Markedness and Economy in a Derivational Model of Phonology

Markedness and Economy in a Derivational Model of Phonology ≥ Studies in Generative Grammar 80 Editors Harry van de...

Author: Andrea Calabrese

106 downloads 1453 Views 4MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Markedness and Economy in a Derivational Model of Phonology

≥

Studies in Generative Grammar 80

Editors

Harry van der Hulst Jan Koster Henk van Riemsdijk

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Markedness and Economy in a Derivational Model of Phonology

by

Andrea Calabrese

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin.

The series Studies in Generative Grammar was formerly published by Foris Publications Holland. 앝 Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines 앪 of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Calabrese, Andrea, 1956⫺ Markedness and economy in a derivational model of phonology / by Andrea Calabrese. p. cm. ⫺ (Studies in generative grammar ; 80) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 3-11-018465-6 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Grammar, Comparative and general ⫺ Phonology. 2. Markedness (Linguistics) 3. Economy (Linguistics) 4. Distinctive features (Linguistics) 5. Optimality theory (Linguistics) I. Title. II. Series. P217.C27 2005 414⫺dc22 2005011291

ISBN 3-11-018465-6 Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at ⬍http://dnb.ddb.de⬎.

쑔 Copyright 2005 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin. All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin. Typesetting: OLD-Media, Neckarsteinach. Printed in Germany.

"Ai miei figli: Angelica, Arianna, Giovanni e Francesco"

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS For stimulating comments, questions, discussion, suggestions, criticisms, assistance, encouragement, references, friendship, advice and emotional and theoretical support, I am very grateful to Morris Halle, François Dell, Chuck Cairns, Nick Clements, Harry van der Hulst, Bert Vaux, Gigi Rizzi, Adriana Belletti, Paola Beninca’, Laura Vanelli, Cino Renzi, Alberto Mioni, Keren Rice, Hellen Kaisse, Giuliano Bocci, Paula Bairds, Oksana Tarasenkova, the students at University of Connecticut and Universita’ di Siena, audiences at MIT, CUNY, University of Pennsylvania, Padova and Pisa and to two anonymous reviewers. I have not taken all of their advice, and they bear no responsibility for the errors in which I have persisted. I thank my father and my mother for their example, for their love and encouragement throughout my life. My love and thanks to my wife Lori, and especially to my children Angelica, Arianna, Giovanni and Francesco who have brought real life into my existence. I dedicate this book to them. Strip the raiment of pride from your body: in learning, put the garment of humility. Soul receives from soul the knowledge of humility, not from book or speech. Though mysteries of spiritual poverty are within the seeker's heart she doesn't yet possess knowledge of those mysteries. Let her wait until her heart expand and fills with light. (Rumi, Mathnawi V, 1061)

Table of Contents

Preface Chapter 1 1.1.

1.2.

1.3.

ix Introduction Prolegomena to a realistic theory of phonology 1.1.1. Basic assumptions 1.1.2. A realistic approach to phonology 1.1.3. Idiosyncratic aspects of language 1.1.4. Derivations 1.1.5. Economy 1.1.6. Conspiracies 1.1.7. Rules and constraints as procedural instructions 1.1.8. Markedness theory 1.1.9. Historical changes 1.1.10. Exceptions to markedness theory 1.1.11. Summary Representational Issues 1.2.1. Features 1.2.2. Syllable structure 1.2.3. Underspecification and feature visibility Conclusions

Chapter 2: The theorical model 2.1. Markedness, economy and repairs 2.1.1. Speedy repairs 2.1.2. On the nature of markedness 2.2. The structure of grammar 2.2.1. Negative constraints and rules 2.2.2. The markedness module 2.2.3. Deactivation of marking statements 2.2.4. Segmental marking statements 2.2.5. Segmental marking statements and

1 2 2 4 5 11 19 22 33 41 45 47 52 53 53 63 66 72 75 75 75 107 117 117 121 124 126 129

v

Table of contents

2.3.

2.4.

2.5.

phonemic alphabets 2.2.6. Natural rules 2.2.7. Heuristics 2.2.8. Idiosyncratic instructions Issues in the theory of repair operations 2.3.1. Repairs in segmental phonology and fission 2.3.2. Epenthesis as a repair 2.3.3. Bulgarian liquid metathesis as fission of syllabic sonorants 2.3.4. Syllable structure in Bulgarian Derivations 2.4.1. Ordering of processes 2.4.2. Cyclicity and syllabification: Yers and Bulgarian liquid metathesis 2.4.2.1 Yers in Bulgarian 2.4.2.2 An alternative analysis of Yers 2.4.2.3 Cyclicity of syllabification and Yers-strengthening 2.4.2.4. Yers and stems ending in a C+sonorant sequence Summary

Chapter 3: Case Studies 3.1. A French conspiracy 3.1.1. Trisegmental onsets in French: repairs and blocking 3.1.2. Glides and high vowels in French 3.1.3. A French conspiracy 3.1.4. French syncope 3.1.5. Hiatus in French 3.1.6. Ambisyllabic structures with labio-velar and labio-palatal vocoids in French 3.1.7. Summary 3.2. Syllabification in Tashlhiyt Berber 3.2.1. Core syllabification in Tashlhiyt Berber 3.2.2. Exceptions to core syllabification in Tashlhiyt Berber 3.2.3. Imperfective morphology in Tashlhiyt Berber

130 133 134 135 136 149 164 173 179 179 189 189 194 196 201 205 207 207 207 211 215 218 232 235 240 240 240 260 268

vi Table of contents 3.2.4.

3.3.

Templatic morphology in Tashlhiyt Berber 3.2.4.1 The absence of hiatus configurations and the ONSET constraint 3.2.5. Summary Vowel harmony in Okpe and the issue of feature negation 3.3.1. Vowel harmony in Okpe 3.3.2. Excision 3.3.3. Summary

Chapter 4: On coronalization and affrication in palatalization processes: an inquiry into the nature of a sound change 4.1. Modifications in place of articulation: how do we get coronal consonants in palatalization processes 4.1.1. On the coronality of front vowels 4.1.2. Halle, Vaux and Wolfe (2000) 4.1.3. Correlation statements 4.1.4. Palatals and coronalization 4.1.5. Front high vowels and palatalization processes 4.1.6. Velar palatalization in Italian 4.1.7. The first palatalization of Romance 4.2. Affrication 4.2.1. The traditional account 4.2.2. Affrication as fission 4.2.3. Fricativization in palatalization processes 4.2.4. Conclusions Chapter 5: Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes 5.1. A theory of feature visibility 5.1.1. Harmony processes, blocking and feature visibility 5.1.2. Feature markedness 5.1.3. Labial attraction 5.2. Underlying representation in harmony processes 5.3. Case studies 5.3.1. Uyghur vowel harmony 5.3.2. Wolof vowel harmony

270 274 279 279 279 284 299 301 303 303 305 307 308 312 316 319 339 339 342 348 351 353 353 353 365 367 369 389 389 404

vii

Table of contents

5.4.

5.3.3. Yoruba vowel harmony 5.3.4. Ogori vowel harmony 5.3.5. Clements (2001) For a definition of contrastive feature specification 5.4.1. Basic procedure 5.4.2. Accidental gaps and contrastiveness

413 418 425 430 430 444

Conclusions: Afterthoughts on Optimality Theory

451

Endnotes

471

References

497

Subject index

523

Language Index

531

Preface

Principia omnium rerum exigua" (Seneca, De Benef., 3, 29, 4) It started with an epiphany. And then I threw away all the theoretical work I had done for the past five years. I had been working on a model that I called Dynamic Phonology. Dynamic Phonology was a derivational model of phonology: Surface phonological representations were constructed step by step from underlying input representations. However, it incorporated parallel evaluation of repairs triggered by universal grammar (UG) constraints, which is an Optimality Theory (OT) characteristic. My aim was to account for markedness effects and conspiracy cases, as successfully as OT, without incurring problems such as opacity. Although it included rule-like formalism, the focus of the theory was on repairs triggered by active UG constraints. Repairs involved the free application of basic phonological operations. However, it was hypothesized that an overarching principle of Economy governed them, as well as the rest of the phonology and grammar. It followed that repairs were Last Resort operations and applied minimally. Given a structure containing an ill-formed configuration, economy required that only this configuration needed to be affected by the repairs, nothing else. The repair component then freely constructed, in parallel, all possible derivational modifications of this configuration using basic phonological operations. Each derivation proceeded through different repairs until a well-formed structure was produced. The outputs of the convergent derivations, as well as the derivations themselves, were evaluated to choose the best repair. The selection of the best candidate was performed according to an Economy metric that looked for the most economical derivation and output. By interpreting them as Last Resort operations, I limited the number of output candidates that the grammar needed to evaluate. The power of the generative component was then radically restricted, and the problem posed by the infinite candidate produced by GEN was thus avoided. This was my theory. A first draft of the book in which it was outlined was finished, and I had received two reviews that were mostly positive and

x

Preface

mainly concerned with editorial rearrangements of the text. I could feel contented. But that beautiful night in May in Siena, I decided to change everything. I was in a little restaurant close to the Gothic cathedral with a glass of good wine. Perhaps I had drunk a little too much. I was thinking about my theory and, in particular, about how, for me, phonology and language in general are to be considered part of human praxis in that linguistic actions are like other actions in which an intention causes a change in a mind/body state. I concluded that in my model, to choose the best repair, I had to compare and evaluate plans of actions—i.e., operations manipulating disallowed configurations. Then, suddenly, I started considering how this model would represent actual bodily manipulations of external reality such as the execution of my intention to take the wineglass with my hand and bring it to my lips so that I could sip the delicious nectar. If actions were modeled in an Optimality Theoretic framework, to execute this intention, first I would have to produce a large—well, infinite—number of plans of action including the totally inappropriate possibility of getting up, going back to the hotel, drinking a glass of water there and only then coming back to the restaurant to drink the wine using my left foot to bring the cup to my lips. Then, after conceiving all of these plans of action, I would have to evaluate them before choosing the right one to implement. Obviously, the wonderful Chianti in the glass would have been left undrunk for quite some time, perhaps for eternity. No, this was not the right way to represent the mental events leading to my action of drinking a glass of wine. But I already knew this. I was already assuming that OT was bankrupt as a theory. Unfortunately, the model I was trying to develop in those days did not fare much better. In this model, only the set of relevant and appropriate action plans—to reach the glass and bring it to my lips—would have been considered: one plan would have involved using the thumb and the index finger to lift the glass but holding the little finger straight; another would have used the entire hand to lift the glass; in another the moving action would have stopped midway to swirl the glass so that the wine could breathe; in still another no such stop would have occurred; and so on. This model was plausible. But no! There was still a problem. This parallel evaluation of options also requires time and conscious effort. A typical domain involving comparisons and evaluations of different possibilities is decision making within the scope of moral behavior. As every human being knows, the process by which we make moral decisions—by evaluating the costs and benefits of our possible actions—is often painstakingly long and difficult, requires intellectual concentration and often leads to paralysis of

Preface

xi

thought. Thus humans resort to law, religion, catechism or the Talmud for help. The same is true for decision making in other types of behavior. No such time and conscious effort was required in my action of picking up the glass of wine. If there is urgency to drink, an evaluation of possible actions to sate the urgency that I felt in that moment—to cleanse my palate and savor the wonderful pecorino di Pienza—would create an unsustainable delay. There must be a way to undertake the simplest and most direct action to pick up the glass without evaluation of the other possible actions. If my intention is simply to pick up the glass because I have an urgent need to drink, I do just that, and the way I do it is the best way because of the dynamics of muscle movements in coordination with perception and feedback relating to muscular adjustments. We must be designed in such a way to be able to implement the best action that satisfies the intention as fast as possible. There is no denial that parallel evaluation of different actions is one of our normal cognitive activities. But it is used in the quite different circumstances of decision-making and requires a conscious or semi-conscious effort of comparison. And obviously, the comparison is possible only if there is enough available time to do it. In my case, such circumstances would have arisen only if, in addition to the simple intention to pick up the glass, there were some other unusual intention such as that of impressing someone who was watching me pick up the glass. In this case, the consideration of the plans mentioned before would have made sense. In this case, one could consider the possibility of holding the little finger straight in picking up the glass as the best realization of the intention of displaying affectation or a certain personal style. However, no such contemplation and studied evaluation of different possibilities, followed by a decision of selecting one of them, was present in my consideration of the action of picking up the glass in the most direct and efficient way possible under the urgent desire to drink the wine. If that was true, the phonological model I was trying to develop was also incorrect insofar as I was assuming that language, and phonology in particular, involves conscious actions as with other types of behavior. My realization was that in language, where there is always pressure to respond promptly to the communicative needs of the situation we are in, there is absolutely no time for comparisons and evaluations.i In normal speaking, if there is a given problematic configuration to repair, because of the urgency characterizing linguistic situations, it is necessary to assume that the linguistic system will provide the best and most appropriate operation to fix it. Urgency and efficiency must be built into the design of the system. But

xii Preface what is the best model to do this? I first thought that a comparison and evaluation of different plans of action could be part of the learning process and that once the best solution was found, the way to reach it became part of a fixed and automatic routine. I later found this implausible. As far as I know, there is no evidence that learners go through a period comparing and evaluating different solutions to linguistic problems similar to that present in decision-making. Secondly, learners are under the same pressure to respond and have the same urgency to produce linguistic output that adult speakers do. Thus it is unclear that learners have time to perform comparisons and evaluations. Furthermore, given that the only evidence that learners have are the repairs executed by speakers and that learners cannot observe any purported comparisons and evaluations leading to the selection of specific repairs, it is implausible and uneconomical to assume that learners, instead of adopting repairs, must also go through complex processes of comparison and evaluation to select them. Therefore, I conclude that there is no reason to assume that the appropriate way to account for a repair of a given configuration is by comparing and evaluating a set of possible different repairs of this configuration. I also conclude that the determination of what is the best repair for any given linguistic problem can only be the result of the way in which we are designed as human beings. This design is the product of our evolution as human beings. Comparison and evaluation are in this sense only part of the phylogenetic process that has shaped human nature and do not have any reality in themselves for these repairs. And so I realized that I was on a wrong path. I could no longer stand by what I had proposed and decided to drop one of the fundamental assumptions of the model I was working on: the presence of parallel derivations and of a component evaluating the outputs of these derivations. Everything I had written had to be re-written. Eventually, I also dropped the name Dynamic Phonology for the model I developed in this re-writing. In fact, I realized that the model I am proposing now is not new, but simply a variant of Classical Generative Phonology with rules and derivations from underlying to surface representation: A variant, however, that is characterized by one important extension. In addition to rules, there are repairs triggered by markedness constraints, as in Calabrese (1995). And thus the present book was born. "Quo fata trahunt, retrahuntque, sequamur " (Virgil, Aen. 5, 709)

Chapter 1 Introduction

The purpose of a theory of substantive phonological universals is to account for the occurrence and variation of phonological properties within and across languages and thus to provide a substantive definition of the phonological systems possible for a given human language (see Basbøll 1981; Kean 1981). This theory, usually referred to as markedness theory, is the focus of this book. During the past ten years, markedness theory appears to have become the exclusive prerogative of parallel models of phonology like Optimality Theory (OT) (see Prince and Smolensky 1993). The goal of this book is to show that a successful markedness theory can also be an integral part of a derivational model of phonology. The roots of this proposal are in Calabrese (1995) of which this book can be considered a development. One of the major problems for markedness theory is that when one starts studying the phonologies of languages, it becomes evident that although markedness effects are evident, most, if not all, phonological phenomena display properties that are not accountable for in terms of phonological universals and are instead fully idiosyncratic. These idiosyncratic aspects of the phonologies of languages are brought about by historical changes and preserved by memorization. This fact makes it clear that the synchronic phonology of a particular language cannot be reduced to a complex interaction of substantive universals as proposed in OT. An adequate analysis also requires special devices such as extrinsic ordering of processes, idiosyncratic rules and lexical marking of exceptions, all which must be memorized. I will propose that the need for these devices is based in the conventional nature of language, and in particular of phonology.1 One of the goals of this book is that of reconciling the conventional aspect of phonology with the natural one by building a theory that integrates these two aspects in an adequate manner. In other words, one of the goals of this book is that of trying to solve the “paradox” that according to S. Anderson (1985) is faced by any theory trying to define what constitutes a 'possible phonological rule in a natural language': “On the one hand, most rules are tantalizingly close to being explicable (or 'natural') in terms of phonetic factors [i.e. explainable in terms of markedness theory in the framework proposed here. AC], while,

2

Introduction

on the other hand, rules show no tendency at all to stick close to this phonetic explicability, and instead often become 'crazy' rules' (Bach and Harms 1972).” (S. Anderson (1985: 78) In this introduction I will lay out the basic assumptions that are behind the theory developed in the following chapters. Section 1.1 deals with general issues concerning the theory of phonology. Section 1.2 is concerned with some of the assumptions on the nature and the structure of the representations used in the analyses proposed in this book.

1.1.

Prolegomena to a realistic theory of phonology

1.1.1.

Basic assumptions

In the next section, I will outline the major assumptions that form the background of this book. In subsection 1.1.2, I introduce the realistic approach to Phonology adopted in this book. According to this approach, “phonology is about concrete mental events and states that occur in real time, real space, have causes, have effects, are finite in number.” (Bromberger and Halle 2000: 21). In subsections 1.1.3 and 1.1.4, I deal with the issue of history and its idiosyncratic effects in phonology. In particular, here I try to account for why phonology can and must include arbitrary statements such as idiosyncratic rules (see 1.1.3) and stipulations on the extrinsic ordering of processes (see 1.1.4). Some arguments against OT and non-derivational models are also given here. The necessity of idiosyncratic rules and ordering stipulations shows that Phonology has a "Saussurean" nature. I thus agree with Hale and Reiss' (2000) proposal to extend "the Saussurean notion of the arbitrary nature of linguistic signs to the treatment of phonological representations by the phonological computational system" (Hale and Reiss' (2000: 162). Hale and Reiss, however, do not explain why it should be so: why should the treatment of phonological representations be arbitrary? The answer is that phonology has a fundamentally idiosyncratic and arbitrary aspect that derives from its conventional nature. This conventional nature is due to the way in which the phonological (and morphological) aspects of language are transmitted (and learned) throughout a social group. In the transmission from a speaker to a listener/learner, the surface phonological shapes of words, phrases, or utterances must be accepted as such because of their intrinsic social value: a learner by definition must assume that what


3

the "teacher"—i.e., another speaker in a relevant social role—produces is the established norm which must be "imitated.” These shapes thus lose any intrinsic motivation that they could have had and become conventional. They become "traditional" in the sense of Baudouin de Courtenay (see Baudouin de Courtenay 1895). As we will see, this fact is not inconsistent with the assumptions that phonology is about concrete mental states and that markedness, or the substantial purport of language, plays a fundamental role in accounting for the properties of phonology. History and its arbitrary effects provide the background against which I build my theory of markedness constraints and repairs that is introduced in the next sections. Subsection 1.1.5 deals with of the notion of economy, a fundamental aspect of the theory of markedness proposed here. I hypothesize that linguistic economy must be seen as a response to scarcity of time and resources facing speakers. There is an intrinsic limit to the resources and means available to what we can call the human cognitive machine. The amount of available metabolic energy is limited; the number of neurons and other cognitive resources is limited. It is obvious that in order to produce utterances, or to entertain any other type of behavior, human beings must use these scarce means efficiently. But not only are means scarce, time is also scarce. Speakers must produce utterances in real time under environmental pressure to respond promptly. In the little time at their disposal, they must be able to convert representations containing mnemonic elements merged and structured by the syntax into sets of actual articulatory gestures. The generative machine behind this response must achieve the most optimal results as fast as possible. It must be designed in such a way that it is quite efficient in the time and means that it uses. The issue of conspiracies, the real major problem of Classical Generative Phonology is then treated in subsection 1.1.6. To account for conspiracies we need negative constraints that trigger a range of possible repairs. The model proposed here then includes both rules and negative constraints. The difference between these two mechanisms is discussed in subsection 1.1.7. The nature of markedness in phonology (subsection 1.1.8) and of its role in sound changes (subsection 1.1.9) is discussed next. It is assumed that the theory of markedness is a theory of linguistic cost. UG contains a module, the markedness module, which determines the usage cost of given configurations in representations. In realistic terms, it indicates the cost paid by computational programs mapping these representations into articulatory representations. Sometimes, the price is too high and the configura-

4

Introduction

tions must be fixed up to reduce this cost. The theory of markedness also determines the cost of the operations that implement this fixing up. Section 1.1 ends with an account of the exceptions to Markedness theory.

1.1.2.

A Realistic Approach to Phonology

I assume a realistic approach to language such as that advocated by Bromberger and Halle (1992, 1997, 2000) (see also Halle 2002). This realistic view of language is based on two indisputable facts: given an utterance 1) there must be a long-term representation of the elements intervening in it and 2) there is an articulatory representation of it before actual muscular implementation. Phonological theory investigates the system of knowledge that allows concrete occurrences of real time computational steps that convert mnemonic representations of utterances into articulatory representations of the same. This knowledge involves representations and computations that have concrete spatio-temporal occurrences allowing for the production of concrete articulatory events, and that stem from the workings of an actual brain with all its limitations. “Competence” is therefore the actual system of knowledge that allows the production of these articulatory representations and is obviously distinct from “performance” which involves the contingencies of this production (see Bromberger and Halle 2000: 35). Hale and Reiss (2000: 163) state that “the goal of phonological theory, as a branch of cognitive science, is to categorize what is a computationally possible phonology, given the computational nature of the phonological component of UG.” This is also assumed here. The issue, however, is the nature of the categories that are used in this endeavor. Talking about these categories, Hale and Reiss in the same article argue for a substance-free phonology: “The substance of phonological entities is never relevant to how they are treated by the computational system” (Hale and Reiss 2000: 162). The categories they use, therefore, become pure essences, pure forms devoid of spatio-temporal reality, mathematical objects computed in an abstract reality with unlimited resources and unlimited time. This is a version of what Bromberger and Halle (2000: 99) call linguistic Platonism according to which phonology—and linguistics—is about abstract, nonspatio-temporal objects. There is no evidence for the existence of these pure forms other than as abstractions in a pure mathematical world. In the case of language, the only reality is our concrete acts of speech performed


5

by our limited bodies and brains, and the theory of phonology—and linguistics—must be built on this reality. Although not always clearly stated, Hale and Reiss' Platonistic approach to language, which treats language only as pure mathematical computation and disregards the fact that language has a concrete bodily base, is quite common in linguistics. It leads to abstract ideas that have only a remote relation with the actual reality of language as produced in real time through a complex interaction between body and brain. There is a definite need for more realistic approaches to language. I hope that the one proposed here is one of them. A realistic view of language does not contradict what I called the conventional aspect of language. Behind convention there is the common interest of groups of individuals to coordinate their actions. A representation is conventional if it is shared by a group of individuals without any other motivation than the common agreement to share it (see Lewis 1969) following David Hume's proposals in Treatise of Human Nature). In the realistic terms used here, this conventional sharing can be seen as involving a tuning operation. As the instruments of the orchestra must be tuned to a common pitch to play together optimally, so the concrete mind/brain states of individuals within a group must be tuned to common sets of forms, norms, principles, etc, to interact properly. In the case of language this tuning allows the individuals of the group to share the same mental linguistic representations. For individuals, this tuning of representations is achieved by rote memorization of vocabulary items and other idiosyncratic grammatical information characterizing the language of the group and by adjustment of speakers' internal representations/mind-brain states—through parameter settings/marking statements deactivations, and so forth—in such a way that their mental representations are similar to those of other members of the community. This tuning does not have any other motivations than the tuning, itself, hence its conventional character.

1.1.3.

Idiosyncratic aspects of language

The previous discussion leads us to the issue of the arbitrary/idiosyncratic aspect of language. Synchronic phonological processes often, but not always, have a “natural” explanation in the physiology, acoustics and perception of speech, the substantial basis of language. Some phonologists assume that

6

Introduction

all phonological processes must have an account in terms of this phonetic basis. According to this view, generalizations that have no phonetic explanation cannot be part of the phonology and must be included in the morphology or dismissed as historical residue that must be listed in individual allomorphs. Other phonologists deny that phonology need be constrained by phonetic considerations. These phonologists emphasize the formal and cognitive nature of phonology as part of the grammatical computation. According to this view the phonetic substance of language plays a role only diachronically in the development of phonological systems and not synchronically. In this book, I propose an alternative approach. On one hand, it recognizes that there are synchronic phonological generalizations that have a natural explanation in the phonetic substance of language, as in the first view mentioned above. These are the generalizations that must be accounted for in terms of the Markedness theory as proposed in subsection 1.1.8 below. On the other hand, this approach also admits that idiosyncratic or phonetically arbitrary generalizations can be part of the phonology of a language as proposed in the second view mentioned above. Although many aspects of the synchronic phonology of a language can be accounted for in term of Markedness theory, the fact is that an adequate phonological analysis of a language often requires special languagespecific devices, such as extrinsic ordering of processes, idiosyncratic rules and lexical marking of exceptions. As I proposed in the preceding section, the reason for this is in the basically "conventional" nature of language, and in particular of phonology. One of the characteristic features of phonological theorizing in the past ten years has been the refusal to accept the conventional and arbitrary basis of phonology. This refusal was behind the major argument used to adopt OT and to reject the rule format used by the Classical Generative Theory. It was argued that the rules themselves were not explanatory, but simply stated the changes characterizing the synchronic phonological patterns. As Prince and Smolensky (1993) claimed: "[Rule-based] phonology itself simply doesn't have much content, is mostly ‘periphery' rather than 'core', is just a technique for data-compression, with aspirations to depth subverted by the inevitable idiosyncrasies of history and lexicon." OT holds that by accounting for synchronic phonological patterns by natural constraint interaction, deeper levels of explanatory adequacy can be reached in phonology.


7

When we start looking at the OT literature of the past seven years, the impression is that the wishes of the OT proponents have not been fulfilled. In fact many of the constraints proposed in OT analyses are as unexplanatory as some of the rules of the Classical Generative framework. For example, what can be said about the constraint *a] used to account for the process a i in open syllables in Bedouin Arabic in McCarthy (2000)? It does not provide any deeper explanation of the process in itself and is as stipulative as the rule a i/ __ ] which as discussed below in 1.1.7 is quite more efficient in dealing with this process. The same can be said of constraints like those found in the works published in Roca (1997) and Kager (1999) (see (1)). (1)

a. Found in Roca (1997): *g = no g’s (Ito and Mester 1997) *p = single [p]’s are prohibited (Ito and Mester 1997) *si = no sequences /s/+/i/ i.e., (/s/ is palatalized before/i/) (Ito and Mester 1995) *[+son][i = no sonorant consonants followed by high front vocoids (i/y) across prosodic boundaries (Cho 1995) *[ni = no /ni/ or /ny/ at the start of prosodic words (Cho 1995) *l[cor] = no / l/ + coronal sequences (McCarthy and Prince 1995) b. Found in Kager (1999): *œr]s = no [œ] before tautosyllabic [r] (Benua 1995) VwV = no intervocalic labio-velar glides (McCarthy and Prince 1995) w *[N = no word-initial labio-velar nasals (McCarthy and Prince 1995) *[i] = no [i]’s are allowed in light syllables (McCarthy and Prince 1995)

One can assume that the wish is that constraints such as those in 1) are just tentative and that future research will show that they can be reduced to basic interactions of natural constraints. This goal may be achieved for some of them. It is quite unlikely however, that all of them can be reduced in such a way. The issue is that of the “inevitable idiosyncrasies of history and lexicon.” Consider a language specific process like that in (2) that is found in the Polish alternations in (3) (Kenstowicz 1994). It raises /o/ when followed by a voiced non-nasal consonant in word final position. (Observe

8

Introduction

that those in (3) are intermediate representations. To obtain the surface representations, we also need a process of final devoicing that applies in a counterbleeding order with respect to (2). I will not discuss it here. See below for discussion of the extrinsic ordering of processes): (2) -high +round

(3) noun-sg. klub trup snop zwub dzvon gruz nos vuz bur zur vuw sul buy

[+high]/

noun-pl. klubi trupi snopi zwobi dzvoni gruzi nosi vozi bori zuri vowi sole boye

_____

+cons +voice -nasal

#

gloss 'club' 'corpse' 'sheaf' 'crib' 'bell' 'rubble' 'nose' 'cart' 'forest' 'soup' 'ox' 'salt' 'fight'

Observe that rule (2) is not a natural rule. While the environment for the rule forms a natural class and the structural change is very simple, there is no good reason why this particular vowel change ([o] [u]) should take place in this particular context (before voiced oral consonants in word final position). This process is idiosyncratic to Polish, and cannot be analyzed in terms of plausible markedness considerations; rather it involves the telescoping of the sequence of diachronic changes in (4).2 Those in (4) are natural processes that characterize similar changes in many other languages as well. The problem is that the historical shortening of long vowels removed all evidence for the presence of long vowels in Modern Polish so that now there is no way of motivating either the process in (4a) or the process in (4b) synchronically, and we are left with the telescoped rule in (2) which, however, is still a genuine rule of Polish phonology.


(4) a. b. c.

9

Lengthening of voiced non-nasal consonants before codas. Context-free raising of long vowels. Shortening of long vowels.

To account for this process in OT, we would have to stipulate a constraint such as that in (5). (5)

* -cons +back +high

/ ____

+cons + voice -nasal

#

Admitting constraints such as (5) in OT obviously goes against the stated OT goal of accounting for phonological processes by means of natural constraints; a constraint like (5), in fact, is obviously not natural. Observe that assuming a constraint like this argues precisely for the view of phonology that according to Prince and Smolensky characterizes the rulebased approach: This constraint is constructed on generalizations over lexical patterns with all their idiosyncrasies, i.e., essentially by “techniques for data-compression.” Note that there is no plausible alternative way of accounting for raising in Polish by means of an interaction of simpler natural constraints. Polish [o]-raising cannot be decomposed into more basic processes. It is as it is because of history: "the inevitable idiosyncrasies of history" which brought about the merging and fossilization of previous natural processes. If we want to explain—i.e., reduce to the natural, basic principles that shape it—a process such as that illustrated in (3), we have to reconstruct its history. In this case, however, this history is not recoverable by means of internal reconstruction. Therefore, this process must be accounted for by a special statement—a rule, as we will see later—which must be learned. Anderson (1981), Kenstowicz and Kisseberth (1977, 1979), to name a few in an otherwise very rich literature, provide numerous examples of phonological processes characterized by idiosyncratic properties. Such processes may be idiosyncratically associated with lexical or grammatical categories, can be restricted by idiosyncratic phonological and morphological conditions, and most importantly, can be characterized by all types of idiosyncratic and unmotivated exceptions. Every phonologist knows that any analysis of a set of phonological facts is never fully clean. There is always some “dirt” somewhere that must be covered by some special statement. The reasons for these problems are grounded in history. We as hu-

10

Introduction

man beings are also the product of history and all of its idiosyncrasies. There is no way of escaping that. The fact is that in the transmission process, phonological data, i.e., the output phonological representations of other speakers, have a purely conventional value for the learner. They do not have an intrinsic motivation and must be learned as is because of their traditional value, as proposed earlier. When faced with these data, the only goal of the learner is to analyze them in such a way that they can be stored as representations into long-term memory. The stored representations can then be used to interface with other components of the linguistic system and can also be accessed to derive related output representations economically and efficiently. The learner cannot modify the data he acquires—they are traditional for him, but he must analyze them in a way that enables proper utterances to be derived. Of course, in this analysis, the learner can—if provided with enough evidence—account for the data by invoking basic universal/natural principles (marking statements or natural rules). Such an analysis is valued in terms of economy because principles and operations of Universal Grammar are assumed to be less costly than idiosyncratic grammatical statements. However, because of the historical cumulation of events, some data cannot be analyzed by resorting to natural processes or interactions of natural processes. This is the case of Polish discussed above. These data are the debris of unrecoverable historical changes in the same way that exceptions and all other type of idiosyncrasies are. The learner must come up with the best analysis with these idiosyncratic facts, i.e., with idiosyncratic statements like the idiosyncratic rule in (2). The main goal of a synchronic phonological analysis of a language— for the learner and the linguist—is to derive the surface representations of the language, not to explain them, i.e., to reduce all of them to basic and universal—both formal and substantial—principles. Of course, in the analysis that is needed to account for this derivation, the learner and the phonologist can reduce the surface complexity of the facts to the basic universal principles that shaped them. As mentioned above, for the learner this is advantageous from the point of view of economy and efficiency. For the phonologist, this is an explanation, albeit a synchronic explanation. Such an explanation, then, is possible in the analysis for many if not most of the facts characterizing the phonology of any given language. However, an idiosyncratic and contradictory core, the product of history and its inescapable whims, will always remain. Linguists who deny this core and attempt to provide a synchronic explanation to all aspects of the phonology of a


11

language—a common attitude, especially in OT—behave a little bit like individuals who, when faced with the painful contradictions of reality, retreat into magical thinking and try to give sense, through mysterious correspondences, to what is otherwise a broken, shattered and meaningless existence.

1.1.4. Derivations We can now turn to another issue related to the problem of history in language, i.e., the issue of extrinsic ordering in derivations. It is assumed here that the most efficient way of mapping mnemonic representations into articulatory representations is by means of a deterministic derivation in which representations are transformed through serial computational steps (see Bromberger and Halle 1997; Halle 2002). Phonological processes are involved in most of these steps. A fundamental question that has been faced by generative grammar since its beginning is why a serial ordering among processes should ever be conceived and allowed in a grammar. The issue has become of great importance nowadays especially in the case of counterfeeding and counterbleeding interactions between processes, the types of interactions that lead to the so-called opacity situations. To account for these interactions, we need to have extrinsic ordering of processes. As is well known, in the case of opacity, a phonological process P of the form B->E/ A __ C has surface exceptions that can be explained by resorting to the application of another process Q (see McCarthy 2000). If there is a counterbleeding relationship between P and Q, we have instances of E derived by P that occur in environments other than A __ C (see (6)). If there is a counterfeeding relationship between P and Q, we have instances of A in the environment C __ D (see (7)). (6) Counter-Bleeding Opacity UR: a. b.

BE/ A __ C CF/ __ # SR:

ABC# AEC AEF AEF#

12

Introduction

(7) Counter-Feeding Opacity There are two cases. i. Counter-Feeding due to Environment: UR: a. b.

BD/ __ E CE/ __ # SR:

ii.

ABC n/a ABE# ABE#

Counter-Feeding due to Focus: UR: a. b.

DE/ A __ BD/ __ C SR:

ABC n/a ADC# ADC#

By using extrinsic ordering as seen in (6) and (7), we can explain the exceptions to the process P, an obvious gain in the simplicity in the analysis of the facts. It is no mystery that the reasons for such orderings are to be found in history. As argued above, it is a fact about language that the surface shape of words of a given language is due to the chaotic cumulation of the sound changes that occurred in the course of the history of that language. Furthermore, the historical sequence of the changes is arbitrary; there is no intelligent design governing the course of events in a language’s history. Now given the etiology of its formation, a linguist can always explain the surface shape of words of a language by reconstructing the sequence of changes underlying them (see (6) and (7)), and if the linguist does that using only data from that language, he does what is traditionally called internal reconstruction. Classical Generative Linguistics assumed that the speaker, like the linguist, had the ability to perform this internal reconstruction of the shape of words. It assumed that by comparing the different alternants of a given morpheme, a language learner (or linguist) could reconstruct the order of application of various processes occurring in the language so that surface shapes of alternants could be derived. This is what Chomsky (1975: 25-26) proposed referring to his analysis of Hebrew morphophonemics in what we can call the first work in Generative Phonology. "I tried to construct a system of rules for generating the phonetic form of sentences, that is, what is now called a generative grammar. I thought it might be possible to devise a system of recursive rules to describe the form and


13

structure of sentences ... and thus perhaps to achieve the kind of explanatory force that I recalled from historical grammar. I had in mind such specific examples as the following. The Hebrew root mlk ("king") enters into such forms as malki ("my king") malka ("queen"), mlaxim ("kings"). The change of k to x in mlaxim results from a general process of spirantization in post-vocalic position. But consider the construct state form malxey ("kings of"). Here we have [x] in a phonological context in which we would expect k (see malki, malka). The anomaly can be explained if we assume that spirantization preceded a process of vowel reduction that converted malaxim to mlaxim and malaxey ("kings of X," where X contains the main stress) to mlaxey-X. The processes of spirantization and reduction (generally, antepretonic) are motivated independently, and by assuming the historical order to be spirantization-reduction, one can explain the arrangement of forms malki, malka, mlaxey, mlaxim. It seemed only natural to construct synchronic grammar with ordering of rules such as spirantization and reduction to explain the distribution of existing forms. Pursuing this idea, I constructed a detailed grammar, concentrating on the rules for deriving phonetic forms from abstract morphophonemic representations." Thus a successful explanatory analysis of an opaque alternation always involves internal reconstruction of the history of the alternation given the evidence provided synchronically by the language. The addition of other phonological processes creates alternations in the shape of words, and the cumulative effect of the addition of these processes may create situations of opacity. By reconstructing the historical layering of these processes, a linguist can explain the situations of opacity. Derivational models assume that when language learners face alternations in the shape of words historically produced by the addition of several sound changes, they may derive them—if given enough evidence—by reconstructing the different processes underlying them and their ordering. Of course, no one would reject the possibility that if the system of processes and their interaction becomes so opaque that it cannot be readily reconstructed by identifying the interacting processes and thus acquired by

14

Introduction

learners, it will then be reanalyzed. Reanalysis does occur in the learning process. This is what happened in Polish in the telescoping observed in the process described above in (2). It is important to observe, however, that there is no need to have reanalysis when the processes can be identified. However, the ability of speakers to perform internal reconstruction has been questioned in the past ten years by non-derivational models. The question is whether or not speakers can reconstruct extrinsic orderings among processes from linguistic data. Derivational models assume that they can. Non-derivational models reject this possibility. Non-derivational models, at this point, face the problem of dealing with explainable exceptions that characterize opaque interactions. It could be assumed that surface exceptions due to opaque process interactions are just unexplainable, thus missing obvious generalizations. Otherwise, it could be assumed that there is some special form of reanalysis to deal with them. In this case, special theoretical devices must be introduced to achieve this reanalysis. Any of the extensions that are required in non-derivational models to deal with opacity are simply part of a theory of how historically derived opacity is to be reanalyzed in a synchronic system. The obvious issue is whether there is any reason to do this reanalysis, and furthermore, one must wonder whether or not this extension is an efficient way to account for such reanalysis. The point is that these devices cannot have any relationship with real explanations of the facts that are due to the arbitrary cumulation of processes in history. Notice that this hard and inescapable arbitrariness of history is naturally reflected in the extrinsic ordering of the processes. It is obvious then that these models, even with the relevant extensions, cannot provide any explanation of opaque alternations. Rather they simply deal with their putative descriptive reanalysis. Proponents of these models claim that they have an advantage over the derivational ones because in this way the power inherent in ordering stipulations is dispensed with. It is unclear what supports this claim. It should be obvious by now that by abandoning the notion of extrinsic ordering, and in particular that of ordering of processes, these models are forced to introduce powerful machinery—such as Sympathy theory—which does not have any natural foundation, and is required only to deal with the problems caused by the abandonment of the notion of extrinsic ordering. It is also important to observe that no evidence has been provided up to this moment that a synchronic alternation historically accounted for by two processes ordered in time must be accounted for in a different way in a synchronic analysis and that reanalysis is always necessary in this case. In


15

the procedural approach to phonology that I will outline later, the presence of sequentially ordered processes must be interpreted as a sequence of instructions (rules or constraints). The basic assumption is that speakers are able to formulate ordered sequences of instructions and that there is no reason for excluding the knowledge of serial ordering of instructions—which is so fundamental in many human skills—from the knowledge of phonology. The bias against derivationalism has its historical roots in parallel models of cognitive processing. For example, McClelland, Rumelhart and Hinton (1986: 12) state the following: “Serious attempts to model even the simplest microsteps of cognition—say recognition of single words— require vast numbers of microsteps if they are implemented sequentially. As Feldman and Ballard (1982) have pointed out, the biological hardware is just too sluggish for sequential models of the microstructure to provide a plausible account, at least of the microstructure of human thought...Parallel distributed processing models offer alternatives to serial models of the microstructure of cognition.” Parallel distributed processing models have produced successful analyses in many areas of cognitive research. But as Clements (2000: 194) observes, these successes are not proof that a parallel model of phonology is necessarily superior to a serial one, or that a serial model must be excluded in principle. He continues by adding the following points: “First, serial models [of phonology] have never posited ‘vast numbers of microsteps’ but rather small numbers, which may not raise the problems alluded to above [in the McClelland et alii’s quote (AC)]. Second, any parallel model must be judged on its own merits, according to wellrecognized criteria such as cognitive and computational interpretability, as well as simple descriptive adequacy. Not all parallel models will necessarily satisfy these criteria equally well, and some may raise significant problems [Clements here is talking about his own discussion of OT done in the previous text to which I refer the reader (AC).]

16

Introduction

Third, many areas of higher-level cognition are admittedly sequential in nature, at least in part, and it may simply be the case that phonological competence is one of these” (Clements 2000: 194). Problem-solving is one of the higher-level cognitive processes which like phonological competence requires serial sequencing of steps, and in fact, is one of the cognitive processes that has been difficult to model in connectionist systems (Dunbar 1999: 295) (see also Anderson 1993; Newell 1973, 1990; Newell and Simon 1972). In general, problem-solving tasks involve finding a sequence of operators that allow the problem solver to transform an initial state into a goal state, in which the goal is achieved (J. Anderson 1985: 198). Problem solving involves decomposing the original goal into sub-goals and these into sub-goals until sub-goals are reached that can be achieved by direct action. A simple example of what this means is provided by Köhler (1927) in one of the classic studies of problem solving in apes. The revealing episode is so described by J. Anderson (1985: 199): "One of the problems posed to Sultan [a chimpanzee, A.C] was to get some bananas outside his cage. Sultan had no difficulty if he was given a stick to reach the bananas. He simply used the stick to pull the bananas into his cage. However the critical problem occurred when Sultan was provided with two poles, neither of which would reach the food. After vainly reaching with the poles, the frustrated ape sulked in his cage. Suddenly, he went over to the poles and put one inside the other, creating a pole long enough to reach the food; with the extended pole, he was able to reach his prize." The three essential features of problem solving are found in this episode (adapted from J. Anderson 1985: 199). 1. Goal directness: The behavior is clearly organized toward a goal—in this case, of getting the food. 2. Subgoal decomposition: If the ape could have gotten the food by simply reaching for it, the behavior would have been problem solving in only the most primitive sense. The essence of the problem solution is that the ape had to decompose the original goal in subtasks, or sub-goals, such as getting the poles and putting them together. 3. Operator sequencing. Decomposing the overall goal into sub-goals like putting the sticks together is useful because


17

the ape knows actions to achieve these sub-goals. The solution of the overall problem is a sequence of these known actions. What is particularly relevant to us here are cases in which solving one of the sub-goals prevents solution of another goal—i.e., the case that occur when the sub-goals are not independent. Consider the problem of painting a ladder and a ceiling green (J. Anderson 1985: 217, adapted from Sacerdoti 1977). This goal must be decomposed into two separate sub-goals: 1) painting the ladder green; 2) painting the ceiling green. Painting the ladder is decomposed into getting the green paint, and applying the green paint. Painting the ceiling is decomposed into getting the paint, using the ladder, and applying the paint to the ceiling. Unfortunately, applying the paint to the ladder makes it unavailable for painting the ceiling. Obviously, to achieve the overall goal, the problem solver must sequence the sub-goals in such a way that the ceiling is painted first and the ladder last. Therefore, each sub-goal involves specific instructions that implement specific actions: Get the paint! Use the ladder! Paint the ceiling! and so on. In order to achieve the goal, the problem solver needs to represent an ordered sequence of these instructions. It is reasonable to believe that when faced with a specific problem, humans—and apes too—have the ability to represent and plan an idiosyncratic sequence of actions that allows the solution of the problem. Let us go back to phonology now. The language Tunica provides a classic case of counterbleeding interaction between two processes that leads to a situation of opacity (from Kenstowicz and Kisseberth 1979). In the forms in (8) we observe a process of vowel assimilation occurring only across a glottal stop. This process is accounted for by the rule in (9). There is also a process of right destressing that deletes the second of two adjacent stresses. It will not be discussed here. In (9) I follow Halle's (1995) hypothesis that only terminal features are spread: (8)

to VERB po! pi! ya! tSu!

'he VERB' po!?uhki pi⁄?uhki ya!?uhki tSu!?uhki

'she VERB' po!?Oki pi⁄?Eki ya!?aki tSu!?Oki

'she is V-ing po!hk?aki pi⁄hk?aki ya!!hk?aki tSu!!hk?aki

gloss 'look' 'emerge' 'do' 'take'

18

Introduction

(9)

X [-cons]

X [-cons]

X [-cons]

Place

Larynx

Place

[+constr. Glottis] Tongue Body

Tongue Body

[+low] [a Back] Lips

Lips

[a Round] In the forms in (10) we observe a process of syncope deleting an unstressed vowel when adjacent to a glottal stop. This process is accounted for by the rule in (11). (10)

'to VERB' ha!ra hi⁄pu na!Si

'he VERB' ha!r?uhki hi⁄p?uhki na!S?uhki

(11)

X

'she is V-ing' ha!rahk?a!ki hi⁄puhk?a!ki na!Sihk?a!ki Ø

/ ____ ?

[-cons] The problem is what happens in the forms in (12). (12)

'she VERB' ha!r?aki hi⁄p?Oki na!S?Eki

gloss 'sing' 'dance' 'lead'

gloss 'sing' 'dance' 'lead' (Syncope)


19

In (12) we see that the low vowel of the feminine suffix /?a!ki / is undergoing vowel assimilation in absence of a surface trigger to the process. There is an exceptional behavior of the vowel assimilation process, a problem to solve. The solution would be simple even to Sultan, the chimpanzee. If we sequence the two instructions in (9) and (11) in the appropriate way as in (13) we account for what happens in the forms in (12). (13)

UR

SR

/na!Si - ?a!ki/ na!Si - ?E!ki na!S - ?E!ki na!S - ?Eki na!S?Eki

Vowel assimilation Syncope Right destressing

( = (9)) ( = (11))

Most linguist nowadays would agree that speakers have the ability to identify the phonological processes such as (9) and (11) since these are among the basic primitives on which all modern phonological analysis are based—an ability that is perhaps based on humans' ability to perform pattern recognition. Now, if speakers—qua human beings—have the cognitive ability to represent and plan extrinsically ordered sequences of instructions and to solve practical problems like the case of the paint and the ladder, then there is absolutely no reason to doubt that they also have the ability to represent (and plan) the extrinsically ordered correct sequence of instructions such as that in (13). Obviously, the requirements posed by the timeefficient language generative machine will force the sequence of instruction to rapidly become fully automatic, the same automatization that allows and maintains unconscious vertical posture in walking and bike-riding. Still, we are dealing with a serial sequence of instructions.

1.1.5.

Economy

There is no doubt then that a derivational model is needed to account for the conversion of long term memory representations into articulatory ones. This conversion requires many steps that may be ordered extrinsically. Let us look now at these different steps and investigate the nature of the changes involved in them. To pursue this goal, we need to deal with the notion of economy, which is another of the basic concerns of the approach developed here. I assume that a general principle of Economy governs the use of means and re-

20

Introduction

sources in all human praxis, language being part of it. I formulate it as in (14) with the assumption that each human activity and its outputs can be decomposed into elementary units. (14)

Principle of Economy Use the minimal amount of maximally relevant units

In the case of phonological representations, this principle requires the use of the minimal amount of maximally relevant structural elements. Assumption (14) also controls the level of markedness used in representations if we quantify the markedness of configurations in terms of complexity: use the minimal amount of maximally relevant complexity. One of the consequences of (14) in the case of phonology is that any phonological manipulations of a string can be implemented only if there is an instruction to do so. They can only be last resort operations: (15)

Last Resort Use a maximally relevant operation minimally

This radically limits what can be changed in phonological representations. Changes occur only if there is an instruction to do so. Any unmotivated changes are to be excluded. The principle in (14) governs the management of resources, but human action also has a time dimension. We live in time, real time. A linguistic action, like any other human activity, develops in time, so there must also be time economy. Time is a scarce resource and it is a fact that nature does not waste time. Therefore, it is designed in such as a way that the most optimal results are achieved in fastest and most economical way. This is nature's perfect way. So a stream of light will find the shortest way through a liquid in a perfect instant obviously without any calculations or evaluation of the possible paths. In the same way water streaming downward from the top of a mountain will readily find the shortest way to the valley and obviously without any computation. Bats locate flying insects and shoot right at them without calculating and evaluating all possible trajectories to hit the targets. Their system is so built that once they locate their targets they execute the best sets of movements to hit them without delay. The same holds for humans. Consider picking an object. Under normal circumstances we select the best sequence of movements to achieve that


21

goal. It is highly implausible to assume that the best selection is achieved by first calculating all possible movement sequences, and then identifying the best one. This way of proceeding is time-consuming and we are always under a time pressure to act. Our system must then be built in such a way that the best set of movements is chosen as we are performing them by local feedbacks and adjustments without calculating and comparing all possible outcomes. The system is efficient and achieves the best results under the pressure of scarce time and scarce energetic resources. And the same must be true for language. Speakers produce utterances in real time under environmental pressure to respond immediately. In their brief available time they must convert representations containing mnemonic elements merged and structured by the syntax into set of actual articulatory gestures. This must be done efficiently and as fast as possible. A generative theory of language must then be based on the assumption that there is a very restricted amount of available means, energy and time and that linguistic outputs must be generated efficiently in terms of these structures, energy and time. The problem I will deal with now is to outline a theory of phonology that satisfies this need for efficiency. The conversion of underlying representations into surface ones is a real time computation that must be implemented efficiently from the point of view of time and means. Observe at this point that models with deterministic generative devices such as the traditional rules are extremely successful from the point of view of time efficiency. Consider a process such as AB/C__D. The most efficient--time-efficient--way to account for this process is by means of a traditional rule that provides a detailed instruction on how to modify the input CAD into CBD. This instruction is the simplest, fastest and most efficient way to convert a representation into another one. If we want to analyze processes in terms of how they can most speedily map certain input representation into other ones, we should simply opt for rules and reject models where processes are analyzed in terms of more complex machinery as in OT or in Constraints-and-Repairs theories. These models not only are more theoretically complex but also less efficient in having to decide which of the available repair operations must be chosen to correct a given illicit configuration. The major evidence for the latter models is however provided by the phenomenon of conspiracies to which I now turn.

22 1.1.6.

Introduction

Conspiracies

One of the major problems of Classical Generative Phonology was the lack of an account for the phenomenon of phonological conspiracies, a problem first identified by Kisseberth (1970a,b). In the case of a conspiracy, a variety of different phonological processes have in common the avoidance of a given configuration. Hiatus resolution processes provide excellent examples of a conspiracy both in the case of the same language and across languages. In (16-18) I list the processes of hiatus removal we find in several languages: (16)

Chicano Spanish:3 a. Processes: i. Glide formation:

i a ya; u a wa ea ya; o a wa a i i; a u u; a e a; a o a

ii. Vowel Deletion: Examples: i. mi ultima [myultuma], tu hijo [twixo] tengo hipo [teNgwipo], me urge[myurxe] ii. casa humilde [kas_umilde], paga Evita[paV_eBita] Okpe: a. Processes: i. Glide formation: i a ya; u a wa ii. Vowel Deletion: eo o; ea e; oa o b. Examples: i. e~+ti⁄+o e~tyo! ‘pull-Inf.’; e~+ru!+o e~rwo! ‘make-Inf.’ ii.. E~+dE!+O E~dE! ‘buy-Inf.’; E~+lO!+O E~lO ! ‘grind-Inf.’ E~+da + OE~da 'drink+ Inf.’ E~+dE!+a E~dE! ‘buy-1p.Incl.; E~+lO!+a E~lO! ‘grind-1p.Incl French: a. Processes: i. Glide formation: i a ya; u a wa ii. Glide insertion: i a iya; u a uwa b. Examples: i. lu+e lwe; li+elye ii. kri+er kriye, pli+epliye b.

(17)

(18)

All of these languages share the avoidance of a hiatus configuration (at least in some context, see Chapter 3, sect. 3.1.5 for discussion of sequences


23

on non-high vowels in French. See also Chapter 2, sect. 2.1.1 for discussion of the same sequences in Polish). However, there are different ways in which this configuration is resolved according to the language and the environment. In Chicano Spanish, when the first vowel of a hiatus is a non-low vowel, it becomes a glide and when it is a low vowel, it is deleted. In Okpe, only when the first vowel of the hiatus is high does it becomes a glide; otherwise, it is the second vowel that is deleted. In French, a high vowel before another vowel becomes a glide unless it is preceded by consonant cluster [obstruent + sonorant]. If it is preceded by such a cluster, a glide is inserted between a high front vowel and the following vowel. In a Classical Generative Phonology model where only rules are used, the role of the target configuration in these processes would not be directly recognized; rather a variety of mostly unrelated rules dealing with that configuration would be posited. Glide formation in Chicano Spanish would be accounted for by postulating the rule in (19); for glide formation in French and Okpe, instead, we would have the rule in (20): (19)

Glide formation in Chicano Spanish: R N X

R N X

X

[-low]

(20)

R N X

[+high]

Glide formation in French and Okpe: R N X [+high]

R N X

`

X

R N X

[+high]

Whereas the vowel deletion process in Chicano Spanish would be accounted for by (21), (22) would be used for the vowel deletion in Okpe.

24 (21)

Introduction

Vowel deletion in Chicano Spanish: R N X1

R N X2

R N X2

[+low]

(22)

Vowel deletion in Okpe: R N X1

R N X2

R N X1

Finally, (23) would be postulated for glide insertion in French followed by resyllabification and feature spreading. (23)

Ø

X

X

R N / X X X [+cons] [+cons] [-cons]

X

R N X

X

__

R N X

R N X

[+cons] [+cons] [-cons]

By stipulating all of these different rules, Classical Generative Phonology fails to capture the central aspect of a conspiracy, which, in the case in (1618), is the avoidance of a vowel sequence. The fact that the same configuration in (24) is appearing in the structural description of all of these rules in one way or another is left unexplained and a generalization is obviously being missed both in each language and cross-linguistically, i.e., the need to rule out the configuration in (24).


(24)

R N X1

25

R N X2

There is both the need to factor out the configuration in (24), the hiatus configuration, and to refer to it in the account of what is going on in (1618), as first observed by Kisseberth (1970a, b). This is what theories using negative constraints do. An adequate analysis of the phenomenon of conspiracies, in fact, is not a problem for theories using negative constraints. In such theories, one can assume that there is a negative constraint blocking the configuration that is being avoided (see (25)) and that the different processes are repairs that fix this configuration. As a matter of fact, we know that hiatus configurations are avoided in many languages and eliminated by a variety of means (see Casali 1996, 1997 for discussion of this issue in an OT framework. Also see Rosenthall 1994). (25)

NoHiatus:4 * R N X

R N X

To account for these repairs, models like OT opt for a nondeterministic generative operator that manipulates an illicit input freely and produces a number—an infinite number for classical OT—of possible repair outputs. These repair outputs must then be evaluated to select the best one. Models like these are not time-efficient in requiring both generation and evaluation of output representations. In contrast, I will propose that repairs are due to deterministic operations transforming one set of representations into another set. In this way, a time efficient generation of outputs is allowed. In the theory I propose, repairs are implemented under the same strict requirements of economy both of time and computational resources. There is an ineluctable time pressure and an efficient system must be fast: the design of the model must be such that the best repair can be obtained as fast as possible, with the minimal use of means, and without time-wasting comparisons of outcomes like those characteristic of OT-like models.

26

Introduction

My account can be sketched as follows. Kiparsky (1973) observed that the configurations that are avoided in conspiracies are to be considered as universally complex. Conspiracies, according to him, should be accounted for by relying on universal substantive properties of language, i.e., on markedness properties. This is assumed in OT and also in Calabrese (1995). Following this assumption, I propose that UG provides a set of universal negative constraints such as that in (25) (see Chapter 2 for a detailed discussion). In addition, it also provides a universal ranking of the repair operations for each given active constraint. This indicates the preferred, i.e., the cross-linguistically most common, way of fixing a given illicit configuration. Thus, for each active constraint there is a set of ranked repair operations each involving minimal modifications of the target structure. I will call this set the REPAIR set of a constraint. A REPAIR of a configuration always begins with the highest ranked repair operation where this operation may be the first step in a derivational path composed of more repair operations. If this operation, or the derivational path starting with it, fails to produce a licit output, the next ranked repair operation—if there is one—will be applied thus starting a totally new derivational path. This goes on until a licit output is produced. The constraint in (25) is active in all of these languages. If (25) is active, configurations satisfying it such as (26) must be repaired. (26)

R N X1

R N X2

Three strategies of hiatus reduction are widely used across languages: glide formation, vowel deletion, and glide insertion. I cannot discuss the details of the analysis that involve manipulation of the basic non-linear operations of deletion and insertion (see chapter 2, sect. 2.1.1 in this regard). It is enough to say that glide formation is obtained as in (27) by removing the nucleus of the first vowel.5 This operation is then followed by two further repair operations—both instances of line addition—that incorporate the consonants left unsyllabified by the first operation. (Nucleus Removal = NR, Onset Incorporation = OI).


(27)

X m

R N X i

R N X (NR) X X u m i

(OI)

X m

X y

R N X (OI ) u

X m

X y

27

R N X u

R N X u

Vowel deletion involves skeletal deletion as in (28) followed by onset incorporation (SD=skeletal deletion): (28)

X l

R N X a

R N X i

(SD)

X l

R N X (OI) X i l

R N X i

Glide insertion is more complex. I assume that most cases involve simple line addition, i.e., onset incorporation followed by a repair process fissioning the illicit ambisyllabic construction that is formed (see (29) or simply skeletal insertion (cf. (30) (F = Fission), (SI = skeletal insertion) (see Chapter 2, section 2.1.1. for detailed discussion of these two types of repair). R R N N (29)

X | p

X | i

X(OI) | a

X | p

R N

R N

X | i

X (F) | a

R N X | p

X | i

R N X | [y]

X | a

28

(30)

Introduction

X | p

R N X | i

R N X(SI) | a

X | p

R N X | i

X | l

R N X | a

(OI)

X | p

R N X | i

R

N X | l

X | a

I propose that nucleus removal, which leads to glide formation, is the most highly ranked repair for this type of configuration. It is the first one that is always attempted, and only when the derivation it starts fails to produce a licit outcome does another strategy of hiatus resolution apply. I assume that the ranking of different repair strategies is fixed across languages as in (31): (31)

UG set of ranked repair operations for NOHIATUS (25) 1. Nucleus removal (=Glide formation) 2. Skeletal deletion (=Vowel deletion) 3. Line addition/skeletal insertion (=Glide/consonantal insertion)

What varies, however, is the availability of the different repair strategies. Thus, for example, although it appears that glide formation is always present as a way of solving a hiatus, some languages opt for vowel deletion when the former fails, others for glide insertion. In Chicano Spanish we have the situation stated in (32); in Okpe the one in (33), and in French the one in (34): (32)

The set of ranked repair operations for NOHIATUS (25) in Chicano Spanish: 1. Nucleus removal (=Glide formation) 2. Skeletal deletion (=Vowel deletion)

(33)

The set of ranked repair operations for NOHIATUS (25) in Okpe: 1) Nucleus removal (=Glide formation) 2) Skeletal deletion (=Vowel deletion)

(34)

The set of ranked repair operations for NOHIATUS (25) in French: 1) Nucleus removal (=Glide formation)


2)

29

Syllabic line addition (=Glide/consonantal insertion)

The glide formation process affecting high vowels as the one we observe in all of these languages is a simple instance of (27). Glide formation in the case of the mid vowels in Chicano Spanish, which are changed into the corresponding glide before another vowel, requires the application of a further repair operation triggered by the constraint in (35) which prohibits nonhigh vowels in syllabic margins. This operation deletes the feature [-high] of the mid vowel that is then replaced by [+high]. This is shown in (36)(FD=Feature deletion): (35)

(36)

No[-hi]inSyllMarg The feature [-high] cannot occur in [-cons] syllabic margins (i.e., in a [-cons] segment in onset or coda position): * (where = or R) | X | [-cons] | [-high]

X m

R N X e

R N X u

(FD)

(NR)

X m

X y

X X m e

R N X (OI) X u m

R N X - (OI) u

X m

X y

X e

R N X u

R N X u

When the first vowel is a low vowel as in (16bii), a derivation like that in (36) leads to another disallowed configuration. In fact it produces the configuration [+high, +low] that is prohibited by the constraint in (37). (37)

*[+high, +low]

30

Introduction

I assume that this constraint is not associated with any repair operation in Chicano Spanish. (38)

The set of ranked repair operations for No[+HI,+LO] (38) in Chicano Spanish: Ø

Therefore a configuration violating it cannot be repaired. Thus a derivation starting with Nucleus removal like those in (27) and (36) cannot be further repaired and crashes in failing to provide a licit output:

(39)

X l

R N X a

R N X i

(FD)

(NR)

X l

X a

X l R N X i

X a

R N X (OI) X i l

X a

R N X i

|**|

Therefore the next available repair operation of (32) must be applied to fix the hiatus configuration. This is skeletal deletion; we thus have vowel deletion as in (40). The Chicano Spanish facts can therefore be efficiently derived.

(40)

X l

R N X a

R N X i

(VD)

X l

R N X - (OI) i

X l

R N X i

The difference between Okpe and Chicano Spanish is accounted for by assuming that the constraint in (35) is unrepairable in Okpe. Therefore the derivation in (36) will not be possible and instead will crash. Given (33) vowel deletion must apply. In the case of French--which is simplified here (see Chapter 3, Sect.


31

3.1.1 for more complete discussion)--the relevant constraint is the one in (41) which disallows trisegmental clusters ending in a glide such as CryV. (41)

*

X -sonorant +consonantal

X +sonorant +consonantal

X +sonorant -consonantal

Let us assume for now that (41) is unrepairable in French (see Chapter 3, sect. 3.1.1 for a slightly different approach). Hence (41) disallows the output of a derivation starting with nucleus removal such as that in (27), when the high vowel is preceded by a consonantal cluster consonant + sonorant. This derivation then crashes and the next repair strategy in (35) must be used. The configuration in (43a) is thus created. As discussed in Chapter 2, sect. 2.1.1, fission (F) then changes (43a) into (43c). Glide insertion can then be accounted for.

(42) a. X | p

X | l

c.

R N X | i

R N X | e

X | p

(OI)

X | l

R N X | i

b.

X

X | p

X | l

R X X | i

R N X (F) | e

R N X | e

Negative constraints are therefore needed to account for cases in which groups of processes seem to avoid and change a given configuration. These processes are best analyzed as repairs of a configuration disallowed by a negative constraint. However, strong evidence for negative constraints is also provided by languages in which a negative constraint both triggers a repair and blocks an operation, at one time. One of such language is Tash-

32

Introduction

hiyt Berber. Dell and Elmedlaoui (2002) show that there are underlying contrasts in the syllabification of high vocoids as glides (G) or vowels (V). (43)

a.

i. ii. iii. iv. v.

Underlying V-G sequence t-suy 'she let pass' i-liws& 'sheep hide (carpet)' tt-gnuguy 'tumble-impf.' !-suwr 'paint' t-Hiyd 'move away-3fs'

vs. vs. vs. vs. vs.

Underlying G-V sequence t-zwi 'she beats down' a-Vyul 'mule' zuzwi 'be cool-neg.' zwur 'precede' t-Hyit 'keep alive 2s.'

To account for the contrasts in (43a) we have to assume underlying syllabic structures with different nuclear positions as in (43b): (43)

b. Underlying V-G sequence R N X u

X y

Underlying G-V sequence R N X X w i

Still no high vowels are ever found in the adjacency of another vowel. To account for this fact we have to assume that there is an active process of glide formation removing underlying hiatus configurations. Consider the verb /zwi/ 'beat down' in (43ai). It appears as in (44) when followed by the low vowel /a/. To account for what happens in the forms in (44) we need not only a hiatus removal repair operation but also a resyllabification of the verbal form. (44)

a. b.

/zwi=as/ /zwi a baba/

[zuy as] [zuy a baba]

'beat down for him' 'beat down, O father!'

In Tashlhiyt Berber all consonants can be assigned syllabic nucleus. As observed by Dell and Elmedlaoui (2002), in this case syllabification is always predictable and no underlying contrasts need to be stipulated. Following Dell and Elmedlaoui (1986), in Chapter 3, sect. 3.2, I propose that the syllabification of consonants as nuclei can be accounted for by the iterative application of nucleus assignment to local sonority peaks-- an instance of one of the repair strategies triggered by the independently needed constraint against unsyllabified segments.


(45)

2 sg perf. /t-......-t/ tr . glt ts . krt tx . znt

33

3 f.sg. perf. + dat.3m.sg. /t- .../ +/as/ trg . las ‘lock’ tsk . ras ‘do’ txz . nas ‘store’

Crucially, the application of nucleus assignment is blocked when it would create hiatus configurations. Thus in the forms in (46), local sonority peaks—the high vocoids in this case—are not assigned nucleus because by doing so, a hiatus would be created. (46)

/ra-I-rz/ /ÌaUl-tn/ /ra-I-mmVI/

[ra.yrz] [Ìa.wlt-tn] [ra.ymm.Vi]

‘it will be broken’ ‘make them(m.) plentiful’ ‘he will grow’

Thus, the NoHiatus constraint in (25) at the same time triggers the resyllabification operations in (44) and also blocks the operations of nucleus assignment in (46). Such double function of a negative constraint cannot be reproduced in a rule-only system where the blocking we see in (46) would be left totally unaccounted. In conclusion, not only do we need rules such as (2), we also need negative constraints such as (25) which trigger repairs or block the application of processes.

1.1.7.

Rules and Constraint as procedural instructions

The model outlined above is of a procedural type. Phonological changes involve actual actions that implement a modification of a phonological representation. These actions are governed by a special set of instructions. A negative constraint is the instance of one type of instruction: a negative instruction to avoid a given configuration. This negative instruction triggers a repair. I have discussed this above. Crucially not only negative instructions are responsible for phonological changes. There are also positive instructions that state that a given configuration must be changed in a certain way. Typically, language specific processes like that in (1) found in the Polish alternations in (2) can only be formulated in this way. Idiosyncratic processes can only be accounted for by a rule insofar as they are by necessity always the same in their particularity: they identify a configuration that is

34

Introduction

changed in a special way in some special circumstances. In the case of rules, the instruction identifies a structural description that is always changed in only one way. They do not need to mark complexity/illicitness, just require the implementation of a change. I am thus claiming that there are two types of instructions: positive instructions and negative instructions. Positive instructions are formally implemented as rules (i.e., ab/ w___z). Negative instructions are formally implemented as negative constraints like the Marking Statements/Prohibitions of Calabrese (1988/1995) or the OT's constraints (i.e., *[a, b] / w___z). It is usually argued that rules and negative constraints are equivalent. Mohanan (2000) expresses this point quite clearly: "A segment structure rule of the form [+nasal] [+voice] says that for any segment x, if x is nasal, then x is voiced. The rule [-voice] [-nasal] says that for any segment x, if x is not voiced, then x is not nasal. The symbols + and - refer to an assertion and negation respectively. Now, if p then q is logically equivalent to if not q, then not p ((pq) = (-q -p)). Once translated into first order logic, therefore, it becomes obvious that [+nas] [+voice] and [-voice] [-nasal] are logically equivalent. A constraint of the form *[+nasal, -voice] says that for any segment x, it cannot be the case that [x] is nasal and [x] is not voiced. In first order logic, this translates as -(p&-q). Given the rule of inference (pq)=-(p&-q), it follows that rules and constraints are also logically equivalent." (Mohanan 2000:145-146) Such logical equivalence does not hold in the procedural view of grammar assumed here. Specifically, if we consider language as one of the forms of human praxis as I do here, rules and negative constraints are totally different ways of implementing linguistic actions. A rule prescribes what to do, how to change a given configuration. A negative constraint simply states that certain configurations are disallowed and does not prescribe how to fix or remove them. This is done by a REPAIR that is governed by an independent set of instructions, as discussed above. Rules and negative constraints are obviously non-equivalent. Thus rules and negative constraints differ in the sets of operations they trigger. Negative constraints trigger a range of possible operations. Conspiracy effects are due to their activity. In the case of rules, there can only


35

be a single operation. Notice that not only idiosyncratic processes are to be accounted for by rule. Rules should also be used to account for natural processes in which the target configuration appears to be treated in the same way across languages, i.e., processes such as syncope, final devoicing, or vowel assimilations. Evidence of what is a UG constraint or rule should obviously be available to the speaker—his knowledge system is supposed to include the relevant UG constraint or rule. The situation is different for the linguist that cannot access this knowledge directly. Thus one of the goals of phonology is that of establishing whether a process that is cross-linguistically common is triggered by a negative constraint or by a rule. This is done by studying whether or not there is variation in the treatment of the target configurations of the process and by understanding the nature of this variation (see Chapter 2, sect. 2.2.7 for discussion). The co-presence of rules and negative constraints is not an innovation of the model presented here and has been used since the beginning of Generative Phonology. OT proponents see in the simultaneous use of rules and negative constraints an unnecessary and redundant duplication of roles insofar as the effects of rules can also be obtained by using negative constraints. OT claims to make grammar uniform by using only negative constraints and no rules. Given what is said above, this is obviously incorrect; rules and negative constraints have different functions so that there is no overlap between them. There is no duplication problem in the model proposed here. Rules trigger single operations, negative constraints multiple operations. This is their fundamental difference. This distinction will allow the phonologist to make much more economical and elegant analysis of many phonological processes. OT's ideal of grammar unification as a set of negative constraints is simply misguided. It considers the phonology of a human language as a system of conspiracies. There is no evidence that supports this. The reality of languages is much more complex. As discussed above, there are indeed cases that display conspiracy effects—although they are not so frequent— but also cases that clearly do not. The simplest way to account for this is to have both negative constraints and rules in the grammar as argued above. The formal architecture of the phonological component in this model is given in (47).

36

Introduction

(47) MORPHOLOGY/DICTIONARY Underlying Representations / Inputs/

PHONOLOGICAL COMPONENT

Instructions System Constraints & Rules

Operator Component Operations on phonological strings

Surface Representations [Outputs]

The most important part of the Phonological Component is the Instructions (I) System sub-component. This sub-component contains the rules and the constraints. The I-component checks the inputs to the Phonological Component and identifies in them the configurations that satisfy the instructions. These configurations are labeled and then the input is sent to the Operator Component where these configurations are changed through the application of minimal operations. Each of the configurations changed in the Operator Component is then sent back to the I-component that checks them. If the constraints are still not satisfied, or a new illicit configuration was created by the operations in the Operator component, the input is sent back to this component for further manipulations. These loops back and forth between the Instructions and the Operator Component lasts until all configurations of the input are checked.


37

Both rules and negative constraints can be idiosyncratic and languagespecific as well as universal. Universal constraints are included in the Markedness Module. Markedness effects found across languages are due to repairs triggered by this module. Idiosyncratic and language-specific constraints are instead included in the learned phonology component that is obviously language-specific. A diagram representing the instruction system is given in (47b). (47) b.

MODEL OF GRAMMAR LEARNED GRAMMAR MORPHOLOGY/DICTIONARY

INSTRUCTIONS SYSTEM LG.-SPECIFIC PHONOLOGY /MORPHO-PHONOLOGY Idiosyncratic Rules: R1, R2 R3 … Idiosyncratic statements: On serial ordering of operations On exceptional behavior of morphemes Etc.

MARKEDNESS MODULE Active MS: M1, M2, M3…

Prohibitions: P1 , P2 , P3 …

REPAIR SETS Active Natural Rules: R1, R2, R3… Correlation Statements

Deactivated UG constraints

Diagram (47b) claims that a fundamental part of the phonological grammar of a language does not belong to UG but must be learned by the speakers of that language. This is included in the dashed line box in (47b). First of all, the vocabulary items of that language must be memorized. Secondly, the

38

Introduction

pattern of marking statements activation/deactivation must be learned, and with this, the idiosyncratic instructions of the language and all other arbitrary conditions on the operations triggered by instructions such as statements on the exceptional behavior of morphemes. The issue is now to have extrinsic ordering in a framework where some processes are constraint-triggered repairs. The notion of “checking” is important in this regard. During the derivation phonological representations are continuously checked to see if they contain configurations satisfying the instructions. Ceteris paribus, given a set of instructions, the operations triggered by these instructions will tend to apply in a feeding/bleeding relationship until fully licit outputs are created. To get counterfeeding/counterbleeding interactions between operations, I propose that the checking of instructions for a given representation can be serialized in time. In particular, the checking of a certain instruction can be delayed until after the application of a given phonological operation. If the checking operation finds out that this instruction is satisfied, an operation will immediately follow. Now in the specific case of a negative constraint, if the checking operation finds out that this constraint is violated, the illicit configuration is immediately repaired. The delay of this checking operation establishes an ordering relationship between the first phonological operation and the REPAIR triggered by the constraint. I propose that this delay is obtained by having a statement specifying when a given constraint must be checked with respect to certain other changes. I illustrate this with an example from Icelandic. This language is characterized by a process of palatalization fronting velars to palatal stops before front vowels. This is shown in (48-49) (from Anderson (1981)). (48)

a. b. c. d.

kha:kha khri:ja kou:mu‹ r kli:ma

‘cake’ ‘artict tern’ ‘palate’ ‘wrestle’

(49)

a. b. c. d.

chi:lou chei:la cÈfta cei:sÈr

‘kilogram’ ‘cone’ ‘marry’ ‘name of famous hot spring’

There are two sets of exceptions to this palatalization process. In a first set a velar is found before a front vowel:


(50)

a. b. c. d.

khu‹n:a ku‹va kho‹:khu‹ ko‹:tu‹

39

‘know’ ‘steam’ ‘cake(obl. sg.)’ ‘street (obl. sg.)’

In the second set a palatal stop is found before the back vowel [a] of the diphthong [ai]: (51)

a. chai:r b. cai:va

‘dear, beloved’ ‘good luck’

I will assume that palatalization is due to the velar fronting rule in (52) followed by other processes that will convert the fronted velar into a palatal stop. Since they are irrelevant for the analysis of the Icelandic facts, I will not discuss them here (but they are investigated in detail in Chapter 4). (52)

X | [+cons]

X | -cons +son

place

place

Dorsal

Dorsal

[-back] The rule in (52) trigger the operation in (53): (53)

Input: kœli OPERATION: Output: cœli Through insertion of [-back] as required by (52) + the coronalization processes discussed in chapter 4.

The first set of exceptions is due to various processes of vowel fronting that I will not discuss here, other than saying that they are ordered after the

40

Introduction

palatalization operation. The interesting exceptions for my goals here are those found in (51). They are due to a context-free process that replaces the front low vowel [œ] with the diphthong [ai] as in (54): (54)

œ

ai

For example, the 1st sg. present subjunctive form of the verb kala ‘freeze, become frostbitten’ is chai:li. It is derived from an underlying form /kal-i/ where the low root vowel undergoes fronting by an umlaut process triggered by the final /-i/. This low front vowel then undergoes diphthongization by (54). The issue is that the front low vowel triggers palatalization before diphthongizing. This is shown in (55) (there is a further process of aspiration that I do not consider here). (55)

UR: Umlaut: Palatalization: Diphthongization: Surface output:

/kal-i/ kœli cœli caili chaili

The best way of analyzing the diphthongization we observe in (54) is to assume that the marking statement against front low vowels *[+low, -back] is active in Icelandic. The diphthongization in (54) can then be taken as an outcome of the repair strategy of fission that fixes up the disallowed configuration [+low, -back]. Fission changes the disallowed vowel [œ] into the sequence [ai] as shown in (57). (The details of how fission works cannot be discussed here. See Chapter 2, sect. 2.3.1 for more discussion)6 (57)

[-cons.]

(fission)

Place Lips

Tongue Bd.

[-cons.] Place

Lips

[-cons.] Place

Tongue Bd. Tongue Bd.

Lips

[-round] [-round] [-round [-back] [+back] [-back] [-high] [-high] [+high] [+low] [+low] [-low]


41

The umlaut process that we see in (55) is accounted for by the rule in (58): (58)

[-consonantal]

[-consonantal]

Place

Place

Dorsal

Dorsal

[+back]

[-back]

(58) triggers the operation in (59): (59)

Input:

kali [+low, +back] OPERATION: Output: kœli [+low, -back]

Through deletion of [+back] and insertion of [-back] as required by (58).

Crucially the front low vowel created by the operation in (58) is not automatically repaired by fission; rather fission must be delayed by the statement in (60): (60)

The checking of *[+low, -back] follows Rpalatalization

Because of (60) the palatalization rule must have had the chance of applying before the REPAIR of *[+low, -back] by fission is implemented as shown in the derivation in (55). Thus we can derive the correct output form in (55) (see chapter 2, section 2.4. for discussion of more examples)

1.1.8.

Markedness Theory

The Markedness Module includes universal negative constraints and universal rules. There are two types of universal negative constraints: the prohibitions and the marking statements. Prohibitions identify configurations that are never possible for articulatory and/or acoustic/perceptual reasons.

42

Introduction

Marking statements identify phonologically complex configurations that may be found in some but not all phonological inventories. They can be active or deactivated. If a Marking statement is deactivated in a given language, the relevant complex configuration appears in the language. Otherwise, they are naturally active, and the relevant complex configuration is missing. The universal rules include the natural rules, which account for processes that tend to be recurrent across language, like final devoicing. They can also be active or deactivated. As in the case of the marking statements, I assume that they are naturally active and that they must be deactivated—suppressed like the natural processes of Stampe (1972)—in the acquisition process. Markedness statements—with this term here I include marking statements, prohibitions and natural rules—belong to the grammar; they are grammatical statements about phonological representations. From the grammatical point of view, they are not different from language-specific idiosyncratic constraints. However, they are also interface conditions, i.e., the means through which the linguistic computational system is able to interpret and read the properties of the sensory-motor system. All these markedness statements represent the sensory-motor system in the linguistic computational system. The relationship between the markedness statements and the sensorymotor system is not like that of grounding in Archangeli and Pulleyblank's (1994) sense. Grounding simply indicates the presence of a reason for the markedness statements. Here I argue for a closer relationship: the markedness statements are the means by which the grammatical system interprets and categorizes the physiological, articulatory or acoustic properties of the sensory-motor system. The speaker does not have access to these properties other than through this categorization, in the same way as in our perception of color we do not have access to the intrinsic properties of light. Obviously, the nature and function of these properties in language can be explained by the phonetician in the same way as the nature of our perception of color can be explained by the physicist or the psychologist. However, these phonetic explanations are external to our linguistic behavior in the same way as the explanations of the physicist or the psychologist on our perception of color are external to our experience of color. Phonetic explanations are extra-grammatical: only markedness statements play a role in the grammatical system. We can then say that markedness actually refers to a concrete mind/brain state in its relationship to the sensory-motor system. The articu-


43

latory programs that are possible are those that correspond to licensed configurations; those that are impossible correspond to illicit configurations. Thus, using minimalist terminology, licensing a phonological configuration means making it legible to the articulatory interface. Illicit configurations are instead illegible. Active marking statements mark the configurations that are illegible and that must be manipulated in such a way to make them legible. Under this interpretation, marking statements indicate the relative complexity of computational programs mapping phonological representation into articulatory programs. Consider the following. Italian does not have the front rounded vowel /ü/. What does this mean in terms of this model? The complexity of a vowel that is marked by an active marking statement in the grammatical system of Italian indicates that its characteristic featural configuration is not easily computed/organized into an articulatory program. Not having been exposed to this vowel, an Italian speaker was not trained as a child into using/computing this articulatory program. Therefore, this articulatory program remains exceedingly difficult for him. When an Italian speaker is faced with the feature configuration characterizing this vowel, he will be unable to compute it in articulatory terms since it does not have a corresponding articulatory program. Therefore, it must be adjusted in the phonological system so that it can be processed articulatorily. This is the repair that licenses the configuration. The repair is the solution that the grammatical system provides to the problem of the interface. There are linguists that question the use of markedness notions in linguistic analysis. The argument is that when considered from the synchronic or grammar-internal point of view, the notion of markedness does not have any explanatory power and is simply superfluous: the vowel /ü/ is fully integrated in the phonological grammar of German or French and saying that it is marked is simply meaningless (Lass 1972; Hale and Reiss 1998, 2000). Thus Hale and Reiss (1998) state the following: "Positing the type of universal substantive constraints found in the OT literature [but the same holds for any other theory of markedness like the one proposed here and in Calabrese (1995) (A.C.)] adds nothing to the explanatory power of phonological theory. Consider the situation in which the learner finds him/herself. Equipped with an OT type UG, a child born into an English- speaking environment 'knows' that ejective stops are 'marked'. However, this child never needs to call upon this knowledge to evaluate the

44

Introduction

primary linguistic data, since there are no such stops in the ambient target language. In any case, by making use of positive evidence the child successfully acquires a language like English without these 'marked' consonants. Born into a Navaho-speaking environment the child again knows that ejectives are marked. However, the ambient language provides ample positive evidence that such sounds are present, and the child must override that supposed innate bias against such stops in order to learn Navaho. So, this purportedly UG-given gift of knowledge is either irrelevant or misleading for what needs to be learned." I agree with their claim that the fact that the English child has the "knowledge" that ejective stops are marked is irrelevant from the point of view of the grammar that has been learned. Not so, however, for the Navaho learner where markedness predicts that more effort is needed to learn and produce the complex ejective stops. The point is that for human beings certain actions are more complex than others. Thus, for example, a double backward somersault is more complex than a cartwheel in gymnastics insofar as it requires more complex muscular co-ordinations. Learning how to perform this acrobatic stunt will thus involve a lot of training and effort so that this stunt will be learned only after the easier cartwheel. Once the training is achieved, the backward double somersault is easily performed, albeit still intrinsically complex, by a trained gymnast. Notice that it will be easily lost with the passing of time and that any small health problem will affect its implementation. The same can be said of phonologically marked segments. For the speaker of Navaho, obviously well trained in the pronunciation of this language, the ejective stops, although intrinsically difficult, will be easy to pronounce. In contrast, the English speaker, who has never been exposed to ejective stops, will experience problems if exposed to them in not having been trained in their pronunciation. This is what the presence of an active marking statement indicates, and the solutions that speakers will find to the problems posed by segments disallowed by an active marking statement will involve "grammatical" repairs. Resorting to grammatical repairs is the only way speakers have to deal with these segments other than learning how to pronounce them, which means deactivating the relevant marking statement. In conclusion, an active Marking Statement must refer to the absence, or unavailability, of such a computational program; when a marking statement


45

is active, the relevant phonological representation cannot be converted into articulatory commands; the repair procedures which occur in this case must then refer to the phonological manipulations that make this conversion possible.

1.1.9.

Historical changes

Following a Jakobsonian perspective on language (see Jakobson 1941), I will assume that markedness also plays a role in explaining sound change. In the realistic view developed here, sound changes due to markedness involve a decrease of the complexity allowed in a language; representations then must be adjusted in order to be articulated. In phonological terms, this means that certain marking statements that were deactivated become active and that a repair adjusts the representations that have thus become disallowed, or that a natural rule that was deactivated becomes active again. Under this interpretation, a sound change is an innovative repair. This innovative repair is then grammaticalized and becomes part of the grammar of a linguistic community. How does this innovative repair become part of the grammar so that there is an actual change in grammar? It is fundamental at this point to clarify what I assume about grammar. I assume that grammar has a double identity: it is not only i) a computational system, i.e., a set of symbols, and a set of computations using these symbols, but also ii) an institution along the line of Sperber (1995), i.e., a system of mental representations (and computations) shared by speakers of a same linguistic community. Thus, from the last point of view, it is at the same time a cultural institution dictating norms of acceptability and an individual speaker's concrete mind/brain state insofar as this individual speaker shares the mental representations of the other members of the same community. As I proposed above, in learning a language, speakers must adjust their internal representations/mind-brain states through the adjustment of parameter settings, deactivations of marking statements, and so on, in such a way that they are similar to those of other members of the community. Under this view, grammaticalization is the process by which a given individual linguistic innovation/representation becomes public, i.e. shared by the members of the community. This sharing probably has its basis in mimetic behavior, an important characteristics of human species (Hauser, Chomsky and Fitch 2002). Once a representation is shared by the members of a linguistic community, as discussed above, it acquires a coercive value of its

46

Introduction

own; it becomes a norm. It loses any intrinsic motivation to become motivated only by the fact that it belongs to the traditional norm of the group: "you say so!" In this sense, a realistic phonology is about concrete mental representations/states that are, however, by definition shared by all of the members of a given linguistic community. If this is correct, each sound change involves three parts (Labov 2001, Hale 1995): an innovation performed by an individual speaker, the transmission of this innovation from this speaker to other speakers in a linguistic community, and finally, the adoption of this innovative feature in the grammar of the community. Only the first part is properly linguistic; the other two parts are controlled by sociolinguistic or fully social factors.7 Let us consider the removal of hiatus configurations such as the one we observe in the development from Latin to Romance. Such innovatory simplification involves a novel pronunciation, for example in the Latin case, the pronunciation [mu . lyer] instead of classical [mu . li . er].8, 9 The next crucial step is the transmission of the innovative pronunciation to other members of the speech community who may adopt it. How this transmission occurs and why is not the object of study of linguistics but of sociology and sociolinguistics (see Labov 1994).10 It is important to observe, though, that an innovative pronunciation that presents favorable characteristics such as the simplification of a marked structure may have an advantage over an innovation that is simply “crazy”.11 If other speakers pick up this pronunciation and analyze it at the right level of abstraction, they may also apply it to other words. At this point, this innovative pronunciation may become associated with certain lexical or grammatical classes. However, if the transmission of the innovation is totally successful, it will spread throughout the words of the language and the speech community and thus become a characteristic feature of the language of this community.12 Once this occurs, it becomes grammaticalized and thus a feature of its grammar. A change in the language grammar is thus obtained, and if this change produces phonological alternations, we can talk of addition of a rule to this grammar in the sense of Halle (1962). This explains why the formal apparatus of a given synchronic grammar coincides in part with that of the changes leading to it. A synchronic grammar is also the product of the complex crystallization of all the changes leading to it. Observe that once a process/representation becomes shared as a norm by members of the community, it becomes arbitrary insofar as its intrinsic properties are fixed in the public representation. The same mechanisms that govern fashion are playing a role here. In the same way as the use of a cer-


47

tain piece of clothing which could have had a motivation when it was first worn eventually becomes established as representing a certain group identity or social status, when a new pronunciation of word is adopted by other members of a group, the intrinsic motivation that leads to it is lost, and the new pronunciation is preserved as a conventional property of group identity. It has become totally unmotivated and arbitrary. A process that is traditional in this sense can still be transparently motivated by the markedness considerations that led to its origin but it is at the same time conventional and arbitrary. Being conventional, the process is open to the inclusion of arbitrary statements such as those accounting for the extrinsic ordering of instructions, those involved in idiosyncratic rules and those accounting for exceptions as argued above. These arbitrary statements have a motivation in history. Still, they allow an efficient and economical derivation of the surface phonological forms of a language. This is the main goal of synchronic phonology. Anderson's paradox mentioned at the beginning of this chapter is therefore explained.

1.1.10. Exceptions to Markedness Theory One of the most common objections against Markedness Theory is that there appear to be exceptions to it in which marked segments are produced by context-free changes (see Dressler 1974). The prototypical example of such a change is the context-free fronting of rounded back vowels that occurred in languages such as Gallo-Romance and Classical Greek among others. This fronting affects the unmarked vowels [u] and [o] and produces the vowels [ü] and [ö], respectively, which according to any markedness criteria are marked.13 In the theory presented here, these vowels would be disallowed by the marking statement in (61). (61)

*[-back, +round]

Thus in the case of this fronting we seem to have a spontaneous change from the unmarked to the marked, a change that should be forbidden if markedness theory is correct. In Calabrese (2000) I proposed the following explanation for a process of this type that occurred in the southern Italian dialect of Altamura (Loporcaro 1988). In this dialect, [+ATR] rounded vowels are fronted (cf. (62)), whereas [-ATR] ones are not (cf. (63)).

48 (62)

Introduction a.

b.

(63)

/+ATR u/: /·urs´/[·yrs´] /·luggj´/[·lyggj´] /·brutt´/[·brytt´] /an·nuSń´/[an·nySń´] /·nuv´l´/[·nyv´l´]

‘bear’ ‘July' ‘ugly' ‘bring-3pl’ ‘cloud'

/+ATR o/: /·omm´/[·Ømm´] /·loNN´/['lØNN´] /·nott´/[·nØtt´] /r´·kott´/[r´·kØtt´] /ak·koggj´/[ak·kØggj] /·okkj´r´/[·Økkj´r´] /·stomm´k´/[·stØmmek´]]

‘man’ ‘long-fm.' ‘night' 'Ricotta cheese' 'comfortable' ‘eyes’ ‘stomach-sg.’

/-ATR O/ /·stOpp´/[·stOpp´], *·stpp´ /·dOltS´/[·dOltS´], *·dltS´ /·tOtt´/[·tOtt´], *·ttt´ /ka·nOSS´/[ka·nOSS´], *ka·nSS´ /S´·nOkkj´r´/[S´·nOkkj´r´], *S´·nkkj´r´

'tow' 'sweet' 'all-fm.' 'know' 'knees'

The fundamental hypothesis of Calabrese (2000) is that the fronting we see in (62) involves a repair due to the marking statement in (64), which characterizes the feature configuration [+back, +ATR] as phonologically complex. (64)

*[+ATR, +back ]

The idea is that marking statement in (64) is active in this dialect and triggers the repair in (65) (see Chapter 2, section 2.3.1 for discussion of repairs in segmental phonology). (65)

Input: *[+ATR, +back] Repair: Deletion of [+back]


49

Thus the feature [+back] is deleted in the feature bundles of [+ATR] /u, o/ and then it is replaced by the feature [-back]. Thus, the vowels /u, o/ are fronted into [y, ø].14 There is a natural motivation for the constraint in (64) involving the mechanics of tongue root movement. Lindau (1978:30) first observed that advancing the tongue root tends to push the tongue body up and forward (see also Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1994), as schematized in (66) (from Vaux (1992)). (66) [+ATR] --> fronting and raising

tongue root advanced ~ tongue body pushed up and forward

Therefore, in pronouncing [+ATR] back vowels, speakers need to suppress the natural tendency to front them. The need for this suppression makes the configuration [+ATR, +back] articulatorily complex and therefore phonologically marked. Evidence for the marking statement in (64) is provided by the historical development in which [+ATR] back vowels in ATR systems are fronted so that from a protosystem with [ATR] oppositions as in (67a) we get the system in (67b) where the [+ATR] vowels are also fronted (see Vaux 1992, 1996a,b). (67)

a.

b.

original ATR system: i e A È E a

o O

u Ë

derived ATR/back system i e œ Ø È E a O

u‹ Ë

Consider the Somali vowel system, for example. Somali has two series of vowels contrasting in terms of the feature [ATR]. Interestingly the [+ATR] vowels are also fronted, as shown by the [+ATR] [u], [o], and [A] which surface as [ü], [Ø] and [œ] respectively (Antell et al. 1974:38).

50

Introduction

(68) +ATR

-ATR È E O Ë a

i e Ø ü œ

Recent phonetic work has shown that the Tungusic vowel systems are based on ATR oppositions and employ ATR harmony, rather than [back] harmony (Svantesson 1985; Ard 1980). Rialland and Djamouri 1984 and Svantesson 1985 have provided similar evidence that various Mongolian languages also employ ATR harmony. Crucially [+ATR] vowels are also relatively front in both groups of languages. Further evidence for a correlation between the feature [ATR] and the feature [back] is provided by Adjarian’s Law in Armenian (Vaux 1992, 1998). Vaux shows that in several Armenian dialects, for example in the dialect of Van, round back vowels are fronted after voiced stops. (69)

Classical Armenian bax ‘spade’ danak ‘knife’ gar%n ‘sheep’ bukh 'snowstorm' durs 'out' goÂ 'thief' pat ‘wall’ tasn ‘ten’ kartS ‘short’

Van pa‹x ta‹na‹k kja‹r% pykh tys kjØÂ pat tas kartS

Vaux accounts for this change by assuming that voiced stops are [+ATR]. 15 In the case of Adjarian's Law, we can assume that the feature [+ATR] of the obstruents was spread to the following vowel, as in (70): (70)

[+cons]

[-cons]

[+ATR]

According to the analysis proposed above, fronting of back


51

rounded vowels is due to the active marking statement in (64) and the repair in (65). I assume that this analysis of fronting holds for all cases in which we observe what appears to be a spontaneous change from the unmarked [u, o] to the marked [ü, ö]. It is crucially based on the assumption the vowels that change are [+ATR] and on the marking statement in (64). If this is correct, this change can no longer be considered an exception to markedness theory insofar as it is motivated by this marking statement. Rather, it involves a conflict between the marking statement *[-back, +round] and the marking statement *[+back, +ATR]. Usually the second marking statement is deactivated. However, in some languages this marking statement can become active and violations of it must be repaired. They are repaired by deleting [+back] and replacing it with [-back]. When this happens a segment violating *[-back, +round] is created. If the speakers of this language accept the degree of complexity of this segment, and *[-back, +round] is deactivated, front round vowels are introduced in the language. We thus have an account for the spontaneous fronting of rounded back vowels. Cases of this type are by no means rare: there are many other cases in which there is emergence of the marked: for example, syncope gives rise to complex syllabic structures; vowel assimilation such as umlaut gives rise to marked vowels like [ü, ö, ä]; vowel/consonants interactions (e.g. palatalization) gives rise to marked consonants such as palato-alveolar affricates and so on. All these cases are of the same type. They involve a conflict between a natural rule/marking statement and another marking statement disallowing a highly marked configuration. The historical change leading to the emergence of the marked involves the activation of the rule/marking statement that leads to a violation of the latter marking statement. The crucial issue in all of these cases—including the just discussed back vowel fronting-- is that the violated marking statement is deactivated instead of being repaired. The fact is that when a phonological operation generates a configuration of features that is normally not admitted in a language— i.e., illicit because of an marking statement—the language has two options: 1) first, to simplify the segment containing the disallowed configuration by applying a repair; 2) second, to deactivate the relevant marking statement, thereby admitting the previously excluded configuration of features. Under this option, the language accepts paying the cost of deactivating the relevant marking statement and enlarging its segmental inventory.16 The obvious question now is why in some cases speakers accept paying the cost of deactivating the relevant marking statement while at other times

52

Introduction

they do not and resort to repairs instead. I believe that there is no way to answer this question. Again here we are dealing with the idiosyncrasies of history, and the parallelism with fashion is also relevant in this case. In fact, there cannot be a real answer to the question of why a certain custom was adopted instead of another. For example, consider why piercing or tattooing has become popular in a segment of our society. We can explain why these customs spread in certain groups as sign of identity or rebellion, but not why they were adopted in the first place by the individuals that started piercing or tattooing themselves. Many different factors can play a role in this, some totally irrelevant such as simple chance. I submit that it is the same with linguistic changes, and, in particular, with the option I was mentioning above. What is important in the case of linguistics is that there are a limited number of possibilities, for example, the option between deactivating or not deactivating a given marking statement when a violation of it is created. But an account for why a certain possibility, or option, was adopted instead of another one cannot be pursued, at least given our current understanding of how the mind works.

1.1.11. Summary To summarize what has been discussed in section 1.1: The synchronic phonology of a language is both natural and conventional. It is natural because sound changes are motivated by markedness considerations. An analysis based on considerations of this type has an advantage in terms of economy and efficiency and will tend to be preserved in the language. But phonology is also conventional because of the way in which language is transmitted in a social group. Because of its conventional nature, the effects of idiosyncratic cumulation of historical changes and events can be encoded in the surface shape of the language. These effects introduce arbitrariness in the synchronic phonology of the language. We, therefore, have exceptions, idiosyncratic rules and the necessity of extrinsic ordering of processes in the derivation, all of which obscure the natural side of phonology. As always, reality is the outcome of the struggle between the Apollonian purity of reason and the Dionysian contradictions of existence.

Representational issues

1.2.

Representational Issues

1.2.1.

Features

53

In this section, I will introduce the type of representations that will be used in this book. Let us begin with the most basic assumptions. Like many other models, the theory presented here views utterances as acoustic signals actualizing sequences of words, each of which is itself made up of one or more morphemes. The morphemes are made up of sequences of discrete elements, each of which in output words involves complexes of muscular articulations. Following Halle (1995, 2002) I assume that these articulatory complexes are the result of executing the instructions associated with particular phonological features. Given the idea that the derivation from representations in long-term memory to representation for output articulation must be efficient and fast, it stands to reason that mnemonic representations of morphemes in long-term memory are also encoded in articulatory feature complexes. If it were otherwise, there would be the need for mapping procedures converting abstract featural representations into actual articulatory representations. These conversion procedures would be costly and time consuming from the point of view of the derivation. Furthermore as pointed out by Halle (2002: 8) "there are no empirical or theoretical reasons to believe that any other type of features need to be recognized elsewhere." It is, therefore, assumed here that the same features not only serve as instructions to articulatory actions, but also make up the representations of words and morphemes in speakers' memories and all intermediate representations that arise in the course of the derivation to surface representations. Recent research on the role of "mirror neurons" in the pre-motor cortex of humans, as well as other primates (Rizzolati and Arbib 1998; Rizzolati et alii 1999; Iacoboni et Alii 1999) may provide support for the idea that mental representations involve articulatory features. It has shown that the particular neurons exhibit excitations not only when an individual executes a particular action but also when the same individual observes the action being executed by another individual. Fadiga et al. (2001), quoted by Halle (2002: 8), observes that the same motor centers in the brain are activated both in the production of speech and in speech perception, where the perceiver engages in no overt motor activity. Fadiga, along the lines of motor theory of speech perception proposed by Alvin Liberman and I. Mattingly (1985, 1989), states that "speech perception and speech production processes use a common repertoire of motor primitives that during speech pro-

54

Introduction

duction are at the basis of articulatory gesture generation, while during speech perception are activated in the listener as the result of an acoustically evoked motor ‘resonance’" (Fadiga et al. 2001). If the same neural motor primitives play a role in speech production and perception, it is highly plausible that they also play a role in the encoding of linguistic representations in long-term memory. Phonological evidence tells us that these "motor primitives" involve articulatory features. Therefore, following Halle (1995, 2002) I will assume that morphemes are encoded through articulatory features where these articulatory features have a dual function. On one hand, they serve as mnemonic devices that distinguish one phoneme from another in speakers' memories. At the same time, each feature also serves as an instruction for a specific action of one of the six movable parts of the vocal tract, the so called articulators: the lips, the tongue blade, the tongue body, the soft palate, the tongue root, and the larynx. Each articulator is capable of a restricted set of actions of its own, and each of these actions is associated with a particular feature. There are two kinds of features: articulator-bound ones and articulator-free ones. Articulator-bound features such as [round] and [back] are necessarily executed by one and the same articulator; articulator-free features such as [continuant] and [consonantal] are executed by different articulators in different phonemes. The articulator executing the articulator-free features of a phoneme is called the designated articulator. Every phoneme must have a designated articulator. The feature model adopted here is formally represented in (71). (The feature [+Articulator] indicates the designated articulators.)


(71) Feature tree model (from Halle, Vaux and Wolfe (2000)) [suction] [continuant] [strident] [lateral]

[+Glottal] [stiff vocal folds] 17 [slack vocal folds] [constricted glottis] [spread glottis]

Larynx Consonantal Sonorant Guttural

[+Radical] [retracted tongue root] [advanced tongue root]

[+Rhinal] [nasal] [+Dorsal] [back] [high] [low] [+Coronal] [anterior] [distributed] [+Labial] [round]

Tongue Root

Soft Palate

Tongue Body

Tongue Blade

Place

Lips

Halle (1995), Halle, Vaux and Wolfe (2000) show that only terminal features (including the designated articulator) are manipulated in phonological processes. If this is correct, non-terminal nodes have only a classificatory nature: processes can affect either one terminal

55

56

Introduction

feature or sets of feature belonging to the same class. I will adopt this position here too. The notion of designated articulator will be central in the analysis proposed later in chapter 4. I assume that when an articulator is designated, this articulator is subject to an increased muscular effort that then results in an increased deployment of this articulator from its neutral position. Typically, this increased deployment has an evident effect when other articulators are active in the production of the sound: for example, a consequence of this is that in the case of consonants, the designated articulator has the highest degree of constriction, that is, the stricture characterizing the consonant (= the primary articulation). To clarify this, consider the distinction between a labio-velar stop /k°p/ and a labialized velar /kw/. In the case of /k°p/, stop stricture is simultaneously implemented by both the labial and dorsal articulators. In contrast, in the case of /kw/, the stop stricture is implemented only by the dorsal articulator. By using the notion of designated articulator, we can represent the labio-velar stop /k°p/ as in (73a): it has the two designated articulators [+Dorsal] and [+Labial]. The labialized velar /kw/ in (73b), instead, has only [+Dorsal] as a designated articulator but not [+Labial], although it is characterized by the labial feature [+round]. The plain dorsal consonant /k/ is represented as in (72): it has the designated articulator [+Dorsal] but no labial node. (72)

/k/

=

X [+cons]

Larynx | [+stiff v.f.]

[-cont.] Place Tongue Body

[ +Dorsal] [+back]


(73)

a.

/k°p/

=

57

X [+cons]

Larynx | [+stiff v.f.]

[-cont] Place

Lips

Tongue Body

[+Labial] [+round] b.

/kw/

=

[+Dorsal] [+back]

X [+cons]

Larynx | [+stiff v.f. ]

[-cont] Place

Lips

Tongue Body [+Dorsal]

[+round]

[+back]

One of the major problems of the articulators-based model in (71) is that of the interactions between vowels and consonants. In (71) vowels are obtained by the different displacements of the tongue body which are then further modulated by the different behaviors of the lips and tongue root. There are no problems then in accounting for cases of assimilation in which a tongue body, a lips or a tongue root feature of a vowel is transmitted to a consonant (or vice versa), i.e., for cases in which there is an articulator-internal interaction between vowels and consonants. However, there is no way of accounting for interactions occurring across articulators, i.e. for cases in which a tongue body feature of a vowel affects a consonant in such a way that it becomes non-dorsal, for example coronal or pharyngeal, or for cases in which a non-dorsal consonant (coronal or pharyngeal) affects a vowel in such a way that a tongue body feature is changed. The articulator-based model in (71) should exclude such interactions. However,

58

Introduction

such interactions are common and palatalization where a front vowel causes a consonant to become coronal is a striking example of one of them. It will be discussed in detail in chapter 4. Here I consider another case of vowel/consonant interaction: that between low vowels and guttural consonants, i.e., laryngeals and pharyngeals. The fundamental assumption is that the analysis must be set in terms of the hypothesis that is behind the articulator-based model in (71): assimilation processes are always anatomically constrained. Thus, if the tongue body in a vowel configuration is being lowered, it is because a lowered tongue body is being spread. It is well known that guttural consonants have a lowering effect on vowels (see McCarthy 1991, Herzallah 1990). This lowering effect is seen in the following cases from Hebrew where the epenthetic vowel appearing in the final consonantal cluster surfaces as [a] after a guttural consonant. (74) a.

Underlying Plain Roots /malk/ /sipr/ /quds&/

Singular melee k se@pe r qo@de s&

b. Medial Guttural Roots /ba¿l/ ba¿a al /kaÌs&/ kaÌaa s& /lahb/ laha ab /tu?r/ to?aa r

‘king/my king’ ‘book’ ‘holiness’

‘master’ ‘lying’ ‘flame’ ‘form/his form’

McCarthy (1991) accounts for this lowering by assuming the rule in (75): (75)

[+cons.]

[-cons.]

[+cons.]/ _____]Imperfect Stem

pharyngeal

The problem with the rule in (75) is that it assumes that low vowels are simply pharyngeal. It is unclear, however, how valid this assumption is from the phonetic point of view. Although there is some pharyngeal involvement, such as tongue root retraction, low vowels are mainly produced by a downward displacement of the tongue body from its neutral position. The active articulator in the case of the low vowels, as for all


59

The active articulator in the case of the low vowels, as for all vowels, is the tongue body (see Wood 1979). Characterizing them as pharyngeals is an unwarranted simplification. Here I will try to account for the vowel-consonant interaction we see in (74) in terms of the hypothesis that assimilation processes are always anatomically constrained: if a vowel is being lowered, it is because a lowered tongue body is being spread. If we study how pharyngeal consonants are produced articulatorily, we can observe, as mentioned above, that the retraction of the tongue root and the contraction of the pharyngeal muscles, which create their primary constriction, also cause an automatic lowering of the tongue body. This lowered tongue body can be considered as a secondary correlate of the articulatory movements involved in creating the primary pharyngeal constriction. I propose that it is nothing else than a secondary articulation. Specifically, in a different manner than the contrastive secondary articulation we saw in (73b), I assume that this is a case of a redundant, non-contrastive secondary articulation. The presence of these non-contrastive secondary articulations is crucial to understand vowel/consonants interactions. The correlation between tongue root retraction and the noncontrastive secondary dorsal [+low] articulation is formally expressed in the correlation statement in (76) (where, given (71), pharyngeal consonants are characterized as being [Tongue Root +Retracted Tongue Root (RTR)]): (76)

[Tongue Root +RTR]

[Tongue Body +low]

A pharyngeal would then be represented as in (77) and the rule in (78) would spread the secondary [+low] feature in (77) (only relevant features are represented): (77)

[+consonantal] [+continuant]

Place | Tongue Body | [+low]

Guttural | Tongue Root | [Radical]

[+RTR]

60 (78)

Introduction [+cons.]

[-cons.]

[+cons.]/ _____]Imperfect Stem

[+low]

Thus, in addition to the contrastive primary articulators, there can also be other non-contrastive secondary articulations in the production of these sounds. I assume that these non-contrastive aspects need to be represented phonologically. The correlation statements such as (76) do that. I hypothesize that the identification of non-contrastive secondary articulations is based on the proprioceptive experience of the action of the articulators in the vocal tract. We know that there are certain given orosensory patterns associated with each articulator. Following Perkell (1980), we can say that "these orosensory patterns consist of proprioceptive, tactile, and more complicated air pressure and airflow information from the entire vocal tract" (Perkell 1980: 338, quoted by McCarthy (1991)). "Mirror neurons" may be playing a role in all of this in the sense that they could reflect this type of sensory information in addition to the active contraction patterns of muscles. If this is correct, the orosensory proprioceptive patterns associated with the actions of the articulators are behind the correlation statements. Now, the orosensory pattern of a pharyngeal consonant, i.e., a consonant characterized by the features [+Tongue Root, +RTR] in the model outlined in (71), involves the achievement of a contact between the tongue root and the pharyngeal walls with obvious involvement of the epiglottis. Another aspect of the orosensory pattern characterizing pharyngeals is the involvement of a pattern of contact of the side of the tongue body with the lower back molars, a pattern of contact that is characteristic of tongue lowering. This is what (76) states. A problem to solve, however, is that of accounting for the lowering that we see in the context of laryngeals, the glottal stop and the laryngeal fricative. In the case of the laryngeals, there is no involvement of articulators other than the glottis. There is thus no immediate natural account for the vowel lowering we see in that context. Here a more speculative tack needs to be taken. Following McCarthy (1991), one could propose that due to the poor innervation characterizing the lower vocal tract, the orosensory pattern associated with the activation of any articulator in that region involves the entire lower vocal tract. The idea is that although they are not actively moved, the other articulators in that region are highly sensitized,


61

and perhaps secondarily activated and displaced. Thus, activation of the larynx implies a secondary involvement of the tongue root, and vice versa. This is formulated in the correlation statement in (79): (79)

[+Larynx] [Tongue Root +RTR]

The statement in (76) implies the additional presence of the feature [Tongue Body +low], i.e., a laryngeal is phonologically represented as in (80) (only relevant features are mentioned). (80)

[+consonantal]

Place

Guttural

Tongue Body

Tongue Root

[+low]

[+RTR]

Larynx [Glottal][+Laryngeal]

The feature [+low] in (80), as well as in (77), triggers (88). In addition to statements such as (86), another type of statement is also present among the correlation statements. It is well known that in interactions between labial consonants and vowels, the labials cause rounding in vowels although the labials themselves are not rounded. For example, Sagey (1986) discusses an example from Tulu where we have the changes in (81). She accounts for them by means of the rule in (82). (81)

i --> u

(82)

place

/

Rounded vowels Labial consonants

____

place ( from Sagey (1986)) Tongue Body

Lips [+high]

We can account for the rounding we observe in (81) by assuming the correlation statement in (83).

62 (83)

Introduction Lips

[Lips +round]/

[___ , -consonantal]

The change in (83) has a natural motivation: given the degree of constriction characterizing non-consonantal sounds, any constrictions formed with the lips in such sounds can only result in lip rounding. This is a different case from those discussed above in which the active deployment of an articulator results into the passive displacement of another articulator. Here the correlation statement establishes the behavior that an articulator, the lips in this case, must have when it occur in a certain stricture environment, the [-consonantal] environment in this case. Correlation statements are part of the Markedness Module. They are the positive counterparts of Marking Statements insofar as they govern the structure of segments. They are universal positive instructions, like the Natural Rules. Differently that the Natural Rules, however, they do not deal with interaction of segments with their environment—a characteristic feature of Natural Rules—but have as only scope the internal structure of segments. Like the Marking Statements and Prohibitions, correlation statements govern the structure of segments. However, while the former target configurations that are impossible or difficult, correlation statements are positive statements characterizing certain secondary non-contrastive aspects of the production of a sound. In particular they require the presence of certain non-contrastive secondary articulatory configurations in the context of another primary articulatory configurations, or as in the case in (83), the type of behavior that a certain articulator must have in a given stricture environment. As we will see in Chapter 4, the correlation statement in (84) which states that there is a an interdependence between the raising and fronting of the tongue body and the raising of the posterior part of the tongue blade will play a fundamental role in accounting for palatalization processes. (84)

[Tongue Body +high, -back] [ Tongue Blade -anterior, +distributed]

1.2.2.

Syllable Structure

In this book I adopt the X slot model of Kaye and Lowenstamm (1984), Levin (1985) Blevins (1995) and Sloan (1991) (see also Tranel 1991, Rubach 1998, 2000 for persuasive arguments in support of this framework). In


63

the X slot model the feature complexes representing the phonemes are treated as separate from the X slots, or skeletal positions. As illustrated in (85-6) a given feature complex can therefore be assigned to more skeletal positions (cf. 85b) and conversely more than one feature complex can be assigned to a given skeletal position (86b) (Trees are simplified). (85)

a.

Short /t/

X | [+cons] | [-cont] Place | Tongue Blade | [Coronal]

Long /t/

b. R N | X

R N | X

X

X

R N | X

[+cons] | [-cont] Place | Tongue Blade | [Coronal]

64 (86)

Introduction Long Diphthong R N

a.

X | [-cons] | Place Lips

T. body

[-hi] [-lo] [+rd] [+bk]

b.

X | [-cons] | Place Lips T. body [-hi] [-lo] [-rd] [-bk]

Short diphthong R N | X [-cons] | Place Lips T. body

[cons] | Place Lips

T. body

[-hi] [-hi] [-lo] [-lo] [+rd] [+bk] [-rd] [-bk]

The skeletal positions must then be considered as the interface level between the melodic component and syllable structure. The skeletal positions represent the syllabic segments in contrast with the melodic segment—the phoneme—that is represented by a feature bundle dominated by a root position. Syllable structure is built above the level of the X-tier. The hierarchical syllabic structure I will adopt in this work is given in (87) where onset segments are directly attached to syllable nodes and coda segments are directly attached to the rime nodes. Appendices attach to the extended syllable (Levin 1985, van der Hulst and Ritter 1999): (87)

X X X s t r

' | | Rime | Nucleus | X a

X y

X k

X s


65

As shown in (86b), sub-skeletal representations such as those in (88a) are possible (see also Clements and Keyser 1983, Clements 1992 and Calabrese 1993, 1998 for affricates). Observe that in a representation such as that in (88a) we are dealing with a simple onset, whereas in that in (88b) we are dealing with a complex onset. (88)

R N X

a.

X

t

y

X

X

R N X

t

y

a

b.

a

As mentioned above, skeletal positions represent the interface between syllable structure and the melodic segments. The crucial assumption is that a given melodic segment is assigned a given syllabic status through its association with a skeletal position. By changing its association relations to the skeletal positions we can change its syllabic status. As will be seen in chapter 4, sect. 4.1.7, this assumption will be of fundamental importance for the analysis of the treatment of pre-glide consonants in Proto-Romance. In this context, consonants were geminated and if the glide was palatal, nonlabial consonants were also palatalized. Thus we have *sepyaIt. seppya 'cuttlefish', *simyaIt. Simmya 'monkey', *manwamannwa (([w] was subsequently lost) It. manna) 'bundle', *futwofottwo [ It. fotto) 'I fuck'. To account for this gemination, in chapter 4, sect. 4.1.7, I propose that at a certain point of the history of late Latin the constraint in (89) became active. This constraint disallowed complex onsets whose last member was a glide. (89)

(=*Cy/w) R N

*

X | [+cons]

X | [-cons]

66

Introduction

This constraint disallowed complex clusters such as that in (88b). Now observe that this constraint does not hold in the case of the configuration in (88a) insofar as we are dealing with a simple onset in that structure. Thus, given the structure in (90a), if the first onset consonant is incorporated under the skeletal position dominating the glide as in (90b), we are no longer dealing with an onset cluster. To have an onset cluster one needs two or more skeletal positions, each exhaustively associated with a melodic segment. Thus, by the change in (90), the onset cluster is removed from the syllabic interface. Therefore, this structure cannot longer be targeted by the constraint in (89). Once the impossible onset geminate obtained in (90b) is repaired, as we can see in (91), we actually obtain a simple onset from a complex onset:

(90)

(91)

R N a. X | V R N a. X | V

X | C

X C

R N X X | | y/w V

X | y/w

b.

R N X | V

R N X | V

X | C

b.

X | y/w R N X | V

R N X | V

X C

X | y/w

R N X | V

We can thus repair an onset cluster /Cy/ disallowed by an active (89) by spreading the root of onset consonant of this cluster onto the skeletal position of the following glide. The surface effect of this repair is that of geminating the consonant before the glide. This accounts for the pre-glide gemination observed in Proto-Romance. This type of gemination process is found also in Vedic Sanskrit and other languages as discussed in Calabrese (1999a).

1.2.3.

Underspecification and Feature Visibility

It is a fact about the phonology of natural languages that certain feature


67

specifications behave differently from others. Take, for example, vowel harmony in Kinande, a Bantu language spoken in Zaire. This language has the vowel system /i, u, È, Ë, e, o, E, O, a/ that is characterized by [ATR] contrast for all vowels with the exception of [a] which is non-contrastively [-ATR]. Now Kinande has two ATR harmony processes that affect the quality of vowels in morphemes (see Schlindwein 1987). Only one of these processes is of interest to us here. This harmony process spreads [+ATR] leftwards onto high and mid vowels. However, it does not affect low vowels, nor is it blocked by them. It is as if the feature [-ATR] is not seen by the process. Thus there is a basic asymmetry between the contrastive [ATR] of non-low vowels and the non-contrastive [-ATR] of the low vowel. Steriade (1987) has shown that whereas features that are contrastive in a segment can often be either triggers or blockers of many phonological processes, features that are redundant most of times cannot. This distinction is usually accounted for by assuming the principle in (92) (see Steriade 1987, Clements 1987): (92)

Underlying representations may not contain predictable feature specifications.

From (92) it follows that contrastive features are underlyingly specified, whereas redundant features are underlyingly unspecified and inserted by redundancy rules in the course of derivations. The asymmetric behavior of contrastive vs. redundant features in phonological processes is then accounted for by assuming that these phonological processes apply to underlying underspecified representations. Thus they will be sensitive only to the contrastive features, which are supposed to be present underlyingly, but not to the redundant features, which instead are supposed to be absent underlyingly. This type of approach was severely criticized due to problems such as the following (see Steriade 1987, 1995; Clements 1987; Christdas 1988; Mohanan 1991; Odden 1992 and Calabrese 1995 for critical discussion): (93)

Some problems in feature underspecification theory (from Clements (2000)): a. Insufficiency of many of the arguments adduced for underspecification (e.g. assumed limitations on lexical storage capacity).

68

Introduction

b. Excessive complexity of grammars containing redundancy rules, and the consequent burden on the language learner. c. Indeterminacy in choosing among alternative ways of underspecifying features in a given phoneme inventory. d. Conflicting evidence arguing in some cases for one model of feature underspecification, and in other cases for another. e. Technical problems, such as the potential use of zero as a third value or the characterization of underspecified natural classes. Because of these problems, underspecification theory has been largely abandoned at the present time.18 The theory presented in this text also assumes that underspecification of features is the incorrect solution to the problems posed by the asymmetric behavior of features.19 Thus, following Calabrese (1995) (see also Mohanan 1991) it is hypothesized here that underlying featural representations are fully specified. The problem of accounting for the asymmetry between contrastive and non-contrastive features is then solved by assuming that rules can be characterized as being sensitive to only certain classes of feature specifications. In particular, rules can be sensitive only to the three classes of feature specifications in (94):

(94)

All feature specifications

Contrastive feature specifications

Marked feature specifications

Underspecification is then not a property of representations, but actually a property of constraints/rules. As in Calabrese (1995) it is proposed that certain phonological rules/constraints have access only to marked feature specifications. Other phonological rules/constraints are re-


69

stricted to dealing exclusively with contrastive feature specifications, whereas still others are sensitive to all types of feature specifications (see Halle 1995, Halle, Vaux and Wolfe 2000 and Vaux 2000 for analyses based on the same ideas). Here I will call this theory Visibility Theory. For the Kinande case then we can say that the harmony rule is characterized as accessing only contrastive features, therefore the noncontrastive [-ATR] of the low vowel is not visible to it, and the rule will simply disregard it. Evidence for feature visibility is provided by cases in which a certain feature F is invisible to a process X but is required to state the environment of another process Y that applies before X. A typical case is that of coronals in English. English is characterized by a process of postlexical place assimilation in which coronals always succumb to velars and labials (hot cakesho[k k]akes. Traditionally processes of this type have been accounted for by assuming coronal underspecification. The problem is that coronals must be referred to in early levels of phonology to rule out onset clusters such as *tl, *dl or to state a constraint on yu in stressed syllables in American English (e.g. butte, cute, mute, tunebyut, kyut, tun, *tyun) (see Mohanan 1991, McCarthy and Taub 1992, Calabrese 1995 for further discussion of coronals in English.) As proposed in Calabrese (1995), the simplest solution to this problem is to state that whereas postlexical place assimilation in English is sensitive only to marked place features—which will thus be spread at the expense of the unmarked coronal—, syllabification constraints such as those mentioned above are sensitive to all place features including the unmarked coronal. Here I will slightly reformulate Calabrese (1995). Specifically, it is assumed that accessing a given set of feature specifications involves a process of spotlighting, thus using a metaphor that is commonly employed to describe the mechanism of attention. By spotlighting these feature specifications, attention is drawn to them in the same way by spotlighting a piece of art we make it the focus of the viewers' attention. Suppose that the checking and operational systems of phonology have a limited computational capacity, as is claimed about visual attention (see Broadbent 1958, 1971, 1982; see also Allport 1993 for extensive review of literature). Thus, they would work much more efficiently if their domains of application were more restricted or prioritized. Spotlighting only certain aspects of the phonological representations would achieve this. Now, the checking of the satisfaction of an instruction obviously always involves the identification in the representation of the relevant representa-

70

Introduction

tional units. These units are spotlighted and the instruction checked against what is spotlighted. The minimal assumption is that all the units mentioned in the instruction are spotlighted. The further assumption is that spotlighting one feature on a tier involves spotlighting all of other features on the same tier. However, I also assume that the process of spotlighting may be restricted by two parameterized conditions. The first one restricts spotlighting only to contrastive features. If this parameter is set, the instruction can only access contrastive features. The other parameterized condition limits spotlighting only to marked features. If we assume that contrastive features are the most salient aspect of the representations, the spotlighting of these features is then naturally explained. This is the unmarked setting of the parameter. Spotlighting of marked features would be more restrictive, but more costly insofar as only a subset of the salient features is selected, an operation that requires more "focusing." However, accessing all features is the most costly option of all because of the expenditure of computational capacity that is required to check all features. This is the marked setting of both parameters By tying visibility to the independently required notion of markedness, the theory proposed here is highly constrained: a visible feature specification must be either marked or contrastive, a notion that as we will see follow directly from that of markedness (see Chapt. 5). The range of units that can be checked and in particular disregarded is extremely limited and follows from the active marking statements, which are independently needed and assumed to belong to UG. The theory presented here rejects the classical hypothesis that in memorizing (the sound of) a morpheme, speakers store only the idiosyncratic properties of the base form so that predictable properties are unspecified. There is no evidence or need to assume this. Rather, it is derivational efficiency that governs the construction of underlying representations: given the processes characterizing the language, the underlying representation of a morpheme must contains all the information needed to account for the surface pronunciation of the morpheme efficiently and with minimal effort. The fundamental criterion used to establish which sound or set of sound is underlying and which sound or set of sound is derived is the success of the derivation. The segment or set of segments that allows one to predict all the variants by a process in the simplest and most efficient way is chosen as underlying. Full specification of segmental features allows this successful, derivation, once we introduce repairs to account for the interaction between the structure of a phonological system and the differing ef-


71

fects of phonological processes. In this case, redundant feature specification in the underlying representation of morphemes could actually be helpful for memory retrieval (see Vaux 2003:94; Derwing 1973; Meyer and Schanefeldt 1971; Newman, Sawusch and Luce 1997). However, derivational efficiency also requires that underspecification in some case must be allowed. This occurs in the case of syllable structure, as well as in the case of other prosodic structures, where one wants to avoid wasteful destruction and rebuilding of structure, something that would be extremely costly from the point of view of an efficient derivation. In the case of syllable or any other prosodic structure we need to construct structures from the sequences of morphemes that are the input to the derivation. One of the basic properties of syllabic and prosodic structures is that their boundaries are not isomorphic to those of morphemes. If the syllabic status of a segment in a morpheme always depends of the segmental context created by other morphemes, it does not make sense to syllabify it lexically to resyllabify it later. This would be wasteful from the point of view of an efficient derivation. Therefore, to have a simpler derivation, at least parts of the morpheme should be left unparsed for syllabic and prosodic structure in underlying representations. For example, consider the final consonant of a nominal stem in Italian, e.g., the [k] of the stem [amik-] of the noun [amik-o] 'friend'. If we assume that lexical representations must be fully specified, we would be forced to syllabify [k] as a coda. Now this syllabification would never appear on the surface of the language in being always resyllabified by the following suffixal vowel. Under these conditions, it is totally arbitrary to assume to have lexical syllabification of a segment. The best strategy in this case is that of leaving the final consonant not syllabified. It will be syllabified only after the class marker [-o] is added to the stem. I therefore assume a parameter that may dispense segments in morpheme-final position from lexical syllabification (Vaux 2003). However, this parameter may be switched off; in fact as we will see in section 2.3.2, lexical syllabification of morpheme final segments is sometimes required to account for the surface shape of the language (see also the analysis of Vedic Sanskrit in Calabrese (1996)). This does not mean that syllable structure is totally unspecified. Sloan (1991) and Vaux (2003) (see also Calabrese 1996) show that all levels of phonological representation include organization into syllables. This position is also adopted here as discussed later in Chapter 2, section 2.3.2.

72 1.3.

Introduction

Conclusions

I close this introduction by summarizing the central points of my theory. The phonological system of a language is a historically determined complex set of output phonological representations derived from mnemonic representations by phonological operations. Phonological operations must be able to derive the surface shape of output representations from underlying mnemonic representations in the simplest, most economical and fastest way possible. However, the derivation from mnemonic to surface representations may go through a finite set of temporary intermediate representations. The ordering of the different derivational steps in this derivation is established through statements delaying the application of certain operations. The input and output representations of the derivation must be such that they are able to interface properly with the relevant body/brain component. Therefore, output representations must be able to be properly articulated by the motor system and properly perceived by the sensory system. Input representations must be such that they can be encoded in long-term representations in the memory system. The proper interface properties of output representations, i.e. their ability to be pronounced and perceived, are determined by the constraints and rules contained in the markedness module. These constraints and rules trigger operations that convert illicit illegible configurations into licit legible configurations that can be interpreted by the sensory-motor system. However, the shape of surface representations cannot be accounted for only by the actions of the constraints and rules of the markedness module. We also need idiosyncratic rules and other idiosyncratic devices such as the marking of morphemes as exceptions and stipulations on the ordering of operations, all of which are the result of the cumulation of historical changes affecting the phonology of languages. Insofar as a phonological system is historically determined, all of its aspects must have an historical base: they must be either natural innovations or must be adequately derived from the previous stages of the language. This fact together with the limitations imposed by the markedness module puts strong restrictions on the analyses that linguists can propose. From this point of view, nothing can be idiosyncratically arbitrary about the phonology of a language and everything should always be explainable either by resorting to universal mechanism of UG, i.e., to markedness theory, or by resorting to the history of the language.

Conclusions

73

Representations contain a skeletal position plane that represents the interface between syllable structure and the melodic component. Melodic output segments are set in terms of articulatory features. It is obvious that since surface representations involve articulatory representations, derivations would be highly simplified and faster if mnemonic representations, as well as all other intermediated representations, were set also in terms of articulatory features. Phonological operations consist of the applications of the two basic operations of non-linear phonology: insertion and deletion. They are triggered by instructions. There are two types of instructions: Negative constraints and Rules. Rules prescribe how one of the basic operations modifies a given configuration. Negative constraints simply state that a given configuration is disallowed. If a configuration violating the constraint is present in a representation, then an operation applies to repair it. More than one operation may be associated with a constraint. In this case the operations are ranked in an order of preference. The highest ranked one is the most preferred as a repair of a configuration violating the constraint and the first to apply when a configuration violating the constraint is met. If the derivation starting with this operation fails to produce a licit configuration, the next ranked repair is applied. Representations are checked to see if the conditions for the applications of the instructions are met. If they are met, the relevant operations, or repairs, apply. However, the grammars contain statements ordering the checking of certain instructions after the application of other operations. This accounts for the extrinsic ordering of steps in a derivation. Although some predictable aspects of syllable structure may be unspecified underlyingly, to avoid wasteful building, destruction and rebuilding of structure, features in representations are always specified. Instructions, however, may be so specified to see only certain classes of features. These are some of the main points of the theory proposed here. In the next chapters they will be investigated in more depth. The book is organized as follows. Chapter 2 details the theory of markedness constraints and repairs proposed here, and tries to integrate it into a classical derivational model with rules. Chapter 3 discusses some case studies where some of the applications of the theory are explored. Section 3.1 deals with French and investigates the effects that a constraint against tri-segmental onsets has on other processes characterizing this language: in particular glide formation, glide insertion,

74

Introduction

syncope. In Section 3.2, an analysis of syllabification in Tashlhiyt Berber in the model proposed here is proposed. Section 3.3 considers the repair process of negation proposed by Calabrese (1988, 1995). This process is characterized by the reversal of the values of the features of a disallowed configuration. An alternative account of it is put forth here. Chapter 4 deals with one of the prototypical example of markedness effects: palatalization. Chapter 5 deals with the asymmetric behavior of features in phonological processes, a fundamental issue of the theory of markedness since Trubetzkoy (1939). It is accounted for by assuming Visibility Theory, i.e., the idea that instructions may be so specified as to see only contrastive or marked features disregarding all other features. Vowel harmony processes will be considered in this chapter. We will see that their properties can be derived if one assumes Visibility Theory and the hypothesis that the underlying representation of alternating suffixes is assigned the unmarked value of the harmonic feature while the harmony rule spreads its marked value.

Chapter 2. The Theoretical Model

2.1.

Markedness, economy and repairs

2.1.1.

Speedy Repairs

I begin this chapter by introducing the theory of phonological repairs. Repairs have the function of converting phonological configurations marked as illicit by active constraints into licensed ones. As argued in the introduction, they must be implemented under strict requirements of economy both of time and computational resources. Of particular importance is the issue of time economy: there is an inescapable time pressure and an efficient system must be fast. The design of the model must be such that the best repair can be obtained as fast as possible, with the minimal use of means, and without time-wasting comparisons of outcomes like those characteristic of OT-like models. In the following section, I will dwell upon the repair operations needed to account for the resolution of hiatus configurations. They were briefly considered in the introduction. Here their nature and properties are examined in more detail. The first language to be investigated is Chicano Spanish. Hutchinson (1974) (see also Clements and Keyser 1983: 85-96)) discusses a process in this language which changes non low—both high and mid—vowels before another vowel into glides both within and across words. This change is characteristics of allegretto style of speech. She provides the examples in (1)-(5). (1)

a. b. c.

mi ultima mi hebra mi obra

myultuma myeBra myoBra

'my last' 'my fiber' 'my work'

(2)

a. b.

su Homero tu hijo

swomero twixo

'his Homer' 'your son'

76

The theoretical mode

(3)

a. b. c.

tengo hipo pague ocho como eva

(4)

a. b. c. a. b. c. d.

(5)

teNgwipo paVyc&o komweBa

'I have hiccups' 'I pay eight' 'like Eva'

porque aveces lo habla me urge

porkyaBeses lwaBla myurxe

'because sometimes'

esta hija casa humilde paga Evita nin$a orgullosa

est _ ixa kas _ umilde paV _ eBita nin$ _ orVuyosa

'this daughter' 'humble house’ 'pay evita’ 'proud girl'

's/he speaks it' 'I have the urge'

The characteristic feature of the array of facts in (1-5) is that the hiatus configuration is treated in one way when the first vowel is a non-low vowel and in another way when the first vowel is a low vowel. As argued in the introduction, in such cases, there is the need to factor out the configuration in (6), i.e., the hiatus configuration, and to refer to it in the explanation of what is going on in (1-5). I assume that there is a negative constraint blocking the configuration that is being avoided and that the different processes are repairs that fix this configuration. This negative constraint is given in (6). (6)

NOHIATUS: * R N X

R N X

Hiatus configurations are avoided in many languages and eliminated by a variety of means. It is, therefore, not unexpected that the same effect is found in this case in Chicano Spanish. A central aspect of the theory proposed here is the assumption of a Markedness Module including universal negative constraints such as the prohibitions and the marking statements. Prohibitions identify configurations that are never possible for articulatory and/or acoustic/perceptual reasons. Marking statements identify phonologically complex configurations that may be found in some but not all phonological inventories. I will say


77

that a marking statement "marks" a configuration as phonologically complex. The constraint in (6) is one of such marking statements. Marking statements may be active or deactivated. If the marking statement is active in a language, the complexity of this configuration is not accepted in this language—I will say that this configuration is illicit.1 This is the case in Chicano Spanish. When a marking statement is deactivated, the relevant illicit structure is licensed. I will extend the term licensed also to unmarked structures and I will refer to both structures with the term of licensed structures. I can say now that REPAIRs 2 involve modification of illicit structures so that they become licensed.3 UG provides a universal ranking of the repair operation for a given active constraint. This indicates the preferred, i.e., the cross-linguistically most common way of fixing a given illicit configuration. Thus, for each active constraint there is a set of the basic repair operations that can be applied to a configuration violating it—I will call this set the REPAIR set of a constraint. A REPAIR always begins with the highest ranked repair operation of the REPAIR set. If this crashes, i.e. it is unable to produce a licensed representation, a totally new derivational path must be started by going to the next ranked operation of the REPAIR set, if there is one. The constraint in (6) is one of the marking statements that are active in Chicano Spanish.4 If (6) is active, configurations satisfying it such as (7) must be repaired. (7)

R N X1

R N X2

Three strategies of hiatus reduction are widely used across languages: glide formation, vowel deletion, and glide insertion. I propose that glide formation is the most highly ranked repair for this type of configurations. It is the first one that is always attempted, and only when the derivation beginning with this repair fails to produce a licensed outcome, another strategy of hiatus resolution applies.

78


(8)

Glide formation > Vowel deletion > Glide insertion.

(Highest position in ranking)

I assume that the ranking of different repair strategies is fixed across languages.5 What varies, however, is the availability of the different repair strategies. For example, although it appears that glide formation is always present as a way of solving a hiatus, some languages opt for vowel deletion when the former fails, others for glide insertion. In Spanish we have the situation stated in (9). (9)

Ranked REPAIR set for NOHIATUS (6) in Chicano Spanish (Informal): I. Glide formation II. Vowel deletion

We can now consider the three different strategies in (10) in more formal terms. Syllabic repair operations involve the application of basic syllabic operations: (10)

a. b. c.

Addition/Deletion of syllabic lines Addition/ Deletion of syllable constituents Addition/ Deletion of skeletal position

I begin with glide formation. Deletion of syllable lines is the operation behind glide formation. This operation erases the syllabic status of a segment. In this case, it is the syllabic line associating a skeletal position with a dominating nucleus that is targeted with deletion. I assume that if the association between a segment and its dominating nucleus is deleted, the nucleus constituent, and obviously the dominating syllable, is also deleted, as in (11). (11)

R N X

R N

X

X


79

The operation is formalized as below, where we specify that the operation removes the line between the nucleus and the associated skeletal position. (12)

Deletion as a repair operation for NOHIATUS violations: OPERATION: Deletion TARGET: Syllabic Line ENVIRONMENT: Nucleus ___ X

For the sake of exposition simplicity, from now on I will call the operation in (12) nucleus removal although it actually involves line removal under the nucleus from the technical point of view. Now, (9) should be reformulated as in (13). (13)

Ranked REPAIR set for NOHIATUS (6) in Chicano Spanish (first approximation): I. Syllabic line deletion (nucleus removal) II. Skeletal deletion

Consider the application of this operation to the configuration in (14): (14) X m

R N X i

R N X...... a

Structure (14) is illicit because it violates the hiatus constraint and it needs to be repaired. Note at this point that there are two possibilities of correcting a hiatus configuration by means of nucleus removal: either the first nucleus or the second one can be removed. I propose that the unmarked option is to remove the first nucleus. The more marked option is to remove the second nucleus: (15) a.

R N X1

R N X2

__ X1

R N X2

80


b.

R N X1

R N X2

R N X1

__ X2

This is formalized by having two different ranked environments for the operation in (16): (16)

ENVIRONMENT for (12):

a.

N ___ X1

> b.

N ___ X2

In Spanish the unmarked option is adopted, and the first nucleus in the hiatus configuration is deleted.6 (17)

Ranked REPAIR set for NOHIATUS (6) in Chicano Spanish (Second approximation). I. Syllabic line deletion (Nucleus removal) a. Environment (16a) II. Skeletal deletion

The high vocoid [i] then becomes unsyllabified. The consonant [m] also becomes unsyllabified once the nucleus and therefore the syllable dominating [i] are removed. (18) X m

X i

R N X a

This structure is disallowed by a marking statement militating against unsyllabified segments in (19). (19) enforces the syllabification of segments.


(19)

81

NOUNSYLLX Unsyllabified skeletal positions are not allowed

The repair operations preferred in the case of this constraint in Chicano Spanish is given in (20). (20)

Ranked REPAIR set for NoUnSyllX (19) in Chicano Spanish.7 I. Line addition

I will call the application of this operation in (21a) onset incorporation, in (21b) coda incorporation. (21)

a.

b.

Onset incorporation. R N X2 X1 Coda incorporation. R N X2 X1

X1

R N X2

R N X1

X2

Configuration (18) is then fixed up by incorporating the high vocoid in the onset of the following syllable—a case of line addition as onset incorporation. (22) X m

X y

R N X .... a

The unsyllabified [m] in (22) is also repaired by line addition as onset incorporation as in (23).

82


(23) X m

X y

R N X .... a

The configuration in (23) is licensed in Spanish. This derivational path is therefore successful. Observe that the deterministic formulation of the repair operation in conjunction with the high ranking of nucleus removal and of the environment (16a) allows us to have the shortest derivational path useful to construct the best syllabic configuration in the case just discussed, i.e., that in which a high vowel which is the first member in a hiatus becomes an onset. This design solution provides an efficient and fast way to account for glide formation. Let us consider what happens when the first vowel in a hiatus is a non-high vowel. (24) X m

R N X e

R N X.... u

The selection of (17.I), as done before in (18), will create the syllabic configuration in (25). Configuration (25) is disallowed by (19) and is repaired by onset incorporation as in (26). (25) X m

X e

R N X… u

X e

R N X… u

(26) X m


83

The prohibition in (27) marks this configuration as illicit. (27)

No[-hi]inSyllMarg The feature [-high] cannot occur in [-cons] syllabic margins (i.e., in a [-cons] segment in onset or coda position): * (where = or R) X [-cons] [-high]

I assume that in Chicano Spanish, this constraint is associated with a single repair: feature deletion. This is stated in (28): (28)

Ranked REPAIR set for NO[-HI]INSYLL MARG (27) in Chicano Spanish I. Feature deletion

Because of Last Resort, the only feature that can be affected by deletion is [-high]. Now no featural underspecification is allowed in this model: (29)

NOUNSPEC Feature values must be always specified.

Thus after deletion of the disallowed feature value, a value compatible with the active (27) must be inserted. It is [+high] in this case. A representation of the repair triggered by (27) is given in (30). (Only the Dorsal node is mentioned)

84


(30)

a.

R N

R N X [-cons]

X [-cons] Place

Place

Dorsal

Dorsal

[-back] [-low] [-high]

R N

X [-cons] Place Dorsal

[-back] [-low] Ø

[-back] [-low] [+high]

We thus obtain (30b). b. X m

X y

R N X ... u

A further application of onset incorporation to repair the unsyllabified first segment will produce (31). (31) X m

X y

R N X ... u

The configuration in (31) is licensed, and again, as in the preceding case, we have a successful derivational path. Up to now we have considered only the treatment of non-low vowels. In Chicano Spanish, as expected, low vowels can also appear in a hiatus environment. Low vowels, however, do not become glides but are deleted. (32)

a. b.

esta hija casa humilde

est _ ixa kas _ umilde


c.

paga Evita

85

paV _ eBita

To account for this alternative change, we have to consider the other repair operation of (9), skeletal deletion. It is formalized as in (33): (33)

Deletion as a repair operation for NOHIATUS (6) violations OPERATION: Deletion TARGET: Skeletal position (X)

It is the activity of the repair operation in (33) that leads to the situation of conspiracy we observe in Chicano Spanish. Given (17) and what was proposed above, deletion is selected if the derivational path which began with glide formation "crashes". The issue is now to determine under what circumstances a derivational path crashes. Consider the configuration in (34).

(34)

X l

R N X a

+

R N X.... u

The application of nucleus removal, as in (35a), the preferred operation for removing hiatus configurations in Chicano Spanish, and the subsequent onset incorporation, will produce (35b). (35)

a. X l

b.

X l

X a

X a

+

+

R N X .... u R N X .... u

The prohibition in (27) marks this configuration as illicit. As we saw above, in Chicano Spanish this prohibition is associated with a single re-

86


pair: feature deletion. Thus the feature [-high] is deleted and replaced by [+high]. However, in this case changing [-high] to [+high] creates the configuration [+high, +low] that is disallowed by the prohibition in (36). (36)

NO[+HI,+LO]: *[+high, +low]

I propose that the illicit configuration [+high, +low] cannot be repaired in Spanish. The derivation then stops at this point and crashes. How can we state this formally? I assume that the grammar distinguishes between two types of illicit configurations: those that can be repaired and those that cannot be repaired. The information on this distinction is encoded into the constraints marking the illicit configurations. Thus some active constraints mark their target configurations as unrepairable, while others mark them as repairable. I will represent this by saying that the REPAIR set of a constraint may be either empty, or include one or more members: i. If the set is empty, a configuration marked by the constraint cannot be repaired. I will say that the configuration is unrepairable. A repair producing such configuration will always be unsuccessful. Therefore derivations stop and crash when they produce one of them. ii. If the set contains only one operation, the illicit configuration is repaired in only one way. iii. If there are more members in the set, there are a variety of ways to fix the illicit configuration, each corresponding to a ranked repair operation. Language-internal conspiracies are created by constraints associated with such a REPAIR set. One of the goals of phonological theory is to establish the content of the REPAIR set and the ranking of its members for each constraint and to determine what properties of these sets follow from UG and what properties follow from the specific grammars. Crucially the configuration marked by (36) is unrepairable as stated in (37). (37)

Ranked REPAIR set for NO[+HI,+LO] in Chicano Spanish: Ø

As a result, the derivational path that began with nucleus removal stops at this point in so far as an unrepairable configuration has been created. It crashes. The next ranked repair of (17) must then be used. Thus skeletal


87

deletion applies. Note that an application of a repair operation in itself is nothing more than a probe. In fact, the representations it produces are unstable and are erased if the repair operation is not successful. A repair operation is successful if it produces a licensed structure or if it is a step in a successful derivational path, i.e., a path that produces a licensed structure.8 Otherwise the repair leads to a crash and is erased. The paths that crash are those that produce unrepairable illicit configurations since these configurations cannot be the input to any other repair. The derivation stops at this point and the final output of the derivational path is illicit. All of the steps that deterministically lead to this illicit output are erased. We could translate this in terms of "legibility" in Chomsky's (2001a,b, 2002) sense: licensing a phonological configuration means making it legible to the sensorimotor interface. Illicit configurations are instead illegible. A derivational path crashes when its output is illegible. A crashed derivational path is erased with all its intermediate steps. Still we have to decide which of the two vowels in the hiatus configuration in (38) is deleted. Many factors may play a role in which vowel is deleted in a hiatus (see Casali 1996, 1997) for discussion of these factors in an OT framework). If we consider that hiatus configurations are normally–although obviously not always–obtained by adding a vowel-initial morpheme to a vowel-final one, we have two possible options. Either the morpheme-final vowel or the morpheme-initial one can be deleted.9 The two options must be ranked. I assume that languages prefer deletion of the morpheme-final vowel in a configuration such as that in (38). This is formalized by ranking the deletion of the morpheme-final vowel above that of the morpheme initial one as in (39). (38) .... (39)

R N X1

+

R N X2 .....

ENVIRONMENT for (33): a. > b.

__ ] µ + + [µ ___

88


The first vowel is deleted in Chicano Spanish. I assume that this will follows from the unmarked ranking in (39a). (17) must be restated as in (40): (40)

Ranked REPAIR set for NOHIATUS (6) in Chicano Spanish (Final): I. Syllabic line deletion (Nucleus removal) a. Environment (16a) II. Skeletal deletion b. Environment (39a)

The low vowel is in morpheme-final position and is, therefore, deleted: the configuration in (41) will then be created from (34) (41) X l

R N X a

+

R N X.... u

X l

R N X.... u

The configuration in (41) is licensed. Therefore, this derivational path is successful. The Chicano Spanish facts are accounted for. 10 In Chicano Spanish we observed only cases of onset incorporation. Coda incorporation is also a possible repair strategy as stated in (16). The Sanskrit hiatus resolution processes in (42) illustrate this (from Kiparsky (1982), see also Calabrese 1996). (42)

a. Glide formation: b. Contraction c. Vowel coalescence: d. Glide insertion:

i a ai i i i a

ya; e; i@; iya;

u a a u u u ua

wa o; u@, a a a@ uwa

Examples for the four processes in (42) are given in (43) (only internal sandhi cases are considered). (43)

(42a): a-hi-an (42b): tud ( a! ( i@ ( ta (42c): su+uktam deva!(as (42d): s!i-s!ri-e!

ahyan tude!t a su@ktam, deva@!s s!isriye!


89

Only glide formation and contraction are relevant for us here. Vowel coalescence is discussed in note 10. Glide insertion will be discussed later.11 Glide formation (42a) can be accounted as before in Chicano Spanish. The issue is contraction. Here we have a sequence /a+i/ or /a+u/. In this case in Chicano Spanish the low vowel was deleted. How can we account for the difference between this language and Sanskrit? To do this, I propose to add (16b) to (16a) as an environment for Nucleus removal. (44)

Ranked REPAIR set for NOHIATUS (6) in Sanskrit: I. Syllabic line deletion (Nucleus removal) a. Environment (16a) b. Environment (16b)

If the input sequence has a high vowel as the first segment, the nucleus of this vowel is removed and we have the derivation we have seen above for Chicano Spanish. This derivation produces a licensed output and is therefore successful. Now consider a sequence /a + high vowel/. Here removing the nucleus of the low vowel will lead to an unrepairable illicit output as we have seen before for Chicano Spanish. Therefore, this derivational path crashes. The other option in (44) is that of removing the second nucleus: (45) a. ...

R N X a

R N X ... i

b. ...

R N X a

X ... i

The desyllabified high vocoid must now be incorporated into the adjacent syllable. There is an available coda position in the preceding syllable and so we obtain (45c).

c. ...

R N X a

X y

...

90


Coda incorporation as in (45c) is a common way of resolving a sequence /a + high vowel/ across languages (for example see Polish below). In Sanskrit a further process of monophthongization applies in this case. Many languages disallow [-consonantal] codas, and Sanskrit is one of them. The active marking statement in (46) accounts for this. (45c) is disallowed by (46). I hypothesize that this illicit configuration is repaired by Nucleus incorporation as in (47). NO[-CONS]CODA: R

(46)

N X2 -cons (47)

Nucleus incorporation as a repair for NO[-CONS ]CODA: R N

N X2

X1 -cons

-cons

X1

X2

-cons

-cons

This operation applies to the output of the REPAIR in (45) and produces (48b). (48)

R N a .… X d

R N

X

X....

a

y

b.…X d

X

X…

a

i

A further step is the merger of the feature bundles of the two nuclear segments in (48) (/a+y/--> [E]). It will not be discussed here (see


91

Calabrese 1996 for more discussion).12 An account for the Sanskrit fact is now obtained. Let us turn to another type of language. Okpe (see Hoffman 1973) has a repair system similar to that of Chicano Spanish for NOHIATUS violations, i.e., similar to (40). There is a difference, however; the prohibition in (27) is not associated with a repair. (49)

Ranked REPAIR set for NO[-HI]INSYLLMARG (27) in Okpe: Ø

Any repair crashes in this case. Thus, when the derivational path reaches the point we see in (26) for Chicano Spanish, instead of proceeding as in (30), it crashes, and the next ranked operation of (40), skeletal deletion, is chosen. As the result, in this language given a sequence of two vowels, if the first vowel is high, it becomes a glide, otherwise the second one is deleted (There is an ATR-harmony rule whose effects are not considered here. See Chapter 3, Sect.3.3.1 for a detailed discussion). (50)

a. b.

c. (51)

a. b.

c.

UR E+ti⁄ + O E+ru! + O E+dE! + O E+lO! + O E+se! + O E+so! + O E+da + O

SR e~t yo! e~rwo! E~dE! E~l O! e~s e! e~s o! Eda

‘pull+ Infinitive’ ‘do,make+ Infin.’’ ‘to buy+ Infinitive’ ‘to grind+ Infinitive’ ‘to fall+ Infinitive’ ‘to steal+ Infinitive’ 'drink+ Infinitive’

A+ ti⁄ + A A+ ru! + A A+ dE! + A A+ lO! + A A+ se! + A A+ so! + A A+ da + A

e~t yE e~rwE E~dE! E~l O! e~s e! e~s o! da

‘pull+ 1pl. Incl. Cont.’ ‘do, make+1pl.Incl. Cont.’’ ‘to buy+ 1pl. Incl. Cont.’ ‘to grind+ 1pl. Incl. Cont.’ ‘to fall+ 1pl. Incl. Cont.’ ‘to steal+ 1pl. Incl. Cont.’ 'drink+ 1pl. Incl. Cont.’

Assuming the hiatus constraint in (6), we have the same derivational path discussed for Chicano Spanish in the case of high vowels. This derivational path, however, is not possible when the first vowel is [-high] given that in the case of Okpe, no repair operation is associated with the prohibition in

92


(27). Given that the configuration violating (27) cannot be repaired, this derivational path crashes. To correct the hiatus configuration, the REPAIR component will then start another derivational path beginning with the next ranked repair operation. In this case, this operation is skeletal deletion. The second vowel is then deleted in this language. This is the marked option in (39b). (52)

Ranked REPAIR set for NOHIATUS (6) in Okpe: I. Syllabic line deletion (Nucleus removal) a. Environment (16a) II. Skeletal deletion a. Environment (39b)

Given the form in (53), skeletal deletion will then apply and produce (54): (53) X s

R N X e

X s

R N X e

(54)

+

R N X o

This derivational path produces a licensed form and hence is successful and allowed to surface. I will turn to Polish now. In Polish (see Rubach 2000), hiatus configurations are avoided when one of the two adjacent vowels is a high vowel. In this case, the high vowel becomes a glide. However, if this process could lead to a trisegmental onset or a complex coda, glide formation does not occur. Rather, the hiatus is repaired differently by inserting a palatal glide between the high vowel and the other vowel. A hiatus is possible when the two adjacent vowels are nonhigh. If we assume that it is the NOHIATUS constraint that accounts for the glide formation we see in the case of high vowels, then we have to account for how and why this constraint fails to apply in the case of mid vowels. In short, Polish displays two phenomena that need to be accounted for: 1) hiatus resolution by glide in-


93

sertion 2) failure or blocking of the hiatus constraint to disallow and remove its target configuration in the case of adjacent non-high vowels. I consider the behavior of high vowels first. In Polish prevocalic high front vocoids are glides (see 55), except when they are preceded by a consonantal cluster (see (57) (from Rubach (2000)).13 (55)

a.

b.

ja [ya] 'I', jak [yak] 'how', je3zyk [yen..] 'tongue, language', baja [aya] 'baize', troje [oye] 'three' biolog [byo…] 'biologist',dialog [dya…] 'dialog', tiara [tya…] 'tiara'

As argued later, I assume that the NoHiatus constraint in (6) is active in Polish. Therefore, the process of glide formation we see in (55) can be accounted as proposed above for Chicano Spanish, Sanskrit and Okpe. The disallowed hiatus configuration is repaired by nucleus removal, which is then followed by two further repairs incorporating the consonants left unsyllabified by the first operation. This is shown in (56): ((Nucleus removal=NR) (Onset Incorporation=OI). (56)

R N X X

R N X(NR)

(OI)

R N X X X (OI)

R N X X X

R N X X X-

Crucially, glide formation in Polish occurs only when the output complex onset is bisegmental. In fact, in the case of the following roots where the high vocoid is preceded by a cluster consonant plus liquid, the process of glide formation fails to apply, and instead a glide is inserted between the two vowels as shown in (57). (57)

trio [triyo], *[tryo] 'trio', Priam [priyam], *[pryam] 'Priam'

What happens in (57) can be accounted for by assuming the marking statement in (58).

94 (58)


NoGlideInCompOns * X -sonorant

X +sonorant +consonantal

X -consonantal

The constraint in (58) disallows trisegmental clusters ending in a glide such as CryV. This constraint has been proposed for French by Kaye and Lowenstamm (1984) and is discussed again in Chapter 3, Sect. 3.1, where the French facts are investigated. (58) is active in Polish. Once we assume that the marking statement in (58) is active in Polish, we can account for the failure of glide formation in the forms in (57) as follows. Take a loanword like trio [triyo] 'trio' where there is no glide formation as compared to the loanword tiara [tyara] 'tiara'. The input form in (59) is disallowed by the constraint against hiatus in (6)). (59) X X t r

R N X i

R N X o

Disallowed by NOHIATUS

If we remove the syllabic nucleus of the high vowel as in (60) and then incorporate the just-created unsyllabified segments into the onset of the following syllable, we produce (61) that is disallowed by NOGLIDEINCOMPONS (58). (60) X t

X X r i

R N X o


(61)

* X t

X X r y

95

R N X o

I assume that this constraint is unrepairable. Therefore, this derivation crashes. The option that Polish takes in this case is glide insertion. I propose that line addition as in (62) accounts for most cases of glide insertion. (62)

Insertion as a repair operation for NOHIATUS violations: OPERATION: Insertion TARGET: Syllabic Line

The repair set for the hiatus constraint in Polish is given in (63). (63)

Ranked REPAIR set for NOHIATUS (6) in Polish: (first approximation) I. Syllabic line deletion(Nucleus removal) a. Environment (16a) b. Environment (16b) II. Syllabic line addition

Given the input in (59), the derivation starting with syllabic line deletion crashes. Therefore the next ranked repair in this case must be attempted: i.e., line addition. As in the other cases of hiatus resolution, here we also have two possible ways of applying line addition: we can incorporate the first nucleus as an onset or we can incorporate the second one as a coda: 14 (64)

Insertion as a repair operation for NOHIATUS violations OPERATION: Insertion TARGET: Syllabic Line ENVIRONMENT: __ a. X1 > __ b. X2

(63) must then be modified as in (65).

96 (65)


Ranked REPAIR set for NOHIATUS (6) in Polish: (Final) I. Syllabic line deletion (Nucleus removal) a. Environment (18a) b. Environment (18b) II. Syllabic line addition: a. Environment (64a) b. Environment (64b)

Application of unmarked option in (65IIa) for line addition will produce (66): (66)

R N X i

X X t r

R N X o

I propose that this configuration is universally illicit because of a prohibition against ambisyllabic nuclei given in (67). (67)

NoAmbNuc * R N X

R N X

The preferred repair in this case is fission which changes this configuration as in (68)—the details of this operation will be discussed later in section 2.3.1 of this Chapter: (68) X X

R N X

t r

i

X

R N X o

This configuration is licensed; the derivation is, therefore, successful and can surface. An account of the glide insertion we observe in this case is thus obtained.


97

In the case just discussed, glide insertion is produced by application of the unmarked environment in (64), i.e., line addition (=incorporation) into onset position. Polish also illustrates a case of application of the other option in (64b), i.e., line addition (=incorporation) into coda position. In this language, a post-vocalic high vocoid is incorporated as a coda except when it is followed by another coda consonant. (69)

a. b.

bojkot [boykot ] 'boycott' slajdy [slaydI ] 'slide' kraj [kraj ] 'country' Maoizm [mayizm] 'Maoism (cf. Marksizm [marksizm] 'Marxism' Maoista [maoyist] 'Maoist' (cf. Marksista [marksist] 'Marxist'

Consider a sequence /a + high vowel/of [kraj]. Here removing the nucleus of the low vowel will lead to an illicit output as we have seen above for Sanskrit. Therefore, this derivation crashes as we again saw in Sanskrit. The other option in (16b) is that of removing the second nucleus; the desyllabified high vocoid is then incorporated as a coda as in (70). The output in this case is licit and the derivation is successful. (70) …

R N X a

R N X… i

R N X a

X i

R N X a

X y

Assume now that complex codas with glides are disallowed in Polish by the constraint in (71). (71)

NOGLIDEINCOMP CODA R X [-cons.]

X

No repair is associated with this constraint:

98 (72)


Ranked REPAIR set for NOGLIDEINCOMP CODA (71 IN POLISH. Ø

Take the word /Mao+ist+a/. The input contains the hiatus as in (73). (73) …

R N X o

R N X i

X s

X t

R N X a

Removal of the first nucleus leads to a crash: it cannot produce a licensed output insofar as the violations of constraint NO[-HI]INSYLLMARG (27) are not repairable in Polish (see below). Removal of the second nucleus would produce (74). (74) …

R N X o

X y

X s

X t

R N X a

This output is disallowed by (71) and cannot be repaired since no repair operation is associated with (71) (see (72)). This derivational path therefore crashes. Line addition incorporating the first nucleus as an onset (see (75)) also leads to a crash insofar it leads to a violation of NO[-HI]INSYLLMARG (27) that cannot be repaired. (75) …

R N X o

R N X i

X s

X t

R N X a

We consequently resort to the second option of line addition: incorporation of the second nucleus as a coda of the preceding syllable, as in (76).


(76) …

R N X o

R N X i

X s

X t

99

R N X a

This configuration is illicit because of (67), and must be repaired by fission. Application of fission to (76) produces (77a). (77)

a. …

R N X o

X

R N X

X

X

R N X

[y]

i

s

t

a

It is an open issue if this configuration should be considered illicit and repaired as in (77b)—this is the structure proposed by Rubach (2000) to represent the pronunciation of these sequences—or licensed as is. Both would account for the pronunciation of this sequence in Polish. Further research will have to clarify this point. (77)

b. …

R N X o

X

R N X

X

X

R N X

[y]

i

s

t

a

We now have an account for glide insertion in Coda position in

Polish.

15, 16

Let us then turn now to another characteristic of Polish phonology. In this language, non-high vowels can appear in a hiatus configuration: (78)

poeta [o.e] 'poet'

seans [e.a] 'show'

We could account for this fact by restricting the application of the hiatus constraint just to sequences with high vocoids. Then we could have the two different marking statements in (79a) and b). We could then propose that (79b) is active in Polish, but not (79a).

100


(79)

a.

*

R N X [-high]

R N X [-high]

b.

*

R N X [+high]

R N X

//

But now consider the following. As we have seen above, a characteristic property of the syllabification of non-high vocoids is that they can never be syllabified in syllable margins. As proposed above, the prohibition in (27) (repeated here in (80)) is independently needed. (80)

NO[-HI]INSYLL MARG The feature [-high] cannot occur in [-cons] syllabic margins (i.e., in a [-cons] segment in onset or coda position): * (where = or R) X [-cons] [-high]

The independently needed prohibition NO[-HI]INSYLLMARG makes the distinction of the two constraints in (79) redundant. There is no need to restrict (79b) to just high vocoids insofar as the prohibition in (80) will prevent syllabification of non-high vocoids as onsets. We can keep the constraint against hiatus very general as in (6)(repeated here as (81)).


(81) *

101

NOHIATUS R R N N X X

The fact that sequences of non high vocoids escape the general constraint NOHIATUS can be derived from NO[-HI]INSYLL MARG (i.e., (27/80)). Let us see how. Assuming the general constraint NOHIATUS (6/81), glide formation with high vowels is obtained as discussed before by nucleus removal or glide insertion. Furthermore, let us assume that the constraint NO[HI]IN SYLL MARG (27/80)) is not associated with any repair operations as in (82), i.e. it characterizes an unrepairable illicit configuration. (82)

Ranked REPAIR set for NO[-HI]INSYLLMARG (80 IN Polish: Ø

Given (82), the derivational paths starting with either nucleus removal or line addition crash when two vowels are [-high]. Take the sequence in (83). (83)

R N X e

R N X o

If the hiatus in (83) is repaired by nucleus removal followed by onset incorporation, we obtain (84a). (84)

a. X e

R N X o

Configuration (84a) is disallowed by NO[-HI]INSYLLMARG (29/80). No repair can apply in this case. Therefore, this derivation crashes. The same would occur if the marked option (16b) is adopted. The next possible repair in the case of hiatus configuration is line addition as in (84b).

102


(84)

b.

R N X e

R N X o

Fission would create the structure in (84c) which is also disallowed by (80) insofar as the mid vowel [e] is syllabifed in onset position. (84)

c.

R N X e

X

R N X o

As in (84a), also in this case, no repair is available and this derivation crashes. Incorporating the second vowel as a coda would not be more successful. Given a sequence of two non-high vowels in Polish, therefore, there would not be any way of repairing the illicit hiatus configuration. As proposed earlier, a REPAIR must produce a licensed output. I propose that in such a case UG provides a last resort operation, the null repair, which licenses the input illicit configuration of the REPAIR without modifying it. If none of the repair operations associated with a constraint is successful in producing a licensed outcome, then the null derivation (=null repair), which is, by the way, the most economical one from the derivational point of view, is used to produce a licensed outcome. The following allegory is appropriate: the REPAIR system is like a "restoration" device that tries to restore a given damaged object as well as possible. If this cleaning may break the object—i.e create unrepairable damages—it leaves it as it is. Therefore, the REPAIR does not implement any new changes and the input structure is simply preserved. We then have an account for why hiatus configuration can surface unmodified when the first vowel is [-high]. This configuration is licensed as the output of the REPAIR triggered by NOHIATUS (6/81) because no other satisfactory repairs are possible in this case. Once licensed, the input configuration will be able to surface unchanged and will appear as a local violation of the otherwise active constraint.17 This is an instance of what is traditionally called blocking where a process such as vowel harmony fails


103

to apply to a certain vowel since in this case it would produce an illicit segment. We obviously also have a case of structure preservation: the input configuration has not been modified, but simply preserved. Let us go back to glide insertion. I assume that most cases of glide insertion are due to line addition followed by fission as outlined above. There is, however, another way of obtaining glide insertion: by simply inserting a skeletal position between the two nuclei. Berber illustrates this strategy. In this language, while hiatus configurations with high vowels are usually removed by onset incorporation, a glide is inserted between [a]'s. (85)

/a+a/ [aya] or [a:] /y-nna as/ 'he told him' [in.na:s] or [in.na.yas].

The long vowel realization is the outcome of an independent process merging adjacent identical segments, an instance of the OCP,18 and will not be discussed here (see note 10 for an analysis of a similar process in Chicano Spanish). (86) Insertion as a repair operation for NOHIATUS violations: OPERATION: Insertion TARGET: Skeletal position (X) Here the environment is predictable from the constraint and does not need to be specified: the skeletal position is simply inserted between the two adjacent nuclei. (87)

R N X1

X

R N X2

I assume that this is the least preferred repair operation. It is chosen only when the other operations such as Nucleus removal, X-deletion and Line addition crash. Consider a sequence of vowels like that we see in (88a). If we apply line addition and fission to this configuration, we would obtain the configuration in (88c) which is illicit because it contains the low vowel [a] in onset position.

104


(88)

R N X

R N X

R N b. X

a

a

a

a.

R N X c.

R N X X

R N X

a

a

a

Changing [-high] to [+high] creates the configuration [+high, +low] which is prohibited. Another REPAIR would be needed followed by other adjustments to produce [y] or [w]. A much shorter derivation is produced if a skeletal position is inserted by (86). The segment that is inserted is idiosyncratically chosen on a language-specific basis. In Berber it is the glide [y] (XI=X-insertion). (89)

R N X a

R N X (XI) a

R N X a

R N X (OI) a

(FI)

R N X

X

R N X

a

y

a

X

R N X a

R N X X a

All cases in which segments other than glides homorganic to one of the vowels are inserted to fix the hiatus must be analyzed as involving skeletal insertion. For example consider Ilokano (Hayes and Abad 1989; Rosenthall 1994). In this language, vowel sequences are disallowed. If the first vowel is low, a glottal stop is inserted between this vowel and the following vowel. If the first vowel is non-low it becomes a glide.19 (90)

a. /basa + en/ /cyenda + an/ b. /masahe + en/ /saô + en/ c. /babawi + en/

[basa?en] [cyenda?an] [masahyen] [saˆwen [babawyen]

'read (goal-focus' 'marketplace' 'massage(goal-focus)' 'face forwards' 'regret (goal-focus)'


105

Notice that a glottal stop is inserted after a low vowel even if it is followed by a high vocoid.20 (90)

la?ilo baba?i da?ulo ta?o

d.

'affectionate' 'woman, girl' 'leader' 'person'

A system like this is easily accounted for by assuming the repair set in (91) for the active NOHIATUS constraint in Ilokano. (91)

Ranked REPAIR set for NOHIATUS (6) in Ilokano: I. Syllabic line deletion (Nucleus removal) a. Environment (16a) II. Skeletal insertion (86)

Given (91), nucleus removal applies only when the first vowel is non-low and we have derivations such as those that we have seen for non-low vowels in this position in Chicano Spanish. Now, let us assume that as in Chicano Spanish the configuration [+high, +low] is unrepairable. Therefore, when the first vowel is low, application of nucleus removal would lead to a crash since the unrepairable disallowed configuration [+high, +low] would be created in this case (see discussion of such derivation in Spanish). Therefore we have to resort to the other available repair operation in (91), i.e., to skeletal insertion (86). This is shown in (92). In Ilokano an onset empty skeletal position is filled in with the features of the glottal stop [?]. (92)

R N X a

R N X (86) i

R N X X a

R N X (OI) i

R N X a

R N X X i

106


(FI)

R N X

X

R N X

a

?

i

An analysis of the Ilokano facts is thus provided. I have accounted for the possible ways to remove hiatus configuration. I assume that universally the preferred repair operation in this case is nucleus removal. This operation removes the nucleus of one of the adjacent vowels. If that fails, skeletal deletion is used, and one of the vowels is deleted. Line addition that leads to glide insertion is the next possible repair. Skeletal insertion also leading to glide insertion is the least preferred repair operation for hiatus configurations. This is stated in (93): (93)

Ranked REPAIR set for NOHIATUS (6) in UG: I. Nucleus removal Environment: (16a) >(16b) II. Skeletal deletion Environment: (39a) >(39b) III. Line addition Environment: (72a) >(72b) IV. Skeletal insertion (86)

The one in (93) is the set of universally unmarked ranked operation repairing violations of NOHIATUS constraint. The hypothesis is that languages select operations from this set following the established ranking. This ranking predicts that if a hiatus is not allowed, high vowels should always become glides in prevocalic position, unless an active constraint against complex onsets with glides prevents this outcome. When we have a non high vowels in the hiatus, we should instead find variation: these vowels could either become glides, or be deleted or undergo glide insertion depending of the other active constraints holding in the language and of the presence/absence of repairs associated with them. As far as I know, this prediction is correct.


2.1.2.

107

On the Nature of Markedness

In the realistic approach to language such as that assumed here, phonology investigates the system of knowledge that allows the concrete occurrence of the real time processes that convert sets of mnemonic representations into actual articulatory representations. In the previous sections I proposed that this system includes markedness constraints and repairs. In this section, I will report on the findings of Romani and Calabrese (1998), Calabrese and Romani (1998). In these two articles Romani and I discuss the analysis of the phonological errors of an Italian aphasic patient showing that they can be accounted for by using the same markedness constraints and repairs which are independently needed in the phonological component of synchronic grammars. The discussion of the linguistic performance of this speaker will allow me to draw some conclusions on the nature of markedness and of repairs and on their status in the system of knowledge that allows the concrete production of speech events. The aphasic patient D.B. we studied had problems with the most complex syllabic configurations of Italian. Here I will focus on D.B.'s performance involving hiatus configurations. Let us begin with vowel deletion. D.B. made 24 vowel deletions, but with two exceptions, never deleted a vowel in a syllable with an onset. Ninety two percent (22/24) of D.B.'s vowel deletions occurred in a hiatus context. We have cases like the following: (94)

/a/ law.re.a.to /e/ kur.vi.li. neo me.dyo.e.va.le er.ro.ne.a.men.te /o/ pa.le.on.to.lo.dJi.a ri.o.do /i/ su.i.tSi.dyo ka.se.i.fi.tSo se.mi.os.ku.ri.ta' ri.or.di.na.men.to di.u.re.si

law.re._to kur.vi.li.n_ o me.dyo._ va.le er.ro.n_ a.men.te pa.le_ n.to.lo.dJi.a ri_.do su_tSi.dyo ka.se_.fi.tSo se.m_ os.ku.ri.ta r_or.di.na.men.to d_ u.re.si

The fact that aphasic patients have problems with hiatus configurations has been noticed before (see Buckingham 1990). Additionally, avoidance of hiatuses, as we have seen in the preceding section, characterizes the pho-

108


nologies of many languages. As proposed earlier, hiatus configurations are phonologically complex, and restricted by the marking statement in (6). As we have seen, in some languages, (6) is active and hiatuses are repaired. In Romani and Calabrese (1998), Calabrese and Romani (1998) we hypothesized that the level of syllabic complexity allowed by a speaker depends not only on the language he is speaking, but also on whether or not he has suffered brain damage. Brain damage can impair the ability to realize certain sequences of articulatory gestures and, therefore, can reset the degree of complexity allowed for syllabic configurations. Marking Statements that are normally deactivated can be momentarily or permanently activated in aphasic patients, resulting in an increase of active negative constraints in aphasic patients in comparison with normal subjects. As discussed in the preceding section, when a certain syllabic configuration such as a hiatus is disallowed, the syllabic structure of the target word must be repaired. The hypothesis is that the same strategies used by normal subjects to repair syllable structure are used by aphasic patients to this goal.21 Thus consider (6) again. It is repeated here as (95): (95) NOHIATUS: * R R N N X X In Italian (95) is deactivated; however, D.B.'s impairment leads to its activation. The disallowed hiatus configurations must then be repaired. Skeletal deletion is one of these repair strategies. As shown in (94) D.B. eliminates vowel sequences by deleting one of the vowels. However, D.B. also displays other ways to eliminate a hiatus. First, there are 28 cases in which a consonant is inserted between two vowels thus eliminating a hiatus. Sample cases are given in (96): (96)

raf.fa.el.lo al.li.ne.a.re e.go.is.mi or.ma.i sa.ar.a ri.en.tro kos.tru.i.re

raf.fa.lel.lo al.li.ne.la.le e.go.lis.mi or.ma.li sa.ra.ra ri.ren.tro kos.tru.ri.re


pro.te.i.na

109

pro.te.ri.na

The inserted consonants are /l, r/. We also observe another type of error that occurs in a hiatus context. In 8 cases a mid vowel appearing before another vowel is resyllabified as the onset glide of the latter, as shown in the examples in (97):22 (97)

brondzeo temporaneo ardJenteo empireo

brondzyo temporanyo ardJentyo empiryo

It is obvious that we are dealing with a conspiracy of the type discussed in the preceding section and in Chapter 1, section 1.1.6. The errors we have seen above conspire in avoiding hiatus configurations: D.B. has difficulties with a given syllabic structure–in this case a hiatus–and tries to simplify this difficult structure by resorting to different alternative strategies: deletion, consonant insertion or glide formation. What we can then say in the case of D.B. is that he often cannot accept the complexity of a hiatus configuration. This formally means the constraint NOHIATUS in (6/95) becomes active in his speech. When NOHIATUS becomes active, he uses the same strategies used by normal speakers, i.e., the hiatus removal strategies we saw in the preceding section: (98) a)

Nucleus removal temporaneo --> temporanyo

... X n

RR R R R NN N N N X X (NR) ... X X X (OI) ... X X X (FC) ... X X X e o n e o n e o n y o

R N (OI) ... X X X n y o

110

The theoretical mode b) Skeletal deletion medyoevale --> medyovale R R R N N N ... X X X ... (SD) ... X X .... (OI) ... X y e o y e y d) Skeletal insertion: 23 bal.la.i --> bal.la.ri R R N N ... X X X (SI)+ (OI)... X l a i l

... X l

R N X a

X r

R N X a

X

R N X .... e

R N X (FI) i

R N X i

Notice now the ranking of the different repair operations we have proposed in the preceding section: (99) The set of ranked repair operations for NOHIATUS in UG: a. Nucleus removal Environment: (16a) >(16b) b. Skeletal deletion Environment: (39a) >(39b) c. Line addition Environment: (72a) >(72b) d. Skeletal insertion (91) Given the ranking of the repair operations I proposed in (99) we should expect high vowels to undergo glide formation insofar as it is the unmarked strategy in (99). This is not what we observe. The preferred strategy used by D.B. seems to be deletion in this case. There is a simple solution to this problem. D.B. has problems with complex onsets with glides. This formally means that the marking statement in (100) becomes active in his speech. Independent evidence for this


111

marking statement is provided by the fact that many languages avoid complex onsets of this type (e.g. Latin) (see Romani and Calabrese (1998) for related discussion): (100)

*

R N X | [+cons]

(=*Cy)

X | [-cons]

There is a variety of ways in which a configuration violating this constraint could be repaired. 1) by deleting the glide, the most sonorous element in the onset, and hence creating a better syllable; 2) by resyllabifying the glide as a nucleus; 3) by root spreading (see below). D.B. uses all of them (see Romani and Calabrese 1998 and Calabrese and Romani 1998 for discussion). The ways that are relevant for us here are glide deletion and root spreading. Deletion of the glide is the preferred strategy used by D.B. As shown in the cited works, glides are the segments with the highest deletion rates in D.B.’s speech. At this point, we can account for the cases of deletion of a high vowel see in (94) by assuming the following. First the high vowels undergo nucleus removal, and thus become glides. This results in the formation of a complex onset with a glide. This complex onset is then simplified by deleting the glide. We thus have the derivation in (101): (101)

semioskurita semoskurita R R N N ... X X X ... (NR) ... X m i o m

... X m

X y

R N X o

(SD)

X i

... X m

R N X ... (OI) o R N X ... o

112


Evidence that we need derivations like this one to account for D.B.’s errors is provided by the drastic measure that he takes in another set of cases listed in (102): (102)

kurvilineo omodJenei sotterraneo erroneo estraneo

kurviliˆô omodJeˆî sotteraˆô erroˆô estraˆô

Here the first vowel in the hiatus is merged with the preceding coronal consonant thus producing a palato-alveolar consonant. Now, as mentioned above, one of the ways that D.B. has to eliminate a complex onset with a palatal glide is that of merging the two segments into a palato-alvelar consonant. Some errors of this type are listed below. They involve sequences of affricate /ts, dz/ and the sonorant/l, n/ followed by a palatal glide. (103) a. Target [ts]: Stimulus assotSattsyone stattsyone amitSittsya edukattsyone predJudittsyo Target [dz]: tradiddsyoni b.Target [l]: elyo allyetare c. Target [n]: anyene estranyare kwinkwennyo komunyone tSernyera

Stimulus syllables {as.so.tSat.tsyo.ne} {stat.tsyo.ne} {a.mi.tSit.tsya} {e.du.kat.tsyo.ne} {pre.dJu.dit.tsyo}

Error assotSattSone stattSone amitSittSa edukattSone predJudittSo

{tra.did.dsyo.ni}

tradiddJoni

{e.lyo} {al.lye.ta.re}

e¥¥o a¥¥etare

{a.nye.ne} {es.tra.nya.re} {kwin.kwen.nyo} {ko.mu.nyo.ne} {tSer.nye.ra}

aˆêne estraˆâre kwinkweˆô komuˆône tSerêra

I propose that these errors are to be accounted for by root spreading. As discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.2.2, root spreading eliminates a complex


113

onset with a glide by linking the root of the preglide consonant with the skeletal position of the glide as shown in (104). Notice that in this case the crucial assumption is that a given melodic segment is assigned a given syllabic status through its association with a skeletal position. By changing its association relations to the skeletal positions we can change its syllabic status. Thus by the change in (104), the onset cluster is removed from the syllabic interface. Therefore, this structure can no longer be targeted by the constraint in (100). Once the impossible onset geminate obtained in (104b) is repaired (by resyllabification in coda position as in (104c) or by deletion), we actually obtain a simple onset from a complex onset (see Chapter 4, section 2.7 for detailed discussion). (104)

R a. X1

[+cons]

X2

R

[-cons]

b. X 1

X2

[+cons] [-cons]

R c. X 1

X2

[+cons] [-cons]

As discussed in Chapter 4, section 4.2.7, once the structure in (104c) is obtained, a further change occurs: the two roots merge as shown in (105b)(Representations are simplified). (105)

R a. X1

X2

[+cons] [-cons] | Dorsal | [-back]

R

b.

X1

X2

[+cons]+[-cons] | Dorsal | [-back]

Further changes discussed in detail in Chapter 4 merge the two roots in (105b) and insert a coronal [+distributed, -anterior] consonant as in (105c).

114


(105)

R c.

X1

X2 [+cons]

Coronal Dorsal [+distributed] [-anterior]

[-back]

By assuming that (104) and (105) apply as repairs of (100), we can account for the errors in (103). But then we also have an analysis for the errors in (102). The best way to analyze these errors is to assume that the hiatus sequence is first resyllabified as in (96). Then the complex onset with glide undergoes root spreading and the palatalization process see in (105). We thus have the derivation in (106):

115

Markedness, economy and repairs R N

(106)

X [+cons]

R N

X (NR)

X [-cons] e

(104-5)

R N

[-cons] V

X

X [+cons]

Coronal

X

X

[+cons] [-cons] y

X [-cons] V

R N X [-cons]

Dorsal

[-ant] [+dist] [-back]

V

An account for D.B.’s pattern of errors involving hiatus is thus provided. It involves repairs which adjust the original stimulus in those instances where he is unable to produce sequences of a degree of complexity allowed by Italian but too problematic for him. Crucially these repairs are also found in the normal language system. Now consider how errors with the characteristics shown by D.B.can be accounted for in processual terms. Consider a model of speech production with the following four stages: (see Romani and Calabrese 1998, Levelt 1992 and Butterworth 1992): (107)

Mental dictionary - LTM representations of vocabulary items make available, for each morpheme, the number of phonemes, their structure and order, as well as prosodic and syllabic information. ii. Phonological output buffer - The phonological representations activated in the dictionary are copied into an output buffer where they are converted into surface representations, i.e. representations that can interface with the articulatory interface component iii. Articulatory interface - Using information in this buffer, articulatory interface transforms the phonological representations into a series of muscle commands. iv. Articulatory implementation - The commands are carried out by the proper effectors.

i.

116


Given the production model above, consider D.B.'s performance problems. First of all, observe that while D.B.'s speech is articulatorily effortful, he does not produce slurred phonemes. Moreover, his errors are clearly influenced by linguistic factors such as syllabic complexity. These characteristics rule out a peripheral articulatory problem, i.e., a problem with the Articulatory Implementation component and suggest a more central deficit. D.B. has no problems with phonological discrimination in input tasks or with the comprehension of words. Therefore, D.B. is obviously able to access long-term memory representations. This also excludes a problem with the Mental Dictionary component of (107). The preservation of the overall word and morpheme structure excludes a problem with the copying operation between the dictionary and the buffer. A buffer problem can also be excluded. We would, in fact, expect a lack of control with the phonological operations modifying words and morphemes such as unmotivated insertions or deletions, unmotivated modifications of segments or prosodic structure. This is not what we observe in D.B. as most of his errors can be explained on markedness grounds. More evidence in support of the idea that his buffer component was not damaged is the fact that his ability to use repair operations and to apply them in a consistent derivation is perfectly intact. On the other hand, the fact that his speech is articulatorily effortful indicates a problem with articulatory interface. We can hypothesize that his deficit must affect the Articulatory Interface component, and that he has a deficit in organizing articulatory programs. One can then propose that a difficulty in articulatory programming leads to simplifications of the phonological representations that are the immediate antecedents of these programs. In other words, a deficit at the third level (articulatory planning) leads to simplifications at the second level (phonological representations in an output buffer). When an articulatory program is too complex to organize/compute, D.B. reduces the complexity of the phonological representations held in the buffer. These representations are modified in such a way that marked structures that are problematic for him are eliminated. As proposed in Chapter 1, Section 1.1.8, marking statements belong to the grammar; they are grammatical statements about phonological representations. However, they are also interface conditions, i.e., the means through which the linguistic computational system is able to interpret and read the properties of the sensory-motor system. All these markedness constraints represent the sensory-motor system in the linguistic computational system. In particular, given what we have seen in D.B., I propose that active Marking Statements indicate the absence, or unavailability, of compu-

The structure of grammar

117

tational programs converting phonological representations into an articulatory ones. When a marking statement becomes active, the targeted phonological configurations cannot be transformed into articulatory commands; the repair procedures that occur in this case must then refer to the manipulations of phonological configurations that make this transformation possible. In conclusion, markedness refers to a concrete mind/brain state in its relationship to the sensory-motor system. The articulatory programs that are possible in D.B.'s speech are those that correspond to licensed configurations; those that are impossible correspond to illicit configurations. Thus, licensing a phonological configuration means making it legible to the articulatory interface. Illicit configurations are illegible. Active marking statements mark the configurations that are illegible and that must be manipulated in such a way to make them legible. 2.2.

The Structure of Grammar

2.2.1.

Negative Constraints and Rules

In section 2.1.1. above, we looked at the nature of repair operations and at how they are implemented. Repairs are triggered by marking statements and prohibitions, i.e., by negative constraints. But, as discussed in the Chapter 1, Section 1.1.7, the model presented here also includes rules. In the following section, I will consider the difference between rules and constraints and their status in the grammar. The goal of phonological analysis (for the phonologist AND the language learner) is to account for the regular aspects of the phonological structure of a language, the so-called linguistically significant generalizations.24 It is important to stress that processes are still among the basic, and most fundamental, generalizations for the linguist and the language learner.25 A phonological process involves the observation that a certain configuration A is modified into B in a given context C __ D. In a process we identify an input configuration (the structural description CAD) and something that is done to it (the structural change AB). When we study processes, we can classify them into two groups: i) There are processes that share the same structural description but undergo different structural changes. ii) There are processes that share the same structural description and always undergo the same structural change. As for the first group of processes, since Kisseberth (1970a, b), it is said that they are in a relation

118


of functional unity, and that they form a conspiracy. We can find a set of processes in a conspiracy relation in the same language (see the discussion of Chicano Spanish in section 2.1.1.), but a set of processes in the same relation can also be observed across languages. In this case, processes of different languages share the same structural description but differ in the structural changes. A process with the structural description S is associated with the structural change P in a language L and a process with the same structural description S but with the different structural change T is found in a language Z. This is typical of segmental marking statements. An example from my own work involves the marking statement against *[+high, -ATR] vowels which is associated with delinking of [+high] in some Italian dialects, e.g., Foggiano, with Fission in other dialects, e.g., Salentino and with Negation in still other dialects, e.g. Umbro (see Calabrese 1984, 1999b). Both in the case of an intra-linguistic conspiracy and in the case of the cross-linguistic conspiracy, it is necessary to dissociate the structural description from the structural change. The structural description is identified as a negative constraint, the differing structural changes are the different repairs triggered by this negative constraint. In the case of processes in which the same structural description is always associated with the same structural change, we are instead dealing with rules. For example, metaphony or umlaut processes are of this type in that they are always characterized in the same way: they spread the feature [+high]—or [-back]—onto a stressed vowel from the following vowel in the same way across languages, with very minor variations. Idiosyncratic processes are also processes of this type insofar as they are, by necessity, always the same in their singularity: they identify a configuration that is changed in a special way in some special circumstances. In the case of these processes, we identify a structural description that is always changed in only one way. From the point of view of economy, the best way to account for them is by means of an implication stating the change that is to occur in a given context. These implications are essentially the rules of the Classical Generative Grammar, and from now on I will simply refer to them as rules Therefore, both rules such as (108a) and negative constraints such as (108b) are present in the grammar. (108)

a. b.

if F, then G/[_ , Z] (from now on (FG/[ _, Z])) *[F, -G] / [__ , Z]


119

Negative constraints just mark given configurations as complex or illicit, but do not prescribe the repair needed to fix them. They trigger a range of possible operations of which one is chosen in a given language. In the case of a rule, there can only be a single operation. The rule prescribes the operation that is to be used to modify a given configuration. Rules do not formally mark complexity/illicitness, just require the implementation of a change. One of the goals of phonology is that of establishing what processes are triggered by negative constraints and what processes are triggered by rules. In the preceding sections, rules were not used in the analyses. However, notice that many of the constraints used in those sections were associated with a single repair operation (e.g. the constraint (27) of the repair set in (28)). Given what said above, I should have used a rule instead of a negative constraint in such cases. I did not do that because I was assuming that in these cases, we can find another language where that constraint is associated with another repair or with no repair at all. And in fact this is the case of (27) which is associated only with feature deletion in Spanish, but is associated with no repair in Okpe (cf. (49)). Obviously establishing what is a rule or a negative constraint is an empirical issue and only research on a variety of languages can verify the correctness of the hypothesis we formulate for one language. From the procedural point of view of operations manipulating phonological representations, negative constraints can be seen as instructions to avoid a given configuration. In contrast, rules can be seen as instructions to create a given configuration. Thus the major difference between the two types of instructions is in the modality of the operations they trigger. In the case of negative constraints, different operations are allowed and must be ranked. In the case of rules, the type of operation to be chosen is already enforced by the instruction, Hence, the negative constraint in (108b) may potentially trigger all of the operations in (109), and we have to choose among them as discussed above. The rule in (108a) instead will implement just (109a) (109)

a. b. c.

[-G][ G]/[ F, Z ___] [F][-F]/[- G, Z ___] [Z][-Z]/[-G, F ___]

Therefore, in the case of negative constraints, any relevant aspect of the target illicit configurations may be potentially modified. In contrast, in the case of a rule, only one aspect of the target configuration is modified. For

120


example, assuming the constraint *[F, -G]/[ __Z] involves the possibility of changing not only [-G] but also alternatively [F] or [] in the configuration [F, -G, Z]. On the other hand, in the case of the rule in (109a), only the feature [-G] is changed so that given the configuration [F, -G, Z], [-G] is changed into [G]: the operation does only what it is instructed to do. A negative constraint can be postulated by a linguist when a variety of processes appear to systematically avoid or repair the same configuration. This configuration is assumed to be identical with the negative constraint. The constraint in (110) marking the front rounded vowels as complex is a typical case of a negative constraint. It states that the feature combination [-back, +round] is phonologically complex. If this constraint is active, this configuration may be repaired in a variety of ways; for example, the configuration [-back, +round] disallowed by (110) can be repaired either by changing the feature [-back] or by changing the feature [+round]26 and grammars will have to choose one or the other. What is important is to remove configurations disallowed by the active constraints; how this is accomplished within the—limited —number of available options does not matter. (110) *[-back, +round] Typically constraints involving restrictions on the internal structure of constituents are of this type. This is the case of paradigmatic constraints such as those governing the structure of inventories: they deal with intrasegmental feature co-occurrence restrictions or with restrictions on the structure of syllabic constituents (see below). Also the constraint on hiatus configuration in (6) or on bad syllable contact—which are constraints that deal with sequences of segments—must be stated in a negative way: they characterize static complex configurations that may be targets of different repairs. A typical rule is illustrated by the rule accounting for devoicing in coda position. Voiced obstruents are marked in coda position and, in fact, avoided in many languages. Languages tend to repair [+voice] in this position by delinking this feature specification and replacing it with [-voice]. No other change is attested cross linguistically, and, therefore, no conspiracy effect can be observed in this case (see Steriade 2001). The best solution is to postulate the rule in (111).

The structure of grammar (111)

121

R X [-sonorant] Laryngeal

[+voice] [-voice]

Phonotactic statements in which it is needed to state the directionality of the modification like those characterizing assimilation processes are typically rules. Statements restricting the featural content of segments in given syllabic position like those involved in neutralization processes are of this type as well. The co-presence of rules and negative constraints is not an innovation of the model presented here and has been used since the beginning of Generative Phonology. More recent examples of models including both rules and constraints are Kiparsky's Lexical Phonology (see Kiparsky 1985 and Calabrese 1995). I will come back to the issue of how to choose rules and negative constraints in the analysis of processes in Section 2.2.7. of this chapter. 2.2.2.

The Markedness Module

Both rules and negative constraints can be idiosyncratic and language-specific, as well as universal. Idiosyncratic and language-specific ones are included in a language-specific phonology module of the Grammar, universal ones in the Markedness Module of the Grammar (see diagram (47b) of Chapter 1). Markedness Module includes universal negative constraints such as the prohibitions and the Marking Statements, and universal rules such as the natural rules. Prohibitions The Prohibitions identify configurations that are never possible for articulatory and/or acoustic/perceptual reasons. The prohibition in (112) for example states that the featural combination in (112) can never be allowed since a simultaneous raising and lowering of the tongue body is involved, a

122


configuration that is obviously articulatorily impossible. I will use double asterisks for prohibitions to distinguish them from Marking Statements. (112) **[+high, +low] Prohibitions are always active, and thus inviolable, across languages. A prohibition that had an important role in the analysis proposed earlier in Section 2.1.1.of this chapter is that in (27) (repeated here as (113)). (113)

The feature [-high] cannot occur in [-cons] syllabic margins (i.e., in a [-cons] segment in onset or coda position): **

(where = or R)

X [-cons] [-high]

Marking statements Marking statements identify phonologically complex configurations that may be found in some but not all phonological inventories. Marking statements are the most important entities of the markedness module. They are universally ranked in a fixed order. Cross linguistic variation arises from various patterns of deactivation of the marking statements, i.e. a given language differs from another one in deactivating certain marking statements but not others. Markedness statements assign a cost to specific phonological configurations. Because of their cost, languages generally avoid the configurations mentioned in the constraints. Many languages, for example, lack front rounded vowels. I assume that the reason for this is the markedness statement *[-back, +round] that attaches a cost to this configuration, a cost which for these languages is prohibitive. Marking statements have two functions a) marking given configurations as phonologically complex or marked; b) marking of configurations as illicit. The second function holds only when a constraint is active. Illicit configurations must be repaired. Let us consider some sample marking statements. They deal with syllabic margins, and will be used in later discussion. They characterize


123

certain syllabic structures as marked/complex by assigning a cost to the presence/absence of certain elements in the structure. Thus the presence of a syllabic coda in (114a) and the absence of an onset in (114b) make the respective structures complex. If these marking statements are active, the relevant structures are disallowed. Marking statement (114a) excludes syllables with codas, (114b) onsetless syllables, (115a) complex onsets, (115b) complex codas. There are no marking statements excluding codaless syllables and syllables with onsets, the most unmarked syllabic structures. (In the marking statement I am underlining the structural component that makes the syllabic configuration marked.) (114)

a.

b.

*

R N X

*

__ (115)

a.

b.

R N X

* X *

(*codas)

X

(*onsetless syllable)

(*complex onset)

X R

X

X

(*complex coda)

The following markedness relations hold among the marking statements in (114) and (115). A complex coda is obviously more marked than a simple coda: this is formally expressed by the universally fixed ranking in (116) where the constraint to the left of the arrow is more marked than the one on the right. (116)

Ranking:

(115b) > (114a)

A complex margin is always more marked than a simple margin. A complex coda is obviously more marked than a simple onset that is not marked

124


by any constraints; a complex onset is more marked than a simple coda because of (117). (117)

Ranking:

(115a) > (114a)

Given that the presence of a coda is always associated with a higher degree of markedness than the presence of an onset, we can assume that a complex coda is always more marked than a complex onset, i.e. we have the hierarchical ranking in (118). (118)

Ranking:

(115b) > 114a)

2.2.3.

Deactivation of Marking Statements

Segments, or cluster of segments, characterized by a configuration mentioned in a particular marking statement may occur in a language if and only if the relevant marking statement is deactivated. If the marking statement is active, the relevant segment or cluster is ruled out. Thus, if configuration A is present in a given language, then either A is not constrained by any Marking Statement, or the relevant Marking Statement is deactivated. Notice that a grammar does not have to provide any information if a marking statement is active —this is their natural state. Only information concerning their deactivation is needed. In terms of activation/deactivation, we can say that the constraints in (114) and (115) are deactivated in a language like English where one finds onsetless syllables, syllables with complex onset, and syllable with simple and complex codas. This is in contrast to the situation found in Samoan where complex onsets and simple and complex codas are disallowed and where all of the constraints in (114) and (115) are active. In Italian where onsetless syllables, complex onsets and simple codas are allowed, but not complex codas, (114a-b) and (115a) are deactivated, but not (115b). As proposed above, marking statements are ranked. A consequence of this ranking is that a lower ranked marking statement can be deactivated only if a higher ranked marking statement is deactivated. Thus, given the ranking in (116) a complex coda is possible in a language only if a simple coda is also present in this language. The ranking in (117) states that complex onsets are possible in a language only if simple codas are also present. The ranking in (118), on the other hand, states that the presence of complex codas in a language implies the presence of complex onsets.


125

Given the marking statements in (114) and (115) simple onsets will always be present. Therefore, the presence of complex onsets, or of other marked syllable constituents, will always imply the presence of simple onsets. Marking statements and their rankings are empirical statements that must undergo empirical verification. I now turn to a different issue. There are situations in which a configuration A satisfying a marking statement M is present in the environment Y__ Z, but not in the environment T__W. Given that the natural state for a marking statement is to be active, the absence of the configuration in the environment Y__Z takes precedence. In such a case I will say that M is active in the language. For example, it is well-known that many languages allow an increase in phonological contrast in certain linguistically prominent positions such as stressed or word/root-initial position, allowing the most marked members of the inventory in those positions (see Steriade 1993, 1995; Beckman 1995). Thus the African language Uwie (See Omamor 1973) displays a nine-vowel system/i, È, e, E, a, O, o, Ë, u/ in roots, but not in affixes where it is reduced to /i, e, E, a, O, o, u/. I propose that for such a language the marking statement *[+high, -ATR] (see (123e)) is active. What about roots then? I assume that in root internal position there is a special licensing of configurations violating this active marking statement. This special licensing is obtained by the null repair, as in the case of blocking discussed in section 2.1.1 of this chapter. I assume that in the case of this special licensing, the special phonological properties of certain positions—the root, the stressed syllable, etc.—make the illicit configuration legible to the articulatory/sensory interface. From this, it follows that [+high, -ATR] vowels are allowed to surface in roots—where they are licensed—but not in affixes where they are disallowed by the active marking statement *[+high, -ATR]. In situations like this, the grammar of the language—Uwie in this case—includes a statement like that in (119). UG limits this type of licensing only to phonologically prominent positions. (119)

The configuration [+high, -ATR] is licensed by null repair in roots.

Notice that nothing needs to be said about the marking statement *[+high, -ATR]. It is active, and therefore in its natural state.

126


2.2.4.

Segmental Marking Statements

In the case of segmental phonology, marking statements state that the use of a certain feature specification in a bundle containing another given feature specification creates a configuration which is phonologically complex. In Calabrese (1995) I proposed that segmental marking statements have the form in (120): (120)

*[F, G]

where G is the feature specification whose use in the context of F creates a complex configuration. Feature G is the marked feature specification. The idea is to assign a cost to the use of a feature—the marked feature—in the context of another feature. For example, the marking statement *[-back, +round] assigns a cost to the use of the feature [+round] in the context of the feature [-back]. Simple and optimal feature combinations are those that have the opposite value to that of the marked feature. Here I would like to reformulate the formalism in (120) by looking at the marking statements in the light of the notion of the robustness scale proposed by Clements (2004). Clements’s goal in this paper is an account for the structure of phonological inventories. He first demonstrates that any adequate analysis of this issue requires the use of abstract phonological features. The inventory structure is then obtained by combining these features freely and as much as possible, given the limits provided by markedness avoidance by which the use of marked features is dispreferred in inventories, and given the robustness scale by which more perceptually salient features are exploited before less perceptually salient ones are made use of. According to Clements, feature robustness is established not by examining sounds but contrasts. Contrasts involving the most robust features are cross-linguistically more common that those involving less robust ones. The robustness scale for vowels is given in (121) (adapted from Clements (2001)): (121)

a. b. c. d. e.

[Low] [High] [Back] [Round] [ATR]


127

In (122), I provide a list of the marking statements for vowels I proposed in Calabrese (1995): (122)

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

*[-low , -high] *[-high, +ATR] *[+low, -back] *[-back, +round] *[+high, -ATR] *[+back, -round]/[__ , -low] *[+low, +round] *[+low, +ATR]

Observe that the marked feature is always the less robust one of the pair of features in the marking statement. It follows that this property can be derived from the independently needed robustness scale and does not need to be stated in the marking statement. Then we can say that a marking statement simply characterizes a feature configuration as phonologically costly—and illicit if the marking statement is active—without indicating which feature is marked. The robustness scale determines the marked feature. Hence the marking statements in (122) can be simplified as in (123).27 (123)

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.


Given the robustness scale, another aspect of the theory proposed in Calabrese (1988, 1994, 1995) could be simplified. In those works I proposed that marking statements are universally ranked in a fixed order. This ranking is expressed by hierarchically structured trees such as that in (124) for vocalic segments:28, 29

128


(124) D. of C.: [-low , -high] [-high, +ATR] [+high, -ATR] [+low, +ATR]

0. A.1. | A.2. | A.3. | A.4.

B.1. [+low, -back] C.1. [-back, +round] D.1. [+back, -round] /[_ , -low] E.1. [+low, +round]

(D. of C. = Degree of Complexity)

The fact that certain feature combinations are more marked than others and appear less frequently than the latter in inventories is represented by the length of the line connecting the relevant marking statement to the root of the tree: the longer the line, the more marked the feature combination. Thus in the case of the vocalic marking statements, the fact that [+low, +round] vowels are more marked, less frequent than [+low, back] vowels is represented by having a longer branch for the former. The robustness scale allows one to derive some of the implicational relationships that are stated in the tree in (124). The robustness scale in fact tells us that the use of more robust features is to be preferred over the use of less robust ones. It follows that the presence of less robust features in a system implies the presence of the more robust ones. For example, the fact that the presence of [+low, +round] vowels implies the presence of [+low, -back] vowels can now be explained by the fact that the feature [round] is less robust than the feature [back]. There are, however, still facts that the robustness scale does not account for. Specifically, there appears to be implications between classes of marked segments that cannot be derived from the robustness scale: for example, we still need the ranking in (125) to account for the fact that the low [+ATR] vowels require the presence of high [-ATR] vowels and of [+ATR] and [-ATR] mid vowels. At the same time, high [-ATR] vowels require the presence of [+] and [-ATR] mid vowels. [+ATR] mid vowels require the presence of [-ATR] mid ones. This ranking does not follow from the robustness scale (125)

[-high, -low] < [-high, +ATR] < [+high, -ATR] < [+low, +ATR]

More research needs to be done to try to reduce implications such as that in (125) to some independently motivated principle.


2.2.5.

129

Segmental Marking Statements and Phonemic Alphabets

Languages differ as to the phoneme alphabet; i.e., as to the feature complexes that may figure in their vocabulary items. The differences in phoneme alphabets are due to the different patterns of marking statements deactivation. As discussed above, segments characterized by a feature combination mentioned in a marking statement may occur in a language if and only if the relevant marking statement is deactivated. Languages differ one from another in that they deactivate certain marking statements but not others. For example, languages with front rounded vowels deactivate the marking statement (123d). This is the case of German. (For further details, see Calabrese 1995 and below). Under this view, acquiring a language involves learning which marking statements are deactivated in this language.30 The structure of a phonological inventory is thus simply a byproduct of the process of establishing the degree of complexity allowed in that language, i.e., the process of deactivation of marking statements. Based on (123), a language in which no marking statement is deactivated will have the vowel system in (126a). Arabic is a language of this type. If a language deactivates the marking statement in (123c), it will have the vowel system in (126b). Latvian is a language of this type. If instead of (123c), a language deactivates the marking statement in (123a), it will have the vowel system in (126c) which is found in Modern Greek, Spanish, Hawaiian and many other languages. If, in addition to the marking statement in (123a), a language also deactivates the marking statement in (123b), it will have the vowel system in (126d), which is found in standard Italian. If, instead, it deactivates the marking statements in (123c) and (123d), it will have the vowel system in (126e), which is found in Finnish. (126)

a. i

d. i e E

a

a

u

u o O

b. i œ

e. i E œ

u a u‹ o‹

a

c. i E

u O

a

u O

130


Observe that the feature configurations identified by the marking statements that are active in the preceding languages will be ruled out in these languages. Thus, the feature configuration [+low, -back] will be ruled out in the languages in (126a), (126c) and (126d), but obviously not in the languages (126b) and (126e); whereas the feature configuration [-back, +round] will be ruled out in (126a-d), but it will not ruled out in (126e). The marking statements in (123) also establish what a possible vowel system is. Thus, the possible, and attested systems in (126) can all be generated by deactivating some of the marking statements of (123). No pattern of deactivation of these marking statements will ever generate the vowel system in (127) which is in fact unattested across languages.

u‹

(127)

œ

I a

O

What is active or deactivated is an idiosyncratic aspect of a given language. There is no way of predicting the pattern found in a given language except in the cases predicted by the implicational relations between Marking Statements discussed below. The pattern of Marking Statement deactivation found in a given language is due to the idiosyncrasies of the history of this language. 2.2.6.

Natural Rules

Natural rules are rules that belong to Universal Grammar. A typical natural rule is that accounting for devoicing in coda position postulated in (111). Natural rules can be active or deactivated. As in the case of the marking statements, I assume that they are naturally active and that they must be deactivated in the acquisition process, suppressed like the natural processes of Stampe (1972). As in the case of marking statements, I assume that there is a universally fixed ranking of natural rules so that certain processes are more likely to be enforced across languages. Natural processes in the higher positions of the hierarchy are more likely to be active than those in the lower positions. An example of a top ranked natural rules is that implementing velar fronting by which a velar consonant is fronted before a front vowel. Another one is word final devoicing. If there is a situation of conflict between a natural rule and a marking statement, which of them is deactivated must be decided on a language-


131

specific basis, although there appears a tendency to deactivate the natural rule. A case in point is the following. The aspiration of stops is a common sound change. In many languages, the voiceless series became aspirated by a context-free change (cf. Armenian (Vaux 1998), southern Italian dialects, etc.) I postulate that this process is due to the natural rule in (128).31 (128)

[-stiff vocal folds] [+spread glottis]/ [____, -continuant]

The function of this rule is to add a new property to phonological representations. It is a positive process of addition; it would be counterintuitive to express this change by means of a negative statement as that in (129) that disallows voiceless unaspirated stops, the most unmarked consonants. (129)

*[-stiff vocal folds, -spread glottis] / [____, -continuant]

Also, if we assume the marking statement in (129), we should expect the possibility of repairing [+stiff] into [-stiff] in configurations violating (129), i.e. a context free change of voiceless stops into voiced ones, a change that as far as I know is unattested. Obviously the natural rule in (128) is in conflict with the marking statement in (130) which characterizes aspirated stops as marked. (130)

*[-continuant, +spread glottis]

In most languages voiceless stops are unaspirated (Maddieson 1984). To account for this fact, we have to hypothesize that in the conflict between (128) and (130), it is (130) to be deactivated. The obvious question is that of the conditions under which (128) is able to win and (130) is deactivated. Again we are in the same situation of trying to account for why we find a certain pattern of deactivation of marking statements in one language, and not another. I assume that it is simply due to the idiosyncrasies of history and human behavior. I propose that assimilation processes are accounted for by natural rules. The issue is that of language specific variation in assimilation processes. To solve this problem, I propose that the markedness module contains the general rule scheme in (131). C in (131a) is a terminal feature or a set of terminal features dominated by the same node C. (131b) is the parameter stating the direction of the spreading of C.

132


(131)

a.

b.

X1

X2

A

B

/

X3 ____

X4

D

E

C a. applies right-to-left/left-to-right

In (131), the node B assimilates the features of the set of features C of the node A. To be active, the different variable in (131) as well as the direction of the operation must be specified. Rule (131) cannot apply if these variables are not set. The goal of acquisition is then that of determining what, if anything, assimilates to what else and in what environment. Language acquisition involves establishing new settings for the variables in (131). Consider an example. As illustrated in (132) the English past tense exponent /d/ assimilates the feature [+stiff vf] from the final phoneme of the verb stem. By contrast the /t/ exponent of the past tense, which is taken by about 40 English verbs, transmits its [+stiff vf] feature to the stem final obstruent (from Calabrese and Halle (1998)). (132) a. no effect: [+stiff vf]: b. no effect: [+stiff vf]:

blame-d usurp-ed

derive-d clock-ed

clogg-ed replace-d

close-d brief-ed

bough-t knel-t dwel-t lef-t (leave) los-t (lose)

We can then say that the two past tense exponents in (132) are subject to two distinct assimilation processes: the regular past exponent /d/ assimilates [+stiff vf] from the preceding stem consonant; the marked exponent /t/ transmits [+stiff vf] to the preceding stem consonant. We can capture this with the rules in (133). (133) a.

[-sonorant] + [-sonorant] b.

[+stiff vocal folds]

[-sonorant]

+

[-sonorant]

[+stiff vocal folds]


133

Both rules are language specific instances of the natural rule scheme in (131), and in this sense they are perfectly "natural" rules that can commonly be found across languages. 2.2.7.

Heuristics

Given a certain process P in a given language L, for an idealized learner of L, there is no problem in choosing an analysis of P involving an active marking statement or natural rule in so far as they are part of the UG which the language learner is by definition able to access. Speakers can only learn to deactivate marking statements or natural rules. If P involves a natural rule or a repair triggered by a marking statement, it follows that they are active. This is the natural state for the learner, his state Ø. Therefore, in this case simply there is nothing to learn or discover. For the phonologist the situation is quite different insofar as one of the goals of the analysis is precisely that of discovering the marking statement and natural rules characterizing UG. The following heuristic criterion can be established to identify marking statements and rules. A marking statement can be postulated if and only if inside the same language or across languages a number of processes can be identified which can be shown to target and repair—or be blocked by—the same configuration. Thus, a marking statement can be identified only in cases where we can observe a situation of functional unity among a given set of processes involving the same target configuration. Otherwise, the best analysis of a process requires the postulation of a rule. Furthermore, if the same process can be identified across a sufficient number of languages, then it can be accounted for by a natural rule. Note also that it is the principle of economy that requires the distinction between rules and negative constraints. Given no other evidence, or a priori motivation—i.e., presence of the constraint in UG—the simplest and most economical way of accounting for a process is to express it as a rule. The default formal account of processes involves the use of rules. Negative constraints can be adopted only when further evidence like the presence of a conspiracy is provided. 2.2.8.

Idiosyncratic Instructions

In addition to processes that can be characterized as "natural", and that can be analyzed in terms of natural rules or marking statements, lan-

134


guages always contain processes that are idiosyncratic, non-natural. The reasons for this were discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.1.3. When it is put under close scrutiny, most of the phonology of natural languages can be said to be "non-natural" (see Anderson 1981). Nonnatural processes are triggered by language specific idiosyncratic instructions which most of the time are the outcomes of the diachronic restructuring of historical processes. In the Section 1.1.3 of Chapter 1, I mentioned Polish /o/-raising as a case of an idiosyncratic process. Here I give another example: the process of raising and fronting in Ukrainian discussed by Kenstowicz and Kisseberth (1977) which affects mid vowels when followed by a word-final consonant. (134)

[e, o][i]/ ___ [+consonantal] #

This process is idiosyncratic to Ukrainian and cannot be analyzed in terms of plausible markedness considerations. Again, it developed through a complex sequence of diachronic changes such as compensatory lengthening, raising of long vowels, fronting of [u:], shortening of long vowels and derounding of [ü]. Each step can be analyzed in terms of markedness considerations (see Chapter 1, Section 1.1.10 and Calabrese 2000 on the fronting of [u:]). But these intermediate steps can no longer be motivated synchronically for Ukrainian, and the complex sequence of processes was "telescoped" into a single process (see Kenstowicz and Kisseberth 1977:64). The interaction of these various changes is, for example, illustrated in the historical developments of the words svic&a 'candle' and mid, med-u (gen. sg.) 'honey.’ (135)

*sve:c&- a

svi:c-a svic&a

*med-u me:d

mi:d mid

*med-u:

medu

Yer loss and compensatory Lengthening Raising Loss of length contrast

Because the contrast in vowel length has been lost, we are now left with an e,o/i alternation in place of the historical series /ee:i/o:u:ü ü i/. And since there is no evidence for positing an abstract length contrast in present-day Ukrainian, we are left with the telescoped rule in (134) before one or more word-final consonants. Examples of this type are easy to find across languages. The rule format provides a perfect means to express phonological processes that in-

The theory of repair operations

135

volve idiosyncratic changes. The synchronic idiosyncratic change can only be accounted for by stipulation: in a given context, a given change must be implemented. Obviously these rules must be acquired through inductive generalizations on the processes since UG can provide minimal help in this case. Before ending this section I should mention the issue of accidental gaps (see Halle 1962). Accidental gaps in a given language occur when a segment or a given configuration is absent even if its presence is expected, given the marking statements deactivated in that language, i.e., given the universally recognized patterns of phonological systems. It is a fact that there are accidental gaps in phonological systems, and that languages do not exploit all of the available segments allowed by deactivated marking statements. For example, Huave, like other Indian languages of the southwest of the United States and Mexico, lacks the unmarked vowel /u/ (Noyer 1994) and Russian lacks the voiced obstruents /V, dz, dJ/ in its voiced obstruent series, although it has their voiceless counterparts. In Calabrese (1995) I provided evidence showing that special language-specific constraints are needed to account for such gaps. If this is correct, we have to assume that in addition to idiosyncratic rules, also idiosyncratic negative constraints must be included in the grammar. Observe that the postulation of this type of constraints requires indirect negative evidence that is a successful learning procedure as argued by Lasnik (1989). 2.3.

Issues in the Theory of Repair Operations

In the following sections I will investigate some specific issues in the theory of repair rules: section 2.3.1 considers the nature and status of fission as a repair procedure in segmental phonology; section 2.3.2 deals with epenthesis; section 2.3.3 looks at fission as a repair procedure in the case of syllable structure. 2.3.1.

Repairs in Segmental Phonology and Fission

In Calabrese (1988, 1995), segmental repairs were implemented by three different simplification procedures: delinking, fission and negation, each one involving a different set of instructions. These three different repair rules can now be reduced to the basic operations of non-linear phonology: insertion and deletion. Delinking involves deletion of a feature value; fis-

136


sion involves insertion. (Negation also involves deletion but targets the entire illicit configuration. It will be discussed in detail in Chapter 3, Section 3.3.) The grammar prescribes which basic operation is chosen. All other aspects of the repair will follow from the intrinsic design of language and the requirements of economy and time pressure. Here I will resort to an old example of mine to show how this model of segmental repairs works. If we consider Italian for example, we can identify a three-way idiolectal variation in the pronunciation of this vowel. As illustrated by (136), this vowel can be pronounced as the diphthong [iu]. In addition, the pronunciations [i] and [u] are also possible: (136)

German führer

(137)

Disallowed input:

Italian idiolect 1: Italian idiolect 2: Italian idiolect 3:

[fyurer] [furer] [firer]

fürer [-back, +round]

Outcomes: a. First idiolect: b. c.

[fyurer] [-back,-round][+back, +round] Second idiolect: [furer] [+back, +round] Third idiolect: [firer] [-back, -round]

In Romanian we find the same situation, with the addition that in some cases the different idiolects gave rise to different lexical alternates (the Romanian example is from Nandris (1963: 297). (138)

French cuvette ‘wash basin’ Romanian:

kyuveta kuveta kiveta

Consider the marking statement in (139). (139)

*[-back, +round]

If this constraint is active, the configuration [-back, +round] must be repaired. This is done by the application of the basic operations in (140): (140)

Addition/deletion of feature specifications.


137

Consider deletion first. We have the two possibilities in (141). (141)

a. b.

REPAIR of *[-back, +round] Operation: Deletion Target: [-back] REPAIR of *[-back, +round] Operation: Deletion Target: [+round]

Given (141a) and b), either the feature [-back] or the feature [+round] is deleted in the illicit configuration in (142) as in (143a) or (143b). (142)

[-back, +round]

(143)

a. b.

[ ___ , +round ] [ -back , ____ ]

No featural underspecification is allowed in this model as stated in (144) (see Section 1.3.3 of Chapter 1 and Chapter 5 for discussion of this issue). (144) Feature must be always specified. Because of (144) the value for [back] in (143a) and the value for [round] in (143b) must be specified. Values compatible with the active (142) are inserted and we obtain (145). (145)

a. b.

[+back, +round] [ -back, -round]

Of the potential operations in (141), one or the other must be selected as a repair. Assuming the ranking in (146a), the preferred repair will involve changing [ü] into [u]; if the ranking is that in (146b), [ü] is changed into [i]. (146)

a. b.

REPAIR set of MS *[-back, +round] in idiolect 2 Deletion of [-back] > Deletion of [+round] REPAIR set of MS *[-back, +round] in idiolect 3 Deletion of [+round] > Deletion of [-back]

138


Observe that the same results can be obtained without ranking the repairs as in (146) but by stating that only (141a) is available to repair violations of *[-back, +round] in the idiolect 2 and that only (141b) is available for this purpose in idiolect 3: (147)

a. b.

REPAIR set of MS *[-back, +round] in idiolect 2 Deletion of [-back] REPAIR set of MS *[-back, +round] in idiolect 3 Deletion of [+round]

How do we opt between these two possibilities? If two repairs are associated with a constraint in a given language as in (146), we expect both of them to be active in this language. In particular, we expect a situation in which if the most preferred repair fails to produce a successful output, the least preferred one instead applies, as we saw in the discussion of hiatus resolution processes in Sect. 2.1.1 of this chapter. This is not what we observe in the case just discussed, and in all of the cases involving segmental phonology that I know of. Simply no truthful cases of a language-internal conspiracy triggered by a segmental marking statement are attested as far as I know. Therefore the second solution that involving a single repair per constraint as in (147) appears to be the best one. This is an empirical issue and only further research will show whether or not this proposal is correct. Some examples from Calabrese (1995) will show how segmental repairs interact with other phonological processes. Standard German has the vowel system shown in (148)-(149) (There are also length oppositions. They are omitted here). (148)

i e E

u‹ o‹

u o a

(149)

i high + low back round ATR +

e +

E -

a + + -

o + + +

u + + + +

u‹ + + +

o‹ + +

German is also characterized by the so-called Umlaut Rule which fronts


139

stem vowels in a large variety of morphological contexts, as illustrated in (150).

(150) Plural formation: Bruder - Brüder ‘brother’ Vogel - Vögel ‘bird’ Vater – Väter ‘father’ Frucht - Früchte ‘fruit’ Sohn - Söhne ‘son’ Hand – Hände ‘hand’ Buch - Bücher ‘book’ Horn - Hörner ‘horn’ Mann - Männer ‘man’

The vowels /ü, ö/ are [-back, +round]. Observe that /ä/ represents a front vowel, which, contrary to expectations, is not [+low, -back]. Rather this vowel is [-low] in most German dialects, as observed by Sievers (1901: 104). In terms of the theoretical framework proposed here, this means that standard German does not pay the cost associated with deactivating the marking statement [+low, -back] of (124). This marking statement instead remains active. In contrast, the marking statements *[-high, -low] and *[-back, +round] must be deactivated. Umlaut is formally expressed as the idiosyncratic rule in (151). (151)

[-consonantal] / In certain morphological environments. Place Dorsal [+back]

[-back]

If the Umlaut Rule applies to an input containing the vowels /u,o/ we will have the change in (152) with only one derivational outcome. (152) Input: bruder [+back, +round] Output: br[ü]der [-back, +round]

Through deletion of [+back] and insertion of [-back] as required by the rule in (151). The output is licensed.

The marking statement [+round,-back] is deactivated in German; therefore,

140


no further repair is needed after the application of this repair. Now consider a word like männer. In this case, application of the operation triggered by the Umlaut Rule creates a violation of the active marking statement *[+low, -back]. This configuration must be repaired. This marking statement is associated with the repair in (153). (153)

REPAIR set of MS *[+low, -back] in German: Deletion of [+low]

The operations due to the Umlaut Rule and to (153) are shown in (154): (154)

Input: i. ii.

iii.

Output:

manner [+low, +back] m[ä]nner Through deletion of [+back] [+low, -back] and insertion of [-back] as required by the rule in (151). This outcome is disallowed by *[+low, -back]. m[ E]nner The operation required by (153) applies and changes [+low] [-low, -back] into [-low]. This outcome is licensed. m[ E]nner

It is interesting to consider the Berlin dialect of German at this point. In this dialect, the application of the Umlaut Rule to the round vowels produces front unrounded vowels. (154) /ü, ö/-->/i, e/. In this dialect, the marking statement *[-back, +round] is not deactivated, i.e., [ü] and [ö] are not allowed. So there must be a REPAIR when umlaut produces this configuration of features. The MS *[-back, +round] is associated with the deletion operation in (155). (155)

REPAIR set of MS *[-back, +round] in the Berlin dialect of German: Deletion of [+round]


141

We thus have the derivation in (156). (156)

Input: i.

bruder [+round, +back] ii.

br[ü]der Through deletion of [+back] [+round, -back] and insertion of [-back] as required by the rule in (151). Disallowed by *[-back, +round]

iii.

Output:

br[i]der

The operation required by (155) applies to [-round, -back] and changes [+round] into [-round]. Licensed.

br[i]der

Let us now consider the output change [ü] ->[yu], what I called fission in previous work (see Calabrese 1988, 1995). I propose that it simply involves feature insertion followed by automatic splitting and cloning. As I argued in Calabrese (1984, 1988, 1995), this segmental change, although not common, characterizes cases like the following. (158) a.

ü iu

b.

I ui

c.

a$ an/aN

d.

ˆ ny

e.

¥ ly

In the Italian pronunciation of French and German ü; in the Romanian pronunciation of French and Turkish words. In the Lithuanian and Finnish pronunciation of Russian I. In the nonnative pronunciation of nasal vowels in many languages. In the nonnative pronunciation of Italian. In the nonnative pronunciation of Italian.

All of these cases of phonological breaking appear to involve the repair of a segment that otherwise is disallowed in the language of the speakers implementing the breaking. This observation leads Calabrese (1984) to de-

142


velop an analysis of phonological breaking in terms of constraints and repairs. In the markedness theory developed in Calabrese (1988, 1995), fission was defined as a phonological operation that breaks a complex, disallowed sound into two simpler allowed sounds. Consider the Italian pronunciation [iu] for [ü]. As mentioned above, Italian does not have [ü] in its vowel inventory. The absence of [ü] from this inventory indicates that the marking statement *[-back, +round] is active in this language. Consequently, the configuration [-back, +round] is disallowed. Fission repairs this disallowed configuration by sequencing in time the two articulatory maneuvers of lip rounding and tongue fronting, which are simultaneous in the production of the disallowed vowel /ü/. How can we characterize fission in comparison to the other repairs like those involving deletion as in (141)? The fundamental aspect of Fission with respect to these other segmental repairs is the preservation of the features of the input illicit configuration in the output form, while, at the same time, this configuration is corrected. In the other repairs, in contrast, one or more of the features of the input illicit configuration are lost in the output configuration. Calabrese (1988, 1995) assumes that Fission is a mechanical procedure that simultaneously implements preservation and feature change by creating two clones of the illicit configuration and fixing them up. This is formally shown in (159) (from Calabrese (1988, 1995)) in the case of [iu] pronunciation from [ü]. First, the segment containing the illicit configuration is cloned into two copies; feature change is then applied to each of the two copies in such a way that the features of the input configuration are preserved in the output (they are circled in (159)), and at the same time the illicit configuration is corrected.32

The theory of repair operations (159)

X

X

[-cons.] Place

Labial

Dorsal

[+round] [-back] [+high] [-low]

143

Labial [-round]

[-cons.]

[-cons.]

Place

Place

Dorsal

Dorsal

Labial [+round]

[-back] [+back] [+high] [+high] [-low] [-low]

There are some arbitrary aspects in the procedure defined in (159). For example, the skeletal position of the target segment is not affected. As discussed by Calabrese (1988), fission usually does not affect the timing unit associated with the root node of the feature bundle that undergoes fission. To support this, Calabrese (1988) provides evidence that the melodic sequences produced by fission are actually short, i.e., associated with one timing unit.33 But why should it be so? In (159), this property of fission is just stipulated. We would have a better account of fission if we could derive this property independently. Observe also that there is the issue of how the output of fission is syllabified, a fact that was not discussed in Calabrese (1988, 1995). For example, although it is true that in some cases one could say that the diphthong [iu] from [ü] is nuclear as required by the formalism in (159), in most other cases, the first vocoid is clearly a glide, and therefore must belong to the onset position, and must be assigned an independent skeletal slot. One could say that this resyllabification is due to an independent process. The fact remains, however, that such resyllabification is somehow part of the same repair operation. Again, we would have a better account of fission if we could also account for this aspect of the fission process. In the same way, the features other than the incompatible ones are not affected in the change. A priori there is no reason for this restriction. Again, we would have a better account of fission if we could derive this property independently. A better understanding of fission comes about if we consider the original meaning of fission in terms of the basic operations that are involved in feature geometry. The repairs discussed above involve feature

144


deletion. Now I propose that fission is instead triggered by an operation of feature insertion: given a disallowed configuration *[F1, F2] the feature [-F2] which is compatible with [F1] is inserted. Crucially, [F2] is not deleted. This creates an illicit configuration insofar as a configuration violating a prohibition against branching terminal nodes is created. This principle is given in (160). 34 (160)

**

[cons] -F2

F2

If one assumes that all feature specifications dominated by the same root node belong to the same feature bundle, (160) states that opposite feature specifications cannot coexist in the same feature bundle. Within it they will repel each other like opposite magnetic poles. I assume that this situation of internal repulsion leads to an automatic splitting of the feature bundle into two feature bundles one containing F2 and the other containing -F2 (with the compatible F1). All other features are cloned into the two new bundles. The feature value that was not matched with a compatible feature value in the operation of feature insertion will be automatically matched with a compatible feature after the splitting operation as discussed above in (143-145). The derivation involved in fission is represented in (161) ([F1 ] and [F2] are incompatible because of the active marking statement *[ F1, F2]. The input incompatible feature are circled, the inserted feature is surrounded by a square). (161)

a. [ F5] F1

[ F5]

F1

F2

-F2 F3

F2 F3

F4

c.

(feature (-F2) insertion)b.

F4

(161b) violates the principle against branching terminal features (160). Splitting occurs. A compatible feature is


145

inserted in the second root node (Cloned features are italicized and shadowed): [ F5]

[ F5] -F1

F1 -F2

F2

F3

F3 F4

F4

Fission of [ü] into [yu] is analyzed below. The constraint *[-back, +round] disallowing front rounded vowels is active. In the idiolect characterized by fission, this constraint is associated with the insertion as a repair operation. (162)

REPAIR set of *[-back, +round] in the Italian idiolect in (136.1): Insertion of [+back]

The structure produced by the application of (162) is automatically repaired by reconstituting well-formed feature bundles through splitting and cloning as shown in (163). (The input incompatible features are circled, the inserted feature is surrounded by a square, the cloned features are italicized and shadowed).

146


(163)

a.

X (feature [+back] insertion) | [-cons.] | Place

Labial | [+round]

Dorsal

X | [-cons.] | Place

Labial | [+round]

[-back]

[+back]

Dorsal

[-back]

[+high]

[+high] [-low]

[-low] b.

Splitting and Cloning: X | [-cons.] | Place

Labial | [+round] [+back]

Dorsal

X [ - co ns. ] | Pl ace

Labi al | [-round]

[-back] [+ high ] [ - low ]

Do rsal Do rsal

[ - c on s.] | Pl ace

Labial | [+round]

[-back] [+back] [+high ] [+hi gh ] [ - l ow ] [ - low ]

Other active constraints also play a role in accounting for the surface outputs of Fission. If we assume that fission affects just the feature bundle of a given illicit segment, and not the skeletal slot associated with it, as discussed above, fission creates the structure in the output of (163b). We can hypothesize that a fissioned structure such as that in the output of (163b) violates a constraint against branching non-consonantal roots which is independently motivated by the fact that many languages avoid short diphthongs.


(164)

147

NOBRANCHX *

X

-cons

-cons

If this constraint is active, a structure such as that in the output of (163b) is disallowed, and further repairs are needed. This structure cannot be repaired by deleting one of the disallowed branching subcomponents, since in this case we would obtain /i/ or /u/. This is excluded because it would make the fission operation vacuous, and therefore an unneeded step in the derivation. Derivational economy forbids such a move. The only remaining possibility is to assign a skeletal position to one of the cloned feature bundles. At that point, the sequence thus obtained must be resyllabified. This move produces a structure such as that in (165). (165)

N X i

X u

In many languages, this structure is disallowed by the active marking statement against branching nuclei in (166).35 (166)

NOBRANCHN *

N

X

X

The structure in (165)-if disallowed by (166)--is fixed up by line deletion as in (167a). The preferred option in this case is that of removing the nuclear status of the leftmost element. This is shown below. (167)

a.

R N X i

X u

148


The further application of line addition as a repair fixing up the disallowed unsyllabified [i] of (166a) will produce (167b). (167)

b. X y

R N X u

In Sect. 2.1.1 of this chapter, I used fission to account for glide insertion. Here is a good place to deal with the details of this operation. The target of fission in this case is the illicit configuration in (168). (168)

*

R N X

R N X

Fission preserves the basic characteristics of this input configuration in the sense that after the application of Fission, is still at the same time a nucleus and an onset. This is obtained by splitting the skeletal position associated with into two copies each containing a licit part of the targeted illicit configuration. Thus from one skeletal position which is both a nucleus and an onset, we obtain two different adjacent skeletal positions, one which is a nucleus and another which is an onset: (169)

R N X1

R N X2

-->

R N X1

X1'

R N X2

Observe that from an abstract point of view, the operation of fission applies in situations involving a node simultaneously linked to incompatible nodes such as the node in (170) which is linked simultaneously to both the incompatible nodes and :


(170)

149

where and cannot be sisters under the same node.

Fission changes (170) into (171) by creating a copy of and associating it with one of sister nodes: (171)

This more abstract approach to fission will be relevant when I will discuss another instance of this operation involving syllable structure in Section 2.3.3 below. 2.3.2.

Epenthesis as a Repair

In this section I will consider epenthesis as a repair operation under the perspective that repairs are efficient. The following assumptions will form the background of my analysis. 1) In the case of epenthesis we are dealing with unsyllabified segments.36 Insofar as these segments do not have any syllabic structure associated with them, the operation manipulating them from a syllabic point of view will be of a structure-building nature. Structure-building repair operations are by necessity characterized by the following property: they cannot create disallowed configurations. This follows from economy. To build something that then needs to be rebuilt is simply a waste of time; it is simply better not to build it at all. 2) All levels of phonological representation may include organization into syllables. Sloan (1991) argues that syllabification occurs in two distinct stages: once at lexical level and then again at word level. (see also Kenstowicz 1985; Harris 1993). In her analysis, syllabification processes assign nuclei, project syllables and incorporate onsets and codas at the lexical level. At this level, there is no epenthesis and there are no repairs. It would be a wasteful expenditure of effort given that the segmental environment of morphemes can change when they are put together in morpho-

150


logical composition. Unsyllabified consonants are thus freely allowed and if a morpheme does not have vowels, its consonants are not syllabified at this level. Pushing Sloan's idea a little further, I propose that syllable structure is underlyingly specified in lexical representations (see Vaux 2003). However, by assuming that repairs are not allowed in lexical representations, we have to say that only the basic licit syllables of a language are present underlyingly. Segments that do not conform the basic syllable structure of the language are left unsyllabified. An additional parameter may also exempt segments in morpheme-final position from lexical syllabification (Vaux 2003.) In the framework proposed here, the presence of unsyllabified segments in lexical representations implies that the marking statement in (19) against unsyllabified segments—repeated below as (172)—does not govern these representations, i.e., it is not checked given the terminology that was introduced in Chapter 1 (see also section 2.4.1 of this chapter). Therefore, unsyllabified segments are free to occur. (172)

NOUNSYLLX Unsyllabified skeletal positions are not allowed

At word level (172) is checked and unsyllabified segments must be either eliminated or resyllabified in a variety of ways. Resyllabification triggered by (172) involves the following ranked repairs in (173).37 (173)

REPAIR set of NOUNSYLL X (172) (i.e., operations dealing with unsyllabified segments) (Informal). I. Syllabic incorporation. (line insertion) II. Syllable insertion: ( -insertion) By vocalization or by epenthesis

Syllabic incorporation consists of the attachment of an unsyllabified segment to an adjacent syllable by line insertion. This is the simplest operation rescuing an unsyllabified segment. If this operation is unable to produce a licit configuration, (173II) is selected. Operation (173II) inserts a syllable; the unsyllabified segment is either attached to the nucleus of the inserted syllable—which result in vocalization of the unsyllabified segment—or to the margin of this syllable. In the latter case, a skeletal position must also be inserted to fill in the nucleus of the inserted syllable. This results in epenthesis. These operations can be more formally expressed as in (174II).


151

(174) REPAIR set of NOUNSYLL X (172) (First approximation): I. Syllabic incorporation (line insertion) Attach unsyllabified X to an adjacent syllable by line insertion. II. Syllable insertion: ( -insertion) Insert (a syllable) and attach unsyllabified X to: a) the nucleus of ; b) i. the onset of ; ii. the coda of . Convention A: there must be positional homogeneity between the edge of an inserted syllable and the edge of an unsyllabified string. Therefore, under (174IIbi), the onset of is attached to the leftmost segment of an unsyllabified string. Under (174IIbi), the coda of is attached to the rightmost one. Convention B: Under the option (b), there is automatic Insertion of a skeletal position under the empty nucleus of the inserted . The two options in (174IIb), together with the conventions A and B, govern how unsyllabified segments are anchored to the inserted syllable margins. If the option in (174IIbi) is chosen, the leftmost unsyllabified segment is incorporated as an onset. Once this is done, the other unsyllabified segments, if there are any, are automatically incorporated in the appropriate positions of the inserted syllable. If (174IIbii) is chosen, the operation begins with the incorporation of the rightmost segment as a coda and then proceeds as outlined above. Once all unsyllabified segments are incorporated into the newly formed syllable, a skeletal position is inserted under the empty nucleus. Vocalic material is then inserted because of an independently needed repair. This is epenthesis.38 Notice that as far as I know, word-final segments always tend to be syllabified as codas. This requires a new parametric choice as in (175). This parameter must be ranked above (174bi-ii). (175) REPAIR set of NOUNSYLL X (172) (Second approximation): I. Syllabic incorporation (line insertion) Attach unsyllabified X to an adjacent syllable by line insertion.

152


II. Syllable insertion: ( -insertion) Insert (a syllable) and attach unsyllabified X to: a) the nucleus of ; b) i. the coda of /if X is word final; ii. the onset of ; iii. the coda of . Consider the word theatr in English. There are two possible pronunciations of the final part of this word in this language. In one case there is the insertion of an epenthetic schwa; in the other the [r] becomes a syllabic head. (176)

/theatr/ English1: English2:

...at´r ...atr

In the model presented here, these two pronunciations can be accounted in the following way. Consider the final sequence in this word—I assume that the two final segments are not syllabified as in (177). (177) ...

R N X a

X t

X ## r

Given the ranking in (175), syllabic incorporation is tried first. It fails, however, insofar as the cluster /tr/ cannot be a possible coda in English. We then turn to -insertion. The first strategy to be tried, given (175II), is Nassignment (see Chapter 3, section 3.2, on syllabification in Tashlhyit Berber for more discussion of N-assignment). The success of this strategy depends of the marking statement in (178) that governs the assignment of nuclear status to sonorant consonants: (178)

*[N[X[+sonorant, +consonantal]]] (i.e., *[ l, r, n, m])

In the dialect 1 of English, (178) is deactivated and therefore nuclear sonorants are allowed. This means that N-assignment is successful in repairing the sequence in (177). This is shown in (179):

153


(179)

R N .... X a

X X ## t r

R N X a

(by N-assignment)

R N X a

(by onset incorporation)

X t

R N X r

R N X r

X t

If the constraint in (178) is not deactivated, N-assignment will fail to produce a licensed outcome and this repair will crash. The next repair in (175II), i.e., (175IIb), is now available. The two unsyllabified segments must be anchored to a syllable margin. I assume that the unmarked setting in (174Iibi) applies to English so that the word-final unsyllabified consonant is incorporated as a coda of the inserted syllable.39 We can see this in (180): (180) ...

R N X a

X X ## t r

R N X a

(by -assignment)

skeletal & feature insertion

...

R N X a

X t

R N X t R N X ´

X r

X r

After this basic example, we can proceed with other more complex examples. Consider first Lenakel (Lynch 1974, Blevins 1995). Stray segments in this language are syllabified as onsets, with the exception of the word-final ones which become codas. Sample facts are provided in (181):

154


(181)

a) /t-n-ak-ol/ /t-r-ep-ol/ /n-n-ol/ /r-n-ol/ b) /kam-n- m@an-n/ /´s-´t-pn-aan/ /k-ar-[´]pkom/ c) /´pk-´pk/ /apn-apn/ /ark-ark/ /r-´m-Ńn/ /n-´m-´pk/

tIna!gOl tIrE!bOl nI⁄nOl rI⁄nOl ka~mnIm@a!nIn ´~sIdbńa!n karb´!gOm ´bg´!b´kh abna!bń argarIkh r´m´!Nń nIm´!b´kh

"you (sg.) will do it" "he will then do it" "you have done it" "he has done it" "for her brother" "don't go up there" "they are heavy" "to be pregnant" "free" "to growl" "he was afraid" "you(sg.) took it"

In this language, only CVC syllables are allowed lexically, as well as postlexically. Therefore, in lexical representations, vowelless morphemes, as well as consonants that cannot be incorporated in the basic CVC syllable, are left unsyllabified. We can see the lexical syllabification of some sample words in (182). (182) a.

X+ t

b.

X k

c.

X+ k

X+ n R N X a R N X a

R N X a

X+ k

R N X o

X+ m

X+ n

X m@

X+ r

X p

X k

X l R N X a R N X o

X+ n

X m

X n


d.

R N X ´

X p

X+ k

R N X ´

X p

155

X k

When we reach word level, the constraint in (172) checks the sequences and identifies several unsyllabified segments. These are marked as illicit and must be repaired. First syllabic incorporation applies as a repair as follows from the ranking in (175). (183) a.

b.

c.

d.

X t

X n

X k

R N X a

X k

R N X a

R N X ´

X p

R N X a

X m

X40 k

X n

R N X o

X l

X m@

R N X a

X n

X m

X r

X p

X k

R N X o

X k

R N X ´

X p

X k

X n

Some segments are still left unsyllabified. The next ranked strategy in (175), -insertion, applies. No N-insertion is available in Lenakel. Therefore, we turn to option (175IIb). The segments must be syllabified either as onsets or codas. Lenakel opts for the setting in (175IIbii) by which the

156


leftmost unsyllabified segment is incorporated as an onset. However, given (175bi) word-final segments are syllabified as codas and we obtain (184). (184) a.

b.

c.

d.

R N X t

X n

X k

R N X a

X k

R N X a

R N X ´

X p

R N X a

X k

R N X o

X l

X m@

R N X a

X n

R N X o

X m

R N X m

X n R N

X r

X p

X k R

X k

R N X ´

X p

R N X n

X k

The automatic insertion of the skeletal position under the N-node and the subsequent insertion of vowel features—an issue not discussed here—will create (185). (185) a.

X t

R N X I

X n

R N X a

X g

R N X o

X l


b.

c.

d.

X k

X k R N X ´

R N X a R N X a

X p

X n

R N X I

X r

X b

R N X ´

X g

R N X o

X g

R N X ´

X b

R N X ´

X k

X m

157

X m@

R N X a

R N X X X n I n

X m

In (b) and (d) the nucleus of the final syllable is in a bad syllable contact with the preceding segment. Syllabic incorporation applies as a repair and we obtain (186). (186) a.

b.

c.

X t

R N X I

X k

R N X a

X k

R N X a

X n

X m

X r

R N X a

X g

X n

R N X I

X b

R N X ´

R N X o

X l

X m@

R N X a

R N X X X n I n

X g

R N X o

X m

158

d.


R N X ´

X p

X g

R N X ´

X b

R N X ´

X k

An account of the surface syllabification in Lenakel is therefore provided. Another example of epenthesis comes from Chukchi (Kenstowicz 1979; Blevins 1995). The position of the epenthetic vowel in Chukchi is crucially sensitive to morphological boundaries. In fact, if the unsyllabifiable cluster is produced by the junction of two morphemes, then the epenthetic vowel always appears between them. Sample facts are provided in (187). (187)

a. b. c.

/pnl/ /kkl/ /tke-rkin/ /mk-icin/ /…C-CC…/ /mIt-tmu-gIt/ /nalvul-chIn/ /n-np-qin/ /n-plu-qin/ /…CC-C…/ /timk-leut/ /itc-pIlIntIn/ /itc-wil/ /iwl-walat/ /tumg-tum/ /pilh-pil/

pInIl kukIl tIkerkin mukicin …CvCC… mItItmugIt nalvulIchIn nInpIqin nupluqin …CCvC…/ timkIleut itcIpIlIntIn itcuwil iwluwalat tumgutum pilhIpil

"news" "one-eyed man" "thou smellest of" "more numerous" "we killed thee" "the herd" "the old one" "small one" "hummockhead" "precious metal" "precious war" "long knives" "companion" "famine"

A simple account of the Chucki facts can be provided if we assume the same REPAIR set that we used for Lenakel with a difference: the morpheme-final consonants are not syllabified lexically. This follows from the following parameter that I assume is active in Cukchi. (188) Consonants in morpheme final position are left unsyllabified.


159

As discussed above, derivational economy motivates this parameter. Morpheme final consonants tend to be resyllabified in other morphemes. By not syllabifying them lexically, we can spare ourselves with the operation of detaching them from their positions in lexical representations. I assume that this parameter is universally deactivated in word-final position. The consequences resulting from the activation of this parameter are shown in (189): morpheme-final segments are left unsyllabified with the exception of those in word-final position. (189) a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

X p

X n

X t

X k

R N X+ e

X m

R N X I

X n

R N X a

X t

R N X u

X+ t

X l

X m

X l

X k

R N X i

X t

X m

R N X+ u

X v

R N X u

X t

X r

X+ g

X n

X g

R N X I

X t

X+ l

X ch

R N X I

X n

R N X u

X m

Syllabic incorporation applies in (189b) to syllabify the [r] as coda of the preceding syllable. However, it does not apply in the case of the first /t/ in the sequence /tt/ in (189c) or to the /l/ after the second syllable of (189d). I

160


assume that the strict cycle accounts for this failure insofar as the syllabic repair is cyclic in this language and would be applying morpheme internally in these cases (see section 2.4.2 of this chapter on cyclity of syllabic repairs in the framework proposed here). Syllabic incorporation cannot apply in all other remaining cases of unsyllabified consonants because it would create a disallowed syllable. The next available repair is -insertion. No N-insertion is available in Chukchi. We, therefore, turn to the operation in (175bi). This operation forces the syllabification of the final consonant as a coda as in (190a). In all other cases, the leftmost available unsyllabified consonants are attached to the onset of the inserted syllable. Observe in (190c) that once the leftmost [t] is syllabified as an onset, the following [t] is syllabified as a coda. Automatic insertion of skeletal positions and subsequent insertion of vocalic material will produce the structures in (190). (190) a.

b.

c.

d.

X p

R N X I

X t

R N X I

X m

R N X I

X n

R N X a

X n

R N X I

X k

R N X e-

X t-

R N X I

X t

X v

R N X u

X l

X l

X r

X k

R N X i

X n

X m

R N X u-

R N X X X g I t

X l-

R N X I

R N X X X ch I n


e.

X t

R N X u

X m

X g-

R N X u

X t

R N X u

161

X m

We will now account for the different positions of epenthetic vowels in Cairene and Iraqi Arabic (Broselow 1982). These two Arabic dialects are considered to be the foremost examples of directional template matching. Both dialects avoid triconsonantal clusters. While in Cairene, epenthetic [i] is inserted between the second and third consonant of a cluster, Iraqi places the epenthetic vowel between the first and second consonant of a cluster. Sample facts are provided below. (191) /?ul-t/ /?ul-t-lu/

Cairene ?ult ?ultilu

"I said" "I said to him"

/gil-t/ /gil-t-la/

Iraqi gilt gilitla

"I said" "I said to him"

However, when there are four intervocalic consonants, the two languages do not diverge, and have the epenthetic [i] in the same position after the second and third consonant. (192) /?ul-t-l-ha/

Cairene ?ultilha

"I said to her"

/gil-t-l-ha/

Iraqi giltilha

"I said to her"

A simple analysis available in the framework provided here assumes that whereas only (175IIbii) is available in Cairene Arabic, only (175IIbiii) is available in Iraqi Arabic. Thus, if there is a single unsyllabified consonant, it will be syllabified as an onset in Cairene (it is obviously the leftmost unsyllabified consonant), but it will be syllabified as a coda in Iraqi (it is the rightmost). This is shown in (193-4).

162


(193) Cairene

X ?

R N X u

X ?

R N X u

X ?

R N X u

X+ l

X+ t

X l

R N X u

R N X l

X l

X l

R N X u

R N X i

X l

R N X u

X l

R N X a

X t

X t

(194) Iraqi

X g

R N X i

X g

R N X i

X g

R N X i

X+ l

X+ t R N

X l

X l

X t R N X i

X t

X l

R N X a

X l

R N X a

There is no difference between the two languages when there are two unsyllabified consonants, i.e., in four-consonant clusters. The rightmost will


163

be a coda in Iraqi and the leftmost an onset in Cairene. Once the other unsyllabified consonant is syllabified, the same structure is produced in both languages: (195) Cairene

X ?

R N X u

X ?

R N X u

X ?

R N X u

X+ l

X+ t

X l

X h

R N X a

R N X l

X l

X t

X t

X h

R N X a

X l

X h

R N X a

X h

R N X a

X l R N X i

(196) Iraqi

X g

R N X i

X g

R N X i

X+ l

X+ t

X l R N

X l

X t

X l

X h

R N X a

164


X g 2.3.3.

R N X i

X l

X t

R N X i

X l

X h

R N X a

Bulgarian Liquid Metathesis as Fission of Syllabic Sonorants

Another example involving syllable structure will allow us to see how the system presented up to this point works. It involves Bulgarian liquid metathesis (Scatton 1975; Zec 1988; Petrova 1994; Barnes 1997; Hermans 1998; Lambova 2000). Bulgarian liquid metathesis involves alternations in the sequence of liquid/schwa in inflectionally and/or derivationally related forms of the same root: gr´b [gr´p] 'back; n.sg.' ~ g ´rbove [g´rbove] 'back; n.pl.'~ gr´bnak [gr´bnak] 'backbone'. The distribution of the liquid schwa sequences appears to be characterizable in terms of syllable structure as in (197) (the so-called Maslov-Aronson generalization) (see Stojanov 1980; Tilkov et al.1982; Maslov 1956; Aronson 1968; Lambova 2000). (197)

a. The sequences [L´] (where L=Liquid) occur before a consonant followed by another consonant or word boundary (i.e., a tautosyllabic consonant): gr´bnak {gr´b. nak] 'backbone' b. The sequences [´L] (where L=Liquid) occur before a consonant followed by a vowel (i.e., a heterosyllabic consonant): g´rbove [g´r. bo. ve] 'back; n.pl.'

(198)

g´rbove 'back-pl.' gr´bnak 'backbone' gr´b 'back-sg.' vr´x 'top sg.' v´rxove 'top pl.' v´rxar 'top leafage' vr´v 'twine sg.' v´rvi 'twine-pl' vr´vta 'twine-df.sg'. gr´d 'bosom sg.' g´rdi 'bosom-pl' gr´dta 'bosom-df.sg'. kr´v 'blood sg.' k´rvi 'blood-pl' kr´vta 'blood-df.sg'. skr´b 'sorrow sg.' sk´rbi 'sorrow-pl' skr´bta 'sorrow-df.sg'. br´z 'quick ms.sg.' b´rza 'quick-fm.sg' gr´m 'thunder sg.' g´rmove 'thunder-pl' dvugr´b 'two humped-ms.sg.' dvug´rba ''two humped -fm.sg'


pr´v 'first ms.sg.' glć& 'clamor.'

165

p´rva 'first-fm.sg' g´lc&a '(I) scold'

The alternating stems in (198) are to be contrasted to the non-alternating stems in (199) (199) a.

b.

kr´g 'circle sg.' prć& 'male goat sg.' pl´x 'rat sg.'

kr´gove 'circle-pl' prć&ove 'male goat-pl' pl´xove 'rat-pl'

k´rt 'mole sg.' s´rp 'sickle sg.' t´rg 'auction sg.'

k´rtove 'circle-pl' s´rpove 'sickle-pl' t´rgove 'auction-pl'

The difference between the alternating and non-alternating stems can be accounted for by assuming that there is an underlying nucleus (i.e., the vowel / ´/) in the non-alternating stems. (200) a.

b.

(201)

Underlying form of non-alternating stems: /kr´g/ 'circle' /prć&/ 'male goat' /pl´x/ 'rat' /k´rt/ 'mole' /s´rp/ 'sickle' /t´rg/ 'auction'

Formal structure of root in (200a).

X +cons

X +cons +son

R N X ´

X +cons

166


(202)

Formal structure of root in (200b).

X +cons

R N X ´

X X +cons +cons +son

Crucially such vowel is missing in the alternating stems as illustrated in the list of underlying forms below. (203)

Underlying forms of the alternating stems: /grb/ 'back /vrx/ 'top' /grm/ 'thunder' /vrv/ 'twine' /grd/ 'bosom'. /krv/ 'blood' /skrb/ 'sorrow' /brz/ 'quick' /vrx/ 'topped' /grb/ 'backed' /prv/ 'first'

Before dealing with the issue of what formal structure these underlying forms have, let us consider the following observation found in Trubetzkoy (1939). "In Serbo-Croatian, and also in Bulgarian the r is often found with a syllabic function. Usually this involves the combination of r plus a vocalic glide of indeterminate quality which sometimes occurs before and sometimes after the r, depending on the environment. In Serbo-Croatian such "indeterminate vowel" does not occur in any other position. The indeterminate vocalic glide that occurs before or after the r cannot be identified with any phoneme of the phonemic system, and the entire sequence of r plus (preceding or following) vocalic glide must be considered a single phoneme. Bulgarian, on the other hand, has an 'indeterminate vowel" which occurs also in other positions.... The transitional vowel to syllabic r


167

in this case is considered a combinatory variant of the indeterminate vowel, and the entire sequence is regarded as polyphonematic (as ´r or r ´)" (Trubetzkoy 1939: 59). Let us put aside the issue of the monophonematic or polyphonematic analysis of the syllabic /r/ in Bulgarian and Serbo-Croation, an issue that was important for Trubetzkoy, but not for our present analysis. What is important for us is that in both languages, as in other languages as well, a syllabic sonorant becomes a sequence of a vocalic element plus the sonorant. This is a common change; syllabic sonorants were eliminated historically in many languages (cf. the ancient Indo-European languages (see Watkins 1993) and replaced by sequences of a vowel plus the non-syllabic counterpart of the sonorant. The same process is found synchronically in languages such as Armenian (Vaux 1998) and several varieties of English such as Scottish English (see Catford 1977). I would like to propose that this process is due to a repair triggered by the active constraint in (178) repeated here as (204). (204)

*[N [X [+sonorant, +consonantal]]] (l, r, n,m, possible if deactivated)

The input to this repair are the syllabic sonorants in (205) which typically occur in an interconsonantal context. (205) X +cons -son

R N X +cons +son

X +cons -son

If the constraint against syllabic sonorants (204) is active in a language, (205) must be repaired. Last resort restricts the range of repairs possible in the case of the syllabic sonorant in (204). Deleting the feature [+sonorant] would create a syllabic [-sonorant] consonant. These consonants are extremely marked and usually disallowed, except in Berber discussed in Chapter 3, section 3.2. This repair would therefore crash.41 Another possibility is to delete the feature [+consonantal]. After this deletion, the feature specification [-consonantal] would be automatically inserted. This would create the vocalic feature bundle in (206) whose vocalic feature

168


create the vocalic feature bundle in (206) whose vocalic feature specifications must then be inserted. (206) X +cons -son

R N X -cons +son

X +cons -son

Such a change from a syllabic sonorant to a vowel is attested: e.g., syllabic [n] to [a] in Sanskrit or syllabic [r] to [a] in Berber (see Dell and Tangi 1993). However this is not the preferred treatment of these segments. As mentioned before, the preferred repair is replacement with a sequence vowel+sonorant. The model presented here provides a simple account of this change: it involves the other possible operation that we have in this case: feature insertion. Thus we can correct the disallowed configuration in (205) by adding the feature [-consonantal]. The structure in (207) is thus created. (207) X

R N X

+cons -son

+cons +son

X [-cons]

+cons -son

Consider now (207). The insertion of the [-cons] in the feature bundle of the sonorant creates a disallowed branching structure which must be repaired by Fission as discussed in section 2.3.1. above. The illegal branching we observe in (208) is repaired by splitting the skeletal position into two skeletal positions, one associated with the specification [+consonantal] and the other with the specification [-consonantal]. This skeletal position is associated with the nucleus position. The cloned skeletal slot is inserted in a square. The position of the clone is not relevant at this point and will be discussed shortly.


(208)

N X [-cons]

N X

[+cons]

169

X

[-cons]

[+cons]

Observe that once fission applies to an input such as that in (207), there are two possible positions for the fissioned skeletal position: it can appear either to the left (see (210a) or to the right (see (210b) of the original. (209)

(210)

Input:

a.

X

R N X

+cons -son

+cons +son

[-cons]

+cons -son

Fission I:

X +cons -son b.

X

R N X -cons +son

X +cons +son

X +cons -son

X +cons +son

R N X -cons +son

X +cons -son

Fission II:

X +cons -son

I assume that the position in (210a) is the unmarked position—one can speculate that it is such because this position preserves rime identity in the sense that the sonorant remains a component of the rime. The set of ranked repairs for this constraint is stated below in (211):

170


(211)

REPAIR set of NOBRANCHX (163) I. Fission: i. (210a) ii. (210b)

Resyllabification triggered by the constraint against unsyllabified segments will produce (212a) in the case of (210a) and (212b) in the case of (210b). (212) a.

Resyllabification of (210a) R N X X +cons -cons -son +son

b.

X +cons +son

X +cons -son

R N X -cons +son

X +cons -son

Resyllabification of (210b)

X +cons -son

X +cons +son

The ranking in (211) accounts for the development of syllabic sonorants as sequences vowel + sonorant that we see in the history of the Indo-European languages. The development of syllabic liquid consonants is sampled in (213) (see Watkins 1993). Whereas Indo-Iranian preserves the original syllabic liquids, other Indo-European languages such as Latin, Germanic, and Baltic replaced them with the sequence vowel+corresponding liquid—the different qualities of the vowels are not be discussed here. (213) a.

PIE *r l

Indo-Ir. r r

Lat. or, ur ol, ul

Germ. ur ul

Lit. ir/ur il/ul

b. IE: * krd ‘heart’: Lat. cor, Got. hairto@, Lit. s&irdis, IE:* dhrs ‘to dare, to be bold’: Skt. dhrs5n5o@!ti ‘dares’, Got. gadaursan ‘be bold’


171

IE: * wlkwos ‘wolf’: Skt. vr!ka-, Got. wulfs, Lit. vilkas . Notice that the marked treatment in (210b), although less common is also found in Greek, Old Irish and Slavic (from Watkins (1993)). (214)

IE:* dhrs:

Gr. t hrasu!s ‘bold’ (but IE: *krd ‘heart’: Gr. kardi⁄a) Old Ir. cride (from IE: krdyom)

IE: * wlkwos ‘wolf’ OCS. vli*ku

We can now turn back to Bulgarian. I will assume that in the case of alternating roots, syllable structure is not specified underlyingly as in (215). (215) Formal structure of the roots in (203). X [+con ]

X +cons +son

X [+cons]

There are no repairs in lexical representations. Therefore a configuration disallowed by (172) can freely appear inside a root as in (215). A configuration of this type, however, will be repaired later when the root appears in configurations with other morphemes. Syllabic repair takes a root like that in (215) with no pre-specified sonorant and turns it into (216) by application of N-assignment in (175IIa): (216) X [+cons]

R N X +cons +son

X [+cons]

For the purposes of this section, it is enough to say that the satisfaction of the constraint in (172) is checked at a later point in the derivation and that structures such as those in (217) can freely appear inside roots. Consider the form vr´x. Its underlying representation42 is given in (217).

172


(217)

X v

X r

X+Ø x

By application of N-assignment and subsequent syllabic incorporation of the adjacent segments, the structure in (218) is created: (218) X v

R N X r

X x

A violation of (204) is created. It is repaired by feature insertion followed by fission. If the cloned skeletal position is inserted in its unmarked position as stated in (210a), we obtain (219) (219) X v

R N X X X ´ r x

As argued below in the appendix to this section, complex codas are disallowed in Bulgarian. Therefore, the structure in (219) is disallowed and this derivation will crash. The next ranked repair, (210b), applies resulting in (220) which contains a licit syllable structure: (220) X v

X r

R N X ´

X x

This structure is allowed to surface. We now have an account of the syllabification we observed in the form [vr´x]. Now consider the form [v´rxove]. In word-phonology syllabic incorporation applies first and the root final [x] is syllabified as the onset of the following vowel.


(221) X v

X r

X x

+

173

R N X… o ve

N-assignment then applies and produces (222): (222) X v

R N X r

X + x

R N X ... o ve

A violation of the constraint in (204) is again created. In this case there is no problem in applying the preferred repair in (210a) since no complex coda will be produced. Hence we obtain (223). (223) X v

R N X ´

X r

X x

R N X ... o

The different treatments of root sonorants in Bulgarian are now accounted for. 2.3.4.1. Syllable structure in Bulgarian I hypothesized that Bulgarian does not allow complex codas ( see Lambova 2000 contra Petrova 1994: 326.) The issue is the syllabification of word-internal clusters. As Scatton (1984) observes in the case of bisegmental clusters, Bulgarian allows all types of combinations: obstruentobstruent, sonorant-obstruent, glide-obstruent, obstruent- sonorant, sonorant-sonorant, glide-sonorant are all attested: (224)

Bisegmental clusters: ba^rzo rz lk malka

‘quickly’ ‘small, Adj. masc’

174


nk sl sn kl bl mn rn Ln st zv tb dk

banka kreslo lesno sta^klo greblo zimna vjarna bolnica zdrasti kazvam svatba gledka

‘bank’ ‘armchair’ ‘easily’ ‘glass’ ‘rake’ wintery’ ‘faithful, Adj. masc.’ ‘hospital’ ‘hi!’ ‘I say’ ‘wedding’ ‘view’

Medial clusters of three consonants however are much more restricted. Items (225a,b,c) illustrate the possible combinations of three-consonant clusters. (225) a.

A sonorant followed by a cluster of rising sonority or by s + stop sma^rtna "mortal, Adj. fem." rtn rtn koncertna "concert, Adj. fem." pova^rxnosten "superficial, Adj. masc." rxn konski 'horsy, Adj. masc nsk

b.

[s] followed by a cluster of rising sonority zdr pozdrav 'greeting' piskliv 'high pitched/screechy' skl

c.

a stop followed by the cluster s + stop dsk gradski 'city-Attrib.'

Clusters of four segments occur only with the suffix stv. (226)

mstv tstv

la.kom.stvo brat-stvo

'turkish delight' 'brotherhood'

These facts can be accounted in the following way. Bulgarian allows complex onsets and simple codas. The simple coda position is unre-

175


stricted and all type of consonants can appear there. In addition, adjunction in presyllabic position is available for unsyllabifiable [s] both word-initially and word-internally. Given the syllabic marking statements in (114) and (115), Bulgarian deactivates all of them with the exception of (115b) repeated here as (227). (227) * R X

X

Consider the syllabification of the form brat-stvo 'brotherhood'. The sequences of rising sonority /br/ and/tv/ can be incorporated in onset position of the syllables projected by the following vowels. The [t] following [a] can also be syllabified as a coda of the preceding syllable. [s], however, cannot be syllabified by simple onset or coda incorporation. Neither onset or coda incorporation are successful in this case since [s] is more sonorous than the adjacent consonants and we would get a violation of the sonority sequencing principle in both cases. (228) X b

X r

R N X a

X t

X s

X t

X v

R N X o

The highest ranked repair operation for the constraint in (172) forbidding unsyllabified segments is -incorporation (=line addition). Now the segment [s] in (228) can be neither incorporated as an onset of the following syllable or as the coda of the preceding one. Still it is allowed in that position in Bulgarian. To account for this fact I assume another type of "incorporation", '-incorporation, i.e. incorporation by adjunction as an appendix to the syllable, as in (229).

176


(229)

-adjunction:

'

X

X

-->

X

X

where is [s] or a member of the special class of segments {S1..Sn}

The operation of adjunction is a marked syllabic repair operation and is universally ranked lower than onset and coda incorporation as in (230). Thus it can apply only after the other two operations crash. The set of ranked repair operations for the constraint in (172) given in (175) must then be reformulated as in (230) (Conventions A and B of (174) are not repeated). (230)

REPAIR set of NOUNSYLL X (172):43 I. Syllabic incorporation (line insertion) a. Attach unsyllabified X to the onset position of an adjacent syllable by line insertion. b. Attach unsyllabified X to the coda position of an adjacent syllable by line insertion. c. Attach unsyllabified X as an appendix of an adjacent syllable by line insertion (=229). II. Syllable insertion: ( -insertion) Insert (a syllable) and attach unsyllabified X to: a) the nucleus of ; b) i. the coda of / if X is word-final; ii. the onset of ; iii. the coda of .

One of the properties of the operation in (229) is that not all segments can be adjoined. The segment [s] is one of the typical targets of this operation—other segments may be added to the class of targets on a language specific-basis. In addition, adjunction's application may be restricted. In particular, in many languages it can apply only in certain environments such as the word-periphery. This is obtained by adding a special language-specific parameter to -adjunction. I assume that in Bulgarian it can apply both word-internally and word-peripherally—obviously, only as a last resort, after the other syllabic incorporation strategies have failed.

177


The operation of adjunction in Bulgarian must then be specified as in (231): (231)

adjunction in Bulgarian '

X

X

X

X

where is [s]. It applies both word- internally and wordperipherally The [s] in (228) is syllabified by -adjunction. We will then have (232). (232)

X b

X r

R N X a

X t

X s

X t

X v

' R N X o

I can now account for word-final clusters. Bulgarian allows complex clusters in word-final position. (233)

a. c.

akt isk ost s´rp v´lk xûlm

‘act’ ‘legal claim’ ‘axis’ ‘sickle’ ‘wolf’ ‘hill’

b. d.

tekst trezv sfinks bint most disk

‘text’ ‘adroit’ ‘sphinx’ ‘bandage’ ‘bridge’ ‘disk’

It is well known that many languages allow clustering of consonants in word-peripheral position. Again I assume that this clustering is obtained by syllabification into a special appendix position. This repair operation however must be kept distinct from that in (231) insofar as it applies only in word-final position and adjoins all types of consonants.

178


(234)

' R

R X

X

X

X

where is any consonant. It applies only word- finally. Thus a word like s´rp ‘sickle’ will be represented as in (235). (235)

X s

' R N X ´

X r

X p

Finally we have to deal with the syllabification of words such as those in (236). (236)

studentka asistantka

"student, N. fem." "assistant, N. fem."

The trisegmental cluster /sonorant-stop+ [k]/ is found only when /k/ is the part of feminine suffix /-k-/. Instead of relaxing the generalization proposed above concerning word-medial clusters, I propose to account for this case by adding another special adjunction operation targeting stops before this suffix /-k-/. (237)

'

X

X

X

X

where is [-cont, -son]. It applies if = [ [+Fem]-k-

Derivations

179

Therefore the Bulgarian instantiation of (230I) is the following: (238)

REPAIR set of NOUNSYLL X (172) in Bulgarian I) Syllabic incorporation (line insertion) a. Attach unsyllabified X to the onset position of an adjacent syllable by line insertion. b. Attach unsyllabified X to the coda position of an adjacent syllable by line insertion. c. Attach unsyllabified X as an appendix of an adjacent syllable by line insertion as in: i. (231) ii. (234) iii. (237)

2.4.

Derivations

2.4.1.

Ordering of Processes

In this section I will discuss the properties of the derivational model presented here. As is well known, cases involving phonological opacity are successfully treated in derivational framework, so I will begin by discussing a well-known case of this type. Modern Icelandic is characterized by a process of epenthesis occurring when consonant -final stems are followed by the suffixal [-r] of the nominative. This is shown in (239a). The process is described in (239b) (Anderson 1974; Oresnik 1972; Kenstowicz 1994; Kiparsky 1984). (239)

a.

nom.sg. dal-ur acc.sg. dal 'valley'

b.

Ø

hest-ur hest 'horse'

bœ-r bœ 'farmhouse'

u/ C ____ r#

This process of epenthesis is in a counterfeeding relationship with another processes of Icelandic, u-umlaut which rounds and fronts a low vowel before vowel [u]. (240)

U-umlaut: [a] [ö]/ __ u

180


(241)

barn bo‹rn-um 'child'

nom.sg. dat.pl. 'bundle'

baggi bo‹gg-ull 'parcel'

kalla lsg. ko‹ll-um lpl. 'call' There is one systematic exception to /u/-umlaut: the nom.sg. [-ur](see (242)). (242)

nom.sg. acc.sg. dat.pl.

dal-ur dal do‹l-um 'valley'

hatt-ur hatt ho‹tt-um 'hat'

staD-ur staD sto‹D-um 'place'

In a derivational approach, the situation described in (242) is simply accounted for by assuming that the /u/-umlaut process applies before epenthesis as shown in (243). (243)

/#dal + r#/ dal-ur

/#dal + um#/ do‹l-um

UR u-umlaut epenthesis

As discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.1.4, the reasons for a serial ordering among processes such as that observed between epenthesis and uumlaut in (243) are to be found in history: epenthesis was simply introduced at a later stage of Icelandic than u-umlaut. As every phonologist knows, the synchronic alternations characterizing the sound shape of a language can always be analyzed in terms of a set of ordered processes that closely resemble the historical changes that affected the language historically. As argued in the Chapter 1, Section 1.1.4, there is no plausible reason for assuming that speakers do not perform similar analyses and for excluding that the knowledge of serial orderings of instructions, which is fundamental in so many human skills, is not also included in the knowledge of phonology. The belief that phonological knowledge includes instructions on the serial ordering of operations is behind the theory proposed here. Ordering in the application of rules is not problematic. However, accounting for the interaction between rules and negative constraints in an extrinsically ordered derivation is not obvious. If a negative constraint were

Derivations

181

active in a grammar, we would expect it always to be active in this grammar. Therefore, it should trigger a repair whenever a relevant disallowed configuration arises in the derivation. Hence a REPAIR could only be in a feeding relationship with another phonological operation. In this case, no extrinsic ordering of REPAIRs in a counterfeeding or counterbleeding interaction with another operation would be possible. Here I will put forth a proposal dealing with this issue.44 First of all, I introduce the notion of checking. Checking is defined as follows: checking is the operation that scans a string trying to identify whether or not the conditions for the application of an instruction are met. The checking for a constraint is the operation by which a string is parsed to identify possible violations of the constraint, and the checking for a rule is the operation by which a string is parsed to identify configurations meeting the structural description of the rule. I assume that ceteris paribus, given a set of instructions, the operations triggered by these instructions will tend to apply in a feeding relationship until fully licit outputs are created. To get bleeding/counterfeeding/counterbleeding interactions between operations, I propose that the checking for instructions in a given input is not performed simultaneously. Instead it can be serialized in time. In particular, the checking for a certain instruction can be delayed until after the application of a given phonological operation. If the checking operation finds out that this instruction is satisfied, an operation will immediately follow. Now in the specific case of a negative constraint, if the checking operation finds out that this constraint is violated, the illicit configuration is immediately repaired. The delay of this checking operation thus establishes an ordering relationship between the first phonological operation and the REPAIR triggered by the constraint. Special statements such as that in (244) specify when a given instructionx (a constraint or a rule) must be checked with respect to certain other changes. (244)

The checking for the instructionx follows OPERATION y

By these statements, a specific grammar can defer or anticipate the application of an operation triggered by a constraint or by a rule in relationship to the application of other operations. In this way a phonological derivation like that of Classical Generative Grammar can be produced. Consider the Icelandic facts. In the model presented here, the epenthesis we see in (239a) is analyzed as an instance of a REPAIR, in particular a REPAIR of a violation of the constraint in (172) disallowing unsyl-

182


labified skeletal positions such as that of the suffixal /-r/. The derivation involved in this REPAIR is illustrated below. We begin with the underlying representation in (245a) where the suffixal /-r-/ is unsyllabified in violation of (172). REPAIR as in (230) applies to remove this violation of (172). Syllable incorporation fails in this case insofar as it would produce a coda [lr] which violates the sonority sequencing principle. No appendix position for [r] is available. Therefore, we must resort to -insertion. No syllabic sonorants are allowed in Icelandic, so (230I) will crash. We go to (230IIi). A syllable is inserted by anchoring its margin to the unsyllabified segment. The unsyllabified [r] of (245a) is word-final; therefore it is syllabified as a coda as in (245b). The nucleus of the inserted syllable is filled in with the feature specification of vowel [u]— an operation that I will not discuss here. In (245b) there is a bad syllable contact between the epenthetic [u] and the preceding coda consonant. It is removed by re-syllabifying the consonant as an onset of the following syllable as in (245c). The derivation is successful. (245)

a.

X d

R N X a

X + l

R X d

X a

b.

X d

X l

R N X u

X r

R

N c.

X r

R N X a

N X l

X u

X r

U-umlaut is obviously a quite idiosyncratic process that can only be formulated as the rule in (246) which spreads the feature [+round] of [u] onto a preceding low vowel. At the same time, the features [+low] and [+back] of the low vowel are deleted (and then replaced by the corresponding opposite values).

Derivations (246) [-consonantal]

[-consonantal]

Place

Place

Dorsal

[-low] [-back]

183

Labial

[+low] [-rd]

Labial

[+rd]

[+back]

The operation triggered by it is shown in (247). (247)

Input: / dal-um/ Operation triggered by (246): do‹lum Licensed (Through feature spreading-delinking)

Crucially the REPAIR triggered by (172) must be delayed until after the operation triggered by (246). This is obtained by means of a statement like (248). (248)

The checking for (172) follows OPERATION(u-umlaut)

Thus we have the derivations in (249). (249)

UR: Operation in (247): REPAIR in (245): Output:

/dal-r/ --dalur dalur

/dal-um/ do‹lum -do‹lum

Thus, a simple solution to the Icelandic case can be provided. Observe that this analysis recognizes the special status assigned by the grammar to the idiosyncratic rule of u-umlaut, and at the same time characterizes epenthesis as a repair of a problematic syllabic sequence. We will come back to u-umlaut and epenthesis below. Before doing that I want to dwell a little more upon the issue of the historical reasons for why some operations can be delayed while other ones are automatically implemented. Suppose the process in (250) is triggered by instruction Z.45 (250)

A->B/C__D

184


Now suppose the following two historical scenarios: i) In the first, the process applies at a stage characterized by the negative constraint *BD. The output of the process CBD is disallowed by this active constraint and the disallowed configuration is repaired as ED. ii) In the second scenario, the constraint *BD is deactivated at the stage when the process applies. It will become active only at a later stage after another process C->G/__ B triggered by instruction W applies. The first scenario leads to a synchronic grammar where the REPAIR triggered by *BD is automatic. There is no reason for a statement imposing a delay of the checking for the constraint in this case. This is the analysis of the change /a/ [E} in German umlaut proposed in section 2.3.1 of this chapter. The constraint is synchronically active and scans all of the representations that are produced during the derivation: whenever a configuration it disallows arises, it is repaired. The second scenario instead leads to a grammar like that of Icelandic discussed above: the REPAIR triggered by *BD must be delayed until after the application of the operation triggered by W.46 The constraint is synchronically active, but it starts checking the representations only after the application of W. I now consider the interaction between epenthesis and another process of Icelandic, high vocoid deletion, as a further example of my proposal. High vocoid deletion removes a post-consonantal high vocoid when it occurs before another consonant or in word final position. Thus, the following vowel bleeds this process in triggering glide formation. Interestingly the epenthetic [-u-] appearing before the suffixal /-r/ of the nominative behaves as if it were not there. The entire array of facts is exemplified in (252). (251)

[-cons, +high] -->

Ø/ C ___

(252)

nom.sg. lyf-ur acc.sg. lyf gen.sg. lyf-s dat.pl. lyfj-um gen.pl. lyfj-a 'medicine'

byl-ur byl byl-s bylj-um bylj-a 'storm'

# C beD-ur beD beD-s beDj-um beDj-a 'bed'

so‹ng-ur so‹ng so‹ng-s so‹ngv-um so‹ngv-a 'song'

In a derivational framework the array of facts in (252) is accounted for very simply by assuming that the process of high vocoid deletion applies before epenthesis (GD=glide deletion, E=epenthesis).

Derivations

(253)

/#bylj-um#/

/#bylj-s#/ byl-s

#bylj#/ byl

/#bylj-r#/ byl-r byl-ur

185

UR GD E

Explanation for this state of affairs is again to be found in history (see note 20). In particular there was a stage of Icelandic where suffixal /-r/ was allowed in word-final position after consonants as we can see in the Old Icelandic words in (254) (see Noreen 1970). We can assume that this was due to the fact that Old Icelandic allowed a special appendix position for /r/ as well as /s/ (cf. niD-r/niD-s ' kinsman-NomSg./GenSg') as shown in (255). (254)

niDr 'kinsman, son', vegr 'way, road', harmr 'skin', stelr 'steals'

(255)

' R N X X X+ X n i D r

High vocoid deletion was already implemented at this stage as shown by the alternations in (256). (256)

Old Icelandic: nom.sg. acc.sg. gen.sg. dat.pl. gen.pl.

niD-r niD niD -s niDj-um niDj-a

The alternation involving the high vocoid were due to a process of syncope affecting short high thematic vowels in unstressed final syllables (compare niD-r to hirDi:r 'herdsman') (see Noreen 1970, see also Calabrese 1994). The precise conditions under which this syncope occurs are not investigated here. This syncope process is stated in (257).

186


(257)

N | X Ø Syncope1: | [-cons]

/

in the relevant morpho-phonological context

The syncope process in (257) applies to underlying /niD-i-r/ and changes it to [niD-r], as shown in (258): (258)

/niD-i-r/(257) niD_r(-adjunction)[niDr] _

The crucial change leading to modern Icelandic was the restriction of the special appendix position only to /-s/. Thus /r/ could no longer be syllabified as in (255) and a configuration containing /-r/ in that position had to be repaired in a different way, specifically by epenthesis. This is shown in (259). (259)

/niD-i-r/ (257) niD_r(repair of (172))[niDur]

I assume that this diachronic change is reanalized in the synchronic grammar of Icelandic as the special statement in (260). (260)

The checking for (172) follows Rsyncope

The surface word /bilur/ would then be derived in the following way. The underlying representation for this word is /bil-i-r/. The thematic /-i-/ undergoes syncope. Crucially the checking for syncope is delayed until after the REPAIR triggered by the constraint against hiatus configurations. (261)

The checking for syncope1 follows Rhiatus

Therefore glide formation, the output of the hiatus resolution REPAIR, applies before syncope. We now have an account for the fact that epenthetic [u] does not trigger glide formation: namely, the checking for (172) is delayed until after syncope. Therefore we obtain the following derivation:

187

Derivations

(262)

UR REPAIR of *hiatus Syncope1 REPAIR of (172)

/#byl-i-um#/ byljum

/#byl-i-s#/

#byl-i#/ /#byl-i-r#/

byls

byl

bylr bylur

Let us go back to the interaction between u-umlaut and epenthesis. There are some interesting complications of the Icelandic data that will allow us to further the analysis and consider the issue of cyclic application of REPAIRs. Icelandic has another process of syncope. It is shown in (263) (see Kenstowicz 1994; Anderson 1974). The nom.sg. suffix /-r/ assimilates to a preceding sonorant, and stress is on the initial syllable. (263)

hamar fifil-l morgun-n

'hammer' 'dandelion' 'morning'

hamr-i fifl-i morgn-i

dat.sg. dat.sg. dat.sg.

This process interacts with u-umlaut as shown in (264). (264)

a.

ketil-l katl-i kötl-um

'kettle' dat.sg. dat.pl.

regin ragn-a rögn-um

'gods' gen.pl. dat.pl.

b.

bagg-i bögg-ul-l bögg-l-i

'pack' jak-i 'piece of ice' 'parcel' jök-ul-l 'glacier' 'parcel' dat.sg. jök-l-i 'glacier' dat.sg.

c.

Qagg-a Qög-ul-l Qög-l-an

'to silence' 'taciturn' 'taciturn' acc . sg. masc.

Forms such as kötl-um show that syncope feeds umlaut, as in (265a). At the same time forms such as bögg-l-i suggest that umlaut precedes syncope (265b). (265)

a./ #katil+um#/ UR katl-um syncope kötl-um umlaut

b. / #bagg+ul+i#/ bogg-ul-i böggl-i

UR umlaut syncope

This paradox is readily solved in a classical derivational framework if both rules are applied cyclically and syncope precedes umlaut.

188


(266)

/ #katil+um#/ katil+um katl-um kötl-um

#bagg+ul+i#/ bagg+ul inappl. bögg-ul

cycle-1 syncope umlaut

bögg+ul+i bögg-l-i inappl.

cycle-2 syncope umlaut

In the model presented here, we can import the basic features of the traditional analysis. The syncope process we see in (263) must be analyzed as involving a rule removing "reduced" vowels, i.e., vowels occurring in special prosodic situation.47 Here I will not investigate the conditions under which syncope in Icelandic occurs; therefore, I will not state the conditions under which vowels are “reduced” in the rule in (267). (267)

Syncope2:

N | X --> | [-cons]

Ø

/ if "reduced"

The operation triggered by (267) is shown in (268). (268)

Input:

X f

R N X i

X f

Operation triggered by (267): R N X X X Output: f i f

R N X i

X l

R N X i

X l

R N X i

The output in (268) is disallowed by the constraint against unsyllabified segments in (172) and is repaired as shown in (269). The representation in

Derivations

189

(269) contains only licit configurations. Therefore the derivation is successful. (269) X f

R N X i

X f

X l

R N X i

Now as stated in the derivation in (266), the syncope rule applies cyclically. The same holds for u-umlaut. As argued in the next section, following Halle and Vergnaud's (1987) idea, I will assume that cyclicity is a property of morphemes. According to this idea, morphemes can be divided into cyclic and postcyclic ones. Cyclic processes apply in cyclic morphemes, postcyclic processes in post-cyclic ones. We can translate this idea in this framework by saying that the checking for instructions follows the morphological structure of the word. Some instructions are checked cyclically, other non-cyclically. We can thus say that u-umlaut and syncope are checked cyclically in Icelandic and that the stem is a cyclic domain. Crucially in each cycle, the u-umlaut operation follows the syncope operation as stated in (270). (270)

The checking for u-umlaut follows Rsyncope2

The derivation in (270) can thus be reformulated in the model presented here. 2.4.2.

Cyclicity and Metathesis

Syllabification:

Yers

and

Bulgarian

Liquid

2.4.2.1. Yers in Bulgarian Let us go back to Bulgarian liquid metathesis and investigates other facts characterizing it. A central aspect of the analysis proposed earlier was that resyllabification was an instance of syllabic REPAIR triggered by syllabic constraints such as the constraint against unsyllabified skeletal positions (172) and that against syllabic sonorants. We will now see that syllabic REPAIR and an idiosyncratic rule of Yer vocalization in Bulgarian are both cyclic and post-cyclic, and that Yer vocalization is ordered before

190


syllabic repair, whereas another rule, Yer deletion, which is only postcyclic, applies after this repair. Remember that Bulgarian liquid metathesis involves a liquid schwa alternation in inflectionally and/or derivationally related forms of the same root: gr´b [gr´p] 'back; n.sg.' ~ g´rbove [ g´rbove] 'back; n.pl.'~ gr´bnak [gr´bnak] 'backbone'. I accounted for these alternations by assuming that the syllabic sonorant of an alternating roots such as /grb/ is repaired in different ways depending on the syllabic context: it shows up as the sequence /r´/before a tautosyllabic consonant and as [ ´r] before a heterosyllabic consonant. Scatton (1975) (see also Hermans 1998) and Lambova 1999) observes that there is a systematic set of exceptions to the Maslov-Aronson generalization in (197) where we find an unexpected position of the schwa before the adjectival suffixes [-en] and [-´k]. (271) a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

vr´ xen ‘topmost; m.’, vr´xna ‘topmost; f.’ cf. vr ´x ‘top’, v ´rxoven ‘supreme’ gr´ den ‘breast(attrib.); m.’, gr ´dna ‘breast (attrib.); f.’ cf. gr´d ‘breast’, g ´rdest ‘full-breasted’ kr´ ven ‘blood(attrib.); m.’, kr ´vna ‘blood(attrib.); f.’ cf. kr ´v ‘blood’, k´rvav ‘bloody’ skr´ ben ‘sorrowful; m.’, skr ´bna ‘sorrowful; f.’ cf. skr´b ‘sorrow’, sk´rbja ‘(I) grieve’ mr ´ sen ‘dirty.m.’, mr ´sna ‘dirty; f.’ cf. m´rsja ‘(I) make-dirty’ kr´ men ‘fodder(attrib.); m.’, kr ´mno ‘fodder(attrib.); n.’ cf. k´rma ‘breast milk’, k´rmja ‘(I) breast-feed’ gr´ m´k ‘thunderous; m.’, gr´mka ‘thunderous; f.’ cf. gr´m ‘thunder’, g ´rmel ‘cannonade’

Recall that the liquid-schwa sequence is expected to occur only before a tautosyllabic consonant, and this is not what we find here: vr´xen ‘topmost; m.’ syllabifies as [vr ´.xen]. We should expect *[ v´r.xen] instead, since we should find the type of syllabification we have in [ v´r.xove]. As observed by Scatton (1975), these exceptions are to be related to the fact that the initial element of the suffix is a "fleeting" vowel, a socalled "Yer": gr ´den (masc.) ~ gr ´dna (fem.).

Derivations

191

Since Lightner (1965) Slavic "fleeting" vowels as in den 'poor; masc.sg.' ~ bedna 'poor; fem.sg.' are standardly analyzed by positing abstract vowels, the yers. These abstract vowels either vocalize or delete depending on the environment. A yer is vocalized when followed by another yer, and deleted elsewhere. In Bulgarian two types of yers are found: the front yer /E/ and the back yer /´/: the former surfaces as [e] while the latter surfaces as [´] (In the representations, I am including the final yer /-´/ of the masculine singular. Arguments for the presence of this yer are provided below). (272) Stem (N.) /dEn/ /pesEn/ /orEl/ Stem (Adj.) /vrxk-En/ /sreb´r-En/ /p´l-En/ (273) Stem (N.) /kos´m/ /teat´ r/ /arxaiz´m/ Stem (Adj.) /tń-´k/ /pod-´l/ /kr´g-´l/

Alternations den´ vs. vs. pesen´ orel´ vs.

d_ni pes_ni or_li

‘day; sg./pl.’ ‘song; sg./pl.’ ‘hawk; sg./pl.’

Alternations vr´xen ´ vs. sreb´ren ´ vs. p´len ´ vs.

vr´x_na sreb´r_na p´l_no

‘topmost; m/f’ ‘silvery;m/f’ ‘full; m./f.’

Alternations kos´m´ vs. teat´r´ vs. arxaiz´m´ vs.

kos_mi teatri arxaiz_mi

Alternations tń´´ k vs. pod´l´ vs. kr´g ´l ´ vs.

tń_ka pod_la kr´g_lo

'hair sg./pl.' ‘theater sg./pl.’ ‘archaism; s./p.’

‘thin; m./f.’ ‘mean; m./f.’ ‘round; m./f.’

That the yers are not simply epenthetic vowels is shown by the fact that they display two contrasting vowels qualities, and most importantly by minimal/subminimal pairs like those in (274) which show that the syllabic environment in which yers appear are not illicit in Bulgarian. (274)

ore!l/orle! nis´k/niska la!k´t /la!!kti

'eagle' 'short' 'elbow'

Karl isk/iskane pa!kt/pa!kti

'Charles' 'legal claim/need' 'pact'

192


d´l´g/d´lga z&ar´k/z&arka dan´k/dank go!r´k/go!rka

'long' 'hot' 'tax' 'bitter'

d´lg/d´lgove s&t´!rk/s&t´!rkove frank/franci po!c&erk/po!c&erci

'debt' 'stork' 'frank' 'handwriting'.

Yers either vocalize or delete depending on the presence of a following yer. Scatton (1975) shows convincingly that the inflection of the singular of all masculine nouns (and some feminine nouns ending in a consonant), as well as of masculine adjectives, is a yer. His argument is based on the form of the definite nominal suffix. As we can see in the forms for the feminine nominal classes and the neuter, the definite suffix consists of a definite stem /-t-/ and an inflectional ending specified for grammatical class. (275)

/mas- + -a/ ‘table; f. sg.’ vs. /sel- + -o/ ‘village; n. sg.’ vs.

[masa- + t + a] ‘table; f. sg.def.’ [selo- + t + o] ‘village; n. sg.def.’

The surface forms for the masculine sg. are given in (276). (276)

grad

vs.

grad´t ‘city; m. sg.’

There is an obvious asymmetry between the forms in (275) and the masculine in (276). The feminine and the neuter transparently display the structure in (277). (277)

[N + class marker + definite stem + class marker]

If we assume that the masculine inflectional class marker is a yer as in (278), we can propose that the definite suffix is uniform across genders. (278)

/grad- + -´/ ‘city; m. sg.’ vs.

[grad´ - + t + ´ ] ‘city; m. sg.def

The generalization for the cases in (272) and (273) is that a yer surfaces when followed by another yer; otherwise it deletes. This is standardly formalized in terms of two rules, Yer Vocalization (279) and Yer Deletion (280) (see Kenstowicz and Rubach's (1987) non-linear reformulation of Lightner (1965)). According to this analysis, a yer is assumed to be a vowel lacking a skeletal position. Assuming that a segment can be phonetically realized only when it is associated with a skeletal position, a yer needs a skeletal position to surface as a full vowel. Rule (279) provides this skeletal

193

Derivations

position when the yer is followed by another yer. Rule (280) which applies after (279) removes all yers that are not associated with a skeletal position by (279). (279)

Yer Vocalization:

Ø X

/ __ | [-cons]

[-hi]

[-cons]

[-hi] [-low]

(280)

Yer Deletion:

[-cons]

[-low]

Ø

[-hi] [-low] Let us now go back to the exceptions in (271). Lambova (1999) proposes that the syllabification we observe in the form [vr´ .xen] can be explained if we assume the following. 1) A non vocalized yer is not seen by resyllabification processes insofar as it lacks a skeletal position. 2) The REPAIR triggered by (172) (see Section 2.3.3 above) is ordered before Yer Vocalization. Therefore the yer ´ in (281) cannot trigger resyllabification of the root-final consonant in the same way as vowel [o] of the suffix [ove] in (282) does. The final [x] in (281) thus remains in coda position and we have the output [vr´x] as explained in Section 2.3.3. The same holds for the yer E of (283). We would thus be dealing with a classical case of opacity due to counterbleeding order between the two processes of epenthesis and yer vocalization. (281)

a. b.

[[vrx] + ´] UR: REPAIR triggered by (172) (279) Yer Deletion Output

[vr´x] [[vrx] + ´] vr´x ´ -vr´x vr´x

194


(282)

a. b.

[[vrx] + ove] UR REPAIR triggered by (172) (279) Yer Deletion Output:

[v´r.xo.ve] [[vrx] + ove] v´r.xo.ve --v´r.xo.ve

(283)

a. b.

[[[vrx] + En] + ´] UR REPAIR triggered by (172) (279) Yer Deletion Output

[vr´.xen] [[[vrx] + En] + ´] vr´x.En ´ vr´x.en ´ vr´x.en vr´.xen

In (283) we obtain the output [vr´x.En] since the Yer is not accessed at that point of the derivation when the REPAIR producing [vr´x] applies. Only afterwards is the yer strengthened and realized as a plain vowel. 2.4.2.2 An Alternative Analysis of Yers Halle's (1999) work on the Russian stress system shows that yers cannot be represented as slotless segments as proposed in (279-280). He discusses several cases which demonstrate that yers are treated like other syllabic heads in metrical processes. It is obvious that to be syllabic heads, yers in Russian must be characterized by a syllable/melodic segment interface position such as a skeletal slot (or a mora in a moraic framework). The same is true for Bulgarian where yers can be stressed, and can trigger stress retraction and stress advancement. In Calabrese (Forthcoming) I argue that to account for these properties of the yers in Bulgarian, we must assume that also in this language they are treated like other syllabic heads in metrical processes, and therefore must have an underlying skeletal position. To account for the peculiar behavior of yers, I assume that the yers are underlyingly syllabified as nuclear elements. As nuclear segments they can project onto the metrical grid and participate in metrical processes. However, they have what I call a weak skeletal position, denoted by X†. Then I resort to the notion of visibility, which is the main component of the Theory of Feature Visibility developed in Chapter 5, and propose that a

195

Derivations

weak skeletal position is not "visible" to syllabic repair operations and therefore cannot undergo or trigger processes of resyllabification. However it becomes visible to such operations (i.e., behaves like normal— "strong"—skeletal position) when it is followed by another Yer in the same cyclic/non-cyclic morphological domain. Yer-strengthening is thus due to the rule in (284) (removing the diacritic † of X † indicates that the Yer becomes strong, i.e., visible syllabic repair operations). (284)

X† X/ [D ___ ... X†]D (D=same cyclic or postcyclic domain)

Obviously the property of having these "weak" positions and rule (284) are idiosyncratic features of Bulgarian, and the other Slavic languages and are due to the fossilization of historical changes affecting high short vowels in Common Slavic. Thus the root yer becomes "strong"—and thus visible to syllable structure operations—in (285), but not in (286). (285)

R N a. [X X† X + d e n

R N X†] (273) ´

(syllabic repairs) c. [ X d (286)

b. [

R N X e

R N X X X + d e n

R N X†] ´

R N X X†] n ´

R R N N [X X† X X] d e n i

'Weak' Yers must be deleted eventually. This is obtained by the rule in (287): (287)

X† Ø

196


(287) applies post-cyclically and after the application of syllabic repairs. It changes (285c) as in (288a), and (286) as in (288b). After resyllabification (288b) becomes as in (288c): (288)

R N a. X X X d e n

R N X† (287) b. ´

R N † b. X X X X (287) b. d e n i

(OI) c. X X d n

R N X X X d e n

X d

R N X X n i

R N X i

The analysis proposed in (283) could be preserved simply by replacing (279) and (280) with (284) and (287), respectively. 2.4.2.3. Cyclicity of Syllabification and Yer-Strengthening Now consider the masculine definite forms in the paradigm in (289). (289)

Indef.sg. vr´x gr´b gr´k gr´m

Indef. pl. v´rxove g´rbove g´rci g´rmove

Def. sg. v´rx ´t g´rb ´t g´rk ´t g´rm´t

'summit' 'back' 'Greek' 'thunder'

The surface suffix [´t] of [v ´rx ´t] contains two yers (see Scatton 1975). As proposed above, the underlying structure of this suffixal string is that given

Derivations

197

in (290) where /-t-/ is the suffixal definite article and /-´-/ the masculine singular class marker appearing twice, once at the end of the nominal root and once after the definite article suffix. (290)

/vrx+´+t+´/

/-t-/ = the suffixal definite article /-´-/ = the masculine singular class marker

Given the analysis proposed for [vr´xen] from[vrx + En + ´] , we should therefore expect the syllabification *[vr´x ´t] in the case of this form. (291)

UR REPAIR triggered by (172) Yer Strengthening Yer Deletion Output

[[[vrx] + -´] +t]+ ´] vr´x. ´t´ vr´.x´t ´ vr´.x´t vr´.x´t

This is not what we find. The contrasting behavior of adjectival forms such as [vr´xen] and of the definite singular masculine forms such as [v´rx ´t] needs to be accounted for. To do this, following Lambova (2000), I propose the following: (292)

A. B. C.

D.

Syllabic repair operations are cyclic and postcyclic in this language. The same is true for Yer strengthening (284). However, yer strengthening (284) applies before syllabic repair, not after as proposed earlier. Morphemes can be divided into cyclic and noncyclic ones. Cyclic processes apply in cyclic morphemes, postcyclic processes in the final post-cyclic stage as in Halle and Vergnaud's (1987) analysis discussed below. The derivational suffix /-En/ is cyclic, The inflectional elements /-´-/ and /-t-/ are noncyclic.

The analysis is based on Halle and Vergnaud’s (1987) solution for a wellknown bracketing paradox in Russian originally noticed by Lightner (1972)(O=Russian back yer). (293)

a. b.

pod-Jok podo-Jg-la

<
(by (14)) > s o l -a r i s +lat. +lat. +lat. -lat.

We can now explain the difference between floralis and militaris. They

A theory of feature visibility

359

have the following fully specified representations. (16)

a.

f l o r -lat. +lat. -lat. -lat.

a l i s -lat. +lat. -lat. -lat.

b.

m i l i t - a l i s -lat. -lat. +lat. -lat. -lat -lat +lat. -lat. -lat.

Given that the constraint in (13) has access only to contrastive feature values for [lateral], the [-lateral] specification of /r/ is spotlighted together with the specifications [+lateral] of /l/, but not those of /t/ or of the vowels, as represented in (17) where only the spotlighted features are mentioned. (17)

a.

f l o r -a l i s +lat. -lat. +lat.

b.

m i l i t -a l i s +lat. +lat.

Therefore there is adjacency between spotlighted [+lateral] specifications in (17b) but not in (17a) since in this last case the spotlighted [-lateral] associated with /r/ breaks the adjacency between the two features [+lateral]. In the case of (17b), this does not occur since the constraint does not see the feature [-lateral] of /t/ and of the vowels. As mentioned above, there appears to be the need of another parameterized condition that restricts spotlighting only to marked features. A well-known example showing the necessity of such a condition involves the asymmetric behavior of the feature [+voice] in the so-called Lyman’s Law of Japanese (Ito and Mester 1986). As illustrated in (18), Japanese is subject to a rule, known as Rendaku, that voices a word-initial obstruent where the word is the second element of a compound.3 (18)

/ori kami/ ori gami ‘paper folding’ /ori kami tana/ ori gami dana ‘origami shelf’ /ori kami tana t(s)ukuri/ ori gami dana d(z)ukuri ‘ori gami shelf making’

Rendaku does not take place when the second word contains a voiced consonant, as in (19). This overriding condition is known as Lyman’s law.

360

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

(19)

a. b.

/kami kaze/ ‘divine wind’ /siro tabi/ ‘white tabi’

*kami gaze *siro dabi

Lyman's Law can be formulated as the constraint in (20). (20)

*

X

[+voice]

X [+voice]

Observe that the presence of a sonorant inside the second word does not interfere with Rendaku, although a sonorant is [+voice], as we can see in (18), where the presence of /m/ in kami and /n/ in tana does not interfere with Rendaku. Thus to produce the correct results, we must say that Lyman’s Law is not sensitive to the value [+voice] of sonorants but only to the specification [+voice] of voiced obstruents. This is supported by the fact that Lyman’s Law applies when two voiced obstruents are separated by a sonorant as in (21). (21)

/taikutsu s&inogi/ ‘time killing’ taikutsu s&inogi not *taikutsu jinogi

Observe also that Lyman’s law is not sensitive to the feature [-voice] of voiceless obstruents as in (22). (22)

/onna kotoba/’feminine speech’ onna kotoba not *onna gotoba

The presence of the voiceless /t/ between the voiced /g/ and /b/ does not prevent the application of Lyman’s Law. As in the case of the feature [+voice] of sonorants, we must account for this fact by assuming that Lyman’s Law is not sensitive to the feature [-voice] of obstruents. Thus Lyman’s Law is sensitive only to the marked feature [+voice] of voiced obstruents, but not to the unmarked features [-voice] of voiceless obstruents and [+voice] of sonorants. The rule in (20) can be reformulated as in (23). (23)

a. b.

Access marked feature specification. * X X [+voice]

[+voice]


361

Given the marking statements [-sonorant, +voice] and [+sonorant, -voice], the feature [+voice] of voiced obstruents is marked, but the feature [+voice] of sonorants and [-voice] of voiceless obstruents is not (see section 5.1.2 below). Since Lyman’s Law is sensitive only to marked [+voice] specifications, it will be sensitive to the former feature, but not to the latter. This produces the correct results. Observe that both lateral dissimilation and Lyman's Law involve the same type of constraint and they just differ in the type of features that they can access. Let us now turn back to neutral vowels. Given what was proposed above, we have an account for the fact that the neutral vowel /a/ of Kinande is not seen by the harmony rule spreading the feature [-ATR]. If the rule in (2) is sensitive only to contrastive features, it will not access the non-contrastive feature [-ATR] of the low vowel /a/ and the feature [+ATR] will spread across this feature as shown in (24) (the fact that a feature specification is not accessed is represented by italicizing and shadowing it. Its association line is dashed).4 (24)

Input.

/s O l O m X X X X X -low -ATR

-low

a n X X

-i.../ X

+low - A TR T

-low

+ATR

It is important to observe that there is a correlation between the presence of blocking and access to contrastive features. A process that access only contrastive features must also involve blocking; in other words, a transparent segment must be neutral. Observe that a transparent neutral vowel could also be accounted for by assuming that the checking of the marking statement in (4) is delayed with respect to the different iterative passes of the harmony rule. Thus we could have the following derivation. First, we have the operation in (25).

362


(25)

a. First pass of VH. /s O l O m X X X X X -low -ATR

-low

a n X X +low

-ATR

b. Second pass of VH. /s O l O m X X X X X -low -ATR

-ATR

-low

-ATR

+ATR

a n X X

-i.../ X

-low

+low

-ATR

-low

+ATR

c. Third pass of VH. /s O l O m X X X X X -low

-i.../ X

a n X X

-low +low

-i.../ X -low

+ATR

Afterwards, the repair operation in (26) triggered by (4) applies. (26)

a. Repair of [+low, +ATR] I: Deletion of [+ATR]. /s O l O ma n -i... X X X X X X X X -low

-low +low

+ATR

-low


(26)

363

b. Repair of [+low, +ATR] II: Insertion of [-ATR] followed by automatic restructuring of association lines). /s O l O ma n -i... X X X X X X X X -low

-low

+ATR

+low

-ATR

-low

+ATR

The operations in (26) apply vacuously insofar as they produce an output (a low [-ATR] vowel [a]) which is identical to the underlying input (a low [-ATR] vowel [a]). Vacuous derivations should be disallowed insofar as they are costly from the point of view of derivational economy. The idea that there are rules that access only contrastive features removes the need for vacuous derivations like the one that was just discussed. The derivational complexity of the grammar can be reduced altogether if we assume that segments with non-contrastive features are skipped by the harmony rule. No operation is triggered in this case and the computational complexity of the grammar is reduced. Now we have to account for systems with neutral opaque vowels. In the simplest system of this type, neutral opaque vowels result from a rule that accesses all types of feature specifications. If the rule is sensitive to all types of features, it will access not only the contrastive feature [+ATR] of [i] whose spreading onto /a/ will be blocked by the active marking statement in (4), but also the non-contrastive feature [-ATR] of /a/ which will block the further spreading of the harmonic feature [+ATR] of [i] as shown in (27a). Furthermore, if we assume that the rule is that in (27b), also the feature [-ATR] of the low vowel will be spread by the harmony process, as shown in (27b).5 (27)

a.

O O X X X X X -low -ATR

-low -ATR

a X X

-i X

+low -ATR

-low +ATR

364


b.

Condition: all feature specifications are accessed. X X

[ATR] b.

O O X X X X X -low -ATR

-low -ATR

a X X

(Both values of ATR)

-i X

+low -ATR

-low +ATR

Let us now turn to a different topic. It is important to stress that, in the case of constraints specified as accessing only marked feature specifications, the unmarked feature specifications are indeed present in the representation undergoing these rules, as stated earlier, there is no underspecification in the theory proposed here. However, given that the repair triggered by these constraints focus their attention only on the marked feature specifications, their unmarked counterparts cannot participate actively and will always be overwritten by them. This implies that unmarked feature specifications cannot trigger these rules and can only undergo them. Thus the marked feature specifications spread by these rules will always replace the unmarked specification of the target. The overwriting that is needed in the case of processes accessing only marked features formally implies a convention always delinking the unmarked counterpart of the marked feature accessed by the rule/constraint. This convention is given in (28). (28)

If F is a marked feature specification in the context [__G] and only F is accessed by a rule/constraint U, then delete -F in the context [__ G]

Finally, notice that, whereas neutral transparent segments always have non contrastive specifications for the harmonic feature, this is not true for neutral opaque segments. There can be neutral opaque segments whose harmonic feature can be contrastive. This is the case of the short vowel /a/ of the morpheme /kat/ in Wolof (see section 5.3.3 below) and of the back vowels in disharmonic roots in Uyghur (see section 5.3.1 below). These segments are opaque because their harmonic feature cannot be changed by the harmony rule because they are simply exceptions to the harmony rule.


365

When this occurs, the specification interferes with the harmonic spreading as in (29). (29)

X1

X2

-F

X3

F

The feature [-] of X2 is contrastive, and thus accessible to the harmony rule. Given that it cannot be affected by the rule because X2 is an exception to the harmony rule, it will interfere with the spreading of F onto X1. More discussion of this type of opaque segments is provided below. 5.1.2.

Feature markedness.

Before going one with the discussion of the theory of feature visibility, I would like to remind the reader of how the marked status of feature specifications is determined in the model presented here. First consider the marking statement in (30a) where I assume that the marked feature is G. Let us hypothesize that (30) is deactivated in a language L so that the feature bundles in (30bi) and (30bii) are possible in L. The deactivation of (30) introduces a marked feature specification and a pair of contrastive feature specifications in L. The feature specifications [G] and [—G] are contrastive in the context [__, F] and [G] is the marked feature specification of this pair. (30)

a. b.

*[F, G] where G is the marked feature specification. If (30a) is deactivated in a language L, i. the feature combinations [F, G] and [F, -G] are licit in L. ii. [G] and [–G] are contrastive in the context [__, F] in L iii. [G] is the marked feature specification in the context [__, F] in L (First approximation. See Section 5.4.1 for final procedure)

For example consider the marking statement *[+low, -back] where [-back] is the marked feature specification. If this marking statement is deactivated

366


in a language L, the specifications [+back] and [-back] are contrastive in the context [ __,+low] in L. At the same time L includes the feature bundle [+low, -back] where [-back] is marked. Feature markedness will be the topic of discussion in this section. The issue of how the contrastive status of feature specifications is determined will be addressed again in section 4.1 below. As proposed in Section 2.2.4 of Chapter 2, the marked feature specifications are obtained by looking at marking statements and the robustness hierarchy of Clements (2001, 2004) which ranks features in terms of possible exploitation in a system: more robust features are exploited before less robust ones are made use of. Consider vowels, for example. The marking statements in (31) govern vowel systems. The robustness hierarchy for vowel features is given in (32): (31)

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.


(32)

a. b. c. d. e.

[Low] [High] [Back] [Round] [ATR]

For each marking statement, the marked feature specification is that of the less robust feature in the statement. This is the specification whose use in the context of the other feature specification of the statement is phonologically costly. Thus [-back], [+round], [-ATR] are the marked feature specifications in the marking statement *[+low, -back], *[-back, +round], *[+high, -ATR], respectively. Similarly, given the robustness hierarchy for consonants in (33) (see Clements 2004), [+voice] , [-voice], [+lateral], [strident] are the marked feature specifications in the marking statements *[sonorant, +voice], [+sonorant, -voice],[-sonorant, +lateral], *[+continuant, -strident] respectively


(33)

a. b. c. d e. f. g. h.

5.1.3.

Labial Attraction

367

[sonorant] [nasal] [continuant] [labial] [dorsal] [voiced] [strident] others.

A nice example of a rule being sensitive to either contrastive or marked feature specifications is discussed in Calabrese (1995) and repeated here. It involves the phenomenon of labial attraction in the languages of central Asia. Labial attraction is a rule that rounds suffixal low vowels when immediately preceded by a round vowel. Vaux (1993) observes that five basic types of labial attraction are found in these languages. In one type, all rounded vowels trigger it. In the second type, only the fronted rounded vowels /ü / and /ö / and the low rounded vowel /O/ trigger it. In the third type only the front rounded vowels /ü / and /ö / are triggers. In both the second and third types, the vowel /u/ is not a trigger. In the fourth type, only non high rounded vowels are triggers and targets of it. In the fifth type, only the low rounded vowel / O/ triggers it. These five basic types can be schematized in (34) (from Vaux (1993)). (34)

Types of labial attraction. Triggers 1 O O‹ u u‹ O O‹ u‹ 2 3 O‹ u‹

4 5

O O‹ O

Languages Kirghiz Altay, Shor, Kazan Tatar Kazakh,Karakalpak, Chulym ,Tatar, Nogay, Kyzyl Khakass Yakut, Buryat, Khalkha Udi, Evenki, Western Even, Oroch

If we set aside the fourth type, which has peculiar features of its own extensively studied by Steriade (1979, 1987), the typology in (34) can be neatly

368


derived in the following way. Let us suppose that the labial attraction rule is that in (35). (35)

N

N

X -cons.

X -cons.

labial

labial

dorsal +low

+round The difference between type 1 and 2 involves the status of the feature specifications that are the target of the rule. All of the languages having these two types of labial attraction have the vowel system in (36). (36)

i E

[+high, -low] [-high, +low]

u‹ O‹

I a

u O

This vowel system has the contrastive and marked specification assignments in (37), given that the marking statements (31c), (31d), (31f) and (31g) are deactivated (marked feature specifications are superscripted with m , contrastive ones with c. (See section 5.4.1 for more discussion on the assignment of contrastive status to the feature specifications in (37a)). (37)

a. high low back round

i +c -c -c

u‹ +c -c + cm

E +c -c - c,m

O‹ +c -c + c,m

a +c +c -c

O +c +c + cm

I + +c - cm

u + +c +c

We can then characterize the difference between type 1 and 2 by saying that whereas in type 1 the rule in (35) has access only to contrastive [+round] specifications, in type 2 this rule has access only to marked [+round] specifications. Type 3 is accounted for by assuming that /E/, /O‹/ and /O/ in these languages are not low vowels but actually mid vowels. Thus the marking statements (31g) and (31c) are not deactivated in these languages. Instead the marking statement (31a) is deactivated, in addition to (31d) and (31f), so that we have the contrastive and marked specification


369

assignments in (37b). (37)

b. high low back round

i +c -c -c

u‹ +c -c + cm

E -cm -c -c - c,

O‹ - cm -c -c + c,m

a +c + -c

O - cm -c +c +c

I + +c - cm

u + +c +c

Type 5 is easily explained if we consider that it is present only in languages like the Tungusic ones which do not have front rounded vowels (cf. Evenki which has the six vowels /i, E, a, ´ , O, u/). If we assume that /O/ is the rounded counterpart of /a/, with the marking statement (31g) thus deactivated, then we can say that again the labial attraction rule in this language is that in (35), which is sensitive only to marked [+round]. The only [+round] specification marked in these systems is that of low /O/. Observe that the target of the rule in (35) is specified as being [+low]. Feature specification [+low] is unmarked . At first sight, this can seem problematic when the rule targets marked [+round]. But as proposed before, this is actually a characterizing property of the theory developed here. The mention of the feature [+low] in the rule will spotlight this feature that can therefore be accessed. The rule can be specified as targeting given marked feature values, even though unmarked feature values appear in the environment of the rule. This possibility is expected given that no underspecification is allowed, and that all types of feature specifications are underlyingly present in phonological representations.

5.2.

Underlying Representations in Harmony Processes

In a recent study, Kiparsky and Pajusaliu (2000) investigate the behavior of neutral vowels in languages with palatal harmony. They take into consideration the possible sequential combinations of neutral and harmonic vowels. They are given below in (40). The vowels of central concern in these questions are those in derived environments. Inside roots, neutral vowels freely co-occur with all types of harmonic vowels. By definition, in all of the systems in (40), suffixal vowels display regular harmony after stems containing only harmonic vowels. Therefore they allow the sequences in (38i) and disallow those in (38ii). Also by definition, all of the systems allow suffixal neutral vowels, i.e. the sequence in (39) (i =neutral vowels, a and ä = the two classes of harmonic vowels, the harmony is as-

370


sumed to be left-to-right. Square parentheses represent morphological boundaries, i.e. [[ stem] suffix]) (38)

i. ii.

[[...a...] ...a...] [[...ä .....]... ä..] * [[...ä ...]... a..] * [[...a ...]... ä..]

(39)

[[...a...]... i]

(40)

Sequential combinations of neutral and harmonic vowels that are logically possible: i.

[[...i...] ...ä...] [[...a ..i...]... a..] [[...ä ..i...]... ä...]

ii.

[[...i...] ...a...] [[...a...i...]... a] [[...ä...i...]... ä]

iii.

[[...i...] ...ä...] [[...a ..i...]... ä..] [[...ä ..i...]... ä...]

iv.

[[...i...] ...a...] [[...a...i...]... a] [[...ä...i...]... a]

v.

[[...i...] ...ä...] [[...a ..i...]... a..] [[...ä ..i...]... a...]

vi.

[[...i...] ...ä...] [[...a...i...]... ä] [[...ä...i...]... a]

vii.

[[...i...] ...a...] [[...a ..i...]... ä..] [[...ä ..i...]... ä...]

viii.

[[...i...] ...a...] [[...a...i...]... ä] [[...ä...i...]... a]

Interestingly, according to their study, of these eight logically possible cases, only four are instantiated: those in (41). According to Kiparsky and Pajusaliu, whom I will follow here, the four missing systems in (42) are systematic gaps. (41)

Actually possible systems. i. Finnish [[...i...] ...ä...] [[...a ..i...]... a..] [[...ä ..i...]... ä...]

ii.

Uyghur [[...i...] ...a...] [[...a...i...]... a] [[...ä...i...]... ä]

Underlying representations

iii.

(42)

Khanty [[...i...] ...ä...] [[...a ..i...]... ä..] [[...ä ..i...]... ä...]

Impossible systems. i. [[...i...] ...ä...] [[...a ..i...]... a..] [[...ä ..i...]... a...] iii.

iv.

371

Vepsian [[...i...] ...a...] [[...a...i...]... a] [[...ä...i...]... a]

ii. [[...i...] ...ä...] [[...a...i...]... ä] [[...ä...i...]... a] iv.

[[...i...] ...a...] [[...a ..i...]... ä..] [[...ä ..i...]... ä...]

[[...i...] ...a...] [[...a...i...]... ä] [[...ä...i...]... a]

Two clear generalizations result by comparing the systems in (41)(42): 1) if a language has a [+back] vowel after stems containing only neutral vowels, this language will also have a [+back] vowel after stems containing a [+back] vowel followed by a neutral vowel. 2) Viceversa, if a language has a [-back] vowel after stems containing only neutral vowels, this language will also have a [-back] vowel after stems containing a [-back] vowel followed by a neutral vowel. These two generalization are diagrammatically merged in the implication in (43) (where i is a neutral vowel, and backV a harmonic vowel) (43)

if Then:

a. b.

[[...i...] ... backV …] [[… backV…] ...i...]... backV …]]

The generalization in (43) states that if a suffixal vowel V displays the harmonic value [back] after a stem containing only neutral vowels, then the suffixal vowel will display the same [back] value after a stem containing a harmonic vowel with [back] followed by a neutral vowel. As we will see, this generalization can be derived by determining the unmarked value of the harmonic feature, i.e. the feature value that appears in a neutral context, i.e., in (43a) (see Kiparsky and Pajusaliu 2000). As argued below, the unmarked value of the harmonic feature is the underlying specification of alternating vowels. The harmony rule spreads the marked value, i.e., the value opposite to the unmarked one. This generalization indicates the importance of the harmonic specification we find in neu-

372


tral contexts such as (43a). Once the marked/unmarked specifications of the harmonic feature are determined, all the other properties of the systems in (40) will be simply derived by determining whether the neutral vowel is transparent or opaque. Before discussing specific examples, however, I should consider some background issues. First of all it is important to remember that the presence of neutral vowels in a harmony system indicates that a marking statement restricting the occurrence of the harmonic feature in the feature bundle of the neutral vowel(s) must be active (see (44)). As explained in section 5.1.1 of this chapter, this constraint must be unrepairable so that the neutral vowels are prevented from undergoing the harmony rule. In the case of the harmony systems in (40) the marking statement is that in (44b). This marking statement restricts the occurrence of the harmonic feature [back] in the feature bundle of the non round nonlow vowels [i , e]. (44)

a.

Given the harmony rule in (i), and given the active marking statement in (ii), the segments containing the combination of features in (iii) are neutral. i.

X

X

(direction not important)

F

b.

ii.

*[F, G]

iii.

[F, G]

*[+back, -round]/[___ , -low]

Also notice that the presence of the active constraint in (44aii) makes the harmonic feature non-contrastive in the feature bundle of the neutral vowel. Thus given the active marking statement (44b), the feature specification [-back] of the non-low vowels is non-contrastive in the case of the non low, non round vowels [i, e]. The issues that need to be dealt with now are those i) of how lexical contrast are established, ii) of the conditions under which these contrasts are suspended in certain environments, and iii) of how underlying representations are established in the case of words with harmonic alterna-


373

tions. As discussed in detail in a later section, the system of featural contrasts of a given language is determined by identifying which marking statements are deactivated and subsequently which ones are active in the system given the evidence provided by the minimal pairs of the language. It has been known since Trubetzkoy (1939) that feature contrasts are often suspended in certain positions. For examples, in languages like German and Russian, the contrast in voicing characterizing the obstruents of these languages is neutralized in word-final position where only voiceless obstruents appear. Generative Grammar accounts for this neutralization process by assuming that there is an underlying contrast in voicing that is then neutralized by a process of devoicing in word final position. It is important to observe that establishing an underlying contrast is strictly connected to determining the nature of the relevant process leading to the neutralization (see Hale and Reiss 1998). Consider an alternation like [tak] vs. [tages] in a hypothetical language.6 At least two hypotheses are available: a) The lexical form is /tag/ and there is word final devoicing in the target language, or b) the lexical form is /tak/ and there is intervocalic voicing in the language. The tasks of hypothesizing the underlying representations and hypothesizing the rule are inextricably linked; the two tasks cannot be separated. If we are subsequently provided with evidence of an alternation [tak] vs. [takes] and observe that voicing is used contrastively in intervocalic position, the choice of underlying representations can be narrowed and the intervocalic voicing hypothesis can be eliminated. Thus the presence of a contrastive use of the feature voice in intervocalic position allows us to choose the correct set of hypotheses involving the underlying representation and the nature of the process.7 Now, in the final devoicing case just discussed, an underlying featural contrast can be postulated underlyingly and the process leads to its neutralization or suspension. The important fact is, though, that there are also situations in which it is not possible to determine underlying featural contrasts, i.e. situations in which a contrast must be suspended also underlyingly, and thus the procedure just outlined is not possible. These are the cases in which the use of a feature is always predictable from the environment. Suppose a language in which obstruents are always voiceless in word-initial position, but voiced in intervocalic position; also assume that codas are not allowed. Thus in this language we would have an alternation like the following one. (45)

[ka]

vs.

Reduplicated [ka-ga]

374


We could assume 1) that we have an underlying voiceless stop and a process of intervocalic voicing; or 2) that we have an underlying voiced stop and a process of devoicing in onset position. Evidence from the language would not help us insofar as voicing is always predictable in this language. Most linguist, however—provided that there is no contrary evidence— would opt for the hypothesis in 1) on the ground of plausibility: when a system has only one obstruent series as in this language, this series is most probably voiceless. Thus, we assign the unmarked value for [voice], i.e., [voice], to the obstruent in the underlying representation and assume that the marked value [+voice] is inserted by the process of voicing. I assume that this is a basic strategy in phonology: when we cannot decide the specification of a given feature in underlying representations, we resort to markedness theory and assign the feature its unmarked specification in that representation. Let us consider the case of vowel harmony systems now. For example, consider suffixes in a language with left-to-right harmony; their harmonic value is always predictable contextually and cannot be determined in underlying representations by means of an analysis of the alternations. In cases like these it has been assumed that the harmonic value of the suffixal vowel is underspecified in underlying representations. This is shown in (46). (46)

a.

Process:

[ [root ....X...] +

[suffix ...X...]

F b.

Underlying representations:

root

....X...] ,

[suffix ...X...]

F But no underspecification is allowed in the theory adopted here. Therefore, we have to find an alternative way of dealing with this issue. As proposed above, the distinction marked/unmarked plays a role in accounting for these facts. Specifically, the alternating segments whose value is always determined contextually are underlyingly assigned the unmarked value. The marked value is inserted by the process; the unmarked value succumbs in the process because of the convention in (28).


375

Imagine the alternation in (47) where the value F of the root vowel is contrastive. The value for F of the suffixal vowel cannot be determined insofar as it is always contextually determined. Given what was just proposed, the unmarked value for F is assigned to the underlying representation of the suffixal vowel—assume it to be [-F]; then, the marked feature [F] is inserted by the process in (48) (see (49)). (47)

Surface harmonic alternations. a. [...[root F]...]...[ suffix F]...] b. [...[root -F]...]...[ suffix -F]...]

(48)

The rule is.

X

X

F (49)

where F= marked feature

Underlying representations for the morphemes in (47). a.

[...[root X1 ]...]...[ suffix X2 ]...]

F b.

-F

[...[root X1 ]...]...[ suffix X2 ]...]

-F

-F

Notice that the unmarked value [-F] is assigned to the underlying representations of the suffixal vowel in both forms in (47) and to the underlying representation of the root vowel in (47b) as shown in (49). The process in (48) changes (49a) (=50a) into (50b), whereas nothing happens in (49b). Remember that in the case of rules such as that in (48), only the marked feature specifications is spotlighted; hence their unmarked counterparts cannot participate actively in the harmony process and are always deleted by the convention in (28). Thus the marked feature specifications that are spread by these rules always replace the unmarked specification of the target.

376


(50)

a.

[...[root X1 ]...]...[ suffix X2 ]...] b. [...[rootX1 ]...]...[ suffix X2 ]...]

F

-F

F

-F

The obvious puzzle now is how to determine which is the unmarked value for a harmonic feature. I propose to go back to Trubetzkoy's distinction between naturally unmarked/marked feature values vs. logically unmarked /marked feature values (see Trubetzkoy 1939; Anderson 1984). Naturally unmarked/marked feature values are defined by the marking statements and the robustness hierarchy—see earlier discussion—and are grounded in the acoustic/articulatory properties of the feature combinations making up segments. Naturally unmarked/marked feature values are obviously universal and immutable. If there is no way to establish which is the logically unmarked feature value, underlying representations are assigned naturally unmarked feature values. Logically unmarked/marked feature values are instead defined contextually on a language-specific basis: they are determined through the observation and analysis of the different alternations. The idea is the following: if there is evidence that a harmony process spreads a single active feature value [F], this value is the logically marked value. When this occurs, the logically unmarked value [-F] is assigned by default to the underlying representations of alternating vowels as proposed above. In this way some of the intuitions of radical underspecification (see Kiparsky 1981; Archangeli 1984 and others) are captured in the model presented here. A logically marked value may also be naturally marked, but does not need to. However, a fundamental assumption is that non-contrastive values are always logically unmarked. Therefore they will never be targeted by a harmony rule spreading a marked value. It follows that if in a language with a palatal harmony system, the idealized language learner (or linguist) observes that a harmonic vowel displays the feature [+back] after a stem containing only [-back] neutral vowels, s/he must hypothesize that the feature [+back] is logically unmarked and that the harmony rule spreads the logically marked feature [-back]. In fact, this is the only way to account for the presence of [+back] vowel in that environment: since the feature [-back] of the neutral vowel is non contrastive, and therefore logically unmarked, it will not be spread by the harmony rule and the suffixal vowel


377

will thus display the underlying logically unmarked harmonic feature [+back]. In contrast, if the harmonic vowel is [-back] after a stem containing only [-back] neutral vowels as in (51), we have two possible hypotheses as in (52) and (53). The simplest hypothesis is given in (52). It is the null analysis for (51): the logically unmarked value for the harmonic feature is [-back]. The rule spreads logically marked [+back]. According to this analysis, nothing happens in (51)(see (52ii)). The other hypothesis given in (53) involves a rule accessing all types of feature specifications and spreading both values of the harmonic feature. Only a rule of this type can spread the noncontrastive logically unmarked feature specification of the neutral vowel as shown in (53ii)—In such an analysis the underlying values of the alternating harmonic vowels must receive naturally unmarked feature specification. I am assuming that the naturally unmarked feature specification for [back] is [+back]. (51) (52)

i.

i

ä

Rule:

X

X

+bk ii.

UR:

i.

Rule: Condition: All types of feature specifications are accessed.

ii.

X

(53)

bk

i X | -bk

ä X | -bk

(No rule applies)

X

(Both feature values are spread)

378


ii.

i X

a X (ii)

i X

ä X

i X

-bk

+bk

-bk

+bk

-bk

ä X

A choice must be made between the analysis in (52) in which only the marked value of a feature is spread and the one in (53) in which both values of the harmonic feature are spread. Notice that to account for harmonic alternations, the analysis in (53) requires both accessing all types of features and spreading both values of the harmonic feature. Given its complexity, I hypothesize that the simpler analysis in (52) is always chosen if there is no contrary evidence. Although rules spreading all types of features are indeed possible and may be also used to account for harmony systems (see below for some cases), given their complexity, they are to be adopted as last resort strategies when no other analysis can be pursued. Another issue to address is that of when neutral vowels are transparent and when they are opaque. I assume that a typical harmony rule spreads the marked value of the harmonic feature. However, the rule can also access other features in addition to the one that is spread. Using the spotlight metaphor again, the rule can spotlight a larger set of feature specifications but spread only one of them. Specifically, as proposed above, it can access/spotlight all types of feature or just contrastive features, but then only spread the marked one. Consider the first possibility. If a rule spreads a marked feature and accesses all types of features, a neutral vowel will always act as a blocker: i) The feature F cannot replace [-F] because of the active marking statement preventing the spreading of [F] onto the neutral vowel; ii) the feature [-F] of the neutral vowel is visible to the harmony rule. Therefore F cannot be spread across it. This is shown in (54). (54)

[...[root X1 …

F

X2 ]...]...[ suffix X3 ]...]

-Fnon-Contr. -FContr.

Now consider the second possibility. If the rule accesses only contrastive feature values, as discussed in section 5.1.1 of this chapter, the non contrastive specification of the neutral vowel is not visible to the rule and the marked feature is spread across it as shown in (55).


(55)

[...[root X1 …

F

379

X2 ]...]...[ suffix X3 ]...]

- F non - Contr. Contr -FContr.

Thus when we look at harmony systems, we have to determine if the neutral vowels are transparent or opaque and we have to determine the feature that is unmarked, i.e. the feature that appears in a neutral context. Once we know this feature, we immediately derive the feature specification that is spread: it is its opposite value. After these basic properties of the system are established, we have an analysis of it. We can now proceed with an account for the different systems in (41). The system of Uyghur, which will be discussed in more detail later, is the easiest to analyze. The fact that it displays back vowels after stems containing neutral front vowels shows that the harmony rule is sensitive only to contrastive values and that the unmarked harmonic value is [+back]. The rule then spreads the opposite marked value [-back]. The facts that determine the analysis are in bold. (56)

Uyghur a. [[...a...] ...a...] b. [[...ä...] ...ä...] c. [[...a...] ...i...] d. [[...i...] ...a...] e. [[...a ..i...]... a..] f. [[...ä ..i...]... ä...]

(57)

Analysis: 1. Condition: Only contrastive feature accessed 2. Underlying suffixal value: Unmarked [+bk] 3. Rule: Spread marked [-bk] a. [ [ a ]

+bk

a ]

+bk

380


b.

[[

a ] [[

ä ]

-bk c.

+bk

[[ a ]

a]

- bk

+bk i ]

f.

[[ ä

-bk [[ ä

-bk

ä]

-bk

a ]

- bk

+bk

+bk

ä ]

- bk

[[ i ]

e. [[ a

-bk

a ] [[

i ]

+bk d.

ä ]

+bk a ] [[ ä

i ]

- bk

+bk i ]

-bk

i ] ä]

- bk

+bk

ä ]

- bk

In case of Finnish, after stems containing neutral vowels we have front vowels in the suffixes. This already tells us that the suffixal [-back] is the underlying unmarked feature. However, when this information is coupled with the fact that the neutral front vowel is transparent to [+ back] harmony we can establish 1) that the harmony rule is sensitive only to contrastive values, 2) that [-back] is the unmarked feature, and 3) that the rule spreads the marked feature [+back].


(58)

Finnish a. [[...a...] ...a...] b.[[...ä...] ...ä...] c. [[...a...] ...i...] d. [[...i...] ...ä...] e. [[...a ..i...]... a..] f. [[...ä ..i...]... ä...]

(59)

Analysis 1.Condition: Only contrastive feature accessed 2.Underlying suffixal value: Unmarked [-bk] 3.Rule: Spread marked [+bk] a. [[

a ]

+bk b

c.

[[

ä ]

ä ] [[ a ]

-bk

+bk

-bk

[[ a ]

i ]

a ]

+bk

- bk

+bk i ]

- bk e. [[

-bk

[[ a ]

ä]

-bk

d. [[

ä]

a

+bk

ä ]

-bk i ]

- bk

ä]

-bk

[[ a

+bk

i]

ä ]

- bk

-bk

381

382


[[

a

i ]

a ]

+bk - bk f. [[

ä

-bk

i ]

- bk

ä]

-bk

Uyghur and Finnish represent the two possible types of systems with neutral transparent vowels. In Khanty and Vespian, we have the two possible systems with neutral opaque vowels. No other systems are possible. Let us consider Vepsian first. In Vepsian, as in Uyghur, stems with neutral vowels take back suffixes. This indicates that the feature [+back] is unmarked. If we assume that all features are accessed while the rule spreads only the marked feature [+back], we have an immediate account of Vespian. The non-contrastive—and logically unmarked—feature [-back] of the neutral vowel [i] intervenes between trigger and target of the rule. It cannot be spread because it is unmarked; however it blocks the spreading of the preceding [+back] feature onto the suffixal vowel. This is shown in (61f). (60)

Vepsian a. [[...a...] ...a...] b. [[...ä...] ...ä...] c. [[...a...] ...i...] d. [[...i...] ...a...] e. [[...a...i...]... a] f. [[...ä...i...]... a]


(61)

383

Analysis 1.Condition: All features accessed 2.Underlying suffixal value: Unmarked [+bk] 3.Rule: Spread marked [-bk] a. [ [

a ]

a]

+bk

+bk

b. [ [ ä

]

-bk

-bk

]

a ]

+bk

[ [ ä

]

a

]

-bk

i ]

- bk

+bk d. [ [ i ]

- bk

a ]

+bk a

+bk f.

[ [ ä

+bk

c. [ [ a ]

e. [ [

a ]

i ]

- bk

[ [ ä

i ]

-bk

- bk

a ]

+bk a ]

+bk

Notice that in (61f) the neutral vowel could be the target of the harmony rule since a licit configuration would be created in this case. However, the neutral vowel could not be the trigger in the next iterative

384


pass of the rule since the feature [-back] remains unmarked in its feature bundle. Therefore, we would have blocking also under this alternative. The system of Khanty is identical to that of Vespian with the difference that the unmarked feature in this case is [-back], the feature specification of vowels appearing after neutral vowels. When this feature intervenes between the trigger and the target of the harmony rule, it prevents spreading of the preceding [+back]. Notice that in this case the neutral vowel cannot be the target of the rule since an illicit configuration would be created, and there is blocking as discussed before.8 (62)

Khanty a. [[...a...] ...a...] b. [[...ä...] ...ä...] c. [[...a...] ...i...] d. [[...i...] ...ä...] e. [[...a...i...]... ä] f. [[...ä...i...]... ä]

(63)

Analysis 1.Condition: All features accessed 2.Underlying suffixal value: Unmarked [-bk] 3.Rule: Spread marked [+ bk] a. [ [a]

ä ]

+bk

-bk

b. [ [

ä ]

-bk c.

+bk ä ]

-bk

[ [ a ]

+bk

[ [a]

i ]

- bk

ä ]

-bk

[ [a]

+bk

a]


d. [ [ i ]

- bk

ä ]

-bk

e. [ [

a

+bk f.

385

[ [ ä

-bk

i ]

ä ]

- bk i ]

- bk

-bk ä ]

-bk

Up until now I have considered only harmony rules spreading the marked features. Such an option is chosen whenever possible. However, there is evidence that shows the need for rules spreading both values of the harmonic feature. A nice case of this type of rule is provided by the consonantal harmony system of Chumash. Chumash (see Poser 1982) based on an unpublished thesis of R.B. Applegate; see also Steriade 1987), has the coronal consonants /t/, /l/, /n/ /s/ and/s&/. Now /t/, /l/, /n/ and /s/ are [+anterior], /s&/ [-anterior]. The contrast between [+] and [-] values for the feature [anterior] is thus contrastive only in the case of continuant consonants. All of the other coronal consonants (/t/, /l/, /n/) are [+anterior]. Therefore [+anterior] is non-contrastive in the case of these consonants . Now, in Chumash, there is a harmony rule by which the feature value for [anterior] of the rightmost sibilant is spread onto the preceding sibilants, delinking whatever value for [anterior] they have. We can see the effect of this harmony rule in (64). (64)

a. k - sunon - us 'I obey him' vs. k - s&unon- s& 'I am obedient' b. us&la 'with the hand' vs. usla - siq 'to press firmly by hand' c. uqsti 'of throwing' vs. s&-uxs&ti-mes& 'throw over to'

Intervening segments are transparent to the rule. In particular, the coronal segments /t/, /n/ and /l/ are transparent to this harmony rule; they do not trigger or block it. as we can see in (65).

386


(65)

a. s&-api-ts&o-it 'I have good luck vs. s-api-tso-us 'he has good luck' b. k-s&unon-s& 'I am obedient' vs. k-sunon-us 'I obey him' c. ha-s-xintila 'his Indian name' vs. ha-s&-hintila-was& 'his former Indian name'

Notice that the feature [anterior] is contrastive when it is in neutral, nonharmonic contexts: see us&la 'with the hand' vs. uqsti 'of throwing'. Both the specifications [+anterior] and [-anterior] must be underlyingly present in the case of the coronal sibilants. The feature [+anterior] is underlying in the [s] of uqsti (64c) and ha-s-xintila (65c)]; the feature [-anterior] is underlying in the /s&/of us&la (64b). In both cases the value for the feature [anterior] cannot be determined in the context and must be postulated in the underlying representation of the morphemes. Nonetheless in both cases this value is changed by the process. The Chumash rule must be a feature changing rules. Still it accesses only contrastive features and is not sensitive to the non-contrastive [+anterior] of /t/, /n/ and /l/. It can be formulated as in (66): (66)

Condition: only contrastive features are accessed. X

X

[ anterior]

[ anterior]

Rules such as the one in (66) can be formulated only when there is evidence for a change in both harmony features as in this case. Otherwise, one must opt for a rule spreading only the marked feature specification as argued above. Later we will see that a rule of this type is needed to account for the harmony systems of Yoruba and Ogori. To recapitulate, the following feature visibility parameters govern harmony rules: I. Visibility status of featural environment: all feature specification/ contrastive feature specifications are accessed; II. Visibility status of featural focus: only (logically) marked value/ both values of the feature is/are spread. The hypothesis is that this are the only possible visibility options for any harmony rule. All harmony phenomena should be analyzable in terms of these parameter settings. Observe that the distribution of the marked and unmarked harmonic feature specifications of the impossible


387

systems in (42)—repeated as (67)—cannot be derived by using the theory proposed above. (67)

Impossible systems. i. a. [[...i...] ...a...] b. [[...a ..i...]... ä..] c. [[...ä ..i...]... ä...]

ii. a. b. c.

[[...i...] ...a...] [[...a...i...]... ä] [[...ä...i...]... a]

iii. a. b. c.

iv. a. b. c.

[[...i...] ...ä...] [[...a...i...]... ä] [[...ä...i...]... a]

[[...i...] ...ä...] [[...a ..i...]... a..] [[...ä ..i...]... a...]

In (67i) and ii), given what we observe in a., we have to say that only contrastive feature are accessed. Spreading both values of the marked features does not account for what we observe in b. and c.. Spreading the marked value is not a better strategy. Again, given what we observe in a., [+back] must be the unmarked feature specification, the harmony rule then spreads marked [-back]. The impossibility of (67ii) immediately follows since the harmony rule should have applied in c., contrary to what we find. The system in (67i) is impossible because of b.: here the harmony rule cannot apply, therefore we expect the unmarked value for the harmony feature, contrary to what we find. In (67iii) and iv), the appearance of [-back] in the suffixal vowel in a. could be accounted in two different ways which however are not consistent with the other data in b. and c. According to the first analysis, the shape of the suffix could be accounted for by spreading the [-back] feature of the root neutral vowel. This requires a rule that accesses all feature specifications and spreads both values of the harmony feature. The data in b. and c. are inconsistent with this analysis. Alternatively, one could assume that the rule accesses only contrastive feature specifications and spreads marked [+back]; in this case, [-back] is the unmarked feature. The impossibility of (67iv) immediately follows since the harmony rule should have applied in b., contrary to what we find. The system in (67iii) is impossible because of c.: here the harmony rule cannot apply, therefore we expect the unmarked value for the harmony feature, contrary to what we find. I thus obtained an adequate account of the typology in (41)-(42) and of the generalization in (43).

388


I will end this section by considering the issue of opaque vowels again. Observe that whereas transparent vowels can only be neutral, this is not true for opaque vowels. Also harmonic vowels can be opaque. In fact, a harmony rule which accesses contrastive feature values and is specified as spreading only a marked feature value will be able to spread the marked feature value across a non-contrastive one as in (68) but not across a contrastive one as in (69). This will occur when the contrastive feature cannot be changed because it is characterized as an exception to convention (28), the convention deleting unmarked feature specifications (see section 5.3.1 on Uyghur and 5.3.2 on Wolof for relevant examples). (68)

[...[root X1,,,, X2 ]...]...[ suffix X3 ]...]

F (69)

- F non - Contr -FContr.

[...[root X1,,,, X2 ]...]...[ suffix X3 ]...]

F

-FContr.

-FContr.

Therefore there are different source for the opacity of vowels. Notice that the model presented here excludes the possibility of having a neutral opaque and a neutral transparent vowel in the same system. Neutral opaque vowels can only be accounted for by assuming that the harmony rule accesses all feature values, and this is incompatible with the requirement that neutral transparent vowels occur when the harmony rule access only contrastive features. An apparent counterexample to this claim is provided by the Wolof harmony system in which we have neutral transparent and opaque vowels, but—as we will see later—there is another and better analysis for the harmony system of this language. This analysis assumes a disharmonic contrastive opaque vowel such as that in (69).

Case studies

5.3.

Case Studies

5.3.1.

Uyghur Vowel Harmony

389

A complex case of vowel harmony is provided by Uyghur as discussed by Vaux (2000). Uyghur has the inventory of vowel phonemes in (70). (70)

[+high] [-high, -low] [+low]

Uyghur surface vowels [-back] [+back] [-rd] [+rd] [-rd] [+rd] i ü u e ö o ä a

As a general rule all vowels in a word must share the same specification for the feature [back], as in Turkish. (Notable exceptions include compounds, loans, and neutral and disharmonic vowels.) Capital letters in (71) denote harmonic segments. (Uyghur also possesses rounding harmony, not considered here) (71)

Representative cases of vowel harmony (Lindblad 1990:17) sg.

pl. -lAr-

dat. -GA-

1sg poss. -Vm-

gloss

yol pul at köl yüz xät

yollar pullar atlar köllär yuzlär xätlär

yolÂa pulÂa atÂa kölÂa yüzÂä xätÂä

yolum pulum etim kölüm yüzüm xetim

road money horse lake face letter

The two vowels in (70) that are not paired for the feature [back], i and e, are neutral and transparent with respect to [back] harmony in Uyghur. (72)

sg.

1pl poss. -ImIz- -1pl poss. -ImIz-Dat. GA-

yol pul köl yüz

yolimiz pulimiz kölimIz yüzimiz

yolimizÂa pulimizÂa kölimizÂä yüzimizÂä

gloss

road money lake face

390


Roots containing only neutral vowels generally select [+back] suffixes, regardless of whether the neutral vowels in question derive historically from front or from back vowels. (73)

native deNiz-Âa til-lar Arabic sinip-ta Russian enz&i nir-lar

sea-dat. tongue-pl. class-loc. engineer-dat.

Proto-Turkic *ta‹Niz Proto-Turkic *til

In disharmonic stems, as expected, it is the last stem vowel to determine the harmonic value of the suffix. (74)

a. a‹-a

a‹s wap-Âa qa‹hwa-Âa a‹mma-Âa a‹nj&an-Âa

tool-Dat coffee-Dat buts-Dat (but-plural) Anjan-Dat (personal name)

b. a-a‹

ada‹m-Âa‹ apa‹t-Âa‹ ros&a‹n-Âa‹ aÂina-Âa‹

man-Dat disaster-Dat Roshi'n-Dat (personal name) friends-Dat

Interestingly, Uyghur phonology is characterized by a process that changes low vowels to high vowels in medial open syllables. This process is informally described in (75). (75)

Raising: /a, a‹/ [i] in medial open syllables Rime (Onset)

Nucleus X [-cons]

[+high]

[+low]

Case studies

391

Rule (75) is followed by a repair operation changing [+low] into [-low]. Some of the effects of raising can be seen in (76). (76)

Underlying form a. /a/ bala bala-lAr bala-lAr-i

Surface form bala balilar baliliri

gloss ‘child ‘children ‘his/her/its children

b. /ä/ is&a‹G is&a‹G-lAr is&a‹G-i is&a‹G-i-GA

is&a‹k is&a‹xla‹r is&iVi is&iViVa‹

‘donkey ‘donkeys ‘his/her/its donkey ‘to his/her/its donkey

This raising rule is interesting because it changes a harmonic vowel into a neutral vowel. Given that underived /i/ is transparent in Uyghur, we might expect derived [i] to behave in the same way. But this is not what we observe, as shown by the disharmonic forms in (77). In these forms the low vowel affected by the raising process is in the final syllable of the stem. Strikingly, in these forms the suffix is always [-back] regardless of the vowel that precedes the derived [i]. In similar forms with underived neutral [i], in contrast, the suffixal vowel would be [+back] or [-back] depending of the back value of the vowel preceding the neutral vowel as shown in (74). (77)

Effects of Raising with disharmonic roots root suffixed form gloss a‹s wap a‹s wibiVa‹ to his tool a. a‹-a qa‹hwa qa‹hwiVa‹ to the coffee a‹mma a‹mmila‹r buts (but-plural) a‹nj&an a‹nj&iniVa‹ to his Anjan (personal name) b. a-a‹

ada‹m apa‹t ros&a‹n

adimiVa‹ apitiVa‹ ros&i niVa‹

aÂina‹

aÂinila‹r

to his man to his disaster to his Roshi'n (personal name) his friends

392


Vaux goes through various possible accounts for the behavior of the derived [i]: different ordering relationships between vowel harmony and raising, different cyclic/non-cyclic application of the two processes, assignment of opaque or transparent status to the derived neutral [i], and in all possible combination of these hypotheses. He shows that none of these solutions works. He observes that the only clear generalization concerning (77) is that [-back] appears to ‘win out’ over [+back]. He accounts for this generalization by adopting underspecification, and in particular the popular assumption that only one value for the harmonic feature —in this case [back]—is actually active in the harmonic system (see Kenstowicz 1983, Farkas and Beddor 1987, Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1994, and many others). According to him, non-alternating vowels are underlyingly specified for [back], whereas harmonic vowels are underlyingly unspecified for [back]. He then assumes that the vowel harmony rule spreads [-back] specification(s) of the root outward to affixes within the same word. Vowels that have not received a [back] specification during the course of the derivation are assigned the value [+back] by a redundancy rule. So given underlying (78a), by application of the harmony rule, we get (78b). (78)a. k

o‹

l

i

m

i

z

-Â

A

l

i

m

i

z

-Â

a‹

[-bk] b.

k

o‹

[-bk] A [+back] stem will simply show the underlying unmarked [+back] specification as shown in (79). (79)

p

u

[+bk]

l

i

m

i

z

-Â

a

[+back]

Case studies

393

Now, though [+back] specifications do not spread, they do block propagation of [-back] specifications through them. In other words, [+back] is not underspecified. Vowel Harmony is feature-filling in Vaux' analysis, and, therefore, does not apply to segments that are already specified for the harmonic feature. This accounts for the behavior of disharmonic roots. (80)

Spreading of [-back] does not occur. a‹ s w a

[-bk]

b

-G

A

b

-G

A

[+bk]

Default specification [+back] inserted. a‹ s w a

[-bk]

[+bk]

[+back]

What happens in the form in (80) is in contrast to what happens in the form in (81). (81)

Spreading of [-back] occurs. a d a‹

[+bk]

m

-G

a‹

[-bk]

In order to account for forms like [a‹swibiVa‹] we have to assume that vowel harmony also applies after raising, so that the [-back] specification of the root can spread to the harmonic suffix. It is not unusual to find a phonological rule ordered both before and after another rule; such cases are well-known in the phonological literature. What we say in this case is that the vowel harmony rule applies in both the cyclic and post-cyclic rule blocks. Vaux, on the other hand, assumes that raising is non-cyclic and that within the post-cyclic stratum it precedes vowel harmony. This accounts for what happens in the disharmonic form with derived [i] in (82).

394


(82)

Derivation of / a‹s wab-i-GA/[a‹s wibiVa‹] a. UR a‹ s w a b

[-bk] b.

Cyclic VH a‹ s

A

w

a

b

-i-

-G

A

b

-i-

-G

A

b

-i-

-G

A

[+bk]

Output of cycle

a‹

s

w

[-bk] d.

-G

[+bk]

[-bk] c.

-i-

a

[+bk]

Post-cyclic raising [+high]

a‹

s

w

[-bk]

i [-bk]

e. Post cyclic VH applies preventing insertion of default [+back] [+high]

a‹

[-bk]

s

w

i

[-bk]

b

-i-

-G

ä

Case studies

395

But now consider the modal suffix /-c&a‹-/, which invariably surfaces with a [-back] vowel, regardless of the [back] specification of the root to which it attaches. (83) a. [-back] roots b. [+back] roots

surface form tu‹rk-c&a‹ uyÂur-c&a‹ taX-c&a‹ kitap-c&a‹ on-c&a‹

gloss (in the) Turkish (manner/language) (in the) Uyghur (manner/language) (one) as big as a mountain booklet about ten

When this suffix does not undergo raising, it triggers front harmony as shown in (84). (84)

kita:b-c&a‹-m-DA 'in my booklet' -> [kita:pc&a‹mda‹ ]

We can account for this by assuming that the vowel of this suffix is underlying specified as being [-back]. (85)

c&

a‹ [-back]

The vowel in /-c&a‹-/ undergoes Raising. (86)

/na‹y-c&a‹-DA/

'small flute-bc.' ~ [na‹yc&i da‹]

The striking fact is that harmonic suffixes that follow raised /-c&a‹-/ always agree in backness with the last harmonic vowel preceding /-c&a‹-/, as shown in (87). (87)

underlying form a. [-back] root na‹y-c&a‹-DA b. [+back] root kita:b-c&a‹-DA oÂl-c&a‹-lA-b ziX-c&a‹-GA

surface form na‹yc&i da‹ kita:bc&i da oÂlc&ilap ziXc&iÂa

gloss child in the booklet done a boy's way to/for the skewer

396


The derived neutral vowel of this suffix is obviously transparent, differently than the one we considered in (77). Why does the raised form of /-c&a‹/ behaves in this way? Vaux (2000) observes the following. ‘It is clear that /-c&a‹-/ , /-ana‹-/, and the other suffixes that behave in this way must be non-cyclic; if they were cyclic, application of cyclic VH would invariably spread the harmonic feature specification of these suffixes to the following vowel, producing incorrect forms such as *[kitapc&ida‹ ]. If /-c&a‹-/ is non-cyclic, on the other hand, it will not trigger cyclic VH, and any following harmonic segments will therefore enter the post-cyclic rule block still unspecified for [back]. By assuming that the relevant suffixes are non-cyclic, therefore, we account for the previously mysterious fact that VH does not propagate the [back] feature of these suffixes before they undergo Raising.’ However, Vaux points out—"it is not sufficient to assume that these suffixes are non-cyclic [..]. The problem is that when /-c&a‹/ undergoes Raising in the post-cyclic block it should remain disharmonic, since its underlying [-back] specification is not affected…. If the derived [i] in [na‹y-c&i-DA] blocks harmony for this reason and moreover is unable to spread its own [-back] specification to the following harmonic vowel, we then expect the harmonic vowel to receive a default [+back] specification, yielding the incorrect surface form *[na‹yc&ida] [rather than the attested [na‹yc&ida‹ (AC)]]. If on the other hand the derived [i] is able to spread its own [-back] specification, we predict that this will spread to the harmonic suffixal vowel in /kita:b-c&i-DA/, producing the incorrect surface form *[kita:bc&ida‹] rather than the attested [kita:bc&i da].’ To solve this problem, Vaux proposes to analyze Uyghur [back] harmony as being sensitive to contrastive [back] specifications in the sense proposed in Calabrese (1995) and discussed above. The reformulated rule is given in (88). (88)

Condition: only contrastive features are accessed. X X

-back

Case studies

397

Therefore, the [-back] specification of raised /-c&a-/ is present in the phonological representation but simply not accessed in the post-cyclic application of the vowel harmony rule. This is shown in (89) (from Vaux (2000)). (89)

UR: cycle 1: cycle 2

[[[kita:b]-c&a‹ ]-DA] [kita:b] [[kita:b]-c&a‹ ]

cycle 3

[[kita:b]-c&a‹ ]-DA

non-cyclic block: kita:bc&i DA kita:bc&i da

kita:bc&i da Surface form: [kitapc&i da]

Rule VH VH ([-back] specification of i non contrastive, therefore does not spread) (/-c&a -/ is non-cyclic therefore it does not trigger cyclic VH) Raising VH (no contrastive [-back] specifications available to spread to the suffixal vowel. Suffixal vowel is assigned default [+back]:

We can now also account for the form in (90). (90)

Derivation of / a‹s wab-i-GA/[a‹s wibiVa] a. UR a‹ s w a b -iX X X X X X

[-bk]

[+bk]

[ - bkk ]

-G X

A X

398


b. Cyclic VH: a‹ s X X

w X

[-bk]

a X

Output of cycle:

a‹ X

s X

w X

[-bk]

a X

-iX

-G X

A X

-G X

A X

-G X

A X

[ - b k] k

[+bk]

c.

d.

b X

b X

-iX

[ - bkk ]

[+bk] Post-cyclic raising: [+high]

a‹ X

s X

w X

b X

[ - bk] k

[-bk] e.

i X

-iX

[ - b k] k

Post cyclic VH: contrastive [-back] spreads to the suffixal vowel. Non-contrastive [-back] specification are not accessed and do not play any role in the harmony process. [+high]

a‹ X

[-bk]

s X

w X

i X

[ - bk] k

b X

-iX

[ - bkk ]

-G X

ä X

Case studies

399

The problem of Vaux's analysis is that it is assuming both underspecification and feature accessibility, two theories that overlap in most cases, although not here (see Introduction, Section 1.2.2). Furthermore, the idea of feature accessibility was proposed in order to avoid underspecification and all of the problems connected with it. Here I will propose an alternative analysis of the Uyghur fact that incorporates most of Vaux's insights but that avoids underspecification. Given what was discussed in the preceding section, the fact that we have harmonic back vowels after stems with neutral front vowels indicates that the feature [+back] is logically unmarked. Therefore, suffixal vowels are underlyingly [+back]. Alternating stem vowels are also underlyingly [+back]. Furthermore, neutral vowels are transparent. It follows that the rule is that formulated in (91) which spreads the logically marked feature [back]. (91)

Condition: only contrastive feature specifications are accessed X X (Left-to-Right)

-back

(Marked)

The rule will be triggered only by contrastive marked [-back]. Therefore, it will disregard the [-back] specification of derived and underived [i] which is non-contrastive and unmarked. Observe that in order to prevent being overridden by the harmony rule, the non-alternating [back] vowels of disharmonic roots must be characterized as being exceptions to the convention (28). I assume that this is a universal property of disharmonic roots. Therefore, their [+back] specification will not be deleted. As a result, the harmony feature [-back] will not spread across them as shown in (92). (92)

Input. a‹ s X X

[-bk]

w X

a X

b X

-G X

[+bk]

Harmony rule blocked. Spreading of [-back]

a X

[+bk]

400


a‹ X

s X

w X

[-bk]

a‹ X

b X

-G X

[+bk]

a X

[+bk]

In the next iterative pass of the harmony rule, the feature [+back] of the disharmonic vowel is not spread by (91) since this rule spreads only [-back]. At the same time it blocks the propagation of the [-back] specifications of the preceding vowel to the suffixal vowel. Crucially once raising has changed low disharmonic vowels into [i], the feature [-back] of this derived vowel will be disregarded by the harmony rule. All other aspects of Vaux's analysis remain the same. We can summarize the reformulated analysis as follows. The feature [+back] is logically unmarked and is assigned to the underlying representation of alternating vowels in suffixes; the feature [-back] is logically marked. Vowel harmony accesses contrastive features and spreads marked [-back] specification(s) to affixes within the same word. Non-contrastive [-back] specifications are ignored as potential triggers and targets of vowel harmony; hence neutral vowels neither trigger nor block VH. Though contrastive [+back] specifications do not spread, they do block propagation of [-back] specifications through them. Vowel harmony applies in both the cyclic and post-cyclic rule blocks. Raising is non-cyclic; within the post-cyclic stratum it precedes vowel harmony. We can now derive the form [a‹s wibiVa]: (93)

Derivation of / a‹s wab-i-GA/[a‹s wibiVa] a. UR a‹ s w a b -iX X X X X X [-bk] b. a‹ X

[-bk]

[ - bk] k

[+bk] Cyclic VH s w X X

a X

[+bk]

-G X

b X

-iX

[ - bkk ]

a X [+back]

-G X

a X

[+back]

Case studies

c. a‹ X

Output of cycle s w a X X X

[-bk]

-iX


a‹ X

s X

w X

i X

b X

[-bk]

[-bk]

-G X

[-bk]

[+bk]

d.

e.

b X

401

a X

[+back]

-iX

-G X

[-bk]

a X

[+back]

Post cyclic VH [+high]

a‹ X

s X

w X

i X

b X

[-bk]

[-bk]

-iX

-G X

[-bk]

ä X

[+back]

A form such as [adimiVa‹] is derived as in (94) as proposed by Vaux. (94)

a.

UR

a X

[+bk]

d X

a‹ X

[-bk]

mX

i X [-bk]

-G X

a X

[+bk]

402


b.

Cyclic VH:

a X

Spreading of [-back] occurs.

d X

a‹ X

[+bk] c.

iX

[-bk]

[-bk]

a‹ X

G X

[+bk]

Output of cycle

a X

d X

a‹ X

[+bk] d.

m X

m X

iX

[-bk]

[-bk]

a‹ X

G X

[-bk]


a X

d X

[+bk]

i X

m X

iX

[-bk]

[-bk]

e.

Post-cyclic VH does not apply.

f.

Output: [adimiVa‹]

a‹ X

G X

[-bk]

In the case of the disharmonic suffix [c&a]‹ , I assume with Vaux that it is non-cyclic. Therefore, its [-back] specification will not be spread by the cyclic vowel harmony rule. Furthermore once the vowel [a‹] of this suffix is raised to [i] this feature will become transparent to the post-cyclic harmony rule. We see this in (95): (95)

UR:

[[[ k i t a: X X X XX [-bk]

[+bk]

b X

] - c& a‹ ]X X [-bk]

D a] X X [+bk]

Case studies

cycle 1: [

k i t a: X X X XX [-bk]

cycle 2:

[+bk]

Cyclic VH . ([-back] specification of [i] non contrastive, therefore does not spread) [[ k i t a: b ]- c& a‹ ] X X X X X X X X [-bk]

cycle 3

b] X

[+bk]

(/-c&a -/ is non-cyclic. therefore it does not trigger cyclic VH) a: b ]- c& a‹ ]D a [[ k i t X X X XX X X X X X | | | | [-bk] [+bk] [-bk] [+bk]

non-cyclic block: Raising.

k i t a: b X X X XX X [-bk]

[+bk]

[+high] | c& i X X

D a X X

[-bk]

[+bk]

403

404


VH. (no contrastive [-back] vowel is available to spread to the suffixal vowel. The suffixal vowel then appears with unmarked [+back].

k i t a: b X X X XX X [-bk] Surface form: 5.3.2.

[+bk]

[+high] | c& i X X

d a X X

[-bk]

[+bk]

[kitapc&i da]

Wolof Vowel Harmony

Let us now consider the ATR-based system found in the West African language Wolof (Ka 1988; Kenstowicz 1994; Pulleyblank 1996; Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1994). This language has the vowel system in (96) with oppositions in length. Observe that high [-ATR] vowels are missing. The long counterpart of [+ATR] ë [ëë] is also missing (long vowels are represented as geminates in the examples). (96)

Wolof Vowel system

i e E

u o O ë a

i: e: E:

u: o: o: a:

[+ATR] vowels: /i, u, e, o, e‹ (=[+ATR, +low]), i:, u:, e:, o:/ [-ATR] vowels: / E, O, a, E:, O:, a:/ The marking statement (97b), but not that in (97a), is deactivated in Wolof. Thus the feature specifications [+ATR] and [-ATR] are contrastive in [-high, -low] vowels and in the [+low] vowels, but not in the [high] vowels. (97)

a. b.

*[+high, -ATR] [+low, +ATR]

Case studies

405

To account for the absence of long [+ATR] [ëë] we have to assume the auxiliary filter in (98) (see Chapter 2, Section 2.2.8 on auxiliary filters). (98)

*

X

X

[-consonantal] place Dorsal

Tongue root

+low

+ATR

As argued below, auxiliary filters do not determine the contrastive status of feature specifications. Thus (98) does not make the feature [-ATR] of long [aa] noncontrastive. We will see the consequences of this later. As for the harmony system, vowels in roots must agree in the feature [ATR] (see (99)). Affixes regularly alternate for the feature [ATR] in agreement with the root (see (100)). (99)

(100)

[+ATR] bereb 'place' gete‹n 'to bother' jeego 'to step' ge‹leem 'camel' xooye‹l 'to dilute'

[-ATR] dOOlE cErE lEmpO xandOOr nElaw

instrumental/locative -e/-E xOOl-E door-e 'to hit with' reer-e 'to be lost in' dEm-E ge‹-ne 'to be better in' xam-E participant -le/-lE door-le 'to help hit' reer-le 'to lose one's property' ye‹g-le 'to announce' past tense -oon/-OOn

jOx-lE dEE-lE

'strength' 'couscous' 'tax' 'to snore' 'to sleep'

'to look with' 'to go with' 'to know in'

'to help give' 'to lose a relative'

takk-lE 'to help tie'

406


reer-oon ôw-oon be‹gg-oon

'was lost' 'came' 'wanted'

rEEr-OOn 'had dinner' jOx-OOn 'gave' takk-OOn 'tied'

benefactive – e‹l/-al leeb-e‹l 'to tell stories for’ foot-e‹l 'to launder for' je‹nd-e‹l 'to buy for'

bEy-al 'to cultivate for' wOOr-al 'to fast for' wax-al 'to speak for'

possessive –e‹m/-am sofoor-e‹m 'his driver'

nElaw-am 'his sleep'

comitative – e‹ndoo/-andOO genn-e‹ndoo 'to go out together'

tox-e‹ndoo 'to smoke together' de‹kk-e‹ndoo 'to live together'

dEnd-andOO 'to be neighbors' tOpp-andOO 'to imitate' wax-andOO 'to say together'

If the word contains more than one suffix, then the harmonic value spreads from the root through the suffixes to the end of the word. (101)

jubbe‹nteendoo 'to rectify together' from [jubb-anti-andoo] (/i+ a/->[ee]) muê‹ndeendoo 'to be a little patient together' from [muˆ-andi-andoo]

These facts can be accounted for by assuming spreading of the harmonic feature from left-to-right. The peculiar feature of Wolof is that it appears to display both transparent and neutral opaque vowels at the same time. Let us begin with the neutral transparent vowels. These are the high vowels . Two different positions are relevant in this case: word-initial and non-word initial. If the high vowels are word-initial, all following vowels in the stem are [+ATR] (except the long low vowel [aa]). In addition, suffixes show their [+ATR] variants (see (102b)).

Case studies

(102) a.

b.

dibeer gumbe‹ guro gune

'Sunday' 'be blind' 'cola nut' 'infant'

tiit-oon gis-leen njur-eel sumb-le dugub-e‹m suul-e‹l ligee-e‹l

'was afraid' 'look!' 'posterity' 'help start' 'his millet' 'bury for' 'work for'

407

When they occupy a non initial syllable, they are transparent to the harmony process. 1) They fail to alternate, remaining constantly [+ATR]; 2) They freely combine with both preceding and following [-ATR] vowels, as well as [+ATR] ones; 3) The harmonic value of the following vowels systematically correlates with the harmonic value of the preceding vowel. This is shown in (103). (103)

a.

-si motion toward de‹kk-si 'come and live' wax-si ‘come and say' -it residual ôox-it dOg-it

'residue' 'bit'

-i reversive wedd-I lEmm-i

'take out of leaning Position' 'unfold'

-u reflexive, passive se‹lm-u 'wash face' wat-u 'have haircut' lEtt-u 'braid hair' seet-u 'look in mirror'

408


b.

barigO 'barrel' kabinE 'toilet' ?addina 'world'

c.

tEkki-lEEn mOytu-lEEn watu-lEEn lettu-leen soobu-leen ge‹stu-leen ?ubbi-leen gimmi-leen

'untie' 'avoid' 'have haircut' 'braid hair' 'plunge' ‘research' 'open' 'open eyes'

The facts indicate that the harmony rule applies from left-to-right. Furthermore, the presence of neutral transparent vowels indicates that the harmony rule accesses only contrastive values. The logically unmarked value is the one that appears to the right of the transparent vowels. We have seen that only [+ATR] vowels follow the high vowels in initial position. Therefore, the unmarked feature value for harmonic [ATR] is [+ATR] and this value is underlyingly assigned to alternating vowels. The marked [-ATR] is spread by the rule in (104). (104)

Condition: Only contrastive feature specifications are accessed V V Direction: L-to-R.

[-ATR]

(Marked)

The high vowels whose [ATR] feature is non-contrastive will be skipped over by the harmony rule as discussed above. At the same time, the underlying unmarked feature specification [+ATR] will be appear in vowels following an initial high vowel as shown in (105).

Case studies

(105)

d X

i X

[+ A TR T ]

b X

e X

e X

r X

409

'Sunday'

[+ATR]

We can now consider the neutral opaque vowels. We begin with the long low vowels. Morphemes that contain [aa] may co-occur only with [-ATR] vowels.9 (106)

[kOntaan] [pErkaal] [paasE] [jaarO]

'be satisfied' 'percale' 'to iron' ‘ring'

*kontaan *perkaal *paase *jaro

Furthermore, when [aa] appears in a suffix, it does not alternate with a [+ATR] counterpart and all following vowels are [-ATR]. The vowels preceding [aa] do not change. (107)

door-aat-E genn-aalE

'to hit usually' *doortaale, * dOOrtaalE 'to go out also' *genn-aale, * gEnn-aalE

As observed in section 5.2 of this chapter, the model I am proposing disallows a system with a neutral transparent and a neutral opaque vowel at the same time. Wolof then is apparently an exception to the generalization I am proposing. The fact is that a true opaque vowel as analyzed in section 5.2 requires a rule that accesses all types of features. This is not the case of Wolof where the rule accesses only contrastive features. The behavior of the opaque vowel [aa] of Wolof is readily accounted for by assuming that the harmony rule of this language accesses only contrastive features. The non-contrastive feature is [+ATR] of the high vowels. In contrast the feature [-ATR] of the low vowels is contrastive insofar as the marking statement [+low, +ATR] is deactivated in Wolof, as shown by the fact that the [+ATR] counterpart of [a], i.e., [ë], appears in its inventory. If we assume that the harmony rule is that in (104), the feature [ATR] of the low vowel [aa] will be accessed and spread. Therefore, if the preceding vowel is [+ATR] as in (107) the harmony rule will not spread this feature, since it spreads only the feature [-ATR]. At the same time the

410


feature [-ATR] of [aa] will be spread in the next pass of the harmony rule. This is shown in (108) for the word door-aat-E 'to hit usually'. (108)

d o o r a a t X X X X X X X | | | [+cons] [-cons] [+cons] [-cons] [+cons] [-low]

[+low]

[+ATR]

e X | [-cons] [-low]

[-ATR]

[+ATR]

Rule (104) is triggered only by the [-ATR] of [aa]. (109)


[+low]

[+ATR]

e X | [-cons]

[-low]

[-ATR]

[+ATR]

We thus obtain (110). (110)


[+low]

[+ATR]

E X | [-cons] [-low]

[-ATR]

Before going on, we need to account for an important fact. Disharmonic roots with an initial high vowel are not possible. A root like *dibeer is not possible. Nothing excludes the existence of such a root given what was pro-

Case studies

411

proposed until now. Similarly disharmonic roots with vowel /aa/ in non initial position such as *kontaan, * perkaal are also excluded. If the harmony rule in (104) applies from left-to-right, we should expect such a possibility. Observe that we cannot simply assume that the rule in (104) applies bi-directionally in so far as such a rule would incorrectly spread the feature [-ATR] of suffixal [aa] onto the root vowel as in (111), contrary to the facts. (111)

*

d X

OO XX

r X

t X

[+ATR]

aa XX

[-ATR]

l X

E X

[+ATR]

I assume that the absence of roots such as * dibeer and *kontaan is due to a special property of the root. In particular, I propose the parameter in (112). (112)

A marked value for the harmonic feature in the root must be associated with the root initial position.

The parameter (112) sanctions the importance of the initial position in root harmony in languages such as Wolof. Given (112) in a root such as kOntaan we must have the representation in (113). In contrast, a representation such as that in (114) is excluded by (112). (113)

k X

O X

n X

t X

aa XX

n X

[-ATR] (114)

*k X

O X

[+ATR]

n X

t X

aa XX

[-ATR]

n X

412


A representation such as that in (115) is also excluded by (112) because the marked harmonic feature specification cannot be associated with the initial vowel because of the active marking statement *[+high, -ATR].

(115)

d X

i X

b X

[+ATR]

E X

E X

r X

'Sunday'

[-ATR]

A successful account of the harmonic properties of roots is thus achieved. Let us now consider the Wolof agentive suffix [-kat]. This suffix exceptionally fails to alternate, appearing as [-ATR] regardless of the root vocalism.

te‹gg-kat 'drummer' foot-kat 'launderer' ligeey-kat 'worker' togg-kat 'cook' jangale-kat 'teacher'

(116)

te‹gg-kat-am foot-kat-am ligeey-kat-am togg-kat-am jangale-kat-am

'his drummer' 'his launderer' 'his worker' 'his cook' 'his teacher'

Although this suffix fails to harmonize, its effect on following vowels is not arbitrary: they systematically surface as [-ATR]. The agentive suffix appears to spread its harmonic [-ATR] specification while appearing to be an exception to the harmony process. The low vowel of this suffix is obviously opaque. Given the analysis just proposed for long [aa] in suffixes, the only thing that must be said about the /a/ of /kat/ is that it is underlyingly specified as [-ATR] instead of the unmarked [+ATR]. This is the only feature that will be spread by the harmony rule as shown in (118). (117)

f X

o X

o X

t X | | [+cons] [-cons] [+cons] [-low]

k a t e‹ m X X X X X | | | | | [+cons] [-cons][+cons][-cons][+cons] [+low]

[+ATR]

[+low] [-ATR]

[+ATR]

Case studies

(118)

f

t X | | [+cons] [-cons] [+cons] X

o X

o X

413

k a t a m X X X X X | | | | | [+cons] [-cons][+cons][-cons][+cons]

[-low]

[+low] [+ATR]

[+low] [-ATR]

[+ATR]

All aspects of Wolof harmony system can therefore readily be accounted for. 5.3.3.

Yoruba Vowel Harmony

There must also be rules that spread both values of the same feature. An example of a language that has a rule of this type is Yoruba (see Pulleyblank 1988; Mohanan 1991; Pulleyblank 1996; Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1994). Yoruba has the [ATR] vowel system in (119).

i e E

(119)

a

u o O

The segment internal distribution of [ATR] in Yoruba can be described as follows: 1. Both [-ATR] and [+ATR] can occur in mid vowels; 2. Only [+ATR] can occur in high vowels; 3. Only [-ATR] can occur in low vowels. Formally we can account for the system in (119) by saying that only the marking statement (120a) is deactivated in Yoruba. Thus the feature specifications [+ATR] and [-ATR] are contrastive in [-high, -low] vowels. The marking statements in (120b) and (120c) are active. (120)

a. b. c.

[-high, +ATR] *[+high, -ATR] *[+low, +ATR]

Morpheme internal distribution of [ATR] in Yoruba is as follows: [+ATR] mid vowels cannot precede [-ATR] mid vowels (*[eE], *[eO],

414


*[oO], *[oE]); [-ATR] mid vowels cannot precede [+ATR] mid vowels (*[Ee], *[Eo], *[Oo], *[Oe]). Examples are given in (121). (121)

a.

+ATR ege 'dirge' eke 'lie' ese 'cat'

b.

-ATR EgE 'cassava' EkE 'forked stick' EsE 'row'

Also, [+ATR] mid vowels cannot precede [a] but may follow [a] (*[ea], *[oa], [ae], [ao]). [-ATR] mid vowels can both precede and follow [a] ([Ea], [Oa], [aE], [aO]). This is shown in (122). (122)

'witch' a. aƒE abErE 'needle' aSO 'cloth'

b. afe 'spotted grass-mouse' awo 'plate' adi 'palm-nut oil'

'food made from gari’ c. Eba Egba 'whip' Erakpo 'type of plant'

*eba *egba *erapo

Furthermore, both [-ATR] and [+ATR] mid vowels can precede final high vowels but only [+ATR] mid vowels can precede non-final high vowels. They can both follow high vowels ([eu], [ue], [Eu], [uE], [eu#], but *[Eu#]). Sample cases are given in (123) and (124). (123)

a. Ebi Etiri idE

'guilt' 'difficult' 'brass'

(124)

a. ebute ekute eriko

'harbour' b. elubO 'yam flour' 'house rat' erupke 'earth' 'part of a plant' ewurE 'goat'

c. *[E/O...[+high]...e/o]

b. ebi erigi ile

'hunger' 'molar tooth' 'house'

d. *[E/O…[+high]...E/O]

These observations hold not only morpheme internally, but also across morphemes in affixation.

Case studies

415

In Yoruba, there is no way to establish that one value for [ATR] is unmarked and the other is spread by rule. If we assume that [-ATR] is the unmarked feature, and [+ATR] is marked, we expect [-ATR] before neutral vowels. Thus we can account for why [-ATR] vowels appear before neutral [a] but cannot account for why [+ATR] vowels surface before neutral high vowels. If we opt for [+ATR] as unmarked, we expect [+ATR] vowels before neutral vowels. Hence we can account for the vowels preceding high vowels but we have a problem with what happens before the low vowel. The best analysis is the one given by Mohanan (1991). He proposes the following intuitive analysis of the facts in a framework that assumes fully specified representations: 1. Both values of [ATR] spread right-to-left; 2. Neither low nor [high] vowels undergo [ATR] spreading; 3. At the same time they trigger harmony; therefore, they are opaque neutral vowels; 4. The behavior of final vowels can be accounted for by assuming that final syllables with [+high] vowels are extraprosodic and, therefore, outside the scope of the harmony rule. The harmony process can now be formalized by assuming the rule in (125) accessing all types of features specifications. The rule in (125) spreads both [+ATR] and [-ATR]. (125)

Harmony rule. Condition: all ATR specifications are accessed. V V

[aATR]

[bATR]

(both feature values are spread)

In this language there are no neutral transparent vowels, so we cannot decide what is the logically unmarked value for the feature [ATR]. We have to assume that the underlying unmarked value for the harmonic feature is that established by the marking statements and robustness scale as discussed in section 5.1.2: [-ATR] for the mid vowels, [+ATR] for the high vowels and [-ATR] for the low vowel. Crucially the active constraints (120b) and (120c) are unrepairable and, therefore, can block the application of the harmony rule. I begin by considering what occurs when the target of [+ATR] spread is a [+low] vowel. Consider the input in (126).

416


(126)

Input E X [-cons]

r X [+cons]

[-low]

a X [-cons]

kp o X X [+cons] [-cons]

[+low]

[-ATR]

[-low]

[-ATR]

[+ATR]

Now spreading [+ATR] onto the preceding low vowel would create the configuration [+low, +ATR] that is disallowed by the active marking statement (120c). This constraint is unrepairable as assumed earlier, so the application of the harmony rule is blocked. (127)

E X [-cons]

r X [+cons]

[-low]

a X [-cons]


[+low]

[-ATR]

[-low]

[-ATR]

[+ATR]

Given that the harmony rule is iterative and accesses all types of feature specifications, the non-contrastive specifications [-ATR] of the low vowel will be spread in the next iterative pass as shown in (128) and (129). (128)

E X [-cons]

r X [+cons]

[-low]

a X [-cons]


[+low]

[-ATR]

[-low]

[-ATR]

[+ATR]

There is no problem with the output in (128). A successful account of this form is obtained. Let us now consider a case where the target of the harmony rule is

Case studies

417

a [+high] vowel. Consider the input in (129). (129)

E X [-cons]

[-low]

l X [+cons]

u X [-cons]

b X [+cons]

[+high]

[-ATR]

O X [-cons] [-low]

[+ATR]

[-ATR]

In the case of this form it is the active unrepairable constraint in (120b) that blocks the application of the harmony rule onto the high vowel. In fact spreading [-ATR] onto it would create the configuration [+high, -ATR] disallowed by this marking statement. (130)

E X [-cons]

[-low]

l X [+cons]

u X [-cons]

b X [+cons]

[+high]

[-ATR]

O X [-cons] [-low]

[+ATR]

[-ATR]

The next iterative pass of the harmony rule will spread the feature [+ATR] of the high vowel, as shown in (131). (131)

e X [-cons]

[-low]

l X [+cons]

u X [-cons]

[+high]

[-ATR]

b X [+cons]

O X [-cons] [-low]

[+ATR]

[-ATR]

Again as in the preceding case we have a fine output here. A simple account of the Yoruba harmony system is therefore achieved.

418


5.3.4. Vowel Harmony in Ogori We now investigate a vowel harmony system that allows neutral transparent vowels in the root but where all vowels undergo harmonic alternations in affixes. We will see that to account for what happens in affixes the harmony rule of this language must access all types of features and spread both values of the harmonic feature. This language is Ogori (Chumbow 1982). Ogori has the seven vowel system in (132) with an additional opposition in nasality which is not relevant for our analysis here. (132)

a.

b. high low back round ATR

i e E

a i + +

e +

E -

u o O a + + -

O + + -

o + + +

u + + + +

The characteristic feature of the Ogori system is the absence of low [+ATR] and high [-ATR] vowels. This indicates that the marking statements in (133a) and (133b) are active in this language, as in Yoruba. (133)

a. *[+low, +ATR] b.*[+high, -ATR]

In (134), (135) and (136), we see what happens in roots. Sequences of mid vowels must agree in the feature [ATR]. At the same time the high vowels and the low vowels can cooccur with all types of vowels. In particular, high vowels can co-occur with [-ATR] vowels (cf. fisE) and low vowels can co-occur with [+ATR] vowels (cf. be!fuwa). Also high and low vowels can co-occur together (again cf. be!fuwa].

Case studies

(134)

o~bo~ro~ ‘good’ roro! ‘think’ dz&e! ‘eat’ iŸ gbegbe$ ‘knife’ o!gbe$ ‘child’ fo! ‘die’

(135)

O!dO~ sOrE sE~ wO!rE! O!rO$⁄ O~t E!lE!

(136)

o!ji⁄ u!bo! i⁄ wu! u!wo!bigbe E~ba~ ti⁄ je!gu!ru! gu!ba~ si⁄ ja!rE!

419

‘axe’ ‘fry’ ‘hold’ ‘deceive’ ‘laughter’ ‘pot’ ‘rope’ ‘house’ ‘body’ ‘force’ ‘type of food’ ‘sing’ ‘help’ ‘play”

jO!ga~ fisE kpa!rE! be!fuwa~ mu!we! bila! fu!ra! ru!wa!

‘shout’ ‘disappear(caus.) ‘pluck’ ‘spoil ‘laugh’ ‘return’ ‘leave’ ‘divide’

Affixes always undergo harmonic alternations. Interestingly here the high vowels [i, u] alternate with [-ATR] mid-vowels [E, O] and the low vowel [a] with the mid [+ATR] vowel [e] (see Calabrese 1988 for evidence that the underlying vowels in these alternations are the high vowels and the low vowel respectively). Mid [-ATR] [O] alternates with mid [+ATR] [o]. These alternations are shown in (137)-(140). (137)

A B +ATR -ATR (i) i vs. E bi⁄ -bE biŸ bE~ tiŸ tE~ niŸ nE~

Examples of alternating affixes 1st pers. singular(I) infinitive marker 3rd pers. plur. 1st pers. plur. 2nd pers. plur.

420


de~kiŸ (ii)

da~kE~

e vs. e~ e Be eke me de~kiŸ

(iii)

a a~ a ba aka ma da~kE~

u vs. O tu~ tO~ nu~ nO~ mu~ mO~

habitual aspect incompletive aspect 3rd p. s.. sub. pron.. 3rd p. s. obj. pron. 3rd p. p. obj. pron. future aspect negation habitual aspect 2nd p. s. subj. pron. 1st p. p. obj.pron. 2nd p. p. obj. pron. 1st p. s. obj .pron.

Some sample forms involving the infinitive prefix [bi/bE-] are provided in (138). (138)

Verb su! di&⁄ mu!ne! si⁄je! ji%⁄

Infinitive ‘have’ ‘know’ ’run’ ‘do’ ‘buy’

Verb bi⁄su! bi⁄di%⁄ bi⁄mu!ne! bi⁄sije! biji%⁄

Infinitive jO! ‘go’ bE!jO! dz&O! ‘sell’ bE!dz&O! s&a! ‘come’ bE!s&a! wO!rE! ‘cheat’ bE!wO!rE! sE! ‘hold’ bE!s E!

The 3rd person singular subject pronoun exhibits the two alternating suffixes e~~ - a~ . (139)

e~-je! a~-nE! e~-roro! a~-kpO

‘he calls’ ‘he flings’ ‘he thinks’ ‘he climbs’

In (140) we have sample forms with object pronouns. They are suffixal morphemes and can also be attached to a preposition.

Case studies

(140)

mu!/mO! u!/ O e!/ a! tu!/tO! nu!/nO! be!/ba!

‘me’ ‘you(s.) ‘him’ ’us’ ‘you(p.) ’them’

tu~ru~to~-mu! ‘near me’ tu~ru~to~-u! ! ‘near you(s.) tu~ru~to~-e! ‘near him’ tu~ru~to~-tu! ‘near us’ tu~ru~to~-nu! !’near you’ tu~ru~to~-be! ‘near them’

421

nE~-mO ‘for me’ nE~-O~ ‘for you(s.)’ nE~-a~ ‘for him’ nE~-tO~ ’for us’ nE~-nO~ ‘for you(p.)’ nE~-ba~ ‘for them’

The behavior of affixes with roots that contains the vowels /i/, /u/ and /a/ is illustrated in (141). affixes display their [+ATR] alternant when the closest root vowel is /i/ or /u/ and their [-ATR] alternant when the closest vowel is /a/. (141)

b) * a~ a! fu!ra! a) e~ e! fu!ra! he - is - standing d) * bE~ ru~wa! tO! / * biŸ ru~wa! tu! c) biŸ ru~wa! tO! they - divide - us e) * nE si⁄j a!rE d) ni si⁄ja!rE! You (plur. ) - play

The Ogori facts can be accounted for as follows. (142)

Condition: I.

Only contrastive feature specifications are accessed in the stem cycle

II. All feature specifications are accessed at wordlevel. Rule: X

[ATR]

X

Bidirectional. Otherwise left-to-right in the case of ambiguity. Both values are spread.

Both feature specifications of [ATR] must be spread. Only adopting this rule can we account for why /a/ becomes [+ATR] [e] before [+ATR] vowels while at the same time /i, u/ become [-ATR] [E, O] before [-ATR] vowels. To account for the different behaviors of stems and affixes, we have to state that the rule in (142) applies cyclically. Whereas only contrastive features are accessed in the stem cycle, all types of features are

422


accessed at word level. Therefore, only the features [+ATR] and [-ATR] of mid vowels will be accessed by the rule in the stem cycle and the low and high vowels will be skipped as discussed for Kinande. At the word level, the rule is similar to that of Yoruba. However, differently than in Yoruba, the violations of the marking statements in (133a-b) are not unrepairable, therefore there is no blocking of the harmony rule. The harmony rule can thus creates violations of (133a-b) that will then be repaired. The relevant REPAIR sets are given in (143). (143)

a.

REPAIR set of MS *[+high, -ATR] in Ogori Deletion of [+high] REPAIR set of MS *[+low, +ATR] in Ogori Deletion of [+low]

b.

The affixal vowel will undergo the harmony rule at word level. All types of features will be available in this case, including the non contrastive [ATR] specifications of high and low vowels (cf. (144)). At the same time, all types of [ATR] specifications will undergo the rule, and thus mid, high and low vowels will all be targeted. Therefore, given a word such as [e~ e! fu!ra!} from /a~ - a! -fu!ra!/, we will have the following derivation. The input is given in (144). (144) Input a~ X | [-cons] [-high] [+low]

a X | [-cons] [-high] [+low]

[-ATR]

f u! X X | | [+cons] [-cons] [+high] [-low]

[-ATR]

r a! X X | | [+cons] [-cons] [-high] [+low]

[+ATR]

[-ATR]

No Harmony rule applies in the stem cycle insofar as the feature [+ATR] of the high vowel and [-ATR] of the low vowel are non contrastive. At the word level, the vowel harmony rule accesses all feature values, and, therefore, the feature [-ATR] of the low vowel and [+ATR] of the high vowel are spread by the rule. Crucially, one must assume that the strict cycle

Case studies

423

blocks stem-internal application of the word-level harmony rule. (145) a~ a f u! r a! X X X X X X | | | | | | [-cons] [-cons] [+cons] [-cons] [+cons] [-cons] [-high] [+low]

[-high] [+low]

[-ATR]

[+high] [-low]

[-ATR]

[-high] [+low]

[+ATR]

[-ATR]

In (145) a configuration violating (133a) is created. It is repaired by deleting the feature [+low] and replacing it with [-low], as shown in (146-147). (146)

a~ X| [-cons]

[-high] [+low]

a X | [-cons] [-high] Ø

f u! X X | | [+cons] [-cons]

r a! X X | | [+cons] [-cons]

[+high] [-low]

[-high] [+low]

[-ATR] (147)

a~ X| [-cons]

[-high] [+low]

[+ATR]

e X | [-cons] [-high]

[-ATR]

[-low]

f u! X X | | [+cons] [-cons] [+high] [-low]

[-ATR]

r a! X X | | [+cons] [-cons] [-high] [+low]

[+ATR]

[-ATR]

424


The surface form [e~ e! fu!ra} is obtained by the subsequent iterative application of the harmony which is then followed by a REPAIR identical to that in (146-147). The alternation [i/E] we observe in a prefix such as [bi/bE] in (124) is accounted as follows. Consider the form in (148). (148)

b X

i X-

[+cons][-cons]

[+cons]

dJ X [+cons]

O X [-cons]

[+high] [-low]

[-high] [-low]

[+ATR]

[-ATR]

If we spread the feature [-ATR] of the root onto the prefixal vowel, we obtain the illicit configuration [+high, -ATR] as shown in (149). (149)

b X

i X-

[+cons][-cons]

[+cons]

[+high] [-low]

dJ X [+cons]

O X [-cons] [-high] [-low]

[+ATR]

[-ATR]

This disallowed configuration is repaired by deleting the feature [+high] and replacing it with [-high]. We thus obtain (150)

Case studies

(150)

b X [+cons][-cons]

E X[+cons]

dJ X [+cons]

[-high] [-low]

425

O X [-cons] [-high] [-low]

[-ATR] Ogori facts are, therefore, now accounted for.

5.3.5.

Clements (2001)

Clements (2001) puts forth a model that accounts for the transparency of features without relying on underspecification theory. This model is in principle quite close to the feature visibility model proposed here and in Calabrese (1995). However, there are some important differences that I will discuss after outlining Clements’s model. Clements argues that the key to understand feature transparency involves having simplified phonological representations where all of the elements that do not play a role in the phonological analysis of a given language are eliminated. This is obtained by assuming that the phonological criterion in (151) governs phonological representations. (151)

Prominence Criterion. In any language, all and only prominent features and nodes are projected onto separate autosegmental tiers10

The effect of this principle is that tier projection is relativized to the system of each particular language. The notion of prominence unites several functional properties of features, all of which provide motivation for autosegmental representation. The more important of these are summarized below. (152)

Prominence An active feature value or node X is said to be prominent if it satisfies at least one of the following conditions: a. X is the argument in a constraint SPREAD(X), AGREE(X),or OCP(X)

426


b.

X is a floating feature

c.

X forms part of a monosegmental contour

d.

X constitutes a morpheme

Only active feature values can be prominent. According to Clements, a feature value is active in any segment or segment class that satisfies a term in a constraint mentioning that feature. For example, a constraint such as SPREAD ([NASAL]) will activate the feature [nasal] in all segments bearing it in their full phonological feature description. Since projected vs. nonprojected features differ in terms of their visibility to prominence-sensitive processes, the transparency of features is accounted for. (153)

Within any phonological level, a. prominent features will block long-distance spreading and OCP effects b. nonprominent features will be transparent to long-distance spreading and OCP effects

The interaction between Rendaku and Lyman's Law I discussed in section 5.1.1 above is accounted as follows in Clements' model. Rendaku is accounted for by assuming an abstract nasal element N as in (154). This abstract element N creates the right environment for the application of a process of postnasal voicing which applies both root-internally and across morpheme boundaries in Japanese. This process is accounted for by assuming the constraint in 156) (see Pater 1999) which triggers a repair inserting the feature [+voice]. (154)

/ori + N + kami/

(155)

a.

tombo s&indoi unzari kaNgae

b.

kam + te s&in + te

‘dragonfly’ ‘tired’ ‘disgusted’ ‘thought’

ori gami cf. cf. cf. cf.

kande ‘chewing’ s&inde ‘dying’

*tompo *s&intoi *unsari *kaNkae

Case studies

427

(156) *NT: *[+NASAL] [-VOICE, -SONORANT ] Lyman's Law involves the constraint in (157). (157)

OCP([+VOICE]) IN [-SONORANT]

The relevant ranking is that in (158). Thus violations of *NT are tolerated in order to avoid violations of OCP([+VOICE]) as in (159). (158)

OCP([+voice]) > *NT

(159)

onna + N + kotoba

onna kotoba

Now *NT activates [-voice] and [-sonorant] in voiceless obstruents. The constraint OCP ([+VOICE]) activates [+voice]. Furthermore, OCP ([+VOICE]) makes the feature [+voice] prominent and thus all occurrences of [+voice] are projected onto an independent voicing tier. Crucially, the negative value [-voice] is not prominent and so is not projected to the [voice] tier. It therefore remains transparent to the reach of OCP ([+voice]). Projection onto a separate autosegmental tier is essentially equivalent to the feature visibility spotlighting proposed in this work. They are to similar ways of identifying the set of feature specifications that is visible to phonological operations. However, Clements' analysis involves the crucial distinction between the constraint *NT which only activates the feature [voice] and the constraint OCP([+VOICE]) which activates and projects the feature [+voice]. Specifically, it is quite unclear why the first constraint should make feature specifications only active, while the second should make them both active and prominent. No fundamental distinction that can explain their different behavior with respect to prominence can be found, and Clements does not discuss any. Both constraints involve phonotactic configurations and may apply morpheme-internally or across morpheme boundaries. In (152), Clements just stipulates that constraints such as SPREAD(X), AGREE(X), or OCP(X) make their arguments prominent. Again it is unclear why these constraints should be able to do that. The impression is that the assignment of this property is just inherently arbitrary. Furthermore, observe that the pattern of specification and prominence are determined on a language specific basis depending on the constraints that play a role in that language, regardless of the structure of the inventory. The status of the feature specifications as unmarked or contrastive/non-contrastive does not matter. Thus in the example provided by

428


Clements, the feature [-voice] of obstruents is not projected and does not interfere with the action of the feature [+voice] because it is mentioned only in the constraint *NT that does not produce prominence. Everything depends on how we formulate the constraint in the language. For example, it is crucial that the post-nasal voicing is accounted for by the constraint *NT. If instead it were accounted for by SPREAD[+VOICE] (of the nasal onto the following obstruent), the feature [+voice] of the nasal would become prominent (i.e., it would be the argument of a prominence-producing constraint). But then the presence of a nasal would create a violation of Lyman's Law, contrary to what happens. Notice, furthermore, that it is fundamental that no other constraint such as SPREAD(X), AGREE(X), or OCP(X) targeting the feature [-voice] of obstruents is active in Japanese; otherwise, [-voice] would become prominent in obstruents. Now such a constraint is potentially present in Japanese: the constraint that accounts for the devoicing of vowels between voiceless obstruents or a voiceless obstruent and final position. This constraint is needed to account for facts like those in (160) (see Block 1950; Haraguchi 1977, 1984; Hasegawa 1979). Underlying vowels are voiced in Japanese. However, surface vowels of Japanese may be voiceless if they are preceded by voiceless consonants and followed by another voiceless consonant or a pause (see Hasegawa 1979) but not if they are followed by a voiced consonant. I propose the rule in (161) to account for this process. (160)

(161)

a. b.

masu## 'AUX (polite form) mazu## 'first of all' tikaku## 'near' tigaku#” 'physical geometry' X [-sons.]

N X [-cons]

## /

____ X [-son]

[-voice]

[+voice]

[-voice]

The presence of the rule in (161)—which involves SPREAD [-VOICE]— should make the feature [-voice] prominent and create problems for Clements' analysis.11 A further issue is that of accounting for the difference between opaque and transparent neutral vowels. In previous sections I argued that in the case of opaque vowels, all features and, in particular, the redundant

Case studies

429

harmonic feature of the neutral opaque vowel is accessed by the harmony rule blocking spreading. Restating this in Clements' approach is difficult. In fact, we need to say that the harmonic feature of the opaque vowel projects onto the harmonic tier while that of a transparent vowel does not. It is unclear how to obtain this difference in Clements' model. Let us turn back to the feature visibility model I proposed in the preceding sections. It is important to stress that this model is quite restrictive. The representations that are checked and repaired by the constraints are universally fixed and undergo only variations due to active marking statements. The notions of contrastive and marked are independently needed and universally fixed. It follows that the range of units that can be checked and in particular disregarded is extremely limited and follows from the independently motivated principles of markedness theory. The criticism that my model is "extremely powerful" as Clements (2001) puts it is not valid in my opinion. A possible problem for my theory arises from the fact that by allowing processes that access all types of features to be freely ordered with respect to processes accessing contrastive features, one expects all types of interactions among constraints. Thus, in principle, a constraint accessing all feature specifications could be checked before a constraint accessing only contrastive feature specifications, since visibility is a property of constraints, not of levels of representation. Undoubtedly this adds extra-power to the system. One could constrain it by disallowing the checking of constraints accessing all types of features before the checking of constraints accessing marked or contrastive features. This could be obtained by introducing a principle stating that lexical constraints cannot access noncontrastive feature values. This may be a correct move. However, one must at least allow the ordering in which constraints targeting contrastively unmarked values are checked before constraints targeting marked values. For example, let us consider coronal assimilation as discussed in Calabrese (1995): coronals are cross-linguistically the targets of place assimilation processes in which they acquire the place of the marked velar and labial consonants. Such a process is typically accounted for by a constraint accessing only marked features: the marked velar and labial features are accessed and spread by the process, whereas the unmarked coronal is not accessed and succumbs in it. Now in English, such a constraint coexists with other constraints that access the unmarked coronal place and must be checked at earlier stages of the phonological derivation (e.g. the constraints governing the distribution of coronals in clusters). Clements objects that there is nothing special in a process targeting only coronal segments; there

430


are also assimilation processes actually targeting other places of assimilation such as the velar ones, and in this case we do not say that the velars are unmarked. The fact, however, is that coronals are the most common targets of assimilation processes and this fact needs to be explained. In feature visibility theory, this fact is explained by correlating it with the fact that coronals also involve the unmarked place of articulation, a property that is independently motivated, a nice result. There is a price that must be paid to obtain this result, however: we must allow situations in which the checking of constraints accessing all feature specifications —including unmarked ones—is ordered before the checking of constraints accessing only marked feature specifications.

5.4.

For a Definition of Contrastive Feature Specification

5.4.1.

Basic Procedure

The notion of contrastive feature is fundamental in the analysis proposed here. It is important to have a clear procedure of how contrastive features are established. Dresher (2002) proposed one such procedure. Here I discuss Clements' (2001) reformulation of it that is simpler than that proposed by Dresher, but still captures Dresher's insights perfectly. This procedure assumes that contrasts are established by looking at the universal hierarchy of feature robustness introduced earlier (see section 2. 5.1.2). I will illustrate the Dresher-Clements procedure by looking at contrastive specifications in vowels systems. The robustness hierarchy for vowel features is given in (162). (162)

low high back round ATR

Clements (2001) reformulation of Dresher's algorithm for establishing distinctive features (see Dresher et alii 1995; Dresher 2002 and Ghini 2001) is given in (163).

For a definition of contrastive feature specification

(163)

a.

431

In the initial state, all sounds are assumed to be variants of a single phoneme. If the set is found to have more than one phoneme, a binary distinction is made of one out of the universal set of distinctive features; this cut divides the inventory into a marked set and an unmarked set. Repeat step (b) in each set, dividing each remaining set until all distinctive sounds have been differentiated.

b.

c.

Crucially the distinctions are made following the feature robustness hierarchy in (162). The distinction in vowel features can then be represented in the form of the branching tree shown in (164). The tree is rooted in a simple vowel bearing no feature other than [-consonantal]. Each lower level node represents a segment class defined by the features developed up to that point. (164) [-cons]

V

[low]

A

I

[high]

I

[back] [Rd]

œ

A

Å

[ATR]

U

A

U

A a

E

u

I

I

ü

U

O I

i

E

´

O I

o

O

Ø

e

E

E

Contrastive feature specifications are then established in the following way: passing down the hierarchy of feature accessibility one step at a time, all and only the feature specifications are entered that are needed to distinguish one phoneme from another. Thus top-down branching in (164) indicates a presence of a contrast. The systems in (165) then have the contrastive feature specifications in (166) (the superscript c indicates that a feature specification is contrastive). (165)

a. b.

i i

E u‹

a O u E a

O

V

I u

432


(166)

a. low high back round

i -c +c -c -

E -c -c -c -

a +c + -

O -c -c +c +

+c +c +

b. low high back round

i -c +c -c -c

u‹ -c +c -c +c

E -c -c -c -c

-c -c -c +c

a +c + -

u -c

O -c -c +c +c

V -c -c +c -c

I

u

c

-c c

+ +c -c

+c +c +c

The contrastive specifications in (166a) and (166b) are those expected. Problems for the Dresher-Clements procedure arise when we consider vowels where the feature values for [back] and [round] do not match, but do not have all the range of mismatches in (166b). In particular consider the vowel harmony systems of languages like Finnish and Hungarian that have front rounded vowels, but not back unrounded vowels. In these systems the feature specification [-back] of the front rounded vowels is contrastive but not that of front unrounded vowels (see (167a)). This is shown by the fact that the feature [-back] of the front unrounded vowels does not participate in palatal harmony. The algorithm in (162), however, predicts the pattern of specification in (167) insofar as the feature [round] is branching in the front vowels but not in the back vowels. In (167), the feature [back] of the front unrounded vowels is contrastive contrary to what one finds in those languages. (167)

(167)

a.

b. low high back round

i E

u‹ i -c +c -c -c

a u‹ -c +c -c +c

u O E -c -c -c -c

-c -c -c +c

a +c -

O -c -c +c +

u -c +c +c +

To obtain the correct result, we have to invert the positions of the features in the robustness hierarchy as in (168).


(168)

433

low high round back ATR

We then get (169). (169)

i low -c high +c round - c back -

u‹ -c +c +c -c

E -c -c -c -

-c -c +c -c

a +c + -

O -c -c +c +c

u -c +c +c +c

Observe now that the feature [round] is always contrastive in nonlow vowels. But this is at variance with the evidence we discussed in section 5.1.2 above from languages with rounding harmony. In these languages, there is in fact evidence that the feature [+round] of back rounded vowels in systems such as (167a) is transparent to [round] harmony and therefore non contrastive in that context. Notice that the languages with rounding harmony I discussed in section 5.1.2 are also characterized by palatal vowel harmony. In many of them, the front rounded vowels are neutral transparent and thus require the specifications in (167b). A paradox then arises. The Dresher-Clements' procedure simply fails in cases like these. A different strategy to establish contrastive feature specifications is needed. This is what I will attempt in the remainder of this section. Consider when contrast occurs. Contrast is established by considering the distinctions that are created in a given formal space produced by feature combinations. (170)

i.

The feature [F] is contrastive in the context of the feature specification [G], iff [F] subdivides [G].

ii.

[F] subdivides [G] if the set of segments characterized by [G] contains both a subset characterized by [F] and a subset characterized by [-F].

The system of contrast of the high vowels in (171) can be represented formally by using feature branching as shown in (172).

434


(171) [back] [round] (172)

i -

[back] [round]

u‹ +

I + -

u + +

+ +

-

+

-

In (172) [round] subdivides [-back] and [+round]; hence it is contrastive in the context of both feature specifications. This is essentially what is proposed in the Dresher-Clements' theory. But, as noted above, to establish the relation of contrast between these two features we also need to consider the distribution of the feature [back] in the context of [round] specifications as in (173). In a system like that in (171), not only [round] is contrastive in the context of [-back] and [+back], but also [back] is contrastive in the context of [-round] and [+round]. (173)

[round] [back]

+ +

-

+

-

To better represent the contrast relationship between two features I propose to merge the diagrams in (172) and (173) as in (174) (174)

[back]

+

-

[round]

+

-

Lines indicate cooccurrence of features. In (174) features are subdivided not only downwards, but also upwards. Thus, not only [round] subdivides—and is contrastive in the context of—[-back] and [+back] as in (172), but also [back] subdivides—and is contrastive in the context of—[round] and [+round] as in (173). Thus given (170) we have the following contrastive assignments in (174). (175)

[round] is contrastive in the context of [+back] [round] is contrastive in the context of [-back] [back] is contrastive in the context of [+round] [back] is contrastive in the context of [-round]


435

In terms of a diagram such as that in (174), a feature becomes non contrastive when we eliminate a line, i.e., when we remove a combination of feature specifications. Suppose that the combination [+back, -round] is not possible as in the system in (176).

i -

(176) [back] [round]

u‹ +

u + +

We obtain (177). (177)

[back]

+

-

[round]

+

-

In (177), [round] is contrastive in the context of [-back] and [back] is contrastive in the context of [+round]—[round] subdivides [-back], and [back] subdivides [-round]. However [back] does not subdivides [-round]. Only [-back] co-occurs with [-round]. In this case the feature [-back] is non-contrastive as defined in (178). This is also true for [+round] with respect to [+back]. In (179), the non-contrastive feature specifications are pointed by an arrow). (178)

i.

ii.

(179)

A feature specification [F] is non-contrastive in the context of a feature specification [G] iff [G] implies [F]. A feature specification [G] implies a feature specification [F] if the set of segments characterized by [G] contains a subset characterized by [F] but not a subset characterized by [-F].

[back] [round]

+ +

-

From (179), we derive the following statements.

436


(180)

[round] is contrastive in the context of [+back] [back] is contrastive in the context of [-round] [+round] is non-contrastive in the context of [+back] [-back] is non-contrastive in the context of [-round]

The vowels in (176) are also characterized by the feature [high]. For the sake of the analysis, I consider only the combination of the feature specification [+high] with the feature [back] and [round]. (181) [high] [back] [round]

i + -

u‹ + +

u + + +

The diagram in (182) corresponds to (181). (182)

[high]

+

-

[back]

+

-

[round]

+

-

In (182) the feature [back] is contrastive in the context of the feature specification [+high]. This is stated in (183) that should be added to the other statements in (181). (183)

[back] is contrastive in the context of [+high]

According to (183), the feature [-back] should be contrastive in the combination [+high, -back, -round] of [i]. This is not the case in so far as [-round] implies [-back] also in this context. I assume the principle in (184). (184)

If a contrastive feature implies another contrastive feature, the implied feature is non contrastive.

Now consider the contrastive structure of a system like that in (185) where the feature combination [-back, +round] is missing:


(185) [high] [back] [round]

i + -

437

u + + +

The diagram associated with (185) is (186). (186)

[high]

+

-

[back]

+

-

[round]

+

-

In (186) there is a biunivocal relationship between the feature specifications of [back] and [round]. The feature [+back] implies [+round], but at the same time, the feature [+round] implies [+back]. In the same way, the feature [-back] implies [-round] but also [-round] implies [-black]. A situation of ambiguity occurs. In a system such as that in (185) the structure of the diagram does not allow us to decide which feature is contrastive and which one is noncontrastive. I propose that in situation like this the notion of markedness plays a role. In particular I propose that that in a situation like that in (186) the feature specifications [+round] and [-round] are noncontrastive because the feature [round] is marked with respect to [back] as defined in section 5.1.2. Their values are expected as unmarked in a system like that in (185). This intuition can be developed further by referring to marking statements and prohibitions in the definition of contrast. For simplicity sake, I will use the term active constraint to refer to both active marking statements and prohibitions. In the system in (171) no active constraint governs the cooccurrence of the feature [back] and round] so that they are contrastive in all of their combinations. Now consider the system in (176). It is obtained by activating the constraint *[+back, -round] which blocks the cooccurrence between the features [+back] and [-round]. As shown by the diagram in (177), given the active constraint *[+back, -round], it follows that [+back] implies [+round] and [-round] implies [-back]. Therefore [+round] is non contrastive in the context of [+back] and [-back] is non contrastive in the context of [-round]. If we also activate *[-back, +round] as in (185), the reverse implications also hold: [+round] implies [+back] and [-back] implies [-round] as in the diagram in (186). We thus have a

438


biunivocal relationship between feature specifications and we have to look at the markedness status of features. I formalize this procedure as follows. (187)

i.

ii.

Given an active constraint *[F, G] in a system S, [-G] is noncontrastive in the context of [F], and [-F] is noncontrastive in the context of [G]; if *[F, G] and [-F, -G] are active in S, [-G] is noncontrastive in the context of [F] and [G] is noncontrastive in the context of [-F] where [G] is marked with respect to [F].

To establish the contrastive status of features in a system, the following steps can be followed. (188)

i. ii. iii. iv.

Given a system S, assume that all feature specifications are contrastive. Determine the constraints that are active in S. Determine the noncontrastive feature specifications as established by (187). Remove noncontrastive specifications from S.

For example, consider the simplified system in (181) with the contrastive assignments in (189). (189) [high] [back] [round]

i +c -c -c

u‹ +c -c +c

u +c +c +c

The marking statement *[+back, -round] is active in (187). Therefore [+round] is non contrastive in the context of [+back] and [-back] is non contrastive in the context of [-round]. We remove these feature specifications from (189) and we obtain (190). (190) [high] [back] [round]

i +c -c

u‹ +c -c +c

u +c +c +


439

We can now look at some actual vowel systems. The relevant marking statements and prohibitions are those proposed above and in Chapter 2, Section 2.2.4; they are repeated as (191). (191)

Marking statements: *[-low , -high] *[-high, +ATR] *[+low, -back] *[-back, +round] *[+high, -ATR] *[+back, -round]/[__ , -low] *[+low, +round] *[+low, +ATR] Prohibition: *[+high, +low]

In the case of the standard three vowel system in (192) we start with the assignments in (193). I omit the feature [ATR] for simplicity sake. It will be discussed later: (192)

i

(193) low high back round

a

u

i -c +c -c -c

u -c +c +c +c

a +c -c +c -c

In the system in (192) all of the constraints in (191) are active. The situation in (187ii) is found in the case of the constraints *[-back, +round], *[+back, -round]/[_, -low] and of the constraints *[+low, +high], *[-low, high]. The feature [high] is marked with respect to [low] and [round] is marked with respect to [back]. The noncontrastive assignments in (194) then follow: (194)

[-high] is noncontrastive in the context of [+low] [+high] is noncontrastive in the context of [-low] [+round] is noncontrastive in the context of [+back] [-round] is noncontrastive in the context of [-back]

440


The situation in (187i) is found in the case of the constraints *[+low, back], *[+low, +round]. We thus obtain the statements in (195) (195)

[+back] is noncontrastive in the context of [+low]] [-round] is noncontrastive in the context of [+low] [-low] is noncontrastive in the context of [-back] [-low] is noncontrastive in the context of [+round]

By removing the noncontrastive assignments from (193) we derive (196).12 (196)

i + -c -

low high back round

u -c + +c +

a +c + -

If we add mid-vowels to the system in (192) by deactivating the marking statement *[-low, -high] (see (197)), we have the following statements. (197)

(198)

i E

a

u O

[-high] is noncontrastive in the context of [+low] [-low] is noncontrastive in the context of [+high] [+round] is noncontrastive in the context of [+back] [-round] is noncontrastive in the context of [-back] [+back] is noncontrastive in the context of [+low]] [-round] is noncontrastive in the context of [+low] [-low] is noncontrastive in the context of [-back] [-low] is noncontrastive in the context of [+round]

We thus get the feature assignments in (199).


i +c -c -

(199) low high back round

u +c +c +

E -c -c -

O -c -c +c +

441

a +c + -

Let us take the five vowel system in (197) and deactivate *[-back, +round]. The result is the vowel system in (200). (200)

i E

u‹ O‹ a

u O

The active marking statements in (201) characterize (200). (205)

Marking statements: *[+low, -back] *[+back, -round]/[__ , -low] *[+low, +round] Prohibition: *[+high, +low]

We have the following statements. (202)

[-high] is non-contrastive in the context of [+low] [-low] is non-contrastive in the context of [+high] [+round] is non-contrastive in the context of [+back] [-back] is non-contrastive in the context of [-round] [+back] is non-contrastive in the context of [+low]] [-round] is non-contrastive in the context of [+low] [-low] is non-contrastive in the context of [-back] [-low] is non-contrastive in the context of [+round]

We thus get the feature assignments in (203). (203) low high back round

i +c -c

u‹ +c -c +c

E -c -c

-c -c +c

a +c + -

O -c -c +c +

u +c +c +

442


This is the system that was problematic for the Dresher-Clements procedure. In the model proposed here it does not create any problem. The correct contrastive assignments are instead obtained. Now consider what happens when we also consider the feature [ATR]. The relevant marking statements are those in (204). (204)

a. b. c.

*[-high, +ATR] *[+high, -ATR] *[+low, +ATR]

If we do not deactivate any of these marking statements, we get the system in (205). (205)

i E

a

u O

Given that (204a) and (204b) are both active, the feature [high] and [ATR] are in a biunivocal relation. [ATR] is marked with respect to [high]. From (187ii) we then get the statements in (206). (206)

The feature [-ATR] is non-contrastive in the context of [+low]. The feature [-ATR] is non-contrastive in the context of [-low, -high]. The feature [+ATR] is non-contrastive in the context of [+high]. The feature [-low] is non contrastive in the context of [+ATR].

Thus we have the following contrastive assignments where [ATR] is always noncontrastive (206) low high back round ATR

i +c -c +

u +c +c + +

E -c -c -

O -c -c +c + -

a +c + -

If we deactivate the marking statement *[-high, +ATR], the feature [ATR] becomes contrastive in the mid-vowels. (187i) states that the feature [-high]


443

is noncontrastive in the context of [-ATR], and that [-low] is noncontrastive in the context of [+ATR]. (207) low high back round ATR

i +c -c +

u +c +c + +

e -c -c +c

o -c +c + +c

E -c -c

O -c +c + -c

a +c + -

If we deactivate the marking statement *[+high, -ATR], the feature [ATR] becomes contrastive in the context of the high-vowels. Again, (187i) redundantly requires that [-low] is noncontrastive in the context of [+ATR]. (208) low high back round ATR

i +c -c +c

u +c +c + +c

È +c -c -c

Ë +c +c + -c

e -c -c +c

o -c +c + +c

E -c -c -c

O -c +c + -c

a +c + -

Finally the feature [ATR] becomes contrastive in the context of the low vowels, once we deactivate *[+low, +ATR]. (209) low high back round ATR 5.4.2.

i +c -c +c

u +c +c + +c

È +c -c -c

Ë +c +c + -c

e -c -c +c

o -c +c + +c

E -c -c -c

O -c +c + -c

a +c + -c

A +c + +c

Contrastiveness and Accidental Gaps

According to the theory proposed here, the identification of the minimal pairs characterizing a language not only determines the system of phonemes characterizing it but also establish which marking statements are active or deactivated in it. One could assume that the identification of the phoneme inventory and of its structural arrangement would be enough to establish the system of contrasts. As a matter of fact, in most phonological

444


theories, the contrastiveness of a given feature specification is a function of its predictability in the structural arrangement of the segments in that language, in particular of the position of the segment characterized by this feature specification in this structural arrangement. For example, the feature [+back] of a low vowel is predictable in the triangular vowel system /i, u, a/ because of the position of /a/ in the structural arrangement of the vowels composing that system. In the theory proposed here, however, the contrastiveness of feature specifications is established in another way. In this theory, the structure of a phonological inventory is simply a by-product of the process of deactivating the marking statements for the given language. The phonological distinctions present in a language result from the pattern of the marking statements deactivation characterizing that language. It is natural then to hypothesize that the contrastiveness of a feature specification can be established by looking at which marking statements are deactivated and which are still active in it, as displayed by the diagrams discussed above. It is possible to show that this is the adequate way of dealing with the problem. Consider Russian voicing assimilation (see Jakobson 1956, 1978; Halle and Vergnaud 1981; Hayes 1984; Kiparsky 1985 and Calabrese 1988, 1995). Russian has the following underlying consonantal inventory, where each phoneme may also have a palatalized variant (given that the distinction between palatalized/nonpalatalized consonants in Russian does not have any bearing on the following discussion, I have omitted it in (210)). (210)

p b

f m w13

t d ts s z n l r

tS S J

k g

x

y

Let us consider the distribution of the feature [voice] in this system. As mentioned earlier, the following two marking statements govern the distribution of this feature.


(211)

a. b.

445

*[-sonorant, +voice] *[+sonorant, -voice]

Given the presence of /b, d, g/ in (210), we know that the marking statement (211a) is deactivated in Russian. We also know that the marking statement (211b) is not deactivated, since there are no underlying voiceless sonorants in Russian. The diagram characterizing the system in (208) is therefore that in (212). (212)

[Consonantal]

+

[Sonorant]

+

-

[voice]

+

-

Given what was discussed above, we arrive at the following contrastive feature specifications for the feature [voice] in Russian consonants. (213) [sonorant] [voice]

p -c

t k b d g ts tS f s S x - - - - - - - - - - -c -c +c +c +c -c -c -c -c -c -c

z J m n l r w y - - + + + + + + +c +c + + + + + +

The feature [+voice] and its opposite [-voice] of the obstruent consonants are contrastive. The feature [+voice] of sonorants, however, is not contrastive. The fact that [voice] is non contrastive in the case of [-sonorant], but not in the case of [+sonorant] is due to the fact that the marking statement in (211a), but not that in (211b), is deactivated. The issue is the status of the feature specification [-voice] in the case of the obstruents /f, x, ts, tS/. If only the structural arrangement of the system were considered, this feature should be non-contrastive in their feature bundle as in (214). (214) p t k b d g ts tS f s S x z J m n l r w y [sonorant] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + + + [voice] -c -c-c +c ++c - - - -c -c - +c +c + + + + + + The [-voice] specification of /f, x, ts, tS/ is, in fact, predictable since these segments do not have any voiced counterpart.

446


However, there is clear evidence that only the assignments in (213) are correct. We find this evidence if we consider Russian voicing assimilation. In Russian, all members of an obstruent cluster assimilate in voicing to the last obstruent word-internally as well as across words. A case of word-internal voicing assimilation is illustrated in (215a), and a case of word-sequence voicing assimilation in (215b), with the prepositions ot ‘from’ and bez ‘without’, which contrast in voicing before vowels, but lose this contrast before obstruents. (215)

a. gorod + k + a

gorotka ‘little town’

‘from a lake’ b. ot ozera ot strasti ‘from passion’ ot Pragi ‘from Prague’ ot ptits ‘from birds’ od banka ‘from a bank’ od grexa ‘from a sin’ od bdenija ‘from a vigil’

bez ozera ‘without a lake’ bes strasti ‘without passion’ bes Pragi ‘without Prague’ bes ptits ‘without birds’ bez banka ‘without a bank’ bez grexa ‘without a sin’ bez bdenija ‘without a vigil’

Sonorant consonants do not trigger voicing assimilation, as illustrated in the forms in (216). (216)

pesn’ ‘song’ z&izn’ ‘life’

tri ‘three’ travá ‘grass’ drová ‘wood’

Furthermore, sonorant consonants allow voicing assimilation to apply across them. In other words, they are transparent to voicing assimilation, as in (217). (217)

ot nravov ‘from morals’ ot Mtsenska ‘from Mtsensk’ ot mstitel· nosti ‘from vindictivness’ od mglI ‘from fog’ ‘from the liar’ od lguni

bez nravov ‘without morals’ bes Mtsenska’without Mtsensk’ bes mstitel· nosti ‘without vindictiveness’ bez mglI ‘without fog’ bez lguni ‘without the liar’

The behavior of sonorants indicates that voicing assimilation is sensitive only to contrastive feature specifications. I assume that the rule of voicing


447

assimilation is the following. (218)

a. b.

Access only contrastive feature specifications X .. W.. X where w must not contain root root a syllabic head laryng.

laryng.

voice

voice

(218) applies right to left

With rule (218), it is possible to account for cases like [bes ptits] and [od bdeniya]. These two word sequences are underlyingly represented as in (219). I consider only the [voice] tier.. (219)

a.

b e z X X X | | | [+vc.] [+vc] [+vc.]

b.

o X | [+vc.]

p X | [-vc.]

t b d e X X X X | | | | [-vc.] [+vc.] [+vc.] [+vc]

t i X X | | [+vc] [-vc.]

ts X | [-vc.]

n i y a X X X X | | | | [+vc] [+vc] [+vc] [+vc]

Rule (218) accesses only the contrastive feature specifications in (220). (220)

a.

b)

b e X X | [+vc.] o X

z X | [+vc.]

t b d X X X | | | [-vc.] [+vc.] [+vc.]

p t X X | | [-vc.] [-vc] e X

n X

i X

ts X | [-vc.]

i X

y X

a X

Rule (218) can apply in the sequences [z pt], [t bd], since the consonants are not separated by any syllabic peak. Therefore, (220a) and (220b) are changed into (221a) and (221b), respectively, which gives the correct re-

448


sults. (221)

a.

b.

b e X X | [+vc.] o X

[s] X

[d] b d X X X | | [+vc.][+vc.]

p t X X | | [-vc.] [-vc] e X

n X

i X

ts X | [-vc.]

i X

y X

a X

In this way, the forms [bes ptits] and [od bdeniya] are accounted for. Now consider the sonorants. Rule (218) is sensitive only to contrastive features; therefore the feature specification of sonorants is not visible to the rule. Thus, in the case of the phrases ot nravov ‘from moral’ and bes mstitel’nosti ‘without vindictiveness’, the rule is sensitive only to the feature specification [ voice] of the obstruent as represented in (222). (222)

a.

o X | [+vc]

b.

t X | [-vc]

b X | [+vc]

e X

n X

r X

[s] X

a X

m X

v X

o X

v X

s t i X X X | | | [-vc] [-vc]

t X | [-vc]

e X |

l X |

We can now explain why the sonorants are nontriggers in (252a) and transparent in (252b). Now, if the assignments in (214) were correct, we should expect that /f, ts, tS, x/ would behave as sonorants do with respect to voicing assimilation. They should not trigger the voicing assimilation rule, since their feature specification [-voice] is characterized as non-contrastive in (214). However, this is not correct. The segments /f, ts, tS, x/ behave like all other obstruents and trigger voicing assimilation, specifically spreading [-voice], as in (253).


(223)

bes bes bes bes

forsa xleba tsenI tSesti

449

‘without a swagger’ ‘without bread’ ‘without price’ ‘without honor’

This is what is predicted by the assignments in (213). Notice that the absence of the voiced counterpart of /f, x, ts, tS/ is just an accidental gap of the Russian phonological system as there is no plausible and general marking statement that can target these segments while allowing /z. J/. This result shows that that the structural arrangement of segments due to accidental gaps does not play a role in establishing contrastiveness. Only systematic gaps, i.e., those predicted by true marking statements, play a role. Other evidence that accidental gaps in a system play no role in the determination of what is contrastive was given above in the discussion of Wolof. 5.5.

Summary

In this chapter, I investigated harmony processes and neutral segments. It was proposed that the most adequate account for both harmony processes and neutral vowels must be set in terms of Visibility Theory, the idea that instructions may be so specified as to see only contrastive or marked features disregarding all other features. I showed that the properties of neutral segments in harmony processes can be derived from Visibility Theory and the hypothesis that the underlying representations of alternating suffixes are assigned the unmarked value of the harmonic feature while the harmony rule spreads the marked value.

Conclusions: Afterthoughts on Optimality Theory

Urbes constituit aetas, hora dissolvit. Momento fit cinis, diu silva" SENECA, NATUR. QUEST. 3. 27. 2 I have reached the end of this book and I feel the vanity of the days I spent with it. My work has taken its shape and begins its own journey like an ephemeral spark glimmering on the fugacious waves that ripple the eternal ocean of existence. I have tried to do my best in putting together the thoughts and ideas on phonology I had in the past ten years and in expressing them with words. I hope to have at least partly succeeded. The scrutiny of the linguistic community—if there will be any—will decide. A last duty, however, remains now that the last page comes close. A theoretical specter has been lurking behind all the pages of this book poking its head up here and there, Optimality Theory. It is time to face it and exorcise it. This exorcism will be divided into two parts. In the first part I will deal with my own emotional response towards that theory; in the second—more rational—part I will discuss some of my theoretical objections against it. I have to confess that my rejection of OT has been visceral since the beginning (but I am a sinner too (see Preface)). When I started reading the OT literature I felt that as an OT linguist I would be behaving like one of the lesser gods of the Gnostic tradition who, having lost the divine spark and having fallen in the dark world of matter, exist only to fight the numinous higher god. In OT this god is GEN, the "Deus Absconditus," the hidden powerful creator of the phonological string. Like one of those lesser gods, the OT linguist must prevent the divine power of GEN from giving shape to the word. But the lesser god, trying to escape the divine light, cannot stop creation. His curse is that his action can occur only after creation has already happened. In a never-ending negative action, each creature must be killed: This is not to be! But the power of the creator is always too strong. Creation always wins. And the lesser god remains there still, anguished and defeated, planning his next diabolic1 action to negate creation.

452

Conclusions

Because of my nature I prefer to side with the good god, the god of creation, not with the god of denial. For me it is better to create and resolve according to an intelligent design than to purge what already exists by denying it. Most of the linguists around me adopted OT, but I resisted. I could not accept its abysmal negativity. This was my feeling towards OT. But obviously feelings must be overcome if a theory is right. Unfortunately I believe that OT is not right. Now I will consider some of the reasons for this belief of mine. A grammar in Optimality Theory (OT) involves a languageparticular ranking of universal constraints (Prince and Smolensky 1993) where there are two types of constraints: the markedness constraints, which prohibit certain output configurations, and the faithfulness constraints, which block certain input->output mappings. Phonological generalizations are expressed by the interaction, through ranking, of these constraints. Thus in OT a process /A/B/ C__D is characterized in the following way (from McCarthy (2000)): (1)

a.

b. c.

Some markedness constraint *CAD dominates any faithfulness constraint F(A-/->B) that would block the AB mapping; No markedness constraint that CBD violates is ranked above *CAD; and for all XB, there is some faithfulness constraint F(A-/->X) or some markedness constraint*CXD that dominates F(A-/->B).

By comparing (1) to other possible ways of dealing with the notion of phonological process (cf. rules or repairs), we would conclude that it is unnecessarily complicated in OT. However, OT proponents claim that by this complex decomposition of the notion of a phonological ‘process’ ‘deeper levels of explanatory adequacy can be reached in phonology’ (Prince and Smolensky 1993). In particular, this complex decomposition is claimed to achieve results such as the following (from Roca (1997)): (2)

i. ii. iii.

To account for conspiracy effects across languages. To unify the Theory of Grammar since constraints are also necessary under rule-and-derivation approaches. To provide a direct formal framework for representing universality and markedness, because both GEN and the constraints are assumed to be universal and related to

Afterthoughts on Optimality Theory

453

markedness. The fact is that to achieve results such as those in (2), we do not need OT and the complexities of (1). In Chapter 1 and 2, we have seen that conspiracies can be accounted for by using constraints and repairs. Notice that this can be done in a model like the one presented here which is quite traditional in including derivations and rules. An account of conspiracy effects is not an exclusive OT prerogative.2 The same is true for markedness effects which were the topic of theory of markedness provided in the previous chapters (but see also Calabrese (1995). Furthermore, in Chapter 1, we have also seen that concrete synchronic grammars are the final product of the idiosyncratic cumulation of historical changes that may lead to idiosyncratic processes that can only be analyzed by language-specific rules. This is enough to show that the unification of Grammar as a set of ranked constraints is an impossible task. In Chapter 1 and 2, I have also argued that if we interpret grammar in procedural terms, the unification of the formalism is a misguided goal: we need both rules and constraints as necessarily different types of instructions. What remains then is only the formal complexity of an OT analysis: each phonological process needs to be decomposed into at least five constraints, as discussed above. These five constraints can be freely ranked. This results in 120 possible ranking permutation. Each process is part of a factorial typology including the other 119 members. Thus each process must be included in a large conspiracy with many related processes. Everyone who studies languages knows that this is not the way in which language works. The known conspiracies are few: the hiatus conspiracy discussed in Chapter 2, the conspiracy involving syllabic configurations such as NOTRISEGMENTONSET discussed for French in Chapter 3, Section 3.1, some other conspiracy dealing with prosodic structures; very few involving segmental phonology. It is obvious that OT wildly overgenerates. To test OT predictions in regard to the possible permutations in constraint ranking, I put aside faithfulness constraints — in fact when one considers the possible different permutations of faithfulness constraints with respect to markedness constraints, many of the results of the permutation are equivalent insofar as the faithfulness constraints neutralize each other. Instead I decided to use the ranking permutations of five markedness constraints. The five constraints, all commonly used in OT analyses, are given in (3).

454 (3)

Conclusions

Onset (Ons) which disallows onsetless syllables. *Complex Onset (*CO) that disallows complex onsets. *Complex Coda (CC) that disallows complex codas. Sonority (Son) that disallows onset sequences of falling sonority and coda sequences of rising sonority. Syllable Contact (SC) that disallows heterosyllabic contact X] [Y in which the first segment X is less sonorous than the second segment Y.

I considered their predictions involving the syllabification of the two sequences VtrV and VrtrV. Given the marking statements proposed in Chapter 1, Section 1.2.2, in the case of these two sequences we expect only one type of syllabification: V.trV, Vr.trV where a complex onset and a simple coda are allowed. All others should not be possible. This is factually correct, as far as I know. In particular the syllabification Vt.rV, Vrt.rV is not possible since to my knowledge, there is no language allowing complex codas but disallowing a complex onset. I cannot go through all the 120 possible permutations of the constraints in (3). The results are obvious, though: some permutations produce the right syllabification, many the wrong syllabification. Sample rankings are given in (4). They are chosen at random. (4)

Ons Ons Ons

*CC *CC Son

*CO *CO *CO

Son SC *CC

SC Son SC

= = =

V.trV Vr.trV V.trV Vr.trV V.trV Vr.trV

Ons Ons Ons

*CO *CO *CO

*CC *CC Son

Son SC *CC

SC Son SC

= = =

*Vt.rV Vrt.rV *Vt.rV Vrt.rV *Vt.rV Vrt.rV

*CO *CO *CO

*CC *CC Son

Son SC *CC

SC Son SC

Ons Ons Ons

= = =

*Vtr.V Vrt.rV *Vtr.V Vrt.rV *Vtr.V Vrt.rV

*CO *CO *CO

SC Son SC

Ons Ons Ons

*CC SC Son

Son *CC *CC

= = =

*Vtr.V Vrtr.V *Vt.rV Vr.trV *Vtr.V Vrtr.V

The following two remarks can be made: i) Many of the rankings produce the same results and it is unclear whether or not they would have


455

different effects on the syllabification of other sequences. Such indeterminacy raises questions about the fundamental utility of ranking permutations. ii) Many permutations produce wrong results. It is unclear how OT can exclude such results by introducing other constraints. The consequence is clear: OT fails to produce plausible basic factorial typologies, which is its main stated goal. But there are other failures infesting OT. I will consider some of them. I put aside the issue of the unconstrained power of OT as an analytical model. Everyone knows that it is quite difficult to criticize an OT analysis: a good OT practitioner can always come up with a new and more or less plausible constraint or with the postulation of some local ranking/reranking perhaps limited to some class of words or some strata. But this is not an OT problem in itself and it is due to the absence of an adequate and constrained theory of constraints and of ranking. I will focus instead on five problems that in my opinion weaken the basic tenets of OT as a general theory of phonology. First of all, OT is a typical Platonistic model (see Chapter 1 for discussion of linguistic realism and Platonism). The categories it uses can only be mathematical objects computed in an abstract reality with unlimited resources and unlimited time, pure forms devoid of spatio-temporal reality. In fact, when considered in realistic terms, obvious problem immediately emerge. As recently pointed out by Clements (2000), OT claims not simply that speakers are capable of producing an infinite number of forms on the basis of finite means, but rather that an infinite number of forms is actually generated as a basis for selecting any given output. This creates major problems for realistic models of language. In fact, the processing of the infinitely long tableaux associated with the simplest words should obviously require an infinite production time. Furthermore, unlimited memory space would be needed to store the infinite candidate sets involved in input-output mappings. Obviously OT is an unrealistic theory. OT practitioners claim that OT is a theory of Competence, not a theory of Performance (see McCarthy 2002: 217; Kager 1999: 26) implying with this that issues of memory and time limitation do not play a role in the analysis of the human faculty of language. But it is obvious that in any adequate theory of language, its design must be compatible with that of the other components of the theory of the mind and with what we know about human cognition and behavior. To pursue an unrealistic theory of competence simply does not make sense.3 A related problem also pointed out by Clements (2000) is that of OT's indeterminacy. The problem of the infinite candidate set can be ad-

456

Conclusions

dressed by reducing this set to a finite set of workable size, and this is in fact what OT practitioners do, and must do, in their analyses. However, OT does not have a general, objective procedure to do that. The composition of the candidate set always remains fuzzy. Furthermore OT does not have any procedure for determining whether or not the elusive ‘most harmonic member’ has been identified in the plethora of infinite candidates and for proving that it is present in the finite subset retained for evaluation. Without such a procedure, we can never be sure that the most harmonic candidate is among those being evaluated. In the absence of an objective procedure to do that, one can never be sure that the most harmonic candidate does not remain in the discarded set, especially when the entire grammar (i.e., the full ranking of all possible constraints) is taken into account. A consequence of this, as Clements (2000) points out, is that ‘OT analyses involve a good amount of guesswork and good luck.’ There is also what Steriade (1999), although working in an OT model, calls the Too-Many-Solution problem. As we have seen above, one of the key assumptions of OT is that each phonological phenomenon is the instantiation of a specific way, out of many possible, to rank a set of constraints. It is then one of the arrangements of the factorial typology that is produced by the ranking permutations of a set of universal constraints. As pointed out by Steriade (1999), however, the notion of factorial typology faces a very simple problem: once all of the possible rankings of a given set of constraints are considered, it is obvious that many of the possible expected outcomes are not attested. There are simply too many solutions to a given phonotactic constraint. In such cases OT predicts the typological existence of repairs which are either impossible or unattested. The striking case mentioned by Steriade is that of the word or syllable final devoicing of obstruents. Assuming a constraint such as that in (5) which marks the complexity of word-final obstruents, one should find all types of ways of satisfying (5), as shown by the factorial typology in (6). (5)

*[+VOICE]/

______ ] W -sonorant

(6)

Change in UR to satisfy (97) Corresponding constraint ranking: a. Devoicing: /tœb/ [tœp] *[+voice]/_ ] >> Ident[+/-voice] b. Nasalization: /tœb/[ tœm] *[+voice]/_ ] >> Ident[+/-nasal] c. Lenition to glide: /tœb/[ tœw] *[+voice]/_] >>Ident[+/-cons.] *[+voice]/_ ] >> Max C d. C-Deletion: /tœb/[ tœ] e. V-insertion: /tœb/[ tœbi] *[+voice]/_ ] >> DEP V

Afterthoughts on Optimality Theory f. Segment reversal: g. Feature reversal:

457

/tœb/[ bœt] *[+voice]/_]>> (Segment) Linearity /tœb/[ dœp] *[+voice]/_ ] >> (Feature) Linearity

The fact is that the problem posed by voiced obstruents in word/syllable final position is solved only in one way: by devoicing. 4 Steriade proposes a general phonetic theory—the P-map-theory—always forcing the adoption of a given solution, i.e., devoicing (=6a), in the case of a word-final obstruent (see section 3.3.2 of Chapter 3 for a discussion of Steriade's P-map theory.) But this means essentially giving up the idea of a factorial typology, one of the fundamentals tenets of OT, and denying the existence of conspiracies, and, therefore OT. Once factorial typology is gone, from the point of view of theoretical simplicity, all of the OT machinery is superfluous. One of the major motivations for assuming OT was to account for conspiracies. It so happens that OT is also plagued by conspiracies, and of a worse nature than those characterizing Classical Generative Phonology. Mohanan (2000) makes the following observation. Since in OT all linguistic variability is to be represented just by differences in the ranking of constraints, if two processes in the same or in different languages differ just in the domain of application of a pattern, then OT is forced to split the pattern into two distinct constraints so that the two parts can be ranked differently, causing an unneeded duplication of the same constraint. Mohanan considers place assimilation in English. In English, both plosives and nasal stops undergo place assimilation (e.g. wet cars [tk] ~ [kk], pan cakes [Nk] [nk]). Mohanan accounts for the place assimilation process by assuming the Identity Cluster Constraint of Pulleyblank (1997) which forces identity of place in clusters (ICC[PLACE]) and by ranking it above a faithfulness constraint trying to preserve the place of the obstruent and nasals IDENT[PLACE]. (7)

ICC[PLACE] » IDENT[PLACE]

In English, however, labials and velars do not undergo place assimilation (e.g. some cakes [mk] ~ *[Nk]). This fact can accounted for in OT by the ranking in (8). (8)

IDENT[PLACE] [-COR] » ICC[PLACE] » IDENT [PLACE] [+COR]

Up to this point there is no problem. The difficulty starts, though, when we start considering place assimilation in more detail.

458

Conclusions

Mohanan observes that syllable internally in English, both coronals and non-coronal, undergo place assimilation (e.g., *[simk], *[sitk], *[œkp]). In order to account for this fact, place assimilation must be split into two different constraints in OT: a special constraint that applies only syllable internally, ranked higher than the place identity constraint of noncoronals, and a general constraint ranked lower than this very place identity constraint. (9)

ICC[PLACE]SYL » IDENT [PLACE] [-COR] » ICC[PLACEJ

Furthermore, splitting of place constraints is also needed. In English, coronal stops undergo place assimilation obligatorily within a foot, and optionally across feet (congress but congressional ['kONgres]/[kOn'greSonal]). To account for this fact we have to split place assimilation again to accomodate the domain difference: place assimilation must be ranked higher than faithfulness foot internally, and assigned equal rank across feet. (10)

ICC[PLACE]FOOT » IDENT[PLACE] COR, ICC[PLACE]

By assuming that linguistic variability is accounted for only through ranking, OT is forced to split the single generalization of place assimilation in English into three distinct constraints, namely, place assimilation within a syllable, within a foot and the unrestricted one (ICC[PLACE]SYLL, ICC[PLACE]FOOT, ICC[PLACE]) which must be assumed to be part of the universal inventory of constraints. The same generalization is being duplicated three times. This is an obvious case of conspiracy forced by the structure of the theory. As Mohanan observes, it was precisely this type of duplication of the same generalization that led Halle (1959) to reject structuralist phonemic theory. The same logic should apply to OT as well. Observe that this type of conspiracy is of a worse type than that found in Classical Generative Phonology. In Classical Generative Phonology, conspiracies were simply limited to a specific language. In OT, instead, they become part of UG. This is shown again by Mohanan. In addition to English, he also considers Hindi and Malayalam, and identifies different instantiations of the place assimilation process. In Malayalam, nasals assimilate obligatorily within words, and optionally across words. In Hindi, nasal and obstruent stops assimilate within but not across morphemes. Mohanan shows that to account for this fact, OT needs two other place assimilation constraints: one sensitive to word boundaries and another one sensitive to morphological boundaries. Thus once we consider English,


459

Malayalam, and Hindi, OT would be forced to split place assimilation into five distinct universal constraints, namely, place assimilation within a syllable, within a foot, within morphemes and across words. Crucially, these are different constraints triggering the same identical process: an obvious generalization is being missed. In the framework proposed here a much simpler and less redundant solution can be proposed. In this framework, one can assume that the general place assimilation rule in (11) — a natural rule — accounts for place assimilation in English, Malayalam, and Hindi. This rule is common to all of the different processes identified by Mohanan. This rule spreads the designated articulator of a consonant from right-to-left. (11)

X1 [+cons]

X2 [+cons]

Place

Place

DA (where DA is the Designated Articulator) What changes, however, are the different conditions on the application of rule (11). Consider English. In post-lexical phonology it spreads only marked features as proposed in Calabrese (1995). Therefore, it will spread only the marked labial and dorsal articulators, and not the unmarked coronal one. At the same time, only the unmarked coronal articulator will be affected by the assimilation, not the marked one. In contrast, inside the syllable the rule is specified for spreading all types of features both marked and unmarked. Therefore, any articulator — the coronal, dorsal and labial one — will be both spread and affected by the rule. In addition, it must be assumed that the post-lexical rule applies obligatorily inside a prosodic constituent but optionally across prosodic boundaries. Formally, we can account for this situation in the following way. (12)

(11) is active in English I) Post-lexical Condition: Access Marked features Post-lexical Environment: i) /[ ____ ] where [ ] is a prosodic bracket. ii) optional, elsewhere. II) Intra-syllabic Condition: Access all features

460

Conclusions

What I am doing in this case is essentially extracting away the common operations characterizing the place assimilation processes of English. This is represented by the rule in (11). What remains are the idiosyncratic local conditions which are given in (12i) and (12ii). In this way duplications are avoided and the generalization characterizing consonantal clusters in English—that they undergo place assimilation from right-to-left—can be captured. Notice the different variables that appear in I) and II) above are specific settings for the basic parameters of Visibility Theory, of prosodic and morphological constituency and of optionality/non-optionality of application. Changes in these different settings account for the cross-linguistic variation observed by Mohanan. An adequate—and restrictive—typology of place assimilation can thus be achieved. Finally, phonological opacity remains the major problem OT faces. As also discussed in Chapter 1, attempts to eliminate derivations as a necessary device in phonology have been characterized by failure. No new insights have emerged from these attempts, only a proliferation of ad hoc theoretical devices. The latest solution to the opacity problem, Sympathy Theory (see McCarthy 2000), has not been met with enthusiasm (see Clements 2000; Kiparsky 2000; Rubach 2000). Rubach (2000) (see also Kiparsky 2000) argued that some form of derivation must be included in OT. He proposed that the phonology of a single language may consist of several OT constraint hierarchies connected serially, with the output of one serving as the input to the next where each of these constraint hierarchies forms a different derivational level. McCarthy strongly criticizes such a model with serially connected constraint hierarchies by saying the following. ‘However appealing it may initially seem, this move is fundamentally misconceived. For one thing, as Benua (1997) argues, two arbitrary constraint hierarchies can differ from one another in many ways, but the actual differences between strata in a single language are quite limited, leaving an unexplained (and perhaps inexplicable) gap between prediction and observation. For another, the Lexical Phonology notion of a stratum (Kiparsky 1982, Mohanan 1982) is trivialized by the kind of stratum that, say, Tiberian Hebrew or Levantine Arabic would require — a stratum of convenience rather than a meaningful correlation of phonological and morphological factors.’ (McCarthy 2000: 9-10) The fact is that OT requires additional machinery to deal with


461

Opacity. It is unclear if this extra-machinery brings greater insights into the theory, other than the pure account of opacity. This contrasts with the situation in the classical derivational model where opacity is accounted for by assuming extrinsic rule ordering, a notion that is independently required in that model. Observe that this need for additional machinery is already a point against OT. Derivational models typically express opacity by allowing rules to apply in sequence, and strongly predict that opacity effects should commonly occur across languages. This prediction is widely supported by evidence from many languages. In contrast, because of the way it characterizes constraints interactions, OT excludes most opacity effects, and to account for Opacity it needs to extend the theory by introducing new theoretical notions. The issue is whether or not these new notions bring greater insights into the theory, other than the pure account of opacity. From what one can see in the OT literature up-to-today, it appears that they don’t. There is thus a convergence of facts showing that OT has failed as a plausible theory of phonology. I will finish by comparing an OT analysis with an analysis set in the theoretical framework proposed here. McCarthy 2002) discusses hiatus resolution in Emai as a typical example of a conspiracy involving several different processes targeting the same hiatus configuration. The main facts are listed below as reported by McCarthy (from McCarthy (2002: 95-96) (13)

"Hiatus resolution in Emai a. If V1 is final in a functional morpheme and V2 is initial in a lexical morpheme, delete V1. . . V1] Fnc [LexV2 . .

b.

Ø If V1 is final in a lexical morpheme and V2 is initial in a functional morpheme, delete V2. . . V1] Lex [FncV2 . . Ø

462

Conclusions

c.

d.

If V1 and V2 are both in lexical morphemes or both in functional morphemes, delete V1. . . V1] Fnc [FncV2 . . . . V1] Lex [Lex V2 . . Ø Ø But if V1 is high(i or u) and in a lexical (though not functional) morpheme, it changes to the corresponding glide . . u ] Lex [LexV2 . . . . i ] Lex [LexV2 . . y

w

Sample cases are given in (14). (14)

a. b.

. . ku ] Lex [Lexa. . . . kO ] Lex [Lexe. .

. . kwa. . . . ke. .

c. d.

. . si ] Fnc [FncO. . . . se ] Fnc [FncO. .

. . sO . . . . sO . .

e. f.

. . Bi ] Fnc [Lexo. . . . Be ] Fnc [Lexo. .

. . Bo. . . . Bo. .

g. h.

. . ku ] Lex [Fnca. . . . be ]Lex [FncO. .

. . ku. . . . be . .

I begin with my analysis of this set of facts. The different hiatus resolution processes of Emai are triggered by the constraint NOHIATUS repeated in (15). I then propose that Emai has the ranked set of repair operations in (16), similar to that of Okpe (cf. Chapter 2, sect. 2.1.1) with the difference that it is the morpheme-final vowel—i.e., the first vowel in the hiatus—that is deleted. (15)

NOHIATUS. * R N X1

R N X2


(16)

463

The set of ranked repair operations for the NOHIATUS constraint (15) in Emai. a) Syllabic line deletion (Nucleus removal) Environment: ___ X1 b) Skeletal deletion Environment: __ ] µ +

The operation in (16a) removes the Nucleus of the first vowel in the hiatus. This leads to glide formation. The operation in (16b) deletes the first vowel in the hiatus, i.e. the morpheme final one. Therefore, (16) accounts for what happens in (14a) and (14b) (see below) where we have two adjacent lexical morphemes. The problem is to account for the other forms where we have functional morphemes. To do this, I propose a special repair operation for hiatus configurations deleting vowels in functional morphemes. This operation, although special in the sense that it targets just vowels in functional morphemes, does not need to be idiosyncratic to Emai. It could well be part of a UG module dealing with the syllabification of segments in functional morphemes. It is given in (17). (17)

Special repair operation for THE NOHIATUS constraint (15) in Emai: OPERATION: Deletion TARGET: Skeletal position (X) ENVIRONMENT: a. / __ ] Fnc b. /[ Fnc __

Because of the subset principle, the more specific (17) will always have precedence on the general repair operations in (16) and delete the vowel of a functional morpheme in (14) when it appears in a hiatus configuration. Some sample cases will illustrate these proposals. I begin with examples in which one or both morphemes are functional. In these cases, only the more specific repair operation in (17) applies. If the first morpheme is functional, the unmarked case in (17), i.e., (17a) applies.

464 (18)

Conclusions

R N X X ] Fnc [Lex B e

R N X (11a) X o B

R N X (OI) o

X B

R N X o

If the first morpheme is lexical, (17a) cannot apply. We then turn to the operation in (17b), and so the initial vowel of the functional morpheme is deleted. (19)

R N X X ] Lex [Fnc B e

R N X (11b) X o B

R N X e

In the following cases the first vowel is high. It could undergo glide formation because of (16a). But it is in a functional morpheme; therefore, the more specific (17a) will take precedence over (16a) and delete the high vowel. (20)

(21)

R N X X ] Fnc [Lex k u

R N X (17a) X a k

R N X a

R N X X ] Fnc [Fnc s i

R N X (17a) X o s

R N X o

(OI)

(OI)

X k

R N X a

X s

R N X o

If both morphemes are lexical, the general repair strategy in (16) applies. If the first vowel is high, it undergoes the unmarked (16a) and it will become a glide.


(22)

X k

465

R R R R N N N N X]Lex [LexX (10a) X X X (OI)X X X u a k u a k w a

(OI)

X X k w

R N Xa

To account for the case in which the first vowel is non-high, as proposed in Chapter 2, Sect. 2.1.1, we have to resort to the prohibition in (23) which must be associated with the repair set in (24) and, therefore, is unrepairable (see discussion of Okpe in that section). (23)

NO[-HI]INSYLLMARG The feature [-high] cannot occur in [-cons] syllabic margins (i.e., in a [-cons] segment in onset or coda position). * (where = or R) X [-cons] [-high]

(24)

The set of ranked repair operations for the prohibition NO[-HI]INSYLLMARG (23) in Emai: Ø

The derivation in (25) therefore crashes (see (25) and we resort to the marked repair operation in (16b), which is successful, as shown in (26). (25)

R R R R N N N N X X]Lex [LexX (16a) X X X (OI) X X X ||* k O e k O e k O e

466 (26)

Conclusions

R N X X]Lex [Lex k O

R N X (16b) X e k

R N X (OI) X e k

R N X e

An account of the Emai facts is now provided. McCarthy argues that OT provides the best account for the array of facts in (13-14).5 He proposes that the hiatus resolution system of Emai is accounted for by the interaction of the ranked constraints in (27). The constraint in (23) is also required in the OT analysis. McCarthy assumes that it is undominated, together with all other constraints preventing unattested changes such as segment insertion. (27)

Onset >

MaxLex >

Ident

>

MaxInit >

Max

Onset is the constraint that disallows the hiatus configuration, MaxLex prevents the deletion of a segment in a lexical morpheme, Ident prevents changing a vowel into a glide, MaxInit prevents the deletion of a segment in morpheme-initial position, and Max simply prevents deletion of any segment. (28) /..ku] Lex [Fnc a../ kwa > ku ka (29) /..ku] Lex [Lex a../ > kwa ku ka (30) /..ku] Fnc [Fnc a../ kwa > ku ka

Onset >

MaxLex > *! *

Ident

>

MaxInit >

Max

MaxLex > * *

Ident

>

MaxInit >

Max

MaxLex > Ident *! *!

>

MaxInit >

Max

*

*!

Onset > *! *!

Onset >


(31) /..kO] Lex [Fnc e../ > kO ke

Onset > * *

MaxLex > Ident *! *

>

MaxInit >

467

Max

McCarthy's OT analysis is successful in accounting for the Emai facts, and apparently is as simple as the analysis proposed in (16) and (17) where a single markedness constraint triggers the processes dealing with vowels in hiatus — Onset in McCarthy's analysis, *NoHiatus in my analysis. Furthermore, MAXLex is the negative counterpart of (17a-b), MAXInit is the negative counterpart of (16b), Ident is the negative counterpart of (16a). But this simplicity is just apparent. Hidden in the OT analysis is GEN, the Deus Absconditus of OT, the creator. GEN must have derivations like those in (18)-(26) to produce the required outputs. Therefore these derivations are also included in an OT analysis, although their existence is denied. The existence of derivations that are created by (16) and (17) is instead the basic (and only) feature of my analysis. The creative power of the grammar that is hidden in OT manifests itself in its power, and its limits, in my analysis. Two issues remain at this point. First, despite what OT theoreticians say (see McCarthy 2002: 92), processes are still the primitives of phonological analysis, even in OT (see Note 25 of Chapter 2). Take for example McCarthy's analysis of Emai. It is based on the generalizations in (13-14) which involve the recognition of certain processes affecting certain sequences of segments in the language. It is a fact that these processes are the outcomes of the operations that in OT would be contained in GEN. Now faithfulness constraints are always the negative mirror image of GEN's operations. This is illustrated in (32) where for each of some possible changes produced by GEN on a given string there is a relevant faithfulness constraint.

468 (32)

Conclusions

Some candidate GEN outputs of an input /...XAY.../ Violated Faithfulness C Input /...XAY.../ Outputs of Gen [...XAY...] ('no change') No FC violated [...XBY...] ('change/A/into [B]') Do not change A (Ident(A)) [...XCY...] ('change/A/into [C]') Do not change A (Ident(A)) [...XY...] ('delete/A/') Do not delete A (Max(A)) [AY] ('delete /X/') Do not delete X (Max(X)) [XAB] ('change /Y/ into [B]') Do not change Y (Ident(Y)) [XABY] (insert [B] between Do not insert B (Dep (B)) /A/ and/Y/') [XA] ('delete /Y/') Do not delete (X) (Max (X))

Now differently than Output-Output correspondence constraints, which may have a natural foundation in the iconic relationships among output forms,6 no such natural foundation can be found for Input-Output correspondence constraints such as the faithfulness constraints. They are just stipulative devices required by the theory-internal assumption that GEN is totally free. In this sense, it seems to me that their negative nature leads to a fundamentally roundabout way to deal with phonological operations. Look at MaxInit in (27). It states: ‘Do not delete a morpheme-initial segment’ but it actually refers to the process of morpheme-final deletion. To account for what you do by looking at what you don't seems to me implausible from the cognitive point of view given the fact that negative statements are always more difficult to process (Clark and Chase 1972, 1974). Clear evidence for this is also provided by the difficulty human subjects have with the type of reasoning called Modus Tollens, (P Q, ¬P, ¬Q) (Wason and Johnson-Laird 1972, Chapt. 13-14). As J. Anderson (1985: 269) states: ‘The widespread failure to use Modus Tollens probably reflects the fact that we are not practiced in thinking what is not the case. The [Modus Tollens] requires us to realize that P Q is equivalent to ¬Q ¬P.’ It is unclear why our way to deal with phonological changes should be different from other types of cognitive processing. Notice then that since each of GEN's productions must be met with a negative faithfulness constraint, there is always an inherent redundancy between the set of operations Gen can perform and Faithfulness constraint. Thus there is a pervasive hidden duplication at the base of OT. Secondly notice the following. To obtain the set of possible candidates, GEN must manipulate strings and change them through specific


469

phonological operations. Now in OT, GEN's manipulations are restricted not directly by having the faithfulness constraints disallow GEN's outputs, but in a more subtle way by having the faithfulness constraints assign a certain cost to each of these outputs. Therefore, given the ranking of the faithfulness constraints, the costs of certain operations are higher than the costs of other operations. To restrict GEN operations, OT must then include a general principle of economy that tries to reduce the cost to the grammar. Therefore, the most costly operations are expunged, and the least costly one is chosen. Consider now how OT's evaluation system performs this expurgatory action. First GEN is allowed to execute all of its possible operation on a given form. Then all of the outputs of these operations are considered and a cost is assigned to each of them. Only at this point, the least costly one is selected. It seems to me that this is a way of proceeding that violates any sound principle of economy—and notice that OT does require a principle of economy to obtain its results. By assessing the costs of the products after production has occurred, we are incurring an extreme expenditure of time and effort, an extremely uneconomical way of operating! It is as if a designer chooses the design for a car after drawing and considering all possible variations of the design—including square wheels. This is simply a waste of intellectual effort, and no designer would do that. The designer will try to find the best solution to the design problem using some general positive guidelines he knows based on sound engineering principles. Economy puts a strong restriction on the number of the elaboration the designer will try to implement. The same is for GEN. Given a general principle of economy, only the minimal number of manipulations should be attempted to solve a problem. This makes faithfulness constraints superfluous insofar as their function is only that of restricting manipulations by assigning a cost to them. Given that they duplicate the operations of GEN anyway, they should be eliminated from the theory. I thus put forth that the Emai facts, like so many others, are better treated in the theory proposed in this book. In particular, this theory allows analyses that are simpler, more economical and more efficient than those possible in OT. And with this statement I end this book. "Ai posteri l'ardua sentenza" (Manzoni, Cinque Maggio)

Endnotes

PREFACE 1.

It is different if we want to use rhetorical devices to impress or persuade the speaker. In this case we do make a conscious effort to compare and evaluate different ways of expressing our thoughts, and decide which is the best one. But this is a special linguistic behavior, not the normal one.

CHAPTER 1 1.

2.

3. 4.

5.

With conventional I mean the following: a property of an object is conventional when it is not motivated by the intrinsic structure of the object, but the property is assigned to it by the implicit or explicit agreement of human beings (see below for discussion). Thus a certain phonological phenomenon--say the raising of [o] to [u] before non nasal voiced consonants (see later discussion of Polish)-- is conventional if its existence and its nature cannot be motivated by the phonetic properties of speech but is simply due to the fact that it belongs to the established norm of the language spoken by a community. Obviously, the phonological property can be explained in phonetic terms when the history of the language is considered, but this does not matter from the point of view of a synchronic analysis. Telescoping occurs when a sequence of processes i) AB, ii) BC is represented by a single process AC in absence of intermediate evidence for the intermediate stage B. According to Hutchinson (1973), the hiatus resolution processes we see in (16) are only characteristic of allegretto style in Chicano Spanish. In the OT literature the absence of hiatus configurations is accounted for by resorting to the Onset constraint which excludes onsetless syllables like the one characterizing the second vowel of the hiatus. Throughout this book I will assume, instead, that hiatus configurations are excluded by the constraint in (25) which targets only adjacent nuclei. The reasons for this decision of mine are discussed in Chapter 3, sect. 3.2.4.1. Here I am arbitrarily assuming that the nucleus of the first vowel is the one to be removed. Obviously the nucleus of the second vowel could also have been the target of the removal. The same is true with the deletion of the skeletal position in (28). In reality I hypothesize that also the selection of the target of the operation is done by ranking. For the sake of the exposition I cannot discuss this here. See Chapter 2, Section 2.1.1 for detailed discussion.

472

Endnotes

6.

The feature [-high] of the front vowel produced by fission must be raised to [+high] to obtain the correct output. I assume that this is due to an independent process, probably involving polarization of height features in diphthongs. If changes may also occur during transmission due to mistaken reanalysis of inputs (see Ohala 1981, 1990, 1993, Hale 1995), also transmission is an object of linguistic analysis. Notice that here I am questioning the traditional --"neogrammarian"--view of sound change which assumes that sound changes involve gradual, unnoticed phonetic increments which are later "phonologized" (see S. Anderson 1985). It is unclear to me what "phonologization" means and how it is supposed to occur. If we assume that morphemes and words are represented in terms of features, any change affecting them must by definition be implemented through a manipulation of features, and therefore must be discrete. Thus I am submitting here that changes are always discrete, phonological ab origine. Obviously this is quite a strong statement and much more theoretical work is needed to support it. Still, I do not see much evidence for the "neogrammarian" point of view. We do not have evidence for the small variations that eventually should lead to the phonological changes. Undoubtedly there are individual phonetic variations, but how do we know that they have anything to do with actual phonological changes? I think that the neogrammarian scholars in stating that changes were gradual were simply influenced by the classical Darwinian framework which assumed that all changes leading to speciation were gradual and not observable. But as Stephen Jay Gould in his works (see Gould and Eldredge 1971, Gould 2002) argues, evolutionary changes may be abrupt: there are discrete changes, jumps in speciation. If repairs are behind many changes—as I would like to argue—we are also forced to say that the same is true in the case of phonological changes. Markedness obviously does not need to be the only factor in the innovation: mistaken reanalysis of inputs in the trasmission process (see Ohala 1981, 1990, 1993, Hale 1995) or even play can also be factors. Here I am interested in what happens when markedness is a factor. In the model presented here, this type of change is due to the decrease of the phonological complexity allowed by the speaker, or, in other terms, to the activation of a markedness constraint. Obviously, we do not need to assume that it is a conscious act; it could be due to stress, tiredness or some other reason. But see note 7. Markedness factors may play a role only in the innovation part of the change, although the optimality of certain changes in terms of markedness may explain their transmission throughout a linguistic community (see Sperber's (1995) work on the epidemiological model of culture). I assume that changes always begin with an innovation (a repair triggered by a marking statement or the application of a natural rule) affecting a

7.

8.

9.

10. 11.

12.

Endnotes

13.

14.

15.

16.

473

form—ideally a single form. The innovation is then spread to other forms by speakers that adopt it. As argued in the text, it is the same in fashion: one day I go out with a strange hair color. If someone else likes that color, then he may adopt it. If enough individuals adopt it in the community I live in, then we have a successful change in fashion. A crucial feature of this idea is the spreading of the innovation from word to word by speakers—a phonological epidemic. This is what it is traditionally called lexical diffusion. I assume that this spreading process is behind all sound changes. Exceptionless sound changes are those that are totally successful in this spreading. The other changes will be characterized by exceptions or limitation to smaller classes of words. For example, i) their presence in a system presupposes the existence of their basic front unrounded and back unrounded counterparts, and ii) they are uncommon across phonological systems (see Maddieson 1984) There are two complications that cannot be addressed here in detail and are analyzed in Calabrese (2000). First, fronting occurs only in stressed syllables—In Calabrese (2000) I assume that this is because the marking statement in (61) is deactivated only in stressed nuclei (see Chapter 2, section 2.2.3 for discussion of positional deactivation). Secondly, there is no fronting of back vowels when they are followed by a homorganic glide (i.e., in the case of ow, uw)—the glide is the outcome of a diphthongization process—and when they are preceded by a consonant with a homorganic secondary articulation (i.e., in the case of pwu, pwo, kwu)—the secondary articulations are the outcomes of two different processes: one spreading the feature of a back vowel onto a preceding labial stop, and another one spreading the features of a high back vowel onto a preceding velar stop. In Calabrese (2000) I proposed that in both cases we are dealing with multiply linked configurations which are subject to inalterability because of the Uniform Applicability Condition of Schein and Steriade (1986). (See Calabrese 2000 for related discussion.) There is strong phonetic evidence supporting the notion that voiced obstruents are [+ATR]. Phoneticians have long known that an expansion of the pharyngeal cavity, implemented primarily by lowering of the larynx and advancing of the tongue root, which lowers the supraglottal pressure sufficiently is required in the case of stops to allow vocal cord vibration (for more discussion of this issue see Vaux 1996b) This must obviously be possible, given the fact that allophones are allowed and that phonological inventories may change by phonemicizing these allophones. Allophones, in fact, are introduced into a language by phonological operations--implemented by rules or as repairs--that create feature configurations disallowed by some active marking statements of that language. These marking statements are obviously deactivated in this case. At the same time, phonological inventories can be changed by acquiring new foreign segments through borrowing. Also, in this case we

474

17.

18.

19.

Endnotes are dealing with configurations of features mentioned in marking statements previously active in those inventories. If marking statements could never be deactivated, the possibility of allophones and of innovation in phonological inventories could not be accounted for. Otherwise, languages would always remain the same. Due to the state of this feature in the literature, I was unable to use the feature [Stiff Vocal Folds] consistently throughout the book to characterize voiced/voiceless segments. In particular, whenever the feature [voice] was previously used in the literature in the analysis of certain phenomena, for example in the case of Rendaku in Japanese, I did not attempt to reformulate my analysis in terms of the feature [stiff vocal folds] and kept using the feature [voice]. Doing otherwise would have led to a total reanalysis of the phenomena, something that was not among the goals I was pursuing in this book. The same conclusion has been reached in the OT framework: The reasons are twofold: 1) Underspecification is incompatible with the Richness of the Base hypothesis, according to which no constraints hold exclusively on underlying representation (Prince and Smolensky 1993; Smolensky 1996; Smolensky et alii 2000). It follows that no constraints are available to enforce underspecification, or indeed, any particular condition on underlying representations. 2) Underspecification is incompatible with the principle of Lexicon Optimization (see Prince and Smolensky 1993:1924, and Kager 1999 for discussion), which, all else being equal, favors the closest possible match between the underlying and surface representation of any given form, possibly including allophonic detail and obviously fully specified representations. See below and Chapter 2, section 2.3.2 for underspecification in the case of syllable structure where underspecification may be allowed to avoid wasteful destruction and rebuilding of syllabic structures in violation of economy of derivation.

CHAPTER 2 1. 2.

3.

Since a prohibition marks a configuration as impossible, this configuration is illicit in all languages. Upper case REPAIR refers to all of the repair operations that an active constraint may trigger. Lower case repair refers to the actual single instance of a repair operation fixing an illicit configuration. It is important to note that licensing is independent of deactivation of marking statements. Later (see sect. 2.2.3) I will assume that there can be licensing of an otherwise illicit configuration in certain environments by what I will call the null repair. This licensing does not involve deactivation of the relevant marking statement.

Endnotes 4. 5. 6.

7.

8. 9.

10.

475

As noted in note 3 of Chapter 1, these hiatus resolution processes are typical only of allegretto style in this language. Perhaps this is too strong and some reranking should be allowed on a language specific basis. Further research will decide. Observe that the facts in (1-2) indicate that nucleus removal in Spanish is not sensitive to sonority differences: both the sequence /i+e/ and the sequence /e+i/ are treated in the same way. When syllabic incorporation fails to produce a licit output for a violation of (19), Spanish resorts to epenthesis (spañaespaña). Therefore, epenthesis (i.e., syllabic insertion in the model presented here (see section 2.3.2 of this chapter) should be ranked below line addition in (20). I will not do it here for the sake of expository simplicity. Notice that to know that a derivational path is successful we have to wait until a licensed structure is produced. Factors such as stress position or simply linear order may also play a role especially when hiatuses are removed in morpheme internal position. Dealing with all of the factors accounting for hiatus resolution is outside of the scope of analysis proposed here. However I have not discussed the treatment of identical vowels and of the sequences /e+i/ /o+u/: The facts are given in (i) and (ii). In sequences of identical vowels, one of the two vowels disappears. In /e+i/ and /o+u/ sequences, we are left with the high vowel (i) Sequences of identical vowels: a. lo odio [loDyo} 'I hate him/it' [lec&as} 'fire him!' b. le echas [mixo} 'my son' c. mi hijo [tuniforme} 'your uniform' d. tu uniforme (ii) Sequences /e+i/, /o+u/ a. se hinka [siNka} 'punch yourself' [komuBitas} 'I eat small grapes' b. como uvitas To account for the treatment of the sequences of identical vowel, I propose that they are treated differently than hiatus configurations. Another change intervenes in this case: merger of the adjacent identical segments. Let us see how we can obtain it. The fact is that in this case the configuration is at the same time targeted by two different constraints: the constraint against hiatus in (6) and the constraint against adjacent identical vowels in (iii), an instance of the Obligatory Contour Principle. (iii) * N N | | X X / = | | The latter constraint identifies a subset of the configurations identified by the former constraint. The subset principle (see Halle and Marantz

476

Endnotes 1993)—in other words the elsewhere principle—imposes that the configuration identified by the more specific constraint be repaired first. Violations of the constraint against adjacent identical vowels are repaired by merging the identical segments as in (iv). (iv) X X X X / = | | This is what occurs in Chicano. Furthermore, given that no geminate segments are allowed in Spanish, the linked representation produced by (iv) is repaired by eliminating one of the skeletal positions as in (v). (v) X X X | Therefore, we have the derivation in (vi). R R R R N N N N | | | (vi) ... X X ... X X X | | | o o o o As for the sequences in (ii), I assume that they undergo glide formation as discussed in the text. The structures in (vii) are thus produced. R R R N N N (vii) a. X X X X | | | | o u w u R R R N N N b. X X X X | | | | e i y i The two adjacent identical segments are merged as discussed above thus producing (viii). R R N N (viii) a. X X b. X X i u Many languages disallow glides homorganic with the following nucleus.

Endnotes

477

This is due to the marking statement in (ix). * R N (ix) X X | Configurations violating this constraint are repaired by incorporating the onset glide into the nucleus as in (x)(I consider only the derivation for (viiia). R R N N X X X | i i Degemination as discussed above will produce (xi) which is the correct output. R R N N | | ( xi) a. X b. X | | i u See also Calabrese 1999a for detailed discussion of this case in the context of Sievers’ Law. The process of hiatus resolution is blocked when it would produce a superheavy nucleus with three skeletal positions. There is no hiatus resolution in cases like the following: (i) a: ai a:i sa: + aiva sa:iva diva: +aukasas diva:ukasas An active constraint against superheavy nuclei accounts for this. See below for discussion of blocking. See note 16 for an account of the behavior of the labio-velar high vocoid [u] . Observe that the configuration in (6) is disallowed because of contact between two nuclei. The addition of a line as in (71) removes such contact insofar as the first skeletal position is no longer a nucleus with respect to the following skeletal position; rather it is its onset. Notice that line addition as in (66) is the minimal operation that corrects a representation dis(x)

11. 12.

13. 14.

a.

X

478

15.

16.

Endnotes allowed by (6). I assume that it must be further repaired. It is eliminated by fission as discussed later. Some post-vocalic high palatal vocoids do not undergo Nucleus removal even though they are not followed by a coda consonant: (i) kokaina [kokayina] 'cocaine' Hanoi [anoyi] 'Hanoi' They must be treated as exceptions to nucleus removal and therefore they undergo line addition and fission, as the forms in (69b). While Polish allows a high back vocoid in simple onsets (ia) and codas (ib), it is not allowed in complex onsets (iia) and codas (iib). In this case the vocoid is assigned a syllabic nucleus, and a homorganic glide is inserted between it and the following vowel. (i) a. szkol›a {...wa} 'school', mal›I {...wI} 'small' pauza {paw.za} 'pause', Europa {ew.ropa}'Europe' b. aktualny {..tu.wa..} 'current’ (ii) a. konstitu-owa {...tu.wo.. }'constitute' muzeum {..ze.wu..} 'museum', liceum { ...tse.wu..} b. 'high school' The essentially same analysis as the one proposed above for high front vowels after consonantal cluster can be proposed to account for glide insertion in this case. The only difference is in the unrepairable constraint that causes the crash of the derivation starting with nucleus removal. The relevant marking statement is given in (iii). (iii) NO[W]INCOMPLEXMARGIN (= or R) X

17.

18.

X [-cons] | [+round] (iii) forbids round high vocoids in complex syllabic margins. As proposed in section 3.1.6 of Chapter 3 for French, this constraint perhaps is not a primitive but should be actually deconstructed into two independently needed marking statements: a marking statement against round vocoids in syllabic margins (see Rubach 2000) and a marking statement against complex margins. Since both marking statements are deactivated in Polish, we can say that it is their conjunction that is active (see Chapter 3, sect. 3.1.6, for more discussion) An obvious condition on the null repair operation is that the licensed configuration must be otherwise possible. Therefore only configurations marked by a marking statement, and not by a prohibition, can be licensed in this way. The long-vowel realization is obligatory in morpheme-internal sequences.

Endnotes 19.

20.

In Ilokano, obstruents are usually geminated before the glides produced by the glide formation process (see Rosenthall 1994). I will not discuss this phenomenon here. See section 1.2.2. of Chapter 1 and 4.1.7 of Chapter 4 for discussion of consonant gemination before glides. Ilokano has diphthongs such as those in (i)(see Rosenthall 1994: 204): (i) baybay 'ocean beach' lawlaw 'around' ?aldaw 'day' I assume the structure in (ii) for them: N (ii)

21. 22.

23.

24.

479

X X | | a y They thus are not excluded by the constraint against hiatus which disallows adjacent nuclei. See also Beland, Bois and Paradis 1993 for the use of the concept of repair strategies in the explanation of errors made by aphasic patients. Here D.B. produces a configuration, a complex onset with glides that he otherwise avoids. I assume that this is due to the fluctuations in phonological complexity that D.B. experiences in his performance. Errors such as those in (146) are produced when the marking stated in (125b) is not activated. I will not discuss the issue of which consonant was inserted. It is to observe that the segments that are most commonly inserted are the same that are most commonly deleted. Hypercorrection may be playing a role here. For more discussion of this issue see Calabrese and Romani 1991 and Romani and Calabrese 1998. When dealing with a language, both the phonologist and the language learner are faced with the same corpus of sound forms. In analyzing this language, the phonologist and the language learner achieve the same goals: 1) They account for the regularities that determine the segmental inventory of the language (The so called alphabet) by observing the minimal pairs of a language to establish the segments that are contrastive in the language, i.e., the restrictions on feature combinations. 2) They account for the patterns of distribution of the segments of the language in the phonological representations by observing segmental distribution patterns of the language to establish syllable and prosodic structure restrictions, together with the processes characterizing this language. And finally 3) they account for the alternations in the shapes of morphemes composed of these segments within words and variant pronunciations of words within the sentence by observing the phonological alternations of the language to establish the processes that characterize it.

480

Endnotes

25.

This is still true nowadays, despite what OT practitioners claim. When we look at phonological data, we observe alternations, variations—i.e., changes—in the phonological composition of morphemes and words. A process is the simplest—and theory-neutral—generalization that we obtain when we group together changes with common characteristics. This operation of generalization does not — and cannot — lead to negative constraints, or rules for that matter. Negative constraint and rules are the theoretical constructs that are used to account for the processes that are extracted through generalization from the data. How we select rules or negative constraints to account for processes is discussed in section 2.2.7. below. There are also other ways to repair the configuration [-back, +round]. They will be discussed later in this chapter, Section 2.3.1, and in Chapter 3, section 3.3. Clements (2004) proposes the following robustness scale for consonants. (i) a. [sonorant] [labial], [dorsal], [coronal] b. [nasal] [continuant] c. [voiced] d. [glottal] e. [strident] f. others. The consonant robustness scale in (i) determines the markedness status of feature specification in consonantal segments. Thus given its position in the robustness ranking in (i), the feature [voice] is marked in the marking statements *[-sonorant, +voice] and *[+sonorant, -voice]. See Calabrese 1994 for discussion of the consonantal marking statements. Obviously it is only a sub-branch of the list encompassing the marking statements needed to account for all sounds. In (124), the marking statements B.1, E.1, A.4, stipulate that front, rounded, and [+ATR] low vowels, respectively, are complex. Thus the optimal low vowel is [+back], [round], [-ATR], i.e., it is /a/. A.1 states that mid vowels are complex. A.2, A.3 define [+ATR] mid vowels and [-ATR] high vowels as complex. The optimal high vowels are thus [+ATR], whereas the optimal mid vowels are [-ATR]. C.1 and D.1 characterize front rounded and nonlow back unrounded vowels, respectively, as phonologically complex. The root of the tree in (124) represents the zero complexity of the threevowel system /i, u, a/ (See Calabrese 1988 for the case of two-vowel languages like Kabardian). Branch A of the tree contains four marking statements, whereas the other branches each contain only one. The ordering of the four marking statements on branch A indicates that if the degree of complexity identified by a marking statement at a certain node is allowed, then configurations identified by marking statements closer to the

26.

27.

28.

29.

Endnotes

30. 31.

32.

33. 34.

481

root in the same branch must also be allowed. In other words, the deactivation of a given marking statement in branch A implies the deactivation of the other statements closer to the root in this branch. In the case of the other branches, only the degree 0 must be allowed, i.e., no other marking statement needs to be deactivated in order to deactivate that marking statement. In this way I try to represent the fact that the vowel system /i, u, a/ can be expanded with the introduction of vowels such as /œ/, /u‹ /, /I/, /Å/ whose presence in a system indicates deactivation of the marking statements B.1., C.1., D.1., E.1., respectively, whereas, for example, it cannot be expanded with the introduction of the [-ATR] high vowels /È, Ë/. In fact, whereas in the case of the former, no other marking statement needs to be deactivated, in the case of the latter, both A.1. and A.2. need to be deactivated. Therefore the presence of /È, Ë/ should always imply the presence of the mid [-ATR] vowels /E, O/ and the mid [+ATR] vowels /e, o/. The degree of complexity of a configuration of features identified by a marking statement in (124) is indicated by the distance from the root of the tree; the greater the distance, the more complex the configuration. Thus (124) states that although the presence of the feature configuration identified by the marking statement [+low, +round] does not imply the presence of the feature configuration identified by the marking statement [+low, -back], the former is more complex than the latter. The fact that the low front vowel /œ/ is relatively more frequent than the low round vowel /Å/ in vowel systems (see Maddieson 1984 is expressed in this way. The underlying assumption is that the more complex a segment is, the less frequently it will appear across languages. The marking statements also provide the basis for the definition of contrastive features. See chapter 5 for discussion). The natural rule in (128) may be considered as a case of phonetic enhancement. As observed by Stevens, Keyser and Kawasaki (1986), in the case of stops the feature [+spread glottis] is used to enhance the voicelessness that results from the feature [+stiff vocal folds]. Active marking statements constrain the co-occurrence of features. In feature geometry, cooccurrence, i.e., the simultaneous implementation, of two features is represented by having these in the same feature bundle where, by definition, a feature bundle is a set of features dominated by a single node. Thus fission creates two distinct feature bundles. Further repair operations, however, may add a skeletal position as discussed below for the change [ü][yu]. In Calabrese (1988), it is proposed that all feature specifications dominated by the same root node must be implemented simultaneously in articulation. Therefore branching of terminal nodes under the same root node is impossible.

482

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40. 41. 42.

43.

44.

Endnotes Obviously this idea is at variance with Sagey’s (1986) or Lombardi’s analysis of affricates and of other contour segments. See Chapter 4, Section 4.2 for a discussion of affricates in a model adopting (160). Here I omit the issue of how to represent a nuclear glide, something that requires more nuclear structures as discussed in Calabrese (1996). The constraint in (165) is therefore not adequate. I adopt it here for reasons of expository simplicity. See Chapter 1, sect. 1.2.2, for discussion of why the syllabic status of segments may be left unspecified while feature specifications are never unspecified. Also skeletal deletion can occur as a possible repair for the constraint in (172). Since I will not discuss cases with deletion here, I will leave that option out for the sake of expository simplicity. It is unclear to me whether or not language-specific re-ranking of repair operations should be allowed. As discussed in section 2.1.1 of this chapter, language variation can be accounted for by assuming that the ranking is universally fixed but that only a subset of the possible repairs may be available on a language-specific basis. For example, one could say that only the marked (174IIbii) is available as a repair of (172) in a given language (see below for one case of this type). Further empirical will show whether or not this is the correct approach. However given that there are two consonants in (180), which setting is chosen does not really matter insofar as under both options the same syllable structure would be obtained, specifically the first consonant is syllabified as an onset and the second as a coda. In (a) the resyllabification of [k] as the onset is the effect of a repair caused by a constraint against bad syllable contacts. Given that the presence of syllabic obstruents always implies the presence of syllabic sonorants, this repair will actually never be possible. The underlying form of surface [vrx] actually contains a final yer which is deleted post-cyclically. Since this yer does not play any role in the syllabification of this form, for the sake of simplicity I represent it with Ø. See section 2.4.2 below for discussion of the interaction between yers and syllabification. Remember that deletion was not considered among the possible strategies of the REPAIR set. I assume that it is the lowest ranked repair operation. Therefore, languages resort to deletion only when syllable insertion is not available as a repair operation. I will not discuss deletion as a repair to (172) in this book. Remember that with instruction I refer to both rules and negative constraints. “Operations” are changes triggered by both types of instructions. Obviously REPAIR refers to a subset of the operation, those triggered only by negative constraints.

Endnotes 45.

46.

47.

483

The process could also involve a REPAIR triggered by a negative constraint. Given that the details of this REPAIR and the nature of the constraint are irrelevant here, I use the primitive term of process These reconstructions are obviously abstract and simplified. In the reality of history, many factors may intervene to change how REPAIRS are triggered and ordered. Consider REPAIRs due to prohibitions. REPAIRS of this type—for example, a feature adjustment due to the prohibition [+high, +low]—should always be automatic insofar as there could never be a historical stage where a form in which this prohibition is violated and not repaired can surface and trigger another process. But the case just discussed involves a prohibition, the prohibition in (172). There seems to be a problem her, however. The fact is that Old Icelandic was characterized by a process of appendix incorporation that made surface final clusters of rising sonority possible (see below in text). Historical forms like /lifr/ are attested in Old Icelandic (see (254)), and this is the stage when u-umlaut applied. Historically, epenthesis occurred when there was a change in the conditions governing appendix incorporation. The result of this change was that post-consonantal word-final /r/ was no longer accepted as an appendix. In a synchronic analysis of Icelandic there are no reasons to motivate a derivational stage in which there is appendix incorporation such as that of Old Icelandic. Rather we have to say that REPAIR triggered by (172) is delayed until the REPAIR triggered by u-umlaut has applied. Reanalyses of this type are common. In other more complicated cases, reanalysis may also cause reordering of REPAIRs. I am not going to discuss this issue here and leave it to future research. It is unclear to me whether or not this process can be collapsed with the one in (257).

CHAPTER 3 1.

2. 3.

This process also affects the particle y, which is thus pronounced [i] before a consonant, otherwise usually [y] before a vowel (from Tranel (1987: 119)). (i) elle y parviendra [Eliparvie$dra] 'she'll do it' vs. elle y arrivera [Elyarivra] 'she'll get there' With French here I mean Standard French, i.e., the French dialect spoken in Paris. The only examples of glide insertion I give here involve vowel [i]. This is the Standard French situation as described by Tranel (1987) and François Dell (p.c.). What happens to the other high vowels will be discussed in section. Kaye and Lowenstamm (1984) describe a different dialect of

484

4.

5.

6.

7. 8.

9.

10.

Endnotes French where glide insertion occurs not only after [i], but also after the two high rounded vowels [u] and [ü] as in ( i) (i) troue [tru] trou+é, trou+er [truwe], *[trwe] influe [E$f lu‹] influ+é, influ+er [E$f l‹u‹˙e], *[E$f l‹˙e] As stated, (7) constrains only core onsets, i.e. onsets of rising sonority where the second element is a non-nasal sonorant. François Dell (p.c.) pointed out to me that French also has trisegmental onsets where the second element is an obstruent such as /sky/ or /ksy/(see Dell 1995) in the following words: (i) dostoïevskien chomskyen marxien As discussed in section 3.1.3 below, I assume that the first consonant of these onsets is syllabified as an appendix (see analysis of the word pretextera in that section). They therefore are not affected by the constraint in (7) and do not interfere with the glide formation process. Given what was proposed in the preceding section, the prevocalic high vocoid of this suffix, as well as of the suffixes -ions [-yo$] and -iez [-ye], must be syllabified as an onset underlyingly since the null hypothesis for all high vocoids in prevocalic position is that they occur in a regular onset position. French does not have nuclear sonorant. This means that the constraint in (i) is active in this language (see section 3.2.1 above for more discussion). (i) *[N [ X+consonantal]] I assume that (i) is unrepairable in French. Therefore, only glide in a trisegmental onset can be rescued by N-assignment. In all other cases the derivation that started with this repair will crash. See Dell 1973 for evidence showing the need of an underlying thematic vowel in the forms in (34). Observe that the fact that the constraint in (7) is able to block the syncope in (37) indicates that the entire string /Cry/—the root final consonant, the following tense particle /-r-/ and the inflectional y/—must be part of the same onset. Therefore the [y] must be syllabified as an onset underlyingly. This repair process would be triggered by the marking statement *[+back, -round]/[ __ , -low]. I assume that this marking statement is active in French, but that it is checked only after the operations of syncope. Possible evidence for this process is provided by Jones (1918) who observes that French speakers pronounce English [´ ] as [ ] (see section 3.3 of this chapter for discussion of this repair process). The process of syncope cannot be accounted for by negative constraints but only by rules. Suppose, in fact, that syncope is due to a negative constraint against reduced vowels such as that in (i).

Endnotes (i)

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

17.

485

* N | X | ( = "reduced" vowel) As discussed in Chapter 2, sect. 2.2.1, the postulation of a negative constraint predicts the existence of a set of processes in the same language or across languages that should be functionally related as repairs of that marking statement. Given the constraint in (i), we should expect to find a number of processes in French, or in other languages, which remove the reduced vowel in different ways. Thus, for example, we should find processes that affect a reduced vowel such schwa /´/ by lengthening or changing it into another vowel or a glide, and all as alternatives to syncope as possible repairs of (i). As far as I know, no such variation is attested. If reduced vowels are eliminated, they are eliminated by syncope. It appears then that the removal of weak vowels is associated to a single type of operation: deletion. This is the type of situation in which a rule should be used. Furthermore, observe that—as discussed in sections 1.1.7. of Chapter 1 and 2.2.1 of Chapter 2—idiosyncratic restrictions such as that we observe in (39) are possible only in the case of rules. Notice an important issue which unfortunately cannot be addressed here: this post-lexical process refers to morphological information It must be assumed here that /l/ is less sonorous than /r/ Crucially no skeletal deletion is available as a repair operation for fixing violation of the constraint in (7) or other syllabic constraints. François Dell (p.c.) reports that nowadays the overwhelming majority of speakers belongs to the second class especially in their unguarded speech. Remember that syncope is optional. Therefore, unsyncopated forms are always possible in the speech of these speakers. The situation is quite different when a suffix like [ye] is added to a stem ending in a cluster CL. In this case it is necessary to repair the configuration violating (7) to have a licensed surface form Tranel (1987:121) also reports that "a number of speakers allow sequences [CLyV] under very specific and restricted conditions; they allow them only in verb forms where [CL] corresponds to the end of the verb stem and [yV] to the verb ending. For example the verb form boucliez 'buckle' may be pronounced [buklye] (rather than [bukliye]) whereas the noun bouclier 'shield' must be pronounced [bukliye] (and not *[buklye]). In the same way, the verb form oubliez 'forget' must be pronounced [ubliye] (rather than [ublye], as the i belongs to the verb stem, and not to the verb ending )." Interestingly Tranel observes that "the nature of the consonant L in CLyV sequences also seems important. Thus, some speakers allow such sequences only if [L] is [l] (as in boucliez [buklye]) but not if

486

Endnotes [L] is [r] (as in rentriez [ra$triye], *[ra$trye], from rentrer 'to return') while others allow them whether [L] is [l] or [r] (boucliez [buklye], rentriez [ra$trye]) ." A possible solution to the behavior of these speakers could be provided by assuming that stem final consonants are left unsyllabified. This unsyllabified segment will be incorporated during word-level syllabification. Now, let us assume that also in word-level syllabification, there is a relaxation of the syllable contact constraint as in (74). Therefore a contact /stop.l/ is allowed but not /stop-r/. Hence there will not be any resyllabification of the stop. Resyllabification will incorporate only the lateral [l] as part of the onset of the following syllable, as seen in (i). (i) R R R R N N N N a. X X X X + X X X X X X X X b u k l y e b u k l y e However, when [r] follows the stop, it cannot remain in coda position of the preceding syllable because, given (74), a bad syllable contact is created. The stop must then become part of the following onset, thus triggering the sequence of repairs that, as detailed in the text, produces (iic). (ii) R R * R R N N N N a. X X X X + X X b. X X X X X X r a t r y e r a t r y e R R R N N N c. X X X X X X X | | | | | r a t r i e For the case of the derivational suffix [-ye], one must assume an application of cyclic syllabification at stem level. At that level no bad syllable contact is allowed: the constraint in (74) holds only at word level when inflectional suffixes are syllabified. Therefore, the stop occurring before [l] must be resyllabified in the following syllable. The crucial assumption behind this explanation is that [l] and [r] have different sonority. Other facts discussed by Tranel confirm this hypothesis: the vowel [i] of the verb stem for rire 'to laugh' rarely turns into the corresponding glide [y] when followed by a vowel-initial ending. Thus, in the case of riant 'cheerful, rieur 'merry, and rions (we) laugh', for instance, the pronunciations [riya$], {riyr}, {riyo$} are more common than [rya$] , {ryr}, {ryo$}. This contrasts with what we observe in lier 'to tie'

Endnotes

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

487

where although we find both the pronunciations [liya$] {liyr}, {liyo]/ [lya$], {lyr}, {lyo$} for liant 'sociable', lieur 'binder', lions '(we) link', the second set is much more common. This follows if we assume that complex onset /r+y/ are more marked than /l+y/ because [r] and [y] are closer in sonority than [l] and [y](see Romani and Calabrese 1998). Remember that complex onset cluster CL can occur before the diphthong [wa], [wE$] , [˙i] thus creating apparent violations of the constraint in (7). In section 3.1.2 of this chapter, following Lowenstamm (1981), Tranel (1987), I have hypothesized that in the case of these diphthongs the glide is part of the nucleus instead of being in onset position, as shown in (i). R (i) N X X X X t r w a The structure in (i) is thus not constrained by (7) which deals only with actual trisegmental onsets. Their OT analysis actually has several problems pointed out by Clements (1997) and it is Clements's re-analysis of the Tashlhiyt Berber facts that can be considered a truly prime example of a successful OT analysis. The low vocoid /a/ is always realized as a vowel in Tashlhiyt Berber. The underlying sequence 'aa' is realized either as a long vowel [a:] or as the sequence [aya]; for example, underlying /y-nna as/ 'he told him' is realized as [in.na:s] or as [in.na.yas]. The long-vowel realization is obligatory in morpheme-internal sequences. The syllabification of sequences of low vowels in Tashlhiyt Berber was briefly discussed in Chapter 2, section 2.1.1. It is unclear to me if (114c) should be replaced by the two constraints in (ia)-b), one governing the presence of nuclear fricatives and the other one the presence of nuclear stops. (i) a. *[N [X [-sonorant, +continuant]]] (s, z, ... possible if deactivated) b. *[N [X [-sonorant, -continuant]]] (t, d... possible if deactivated) Assuming the two constraints in (i) would predict the existence of a language with nuclear fricatives but no nuclear stops (i.e., a language where (ia) is deactivated, together with (114a) and b), but not (ib)). As far as I know no such language is attested. The reason for this is the fact that in the case of direct questioning, the forms that were investigated were provided in isolation. Prepausal and postpausal annexations are discussed below. They remove obstruent nuclei before and after a pause.

488

Endnotes

23.

Dell and Elmedlaoui (2002: 113) also discuss forms with sonority ramps such as /taxwstsa/ and /almski/ which appear to have the alternate syllabifications in (i). (i) taxw . st. sa / ta . x w st . sa a . lms. ki / al . ms. ki Again more empirical work on such type of clusters is needed. As pointed out by Clements (1997), the markedness of nuclear obstruents may play a role in this rule. The issue is why nuclear obstruents should be disallowed phrase-final position but not in other positions. More research is needed to understand this. A repair operation triggered by the active marking statement *[+back, -round]/[__ -low] inserts the feature [+round] after the application of (186). See below and Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1 for discussion of the other repair operations triggered by segmental marking statements. Notice that in the exchange of [ATR] values in the mid vowels of many Apulian dialects we have the change in (i). (i) [+ATR] [e, o] [-ATR] [ E, O] [-ATR] [ E, O] [+ATR] [e, o] There is no plausible phonetic account for this diachronic change. The same for the English diphthongs. In both cases the best account for the change involves a phonological process of feature reversal. (ii) [Back][-Back]/ [ ____ ] [+high, Back] Crucially the [+back, -round] vowel [I] is allowed in Russian, but not in Italian. Thus, the marking statement [+back, -round] is deactivated in the former language, but not in the latter. The possibility of the pronunciation [I] for [ü] must be obviously related to this fact. There is another set of alternations involving affixal /a/ that need to be accounted for. They are given in (i). 1 pl. Incl (i) / ru / 'do' e rw E /a(ru(a/ /ti/ 'pull' e ty E /a(ti(a/ /rI/ 'eat' a rya /a(rI(a/ /sU/ 'sing' a swa /a(sU(a/

24.

25.

26. 27.

28.

29.

In ( i) we observe that affixal /a/ alternates with /e/ in prefixes and with /E/ in suffixes in [+ATR] environments. I propose that the alternation [aE} is the basic one: it involves application of the harmony rule and the further application of Excision to the disallowed configuration [+low, +ATR] as in (ii). The alternation [ae] is derived by hypothesizing the additional harmony rule in (iii) which is checked after application of the repair in (ii). (ii) [+low, +ATR] [-low , -ATR]

Endnotes (iii)

489

X | [-consonantal]

X | [-consonantal] (right-to-left) | [+ATR] By (iii) prefixal [ E] derived by /a/ through (ii) becomes [e].

CHAPTER 4 1. 2.

3.

4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Also see Vanelli 2003) for a successful analysis of palatalization in Friulan using some of the ideas proposed in this chapter. See Halle, Vaux and Wolfe 2000 for arguments against the lingual node that Clements and Hume (1995) adopt to account for some of these problems and for further criticisms of Clements’ model. A possible problem is posed by Russian non palatalized /S/. In Russian, all consonants may be palatalized or non palatalized. However, in the non-palatalized form of /S/ there is no tongue body fronting, although this consonant is [-anterior]. Tongue body fronting occurs only in the palatalized counterpart of this consonant. An anonymous reviewer observes that non palatalized /S/ is actually retroflex. If this is correct, there is no problem as /S/ would be [-anterior. -distributed] and, therefore, the condition for the application of (13) are not met. Observe that given (13), the configuration [Dorsal +high, -back] is noncontrastive in segments with a designated [Coronal -anterior, +distributed] articulator, and vice versa the configuration [Coronal -anterior, +distributed] is noncontrastive in segments with a designated [Dorsal +high, -back] articulator. Rules that are sensitive only to contrastive features (see Calabrese 1995) will not be able to see these specifications. Only rules that are sensitive to all types of features can see them. This is essentially what is proposed by Clements (1991) to account for how the V-place coronal feature becomes a C-place one. The outcome of coronalization is not always a non anterior coronal consonant as predicted in this analysis. We often find anterior coronal consonants such as [ts, s] as the outcome of this process. See below for discussion of this point. Only the phonological basis of it is discussed here. Discussion of its morphophonological conditioning will have to wait for another time. Romance is characterized also by another process of palatalization, the socalled Second Palatalization whose characteristics are listed in (i). (i) a. It is triggered by /i, e/ b. It affects only the velar stops /k, g/. c. Its oputput is a short consonant.

490

Endnotes d.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14. 15.

It is missing in Sardinian and in Dalmatian, while the first Palatalization is found in all Romance languages The Second Palatalization process is the cause of the velar fronting discussed in 4.1.6. The palatalization of /s/ in the cluster /sy/ has some special features. For example it does not lead to a geminate as we can see in (i). (i) basyu baSo (standard Ital. batSo) ‘kiss’ kaseu kaSo (standard Ital. katSo) ‘cheese’ kamisya kamiSa (standard Ital.kamitSa) ‘shirt’ I will not discuss this change at this time. It is standard practice in non-linear phonology to represent graphically only the articulator nodes that are actively used in the production of a segment. So the tongue body node is not represented in a coronal segment. Now the terminal nodes spread by (51) must be docked onto the appropriate articulator node. I assume that this node becomes automatically active as soon as the spreading occurs. As soon as it becomes active, the articulator node is graphically represented. The articulator nodes that become active in the spreading process are italicized in (51) Evidence for this last point could be provided by several northern Italian dialects where the sequence [py] historically becomes [ptS] (see Rohlfs (1966); the same also occurs in Setswana (see Cole (1955). As shown in (42), his outcome is also commonly found in Italian in the case of clusters with voiced coronal stops (/dy//ddJ// (e.g., [raddJo] from Latin RADIU. Given (62) we could also delete the designated articulator [+Coronal] or the entire Tongue Blade articulator of the disallowed configuration in (61). In both cases we would obtain a fronted velar. Such change would be hardly noticeable if the segment that underwent palatalization was a dorsal. If this segment was a coronal, we would have a change /ty//ky/. It is unclear to me if such a change is attested. I prefer to exclude it. From the point of view of markedness theory, [Coronal] is the unmarked articulator of the pair [Coronal, Dorsal] of (62) (see Calabrese (1995). I assume then that in the simplification of multiply articulated segments, it is always the marked designated articulator that is deleted. Further research will show if this is a correct hypothesis. The presence of a nonstrident fricative is discussed later. Here I focus on the fact that both outcomes involve an anterior coronal Palatal and lateral nasals behave differently than palatal stops: the laminal configuration of the tongue is not as problematic in the case of palatal and lateral nasals, as shown by the fact that they frequently occur across languages. Therefore (76) needs to be restricted to palatal stops, as in (i). However, I omit the specification [-sonorant] in the structural context of (76) (and (77)) for the sake of simplicity. (i) *[-continuant, +distributed ]/ [-sonorant, +Coronal, ____ ]

Endnotes 16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

491

Insertion of the feature [-distributed] would create a fissioned structure which would involve a apical closure and a laminal release. I assume that such structure is articulatorily impossible and disallowed by a prohibition. Observe that given the correlation (13), laminal palato-alveolar stops also have a [Dorsal -back] component. This component is not affected by fission. This accounts for the tongue body involvement in palato-alveolar affricates which is observed by Recasens (1990). As mentioned earlier, I do not mention this component for reasons of graphic simplicity. Change of the feature [+distributed] is not attested. We can account for this fact if we consider that given the correlation (13), in laminal postalveolar segments, there is also involvement of a raised and fronted tongue body, which is not affected by the repair. Changing [+distributed] into [-distributed] would create a retroflex consonant. Retroflection would be incompatible with the tongue body configuration characterizing these segments. A prohibition against this would always disallow replacing [+distributed] with [-distributed]. I am not assuming that all fricatives that are the outcomes of palatalization processes are the output of deleting [-continuant], and that there are no rules of deaffrication. I am merely proposing that at least some of these fricatives result from the application of delinking to the complex configuration [-continuant, +distributed]. I assume that some fricatives found as outcomes of palatalization may well be the output of deaffrication rules applied to original affricates. Unfortunately, the examples in (89) are not so transparent and clear; there seems to be some inconsistency and free variation, e.g., the variation between geminate and single segments in word final position. A possible objection to this analysis of the facts from the dialect of Sologno could be posed by assuming that the palatalization of velars applied before that of dentals, and produced affricates. These palato-alveolar affricates from the velars would have been deaffricated before the palatalization of dentals occurred, and again created affricates. If this historical reconstruction were correct, we could have a different account of the facts from the dialect of Sologno. Historical evidence, however, clearly shows that in Romance languages the process of dental palatalization occurred first—for example, early inscriptions show palatalization of dentals but not of velars or labials (see Tekavcic 1972). Clearly, palatalization was extended to velars and labials only after the palatalization of dentals. The alternative historical reconstruction proposed in this note, therefore, cannot be maintained. Observe that in this way, we are dealing with the creation of dialectal variation in a non-Markovian way. In fact, dialectal variation in these cases is not brought about by the addition of a rule to the grammar of a certain group of speakers, but directly through the selection of different

492

23.

Endnotes options offered by Universal Grammar. In this section, I will argue that this hypothesis is empirically motivated by historical facts. We often find non strident fricatives as outcomes of fricativization in palatalization processes. A nice example of such development is given by the Sardinian dialect of Nuoro (Pittau 1972) where we have the following sound changes from Latin. Latin Dialect of Nuoro (i) a. ty QQ b. ky QQ We can see some examples of this development in (ii). (ii) Dialect of Nuoro Latin kanQone CANTIONE lanQare LANCEARE karQare CALCEARE marQu MARTIUS puQQu PUTEU koryaQQu CORIACEU Observe that it is very difficult to hypothesize an intermediate stage /ts/ before the final outcome /QQ/ in the case of this dialect because of the presence of another sound change that occurred probably at the same time of the palatalization process or shortly after it. This sound change affected front glides after sonorants and changed them into voiceless alveolar affricates as in (iiia) and (iiib). Latin Dialect of Nuoro (iii) a. ly tts ny nts b. Dialect of Nuoro Latin lantsare LANIARE bentso VENIO mutsa MULIERE metsu MELIU If there was a deaffrication process that changed an intermediate /ts/ from /ty, ky/ into the non strident /Q/, it should have also changed the affricate /ts/ from /y/ after/l, n/. But this did not occur. This implies that we had a direct change from /ty, ky/ to /Q/. If we indeed had a direct change from /ty, ky/ to /QQ/, I can account for it straightforwardly as follows. As in the other Romance varieties discussed above, /ky/ and /ty/ became laminal stops through the first palatalization process of Romance. As I assumed before for other Romance varieties, Sardinian did not accept the degree of complexity of laminal dental stops. Therefore, these consonants had to be repaired. I propose that delinking of [-continuant] applied. Now, stops are naturally characterized by the feature [-strident] (see Stevens and Keyser

Endnotes

493

1989). Let us assume that this feature is specified in the feature bundle of stops when delinking applies. After the application of delinking, we then obtain the configuration in (iv). (iv) [+continuant, -strident]. Now consider the configuration [+continuant, -strident]. This configuration is marked with as difficult by the marking statement in (v). (v) *[+continuant, -strident]. If a language does not deactivate this marking statement, that configuration must be repaired by the application of delinking of [-strident]. I assume that this is the way in which we obtain the strident fricatives /S, s/ after application of delinking [-continuant] in palatalization processes. Now, in some languages (v) may be deactivated. Thus after application of delinking of [-continuant], the configuration [+continuant, -strident] will not be repaired and will be allowed to surface. I propose that this is the case of the Sardinian dialect of Nuoro.

CHAPTER 5 1.

Note that the same result could be obtained by spreading of [+ATR] followed by a subsequent change of [+ATR] into [-ATR] in the feature bundle of the low vowel. This derivation would produce (i). Derivational economy excludes this kind of derivation. See below for discussion. (i) /s o l o m - a n - i.../ X X X X X X X X -low

2. 3.

4.

5.

-low

+low

-low

-ATR -ATR -ATR +ATR The details of this REPAIR will not be discussed here. As proposed by Clements (2002) (see section 5.3.5 below), this voicing is accounted for by an abstract nasal feature N which occurs between the two members of a compound. This N is the fossilized residue of a nasal element that historically occurred between members of a compound in previous stages of Japanese. In this way Rendaku can be analyzed as a case of post-nasal voicing, an independently needed process in Japanese. See section 5.3.5 below for more discussion of Clements’s proposal. I assume that non contrastive feature specifications are invisible to the line crossing constraint. In particular, the line associating the non contrastive feature value with a higher node is not seen, so the representations produced by the rule do not violate the line crossing constraint. See below for another way of obtaining neutral opaque vowels and for further discussion of this issue.

494

Endnotes

6.

Obviously we have to assume that we are somehow able to parse these words into morphemes (by comparison with other data) and hypothesize that [tak] and [tag-] share the same meaning in the target language. The establishment of underlying representations is also governed by the economy principle, which in this case prescribes that no structure can be postulated underlyingly if there is no need for it, i.e., the null hypothesis. Another analysis is possible for Khanty. This analysis involves a rule accessing all features and spreading both values of [back] as in (i) Blocking accounts for the neutrality of [i]. This is identical to the analysis proposed in (53). As argued for (53), this analysis will never be chosen unless there is contrary evidence and I will not discuss it here. (i) Analysis 1. Condition: All feature accessed 2. Underlying suffixal value: Unmarked[+bk] (naturally unmarked) 3. Rule: Spread [bk] Root-internal harmonic effects in Wolof will be discussed later. All constituents in the feature representations of a given language must be constituents of the universal feature hierarchy. Note that (161) is sensitive to word-boundaries, and, therefore, must be checked at the word-level. Surely, I must be checked before Rendaku which applies in compounds and thus must be checked at the post-lexical level. Observe that given (184), the non contrastive [+round] cannot render [low] of [u] non contrastive. I hypothesize that surface v is always derived from underlying w in Russian, as hypothesized in Jakobson (1948), Halle (1973) and Lightner (1972).

7.

8.

9. 10. 11.

12. 13.

CONCLUSIONS 1. 2. 3.

From Greek - 'through, apart' 'throw' "to divide' break apart', i.e. the basic action that is behind a negation. See below for Conspiracies in OT Performance models of OT obviously have been proposed (see Tesar 1995). It is unclear how efficient, and in particular how time-efficient, they are given the extremely large number of stages that they must go through to obtain the "winning" candidate. It is interesting, however, that they give much more emphasis on the operations performed by GEN to satisfy the active constraints of a grammar. These operations look like the repairs of constraints-and-repair theories. One then wonders why a theory of performance leads to a model that is quite different from that proposed in the theory of competence, and why the theory of competence is not modified so that it is more similar to theory of performance.

Endnotes 4. 5.

6.

495

I proposed that for cases like these we need rules (see discussion in Chapter 1 and 2). Two complications are disregarded by McCarthy: initial onsetless syllables and tautomorphemic hiatus configurations are allowed. For the first, he assumes a higher ranked alignment constraint as in McCarthy and Prince's (1993) analysis of Axininca Campa (see discussion of this issue in section 3.2.4.1 of Chapter 3). As for the second, McCarthy follows Casali's (1996) suggestion that Onset violations are tolerated in underived environments. In the framework proposed here, the presence of onsetless initial syllables is not a problem since (9) targets only hiatus configurations (see section 3.2.4.1 of Chapter 3 for related discussion). As for the presence of hiatus configuration in morpheme internal position, I would say that they are licensed in this position by null repair (see Section 2.2.3 of Chapter 2 for related discussion). Constraints implementing surface similarities among out output forms can be postulated in any model—for example, in the model outlined in this book, if their necessity can be demonstrated. They are not an OT prerogative.

Subject Index

Accidental gap, 135, 449 Adequacy, descriptive, 15 Adequacy, explanatory, 6, 452, 501 Adjacency, 32, 358, 359 Alternants of a given morpheme, 12 Alternations, 7, 13, 14, 34, 46, 164, 180, 185, 190, 207, 241, 258, 260, 349, 373, 374, 375, 376, 378, 418, 419, 479, 480, 488 Ambisyllabic constructions, 27 Analysis, goal of a synchronic phonological ___ of a language, 10 Aphasic patients, 107, 108, 479 Articulator, Radical, 296, 376, 513 Articulatory implementation, 307 Articulatory interface, 43, 116, 117 Articulatory programs, 43, 116, 117 Attention, 69, 218, 281, 357, 364 Blocking, v, vi, 25, 33, 76, 93, 103, 125, 205, 207, 219, 226, 236, 249, 276, 353, 354, 361, 384, 422, 429, 477 Brain damage, 108 Checking, 38, 41, 69, 73, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 189, 284, 361, 429 Competence, 16, 455, 494 Computation, 5, 6, 20, 21 Connectionist systems, 16 Conspiracy, v, ix, 22, 24, 35, 85, 109, 118, 120, 134, 138, 207, 217, 240, 452, 453, 458, 461 Constraints, iv, ix, xii, 3, 7, 9, 15, 25, 26, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 41, 42, 43, 68, 69, 72, 73, 75, 76, 86, 100, 106, 107, 108, 116, 117, 118, 119,

120, 121, 122, 124, 134, 135, 142, 146, 181, 189, 205, 240, 245, 249, 272, 279, 308, 356, 358, 364, 415, 427, 429, 438, 439, 440, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 461, 466, 467, 468, 469, 474, 475, 480, 482, 484, 485, 487, 494 Constraints, negative ______, 3, 25, 26, 31, 34, 35, 37, 41, 76, 108, 117, 118, 119, 121, 133, 135, 181, 205, 480, 482, 484 Convention, 5, 364, 375, 388, 399 Coronality of front vowels, vi, 304 Correlation statements, 60, 61, 62, 307 Cyclic morphemes, 189, 197 Cyclicity, 189, 509 Derivation, ix, 10, 11, 28, 29, 30, 31, 38, 41, 47, 53, 70, 71, 72, 73, 77, 86, 87, 89, 95, 96, 97, 101, 102, 104, 105, 111, 114, 116, 141, 144, 147, 171, 172, 181, 182, 184, 187, 189, 194, 198, 199, 203, 210, 211, 224, 226, 227, 228, 230, 249, 257, 271, 272, 282, 284, 289, 361, 392, 422, 429, 460, 465, 474, 476, 477, 478, 484, 493 Derivation, deterministic ______, 11 Derivational economy, 159, 298, 363 Derivational efficiency, 70 Derivational efficiency and underspecification, 71 Dictionary, 36, 37, 115, 116 Economy, i, iv, ix, 3, 10, 19, 20, 25, 53, 75, 118, 133, 136, 147, 149,

524

Subject index

159, 210, 296, 298, 363, 469, 474, 493, 494 Efficiency, xi, 10, 21, 53, 70 Emergence of the marked, 51 Epidemiological model of culture change, 472 Evolutionary changes, 472 Exceptions, 1, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 38, 39, 47, 53, 72, 107, 190, 191, 193, 241, 243, 244, 260, 275, 364, 389, 399, 473, 478 Exchange rules, 291, 293 Explanation, 5, 6, 7, 10, 14, 47, 76, 240, 287, 301, 341, 479, 486 Explanation, phonetic ______, 6, 42 Faithfulness constraints, 452, 453, 467, 468, 469 Fashion and sound changes, 473 Feature contrast, 373 Feature geometry Articulators Articulator, Coronal ______, 303, 304, 309, 310, 311, 314, 317, 336, 337, 459 Articulator, Designated ______, 55, 56, 309, 310, 311, 317, 333, 334, 338, 342, 459, 490 Articulator, Dorsal ______, 56, 310, 311, 312, 333, 337, 342, 344, 459 Articulator, Labial ______, 331 Larynx, 54, 61, 306, 473 Lips, x, 54, 57, 62, 306 Soft palate, 54, 306 Tongue blade, 54, 62, 303, 306, 309, 310, 342, 343, 351 Tongue body, 49, 54, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 121, 293, 302, 304, 305, 307, 308, 309, 310, 342, 351, 489, 490, 491 Tongue root, 49, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 306, 307, 473

Feature robustness, 126, 430, 431 Feature specifications, contrastive _____, 69, 358, 365, 386, 387, 399, 408, 421, 429, 431, 433, 445, 446, 447, 493 Feature specifications, marked _____, 68, 364, 366, 367, 368, 375, 430 Feature specifications, noncontrastive _____, 438 Feature specifications, unmarked _____, 364, 388 Feature spreading, 24, 183 Feature [stiff vocal folds], 55, 133, 293, 306, 474, 481 Feature [voice], 34, 120, 121, 359, 360, 361, 366, 374, 426, 427, 428, 444, 445, 447, 448, 456, 474, 480 Features, articulator-free ______, 54, 55 Features, asymmetric behavior of ______, 68, 74, 353, 356 Features, contrastive ______, vii, 67, 69, 70, 357, 358, 359, 361, 363, 365, 378, 379, 381, 386, 387, 388, 396, 399, 400, 408, 409, 421, 429, 430, 431, 433, 436, 445, 446, 447, 448, 481, 489, 493 Features, non-contrastive ______, 68, 361, 363, 409, 429, 435 Fission, see Repairs, Fission. Functional morphemes, 461, 462, 463, 464 Grammar, iv, ix, 11, 12, 34, 35, 37, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 86, 116, 117, 118, 124, 125, 135, 136, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 205, 240, 284, 303, 331, 352, 363, 452, 453, 456, 467, 469, 491, 494 Grammar as a computational system, 45 Grammar as an institution, 45 Grammar unification, 35

Subject Index Grammaticalization, 45 Guttural consonants, 58 Harmonic alternations, 373, 375, 378, 418, 419 Harmonic vowels, 353, 369, 370, 377, 388, 392 Harmony processes, 67, 74, 353, 449 Hiatus, vi, 22, 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 33, 46, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 87, 88, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 112, 114, 115, 120, 138, 186, 187, 207, 229, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 244, 248, 274, 275, 276, 278, 279, 282, 284, 453, 461, 462, 463, 466, 467, 471, 475, 477, 479, 495 History, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 47, 52, 65, 72, 130, 131, 170, 180, 185, 289, 311, 313, 350, 471, 483 Idiosyncratic grammatical statements, 10 Idiosyncratic rules, 1, 2, 6, 47, 53, 72, 135 Illicit configurations, 43, 86, 87, 117, 119 Indirect negative evidence, 135 Innovation, 35, 45, 46, 121, 472, 473, 474 Innovative repair, 45 Institution, 45 Instruction, automatization of sequence of ___, 19 Instructions, iv, v, 15, 17, 19, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 47, 53, 62, 73, 74, 119, 134, 136, 181, 189, 205, 294, 353, 356, 357, 449, 453, 482 Instructions, negative ___, 33, 34 Instructions, ordered sequences of ___, 15, 19 Instructions, positive ___, 33, 34, 62

525

Instructions, serial ordering of ___, 15 Interface conditions, 42, 116 Interface, articulatory ___, 43, 116, 117 Internal reconstruction, 9, 12 Last Resort, 20, 102, 176, 223, 233, 258, 378 Lexical diffusion, 473 Licensed configurations, 43, 117 Licensing, 43, 87, 117, 125, 474 Licit configurations, 189 Line deletion, 79, 80, 88, 89, 92, 95, 96, 105, 147, 463 Linguistic community, 45, 46, 451, 472 Markedness, iv, vi, ix, xii, 1, 3, 8, 20, 26, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 51, 53, 70, 72, 73, 74, 107, 116, 117, 122, 123, 124, 126, 132, 134, 142, 246, 247, 294, 307, 353, 365, 366, 374, 429, 437, 438, 452, 453, 467, 472, 480, 488, 490 Markedness constraints, xii, 3, 73, 107, 116, 452, 453 Markedness module, 3, 72, 122, 132, 307 Markedness theory, iv, 1, 47, 51, 72, 142, 374, 429, 490 Marking statements, iv, 5, 38, 41, 42, 43, 45, 70, 76, 77, 100, 116, 117, 118, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 134, 135, 139, 175, 205, 220, 221, 239, 246, 247, 290, 294, 307, 308, 354, 361, 366, 368, 373, 376, 413, 415, 418, 422, 429, 437, 439, 441, 442, 443, 444, 449, 454, 473, 474, 478, 480, 481, 488 Marking statements, active ___, 70, 294, 429, 437, 441, 473

526

Subject index

Marking statements, deactivation of ___, 129, 131, 474 Memorization, 1, 5 Mimetic behavior, 45 Mirror neurons, 54 Morpheme final segments and syllabification, 71 Morphology, v, 6, 268, 270, 271, 272, 302 Motor theory of speech perception, 54 Negation, see Repairs, Negation Neutralization, 121, 323, 339, 373 Norms, 5, 45, 287 Nucleus assignment, 32, 33, 216 OCP, 103, 219, 425, 426, 427, 428 Opacity, ix, 11, 13, 14, 17, 179, 193, 388, 460, 461 Operations Line deletion, 79, 80, 88, 89, 92, 95, 96, 105, 147, 463 Nucleus assignment, 32, 33, 216 Skeletal deletion, 27, 30, 85, 87, 91, 92, 106, 282, 482, 485 Skeletal insertion, 27, 28, 104, 105 Ordering stipulations, 2, 14 Output buffer, 115, 116 Parameters, 70, 386, 460 Performance, 4, 107, 116, 479, 494 Phoneme inventories, 68, 443 Phonemic alphabet, iv Phonological Component, 4, 35, 107 Phonological Component, formal architecture of ______, 35 Phonological epidemic, 473 Phonological theory, 4, 43, 86 Phonologization, 472 Phonology as a technique for datacompression, 6, 9 Phonology, 2

Phonology, a parallel model of ___, 15 Phonology, a serial model of ___, 15 Phonology, computational nature of ___, 4 Phonology, conventional nature of ___, 1, 2, 53 Phonology, deterministic models of ______, 11, 21, 25, 82 Phonology, language-specific ___, 121 Phonology, models of ___, 1 Phonology, parallel models of ___, 1 Phonology, procedural approach to ___, 15 Phonology, realistic approach to ___, iv, 4 Phonology, substance-free ___, 4 Piercing, 52 Primary articulation, 56, 331 Principle of Economy, 133, 296, 469 Problem solving, 16 Process Affrication, 302, 303, 311, 318, 329, 334, 339, 340, 341, 342, 349, 351 Aspiration of stops, 131 Assimilation, 17, 19, 51, 57, 59, 69, 121, 132, 291, 302, 307, 316, 323, 326, 331, 344, 429, 444, 446, 448, 457, 458, 459, 460 Coda incorporation, 81, 175, 176, 222, 231 Coronalization, vi, 39, 301, 302, 303, 304, 308, 310, 311, 316, 317, 319, 324, 336, 351, 489 Diphthongization, 40, 234, 473 Epenthesis, 135, 149, 150, 151, 158, 179, 180, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 193, 202, 206, 241, 304, 305, 347, 475, 483 Fission, see Repairs, Fission

Subject Index Fricativization, 311, 339, 348, 492 Fronting of rounded back vowels, 47, 51 Glide formation, 23, 26, 28, 29, 32, 73, 77, 78, 82, 85, 89, 92, 93, 94, 101, 109, 110, 184, 186, 207, 208, 209, 211, 213, 215, 234, 282, 283, 463, 464, 476, 479, 484 Labial attraction, 367, 368, 369 Metaphony, 118, 286 Negation, see Repairs, Negation Nucleus assignment, 32, 33, 216 Onset Incorporation, 27, 81, 82, 84, 85, 88, 101, 103, 153, 207, 216, 217, 222, 225, 228 Palatalization, vi, 38, 39, 40, 41, 51, 58, 62, 74, 114, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 308, 310, 311, 314, 315, 316, 317, 319, 320, 321, 323, 324, 329, 330, 331, 333, 334, 336, 337, 338, 339, 342, 344, 345, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 489, 490, 491, 492, 493 Post-nasal voicing, 428, 493 Resyllabification, 24, 32, 33, 113, 143, 189, 193, 195, 196, 199, 217, 228, 230, 274, 276, 284, 482, 486 Syllabification of high vocoids, 32 Velar fronting, 39, 131, 301, 302, 314, 316, 317, 329, 337, 351, 490 Yer strengthening, 197 Prohibitions, 41, 42, 76, 117, 121, 122, 205, 290, 307, 437, 439, 483 Ranking of the repair operations, 26, 110 Reanalysis, 14, 472, 474, 483

527

Reanalysis, mistaken ___ of inputs, 472 Redundancy rules, 67, 339 Redundant features, 67 REPAIR set of a constraint, 26, 77, 86 Repair, universal ranking of the repair operations, 26 Repairs, iv, v, ix, xii, 3, 25, 31, 33, 37, 38, 44, 48, 52, 70, 73, 75, 76, 93, 102, 106, 107, 114, 115, 118, 120, 136, 138, 142, 144, 147, 149, 150, 160, 167, 169, 171, 195, 196, 199, 200, 205, 206, 207, 226, 227, 233, 236, 288, 289, 296, 338, 358, 452, 453, 456, 472, 482, 485, 486, 494 Delinking, 118, 120, 136, 291, 328, 338, 352, 364, 385, 491, 492, 493 Epenthesis, 135, 149, 150, 151, 158, 179, 180, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 193, 202, 206, 241, 304, 305, 347, 475, 483 Feature deletion, 83, 86, 119, 144 Fission, v, vi, 31, 40, 41, 96, 99, 103, 135, 136, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 169, 172, 203, 206, 211, 229, 236, 303, 342, 345, 346, 347, 352, 472, 478, 481, 491 Negation, vi, 34, 74, 136, 280, 289, 290, 291, 294, 296, 420, 494 Skeletal deletion, 27, 30, 85, 87, 91, 92, 106, 282, 482, 485 Skeletal insertion, 27, 28, 104, 105 Representations, 36, 73, 113, 369 Representations, underlying ______, 21, 70, 71, 74, 171, 182, 186, 347, 353, 358, 373, 374, 375, 376, 386, 400, 449, 474, 494

528

Subject index

Restoration, 102 Rules, Natural _____, 8, 10, 42, 45, 51, 121, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 206, 307, 308, 338, 459, 472, 481 Secondary articulation, 59, 60, 307, 319, 331, 473 Segment types Affricates, 112, 302, 313, 331, 333, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 344, 346, 348, 349, 350, 492 Front high vowels, 312, 314, 316 High vocoids, 32, 33, 80, 81, 89, 93, 97, 99, 100, 105, 184, 185, 186, 207, 208, 211, 215, 217, 234, 235, 236, 237, 242, 243, 271, 278, 304, 312, 313, 315, 351, 477, 478, 484 Labialized velars, 56 Labio-velar stops, 56, 311 Laminal palato-alveolar stops, 311, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 491 Laminal stops, 303, 313, 340, 341, 343, 344, 347, 348, 351, 492 Laminopalatal stops, 340 Palatal stops, 38, 39, 310, 311, 490 Palatals, 38, 39, 65, 92, 112, 235, 236, 237, 271, 301, 309, 310, 311, 314, 319, 322, 323, 326, 331, 333, 337, 342, 349, 369, 376, 432, 433, 478, 490 Syllabic sonorants, v, 167, 168, 170, 182, 189, 190, 199, 203, 206, 482 Segments, neutral opaque _____, 364 Segments, neutral transparent _____, 364 Segments, neutral _____, 353, 449 Sensory-motor system, 42, 43, 72, 116, 117

Skeletal positions, 63, 64, 65, 66, 73, 78, 79, 81, 103, 104, 105, 113, 143, 147, 148, 150, 151, 156, 160, 168, 169, 172, 182, 189, 193, 194, 199, 201, 216, 234, 247, 260, 264, 296, 325, 326, 328, 332, 471, 476, 477, 481 Sonority, 32, 33, 174, 175, 182, 219, 221, 223, 224, 227, 231, 242, 245, 246, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 272, 274, 276, 277, 278, 454, 475, 483, 484, 486, 488 Sonority scale, 242, 245 Sound change, 3, 12, 13, 45, 46, 53, 131, 289, 291, 311, 319, 337, 349, 472, 473, 492 Speciation, 472 Speech perception, 54 Speech production, 54, 115 Spotlighting, 69, 70, 357, 359, 427 Subset principle, 463, 475 Substantial basis of language, 5 Substantive universals, 1 Successful derivation, 84, 87, 224 Syllabification, v, 32, 69, 71, 74, 80, 100, 149, 152, 154, 158, 160, 172, 173, 175, 177, 178, 190, 193, 197, 202, 207, 215, 221, 240, 242, 245, 246, 247, 255, 256, 258, 259, 260, 269, 270, 272, 276, 278, 279, 347, 454, 463, 482, 486, 487 Syllable contact, 120, 157, 182, 216, 226, 231, 279, 482, 486 Syllable structure, 64, 65, 71, 73, 108, 135, 149, 150, 164, 171, 172, 195, 214, 246, 279, 325, 474, 482 Codas, 29, 64, 71, 81, 83, 89, 92, 95, 97, 98, 100, 102, 113, 120, 122, 123, 124, 130, 151, 152, 153, 159, 161, 163, 173, 174, 175, 176, 179, 182, 193, 199, 200, 219, 222, 227, 231, 233, 249, 256, 259, 260, 261, 262,

Subject Index 269, 325, 454, 465, 478, 482, 486 Complex codas, 92, 97, 123, 124, 172, 173, 199, 249, 261, 454 Complex onsets, 65, 66, 93, 106, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 123, 124, 174, 208, 235, 249, 262, 323, 324, 325, 453, 454, 478, 479, 487 Margins, 123, 150, 153, 182, 272, 282, 343 Nucleus, 26, 28, 31, 32, 33, 78, 79, 80, 82, 85, 86, 89, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 101, 105, 106, 111, 148, 150, 151, 152, 157, 165, 168, 176, 182, 207, 210, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 233, 241, 246, 247, 248, 256, 260, 261, 267, 269, 272, 282, 471, 475, 476, 477, 478, 487 Onsets, 27, 29, 64, 65, 66, 69, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 88, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 107, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114, 122, 123, 124, 143, 148, 151, 152, 153, 156, 160, 161, 163, 172, 175, 176, 179, 182, 200, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 219, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 227, 228, 231, 233, 237, 238, 239, 249, 259, 260, 262, 269, 273, 275, 278, 279, 323, 324, 325, 326, 339, 374, 454, 465, 477, 479, 482, 484, 486, 487 Syllables, onsetless ______, 123, 124, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 453, 471, 495 Telescoping, 8, 14, 202

529

Terminal nodes, 144, 346, 481, 490 Time, x, xi, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14, 20, 21, 25, 32, 33, 38, 44, 45, 47, 53, 54, 68, 75, 107, 128, 134, 136, 142, 148, 149, 181, 183, 187, 305, 312, 322, 346, 360, 366, 400, 406, 408, 409, 415, 418, 421, 422, 431, 437, 451, 455, 459, 469, 473, 475, 489, 490, 492 Time efficiency, 21 Time, real ______, 2, 3, 4, 5, 20, 21, 107 Time-efficient language generative machine, 19 Transmission, 2, 10, 46, 472 Underspecification, 67, 68, 69, 71, 83, 137, 356, 364, 369, 374, 376, 392, 399, 425, 474 Universal Grammar, ix, 519 Universals, 1, 503, 504 Universals, substantive ______, 1 Usage cost, 3 Visibility theory, 430 Vowel harmony, vi, vii, 67, 103, 280, 283, 284, 286, 304, 353, 354, 355, 374, 389, 392, 393, 397, 400, 402, 418, 422, 432, 433 Vowels, Neutral opaque ______, 363, 382, 406, 409, 493 Yers, 191, 193, 194, 196, 198, 199, 201, 202, 482

Language Index

Alyawarra, affrication of laminal stops in ___, 347 Apulian, vowel exchange in ___, 292, 488 Arabic, 7, 129, 161, 270, 293, 390, 460 Armenian, 50, 131, 167, 290, 292 Athabaskan, palatalization in, 337 Axininca Campa, consonant insertion in ___, 275, 276, 495 Baltic, Development of syllabic liquids in ___, 170 Bantu, affricates in ___, 67, 319, 347 Bedouin Arabic, 7 Berber, hiatus resolution in ___, v, 32, 74, 103, 104, 152, 167, 168, 240, 241, 242, 245, 246, 247, 248, 260, 262, 264, 268, 270, 271, 274, 275, 276, 278, 279, 487 Bulgarian, v, 164, 166, 167, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 179, 189, 190, 191, 194, 195, 201, 203, 205, 223, 248, 347, Cairene Arabic, epenthesis in ___, 161 Catalan, palatal lateral and nasal in ___, 333 Chicano Spanish, hiatus resolution in ___, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 91, 93, 103, 105, 118, 471 Chinautla, vowel lowering in ___, 286 Chukchi, epenthesis in ___, 158, 160

Chumash, consonantal harmony in ___, 385, 386 Corsican, vowel exchange in ___, 292 Czech, 293, 310, 324, 341 Emai, hiatus resolution in ___, 461 English, 43, 44, 69, 124, 132, 152, 153, 167, 247, 248, 289, 292, 349, 429, 457, 458, 459, 460, 484, 488 English, vowel shift, 292 Finnish, 129, 141, 370, 380, 381, 382, 432 Foggiano, 118 French, v, 22, 23, 24, 28, 31, 43, 73, 94, 136, 141, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 215, 218, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 229, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 349, 453, 478, 483, 484, 485 French, hiatus in ___, 234 Friulan, affrication of laminal stops in ___, 341, 347, 489 Gallo-Romance, 47 German, 43, 129, 136, 138, 139, 140, 141, 184, 295, 310, 373 Greek, 47, 129, 171, 196, 494 Grottaminarda, dialect of, 313 Gugada, affrication of laminal stops in ___, 347 Hebrew, 12, 13, 58, 308, 460 Huave, 135, 513 Hungarian, palatal stops in ___, 295, 304, 310, 315, 432

Language index Icelandic, 38, 39, 40, 179, 180, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 483 Ilokano, hiatus resolution in ___, 104, 105, 106, 479 Indo-European, development of syllabic liquids in ___, 167, 170 Indo-Iranian, development of syllabic liquids in ___, 170 Iraqi Arabic, epenthesis in ___, 161 Isoko, affrication of laminal stops in ___, 347 Italian, vi, 43, 47, 71, 107, 108, 115, 118, 124, 129, 131, 136, 141, 142, 145, 209, 238, 294, 295, 301, 303, 311, 313, 316, 317, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 331, 333, 335, 338, 339, 349, 488, 490 Italian dialect of Sologno, palatalization in ___, 322, 331, 349, 350, 491 Italian, consonantal, consonantal inventory of ___, 320 Japanese, Rendaku in ___, 474 Kabardian as a two-vowel language, 289, 480 Khanty, vowel harmony in ___, 371, 382, 384, 494 Khoisan, affricates in ___, 347 Kinande, vowel harmony in ___, 67, 69, 354, 356, 361, 422 Kwa, vowel developments, 284, 285, 286, 289 Latin, consonantal, consonantal inventory of___, 319, 320 Latin, lateral dissimilation in ___, 358 Latvian, 129 Lenakel, epenthesis in ___, 153, 155, 158, 511 Lithuanian, 141 Luo, 293

531

Margi, tone polarity in ___, 292, 347 Modern Greek, 129 Mongolian, 50, 289 Okpe, vi, 22, 23, 24, 28, 30, 91, 92, 93, 119, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 298, 300, 462, 465 Okpe, vowel Harmony in ___, 300 Old Irish, development of syllabic liquids in ___, 171 Polish, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 23, 33, 90, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 134, 232, 233, 471, 478 Romance, first palatalization of ___, vi Romanian, 136, 141, 311, 351 Russian, 135, 142, 194, 197, 295, 373, 390, 444, 445, 446, 449, 488, 489, 494 Russian, yers in ___, 194 Salentino, 118, 321, 323, 333, 339, 351 Sanskrit, 66, 71, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 97, 168, 289, 324 Sardinian, 311, 336, 348, 490, 492, 493 Sardinian dialect of Barbagia, palatalization in ___, 348 Sardinian dialect of Campidano, palatalization in ___, 348 Sardinian dialect of Logudoro, palatalization in ___, 348 Sardinian dialect of Nuoro, first palatalization in ___, 336, 492, 493 Selkup, fricativization in ___, 349, 350 Serbo-Croatian, 166 Shilluk, 293 Slavic, development of syllabic liquids in ___, 171, 191, 195, 286, 314, 315, 319, 324, 345, 350 Somali, vowel fronting in ___, 50

532

Language index

Sudanic, vowel developments in ___, 286 Swedish, vowel lowering in ___, 286, 290, 310 Tashlhyit Berber, 152, 279 Temne, affrication of laminal stops in ___, 347 Tulu, rounding caused by labials in ___, 61 Tungusic, vowel developments in ___, 50, 286, 369 Tunica, 17 Turkish, 141, 304, 389, 395 Tuscan, 311 Ukrainian, 134, 135 Umbro, 118 Uwie, 125 Uyghur, vowel harmony in ___, vi, 364, 370, 379, 382, 388, 389, 390, 391, 395, 396, 399 Vepsian, vowel harmony in ___, 371, 382 Wolof, vowel harmony in ___, vi, 353, 364, 388, 404, 406, 409, 411, 412, 413, 449, 494 Yoruba, vowel harmony in ___, vi, 386, 413, 415, 417, 418, 422

Markedness and Economy in a Derivational Model of Phonology

Markedness: Reduction and Preservation in Phonology (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics)

A Prosodic Model of Sign Language Phonology

Abstract Phonology in a Concrete Model: Cognitive Linguistics and the Morphology-Phonology Interface

Abstract Phonology in a Concrete Model: Cognitive Linguistics and the Morphology-Phonology Interface

The Logic of Markedness

A Glossary of Phonology (Glossaries in Linguistics)

A Computational Phonology of Russian

A Derivational Syntax for Information Structure

Phonology

A Derivational Syntax for Information Structure (Studies in Theoretical Linguistics)

Strength Relations in Phonology

Patterns in Child Phonology

Optimality Theory in Phonology: A Reader

Variation and Gradience in Phonetics and Phonology

A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations

A derivational syntax for information structure

A Historical Phonology of the Upper and Lower Sorbian Languages (Historical Phonology of the Slavic languages)

Variation and Gradience in Phonetics and Phonology

Introducing Phonetics and Phonology

The Phonology of Norwegian

Towards a Derivational Syntax: Survive-minimalism

A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations

A Sketch of the Phonology and Grammar of Rajbanshi

A Handbook of Old Chinese Phonology

The Phonology of Norwegian (The Phonology of the World's Languages)

The Phonology of Hungarian (The Phonology of the World's Languages)

The Phonology of Polish (The Phonology of the World's Languages)

The Phonology of Mongolian (The Phonology of the World's Languages)

Acquiring a Non-Native Phonology

Phonology and Language Use

Markedness and Economy in a Derivational Model of Phonology

Markedness: Reduction and Preservation in Phonology (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics)

A Prosodic Model of Sign Language Phonology

Abstract Phonology in a Concrete Model: Cognitive Linguistics and the Morphology-Phonology Interface

Abstract Phonology in a Concrete Model: Cognitive Linguistics and the Morphology-Phonology Interface

The Logic of Markedness

A Glossary of Phonology (Glossaries in Linguistics)

A Computational Phonology of Russian

A Derivational Syntax for Information Structure

Phonology

A Derivational Syntax for Information Structure (Studies in Theoretical Linguistics)

Strength Relations in Phonology

Patterns in Child Phonology

Optimality Theory in Phonology: A Reader

Variation and Gradience in Phonetics and Phonology

A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations

A derivational syntax for information structure

A Historical Phonology of the Upper and Lower Sorbian Languages (Historical Phonology of the Slavic languages)

Variation and Gradience in Phonetics and Phonology

Introducing Phonetics and Phonology

The Phonology of Norwegian

Towards a Derivational Syntax: Survive-minimalism

A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations

A Sketch of the Phonology and Grammar of Rajbanshi

A Handbook of Old Chinese Phonology

The Phonology of Norwegian (The Phonology of the World's Languages)

The Phonology of Hungarian (The Phonology of the World's Languages)

The Phonology of Polish (The Phonology of the World's Languages)

The Phonology of Mongolian (The Phonology of the World's Languages)

Acquiring a Non-Native Phonology

Phonology and Language Use

Recommend Documents