Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T11:51:11.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Systematic Irregularity in Japanese Rendaku: How the grammar mediates patterned lexical exceptions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Eric Rosen
Eric Rosen*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Exceptions to Japanese rendaku voicing that are independent of Lyman’s Law have usually been considered to be random and unsystematic. This article proposes that such exceptions are largely systematic and can be explained through lexical specification and Positional Markedness. Two main types of systematicity are examined: the clustering of blocking cases around particular lexical items, and a prosodic size effect, where “long” compounds, with at least one constituent exceeding two moras, will disable blocking under most conditions. Lexical clustering is explained through lexical specification of features under Combinatorial Underspecification while the prosodic size effect is seen as an expression of Positional Markedness. It is argued that only in long compounds is the morpheme boundary at the edge of a Prosodic Word, a prosodically strong position that more freely permits the marked [−sonorant, +voice] featural combination of rendaku voicing to occur.

Résumé

Résumé

Les exceptions au voisement du rendaku en japonais qui ne dépendent pas de la Loi de Lyman sont généralement considérées comme étant aléatoires et non systématiques. Cet article propose que ces exceptions sont pour la plupart systématiques et peuvent être expliquées par la spécification lexicale et le Marquage Positionnel. Deux grands types de systématicité sont examinés : un regroupement d’exceptions mettant en cause des items lexicaux particuliers, et un effet de la longueur prosodique, où les composés « longs », dont au moins un constituant excède deux mores, permettent le voisement dans la plupart des cas. Le regroupement lexical s’explique par la spécification lexicale des traits, suivant la Sous-spécification Combinatoire, alors que l’effet de la longueur prosodique est plutôt une expression du Marquage Positionnel. Il est argumenté que dans les composés longs la frontière de morphème se situe à la limite d’ un Mot Prosodique, ce qui constitue une position prosodiquement forte qui permet plus facilement la combinaison marquée de traits [−sonant, +voisé] du voisement du rendaku

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 48 , Issue 1-2 , June 2003 , pp. 1 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albright, Adam, and Hayes, Bruce. 2002. Modeling English past tense intuitions with minimal generalization. Ms., University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Alderete, John. 1995. Faithfulness to prosodie heads. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. [Rutgers Optimality Archive 94-0000.]Google Scholar
Alderete, John. 1999. Morphologically governed accent in Optimality Theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana, and Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1994. Grounded phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Beekman, Jill. 1995. Shona height harmony: Markedness and positional identity. In University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18, ed. Beekman, Jill, Dickey, Laura Walsh, and Urbanczyk, Suzanne, 55–75. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, oAmherst.Google Scholar
Beekman, Jill. 1998. Positional faithfulness. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. [Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.]Google Scholar
Breen, Jim. 2003. Jim Breen’s WWW JDIC. http://www.esse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/wwwjdic.html.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Slobin, Dan. 1982. Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language 58:265–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casali, Roderic F. 1996. Vowel elision in hiatus contexts. In UCLA Working Papers in Phonology 1:18–56. University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul. 1999. Morpheme order and correspondence. In Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 18, ed. Norquest, Peter, Haugen, Jason, and Bird, Sonya, 27–45. Coyote Working Papers, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anne-Marie, and Williams, Edwin. 1987. On the definition of word. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz J. 1999. Lexical strata in English: Morphological causes, phonological effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewitt, Mark. 1994. Templates and truncations in Optimality Theory. Ms., University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Hewitt, Mark, and Crowhurst, Megan. 1996. Conjunctive constraints and templates. In Proceedings of NELS 26, ed. Beekman, Jill et al, 101–116. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon. 1995. The consequences of optimization for underspecification. In Proceedings of NELS 25, ed. Beekman, Jill, 287–302. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon, and Orgun, C. Orhan. 1995. Level ordering and economy in the lexical phonology of Turkish. Language 71:763–793.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon, Orgun, C. Orhan, and Zoll, Cheryl. 1996. Exceptions and static phonological patterns: Cophonologies vs. prespecification. Ms., University of California, Berkeley. [Rutgers Optimality Archive 124-0496.]Google Scholar
Itô, Junko. 1991. Prosodic minimality in Japanese. In CLS 26, Vol. II: Papers from the Parasession on the syllable in phonetics and phonology, ed. Deaton, Karen et al., 14–61. Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko, and Mester, R. Armin. 1986. The phonology of voicing in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 17:49–73.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko, and Mester, R. Armin. 1992. Weak layering and word binarity. Linguistics Research Center Report No. 92-09. University of Southern California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko, and Mester, R. Armin. 1995. The core-periphery structure of the lexicon and constraints on reranking. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18, 181–209. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko, and Mester, R. Armin. 1998. Markedness and word structure: OCP effects in Japanese. Ms., University of California, Santa Cruz. [Rutgers Optimality Archive 255-0498.]Google Scholar
Itô, Junko, Kitagawa, Yoshihisa, and Mester, R. Armin. 1992. Prosodic type preservation in Japanese: Evidence from zuuja-go . SRC-92-05. Syntax Research Center, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Jun, Jongho. 1995. Perceptual and articulatory factors in place assimilation: An Optimality Theoretic approach. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Kager, René. 2001. Rhythmic directionality by positional licensing. Handout of presentation, Fifth HIL Phonology Conference (HILP 5), University of Potsdam, 11 January 2001.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical morphology and phonology. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, 1–91. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1993. Blocking in nonderived environments. In Studies in Lexical Phonology, ed. Hargus, S. and Kaisse, E., 277–313. San Diego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubozono, Haruo. 1995. Constraint interaction in Japanese phonology: Evidence from compound accent. In Phonology at Santa Cruz 4, ed. Walker, Rachel, Lorentz, Ove, and Kubozono, Haruo, 21–38.Google Scholar
Kubozono, Haruo. 1996. Lexical markedness and variation: A nonderivational account of Japanese compound accent. In Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 15, ed. Agbayani, Brian and Tang, Sze-Wing, 273–288.Google Scholar
Kubozono, Haruo. 1999. Mora and syllable. In The handbook of Japanese linguistics, ed. Tsujumura, N., 31–61. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda. 1995a. Positional faithfulness and the phonology of voicing in Optimality Theory. Ms., University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda. 1995b. Why Place and Voice are different: Constraint interactions and feature faithfulness in Optimality Theory. Ms., University of Maryland, College Park. [Rutgers Optimality Archive 105-0000.]Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda. 1998. Evidence for MaxFeature constraints from Japanese. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics, 71:41–62.Google Scholar
Lubowicz, Anna. 1998. Derived environment effects in Optimality Theory. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Lyman, Benjamin Smith. 1894. Change from surd to sonant in Japanese compounds. Ms., Oriental Club of Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Martin, Samuel E. 1952. Morphophonemics of Standard Colloquial Japanese. Language Dissertation No. 47. Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Martin, Samuel. 1987. The Japanese language through time. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John, and Prince, Alan. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Papers in Optimality Theory, ed. Beekman, Jill et al., 252–384. GLSA, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John, and Prince, Alan. 1998. Faithfulness and identity in prosodie morphology. In The prosody morphology interface, ed. Kager, René, van der Hulst, Harry, and Zonneveld, Wim, 218–309. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, James. 1968. The phonological component of a grammar of Japanese. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Mester, R. Armin. 1990. Patterns of truncation. Linguistic Inquiry 21:478–485.Google Scholar
Mester, R. Armin, and Itô, Junko. 1989. Feature predictability and underspecification: Palatal prosody in Japanese mimetics. Language 65:258–293.Google Scholar
Myers, James. 1999. Lexical phonology and the lexicon. Ms., National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan. [Rutgers Optimality Archive 330-0699.]Google Scholar
Myers, Scott. 1998. OCP effects in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15:847–892.Google Scholar
NHK Japanese accent and pronunciation dictionary. 1999. Tokyo: NHK Hoosoo Bunka kenkyuuzyoo.Google Scholar
Nishikawa, Makoto. 1987. Japanese lexical phonology and morphology. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Ogura, Shimpei. 1910. ‘Lyman-shi no rendaku-ron’ [Lyman’s theory of rendaku] KokugakuinZasshi 16(7):9–23 and 16(8):31-45. Kokugakuin University, Tokyo.Google Scholar
Ohno, Kazutoshi. 2000. The lexical nature of rendaku in Japanese. In Japanese-Korean Linguistics 9, ed. Nakayama, Mineharu and Quinn, Charles J. Jr., 151–164. CSLI, Stanford.Google Scholar
Okumura, Mitsuo. 1980. Rendaku. In Kokugo Gakkai 1980:925–926.Google Scholar
Otsu, Yukio. 1980. Some aspects of rendaku in Japanese and related problems. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 2: Theoretical issues in Japanese linguistics, ed. Otsu, Yukio and Farmer, Ann, 207–227.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe. 1998. Austronesian nasal substitution and other NC effects. In The prosody morphology interface, ed. Kager, René, van der Hulst, Harry, and Zonneveld, Wim, 310–343. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Poser, William. 1984. Hypocoristic formation in Japanese. In Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 3, ed. Westcoat, Michael et al., 218–229.Google Scholar
Poser, William. 1990. Evidence for foot structure in Japanese. Language 66:78–105.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality Theory. Ms., Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1996. Neutral vowels in Optimality Theory: A comparison of Yoruba and Wolof. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 41: 295–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakurai, Shigeharu. 1966. Kyootsuugo no Hatsuon de Chuui Subeki Kotogara. [Matters that require attention in the pronunciation of a common language.] In Nihon Hoosoo Kyookai 1966:31–33 Google Scholar
Shogakukan Progressive Japanese-English dictionary. 1993. Tokyo: Shogakukan.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer L. 2002. Toward a compositional treatment of positional constraints: The case of positional augmentation. In University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 26: Papers in Optimality Theory II, ed. Carpenter, Angela, Coetzee, Andries, and Lacy, Paul de, 337–370. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherts. [Rutgers Optimality Archive 550-1002.]Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul. 1995. Local conjunction. Ms, Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
Sternberger, Joseph, and MacWhinney, Brian. 1988. Are inflected forms stored in the lexicon? In Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics, ed. Hammond, Michael and Noonan, Michael, 101–116. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1995. Neutralization and the expression of contrast. Ms., University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Tateishi, Koichi. 1989. Theoretical implications of the Japanese musician’s language. In Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 8, ed. Fee, E. Jane and Hunt, Kathryn, 384–398.Google Scholar
Vance, Timothy J. 1980. Comments on “Some aspects of rendaku in Japanese and related problems”. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 2: Theoretical issues in Japanese linguistics, ed. Otsu, Yukio and Farmer, Ann, 229–236.Google Scholar
Vance, Timothy. 1987. An introduction to Japanese phonology. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Vance, Timothy. 1996. Sequential voicing in Sino-Japanese. Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese 30:22–43.Google Scholar
Zoll, Cheryl. 1998. Positional asymmetries and licensing. Ms., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Zuraw, Kie Ross. 2000. Patterned exceptions in phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar