Distinguishing Prosodic Word and Phonological Word in Warlpiri: Prosodic Constituency in Morphologically Complex Words

Observations that the phonological word in Warlpiri does not map onto a single constituent in prosodic structure leads us to posit a three-way distinction between prosodic word (PWd), phonological word (PhonWd) and phonological phrase (PPh) in order to account for prosodic constituency in morphologically complex words. We will present evidence that stress is assigned at the level of the PWd, while accent is assigned at the level of the PPh. The PhonWd is the domain for the application of non-prosodic rules governing the distribution of articulatory gestures, e.g. regressive vowel harmony and suffixal allomorphy. Physical correlates of both stress and accent will be discussed. Nash (1986) defines the phonological word in Warlpiri as the domain of stress, vowel harmony and suffixal allomorphy; however, evidence of mismatches between the domains relevant for the application of stress, vowel harmony rules and case allomorphy in complex structures suggests that the PhonWd is distinct from both the PWd and the PPh. For example, regressive vowel harmony triggered by the PAST suffix /-rnu/ is blocked at the boundary between the preverb and verb in the string /pirri-kuju-rnu/ ‘scatter-throw-PAST’, which is defined by Nash (1986) as a single stress domain, thus indicating that the stress and vowel harmony domains are distinct. On the other hand, the nominal compound /wati-wiri-rli/ (lit. man-big-ERG) ‘big group of men’, while exhibiting the same stress pattern as the verbal compound /pirri-kujurnu/, is also the domain which determines suffixal allomorphy: compare with /wati wiri-ngki/ (lit. man big-ERG)‘a big man’. In the compound /wati-wiri-rli/ the morphemes /wati/ and /wiri/ are both PWds, and the compound itself is a PhonWd. In the phrase /wati wiri-ngki/, however, both constituent PWds are distinct PhonWds which combine to create a PPh. Furthermore, complex verbs may contain a consonant-final preverb which does not qualify as a PhonWd (no final vowel), although it does satisfy the requirements to qualify as a PWd (it contains a minimum of two moras or vowels), e.g. /jaarl-kujurnu/ ‘in the way throw-PAST’. While the inflected verb /kujurnu/ constitutes both a PWd and a PhonWd (representing the stress domain and vowel harmony domain respectively), the preverbs /pirri/ and /jaarl/ only constitute PWds which combine with the inflected verb to create a PPh

Against Taking Linguistic Diversity at "Face Value"

Evans & Levinson (E&L)advocate taking linguistic diversity at "face value". Their argument consists of a list of diverse phenomena, and the assertion that no non-vacuous theory could possibly uncover a meaningful unity underlying them. I argue, with evidence from Tlingit and Warlpiri, that E&L's list itself should not be taken at face value — and that the actual research record already demonstrates unity amidst diversity

Papers in Australian linguistics No. 15 : Australian Aboriginal lexicography

The past f if teen years have seen major developments in the description and analysis of Australian Aboriginal languages. A large number of descriptive grammars have been published (see Walsh (1979: 8-10) for a partial listing) and several theoretical topics have been discussed in detail, for example , casemarking and ergativity (see papers in Topic B and Topic D of Dixon 1 976, Dixon 1979, Blake 1977 and Silverstein 1981). In addition, some excellent surveys of the f ield have appeared: Blake 1 981, Dixon 1 980 , Yallop 1 982. During this time , lexicography and dictionary production has lagged behind the s tudy of phonological and grammatical issues. In a seminal article on lexicography in Aboriginal Australia , O'Grady 197 1 discussed and evaluated work completed and research in progress for the period 1 780 to 1 968. In an appendix, he gave a summary listing of forty-nine unpublished dictionaries representing thirty-nine different Austral ian languages . A mere four of those have been published in the intervening fif teen years. Admittedly , several vocabularies and d ictionaries not known to O' Grady have appeared recently (for example Coate and Elkin 1975, Hansen and Hansen 1977 and Heath 1982 ) , however , the number of published dictionaries is small compared to the number of available grammars . In addition, no dictionary of an Aus tralian language published to date could be describ�d as truly comprehensive (cf. La ughlin 1 975 or Young and Morgan 1980 for indigenous languages elsewhere in the world ). This situation is set to change in the near future. There are a number of projects currently underway which will see the preparation and publication over the next few years of large comprehensive bilingual dictionaries for a range of Australian languages. Several scholars working on dictionary projects were present at the annual conference of the Australian Linguistic Society held at the Australian National University in 1981. In informal discussions I raised the idea of our getting together to exchange ideas and share experiences . To this end I convened a workshop on Australian Aboriginal lexicography which was held in conjuction with the ALS annual conference at the Univers ity of Sydney in August 1982. Eight papers were presented at the workshop which was attended by thirty-five linguists , many of whom had begun or were about to begin dictionary preparation. All the presentations , with the exception of one by R.M.W. Dixon on the Dyirbal dictionary-thesaurus , were written up and appear in this volume

Sustaining Canadian Marine Biodiversity: Policy and Statutory Progress

A 2012 Expert Panel Report on marine biodiversity by the Royal Society of Canada (RSC) concluded that Canada faced significant challenges in achieving sustainable fisheries, regulating aquacul- ture, and accounting for climate change. Relative to many countries, progress by Canada in fulfilling international obligations to sustain biodiversity was deemed poor. To track progress by Canada since 2012, the RSC struck a committee to track policy and statutory developments on matters pertaining to marine biodiversity and to identify policy challenges, and leading options for implementation that lie ahead. The report by the Policy Briefing Committee is presented here. It concluded that Canada has made moderate to good progress in some areas, such as prioritization of oceans stewardship and strengthening of the evidentiary use of science in decision-making. Key statutes were strengthened through amendments, including requirements to rebuild depleted fisheries (Fisheries Act) and new means of creating marine protected areas (Oceans Act) that allowed Canada to exceed its international obligation to protect 10% of coastal and marine areas by 2020. Public release of mandate letters has strengthened ministerial accountability. However, little or no progress has been made in reducing regulatory conflict with Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), decreasing ministerial discretion under the Fisheries Act, clarifying the role of science in sustainable fisheries policy, and accounting for climate change. Five future policy challenges are identified: (1) Ensure climate change impacts and projections are incorporated into ocean-related decision making and planning processes; (2) Resolve DFO’s regulatory conflict to conserve and exploit biodiversity; (3) Limit ministerial discretionary power in fisheries management decisions; (4) Clarify ambiguities in how the Precautionary Approach is applied in sustainable fisheries policy; and (5) Advance and implement marine spatial planning. Since 2012, there has been progress in recover- ing and sustaining the health of Canada’s oceans. Failure to further strengthen biodiversity conservation threatens the capacity of Canada’s oceans to provide ecosystem services that contribute to the resilience of marine life and the well-being of humankind. Unprecedented and enduring changes in the ocean caused by climate change have made the achievement of meaningful progress all the more urgent