CHAPTER 5 PHONOLOGICAL ISSUES
5.1 Chapter introduction This final chapter deals with three selected phonological issues. The first issue concerns a historical sound shift ongoing in G|ui and G||ana, i.e. palatalization, which seems to lack phonetic motivation. It is important because it relates to typologically uncommon features that characterize the non-click stop sytem of G|ui, as I mentioned in Section 3.2.1.2. In Section 5.2, I describe this sound shift by providing new comparative data of G|ui and G||ana dialects, and further explore a phonetic explanation of this palatalization based on the palatographic and linguographic observations of the relevant stops provided in Chapter 3. In relation to this palatalization, I also extend discussion concerning the place-of-articulation feature of /c c c’/, re-considering the constraint on the cluster onset that I presented in Section 3.4.2.
The second impotant issue dealt with in Section 5.3 is how the clicks and their accompaniments should be phonologically interpreted. This is a question of whether they are all interpreted as phonological units (i.e. the unit analysis) or if some of them should be regarded as consonant clusters (i.e. the cluster analysis). This issue is important in justification of the descriptive framework that the present study has adopted. As I mentioned in Section 3.1.1, the systematic interpretation of G|ui consonants proposed in this thesis is based on the cluster analysis. I compare my cluster analysis with two alternative analyses, namely, (i) a unit analysis, which regards all the syllable onsets as single consonant phonemes and (ii) a radical cluster analysis, which requires only one non-cluster series of clicks by considering the clicks of all the other series as clusters. I then argue that my cluster analysis is more advantageous and less problematic than the unit analysis and the radical cluster analysis for interpreting G|ui consonants. This section further discusses the theoretical implications of my cluster analysis for Güldemann’s (2001) proposal of cross-Khoisan consonant regularities, which is based on his cluster analysis. In addition, I explore the applicability of my cluster analysis to Ju|’hoansi, another Khoisan language, which is interpreted by Miller-Ockhuizen (2003) using a unit analysis. I then evaluate both my cluster analysis and her unit analysis.
234 Finally, I deal with the issue of how to integrate the clicks and the non-clicks in Section 5.4. As I mentioned in Sections 3.4.1 and 3.5, there are two dimentions of the click vs. non-click cross-classification, namely, the dimension corresponding to the vertical axis of Table 3.15 in Chapter 3 and the dimention corresponding to the horizontal axis of the same table. The former (i.e. the series cross-classification) has been fully discussed in Section 3.4, but the latter (i.e. the integration of the clicks and the non-clicks) has not been discussed yet. In Section 5.4, I explore what features are required for the integration of the two classes.
5.2 Palatalization This section concerns a historical sound shift involving palatalization which has taken place and is ongoing in the G|ui-G||ana subgroup of Non-Khoekhoe languages of the Khoe family. Table 5.1 outlines this palatalization. This diachronic process leads to a change in the place of articulation from alveolar to palatal for the four series of non- click stops. I refer to the entire process including any intermediate stages as “palatalization”.
Table 5.1 Palatalization occurring in G|ui and G||ana
t c d t c t’ c’
Traill (1980) already discussed this sound change with relatively limited data from G|ui and G||ana, in exploring the phonetic and phonological diversity of various Khoisan languages. Nakagawa (1998) described this process in more detail based on extensive data from G|ui and G||ana spoken in the Xade Village (see Figure 1.1 in Chapter 1 for its location). This section elaborates on the description of Nakagawa (1998), using extended comparative data, and highlights typological peculiarities of this palatalization. I argue that transcriptions used in previous studies on G|ui and/or G||ana were observationally inadequate, and show that the palatographic and linguographic
235 observations made in Chapter 3 reveal important phonetic details essential for understanding the natural basis of this palatalization.
As illustrated in Table 5.1, the palatalization affects the non-click so-called alveolar stops in G|ui and G||ana. Previous studies on these languages used a broad phonetic transcription for this class of stops using symbols such as [t], [d] etc. (Köhler 1962, Maingard 1957, 1961, Nakagawa 1996b, Silberbauer 1981, Tanaka 1978, Traill 1980, Vossen 1988, Voßen 1997); they may contain additional information about dental place of articulation, but completely omit any specification concerning the laminality that was described in Section 3.2.2.1 in Chapter 3. In the argument to be developed, I will show that this transcriptional practice is observationally inadequate because the phonetic detail concerning the laminality is essential for understanding the phonetic basis of the sound shift; however, in order to develop my argument, I will proceed with the broad phonetic transcription together with its implied label of “alveolar” in my illustration.
5.2.1 A conventional view on palatalization Before discussing this sound shift, we should look at the general conventional view on palatalization, in order to prepare for a later discussion on a peculiarity of the palatalization in G|ui and G||ana. Palatalization is a diachronic or synchronic process involving tongue-fronting and tongue-raising, and is considered to be induced by the phonetic environment, such as a following front vowel or a glide [j], or a preceding front vowel and a neighboring palatal consonant (Bhat 1978). Here our discussion mainly concerns the raising of the tongue-front, which implies an expected phonetic environment involving a [+high, –back] segment. Table 5.2 exemplifies conventional palatalization, where a non-palatal/non-palatalized consonant changes into a palatal/palatalized consonant caused by a following/preceding high front vowel. The point to be emphasized here is that an obvious phonetic motivation for the assimilatory process in the environment is expected from a conventional viewpoint.
236 Table 5.2 Examples of conventional palatalization
t c /_i t t /_i t c /i_ t t /i_
5.2.2 The alveolar and palatal stops of G|ui and G||ana Let us first examine the non-click unaffricated stop system of G|ui and G||ana, which is presented in Table 5.3. All the segments shown in this table are phonologically contrastive in both G|ui and G||ana. In these languages there is a full set of distinctions involving the four places of articulation, alveolar, palatal, velar and uvular, with the four- way distinctions of the series, i.e. plain, voiced, aspirated and ejective. It should be pointed out here that this is a unique set of consonants among the Khoe languages.
Table 5.3 Non-click unaffricated stops of G|ui and G||ana
labial alveolar palatal velar uvular glottal
plain p t c k q voiced b d aspirated p t c k q ejective — t’ c’ k’ q’
The present topic concerns the alveolar stop class /t d t t’/ and the palatal stop class /c
c c’/ in this system. The distinction between these classes has arisen from an ongoing diachronic sound shift, palatalization, which changes the non-click alveolar stops into the non-click palatal stops. In other words, as illustrated in Table 5.4, both G|ui and G||ana are in the process of the sound shift from System 1 to System 2. As presented in the next section, a detailed comparative investigation of G|ui and G||ana dialects concerning cognate words with these two classes of stops will reveal important facts for understanding this sound shift.
237 Table 5.4 Places of articulation of the non-click stops in G|ui and G||ana. The symbols, p, t, c, k, and q, represent the five places of articulation from labial to uvular. The * emphasize that the systems are hypothetical. There is no dialect with System 1, and the Khute and Thomelo dialects have almost completed the evolution of System 2 System 1 *p *t – *k *q G|ui & G||ana p t c k q System 2 *p – *c *k *q
238 5.2.3 Comparative data Below I describe important aspects of the sound shift based on the comparison among the three G|ui dialects, i.e. the Xade, the Thomelo and the Khute dialects (see Chapter 1), and the three G||ana dialects, i.e. the Xade, the Molapo (i.e. the village called /um / in G||ana) and the Kaotoane dialects (see Figure 1.1 for their locations). The comparative data of G|ui and G||ana dealt with here were collected through intensive research conducted from 1992 to 1996 in Xade, a short research trip in Molapo in 1994, and an extensive survey performed in November 1996 in the remaining areas.
According to the extent to which the palatalization has spread through the lexicon in each dialect, the three G|ui varieties can be classified into two groups, which I call G|ui- A (i.e. the Xade dialect) and G|ui-B (i.e. the Thomelo and the Khute dialects). The three G||ana dialects are uniform with respect to the extension of the palatalization in the lexicon.
5.2.4 “Unnatural” palatalization The sound shift extending in the lexicon in G|ui and G||ana is illustrated with selected data shown in Table 5.5. The table also includes attested cognates in Naro, a neighboring Non-Khoekhoe language, which has not undergone this palatalization. The initial stop of each cognate is realized as either an alveolar or palatal stop. Words with palatal initials have been affected by the sound shift, namely, /*d/ > //, /*t/ > /c/, /*t/ >
/c/, /*t’/ > /c’/, /*t/ > /c/, and /*tq’/ > /cq’/.
As is illustrated by these words, the lexical extension of this sound shift differs among these languages. The cognates from (1) to (4) are affected by palatalization in all the G|ui and G||ana dialects, those from (5) to (7) are affected in G|ui-A and G|ui -B, and those from (8) to (12) are affected only in G|ui-B. There are also a small number of words which have preserved the alveolar stops in all G|ui and G||ana dialects.
239 Table 5.5 The sound correspondence among Naro, G||ana and G|ui . Naro words are cited from Visser (2001) in his transcription (the obvious cognates for (8), (11) and (12) are not found) Naro G||ana G|ui-A G|ui-B gloss (1) /dara/ /ra/ /ra/ /ra/ “visit” (2) /tuu / /cuu / /cuu / /cuu / “rain” (3) /thui/ /cu/ /cu/ /cu/ “sore, ulcer” (4) /t’oe / /c’u/ /c’u/ /c’u/ “beautiful” (5) /dao / /dao / /o/ /o/ “path” (6) /taa/ /taa / /ca/ /ca/ “different” (7) /tham/ /tam / /cem/ /cem/ “soft, easy” (8) — /dana / /dana / /ana / “leaf” (9) /tau/ /tau / /tau / /cau / “be tired” (10) /thri/ /tar / /tar / /car / “dull (of blades)” (11) — /tara / /tara / /cara/ “spring up (of mushroom)” (12) — /tq’am / /tq’am / /c’am/ “sp. of termite”
Here I address two points of peculiarity of this sound change. First, it is a type of palatalization in the sense that it involves the raising of the tongue body, changing alveolars into palatals, but it is different from what we have seen as conventional palatalization in Table 5.2 because it lacks the expected phonetic motivation in the environment. Thus, it is difficult to say where the “palatality” has come from. The high and/or front vowels in the first syllable of (1), (5), (6) and (7) are results of the assimilation to the initial palatals, and not phonetic triggers of palatalization. This process therefore is “unmotivated” palatalization in the conventional sense.
Second, this sound shift is typologically uncommon because alveolar stops are universally unmarked (Paradis and Prunet 1991) while the results of the change, namely the palatal stops, are relatively marked. This palatalization therefore changes the unmarked stops into the marked counterparts without any obvious phonetic motivation. Note that this sound shift has almost been completed in G|ui-B which lacks the alveolar stops except in only eight words, thus producing the unusual set of distinctions of place of articulation /p – c k q/, as we will see in the following section.
240 In the sense that this palatalization involves a typologically peculiar sound shift and lacks any obvious phonetic motivation, it does seem “unnatural”, and we would require an explanation for it.
5.2.5 The variation in the lexical extension of palatalization Before providing an explanation for the “unnatural” palatalization, I must first examine the lexical extension of palatalization seen in G||ana, G|ui-A and G|ui-B in detail. The result of the comparison of the relevant cognates of these three groups can be summarized as follows: the palatalization process manifests a continuum with increasing extension across the lexicon from G||ana through G|ui-A to G|ui-B. This can be seen in Table 5.6, which presents the frequencies of alveolar and palatal stops that occur in the cognates for each language. It also shows the percentages of the palatal class that can roughly indicate the extension of palatalization for each class. The plain, voiced and aspirated series clearly show the increasingly higher percentage of palatalization through the three languages: G|ui-B is higher than G|ui-A which is higher than G||ana. The ejective series does not show remarkable difference in the lexical extension of palatalization probably because of the relatively small number of cognates with the ejectives, but both G|ui-A and G|ui-B have one more word with a palatal stop than G||ana, and it does not contradict the gradational extension of palatalization from G||ana through G|ui-A to G|ui-B.
The two series of the stop clusters, /t c/ and /tq’ cq’/, require some explanation. As shown in Table 5.6, the pattern of palatal frequencies for these series is different from those for the other series. For these series, all the cognates have preserved alveolar stops in G||ana and G|ui-A while they have all undergone the palatalization in G|ui-B. Accordingly, alveolar and palatal stops in these clusters are not contrastive in any of the three groups of languages; there is a drastic change in percentage from 0% in G|ui-A to 100% in G|ui-B, which the other series do not exhibit.
241 Table 5.6 The frequencies of the alveolar and the palatal stops in G|ui and G||ana cognates. The rows of frequency present the numbers of words with the relevant sounds. Clear loan words are excluded G||ana G|ui-A G|ui-B Total Plain /t/ : /c/ /t/ : /c/ /t/ : /c/ Frequency 24:35 13:46 6:53 59 Percentage of /c/ 59% 78% 90% Voiced /d/ : // /d/ : // /d/ : // Frequency 19:16 6:29 1:34 35 Percentage of // 46% 83% 97% Aspirated /t/ : /c/ /t/ : /c/ /t/ : /c/ Frequency 7:17 2:22 0:24 24 Percentage of /c/ 71% 92% 100% Ejective /t’/ : /c’/ /t’/ : /c’/ /t’/ : /c’/ Frequency 2:4 1:5 1:5 6 Percentage of /c’/ 67% 83% 83% Plain+// /t/ : /c/ /t/ : /c/ /t/ : /c/ Frequency 8:0 8:0 0:8 8 Percentage of /c/ 0% 0% 100% Plain+/q’/ /tq’/ : /cq’/ /tq’/ : /cq’/ /tq’/ : /cq’/ Frequency 6:0 6:0 0:6 6 Percentage of /cq’/ 0% 0% 100% All series alveolar:palatal alveolar:palatal alveolar:palatal Frequency 66:72 36:102 8:130 138 Percentage of the 52% 74% 94% palatal class
Compared with the other four series, the palatalization in these two series is considerably delayed: the vast majority of the cognates with the other four series have already been palatalized in G|ui-A, while the palatalization in these series has not yet started in G|ui-A. This delay can be accounted for by the blocking effect of the following uvular/pharyngeal articulation which I discuss in Section 5.2.6.
An exhaustive comparison of the specific cognates involved in Table 5.6 leads to a further generalization in the form of the following implication: if a word in G||ana is affected by the palatalization, then its cognate in G|ui-A is always affected by the palatalization, and if a word in G|ui-A is affected by the palatalization, then its cognate
242 in G|ui-B is always affected by the palatalization. Details of this implication are illustrated in Table 5.7, where there are four stages of palatalization, which are represented as patterns “PPP” (for Stage 4), “APP” (for Stage 3), “AAP” (for Stage 2) and “AAA” (for Stage 1). All 138 cognate words with the relevant sounds, i.e. /t d t t’ t tq’ c c c’ c cq’/, fall into one of these four stages. Note that there are no words that show patterns, “PAA”, “APA”, “PAP” and “PPA”.
Table 5.7 Four stages of the palatalization. P stands for palatal, and A for alveolar. The right column presents the numbers and percentages of cognates that fall into each stage G||ana G|ui -A G|ui -B Number Stage 4 P P P 72 (52%) Stage 3 A P P 30 (22%) Stage 2 A A P 28 (20%) Stage 1 A A A 8 (6%)
5.2.6 Blocking environments Another result of the exhaustive comparison reveals two environments that block the palatalization in G||ana and G|ui-A (but not in G|ui-B). These are (i) a following pharyngeal vowel, and (ii) a following uvular sound (/ q’/), i.e. the cluster offset, as illustrated in Table 5.8. These blocking environments can be interpreted as involving a phonetic motivation. The palatalization involves fronting and raising of the tongue body, while the uvular articulation and the pharyngealization involve lowering and/or retraction of the tongue body. Therefore, unlike /t d t t’/ followed by /a u/ , /c c c’/ followed by /a u/ are sequences of two segments that involve mutually opposing gestures of the tongue-body, and similarly, unlike /t/ followed by / q’/, /c/ followed by / q’/, are sequences of two segments which involve mutually opposing gestures of the tongue-body. These opposing gestures of the adjacent segments may probably cause a relative difficulty in articulation, and be responsible for the delay in palatalization in the two stop cluster series in G||ana and G|ui-A.
243 Table 5.8 Environments blocking palatalization in G|ui-A and G||ana G||ana G|ui -A G|ui -B Gloss
(1) /da/ /da/ /a/ bird, Vanellus coronatus
(2) /tau / /tau / /cau/ be tired
(3) /tar / /tar / /car/ blunt (of knife)
(4) /tara / /tara / /cara/ spring up (of a mushroom)
(5) /tq’am / /tq’am / /cq’am/ termite (unidentified)
These two blocking effects are extremely interesting because they suggest that the seemingly “phonetically unmotivated” palatalization is in fact likely to have a phonetic basis since it may be blocked by an articulatory motivation.
5.2.7 Phonetic basis of the “unnatural” palatalization
Let us return to the discussion concerning the “unnatural” palatalization pointed out in Section 5.2.4. As long as the non-click alveolar stops in G|ui and G||ana are represented in the broad phonetic transcription as practized in previous studies, and as long as the palatalization is understood from the conventional view on palatalization, the expected phonetic motivation for the palatalization is unclear. In order to understand the phonetic basis of this palatalization, we should recall the phonetic details of the alveolar and the palatal stops in G|ui, which were described in Section 3.2.2.1 in Chapter 3.
Regarding the alveolar stop in G|ui, as seen in the palatograms and linguograms in Figure 3.2, /t/ in G|ui involves an extremely long contact from the dental to the prepalatal region and an exaggerated laminal articulation. It should be noted here that the G|ui-type contact is significantly longer than would be expected in the common “laminal” articulation, which covers the area from the teeth to the front part of the alveolar ridge (Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996: 21). In order to transcribe the exaggerated laminality of G|ui, I use the double diacritics for laminality, e.g. [t ] . Regarding the palatal stop,
244 /c/ in G|ui involves the front edge of the contact extending to the alveolar region and the partly raised tongue blade, as seen in Figure 3.3. It should be noted here that the exaggerated laminality of the alveolar stop and the extremely anterior front edge of the contact of the palatal stop are also observed in G||ana by palatographic and linguographic investigation in Nakagawa (1998).
If the articulation of /t/ [t ] is compared with that of /c/ considering the phonetic details stated above, the contact for /t/ shows a noticeable similarity to that for /c/ [c], namely the contact from the alveolar to prepalatal area created by the exaggerated laminal articulation. This contact area shared by both /t/ and /c/ is illustrated in Figure 5.1. In this figure, the palatograms of /t/ [t ] and /c/ taken from Figures 3.2 and 3.3 are superposed for each speaker. The contact of /t/ is marked with stripes and that of /c/ is shown in gray. The part both in stripes and in gray reflects the overlapped contact between /t/ [t ] and /c/ [c]. This similarity suggests that the long contact with the exaggerated laminality of /t d t t’/ [t d t t’ ] in G|ui and G||ana constitutes a latent articulatory preparation for palatalization, and therefore that the palatal stops in these languages evolve naturally in the stops themselves rather than from the adjacent phonetic environment in the conventional way. In other words, the palatalization has been induced by phonologization of the phonetic detail of /t d t t’/, namely the exaggerated laminality.
Based on the discussion above, I conclude that the palatalization, which seemed “unnatural” at the onset of the discussion, has in fact a natural phonetic basis, which was unclear in the broad phonetic transcriptions in previous studies but has been revealed by the palatographic and linguographic investigation.
245 246 Here, let me summarize the theoretical points that the discussion above evidently raises. First, observationally inadequate phonetic descriptions can lead to phonetically unnatural phonological rules. This seems to be an obvious point, but in the case of G|ui and G||ana, it is only the present research that exposes this point. Second, observational adequacy was achieved by the instrumental (i.e. palatographic and linguographic) investigation. The interesting point is that despite their exaggerated laminality, /t d t t’/ in G|ui and G||ana did not sound as if they were special, hence the “errors” made by other investigators. Here arises another question of how it is that their articulatory detail escaped auditory impressionistic perception. This is to be considered in future research. Finally, phonological change is gradual, and can be seen spreading through the lexicon. Therefore, the palatalization in question can be regarded as a phonological change in progress. This is also exposed by the present investigation.
5.2.8 A residual problem If the long contact with the exaggerated laminality of the alveolar stops is interpreted as the phonetic basis of the palatalization, then another question arises. I recorded palatograms and linguograms of /t/ in Naro for two speakers. They show a similar laminal articulation to G|ui and G||ana. Palatograms of !Xóõ [t] which is described as “dental” (Traill 1985: 119), also show the laminal articulation. In neither Naro nor !Xóõ, however, has the palatalization evolved. Why does their laminality not motivate the palatalization in these two languages, whereas it does in G|ui and G||ana?
Concerning this question, we should focus on the point made by Traill (1980: 188) regarding some Non-Khoekhoe languages of the Khoe family that “there seems to be some sort of structural pressure in these languages to have a non-click palatal series of consonants.” In some Eastern Non-Khoekhoe languages, such as Kua and Ts’ixa, the non-click palatal stops are generated as a result of the replacement of the palatal click () (Traill 1986, Traill and Vossen 1997), while in G|ui and G||ana, as we have seen, the palatal stops are derived from the non-click alveolar stops. As illustrated in Table 5.9, these two processes do not occur in the same language (Traill 1980).
247 Table 5.9 Origins of non-click palatals in Non-Khoekhoe languages. The symbols, t, c and , represent the non-click alveolar stops, the non-click palatal stops and the palatal clicks. The arrows show a sound change from the origins to the non-click palatal stops in each language group. They are variable changes, namely, t~c and ~c
↓ t t → c t c Naro G|ui & G||ana Kua etc. -replacement – – + t-palatalization – + –
Whatever its meaning, the “structural pressure” to generate the non-click palatal class is a common feature of these languages. Therefore, this language group feature forms the background to the palatalization, and has exploited the phonetic basis in the exaggerated laminality of the alveolar stops in the case of G|ui and G||ana, in which the click replacement of -clicks and the consequent generation of palatal stops have not taken place. At this stage, however, I am unable to explain the mechanism of the “structural pressure” in these languages.∗
5.2.9 The place-of-articulation feature involved in a constraint on the cluster onset To end this section, I further discuss the phonetic and phonological interpretations of the palatal place of articulation of /c c c’/ in the classification in terms of the coronal and dorsal classes. This topic also concerns the place of articulation of the palatal click influx.
As stated by Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996: 31), if places of articulation are classified in terms of the active articulator, the palatal articulation falls into the dorsal class that uses the tongue body, as opposed to the coronal class that uses the tongue blade. However, as I described in Section 3.2.2.1 in Chapter 3, the palatal stop articulation in G|ui involves not only the tongue front (i.e. a part of the tongue body), but also the
∗ The "structural pressure" will have to be explored in future research from a viewpoint of language contact between G|ui-G||ana languages and Eastern Non-Khoekhoe languages.
248 tongue blade. In addition, as seen in Figure 5.1, the palatal stop shares the contact area with the alveolar stop, which undoubtedly falls into the coronal class. Therefore, the non-click palatal stop in G|ui is ambiguous for the phonetic classification in terms of the coronal vs. dorsal distinction. We should recall here that the contact for the palatal click influx [] involves an anterior contact extension similar to that of the non-click palatal stop (see Section 3.3.2.1). Therefore, the same ambiguity applies to the palatal influx.
Phonologically, both the non-click palatal stop and the palatal click behave as coronal, rather than dorsal. As described in Section 3.4.2, G|ui has a constraint which only allows a stop of the plain series to be a cluster onset. In addition to this, the cluster onset in G|ui involves a constraint in terms of the place of articulation. Let us recall that the cluster onset is restricted to /t ts c k| k! k k/. (Note that /c/ as a cluster onset is attested in G|ui-B, where the lexical extension of palatalization is almost completed.)
The place of articulation involved in this class includes the dental (for /k|/), the alveolar
(for /t ts k! k/) and the palatal (for /c k/). An adequate description would require a covering feature involved in this grouping in terms of the place of articulation. It can most appropriately be labeled using the term “coronal”.
Consequently, the set of constraints involved in the consonant cluster in G|ui is summarized as in (1).
(1) C
Namely, the cluster onset (C
249 5.3 Cluster analysis of clicks and their accompaniments The present study has so far described the consonants of G|ui based on the view that regards some of the clicks with their accompaniments and some of the non-clicks as consonant clusters, namely cluster analysis, as opposed to unit analysis that deals with all these sounds as single phonological units (single segments or phonemes). In this section, I explore the issue of cluster analysis vs. unit analysis, focusing on three topics.
The first topic is an assessment of my cluster analysis to be dealt with in Section 5.3.1. Comparing my cluster analysis with two alternative analyses, I discuss the advantages and disadvantages of my analysis. The two alternatives are (i) unit analysis (abbreviated to UA) that regards all syllable onsets as single consonant phonemes and (ii) radical cluster analysis (abbreviated to RCA) that requires only one non-cluster series of clicks by regarding the clicks of all other series as clusters. As opposed to RCA, I refer to my cluster analysis as moderate cluster analysis (abbreviated to MCA). I demonstrate that MCA is more advantageous and less problematic than UA and RCA for interpreting G|ui consonants.∗
The second topic concerns the theoretical implications of MCA for Güldemann’s (2001) “cross-Khoisan” consonant chart. In Section 5.3.2, I propose a revision of this chart, and discuss its impact on important generalizations that Güldemann made on cross-Khoisan consonant regularities.
The final topic to be discussed is an application of MCA for interpreting Ju|’hoansi, which is interpreted by Miller-Ockhuizen (2000, 2003) using a UA approach. I discuss the adequacy of the two analyses in Section 5.3.3.
The following discussion seldom concerns the distinction among influxes. In this section, therefore, I frequently use the alveolar click type [!] in order to represent all the click accompaniments.
∗ Radical cluster analysis has not been proposed. As mentioned later, versions of non-radical (i.e. "moderate") cluster analysis have been proposed by Traill (1985) and Güldemann (2001), but here by MCA (moderate cluster analysis) I specifically mean my version of non-radical (i.e. "moderate") cluster analysis.
250 5.3.1 Context of discussion: unit or cluster? As Traill (1985) pointed out, the descriptive tradition of Khoisan linguistics was based on the unquestioned assumption that clicks and their accompaniments constitute phonological units. For example, Beach (1938: 31) implied that all the clicks in Nama were interpreted as phonological units by referring to them as “phonemes” whether they were represented with “single letters” or “digraphs”; Snyman (1969) also referred to all the clicks of !Xu that he described as “phonemes”; more recently, Voßen (1997) treated all the clicks that he identified in Khoe languages as “Schnalz-phoneme” (i.e. “click phonemes”). In this descriptive tradition, the unit analysis also applies to the series of the non-click sounds that I interpret as non-click stop clusters, e.g. /t ts tq’ tsq’/ in G|ui, which are also found in other Khoisan languages, such as !Xóõ and Ju|’hoansi, as I mentioned in Section 3.2.1.1 in Chapter 3.
In the context of nonlinear phonology, a theoretical framework has been provided in which this traditional assumption is adopted (Sagey 1990, Bradlow 1992, Clements and Hume 1995, Miller-Ockhuizen 2000, 2003). In this type of framework, clicks and their accompaniments are all regarded as special cases of more familiar types of complex consonants with internal structure consisting of features.
However, a different point of view was expressed by Traill (1985, 1993), in which many of the clicks and their accompaniments, as well as the hetero-organic non-click sequences, such as /t/, /ts/, /tq’/, /tsq’/ (in my transcription), etc., are argued phonologically to be clusters of segments, not single segments with internal structure.
More recently, Güldemann (2001), developing Traill’s discussion on the cluster analysis, proposed a framework in which consonant systems of a wide range of Khoisan languages, including G|ui, are interpreted and cross-linguistically compared. As I mentioned in Chapter 3, the systematic interpretation of G|ui consonants presented in this thesis is based on my revised version of Güldemann’s framework employing a cluster analytic approach.
251 In order to justify my position in favor of a cluster analytic approach in describing the G|ui consonant system, it is essential to confirm the advantages of cluster analysis. Let us start by summarizing two main points of Traill’s argument in favor of cluster analysis.
5.3.1.1 Traill’s argument for cluster analysis: two main points
Traill’s (1985) argument was in the first place motivated by the solution to the typological problem of the anomalous consonantal inventory size of !Xóõ. Under unit analysis, the !Xóõ inventory includes 119 consonants (ibid.: 99), and this size is anomalously large in the world’s languages. For comparison, he cited Catford’s (1977) tentative claim that Ubykh (a North-West Caucasian language) had a world-record large inventory with 80 consonants. He emphasizes “...the need for a re-examination of the unit analysis...(ibid.: 208)” since the anomaly of the large inventory size of !Xóõ is a function of unit analysis. (Note that the largest consonantal inventory in the UPSID languages is that of a Khoisan language, !Xu (i.e. Ju|’hoansi) with 95 segments, which is also interpreted under unit analysis, and the second largest is much smaller, i.e. 48 consonants found in Kabardian (a Northwest Caucasian language), according to Maddieson (1984)). As discussed below, cluster analysis can allow for a drastic reduction in the consonantal inventory size. I do not regard the inventory size as a strictly “phonological argument”, but nevertheless as worth considering: it is related to the typological problem of the unique position of some Khoisan languages, such as !Xóõ, Ju|’hoansi and G|ui, in the world’s languages.
Another point made by Traill (ibid.: 209) in favor of cluster analysis is that the majority of click accompaniments, together with the second element of the non-click consonant sequences, always exist also as independent consonants. Cluster analysis can adequately describe this phonologically independent status of click accompaniments.
As will become clear in the following section, these two advantages of cluster analysis are both directly relevant for interpreting the G|ui consonants.
252 5.3.1.2 MCA vs. UA Table 5.10 compares MCA with UA that regards all the clicks with their accompaniments as single segments (referred to as “unit clicks” here). The click accompaniments of G|ui are presented with their broad phonetic transcriptions for the alveolar click in the table. Under UA, the clicks with accompaniments 1 to 13 are all interpreted as unit clicks, resulting in 52 click phonemes (i.e. 13 accompaniments by four influxes). Under MCA, the unit clicks are those with accompaniments 1 to 5, which I interpret as the clicks of the simple stop/nasal and the complex stop series, as described in Section 3.3 in Chapter 3. MCA deals with the clicks with accompaniments 6 to 13 as clusters, and this reduces the inventory size by 32 segments.
Table 5.10 Comparison of MCA with UA (interpretation of clicks) No. accompaniments broad phonetic MCA UA
1 voiceless velar plosive [k!] unit click unit click 2 voiced velar plosive [!] unit click unit click 3 velar nasal [!] unit click unit click 4 aspirated velar plosive [k!] unit click unit click 5 velar ejective [k!’] unit click unit click 6 uvular fricative [k!] /k!/+// unit click 7 affricated uvular ejective [k!q’] /k!/+/q’/ unit click 8 voiceless uvular plosive [k!q] /k!/+/q/ unit click 9 voiced uvular plosive [k!] /k!/+// unit click 10 aspirated uvular plosive [k!q] /k!/+/q/ unit click 11 unaffricated uvular ejective [k!q’] /k!/+/q’/ unit click 12 glottal plosive [k!] /k!/+// unit click 13 glottal fricative [k!h] /k!/+/h/ unit click
In addition to click consonants, there are four non-click consonant sequences that are directly relevant to the discussion on unit vs. cluster analysis, namely /t/ (/c/ in G|ui-
B), /ts/, /tq’/ (or /cq’/ in G|ui-B), and /tsq’/. They are interpreted as single segments under UA, while they are interpreted as consonant clusters under MCA, reducing the number of single segments by four, as shown in Table 5.11.
253 Table 5.11 Comparison of MCA with UA (non-click sequences) No. broad phonetic MCA UA 1 [t] /t/+// unit non-click 2 [tq’] /t/+/q’/ unit non-click 3 [ts] /ts/+// unit non-click 4 [tsq’] /ts/+/q’/ unit non-click
Regarding the downsizing of the consonantal inventory, it is obvious that MCA is advantageous in drastically reducing the number of consonants by 36 (32 clicks + 4 non- clicks). In addition to this advantage, MCA is better than UA in capturing the independent phonological status of the accompaniments of /k! k!q’ k!q k! k!q k!q’ k!h k!/ and the second elements of /t ts tq’ tsq’/. Under MCA, the identity between accompaniments 6 to 13, together with the second element of the four consonant sequences, and the independent consonants / q’ q q q’ h / can be expressed explicitly as their identical phonemic status, while under UA, the independent phonological status of the click accompaniments and the second element of the four consonant sequences cannot be captured. It should be recalled here that the identities between accompaniments of /k! k!q’ k!q k! k!q k!q’ k!/ and independent consonants / q’ q q q’ / are reflected in the click replacement attested in G||ana, as discussed in Section 3.4.1 in Chapter 3.
In terms of Traill’s two points, namely (i) the downsizing of the consonant inventory and (ii) the treatment of the independent phonological status of the accompaniments that occur as independent consonants, MCA is more advantageous than UA for interpreting the G|ui consonant system. In addition, there is another advantage of MCA for describing G|ui phonology.
254 As stated in Section 4.6.2 in Chapter 4, G|ui has a set of constraints on the occurrence of the front vowels, i.e. a version of the Back Vowel Constraint, as summarized in (1) and (2) below.
The Back Vowel Constraint of G|ui under MCA (Cq stands for a non-click uvular phoneme.)
(1) *Cq V[–back]
(2) *!/|| V[–back]
As mentioned in Chapter 4, “Cq” represents a non-click uvular consonant (whether it occurs as an independent consonant or a cluster offset), and that “!/||” stands for an apical click (of the non-cluster type). It should be noted that this statement is based on MCA. Under UA, a statement of the constraints on [–back] vowels would create a complication. First, in addition to “Cq” (i.e. six non-click uvular phonemes / q’ q q q’/), it would have to specify two classes of “uvular phonemes” that involve the constraint, namely the click “phonemes” with the uvular accompaniments and the four non-click “phonemes” /t ts tq’ tsq’/. Second, the click “phonemes” with non- uvular accompaniments would be sub-classified into two classes, i.e. those with apical influxes and those with laminal influxes, and the former involve the constraint, while the latter do not. Therefore, MCA is more advantageous than UA, because MCA can facilitate to state the constraints in a simpler way and expressing the behavior of uvular consonants and apical clicks more transparently than UA.
5.3.1.3 An alternative interpretation: radical cluster analysis To develop a discussion on the cluster analytic approach, I below introduce another cluster analysis that I refer to as radical cluster analysis (RCA). This cluster analysis is radical in the sense that it maximally extends the cluster interpretation of the clicks, so that it requires only one series of unit clicks. In order to confirm my position in favor of MCA, I explore the possibility of RCA, compare MCA with RCA, and discuss the relative merits of these two analyses.
255 The first task in introducing RCA is the choice of unit clicks. Table 5.12 compares the interpretations of the clicks and their accompaniments of G|ui between MCA and RCA.
RCA interprets the clicks with velar nasal accompaniment [| ! ] as unit clicks /|
! /, and the clicks with all the other accompaniments as clusters that consist of a unit click (one of /| ! /) followed by one of twelve independent non-click consonants. As I have mentioned in Section 3.2.1.2 in Chapter 3 (see Table 3.1), in
G|ui, there is a gap of the nasal consonant in the velar place, i.e. //. This is a systematic motivation to interpret nasal clicks as unit clicks: the nasal click series is the only series that cannot be interpreted as a cluster consisting of an alternative unit click followed by a velar consonant equivalent to posterior closure (e.g. an interpretation of
“/k!/ + //” is impossible because of the lack of //).
Table 5.12 Comparison between MCA and RCA No. accompaniments broad phonetic MCA RCA
1 voiceless velar plosive [k!] unit click /!/+/k/ 2 voiced velar plosive [!] unit click /!/+// 3 velar nasal [!] unit click unit click 4 aspirated velar plosive [k!] unit click /!/+/k/ 5 velar ejective [k!’] unit click /!/+/k’/ 6 uvular fricative [k!] /k!/+// /!/+// 7 affricated uvular ejective [k!q’] /k!/+/q’/ /!/+/q’/ 8 voiceless uvular plosive [k!q] /k!/+/q/ /!/+/q/ 9 voiced uvular plosive [k!] /k!/+// /!/+// 10 aspirated uvular plosive [k!q] /k!/+/q/ /!/+/q/ 11 unaffricated uvular ejective [k!q’] /k!/+/q’/ /!/+/q’/ 12 glottal plosive [k!] /k!/+// /!/+// 13 glottal fricative [k!h] /k!/+/h/ /!/+/h/
As presented in the right-most column of the table, under RCA, the clicks with accompaniments 1, 2, 4 and 5 are interpreted as having independent velar stop consonants /k k k’/ as the cluster offset. This interpretation can capture the phonological relation between these four click accompaniments and the equivalent independent velar consonants, which can be observed in the click replacement attested
256 in G||ana, i.e. /k! ! k! k!’/ in G|ui corresponds to /k k k’/ in G||ana (see Section
3.4.1). It also expresses explicitly that /k k k’/ [k k k’] are phonetically equivalent to the posterior closures of the clicks with accompaniments 1, 2, 4 and 5. The clicks with the remaining eight accompaniments, i.e. 6 to 13, are interpreted as having the uvular and the glottal consonants / q’ q q q’ h/ as the cluster offset, as are interpreted under MCA. In summary, under RCA, the click cluster onset is always the click of the nasal series, and the click cluster offset is always one of the velar, the uvular and the glottal consonants. Regarding the four non-clicks [t ts tq’ tsq’],
RCA interprets them as / t ts tq’ tsq’/ in the same manner as the MCA, just as shown in Table 5.11.
In order to output the correct surface forms of the cluster clicks (i.e. the clicks with accompaniments 1, 2 and 4 to 13 in Table 5.12), RCA requires two rules, which I call the “Devoicing Rule” and the “Denasalization Rule”. These two rules are summarized as in (1) and (2) below (C
(1) Devoicing Rule
If C
(2) Denasalization Rule
If C
The Devoicing Rule applies to the cluster clicks with accompaniments 1, 4 to 8, and 10 to 13. If C
5.12. The “orality” of C
“preserved” in the accompaniments 12 and 13, where C
257 Underlying /!/+/k/ /!/+/q/ /!/+// /!/+/h/
Devoicing !k !q irrelevant !h
Denasalization k!k k!q ! irrelevant
Surface [k!] [k!q] [!] [!h]
Note that the nasal venting involved in the surface form of /!/+/h/ is transcribed with
[], which is equivalent to the narrow transcription of [k] used under MCA. The transcription [] is motivated by the view of RCA that the nasal venting comes from the inherent nasality of the unit click (see (iii) in Section 5.3.1.4). It should be added that RCA requires a certain phonetic rule that accounts for the immediate release of the cluster offset of /k k k’/, which is distinct from the relatively delayed release of the cluster offset of /q q q’ q’ h /. Thus, the forms after Devoicing and
Denasalization, i.e. k!k, !, become [k!] and [!] on the surface.
5.3.1.4 Four points in favor of RCA Let us now compare this RCA with MCA. First, I summarize three points that support RCA more than MCA below.
(i) Inventory size The first relatively simple point concerns the reduction of the consonantal inventory size. Table 5.13 compares the consonantal inventory size of G|ui under UA, MCA and RCA. It is obvious from this comparison that RCA leads to an extreme downsizing of the consonantal inventory. MCA can also solve the Khoisan anomaly in the way that the 53-segment inventory is much smaller than that of Ubykh, the purported largest non-Khoisan inventory, falling within the range of non-Khoisan inventory, but RCA can reduce the inventory size more dramatically.
258 Table 5.13 Consonant inventory size under UA, MCA and RCA UA MCA RCA
Click 52 20 4 Non-click 37 33 33 Total 89 53 37
(ii) Extension of the independent phonemic status of accompaniments The second point concerns capturing the independent status of click accompaniments in the description. RCA interprets not only accompaniments 6 to 13, which MCA interprets as cluster offsets, but also accompaniments 1, 2, 4 and 5 as independent consonants /k k k’/. All the accompaniments that also exist as independent regular consonants, i.e. the velar, the uvular, and the glottal consonants, can be dealt with as single segments under RCA, while not all of them can under MCA.
(iii) Explanation of the nasal venting involved in accompaniments 12 and 13
The final point concerns the explanation of the nasal venting involving the two accompaniments, 12 and 13, which I described in Section 3.3.3.3 in Chapter 3. (Recall that nasal venting is represented in the narrow phonetic transcription by using a tilde as in [k| k! k k k|h k!h k h k h] under MCA.) As observed earlier, similar nasal venting is also attested in other Khoisan languages, such as Nama (Ladefoged and Traill 1984) for accompaniments 12 and 13, and !Xóõ (Traill 1991) and Ju|’hoansi (Traill 1992) for accompaniment 13.
Here arises the question of why they involve nasal venting. Where does the nasality come from? Ladefoged and Traill (1984) and Traill (1991, 1992) describe the phonetic mechanism of the nasal venting in accompaniment 13 in Ju|’hoansi, !Xóõ and Nama, by which the “aspiration” in accompaniment 13 sounds distinct from the aspiration in accompaniments 4 and 10 (see Section 3.3.3.3 in Chapter 3). This can answer how nasality functions in accompaniment 13, but cannot answer where it is from, and the question still remains for accompaniment 12.
259 Under RCA, the nasality of both the accompaniments can be explained in a different manner, namely, the nasality comes from the cluster onset, i.e. /| ! /, which is inherently nasal. Thus, cf. /!/+/h/ [!h], /!/+// [!] (/!/ [] is accounted for by the Devoicing Rule presented in Section 5.3.1.3).
5.3.1.5 Problems of RCA
The preceding section listed three points, in which RCA seems more advantageous than MCA regarding, (i) inventory size, (ii) the phonemic status of the accompaniments, and (iii) the treatment of the nasal venting involved in accompaniments 12 and 13. However, RCA causes difficult problems that MCA does not, as I discuss below.
The first problem is related to denasalization. The denasalization involved in RCA is an assimilatory process involving [–nasal] spreading. From a cross-linguistic point of view, this process seems unusual because assimilation involving nasality “refer(s) to [+nasal]...never to the opposite value” according to Steriade (1995: 148-9). RCA is problematic because it creates a new case of peculiar nasal assimilation, i.e. spreading of [–nasal], in the world’s languages.
The second problem concerns the constraint on the consonants that occur in the cluster onset. Under MCA, the cluster onset is consistently a stop of the plain series whether it is a click or a non-click (see Section 3.4.2 in Chapter 3). In contrast, under RCA, the cluster onset is not consistent in terms of the series: it is a plain stop (/t ts/) in the non- click clusters, while it is a nasal click (/| ! /) in the click clusters. Accordingly, the Denasalization Rule and Devoicing Rule only apply to the click clusters, never to the non-click clusters. It is difficult to explain this asymmetry exhibited by RCA. Therefore, RCA is problematic in creating the distributional asymmetry of the cluster onset that requires the two ad hoc rules.
The final problem of RCA concerns the constraint on the vowel occurrence that a [–back] vowel does not occur immediately after the clicks with the apical influx [! ||], as shown below. (Note that this is one of the sets of two constraints stated in Section 4.6.2 in Chapter 4.)
260 *!/|| V[-back]
This constraint applies to the apical clicks with accompaniments 1 to 5, i.e. [k! ! ! k! k!’ k k k’]. Under RCA, these clicks are interpreted as /!k ! !
!k !k’ k k k’/. Note that except for [! ] /! /, the clicks are interpreted as having the cluster offset. Consequently, the vowel immediately following [k! ! k! k!’ k k k’] is phonologically interpreted as immediately following the velar stops /k k k’/. This is problematic because a [–back] vowel can occur immediately after the velar stops in G|ui, as I described in Section 4.6.2 in Chapter 4. Therefore, RCA complicates the statement of the constraint mentioned above: for example, the single constraint must be changed to two constraints below.
*!/|| V[-back]
*!/||Ck V[-back] (Ck represents a velar consonant.)
Considering the problems of RCA mentioned above, I conclude that MCA is more advantageous and less problematic than RCA for describing G|ui consonant system. As will become clear in the following sections, MCA can further work well not only for G|ui but also for other Khoisan languages.
261 5.3.2 Revision of Güldemann’s “cross-Khoisan consonant chart” By applying a cluster analytic framework to seven described Khoisan languages, namely, !Xóõ, Khomani, Ju|’hoansi, G|ui, Kxoe, Namibian Khoekhoe (i.e. Nama) and Sandawe, Güldemann (2001) attempts to capture the cross-Khoisan regularities of the consonant system. Important generalizations that he has made include (i) an implicational hierarchy of consonant subcategories, which he labels, “simple”, “complex” and “cluster”, and (ii) the constraints on the cluster onset and the cluster offset. Summarizing his cluster analytic interpretations of the seven Khoisan languages, he proposes a “cross-Khoisan consonant chart” (ibid. 40).
In Sections 3.3.3.3, 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 in Chapter 3, I discussed the disagreements between Güldemann’s cluster analysis and MCA in the phonological interpretation of five click accompaniments of G|ui, and I argued that MCA can more adequately describe G|ui phonology. In this section, I explore the implications of MCA for Güldemann’s cross- Khoisan generalizations (i) and (ii) mentioned above. My re-interpretations by MCA concerning the consonant systems of !Xóõ, Khomani, Ju|’hoansi, Kxoe, Nama and Sandawe, i.e. six out of the seven sample Khoisan languages except G|ui, are presented in Tables I to VI in the appendix of this thesis.
First, regarding (i), Güldemann argues that his cluster analysis reveals an important hierarchy of Khoisan consonants in terms of the three types as follows.
simple > complex > cluster
He makes two observations on cross-linguistic frequency: first, “the complex and cluster consonants imply the existence of simple consonants” (ibid.: 39); second, “clusters only occur if the segments classified as complex also exist” (ibid.: 41). However, the implication of “simple > complex” in terms of cross-linguistic frequency cannot be confirmed by the data he provides. All seven Khoisan languages that he has examined have both simple and complex consonants under his interpretation (ibid. Tables 4 to 10), as summarized in Table 5.14. In other words, there is no difference in
262 the cross-linguistic frequency between the simple type and the complex type. This observation does not change if the consonant systems of the seven languages are interpreted by MCA.
Table 5.14 Cross-Khoisan frequency of the three types of consonants under Güldemann’s interpretation. “+” means that the type exists, and “–” means that it does not Simple Complex Cluster
Six Khoisan languages + + +
Sandawe + + –
With regard to the implicational relation between the complex type and the cluster type, Sandawe is the only example that indicates the complex type is cross-linguistically more frequent than the cluster type. However, if Sandawe is interpreted by using MCA (see Table IV in the appendix), it will no longer be obvious evidence for the implication of “complex > cluster”. Sandawe has two click series of the non-simple type, which
Güldemann (ibid.: 37) transcribes as “/’ |’ !’/” and “/ | !/” and interprets as the complex type (i.e. “Plain+Gl” and “Plain+As”, respectively). Under MCA, the former should be interpreted as the plain+// series, rather than the ejective velar series, because it involves non-ejective glottalization and nasal venting (Elderkin 1992, Wright et al. 1995), like the plain+// series of G|ui. On the other hand, the latter should be interpreted as the aspirated velar series, rather than the plain+/h/ series, because it does not involve features expected for the plain+/h/ series, such as nasal venting and gradual increase in oral airflow (Wright et al. 1995). Consequently, under MCA, Sandawe has consonants of all the three types, i.e. the simple type, e.g. /t d k! g!/, the complex type, e.g. /t ts’ k!/, and the cluster type, e.g. /k!/.∗ As far as cross-linguistic frequency is concerned, there is no evidence for the implicational hierarchy of “simple > complex > cluster” that Güldemann proposes under the MCA interpretation.
∗ It should be noted, however, that this attempt to establish the cluster type for Sandawe bears a problem when discussing cluster offset (see Section 5.3.2).
263 In addition to the Khoisan cross-linguistic frequency, Güldemann points out as evidence for the implicational hierarchy that first, the simple type is “usually also more frequent in the lexicon” than the complex and the cluster types (ibid.: 39), and second, the complex type is “usually also more frequent than clusters in the lexicon of individual languages” (ibid.: 41). As he mentioned in a footnote (ibid.: 39), however, there are exceptions to the first observation, i.e. Sandawe and Nama. A further investigation of the lexical frequency of specific Khoisan languages is a topic to be explored in future research based on MCA interpretation.
Regarding Güldemann’s generalization (ii) mentioned above, the constraints on the cluster onset and offset require a reconsideration in some respects if MCA is used to interpret cross-Khoisan consonantal regularities. I start the discussion by comparing Güldemann’s “cross-Khoisan consonant chart” in Table 5.15 and its MCA version in Table 5.16. Both tables show only the parts relevant to the discussion here. Identical sounds are represented in the same transcriptions between the two tables.
The revision of the cross-Khoisan consonant chart is summarized as follows. First, under Güldemann’s interpretation, //, /q’/ and /q’/ (i.e. systematically a voiced counterpart of /q’/) are regarded as velars, as shown in the column labeled “EGR Vl” (i.e. egressive velar) in Table 5.15. Accordingly, Güldemann’s labels for the related stop clusters contain velar symbols for cluster offsets, i.e. /x/ and /k(x)’/. In contrast, under MCA, //, /q’/ and /q’/ are regarded as uvular consonants, just as reflected in their transcriptions and the labels of their columns “EGR Uv” (i.e. egressive uvular) and “EGR Uv-Af” (i.e. egressive uvular affricated). Accordingly, the related stop clusters are labeled with uvular symbols, i.e. // and /q’/.
Second, the clicks with glottal plosive accompaniment (/k!/) and the clicks with velar ejective accompaniment (/k!’/) have replaced each other in Tables 5.15 and 5.16, and accordingly, their phonological interpretations have changed as reflected in the labels in the left-hand column (from “Plain+Gl” to “Plain+//” for /k!/; from “Plain+/k’/” to
“Voiceless ejective” for /k!’/). Similarly, /k!h !h / and /k! !/ have replaced each
264 other, changing their phonological interpretations as reflected in the labels in the left- hand column.
Third, the clicks with the voiced uvular plosive accompaniment are interpreted by Güldemann as “Voiced+/q/” as seen in Table 5.15. In contrast, they are interpreted as the plain+// series under MCA as seen in Table 5.16.
Finally, since Güldemann (2001) does not provide for the possibility that a cluster offset can be voiced independently from the cluster onset, his chart does not present one series of the stop cluster that is included in the revised version in Table 5.16, namely, the plain+// series. This series is attested in !Xóõ for three click clusters originally transcribed by Traill (1994) as “|qh [|qh]”(p.64), “!qh [!qh]”(p.89) and “qh [qh]” (p.119). In Güldemann’s chart, these clicks are neutralized into “Voiced+/kh/”.
265 Table 5.15 Güldemann’s cross-Khoisan consonant chart. EGR and IGR stand for “egressive” (i.e. non-click) and “ingressive” (i.e. click), respectively. Lb is labial, Al is alveolar, Al-Af is alveolar affricate, Pl is palatal, Vl is velar, Uv is uvular, and Gl is glottal. For a clearer comparison with Table 5.16, some transcriptions have been replaced by my transcriptions in the following way: c, j , x, !k!, tcc, dj, ’ (glottal plosive), h (aspiration), k(x)’k’/q’, g(x)’q’, gqh, x’q’, G! k!, n! !, nh! !, ’n! !, ng . The clicks occur in nineteen series, and they are illustrated only for the alveolar click. His original table includes four more columns for the other clicks ( | ) in the same nineteen series. The gray areas are relevant for the revision
EGR EGR EGR EGR IGR EGR EGR EGR Lb Al Al-Af Pl Al Vl Uv Gl Fricatives Plain f s h Voiced v z Simple stops Plain p t ts c k! k q Voiced b d dz ! Complex stops Plain + Gl t’ ts’ c’ k! k’/q’ q’ Voiced + Gl dz’ ’ q’ Plain + As p t ts c k!h k q Voiced + As b d dz !h Stop clusters Plain + /x/ t ts c k! Voiced + /x/ d dz ! Plain + /k(x)'/ pq’ tq’ tsq’ k!q’ Voiced + /k(x)'/ dq’ dzq’ !q’ Plain + /k/ k! Voiced + /k/ ! Plain + /q/ k!q Plain + /q/ k!q Voiced + /q/ k! Plain + /k’/ k!’ Plain + /q’/ k!q’ Simple nasals Plain m n ! Voiceless ! Complex nasals Plain + Gl m n !
266 Table 5.16 A revised version of the cross-Khoisan consonant chart. Non-nasal sonorants are irrelevant for the discussion and omitted here. The clicks are illustrated only for the alveolar influx. EGR and IGR stand for “egressive” and “ingressive” respectively. The gray areas are relevant for the revision. This table includes the “Plain+//” series (which is attested in !Xóõ for three click clusters originally transcribed by Traill (1996) as “|qh [|qh]”(p.64), “!qh [!qh]”(p.89) and “qh [qh]” (p.119), but it is not listed and neutralized into “Voiced+/kh/” in Güldemann’s interpretation
EGR EGR EGR EGR IGR EGR EGR EGR EGR Lb Al Al-Af Pl Al Vl Uv Uv-Af Gl Fricatives Plain f s h Voiced v z Simple stops Plain p t ts c k! k q Voiced b d dz ! Complex stops Voiceless ejective t’ ts’ c’ k!’ k’ q’ q’ Voiced ejective dz’ ’ q’ Voiceless aspirated p t ts c k! k q Voiced aspirated b d dz ! Stop clusters Plain + // t ts c k! Voiced + // d dz ! Plain + /q’/ pq’ tq’ tsq’ k!q’ Voiced + /q’/ dq’ dzq’ !q’ Plain + /q/ k!q Plain + // k! Plain + /q/ k!q Plain + // k! Plain + /q’/ k!q’ Plain + /h/ k!h Voiced + /h/ !h Plain + // k! Simple nasals Plain m n ! Voiceless ! Complex nasals Glottalized nasal m n !
267 Important aspects of the constraints on the cluster onset and offset that I discuss here are reflected in the labels of the series of stop clusters seen in the left-hand columns in Tables 5.15 and 5.16. Under Güldemann’s interpretation, the cluster onset is restricted to a “+anterior” (i.e. labial or coronal) simple stop, and the cluster offset is restricted to a “+posterior” (i.e. velar or uvular) obstruent (i.e. stop or fricative) (ibid.: 21). Under the MCA interpretation, the cluster onset is restricted to a labial or coronal simple stop, and the cluster offset is restricted to a uvular or glottal consonant. This difference is summarized in Table 5.17.
Table 5.17 Comparison of the constraints on the cluster onset and offset between Güldemann’s (2001) interpretation and the MCA interpretation Cluster onset Cluster offset Güldemann labial or coronal velar or uvular simple stop obstruent MCA labial or coronal uvular or glottal simple stop consonant
Concerning the cluster onset, the two interpretations seem to have the same constraint, but they differ in the distribution of the [+/–voiced] distinction. Under Güldemann’s interpretation, in all seven sample languages, G|ui would be the only exceptional case where the [+/–voiced] distinction is found in the cluster type (namely, only in the clicks with voiceless/voiced uvular plosive accompaniment) but not found in the complex type. In the other six languages, the [+/–voiced] distinction exists either in all the three types, as in !Xóõ and Ju|’hoansi, or only in the simple type, as in the other four languages, as summarized in Table 5.18. Here arises the question of how this asymmetry in G|ui can be explained. Note that this asymmetry does not agree with the implicational hierarchy proposed by Güldemann, either. In addition, there is another question of why the distinction involves only the clicks with voiceless/voiced uvular plosive accompaniment in the cluster type.
268 Table 5.18 Distribution of the [+/–voiced] distinction in the cluster onset across the three types under Güldemann’s (ibid.) interpretation. “+” means the distinction occurs, and “–” means that it does not Simple Complex Cluster !Xóõ and Ju|’hoasi + + + G|ui + – + The other languages + – –
Under the MCA interpretation, these questions do not arise. The clicks with voiceless/voiced uvular plosive accompaniment are interpreted as having the clicks of the plain (i.e. [–voiced]) series as the cluster onset. As noted in Section 3.3.3.3 in Chapter 3, the voice-lead involved in clicks with voiced uvular plosive accompaniment is interpreted as a phonetic detail, i.e. anticipatory coarticulation of the click offset //, rather than un underlying feature of the cluster onset. Consequently, G|ui exhibits the same distribution of the [+/–voiced] distinction as the languages other than !Xóõ and Ju|’hoasi. This indicates that the [+/–voiced] distinction in the complex and the cluster types implies the distinction in the simple type, which agrees with the implicational hierarchy proposed by Güldemann (ibid.).
Regarding the [+/–voiced] distinction in the cluster onset, there is another cross-Khoisan regularity revealed under the MCA interpretation. It is observed that on the one hand, in !Xóõ and Ju|’hoansi, the [+/–voiced] distinction is involved in both the click cluster onset and the non-click cluster onset, and on the other hand, in the other languages, the [+/–voiced] distinction is involved neither the click cluster onset nor the non-click cluster onset, as summarized in Table 5.19. There are no languages in which the [+/–voiced] distinction is attested in either only the click cluster onset or only the non- click cluster onset. Note that under Güldemann’s interpretation, G|ui is the only exception where the [+/–voiced] distinction is involved only in the click cluster onset.
It should be mentioned here that Khomani may be a questionable case if what Doke
(1936) transcribed as [!] and [|] are phonologically interpreted as clicks of the
269 voiced+/h/ series. However, since the phonemic status of [!] and [|] is unclear as Güldemann (ibid.: 27) states, I do not treat this issue any further at this stage.
Table 5.19 Distribution of the [+/–voiced] distinction in the cluster onset across the clicks and the non-clicks under the MCA interpretation. “+” means the distinction occurs, and “–” means that it does not Cluster onset Click Non-click !Xóõ and Ju|’hoansi + + The other languages – – Unattested – + Unattested + –
Regarding the constraint on the cluster offset, Güldemann’s interpretation and the MCA interpretation differ in the place and the manner of articulation, and consequently, they differ in gaps that they cause.
Table 5.20 Cluster offsets and independent velar and uvular obstruents under Güldemann’s (ibid.) interpretation (after Tables 4 to 10). “–” indicates a gap. The transcriptions are changed to those used in Table 5.15. Note that he interprets / q’ q’/ as velar consonants Attested cluster offsets Independent obstruents Velar Uvular Velar Uvular !Xóõ – – k’ k – q – q q’ k k’ k q q q’ q’ – – q’ q’ G|ui – – k’ k q – q q’ k k’ k q q q’ q’ q’ Kxoe – – k’ k q k k’ k q q’ q’ Ju|’hoansi – – k’ k – unattested k k’ k unattested q’ q’ Khomani – – k’ k unattested k k’ k unattested q’ q’ Nama – – unattested k k unattested Sandawe – – – – unattested k k’ k unattested – Table 5.20 compares attested cluster offsets and the predicted cluster offsets (i.e. the independent velar and uvular obstruents) for the seven languages under Güldemann’s
270 interpretation. From this comparison, it is observed that /k q’ / never occur as a cluster offset. In addition, Sandawe also has gaps in cluster offsets for /k’ k /. These gaps in the cluster offset inventory are not explained in Güldemann (ibid.).
If the attested cluster onsets and the predicted cluster offsets (i.e. the independent uvular and glottal obstruents) are compared for each language under the MCA interpretation, a remarkable agreement between them is observed. Except for /q’/ in !Xóõ and / h/ in Sandawe, which occur only as independent consonants, all the uvular and glottal consonants occur both as independent consonants and as cluster offsets, as illustrated in Table 5.21.
Table 5.21 Observed cluster offsets and the predicted cluster offsets (i.e. the independent uvular and glottal consonants) under the MCA interpretation. “–” indicates a gap Cluster offset Independent consonant Uvular Glottal Uvular Glottal !Xóõ q’ q q q’ h q’ q q q’ h – q’ G|ui q’ q q q’ h q’ q q q’ h Kxoe q’ q h q’ q h Khomani q’ h q’ h Ju|’hoansi, q’ h q’ h Nama h h Sandawe – – h
The gap for /q’/ in the cluster offset in !Xóõ may perhaps be explained by neutralization: if preceded by a voiced click, /q’/ and /q’/ may be neutralized into the click offset of what Traill (1994) transcribed as /kx’ |kx’ !kx’ kx’ kx’/.
271 The gaps for / h/ in the cluster offset in Sandawe are difficult to explain. However, Sandawe is spoken in eastern Africa, and has features that South African Khoisan consonants lack, such as a contrast between /r/ and /l/, a five-way contrast of non-click laterals /l tl d t’/, a three-way contrast of clicks that lacks the palatal influx, e.g. /k| k! k/. The gaps for / h/ in the cluster offset, therefore, may possibly be another non-South African Khoisan feature.
Concluding this section, I comment on a residual problem concerning cluster onset and offset. In exploring a cluster analysis of !Xóõ consonants, Traill (1985: 210) stated that “the clusters are of a highly restricted type, with an anterior [i.e. labial or coronal] consonant followed by one articulated further back”, and posed the question of whether the restriction is “too stereotyped for a cluster analysis”. To answer this question, he pointed out a similar type of consonant cluster attested in the Kartvelian languages, in which the second element is always posterior to the first element (ibid.: 210-211), suggesting that the !Xóõ consonant clusters may fall into the same type of consonant clusters as attested in the Kartvelian languages.
The consonant clusters observed in the seven sample languages under the MCA interpretation are all regarded as being of “a highly restricted type” in terms of the place of articulation, with a labial or coronal consonant followed by a uvular or glottal consonant. A typological investigation into the highly restricted Khoisan consonant cluster will have to be pursued in future research.
272 5.3.3 Miller-Ockhuizen’s (2003) unit analysis vs. MCA of Ju|’hoansi Miller-Ockhuizen (2003) has recently proposed the latest interpretation of the Ju|’hoansi consonants, assuming a unit analysis. In this section, I first outline important respects of her interpretation, and in the following sections I compare her interpretation with the MCA interpretation applied to Ju|’hoansi, and discuss the adequacy of the two interpretations.
There are two aspects of Miller-Ockhuizen’s (2003) interpretation that are important for our discussion here. One is her classification of Ju|’hoansi consonants occurring in the root-initial position, and the other is a phonological constraint attested in Ju|’hoansi, which she calls the “Guttural Co-occurrence Constraint”.
Tables 5.22 and 5.23 show her classification of Ju|’hoansi consonants. She primarily divides the consonants into two classes referred to as (i) the consonants “unmarked for release type” (ibid.: 17) and (ii) the consonants with “guttural release type” (ibid.: 20).
The division between the consonants “unmarked for [the] release type” and those with the “guttural release type” is essential for stating the “Guttural Co-occurrence Constraint” in her interpretation. This constraint can be summarized as follows: a sequence of a guttural consonant followed by a guttural vowel does not occur in Ju|’hoansi, as illustrated below.
*C[+guttural] V[+guttural]
(C[+guttural] and V[+guttural] represents a guttural consonant and a guttural vowel, respectively.)
In her definition, “guttural consonants” are the uvular fricative // and the glottal fricative // in Table 5.22 and all the consonants shown in Table 5.23, while “guttural vowels” are ten breathy vowels /i e a o u in en an on un /, ten glottalized vowels /ii ee aa oo uu iin een aan oon uun/, and four epiglottalized vowels /
n n/ (in her transcription, symbols with superscript “n” represent nasal vowels, and single glottalized vowel phonemes are represented by two identical vowel symbols with “” between them) (ibid.: 66).
273