1

Mismatches betweenmorphological and

phonological prominence:

A reason for variation and change

Maria-Rosa LloretUniversitat de Barcelona(Research project HUM2004-01504,

funded by the Spanish MEC and the FEDER: http://www.ub.edu/lincat)

2

• It is a well-known fact that somephonological phenomena are crucially conditioned by themorphological context.

• In general, phonological andmorphological structure are sensible to prominence in a waysuch that more prominent, relevant elements act as initiatorsof changes.

Basic facts

3

Strong/Weak positions or elements

• Strong:

• Foot Head

• Stressed syllable

• Syllable Peak

• Onset

• Root

• Word-Initially

• Simplex form

• Unmarked form• ...

• Weak:

• Foot NonHead

• Unstressed syllable

• Syllable Margin

• Coda

• Affix

• Word-Finally

• Derived form

• Marked form• ...

4

Correlation with Strong/Weak elementsThe strong becomes stronger; the weak becomes weaker (I)

• Strong positions prefer Strong elements, e.g.

• More sonorous V in stressed syllables

• More segmental contrasts in stressed syllables

• More segmental contrasts in onsets

• Weak positions prefer Weak elements, e.g.

• Less sonorous V in unstressed syllables

• Less segmental contrasts in unstressed syllables (vowel reduction)

• Less segmental contrasts in codas

5

Correlation with Strong/Weak positionsThe strong becomes stronger; the weak becomes weaker (II)

• Strong positions affect Weak positions, e.g.

• Spread from onsets

• Spread from stressed syllable or root (as in VH)

• Level derived/marked forms with the shape of the basic source (i.e. base priority)

• Weak positions altered by Strong positions, e.g.

• Spread to codas

• Spread to unstressed syllables or affixes (as in VH)

• Derived/marked forms accomodate to the basic source

6

• However, there are cases in which elements that are less prominent, or weak, behave as if they were strong and impose their characteristics on strong positions, e.g.

� Spread from weak to strong positions (e.g. from coda to onset, from unstressed to stressed syllables, from affix to root)

� Level the base with the derived/ marked form

7

• Goals:

1. Investigate the reasons for weak elements behaving as prominent.

2. Concentrate on cases that affect morphologically weak positions, i.e. elements in morphologically weak positions spreading their phonological characteristics to strong positions, to the extent of altering strong elements in strong positions.

3. Investigate the patterns that can arise from this situation.

8

• Case study:

I. Leveling effects:Depalatalization in Spanish vs.Alghero Catalan

II. Harmonic effects: Vowel Harmony in ValencianCatalan vs. Eastern AndalusianSpanish

9

I. Morphologicalprominence andleveling effects

Two case study:

1. Depalatalization in Spanish

Sg → Pl ☺☺☺☺

2. Depalatalization in Alghero Catalan

Pl → Sg? ����

10

Depalatalization in Spanish(Lloret&Mascaró 2006)

• Sp. has n/m/ñ and l/ll contrasts:cana / cama / caña polo / pollo

‘white hair / bed / cane’ ‘pole / chicken’

• But place centralization in coda:desdén desdeñar, desdeñoso

‘disdain (N)’ ‘disdain (V)’, `disdainful’

clavel clavellina

‘carnation’ ‘carnation-like plant’

álbum -[n] albumear, albumista

Adán adámico, adamista

11

• Historical residue only? No.

Maragall -[l] maragallista

Sabadell -[l] sabadellense

Jubany -[n]/-[ni]* juba[ñ]ista

fórum -[n] forumista

ítem -[n] itemización

Tom-Tom [tonton] to[n]tomear

CD-ROM -[n]

*Orthographically, Cat. ny = Sp. ñ

12

*–CORONAL limited to sonorant C

• Non-coronal obstruents word-finally (although non-traditional endings):

• LABIAL:

-[f]: chef, rosbif, naíf, NIF, Rif

-[ß]: club, esnob, ketchup, crep (> ∅)

• PALATAL:

-[tš] in match, bridge, sándwich, kitsch

• VELAR:

-[γ]: coñac, buldog, boutique, anorak, tictac, kayak, ad hoc (> ∅)

13

• All non-coronal sonorants bannedin codas? No.

enllantar [ñ.ll] ‘to put rims’

un ñoño [ñ.ñ] ‘a spineless’

el llanto [ll.ll] ‘the crying’

campo [m.p] ‘field’

son malos [m.m] ‘they are bad’

• This is an effect of coda place assimilation affecting sonorantconsonants.

14

• Markedness constraints (Output):

• AGREE(Place): SC clusters agree in place.

• *–COR&SON: against non-cor. sonorants.

� –COR shorthand for LAB, PAL, VEL

� Universal scale: *LAB, *DORS >> *COR

� The singularity of sonorant consonants wrt place is typologically grounded, e.g.:

● Many languages have palatal obstruents (š, tš) but not palatal sonorants (ñ, ll).

● Languages more usually centralize and assimilate sonorant C than obstruent C.

OT analysis

15

• Faithfulness constraints (IO):

• IDENT(Place): The place specification of an I is preserved in its O correspondent.

• IDENTONSET(Place): The place specification of an I is preserved in its O correspondent if the segment is parsed as an onset.

• Fixed ranking (inclusive relation):

IDONS(Pl) >> ID(Pl)

Positional Faithfulness (Beckman 1998)

16

AGR(Pl)>>IDONS(Pl)>>*–COR&SON>>ID(Pl)

desdeñ IDONS(PL) *-COR&SON ID(PL) a. desdeñ *! �b. desdén *

desdeñar IDONS(PL) *-COR&SON ID(PL) �a. desdeñar * b. desdenar *! *

enllantar

AGR(PL)

IDONS (PL)

*-COR &SON

ID(PL)

a. enlla *! b. enla *! * �c. eñlla ** *

17

Paradigmatic effect (analogy)

• Plural and diminutive formsovergeneralize centralization:

clavel → clavel-es, clavel-ito

desdén → desden-es, desden-cito

(cf. desdeñes `you disdain’)

álbu[n] → álbu[n]-es, álbu[ns], albu[n]-cito, albu[n]ito

To[n]-To[n] → To[n]to[n]-es, To[n]to[ns]

18

• CD-ROM:

(Google search, Oct.17th 2007)

CD-ROM: 2.380.000

CD-RON: 850

CD-ROMs: 629.000

CD-RONs: 5

CD-ROMes: 58

CD-RONes: 40

19

desdeñ-es IDONS(PL) *-COR&SON ID(PL)

�a. desdeñes *

b. desdenes *! *

Ranking:

AGR(Pl)>>IDONS(Pl)>>*–COR&SON>>ID(Pl)

20

Asymmetric relation: αααα →→→→ ββββ

• Base → derived form

• Definition of ‘base’ (Kager 1999):

a. The base is a free-standing form –a word.

b. The base contains a subset of thegrammatical features of the derivedform.

Both conditions met in plural and diminutive forms only.

21

• Ranking:AGR(Pl) >> ID-BA(Pl) >> IDONS(Pl)...

• Faithfulness OO constraint(Uniformity effect):

IDENT-BASE(Place): Let α be a segment in the base, and β be a correspondent of α in the affixed form. Ifα is [γPlace], then β is [γPlace].

• E.g., desdé[n], desde[ñ]ar, desde[n]es

desdé[n] suyo, desdé[m] mío... ‘his/my...’

22

• desde/ñ/:

desdé[n] to satisfy *-COR&SON

desde[n]es to satisfy ID-BA(Pl)

desde[ñ]ar to satisfy IDONS(Pl)

desde[m m]ío to satisfy AGR(Pl)

desde[n s]uyo to satisfy AGR(Pl)

• Ranking:

AGR(Pl) >> ID-BA(Pl) >> IDONS(Pl) >> *-COR&SON >> ID(Pl)

23

desdenes (N) vs. desdeñes (V)

desdeñ-es (N) Base: desdén

ID-BA (PL)

IDONS (PL)

*-COR &SON

ID (PL)

a. desdeñes *! *

�b. desdenes * *

desdeñ-es (V) Base: —

ID-BA (PL)

IDONS (PL)

*-COR &SON

ID (PL)

�a. desdeñes *

b. desdenes *! *

24

Pattern of depalatalization:

...OO-F (Uniform.) >> IO-F >> M...

Indirect benefit: Markedness(more cases without non-coronal sonorants due to OO-F)

• Basic ranking for depalatalization:AGR(Pl) >> ID-BA(Pl) >> IDONS(Pl) >> *-COR&SON >> ID(Pl)

25

Depalatalization in AlgheroCatalan (Lloret&Jiménez 2006)

• Alghero C also has n/m/ñ and l/llcontrasts. [Ort. Cat. ny = Sp. ñ]

• But depalatalization in coda:

fill -[l], fills -[lts] filla

‘son (sg, pl)’ ‘daughter’

any -[n], anys -[nts] anyada

‘year (sg, pl)’ ‘annuity’

Cf. fum -[m], fums -[nts] fumar

‘smoke (sg, pl)’ ‘to smoke’

26

Historically,

1. Pre-C depalatalization (agree):

ñs / lls > ns / ls:

<añ, ans>; <fill, fils>

2. Pl → Sg (level):

<an, ans>; <fil, fils>

27

Paradigmatic solution:Asymmetric relation αααα →→→→ ββββ ?

Problems:

1. Base = Plural (Plural → Singular)

IDENT-BASE(Place), as in Spanish

(contra definition of ‘base’)

2. No analogical extension in -/m/ fum, funs (fumar) vs.an, ans (añada); fil, fils (filla)

(limited to palatals)

28

Alternative paradigmatic sol.:Symmetric relation αααα ↔↔↔↔ ββββ ?

*<fum, fun-s>

d. <añ, añ-š>

c. <an, an-s>

*b. <añ, an-s>

*a. <añ, añ-s>

AGREEUNIFORMITY

29

Problems:

1. How to discard <añ, añ-š>?

• Markedness constraint *CODA/PAL?No, because effects of AGREE and words in -[š]:

un nyòcul [ñ.ñ] ‘ghocchi’dumenge [ñ.ž] ‘Sunday’peix -[š] ‘fish’

2. How not to level <fum, fun-s>?

3. No stem Uniformity (symmetric) effect in verbal conjugation, where no clear ‘base’:

banyar ‘to bath’: <ba[n], ba[ñ]-es, ba[ñ]-a …>

bullir ‘to boil’: <bu[l], bul[ll]-is, bu[ll]-i …>

30

Prosodic solution:Positional Faithfulness

• Universal ranking based on percepti-bility of sites (cf. Padgett 1997):

IDONSET >> IDFINAL >> ID

(IDENTFINAL refers to absolute word-final position)

• Alghero Catalan (relativized to Place):

IDONS(Pl) >> IDFIN(Pl) >> ID(Pl)

31

• Three intertwined phenomena

1. /ñ, ll/ depalatalize word-finally:

any [an], fill [fil]; BUT peix [peš]

2. /ñ, ll, š/ depalatalize pre-C:

anys [ans], fills [fils] (cf. peixos [pešus])

any sis [n.s] ‘year 6’, fill petit [l.p] ‘young son’

peix petit [s.p] ‘small fish’

3. Pre-C, /ñ/ further assimilates to C, as other nasals (/n, m/) and obstruents do:

any passat [m.p] ‘last year’, fums -[ns]

caps -[ts] ‘heads’, amics -[ts] ‘friends’

32

• Ranking:IDONS(Pl) >> AGR(Pl) >> *PAL&SON >> IDFIN(Pl) >> *PAL >> ID(Pl)...

• Trigger:

Markedness conditions:

� AGR(Pl): CC clusters agree in place. � *PAL&SON: against palatal sonorants.

• Indirect benefit:

Uniformity in some paradigms.

33

añ

IDONS (PL)

AGR (PL)

*PAL& SON

IDFIN (PL)

*PAL

ID (PL)

a. añ *! * �b. an * *

añs

IDONS (PL)

AGR (PL)

*PAL& SON

IDFIN (PL)

*PAL

ID (PL)

a. añs *! * * b. añš **! * ** * �c. ans *

34

un ñòcul

IDONS (PL)

AGR (PL)

*PAL& SON

IDFIN (PL)

*PAL

ID (PL)

a. un ño *! * * b. uñ no *! * * * ** �c. uñ ño ** ** * d. un no *! *

añ passat

IDONS (PL)

AGR (PL)

*PAL& SON

IDFIN (PL)

*PAL

ID (PL)

a. ñ p *! * * b. n p *! * �c. m p * d. n t *! ** e. ñ c *! * ** *

35

fum

IDONS (PL)

AGR (PL)

*PAL& SON

IDFIN (PL)

*PAL

ID (PL)

�a. fum b. fun *! *

fums IDONS (PL)

AGR (PL)

*PAL& SON

IDFIN (PL)

*PAL

ID (PL)

a. fums *! �b. funs *

peš IDONS (PL)

AGR (PL)

*PAL& SON

IDFIN (PL)

*PAL

ID (PL)

a. peš * �b. pes *! *

peš petit

IDONS (PL)

AGR (PL)

*PAL& SON

IDFIN (PL)

*PAL

ID (PL)

a. š p * *! �b. s p * *

36

Pattern of depalatalization:

... M >> IO-F ...

Indirect benefit: Uniformity(<Sg, Pl> with palatal sonorants in word-final position are leveled)

• Basic ranking for depalatalization:IDONS(Pl) >> AGR(Pl) >> *PAL&SON >> IDFIN(Pl) >> *PAL >> ID(Pl)...

37

Spanish vs. Alghero Catalan

• Markedness conditions involved:

• Spanish: *-COR&SON, AGR(Pl) for SC

• Alghero C: *PAL&SON, AGR(Pl) for CC

• Schema of the change:

• Spanish ☺☺☺☺ :

OO-F (Uniformity) >> IO-F >> M

Indirect benefit: Markedness

• Alghero C ���� :

M >> IO-F

Indirect benefit: Uniformity

38

Conclusion for leveling effects

Prediction for apparently ���� cases (i.e. the ones that look like ‘Derived → Base’):

• Phonological characteristics of a derivedform are carried over its base (asymmetricrelation) only if Markedness is benefited,

• Otherwise, they really are instances ofuniformity symmetric relations (overallleveling paradigm effect).

• Further examples?

39

C simplification in Catalan (M induced)

• <pont, pons> ‘bridge, bridges’

M-induced change (*CCC): ponts > pons

• Level-induced change Pl → Sg, because M benefit: pons (pl) → pon (sg)

<pon, pons> (in some dialects)

• BUT: In some varieties of insular Catalan with<pon, pons>, -nt maintenance in verbalinflection due to paradigm uniformity in stems:

<cant, cant-es, cant-a ...> ‘sing (present ind)’

40

Word-final n deletion in Catalan (no M induced)

• <ma, mans> ‘hand, hands’

Cf. maneta ‘hand (dim.)’, manar ‘to command’

• Possible level-induced change (Sg → Pl); no needfor a M reason if ‘Base → Derived’ pattern:

ma (sg) → mas (pl)

<ma, mas> (in some dialects)

• Impossible level-induced change:

mans (pl) → man (sg), because no M benefit

*<man, mans>

• BUT...

41

• BUT:

Inflected verbal forms with -Ø ending do not delete -n]STEM (stem uniformity):

<enten-c, enten-s, entén ... > ‘understand’

<man, man-es, man-a ... > (insular Catalan) ‘command’

and: -n as an inflectional suffix (3rd pl) is not deleted either (Realize-Morpheme):

manara-n ‘they will command’

42

II. Morphologicalprominence andharmonic effects

Two case study:

1. Valencian Catalan VH ☺☺☺☺Stressed σ (root) → Unstressed σ (suffix)

2. Eastern Andalusian Spanish VH ����Unstressed σ (suffix) → Stressed σ (root)

43

Strong/Weak correlation with VH

• VH from strong to weak positions(Positional Faithfulness):

� The harmonizing F of a strong position becomes stronger by spreading to a weak position. Hence:

� The weak position becomes weaker by assimilating; the strong position becomes

stronger by spreading. ☺☺☺☺

44

• Positional Faithfulness:

� E.g. stressed/root → stressless/affix

'E ... e Output: 'E ... E

(Capitals for open, [–ATR] vowels)

� Driving force: Gestural uniformity (articulation)

� By-product: The spread F increases perceptibility

� IDENT(F)-StrongPosition: A segment in a strong position in the O and its correspond-ent in the I must have identical specification for a feature [F] (cf. Beckman 1998).

45

• VH from weak to strong positions(Positional Markedness):

� The harmonizing F of a weak position becomes stronger by spreading to a strong position. Hence:

� The weak position becomes stronger by spreading; the strong position becomes

weaker by assimilating. ����

� Why? Save the weaker!

Who’s ‘the weak(er)’?

46

• Positional Licensing:

� E.g. stressed/root ← stressless/affix

'E ... e Output: 'e ... e

� Driving force: Perceptibility (functional basis)

� By-product: Gestural uniformity achieved

� LICENSE(F)-StrongPosition: Feature [F] is licensed by association to a strong position (cf. Walker 2005).

47

Positional F vs. Positional M

• Positional Faithfulness VH pattern:

IDENT(F)-StrongPosition >> IDENT(F),LICENSE(F)

• Positional Markedness VH pattern:

LICENSE(F)-StrongPosition >> LICENSE(F),IDENT(F)

48

Back i u High [+ATR] e o [–ATR] E O a Low Front

Valencian Catalan VH(Lloret 2007, Jiménez&Lloret 2007b)

• Stressed V: i, u, e, E, o, O, a

• Unstressed V: i, u, e, o, a

49

• VH in [–ATR] V wrt Color F (Front, Back):

Final unstressed -/a/ becomes [E, O] when preceded by stressed /E, O/:

/'tEl-a/ ['tElE] ‘cloth’

/'kOz-a/: ['kOzO] ‘thing’

/'kOmik-a/: ['kOmika] ‘comical (f sg)’

*['kOmiKO] (No GAP: [i] is [+ATR])

Cf. /'pes-a/: ['pesa] ‘piece’ ([e] is [+ATR])

/'tot-a/: ['tota] ‘all (f sg)’ ([o] is [+ATR])

/'kaz-a/: ['kaza] ‘house’ ([a] is [–ATR])

50

The grammatical status of -a

• -/a/ is a grammatical suffix (f, 3rdsg):

/'tEl-a/ ['tElE] ‘cloth (f)’

/pEl-A/: ['pElE] ‘s/he peels’

/'kOz-a/: ['kOzO] ‘thing (f)’

/'pOrt-a/: ['pOrtO] ‘s/he brings’

• One example with post-tonic root /a/:

/a'pOstat-a/: [a'pOstOtO] ?‘apostate’ [a'pOstata] ?

51

• Spread from strong (stressed/root) to weak (unstressed/affix) positions.

• Why are open ([–ATR]) vowels the triggers?

� More sonorous V are preferred in stressed position ([a, E, O], i.e. [–ATR]) and they spread their height (vacuously in the case of /'a…a/): strong articulatory influence of strong F.

� [E, O] are very open in Valencian, close to [a](cf. Recasens 1991, Jiménez 1998).

• Why is /a/ the target?

� Because [a, E, O] are more alike because they all are [–ATR].

The Positional Faithfulness view

52

• Ranking:

ID(Color)-StrongP >> AGR-[–ATR](Color)>> ID(Color)

• Color F include [front] and [back]

• Strong position = 'σ / root

/'tEl-a/

ID(Color)- StrongP

AGR-[–ATR] (Color)

ID (Color)

a. 'tEla *! � b. 'tElE *

c. 'tala *! *

53

• (Un)stressed V: /i u e o a/

Back i u High e o a Low Front

Eastern Andalusian Spanish VH (Lloret 2007, Jiménez&Lloret 2007b)

• s-weakening: Word-final s aspirates and further deletes: -s > h > h > Ø

54

• Local assimilation: s-weakeningtriggers opening of the preceding vowel and further fronting of -a.

[–ATR] Examples

-/is/: [I(�)] mis [mI(�)] ‘my (pl)’

-/es/:[E(�)] mes ['mE(�)] ‘month’

-/us/:[U(�)] tus [tU(�)] ‘your (pl)’

-/os/:[O(�)] tos ['tO(�)] ‘cough’

-/as/:[Æ(�)] (&Front) mas ['mÆ(�)] ‘plus’

55

• In this context, preceding mid and low vowels harmonize wrt opening (–ATR). Few words in -is, -us.

• VH wrt [–ATR]: /e, o, a/ > E, O, A

when followed by: -E, O, I, U, Æ(which derive from: -e, o, i, u, a + s)

tienes ['tjEnE(�)] ‘you have’

lejos ['lEhO(�)] ‘far’

monos ['mOnO(�)] ‘monkeys’

tesis ['tEsI(�)] ‘thesis’

asas ['AsÆ(�)] ‘handles’

Venus ['bEnU(�)] ‘Venus’

56

Scope of VH

• Up to the stressed V, and usually up to the initial V:

momentos [mo'mEntO(�)]~[mO'mEntO(�)]‘instants’

• Post-tonic internal V may optionally be affected (GAP configuration):

tréboles ['trEβolE(�)]~['trEβOlE(�)] ‘clovers’

• In both cases, strong tendency to VH if allV are identical:

monótonos [mO'nOtOnO(�)] ‘monotonous (pl)’

57

The grammatical status of -s

• -s as a grammatical suffix (pl, 2ndsg):

mono ['mono] ‘monkey’

mono-s ['mOnO(�)] ‘monkeys’

tiene ['tjene] ‘s/he has’

tiene-s ['tjEnE(�)] ‘you (sg) have’

• -s as part of a grammatical marker (1stpl, 2ndpl, word-ending):

tene-mos [tE'nEmO(�)] ‘we have’

tené-is [tEn'Ej(�)] ‘you (pl) have’

tes-is ['tEsI(�)] ‘thesis’

lej-os ['lEhO(�)] ‘far’ Cf. lej-(ec)it-os

58

• In some varieties, the phenomenon has extended to words ending in -s]STEM.

Variation in pre-tonic V of oxytones; opening (VH) in paroxytones:

revés [re'βE(�)]~[rE'βE(�)] ‘back(hand)’

lápiz ['lApI(�)] ‘pencil’

• VH extended to -j /h/ words (very fewwords and all oxytones). Hence, variation in pre-tonic:

reloj [re'lO(�)]~[rE'lO(�)] ‘watch’

59

Sources for opening and fronting

• [–ATR] source: [+spread glottis], from /s, h/[Front] source: [Coronal], from /s/

• /s, h/ are [+spr.gl.] (Vaux 1998, Gerfen 2002):

s h

[+spr.gl.] [coronal] [+spr.gl.]

• Local assimilation on preceding V:

[+spr.gl.] (open) is realized in V as [–ATR]

[Coronal] (front) is realized in V as [Front]

60

On the nature of ‘the weak’(Zoll 1998; Walker 2005, 2006)

• Marked structure (i.e. complex, perceptually weak, articulatorily difficult, etc.) must find some expression in a strong position.

• Marked structure: A F may be characterized as perceptually marked according to one or more of the following restrictions:

a)F is a specification that is perceptually difficult

b)F belongs to a prosodically weak position

c)F occurs in a perceptually difficult F combination

61

Why [–ATR] harmony?

• [–ATR] is a phonetically ‘strong’ F (≠≠≠≠ [high], forex., which acts as the harmonic F in many metaphonic systems of Romance), BUT:

• [–ATR] is not a contrastive input F (‘marked str.’)

≠≠≠≠ [front] in vowels, which is a contrastive input F in Spanish (i/u, e/o).

• [–ATR], derived from local assimilation (input: -/s, h/), is originated in a weak position: unstressed syllable, word-final, and mainly suffix conveying relevant grammatical distinctions(sg/pl, 3rdsg/2ndsg).

• In Romance, [ATR] input distinctions occur in stressed position only.

62

Markedness constraints:

• *LABIAL/FRONT (F co-occurrence restriction)

• *HIGH/–ATR (F co-occurrence restriction)

• *V/–ATR

• *-s/h (varieties with Ø: shorthand for *-s/h/h)

• LICENSE(–ATR)-StrongPosition (where Strong Position = stressed syllable)

Faithfulness constraints:

• MAX(F): MAX(LaryngealF), MAX(Place)

• MAX

The Positional Markedness view

63

• Ranking:

*BACK/FRONT, *-s/h >> MAX(LarF), MAX(Pl) >> *HIGH/–ATR >> LIC (–ATR)-StrongP >> *V/–ATR >> MAX

• Local assimilation:

*BACK/FRONT, *-s/h >> MAX(LarF), MAX(Pl)>> [...] *V/–ATR >> MAX

• VH:

... MAX(LarF), MAX(Pl) >> *HIGH/–ATR >> LIC(–ATR)-StrongP >> *V/–ATR >> MAX

64

Local assimilation with Back vowel

/'tos/

*BACK/ FRONT

*-s/h

MAX (LarF)

MAX (Pl)

*V/ –ATR

MAX

a. 'tos *! b. 'toh *! * c. 'to *! * * d. 'tOs *! * e. 'tOh *! * *

�f. 'tO * * * g. 'tO+ *! *

(O+ = fronted O)

65

Local assimilation with Front vowel

/'mas/

*BACK/ FRONT

*-s/h

MAX (LarF)

MAX (Pl)

*V/ –ATR

MAX

a. 'mas *! b. 'mah *! * c. 'ma *! * * d. 'mAs *! * e. 'mAh *! * * f. 'mA *! * *

�g. 'mÆ *

66

Vowel Harmony affecting stressed mid V but not stressed high V

/'tjenes/

MAX (LarF)

MAX (Pl)

*HIGH/ –ATR

LIC(–ATR)- StrongP

*V/ –ATR

a. 'tjene *! b. 'tjenE *! *

�c. 'tjEnE **

/'krisis/

MAX (LarF)

MAX (Pl)

*HIGH/ –ATR

LIC(–ATR)- Strong P

*V/ –ATR

a. 'krisi *!

�b. 'krisI * * *

c. 'krIsI **! **

67

Variation in post-tonic internal V

tréboles ‘clovers’

• ['trEβolE(�)] GAP configuration

(No articulatory benefit)

• ['trEβOlE(�)] Non-GAP configuration

(Articulatory benefit)

• Key rankings:

•Unaffected post-tonic:

... LIC(–ATR)-StrongP >> *V/–ATR >> *GAP ...

• Affected post-tonic:

... LIC(–ATR)-StrongP, *GAP >> *V/–ATR ...

68

/'treboles/

LIC(–ATR)-StrongP

*V/ –ATR

*GAP

�a. 'trEβolE ** * b. 'trEβOlE ***!

/'treβoles/

LIC(–ATR)-StrongP

*GAP

*V/ –ATR

a. 'trEβolE *! ** �b. 'trEβOlE ***

69

Variation in pre-tonic V

cojines [i] is [+ATR]

• [ko'hinE(�)] Non-GAP configuration

(Articulatory benefit)

• [kO'hinE(�)] GAP configuration

(No articulatory benefit)

• Key rankings:

•Unaffected pre-tonic:

..LIC(–ATR)-StrongP >>*V/–ATR >> LIC(–ATR)-V..

• Affected pre-tonic:

..LIC(–ATR)-StrongP >> LIC(–ATR)-V >>*V/–ATR..

70

/ko'hine/

*HIGH/ –ATR

LIC(–ATR)- StrongP

*V/ –ATR

LIC(–ATR)-V

�a. ko'hinE * * ** b. kO'hinE * **! * c. kO'hInE *! ***

/ko'hine/

*HIGH/ –ATR

LIC(–ATR)- StrongP

LIC(–ATR)-V

*V/ –ATR

a. ko'hinE * **! * �b. kO'hinE * * ** c. kO'hInE *! ***

71

The prediction

• Under our account, *GAP and LICENSE(–ATR)-V are not instances of a uniqueconstraint (e.g. AGREE, LAZY for gesturaluniformity):

• When *GAP is violated, LICENSE(–ATR)-V is violated as well, but not the other wayaround.

• 4-syllable pro-paroxytones confirm our view:

/re'kohelos/ [rE'kOhElO], [re'kOhElO]

‘pick them’ [re'kOhelO], *[rE'kOhelO]

72

‘pick them’ /re'kohelos/

Maximal-extension pattern:[rE'kOhElO]

Non-maximal extension patterns:

Non-GAP domain: [re'kOhElO]

GAP domain: [re'kOhelO]

Unattested GAP: *[rE'kOhelO]

73

a) LIC(-ATR)-StrongP >> LIC(-ATR)-V >> *V/-ATR, *GAP

b) LIC(-ATR)-StrongP, *GAP >> *V/-ATR >> LIC(-ATR)-V

c) LIC(-ATR)-StrongP >> *V/-ATR >> LIC(-ATR)-V, *GAP

d) Impossible winner under our account! ☺☺☺☺ ☺☺☺☺

Unattested**E 'O e Od)

Minimum,

GAP

**e 'O e Oc)

Medium,

non-GAP

*√e 'O E Ob)

Maximal√√E 'O E Oa)

LIC(-ATR)-V*GAP/ e 'o e os /

74

Valencian vs. Andalusian

• Schema of the VH pattern:

• Valencian: (Positional F)

IO-F >> M

Trigger: Gestural uniformity

Indirect benefit: Perceptibility

• Eastern Andalusian: (Positional M)

M >> IO-F

Trigger: Improve perceptibility

Indirect benefit: Gestural uniformity (or not)

75

• Prediction for apparently ���� cases (i.e. the ones that look like ‘Weak → Strong’):

Phonological characteristics of a strongposition are carried over weak positionsonly if Markedness is benefited (andtypically preserve relevant grammaticalinformation).

Conclusion for VH effects

76

• Further examples? E.g.,

� Metaphony in varieties of Italian(Walker 2005, upon Maiden 1991, Dyck 1995).

� Northeastern Spanish (Asturian) varieties (Campos-Astorkiza 2007, Jiménez&Lloret 2007b, upon Hualde1989).

77

General conclusion

• Previous works investigated the fact that paradigmatic relations may play a crucial

role in the raise of ���� cases (as in the case of symmetric stem-uniformity effects).

(���� cases = the ones that show a mismatch between morphological and phonological

prominence: ‘Weak → Strong’.)

• Here...

78

• Here we have investigated ���� cases whose explanation is based on Markednessconsiderations instead (such as depalatalization in Alghero Catalan and VHin Eastern Andalusian Spanish).

• Generalizations:

�Only when Markedness is benefited, apparently ���� cases arise.

�Variation is more prone to occur in these ���� cases due to their willingness to re-establish ☺☺☺☺ patterns and further benefit M.

79

Thank you for your

attention

mrosa.lloret@ub.edu

80

REFERENCES

Beckman, Jill N. (1998): Positional Faithfulness. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of

Massachusetts, Amherst. (http://roa.rutgers.edu/.)

Campos-Astorkiza, Raquel (2007): Minimal contrast and the phonology-phonetics interaction,

Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

(http://roa.rutgers.edu/.)

Dyck, Carrie (1995): Constraining the Phonology-Phonetics Interface with Exemplification

from Spanish and Italian Dialects. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Toronto. Gerfen, Chip (2002): «Andalusian Codas». Probus 14: 247-277.

Hualde, José Ignacio (1998): «Procesos consonánticos y estructuras geométricas en español».

Lingüística 1: 7-44.

Jiménez, Jesús (1998): «Valencian vowel harmony». Rivista di Linguistica 10: 137-161.

Jiménez, Jesús; Lloret, Maria-Rosa (2007a): «Andalusian Vowel harmony: Weak Triggers and

Perceptibility». Paper presented at the Workshop: Harmony in the languages of the Mediterranean, at the 4th Old-World Conference in Phonology, University of Aegean,

Rhodes. (http://roa.rutgers.edu/, http://www.uv.es/foncat/.)

----- (2007b): «Entre la articulación y la percepción: Armonías vocálicas en la península Ibérica». Paper presented at the XXV Congrès International de Linguistique et Philologie

Romanes, Innsbruck. (http://www.uv.es/foncat/.)

Kager, René (1999): Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lloret, Maria-Rosa (2007): «On the nature of vowel harmony: Spreading with a purpose».

Talk given at the 33rd Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, Università di Bologna. (To

appear in http://amsacta.cib.unibo.it/.)

81

Lloret, Maria-Rosa; Jiménez, Jesús (2006): «Prominence-driven Epenthesis in Alguerese

Catalan». Paper presented at the III Old-World Conference in Phonology, Budapest.

(http://roa.rutgers.edu/, http://www.uv.es/foncat/.) Lloret, Maria-Rosa; Mascaró, Joan (2007): «Depalatalization in Spanish revisited». In:

Martínez-Gil, Fernando; Colina, Sonia (eds.), Optimality-Theoretic Studies in Spanish

Phonology. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 74-97.(http://roa.rutgers.edu/, http://www.uv.es/foncat/.)

Padgett, Jaye (1997): «Partial Class Behavior and Nasal Place assimilation». In: Suzuki, K.;

Elzinga, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the 1995 Southwestern Workshop on Optimality Theory. Arizona Phonology Conference / Southwestern Optimality Theory. Conference

Proceedings, vol. 5. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, pp. 145-183.

(http://roa.rutgers.edu/.) Recasens Vives, Daniel (1991): Fonètica descriptiva del català. (Assaig de caracterització

de la pronúncia del vocalisme i consonantisme del català al segle XX). Barcelona:

Institut d’Estudis Catalans. Vaux, Bert (1998): «The Laryngeal Specification of Fricatives». Linguistic Inquiry 29: 497-

511.

Walker, Rachel (2005): «Weak Triggers in Vowel Harmony». Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 917-989. (http://roa.rutgers.edu/)

----- (2006): «Long-distance Metaphony: A Generalized Licensing Proposal». Handout,

PhonologyFest Workshop, Indiana University, Bloomington. (http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~rwalker/pubs.html)

Zoll, Cheryl (1998): «Positional Asymmetries and Licensing». (http://roa.rutgers.edu/)