Focus-driven prosodic restructuring patterns: A unified OT account of deaccenting and dephrasing
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Sentence-level accent redistribution and prosodic rephrasing are often required when focus is involved. This paper investigates deaccenting in English and dephrasing in Korean, providing a unified account for these two types of restructuring patterns that have previously been handled separately within the OT framework. The main proposal in this paper is that both of these restructuring patterns are motivated by high-ranked EDGEMOST (LEFTMOST/ RIGHTMOST) constraints, which refer to the manifestation of prominence and syntactic/prosodic boundaries. The new analysis has two advantages over previous studies such as Truckenbrodt (1995) and Selkirk (2000). Theoretically, it solves the input specification problem in the analysis of Selkirk (2000) for English focus phrasing variation. Typologically, it removes an unnecessary parametric difference between English and Korean in describing focus restructuring patterns. Within the new proposal, English and Korean share the RIGHTMOST preference, which can be supported by the perceptual nature of pitch prominence.
Abstract
Sentence-level accent redistribution and prosodic rephrasing are often required when focus is involved. This paper investigates deaccenting in English and dephrasing in Korean, providing a unified account for these two types of restructuring patterns that have previously been handled separately within the OT framework. The main proposal in this paper is that both of these restructuring patterns are motivated by high-ranked EDGEMOST (LEFTMOST/ RIGHTMOST) constraints, which refer to the manifestation of prominence and syntactic/prosodic boundaries. The new analysis has two advantages over previous studies such as Truckenbrodt (1995) and Selkirk (2000). Theoretically, it solves the input specification problem in the analysis of Selkirk (2000) for English focus phrasing variation. Typologically, it removes an unnecessary parametric difference between English and Korean in describing focus restructuring patterns. Within the new proposal, English and Korean share the RIGHTMOST preference, which can be supported by the perceptual nature of pitch prominence.
참고문헌 (32)
- BECKMAN, MARY E, "Stress and Non-Stress Accent" (1986), Foris Publication
- BECKMAN, MARY E, "Intonational structure in Japanese and English", Phonology Yearbook, 3, pp.255~310 (1986)
- BRUCE, GÖSTA, "Nordic Prosody", pp.219~228 (1978), Gleerup
- BÜRING, DANIEL, "Syntax at Santa Cruz 3", pp.41~58 (2001)
- CHO, YOUNG-MEE, "Syntax and phrasing in Korean", pp.47~62 (1990)
- CHOMSKY, NOAM, "The Sound Pattern of English" (1968), Harper and Row
- DOWNING, LAURA J, "Stress and Tone - the African Experience" (2003), Rüdiger Köppe Verlag
- DOWNING, LAURA J, "The prosody of focus in Bantu languages and the primacy of phrasing", Paper presented at TIE Conference (2004)
- FÉRY CAROLINE, "Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested foci", Language, 82(1), pp.131~150 (2006)
- GRICE, H. P, "Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3" (1975), Academic Press
- HALLE, MORRIS, "An Essay on Stress" (1987), MIT Press
- HAYES B, "Bengali intonational phonology", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 9, pp.47~96 (1991)
- HORNE, M, "Empirical evidence for a deletion formulation of the rhythm rule in English", Linguistics, 28, pp.959~981 (1990)
- JUN, SUN-AH, "The Phonetics and Phonology of Korean Prosody,", PhD, pp.1993
- KAGER, RENÉ, "Optimality Theory" (1999), Cambridge University Press
- KANERVA, J, "The Phonology-Syntax Connection", pp.145~111 (1990)
- LAHIRI, ADITI, "Phrasal Phonology", pp.119~144 (1999)
- LADD, D. ROBERT, "The structure of intonational meaning: evidence from English" (1980), Indiana University Press
- LADD, D. ROBERT, "Intonational Phonology" (1996), Cambridge University Press
- LEVINSON, S. C, "Pragmatics" (1983), Cambridge University Press
- LEVINSON, S. C, "Presumptive Meaning: The theory of the generalized conversational implicature" (2000), The MIT Press
- LIBERMAN, M, "The Intonational System of English", PhD, pp.1975
- MCCARTHY, JOHN J, "Year Book of Morphology" (1993), Kluwer
- MCCARTHY, JOHN J, "OT constraints are categorical", Phonology, 20, pp.75~138 (2003)
- PIERREHUMBERT, JANET, "The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation", PhD, pp.1980
- PIERREHUMBERT, JANET, "Intentions in Communication", pp.271~311 (1990), MIT Press
- PRINCE, ALAN, "Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar" (1993), Blackwell
- SELKIRK, ELISABETH, "Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure" (1984), MIT Press
- SELKIRK, ELISABETH, "Theory and Experiments", pp.231~261 (2000), Kluwer
- TRUCKENBRODT, HUBERT, "Phonological Phrases: Their relation to syntax, prominence and Focus", PhD, pp.1995
- TRUCKENBRODT, HUBERT, "On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases", Linguistic Inquiry, 30, pp.219~255 (1999)
- VOGEL, IRENA, "The Phonology-Syntax Connection", pp.339~363 (1990), The University of Chicago Press