政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/51536

政大典藏 > College of Foreign Languages and Literature > Graduate Institute of Linguistics > Theses > Item 140.119/51536

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/51536

Title:	從優選理論分析英文縮詞與混合詞之音韻保留形式 Phonological Preservation of English Clips and Blends: An Optimality-Theoretic Analysis
Authors:	林綠茜 Lin,Lu Chien
Contributors:	蕭宇超 Hsiao,Yuchau E. 林綠茜 Lin,Lu Chien
Keywords:	優選理論並存音韻理論制約層級縮詞混合詞 Optimality Theory Cophonology constraints clipping blending
Date:	2009
Issue Date:	2011-10-11 16:46:40 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	本文以優選理論的觀點分析英文縮詞與混合詞的音韻保留形式。音韻保留形式分為：來源詞之聲母保留、來源詞之單音節保留以及來源詞之雙音節保留。本研究認為英文縮詞與混合詞的音韻保留策略不只一種，應用不同的策略會產生不同類型的縮詞及混合詞，筆者透過並存音韻理論(Cophonology Theory)來說明英文縮詞與混合詞的音韻保留策略是多個次語法的運作結果。縮詞的音韻保留策略有四種，可分為左邊保留及右邊保留，其中又以左邊保留佔多數，在這兩種保留中又分別有兩種模組(template)保留策略。混合詞的音韻保留策略有三種，主要由MAXS2這條可移動制約的位置來決定，當它在層級中移動到不同的位置會形成不同的保留策略。此外，本文也提供了跨語言分析，發現西班牙混合詞與英文混合詞可由相似的制約透過不同排序來解釋，表示不同語言的混合詞，其行為相當類似。簡言之，本篇論文藉由優選理論的觀點，首度就英文縮詞與混合詞提出了一個整體分析。 This thesis examines the nature of English clipping and blending from the perspective of Optimality Theory. Clipped and blended words may use phonological strategies to preserve part of the source such as the preservation of the onset, syllable, or foot. Different strategies of preservation form different patterns of clipped or blended words. This thesis illustrates that these phonological strategies are determined by the different cophonologies. There are four strategies in forming clipped words. Clipped words can be preserved from the left edge or the right edge of the source, each of which follows either a bimoraic template or a disyllabic template. There are three strategies in forming blended words, depending on the ranking of the unspecified constraint MAXS2. In addition, the present study offers cross-linguistic evidence from Spanish blends, showing that Spanish blending and English blending share certain similarities. To conclude, this thesis has provided a theoretical generalization of English clipping and blending, taking a constraint-based approach.
Reference:	Adams, V. (1973). An introduction to Modern English Word Formation. London:Longman Algeo, J. (1977). Blends, a structural and systematic view. American Speech, 52, 47-64. Anttila, A. (1997). Deriving variation from grammar. In Variation, Change and Phonological Theory, Frans Hinskens, Roeland Van Hout, and W. Leo Wetzels (eds.), 35-68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Anttila, A. (2002). Morphologically conditioned phonological alternations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20, 1-42. Anttila, A. and Cho, Young-mee Y. (1998). Variation and change in Optimality Theory. Lingua 104, 31-36. Archangeli, D. (1997). Optimality Theory: An Introduction to Linguistics in the 1990S. In D. Archangeli, & D.T. Langendoen (Eds.), Optimality Theory: an overview (pp. 1-32). Oxford: Blackwell. Bat-El, O. (1996). Selecting the best of the worse: The grammar of Hebrew blends. Phonology 13, 283-328. Bauer, L. (1983). English Word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bauer, L. (1988). Introducing linguistic morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Benua, L. (1995). Identity Effects in Morphological Truncation. In J.Beckman, L. Dickey, & S. Urbanczyk (Eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory (pp. 77-136 ). Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts. Berman, R. (1989). The role of blends in Modern Hebrew word-formation. In P. Wexler, A. Borg & S. Somekh (eds.) Studia linguistic et orientalia memoriae Haim Blanc dedicate. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 45-61. Broselow, E., Chen, S. I. and Huffman, M. (1997). Syllable Weight: Convergence of Phonology and Phonetics. Phonology 14, 47-82. Cannon, G. (1986). Blends in English Word Formation. Linguistics, 24(4), 725-753. Chomsky, N. and Halle, M. (1968). The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row. Fraier, M. (2006). Output-Output Faithfulness to Moraic Structure: Evidence from American English. In Proceedings of NELS 36 (1), Christopher Davis, Amy Rose Deal and Youri Zabbal (eds.), 1-14. Amherst, MA: GLSA. Gries, S. (2004). Shouldn’t it be breakfunch? A quantitative analysis of blend structure in English. Linguistics 42(3), 639-667. Hayes, B. (1989). Compensatory Lengthening in Moraic Phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 253-306. Inkelas, S. and Zoll, C. (2007). Is grammar dependence real? A comparison between cophonological and indexed constraint approaches to morphologically conditioned phonology. Linguistics 45, 133-171. Itô, Junko and Mester, A. (1993). Japanese phonology: constraint domains and structure preservation. LRC–93–06, University of California, Santa Cruz. Itô, Junko and Mester, A. (1999). The phonological lexicon. ROA-256. 1-33. Kelly, Michael H. (1998). To ‘brunch’ or to ‘brench’: some aspects of blend structure. Linguistics 36, 579-590. Kemmer, S. (2003). Schemas and lexical blends. In Motivation in Language, Cuyckens, Hubert, Thomas Berg, René Dirven and Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), 69-97. Kubozono, H. (1989). The mora and syllable structure in Japanese: Evidence from speech errors. Language and Speech 32(3), 249-278. Kubozono, H. (1990). Phonological constraints on blending in English as a case for phonology–morphology interface. Yearbook of Morphology 3, 1-20. Lappe, S. (2008). English Prosodic Morphology. Springer Verlag. Lombardi, L. (1996). Positional faithfulness and voicing assimilation in Optimal. To appear in NLLT. Lunden, A. (2004). Reduplicant placement, anchoring and locality. ROA 885. Marantz, A. (1982). Re Reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 435-482. McCarthy, J. J. and Prince, A. (1993). Prosodic Morphology I: Constraint Interaction and Satisfaction. Technical Report #3, Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science. McCarthy, J. J. and Prince, A. (1995b). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In J.Beckman, L. Dickey, & S. Urbanczyk (Eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory (pp. 249-384 ). McCarthy, J. J. and Prince, A. (1999). Faithfulness and identity in prosodic morphology. In The Prosody-Morphology Interface, ed. Rene Kager, Harry van der Hulst, and Wim Zonneveld, 218-309. Cambridge University Press. McCarthy, J. J. (2008). Doing Optimality Theory. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Minkova, D. and Stockwell, R. (2001). English Words: History and Structure. Cambridge University Press Morén, B. (2003). Weight Typology: an Optimality Theoretic Approach. The Linguistic Review 20, 281-304. Nelson, N. (1998). Right anchor, aweigh. Ms., Rutgers University, ROA-284-0998. Nelson, N. (2003). Asymmetric anchoring. Doctoral Dissertation, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. Pulleyblank, D. (n.d.). Optimality Theory and Features. In D. Archangeli, & D.T. Langendoen (Eds.), Optimality Theory: an overview (pp. 59-101). Oxford: Blackwell. Terao, Y. (1984). On blends. Tsukuba Working Papers in Linguistics 3, 15-31. University Press. Orgun, C. O. (1996). Sign-based morphology and phonology: with special attention to Optimality Theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Description:	碩士國立政治大學語言學研究所 96555012 98
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0096555012
Data Type:	thesis
Appears in Collections:	[Graduate Institute of Linguistics] Theses

Files in This Item:

File	Size	Format
501201.pdf	6617Kb	Adobe PDF2	1008	View/Open

社群 sharing

Loading...