這是我剛剛在找95中正語析那題漢語的詞性變調,

偶然找到的網站~ 超棒的!

http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/jw!XmwyWJGaBRk5PO3qtnLiUAap6d6Mag--/archive?l=f&id=13

開啟連結後

請點選語概筆記123~超多有關華語的語概

雖然這是華文所的相關重點 但大家可以參考一下~

                                                 景芃

The Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP) is a phonological hypothesis that states that (certain) consecutive identical features are banned in underlying representations. For instance, it is commonly thought in phonology that no morpheme is allowed to contain two consecutive high tones. If two consecutive high tones appear within a single morpheme, some rule must have applied. Maybe one of the surface high-tone vowels was underlyingly high-toned, while the other was underlyingly toneless. Then, since all vowels must have tone at the surface (in this hypothetical language), the high tone of the one vowel spreads onto the other (see autosegmental phonology). Alternatively, one (or both) of the vowels may have started out low-toned and became high-toned due to the application of some rule; or perhaps there was a low tone between the two high tones that got deleted at some point. Regardless, the OCP claims that there can not have been two consecutive high tones (nor two consecutive low tones, etc.) in the underlying representation of the morpheme, i.e. in the morpheme's lexical entry.

The locus classicus of the OCP is Leben (1973), in which it was formulated as a morpheme-structure constraint precluding sequences of identical tones from underlying representations. In autosegmental phonology (Goldsmith 1976), with articulated conceptions about associations between featural melodies and skeletal units (i.e. CV phonology, see McCarthy 1979, McCarthy 1981, Steriade 1982, Clements & Keyser 1983), moraic phonology (Hyman 1985, Hayes 1989), the OCP was considered to be relevant to adjacent singly-linked melodies but not to doubly-linked melodies. The OCP in this 'rules and constraints' era was no longer simply a constraint on underlying forms, but also began to play a role in the course of a phonological derivation. McCarthy (1986) proposed that the OCP can actively block the application of or repair the output of phonological rules, while Yip (1988) attempted to extend the role of the OCP to trigger the application of rules as well. However, there was also a strong opposition to the OCP as a formal constraint in phonological theory, headed by David Odden. Odden (1986) showed that, contrary to the contemporaneous assumption that constraints were inviolable, an examination of African tonal systems reveals many apparent surface violations of the OCP. A lively debate continued between John McCarthy and David Odden for several years, with each adding an extra 'anti-' to the title of the previous article of the other - e.g. "Anti anti-gemination and the OCP" (Odden 1988), a reply to McCarthy (1986).


In Optimality Theory (OT) (Prince & Smolensky 2004), the OCP has been again redefined as a violable constraint. Yet many issues as to its precise formal character remain: (i) locality - what is the domain of the OCP (i.e. strict adjacency? etc.) and how is the domain represented in the theory; (ii) near-identical sequences - many languages show an OCP-like resistance to sequences of segments that differ in just one distinctive feature; is this the effect of the OCP, some other constraint? If the latter, how is this constraint formally related to the OCP; (iii) status as an OT constraint - is the OCP a single constraint, or is it the local self-conjunction of markedness constraints (Alderete 1997)? These and other issues related to the OCP continue to be hotly debated in phonological theory.

另外 還有一篇整個都在講OCP的pdf檔  還有例子哦! http://www.vanoostendorp.nl/pdf/050920.pdf    大家看看嚕!

Phoebe

昨天上課老師說的那個抽象概念.

最後被他說成很像我很愛問不相關問題一樣(哭哭)

Anyway, 我在wiki找到相關資料, 雖然只有台師大會考

不過大家看一下吧

As a theory of phonological representation, autosegmental phonology developed a formal account of ideas that had been sketched in earlier work by several linguists, notably Bernard Bloch (1948), Charles Hockett (1955) and J. R. Firth (1948). On such a view, phonological representations consist of more than one linear sequence of segments; each linear sequence constitutes a separate tier. The co-registration of elements (or autosegments) on one tier with those on another is represented by association lines. There is a close relationship between analysis of segments into distinctive features and an autosegmental analysis; each feature in a language appears on exactly one tier. The working hypothesis of autosegmental analysis is that a large part of phonological generalizations can be interpreted as a restructuring or reorganization of the autosegments in a representation. Clear examples of the usefulness of autosegmental analysis came in early work from the detailed study of African tone languages, as well as the study of vowel and nasal harmony systems. A few years later, John McCarthy proposed an important development by showing that the vocalism and consonantism of Arabic could be analyzed autosegmentally.

                                                                        景芃

剛剛"維修"了 一下 (自以為是在打online game嗎) 我們溫馨的語言學小窩

沒辦法, 這個家還是需要有個人來整理一下

孩子們可以看到左側新增了兩個新項目, 各別是 "文章分類區" 以及 "連結區"

請大家在興奮的發表文章的時候別忘記要按分類唷, 這樣大家以後爬文會比較方便, 直接點分類區看就好了 (真是個德政! 哈)

連結區我就把語言學相關的網址就PO在那啦~ 要不然還要點文章才能連結這樣很麻煩ˇˇ

此篇文章只是來報告更新項目而已

3天後會自動引爆消失 哈哈

by 用心良苦 Kyle 哈哈

Dear all,

我找到一個網址還不賴, 是語言學術語的glossary的網站

還有我有找到ㄧ篇PDF檔 (剛剛一直打成Ph.D檔 XD) 是有關中文語意的

才短短十頁又很好玩 不過我忘了存檔 我找到會寄給包子再轉寄給大家

http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/Index.htm

話說登入這帳號時 輸入密碼有種莫名的爽感! 密碼真是太符合我想要說的話了 哈哈

下面資料是老師說要找的有關creak voice補充資料..

I.Definition about creak voice

 Ladefoged (2001) notes that creaky voice"occurs at the ends of falling intonations for some speakers of English," (125) even though English has no laryngealized phonemes. There is, though, no discussion of the functions of creaky voice in languages where it is not distinctive. 

 Other scholars have suggested that creaky voice can have communicative function  in English. Pittam (1987) suggests that, for Australian speakers, creaky voice indexes low solidarity and is associated with male speakers. Blount and Padgug   (1976) describe creaky voice as characteristic of English care-giver speech. Duncan and Fiske (1977) suggest that, when coupled with low pitch, creaky voice can signal the end of a conversational turn.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Examples of creaky voice

From an interactional point of view, two works bear particular mention. Ogden

(2001) suggests that among Finnish speakers, creaky voice often co-occurs with syntactic completion, pragmatic completion, and sentence final intonation at the end of a turnconstructional unit (TCU; Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson 1974). Such a combination of potential turn-end markers indicates a Complex Transition Relevance Place (CTRP;  Kärkkäinen, Sorjonen and Helasvuo, to appear), where a current speaker typically gives way to a new speaker. This use of creaky voice contrasts with glottal stops, which are generally not treated as transition relevant, even when followed by a long pause.[phenomena of glottal stop] Furthermore, when creak co-occurs with one or more of these elements, but speaker transition is not affected, TRP is retracted by, for example, rushing through the next TCU.

Closure cut-off (which can, under the right conditions, be realized by glottal stop) is routinely used to initiate same-turn repair of the TCU-sofar,and to that extent projects more talk to come (the repair), the continuation of the TCU. Silences that may follow closure cut-off, before the resumption of phonation, get interpreted as belonging to the speaker,because she has not brought the turn to possible completion.

Thus, in English as in Finnish, glottal closure is not treated as transition relevant. It remains to be seen whether English speakers treat other glottal strictures, such as creaky voice, as marking transition places

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other resources

http://www.assta.org/sst/2006/Keating%20SST%202006%20talk.ppt

[這是ppt檔,看起來更清楚…,必看喔..因為真的很詳細...]

http://blog.yam.com/omyfriend/article/2539359

[這是中文版的,也寫的很清楚….]

 from Helen...

上個月韋氏字典才把 Google 一詞當成動詞收錄進去，但據說最近 Google 發函媒體，要求不得將 Google 當成動詞使用，以保護 Google 的商標。Google 還列出例句，來說明 Google 一詞正確的用法：

正確：I ran a Google search to check out that guy from the party.

錯誤：I googled that hottie.

第一句的 Google 還保留大寫，還是個專有名詞，指的也是 Google 本身，第二句則不再大寫，不再是專有名詞，還轉成動詞使用，結果被 Google 當成不當用法。顯然 Google 並沒有對於 Google 一詞普及化感到太高興，反而有些隱憂。從相關報導看起來，他們擔心的應該就是 Google 這個專有名詞和商標被一般人當成普通名詞來使用，甚至廣泛地指涉到同類型的事物上，進而造成 Google 失去此商標的相關權利。

對於 Google 的舉動，網上已有人提出不以為然的看法，還故意使用了 jacuzzi、hoover、xerox 等詞，來指出專有名詞變成普通名詞的現象。另一個很有名的的例子是「Walkman」，在一般人的用法中，這個 Sony 公司的商標早已成了普通名詞，現在不論是哪家廠商出的類似裝置，都會被一般人稱做「Walkman」（中文則稱為「隨身聽」）。而台灣人所說的「立可白」，原來也只是某一特定商品的名稱，後來也用作普通名詞，泛指所有的同類型產品。另一個年代久遠的例子是「非肥皂」，它原本是某家公司的商品名稱，在「洗衣粉」一詞興起前，據說它曾被普遍地用來指稱所有粉狀洗衣劑。（我沒經歷那個年代，若有錯誤敬請指正。）只是從大部份例子來看，廠商再怎麼採取行動捍衛商標，通常還是不敵「廣大群眾」的力量，不管在法律上能否保住商標，都無法阻止一般人繼續在口語中使用。

由這些例子看起來，一個商品名稱或商標如果經歷了專有名詞普通化的過程，通常代表該項商品在業界有開創性，因而被大眾當成同類商品的代名詞。如此看來，Google 應該是要驕傲的。可是如果他們想要搞些動作來擋住這個過程，不但在成效上要打一個大問號，而且對自己的企業形象也可能不太正面。雖然 Google 的影響力無遠弗屆，但我相信語言演變的力量仍是 Google 無法駕馭的。

                                                                            Post by 楊楊

最近歌唱比賽節目大行其道 ，其中某個最受歡迎的節目，有個客座評審說到，有人在唱「天」這個字時有洋腔洋調的問題。

不知道她想說的是不是 t（或ㄉ、ㄊ）這類音的發音方式。不管是不是，我們都還是可以在這裡藉機討論一下 t 的問題。英語裡 t 的發音位置與台灣人所發的ㄉ、ㄊ的確稍有不同。大致上，這些音是舌尖音，發音時是把舌尖頂到門牙後方到其上方的牙齦之間，只是舌尖放上面一點還是下面一點，就造成了英語發音與台灣人發音之間的差異。英語的 t，舌尖頂住位置比較「上」或比較「後」，幾乎都在牙齦的地方，而台灣人的發音通常比較靠近牙齒，所以也比較下面一點。 （請參考右邊的示意圖，請注意舌尖位置， 畫得不好請見諒。XD）

現在的確很多人在唱中文歌時，都會把 t（ㄉ）與 th（ㄊ）用比較後的部位發音，在比賽節目中就有一大票，已經成了一種不可忽視的現象。他們也許真的是有意無意間學習了英語的腔調，不知道歌唱上的發音是否有一天也會影響口語的發音，如果這是這樣，那倒是個很有趣的事情。不過既然有人對這類問題提出批評了，我想歌手雖然不一定就得要改掉或不改掉這個腔調，但至少有了一個機會去思考發音方式的問題，進而讓自己表現得更好更自然。

(左):中文的 t                                 (右) : 英文的 t

              Post by 楊楊

最近被問到跟南島文化節與南島語系有關的問題時，我發現有許多人在使用「南島語族」一詞時，的確是會有些誤解的，他們會把「南島語族」當成「使用南島語系的族群」來使用。但是「語族」一詞究竟是什麼意義呢？這種用法是否適當呢？我想可以在此做個澄清。

其實，在語言學上，「語族」指的並不是一群人，而是一個語言系屬的單位，目前學界常見的做法，是把「語族」用於「語系」的下一層。能找到同源關係的各語言，可全部歸類為同一「語系」，而語系之下再依親疏遠近分類，又有許多「語族」，「語族」之下則有「語支」。例如根據某些理論，漢藏語系之下有藏緬語族，被歸類為藏緬語族的語言包括藏語、彝語、緬語、羌語等，而這些語言還各可以屬於幾個不同的語支。所以，語族指的是一個語言的家族，而不是人的「民族」、「種族」、或「族群」。

「南島語系」原是歷史語言學上的概念，在廣為人知後，常被引用到許多地方，又有人會以此語系的概念，再衍生出「南島民族」、「南島語族」等稱呼。「南島語族」一詞如前所述有誤用的問題，而「南島民族」一詞其實也不無問題。

語言學家是根據同源詞以及語音對應等等線索，認定某些語言源自同一祖語，並將這些語言歸為同一語系。「南島語系」的建立，是完全靠著語言上的證據，和人無關。「南島語系」的成立，並不隱含著「講這一系語言的人是同一民族」、或「這些人在文化或體質等方面有共通性」的意味。而人的血緣、文化與語言之間對應關係經常是極其複雜的，人類學對於人的區分也有自有標準，若只是因為某些人講的語言被歸為同一語系，就將這些人直接放在一起，稱為某一民族，還以純語言學的語系名稱作為名字，其實是較輕率的做法。實際上，所謂的「南島民族」其實包含眾多各異的族群、文化，這樣多元且歧異的內容如何能在缺乏充分人類學理論的支持下，就合成一個單位呢？

所以我建議，在使用這些名詞時，不妨更謹慎一些。

*南島語族分佈:簡言之，台灣、全部南太平洋小島、馬達加斯加、東南亞的全部小島扣掉新幾內亞、紐西蘭

                                                                                                                          分享~ 楊楊