Gestural coordination of Italian word-initial clusters: the case of ‘impure s’

Phonology ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Hermes ◽  
Doris Mücke ◽  
Martine Grice
Keyword(s):  
Structural Difference ◽  
Initial Position ◽  
Consonant Clusters ◽  
Unresolved Problem ◽  
The Status ◽  
Proper Name ◽  
Liquid Clusters ◽  
Coordination Patterns

We report on an articulatory study which uses an electromagnetic articulograph to investigate word-initial consonant clusters in Italian. In particular, we investigate clusters involving a sibilant, such as in spina ‘thorn’. The status of the sibilant in such clusters, referred to as ‘impure s’, is an unresolved problem for the syllable phonology of Italian. Coordination patterns of the gestural targets of consonantal and vocalic gestures reveal a structural difference between obstruent–liquid clusters, e.g. /pr/, and sibilant–obstruent clusters, e.g. /sp/. Whereas in /pr/, both /p/ and /r/ have distinct coordination patterns as compared to either /p/ or /r/ as a single consonant in the same (word-initial) position, this is not the case for /sp/. Here the /p/ patterns like a single consonant: /p/ in spina patterns with /p/ in Pina (proper name). Thus, although /s/ in spina constitutes a word onset, there is evidence against it being part of a syllable onset.

scholarly journals TERMS, NOMENS AND PRAGMATONYMS IN THE SPECIAL LANGUAGE OF SPORT (Based on Eponymous Terms)

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 5-11
Author(s):  
Natalia N. Bobyreva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Sports Facilities ◽  
Semantic Meaning ◽  
Linguistic Features ◽  
The Status ◽  
Proper Name ◽  
Functional Features ◽  
Points Of View ◽  
International Character ◽  
Suggested Classification ◽  
Special Language

The article deals with the problem of distinguishing between terminology and nomenclature in the eponymous lexis of sports. It starts with a review of research works concerned with the differences between terms, nomens, and pragmatonyms. As the extralinguistic factors influence research into peculiarities of a particular special language, including the status of its units, there is also provided a review of works covering the problems of special sports lexis classification. Eponymous lexis is considered as a special and significant inventory of special language units, from the historical, cultural, and professional points of view. The proper name as a constituent of eponymous terms, nomens, and pragmatonyms predetermines the similarities between these types of lexis. The functional features common for eponymous terms, nomens, and pragmatonyms are their international character and stylistic neutrality, i. e. the ability to function in all the registers of communication. Distinguishing between eponymous terminology and nomenclature is based on the semantic criteria, namely the idea of the referent’s oneness. The semantic meaning and thematic relatedness of the unit, as well as the nomination principles, are taken into account. Eponymous terms are the units formed on the basis of proper names and denoting actions, systems of exercises, equipment, rules, formulae for coun­ting the results. Eponymous nomens are the units naming sports facilities, competitions, prizes, teams, and clubs. The names of products manufactured in lots are considered to be pragmatonyms. The methodology upon which the suggested classification is based may be used in research on special languages of other spheres, eponymous units related to different themes, and while analyzing the linguistic features of units belonging to the special language of sports.

Icelandic Children's Acquisition of Consonants and Consonant Clusters

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Thora Másdóttir ◽  
Sharynne McLeod ◽  
Kathryn Crowe
Keyword(s):  
First Language ◽  
Speech Sound ◽  
Clinical Importance ◽  
Initial Position ◽  
Consonant Clusters ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Consonant Cluster ◽  
Speech Sound Disorders ◽  
Germanic Languages ◽  
Comprehensive Study

Purpose This study investigated Icelandic-speaking children's acquisition of singleton consonants and consonant clusters. Method Participants were 437 typically developing children aged 2;6–7;11 (years;months) acquiring Icelandic as their first language. Single-word speech samples of the 47 single consonants and 45 consonant clusters were collected using Málhljóðapróf ÞM (ÞM's Test of Speech Sound Disorders). Results Percentage of consonants correct for children aged 2;6–2;11 was 73.12 ( SD = 13.33) and increased to 98.55 ( SD = 3.24) for children aged 7;0–7;11. Overall, singleton consonants were more likely to be accurate than consonant clusters. The earliest consonants to be acquired were /m, n, p, t, j, h/ in word-initial position and /f, l/ within words. The last consonants to be acquired were /x, r, r̥, s, θ, n̥/, and consonant clusters in word-initial /sv-, stl-, str-, skr-, θr-/, within-word /-ðr-, -tl-/, and word-final /-kl̥, -xt/ contexts. Within-word phonemes were more often accurate than those in word-initial position, with word-final position the least accurate. Accuracy of production was significantly related to increasing age, but not sex. Conclusions This is the first comprehensive study of consonants and consonant cluster acquisition by typically developing Icelandic-speaking children. The findings align with trends for other Germanic languages; however, there are notable language-specific differences of clinical importance.

Peut-on sauver un sens de dénomination pour les noms propres ?

2004 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georges Kleiber
Keyword(s):  
Proper Names ◽  
The Other ◽  
Long Term Memory ◽  
Semantic Description ◽  
Procedural Approach ◽  
Classic Problem ◽  
The Status ◽  
Proper Name ◽  
Procedural Instruction

This study revisits the classic problem posed by the meaning of proper names, and proposes a procedural approach to this problem, by analysing the meaning of proper names as an instruction to find in long-term memory the referent that carries the proper name in question. This is a revision of my earlier theory of ‘naming predicates’ (Kleiber 1981), which captures the meaning of proper names like Louis in terms of paraphrases of the form “the x who is called Louis”. The concept of ‘naming predicate’ was meant to provide an alternative to the inadequacies of the two classic approaches to the meaning of proper names, viz. theories that analyse proper names as semantically empty (e.g. Mills, Kripke 1972) and theories that analyse proper names in terms of uniquely identifying descriptions (Frege, Russell 1956). An analysis in terms of naming predicates (‘the X called Louis’) gives proper names an abstract type of meaning, thus avoiding the disembodied sign that results from analysing them as semantically empty, and at the same time does not go to the other extreme of incoporating aspects of the referent in the proper name’s meaning, thus avoiding the well-known problems with referential identity (e.g. Tullius = Cicero) and the related puzzles of transparence and opacity. In spite of these descriptive advantages, further research has shown that there are a number of problems with the notion of ‘naming predicate’. One of these problems concerns the status of proper names in ‘naming constructions’ like I am called Louis. Applying a naming predicate analysis to such constructions either leads to infinite regression (Wilmet 1995), or — if Louis in the naming predicate ‘the x called Louis’ is regarded as a phonetic form rather than a proper name — to a denial of proper name status in the very construction that expresses the naming link between proper name and referent (Jonasson 1982). Another problem concerns the cognitive naturalness of an analysis in terms of ‘naming predicates’. While this analysis is quite natural in contexts like There is no Louis in this office, it works less well in contexts like This painting is a real Picasso and, most importantly, in prototypical uses like Louis is a painter and a sculpturer, where a naming predicate analysis solely identifies the referent as the carrier of the proper name. These problems have led me to propose a revision to the theory of naming predicates. The descriptive advantages of using the naming relation between proper name and referent as the basis of the semantic description are obvious, which means that this aspect of the theory needs to be maintained. What causes most of the problems, however, is associating this naming relation with a predicate. As an alternative, I propose to reanalyse it in a procedural sense, not as a predicate describing the referent but as a procedural instruction to look for the referent that carries the proper name. This puts proper names in the domain of indexical signs like deictic elements. Common nouns, on the other hand, are not indexical in this sense but stand for concepts, which means that indexicality only comes into the picture when deictic elements are added.

Syntactic Categorization of Roots

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terje Lohndal
Keyword(s):  
Building Block ◽  
Central Issue ◽  
Distributed Morphology ◽  
Consonant Clusters ◽  
Semitic Languages ◽  
Syntactic Structures ◽  
Fundamental Building Block ◽  
The Status ◽  
Relevant Category ◽  
Syntactic Theories

A root is a fundamental minimal unit in words. Some languages do not allow their roots to appear on their own, as in the Semitic languages where roots consist of consonant clusters that become stems or words by virtue of vowel insertion. Other languages appear to allow roots to surface without any additional morphology, as in English car. Roots are typically distinguished from affixes in that affixes need a host, although this varies within different theories. Traditionally roots have belonged to the domain of morphology. More recently, though, new theories have emerged according to which words are decomposed and subject to the same principles as sentences. That makes roots a fundamental building block of sentences, unlike words. Contemporary syntactic theories of roots hold that they have little if any grammatical information, which raises the question of how they acquire their seemingly grammatical properties. A central issue has revolved around whether roots have a lexical category inherently or whether they are given a lexical category in some other way. Two main theories are distributed morphology and the exoskeletal approach to grammar. The former holds that roots merge with categorizers in the grammar: a root combined with a nominal categorizer becomes a noun, and a root combined with a verbal categorizer becomes a verb. On the latter approach, it is argued that roots are inserted into syntactic structures which carry the relevant category, meaning that the syntactic environment is created before roots are inserted into the structure. The two views make different predictions and differ in particular in their view of the status of empty categorizers.

Neurolinguistic and syntactic evidence for basic level meaning in proper names

1999 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Willy Van Langendonck
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Proper Names ◽  
Special Kind ◽  
Common Noun ◽  
Definite Article ◽  
Lexical Meaning ◽  
The Status ◽  
Proper Name ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Basic Level

This paper is intended to be an interdisciplinary investigation of the status of proper names, although it takes linguistics as its point of departure. In this study I will define proper names in terms of the currently developing Radical Construction Grammar, as promoted by Croft (to appear). Starting from the referential and semantic functions of proper names, I discuss the opposing theses of the language philosophers John Searle and Saul Kripke, and then formulate my position that proper names are assigned an ad hoc referent in an ad hoc name-giving act, i.e. not on the basis of a concept or predication as with common nouns. This ad hoc assignment can be repeated several times, so numerous people can be called John. Proper names do not have asserted lexical meaning but do display presuppositional meanings of several kinds: categorical (basic level), associative senses (introduced either via the name-bearer or via the name-form) and grammatical meanings. Language specifically, this referential and semantic status is reflected in the occurrence of proper names in certain constructions. I thus claim that close (or 'restrictive') appositional patterns of the form [definite article + noun + noun], e.g. the poet Burns, are relevant to the definition of proper names in English and also to the categorical (often basic level) meaning of the name. From proper names we can also derive nouns that appear as a special kind of common noun, e.g. another John. From a methodological viewpoint it is imperative to distinguish here between (proprial) lexemes or lemmas in isolation (dictionary entries) and proprial lemmas in their different functions (prototypically: proper name, nonprototypically: common noun or other). To corroborate the above theses, I will adduce recent psycholinguistic and especially neurolinguistic evidence. The overall argument will be based mainly on material from Germanic languages, especially English, Dutch and German.

English phonotactics

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 437-475 ◽  
Author(s):  
LAURIE BAUER
Keyword(s):  
Consonant Clusters ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Difference

This article presents an analysis of the phonotactic structures of English presented inThe Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary, paying attention to morphological boundaries, the difference between stressed and unstressed syllables, the difference between native and non-native, and considering the distribution of vowels as well as consonants. The phonotactic status of names turns out to be unlike the status of other morphologically unanalysable words, and some new observations are made on consonant clusters as well as vowel sequences, which have previously been overlooked.

Preservation and deletion in Mandarin loanword adaptation

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 214-243
Author(s):  
Tae-Eun Kim
Keyword(s):  
Initial Position ◽  
Consonant Clusters ◽  
Loanword Adaptation ◽  
Close Relationship ◽  
Mandarin Speakers

This paper is about how English inputs that are not allowed in the native Mandarin phonology are adapted to Mandarin phonotactics in Mandarin loanwords. The focus of the discussion is on whether or not the elements in the inputs are preserved or deleted and what causes the phenomena. Through analyses of English consonant adaptation in Mandarin loanwords, the functions of both borrowers’ perception and the native Mandarin phonology are consistently found. The high preservation of the nasal consonants in any syllabic position clearly shows the functions, in that the salient segments are usually preserved and the acceptance of nasal codas in Mandarin phonology makes Mandarin speakers easily perceive the nasal sounds even in the coda positions. Furthermore, English /m/ and /n/ in the final positions are usually differently adapted into Mandarin loanwords. English /m/ mostly forms an independent syllable by vowel insertion while /n/ is mostly adapted into the coda nasal of the preceding syllable (e.g., English loam → Mandarin lú-mǔ, English pint → Mandarin pǐn-tuō). This tendency is due to the function of Mandarin phonology, because a nasal /n/ is allowed as a coda consonant, but /m/ is not allowed. The high deletion of English /ɹ/ in the coda or in the consonant clusters also supports the argument. The English /ɹ/, except in the initial position, is not easily perceived due to its own vowel-like quality and the fact that it is a non-Mandarin phoneme. Lastly, the higher preservation of consonants in the initial clusters than in the final clusters also shows the close relationship between perception and Mandarin phonology. Even though Mandarin does not allow consonant clusters in any position, final consonant clusters should be harder for Mandarin speakers to perceive. The reason is that in Mandarin phonology, consonants usually do not come in the final positions while all the consonants except /ŋ/ can come in the initial positions. More frequent deletion of consonants in final CCC clusters than in CC clusters can be identically explained.

Relative inversion and non-verb-initial imperatives in Early Modern Swedish

2013 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erik Magnusson Petzell
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Word Order ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Additional Assumption ◽  
Structural Difference ◽  
Initial Position ◽  
Subject Position ◽  
Subject Positions ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Syntactic Differences

This article deals with two syntactic differences between Present-Day Swedish (PDSw) and Early Modern Swedish (EMSw): first, only EMSw allows VS and XVS word order to occur in relative clauses; second, only EMSw permits non-verb-initial imperatives. One structural difference between the varieties is assumed to be a prerequisite for all these word order differences: the subject position was spec-TP in EMSw but is spec-FinP in PDSw. Only the lower position (spec-TP) is compatible with inversion (VS) and fronting of non-subjects (XVS) in relative clauses as well as with imperative clauses having elements other than the imperative verb in the initial position. To be able to account for the latter phenomenon, however, an additional assumption is needed: the imperative type-feature, [imp], always accompanies the verb in PDSw but is tied to an operator in EMSw. The first assumption about differing subject positions is independently motivated by findings already in the previous literature. The second assumption about the differing behaviour of [imp] in the two varieties is supported by the distribution of imperative verbs over a wider range of syntactic contexts in EMSw than in PDSw.

scholarly journals The pronunciation of Hong Kong English

2008 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 148-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Deterding ◽  
Jennie Wong ◽  
Andy Kirkpatrick
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Consonant Clusters ◽  
Vowel Reduction ◽  
The Status ◽  
Sentence Stress ◽  
Hong Kong English

This paper provides a detailed description of the pronunciation of English by fifteen fourth-year undergraduates at the Hong Kong Institute of Education. First, the occurrence of American features of pronunciation is considered. Then there is an analysis of the pronunciation of initial TH, initial and final consonant clusters, L-vocalisation, conflation between initial [n] and [l], monophthong vowels, the vowels in FACE and GOAT, vowel reduction, rhythm and sentence stress. Finally, the status of Hong Kong English is considered, particularly the extent of its continuing alignment with an exonormative standard.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document