Epenthetic Vowel Harmony in Farsi

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles

Epenthetic Vowel Harmony in Farsi

A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in Linguistics

by

Shabnam Shademan 2002

Table of Contents

0. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................1 1. FARSI.........................................................................................................................2 2. THE EPENTHETIC VOWEL.................................................................................5 2.1 NOVEL FORMS ........................................................................................................7 3. ANALYSIS ..............................................................................................................14 3.1 SELECTING /E/ AS THE EPENTHETIC VOWEL ..........................................................15 3.2 FEATURE SPREADING AND BLOCKING BY CONSONANTS .......................................17 3.3 SPREADING OF [+ FRONT].....................................................................................19 3.4 SPREADING OF ROUND VOWELS............................................................................24 3.4.1 Consonant duration .....................................................................................24 3.4.2 Formalizing duration-based constraints......................................................25 3.4.3 Degree of rounding ......................................................................................29 Spreading of round vowels across [0DUR]:.......................................................30 Spreading of round rowels across [1 DUR]:.......................................................33 Spreading of round vowels across [2DUR]:.......................................................35 3.5 SPREADING OF OTHER FEATURES .........................................................................44 3.6 SPREADING AND EPENTHESIS – A COMBINED STRATEGY.......................................45 4. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSES OF COPY EPENTHESIS..................................49 4.1 CORRESPONDENCE THEORY .................................................................................50 4.2 PLACE AND STRICTURE – THE DETERMINING FACTORS .........................................51 5. DISCUSSION ..........................................................................................................52 REFERENCES............................................................................................................56

Table of Tables TABLE 1.1 – IO-CONTIGUITY-SC >> ANCHOR-L >> IO-CONTIGUITY ..............................................5 TABLE 2.1 – THE LIST OF STIMULI AND PARTICIPANTS’ RESPONSES ..................................................8 TABLE 2.2 – GENERALIZATION OF THE PARTICIPANTS’ RESPONSES ...........................................14 TABLE 3.1 - DEP (MF) >> DEP (UF) .......................................................................................16 TABLE 3.2 – *C-LOW >> DEP (UF).........................................................................................19 TABLE 3.3 – *NCOR-FRONT >> DEP (UF) ...............................................................................21 TABLE 3.4 - *NCOR-FRONT >> DEP (UF) ................................................................................22 TABLE 3.5 - *1DUR-LOW >> DEP (UF) >> *0DUR-LOW ..............................................................28 TABLE 3.6 – DEP (UF) >> *0DUR-1RD ....................................................................................31 TABLE 3.7 – DEP (UF) >> *0DUR-2RD ....................................................................................32 TABLE 3.8 - *1DUR-1RD >> DEP (UF) .....................................................................................34 TABLE 3.9 - *1DUR-1RD >> DEP (UF) >> *1DUR-2RD ................................................................34 TABLE 3.10 – *2DUR-1RD >> DEP (UF) ..................................................................................36 TABLE 3.11 – DEP (UF) >> *2DUR-2RD ..................................................................................37 TABLE 3.12 – *2DUR-2RD & *NLAB-2RD >> DEP (UF) >> *1DUR-2RD .........................................38 TABLE 3.13 - *2DUR-2RD & *NLAB-2RD >> DEP (UF) >> *1DUR-2RD ..........................................39 TABLE 3.14 – *NLAB-2RD >> DEP (UF) >> *1DUR-2RD .............................................................41 TABLE 3.15 – *NLAB-2RD >> DEP (UF) >> *1DUR-2RD .............................................................42 TABLE 3.16 – *2DUR-2RD & *NLAB-2RD >> DEP (UF) >> *1DUR-2RD, *NLAB-2RD........................42 TABLE 3.17 – DEP (UF) >> *C-HI ..........................................................................................44 TABLE 3.18 - DEP (MF) >> 1DUR-1RD >> DEP (UF) ..................................................................46 TABLE 3.19 – SP-ALL >> DEP(UF) .........................................................................................48

0. Introduction Loanwords are often modified to conform to the phonological patterns of the native language. Some of these changes include phoneme substitution, stress adjustment, and epenthesis. With respect to epenthesis, there are languages that epenthesize a copy vowel (e.g., /tri/→/tiri/), as well as languages that epenthesize an invariant vowel (e.g., /tri/→/tri/). However, there are also languages that show a split between copy and default epenthesis. This split is often contextually conditioned. This paper examines a case of split epenthesis in Farsi and offers an analysis within the framework of Optimality Theory. This theory employs a notion of constraint dominance and a mechanism for selecting the optimal output with respect to a set of ranked constraints (for a detailed understanding of the theory, see Prince & Smolensky 1993). Epenthesis in Farsi arises in loanwords. Since no word in Farsi may begin with two consonants, initial consonant clusters in loanwords are broken up by vowel epenthesis. Sometimes /e/ is inserted (e.g., ‘Florida’ → [feloida]), and sometimes the inserted vowel is a copy of the following vowel (e.g., the French borrowing bross ‘brush’→ [boos]). I will propose that the cases of copying are the result of the vocalic features spreading from one vowel to another. The data exhibit a case of consonant participation in the spreading of vocalic features. If a consonant’s features are compatible with the vocalic features that are spreading (in a sense to be explained below), the inserted vowel is a copy of the

1

following vowel (i.e., the vowels share their features). When a consonant’s features are not compatible with the feature(s) being spread, the default vowel /e/ is inserted. I will argue that there are three main factors that predict the compatibility, with respect to spreading, of the consonant’s features with the vowel’s features. First, this compatibility depends on the consonant’s place of articulation and the vocalic features that are spreading (e.g., labial obstruents and round vowels are compatible, whereas non-labial obstruents are not compatible with round vowels). Second, the rounded vowels must be distinguished from each other based on their degree of rounding. Third, a consonant’s participation in the spreading is influenced by its duration. This paper is organized as follows. In the next section, section 1, I will offer some background on Farsi. In section 2, I will discuss the existing epenthesis pattern in loanwords, as well as data elicited from native speakers on novel forms, in order to test epenthesis patterns. The analysis is given in section 3. Finally, in section 4, I will compare my account with other proposed analyses, followed by a general discussion in section 5. 1. Farsi Farsi has a six-vowel system, with three lax vowels (/e/, /æ/, /o/) and three tense vowels (/i/, /u/, //). The distinction between the two sets of vowels is sometimes assumed to be a difference in length, so that lax vowels are short and tense vowels are long (Comrie 526). /æ/ is rarely borrowed; instead, /æ/ in foreign words

2

surfaces as // (e.g., “pass” is borrowed as [ps] and not as [pæs]). The other vowels in the inventory do appear regularly in loanwords. Complex codas are common in Farsi. Some examples are: xætm qæb qætl sobh

(1)

‘end/funeral’ ‘grave’ ‘murder’ ‘morning’

On the other hand, complex onsets are absent. Indeed, the absence of complex onsets is the motivation for vowel epenthesis in loanwords; inserting a vowel breaks up the initial consonant cluster. Some examples are given in (2): ski → [eski] Florida → [feloida] plastic → [pelstik] bross (Fr.)→ [boos] freezer → [fiize] blouse (Fr.)→ [buluz]

(2)

There are two issues to be addressed with respect to the epenthesis observed in forms such as above. The first issue is to determine the location of the epenthetic vowel. This means predicting whether a [CCV] sequence results in [eCCV] (e.g., /ski/→[eski]), or results in [CeCV] (e.g. /florida/→[feloid]. The patterns observed are as follows: Prothesis - The clusters involved in prothesis are /s/+consonant (SC) clusters. In these cases, it is consistently observed that the epenthetic vowel is located before the /s/:

3

(3)

SC clusters /slv/ ’Slav’ → [eslv], *[selv] /spot/ ‘sport’ → [espot], *[sepot] /stejk/ ’steak’ → [estejk], *[setejk] /stop/ ‘stop/ → [estop], *[setop] Anaptyxis – In all other clusters the vowel is anaptyctic; the epenthetic vowel is

located between the two members of the cluster: (4)

Non-SC clusters /tfik/ ’traffic’ →[tefik], *[etfik] /kom/ ‘chrome’ → [koom], *[okom], *[ekom] /pes/ ‘press’ → [pees], *[epres] /plstik/ ’plastic’ → [pelstik], *[eplstik] There is cross-linguistic evidence for associating anaptyxis-prothesis

asymmetries with the nature of the consonants involved in the process. In fact, it has been suggested that the reason for the existence of such asymmetries is to maximize auditory similarity between the input and the output (Fleischhacker 1999). In an Optimality theoretic analysis, one option for predicting the location of the epenthetic vowel is to specify that IO-CONTIGUITY (McCarthy & Prince 1995) must be split between SC clusters and the general contiguity constraint. (5)

IO-CONTIGUITY: Segments that are contiguous in the input must be contiguous in the output. (This constraint penalizes cases of wordinternal epenthesis and deletion.)

4

(6)

IO-CONTIGUITY-SC: Sibilants that are adjacent to a consonant, C1, in the input must be adjacent to C1 in the output.

Furthermore, the more general IO-CONTIGUITY is outranked by ANCHOR-L, as defined below: (7)

ANCHOR-L: a segment C1 at the left edge of the input has a correspondent segment C1 at the left edge of the output.

Such a ranking will derive the observed asymmetry, as the following table shows: Table 1.1 – IO-CONTIGUITY-SC >> ANCHOR-L >> IO-CONTIGUITY

/stejk/ ‘steak’ )estejk *setejk

IO-CONTIGUITY-SC

ANCHOR-L

IO-CONTIGUITY

* *!

/tfik/ ‘traffic’ )tefik *etfik

* * *!

However, this paper is not primarily concerned with the location of the epenthetic vowel, but rather the factors and constraints that determine which vowel is epenthesized. 2. The choice of epenthetic vowel The epenthetic vowel is always either /e/, or a copy of the following vowel. The quality of this “copy” vowel, I will claim, is the result of feature spreading from the subsequent vowel. Variation arises because the spreading is blocked in some cases; in these, feature insertion occurs, and the result is /e/.

5

First, all SC clusters have epenthetic /e/, as in (3) above. In non-SC clusters, the second member of the cluster in the existing loanwords is either /l/ or //. In these cases, if the cluster is followed by a high vowel, then there is copy epenthesis. Examples are given in (8): (8)

freezer → [fiize] plisse (Fr.) → [pilise] groupe (Fr.) → [uup] flute → [fulut] If the cluster is followed by a low vowel, then /e/ is inserted (e.g., ‘traffic’

/tfik/→[tefik]; ‘plan’ /pln/→[peln];). If the cluster is followed by a mid vowel, then there is copy epenthesis if the second member is // , and default epenthesis if the second member is /l/. Examples are given in (9) and (10): (9)

//: Copy Epenthesis chrome → [koom] preuve (Fr.) → [poov] bronze (Fr.) → [boonz]

(10)

/l/: Default Epenthesis Florida → [feloid] flottasion (Fr.) → [felotsijon] blonde I(Fr.) → [belond] It must be noted that, in general, words with copy epenthesis typically have

two variants. One variant, containing the default epenthetic vowel /e/, reflects a

6

careful, formal pronunciation. The variant containing the copy epenthetic vowel represents the colloquial, informal speech. The existing loanwords with initial consonant clusters are mainly borrowed from French, English, and Russian. I consulted a large corpus (about 2000 words) of Farsi European loanwords (Muhammad-Khan 1983) and found no exceptions to the mentioned patterns. However, the set of consonant clusters found in existing loanwords is limited. In order to discover any further factors that influence feature spreading in the data, I designed and tested a set of novel forms.

2.1 Novel forms A set of 55 novel forms was designed to include a variety of consonant clusters. The full list is given below in Table 2.1. Four native speakers of Farsi participated in the test. All were residents of Tehran, and their native dialect was the Tehrani dialect. Three of the subjects had studied English as a second language in high school, and all four had been exposed to English in the form of movies, music, and other cultural products. I first elicited the judgments of one of the participants by telephone, and then recruited her to act as my assistant. She tested the other participants in Tehran and reported the results to me. The participants were given examples of existing loanwords (e.g., freezer, traffic), explaining that when these words were pronounced in Farsi they sounded like native words, and not like a foreign word. Participants were presented with a list of written novel words. These forms were presented in Roman type, with which all the participants were familiar. The participants were asked to pronounce the words as if they were to be borrowed into Farsi. Participants were

7

encouraged to try using the words in a sentence and produce the sentence out loud (e.g. ‘I have to go to the pharmacy because I need ptustrophin.’). The list of the visual stimuli and the participants’ responses is provided below in table 2.1. The first column contains the stimuli. I included some existing words, which are marked by (√). The table provided here is alphabetized by the loanword, but the list for the speakers was randomized. Some novel words were associated with a “made-up” meaning in order to help participants use them in a sentence, and those meanings are listed in the second column. The third column contains the responses that participants offered. If an additional response was available (either offered by another participant or suggested by the experimenter and accepted by the participants) it is listed in the fourth column.1 Table 2.1 – The list of stimuli and participants’ responses

Spelling presented to the Participants

Gloss

Given response

Also possible

√ brochure

boou (B) buruu (A,C,D)

buruu2 (B) borou (A,C,D)

√ drink

diink (A,B,C,D)

√ flask

felsk (A,B,C) felks (D)

√ florida

feloid (A,B,C,D)

√ flut

fulut (A,B,C,D)

1

As mentioned earlier, for all the words with copy epenthesis, there is always a formal variant in which /e/ is epenthesized. That form is only specified when it was the form volunteered by a participant. Otherwise, it is left out of the table because it is always accepted as a formal form. 2

This variation might be a result of the influence of Farsi orthography. The vowel following // is written in Farsi and is ambiguous between /o/ and /u/. This means that for some speakers the epenthetic vowel is followed by a mid round vowel, and for some it is followed by a high back vowel, hence the variation in the quality of the epenthetic vowel.

8

freezer

fiize (A,C,D) feize (B)

fize (B)

√ froyd

Freud

foojd (A,C,D) feojd (B)

foojd (B)

√ klineks

Kleenex

kilineks (A,B,C,D)

√ frizer

mijut (A,B,C,D)

√ mute √ plastik

plastic

pelstik (A,B,C,D)

√ prajd

pride

pejd (A,B,C,D) eski (A,B,C,D)

√ ski √ smoking

dinner jacket

esmokin (A,B,C,D)

√ sport

espot (A,B,C,D)

√ standard

estndd (A,B,C,D)

√ switch

suvit (A,C,D) suit (A,B)

√ trafik

traffic

bmaktik

tefik (A,B,C,D) tuvist (A,D) tuist (A,B,C)

√ twist Bulgarian car

beneski (A,B,C,D)

bzinpit

bizinpit (A,B,C) bezinpit (B)

dmuse

dumuze (A,B,C,D)

drup

duup (A,B,C,D)

fsunius

A proper name

fesunijus (A,B,C,D)

ftansie

A philosopher

fetnsi (A,B,C,D)

fzerdi

fezedi (A,B,C,D)

qmildan

qemildn (A,B,C,D)

ktinora

A heroine in ancient Rome

kitino (A,B,C,D)

ktopski

ketopski (A,B,C,D)

kvuski

kovuski (A,B,C) kuvuski (D)

lkimnik

lekimnik (A,B,D) elkimnik (C)

lramik

lemik (A,B,C) lmik (D)

lristiyus

liistijus (A,B,C,D)

lrobto

loobto (A,B,C,D)

lsiknel

Swedish candy

tuvist (B,C) tuist (D)

bemktik (A,B,C,D)

bnesky European city

suvit (B)

lisiknel (A,C,D)

9

kovuski (D) kuvuski (A,B,C)

lesiknel (B) lvampilin

Type of medication

mlandrin

Cereal brand

meboldin (A,B,C,D)

Type of medication

melndiin (A,C,D) melndein (B)

mloztikian

meloztikjn (A,B,C,D)

mronst

meonest (A,B,C,D)

mrust

A philosopher

meust (A,B,C,D) metumi (A,B,C,D)

mtumir mzarsky

A Russian name

mezski (A,B,C,D)

nforons

nefoon (A,B,C,D)

nlestrophine

nelesteofin

nlismits

nilismitz (A,C,D) nelismitz (B)

nlustic

nolustik (A,C,D) nelustik (B)

nmaritin

nemitin (A,B,C,D)

nmisious

nemizijus (A,B,C,D)

ntarisin ntindon

Type of chemical

netisin (A,B,C,D)

Toothpaste brand

nitindon (A,C,D) netindon (B)

psondik

pesondik (A,B,C,D)

ptandiz

petndiz (A,B,C,D)

ptustrofin

Type of medication

nulustik (A,B,C,D)

petusteofin (A,B,C,D)

rlumine

olumine (A,C,D) elumine (B)

rmitidin

Type of medication

emitidin (A,C,D) emetidin (B)

rmostism

Some school of thought emostizm (A,B,C,D) umuspi (A,B,C,D)

rmuspi

* lvmpilin (A,B,C)

levoski (A,B,C,D)

lvoski mboldin

levmpilin (A,B,C) lvmpilin (D)

shnabel

enbel (A,B,C,D)

snoopy

esnupi (A,B,C,D)

sshomis

seomiz (A,B,C,D)

tfanilin

Type of chemical

tefnilin (A,B,C,D)

tfindor

Type of chemical

tefindo (A,B,C,D)

tkulster

A motorcycle brand

tekulste (A,B,C,D)

10

ulumine (A,B,C,D)

tlondik

A cartoon character

telondik (A,B,C,D) tenois (A,B,C,D)

tnoris A car brand

tepois (A,B,C,D)

vmunzig

A German car

vumuzi (B,C,D) vemuzi (A)

vnorditz vunti

A river

venoditz (A,B,C,D)

zrunsken

A Russian village

tporis

uvunti (A,B,C,D) zeunsken (A,B,C,D)

Not all the responses were unanimous; nevertheless, variation was rare. For example, there is only one case, involving // (lramik), in which a response offered by one participant ([lramik]) was rejected by other participants.3 A majority of the variation is due to participant B’s tendency to epenthesize /e/ more frequently than other speakers, and other speakers judging the varied form as stilted. Another case of variation arises in forms in which the initial cluster is followed by /u/. In cases in which spreading is allowed, the epenthetic vowel can sometimes surface as /o/ (specifically, in [kovuski] ~ [kuvuski], [nolustik] ~ [nulustik], and [rolumine] ~ [rulumine]). These cases are plausibly the result of hypercorrection. Colloquial Farsi has a process of height harmony whereby [oCu] sequences surface as [uCu] in casual speech (e.g., /doud/ ‘greeting’ surfaces as colloquial [duud]). This means that speakers are aware of abundant cases of [uCu] which surface as [oCu] in formal pronunciation. It is possible that in an elicitation situation speakers use the more formal form of speech. This is further confirmed by the fact that, in all such cases in 3

This case will be addressed in section 3.4.2 where the constraint in (25) and its implications will be discussed.

11

The patterns depicted above conform to the existing patterns in loanwords that were discussed in section 2. Table 2.2 below captures the generalizations that were observed in participants’ responses. /e/ designates default epenthesis and “copy” refers to copy epenthesis. The cases that are missing from the data are left blank: Table 2.2 – Generalization of the participants’ responses Following Vowel

u

i

o



/e/ /e/

/e/

Cluster

/Cb/ /Cp/ /Ct/ /Cd/ /Ck/ /C/ /Cq/ /Cm/ /Cn/ /Cf/ /Cv/ /Cs/ /C/ /Cz/ /C/ /Cl/ /C/

/e/ /e/ copy

copy /e/ /e/

copy /e/ copy copy

/e/ copy copy copy

/e/ /e/ /e/ /e/ /e/ copy

/e/ /e/ /e/ /e/ /e/

The above table shows the pattern in the data. The analysis offered in the following section makes predictions regarding the blank cells in the table. I am currently planning experiments to that will address these cases. 3. Analysis The basic assumption of this analysis is that a vowel is inserted to break up an illegal consonant cluster. The preferred mechanism by which the epenthetic vowel is realized is feature spreading: this avoids violating faithfulness constraints of the DEP (FEATURE) type. Whenever feature sharing is blocked, the epenthetic vowel is /e/.

14

3.1 Selecting /e/ as the epenthetic vowel Epenthesis of /e/ does not require spreading. When features for a vowel have to be inserted, the least marked vowel is /e/. This suggests that other vowels in the inventory have features that cannot be epenthesized. Examining the vowel inventory of Farsi shows that /e/ is the only vowel that is non-low, non-high, non-round, and non-back. This leads me to posit that the constraints violated by the insertion of these feature values are outranked by the constraints penalizing the insertion of [+LOW], [+HIGH], [-FRONT], and [+ROUND]. For expository simplicity, I will collapse the following four constraints into DEP (MARKED F): 1) DEP (+LOW); 2) DEP (+HI); 3) DEP (+ROUND), and 4) DEP (-FRONT). /e/ is the only vowel that does not violate the constraint below: (12)

DEP (MF): A surface instance of [+LOW], [+HI], [+ROUND], or [FRONT] must have an identical underlying correspondent.

Nevertheless, the insertion of /e/ violates a faithfulness constraint against insertion. The constraints violated by the insertion of /e/ are defined such that they penalize the insertion of the following features: [-LOW], [-HI], [+FRONT], and [-ROUND]. I will collapse the following constraints into DEP (UNMARKED FEATURE): 1) DEP (-LOW); 2) DEP (-HI); 3) DEP (-ROUND), and 4) DEP (+FRONT).

(13)

DEP (UF): A surface instance of [+FRONT], [-ROUND], [-HI], AND [LOW] must have an identical underlying correspondent.

15

The tableau shows how /e/ is preferred to /u/. Other vowels also lose to /e/, since /ι/, /ο/, /Θ/ and /Α/ have 1,2,2, and 3 violations of DEP (MF) respectively. In other words, /e/ is the only vowel that does not violate DEP (MF).

3.2 Feature spreading and blocking by consonants Feature spreading is assumed to apply as is dictated by Articulatory Locality (Gafos 1996), which claims that phonological assimilations respect articulatory contiguity. Therefore, if a feature is to spread from V2 to V1 in V1CV2, it must also link to C: (15)

V1

C

V2

αF The focus of this paper is mainly the phenomenon of V-to-V contiguity. The constraints proposed in the analysis are such that they penalize candidates that have certain autosegmental representations, as illustrated below: * FC – FV: A [+FC] consonant cannot be associated with [+FV] (where

(16)

FC is a consonantal feature and FV is a vocalic feature). *FC X FV Some examples of the constraints of the above type are the following, where FC refers to some feature of a consonant: ‰

* FC–LOW: a [+F] consonant cannot be associated with [+LOW].

17

Table 3.3 – *NCOR-FRONT >> DEP (UF)

*NCOR-FRONT

/lkimnik/ [- LO] [+ HI]

[- HI]

e

)l

[+ FR]

k [- RD]

[-COR]

*l

i

[- LO]

i [+ FR] [- LO]

k

i

[- RD]

DEP (UF)

****

mnik [- RD]

*! [+ HI]

mnik [+ FR]

In table 3.4 below, [kelineks] is marked as the losing candidate, even though it can exist as a formal variant. I have been mainly concerned with the casual variants of loanwords, and will be analyzing the casual form of speech throughout this paper. In order to capture the formal variants of loanwords, I will assume that all constraints against any form of spreading (see (17)) outrank DEP (UF) in the formal style. It appears that only casual variants get lexicalized; as a result, for loanwords that are lexicalized, the formal variant is dispreferred. The constraints and their rankings that shows the participation of the coronal consonant in the spreading of the front vowel are shown in table 3.4.

21

Table 3.4 - *NCOR-FRONT >> DEP (UF)

*NCOR-FRONT

/klineks/

DEP (UF)

[+COR] [-LO]

)k

i

l

i

neks

[-RD] [-LO] [- HI]

*k [+FR]

[+HI]

[+FR]

[-LO] [+HI]

e

l [-RD]

[+FR]

i

*!*** neks [-RD]

A special relationship between the front vowels and coronals has often been observed in cross-linguistic studies. There are cases in which front vowels condition the coronalization of consonants, as well as cases in which coronal consonants condition the fronting of adjacent vowels. In order to establish this relationship as a direct relation between coronals and front vowels, it has been suggested that front vowels are, in fact, coronals (Clements 1991, Hume 1992). In another approach, Paradis and Prunet (1989) propose a model in which coronals lack a place feature node and their place of articulation is not specified. The sources of evidence for this model of coronal transparency comes from phonological systems in which vowel-spreading takes place only across coronals. While the above two models gloss over significant phonetic differences between front vowels and coronals, they aim to establish a direct relationship

22

between them. In order to address these phonetic differences, while still explaining the relationship, Flemming (1995) analyzes the influence of coronals and front vowels on each other as involving both articulatory and auditory factors. The fronting of coronals, when adjacent to front vowels, is partially articulatory because it is easiest to form constrictions with the tip of the tongue closer to the teeth (as in coronals) when the tongue body is also in a forward position (as in front vowels). Also, the relationship is partially auditory because of the effect of the fronted tongue body on F2 transitions.6 While this approach explains the effect of coronals and front vowels, it is not sufficient to account for the Farsi data. If adjacency was the only factor that conditioned the quality of the epenthetic vowel in the Farsi data, we would not expect any differences between the two inputs, /lkimnik/ (→[lekimnik]) and /klineks/ (→[kilineks]), as shown in tables 3.3 and 3.4 above. In both inputs the epenthetic vowel is adjacent to a coronal. However, the quality of the epenthetic vowel in the outputs is different; this must be attributed to the fact that the coronal can participate in the spreading of the front vowel, while the velar cannot, In /klineks/ the coronal intervenes between the front vowel and the epenthetic vowel; therefore, the candidate [kilineks] surfaces because /i/ spreads. On the other hand, in /lkimnik/ the coronal precedes the epenthetic vowel and has no role in spreading. Instead, the velar intervenes between the front vowel and the

6

The fronted tongue body (as in front vowels) results in a higher F2, which maximizes the distinction between coronals and non-coronals. On the other hand, a centralized tongue body lowers F2, which reduces the contrast between coronals and non-coronals.

23

epenthetic vowel – blocking spreading – and the result is the insertion of /e/ and the violation of DEP (UF). The two inputs result in two different outputs, in virtue of having consonants with different place features intervening between the /i/ and the epenthetic vowel.

3.4 Spreading of round vowels The spreading of round vowels is more complicated. This spreading is partially dependant on the duration of the consonant, and partially dependant on the degree of rounding of different vowels. In the two following sections, I will examine the consonant duration and degree of rounding, and will propose their use as a specified feature. 3.4.1 Consonant duration In order to obtain a rough estimate of Farsi consonant durations, I recorded myself7 saying all Farsi consonants in an [æC] environment. I chose those two vowels because the resulting environment included many real words of the language (e.g., [æs] ‘cane’; [æd] ‘gesture’; [æz] ‘sadness’ [æt] ‘wealth’). Stress in Farsi is always word-final; therefore, the effect of stress on all words was the same. Two tokens were recorded for each word.

7

I am a native speaker of the Tehrani dialect of Farsi.

24

The consonants were measured from the offset of the first vowel to the onset of the second vowel.8 The consonants were divided into different groups based on their stricture feature, and an average of their duration was calculated. The table below illustrates the results of that measurement. Segments are organized from the longest to the shortest (duration is given in ms). (20) Affricates 151.8

Fricatives 149.70

Stops 132.85

Longest

Nasals 81.4

Liquid Flap 75.9 22 shortest

A series of t-tests was performed to determine which consonants’ durations are significantly different from each other. The results are shown below: (21) Groups Compared9 stops & fricatives stop/fricative & nasal/liquid nasal/liquid & flap nasals & liquid nasals & flap

Difference in Duration Not significant (p>0.1) Significant (p *1DUR-FV >> *0DUR-FV This ranking is consistent with one type of variation observed with respect to

the spreading of // in table 2.1. The spreading of // across //, even though rare, suggests that it is possible that *0DUR-LOW is ranked lower than DEP (UF), while constraints involving longer consonants, *1DUR-LOW and *2DUR-LOW, outrank DEP (UF). Table 3.5 illustrates this point:

10

This relationship between the duration of the consonant and the amount of overlap of the vocalic feature is dependant on the assumption that every vowel has a durational value that cannot be extended without penalty.

27

Table 3.5 - *1DUR-LOW >> DEP (UF) >> *0DUR-LOW

*1DUR-LOW

/lramik/

DEP(UF)

[0UR] [+LO]

a

)l



e

*l

[-HI]

a

[-LO]

[-HI]

[-HI]

mik

[-FR] [-RD] [+LO]



[+FR] [-RD]

*0DUR-LOW *

a

*!***

mik

[-FR]

[-RD]

/ptandiz/ [-LO]

[+LO]

[-HI]

p

e

t

[+FR] [-RD] [2DUR]

a

a

t

ndiz

[-FR] [-RD] [+LO]

p

****

[-HI]

*! [-HI]

a

ndiz

[-FR] [-RD]

This durational approach makes a further prediction: since the clusters involved in prothesis are all phonetically long, none should allow spreading across them. Clusters that consistently show prothesis are of the [sC] type; therefore, the first member of the cluster is always /s/, which is a [2DUR] segment. In order for spreading to take place, the vocalic features have to spread across one segment in

28

addition to /s/. This type of spreading is blocked without exception, confirming that there is a limit to the time during which an articulatory gesture can be carried. The question that remains unanswered is whether or not the front vowel can spread across an /st/ cluster, since no duration above [2DUR] was examined. Later experimental work will examine this issue more carefully. My own judgments as a native speaker is that [istik] or [estik] both could result from /stik/ ‘stick;’ however, [estik] is preferred. This preference makes this case different than cases in which a single coronal segment intervenes between the epenthetic vowel and the front vowel (such as /lsiknel/ →[lisiknel], where /i/ is preferred). There are other cases in which a feature cannot spread across more than one segment. For example, Smolensky (1997) proposes new constraints to avoid [+ATR] spreading across two consonants in Longo. The observed pattern in Longo is similar to the pattern in Farsi, even though the vocalic feature that is spreading in Longo is absent in Farsi. 3.4.3 Degree of rounding As mentioned earlier, the degree of rounding influences the pattern of spreading observed in the data. It has been observed that vowel height robustly impacts the degree of lip-rounding of a certain vowel, such that high vowels are more rounded than mid vowels (Linker 1982). This difference in the degree of rounding has been cited as an important factor in phonological systems with rounding harmony. Kaun (1995) uses this fact about the association between degree of height and degree

29

of lip-rounding in her constraint UNIFORM [RD], which penalizes the multiple association of [+ROUND] to vowels that are distinct in height because a given articulatory autosegment has a “uniform execution mechanism” during its span of association. Therefore, a single autosegment must achieve a single target configuration. If the vowels that are multiply linked to a [+ROUND] were to be distinct in height, the degree of rounding would not be one single configuration, because high vowels are more rounded than mid vowels. Furthermore, she argues that even though the degree of rounding for vowels of different heights is qualitatively different, because the rounded vowels do form a natural class a single feature [+ROUND] should not be rejected. I argue that in the Farsi data the rounded vowels must likewise be split into two groups in order to capture their different behavior in feature spreading. Furthermore, this difference is captured through specification of their different values with respect to the degree of lip-rounding in each vowel. Therefore, my proposal is that the degree of rounding is specified as a feature, such that /u/ is associated with [2ROUND], and /o/ with [1ROUND]. In the following sections, I will examine their behavior in different contexts. Spreading of round vowels across [0DUR]: First, we will examine cases in which the initial cluster has the flap, //, as its second member. Depending on whether this type of cluster is followed by /u/ or /o/,

30

one of the constraints introduced below is violated if the epenthetic vowel is a copy of the round vowel: (25)

*0DUR-1RD: A [0DUR] consonant cannot be associated with [1 ROUND]. *[0 DUR] [1 ROUND]

(26)

*0DUR-2RD: A [0DUR] consonant cannot be associated with [2 ROUND]. *[0 DUR] [2 ROUND]

In Farsi loanwords, both round vowels spread across the [0DUR] segment, the flap. This means that both of the above constraints are outranked by DEP (UF), as the tables below suggest: Table 3.6 – DEP (UF) >> *0DUR-1RD DEP (UF)

/krom/ [0DUR] [-LO]

)k o

[-HI]

*k

e

[+FR] [-RD]



o

[-HI]

m

[-FR] [1RD] [-LO] [-LO] [-HI]



o

*!*** m

[-FR] [1RD]

31

*0DUR-1RD *

Table 3.7 – DEP (UF) >> *0DUR-2RD

/dup/

DEP (UF)

*0DUR-2RD *

DEP (UF)

*0DUR-2RD

[0DUR] [-LO] [+HI]

)d

u



u

p

[-FR] [2RD]

[-LO] [-HI]

*d

e

[+FR] [-RD]

[-LO] [+HI]



u

*!***

p

[-FR] [2RD]

The above tables might seem to suggest that one constraint *0DUR-RD – simply using [+ROUND] – would suffice for the analysis, which means that we can propose the following constraint without distinguishing the degree of lip-rounding among round vowels: (27)

*0DUR-RD: A [0DUR] consonant cannot be associated with [+ROUND].

However, examination of segments with longer durations, such as [1DUR] (i.e., nasals and the liquid) and [2DUR] (i.e., stops and fricatives), shows that the two vowels, /u/ and /o/, are involved in different types of epenthesis patterns.

32

Spreading of round rowels across [1 DUR]: In this case, two different patterns are observed for initial clusters that are followed by /u/ and the ones that are followed by /o/. Similarly to the discussion of spreading across [0DUR], two constraints are proposed: (28)

*1DUR-1RD: A [1DUR] consonant cannot be associated with [1 ROUND].

*[1 DUR] [1 ROUND]

(29)

*1DUR-2RD: a [1 DUR] consonant cannot be associated with [2 ROUND]. *[1 DUR] [2 ROUND]

I propose that that *1DUR-1RD outranks DEP (UF), which results in default epenthesis in cases like /floid/ (→[feloid]). On the other hand, DEP (UF) outranks *1DUR-2RD, hence, resulting in copy epenthesis in cases like /flut/ (→[fulut]). The tables on the next page illustrate this distinction:

33

Table 3.8 - *1DUR-1RD >> DEP (UF)

*1DUR-1RD

/floid/ [-LO] [-HI]

[-LO] [-HI]

e

)f [+FR]

l

*f o

****

o [-FR]

[-RD] [1DUR]

id

[1RD]

*!

[-LO] [-HI]

l

DEP (UF)

o

id

[-FR] [1RD]

Table 3.9 - *1DUR-1RD >> DEP (UF) >> *1DUR-2RD DEP (UF)

/flut/ [1DUR]

)f

u

*f [+FR]

e

[-RD]

u

[2RD] [-LO] [+HI]

[-LO] [-HI]

*

[-LO] [+HI]

l

l

u [-FR]

*1DUR-2RD

t [-FR]

*!***

t

[2RD]

34

Approaching this from an articulatory basis, the distinction could be understood as follows: the more rounded11 a vowel is, the more likely it is that its liprounding gesture will be carried across a [1DUR] segment. In other words, /u/ spreads better than /o/ across nasals and the liquid. Spreading of round vowels across [2DUR]: As mentioned in section 3.4.1, if *1DUR-F is active, it implies that *2DUR-F is active: *2DUR-FV >> *1DUR-FV >> *0DUR-FV In table 3.8, we established that *1DUR-1RD is active; therefore, the prediction would be that *2DUR-1RD must be active. This means that if the [1ROUND] vowel (i.e., /o/) cannot spread across a [1DUR] segment (i.e., nasals and the liquid), it is implied that it cannot spread across [2DUR] segments (i.e., stops and fricatives) either. Examples like /lvoski/ (→[levoski]) and /psondik/ (→[pesondik]) show that this prediction is correct. The crucial rankings and candidates for *2DUR-1RD >> DEP (UF) are given on the next page:

11

The term “more rounded” is meant to reflect that among round vowels the articulation of high vowels involves a greater degree of labial activity, and that this activity is relatively small for lower vowels. The degree of rounding is defined by the values of both horizontal opening and vertical opening (lip protrusion) of the mouth (Linker 1982).

35

Table 3.10 – *2DUR-1RD >> DEP (UF)

*2DUR-1RD

/lvoski/ [-LO] [-HI]

)l

e

[-LO] [-HI]

v

[+FR] [-RD]

o

****

o

ski

[-FR] [1RD] [2DUR]

*l

DEP (UF)

v

*!

[-LO] [-HI]

o [1RD]

ski [-FR]

In addition, tables 3.8 and 3.9 established that a [2ROUND] vowel is a better “spreader,” and results in copy epenthesis when preceded by a [1DUR] segment, while a [1ROUND] vowel (i.e., /o/) results in default epenthesis. This implies that even though *2DUR-1RD outranks DEP (UF), DEP (UF) outranks *2DUR-2RD, such that /u/ would spread across a segment that blocks the spreading of /o/. As table 3.11 below illustrates, when the second member of an initial consonant cluster is a fricative, and it precedes /u/, the result is copy epenthesis:

36

Table 3.11 – DEP (UF) >> *2DUR-2RD DEP (UF)

/kvuski/ [2DUR] [-LO] [+HI]

u

)k

v

e

[+FR]

v [-RD]

ski

[-FR] [2RD] [-LO] [+HI]

[-LO] [-HI]

*k

u

u [-FR]

*2DUR-2RD *

*!*** ski

[2RD]

So far, we have established the following ranking: (30)

*2DUR-1RD, *1DUR-1RD >> DEP (UF) >> *2DUR-2RD, *1DUR-2RD, *0DUR-RD The above ranking implies that the more rounded vowel spreads across all

segments, regardless of their durations, and that [0DUR], [1DUR], and [2DUR] segments participate in the spreading of [2ROUND]. In addition, if the degree of rounding of the vowel decreases (i.e., [1ROUND]) and the duration of the consonant increases ([1DUR] and [2DUR]), then the spreading is blocked. However, the spreading of round vowels is still more complicated, because there is still one more pattern that must be considered – namely, from /fsunius/, we have forms such as [fesunius] rather than *[fusunius]. This suggests that when the intervening consonant is [1DUR] or [2DUR],

37

Table 3.13 - *2DUR-2RD & *NLAB-2RD >> DEP (UF) >> *1DUR-2RD

*2DUR -2RD & *NLAB-2RD

/vunti/

DEP(UF)

[2DUR] [+LAB]

*2DUR-2RD *

[-LO] [+HI]

u

)

v

u

nti [-FR]

[2RD] [-LO] [+HI]

[-LO] [-HI]

*

e [+FR] [-RD]

v

u

*!***

nti

[-FR] [2RD]

The existence of the constraint labeled *NLAB-2RD can be justified in two ways. The first approach is a perceptual one. If non-labial consonants are rounded (e.g., d or k), there is the possibility that they would be confused with the labial ones (e.g., b or p), because the properties (e.g., lip protrusion) are unexpected for non-labial consonants, which lack that property. On the other hand, if labial consonants have to carry the articulatory gesture of round vowels (e.g., p) the issue of misperception will not contribute to any confusion. It is notable that this confusion is an issue mainly with respect to obstruents.

39

Secondly, cross-linguistic evidence confirms the relationship between labial consonants and round vowels. There is cross-linguistic evidence that labial consonants condition the rounding of vowels. Flemming (1995) claims that the fundamental relation between labiality of consonants and lip-rounding of vowels has its roots in the similarity of the auditory effects of these articulations. A labial constriction will be likely to lower the second and third formants, regardless of lip-rounding, resulting in a vowel that cannot be acoustically distinguished from a rounded vowel by the speakers. While this auditory difference does not justify the constraints by itself, it confirms that the speakers might have tacitly used these coarticulation effects in order to construct their phonology, hence, accepting [uvunti] from /vunti/ but rejecting [fusunius] from /fsunius/. The concern might arise that a local conjunction is not necessary, and that the proposed constraint *NLAB-2RD would be sufficient to depict the observed pattern in the data. I will show that this is not the case. If we do not use a local conjunction, *NLAB-2RD would outrank DEP (UF), since [fesunius] is preferred to *[fusunius]. The crucial rankings and candidates are given in table 3.14 on the next page:

40

Table 3.14 – *NLAB-2RD >> DEP (UF) >> *1DUR-2RD

*NLAB-2RD *!

/fsunius/ [2DUR] [-LAB]

u

*f

)f

e

[+FR] [-RD]

*2DUR-2RD *

[-LO] [+HI]

s

u

nius

[-FR] [2RD] [-LO]

[-LO] [-HI]

DEP(UF)

****

[+HI]

s

u [-FR]

nius

[2RD]

However, the above ranking will fail to predict the correct winner for contexts in which the intervening consonant is [1DUR] and [-LABIAL], as seen in table 3.15 on the next page.

41

Table 3.15 – *NLAB-2RD >> DEP (UF) >> *1DUR-2RD

*NLAB-2RD *!

/flut/ [1DUR] [-LAB] [-LO] [+HI]

/f

u

l

e

l

[+FR] [-RD]

*1DUR-2RD *

t

[-FR] [2RD] [-LO] [+HI]

[-LO]

[-HI]

*f

u

DEP(UF)

u

**** t

[-FR] [2RD]

The blocking consonants are the ones that are both [-LABIAL] and [2DUR], which means that we need the local conjunction in order to allow forms like [fulut] and [kuvuski], but disallow forms like *[fusunius]. The constraints and their rankings are given in table 3.16: Table 3.16 – *2DUR-2RD & *NLAB-2RD >> DEP (UF) >> *1DUR-2RD, *NLAB-2RD *2DUR-2RD & *NLAB-2RD

/flut/ [1DUR] [-LAB] [-LO] [+HI]

)f

u

l

u

[2RD]

t [-FR]

42

DEP(UF)

*2DUR-2RD

*NLAB-2RD

*

*

3.5 Spreading of other features All vocalic features whose spreading has not been specifically mentioned so far (e.g.,[+HI], [-FRONT]), are assumed to violate a set of constraints that are similar in format to the constraints discussed in the earlier sections of this paper. On the other hand, their compatibility with the specific features of the intervening consonant seems not to play a role in the system. This is, in a sense, similar to the spreading of [+LOW] discussed in section 3.1, in that the only influential factor is that the segment is [+CONSONANTAL]. As a result, the markedness constraints that involve the above-mentioned features are of the following type: (32)

*C-HI: A consonant cannot be associated with [+HI]. These constraints are not active in this system, and are at the bottom of the

grammar, outranked by DEP (UF), as table 3.17 illustrates: Table 3.17 – DEP (UF) >> *C-HI DEP (UF)

/lsiknel/ [+CONS]

)l

i

s

[+FR]

e

i

s [-RD]

[+HI]

knel

[-RD] [-LO] [+HI]

[-LO] [-HI] *l

[-LO]

[+FR]

i [+FR]

*!*** knel

[-RD]

44

*C-HI *

3.6 Spreading and epenthesis – a combined strategy Consider an additional type of candidate not yet discussed, in which some features of the epenthetic vowel are the result of spreading, while others are inserted. For example, consider the two candidates below for the underlying form /likimnik/:

(33)

(1) [l

i [+FR]

k

i

[-LO] [+FR] [-RD]

mnik]

(2) [l

i

k

[+HI]

i

mnik]

[+HI] [-LO] [+FR] [-RD]

The two candidates differ in that in candidate (1) the feature [+FRONT] has not spread from the underlying /i/ to the epenthetic vowel, while in candidate (2) [+FRONT] has spread along with all the other features. If analysis remains the same as it has been thus far, candidate (1) would win, as shown in table 3.18:

45

Table 3.18 - DEP (MF) >> 1DUR-1RD >> DEP (UF)

*NCOR-

/lsiknel/

*C-HI

*C-FR12

*

*

FRONT

[-COR]

*l

DEP (UF)

i

k

[-LO] [+HI]

i

*!

mnik

[+FR] [-RD] [-COR] [-LO]

[+FR]

0l i

k

[+ FR]

k [- RD]

i [+ FR]

*

[+HI]

mnik

[+FR] [-RD] [- LO] [+ HI]

[- LO] [- HI]

,l e

i

*

**!**

mnik [- RD]

The above table predicts the wrong winner because the correct output is [lekimnik] in which the epenthetic vowel is /e/. Therefore, there must be a constraint active that prevents a combined strategy. This constraint is defined as below:

12

This constraint penalizes any kind of [+FRONT] spreading, regardless of compatibilities detailed in the analysis. It is outranked by the more specific constraint, *NCOR-FRONT.

46

(34) SPREAD-ALL: If a feature is multiply linked to docking sites X1 and X2, then X1 should be linked linked to the same features that X2 is. *X1

X2 βF2

αF1

In the above configuration, there is a feature αF1 that is linked to both X1 and X2; however, X2 is linked to a feature, namely βF2, to which X1 is not linked. In other words, the above constraint enforces a bundle of features to spread as a bundle. As a result, if the spreading of any of the features of a vowel is blocked due to a highly ranked constraint, none of the features spread. Table 3.19 on the next page shows how SP-ALL functions. The second candidate [likimnik] is not the output because some of the features of /i/ such as [+HI] and [-ROUND] are linked to the two adjacent docking sites, but those docking sites are not all linked to the same features as /i/. As a result, that candidate violates the highly ranked constraint SP-ALL.

47

Table 3.19 – SP-ALL >> DEP(UF)

*NCOR-

/lsiknel/

DEP (UF)

*C-HI

*C-FR13

*

*

FRONT

[-COR]

*l

SP-ALL

i

k

*!

[-LO] [+HI]

i

mnik

[+FR] [-RD] [-COR] [+FR]

*l

i

k

) l e

k [- RD]

i

i [+ FR]

*

*

mnik

[+FR] [-RD] [- LO] [+ HI]

[- LO] [- HI]

[+ FR]

*!

[-LO] [+HI]

****

mnik [- RD]

This pattern is consistent with the height harmony in Farsi (see Section 2). When neighboring vowels are round, they must agree in height. The output vowels, which agree in height, agree on all features (e.g. /soud/ → [suud]). The observation is that DEP (UF) is violated only when the spreading is blocked, and spreading is favored only for the sake of not violating DEP (FEATURE). As a result, 13

This constraint penalizes any kind of [+FRONT] spreading, regardless of compatibilities detailed in the analysis. It is outranked by the more specific constraint, *NCOR-FRONT.

48

the combined strategy of simultaneously epenthesizing and spreading can never generate a winning output.

3.7 Final constraint rankings The chart below illustrates the constraints discussed and their rankings. The dominance relations that have not been discussed inthis paper14 are shown in dotted lines. Chart 1 – constraints and their ranking

*DEP(MF) *NCOR-FRONT *C-LOW SP-ALL

*BR-ONSET

IO-CONT-SC

*2DUR-2RD & *NLAB-2RD *1DUR-1RD HH

ANCHOR-L

IDENT (F)

*C-HI *C-FRONT

*NLAB-2RD

DEP(UF)

IO-CONTIGUITY

*1DUR-2RD

*0DUR-RD

4. Alternative analyses of copy epenthesis This section will compare earlier analyses of on vowel epenthesis. These works were inspired by simpler patterns of epenthesis, and proposed simpler

14

*Br-ons is the constraint that provides the data. It is a highly ranked constraint that penalizes any branching onset.

49

mechanisms for predicting the quality of the vowel. These mechanisms will not be able to cover the details of the Farsi data and will need to be amended.

4.1 Correspondence Theory An alternative analysis of a language-internal variation of epenthetic segments has been offered by de Lacy & Kito (1999), appealing to the principles of Correspondence Theory (McCarthy & Prince 1995). They propose a set of BE-correspondence constraints in which a correspondence relation holds between the epenthetic segment (E) and its base (B). In their analysis, it is the ranking among the BE-correspondence constraints and the markedness constraints (which prefer the unmarked segments) that produces the variation observed in epenthetic elements. While their analysis might be sufficient for the CMI data, it is not sufficient to account for the Farsi data, in which the quality of the epenthetic vowel is predictable only by examining the consonant that intervenes between the epenthetic vowel and the input vowel. For example, in the Farsi data, cases such as /lkimnik/ (→[lekimnik], *[likimnik]), and /klineks/ (→[kilineks], *[kelineks]) are not distinguishable without assuming a participatory role in feature sharing for the intervening consonants. Using correspondence constraints cannot account for the data because spreading has to play a role in an analysis of Farsi loanwords and assuming a correspondence between an underlying vowel and the epenthetic vowel does not provide that role. We need to assume spreading in order to be able to define the contexts that distinguish default epenthesis and copy epenthesis.

50

4.2 Place and stricture – the determining factors McCarthy (1998) accepts the participatory role of consonants in feature spreading. He claims that there are two factors that determine the role of the intervening consonant. The first factor is the consonant stricture, such that consonants with “vowel-like stricture” are favored in spreading. The second influential factor is the place of articulation of the consonant: because consonants with “unmarked-place” are favored in feature spreading in CVC configuration. McCarthy implies that the linkage between segments is constrained by the degree of dissimilarity between segments; measured in terms of the segments’ strictures. He proposes a hierarchy of transparency for consonants based on their values for the stricture features: No-VS-Link >> No-VN-Link, No-VF-Link >> No VL-Link In other words, linkage to consonants is ranked based on their similarity to vowels in terms of the stricture features. McCarthy allows for language-specific ranking only for NO-VN-LINK and NO-VF-LINK. While a fixed ranking, such as the one above, provides an account for some cases, it is not sufficient to explain the interaction of different vocalic features with different features of the consonants in terms of the consonant’s place of articulation, as seen in Farsi. Cases such as /lkimnik/ (→[lekimnik], *[likimnik]), and /ktino/ (→[kitino], *[ketino]) are indistinguishable with respect to the stricture of the intervening consonant. Nevertheless, we observe that different epenthetic vowels surface.

51

Furthermore, in McCarthy’s analysis, since flap is not in the phoneme inventory of the languages under study, there is no discussion on why liquid /l/ would behave differently than the flap. On the other hand, McCarthy does assume a role for the place of articulation of the consonant in feature spreading, but his notion of “unmarked-place” for consonants is based on the universal place harmony scale (Prince & Smolensky 1993): PL/PHAR >> PL/LAB, PL/DOR >> PL/COR Based on the above scale, labials are more marked than coronals. The prediction is that in VCV configurations, if vocalic feature spreading is not blocked when C is a labial, the spreading is not blocked when C is a coronal. In other words, coronals are always more accommodating in spreading than labials. As the Farsi data below illustrates, it is not the case that coronals are always more accommodating in spreading: /fsunius/ → [fesunius], *[fusunius]

(35)

/kvuski/ → [kuvuski] 5. Discussion The analysis proposed in this paper makes certain predictions. One prediction is that a single feature [+ROUND] for all round vowels might not be sufficient to capture the differences in the spreading of /o/ and /u/. Kaun (1995) argues that a single feature must be maintained, even though the two vowels behave differently in some harmony systems. Her argument arises from the observation that round vowels form a natural

52

class. On the other hand, I have shown that the two vowels, /o/ and /u/, are distinguished in their feature spreading only by their different degree of rounding. The grammar must have access to this distinction in order for the speakers to converge on one form when presented with words such as /flut/ (→[fulut]) and /floid/ (→[feloid], *[foloid]). Another prediction is that the epenthetic vowel is more likely to be rounded when preceding /u/ than when preceding /o/. This means that a high round vowel is a better trigger for harmony than a non-high round vowel. This appears to be a favored condition that is in conflict with one of the conditions discussed in Kaun (1995, forthcoming). However, as will be shown, the Farsi data is actually neither in conflict, nor in harmony, with the above-mentioned conditions. Kaun lists five conditions as the ones favored in rounding harmony systems: 1) the trigger and target agree in height; 2) the target is high; 3) the target is back; 4) the trigger is non-high; 5) the trigger is front. Since the epenthetic vowel is featureless, the height and backness of the target are not determined. This means that conditions (1), (2), and (3) are not relevant to the Farsi data. The round vowels in Farsi are [-FRONT], which means that the trigger of rounding harmony can never be a front vowel; therefore, condition (5) is also moot in Farsi. The only condition in Kaun’s 1995 work that appears to be in conflict with the data in this paper is condition (4), because /u/ is a better trigger of harmony in the Farsi data than /o/. However, Kaun (1999) notes a similar discrepancy in Turkish loanwords. Turkish demonstrates regressive rounding harmony (Yavas 1980) in

53

loanwords in which, similar to Farsi, harmony targets vowels inserted to break up an initial consonant cluster. This rounding harmony is consistently triggered by high vowels, and may sometimes be triggered by non-high vowels. These cases are discussed in more detail in Clements and Sezar (1982). They observe that (similar to Farsi) most loanwords have two variants depending on the formality of the speech. In colloquial speech, they further observe “a singular pattern of exception” to Turkish rounding harmony. The pattern is one in which the epenthetic vowel may be unrounded before the non-high round vowel, /o/. The epenthetic vowel is high before a high round vowel. Some examples are: (36) a.

‘brooch’ /bosh/ → [bro] ‘dinner jacket’ /smokin/ → [smokin] ‘sports’ /spo/ → [spo]

b.

‘Prussia’ ‘blue jeans’

/prusja/ → [puusj] /bludin/ → [buludin]

On the other hand, the epenthetic vowels in Turkish are always high, which leads Kaun to attribute the pattern to the disagreeing heights of the target and the trigger. Nevertheless, she admits that the loanword pattern is not “predictable on the basis of the progressive RH pattern of native Turkish words.” Farsi provides data, in addition to the earlier observed Turkish loanword data, in which rounding harmony is triggered always by a high vowel, and rarely by a nonhigh vowel. Furthermore, the Farsi default epenthetic vowel is, unlike in Turkish, never high; therefore, the avoidance of cross-height harmony cannot be playing a role.

54

The discussed discrepancy may have its roots in the fact that RH observed in native words is due to active harmony constraints. This means that in languages such as Turkish, faithfulness constraints of IDENT (FEATURE) type are outranked by harmony constraints, whereas in languages such as Farsi IDENT (FEATURE) constraints outrank harmony constraints. For example, one set of perceptually driven constraints introduced by Kaun are labeled EXTEND [F], which enforce the extension of the duration of a phonological feature, F. In fact, she suggests that the goal of harmony is to lengthen the duration of some feature. The deciding factor as to what feature triggers harmony and what feature is the target of harmony is the product of the interaction between harmony constraints and faithfulness constraints. Since the epenthetic vowel is not protected by faithfulness constraints, it is expected that the lengthening of some feature has a different effect in loanwords than in native words, where vowels are under the protection of IDENT (FEATURE) – subject to the ranking of harmony constraints.

55

References Broselow, Ellen. Stress, Epenthesis, and Segment Transformation in Selayarese Loans. ROA Papers. Browman, Catherine & Louis Glodstein. 1986. Towards an Articulatory Phonology. Phonology 3, 219-254. Browman, Catherine & Louis Glodstein. 1992. Articulatory Phonology: An Overview. Phonetica 49, 155-180. Clements, George & Engin Sezar. 1982. Vowel and Consonant Disharmony in Turkish. The Structure of Phonoligical Reperesentations – Part II, H. van der Hulst & N. Smith (Eds.). Holland: Foris Publications. Clements, George. 1991. Place of Articulation in Consonants and Vowels: a Unified Theory. Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetic Laboratory 5, 77-123. Comrie, Bernard, ed. The world’s Major Languages. Kent: Croom Helm, 1987. Fleischhacker, Heidi. 1999. The Location of Epenthetic Vowels with Respect to Consonant Clusters: An Auditory Similarity Account. MA thesis, UCLA. Flemming, Edward. 1995. Auditory Representation in Phonology. UCLA diss. Gafos, Adamantios. 1996. The Articulatory Basis of Locality in Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, John Hopkins University. Hume, Elizabeth. 1992. Front Vowels, Coronal Consonants and Their Interaction in Non-linear Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University. Karimi, Simin. 1987. Farsi Speakers and the Initial Consonant Cluster in English. Interlanguage Phonology, G. Ioup & S. Weinberger (Eds.). Newbury House. Kaun, Abigail R. 1995. The Typology of Rounding Harmony: An Optimality Theoretic Approach. Doctoral dissertation, UCLA Kitto, Catherine and Paul de Lacy. 1999. Correspondence and Epenthetic Quality. ROA Papers. Linker, Wendy. 1982. Articulatory and Acoustic Correlates of Labial Activity in Vowels: A Cross-linguistics Study. Doctoral dissertation, UCLA. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 56. McCarthy, John and Alan Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and Reduplicative Identity. Ms. McCarthy, John. 1998. Morpheme Structure Constraints and Paradigm Occultation. CLS 32, vol II: The Panels, M.C. Gruber, D. Higgins, K. Olson, and T. Wysocki (Eds). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Muhammad Khan, Mahr Noor. 1983. A Study of European Words in the Persian Language. Pakistan: Institute of Persian Studies. Ní Chiosáin, Máire. And Jaye Padgett. 1997. Markedness, Segment Realisation, and Locality in Spreading. Report no. LRC-97-01, Linguistic Research Center, University of California, Santa Cruz. Paradis, Carole. & J.-F. Prunet. 1989. On Coronal Transparency. Phonology 6. 317348. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP.

56

Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Rutgers University & University of Colorado, ms. Smolensky, Paul. 1997. Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar II: Local Conjunction (or, Random Rules in Universal Grammar). Handout of talk presented at the Optimality Theory Workshop, John Hopkins University. Steriade, Donca. 1991. Underspecification and Markedness. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, edited by J.A. Goldsmith. 114-174. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Yavas, Mehmet. 1980. Borrowing and Its Implications for Turkish Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kansas.

57