Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
NL-KR Digest Volume 04 No. 44
NL-KR Digest (4/25/88 18:26:02) Volume 4 Number 44
Today's Topics:
Re: Pronoun drop
Re: What's a grammar for
Categorial grammar?
Re: Representing archiphonemes
Re: archiphonemes and Spanish phonology
Spanish s-aspiration/deletion (Was Phonetic Spelling)
Submissions: NL-KR@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU
Requests, policy: NL-KR-REQUEST@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 88 10:29 EDT
From: Alan Lovejoy <alan@pdn.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Pronoun drop
In article <102@avsd.UUCP> govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) writes:
>>[me:]
>> "Nihongo ga dekimasu ka?" literally says "Is Japanese possible?". But
>> it is commonly used to mean "Do you speak Japanese?". This essentially
>> amounts to ommitting "...you speak..." from "Can (you speak) Japanese?".
>
>In this context, "dekimasu" does not literally translate as "....possible."
>True, "possible" is one translation of "dekimasu," but here
>"be proficient in; be skillful at" is the proper translation.
In a Japanese dictionary written in Japanese for Japanese speakers,
how many different meanings would be listed for "dekimasu"? The
important point is the Japanese concept(s) bound to "dekimasu".
The set of possible English expressions that may be used to translate
"dekimasu" is irrelevant.
For example, the English word "go". In English, one can "go" home, "go"
to the store, "go" to Paris or "go" cruising down the street.
The English speaker conceptualizes the word "go" in the examples above as
a single idea.
Not so in Russian. "Paittyi domoi" means "to go home", a one-way trip
on foot. "Pokhodyit' v magazyin" means "to go to the store", a
round-trip on foot. "Poyezdyit' v Paris" means "to go to Paris",
a round-trip by vehicle. "Yezdyit' po ulyitse" means "to go in a
vehicle (without specific direction or destination) along the street".
There is no Russian word which means simply "go" in the English sense.
However, for a Russian to claim that "go" in the English expressions
"go to Hawaii on vacation next year" and "go up the trail a little ways"
do not mean the same thing because they translate into different
Russian words is patently ridiculous.
--
Alan Lovejoy; alan@pdn; 813-530-8241; Paradyne Corporation: Largo, Florida.
Disclaimer: Do not confuse my views with the official views of Paradyne
Corporation (regardless of how confusing those views may be).
Motto: Never put off to run-time what you can do at compile-time!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 88 10:16 EDT
From: Philip Resnik <presnik@LABS-N.BBN.COM>
Subject: Re: What's a grammar for
Arild Hestvik writes:
Rick Wojcik writes:
>AH> ... But the sentence 'How did you wonder whether Bill
>AH> fixed the car', with the intended reading that 'how' is a question about
>AH> the manner of fixing...
RW>(Please continue to use the expression 'with the intended reading that'.
RW>It serves to remind us all that grammaticality judgments don't exist
RW>outside of pragmatic contexts.)
>AH>Not quite true. You don't need any pragmatic context to decide that 'He
>AH>likes John', with JOHN and HE coreferent is illformed....
Nor is *that* quite true. I can easily come up with a context in which
"He likes John" is *NOT* ill-formed: "John is such an egotist. He doesn't
like his co-workers. He doesn't like his students. He likes John. Period."
Perhaps not the best example in the world, but certainly enough to disprove
the claim that "you don't need any pragmatic context". Also, to my mind,
at least, emphasizing the point with "Period" actually improves the
understandability of "He likes John" -- if this is true in general, it means
that "context" can not be taken to mean only left-context.
While I do believe that notions of grammaticality are in general useful,
I think hard-and-fast notions like "ill-formedness" and "well-formedness"
will have to become a little less hard-and-fast before we start
understanding what people *really* do with language. Just read a
good transcript of a live conversation -- one where the transcriber has
caught all the pauses and restarts -- and you'll see what I mean.
Philip Resnik
presnik@bbn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 88 13:21 EDT
From: HESTVIK%BRANDEIS.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: what grammars are for
Philip Resnik writes:
>AH>Not quite true. You don't need any pragmatic context to decide that 'He
>AH>likes John', with JOHN and HE coreferent is illformed....
>Nor is *that* quite true. I can easily come up with a context in which
>"He likes John" is *NOT* ill-formed: "John is such an egotist. He doesn't
>like his co-workers. He doesn't like his students. He likes John. Period."
>Perhaps not the best example in the world, but certainly enough to disprove
>the claim that "you don't need any pragmatic context".
With pragmatic context you can make 'He-i likes John-i' understandable, as
you point out. But I don't think this is the same as grammatical, since by
grammatical we mean "wellformed by the grammar". Notice that asking a
speaker whether a sentence is grammatical is exactly like running an
experiment in any other discipline of psychology. What you do in an
experiment is control for factors that intervene and obscure the thing
you're trying to look at and get some information about through the
experiment. In this case we're trying to get some information about the
syntactic constraints on binding- relations.
>While I do believe that notions of grammaticality are in general useful,
>I think hard-and-fast notions like "ill-formedness" and "well-formedness"
>will have to become a little less hard-and-fast before we start
>understanding what people *really* do with language. Just read a
>good transcript of a live conversation -- one where the transcriber has
>caught all the pauses and restarts -- and you'll see what I mean.
Reading a good transcript of a live conversation is exactly what you DON'T
want to do if you're investigating e.g. syntax. That is the ultimate
UN-controlled experiment. That's why they in other sciences, take
bio-chemistry, don't just go out and collect all the fruit-flies they can
find and then see if there some system in it. They artificially breede
fruit-flies and manipulate them in highly controlled ways. The same goes
for linguistics. We construct sentences and manipulate them in certain ways
and see what the reactions of the speakers are.
Arild Hestvik
Psych Dept
Brandeis University
BITNET: hestvik@brandeis
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 88 01:03 EDT
From: Robin C. LaPasha <ruslan@ecsvax.UUCP>
Subject: Categorial grammar?
Can anyone point out some published descriptions/explanations of categorial
grammar?
A couple of weeks ago a linguist came through the department speaking great
things about categorial grammar and how it may revolutionize computational
linguistics. He went through some examples with Macedonian clitics... the
idea seemed to have something to do with describing sentences or phrases as
pieces like - an adjective = a noun phrase in search of its noun. (Yes, I'm
sure I've misstated something, but: 1)I am obviously not a linguist; and
2)His talk was only an hour's breeze-through.)
The idea was apparently originated ages ago (1920's or 30's) by somebody
named Dambek; the whole thing was rediscovered around 1980 and they've been
holding international conferences on it for the last couple of years.
The big problem is that everything the guy who came through could remember
off the top of his head was still in press. It also didn't sound like any
of his references were introductions to the subject. So - any "basics of
categorial grammar for the ignorant" books or articles that you know of?
(That are already published somewhere available at a large university
library?)
Thanks in advance,
Robin LaPasha
ruslan@ecsvax.UUCP
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 88 11:38 EDT
From: John Chambers <jc@minya.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Representing archiphonemes
> Final /v/ gets pronounced [f] in Russian by automatic final devoicing, so
> one could use an archiphoneme /F/ to represent both phonemes in that
> position.
Um, I'd think that the standard Russian orthography (using /V/ in such cases)
is the right one, because the same morpheme will occur in other environments
with a vocalic suffix, forcing /v/. Using the /F/ letter would mean spelling
the morpheme differently in different words; using /V/ would give the same
spelling everywhere.
> JH> Anyhow, it
> JH> seems straightforward to classify 'th' as an English archiphoneme,
> JH> with a single symbol representing both phonemenes, and spelling
> JH> conventions to distinguish them.
>
> I know of no phonological theories that would take modern English 'th' to
> be an archiphoneme. I can think of no cases in English where the dental
> fricative occurs in a position of automatic neutralization.
I've read numerous claims that the voiced 'th' (Let's call it /D/, and use
/T/ for the voiceless one) arose essentially from /d/ before a vowel. As
for automatic choice between /T/ and /D/, well, in my native dialect of
English (from the West Coast), I grew up thinking that 'either' and 'ether'
were homonyms. I was a bit surprised when I found Easterners pronouncing
'Ethernet' as /iTrnet/ rather than /iDrnet/. After a bit of razzing, I've
learned to devoice the 'th', but it still sounds a bit funny.
I've often wondered when we will hear of a new 'Oarnet' ['Orenet'?]. But
I guess some people wouldn't get the joke. That makes up for my not catching
puns based on confusing 'w' with 'wh', I guess.
Anyhow, part of the confusion about the term 'archiphoneme' possibly stems
from the fact that 'archi' look like 'archae', with the inevitable implication
that you are talking about varying phonemes that derive from a single earlier
phoneme. The semi-definitions that have appeared here sort of reverse that
meaning. What are the real definitions of archiphoneme and morphophoneme?
I get the impression that they are words used very fuzzily, with the result
that people don't know what each other are talking about.
For instance, the change between 'leaf' and 'leaves', as well as between
'wreath' and 'wreathes', are due to a somewhat ancient voicing rule that
still exists in fragmented form in modern English. They are really the
same phoneme (in some sense), pronounced differently because of the vowel
in the second form.
BTW, I've also gotten razzed a bit by easterners for my devoiced 's' in
'houses'. The /hawzIz/ pronunciation sounds like a verb form to me; while
/hawsIz/ sounds like a plural noun. What percent of the native speakers
of English would find this outrageous? How would you classify the final
consonant of 'house', given that it's phonemic realization varies from
dialect to dialect?
--
John Chambers <{adelie,ima,maynard,mit-eddie}!minya!{jc,root}> (617/484-6393)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 88 18:13 EDT
From: Rick Wojcik <rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP>
Subject: Re: archiphonemes and Spanish phonology
John Chambers writes:
JC> As for automatic choice between /T/ and /D/, well, in my native dialect of
JC> English (from the West Coast), I grew up thinking that 'either' and 'ether'
JC> were homonyms.
There is a difference between automatic phonemic neutralization, which
licenses archiphonemes, and simple confusion between two phonemes.
Neutralization involves a constraint on pronunciation. It is not the case
that you were unable to pronounce a voiceless fricative in 'ether'. You
simply had a voiced phoneme in medial position. Contrast this with the
case in Russian, where native speakers have difficulty articulating final
voiced obstruents.
JC> For instance, the change between 'leaf' and 'leaves', as well as between
JC> 'wreath' and 'wreathes', are due to a somewhat ancient voicing rule that
JC> still exists in fragmented form in modern English. They are really the
JC> same phoneme (in some sense), pronounced differently because of the vowel
JC> in the second form.
The last statement is not true. The voiced/voiceless alternations in
these words involve quite distinct phonemes. Note that you can say either
/lifs/ or /livz/. There is no articulatory constraint on the alternation.
In Trubetzkoy's terminology, these examples would involve morphophonemes,
not archiphonemes.
JC> How would you classify the final consonant of 'house', given that it's
JC> phonemic realization varies from dialect to dialect?
This is a case of morphological 'leveling'. The substitution of voiced
for voiceless fricative phonemes in plural stems is an exception to
regular plural formation.
Celso Alvarez writes:
CA> IF, according to you, "in certain speakers and
CA> dialects" full s-weakening --> 0 is obligatory, AND what we want
CA> is to give account of these specific varieties, then we don't
CA> need to postulate the existence of intermediate [h]-deletion.
My viewpoint is based on Stampean natural phonology (cf. D. Stampe _A_
Dissertaion_on_Natural_Phonology, Garland Publishing, 1979). In that
theory, s->h and h->0 would be natural universal processes in language.
English speakers have suppressed the former, but they retain the latter in
syllable-final position. (French speakers retain h->0 in all
environments.) To my knowledge, no language deletes [s], but fails to
delete [h] in the same environments. English demonstrates that the
reverse is possible. On these grounds, one could postulate intermediate
H-deletion. From the viewpoint of natural phonology, it is not correct to
posit 'chained processes' such as 's->0' when one process feeds
another. Chaining is permissible in some versions of generative phonology
(cf. Larry Hyman's textbook Phonology: Theory and Analysis). But such a
theory has to justify the intermediate processes in a chain. This is not
the case for natural phonology, since processes exist independently of
phonological alternations.
CA> (incidentally, it should be [dEspwE'zd/e], with voiced [z] and
CA> fricative [d/]), PROVIDED THAT the phenomenon is categorical.
CA> Otherwise, "new vowels" wouldn't affect the whole dialect, but
CA> certain lexical items in certain distributions and/or for certain
CA> speakers in certain communicative contexts.
Interesting. I didn't know that you could spirantize /d/ when it occurs
after an obstruent. I would expect spirantization between vowels--so it
would show up under loss of /s/. As for the issue of rephonemicization,
phonemic change can spread gradually through the lexicon, although it may
end up looking like a global change from a historical perspective.
CA> In a recent conference at the University of Minnesota Shana
CA> Poplack gave a detailed account of s-weakening in Caribbean and
CA> Central American dialects. When asked if she had found any
CA> reflexes of s-aspiration-deletion in vowel quality
CA> (rephonemicization) in the large body of data she analyzed she
CA> was most emphatic in her negative answer.
I can't claim the command of the data that you or Shana Poplack have. To
evaluate her opinion, I'd have to know more about how she defines
phonemes. What data makes her so sure?
--
Rick Wojcik csnet: rwojcik@boeing.com
uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik
address: P.O. Box 24346, MS 7L-64, Seattle, WA 98124-0346
phone: 206-865-3844
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 88 03:51 EDT
From: Celso Alvarez <sp202-ad@garnet.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Spanish s-aspiration/deletion (Was Phonetic Spelling)
I tried to Follow-up to two of Wojcik's articles, but it
wouldn't work. So, here is what R.W. said
"I would call [the process of s-weakening in Spanish]
"s-aspiration ([s] -> [h]) and h-deletion ([h] -> 0). Whether
"or not a process is obligatory depends on dialect and speaker. I
"believe that these processes are extremely active in colloquial
"Puerto Rican and Cuban--to the point where they have affected
"phonemic representations. This is certainly to be expected..."
S-aspiration and/or deletion is, indeed, *very
active in Caribbean dialects and, to a lesser degree, in Central
America, specially Nicaragua (Lipski). It also occurs in coastal
dialects all throughout Latin America, in Andalusia and the
Canary Islands, etc. The possible influence of African adstratum
languages (African slaves were more numerous in those American
regions) should not be ruled out.
But I seem to observe a certain circularity in parts of your
argument. If we take macro-constructs as "dialects", I know of no
evidence showing that s-deletion (through aspiration?) is
obligatory. IF, according to you, "in certain speakers and
dialects" full s-weakening --> 0 is obligatory, AND what we want
is to give account of these specific varieties, then we don't
need to postulate the existence of intermediate [h]-deletion. I
would call the processes
s-aspiration /s/--> [h] in dialects/idiolects with variable
s-weakening
h-deletion [h]--> 0 in the same dialects
s-deletion /s/--> 0 in dialects/idiolects with categorical,
full s-weakening
As I said in a previous posting, rephonemicization occurs in
Andalusian dialects where opening of the previous vowel(s) is a
reflex of s-aspiration --> deletion. Thus, [lo,ko,'c^e,]
/losko,'c^es/, "los coches" 'the cars', where commas indicate
vowel opening (lowering). Interestingly, vowel lowering spreads
from the immediately preceding vowel to all others in the word.
R.W. says,
"There is an issue that bears on the question of
"rephonemicization in certain Spanish dialects--tense and lax
"vowels. For example, /e/ is tense in open syllables and lax in
"closed syllables. So the expression 'despues de' ('after') gets
"pronounced [dEspwEs de] in standard Spanish and [dEpwEde] after
"s-aspiration and h-deletion in the relevant dialects. As
"well-behaved allophones, [e] and [E] seem to be identical sounds
"to standard speakers. When a following /s/ is lost at the end of
"a syllable, [e] and [E] should appear to contrast--at least to
"Spanish-learning children. So the loss of final /s/ should give
"rise to new vowel phonemes for the affected dialects (...)"
If the lax-tense distinction coincides with the mid-high--mid-low
one, I agree with your interpretation of "despue's de"
(incidentally, it should be [dEspwE'zd/e], with voiced [z] and
fricative [d/]), PROVIDED THAT the phenomenon is categorical.
Otherwise, "new vowels" wouldn't affect the whole dialect, but
certain lexical items in certain distributions and/or for certain
speakers in certain communicative contexts.
Even so, what would happen with the hypothetical /e/: /E/
contrast in other contexts (like "perro" [pE'rro])? Would
"Spanish-learning children" need also to learn that in *a large
number of instances* the hypothetical contrast /e/ : /E/ was
neutralized?
In a recent conference at the University of Minnesota Shana
Poplack gave a detailed account of s-weakening in Caribbean and
Central American dialects. When asked if she had found any
reflexes of s-aspiration-deletion in vowel quality
(rephonemicization) in the large body of data she analyzed she
was most emphatic in her negative answer.
Celso Alvarez (sp202-ad@garnet.berkeley.edu.UUCP)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 88 08:17 EDT
From: Greg Lee <lee@uhccux.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Spanish s-aspiration/deletion (Was Phonetic Spelling)
From article <8808@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, by sp202-ad@garnet.berkeley.edu (Celso Alvarez):
" I tried to Follow-up to two of Wojcik's articles, but it
" wouldn't work. So, here is what R.W. said
"
""I would call [the process of s-weakening in Spanish]
""s-aspiration ([s] -> [h]) and h-deletion ([h] -> 0). Whether
""...
"
" obligatory. IF, according to you, "in certain speakers and
" dialects" full s-weakening --> 0 is obligatory, AND what we want
" is to give account of these specific varieties, then we don't
" need to postulate the existence of intermediate [h]-deletion. I
" ...
But suppose one doubts the existence of s-weakening. We know
h's can be lost and that s's can weaken -- why postulate the
existence of s-weakening?
" As I said in a previous posting, rephonemicization occurs in
" Andalusian dialects where opening of the previous vowel(s) is a
" reflex of s-aspiration --> deletion. Thus, [lo,ko,'c^e,]
" /losko,'c^es/, "los coches" 'the cars', where commas indicate
" vowel opening (lowering). Interestingly, vowel lowering spreads
" from the immediately preceding vowel to all others in the word.
This doesn't show that there is rephonemicization, at least not
without making some assumptions that not all would accept. The
introduction of forms in these dialects in which the open vowels
cannot be attributed to the influence of /s/ would show rephonem-
icization.
" R.W. says,
""...
""well-behaved allophones, [e] and [E] seem to be identical sounds
""to standard speakers. When a following /s/ is lost at the end of
""a syllable, [e] and [E] should appear to contrast--at least to
""Spanish-learning children. So the loss of final /s/ should give
""rise to new vowel phonemes for the affected dialects (...)"
I wonder what R.W.'s process of reasoning here is. Why "should"
[e] and [E] appear to contrast? Rather than the difference being
to a lost consonant. Is this analysis too advanced for children?
Why think that?
" If the lax-tense distinction coincides with the mid-high--mid-low
" one, I agree with your interpretation of "despue's de"
" ...
Well I don't. Case not proved.
" Celso Alvarez (sp202-ad@garnet.berkeley.edu.UUCP)
Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 88 20:21 EDT
From: Travis Lee Winfrey <travis@madonna>
Subject: Re: Spanish s-aspiration/deletion (Was Phonetic Spelling)
In article <8808@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> sp202-ad@garnet.berkeley.edu (Celso Alvarez) writes:
>R. Wojcik:
>"I would call [the process of s-weakening in Spanish]
>"s-aspiration ([s] -> [h]) and h-deletion ([h] -> 0). Whether
>"or not a process is obligatory depends on dialect and speaker. I
>"believe that these processes are extremely active in colloquial
>"Puerto Rican and Cuban--to the point where they have affected
>"phonemic representations. This is certainly to be expected..."
>
>
>S-aspiration and/or deletion is, indeed, *very
>active in Caribbean dialects and, to a lesser degree, in Central
>America, specially Nicaragua (Lipski). It also occurs in coastal
>dialects all throughout Latin America, in Andalusia and the
>Canary Islands, etc. The possible influence of African adstratum
>languages (African slaves were more numerous in those American
>regions) should not be ruled out.
Well, I'm out of my depth as far as the linguistics of it goes; but I can tell
you that my Puerto Rican friends vary their S-aspiration according to the
speaker and intended effect. Yesterday, I was speaking with a janitor at work,
and I asked him why he was pronouncing all of his S's (should I say [s]'s?)
with me when I've heard him speak without them to his friends. He explained
that he was doing that with me because I was learning Spanish (quite
obviously!). He went on to say that he would never speak that way on the
street, since he would be mistaken for a "sissy" (his words, mind). I was
astonished, and he expanded on it so I couldn't be mistaken, saying that if he
spoke like that, his friends would think he "swung both ways." *I* would be
forgiven to speak them, being an blanquito simply struggling with the language,
but he would never aspirate his S's -- except possibly to a teacher, who would
never accept it.
He also said things I've heard other Puerto Ricans say: that dropping their S's
is "bad" language, and that they shouldn't do it.
t
Arpa: travis@madonna.cs.columbia.edu Bitnet: travis@cu20b
Usenet: rutgers!columbia!travis Dragnet: "just the facts, ma'am"
USMail: 483 Mudd, Columbia Univ., NYC 10025 Phone: 212-280-8091
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 88 03:21 EDT
From: Celso Alvarez <sp202-ad@garnet.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: s-aspiration/deletion in Spanish
In article <4962@bcsaic.UUCP> rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes:
RW> Celso Alvarez writes:
RW> CA> IF, according to you, "in certain speakers and
RW> CA> dialects" full s-weakening --> 0 is obligatory, AND what we want
RW> CA> is to give account of these specific varieties, then we don't
RW> CA> need to postulate the existence of intermediate [h]-deletion.
RW> My viewpoint is based on Stampean natural phonology (cf. D. Stampe _A_
RW> Dissertaion_on_Natural_Phonology, Garland Publishing, 1979). In that
RW> theory, s->h and h->0 would be natural universal processes in language.
RW> English speakers have suppressed the former, but they retain the latter in
RW> syllable-final position. (French speakers retain h->0 in all
RW> environments.) To my knowledge, no language deletes [s], but fails to
RW> delete [h] in the same environments (...)
I see your point. A detailed analysis of s-weakening (with emphasis on
Spanish), following a similar argument, can be found in Julian Mendez Dosuna,
1987, "La aspiracion de S como proceso condicionado por el contacto
de silabas. Revista_Espan~ola_de_Linguistica 17.1, pp. 15-35.
CA> (incidentally, it should be [dEspwE'zd/e], with voiced [z] and
CA> fricative [d/]), PROVIDED THAT the phenomenon is categorical.
RW> Interesting. I didn't know that you could spirantize /d/ when it occurs
RW> after an obstruent. I would expect spirantization between vowels--so it
RW> would show up under loss of /s/.
/d/ is fricativized as [d/] (stands for "delta") in postvocalic position, and
after /r/, /s/. It is realized /d/ in all other distributions.
RW> As for the issue of rephonemicization,
RW> phonemic change can spread gradually through the lexicon, although it
RW> may end up looking like a global change from a historical perspective.
I agree, as long as we emphasize that the degree to which this process
is spread through the lexicon is extremely uncertain. We would need
obligatory full s- weakening in *all* syllable-final postvocalic
environments to be in the position to talk about rephonemicization
in the vowel system.
CA> In a recent conference at the University of Minnesota Shana
CA> Poplack gave a detailed account of s-weakening in Caribbean and
CA> Central American dialects. When asked if she had found any
CA> reflexes of s-aspiration-deletion in vowel quality
CA> (rephonemicization) in the large body of data she analyzed she
CA> was most emphatic in her negative answer.
RW> I can't claim the command of the data that you or Shana Poplack have.
I can't claim to have a substantial command of the theoretical background
needed to reach any conclusions on the issue.
RW> To evaluate her opinion, I'd have to know more about how she defines
RW> phonemes. What data makes her so sure?
The conference was Sociolinguistic Research on Spanish in Europe, Latin
America and the United States (U. of Minnesota, Minnealopis, March 4-5
1988). (The proceedings will be published sometime this year or in
early 1989).
Poplack's talk ("Linguistic Variation and U.S. Spanish: (s)
Revisited") included a review of the literature (functionalist
interpretations of s-aspiration-deletion, including those cases
of redundant plural marker "-s" across the NP).
I think her data were both from the literature and her own extensive samples
of the speech of native Spanish-speaking Puerto Ricans in New York.
I was somewhat surprised that she hadn't found preconsonantal vowel reflexes
of s-aspiration-deletion like in Andalusian Spanish. I raised this question.
In the case of verbs, apparently PR Spanish supplies for information lacking
after person marker "-s" through syntactic devices such as a higher presence
of disambiguating pronouns.
Celso Alvarez (sp202-ad@garnet.berkeley.edu.UUCP)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 88 04:10 EDT
From: Celso Alvarez <sp202-ad@garnet.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Spanish s-aspiration/deletion (Was Phonetic Spelling)
In article <5544@columbia.edu> travis@madonna.UUCP
(Travis Lee Winfrey) writes:
>my Puerto Rican friends vary their S-aspiration according to the
>speaker and intended effect. Yesterday, I was speaking with a janitor at work
>and I asked him why he was pronouncing all of his S's (should I say [s]'s?)
Yes.
>with me when I've heard him speak without them to his friends. He explained
>that he was doing that with me because I was learning Spanish (quite
>obviously!). He went on to say that he would never speak that way on the
>street, since he would be mistaken for a "sissy" (his words, mind).
Your anecdote suggests not only that s-aspiration is a variable
phenomena, but that the more interesting fact (in my view) that
variants do carry social meaning in terms of the signalling of social
identity. Even more, these markers of group identity can be
consciously *exploited in conversation by speakers who enjoy an ample
linguistic repertoire (including, obviously, the two or more alternating
variants, in this case [s] [h] 0 ).
That is why I doubt that whole dialects exist (without resorting to
use the word dialect in an extremely broad sense) that have come
to categorically supress socially significant contrasts such as
[s] : [h].
Pronouncing one's [s]'s in the PR context not only may signal,
as you indicate, the speaker's gender identity, both also formality,
communicative distance, politeness, a higher level of education,
a higher socio-economic status, and even irony, sarcasm, etc.
>He also said things I've heard other Puerto Ricans say:
>that dropping their S'
>is "bad" language, and that they shouldn't do it.
I donnow 'bout dat. wat's bad langauge ?
>Arpa: travis@madonna.cs.columbia.edu Bitnet: travis@cu20b
Celso Alvarez ( sp202-ad@garnet.berkeley.edu.UUCP )
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 88 04:21 EDT
From: Celso Alvarez <sp202-ad@garnet.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Spanish s-aspiration/deletion (Was Phonetic Spelling)
In article <1772@uhccux.UUCP> lee@uhccux.UUCP (Greg Lee) writes:
GL> From article <8808@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, by sp202-ad@garnet.berkeley.edu
GL> (Celso Alvarez):
CA> obligatory. IF, according to [R. Wojcik] "in certain speakers and
CA> dialects" full s-weakening --> 0 is obligatory, AND what we want
CA> is to give account of these specific varieties, then we don't
CA> need to postulate the existence of intermediate [h]-deletion.
GL> But suppose one doubts the existence of s-weakening. We know
GL> h's can be lost and that s's can weaken -- why postulate the
GL> existence of s-weakening? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It's hard to doubt the existence of s-weakening. It has been documented as
almost a universal process, as R.Wojcik suggests. In my posting "full s-
weakening" was a shortcut for "aspiration of [s] -> [h] followed by deletion
of [h] -> 0". The expression "/s/ weakening" can be found in John M.
Lipski. 1985. "/s/ in Central American Spanish". _Hispania_ 68.1, pp.
143-149:
"Once transferred to Latin America, the weakening of /s/, in the
form of aspiration [h] and subsequent deletion 0..." (:144)
In Spanish it is "debilitamiento".
CA> As I said in a previous posting, rephonemicization occurs in
CA> Andalusian dialects where opening of the previous vowel(s) is a
CA> reflex of s-aspiration --> deletion. Thus, [lo,ko,'c^e,]
CA> /losko,'c^es/, "los coches" 'the cars', where commas indicate
CA> vowel opening (lowering). Interestingly, vowel lowering spreads
CA> from the immediately preceding vowel to all others in the word.
GL> This doesn't show that there is rephonemicization, at least not
GL> without making some assumptions that not all would accept. The
What are these assumptions?
GL> introduction of forms in these dialects in which the open vowels
GL> cannot be attributed to the influence of /s/ would show rephonem-
GL> icization.
My point is simply that vowel opening which results from [s]-aspiration ->
[h]-deletion *is* phonemic. Thus, plurals show open vowels whereas singulars
maintain the vowel opening corresponding to phonetic environment [ko,c^e,]
"coches" vs. [ko,c^e] "coche". The same applies to verb forms, [ko,me,]
"comes" 'you eat', [kome] "come" 'he eats'.
RW> well-behaved allophones, [e] and [E] seem to be identical sounds to
RW> standard speakers. When a following /s/ is lost at the end of a
RW> syllable, [e] and [E] should appear to contrast--at least to Spanish-
RW> learning children. So the loss of final /s/ should give rise to new
RW> vowel phonemes for the affected dialects (...)
GL> I wonder what R.W.'s process of reasoning here is. Why "should" [e] and
GL> [E] appear to contrast? Rather than the difference being to a lost
GL> consonant. Is this analysis too advanced for children? Why think that?
CA> If the lax-tense distinction coincides with the mid-high--mid-low one, I
CA> agree with [R.W.'s] interpretation of "despue's de"
....
GL> Well I don't. Case not proved.
Well I still do, in the sense, again, that reflexes in vowel opening acquire a
phonological value. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that the new
phonological contrasts are extremely productive, at least in Andalusian
Spanish. There exists a number of syntactic and pragmatic markers to
disambiguate meaning.
I guess the point here is, how far does this process afect the lexicon. In
that sense, I don't think we can talk about extensive rephonimicization.
The problem with R.W.'s formulation of the question in terms of a
tense/lax contrast in the /e : E/ pair in Spanish is
that it is redundant with the 'closed' (-low, -high) / 'open' (+low, -high)
contrast.
GL> Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
Celso Alvarez (sp202-ad@garnet.berkeley.edu.UUCP)
------------------------------
End of NL-KR Digest
*******************
