Effects of dynamic pitch and relative scaling on the perception of duration and prosodic grouping in American English

Brugos, Alejna; Barnes, Jonathan

doi:10.21437/speechprosody.2014-65

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, most Turkish ωs display “regular” final stress , where stress (not accent ; see Konrot 1981) falls on the final syllable of the word (Lewis 1967, Sezer 1981, Van der Hulst & Van de Weijer 1991, Inkelas & Orgun 1998, Kabak & Vogel 2001, Göksel & Kerslake 2005, among others). In a φ that contains two ωs in Turkish, the leftmost ω has a higher F0 register than the other ω (İpek & Jun 2014) and bears a right‐edge H boundary tone, which is followed by the left‐edge L boundary tone of the other ω (Güneş 2015). Because no nonfinal syllables in (8) bear an H tone—as the pitch track given in figure 1 shows—and there is no change in the F0 register in the overall contour of the verbal fragment, one can conclude that this verbal fragment contains only one ω.…”

Section: The Prosody Of Agr In the Turkish Verbal Domainmentioning

confidence: 99%

Morphosyntax and Phonology of Agreement in Turkish

Güneş

2021

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article offers a new morphosyntactic account of subject agreement in the Turkish verbal domain. The account is based on a combination of well-known, novel, and overlooked observations about the distribution and prosody of verbal agreement. In Turkish, when certain morphosyntactic requirements are met and the verb is focused, as in fragment answers with ellipsis, the agreement morpheme can be parsed inside or outside of the prosodically prominent part of the verbal domain that constitutes the fragment answer. I claim that this optionality is a reflex of how the morphemes that constitute the verbal domain are postsyntactically concatenated. In particular, I argue that an agreement morpheme either lowers together with its host (full lowering) or is stranded when its host lowers (partial lowering). In full lowering, agreement is contained within the prominent part of the verbal domain, whereas in partial lowering, agreement falls outside of this prominence domain. I also show that the prosodic variability in question is observed only when two related noncanonical realizations of agreement are possible: medial agreement and double agreement. The Vocabulary Insertion rules that I postulate for the subject-agreement paradigms of the Turkish verbal domain capture the acceptable cases of medial and double agreement and successfully predict in which environments medial agreement is optional and in which environments it is obligatory. This work stems from research carried out with Aslı G€ oksel between 2012 and 2019; its origins can be traced to a discussion in G€ oksel 2010 of the interesting prosodic behavior of agreement in Turkish (originally observed by Seb€ uktekin 1984). Aslı G€ oksel and I have presented phonological and morphophonological analyses of the data discussed here in a variety of venues, such as the ninth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (2013), LingDay 2013 (Bo gazic ßi University), the workshop The Word and the Morpheme (Humboldt University of Berlin, 2016), and ComSyn (Leiden University, 2017). I thank each of the audiences for their questions and comments. This work has also benefited from comments and suggestions made by Jonathan Bobaljik, Lisa Cheng, James Griffiths, Barıs ß Kabak, Anik o Lipt ak, Jason Merchant, Andrew Nevins, and two anonymous referees. This research was funded by the Dutch Research Council.

show abstract

Section: The Prosody Of Agr In the Turkish Verbal Domainmentioning

confidence: 99%