Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T16:35:02.291Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Opaque distributional generalisations in Tundra Nenets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2020

Peter Staroverov
Peter Staroverov*
Affiliation:
Wayne State University
*
*E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Based on primary data from Tundra Nenets, this paper explores phonological patterns which seem to require restrictions on the input, and thus present a particular challenge to Optimality Theory. In these patterns, a contrastive segment appears only in the environments where it is also derived by active alternations in the language. I illustrate this with the behaviour of Tundra Nenets /k/, and argue that these patterns can be analysed as distributional generalisations that hold only at early derivational levels. A Stratal OT analysis is proposed. Tundra Nenets also presents a pattern which appears to involve unnatural classes, but is reanalysed with only natural class alternations in my account.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , May 2020 , pp. 297 - 328
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

For their comments on previous versions of this work, I am very grateful to the editors and the associate editor of Phonology, to three anonymous reviewers, to Darya Kavitskaya, Eva Zimmermann, Jochen Trommer and Julian Kirkeby Lysvik, as well as to audiences at Leipzig University, Rutgers University and the 22nd Mid-Continental Phonetics and Phonology Conference, especially Adam Jardine, Jennifer Cole and Eric Raimy. All errors are my own.

References

Baker, Brett (2005). The domain of phonological processes. In Mushin, Ilana (ed.) Proceedings of the 2004 Conference of the Australian Linguistics Society. Available (April 2020) at http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/112.Google Scholar
Beckman, Jill N. (1998). Positional faithfulness. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (1999). Constraint interaction in language change: quantity in English and Germanic. PhD dissertation, University of Manchester & University of Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (2001). Voicing and continuancy in Catalan: a nonvacuous Duke-of-York gambit and a Richness-of-the-Base paradox. Ms, University of Manchester. Available (April 2020) at www.bermudez-otero.com/Catalan.pdf.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 (2006). Phonological domains and opacity effects: a new look at voicing and continuancy in Catalan. Handout of paper presented at the GLOW workshop ‘Approaches to phonological opacity’, Barcelona. Available (April 2020) at www.bermudez-otero.com/GLOW2006.pdf.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (2007). Marked phonemes vs marked allophones: segment evaluation in Stratal OT. Handout of paper presented at the GLOW workshop ‘Segment inventories’, Tromsø. Available (April 2020) at www.bermudez-otero.com/GLOW2007.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (2011). Cyclicity. In van Oostendorp et al. (). 2019–2048.10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (2018). Stratal Phonology. In Hannahs, S. J. & Bosch, Anna R. K. (eds.) The Routledge handbook of phonological theory. Abingdon & New York: Routledge. 100–134.Google Scholar
Blaho, Sylvia, Bye, Patrik & Krämer, Martin (eds.) (2007). Freedom of analysis? Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110198591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert (2011). Morpheme structure constraints. In van Oostendorp et al. (). 2049–2069.10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckler, Helen (2009). The phonology of word-level suffixes in German and Dutch. MA thesis, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Casali, Roderic F. (1996). Resolving hiatus. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Castrén, M.Alexander, (1854). Grammatik der samojedischen Sprachen. Edited by Anton Schiefner. St Petersburg: Russian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Chandlee, Jane, Heinz, Jeffrey & Jardine, Adam (2018). Input Strictly Local opaque maps. Phonology 35. 171–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, Mary L. (1976). The redundance of underlying morpheme-structure conditions. Lg 52. 295–313.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, Haspelmath, Martin & Bickel, Balthasar (2015). The Leipzig glossing rules. https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php.Google Scholar
Cser, András (1999). On the feature [continuant]. Theoretical Linguistics 25. 215–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2006). Markedness: reduction and preservation in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fallon, Paul D. (2002). The synchronic and diachronic phonology of ejectives. Abingdon & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Flack, Kathryn (2007). The sources of phonological markedness. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Flack, Kathryn (2009). Constraints on onsets and codas of words and phrases. Phonology 26. 269–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, Gillian (2019). Phonotactic knowledge and phonetically unnatural classes: the plain uvular in Cochabamba Quechua. Phonology 36. 37–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gnanadesikan, Amalia (1997). Phonology with ternary scales. PhD dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos & Jacobs, Haike (2017). Understanding phonology. 4th edn. Abingdon & New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris (1959). The sound pattern of Russian: a linguistic and acoustical investigation. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris (1962). Phonology in generative grammar. Word 18. 54–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur (2003). Laryngeal licensing and laryngeal neutralization in Faroese and Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 26. 45–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (2004). Phonological acquisition in Optimality Theory: the early stages. In Kager, et al. (2004). 158–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Tesar, Bruce & Zuraw, Kie (2013). OTSoft 2.5. Software package. http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/otsoft/.Google Scholar
Helimski, Eugene A. (1989). Glubinno-fonologicheskiy izosillabizm nenetskogo stikha. Journal de la Société Finno-ougrienne 82. 223–268.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko (1986). Syllable theory in prosodic phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko (1989). A prosodic theory of epenthesis. NLLT 7. 217–259.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko & Mester, Armin (1994). Reflections on CodaCond and Alignment. In Merchant, Jason, Padgett, Jaye & Walker, Rachel (eds.) Phonology at Santa Cruz 3. Santa Cruz: Linguistics Research Center. 27–46.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2003). Lexical and postlexical phonology in Optimality Theory: evidence from Japanese. Linguistische Berichte 11. 183–207.Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha (1977). Samojedischer Wortschatz: gemeinsamojedische Etymologien. Helsinki: Helsingin Yliopisto.Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha (1984). Problems of Nenets phonology. In Hajdú, Péter & Honti, László (eds.) Studien zur phonologischen Beschreibung uralischer Sprachen. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. 19–28.Google Scholar
Janhunen, Juha (1986). Glottal stop in Nenets. Helsinki: Suomolais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Jarosz, Gaja (2006). Richness of the Base and probabilistic unsupervised learning in Optimality Theory. In Wicentowski, Richard & Kondark, Grzegorz (eds.) Proceedings of the 8th Meeting of the ACL Special Interest Group in Computational Phonology. New York: Association for Computational Linguistics. 50–59.Google Scholar
Jarosz, Gaja (2014). Serial markedness reduction. In Kingston, John, Moore-Cantwell, Claire, Pater, Joe & Staubs, Robert (eds.) Proceedings of the 2013 Annual Meeting on Phonology. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/amp.v1i1.40.Google Scholar
Jarosz, Gaja (2016). Learning opaque and transparent interactions in Harmonic Serialism. In Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur, Farris-Trimble, Ashley, McMullin, Kevin & Pulleyblank, Douglas (eds.) Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Meeting on Phonology. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/amp.v3i0.3671.Google Scholar
Kager, René, Pater, Joe & Zonneveld, Wim (eds.) (2004). Constraints in phonological acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kavitskaya, Darya & Staroverov, Peter (2010). When an interaction is both opaque and transparent: the paradox of fed counterfeeding. Phonology 27. 255–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael & Kisseberth, Charles (1977). Topics in phonological theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1973). Phonological representations. In Fujimura, Osamu (ed.) Three dimensions of linguistic theory. Tokyo: TEC. 3–135.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1982). Lexical morphology and phonology. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.) Linguistics in the morning calm. Seoul: Hanshin. 3–91.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1985). Some consequences of Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2. 85–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (2000). Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17. 351–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloret, Maria-Rosa & Pons-Mol, Clàudia (2016). Catalan vowel epenthesis as evidence for the free ride approach to morphophonemic learning. LI 47. 147–157.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
Łubowicz, Anna (2002). Derived environment effects in Optimality Theory. Lingua 112. 243–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (1988). Feature geometry and dependency: a review. Phonetica 45. 84–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2003a). Comparative markedness. Theoretical Linguistics 29. 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2003b). Sympathy, cumulativity, and the Duke-of-York gambit. In Féry, Caroline & van de Vijver, Ruben (eds.) The syllable in Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 23–76.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2005). Taking a free ride in morphophonemic learning. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 4. 19–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2007). Hidden generalizations: phonological opacity in Optimality Theory. Sheffield & Bristol, Conn.: Equinox.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2008). The gradual path to cluster simplification. Phonology 25. 271–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura Walsh & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst: GLSA. 249–384.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1999). Faithfulness and identity in Prosodic Morphology. In René Kager, Harry van der Hulst & Wim Zonneveld (eds.) The prosody–morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 218–309.Google Scholar
Mielke, Jeff (2008). The emergence of distinctive features. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1986). The theory of Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Morén, Bruce (2007). The division of labor between segment-internal structure and violable constraints. In Blaho et al. (). 313–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nazarov, Aleksei & Pater, Joe (2017). Learning opacity in Stratal Maximum Entropy Grammar. Phonology 34. 299–324.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina (2014). A grammar of Tundra Nenets. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Hara, Charlie (2017). How abstract is more abstract? Learning abstract underlying representations. Phonology 34. 325–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van (2007). Derived environment effects and consistency of exponence. In Blaho et al. (). 123–148.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.) (2011). The Blackwell companion to phonology. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pater, Joe (2009). Weighted constraints in generative linguistics. Cognitive Science 33. 999–1035.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prince, Alan (2002). Arguing optimality. In Carpenter, Angela C., Coetzee, Andries W. & Lacy, Paul de (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory II. Amherst: GLSA. 269–304.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, Merchant, Nazarré & Tesar, Bruce (2018). OTWorkplace. Software package. https://sites.google.com/site/otworkplace.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (2004). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan & Tesar, Bruce (2004). Learning phonotactic distributions. In Kager et al. (). 245–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. (1976). The Duke of York gambit. JL 12. 83–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasin, Ezer & Katzir, Roni (2017). A learnability argument for constraints on underlying representations. Ms, MIT & Tel Aviv University. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002260.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy (2003). Duke-of-York derivations in Polish. LI 34. 601–629.Google Scholar
Salminen, Tapani (1993a). On identifying basic vowel distinctions in Tundra Nenets. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 51. 177–187.Google Scholar
Salminen, Tapani (1993b). A phonemization of Tundra Nenets long vowels. In Bakró-Nagy, Marianne & Szíj, Eniko (eds.) Hajdú Péter 70 éves. Budapest: MTA Nyelvtudományi Intézet. 347–352.Google Scholar
Salminen, Tapani (1997). Tundra Nenets inflection. Helsinki: Suomolais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Salminen, Tapani (1998a). A morphological dictionary of Tundra Nenets. Helsinki: Suomolais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Salminen, Tapani (1998b). Nenets. In Abondolo, Daniel (ed.) The Uralic languages. London & New York: Routledge. 516–547.Google Scholar
Salminen, Tapani (2018). Osobennosti prasamodiyskih i pranenetskih rekonstruktsiy. Paper presented at the workshop ‘Seminar po sravnitel'no-istoricheskoy fonetike samodiyskih yazikov’, Russian Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi (1973). The role of surface phonetic constraints in generative phonology. Lg 49. 87–106.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer L. (2005). Phonological augmentation in prominent positions. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul (1993). Harmony, markedness, and phonological activity. Paper presented at Rutgers Optimality Workshop. Available as ROA-87 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Stanley, Richard (1967). Redundancy rules in phonology. Lg 43. 393–436.Google Scholar
Staroverov, Peter & Kavitskaya, Darya (2017). Tundra Nenets consonant sandhi as coalescence. The Linguistic Review 34. 331–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staubs, Robert, Becker, Michael, Potts, Christopher, Pratt, Patrick, McCarthy, John J. & Pater, Joe (2010). OT-Help 2.0. Software package. http://people.umass.edu/othelp.Google Scholar
Tereshchenko, Natal'ya M. (1947). Ocherk grammatiki nenetskogo (iurako-samoedskogo) iazyka. Leningrad: Uchpedgiz.Google Scholar
Tereshchenko, Natal'ya M. (1956). Materialy i issledovaniya po yazyku nentsev. Moscow & Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo AN SSSR.Google Scholar
Tereshchenko, Natal'ya M. (1965). Nenetsko-Russkii slovar’. Moscow: Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya.Google Scholar
Tesar, Bruce (2006). Learning from paradigmatic information. In Baković, Eric, Itô, Junko & McCarthy, John J. (eds.) Wondering at the natural fecundity of things: essays in honor of Alan Prince. Santa Cruz: Linguistics Research Center. 293–310.Google Scholar
Tesar, Bruce (2014). Output-driven phonology: theory and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Torres-Tamarit, Francesc (2015). Length and voicing in Friulian and Milanese: or why rule-free derivations are needed. NLLT 33. 1351–1386.Google Scholar
Torres-Tamarit, Francesc (2016). Servigliano revisited: an examination from constraint-based serialism. JL 52. 689–708.Google Scholar
Trigo, Loren (1988). On the phonological derivation and behavior of nasal glides. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Trommer, Jochen (2011). Phonological aspects of Western Nilotic mutation morphology. Habilitationsschrift, University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Vaysman, Olga (2002). Against Richness of the Base: evidence from Nganasan. BLS 38. 327–338.Google Scholar
Wolf, Matthew (2008). Optimal interleaving: serial phonology–morphology interaction in a constraint-based model. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Wolf, Matthew (2016). Cyclicity and non-cyclicity in Maltese: local ordering of phonology and morphology in OT-CC. In McCarthy, John J. & Pater, Joe (eds.) Harmonic Grammar and Harmonic Serialism. London: Equinox. 327–368.Google Scholar
Wright, Richard (2004). A review of perceptual cues and robustness. In Hayes, Bruce, Kirchner, Robert & Steriade, Donca (eds.) Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 34–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Eva (2016). The power of a single representation: morphological tone and allomorphy. Morphology 26. 269–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. (1970). The Free-Ride Principle and two rules of complete assimilation in English. CLS 6. 579–588.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Staroverov Supplementary Materials

Staroverov Supplementary Materials

Download Staroverov Supplementary Materials(File)
File 1.2 KB