Yoshi:
> And:
>
> Correction:
> > > 4. %video "camera - > "video %camera
> >
> > For me, anything but "video camera and "video cassette sounds
> > really weird. %radio "telescope sounds okay, though.
> For 4, it is my careless typing error.
> 1."music box -> weird
> 2."radio car -> weird
> 3. %radio "telescope -> OK
> 4. "video %camera -> OK
> 5. %video cas"sette -> weird
> 6. "video game -> weird
> (Source: LPD 2nd)
>
> Am I right to say what you mean by weird is not wrong?
by "anything but" I mean "any stress pattern other than".
My judgements are:
1."music box -> normal
2."radio car -> normal
3. %radio "telescope -> normal (suprisingly?)
4. "video %camera -> normal
5. %video cas"sette -> weird
6. "video game -> normal
> > > In WG, do we have strong reason(s) why 'kettle' has to have a nucleus
> > > though syntactic head is not kettle?
> > > Expression and/or concept, broad focus, belongs to a cognitive phase.
> > > Phonology itself cannot decide the accent placement
> > > without considering semantics and/or syntax.
> > > In other words, phonology has to be provided
> > > with some kind of information
> > > to make words accented.
> >
> > I'm not sure what your point or question is. Tonality and tonicity
> > (i.e. boundary and nucleus placement) are constrained by syntax/semantics,
> > but there doesn't seem to be any reason to think that there has to
> > be a homomorphism between prosody and syntax, such X is prosodic
> > head of Y, X' is syntactic head of Y'.
> I agree. What I meant was that intonational phenomena
> should not be investigated without referring to non-phonological elements.
> If there is no one-to-one direct correspondence between syntactic heads and
> phonological heads,
> there should be some mechanism(s)
> between phonology and non-phonology (syntax, semantics and pragmatics).
> Otherwise, we have to say that hearing sentences aurally
> does not guarantee we understand sentences.
I doubt that anyone would disagree with this.
--And.
|