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 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

Prolegomena to a realistic theory of phonology

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

Prolegomena to a realistic theory of phonology

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.

Prolegomena to a realistic theory of 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.

Prolegomena to a realistic theory of 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

Prolegomena to a realistic theory of phonology

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

Prolegomena to a realistic theory of phonology

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

Prolegomena to a realistic theory of phonology

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

Prolegomena to a realistic theory of phonology

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)

Prolegomena to a realistic theory of phonology

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

Prolegomena to a realistic theory of phonology

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

Prolegomena to a realistic theory of phonology

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).

Prolegomena to a realistic theory of phonology

(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).

Prolegomena to a realistic theory of phonology

(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)

Prolegomena to a realistic theory of phonology

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.

Prolegomena to a realistic theory of phonology

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.

Prolegomena to a realistic theory of phonology

(45)

2 sg perf. /t-......-t/ tr
. gl
t ts
. kr
t tx
. zn
t

33

3 f.sg. perf. + dat.3m.sg. /t- .../ +/as/ tr
g . las ‘lock’ ts
k . ras ‘do’ tx
z . 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.yr
z]  [Ìa.wl
t-tn
]  [ra.ym
m.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

Prolegomena to a realistic theory of phonology

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.

Prolegomena to a realistic theory of phonology

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:

Prolegomena to a realistic theory of phonology

(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]

Prolegomena to a realistic theory of phonology

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-

Prolegomena to a realistic theory of phonology

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

Prolegomena to a realistic theory of phonology

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-

Prolegomena to a realistic theory of phonology

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·nuS´n´/[an·nyS´n´] /·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]

Prolegomena to a realistic theory of phonology

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' go '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

Prolegomena to a realistic theory of phonology

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.)

Representational issues

(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]

Representational issues

(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

Representational issues

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,

Representational issues

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

Representational issues

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

Representational issues

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

Representational issues

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-

Representational issues

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-

Representational issues

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

Markedness, economy and repairs

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

The theoretical mode

(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

Markedness, economy and repairs

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

The theoretical mode

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.

Markedness, economy and repairs

(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

The theoretical mode

(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

Markedness, economy and repairs

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

The theoretical mode

(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

Markedness, economy and repairs

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

The theoretical mode

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

Markedness, economy and repairs

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 theoretical mode

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!

Markedness, economy and repairs

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

The theoretical mode

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

Markedness, economy and repairs

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

The theoretical mode

(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-

Markedness, economy and repairs

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)

The theoretical mode

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

Markedness, economy and repairs

(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)

The theoretical mode

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.

Markedness, economy and repairs

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)

The theoretical mode

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).

Markedness, economy and repairs

(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

The theoretical mode

(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)).

Markedness, economy and repairs

(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

The theoretical mode

(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

Markedness, economy and repairs

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

The theoretical mode

(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/ /saˆo + en/ c. /babawi + en/

    

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

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

Markedness, economy and repairs

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

The theoretical mode

(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.

Markedness, economy and repairs

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

The theoretical mode

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

Markedness, economy and repairs

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

Markedness, economy and repairs

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

The theoretical mode

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

    

kurviliˆˆo omodJeˆˆi sotteraˆˆo erroˆˆo estraˆˆo

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}

aˆˆene estraˆˆare kwinkweˆˆo komuˆˆone tSerˆera

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

Markedness, economy and repairs

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

The theoretical mode

(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

The theoretical mode

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

The theoretical mode

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]

The structure of grammar

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

The theoretical mode

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

The theoretical mode

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

The structure of grammar

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

The theoretical mode

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.

The structure of grammar

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

The theoretical mode

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]

The structure of grammar

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.

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

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

The theoretical mode

(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.

The structure of grammar

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

The theoretical mode

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-

The structure of grammar

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

The theoretical mode

(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]

The structure of grammar

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

The theoretical mode

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

The theoretical mode

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.

The theory of repair operations

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

The theoretical mode

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

The theory of repair operations

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

The theoretical mode

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]

The theory of repair operations

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

The theoretical mode

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

The theoretical mode

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

The theory of repair operations

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

The theoretical mode

(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.

The theory of repair operations

(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 theoretical mode

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 :

The theory of repair operations

(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

The theoretical mode

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).

The theory of repair operations

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

The theoretical mode

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

The theory of repair operations

(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

The theoretical mode

(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-´Nn/ /n-´m-´pk/

tIna!gOl tIrE!bOl nI⁄nOl rI⁄nOl ka~mnIm@a!nIn ´~sIdb´na!n karb´!gOm ´bg´!b´kh abna!b´n argarIkh r´m´!N´n 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

The theory of repair operations

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

The theoretical mode

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

The theory of repair operations

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.

The theoretical mode

 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.

The theory of repair operations

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

The theoretical mode

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

The theory of repair operations

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

The theoretical mode

(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

The theory of repair operations

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

The theoretical mode

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'

The theory of repair operations

pr´v 'first ms.sg.' gl´c& '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.' pr´c& 'male goat sg.' pl´x 'rat sg.'

kr´gove 'circle-pl' pr´c&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' /pr´c&/ '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

The theoretical mode

(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

The theory of repair operations

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

The theoretical mode

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.

The theory of repair operations

(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

The theoretical mode

(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: * kr
d ‘heart’: Lat. cor, Got. hairto@, Lit. s&irdis, IE:* dhr
s ‘to dare, to be bold’: Skt. dhr
s5n5o@!ti ‘dares’, Got. gadaursan ‘be bold’

The theory of repair operations

171

IE: * wl
kwos ‘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:* dhr
s:

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

IE: * wl
kwos ‘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

The theoretical mode

(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.

The theory of repair operations

(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

The theoretical mode

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

The theory of repair operations

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

The theoretical mode

(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 theory of repair operations

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

The theoretical mode

(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

The theoretical mode

(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

The theoretical mode

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

The theoretical mode

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

The theoretical mode

(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

The theoretical mode

(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

The theoretical mode

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.) /t´n-´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 t´n´´ k vs. pod´l´ vs. kr´g ´l ´ vs.

t´n_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

The theoretical mode

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

The theoretical mode

(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

The theoretical mode

(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

< <

/podO + JOg + O/ ‘he burned up’ /podO + JOg + la/ ‘she burned up’

198

The theoretical mode

The issue is that the vocalization of the prefixal yer in /podO-/ is contingent on whether or not the yer in the verbal root /JOg-/ is vocalized, which in turn is determined by the inflectional suffix. If we assume that Yer Vocalization is cyclic, it follows that in (293b) the root must group with the inflectional suffix, before it groups with the verbal prefix: [podO [[JOg] O]]. This bracketing, however, is not supported by morphological and semantic considerations. The prefix is a derivational affix and, therefore, more closely bound with the root than the inflection. Halle and Vergnaud propose to mark the prefix as [-cyclic] which thus will fail to initiate a pass through the cyclic rules. Consequently, no cyclic rules will apply to the structure [prefix[root]]. At the next stage of the derivation the inflectional affixes that are [+cyclic] are accessed, and so [[prefix+root] suffix] is now submitted to the cyclic rules. A crucial assumption is that Yer Vocalization does not apply to the substring comprising the first two yers because they are contained within the domain of the preceding cycle. The rule vocalizes the root yer O in [podOJOg] because it is followed by a suffixal yer spanning a cyclic boundary. The conditions for the application of the rule in [podYJYg]la are not met. (294)

cycle 2 no rules apply cycle 3 Yer Vocalization postcyclic Yer Vocalization Yer Deletion

{podO{JOg}}

{podO{JOg}}

{podOJOg}O} {podOJogO} {podOJogO} -podJog

{podOJOg}la} -{podOJOgla} podoJOgla podoJgla

Let us consider the two forms [ vr´xen] and [v´rx´t ]. Their underlying morphological structure is given in (295). (295) a. [[[ X X v r

  R R N N X] X† X] X† ] x e n ´

  R R N N b. [[[ X X X ] X†] X ] X† ] v r x ´ t ´

In the root syllabic repair does not apply in either forms because the root is not cyclic (Kiparsky 2000). Cyclic syllabic repair then applies in the form in (294a) because of the cyclic suffix /-En-/. The rule in (284) is also

Derivations

199

checked cyclically and should apply before syllabic repair. Observe, however, that the noncyclic inflectional yer /-´-/ cannot make the yer of the suffix /-En-/ strong because they do not belong to the same domain— therefore the yer E of this suffix is not visible to syllabic operations. Hence the skeletal position of the first yer cannot participate in resyllabification. We thus have the derivation in (296). Notice that as discussed in 2.3.3, syllabic repair first assigns N to the sonorant. Then Fission repairs the disallowed syllabic sonorant. In this case the option in (210b) must be used to avoid a complex coda (see Sect. 2.3.3 above for discussion). (296) a. [[

X X Xv r x

  R R N N X† X ] X† ] ((284) cannot apply) e n ´

 R N  Syllabic repairsb. [[ X X X v r x

  R R N N X† X ] X† ]  e n ´

 R N (Fission)b. [[ X X X X v r ´ x

 R N X ] X† ] n ´

 R N X† e

The definite article suffix and the inflectional /-´-/ are noncyclic; therefore no syllabic repair applies in the form in the right colum of (295): (296) [[[ X X X ] v r x

 R N X† ] ´

X] t

 R N X† ] ´

When we reach the post-cyclic component, the first yers of both (295) and (296) are strong given that they are followed by other yers in the same domain. This is shown in (297a) and (298a). Their skeletal positions then be-

200

The theoretical mode

come visible to syllabic repair in both cases. In the case of the form in (297a), the velar fricative /x/ is then syllabified in the onset position of the syllable projected from the yer E; the nasal /n/ becomes its coda as shown in (297b). In the case of (298), we are in the same situation as in (282), i.e. as in the form [v ´r.xo.ve]. The velar fricative /x/ is syllabified in the onset position of the syllable projected from the yer /-´-/. The unsyllabified root sonorant is assigned N as in (298b). Fission will then produce (298c) with an unmarked nucleus-coda structure as discussed in section 2.3.3. (297) a.

   R R R N N N X X X X X X X† syllabic repairs v r ´ x e n ´

   R R R N N N b. X X X X X X X† v r ´ x e n ´ (298)

   R R R N N N a. X X X X X X†  v r x ´ t ´    R R R N N N syllabic repairs b. X X X X X X† v r x ´ t ´

Fission

 R N c. X X X X v ´ r x

  R R N N X X X† ´ t ´

Derivations

201

Final removal of weak skeletal positions will produce the surface forms in (299). (299)

 R N a. X X X v r ´

 R N X X X x e n

b.

X v

 R N X X X ´ r x

 R N X X ´ t

2.4.2.4. Yers and Stems Ending in a C+sonorant Sequence There is still a problem concerning Bulgarian yers that needs to be accounted for. Scatton (1975) shows that many back yers in Bulgarian are predictable. The generalization is that there is always a back yer before a morpheme-final sonorant when it is preceded by (i) an obstruent and a morpheme final sonorant or (ii) a morpheme boundary (R=a sonorant, C=an obstruent). (300)

i. ii.

C´R+ +´R+

Consider the forms in (301). (301)

a. filt´r ‘filter; m.sg.’ b. met ´r ‘meter; m.sg.’ filt´r´t ‘filter; sg.def.’ met ´r´t ‘meter; sg.def.’ filtri ‘filter; pl.’ metri ‘ meter; pl.’ filt´ren ‘filter (attrib.); m.sg.’ c. vep´r ‘boar; m.sg.’ vepri ‘boar; pl.’ vep´r´t ‘boar; sg.def,’

d. og´n ‘fire; m.sg.’ og´n'´t ‘fire; sg.def.’ ogn'ove ‘fire; pl.’

e. ´g ´l ‘corner; m.sg.’ ´g ´l´t ‘corner; sg.def.’ ´gli‘corner; pl.’ ´g ´len ‘corner (attrib.); m.sg.’

202

The theoretical mode

The fact that there is a yer in the case of the roots appearing in these forms is shown by the syllabification of the related adjective and of the definite forms of these roots as compared to what happens in the case of forms such as vr´xen ‘topmost’ and v´rx´t ‘top; sg.def.’ whose root /vrk/ does not contain a yer. (302)

a.

[filt´ ren] [filt´ r´t]





[filtr- + En + ´] [filtr- + ´ + t + ´]

b.

[vr´ xen] [v´ rx ´t]





[vrx- + En + ´] [vrx- + ´ + t + ´]

Whereas the position of the schwa in (30a) is fixed, the schwa in (302b) moves around as explained in the preceding sections. This contrast show that the schwa we observe in the forms in (302a), and in the forms in (301), cannot be like the schwa we observe in (302b). The stability of the schwa in the roots in (301) can be accounted for if we assume with Scatton (1975) that they have a yer before the final sonorant: [filt´r] < [flt´r-/ ‘filter; m.sg.’. However, the fact that the yer is predictable in that position requires the postulation of the rule in (303) inserting a yer before an unsyllabified morpheme final sonorant. The rule is stated as in (303) in the assumption that a morpheme final sonorant is unsyllabified when it is the single consonant of a morpheme or when it follows another consonant.

(303)

Ø

N | X† / | ´

___

X ]µ | [+sonorant]

Observe that, synchronically, the epenthesis rule in (303) cannot be considered as an instance of the repair strategy of N-insertion in so far as yers cannot be nuclei by themselves: in fact, if there is no yer that follows the morpheme boundary in (303), (303) would fail as a repair. The best way of seeing (303) is to consider it as the telescoping of the following historical changes. First a repair process must have occurred which fixed up a morpheme final unsyllabified sonorant by assigning nuclear status to it. The process of fission which then removed this syllabic sonorant must have inserted a short high vowel. As is well-known, short high vowels became

203

Derivations

yers by the historical changes of reduction and loss. Once this occurred, we have (330) as a idiosyncratic rule of Bulgarian phonology. In (304) I show the derivation of the forms in (302a). (304) UR

 R N [[[ X X X X X ] f i l t r

 R N X† E

X] n

X] r

  R R N N X† X ] X†] E n ´

 R N X ´

X r

  R R N N X† X ] X†] E n ´

 R N X X X i l t

 R N X ´

 R N X X X i l t

 R N X ´

Rule (303):

 R N [[[ X X X X f i l t

Cyclic Phonology Yer Strengthening  R N [[ X X X X f i l t

 R N X† ´

 R N X†] ´

Resyllabification

[[

X f

X r

 R N X† E

X r

 R N X E

X] n

 R N X†] ´

X n

 R N X†] ´

Postcyclic Yer Strengthening

[

X f

204

The theoretical mode

Resyllabification

[

X f

 R N X X X i l t

 R N X ´

X f

 R N X X X i l t

 R N X ´

X r

 R N X E

X n

X r

 R N X E

X n

Yer Deletion

(304) UR:

 R N [[[ X X X X X ] f i l t r

Rule (303):

 R N [[[ X X X X f i l t

Cyclic Phonology Yer Strengthening Resyllabification

 R N X† ´

 R N X† ] X ] ´ t

 R N X†] ´

X] r

 R N X† ] X ] ´ t

 R N X†] ´

X r

 R N X ´

 R N X†] ´

n/a n/a

Postcyclic Yer Strengthening  R N [ X X X X f i l t

 R N X ´

X t

 R N X†] ´

Derivations

Resyllabification  R N [ X X X X f i l t

 R N X ´

X r

 R N X ´

X t

X r

 R N X ´

X t

205

 R N X†] ´

Yer Deletion

[

 R N X X X X f i l t

 R N X ´

An analysis of the Bulgarian facts is thus obtained. 2.5.

Summary

In this chapter I outlined the theoretical model proposed in this book. It assumes that phonological representations are constructed step-by-step through operations triggered by (universal or language-specific) rules or universal negative constraints (prohibitions or marking statements). In section 2.1, I studied repair operations. They are triggered by negative constraints. These repair operations must be obtained as fast as possible with the minimal use of means. To achieve this result, these operations are ranked. For each violation of a negative constraint, there is a set of ranked repairs. The preferred repair operation for the violation is the highest ranked. The highest ranked operation is attempted first. If it fails to produce a licit output, another operation—if available— applies. When none of the available repairs succeed, the violation is licensed as is by null repair. This is what is referred to as blocking in the literature. In section 2.2, I introduced the various components of the model of grammar proposed in this book. First the nature of rules and negative constraints as the different types of instructions governing phonological changes were discussed. It was shown how they are selected to treat the different processes. Then marking statements, the most important negative constraints, were investigated, and their role in the structuring of phonological inventories was analyzed. The properties of natural rules and of idiosyncratic instructions were also considered in this section.

206

The theoretical mode

In section 2.3 I explored a variety of phenomena that can be treated as involving repairs: the fission processes in which a single sound such as [ü] is broken into two sounds as [yu]; epenthesis processes, the changing of a syllabic sonorant into a sequence vowel + sonorant. Finally in section 2.4, I showed how to integrate repairs into a derivational model of phonology by special statements on the ordering of operations.

Chapter 3. Case Studies

3.1.

A French Conspiracy

This section deals with a conspiracy characterizing French phonology: it is brought about by a constraint forbidding trisegmental onsets. As we will see, this constraint affects the syllabification of sequences of high vocoids followed by another vowel in French blocking glide formation in some cases, and triggering nucleus insertion in others. Furthermore, this constraint also interacts with syncope, another process characterizing French again blocking it in some cases, and triggering nucleus insertion in others. The study of this conspiracy will provide clarification and further exemplification for the model outlined in this book. 3.1.1.

Trisegmental Onsets in French: Repairs and Blocking

French is characterized by a process of glide formation as the alternations in (1) involving verbal roots ending in a high vocoid show.1, 2 Before vowel-initial suffixes, roots of this type undergo a process of onset incorporation changing the vowel into a glide. loue tue lie

(1)

[lu] [tü] [li]

lou+é, lou+er tu+é, tu+er li+é, li+er

[lwe] [t˙e] [lye]

This process of glide formation can be accounted for as in Chapter 2, Section 2.1.1. The disallowed hiatus configuration is repaired by nucleus removal followed then by two further repairs incorporating the consonants left unsyllabified by the first operation. This is shown in (2). ((Nucleus Removal=NR) (Onset Incorporation=OI). (2)

X

 R N X

 R N X (NR)X

X

 R N X (OI)X

X

 R N X

208

Case studies

(OI)

X

X

 R N X-

Crucially, this repair process occurs only when the output complex onset is bisegmental. 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 as shown in (2). A glide is instead inserted between the high vocoid and the following vowel. (3)

a.

crier plie

[kri] [pli]

b.

*[krye] *[plye]

cri+é, cri+er pli+é, pli+er

[kriye] [pliye]

The failure of glide formation in the forms in (3) is part of a general pattern characterizing French phonology which can also be observed in nonalternating contexts: glide-final complex onsets are possible only when bisegmental, but not when trisegmental. 3 (4)

a.

miette [myet] 'crumb' pierre [pyer] 'stone' biniou binyu] 'bagpipes' biologie [byoloJi ] 'biology'

b.

peuplier [pœpliye] 'poplar' sucrier [su‹kriye] 'sugar bowl' proprietè [propriyete] 'property' ouvrier [uvriye] 'worker'

c.

*pœplye *uvrye *su‹krye *propryete

fouet [fwe] 'whip' Louis [lwi]

Kaye and Lowenstamm (1984) accounted for the absence of the syllabic configuration [Cry] in (4c) by assuming the constraint in (5)(C=consonant, R=sonorant, G=glide).

A French conspiracy

(5)

NOCRG: *

X -sonorant

209



X +sonorant +consonantal

X -consonantal

The constraint in (5) disallows trisegmental clusters ending in a glide such as CryV. Constraint (5) is active in French, but not in Italian. Thus Italian allows this type of onset clusters, French doesn't. This accounts for a characteristic difference in the pronunciation of the word propriete'/proprieta' 'property, possession' in the two languages. (6)

Italian pro{prye}ta~ * pro{priye}ta~

French pro{priye}te! * pro{prye}te!

I propose that the constraint in (5) be simplified as in (7).4 (7)

NOTRISEGMONSETS: *

 N

X

X

X

The constraint in (7) simply disallows trisegmental. As discussed below, (7) expresses a correct generalization for French (see Dell 1980). Once we assume the marking statement in (7), we can account for the failure of glide formation in the forms in (3) as follows. The input form in (9) is disallowed by the constraint against hiatuses (NoHiatus) of Chapter 1 and 2, repeated here as (8). (8)

NoHiatus: *  R N X

 R N X

210

Case studies

(9)

X X p l (10)

  R R N N X X i e

Disallowed by *Hiatus

Ranked REPAIR set for NOHIATUS (8) in French: I. Nucleus removal (=Glide formation) II. Line addition (=Glide insertion).

If we remove the syllabic nucleus of the high vowel and then incorporate into the onset the three unsyllabified segments, we would create (11c) which is disallowed by (7). (11)

a. X p

 R N X X l i

 R N X (NR) b. e

OI (3 times)c.

X X X p l y

X X X p l i

 R N X e

 R N X e

As discussed below, the preferred repair in the case of the configuration in (7) is N-assignment. N-assignment produces (12) which is identical to the input. I assume that a vacuous derivation like this is excluded for reasons of economy. (12) (11c) 

X p

X l

 R N X i

 R N X e

We must then resort to the next ranked repair which is line addition in this case. The configuration produced by line addition is disallowed by the prohibition against ambisyllabic nuclei (see (67) of Chapter 2). As discussed in

A French conspiracy

211

Chapter 2, Section 2.1.1, this illicit configuration is repaired by fission. We then have the derivation in (13). (13)

 R N X X X p l i



X | p

 R N X (OI) e

X | l

 R N X

 R N X X X p l i

 R N X (Fission) e

 R N X | e

X

i

This configuration is licensed in French. Therefore this repair is successful.

3.1.2.

Glide and High Vowels in French

A fundamental question that needs to be addressed before going on is that of the status of glides in French. In French an underlying contrast between glides and vowels is restricted only to the postvocalic position. (14)

abbaye [abei] 'abbey' vs.

abeille [abey] 'bee'

No such a contrast is found in prevocalic position (see Clements 1990). (15)

cahot [kao] 'jolt'

vs.

caillot [kayo] 'clot'

*ka.i.o

There is no doubt that there are underlying High Vowel+Vowel sequences created by morpheme composition and we have considered them above. These sequences are later modified by glide formation. The issue is whether or not an underlying contrast between nuclear and onset high vocoids must ever be postulated in French. In this section I will argue that such an underlying contrast is actually needed in this language. Evidence for the syllabic status of high vocoids could be provided by the phenomena of vowel elision and liaison. In vowel elision, the final

212

Case studies

vowel of certain functional words, like the definite article in (16), is deleted before vowels but not before consonants. (16)

l'arbre ‘the tree’ l'etoile ‘the star’

vs. vs.

le bel arbre la belle etoile

‘the beautiful tree’ ‘the beautiful star’

In the case of liason, final consonants are deleted before another consonant but not before a vowel. In (17) we see what happens to the final [z] of the plural morpheme. (17)

les [lez] amis 'the friends'

vs.

les [le] copains 'the pals'

Now we can see that while there are word-initial glides that behave exactly like consonants in onset position in that they allow neither liaison nor elision (see (18a), there are also word-initial glides which behave like vowels in that they do allow liaison and elision (see (18b)). (18)

a. No liason

No elision les yetis [le yeti] 'the yetis le yeti [lœ yeti] 'the yeti' les whiskys [le wiski] 'the whiskeys' le whisky [lœ wiski] 'the whisky'

b. Liason les oiseaux [lez wazo]'the birds' les huitres [lez˙itr] 'the oysters'

Elision l'oiseau [lwazo] 'the bird' l'huitre [l˙itr] 'the oysters'

One could explain the difference between the glides in a) and b) by assuming that in the case of the forms in (18b) we are dealing with an underlying nucleus; whereas in the forms in (18a), we are dealing with segments in underlying onset position. The underlying nuclear segments would then undergo glide-formation after the processes involved in liason and elision applied. (19)

UR: Elision Liason: GF:

le uazo l'uazo n/a l'wazo

lez uazo n/a lez uazo lez wazo

This hypothesis, however, cannot hold. Tranel observes that sequences CLGV are not possible except in two cases.

A French conspiracy

(20)

i)

ii)

213

when G is [w] and the following vowel V is [a] or [E$] corresponding to the spelling CLoi/oin. ‘partition’ cloison [klwazo$] ‘to believe’ croire [krwar] trois [trwa] ‘three’ ‘snout’ troin [grwe$] when G is [˙] and the following vowel V is [i] corresponding to the spelling Clui. bruit [br˙i] ‘noise’ fluide [fl˙id] ‘fluid’ truite [tr˙it] ‘trout’

Now, liason and elision occur precisely before the exceptional sequences we see in (20), i.e., before [w] when it is followed by vowel [a] or [E$], and before [˙] when it is followed by [i]. The hypothesis proposed above in (19) according to which in the case of these sequences we have vowels that are changed into glides is no longer possible in so far as it is precisely in the context /CL__/ that glide formation should fail to apply. Therefore, we should expect the forms in (21) instead of what we observe in (20). This is not to what we find. (21)

tru . a from hypothetical UR /tru . a/ bru‹ . i from hypothetical UR /bru‹ . i/

not not

trwa br˙i

Now, following a proposal by Lowenstamm (1981), Tranel hypothesizes that in the case of the sequences in (20) the glide is actually part of the nucleus instead of being in onset position. This is shown in (22)-(23).  R N

(22)

X w

X a

214

Case studies

 R N

(23)

X ˙

X i

The properties of liason and elision illustrated in (18a) and (18b) are readily accounted for if we assume that these phenomena are sensitive to syllable structure and in particular to nucleus/onset status. Specifically, liason and elision occur before nuclei; consonant deletion occurs before onsets. Furthermore, the fact that the diphthongs [wa] or [wE$] and [˙i] can occur freely after the sequence CL is explained by assuming that (7) deals only with actual trisegmental onsets. We do not have a trisegmental onsets in the case of these sequences (see (24)-(25)).  R N

(24)

X C

X L

X w

X a  R N

(25)

X C

X L

X ˙

X i

Now observe that [z] is preserved before word-initial [y] in three words. (26)

les yeux [lez yö] 'the eyes'. les yeble [lez yebl]

Clements (1990) argues that the following cases are evidence for underlying high vowels in prevocalic position. However, the simplest proposal for the cases in (26) is that in these words the diphthong [yV] has the same structure as the dipthongs in (18b), i.e., (27a).

A French conspiracy

(27)

215

 R N

a.

X y

X V

Once cases like these are accounted for as done above, the null hypothesis for all other high vocoids in prevocalic position is that they occur in a regular onset position as shown below. (27)

 R N

b.

X y Given that the constraint in (7) governs the structure of morphemes and therefore must be checked in lexical syllabification, it follows that the contrast between the structures in (27a) and in (27b) must be postulated in the underlying syllabification of the morphemes.

3.1.3.

A French Conspiracy

Up to this point we have considered cases involving glide formation. There are also cases in which a configuration disallowed by (7) is removed by assigning nucleus status to the glide. These cases will provide more evidence for assuming the marking statement in (7). For example, when the suffix -ier [-ye],5 which is found in words such as banquier [ba$kye] 'banker (derived from banque [ba$k] 'bank'), is attached to a noun ending in a consonant + liquid cluster, it is not the sequence [CLye] which is finally produced, but rather [CLiye] (see Tranel 1987). (28)

a. sable [sAbl ] 'sand' sucre [su‹kr] 'sugar'

sablier [sabliye] sucrier [su‹kriye}

'hourglass' 'sugar bowl'

216

Case studies

The same can be observed when the 1 and 2 plural endings -ions [-yo$] and iez [-ye] are added to verb roots ending in a consonant + liquid cluster (see Tranel (1987). (28)

b. souffler: souffrir:

nous soufflions [nusufliyo$] vous souffriez [vusufriye]

'we are blowing' ‘you are suffering'

What happens in the preceding forms can be simply accounted for as follows. I assume that the stem final liquid is left unsyllabified in the root cycle (see (30a)) (but nothing hinges on this assumption). The stem final liquid violates the constraint against unsyllabified segments in (19)(see also (172) of Chapter 2, repeated here as (29). (29)

NOUNSYLL X Unsyllabified skeletal positions are not allowed

This liquid must then be resyllabified by -incorporation as in (30b). The configuration in (30b) violates syllable contact. It is repaired by another application of onset incorporation which produces (30c). (30)

  R R N N a. X X X X + X X  b. s a b l y e  R N c. X X X X s a b l

X y

 R N X X X X s a b l

X y

 R N X  e

 R N X e

The output in (31c) is disallowed by (7). The REPAIR set of the constraint in (7) is given below. (31)

Ranked REPAIR set for NOTRISEGMONSET (7)-French. I. Nucleus assignment

The configuration violating (7) is repaired by nucleus assignment. As discussed in Section 3.2.1 of this chapter, N-assignment always assigns nu-

A French conspiracy

217

clear status to the most sonorous segment in the string. Therefore, the glide in (30c) is assigned nuclear status as in (32a).6 (32)

a.

 R N X X X X s a b l

 R N X i

 R N X e

The representation in (32a) is repaired by line addition, onset incorporation in this case as in (32b). (32)

b.

 R N X X X X s a b l

 R N X i

 R N X e

Fission fixes the ill-formed ambisyllabic nucleus and produces the wellformed structure in (32c). (32)

c.

 R N X X X X s a b l

 R N X X i y

 R N X e

This derivational path is successful. The same output form CLiyV can thus be obtained by different means: in the cases discussed up until now either by failure of the process of resyllabification to changing the high vowel into a glide or by applying peak assignment to a high vocoid in onset position. We have a "conspiracy" situation in which two different underlying configurations like those in (33a) and (33b) converge into the same surface configuration in (34) through different derivations.

218

Case studies

(33)

a.

.....

X C

X R

 R N X i

+

X y

 R N X e

y

 R N X e

b.

.....

X C

X R

(34)

...

X C

X R

+

 R N X i

 R N X e

This is obvious evidence for assuming the marking statement in (7).

3.1.4.

French Syncope

The constraint in (7) also interacts with another quite important phonological process of French, syncope. Syncope in French deletes the reduced vowel //. I will represent this vowel with the symbol for schwa /´/ as in Dell (1973, 1980) to distinguish it from the non-syncopating //, although it is phonetically indistinguishable from the latter, and I will refer to it by calling it schwa. French syncope is a quite complex phenomenon and there is no way that I can deal with all its aspects here. For the sake of the analysis proposed in this text, I will focus my attention only on one of the different syncope processes characterizing French (see Dell 1973, 1980; Tranel 1987). Specifically I will deal only with the optional syncope process affecting the weak thematic vowel / ´/ of the future and conditionals of the verb in /-er/. In the future and conditional forms of these verbs, the weak vowel preceding the future ending /-r/ may be optionally deleted as shown by the following forms.7

A French conspiracy

(35)

a.

voleras [vOlra] 'you will fly' mang eras [ma$zra] 'you will eat'

b.

parleras [parl(´)ra] 'you will talk' fixeras [fiks(´)ra] 'you will fix' pretexteras [pretEkst(´)ra] 'you will make a pretext' larguera [larg(´)ra] 'he will let go' calmera [kalm(´)ra] 'he will calm' forgeront [f ´rJ(´)ro$] 'they will forge' insistera [E$sist(´)ra] 'he will insist'

219

The weak vowel may be preceded by one consonant as in the forms in (35a) or by a cluster of two or more consonants as in (35b). Crucially, however, the cluster created by the syncope process must satisfy the sonority sequencing principle in being syllabified as a coda plus an onset of rising sonority (with a special position for syllable initial /s/(see below for discussion). When this cannot be done, syncope does not apply. Dell (1973: 208) observes that manoeuvrera 'he will manoeuvre' is only pronounced [manvr´ra], never *[manvrra], and crucially also never [manvra] after deletion of the /r/ (if we assume that the cluster /rr/ is eliminated because of an OCP violation). This is also shown in the form in (36). (36)

rentreras [ra$tr´ra]

* [ra$trra]/ [ra$tra]

'you will go in'

In the form in (36) we have the situation of blocking. The syncope process fails to apply because it would create a configuration that is illicit in the language, at least in its immediate outcome. Interestingly, there is also blocking when the outcome of the syncope process would create a violation of the constraint in (7) (Dell 1973; Tranel 1987). In the following forms, there is no syncope (the dialectal variation we observe in this case will be discussed later).8 (37)

demanderions [dma$dryo$ ] 'we would ask' *dma$dryo videriez [vidrye} 'we would see' *vidrye

Furthermore, observe that there is no syncope in (38) in a form such as [suflra] which involves a trisegmental onset. (38)

souffleras

[sufl´ra]

*[suflra]

'you will blow'

220

Case studies

We can now analysize these facts. Following Dell (1973), I assume an underlying /´/ which is then changed into [] by a later repair process.9 This schwa is the target of the syncope process. In the case of the syncope process we are discussing, we need a rule like that in (39) which targets the thematic schwa /-´-/ before the future suffix.10 (39)

N  Ø/ ___ R[+future]

X ´

As shown by Dell (1980) a fundamental aspect of the syncope process in (40) is that it is a postlexical process and that its outcomes may contain syllabic configurations that are not allowed in the lexical component.11 Onset clusters composed of sonorants such as /lr/nr/mr/ and of /s/ + /r/ are not possible lexically, but are allowed postlexically (see Dell 1995). We can assume the marking statements in (40-41)—which are independently needed insofar as also other languages disallow those sequences—are active in lexical phonology. (40)



a. * X +consonantal +sonorant +nasal

(=*nr) X +consonantal +sonorant -nasal 

b.

(=*lr)12

* X +consonantal +sonorant -nasal +lateral

X +consonantal +sonorant -nasal

A French conspiracy

221



(41) (=*sr) * X +consonantal -sonorant +continuant +anterior

X +consonantal +sonorant

These marking statements are deactivated postlexically in French, though. Crucially not everything is possible. Although they may violate the marking statements in (40a-b) and (41), the outcomes of the syncope process must nonetheless satisfy the sonority sequencing principle. There is no syncope in [manvrera] or in the form in (36). In addition, as shown by the impossibility of *[suflra], trisegmental onsets must also be disallowed lexically and postlexically. We can now see how the rule in (39) applies in cases such as [parl[´]ra] , [fiks[´]ra], [pretEkst[´]ra], and [E$sist[´]ra]. To account for the syllabification of the sequences involving interconsonantal /s/, we also need to assume a special appendix position for /s/. Independent evidence for this position is provided by Dell (1995) who shows that intervocalic clusters VCsCV as in (42) must be syllabified with /s/ as part of the following onset. (42)

[Op . sti . ne] [Ek . stra] [Ek . sprE]

obstiné extra exprès

I propose that the word [pretEkst[´]ra] is syllabified as in (43) ( I consider only the part of the word that is relevant for the analysis). (43)

...

X t

 R N X E

X k

X s

X t

'  R N X [´]

X r

 R N X a

222

Case studies

Application of the syncope rule in (39) will produce (44). (44)

... X t

 R N X E

X k

X s

X t

X r

 R N X a

The representation in (44) violates the constraint against unsyllabified segments, and must be repaired. The REPAIR set of this constraint in French is given in (45): (45)

REPAIR set of NOUNSYLL X in French 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): ' 

(i)  X



X

X

 where  is [s]

X



The [t] in (44) is resyllabified by onset incorporation, as shown in (46). (46)

... X t

 R N X E

X k

X s

X t

X r

 R N X a

Now [s] needs to be syllabified. Neither onset or coda incorporation are successful in this case since [s] is more sonorous than both of the preceding [k] and the following [t]. In both cases, we would produce a vio-

A French conspiracy

223

lation of the sonority sequencing principle. Appendix-incorporation, however, takes care of this segment. Given (45), appendix-incorporation is one of the syllabic repair operation used to fix violations of the constraint against unsyllabified segments. It can apply only after the other two operations fail to produce a licit outcome. As discussed for Bulgarian in Chapter 2, section 2.3.4, one of the properties of this operation is that not all segments can be 
adjoined in this way. The [s] is one of the typical targets of this operation. In addition 
adjunction's application may be restricted to only certain positions such as the word-periphery. I assume that in French it can apply in any position—naturally only as a last resort after the other syllabic incorporation strategies have failed. The [s] in (46) is syllabified by -adjunction. We will then have (47). (47)

..X t

 R N X E

X k

X s

X t

X r

'  R N X a

Now consider [fiks[´]ra] syllabified as in (48). Here I assume that sequences of obstruents are heterosyllabic in French as argued by Dell (1995). Application of (39) will produce (49).

X f

 R N X i

X f

 R N X i

(48)

(49)

X k

X k

X s

X s

 R N X ´

X r

 R N X a

X r

 R N X a

Onset incorporation adds /s/ to the onset of the following syllable.

224

Case studies

(50)

X f

 R N X i

X k

X s

X r

 R N X a

The output in (50) is licensed and we have a successful derivation. In the case of [parl[´]ra] represented as in (51), application of (39) will produce (52)

X p

 R N X a

X p

 R N X a

(51)

(52)

X r

X r

X l

X l

 R N X [´]

X r

 R N X a

X r

 R N X a

As before (52) is disallowed by the constraint against unsyllabified segments and needs to be repaired. The onset /lr/, although not an onset of the lexical phonology of French (see Dell 1995), satisfies the sonority sequencing principle, and is allowed post-lexically as discussed above. The successful repair will then be that in (53) (53)

X p

 R N X a

X r

X l

X r

 R N X a

We can now turn to cases in which the syncope process is blocked, namely cases such as [manvr´ra], [sufl´ra]. Consider [sufl´ra] first. Given the input in (54), the rule in (39) produces (55).

A French conspiracy

X s

 R N X u

X s

 R N X u

(54)

(55)

X f

X f

X l

X l

 R N X ´

X r

 R N X a

X r

 R N X a

225

The form in (55) is illicit because it contains unsyllabified segments. Given (45) we begin with onset incorporation. Onset incorporation is not successful since it produces (56c) which is disallowed by the constraint in (7). (56)

X s

 R N X u

X s

 R N X u

a.

b.

c.

*

X s

 R N X u

X f

X f

X f

X l

X l

X l

X r

 R N X a

X r

 R N X a

X r

 R N X a

Nucleus-assignment cannot rescue this form as in (56d) because nuclear liquids are not allowed in French.

226

Case studies

(56)

d.

X s

 R N X u

X f

 R N X r

X l

 R N X a

Coda incorporation of [f] also fails insofar it produces an illicit configuration disallowed by the bad syllable contact constraint. (56)

d.

X s

 R N X u

X f

X l

X r

 R N X a

The segment [f] is not a member of the class of consonant that can be adjoined. No other repairs are available. 13 The entire derivation then collapses. As proposed in section 2.1.1 of Chapter 2, blocking of the activity of an instruction—in this case a rule—occurs when all of the operations triggered by the instruction fail to produce a licensed outcome. In this case UG provides a null operation that licenses the input to the instruction as such, without changes. The input will be left unchanged as in (57) and is licensed as such. (57)

X s

 R N X u

X f

X l

 R N X ´

X r

 R N X a

An account of the blocking we observe in this case is thus provided. The same derivational collapse can be seen in the case of [manvr´ra]. Given the input in (58), the rule in (39) produces (59).

X m

 R N X a

X m

 R N X a

(58)

(59)

X n

 R N X 

X n

 R N X 

X v

X v

A French conspiracy

227

 R N X ´

X r

 R N X a

X r

 R N X a

X r

X r

No available repairs of the form in (59) will produce a licit structure. In particular, the application onset and coda operations would produce (60a) or b) which however are disallowed by the sonority sequencing principle. The operation of -adjunction cannot apply. The entire derivation therefore crashes. (60)

X m

 R N X a

X m

 R N X a

a.

b.

X n

 R N X 

X n

 R N X 

X v

X v

X r

X r

X r

 R N X a

X r

 R N X a

The input to the derivation is then left licensed unchanged as in (61). (61)

X m

 R N X a

X n

 R N X 

X v

X r

 R N X ´

X r

 R N X a

228

Case studies

We can now consider cases in which syncope and resyllabification may create violations of the constraint in (7). These violations can be rescued by N-assignment. Cases of this type occur in the conditional first and second person plural of first conjugation verbs whose stems end in a consonant. In these cases, thematic [´] is followed by a liquid - glide sequence (e.g. demand- nous demanderions 'we would ask'; vid-: vous videriez 'you would see'). Interestingly in these cases we also observe dialectal variation. Tranel (1987) reports that two groups of speakers can be identified. A group of speakers always rejects syncope in this environment. Another group of speakers, on the other hand, allows syncope in this environment. If this occurs, the speakers use the same strategy as that used to avoid [CLyV] sequences discussed above: hence the pronunciations [nudma$driyo$], [vuvidriye] instead of [nudma$dryo$], [vuvidrye].14 Let us consider the group allowing syncope first. As an example, let us consider the derivation of [nudma$driyo$] 'we would ask'. We begin with the intermediate representation in (62). (62)

X n

 R N X u

X d

 R N X 

X m

 R N X a$

X d

 R N X 

X r

X y

 R N X o$

The syncope rule deleting the suffix-initial // applies as shown in (63).15 (63)

X n

 R N X u

X d

 R N X 

X m

 R N X a$

X d

X r

X y

 R N X o$

The consonant /d/—left unsyllabified by the application of the vowel deletion rule— must be resyllabified. This leads to the derivational path shown below. By onset incorporation we obtain (64).

A French conspiracy

(64)

X n

 R N X u

X d

 R N X 

X m

 R N X a$

X d

X r

229  R N X o$

X y

The representation in (64) is disallowed by the constraint in (7) and is repaired by Nucleus assignment as discussed above in sect. 3.1.3. (65)

X n

 R N X u

X d

 R N X 

X m

 R N X a$

X d

 R N X i

X r

 R N X o$

The representation in (65) is disallowed by the hiatus constraint. The violation of this constraint is repaired by line addition. (66)

X n

 R N X u

X d

 R N X 

X m

 R N X a$

X d

 R N X i

X r

 R N X o$

The ambisyllabic structure that is thus obtained is repaired by fission as in (67). (67)

X | n

 R N X | u

X | d

 R N X | 

X | m

 R N X | a$

X | d

X | r

 R N X

i

X

 R N X | o$

The output in (67) is licensed in French. This derivational path is therefore successful. The other group of speakers always rejects syncope in this case (see Dell 1973). Given that the same speakers have optional deletion in forms such as (34a-b) (see Dell 1973) we have to explain this rejection. Observe that applying syncope produces a costly derivation involving sev-

230

Case studies

eral steps which furthermore produces an output like that in (67) which does not relate transparently to the morphological input and to the spelling. Given the optionality of syncope in the future and conditional, a more economical option would be simply that of not applying syncope.16 Note that this means simply saying that the constraint in (7)—the culprit in the rejection of syncope in this case—is not associated with a repair in this grammatical environment. Therefore, Nucleus assignment cannot rescue the illformed configuration in (64) and the entire derivation crashes, hence the lack of syncope. François Dell (p.c.) reports that in certain speech registers, in particular in fast speech, the cluster [VCryV] appears to be acceptable. However, according to him, there seems to be a gradient with [VCryV] feeling more acceptable when C is a sonorant ("aimeriez", "donneriez", "envoleriez", "gareriez", conseilleriez") and less so when C is an obstruent. To account for this fact, one could assume that the complex ambisyllabic structure in (67) is optionally deleted in fast speech by N-removal as shown in (68). This may be due to a desire to economize on the number of syllable in fast speech. In this case, the complex syllabic structure like that in (68a) is eliminated. (68)

a.

 R N X

 R N 

X

b

i

X

 R N X

y

Thus take the syncopated form of "aimeriez" with resyllabification of the sequence as in (69). (69)

 R N X

X

X

 R N X

E

m

r

i

X

 R N X

X

e

z

Application of (68) in fast speech would produce (70).

A French conspiracy

(70)

 R N X

X

X

E

m

r

X

 R N X

X

y

e

z

231

Let us assume that onset and coda incorporation produce (71). (71)

 R N X

X

X

E

m

r

X

 R N X

X

y

e

z

This repair would usually fail because it creates a violation of the syllable contact constraint. Now I propose that the fast speech register in French is also characterized by a relaxation of the syllable contact constraint. Given the sonority hierarchy in (72) in the normal register syllable contacts where the first consonant is less sonorous than the second are disallowed. (72)

(73)

Sonority: Least stops < fricatives < nasals 6 5 4 *

<

/l/ 3

 R N

< /r/ < 2

Most glides 1

 R N

X X   (where  is less sonorous than ) I propose that in fast speech, only contacts with less than two steps of difference are disallowed as in (74).

232

Case studies

(74)

*

 R N

 R N

X X   (where  is less sonorous than  by two steps or more) In fast speech clusters like /m.r/, /l.r/ will be allowed, but not /t.r/. Therefore, the repair in (71) becomes successful when the contact it creates is of this type. This accounts for the gradient effect reported by Dell.17

3.1.5.

Hiatus in French

In French, hiatuses involving a high vowel and a nonhigh vowel are not possible, whereas hiatuses involving nonhigh vowels are possible (see section 2.1.1. of Chapter 2 for discussion of Polish where we find the same array of facts). This is true not only in a root-internal context (see (75) but also when the hiatus is produced by inflectional or derivational suffixes (see (76)). aerer geant noel poete créole creance creation createur

(75)

(76)

a.

cre-er gré-er

b.

idé-al sé-ance gué-able de-ambuler de-odorant indo-européen iso-édrique

A French conspiracy

233

The same analysis as that proposed for Polish can be proposed here. The crucial constraint is the independently needed prohibition in (27) of Chapter 2, repeated here as (77). (77)

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]

Crucially, the ranked REPAIR set for this constraint in French is that in (78). (78)

Ranked REPAIR set for NO[-HI]INSYLLMARG (77) in French: Ø

Given (78), the derivational paths starting with either nucleus removal or line addition crash when the first vowel is [-high]. In this type of situation there would not be any way of repairing the illicit hiatus configuration. But a REPAIR must produce a licensed output. As proposed in Chapter 2, section 2.1.1, in such a case, UG provides a last resort operation, the null operation, which licenses the input illicit configuration of the REPAIR without modifying it. 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 (77) 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. French display other strategies of hiatus resolution. There is, for example, another case of glide insertion as a removal of a hiatus configuration. This occurs when vowel /E/ and the diphthong /wa/ are followed by a vowel as shown below.

234

Case studies

(79)

croyons [..wayV..] payons [..EyV..]

'we believe' 'we pay'

How can we account for the inserted glide we observe in (83)? The fact a) that this process is limited to the vowel /E/ and the diphthong /wa/ which do not form a natural class and b) that the operation of glide insertion does not appear to involve a natural operation of spreading—[y] is inserted after [wa]— indicates that this process is the fossilized outcome of a more natural hiatus removal process. Historically, in fact, [wa] derives from the mid vowel [e] in stressed open syllables. Therefore, glide insertion occurred after the front mid vowels [E] and [e], a natural class. The diphthongization [e][wa], however, has become opaque in modern French and can no longer be motivated synchronically. Therefore, the best way to treat the process in (103) synchronically is by means of an idiosyncratic rule referring to a disjunction of feature bundles as in (80). (80) N N N X X  X V2 V1 V1 / where V1= [E] or [wa]

X y

 R N X V2

Another hiatus resolution process occurs when one of the adjacent vowels is the schwa [´]. As we can see in (81), the schwa is deleted. (81)

lierai li+´+ r+ai avouet avu++´+ t

[lirE] [avu]

'I will tie' 'he admits'

Interestingly the schwa is deleted even if it is preceded by a high vocoid that would undergo glide formation. An immediate account of this fact is provided if we assume that the skeletal position of the schwa is deleted. Earlier I assumed that this strategy was not among the strategies French used to repair hiatus configurations. Should I change this assumption to account for this case? There is no need to do so if we assume that we are dealing with syncope in this case. One can simply say that the language resorts to syncope when schwa is in a hiatus configuration. We thus add schwa-deletion to the other operation repairing hiatus in French—

A French conspiracy

235

Obviously this is not a UG process, but an independently needed languagespecific process which has been adopted for another use in the language. (82)

Ranked REPAIR set for NOHIATUS in French. I. N-removal II. Line addition III. Delete schwa

Consider the form in (83). (83)

X l

 R N X i

 R N X ´

It is disallowed by NOHIATUS, and one of the vowels in the hiatus is a schwa. Schwa deletion is more specific than the other repair operations in (82). Because of the elsewhere principle, deletion will apply instead of the other operations. We thus (84) which is the correct output. (84)

X l

3.1.6.

 R N X i

Ambisyllabic Structures with Labio-Velar and Labio-Palatal Vocoids in French.

Another interesting aspect of the French data involves the treatment of the other high vocoids, the labio-velar [u/w] and the labio-palatal [ü/˙]. As in the case of the palatal [i/y], they cannot appear in trisegmental complex onsets as shown in (85)18 (85)

influe influ+é, influ+er prouesse 'prowess' éblouir 'to dazzle' clouer 'to nail'

*[E$fl‹˙e] *[prwes] *[eblwir] *[klwe]

236

Case studies

troue

trou+é, trou+er

*[trwe]

However, in contrast to what happens in the case of the palatal high vocoid [i/y], they may appear in a hiatus configuration without glide insertion. (86)

prouesse [prues] éblouir [ebluir] clouer [klue] troue [true] influ+é [E$flu‹e]

A hiatus is, therefore, possible when the first vocoid of the sequence is a rounded vowel. Essentially, the same analysis proposed earlier for the possibility of nonhigh vowel hiatuses will account for these other hiatus configurations. All that is needed is the constraint in (87) which disallows [+round] vocoids in ambisyllabic configurations. (87)

NO[+ROUND]INAMBI *  R N X X

 R N X

[+round] To obtain the blocking effect, we need also to assume that no repairs are available to fix (87). (88)

Ranked REPAIR set for No[+round]inAmbi-French Ø

Consider an input such as (89a) that contains a hiatus configuration. The only possible derivational path available in French to repair this type of configuration is line addition followed by fission. This would produce (89c). Now (89c) is disallowed by (87). No other operation is allowed to repair this configuration. Therefore, the REPAIR crashes in this case and the hiatus will surface unchanged, as discussed in the preceding section.

A French conspiracy

(89)

237

Input:

a. X k

X l

c. X | k

 R N X u

X | l

 R N X  b. e  R N X

X

u

X k

X l

 R N X u

 R N X e

 R N X | e

We can derive (87). Observe that rounded high vocoids in onset position are allowed in French as shown in (90)-(91) (but not by all speakers, see discussion below). (90)

mouette fouet jouer

[mwet] [fwe] [Jwer]

‘seagull’ 'whip' 'to play'

(91)

bue!e muette juin

[b˙e] [m˙et ] [j˙E$]

‘fog’ ‘mute’ ‘June’

The problem must, therefore, be just in the structure in (92). (92)

 R N X

X

 R N X

u

w

e

It is plausible to assume that the ambisyllabic configuration in (92) is quite a marked structure. As we have seen before, it is fine in French when we are dealing with the palatal high vocoid.

238

Case studies

crier [kriye] peuplier [pœpliye] ouvrier [uvriye] sucrier [sykriye] proprietè [propriyete]

(93)

'to shout' 'poplar' 'worker' 'sugar bowl' 'property'

The problem arises when rounded vowels are used in that structure. Rubach (2000) argues that [w] is marked in syllabic margins and in particular in onset position. We can extend this statement to all rounded vocoids as shown in (94). (94)

*  (R) X [-cons] [+round]

Support for (94) is provided by the fact whereas all French speakers systematically change the high front vocoid [i] into a glide before a vowel— obviously when not preceded by the cluster Cr/l as discussed in the preceding sections—this is not what occurs in the case of the rounded [u] and [ü]. Some French speakers do not glide [u] and [ü when they occur before a vowel as in the standard language (see (90)-(91)) and they treat them instead as vowels as in (95). This leads to variations in the pronunciation of these sounds in prevocalic position across speakers. We can account for this by assuming that whereas (94) is deactivated in the standard language, it can become active in the idiolect of some speakers. (95)

mouette bue!e

[muet] [bu‹e]

‘seagull’ ‘fog’

Obviously the ambisyllabic configuration in (94) must be considered as phonologically marked and therefore governed by a marking statement and, as a matter of fact, there are many languages—Italian is one, for example— that do not allow it.

A French conspiracy

 R N X

(96)

X

239

 R N X

 What we need to say about French is that although both marking statements (94) and (96) are deactivated (in the standard language), their conjunction is not allowed as in (97). (97)

*(94) & (96)

In other words, the complexity of a rounded vowel appearing in an onset and in the linked configuration formally represented in (94) results in a cost that French does not accept. This is not an unusual situation. For example, there are languages—Albanian, for example— that do not allow mid rounded front vowels although they allow both high front rounded vowels and mid vowels as in (98). (98)

i E

u‹ a

u O

Such a situation can be accounted for by deactivating the marking statement against mid vowels and the marking statement against front rounded vowels, but having their conjunction active. (99)

a. b.

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

(i.e., [ü] is possible) (i.e., [E] and [O] are possible)

(100)

* [-back, +round] & [-high, -low]

(i.e., [] is not possible)

Deactivation of (99a) and (99b) but activation of (100) characterize a system like that in (98).

240

Case studies

3.1.7. Summary In this section, I provided a detailed account of two conspiracies characterizing French syllabic phonology, the conspiracy against high vowels followed by another vowel, and the conspiracy against trisegmental onsets, and showed how their properties can be adequately accounted for in the model outlined in this book. 3.2.

Syllabification in Tashlhiyt Berber

3.2.1.

Core Syllabification in Tashlhiyt Berber

Prince and Smolensky (1993) consider Tashlhiyt Berber syllabification as a prime example of a case where treating grammar as optimization due to ranked constraints rather than rule application as in the original analysis by Dell and Elmedlaoui (1985; 1988) can lead to a deeper explanation of the facts.19 In this section I will propose an alternative rule-based analysis of Tashlhiyt Berber syllabification. Tashlhiyt Berber syllabification is described in two publications by Dell and Elmedlaoui (1985, 1988; also see Dell and Elmedlaoui 2002). In their account, Tashlhiyt Berber has a set of rules collectively referred to as Core Syllabification (CS) which apply serially in several passes to construct CV (or 'core') syllables over unsyllabified input strings. Subsequent rules gather as-yet unsyllabified material into codas, and adjust syllabifications created by the CS rules in pre- and postpausal position. Tashlhiyt Berber has the phonemic inventory in (101-102). (101)

b f m w (102)

i

t d s z n l r

a

S J

y u

k g

kw gw

q

qw

x V

xw Vw

Ì ¿

H

Syllabification in Berber

241

All of the segments in (101-102), sonorants, fricatives, and even stops, may become syllabic nuclei if the segmental context requires it. As a consequence, with only marginal exceptions, all underlying strings in Tashlhiyt Berber can be fully syllabified without recourse to epenthesis or deletion. This can be observed in the alternations in (103) and (104) where the first root consonant (see (103)), or the first and last root consonants (see (104)) have different syllabic status depending of the segmental environment (nucleus consonant =
, syllabic boundary = . ). (103)

(104)

Perfective: 3 msc. sg. il . di ir . ba in . da im . da iz . di iJ . la iV . za iH . da is . ti if . si ix . si iÌ . ba 2 sg perf. /t-......-t/ tr
. gl
t ts
. kr
t tx
. zn
t tz
. dm
t tl
. bz
t tr
. ks
t tn
. Sf
t tm
. sx
t

3 fem. sg. tl . di tr
. ba tn
. da tm
. da tz
. di tJ
. la tV
. za tH
. da ts
. ti tf
. si tx
. si tÌ
. ba

‘pull’ ‘carry on one’s back’

‘shake (milk)’ ‘be worn out’ ‘put together’ ‘get lost’ ‘dig’ ‘give (gift)” ‘select’ ‘untie’ ‘go out (fire)’ ‘cover’

3 f.sg. perf. + dat.3m.sg. /t- .../ +/as/ tr
g . las ‘lock’ ts
k . ras ‘do’ tx
z . nas ‘store’ tz
d . mas ‘gather wood’ tl
b . zas ‘step onto’ tr
k . sas ‘hide’ tn
S . fas ‘graze’ tm
s . xas ‘transform’

Even words consisting entirely of voiceless stops are fully syllabifiable, as shown by examples such as (105). (105)

tf
. tk
t 'you suffered a sprain' (Dell and Elmedlaoui 1985:116),

242

Case studies

Dell and Elmedlaoui propose the Peak generalization in (106), which, given a choice of alternative syllabifications, selects the one with the more sonorous peak. (106) Peak Preference When a string. . PQ. . . could conceivably be syllabified either as . ..P' Q. . or as . . . PQ' . . . (i.e. when either syllabification would involve only syllable types which, taken individually, are possible in Tashlhiyt Berber), the only syllabification allowed by Tashlhiyt Berber is the one that takes as a syllable peak the more sonorous of the two segments. The relevant sonority scale is provided in (107). (107)

Sonority scale: voiceless stops voiced stops voiceless fricatives voiced fricatives nasals, liquids high vocoids non-high vowels20

least sonorous

most sonorous

Dell and Elmedlaoui capture the generalization in (106) by proposing that the core syllabification rule in (108) applies in serial passes following the sonority scale in (107). After the application of (108), other rules incorporate segments left unsyllabified by (108) into codas. Therefore the word in (109) would be syllabified as in (110). (108)

Core Syllabification Rule. Associate a core syllable with any sequence (Y)Z, where Y can be any segment and Z is a segment of type T.

(109)

/t-IzrUal-In/



[tizr
walin]

‘those from tazrwalt’

Syllabification in Berber

(110)

243

1st pass: Associate a CV syllable with: non-high vowels  R N XXXXX XX XX t I z r w a l I n 2nd pass: Associate a CV syllable with: high vocoids    R R R N N N XXXXX X X XX t i z r w a l i n 3rd pass: Associate a CV syllable with: liquids     R R R R N N N N X X XX X X X X X t i z r
w a l i n Other passes: N/A Final pass: Coda incorporation.     R R R R N N N N X X XX X X X X X t i z r
w a l i n Interestingly we find exceptions to (106) such as the following.

(111)

/t-IUn-t-a-s /ra-I-mmVI/ /ra-I-rz/ /Ì aUl-tn/

   

[ti.wn
.tas] [ra.ym
m.Vi ] [ra.yr
z] [Ì a.wl
t-tn
]

‘you climbed on him’ ‘he will grow’ ‘it will be broken’ ‘make them(m.) plentiful’

244

Case studies

Dell and Elmedlaoui show that these exceptions occur when the syllabic configurations that (108) would create is a hiatus. They account for this by proposing the constraint in (112). (112)

ONSET: Syllables must have onsets.

The constraint in (112) blocks the application of (108). In this way, (108) skips one of its passes, and applies, if possible, in one of the following passes. This is shown in (113). (113)

1st pass: Associate a CV syllable with: non-high vowels.  R N X X X X X r a I r z 2st pass: Associate a CV syllable with: high vowels. BLOCKED  R N X X X X X r a I r z 3rd pass: Associate a CV syllable with: liquids.   R R N N X X X X X r a y r z 4th pass: Associate a CV syllable with: fricatives. BLOCKED   R R N N X X X X X r a y r z

Syllabification in Berber

245

Final pass: Coda incorporation   R R N N X X X X X r a y r z Dell and Elmedlaoui's theory is extremely successful in accounting for the Tashlhiyt Berber syllabification facts. Prince and Smolensky (1993) criticize Dell and Elmedlaoui's account by characterizing it as arbitrary. This is their criticism. "[Dell and Elmedlaoui's Core Syllabification Rule].......suffers from the formal arbitrariness characteristic of rewriting rules when they are put to the task of dealing locally with problems that fall under general principles, particularly principles of output shape. (By 'formal arbitrariness', we mean that a formal system rich enough to allow expression of the desired rule will also allow expression of many undesired variations of the rule, so that the rule itself appears to be an arbitrary random choice among the universe of possibilities.) The key to the success of [Dell and Elmedlaoui's CSR] is the way that the variable Y scans the input, starting at the top of the sonority scale and descending it step by step as the iterative process unfolds. We must ask, why start at the top? why descend the scale? why not use it in some more elaborate or contextdependent fashion?"(Prince and Smolensky 1993:14). I agree with Prince & Smolensky's criticism's of Dell and Elmedlaoui: as it is formulated, it is fundamentally arbitrary. But is this a criticism of the rule formalism in itself? Definitely not! It is simply the criticism of an instance of that formalism. There are clearly other ways of accounting for the Berber facts in a rule formalism that avoids the pitfalls of Dell and Elmedlaoui's rule. One such a way will be proposed below. Before going on with my alternative proposal, it is important to notice that the introduction of output constraints in place of rules does not eliminate the problem of formal arbitrariness from the linguistic formalism. As observed in the Introduction, when one looks into the OT literature, one finds plenty of quite arbitrary constraints. This problem shows up even in Prince and Smolensky's own account of Berber syllabification which relies

246

Case studies

on two sets of constraints governing the affinity of segments to particular syllabic positions according to their sonority rank. One of these sets of constraints governs the nucleus position (*P/), the other the syllabic margins (*M/). Among the former constraints we have constraints such as *P/ which encapsulates the statement that 'members of sonority class a [low vocoids] must not be parsed as a syllable Peak'; among the latter constraints we have constraints such as *M/t which states that 'members of sonority class t [voiceless stops] must not be parsed as a syllable Margin'. As pointed out by Clements (1997), both statements do not represent any cross-linguistic tendency or markedness statement, since languages show no tendency to disfavor low vowels as nuclei or voiceless stops as syllable margins, and actually display the opposite tendency. Both constraints are essentially arbitrary: they appear "to be arbitrary random choices among the universe of possibilities." Now I also agree with Prince and Smolenski that any other alternative proposal must be based on the following grounds: "The answers [to the problems posed by Tashlhiyt Berber syllabification] are to be found in the universal theory of syllable structure markedness. The more sonorous a segment it is, the more satisfactory it is a nucleus. Conversely, a nucleus is more satisfactory to the degree that it contains a more sonorous segment. It is clear that [Dell and Elmedlaoui's CSR] is designed to produce syllables with optimal nuclei, to ensure that the syllables it forms are the most [optimal] that are available..."(Prince and Smolensky 1993:15). Before discussing the analysis I propose, let us see how we can account for the most important feature differentiating Berber from other languages, i.e., the fact that Tashlhiyt Berber allows all types of nuclear segments. We obtain this by assuming that all of the marking statements in (114) are deactivated. (114) a. b. c.

*[N [X [+sonorant, +consonantal]]] (l
, r
... possible if deactivated) *[N [X [+sonorant, +nasal]]] (n
,m
,... possible if deactivated) *[N [X [-sonorant]]] (s
, z
, t
, d
... possible if deactivated)21

Syllabification in Berber

247

The hierarchy of marking statements in (114) states that the least complex nucleus is one dominating a [-consonantal] root, i.e. a nucleus in which none of the marking statements in (114) is deactivated. If (114a) is deactivated, vocoids and liquids are possible nuclei, i.e., if nucleus can dominate a [+consonantal] root, then this can only be [-nasal] sonorant. If (114 b) is deactivated also nasals can be assigned syllabic nucleus. In a language like Berber, where all consonants are possible syllabic nuclei, all of the marking statements in (114) are deactivated. A language like English deactivates (114a) and (114b). The hierarchy in (114) indicates the relative markedness of nuclear segments and predicts that if more marked nuclear segments are allowed then the less marked ones must also be allowed. Therefore if nuclear nasals are allowed, then also nuclear liquids must be allowed. In the same way, if nuclear obstruents are allowed, all type of nuclear sonorants must also be allowed. Now we can proceed with the issue of how segments are assigned nuclear status. I propose that the syllabification patterns we observe in Berber involve REPAIRS triggered by the constraint in (172) of Chapter 2 disallowing unsyllabified segments (repeated here as (115)). (115)

NOUNSYLL X Unsyllabified skeletal positions are not allowed

In particular, nucleus insertion IIa of the general ranked REPAIR set of NOUNSYLL X proposed in (230) in Chapter 2 is relevant here. It is given in (116). For now I will assume that there is no lexical syllabification, and that syllabification only occurs at word level—Later I will argue that unmarked syllables are assigned in a first pass of lexical syllabification. (116)

Ranked REPAIR set of NOUNSYLL X : I. Syllabic incorporation….(see (230) of Chapter 2, section 2.3.4) II. Syllable insertion: ( -insertion) Insert  (a syllable) and attach unsyllabified X to: a. the nucleus of  b. …. (see (230) of Chapter 2, section 2.3.4))

I propose to reformulate (116IIa) as in (117), thus trying to encapsulate the Nucleus assignment part of the CSR of Dell and Elmedlaoui (1985).

248

Case studies

(117)

a.

Assign N to

b.

i.

ii.

X where  is the sonority peak in D

 D is a string of adjacent segments available for Nucleus assignment, D may include one or more segments.  is the sonority peak in D if  has the highest degree of sonority in D

Given Last Resort, the string D in (117bi) can only include unsyllabified segments: (117a) cannot affect already syllabified segments. If in D there are more non-adjacent segments that have the same highest degree of sonority, they are all assigned nucleus status. When I introduced (116IIa), I applied it to short sequences of unsyllabified segments such as the final sequence /tr/ in English theater or to the root /vrk/ in Bulgarian. In both cases, D corresponds to the sequence of unsyllabified segments /tr/ and /vrk/, and in both cases, the highest sonority peak is the liquid [r] which correctly acquires nucleus status according to (117). The case of Berber is much more complicated insofar as all the segments in a word are unsyllabified and can potentially undergo (117). To obtain most efficiently the best result in this case, and following in this the original proposal by Dell and Elmedlaoui (1985), I propose that (117a) always applies iteratively to D until all available unsyllabified segments are parsed. Thus, in the first pass, (117a) assigns N to the highest sonority peaks in a string of unsyllabified segments, which in Berber corresponds to the word. The next iterative pass assigns N to the next highest unsyllabified sonority peaks if any other unsyllabified segments are available, and so on. As in Dell and Elmedlaoui's original proposal—I hypothesize that the N-assignment operation is blocked if it produces a violation of the constraint against hiatus in (118). This follows naturally from one of the hypotheses discussed in Section 1.2.2 of Chapter 1. According to this hypothesis, disallowed configurations cannot be produced by structure building operations. To have a repair when you are building something is simply a waste; it is better to build it right in the first place.

Syllabification in Berber

(118)

No Hiatus. *  R N X

249

 R N X

Once nuclei are assigned, the segments still unsyllabified are incorporated into the adjacent syllable by application of Onset and Coda incorporation (116I). Again, these operations are subject to blocking. The relevant constraints in this case are listed below. (119)

a.

b.



* X

X

*

R

(* complex onset)

X

X

(* complex coda)

The derivation of the different syllabifications of the pair tzxnt/txznas illustrates the approach outlined here. (120) a.

Input: /txznt/ X t

X x

X z

X n

X t

The string D in (120a) includes the entire word—the string D of available segments in (120a) is represented by including it within curly parentheses. The [n] is the sonority peak in this string and is assigned N status.  R N b. {X X X X X} By N-assignment t x z n t There are two strings of unsyllabified segments in (120b), [txz] and [t]. The [t] is obviously the sonority peak of the last string {t} but it is not

250

Case studies

available as a Nucleus because of the NoHiatus constraint. [z] is the sonority peak of the other string, however, it is not available as a possible Nucleus again because of the NoHiatus constraint. The string D then includes only {tx}. The fricative [x] is the sonority peak in this string and, therefore, it is assigned syllable Nucleus as in (120c)

c.

{X t

 R N X} x


X z

 R N X n


X t

By N-assignment

There are no other available segments for N-assignment at this point. The application of -incorporation syllabifies the remaining segments as onsets or codas as in (120d).

d.

X t

 R N X x


X z

 R N X n


X t

By -incorporation

X a

X s

The correct output form is thus derived. Consider now [t.xz
.nas]. (121)

Input: / txznas/

a.

X t

X x

X z

X n

As in the preceding case, The string D in (121a) includes the entire word. In this case [a] is the sonority peak. We thus get (121b).

b.

{X t

X x

X z

X n

 R N X a

X} s

by N-assignment

Syllabification in Berber

251

The only available segments now are {txz}. The [z] is the sonority peak in this string and is assigned Nucleus status.

c.

{X t

X x

 R N X} z


X n

 R N X a

X s

by N-assignment

The segment [t] is still an available unsyllabified segment. It is obviously the sonority peak of the string {t}, and it is, therefore, assigned nuclear status as in (121d).

d.

 R N {X} t


X x

 R N X z


X n

 R N X a

X s

by N-assignment

The operation of -incorporation at this point will produce (121e).

e.

 R N X t


X x

 R N X z


X n

 R N X a

X s

by -incorporation

Again the correct output form is successfully derived. Let us derive some other examples involving sequences of syllables from the poetry lines studied by Dell and Elmedlaoui (2002): [kins
t a] (syllables 7-9 in line 33a), [udn
Vya] (syllables 1-3 in line 41b), [iVdn
wa] (syllables 2-4 in line 41c), and [r
Sq
] 'be happy' from Dell and Elmedlaoui (1988).

252

Case studies

(122) [kins
ta] Input: /kInsta/ X k

a.

b.

c.

c.

X I

{X k

X I

{X k

 R N X i

X k

 R N X i

X k

 R N X i

Output: [kins
t a]

X n

X n

X s

X s

X n

X} s

X n

 R N {X} s

X n

 R N {X} s

X t

X a

X t

 R N X} a

X t

 R N X a

X t

 R N X a

X t

 R N X a

by N-assignment. [a] is the sonority peak in D {kinsta}

by N-assignment. [I] is the sonority peak in D {kins}

by N-assignment. [s] is the sonority peak in D {s}

by -incorporation.

Syllabification in Berber

(123)

253

[udn
Vya] Input: /udnVIa/

a.

b.

c.

d.

d.

X U

{X U  R N {X u  R N X u  R N X u

X d

X n

X d

X n

X d

X n

X d

 R N {X n

X d

 R N X n


X V

X I

X a

X I

 R N X} a

X I

 R N X a

X I

 R N X a

X V

X y

 R N X a

X n

X U

X a

X V

X} V

X} V

Output: [udn
Vya] (124)

[iVdn
wa] Input: /IVdnUa/

a.

X I

X V

X d

By N-assignment. [a] is the sonority peak in D {U dnV a}

By N-assignment. [U] is the sonority peak in D {U dnV a}

By N-assignment [n] the sonority peak in D { nV}

By -incorporation.

254

b.

c.

d.

e.

Case studies

X I  R N X i  R N X i  R N X i

X V

X V

X V

X V

X d

X n

X d

X n

X d

 R N X n


X d

 R N X n


X U

 R N X a

X U

 R N X a

X U

 R N X a

X w

 R N X a

By N-assignment [a] is the sonority peak in D {IVdnUa}

By N-assignment [i] is the sonority

peak in D {IVdn}

By N-assignment. [n] is the sonority peak in D { dn}

By -incorporation

Output: [iVdn
wa] (125) [r
Sq
}

'be happy'

Input:

[rSq}

a.

X r

X S

X q

 R N X r


X S

X q

b.

By N-assignment. [r] is the sonority peak in D {rSq}

Syllabification in Berber

c.

d.

 R N X r
 R N X r


X S

 R N X q


X S

 R N X q


255

By N-assignment. [q] is the sonority peak in D { q}

By -incorporation

Output: [r
Sq
} We can now turn to the syllabification of sonority plateaux, i.e., clusters of segments of equal sonority. To account for this type of sequence, Dell & Elmedlaoui (1985) assume a directional application of the syllabification procedure from left-to-right. They consider the form in (126) as evidence for such an approach. (126)

tf
. tk
t 'you suffered a sprain' (Dell and Elmedlaoui 1985:116)

Clements (1997) points out that the data are not clear and not fully support this assumption as we can see in (127). (127)

Syllabification of sonority plateaux Example supporting left-to-right syllabification i. /rks-x/ r
.ks
x *r
k.sx
'I hid' ii. /bayn-n/ ba.yn
n *bay.nn
'they (m.) appear' iii. /y-swfw-yyt/ i.su.fuyyt *i.suf.wiyt 'let him illuminate' iv. /ldy-yyy/ l
.diy.yi *l
d.yi.yi 'pull me' Example supporting right-to-left syllabification i. /wgm-n/ u.gm
n ug.mn
'they (m) drew (water) 'for the coackroaches' ii. /y-t-!bdry-n/ *i.tb
d.rin it.bd
.rin iii. /tt-bddal/ ? ttbd
.dal 'exchange' iv. /y-ftk baba-s/ ? if.tk
.ba.bas ‘his father suffered a sprain'

256

Case studies

Dell and Elmedlaoui (1985) do not provide a clear solution to the problems posed by the forms in (127) and leave them to further study, a strategy adopted also by Clements (1997). In Dell and Elmedlaoui (2002) whose data are drawn from 'orthometric' syllabification, i.e. the syllabification which is required in poetry, the form in (126) is syllabified as in (128). (128)

tf
t . kt
'you suffered a sprain' (Dell and Elmedlaoui 2002)

All the data in Dell and Elmedlaoui (1985) are drawn from IFDQ syllabification, i.e., syllabification 'Inferred From Direct Questioning' of the native speakers. As explained in Dell and Elmedlaoui (1988) one gets from orthometric syllabification to IFDQ syllabification by applying prepausal and postpausal annexation.22 François Dell (pc.) compares the orthometric syllabification of Dell and Elmedlaoui (2002) with the IFDQ syllabification of Dell and Elmedlaoui (1985) in the following forms. (129) a. b. c.

U.R. /t-ftk-t/ /ma#ra=t-g-t/ /rks-x/

Orthometric tf
t . kt
ma . rat . gt
r
k . sx


IFDQ Syll tf
. tk
t ma . ra . tg
t r
. ks
x

In regards of these forms, François Dell (pc.) writes the following: "All three forms end in a sequence of obstruents which is a sonority plateau, and in the orthometric syllabification the last two consonants form an open syllable, due to a constraint which prohibits obstruent nuclei from being followed by a coda of equal sonority (NoPICOR in Dell and Elmedlaoui (2002)). The operation of prepausal annexation on the orthometric representation accounts for the fact that the final consonant ceases to be a nucleus, but it does not explain why the penultimate consonant becomes a nucleus.” This analysis could be adopted in this framework. Assume that in a sonority plateau, there are the two ranked options in (130). (130)

a. b.

N is assigned to the segment in left edge of the plateau. N is assigned to the segment in the right edge of the plateau

Syllabification in Berber

257

The unmarked option is that of assigning N to the leftmost segment of the plateau. If that option fails to produce a licit output, the other option is attempted. I could also assume the constraint NoPICOR of Dell and Elmedlaoui (2002) and postulate that it is unrepairable. Given this constraint, any derivation starting with the assignment of N to an obstruent that appears before another obstruent would crash. Consider the form [tf
t . kt
]. (131)

Input:

a.

X t

X f

X t

X k

X t

In the first pass of N-assignment, N would be assigned to [f] which is the sonority peak of the string D {tftkt}.

b.

X t

 R N X f

X t

X k

X t

In the next pass the available string is {kt} where there is no sonority peak. As assumed above, in such a case peak is assigned to the first segment in the sonority plateau, [k] in this case as in (131c).

c.

X t

 R N X f

X t

 R N X k

X t

The operation of -incorporation would lead to (131d) where the syllable [tk
t] violates NoPICOR. If NoPICOR is unrepairable, this derivation would crash.

258

Case studies

* d.

X t

 R N X f

X t

 R N X k

X t

The other option in (130b) is then tried. This leads to a licit output.

e.

X t

 R N X f

X t

X k

 R N X t

In prepausal position, as discussed below, a word-final nuclear obstruent is detached from the nuclear position. Let us assume—and this follows from last resort—that doing this removes the final obstruent from the pool of available segments in D. String D in (131f) then includes only {k} which is then assigned N. The final [t] can then be syllabified as the appendix of the preceding syllable (see discussion of this operation below).

f.

X t

 R N X f

X t

'  R N {X} k

X t

All of the alternations in (127) can then be explained in this way. Evidence for the ranking in (130) may be provided by the syllabification of sonority plateaux such as those in (132a) (132)

ba.yn
n *bay.nn
a. /bayn-n/ /lattntlkmn/ /lat.tn
.tl
. km
n (Dell and Elmedlaoui (2002: 86, no gloss provided)

The problem is, however, that Dell and Elmedlaoui (2002) claim that in the case of sonority plateaux not involving obstruents, alternate licit parses are

Syllabification in Berber

259

also possible. They provide the following example with two equally possible syllabifications. (132)

b.

/yukrlka/ [yu.kr
l.ka] [yuk.rl
.ka]

This would indicate that the two options in (130) are fundamentally unranked so that they can be chosen at random. But this is in contrast with the examples in (127) which seem not to display any variation. As Dell and Elmedlaoui (2002) point out, more empirical work on the syllabification of clusters of this type is needed.23 I will also leave this issue open to further study. Before leaving this section I give the revised ranked repair set of NOUNSYLL X, the constraint against unsyllabified segments (133)

REPAIR set of NOUNSYLL X : 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 of Chapter 2). II. Syllable insertion: ( -insertion) Insert  (a syllable): a. Assign N of  to unsyllabified X. |  where  is the sonority peak in D. i.

ii.

D is a string of adjacent segments available for Nucleus assignment, D may include one or more segments.  is the sonority peak in D if  has the highest degree of sonority in D

b. Attach unsyllabified X to: i. the coda of / if X is word-final; ii. the onset of  ; iii the coda of .

260

Case studies

Convention A: there must be positional homogeneity between the edge of an inserted syllable and the edge of an unsyllabified string. Therefore, under (133IIbii), the onset of  is attached to the leftmost segment of an unsyllabified string. Under (133IIbiii), 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 . 3.2.2.

Exceptions to Core Syllabification in Tashlhiyt Berber

There are two sets of systematic exceptions to the syllabification patterns described above. Both sets of exceptions occur at the margins of the phonological phrase (after or before pauses). A first set of exceptions is represented by forms such as those in (134) that, when occurring after pauses, have the syllabifications in the column II, instead of the expected syllabification in the column I. (134) /t-xzn-a-s/ /tzmt/ /gnw/ /tt-bddal/ /tlwrtnt/

I t
.xz
.nas t
.zm
t g
.nu t
t.bd
.dal t
.lur.tn
t

II txz
.nas tzm
t gnu ttbd
.dal tlur.tn
t

'she stored for him' 'it (f.) is sifting 'sew' 'exchange (impf.) 'she gave them back'

Dell and Elmedlaoui (1988) account for these alternations by assuming a process of Postpausal Annexation). "We assume the existence of a late rule which applies to every postpausal noncontinuant obstruent which is a nucleus…and incorporates it into the onset of the next syllable ( Dell and Elmedlaoui 1988: 5).” In Dell and Elmedlaoui's analysis this rule is crucially ordered after the CSR, which feeds it. Thus according to them, postpausal /txz/ is first syllabified as (t)(xz) by the CSR and then transformed into the single syllable (txz) by postpausal annexation.

Syllabification in Berber

261

Another process of annexation occurs in prepausal position. It is formulated by Dell and Elmedlaoui as below. "Another rule operates on every prepausal open Syllable with an obstruent as a nucleus and turns it into a complex coda of the preceding Syllable (Dell and Elmedlaoui 1988: 5).” "The application of [this rule] is obligatory when the last segment is an obstruent, and it is optional when that segment is a sonorant." (Dell and Elmedlaoui 1985: 120) Thus obstruents can never be syllabic nuclei in final position in the phrase, while sonorants show a pattern of free variation in this position. This rule, like postpausal annexation, is strictly derivational, as it is crucially fed by the CSR. Some examples follow. As in (135), column I represents underlying forms, column II the intermediate forms derived by the CSR, and column III the surface forms derived by Annexation. (135) a.

b.

final obstruents: I II /y-nna ns/ in.na.ns /y-!sbwkd/ !is.bu.kd /y-rks/ ir.ks /y-stV/ is.tV final sonorants: /ygydr/ i.gi.dr /y-wrm/ yu.rm /rgl/ r.gl /dwm-n/ du.mn

III in.nans !is.bukd irks istV

'he said: spend the night!' 'he poked his eye out' '(his father) hid' 'he cracked (the door)'

(same or) i.gidr (same or) yurm (same or) rgl (same or) dumn

'eagle' 'he tasted' 'lock!' 'they (m.) last'

I propose that the processes of prepausal and postpausal annexation involve the two rules of nucleus removal given in (136). 24 (136)

a.

N X -sonorant -continuant

/ ## ____

262

Case studies

b.

N

X

/ ____ ##

-sonorant As in Clements' (1997) analysis, I propose that if a regular syllabic position such as a coda is not available, the segments created by the two rules in (136a-b) are syllabified as appendices, segments attached to the extended syllable as in (137). '  R N

(137)

X

X

In Berber appendices are allowed but only in the case of syllables at the periphery of the intonational group which corresponds to the utterance, i.e., the context that is typically preceded and followed by pauses. Consider the form in (138a) which becomes (138b) in a postpausal environment. (138)

a.

g
. nu

-->

b.

gnu

We start from the syllabified form in (139). (139)

 R N X g

X n

 R N X u

Application of rules in (136) creates an unsyllabified segment. Such a configuration must be repaired. The operation of -incorporation tries to apply. An onset position is not available because of the constraint against complex onsets. The initial consonant is then syllabified as an appendix as in (141).

Syllabification in Berber

(140)

After application of (136a)):

X g (141)

263

X n

 R N X u

X n

'  R N X u

Repair by -adjunction:

X g

As another example take the word in (142a) when it occurs in the initial position of a phrase. Rule (136b) changes it to (142b) which is then repaired as in (142c), thus producing the correct form for a post-pausal environment. (142)

a.

b.

/t-xzn-a-s/  R N X t

X t

t.xz.nas

X x

 R N X z

X x

 R N X z

'she stored for him'

X n

 R N X a

X s

X n

 R N X a

X s

264

c.

Case studies

X t

X x

'  R N X z

X n

 R N X a

X s

Consider the form [t
t-bd
dal} 'exchange-Imperf.' which appears as [## ttbd
dal} in initial position of a phonological phrase. To account for the initial cluster we see here, Clements (1997) proposes that Tashlhiyt Berber phonology licenses two appendices positions at the edges of the phonological phrase. (143)

' 

X1 X2 X3 X4 // ___ ## where X3 = X2 or X3 = [-continuant, -sonorant] The input to (136a) is (144a). Removal of the nuclear position will create a structure in (144b) that can be saved only by assignment of the two initial skeletal position to the appendix position. This is shown in the REPAIR in (144c). (144)

a.

 R N X

t

X

X

 R N X

b

d

X

 R N X

X

a

l

Syllabification in Berber

b.

X

X

t

c.

X

t

X

X

 R N X

b

d

a

l

X

'  R N X

 R N X

X

b

d

a

l

X

X

 R N X

X

265

The same holds for prepausal annexation. Consider the forms in (145). They again show that more than one extra-syllabic position is needed. (145)

a.

b.

Cluster Example yyt i.su.fuyyt yyt i.Ja.rayyt yyl yuyyl llm illm nnk !as.munnk nns ta.manns rks irks stV istV Skd iSkd xkm u.gl
xkm ftk iftk

/y-swfw-yyt/ /i-Jara-yyt/ /y-wyyl/ /y-llm/ /!azmw-nnk/ /tama-nn-s/ /y-rks/ /y-stV/ /y-Skd/ /wgl-x-km/ /y-ftk/

Take the form [irks] in (145b)(see 146a). The rule in (136b) creates the illicit structure in (146b)

266

Case studies

(146)

 R N X i

X r

X k

 R N X s

 R N X i

X r

X k

X s

a.

b.

The form in (146b) is repaired as in (147); thus accounting for the surface form [irks] we observe in prepausal position (147)

'  R N X i

X r

X k

X s

The form [ysufuyyt] in prepausal position supports this analysis further. The input to the N-removal rule is given in (148a). (148)

a.

 R N X

i

X

 R N X

s

u

(136b) will create (148b).

X

 R N X

X

f

u

y

X

 R N X

t

Syllabification in Berber

b.

 R N X

i

X

 R N X

s

u

X

 R N X

X

f

u

y

X

'  R N X

X

f

u

y

X

267

X

t

(148b) is repaired as in (148c).

c.

 R N X

X

 R N X

i

s

u

X

X

t

To account for the prepausal annexation of sonorants, I will assume a special and optional rule of nucleus removal (149) applying to prepausal sonorants. (149)

N

X

/ _____ ##

[+sonorant] Application of this rule to the form in (150a) will produce (150b). (150)

a.

 R N X i

X g

 R N X i

X d

 R N X r

268

b.

Case studies

 R N X i

X g

 R N X i

X d

X r

X d

X r

(150b) is repaired as in (150c).

c.

3.2.3.

 R N X i

X g

'  R N X i

Imperfective morphology in Tashlhiyt Berber

Tashlhiyt Berber is also characterized by a process of imperfective formation described by Dell and Elmedlaoui as follows. "Certain verbs of Tashlhiyt Berber form their imperfective stem by geminating one of the consonants of their root. […] The segment which is geminated in the imperfective stem is that segment which is syllabified as an Onset by the CSR in the basic stem (Dell and Elmedlaoui1988:10-11.)” Some sample forms for this process are given in (151) showing first the basic stem, then the output of the CSR, then the output of the annexation rules, and finally the imperfective stem. (151)

a. Basic stem rSq bxl kSm

CSR r
. Sq
b
. xl
k
. Sm


b. mrz frn xng

mr
z fr
n xn
g

Annexation r
Sq b
xl k
Sm

Imperfective stem rSSq bxxl kSSm

mmrz ffrn xxng

Syllabification in Berber

269

As pointed out by Clements (1997), an adequate account of this word-formation process presents a challenge to a non-derivational theory of Phonology, since it is crucially defined on the output of the CSR, before the annexation rules have applied. The problem form for a nonderivational analysis is the first one, /rSq/ 'be happy'. Here prepausal annexation turns the onset created by the CSR (as shown in column 2) into a coda (as shown in column 3). Dell and Elmedlaoui's statement allows us to predict gemination correctly only if we can refer to the immediate output of the CSR, before the annexation rules apply to it. In the approach developed here there is no problem in accounting for this process. The best way to account for the process of gemination is by means of the rule in (152) which geminates the first onset of the syllabified verbal root. (152)

Rule of Imperfective Formation:  R N [ root (X) X X ..]  [ root (X) 

 R N X X ....]

X 

Crucially (152) is checked before nucleus removal rules behind annexation. Consider the form /rSq/ 'be happy'. The correct word-level syllabification is provided in (153a). What we have to assume is that the imperfective formation rule in (152) applies to the word-level form before the annexation rules apply. (153)

a.

 R N X X

 R N X

r


k


S

 R N  b. X X X

r


S

 R N X

k


270

Case studies

3.2.4

Templatic Morphology in Tashlhiyt Berber

Clements (1997) discusses the interaction of syllabification with another aspect of Berber morphology: the morphological derivatives involving templatic morphology. Dell and Elmedlaoui (2002) analyze these derivatives in terms of prosodic templates, following the model proposed by McCarthy (1979) for Classical Arabic. The templates required for Tashlhiyt Berber in this analysis consist of syllabified sequences of skeletal units; the skeletal units are always preassociated with a vowel. Dell and Elmedlaoui propose templates such as those below. (Parenthesized slots indicate positions that are optionally filled. The two slots linked to a shared X represent positions that must be linked to a single consonant of the melody tier. This doubly linked X is accordingly realized as a geminate). (154)

TIRRUGZA template:

(X)

X

X

 R N X

X

u (155)

UKRIS template:  R N X X X

 R N X

u

i

X

 R N X a

X

Dell and Elmedlaoui observe that among the segments of the base, only consonants —a term they use to refer to both non-nuclear vocoids, i.e., glides, and to consonants—are transferred to the derived word. As in Arabic, consonants are mapped onto templatic syllabic margins, but differrently than in Arabic, vowels—i.e., vocoids that are assigned nuclear status—are not mapped onto nuclear slots due to the presence of the prelinked vowels that pre-empt this operation. The mapping operation respects what Dell and Elmedlaoui (2002) call 'consonant invariance', a general property of nonconcatenative mor-

Syllabification in Berber

271

phology of Tashlhiyt Berber. According to this property, vowels are the main target of morphological processes, except for length, these processes leave consonants intact. The syllabic status of consonants does not play a role in the operation of nonconcatenative morphology. Thus, templatic word formation must apply to the point in the derivation at which Dell and Elmedlaoui's CSR(a) and CSR(i) have applied, but the later rules CSR(r-t) have not. This is the point at which all instances of /a/ and appropriate instances of the high vocoid /I, U/ have been assigned to nuclear positions in core syllables, but before nuclear status is assigned to consonants. It is easy to show that CSR(a, i) must have already applied at the point where the templatic derivatives are formed, since the base-totemplate mapping rules must crucially distinguish the vowels [i, u] from the glides [y, w]. Consider, for example, the following TIRRUGZA derivatives, as transcribed by Dell and Elmedlaoui. In the input to the derivatives, the segments that are not preserved in the derived nouns have a double strikethrough. (156)

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

'man' a-rgaz 'free person' a-maziV 'guest' i-ngbi 'dummy' a- !nttayfu 'apprentice' a-n-lmad 'wealthy person' a-n-flus 'sharif' SSrif 'to dream' wurga 'heir' a-m-kusu

Derivative

t-i-rrugza t-i-mmuzVa t-i-nnugba t-i- !nttuyfa t-i-nllumda t-i-nffulsa t-i-SSurfa t-i-wwurga t-i-mmukksa

Input to Derivative rgaz maziV nbgi !nttayfu nlmad nflus SSrif wurga m-kusu

The examples in (156a) establish the basic pattern. The derived form t-irruggza can be predicted by mapping the base consonants r, g, z onto the obligatory C-positions of the TIRRUGZA template (geminating the first, as required), and discarding the vowels of the base form in favor of the prespecified melody [u. . a]. The remaining examples show that it is fundamental to distinguish between nuclear and non-nuclear high vocoids in the base. The same palatal high vocoid /I/ will be treated as the consonant [y] in (156d) and thus it maps onto a templatic C-slot, and as the vowel [i] in (c) where it does not. For the same reasons, the same dorsal high vocoid /w/ must count as a consonant in (156i) and as a vowel in (h). Thus we

272

Case studies

need to assume that at least CSR(a) and CSR(i) must have applied when the morphological operation of mapping to the template occurs. It can also be shown that the remaining CSR rules, CSR(r...t), cannot have applied at the point at which the templatic morphology mapping occurs. Consider the consonant /l/ in ( 156e, f). It is a nucleus in the base /nlmad-/ [nl
.mad] whereas it is a margin in the base /-nflus-/ [nflus], but this difference does not play any role in the derivation of the template. In both cases the /l/ is mapped in a syllable margin position of the template. As Clements (1997) says: "The justification for this treatment is clear. On an analysis in which only CSR(a,i) have applied at the point where template mapping is defined, the principle which maps melody units onto template positions is simple to state: all and only segments occupying C-slots in the base are assigned to C-slots in the derived template. If instead all CSR rules had applied prior to template mapping, creating representations like that in (260b), template mapping would have to apply to a formally arbitrary class of segments (nonsyllabic sounds and contoids), statable only in terms of a disjunction. We conclude, then, that Dell and Elmedlaoui's mapping principles apply to forms that occur in the immediate output of CSR(a,i)." (Clements 1997) The properties of templatic morphology are easily accounted for in the framework proposed here. As proposed in Chapter 1, Section 1.2.2, unmarked syllables are allowed in lexical representation. In terms of the constraints in (114), these are syllables containing [-consonantal] nuclei, i.e., high and non-high vowels . Precisely the nuclei that are manipulated by templatic morphology. I thus propose that there is a first pass of Nucleus assignment and other syllabification repair in lexical phonology. Only unmarked syllables are created then, i.e. syllables with vocoids as nuclei. At word level, all other types of segments are then assigned Nuclear status as proposed above. Consider the base /nflus/. Lexical syllabification creates unmarked CV syllables. Thus given the input in (157a), the first pass of N-assignment assigns N to the sonority peak /u/. Further passes are blocked because they would create marked nuclei. We then obtain (157b).

Syllabification in Berber

(157)

273

/nflus/ Input:

a.

X n

b.

X n

X f

X f

X l

X u

X s

X l

 R N X u

X s

Next -incorporation adjoins [l] to the onset of the following syllable. Coda incorporation cannot apply because it would create a marked syllable. We thus obtain (157c).

c.

X n

X f

X l

 R N X u

X s

Template-formation applies at this point. Non-nuclear segments of the base are mapped in a morphological bisyllabic template with a vocalic melody /u...a/. The final syllable of the template is light. The penultimate syllable is instead heavy and its onset is a geminate.

X

 R N X

t

i

(158)

X

X

 R N X

u

X

X

 R N X

a

274

Case studies

X

 R N X

X

t

i

n

(159)

X

X

f

 R N X

 R X

X

X

u

l

s

a

The correct output form is thus obtained

3.2.4.1. The absence of Hiatus Configurations and the Constraint Against Onsetless syllables. In the recent linguistic literature, the absence of hiatuses is accounted for by resorting to the constraint in (160) which disallows onsetless syllables in so far as in a hiatus the second syllable is onsetless. (160)

ONSET: Syllables must have onsets.

The problem with such an account is in the fact that in languages that avoid hiatus, often the word-initial syllable may be onsetless. A typical case is Berber. In this language, whereas hiatuses are systematically avoided inside the word, onsetless syllables are perfectly fine in word-initial position. This is shown in (161). The forms in (161a) show that there is a hiatus resolution process triggering resyllabification of an underlying high vowel as a glide. The forms in (161b) show that the Nucleus-assignment procedure which assigns Nucleus to sonority peaks fails to apply in this language when it would create a hiatus. The forms in (161c) show that word-initial onsetless syllables are perfectly fine whereas possible alternative syllabifications satisfying ONSET are not. (161)

a. /zwi =as/ /zwi a baba/

 [zuy as]  [zuy a baba]

b. /ra-I-rz/  [ra.yr
z] /Ì aUl-tn/  [Ìa.wl
-tn
] /ra-I-mmVI/  [ra.ym
m.Vi]

'beat down for him' 'beat down, O father!' ‘it will be broken’ ‘make them(m.)plentiful’ ‘he will grow’

Syllabification in Berber

c. /Irba/ /Inda / /rksx/ /bxl/ /k
Sm
/ /rSq/

     

ir . ba in . da r
.ks
x b
. xl
k
. Sm
r
. Sq


275

*yr
. ba ‘carry on one’s back-Pf.ms’ *yn
. da ‘shake (milk) -Perf.ms’ *rk
.sx
'I hid' *bx
l *kS
m *rS
q 'be happy'

Dell and Elmedlaoui (1985, 2002) who use the ONSET constraint to account for the absence of hiatus configuration account for the systematic exceptions in word-initial position by adding an "except"-clause to (160). (162)

ONSET. A syllables which is not line-initial must have an onset.

The relative clause "which is not line-initial" fundamentally weakens the account of absence of hiatus insofar as it also follows from it that onsetless syllables are possible unless they are in a hiatus position. The problem is the hiatus not the absence of onset. McCarthy and Prince (1993) use the constraint in (160) to account for the hiatus resolution process we find in Axininca Campa. In this language, hiatuses are eliminated by inserting a consonant as an onset between the two adjacent nuclei. The problem again as in Berber is that onsetless syllables are possible in word-initial position. This is shown in (163) (163)

/i-N-koma-i/iNkomatt i * tiNkomatt i, *iNkomai 'he will paddle'

They propose the alignment constraint in (164) to account for this systematic exception. (164)

ALIGN (PhWd,L,Wd,L): The left edge of the phonological word must coincide with the left edge of a grammatical word.

If this constraint is ranked above ONSET, it will block consonant insertion in word initial position.

276

Case studies

(165)

/i-N-koma-i/ a. 
iNkomatt i b. tiNkomatt i c. iNkomai

ALIGN-L

ONSET *

*! **!

This move, however, does not account for what happens in Berber. In Berber, all segments can become syllabic nuclei as discussed in the preceding section, provided that they are more sonorous than the adjacent segments and that no hiatus configuration is created. Sample cases are given in (166). (166) Perfective: 3 msc. sg. il . di ir . ba in . da im . da iz . di iJ . la iV . za iH . da is . ti if . si ix . si iÌ . ba

3 fem. sg. tl . di tr
. ba tn
. da tm
. da tz
. di tJ
. la tV
. za tH
. da ts
. ti tf
. si tx
. si tÌ
. ba

‘pull’ ‘carry on one’s back’ ‘shake (milk)’ ‘be worn out’ ‘put together’ ‘get lost’ ‘dig’ ‘give (gift)” ‘select’ ‘untie’ ‘go out (fire)’ ‘cover’

Now observe that insofar as hiatus configurations are avoided by resyllabification or blocking as seen above, and not by consonant insertion as in Axininca Campa, the alignment constraint fails to account for the fact that onsetless syllables are allowed in word-initial position. Let us show this. The OT constraint that accounts for the distribution of nuclei in IT Berber is (167) (from Clements (1997)). (167)

SPP: within the syllabification domain, sonority peaks contain syllable peaks.

If we assume that (167) states that each local sonority peak must be assigned nuclear status, ONSET must be ranked above SPP, as originally proposed by Prince and Smolensky (1993). This is shown in (168) where I consider the form [Ìa.wl
-tn
] from / Ì aUl-tn/ ‘make them(m.)plentiful’.

Syllabification in Berber

(168)

a.

/ Ì aUl-tn / [Ìa.wl
-tn
] † [Ìa.ul-tn
]

b.

/Ì aUl-tn / 
[Ìa.wl
-tn
] [Ìa.ul-tn
]

ALIGN-L

* ALIGN-L

SPP *!

277

ONSET

ONSET

SPP *

*!

If the ranking in (168b) is the correct one, we have an immediate problem in the case of word-initial onsetless syllables (C=an inserted consonant). (169) a. b. † b.

/y-nt-a-s/ intas Cintas yntas

ALIGN-L

ONSET *!

SPP

* *

Clements (1997) interprets the SPP as requiring the assignment of syllable peak to the highest sonority peak in the phonological domain (the phonological phrase for Clements) disregarding all other local sonority peaks. If we assume this, the SPP can be ranked above ONSET. In (170b) the SPP is satisfied by the assignment of nuclear status to /a/ which is the highest sonority peak in the phrase, (170)

a. / Ì aUl-tn / b. 
[Ìa.wl
-tn
] c. [Ìa.ul-tn
]

ALIGN-L

SPP

ONSET *!

The form in (171) shows that the SPP under this interpretation must dominate Onset. (171)

/rSq/ a. 
r.Sq b. Ør.Sq c. rSq

ALIGN-L

SPP

ONSET *

*! *!

In (171), the candidate (a) is the most harmonic of the three candidates. Candidate (b) violates ALIGN-L. Candidate (c) satisfies ONSET but crucially violates the higher ranking SPP. If we reverse this ranking, we would obtain (172).

278

Case studies

(172)

/rSq/ a. r.Sq b. Ør.Sq c. † rSq

ALIGN-L

ONSET *!

SPP

*! *

But now if the SPP is assumed as referring only to the highest peak in the domain, we still have a major problem in accounting for forms such as [intas] from /i-nt-a-s/. In fact, we predict the syllabification [yn
tas] in this case, as shown by the tableaux in (169) and (173). This is contrary to the facts. (173)

/y-nt-a-s/ a. intas b. † yntas

ALIGN-L

SPP

ONSET *!

Observe that Align-L is satisfied in both forms in so far as the initial high vocoid is aligned with the word edge. Also both satisfy the SPP insofar as the sonority of the word (=[a]) is assigned syllable peak. Therefore, using the ONSET constraint to account for the absence of hiatus configurations leads to incorrect results. In a word like [intas] where the initial segment of the word satisfies the alignment requirements, *Onset requires its syllabification as an onset. This does not occur. This word then shows that onsets are simply not needed. The Berber facts are better expressed by the generalization that hiatus configurations, and not onsetless syllables, are avoided. My analysis will be based on this observation. In this book, I assumed that the absence of hiatus configurations is simply accounted for by a constraint against these configurations, i.e., the constraint in (174), and not by ONSET. (174)

NOHIATUS: *  R N X

 R N X

I hypothesize that the constraint in (174) belongs to the family of constraints governing syllable contacts and that it is different from the constraint against onsetless syllables which instead belongs to the family of constraints governing syllable structure. The first family of constraints

Feature negation

279

deals with heterosyllabic configurations, the second with intrasyllabic configurations. Thus the two constraints in (160) and (174) may overlap in their effects but must be kept distinct. If the constraint against onsetless syllables is active in a language, an onset will be required in all environments even in word initial position. Obviously if it is active, it also disallows hiatus configurations. In contrast, the constraint against hiatus configurations disallows only the latter, and word-initial syllable can be onsetless. This is the case of Berber. 3.2.5.

Summary

This section provided an analysis of Tashlhyit Berber syllabification. It was shown how a simple and adequate account of syllabification in this language can be obtained by means of an operation of Nucleus assignment quite close in spirit to that proposed by Dell and Elmedlaoui (1985). Furthermore, it was shown, following Clements (1997), that a variety of phenomena related to syllabification in this language require the postulation of derivational steps. This provides evidence in support of a derivational model such as that proposed in this book.

3.3.

Vowel Harmony in Okpe and the Issue of Feature Negation.

3.3.1.

Vowel Harmony in Okpe

In this section, I discuss the well-known case of Okpe, a West African language spoken in Nigeria (see Hoffman 1973). Okpe provides further evidence not only for the ordering of repair operations, but also for a special repair operation, feature negation, a repair in which no features of the input illicit configuration are preserved. Okpe shows the surface vocalic inventory in (175).

(175)

i e E

u o O a

However, one can demonstrate that the underlying vowel inventory is

280

Case studies

that in (176) and that the surface vowel inventory in (175) is derived from (176) by the operation in (177) which merges underlying [+ATR] mid-vowels with underlying [-ATR] high vowels.

i È e E

(176)

(177)

a.

A È, Ë

u Ë o O 

e, o

b. [+high. -ATR]-->[-high, +ATR] Hoffman (1973) clearly demonstrates this. Okpe has the rootcontrolled [-ATR] vowel harmony rule in (178). (178)

X

X

[aATR] The effects of the harmony rule are shown in (179) where the harmonic behavior of the third person singular prefix [o/O-] of the past tense is considered. This prefix appears with its [+ATR] variant [o-] in combination with [+ATR] stems (see 179a), whereas it appears with its [-ATR] variant [O-] in combination with [-ATR] stems (see (179b)). The alternation in backness/rounding of the suffix ri/re/ru/ro will be discussed later. (179)

a. ti ‘pull’ ru ‘do’

o~ti⁄ri⁄ o~ru!ru!

‘he/she/it pulled’ ‘he/she did’

b. da ‘drink’ dE ‘buy’

O~da!re! O~dE!re!

‘he/she drank’ ‘he/she bought’

Given the seven vowel system in (175), one expects that [e] and [o] always trigger [+ATR] harmony. However, this is not true. The surface vowels [e] and [o] can be divided into two sets: the vow-

Feature negation

els [e] and [o] of one set trigger [+ATR] harmony, as expected; the vowel of the other set, however, trigger [-ATR] harmony. This can be seen in (180). If we restrict our attention to the prefix [o/O-], we observe that whereas the [+ATR] mid-vowels [e, o] of (180a) trigger [+ATR] harmony, the [+ATR] mid-vowels [e, o] of (180b) trigger [-ATR] harmony. (180)

a. se ‘fall’ so ‘steal’

o~s e!ri! o~~$s o!ri⁄

‘he/she/it fell’ ‘he/she stole’

b. re ‘eat’ so ‘sing’

O~re!re! O~s o!ro!

‘he/she ate’ ‘he/she sang’

Hoffman (1973) shows that the [+ATR] mid-vowels that trigger [-ATR] harmony often behave like high vowels. Consider the infinitive in Okpe. The infinitive is formed by prefixing [e-/ E-]. There is also a suffixal vowel [-ò/-O~}. Before this vowel, stem high vowels become glides. However, when the stem vowel is non-high, the suffixal vowel is deleted. (181)

a.

b.

(182)

Verb ti⁄ ‘pull’ ru! ‘do’ re! ‘eat’ so! ‘sing’

Infinitive e~t yo! e~rwo! e~ryO! E~s wO!

‘to pull’ ‘to do, to make’ ‘to eat’ ‘to sing’

da! dE! lo! se! so!

E~da! E~dE! E~l O! e~s e! e~s o!

‘to drink’ ‘to buy’ ‘to grind’ ‘to fall’ ‘to steal’

‘drink’ ‘buy’ ‘grind’ ‘fall’ ‘steal’

As proposed in Chapter 2, Sect. 2.1.1, the behavior of the suffixal vowel in (181-182) can be accounted for by resorting to two repair operations triggered by the same NOHIATUS constraint. The preferred repair operation is nucleus removal which starts the derivation in (183). If the first vowel is non-high, nucleus removal fails to produce a successful output because of the CONSTRAINT NO[-HIGH] IN MARGIN, which is non-repairable in Okpe. Deletion of the second hiatus vowel

281

Case studies

282

is then chosen as in (184). (Nucleus Removal = NR, Onset Incorporation = OI, SD=skeletal deletion).  R N X i

(183)

X t

 R N X (NR) o

 (OI)  X X t y (184)

X s

 R N X e

X X t i

 R N X  (OI ) o

 R N X X X t y o

 R N X o

 R N X  (SD)  X o s

 R N X e

Now consider the monosyllabic verbs re! and so! which have a [+ATR] mid-vowel as a stem vowel and trigger [-ATR] harmony. Crucially, they behave like monosyllabic verbs with a high stem vowel since they undergo glide formation. (185)

a.

Verb re! ‘eat’ so! ‘sing’

Infinitive e~ryO! E~s wO!

‘to eat’ ‘to sing’

If we hypothesize that the underlying vowels of the verbs re! andso! of (6)b) are the [+high, -ATR] vowels /È/ and /Ë/ and that they are changed into surface [e] and [o] by (3b) after the processes of glide formation and vowel harmony applied, we can account for the behavior of the vowels of re! andso! straightforwardly. Given that they are high vowels underlyingly, they become glides before the suffixal vowel - o/- O of the infinitive. Given that their vowels are [-ATR], they trigger [-ATR] harmony. Therefore, we assume a) that the underlying vowel inventory of Okpe is that in (176) and b) that there is a rule like (177) which changes underlying high [-ATR] /È/

Feature negation

283

and /Ë/ into mid [+ATR] [e] and [o], respectively, we obtain a successful account of the Okpe facts. Observe that if we assume this analysis, we can immediately account for the different variants of the suffix of the past tense in (179). First of all, let us assume the harmony rule in (186). Given a sequence of two high vowels, where the second one is in a suffix, (186) spreads the feature [+back] of the first vowel onto the second one.25 (186)

X -consonantal

+

X -consonantal (Right-to-Left)

+high +back Let us hypothesize that the underlying form of the suffix is /-ri/. When it is combined with a stem that has an underlying high back vowel, it will become [-ru] if this vowel is [+ATR] and [-rË] if this vowel is [-ATR]. In this last case, it will surface as [-ro] by (177). When it is combined with a stem that has an underlying a non-high back vowel or a non-back vowel, it will become [-rÈ] if the underlying vowel is [-ATR] and it will surface as [re] by (177). If the underlying stem vowel is [+ATR], the underlying [-ri] will surface unchanged as [-ri]. Thus, an account of the behavior of this suffix is achieved. As detailed in the following section, the process in (177) is actually a repair triggered by the active marking statement *[+high, -ATR]. The crucial assumption of the analysis put forth above is that this repair applies after the vowel harmony rules in (178) and (186) and after the repair operation triggered by the NOHIATUS constraint. To account for this ordering I will simply assume that the marking statement *[+high, -ATR] is checked at the latest derivational level of Okpe grammar, after all other phonological operation have applied. Therefore [+high, -ATR] vowels are allowed throughout the derivation where they can trigger the harmony rules and undergo resyllabification. They are eliminated only at the end of the derivation. Observe that from this point of view, Okpe is important in providing evidence for the ordering of repair operations. An adequate analysis of

284

Case studies

Okpe is possible only if we assume that the repair eliminating [+high, ATR] vowels applies after that eliminating hiatus configurations. In the framework developed here such ordering is obtained by delaying the checking of the marking statement *[+high, -ATR] until the latest stage of the phonological derivation, and therefore after the checking of the NOHIATUS constraint.

3.3.2.

Excision

Let us now turn to rule (177). I hypothesize that (177) is not an arbitrary rule; rather (177) is an instance of a repair fixing the phonologically complex configuration [+high, -ATR]. It is a fact that a merger between [+high -ATR] vowels and [-high +ATR] vowels is quite common across the languages of the world. A.

The proto-language for the Niger Congo Kwa (Stewart 1972) is reconstructed as having the ten vowel system below, with [+/- ATR] opposition for each vowel where capital /A/ is a [+ATR] low vowel.

(187)

-ATR

È E

+ATR

Ë O a

i e

u o A

However, only a few of the modern Kwa languages have a vocalic system like that above. Stewart shows that the [+ATR] low vowel and the [-ATR] high vowels are most commonly eliminated by the context-free changes in (188189). The change that is of particular importance for us here is the one in (189iii). (188)

i.

A  a (i.e., [+low, +ATR][+low, -ATR])

ii.

A  e (i.e., [+low, +ATR][-low, +ATR])

Feature negation

(189)

iii.

A  E (i.e., [+low, +ATR][-low, -ATR])

i.

È, Ë  i, u (i.e., [+high, -ATR][+high, +ATR])

ii.

È, Ë  E, O (i.e., [+high, -ATR][-high, +ATR]) È, Ë  e, o (i.e., [+high, -ATR][-high, +ATR])

iii.

B.

Elugbe (1982) observes the same type of reductions that we see in the Kwa languages in another African language, Proto-Edoid where we have the following developments.

i

(190)

285

e

È

Ë

u o

A

E

O a

Observe in (190) that the vowels eliminated from the proto-language were the [+high, -ATR] /È, Ë/ and the +low, +ATR] A and that the different reflexes of these vowels are similar to those that we find in the development of the Kwa languages. C.

The same changes are found in the Sudanic languages, and in the Tungusic languages (Vaux 1996a, b).

D.

The change [È , Ë}  [e, o] is found in vowel harmony systems (see the so called “Umbrian “metaphony) after the raising to high of mid [-ATR] vowels (see Calabrese 1988, 1999b; Zetterstrand 1998.)

286

Case studies

E.

The change [È , Ë}  [e, o] accounts for the lowering of short lax vowels in Chinautla (a dialect of Pokoman, a Quichean language): Ëk' 'louse' ok', pÈs& 'tomato'  pes& (Campbell 1977; Donegan 1978).

F.

In southern and Western Swedish, beginning in the 15th century, short [i] and [u] were lowered to [e] and [ø,] thus fesk 'fish', møkke 'much' versus Central Swedish fÈsk, mË‹kke (Haugen 1976; Donegan 1978).

G.

The short high vowels [i}, {u] of Latin lowered and merged with the long mid vowel [e:], [o:] after the loss of length distinctions. This occurred after a stage in which short vowels became [-ATR] (see Calabrese (2003 for more discussion.)

H.

The short high vowels [È}, {Ë ] of Common Slavic were lowered into [e}, {o/´] in the Slavic languages.

In all of these cases we observe the context-free process in (191) which merges [-ATR] high vowels with [+ATR] mid vowels. (191)

[+high, -ATR] 

[-high, +ATR]

Traditionally the merger in (185) is explained by assuming that the [+high, -ATR] vowels and the [-high, +ATR] vowels are acoustically very similar (see Weinrich 1958) for example). Given this similarity, it is assumed that these two classes of vowels cannot be used for an efficient phonological contrast, and therefore they are merged. Such an account could be restated in terms of the P-map theory of Steriade (1999), a more contemporary model. Steriade argues that the knowledge of the relative acoustic similarity between segments is a fundamental part of the linguistic knowledge of a language. The P-map includes statements such as that in (18). (192)

The pair of segments x-y is more similar than the pair of segments w-z.

Feature negation

287

Assuming that segments that are more acoustically similar are easier to be confused in perception, it follows that some featural contrasts are more confusable than others. According to Steriade, the primary function of a P-map is to guide the speaker in search of the minimal input deformation that can solve the problems posed by a linguistic constraint. In other words, she assumes that speakers are actively concerned with avoiding perceptible deviations from established lexical norms. The P-map serves as an instrument differentiating more from less perceptible innovations. In our case we would have a statement such as that in (193). (193)

A vowel involving the features [+high, -ATR] is more similar to a vowel involving the features [-high, +ATR] than to any other vowel.

To account for the change we observe in (191), we can assume, as stated in (192), that the [+high, -ATR] vowels [È, Ë] are acoustically similar to the [-high, +ATR] vowels [e, o]. We can then assume a constraint against [+high, -ATR] vowels. As a matter of fact, the configuration [+high, -ATR] is argued to be phonologically complex in Calabrese (1988, 1995) and excluded by the marking statement in (194). (194)

*[+high, -ATR]

If this constraint is active, these vowels must be repaired. If we assume that speakers follow the P-map in this repair and replace a disallowed segment with a segment that is minimally different from the target segment, we have an explanation for the change in (191). Statements such as those in (193) — which must obviously be universal to have any explanatory power — predict the existence of only one possible repair, that in (191). Observe now that as we can see in (188) and (189), and in many other cases, the elimination of the [+high, -ATR] vowels does not lead only to [e] and [o], but also to the [+high, +ATR] vowels [i] and [u] and the [-high, -ATR] vowels [E] and [O]. This is totally unexpected in Steriade's theory where such dialectal variation should not be allowed. We could modify Steriade's theory and propose that the P-map in some cases actually includes ranges of possible similarities of identical ranking. In such cases dialectal variation would be allowed. In the cases

288

Case studies

under discussion, this range would overlap with the possible changes we see in (188) and (189). Thus, we would have the range of similarities in (195) (given in featural terms). (195)

a. b. c.

[+high, -ATR] = [+high, -ATR] = [+high, -ATR] =

[+high, +ATR]/ [-cons. .., ___] [-high, -ATR]/ [-cons. .., ___] [-high, +ATR]/ [-cons. .., ___]

But once we assume such a range of possibilities, we are in a situation in which we can no longer say anything about the actual changes we observe in the individual languages. To account for them we still have to say that in the language in (189i), we preserve the feature [+high], while we change the feature [-ATR]; in (189ii), we preserve the feature [-ATR] while changing [+high] and finally, in (189iii), we do not preserve any features, but we change both of them. Still, an analysis of the range of similarities does not explain them in that we still need to account for each of the occurring changes. The P-map does, therefore, become totally redundant. We could try to fix the problem noted above by proposing a mixed analysis, and say that whereas (189i) and (189ii) are repairs involving featural changes outside the control of the P-map, only the change (189iii) ([+high, -ATR] -> [-high, +ATR]/ [-cons., ___]) is accounted for by the Pmap. But also in this case, we would have problems, besides the considerable weakening of the P-map theory, in so far as we have to explain why it is just in the repair in (9iii)—where the P-map should play a explanatory role—that both feature values of the target configuration are changed. We can conclude that the account of (191) in terms of Steriade's Pmap is simply unexplanatory and cannot be maintained. Another approach is taken in Calabrese (1985). In that paper, I hypothesized that the sound change in (191) involves one of the possible repairs triggered by the active marking statement in (194).26 Specifically in that paper I proposed that (191) is an instance of the simplification rule of negation applied to repair the configuration [+high, -ATR] yielding the derivation in (196). (196)

[+high, -ATR] - ([+high, -ATR])[-high, +ATR]

Calabrese (1995) proposes that negation as a repair has the format given in (197).

Feature negation

(197)

[F, G]  -([F, G])  where [F, G] is a disallowed configuration.

-F, -G

There are plenty of phenomena that seem to indicate the existence of something like negation. They are listed in (198). (198)

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

[+ATR] A  E/O

In the diachronic changes from Proto-Kwa to the modern Kwa languages; in several [+/- ATR] harmony systems in which the [+ATR] counterpart of /a/ is either E or O. a+y, a+w  E, O In Kabardian and in many other languages like Sanskrit, for example. u‹ , o‹  I, ´ Unconditional sound change that occurred in the history of Mongolian (see Dressler 1974; see also the pronunciation of /ö / as [‰ ] by English speaker (Gödel pronounced like girdle ) (see Kiparsky 1973). ´  o‹ In the pronunciation of English/´ / by foreign speakers (see Jones 1918). Zetterstrand (1998) argues for a rule in Nzebi spreading the feature [+ATR]. The illicit outputs of this rule are repaired by negation in Zetterstrand's analysis. È , Ë i, u [+high, +ATR] E, O È, Ë *[-high, +ATR]-->[+high, -ATR] A E *[+low, +ATR]-->[-low, -ATR] Zetterstrand (1998) argues for a rule in Swedish inserting the feature [+low]. The illicit outputs of this rule are repaired by negation in Zetterstrand's analysis. E, , O Œ, a [-high, +low] e, o‹, o  E, , O *[+low, +ATR][-low, -ATR]

289

290

Case studies

i, ü, u  e, o‹, o *[+high. +low][-high, -low] bh, dh, gh  p, t, k. In Armenian dialects (Vaux 1998)

g.

All of the processes in (198) involve a context-free reversal of the feature specifications of the input configuration. This is shown in (199). (199)

a) b) c) d) e) f)

[+low, +ATR]  [-low, -ATR] (=(198a, e, f) [+high, +low]  [-high, -low] (=(198b, f) [-back, +round]  [+back, -round (=(198c) [+back, -round]  [-back, +round] (=(198d) [-high, +ATR]  [+high, -ATR] (=(198e) [-stiff v.f., +spread gl.] [+stiff v.f., -spread gl.] (=(198g)

All of the input configurations in (199) are phonologically complex and governed by independently motivated marking statements or prohibitions such as those listed in (200). (200)

a) b) c) d) e) f)

*[+low, +ATR] *[+high, +low] *[-back, +round] *[+back, -round] *[-high, +ATR] *[-stiff v.f., +spread gl.]

The obvious objection against assuming that the same repair is operating in (199) is that the generalization it expresses is spurious. We could say that in (199), we are not dealing with a single phenomenon but with different ones. For example, in the case of (199a) and (199e) we could be dealing with a process based on acoustic similarity using Steriade’s account discussed above. But this surely cannot be said for the changes in (199c) and (199d) where the input and the output of the change are not acoustically similar, and especially for (199b) where the input [+high, +low] is articulatory impossible. An operation like negation must be assumed to exist in phonology at least to account for cases such as (199b,c,d). But if it must be used to account for these cases, it can also account for (199a) and e) as well. Negation, however, remains problematic for two reasons. 1) It crucially relies on the binarity of features. There is quite strong evidence for their binarity: there are no languages that exhibit a

Feature negation

291

phonological contrast between full realization/half-realization/no realization for some feature. Still, negation is an operation that crucially requires solely the switching/reversing of one value into its opposite. At first sight, this type of reversing/switching may be regarded as unappealing. As we will see, however, there are sound changes that crucially require this feature value reversal. 2) It crucially requires the simultaneous application of two operations. In phonology, and in particular in non-linear phonology, application of multiple operations has been allowed only when the targets form a constituent in the representation, for example, spreading or delinking of multiple features is supposed to occur only when each of these features is dominated by the same node. As a matter of fact, one of the major successes of non-linear phonology, and in particular of feature geometry, was its account for the clustering of features in assimilation or dissimilation processes (see McCarthy 1988; Halle 1995). Negation seems to violate the requirement that the targeted features have something in common. We will see that this is not true. Let us consider the first issue. Negation in its reliance on feature value switching is similar to another set of processes that also crucially involve feature binarity. These are the processes that in Classical Generative Phonology were described by the so-called exchange rules. Exchange rules are characterized by a switch in segments that can be formally expressed as an exchange in feature specifications as in (201). (201)

[F]  [-F]

Some sample cases of this type of processes are provided in (202). (202)

a. b.

c.

The vowel shift in English in the analysis of Chomsky and Halle 1968). The vowels shift of the Armenian dialect of Zok (Vaux 1998), in particular the exchange between /u/ and /o/, e.g., Classical Armenian gorc '(handi) workZok gyurc; Classical Armenian Markos 'Mark' Zok Markus; Classical Armenians&un 'dog' Zok s&on; Classical Armenian ptu 'fruit' Zok p´to The exchange of [ATR] values in the mid vowels of Corsican (see Rohlfs 1966) and in many Apulian dialects (see Loporcaro 1989) so that etymological [+ATR] [e] and

292

Case studies

[o] became [-ATR] [E] and [O] and etymological [-ATR] [E] and [O] became [+ATR] [e] and [o] as in (203). (203)

[ATR][-ATR]/ [ ____ , -high, -low] d.

(204)

The dissimilation in backness in the nuclear element of diphthongs (see (205)) which accounts for the dialectal variation between the Received Pronunciation (RP) and the Popular London (PL) dialect of British English in (204)(Wells 1982:310; Kenstowicz 1994): "price" RP: aÈ PL:

"mouth"

ÅË

ÅÈ

œË

(205)

N X [-cons] [back][-back]/ e.

(206)

f.

X [-cons]

[ ____ ] [back +high]

The process of Tone polarity in Margi where an affix has the opposite tone of the adjacent stem tone. i.

a~ a~ a! a!

sa! gu~ tsu! gu~ wiŸ gu! dla~ gu!

ii.

Tonal Polarity rule: [Stiff vocal folds][-Stiff vocal folds] where High Tone=[+stiff vocal folds] Low tone=[-stiff vocal folds]

'you go astray' 'you beat' 'you run' 'you fall'

In Common Czech /i/[e] (later diphthongized in [ej]) and /e/[i] (Wolfe 1970; Anderson and Wayles 1973).

Feature negation

g.

h.

i.

293

In some varieties of Arabic, there is an imperfect form whose form depends of the stem vowel the verb has in the perfect. If it is /a /, it is replaced with/ o/; if it is /o/, it is replaced with /a/ (Chomsky and Halle 1968). Luo has a process which exchanges voiced and voiceless stops in two morphological categories: before the plural marker /-E/ and in the singular appertentive (Gregersen 1972): got 'mountain' gode 'mountains'god 'mountainof'; lwedo 'hand' lwete 'hands', lwet 'hand-of' In Shilluk we have a similar process: lep 'tongue' plural leb; tuyc 'rifle' plural twaj; bak 'fence' plural bag; jago 'chief plural jak (Anderson and Wayles 1973).

There is no issue that the processes listed in (196) require an operation switching the values of a given feature such as that in (195) as proposed by Chomsky and Halle (1968) in introducing exchange rules.27 The existence of exchange rules demonstrate that at least a subset of features must be binary, and that processes where a value of a feature switches to its opposite specification must be possible. Now consider the second issue. The existence of processes characterized by the simultaneous application of two different operations had already been noticed by Donegan and Stampe (1978) and Donegan (1978). In particular, in this regard, Donegan (1978) mentions the case of the merger of middle Welsh /ü/ with /I/ (Morris Jones 1913). The issue in this case is that when /ü/ changed into /I/, both /i/ and /u/ also existed in Welsh. Since no merger with either /i/ or /u/ occurred, there is no doubt that both the process of derounding of /ü/ as in (207a) and the process of tongue body backing of the same vowel as in (207b) must have occurred simultaneously as in (207c). (207)

a. b. c.

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

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

As mentioned above, the multiple application of operations is disliked on the assumption that the simultaneous clustering of phonological operations must be motivated. Now at first nothing seems to put together the two features undergoing negation. However, if we consider this issue in terms of the theory of markedness. as was done before, the solution be-

294

Case studies

comes clear. The fact is that all of the feature combinations undergoing feature value reversal are independently disallowed by active marking statements, as already shown in (200) and repeated here as (208). (208)

a) b) c) d) e) d)

*[+high, -ATR] *[+low, +ATR] *[+high, +low] *[-back, +round] *[+back, -round] *[-stiff v.f., +spread gl.]

Negation as stated above in (191) is a repair of ill-formed configurations that, as proposed in Calabrese (1988, 1995), is implemented by a special procedure involving a special set of instructions, those stated in the rule in (197). Remember the discussion of the different Italian pronunciations for [ü] discussed in section 2.3.1 of Chapter 2. Italian does not have [ü] in its vowel inventory. The absence of [ü] from this inventory indicates that the marking statement in (209) is active in this language. Consequently, the configuration [-back, +round] is disallowed. (209)

*[-back, +round]

The three-way idiolectal variation in the pronunciation of this vowel that we observe in Italian (see (204) is accounted for by different applications of repair operations (see (211). (210)

German /ü/

(211)

a.

b.



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

[u] [i] [yu]

Ranked REPAIR set of MS (209) in idiolect 1: Deletion of [-back]. Example: [-back, +round]  [_, +round]  [+back, +round] Ranked REPAIR set of MS (209) in idiolect 2: Deletion of [+round]. Example: [-back, +round]  [-back, _]  [-back, -round]

Feature negation

c.

Ranked REPAIR set of MS (209) in idiolect in 3: Insertion of [+back]. Example (with Fission). 

X | [-cons.] | Place

Labial

295

[-cons.] | Place

Labial

Dorsal

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

X

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

Dorsal

[-cons.] | Place

Dorsal

Labial [+round]

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

As mentioned in (198c), however, still another pronunciation exists in addition to those in (210): [ü] can be pronounced [I]. This pronunciation is not available in Italian where vowel [I] is disallowed, but it occurs Welsh (as a historical change) and in the other languages mentioned in (198c). Another case that could be mentioned here is that reported to me by Hungarian speakers according to whom Russian speakers speaking Hungarian often replace Hungarian [ü] with their [I].28 In standard segmental repairs such as those in (211), some features of the illicit input configuration are preserved in the output. The fact is that in an operation such as negation there is no such preservation. In negation all aspects of the input ill-formed configuration are changed. Nothing is preserved. The peculiarity of Negation then is that it is radical. It is the most drastic measure to undertake against a disallowed feature configuration: total removal. It is as if both features of a marked configuration were marked as "bad" and needed to be removed. We can then propose that, among the repair operations allowed in the repair component, there is also the removal of the entire disallowed configuration. Such an operation is parallel to the deletion of a skeletal position in the repair of disallowed syllabic configurations. I will call this operation Excision. Now, as assumed earlier in the Chapter 1, Section 1.2.3

296

Case studies

(see also detailed discussion of this issue in Chapter 5), featural representations are always fully specified. Thus the spots vacated by Excision in (212) must be filled. Inserting the same values would be a violation of a general principle against vacuous application of phonological operations, which in turn is a consequence of the general principle of economy. We must then insert the opposite values of the deleted features. (212)

Input: Z [F, G] W Excision: Z [ ] W Full specification: Z [-F, -G] W

Disallowed by *[F, G]

Thus consider the pronunciation [I] for /ü/. (213)

Input: /ü/ [+high, -back, +round] By excision: [+high, Ø] Full specification: [+high, +back, -round] Output: [I] [+high, +back, -round]

Disallowed by *[-back, +round]

We mentioned that in Welsh, vowel [ü] changed in {I] by reversal of the features [-back, +round]. We can now consider this case. Front rounded vowels became disallowed because the marking statement in (209) became active. Application of Excision to the now disallowed front rounded vowels produced (214b) from (214a). In the latter representation, both the features [-back] and [+round] are deleted.

Feature negation

(214)

a.

297

[-cons]

Place

Lips

Guttural

Tongue Body

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

Tongue Root [+ATR]

[-cons]

Place

Lips

Guttural

Tongue Body

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

Tongue Root [+ATR]

As assumed earlier, phonological representations must be fully specified. Thus the two vacated spots in (214b) must be filled. We must insert the opposite values of the deleted features because of derivational economy. The result is shown in (214c).

298

Case studies

(214)

c.

[-cons]

Place

Lips

Guttural

Tongue Body

[+high] [+Low] [-round] [+back]

Tongue Root [+ATR]

From the point of view of this section, the importance of Excision is in accounting for the merger between the [+high, -ATR] and the [-high, +ATR] vowels in Okpe, a merger that would otherwise remain mysterious. I assume that the active constraint in (215) triggers a REPAIR. (215)

*[+high, -ATR]

The ill-formed configuration [+high, -ATR] will therefore undergo Excision. This is shown below for vowel /È/. (216) a.

[-cons]

Place

Lips

Guttural

Tongue Body

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

Tongue Root [-ATR]

Feature negation

Excision: (216) b.

299

[-cons]

Place

Lips

Guttural

Tongue Body -------[-low]

[-round] Full specification: c.

---------[-back]

[-cons]

Place

Lips

Tongue Root

Guttural

Tongue Body

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

Tongue Root [+ATR]

We thus have an account for merger between the [+high, -ATR] and the [-high, +ATR] vowels in Okpe.29 3.3.3.

Summary

In this section I accounted for vowel Harmony in Okpe. An adequate account of the surface facts of this language requires a process that reverses the values of a combination of features. It was shown that this process is an instance of a repair strategy I called Excision. Excision removes an illicit configuration in its totality. In the case of featural representations, the excised feature specifications are replaced with specifications of opposite values.

Chapter 4 On Coronalization and Affrication in Palatalization Processes: An Inquiry Into the Nature of a Sound Change

One of the most common phonological changes affecting consonantal systems is palatalization, and any theory of Markedness must deal with it.1 Palatalization is triggered by front vowels, and targets all types of consonant—most often velars or coronals. Yet, there are still two aspects of palatalization that still do not have an adequate explanation. First of all, besides the addition of a secondary palatal articulation or velar fronting, palatalization processes involve a change in place of articulation in which the target consonants become coronal. I will refer to this aspect of palatalization as coronalization and I will use palatalization as a cover term to refer to all consonantal changes triggered by front vowels. Coronalization has recently been recognized by many linguists (see Clements 1976, 1991; Jakobs 1989; Ito and Mester 1989; Lahiri and Evers 1991), but as will be shown below, has not been adequately explained yet. Thus, the first issue that will be addressed in this chapter is how coronal segments are obtained in palatalization processes. Secondly, some of the targets affected by palatalization processes non only change their place of articulation to a coronal but also change their manner of articulation. Stops are a prime example of this second type of change as stops frequently become affricated in palatalization processes. At other times they are changed into fricatives, although this change in manner of articulation may be questionable and could be considered the outcome of a further process of deaffrication. No adequate account of this process has been proposed yet, either. Thus, the second issue that will be addressed in this chapter is an account of why—for stops—there is this change in manner of articulation when they are targets for palatalization processes. Both changes characterizing palatalization processes are found in the palatalization of velars in Italian. In Italian velars are palatalized before front vowels. Here I give some examples involving the plurals end-

302

On coronalization and affrication

ing in -i: (1)

singular amiko greko porko belga filologo antropofago

plural amitSi gretSi portSi beldJi filolodJi antropofadJi

‘friend’ ‘greek’ ‘pig’ ‘belgian’ ‘philologist’ ‘cannibal’

The velar stops in (1) are replaced by a palato-alveolar affricate before the front vowel [-i]. Interestingly, this process of palatalization displays morphological conditioning. For example, it applies to the stems in (1), but not to the stems in (2). It is triggered by the front vowel [e] in verbal morphology, but not in nominal morphology, and so on. When coronalization and affrication do not occur, a velar before front vowels undergoes fronting as in (2) (where velar fronting is represented by a superscripted y). Another issue that will be treated in this chapter is that of the relation between velar fronting and coronalization. (2)

singular sporko parko bosko pittsiko kollega mago pedagogo dyalogo

plural sporkyi parkyi boskyi pittsikyi kollegyi magyi pedagogyi dyalogyi

‘dirty’ ‘park’ ‘wood’ ‘pinch’ ‘colleague’ ‘sorcerer’ ‘pedagogist’ ‘dialogue’

This chapter is divided into two independent sections: one deals with coronalization (section 4.1), the other with affrication (section 4.2). The first section begins by showing that Clements' (1991) proposal that all of the front vowels are coronal cannot be maintained (section 4.1.1). In this chapter the feature geometry model proposed by Halle (1995), Halle, Vaux and Wolfe (2000) is adopted. According to this model, assimilation processes must be anatomically constrained. This idea is central in the analysis of palatalization proposed here (section 4.1.2.) In section 4.1.4 it is shown that there is a correlation between tongue body raising and fronting and

Modifications in place of articulation

303

tongue blade involvement. It is thus argued that fronted velars involve a noncontrastive secondary laminal articulation. This correlation is formally encoded in the grammar by what I call a correlation statement (see section 4.1.3). The coronalization that we see in palatalization processes is the result of the promotion of the secondary coronal articulator of the fronted velars to primary status. Section 4.1.5 deals with the representation of front vowels and how front vowels affect consonants in palatalization processes. Section 4.1.6 exemplifies the analysis proposed in the preceding section by analyzing the velar palatalization of Italian. The first palatalization process of Romance, a process that affected consonants with all types of places of articulation, is the topic of section 4.1.7. Section 4.2 deals with affrication. It begins by showing that the traditional account of affrication found in the literature is unsatisfactory (section 4.2.1). Sect. 4.2.2 accounts for affrication: it shows that laminal stops, which are the output of coronalization, are complex phonological segments, and it argues that affrication is an instance of fission used to repair these complex stops. Section 4.2.3 deals with the fricatives that are often the outcome of palatalization processes.

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 As mentioned in above, consonants in palatalization processes are modified by front vowels in such a way that they change their place of articulation and become coronal. The usual account for the coronalization we see in palatalization processes (see Clements 1976, 1991; Hume 1992; Lahiri and Evers 1991; Broselow and Niyondagara 1991) is the most direct one: it simply assumes that all front vowels are coronal. Palatalization is therefore simply coronalization, i.e., a process in which the coronal feature of the front vowels spreads onto the adjacent consonant as in (3).

304 (3)

On coronalization and affrication

[+cons.] place

[-cons.] place

[Coronal] However, there are various problems with the proposal that front vowels are coronal, and therefore with the rule in (3). First of all, there are phonetic problems. Although the coronality of front vowels could be articulatorily correct in the case of high vocoids which can be characterized as involving the use of a coronal articulator in addition to the tongue body, this is definitely less clear in the case of the nonhigh vowels where only the tongue body appears to be used. This is especially true for the low front [œ] even though it behaves like all other front vowels in triggering coronalization. In addition, as pointed out by Kenstowicz (1994: 465), there is anatomical motivation for not identifying front vowels as coronal: whereas coronal consonants are articulatorily implemented by the intrinsic longitudinal muscles of the tongue, front vowels are produced by contraction of the genioglossus, an external muscle that connects the tongue body to the jaw. There are also phonological problems (see Halle, Vaux and Wolfe 2000; Kenstowicz 1994). For example, Clements assumes that in consonants [Coronal] dominates the features [anterior] and [distributed]. It is a fact that the outcome of palatalization is usually a consonant which is [-anterior, +distributed]. Front vowels should then be specified with these features. However, it is not clear within his system how these features are implemented in vowels, or even if they exist for vowels. Since in Clements' framework Coronal in vowels is directly equivalent to traditional [-back], he must treat Coronal as a terminal feature in vowels, whereas it behaves as a nonterminal node in consonants (Halle, Vaux and Wolfe 2000). Furthermore, if it is assumed that front vowels are coronal, one is also forced to assume that what appear to be unitary processes of [back] harmony found in Turkish, Hungarian, and numerous other languages actually involve two distinct harmonic phenomena, one of which spreads [Coronal] and the other spreads [Dorsal]. Similarly, it is not clear why segments with lexical [Dorsal] or [Coronal] specifications block harmony in such languages. Halle, Vaux and Wolfe (2000), for example, point out that a major problem for Clements' model is posed by the interaction among palatalized consonant, vowel epenthesis and vowel harmony in

Modifications in place of articulation

305

Turkish. In Turkish, certain consonantal clusters are repaired by epenthesis of a high vowel except when followed by a vowel-initial morpheme. Harmony then applies to this epenthetic vowel. (4)

Underlying gØnl - de ‘heart-D’

Intermediate (epenthesis) gønIlde

Surface gØnu‹l de

If a consonant contrastive for backness appears before the epenthetic vowel, it creates its own harmonic domain which prevents the spreading of the harmonic value of the preceding vowel onto the epenthetic vowel. (5)

Underlying vakyt ‘time’

Intermediate (epenthesis) vakyIt

Surface vakyit

Now, given Clements’ model, where a palatalized consonant is represented as having a secondary coronal specification, the dorsal specification of [a] in (6) should spread across the coronal specification of [ky] (6)

-cons | C-place | V-place | [+Dorsal]

+cons | C-place | V-place | [+Coronal]

-cons | C-place | V-place

But this does not happen. Thus, there is no direct way to account for the fact that the palatalized consonants interfere with harmonic spreading in Clements’ model.2

4.1.2. Halle, Vaux and Wolfe (2000) The feature geometry model adopted here assumes that front vowels, as all other vowels, are produced by the tongue body, in particular by fronting the tongue body. Therefore, they must be characterized as being [Dorsal, back]. This model is based on Articulator Theory (AT; see Halle, Vaux and Wolfe 2000 which develops Halle (1995) and Sagey (1986)) and was dis-

306

On coronalization and affrication

cussed in the Chapter 1, Section 1.2.1. The central insight of the theory of Halle (1995) is that speech is produced by actions of the six articulators manipulated in the human vocal tract: the lips, the tongue blade, the tongue dorsum, the soft palate, the tongue root, and the larynx. This insight is formally implemented in (61) of the Chapter 1, Section 1.2.1, repeated here as (7). (7)

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

[+Glottal] [stiff vocal folds] [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

Lips

Place

Modifications in place of articulation

307

A fundamental assumption behind (7) is that assimilatory processes are anatomically constrained. This implication has obvious appeal, for it unifies under a single heading two otherwise unrelated aspects of speech sounds: their articulatory implementation and their behavior in the phonological process of assimilation. The analysis of palatalization proposed in this section is based on this assumption.

4.1.3. Correlation Statements In addition to marking statements, prohibitions and natural rules, the markedness module contains positive statements governing the structure of phonological representations, which I call the correlation statements. Like the marking statements and prohibitions, correlation statements govern the structure of segments. However, while the former are negative statements characterizing certain configurations as impossible or difficult, correlation statements are positive statements requiring the presence of certain secondary noncontrastive articulatory configurations in the production of certain other articulatory configurations. For example, as discussed in the Chapter 1, Section 1.2.1, there is a correlation between tongue root retraction and tongue lowering. This correlation is formally expressed in the statement in (8) (where, given (7), pharyngeal consonants are characterized as being [Tongue Root +retracted tongue root (RTR)]). (8)

[Tongue Root +RTR]



[Tongue Body +low]

A pharyngeal would then be represented as in (9) (only relevant features are represented). (9)

[+consonantal] [+continuant]

Place Tongue Body [+low]

Guttural Tongue Root [Radical] [+RTR]

The [+low] tongue body configuration is a non contrastive secondary articulation of the pharyngeal sounds. As discussed in the Chapter 1, section

308

On coronalization and affrication

1.2.1, this configuration can account for what happens in phonological processes such as that in (10a) from Hebrew, where pharyngeal sounds lowers adjacent vowels, by means of the rule in (10b) which spreads the secondary [+low] feature of the pharyngeal consonant. (10)

a.

b.

(10)

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

melee k se@pe r qo@de s&

‘king/my king’ ‘book’ ‘holiness’

Medial Guttural Roots /ba¿l/ /kaÌs&/ /lahb/ /tu?r/

ba¿aa l kaÌaa s& lahaa b to?aa r

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

c. [+cons.]

[-cons.] [+cons.] / ___ ]Imperfect Stem

[+low] 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 constraints, like the natural rules. They differ from the natural rules, however, in that they do not deal with interaction of segments with their environment—a characteristic feature of Natural Rules—but they have as only scope the internal structure of segments.

4.1.4. Palatals and Coronalization My goal here is to account for the coronalization we observe in palatalization processes in terms of an anatomically constrained feature tree, in which segments are correctly described from the articulatory point of view. We can begin by considering fronted or palatalized velars. These consonants are produced by making a dorso-palatal constriction by raising and fronting the tongue body. The raising and fronting of the tongue body

Modifications in place of articulation

309

that is necessary to produce such a constriction also involves an automatic raising of the posterior part of the tongue blade. This passive raising of the tongue blade causes lateral contact of the tongue blade with molars up to the post-alveolar zone (see Recasens 1990: 276; Keating and Lahiri 1992: 90). Following Perkell (1980) (see Chapter 1, Section 1.2.1), we can say that this lateral contact of the tongue blade is characterized by the speakers as a secondary aspect of [Tongue Body +Dorsal, +high, -back] sounds. This is formally expressed in the correlation statement in (11). (11)

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

A fronted velar should then be represented as in (12) with dorsal as the designated articulator and a coronal secondary articulator. (12)

[+consonantal] Place

Tongue Blade

[-cont.]

Tongue Body [+Dorsal] [-back]

[-anterior]

[+high] [+distributed]

The reverse of (11) appears also to be correct so that (11) can be modified as in (13). In palato-alveolar sounds such as [tS] and [S], the raising of the blade and the predorsum also causes an automatic raising of the entire tongue dorsum and, thus, an increase of contact area over the entire palatal surface (see Recasens 1990:270). However, this tongue dorsum involvement is secondary with respect to the primary laminal constriction. I, therefore, propose that palato-alveolar sounds such as [tS] or [S] are to be represented as in (14) with a designated coronal articulator and a fronted and raised tongue body.3 (13)

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

310

On coronalization and affrication

(14)

[+consonantal] Place

Tongue Blade

[-cont.]

Tongue Body

[+Coronal] [ -back] [-anterior]

[+high] [+distributed]

There are thus reasons to assume that the statement in (13) is correct in both directions, and that all segments produced by means of a narrowing in the palatal region are phonologically characterized by the features [Tongue Blade -anterior, +distributed] and [Tongue Body +high, -back].4 It follows that, in the case of true palatal segments, such as the palatal stops of Czech or Hungarian, both the tongue blade and the tongue dorsum are active, as argued by Keating and Lahiri (1992). The palatal stops of these languages are made with the tongue blade as well as the tongue body. I propose to represent the palatal stops of these languages as in (15) where both the coronal articulator and the dorsal articulator are designated articulators. The same representation should hold for the palatal fricative [ç] of German or Swedish. (15)

[+consonantal] Place

Tongue Blade [+Coronal]

[-cont.]

Tongue Body [+Dorsal] [ -back]

[-anterior]

[+high] [+distributed]

We can now consider how fronted velars are changed into coronals, the crucial change in place of articulation that we see in palatalization processes. I propose that the coronalization we observe in this case

Modifications in place of articulation

311

involves the promotion of the secondary coronal articulation in (12) to primary status, i.e., a change in which a nondesignated articulator becomes a designated articulator (See Chapter 1, Section 1.2.1 on the notion of designated articulator).5 Possibly this occurs with the simultaneous demotion of the designated dorsal articulator to secondary status, though this is not necessary. In this way a fronted or palatalized velar becomes coronal, either as a palatal segment as in (15) if the dorsal articulator is preserved as the designated articulator, or as a palato-alveolar segment as in (14) if the dorsal articulator is demoted to secondary status. Thus, the crucial change leading to coronalization in palatalization processes is the promotion of the coronal articulator of the fronted velar in (12) to the status of designated articulator as shown in (16). (16)

[+consonantal] Place

[-cont]

Tongue Blade Tongue Body



[+consonantal] Place

Tongue Blade

[-cont]

Tongue Body

[+Dorsal] [+Coronal] ([+Dorsal]) [-back] [-back] [-anterior] [+high] [-anterior] [+high] [+distributed] [+distributed]

Changes in which fronted velar stops become palatal stops are attested. For example, the Italian voiced palatalized velar /gy/ from Latin /gl/ in wordinitial position developed into a voiced laminal palato-alveolar stop /ƒ / in some varieties of Tuscan (see Lepschy 1965), as we see in (17). (17)

ƒanda (
Further changes such as affrication or fricativization may apply to the outcomes of (21). These changes will be discussed in section 4.2.6 The promotion of a secondary articulator to primary status, as that seen in (16), is a well-attested sound change. As discussed in Clements (1991), this type of promotion is needed to account for the change from the labio-velar stop [kw/gw] to the labial stop [p/b] found in the history of many languages including Romanian and Sardinian. In this change the secondary labial articulation becomes primary, i.e. the designated articulator. At the

312

On coronalization and affrication

same time the dorsal articulator is delinked probably due to a constraint disallowing complex segments with nonadjacent active articulators. This is shown in (18). (18)

/kw/=



X [+conson.]

X [+conson.]

[-cont.] Place Lips

Tongue Body

[+round]

[+Dorsal] [+back]

[-cont.] Place Lips [+Labial] [+round]

Tongue Body [+Dorsal] [+back]

The outcome [p/b] is then due to one further change derounding [pw] because of an independent constraint against rounded labials in these languages.

4.1.5. Front High Vowels and Palatalization Processes Given (18), front high vocoids (vowels and glides) are to be represented as simultaneously involving the feature configuration [Tongue Body +high, -back] and [Tongue Blade -anterior, +distributed]. In articulatory terms, front high vowels are lamino-palatal segments. They should be represented as in (19) (irrelevant features are not mentioned). (19)

[-consonantal] Place

Tongue Blade

Tongue Body [-back]

[-anterior]

[+Dorsal] [+high]

[+distributed]

Modifications in place of articulation

313

In contrast, nonhigh vowels should be represented as in (20) where only the dorsal node is present (irrelevant features are not mentioned). (20)

[-consonantal] Place Tongue Body [-back]

[-high]

[+Dorsal]

Evidence for the coronality of front high vocoids is provided by phonological processes of glide fortition in which a glide becomes either a stop, an affricate or a fricative. Fortition of front glides, in fact, always leads to a coronal segments. For example, in several southern Italian dialects, geminated glides are strengthened into stops. When this occurs, we obtain a palato-alveolar stop (see Cox 1985). Consider the following data from the dialect of Grottaminarda where we can see the effect of Raddoppiamento sintattico, a gemination rule that applies after certain morphemes. (21)

yastuma! ‘to swear’ yaNk´ ‘white’ wasta! ¡ ‘to spoil’ la wa¥¥ott´ ‘the girl’

a ƒƒastumat´ ‘he has sworn’ e ƒƒaNk´ ‘is white’ a ggwastat´ ‘he has spoilt’ r´ ggwa¥¥ott´ ‘the girls’

As shown in (21), geminated glides are changed into stops. Thus, in the case of the back glide /w/, we obtain a labiovelar stop. Crucially, in the case of the front glide /y/, we obtain a palato-alveolar laminal stop. A process of the same type also occurred in the history of the Germanic languages and led to palato-alveolar stops (see Prokosch 1939). The process active in (22) can be simply accounted for by assuming a fortition rule that assigns the feature [-continuant] to glides when they are geminated.

314

On coronalization and affrication

X

(22)

[+continuant]  [-continuant] /

X

[-conson.] [ __ ]

No other change occurs in (21). Specifically there is no change in place feature (other than perhaps the promotion of the coronal articulator to designated status in the case of palatal glides). The palato-alveolar stops have the place shape in (19). Evidence for this analysis of front high vowels is provided by the well-known fact that whereas front vowels as a class primarily target velar consonants in palatalization processes (cf. the second palatalization of Romance (see Tekavcic 1972) or the velar palatalizations of Slavic (see Chomsky and Halle 1968; Meillet 1924; Vaillant 1950), front high vowels and glides as a class primarily target coronal consonants (see Bhat 1978; Czaykowska-Higgins 1988). This dissociation between velar and coronal consonants in palatalization processes is not easily explained in other models of feature geometry. For example, the fact that front vowels as a class primarily target velar consonants in palatalization processes is not easily explainable in a model that assumes that front vowels are simply coronal, since in this case they would not have anything in common with the velar consonants. On the other hand, the fact that front high vowels and glides target coronals cannot be explained if these segments are simply dorsal. However, this dissociation is expected if we assume that front vowels as a class share only a [Tongue Body -back] node, while front high vowels are complemented by a [Tongue Blade -anterior, +distributed] configuration. Thus in the case of the interaction between front vowels and velar consonants, we could say that we are dealing with an exclusive interaction between the dorsal node of the vowels and the dorsal node of the velar consonants, velar fronting in this case. Velar fronting involves spreading of the feature [-back] which characterizes all front vowels independently of their height as shown in (23). (In this chapter I will follow Halle's (1995) proposal that only terminal features are spread in assimilatory processes.)

Modifications in place of articulation

(23)

[+consonantal]

[-consonantal]

Place

Place

Tongue Body [ +Dorsal]

315

Tongue Body [+Dorsal]

[+back]

[-back]

In contrast, in the case of the interaction between front high vocoids and coronal consonants, we would be dealing with the coronal component of these high vocoids. In particular, the palatalization of coronals would involve the spreading of the coronal terminal features of the high front vowels as shown in (24). The process in (24) is called coronal raising by Bhat (1978). (24)

[+consonantal]

[-consonantal]

Place

Place

Tongue Blade

Tongue Blade

[+Coronal]

[+anterior] [-distributed]

Tongue Body

[+Dorsal] [+high] [-back] [-anterior] [+distributed]

Given (13), (24) can only be triggered by high vowels, not by nonhigh vowels. An example of coronal raising is provided by Lunt (1991), who reports that in Hungarian a sequence of root final /t, d/ and suffix initial /y/ is merged into a geminated /cc, ƒƒ / as can be seen in the forms látja ‘he sees it’ and lúdja ‘his goose’ which become [la!cca, lu!ƒƒa]. In the same way, the process of dental palatalization in South Slavic brought about a laminal palato-alveolar consonant (see Chomsky and Halle 1968; Meillet 1924; Vaillant 1950) as we see in (25-26).

316 (25) (26)

On coronalization and affrication

ty dy

 

c ƒ

The two processes in (23) and (24) satisfy the requirement underlying the approach proposed here that assimilation processes be anatomically constrained. Velar fronting spreads the articulatory configuration [Tongue Body back] which characterizes the front vowels, and coronal raising in (24) spreads the configuration [Tongue Blade -anterior, +distributed], which characterizes the front high vowels along with [Tongue Body +high, -back].

4.1.6. Velar Palatalization in Italian The palatalization of velars in Italian will exemplify the analysis proposed in the preceding sections. As shown in (1-2), velar stops are palatalized in Italian before front vowels. As discussed in section 4.1.1, two processes of palatalization must be recognized in this context: i) fronting of velars; ii) coronalization. This is shown in (27-28). (27)

Velar Fronting:

kuoko/kuokyi

‘chef/chefs’

(28)

Coronalization:

greko/gretSi

‘greek/greeks’

I propose that velar fronting also underlies coronalization in (28). Velar fronting is an assimilatory adjustment modifying velars before front vowels. It involves spreading of the terminal feature [-back] of the front vowel into the preceding dorsal node as shown in (23), repeated as (29). (29)

[+consonantal] Place Tongue Body [+Dorsal] [+back]

[-consonantal] Place Tongue Body [+Dorsal] [-back]

Modifications in place of articulation

317

The coronality of the front vowel does not play any role in the case of this process. Remember that nonhigh front vowels are not coronal. However, /e/ in Italian as well as /œ/ in other languages do trigger velar fronting. Velars are characterized by the feature [+high]. Thus, once rule (29) applies, thereby fronting velars before front vowels and creating the configuration [+high, -back], the fronted velars are assigned the features [Tongue Blade -anterior, +distributed] by the correlation statement in (13), as in (30). (30)



[+consonantal] [-cont]

Place

[+consonantal] [-cont]

Tongue Body

Place

Tongue Body

[+Dorsal]

Tongue Blade

[+Dorsal] [-back] [+high]

[-back] [+high] [-anterior] [+distributed]

As mentioned earlier, the crucial change leading to coronalization in palatalization processes is the promotion of the coronal articulator of the fronted velar in (30) to the status of designated articulator, by the promotion rule in (16). This rule is repeated in (31). (31)



[+consonantal] Place

[-cont]

Tongue Blade Tongue Body [+Dorsal] [-back] [-anterior]

Place

Tongue Blade

[-cont]

Tongue Body

[+Coronal] [+high]

[+distributed]

[+consonantal]

([+Dorsal]) [-back] [-anterior] [+high] [+distributed]

I propose that Italian is characterized by a lexical split. In particular, rule (31), which promotes the coronal articulator to the status of designated articulator, is specified as applying only in one set of lexical items, but not in another. The lexical item in (28) belongs to the first set; the lexi-

318

On coronalization and affrication

cal item in (27) to the second set. The derivations involved in these two sets can be diagrammatically represented as in (32-33) (the affrication we observe in (33) will be discussed in section 4.2 below; irrelevant aspects of the representations are not mentioned). kwoky X | [+cons]

i  X | [-cons]

[-cont] [-cont] [-cont] Place Place Place Place Place | | | | T. Body T. Body T. Body T. Body T. Blade T. Body

Place | T. Body

i  (29) kwok i (13) X X X X | | | | [+cons] [-cons] [+cons] [-cons]

(32) kwok -

[+Dorsal] [+high]

[+Dorsal] [+high]

[+Dorsal] [+high] [ -ant.]

[+back] [-back]

[-back]

[+distr.]

[-back]

 ((30) n/a).

(33)

gre k i  ( 29) grek i (13) X X X X | | | | [+cons] [-cons] [+cons] [-cons]

greky X | [+cons]

-

[-cont] [-cont] [-cont] Place Place Place Place Place | | | | T. Body T. Body T. Body T. Body T. Blade T. Body [+Dorsal] [+high]

[+Dorsal] [+high]

i  X | [-cons]

Place | T. Body

[+Dorsal] [+high] [ -ant.]

[+back] [-back]

[-back]

[+distr.]

[-back]

Modifications in place of articulation (30)

grec X

-

[+cons]

319

i X [-cons]

[-cont] Place T. Blade

T.Body

[+Coronal] [-ant.] [+high] [+distr.]

Place T. Body

[-back]

We now have an account of velar palatalization7 in Italian, and in particular of the coronalization we see in (33). This account relies on the assumption that fronted velars have a secondary coronal articulation, an assumption which is phonetically plausible as discussed in section 4.1.4. The crucial step in coronalization is the promotion of this secondary articulation to primary status.

4.1.7.

The First Palatalization of Romance

In this section I investigate the common sound change in which front high glides palatalize all types of consonants. A typical change of this type is the First Palatalization of Romance which I will discuss here; similar changes, however, are found in Slavic, Celtic, Bantu and many other languages and what is proposed for Romance should also hold for these languages. The main characteristics of the First Palatalization of Romance are the following.8 (36)

a. b. c.

It is triggered by the palatal glide-y (y may be either underlying or derived ([i, e]y /__ V)) It affects all consonants. Its output is a geminated consonant.

A sample of the changes characterizing the First Palatalization in Italian are given in (39) (see Tekavcic 1972; Rohlfs 1966). They transformed the consonantal inventory of Latin in (37) into that of Italian in (38) (The

320

On coronalization and affrication

consonants which were the output of this palatalization process are circled). The consonantal inventory of Latin. (37) p b t d k g kw g w f s m n l r The consonantal inventory of Italian. p b t d (38) ts dz f v s [z] m n l r (39)

a) /ty/ vitiu -itya *roteolare pretyu b) /dy/ medyu radyu

modyu -idyare c) /ky/ fakyo erikyu -ikyu -akeu d) /gy/ fageu

   

vettso -ettsa ruttsolare prettso

 meddzo  raddJo raddzo  moddJo moddzo  -eddJare -eddsare    

fattSo rittSo -ettSo -attSo

 faddJo

h

tS S9

dJ

k g

ˆ ¥

‘habit’ ‘deriv. suffix’ ‘tumble’ ‘price’ ‘middle’ ‘ray’ ‘rocket’ ‘downhearted’ ‘mutilated’ ‘deriv. suffix’ ‘deriv. suffix’ ‘do/make-1ps present’ ‘curly, curled’ ‘deriv. suffix’ ‘deriv. suffix’ ‘beech.’

Modifications in place of articulation

exagyu korrigya regya e) /ly/ filya -alya familya f) /ny/ balneu tinea kalkaneu

 saddJo  korreddJa  reddJa

‘essay.’ ‘strap’ ‘royal palace’

 fi¥¥a  -a¥¥a  fami¥¥a

‘daughter’ ‘deriv. morph.’ ‘family’

 *baneu  baˆˆo  tiˆˆa  kalkaˆˆo

‘bath’ ‘ringworm’ ‘heel’

321

Labial consonants were not affected in place of articulation in Italian, but only geminated. (40)

/py/ sapya[m] sepya k) /by/ habea[m] rabye l) /vy/ kavea trivya m) /fy/ kufia n) /my/ simia vindemya

i)

 sappya  seppya

‘know-1ps present’ ‘cuttle-fish’

 abbya  rabbya

‘have-1ps present’ ‘rage’

 gabbya  trebbya

‘cage’ ‘threshing’

 kuffya

‘bonnet’

 Simmya  vendemmya

‘monkey’ ‘grape harvest’

But labials were not exempt from palatalization. In fact, in several Italian dialects, as for example in Salentino (see (41)) labials underwent this process like all other consonants: (41)

a)

/py/  /ttS/  sattSu sapyo  LettSe Lipye

‘know-1ps pres.’ ‘Name of town’

322

On coronalization and affrication

b)

c)

d)

lapyo  /by/  / ddJ/ habea[m]  rabya  /vy/  / ddJ/ fovea  kavea  /my/  /ˆ ˆ / vendemya  timeo  simya 

lattSu

‘celery’

addJa raddJa

‘have-1ps pres subj..’ ‘rage’

foddJa kaddJa

‘hole’ ‘cage’

indeˆˆa tiˆˆu Siˆˆa

‘grape harvest’ ‘be afraid-1ps pres.’ ‘monkey’

If we look at the other Italian dialects, we can observe the outcomes of the First Palatalization process are not always the same. Interestingly, while sonorant consonants systematically became palatal in all dialects, variation is found in the case of stops whose outcomes display different places of articulation. In some dialects they became coronal [+anterior], in other dialects coronal [-anterior]. This variation was not uniform across places of articulation, but depended of the place of articulation of the original target consonant. As a result, we have the following situation (data from Tekavcic (1972)). (42)

(43)

/ty/ /tts/

In Italian and many other dialects. puteu  pottso ‘well’ palatyu  palattso ‘palace’  meddzo ‘middle’ /dy/  /ddz/ medyu  raddzo ‘rocket’ radyu /ty/  ttS/ as in Sologno (cf. (89)) puteu  puttS ‘well’ but also in Italian.  raddJo ‘ray’ /dy/  /ddJ/ radyu modyu  moddJo ‘downhearted’  -eddJare ‘deriv. suffix’ -idyare /ky/  /ttS/ In Italian and many other dialects. fakyo  fattSo ‘do-1pres.’ erikyu  erittSo ‘curled’  /tts/ In the dialect of Puglia, Salento, Lucania fakyo  fattsu ‘do-1prs.’

Modifications in place of articulation

323

Clusters with the voiced stops /dy, gy/ became /y/ in most southern dialects (see (44)) but [S] in Salentino (see (45)). The development of these clusters will be discussed later. (44)

/dy/, /gy/

 /y/ In most southern Italian dialects hodye  oye ‘today' plagya  playa ‘beach’

(45)

/dy/, /gy/

 /S/ in Salentino hodye  hoSe studyare  st´Sa!

‘today’ ‘to study’

The following aspects of the changes we observe in the First Palatalization process need to be explained: i) why and how do we get geminate consonants? ii) Why and how do we get different outcomes in the case of stops but not of sonorants? iii) why do the different outcomes depend of the place of articulation of the input? and finally iv) why doesn’t a process of assimilation that is apparently total—all features of the assimilating glide are transmitted—lead to neutralization in place of articulation in all the target consonants? Let us begin by dealing with the first question. We start from the structure in (46), an onset sequence of a coronal [+anterior] stop [t] followed by the palatal glide [y]. I propose that the main reason for the changes characterizing the first palatalization was the activation of the constraint in (47) which forbids complex onsets ending in a glide.

324

On coronalization and affrication  R N

(46)

X

X

[+cons]

Place | Coronal [+anterior]

Coronal [-anterior]

[
distributed]

(47)

-cons +son | Place Dorsal [+Dorsal] [+distributed]

[-back] [+high]



*

(=*Cy)

R N X [+cons]

X [-cons ]

There is independent motivation for the marking statement in (47). Many languages avoid complex onset clusters ending in a glide—Latin is a prime example of such a language. Slavic languages like Slovak and Czech are also of this type. The constraint in (47) plays an important role in the analysis of Sievers' Law in Gothic and Vedic Sanskrit (Calabrese 1995, 1998). Once (47) becomes active, onset clusters containing glides like that in (46) become disallowed and must be repaired. One possibility is obviously that of deleting the glide, and indeed that is a common strategy to eliminate this type of cluster (see Romani and Calabrese 1998; Calabrese and Romani 1998). Here I will discuss another type of repair. This repair is the one that leads to palatalization/coronalization. In order to do this, we have to consider some of the properties of the X-skeletal model used here.

Modifications in place of articulation

325

As proposed in Chapter 1, Section 1.2.2, in a representation like that in (48a) we are dealing with a simple onset, whereas in (48b) we are dealing with a complex onset. (48)

 R N X

a)

X

t

y

b.

X

a

X

t

y

 R N X

a

As discussed in that section, skeletal positions represent the interface between syllable structure and melodic segments. The crucial assumption is that a given melodic segment is assigned a given syllabic status through its association with a skeletal position. It follows that by changing this association relation we can change its syllabic status. Given the structure in (49a), if the first onset consonant is incorporated under the skeletal position dominating the glide as in (49b), we are no longer dealing with an onset cluster. An onset cluster involves two or more skeletal positions, each exhaustively associated with a melodic segment. By the change in (49), the onset cluster in (49a) is eliminated. The configuration in (49b) can no longer be targeted by the constraint in (47). Once the impossible onset geminate obtained in (49b) is repaired by incorporating the first skeletal position as the coda of the preceding syllable, as we can see in (50), we obtain a simple onset from a complex onset. (49)

a.  R N X | V

X | C

X | y

  b. R N X | V

 R N X | V

X C

X | y

 R N X | V

326

On coronalization and affrication

(50)

a.  R N X | V

 R N X X | | y V

X C

 b.

 R N X | V

X

X | C y

 R N X | V

It follows then that we can repair an onset cluster /Cy/ disallowed by the active marking statement in (47) by spreading the root of the 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. I now propose that once the structures in (50b) are obtained, the rule in (51) spreads all of the place features of the palatal glide to the preceding consonant. Remember that I follow Halle's (1995) proposal that only terminal features are spread in assimilation processes.10 (51)

X +cons

-cons

Place

Place

T. Blade

T.Blade T.Body

T.Body [+Dorsal]

([back]) ([anterior]) ([distributed])

[-back] [-anterior] [+distributed]

In (52) I exemplify an application of (51) to the coronal anterior consonant [t]. The application of this repair creates the cluster VttyV from VtyV.

Modifications in place of articulation

(52)

 R N

327

 R N X

X +cons

-cons

Place

Place

Tongue Blade

Tongue Blade T.Body

T. Body

[+Coronal]

[+Dorsal]

[+anterior] [-distributed]

[-back] [-anterior] [+distributed]

Further changes are due to the rule in (53) detaching the glide in the structure obtained by the application of (51). Its application to (52) is shown in (54). (53)



X [+cons]

[-cons] Tongue Body [-back]

X [+cons]

328

On coronalization and affrication

(54)

 R N

 R N X

X +cons

-cons

Place Tongue Blade

Place Tongue Blade

T. Body

T. Body

[+Dorsal] [-back] [-anterior] [+distributed] After the delinking in (54), there is an automatic deletion of all nodes not dominated by a skeletal position. These nodes are circled in (55). (55)

 R N

 R N X

X

Tongue Blade

+cons

-cons

Place

Place

Tongue Blade T. Body

T. Body

[+Dorsal] [-back] [-anterior] [+distributed]

Modifications in place of articulation

329

This produces the configuration shown in (56). (56)

 R N

 R N X

X +cons Place

Tongue Blade Tongue Body [+coronal] [-back] [-anterior] [+distributed]

[+Dorsal]

A geminate palato-alveolar consonant [VccV] is then created. The outcome of the palatalization of coronals we see in (56) is essentially identical to what we would obtain with coronal raising as in (24). The operations in (53-56) account for the outcomes in which we obtain palato-alveolar segments such as [tS], [dJ], [S], [ˆ}, [¥] from coronal stops, fricatives and sonorants (the affrication process we observe in the case of stops will be discussed below in section 4.2). Let us now consider how the rule in (51) affects consonants with non coronal places of articulation. The palatalization of velars can be represented as in (57). Basically, it is a case of velar fronting as in (31).

330

On coronalization and affrication

(57)

a.

[-consonantal] 

[+consonantal] Place

Place

Tongue Body Tongue Blade

Tongue Body

Tongue Blade

[+distributed] [+Dorsal] [-anterior]

[+Dorsal] [+back]  b.

[-back]

[+consonantal] Place

Tongue Body

Tongue Blade

[+Dorsal] [-back] [-anterior] [+distributed] The palatalization of labials is shown in (58). (58)

[+consonantal] | Place

Lips

Tongue Blade

[-consonantal] | Place

Tongue Body



Tongue Body Tongue Blade

[+Labial] [-anterior] [+distributed] [+Dorsal] [-back]

Modifications in place of articulation b.

331

[+consonantal] Place

Lips

Tongue Blade

Tongue Body

[+Labial] [+Dorsal] [-back]

[-anterior] [+distributed]

This analysis predicts that 1) in palatalization processes such as those seen in (39), the velars are essentially fronted; 2) that the coronals become palato-alveolar stops with both coronal and dorsal primary articulations, and 3) that the labials become quite complex segments involving labial and dorsal primary articulations, and a coronal secondary articulation.11 The fact that in Italian labials do not undergo a change of place of articulation can be explained by assuming that the application of the assimilation rule in (52) is blocked by the grammar having an active constraint against such complex segments. In the dialects in which labials undergo palatalization, the application of (52) is not blocked but its output is repaired by removing the labial articulator. Now there is a problem. Coronals do become palato-alveolar consonants in the first palatalization as we can see in the case of coronal /l/ and /n/, and in the evolution of the coronal stop in the Sologno dialect.12 However, in most Italian dialects, the usual outcome of a coronal stop is a [+anterior] affricate. An obvious possibility is that in the case of coronal stops, another rule applies instead of (51). A possible rule is (59) which spreads only the terminal feature [+distributed] of the palatal glide.

332

On coronalization and affrication

(59)

 R N

 R N X

X [+cons]

[-cons]

Place

Place

Tongue Blade

Tongue Blade T.Body

[+Coronal] [+anterior] [-distributed]

T. Body

[+Dorsal] [-back] [-anterior] [+distributed]

After the deletion of the skeletal position of the glide and of the undominated nodes, we get (60). (60)

 R N

 R N X

X [+cons ] Place Tongue Blade

[+Coronal] [+anterior] [+distributed] As discussed in the next section, this configuration would be the target of Fission as a repair of the disallowed configuration [-continuant,

Modifications in place of articulation

333

+distributed]. Thus by hypothesizing a rule such as (59) we could account for the affricate we observe in this case. However, we must also account for why the dorsal /k/ in the cluster /ky/ can become coronal [+anterior] as in Salentino /ky/ [tts]. Rule (59) fails to do that. I will therefore propose an alternative account that does not use (59). This account deals with the development of both coronals and dorsal as coronal [+anterior] segments in palatalization processes. In addition, this account also explains why sonorants do not display the same type of variation that we observe in stops. Consider the representation that is the output of the palatalization rule in (51) in the case of coronals, i.e. (56) repeated here as (61)—only the melodic part of the representation is considered. (61)

[+cons] Place Tongue Blade Tongue Body [+Coronal] [-back] [-anterior] [+distributed]

[+Dorsal]

The configuration in (61) represents a multiply articulated stop with two primary articulators. a coronal and a dorsal one. Now multiple coronodorsal articulation is far more common in sonorants than in stops. Thus the so-called palatal lateral and nasal of Italian and Catalan are actually characterized by a very large area of contact between the tongue and the hard palate involving both the coronal and a dorsal articulators (see Recasens 1990 and Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996) on the description of these segments). Given the contact that is made, both articulators can be characterized as being primary, i.e., designated in the terminology used here. Palatal laterals and nasals are quite common across languages, definitely more common than their oral stops counterparts (see Maddieson 1984). To account for such a difference, I assume the marking statement in (62) which states that stops with both coronal and dorsal designated articulators are marked.

334 (62)

On coronalization and affrication

*

[-son] [-cont] Place

Tongue Blade

Tongue Body

[+Coronal]

[+Dorsal]

I assume that this marking statement was active in Proto-Romance, when the first palatalization process was active in this language. Given (62), when the rule in (51) applied to sonorants, it produced a featural configuration like that in (61), which was not problematic and was allowed to surface. This accounts for the lack of variation in the place of articulation of the sonorants affected by the first palatalization. The situation was different when the target was a stop. In this case we obtained a configuration disallowed by (62). There are two possible strategies to fix a segment disallowed by (62). One strategy removes one of the terminal designated articulators; the other strategy removes one of the dominating articulator nodes. Consider this first strategy. Let us remove the designated [+Dorsal] articulator in (61). This creates the configuration in (63). (63)

[+cons] Place Tongue Blade Tongue Body [+Coronal] [-back] [-anterior] [+distributed]

This is a plain palato-alveolar stop, and after the affrication process discussed in the next section, we obtain [tS]. Now consider deleting the dominating articulator node in (61), i.e., Tongue Body node. This produces (64).13

Modifications in place of articulation

(64)

335

+cons -son [-cont] Place Tongue Blade [+coronal] [-anterior] [+distributed]

Now the correlation statement in (13) requires the presence of [Tongue Body back] in the case of a segment that is [Tongue Body -anterior, +distributed]. Because of this, there is an interdependence between these two configurations. I propose that, given this interdependence, if the [Tongue Body -back] configuration is removed, the configuration [Tongue Blade -anterior, +distributed] is no longer possible. This is stated formally in (65). (65)

If not [Tongue Body -back], then not [Tongue Blade -anterior, +distributed]

The preferred repair for this disallowed configuration—the one that produces the best outcome in this case—also involves changing the feature [anterior] into [+anterior]. This is shown below. (66)

+cons -son [-cont]



+cons -son [-cont]

Place | Tongue Blade [+coronal]

Place | Tongue Blade [+coronal]

[+distributed] [-anterior]

[+distributed] [+anterior]

I submit that the sequence of changes leading to (66) is what occurred in Italian in the case of the development/ty//tts/ and in the case of

336

On coronalization and affrication

the Italian dialects where /ky/ developed into /tts/. The analysis just proposed predicts that both the outcome of /ky/ and the outcome of /ty/ should be treated in the same way. In fact, after the promotion of the coronal articulator—the key change to account for the coronalization of dorsals in palatalization—dorsal consonants become as in (15), (repeated here as (67)), and are, therefore, identical to the outcomes of the palatalization of coronals that we see in (61). (67)

[+cons] Place Tongue Blade Tongue Body [+coronal] [-back] [-anterior] [+distributed]

[+Dorsal]

An identical outcome for both the clusters /ty/ and /ky/ is attested. In the Sardinian dialect of Nuoro (Pittau 1972) we find the following developments in the case of the first palatalization.14

(68)

a. b.

Latin ty ky

 

Dialect of Nuoro QQ QQ

We can see some examples of this development in (69). (69)

Dialect of Nuoro kanQone lanQare karQare marQu puQQu koryaQQu

Latin CANTIONE LANCEARE CALCEARE MARTIUS PUTEU CORIACEU

However, this is not the most common situation. In most Romance varieties, as shown in (42-43), the outcomes of /ky/ and the outcomes of

Modifications in place of articulation

337

/ty/ diverge. To account for this divergence, we have to assume that in most dialects, the promotion of the coronal articulator in the case of the fronted velars which were the outcome of (51) (see (57)) applied historically after the repair of the disallowed configuration in (61) which was the direct outcome of the palatalization of coronals, i.e., after the repair in (66). Therefore, nothing happened to dorsals at this stage; they were just fronted. The next step was the promotion of the coronal articulator in the fronted velars in (57. This promotion then produced a configuration like that in (67). This configuration was corrected by removal of [+dorsal] in some dialects, thus created a palato-alveolar consonant. In other dialects, instead, it was corrected by removing the dorsal articulator as in (64). This lead to dental alveolar consonants as discussed above. Historical evidence tells us that this is correct. In fact, it 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. Traditionally the appearance of coronal [+anterior] segments from the palatalization of velar stops is accounted for by assuming a further process of depalatalization which changes the palatal or palato-alveolar outcomes of palatalization to dental or alveolar consonants. The hypothesis is that we obtain dental/alveolar segments in palatalization processes always through sequences of developments like that in (70). (70)

a.

c



tS

b.

tS



ts

Such a chain of sound changes is not needed in the framework proposed here. Given the analysis proposed above, a direct development like that in (71)—obtained through velar fronting, coronal promotion and the repair in (66)— is theoretically expected. (71)

a.

k



ts / __ front vocoids

Evidence for a direct sound change like that in (71) and against the hypothesis that the dental-alveolar outcomes of palatalization processes are always the output of a rule of depalatalization affecting original palatoalveolar segments is provided by the evolution of the cluster velar stop + palatal glide in the Athabaskan languages as described by Sapir 1931). According to Sapir, these clusters, which were preserved in some languages of this family, for example Hupa, evolved into the affricate /ts/ in other lan-

338

On coronalization and affrication

guages of this family. This is the case of Navaho where, for example, the Proto-Athabaskan form *kyan ‘rain’ appears as tsa$ in n-¬-tsa$ ‘there is rain’. Now, the Proto-Athabaskan consonantal system contained the affricates /ts/ and, crucially, /tS/. Both sounds are preserved in the Navaho consonantal system. In particular, Proto-Athabaskan /tS/ is preserved in this language. The consequence of this is that we cannot account for the evolution of the cluster /ky/ into /ts/ by assuming a stage /tS/which is later changed into /ts/, since the rule that would implement this change would also affect the original /tS/ contrary to the facts. We are, therefore, forced to assume that there was a direct change from /ky/ to /ts/. Other evidence for the hypothesis that dental affricates are created in palatalization processes without going through a palato-alveolar affricate is given by the outcomes of the First Palatalization in Ligure, a northern Italian dialect. In this dialect, Latin /ty/ developed into the fricative /S/ and Latin /ky/ developed into the fricative /s/—the issue of how we get fricatives in palatalization processes is discussed later in section 4.2.3. If we just consider the place of articulation of the segments that are the outcome of palatalization, we can observe immediately that we cannot account for the emergence of the alveolar consonant /s/ in this process by assuming a depalatalization process that affects an intermediate palato-alveolar consonant /S/. This depalatalization rule, in fact, would have also affected the palatoalveolar /S/, which is the outcome of /ky/, and thus caused a merger between the outputs of /ty/ and /ky/. We can account for the Ligure facts by assuming that the difference between the outcomes of /ty/ and /ky/ is due to different repairs: in the case of the coronals (61) is repaired by delinking the [+dorsal] designated articulator; in the case of the velars, (61) is repaired by delinking the Tongue Body node. The results of these two different operations were discussed above. Finally, I will briefly discuss what happens in the palatalization of voiced stops. In many dialects voiced stops do not behave like their voiceless counterparts. This is particularly clear in the case of southern Italian dialects. Notice that the distinction between the voiced coronal and velar stops is neutralized, and that specifically in the dialects in (44-45) they are neutralized into [y/S]. We can account for this fact by assuming a natural rule changing [+consonantal] into [-consonantal] in the structure in (72).

Modifications in place of articulation

(72)

[+consonantal] Place



339

[-consonantal]

Larynx [-stiff vf.]

Tongue Blade

[+distributed]

Tongue Body

[-back] [-anterior]

The outcome [S] we observe in Salentino as the outcome of this neutralization process is actually also the outcome of [y] in onset position ([Suedia}
Lat. Iovis dies (cf. Italian Giovedi' 'Thursday', [Sueku}
Lat. Iocus (cf. Italian gioco.'play'). I will not deal with this further change here.

4.2. Affrication The targets of palatalization processes are affected not only in their place of articulation—which becomes coronal—but also in their manner of articulation, especially, if not only, in the case of stops. Stops typically become affricated in palatalization processes. At other times they are changed into fricatives, although this change of manner of articulation may be questionable and could be considered the outcome of a further process of deaffrication. Interestingly, other consonants, such as fricatives, nasals and liquids, primarily change place and not manner of articulation. This section addresses the question of why the manner of articulation in stops is affected by palatalization processes. In particular, it attempts to account for the affrication found in these processes, for which no adequate account has yet been proposed. 4.2.1. The Traditional Account The usual solution to the problem of affrication and fricativization of stops in palatalization processes found in the current literature relies on redundancy rules that change the output of palatalization rules into an affricate. The assumption is that affrication in the palato-alveolar region is predictable and therefore expressed by a rule (see for example Sagey 1986; Lahiri and Evers 1991). Thus, affrication of palato-alveolar stops is ex-

340

On coronalization and affrication

pressed as in (73) where palato-alveolar stops are characterized by the features [+distributed, -anterior]. (73)

[Tongue Blade +distributed, -anterior]  ‘affricate’ /

____ -continuant

This is the position adopted by Steriade (1993, 1994) who assumes that the fricative release of affricates is not a distinctive property, but rather is the surface realization of an underlying distinction in point of articulation. In particular, she assumes that individual languages may have the option of realizing laminopalatal stops with a significantly delayed release, which results in frication noise. In her framework (see Steriade 1993, 1994), affrication is formally accounted for by assuming a rule which changes the Amax release, which according to Steriade characterizes released stops, into the fricative type of release Af, as shown in (74) (see Steriade 1993: 405). (74)

A0

Amax Place

Tongue Blade [+distributed]



A0

Af Place

Tongue Blade [+distributed]

Observe that a rule like (74) does not address the issue of why the configuration [+distributed, -anterior] should become affricated. It simply stipulates that it does. One could propose that rules such as (73) or (74) have a phonetic justification. A stop type of closure is difficult to execute with the laminal articulation of palato-alveolar stops. In particular, given the length of the constriction characterizing laminal stops, the tongue cannot have sufficient mobility to obtain the abrupt release that is crucial for the proper articulation of a stop consonant (see Catford 1977: 152; Lahiri and Blumstein 1984: 142). Still, there is no clear phonetic reason for why there should be affrication in this case. Consider for example the frequently quoted passage by Catford 1977: 152). It is quite easy to make a clear-cut sudden breakaway of the tongue point from the alveolar ridge (in apico-alveolar

Affrication

341

stops), but when the point is lowered and the contact is made with the blade (lamino-alveolar) it is more difficult to break away cleanly. The blade withdraws from the alveolar ridge more slowly, passing through a perceptible moment of approximation when there is an [s]-like central channel between the blade and the alveolar ridge—hence the tendency for lamino-alveolar stops to be affricated. This passage implies that affrication is an adjustment meant to fix the problem posed by the laminal type of stop release. The issue remains, however, of why we have affrication as an adjustment in this case. Nothing is actually said about it. The first sentence in this passage explains the reason for the difficulty of the laminal stops. The second sentence, which should explain why affrication is a solution to this difficulty, simply describes the affrication we often observe with laminal stops. There is no logical connection between the first and second sentences, and in particular, there is no explanation of why the blade should withdraw more slowly forming ‘an [s]-like central channel’ in the case of the laminal stops. The above passage, in the same way as (73) or (74), simply stipulates that there is affrication in the case of laminal stops. Note furthermore that a purely phonetic account of this adjustment would imply that affrication is beyond the cognitive control of the speakers. This would be incompatible with the possible suppression of affrication that, for example, we see in the laminal palato-alveolar stop [c] of Czech, or Friulan. Speakers must obviously be able to control this adjustment and produce nonaffricated laminal consonants, even if they are difficult articulatorily. Therefore, the adjustment characterizing affrication cannot be an automatic phonetic implementation process which is by definition beyond speakers’ control. I propose that this adjustment is due to representational rather than purely articulatory properties of laminal stops. Affrication is phonological in nature, not phonetic. In particular, affrication of stops is better understood if it is considered as a phonological process involving two different stages: in the first, the phonologically complex configuration [-continuant, +distributed] is marked as illicit by a constraint; in the second, this illicit configuration is adjusted by a repair operation that creates an affricate. This is essentially what is meant by Catford in the passage quoted above, but in phonological, not phonetic terms. Thus it is proposed here that the illicit nature of the [-continuant, +distributed] combination is phonological, not merely phonetic. It is also assumed that the means to fix the problem are

342

On coronalization and affrication

phonological rather than phonetic: the repair operation of fission which produces affrication, as we will see, is an operation acting upon and yielding phonological representations.

4.2.2. Affrication as Fission As mentioned in the preceding section, the crucial feature for understanding affrication in palatalization processes is the feature [distributed]. The feature [distributed] as defined by Chomsky and Halle (1968: 312) identifies sounds that ‘are produced with a constriction that extends for a considerable distance along the direction of the airflow.’ Nondistributed sounds are sounds that instead ‘are produced with a constriction that extends only for a short distance in this direction.’ Laminal consonants are characteristically [+distributed], whereas apical ones are [-distributed]. Segments that are produced by palatalization processes are typically [+distributed], in particular laminal palato-alveolars, but also laminodentals. Bhat (1978) observes that laminal (palato-alveolar or dental/alveolar) consonants are the typical outcome of palatalization of dental and alveolar consonants. This is also true in the case of the palatalization of consonants with other places of articulation. This is supported by Lunt (1991, appendix) who shows that the laminal palato-alveolar stops /c, ƒ/ (his /k’, g’/) are the outcomes of the palatalization of velar and dental/alveolar stops before affrication. Keating (1988) observes that the crucial feature of palato-alveolar stops is a great length of constriction: these consonants are characterized by a very long contact between the tongue and the palatal region, i.e., they are [+distributed]. In section 4.1, I accounted for how the outcome of palatalization as a change of place of articulation is a laminal segment. As stated in correlation (18), the feature [distributed] is one of the features characterizing the tongue blade behavior for segments that are also [Tongue Body -back]. In other words, when the tongue body is fronted and raised, there is a wide contact area in the articulation of the consonant also involving the tongue blade, i.e. a [+distributed] behavior of the front of the tongue. Crucially this [+distributed] behavior of the tongue blade becomes problematic when a primary occlusive constriction is implemented with this articulator, i.e., when the tongue blade is the designated articulator, as shown in (75) where the dorsal articulator is not shown for graphic and expository simplicity.

Affrication

(75)

343

X -sonorant +consonantal Place

[-cont]

Tongue Blade [+Coronal] [-anterior] [+distributed] As argued above, there is little doubt that the configuration [-continuant, +distributed] must be characterized by a high degree of complexity, or in other words, that laminal stops, i.e., the stops in which the primary constriction is implemented with the tongue blade, are phonologically complex segments. As discussed earlier, the reason for the complexity of this configuration lies in the fact that given the length of the constriction characterizing laminal stops, the tongue blade cannot have sufficient mobility to obtain the abrupt release which is crucial for the proper articulation of a stop consonant (see Catford’s passage quoted above). Support for this can be found in Stevens and Keyser (1989), who claim that the optimal coronal stop has a short constriction, i.e., it is characterized by the feature [-distributed]. The complexity of laminal palato-alveolar stops is also supported by the fact observed by Lahiri & Blumstein (1984) that these types of stops are very rare: few languages in the world show them in their consonantal systems (see also Ladefoged 1964 and Chomsky and Halle 1968). Thus we can assume that UG includes the marking statement in (116) that characterizes laminal stops as being phonologically marked.15 (76)

*[-continuant, +distributed ]/ [+Coronal, ____ ]

Observe that whereas the constraint holds for laminal stops, insofar they are problematic because of the incompatibility between the stop sudden release and the wide constriction of laminal segments, it does not hold for affricates, although in the latter the configuration [-continuant, +distributed] is found in the initial subcomponent. A possible solution for this problem is the following. Since the release component involves the final part of the stop, we can reformulate the constraint as referring only to the right margin of the segment. This modification postulates that the initial

344

On coronalization and affrication

part of an affricate, i.e. the closure part of the affricate is not affected by the constraint. (77)

*[-continuant, +distributed] / [+Coronal, ___ ] ]segment

The constraint in (77) still characterizes laminal stops as problematic because of what happens in their release phase. I propose that the affricates and fricatives found as results of palatalization are the outputs of repair operations triggered by (77). We have seen that when palatalization processes affect stops, they create laminal palato-alveolar stops, as represented in (78) (the dorsal articulator required by (13) is not mentioned in (78) for graphic and expository simplicity). (78)

X =[c] -sonorant +consonant [-cont.] Place Tongue Blade [+Coronal] [-anterior] [+distributed]

A laminal stops such as that in (78) is disallowed by (77). Speakers of a language undergoing palatalization need to deal with this configuration. One possibility is that they may accept its degree of complexity, and deactivate (77): assimilation processes often create segments not present in underlying inventories. Given the theory developed here, in all of these cases we have to say that these assimilation processes created feature configurations not allowed in the language. These configurations are nonetheless accepted. As discussed in chapter 2 (see Calabrese 1995 for more detailed discussion), acceptance of complex configuration produced by phonological processes is one of the options available to speakers. It leads to an expansion of the sound inventory of their language. If the marking statement in (77) is deactivated, palato-alveolar stops as in (78) are introduced into the language. We have seen cases of this type in section 4.1.4 in

Affrication

345

this chapter. For example, the process of dental palatalization in South Slavic brought about a laminal palato-alveolar stop (see Chomsky and Halle 1968; Meillet 1924; Vaillant 1950) as we see in (79).

ty dy

(79)

 

c ƒ

The other option open to speakers of a language that is undergoing palatalization is to not deactivate (77). If (77) remains active in a language, then the configuration in (80) will be marked as illicit, and therefore must be repaired. (80)

*[-continuant, +distributed] / [+Coronal, ___ ] ]segment

A configuration violating (80) can be repaired either by insertion or deletion of a feature value. Let us first consider the insertion of the [+continuant] as in (81). (81)

X -sonorant +consonantal [-cont]

Place

[+cont]

Tongue Blade [+Coronal] [-anterior] [+distributed] As discussed in Chapter 2, section 2.3.1, the configuration in (81) leads to fission. Fission of (81) will create the structure in (82).

346

On coronalization and affrication

(82)

X

-sonorant +consonant

-sonorant +consonant

[-cont.]

[+cont.] Larynx

Larynx

[+stiff v.f.]

[+stiff v.f] Place

Place Tongue Blade

[+Coronal] [-anterior] [+distributed]

Tongue Blade

[+Coronal] [-anterior] [+distributed]

By the process of fission the complex articulatory unit involving a plosive release with a long constriction is simplified by sequencing this unit into two simpler units, one in which closure is associated with the same long constriction and the other in which the long constriction is associated with a fricative release. Thus the two simultaneous articulatory maneuvers of total closure and tongue front flattening implemented in a palatoalveolar stop are sequenced in time.16,17 The segment obtained in (82) is the palato-alveolar affricate /tS/. Observe that the representation in (82) is basically similar to that used by Clements and Keyser (1983) and Clements (1989) to represent affricates (see Rosenthal 1989) for arguments in favor of this structure). The treatment of affricates in terms of the representation in (82), however, is not entirely straightforward. Sagey (1986) has argued that in at least some languages, affricates cannot be represented as internally sequenced as in (82) at an abstract level of representation, but must instead be represented as simple segments in which only the terminal nodes [+/- continuant] branch (see also Lombardi 1990). Sagey’s analysis has the apparent advantage of being able to account for the fact that affricates map as simple units in templatic morphologies, as pointed out by McCarthy and Prince (1986). One could propose that in these languages the surface affricates are underlying stops. However, as pointed out by Clements (1989), in other languages, there is no way of showing whether affricates are simple or complex seg-

Affrication

347

ments at abstract levels of representation. For these languages, we can assume that the structure in (82) holds for affricates underlyingly as well as on the surface. Clements (1989) argues that representations similar to that in (82) seem to be required in languages with heterorganic affricates, in which a stop at one place of articulation is followed by a fricative at another place of articulation. Segments of this type are found in some Southern Bantu and Khoisan languages such as the labio-coronal /ps/ of Margi (see Ladefoged 1968; Sagey 1986), or the velarized coronal affricate /tx/ of !Xu$ (see Snyman 1970; Sagey 1986). The main argument for treating these segments as single segments is that they do not behave like clusters in syllabification processes. In the languages in question, apart from these segments, there are no underlying clusters and there is no tendency for their stop and fricative portions to be separated by epenthesis. We could treat them as multiply articulated segments having two simultaneous place specifications, as proposed by Sagey (1986), but, as pointed out by Clements (1989: 8), ‘we would have to sequence the articulations at the phonetic level in any case; since there is no phonological reasons to consider them as multiply articulated in underlying representation, we might just as well treat them as sequenced to start with.’ By using fission, we can account for how we get affricates in palatalization processes. Other cases of the application of fission to the configuration [-continuant, +distributed] can be found, however, which are independent of the process of palatalization. For example, many Australian languages have both dental and laminal stops (see Dixon 1980). In some varieties of these languages, such as Kaititj and Alyawarra, the palato-alveolar laminal stops are affricated (see Stevens, Keyser and Kawasaki 1986), whereas in Gugada, it is the laminal dental stop that is affricated (see Platt 1968). Another example is found in Friulan, a Romance language spoken in northern Italy. Friulan has a palato-alveolar laminal stop; in many varieties of Friulan, such as Udine (see Francescato 1966; Beninca and Vanelli 1978), this stop has been affricated. Lunt (1991) reports on a Bulgarian dialect in which /c, ƒ/ have shifted to /tS, dJ/ within contemporary generations. Several West African languages have apical and laminal coronal consonants (see Ladefoged 1964). In two of these languages, Temne and Isoko, the dento-alveolar laminal stops are affricated (see Ladefoged 1964). Finally, Catford 1977:159) observes that laminal stops tend to be affricated. In all of these cases, we are dealing with the simplification of complex laminal stops by application of fission.

348

On coronalization and affrication

4.2.3. Fricativization in Palatalization Processes At this point, we can account for the dialectal variation in manner of articulation that is common in palatalization processes targeting stops. The same process of palatalization can lead to an affricate in one dialect and a fricative in another. For example, as can be seen in (83), we have several different outcomes of the palatalization of the Latin cluster /ky/ in various Sardinian dialects. (83)

Dialect of Campidano /ky//tts/ brakyubrattsu Dialect of Barbagia: /ky//ss/ brakyuprassu Dialect of Logudoro: /ky//QQ/ brakyubraQQu

'arm' 'arm' 'arm'

We can account for this dialectal variation between fricatives and affricates if we assume that groups of speakers dealt with the complexity posed by laminal stops differently, by resorting to different repair procedures. Thus the fricativization of stops in palatalization processes may also be accounted for by adopting a different repair strategy, i.e., by changing the feature [-continuant] of the disallowed configuration [-continuant, +distributed]. This is due to deletion of the feature [-continuant] as shown in (84). In that case, we obtain the palato-alveolar fricative /S/.18 X = [S ] -sonorant +consonant

X  -sonorant +consonant

(84)

[-cont.]

[+cont.] Place Tongue Blade

[+Coronal] [-anterior] [+distributed]

Place Tongue Blade [+Coronal] [-anterior] [+distributed]

Affrication

349

One of the consequences of the model proposed here is that palatal or dental/alveolar fricatives may be direct outcomes of the palatalization of stops resulting from deleting [-continuant] as a simplification of the complex configuration [-continuant, +distributed]. This goes against the traditional assumption that the fricatives produced by palatalization of stops are not the direct output of this process, but always the result of deaffrication (see Hock 1986). This process of deaffrication should affect the affricates that according to the traditional view are the primary outcomes of the palatalization of stops. Thus according to this view, fricatives produced from stops by palatalization are always the result of the sequence of sound changes in (85a-b). (85)

a.

c



tS

b.

tS



S

In contrast, it is hypothesized here that we can also have the direct sound change in (86). (86)

c



S

Whether such a sound change is possible is an empirical question.19 First of all, we find many languages where we have synchronic alternations between a velar and a fricative like those in (87). (87)

a. b.

k k

 

S / __ front vowels (Selkup (see below)) s / __ front vowels (French, English)

From a synchronic point of view, in most of these cases, the simplest solution is to assume a direct change from the stop to the fricative, and not affrication and then later deaffrication of the stops. There is no reason in these languages to assume that there is an intermediate stage with an affricate, which is then deaffricated. This, however, does not argue for the possibility of a direct sound change like that in (87). There are some cases of palatalization in which it is possible to argue that there is a direct change from a stop to a fricative in the diachronic development of a language. For example, in the Northern Italian dialect of Sologno (RE) (see AIS 453), we observe the following outcomes of the first palatalization process of Romance (from AIS).20

350

On coronalization and affrication

(88)

a. b.

ty ky

(89)

Latin PUTEU MATEA BRACCHIU FACIO

 

ttS SS Dialect of Sologno puttS matS [but also maSS] braSS faSS [but also faS]

In the case of (89), obviously we would have to say that in the change from /ky/ to /SS/ we cannot rely on an intermediate affricate /ttS/, since by deaffricating this /ttS/ we would also deaffricate the /ttS/ from /ty/.21 Another possible example of the direct change in (86) may be found in the case of the historical evolution of the Uralic Language Selkup (see Collinder 1960, 1965). The consonantal system of Proto-Uralic contained a palato-alveolar affricate /tS/. In Selkup, this palato-alveolar affricate is normally preserved, so that we can still find words in Selkup that contain the original palato-alveolar of proto-Uralic. Now, in the history of Selkup, a palatalization process was active which palatalized proto-Uralic /*k/ into /S/ in front of /i/. If these facts are correct, we cannot account for the outcome /S/ from /k/ by supposing an intermediate stage /tS/ that was later deaffricated into /S/, because the rule of deaffrication producing /S/ would also change the original /*tS/ into /S/, which did not occur. Therefore. we are forced to hypothesize that in Selkup there was no process of deaffrication /tS/  /S/ and that the palatalization process led directly to a fricative /S/ without any intermediate stage /tS/.22 At this point , it would be interesting to briefly discuss the problem of the palatalization of voiced velars in Slavic languages. In the history of Slavic languages, we find two processes of palatalization that affected velars and one that affected dentals. One of the most striking features of these palatalization processes is that in most of the Slavic languages, the outcomes of the palatalization of the voiced stops typically differ in manner of articulation from the outcomes of the voiceless stops. Whereas the palatalization of voiceless stops produced affricates, the palatalization of voiced stops normally produced fricatives. We can see this, for example, in the case of the first palatalization of the velars: *ki*to  tSi*to 'what', but *givu  Jivu 'alive', and in the case of the second palatalization of the velars: *kena  tsena 'price', but *ge*l o  zelo. This different behavior of the

Affrication

351

voiced stops is usually accounted for by assuming a special deaffrication rule that applies only to the voiced affricates assumed to be the regular outcome of the palatalization process. This could be the correct analysis, but there is no clear evidence in favor of it. An alternative, however, is that the fricatives may have been directly produced by the palatalization of voiced stops, and that there was no stage of Slavic that had voiced affricates. Delinking of [-continuant] would then be the preferred repair strategy for the complex configuration [+distributed, -continuant] in the case of voiced segments. This fact may be correlated to the higher complexity of voiced affricated stops, reflected in their relative rarity (see Maddieson 1984). We should then expect the same tendency to have fricatives as the outcomes of palatalization of voiced stops in other languages as well, which seems to be correct. For example, in many Romance languages, the palatalization of voiced stops led to fricatives, whereas the palatalization of voiceless stops led to affricates. In Salentino, for example, the palatalization of the clusters /dy/ and /gy/ led to /S/: HODIE  oSe 'today', CORRIGIA  kuriSa, whereas the palatalization of their voiceless counterparts led to affricates: *PUTEU  puttsu 'well', BRACHIU  brattsu 'arm'. The same type of phenomenon is also found in Romanian. However, more research is needed to confirm this hypothesis. 23

4.2.4 Conclusions In conclusion, an analysis of both coronalization and affrication in palatalization processes was proposed. As for coronalization, it was proposed that it involves the promotion to primary articulator status of a secondary coronal laminal articulator which is always present when there is tongue body raising and fronting as in fronted velars. The correlation between tongue body fronting and raising and tongue blade involvement is formally expressed by a correlation statement which is part of UG. Palatalization in itself can involve 1) velar fronting, which occurs when front vowels as a whole target velar consonants, 2) coronal raising when front high vocoids, vowels or glides, target coronal consonants or 3) true "palatalization" which occurs when front high vocoids target all type of consonants and spread to them all of their lamino-palatal features. As for affrication, it was proposed that the laminal stops created by palatalization processes are very complex. Although they may surface in some languages, most other languages disallow them so that they must be repaired. This chapter showed the crucial importance of the repair proce-

352

On coronalization and affrication

dure of fission, which is independently needed in the grammar, in the account of affrication in palatalization processes. We have also seen that the repair procedure of feature delinking, also required in the grammar for independent reasons, can account for the production of fricatives by palatalization processes. The hope is to have shown how these repair procedures account for the changes in manner of articulation characterizing palatalization processes in a simple and straightforward way, without any ad hoc postulations and complications.

Chapter 5 Markedness, Neutral Vowels and Harmony processes

In this chapter, I will investigate the issue of neutral segments and of harmony processes, focussing on vowel harmony, the most common of harmony processes. A central problem of this chapter is that of the asymmetric behavior of features in these processes, a fundamental issue of the theory of markedness since Trubetzkoy (1939): the harmonic feature specification of the neutral vowel behaves differently than the harmonic feature specifications of the harmonic vowels. This special behavior will be 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. I will show that the properties of neutral vowels in vowel harmony processes can be derived if one assumes Visibility Theory and the hypothesis that underlying representation of alternating suffixes is assigned the unmarked value of the harmonic feature while the harmony rule spreads the marked value. This chapter ends with a detailed discussion of the criteria used to establish contrastive specifications of features.

5.1.

A Theory of Feature Visibility

5.1.1.

Harmony processes, blocking and feature visibility

To begin let us look at some definitions. Vowels (and more generally segments) are neutral with respect to a harmony process if they do not undergo the harmony process. Neutral vowels (or segments) must be further differentiated in opaque ones and transparent ones. Opaque vowels are defined as those that interrupt the harmony process and initiate a new harmonic domain. Transparent vowels are those that are skipped by the harmony process. Vowels may be neutral because they are simply exceptional with respect to the harmony process (see section 5.3.2 below for an example: the short vowel [a] of the morpheme [kat] in Wolof). Otherwise, neutral vow-

354

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

els occur in the harmony system of a given language when the harmonic counterpart of the neutral vowel is absent from the inventory of phonemes of that language. In so far as the scope of vowel harmony in a language is systematically determined by the structure of the vowel inventory of the language, the role played by the active segmental marking statements of this language is fundamental in understanding the properties of a vowel harmony system. In particular, the segmental marking statement must prevent the harmony rule from applying to the neutral vowel. In other words, the application of the harmony rule must be blocked. The issue of neutral vowels is then also directly connected to that of blocking. Remember that blocking of the activity of an instruction occurs when all of the operations triggered by the instruction fail to produce a licensed outcome. In this case, UG provides a null operation that licenses the input to the instruction as such, without changes. As an example, consider the neutral vowel [a] of the Kinande vowel harmony system. Kinande has a harmony rule that spreads [+ATR] leftwards onto high and mid vowels. However, it does not affect low vowels, nor is it stopped by them. (1)

 solom - ire 'harvest - past' a. sOlOm - ire b. sOlOm - an - ire  solom - an - ire 'harvest-recipr.- past.'

The harmony process can be accounted for by the rule in (2): which requires spreading of the feature [+ATR] leftwards. I assume that the harmony rules are always iterative. (2)

X

X

(Iterative)

[+ATR] The fact is that this language does not have [+ATR] low vowels as its vowel inventory shows. (3)

i È e E

a

u Ë o O

A theory of feature visibility

355

The marking statement in (4) is thus active in this language. The REPAIR set of this constraint is empty: a configuration violating this constraint is unrepairable. (4)

a. *[+low, +ATR] b. The set of ranked repair operations for the constraint in (4a): Ø

When the operation triggered by the harmony rule in (2) applies to a low vowel, then it produces an illicit and unrepairable configuration. Therefore the derivational path starting with this rule fails to produce a licit outcome and crashes (5)

Input:

/s o l X X X -low

-low

-ATR (6)

o m X X

a X

+low

n X

i.../ X

-low

-ATR -ATR

+ATR

OPERATION TRIGGERED BY (2): Spreading of [+ATR]. o m a n - i.../ /s o l X X X X X X X X -low

-low

-ATR

+low -ATR

-low

-ATR

+ATR

The output configuration is disallowed by (4a). In this case the null operation licenses the input as such, without modifying it. This accounts for the neutrality of [a], i.e., for the fact that this vowel does not undergo the vowel harmony rule.1 (7)

/s o l X X X -low -ATR

o m X X

-low

a X

+low -ATR

-ATR

n X

i.../ X

-low +ATR

356

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

Now, we still have a problem in the form in (6). The next iterative pass of the rule should be sensitive to the feature [-ATR] of [a]. The rule in (2) is triggered only by the feature [+ATR]. Therefore, [a] does not trigger it; however, the feature [-ATR] of [a] should prevent the spreading of the feature [+ATR] of [i] to the vowel preceding [a] as shown in (8). (8)

/s o l X X X -low -ATR

o m X X

-low

a X

n X

+low -ATR

-ATR

i.../ X

-low +ATR

In this case, the neutral vowel [a] would behave like a neutral opaque vowel, contrary to the facts: [a] is a neutral transparent vowel. Some further hypothesis must be introduced. The Kinande facts show that there is an asymmetry between the feature [ATR] of the nonlow vowels and the feature [-ATR] of the low vowel. They do not behave in the same way with respect to the harmony rule that disregards the latter specification as if it were not there. Such asymmetric behavior of feature specifications has been accounted for by assuming that the feature [-ATR] of the low vowels is not specified in phonological representations. As already proposed in Chapter 1, Section 1.2.3, the theory presented here assumes that underspecification of features is the incorrect solution to the problems posed by the asymmetric behavior of features. Features are always fully specified. The asymmetric behavior of features is instead accounted for by assuming Visibility Theory, i.e., by hypothesizing that rules and constraints—i.e., the phonological instructions—can be so restricted as to see only certain feature specifications (see Calabrese 1995; Halle 1995; Halle, Vaux and Wolfe 2000). According to Visibility Theory, instructions can be sensitive only to the three classes of feature specifications in (9).

A theory of feature visibility

357

(9) All feature specifications

Contrastive feature specifications

Marked feature specifications

Underspecification is then not a property of representations, but actually a property of instructions. As already mentioned in Chapter 1, it is assumed that accessing a given set of feature specifications involves a process of spotlighting by which attention is focussed on these feature specifications. 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, a constraint can only access contrastive features. The other parameterized condition limits spotlighting only to marked features. As an example of a constraint accessing only contrastive features, I consider the dissimilation of laterals in the suffix -alis in Latin (Steriade 1987; Calabrese 1995). Following stems with no laterals, this suffix appears with the form -alis, which we suppose to be its underlying form. (10)

nav -alis semin -alis

However, following stems containing a lateral, the suffix appears as -aris.. (11)

a. b. c. d.

sol -aris aliment -aris milit -aris line -aris

The interesting and important fact here is that the presence of an /r/ between the two laterals blocks the application of the rule.

358

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

(12)

a. b. c.

littor -alis flor -alis sepulchr -alis

Only /r/—no other sonorant or coronals—can block the application of the dissimilation rule, as can be observed by comparing (11) to (12). The feature [lateral] is contrastive only in liquids in Latin; therefore, only the feature [-lateral] of /r/ is contrastive. The feature specification [-lateral] characterizing vowels, nasal sonorants and obstruents is instead noncontrastive. If the correct way of dealing with the insensitivity of certain constraints to redundant feature specifications is that proposed above, the phenomenon of lateral dissimilation in Latin may be analyzed by proposing the constraint in (13) and assuming that it is sensitive only to contrastive feature specifications (As currently assumed in the literature (see McCarthy 1988), I assume that dissimilation processes always involve repairs triggered by OCP-like constraints.) (13)

a. b.

Access contrastive feature specifications X2 / X2 in the suffix -alis * X1

[+lateral]

[+lateral]

The constraint scans the tier where the feature [lateral] is placed, and checks [lateral] specifications for adjacency (only the [lateral] tier is considered.) The fully specified underlying representation of (11a) is given in (14). Only contrastive [Lateral] specifications are spotlighted, i.e., those of non nasal sonorants but not those of obstruents or vowels. The constraint in (13) sees the two adjacent specifications [+lateral], as in (15), identifies the structure as illicit and triggers a REPAIR2 which changes the second [+lateral] into [-lateral] (cf. (15)). (14)

(15)

s o l -lat. -lat. +lat.

-

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

s o l -a l i s > (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]

A theory of feature visibility

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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

(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

A theory of feature visibility

(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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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.

A theory of feature visibility

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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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.

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

(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

A theory of feature visibility

(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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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

A theory of feature visibility

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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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-

Underlying representations

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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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).

Underlying representations

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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

(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

Underlying representations

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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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).

Underlying representations

(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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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].

Underlying representations

(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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

 [[

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]

Underlying representations

(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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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]

Underlying representations

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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

(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

Underlying representations

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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

(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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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

Post-cyclic raising [+high]

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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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]

Post-cyclic raising [+high]

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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

reer-oon ˆow-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]) muˆe‹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 ˆoox-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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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)

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]

We thus obtain (110). (110)

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]

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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

*[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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

(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]

kp o X X [+cons] [-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]

kp o X X [+cons] [-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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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' ti
kaku
##
'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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

(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).

For a definition of contrastive feature specification

(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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

(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]

For a definition of contrastive feature specification

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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

(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:

For a definition of contrastive feature specification

(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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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 +

For a definition of contrastive feature specification

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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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).

For a definition of contrastive feature specification

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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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]

For a definition of contrastive feature specification

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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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.

For a definition of contrastive feature specification

(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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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

For a definition of contrastive feature specification

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

Markedness, neutral vowels and harmony processes

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).

For a definition of contrastive feature specification

(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 X
B, 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

Afterthoughts on Optimality Theory

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,

Afterthoughts on Optimality Theory

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

Afterthoughts on Optimality Theory

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

Afterthoughts on Optimality Theory

(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.

Afterthoughts on Optimality Theory

(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 >

Afterthoughts on Optimality Theory

(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

Afterthoughts on Optimality Theory

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 s
t . sa a . lm
s. 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