Monosyllables: From Phonology to Typology

248 Pages·2012·4.02 MB·English

by  Thomas Stolz (ed.)

Monosyllables
Studia typologica
E t s ,F J P c.m
ditEdby homas tolz rançois acquEssonand iEtEr uyskEn
Beihefte/Supplements Volume 12
STUF– LanguageTypologyandUniversals
SprachtypologieundUniversalienforschung
EditorialBoard
MichaelCysouw(München)
RayFabri(Malta)
StevenRogerFischer(Auckland)
BernhardHurch(Graz)
BerndKortmann(Freiburg)
NicoleNau(Poznán)
IgnazioPutzu(Cagliari)
†AnnaSiewierska(Lancaster)
StavrosSkopeteas(Bielefeld)
JohanvanderAuwera(Antwerpen)
ElisabethVerhoeven(Berlin)
LjubaVeselinova(Stockholm)
Monosyllables
FromPhonologytoTypology
ThomasStolz,NicoleNau,CorneliaStroh(Eds.)
AkademieVerlag
BibliografischeInformationderDeutschenNationalbibliothek
DieDeutscheNationalbibliothekverzeichnetdiesePublikationinderDeutschen
Nationalbibliografie;detailliertebibliografischeDatensindimInternetüber
http://dnb.d-nb.deabrufbar.
©2012AkademieVerlagGmbH,Berlin
EinWissenschaftsverlagderOldenbourgGruppe
www.akademie-verlag.de
DasWerkeinschließlichallerAbbildungenisturheberrechtlichgeschützt.JedeVerwertungaußerhalb
derGrenzendesUrheberrechtsgesetzesistohneZustimmungdesVerlagesunzulässigundstrafbar.Das
giltinsbesonderefürVervielfältigungen,Übersetzungen,MikroverfilmungenunddieEinspeicherung
undBearbeitunginelektronischenSystemen.
Redaktion:CorneliaStroh
Einbandgestaltung:hauserlacour
Druck&Bindung:BeltzBadLangensalzaGmbH,BadLangensalza
DiesesPapieristalterungsbeständignachDIN/ISO9706.
ISBN 978-3-05-005925-9
eISBN 978-3-05-006035-4
Table of Contents
NICOLENAU,THOMASSTOLZ&CORNELIASTROH
Preface………..…………………………………………………………….…......… 7
HANSBASBØLL
Monosyllablesandprosody:theSonoritySyllableModelmeetstheword………… 13
YUAN-LUCHEN
Lexical-syllablecontrastispreserved:evidencefromcross-linguisticinvestigation
ofvowelnasality…………………………………………………………….………. 43
CONNIEK.SO
Cross-languagecategorizationofmonosyllabicforeigntones:effectsof
phonologicalandphoneticpropertiesofnativelanguage…………………………... 55
IGORDREER
Thehumanfactorofeconomyofeffortcross-linguistically:acontrastiveanalysis
ofthephonotacticdistributionofconsonantsinBelarusianandFrench
monosyllabicwords...................................................................................... 71
PAULAORZECHOWSKA
Effectsofmorphologyonthesyllablestructure…………………………….…….… 91
6 TableofContents
ALEXISMICHAUD
Monosyllabicization:patternsofevolutioninAsianlanguages……………………..115
SABINEZERBIAN
Morpho-phonologicalandmorphologicalminimalityinTswanamonosyllabicstems
(SouthernBantu)…………………………………………………………….…….… 131
FRANCKFLORICIC&LUCIAMOLINU
Romancemonosyllabicimperativesandmarkedness..........................................149
PETRASTEINER
Relationswithmonosyllables:aviewfromQuantitativeLinguistics……………….. 173
THOMASSTOLZ,SONJAHAUSER&HEIKOSTAMER
ω→σ→V: Thefirststeptowardsthecomparativegrammarofmonosyllables….. 197
ListofContributors………………………………………………………………….239
IndexofAuthors……………………………………………………………………. 241
IndexofLanguages………………………………………………………………… 245
IndexofSubjects…………………………………………………………………….247
NICOLENAU(POZNA(cid:136)/POLAND),THOMASSTOLZ&
CORNELIASTROH(BREMEN/GERMANY)
Preface
This collection of articles documents the international conference on Monosyllables –
from Phonology to Typology which was held from 28–30 October, 2009 in Bremen as
part of the program of the Festival of Languages. The idea behind this meeting was to
instigate a research network of scholars who take an interest in monosyllables. This
research network is supposed to study the phenomenon from as many perspectives as
possible and include detailed analyses of individual languages as well as comparative
andtheoreticalstudies.Afutureaimistowriteagrammarofmonosyllables.Theeleven
paperspublishedinthiseditedvolumemarkthestartingpointofourproject.
In modern linguistics monosyllables have most often been studied within phonology,
butitisinstructivetorecapitulatethebroaderrolemonosyllabicityhasplayedintheearly
daysoflinguistictypology,andtostresswhatmoderntypologicalresearchofmonosylla-
bles will not be about. In leading linguistic circles of German academia in the 19th and
early 20th century, the phenomenon was regularly discussed. Monosyllabicity was as-
signedholisticallytoentirelanguages,phylaandtypes.Inthediscourseofthetime,where
typology and genetic classification of languages were often mixed, monosyllabic lan-
guages served as the counterpart of the inflecting languages represented by members of
the Indo-European phylum and the Semitic phylum. As inflectional morphology was the
focus of research and morphologically complex languages were highly esteemed, mono-
syllabic languages were initiallyconceivedofasinferior. TheSchlegelbrothershadtheir
share in making these ideas popular. For Friedrich Schlegel (1808: 44–46), there were
onlytwo majortypesoflanguages,viz.inflectinglanguagesand thosewhichlackinflex-
ion, of which Chinese “mit [seiner] sonderbaren Einsylbigkeit” [“with its strange
monosyllabicity”] is given as one of onlytwo examples (the other being “die malayische
Grammatik”[“theMalayangrammar”]).HisbrotherAugustWilhelmSchlegel(1818:14)
developed the bipartite typologyfurther yielding a set of three major types among which
he counted “les langues sans aucune structure grammatical” [“languages without any
grammaticalstructure”].Theyarecharacterizedasfollows:
Les langues de la première classe n’ont qu’une seule espèce de mots, incapables
de recevoir aucun développement ni aucune modification. On pourroit dire que
tous les mots y sont des raciness, mais des raciness stériles qui ne produisent ni
8 NicoleNau,ThomasStolz&CorneliaStroh
plantes ni arbres. Il n’y a dans ces langues ni déclinaisons, ni conjugaisons, ni
mots dérives, ni mots composes autrement que par simple juxta-position, et tout
la syntaxe consiste à placer les elemens inflexible du langage les uns à côté des
autres.Detelleslanguesdoiventpresenterdegrandsobstaclesaudéveloppement
des facultés intellectuelle […]. [The languages of the first class have only one
kind of words which cannot be developed nor modified further. It can be said
that all of these words are roots, but sterile roots which grow neither plants nor
trees. In these languages, there are no declinations, no conjugations, no derived
words,nocompoundsapartfromsimplejuxtaposition,andtheentiresyntaxcon-
sistsinplacing theindeclinableelementsofthelanguagetheonenexttotheoth-
ers. Languages of this kind should present great obstacles to the development of
theintellectualcapacities[…].]
These thoughts were fully in line with the ideas expressed by Adelung (1806) in his
monumental survey of the languages of the world commonly referred to as the
Mithridates. To Adelung’s mind, monosyllabicityis a remnant of the primordial stages
of human language the persistence of which into modern times he interpreted as an
indicator of the cognitively immature disposition of the speakers of monosyllabic lan-
guages(Adelung1806:x–xi,18,44andpassim).
Thecommonbondofthevariousopinionsaboutmonosyllabicityheldby19thcentu-
ry linguists and philosophers is the conception of grammar as comprising only bound
morphology. Hence Schlegel’s above cited description of “languages without any
grammatical structure”; similar formulations can be found in linguistic works through-
outthe19thcenturyandwellbeyond.Theassumedsuperiorityofinflectionallanguages
is based on the following reasoning: In human cognition, concepts can be divided into
major categories and accessorycategories.Languageistheretoexpresshumanthought
and should provide the most adequate means to represent the relation of the two types
ofconceptsiconically.Thismeansthatwhatformsacognitiveunit–themajorconcept
and its accessory – should also form a unit on the linguistic level. If possible, the lin-
guistic correlates of the thought categories should join to forma morphologicallycom-
plex word (Humboldt [1830–35] in Flitner & Giel 1963: 606–607). Languages which
needseveralseparatewordstorepresentthecognitiveunitfailtomeetthisideal.
A further link between monosyllabicity and the absence of grammar is the implicit
assumption that the prototypical morpheme comes in the shape of a syllable. In tradi-
tional German philology, for instance, prefixes and suffixes are commonly labelled
Vorsilben and Nachsilben – literallypre-syllables and post-syllables,nomatterwhether
the affix indeed contains a vowel, or consists solely of consonants, or even has more
thanonephonologicalsyllable.Thesupposedsyllabicityofmorphemesappliestoroots
as well as affixes so that a combination of root and affix automaticallyyields a disylla-
bicword-form.
Since Humboldt’s successors continued to apply holistic models in typology(in lieu
of the much more adequate partial typology), it took scholars several decades to over-
come at least some of the problems the earlier classification of monosyllabicity had
Preface 9
raised. This was achieved by constantlyrefining the erstwhile relativelycrude tripartite
typology of human languages. New morphological types made it onto the various tab-
leauxsuchthatitbecamenecessarytofindanewlabelformonosyllabiclanguages.The
newtermwurzel-isolierendeSprachen(“root-isolatinglanguages”)wasmeanttodiffer-
entiatewhereearlierapproacheshadlumpedallkindsoflanguagestogethertoformthe
isolating type. Ringmacher (1996) describes in some detail how linguists like Steinthal
hadtostrugglewiththeparadoxofassumedculturalinferiorityofspeakersofmonosyl-
labic languages and the obvious cultural achievements of the Chinese people, whose
language continued to be the paradigm case of a monosyllabic language in practically
all typologies put forward in theearlydaysoflinguistics.Attheturnofthe20thcentu-
ry,however,mostoftheleadinglinguistsinGermanyagreedthatthepreviousviewsof
monosyllabicity needed to be revised thoroughly and that the assumed monosyllabicity
of Chinese was probably wrong or at least not as pronounced as formerly believed
(Steinthal & Misteli 1893: 104–105, Gabelentz 1901: 255; Finck 1961: 18). At this
pointinthehistoryoflinguisticthought,theholistictypologyoftheoldschoolcameto
ahalt–andwithitthestudyofmonosyllabicity.Afteracenturyofintensivetypological
investigations,theroleofmonosyllabicityinthestructure-buildingofhuman languages
remained largely a mystery. Even the revival of typology and research of universals
which began in the 1960s has not contributed substantially to changing this state of
affairs.
We claim that it is high time for a dedicated study of monosyllabicity. Of course,
such studyis not supposed to connect with 19th century’s wisdom, but to use the theo-
reticalbackgroundandthemethodsofcontemporarylinguistics.Insteadofsinglingout
“monosyllabic languages”, we are interested in monosyllables in (potentially) all lan-
guages, their properties in individual languages and cross-linguistically, their place in
the individual systems, their evolution and decline. The verynature of monosyllables –
their being syllables as well as words – makes studying these items worthwhile for a
number of different research questions within various fields of linguistics. The papers
collectedinthisvolumeshalldemonstratethis.
The initial paperbyHansBasbøllopensthediscussionofsuchelementaryquestions
as what (phonologically) really is a monosyllable, how such structures come about as
the result of phonological processes, and how they may be classified. In his detailed
study of Danish he highlights the interaction of principles governing syllable structure
and wordstructureand demonstratestheusefulnessoftheSonoritySyllableModelfor
descriptionandtypologicalclassification.
Twopapersusemethodsofexperimentalphoneticsanddrawbroaderconclusionsby
contrasting languages: Yuan-Lu Chen investigates the principle of Contrast Preserva-
tion,whichhasbeenmuchdiscussedinphonologicaltheory.Theexperimentalresearch
on nasalityin two Chinese languages, Mandarin and Southern Min, leads the author to
postulate a concept of lexical syllable on a level between the phoneme and the lexeme.
The perception and categorization of tones in Mandarin monosyllables by speakers of
three different languages (Cantonese, Japanese, and English) is the topic of Connie K.
So’s detailed phonetic study that gives evidence for the principle that non-native pro-
10 NicoleNau,ThomasStolz&CorneliaStroh
sodic categories will be assimilated to the categories of the listener’ native prosodic
system.
Issues of phonotactics and their implications for theories of word structure are dis-
cussedinthepapersbyIgorDreerandPaulaOrzechowska.Dreeranalysesthedistribution
ofconsonantsinBelarusianand inFrench on thebackgroundofthetheoryofPhonology
as Human Behavior, testing its predictions of preferred positions for certain classes of
phonemes.OrzechowskainvestigatesconsonantclustersinthecodaofEnglishandPolish
words, with special consideration of monosyllables. Like Dreer, she looks for principles
behind observed preferences,butheranalysis,usingthemodelofNetAuditoryDistance,
leadshertoemphasizetheinterplayofphonotacticswithmorphology.
WithAlexisMichaud’spaperwecomebacktotheevolutionofmonosyllablesandto
the issue of monosyllabic languages, defined as languages where monosyllables serve
asthebasicstructureinthelexicon.InhisbroadandinsightfulinvestigationofEastand
SoutheastAsianlanguagestheauthorisconcerned with theprocessesleadingtomono-
syllables as well as those leading back to polysyllables, and with monosyllabicityas an
arealphenomenon.
While Michaud focuses on languages that are known to prefer monosyllables, the
papers bySabine Zerbian and Franck Floricic & Lucia Molinu present thecomplemen-
tary point of departure by investigating monosyllables as marked structures in lan-
guages. Zerbian analysis monosyllabic stems in the Southern Bantu language Tswana
that pose a problem to the minimality condition requiring word-forms to have at least
two syllables. She shows that both phonological and morphological minimality are
needed to adequately account for the data. Violation of a minimality constraint is also
the topic of Floricic & Molinu’s paper, who investigate monosyllabic imperatives
across Romance languages. They demonstrate that a functional explanation is needed
forthesestructures,inadditiontophonologicalfactorsandfrequencyconsiderations.
AnotherangleofresearchandadifferentmethodologyispresentedinPetraSteiner’s
paper on the use of quantitative linguistics for the study of monosyllables. To test her
hypothesis of the validity of the Čebanov-Fucks law and predictions about entropy of
syllablelength,sheusesdatafromtheChadiclanguageGoemai.
ThefinalpaperbyThomasStolz,SonjaHauserandHeikoStamerismeanttooutline
some of themajorchaptersthegrammar-to-beofmonosyllablesshouldcomprise.They
concentrateononetypeofmonosyllables,namelythoseconsistingofavowelonly,and
explore the formal and functional characteristics of words of this class across a broad
varietyoflanguages,usingdictionariesaswellasparalleltextsastheirsources.
The predominance of phonology-inspired studies notwithstanding, this collection of
articles is suggestive of a wide range of association lines which connect monosyllables
toavarietyofareasoflinguisticresearch,viz.morphology,syntax,lexicon,etc.Weare
confidentthatfuturestudieswillrevealmanymoreoftheseinterconnections.
We are grateful to the authors who have contributed to this volume and thus have
helped us immenselytogetourprojectonmonosyllabicitygoing.Wearealsoindebted
totheEuropeanFundforRegionalDevelopment(EFRE)forfundingtheconferenceon