Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Dziubalska-Kolaczyk, Katarzyna

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.250
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.259

CiteScore 2017: 0.36

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.151
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.485

Online
ISSN
1897-7499
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 44, Issue 4

Issues

Direct Effect in Beats-and-Binding Phonology

Małgorzata Haładewicz-Grzelak
Published Online: 2009-01-23 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10010-008-0025-8

Direct Effect in Beats-and-Binding Phonology

This article offers an interpretation of the theory of Direct Interface (e.g. Scheer 2005, 2006, 2008) in Beats-and-Binding Phonology (a syllable-less model developed by Dziubalska-Kołaczyk 1995, 2002, 2007, inter alia). The discussion aims to show that a Beats-and-binding 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-and-Binding 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 Scheer and Ségéral (2001, 2005) and known as the Coda Mirror.

Keywords: Natural Phonology; Direct Interface; parameterization of preferences; Beats-and-Binding Phonology

  • Archangeli, D. (ed.). 1997. Optimality Theory: An overview. Oxfrod: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Awedyk, W. 2007. "Zabrocki on sound change: Discussion." (Paper presented at the 38th Poznań Linguistic Meeting, 13-16 September 2007, Gniezno.)Google Scholar

  • Bańczerowski J. (ed.). 1980. Ludwik Zabrocki: U podstaw struktury i rozwoju języka [Ludwik Zabrocki: At the foundation of language structure and development]. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar

  • Bendjaballah, S. 2000. "The ‘negative preterite’ in Kabyle Berber". Folia Linguistica 3-4. 185-223.Google Scholar

  • Bertinetto, P. M., S. Scheuer, K. Dziubalska-Kołaczyk and M. Agonigi. 2007. "Intesegmental cohesion and syllable division in Polish". (Paper presented at ICPhS XV, 6-10 August 2007, Saarbrücken.) Abstract available at: <http://www.icphs2007.de/conference/book_of_abstracts.pdf> http://www.icphs2007.de/conference/book_of_abstracts.pdf

  • Broadbent, J. 1991. "Linking and intrusive r in English". UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 3. 281-302.Google Scholar

  • Carr, P. 1993. Phonology. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Colina, S. 1997. "Identity constraints and Spanish resyllabification". Lingua 103. 1-23.Google Scholar

  • Cyran, E. 1998. (ed.). Structure and interpretation. Lublin: Folium.Google Scholar

  • Dauer, R. M. 1983. "Stress timing and syllable timing reanalyzed". Journal of Phonetics 11. 51-62.Google Scholar

  • Delattre, P. 1966. Studies in French and comparative phonetics. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Donegan, P. and D. Stampe. 1979. "The study of Natural Phonology". In: Dinnsen, D. A. (ed.), Current approaches to phonological theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 126-173.Google Scholar

  • Dressler, W. U. 1981. "Outlines of a model of morphophonology". In: Dressler, W. U., O. E. Pfeiffer and J. Rennison (eds.), Phonologica 1980. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. 113-122.Google Scholar

  • Dressler, W. U. 1985. Morphonology: The dynamics of derivation. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar

  • Dressler, W. U. 1999. "What is Natural in Natural Morphology (NM)?" Prague Linguistic Circle Papers 3. 135-144.Google Scholar

  • Dressler, W. and K. Dziubalska-Kołaczyk. 2006. "Proposing morphonotactics". Rivista di Linguistica 18(2). 249-266.Google Scholar

  • Dyczkowski, K., P. Nowakowski, N. Kordek and K. Stroński. 2008. "A phonetic grammar of the Polish language". (Paper presented at the 39th Poznań Linguistic Meeting, 11-14 September 2008, Gniezno.)Google Scholar

  • Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K. 1995. Phonology without the syllable: A study in the natural framework. Poznań: Motivex.Google Scholar

  • Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K. 2002. Beats-and-Binding Phonology. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

  • Dziubalska-Kołaczyk K. and G. Krynicki. 2007. Phonotactic preferences in Polish, English and German: Quantitative perspective". (Paper presented at the 38th Poznań Linguistic Meeting, 13-16 September 2007, Gniezno.)Google Scholar

  • Gussmann, E. 2002. Phonology: Analysis and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Gussmann, E. 2007. The phonology of Polish. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Haładewicz-Grzelak, M. 2008a. "RP English and Castilian Spanish diphthongs revisited from the Beats-and-Binding perspective". Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 44(1). 37-60.Google Scholar

  • Haładewicz-Grzelak, M. 2008b. "An epistemological study of Chomsky's transformational grammar". Philosophy of the Social Sciences 38. 211-246.Google Scholar

  • Haładewicz-Grzelak, M and L. Tendera (forthcoming). "Logic in optimal places: Linguistic Platonism". Beyond Philology 5.Google Scholar

  • Hartmann, J., V. Hegeds and H. van Riemsdijk. 2008. Sounds of silence: Empty elements in syntax and phonology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

  • Harris, J. 1983. Spanish syllable structure and stress in Spanish. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Hualde, J. I. 2004. "Quasi phonemic contrasts in Spanish". In: Chand, V., A. Kelleher, A. J. Rodríguez and B. Schmeiser (eds.), WCCFL 23: Proceedings of the 23rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. 374-398.Google Scholar

  • Hualde, J. I. and M. Prieto. 2002. "On the diphthong/hiatus contrast in Spanish: Some experimental results". Linguistics 40(2). 217-234.Google Scholar

  • Kamiński, Paweł. 2005. "Nowa koncepcja człowieka i poznanie w Semantyce Ogólnej" [The new concept of man and cognition within General Semantics]. In: Orzechowski (ed.), Wiedza, poznanie i umysł [Knowledge, cognition and mind]. 56-75.Google Scholar

  • Kaye, J. 1993. "Derivations and interfaces". SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 3. 90-126.Google Scholar

  • Kenstowicz, M. 1994. Phonology in generative grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Kojève, A. 1968. Essai d'une histoire raisonnée de la philosphie païenne. (Vol. 1.) Paris: Éditions Gallimard.Google Scholar

  • Kreidler, C. W. 1989. The pronunciation of English. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • LaCharité, D. and C. Paradis. 2000. "Derivational residue: Hidden rules in Optimality Theory". In: Dekkers, J., F. van der Leeuw and J. van der Weijer (eds.), Optimality theory: Phonology, syntax and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 211-233.Google Scholar

  • Lass, R. 1981. "Linguistic orthogenesis? Scots vowel quantity and the English length conspiracy". In: Angenot, J. P and J. P Istre (eds.), Studies in true Natural Phonology and related topics. (UFSC Working papers in Linguisitcs.) Florianópolis: NEL. 311-352.Google Scholar

  • Lehrer, K. 2000. Theory of knowledge. Dimensions of philosophy series. Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar

  • Lowenstamm, J. 1996. "CV as the only syllable type". In: Durand, J. and B. Laks (eds.), Current trends in phonology: Models and methods. Manchester: Salford, ESRI. 419-441.Google Scholar

  • Michálek, J. 1995. Co to je filozofie [What is philosophy]. Praha: ISA, Edice Oijomené.Google Scholar

  • Michalski, G. 2004. Phonotactic preferences as evidence for binding: Variation on Beats-and-Binding Phonology. [Unpublished MA thesis, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań.]Google Scholar

  • Morris, R. 2000. "Constraint interaction in Spanish /s/ aspiration: Three peninsular varieties". In: Campos, H., E. Herburger, A. Morales-Front and T. J. Walsh (eds.), Hispanic linguistics at the turn of the millennium: Papers from the 3rd Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. (Also available from Rutgers Optimality archive <http://roa.rutgers.edu> as ROA-391.) http://roa.rutgers.edu

  • Newell, H. and T. Scheer. 2007. "Procedural first". (Paper presented at the 38th Poznań Linguistic Meeting, 13-16 September 2007, Gniezno.)Google Scholar

  • Nespor, M. and I. Vogel. 1989. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

  • Ohala, J. and M. Ettlinger. 2006. "The optimal nose". (Paper read at 42nd Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, University of Chicago.) Available at: <http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~marce/ling.html> http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~marce/ling.html

  • Prince, A. and P. Smolensky. 1993. OT-constraint interaction in Generative Grammar. New Brunswick: RU Press.Google Scholar

  • Recasens, D., J. Fontdevila and M. D. Pallarès. 1995. "Velarization degree and coarticulatory resistance for /1/ in Catalan and German". Journal of Phonetics 23. 37-52.Google Scholar

  • Rubach, J. 2003. "Polish palatalization in the derivational Optimality Theory". Lingua 113. 197-237.Google Scholar

  • Scheer, T. 2004. A lateral theory of phonology: What is CVCV and why should it be? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Scheer, T. 2005. "We need a translator's office, but the buffer has to go: Direct Interface." (Paper presented at the 36th Poznań Linguistic Meeting, 22-24 May 2005, Poznań.)Google Scholar

  • Scheer, T. 2006. "How non-phonological information is processed in phonology". (Handout for the Summer School of Generative Grammar EGG 2006.) Available at: http://www.unice.fr/dsl/tobias.htm

  • Scheer, T. 2007a. "(Direct) Interface without big brothers." (Paper presented at the 2nd Student Conference on Formal Linguistics, 21-22 April 2007, Poznań.)Google Scholar

  • Scheer, T. 2007b. "Phase impenetrability versus multiple computational systems". (Paper presented at The sound patterns of syntax conference, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 11-13 June 2007.)Google Scholar

  • Scheer, T. 2007c. "How morphosyntax talks to phonology: One-channel translation and direct interface". (Handout no. 2 of the course given at Ealing, 24-27 September 2007, Paris.)Google Scholar

  • Scheer, T. 2008. "Why the prosodic hierarchy is a diacritic and why the interface must be direct". In: Hartmann, J. et al. (eds.). 145-192.Google Scholar

  • Scheer, T. and P. Ségéral. 2005. "What lenition and fortition tell us about muta cum liquida clusters". In: Geerts, T. H. Jacobs and I. van Ginneken (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2003. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 235-267.Google Scholar

  • Ségéral, P. and T. Scheer. 2001. "La Coda-Miroir". Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 96. 107-152.Google Scholar

  • Sobkowiak, W. 1996. English phonetics for Poles. Poznań: Bene Nati.Google Scholar

  • Stampe, D. 1979. A dissertation on Natural Phonology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

  • Stevens, K. 1998. Acoustic and auditory phonetics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Zabrocki, L. 1960 [1980]. "Zagadnienia fonetyki strukturalnej" [Problems of structural phonetics]. In: Sesja Naukowa Komisji Filologicznej. Poznań: Polskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk. 165-185. (Reprinted in: Bańczerowski, J. (ed.). 52-74.)Google Scholar

  • Zabrocki, L. 1961 [1980]. "Les sonantes à la lumière de la phonétique structurale". [The resonants in the light of structural phonetics]. Biuletyn fonograficzny IV: 3-20. (Reprinted in: Bańczerowski, J. (ed.). 176-191.)Google Scholar

  • Zadeh, L. A. 1975. "Fuzzy logic and approximate reasoning". Synthese 30. 407-428.Google Scholar

About the article


Published Online: 2009-01-23

Published in Print: 2008-12-01


Citation Information: Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, Volume 44, Issue 4, Pages 503–544, ISSN (Online) 1897-7499, ISSN (Print) 0137-2459, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10010-008-0025-8.

Export Citation

This content is open access.

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in