Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T07:38:28.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paradigm Uniformity Effects in German Phonology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2005

Tracy Alan Hall
Tracy Alan Hall
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

German words like Siedl-ung [] ‘settlement’, which contain a sequence of obstruent plus sonorant consonant between vowels, pose two problems assuming the heterosyllabic parse: (a) the first syllable is superheavy, but superheavy syllables are otherwise restricted in their occurrence to word-final position; and (b) the /d/ does not devoice, contrary to what one would expect, since Final Devoicing operates without exception in coda position. The problem in assuming that consonant clusters like [dl] are tautosyllabic is that they are otherwise non-occurring in word-initial position. In the present study, it is argued that the heterosyllabic parse for words like Siedl-ung is correct, and that (a) and (b) derive an explanation by appealing to paradigm uniformity. It is shown in an optimality-theoretic analysis that the canonical patterns capturing the distribution of superheavy syllables and Final Devoicing require the ranking “markedness ” input-output faithfulness.” The paradigm uniformity effects, that is, (a) and (b), require a specific output-output faithfulness constraint to dominate the markedness constraint. The proposed paradigm uniformity approach is compared to earlier treatments in which the notion of paradigm does not play a role. It is also shown that the tautosyllabic parse in examples like Siedl-ung is problematic.This paper was presented at Indiana University in December 2004 and at the Old World Conference in Phonology 2 (OCP-2) at the University of Tromsø in January 2005. Thanks are due to the respective audiences for their comments and suggestions. I would also like to thank two anonymous JGL reviewers for their remarks on an earlier written version. All disclaimers apply.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , December 2005 , pp. 225 - 264
Copyright
© 2005 Society for Germanic Linguistics

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alderete John. 2004. Dissimilation as local conjunction. Optimality theory in phonology. A reader, edited by John J. McCarthy, 394– 406. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. [Excerpt from Alderete 1997. Dissimilation as local conjunction. North Eastern Linguistic Society (NELS) 27. 17– 32.]
Bat El Outi. 1996. Selecting the best of the worst: The grammar of Hebrew blends. Phonology 13. 283– 328.Google Scholar
Benua Laura. 1997. Transderivational identity: Phonological relations between words. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Booij Geert. 1985. Coordination reduction in complex words: A case for prosodic phonology. Advances in nonlinear phonology, ed. by Harry van der Hulst and Norval Smith, 143– 160. Dordrecht: Foris.
Brockhaus Wiebke J. 1995. Final devoicing in the phonology of German. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
Davis Stuart. 1998. Syllable contact in optimality theory. Korean Journal of Linguistics 23. 181– 211Google Scholar
Davis Stuart, and Seung-Hoon Shin. 1999. The syllable contact constraint in Korean: An optimality-theoretic analysis. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8. 285– 312.Google Scholar
Downing Laura, Tracy Alan Hall, and Renate Raffelsiefen (eds.). 2005. Paradigms in phonological theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Drosdowski Günther [with Peter Eisenberg]. 1990. Duden. Das Aussprachewörterbuch. Wörterbuch der deutschen Standardaussprache. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.
Féry Caroline. 1998. German word stress in optimality theory. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2. 101– 142.
Giegerich Heinz J. 1987. Zur Schwa-Epenthese im Standarddeutschen. Linguistische Berichte 112. 449– 469.
Giegerich Heinz J. 1992. Onset maximization in German: The case against resyllabification rules. Silbenphonologie des Deutschen, ed. by Peter Eisenberg, Karl Heinz Ramers, and Heinz Vater, 134– 171. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Green Antony Dubach. 1997. The prosodic structure of Irish, Scots Gaelic, and Manx. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.
Green Antony Dubach. 2003. Extrasyllabic consonants and onset well- formedness. The syllable in optimality theory, ed. by Caroline Féry and Ruben van de Vijver, 238– 253. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hall Tracy Alan. 1992. Syllable structure and syllable related processes in German. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
Hall Tracy Alan. 2002a. Against extrasyllabic consonants in German and English. Phonology 19. 33– 75Google Scholar
Hall Tracy Alan. 2002b. The distribution of superheavy syllables in Standard German. The Linguistic Review 19. 377– 420Google Scholar
Hall Tracy Alan. 2005. German glide formation and its theoretical implications. Manuscript, Department of Germanic Studies, Indiana University.
Hall Tracy Alan. In press. Derived environment blocking effects in optimality theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.
Hall Tracy Alan, and Silke Hamann. 2003. Loanword nativization in German. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 22. 1. 56– 85Google Scholar
Ham William H. 1998. A new approach to an old problem: Gemination and constraint reranking in West Germanic. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1. 225– 262.Google Scholar
Iverson Gregory K. 1997. Final devoicing in the phonology of German by Wiebke J. Brockhaus (review article). American Journal of Germanic Languages and Literatures 9. 255– 264.
Iverson Gregory K. 2004. Deriving the derived environment constraint in non-derivational phonology. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 11. 1– 33. (Special issue. Optimality Theory: Applications and Challenges)Google Scholar
Iverson Gregory K., and Joseph Salmons. 1995. Aspiration and laryngeal representation in Germanic. Phonology 12. 369– 396Google Scholar
Jessen Michael, and Catherine Ringen. 2002. Laryngeal features in German. Phonology 19. 189– 218Google Scholar
Kim Jin-Hyung. 2002. Lexicon optimization reconsidered. Language Research 38. 31– 50.Google Scholar
Kiparsky Paul. 1973. Phonological representations. Three dimensions of linguistic theory, ed. by Osamu Fujimura, 3– 136. Tokyo: TEC.
Kirchner Robert. 2004. Synchronic chain shifts in optimality theory. Optimality theory in phonology. A reader, ed. by John J. McCarthy, 407– 416. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. [Excerpt from Kirchner 1996. Synchronic chain shifts in Optimality Theory. Linguisic Inquiry 27. 341–350].
Kumashiro Fumiko. 2000. Loan word phonology: A case for a non-reductionist approach to grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 25. 359– 370Google Scholar
Lombardi Linda. 1991. Laryngeal features and laryngeal neutralization. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Lombardi Linda. 1999. Positional faithfulness and voicing assimilation in optimality theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17. 267– 302Google Scholar
Łubowicz Ania. 2002. Derived environment effects in optimality theory. Lingua 112. 243– 280Google Scholar
McCarthy John J. 2003. Comparative markedness. Theoretical Linguistics 29. 1– 51.Google Scholar
Murray Robert W., and Theo Vennemann. 1983. Sound change and syllable structure in Germanic phonology. Language 59. 514– 528Google Scholar
Noske Manuela. 1999. Deriving cyclicity: Syllabification and final devoicing in German. The Linguistic Review 16. 227– 252Google Scholar
Noske Roland. 1993. A theory of syllabification and segmental alternation. With studies on the phonology of French, German, Tonkawa, and Yawelmani Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
Prince Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality theory. Manuscript, Rutgers University and University of Colorado.
Raffelsiefen Renate. 1995. Conditions for stability: The case of schwa in German. Manuscript, Heinrich-Heine Universität, Düsseldorf.
Raffelsiefen Renate. 2004. Phonological effects in word formation. Habilitationsschrift, Freie Universität, Berlin.
Raffelsiefen Renate. 2005. Paradigm uniformity effects versus boundary effects. Downing, Hall, and Raffelsiefen 2005, 210– 262.
Rubach Jerzy. 1990. Final devoicing and cyclic syllabification in German. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 79– 94Google Scholar
Steriade Donca. 1997. Phonetics in phonology: The case of laryngeal neutralization. Manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles.
Vennemann Theo. 1972. On the theory of syllabic phonology. Linguistische Berichte 18. 1– 18Google Scholar
Vennemann Theo. 1988. Preference laws for syllable structure and the explanation of sound change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wiese Richard. 1988. Silbische und Lexikalische Phonologie: Studien zum Chinesischen und Deutschen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
Wiese Richard. 1996. The phonology of German. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Wurzel Wolfgang U. 1984. Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Yu Si-Taek. 1992. Silbeninitiale Cluster und Silbifizierung im Deutschen. Silbenphonologie des Deutschen, ed. by Peter Eisenberg, Karl Heinz Ramers, and Heinz Vater, 172– 207. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.