L212 Firthian Prosodic Analysis.
Lecture 6.
Congruence of levels.
In this lecture, we will look at how phonology relates to other levels of statement. I will argue that phonology serves a ‘bridge’ between phonetics and other levels.
Why is it phonology
Given three levels (where the third is “grammar”, and contains syntax, lexis, morphology, etc.), there are two possible models:

B is proposed by Firth (1957: 15):
The phonetic description of exponents which may be cumulative or discontinuous or both, should provide a direct justification of the analysis. It may happen that the exponents of some phonological categories may serve also for syntactical categories. But the exponents of many grammatical categories may require ad hoc or direct phonetic description.
Objections: • It implies that there could be no linguistic connection between the phonetic exponents of eg. plural marker noun as in “dogs” and singular verb marker as in “growls”. Yet there are similarities: obviously phonetic similarities; and phonological similarities (eg. all the inflexions of English are alveolar, except—perhaps!—for “ing”). • What would the constraints be? Would we predict that different parts of the grammar were described by totally different phonological structures and categories? How would “reusability” come into this? • What is exponency about under this model?
Reasons to prefer model A: • it relates phonology and phonetics; exponency is a relation between two levels of statement; phonetic exponents are exponents in substance, while phonology can be the exponent of grammar. • Sound changes probably have a more satisfactory explanation in terms of phonology than grammar. • This model provides a non-arbitrary account of how phonic substance is related to linguistic form.
Conclusion: phonology has phono in it because it is the component of the language system that connects the formal, abstract categories of linguistics via statements of phonetic exponency, to the real world of articulations and noises.
Some of the uses of congruence of levels
Prosodic analyses are generally made on the basis of relating sounds to grammar. That is, they take account of things related to grammatical categories, such as: inflexional systems (singular vs. plural; different tenses of the same verb; suffixes marking case), lexical systems (eg. nouns vs. verbs, function words vs. lexical items).
Some examples of statements at congruent levels.
Eileen Whitley’s Irish material:
´n kJaun bJog	´)-P-yhP—wN-P-yP—wP	Nom. sg.
´n xJi˘NJ vJigJ	´))-H-yhP—yN-H-yP—yP	Gen. sg.
n´ kJi˘NJ vJog´	n´-P-yhP—yN-H-yP—wP´	Nom. pl.
n´ gJaun mJog	n´-N-yhP—wN-N-yP—wP	Gen. pl.
1.	The alternances in the phonetics are associated with grammatical categories. So the ‘clear’ endings are regularly associated with the genitive.
2.	Some other alternances occur at junctions; and they are also associated with the grammar: so plosivity vs. nasality vs. frication are determined grammatically, while place of articulation and initial clearness or darkness are constant properties of word (lexical item). Note that the prosodies now handle what changes, while the phonematic units handle the constant properties (in the phonetics!) of the lexical items.
By taking the grammar into account, Whitley allows the analysis to state what is grammatical (in this case, syntactic or morphological) and what is lexical.
Carnochan (1957): Gemination in Hausa:
The analysis starts off by considering various forms of the verbal noun forms of Hausa. The terms set up (g, r, w, y, ´  etc.) are then re-used for another dialect, and then in other grammatical structures; the exponents differ slightly.
g’ in verbal noun forms	g’ in intensive forms	
long duration of consonant which is the exponent of r; tenseness of this articulation.	Short duration of the exponent of ´, long duration of exponent of C1.	
Carnochan makes efficient use of a small number of categories: they get reused in different grammatical structures; they have similar phonetic exponents in all structures; but they have slightly different exponents in different structures.
In this paper, the phonological structures represent grammatical structures; ie. the phonology is the exponent of the lexicon, as well as providing information about how items from the lexicon and morphemes are put together. Thus there is a unified account. The variability observed in relation to the grammar is accounted for by the principle of structural interpretation.
How we might apply this to English
In English phonology it is common to posit two levels of lexical rule: level 1, which is roughly ‘Latinate’, and level 2, which is roughly ‘Germanic’. Reasons: different phonological processes apply, eg. level 1 suffixation changes stress, level 2 suffixation doesn’t:
level 1: 	futile	futility
level 2: 	waste	wasteful
Let’s keep this (because it is essentially polysystemic!).
We could compare ways of joining words:
palace	palatial
artifice	artificial
residence	residential
relate	relation
rebel	rebellion
infuse	infusion
The items on the right are ‘palatalised’. We could set up a stem that goes CVC, a suffix of the form VC, and a junction prosody y, which would handle [S Z i]; and perhaps also [tS dZ] in words like question and religion. Note also that stress falls on the syllable before y.
Thematic vowels
Note that in certain verbal roots, the presence and quality of a particular vowel is predictable:
define	definition
acquire	acquisition
revolve	revolution
solve	solution
delete	deletion
reveal	revelation
intone	intonation
The one spelt <a> is the productive one, because it is used in Germanic items:
wash	washable	*washuble
(but solve, soluble).
Other verbs have no thematic vowel:
relate	relation
infuse	infusion
Choices in the analysis:
1.	We could say we have different conjugations (ie. arbitrary inflexional classes) of verb stem. The theme vowel is then the exponent of a syllabic, since there is no phonological contrast: the contrast is in the conjugation. So revolution has a stem 1(CVC)´ and acquisition has a stem 2(CVC)´. The difference in the quality of ´ is explained by the inflexional class.
2.	We could say that there are different conjugations with a characteristic syllabic. This would give us, eg. CVCw for revolution and CVCy for acquisition. And for words like relate, just CVC.
3.	We could say that the vowel quality is a part of the phonology of the stem, and determines the conjugation of the stem. So revolution will have a stem like CVCU and acquisition one like CVCI. In some circumstances, these final stem vowels will have null exponents.
What makes one choice better than another?
• Could be the analysis which is most congruent with the grammar.
• Could be the analysis with the fewest phonological terms
• Could be the analysis with the simplest phonetic exponents
• Could be the analysis which uses the categories used somewhere else
• Could be the analysis with the smallest number of systems
…etc etc etc.