Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
TEMPLATIC VERSUS
APPARENTLY NON-TEMPLATIC
TRUNCATION IN SARDINIANTeresa Cabré1, Francesc Torres-Tamarit2, Maria del Mar Vanrell3
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona1, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam2, Freie Universität Berlin3
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
INTRODUCTION: TWO TRUNCATION
PROCESSES IN SARDINIAN
� Sardinian shows two optional truncation processes: hypocoristic truncation and vocative truncation.
� Only the hypocoristic truncation exhibits a templaticprocess of word minimization, resulting in a bisyllabic trochaic word (the Minimal Word in Sardinian).
� The only pattern for vocative truncation is a specificintonational contour (LH* L*).
INTRODUCTION: NICKNAMES AND VOCATIVES
� The main and crucial difference betweennicknames and vocatives lies in their syntacticbehavior: � Nicknames belong to the thematic grid of predicates in
main clauses.� Vocatives are at some functional projection in the left
periphery of the clause since they can only be used for vocative speech acts.(Moro 2003, Espinal 2013)
INTRODUCTION: SYNTAX OF VOCATIVES
� Vocatives are syntactic heads containing an edgefeature which correlates with discourse semantics.
� Edge features must necessarily be materialized bymeans of intonation, and cannot access thesegmental phonology.
(D'Alessandro & Van Oostendorp 2013)
GOALS
� To account for the templatic process of hypocoristictruncation as well as for the apparently non-templaticprocess of vocative truncation in Sardinian in theframework of Correspondence Theory in OptimalityTheory.(Benua 1995, McCarthy & Prince 1995, 1999)
� To demonstrate that the truncated vocatives map onto a specific intonational contour which constitutes the truetemplate of the process.
The interest of our contribution lies in putting togethergrammatical requirements of different nature: prosodictemplates, minimal word requirements, intonationalpatterns and discourse semantics.
METHODOLOGY
� Two main varieties: Logudorese (Ìttiri) andCampidanese (Sìnnia, Seddori, Sestu, Igrèsias) Sardinian.
� Hypocoristics� Speakers were asked to produce hypocoristics from a set
of names (specific segmental and metrical characteristics).
� Vocatives� Intonation survey based on Prieto & Cabré (2007-2012).
� Total amount: 194 vocatives and 93 hypocoristics.
Lepori (1980), Bolognesi (1998), Molinu (2012)
HYPOCORISTIC TRUNCATION: EXAMPLES
Filumena > Mena, Memena Austinu/Austina > Tinu/Tina
Giusepina > Pina, Pipina Margherita > Ghita, Rita
Beniaminu > Minu Taniele > Lele
Domìnigu > Migu Taresa > Tesa, Teta
Giuana Maria > Mimia Bittorina > Tina, Arrina
Frantziscu > Kiku, Ciciu Sebustianu > Tanu, Tatanu
Rafaele > Lele Erriku > Kiku
Brabarina > Rina, Arrina Mateo > Teo
Antonina > Nina Rosalia > Lia
Bernardu > Nardu Leonaldu > Naldu, Nenaldu
Servatore > Tore, Totore Luigia > Gia
(1)
HYPOCORISTIC TRUNCATION: BISYLLABIC
TROCHEE
� Hypocoristic truncation is a morphological processsubject to the prosodic requirements of theSardinian Minimal Word: a bisyllabic trochee.
� Derived truncated words are required to be minimally and maximally bisyllabic.
� The bisyllabic trochee is the basic foot for stressassignment in this language.
HYPOCORISTIC TRUNCATION: EDGES
� Truncated nicknames are characterized by a bisyllabictrochaic foot that includes the sequence from thestressed syllable to the right edge of the base word: � Giusepina > Pina; Remundu > Mundu.
� They correspond to a bisyllabic left headed word andcan undergo an additional process of partialreduplication: � Filumena > Mena > Memena.
� The first syllable of truncated nicknames can not be onsetless: � Taniele > *Ele, Lele.
� No intonational contour defines them because theycorrelate with propositional semantics in the LogicalForm.
HYPOCORISTIC TRUNCATION: ANALYSIS 1/7
� Correspondence Theory (Output to Output relation) in Optimality Theory: All types of morphologicalderivation are mirrored by a transderivationalcorrespondence relation.
� “The base of an OO-correspondence relation is a licit output word, which is both morphologically andphonologically well-formed”.(Benua 1997)
� In Sardinian hypocoristic truncation, base namesare reduced to minimal word (a left headedbisyllabic word which is the template of theprocess).
� Templatic truncation results from domination of B-T Identity by high-ranked B-T prosodic constraints.
HYPOCORISTIC TRUNCATION: ANALYSIS 2/7
� Sardinian displays a case of doubly anchored truncationfrom the stressed syllable to the right edge of the base.
� To derive this pattern, we make use of Anchor constraints:(2) AnchorBT-Left/Foot. Assign one violation mark for everysegment at the left edge of the Foot in the Base that is not in correspondence with the segment at the left edge of the Foot in the Truncated form.
(Based on McCarthy and Prince 1995)
(3) AnchorBT-Right/PWd. Assign one violation mark for everysegment at the right edge of the PWd in the Base that is not in correspondence with the segment at the right edge of theTruncated form.
(Based on McCarthy and Prince 1995)
HYPOCORISTIC TRUNCATION: ANALYSIS 3/7
� The foot head is identical in both the base and thetruncated hypochoristic.(4) Ident-Stress-BT. Assign one violation mark for everystressed vowel in the Base that is not in correspondencewith the stressed vowel of the Truncated form. (Based on Benua 1995)
� The two Anchor constraints, together with Ident-Stress-BT, are always satisfied by truncatedhypochoristics, which only violate Max-σ-BT. (5) Max-σ-BT. Assign one violation mark for every syllablein the Base that does not have a correspondent in theTruncated form.(Based on Benua 1995)
HYPOCORISTIC TRUNCATION: ANALYSIS 4/7
(6)
HYPOCORISTIC TRUNCATION: ANALYSIS 5/7
� In those bases with stress on the third to lastsyllable, the last syllable of the base intervenesbetween the right edge of the foot and the rightedge of the prosodic word (i.e., Do('mini)gu > (Migu)).
� The constraint Contiguity-σ-BT is violated in orderto satisfy the two Anchor constraints:(7) Contiguity-σ-BT . Assign one violation mark for everysyllable of the base, lying between syllables of the base with correspondents in the truncated form, that has no correspondent in the truncated form. (Based on McCarthy and Prince 1994)
HYPOCORISTIC TRUNCATION: ANALYSIS 6/7
(8)
HYPOCORISTIC TRUNCATION: ANALYSIS 7/7
� Truncated candidates with more than two syllables (i.e., Lu(�mena) or (� Mini)gu)) need to be excluded. Thesecandidates are discarded by the set of constraints thatare responsible for deriving the general stress pattern of Sardinian.
� In Sardinian, words only project one foot (i.e., onestress), which is a right-aligned syllabic trochee). Right-alignment and one stress per word is derived by thefollowing constraint ranking:
All-Feet-Right ≫≫≫≫ All- Feet-Left, Parse-σ
� Finally, from those bases in which the foot head is anonsetless syllable (i.e., Taniele > *Ele, Lele), theconstraint AnchorBT-Left/Foot is violated in order to satisfy the constraint PWd[Onset, which penalizes word-initial onsetless syllables.
VOCATIVE TRUNCATION: EXAMPLES
Bèrtulu > Be’ Innàtziu > Inna’
Maria > Mari’ Fortunadu > Fortuna’
Simone > Simo’ Remundu > Remu’
Girònimu > Giro’ Mariàngela > Maria’
Gòsamu > Go’ Giuseppalberto > Giuseppalbe’
Iperància > Ipera’ Domínigu > Domi’
Rosària > Rosa’ Rita > Ri’, Arri’
Filumena > Filume’ Andria > Andri’
Austinu > Austi’ Zùlia > Zu’
Servatore > Servato’ Pitzente > Pitze’
(9)
VOCATIVE TRUNCATION: A MORPHOLOGICAL
PROCESS?� Vocative truncation is not a morphological process strictu
sensu, because it is not guided by any prosodic requirementdrawn from the prosodic hierarchy: Mora –> Syllable –> Foot–> Prosodic Word.
(McCarthy & Prince 1986)� This process does not follow the so called subtractive pattern,
a less common type of truncation which deletes a consistent unit (usually a syllable or a mora) from the base.
� It is driven by two enhanced positions: the word-initial syllableand the stressed vowel of the word. (Beckman 1998)
� Sardinian truncated vocatives can display different lengthsdepending on the distance from the beginning of the word to the stressed vowel.
� They can only be uttered with a particular intonational contourin a specific pragmatic context. � The contour LH* L* seems to be the true template of the process.
VOCATIVE TRUNCATION: INTONATION – INITIAL
CALL
� Less emphatic vocative (initial call): a rising pitch (L+H*) accent aligned to the first syllable of the name and a low pitch accent (L*) on the nuclear syllable followed by a low boundarytone (truncated base – Logudorese Sardinian).
LH* L* L%
VOCATIVE TRUNCATION: INTONATION –INSISTENT CALL
� More emphatic vocative (insistent call): calling contour, L+H* !H%.
� Vocatives bearing the calling contour are never truncated.
LH* !H%
VOCATIVE TRUNCATION: INTONATION –LENGTHENING OF MONOSYLLABIC VOCATIVES
� Monosyllabic truncated vocatives undergo lengthening of thesyllable forced by the complex intonational contour.
701 ms 364 ms
VOCATIVE TRUNCATION: ANALYSIS 1/6
� All truncated vocatives violate the constraint Foot-Binarity-σ because they contain monosyllabic, degenerate feet (i.e., Filu('mena) > Filu('me), Ma('ria) > Ma('ri), ('Gosa)mu > ('Go)). (10) Foot-Binarity-σ. Assign one violation mark for everyfoot with less than two syllables. (Based on McCarthy and Prince 1993)
� The constraint Foot-Binarity-σ, together withTrochee, bans final stress in vowel-final words in Sardinian, which are otherwise prohibited.
� The phonological exponent of vocative heads is anintonational contour: LH* !H% for non truncatedforms and LH* L* for truncated ones.
VOCATIVE TRUNCATION: ANALYSIS 2/6
� The rising pitch accent (LH*) is associated to thefirst syllable of truncated vocatives. The secondpitch accent (L*), is a nuclear pitch accent, and as such, it associates with the stressed syllable of thetruncated vocatives.
� This pitch accent configuration is therefore presentin the input together with the base form of thevocative. The intonational contour imposes twoalignment constraints on the base form.
VOCATIVE TRUNCATION: ANALYSIS 3/6
� Align-L(LH*,PWd) for the first emphatic pitch accent:(11) Align-Left(LH*,PWd). Assign one violation mark forevery triplet <PWd,σ,LH*> such that a syllable precedes the LH* pitch accent within the prosodic word.(Based on Hyde 2012)
� Align-R(L*,PWd) for the nuclear pitch accent:(12) Align-Right(L*,PWd). Assign one violation mark forevery triplet <L*,segment,PWd> such that the L* pitch accent precedes a segment within the prosodic word.(Based on Hyde 2012)
VOCATIVE TRUNCATION: ANALYSIS 4/6(13)
VOCATIVE TRUNCATION: ANALYSIS 5/6
� In bases with word-initial stress, the truncatedvocative corresponds to a monosyllabic foot(metrically deficient).
� The intonational contour serves as a kind of “binarytemplate” as it consists of two pitch accents (theseforms are lengthened in order to associate the twopitch accents).
� On top of that, the monosyllabic truncated vocativemust have an onset. Stress-initial bases lacking a word-initial onset (i.e., �Anna), which should be truncated as �A, are not possible in Sardinian.
VOCATIVE TRUNCATION: ANALYSIS 6/6
(14)
CONCLUSIONS 1/2
� Truncated hypocoristics in Sardinian are theoutputs of a templatic minimization process. Thetemplate is a bisyllabic trochee, the foot for lexical stress assignment of this language.
� They can be used as a base for other hypocoristicprocesses such as reduplication ( Tori > Totori) as well as diminutive sufixation (Mundu > Mundicu)
� Hypocoristics can also be used as vocatives (Tori!) and in turn can undergo the vocative truncationprocess (To!). Conversely, a truncated vocativecannot be used as a truncated hypocoristic (*Deomi naro Go’ 'My name is Go') nor as a base for other morphological processes such as reduplication or sufixation (*Gogo, *Goeddu).
CONCLUSIONS 2/2
� Truncated vocatives are guided by the twoprominent positions of the word: the initial syllableand the lexical stress. The contour LH* L* is thephonological exponent of the vocative syntactichead and seems to be the true template for thevocative truncation process.
� OT analysis easily accounts for both templatic andnon templatic truncation process in Sardinian
Gràtzias meda!
REFERENCES
� Beckman, J. 1998). Positional Faithfulness. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts
� Benua, Laura. 1995. Identity e_ects in morphological truncation. In J. N. Beckman, L.W. Dickey and S. Urbanczyk(eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory, 77-136. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
� Bolognesi, R. 1998. The Phonology of Campidanian Sardinian: A unitary account of a self-organizing structure. Dordrecht: ICG Printing.
� D'Alessandro, R. and M. Van Oostendorp. 2013. Phi features for phonology; edge features for prosody. Insightsinto the syntax-PF interface. Ms., Leiden University.
� Espinal, M. T. 2011. On the structure of vocatives. Ms., Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
� Hyde, B. 2012. 'Alignment constraints', Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30, 1-48.
� Hyde, Brett. 2012. Alignment constraints. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30, 789-836.
� Lepori, A. 1980. Vocabolariomoderno sardo-italiano (8400 vocaboli), CUEC, Cagliari.
� McCarthy, John J. and Alan Prince. 1986. Prosodic morphology. Technical Report #32, Rutgers University Centerfor Cognitive Science, 1996.
� McCarthy, John J. and Alan Prince. 1993. Prosodic morphology I: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and Rutgers University.
� McCarthy, John J. and Alan Prince. 1994. The emergence of the unmarked: Optimality in prosodic morphology. In Merc_e Gonz_alez (ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society 24, 333-379. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
� McCarthy, John J. and Alan Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Jill N. Beckman (ed.), Papers in Optimality Theory (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18), 248-383. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
� Molinu, L. 2012. “Le strutture non marcate negli ipocoristici del sardo”. Paper presented at Sardinian Network Meeting (Konstanz, 3-4 September). Retrieved from http://ling.unikonstanz.de/pages/home/remberger/
� Moro, A. 2010. Notes on vocative case: A case study in clause structure. In Quer et al. (2003), 247–261.
� Prieto, P. & Cabré, T. (coords.) 2007-2012. Atles interactiu de l'entonació del català. Retrieved fromhttp://prosodia.upf.edu/atlesentonacio/
� Prince, A. & Smolensky, P. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Available on Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA 537.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
� Some aspects of this research were presented at the Italian Dialect Meeting (May 2012, Leiden, the Netherlands) and the Coloquio de Gramatica Generativa(May 2013, Madrid, Spain). We are grateful to the audience of this talk.
� All the speakers who participated unselfishly in the recordings as well as friends from Sardinia who put us in contact with potential participants deserve a special mention for their time and dedication.
� This research has been funded by projects FFI2012-31995 (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación) and FFI2013-46987-C3-2-P (Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad), and by one short research stay funded under the Erasmus – Long Life Learning Programme.
