Gemination as non-local lengthening

1
Gemination as non-local lengthening

• Anne Pycha, UC Berkeley

2
Geminates

• Phonology Phonetics
• C C C C
• /t??/ ? t rel ?
• Complex segments with internal detail
• Characterize what gemination does

3
Overview

• Problem Release features
• Seem to play no role in length contrasts
• Even though they should
• Phonetic study Hungarian
• Source of lengthening comes from the right
• Most likely to lengthen frication, but doesnt
• Phonological problems, and possible solutions
• Affricate representations
• Geminate representations

4
Overview

• Proposal Gemination as morpheme strengthening
• Degrees of fortification
• Degrees of lengthening
• Predictions
• Cross-linguistic
• Hungarian-internal

5
Release features

• Problem (Part 1) Release features seem to play
  no role in length contrasts.
• Closure duration as primary perceptual cue to
  singleton-geminate contrast.
• Lisker 1958 Swedish, Marathi, Telugu
• Pickett Decker 1968 English
• Obrecht 1965 Arabic
• Repp 1983 English
• Suggests diminished role for release.

6
Affricates

• Reasonable Release features play bigger (or
  different) role when they are distinctive
• Example Affricates, where release corresponds to
  frication
• Expectation Frication portion of affricate might
  lengthen under gemination

7
Affricates

• Shilluk (Eastern Sudanic, Sudan)
• it should be clarified that the lengthening of
  t? is evidenced on the closure phase (Gilley
  1992 27).
• Anejom (Malayo-Polynesian, Vanuatu)
• Geminate /t?/ also occurs, with the stop onset,
  but not the fricative release, being lengthened
  thus t? (Lynch 2000 24)

8
Affricates

• Attested C C
• T S
• Unattested? C C
• T S

9
Affricates

• Problem (Part 2) Reasons to think frication
  should lengthen under gemination
• Affricates can pattern like fricatives
• Hungarian, Yucatec Maya
• Segmental status for frication (S)
• Fricative segments lengthen under gemination, so
  frication should too

10
Affricates

• Perception of affricate does not require stop
  closure portion
• Fricatives gradual rise in noise
• Affricates abrupt rise in noise
• Noise alone suffices for affricate percept
• English listeners (Repp et al. 1978)
• Hungarian listeners (Tarnóczy 1987)
• Suggests independence of S

11
Affricates

• 3. Listeners appear to need it!
• Pattani Malay singleton/geminate contrast in
  initial position
• Abramson (1986 et seq.)Listeners make length
  distinction in utterance-initial position
• True for all consonants, even voiceless stops
  where no apparent cues are present, as well as
  fricatives
• Exception Affricates, at 50
• Why not lengthen the S?

12
Release features

• Turkish (Lahiri Hankamer 1988)
• Articulatory data
• ? closure duration significant
• ? VOT significant

13
Phonetic study

• Goal test reality of constraint on lengthened S
  within an affricate
• Context
• Affricates in geminate environment
• Source of gemination rightmost (S) side
• Most likely to produce lengthened frication.
• Method duration measurements.

14
Phonetic study

• Language Hungarian
• Affricates ts, t?, dz, d?, ty, dy
• Previous research
• Magdics (1969)
• Szende (1974)
• Tarnóczy (1987)

15
Phonetic study

• Affixal gemination in Hungarian
• Root Instrumental
• kert hat kert-tel
• piros red piros-sal
• baj trouble baj-jal
• ketrec cage ketrec-cel
• etc

16
Phonetic study

• Affixal singletons
• Superessive case
• t?at-on buckle-Sup,
• va?-on iron-Sup
• kat?-on fringe-Sup

• Affixal geminates
• Instrumental case
• t?at-tal buckle-Instr,
• va?-?al iron-Instr
• kat?-t?al fringe-Instr

17
Stimuli (from Papp 1969)

• Noun roots ending in
• Affricates /t?, ts/
• Corresponding obstruent /t/
• Corresponding sibilants /s, ?/
• Stop-sibilant clusters /ps, p?, ks, k?/
• Monosyllabic roots /kat?/ fringe
• Disyllabic roots /pamat?/ mop

18
Stimuli

• 8 word shapes (CVC, CVC, etc)
• x 5 segment types /ts, t?, t, s, ?/
• x 2 repetitions of each shape
• x 3 speakers
• 240
• ? 189 noun roots

19
Stimuli Clusters

• All noun roots ending in clusters ? 11
• Shapes
• CVCC /gips/
• CVNCC /skunks/
• C(C)VC(C)VCC /kyklops/

20
Data Environments

• Each noun root (n200) in two different
  environments
• Intervocalic singleton /kat?-on/ (Super)
• Intervocalic geminate /kat?-Cal/ (Instr)

21
Results Raw durations
All consonants
T T S S
TS TS
22
Results Raw durations
Within affricates
T T S S
23
Calculation Ratio in disyllable
t 0.1 at?on
(Subject 4)
k a t ?
o n
? 0.1 at?on
24
Results Ratio in disyllable
25
Results Ratio in disyllable
26
Discussion

• Affricates under affixal gemination
• Duration of T changes
• Duration of S stays basically the same
• even in rightmost environment that (according
  to locality) should affect S
• ? Constraint on lengthened S seems to be real

27
Discussion

• Typical account
• Instrumental suffix has empty slot, /-Cal/
• Spreading fills C with features
• C V C - C V C
• k a t ? a l
• Locality problem

28
Rethinking affricates

• Re-think representation of affricates?
• Traditional representation is ordered
• C
• T S

29
Rethinking affricates

• Phonology Unordered representation (Lombardi
  1990)
• T
• C
• S
• Phonetics Universal ordering TS

30
Rethinking affricates

• Evidence anti-edge effects (Lombardi 1990)
• Sensitivity to T from right
• Basque
• Turkish
• Sensitivity to S from the left
• Yucatec Maya MSCs
• Hungarian

31
Rethinking affricates

• Gemination as an anti-edge effect?
• Source of lengthening right (next to S)
• Target of lengthening left (T)
• .TS-al
• Problem Gemination can target both T and S
  independently (not just T)
• Unordered representation doesnt help

32
Rethinking affricates
Closure feature with dependent release

• C C
• T
• rel S

33
Rethinking affricates

• Problem we lose unity of behavior between
  affricates and fricatives
• C versus C
• T S
• rel S

34
Rethinking affricates

• Root node spreading
• X X
• ?
• T S
• Problem lost fact of lengthened T

35
Rethinking affricates

• No good solution for affricate representation
• Geminate representation Is the C-slot the
  problem?

36
Rethinking geminates

• Alternative suffix -al triggers strengthening in
  the root
• Intuition -al is weak
• Converse Root is strong
• Suppose that Strong-weak relationships are
  manifested during morpheme concatenation
• Manifestation is violable

37
Rethinking geminates

• Strength relationship
• Roots gt Suffix -al
• kat? gt al
• Manifestation
• Fortification, and/or
• Lengthening

38
Rethinking geminates

• Multiple ways for roots to be fortified
• Have stress (cf. Smith 2001)
• Segments have more stricture
• J
• S
• T

39
Rethinking geminates

• Multiple ways to for roots to be longer
• Have a mora (cf. Hayes 1992)
• Have a coda
• Have a longer segment

40
Analysis

• Proposal for Hungarian
• Length requirement for roots
• Have a coda
• Strength requirement for roots
• Have coda T (most stricture)
• Implemented as subcategorization frame
• VCs-al
• T

41
Analysis

• VCs-al
• T
• /lat-al/ ? lat.Cal ? lat.tal
• Continuous syllabification to template (Itô
  1986)

42
Analysis

• Stricture requirement is violable
• lat lat.tal
• vas vas.sal vat.sal
• baj baj.jal bat.jal
• Faith stricture gtgt T
• Keep underlying stricture.

43
Analysis

• Stricture requirement is violable
• /n?-el/ ? n?tel
• Dep stricture gtgt T
• Do not insert stricture.

44
Analysis

• Stricture requirement becomes apparent
• S S Phonetics
• /kaC-al/ ? kaC Cal ? kaC Cal
• T T T S

45
Analysis

• Clusters
• /gips-el/ ? gip.sel

46
Analysis

• Alignment Requires morpheme and syllable edges
  to coincide
• Simple segments (same)
• Affricates (unclear)kat??al ? kat??.Xal ?
  kat??.?al,
• ? kat??.?al
• Clusters (different) gipsel ? gips.Xel ?
  gips.sel

47
Predictions

• Morphology as determining factor
• Roots gt Suffixes
• Meithei (Tibeto-Burman, India)
• Acooli (Nilotic Uganda)
• Ibibio (Eastern Sudanic Nigeria)
• Hup and Yuhup (Maku Brazil)
• Maithili (Indo-Iranian India)
• Mokilese (Malayo-Polynesian, Micronesia)

48
Predictions

• 2. Preference for strong strictures
• The presence of a geminate continuant consonant
  in the segment inventory implies the presence of
  a corresponding non-continuant (Kirchner 2001)
• Language 1 TT
• Language 2 TT, SS
• Language 3 SS

49
Predictions

• 3. Gemination is one degree of lengthening
• Cross-linguistic evidence
• These (Nilotic, Sudan Yip 2004)
• à-???kw?? I plant
• ??-???kw?? you (sg) plant
• á-????kw?? I planted
• Hungarian evidence

50
Predictions

• /gips-el/ ? gip.sel
• C-slot analysis
• No gemination because CCC
• No root lengthening
• Lengthening analysis
• No gemination because s templates satisfied
• Degrees of lengthening could still occur
• Target p

51
Data Clusters

• Hungarian noun roots ending in clusters PS, KS
• PS KS
• /gips/ /skunks/
• /tap?/ /?teks/
• /?naps/ /boks/
• /mumps/ /vok?/
• /tritseps/ /?uviks/
• /kyklops/

52
Results Ratio in disyllable
Non-lengtheners2/3 of cluster tokens
53
Results Ratio in disyllable
Non-lengtheners2/3 of cluster tokens
54
Results Ratio in disyllable
Lengtheners1/3 of cluster tokens
55
Results Ratio in disyllable
Lengtheners1/3 of cluster tokens
56
Conclusions

• Problems for affricate representation remain
  (/t?- t?/ ? t?)
• Gemination as morpheme strengthening addresses
  locality problem in Hungarian
• Makes testable predictions
• Cross-linguistic patterns of morpheme
  combinations
• Cross-linguistic patterns of preference for T
  over S
• Gemination as a degree of lengthening