Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T20:39:34.722Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Laryngeal co-occurrence restrictions in Aymara: contrastive representations and constraint interaction*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 August 2013

Sara Mackenzie
Sara Mackenzie*
Affiliation:
Memorial University of Newfoundland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Through analyses of laryngeal co-occurrence restrictions in two varieties of Aymara, this article shows that contrastively specified representations are crucial in shaping phonological patterning. The article argues for a model of contrastive specifications in which features are hierarchically ordered (Dresher 2009). This results in asymmetries between features such that, for a given inventory, some features are contrastively specified in a greater number of segments than others. This asymmetry between features plays a central role in accounting for the interaction of place of articulation features and laryngeal features in Bolivian Aymara. The article also demonstrates that contrastive representations can be achieved as output forms in Optimality Theory and that the constraints which determine contrastive representations can be integrated with constraints which motivate restrictions on the co-occurrence, ordering and location of laryngeal features in Peruvian and Bolivian Aymara.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , August 2013 , pp. 297 - 345
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Thank you to Peter Avery, Elan Dresher, Heather Goad, Daniel Currie Hall, Larry Hyman, Yoonjung Kang and Keren Rice. Thanks also to audiences at the 2009 Toronto–Tromsø Phonology Workshop and the 19th Manchester Phonology Meeting. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers and associate editor for detailed and thoughtful comments. This work was supported in part by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada postdoctoral fellowship #756-2010-0288.

References

REFERENCES

Archangeli, Diana & Pulleyblank, Douglas (2002). Kinande vowel harmony: domains, grounded conditions and one-sided alignment. Phonology 19. 139–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Jill, Dickey, Laura Walsh & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.) (1995). Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (2003). The acquisition of phonological opacity. In Spenader, Jennifer, Eriksson, Anders & Dahl, Östen (eds.) Variation within Optimality Theory: Proceedings of the Stockholm Workshop on ‘Variation within Optimality Theory’. Stockholm: Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University. 25–36.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (2007). Marked phonemes vs marked allophones: segment evaluation in Stratal OT. Handout from paper presented at the Workshop on Segment Inventories, GLOW 30, Tromsø.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (forthcoming). Stratal Optimality Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Causley, Trisha (1999). Complexity and markedness in Optimality Theory. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Cole, Jennifer S. & Kisseberth, Charles W. (1994). Nasal harmony in Optimal Domains Theory. Ms, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Available as ROA-49 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Deza Galindo, Juan Francisco (1989). Nuevo diccionario aymara–castellano castellano–aymara. Lima: Consejo Nacional de Ciencas y Tecnologica.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan (2003). Contrast and asymmetries in inventories. In di Sciullo, Anna Maria (ed.) Asymmetry in grammar. Vol. 2: Morphology, phonology, acquisition. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 239–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan (2004). On the acquisition of phonological contrasts. In van Kempen, Jacqueline & Baauw, Sergio (eds.) Proceedings of GALA 2003 (Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition). Vol. 1. Utrecht: LOT. 27–46.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan (2009). The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flemming, Edward (2002). Auditory representations in phonology. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward (2004). Contrast and perceptual distinctiveness. In Hayes, Bruce, Kirchner, Robert & Steriade, Donca (eds.) Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 232–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fordyce, James F. (1980). On the nature of glottalic and laryngealized consonant and vowel systems. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 50. 120–154.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Gillian (2010). The perceptual basis of long-distance laryngeal restrictions. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Gouskova, Maria (2003). Deriving economy: syncope in Optimality Theory. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. (1970). Some generalizations concerning glottalic consonants, especially implosives. IJAL 36. 123–145.Google Scholar
Hall, Daniel Currie (2007). The role and representation of contrast in phonological theory. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris (1959). The sound pattern of Russian: a linguistic and acoustical investigation. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur (2001). Theoretical and typological issues in consonant harmony. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur (2004). Long-distance voicing agreement: an evolutionary perspective. BLS 30. 130–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur (2010). Consonant harmony: long-distance interaction in phonology. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon (1995). The consequences of optimization for underspecification. NELS 25:1. 287–302.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko, Mester, Armin & Padgett, Jaye (1995). Licensing and underspecification in Optimality Theory. LI 26. 571–613.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman & Halle, Morris (1956). Fundamentals of language. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kager, René & Shatzman, Keren (2007). Phonological constraints in speech processing. In Los, Bettelou & van Koppen, Marjo (eds.) Linguistics in the Netherlands 2007. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 99–111.Google Scholar
Kingston, John (1985). The phonetics and phonology of the timing of oral and glottal events. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1982). Lexical phonology and morphology. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.) Linguistics in the morning calm. Seoul: Hanshin. 3–91.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (2000). Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17. 351–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (2003). Syllables and moras in Arabic. In Féry, Caroline & van de Vijver, Ruben (eds.) The syllable in Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 147–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirchner, Robert (1993). Turkish vowel disharmony in Optimality Theory. Paper presented at the Rutgers Optimality Workshop, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Lamontagne, Greg & Rice, Keren (1995). A correspondence account of coalescence. In Beckman, et al. (1995). 211–223.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda (2001). Why Place and Voice are different: constraint-specific alternations in Optimality Theory. In Lombardi, Linda (ed.) Segmental phonology in Optimality Theory: constraints and representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 13–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucca, Manuel F. de (1983). Diccionario aymara–castellano castellano–aymara. La Paz: Comisión de Alfabetización y Literatura en Aymara.Google Scholar
Lucca, Manuel F. de (1987). Diccionario practico aymara–castellano castellano–aymara. La Paz & Cochabamba: Editorial Los Amigos del Libro.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2003). OT constraints are categorical. Phonology 20. 75–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1993). Generalized alignment. Yearbook of Morphology 1993. 79–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1994). The emergence of the unmarked: optimality in prosodic morphology. NELS 24. 333–379.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman, et al. (1995). 249–384.Google Scholar
MacEachern, Margaret R. (1999). Laryngeal cooccurrence restrictions. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, Sara (2009). Contrast and similarity in consonant harmony processes. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, Sara & Dresher, B. Elan (2004). Contrast and phonological activity in the Nez Perce vowel system. BLS 29. 283–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, Scott (1998). Surface underspecification of tone in Chichewa. Phonology 15. 367–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, Paul (2000). The Hausa language: an encyclopedic reference grammar. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder. Published 2004, Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rose, Sharon & Walker, Rachel (2004). A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. Lg 80. 475–531.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy (2000). Glide and glottal stop insertion in Slavic languages: a DOT analysis. LI 31. 271–317.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy (2003). Polish palatalization in derivational Optimality Theory. Lingua 113. 197–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuh, Russell G. (1971). Ngizim phonology. Ms, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Schuh, Russell G. (1997). Changes in obstruent voicing in Bade/Ngizim. Ms, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (1987). Redundant values. CLS 23:2. 339–362.Google Scholar
Struijke, Caro (2000). Existential faithfulness: a study of reduplicative TETU, feature movement, and dissimilation. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Tesar, Bruce & Smolensky, Paul (1998). Learnability in Optimality Theory. LI 29. 229–268.Google Scholar
Zoll, Cheryl (1993). Directionless syllabification and ghosts in Yawelmani. Ms, University of California, Berkeley. Available as ROA-28 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar