: (i) (metrical) feet may not be final in the word; (ii) the head of the prosodic word must be aligned with the right edge of the word; (iii) feet must be aligned with the left edge of the word; and (iv) syllables must be parsed into feet. These demands, which are widespread crosslin-guistically, are prioritised in Stoney grammar. In order to satisfy (i), the head of the prosodic word is not word-final, against (ii); in order to satisfy (ii), not all feet are word-initial, against (iii); and in order to satisfy (iii) as well as (i), not all syllables are parsed into feet, against (iv). The (sub)ranking responsible for stress in Stoney grammar is thus (i) » (ii) » (iii) » (iv), where » means “ranks above”.

More broadly, the central claims of OT are the following:

  • All languages have in common a set of constraints on well-formedness.
  • Languages differ only in which constraints have priority in case of conflict.
  • Language-particular relative constraint priorities are characterized by a ranking of the universal well-formedness constraints into a dominance hierarchy, with each constraint having absolute priority over all lower-ranked constraints.
  • The grammar of a particular language —its constraint hierarchy— is an evaluator of structural de-scriptions, assigning a (nonnumerical) Harmony value that assesses the degree to which the constraints are met, taking into account the language-particular priorities. This provides the harmonic ordering of forms, ordering structural descriptions from maximal to minimal Harmony.
  • The grammatical forms of the language are the optimal ones: the well-formed structural description of an input is the one with maximal Harmony.

  • Grading system:
    • 3 class presentations of readings @ 10% each
    • Class participation 10%
    • Paper prospectus 5%
    • Paper presentation 5%
    • Research paper 50%!!
  • Re: Library research seminar: If you like, you can attend a how-to-do-research seminar at the li-brary, scheduled March 11 2-3pm ICB and prepared by Ms. Rosvita Vaska, our librarian for linguistics.
  • Re: research paper: From now until mid-March, you will need to think about and investigate possible topics for your research paper. By the end of March at the latest, turn in a brief prospectus (about one page) in which you describe the phenomenon you are studying, cite the main source(s) you are con-sulting, and suggest why it’s interesting or where your investigations might lead. I expect the final re-search paper to be in the range of 20-25 pages. I don’t care about single or double spacing. It should have a short introduction setting out the problem, why it’s interesting, and what the proposal is, and it should have a conclusion summarising these points as well. Further details about format and organi-sation will be discussed at the end of class on April 11-13. In terms of substance, the paper should deal with some relatively modest phonological problem, appropriate to the length and scope of the project. The area of phonology addressed doesn’t really matter, as long as you feel comfortable with it. But you should make use, as much as possible, of the analytic and descriptive techniques and theoretical ideas introduced in class. The ideal type of a paper, then, would be an OT account of some (prosodic) phenomenon in one or several languages. If you already have a problem in mind, that’s great. If you don’t, then I suggest spending a little time thumbing through old journals and books in the library or in the Verbatim office. Just about every issue will offer rich material for (re)analysis. A warning: it’s very hard to go from raw linguistic data to a good paper in a short time. What this means is that, unless you have a lot of experience, you should probably start with a problem that has already been competently described and perhaps analysed within some more traditional phonological frame-work.
  • Assignment of grades:  Course grades will be assigned on a distribution that is NOT more restric-tive than the one below:

 A+ 97-100% B+ 84-88% C+  69-73% D+ 54-58%
 A  93-96% B   79-83% C    64-68% D   50-53%
 A– 89-92% B–  74-78% C–   59-63% F    0-49%

  • If warranted by class performance, grade cutoffs can be lowered (but not raised) from these levels for any given assignment. Course grades will be assigned based on the weighted average of the cutoffs used for the individual assignments. Note: Grades will be based on per cent scores to one decimal place, with “rounding up” only in the calculation of the final grade.
  • N.B.:  The graduate advisor for the 2008–2009 academic year is Dr. Amanda Pounder, apounder@ucalgary.ca

Important information:

1. It is expected that students will attend class.
2. Students are expected at all times to do their own work (see section “Scholastic offenses” in the 2008–2009 Calendar)
3. Assignments must be handed in on time. Missed or late assignments will receive a grade of zero.
4. An assignment deadline can be missed only if valid documentation is provided within one week of the missed assignment. Valid reasons for missing an assignment include birth, death, marriage, or serious illness or injury applying to you or a member of your immediate family.
5. Assignments written in pencil cannot be regraded.
6. The instructor may take a couple of days to respond to email messages.

Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct

Plagiarism involves submitting or presenting work in a course as if it were the student’s own work done expressly for that particular course, when, in fact, it is not.  Most commonly plagiarism exists when:

a) the work submitted or presented was done, in whole or in part, by an individual other than the one submitting or presenting the work (this includes having another impersonate the student or other-wise substituting the work of another for one’s own in an examination or test),
b) parts of the work are taken form another source without reference to the original author,
c) the whole work (e.g. an essay) is copied from another source, and/or
d) a student submits or presents work in one course which has also been submitted in another course (although it may be completely original with that student) without the knowledge of or prior agreement of the instructor involved.

While it is recognized that scholarly work often involves reference to the ideas, data and conclusions of other scholars, intellectual honesty requires that such references by explicitly and clearly noted.  Some course assignments call for students to work in groups.  Unless noted otherwise in writing, students must write up their own answers for submission of the assignment.  Failure to do so constitutes plagiarism.

Plagiarism is an extremely serious academic offence.  Possible penalties for plagiarism include: failing the assignment, failing the course, disciplinary probation, suspension, or expulsion.

Any student who voluntarily and consciously aids another student in the commission of plagiarism is also guilty of academic misconduct.

Student’s Union Contact Information:

SU VP Academic Phone: 220-3911 and email: suvpaca@ucagary.ca and
SU Faculty Rep. Phone: 220-3913 and email: socialscirep@su.ucalgary.ca

Some of the services offered at the Students’ Union are:

• Peer Tutor Program
• Student Rights Advisor (Assistance with academic and non academic appeals)
• Teaching Excellence Awards
• Travel and Conference Funding
• Volunteer Services
• Clubs (academic and non academic clubs)
• Campus Food Bank
• Student Legal Assistance

The SU is also available to all students to address any other academic or non academic questions.

 

References: 

Anderson, Stephen R. 2005. Aspects of the theory of clitics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Anttila, Arto. 2006. Variation and opacity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24. 893-944.

Anttila, Arto. 2008. The role of prosody in the English dative alternation. Paper presented at the NELS 39, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (Nov. 8, 2008).

Bach, Emmon, Darin (Howe) Flynn & Patricia A. Shaw. 2005. On epenthesis and moraicity in North Wakashan. Paper presented at the 79th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Oakland, CA (Jan. 6-9, 2005).

Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo & April McMahon. 2006. English phonology and morphology. In Bas Aarts & April McMahon (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics, 382-410. Oxford: Blackwell.

Blevins, Juliette. 2003. Yurok syllable weight. International Journal of American Linguistics 69(1). 4-24.

Botne, Robert & Stuart Davis. 2000. Language games, segment imposition, and the syllable. Studies in Language 24(2). 319-344.

Broselow, Ellen, Su-I Chen & Marie Huffman. 1997. Syllable weight: Convergence of phonology and phonetics. Phonology 14. 47-82.

Buckley, Eugene. 2000. Alignment and weight in the Tigrinya verb stem. In Vicki Carstens & Frederick Parkinson (eds.), Advances in African linguistics, 165-176. Lawrenceville, NJ: Africa World Press.

Buckley, Eugene. 2008. Monosyllabicity and the origins of syllabaries. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Chicago, IL (Jan. 4, 2008).

Collie, Sarah. 2008. English stress preservation: the case for 'fake cyclicity'. English Language and Linguistics 12(3). 505-532.

Cook, Eung-Do & Darin Flynn. 2008. Aboriginal languages of Canada. In John Archibald & William O'Grady (eds.), Contemporary linguistic analysis, 318-333. Toronto, ON: Pearson.

Davis, Stuart & Michael Hammond. 1995. On the status of onglides in American English. Phonology 12(2). 159-182.

Davis, Stuart & Mi-Hui Cho. 2003. The Distribution of Aspirated Stops and /h/ in American English and Korean: An Alignment Approach with Typological Implications. Linguistics 4(386). 607-652.

Dell, François & Mohamed Elmedlaoui. 2002. Syllables in Tashlhiyt Berber and Moroccan Arabic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Downing, Laura J. 1998. On the prosodic misalignment of onsetless syllables. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16(1). 1-52.

Elfner, Emily. 2005. Syllable weight in Blackfoot. Paper presented at the 37th Algonquian Conference, Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull, QC (Oct. 21-23, 2005).

Elfner, Emily. 2006a. Contrastive syllabification in Blackfoot. In Donald Baumer, David Montero & Michael Scanlon (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 141-149. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.

Elfner, Emily. 2006b. The mora in Blackfoot: University of Calgary Masters thesis.

Ermineskin, Rachel & Darin (Howe) Flynn. 2005. On Blackfoot syllabics. Paper presented at the 37th Algonquian Conference, Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull, QC (Oct. 21-23, 2005).

Flynn, Darin. 2007. Too many solutions: Says who? Paper presented at the 12th Alberta Conference on Linguistics, Banff, AB (Oct. 20, 2007).

Flynn, Darin. 2009a. Fidelholtz's Law revisited. Ms. University of Calgary.

Flynn, Darin. 2009b. Heiltsuk tone I: prosodic factors. Ms. University of Calgary.

Flynn, Darin. 2009c. Heiltsuk tone II: segmental factors. Ms. University of Calgary.

Flynn, Darin (Howe). 2001. On syllabic obstruents in Oowekyala. Paper presented at the Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas/Workshop on American Indian Languages, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA (July 6-8, 2001).

Flynn, Darin (Howe) & Douglas Pulleyblank. 2001. Patterns and timing of glottalisation. Phonology 18(1). 45-80.

Flynn, Darin (Howe). 2002. Alignment in Nootkan prosodic morphology. Paper presented at the Linguistics Colloquium Series, University of Alberta, Edmonton (Feb. 15, 2002).

Flynn, Darin (Howe). 2005. Nootka and Wakashan languages. In Philipp Strazny (ed.), Encyclopedia of Linguistics, 753-756. London/New York: Routledge.

Gordon, Matthew. 2002. A phonetically driven account of syllable weight. Language 78. 51-80.

Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2005. Procliticized phonological phrases in English: Evidence from rhythm. Studia Linguistica 59. 174-193.

Hall, Tracy Alan. 2006. English syllabification as the interaction of markedness constraints. Studia Linguistica 60(1). 1-33.

Hammond, Michael. 1997. Vowel quantity and syllabification in English. Language 73(1). 1-17.

Hammond, Michael. 1999. The phonology of English: a prosodic optimality-theoretic approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Hargus, Sharon & Siri G. Tuttle. 1997. Augmentation as affixation in Athabaskan languages. Phonology 14. 177-220.

Hayes, Bruce. 1989. Compensatory Lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 253-306.

Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago, IL: U of Chicago Press.

Itô, Junko & Armin Mester. 2007a. Prosodic adjunction in Japanese compounds, Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 4, 97-112. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.

Itô, Junko & Armin Mester. 2007b. Categories and projections in prosodic structure. Paper presented at the 4th Old World Conference in Phonology, Rhodes, Greece (Jan. 18-21, 2007).

Kabak, Barıș & René Schiering. 2006. The phonology and morphology of function word contractions in German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 9. 53-99.

Kager, René. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kager, René. 2007. Feet and metrical stress. In Paul de Lacy (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology, 195-227. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kiparsky, Paul. 2006. Syllables and moras in Arabic. In Caroline Féry & Ruben van de Vijver (eds.), The syllable in Optimality Theory, 147-182. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kiparsky, Paul. 2007. Description and explanation: English revisited. Paper presented at the 81st annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Anaheim, CA (Jan. 5, 2007).

Kiparsky, Paul. 2008. Compensatory lengthening. Ms. Stanford University.

Klippenstein, Rachel. 2006. Syllable cut, moras, and quantity change in Dutch: University of Calgary Masters thesis.

Lacy, Paul de. 2007. Phonological evidence. In Steve Parker (ed.), Phonological argumentation: Essays on evidence and motivation. London, UK: Equinox.

McCarthy, John J. & Alan S. Prince. 1986. Prosodic Morphology 1986. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.

McCarthy, John J. 2002. A thematic guide to Optimality Theory (Research Surveys in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Murray, Robert W. 2000. Syllable cut prosody in Early Middle English. Language 76(3). 617-654.

Nadeau, Stephen E. 2003. Phonologic aspects of language disorders. In Kenneth M. Heilman & Edward Valenstein (eds.), Clinical neuropsychology, 35-60. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ohala, John. 1986. Consumer's guide to evidence in phonology. Phonology 3. 3-26.

Pater, Joe. 2000. Non-uniformity in English secondary stress: The role of ranked and lexically specific constraints. Phonology 17(2). 237-274.

Piggott, Glyne L. 2004. The representation of extrametricality. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 18(2). 45-88.

Piñeros, Carlos-Eduardo. 2001. Segment-to-syllable alignment and vocalization in Chilean Spanish. Lingua 111(3). 163-188.

Poser, William J. 1990. Evidence for foot structure in Japanese. Language 66(1). 78-105.

Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Prince, Alan S. & Paul Smolensky. 1997. Optimality: From neural networks to universal grammar. Science 275. 1604-1610.

Raffelsiefen, Renate. 2005. Paradigm uniformity effects versus boundary effects. In Laura J. Downing, Tracy Alan Hall & Renate Raffelsiefen (eds.), Paradigms in phonological theory, 211-262. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Rice, Keren. 2001. Slave (Northern Athapaskan). In Andrew Spencer & Arnold Zwicky (eds.), The handbook of morphology, 648-689. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Rice, Keren. 2005. Prominence and the verb stem in Slave (Hare). In Sharon Hargus & Keren Rice (eds.), Athabaskan prosody, 345-368. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ridouane, Rachid. 2008. Syllables without vowels: phonetic and phonological evidence from Tashlhiyt Berber. Phonology 25. 321-359.

Rosenthall, Sam & Harry van der Hulst. 1999. Weight-by-position by position. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17(3). 499-540.

Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1995. The prosodic structure of function words. In Jill Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey & Suzanne Urbanczyk (eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory, 439-470. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.

Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2005. Comments on intonational phrasing in English. In Sónia Frota, Marina Vigário & Maria João Freitas (eds.), Prosodies, 11-58. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Shaw, Patricia A. 1985a. Modularisation and substantive constraints in Dakota lexical phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2. 173-202.

Shaw, Patricia A. 1985b. Coexistent and competing stress rules in Stoney (Dakota). International Journal of American Linguistics 51(1). 1-18.

Shaw, Patricia A. 1994. The prosodic constituency of minor syllables. In Erin Duncan, Donka Farkas & Philip Spaelti (eds.), The proceedings of the twelfth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 117-132. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

Shaw, Patricia A. 1996. The non-nuclear status of syllabic obstruents in Berber. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Diego, CA (Jan. 4-7, 1996).

Smith, Jennifer L. 2007. Representational complexity in syllable structure and its consequences for Gen and Con. In Sylvia Blaho, Patrik Bye & Martin Krämer (eds.), Freedom of analysis? Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2002. Variation in p-phrasing in Bengali Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2. 259-303.

Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2005. A short report on intonation phrase boundaries in German. Linguistische Berichte 203. 273-296.

Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2006. Phrasal stress. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of languages and linguistics, 572-579. Oxford: Elsevier.

Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2007. The syntax–phonology interface. In Paul de Lacy (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology, 435-456. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wiltshire, Caroline R. 2006. Pulaar’s stress system: a challenge for theories of weight typology. In John Mugane (ed.), Selected Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, 181-192. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.

Yu, Alan. 2004. Reduplication in Homeric infixation in English. Paper presented at the 78th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Boston, MA (Jan. 8-11, 2004).

Yu, Alan. 2005. Quantity, stress and reduplication in Washo. Phonology 25. 437-475.
 

‹ Joint projectup