臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本論文旨在探討賽夏語中大隘方言的音韻規則，並以優選理論(Prince & Smolensky 1993, McCarthy & Prince 1993a)為架構來探究其規則背後的動機。在所有已發現的音韻規則當中，本文的焦點在於討論並形式化音韻現象與構詞加綴的互動中有關元音的變化。
與東河方言相同的，今日的大隘方言已經丟失了閃音。在我們所蒐集到的語料中，閃音丟失的結果造成了音節型態的多樣化以及詞尾的母音延長。憑藉優選理論，我們得以系統性地詮釋現有的共時語法：音節劃分以含聲母音節及無複輔音(consonant cluster)音節為佳，然而零聲母音節仍然存在於此語言中。這是因為此語言並不採取刪減音段（違反MAX-IO）、插入輔音(違反DEP-IO-C)、元音合併而產生長元音(違反*LONG-V)的方式為策略來避免零聲母音節。我們將詞尾長元音的產生歸因於節律的要求：根據「重音隨音重」的原則(Stress-To-Weight Principle, Prince 1990)，帶重音(stress)的音節必須為重音節(heavy syllable)；由於賽夏語的重音規則地落在詞尾的音節上，詞尾的開音節(open syllable)必須延長成為重音節以便承載重音。因此，賽夏語的元音在底層皆為短母音，且韻尾輔音需具有音拍性(moraic)。前述的分析亦有利於分析某些構詞音韻互動間產生的元音變化：詞幹尾的長母音在加後綴後縮短音長是因為它不再居於詞尾的重音音節(stressed syllable)故不需延長；而某些詞幹中間的元音在加了中綴或前綴後即消失是因為它原本就不存在於底層，而是為了不違反「禁止複輔音音節」(*Complex)的制約才被插入未加綴的詞幹中。
賽夏語中「元音和諧」(VH)的現象對於形式分析而言是個相當有趣的議題。首先，賽夏語的VH是一個元音完全同化(total harmony)的規則，必須由單一絕對(absolute)的制約來驅動。此外，它不僅影響了帶有中元音的詞綴，也會影響加插的元音(epenthetic vowel)：在帶有受事焦點後綴的語詞中，中元音與高元音皆可引發VH，本文稱之為受事和諧(PF harmony)；而帶有主事焦點中綴-om-的語詞中，僅有中元音能引發，本文稱之為主事和諧(AF harmony)；在元音加插中，加插的元音會與鄰近的中元音同化，但我們無法確定此例中的VH是否也會受到高元音的引發。為了捕捉兩詞綴間元音和諧的不對稱，我們採用聯合制約(Local Constraint Conjunction, Smolensky 1993, 1995, Itô & Mester 1998)的方式分析。聯合兩項指涉到音段特徵的信實制約(IDENT-IO[F])，主事和諧的弱變化源於單一音段不得同時改變[high]和[round]兩特徵的底層標記，若主事和諧也能由高元音引發，則會違反此項限制。同樣地，高元音與中元音的不對稱(底層的中元音可變為高元音，但高元音不得變為中元音)也可以藉由另一聯合制約來禁止高元音在改變[high]的標記的同時產生一個較有標(marked)的中元音。此分析方式純粹是音韻取向的，也能成功解釋詞綴間元音和諧與否的現象。然而，將元音加插中的VH納入考量之後，由於缺乏必然的證據，前述全然音韻取向的分析可能是不足的，而需採用「詞素特定」的優選理論(morpheme-specific OT)：倘若元音加插中的VH與主事和諧相同，亦不能受到高元音的引發，強變化的受事和諧則為此語言規則中的特例。基於此一可能性，共同音韻(cophonology)與詞彙標記制約(lexically indexed constraint)的分析方式也在本文的討論之中。然而，要決定何者分析方式為佳，則需仰賴更多的語言內部與外部證據。

This thesis aims to investigate on the phonology of Saisiyat, the Taai dialect in particular. To account for the phonology of this language in a principled and motivated way, Optimality Theory (OT, set forth by Prince & Smolensky 1993, McCarthy & Prince 1993a) has been adopted as the theoretical framework. Among the detected phonological phenomena, variations of vowels found in the interactions between phonology and morphology are especially concentrated on.
Similar to the southern dialect, the modern Taai dialect has also lost the voiced flap /L/. In our data, loss of this consonant results in various syllable types and word-final long vowels. With OT, we can systematically account for the synchronic grammar: it is preferred for syllables to have onset but no complex margins, but onsetless syllables persist because no deletion (MAX-IO), insertion of a consonant (DEP-IO-C), or long vowels (*LONG-V) are allowed to satisfy this requirement. The occurrence of word-final long vowels are attributed to metrical factors: based on Stress-To-Weight Principle (Prince 1990), stressed syllables should be heavy; as stress in Saisiyat predictably falls on the word-final syllable, a vowel in the word-final open syllable is lengthened to carry the stress. Therefore, all vowels in Saisiyat are underlyingly short and consonantal codas are moraic. With this analysis, certain vowel variations found in the interactions between phonology and morphology can be captured at ease. Stem-final long vowels are shortened after suffixed because they are no longer word-final and carry the stress; certain stem-internal vowels deleted in infixed or prefixed forms can be explained as underlyingly absent but are epenthesized to rescue violation of *Complex in un-affixed forms.
The phenomena of vowel harmony (VH) in Saisiyat constitute an interesting issue to formal analysis. First, VH in Saisiyat is a total harmony process that is driven by an absolute constraint AGR[V]. Besides, it not only affects affixes containing mid vowels but also vowel epenthesis: VH in words containing PF suffix -�\n (referred to as PF harmony) can be triggered by mid and high vowels, while VH in words containing AF infix –om- can only be triggered by mid vowels. Epenthetic vowels are harmonized with adjacent mid vowels but it is uncertain if the high vowel /i/ triggers VH in this case. To account for the asymmetry between the two affixes, a theoretical mechanism—Local Constraint Conjunction (Smolensky 1993, 1995, Itô & Mester 1998)—has been employed. By conjoining two IDENT-IO[F] constraints, the weak alternation in AF harmony lies in the restriction that a segment can not simultaneously alter [high] and [round], which is what would happen if /i/ also triggered VH in AF harmony. Likewise, the asymmetry that high vowels do not become mid to achieve harmony but mid vowels do become high are accounted for by another constraint conjunct that forbids high vowels to alter [high] and yield a more marked mid vowel. Such an approach is purely phonological and successfully captures the harmony and disharmony patterns among affixes. Nevertheless, considering VH in vowel epenthesis, due to lack of decisive evidence, the purely phonological analysis might be insufficient and to adopt morpheme-specific OT would be possible: if VH in this case patterns together with more restricted AF harmony, the strong-alternating PF harmony would be an exceptional process. Bearing this uncertainty in mind, cophonology and lexically-indexed constraint approaches are under discussion in this thesis. Nevertheless, to justify either of the above analyses, more language-internal and cross-linguistic evidence are awaited.

Chapter 1. Introduction…………………………………………………………1
1.1. Background information of the language……………………………………2
1.1.1. The Taai dialect…………………………………………………………2
1.1.2. Previous studies…………………………………………………………5
1.2. Theoretical framework…………………………………………………………5
1.2.1. Correspondence Theory…………………………………………………………6
1.2.2. Local Constraint Conjunction…………………………………………………………7
1.3. Overview of the thesis…………………………………………………………9

Chapter 2. The General Phonology of Saisiyat…………………………………………………………11
2.1. Phoneme inventory…………………………………………………………11
2.1.1. Vowels…………………………………………………………11
2.1.1.1. Vowel inventory…………………………………………………………11
2.1.1.2. Vowel length…………………………………………………………13
2.1.2. Consonants…………………………………………………………16
2.1.3. Stress and syllable structure…………………………………………………………20
2.2. Formal account of the basic phonology of Saisiyat…………………………………………………………21
2.2.1. Syllabification…………………………………………………………21
2.2.2. Stress assignment…………………………………………………………24
2.3. Conclusion…………………………………………………………28

Chapter 3. Interactions between Phonology and Morphology…………………………………………………………30
3.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………30
3.2. Delimiting the scope…………………………………………………………31
3.2.1. Prefixes…………………………………………………………33
3.2.2. Infixes…………………………………………………………35
3.2.3. Suffixes…………………………………………………………38
3.2.4. Local conclusion…………………………………………………………40
3.3. Formal analysis…………………………………………………………40
3.3.1. Distribution of the affixes…………………………………………………………40
3.3.2. Shortening of stem-final long vowels…………………………………………………………45
3.3.3. Epenthesis of stem-internal vowels…………………………………………………………47
3.3.4. Data presentation of vowel harmony…………………………………………………………51
3.3.4.1. AF harmony…………………………………………………………51
3.3.4.2. PF harmony…………………………………………………………54
3.4. Conclusion…………………………………………………………55

Chapter 4. Vowel Harmony in Saisiyat…………………………………………………………58
4.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………58
4.2. Saisiyat VH in affixation…………………………………………………………61
4.2.1. Specification of vowel phonemes…………………………………………………………61
4.2.2. Constraints governing vowel harmony…………………………………………………………62
4.2.2.1. Agreement between vowels…………………………………………………………62
4.2.2.2. Anti-harmony…………………………………………………………66
4.2.3. Constraint rankings for directionality…………………………………………………………67
4.2.4. Harmony vs. disharmony…………………………………………………………68
4.2.4.1. AF harmony…………………………………………………………68
4.2.4.2. PF harmony…………………………………………………………72
4.2.4.3. Paradoxical rankings…………………………………………………………73
4.2.4.4. Disharmonic affixes…………………………………………………………77
4.2.5. Local conclusion…………………………………………………………79
4.3. Vowel harmony and vowel epenthesis…………………………………………………………81
4.3.1. The choice of epenthetic vowel…………………………………………………………81
4.3.2. Interaction between VH and vowel epenthesis…………………………………………………………83
4.4. Against underspecification approach…………………………………………………………86
4.4.1 VH in Yucatec Maya…………………………………………………………87
4.4.2 VH in Saisiyat…………………………………………………………89
4.4.3 Local conclusion…………………………………………………………90
4.5. Morpheme-specific OT…………………………………………………………91
4.5.1. Generalization and exception…………………………………………………………92
4.5.2. Cophonology approach…………………………………………………………95
4.5.3. Constraint indexation approach…………………………………………………………98
4.5.4. Local Conclusion…………………………………………………………102
4.6. Conclusion…………………………………………………………103

Chapter 5. Conclusions…………………………………………………………106

References…………………………………………………………109

References
Anttila, A. 2002. Morphologically conditioned phonological alternations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 1-42.
Archangeli, Diana and Douglas Pulleyblank. (2002). Kinande vowel harmony: domains, grounded conditions, and one-sided alignment. Phonology 19: 139-188.
Beckman, Jill N. 1998. Positional faithfulness. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Bakovic, Eric. 2000. Harmony, dominance, and control. ROA-360.
Blust, Robert. 1999. Notes on Pazeh phonology and morphology. Oceanic Linguistics 38.2: 321-365.
Boyce, Suzanne E. (1990). Coarticulatory organization for lip rounding in Turkish and English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 88: 2584-2595
Chiang, Wen-yu and Fang-mei Chiang. 2005. Saisiyat as a pitch accent language: evidence from acoustic study of words. Oceanic Linguistics 44.2: 404-426.
Crothers, John. 1978. Typology and universals. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language, Volume 2: Phonology, 93-152. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Disner, Sandra. 1984. Insights on vowel spacing. In Ian Maddieson (ed.), Patterns of Sound. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dyen, Isidore. 1965. Formosan evidence for some new Proto-Austronesian phonemes. Lingua 14: 285-305.
Finley, Sara. 2006. Locality and lexically indexed constraints in vowel harmony. Handout of a talk presented at OCP 3, Budapest.
Fukazawa H. 1999. Theoretical implications of OCP effects on features in Optimality Theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park. ROA-307.
Hammond, Michael. 1997. Vowel quantity and syllabification in English. Language 73: 1-17.
Harrison, K. David and Abigail Kaun. 2001. Patterns, pervasive patterns and feature specification. In T. Alan Hall (ed.), Distinctive Feature Theory, 211-236. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hayes, Bruce and May Abad. 1989. Reduplication and syllabification in Ilokano. Lingua 77: 331-374.
Hayes, Bruce and Zsuzsa Londe. 2006. Stochastic phonological knowledge: the case of Hungarian vowel harmony. Phonology 23: 59-104.
Ho, Da-an and Siu-fang Yang. 2000. Austronesian Languages and Formosan Languages. In The Austronesian Language Series. Taipei: Yuan-liu.
van der Hulst, Harry and Jereon van de Weijer. 1995. Vowel Harmony. In J. Goldsmith (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 495-534. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Inkelas, Sharon. 1995. The consequences of optimization for underspecification. NELS 25: 287-302.
________. 1998. The theoretical status of morphologically conditioned phonology: a case study from dominance. In Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1997, 121-155. Amsterdam: Springer.
Inkelas, Sharon and Cheryl Zoll. 2007. Is grammar dependence real? A comparison between cophonological and indexed constraint approaches to morphologically conditioned phonology. Linguistics 45-1: 133-171.
Ito��, Junko. 1986. Syllable theory in prosodic phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Massacusetts.
Ito��, J. and A. Mester. 1998. Markedness and Word Structure: OCP Effects in Japanese. Ms., University of California, Santa Cruz. ROA-255.
________. 2001. Covert generalizations in Optimality Theory: the role of stratal faithfulness constraints. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology, and Morphology 7: 273-299.
Kager, Rene. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kaun, Abigail R. 2004. The typology of rounding harmony. In. Bruce Hayes, Robert Kirchner, and Donca Steriade (eds.), Phonetically-based Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kiparsky, Paul and Karl Pajusalu. 2003. Towards a typology of disharmony. Linguistics Review 20: 217-241.
Kirchner, R. 1995. Going the distance: synchronic chain shifts in Optimality Theory. Ms., Rutgers Optimality Archive.
________. 1996. Synchronic chain shifts in Optimality Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 27:341–350.
Krämer, Martin. 1998. A correspondence approach to vowel harmony and disharmony. SFB 282 Working Paper Nr. 107. Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf.
________. 2001. Yucatec Maya vowel alternations—Harmony as syntagmatic identity. Zeischirift für Sprachwissenschaft 20.2: 175-217.
________. 2003. Vowel Harmony and Correspondence Theory. Berlin etc.: Mouton de Gruyter.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1978. A comparative vocabulary of Saisiyat dialects. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Phonology 49.2: 133-199.
________. 1997. The history and interaction of plain tribes in Taiwan (in Chinese). Taipei: Chang-ming Culture Company.
________. 2000. Formosan languages: the state of the art. In Blundell (ed.). Austronesian Taiwan: Linguistics, History, Ethnology, Prehistory:45-67.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei, and Shigeru Tsuchida. 2001. Pazih Dictionary. Language and Linguistic Monograph Series No. A2. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.
Lu, Anne Y. 2005. Mayrinax phonology: with special reference to um affixation. MA Thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan.
Lubowicz, A. 2002. Derived environment effects in Optimality Theory. Lingua 112: 243–280.
Marotta, Giovanna and Leonardo M. Savoia. 1994. Vowel properties and nuclear constituents: evidence from Italian dialects. Probus 6: 43-79.
McCarthy, John. 1995. Extensions of faithfulness: Rotuman revisited. ROA-110.
McCarthy, John and Alan Prince. 1993a. Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms., Rutgers University, New Brunswick and University of Colorado, Boulder.
________. 1993b. Generalized alignment. In G. E. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1993: 79-153. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
________. 1994. The emergence of the unmarked: optimality in prosodic morphology. NELS 24: 333-379. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
________. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman et al. (eds.). University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: 249-384.
________. 1999. Faithfulness and identity in prosodic morphology. ROA-216
Moreton, Elliott, and Paul Smolensky. 2002. Typological consequences of local constraint conjunction WCCFL 21 Proceedings, ed. L. Mikkelsen and C. Potts, Cambridge, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Orgun, Cemil Orhan. 1996. Sign-based morphology and phonology: with special attention to Optimality Theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Orgun, Cemil Orhan and Ronald L. Sprouse. 1999. From MParse to control: deriving ungrammaticality. Phonology 16: 191-224.
Pater, Joe. 2000. Nonuniformity in English stress: the role of ranked and lexically specific constraints. Phonology 17: 237--274.
________. To appear. Morpheme-specific phonology: constraint indexation and inconsistency resolution. In Steve Parker, (ed.) Phonological Argumentation: Essays on Evidence and Motivation. London: Equinox.
Prince, Alan. 1990. Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization. In Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology, eds. M. Ziolkowski, M. Noske and K. Deaton, 355-398. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. ROA-537.
Ross, Malcom D. 1995. Reconstructing Proto Austronesian verbal morphology: evidence from Taiwan. Papers from the International Symposium on Austronesian Studies Relating to Taiwan. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Sherer, Tim. 1994. Prosodic phonotactics. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. ROA-54.
Smolensky, P. 1993. Harmony, markedness, and phonological activity. Paper presented at Rutgers Optimality Workshop 1.
________. 1995. On the structure of Con, the constraint component of UG. Handout of talk at UCLA, April 7. ROA-86.
Starosta, Stanley. 1995. A Grammar Subgrouping of Formosan Languages. In Paul J-K. Li, Dah-an Ho, Yink-kuei Huang, Cheng-hwa Tsang, and Chiu-yu Tseng (eds.) Papers from the International Symposium on Austronesian Studies Relating to Taiwan, 683-726. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Tosun, Gulsat. 1999. Vowel Harmony in Turkish and Turkmen. Harvard On-line Papers Phonlogy. http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~lingpub/online/online_phonology.html
Tsuchida, Shigeru. 1964. Preliminary reports on Saisiyat: Phonology. Gengo Kenkyuu (Journal of the Linguistic Society of Japan) 46: 42-52.
Vijver, Ruben van de. 1998. The iambic issue: iambic as a result of constraint interaction. HIL dissertations 37. Leiden: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics
Yang, Hsiu-fang. 1976. The phonological structure of the Paran dialect of Seediq. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 47.4: 611-706.
Yeh, Marie M. 1991. Saisiyat Structure. MA Thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan.
________. 2000. A Reference Grammar of Saisiyat (in Chinese). In The Austronesian Language Series. Taipei: Yuan-liu.
________. 2003. A Syntactic and Semantic Study of Saisiyat Verbs. Ph.D. Dissertation, National Taiwan Normal University.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2002. Book Review: Pazih Dictionary. Language and Linguistics 3.2: 481-490.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth & Chen-huei Wu. 2005 Saisiyat Reduplication Revisited. Concentric 312: 31-56.