Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T03:35:12.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A theory of subfeatural representations: the case of rounding harmony in Laal*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2017

Florian Lionnet
Florian Lionnet*
Affiliation:
Princeton University
*
E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper introduces subfeatural representations to capture subphonemic distinctions at work in ‘subphonemic teamwork’. The unusual case of Laal is presented, in which rounding harmony requires two triggers: a round vowel and a labial consonant. The coarticulatory effect of the labial consonant is shown, on the basis of instrumental evidence, to incur a distinctive, but non-contrastive, intermediate level of rounding on the target vowel, analysed as being featurally [−round], but subfeaturally 〚xround〛 (0 < x < 1). 〚xround〛 vowels are shown to form a separate natural class, which can be independently targeted by phonological processes. Subfeatural representations are argued to constitute an advantageous reification of phonetic knowledge, forming a more solid basis for phonetically driven models of phonology. This proposal builds on the insights of previous literature that perceptual representations are needed in phonology, while eschewing the need for direct reference to phonetics.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , December 2017 , pp. 523 - 564
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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 very helpful comments and the many hours they spent reading this paper, I would like to thank Sharon Inkelas, Larry Hyman and William Bennett, and two anonymous reviewers. Many thanks are also due to Natalie DelBusso, Keith Johnson, Douglas Pulleyblank, Stephanie Shih and Donca Steriade, as well as audiences at UC Berkeley, Stanford University, AMP 2013 (UMass), OCP 11 (Leiden, 2014), the 88th and 90th Meetings of the LSA, the ABC-Conference (UC Berkeley, 2014), WCCFL 33, MFM 23 and NELS 46. My research on Laal is funded through a Volkswagen Foundation DoBeS grant. Any error is my own.

The appendices mentioned in the paper are available as online supplementary materials at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675717000276.

References

Archangeli, Diana & Pulleyblank, Douglas (1994). Grounded phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bakovi«, Eric (2000). Harmony, dominance and control. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Beckman, Jill N. (1999). Positional faithfulness: an Optimality Theoretic treatment of phonological asymmetries. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Bennett, William G. (2013). Dissimilation, consonant harmony, and surface correspondence. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Bennett, William G. (2015). The phonology of consonants: harmony, dissimilation, and correspondence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaho, Sylvia (2008). The syntax of phonology: a radically substance-free approach. PhD dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul (1998). Functional phonology: formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David (2014). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (version 5.4). http://www.praat.org.Google Scholar
Boyeldieu, Pascal (1977). Eléments pour une phonologie du laal de Gori (Moyen-Chari). In Caprile, Jean-Pierre (ed.) Études phonologiques tchadiennes. Paris: SELAF. 187–198.Google Scholar
Boyeldieu, Pascal (1982). Deux études laal (Moyen-Chari, Tchad) . Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
Boyeldieu, Pascal (1987). Déterminations directe/indirecte en laal. In Boyeldieu, Pascal (ed.) La maison du chef et la tête du cabri: des degrés de la détermination nominale dans les langues d'Afrique centrale. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. 77–87.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1989). On the representation of vowel height. Ms, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1991). Vowel height assimilation in Bantu languages. BLS 17:2. 25–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, G. N. & Hume, Elizabeth V. (1995). The internal organization of speech sounds. In Goldsmith, John A. (ed.) The handbook of phonological theory. Cambridge, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell. 245–306.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, Daniel & Garcia-Zamor, M. (1971). The three degrees of vowel length in German. Papers in Linguistics 4. 111–126.Google Scholar
Donegan, Patricia J. & Stampe, David (1979). The study of natural phonology. In Dinnsen, Daniel A. (ed.) Current approaches to phonological theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 126–173.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward (1997). Phonetic detail in phonology: evidence from assimilation and coarticulation. In Suzuki & Elzinga (1997). 39–50.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward (2001). Scalar and categorical phenomena in a unified model of phonetics and phonology. Phonology 18. 7–44.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward (2002). Auditory representations in phonology. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward (2008). The realized input. Ms, MIT. Available (August 2017) at http://web.mit.edu/flemming/www/paper/RI2.pdf.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Gillian (2007). Pharyngeal preservation in West Greenlandic. Handout of paper presented at the 81st Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Anaheim.Google Scholar
Gnanadesikan, Amalia (1997). Phonology with ternary scales. PhD dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Hall, Kathleen Currie (2013). A typology of intermediate phonological relationships. The Linguistic Review 30. 215–275.Google Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur (2001). Theoretical and typological issues in consonant harmony. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur (2010). Consonant harmony: long-distance interaction in phonology. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur (2014). (Dis)agreement by (non)correspondence: inspecting the foundations. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report: ABC Conference Archive. Slides available (August 2017) at http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/phonlab/documents/2014/ABCC/Hansson.pdf.Google Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur & Moore, Patrick J. (2011). The phonetics of transparency in Kaska vowel harmony. In Tuttle, Siri & Lovick, Olga (eds.) Working Papers in Athabaskan Languages 2010. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Kirchner, Robert & Steriade, Donca (eds.) (2004). Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & Steriade, Donca (2004). Introduction: the phonetic bases of phonological markedness. In Hayes et al. (2004). 1–33.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Shih, Stephanie S. (2014). Unstable surface correspondence as the source of local conspiracies. NELS 44:1. 191–204.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. Douglas (1972). Formal aspects of phonological description. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Jun, Jongho (2002). Positional faithfulness, sympathy, and inferred input. Ms, Yeungnam University, Daegu, Korea. Available (August 2017) at http://ling.snu.ac.kr/jun/work/inferred.pdf.Google Scholar
Jurgec, Peter (2011). Feature spreading 2.0: a unified theory of assimilation. PhD dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Jurgec, Peter (2013). Two types of parasitic assimilation. Nordlyd 40. 108–135.Google Scholar
Kaun, Abigail R. (1995). The typology of rounding harmony: an optimality theoretic approach. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Kaun, Abigail R. (2004). The typology of rounding harmony. In Hayes et al. (2004). 87–116.Google Scholar
Kavitskaya, Darya (2014). Segmental inventory and the evolution of harmony in Crimean Tatar. Turkic Languages 17. 86–114.Google Scholar
Kingston, John & Diehl, Randy L. (1994). Phonetic knowledge. Lg 70. 419–454.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (2013). Phonemic analyses are not data: on the empirical basis of phonological typology. Paper presented at the Phonological Typology conference, Oxford.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Robert (1993). Turkish vowel harmony and disharmony: an Optimality Theoretic account. Ms, UCLA. Available as ROA-4 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Karen, Mark & Miller, Corey (1991). Near-mergers and the suspension of phonemic contrast. Language Variation and Change 3. 33–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter (1971). Preliminaries to linguistic phonetics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine, Miyata, Yoshiro & Smolensky, Paul (1990). Harmonic Grammar: a formal multi-level connectionist theory of linguistic well-formedness: an application. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. 884–891.Google Scholar
Lindau, Mona (1978). Vowel features. Lg 54. 541–563.Google Scholar
Linker, Wendy (1982). Articulatory and acoustic correlates of labial activity in vowels: a cross-linguistic study. PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Lionnet, Florian (2015). Phonological teamwork as quantal markedness. WCCFL 33. 76–85.Google Scholar
Lionnet, Florian (2016). Subphonemic teamwork: a typology and theory of cumulative coarticulatory effects in phonology. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Macken, Marlys A. & Barton, David (1980). The acquisition of the voicing contrast in English: a study of voice onset time in word-initial stop consonants. Journal of Child Language 7. 41–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maxwell, Edith M. & Weismer, Gary (1982). The contribution of phonological, acoustic, and perceptual techniques to the characterization of a misarticulating child's voice contrast for stops. Applied Psycholinguistics 3. 29–43.Google Scholar
Mielke, Jeff (2008). The emergence of distinctive features. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, Brian C. J. & Glasberg, Brian R. (1983). Suggested formulae for calculating auditory-filter bandwidths and excitation patterns. JASA 74. 750–753.Google Scholar
Ní Chiosáin, Máire & Padgett, Jaye (1993). Inherent VPlace. Ms, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye (1997). Partial class behavior and nasal place assimilation. In Suzuki & Elzinga (1997). 145–183.Google Scholar
Pasquereau, Jérémy C. (2014). Phonological degrees of labiality: evidence from Karata. Poster presented at the 32nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, University of Southern California. Available (August 2017) at https://jeremy-pasquereau.jimdo.com.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet (2000). The phonetic grounding of phonology. Les Cahiers de l'ICP: Bulletin de la Communication Parlée 5. 7–23.Google Scholar
Port, Robert, Mitleb, Fares & O'Dell, Michael (1981). Neutralization of obstruent voicing is incomplete. JASA 70. S13.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
Pulleyblank, Douglas (2002). Harmony drivers: no disagreement allowed. BLS 28. 249–267.Google Scholar
Rhodes, Russell (2012). Vowel harmony as Agreement by Correspondence. Annual Report of the UC Berkeley Phonology Laboratory. 138–168.Google Scholar
Rose, Sharon & Walker, Rachel (2004). A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. Lg 80. 475–531.Google Scholar
Sasa, Tomomasa (2009). Treatment of vowel harmony in Optimality Theory. PhD thesis, University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Scobbie, James M. & Stuart-Smith, Jane (2008). Quasi-phonemic contrast and the fuzzy inventory: examples from Scottish English. In Avery, Peter, Dresher, B. Elan & Rice, Keren (eds.) Contrast in phonology: theory, perception, acquisition. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 87–113.Google Scholar
Shih, Stephanie S. (2013). Consonant–tone interaction as Agreement by Correspondence. Ms, Stanford University & University of California, Berkeley. Available (August 2017) at http://cogsci.ucmerced.edu/shih/shih-ctoneABC-draftms_1-18-13.pdf.Google Scholar
Shih, Stephanie S. & Inkelas, Sharon (2014). A subsegmental correspondence approach to contour tone (dis)harmony patterns. In Kingston, John, Moore-Cantwell, Claire, Pater, Joe & Staubs, Robert (eds.) Proceedings of the 2013 Meeting on Phonology. Available (August 2017) at http://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/amphonology/article/view/22.Google Scholar
Slowiaczek, Louisa M. & Dinnsen, Daniel A. (1985). On the neutralizing status of Polish word-final devoicing. JPh 13. 325–341.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
Smolensky, Paul (1995). On the internal structure of the constraint component Con of UG. Ms, Johns Hopkins University. Available as ROA-86 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul & Legendre, Géraldine (eds.) (2006). The harmonic mind: from neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-Min (1971). A-raising in Woleaian. University of Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics 3:8. 15–35.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-Min (1975). Woleaian reference grammar. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Stampe, David (1973). A dissertation on Natural Phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago. Published 1979, New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (1997). Lexical conservatism and its analysis. Ms, UCLA.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (1999). Phonetics in phonology: the case of laryngeal neutralization. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics: Papers in Phonology 3. 25–145.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (2000). Paradigm uniformity and the phonetics–phonology boundary. In Broe, Michael B. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (eds.) Papers in laboratory phonology V: acquisition and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 313–334.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (2001). Directional asymmetries in place assimilation: a perceptual account. In Hume, Elizabeth & Johnson, Keith (eds.) The role of speech perception in phonology. San Diego: Academic Press. 219–250.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (2009). The phonology of perceptibility effects: the P-map and its consequences for constraint organization. In Hanson, Kristin & Inkelas, Sharon (eds.) The nature of the word: studies in honor of Paul Kiparsky. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 151–179.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Keiichiro (1997). Double-sided effect in OT: sequential grounding and local conjunction. In Suzuki & Elzinga (1997). 209–224.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Keiichiro & Elzinga, Dirk (eds.) (1997). Proceedings of the 1995 Southwestern Workshop on Optimality Theory (SWOT) . Tucson: Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Sylak-Glassman, John (2014). Deriving natural classes: the phonology and typology of post-velar consonants. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Terbeek, Dale (1977). A cross-language multidimensional scaling study of vowel perception. PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Walker, Rachel (1998). Nasalization, neutral segments and opacity effects. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Walker, Rachel (2000). Nasal reduplication in Mbe affixation. Phonology 17. 65–115.Google Scholar
Walker, Rachel (2001). Consonantal correspondence. In Kirchner, Robert, Pater, Joe & Wikeley, Wolf (eds.) Papers in theoretical linguistics 6: workshop on the lexicon in phonetics and phonology. Edmonton: University of Alberta. 73–84.Google Scholar
Walker, Rachel (2009). Similarity-sensitive blocking and transparency in Menominee. Paper presented at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Wayment, Adam (2009). Assimilation as attraction: computing distance, similarity, and locality in phonology. PhD thesis, Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Lionnet supplementary material

Appendices A-D

Download Lionnet supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 527.1 KB