Blocking of English Auxiliary Reduction - Where and Why
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper explores where and why auxiliary reduction is blocked. Blocking of English auxiliary reduction can be explained not in terms of a strict syntactic process, but in terms of a phonological process. Auxiliary reduction occurs optionally because function words like auxiliaries are to be minimized, expecially in speech. However, there are some cases where auxiliary reduction is blocked. When the auxiliary is emphasized with stress, it does not permit auxiliary reduction. Here, I propose that when the auxiliary becomes lengthened, auxiliary reduction is blocked. This is the case where the prosodic boundary falls after the auxiliary. Speakers mark boundaries with the lengthening of pre-boundary words. Both segmental lengthening and pausing accompany prosodic boundaries in speech. Function words like auxiliaries are lengthened at the prosodic boundary and this lengthening does not allow the reduction of auxiliaries. If reduction is to minimize the function words, the lengthening of the auxiliaries will be incompatible with reduction. It seems that the auxiliary reduction is syntactically determined because it is blocked if the constituent immediately following the auxiliary has been either moved or deleted. However, this blocking of auxiliary reduction takes place not because of movement or deletion itself, but because of the lengthening of the auxiliary at the prosodic boundary immediately before the movement or deletion sites. Lengthening signals that it is followed by prosodic boundary. This also accounts for why the auxiliary reduction does not occur at the sentence final position.
Abstract
This paper explores where and why auxiliary reduction is blocked. Blocking of English auxiliary reduction can be explained not in terms of a strict syntactic process, but in terms of a phonological process. Auxiliary reduction occurs optionally because function words like auxiliaries are to be minimized, expecially in speech. However, there are some cases where auxiliary reduction is blocked. When the auxiliary is emphasized with stress, it does not permit auxiliary reduction. Here, I propose that when the auxiliary becomes lengthened, auxiliary reduction is blocked. This is the case where the prosodic boundary falls after the auxiliary. Speakers mark boundaries with the lengthening of pre-boundary words. Both segmental lengthening and pausing accompany prosodic boundaries in speech. Function words like auxiliaries are lengthened at the prosodic boundary and this lengthening does not allow the reduction of auxiliaries. If reduction is to minimize the function words, the lengthening of the auxiliaries will be incompatible with reduction. It seems that the auxiliary reduction is syntactically determined because it is blocked if the constituent immediately following the auxiliary has been either moved or deleted. However, this blocking of auxiliary reduction takes place not because of movement or deletion itself, but because of the lengthening of the auxiliary at the prosodic boundary immediately before the movement or deletion sites. Lengthening signals that it is followed by prosodic boundary. This also accounts for why the auxiliary reduction does not occur at the sentence final position.
참고문헌 (35)
- Aarts, B., "English Syntax and Argumentation" (2013), Palgrave
- Anderson, S., "English Reduced Auxiliaries Really are Simple Clitics", Lingue E Lingguaggio, 7(1), pp.1~28 (2008)
- Baker, C. L, "Stress Level and Auxiliarly Behavior in English", Linguistic Inquiry, 2, pp.167~181 (1971)
- Baker, C. L, "Auxiliary-Adverb Word Order", Linguistic Inquiry, 12, pp.309~315 (1981)
- Baker, C. L, "The Syntax of English Not : The Limits of Core Grammar", Linguistic Inquiry, 22, pp.387~429 (1991)
- Bolinger, D., "Intonation and Its Parts: Melody in Spoken English" (1986), Edward Arnold
- Breen, M, "Intonational Phrasing is Constrained by Meaning", Not Balance. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(10), pp.1532~1562 (2011)
- Close, R. A., "A Teachers’ Grammar: An Approach to the Central Problems of English", pp.2002, Thomson
- Cooper W. E, "Syntax and Speech" (1980), Harvard University Press
- Fults, S., "Matching and Raising Compared", University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics, 13, pp.53~84 (2004)
- Jackendoff, R, "Gapping and Related Rules", Linguistic Inquiry, 2, pp.21~35 (1971)
- Katz, J., "Compensatory Shortening and Phonetic Representations in English", 석사, pp.2010
- Kim, Y-S., "English Cliticization and Intonational Phrase", Studies in Generative Grammar, 9(2), pp.429~465 (1999)
- 김영선, "Deletion as Cliticization and Stress in English VP-Ellipsis Construction", 생성문법연구, 16(3), pp.535~553 (2006), 한국생성문법학회
- 김영선, "Wanna Contraction and Prosodic Boundary", 생성문법연구, 22(4), pp.797~818 (2012), 한국생성문법학회
- King, H. V, "On Blocking the Rules for Contraction in English", Linguistic Inquiry, 1, pp.134~136 (1970)
- Kolln, M., "Rhetorical Grammar: Grammatical Choices, Rhetorical Effects" (2007), Pearson Education
- Lakoff, G, "Global Rules", Language, 46, pp.627~639 (1970)
- EFL Teacher’s Course, "The Grammar Book: An ESL", pp.1999, Larsen-Freeman, D
- Lasnik. H., "Minimalist Analysis" (1999), Blackwell
- Leech, G. N., "Meaning and the English Verb" (1987), Longman
- Lehiste, I., "Role of Duration in Disambiguating Syntactically Ambiguous Sentences", Journal of the acoustical Society of America, 60(5), pp.1199~1202 (1976)
- Lightfoot, David, "Minimizing Government: Deletion as Cliticization", The Linguistic Review, 23(2), pp.97~126 (2006)
- Lobeck, A., "Ellipsis: Functional Heads, Licensing and Identification" (1995), Oxford University Press
- Potsdam, E, "NegP and Subjunctive Complements in English", Linguistic Inquiry, 28, pp.533~541 (1997)
- Rao, R., "Final Lengthening and Pause Duration in Three Dialects of Spanish", Selected Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Laboratory Approaches to Spanish Phonology, pp.69~82 (2010)
- Roach, P., "English Phonetics and Phonology: A Practical Course" (2009), Cambridge University Press
- Ross, J. R, "Guess Who?", Chicago Linguistic Society, 5, pp.252~286 (1969)
- Selkirk E., "Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure" (1984), The MIT Press
- Selkirk E., "Signal to Syntactic Bootstrapping from Speech to Grammar in Early Acquisition", pp.187~213 (1996), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
- Turk, Alice E., "Word-boundary-related Duration Patterns in English", Journal of Phonetics, 28(4), pp.397~440 (2000)
- Watson D., "The Relationship between Intonational Phrasing and Syntactic Structure in Language Production", Language and Cognitive Processes, 19, pp.714~755 (2004)
- Wells, J. C., "English Intonation: An Introduction" (2006), Cambridge University Press
- Zwicky, A. M, "Auxiliary Reduction in English", Linguistic Inquiry, 1, pp.323~336 (1970)
- Zwicky, A. M., "Cliticization vs. Inflection: English n’t", Language, 59, pp.502~513 (1983)