RP English and Castilian Spanish Diphthongs Revisited from the Beats-and-Binding Perspective

Haładewicz-Grzelak, Małgorzata

doi:10.2478/v10010-008-0003-1

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 7 publications

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…6 The synopsis of B&B is taken from Haładewicz-Grzelak (2008a Rhythmic preferences are the skeleton of phonological structures (DziubalskaKołaczyk 2002: 100). The primary rhythm units are feet, beats being their constituents.…”

Section: Unauthenticatedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Direct Effect in Beats-and-Binding Phonology

Haładewicz-Grzelak

2008

Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article offers an interpretation of the theory of Direct Interface (e.g. Scheer 2005Scheer , 2006Scheer , 2008 in Beats-and-Binding Phonology (a syllable-less model developed by DziubalskaKołaczyk 1995DziubalskaKołaczyk , 2002DziubalskaKołaczyk , 2007. The discussion aims to show that a Beats-andbinding analysis meets the criteria of Direct Interface; for example, it can remove the diacritic status of the concept of "boundary". The theoretical analysis is supported with a case study of Spanish reparsing, where an Optimality Theory analysis is compared with a Beats-andBinding formalization. Finally, the paper offers a Beats-and-Binding interpretation of RP English /l/ velarization and /r/ deletion, involving the positional strength of consonants as proposed in Ségéral (2001, 2005) and known as the Coda Mirror.KEYWORDS: Natural Phonology; Direct Interface; parameterization of preferences; Beatsand-Binding Phonology. IntroductionThe main research question to be addressed in this paper is the compatibility of Beats-and-Binding Phonology (henceforth B&B, the theory developed by Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, e.g. 1995 with the stipulations of the Direct Effect (Direct Interface) as proposed by Scheer (e.g. 2005Scheer (e.g. , 2006Scheer (e.g. , 2008.1 I follow these schol-1 This article originated as a follow-up of the presentations on interface dualism during the Poznań Linguistic Meetings (PLM2005, PLM2006; http://ifa.amu.edu.pl/plm) and classes at the summer school of generative grammar (EGG 2006, Olomouc; http://www.egg.auf.net).I wish to thank anonymous PSiCL reviewers for their suggestions and criticisms on earlier versions of this article. I also wish to acknowledge the helpful comments of Michael Kenstowicz, Wiesław Awedyk and Jarosław Weckwerth. A heartfelt thank you goes to Anna Balas for her insights and advice. I am also indebted to Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk and Tobias Scheer for their patience in answering my queries. Needless to say, the responsibility for all the remaining flaws and for the presented views is my own.Unauthenticated Download Date | 5/12/18 9:20 PM M. Haładewicz-Grzelak 504 ars in assuming that boundaries and prosodic domains are unwarranted.2 The discussion will be empirically substantiated by the analysis of the reparsing (resyllabification) phenomenon in Castilian Spanish and the formalization of /l/ velarization and /r/ deletion in RP English. The suggested Beats-and-Binding (B&B henceforth) interpretation will be contrasted with an Optimality Theoretic (OT henceforth) account. The purpose of such a juxtaposition is to bring out an epistemological divergence between the two phonological schools 3 and to put to life Scheer's theory. To recall, Direct Effect was intended as a means to compare particular phonological schools with respect to their behavior at the interface.The argument posits phonology as a space which is shaped by the languagespecific parameterization of the preferences which are leveled according to B&B tenets. The resulting "shape", or a calculational ima...

show abstract

Section: Unauthenticatedmentioning

confidence: 99%