25.3411, Calls: Phonetics, Phonology/Germany
The LINGUIST List
linguist at linguistlist.org
Fri Aug 29 17:00:48 UTC 2014
LINGUIST List: Vol-25-3411. Fri Aug 29 2014. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.
Subject: 25.3411, Calls: Phonetics, Phonology/Germany
Moderators: Damir Cavar, Indiana U <damir at linguistlist.org>
Malgorzata E. Cavar, Indiana U <gosia at linguistlist.org>
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org
Anthony Aristar <aristar at linguistlist.org>
Helen Aristar-Dry <hdry at linguistlist.org>
Mateja Schuck, U of Wisconsin Madison
Do you want to donate to LINGUIST without spending an extra penny? Bookmark
the Amazon link for your country below; then use it whenever you buy from
For more information on the LINGUIST Amazon store please visit our
FAQ at http://linguistlist.org/amazon-faq.cfm.
Editor for this issue: Anna White <awhite at linguistlist.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 13:00:36
From: Marzena Zygis [zygis at zas.gwz-berlin.de]
Subject: Strong Versus Weak Prosodic Positions: Possible Variation and Relevance for Grammar
E-mail this message to a friend:
Full Title: Strong Versus Weak Prosodic Positions: Possible Variation and Relevance for Grammar
Short Title: Prosodic Positions
Date: 04-Mar-2015 - 06-Mar-2015
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact Person: Marzena Zygis
Meeting Email: prosodic_positions_AG1 at zas.gwz-berlin.de
Web Site: http://conference.uni-leipzig.de/dgfs2015/index.php?id=8&L=1
Linguistic Field(s): Phonetics; Phonology
Call Deadline: 31-Aug-2014
The workshop is part of the 37th annual conference of the German Linguistics Society (DGfS) which will take place at the University of Leipzig from March 4-6, 2015.
Renate Raffelsiefen (IDS Mannheim/FU Berlin) & Marzena Żygis (ZAS Berlin/HU
Both phoneticians and phonologists have found reason to distinguish 'strong' and 'weak' positions referring to constituents of the prosodic hierarchy, including higher constituents, whose boundaries align with morphosyntactic boundaries, as well as lower constituents such as foot and syllable. Strength is commonly associated with initial positions and with stress whereas weakness is associated with non-prominent positions. Reference to strong versus weak positions has been invoked in articulatory phonetics (target overshoot, i.e. enhancement of the duration and/or magnitude of articulatory gestures, in strong positions versus target undershoot in weak position) as well as auditory phonetics (lower rate of misperception in strong positions versus higher rate in weak position). It has also been invoked to account for potential contrast, more distinctiveness being associated with strong positions (cf. the notions of 'positional faithfulness' and 'positional markedness' in Optimality Theory). Although reference to 'strong' versus 'weak' positions appears to be universally grounded in prominence and although it seems to be taken for granted that positions considered strong for the purpose of one area of phonetics or phonology implies strength for the purpose of others there is evidence for disparity. For instance, the word-initial position is associated with strong potential contrast by Beckman (1998), whereas Trubezkoy links both margin positions of words to low contrastiveness (e.g. neutralization of the voicing contrast for all consonants in word-initial position in Erza-Mordwin, Trubetzkoy 1958: 212ff). Similarly, the word-initial position is associated with target overshoot (e.g. aspiration of voiceless plosives) in English or German, but also exhibits fewer contrasts in fricatives than for instance the foot-internal position. The latter nonetheless exhibits target undershoot (flapping in American English).
Rachel Walker, University of Southern California, USA
Yi Xu, University College London, UK
2nd Call for Papers:
In view of these discrepancies, the workshop will provide a forum for phonologists and phoneticians to discuss associations between segmental phenomena and prosodic positions from a cross-linguistic point of view, focusing on questions like:
- Which prosodic positions need to be distinguished in terms of weakness versus strength to account for what sort of phenomenon (enhancement of articulatory gestures, perceptual discriminability, potential contrast).
- To what extent do these phenomena overlap?
- Is there evidence that weak versus strong positions could be language-specific?
- What are the implications for the modeling of grammar, e.g. is there a need to distinguish a phonemic level (contrast) from phonetics, the latter modeled as implementation?
We invite papers focusing on the phenomena listed above as well as related issues.
Please submit anonymous abstracts of max. 400 words excluding references (preferably as txt or tex files) via Easy Chair:
Paper notification: September 8, 2014
Camera ready abstracts: November 15, 2014
LINGUIST List: Vol-25-3411
More information about the Linguist