Syllables PDF - Yavas (2016) Chapter 6-4

174 syllables In (a), (b), and (d), the branching rhymes are obvious; in (c), the syllable is heavy because it has a branching nucleus. Having made this digression to explain syllable weight, we can conclude that heavy syllables attract stress, and essen...

174 syllables In (a), (b), and (d), the branching rhymes are obvious; in (c), the syllable is heavy because it has a branching nucleus. Having made this digression to explain syllable weight, we can conclude that heavy syllables attract stress, and essentially, in English, no stressed syllable may be light. With this information, we are now ready to go back to the prob- lematic cases we considered above. In medicine, happen, finish, etc., we have a conflict between the maximal onset principle and stress. While the maximal onset principle dictates that the first syllables of each of these words be light, the stress that falls on this very syllable contradicts the principle that light syllables cannot receive stress. This is the reason why some speakers are not comfortable with the syllabic divisions in these words. In such cases, linguists invoke the concept of ambisyllabicity, whereby the consonant in question is treated as behaving both as the coda of the preceding syllable and as the onset of the fol- lowing syllable at the same time. To put it succinctly, we can say that a conso- nant that is (part of) a permissible onset (cluster) is ambisyllabic if it occurs immediately after a short vowel /ɪ, ε, æ, ʌ, ʊ, ↄ/ɑ/ (i.e. lax vowels plus [ↄ/ɑ]) that forms the nucleus of a stressed syllable. We can represent this as follows: [h æ p ə n] σ σ O R O R N C N C h æ p ə n This is a consequence of the tendency for a stressed rhyme to be heavy (i.e. branching). 6.8 Practical Applications The constraints we have examined in relation to the sequencing of sounds in syllables via sonority have far‐reaching implications in many applied situa- tions, such as in normal phonological development, in clinical populations, and in foreign language learning. For example, the process of consonant cluster reduction, which is commonly observed in all of these three populations, is far from being haphazard. A target such as play [ple] is much more likely to be reduced to [pe] than to the alternative [le]. The reason for this is that the former is the more unmarked (more expected) one because it provides a higher jump in sonority from the single onset to the nucleus (in [pe] the sonority index of /p/ = 1, the sonority index of /e/ = 9; thus the resulting sequence is a change from 1 to 9; [le], on the other hand, would result in a change from 6 to 9 in sonority indices). Since a CV sequence is more natural when the contrast between the C and the V is greater, [pe] is the more valuable of the two logical alternatives.  syllables 175 Support for the validity of such a constraint is not hard to find in developing phonologies. Chin (1996) observed several children with phonological disor- ders whose modification of target onset clusters was governed by the principle reviewed above. In one instance, the subject applied consonant cluster reduc- tion to all targets with #sC clusters (i.e. word initial s + consonant, e.g. stove [sov], snow [so], etc.) while not reducing other target clusters (e.g. play [ple], brush [bwʌs], etc.). Looking at several examples, Chin concluded that the child applied the reduction process to those targets where the sonority difference between C1 and C2 was less than 3 (i.e. stove 3 to 1 = −2, snow 3 to 5 = 2). Targets that had a difference of 3 in sonority from C1 to C2 (play 1 to 6 = 5, sleep 3 to 6 = 3, brush 2 to 7 = 5) were not subject to reduction. Another subject revealed the following patterns: (a) stop + approximant → stop (twin [dɪn], drum [dʌm], play [pe]) (b) fricative + sonorant → fricative (few [fu], swim [sɪm], shrub [ʃʌb]) (c) fricative + stop → stop (spoon [bun], stove [dov], sky [daɪ]) The child’s modification patterns do not allow us to state whether C1 or C2 of the cluster is deleted, as C1 is deleted in (a) and (b), but C2 is the one that is deleted in (c). If, however, we analyze the results in terms of sonority rises, we see that the behavior of the subject is very regular in that he follows the path resulting in the greatest jump in sonority from the resulting C to the nucleus V. Thus, while the observed simplification of the target drum is [dʌm], with a movement from 2 to 10 in sonority, the alternative, [ɹ̣ʌm], would have resulted in 7 to 10, which is a much smaller jump. Similarly, in sky becoming [daɪ], we have a jump from 2 to 10, while the alternative, [saɪ], would have given a smaller (3 to 10) jump. Sonority‐driven modification of onset clusters has also been observed in apha- sic patients. Blumstein (1978), invoking the concept of sonority for the erroneous cluster formation in paraphasias, notes that the addition of, for example, a liquid in an erroneous production goes to the left of a vowel, thus forming the sequence “obstruent + liquid + vowel,” which is in accordance with the sonority sequenc- ing principle. Beland et al. (1990) noted that their patient’s deletion of one mem- ber of the sequence “obstruent + liquid + V” was always the liquid, resulting in the maximum jump to “obstruent + V.” Christman (1992) also found sonority to be influential in the syllable production patterns of ­jargon aphasics. Romani and Calabrese (1998) provided further support for sonority‐driven patterns by show- ing their 40‐year‐old Italian aphasic patient’s modification of #CCV sequences. By producing “obstruent + liquid + V” targets as “obstruent + V,” “obstruent + /j/ + V” targets as “obstruent + V,” and “nasal + /j/ + V” targets as “nasal + V,” the patient deleted the segment of higher sonority in the target cluster and produced a sequence with a maximum rise in sonority from the onset to the nucleus. Telugu‐speaking children with prelingual hearing loss have been reported to have greater difficulty in CV syllables in which the sonority jump is small (e.g. “glide + V”) than those in which the sonority jump is bigger (e.g. “obstruent + V”) (Duggirala Vasanta, personal communication). 176 syllables That such principles are firmly grounded can also be shown in normally developing children. Ohala (1999) examined the productions of CCVC tar- gets with 16 children ages 1;9–3;2. The prediction was that when the CCVC targets were reduced to CVC sequences, the deleted member of the double onset would be the one that had a higher sonority index, because its deletion could provide the remaining sequence of the single onset to the nucleus with the maximal rise in sonority. The overall results confirm the predictions in that children preserved the least sonorous consonant member of the onset cluster and created the maximal rise in sonority. Yavaș and Someillan (2005) tested the same hypothesis with a group of Spanish–English bilingual children with target #sC sequences. It was hypothesized that among the possible sequences of English #sC clusters (“/s/ + stop” sky, “/s/ + nasal” snail, “/s + l/” sleep, “/s + w/” swim), subjects’ success rates would be higher for the targets in which the sonority jump from C1 to C2 was higher. The results confirmed the hypoth- esis overwhelmingly, at least when C2 was a continuant, in that the easiest target was /sw/ (sonority jump from 3 to 8), followed by /sl/ (sonority jump from 3 to 6). The difference between the clusters in which the C2 was a non‐continuant (i.e. “/s/ + stop” and “/s/ + nasal”) did not reveal any significance. Similar results were reported by Yavaș and Barlow (2006). Moreover, data from atypi- cally developing monolingual English‐speaking children (Yavaș and McLeod 2010) show that markedness based on sonority distance between /s/ and C2 is a much better explanation of patterns. There are studies, however, that reveal contradictory results for the same targets whereby “frequency” of the target rather than sonority is found explanatory. Yavaș and Core (2006) state that /st/, which is most frequent in English, has the highest correct realization, and /sn/, which has the lowest frequency in these clusters, has the lowest percentage cor- rect. The higher percentage of correct realizations of /st/ has also been reported in Haitian Creole–English bilingual children (Yavaș and Beaubrun 2006). Thus, this topic needs further investigation. If maximum rise in sonority is the most unmarked (expected) sequencing from the onset to the nucleus, minimum descent in sonority is the most unmarked (expected) sequencing for a movement from the nucleus to the coda. The reason for this is that the most common (natural/unmarked) syllable type is codaless (CV), where there is no descent in sonority. Thus, when we have a coda, the smaller the descent from the nucleus the more valuable it is. That this principle is at work can be seen in developing phonologies. Ohala (1999) exam- ined the coda cluster modifications of children ages 1;9–3;2 in which CVCC targets were modified to CVC. She hypothesized that the member of the coda cluster to be deleted would be the one that was lower in sonority, so that the remaining higher‐sonority item would provide the minimum descent from the nucleus. Thus, for example, a sequence such as [maɹ̣p] was expected to reduce to [maɹ̣] (sonority shift of 10 to 7 from the nucleus to the coda), and not as [map] (from 10 to 1). The results were supportive of the hypothesis in that the expected reductions were made more than 50 percent of the time, and the unexpected modifications totaled only around 16 percent. Behavioral evidence regarding the principles of sonority in second language phonology is given in Chapter 8.  syllables 177 Summary In this chapter, we looked at the syllable structure of English. First we examined the hierarchical internal structure of the unit, which has the constituents “onset” and “rhyme,” the latter of which can be examined in its components “nucleus” and “coda.” We also looked at the syllabification rules of the spoken and w ­ ritten languages, which can be very different in certain cases. In syllable phonotactics, we dealt with the sequencing restrictions in English and pointed out various onset and coda consonant cluster patterns. Finally, we looked at syl­lable weight, which is determined by the rhyme structure, and ambisyllabicity, whereby the same consonant behaves both as a coda of the preceding syllable and as the onset of the following syllable at the same time. Exercises 1. In Section 6.5.6, several patterns for non‐suffixed triple codas are dis- cussed. Which of these (if any) violate(s) the Sonority Sequencing Principle? State the example(s) and your rationale. 2. Which of the following would qualify for ambisyllabicity? Circle the word(s), state your rationale, and give the tree diagram(s). metric, regime, anecdote, integrity, panic, majesty, Africa, rival, pity, study, radical, legal, action, many, liquid, penalty, garbage, picnic, spinach 3. Some of the following words can create ambisyllabic consonants due to deletable schwas in fast speech. Circle the ones that are applicable and give the tree diagrams. broccoli, carpenter, separate, reference, minaret, cabinet, finally, mira- cle, veteran 4. Consider the following: Short V + CC Long V/diph. + C Long V/diph. + CC (a) pimp (b) wipe (c) mind BUT * [maɪmb] lint light grind * [maɪŋɡ] 178 syllables sink bike * [ɡɹ̣aɪmb] weep * [ɡɹ̣aɪŋɡ] seed beak While certain combinations are possible, certain others (in (c)) are not allowed. State the generalization. 5. In Section 6.5.6, we saw that, because of reduced vowel deletions, several normally impermissible consonant clusters can be created ­ (e.g. photography [ftɑɡɹ̣әfi]). Circle the ones that are applicable in the following list of words. capacity, degree, laborious, support, cerebral, sonority, terrific, col- lapse, magician, remember, correct, commercial, botanical 6. English final consonant clusters are simplified by deleting the final member of the cluster in certain contexts (e.g. /nd/ in sand piles [sæn paɪlz], /st/ in first class [fɚs klæs]). The same is not possible in other contexts (e.g. /nd/ in canned vegetables [kænd vε …], /st/ in missed goals [mɪst ɡolz]). Analyze the following and state which one(s) accept / reject this deletion. State the generalizations. hand‐held, gift horse, wind‐mill, left hand, hand rail, soft landing, grandfather, gift‐wrap 7. Transcribe the following and state the number of palato‐alveolars, sonorant consonants, and closed syllables. (a) Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people. (Eleanor Roosevelt) (b) Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. (Benjamin Franklin) 8. Transcribe the following (about “English in America”) from J. Jenkins, World Englishes (London: Routledge, 2002). Walter Raleigh’s expedition of 1584 to America was the earliest  syllables 179 from the British Isles to the New World, though it did not result in a permanent settlement. The voyagers landed on the coast of North Carolina near Roanoke Island, but fell into conflict with the native Indian population and then mysteriously disappeared altogether. In 1607, the first permanent colonist arrived and settled in Jamestown, Virginia, to be followed in 1620 by a group of Puritans and others on the Mayflower. The latter group landed further north, settling at what is now Plymouth, Massachusetts, in New England. Both settlements spread rapidly and attracted further migrants during the years that followed. Because of their different linguistic backgrounds, there were immediately certain differences in the accents of the two groups of set- tlers. Those in Virginia came mainly from the West of England and brought with them their characteristic rhotic /r/ and voiced /s/ sounds. On the other hand, those who settled in New England were mainly from the east of England, where these features were not a part of the local accent.