CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.6 Summary
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
types and proposes ANCHOR constraints instead of MAX constraints to account for different types of clipped outputs. One reason for the adoption of ANCHOR
constraints is that MAX is often used to regulate the segmental relation between the base and truncated output. It disallows the deletion of segments for the sake of completeness of the base. With respect to the positional relation between two strings, MAX constraints do not mention the directionality and locality. Further, the family of MAX constraints cannot rule out a possible candidate with the insertion since they are not concerned with the integrity of the truncated output. ANCHOR, like MAX, is a type of faithfulness constraint. Furthermore, it imposes a positional correspondence between two strings. Specifically, the truncated output must share constituents with the base on the same edge.
2.6 Summary
In brief, clipping and blending have been surveyed in recent years. Many studies claim that they should be part of the grammar of language. Nevertheless, few
researchers have provided a systematic account for the internal structure of the morphological processes from a phonological perspective. The use of the family of MAX constraints in Lappe’s study (2008) is not enough to account of the positional faithfulness between a blend and its sources. In addition, variations in clipping and blending have not been characterized in more detail. Following this discussion, I
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
propose the application of Cophonology which makes it possible to analyze the variations. Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 will demonstrate how OT and Cophonology account for the internal structure of English clipping and blending, respectively.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
23
This chapter examines the segmental preservation of English clipping from morphological and phonological perspectives. The analysis of the process is based on Correspondence Theory. The relation between the clipped output and its source is considered Output-to-Output correspondence. Under the truncation model (Benua 1995), the mapping relation between a clipped word and its source can be treated as follows:
(13) Clipping: laboratory lab
SC-Identity (OO-FAITH)
Base(Source):
[]
- - - Clipping:
[]
IO-FAITH
Input:
//
In the model of (13), Input-to-Output correspondence (IO-Faith) relates the input to the source, and Output-to-Output correspondence (OO-Faith) relates the source to the clipped form. The clipped output derives from the preservation of the segment of the source. The SC-identity is regulated by the constraints in the following discussion.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Chapter 3 is organized as follows: Section 3.1 introduces clipping types that preserve the morpheme of the source, and provides an OT account for the different types. Section 3.2 introduces clipping types that retain the phonological constituents of the source, and also takes an OT approach to account for the derivation of the different types. Section 3.3 presents ranking contradictions under classic OT, and employs a cophonological theory to solve inconsistencies. Section 3.4 summarizes this chapter.
3.1 An OT Account for Morphological Clipping
This section addresses the clipped outputs which preserve the morpheme of the source. It presents two types that correspond to different positions of the source and demonstrates how ANCHOR constraints determine the two types of morphological clipping.
In English, there are two kinds of clipping: morphological and phonological clipping. Both of them show the correspondent constituents on one of edges of the source. Firstly, I divide morphologically clipped forms into two types in terms of the edge of morphemic preservation, as in (14) and (15).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
(14) Left edge examples bi-sexual → bi porn-ography → porn auto-mobile → auto tele-vision → tele (15) Right edge examples
para-chute → chute tele-phone → phone turn-pike → pike news-paper → paper
The examples in (14) and (15) indicate that morphological clipping can be derived from the left or right edge morphemic preservation of the source.
Positional faithfulness requires that two strings share the same constitutes at the designed periphery. McCarthy and Prince (1993a, 1995a,b) make use of ANCHOR constraints in (7) to account for the positional faithfulness between the reduplicant and its base. In this current research, I utilize ANCHOR constraints to analyze the morphemic preservation of clipping. Relevant constraints are proposed in (16) to (18).
(16) LEFT-ANCHOR-MORPHEME (Source, Clipping)
Assign one violation mark for every first morpheme of the source that is not on the left edge of the clipped form.
‧
(17) RIGHT-ANCHOR-MORPHEME (Source, Clipping)
Assign one violation mark for every last morpheme of the source that is not on the right edge of the clipped form.
(18) MorphemeMAX (abbreviated as MorMAX in tableaux)
Assign one violation mark for every clipped output that has more than one morpheme.
Constraint (18) poses a restriction on the length of the clipped output. It keeps the clipped form from having more than one morpheme. The interaction of the constraints (16)-(18) is shown in (19)
(19) {ANCHOR LEFT, MorMAX}>> ANCHOR RIGHT tele-vision MorMAX LEFT- ANCHOR-
First, tableau (19) compares the left-edge preserving candidate tele with the right-edge preserving candidate *vision, showing a conflict. Since the winner tele is
left-anchored, it obeys ANCHOR LEFT but violates ANCHOR RIGHT. The loser
*vision satisfies ANCHOR RIGHT at the expense of corresponding to the initial
morpheme of the source. This is a violation of ANCHOR LEFT. For tele to be more optimal, ANCHOR LEFT must dominate ANCHOR RIGHT. Second, the candidates
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
tele and *television indicate the relation of the ranking of MorMAX and ANCHOR
RIGHT. The full form of candidate (c) incurs a violation of MorMAX because it contains more than one morpheme. For tele to be more optimal, MorMAX must dominate ANCHOR RIGHT. Finally, candidate *teleri is also ruled out by MorMAX.
As a result, it is even less suitable than tele.
Tableau (20) rearranges ANCHOR LEFT and ANCHOR RIGHT. Because the winning candidate phone is right-anchored, it obeys ANCHOR RIGHT but violates ANCHOR LEFT. The losing candidate *tele satisfies ANCHOR LEFT at the sacrifice of corresponding to the final morpheme of the source. This incurs a violation of ANCHOR RIGHT. For phone to be more optimal, ANCHOR RIGHT must outrank ANCHOR LEFT.
(20) ANCHOR RIGHT >> ANCHOR LEFT
tele-phone MorMAX RIGHT - ANCHOR-
MORPHEME
LEFT - ANCHOR-
MORPHEME
a. tele *!
b. phone *c. telephone *!
Nelson (2003) has challenged the assumption that right anchoring is equally important to the truncated forms which are faithful to the right edge of the source and has
suggested that ANCHOR RIGHT is unnecessary. Making use of the idea of positional faithfulness, Nelson posits ANCHOR constraints only target prominent positions, as
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
in (21).
(21) Positional Anchoring (Nelson, 2003)
a. Anchoring can target the initial position (important for root access).
b. Anchoring can target a stressed position (acoustically prominent).
c. The right edge does not qualify as a target for anchoring.
According to Nelson’s proposal, (21a) explains why a large majority of English clippings are preserved from the left edge of the source and (21b) implies that there is a constraint that requires the preservation of the stressed syllables, as (22) shows.
(22) MAX-σ (Base, Reduplicant) (Nelson 2003: p. 6)
Each segment in the main stressed syllable of the base must have a correspondent in the reduplicant.
Instead of ANCHOR RIGHT, Nelson incorporates MAX-σ to account for the right-edge preservation in the truncated forms and concludes that some cases show right-anchored effects because of the stress on the final syllable. From Nelson’s point of view, the actual preserving unit is the stressed syllables rather than the constituents
on the right side, as (23) shows.
(23) Nickname σ, ≠σ1 (Nelson, 1998)
Amanda Mandy
Virginia Ginnie
Elizabeth Liz, Lizzy Rebecca Becky
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
However, left anchoring and MAX-σ alone are not enough to account for the derivation of the clipping. As presented in example (15), the preserved units are always right-edge constituents but they are not stressed syllables such as chute from parachute or phone from telephone. In this thesis, I propose that the family of anchoring constraints consists of not only ANCHOR LEFT but also ANCHOR RIGHT. ANCHOR LEFT and ANCHOR RIGHT are re-ranked to account for the preservation of (14) and (15), respectively. When the last morpheme of the source has more than one syllable, ANCHOR LEFT may dominate ANCHOR RIGHT to select the first morpheme as the clipped output, as in (14). When the last morpheme of the source has one syllable, ANCHOR RIGHT may dominate ANCHOR LEFT to select the last morpheme as the clipped output, as in (15).
3.2 An OT Account for Phonological Clipping
This section addresses the clipped outputs which preserve the phonological constituent of the source. It presents three types that correspond to different positions of the source and shows that different types are explained by the interaction of the faithful and markedness constraints.
In addition to morphological clipping, there are several other types of clipping that are phonologically preserved. In this section, I present some data that do not preserve a complete morpheme of the source, showing that the preserving unit is not
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
necessarily a morphemic constituent. Phonological clipping, according to the edge of preservation, exhibits three patterns, being separated to the left or right or neither edge of the preservation of the source, as presented in (24)-(26).
(24) Left edge examples
moment → mo
laboratory → lab delicatessen → deli examination → exam (25) Right edge examples
because → cause alligator → gator magazine → zine suburb → burb (26) Medial examples
detective → tec influenza → flu
Regarding (24) to (26), I make the following generalizations. First, since a clipping derives from part of the source, the entire preservation is disallowed. Second, like morphological clipping, the stressed syllable can be truncated in phonological preservation. Thus, I suggest that the stress is not a key point in preservation of clipping. Third, since clipping prevents the preserving string from being deleted internally, the constituents are often retained contiguously. Finally, the size of a clipping is finite because we find that the structure of a majority of the clipped forms
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
is either monosyllabic or disyllabic. Thus, the size of the clipping seems to be predictable.
This section examines phonological variations of clipping through the use of constraint rankings. I propose the relevant constraints on the basis of the
generalizations noted above. These constraints interact with one another to account for each type in the following discussion.
3.2.1 Left-edge Preservation
Given example (24) above, I further partition left-edge preserving clippings into four types in terms of prosodic preservation. First, a left-edge preserved clipping may preserve the first syllable such as mo from moment. Second, it may retain the first syllable and the second onset such as lab from laboratory. Third, it may preserve the first two syllables such as deli from delicatessen. Finally, in addition to the first two syllables, a left-edge preserved clipping may keep the third onset such as exam from examination.
Three relevant faithfulness constraints on the four types of left-edge preserving clippings are defined in (27)-(29). MAX SC in (27) requires that each segment in the source has a correspondent in the clipping. In other words, it prevents the source from segmental deletion. CONTIGUITY in (28) stresses that the portion of the clipping in correspondence to the source forms a contiguous string and vice versa. In terms of
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
CONTIGUITY, the internal deletion of the string of segments is banned. MAX-σ in (29) obligates the preservation of the stressed syllable of the source.
(27) MAX (Source, Clipping)
Assign one violation mark for every segment in the source that is not in the clipping.
(28) CONTIGUITY (Source, Clipping) — ―No skipping, no intrusion‖
Assign one violation mark for the string in the source that is deleted internally in the clipping.
(29) MAX-σ (Source, Clipping)
Assign one violation mark for every stressed syllable of the source that is not in the clipping.
The fact that the clipping is a contiguous sequence satisfies CONTIGUITY but that it derives from a part of the source always violates MAX SC. The stressed syllable is sometimes preserved but sometimes truncated. As (30) shows, I argue that
CONTIGUITY dominates MAX-σ and MAX SC.
(30) CONTIGUITY >> {MAX-σ, MAX SC}
delicatessen CONTIGUITY MAX-σ MAX SC
a. deli * (te) catessen (8)b. dete *! li, tessen (8)
c. delict *! * (te) a, essen (6)
d. delicatessen‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Tableau (30) attests the ranking argument between CONTIGUITY and MAX. We compare the winning candidate deli with the losing candidate *dete. Since deli lacks the preservation of the stressed syllable, it violates MAX SC and MAX-σ. The losing candidate *dete obeys MAX-σ at the expense of forming a contiguous string. This is a violation of CONTIGUITY. For deli to be optimal, CONTIGUITY must govern MAX-σ. Candidate *delict violates all three constraints but it is more favored by MAX SC over the winner. In this case, for deli to be optimal, CONTIGUITY must dominate MAX to remove *delict. This tableau, however, cannot rule out the full form of candidate (d) that respects CONTIGUITY, MAX-σ, and MAX SC. This problem is solved in the following discussion. Since all clipped forms are defined with reference to the partial preservation of the source, it must be smaller than the full form. In the following discussion, I will use a markedness constraint to account for their size.
ANCHOR constraints play an active role in the different types of clipping.
Specifically, different anchorings interact with CONTIGUITY, MAX, and markedness constraints to generate various clipping types. The first type that retains the first syllable is evaluated from the interaction of CONTIGUITY, MAX SC, CWM(μμ), and LEFT-ANCHOR-σ as defined in (31) and (32).
‧
(31) ClippedWordMaximal (μμ) (abbreviated as CWM (μμ) in tableaux)
Assign one violation mark for every clipped output that has more than two moras.
(32) LEFT-ANCHOR -σ (Source, Clipping)
Assign one violation mark for every first syllable in the source that is not the first syllable in the clipped output.
The constraint in (31) requires that the size of a clipping is constrained by a bimoraic template and constraint (32) demands that the first syllable of the source has to be preserved to form the first syllable of the clipping. The ranking argument is presented in (33).
([] is a long vowel that obtains two moras; all codas share one mora.)
Tableau (33) elaborates that bimoraic and left-anchoring constraints rank above MAX SC. We compare the candidates [] with *[], finding that the losing *[]
fatally violates CWM(μμ) because of being parsed into three moras. The losing
*[] is more favored by MAX SC over the winning candidate. For the winning [] to be optimal, CWM(μμ) must dominate MAX SC. Consider the pair [] and
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
*[], the losing *[] is also favored by MAX SC over []. Nevertheless, it fatally violates ANCHOR LEFT due to the right edge preserved syllable. To remove the loser, ANCHOR LEFT must dominate MAX SC.
In (33), the losing candidate *[] may have two moraic structures. The first is that the long vowel obtains two moras and all coda consonants share the third mora, as in (34a). It is referred to as the superheavy moraic structure (Moren 2003). The second is the heavy moraic structure that the long vowel obtains two moras and shares the second mora with the coda consonant, as in (34b). I employ NOSHAREMORA to rule out the heavy moraic structure, as given in (35) and (36).
(34) adapted from Moren (2003)
a. Superheavy b. Heavy
μ μ μ μ μ
m o m m o m
(35) NOSHAREDMORA (Broselow et al. 1997): Moras may not be shared.
(36)
moment NOSHAREDMORA CWM(μμ)
a. superheavy *!(μμμ)
(heavy) *!(μμ)
In (36), candidate (c) is ruled out because the constraint NOSHAREDMORA favors (a) over (c). Candidate (b) is removed by CWM(μμ). In this study, NOSHAREDMORA is
‧
ranked higher than other constraints on the moraic structure. Thus, the following discussion is
talking about the candidates that always respect NOSHAREDMORA. All tableaux exclude NOSHAREDMORA since the constraint is irrelevant to select the optimal output.
No clipped forms change the feature of segment of the source. In other words, they always respect IDENT [F] that prevents the featural change of the source, as given in (37) where the irrelevant constraints in (33) are omitted.
(37) ([] is a short vowel that obtains one mora; all codas share one mora.) moment
IDENT [F] CWM(μμ) LEFT-ANCHOR-σ
a. *!
In the case of (37), candidate (b)IDENT [F] because it changes the feature of the vowel. Since candidate (a) respects all constraints, it is more harmonic than (b) and is thus selected as the optimal output.
Concerning ANCHOR LEFT and MAX-σ, the ranking argument is attested by another example of the first type, as shown in (38).
(38) LEFT-ANCHOR -σ >> MAX-σ
Tableau (38) compares the left-edge preserved candidate [] with the right-edge preserved candidate *[]. The left-anchoring candidate [] violates MAX-σ since
‧
it does not preserve the stressed syllable of the source. Although the losing *[]
satisfies MAX-σ, it violates ANCHOR LEFT because it is not left-preserved. To select [] as the optimal output, ANCHOR LEFT must outrank MAX-σ. MAX-σ and MAX SC are in a stringency relation2. MAX SC is more stringent than MAX-σ if every violation of MAX-σ is also violation of MAX SC. Their ranking is not directly argued but it is inferred from the domain of constraint domination. That is, the specific constraint MAX-σ is placed above the general constraint MAX SC.
The ranking shown in (38) is blocked in the evaluation of ‘streptococcus’ when selecting the undesired candidate, as provided in (39).
(39)
In the ranking of (39), the loser *[] favored by MAX SC would be selected as the winner. I use the *COMPCODA constraint to solve the blocking, as defined in (40).
(40) *COMPLEX-CODA (abbreviated as *COMPCODA in tableaux) Assign one violation mark for every cluster in coda position.
2 McCarthy (2008) proposes that two constraints are in a stringency relation if every violation of one constraint is also a violation of the other.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Constraint (40) keeps coda position of clipping from having more than one consonant.
Its effect is illustrated in (41).
(41) *COMPCODA >> MAX SC streptococcus
CONT CWM(μμ) LEFT- ANCHOR –σ
MAX-σ *COMPCODA MAX SC
a. * (7) * *! () (6)
In (41), MAX SC favors the loser *[] over the winner []. The losing
*[] causes a fatal violation of *COMPCODA since it has more than one segment in coda. Meanwhile, the winner [] satisfies *COMPCODA. To select [] as the optimal output, *COMPCODA must command MAX SC.
In addition to the first syllable, the second type preserves the second onset.
MAX-onset is proposed for this pattern, as in (42).
(42) MAX-onset (Source, Clipping)
Assign one violation mark for every onset in the source that is not in the clipping.
Constraint (42) maximizes the preservation of all of the onsets of the source. In other words, it requests that every onset in the source has a correspondent in the clipped output, as evaluated in (43).
‧
In the case of (43), I argue that CONTIGUITY dominates MAX-onset. Candidate
*[skips []-preservation. This is a violation of CONTIGUITY. On the other hand, it is more favored by MAX-onset over the winner. To rule out the loser,
CONTIGUITY has to control MAX-onset.
The third type retains the first two syllables of the source. The constraint ranking in (43) is repeated to explain how this pattern generates, as in (44).
(44) The evaluation for the third type delicatessen In (44), candidate *[ is ruled out by the higer-ranking CWM(μμ) due to the parsing of the trimoraic structure. Candidate *[] is excluded by MAX SC because it preserves fewer constituents than []. As a result, candidate [] emerges as the
‧
The constraint ranking in (44) cannot account for the fourth type where the first two syllables and the third onset are preserved, as (45) presents.
(45)
In the evaluation of tableau (45), candidates [], *[], and *[]
violate CWM(μμ), but *[] does not. Thus, the ranking predicts incorrectly that the loser *[] is optimal. To solve the blocking, I apply LEFT-ANCHOR-Σ to the
operation of the fourth type of clipping, as defined in (46).
(46) LEFT-ANCHOR-Σ (Source, Clipping) (Σ=σσ3)
Assign one violation mark for every first foot of the source that is not the first foot of the clipped output.
Constraint (46) requests that the first and second syllables of the source must be the first and second syllables of the clipped output. Its function is shown in (44), where
3 McCarthy and Prince (1995a) have proposed that Feet are binary syllabic or moraic.
‧
CONTIGUITY is irrelevant to evaluation and omitted.
(47)
In (47), the winner [] violates CWM(μμ) because of the quadramoraic
construction while the loser *[] violates LEFT-ANCHOR-Σ because it fails to retain the second syllable completely. As the ranking shows, CWM(μμ) and LEFT-ANCHOR
-Σ are unranked. Consequently, MAX-onset is active for the evaluation. Since it favors [] over *[], the optimal output is [].
The evaluation of another candidate pair does not yield to the ranking of (47) even though LEFT-ANCHOR-Σ is adopted, as in (48). Constraints CONTIGUITY and
The evaluation of another candidate pair does not yield to the ranking of (47) even though LEFT-ANCHOR-Σ is adopted, as in (48). Constraints CONTIGUITY and