Why contrast? Lexical contrast identifies the minimum of information we need. Each phoneme must have enough features (or elements, etc.) to distinguish it from the others with which it contrasts. The opposite end of the continuum—the maximum amount of information—is harder to falsify and harder to identify. We could store phonetic details of every token of every unit (word? morpheme? phone?) the speaker is exposed to. Some of this information may be relevant to: identifying individual speakers recognizing accents identifying affect But if we start by assuming it’s all also available to the grammar, what would ever tell us that some of it isn’t there? ≺6≻
Why contrast? Lexical contrast identifies the minimum of information we need. Each phoneme must have enough features (or elements, etc.) to distinguish it from the others with which it contrasts. The opposite end of the continuum—the maximum amount of information—is harder to falsify and harder to identify. We could store phonetic details of every token of every unit (word? morpheme? phone?) the speaker is exposed to. Some of this information may be relevant to: identifying individual speakers recognizing accents identifying affect But if we start by assuming it’s all also available to the grammar, what would ever tell us that some of it isn’t there? ≺6≻
Why contrast? Lexical contrast identifies the minimum of information we need. Each phoneme must have enough features (or elements, etc.) to distinguish it from the others with which it contrasts. The opposite end of the continuum—the maximum amount of information—is harder to falsify and harder to identify. We could store phonetic details of every token of every unit (word? morpheme? phone?) the speaker is exposed to. Some of this information may be relevant to: identifying individual speakers recognizing accents identifying affect But if we start by assuming it’s all also available to the grammar, what would ever tell us that some of it isn’t there? ≺6≻
Why contrast? Lexical contrast identifies the minimum of information we need. Each phoneme must have enough features (or elements, etc.) to distinguish it from the others with which it contrasts. The opposite end of the continuum—the maximum amount of information—is harder to falsify and harder to identify. We could store phonetic details of every token of every unit (word? morpheme? phone?) the speaker is exposed to. Some of this information may be relevant to: identifying individual speakers recognizing accents identifying affect But if we start by assuming it’s all also available to the grammar, what would ever tell us that some of it isn’t there? ≺6≻
Why contrast? • Vowels are targets of spreading. nasality. Consonants spread and block vowels don’t. Consonants contrast for [ nasal]; • • • • Also, contrastive features (at least sometimes) do things that k a j a ŋ (1) E.g., spreading of nasality in Sundanese (Piggott 1992: 41) redundant ones don’t. ≺7≻
Why contrast? • Vowels are targets of spreading. nasality. Consonants spread and block vowels don’t. Consonants contrast for [ nasal]; • • • • Also, contrastive features (at least sometimes) do things that k a j a ŋ (1) E.g., spreading of nasality in Sundanese (Piggott 1992: 41) redundant ones don’t. ≺7≻
Why contrast? • Vowels are targets of spreading. nasality. Consonants spread and block vowels don’t. SP SP SP • Also, contrastive features (at least sometimes) do things that • • • k a j a ŋ (1) E.g., spreading of nasality in Sundanese (Piggott 1992: 41) redundant ones don’t. ≺7≻ Consonants contrast for [ ± nasal]; [ − N] [ − N] [ + N]
Why contrast? • Vowels are targets of spreading. nasality. Consonants spread and block vowels don’t. SP SP Also, contrastive features (at least sometimes) do things that • • SP • j redundant ones don’t. E.g., spreading of nasality in Sundanese (Piggott 1992: 41) (1) ŋ • a a k ≺7≻ Consonants contrast for [ ± nasal]; ⑤ ⑤ ⑤ ⑤ [ − N] [ − N] [ + N]
Why contrast? • Vowels are targets of spreading. nasality. Consonants spread and block vowels don’t. SP SP Also, contrastive features (at least sometimes) do things that SP • ≺7≻ • • redundant ones don’t. E.g., spreading of nasality in Sundanese (Piggott 1992: 41) (1) ŋ ã j a k • Consonants contrast for [ ± nasal]; ⑤ ⑤ ⑤ ⑤ ⑤ ⑤ ⑤ [ − N] [ − N] [ + N]
Why contrast? /j w l r …/ /j w ʔ h a i…/ [ cons] /l r …/ [ nasal] /m n ɲ ŋ/ [ nasal] [ cons] Malay: (3) /ʔ h a i…/ [ cons] [ nasal] Scope matters. /m n ɲ ŋ/ [ nasal] [ cons] Sundanese: (2) the set of sounds in which nasalization is contrastive. The difference is in whether the glides are counted as belonging to Neither Sundanese nor Malay has underlyingly nasal glides. Malay glides pattern with vowels (subject to nasalization). Sundanese glides pattern with consonants (blocking nasal spread). Piggott (1992): ≺8≻
Why contrast? /j w l r …/ /j w ʔ h a i…/ [ cons] /l r …/ [ nasal] /m n ɲ ŋ/ [ nasal] [ cons] Malay: (3) /ʔ h a i…/ [ cons] [ nasal] Scope matters. /m n ɲ ŋ/ [ nasal] [ cons] Sundanese: (2) the set of sounds in which nasalization is contrastive. The difference is in whether the glides are counted as belonging to Neither Sundanese nor Malay has underlyingly nasal glides. Malay glides pattern with vowels (subject to nasalization). Sundanese glides pattern with consonants (blocking nasal spread). Piggott (1992): ≺8≻
Why contrast? /j w l r …/ /j w ʔ h a i…/ [ cons] /l r …/ [ nasal] /m n ɲ ŋ/ [ nasal] [ cons] Malay: (3) /ʔ h a i…/ [ cons] [ nasal] Scope matters. /m n ɲ ŋ/ [ nasal] [ cons] Sundanese: (2) the set of sounds in which nasalization is contrastive. The difference is in whether the glides are counted as belonging to Neither Sundanese nor Malay has underlyingly nasal glides. Malay glides pattern with vowels (subject to nasalization). Sundanese glides pattern with consonants (blocking nasal spread). Piggott (1992): ≺8≻
Why contrast? /j w l r …/ /j w ʔ h a i…/ [ cons] /l r …/ [ nasal] /m n ɲ ŋ/ [ nasal] [ cons] Malay: (3) /ʔ h a i…/ [ cons] [ nasal] Scope matters. /m n ɲ ŋ/ [ nasal] [ cons] Sundanese: (2) the set of sounds in which nasalization is contrastive. The difference is in whether the glides are counted as belonging to Neither Sundanese nor Malay has underlyingly nasal glides. Malay glides pattern with vowels (subject to nasalization). Sundanese glides pattern with consonants (blocking nasal spread). Piggott (1992): ≺8≻
Why contrast? /j w l r …/ /j w ʔ h a i…/ [ cons] /l r …/ [ nasal] /m n ɲ ŋ/ [ nasal] [ cons] Malay: (3) /ʔ h a i…/ ≺8≻ Scope matters. /m n ɲ ŋ/ Sundanese: (2) the set of sounds in which nasalization is contrastive. The difference is in whether the glides are counted as belonging to Neither Sundanese nor Malay has underlyingly nasal glides. Malay glides pattern with vowels (subject to nasalization). Sundanese glides pattern with consonants (blocking nasal spread). Piggott (1992): [ + cons] [ − cons] [ + nasal] [ − nasal]
Why contrast? /m n ɲ ŋ/ /j w ʔ h a i…/ /l r …/ /m n ɲ ŋ/ Malay: (3) /ʔ h a i…/ /j w l r …/ Scope matters. ≺8≻ Sundanese: (2) the set of sounds in which nasalization is contrastive. The difference is in whether the glides are counted as belonging to Neither Sundanese nor Malay has underlyingly nasal glides. Malay glides pattern with vowels (subject to nasalization). Sundanese glides pattern with consonants (blocking nasal spread). Piggott (1992): [ + cons] [ + cons] [ − cons] [ − cons] [ + nasal] [ + nasal] [ − nasal] [ − nasal]
Why contrast? Reiss (2017): “Contrast is Irrelevant in Phonology.” Accounts of harmony often attribute neutrality to the absence of contrast. But in Tangale ATR harmony, /ɑ/ patterns with other [ ATR] vowels, even though it has no [ ATR] counterpart. This ignores the idea of contrastive scope—there’s no [ ATR] vowel in Tangale that is otherwise identical to /ɑ/, but /ɑ/ does contrast with [ ATR] vowels in general. (See Archangeli (1988) and Dresher (2009: ch. 2) on why pairwise comparison of segments is not the best way to identify contrastive features.) ≺9≻
Why contrast? Reiss (2017): “Contrast is Irrelevant in Phonology.” Accounts of harmony often attribute neutrality to the absence of contrast. But in Tangale ATR harmony, /ɑ/ patterns with other [ ATR] vowels, even though it has no [ ATR] counterpart. This ignores the idea of contrastive scope—there’s no [ ATR] vowel in Tangale that is otherwise identical to /ɑ/, but /ɑ/ does contrast with [ ATR] vowels in general. (See Archangeli (1988) and Dresher (2009: ch. 2) on why pairwise comparison of segments is not the best way to identify contrastive features.) ≺9≻
Why contrast? Reiss (2017): “Contrast is Irrelevant in Phonology.” Accounts of harmony often attribute neutrality to the absence of contrast. This ignores the idea of contrastive scope—there’s no [ ATR] vowel in Tangale that is otherwise identical to /ɑ/, but /ɑ/ does contrast with [ ATR] vowels in general. (See Archangeli (1988) and Dresher (2009: ch. 2) on why pairwise comparison of segments is not the best way to identify contrastive features.) ≺9≻ But in Tangale ATR harmony, /ɑ/ patterns with other [ − ATR] vowels, even though it has no [ + ATR] counterpart.
Why contrast? Reiss (2017): “Contrast is Irrelevant in Phonology.” Accounts of harmony often attribute neutrality to the absence of contrast. in Tangale that is otherwise identical to /ɑ/, but /ɑ/ does contrast (See Archangeli (1988) and Dresher (2009: ch. 2) on why pairwise comparison of segments is not the best way to identify contrastive features.) ≺9≻ But in Tangale ATR harmony, /ɑ/ patterns with other [ − ATR] vowels, even though it has no [ + ATR] counterpart. This ignores the idea of contrastive scope—there’s no [ + ATR] vowel with [ + ATR] vowels in general.
Why contrast? Also from Reiss (2017): Sonorants’ failure to trigger voicing assimilation in many languages is often attributed to their lack of contrastive voicing. In Russian, sonorants don’t have voiceless counterparts, and they don’t trigger assimilatory voicing. But neither does /v/, even though it contrasts with voiceless /f/. Reiss’s proposal: Russian /v/ isn’t a sonorant ( contra Lightner 1965; Hayes 1984; Kiparsky 1985), nor is its phonetic resemblance to a sonorant relevant ( contra Padgett 2002); it’s just not specified for [ voice]. (This is, oddly enough, pretty much the approach taken within a contrastive-specification framework by Avery 1996 and Hall 2004, though they use monovalent features.) ≺10≻
Why contrast? Also from Reiss (2017): Sonorants’ failure to trigger voicing assimilation in many languages is often attributed to their lack of contrastive voicing. In Russian, sonorants don’t have voiceless counterparts, and they don’t trigger assimilatory voicing. But neither does /v/, even though it contrasts with voiceless /f/. Reiss’s proposal: Russian /v/ isn’t a sonorant ( contra Lightner 1965; Hayes 1984; Kiparsky 1985), nor is its phonetic resemblance to a sonorant relevant ( contra Padgett 2002); it’s just not specified for [ voice]. (This is, oddly enough, pretty much the approach taken within a contrastive-specification framework by Avery 1996 and Hall 2004, though they use monovalent features.) ≺10≻
Why contrast? Also from Reiss (2017): Sonorants’ failure to trigger voicing assimilation in many languages is often attributed to their lack of contrastive voicing. In Russian, sonorants don’t have voiceless counterparts, and they don’t trigger assimilatory voicing. But neither does /v/, even though it contrasts with voiceless /f/. Reiss’s proposal: Russian /v/ isn’t a sonorant ( contra Lightner 1965; Hayes 1984; Kiparsky 1985), nor is its phonetic resemblance to a sonorant relevant ( contra Padgett 2002); it’s just not specified for [ voice]. (This is, oddly enough, pretty much the approach taken within a contrastive-specification framework by Avery 1996 and Hall 2004, though they use monovalent features.) ≺10≻
Why contrast? Also from Reiss (2017): Sonorants’ failure to trigger voicing assimilation in many languages is often attributed to their lack of contrastive voicing. In Russian, sonorants don’t have voiceless counterparts, and they don’t trigger assimilatory voicing. But neither does /v/, even though it contrasts with voiceless /f/. Reiss’s proposal: Russian /v/ isn’t a sonorant ( contra Lightner 1965; Hayes 1984; Kiparsky 1985), nor is its phonetic resemblance to a sonorant relevant ( contra Padgett 2002); it’s just not specified for (This is, oddly enough, pretty much the approach taken within a contrastive-specification framework by Avery 1996 and Hall 2004, though they use monovalent features.) ≺10≻ [ + voice].
Why contrast? Also from Reiss (2017): Sonorants’ failure to trigger voicing assimilation in many languages is often attributed to their lack of contrastive voicing. In Russian, sonorants don’t have voiceless counterparts, and they don’t trigger assimilatory voicing. But neither does /v/, even though it contrasts with voiceless /f/. Reiss’s proposal: Russian /v/ isn’t a sonorant ( contra Lightner 1965; Hayes 1984; Kiparsky 1985), nor is its phonetic resemblance to a sonorant relevant ( contra Padgett 2002); it’s just not specified for (This is, oddly enough, pretty much the approach taken within a contrastive-specification framework by Avery 1996 and Hall 2004, though they use monovalent features.) ≺10≻ [ + voice].
Why contrast? glottal segments on which [F] is predictable act as if they lack [F]. Likewise, we’re missing a generalization if we fail to note when can—and consider that we are missing generalizations if we don’t. But we still describe patterns in terms of natural classes when we ___ θ velar Reiss (2017: 29) claims that “appeals to contrast are opportunistic.” u / o Arapaho (Gleim 2018): i And it probably needs it—e.g.: in an arbitrary combination of environments. The computational system has the power to apply the same change classes are. If so, they’re ‘opportunistic’ in the same way that appeals to natural ≺11≻
Why contrast? glottal segments on which [F] is predictable act as if they lack [F]. Likewise, we’re missing a generalization if we fail to note when can—and consider that we are missing generalizations if we don’t. But we still describe patterns in terms of natural classes when we ___ θ velar Reiss (2017: 29) claims that “appeals to contrast are opportunistic.” u / o Arapaho (Gleim 2018): i And it probably needs it—e.g.: in an arbitrary combination of environments. The computational system has the power to apply the same change classes are. If so, they’re ‘opportunistic’ in the same way that appeals to natural ≺11≻
Why contrast? glottal segments on which [F] is predictable act as if they lack [F]. Likewise, we’re missing a generalization if we fail to note when can—and consider that we are missing generalizations if we don’t. But we still describe patterns in terms of natural classes when we ___ θ velar Reiss (2017: 29) claims that “appeals to contrast are opportunistic.” u / o Arapaho (Gleim 2018): i And it probably needs it—e.g.: in an arbitrary combination of environments. The computational system has the power to apply the same change classes are. If so, they’re ‘opportunistic’ in the same way that appeals to natural ≺11≻
Why contrast? Reiss (2017: 29) claims that “appeals to contrast are opportunistic.” segments on which [F] is predictable act as if they lack [F]. Likewise, we’re missing a generalization if we fail to note when can—and consider that we are missing generalizations if we don’t. But we still describe patterns in terms of natural classes when we θ glottal velar in an arbitrary combination of environments. And it probably needs it—e.g.: The computational system has the power to apply the same change classes are. If so, they’re ‘opportunistic’ in the same way that appeals to natural ≺11≻ Arapaho (Gleim 2018): i → u / o ___
Why contrast? Reiss (2017: 29) claims that “appeals to contrast are opportunistic.” segments on which [F] is predictable act as if they lack [F]. Likewise, we’re missing a generalization if we fail to note when can—and consider that we are missing generalizations if we don’t. But we still describe patterns in terms of natural classes when we θ glottal velar in an arbitrary combination of environments. And it probably needs it—e.g.: The computational system has the power to apply the same change classes are. If so, they’re ‘opportunistic’ in the same way that appeals to natural ≺11≻ Arapaho (Gleim 2018): i → u / o ___
Why contrast? Reiss (2017: 29) claims that “appeals to contrast are opportunistic.” segments on which [F] is predictable act as if they lack [F]. Likewise, we’re missing a generalization if we fail to note when can—and consider that we are missing generalizations if we don’t. But we still describe patterns in terms of natural classes when we θ glottal velar in an arbitrary combination of environments. And it probably needs it—e.g.: The computational system has the power to apply the same change classes are. If so, they’re ‘opportunistic’ in the same way that appeals to natural ≺11≻ Arapaho (Gleim 2018): i → u / o ___
How contrast? Two approaches We can give contrastive features special status either by excluding information from representations, or by adding information to them: Subtractive: Redundant features are absent from some or all of the phonological computation (e.g., Archangeli 1988; Dresher 2009; Mackenzie 2013). Additive: Both contrastive and redundant features are phonologically visible, and the computation can distinguish between them (e.g., Calabrese 1995; Halle, Vaux, and Wolf 2000; Nevins 2010). ≺12≻
How contrast? Two approaches We can give contrastive features special status either by excluding information from representations, or by adding information to them: Subtractive: Redundant features are absent from some or all of the phonological computation (e.g., Archangeli 1988; Dresher 2009; Mackenzie 2013). Additive: Both contrastive and redundant features are phonologically visible, and the computation can distinguish between them (e.g., Calabrese 1995; Halle, Vaux, and Wolf 2000; Nevins 2010). ≺12≻
How contrast? Two approaches We can give contrastive features special status either by excluding information from representations, or by adding information to them: Subtractive: Redundant features are absent from some or all of the phonological computation (e.g., Archangeli 1988; Dresher 2009; Mackenzie 2013). Additive: Both contrastive and redundant features are phonologically visible, and the computation can distinguish between them (e.g., Calabrese 1995; Halle, Vaux, and Wolf 2000; Nevins 2010). ≺12≻
How contrast? Two approaches t [ voice] [ voice] [ voice] n d t [ voice] [ voice] [ voice] n d An additive approach: ‘Paint redundant features blue’ ‘Full’ specification: [ voice] [ voice] n d t The subtractive approach: n d t ≺13≻ [ − voice] [ + voice] [ + voice]
How contrast? Two approaches t [ voice] [ voice] [ voice] n d t [ voice] [ voice] [ voice] n d An additive approach: ‘Paint redundant features blue’ ‘Full’ specification: n d t The subtractive approach: n d t ≺13≻ [ − voice] [ − voice] [ + voice] [ + voice] [ + voice]
How contrast? Two approaches ‘Full’ specification: [ voice] [ voice] [ voice] n d t n d t An additive approach: ‘Paint redundant features blue’ n d t The subtractive approach: n d t ≺13≻ [ − voice] [ − voice] [ + voice] [ + voice] [ + voice] [ − voice] [ + voice] [ + voice]
How contrast? Two approaches n n d t n d t ‘Full’ specification: An additive approach: ‘Paint redundant features blue’ d t t d n ≺13≻ The subtractive approach: [ − voice] [ − voice] [ + voice] [ + voice] [ + voice] [ − voice] [ − voice] [ + voice] [ + voice] [ + voice] [ + voice]
How contrast? Two approaches n n d t n d t ‘Full’ specification: An additive approach: ‘Paint redundant features blue’ d t t d n ≺13≻ The subtractive approach: [ − voice] [ − voice] [ + voice] [ + voice] [ + voice] [ − voice] [ − voice] [ + voice] [ + voice] [ + voice] [ + voice]
Uyghur vowel harmony i Table 1: Vowel inventory of Uyghur ɑ æ LOW o ø e MID u y HIGH Uyghur (Turkic) reveals the limits of blue paint (Halle, Vaux, and ROUND UNRND ROUND UNRND BACK FRONT i e are neutral (though phonetically front) y ø æ are front u o ɑ are back Vowel harmony (like Finnish): Wolf 2000). ≺14≻
Uyghur vowel harmony i Table 1: Vowel inventory of Uyghur ɑ æ LOW o ø e MID u y HIGH Uyghur (Turkic) reveals the limits of blue paint (Halle, Vaux, and ROUND UNRND ROUND UNRND BACK FRONT i e are neutral (though phonetically front) y ø æ are front u o ɑ are back Vowel harmony (like Finnish): Wolf 2000). ≺14≻
Uyghur vowel harmony i Table 1: Vowel inventory of Uyghur ɑ æ LOW o ø e MID u y HIGH Uyghur (Turkic) reveals the limits of blue paint (Halle, Vaux, and ROUND UNRND ROUND UNRND BACK FRONT i e are neutral (though phonetically front) y ø æ are front u o ɑ are back Vowel harmony (like Finnish): Wolf 2000). ≺14≻
Uyghur vowel harmony i Table 1: Vowel inventory of Uyghur ɑ æ LOW o ø e MID u y HIGH Uyghur (Turkic) reveals the limits of blue paint (Halle, Vaux, and ROUND UNRND ROUND UNRND BACK FRONT i e are neutral (though phonetically front) y ø æ are front u o ɑ are back Vowel harmony (like Finnish): Wolf 2000). ≺14≻
Uyghur vowel harmony i Table 1: Vowel inventory of Uyghur ɑ æ LOW o ø e MID u y HIGH Uyghur (Turkic) reveals the limits of blue paint (Halle, Vaux, and ROUND UNRND ROUND UNRND BACK FRONT i e are neutral (though phonetically front) y ø æ are front u o ɑ are back Vowel harmony (like Finnish): Wolf 2000). ≺14≻
Uyghur vowel harmony ‘horse-PL.’ ‘road-our-DATIVE’ [jol-imiz-ʁɑ] (7) ‘lake-our-DATIVE’ [køl-imiz-ɡæ] (6) Transparency of /i/: c. [ɑt-lɑr] Rightward propagation of harmony to the plural suffix: ‘road-PL.’ b. [jol-lɑr] a. [pul-lɑr] ‘money-PL.’ (5) c. [xæt-lær] ‘letter-PL.’ b. [køl-lær] ‘lake-PL.’ a. [jyz-lær] ‘face-PL.’ (4) ≺15≻
Uyghur vowel harmony ‘horse-PL.’ ‘road-our-DATIVE’ [jol-imiz-ʁɑ] (7) ‘lake-our-DATIVE’ [køl-imiz-ɡæ] (6) Transparency of /i/: c. [ɑt-lɑr] Rightward propagation of harmony to the plural suffix: ‘road-PL.’ b. [jol-lɑr] a. [pul-lɑr] ‘money-PL.’ (5) c. [xæt-lær] ‘letter-PL.’ b. [køl-lær] ‘lake-PL.’ a. [jyz-lær] ‘face-PL.’ (4) ≺15≻
Uyghur vowel harmony ‘horse-PL.’ ‘road-our-DATIVE’ [jol-imiz-ʁɑ] (7) ‘lake-our-DATIVE’ [køl-imiz-ɡæ] (6) Transparency of /i/: c. [ɑt-lɑr] Rightward propagation of harmony to the plural suffix: ‘road-PL.’ b. [jol-lɑr] a. [pul-lɑr] ‘money-PL.’ (5) c. [xæt-lær] ‘letter-PL.’ b. [køl-lær] ‘lake-PL.’ a. [jyz-lær] ‘face-PL.’ (4) ≺15≻
Uyghur vowel harmony ‘horse-PL.’ ‘road-our-DATIVE’ [jol-imiz-ʁɑ] (7) ‘lake-our-DATIVE’ [køl-imiz-ɡæ] (6) Transparency of /i/: c. [ɑt-lɑr] Rightward propagation of harmony to the plural suffix: ‘road-PL.’ b. [jol-lɑr] a. [pul-lɑr] ‘money-PL.’ (5) c. [xæt-lær] ‘letter-PL.’ b. [køl-lær] ‘lake-PL.’ a. [jyz-lær] ‘face-PL.’ (4) ≺15≻
Uyghur vowel harmony ‘horse-PL.’ ‘road-our-DATIVE’ [jol-imiz-ʁɑ] (7) ‘lake-our-DATIVE’ [køl-imiz-ɡæ] (6) Transparency of /i/: c. [ɑt-lɑr] Rightward propagation of harmony to the plural suffix: ‘road-PL.’ b. [jol-lɑr] a. [pul-lɑr] ‘money-PL.’ (5) c. [xæt-lær] ‘letter-PL.’ b. [køl-lær] ‘lake-PL.’ a. [jyz-lær] ‘face-PL.’ (4) ≺15≻
Uyghur vowel harmony ‘horse-PL.’ ‘road-our-DATIVE’ [jol-imiz-ʁɑ] (7) ‘lake-our-DATIVE’ [køl-imiz-ɡæ] (6) Transparency of /i/: c. [ɑt-lɑr] Rightward propagation of harmony to the plural suffix: ‘road-PL.’ b. [jol-lɑr] a. [pul-lɑr] ‘money-PL.’ (5) c. [xæt-lær] ‘letter-PL.’ b. [køl-lær] ‘lake-PL.’ a. [jyz-lær] ‘face-PL.’ (4) ≺15≻
Uyghur vowel harmony ‘horse-PL.’ ‘road-our-DATIVE’ [jol-imiz-ʁɑ] (7) ‘lake-our-DATIVE’ [køl-imiz-ɡæ] (6) Transparency of /i/: c. [ɑt-lɑr] Rightward propagation of harmony to the plural suffix: ‘road-PL.’ b. [jol-lɑr] a. [pul-lɑr] ‘money-PL.’ (5) c. [xæt-lær] ‘letter-PL.’ b. [køl-lær] ‘lake-PL.’ a. [jyz-lær] ‘face-PL.’ (4) ≺15≻
Uyghur vowel harmony (10) ‘in my booklet’ [kitɑp-ʧæ-m-dæ] (11) …and can also transmit [ back] to a subsequent suffix: ‘booklet’ [kitɑp-ʧæ] ‘(in the) Uyghur (manner/language)’ There are also non-alternating suffixes, such as -ʧæ. [ujʁur-ʧæ] (9) This suffix remains [ back] after [ back] stems… ‘(in the) Turkish (manner/language)’ [tyrk-ʧæ] (8) ≺16≻
Uyghur vowel harmony (10) ‘in my booklet’ [kitɑp-ʧæ-m-dæ] (11) …and can also transmit [ back] to a subsequent suffix: ‘booklet’ [kitɑp-ʧæ] ‘(in the) Uyghur (manner/language)’ There are also non-alternating suffixes, such as -ʧæ. [ujʁur-ʧæ] (9) ‘(in the) Turkish (manner/language)’ [tyrk-ʧæ] (8) ≺16≻ This suffix remains [ − back] after [ + back] stems…
Uyghur vowel harmony (10) ‘in my booklet’ [kitɑp-ʧæ-m-dæ] (11) ‘booklet’ [kitɑp-ʧæ] ‘(in the) Uyghur (manner/language)’ There are also non-alternating suffixes, such as -ʧæ. [ujʁur-ʧæ] (9) ‘(in the) Turkish (manner/language)’ [tyrk-ʧæ] (8) ≺16≻ This suffix remains [ − back] after [ + back] stems… …and can also transmit [ − back] to a subsequent suffix:
Uyghur vowel harmony [næj-ʧi-dæ] ‘in my booklet’ [kitɑp-ʧæ-m-dæ] (11) Contrast (15) with (11): ‘book-ʧæ-LOCATIVE’ [kitɑp-ʧi-dɑ] (15) ‘child-ʧæ-LOCATIVE’ (14) Low vowels in medial open syllables raise to [i]: When they do, they become transparent to harmony: ‘his/her/its donkey’ [iʃ i ɣ-i] [iʃ æ k] ‘donkey’ (13) ‘children’ [bɑl i -lɑr] [bɑl ɑ ] ‘child’ (12) ≺17≻
Uyghur vowel harmony [næj-ʧi-dæ] ‘in my booklet’ [kitɑp-ʧæ-m-dæ] (11) Contrast (15) with (11): ‘book-ʧæ-LOCATIVE’ [kitɑp-ʧi-dɑ] (15) ‘child-ʧæ-LOCATIVE’ (14) Low vowels in medial open syllables raise to [i]: When they do, they become transparent to harmony: ‘his/her/its donkey’ [iʃ i ɣ-i] [iʃ æ k] ‘donkey’ (13) ‘children’ [bɑl i -lɑr] [bɑl ɑ ] ‘child’ (12) ≺17≻
Uyghur vowel harmony [næj-ʧi-dæ] ‘in my booklet’ [kitɑp-ʧæ-m-dæ] (11) Contrast (15) with (11): ‘book-ʧæ-LOCATIVE’ [kitɑp-ʧi-dɑ] (15) ‘child-ʧæ-LOCATIVE’ (14) Low vowels in medial open syllables raise to [i]: When they do, they become transparent to harmony: ‘his/her/its donkey’ [iʃ i ɣ-i] [iʃ æ k] ‘donkey’ (13) ‘children’ [bɑl i -lɑr] [bɑl ɑ ] ‘child’ (12) ≺17≻
Tie additive approach to Uyghur high statements (Calabrese 1995) that constrain the inventory. It must be assessed based on the inventory, or on the marking The status of a feature can’t be read from the representation. CONTRAST RAISING REASSESS OPEN - σ round back low round In Halle, Vaux, and Wolf’s (2000) additive account, we can’t just back low high round back low high i i æ paint redundant features blue once and for all. ≺18≻
Tie additive approach to Uyghur round low back round high low back OPEN - σ In Halle, Vaux, and Wolf’s (2000) additive account, we can’t just REASSESS RAISING CONTRAST The status of a feature can’t be read from the representation. It must be assessed based on the inventory, or on the marking statements (Calabrese 1995) that constrain the inventory. high ≺18≻ paint redundant features blue once and for all. æ i i − high + low − back − round . . .
Tie additive approach to Uyghur In Halle, Vaux, and Wolf’s (2000) additive account, we can’t just statements (Calabrese 1995) that constrain the inventory. It must be assessed based on the inventory, or on the marking The status of a feature can’t be read from the representation. CONTRAST RAISING REASSESS OPEN - σ round back low high ≺18≻ æ paint redundant features blue once and for all. i i − high + high − low + low − back → − back − round − round . . . . . .
Tie additive approach to Uyghur In Halle, Vaux, and Wolf’s (2000) additive account, we can’t just statements (Calabrese 1995) that constrain the inventory. It must be assessed based on the inventory, or on the marking The status of a feature can’t be read from the representation. CONTRAST RAISING REASSESS OPEN - σ ≺18≻ æ paint redundant features blue once and for all. i i − high + high + high − low − low + low − back → − back → − back − round − round − round . . . . . . . . .
Tie additive approach to Uyghur In Halle, Vaux, and Wolf’s (2000) additive account, we can’t just statements (Calabrese 1995) that constrain the inventory. It must be assessed based on the inventory, or on the marking The status of a feature can’t be read from the representation. CONTRAST RAISING REASSESS OPEN - σ ≺18≻ æ paint redundant features blue once and for all. i i − high + high + high − low − low + low − back → − back → − back − round − round − round . . . . . . . . .
Tie additive approach to Uyghur In Halle, Vaux, and Wolf’s (2000) additive account, we can’t just statements (Calabrese 1995) that constrain the inventory. It must be assessed based on the inventory, or on the marking The status of a feature can’t be read from the representation. CONTRAST RAISING REASSESS OPEN - σ ≺18≻ æ paint redundant features blue once and for all. i i − high + high + high − low − low + low − back → − back → − back − round − round − round . . . . . . . . .
, β G]: a. [ β G] and its opposite [ β G] are contrastive in a bundle [ back] is not contrastive on (non-low) [ round] segments. [ round] is contrastive on (non-low) [ back] segments. β G] in L. , statement or prohibition [ α F [ β G] is contrastive in T and there is an active marking β G, γ D…] of L if b. [ α F] is not contrastive in a bundle T [___ , , ___ ] of L if and only if M is deactivated in L. [ α F Tie additive approach to Uyghur (16) statement M [ α F Calabrese (1995: 435): Given a language L and the marking (17) active in Uyghur low] round] / [___ , b. [ back, inactive in Uyghur Marking statements: ≺19≻ a. [ − back, + round] / [___ , − low]
Tie additive approach to Uyghur [ α F [ back] is not contrastive on (non-low) [ round] segments. [ round] is contrastive on (non-low) [ back] segments. β G] in L. , statement or prohibition [ α F [ β G] is contrastive in T and there is an active marking β G, γ D…] of L if b. [ α F] is not contrastive in a bundle T [___ , , ___ ] of L if and only if M is deactivated in L. ≺19≻ (16) statement M [ α F Calabrese (1995: 435): Given a language L and the marking (17) active in Uyghur low] round] / [___ , b. [ back, inactive in Uyghur Marking statements: a. [ − back, + round] / [___ , − low] , β G]: a. [ β G] and its opposite [ − β G] are contrastive in a bundle
Tie additive approach to Uyghur (16) [ back] is not contrastive on (non-low) [ round] segments. β G] in L. , statement or prohibition [ α F [ β G] is contrastive in T and there is an active marking β G, γ D…] of L if b. [ α F] is not contrastive in a bundle T [___ , [ α F, ___ ] of L if and only if M is deactivated in L. statement M [ α F, β G]: Calabrese (1995: 435): Given a language L and the marking (17) active in Uyghur low] round] / [___ , b. [ back, inactive in Uyghur Marking statements: ≺19≻ a. [ − back, + round] / [___ , − low] a. [ β G] and its opposite [ − β G] are contrastive in a bundle [ ± round] is contrastive on (non-low) [ − back] segments.
Tie additive approach to Uyghur [ α F [ back] is not contrastive on (non-low) [ round] segments. β G] in L. , statement or prohibition [ α F [ β G] is contrastive in T and there is an active marking β G, γ D…] of L if b. [ α F] is not contrastive in a bundle T [___ , , ___ ] of L if and only if M is deactivated in L. ≺19≻ (16) statement M [ α F Calabrese (1995: 435): Given a language L and the marking (17) active in Uyghur inactive in Uyghur Marking statements: a. [ − back, + round] / [___ , − low] b. [ + back, − round] / [___ , − low] , β G]: a. [ β G] and its opposite [ − β G] are contrastive in a bundle [ ± round] is contrastive on (non-low) [ − back] segments.
Tie additive approach to Uyghur Calabrese (1995: 435): Given a language L and the marking [ back] is not contrastive on (non-low) [ round] segments. , ___ ] of L if and only if M is deactivated in L. [ α F (16) statement M [ α F ≺19≻ (17) active in Uyghur inactive in Uyghur Marking statements: a. [ − back, + round] / [___ , − low] b. [ + back, − round] / [___ , − low] , β G]: a. [ β G] and its opposite [ − β G] are contrastive in a bundle b. [ α F] is not contrastive in a bundle T [___ , − β G, γ D…] of L if [ − β G] is contrastive in T and there is an active marking statement or prohibition [ − α F , − β G] in L. [ ± round] is contrastive on (non-low) [ − back] segments.
Tie additive approach to Uyghur Calabrese (1995: 435): Given a language L and the marking , ___ ] of L if and only if M is deactivated in L. [ α F (16) statement M [ α F ≺19≻ (17) active in Uyghur inactive in Uyghur Marking statements: a. [ − back, + round] / [___ , − low] b. [ + back, − round] / [___ , − low] , β G]: a. [ β G] and its opposite [ − β G] are contrastive in a bundle b. [ α F] is not contrastive in a bundle T [___ , − β G, γ D…] of L if [ − β G] is contrastive in T and there is an active marking statement or prohibition [ − α F, − β G] in L. [ ± round] is contrastive on (non-low) [ − back] segments. [ − back] is not contrastive on (non-low) [ − round] segments.
A subtractive approach The additive approach requires rules to consult marking statements to know what features they should ignore. But the Uyghur facts potentially present a challenge for a subtractive approach, too. In the subtractive approach, redundant features are underlyingly absent (not just blue). Is there a principled explanation for the fact that raising /æ/ to [i] makes its [ back] specification disappear? Yes—adapted from D’Arcy (2004), who uses a different set of features. ≺20≻
A subtractive approach The additive approach requires rules to consult marking statements to know what features they should ignore. But the Uyghur facts potentially present a challenge for a subtractive approach, too. In the subtractive approach, redundant features are underlyingly absent (not just blue). Is there a principled explanation for the fact that raising /æ/ to [i] makes its [ back] specification disappear? Yes—adapted from D’Arcy (2004), who uses a different set of features. ≺20≻
A subtractive approach The additive approach requires rules to consult marking statements to know what features they should ignore. But the Uyghur facts potentially present a challenge for a subtractive approach, too. In the subtractive approach, redundant features are underlyingly absent (not just blue). Is there a principled explanation for the fact that raising /æ/ to [i] makes its [ back] specification disappear? Yes—adapted from D’Arcy (2004), who uses a different set of features. ≺20≻
A subtractive approach The additive approach requires rules to consult marking statements to know what features they should ignore. But the Uyghur facts potentially present a challenge for a subtractive approach, too. In the subtractive approach, redundant features are underlyingly absent (not just blue). Is there a principled explanation for the fact that raising /æ/ to [i] Yes—adapted from D’Arcy (2004), who uses a different set of features. ≺20≻ makes its [ − back] specification disappear?
A subtractive approach The additive approach requires rules to consult marking statements to know what features they should ignore. But the Uyghur facts potentially present a challenge for a subtractive approach, too. In the subtractive approach, redundant features are underlyingly absent (not just blue). Is there a principled explanation for the fact that raising /æ/ to [i] Yes—adapted from D’Arcy (2004), who uses a different set of features. ≺20≻ makes its [ − back] specification disappear?
A subtractive approach [ low] /e i/ [ round] /ø y/ [ back] /o u/ [ back] [ round] /æ/ THE CONTRASTIVE HIERARCHY [ back] /ɑ/ [ back] [ low] (18) [ back] will be unspecified on /i/ and /e/ if it has low scope Dresher (2009): Features are organized into contrastive hierarchies. How do we know which features to include and which to omit? ≺21≻
A subtractive approach [ low] /e i/ [ round] /ø y/ [ back] /o u/ [ back] [ round] /æ/ THE CONTRASTIVE HIERARCHY [ back] /ɑ/ [ back] [ low] (18) [ back] will be unspecified on /i/ and /e/ if it has low scope Dresher (2009): Features are organized into contrastive hierarchies. How do we know which features to include and which to omit? ≺21≻
A subtractive approach [ low] /e i/ [ round] /ø y/ [ back] /o u/ [ back] [ round] /æ/ THE CONTRASTIVE HIERARCHY [ back] /ɑ/ [ back] [ low] (18) Dresher (2009): Features are organized into contrastive hierarchies. How do we know which features to include and which to omit? ≺21≻ [ ± back] will be unspecified on /i/ and /e/ if it has low scope.
Recommend
More recommend
