A declarative account of strong and weak auxiliaries in English
A declarative account of strong and weak auxiliaries in English
复制标题
英语强助动词和弱助动词的陈述性说明
DOI：
10.1017/s095267579900370x
复制
发表时间：
1999
期刊：
影响因子：
1.3
通讯作者：
Richard Ogden
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Richard Ogden
本文对英语助动词的音系进行了陈述性分析。英语中助动词的强形式和弱形式通常被视为在派生上相关（Zwicky 1970，Wood 1979，塞尔柯克1984）或作为词汇上的补充项（Kaisse 1985;这一观点也隐含在传统的英语语音处理中，例如Jones 1960）。派生处理涉及破坏性过程，陈述音系学避免了这一点（Bird 1995，科尔曼1995）。作为单独的词汇条目的处理未能解决相关形式中可观察到的共性，例如[hav hbv bv v]。本文从陈述性的角度分析了英语助动词的多种形式之间的关系。该分析是基于语料库以及从线人的数据，并正式使用计算易处理的形式主义。论文中引用的许多例子都取自marsec（Roach et al. 1993），这是一个机器可读的英语语料库，取自20世纪80年代BBC广播的材料。在marsec英语的主导品种是“标准”，虽然在现实中，这仅仅意味着有各种各样的口音代表倾向于RP。数据库提供的是自然的材料，而不是理想化的或特别引出的材料。02 The Dog of the Woman（1992）381）注意到：“音系学一直是基于对规则机制的力量的非常夸张的理想化，作为照顾变异的格式。然而，在本文中提出的分析所需的一些结构并没有出现在marsec中，所以自然材料是由基于本地线人的材料补充。
This paper presents a declarative analysis of the phonology of English auxiliaries. The strong and weak forms of auxiliary verbs in English have generally been treated as either related derivationally (Zwicky 1970, Wood 1979, Selkirk 1984) or as lexically suppletive items (Kaisse 1985; this view is also implicit in traditional treatments of English phonetics, e.g. Jones 1960). The derivational treatment involves destructive processes, which Declarative Phonology eschews (Bird 1995, Coleman 1995). The treatment as separate lexical entries fails to address the commonalities observable in related forms such as [hav hbv bv v] for have. This paper provides a declarative analysis of the relations between the multiple forms of English auxiliaries without derivation, and without suppletion. The analysis is based on a corpus as well as data from informants, and is formalised using a computationally tractable formalism. Many of the examples cited in the paper are taken from marsec (Roach et al. 1993), a machine-readable English corpus of material taken from BBC radio broadcasts during the 1980s. The dominant variety of English in marsec is ‘standard’, although in reality this merely means that there is a variety of accents represented which tend towards RP. The database provides natural material rather than idealised or specifically elicited material. As Rischel (1992: 381) notes: ‘Phonology has been based on very exaggerated idealisations about the power of rule machinery as the format in which to take care of variation’. However, some of the structures needed in the analysis presented in this paper do not occur in marsec, so the natural material is complemented by material based on native informants.