2. Prosodic Prominence and Degree of Grammaticalization
2.1 Prosodic licensing by edge-alignment
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y 2. Prosodic Prominence and Degree of
Grammaticalization
2.1 Prosodic licensing by edge-alignment
In virtually all the prosodic analyses making use of Match theory or its predecessors, it is usually taken for granted in the syntax-phonology mapping principles that there is a conventional dichotomy between lexical and functional categories. Only members of lexical categories can uniformly assume the status of an independent prosodic constituent. Members of functional categories exhibit a much more erratic pattern cross-linguistically, generally corresponding to more than one prosodic type which allegedly follows straightforward from differences in their syntactic distribution.
However, this dichotomy does not hold generally in the case which serves as a basis of this dissertation, that of Chinese dialects. In a range of branches of Chinese family, there are certain dialects, such as those in Yue Chinese and Hakka, where functional elements are as prosodically robust as lexical elements in terms of tonal phonology, and hence no need to distinguish between the two categories. On the other hand, in many Chinese dialects, including Standard Mandarin, words of functional category correspond to two prosodic classes with respect to particular phonological processes, prosodically prominent function words on the one hand, and prosodically non-prominent function words on the other. Members of the former class are parsed into the prosodic hierarchy on a par with words of lexical categories, that is, assuming a prosodically salient status by inclusion in a crucial prosodic constituent. This salience protects them from particular phonological reduction. In contrast, the class of
non-‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
prominent function words is characterized by absence of such salience due to its being excluded from the very prosodic constituent; therefore, members of this class are closer than those of the prominent class to what is traditionally defined as function words in the sense that they are reduced in form and/or eligibility for taking part in normal phonology. Significantly, the two classes of function words in Chinese dialects exhibit a considerable overlap in their morphosyntactic distributions. This case, together with the former one, where the lexical/functional contrast is unavailable, jointly calls for a more sophisticated system to deal with the function words which fare the same way as lexical ones in prosody, while keeping the distinction between lexical category and (phonologically reduced) functional category.
In this dissertation, I propose a formal mechanism that not only captures the two prosodic asymmetries empirically attested ‒ the asymmetry between words of lexical and functional categories, and between the two prosodic classes of functional elements
‒ but also accommodates the situation where there is no asymmetry at all. The core of the proposal is as follows. In principle, the interface grammar grants words of functional category a correspondent in the prosodic structure which is equivalent to that of words of lexical category, contra the convention in the literature. Nevertheless, the correspondents of these categories does not fare alike generally with respect to the prosodic markedness. While lexical correspondent is always prosodically well-formed, the correspondent of functional category is prone to be incompatible with the prosodic structure, and the incompatibility of the two prosodic classes of functional elements differs in an implicational way: if it is illegitimate for the non-prominent class to have a correspondent, then so is it for the prominent class, not vice versa. In other words, lexical category and the two classes of functional elements are in a ordering relation, forming. This can be schematically represented by a hierarchy regarding prosodic
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
salience, as in (1), with lexical category at the most salient end, the non-prominent function word at the opposite end, and the prominent function word in between, where
“A › B” is read as “A is more salient than B,” the details of which will be discussed in the next section.
(1) Lexical word › prominent function word › non-prominent function word
The conception is cast in Optimality Theory by a set of interface constraints, following the revised version of Match Theory argued by Ito and Mester (2019), as laid out below.
(2) Interface constraints
Let S be an input syntactic representation and P its corresponding output phonological representation.
a. SP-MAX(α, π): Assign a violation mark for every constituent of type α with phonological content in S that does not correspond to some constituent of type π in P.
b. ALIGN-L/R(π, α): Assign a violation mark for every constituent of type π that is not left- or right-aligned with its corresponding constituent of type α in S.
This system principally consists of two well-known families of constraints. The SP-MAX in (2a) is a faithfulness constraint requiring Syntax-to-Prosody Maximality, and as such, it differs from the generally adopted MATCH constraint, according to Ito and Mester (2019), in having a purely existential conception. That is, for an element given in the input syntactic representation, SP:MAX insists merely on the existence of some
‧
corresponding prosodic constituent in the output phonological representation, rather than on exact correspondence, which is enforced by the other SP-faithfulness constraints. What is crucial is that this existential correspondence constraint is indifferent to whether the input element belongs to lexical category or functional category. The potential asymmetry between the categories is then governed by the Prosody-to-Syntax edge Alignment in (2b), the other family of constraints that principally makes up our system, which requires an output prosodic constituent in alignment on one side of some particular type of syntactic constituent. To capture the ordering effect in hierarchy (1), the value of the variable α for edge alignment in (2b) refers to contiguous ranges in the hierarchy, resulting in a set of stringency constraints (see De Lacy 2002), as illustrated in the following tableau, where “ω” stands for prosodic word, “Lex” for lexical word, “FncPrm” for prominent function words,
“FncNonPrm” for non-prominent function words, and “X0” for morphosyntactic word.
(3) Edge Alignment with stringency formulation ALIGN-R
With these two sets of constraints, the different mapping status can be treated as a result of the interaction of the SP-faithfulness and the stringent edge Alignment. The permutation of these two families of constraints produces the typology in (4), including the asymmetry between lexical and functional categories (4c), the asymmetry between the two classes of functional words (4b), and even no asymmetry (4a). As we can see, the conventional lexical/functional dichotomy arises as long as ALIGN-R(ω, Lex) is ranked above SP:MAX-X0. If SP:MAX-X0 is undominated, there is no asymmetry
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
available, lexical and functional categories are equally salient by assuming the same prosodic status. With SP-MAX-X0 above ALIGN-R(ω, Lex), while being dominated by ALIGN-R(ω, Lex-FncPrm), the asymmetry between the two classes of function words is observed.
(4) Factorial typology
language Type Grammar
a. (ω Lex)(ω FncPrm) (ω FncNonPrm) SP:MAX-X0 ≫ ALIGN-R(ω, Lex), ALIGN-R(ω, Lex-FncPrm)
b. (ω Lex)(ω FncPrm) FncNonPrm ALIGN-R(ω, Lex-FncPrm), ≫SP:MAX-X0 ≫ ALIGN-R(ω, Lex)
c. (ω Lex) FncPrm FncNonPrm ALIGN-R(ω, Lex-FncPrm), ALIGN-R(ω, Lex) ≫ SP:MAX-X0
ALIGN-R(ω, Lex) ≫SP:MAX-X0 ≫ ALIGN -R(ω, Lex-FncPrm)
2.2 Conflation of grammaticality1
One might think that the subclasses of function words, namely the prominent function words and the non-prominent function words, is as arbitrary as the subcategorization approach, in the sense that the classification appears to be stipulated based on nothing but the phonological behavior of function words, and that members of the two classes may be different from one dialect to another. This inconsistency is shown in table (5), which gives a cross-dialectal summary of the members of the two prosodic classes within functional category, based on the (non-)application of tonal reduction. As we can see, the prominent class contains the largest range of distinct types of function words in Sixian Hakka, but the smallest range in Shanghai. The non-prominent class
1 The term designates the degree of grammaticalization in Lehmann’s (2015) sense.
‧
(5) Prominent and non-prominent function words
NUM2 PHA CL PRO DIR ASP MOD SFP
Sixian Hakka Prm NonPrm
Taiwan Mandarin Prm NonPrm
Southern Min Prm NonPrm
Shanghainese Prm NonPrm
NUM = Numerals PHA = Phasal complements
CL = Classifiers PRO = Object pronouns
DIR = Directional complements ASP = Aspect markers
MOD = Modifier markers SFP = Sentence final particles
Prm = Prominent function words NonPrm = Non-prominent function words
Inconsistent and variable as it appears, the classification is clearly implicational. In other words, these distinct types of function words form an implicational hierarchy. The reduction of a given type in the scale entails the reduction of all the types to its left.
This is by no means accidental. As I shall argue here, the ordering of these types reflects
2 As one may notice, numerals do not form a typical functional category and are sometimes termed
“semi-lexical” (Corver and van Riemsdijk 2001) or “lexical operator” (Keizer 2007) because they show both lexical and functional properties: (a) they belong to a semi-open class of elements (new numerals can be added, but new numerals are not as common as new nouns or verbs), (b) they are phonologically and morphologically independent, (c) they only combine with nouns, (d) they do not assign theta roles (though they do take arguments), and (e) they cannot be separated from their complements, two of which being lexical properties (class membership and independence) and three being functional properties (complements, theta roles, separability). By defining functional category in a broad sense, we suggest that numerals as having such a semi-lexical status should be taken as a member of functional category, just as pronouns, which is another instance of lexical operator in Keizer (2007).
Another justification for grouping numerals into functional category is formal. In generative syntax, numerals are treated as the head of a functional projection “number phrase,” or NumP, which is parallel to IP in CP domain.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
their grammaticality, that is, the degree of being grammaticalized. This idea is not as surprising as it may appear. In the literature of grammaticalization, there has long been a consensus that phonological attrition and semantic depletion, or bleaching, go hand in hand, as dubbed by the term: the coevolution of meaning and form. Accordingly, I argue in this section that the classification of prominent and non-prominent function words complies the degree of grammaticality, such that members of prominent class tend to be “less grammatical” than those of non-prominent class. Take the types of function words in (5) for example. I suggest a grammaticality scale for these types, which exactly follows the ordering that they are arranged in (5), as depicted below, where “A < B” is read as “A is less grammatical than B”.
(6) Grammaticality Scale
NUM < PHA, CL < PRO, DIR < ASP < MOD < SFP
This scale can be justified using Lehmann’s (1995) well-known parameters of grammaticalization, which are widely employed as a set of criteria to determine which of two linguistic items is more grammatical than the other. Lehmann’s model is based on three principled aspects of the autonomy of a linguistic sign, weight, cohesion and variability, which can be analyzed from a paradigmatic and syntagmatic point of view.
This results in six parameters, or six criteria, yet it is argued that only some of which are applicable to Chinese (Bisang 2020), as listed in (7).
(7) Parameters of grammaticality
a. Integrity: desemanticization (loss of semantic substance), b. Bondedness: univerbation (boundary loss)
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
c. Syntagmatic variability: fixation (decrease in syntactic freedom)
Of the three parameters, bondedness and syntagmatic variability distinguish only limited types on the scale in (6). For example, the parameter of syntagmatic variability tells that numerals are less grammatical than all the other types, because they have much higher freedom in syntactic distribution. But it fails to explain why classifiers, having an affix-like status, can be less grammatical than object pronouns, which are relatively free in syntactic distribution. By the same token, the related parameter, bondedness, though successfully recognizes the relatively lower grammaticality of phasal complements than aspect markers through the test of separability, it cannot tell us why phasal complements are less grammatical than directional complements on the one hand, and equally grammatical to classifiers on the other, given the fact that directional complements are as much separable as them from the preceding main verb, while classifiers are inseparable from the preceding numerals. In contrast, the last parameter, Integrity, is more reliable than the other two. This parameter manifests itself in desemanticization. The term either means loss of contentive meaning, or addition of more abstract meaning or function, where abstractness can be roughly defined as lack of mental image. This parameter helps distinguish the otherwise problematic pairs. For instance, phasal complements and classifiers are less grammatical than object pronouns and directional complements because they still keep contentive substance to some extent, while object pronouns and directional complements only has referential, deictic or aspectual function.
With the grammaticality scale in hand, the two prosodic classes of function words are therefore built on the hierarchy by ignoring, or “conflating” in De Lacy’s (2002) term, some of the distinctions between the distinct types with different grammaticality.
‧
This processing of conflation is formalized using the stringent edge alignment proposed in 2.1. To begin with, let us suppose that each level in the hierarchy has a distinctive feature, or degree, in the form of a number that is greater or equals to 1. The greater the number, the higher the grammaticality. Therefore, lexical words have the feature value 0. The feature specifications shown in (8). It follows that the stringent edge alignment refers to contiguous ranges, following the revised definition given in (9). These can be seen as finer-grained divisions of ALIGN-R(ω, Lex-FncPrm). To illustrate, ALIGN-R(ω, Fnc≤2) refers to the edge alignment of ω with a numeral, phasal complement or classifier.
(8)
(9) ALIGN-L/R(π, Fnc≤n):
Assign a violation mark for every constituent of type π that is not left- or right-aligned with a syntactic word of the type Fnc≤n in S.
The proposed constraint system captures both the universal and language-specific nature of the grammaticality–reduction relation. On the universal side, the system captures the fact that all else being equal, phonological reduction never seeks out a less grammaticalized function word in preference to a more grammaticalized one. On the
Fnc=2
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
language-specific side, the constraints in (3) allow conflation. Various conflations of grammaticality across Chinese dialects arise from the interaction between the stringent edge Alignment and SP-faithfulness. When SP-MAX is crucially outranked by edge Alignment referring to a range with maximum degree x, all the types of function words with grammatical degree ≤ x are conflated into the prominent class, and the rest types are the non-prominent class. For instance, in the case of Taiwan Mandarin, the boundary of prominent/non-prominent distinction is located between grammaticality degree 3 and 4; this amounts to the ranking: ALIGN-R(ω, Fnc≤3) ≫ SP-MAX.
2.3 Alignment at different levels
The stringent edge Alignment proposed for the present study serves as a mechanism of licensing function words with different degrees of grammaticality within a certain prosodic constituent. While higher-grammaticality function words have the priority to be licensed, lower-grammaticality function words tend to be excluded. This licensing is parameterized to be sensitive to the edges of a constituent at two distinct levels in the prosodic hierarchy, prosodic word and phonological phrase, as proposed below.
(10) a. ALIGN-L/R(ω, Fnc≤n) b. ALIGN-L/R(ϕ, Fnc≤n)
Word-level Alignment as formalized in (10a) may position non-prominent function words outside prosodic word, allowing for only lexical word and prominent function words at that position, through the interaction with SP-faithfulness. The prosodic (non)licensing effect is observable in the presence/absence of tonal neutralization, given the assumption that tonal neutralization is derived from stresslessness, and that a
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
syllable is unstressed for not being parsed in a prosodic word. Tonal neutralization thus serves as one of the basis for the word-level licensing. For example, in Taiwan Southern Min, function words with grammaticality degree greater than 2 are neutral-toned, which can be explained by the ranking ALIGN-R(ω, Fnc≤2) ≫ SP-MAX-X0.
(11) Word-level licensing
Constraint ranking: ALIGN-R(ω, Fnc≤2) ≫ SP-MAX-X0
Subclasses Prominent (Fnc≤2) Non-prominent (Fnc>2) Prosodization (ω Lex)(ω Fnc≤2) (ω Lex) Fnc>2
Tonal neutralization N/A Neutralized
Phrase-level licensing effect can be observed through invisibility. This is a phenomenon where function words are invisible to the normal tone sandhi. An example is Sixian Hakka, in which case the modifier marker ge, a degree 5 function word, carries a full lexical tone which is a potential trigger of the processing of tone sandhi; however, the tone sandhi turns out to be blocked. Given that the tone sandhi is bound by the right edge of phonological phrase, the invisibility of modifier marker can be accounted for by ranking ALIGN-R(ϕ, Fnc≤4) above SP-MAX-X0.
(12) Phrase-level licensing
Constraint ranking: ALIGN-R(ϕ, Fnc≤4) ≫ SP-MAX-X0
Subclasses Prominent (Fnc≤4) Non-prominent (Fnc>4) Prosodization (ϕ Lex Fnc≤4) (ϕ Lex) Fnc>4
Tone sandhi Applied Blocked
Word-level and phrase-level licensing effects may co-occur in the same language.
Shanghainese serves as a good example. In the language, all the function words but numerals are tonally neutralized, with sentence final particles further showing
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
significant invisibility by blocking the processing of tone spread. This results in different conflations. At the word-level prosody, function words with grammaticality degree greater than 1 are conflated into non-prominent class, undergoing tonal neutralization, as shown in (13). At the phrase-level, on the other hand, the non-prominent class only contains sentence final particles, the most grammatical function word in the proposed scale, as shown in (14). Therefore, most function words whose grammaticality is in between are partially reduced, in the sense that they only undergo one of the phonological reduction.
(13) Word-level: ALIGN-R(ω, Fnc≤1) ≫ SP-MAX-X0
Subclasses Prominent (Fnc≤1) Non-prominent (Fnc>1) Prosodization (ω Lex)(ω Fnc≤1) (ω Lex) Fnc>1
Tonal neutralization N/A Neutralized
(14) Phrase-level: ALIGN-R(ϕmax, Fnc≤5) ≫ SP-MAX-X0
Subclasses Prominent (Fnc≤5) Non-prominent (Fnc>5) Prosodization (ϕmaxLex Fnc≤5) (ϕmaxLex) Fnc>4
Tone spread Applied Blocked
From this case emerge two theoretical implications. Firstly, the more grammatical a function words is, the more reduced it may be, and the degree of reduction can be measured by how many processes and/or which processes of phonological attrition applies to the function word. Secondly, the conflation of grammaticality is not only language-specific, but also process-specific. Different processes of reduction may call for different scenarios of conflation.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
2.4 Summary
This chapter proposes the theoretical model. Several major claims are made here.
Function words do not form a monolithic and homogeneous group in prosody. They should be divided along the scale of grammaticalization degree into at least two prosodic classes: the prominent class, which is eligible for licensing the edge of prosodic constituents at either word level or phrase level, and the non-prominent class, which does not enjoy that licensing privilege and is therefore extraprosodic at either level, being vulnerable to tonal neutralization and/or prosodic invisibility. This distinction is formalized by the schemata of constraint ranking ALIGN-R(ω, Fnc≤n).≫
SP:MAX-X0 and ALIGN-R(Pcat, Fnc≤n) ≫ ALIGN-R(XP, Pcat).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
3. Grammaticalized Function Words in Cantonese and Sixian Hakka
3.0 Introduction
Yue Chinese and Hakka Chinese are known for having relative scarce neutral tone compared to all the other branches of Sinitic languages (Cheng and Tseng 1997). Certain languages in the two families, such as Cantonese and Miaoli Sixian Hakka, are reported to even have no neutral tones (e.g. Matthews and Yip 1994, Liu 2004); that is, in these languages each syllable, even those belonging to functional categories that are typical target for tonal neutralization in Beijing Mandarin, carries a distinct lexical tone.
Cantonese and Miaoli Sixian Hakka are therefore taken in this dissertation as
Cantonese and Miaoli Sixian Hakka are therefore taken in this dissertation as