南島語典藏與理論語言學讀書會

南島語典藏與理論語言學讀書會 -- 最終報告


葉詩綺 / 2010-02-02

1/7 第七次讀書會心得

 

Presented paper:
Self and Only:
A Comparative Study of Reflexive Adverbials in Squliq Atayal and Mandarin Chinese
 
Outline:
This paper focuses on the distribution and function of reflexive elements in Squliq Atayal and Mandarin Chinese. That is, the semantics and syntax of nanak ‘self/only’ in Squliq Atayal and bare anaphor ziji ‘self’ in Mandarin Chinese are investigated.
        At first, the distribution of nanak in Squliq Atayal is examined. It is proposed that nanak can be interpreted as ‘only’ or ‘self’ according to its syntactic position. In addition, there is a grey area for the distribution of nanak. Second, the syntactic behavior and semantic interpretation is similar with ziji in Mandarin Chinese, where ziji can be interpreted as anaphor, anti-comitant adverb, or anti-causative adverb according to its distribution. Thus, the aim of this paper is to (a) identify the syntactic distribution of reflexive elements in Squliq Atayal and Mandarin Chinese and (b) to offer a unified analysis for the syntax and semantics for the behavior of the reflexive elements.
 
Research:
The same distribution and syntax-semantics correspondence for the reflexive elements are also attested in Mayrinax Atayal, an Austronesian language, which is distributed in Tai-An in Miao-Li. The research aims to compare the data in Mayrinax with the data in the article-self and only-in order to obtain a clearer picture for the theory of anaphora and reflexivity in both Mandarin Chinese and Austronesian lanaguage.
 
Discussion:
In the discussion, it is found that some of the syntactic behavior of anaphora in Mayrinax Atayal is different from its relative, Squliq Atayal. Specifically, the issue about Binding Theory is concerned. It is found that the phenomenon of binding in Mayrinax Atayal does not fit well in the framework of Binding Theory (especiallly Condition B). Thus, the syntax and semantics of anaphora in Mayrinax Atayal requires a more detailed research. Furthermore, the distribution of nanak, as a true anaphor, should be concerned as well as its distribution as an adverb.

[photos]

 


葉詩綺 / 2010-01-14

12/24 第五次讀書心得

 

Evans and Ross (2001) argue that Proto-Oceanic (POc) prefix *ma- occurs in four categories: (i) valency-decreasing *ma-, e.g. POc *liŋi ‘pour (s.t.) out’: *ma-liŋi ‘be poured, spilt’; (ii) fossilized reflexes of *ma- on stative verbs, e.g. POc *mamis ‘sweet’ (cf. *ma-hemis ‘sweet’ in PMP (Proto-Malayo-Polynesian)); (iii) stative (adjectival) verbs that can be reconstructed in POc both with and without *ma-, with no obvious difference in meaning between the forms with and with the prefix; for instance, POc *malago ‘long, tall’        and *lago ‘long, tall’, and finally (iv) fossilized reflexes of *ma- on experiential verbs, e.g. *mañawa ‘breath’ and *matakut ‘fear, be afraid’.
Moreover, Evans and Ross (2001) suggests that POc *ma- has cognates in some non-Oceanic Austronesian languages. For example, they show that the ma-verbs in Tagalog can be divided into two classes: become-formation (Class I) and and have-formation (Class II). The former (i.e. Class I ma+root) means ‘become root, get into the state denoted by, or associated with the root’: ma-putol ‘get cut of’ vs. putol ‘a cut, a piece’. On the other hand, the latter (i.e. Class II ma+root) means ‘have root, be characterized by what the root denotes’; cf. ma-lutás ‘get solved’ vs. lutas ‘solved’. Similarly, Cebuano ma-form verbs are also divided into two types: First, Class I forms are derived form nominal roots. Consider the pair ma-tulog ‘go to sleep’ vs. tulog ‘sleep (N)’: they are involuntary mood forms, and verbs high in transitivity again belong here. Second, Class II forms are generally derived from adjectival roots; most Class II ma-forms are noted as involuntary patient-focus verbs, as illustrated in the following pair ma-hinóg ‘be/become ripe’ vs. hinóg ‘ripe’. The cognates of *ma- is also attested in other Austronesian languages such as Ilocano, Tukang Besi, Balinese, Buru, and etc.
My research investigates the grammatical properties of ma-form verbs in Paiwan, which are also cognates of POc *ma- (and perhaps PMP *ma-, as Evans and Malcolm suggests). I observe that the state verbs in Paiwan could be roughly divided into two types: those obligatorily without ma- prefix (e.g. kedri ‘small’, kudral ‘big’, sangua’ ‘delicious’, and etc.) and those obligatorily with ma- (e.g. ma-vetu’ ‘be satiated’, ma-cula ‘be hungry’, ma-lum ‘ripe(ned)’ and etc.). With respect to the latter, the prefix ma- ‘become’ in Paiwan can be marked onto change-of-state roots and alternate with the causative prefix pa-ka- ‘cause to become’. However, I found that the prefix ma- can also be attached onto “dynamic” one-place, two-place and three-place predicates to produce the resultant states, in contrast to Evans and Malcolm’s observation on POc *ma- prefix and Zeitoun and Huang’s (2000) observation on Formosan ma- affix. With this respect, Paiwan differs from other Austronesian languages.

[photos]


葉詩綺 / 2010-01-05

12/10 第五次讀書會

 

On Applicative Construction in Saisiyat
 
In this paper, some puzzles about the cartography of Saisiyat applicative markers si- and –en are introduced. Semantically, both of si- and –en are in the relation between an individual and an event. However, syntactically, the result of A-movement is mostly inconsistent with the semantic categorization in Pylkkänen (2000, 2002).
On the one hand, when used with Pseudo-ditransitive verbs and unaccusative verbs, as in (1)-(3), both si-Appl and Appl-en semantically display the individual-event relation, and only the extra-argument (EA) can be moved to the subject position. Therefore, its being categorized as Middle-Applcatives (ApplM) (Tsai, 2007) is reasonable.
On the other hand, when si- and –en are used with unergative verbs, conveying malefactor reading, as in (4) and (5), or when si- co-occurs with transitive verbs, expressing beneficiary reading, as in (6c), their syntactic behaviors are the same as ApplL though they’re in the Individual-Event relation. Hence, these sentences are re-categorized here as ApplM, which is different from the same sentence in Atayal (Chen, 2007).
However, in the Beneficiary reading (6b), though it’s in the Individual-Event relation, only the patient (PAT) is allowed to raise onto the subject position, which is in contrast to the property of ApplH or any other Applicatives. Besides, when si- is used with ditransitive verbs, as in (7c), though it’s in the individual- individual relation, only the direct object (DO) can pass the A-movement test, which is inconsistent with the property of ApplL or any other Applicatives.
With the above puzzles, this paper argues that the semantic categorization of applicative construction in Pylkkänen (2000, 2002) may not be able to completely map onto the syntactic cartography of Saisiyat. So far, it preliminarily starts from the phenomenon in Saisiyat, but I will have a further study on other Formosan languages.
 
           Pseudo-ditransitive verbs
 
 

Beneficiary
ex.
Semantics
Syntax
AV
AGT.NOM
PAT.ACC
(EA.DAT)
(1a)
 
 
-EN
PAT .NOM
AGT. GEN
EA. ACC
(1b)
Individual-Event
PAT-raising only
SI-
EA.NOM
AGT. GEN
PAT .NOM
(1c)
Individual-Event
EA-raising only (ApplL)
Malefactor
AV
THM.NOM
EA.ACC
 
(3a)
 
 
-EN
EA.NOM
THM. GEN
 
(2a)
Individual-Event
EA-raising only (ApplL)
SI-
EA.NOM
THM. GEN
 
(3b)
(2b)
Individual-Event
EA-raising only (ApplL)
DOC
AV
AGT.NOM
IO.ACC/
DAT
DO.ACC
(4a)
 
 
-EN
IO.NOM
AGT. GEN
DO.ACC
(4b)
Individual-
individual
IO-raising only (ApplL)
SI-
DO. NOM
AGT. GEN
IO.ACC
(4c)
Individual-
individual
PAT-raising only
Pseudo-DOC
AV
AGT.NOM
 
PAT.ACC
(5a)
 
 
-EN
EA.NOM
AGT. GEN
PAT.ACC
(5b)
Individual-Event
EA-raising only (ApplL)
SI-
EA.NOM
AGT. GEN
PAT.ACC
(5c)
Individual-Event
EA-raising only (ApplL)
Unaccusative
AV
THM.NOM
N/A
N/A
(6a)
(8a)
 
 
-EN
N/A
N/A
N/A
 
 
 
SI-
EA.NOM
THM.GEN
 
(6b) (7)
(8b)
Individual-Event
EA-raising only (ApplL)

 
 
 
 
l          Pseudo-DOC
1.          (a)    ‘oebay                 rayliS ka          rayhael    ni             ‘away
         NOM.‘Oebay       rob.AV       ACC        money      GEN        ‘away               ‘Oebay is robbing Away of (Away’s) money.’
        (b)    hi           ‘away    r-in-ayliS-in         ni             ‘oebay     ka          rayhael
                NOM     ‘away     rob-PAST-PV     GEN        ‘oebay      ACC        money
                ‘Oebay robbed Away of (Away’s) money.’
        (c)    ‘away                   si-rayliS              ka          rayhael    ni             ‘oebay.
                NOM.’away         SI-rob                 ACC        money      GEN        ‘oebay
                ‘Oebay robbed Away of (Away’s) money.’
 
l          Unaccusative Verbs
2.          (a)    bekeS     ni              ‘oebay      pongpongawan        ila.
        hair           GEN        ‘oebay      AV.become.white     PRF
        ‘
Oebay’s hair is becoming white.’
(b)    hi              ‘oebay      sik-pongapongawan ka            bekeS      nisia
        NOM       ‘oebay      SIK-become.white           ACC        hair           3S.GEN
       
‘(’Oebay’s) hair became white on him.’
3.                  hi             taheS       si-panpa:ih       so’hae’    ka            ‘ae’aeay.
        NOM      taheS        SI-break         one         ACC       foot
        ‘TaheS broke his leg.’
l          Malefactor
4.          (a)    yao                 m-atna:nga’     hi             ‘oebay             ila
        NOM.1S         AV-flee            ACC       ‘oebay              PRF
        ‘
‘I am fleeing on Oebay.’
        (b)    yao                 si-patnanga’     ila            ni              ‘oebay
                1S.NOM         SI-flee              PRF         GEN        ‘oebay
                ‘‘Oebay fled on me.’
5.           (a) kapa’oehaelan ma’an       m-in-a’rem,             patnanga’-en  ila    ma’an
        borfriened 1S.GEN   AV-PAST-sleep      flee-EN            PRF 1S.GEN
        ‘While (my) boyfriend is sleeping, I flee (on him).’
(b)    kapa’oehaelan ma’an       m-in-a’rem,             ma’an      si-patnanga’.
        boyfriend         1S.GEN   AV-PAST-sleep      1s.GEN    SI-flee

        ‘My boyfriend was sleeping, and I fled (on him).’
 
l          Beneficiary
6.          (a)    ‘oya’                       bahaei’            ka          kayba:en ‘iniman
        NOM.mother           AV.wash         ACC        clothes              DAT.1S
        (My) mother is doing the laundry for me.
(b)    ka       kayba:en    bahaei’-en    ni             ‘oya’      hi         ‘Oebay    ila
        NOM clothes        wash-EN      GEN       mother     ACC   ‘oebay     PRF
        ‘Mother did the laundry for ‘Oebay.’
(c)    Yao          si-bahaei       ni              ‘oya’        ka            kayba:en
                1S.NOM SI-wash           GEN        mother      ACC        clothes
                ‘(My) mother did the laundry for me.’
l          DOC
7.          (a)  hi           taheS         mo-bay      ka        kayba:en        hi/’ini’      ‘away
        NOM    taheS          AV-give      ACC     clothes ACC/DAT         ‘away
        ‘TaheS is giving Away (some) clothes.’
        (b) hi         ‘away         bay-en ni               taheS   ka     kayba:en
                 NOM   ‘away         give-PV      GEN     taheS   ACC clothes
                 ‘TaheS gave Away (some) clothes.’
        (c)    kayba:en                si-bay        ni         taheS hi       ‘away
                 NOM .clothes         SI-give GEN          taheS ACC ‘away
                 ‘TaheS gave Away (some) clothes.’
 
u        References
Chen, Sih-Wei. 2007. Applicative Constructions in Atayal. MA Theses. Graduate Institute of Linguistics, National Tsing Hua University.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2000. What applicative heads apply to. In Minnick, M., A. Williams and E. Kaiser eds., Proceedings of the 24th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, UPenn Working Papers in Linguistics, 7.1.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 2007. Four types of affective constructions in Chinese. Paper, Tsuchida.
 
 
 
 
l          Main Question
If those semantically Individual-event and syntactically low-applicative sentences are categorized as middle-applicatives, sentence (6b) and (7c) would be a problem. They can only have the patient/direct object raised onto the subject position, which is not consistent to any types of applicative constructions. Maybe we can say that underlyingly, the patient/direct object is base-generated in the place higher than external argument/indirect object. But this argument would trigger more dilemma.
 
 
l          Q&A
1.      How can we be sure that the ka/hi in Saisiyat is an accusative case marker rather than a ligature?
à It’s according to the label on grammar books, and the accurate way of judgments will require more tests.
 
2.      Is it possible that the external argument in unergative/intransitivesentences are actually what Dixon defined “extended argument”?
àAlso need more tests.
 
3.      In Austronesian languages, different voice marker contain different tense readings. That of sentence translation should be noticed.
 
4.      There are many syntactic types in Austronesian languages, so it’s inappropriate to say that Saisiyat might not conform to the type of Austronesian languages.
 

 


葉詩綺 / 2009-12-22

11/26 第四次讀書會心得

 

The first part of my talk concerns the paper ‘On clausal complements in Paiwan’, written by Prof. Tang, Chih Chen. In Paiwan finite and non-finite clausal complements need to appear with various kinds of markers. These markers are identical to some of the case markers in Paiwan. The main claim of this paper is that such markers are better analyzed as complementizers rather than case markers, infinitival markers or some other kinds of markers like linkers. As for the choice of complementizers, Tang concludes that: (a) Instrument-sharing purpose clauses are in the form of non-finite clause introduced by non-finite complementizer a. (b) patient-sharing clauses are in the form of nominalized clause introduced by non-finite complementizer t(u)a or tu. (c) Intransitive verbs and modal verbs take the non-finite clause introduced by non-finite complementizer a. (d) perception verbs take the non-finite clause introduced by non-finite complementizer a.
 
As for the second part of the talk, we focus on the linking construction: ?i?-clauses in Mayrinax Atayal. In Mayrinax Atayal ?i?-clauses are realized as both finite and non-finite complements according to the different syntactic positions that ?i? occupies. ?i?-clauses can be divided into four types of constructions: Control, Middle, Raising and Finite complementation. The linker ?i? has three grammatical status. Low linker ?i? functions as a non-finite complementizer which may blocks case licensing; Mid linker functions as an infinitive marker which is eligible for clitic climbing and High linker serves as a finite complementizer which blocks head movement and argument raising. 
 

The third part is the section for questions and discussions. Both Prof. Reid and Prof. Liao provide me with some useful and insightful suggestions. Prof. Reid said that these verbal linkers in both Mayrinax and Paiwan are not necessarily derived from case marking system. Prof. Liao shows me about the inappropriate marking of the ACC case marker in Mayrinax because this language can be purely ergative. One piece of evidence is that in object control construction the controller can not be marked as ACC; rather it is used in NAV form of the object control verb and marked as NOM. It means there is no ACC marking in Mayrinax systematically. I will think about these arguments and take them into consideration.

[photos]


葉詩綺 / 2009-12-09

11/12 第三次讀書會心得

研讀摘要與心得

 
        本次的研讀文章Mora Alignment為Megan Crowhurst於2004年所寫的期刊論文。本篇論文主要在說明在優選理論(Optimality Theory)中,音韻層面的單位,音拍(Mora),在一般的對齊制約(Generalized Alignment constraint)中也是可以作為對齊和測量的一個單位。首先作者先介紹其理論背景,而後使用他假設的音拍對齊制約來解釋其南島語的四種語言:Mangarayi、Mokilese、Kamaiura、Tzeltal,的重疊構詞(reduplication)中的不完全重疊的形式。最後作者使用音拍對齊制約來修改Downing(2000)對Kinande的重疊構詞的優選理論分析,使其分析更為簡單化,來強化自己對於音拍對齊制約的假設。
        讀完本篇文章後,讓我對於優選理論有了更深一層的認識,以往我在分析重疊構詞的語料時,往往都會因為語言中許多的不完全重疊的現象,造成分析上的困難。最後使得分析冗長,不經濟。那現在有了音拍對齊制約的提出,那我以前在田野調查中沒有辦法提出合理解釋的語料,現在都變成可以解釋的現象了,此外,也因為對齊制約是比較普遍的制約,因此在分析上也不會有只因應特定語言的特殊現象所產生的特殊制約,本篇文章的分析,對於以優選理論解釋重疊構詞語料的我,實在是幫助良多。
 
讀後建議
 
        可是這篇文章也不是說完全沒有問題,首先與會的教授Lawrence Reid對於重疊構詞的現象提出其以下觀點:1. 到底重疊構詞是因為算為後綴還是前綴呢?從歷史語言學的角度來看,南島語的前綴是比較多的,那本篇文章有些語料是假設是後綴,他並不支持這種假設。2. 本篇文章大多是二手語料,所以語料中其實有許多的錯誤,所以他覺得語料上的錯誤,大大降低了音拍對齊制約的假設的合理性。3. 何為特殊性的制約?那對齊制約就不特殊了嗎? 以上等問題,也是其文章的關鍵問題,在此也引發了大家熱烈的討論,第一個觀點,有學生認為,雖然南島語雖然前綴較多,但我們也不能否認其重疊構詞為後綴的假設,因為南島語還是有後綴。而第二個觀點,則是大家都贊同的。而第三個問題,有學生的回答是對齊制約是比較普遍而不特殊的原因在於這個制約可以預測出許多不同的重疊構詞的形式,相較於只因應個別語言狀況所提出的特殊制約,對齊制約在理論上是比較一般性且廣泛應用的制約。從教授的觀點與問題和討論當中,也可以知道,二手語料常常會造成別人的質疑,此外到底重疊構詞是前綴還是後綴,在大家的討論中,似乎還是沒有一個絕對的定論,由此可知重疊構詞的定位,在理論的解釋上還存在一個很大的討論空間,這個問題不僅僅是分析上的困難,也是未來可以延伸的方向。

[photos]

 


葉詩綺 / 2009-11-23

10/29 第二次讀書會心得

     本次讀書會由Lawrence Reid教授導讀,主要說明如何典藏語言,尤其是像南島語這種以口傳為主(沒有文字,有文字也是近幾十年引進,以音標拼寫)的語言。除了概談如何做一本字典,也進一步結合現代資訊技術而成的Talking Dictionary,也就是有發音功能的線上字典。本次的主題以菲律賓語的Bontok為主,目前Talking Dictionary of Kinina-ang Bontok已上網提供查詢或試用(http://htq.minpaku.ac.jp/databases/bontok/index.jsp),是一個仍在進行中的計畫。    

Bontok是菲律賓呂宋島北部Mountain Province的其中一個語言。Talking Dictionary of Kinina-ang Bontok是以1976年Reid教授的Bontok-English Dictionary為基底,進一步擴展而成。近年Reid教授的田野調查紀錄也顯示了現代的Bontok和1970年代的調查資料有所不同,這樣的歷時的變化也呈現在線上字典裡。

談起典藏語言,在沒有電腦的年代,所有資料都是用打字機一字一行敲打出來的。在這之前的語料搜集也很費工夫:每一個字寫一張字卡,並將字卡放入鞋盒排列整理以便尋找,累積的資料頗佔空間。到了有電腦的時代,雖然稍有改善但是仍然十分陽春,此時已可用key punch card,也就是打洞的紙卡,直接由電腦讀取資料並輸入。再進步一點,可用Lexware Band Format或XML以更方便有效率的方式典藏語言,製作字典。軟體的改善例如從Lexware,到Shoebox,Filemaker 4.0,到My SQL System;字體的呈現也有所改善,例如,某些電腦鍵盤無法輸入的音標,以前只能做成圖檔,再一個個拼貼起來,耗時耗力;現在用unicode fonts就可以解決此類問題了。以上是語言典藏技術隨著時代進步而降低其困難,但是,製作一部完整的字典仍是一項長遠工程。
 
在Talking Dictionary of Bontok中,說明音韻上phonemic forms和phonetic forms的不同是非常重要的。例如,Bontok的有聲塞音/b d g/在syllable coda仍是[b d g],但在syllable onset則是[f ts kh]。這對於語言使用者或是字典的使用者來說都是極重要的訊息。此外,在構詞方面,以往紙本的字典由於呈現或查詢方式的限制,都以詞根(字根)為主,再列出與這個詞根相關的詞條或例句。Talking Dictionary是線上的操作的字典,可利用不同的類別(Bontok word, English definition, word class, semantic domain等等)查詢所需資料,因此,Reid教授沒有採用紙本字典以詞根為主的方式。因為對許多沒有語言學背景的人,他們並不會去分析詞內部的結構。Reid教授將同一個詞根衍生出來的詞用sort forms來連結,例如,查詢kan的sort forms,Talking Dictionary就會列出與kan相關的字像是kanen、makan、pakan等,都可以直接連到所點選的詞看字義及聽例句的發音,十分活用。
 
當然,目前的Talking Dictionary已有完整形態,但仍然繼續擴增當中,像例句、錄音檔等等。此外,以Bontok為本,也陸續納入其他方言的詞,並與Bontok對應。Talking Dictionary的遠程目標,是希望以目前的字典,加入更多語言,變成一個不但語言內部可供查詢,還能跨語言查詢的字典,例如Bontok的字,在臨近方言中,甚至是英語、西班牙語的對應。

[photos]


葉詩綺 / 2009-11-10

第一次「南島語典藏與理論語言學讀書會」心得 (10/15)

 

第一次「南島語典藏與理論語言學讀書會」主要重點是音韻。這次要看的Kenstowicz (1997)文章跟下半段有關排灣語重音的報告關係密切,討論quality-sensitive stress也就是元音音質(vowel quality)影響重音(stress)落點的現象。
世界上大多數的重音語言,不是quantity-sensitive就是quantity-insensitive,亦即,音節重量會或者不會影響重音位置。就算是quantity-sensitive languages也因語言而有所差異,有些語言區分CVCVC音節為輕,而CVVCVVC為重;有些語言視CV為輕,而CVCCVV為重。Kenstowicz談到另一種較不常見的重音現象,也就是音節內的元音影響重音(quality-sensitive),從這些語言可看出,quality-sensitive stress大致上以兩個變因來區分:一種是元音高度(vowel height),另一種則是central v.s. peripheral vowel(中央 v.s. 周圍)Kenstowicz也提出一套普遍制約(universal hierarchy)來規範quality-sensitive stress的系統。這樣的想法早在Prince & Smolensky (1993)針對音節所提出的Sonority Hierarchy有異曲同工之妙。譬如說,音節的最高點(peak)響度要高,而音節的邊緣(margin)響度低;(8)所提到的優先順序,在優選理論架構中可用(9)來表示:
 
(8) (Kenstowicz 1997:162)
PEAKSYLL         a > e, o > i, u > … > p, t, k
MARGINSYLL     p, t, k > …> i, u > e, o > a
 
(9) (Kenstowicz 1997:162)
PEAK PROMINENCE
                *P/p, t, k >> … >> *P/i, u >> *P/e, o >> *P/a
MARGIN PROMINENCE
                *M/a >> *M/e, o >> *M/i, u >> … >> *M/p, t, k
 
對於重音而言,重音節即為韻步(foot)的最高峰;反之,韻步中無重音的音節即為低谷(trough),就此想法,Kenstowizc提出(10a)中的優先順序及(10b)的制約排序,顧及了vowel heightcentral/periphery兩個變因:
 
(10) (Kenstowicz 1997:162)
a.     PEAKfoot                a, ä > e, o > i, u
                                         a, ä, e, o, i, u > ə
        TROUGHFOOT      i, u > e, o > a, ä
                                         ə > i, u, e, o, a, ä
 
b.     *P/i, u >> *P/e, o >> *P/a, ä
        *P/ə >> *P/i, u, e, o, a, ä
        *T/ a, ä >> *T/e, o >> *T/i, u
        *T/ a, ä, e, o, i, u >> *T/ə
 
Kobon這樣的語言,韻步限制在兩個音節之內(bound foot),重音為左重也就是trochaic,韻步靠在韻律詞(prosodic word)右緣。然而在重音可出現的範圍(two-syllable-window)之內,重音落點隨著元音音質不同。例如,a元音響度高於o,語料也忠實呈現:alágo ‘snake species’kidolmáN ‘arrow type’。當韻步中兩個音節的元音響度相同,通常最無標(unmarked)的情況會浮現:dúbudúbu ‘to make noise by footsteps’jínupjínup ‘to make squeaking noise’。所以在Kobon這個語言,可看出先以central/peripheral vowel來區分,再以元音高度區別。另一個語言Chukchee較複雜,重音除了quality-sensitive之外,還有stemsuffix之別,並顯示Kenstowicz針對韻步提出的制約確實必須以固定的階層表示,因為其他制約可以加插其中,如*P/ə >> Nonfinality >> *P/i, u
提到unbounded stressquality-sensitivity,韻步內包含的音節不限於一或兩個,而可以多至五六個,此類語言的重音會尋找整個字中元音響度最高的音節當韻步高峰。除了對peak的規範,也需要對trough(韻步低谷)限制,即不偏好低谷為響度高的元音。因此,像在MariMordwin可以看到Peak constraintTrough constraint交互作用,以預測正確的重音落點。
排灣語的平和方言的重音跟一般所知的排灣語重音不完全相同。除了末音節是由底層元音串(vowel clusters)形成的重拍(heavy syllable),或是前綴/中綴加上單音節詞根(root)之外,大多數方言的重音規律地落在倒數第二音節,元音音質對重音並無影響。但在平和方言,若倒數第二音節的元音是央元音(central vowel)也就是schwa,重音則移至末音節。由此看得出重音選擇了響度高的元音當韻步高峰,即,i, a, o優於ə。令人費解的是,當最右緣兩個音節內的元音皆為schwa時,重音落在末音節CəCə@,不同於無標重音,如CáCaCíCiCúCu。前人研究(Chen 2006, 2009)也描述了平和方言的重音現象,但是在理論分析上尚未有進一步探討。這次報告除了對一般的重音現象(包括其他方言)提出分析,也針對平和方言的quality-sensitive stress提出可能的解決方式:*FT/ə這個制約說明任何一個出現在韻步內的schwa都造成違反,概念上就是減少韻步中的schwa,希望能夠解釋相同元音的情況下,CáCaCíCiCúCu的重音是倒數第二;而CəCə@重音卻在末音節。此外,利用同一組制約的不同排序預測了平和方言和其他方言(此報告中為牡丹方言)的重音分布:*FT/ə*P/ə在平和方言的排序較高因此顯現了重音對於元音音質的敏感程度;而這兩個制約在牡丹方言排序低,因此不對重音造成影響。
quality-sensitive重音相關的語音議題就是,是否元音長度直接或間接影響了重音的落點?Hargus(2001)提到所謂的quality-sensitive stress是因為語音上元音長度進而影響重音落點,但這方面的並不多,較常見的是語音及音韻互相影響,例如在英文中重音音節元音較長,而非重音音節的元音弱化。在排灣語,陳(2006)針對peripheral vowel (i, u, a)做了長度研究,顯示雖然重音落在倒數第二音節,但末音節的元音長度較長。可惜的是並未加入央元音schwa的語音測量。因此,此研究的後續發展希望能延伸到語音測量,看看是否排灣平和方言的quality-sensitive stress和語音之間有的交互影響。若有的話,如何將語音因素併入音韻制約也是一個需要審慎考慮的部份。
 
 
[Q&A]
淨婷:
Kenstowicz文中提到有關quality-sensitive的制約,主要概念就是與元音響度(sonority)有關:響度越高像是低元音,就越容易在peak位置,反知響度越低就越不會出現在peak。那麼,就元音(oral vowel)和鼻元音(nasal vowel)而言,鼻元音響度相對地較高,如果在一個語言中有oral vowelnasal vowel的對比,Kenstowicz提出的固定排序的制約是否需要加以修正呢?
 
詩綺:
目前Kenstowicz文中並沒有提到這樣的語言,因為quality-sensitive stress的語言比例上少很多,要探究oral vowel nasal vowel之響度差別在quality-sensitive語言的表現,則需要找到某個語言同時有oralnasal vowel的音位對比加上quality-sensitivity的特質,才能夠進一步再看目前的fixed ranking是否適切。所以…也不知道世界上有沒有這種語言。不過,這樣多重因素掺雜的情況就必須要有重音較複雜的語言才驗證了。
 
釗麟:
在排灣語中,表受事者語態(Patient voice)-in後綴,通常有-in-ən兩種變體而且出現環境無法用規則說明。既然在平和方言重音是quality-sensitive,是否重音的落點能預測PV後綴何時會出現-in,何時會出現-ən呢?
 
詩綺:
老實說,在我的研究中並沒有特別去看PV後綴的詞,所以這方面的重音與後綴的互動不太清楚。不過感謝釗麟提出這點,未來會進一步觀察是否能夠以重音來預測後綴的變體。
 
俊明:
在排灣語中,如果詞根末音節的元音是schwa,加了後綴之後重音會怎麼變動呢?
 
詩綺:
如果一個詞末音節是schwa但倒數第二音節不是,如CaCəC,那重音為penultimate(倒數第二);若加了後綴像-anCaCəC-anpenultimateschwa,這是不被允許的,因此重音就移到末音節如CaCəC-án。如果,詞根元音皆為schwa,又加上-ən這樣的後綴,重音就會落在末音節,如CəCəC-ə@n,維持著表現上「倒數第二個schwa不拿重音」的情況。

 [照片]


葉詩綺 / 2009-10-21
南島語典藏與理論語言學讀書會 -- 最終報告 2010-02-02 1/7 第七次讀書會心得 2010-01-14 12/24 第五次讀書心得 2010-01-05 12/10 第五次讀書會 2009-12-22 11/26 第四次讀書會心得 2009-12-09 11/12 第三次讀書會心得 2009-11-23 10/29 第二次讀書會心得 2009-11-10 第一次「南島語典藏與理論語言學讀書會」心得 (10/15) 2009-10-21


Copyright©2007-2009 National Tsing Hua University ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
最佳解析度為1024*768或1280*1024
聯絡我們 101, Section 2, Kuang-Fu Road, Hsinchu, Taiwan 30013, R.O.C. 30013 新竹市光復路二段101號 代表號:03-5716200 統一編號:46804804