Segmentti (1)? Segmentit ja niiden problematiikka. Edmondson (1990: 70) (id., 1990: 72) The WLB in Linguistics. de Saussure ([1916: 65] 1983: 41)

Transcription

1 Segmentti (1)? Segmentit ja niiden problematiikka Tommi Jantunen, SVKA111/211, A single speech sound; any one of the minimal units of which an utterance may be regarded as a linear sequence, at either the phonetic or phonological level, such as [a], [s], [k] or [m] (Trask 1996: 318). 2. A fully specified bundle of distinctive features (ibid.). de Saussure ([1916: 65] 1983: 41) The speech sound is an aggregate of auditory impressions and articulatory movements, comprising what is heard and what is spoken, one delimiting the other. It is thus a complex unit, with a foot in each camp. Edmondson (1990: 70) No convincing definition is available to guide the hand of the segment slicer. In fact the very notion of segment is itself questionable. One difficulty with segmentation is that it exposes (some would say creates) the problem of suprasegmental organisation. (id., 1990: 72) The concept of 'segment' in speech is rooted in convention rather than linguistic definition. The WLB in Linguistics Linell, Per (1982). The written language bias in linguistics. Linköping: Universitetet. 1

2 Karlsson (1994: 44) Syntyperäinen puhuja pystyy tunnistamaan ensikiel(t)ensä segmentit, ja harjaantunut foneetikko voi eristää eli segmentoida hänelle tuntemattomankin kielen segmenttejä. Viitotun kielen segmenttejä (1) H- ja M-segmentit (Liddell 1984; Liddell & Johnson 1989) plus X-segmentti (Johnson 2000) [Huom! on olemassa myös vielä uudempi näkemys!] L- ja M-segmentit; HC-autosegmentti (Sandler 1989) P- ja M-segmentit (Perlmutter 1992) FALSE (Brentari 1998: 27) HM-malli (Brentari 1998: 84) HT-malli (Brentari 1998: 87) Mora-malli (Brentari 1998: 89) 2

3 Esimerkki: H- ja M-segmentit Liddell (1984): Timing data are presented which show that the majority of signs are segmentable into MOVEMENTS and HOLDS. A sequential underlying representation of signs is proposed [---]. (id., 372, the abstract.) The duration of hold or movement can be measured by counting videotape fields, which occur at the rate of 60 per second (id., 377). The average duration of the M portion of these [citation form] signs is 18 fields, while the average H is 26. [On] average, the H's are roughly 50% longer than M's. [---] However, [---] there is considerable variation in individual signs. (id., 379.)...jatkuu Liddell & Johnson (1989): Segments in sign language are composed of two major components. One describes the posture of the hand [i.e. the articulatory bundle]; the other describes its activity. (id., 209.) Movements are defined as periods of time during which some aspect of the articulation is in transition (id., 210). Holds are defined as periods of time during which all aspects of the articulation bundle are in a steady state (ibid.). Wilbur & Petersen (1997: 67) Liddell's earliest argument for sequential structure in ASL included an assumption that linear sequentiality must be segmental. This "default" assumption that sequentiality is equal to segmental structure appears to have been continued throughout other sign language analyses without question. Muita vasta-argumentteja: 1. Vertically sliced segments such as M's and H's are not "segments" but the result of the fact that the hands move and stop (c.f. Wilbur & Petersen 1997: 68). 2. M's cannot be labels for distinctive feature matrices [i.e. segments] because the features of M's can never be completely independent of the features for H/L/P (c.f. ibid.). Wilbur & Allen (1991: 43) The results [of a tapping experiment] also provide an argument against all the models which divide signed syllables into segments. Such models suggest that a syllable in ASL is composed on a maximum of three pieces (HMH, LML, PMP) [---]. There is no evidence in the distribution of taps that subjects tended to treat syllables as having any pieces inside, much less three. Edmondson (1990: 72) The facts are that there is no clear discussion, definition or demonstration of segments in signed language, and there seems to be no overwhelming or undeniable reason why there should be such segments [---]. 3

4 Segmentti (2)? 1. The minimum concatenative unit referred to by the grammar (Brentari 1998: 178) or a timing unit (ibid.; also Brentari 2002: 52). Viitotun kielen segmenttejä (2) [In the Prosodic Model,] x-slots are defined as minimal, concatenative units of timing, which are systemically constructed at the terminal nodes of the prosodic branch of structure based on prosodic features present in the input of a sign (Brentari 1998: 183). MUSTA MUSTA prosodisessa mallissa Tällaisen segmentin tarve? Brentari (2002): Segments are needed in order to account for several lengthening effects in ASL. Two of them are the result of morphophonemic operations: intensive affixation [---] and delayed-completive aspect affixation [---]. A third is a purely phonological operation: phrase final lengthening. (id., 52.) [This] is evidence that it [i.e. the segment, as defined in the previous slide] is a necessary unit in the phonology of sign languages (id., 54). Example (Brentari 2002: 52) Intensive affixation: Ø x i / stem [x i Prose: Copy the leftmost segment of a stem to generate a form with intensive affixation. 4

5 Lisää segmentin tarpeesta Wilbur & Petersen (1997: 86) Brentari (1998: 179): [Segments defined as] timing units are indispensable to explaining the co-temporal coordination of movements within signs [cf. the fact that sign internal handshape changes are continuous ans gradual] and the lack of such coordination in the transitional movements between signs [cf. the fact that handshape changes between signs happen either at the beginning or at the end of a transitional movement]. [Observations] from backwards signing provide further support [---] for the claim that signed syllables have only initial and final feature specifications [cf. Brentari's x-slots!] without additional internal segmentation. Brentari (2006: 166) Havainnollistus... [One] modality difference between signed and spoken languages is the relative importance of segments [---]. With respect to the prominence of phonological units in a features geometry, the position of the segment - understood here as timing unit - is fundamentally different in signed and spoken languages. The difference can be stated as follows: In a spoken language hierarchy of units, segments are autonomous from features, dominate features, and can create minimal contrast [---]. In a sign language hierarchy of phonological units, feature information predicts and dominates segmental units [---]. This can be seen in the use (or lack of use) of segmental orders to create new words, and in the unit upon which minimal pairs are based. Puhuttu kieli Viitottu kieli ajoitusyksikkö1...2 root MUSTA root [aa] piirteet piirteet ajoitusyksikkö1...2 Crasborn (2001: 93) A large part of sign phonology literature has centered around the representation of movement. Liike? 1. Dynaaminen segmentti (esim. Liddell & Johnson 1989, Sandler 1989, Perlmutter 1992) 2. Viittoman sisäiset (fonologiset) dynaamiset ominaisuudet (esim. Brentari 1998; myös Liddell & Johnson 1989, Sandler 1989, Perlmutter 1992) 3. Viitotun signaalin (foneettiset) dynaamiset ominaisuudet (esim. Johnson 2000; myös esim. Liddell & Johnson 1989) 4. Epäitsenäinen seuraus siitä, että artikulaattori siirtyy paikasta a paikkaan b (Stack 1988) 5

6 Segmentti vs. suprasegmentti? Brentari (1998: 24) In the Prosodic Model, movement is claimed to behave in ways strikingly similar to the way that tones behave in Venda. Mandariinikiinan kontrastiivinen tooni (Karlssonin 1994: 52 mukaan) Kirjallisuus SANA zū zú z ŭ zù TOONI tasainen nouseva laskevanouseva laskeva MERKITYS porsas bambu hyvä luoja asua Brentari, D. (1998). A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: A Bradford Book. Brentari, D. (2002). Modality differences in sign language phonology and morphophonemics. In R. P. Meier, K. Cormier & D. Quinto-Pozos (Eds.) Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Brentari, D. (2006). Effects of language modality on word segmentation: An experimental study of phonological factors in a sign language. In L. Goldstein, D. Whalen, and C. Best (Eds.) Papers in Laboratory Phonology VIII. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, Crasborn, O. (2001). Phonetic implementation of phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Utrecht, The Netherlands: LOT. Edmondson, W. (1990). Segments in signed languages: Do they exist and does it matter? In W. H. Edmondson & F. Karlsson (Eds.) Sign language research 1987: papers from the 4th international symposium on sign language research. Hamburg: Signum, Johnson, R. E. (2000). American Sign Language phonology. Jyväskylän yliopistossa pidetyn viittomakielten fonologiaa käsitelleen kurssin materiaali. Karlsson, F. (1994). Yleinen kielitiede. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino. Liddell, S. K. (1984). THINK and BELIEVE: sequentiality in American Sign Language. Language 60: Liddell, S. K. & Johnson, R. E. (1989). American Sign Language: the phonological base. Sign Language Studies 64: Perlmutter, D. M. (1992). Sonority and syllable structure in American Sign Language. Linguistic Inquiry 23: Sandler, W. (1989). Phonological representation of the sign: linearity and nonlinearity in ASL. Dordrecht: Foris. de Saussure, F. ([1916]1983). Course in general linguistics. [Edited by C. Bally & A. Sechehaye with the collaboration of A. Riedlinger.] Translated and annotated by R. Harris. London: Duckworth. Stack, K. M. (1988). Tiers and syllable structure in American Sign Language: evidence from phonotactics. MA Thesis, UCLA. Trask, R. L. (1996). A dictionary of phonetics and phonology. London: Routledge. Wilbur, R. B. & Allen, G. D. (1991). Perceptual evidence against internal syllable structure in American Sign Language syllables. Language and Speech 34: Wilbur, R. B. & Petersen, L. (1997). Backwards signing and ASL syllable structure. Language and Speech 40: