Explorations in the Phonology, Typology and Grounding of Height Harmony in Five-Vowel Bantu Languages

Home , Kirundi, Vwanji language

Explorations in the phonology, typology and grounding of height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Humanities

2021

Stephen Nichols

School of ARts, Languages and CultuRes Contents

List of tables ...... 8

List of figures ...... 10

List of abbreviations ...... 13

Abstract ...... 14

Declaration ...... 15

Acknowledgements ...... 17

Epigraph ...... 20

1 Introduction ...... 21 1.1 General introduction ...... 21 1.2 Synopsis ...... 23 1.3 Structure of the thesis ...... 25

2 Descriptive background ...... 27 2.1 Introduction ...... 27 2.2 A brief introduction to vowel harmony ...... 28 2.3 Height harmony outside Bantu ...... 32 2.3.1 Metaphony in Romance ...... 33 2.3.2 Old Norwegian ...... 34 2.3.3 Buchan Scots ...... 35 2.3.4 English-based creoles of the Pacific ...... 36 2.3.5 Colloquial Iranian Persian ...... 38 2.3.6 Lhasa Tibetan ...... 38

2 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

2.3.7 Menominee ...... 40 2.3.8 Jingulu ...... 41 2.3.9 Esimbi ...... 42 2.4 Introduction to the Bantu languages ...... 43 2.4.1 General background information ...... 43 2.4.2 Vowel inventories ...... 44 2.4.3 Morphological overview ...... 46 2.5 Preliminaries to vowel harmony in Bantu ...... 46 2.5.1 Harmonic feature ...... 47 2.5.2 Direction of harmony ...... 47 2.5.3 Domain of harmony ...... 47 2.5.4 Transparency and opacity ...... 48 2.5.5 Canonical vowel harmony ...... 49 2.6 A survey of vowel harmony in Bantu ...... 49 2.6.1 Tonga (M.64) ...... 50 2.6.2 Yao (P.21) ...... 52 2.6.3 Mbunda (K.15) ...... 52 2.6.4 South Kongo (H.16a) ...... 53 2.6.5 Mbukushu (K.333) ...... 54 2.6.6 Kikamba (H.112a) ...... 56 2.6.7 Punu (B.43) ...... 57 2.6.8 Nyamwezi (F.22) ...... 58 2.6.9 Rangi (F.33) ...... 59 2.6.10 Kikuyu (E.51) ...... 59 2.6.11 Nyakyusa (M.31) ...... 60 2.6.12 Kisi (G.67) ...... 61 2.6.13 Kinga (G.65) ...... 62 2.6.14 Matumbi (P.13) ...... 62 2.6.15 Ndendeule (N.101) ...... 64 2.6.16 Nande (D.42) ...... 65 2.6.17 Mongo–Nkundo (C.61) ...... 67 2.6.18 Koyo (C.24) ...... 68 2.6.19 Zulu (S.42) ...... 69 2.6.20 Venda (S.21) ...... 72

3 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

2.6.21 Sotho (S.33) ...... 74 2.6.22 Phuthi (S.404) ...... 76 2.7 Historical considerations of vowel harmony in Bantu ...... 78 2.7.1 The vowel inventory of Proto-Bantu ...... 78 2.7.2 An overview of the diachrony of vowel harmony in Bantu . . 81 2.7.2.1 An initial review ...... 81 2.7.2.2 Verbal extensions ...... 82 2.7.2.3 Hyman’s (1999) “peripheralisation” account . . . . 83 2.7.2.4 Evidence from the Kikongo Language Cluster . . . 86

3 Theoretical background ...... 88 3.1 Introduction ...... 88 3.2 Previous analyses ...... 89 3.2.1 Underspecification ...... 90 3.2.2 Elements ...... 91 3.2.3 Positional faithfulness ...... 94 3.2.4 Contrastive hierarchy ...... 99 3.3 Particular issues ...... 102 3.3.1 Asymmetry ...... 103 3.3.2 Peripheral vowels ...... 105 3.3.3 Lexical category ...... 106

4 Vowel-pair frequency study ...... 109 4.1 Introduction ...... 109 4.2 Background information ...... 111 4.3 Lexical statistics, phonetic naturalness and phonotactics ...... 114 4.4 Methodology ...... 115 4.4.1 Data sources ...... 115 4.4.2 Data processing ...... 116 4.4.3 Data analysis ...... 117 4.5 Results and discussion ...... 119 4.5.1 Non-harmonic vowel pairs ...... 120 4.5.1.1 Results ...... 120 4.5.1.2 Discussion ...... 123 4.5.2 Non-low vowel pairs (same backness) ...... 124

4 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

4.5.2.1 Results ...... 124 4.5.2.2 Discussion ...... 128 4.5.3 Non-low vowel pairs (different backness) ...... 130 4.5.3.1 Results ...... 130 4.5.3.2 Discussion ...... 133 4.5.4 Low–non-low vowel pairs ...... 134 4.5.4.1 Results ...... 134 4.5.4.2 Discussion ...... 136 4.5.5 General discussion ...... 137 4.6 Summary ...... 138

5 Phonotactics in Lozi ...... 140 5.1 Introduction ...... 140 5.2 Methodology ...... 141 5.3 Results ...... 142 5.4 Initial discussion ...... 145 5.5 Exceptions ...... 147 5.5.1 In verbs ...... 147 5.5.2 In nouns ...... 149 5.5.3 Summary ...... 152 5.6 Vowel epenthesis ...... 152 5.6.1 Epenthesis in borrowings ...... 153 5.6.2 Epenthesis in native vocabulary ...... 156 5.6.3 Perspectives on epenthesis in loan words ...... 157 5.6.4 Epenthesis as compromise ...... 159 5.6.5 Epenthesis and weak versus full vowels ...... 163 5.6.6 Summary ...... 166 5.7 Further discussion and implications ...... 167 5.7.1 Environments where [o.u] can occur ...... 167 5.7.2 On prosodic structure ...... 169 5.7.3 On morphological structure ...... 171 5.8 Summary ...... 172

6 Production experiment ...... 173 6.1 Introduction ...... 173

5 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

6.2 Languages of study ...... 174 6.3 Vowel-to-vowel coarticulation and vowel harmony ...... 176 6.4 Rule scattering ...... 179 6.5 The present experiment ...... 180 6.6 Methodology ...... 183 6.6.1 Stimuli ...... 183 6.6.2 Participants ...... 184 6.6.3 Data collection ...... 185 6.6.4 Forced-alignment and measurement extraction ...... 185 6.6.5 Post-processing ...... 189 6.6.6 Statistical methods ...... 190 6.7 Results ...... 191 6.7.1 Summary ...... 192 6.7.2 Bemba ...... 194 6.7.2.1 Statistical models ...... 194 6.7.2.2 Further data exploration ...... 200 6.7.3 Nyanja ...... 202 6.7.3.1 Statistical models ...... 202 6.7.3.2 Further data exploration ...... 208 6.7.4 Lozi ...... 209 6.7.4.1 Statistical models ...... 209 6.7.4.2 Further data exploration ...... 215 6.8 Initial discussion ...... 217 6.8.1 Bemba ...... 217 6.8.2 Nyanja ...... 218 6.8.3 Lozi ...... 219 6.9 Further discussion ...... 220 6.9.1 Front versus back height harmony ...... 220 6.9.2 Notes on [e.u] and [e.o] ...... 224 6.9.3 Vowel-pair frequencies and differences in F1 ...... 224 6.9.4 Height harmony and the coarticulation of F1 ...... 227 6.9.5 A note on the F1 of the low vowel ...... 228 6.10 Summary ...... 229

7 General discussion ...... 231

6 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

7.1 Introduction ...... 231 7.2 Correlates of markedness ...... 232 7.3 Nasal–plosive clusters and nasal place assimilation ...... 233 7.4 Bantu height harmony ...... 235 7.4.1 Reviewing the present evidence ...... 235 7.4.2 Implications for grounding ...... 236 7.4.3 Interim summary ...... 240 7.4.4 Typology, language history and formal analysis ...... 240 7.4.5 On markedness in formal accounts ...... 240

8 Conclusion ...... 243

References ...... 246

A Stimuli used in chapter 6 ...... 304 A.1 Bemba ...... 304 A.2 Nyanja ...... 308 A.3 Lozi ...... 314

Word count: 66,984

7 List of tables

1 Vowel inventory of Degema ...... 29 2 Vowel inventory of Proto-Bantu ...... 78 3 Summary of Bantu Spirantisation ...... 80 4 Alternative vowel inventory of Proto-Bantu ...... 81

5 The six-language sample of five-vowel Bantu languages ...... 111 6 Data sources taken from the Comparative Bantu OnLine Dictionary . 115

7 Intervening segments in simple Lozi nouns containing [o.u] in Lozi . 152

8 Harmonic and non-harmonic vowel pairs in Bemba, Nyanja and Lozi 176 9 Contrasting properties of phonological and phonetic rules ...... 177 10 Contrasting properties of vowel harmony and vowel-to-vowel coarticulation ...... 178 11 Summary of expected differences in the F1 of non-low vowels inBe- mba, Nyanja and Lozi should coarticulation mirror harmony . . . . . 181 12 Details of participants for production experiment ...... 184 13 Snippet from the head of the custom Bemba vocabulary file for SPPAS 186 14 Snippet from the head of the custom Bemba dictionary file for SPPAS 187 15 By-speaker formant settings used in Praat ...... 189 16 Summary for key vowel pairs of the results from the statistical models compared to the expectations based on the height harmony system of each language ...... 193 17 Fixed effects for the model concerning expected difference inF1 Bemba ...... 195 18 Fixed effects for the model concerning the effect of left-hand vowel on F1 in Bemba ...... 197

8 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

19 Fixed effects for the model concerning the effect of right-hand vowel on F1 in Bemba ...... 199 20 Fixed effects for the model concerning expected difference inF1 Nyanja ...... 203 21 Fixed effects for the model concerning the effect of left-hand vowel on F1 in Nyanja ...... 205 22 Fixed effects for the model concerning the effect of right-hand vowel on F1 in Nyanja ...... 207 23 Fixed effects for the model concerning expected difference in F1inLozi 211 24 Fixed effects for the model concerning the effect of left-hand vowel on F1 in Lozi ...... 212 25 Fixed effects for the model concerning the effect of right-hand vowel on F1 in Lozi ...... 214 26 Summary of the results from the statistical models compared to the expectations based on the overall results of the vowel-pair frequency study ...... 226

9 List of figures

1 Observed counts for non-harmonic vowel pairs in verbs ...... 120 2 Observed frequencies for non-harmonic vowel pairs in verbs . . . . . 121 3 Observed–expected ratios for non-harmonic vowel pairs in verbs . . 121 4 Observed counts for non-harmonic vowel pairs in nouns ...... 122 5 Observed frequencies for non-harmonic vowel pairs in nouns . . . . 122 6 Observed–expected ratios for non-harmonic vowel pairs in nouns . . 123 7 Observed–expected ratios for [i.i], [i.e], [e.e] and [e.i] in nouns . . . . 124 8 Observed–expected ratios for [u.u], [u.o], [o.o] and [o.u] in nouns . . 125 9 Pooled observed frequencies (left) and observed–expected ratios (right) for [e.e] and [e.i] in nouns ...... 126 10 Pooled observed frequencies (left) and observed–expected ratios (right) for [o.o] and [o.u] in nouns ...... 126 11 Pooled observed frequencies (left) and observed–expected ratios (right) for [e.i] and [o.u] in nouns ...... 127 12 Pooled observed frequencies (left) and observed–expected ratios (right) for [i.e] and [u.o] in nouns ...... 128 13 Observed–expected ratios for [e.u] and [e.o] in nouns ...... 131 14 Pooled observed frequencies (left) and observed–expected ratios (right) for [e.u] and [e.o] in nouns ...... 131 15 Observed–expected ratios for [o.i] and [o.e] in nouns ...... 132 16 Pooled observed frequencies (left) and observed–expected ratios (right) for [o.i] and [o.e] in nouns ...... 133 17 Observed–expected ratios for [a.i] and [a.e] in nouns ...... 134 18 Pooled observed frequencies (left) and observed–expected ratios (right) for [a.i] and [a.e] in nouns ...... 135

10 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

19 Observed–expected ratios for [a.u] and [a.o] in nouns ...... 135 20 Pooled observed frequencies (left) and observed–expected ratios (right) for [a.u] and [a.o] in nouns ...... 136

21 Observed counts for all vowel pairs in Lozi (facetted by part of speech) 142 22 Observed counts for all vowel pairs in Lozi (facetted by part of speech and harmonicity) ...... 143 23 Observed–expected ratios for all vowel pairs in Lozi ...... 144 24 Observed and expected rank–frequency distributions for all vowel pairs in Lozi ...... 145 25 Rank–frequency distribution for consonant graphemes in nouns in Lozi 161 26 A core—periphery structure illustrating the portions of a lexicon in which particular phonological restrictions are active ...... 164

27 The life cycle of phonological processes in a feedforward modular architecture ...... 179 28 A portion of a TextGrid produced by SPPAS ...... 188 29 Effects plot for the interaction of Vowel and Change_expected in Bemba ...... 196 30 Effects plot for the interaction of Vowel and Vleft in Bemba . . . . . 198 31 Effects plot for the interaction of Vowel and Vright in Bemba . . . . 200 32 F1 of [i] and [u] in non-final and final positions according to left-hand vowel in Bemba ...... 201 33 F1 of [o] in non-final and final positions according to left-hand vowel in Bemba ...... 201 34 F1 of [o] according to right-hand vowel in Bemba ...... 202 35 Violin plots of F1 of [i], [u], [e] and [o] in change-expected and non- change-expected environments (top pane) and final and non-final positions (bottom pane) in Nyanja ...... 204 36 Effects plot for the interaction of Vowel and Vleft in Nyanja . . . . 206 37 Effects plot for the interaction of Vowel and Vright_height in Nyanja 208 38 F1 of [u] in non-final and final positions according to left-hand vowel in Nyanja ...... 208

11 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

39 F1 of [o] according to left-hand vowel in Nyanja ...... 209 40 F1 of [e] and [o] according to right-hand vowel in Nyanja ...... 209 41 Effects plot for the interaction of Vowel and Change_expected in Lozi 210 42 Effects plot for the interaction of Vowel and Vleft in Lozi ...... 213 43 Effects plot for the interaction of Vowel and Vright in Lozi . . . . . 215 44 F1 of [e] and [o] in non-final and final positions according to left-hand vowel in Lozi ...... 216 45 F1 of [e] in initial and non-initial positions according to right-hand vowel in Lozi ...... 216

12 List of abbreviations

1 first person intR intransitive 2 second person loc locative 3 third person m masculine acc accusative nom nominative an animate pl plural dat dative pRet preterite du dual sg singular f feminine tR transitive imp imperative

13 Abstract

Vowel harmony is extremely widespread among the Bantu languages (see e.g. Cle- ments 1991; Hyman 1999; Odden 2015). In this thesis, I present an investigation of progressive vowel height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages using quantitative and experimental data, the results of which contribute to our understanding of the grounding of phonological patterns and have implications for synchronic formal analyses. A defining aspect of height harmony in Bantu is the asymmetric behaviour of front and back vowels. Though this is characteristic of the “canonical” variety of height harmony (after Hyman 1999), a front–back asymmetry is also seen in many non-canonical systems of height harmony. Certain non-canonical languages can even be seen to lack front height harmony but not back height harmony. To explore this and further issues, I present a study of vowel-pair frequencies in canonical Chewa, Kalanga and Yao and non-canonical Pende, Lozi and Makhuwa in which alternations due to height harmony are found only with verbal extensions. Here, I concentrate on vowel pairs in nouns. In general, pairs considered non-harmonic in height harmony were not necessarily under-represented in nouns, though this was the case in specific instances. For example, both [e.i] and [o.u] are under-represented in nouns; however, [o.u] was consistently more under-represented than [e.i]. This is reminiscent of the typological observation that though certain Bantu languages exhibit only back height harmony, none are known to possesses only front height harmony (Hyman 1999: 245). Together, these facts suggest that the avoidance of these pairs is particularly well motivated but more so for [o.u] than [e.i]. In addition, I argue that, upon closer examination, though alternations are only seen in verbs, Lozi in fact shows a wider-ranging phonotactic prohibition against [o.u] alone and that other gaps in verbs are synchronically accidental rather than phonotactic. This is followed by a production experiment carried out with speakers of canonical Bemba and Nyanja and non-canonical Lozi which investigated the potential effects of vowel-to-vowel coarticulation on F1 in relation to harmony. The results show that, overall, differences in F1 due to coarticulation do not echo the alternations ofheight harmony. In the case of [e.i] and [o.u], the production experiment does not fully align with the frequency study. Though there was evidence for lowering of [i] after [e],the evidence for lowering of [u] after [o] was weaker, thus showing an asymmetry inthe opposite direction to both the typology and findings of the frequency study. The combined results of these studies may be seen either as suggesting thatthe grounding for progressive height harmony is perceptual rather than articulatory or that the coarticulatory processes that could have given rise to harmony belong to the phonetics of a previous stage of such Bantu languages and that this has since changed. Additionally, the results show how it can be informative to employ a whole- language approach when analysing a language’s phonology as this can provide further details not found in data pertaining only to a particular process which are key to the system as a whole.

14 Declaration

I declare that no portion of the work referred to in this thesis has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of learning.

15 Copyright statement

i. The author of this thesis (including any appendices and/or schedules tothis thesis) owns certain copyright or related rights in it (the “Copyright”) and s/he has given the University of Manchester certain rights to use such Copyright, including for administrative purposes. ii. Copies of this thesis, either in full or in extracts and whether in hard or electronic copy, may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended) and regulations issued under it or, where appropriate, in accordance with licensing agreements which the University has from time to time. This page must form part of any such copies made. iii. The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trademarks and other intellectual property (the “Intellectual Property”) and any reproductions of copyright works in the thesis, for example graphs and tables (“Reproductions”), which may be described in this thesis, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such Intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions. iv. Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and commercialisation of this thesis, the Copyright and any Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions described in it may take place is available in the Univer- sity IP Policy (see http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/DocuInfo.aspx?DocID= 24420), in any relevant Thesis restriction declarations deposited in the Uni- versity Library, the University Library’s regulations (see http://www.library. manchester.ac.uk/about/regulations/) and in The University’s policy on Present- ation of Theses.

16 Acknowledgements

Ὧν ἡ σοφία παρασκευάζεται εἰς τὴν τοῦ ὅλου βίου μακαριότητα, πολὺ μέγιστόν ἐστιν ἡ τῆς φιλίας κτῆσις.∗

Ἐπίκουρος Κύριαι Δόξαι

Writing a PhD thesis is, I’m sure, never an easy undertaking and the journey from initial proposal to final document rarely straightforward. As the completion ofthis particular thesis happened to coincide with a pandemic, it’s safe to say that, in the end, my own journey was a little rockier than I first anticipated. Having said that, looking back on the past few years, I’m filled with tremendous joy and gratitude not only for the experiences I’ve been fortunate enough to have along the way but also for the fact that I’ve shared this time with friends, colleagues and family members who have been a constant source of encouragement and entertainment. First of all, I would like to thank my supervisors, Wendell Kimper and Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero. As well as giving me indispensable direction and advice regarding the content of my work, Wendell has provided me with incredible moral support without which it would have been many times more difficult for me to get over the finish line. I’m also exceptionally grateful to Ricardo for various enlightening discussions on both work related to my PhD and other academic projects. His enthusiasm and insights have been great driver over the years. In addition to Wendell and Ri- cardo, I would also like to thank Yuni Kim. Though a part of my PhD supervisory

∗ Of all things that wisdom provides for living one’s entire life in happiness, the greatest by far is the possession of friendship. — Epicurus, Principal Doctrines.

17 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages team for only a relatively short time at the beginning, she played an important role in my growth as a researcher from as early on as the first semester of my master’s course.

As mentioned above, my time at Manchester was made so enjoyable by those friends and colleagues I was lucky enough to spend my time with. Foremost among these are the regular denizens of the Phonetics Lab. I began my PhD at the same time as Stefano Coretta and he has since become a great friend. Not only have we engaged in a great many good-natured debates on linguistics and subjects beyond but I have also derived great enjoyment from our time and conversations together that have had little to do with academia. His support and encouragement—especially during more covidious times—have been invaluable to me and I am hugely grateful. I would also like to thank George Bailey, Donald Alasdair Morrison, Deepthi Gopal, Henri Kauhanen, Fernanda Barrientos Contreras, Jane Scanlon, Kaiyue Xing and Sarah Mah- mood for making the lab such a warm and inviting place as well as a venue for productive discussions of linguistics and—more often than you’d expect—typography (as well as the occasional game of ping-pong). Thanks go to Deepthi, George and Henri for also collaborating with me on work alongside the PhD that arose out of such discussions.

I must also express my gratitude to other fellow PhD students from LEL. Thank you to Hannah Booth, Mary Chioti, Juliette Angot, Massimiliano Canzi, Chris Hicks, Roisin Cosnahan and Nicole Rajan-Brown for bringing the department to life. Thank you also to Khoi Nguyen for many hours of enjoyable and invigorating conversation that would invariably continue until well after the sun had gone down. I would like to thank various current and former members of staff from LEL. In particular, George Walkden for his friendship and being essentially ever-present at pub quiz (whether in real life or online) and Patrycja Strycharczuk in her capacities as independent panel member, course leader on courses for which I TAed, lab director and friend. Thanks are also due to Andrew Koontz-Garboden, Eva Schultze-Berndt, Andrea Nini, Vera Hohaus and others for making the department a better place to work. Thank you also to everyone from the SALC postgraduate football group.

I owe my thanks to everyone involved with running the various conferences, workshops and talks such as mfm, ACAL, OCP, LAGB, BAAP, FiNo and NWAV that I was able to attend and present at during my PhD, all of which were edifying experiences. In the same vein, I am grateful to fellow conference-goers for feedback on

18 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages the work I presented, further intellectual discussion and much conviviality, including but definitely not limited to Míša Hejná (with whom I also briefly overlapped at Manchester), Jade Jørgen Sandstedt and Laura Downing. I also cannot fail to thank my participants as well as those involved with CBOLD, without whom this thesis would not have been possible, SALC for funding the first three years of my PhD studies, Julie Fiwka for her swift and calm replies to my questions as well as occasionally checking in during the final stages of the write-up, Nancy Kula and Will Bennett for agreeing to assess my thesis and Martina Faller for acting as independent chair. Outside of academia, I would like to thank Tim Jones and Alex Jones (no relation) for our regular meet-ups since we all went our separate ways after leaving Bristol, Rob and Kasia Myatt for their friendship and hosting me on my trips to London, the late Mick Scanlon for his hospitality on my visits to Reading and Neil Wood and Jack Mitchell for keeping me sane during lockdown with our Football Manager sessions. Also deserving of a huge amount of gratitude on my part are my family, my par- ents John and Judith and brother Thomas, who were vital sources of love and support throughout the programme but particularly when needed most in the final stretches of writing up. Finally, last, but most certainly not least, I would like to thank my partner, Leo. I’m extraordinarily lucky to have her in my life. For more than a decade now, she has been unfailingly caring, inspiring and supportive. Especially during the past few months, whether I have simply been somewhat overwhelmed or even in the depths of despair, she has been there for me. Obrigado por me apoiares, por me melhorares como pessoa e por partilhares a tua vida comigo.

19 Mtaka cha mvunguni sharti ainame. ‘The one wanting what’s under the bed has to stoop.’

Swahili pRoveRb (McGrath & Marten 2003: 186)

20 cHapteR 1

Introduction

Připadalo mi najednou, že každý tah na šachovnici je starý a byl už kdysi někým hrán.∗

Karel Čapek Válka s mloky

1.1 General introduction

Vowel harmony—roughly, the agreement of vowels occurring within some domain for a particular feature or features—is an extremely widespread phenomenon among the Bantu languages (see e.g. Clements 1991; Hyman 1999; Odden 2015 and also chapter 2). In this thesis, I focus specifically on the systems of progressive vowel height harmony that are to be found in the five-vowel languages of the family, providing an investigation that makes use of quantitative and experimental data. Vowel harmony manifests itself in various particular ways throughout the Bantu languages; however, one aspect that pervades the family is the asymmetric behaviour of front and back vowels, with front and back vowel harmony frequently being regarded as separate processes both in descriptions but also even in some formal analyses. Such an asymmetry is a trait which characterises the prevalent “canonical” variety of harmony (see e.g. §§2.5.5, 2.6.1 and 2.6.8). This can be illustrated with examples from Kisa (E.32), a Bantu language spokenin western Kenya by approximately 35,000 people, which has the five-vowel inventory

∗ It suddenly seemed to me that every move on the board was old and had been made by someone before. — Karel Čapek, War with the Newts.

21 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

/i u e o a/. This has previously been used as an exemplar of canonical Bantu vowel harmony by, for instance, Hyman (1999: 238), Nevins (2010: 131) and Rose & Walker (2011: 253). The same data used by these authors—originally from Sample (1976)—are reproduced in the examples below. Firstly, front vowel harmony is demonstrated in (1) with the applicative suffix. It can be seen that this contains a front unrounded vowel which surfaces as mid [e] when the preceding vowel is mid /e o/ but as high [i] elsewhere.

(1) a. -βis-il-a ‘hide for’ b. -fuːng-il-a ‘lock for’ c. -rek-el-a ‘set a trap for’ d. -tsom-el-a ‘pierce for’ e. -βaːmb-il-a ‘spread out for’

Back height harmony, in contrast, is more limited in Kisa. As seen in (2), the transitive reversive suffix, for example, surfaces with a mid back rounded [o] after /o/—butnot /e/—and with a high back rounded [u] following all other vowels—including /e/.

(2) a. -βis-ul-a ‘reveal’ b. -fuːng-ul-a ‘unlock’ c. -rek-ul-a ‘spring a trap’ d. -tsom-ol-a ‘pull out’ e. -βaːmb-ul-a ‘spread apart’

However, even those languages exhibiting non-canonical varieties of harmony more often than not display some sort of asymmetry concerning the roles of frontand back vowels in the system. In addition to this, a front–back asymmetry can be seen not only within individual languages but also across the wider typology. The most relevant such observation as far as this thesis is concerned is that there are languages which, though they possess back height harmony, lack front height harmony (Hyman 1999: 245). In order to investigate this and further issues, I provide a quantitative study of vowel-pair co-occurrence patterns in a six-language sample made up of Chewa, Kalanga, Lozi, Makhuwa, Pende and Yao, followed by a more in-depth consideration of Lozi in particular. This sample comprises both canonical and non-canonical languages in which alternations are typically seen only within the verb stem. I provide a

22 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages broader examination of the lexicon and explore the motivations that may in part account for the development, prevalence and persistence of particular features of asymmetric patterns height harmony. In addition to this, I present a production experiment carried out with speakers of canonical Bemba and Nyanja as well as non-canonical Lozi. Using the data collected in this experiment, I provide an acoustic analysis of the effects of vowel-to-vowel coarticulation on the first formant (F1), including in those vowel pairs deemed non- harmonic in many systems of height harmony. The results are considered not only with respect to each language’s harmony system but also in the light of the findings of the preceding vowel-pair frequency study with a discussion of what, taken together, these may tell us about the grounding of height harmony in Bantu.

1.2 Synopsis

Here, I provide a summary of the overall results, key points of discussion and general conclusions of the thesis. Previous work (e.g. Scullen 1992 on Chewa) has found that, though five-vowel Bantu languages with progressive height harmony may only display alternations within the verb stem, the restrictions seen on the co-occurrence of vowels is to a large extent echoed in nouns; however, certain other authors (e.g. Beckman 1997 on Shona) have described nouns as not being subject the same restrictions. In addition, work on lexical statistics has found evidence that languages may exhibit gradient counterparts to categorical processes such as alternations (e.g. Martin 2011), that such patterns are learnt more easily the more phonetically natural they are (e.g. Hayes & White 2013) and that such generalisations may facilitate the learning of corresponding alternations (e.g. Chong 2017). A study presented here of the frequencies of vowel pairs in a sample of six five- vowel languages revealed that only particular vowel pairs absent or highly infrequent in verbs due to height harmony are also under-represented in nouns. In the case of the pairs [e.i] and [o.u], both were under-represented but it was found that [o.u] was the more under-represented of these two pairs, both within and across languages. This suggests that the avoidance of these pairs is well motivated but that theavoid- ance of [o.u] is more robust than for [e.i]. This pattern is reminiscent of the fact that, across Bantu, there are languages that exhibit only back height harmony but no known Bantu language possesses only front height harmony (Hyman 1999: 245).

23 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

In addition, the results did not find any ubiquitous consistencies between the harmony system of a given language and the vowel pairs under-represented in nouns in that language with the sole exception of [o.u]. In addition to this, in a subsequent closer examination of Lozi, I argue that, though alternations are indeed only visible in verbs, there is a more pervasive phonotactic prohibition against [o.u] alone and that remaining gaps such as [a.o] and [e.o] in verbs are morphological and accidental.

Vowel harmony has been theorised to have its origins in the effects of vowel- to-vowel coarticulation (see e.g. Ohala 1994) and, since F1 is a crucial acoustic cue for vowel height, a production experiment was conducted to investigate the possibility that gradient patterns in F1 may to some degree mirror the categorical alternations within verb stems caused by height harmony. Furthermore, both the typological front–back asymmetry in Bantu noted above and the results of the frequency study suggest that back height harmony may be more well grounded than front height harmony. This might then also suggest that, if the grounding for height harmony istheef- fect of vowel-to-vowel coarticulation on the F1, greater effects on F1 may be found in non-harmonic back height harmony than non-harmonic front height harmony contexts. However, the results of the production study found only scant evidence that the effects similar to those of harmony were generally reflected in F1. There wassome evidence of [i] having a higher F1—and hence lower vowel height—following [e] but weaker evidence that the same could be said of [u] after [o]. This therefore suggests that the avoidance of [o.u] is not more well grounded than for [e.i] as far as vowel- to-vowel coarticulation is concerned and even that the opposite may be the case.

Following a brief review of traditional correlates of markedness, which include typological tendencies and associated phonetic difficulty, I argue that the combined results of these studies may be seen from the following two perspectives. First, they may be interpreted as being suggestive that the grounding for progressive height harmony is due to reasons of perceptual enhancement rather than any appreciable coarticulatory effects on F1. Second, they may be taken as an indication that the coarticulatory processes that may well originally have given rise to the present categorical patterns of alternations in height harmony belong to the phonetics of a previous stage of such Bantu languages and that this has since changed.

The results, especially those of the detailed consideration of Lozi, also bear oncon- siderations of approaches that may be taken to the analysis of phonological systems, especially those involving alternations. More specifically, they show how a whole-

24 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages language approach, rather than focusing solely on the particular process of interest, can supply additional and illuminating evidence that must be factored into our models of synchronic grammars, including the way in which markedness is integrated into formal accounts.

1.3 Structure of the thesis

This thesis is comprised of eight chapters, inclusive of the present chapter. Inthisfinal introductory section, I briefly review the contents of the remaining seven chapters. In chapter 2, I provide a predominantly descriptive-minded background for the subsequent chapters. This includes a brief introduction to the phonological process of vowel harmony as well as an overview of patterns of height harmony and height- related vowel assimilation processes that are to be found in languages of the world outside the Bantu family. This is followed by a concise general introduction tothe Bantu languages as well as summaries of certain aspects of the languages that are relevant to a discussion of their systems of vowel harmony. These sections are in turn followed by a broad-ranging survey of vowel harmony in various Bantu languages and, lastly, an overview of historical matters relating to vowel harmony. Next, in chapter 3, I first review certain previous approaches that have been taken to the formal theoretical analysis of height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages, namely Moto’s (1989) underspecification analysis, the way in which element-based frameworks have been applied to problem by Harris (1994) and Marten (1996), the positional-faithfulness- and positional-neutralisation-based account set in Optimal- ity Theory proposed by Beckman (1997) as well as more the recent treatment by Sandstedt (2018, 2019, 2020b) using a variant of the Dresherian Contrastive Hierarchy. This is followed by a discussion of the way in which particular issues central toheight harmony in Bantu relate to formal analyses such as those recounted in the preceding portion of the chapter. In chapter 4, I present a quantitative study of vowel-pair frequencies in six five- vowel Bantu languages, with a focus on the gradient frequencies in nouns of those vowel pairs that are considered non-harmonic in the context of height harmony as seen in the categorical alternations of verbal extensions. Following this, in chapter 5, I give a much more detailed examination of Lozi, one of the languages in the preceding chapter’s sample. In particular, I consider the

25 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages behaviour of the vowel pair [o.u], including, among other things, its role in vowel epenthesis. In chapter 6, I discuss a production experiment conducted with three five-vowel Bantu languages spoken in Zambia. The aim of this study is to investigate potential gradient effects on F1 due to vowel-to-vowel coarticulation that may reflect those categorical alternations observable elsewhere in the languages as well those similarities and differences with the overall results of the vowel-pair frequency study presented in chapter 4. In chapter 7, I provide a general discussion that considers the results of the preceding studies and the implications that the combined findings have for theories regarding the phonetic grounding of phonological patterns such as vowel harmony as well as the repercussions that taking a more holistic approach to the treatment of individual languages may have on formal analyses. This chapter also includes a prefatory discussion of sources of evidence for markedness and the particular case of nasal place assimilation in which different strands of evidence seem to accord. Finally, in chapter 8, I summarise the findings and conclusions of the thesis asa whole.

26 cHapteR 2

Descriptive background

Wer fremde Sprachen nicht kennt, weiß nichts von seiner eigenen.∗

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe Maximen und Reflexionen

2.1 Introduction

The principal aim of this chapter is to provide relevant background information pertaining to both vowel harmony and the Bantu languages for what is discussed in the following chapters. To this end, in §2.2, I first provide a short introduction to the concept of vowel harmony as well as a review of the various vocalic properties that are known to act as the harmonic feature in the world’s languages. As this thesis deals with vowel height harmony, I follow this in §2.3 with a typological sampling of height harmony patterns that can be seen in languages outside the Bantu family, partly to demonstrate that height harmony can indeed be found elsewhere, but also to show some of the variation in height harmony only seen in languages other than Bantu. Since the Bantu languages are also the focus of the thesis, in §2.4, I give an overview of the Bantu languages, including information regarding typical vowel inventories and morphological characteristics. Next, in §2.5, I give concise discussions of particular aspects of vowel harmony in Bantu, such as directionality and the defining traits of “canonical” vowel harmony systems. These notes effectively serveas

∗ He who does not know foreign languages knows nothing of his own. — Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Maxims and Reflections.

27 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages a preface to §2.6 that follows which attempts to satisfy not only the primary goalof this chapter given above but also a secondary goal, which is to provide a wide-ranging typological survey of the multifarious ways in which vowel harmony is reported as manifesting itself in the Bantu languages. This is intended to illustrate that, although I concentrate on a small number of languages and systems elsewhere in the chapters that follow, vowel harmony in Bantu nevertheless shows much variation beyond this. Finally, in §2.7, I present some historical background, which consists of discussions on the reconstruction of the Proto-Bantu vowel inventory and certain perspectives on the history vowel harmony in the Bantu languages.

2.2 A brief introduction to vowel harmony

Vowel harmony can be approximately defined as the phenomenon in which vowels occurring within a certain phonological, prosodic or morphological domain must all bear the same value or specification for one or more features. The presence ofinter- vening consonants between vowels does not typically affect the propagation of vowel harmony, though it may.1 The effects of vowel harmony in a language are typically seen not only in restrictions on which vowels are permitted to co-occur within the relevant domain but also in observable phonological alternations. In this section, I present a simple introductory example of vowel harmony from Degema before then enumerating the various different features which have been found to be active in the vowel harmony systems of the world’s languages. Degema—an Edoid (Niger–Congo) language spoken in Rivers State, Nigeria— exhibits a system of vowel harmony in which vowels agree for features relating to the configuration of the tongue root (Kari 1997, 2004, 2007). The language possesses ten vowel phonemes, which fall into two harmonic sets of five vowels each.2 As can be seen in Table 1 below, one set contains vowels that shown advanced tongue root (ATR) and others that show a retracted tongue root (RTR).3

1 Such as in backness harmony in Turkish (Clements & Sezer 1982), rounding harmony in Bashkir (Poppe 1964; van der Hulst & van de Weijer 1995) or complete harmony in Yucatec Maya (Krämer 1999, 2001, 2003). 2 The language also exhibits contrastive tone, with basic high and low tones as well asadown- stepped high tone. These are faithfully reproduced in the examples given here but do notfactor into the operation of vowel harmony. 3 Kari (1997) labels these sets “wide” and “narrow” whereas Kari (2004, 2007) refers to them as “expanded” and “non-expanded” (both sets of terms referring to the action of the pharynx during the vowels’ production; see e.g. Halle & Stevens 1969 et seq.). More generally, the terms “tense” and “lax” are also very often used instead of ATR and RTR.

28 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

ATR RTR Front Back Front Back

High i u ɪ ʊ Mid e o ɛ ɔ Low ə a

Table 1: Vowel inventory of Degema

Within “simple”—i.e. non-compound—words, vowels from these two harmonic sets cannot co-occur (Kari 1997: 7). Thus, we observe vowel harmony within roots oftwo or more syllables, finding roots such as /ɗerí/ ‘know’ and ́/kpukə/ ‘move like a maggot’ that contain only ATR vowels and /ɗarɛ/́ ‘pour’ and /kɪjɛ/́ ‘give’ with only RTR vowels. However, examples such as */kpuká/ or */kijɛ/,́ in which vowels from both harmonic sets co-occur, are not found in the language.4 However, the presence of vowel harmony is also evinced by active alternations. For example, Degema is a language—much like the Bantu languages—in which noun class prefixes are found and each has two alternants, an ATR variant andanRTR variant, determined by the quality of the vowel(s) in the noun to which it is attached (Kari 2007: 89). Examples of this are provided below in (3), with ATR prefixes in (3a–e) and RTR prefixes in3f ( –j).

(3) a. i-ní ‘name’ f. ɪ-fáɲ ‘belly’ b. ú-dóꜜnə́ ‘in-law’ g. ʊ-ɓɔ́ ‘hand’ c. e-ní ‘elephant’ h. ɛ-sʊ́ꜜwá ‘hoe’ d. o-dʒí ‘thief’ i. ɔ-ɗɛꜜ́ ɗɛ́ ‘chief’ e. ə́-ꜜɡbó ‘chewing sticks’ j. a-kɔ́ ‘canoe’

Likewise, the same alternations found in prefixes are also found with suffixes, as demonstrated by the data in (4).

(4) a. ɡim-ené ‘pin oneself’ e. ɗɪ-ɛnɛ́ ‘eat oneself’ b. o-ɗúꜜm-ə́m‘creator’ f. tʊ-βɪrɪj́ ‘burnt many times’ c. ɡbe-βiríj ‘go many times’ g. ʊ-ɡɛꜜ́ n-ám ‘looking’ d. u-ɓóꜜl-ə́m ‘holding’ h. ɔ-hɔ́ꜜr-ám ‘sharpener’ 4 With the exception, that is, of a handful of borrowed words, e.g. /bájbul/ ‘Bible’ rather than */bájbʊl/ and /básɪkóol/ ‘bicycle’ rather than */básɪkɔ́ɔl/.

29 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

For more detailed information on vowel harmony in Degema, see Kari (2007).5 In languages that exhibit vowel harmony, there are various features for which vowels must agree. Within a given language, vowel harmony may act along a only single featural dimension, though examples of systems in which two features are involved are not uncommon. For example, backness and rounding harmonies often co- occur. Systems in which three features are involved, however, are rather rare (Krämer 2003: 17). As already illustrated by Degema above, one such feature central to a vowel harmony system may be whether vowels are pronounced with an advanced or retracted tongue root. This is known as tongue root harmony (otherwise ATRorRTR harmony) and is most commonly found in the languages of Africa, especially the Niger–Congo and Nilo-Saharan families (Casali 2003, 2008, 2016).6 Some of the most notable instances of non-Bantu Niger–Congo languages exhibiting this are Yoruba (Archangeli & Pulleyblank 1989; Pulleyblank 1996; Orie 2001, 2003; van der Hulst 2012), Akan/Twi (Berry 1957; Clements 1981; Casali 2012; Kügler 2015), Pulaar (Para- dis 1992; Archangeli & Pulleyblank 1994), Wolof (Pulleyblank 1996) and the Jola languages (Sapir 1965; Ringen 1979; Bassène 2006; Tendeng 2007; Sagna 2008; Bassene 2012; Casali 2018); Maasai (Baković 2001; Quinn-Wriedt 2013), Kalenjin (Hall et al. 1974; Lodge 1995) and Turkana (Noske 1995; Baković 2001) are examples of Nilo- Saharan languages with tongue root harmony. Instances of Bantu languages that possess tongue root harmony, such as Nande (§2.6.16) and Zulu (§2.6.19), can be seen in §2.6. Tongue root harmony is also found in a small number of Afro-Asiatic languages, such as Luo (Swenson 2015) and Tangale (Jungraithmayr 1971; Kidda 1993) as well as the Dogon languages, e.g. Bondu-so (Hantgan & Davies 2012; Green & Hantgan 2019; Sandstedt 2020a). Though most common in Africa, it also found away from thecon- tinent. Perhaps the most well-known case is Khalkha Mongolian (Svantesson 1985; Svantesson et al. 2005), with further such examples being Tungusic languages (Li 1996; Dresher & Zhang 2005; Ko 2012), Assamese (Mahanta 2007), Chukchi (Kenstow- icz 1979), certain varieties of Spanish (Hualde 1989), Nez Perce (Aoki 1966; Zwicky 1971; Hall & Hall 1980), Yapese (Hung 1989) and Karajá (Ribeiro 2002, 2012). It has

5 See also Fulop et al. (1998) for a production and perception study on the acoustic correlates of the harmonic sets of vowels in the language. 6 Tongue root harmony was also formerly termed horizontal harmony (see e.g. Jakobson 1942; Aoki 1968).

30 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages even been suggested that Sumerian, spoken in Ancient Mesopotamia, had a variety of tongue root harmony (Smith 2007). Height is, of course, another feature that vowels may be required to agree. Much like tongue root harmony, height harmony is found in many languages in Africa. However, in this case, it is essentially limited to the Bantu languages and is compar- atively rare outside of Africa. Nevertheless, it does occur elsewhere. For examples of height harmony in non-Bantu and Bantu languages alike, see §§2.3 and 2.6 respectively. Backness is a relatively common featural dimension along which vowel harmony may operate.7 This is most widespread among the Turkic and Uralic languages. Ex- amples from Turkic are Turkish (Kabak 2011), Tuvan (Anderson & Harrison 1999; Harrison 2000), Kyrgyz (Hebert & Poppe 1963; Kara 2003), Turkmen (Clark 1998), Sakha (aKa Yakut; Krueger 1962), Bashkir (Poppe 1964) and Khakas (Anderson 1998).8 Among Uralic languages, it is found most famously in Finnish (Ringen & Heinämäki 1999; Välimaa-Blum 1999; Suomi et al. 2008) and Hungarian (Vago 1976; Clements 1977; Ringen 1978, 1980; Hayes et al. 2009) but also in and others such as Karelian (Zaykov 1999), Votic (Ariste 1968; Blumenfeld & Toivonen 2016), Khanty (Filchenko 2007) and Kamassian (Künnap 1999), though notably not Estonian (Asu & Teras 2009). Nevertheless, backness harmony is attested in certain languages outside of these families, such as Classical Mongolian and particular modern-day Mongolic languages; it is also reconstructed for Proto-Mongolic (Svantesson 1985; Juhanen 2003, 2012; Bir- talan 2003; Bläsing 2003). For yet more examples, see e.g. Linebaugh (2007: 147–54). As previously alluded to, backness harmony is often found alongside rounding (aKa labial) harmony, which, it seems, occurs only very rarely if ever on its own (Vago 1973; van der Hulst & van de Weijer 1995; Krämer 2003). In addition to various Turkic languages such as those named above, rounding harmony is also found in many Mongolic and Tungusic languages (Kaun 1995, 2004; Ko 2012). Beside which it can also be seen in, for example Lezgian (Haspelmath 1993: 48–9), Tunica (Haas 1940, 1946 in Odden 1991: 274–7) and a variety of Ewe (Westermann 1930; Clements 1974 in Odden 1991: 280). Additionally, one of the most well-known cases of “parasitic

7 Backness harmony is also sometimes called “palatal harmony” and is referred to as “gravity harmony” in earlier literature due to use of the feature [±grave] rather than [±back] (see e.g. Lightner 1965; Aoki 1968; Vago 1973). 8 Uzbek is seemingly unique among modern Turkic languages in lacking vowel harmony (Sjoberg 1963).

31 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages harmony” is found in Yawelmani Yokuts (Archangeli 1984; Cole & Trigo 1988; Cole 1995), where rounding harmony is parasitic on height. A somewhat rarer type of vowel harmony is complete harmony (aKa vowel copy). In such systems, rather than vowels having to agree in one or two features, say height or backness and rounding, they must agree for all vocalic place features. This is reported in, for example, Yucatec Maya (Krämer 1999, 2001, 2003), Ainu (Itô 1984) as well as in Kashaya (Buckley 1994) and Iraqw (Mous 1993). Rhoticity harmony (aKa rhotic vowel harmony) is a very rare variant of vowel harmony most famously attested in the recently-extinct language Yurok (Robins 1958; Garrett 2010). A second example of rhoticity harmony in the literature is Qiang, in which LaPolla & Huang (2003: 28–9, 35–6) report that the r-colouring of vowels plays a role in a more complex vowel harmony system.9 Lastly, nasal harmony may affect vowels and can be triggered by not only nasal vowels but also nasal consonants.10,11 This has been observed in various languages of South America such as Guaraní (Walker 1998, 1999b), Kamaiurá (Seki 2000; Nichols 2017), Maxakali (Gudschinsky et al. 1970; Wetzels 2009), Barasano (Smith & Smith 2006; Jones & Jones 1991; Peng 2000b) and Tuyuca (Barnes 1996) but also in languages spoken elsewhere in the world, e.g. Applecross Gaelic (Ternes 1973; van der Hulst & Smith 1982), Saraiki (Kula & Syed 2020), Sundanese (Robins 1957; Anderson 1972; Cohn 1990), Johore Malay (Onn 1980) and Kolokuma Ịjọ (Williamson 1965, 1987).

2.3 Height harmony outside Bantu

Here, I present a brief overview of various systems of height harmony and other height-harmony-like phonological phenomena—both progressive and regressive— found in the languages outside the Bantu family. Though the present selection is somewhat of a farrago—and is certainly incomplete—its intended purpose is to give a general idea of the kinds of height-related assimilatory vocalic process that are known to occur cross-linguistically. I include discussions of particular languages from the

9 See also Evans & Huang (2007) for details on vowel harmony in the Yadu dialect of Northern Qiang in particular. 10 Nasal harmony can also refer to agreement for nasality between consonants, as is found in various Bantu languages, e.g. Bemba (Kula 2002: 146–8), Lamba (Doke 1938; Odden 1994) and Yaka (Hyman 1995; Walker 2000). 11 Piggott & van der Hulst (1997) differentiate between “Type B” nasal harmony as being vowel harmony but “Type A” nasal harmony as being a segment-to-segment process involving both consonants and vowels alike.

32 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Italic, Germanic and Indo-Iranian branches of the Indo-European family as well as Lhasa Tibetan, Menominee, Jingulu and Esimbi of the Sino-Tibetan, Algic, Mirndi and Niger–Congo language families respectively. Examples of previous works that have included surveys of height harmony are Goad (1994), Parkinson (1996), Salting (1998a), Linebaugh (2007) and van der Hulst (2018).

2.3.1 Metaphony in Romance

Within the Romance languages, the phonological process of metaphony is a relatively common phenomenon, particularly among varieties spoken in Italy and Spain. Calabrese (2011: 2631) defines metaphony as a ‘process in which a vowel assimilates partially or total to the height of a following vowel.’ In the Lena variety of Asturian, which possesses the simple five-vowel inventory of /i u e o a/, a high vowel in a suffix causes visible alternations in preceding stressed non-high vowels (Hualde 1989). Thus, the masculine singular suffix /-u/, for example, causes raising of the mid vowels /e/ and /o/ to [i] and [u] respectively as well as raising of the low vowel /a/ to mid front [e].12

(5) a. [ˈninu] ‘child (m)’ c. [ˈɡetu] ‘cat (m)’ b. [ˈtsubu] ‘wolf (m)’

Compare this with the masculine plural and feminine singular forms of these same lexemes in (6) and (7) below, which take the marking /-os/ and /-a/ respectively, where the stressed vowels surface as mid and low vowels.

(6) a. [ˈnenos] ‘children (m)’ (7) a. [ˈnena] ‘child (f)’ b. [ˈtsobos] ‘wolves (m)’ b. [ˈtsoba] ‘wolf (f)’ c. [ˈɡatos] ‘cats (m)’ c. [ˈɡata] ‘cat (f)’

The same alternation is not observed in those items where the stressed vowel isun- derlyingly high, with a high vowel surfacing regardless of the context.

(8) a. [ˈfiu] ‘son’ (9) a. [ˈfios] ‘sons’ b. [ˈkubu] ‘pail’ b. [ˈkubos] ‘pails’

12 There is an interesting point of microtypological variation here which is that in the neighbouring Nalón Valley variety of Asturian, /ˈɡatu/ surfaces as [ˈɡotu] rather than [ˈɡetu] (Hualde 1989: 788).

33 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

In Romance languages with larger vowel inventories, metaphony may be sensitive to whether or not a given vowel is [+ATR] or [-ATR]. For example, in the metaphony system of Central Veneto, which has the vowel inventory /i u e o ɛ ɔ a/, only [+ATR] vowels are valid targets for raising following high vowels (Walker 2005: 921–31). Thus, the stressed [+ATR] mid vowels /e o/, seen in (10), are raised to [i u] respectively when followed by high /i/, shown in (11).

(10) a. [ˈbevo] ‘drink (1sg)’ (11) a. [ˈbivi] ‘drink (2sg)’ b. [ˈmovo] ‘move (1sg)’ b. [ˈmuvi] ‘move (2sg)’

However, underlying [-ATR] vowels /ɛ ɔ a/, seen in (12), remain unchanged when followed by high /i/, shown in (13).

(12) a. [ˈvɛtʃo] ‘old man’ (13) a. [ˈvɛtʃi] ‘old men’ b. [ˈtɔko]13 ‘piece’ b. [ˈtɔki] ‘pieces’ c. [ˈɡato] ‘cat’ c. [ˈɡati] ‘cats’

For more details on metaphony in Central Veneto, consult Walker (2005) and references therein. In addition to the two examples presented above, metaphony has also been documented in a number of other varieties of Romance languages such as Montañés or Pasiego Spanish (McCarthy 1982, 1984; Vago 1988; Dyck 1995; Majors 1998; Pi- card 2001) and various languages of Italy, such as Calvello (Gioscio 1985), North- ern Salentino (Calabrese 1985; Sluyters 1988), Pugliese (Calabrese 1988; Walker 2005), Grado (Maiden 1991; Walker 2005) and Servigliano (Nibert 1998) among others (see e.g. Maiden 1991; Torres-Tamarit et al. 2016). Vowel height harmony has similarly been described in varieties of Brazilian Portuguese (Bisol 1989; Hancin 1991; File- Muriel 2018).

2.3.2 Old Norwegian

Old Norwegian exhibits a system of vowel harmony in which high /i u/ are lowered to mid [e o] following most non-high vowel phonemes (see e.g. Hagland 1978; Rajić 1980; Johnsen 2003; Sandstedt 2017, 2018). This results in certain alternations. Consider, for

13 Note that this particular datum is not included in Walker (2005) but is inferred from the corresponding plural form and other masculine singular nouns provided in the same context.

34 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages example, the realisations of the dative singular and dative plural suffixes in (14) and (15) below.

(14) a. [ˈskip-i] ‘ship-dat.sg’ (15) a. [ˈskip-um] ‘ship-dat.pl’ b. [ˈhuːs-i] ‘house-dat.sg’ b. [ˈhuːs-um] ‘house-dat.pl’ c. [ˈseɡl-e] ‘sail-dat.sg’ c. [ˈseɡl-om] ‘sail-dat.pl’ d. [ˈorð-e] ‘word-dat.sg’ d. [ˈorð-om] ‘word-dat.pl’ e. [ˈmaːl-e] ‘matter-dat.sg’ e. [ˈmaːl-om] ‘matter-dat.pl’

There are, though, two exceptions to this, namely short ⟨æ ǫ⟩ in the normalised orthography. Despite the fact that these vowels are non-high, they are nonetheless followed by high- rather than mid-vowel allomorphs of alternating suffixes. Sandstedt (2017) claims that ⟨æ⟩ was most likely [ɛ] and ⟨ǫ⟩ most likely [ɔ]. These are the transcriptions used below in (16) and (17).

(16) a. [ˈsɛt-ti] ‘set-pRet.3sg’ (17) a. [ˈsɔðl-i] ‘saddle-dat.sg’ b. [ˈsɛt-tu] ‘set-pRet.3pl’ b. [ˈsɔð-ul] ‘saddle-acc.sg’

However, the long counterparts ⟨ǽ ǫ́⟩—realised as [æː ɒː] according to Sandstedt (2017)—do induce lowering, as shown in (18) and (19).

(18) a. [ˈsɛt-ti] ‘set-pRet.3sg’ (19) a. [ˈjɔrð-um] ‘earth-dat.pl’ b. [ˈsæːt-te] ‘reconcile-pRet.3sg’ b. [ˈtɒːr-om] ‘tear-dat.pl’

2.3.3 Buchan Scots

Buchan Scots has been reported to exhibit a unique pattern of vowel height harmony (Paster 2004: 361–70, from which the data below are taken; see also Fitzgerald 2002; Youssef 2010). Firstly, the vowel /i/ surfaces as [e] following non-high vowels both within a morpheme and also in suffixes such as -y and -ie, as can be seen in (20).

(20) a. [here] ‘hairy’ e. [lase] ‘lassie’ b. [mɛse] ‘messy’ f. [poste] ‘postie’ c. [hɜle] ‘hilly’ g. [rɔke] ‘rocky’ d. [hʌrte] ‘hurtie’

Following high vowels, however, /i/ surfaces faithfully as [i], as shown in (21) below.

35 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

(21) a. [piti] ‘pity’ d. [bjuti] ‘beauty’ b. [biki] ‘beakie’ e. [kuθi] ‘couthy’ c. [ʍili] ‘wheelie’ f. [husi] ‘housie’

What makes this system typologically unusual, however, is that harmony is blocked by intervening segments or clusters bearing no secondary articulation (e.g. palatalisation) or other features (e.g. labiality) that one might expect, theoretically speaking, to be visible in some way to harmony. Examples of such blocking in action are provided in (22).

(22) a. [hezi] ‘hazy’ e. [ladi] ‘laddie’ b. [bɛndi] ‘bendy’ f. [doɡi] ‘doggie’ c. [mɜnti] ‘minty’ g. [dɔdʒi] ‘dodgy’ d. [lʌmpi] ‘lumpy’

Dieth (1932: 72) and Paster (2004: 366) list the blocking segments as the voiced ob- struents /b d ɡ dʒ v z/ and those blocking clusters as /lt mp nt ŋk nd ɡl ntl ntr rdl mpt/. Paster (2004: 366) notes that ‘not all possible consonant sequences containing voiced stops are represented’ but that if they were they would also most likely cause blocking. She also remarks on the ‘interesting asymmetry’ that though nasal–voiceless obstruent and lateral—voiceless obstruent clusters block harmony, rhotic–voiceless obstruent clusters do not. As the description above suggests, Paster (2004) analyses this pattern as partial lowering height harmony (which is predicted to not exist by Parkinson 1996).14

2.3.4 English-based creoles of the Pacific

In many of the English-based creoles spoken in the Pacific region, the transitive suffix (derived from English him) that occurs on verbs often exhibits phonological alternations that are rather reminiscent of height harmony.15 Below I present a succinct review of this variation. In Bislama (Vanuatu), the transitive suffix is realised as -em after the non-high vowels /e o a/ but as -im after high unrounded /i/ and -um after high rounded /u/. This is illustrated in (23) below with data from Crowley (2004).

14 See Paster (2004: 400–2) for a proposal regarding the historical development of this supposedly phonetically unnatural state of affairs in the modern language. 15 See, for example, Meyerhoff (1996) among others for a discussion of this suffix in such languages.

36 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

(23) a. bitim ‘to hit’ d. holem ‘to hold’ b. jusum ‘to use’ e. harem ‘to hear’ c. tekem ‘to take’

In Pijin (Solomon Islands), the general pattern is similar to that seen in Bislama, as shown by the examples in (24) from Avram (2009).

(24) a. livim ‘to leave alone’ d. kolem ‘to call’ b. pulum ‘to pull’ e. lanem ‘to learn’ c. letem ‘to let’

However, following a root-final labial consonant -um may be found instead, regardless of the quality of the preceding vowel in the root (Avram 2009: 255).

(25) a. stepum ‘to trample’ c. hafum ‘to halve’ b. sopum ‘to soap’

In addition to this, there are also exceptions where -im may be found contrary to the generalisations above. For more details, see Avram (2009) and references therein. Note though that Avram (2009)—contra Jourdan & Selbach (2004)—argues that this allomorphy should not be considered vowel harmony proper. In Kriol (Northern Territory and Western Australia), the transitive suffix has the form -im after /i/ and -um after /u/—as in Bislama—but -am elsewhere (Hudson 1983).16

(26) a. kilim ‘to kill’ d. kolam ‘to call’ b. kukum ‘to cook, heat’ e. tjakam ‘to throw’ c. grebam ‘to take possession of’

Lastly, in Tok Pisin (Papua New Guinea), the cognate suffix is invariably realised as -im (Verhaar 1995: 22–4). Similarly, in Torres Strait Creole (aKa Broken), the cognate suffix is -e regardless of context (Shnukal 1988).17

16 However, that the vowel of the suffix is sometimes reduced to [ə](Hudson 1983: 162). 17 Except in the western dialect in which it becomes -i following stressed /i/ or /u/ respectively; thus, swipi ‘to sweep’ and suwi ‘to chew’ rather than swipe and suwe as in the eastern dialect (Shnukal 1988: 37).

37 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

2.3.5 Colloquial Iranian Persian

It has been reported that Iranian Persian (aKa Farsi) exhibits raising of mid vowels followed by high vowels in colloquial pronunciations (Toosarvandani 2004; Ro- hany Rahbar 2009).18 Thus, as illustrated in (27) below, the sequence /eCi/ is realised as [eCi] in formal speech but instead as [iCi] in the colloquial variety.

(27) a. [deviːst ~ diviːst] ‘two hundred’ b. [ɡeliːm ~ ɡiliːm] ‘a kind of rug’ c. [keliːd ~ kiliːd] ‘key’ d. [sebiːl ~ sibiːl] ‘moustache’ e. [zeɡiːl ~ ziɡiːl] ‘wart’

Likewise, /oCu/ is pronounced [oCu] formally but is realised as [uCu] colloquially, see (28) below.

(28) a. [foruːʃ ~ furuːʃ] ‘selling’ b. [hozuːr ~ huzuːr] ‘presence’ c. [soɢuːt ~ suɢuːt] ‘falling’ d. [vodʒuːd ~ vudʒuːd] ‘existence’ e. [xoruːs ~ xuruːs] ‘rooster’

It is worth noting, however, that Jones (2019) suggests that those changes in (27) and (28) may not in fact be assimilations but rather simply the result of the reduction of unstressed vowels (note that all examples above are iambic).

2.3.6 Lhasa Tibetan

Lhasa Tibetan exhibits three separate process of vowel harmony: raising, laxing (or lowering) and fronting (Sprigg 1961; Chang & Shefts 1964, 1968; Dawson 1980, 1985; Salting 1995, 1998a,b). For reasons of space, here I present only an overview of vowel raising. For a more complete picture of vocalic process in Lhasa Tibetan, consult the references cited above. All of the forms used here come from Salting (1998a: 82–4), who cites Nornang (1978).

18 Note that, in Iranian Persian, traditionally, underlying high /iː uː/ are long whereas mid /e o/ are short; however, this is seemingly a system in either transition or flux (see e.g. Toosarvandani 2004; Jones 2019). In the examples here, taken from Toosarvandani (2004) and Rohany Rahbar (2009), length marking has been included and regularised.

38 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

According to DeLancey (2003: 271), there are eight vowel phonemes /i y u e ø o ɛ a/ in Lhasa Tibetan, with the phonemic status of /ɔ/ as distinct from /o/ being unclear.19 These eight (or nine) underlying vowels give rise to a total of twelve-vowel surface vowels [i y u ɪ ɨ ʊ e ø o ɛ ɔ a] (Chang & Shefts 1968; Dawson 1980).20 In the romanisation used below, /y ø/ are written ⟨ü ö⟩ whereas all other vowels—though not consonants—use the same symbols as in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). Non-high vowels are raised in the context of higher vowels. For example, the future suffix -ki causes regressive raising which can affect any non-high vowel.

(29) a. rii-ki → riiki ‘will fall down’ b. phüü-ki → phüüki ‘will offer’ c. thuu-ki → thuuki ‘will meet’ d. šee-ki → šiiki ‘will get’ e. phöö-ki → phüüki ‘will flee’ f. kho-ki → khuki ‘will hear’ g. lɔɔ-ki → lʊʊki ‘will read’ h. nɛɛ-ki → nɪɪki ‘will sleep’ i. šaa-ki → šɨɨki ‘will leave’

Raising may also be found between the elements of compounds. However, it may apply either regressively or progressively. For example, if a root with high vowel follows one with a lower vowel, raising applies regressively, as in (30).

(30) a. tse-ṭhi → tsiṭi ‘bayonet’ b. lo-kü → lukü ‘history’ c. lɛɛ-ṭhi → lɪɪṭi ‘scaffold’ d. lɔɔ-qüü → lʊʊqüü ‘electric wire’ e. lha-jüü → lhɨjüü ‘heaven’

Conversely, if a root containing a high vowel precedes a root with a lower vowel then raising is progressive, as exemplified in (31) below.

19 Additionally, all vowels can occur as short or long oral vowels as well as long nasal vowels and words can be distinguished on the basis of tone (DeLancey 2003: 271–2). However, these distinctions do come into play in vowel raising (though Haller 1937 claims that tone is intertwined with harmony in Shigatse Tibetan). 20 The vowel [ɨ] is an allophone of /a/; it is transcribed as [ə]by Dawson (1980: 10) and Huang (2019: 2) with Nornang (1978: 108) and Salting (1998a: 71, 1998b: 394) preferring [ɨ]. In fact, Salting (1998a: 71) places it on the same level as [ɪ ʊ] in the vowel space, lower than cardinal [ɨ].

39 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

(31) a. mi-tshe → mitsi ‘human life’ b. pu-phɛɛ → pupɪɪ ‘hair and wool’ c. kii-tho → kiitu ‘hot water pot’ d. ci-thɔɔ → ciqtʊʊ ‘one-storey building’

As alluded to above, though these are the main characterises of raising in Lhasa Tibetan, there are further complications not touched upon here.

2.3.7 Menominee

Menominee (Algonquian, Algic; Wisconsin) has the vowel inventory /i u e o æ a/, with all vowel qualities also occurring as both phonemically short and long (Bloomfield 1962; Miner 1979).21 Note though that short high and mid vowels are neutralised to [ɪ ʊ] everywhere but before the laryngeal consonants /h ʔ/ (Oxford 2016: 2). For the sake of clarity of exposition, this is abstracted away from in the realisations below. The language exhibits a harmony system in which /e o/ are raised to [iu]bya following high vowel (Bloomfield 1962; Miner 1979). This is exemplified below in (32) and (33) with examples adapted from Oxford (2016: 3).

(32) a. /keːwæːw/ → [keːwæːw] ‘he goes home’ b. /keːwianæːw/ → [kiːwianæːw] ‘he takes him home’

(33) a. /piːtok/ → [piːtok] ‘when he brings it’ b. /piːtokuaq/ → [piːtukuaq] ‘when they bring it’

The low vowels, however, are neither subject to nor cause any changes in height.In addition to this, harmony is iterative, with /a(ː)/ being transparent but /æ(ː)/ being opaque, thereby blocking the propagation of harmony (Oxford 2016: 2–4).22

(34) a. /moːskamow/ → [moːskamow] ‘he emerges’ b. /moːskamit/ → [muːskamit] ‘if he emerges’ c. /neːcenæːniw/ → [neːcenæːniw] ‘my fellow man’

There does not appear to be a firm consensus in the literature on whether it isprefer- able to analyse vowel harmony in Menominee as height or tongue root harmony (see

21 According to Milligan (2000; see also Oxford 2016), vowel length does not play a role in the vowel harmony system of Menominee and claims to the contrary stem from an overly strong interpretation of Bloomfield’s (1962) description. 22 Note, however, that there are certain instances where /æ(ː)/ is in fact transparent to harmony (see Bloomfield 1962: 97 cited in Nevins 2004: 259).

40 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages e.g. Oxford 2016: 4–5 for an overview of this). For example, Archangeli & Pulleyblank (1994), Archangeli & Suzuki (1995), Milligan (2000), Nevins (2004, 2010) and Walker (2018) present tongue-root based analyses whereas Steriade (1987b), Cole (1987), Cole & Trigo (1988), Kimper (2011) and Oxford (2016) instead opt to analyse this as height harmony.

2.3.8 Jingulu

Pensalfini (1997: 96) remarks that ‘[v]owel harmony across morpheme boundaries within words is a common phenomenon in central Australia’ (see also Dixon 2002: 621–3).23 One such language in which this occurs is Jingulu, a Mirndi language of Central Australia that exhibits regressive low-vowel raising (Pensalfini 1997, 2002).24 Like the majority of Australian languages (Dixon 2002: 552), Jingulu possesses a three-vowel inventory of /i u a/ (Pensalfini 1997: 53). In the language, certain suffixes containing the high vowels /i u/ trigger iterative regressive raising of /a/to[i]. Examples of this in both nouns and verbs are shown in (35) below.

(35) a. bardarda-rni → birdirdirni ‘younger.brother-f’ ‘younger sister’ b. kunyarrba-rni → kunyirrbirni ‘dog-f’ ‘bitch’ c. ngaja-mindi-yi → ngijimindiyi ‘see-1du.incl-fut’ ‘we will see’ d. ngarrabaja-wurru-nu → ngirribijiwurrunu ‘tell-3pl-did’ ‘they told’

As seen in (36), the two high vowels are never altered by the presence of a different following high vowel in a suffix and the raising of /a/ is blocked when another underlying high vowel—identical or not to the trigger—is encountered.25

23 Though Pensalfini (1997, 2002) uses the term “vowel harmony”, Dixon (2002: 623), speaking more broadly, comments that ‘[t]he restricted and sporadic instances of vowel assimilation in Aus- tralian languages are best referred to simply as ‘vowel assimilation’, rather than as ‘vowel harmony’.’ 24 Van der Hulst & Smith (1985: §1) also discuss vowel harmony in Jingulu but Pensalfini (2002) raises potential concerns with their data; all data used here are taken from Pensalfini (2002). 25 Pensalfini (2002) analyses this as the regressive spread of [+high] from a triggering suffix which raises unspecified /a/ and is stopped by already-specified /iu/.

41 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

(36) a. ankila-rni → ankilirni ‘cross.cousin-f’ ‘female cross cousin’ b. ngamurla-rni → ngamurlirni ‘big-f’ ‘big (f)’

However, not all suffixes containing high vowels are able to trigger raising. Forex- ample, among others, in nouns, the feminine suffix -rni causes harmony but the ergat- ive suffix of the same form does not (compare (37a) below with (35a) above). Likewise, certain other nominal suffixes also fail to effect any change to preceding low vowels.

(37) a. bardarda-rni → bardardarni ‘younger.brother-eRg’ ‘younger brother’ b. jikaya-mbili → jikayambili ‘lake-loc’ ‘lake (loc)’ c. wawa-bila → wawabila ‘child-du.an’ ‘(two) children’

Note that this does not simply seem to be homonymy avoidance since both baba ‘older brother’ and biba ‘son’ are rendered as bibirni ‘older sister/daughter’ upon affixation of the feminine suffix. In verbs, according to Pensalfini (2002: 567), ‘only subject agreement markers and imperatives of motion or negative imperatives trigger harmony’. For further details on vowel harmony in Jingulu, consult Pensalfini (1997: 96–117; 2002).

2.3.9 Esimbi

Esimbi (Southern Bantoid, Niger–Congo; Cameroon) shows a highly typologically unusual pattern in the surface distribution of its vowels, namely that, prefixes display a greater number of height contrasts than roots (see e.g. Stallcup 1980a,b; Hyman 1988; Walker 1999a; Kalinowski 2009; Clements 2017: 72–6; van der Hulst 2018: 261– 3). This has been analysed as the “transfer” of underlying height contrasts inroots to prefixes which thereby leaves only high vowels to surface in roots. This isillus- trated in (38) and (39) with the noun class 9/10 prefix and verbal infinitive prefixes respectively using data adapted from Hyman (1988: 256, 258).26

26 Note that tone marking is omitted here. In the case of (38), a tonal contrast is used to distinguish between singular class 9 and plural class 10, though the vowel qualities involved are the same (see Hyman 1988: 258).

42 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

(38) a. /I-bi/ → [ibi] ‘goat’ e. /I-bə/ → [ebɨ] ‘cane rat’ b. /I-su/ → [isu] ‘fish’ f. /I-jɛsɛ/ → [ɛjisi] ‘hole’ c. /I-ɡbe/ → [eɡbi] ‘bush fowl’ g. /I-zɔ/ → [ɔzu] ‘snake’ d. /I-so/ → [esu] ‘hoe’ h. /I-tla/ → [ɛtlɨ] ‘place’

(39) a. /U-ri/ → [uri] ‘to eat’ e. /U-dzə/ → [odzɨ] ‘to steal’ b. /U-zu/ → [uzu] ‘to kill’ f. /U-rɛ/ → [ɔri] ‘to daub’ c. /U-se/ → [osi] ‘to laugh’ g. /U-hɔ/ → [ɔhu] ‘to knead’ d. /U-to/ → [otu] ‘to insult’ h. /U-ba/ → [ɔbɨ] ‘to come’

In these examples, following Hyman’s (1988) analysis, the prefixes /I-/ and /U-/ underlyingly contain archiphonemes that are unspecified for all features except [-back] in the case of /I/ and [+round] for /U/.

2.4 Introduction to the Bantu languages

In this section, I provide a short introduction to the Bantu languages in general, including condensed overviews of vowel systems and morphology in §§2.4.2 and 2.4.3 respectively. For more details on any of the aspects touched upon here, readers are urged to consult those sources cited as well as further references therein.

2.4.1 General background information

The Bantu languages are a sub-grouping of the Niger–Congo language family(Heine & Nurse 2000; Eberhard et al. 2020; Hammarström et al. 2020). The wider Niger–Congo family comprises approximately 1,500 languages, of which around 500 languages fall within the Narrow Bantu family.27 These 500 or so languages are spoken across avast contiguous area of sub-Saharan Africa that stretches from Cameroon in the north- west to southern Somalia in the north-east and South Africa in the very south of the continent (Bostoen & Van de Velde 2019). In this thesis, any references made to countries or regions in which a language is spoken, as well as figures for numbers of speakers, come from Ethnologue (Eberhard et al. 2020) unless otherwise stated.

27 The precise number may be higher or lower according to whether one is a “lumper” or a “splitter”. Ethnologue (Eberhard et al. 2020) and Glottolog (Hammarström et al. 2020) list 543 and 559 individual Bantu languages respectively. Marten (2020) gives an estimate of 450–500. Hammarström (2019) gives a total of 555 but remarks that ‘a more strict adherence to mutual intelligibility would likely yield a number on the order of 85% of this, i.e., approximately 472.’

43 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

An extensive bibliography of resources on Bantu languages containing more than 20,000 entries is Maho (2009a; see also the supplement Maho 2011). This includes grammars, dictionaries and journal articles on a variety of languages, e.g. Matumbi (P.13; Odden 1996), Lingala (C.30b/C.36d; Pashi & Turnbull 1994) and Chewa (N.31b; Harris 1994). Additionally, a large amount of data has already been collated and is available from the Comparative Bantu OnLine Dictionary (accessible at http://www. cbold.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr)—some of which will be made use of in chapters 4 and 5. As is standard practice, in this document, all Bantu languages are accompanied by an identifying Guthrie code, made up of an upper-case letter followed by a number and may also include a following lower-case letter to distinguish more finely between varieties in a language a cluster (e.g. M.63 for Ile or L.31a for Tshiluba). These are predominantly taken from Maho (2009b), which is largely based on Guthrie’s (1967–71) classification, though here I do not mark Tervuren’s “J zone” for the sake of concision. Certain languages may be seen in the literature with two codes, in such cases I provide both on the first citation. It should also be noted that these codes are geographic rather than phylogenetic in reference. For recent discussions of the (re)classification of the Bantu languages, see, for example, Maho (2003) and Philippson & Grollemund (2019). Lastly, regarding the names of Bantu languages, it is not uncommon for the same “languoid” to have more than one “glossonym” (after Cysouw & Good 2013). The endonyms for Bantu languages are typically formed using a noun class prefix such as ki-, chi- or isi- (e.g. Kiswahili, Chichewa or Isizulu). These are mostly omitted here. In general, I preserve such prefixes only when this appears to be very much the most commonly used English-language name (e.g. Kinyarwanda).28 Where a relatively commonly used alternative name for a language exists, I have included it (e.g. Pedi and Northern Sotho). However, I have generally not included more minor orthographic variants (e.g. Kwangari v. Kwangali).

2.4.2 Vowel inventories

The majority of modern Bantu languages have either a five- or seven-vowel inventory (Schadeberg 1994; Hyman 1999). Though the primary focus of this thesis is five-vowel Bantu languages in particular, I nevertheless include a brief overview of those vowel inventories found in the family at large.

28 Though in other cases, it is kept for the sake of differentiating similarly named languages, namely Kimbundu (H.21a) and Umbundu (R.11) both spoken in Angola and both also referred to as Mbundu (see §2.6.3).

44 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

For five-vowel systems, the inventory is typically transcribed as /i u e oa/;however, the quality of the mid vowels in the system may vary according to the language in question and /e o/ may range from [ɛ ɔ] through [e̞ o̞] to cardinal [e o] and even to [e̝ o̝] (see e.g. Maddieson & Sands 2019). Those seven-vowel inventories found in Bantu languages distinguish anaddi- tional level of height to five-vowel inventories and are typically transcribed either as /i u e o ɛ ɔ a/ and /i u ɪ ʊ ɛ ɔ a/. However, as Odden (2015) notes, ‘[i]n synchronic descriptions it is often difficult to assign the second-degree vowels ɪ ʊ firmly to canonical [ɪ ʊ] or to [e o]’ (see also discussion in Hyman 1999: 247–9).29 Certain Bantu languages have been documented as having more than seven vowel contrasts in their inventory. Maddieson & Sands (2019: Figure 3.7) provide the example of Bitam Fang (A.75; Gabon) which has the eight vowel inventory /i u e o ə ɛ ɔ a/ (see also Eton; A.71; Cameroon; Van de Velde 2008). Additionally, Khabanyane (1991) argues that Sotho (aKa Southern Sotho; S.32; South Africa, Lesotho) possesses the nine-vowel phonemic inventory /i u ɪ ʊ e o ɛ ɔ a/ as do Kutsch Lojenga & Waag (1994) for lesser-known Budu (B.332; DR Congo). Regardless of the number of vowels in the system, the low vowel is often phonetically central [ä], though it may vary slightly in its precise phonetic realisation. Here, I invariably write it as /a/ in any IPA transcriptions. In addition to quality, vowel length is a distinctive feature in a great many Bantu languages, though in some the occurrence of long vowels is conditioned or they may be restricted in their distribution (Maddieson & Sands 2019). However, to my knowledge, this does not affect the operation of vowel harmony in any Bantu language.30 Similarly, the overwhelming majority of Bantu languages exhibit phonemic tone— one notable exception being Swahili (Mpiranya 2015: 5)—and, though they may show complex tonal processes, I am not aware of any cases in which these directly interact with vowel harmony (see e.g. Kisseberth & Odden 2003; Hyman 2017; Marlo & Odden 2019 for overviews of tone in Bantu). Finally, nasalisation and even pharyn-

29 There is also evidence that, in at least one case, a modern seven-vowel Bantu language maybe undergoing a transition to a five-vowel system. Specifically, Lingala (C.30b; DR Congo) is traditionally described as having the seven-vowel system /i u e o ɛ ɔ a/ (Toporova 1994: 7; Meeuwis 1998: 8). However, it has been claimed that, in vernacular Kinshasa Lingala, the contrast between the high- and low-mid vowels is no longer maintained or is waning (see e.g. Campbell & King 2013: 965; Montingea 2006: 20; Bokamba 2012: 303; Kabasele 2016, 2018). 30 That said, it is not completely unheard of for vowel length to interact with vowel harmonyin some way. For example, in rounding harmony in Turkmen, all vowels are triggers and all vowels but /æː ɑː ɯː/ are valid targets, with the additional detail that /ɯ/ is also an invalid target when word-final (Clark 1998: 47–55; Tosun 1999).

45 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages gealisation, though uncommon, are also attested vocalic features in particular Bantu languages (Maddieson & Sands 2019).

2.4.3 Morphological overview

The morphology of the Bantu languages is based on prefixation and suffixation. Here I discuss only the two most central parts of speech, nouns and verbs. Underived nouns are typically composed of a stem and a noun class prefix and, in some instances, this may further be preceded by an “augment” or “pre-prefix” (Katamba 2003; Van de Velde 2019; Creissels submitted). Reconstructions of noun stems in Proto-Bantu usually have the shape CVCV and this is also common in the modern languages. Derived nouns are commonly created by suffixes attached to bases and this may also require the addition of a noun class prefix (Katamba 2003; Schade- berg & Bostoen 2019; Creissels submitted). In addition, locative forms may be constructed by way of prefixesSchadeberg ( & Bostoen 2019; Creissels submitted). The verb in Bantu is generally capable of taking on much more affixal material and typically has a structure such as that in (40) below (Nurse & Devos 2019; see also Nurse 2008: ch. 2).

(40) Initial-Subject-Negation-Tense/Aspect-Object≠Root-Extensions-Final-Suffix

As can be surmised from this, those slots in the template preceding the root are inflectional in nature. In both Proto-Bantu and modern languages, verb roots areoften of the form CVC. Verbal extensions are used to convey either valency-changing op- erations or otherwise serve derivational purposes (e.g. causative, applicative, reciprocal). The verb root and any following extension suffixes are of particular relevance in considerations of progressive vowel height harmony as this is where alternations are typically seen (see also §§2.5.3 and 3.3.3). The “Final” slot in (40) is occupied by a suffix often made up of a single vowel(Nurse 2008: 37–8). In addition to particular prefixes, this encodes information relating to tense, aspect and mood. The “Suffix” slot is often left unfilled but suffixes, or enclitics, in this position most commonlymark the plural of imperative forms but may have other functions (Nurse 2008: 39).

2.5 Preliminaries to vowel harmony in Bantu

Before providing a survey of various patterns of harmony in §2.6, I first give some brief prefatory notes on particular aspects of vowel harmony in the Bantu languages.

46 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

2.5.1 Harmonic feature

Vowel harmony in the Bantu languages is found in two main types with respect to features: height harmony and tongue root harmony. In certain instances, it is not necessarily clear whether a particular language should be better analysed as having height harmony or tongue root harmony.31 For an example of such a case, see Peng’s (2000a) discussion of vowel harmony in Kikuyu (exemplified in §2.6.10).32 Neverthe- less, there are instances where a clear case can be made for one over the other, e.g. tongue root harmony in Nande (see Gick et al. 2006; examples are provided in §2.6.16). However, this issue is only a potential matter of contention in languages with more than five vowels and, as the primary focus of this thesis is five-vowel languages in which progressive vowel harmony is inarguably height harmony, it is not of relevance to the chapters that follow; I simply note it here for the sake of completion. It is also worth mentioning that, though additional assimilatory and harmony-like processes involving vowels are found in certain Bantu languages, I do not touch on these in any detail (see mention in e.g. Kula submitted).

2.5.2 Direction of harmony

The direction in which vowel harmony operates may differ from language tolan- guage. Here there are three possibilities: progressive, regressive and bidirectional. These are illustrated, for example, by Tonga§2.6.1 ( ), Zulu (§2.6.19) and Mongo– Nkundo (§2.6.17) respectively. In certain languages, such as Phuthi (§2.6.22), independent progressive and regressive processes of vowel harmony may even co-occur. Height harmony in the languages concentrated on in this thesis shows only a progressive pattern.

2.5.3 Domain of harmony

As with the relevant feature and directionality, the domain in which vowel harmony operates may also differ from language to language. In some cases, such as regressive tongue root harmony in Nande (§2.6.16), harmony may apply throughout the word, and in many other cases, such as progressive harmony in five-vowel Mbunda (§2.6.3) or seven-vowel Nyakyusa (§2.6.11), it is confined to the verb root plus any following

31 See Beltzung et al. (2017), for example, for discussion of the feature [ATR]. 32 Away from Bantu, one might also consider the debate concerning Menominee (see §2.3.7)

47 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages verbal suffixes (to the exclusion of the final vowel). Regardless, vowel harmonyis typically unbounded within its domain. In languages that exhibit vowel harmony limited to the verb root and following extensions, the result is that, in addition to static generalisations on the co-occurrence of vowels within roots, alternations are seen in these extensions. These suffixes are a limited set (see a list of such suffixes for Proto-Bantu in (113) in §2.7.2.2). It should be noted that though suffixes containing front vowels are usually unmistakably productive (see e.g. examples of the applicative in Marten & Kula 2014, Sibanda 2016 and Jerro 2016 among many others), those with back vowels may not necessarily be fully productive in particular modern Bantu languages. Overwhelmingly the commonest back-vowel suffixes are the reversive or separative suffixes (which oftencome in transitive and intransitive variants).33 Doke (1967), for example, asserts that the reversive is ‘marginal’ or ‘irregular’ in certain Southern Bantu languages. However, the reversive has been shown to be productive in Swahili (G.42; Ngonyani & Ngowa 2016). Finally, in particular languages, though they fall within the supposed domain of harmony, certain suffixes may alternate whereas others do not. For instance, in Ndonga (R.22; Namibia) and Herero (R.31; Namibia), though the impositive suffix -ik-/-ek- can be seen to undergo vowel harmony, the stative suffix -ik- reportedly fails to harmonise (Viljoen & Amakali 1978 and Meinhof & van Warmelo 1932: 44 cited in Hyman 1999: 276).

2.5.4 Transparency and opacity

In systems of vowel harmony in the Bantu languages, especially where height harmony is concerned, the concepts of transparency and opacity are most relevant to the low vowel /a/. In most cases—including in the languages focused on in this thesis— this is opaque to harmony, as in Tonga (§2.6.1), Kikuyu (§2.6.10) or Zulu (§2.6.19), but there are cases where the low vowel is demonstrably transparent to the propagation of harmony, e.g. Ndendeule (§2.6.15).

33 Some authors prefer “reversive” while others opt instead for “separative”; the term “inversive” or even “conversive” may also be found (see e.g. Schadeberg 1982 and Schadeberg & Bostoen 2019: 185–6).

48 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

2.5.5 Canonical vowel harmony

In his treatment of the typology of vowel harmony in the Bantu languages, Hyman (1999: 238) enumerates those properties that define the so-called “canonical” systems of harmony in both five- and seven-vowel languages, listing five criteria according to which vowel harmony are classed as canonical. These are briefly summarised below. Firstly, canonical harmony shows an asymmetry in the behaviour of front and back target vowels. This is shown in (41) and (42) for certain five- and seven-vowel languages respectively.

(41) a. i → e / { e o } C _ (42) a. ɪ → e / { e o } C _ b. u → o / o C _ b. ʊ → o / o C _

From this we can see that, in front height harmony, high /i/ or /ɪ/ is lowered to mid [e] following both front /e/ and back /o/ whereas, in back height harmony, high /u/ or /ʊ/ is lowered to mid [o] only after back /o/ and not front /e/.34 This also illustrates the second criterion that lowering does not occur following the low vowel /a/. In addition to not triggering harmony, /a/ also does not undergo harmony. Next, canonical vowel harmony does not affecting any final vowels, whether that be final vowels in verbsor derivational final vowels in nouns. Nor does canonical harmony effect any changes in prefixes. In the survey that follows, canonical vowel harmony is exemplified by, for example, five-vowel Tonga§2.6.1 ( ) and seven-vowel Nyamwezi (§2.6.8).

2.6 A survey of vowel harmony in Bantu

Here, I provide a survey of various vowel harmony systems that can be found in the Bantu languages—far beyond the progressive height harmony of five-vowel language that are the main topic of this thesis—which is intended to serve as reference. Though this survey is very much broader in scope than that of height harmony outside Bantu presented in §2.3, it is still not an entirely exhaustive catalogue, not only due to the fact that certain patterns are not included but also because of the relative lack ofdepth in many of the illustrations that follow.

34 Das grammatische Raritätenkabinett lists this behaviour of the high and mid vowels to form an apparent natural class as “infrequentale” (URL: https://typo.uni-konstanz.de/rara/ raritaetenkabinett/10099/).

49 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

It is arguably not possible to be entirely theory- or framework-neutral in the description of languages (see e.g. Dryer 2006). Nonetheless, this survey aims to be primarily descriptive in nature and I therefore forgo the mention of more formal theoretical analysis here (for examples of which, see §3.2). Examples of additional surveys, overviews and discussions of vowel harmony in Bantu include Hyman (1999), Odden (2015) and Kula (submitted). Similar information may also be found in Parkinson (1996), Linebaugh (2007) and van der Hulst (2018).

2.6.1 Tonga (M.64)

The commonest variant of height harmony found among the Bantu languages the so-called “canonical” pattern (Hyman 1999: 238; see §2.5.5). In five-vowel languages exhibiting canonical height harmony, high vowels are lowered to mid vowels by preceding mid vowels whereas the low vowel /a/ neither triggers nor undergoes lowering and is opaque. In addition to this, canonical height harmony is asymmetric with respect to rounding and/or backness, with /i/ being lowered to [e] following both /e/ and /o/ but /u/ being lowered to [o] only after /o/ and not /e/. 35Tonga (M.64) is one such canonical five-vowel language, as illustrated in the examples below with data gathered from Carter (2002). Firstly, in (43), it can be seen that the vowel in the applicative suffix -il- may surface as either [i] or [e] according to the preceding vowel, as described above.36

(43) a. -lim-in-a ‘to plough for’ b. -ul-il-a ‘to buy for’ c. -let-el-a ‘to bring for/to’ d. -tol-el-w-a ‘to be taken from’ e. -amb-il-a ‘to speak to’

In the reversive or repetitive suffix -ul(ul)-, however, /u/ surfaces as [o] only when the preceding vowel is /o/ and, notably, not /e/.

(44) a. -simp-ulul-a ‘to replant’ b. -yul-ulul-a ‘to reveal’

35 That is, the language known as Tonga spoken in Zambia and Zimbabwe, not to be confusedwith the Tonga (aKa Siska; N.15) spoken in Malawi nor the Tonga (aKa Shengwe; S.62) spoken in Mozambique—nor indeed Tsonga (S.53), spoken in South Africa and Mozambique. 36 The consonant(s) in both the applicative and the reversive/repetitive suffixes also undergo un- related regular nasal consonant harmony (Carter 2002: 15).

50 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

c. -enzem-un-a ‘to melt (tR)’ d. -zyok-olol-a ‘to turn round (tR)’ e. -sam-unun-a ‘to undress’

Note also that, when the low vowel intervenes between a vowel that would normally cause lowering, this lowering does not occur, as in -kotam-uk-a ‘to unbend, straighten up (intR)’, for example. From this behaviour we can see that it is, at least in purely descriptive terms, useful to talk of both front and back height harmony. Whether or not these are truly independent processes within a given language is not discussed here.37 As previously mentioned, this type of vowel harmony is widespread in Bantu. What follows is an inexhaustive list of five-vowel languages exhibiting approximately the same asymmetric canonical vowel harmony system described above: Shi (D.53; DR Congo; Hyman 1999: 238), Kinyarwanda (D.61; Rwanda; Kimenyi 1979; Zorc & Nibagwire 2007), Kirundi (D.62; Burundi; Zorc & Nibagwire 2007), Nkore– Kiga (E.14; Uganda; Taylor 1985), Luganda (E.15; Uganda; Ashton et al. 1954; Katamba 1984), Haya (E.22; Tanzania; Hyman 1999: 238), Jita (E.25; Tanzania; Downing 1999a), Bukusu (E.31c; Uganda; Mutonyi 2001), Kisa (E.32d; Kenya; Sample 1976), Shambaa (G.23; Tanzania; Hyman 1999: 238), Swahili (G.41–43; East Africa; Marten 1996, 1997; Kula & Marten 2000; Lodhi 2002), Kami (G.36; Tanzania; Petzell & Aunio 2019), Cokwe (K.11; Angola, DR Congo; Hyman 1999: 238), Luvale (K.14; Angola, Zambia; Horton 1949; Marten 1996) Fwe (K.402; Namibia, Zambia; Gunnink 2018), Songye (L.23; DR Congo; Hyman 1999: 238), Tshiluba (L.31a; DR Congo; de Clercq 1960), Lungu (M.14; Zambia; Bickmore 2007: 65–9), Bemba (M.42; Zambia; Schoeffer 1907; Mann 1999; Kula 2002; Kasonde 2009; Hamann & Kula 2015), Ngoni (N.12; Tanzania; Ngonyani 2004), Tumbuka (N.21; Malawi, Zambia; Vail 1972; Phiri 1980; Chavula 2016), Chewa– Nyanja (N.31; Malawi, Zambia; Lehmann 1998; Downing & Mtenje 2017), Nsenga (N.41; Zambia, Mozambique; Miti 2001; Simango 2013), Nyungwe (aKa Tete; N.43; Courtois 1899), Yao38 (P.21; Malawi, Tanzania; Ngunga 1997, 2000, 2001), Makonde (P.23; Tanzania; Downing 2010), Kalanga (S.16; Zimbabwe, Botswana; Mathangwane 1994) and Shona (S.15; Zimbabwe; Fortune 1955; Fivaz 1970; Beckman 1997).

37 Though see §2.7.2 for a discussion of front and back height harmony in a diachronic rather than synchronic context. 38 See also the additional information in §2.6.2 below.

51 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

2.6.2 Yao (P.21)

In addition to the canonical height harmony seen in Tonga (§2.6.1), five-vowel Yao also exhibits rounding of the impositive suffix -ik-/-ek- before the reversive suffix -ul-/-ol- as illustrated below (data from Ngunga 1997 in Hyman 1999: 269–70; see also Ngunga 2000).

(45) a. i. -lum-ik-a ‘have between the teeth’ ii. -lum-uk-ul-a ‘take out of mouth’ b. i. -kol-ek-a ‘be hung; be caught by thorns’ ii. -kol-ok-ol-a ‘take down sth. that is hung’ c. i. -saj-ik-a ‘put on top’ ii. -saj-uk-ul-a ‘remove from top of something else’

This only applies, however, when the vowel preceding the impositive suffix isaback vowel, i.e. one of /u o a/. When the preceding vowel is front /i e/, the impositive suffix remains unchanged.

(46) a. i. -sim-ik-a ‘fix upright’ ii. -sim-ik-ul-a ‘remove what has been fixed upright’ b. i. -vel-ek-a ‘carry on back (child); bear child’ ii. -vel-ek-ul-a ‘swing child from back to hip’

2.6.3 Mbunda (K.15)

A pattern very much similar to what is seen in canonical Tonga(§2.6.1) is that found in five-vowel Mbunda (K.15; Angola, Zambia). In this pattern, [i] is found following the high vowels /i u/ and [e] is found after not only mid /e o/ but also low /a/. Thisis illustrated in (47) with the applicative suffix using data from Gowlett (1970).

(47) a. -imb-il-a ‘sing for’ b. -kush-il-a ‘wash for’ c. -end-el-a ‘walk for, to’ d. -jombok-el-a ‘jump towards’ e. -kwat-el-a ‘hold for’

However, [u] is found following all vowels except /o/, after which [o] is found. That is, although mid [e] is found after low /a/, it is high [u] and not mid [o] that isfound

52 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages in this same position. This can be seen with the reversive in (48). Examples once again come from Gowlett (1970).

(48) a. -shimb-ul-a ‘disinter’ b. -shuk-ul-a ‘unhang, take down’ c. -tek-ul-a ‘draw water’ d. -tomb-ol-a ‘uproot’ e. -sang-ul-a ‘make rise from the dead’

What’s more, just as in Tonga, /a/ is opaque to the transmission of vowel harmony in Mbunda. Thus we find forms such as -zimbal-es-a ‘lose’ rather than *-zimbal-is- a, derived from -zimbal-a ‘get lost’ with the causative suffix which alternates in the same way as the applicative, e.g. -imb-is-a ‘conduct in singing’ and not *-imb-es-a, likewise -tumam-el-a ‘sit’ instead of *-tumam-il-a (Gowlett 1970). Hyman (1999: 242) reports that the low vowel causes lowering only in five-vowel languages.39 This pattern is also confined predominantly to languages inzonesK and R which are spoken in and around Namibia and Angola (with exceptions being Pende, Kwese and, in part, Mbunda).40 Examples of these languages are Kimbundu (aKa Mbundu; H.21a; Angola; Hyman 1999: 242), Kwangali (K.33; Namibia; Hyman 1999: 242), Dciriku (K.332/K.62; Namibia; Marten & Kula 2002), Pende (L.11/K.52; DR Congo; Gusimana 1972a; Niyonkuru 1978), Kwese (aKa Kwezo; L.13/K.35; DR Congo; Hyman 1999: 242), Umbundu (aKa Mbundu; R.11; Angola; Hyman 1999: 242), Kwanyama (R.21; Angola, Namibia; Marten 1996), Ndonga (R.22; Namibia; Fivaz 1986; Marten 1996), Herero (R.31; Namibia; Marten 1996; Kula & Marten 2000).

2.6.4 South Kongo (H.16a)

The vast majority of five-vowel languages in Bantu that exhibit vowel harmony possess a system which is asymmetric in some way. However, there are a small number of five-vowel languages that display symmetric height harmony. The seventeenth-century variety of South Kongo (H.16a) documented by de Gheel (1652) is one such language. In South Kongo, mid [e] is found after both mid vowels /e o/, with high [i] found after high /i u/ and /a/, as in Tonga (§2.6.1) and Mbunda

39 Though he does also mention that Boma (B.74b; Congo) might be an example of low /a/causing progressive lowering in a seven-vowel language (Hyman 1999: 242, fn. 11). 40 For a visualisation of this distribution, consult Map 2 in (Hyman 1999: 243).

53 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

(§2.6.3). This can be illustrated with the alternation of the applicative suffix(de Gheel 1652 in Hyman 1999: 241).

(49) a. -sik-il-a ‘soutenir, fortifier’ b. -vur-il-a ‘surpasser, l’emporter’ c. -leng-el-a ‘dépérir, languir’ d. -somp-el-a ‘s’attacher à’ e. -land-il-a ‘suivre’

However, unlike in Tonga or Mbunda, [o] is found not only after /o/ itself but also after /e/ and high [u] is found following /i u a/. This is shown with the reversive suffix in the examples below (de Gheel 1652 in Hyman 1999: 241).

(50) a. -vil-ul-a ‘mouvoir, remuer’ b. -bub-ul-a ‘corrompre’ c. -lemb-ol-a ‘barrer, effacer’ d. -tomb-ol-a ‘faire monter’ e. -bang-ul-a ‘faire violence’

This symmetric pattern, rare among five-vowel Bantu languages, is seemingly limited to South Kongo and related varieties in DR Congo, Angola and Congo (Hyman 1999: 242; Goes & Bostoen 2019: 33–4). It is still found in the modern descendent of the variety documented by de Gheel (1652), known as Kisikongo (Angola; Bentley 1887; Ndonga Mfuwa 1995 in Goes & Bostoen 2019: 33) as well as the closely related Kiso- longo (Angola; Tavares 1915 in Goes & Bostoen 2019: 33). In addition, Kindibu (DR Congo; Coene 1960 in Goes & Bostoen 2019: 33), a variety of Central Kongo (H16b) is similarly symmetric. This is also the case for at least some varieties of Kizombo (H.16h; Angola; Carter & Makondekwa 1987 in Goes & Bostoen 2019: 33) and Laadi (H.16f; Congo; Jacquot 1985; Mabiala 1999; Hyman 1999: 263; Goes & Bostoen 2019: 34).

2.6.5 Mbukushu (K.333)

Where a small number of five-vowel languages show no asymmetry (§2.6.4), certain five-vowel languages exhibit an even more unbalanced asymmetry than Tonga (§2.6.1) and Mbunda (§2.6.3) and lack front height harmony while still possessing back height harmony. However, no Bantu languages exhibit the reverse situation, having only front but not back height harmony (Hyman 1999: 245).

54 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

The is found, for example, in Mbukushu (K.333; Botswana, Namibia; Fisch 1977, 1998; Wynne 1980). In this language, non-alternating suffixes are found containing both non-low front vowels. For instance, the causative I suffix is invariably -ith- and not *-eth- (Fisch 1998: 125–6).

(51) a. -kwir-ith-a ‘to cause to boil’ b. -ghur-ith-a ‘to sell’ c. -rep-ith-a ‘to make longer’ d. -rogh-ith-a ‘to repair, make good, restore’ e. -havar-ith-a ‘to serve food’

The causative II suffix, however, is found as -ek- and never *-ik- (Fisch 1998: 126–7).

(52) a. -dhir-ek-a ‘to forbid, impose a taboo’ b. -shup-ek-a ‘to’ put clothes on a person c. -pet-ek-a ‘to bend, fold’ d. -rogh-ek-a ‘to make plans beforehand’ e. -yamw-ek-a ‘to suckle, water (cattle)’

Likewise, the applicative is -er- and not *-ir- regardless of the preceding vowel (Fisch 1998: 123–4).

(53) a. -dhing-er-a ‘to roll up, curl, wrap up’ b. -pungw-er-a ‘to store for’ c. -vet-er-a ‘to water’ d. -romb-er-a ‘to borrow, ask, intercede’ e. -pak-er-a ‘to wrap up, pour into’

The inversive and repetitive suffixes, however are realised as -or- and -oror- after preceding /o/ but as -ur- and -urur- elsewhere (Fisch 1998: 127–8).41

(54) a. -fik-ur-a ‘to uncover’ b. -fum-unun-a ‘to resew so as to enlarge’ c. -ter-ur-a ‘to take a pot off the fire’ d. -tong-onon-a ‘to confess, admit’ e. -yandh-urur-a ‘to open’

41 Note that these may also undergo nasal harmony when preceded by a nasal consonant, as can be seen in (54).

55 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

There are only a relatively limited number of cases of Bantu languages that lackfront height harmony but not back height harmony. Examples that do show the same system asymmetric as Mbukushu are Lozi (K.21/S.34; Zambia; Jalla 1982a; Fortune 2001), Makhuwa (P.31; Mozambique; Kisseberth 1996), Koti (P.311; Mozambique; Schade- berg & Mucanheia 2000) and Cuwabo (P.34; Mozambique; Guérois 2015, 2019). A further likely example is Luyana (aKa Luyi; K.31; Zambia). Hyman (1999: 245) lists Luyana as having only back height harmony (though with no example data) and Gowlett (1989: 141), discussing related Lozi, suggests that Luyana does exhibit back height harmony with the reversive suffix. Givón’s (1970) grammar of Luyana makes no explicit mention of vowel harmony and, though sporadic examples show there is no front height harmony, there is no evidence either way regarding back height harmony. In much older work, Jacottet (1896: 84–5) explicitly mentions a lack of height harmony in verbs with the applicative suffix -el-/-en- but says nothing of back height harmony. Jacottet (1901: 220f), however, contains examples indicative of back height harmony in verbs with alternations in derivational suffixes, e.g. longa ‘être plein’ v. longola ‘sortir (de la nourriture d’un pot)’ and pumba ‘mettre de la terre’ v. pumbula ‘déterrer’. Back height harmony is also found in Venda (S.21; South Africa) alongside regressive raising (see §2.6.20 for more information). Finally, as discussed next in §2.6.6, Kikamba (H.112a), Kidondo (H.112b) and Kisundi (H.131) also lack front height harmony but possess a slightly different type of back height harmony.

2.6.6 Kikamba (H.112a)

There are a small number of varieties of North Kongo spoken in the Republic ofthe Congo that, just like Mbukushu (§2.6.5), lack front height harmony but have back height harmony. However, these differ from Mbukushu in that, as in South Kongo (§2.6.4), mid [o] is found after both /e/ and /o/, not just /o/ itself. One example of this is Kikamba (H.112a; Bouka 1989; Goes & Bostoen 2019). In this language, the applicative is invariably -il-, even after mid vowelsGoes ( & Bostoen 2019: 59).

(55) a. -kwèèl-ìl-a ‘marier pour’

b. -swèèk-ìl-a ‘cacher pour’

c. -bònd-ìl-a ‘adorer’

d. -tòòn-ìl-a ‘commencer pour’

56 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Likewise the impositive and causative suffixes -ik- and -is- (Goes & Bostoen 2019: 59– 60). The separative suffixes, however, which are usually realised as -uk- and -ul-, are -ok- and -ol- after both /e/ and /o/.

(56) a. -tel-ol-a ‘enlever une casserole du feu’ b. -tob-ók-a ‘se percer’ c. -kóh-ol-a ‘tousser’

This same pattern is also reported for Kidondo (H.112b; Mfoutou 1985; Williams- Ngumu et al. 2015; Goes & Bostoen 2019) and Kisundi (H.131; Goes & Bostoen 2019).

2.6.7 Punu (B.43)

Though a great many five-vowel languages possess progressive height harmonyof some description, there are Bantu languages that do not. Indeed, Hyman (1999: 239) notes that, among Bantu languages, only five-vowel languages lack height harmony.42 In Punu (B.43; Gabon), for example, suffixes such as the applicative and reversive are always realised with high vowels. This is exemplified in (57) and (58) below (Blanchon 1994 cited in Hyman 1999: 240).

(57) a. -kil-il-a ‘repasser’ b. -sub-il-a ‘uriner sur’ c. -ded-il-a ‘obéir à’ d. -gol-il-a ‘se frotter avec’ e. -gab-il-a ‘distribuer à’

(58) a. -kip-ul-a ‘découvrir’ b. -fung-ul-a ‘révéler’ c. -tes-ul-a ‘briser’ d. -dob-ul-a ‘extraire, extirper’ e. -gab-ul-a ‘séparer’

A similar situation is also found in Lengola (D.12; DR Congo), Suku (H.32; DR Congo, Angola), Mbala (H.41; DR Congo) and Ruund (L.53; DR Congo, Angola), in which ‘the

42 Though a potential exception to this is seven-vowel Enya (D.14; DR Congo; see Hyman 1999: 239, footnote 8).

57 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages distribution of mid vowels is severely restricted’ and initial vowels therefore have no effect on the height of vowels in potential targetHyman suffixes( 1999: 239–40). Goes & Bostoen (2019) report that most varieties of both West and East Kongo, e.g. Yisangu (B.42; Gabon) and Kinkanu (H.16h; DR Congo), in fact lack progressive height harmony as do some varieties of North Kongo, e.g. Hangala (H.111; Congo) and Kikunyi (H.13; Congo), as well as the Kikongoid languages, e.g. Kisamba (L.12a; DR Congo).

2.6.8 Nyamwezi (F.22)

Nyamwezi (F.22; Tanzania) has the seven-vowel inventory /i u ɪ ʊ e o a/ (Hyman 1999: 237).43 This language exhibits canonical seven-vowel Bantu height harmony (see §2.5.5), as illustrated in (59) and (60) below (Maganga & Schadeberg 1992 in Hy- man 1999: 237–8, 2003a: 47). The vowel of applicative suffix is realised as [e] following the low-mid vowels/e o/ but as [ɪ] following all other vowels.

(59) a. -βis-ɪl-a ‘hide for/at’ b. -gub-ɪl-a ‘put on lid for/at’ c. -pɪɪnd-ɪl-a ‘bend for/at’ d. -shʊʊn-ɪl-a ‘gnaw for/at’ e. -zeeng-el-a ‘build for/at’ f. -βon-el-a ‘see for/at’ g. -gaβ-ɪl-a ‘divide for/at’

The reversive, however, surfaces containing [o] after only /o/ itself, with [ʊ]being found elsewhere.

(60) a. -βis-ʊl-a ‘find out’ b. -gub-ʊl-a ‘take off lid for/at’ c. -pɪɪnd-ʊl-a ‘overturn’ d. -shʊʊn-ʊl-a ‘show teeth’ e. -zeeng-ʊl-a ‘build’ f. -hong-ol-a ‘break of’ g. -gaβ-ʊl-a ‘divide’

43 Note that Maddieson (2003: 18) suggests that /i u e o ɛ ɔ a/ would be a more accurate transcription; however, this does not change the basic facts about harmony described here.

58 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

2.6.9 Rangi (F.33)

As illustrated in (61) and (62) with applicative and separative suffixes respectively, Rangi (F.33; Tanzania) exhibits much the same harmony system as Nyamwezi (§2.6.8) except that it has the vowel inventory /i u ɪ ʊ ɛ ɔ a/. The data come from Stegen (2002).

(61) a. -tɕuuŋɡ-ɪr-a ‘tie at/for’ b. -ɪm-ɪr-a ‘start’ c. -fʊr-ɪr-a ‘wash (clothes) at/for’ d. -kɛr-ɛr-a ‘cut at/for’ e. -bɔk-ɛr-a ‘dig at/for’ f. -hak-ɪr-a ‘smear at/for’

(62) a. -tɕuuŋɡ-ʊl-a ‘untie’ b. -hɪɪnd-ʊk-a ‘return (intR)’ c. -sʊl-ʊl-a ‘bleed’ d. -bɛnd-ʊl-a ‘break of’ e. -hɔn-ɔl-a ‘wipe of’ f. -hal-ʊl-a ‘strip of’

Unfortunately, no suitable examples in Stegen (2002) where /i/ was the final vowel of the stem were found.

2.6.10 Kikuyu (E.51)

Kikuyu (E.51; Kenya) has the seven-vowel inventory /i u e o ɛ ɔ a/ (Mugane 1997a: 3; Englebretson et al. 2015: 1).44 Like Nyamwezi (§2.6.8) and Rangi (§2.6.9), Kikuyu exhibits asymmetric vowel harmony. As seen in (63) with examples adapted from Peng (2000a: 372), [ɛ] is thus only seen in the applicative and tolerative suffixes following /ɛ ɔ/, with [e] found elsewhere.

(63) a. -tiɣ-er-ek-a ‘abandon or be left over’ b. -tum-er-ek-a ‘join, intrude’ c. -ɣer-er-ek-a ‘have something fetched for’ d. -hoð-er-ek-a ‘be used’ e. -tɛm-ɛr-ɛk-a ‘cut into specific shapes’

44 See also discussion in Peng (2000a: 370, 382).

59 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

f. -βɔj-ɛr-ɛk-a ‘cut for/at’ g. -βað-er-ek-a ‘become rich’

The reversive suffix, however, surfaces with [ɔ] only after /ɔ/ and with [o] inallother circumstances. The examples in (64) are once again adapted from Peng (2000a: 372).

(64) a. -it-or-a ‘undo the act of strangling’ b. -ʃuuk-or-a ‘undo the act of slandering’ c. -et-or-a ‘undo the act of calling’ d. -tom-or-a ‘undo the act of sending’ e. -ɣɛt-or-a ‘undo the act of tightening or loosen’ f. -βɔk-ɔr-a ‘undo the act of restraining’ g. -tah-or-a ‘undo the act of scooping or ladling’

In Kikuyu, as in Tonga (§2.6.1), the low vowel /a/ is opaque. This is demonstrated in (65) below (Peng 2000a: 373).

(65) a. -tɛt-an-er-a ‘speak for’ b. -ʃɛh-an-or-a ‘undo the act of cutting’ c. -kɔman-er-i-a ‘unite or make ends meet’ d. -ɔj-an-ok-a ‘bring down’

As one might expect, the high vowels /i u/ are likewise opaque (Peng 2000a: 373).

(66) a. -tɛm-ið-er-a ‘become cutable’ b. -ʃɛβi-or-a ‘undo the act of slipping away’ c. -ɛŋɡut-er-a ‘move away for’ d. -ɛŋɡut-ok-a ‘undo the act of moving away’

2.6.11 Nyakyusa (M.31)

Nyakyusa (M.31; Tanzania) behaves much the same as Nyamwezi (§2.6.8) except that [u] rather than [ʊ] is found after /u/ (Persohn 2017: 80–1). Thus, the applicative contains [e] after /e o/ and [ɪ] elsewhere.

(67) a. -fik-ɪl-a ‘arrive at’ b. -guul-ɪl-a ‘wait for’ c. -pɪm-ɪl-a ‘measure with’

60 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

d. -bʊʊk-ɪl-a ‘go to’ e. -tem-el-a ‘cut with’ f. -bop-el-a ‘run to’ g. -jab-ɪl-a ‘give off to’

The separative, however, has three realisations: the vowel is realised as [o] after/o/ only, as [u] after /u/ only and as [ʊ] after all other vowels.

(68) a. -king-ʊl-a ‘uncover’ b. -fumb-ul-a ‘solve’ c. -pɪnd-ʊl-a ‘convert’ d. -tʊng-ʊl-a ‘pick’ e. -niemb-ʊl-a ‘disentangle’ f. -bon-ol-a ‘pay of’ g. -mat-ʊl-a ‘demolish’

Persohn (2017: 80) notes that ‘[p]revious discussions of vowel harmony in Nyakyusa (e.g. Mwangoka & Voorhoeve [1960]; Labroussi 1998; Hyman 1999) did not notice the raising of /ʊ/ to /u/’.

2.6.12 Kisi (G.67)

In addition to Nyakyusa (§2.6.11), a further seven-vowel language with a more unusual front–back asymmetry is Kisi (G.67; Tanzania). In this language, as illustrated in (69) with the causative suffix, front [i] is found after /i u a/, [ɪ] following /ɪʊ/and [e] after /e o/Gray ( 2018: 45–6).

(69) a. -ʝiβ-isʲ-a ‘to sink’ b. -fupʰ-isʲ-a ‘to shorten’ c. -pʰɪlɪkʰ-ɪsʲ-a ‘to listen’ d. -hʊːβ-ɪsʲ-a ‘to promise’ e. -sel-esʲ-a ‘to lower’ f. -βon-esʲ-a ‘to show’ g. -dad-isʲ-a ‘to annoy’

However, with a back-vowel suffix such as the transitive separative suffix, [ʊ]isfound only after /ʊ/, [o] is found only after [o] and [u] is found elsewhere, i.e. following/iɪ u e a/ (Gray 2018: 46–7). This is demonstrated in (70) below.

61 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

(70) a. -diˑᵐb-ul-a ‘to stir’ b. -ɡubukʰ-ul-a ‘to uncover’ c. -lɪm-ul-a ‘to harvest’ d. -pʰʊˑᵑɡ-ʊl-a ‘to reduce’ e. -ɲetʰeːl-ul-a ‘to enlarge’ f. -holom-ol-a ‘to take out’ g. -baɟ-ul-a ‘to cut open’

Gray (2018: 46) also gives data showing that nominal suffixes may also undergo harmony. For example, the final [o] in [liloβokʰo] ‘crossing’ is a suffix which elsewhere surfaces as [u], e.g. in [liliɣu] ‘insult’ or [kʰiɟeːɡu] ‘story’. Lastly, she also shows that /a/ is opaque to harmony. For example, the applicative /-il-/ is realised as [-il-] rather than [-el-] in [-lekʰ-an-il-a] ‘to be separate’.

2.6.13 Kinga (G.65)

Kinga (G.65; Tanzania) has the seven-vowel inventory /i u ɪ ʊ ɛ ɔ a/ (Schadeberg 1971: 34). In this language, unlike in Nyamwezi (§2.6.8), Rangi (§2.6.9) and Kikuyu (§2.6.10), the non-low vowels that follow the low vowel /a/ do not precisely match those following the high vowels /i u/. For example, for front vowels, [ɪ] is found following /a/ as well as /ɪ ʊ/ whereas [i] is found after /i u/ and [ɛ] after /ɛ ɔ/. Thisis illustrated with data below from Odden (2015: §2).

(71) a. -gil-il-a ‘to disregard for’ b. -sug-il-a ‘to invite for a meal’ c. -lɪl-ɪl-a ‘to cry for’ d. -pʊl-ɪx-a ‘to hear’ e. -hɛx-ɛl-a ‘to be happy’ f. -vɔn-ɛx-a ‘to be visible’ g. -dab-ɪl-a ‘to make dirty’

A similar pattern to this is also reported for Vwanji (G.66; Tanzania; Eaton 2019).

2.6.14 Matumbi (P.13)

Matumbi (P.13; Tanzania) is yet another seven-vowel language that exhibits vowel harmony. Odden (1996: 4) transcribes the vowel inventory as /į ų i u e o a/ but de-

62 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages scribes /e o/ as being phonetically lax mid vowels [ɛ ɔ] and /į ų i u/ as being high and super-high vowels and ‘roughly equivalent to the contrast between [ι], [υ] and [i], [u]’ (Odden 1996: 5)—giving /i u ɪ ʊ/ in standard IPA. In the examples below, I use the more phonetically-faithful transcriptions /i u ɪ ʊ ɛ ɔ a/ in favour of /į ų i u e o a/. No other modifications to Odden’s (1996) transcriptions have been made, however. Odden (1996: 98–102) states that alternations induced by harmony, which applies within the stem, includes those found with the passive suffix Odden (1996: 98–9). This suffix is realised as [-ɪlw-] after both /ɪ ʊ/ and [-ɛlw-] after /ɛ ɔ/andas[-ilw-] elsewhere.

(72) a. -ín-ilw-a ‘be danced’ b. -kún-ilw-a ‘be grated’ c. -tɪɪk-ɪlw-á ‘be lifted’ d. -ʊ́ʊg-ɪlw-a ‘be bathed’ e. -kɛɛngɛɛm-ɛlw-á ‘be uprooted’ f. -bɔ́ɔl-ɛlw-a ‘be de-barked’ g. -káat-ilw-a45 ‘be cut’

Odden (1996: 99) notes that no verbal extension contains /u/ but that stem-final /u/ which in other circumstance becomes the glide [w] surfaces as a vowel in certain situations, such as when the passive or applied suffixes /-w-/ and /-j-/ occur after epenthetic /l/. Regardless, in this case, harmony behaves differently than in (72), with [ʊ] being found after [ɪ ʊ], similarly to above; however [ɔ] is found only after /ɔ/itself with [u] surfacing elsewhere, including following [ɛ].

(73) a. -líbu-lw-a ‘be ground’ b. -yúpu-lw-a ‘be served’ c. -tɪkʊ-ly-á ‘break with’ d. -kʊ́ mbʊ-ly-a ‘beat with’ e. -chɛku-ly-á ‘shave with’ f. -bɔ́mɔ-lw-a ‘be destroyed’ g. -chágu-ly-a46 ‘choose for’

45 This particular example comes from Odden (1996: 159) as no example with /a/ and the passive suffix was provided in the section dedicated to vowel harmony. 46 Once again, no example with /a/ was given and so this example comes from Odden (1996: 109).

63 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

2.6.15 Ndendeule (N.101)

Ndendeule (N.101; Tanzania) has the seven-vowel inventory seen in Kikuyu (§2.6.10), namely /i u e o ɛ ɔ a/ (Ngonyani 2004: 100). Harmony, however, operates differently, though still asymmetrically. For example, similarly to Matumbi (§2.6.14), which has a different vowel inventory, the applicative suffix is realised as [-el-] following /e o/, as [-ɛl-] after /ɛɔ/and as [-il-] elsewhere. The same kind of alternations are also found with the impositive, stative, intensive and causative suffixesNgonyani ( 2004).

(74) a. -yib-il-a ‘steal from/for’

b. -tul-il-a ‘skin with/for/on’

c. -yemb-el-a ‘sing for/with’

d. -bol-el-a ‘teach for/with/at’

e. -kɛm-ɛl-a ‘call for/with/at’

f. -tɔl-ɛl-a ‘take for/with/from’

g. -kang-il-a ‘push to/for/with’

The reversive suffix, on the other hand, surfaces as [-ol-] after /o/ and [-ɔl-] after/ɔ/ but as [-ul-] following all other vowels (Ngonyani 2004).

(75) a. -hib-ul-a ‘unplug’

b. -humb-ul-a ‘discover’

c. -hyek-ul-a ‘uncover’

d. -tong-ol-a ‘pick fruit from tree’

e. -tɛg-ul-a ‘undo a trap’

f. -hɔm-ɔl-a ‘pull out knife, spear, etc.’

g. -pang-ul-a ‘disorganise’

Note also that Ndendeule is unusual among Bantu languages in that the low vowel /a/ is transparent rather than opaque to the propagation of harmony. Thus, although [i] is found after /a/ in -kang-il-a ‘push to/for/with’ in (74g), we find forms such as -kobal- el-a ‘stumble’ and -kɔmbal-ɛl-a ’become thin’ instead of *-kobal-il-a and *kɔmbal-il-a respectively, which show that /o/ and /ɔ/ are affecting the vowel of the suffix despite the intervening low vowel (Sandstedt 2018: 18, 48).

64 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

2.6.16 Nande (D.42)

Nande (D.42; DR Congo) has the seven underlying vowels /i u ɪ ʊ ɛ ɔ a/ in addition to which there are three further surface vowels, [e ə o] (Gick et al. 2006). Three different processes of vowel harmony are documented in Nande (see Mutaka 1995; Archangeli & Pulleyblank 2002; Hyman 2002b; Gick et al. 2006; Kenstowicz 2009). First, there is progressive tongue root harmony which targets only high vowels, with /a/ being opaque (see e.g. (26) in Hyman 2002b). This is illustrated in (76) and (77) below with alternations in verbal suffixes containing /ɪ ʊ/ underlyingly, specifically the applicative /-ɪr-/, purposive /-ɪrɪr-/ and reversive /-ʊl-/, using examples adapted from Mutaka (1995). This can also, however, been seen in alternations in nouns, not just verbs.47

(76) a. eri-sim-ir-a ‘to thank for’ b. eri-hum-irir-a ‘to move anyway’ c. ɛrɪ-lɪm-ɪr-a ‘to work for’ d. ɛrɪ-tʊm-ɪr-a ‘to send for’ e. ɛrɪ-hɛk-ɛr-a ‘to carry for’ f. ɛrɪ-lɔg-ɛr-a ‘to bewitch for’ g. ɛrɪ-hat-ɪr-a ‘to peel for’

(77) a. ɛrɪ-βɪβ-ʊl-a ‘to unsow’ b. ɛrɪ-lʊng-ʊl-a ‘to straighten’ c. ɛrɪ-sɛng-ʊl-a ‘to unpack’ d. ɛrɪ-βɔh-ɔl-a ‘to untie’ e. ɛrɪ-mat-ʊl-a ‘to ungrab’

Second, in addition to progressive vowel harmony, there is also regressive word-level tongue root harmony, which leads to active alternations regardless of part of speech. This is first illustrated for verbs in (78) with examples from Mutaka (1995) containing the short causative /-i-/.

(78) a. i. ɛrɪ-hʊm-a ‘to roar’ ii. eri-hum-is-i-a ‘to make someone roar’

47 There is also an additional complication seen in particular with the prefix [ɛrɪ- ~eri-]when applied to nouns which is that it surfaces as [ɛrɪ-] when the first vowel in the stem is oneof /ɪ ʊ/ but otherwise surfaces as [eri-], in part due to regressive vowel harmony discussed below (Hyman 2002b).

65 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

b. i. ɛrɪ-sɛk-a ‘to laugh’ ii. eri-sek-i-a ‘to cause someone to laugh’ c. i. ɛrɪ-sɔk-a ‘to cross’ ii. eri-sok-i-a ‘to cause someone to cross’ d. i. ɛrɪ-sak-a ‘to be left out’ ii. eri-sak-i-a ‘to leave something out’

And also within nouns in (79), where regressive harmony is caused by the agentive suffix /-i/, affecting the root and prefixes beyond. Examples this time comefrom Hyman (2002b).

(79) a. i. -lím- ‘exterminate’ ii. o-mú-lim-i ‘exterminator’ b. i. -húk- ‘cook’ ii. o-mú-huk-i ‘cook’ c. i. -lɪm- ‘cultivate’ ii. o-mu-lim-i ‘cultivator’ d. i. -hʊm- ‘beat’ ii. o-mu-hum-i ‘beater’ e. i. -hɛk-́ ‘carry’ ii. o-mú-hek-i ‘carrier’ f. i. -bɔ́h- ‘tie’ ii. o-mú-boh-i ‘tier’ g. i. -kar- ‘force’ ii. o-mu-kar-i ‘forcer’

In these contexts, though not transcribed in the data above from Mutaka (1995), Gick et al. (2006) provide experimental evidence that /a/ is not transparent and itself undergoes phonological harmony. Third, there also exists optional regressive tongue root spreading into a preceding word, affecting one or more vowels regressively (Mutaka 1995). Thus, a phrase such as /ɛ̀mɪtɪ́ ́ míkùhì/ ‘small trees’ may be realised as any of the options in (80).

(80) a. [ɛ̀mɪtɪ́ ́ míkùhì] c. [ɛ̀mítí míkùhì] b. [ɛ̀mɪtí́ míkùhì] d. [èmítí míkùhì]

66 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Archangeli & Pulleyblank (2002) claim that this is phonetic whereas Downing & Krämer (2017) argue that this is in reality phonological in nature.

2.6.17 Mongo–Nkundo (C.61)

Mongo–Nkundo (C.61; DR Congo) has the inventory /i u e o ɛ ɔ a/. Unlike other seven-vowel languages such as Nyamwezi (§2.6.8) or Kikuyu (§2.6.10), harmony in Mongo–Nkundo is, like South Congo (§2.6.4), symmetric with respect to backness and rounding (Hulstaert 1961, 1965; Leitch 1996). This is exemplified in below in (81) and (82) with data from Hyman,(1999: 241, 2003a: 47). Firstly, the vowel in the applicative suffix alternates between [ɛ], found after /ɛɔ/ and /e/, found elsewhere just as in Kikuyu.

(81) a. -íy-el- ‘steal for/at’ b. -lúk-el- ‘paddle for/at’ c. -ét-el- ‘call for/at’ d. -tóm-el- ‘send for/at’ e. -kɛnd-ɛl- ‘go for/at’ f. -kɔt-ɛl- ‘cut for/at’ g. -kamb-el- ‘work for/at’

Secondly, unlike in Kikuyu, the vowel of the separative behaves in a symmetric manner and is thus [ɔ] following both /ɛ ɔ/ rather than just /ɔ/ and [o] elsewhere.

(82) a. -is-ol- ‘uncover’ b. -kund-ol- ‘dig up’ c. -bét-ol- ‘wake up’ d. -komb-ol- ‘open’ e. -tɛng-ɔl-́ ‘straighten out’ f. -mɔm-ɔl- ‘unglue’ g. -bák-ol- ‘untie’

According to Hyman (1999: 241), the final vowel is also seen to undergo harmony in Mongo–Nkundo. Additionally, the same pattern in the alternations in verbs can be seen in nouns both within roots and between roots and affixes. This is illustrated by the examples in (83) with data from Hulstaert (1961: 16–17) in Leitch (1996: 63).

67 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

(83) a. e-kele ‘impossibilité’

b. bo-kele ‘œuf’

c. bo-konɡo ‘copalier’

d. lo-foso ‘peau’

e. ɛ-kɛlɛ ‘nain’

f. bɔ-kɛlɛ ‘liquide’

g. bɔ-kɔnɡɔ ‘dos’

h. lɔ-fɔsɔ ‘bruit’

2.6.18 Koyo (C.24)

There are a certain number of Bantu languages in which the low vowel undergoes height harmony (Hyman 1999: 243–4). This is found, for example, in Koyo (C.24), which has the seven-vowel inventory /i u e o ɛ ɔ a/. As shown in (84), /a/ is assimilates to to the preceding low-mid vowels /ɛ ɔ/ (Gazania 1972 in Hyman 1999: 244).

(84) a. i-yis-a ‘to hide’

b. i-kund-a ‘to plant’

c. i-yeg-a ‘to learn’

d. i-wog-a ‘to hear’

e. i-dzɛg-ɛ ‘to laugh’

f. i-lɔg-ɔ ‘to bewitch’

g. i-lamb-a ‘to cook’

The assimilation of low-vowel suffixes is also found in other languages, especially those from zone C such as Babole (C.101; Congo), Leke (C.14; Congo), Mboshi (C.25; Congo), Likuba (C.27; Congo), Doko (C.301/C.31; DR Congo), Lingala (C.30b; DR Congo), Bobangi (C.32; Congo, DR Congo), Ntomba (C.35a; DR Congo), Bolia (C.35b; DR Congo) and Ngombe (C.41; DR Congo) (Leitch 1996: 123–8; Hyman 1999: 243). It is also found in zone A and B languages, e.g. Londo (A.11; Cameroon), Bakweri (A.22; Cameroon), Nen (A.44; Cameroon), Kota (B.25; Gabon, Congo), Nzebi (B.52; Cameroon), Tiene (B.81; DR Congo), Boma (B.74b; Congo), and elsewhere, e.g. the five-vowel languages Bembe (H.11; Congo) and Lwalwa (L.221; DR Congo, Angola) (Hyman 1999: 243).

68 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

In addition to this, in Koyo, as in Mongo–Nkundo (§2.6.17), the high-mid vowels /e o/ in prefixes are realised as low-mid [ɛ ɔ] when followed by/ɛɔ/(Gazania 1972 in Hyman 1999: 240).

(85) a. e-símu ‘scream’ b. e-túsi ‘shoulder’ c. e-bémbo ‘debt’ d. e-kóró ‘skin’ e. ɛ-sɛgɛ ‘hoe’ f. ɛ-bɔgɔ ‘arm’ g. e-lagá ‘promise’

(86) a. o-lingu ‘love’ b. o-kulí ‘hill’ c. o-yélo ‘morning’ d. o-kóro ‘clothing’ e. ɔ-tɛrɔ ‘basket’ f. ɔ-nɔgɔ ‘mouth’ g. o-sanga ‘rope’

The observations demonstrated above by alternations also hold true of both verband noun CVCV stems (Hyman 1999: 265–6). Prefixes can also be seen to harmonise in other seven-vowel language such asBak- weri (A.22; Cameroon), Londo (A.11; Cameroon), Bobangi (C.32; Congo, DR Congo), Mongo–Nkundo (C.61; DR Congo; see §2.6.17), Tetela (C.71; DR Congo), Kela (C.72; DR Congo) and Ombo (C.76; DR Congo) as well nine-vowel Budu (D.332; DR Congo) and two five-vowel languages, namely Bembe (H.11; Congo), Lwalwa (L.221; DR Congo, Angola) (Hyman 1999: 243–4).

2.6.19 Zulu (S.42)

Zulu (S.42; South Africa) possesses the five-vowel phonemic inventory /i u ɛ ɔa/ (Poulos & Bosch 1997: 50; Poulos & Msimang 1998: 487). Unlike other five-vowel languages such as Tonga (§2.6.1), Zulu lacks any form of progressive height harmony (cf. Punu in §2.6.7).

69 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Thus, the causative suffix is -is-, which alternates in many other languages remains unchanged, even following mid vowels (Poulos & Bosch 1997: 28; Poulos & Msimang 1998: 197–9)

(87) a. -lim-is- ‘cause or assist to plough’

b. -lum-is- ‘cause to bite’

c. -hlek-is- ‘cause to laugh’

d. -bon-is- ‘show (i.e. cause to see)’

e. -bhal-is- ‘cause to write’

The same is also true, for example, of the invariant passive suffix -iw- (Poulos & Msi- mang 1998: 187–93). Likewise, the applicative suffix, for example, is invariably -el- (Poulos & Bosch 1997: 28; Poulos & Msimang 1998: 184–5).

(88) a. -lim-el- ‘plough for’

b. -thum-el- ‘send for’

c. -theng-el- ‘speak for’

d. -boph-el- ‘tie for’

e. -akh-el- ‘build for’

This is also the case in, for example Mbukushu (§2.6.5); however, Zulu lacks both front and back height harmony. The reversive suffixes are therefore invariably realised as -(ul)ul- and -(ul)uk- (Poulos & Msimang 1998: 203–6).

(89) a. -thuk-ulul- ‘untie; set free; release’

b. -emb-ul- ‘remove a covering; unveil; reveal’

c. -somb-ulul- ‘unravel; unroll’

d. -qaq-ulul- ‘disentangle; analyse; rip open’

However, despite the fact that Zulu does not possess any progressive height harmony, it does exhibit a type of regressive harmony. That is, the mid vowels /ɛ ɔ/ are realised with the raised allophones [e o] when the vowel in the following syllable is one of the high vowels /i u/ (Poulos & Bosch 1997: 51; Poulos & Msimang 1998: 524; see also Westermann & Ward 1933; Khumalo 1987; Strazny 2003; Tabuse 2017). Note that, unlike with the alternations seen in verbs with progressive harmony in Tonga (§2.6.1) and Mbunda (§2.6.3), alternations caused by regressive harmony are

70 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages readily observable in all parts of speech in Zulu. First, regressive raising is illustrated in (90).48

(90) a. [ipʼeni] ‘pen’ b. [iǂʰeɡu] ‘old man’ c. [ukʼotʼuni] ‘cotton’ d. [indɮ̤o̤v̤ṳ] ‘elephant’

Second, as seen in (91), when the following vowel is not a high vowel, the “elsewhere” allophones [ɛ ɔ] are found.

(91) a. [ipʰɛla] ‘cockroach’ b. [ind̤ɔ̤d̥a̤] ‘man’ c. [iɓɛlɛ] ‘breast’

d. [iŋǃɡ̤ɔ̤nd̤ɔ̤] ‘brain’ e. [isitʰɛlɔ] ‘fruit’ f. [iǃɔŋǃɛla] ‘stingy person’

The examples in (91) also serve to demonstrate that raising only occurs regressively and not progressively. Note that raising is blocked, however, if the low vowel /a/ intervenes between a mid vowel and a following high vowel.

(92) a. [amab̥a̤si] ‘buses’ b. [ɛmab̥a̤sini] ‘on buses’

When raising does apply, however, it may do so iteratively. That is, if a mid vowel raised by a following high vowel is itself preceded by another mid vowel, that vowel is also raised.49

(93) a. [id̥ɔ̤lɔb̥a̤] ‘town’ b. [ed̥o̤lob̥eni]̤ ‘in town’

The situation is reportedly much the same in closely-related Xhosa (S.42; South Africa; see e.g. Jokweni & Thipa 1996), Tsonga (S.53; South Africa, Mozambique; Baumbach

48 Where the data in (87–89) above use orthographic transcriptions, those that follow use the IPA transcriptions provided in Poulos & Msimang (1998). 49 Though there is seemingly dialectal variation as to whether or not such iterativity appliesin Zulu (see e.g. Cobb 1995, 1997 in Kula 1997).

71 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

1974; Harris 1987; Parkinson 1996: 61–3) and Tonga (aKa Shengwe; S.62; Mozam- bique; Parkinson 1996: 58–9). This had also been claimed by Ziervogel & Mabuza (1985), Taljaard & Snyman (1991) and Taljaard et al. (1993) to be the case in Swati (S.43; South Africa, Eswatini) though Kockaert (1997), for example, disputes this using experimental acoustic evidence. Similarly, Malambe (2015) concludes that raising in Swati is merely phonetic vowel-to-vowel coarticulation and not phonological vowel harmony.

2.6.20 Venda (S.21)

Venda (S.21; South Africa) has a seven-vowel surface inventory [i u e o ɛ ɔ a]. However, Kula (1997) argues that the language has the underlying five-vowel system /i u ɛ ɔ a/, with Doke (1967) and Ziervogel & Dau (1961) giving similar, albeit less formalised, analyses. The language exhibits both Mbukushu-like (§2.6.5) progressive back height harmony and Zulu-like (§2.6.19) regressive raising (van Warmelo 1989; Poulos 1990; Kula 1997). This is illustrated below with examples coming from Kula (1997) unless otherwise noted. These use the practical orthography for Venda except that [ɛ ɔ], which arenot ordinarily orthographically differentiated from [e o], are written here using their IPA symbols. The high-mid vowels [e o] are only found when the following vowel is ahigh vowel [i u] whereas the low-mid vowels [ɛ ɔ] are found elsewhere.

(94) a. ndeti ‘coloured cloth’ b. mbeu ‘seed’ c. mugobi ‘marksman’ d. ngomu ‘inside’ e. ngkhɔthɛ ‘face’ f. rɛma ‘cut’ g. bɔna ‘see’

Unlike the claim for Zulu seen in §2.6.19, the raising of /ɛ ɔ/ to [e o] does not cause the subsequent raising of preceding instances of /ɛ ɔ/. Like Zulu, however, the low-mid vowels /ɛ ɔ/ are not raised by preceding high vowels /i u/.

(95) a. rɛdzemuwa ‘slip’ b. shundɛla ‘work for’

72 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

c. tɔholisa ‘cause to assist’ d. mulɔmɔ ‘mouth’

The causative and passive suffixes -is- and -iw- do not alternate and both cause regressive raising.

(96) a. -imb- → imbisa ‘cause to sing’ b. -shum- → shumisa ‘cause to work’ c. -rɛm- → remisa ‘cause to cut’ d. -tɔd- → todisa ‘cause to seek’ e. -nwal- → nwalisa ‘cause to write’

(97) a. -lifh- → lifhiwa ‘be paid’ b. -lum- → lumiwa ‘be bitten’ c. -rɛng- → rengiwa ‘be bought’ d. -khɔph- → khophiwa ‘be broken of’ e. -ramb- → rambiwa ‘be invited’

The applicative -ɛl- has a mid vowel and does not alternate according to the height of the preceding vowels either (van Warmelo 1989). This is illustrated in (98) with examples adapted from van Warmelo (1989).

(98) a. -tib- → tibɛla ‘cover with’ b. -vul- → vulɛla ‘open for’ c. -ɛnd- → ɛndɛla ‘travel to’ d. -kɔlɔd- → kɔlɔdɛla ‘borrow on behalf of another’ e. -far- → farɛla ‘seize or hold for’

The reversive suffix -ul(ul) also causes regressive raising but then itself undergoes harmony if this results in the preceding vowel being [o].

(99) a. -tib- → tibulula ‘remove a lid’ b. -dzumb- → dzumbulula ‘reveal’ c. -rɛng- → rengulula ‘buy back’ d. -vhɔfh- → vhofholola ‘loosen/untie’ e. -al- → alula ‘roll up’

This mirrors what is seen in Mbukushu§2.6.5 ( ), for example.

73 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

2.6.21 Sotho (S.33)

Sotho (aKa Southern Sotho; S.32; South Africa, Lesotho) has the nine-vowel phonemic inventory /i u ɪ ʊ e o ɛ ɔ a/ (Khabanyane 1991).50,51 As in Zulu (§2.6.19), verbal suffixes may freely contain vowels of differing heights. For example, the causative and applicative have consistently differing vowels, as shown in (100) and (101) respectively with data from Mabille & Dieterlen (1950).52

(100) a. -lis-isa-a ‘to cause to herd’ b. -tum-is-a ‘to make known’ c. -bɪl-is-a ‘to put to boil’ d. -lʊk-is-a ‘to make straight’ e. -hel-is-a ‘to help or cause to mow’ f. -kob-is-a ‘to cause to bend’ g. -bak-is-a ‘to correct’

(101) a. -khin-ɛl-a ‘to kneehalter for’ b. -tum-ɛl-a ‘to have a reputation for’ c. -bɪk-ɛl-a ‘to put a daughter-in-law at’ d. -lʊk-ɛl-a ‘to become fit for’ e. -hetl-ɛl-a ‘to turn one’s head and look back to’ f. -tsɛk-ɛl-a ‘to claim for’ g. -phɔq-ɛl-a ‘to mock for’ h. -bak-ɛl-a ‘to repent of’

The reversive suffixes such as /-ʊll-/ do not alternate, even following other backroun- ded vowels.

(102) a. -lik-ʊll-a ‘to remove by cutting around’ b. -tutl-ʊll-a ‘to pull out’ c. -qhɪb-ʊll-a ‘to demolish’

50 Note that Khabanyane (1991) uses the symbols /e o ɛ̝ ɔ̝/ rather than /ɪ ʊ e o/ as I have done here. 51 Previous authors, e.g. Doke & Mofokeng (1985), had described Sotho as having only seven vowel phonemes, with other vowel sounds being purely derived. See Khabanyane (1991) for more detail. 52 The transcriptions of vowels in examples from Mabille & Dieterlen (1950) have been converted to their IPA values, i.e. /ɪ ʊ ɛ ɔ/ are used in place of ⟨ē ō è ò⟩.

74 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

d. -tlʊtl-ʊll-a ‘to dishonour’ e. -men-ʊll-a ‘to unfold’ f. -kob-ʊll-a ‘to unbend, put straight’ g. -rar-ʊll-a ‘to disentangle’

There is, however, vowel harmony in Sotho that raises vowels and operates regressively. Firstly, the low-mid vowels /ɛ ɔ/ are raised to [e o] when followed by any higher vowel, i.e. one of /i u ɪ ʊ/. This is demonstrated in (103) below with verbs containing the causative and reversive suffixes (examples are again adapted from Mabille & Di- eterlen 1950).

(103) a. i. -khɛt-a ‘to choose’ ii. -khet-is-a ‘to cause or help to choose’ iii. -khet-ʊll-a ‘to discriminate’ b. i. -bɔhl-a ‘to belch’ ii. -bohl-is-a ‘to cause to belch’ iii. -bohl-ʊll-a ‘to belch and be relieved of gases in the stomach’

In addition to this raising of low-mid /ɛ ɔ/, in which these are neutralised with high- mid /e o/, there is non-neutralising raising of /ɪ ʊ/ to [ɪ̝ ʊ̝] when followed by /i u/. Raising is illustrated for both /ɪ ʊ/ and /ɛ ɔ/ in (104) using nouns with the agentive suffix /-i/ (the data come this time from Parkinson 1996: 45–6).53

(104) a. i. -lɪm-a ‘to cultivate’ ii. mʊ̝-lɪm-i̝ ‘farmer’ b. i. -tsʊm-a ‘to hunt’ ii. sɪ-tsʊ̝ ̝m-i ‘hunter’ c. i. -phɛh-a ‘to cook’ ii. mʊ-pheh-i ‘cook’ d. i. -rɔk-a ‘to praise’ ii. sɪ-rok-i ‘praise-poet’

A broadly similar situation to that described in Sotho is also found in Pedi (aKa North- ern Sotho; S.32; South Africa; Louwrens et al. 1995) and Tswana (S.31; South Africa,

53 Note that, once raised to [e o], /ɛ ɔ/ do not in turn cause raising of preceding /ɪ ʊ/.

75 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Botswana; Parkinson 1996; Dichabe 1997; le Roux & le Roux 2008; le Roux 2012; Ben- nett et al. 2016; Archangeli & Pulleyblank 2017). Regressive raising can also be observed in Kgalagadi (aKa Qhalaxarzi; S.311/S.31d; Botswana; Dickens 1986; Gowlett 2003).

2.6.22 Phuthi (S.404)

Phuthi (S.404; Lesotho, South Africa) has the phonemic seven vowels /į ų i u e o a/54 (Donnelly 2009: 66) and exhibits two separate processes of vowel harmony (Donnelly 2009: 84–101; see also Donnelly 2000 and Hein 2013). The first is the progressive raising of /i u/ to [į ų] by preceding instances of/įų/ in the stem of a word. This high-vowel harmony proceeds rightwards until a vowel other than /i u/ or /į ų/ is encountered. In verbs, this induces raising in verbal suffixes such as the causative, the intensive, reversive and passive suffixes.

(105) a. kú-bı̨ı̨́ t-á ‘to call’ b. kú-bı̨t-ı̨́ ı̨́ s-á ‘to help/make call’ c. kú-bı̨t-ų́ĺ ːl-a̩ ‘to be disrespectful to one’s name’ d. kú-bı̨t-ų́l-ųųk-á ‘to get disrespected (w.r.t. name)’ (106) a. kú-thų́ų́s-a ‘to help’ b. kú-thų́s-ı̨ı̨́ s-á ‘to cause to help’ c. kú-thų́s-ı̨s-įįs-á ‘to help intensively’ d. bá-thų́s-ų́ų́wɛ ‘they have been helped’

The propagation of progressive high-vowel harmony is blocked when a non-high vowel, such as /e/ or /a/, intervenes.

(107) a. bá-ya-bı̨t-él-iis-á ‘they help call for’ b. bá-ya-bı̨t-án-iis-á ‘they help call each other’ (108) a. bá-ya-thų́s-él-iis-a ‘they cause to help for’ b. bá-ya-thų́s-án-iis-a ‘they cause each other to get help’

This is not only seen in verbs, however. The same pattern is also found innouns,as illustrated by the examples in (109) below.

54 Donnelly (2009: 66) also claims that /ɛ ɔ/ are phonemes but acknowledges that [ɛ ɔ] are essentially complementary distribution with [e o]—due to the effects of regressive mid-vowel harmony that we shall see below—and that his total of nine phonemes is plausibility reducible to seven. On this basis, I have opted to say that there are indeed seven rather than nine vowel phonemes in Phuthi, though this does not significantly affect the description of vowel harmony.

76 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

(109) a. mú-phųųthį ‘Phuthi person’ b. abų́ų́tį ‘brother’ c. aų́ųsı̨́ ‘sister’ d. í-tháthárįįkį ‘tartaric’ e. í-b̤h̤ųųtı̨́ ‘goat’

One slight point of divergence is that the locative suffix in Phuthi surfaces as [-įnį] after underlying /į ų/ but as [-eni] rather than *[-ini] elsewhere. The second type of vowel harmony seen in Phuthi concerns the mid vowels /eo/. When /e o/ occur at the right edge of a word, they are realised as [ɛ ɔ] rather than [e o].55 Any preceding mid vowels, regardless of backness or rounding, are then also realised as [ɛ ɔ].

(110) a. i. kú-yeet-a ‘to make’ ii. bá-yɛɛ́ t-ɛ́ ‘they should make’ iii. bá-yɛt-ɛɛnɛ́ ‘they have made each other’ b. i. kú-khóókh-a ‘to expel’ ii. bá-khɔ́ɔ́kh-ɛ ‘they should take out’ iii. bá-khɔ́kh-ɛɛ́ l-ɛ́ ‘they have taken out’

Once again, this is not just confined to verbs, as shown by the nouns in (111).

(111) a. í-yɛɛt-ɔ ‘deed, doing, making’ b. í-khɔ́ɔkh-ɔ́ ‘taking out’ c. lí-bɛɛ́ lɛ́ ‘breast’ d. mú-lɔɔ-mɔ ‘mouth’

Unlike for progressive high-vowel harmony, the low vowel /a/ may behave as either transparent or opaque to the spread of regressive mid-vowel harmony.

(112) a. i. bá-v̤ṳl-ɛl-aan-ɛ́ ‘they should open for each other’ ii. bá-v̤ṳl-él-aan-ɛ ‘they should open for each other’ b. i. bá-khɔ́kh-ɛl-aan-ɛ́ ‘they should take out for each other’ ii. bá-khókh-él-aan-ɛ ‘they should take out for each other’

Regardless, in either case, /a/ does not itself undergo harmony.

55 Note that a small number of suffixes, e.g. diminutive -nyana and augmentative -kaati, do not necessarily prevent this process upon attachment (Donnelly 2009: 94–98).

77 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

2.7 Historical considerations of vowel harmony in Bantu

In this section, I provide a summary of the literature on historical considerations relating to vowel harmony in Bantu. The main focus here is on Proto-Bantu in particular rather than on any other pre-modern or reconstructed stages of the Bantu languages (e.g. Proto-Kikongo; see e.g. Goes & Bostoen 2019), though certain of these are briefly touched on where necessary.56 Any discussion of the history of vowel harmony in Bantu necessarily involves an overview of the closely related topic of the vowel inventory that is reconstructed for Proto-Bantu and this is therefore broached in §2.7.1. Next, §2.7.2 provides an overview of the debate around the reconstruction of vowel harmony in Proto-Bantu and its diachronic development.57

2.7.1 The vowel inventory of Proto-Bantu

It is widely believed that Proto-Bantu possessed a vowel inventory consisting of seven phonemes which distinguished four degrees of height or aperture (see e.g. discussion in Hyman 1999; Schadeberg 2003b; Bostoen 2019 as well as older work such as Meinhof & van Warmelo 1932; Guthrie 1967–71; Meeussen 1967). A version of such a reconstructed seven-vowel inventory is provided below in Table 2.

Front Back

First degree *i̧ *u̧ Second degree *i *u Third degree *e *o Fourth degree *a

Table 2: Vowel inventory of Proto-Bantu (Guthrie 1967–71; Meeussen 1967)

As mentioned in §2.4.2, the majority of surviving daughter languages possess either a five- or seven-vowel inventory, with a smaller number having innovated inventories containing a different number of vowelsSchadeberg ( 1994; Hyman 1999; Odden

56 Proto-Bantu is estimated to have been spoken around 4000–5000 years ago in what is now Cameroon (Vansina 1995: 52; Blench 2006: 126 cited in Bostoen & Van de Velde 2019: 308). 57 This is not intended to be an entirely exhaustive review of the literature on this matter butsimply serves to provide adequate diachronic context to the discussion elsewhere in the thesis of vowel harmony in the Bantu languages as a synchronic phenomenon.

78 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

2015). Vowel length is thought to have been a distinctive vocalic feature in Proto- Bantu (Hyman 2003a; Odden 2015). In addition, Proto-Bantu is assumed to have displayed phonemic tone, having contrastive high and low tones (Odden 2015). This two-tone system was first reconstructed by Greenberg (1948). These two features are maintained in many, though by no means all, modern-day Bantu languages (again, as noted in §2.4.2). As for the qualities of the vowels found in Proto-Bantu, the exact nature of the opposition between first- and second-degree vowels has been a topic of debate inthe literature on Bantu historical linguistics since at least Meinhof (1899). Meinhof (1899) and Meinhof & van Warmelo (1932) write the first-degree vowels as ⟨î û⟩, with circumflexes, and the second-degree vowels as ⟨i u⟩, with no diacritic marks. In order to leave sufficient space for tone-marking diacritics, Guthrie (1967– 71) and Meeussen (1967) instead write first-degree vowels as ⟨i̧ u̧ ⟩, with cedillas rather than circumflexes, as in Table 2. This practice is seen fairly frequently even to this day. Such choices of orthographic representation imply that, not only do these sources consider the second-degree vowels to be closer in nature in some way to the first- rather than third-degree vowels, but also that first-degree vowels are more unusual— or perhaps “marked”—in some way than second-degree vowels. Indeed, they are written this way because of how they have been characterised. For example, first-degree vowels are described as schwer ‘heavy’ by Meinhof (1899) and, more recently, are often referred to as “super-close” or “super-high” vowels (see e.g. Maddieson 2003: 18; Maddieson & Sands 2019: 83, 89). Note, however, that Schadeberg (2003b: 147) warns against the use of such terms:

The term “super-close” vowels should be avoided since it wrongly suggests untenable hypotheses about the phonetic nature of first (“heavy”) and second degree vowels as well as about the common process of the 7V > 5V merger.

This objection is raised as Schadeberg (1994, 2003b), along with Stewart (1970), main- tains that the opposition between first- and second-degree vowels was one of tense versus lax (or [+ATR] versus [-ATR]) respectively where, for example, Meinhof (1899) and Bourquin (1955) assume that second-degree vowels are high but that first-degree vowels are higher still. In his overview of Bantu phonology, Odden (2015) uses the symbols *i *ɪ *e *a *o *ʊ *u to represent the vowels of Proto-Bantu but also comments ‘it is not clear

79 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages whether the phonetic vowels are closer to [i ɪ e a o ʊ u] or to [i e ɛ a ɔ o u]’. Yet another possibility, seen in Hyman’s (1999: 247) interpretation of Meeussen (1967) and Guthrie (1967–71) is [i ɪ ɛ a ɔ ʊ u]. As Hyman notes, in such as system there is an apparent tense–lax contrast in high vowels whereas the alternative set he presents— namely [i e ɛ a ɔ o u]—shows a tense–lax contrast in mid vowels instead.58,59 Regardless of the precise phonetic nature of these two sets of vowels, the vast majority of researchers are in agreement they should be differentiated in part because of a separate phenomenon to vowel harmony, namely Bantu Spirantisation. That is, in various daughter languages of Proto-Bantu, first-degree vowels ledtothe spirantisation of preceding consonants whereas second-degree vowels did not (see e.g. Schadeberg 1994; Mpiranya 1997; Labroussi 1999; Hyman 2003b; Downing 2007; Janson 2007; Bostoen 2008 among others). Some of the commoner changes effected by this process are summarised in Table 3.

Before *į Before *ų

*p *b > f v (or s z) f v *t *d > s z f v *k *g > s z f v

Table 3: Summary of Bantu Spirantisation (adapted from Schadeberg 1994)

Schadeberg (1994) observes that few Bantu languages have been subject to spirantisation but not also undergone a reduction in the size of their vowel inventories from seven to five vowels. Moreover, no language has undergone the change froma seven- to a five-vowel inventory without spirantisation and, in languages where both changes have occurred, spirantisation occurs before this change in vowel-inventory size. Thus, as Bostoen (2019: 314) puts it, ‘the original vocalic opposition [between first- and second-degree vowels] is transphonologised in five-vowel languages toa consonantal opposition’. Bantu Spirantisation has also led certain researchers to propose alternative realisations in Proto-Bantu for the first-degree vowels of a seven-vowel inventory. For example, Janson (2007) proposes that first-degree vowels were high vowels preceded

58 In their database of Proto-Bantu reconstructions, Bastin et al. (2001) opt to use the symbols ⟨ι υ⟩ to represent second-degree vowels and plain ⟨i u⟩ for first-degree vowels. 59 As either phonetic/phonological or simply orthographic representations, one might also encounter the now obsolete IPA characters ⟨ɩ ɷ⟩ in place of ⟨ɪ ʊ⟩, especially in work carried out before the Kiel Convention (International Phonetic Association 1989).

80 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages by homorganic glides and it was this that led to spirantisation. Zoll (1995) suggests that first-degree vowels were featurally [+consonantal] and, similarly, others have argued that they were in actual fact fricative vowels (Maddieson 2003; Connell 2007; Faytak & Merrill 2014) such as those found certain varieties of Chinese (Lee 2005; Feng 2007; Hu & Feng 2015), Liangshang Yi (aKa Nuosu Yi; Ladefoged & Maddieson 1996; Perkins et al. 2014) and varieties of Swedish (Engstrand et al. 2000) as well as in Len Mambila (Connell 2000, 2007), a Northern Bantoid language spoken in Cameroon. Though reconstructions of Proto-Bantu with a seven-vowel inventory are widely accepted, there have also been occasional alternative suggestions that this ancestor language in fact possessed a larger set of vowels. For example, in their consideration of the historical origins of vowel harmony as observed in contemporary Nen (A.44), Stewart & van Leynseele (1979) propose that Proto-Bantu may have exhibited a nine- or even ten-vowel system with contrasting pairs of tense ([+ATR]) and lax ([-ATR]) vowels in at least the high and mid vowels (and also possibly in the low vowels). This is shown in Table 4 below.60

Tense Lax Front Back Front Back

High *į *ų *i *u Mid *ę *ǫ *e *o Low (*ë) *a

Table 4: Alternative vowel inventory of Proto-Bantu (Stewart & van Leynseele 1979)

Finally, though Coupez (1980) assumes that Proto-Bantu did indeed have seven-vowel inventory similar to the one presented in Table 2, he argues that this evolved out of an immediately preceding ten-vowel system such as that in Table 4.

2.7.2 An overview of the diachrony of vowel harmony in Bantu

2.7.2.1 An initial review

As with the vowel inventory of Proto-Bantu, the topic of vowel harmony in Proto- Bantu has been discussed in the literature for many decades. Hyman (1999: 253) comments that ‘[v]irtually everyone who has commented on the issue agrees that

60 Extending the use of the cedilla to mark first-degree vowels, Stewart & van Leynseele (1979) notate tense mid vowels as ⟨ę ǫ⟩ but lax mid vowel as unmarked ⟨e o⟩.

81 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

[vowel height harmony] should be reconstructed for [Proto-Bantu]’ and goes on to cite Greenberg (1951) and Bastin (1983) as but two examples of this. Likewise, Stew- art (2000a: 162) observes that ‘[i]t is generally accepted that [vowel height harmony] goes back to Proto-Bantu’; Bostoen (2019: 316) also comments that ‘in all likelihood [harmony] can be reconstructed to [Proto-Bantu]’. As Hyman (1999: 254) again says, the majority of those who have worked on this have concluded that height harmony in Proto-Bantu was asymmetrical in the same way as many modern languages (see e.g. Meeussen 1967). Nevertheless, there have been dissenting opinions. For example, Stewart (1970) and Stewart & van Leynseele (1979) advanced the alternative idea that Proto-Bantu in fact had ATR rather than height harmony and, as noted in §2.7.1 above, a nine- or ten-vowel inventory.61 Stewart (2000a) has also previously proposed a potential relationship between the lowering of nasalised vowels in Pre-Bantu and height harmony as is often reconstructed or assumed for Proto-Bantu. In support of this, he points to evidence not only from non-Bantu languages of the Niger–Congo family such as Akan but also modern Bantu languages such as Umbundu (R.11).62 In addition to this, Hyman (1999) proposes that Proto-Bantu lacked harmony, an account that I shall expand more on shortly in §2.7.2.3.

2.7.2.2 Verbal extensions

As with modern languages, the verbal extensions are frequently central to any discussion of height harmony in Proto-Bantu. These are discussed in both a historical and synchronic context by, for example, Schadeberg (2003a: 72–9) and Schade- berg & Bostoen (2019: 173–87). The reconstructions given by Schadeberg & Bostoen (2019: 173) for the various verbal extensions of Proto-Bantu, which are still found in some form or other in most modern languages, are provided in (113) below.

(113) a. *-i-/*-ici- causative b. *-ɩd- applicative c. *-ɩk- impositive d. *-ɩk- neuter (stative)

61 Stewart (1983) has since provided arguments for height harmony instead. 62 However, he does not deal with the harmony displayed by verbal extensions containing back vowels, commenting that ‘the relatively limited vowel height harmony which they display is not a direct consequence of the diachronic rule of nasalized vowel lowering for which I have been able to cite evidence’ (Stewart 2000a: 172).

82 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

e. *-am- positional (stative) f. *-an- associative (reciprocal) g. *-a(n)g- repetitive h. *-ad- extensive i. *at- tentive (contactive) j. *-ʊd- separative (transitive) k. *-ʊk- separative (intransitive) l. *-ʊ-/*-ibʊ- passive63

Discussions of vowel harmony are of course concerned predominantly with those extensions containing non-low vowels. Indeed, Schadeberg & Bostoen (2019: 173) note that the third-degree vowels *e and *o only occur in extensions in Proto-Bantu as lowered allophones of second-degree *ɩ and *ʊ respectively due to vowel harmony.64 Though the reconstructions in (113) are generally accepted in the literature, Hy- man (1999) has proposed that reconstructing certain of them differently may better explain the typology of vowel harmony systems across contemporary Bantu. Vowel harmony is not thought, however, to have only caused alternations in suffixes but also to be ultimately responsible for static generalisations within stems. However, as Stewart (2000a: 162), among others, has noted, ‘this is demonstrable only in the case of the nominal stems as the typical verb stem has only one vowel.’ For example, Hyman (1999: 253–4) notes that Greenberg (1951) reconstructs a symmetric vowel harmony system, ‘[b]asing himself in part on distributional restrictions of vowels in CVCV noun stems’. Hyman (1999: 256–67) then goes on to discuss bisyllabic noun stems in various modern languages and shows that these often display symmetric rather than asymmetric static generalisations, even in a language such as Nande (D.42) which elsewhere exhibits asymmetric harmony (e.g. as can be seen in alternations observed in verbs; see §2.6.16).

2.7.2.3 Hyman’s (1999) “peripheralisation” account

As already mentioned in §2.7.2.1, it is generally assumed that Proto-Bantu exhibited some form of vowel harmony. Hyman (1999), however, presents an argument that

63 According to Schadeberg & Bostoen (2019: 186–7), ‘few passive verbs have been reconstructed for [Proto-Bantu]’ and, compared to other verbal extensions, reflexes of the passive extension are relatively few and far between in modern languages. 64 They also comment that ‘[t]he absence of *u may be coincidental, since it does occur in expan- sions.’

83 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Proto-Bantu, as far as at least in verbal extensions are concerned, did not in fact possess harmony—symmetric or asymmetric—and that this better explains the whole of the variation seen in the harmony system observable in modern-day Bantu languages.65 As shown in §2.6, asymmetry in vowel harmony with respect to backness (or rounding) is the norm in the Bantu languages and it is often useful to treat front height harmony and back height harmony as separate. Hyman (1999: 288) proposes that the reason for this asymmetry is that front and back height harmony effectively have different origins. One usual interpretation of how asymmetric vowel height harmony arose historically is that second-degree *i lowered to *e after both third-degree vowels *e and *o but that second-degree *u lowered to *o only after *o (which closely aligns with synchronic characterisations in the literature).66 This is summarised in (114) below (Hyman 1999: 237).

(114) a. *i > e / { e o } C _ b. *u > o / o C _

However, Hyman (1999: 269) suggests that the historical change in fact played out differently and that a process of vowel “peripheralisation” in “weak” positions was blocked by a suitable reinforcing preceding vowel. Effectively this means that, instead of a lowering process such as that in (114), there was a process of vowel raising. That is, *e was raised to *i everywhere except after *e and *o was raised to *u everywhere except after *o. This reinterpretation is given in (115) below (Hyman 1999: 269).

(115) a. *e>i / {įųiua} C_ b. *o > u / {įųiuea} C_

Key to this interpretation are the verbal extensions. Hyman (1999: 273) reconstructs the applicative and stative suffixes as *-ed- and *-ek- with third-degree vowels, respectively rather than *-id- and *-ik-, with second-degree vowels as in (113).67 How- ever, Hyman (1999: 275) reconstructs the causative as *-icį- rather than *-ecį-.68

65 Here I present only the broad outline of Hyman’s (1999) argument. The reader is urged to consult the cited work itself for more detail. 66 Hyman (1999) represents the seven vowels of Proto-Bantu as in Table 2, which I follow in the discussion of his work here (cf. e.g. the transcriptions in (113) above). 67 Meinhof (1948) also reconstructed certain verbal extensions with *e (see Hyman 1999: 267, fn. 37). 68 He does not give a first-degree vowels for the first vowel in the suffix—as isdonein (113)— ostensibly because the so-called “long” causative generally does not trigger spirantisation (Hy- man 1999: 274–5).

84 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

This provides a simple explanation as to why languages such as Mbukushu (see §2.6.5) possess a causative suffix containing a front vowel of higher height than the front vowel of the applicative suffix, both which are non-alternating in terms ofthe quality of their vowel; the explanation being that the vowels in these suffixes differ in height because the applicative never underwent peripheralisation. Similarly, under this view, the front mid vowel found after low /a/ in the applicative found in languages like Mbunda (see §2.6.3) would also be etymologically original, with *e not undergoing peripheralisation after *a in this case. It is more difficult for accounts that do not reconstruct the applicative and causative suffixes as having differing heights in Proto-Bantu to explain how it isthatthere are modern daughter languages in which these suffixes also differ in 69height. In languages where the reflex of the Proto-Bantu causative suffix *-icį- now alternates, Hyman (1999: 275) posits that it no longer remained invariant ‘as a result of [vowel height harmony] coming to be more general in Bantu languages”. That is, essentially by analogy with alternating suffixes such as the applicative and theim- positive. As for the reversive (or separative) suffixes in Proto-Bantu, Hyman (1999: 288) reconstructs these as having second- rather than third-degree back rounded vowels (as is usual in the literature; see (113) again), i.e. as *-ud- and *-uk- instead of *-od- and *-ok-. In contrast with the process of peripheralisation in (115), as well as for those suffixes reconstructed as containing third-degree front unrounded vowels, these suffixes may then undergo lowering to *o by assimilation due to a preceding *o just as in (114b).70 It is also worth noting that, if asymmetric height harmony is ancestral to all Bantu languages, this unavoidably leads one to the logical conclusion that ‘all cases of symmetric [vowel height harmony] would have been innovative’ and this would, in all likelihood, have had to have been innovated multiple times rather than on just a single occasion (Hyman 1999: 255–6). In addition to this, Hyman (1999: 236) also hypothesises that asymmetric vowel harmony could be taken as being a phylogenetic marker of sorts:

69 See, however, a potential explanation in the discussion of Goes & Bostoen (2019) below. 70 I am unaware of any Bantu language where reversive suffixes surface with [o] rather than [u] following a preceding /a/, cf. front height harmony in Mbunda (see §2.6.3), though lowering of /u/ after /a/ is found, for example, in Old Norwegian (see §2.3.2).

85 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

I attempt to show that [asymmetry vowel height harmony] is auseful criterion to subdivide Bantu into two groups, roughly approximating the Equitorial [sic] vs. Savanna Bantu split postulated by other researchers. My tentative suggestion [is] that this asymmetry was introduced into proto-Savanna Bantu after this split was effected.

This is observation is also noted by Ehret (1999: 56) in the same volume; however, Hyman (1999: 256) also speculates that it may be ‘the result of areal spread or as a one-time innovation affecting the relatively coherent subbranch of Bantu in whichit occurs.’ Though Nurse & Philippson (2003: 175) note the following:

The second part of this latter claim does not propose asymmetric vowel height harmony as establishing a Savanna branch by itself but as sup- porting such a branch already established by other means.

Regardless, Stewart (2000b: 45) contests the claim that an asymmetric vowel-harmony system constitutes a ‘useful criterion for membership of the Savanna branch’. He contends that this would force one to conclude that the second-degree vowels of Proto- Bantu were tense mid vowels—i.e. [e o]—rather than lax high vowels—i.e. [ɪ ʊ]—and characterises the latter of the two as the likelier possibility (citing Stewart 1970, 1983; Schadeberg 1994). Instead, he argues that an asymmetric harmony system was already present in Proto-Bantu and was preserved along with the second-degree vowels [ɪ ʊ] in Proto-Savanna.

2.7.2.4 Evidence from the Kikongo Language Cluster

Hyman (1999) is not the only author to support the notion that Proto-Bantu lacked vowel harmony. For example, in their paper focusing mainly on the variation in vowel-harmony systems found within the Kikongo Language Cluster (some of which are also discussed by Hyman 1999), Goes & Bostoen (2019) conclude that neither Proto-Bantu nor Proto-Kikongo had vowel harmony. However, they disagree with Hyman that it is necessary to reconstruct the applicative and stative verbal extensions with third- rather than second-degree vowels and thus also with a different vowel to the long causative suffix, viewing this as ‘an unnecessary complication’ (Goes & Bostoen 2019: 54). This potentially leaves the behaviour of languages outside the Kikongo Language Cluster—such as Luyana (K.31), Makhuwa (P.31), Zulu (S.42)—in which the causative suffix is invariably higher than the applicative suffix unexplained.

86 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Goes & Bostoen (2019: 55), do though venture a partial explanation, suggesting that the causative extension *-icį- historically escaped harmony as its initial second- degree vowel was raised under the influence of the following first-degree71 vowel. They also suggest that, if the Proto-Bantu form of the applicative and stative suffixes had been *-ed- and *-ek- respectively, we would expect to find similar invariant instances but that these are lacking from the Kikongo Language Cluster. Of course, as already noted, such Bantu languages do exist, albeit not among their sample of study. It may well be the case then that Proto-Kikongo did not possess such a difference between the pertinent verbal extensions; however, the same need not necessarily hold for Proto-Bantu on this basis.

71 This possibility is also acknowledged by Hyman (1999: 274–5), noting that Bastin (1986: 89) attributes this originally to Malcolm Guthrie.

87 cHapteR 3

Theoretical background

There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.

Douglas Adams The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

3.1 Introduction

The topic of vowel harmony as it is manifests itself in the Bantu languages isone that, though perhaps not quite as widely popular as vowel harmony in, for example, Finnish, Hungarian or Turkish, has nevertheless received a decent amount of attention in the literature (e.g. Katamba 1984; Goldsmith 1985; Mtenje 1985; Har- ris 1987, 1994, 1997; Moto 1989; Khumalo 1987; Rennison 1987; Hyman 1991, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2002a; Khabanyane 1991; Scullen 1992; Cobb 1995; Steriade 1995b; Mutaka 1995; Jokweni & Thipa 1996; Leitch 1996; Marten 1996, 1997; Odden 1996; Beckman 1997; Dichabe 1997; Kula 1997; Kula & Marten 2000; Riggle 1999, 2000; Peng 2000a; Archangeli & Pulleyblank 2002; Nevins 2004, 2010; Ngonyani 2004; Gick et al. 2006; Kenstowicz 2009; Downing 2010; Hein 2013; Simango 2013; van der Hulst 2014, 2018; Tabuse 2017; Sandstedt 2018, 2019, 2020b). Most work—and, indeed, the most prominent work—has tended to focus on canonical asymmetric vowel harmony. This is es-

88 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages pecially true of five-vowel languages, to the extent that Downing & Mtenje (2017: 75) describe it as being ‘a classic phonology problem’. They also make the following remark regarding this (Downing & Mtenje 2017: 89):

[W]hile Bantu [vowel height harmony] might be a familiar problem for phonologists, it continues to be a thorny one, challenging our understanding of the typology of vowel harmony systems.

Indeed, both canonical and non-canonical varieties of height harmony in the Bantu languages have not only enriched our knowledge of what human languages may look like in a more descriptive sense but the issues associated with them, such as the asymmetric behaviour of front and back vowels and the fact that the high and low vowels appear to form a natural class, have also proven to be valuable whetstones with which to hone our theories of the phonological grammar. In this chapter, I provide a summary of certain formal theoretical analysis in §3.2. This serves as an introduction to some of the approaches and theoretical frameworks that have been applied to Bantu height harmony in the past and also touches on some of the “thorny challenges” that such systems of vowel harmony pose. Following this, in §3.3, I discuss particular issues that are more relevant to this thesis. As my focus is five-vowel Bantu languages, unlike in chapter 2, I limit myself to a discussion of these languages. I do, however, present information on languages other than those possessing a canonical system of height harmony—though as it is the most common, not only typologically speaking but also in the literature, canonical height harmony is the main pattern discussed.

3.2 Previous analyses

In this section, I provide a selection of previous theoretical analyses of height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages. Reflecting the bias in the literature, these cases focus mainly on canonical height harmony, with Chewa being a particularly popular language of choice. Nonetheless, certain authors do also tackle non-canonical examples of height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages and these are also discussed here. In §3.2.1, I discuss the underspecification-based interpretation taken by Moto (1989) following which, in §3.2.2, I present the differing approaches taken by Har- ris (1994) and Marten (1996), authors both working in element-based frameworks.

89 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Next, in §3.2.3, I discuss Beckman’s (1997) Optimality-Theoretic account using positional faithfulness and feature co-occurrence constraints, a widely cited treatment of canonical height harmony in Bantu. Lastly, in §3.2.4, I present a more recent approach taken by Sandstedt (2018, 2019, 2020b) which is set in a variant of Contrastive Hierarchy Theory. These different approaches are presented in chronological order of the mainana- lysis considered, though this is by no means intended to be a historically-minded report. Likewise, it is not the aim of this section to provide an exhaustive exploration of all formal accounts that one may encounter in the literature. Rather, I intended to provide an overview of the different types of approaches taken to this issue, including their commonalities and the differences between them as well demonstrating the different frameworks used in analyses.

3.2.1 Underspecification

The first analysis I present is that proposed by Moto (1989) who deals with canonical height harmony in Chewa using featural underspecification with the feature [-high] being analysed as spreading from left to right from triggers to targets.72 In this approach, root-initial vowels are explicitly specified for [±high] non-initial vowels such as those found suffixes are unspecified for this feature. Both triggers and targets do bear overt feature specifications for [±low] and [±round], however. Moto (1989) analyses the non-low vowels /i/, /u/, /e/ and /o/ as being specified as [-low] and low /a/ as being the only vowel bearing the specification [+low]. The peripheral vowels /i/, /u/ and /a/ are said to be unspecified for [±high] but the two mid vowels /e/ and /o/ are overtly specified as [-high]. The mid vowels are thus featurally more marked than the non-mid peripheral vowels. The feature matrices for these five vowels are shown in (116) below.

(116) a. /i/ [-low, -round] b. /u/ [-low, +round] c. /e/ [-high, -low, -round] d. /o/ [-high, -low, +round] e. /a/ [+low, -round]

72 Note also that Scullen (1992) provides an alternative, though largely similar, underspecification- based analysis of height harmony in Chewa. Steriade (1987a) is another instance of an analysis invoking the spread of [-high] in which /a/ is unspecified for [±high].

90 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

The mid vowels /e/ and /o/ trigger lowering by progressively spreading the feature [-high] whereas the peripheral vowels /i/, /u/ and /a/ as a group trigger neither raising nor lowering as they lack any such specification for [±high]. However, such feature specifications should predict that /e/ and /o/ would be able to raise /a/ as well aslower /i/ and /u/. Both this and the issue of the asymmetry in the behaviour of the front and back target vowels are dealt with, effectively, by splitting height harmony into two processes. Moto (1989) stipulates that triggers are only permitted to spread [-high] to targets that are already specified as [-low, -round]. This accounts for front height harmony. In order to further accurately incorporate the behaviour of back height harmony into this analysis, those triggers that bear the feature specification [+round] are permitted to spread to only those targets specified as [-low, +round]. The above restriction correctly excludes /a/ from undergoing harmony andalso captures the front–back asymmetry (or, as it is effectively construed here, the unrounded–rounded asymmetry). The low vowel /a/ does not trigger harmony because it is unspecified for [±high] when height harmony applies. It later acquires the surface specification [-high] through a redundancy feature-filling rule with reference to its already specified [+low] feature. For high /i/ and /u/, the redundant feature filled in is, of course, [+high] instead. However, as Harris (1994: 519–20) notes this would not be possible in those varieties of underspecification theory that ‘invoke the Redundancy Rule Ordering Constraint (Archangeli 1984)’ and ‘[a]s Scullen (1992) observes, the problem in this case is that the redundant [-high] value of a would have to be filled in prior to the application of [-high]-spread. But this would erroneously predict that a should be no less harmonically active than the other nonhigh vowels, e and o.’ Regardless, assuming that /a/ is unspecified for [±high] when harmony applies predicts that /a/ should be transparent, which is not the case in canonical languages such as Chewa.

3.2.2 Elements

In element-based frameworks, the fact that the peripheral vowels and the mid vowels form two natural classes in canonical five-vowel Bantu height harmony has been explained by the stipulation that peripheral /i/, /u/ and /a/ are simplex, being made up of a single element, but that mid /e/ and /o/ are complex, containing two elements. As with the underspecification analysis seen in §3.2.1, this makes the mid vowels the

91 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages more featurally marked segments in the vowel inventory. An example of the specifications for these vowels using the elements |I|, |U| and |A| is provided in (117) below (based on e.g. Harris 1994: 526; Marten 1996: 68; van der Hulst 2018: 253, 263). Note that, for the sake of simplicity of exposition, any potential internal structure or relationships are ignored here for the time being.

(117) a. /i/ |I| b. /u/ |U| c. /e/ |I A| d. /o/ |U A| e. /a/ |A|

One such element-based analysis is put forward by Harris (1994).73 Somewhat similarly to Moto’s (1989) proposal that harmony is the result of the rightward propagation of the feature [-high], Harris’s (1994) analysis of height harmony in canonical Chewa argues for the spreading of the element |A| from left to right.74 Harris (1994) rejects analyses of Chewa height harmony in which /a/ but not but /i/, /u/, /e/ or /o/ are unspecified for [±high] on the grounds that such accounts are unable to satisfactorily account for the opaque behaviour of /a/, as already noted in §3.2.1. Instead, he proposes a monovalent analysis that uses the three elements already introduced above. According to Harris (1994: 525), in previous related work such as Goad (1994), the ‘[m]onovalent feature systems […] fail to provide a structural representation of the unmarked status of the [peripheral–SN] vowels’. Goad’s (1994) account in particular, says Harris, is flawed as the supposedly less marked low vowel /a/ bears two features, namely both [open] and [low], one more than the mid vowels /e/ and /o/, which bear only the feature [open], with high vowels /i/ and /u/ bearing neither.75 Thus, though

73 This same author has also dealt with vowel harmony in Bantu elsewhere, seee.g. Harris (1987, 1997) and Harris & Lindsey (2000). 74 This is also similar to Goldsmith’s (1985) use of the privative feature [low] in part of his analysis of non-canonical Yaka (see also Hyman 1998 for an alternative analysis of Yaka). In yet another account, Steriade (1995b) proposes analysing canonical height harmony in Bantu as the spreading of the novel marked feature [nonperipheral] (which is said to characterise mid and high central vowels; cf. also [-tense] in, for example, Mtenje 1985). As we shall see in §3.2.4, Sandstedt (2018, 2019, 2020b) uses the privative feature [open] which in some languages, e.g. Chewa, posited to occur only on mid vowels and in others, e.g. Mbunda, is borne by all non- high vowels. 75 Cf. also Sandstedt’s (2018, 2019, 2020b) analysis, discussed in §3.2.4.

92 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages one might expect low /a/ to be a relatively unmarked segment, it is in fact featurally more marked than, say, the mid vowels (Harris 1994: 525). In his analysis, Harris (1994) uses the same elements for each vowel as in (117) except that |I| and |U| occupy a dominant head tier (notated with underlining) whereas |A| occupies a dependent tier. Thus, Harris (1994: 527) posits that the mid vowels in roots bear the element |A| and that both high vowels in roots and those vowels that exhibit alternations in suffixes lack this. The surfacing of mid vowels after othermid vowels is explained by the spreading of the element |A| from left to right. However, this also predicts that the element |A| should likewise spread from instances of /a/, thereby lowering high vowels to mid vowels. As Harris (1994: 528) describes it, ‘Gold- smith’s (1985) solution to this problem is to formulate a harmony rule incorporating the stipulation that |A| only spreads if the nucleus to which it is attached also contains an association to some other element’. This approach restricts the set of harmonically active vowels to /e/ and /o/ because they bear a head, |I| and |U| respectively, as well as |A| on a dependent tier. Harris’s (1994: 529f) own interpretation, though, is that ‘an element on a dependent tier can only head a melodic expression in the absence of an element on the dominant tier’. He goes on to conclude that |A| is in fact a head for /a/ but not for /e/ or /o/ and that only dependents may spread in harmony. Thus, |A| is only able to spread from /e/ and /o/ but crucially not from /a/. Here it is worth noting that, although Harris (1994) discusses front-vowel targets, he does not discuss back-vowel targets; thus, his analysis only directly deals with front and not back height harmony.76 Another element-based analysis of a five-vowel Bantu language with canonical height harmony, namely Swahili, is provided by Marten (1996).77 This analysis does tackle the issue of front–back asymmetry. Where, as described above, Harris (1994) makes use of tiers and does not allow the role of an element to be changed by phonological processes, Marten (1996) adopts the approach taken by Charette & Göksel (1996) to backness harmony in Turkish using licensing constraints and allowing the role of an element to be altered. His analysis also employs a different arrangement of

76 Marten (1996: 71) suggests that back height harmony may in fact no longer be a productive process in Chewa but is in, for example, Swahili. Downing & Mtenje (2017: 73) similarly note that verbal extensions containing back vowels are not extremely productive in the language but remark that a certain number of appropriate pairs may still be found and, what’s more, the co- occurrence of vowels in such cases accord with canonical Bantu back height harmony as would be expected. 77 See also Marten (1997) and Kula & Marten (2000) for subsequent work.

93 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages elements to Harris (1994) due to the licensing constraints given in (118) below (taken from Marten 1996: 67).

(118) a. Operators must be licensed b. Only |A| is a licenser c. |I| and |U| do not combine

In contrast to Harris (1994), the mid vowels /e/ and /o/ have as their head |A| rather than |I| and |U| respectively. One aspect that Marten’s (1996) analysis does have in common with Harris’s (1994), however, is that harmony is the result of the spread of the element |A|. In front height harmony, the affected vowels are said to be lexically specified as high /i/ and |A| licenses the spread of itself from the complex vowels /e/ and /o/ but not from simplex /a/ by virtue of the presence of operator elements, i.e. |I| for /e/ and |U| for /o/.78 Having spread, |A| takes over the role of head in the now complex target vowels and |I| is demoted as a result. This is referred to as “switching”. In order to account for the asymmetry between front and back target vowels in Swahili, more restrictive conditions on the propagation of |A| are required. Firstly, as with front vowels, those back vowels affected by harmony are assumed to be lexically specified as high /u/. In contrast to front height harmony, however, |A| ispermitted to spread only when the triggering vowel contains the element |U| as an operator and not merely on the presence of any operator. Once spread, however, switching then takes place between |U| and |A|. In addition to the canonical height harmony found in Swahili, Marten (1996) also discusses the non-canonical pattern exhibited by Ndonga, a language in which—as can be seen in Mbunda (see §2.6.3)—it is [e] rather than [i] that is found after low /a/ in front height harmony. Marten (1996) adapts his analysis of Swahili to Ndonga simply by removing the condition on front height harmony that an operator need be present in the triggering vowel. Harris’s (1994) analysis, however, as Marten (1996: 75) points out, implies that the pattern observed in Ndonga should not be possible.

3.2.3 Positional faithfulness

Perhaps the most widely cited example of a theoretical analysis of height harmony in a five-vowel Bantu language is Beckman’s (1997) treatment of canonical Shona.

78 Note that |A| does not spread to /a/ since the element combination |A A| is not possible.

94 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

This analysis is set in the framework of Optimality Theory, making use ofaseries of faithfulness and markedness constraints that privilege the first syllable of the root and generally disfavour mid vowels, especially rounded mid vowels. Beckman (1997) does not argue for nor require any constraints typically employed in Optimality-Theoretic analyses of processes of harmony, such as Align, SpRead or AgRee.79 Indeed, she explicitly argues against analyses using alignment constraints (Beckman 1997: 26–33). A further crucial detail of Beckman’s (1997) analysis is that, where possible, adjacent vowels may share Aperture or VPlace nodes. Thus, certain sequences of vowels— perhaps most notably [o.o]—are assigned fewer violations than if their nodes were not shared by virtue of the fact that there are fewer tokens of particular autosegments. It is this minimisation of the number of autosegment tokens which, along with of course the constraint ranking, is able to account for the asymmetric behaviour of height harmony though the constraints used do not themselves explicitly reference any process of harmony. As with the analyses of Chewa already seen in §§3.2.1 and 3.2.2, this approach also incorporates the notion that mid vowels are more marked that peripheral vowels. However, in contrast to, for example, Moto (1989) and Harris (1994), Beckman (1997) does not make use of featural underspecification for any vowels. The feature matrices used by Beckman (1997: 8) for the five vowels of Shona are given in (119) below.

(119) a. /i/ [+high, -low, -round, -back] b. /u/ [+high, -low, +round, +back] c. /e/ [-high, -low, -round, -back] d. /o/ [-high, -low, +round, +back] e. /a/ [-high, +low, -round, +back]

Before both their ranking and interaction are discussed in more detail, the relevant constraints from Beckman’s (1997) analysis are presented in (120) below.

(120) a. Ident(rd) Do not change values for the feature [±round] between input and output.

79 Among many other examples, Paster (2004) makes use of Align-R[-hi] in an analysis of height harmony in Buchan Scots (described in §2.3.3); Walker’s (2001) treatment of rounding harmony in Classical Manchu and Oroqen employs the constraint SpRead[Rd]if[−hi]; and Baković (2000a: 129–86) uses AgRee[atR] in his analysis of tongue root harmony in Yoruba.

95 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

b. Ident(lo) Do not change values for the feature [±low] between input and output. c. Ident(hi) Do not change values for the feature [±high] between input and output.

d. Ident-σ1(hi) Do not change values for the feature [±high] between input and output for a segment in the root-initial syllable. e. *High Segments should not be simultaneously specified as [+high] and [-low]. f. *Mid Segments should not be simultaneously specified as [-high] and [-low]. g. *Low Segments should not be simultaneously specified as [-high] and [+low]. h. *RoLo Segments should not be simultaneously specified as [+round] and [-high].

Firstly, the general faithfulness constraints Ident(rd) and Ident(lo) are included as undominated since the rounding of rounded vowels and the lowness of low vowels in the input are never altered in height harmony in Shona. Next, the positional faithfulness constraint Ident-σ1(hi) assigns one violation for each change made to the feature specification for [±high] between the input and output for a vowel inspe- cifically the first syllable of a root. It is this constraint and its high ranking relative to *Mid that affords the marked mid vowels /e/ and /o/ a sort of special status. The corresponding generic constraint Ident(hi) is low-ranked. The directional behaviour of triggers and targets is likewise explained by assigning Ident-σ1(hi) a high ranking. Indeed, Beckman and others have argued that directionality should not be considered an independent parameter in formal analyses of assimilation (see e.g. Steriade 1995b; Padgett 1995a,b; Beckman 1998; Lombardi 1999). As Beckman (1997: 4) puts it, ‘positional faithfulness constraints both permit underlying marked segments to surface in prominent positions and prohibit marked elements from migrating to prominent positions in order to attain licensed status’.80

80 Compare this, for example, with Walker’s (2011) suggestion that vowel harmony may be a way of increasing the perceptibility of weak features by spreading them more widely throughout a given domain (as in metaphony in Romance; see also §2.3.1).

96 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Outside of this privileged position of the first syllable in the root, the mid vowels are dispreferred, which is explained here by the ranking of the three markedness constraints *High, *Mid and *Low.81 As seen in (120) above, these are unpacked as constraints that militate against the following combinations of specifications for binary features: *[+high, -low], *[-high, -low] and *[-high, +low] respectively. The constraint *Mid is ranked higher than both *High and *Low, meaning mid vowels are treated as more marked than peripheral vowels. Note that the dominance of *Mid over *High also explains the preference for high /i/ rather than mid /e/ following low /a/. An additional feature-based markedness constraint that is key to this analysis is *RoLo, which assigns a violation for each co-occurrence of [+round] and [-high] in the output. In support of this constraint, Beckman (1997: 24) cites Kaun (1995: 144; see also Kaun 2004). In their discussion of Kaun (1995, 2004) and Beckman (1997), Rose & Walker (2011: 273) make the following remark regarding this particular markedness constraint:

This could be conceptualized in gestural terms by reinterpreting *[+round, -high] as a constraint that penalizes the execution of lip rounding with a relatively low jaw position, without sensitivity to the dimension of its temporal extent. In other words, it is the articulatory configuration that is dispreferred without a difference in penalty for articulations of longer duration.

It is this constraint and its position in the ranking between the positional faithfulness constraint Ident-σ1(hi) and the markedness constraint *Mid that is the main way in which Beckman’s (1997) analysis is able to account for the canonical asymmetric behaviour of front and back vowels in height harmony as observed in Shona (and thus of course a fortiori in Chewa and many other Bantu languages). Taking all of the above reasoning into account produces the ranking of the relevant constraints shown in (121) below.

(121) Ident(rd), Ident(lo), Ident-σ1(hi) » *RoLo » *Mid » *High » Ident(hi)

An important additional detail to note, already alluded to previously, that is crucial to accounting for the behaviour of the system as a whole and not only the asymmetry, is that putatively harmonising vowels share the same feature node as this is seen as a

81 Since *Low is essentially inconsequential in the analysis it is largely omitted by Beckman (1997). For this same reason I have also not included it in the constraint ranking in (121) below.

97 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages less marked strategy than each vowel having its own feature node. Thus, as a trigger, /e/ does not cause height harmony with target /u/ since [e.o] incurs one violation for *RoLo but [e.u] is assigned none. This can be seen from the feature-geometric arrangement of [e.o] and [e.u] in (122) below.

(122) a. C e C o C b. C e C u C Aperture [rd] Ap [rd] Ap

[-lo] [-hi] [-lo] [-hi] [-lo][+hi]

However, although [o.o] also incurs a violation for mid-ranked *RoLo, it incurs none for low-ranked *High. On the other hand, [o.u] is assigned a total of two violation, one each for *RoLo and *High. See the diagrams in (123) for the relevant feature geometry of the competing outputs [o.o] and [o.u].

(123) a. C o C o C b. C o C u C VPlace Ap [rd] Ap [rd]

Ap [rd] [-lo] [-hi] [-lo][+hi] [-lo] [-hi]

As Krämer (2003: 66) notes, the appeal of this analysis is that height harmony is effectively an epiphenomenonal product of the interaction between positional faithfulness and feature-based markedness constraints. Moreover, the particular constraints employed in this analysis are motivated on grounds independent to height harmony in Shona (see e.g. Rose & Walker’s 2011 remark regarding *RoLo above). However, despite its appeal in this respect, it should also be noted that this approach is seemingly unable to account for the full variation in height harmony among five-vowel Bantu languages. For example, Nichols (2018) claims that, although it is able to be successfully applied to height harmony in South Kongo and Pende, it is unable to be adapted to capture what is observed in Punu and Lozi (see e.g. §§§2.6.4, §2.6.3, §2.6.7 and §2.6.5 for the systems of harmony found in these or similar languages).82 In addition to this, Downing (2010) also shows that Beckman’s (1997) analysis is ill-equipped to account for interaction of height harmony and vowel reduction in Makonde.

82 A summary of this is as follows. South Kongo and Pende are accounted for simply by reranking the constraints. However, when dealing with Punu, Beckman’s (1997) analysis encounters a richness-of-the-base problem as mid vowels in the input must be limited to root-initial syllables in order to reproduce the observed pattern. The application of the analysis to Lozialso poses problems as conflicting constraint rankings are required to fully account for this height harmony system. For more details, consult Nichols (2018) itself.

98 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

3.2.4 Contrastive hierarchy

A more recent analytic approach that has been applied to height harmony in Bantu languages by Sandstedt (2018, 2019, 2020b) is Privative Contrastive Hierarchy The- ory.83 Unlike many other authors, Sandstedt ventures beyond the canonical system in the formal analysis of height harmony in five-vowel languages. In addition, as well as discussing those five-vowel languages presented below, he also deals with certain seven-vowel languages, though these are omitted here. The framework used by Sandstedt employs binary-branching feature nodes with emergent privative features alongside feature co-occurrence restrictions. For example, a grammar may include the features [F] and [G] as well as the restriction *[F, G] which prohibits their co-occurrence. In this instance, there would then be two feature nodes, one for [F] and one for [G], with their relationship being determined by the learner on the basis of the observed input. The presence of a feature node for a given segment means that that segmentis contrastive for that feature, with segments in “dominant” classes bearing an overt feature specification for that feature node and segments in “recessive” classes lacking a feature specification for that node. Nodes for a given feature are visible tophono- logical processes involving that same feature and segments that are non-contrastive for a particular feature lack that feature node entirely. Thus, if we have the three segments /α/, /β/ and /γ/ in an inventory, it could bethat /α/ is distinguished from /β/ and /γ/ by the presence of [F] and that /β/ is distinguished from /γ/ by the presence of [G]. This toy example would be represented by Sandstedt as in (124) below.

(124) [F]; *[F, G] > [G]

F[F] F[] /α/ G[G] G[] /β/ /γ/ In order to capture the effects of height harmony in Bantu, Sandstedt also invokes the use of a licensing constraint (after Walker 2005; Iosad 2017; cf. also Nevins 2010).84

83 See also previous work on the Contrastive Hypothesis such as Dresher (2009, 2013), Hall (1995) and Hall & Hall (2016). 84 Thus, unlike in Beckman’s (1997) analysis but similarly to the analyses of Harris (1994), Marten (1996) and others, harmony is not an epiphenomenon.

99 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

More specifically, this is a licensing constraint which stipulates that ‘non-initial vowels which are contrastive for [open] should be associated with [open]’ (Sandstedt 2020b: 17). In combination with differing language-specific featural representations for vocalic segments, this is able to account for the typological variations observed in height harmony. Firstly, before it is discussed, the contrastive feature hierarchy for canonical Chewa is given in (125) below.

(125) [labial] > [open]; *[labial, low]; *[open, low] > [low]

labial[labial] labial[]

open[open] open[] open[open] open[] /o/ /u/ /e/ low[low] low[] /a/ /i/ This arrangement allows the feature [open] to spread to those segments withan empty open node but without the feature [low], i.e. /i/ and /u/. This also means that, since it has an empty open node, though it is unable to spread [open], /a/ is nevertheless visible to spreading but, as it bears the feature [low] and the feature combination [open, low] is disallowed, /a/ blocks the propagation of [open]. In addition, the asymmetry between rounded and unrounded target vowels in Chewa is explained by virtue of the relative scopes of the feature nodes labial and open; segments that bear the feature [labial] are only able to harmonise for [open] with segments specified as [open, labial]. Thus, as a result, /u/ is only able to receive [open] from /o/, whichis also [labial], but not /e/, which lacks this feature. On the other hand, since it lacks the feature [labial], /i/ is able to receive [open] from both /e/ and /o/.85 Sandstedt (2018, 2020b) also shows that this analysis is able to be adapted to fit the pattern of harmony seen in non-canonical Mbunda (see §2.6.3) in which [e] rather

85 Though not referenced by Sandstedt (2018, 2019, 2020b), this approach to height harmony in Chewa is somewhat reminiscent of that taken by Goad (1994), in which the privative feature [open] is also said to spread rightwards. However, one of the differences between the two analyses—which is born out of the two authors’ differing approaches to the internal structure of segments—is that /a/ bears [open] in Goad’s (1994) analysis with the spread of [open] limited to terminal instances of that feature and since, for /a/, [open] is non-terminal and [low] is terminal, spreading and hence harmony cannot occur.

100 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages than [i] surfaces following /a/. This is done by removing the prohibition on [open] co-occurring with [low] seen in Chewa, giving the hierarchy in (126).

(126) [labial] > [open]; *[labial, low]; [open, low] > [low]

labial[labial] labial[]

open[open] open[] open[open] open[] /o/ /u/ /i/ low[low] low[] /a/ /e/ In this case, [open] is still only able to spread to /u/ from /o/ but is now able to spread to /i/ not only from /e/ and /o/ but also from /a/. Thus, /i/ is lowered to [e] after /e/, /o/ and /a/ but /u/ is only lowered to [o] following /o/ itself and not /e/ or /a/. In addition to these two cases of asymmetric height harmony, Sandstedt (2018) provides a contrastive feature hierarchy for symmetric South Kongo (see §2.6.4). This is reproduced in (127) below.

(127) [open]; *[open, low] > [low]; *[labial, low] > [labial]

open[open] open[]

labial[labial] labial[] low[low] low[] /o/ /e/ /a/ labial[labial] labial[] /u/ /i/ The lowering of both rounded /u/ and unrounded /i/ by either /e/ or /o/ ispermitted by the higher position of the feature node open relative to labial. In this instance, the absence of lowering of either /i/ or /u/ following /a/ is explained by the latter’s lack of the feature [open]. Notice that, in all three of these cases, the most marked vowel in terms of number of features is /o/ as it bears two overt features—namely [labial] and [open]—in each case. Most other vowels, with the exception of /a/ in Mbunda, bear only a single overt feature or none at all. This and the co-occurrence restriction *[labial, low] are somewhat reminiscent of the constraint *RoLo used in Beckman’s (1997) analysis of Shona discussed in §3.2.3.

101 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

One system of height harmony for which Sandstedt does not provide an analysis, however, is that found in languages such as Mbukushu or Lozi (see §2.6.5) where the only change effected is the lowering of /u/ to [o] following /o/. It is not clearhow the analyses given above for Chewa, Mbunda and South Kongo might be adapted to such cases, at least using the same three features, namely [labial], [open] and [low]. However, one possibility I advance here might be to remove [labial] and introduce the feature [coronal].86 A suggestion of what such a contrastive hierarchy for Lozi might look like is shown in (128) below.

(128) [open]; *[open, coronal] > [coronal]; *[open, low] > [low]

open[open] open[] /o/ coRonal[coronal] coRonal[]

low[low] low[] low[low] low[] /e/ /i/ /a/ /u/ Note that this does, however, fundamentally alter the interpretation of the asymmetric behaviour of rounded and unrounded targets. That is, where for Chewa and Mbunda this asymmetry is based on the high position of labial in the hierarchy, in the above reworking for Mbukushu and Lozi, it is predicated on /u/ lacking the features [coronal] and [low] as well as restrictions against [open] co-occurring with both of these same features. Thus, though all five vowels do have an open feature node, only /o/ bears the feature [open] and is therefore able to spread its [open] feature to /u/ due to these co-occurrence restrictions and the fact that /u/ lacks any overt features.

3.3 Particular issues

Here I introduce certain issues or aspects of height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages that relate most closely to the topics touched upon in this thesis. Firstly, in §3.3.1 I discuss the issue of front–back or, as it may be, unrounded– rounded asymmetry that can be found in the harmony systems of so many Bantu

86 The feature [coronal] is used by Sandstedt (2018) in the analysis of vowel harmony systems in other non-Bantu languages such as Finnish and Khalkha Mongolian.

102 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages languages. Next, in §3.3.2, I deal with issues surrounding the behaviour of the peripheral vowels in harmony, such as the role of the low vowel /a/. Finally, in §3.3.3,I give an initial discussion of the differences—and similarities—found in various Bantu languages in the alternation of vowels and the distribution of vowels pairs with respect to lexical category. When considering height harmony in Bantu, there are various additional issues that are of interest, some more strictly theoretically-bounded than others. For example, the matter of whether harmony proceeds progressively or regressively must be attended to. Determining what precisely constitutes the domain of harmony within an analysis is an important issue too (and one that may interact with the discussion of lexical categories in §3.3.3). Yet another question is whether or not height harmony in a given language is a process of raising or lowering. One issue that recurs in various formal analyses, such as those introduced in §3.2, is the relative markedness of particular vowels, most especially mid vowels.87 Though these are most certainly important things to consider in a formal theoretical treatment of height harmony in the Bantu languages, these either do not necessarily relate directly to the primary topics explored in this thesis or are touched at later points.

3.3.1 Asymmetry

One of the most important issues in both the description and the analysis of systems of height harmony in the Bantu languages is the asymmetric behaviour displayed by front and back vowels. This relates particularly to target vowels that can be seen to undergo alternations and thus especially to the non-low vowels /i/, /u/, /e/ and /o/. Since the contrast between the front–back pairs /i/–/u/ and /e/–/o/ may also be construed as one of rounding, this front–back asymmetry is also often characterised as being a unrounded–rounded asymmetry. It should also be noted that such asymmetric behaviour is found not only in canonical systems but also in “quasi-canonical” systems (such as that found in Mbunda; see §2.6.3), with a modest number of languages taking this asymmetry to the extreme of lacking height harmony entirely with all front unrounded would-be target vowels (e.g. Mbukushu and Kikamba; see §§2.6.5 and 2.6.6). Although in analyses of particular languages this is often acknowledged as being present (one exception being Harris 1994; see §3.2.2), it is most often dealt with in

87 Cf. also Hyman’s (1999) historical peripheralisation account presented in §2.7.2.3.

103 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages canonical languages by using what might be see as an ad hoc stipulation that, in effect, in back height harmony only back or rounded vowels are valid triggers butnot so in front height harmony. This is the case, for example, in the analyses by Moto (1989) and Marten (1996) seen in §§3.2.1 and 3.2.2 respectively. The same is true of analyses of languages with more than the five vowels of Chewa or Swahili. For example, Mutaka’s (1995: 43–4; and Hyman 1991 cited therein) analysis of Nande includes such a stipulation and, although he disagrees with Clements (1991) that the harmony system in seven-vowel Kikuyu is height harmony proper, analysing it instead as ATR harmony, Peng (2000a: 379) still has to contend with the asymmetry that is present and does so by positing the rule ‘if the trigger is -back, then the target must be -back’. Rules such as these are often referred to as “parasitic”. For example, Nevins (2004: 122–3, 2010: 130–3 inter alia) deals with front and back height harmony in five-vowel Kisa and Shona by treating them as two separate sister process, stating in explicit terms that back height harmony is parasitic on the feature [+round]. Parasitic harmony can be defined as the agreement for feature F between segments X and Y which applies only if X and Y share the same value for feature G and where G≠F (e.g. Steriade 1981; Cole & Trigo 1988). The most frequently cited example of this in the literature is rounding harmony in Yawelmani Yokuts, a process which is parasitic on height and ‘spreads [+round] from [αhigh] to [αhigh] vowels’ (Cole & Trigo 1988: 22). As seen in §§3.2.3 and 3.2.4, the accounts put forward by Beckman (1997) and Sandstedt (2018, 2019, 2020b) by contrast do not require an independent stipulation that back height harmony be parasitic on rounding (or, indeed, backness). Rather, in both cases, the parasitic behaviour is accounted for by other aspects of the analytical set-up. In Beckman’s (1997) case this is the feature co-occurrence constraint *RoLo which militates against segments which are [+round, -high] and, in Sandstedt’s (2018, 2019, 2020b) analysis, this is to do with the particular arrangement of features and feature nodes. It can be seen then that the differing behaviours of front and back height harmony raises the following question in terms of their formal theoretical analysis: Are front and back height harmony one single process or two separate similar processes? Those analyses that do effectively split this into two processes by making back but notfront height harmony parasitic must then determine what feature parasitism is contingent

104 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages on. This is typically [+round] (or some other analogous feature or element according to the particular framework used), though note that Peng (2000a), for example, opts for [-back] in his treatment of seven-vowel Kikuyu. The choice between [+round] or [-back] is not necessarily an obvious one in all frameworks. For example, if the single low vowel /a/ is assumed to be unspecified for [±back] rather than being overtly specified as [-back] then there is potentially little recourse available to teaseapart any difference between the behaviour of harmony that is parasitic on [-back] and [+round] when the non-low vowels /u/ and /o/ may be analysed as bearing both.

However, though this particular question relates to strictly formal analyses of height harmony as a phonological phenomenon in these languages, there are broader issues regarding the front–back/unrounded–rounded asymmetry that may be probed in other ways. For example, if front and back height harmony behave differently at the level of vowel height harmony, are there any other asymmetries that we can observe in their behaviour in Bantu languages, both at large and with particular languages? Why it is that, in the typology of the family, we find Bantu languages that possess back height harmony and not front height harmony but the opposite situation is not seen? At the broad level, in languages with harmony along both dimensions, are instances of disharmony more tolerated in one instance or the other? Then, at finer level of investigation, do we see any typological patterns replicated in the phonetics of particular languages?

3.3.2 Peripheral vowels

In discussions of height harmony in Bantu, the term “peripheral” is used to refer to the non-mid vowel /i/, /u/ and /a/ since these vowels are found at the edge of the vowel space (see e.g. Hyman 1999). This therefore groups together the high vowels /i/ and/u/ with the low vowel /a/ to the exclusion of the mid vowels /e/ and /o/. This term finds its utility in the fact that the peripheral vowels play different roles to the non-peripheral mid vowels in height harmony in Bantu. Unlike in the asymmetric behaviour of front and back vowels discussed in §3.3.1, here the difference concerns the behaviour of these two groups of vowels as triggers rather than targets. In most cases, in both front and back height harmony, the same surface vowels are found following high /i/ and /u/ as are seen after low /a/. The term peripheral is, however, usually limited

105 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages to a descriptive rather than an analytical use.88 In many formal analyses (e.g. Moto 1989 or Harris 1994 for which see §§3.2.1 and 3.2.2 respectively), height harmony is interpreted as being a process of lowering following mid vowels and so the fact that high [i] and [u] rather than mid [e] and [o] surface following /a/ is simply due to the lack of lowering rather than being due to any active role played by /a/. By contrast, under Beckman’s (1997) analysis, this is due to the fact that the relatively less marked [i] and [u] are preferred to [e] and [o] after /a/ since *Mid outranks *High. This behaviour of the peripheral vowels—and more particularly that of thelow vowel /a/—raises questions similar to those raised by the front–back of asymmetry of target vowels. This also relates to a theme that recurs throughout the various analyses touched on in §3.2 which is that the mid vowels are more marked, whether that be in terms of number of features, more extensive structure or a markedness constraint. Do we see any patterns in the behaviour or distributions of vowels in the Bantulan- guages either as individuals or as a group that reflect the state of affairs seen in vowel harmony? That is, are high vowels disproportionately preferred following the low vowel or do we see any similar phonetic effects in this same environment (and vice versa for mid vowels)? If such effects are present or, alternatively, if the opposite is found, what might this tell us about harmony?

3.3.3 Lexical category

Here, I discuss one aspect of height harmony in Bantu languages that is not touched on in §3.2, namely a consideration of lexical category. As already alluded to at various points in §2.6, in many Bantu languages, height harmony results in active alternations only in verbs (see also Hyman 1999). Moreover, this is typically found only in a limited domain within the verb and it is often only verbal extensions—e.g. cognates of those seen in (113) in §2.7.2.2—that can be seen to alternate. This is especially true in languages where harmony proceeds progressively rather than regressively. This is the case, for example, in five-vowel Shona about which Beckman (1997: 38) comments that ‘[t]he distributional generalisations which apply to height features in Shona verbs apparently do not hold of Shona nouns’ and that ‘vowel height in nouns is contrastive outside of the root-initial syllable’. In other languages, static generalisations that are analogous to the alternations exhibited in verbs may also be seen within

88 Though this is not necessarily always the case; consider, for example, the feature [nonperipheral] suggested by Steriade (1995b).

106 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages a majority of noun stems.89 This property has previously been commented upon, for instance, for Chewa (Scullen 1992 in Downing & Mtenje 2017: 75).90 Though even in Chewa there do exist exceptional nouns and ideophones, as well as deideophonic verbs, that do not necessarily conform to the expectations of harmony either (Hy- man 1999: 285). Similarly, in Luganda, aberrant verbs may be found that result from the verbalisation of adjectives with non-height-harmonic forms (Hyman 1993: 26– 7, 1999: 287). In Shona, such exceptional items are documented as being relatively abundant among ideophones and deideophonic verbs (Fortune 1962; Hannan 1987 in Hyman 1999).91 This commonly remarked upon difference—particularly among Bantu languages with progressive height harmony—between the presence or lack of active alternations as well as the apparent similarity but non-identicalness in the distribution of pairs of vowel in verbs as opposed to other parts of speech first of all might raise questions about the possibility of category-specific phonology.92 However, though the preceding observations may be noted, the claim that vowel height harmony in certain Bantu languages is a category-specific phenomenon is not one that is generally explicit advanced or considered in the literature. Regardless of this issue, it may still be a worthwhile and fruitful endeavour to investigate the behaviours of vowel pairs not only in verbs but also in other parts of speech, especially nouns, within individual Bantu languages. First of all, doing so may better inform us about the degree to which the distribution of vowel pairs innouns reflects that in verbs but it may also be able to provide us with an insight intothe potential pressures that are ultimately behind the development of vowel harmony

89 Nevertheless there are Bantu languages that show alternations in nouns due to vowel harmony, though this is effect is usually regressive, such as is seen with noun class prefixes in seven-vowel Mongo–Nkundo and Koyo (see §§2.6.17 and 2.6.18 respectively). 90 See also previous work such as Archangeli et al. (2012a,b) who looked at Bukusu, Chewa, Yao, Kalanga, Jita and Nkore–Kiga. 91 Ideophones are often phonetically or phonologically marked in some way. For example, Dinge- manse (2012: 656) comments that ‘[w]hat makes ideophones marked relative to ordinary words is not so much that they employ different sounds, but that they employ mostly the same sounds in a different range of possible configurations’ and that ‘[t]ypical ways in which ideophones are structurally marked include skewed phonotactic distributions, various forms of feature harmony, most common among them vowel harmony’. It is interesting to note that, though vowel harmony is one way in which ideophones may stand out in the lexicon of a given language and that many Bantu languages possess vowel harmony, ideophones may exhibit disharmony. This could be interpreted as ideophones in languages such as Shona, Chewa or Luganda being marked by their lack of harmony rather than its presence. 92 For previous work on which see, for example, Cohen (1964); Kelly (1992); Myers (2000); Smith (2001, 2011); Bobaljik (2008).

107 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages as it is evinced in verbs by visible alternations. Furthermore, it may also give us a better understanding of the sound system of individual languages from a more holistic vantage point.

108 cHapteR 4

Vowel-pair frequency study∗

Quando o cérebro divaga, quando nos arrebata nas asas do devaneio, nem damos pelas distâncias per- corridas, sobretudo quando os pés que nos levam não são os nossos.†

José Saramago A Viagem do Elefante

4.1 Introduction

As I have already discussed elsewhere, it is well documented in the literature that progressive vowel height harmony as it is instantiated in the Bantu languages is most often asymmetric with respect to backness and/or rounding (see e.g. Hyman 1999; for more see also chapter 2). Though this most notably characterises the widespread canonical variety of height harmony, even in non-canonical languages some sort of asymmetry in the way in which front unrounded and back rounded vowels pattern in height harmony obtains. In addition to this, in five-vowel Bantu languages, progressive height harmony typically gives rise to alternations only in verbs, in particular the alternation in height of non-low vowels in verbal extensions suffixed to verb roots. In this chapter, I present a quantitative study of vowel-pair co-occurrence patterns in six five-vowel Bantu languages using data from the Comparative Bantu OnLine

∗ Work related to the content of this chapter is soon to appear as Nichols (forthcoming). † When the mind wanders, when it carries us off on the wings of daydreams, we do not even notice the distances travelled, especially when the feet carrying us are not our own. — José Saramago, The Elephant’s Journey.

109 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Dictionary (CBOLD). The languages that comprise this sample are canonical Chewa, Kalanga and Yao and non-canonical Pende, Lozi and Makhuwa. I focus on particular vowel pairs—that is, ignoring intervening consonants, two consecutive vowels within a word—that are key to height harmony and their frequencies in nouns as opposed to verbs in order to explore whether and to what degree the distributions of these in verbs, to which alternations contribute, are found more pervasively within each language as well as throughout the sample in general.

The results show that, across the sample, those pairs considered non-harmonic in verbs are not necessarily under-represented in nouns at a broad scale. However, when considering individual pairs, certain vowel pairs are under- or over-represented. For example, the two mid–high vowel pairs [e.i] and [o.u] are both generally under- represented, especially in comparisons to their mid–mid counterparts [e.e] and [o.o], which are both over-represented. This suggests that the avoidance in height harmony of these vowel pairs that disagree in height is robust as we see that a similar pattern is present not only in verbs where alternations can be seen but also in nouns. How- ever, when comparing [e.i] with [o.u], we find that [o.u] is more under-represented and also more consistently under-represented across the sample. This further suggests that the avoidance of [o.u] is more robust than the avoidance of [e.i]. It is interesting to note that this reflects a typological generalisation that can be made about Bantu height harmony: there are languages with only back height harmony but not languages with only front height harmony. In addition to this, we find that certain, though by no means all, other relevant pairs are over- and under-represented but that only [e.u] shows levels of under-representation comparable to [e.i] or [o.u]. A further observation to be drawn from these data is that the type of height harmony evinced in verbs by alternations seems to have little effect on the frequencies of vowel pairs in nouns.

In §4.2, I give some background information to the languages of study as well as a discussion relating to previous work touching on the lexical statistics of vowel pairs in Bantu. This is followed in §4.3 with a concise review of the literature pertaining to lexical statistics more generally and the relationship with phonetic naturalness and phonotactics. I then describe the methodology used in the present study in §4.4 before presenting the results and discussion in §4.5 and finally giving a summary in §4.6.

110 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

4.2 Background information

This study considers the frequencies of vowel pairs in a sample of six five-vowel Bantu languages, the details of which are summarised in Table 5 below.

Language Guthrie code Primary countries Harmony system

Chewa M.31b Malawi, Zambia canonical Kalanga S.16 Zimbabwe, Botswana canonical Lozi K.21 Zambia back only Makhuwa P.31 Mozambique back only Pende L.11 DR Congo “quasi-canonical” Yao P.21 Malawi, Tanzania canonical

Table 5: The six-language sample of five-vowel Bantu languages

As can be seen, three different systems of height harmony are represented in this sample: canonical height harmony, “quasi-canonical” height harmony and back height harmony only. In each case, height harmony is progressive in nature and—as evidenced below for Chewa, Pende and Lozi—can be seen to induce alternations in verbal extensions (see discussion below as well as in §§2.5.3, 2.6 and 3.3.3).93 Chewa, Kalanga and Yao94 display canonical height harmony. This is exemplified by Tonga in §2.6.1 and is also shown below in (129) and (130) for Chewa (examples from Downing & Mtenje 2017: 71–2).

(129) a. -phik-il-a ‘to cook for’ b. -khut-il-a ‘to be satisfied with’ c. -tsek-el-a ‘to close for’ d. -gon-el-a ‘to sleep on’ e. -val-il-a ‘to put on’

(130) a. -pitik-ul-a ‘to overturn’ b. -funth-ul-a ‘to loosen’ c. -tsek-ul-a ‘to open’

93 The six languages of this sample are ascribed these harmony systems in Hyman’s (1999) survey, for example. 94 Note that, as shown in §2.6.2, Yao exhibits additional limited rounding harmony.

111 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

d. -wonj-ol-a ‘to spring a trap’ e. -sank-ul-a ‘to choose out from’

The variety of height harmony found in Pende—which here I have labelled “quasi- canonical”—is the same as that seen in Mbunda (see §2.6.3) and differs from the canonical pattern in just one instance. As can be seen from the examples in (131) and (132), mid [e] is found after the low vowel /a/ rather than high [i] (data from Gusimana 1972b).

(131) a. -shit-il-a ‘fermer pour’ b. -tung-il-a ‘construire pour’ c. -bemb-el-a ‘laisser pour’ d. -sol-el-a ‘défricher pour’ e. -tal-el-a ‘surveiller pour’

(132) a. -jit-ulul-a ‘dénouer’ b. -kub-ul-a ‘effondrer’ c. -ket-ul-a ‘faire une encoche’ d. -log-ol-a ‘dégorger’ e. -bat-ul-a ‘couper, détacher’

The final two languages in the sample—Lozi and Makhuwa—lack front heighthar- mony (as is also seen for Mbukushu in §2.6.5). This is demonstrated for Lozi with the non-alternating causative and applicative suffixes in (133) and (134) respectively (data from Jalla 1982a).

(133) a. -pim-is-a ‘to help avoid’ b. -hupul-is-a ‘to remind’ c. -lemb-is-a ‘to put to shame’ d. -long-is-a ‘to help load’ e. -tam-is-a ‘to help tie’

(134) a. -bih-el-a ‘to report to’ b. -fuluh-el-a ‘to paddle towards’ c. -lem-el-a ‘to fell for’ d. -shombot-el-a ‘to catch for’

112 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

e. -sham-el-a ‘to urinate in’

They do, however, exhibit back height harmony. This is illustrated by thedatafrom Lozi in (135) below (again from Jalla 1982a).

(135) a. -tin-ulul-a ‘to undress’

b. -lut-ulul-a ‘to unthatch’

c. -lek-ulul-a ‘to resell’

d. -not-olol-a ‘to unlock’

e. -pak-ulul-a ‘to unbolt’

As alluded to earlier in this section (see also chapter 2 and §3.3.3), in five-vowel languages that exhibit progressive vowel height harmony, such as those under investigation here, the most obvious way in which harmony manifests itself is in the alternation in height of non-low vowels in verbal suffixes according to the height of the preceding vowel in the verb stem, though harmony also imposes restrictions on polysyllabic verb stems. This has previously been described, for example, by Beckman (1997) regarding height harmony in Shona. In this case, she also remarks that the restrictions seen in verbs are not seemingly at play in Shona nouns. However, for other similar languages, it has been noted that, in addition to those alternations found in verbs, analogous static generalisations may also be observed within a majority of nouns; however, no alternations are seen and this is not typically characterised as harmony. This has previously been said, for example, of Chewa (Scullen 1992 in Downing & Mtenje 2017: 75). Further previous work such as Archangeli et al. (2012b) has also noted the relative under-representation in nouns of those vowel pairs repaired by alternations in verbs. Similarly, when looking at Swahili, Harrison et al. (2002–2004) found that verbs were highly height harmonic and that nouns were also generally height harmonic at a lower but still above-chance rate. This study presents an exploration vowel-pair frequencies in both verbs and nouns in the six-language sample presented in Table 5. It is expected that those vowel pairs attested in verbs will be severely restricted. In addition, it is also anticipated that,inat least some instances, vowel pairs in nouns that do not occur or are highly infrequent in verbs will be relatively under-represented in nouns, which unlike verbs do not exhibit alternations.

113 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Here, it should be made clear that, in the sections (and indeed chapters) that follow, I use the terms “harmonic” and “non-harmonic” in a particular descriptive way to refer to those vowel pairs—occurring in either nouns or verbs—that are dispreferred in an individual language’s height harmony system, as seen in the application of the alternations of verbal extensions exemplified above. That is, those vowel pairs that are dispreferred in the height harmony system of a particular language are referred to as “non-harmonic” whereas all other vowel pairs are labelled “harmonic” regardless of the heights of the two constituent vowels in a pair. Thus, for example, in Chewa, which shows front height harmony, [a.e] is described as non-harmonic and [a.i] as harmonic whereas, in Lozi, which lacks front height harmony, both vowel pairs are described as harmonic. One aim of this study is to first of all discover whether or not non-harmonic vowel pairs are likewise under-represented in nouns in the languages of the present sample. In addition to investigating the frequencies of vowel pairs in the nouns of particular languages, I also consider any recurring patterns that should arise between languages. For this, I examine comparisons not only between a variety of harmonic and non- harmonic vowel pairs such as [a.i] and [a.e] but also comparisons of vowels pairs within the non-harmonic category, focusing in particular on the two pairs [e.i] and [o.u], which are composed of a mid vowel followed by a high vowel with the same backness and rounding features.95

4.3 Lexical statistics, phonetic naturalness and phonotactics

The lexicon of a particular language is likely to contain gaps regarding those structures that are combinatorily possible given, for example, the segmental inventory of that language; some of these may be accidental whereas others may instead be phonotactic in nature (Becker et al. 2011; Gorman 2013; Wilson & Gallagher 2018). How are learners to infer which of the various gaps found in a language are accidental and which phonotactic? A growing body of work suggests that, though phonetically unnatural or complex patterns are able to be learnt (see e.g. Pycha et al. 2003; Seidl & Buckley 2005; Peperkamp & Dupoux 2007; Skoruppa & Peperkamp 2011; Moreton & Pater 2012a,b; Windsor & Stewart 2017), they are only able to be learnt weakly

95 For the sake of simplicity, in the sections that follow, in reference to the non-low vowels, I use “back” and “backness” metonymically rather than using “back and round” and “backness and rounding” as the two invariably co-occur on non-low vowels in these languages.

114 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages whereas putatively phonetically natural or simple patterns are easier in comparison to acquire (e.g. Wilson 2006; Moreton 2008; Hayes et al. 2009; Becker et al. 2011; Hayes & White 2013; Moore-Cantwell 2016). There is also evidence that, in addition tothe fact that categorical alternations may be echoed by gradient preferences in the lexicon (see e.g. Martin 2007, 2011), the learning of alternations is facilitated by such corroborating static generalisations (e.g. Chong 2017, forthcoming; see also Tesar & Prince 2003; Hayes 2004a; Jarosz 2006).96

4.4 Methodology

4.4.1 Data sources

The data used in this study are taken from97 CBOLD. One data set was used for each language in the sample. These were dictionaries or lexica in the form of tab-delimited text files. Citations for each individual source are given in Table 6 below alongside the number of entries present in that source. In addition to target-language data for each entry, the six data sets also contained columns denoting part of speech and a gloss in English or, in the case of Gusimana (1972b), French. Due to the nature of the data sources, entries are given in their citation form. For verbs, this includes the final vowel /a/ but excludes the infinitive prefix and, for nouns, citation forms include noun class prefixes where appropriate. It should therefore be noted that the morphological environments found in the data are necessarily limited in scope.

Language Data source No. of entries

Chewa Mtenje (2001) 24,076 Kalanga Mathangwane (1994) 8,505 Lozi Jalla (1982a)98 49,981 Makhuwa Kisseberth (1996) 29,802 Pende Gusimana (1972b) 38,385 Yao Ngunga (2001) 25,954

Table 6: Data sources taken from the Comparative Bantu OnLine Dictionary

96 Though see work such as Zymet (2018: 487) arguing that domain generalisation biases—for which see also Myers & Padgett (2014)—are not a ‘necessary condition for learning’. 97 CBOLD is a project which aims to collect lexicographic information from various Bantu languages. For more information, see their website which is freely accessible online via the following URL: http://www.cbold.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/.

115 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Previous similar data-driven studies of vowel harmony or vowel-pair co-occurrences have used various types of data. For example, Archangeli et al. (2012a,b), Archangeli & Pulleyblank (2015) and Alderete & Finley (2016) use data gathered from dictionaries and lexica as I do here; Dombrowski (2013) and Sandstedt (2018, 2020c) use corpora of texts; McPherson & Hayes (2016) use a combination of data, namely a lexicon as well as corpora of example sentences, stories and conversations; and Hayes & Londe (2006) and Kang (2012) use data harvested from Google searches. Finally, as Sandstedt (2018: 108–9) notes in his study of vowel harmony decay in Old Norwegian, work on the acquisition of vowel harmony by first-language learners has shown that, at the age of 2 years and 6 months, learners have all but mastered harmony (e.g. MacWhinney 1978; Leiwo et al. 2002; Altan 2007). At this same age, learners are known to have acquired approximately 500 vocabulary items (Barrett 1995). The size of the data sets seen in Table 6 can therefore be considered sufficient to represent the lexicon possessed by a speaker that will already have successfully acquired any pattern of vowel harmony present in the languages (at least withinthe morphological contexts present in these data sets). Comments similar to this are also made by Archangeli et al. (2012a: 5), for example.

4.4.2 Data processing

Each file taken from CBOLD was first hand-corrected for machine-readability inan effort to reduce error rates in the results. This consisted mainly of corrections tothe tab-separation of columns and the addition of obvious missing line breaks as well as certain minor corrections to obvious errors in transcriptions.99 All subsequent processing and analysis was carried out in R (R Core Team 2019) with functions from the base language supplemented with tools from the tidyverse (Wickham 2019) collection of packages. It should be noted here that the data sets contain entries in citation forms with both simple and complex stems (for both nouns and verbs), including some instances of nouns derived from verbs. No morphemic analysis was conducted as the data sets

98 Note that, although the CBOLD website lists this database with the date 1937, implying that it is a digitisation of the second edition of the print dictionary (i.e. Jalla 1937; the first edition being Jalla 1917, the title of which bears the older name for Lozi of “Sikololo”), upon comparison with the physical volumes, it appears in fact to be a digitisation of the third edition of the print dictionary (i.e. Jalla 1982b), hence the date I assign to it here. 99 It should be noted, however, that this was conducted with caution and conservativeness. In the case of Jalla (1982a), an effort was also made to cross-check these changed with the print version of the source as this was available to me.

116 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages did not indicate boundaries between roots within compounds or between roots and suffixes. Thus, in this respect, the results are based on vowel pairs that occur withno reference to their morphological context. Each individual data set was made up of columns, the total number of which varied slightly from language to language; however, only two particular columns— namely the word form itself and the part of speech—were ultimately used. In a further attempt to reduce errors, for each word, all content after thefirst space in the word column was removed to prevent non-target-language strings of characters—such as misaligned English-language definitions—from inadvertently and unwantedly being included in the analysis. This was then stripped of all non- alphabetic characters such as punctuation and numbers and converted to lower case. Next, orthographic long vowels were shortened such that aa became a and so on. This was done as the feature of interest in this study is the quality rather than quantity of vowels. Finally, the number of part-of-speech labels for each data set was reduced to just three: verb, noun and other.100

4.4.3 Data analysis

The final data set having been derived, the numbers of each unique vowel phoneme and vowel pair were then computed, with each item (i.e. phoneme or pair) retaining the part-of-speech label of the word in which it occurred. Here, a vowel pair is defined as two consecutive vowels, ignoring any intervening consonants, with the same vowel being able to occur simultaneously in two consecutive vowel pairs. Vowel–vowel and vowel–consonant–vowel sequences were therefore treated alike. By way of illustration, the Lozi entry longa ‘to load’ contains a single vowel pair, [o.a], and its derivative longisa ‘to help load’ contains two vowel pairs, namely [o.i] and [i.a]; the non-consecutive vowels [o] and [a] do not constitute a pair as the vowel [i] intervenes. This operationalisation was chosen as the primary con- cern of this and subsequent chapters is the behaviour of local pairwise combinations of vowels.

100 The data source for Lozi, for example, contained around 70 separate part-of-speech labels, largely distinguishing various different properties of verbs which were unnecessary for the present study. In addition to this, the Lozi dictionary was unique in that it also provided the perfective forms of verbs. In order to maintain a level of consistency across the entire sample, these were actively removed. A total of 9,380 such entries were discarded. Non-perfective derived verbal entries such as causative, passive or reversive forms were nevertheless retained.

117 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

This yielded the observed count of each vowel phoneme and pair within apar- ticular language. From this, the following within-language measures were derived: observed frequency, expected frequency and observed–expected ratio. All of these metrics are calculated very simply, as described below. The observed frequency of a vowel phoneme or vowel pair is the quotient ofthe observed count of that particular phoneme or pair divided by the total number of all vowel phonemes or vowel pairs in the data set. The expected frequency of a vowel pair given random combination was derived by calculating separate observed proportions for each vowel in both first and second position in vowel pairs (rather than absolute position in a word) and subsequently multiplying these together. This is done since, as also noted by Archangeli et al. (2012a,b), certain biases such as morphology in either the language or the data set may lead to the same vowel not necessarily being found equiprobably in both positions. The above procedure takes this into account to some degree whereas simply multiplying together the observed frequencies of the two constituent vowels of a pair without regard to position would not. The observed–expected ratio of a pair is the quotient of the observed frequency of that pair divided by its expected frequency.101 This is used to quantify the level of representation. A ratio of around 1 indicates that the vowel pair occurs approximately as frequently as expected, less than 1 that it is less frequent than expected (i.e. under- represented) and a ratio of more than 1 that it is more frequent than expected (i.e. over-represented). In addition to this, the magnitude of the ratio conveys the degree to which a pair is over- or under-represented within the language. Since observed–expected ratios are calculated using expected frequencies which, as described above, take into account a vowel’s position in a pair, the ratios are likewise not entirely blind to the position of a vowel in a pair and this is intended to attenuate to some degree potential morphological bias in the data, especially atthe edges of words.102 However, beyond this, morphological biases (e.g. the relative frequencies of specific affixes) are not otherwise factored into the calculations ofthese

101 See e.g. Pierrehumbert (1993) and Alderete & Finley (2016) for examples of previous work that make use of observed–expected ratios. Archangeli et al. (2012a,b) and Archangeli & Pulleyblank (2015) opt instead to use the binary logarithm of the observed–expected ratios rather than the ratio itself. This essentially amounts to a preference for the way in which to display the results and does not change their interpretation. 102 This is particularly relevant, for example, regarding the vowels of noun class prefixes andthe final vowel /a/ in verbal entries.

118 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages measures (as also previously alluded to in §4.4.2) and vowels are assumed to combine into pairs randomly. I also make more scant reference to observed and expected rank. Rank is an integer from 1 to 25 (i.e. the number of complete vowel pairs), with 1 being the most frequent pair and 25 being the least frequent pair within a language. This simply indicates where the observed or expected frequency of a pair falls relative to the 24 other pairs. Lastly, note that descriptive statistics are used rather than inferential statistics due to the small sample size of the current data set.

4.5 Results and discussion

In this section, I provide both the results of the current study and, immediately following the relevant data, various points of discussion in addition to a brief general discussion in §4.5.5. In §4.5.1, I first give an overview of the levels of non-harmonic vowel pairs found in both verbs and nouns. These results are shown in bar charts which also provide the figures for each individual bar. The results from the individual languages are displayed in a 3×2 grid in which the languages have been ordered such that the first three panes contain the three canonical languages (Chewa, Kalanga and Yao) and the final three panes contain the three non-canonical languages (Pende, Lozi and Makhuwa—with the latter two similarly-behaving languages also grouped together). Following this, in §§4.5.2, 4.5.3 and 4.5.4, I present more focused results from and discussion of nouns only for certain harmonic and non-harmonic vowel pairs in order to compare their behaviours both within and across languages.103 In these subsections, the bar charts provided use colour coding such that harmonic pairs are shown in green and non-harmonic pairs are shown in red. Here, expected– observed ratios are preferred for three reasons. Firstly, this reduces the amount of information that the reader is expected to absorb. Secondly, what is of primary con- cern are the relative rather than absolute levels of representation. Thirdly, the use of ratios better enables comparisons between languages as well as within them.

103 Recall that, following the definitions of these terms given in §4.2, what constitutes a harmonic or non-harmonic vowel pair may differ from language to language depending on the systemof height harmony present in that language.

119 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

In addition to this, in order to facilitate observations of general patterns seen in the data sets as a whole, I also provide boxplots showing the results for observed frequencies and observed–expected ratios that have been aggregated across the sample.

4.5.1 Non-harmonic vowel pairs

4.5.1.1 Results

The first results I present here are the levels of the non-harmonic vowel pairs inverbs. Of course, given prior descriptions in the literature (as discussed in §4.2 and elsewhere), one would expect this to be a “proof of concept” of sorts that would confirm the assumption that these language do in fact lack or show only a very low incidence of the relevant vowel pairs in verbs. Indeed, this assumption is effectively confirmed. Firstly, Figure 1 shows the observed counts for these vowel pairs in verbs across the sample.

Chewa Kalanga 375 300 225 150 75 3 11 7 17 17 8 6 5 3 6 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 a.e a.o e.i e.o i.e i.o o.i o.u u.e u.o a.e a.o e.i e.o i.e i.o o.i o.u u.e u.o Yao Pende 375 300 225 150 110 55 75 32 43 30 42 40 6 4 3 13 11 3 4 7 4 0 0 0 0 0

Observed count a.e a.o e.i e.o i.e i.o o.i o.u u.e u.o a.i a.o e.i e.o i.e i.o o.i o.u u.e u.o Lozi Makhuwa 375 344 300 225

150 98 70 75 27 7 4 15 13 13 0 2 a.o e.o i.o o.u u.o a.o e.o i.o o.u u.o Vowel pair

Figure 1: Observed counts for non-harmonic vowel pairs in verbs

Although there are exceptions, instances of non-harmonic vowel pairs within a language do not generally exceed 20 in number (mean 21.8, median 6, standard deviation 52.3). However, this measure does not control for the differences in the size of the lexicon used for each language (see Table 6). It is therefore more informative to use a relative rather than absolute measure, such as the observed frequency. This is therefore provided in Figure 2 below.

120 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Chewa Kalanga 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.008 0.008 0.01 0.004 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a.e a.o e.i e.o i.e i.o o.i o.u u.e u.o a.e a.o e.i e.o i.e i.o o.i o.u u.e u.o Yao Pende 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.018 0.009 0.01 0.005 0.007 0.005 0.007 0.006 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.00 0 0 0 0 a.e a.o e.i e.o i.e i.o o.i o.u u.e u.o a.i a.o e.i e.o i.e i.o o.i o.u u.e u.o Observed frequency Lozi Makhuwa 0.04 0.039 0.03 0.02

0.01 0.004 0.006 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.00 0 0 0 a.o e.o i.o o.u u.o a.o e.o i.o o.u u.o Vowel pair

Figure 2: Observed frequencies for non-harmonic vowel pairs in verbs

In this case, this does not in fact change the overall picture compared to the observed counts, with only 20% of pairs having an observed frequency of more than 0.005 (mean 0.003, median 0.001, standard deviation 0.006). On the face of it, it appears that almost all of these pairs are likely to be relatively under-represented. One way to investigate this is by using observed–expected ratios. Indeed, as Figure 3 demonstrates, all but one pair—namely, [u.o] in Makhuwa— is under-represented (i.e. has a ratio below 1—indicated by the grey dashed line). In fact, [u.o] in Makhuwa is the only pair with a ratio of more than 0.4 in verbs (mean 0.11, median 0.05, standard deviation 0.18).

Chewa Kalanga 1.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.24 0.22 0.25 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.12 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.08 0.02 0.05 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 a.e a.o e.i e.o i.e i.o o.i o.u u.e u.o a.e a.o e.i e.o i.e i.o o.i o.u u.e u.o Yao Pende 1.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.36 0.4 0.36 0.27 0.25 0.16 0.21 0.14 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.00 0 0 0 0 a.e a.o e.i e.o i.e i.o o.i o.u u.e u.o a.i a.o e.i e.o i.e i.o o.i o.u u.e u.o Lozi Makhuwa Observed–expected ratio 1.25 1.14 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.27 0.25 0.14 0.13 0.09 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.00 a.o e.o i.o o.u u.o a.o e.o i.o o.u u.o Vowel pair

Figure 3: Observed–expected ratios for non-harmonic vowel pairs in verbs

121 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Having confirmed the expectation that non-harmonic vowel pairs would be very infrequent and also under-represented in verbs, I now apply the same treatment to these same items in nouns. As a group, the gaps or otherwise low levels of non-harmonic vowel pairs in verbs are largely not replicated in the nouns. This can be seen in the generally much higher observed counts and frequencies of such pairs which are displayed in Figures 4 and 5 below.

Chewa Kalanga 600 450

300 211 160 193 180 106 121 150 79 73 72 75 91 77 68 58 64 69 43 16 49 19 0 a.e a.o e.i e.o i.e i.o o.i o.u u.e u.o a.e a.o e.i e.o i.e i.o o.i o.u u.e u.o Yao Pende 600 450 378 348 272 292 300 230 249 227 188 174 202 170 187 121 132 150 74 108 100 41 14 19 0

Observed count a.e a.o e.i e.o i.e i.o o.i o.u u.e u.o a.i a.o e.i e.o i.e i.o o.i o.u u.e u.o Lozi Makhuwa 610 600 540 563 459 450 300 271 153 150 95 80 36 23 0 a.o e.o i.o o.u u.o a.o e.o i.o o.u u.o Vowel pair

Figure 4: Observed counts for non-harmonic vowel pairs in nouns

Chewa Kalanga

0.05 0.045 0.044 0.041 0.038 0.04 0.034 0.033 0.028 0.03 0.027 0.025 0.025 0.023 0.021 0.023 0.018 0.02 0.017 0.016 0.015 0.009 0.007 0.01 0.003 0.00 a.e a.o e.i e.o i.e i.o o.i o.u u.e u.o a.e a.o e.i e.o i.e i.o o.i o.u u.e u.o Yao Pende 0.051 0.05 0.049 0.041 0.038 0.04 0.033 0.031 0.03 0.029 0.026 0.03 0.025 0.023 0.024 0.019 0.02 0.016 0.015 0.014 0.01 0.01 0.005 0.002 0.003 0.00 a.e a.o e.i e.o i.e i.o o.i o.u u.e u.o a.i a.o e.i e.o i.e i.o o.i o.u u.e u.o Observed frequency Lozi Makhuwa 0.052 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.035 0.036 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.018 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.002 0.004 0.00 a.o e.o i.o o.u u.o a.o e.o i.o o.u u.o Vowel pair

Figure 5: Observed frequencies for non-harmonic vowel pairs in nouns

122 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

This dissimilarity between verbs and nouns is also seen in the observed–expected ratios provided in Figure 6.

Chewa Kalanga 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.46 1.54 1.12 1.18 1.2 1.06 1 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.88 0.89 0.86 0.82 0.91 0.93 0.8 0.65 0.56 0.36 0.45 0.4 0.18 0.0 a.e a.o e.i e.o i.e i.o o.i o.u u.e u.o a.e a.o e.i e.o i.e i.o o.i o.u u.e u.o Yao Pende 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.46 1.5 1.55 1.2 1.18 0.89 0.85 0.9 0.84 0.96 0.91 0.86 0.83 0.71 0.79 0.75 0.8 0.46 0.55 0.26 0.4 0.09 0.12 0.0 a.e a.o e.i e.o i.e i.o o.i o.u u.e u.o a.i a.o e.i e.o i.e i.o o.i o.u u.e u.o Lozi Makhuwa Observed–expected ratio 2.4 2.22 2.0 1.84 1.6 1.61 1.26 1.2 1.2 1.04 1.08 0.8 0.45 0.28 0.4 0.14 0.0 a.o e.o i.o o.u u.o a.o e.o i.o o.u u.o Vowel pair

Figure 6: Observed–expected ratios for non-harmonic vowel pairs in nouns

From this it can be seen that, for the most part, these pairs have observed–expected ratios of around—or even in excess of—1. Thus, they appear to either occur atap- proximately expected levels or, in some cases, to be over-represented in the lexicon. However, certain non-harmonic pairs are in fact under-represented even in nouns.

4.5.1.2 Discussion

These initial results clearly show that, although non-harmonic vowel pairs areboth infrequent and under-represented in verbs, these same vowel pairs do not, as a group, show the same levels of under-representation in nouns. Thus, both across the sample and within languages, a vowel pair merely being considered non-harmonic is not necessarily predictive of whether that particular pair will be under-represented in nouns as well as verbs. That said, there are particular individual non-harmonic vowel pairs that are under-represented in nouns just as they are in verbs. §§4.5.2, 4.5.3 and 4.5.4 which follow discuss particular non-harmonic pairs in more detail and also present comparisons with certain harmonic pairs.

123 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

4.5.2 Non-low vowel pairs (same backness)

4.5.2.1 Results

Here, I show results from those combinations of non-low vowels that agree in backness, including both non-harmonic and harmonic vowel pairs. That is, I compare [i.i] and [e.e] in which the component front vowels agree in height with [i.e] and [e.i] where there is instead disagreement in height and do likewise with the corresponding pairs of back vowels, namely [u.u], [o.o], [u.o] and [o.u]. First, the comparison of such pairs of front vowels is shown in Figure 7.

Chewa Kalanga Yao

4 3.29 3.14 3 3.01

2 1.74 1.58 1.45 1.18 1.06 1 0.95 0.83

0.36 0.26 0 Pende Lozi Makhuwa

Observed–expected ratio 2.48

2 1.87 1.89 1.46 1.18 1.05 1.01 1.04 0.88 1 0.71 0.55 0.52 0 i.i i.e e.e e.i i.i i.e e.e e.i i.i i.e e.e e.i Vowel pair

Harmonic Non-harmonic

Figure 7: Observed–expected ratios for [i.i], [i.e], [e.e] and [e.i] in nouns

Before considering the values of the ratios in Figure 7, we can see that those pairs composed of vowels agreeing in height are consistently relatively more represented in nouns across all languages than those that disagree in height. Then, looking more closely at the numerical values of the observed–expected ratios, it can be seen that the two pairs that agree in height occur either as frequently as expected or more frequently than expected in each language in the sample. The high pair [i.i] has a mean ratio of 1.63 (median 1.52, standard deviation 0.476) and the mid pair [e.e] a mean ratio of 2.40 (median 2.45, standard deviation 0.865). How- ever, of the twelve instances across all six languages of the two pairs that disagree in height, they are relatively under-represented on eight occasions, with [e.i] having a mean ratio of 0.63 (median 0.54, standard deviation 0.334) and [i.e] having a mean ratio of 0.93 (median 0.92, standard deviation 0.165). In addition to this, in only two

124 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages languages—namely Kalanga and Lozi—does [e.i] show a higher observed–expected ratio than [i.e]. Turning now to the results presented in Figure 8 for the corresponding pairs of back vowels, the patterns and tendencies seen in Figure 7 appear to be even starker.

Chewa Kalanga Yao

4 3.85 3.74 3.43 3

2.15 2 1.98 1.94

1 0.86 0.95 0.96 0.45 0.18 0.09 0 Pende Lozi Makhuwa 4.44 4.11 4 3.52 3 Observed–expected ratio

2 1.88 1.62 1.26 1.18 1 0.75 0.45 0.28 0.12 0.14 0 u.u u.o o.o o.u u.u u.o o.o o.u u.u u.o o.o o.u Vowel pair

Harmonic Non-harmonic

Figure 8: Observed–expected ratios for [u.u], [u.o], [o.o] and [o.u] in nouns

Again, in every instance, those vowel pairs that agree in height are consistently more represented than those that disagree in height. The pairs [u.u] and [o.o] agreeing in height have mean observed–expected ratios of 1.79 (median 1.91, standard deviation 0.346) and 3.85 (median 3.80, standard deviation 0.346) respectively. However, the vowel pair [u.o] has a mean ratio of 0.872 (median 0.91, standard deviation 0.267) and [o.u] a mean ratio of 0.21 (median 0.16, standard deviation 0.135). In only once instance—[u.o] in Lozi—does one of the vowel pairs disagreeing in height occur at a higher-than-expected level in nouns. What’s more, though both are generally under-represented as well as being relatively less represented than the pairs that agree in height, there is also a strong and consistent difference between the levels of two pairs, with [o.u] being far less frequent than expected than [u.o]. Further to the observed–expected ratios of vowel pairs within individual languages already provided in Figures 7 and 8 above, the figures that follow present pairwise comparisons of certain vowel pairs in which observed frequencies and observed– expected ratios have been pooled.

125 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Firstly, Figure 9 shows the clear difference across the sample in the incidence of the front vowel pairs [e.e] and [e.i] in nouns.

0.08

0.06 3

0.04 2

Observed frequency 0.02 1 Observed–expected ratio

0.00 0 e.e e.i e.e e.i Vowel pair Vowel pair

Figure 9: Pooled observed frequencies (left) and observed–expected ratios (right) for [e.e] and [e.i] in nouns

Similarly, Figure 10 demonstrates a disparity in both observed frequency and observed–expected ratio in the present sample between the corresponding back vowel pairs [o.o] and [o.u] in nouns.

0.08

0.06 3

0.04 2

Observed frequency 0.02 1 Observed–expected ratio

0.00 0 o.o o.u o.o o.u Vowel pair Vowel pair

Figure 10: Pooled observed frequencies (left) and observed–expected ratios (right) for [o.o] and [o.u] in nouns

Furthermore, comparing Figures 9 and 10 shows that, in the sample as a whole, the difference in nouns between [o.o] and [o.u] is starker than that seen between [e.e] and [e.i].

126 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Next, Figures 11 and 12 provide comparisons of the pairs of front and back non- low vowels that disagree in height.

0.03 1.2

0.02 0.8

0.01 0.4 Observed frequency Observed–expected ratio

0.00 0.0 e.i o.u e.i o.u Vowel pair Vowel pair

Figure 11: Pooled observed frequencies (left) and observed–expected ratios (right) for [e.i] and [o.u] in nouns

Figure 11 shows that, when comparing the mid–high pairs [e.i] and [o.u], the latter occurs in nouns at a noticeably lower rate than the former. The analysis also revealed that, in nouns, the back pair [o.u] had the lowest observed rank of all 25 possible vowel pairs in all six of the languages in the sample. This was despite the fact that [o.u] was not the vowel pair with the lowest expected rank in any language in the sample (range 20–23, mean 21.83, median 22, standard deviation 1.17). The corresponding front pair [e.i], however, varied in nouns between a rank of 13 in Kalanga and 24 in Yao (mean 20.67, median 22, standard deviation 4.03). Nonetheless, [e.i] was found to have a lower rank than expected in 5 of the 6 languages, with the sole exception being Kalanga.

In contrast to this, as can be seen from the data in Figure 12, though there is a slight difference in the overall incidence of high–mid pairs between [i.e] and [u.o]andthe back pair is again seen in relatively lower levels than the front one, the difference between these front and back pairs is not nearly as pronounced as for the mid–high pairs shown in Figure 11.

127 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

0.04 1.2

0.03 0.8

0.02

0.4

Observed frequency 0.01 Observed–expected ratio

0.00 0.0 i.e u.o i.e u.o Vowel pair Vowel pair

Figure 12: Pooled observed frequencies (left) and observed–expected ratios (right) for [i.e] and [u.o] in nouns

4.5.2.2 Discussion

The results immediately above show that, among the eight possible vowel pairs composed of non-low vowels with the same backness, the two vowel pairs consisting of a mid vowel followed by a high vowel—i.e. [e.i] and [o.u]—are generally the least represented. That said, in both canonical Kalanga and non-canonical Lozi, [e.i] occursat roughly the level we would expect given random combination. However, in Kalanga [e.e] has an observed–expected ratio that far exceeds that of [e.i]. This is not the case in Lozi, where [e.e] is only marginally more represented than [e.i]. Nevertheless, this pattern is not replicated in Makhuwa which, like Lozi, lacks front height harmony but matches more closely the observed–expected ratios of, for example, Pende which does exhibit a form of front height harmony. In addition to this, the back vowel pair [o.u] is consistently under-represented across the sample, with [o.o] also being very much over-represented within each language. This having been noted, the patterns seen when comparing [e.e] with [e.i]and [o.o] with [o.u] in Chewa, Kalanga, Yao and Pende—and when considering the difference between the frequencies of [o.o] and [o.u] in Lozi and Makhuwa—could perhaps be interpreted as a partial gradient counterpart in nouns to the categorical pattern of alternations of verbal extensions. This is an interpretation that would be comparable to Martin’s (2011) observations that, in English, geminates—which are prohibited tautomorphemically—are relatively

128 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages under-represented in heteromorphemic items and that, in Navajo—where sibilants co-occurring within roots must agree for anteriority—compound words containing sibilants disagreeing in anteriority are likewise found less frequently than expected. On the basis of these data, Martin (2011) argues that such lexical biases arise as a compromise brought about by the competition between certain phonotactic preferences and semantic preferences. Archangeli et al. (2012a,b)—which employed a substantially similar methodology to this study and whose sample of six canonical five-vowel Bantu languages included Chewa, Kalanga and Yao—have also commented on the patterns of vowel-pair frequencies found in nouns as compared to verbs. They suggest that patterns such as those observable in Chewa could be argued to be predictable simply on inductive grounds. Thus, arguing against Universal Grammar (UG) and in a favour of Emergent Grammar (EG), Archangeli et al. (2012b: 214) assert that ‘UG predicts an absence of an extension while EG predicts extension due to the attractor effect.’104 However, as Martin (2011: 757) acknowledges when considering comparable patterns in tauto- and heteromorphemic contexts in English and Navajo, such distributions ‘could both result from the same phonetic pressure’. This is something akin to the notion of “rule scattering” (Bermúdez-Otero 2015 after Robinson 1976; see also §6.4). In other words, it may instead be that rather than one part of the lexicon exert- ing an influence over another, both share a common105 cause. In the case of English, the same pressure that gave rise to a prohibition on geminates within a morpheme also had a hand in guiding the competition in the lexicon between compounds containing geminates and those lacking geminates. Recall also that, as noted above (see also Figure 7), Makhuwa, which lacks front- vowel alternations in verbs, also displays a marked difference between [e.e] and [e.i] in nouns. Therefore, in this particular instance at least, this cannot be due toany influence from vowel-pairs gaps in verbs caused by alternations. Moreover, there are further potentially problematic points for such an induction- based interpretation stemming from both these and additional vowel pairs.

104 The “attractor effect” being the ‘the gradual generalization of an effect to broader classes’, such as the potential spread of vowel height harmony in verbs to nouns (Archangeli et al. 2012b: 198). 105 For example, these results might be taken to suggest that the under-representation of [e.i] and [o.u] is due to the well-groundedness of their avoidance because of differences in height and that there is some sort of stronger bias against [o.u] than [e.i] (cf. however, Archangeli et al. 2012b who failed to find similar consistent effects in a sample of non-Bantu languages). See alsothe production experiment that follows in chapter 6.

129 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

First, we must consider the following point uncovered by the analysis. The back pair [o.u] is not only more consistently under-represented in nouns than front [e.i] but it is also under-represented to a larger degree than [e.i] both within and across the languages of the sample. Indeed, as reported in §4.5.2, [o.u] had an observed rank of 25 in all six languages and was therefore the least frequent vowel pair in each despite the fact that this was not anticipated to be the case in any individual language. This observation from the lexical statistics of the present sample is also further reflected more widely by the fact that there appear to be no cases of Bantu languages that possess front height harmony but lack back height harmony (Hyman 1999: 245). As [e.i] and [o.u] behave similarly in verbs in languages with both front and back height harmony, being subject to alternations, a difference in their behaviours in nouns is unexpected.

A further issue with a purely induction based interpretation is that this would also suggest that other non-harmonic vowel pairs should be just as under-represented as [e.i] and [o.u]. However, in the case of the majority of other vowel pairs, this is not what we see.

For example, there are noticeable differences in the behaviour of the mid–high pairs [e.i] and [o.u] and the vowel pairs that are their mirror, i.e. [i.e] and [u.o]. This is despite the fact that, in those languages where the mid–high pair is non-harmonic, the corresponding high–mid pair is also a non-harmonic pair and is either entirely absent or extremely infrequent (the example of [u.o] in Makhuwa notwithstanding).

Though the pairs [i.e] and [u.o] were generally under-represented, the degree of under-representation was only slight. Moreover, these vowel pairs were not under- represented to the same large degree as [e.i] and especially [o.u] were.

4.5.3 Non-low vowel pairs (different backness)

4.5.3.1 Results

The next vowel pairs I discuss are those vowel pairs containing non-low vowels whose component vowels differ in backness, in particular those whose first element isamid vowel. I first present results for [e.u] and [e.o] in Figure 13, followed by [o.i] and [o.e] in Figure 15.

130 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Chewa Kalanga Yao 2.0

1.5

1 1.0 0.89 0.9

0.66 0.5 0.48 0.27

0.0 Pende Lozi Makhuwa 2.0

1.61 1.5 1.2 Observed–expected ratio 1.0 0.91

0.5 0.43 0.31 0.25

0.0 e.u e.o e.u e.o e.u e.o Vowel pair

Harmonic Non-harmonic

Figure 13: Observed–expected ratios for [e.u] and [e.o] in nouns

What is immediately noticeably different in Figure 13 from Figures 7 and 8 in §4.5.2 is that the non-harmonic vowel pairs consistently occur at higher levels than harmonic pairs in nouns.

1.6

0.03 1.2

0.02 0.8

0.01 Observed frequency 0.4 Observed–expected ratio

0.00 0.0 e.u e.o e.u e.o Vowel pair Vowel pair

Figure 14: Pooled observed frequencies (left) and observed–expected ratios (right) for [e.u] and [e.o] in nouns

What is of course notable about these in contrast to the other non-low vowel pairs is that, in all six languages of the sample, the vowel pair whose component vowels disagree in height (i.e. [e.u]) is considered harmonic in height harmony whereas the pair with vowels of the same height (i.e. [e.o]) is considered non-harmonic in height harmony. However, rather than according with what is seen in verbs, Figures 13 and

131 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

14 show that the observed–expected ratios of [e.u] and [e.o] in nouns behave such that non-harmonic [e.o], which contains two mid vowels, occurs relatively more often than harmonic [e.u], which contains vowels of differing heights.

Nevertheless, it is important to also note that [e.o] is not over-represented to the same degree as, for example, [e.e] and [o.o] are. In fact, on average, across the present sample, [e.o] occurs approximately as frequently as expected (mean ratio 1.09, median 1.00, standard deviation 0.282). On the other hand, [e.u] is in fact overall rather under- represented (mean ratio 0.40, median 0.37, standard deviation 0.156).

When it comes to the pairs [o.i] and [o.e], however, as seen in Figure 15, there is much less consistency as to which pair exhibits a higher observed–expected ratio across the languages of the sample. In addition, the differences between ratios within languages are also much less pronounced.

Chewa Kalanga Yao 2.0

1.5 1.4 1.18 1.1 1.0 0.93

0.65 0.5 0.46

0.0 Pende Lozi Makhuwa 2.0

1.5 1.38

1.13 1.18 Observed–expected ratio 1.0 0.79 0.76 0.68 0.5

0.0 o.i o.e o.i o.e o.i o.e Vowel pair

Harmonic Non-harmonic

Figure 15: Observed–expected ratios for [o.i] and [o.e] in nouns

The pair [o.i] has a mean observed–expected ratio of 0.86 (median 0.86, standard deviation 0.279) and [o.e] a ratio of 1.08 (median 1.14, standard deviation 0.305). There is thus a slight preference for the pair which shows agreement in height (i.e. [o.e]) over the pair that does not (i.e. [o.i]) and this can also be seen in the pooled observed frequencies and observed–expected ratios in Figure 16 below.

132 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

1.6

0.03 1.2

0.02 0.8

0.01 Observed frequency 0.4 Observed–expected ratio

0.00 0.0 o.i o.e o.i o.e Vowel pair Vowel pair

Figure 16: Pooled observed frequencies (left) and observed–expected ratios (right) for [o.i] and [o.e] in nouns

However, when Figures 15 and 16 are compared with Figures 13 and 14, the degree of this difference can be seen to be smaller.

4.5.3.2 Discussion

As seen in §4.5.2.2, a consideration of those pairs made up of non-low vowels agreeing in backness can be seen to cause problems for induction-based interpretations of such data. The same can also be said of certain pairs of non-low vowels disagreeing in backness. Consider the pair [e.u], for example. Despite the fact that this is a harmonic vowel pair in all six languages in the sample, it was consistently under-represented in nouns. However, the non-harmonic pair [e.o] was more healthily represented, generally occurring at the levels expected. This is notable because, in terms of height, one would ordinarily expect that [e.o] would be considered the harmonic pair since its constituent vowels are of the same height. However, across Bantu, it is generally [e.u] which is the preferred vowel pair in height harmony, a fact that is crucial to the canonical front–back asymmetry. From this well-representedness of non-harmonic [e.o], it seems that its (near-)absence in verbs does not necessarily have an influence such that [e.o] is also under-represented in nouns in this sample. Rather, nouns show a preference for this pair which has vowels of the same height and so might be considered less marked than its corresponding pair disagreeing in height. A somewhat similar, albeit less striking, general pattern was seen for the pairs [o.i] and [o.e]. That is, on the whole, [o.e] was more represented in nouns than [o.i]. This is the only potential hint at an effect of harmony system within language as[o.i]

133 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages is under-represented in the four languages in which it is a non-harmonic pair but not so in the two where it is a harmonic pair. Lozi and Makhuwa—which lack front height harmony and for which [o.i] and [o.e] are thus both harmonic pairs—showed different behaviours, with both vowel pairs being somewhat over-represented in Makhuwa, with levels of [o.e] higher than [o.i]. However, in Lozi, [o.e] was slightly under- represented and [o.i] very slightly over-represented. In the remaining four languages, though, [o.i] was generally under-represented—albeit only marginally so in Kalanga— and [o.e] was generally over-represented—though not in Pende. This pattern makes some sort of phonetic sense as the former shows agreement in height whereas the latter does not. Nevertheless, unlike the preference to avoid [e.i] and [o.u] aswell [e.u], an avoidance of [o.i] was not a strong tendency in the data.

4.5.4 Low–non-low vowel pairs

4.5.4.1 Results

So far I have only covered in any depth those vowel pairs that do not contain low vowels. As discussed at various points in chapter 2 and elsewhere, the behaviour and role of the low vowel in the various systems of vowel harmony in the Bantu languages are of particular interest given that, in many cases, they seemingly form a natural class with the high vowel. Here, I present results of those four possible vowel pairs composed of the low vowel followed by either a high or a mid vowel. Firstly, Figure 17 shows the two front non-low vowels [i] and [e] after [a].

Chewa Kalanga Yao 2.0

1.5 1.38 1.28 1.2

1.0 0.88 0.89 0.82

0.5

0.0 Pende Lozi Makhuwa 2.0 1.76

1.5 1.5 1.45 Observed–expected ratio 1.0 0.8 0.68 0.68 0.5

0.0 a.i a.e a.i a.e a.i a.e Vowel pair

Harmonic Non-harmonic

Figure 17: Observed–expected ratios for [a.i] and [a.e] in nouns

134 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

From this it can be seen that, in all six languages, [a.i] is over-represented (mean ratio 1.43, median 1.42, standard deviation 0.196) and that [a.e] is under-represented (mean ratio 0.79, median 0.81, standard deviation 0.093). Note that this includes Pende in which it is [a.e] rather than [a.i] which is considered harmonic. This is likewise demonstrated by the pooled observed frequencies and observed–expected ratios in Figure 18.

0.07

1.6 0.06

0.05 1.2

0.04

0.03 0.8

0.02 Observed frequency 0.4 Observed–expected ratio 0.01

0.00 0.0 a.i a.e a.i a.e Vowel pair Vowel pair

Figure 18: Pooled observed frequencies (left) and observed–expected ratios (right) for [a.i] and [a.e] in nouns

Next, Figure 19 shows the observed–expected ratios of the two back non-low vowels [u] and [o] following [a].

Chewa Kalanga Yao 2.0

1.5

1.12 1.0 0.91 0.91 0.84 0.85 0.74

0.5

0.0 Pende Lozi Makhuwa 2.0

1.5 1.38 1.18 Observed–expected ratio 1.03 1.04 1.08 1.0 0.99

0.5

0.0 a.u a.o a.u a.o a.u a.o Vowel pair

Harmonic Non-harmonic

Figure 19: Observed–expected ratios for [a.u] and [a.o] in nouns

135 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

This shows that [a.u] and [a.o] show a much smaller magnitude in the differences between the ratios compared within each individual language than [a.i] and [a.e]. It also fails to reveal a consistent between-language pattern as seen in Figure 17. This is further reflected in the mean observed–expected ratios, with [a.u] having amean of 0.98 (median 0.95, standard deviation 0.221) and [a.o] a mean of 1.03 (median 1.06, standard deviation 0.126). In addition, the pooled observed frequencies and observed– expected ratios are displayed in Figure 18.

0.07

1.6 0.06

0.05 1.2

0.04

0.03 0.8

0.02 Observed frequency 0.4 Observed–expected ratio 0.01

0.00 0.0 a.u a.o a.u a.o Vowel pair Vowel pair

Figure 20: Pooled observed frequencies (left) and observed–expected ratios (right) for [a.u] and [a.o] in nouns

Overall, there is relatively little difference between these two pairs, especially considering what is seen for [a.i] and [a.e] in Figure 20. It also shows that the direction of any difference such as it may be is not consistent between the measures ofob- served frequency and observed–expected ratio, unlike any other similar observations provided in this section.

4.5.4.2 Discussion

In those pairs which are made up of a low vowel followed by a non-low vowel, there was again seemingly no close correlation with harmony system. However, there was a general difference in behaviour according to whether the vowel following /a/was front or back. The vowel pair [a.i] was consistently over-represented whereas [a.e] was consistently under-represented in nouns. This was found even in the two languages—Lozi and Makhuwa—in which neither [a.i] nor [a.e] are considered non-harmonic. Perhaps

136 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages more remarkably, this was also the case in Pende in which it is [a.i] rather than [a.e] that is the non-harmonic vowel pair in verbs. This could initially be taken as suggestive that mid vowels are generally dispreferred following low vowels; however, the above observations for [a.i] and [a.e] do not hold for [a.u] and [a.o] as an essentially negligible difference was found between the levels of [a.u] and [a.o], the former being a harmonic pair and the latter being a non-harmonic pair in all six languages of the sample.

4.5.5 General discussion

The first finding to be acknowledged from the preceding results is that—at thebroad scale—the relative under-representation of non-harmonic vowel pairs seen in verbs is not on the whole replicated in nouns. In other words, the results fail to demonstrate that the categorisation of a given vowel pair as non-harmonic entails that it is also under-represented in nouns. Likewise, a vowel pair considered harmonic in verbs did not necessarily mean that it would occur either at expected or above-expected levels. Thus, it does not appear that the harmony system of a language based onthose alternations seen in verbs necessarily has any meaningful predictive effect regarding the representation of vowel pairs found in nouns. Nonetheless, beyond this generalisation, there are particular pairs that appear to show consistent levels of under- and over-representation in nouns, certain of which do in fact mirror what is seen in verbs. However, in certain instances, the levels of representation of particular vowel pairs of interest run counter what is seen in verbs. This is despite the fact that, as noted in §4.4.3, the calculations for expected frequency and therefore also for the observed–expected ratios took into account the relative frequencies of vowels in first and second position in a pair and this should account for—or at least attenuate—potential morphological influences or biases. Taken together, the results of this study seem to suggest that, of those vowel pairs considered non-harmonic in the height harmony systems of the six languages of the present sample, the avoidance of certain vowel pairs is more robust in these languages than others and also that, on the contrary, the avoidance of certain non-harmonic pairs does not seem to be pervasive. In particular, the two vowel pairs [e.i] and [o.u] which are composed of a mid vowel followed by a high vowel of the same backness were found not only to be under-represented in nouns but also much more under- represented in comparison to their corresponding mid–mid pairs, namely [e.e] and

137 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

[o.o]. Moreover, the back pair [o.u] was much more under-represented than front [e.i], suggesting that this is the pair whose avoidance is most well motivated. This is something which is also seen in the typology of height harmony in Bantu where certain languages possess only back height harmony but none are known to exhibit only front height harmony. In addition to this, the mid–high vowel pair [e.u] was also consistently under-represented in the sample, though its corresponding mid–mid pair [e.o] was not as over-represented as [e.e] or [o.o]. A much more modest trend was seen, however, with [o.i] and [o.e], with [o.i] only slightly under-represented and [o.e] similarly only marginally over-represented in nouns. It seems then that avoiding [o.i] is much less robust based on these lexical-statistic data compared to [e.i] and [o.u], for example. Lastly, following the low vowel, there was an apparent preference for front high [i] over mid [e]; however, when the following vowel was back, there was no clear-cut prefer between high [u] and mid [o].

4.6 Summary

In this chapter, I have presented a study of vowel-pair frequencies in the nouns of six five-vowel Bantu languages. In these languages, verbs show alternations innon- low vowels due to the effects of height harmony. Nouns, however, do not exhibit such alternations. Nevertheless, it was found that certain vowel pairs that are either absent or extremely infrequent in verbs due to height harmony are also under-represented in nouns, albeit to a less drastic degree. Non-harmonic vowel pairs show not only variation according to which are under-represented in nouns but there were also found to be varying degrees of under-representation. For example, the vowel pairs [e.i] and [o.u] were both under- represented in nouns, though [o.u] was the more under-represented of these two pairs. In addition, the corresponding pairs [e.e] and [o.o] were both over-represented and [o.o] was found to be more over-represented than [e.e]. The results suggests that the avoidance of both of these vowel pairs is robust but that the avoidance of [o.u] is more pervasive than [e.i]. This is further represented across the Bantu family by the fact that there are languages that show only back height harmony but no examples of Bantu languages with only front height harmony. Another vowel pair that was under-represented in nouns was [e.u]. This is in spite of the fact that [e.u] is in fact a harmonic pair in each language in the sample. However, its component vowels, like [e.i] and [o.u], also disagree in height, with a

138 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages mid vowel being followed by a high vowel. The corresponding mid–mid pair [e.o], on the other hand, occurred in nouns at expected levels. In addition to these and other observations, the results fail to demonstrate that the height harmony system of a particular language has any substantial predictive power regarding which pairs are under-represented in nouns, beyond the fact that [o.u], a non-harmonic pair in all six languages, is consistently avoided in nouns.

139 cHapteR 5

Phonotactics in Lozi

I once spent thirty years studying the evolutionary genetics of snails. Although my research decorated the margins of the subject […], I still have no real idea what makes them tick.

Steve Jones Almost Like a While

5.1 Introduction

In chapter 4, I considered vowel-pair co-occurrences in a sample of six Bantu languages. In this chapter, I provide a closer look at one of these languages, Lozi, using both the data in Jalla (1982b) from CBOLD and supplementary loan-word data collected from Kashoki (1999). As mentioned in §4.2, Lozi is reported as having back height harmony but lacking front height harmony (e.g. Hyman 1999: 245). In five-vowel Bantu languages, progressive height harmony such as this is typically limited to the verb base and only has observable effects in the alternation of vowels in verbal extensions. Indeed, this is seen in Lozi in the alternation, for example, of the reversive suffix -ulul-/-olol- (see e.g. (135) in §4.2). In addition, analyses of height harmony (e.g. Beckman 1997 on Shona) may entail that, where sequences such as [a.u] are harmonic, corresponding [a.o] is explicitly disharmonic (for example, in Beckman’s 1997 this is due to Richness of the Base).

140 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Here I propose that, in the case of Lozi, rather than the effects of height harmony being limited to the verb base as one might assume and, instead of there being multiple disharmonic vowel pairs as some analyses may predict, there is a prohibition on the vowel pair [o.u]—and only this vowel pair—and that this holds outside the verb base, most importantly within nouns. Though a formal analysis of this is beyond the scope of this chapter, I do provide a discussion of certain further considerations that such an analysis must take into account (especially in §5.7). The discussion of the results also includes a close consideration of those exceptional instances of [o.u] that are found in the data (see §5.5), including the relationship between vowel epenthesis and the proposed ban on [o.u] (see §5.6).

5.2 Methodology

The methodology used in this chapter follows that previously outlined in §4.4 with the exception of the additional points covered below. In addition to the data from Jalla (1982a) taken from CBOLD, the print resource Kashoki (1999: 24–47) is also used in a smaller follow-up investigation of vowel epenthesis. This is a collection of loan words into Lozi, Nyanja and Bemba, with onlydata from the first of these three languages being used here. The work contains vocabulary not only from English but also other languages such as Afrikaans, Portuguese, Swahili and Kabanga (a Bemba-influenced Zulu-based pidgin). These cover many different thematic areas of the lexicon, such as entertainment, healthcare and mining. For Lozi, Kashoki (1999) contains approximately 650 loan words, of which only a small fraction—22 items—were ultimately of immediate relevance to this study. The methodology used by Kashoki to collect these data was to first identify loan words in works written in Lozi, elicit words from laypeople as well as specialists in particular areas with word lists and questionnaires and also to note down loan words heard in conversations. Native speakers were then asked to provide their judgements on these lists collated of loan words. In order to be used in this study, these loan-word data were manually transcribed from the print resource and compiled into a comma-separated-values file with columns containing the word in question as well as the English-language gloss, the source language and part of speech. Finally, in addition to those measures explained in §4.4, in this chapter, I also use visual inspection of a plot of the rank–frequency distribution for all 25 vowel pairs in

141 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages order to compare the behaviour of the observed and expected frequencies as a whole. Such a plot displays the observed and expected frequencies of vowel pairs on the y- axis and the rank of those vowel pairs on the x-axis, where rank is an integer from 1 to 25 (i.e. the number of complete vowel pairs), with 1 being the most frequent pair and 25 being the least frequent pair.

5.3 Results

First of all, I give the observed counts for all 25 possible vowel pairs in Lozi in Figure 21 below. This divides the data into two panels according to vowel pairs found innouns and verbs. There are a total of 32,486 vowel pairs, with 15,427 (47.5%) innounsand 17,059 (52.5%) in verbs. The mean count for a vowel pair is 639 in nouns and 728in verbs.

Noun 3000

2000 1459 1233 1178 985 1000 819 753 795 567 634 640 621 610 567 635 563 459 466 434 540 471 332 222 263 145 36 0 a.a a.e a.i a.o a.u e.a e.e e.i e.o e.u i.a i.e i.i i.o i.u o.a o.e o.i o.o o.u u.a u.e u.i u.o u.u Verb 3000 2664 Observed count 2000 1933 1835 1576

1106 1000 837 799 885 791 636 656 508 401 332 344 375 424 306 263 200 70 98 0 7 4 15 a.a a.e a.i a.o a.u e.a e.e e.i e.o e.u i.a i.e i.i i.o i.u o.a o.e o.i o.o o.u u.a u.e u.i u.o u.u Vowel pair

Figure 21: Observed counts for all vowel pairs in Lozi (facetted by part of speech)

From this we are able to see that, in verbs, there is a small number of particular vowel combinations that account for a large number of the total observed pairs. The five most frequent pairs in verbs—[e.a], [a.a], [i.a], [u.a] and [u.u]—make up 53.4% (9,112 pairs) of the total, whereas as the five most frequent pairs in nouns—[a.a], [u.a], [u.u], [i.a] and [u.i]—make up only 36.8% (5,674 pairs). What’s more, there is a much lower standard deviation in nouns (333.5) than verbs (677.8). However, when we consider the putative harmonic restrictions in place in the verbal system as evidenced by alternations, this should not be surprising. That is, due to the effects of height harmony we expect there to be fewer vowel pairs permitted—or at least attested in healthy

142 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages numbers—in verbs. Indeed, from Figure 21 we can already see that certain vowel pairs occur at essentially negligible levels in verbs. Therefore, to facilitate the further investigation of this, the data in Figure 21 are re-presented in Figure 22, being facetted not only for part of speech but also according to whether a pair is considered harmonic or non-harmonic according to alternations seen in Lozi verbs (see also the definition of these terms given in §4.2).

Harmonic Non-harmonic 3000

2000 Noun 1459 1233 1178 985 1000 819 753795 640 567 634 621567 635 540 610 563 466 434 471 459 332 263 145 222 36 0 3000 2664

Observed count 1933

2000 1835 Verb 1576

1106 1000 837 799 885 791 636 656 508 424 306 401332344 375 263 200 70 98 0 7 4 15 a.a a.e a.i a.u e.a e.e e.i e.u i.a i.e i.i i.u o.a o.e o.i o.o u.a u.e u.i u.u a.o e.o i.o o.u u.o Vowel pair

Figure 22: Observed counts for all vowel pairs in Lozi (facetted by part of speech and harmonicity)

From this we can see then that there are indeed vanishingly few instances in verbs of non-harmonic vowel pairs, especially of [o.u], of which there are only 4 instances. However, the most striking thing that displaying the data in this way reveals is the behaviour of non-harmonic pairs in nouns. Of these, all except [o.u] are in fact healthily represented, with observed counts ranging from 459 (3.0%) for [a.o] to 610 (4.0%) for [i.o], whereas [o.u] occurs in a mere 36 instances (0.2%). In fact, [i.o] is slightly more common than [i.u] and [e.o] is more than three and a half times as common as [e.u]. However, these observed-count data do not take into account the relative frequencies of the constituent vowels of a pair. They therefore do not indicate whether a given vowel pair occurs at an expected rate in the data set or whether it is instead relatively under- or over-represented. This question is of course of particular interest for the pair [o.u].

143 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

In order to investigate this, the observed–expected ratios for these data are provided in Figure 23 below.

Harmonic Non-harmonic 4 3.52 3 Noun

2 1.88 1.84 1.61 1.45 1.46 1.38 1.26 1.18 1.23 1.13 0.92 1.03 1.01 1.04 1.04 1 0.8 0.830.88 0.76 0.77 0.51 0.39 0.31 0.14 0 4 3.29 3 Verb 2 2

Observed–expected ratio 1.59 1.48 1.4 1.17 1.16 1.111.07 0.99 1 0.81 0.89 0.78 0.88 0.64 0.68 0.7 0.67 0.66 0.51 0.27 0.14 0.03 0 0.02 0.01 a.a a.e a.i a.u e.a e.e e.i e.u i.a i.e i.i i.u o.a o.e o.i o.o u.a u.e u.i u.u a.o e.o i.o o.u u.o Vowel pair

Figure 23: Observed–expected ratios for all vowel pairs in Lozi

Recall from §4.4.3 that the magnitudes of the ratios indicate how much more or less frequent each vowel pair is than expected. For example, a ratio of 1.5 indicates that a pair is over-represented by half, ratio of 0.5 that a pair is under-represented by half and a ratio of 1 that a pair occurs precisely as often as expected.

Figure 23 confirms that the non-harmonic vowel pairs are indeed rather substantially under-represented in verbs, with [o.u] having the lowest ratio. Moreover, with an observed–expected ratio of 0.14, [o.u] is also substantially under-represented in nouns as well as in verbs. Indeed, it is the most under-represented pair in nouns (and has the joint fourth-lowest ratio over all). The four remaining non-harmonic pairs, however, are not under-represented in nouns. Another striking aspect of the data in Figure 23 is the consistent over-representation of [o.o] in both nouns and verbs.

Finally, the uniqueness of the observed frequency of [o.u] in particular can be illustrated by a plot of the rank–frequency distributions using both the observed and expected frequencies of each vowel pair across the entire data set. This is shown in Figure 24, where frequencies are plotted on the y-axis on a logarithmic scale and ranks on the x-axis on an ordinary natural scale.

144 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

a.a a.a 0.100 u.a u.a e.a i.a e.a i.a u.u u.e e.e a.u a.e a.i o.o u.e a.e u.i o.a u.u a.u i.e u.i a.i e.u i.u u.o a.o e.i 0.030 e.e i.i o.a i.u i.e i.o i.i e.o e.i o.e o.e i.o o.u u.o a.o e.o o.i o.i e.u 0.010 o.o Log frequency

0.003

o.u 0 5 10 15 20 25 Rank

Observed Expected

Figure 24: Observed and expected rank–frequency distributions for all vowel pairs in Lozi

Note that, although the rank of a particular pair may shift between the observed and expected conditions, the rank–frequency distributions of the observed and expected frequencies form very similar distributions.106 The expected frequency for [o.u] falls within this distribution (rank 23); however, the observed frequency for [o.u] falls far below the rest of the distribution (rank 25).

5.4 Initial discussion

The most conspicuous aspect of the results presented in §5.3 is of course the behaviour of the five non-harmonic vowel pairs [a.o], [e.o], [i.o], [o.u] and [u.o]. Firstly, given the previous observations reported in §4.2 regarding the system of height harmony presumed to be exhibited by Lozi, the extremely low incidence of these pairs in verbs is to be expected. Thus, on the face of it, the fact that these pairs aresovery infrequent in the verbs seems to be a phonotactically-motivated gap brought about by a synchronic process of non-canonical vowel height harmony that is, moreover,

106 Nichols & Kauhanen (2019) report that vowel pairs follow a polylogarithmic distribution, specifically f(r) = ar–bcr where r is a pair’s rank, f(r) is a pair’s relative frequency in the lexicon, a is a normalisation constant and b and c are scaling and shape parameters. This is a generalisation of Zipf’s Law (Zipf 1949) and can also be observed in the distribution of phonemes within languages (Tambovtsev & Martindale 2007). Note that, whereas Martindale et al. (1996), Martindale & Konopka (1996), Tambovtsev & Martindale (2007) use the term “Yule distribution”, Nichols & Kauhanen advocate instead for the label “ polylogarithmic” (after Kemp 1995: 110).

145 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages enforced only within a particular domain in verbs. Under this interpretation, it is also true that the healthy levels of representation of [a.o], [e.o], [i.o] and [u.o] in nouns is not necessarily surprising or problematic since this is not somewhere we would expect the effects of height harmony to manifest itself. What is remarkable, however, is that [o.u]—alone among the non-harmonic pairs—is extremely infrequent and severely under-represented not only in verbs but also in nouns. In addition to this, [o.u] is the non-harmonic pair that occurs most infrequently in verbs, in both absolute and relative terms. This combined with the lack of under-representation forthe remaining non-harmonic vowel pairs shows that it is not simply the case that the lexical statistics of nouns mimic the lexical statistics of verbs. I argue that the results as recapitulated above support the assertion that there exists in Lozi an active phonotactic vowel-pair co-occurrence restriction against [o.u] alone that applies outside the domain of verb root and verbal extensions. Furthermore, I also suggest that the pairs [a.o], [e.o], [i.o] and [u.o] are not ill-formed, as might be entailed under some analyses (e.g. in an Optimality-Theoretic analysis in the same vein as Beckman’s 1997 treatment of Shona). It is true that a certain number of exceptions to this suggested restriction do exist; however, it should be noted that instances of the vowel pair [o.u] number only 40. This is an incredibly low figure when considering the fact that the final data set used inthis study contains a total of 32,486 vowel pairs in nouns and verbs. All of the observed examples of [o.u] therefore amount to a mere 0.12% of all the data. By comparison, the second-most infrequent pair over all—[e.u]—accounts for 1.24% of vowel pairs, tenfold as many data points as [o.u]. Recall also that, as shown in Figure 24, the observed frequency of [o.u] in the data is the only aberrant point in the rank–frequency distributions of observed and expected frequencies for all 25 vowel pairs. While this is not necessarily a hard-and- fast diagnostic method, it appears that deviations from this distribution such as this may nevertheless be indicative of a phonotactic constraint of some sort with a certain number of exceptions, such as vowel harmony in Finnish or the restricted distribution of the low-mid vowels in Italian (Nichols & Kauhanen 2019).107 An additional suggestive point is that the vowel pair [o.o]—the way in which potential [o.u] sequences are repaired in the case of alternations—is vastly over-

107 See e.g. Campbell (1980), Välimaa-Blum (1999) and Goldsmith & Riggle (2012) among many others for the details of vowel harmony in Finnish and Krämer (2009: §4.1.2) and Renwick & Ladd (2016) for discussion of the low-mid vowels in Italian.

146 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages represented and indeed is the most over-represented vowel pair not only in verbs but also in nouns. Similar scenarios do not hold for other non-harmonic vowel pairs. While pairs such as [a.o] are indeed under-represented in verbs, not only are they not likewise under-represented in nouns, but the alternatives to such vowel pairs are either not over-represented or not over-represented to anywhere near the same degree as [o.o]. What’s more, in addition to [o.o], the vowel pair [u.u] is the second most over-represented pair in nouns, after of course [o.o]. This is noteworthy because, although it does not reflect how [o.u] is repaired by those alternations visible in verbs, it is nevertheless similar to minor variation attested elsewhere in the language that may also alter instances of [o.u]. To wit, the nouns mongu ‘promontory’ (cf. Mongu, a city in Zambia’s Western Province) and miongu ‘pumpkins’ containing [o.u] are also noted as having the alternative forms mungu and miungu with sequence [u.u] instead.108 Taken together these observations suggest that, when viewing nouns and verbs as a whole, the dearth of instances of [a.o], [e.o], [i.o], [o.u] and [u.o] in verbs is synchronically accidental whereas the same cannot be said of [o.u]. This proposed prohibition against a single vowel pair that applies in a wider variety of morphological contexts is more parsimonious than other generalisations that may be made on the basis of these data as these would encompass not only a wider set of vowel pairs but would also necessarily differ according to certain morphological criteria. Nevertheless, in order to fully assess the tenability of the proposal given above, in the sections that follow, I more closely examine those few exceptional items that exist and also discuss the results with a broader perspective on the language as a whole.

5.5 Exceptions

Here I provide a close inspection of those exceptional occurrences of [o.u] found in the data taken from CBOLD. I deal with those examples found in verbs in §5.5.1 and those found in nouns in §5.5.1 before a brief summary is provided in §5.5.3.

5.5.1 In verbs

First I examine those examples of [o.u] in verbs, of which there are 4 in the data set. These are given in (136) below.

108 For example, the forms mongu and mungu are both attested in Jalla (1982a); the form miungu is given by Jalla (1982a) but Fortune (2001: 3) uses miongu

147 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

(136) a. -foufala ‘to become blind’ b. -foufaza109 ‘to blind’ c. -nonguluka ‘to be very thin (e.g. through illness)’ d. -shouhangelela ‘to walk slowly towards’

Taking the last of these entries first, judging by the surrounding and related entries in the database, it is clear that the instance of ou in -shouhangelela is a transcription error and the entry should instead read -shashangelela. Firstly, this is listed as a derivative of the verb -shangela ‘to walk slowly without strength or in grief’.110 Secondly, the corresponding perfective entry reads -shashangelezi and another related entry is given as -shashangeliseza rather than *-shouhangelezi and *-shouhangeliseza respectively. Indeed, this is confirmed by consulting the print dictionaryJalla ( 1982b). As for the pair of related verbs -foufala and -foufaza, it seems plausible that these too may be errors rather than genuine examples of [o.u] sequences (without an intervening consonant). However, this is less certain than with -shouhangelela. Firstly, the verb -foufala is cross-referenced in the entry for the noun sibofu ‘blind person’ (cf. e.g. Swahili kipofu; Awde 2002). Additionally, the noun bubofu ‘blindness’ (cf. e.g. Swahili upofu; Awde 2002) is also present in the data set.111 It is conceivable, given these latter examples, that the string fou should actually be bo. This would bring -foufala and -foufaza more into line with sibofu and bubofu. However, when referred to in the entry for sibofu, -foufala is rendered just as in the main entry. Moreover, in Jalla (1982a), the perfective forms of -foufala and -foufaza are written -foufezi and -foufalize respectively, with the ou sequence intact. These entries are also printed as -foufala and -foufaza in Jalla (1982b). When consulted, a native Lozi speaker did not recognise either -foufala or -foufaza—nor, indeed, the potential alternatives -bofala or -bofaza.112

109 This is a derived form of -foufala with spirantisation, a process which occurs in the formation of many causative verbs in Lozi (Fortune 2001: 57–8). 110 This is formed through reduplication (Fortune 2001: 58–9) and the applicative suffix -el- (Fortune 2001: 57). 111 These two nouns, of course, also contain [o.u]. I will come back to these particular casesalittle later on in §5.5.2. 112 For ‘to become blind’, he instead suggested an analytic construction using the noun sibofu ‘blind person’ and, for ‘to blind’, the following two possibilities were offered: -punya meto (literally ‘to pierce the eyes’) or -fata meto (literally ‘to dazzle/obscure the eyes (e.g. with a blindfold or the hands)’).

148 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

There seems to be no reason, however, to doubt -nonguluka based on Jalla (1982a).113 For example, the corresponding perfective is written -nongulukile. The form -nonguluka is also found in the print volume (Jalla 1982b). What’s more, this is also corroborated by Gowlett (1967: 75), where the “reversive-neuter” form -nonguluka is also given. It seems then that this is a genuine exception to the proposed ban, though it may well be the sole such example in verbs.114

5.5.2 In nouns

In the nouns, there were found to be 36 instances of [o.u]. Although, as discussed below, only one of these is due to a transcription error in the data source, a certain number of the remaining 35 examples appear to either be amenable to reasonable explanations or exhibit certain properties that are not entirely random. Firstly, thanks to comparison with the print volume (Jalla 1982b), the entry given as ousipili ‘kind of bird’ in the database was found to be a mistranscription and it ought to instead read musipili.115

Complex nominals Next, among these 35 instances, 6 examples (17.1%) are found across boundaries within “complex nominal stems” such as those formed by compounding or reduplication (see e.g. Fortune 2001: 21). The relevant entries are provided in (137) below, with hyphenation indicating boundaries replicated from the original source.

(137) a. kafuko-fuko ‘lion-ant’ b. kutwelo-butuku ‘pity, compassion’ c. limbongo-lume ‘kind of large edible fruit’ d. mafulo-fulo ‘eagerness, favour, enthusiasm, zeal’ e. mbako-fumu ‘lover of riches (from Luyana)’ f. Minyo-lui116 ‘Bulozi Prime Minister’

113 In Jalla (1982a), -nonguluka is listed as being derived from -nonga ‘to be very thin (through illness, starvation or misery)’ without any recorded difference in meaning. However, Gowlett (1967: 75) reports -nonga as meaning ‘to grow thin through sickness’—in accordance with Jalla (1982a)—but -nonguluka as meaning ‘to convalesce’ (which makes sense considering the latter’s derivation; cf. also munonga ‘sciatica; muscular atrophy’; Jalla 1982a). 114 Nevertheless, neither -nonga nor -nonguluka were recognised by a native-speaker consultant with the meanings previously given. He identified -nonga as meaning ‘to hit something right on target (e.g. of an arrow on a bullseye)’ (cf. the definition in Jalla 1982a as ‘to take aim at’). 115 This is therefore homophonous with musipili ‘journey’ (Jalla 1982a).

149 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

It seems likely that these particular examples of [o.u] may not necessarily constitute evidence against the thesis being advanced here. I provide further discussion relevant to these items later on in §5.7. In short though, it seems likely that, in these items, [o] and [u] straddle boundaries—either prosodic or morphological—that permits the surface occurrence of [o.u].

Loan words Setting these 6 instances aside for the moment too, this further reduces the number of exceptions to 29. It is first of all interesting to note that 4 of these29 entries (13.8%) that contain an instance of [o.u] are loan words from English.

(138) a. bishopu ‘bishop’ b. ingilopu ‘envelope’ c. sitofu117 ‘stove’ d. wolupulete118 ‘wall-plate (roof timber)’

In addition to these English-derived words, a further 6 entries (20.7%) are identified in Jalla (1982a) as borrowings from Luyana.

(139) a. njopu ‘damp, dewy place’ b. malopu ‘beer’ c. ndopu ‘elephant’ d. sopu ‘fine grass growing in fertile soil’ e. nokushimba119 ‘manner of sending a written message’ f. sikulu-opu ‘very succulent thick grass’

116 In this particular example, -lui is the same stem as in mului ‘native of Bulozi (from Luyana)’ (Jalla 1982a; see also Mainga 2010: 5 for a brief discussion of the history and use of this and related words). 117 A native speaker rejected the loan word sitofu in favour of the native word sihapehelo (not found in Jalla 1982a). 118 This particular loan word also occurs in Kashoki (1999: 37), albeit with the slightly different form of opulete. 119 It is possible that may not truly be an exception as it is likely a derivative of the verb -shimba ‘to carry’ (Jalla 1982a), which is also listed as a loan word from Luyana into Lozi, with the infinitive prefix ku-, preceded by another prefix no-. This possibility was checked with a native Lozi speaker who knew the word and also connected it with -shimba. He also acknowledged that no- was likely a prefix of some sort but was unsure of what its meaning could beandwas also not readily able to come up with another similarly-constructed word (there also exists the related agent noun mushimbi ‘carrier, bearer’ derived from the same verb root; cf. the derivation of, for example, mubali ‘reader’ from -bala ‘to read’ or muyepi ‘digger’ from -yepa ‘to dig’; Jalla 1982a). I do not exclude this as a potential exception as it is not certain that this instance of [o.u] straddles a morphological boundary of some sort.

150 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Of these Luyana loan words, a native Lozi speaker did not recognise njopu, sopu or sikulu-opu (though this perhaps understandable given their somewhat niche meanings). The same speaker recognised the remaining words but said that he would not actively use them in his speech. For example, rather than ndopu, he would instead use tou120 and, similarly, native bucwala would be preferred to the borrowing malopu. In sum, a total of 10 of the remaining 29 exceptions in nouns (34.5%) are loan words. It is worth noting that, although they do not account for a majority of the few exceptional cases of [o.u], this figure is nevertheless a sizeable minority. After having removed perfective forms, there were found to be only around 300 entries marked as loan words in the entire data set, making up approximately 2% of entries. These are predominantly, though not exclusively, nouns. Even taking a conservative approach and treating only the English examples as “loan words proper” rather than inherited vocabulary (which one could potentially make the case for for those entries labelled as borrowings from Luyana), although 13.8% is not an extremely high proportion of loan words in this subset, this is nearly 7 times higher than in the data set at large.

Intervening segments Furthermore, if we examine the segments that intervene between [o] and [u] in these 29 exceptional pairs in nouns, we find that they do not seem to be entirely random in their distribution: 8 (27.6%) have [p], 5 (17.2%) have [f], 4 (13.8%) have [m] and 1 (3.4%) has [ᵐb]. Thus, a total of 18 (62.1%) of these intervening consonants are labial. Additionally, 4 have [l], 3 (10.4%) have [ŋ]121, 1 has [ᵑɡ]122, 1 has [k], 1 has [t]123 and, lastly, a single instance of [o.u] has no intervening segment (namely tou ‘elephant’). This is summarised in Table 7.

Word-final [o.u] Lastly, of these 29 occurrences of [o.u], 24 (82.8%) occur in word- final position.

120 Historically derived from Sotho tlou, which is in fact cognate with Luyana ndopu. 121 Although one of the entries here is transcribed as linonu ‘vulture’ in the data set used, the intervening segment is actually a velar [ŋ] rather than alveolar nasal [n]. This can be cross-referenced with both the print volume where it is written linoñu and Gowlett (1989: 132), where this spelling is also found (with ñ representing a velar nasal, not a palatal nasal as in Spanish orthography). This was also confirmed with a native speaker. 122 This is the entry mongu ‘promontory’ which, as already noted in §5.4, is listed with the alternative form mungu. 123 The sole example of an intervening [t] occurs in notumbala ‘kind of bird (in the past, it was believed to be sacred and to cause the death of anyone who killed it)’. This was not recognised by a native speaker but he pointed out that it could perhaps be related to tumbala ‘kind of tigerfish’.

151 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Segment Place Count Percentage [p] labial 8 27.6% [f] labial 5 17.2% [m] labial 4 13.8% [l] alveolar 4 13.8% [ŋ] velar 3 10.4% [ᵐb] labial 1 3.4% [ᵑɡ] velar 1 3.4% [k] velar 1 3.4% [t] alveolar 1 3.4% NA NA 1 3.4%

Table 7: Intervening segments in simple Lozi nouns containing [o.u] in Lozi

5.5.3 Summary

From the originally 40 instances of [o.u] we can disregard 2 as being transcription errors (namely shoushangelela and ousipili) as well as potentially excluding as true exceptions those 6 examples that occur across boundaries that arise due to reduplication or compounding in complex nominals. That leaves 32 entries, of which 10are listed as loan words. To reiterate the point made earlier in §5.4, in a database with approximately 32,500 vowel pairs, this amounts to an almost negligibly small proportion of the data set. Moreover, as already reported in §5.3, the observed frequency of [o.u] falls far below what is expected based on the relative frequencies of [o] and [u] and only the observed proportion of [o.u] fails to fall within the same distribution as all other observed or expected proportions. Among the scant examples that are found in Jalla (1982a), in nouns, there is a strong preference for the intervening consonant to be a labial (more than 60%) with approximately a further quarter (24.2%) being either [l] or [ŋ]. There is also an even stronger prevalence (82.8%) of these instances of [o.u] occurring in word-final position.

5.6 Vowel epenthesis

In §5.5 I noted that, though a small number in absolute terms, loan words constitute a larger percentage of examples of [o.u] than we might expect if they were simply a representative subset of the wider lexicon. In loan words from English, for example, instances of [o.u] are the result of vowel epenthesis. I also observed in §5.5 that partic-

152 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages ular consonants are found more frequently in these pairs. In this section, I concentrate more closely on the relationship between the proposed ban on [o.u], vowel epenthesis and the consonants found in these situations. I discuss the results of a supplementary smaller-scale study using an additional resource to Jalla (1982a), namely Kashoki (1999).124 In order to concentrate on the ban on [o.u], I only discuss epenthesis of the back rounded vowels [u] and [o] following [o]. I also do not discuss the adaptation of non-epenthetic vowels, e.g. the change in quality of instances of [ə] and other vowels present in the source languages but not in Lozi.

5.6.1 Epenthesis in borrowings

Due to the simple syllable structure found in the language, which is predominantly CV in nature (Fortune 2001: 1), vowel epenthesis in Lozi is found rather frequently in loan words from those source languages with more complex syllable shapes, especially English and Afrikaans. What is of interest in the context of this study is of course the quality of epenthetic vowels following instances of [o]. As we have already seen in §5.5.2, there are examples of [o.u] found in Jalla (1982a) that occur in loan words from English and, in such cases, the [u] is epenthetic in origin. These examples are reproduced in (140) below, with the epenthetic [u] in the [o.u] pair being underlined.

(140) a. bishopu ‘bishop’ b. ingilopu ‘envelope’ c. sitofu ‘stove’ d. wolupulete ‘wall-plate (roof timber)’

Of these four examples, three both follow labial consonants and occur in word-final position, with the fourth being found after a lateral consonant. Nevertheless, when considering the remainder of the data from Jalla (1982a), in the majority of cases where [o.u] might come about due to vowel epenthesis in loan words, [o.o] is found instead. An incomplete list of examples from Jalla (1982a) of [o.o] arising due to epenthesis in loan words is given in (141) below. Here, examples of epenthetic [o] in [o.o] pairs are underlined.

(141) a. coko ‘chalk’ rather than *coku

124 I deal predominantly with vowel epenthesis in nouns but there also limited relevant instances in verbs.

153 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

b. dokota ‘doctor’ rather than *dokuta c. foloko ‘fork’ rather than *foluku d. folomani ‘foreman’ rather than *folumani e. lubotolo ‘bottle’ rather than *lubotolu f. mbasikolo ‘bicycle’ rather than *mbasikolu g. noto ‘musical note; nought’ rather than *notu h. pokoto ‘pocket’ rather than *pokotu i. potoloto ‘pencil’ (from Afrikaans potlood) rather than *potulotu j. sikolo ‘school’ (from Afrikaans skool) rather than *sikolu k. sinodo ‘synod’ rather than *sinodu l. sitoko ‘stock-taking’ rather than *sitoku m. sitolopo ‘strap’ (from Afrikaans strop(?)) rather than *sitolopu n. sosolo ‘saucer’ rather than *sosolu o. -toloka ‘to interpret’ (from Afrikaans tolk) rather than *toluka

The preference for [o] rather than [u] as the epenthetic vowel following [o] appears to hold irrespective of the place and manner of the intervening consonant, with the sole exception of labials, following which [u] seems to be preferred. However, as demonstrated by sitolopo in (141m) above, examples of [o] can also be found even after labials. These observations were further corroborated by a supplementary small-scale study of a corpus of roughly 650 loan words—predominantly from English—taken from Kashoki (1999: 24–47), many of which are not found in Jalla (1982a).125 The data discussed here were extracted using substantially the same methodology as in the rest of this chapter (see §4.4). In the final data set derived from Kashoki (1999), there were the 22 unique instances of [o.u] where [u] was an epenthetic vowel, 13 (59.1%) are labials and 7 (31.8%) are laterals. Examples of these are given below in (142) and (143) respectively.

(142) a. gulobu ‘glove’ b. lofu ‘loaf’ c. ofusaidi ‘offside’

125 In addition to the examples from Lozi discussed here, Kashoki (1999: 48–103) also provides loanword data for two other languages of Zambia, namely Nyanja and Tonga.

154 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

d. shopu ‘shop’ e. yunifomu126 ‘uniform’

(143) a. (m)biyaholu ‘beer hall’ b. folutini ‘fourteen’ c. golukipa ‘goalkeeper’ d. lokeni lolu ‘rock ‘n’ roll’ e. netibolu ‘netball’

The remaining instances (2, 9.1%) were [k] and127 [n].

(144) a. okutoba ‘October’ b. lonujampu ‘long jump’

However, instances of [o.o] arising from epenthesis in this same data source are around one and a half times as common as [o.u], occurring 31 times. The intervening consonants in such examples of [o.o] show a different distribution to [o.u]: 11 velar (35.5%), 11 lateral, 5 labial (16.1%) and 4 non-lateral alveolar (12.9%) consonants. Many of those given in (141) from Jalla (1982a) were also found in Kashoki (1999). In addition, further examples found in Kashoki (1999) are given below in (145–148).

(145) a. joko ‘yoke’ rather than *joku b. jokolafi ‘geography’ rather than *jokulafi c. kuloko ‘clock’ rather than *kuloku d. loko ‘lock’ rather than *loku

(146) a. folo ‘four’ rather than *folu b. folosi ‘(water)falls’ rather than *folusi c. nombolo ‘number’ rather than *nombolu128 d. tinolo ‘tenor’ rather than *tinolu

(147) a. basikopo ‘cinema’ (from Afrikaans bioskoop) rather than *basikopu b. bobo ‘bob (shilling)’ rather than *bobu c. Jakopo ‘Jacob’ rather than *Jakopu d. maikolosikopo ‘microscope’ rather than *maikolosikopu

126 Cf. however, folo ‘four’ rather than *folu in (146a) found in Kashoki (1999). 127 Considering the English-language source, this may in fact be [ŋ] rather [n], though it is not transcribed as such in Kashoki (1999). 128 Note that, in addition to nombolo, namba is also attested for ‘number’ in Kashoki (1999).

155 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

(148) a. pokoto ‘pocket’ rather than *pokotu b. pondo ‘pound’ rather than *pondu c. poto ‘pot’ rather than *potu d. sikono ‘scone’ rather than *sikonu

Thus, it can be seen that the data gathered from Kashoki (1999), a source focused on loan words, tell much the same story as the overall data set derived from Jalla (1982a). That is, [o.u] is found very infrequently and, although it may arise through vowel epenthesis, this is all but restricted to cases in which a labial or lateral consonant intervenes and [o.o] is instead preferred overall and may even occur where [o.u] is commoner.

5.6.2 Epenthesis in native vocabulary

In addition to foreign borrowings, vowel epenthesis can also be seen in certain environments in native vocabulary and this may in fact also lead to limited instances of [o.u]. This is described, for example, by Gowlett (1989: 132) who states that the final [u] in words such as linoñu ‘vulture’ arises from vowel epenthesis to repair what is a word-final syllabic velar nasal̍ [ŋ] in certain other dialects of Lozi.129 This lack of a final vowel is also seen in cognates in languages closely-related to Lozi,e.g. nong ‘vulture’ in Sotho (aKa Southern Sotho; Mabille & Dieterlen 1950), nông ‘vulture’ in Pedi (aKa Northern Sotho) and lenong ‘vulture’ in Tswana. In addition to linoñu, epenthesis can also be observed in another instance of [o.u] with an intervening [ŋ] in native Lozi nouns, namely kokoñu ‘wildebeest’. Compare again the cognates Sotho khokong ‘blue wildebees[t]’ (Mabille & Dieterlen 1950), Pedi kgôkông ‘blue wildebeest’ and Tswana kgokong ‘wildebeest’. This is clearly not the case, however, for komu ‘cow’, the single other case of an intervening nasal consonant in an [o.u] pair in nouns, since cognates invariably possess a final vowel, e.g. Sotho khomō ‘animal of the bovine race’ (Mabille & Dieterlen 1950), Pedi kgômo ‘cow’ and Tswana kgomo ‘cow’ as well as Xhosa inkomo ‘cow’ (Fischer et al. 1985) and Zulu inkomo ‘beast [sic]’ (Dent & Nyembezi 1995).

129 Similarly, syllabic nasal consonants may also be found in word-initial, -medial and -final position in Southern Sotho (Doke & Mofokeng 1985: 15–18).

156 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

5.6.3 Perspectives on epenthesis in loan words

The data discussed above pose the following questions. Firstly, why does vowel epenthesis behave the way it does in Lozi? Secondly, in the context of this particular study, how does the behaviour of vowel epenthesis relate to the prohibition on the vowel pair [o.u] in the language? Before discussing these questions, it is worth acknowledging that vowel epenthesis in loan words in Lozi seems to behave somewhat similarly to various other Bantu languages. See, for example, Uffmann (2006: §4.1, 2007: chs. 3–5) for a discussion of Shona, Rose (1995) and Uffmann (2007: §7.1) for Kinyarwanda, Downing & Mtenje (2017: §5.3) for Chewa, Rose & Demuth (2006) for Sotho and Batibo (1995) for both Tswana and Swahili. However, ascertaining the nature of vowel epenthesis in Lozi in all environments and determining the degree of similarity with Bantu languages that have already been subject to work in the same vein would require a more general and larger-scale investigation which falls outside the scope of this present study. Further to the questions raised above that are particular to this case, one must also consider the more general issue in the study of loan-word epenthesis of how—or even whether—speakers of a language perceive contrasts in a source language that are absent in their own.130 Some have argued that speakers are, in a sense, largely oblivious to non-native contrasts found in a source language. It has been reported, for example, that speakers of French—a language in which word-stress is non-contrastive (see e.g. Fagyal et al. 2006: §2.5)—perform rather badly at tasks which require the recognition of stress, a phenomenon known as “stress deafness” (see e.g. Dupoux et al. 1997; Dupoux et al. 2001).131 Elsewhere, in a phenomenon more germane to the current discussion of vowel epenthesis in Lozi, Dupoux et al. (1999a,b) and Dehaene-Lambertz et al. (2000)

130 In addition to this, there has also been consideration in the literature of the effect of orthography in loan-word adaptation in cases where the primary source of borrowings is through the written rather than oral medium (see e.g. Smith 2006; Vendelin & Peperkamp 2006; Friesner 2009; Daland & Oh 2014; Daland et al. 2015; Hamann & Colombo 2017; contra e.g. Silverman 1992; Paradis & LaCharité 1997; LaCharité & Paradis 2005 who claim that orthography has only a small part to play in the adaptation of loan words, if any at all). 131 In addition to finding stress deafness in speakers of two varieties of French, Peperkamp et al. (2010) also found a similarly strong effect for speakers of Finnish and Hungarian, both of which exhibit predictable word-stress whereas speakers of Spanish, which has non-predictable word- stress, did not show this effect. However, speakers of Polish, which has largely predictable stress albeit with a limited number exceptions (see e.g. Gussmann 2007: §1.3), showed weak rather than strong stress deafness.

157 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages found that, on the whole, speakers of Japanese—in which coda consonants and consonant clusters are largely not permitted132—are not consistently able to perceptually distinguish between a pair of immediately consecutive consonants and these same two consonants separated by an intervening high vowel. That is, examples such as [ebzo] and [ebuzo] are not reliably perceptually differentiated by Japanese speakers as they perceive both as [ebuzo]. Authors such as Peperkamp & Dupoux (2003), Vendelin & Peperkamp (2004) and Peperkamp (2005), who advocate for a purely perception-based and extra- phonological approach to loan-word adaptation, interpret findings such as these as indicating that there is no stage in perception at which Japanese speakers hearing, for the first time, English words containing consonant clusters that are ill-formed in Japanese, e.g. rugby, conceive of an underlying representation without vowel epenthesis. That is, rather than composing an underlying form such as /ɾaɡbiː/ fromwhich the surface form [ɾaɡɯbiː] is derived by way of a phonological operation of epenthesis, speakers instead perceive the English signal [ɹʌɡbi] as something like [ɾaɡɯbiː] from the outset and so construct the underlying form /ɾaɡɯbiː/ on that basis.133 In contrast, others instead contend that speakers are in fact, on the whole, able to perceive the source signal correctly even if this contains features absent from their native language but make subsequent changes to its form.134 Certain authors, perhaps most notably Paradis and colleagues, emphasise that it is phonological rather than perceptual considerations that are the over-riding criteria according to which loan words are adapted into a recipient language (see e.g. Paradis 1996, 2006; Paradis & LaCharité 1997, 2001; LaCharité & Paradis 2000, 2005; Paradis & Prunet 2000; other work along similar lines includes Hyman 1970; Lovins 1975; Kaye & Nykile 1979; Singh 1987; Ulrich 1997; Uffmann 2004, 2006, 2007; Cohen 2009). However, yet others taking a still phonologically-based position nevertheless may favour the maximisation of perceptual similarity—i.e. between input signal and native inventory etc.—to a greater or lesser extent (see e.g. Silverman 1992; Yip 1993, 2002; Shinohara 1997, 2000, 2006; Rose 1999a,b; Steriade 2001; Fleischhacker 2001; Kenstow-

132 Exceptions to this being a final nasal (e.g. ほん hon ‘book’), a coda nasal followed by an onset consonant (e.g. 飛んだ tonda ‘flew’) or geminate consonants (e.g. もっと motto ‘more’) that straddle a syllable boundary (see e.g. Labrune 2012). 133 See Labrune (2012: 80) for the recent example borrowing ラグビー ragubii ‘rugby’. 134 For example, to take the example used above, the signal [ɹʌɡbi] would be perceived as [ɾaɡbiː] which would lead to the underlying representation /ɾaɡbiː/ from which the surface realisation [ɾaɡɯbiː] is reached via vowel epenthesis.

158 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages icz 2001, 2007; Kang 2003; Broselow 2004, 2009; Gerrits & Schouten 2004; Smith 2006; Adler 2006; Rose & Demuth 2006; Zuraw et al. 2019 for a range of such approaches).

5.6.4 Epenthesis as compromise

Having now provided some background and context to the issue of vowel epenthesis in loan words, I now turn to a discussion of the current instances of epenthesis of [u] following [o] in Lozi. Recall that the general findings that, in those exceptional cases of [o.u] found in Lozi nouns, more than 60% of the intervening consonants are labial consonants and that more than 80% of all instances occur word-finally already demonstrate that the exceptions to the proposed restriction do not exhibit a random distribution but a relatively more orderly pattern. In the data from Jalla (1982a), 4 (13.8%) examples of [o.u] were found to occur in loan words from English, 3 had intervening labials and 1 had an intervening lateral that originate from vowel epenthesis. Having investigated vowel epenthesis further with a larger sample size of loan words from Kashoki (1999), a pattern emerged that was largely consistent with that seenin Jalla (1982a). The phonotactically licit pair [o.o] was found to arise via vowel epenthesis more often than [o.u]. Moreover, in those cases of [o.u] that did occur, the intervening consonant was a labial around 60% of the time and a lateral more than 30% of the time, with only 2 instances of other intervening consonants. Here I propose that the reason [u] occurs in these environments is largely due to perceptual factors. In short, epenthesising [u] is a compromise between remaining as faithful as possible to the lack of a vowel in the input and not violating the rules of syllable structure in Lozi and that this outweighs the ban on [o.u]. This is along similar lines to Downing & Mtenje (2017: 95–6) who, in their discussion of loan-word adaptation in Chewa, say the following:

Inserting a minimal vowel, often a high vowel like schwa, in a position that allows the donor language consonants to be syllabified has been claimed to be the most phonetically natural thing to do in adapting words with unsyllabifiable consonant strings (see, e.g., Steriade 2001; Boersma and Hamann 2009[b]). A high vowel is very short and not very vowel- like, so inserting one leads to minimal deviation from the pronunciation of the word in the source language. This strategy keeps the pronunci-

159 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

ation of the loanword similar to the original, while still respecting the phonotactics of the borrowing language.

It appears that, in Lozi, as in other Bantu languages such as Shona (Uffmann 2006) and Kikuyu (Mwihaki 2001) as well as Tswana and Swahili (Batibo 1995) and even non- Bantu languages—Yoruba (Akinlabi 1993) and Sranan (Smith 1977), for instance—the most commonly chosen epenthetic vowel following labial consonants is [u]. Uffmann (2006) argues that, in Shona, this choice is purely featurally motivated as he assumes a Unified Feature Theory (Clements 1989, 1991, 1993; Hume 1992; Clem- ents & Hume 1995; Halle et al. 2000) model of feature geometry in which consonants and vowels are posited to share the same set of place features. Thus, since feature [labial] may be borne by both labial consonants and rounded vowels alike, the presence of /u/ rather than /i/ is due to the assimilation of the epenthesised vowel with the [labial] feature of the preceding consonant.135 In support of a more perceptually-focused interpretation of what is seen here in Lozi, it should be noted that, among vowel sounds, high vowels may be considered as being perceptually closest to silence by virtue of exhibiting the lowest sonority (Jespersen 1904; Kenstowicz 1996; Gnanadesikan 1997; de Lacy 2002; Parker 2002; Gordon et al. 2012) as well as tending to be shorter in duration than non-high vowels (Hertrich & Ackermann 1997; Esposito 2002; Mortensen & Tøndering 2013; Toivonen et al. 2015; Kawahara et al. 2017). Moreover, the formant transitions from a labial consonant to a following [u] are less pronounced than from a labial consonant to a following [i] or other vowel (see e.g. Figure 8.7 in Johnson 2003: 143, adapted from Delattre et al. 1955). Similarly, from an articulatory point of view, one might expect a rounded high vowel following a labial consonant should be closer still to silence since they both employ the lips as active articulators and hence require less of a transition between the two segments. In addition to this, in both Jalla (1982a) and Kashoki (1999), among labial consonants, voiceless [p] and [f] are the commonest intervening segments in examples of [o.u] arising from vowel epenthesis, perhaps because they are environments which are more conducive to potential devoicing of following [u] and thus an even better approximation for silence.

135 The feature [labial] is synonymous with [round] for some, though not all, such models (seee.g. Sagey 1986).

160 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

The relatively high number of labial consonants in such cases could leadoneto ask the following question: are labials simply over-represented in the lexicon and hence also over-represented in the number of instances of [o.u]? This would make the apparent exceptional instances of [o.u] seem not to show an entirely non-random distribution after all. However, this does not appear to be thecase. Figure 25 shows the rank–frequency distribution of consonants graphemes in nouns in Lozi, with labial and non-labial consonants differentiated (cf. Figure 24). The data used for this were extracted from Jalla (1982a) based on the orthography. Note that, unfortunately, in the version of the database used, the usual orthographic distinction between alveolar n /n/ and velar ñ /ŋ/ was largely neutralised to n.136

l m n 0.1000 k b s t w g p d h y z f sh 0.0100 ny c j

0.0010

Log observed frequency v

0.0001 r 0 5 10 15 20 Rank

Labial Non-labial

Figure 25: Rank–frequency distribution for consonant graphemes in nouns in Lozi

From Figure 25, it seems then the labial consonants do not as a group occur exceptionally frequently relative to those consonants with other places of articulation. What’s more, this is especially true for /p/ and /f/, which, as mentioned above, were the most frequent environment in which epenthesis of [u] following [o] was observed. The pre- ponderance of intervening labials in [o.u] is therefore not merely a consequence of their frequency in the lexicon. Likewise, labial consonants are also not wildly frequent

136 Note also that, Figure 25 also contains two non-native consonant graphemes, namely v and r. These are found only very infrequently in loan words, e.g. Evangeli ‘Gospel’ or Mukreste ‘Chris- tian’. It is perhaps instructive, however, to compare also the placement of non-native r and v in Figure 25 with that of the observed proportion of [o.u] in Figure 24.

161 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages in English (Hayden 1950; Tobias 1959; Wang & Crawford 1960), the source language for most of the loan words considered here. In addition to labial consonants, a significant minority (31.8%) of those exceptional instances of [o.u] found in the data taken from Kashoki (1999) contained an intervening lateral. It should be noted that the lateral is, judging by the data in Jalla (1982a) displayed in Figure 25, the most commonly occurring consonant in nouns in Lozi. Similarly, both /l/ and /ɹ/137 is one of the most frequent consonants in English (Hay- den 1950; Tobias 1959; Wang & Crawford 1960). Thus, unlike for intervening labial consonants, it is perhaps possible that high numbers of intervening [l] in exceptional instances of [o.u] may arise simply by virtue of the fact that liquids are among the most commonly occurring sounds in both Lozi and English. This fact notwithstanding, there are also plausible phonetic reasons that maylead to the occurrence of [u] after [l], even following [o]. For example, Downing & Mtenje (2017: 98) comment that, in loan-word epenthesis in Chewa, the ‘round vowel following l plausibly reflects the rounded quality of velarized l in many dialects of English’. In acoustic terms, it is the second formant (F2) that is a salient factor in this respect. Many varieties of English exhibit a “dark” velarised allophone of the lateral /l/ in the coda as opposed to a “light” unvelarised allophone in the onset (see e.g. Halle & Mohanan 1985; Giegerich 1992; Cruttenden 2014; Turton 2014). One of the acoustic correlates of velarised [ɫ] compared to unvelarised [l] is a relatively lower F2 (see e.g. Lehiste 1964; Ladefoged & Maddieson 1996; Carter 2003). Back vowels likewise exhibit relatively low F2 values and so epenthesising a back vowel is one way of remaining perceptually closer to the velarised lateral encountered in the English source signal. When considering back vowels as candidate epenthetic segments, in addition to them being a better perceptual approximation of silence, in this particular case itis interesting to note that English /l/ may, in addition to velarisation, be realised with labialised [ɫʷ], especially following rounded vowels (see e.g. Ball & Müller 2011: 240). Note also that high rounded vowels such as [u] are also reportedly generally more rounded than mid rounded vowels such as [o] (see e.g. Terbeek 1977; Linker 1982; Stevens 2000: §6.6; Kaun 2004: §2). Thus, this is another way in which [u] is a prefer- able epenthetic vowel following a lateral when adopting words from English.

137 As well as the lateral, the English rhotic is another potential source of /l/ in Lozi, e.g. in folutini ‘fourteen’ and tinolo ‘tenor’ (see (143b) and (146d) respectively).

162 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Similar reasoning to the points touched on above can also be considered in the case of vowel epenthesis following what was formerly a word-final velar nasal in native vocabulary such as linoñu ‘vulture’. Firstly, the insertion of a high vowel is likewise a close approximation of silence. Additionally, both rounded vowels and velar consonants exhibit a close ‘proximity of F2 and F3’ (Stevens 2000: 291, 366). Lastly, the choice to insert a back vowel such as [u] makes a kind of articulatory sense as velar consonants such as [ŋ] are, of course, produced using the tongue dorsum.

5.6.5 Epenthesis and weak versus full vowels

Despite the fact that there are potential perceptual and articulatory reasons for fa- vouring the epenthesis of /u/ instead of any other vowel—be that high /i/ or back rounded /o/—in the environments discussed above, there may still remain the question of why sequences of [o.u] that arise from this are not simply repaired to [o.o]. That is, even if certain environments are favourable to the insertion of /u/,whydo the same environments lead to a permissible violation of the prohibition on [o.u]? It appears that, in Lozi, being faithful to the lack of a vowel in the source word without inserting any vowel at all is more important than conforming to the ban on [o.u]. That is, in pseudo-constraint-based terms, the avoidance of [o.u] is outranked by faithfulness to the input but this is in turn outranked by the dispreference for coda consonants and complex onsets.138 This is summarised in (149) below.

(149) NoCoda, *ComplexOnset « Dep-IO « *[o.u]

However, implicit in the application of this analysis to the synchronic state of the language is that the underlying forms are lacking these instances of epenthetic [u], in both borrowings and formerly velar-nasal-final native words. Though this maynot necessarily be the case. One approach could be to simply treat loan words as permissible exceptions simply based on their status as loan words. Indeed, certain previous approaches to vowel epenthesis as well as other aberrant phonological behaviour in loan words pos- tulate that borrowings are treated differently in some way to the rest of the lexicon, such as using a stratified core–periphery structure (see e.g. Itô & Mester 1995a,b, 1999) where others draw no such distinction. This is illustrated with the example depiction in Figure 26 below (adapted from Smith 2018: 6).

138 Cf. the correspondence constraint Dep-IO and the well-formedness constraints No-Coda and *ComplexOns in Optimality Theory (Kager 1999: 68, 94, 97).

163 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

FOREIGN INTERMED NATIVE codas stress nativised nativised

Figure 26: A core—periphery structure illustrating the portions of a lexicon in which particular phonological restrictions are active

However, this is of course not the case for all analyses of loan word phonology. I will now consider an example of this before considering its relevance and applicability to what is seen in Lozi. In their paper, Zuraw et al. (2019) present an empirical investigation of vowel epenthesis in loan words in Tongan in which they do not distinguish between borrowings and the rest of the lexicon. Alongside this they also provide a theoretical analysis using the multi-level model proposed by Boersma & Hamann (2009b).139 In this framework, a listener perceives the foreign-language signal and, using the same grammar of perception as their native language, constructs a corresponding surface form. From this surface form an underlying form is then derived. This constructed underlying form may in turn be invoked to produce a surface form and, finally, this produced surface form is subject to phonetic implementation. Thesefour steps are summarised in (150) below (adapted from Zuraw et al. 2019: 148).

(150) a. Perception: [auditory form] to perceived /surface form/ b. Recognition: perceived /surface form/ to |underlying form| c. Phonological production: |underlying form| to produced /surface form/ d. Phonetic implementation: produced /surface form/ to [articulation]

Crucially, Zuraw et al. found evidence that Tongan speakers are able to perceive a contrast that is present in English but not in their native language, namely the contrast

139 See also Boersma (1998, 2011) and Boersma & Hamann (2009a) for similar work by the same authors.

164 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages between CVC and CC sequences (both coda consonants and complex onsets being disallowed in Tongan).140 This contrast in English is maintained in Tongan by wayof contrastive secondary stress which is otherwise not contrastive in Tongan, differing rates of vowel deletion in epenthetic v. non-epenthetic vowels and the presence or absence of final-vowel lengthening. Concentrating here on vowel deletion, Zuraw et al. found that epenthetic vowels were significantly more likely to be deleted than non-epenthetic vowels (46% and 14% of the time respectively). In order to account for this behaviour, in their analysis, Zuraw et al. invoke a difference between “weak” and “full” vowels. These may occur in underlying and surface forms alike. They argue that this difference between weak and full in epenthetic and non-epenthetic vowels emerges when the auditory signal is mapped onto a perceived surface form—that is, at the perception stage in (150) above. Under their analysis, the distinction between weak and full vowels is, crucially, not a property that is found uniquely in loan words but might also, in principle, be seen in native vocabulary. Just as in borrowings, the distinction in native words arises at the perception stage. When a listener perceives a word such as /poŋipoŋi/ ‘morning’ produced as [poŋpoŋi]—i.e. with vowel deletion—this may lead them to infer an underlying form such as |poŋVWpoŋi| (where VW denotes a weak vowel) rather than simply |poŋipoŋi|. In production, the weak vowel |VW| may correspond either to nothing or to an overtly articulated vowel but the underlying segment may nevertheless contrast with a full vowel, a distinction which is recoverable from the fact that full vowels undergo deletion at a much lower rate than weak vowels. However, Zuraw et al. (2019: 153) state that ‘the contrast is unstable, and difficult for both learners and linguists to observe.’ Here I would like to make the tentative suggestion that an argument somewhat analogous to the one set out by Zuraw et al. (2019) for Tongan could be made for Lozi. Firstly, given that there is an extremely low incidence of [o.u] in the overall lexicon, a learner may well acquire the prohibition being proposed here on this vowel pair, though there would nevertheless still be a small number of exceptions to this restriction. As more loan words are integrated that require vowel epenthesis for them to conform to the syllable structure of Lozi, where possible additional instances of [o.u] may arise, for the most part, other vowel pairs such as [o.o] are favoured instead. However, as already discussed in §5.6.4, there are certain phonetic and articulatory

140 Cf. the supposed inability of Japanese speakers to reliably distinguish between [ebzo] and [ebuzo] noted in §5.6.3.

165 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages reasons that could lead the insertion of [u] rather than any other vowel in certain circumstances. In a similar way to how secondary stress is not ordinarily contrastive in Tongan, in this case, a contrast between the vowel pairs [o.u] and [o.o] in Lozi would largely not obtain in the lexicon outside of loan-word vocabulary. On this basis, speakers may infer that the second vowel in instances of [o.u] contained in loan words has a different representation than in, say, examples of [i.u]. It could also be thatspeak- ers are aware that these epenthetic vowels in Lozi correspond to the absence of a vowel in the source language and this also leads to a differing representation. Us- ing the same terms as Zuraw et al. (2019)—albeit in a different way—the instances of [u] that occur after [o] in loan words might be labelled as “full” since they resist change any phonotactically-imposed changes. This may further lead to the categorisation of other surface instances of [o.u]—few in number as they may be—as also being “full” vowels. There might then be a restriction in the grammar against “weak”

[uW] following [o] but no such restriction against “full” [uF]. Alternatively, recasting the pseudo-constraint style in (149), as is shown in (151) below, the constraint against

[o.uW] would outrank [o.uF] but the constraint against [o.uF] would be lower ranked than the constraints that enforce syllable structure and militate against epenthesis.

(151) *[o.uW], NoCoda, *ComplexOnset « Dep-IO « *[o.uF]

In the application of epenthesis, this would result in a preference for epenthetic [uF] rather than [uW] when the preceding vowel is [o].

5.6.6 Summary

Here I discussed the vowel epenthesis in Lozi and its relationship with the proposed ban on [o.u] in the language. This dealt predominantly with loan words and included a study of such items gathered from Kashoki (1999) to add to those seen in Jalla (1982a); however, I also considered epenthesis in a much more limited number of native vocabulary items (see §§5.6.1 and 5.6.2). Having provide some context in §5.6.3, I then discuss the possible reasons that may allow epenthesis to violate a prohibition against [o.u]. I argue that, due to the particular intervening consonants found in such exceptional pairs, these reasons are primarily perceptual in nature and that epenthesising [u] is a comprise between not breaking the rules of Lozi syllable structure and approximating the silence that an epenthetic vowel replaces.

166 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Finally, in §5.6.5, drawing on work by Zuraw et al. (2019), I sketch a tentative proposal as to how those relatively few exceptional instances of [o.u] might be incor- porated into the language’s phonology.

5.7 Further discussion and implications

In the light of the points of discussion raised in §§5.4, 5.5 and 5.6, in this section, I present certain implications and requirements for a formal analysis of what has been observed here for Lozi. Firstly, in §5.7.1, I enumerate those morphological environments in which the proposed ban on [o.u] does not hold, recapitulating and clarify- ing material from Jalla (1982a) but also considering examples from additional sources. This is followed in §§5.7.2 and 5.7.3 by notes that may inform potential formal analyses on the basis of prosodic and morphological structure respectively.

5.7.1 Environments where [o.u] can occur

Following the proposal of some sort of active phonotactic prohibition in Lozi, the question naturally arises of what the limits of its application are. Here I provide some clarification of this by presenting those environments in which the proposed banon [o.u] is clearly not in effect as there are attested systematic exceptions. First of all, as already noted in §5.5.2, there appears to be no restriction on the occurrence of the vowel pair [o.u] when the two vowels straddle particular morpheme boundaries in complex nominals. That is, a boundary created by either compounding or reduplication. Thus, in Jalla (1982a), we see instances of [o.u] such as those in (152) within compound nouns.

(152) a. kutwelo-butuku ‘pity, compassion’ b. limbongo-lume ‘kind of large edible fruit’

Likewise, there are also examples of [o.u] to be found across the boundary between base and reduplicant, as in (153).141

(153) a. kafuko-fuko ‘lion-ant’ b. mafulo-fulo ‘eagerness, favour, enthusiasm, zeal’

141 In a somewhat similar vein, Hyman (1999: 284, fn.49) notes that sequences such as [a.o] that would usually be considered disharmonic can be observed in reduplicated Luganda verbs, e.g. in kólàà-kola derived from kól-à ‘do’.

167 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

It also appears that this ban may in certain cases be counterfed, so to speak, by vowel coalescence across word boundaries. For example, Mwisiya (1977: 7) gives the example mulyolumbo ‘senior person’, noting that it is derived from the Luyana phrase mulya u lumbo. The prohibition on [o.u] also does not hold between a prefix and root orstem. Examples of this in verbs are given in (154) below (with the verb stem, including final vowel, being underlined). Though this is common in many other Bantu languages with progressive height harmony, it is nevertheless worth noting explicitly.

(154) a. ne-ni-ta-to-kuta

‘I was going to come and have my hair cut’ (Gowlett 1967: 249) b. ba-yo-lu-lumela

‘(they) should not go and greet’ (Gowlett 1967: 251)

This is also seen in nouns, especially with the noun class 2a prefix, whichhasthe shape bo- (Fortune 2001: 12, 22).

(155) a. Bo-Muwae

‘Honourable Princess’ (Fortune 2001: 12) b. bo-Lungu

‘Mr Lungu’ (Marten et al. 2007: 270–1, 313–4) c. bo-muluti

‘teacher (respectful term of address)’ (native-speaker consultants)

But examples are also found with certain other nominal prefixes.

(156) a. ko-ku-mezi

‘at a wet place’ (Fortune 2001: 33) b. mutu yo munsu

‘black man’ (Kamitondo 1958: 4)

In addition to being able to occur across the boundary between prefix and stem, there is likewise no restriction on [o.u] occurring between consecutive prefixes, as illustrated with examples from verbs in (157) below.

(157) a. no-lu-ta-yo-bapala

‘we were going to go and play’ (Gowlett 1967: 249)

168 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

b. a-ba-to-lu-tusa

‘they are not coming to help us’ (Gowlett 1967: 272) c. ba-tilo-lu-lekiseza

‘they have come to sell to us’ (Gowlett 1967: 273)

Since these environments—with the exception of complex nominals—do not occur in the citation forms of words, examples such as these are not found in Jalla (1982a) and so were not discussed in §5.5.

5.7.2 On prosodic structure

Based on the discussion in §5.7.1 and elsewhere, here I provide some suggestions for an explanation that makes reference to prosodic structure. Namely, the possibility that the ban on [o.u] holds within a given prosodic domain. It is not uncommon across languages for compounds to be different prosodic words and for there to be a mismatch at some level between prosodic and grammatical words, typically with multiple prosodic words nested inside a single grammatical word (Hall 1999; Booij 1999; Revithiadou 2011). In addition to this, as van der Hulst & van de Weijer (1995) relay, in languages with vowel harmony, it is commonly reported that there exist mismatches between the grammatical word and the domain of harmony in compounds due to the presence of separate prosodic words. For example, the domain of harmony is often described as comprising the non-compound word in languages such as Turkish (e.g. Kabak 2011), Finnish (e.g. Ringen & Heinämäki 1999), Hungarian (e.g. Ringen 1980). Similarly, Noske (2000) presents evidence that, in Turkana, the elements of compounds consist not only of separate harmonic domains but also distinct prosodic words and Harrison (1999) states that, in Tuvan, ‘[c]ompounding may also result in morphologically conditioned disharmony’.142 As height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages is typically described asop- erating only within a certain domain found in verbs, compounding is not generally relevant or otherwise considered in treatments of such systems. Moreover, as Schade- berg & Bostoen (2019: 173) note, ‘[c]ompounded verbs are very rare in Bantu’. Indeed, here, compounded verbs present no instances [o.u] in Lozi. However, Schadeberg & Bostoen (2019: 195) also state that ‘most [Bantu] languages have compounds consist-

142 Nonetheless, this is not necessarily the case in all languages with vowel harmony. For example, harmony can be seen between elements of compounds in Lhasa Tibetan (see §2.3.6 and references there).

169 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages ing of two nouns. The second noun may sometimes shed its nominal prefix’. Wedo see compounded nouns such as these in the Lozi, e.g. the data in (137). On this basis, it seems likely, like processes of harmony in many other languages, any prohibition on [o.u] holds only within the non-compound word. In a similar to vein to elements within compound words, in certain cases, base and reduplicant may also be analysed as constituting separate prosodic domains (see e.g. McCarthy & Prince 1995; Inkelas & Zoll 2005). This could well be the case in Lozi and so compounding and reduplication would result in similar prosodic con- structions. Failing this suggestion, however, in the case of reduplication, one might instead consider the possibility of there being an over-riding prioritisation of identity between base and reduplicant (see e.g. Kager 1999: 198–200). This would prevent any changes to potential sequences of [o.u] when [o] and [u] are separated by a boundary between base and reduplicant as a change in either vowel would compromise the elements’ identity. The exception of prefixes from a possible ban on [o.u] is perhaps less amenableto a prosodic analysis. Of course, in previous analyses of height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages, prefixes are necessarily outside the domain of harmony and sotheir lack of participant does not need to be accounted for in that respect. However, as here I am proposing a more wide-ranging phonotactic restriction, it is worth at least considering this matter. While it is true that there have been proposals in other languages for prefixes sharing prosodic-wordhood separate from that of their base—e.g. Italian (Nespor & Vogel 1986), Hungarian (Nespor & Vogel 1986), Indonesian (Cohn 1989: 200f), Korean (Kang 1992) and English (Wennerstrom 1993; Raffelsiefen 1999)— it is not clear whether such a hypothesis is tenable in this case. One potential hint of this, however, is that in some orthographic practices for Lozi, prefixes are written as separate words. Though this is more likely less a reflectionof speakers’ intuitions and more orthographic influence from Sotho. Gowlett (1989: 147) has the following to say on this point:

A further problem of inconsistency relates to the question of word divi- sion. Formerly Lozi was written, under the influence of Sotho, inwhat is known as a disjunctive fashion, where many prefixes are written As separate words. Zambia has gone a long way in its new orthography towards the ideal of conjunctive writing, particularly in the verb. Namibia

170 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

remains largely disjunctive in the verb, but has conjunctivized some other categories which remain disjunctive in Zambia.

Lastly, one additional potential indicator of prefixes as separate prosodic words that can be discounted is that prefixes cannot, for example, be coordinated. For example, as was corroborated with a native-speaking consultant, when two nouns are used in conjunction with one another, the prefix bo- cannot occur only on the first noun and show scope over both. Thus, bo-Richard ni bo-Michael is licit where both participants are being shown respect but bo-Richard ni Michael can only convey that the first is being shown respect. Many of these questions relating to prosodic domains may find definitive answers in tonal processes, for example. However, this lies beyond the scope of this chapter.

5.7.3 On morphological structure

The possibility of prosodic-wordhood having a role having been entertained in §5.7.2, here I supply an alternative possible interpretation based on morphological structural, dealing with verbs and nouns. In more simplified representations of the internal structure of the Bantu verb,a flat representations such as that in (158) below may be given (see also §2.4.3).

(158) prefix + root + (extensions) + final vowel (after Kula 2000: 172)

However, a more complex structure lies beneath this. It is often argued that the verb root and derivational suffixes are part of the derivational stem and are found atalower level than prefixes. A representation of such internal structure—albeit still slightly simplified—is shown in (159) below (for more detail and further discussion in the literature, see e.g. Barrett-Keach 1986; Myers 1987, 1998; Hyman 1993, 2009; Mutaka 1994; Downing 1998a,b, 1999b; Hyman & Mtenje 1999).

(159) verb

prefixes stem

base final vowel

root extensions

In comparison with the verb, the structure of the Bantu noun is generally less complex and so has been of less interest in the literature. Typically, however, a structure such

171 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages that in (160) is found (Mugane 1997b). Indeed, this also appears to be the case in Lozi (Fortune 2001).

(160) noun

prefixes stem

root suffixes In most five-vowel Bantu languages, height harmony’s affects are usually mostevid- ent within the “base” in (159), with both prefixes and final vowels being unaffected. In Lozi, since there is a contrast in the front vowels, and given the data presented here regarding nouns, the most parsimonious description of height harmony may instead be to say that—modulo reduplication and compounding—there is a prohibition against the vowel pair [o.u] in the non-prefixal domain—i.e. stem in (159) and (160)—in both nouns and verbs.

5.8 Summary

Following the broad study in chapter 4, here I conducted a closer examination of Lozi and proposed that there exists in the language a ban on the vowel pair [o.u] that applies not only within the verb base but also beyond it. I discussed in detail those few examples of [o.u] that are found in the data taken from Jalla (1982b) and found many— though not all—of these appear to be amenable to reasonable explanations. I also presented a consideration of vowel epenthesis in Lozi and its relationship with this proposed prohibition using additional data from Kashoki (1999). Finally, I discussed the limits of such a prohibition and provided some thoughts on how this may be delimited in any formal analysis.

172 cHapteR 6

Production experiment

Жизнь — дорога, и если идти «по касательной» — она окажется длинней. А длинная дорога — это длинная жизнь.∗

Андрей Курков Пикник на льду

6.1 Introduction

In this chapter, I present a production experiment that investigates the effects on the first formant (F1) of vowel-to-vowel coarticulation in Bemba, Nyanja and Lozi— three five-vowel Bantu languages spoken in Zambia—and the relationship of thiswith progressive vowel height harmony. Bemba and Nyanja both exhibit canonical Bantu height harmony whereas Lozi displays only back height harmony. I first give a brief presentation of the three languages under studyin §6.2. Next, in §§6.3 and 6.4, I discuss previous work on the relationship between vowel-to-vowel coarticulation and vowel harmony as well as the notion of rule scattering before presenting the motivations and expectations of the present experiment in §6.5. In §6.6, I then explain the methods used to conduct the experiment, including the way in which the data were collected and processed. The results are then provided in §6.7 and discussions of these are presented in §§6.8 and 6.9.

∗ Life was a road, and if departed from at a tangent, the longer for it. And a long road was a long life. — Andrey Kurkov, Death and the Penguin.

173 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

The principal aim of this experiment is to investigate whether, in these languages, there are any gradient effects on F1 due to vowel-to-vowel coarticulation that reflect the categorical restrictions on vowel pairs imposed by height harmony such as are seen in the alternations of verbal extensions. Such a pattern may be interpreted an instance of “rule scattering” (see §6.4) and could also potentially present us with information regarding the origin, phonetic grounding and stability of the particular patterns of vowel height harmony seen in the Bantu languages. The results of the experiment show that, though at a broad level there wasrel- atively little mirroring of height harmony in the differences in F1 according tothe preceding vowel, there were nevertheless relevant instances of differences detected in certain contexts. Of most interest was the finding that, in contrast to what might be suggested by both the wider typology of height harmony in Bantu and the results of the vowel-pair frequency study in chapter 4, evidence was not found that the avoidance of the back rounded pair [o.u] in favour of [o.o] is more well grounded than the avoidance of the front unrounded pair [e.i] with respect to coarticulation, as is often suggested as a source of grounding for vowel harmony (e.g. by Ohala 1994). The results further illustrate that, though categorical patterns may be mimicked by gradient effects, this may not necessarily be replicated indiscriminately.

6.2 Languages of study

The three languages under study in this experiment are three of the seven national languages of the Republic of Zambia, namely Bemba, Nyanja and Lozi.143 Roughly speaking, Bemba is spoken predominantly in the north of the country, Nyanja in the east and Lozi in the west, though speakers of each language are found throughout the country, especially in larger urban centres such as the capital Lusaka (Simeone- Senelle et al. 2019: 83). Each of these languages possesses the standard inventory of the five vowel phonemes /i u e o a/. As in Tonga, the example given in §2.6.1, both Bemba and Nyanja can be described as exhibiting canonical vowel height harmony (see e.g. Mann 1999; Hamann & Kula 2015 and Lehmann 1998; Downing & Mtenje 2017 respectively). In both languages, alternations can be observed in verbal extensions between high and

143 The remaining four national languages being Tonga, Lunda, Luvale and Kaonde(Simeone- Senelle et al. 2019: 83). Estimates for the total number of languages spoken in modern-day Zam- bia range from twenty to upwards of eighty. For more detail on the linguistic situation in the country, see Marten & Kula (2008) and references therein.

174 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages mid vowels. In front height harmony, [i] is found after /i u a/ and [e] after /e o/. Inback height harmony, [u] is found after /i u e a/ and [o] after /o/. This is illustrated below in (161) with the applicative and (162) with the reversive with examples from Bemba (data from Hoch 1998; Mann 1999 as well as consultation with native speakers).

(161) a. -bil-il-a ‘to sew for’ (162) a. -bil-ulul-a ‘to unsew’ b. -fung-il-a ‘to lock for’ b. -fung-ul-a ‘to unlock’ c. -pet-el-a ‘to fold for’ c. -pet-ulul-a ‘to unfold’ d. -long-el-a ‘to pack for’ d. -long-olol-a ‘to unpack’ e. -kak-il-a ‘to tie for’ e. -kak-ul-a ‘to untie’

Lozi, however, as exemplified in §4.2 and explored in detail in chapter 5, displays only back height harmony and lacks front height harmony (this same harmony system can also be seen in Mbukushu in §2.6.5). As a rough generalisation, in all three of these languages, outside of the verb stem (i.e. verb root and any extensions), there exist items which do not conform to the constraints imposed by vowel height harmony. Examples of this are given for Bemba, Nyanja and Lozi below in (163), (164) and (165) respectively.

(163) a. umulilo ‘fire’ d. insofu ‘elephant’ b. umuputule ‘room’ e. imbale ‘plate’ c. amenshi ‘water’

(164) a. dzulo ‘yesterday’ d. mtovu ‘lead’ b. mwezi ‘moon’ e. mkango ‘lion’ c. mwendo ‘leg’

(165) a. kamuso ‘tomorrow’ d. meto ‘eyes’ b. bubofu ‘blindness’ e. munyako ‘door’ c. sitino ‘garment’

Those vowel pairs that can be described as harmonic and non-harmonic according to the vowel height harmony system of each of the three languages of study are summarised in Table 8 below.144

144 See §4.4.3 for a clarification of the definition of “vowel pair” and §4.2 for an explanation of the use of the terms “harmonic” and “non-harmonic”.

175 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Bemba and Nyanja Lozi

i.i i.u i.a i.i i.u i.e i.a u.i u.u u.a u.i u.u u.e u.a Harmonic e.u e.e e.a e.i e.u e.e e.a vowel pairs o.e o.o o.a o.i o.e o.o o.a a.i a.u a.a a.i a.u a.e a.a

i.e i.o u.o u.e u.o o.u Non-harmonic e.i e.o i.o vowel pairs o.i o.u e.o a.e a.o a.o

Table 8: Harmonic and non-harmonic vowel pairs in Bemba, Nyanja and Lozi

6.3 Vowel-to-vowel coarticulation and vowel harmony

In his discussion of phonologisation, Hyman (1976: 408) comments that ‘what begins as an intrinsic byproduct of something, predicted by universal phonetic principles, ends up unpredictable, and hence, extrinsic’. In the literature on phonological change and sound change more broadly, many other factors beyond these ‘phonetic principles’ have been acknowledged and investigated, including—though not limited to— social factors, word frequency, analogical processes and borrowing (see e.g. Hyman 2013 and elsewhere). According to Ohala (1989), ‘sound change is drawn from pool of synchronic variation’ and the elevation of this phonetic variation to the level of phonology is argued by, for example, Ohala (1993) to occur, broadly speaking, due to hypocorrection (e.g. undercorrection for coarticulation leading to an assimilatory pattern) or hypercor- rection (e.g. overcorrection for coarticulation leading to a dissimilatory pattern). Since at least Öhman (1966; see also subsequent work such as Butcher & Weiher 1976; Fowler 1981; Recasens 1987; Manuel 1990), it has been observed that coarticulation between vowels occurs even across intervening consonants. This is found in languages that do not exhibit vowel harmony (e.g. English, Swedish, Japanese); in addition, it has been observed that vowel-to-vowel coarticulation patterns may differ from language to language (see e.g. Beddor et al. 2002; see also the final paragraph of

176 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Phonological rules Phonetic rules Categorical Gradient/quantitative Discrete and timeless segments Continuous in time and space Static effects Segment may vary in quality continuously Full segment affected Part of a segment affected

Table 9: Contrasting properties of phonological and phonetic rules (according to Keating 1988 as summarised by Cohn 1990: 16)

this section). However, we of course might also expect to find some degree of coarticulation in languages which possess vowel harmony of one form or another. Ohala (1994) argues that it is this synchronic phonetic vowel-to-vowel coarticulation which becomes phonologised and is therefore ultimately responsible for the diachronic development of phonological vowel harmony systems (see also Beddor & Yavuz 1995; Majors 1998; Beddor et al. 2001).

In her discussion of phonological and phonetic rules in the context of assimilation, Cohn (1990) summarises Keating’s (1988) characterisation of the contrasting properties of phonological and phonetic rules as in Table 9. In essence, according to Keating (1988), phonological rules deal in purely categorical changes and apply these changes to units which are discrete. As such, the effects of phonological rules should be measurable, constant and consistent throughout an affected segment. In contrast, phonetic “rules” result in gradient changes, the effects of which vary throughout the duration of a segment and, indeed, may not affect the entire duration of a segment at all.

In his discussion of the vowel-to-vowel coarticulation of neutral vowels in Finnish backness harmony, Nevins (2010: 74) formulates a similar summary on the basis of Table 9 that is specific to the phonological rule of vowel harmony and the phonetic effect of vowel-to-vowel coarticulation. This is provided in Table 10. Where backness harmony in Finnish is expected to cause categorical alternations in segments that result in a bimodal distribution of the second formant (F2), the values of which should be essentially stable throughout the vowel and realised similarly regardless of the phonetic properties of the preceding vowel, the coarticulation of F2 between vowels in adjacent syllables is expected to result in an essentially unimodal distribution of F2 values (within a given category) and its effects may be found in only part of the vowel measured.

177 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Vowel harmony Vowel-to-vowel coarticulation Effect of rule is categorical May vary with speech style Values will cluster into bimodal Values may show broad unimodal distribution distribution Effects do not depend on Effects may vary in quality properties of preceding vowel continuously Only part of the vowel may be Whole vowel is affected affected

Table 10: Contrasting properties of vowel harmony and vowel-to-vowel coarticulation (adapted from Nevins 2010: 74)

Using acoustic data, in an experimental investigation of Mọ̀ bà and Standard Yor- uba, which exhibit ATR harmony only with mid vowels, Przezdziecki (2005) found the seeds of ATR harmony in the phonetics of high vowels. That is, the vowel-to-vowel coarticulation of the high vowels in ATR contexts resembled that of Àkùrẹ́ Yoruba (in particular [i], with [u] showing a trend but not being statistically significant), which exhibits ATR harmony with both mid and high vowels. The coarticulation was smaller in magnitude and less robust in Mọ̀ bà and Standard Yoruba. Przezdziecki ultimately argues that the acoustic effects he detected in gradient vowel-to-vowel coarticulation are sufficient to eventually result in a categorical rule of vowel harmony andcon- cludes that this was in all likelihood the pathway via which Àkùrẹ́ Yoruba innovated ATR harmony in high vowels.

In addition to this, in work attempting to simulate the diachronic development of vowel harmony, Mailhot (2013: 247f) has shown that it is indeed possible, depending on the parameters, for patterns similar to those observed in natural languages toarise over time out of vowel-to-vowel coarticulation.

However, such work is challenged Beddor et al. (2002, 2007) and Beddor (2009) who show that vowel-to-vowel coarticulation and the perceptual compensation for this coarticulation are highly variable depending on the language in question. Simil- arly, according to Manuel (1984, 1990), vowel-to-vowel coarticulation is stronger in the five-vowel languages Shona, Ndebele and Swahili than in seven-vowel Sotho orin English, a language with a great deal more than five vowels. Moreover, Beddor et al. found that the amount of compensation for coarticulation is related to the degree of coarticulation found in that language. This, as Mailhot (2013: 249) points out, raises the question of how, if listeners tend to perceptually correct for the correct amount

178 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages of coarticulation, such a low incidence of hypocorrection would result in phonologisation and a categorical pattern.

6.4 Rule scattering

In modular feedforward models of phonology, such as that schematised in Figure 27 below, the phonologisation of a phonetic pattern, whether this comes about through hypo- or hyperarticulation, is the starting point for the life cycle of phonological processes (see e.g. Bermúdez-Otero 2007: 503–4, 2011: 2024–5 and references therein).

Morphology/Lexicon morphologisation / lexicalisation

Stem Level domain narrowing (2) Word Level domain narrowing (1) Grammar Phonology Phrase Level stabilisation

Phonetics phonologisation Speech

Figure 27: The life cycle of phonological processes in a feedforward modular architecture (reproduced from Bailey 2018: 82; adapted from Bermúdez-Otero & Trousdale 2012: 700)

Following phonologisation, over the course of time, abstract phonological patterns with phonetically-grounded origins may become more and more distant from these origins. Nevertheless, this process, called “stabilisation” (Bermúdez-Otero 2007: 504– 6), ‘often results in “rule scattering”’Bermúdez-Otero ( & Trousdale 2012: 696). Rule scattering145 derives its name from Robinson’s (1976) article, “A ‘Scattered’ Rule in Swiss German”. Simply put, it is the coexistence in one language of two separate instances of the same (or similar) sound pattern, one phonetic and one phonological (see e.g. Bermúdez-Otero 2010, 2015; Bermúdez-Otero & Trousdale 2012). Ex- amples of this duplication between phonetics and phonology have been observed in, for example, pre-yod s-palatalisation in American English (Zsiga 1995), the Scottish

145 Also referred to as “phonetic doublets” by Cohn (1998).

179 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Vowel Length Rule (McMahon 1991, 2000), æ-tensing in Philadelphia English (Labov 1994: 430–1, 466), l-darkening in English (e.g. Sproat & Fujimura 1993; Turton 2014), vowel reduction in Russian (Barnes 2007; Iosad 2012), palatalisation in Bothoa Breton (Iosad 2017: 82–3) and gemination in Hungarian (Pycha 2009, 2010). The phenomenon of rule scattering, which is predicted to be possible, indeed seemingly likely, by modular feedforward models (e.g. Bermúdez-Otero 2007: 505– 6), provides a solution to a challenge to a modular architecture of apparent instances of phonetically gradient but morphologically sensitive rules (see e.g Kawahara 2011). Though this particular issue extends beyond the scope of the present experiment. Where both phonetic and phonological versions of a given sound pattern exist in a language, the former should be gradient and the latter categorical. The key criterion used to distinguish gradience or categoricity is that of clear bimodality in the distribution of, for example, a cloud of tokens in a relevant empirical space (Bermúdez-Otero & Trousdale 2012: 696). Additionally, according to a modular feedforward architecture, the gradient phonetic avatar of a given sound pattern should not be sensitive to morphological structure. As Nevins (2010: 30) states, if vowel harmony as a phonological phenomenon is merely the computational manipulation of abstract features then this would leave open the possibility for additional phonetic coarticulation. Indeed, this has been observed in previous work. For example, Beddor & Yavuz (1995) investigated both left-to-right and right-to-left backness coarticulation indis- harmonic sequences in Turkish, a language with progressive backness (and rounding) harmony. They found a consistent degree of right-to-left coarticulation but asmaller effect of left-to-right coarticulation: the front vowels [i] and [e] were backer when followed by back [ɑ] and [ɑ] was fronter when followed by [i] or [e]; however, the only discernible left-to-right coarticulation was that [ɑ] was fronted slightly after [i]. Clearly, this does not reflect the phonological pattern of vowel harmony, showing that a phonological rule of vowel harmony does not necessarily synchronically entail the implementation some degree of similar effect in vowel-to-vowel coarticulation.

6.5 The present experiment

The central question in the present experiment is whether or not, within eachlan- guage, vowel-to-vowel coarticulation shows a similar pattern to the alternations brought about by vowel height harmony. The primary acoustic correlate of vowel

180 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Expected difference Vowel pair Bemba / Nyanja Lozi i.i no effect no effect i.i no effect no effect u.i no effect no effect e.i higher F1 no effect o.i higher F1 no effect a.i no effect no effect i.u no effect no effect u.u no effect no effect e.u no effect no effect o.u higher F1 higher F1 a.u no effect no effect i.e lower F1 no effect e.e no effect no effect u.e lower F1 no effect o.e no effect no effect a.e lower F1 no effect i.o lower F1 lower F1 u.o lower F1 lower F1 e.o lower F1 lower F1 o.o no effect no effect a.o lower F1 lower F1

Table 11: Summary of expected differences in the F1 of non-low vowels (bolded and underlined) in Bemba, Nyanja and Lozi should coarticulation mirror harmony height is F1, with a higher F1 corresponding to a lower vowel height and a lower F1 corresponding to a higher vowel height. Thus, the question is, for vowels which appear in contexts where vowel harmony would expect a higher or lower vowel, do we see a corresponding coarticulatory effect in F1? For example, in Bemba and Nyanja, in contexts where vowel harmony applies, mid [e] and not high [i] is found following mid [e] and when [i] is found after [e] in a word, does [i] show a higher F1—i.e. lowering in height—in effect mirroring vowel harmony? The same question can be asked of [u] following [o] not only inBemba and Nyanja but also in Lozi. Given that the height-altering effect of vowel harmony in languages such as Bemba, Nyanja and Lozi is a categorical phenomenon, following on from §6.4, we may expect to see one of the following in the phonetics:146

146 In addition, not listed here, is the further possibile outcome that a difference in F1 of the opposite direction to that which is expected on the basis of vowel harmony might be found (i.e. a higher F1 where a lower F1 might be expected and vice versa).

181 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

(166) a. no gradient differences in F1 due to vowel-to-vowel coarticulation b. gradient left-to-right assimilatory vowel-to-vowel coarticulation of F1 c. gradient right-to-left assimilatory vowel-to-vowel coarticulation of F1

In the context of this experiment, the null hypothesis is that there is no detectable vowel-to-vowel coarticulation. The specific alternative hypothesis being tested is that the second vowel in a non-harmonic pair (e.g. [e.i]) is gradiently lower or higher (i.e. having higher or lower F1 respectively) than the corresponding vowel in the corresponding harmonic pair (i.e. [e] in [e.e]) which is categorically higher or lower (see Table 8 for a summary of the harmonic and non-harmonic vowel pairs).147 In short, if we are to find evidence of rule scattering, we will find effects in the phonetics that closely mirror those alternations and generalisations visible in the vowel harmony system of each language. The differences in F1 that would be expected if this were the case are summarised in Table 11 for the non-low vowels (see footnote 147). In addition to this core question, however, there are also additional matters of interest. For example, what happens in those vowel pairs that do not come into play in Lozi’s more restrained harmony system but are non-harmonic in the harmony systems of Bemba and Nyanja? That is, does Lozi show any phonetic effects that mirror front height harmony even though it is lacking? One particular vowel pair involved in back height harmony in all three languages, namely [e.o], is also of special interest. This is because, although it is “non-harmonic” in the vowel height harmony systems of Bemba, Nyanja and Lozi, with the corresponding “harmonic” pair being [e.u], the two vowels in this pair do in fact have the same height as both are mid vowels. Therefore, if [o] is found to have a lower F1(i.e. higher vowel height) following [e] this would reflect what is found in these languages’ harmony systems. Similarly, if [u] is found not to have a higher F1 (i.e. lower vowel height) after [e] despite their differing heights, this would also be in line withheight harmony. So far I have focused on the possibility of left-to-right vowel-to-vowel coarticulation since vowel height harmony in Bemba, Nyanja and Lozi is a progressive process. However, as noted in (166c), there also exists the potential outcome that coarticulatory effects on F1 may be found in the opposite direction to height harmony, i.e.from right to left.

147 As such, this experiment necessarily focuses on the non-low vowels /i u e o/ as the low vowel /a/ does not alternate due to height harmony or show any similar harmony-related restrictions on its distribution in these particular languages.

182 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

6.6 Methodology

6.6.1 Stimuli

For each language, a word list containing approximately 150–200 items was used. These were compiled first with reference to the literature available on the target languages with subsequent consultation with native speakers.148 The stimuli used were all real words in the target language. That is, theexper- iment did not use nonce-word stimuli. As all data collection was carried out in the United Kingdom and all participants were speakers of English resident in the United Kingdom at the time of recording, the primary reason for preferring real-language stimuli instead of nonce words was in order to reduce any undue interference from English during the elicitation task. The process for assembling the word list was as follows, using Bemba asanex- pository example (though the same procedure was employed with Nyanja and Lozi). Firstly, I consulted the linguistic literature on Bemba such as Mann (1999), Kasonde (2009) and Marten & Kula (2014) in order to pick out particular words and word- formations that would be useful for the present experiment. In addition to this, I also made use of Hoch’s (1998) dictionary and Mann’s (1995) lexical database.149 The environments of particular interest were of course non-harmonic vowel pairs, though data for all harmonic vowel pairs were also included in order to provide points of comparisons for non-harmonic pairs; these also served as distractor items. This pro- visional word list was then sent to a native speaker for comments and corrections and returned to me prior to the experiment. Any subsequent revisions and changes to the word list were also checked each time with a native-speaking consultant. When the word list was elicited, no carrier sentence was used in order to eliminate any potential unwanted source of coarticulation from words neighbouring the target stimulus in the sentence.

148 The list of stimuli used for Bemba, Nyanja and Lozi can be seenin Appendix A. 149 As for other languages, the resources used included Gorman (1950), Mwisiya (1977), Jalla (1982a) and Fortune (2001) for Lozi, Lehmann (1998), Mtenje (2001), Paas (2016) and Downing & Mtenje (2017) for Nyanja. Note that, for Nyanja, some resources nominally for Chewa were initially consulted since these are two closely related varieties of the same language.

183 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

6.6.2 Participants

Participants for the experiment were recruited via flyers posted around the University of Manchester campus as well as through word of mouth. Participants gave written consent; they were not financially rewarded for their participation. Data from a total of 13 participants were used in the final analysis: 8 for Bemba, 2 for Nyanja and 3 for Lozi. The final samples were not well balanced for gender orgeo- graphy within or across languages (see Table 12); the ages, however, show relatively limited variation (range: 30–57; mean: 43.1). Before the final experiment was carried out, a small-scale pilot study was conducted, the data from which are not used here. All participants were resident in the United Kingdom at the time of recording. Fur- ther details of each individual collected with a questionnaire are provided in Table 12 below.150

Speaker ID Age Home town Languages spoken

BF1 44 Ndola Bemba, Nyanja, English BF2 45 Kitwe Bemba, English BF3 30 Kalomo Bemba, Tonga, Nyanja, Chewa, English BF4 57 Lusaka Bemba, English, Nyanja BF5 47 Ndola Bemba, English BF6 39 Mpika Bemba, English BM1 54 Kitwe Bemba, English, Nyanja, Tonga, Spanish BM2 34 Ndola Bemba, Nyanja, English

NM1 44 Lusaka Nyanja, Nsenga, Chewa, English NM2 38 Lusaka Nyanja, English

LM1 44 NA Lozi, Tonga, Nyanja, Bemba, English LM2 54 Ndola Lozi, Tumbuka, Nyanja, Bemba, English LM3 30 Lusaka Lozi, Nyanja, Tonga, Bemba, English

Table 12: Details of participants for production experiment

The ID assigned to each speaker is made up of two letters and a number. Thefirst letter indicates the language for which they completed the experiment (B=Bemba,

150 The symbol NA indicates that a participant declined or neglected to provided a particular piece of information in the questionnaire.

184 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

N = Nyanja, L = Lozi) and the second letter for their gender (M = male, F = female). These functional letters are then followed by a disambiguating number.

6.6.3 Data collection

All final recordings were made using a Zoom H4n Pro Handy Recorder with aRøde Lavalier Microphone and 3-pin XLR MiCon-5 Connector. The stimuli were presented visually to participants using PsychoPy (Peirce 2007) on a Dell Inspiron 7570 laptop. This was used to randomise the order in which the stimuli were presented. This also automatically produces a record of the order of each session. In order to attempt to regulate the pace at which participants spoke, a0.25- second delay was added between pressing the key to advance to the next stimulus and the prompt appearing on the screen. This not only minimised participants rushing through the task—a potential drawback of using stimuli printed or written on a sheet of paper—but this also automatically ensures that there are adequate silences between each stimulus to facilitate subsequent forced-alignment. Each participant was asked to repeat this word-list task twice. Of the final 13 participants, two—namely, LM1 and LM2—declined to do this and read only a single repetition of the word list. This, of course, resulted in fewer data for these participants.

6.6.4 Forced-alignment and measurement extraction

The first step prior to forced-alignment was to remove any extraneous noise orpro- duction errors such as false starts from the recordings collected using Praat (Boersma & Weenink 2019). The prompt lists from PsychoPy were then read into R and stripped downtoonly the relevant information (i.e. the target-language stimuli themselves and the correct order for that participant), saved as text files and manually edited to account forany repetitions or other divergences from the prompt list not removed in the editing of the audio file. Next, the program SPPAS151 (Bigi 2015) was to used to carry out automatic forced- alignment of words as well as a first pass at segmentation. This was then followed by manual adjustments and corrections of the segmentation for each individual vowel token. Although it does not natively support forced-alignment for any Bantu lan-

151 SPeech Phonetization Alignment and Syllabification (Bigi & Hirst 2012).

185 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages guage, SPPAS is able to be adapted for use with languages not included with the original program. The steps carried out to achieve this are described below. Firstly, since SPPAS uses acoustic modelling in its forced-alignment, it was necessary to duplicate an existing acoustic model for a language whose phoneme inventory resembled that of the target language, though this need not be a perfect match for the purposes of this experiment. As it is applied to more and more data from the target language, the acoustic model is also gradually adjusted by the algorithm to better fit the data from that language. In addition to this, SPPAS requires “vocabulary” and “dictionary” files to carry forced-alignment out. For languages such as English, Polish or Japanese, these files are already provided with SPPAS, but for unfamiliar languages these must be created by the user. Rather than being produced manually, these files were generated automatically (and cumulatively) in R for each language by taking both prompt files for all participants, combining them into one data frame, stripping any punctuation, placing each word on its own separate line, removing any duplicates, converting all characters to lower case and saving this as a single-column comma-separated values file (CSV). To produce the vocabulary file, this was simply converted to uppercase and saved using the file extension .vocab. A snippet from the head of the Bemba vocabulary file is given in Table 13.

ABAANA ABAKASHANA AMACUNGGWA AMENO AMENSHI AMENSO BABOMBA BELENGGA

Table 13: Snippet from the head of the custom Bemba vocabulary file for SPPAS

In order to produce the dictionary file, first, a column of pairs of square brackets was added to the vocabulary file. Next, since, fortunately, the orthographies of the target languages are essentially phonemically transparent, a separate regular expression for each language was used to produce a phonetic transcription for each word present in

186 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages the collected corpus (with spaces between the symbols for each phone). An illustrative snippet from the Bemba dictionary file is given in Table 14 below.

abaana [] a b a n a abakashana [] a b a k a S a n a amacunggwa [] a m a tS u N g w a ameno [] a m e n o amenshi [] a m e n S i amenso [] a m e n s o babomba [] b a b o m b a belengga [] b e l e N g a

Table 14: Snippet from the head of the custom Bemba dictionary file for SPPAS

The above steps having been completed, SPPAS was then run on each recording which produced a set of TextGrid files for each speaker. Only one of these, ending with the filename suffix -merge.TextGrid, was used in later steps. This contains eight tiers, listed in (167) below.

(167) a. IPUs: intonational phrase unit number

b. Transcription: IPU number and stimulus

c. Tokens: stimulus

d. Phonetization: stimulus broken down into segments

e. PhonAlign: alignment of individual segments

f. TokensAlign: alignment of word within IPU

g. Activity: speech or silence

h. MetaInformation: provides information about SPPAS

An example portion of this TextGrid produced by SPPAS for the recording of speaker BF2 as displayed in Praat is shown in Figure 28 below.

187 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Figure 28: A portion of a TextGrid produced by SPPAS

The final stage prior to data extract was the manual correction of the segmentation of the individual vowel tokens. Once this was done, the relevant data were extracted using a custom Praat (Boersma & Weenink 2019) script. For every vowel token in the recording, the information listed in (168) is extracted by this script.

(168) a. IPU number (= word)

b. start time within recording

c. duration of vowel

d. vowel token label

e. word token label

f. preceding segment label

g. following segment label

h. mean F1, F2 and F3 of vowel token across the middle third

In order to maximise the precision of the formant measurements extracted, the settings used in Praat—specifically the maximum formant value and the number of formants measured—were adjusted for each speaker on an individual basis. These are shown in Table 15. This was carried out first by starting with a maximum formant value of 5500 for female speakers and 5000 for male speakers with 5 formants. For each speaker, the plot of F1–F2 was visually inspected and, in combination with cross-checking of extracted formant values and the spectrogram, the settings were then adjusted until instances of erroneous measurements were minimised and the cloud of tokens for each vowel—especially the non-low vowels [i u e o]—displayed a more expected distribution. For all other settings the default values supplied by Praat were used.

188 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Maximum Number of Speaker ID formant formants BF1 4500 4 BF2 5500 5 BF3 5500 5 BF4 3500 3 BF5 3500 3 BF6 3500 3 BM1 4000 4 BM2 3000 3 NM1 3000 3 NM2 4500 4 LM1 4000 4 LM2 5000 5 LM3 4000 4

Table 15: By-speaker formant settings used in Praat

6.6.5 Post-processing

With the data collected, aligned, segmented and extracted, it must next be processed further. All post-processing was conducted in R (R Core Team 2019) with functions from base R and the tidyverse (Wickham 2019) collection of packages. The separate CSV files—one per speaker—produced by the Praat script were combined into asingle data frame. Each token was then assigned an individual ID number and labelled with the ID and metadata of the speaker from which it was elicited. Next, columns containing the syllable number within the word as well as the adjacent vowels within the word, ignoring any intervening consonant, were added. Separate columns containing logical variables for position in the word were then derived from the syllable-number column and each vowel token was tagged according to whether it occurred as the second vowel in a canonical harmonic vowel pair (cf. Table 8). Next, all formant values were normalised within speaker using the scale() function from base R, with the original non-normalised values being preserved alongside these in the data frame. The specific normalisation method used was z-scoring, otherwise known as Lobanov normalisation (Lobanov 1971). Finally, outliers were removed on the basis of normalised F1 values with reference to interquartile ranges. Those data points falling below one and half times the firstin-

189 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages terquartile range (i.e. Q1 - 1.5·IQR) or above one and half times the third interquartile range (i.e. Q3 + 1.5·IQR) were eliminated.

6.6.6 Statistical methods

For each individual language, linear mixed-effects models were fitted to the data inR (R Core Team 2019) using the lmer() function from the lmerTest package (Kuznet- sova et al. 2017). The dependent variable used in all cases was normalised F1 across the middle third of the vowel measured. Thus, a positive model estimate—i.e. a higher F1—indicates vowel lowering and a negative model estimate—i.e. a lower F1—indicates vowel raising. The following were considered as potential fixed-effect independent variables:

(169) a. Vowel (i, u, e, o) The identity of the vowel measured.

b. Change_expected (FALSE, TRUE) Whether or not the vowel measured occurs in a position where a categorical difference in height would be expected if it were the target of canonical five-vowel Bantu height harmony (cf. also Table 11).

c. Vleft_height (High, Mid, Low, None) The height of the preceding vowel.

d. Vleft (i, u, e, o, a, Ø) The identity of the preceding vowel.

e. Vright_height (High, Mid, Low, None) The height of the following vowel.

f. Vright (i, u, e, o, a, Ø) The identity of the following vowel.

g. Duration (continuous) The duration in milliseconds of the vowel measured.

h. Final (FALSE, TRUE) Whether or not the vowel measured occurs in a word-final syllable.

i. Penultimate (FALSE, TRUE) Whether or not the vowel measured occurs in a penultimate syllable.

190 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

j. Medial (FALSE, TRUE) Whether or not the vowel measured occurs in a word-medial syllable.

k. Initial (FALSE, TRUE) Whether or not the vowel measured occurs in a word-initial syllable.

Sum coding was used for the non-logical categorical variables; the logical variables used dummy coding, with FALSE as the reference level. Note that, since Vleft/Vleft_height and Vright/Vright_height included Ø/None as well as all five vowels or three overt levels of height, in models inwhich these are included, this effectively codes for Initial and Final respectively. The levels Ø/None were included in order to avoid rank deficiency in the models that came about when considering vowels in word-initial and word-final positions and so have no overt preceding or following vowels. Each model also included random intercepts for both speaker and word with fixed effects and interactions being added to each model until the fit of the modelwasnot improved. For each language, three models were fitted to the data. This was done to reduce the complexity and to avoid the issues of rank deficiency that would be caused by considering all possible variables within a single model. For the same reasons, each model was fitted to the subset of vowels measured that are vowels that may surface due to alternations in the canonical Bantu five-vowel harmony system, i.e. [i u eo].

6.7 Results

In this section, I report the results of the production study dealing with changes in F1 due to vowel-to-vowel coarticulation and the relationship of this with vowel height harmony as a whole as well as particular preceding and following vowels. First of all, in §6.7.1, I provide a concise initial summary of the results, focusing on the effect of left-hand vowel as this was the primary and motivating concernof the study. Following this, I present the details of the results for each of the three languages under study on a language-by-language basis, first Bemba in §6.7.2 followed by Nyanja in §6.7.3 and Lozi in §6.7.4. In each case I first report the results of the final statistical models used and then discuss any other points of interest uncovered in the data that were nevertheless not found to be statistically significant.

191 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

When discussing the output of the final models, prominence is given to the most relevant terms and only significant terms are discussed. Nevertheless, the full tables of fixed effects are provided for all models. In each section on further data exploration, I discuss only non-significant trends that are of interest as far as the research questions are concerned. In addition to this, I also briefly touch on the effects of flanking vowels on the F1 of the lowvowel[a] (which was not considered as a vowel of central interest for coarticulation in the statistical modelling). Lastly, note that this section, which predominantly contains the detailed results from the statistical models and data exploration, is followed by a more digestible recapitulation and initial discussion of the results from the individual languages in §6.8.

6.7.1 Summary

In general, there was not an over-arching strong general tendency across the three languages studied for vowel-to-vowel coarticulation to replicate the distribution seen in vowel pairs in height harmony. Nevertheless, there were a moderate number of effects reminiscent of harmony and these were greater in number than differences in F1 running counter to what is seen in height harmony. Likewise, in those environments where no difference was expected, this was largely the case in the models. A summary of the results for certain key vowel pairs is provided in Table 16. This compares the general results from the statistical models with those expectations for differences in F1 based on the height harmony system of each language (seealso Table 11 in §6.5). Table 16 uses a number of symbols. A green tick () and red cross (), of course, indicate affirmative and negative answer respectively. A green upward-facing arrow (↑) to denote a higher F1, a red downward-facing arrow (↓) for a lower F1 and an equals sign (=) no difference in F1. A question mark (?) is used to indicate uncertainty in the conclusion given and an asterisk (*) following a cross signifies that, although an expectation was not met, the result either did not run counter to harmony or, in the case of Lozi, accorded with the expectations based on the harmony systems of Bemba and Nyanja. I now provide a brief overview of some of the results summarised in Table 16 before presenting the details informing them in §§6.7.2, 6.7.3 and §6.7.4 as well as recapitulating and discussing the broader results in greater depth in §6.8.

192 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages (*) (*) (*) (?) (*) Results match expectation? Bemba Nyanja Lozi ↑ ↓ ======] 2 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ======in F1 of [V (?) ↓ ======↑ Observed difference Bemba Nyanja Lozi ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ======] 2 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ======in F1 of [V ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ======Expected difference Bemba Nyanja Lozi Harmonic? Bemba Nyanja Lozi ] 2 .V 1 [i.i] [e.i] [a.i] [i.e] [o.i] [e.e] [a.e] [e.o] [o.e] [a.o] [e.u] [a.u] [o.o] [o.u] [u.o] [u.u] Summary for key vowel pairs of the results from the statistical models compared to the expectations based on the height harmony [V Vowel pair Table 16: system of each language

193 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

In Bemba, it is unclear whether high back [u] shows a higher F1 following [o] as might be expected. This was found to be significant by the first model reported in §6.7.2 but not by the second. However, neither model found a significantly higher F1 for high front [i] after [e]. A significantly lower F1 was found for [u] following [a], though this does not run counter the expectations based on height harmony. No other pairs showed a significant effect on F1 of the preceding vowel in Bemba. Nyanja likewise showed few detectable differences in F1 in the final models, albeit more than Bemba. Unlike Bemba, in Nyanja, [i] was found to have significantly higher F1 following [e], as expected according to harmony; however, no such effect was found for high back [u] following [o]. Other significant differences in F1 according to left-hand vowel were that [i] had a lower F1 after [i] itself and [e] had a higher F1 following [i]. Neither of these differences were expected but the former does not run counter to harmony. In addition, [e] was, as expected, found to have a lower F1 after [a] but, contrary to expectations, [i] had a higher F1 following [a]. Lozi showed significant differences in F1 depending on the preceding vowelin only two instances, both of which were also found in Nyanja. High front [i] was found to have a higher F1 following [e] and [e] showed a lower F1 after [a]. As Lozi lacks front height harmony, this does not parallel its own harmony system but nevertheless accords with what would be expected in these pairs on the basis of canonical front height harmony as seen in Bemba and Nyanja. Note also that, despite Lozi possessing back height harmony, high back [u] showed no significant difference in F1 after [o]. Lastly, it should be noted that due to the likely underpoweredness of the present experiment, the results produced by the statistical models cannot safely be assumed to be decisive. One must also bear in mind that a lack of positive evidence for an alternative hypothesis is not necessarily evidence in favour of the null hypothesis, merely that that it cannot yet be rejected.

6.7.2 Bemba

6.7.2.1 Statistical models

The final model used for investigating the effect on F1 of a vowel occurring asthe second vowel in a non-harmonic vowel pair was as follows:

(170) F1_norm ~ Vowel * Change_expected + Vowel * Duration * Final + Medial + (1 | Word) + (1 | Speaker)

194 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Estimate Std. Error df t-value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) -4.854e-01 2.565e-02 4.681e+01 -18.925 < 2e-16 *** Voweli -5.557e-01 2.764e-02 2.588e+03 -20.105 < 2e-16 *** Vowelu -3.194e-01 2.699e-02 2.487e+03 -11.836 < 2e-16 *** Vowele 3.997e-01 3.034e-02 2.873e+03 13.172 < 2e-16 *** Vowelo 4.754e-01 3.455e-02 2.798e+03 13.759 < 2e-16 *** Change_expectedTRUE 9.256e-02 3.167e-02 2.874e+03 2.923 0.00349 ** Duration 1.242e-04 1.491e-04 2.591e+03 0.833 0.40496 FinalTRUE -3.060e-02 5.991e-02 5.108e+03 -0.511 0.60956 MedialTRUE 8.094e-02 1.563e-02 5.132e+03 5.179 2.31e-07 *** Voweli:Change_expectedTRUE -6.662e-04 4.928e-02 2.231e+03 -0.014 0.98921 Vowelu:Change_expectedTRUE 1.858e-01 8.140e-02 3.107e+03 2.282 0.02253 * Vowele:Change_expectedTRUE -5.973e-02 3.721e-02 2.463e+03 -1.605 0.10854 Vowelo:Change_expectedTRUE -1.254e-01 3.686e-02 2.610e+03 -3.402 0.000680 *** Voweli:Duration 1.618e-03 2.645e-04 2.936e+03 6.117 1.08e-09 *** Vowelu:Duration -5.371e-04 2.542e-04 2.384e+03 -2.113 0.03472 * Vowele:Duration -1.453e-04 2.054e-04 3.719e+03 -0.707 0.47945 Vowelo:Duration -9.352e-04 2.490e-04 2.891e+03 -3.756 0.000176 *** Voweli:FinalTRUE 1.161e-01 8.445e-02 4.790e+03 1.375 0.16907 Vowelu:FinalTRUE -1.603e-01 1.227e-01 4.963e+03 -1.306 0.19156 Vowele:FinalTRUE 2.375e-01 1.146e-01 5.163e+03 2.073 0.03822 * Vowelo:FinalTRUE -1.934e-01 8.419e-02 5.120e+03 -2.297 0.021645 * Duration:FinalTRUE -1.756e-03 3.795e-04 5.167e+03 -4.627 3.80e-06 *** Voweli:Duration:FinalTRUE -4.516e-04 5.462e-04 5.149e+03 -0.827 0.40835 Vowelu:Duration:FinalTRUE 8.264e-05 7.311e-04 5.166e+03 0.113 0.91000 Vowele:Duration:FinalTRUE -2.053e-03 7.445e-04 5.119e+03 -2.757 0.00586 ** Vowelo:Duration:FinalTRUE 2.422e-03 5.565e-04 5.107e+03 4.352 1.38e-05 ***

Table 17: Fixed effects for the model concerning expected difference in F1inBemba

195 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

A vowel being the second vowel in a non-harmonic pair was a significant predictor of a change in F1, with an overall higher F1. The interaction of this with the vowel was also significant, though onlyforthe two back vowels: high [u] was found to have a significant positive estimate, indicating lowering in non-harmonic environments whereas mid [o] had a significant negative estimate, indicating raising in non-harmonic environments. The effects plot for this interaction can be seen in Figure 29 below.

Vowel*Change_expected effect plot

i u e o = Change_expectedFALSE = Change_expectedTRUE = 0.0

-0.2

-0.4 F1_norm

-0.6

-0.8

i u e o Vowel

Figure 29: Effects plot for the interaction of Vowel and Change_expected in Bemba

In addition to this, medial vowels were found have a significantly higher F1 than non- medial vowels. The interaction of vowel and duration was also found to be significant for all vowels but [e] as was the interaction of duration and word-finality was also significant, with word-final vowels having lower F1. For both mid vowels [e]and [o] the interaction of vowel and word-finality was significant as was the three-way interaction of vowel, duration and word-finality. The full fixed effects for this model are given in Table 17.

⋆ ⋆ ⋆

The final model which looked at the effect of the particular left-hand (i.e. preceding) vowel on the F1 of the vowel measured was:

(171) F1_norm ~ Vowel * Vleft + Vowel * Duration + Vleft * Duration + Vowel * Final + Vleft * Final + (1 | Word) + (1 | Speaker)

The left-hand vowel was found to be a significant term in the model, withtheF1 of the vowel being lower following mid back [o] and low [a]. Also included in the

196 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Estimate Std. Error df t-value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) -3.898e-01 2.871e-02 7.166e+01 -13.577 < 2e-16 *** Voweli -4.533e-01 3.494e-02 3.021e+03 -12.974 < 2e-16 *** Vowelu -3.169e-01 3.552e-02 1.736e+03 -8.922 < 2e-16 *** Vowele 4.172e-01 3.546e-02 3.049e+03 11.764 < 2e-16 *** Vowelo 3.531e-01 3.722e-02 2.459e+03 9.487 < 2e-16 *** Vlefti -6.821e-02 4.751e-02 3.953e+03 -1.436 0.151184 Vleftu -1.512e-02 4.985e-02 3.997e+03 -0.303 0.761640 Vlefte -9.124e-02 4.786e-02 3.119e+03 -1.906 0.056686 . Vlefto 1.422e-01 6.729e-02 2.542e+03 2.113 0.034675 * Vlefta 1.560e-01 6.623e-02 3.287e+03 2.355 0.018564 * VleftØ 1.560e-01 6.623e-02 3.287e+03 2.355 0.018564 * Duration -5.352e-04 1.599e-04 4.262e+03 -3.347 0.000825 *** FinalTRUE -2.386e-01 5.701e-02 5.163e+03 -4.186 2.89e-05 *** Voweli:Vlefti 1.382e-02 2.935e-02 3.862e+03 0.471 0.637691 Vowelu:Vlefti 8.970e-03 3.963e-02 2.094e+03 0.226 0.820944 Vowele:Vlefti -3.444e-03 3.884e-02 4.052e+03 -0.089 0.929346 Vowelo:Vlefti -1.935e-02 3.004e-02 2.146e+03 -0.644 0.519597 Voweli:Vleftu -1.882e-02 3.527e-02 3.064e+03 -0.534 0.593637 Vowelu:Vleftu 3.217e-02 3.469e-02 1.785e+03 0.927 0.353895 Vowele:Vleftu -8.198e-03 3.202e-02 4.555e+03 -0.256 0.797943 Vowelo:Vleftu -5.146e-03 3.251e-02 2.873e+03 -0.158 0.874260 Voweli:Vlefte 3.576e-02 4.012e-02 2.600e+03 0.892 0.372739 Vowelu:Vlefte 1.493e-02 4.379e-02 2.475e+03 0.341 0.733174 Vowele:Vlefte 1.764e-02 2.874e-02 2.502e+03 0.614 0.539504 Vowelo:Vlefte -6.833e-02 3.786e-02 2.078e+03 -1.805 0.071268 . Voweli:Vlefto 1.477e-03 7.474e-02 3.200e+03 0.020 0.984239 Vowelu:Vlefto 5.190e-02 9.116e-02 1.492e+03 0.569 0.569225 Vowele:Vlefto -4.824e-02 5.048e-02 2.629e+03 -0.956 0.339328 Vowelo:Vlefto -5.135e-03 4.219e-02 3.707e+03 -0.122 0.903140 Voweli:Vlefta -1.150e-02 4.451e-02 6.288e+02 -0.258 0.796136 Vowelu:Vlefta -9.017e-02 3.770e-02 1.262e+03 -2.392 0.016911 * Vowele:Vlefta 8.142e-02 4.258e-02 1.631e+03 1.912 0.056037 . Vowelo:Vlefta 2.026e-02 5.125e-02 4.963e+02 0.395 0.692866 Voweli:VleftØ -1.150e-02 4.451e-02 6.288e+02 -0.258 0.796136 Vowelu:VleftØ -9.017e-02 3.770e-02 1.262e+03 -2.392 0.016911 * Vowele:VleftØ 8.142e-02 4.258e-02 1.631e+03 1.912 0.056037 . Vowelo:VleftØ 8.142e-02 4.258e-02 1.631e+03 1.912 0.056037 . Voweli:Duration 7.740e-04 2.470e-04 3.155e+03 3.133 0.001746 ** Vowelu:Duration -4.247e-04 2.431e-04 2.607e+03 -1.747 0.080770 . Vowele:Duration -1.796e-05 2.014e-04 3.609e+03 -0.089 0.928956 Vowelo:Duration -3.313e-04 2.239e-04 3.206e+03 -1.480 0.139105 VleftØ:Duration -9.011e-04 4.397e-04 4.689e+03 -2.049 0.040496 * Vlefti:Duration 1.084e-03 3.436e-04 4.820e+03 3.154 0.001618 ** Vleftu:Duration -2.424e-04 3.759e-04 5.070e+03 -0.645 0.519150 Vlefte:Duration -3.274e-05 2.847e-04 5.012e+03 -0.115 0.908452 Vlefto:Duration -6.666e-04 3.307e-04 4.945e+03 -2.016 0.043894 * Vlefta:Duration -9.011e-04 4.397e-04 4.689e+03 -2.049 0.040496 * VleftØ:Duration -9.011e-04 4.397e-04 4.689e+03 -2.049 0.040496 * Voweli:FinalTRUE -1.236e-02 5.767e-02 1.308e+03 -0.214 0.830370 Vowelu:FinalTRUE 4.276e-02 1.052e-01 1.086e+03 0.407 0.684380 Vowele:FinalTRUE -1.488e-01 5.226e-02 2.651e+03 -2.848 0.004438 ** Vowelo:FinalTRUE -1.488e-01 5.226e-02 2.651e+03 -2.848 0.004438 ** Vlefti:FinalTRUE -2.901e-02 7.808e-02 3.377e+03 -0.372 0.710248 Vleftu:FinalTRUE 1.292e-01 7.991e-02 4.122e+03 1.617 0.106027 Vlefte:FinalTRUE 2.052e-01 7.792e-02 2.939e+03 2.634 0.008483 ** Vlefto:FinalTRUE -6.829e-02 7.887e-02 3.571e+03 -0.866 0.386602 Vlefta:FinalTRUE -1.803e-01 7.796e-02 1.652e+03 -2.313 0.020852 * VleftØ:FinalTRUE -1.803e-01 7.796e-02 1.652e+03 -2.313 0.020852 *

Table 18: Fixed effects for the model concerning the effect of left-hand vowelonF1 in Bemba

197 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages variable Vleft was the level Ø which indicated that there was no left-hand vowel and thus word-initiality. This was significant and word-initial vowels were found tohave a higher F1. The interaction of vowel and left-hand vowel was also significant with [u]havinga significantly lower F1 following low [a] as well as in word-initial position. The effects plot for the interaction between vowel and left-hand vowels is shown in Figure 30.

Vowel*Vleft effect plot

i u e o a Ø = Vowele = Vowelo =

0.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1.0 = Voweli = Vowelu = F1_norm 0.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1.0

i u e o a Ø Vleft

Figure 30: Effects plot for the interaction of Vowel and Vleft in Bemba

Finality was significant, with word-final vowels having a significantly lower F1.Two- way interactions between finality and vowel as well as left-hand vowel were alsoa significant predictor of the F1 of the vowel measured. Another significant termwas the duration of the vowel measured, with longer vowels having lower F1. As with word-finality, separate two-way interactions of duration with vowel and left-hand vowel were also significant. For the full list of fixed effects for this model,see Table 18.

⋆ ⋆ ⋆

The final model used for investigating the effect of the right-hand (i.e. following) vowel on the F1 of the vowel measured was:

(172) F1_norm ~ Vowel * Vright + Vowel * Penultimate + Medial + (1 | Word) + (1 | Speaker)

The effect of right-hand vowel was found to be significant, with vowels havinga higher F1 before mid back [o] and low [a] as well as preceding no vowel (i.e. in word- final position); however, before mid front [e], vowels had a significantly lowerF1.

198 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Estimate Std. Error df t-value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) -5.228e-01 2.245e-02 2.428e+01 -23.288 < 2e-16 *** Voweli -4.159e-01 1.602e-02 2.177e+03 -25.967 < 2e-16 *** Vowelu -3.345e-01 1.946e-02 1.650e+03 -17.188 < 2e-16 *** Vowele 4.203e-01 2.235e-02 2.811e+03 18.809 < 2e-16 *** Vowelo 3.301e-01 2.868e-02 2.602e+03 11.508 < 2e-16 *** Vrighti -5.720e-03 2.471e-02 3.284e+03 -0.232 0.8169 Vrightu -1.084e-03 1.904e-02 2.190e+03 -0.057 0.9546 Vrighte -3.659e-02 1.713e-02 1.773e+03 -2.136 0.0328 * Vrighto 8.876e-02 1.713e-02 2.065e+03 5.182 2.41e-07 *** Vrighta 1.049e-01 1.849e-02 1.444e+03 5.676 1.67e-08 *** VrightØ 1.049e-01 1.849e-02 1.444e+03 5.676 1.67e-08 *** PenultimateTRUE -3.997e-02 2.310e-02 2.401e+03 -1.730 0.0837 . MedialTRUE 8.128e-02 1.790e-02 4.725e+03 4.542 5.71e-06 *** Voweli:Vrighti -1.357e-02 2.880e-02 3.875e+03 -0.471 0.6376 Vowelu:Vrighti 1.234e-02 3.477e-02 3.404e+03 0.355 0.7226 Vowele:Vrighti 5.079e-02 3.348e-02 3.772e+03 1.517 0.1293 Vowelo:Vrighti -4.957e-02 6.087e-02 4.852e+03 -0.814 0.41553 Voweli:Vrightu -3.281e-02 3.095e-02 3.118e+03 -1.060 0.2892 Vowelu:Vrightu 6.582e-03 2.532e-02 2.662e+03 0.260 0.7949 Vowele:Vrightu 1.596e-02 3.412e-02 3.233e+03 0.468 0.6400 Vowelo:Vrightu 1.027e-02 3.888e-02 2.358e+03 0.264 0.79162 Voweli:Vrighte -1.166e-01 2.896e-02 3.996e+03 -4.027 5.74e-05 *** Vowelu:Vrighte -3.015e-02 2.577e-02 4.389e+03 -1.170 0.2421 Vowele:Vrighte 5.323e-02 2.506e-02 4.171e+03 2.124 0.0337 * Vowelo:Vrighte 9.354e-02 3.050e-02 3.521e+03 3.066 0.00218 ** Voweli:Vrighto 2.303e-02 2.618e-02 3.372e+03 0.880 0.3789 Vowelu:Vrighto -1.504e-02 2.624e-02 4.663e+03 -0.573 0.5665 Vowele:Vrighto 7.981e-03 3.188e-02 2.463e+03 0.250 0.8023 Vowelo:Vrighto -1.597e-02 2.791e-02 4.325e+03 -0.572 0.56713 Voweli:Vrighta 3.531e-02 2.703e-02 1.263e+03 1.306 0.1917 Vowelu:Vrighta 2.570e-02 3.289e-02 1.974e+03 0.781 0.4346 Vowele:Vrighta 4.209e-02 3.034e-02 1.780e+03 1.387 0.1655 Vowelo:Vrighta -1.031e-01 3.169e-02 1.697e+03 -3.253 0.00116 ** Voweli:VrightØ 3.531e-02 2.703e-02 1.263e+03 1.306 0.1917 Vowelu:VrightØ 2.570e-02 3.289e-02 1.974e+03 0.781 0.4346 Vowele:VrightØ 4.209e-02 3.034e-02 1.780e+03 1.387 0.1655 Vowelo:VrightØ 4.209e-02 3.034e-02 1.780e+03 1.387 0.1655 Voweli:PenultimateTRUE 3.362e-02 3.334e-02 1.698e+03 1.008 0.3134 Vowelu:PenultimateTRUE -7.013e-02 4.184e-02 2.543e+03 -1.676 0.0938 . Vowele:PenultimateTRUE -6.148e-02 4.159e-02 2.979e+03 -1.478 0.1395 Vowelo:PenultimateTRUE 9.799e-02 4.219e-02 3.083e+03 2.322 0.02028 *

Table 19: Fixed effects for the model concerning the effect of right-hand vowelonF1 in Bemba

199 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

The interaction of vowel and right-hand vowel was also significant. High front[i] was found to have a significantly lower F1 before mid front [e], [e] on the other hand had a higher F1 before another [e] and mid back [o] was found to have a significantly higher F1 before [e] but a lower F1 before low [a]. The effects plot for the interaction between vowel and right-hand vowel is shown in Figure 31.

Vowel*Vright effect plot

i u e o a Ø = Vowele = Vowelo =

0.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1.0

-1.2 = Voweli = Vowelu =

F1_norm 0.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1.0

-1.2 i u e o a Ø Vright

Figure 31: Effects plot for the interaction of Vowel and Vright in Bemba

In addition, medial vowels had a significantly higher F1 and the interaction vowel and occurring in a penultimate syllable was significant, with mid back [o] having a significantly higher F1 when penultimate. The full fixed effects for this modelare provided in Table 19.

6.7.2.2 Further data exploration

In the first statistical model for Bemba (see Table 17), high back [u] was found to have a significantly higher F1 in environments where a change in F1 might be expected— i.e. following [o]. In the raw data, contrary to this, F1 was low following [o]; however, no data was collected where the pair [o.u] was not in word-final position. The F1 of non-final [i] was lower after [e] than elsewhere, though final [i]had a higher F1 after [e] than elsewhere. In the model, the F1 of [i] after [e] showedno significant difference.

200 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Non-final Final -2

-1 i

-2

-1 u

Normalised F1 (across middle third) 0

i u e a i e o a Left-hand vowel

Figure 32: F1 of [i] and [u] in non-final and final positions according to left-hand vowel in Bemba

Mid back [o] had a lower F1 after [e] in non-final position and the second lowestin final position (in which position the lowest F1 was following [a]).

Non-final Final

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5 Normalised F1 (across middle third)

1.0

i u e o a i u e o a Left-hand vowel

Figure 33: F1 of [o] in non-final and final positions according to left-hand vowelin Bemba

Additionally, [o] had a lower F1 before [i], lower even than before [a], which was statistically significant. Note that, unlike all other following vowels, there wasno data for [o] in word-initial position before [i].

201 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5 Normalised F1 (across middle third)

i u e o a Right-hand vowel

Figure 34: F1 of [o] according to right-hand vowel in Bemba

Low [a] showed little-to-no consistent effect of flanking vowel on its F1 except that this was lower F1 before [u].

6.7.3 Nyanja

6.7.3.1 Statistical models

The final model used for investigating the effect on F1 of a vowel occurring asthe second vowel in a non-harmonic vowel pair was as follows:

(173) F1_norm ~ Vowel * Change_expected + Vowel * Final + (1 | Word) + (1 | Speaker)

In the final model, word-final vowels were found to have a significantly higherF1. The interaction of vowel and word-finality was also found to be be significant, with high front [i] having a higher F1 and mid back [o] having a lower F1. The full list of fixed effects for this model are shownin Table 20. Note that, although in the model selection process, the addition of the variable Change_expected and its interaction with Vowel was found to improve the model, neither of these were statistically significant terms in the final model. This is likely because, as illustrated by Figure 35 with the raw data, the variables Change_expected and Final appear to have approximately the same effect on the F1 of the vowel measured.

202 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Estimate Std. Error df t-value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) -0.52781 0.04755 2.11202 -11.100 0.00659 ** Voweli -0.50073 0.01569 485.84941 -31.908 < 2e-16 *** Vowelu -0.32697 0.01703 560.97755 -19.203 < 2e-16 *** Vowele 0.40713 0.01947 462.73993 20.907 < 2e-16 *** Vowelo 0.42057 0.01992 325.58775 21.112 < 2e-16 *** Change_expectedTRUE 0.02947 0.02994 902.12188 0.984 0.32522 FinalTRUE 0.12550 0.02227 1182.41380 5.635 2.18e-08 *** Voweli:Change_expectedTRUE 0.06078 0.04564 961.26307 1.332 0.18328 Vowelu:Change_expectedTRUE -0.02560 0.06887 736.70075 -0.372 0.71020 Vowele:Change_expectedTRUE -0.01710 0.03918 880.35262 -0.436 0.66260 Vowelo:Change_expectedTRUE -0.01808 0.05045 750.15434 -0.358 0.72011 Voweli:FinalTRUE 0.27264 0.03274 843.99606 8.327 3.33e-16 *** Vowelu:FinalTRUE 0.03137 0.04143 952.26912 0.757 0.44907 Vowele:FinalTRUE -0.05656 0.03467 746.40562 -1.631 0.10325 Vowelo:FinalTRUE -0.24745 0.04767 926.82319 -5.190 2.58e-07 ***

Table 20: Fixed effects for the model concerning expected difference in F1 inNyanja

203 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

i u e o

-1

TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE Normalised F1 (across middle third) Change_expected

i u e o -2

-1

TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE Normalised F1 (across middle third) Final

Figure 35: Violin plots of F1 of [i], [u], [e] and [o] in change-expected and non- change-expected environments (top pane) and final and non-final positions (bottom pane) in Nyanja

⋆ ⋆ ⋆

The final model used for investigating the effect of the left-hand (i.e. preceding) vowel on the F1 of the vowel measured was:

(174) F1_norm ~ Vowel * Vleft + Vowel * Final + (1 | Word) + (1 | Speaker)

In the final model, the interaction of vowel and left-hand vowel was significant. High front [i], was found to have a lower F1 after [i] itself and a higher F1 after bothmid front [e] and low [a]. On the other hand, mid front [e] had a significantly higher F1 after [i] and a significantly lower F1 after [a]. When there was no left-hand vowel,high front [i] had a higher F1 whereas the mid vowels [e] and [o] both had significantly lower F1. The effects plot for this interaction between is givenin Figure 36 below.

204 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Estimate Std. Error df t-value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) -5.189e-01 4.914e-02 2.439e+00 -10.559 0.004278 ** Voweli -4.204e-01 2.647e-02 8.591e+02 -15.883 < 2e-16 *** Vowelu -3.848e-01 2.752e-02 7.764e+02 -13.981 < 2e-16 *** Vowele 3.791e-01 2.498e-02 8.948e+02 15.177 < 2e-16 *** Vowelo 4.261e-01 3.330e-02 8.948e+02 12.796 < 2e-16 *** Vlefti -1.959e-02 2.318e-02 8.837e+02 -0.845 0.398323 Vleftu -3.087e-02 2.668e-02 9.077e+02 -1.157 0.247597 Vlefte 5.575e-03 2.532e-02 8.129e+02 0.220 0.825782 Vlefto 4.490e-02 2.960e-02 6.576e+02 1.517 0.129724 Vlefta 1.268e-02 2.253e-02 6.604e+02 0.563 0.573812 VleftØ 1.268e-02 2.253e-02 6.604e+02 0.563 0.573812 FinalTRUE 1.169e-01 2.641e-02 9.657e+02 4.427 1.06e-05 *** Voweli:Vlefti -1.263e-01 3.635e-02 1.002e+03 -3.475 0.000533 *** Vowelu:Vlefti -3.560e-02 4.784e-02 8.722e+02 -0.744 0.456980 Vowele:Vlefti 9.882e-02 3.296e-02 9.067e+02 2.998 0.002787 ** Vowelo:Vlefti 6.310e-02 4.211e-02 9.315e+02 1.498 0.134346 Voweli:Vleftu -5.128e-02 3.857e-02 8.796e+02 -1.329 0.184081 Vowelu:Vleftu 5.528e-04 3.955e-02 7.897e+02 0.014 0.988852 Vowele:Vleftu -1.111e-02 4.880e-02 8.181e+02 -0.228 0.819954 Vowelo:Vleftu 6.183e-02 5.671e-02 9.617e+02 1.090 0.275849 Voweli:Vlefte 1.070e-01 4.222e-02 8.534e+02 2.535 0.011438 * Vowelu:Vlefte -4.980e-02 4.713e-02 8.176e+02 -1.057 0.290956 Vowele:Vlefte 1.842e-02 3.717e-02 7.974e+02 0.496 0.620332 Vowelo:Vlefte -7.563e-02 4.898e-02 7.701e+02 -1.544 0.122952 Voweli:Vlefto 9.428e-02 5.515e-02 9.582e+02 1.709 0.087683 . Vowelu:Vlefto -6.739e-02 5.941e-02 7.574e+02 -1.134 0.257037 Vowele:Vlefto -4.034e-02 4.222e-02 6.312e+02 -0.956 0.339674 Vowelo:Vlefto 1.344e-02 4.544e-02 7.422e+02 0.296 0.767426 Voweli:Vlefta 6.294e-02 3.206e-02 7.352e+02 1.963 0.049997 * Vowelu:Vlefta 6.812e-02 4.187e-02 6.412e+02 1.627 0.104240 Vowele:Vlefta -9.188e-02 4.025e-02 7.255e+02 -2.283 0.022747 * Vowelo:Vlefta -3.918e-02 4.071e-02 6.995e+02 -0.962 0.336160 Voweli:VleftØ 6.294e-02 3.206e-02 7.352e+02 1.963 0.049997 * Vowelu:VleftØ 6.812e-02 4.187e-02 6.412e+02 1.627 0.104240 Vowele:VleftØ -9.188e-02 4.025e-02 7.255e+02 -2.283 0.022747 * Vowelo:VleftØ -9.188e-02 4.025e-02 7.255e+02 -2.283 0.022747 * Voweli:FinalTRUE 1.523e-01 4.340e-02 8.211e+02 3.510 0.000472 *** Vowelu:FinalTRUE 1.087e-01 4.841e-02 8.074e+02 2.245 0.025036 * Vowele:FinalTRUE -3.228e-02 3.920e-02 8.386e+02 -0.824 0.410371 Vowelo:FinalTRUE -2.287e-01 5.261e-02 8.457e+02 -4.348 1.54e-05 ***

Table 21: Fixed effects for the model concerning the effect of left-hand vowelonF1 in Nyanja

205 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Vowel*Vleft effect plot

i u e o a Ø = Vowele = Vowelo =

0.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1.0

= Voweli = Vowelu = F1_norm 0.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1.0

i u e o a Ø Vleft

Figure 36: Effects plot for the interaction of Vowel and Vleft in Nyanja

The effect of word-finality was also found to be significant, with vowels havinga higher F1 in final position. In addition, the interaction of vowel and word-finality was also significant, with final high [i] and [u] having a higher F1 and mid back[o] having a lower F1. The full list of fixed effects for this model can beseenin Table 21.

⋆ ⋆ ⋆

The final model used for investigating the effect of the right-hand (i.e. following) vowel on the F1 of the vowel measured was:

(175) F1_norm ~ Vowel * Vright_height + (1 | Word) + (1 | Speaker)

In this model, the height of the right-hand vowel was significant, with vowels having lower F1 when followed by a high vowel. The interaction of vowel and right-hand vowel was also significant. High front[i] was found to have a significantly lower F1 before both mid and low vowels, as wellas word-finally (i.e. when there was no right-hand vowel). High back [u], however, had a significantly higher F1 when followed by another high vowel. Both mid [e] and[o] had higher F1 when followed by another mid vowel, with mid back [o] also having a higher F1 preceding low vowels. This interaction is displayed in the effects plotin Figure 37.

206 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Estimate Std. Error df t-value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) -4.987e-01 4.728e-02 2.066e+00 -10.547 0.007920 ** Voweli -4.197e-01 1.319e-02 7.582e+02 -31.829 < 2e-16 *** Vowelu -3.258e-01 1.603e-02 7.436e+02 -20.332 < 2e-16 *** Vowele 3.960e-01 1.477e-02 7.283e+02 26.806 < 2e-16 *** Vowelo 3.495e-01 1.639e-02 6.278e+02 21.330 < 2e-16 *** Vright_heightHigh -6.055e-02 1.599e-02 1.057e+03 -3.787 0.000161 *** Vright_heightMid -2.181e-02 1.552e-02 9.825e+02 -1.405 0.160264 Vright_heightLow -2.538e-02 1.409e-02 6.145e+02 -1.801 0.072222 . Vright_heightNone -2.538e-02 1.409e-02 6.145e+02 -1.801 0.072222 . Voweli:Vright_heightHigh -3.735e-02 2.519e-02 9.200e+02 -1.483 0.138438 Vowelu:Vright_heightHigh 6.329e-02 2.547e-02 8.149e+02 2.485 0.013155 * Vowele:Vright_heightHigh -1.873e-02 2.796e-02 8.108e+02 -0.670 0.503036 Vowelo:Vright_heightHigh -7.207e-03 3.350e-02 8.465e+02 -0.215 0.829739 Voweli:Vright_heightMid -7.585e-02 2.293e-02 1.160e+03 -3.308 0.000967 *** Vowelu:Vright_heightMid -5.262e-02 3.284e-02 9.015e+02 -1.603 0.109364 Vowele:Vright_heightMid 5.934e-02 2.558e-02 9.595e+02 2.320 0.020571 * Vowelo:Vright_heightMid 6.913e-02 2.588e-02 8.859e+02 2.671 0.007700 ** Voweli:Vright_heightLow -9.415e-02 2.068e-02 8.025e+02 -4.553 6.12e-06 *** Vowelu:Vright_heightLow -2.620e-02 2.400e-02 7.584e+02 -1.091 0.275472 Vowele:Vright_heightLow 6.433e-03 2.521e-02 7.721e+02 0.255 0.798674 Vowelo:Vright_heightLow 1.139e-01 2.597e-02 7.681e+02 4.386 1.32e-05 *** Voweli:Vright_heightNone -9.415e-02 2.068e-02 8.025e+02 -4.553 6.12e-06 *** Vowelu:Vright_heightNone -2.620e-02 2.400e-02 7.584e+02 -1.091 0.275472 Vowele:Vright_heightNone 6.433e-03 2.521e-02 7.721e+02 0.255 0.798674 Vowelo:Vright_heightNone 6.433e-03 2.521e-02 7.721e+02 0.255 0.798674

Table 22: Fixed effects for the model concerning the effect of right-hand vowelonF1 in Nyanja

207 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Vowel*Vright_height effect plot

i u e o = Vright_heightLow = Vright_heightNone =

0.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1.0

= Vright_heightHigh = Vright_heightMid =

F1_norm 0.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1.0

i u e o Vowel

Figure 37: Effects plot for the interaction of Vowel and Vright_height in Nyanja

The complete list of fixed effects for this can be seenin Table 22.

6.7.3.2 Further data exploration

Though not statistically significant, [u] had a lower F1 after high front [i]inboth non-final and final positions. When in word-final position, [u] had much ahigherF1 after [e] than all other vowels and also than [u] following [e] in non-final positions.

Non-final Final

-1.6

-1.2

-0.8

-0.4 Normalised F1 (across middle third)

i u e a i u e o a Left-hand vowel

Figure 38: F1 of [u] in non-final and final positions according to left-hand vowelin Nyanja

Mid back [o] had its lowest F1 after [e] and was at more or less the same level following [a].

208 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

Normalised F1 (across middle third) 0.5

i u e o a Left-hand vowel

Figure 39: F1 of [o] according to left-hand vowel in Nyanja

Mid front [e] had a higher F1 before mid vowels [e] and [o], though especially the latter, than before the remaining peripheral vowels. Mid back [o], however, hadits lowest F1 before [u] with values for F1 grouping together before all other following vowels.

e o

-0.5

0.0

0.5 Normalised F1 (across middle third)

i u e o a i u e o a Right-hand vowel

Figure 40: F1 of [e] and [o] according to right-hand vowel in Nyanja

As in Bemba, flanking vowel had little effect on the F1 of [a] in Nyanja but[a]did have a lower F1 before [u].

6.7.4 Lozi

6.7.4.1 Statistical models

The final model used for investigating the effect on F1 of a vowel occurring asthe second vowel in a canonical non-harmonic vowel pair was as follows:

209 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

(176) F1_norm ~ Vowel * Change_expected + Vowel * Final + Change_expected * Final + Initial + (1 | Word) + (1 | Speaker)

Note, however, that here Change_expected is judged not on the harmony system of Lozi itself, which displayed on back height harmony, but of the canonical Bantu five- vowel system found in Bemba and Nyanja, which also shows front height harmony. In this model, the interaction of vowel and its occurrence in a vowel pair non- harmonic according to the canonical harmony pattern was significant, though the only vowel for which this was significant was mid back [o], which had a significantly lower F1. This is shown in the effects plotin Figure 41 below.

Vowel*Change_expected_2 effect plot

i u e o Change_expected_2 = FALSE Change_expected_2 = TRUE

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6 F1_norm

-0.8

-1.0

i u e o Vowel

Figure 41: Effects plot for the interaction of Vowel and Change_expected in Lozi

In addition, both word-initial and -final vowels were found to have significantly lower F1, with the interaction of vowel and word-finality also being significant. Word- finality and the vowel occurring in a canonically non-harmonic pair was alsoasig- nificant interaction which had a significantly higher F1. The full list of fixed effects for this model are shownin Table 23.

⋆ ⋆ ⋆

The final model used for investigating the effect of the left-hand (i.e. preceding) vowel on the F1 of the vowel measured was:

(177) F1_norm ~ Vowel * Vleft + Vowel * Penultimate + Vowel * Final + Vleft * Final + (1 | Word) + (1 | Speaker)

210 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Estimate Std. Error df t-value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) -5.925e-01 1.778e-02 1.673e+01 -33.323 < 2e-16 *** Voweli -4.822e-01 1.483e-02 6.079e+02 -32.507 < 2e-16 *** Vowelu -3.657e-01 1.452e-02 5.462e+02 -25.185 < 2e-16 *** Vowele 4.654e-01 1.706e-02 6.902e+02 27.278 < 2e-16 *** Vowelo 3.825e-01 1.623e-02 5.374e+02 23.570 < 2e-16 *** Change_expectedTRUE -8.592e-03 2.633e-02 9.527e+02 -0.326 0.74428 FinalTRUE -1.743e-01 2.722e-02 8.851e+02 -6.404 2.46e-10 *** InitialTRUE -4.621e-02 1.717e-02 1.004e+03 -2.691 0.00723 ** Voweli:Change_expectedTRUE 5.069e-02 2.999e-02 7.531e+02 1.690 0.09137 . Vowelu:Change_expectedTRUE -3.754e-03 4.573e-02 9.866e+02 -0.082 0.93459 Vowele:Change_expectedTRUE 1.826e-02 3.042e-02 7.956e+02 0.600 0.54863 Vowelo:Change_expectedTRUE -6.520e-02 2.897e-02 9.375e+02 -2.251 0.024635 * Voweli:FinalTRUE 1.488e-01 2.986e-02 9.275e+02 4.983 7.48e-07 *** Vowelu:FinalTRUE 3.149e-02 3.739e-02 9.150e+02 0.842 0.39984 Vowele:FinalTRUE -5.240e-02 3.944e-02 9.821e+02 -1.329 0.18427 Vowelo:FinalTRUE -1.279e-01 3.302e-02 1.072e+03 -3.873 0.000114 *** Change_expectedTRUE:FinalTRUE 1.171e-01 4.355e-02 8.500e+02 2.690 0.00729 **

Table 23: Fixed effects for the model concerning expected difference in F1inLozi

211 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Estimate Std. Error df t-value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) -0.698640 0.019719 27.397413 -35.429 < 2e-16 *** Voweli -0.428214 0.030604 500.456637 -13.992 < 2e-16 *** Vowelu -0.295933 0.024827 629.966637 -11.920 < 2e-16 *** Vowele 0.331594 0.029167 616.552255 11.369 < 2e-16 *** Vowelo 0.392552 0.028538 716.275338 13.756 < 2e-16 *** Vlefti -0.066167 0.023572 616.149264 -2.807 0.005158 ** Vleftu 0.063737 0.020815 576.801918 3.062 0.002301 ** Vlefte -0.082028 0.033384 686.799015 -2.457 0.014252 * Vlefto 0.048530 0.023471 558.194155 2.068 0.039129 * Vlefta 0.009010 0.019630 456.604829 0.459 0.646459 VleftØ 0.009010 0.019630 456.604829 0.459 0.646459 PenultimateTRUE 0.092356 0.017397 571.065528 5.309 1.58e-07 *** FinalTRUE -0.022412 0.031364 491.810755 -0.715 0.475194 Voweli:Vlefti 0.015424 0.035938 842.999597 0.429 0.667896 Vowelu:Vlefti -0.032416 0.038968 922.874368 -0.832 0.405706 Vowele:Vlefti 0.001878 0.035093 951.196919 0.054 0.957338 Vowelo:Vlefti 0.015114 0.031333 897.417628 0.482 0.629669 Voweli:Vleftu -0.016689 0.032748 773.495700 -0.510 0.610474 Vowelu:Vleftu -0.019016 0.026838 904.093822 -0.709 0.478778 Vowele:Vleftu 0.045481 0.027828 880.799897 1.634 0.102537 Vowelo:Vleftu -0.009776 0.036708 808.055564 -0.266 0.790067 Voweli:Vlefte 0.094312 0.031562 987.859570 2.988 0.002876 ** Vowelu:Vlefte -0.039578 0.044504 917.092627 -0.889 0.374070 Vowele:Vlefte 0.022861 0.035323 868.808435 0.647 0.517674 Vowelo:Vlefte -0.077595 0.051583 817.481988 -1.504 0.132895 Voweli:Vlefto -0.036750 0.033166 738.442321 -1.108 0.268198 Vowelu:Vlefto 0.064990 0.039957 905.749023 1.626 0.104196 Vowele:Vlefto -0.056368 0.029354 848.834367 -1.920 0.055155 . Vowelo:Vlefto 0.028129 0.026986 842.620277 1.042 0.297557 Voweli:Vlefta -0.001239 0.028259 433.623199 -0.044 0.965057 Vowelu:Vlefta 0.035087 0.030741 656.131207 1.141 0.254133 Vowele:Vlefta -0.059506 0.028477 481.410464 -2.090 0.037179 * Vowelo:Vlefta 0.025658 0.031363 606.513989 0.818 0.413626 Voweli:VleftØ -0.001239 0.028259 433.623199 -0.044 0.965057 Vowelu:VleftØ 0.035087 0.030741 656.131207 1.141 0.254133 Vowele:VleftØ -0.059506 0.028477 481.410464 -2.090 0.037179 * Vowelo:VleftØ -0.059506 0.028477 481.410464 -2.090 0.037179 * Voweli:PenultimateTRUE -0.032983 0.031993 403.883805 -1.031 0.303184 Vowelu:PenultimateTRUE -0.093364 0.026944 546.446821 -3.465 0.000572 *** Vowele:PenultimateTRUE 0.187880 0.032249 585.710296 5.826 9.38e-09 *** Vowelo:PenultimateTRUE -0.061533 0.029207 651.957169 -2.107 0.035520 * Voweli:FinalTRUE 0.101153 0.045534 575.828375 2.222 0.026705 * Vowelu:FinalTRUE -0.050003 0.044082 615.947809 -1.134 0.257106 Vowele:FinalTRUE 0.071505 0.048667 756.614574 1.469 0.142175 Vowelo:FinalTRUE -0.122655 0.043850 764.076857 -2.797 0.005285 ** Vlefti:FinalTRUE 0.106732 0.054919 637.056369 1.943 0.052404 . Vleftu:FinalTRUE -0.069995 0.048895 452.953409 -1.432 0.152967 Vlefte:FinalTRUE 0.096464 0.051034 618.322176 1.890 0.059199 . Vlefto:FinalTRUE -0.083737 0.047479 558.676952 -1.764 0.078334 . Vlefta:FinalTRUE -0.087816 0.048365 449.698130 -1.816 0.070086 . VleftØ:FinalTRUE -0.087816 0.048365 449.698130 -1.816 0.070086 .

Table 24: Fixed effects for the model concerning the effect of left-hand vowelonF1 in Lozi

212 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

The effect of left-hand vowel was significant, with a preceding front vowel [i]or[e] resulting in a lower F1 and a preceding back vowel [u] or [a] resulting in a higher F1. The interaction of vowel and left-hand vowel was also significant. High front[i] had a higher F1 following mid front [e] and [e] had a lower F1 after low [a]. In addition, the two mid vowels [e] and [o] had lower F1 when there was no preceding vowel (i.e. in word-initial position). The interaction between vowel and left-hand vowel is shown in the effects plot in Figure 42 below.

Vowel*Vleft effect plot

i u e o a Ø = Vowele = Vowelo =

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1.0

-1.2 = Voweli = Vowelu = F1_norm -0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1.0

-1.2

i u e o a Ø Vleft

Figure 42: Effects plot for the interaction of Vowel and Vleft in Lozi

Other significant predictors in the model were occurring in a penultimate syllable, the interaction of vowel and occurring in a penultimate syllable as well as vowel and word-finality. Final [i] was found to have a significantly higher F1 whereas the reverse was the case for final [o]. The full list of fixed effects for this model areshown in Table 24.

⋆ ⋆ ⋆

The final model used for investigating the effect of the right-hand (i.e. following) vowel on the F1 of the vowel measured was:

(178) F1_norm ~ Vowel * Vright + Vowel * Penultimate + (1 | Word) + (1 | Speaker)

The right-hand vowel was found to be significant, with a following high vowel [i]or [u] giving lower F1 whereas a higher F1 was found before mid back [o], low [a] and when there was no following vowel (i.e. word-finally).

213 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Estimate Std. Error df t-value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) -6.769e-01 1.675e-02 6.711e+00 -40.420 2.88e-09 *** Voweli -4.497e-01 1.720e-02 7.738e+02 -26.147 < 2e-16 *** Vowelu -3.102e-01 1.652e-02 8.100e+02 -18.774 < 2e-16 *** Vowele 4.080e-01 2.352e-02 8.717e+02 17.349 < 2e-16 *** Vowelo 3.519e-01 1.791e-02 6.977e+02 19.646 < 2e-16 *** Vrighti -4.128e-02 1.777e-02 6.191e+02 -2.323 0.02048 * Vrightu -6.593e-02 2.050e-02 6.232e+02 -3.216 0.00137 ** Vrighte -2.234e-04 1.702e-02 5.626e+02 -0.013 0.98953 Vrighto 8.159e-02 2.030e-02 5.836e+02 4.019 6.61e-05 *** Vrighta 6.875e-02 1.571e-02 4.729e+02 4.376 1.49e-05 *** VrightØ 6.875e-02 1.571e-02 4.729e+02 4.376 1.49e-05 *** PenultimateTRUE 5.256e-02 1.855e-02 9.345e+02 2.833 0.00471 ** Voweli:Vrighti -5.629e-03 3.222e-02 7.962e+02 -0.175 0.86135 Vowelu:Vrighti 3.935e-02 3.179e-02 7.120e+02 1.238 0.21623 Vowele:Vrighti -3.838e-02 2.667e-02 8.842e+02 -1.439 0.15052 Vowelo:Vrighti 4.656e-03 3.151e-02 6.638e+02 0.148 0.882565 Voweli:Vrightu 3.167e-02 3.721e-02 8.255e+02 0.851 0.39505 Vowelu:Vrightu 5.254e-02 2.713e-02 9.403e+02 1.937 0.05306 . Vowele:Vrightu 3.278e-02 4.114e-02 8.220e+02 0.797 0.42576 Vowelo:Vrightu -1.170e-01 3.287e-02 8.235e+02 -3.559 0.000394 *** Voweli:Vrighte -5.449e-02 3.184e-02 9.534e+02 -1.712 0.08729 . Vowelu:Vrighte -2.508e-02 2.721e-02 8.368e+02 -0.922 0.35696 Vowele:Vrighte -4.513e-02 2.838e-02 9.956e+02 -1.590 0.11212 Vowelo:Vrighte 1.247e-01 2.718e-02 7.459e+02 4.587 5.26e-06 *** Voweli:Vrighto -5.084e-02 2.986e-02 8.012e+02 -1.703 0.08899 . Vowelu:Vrighto -1.857e-02 3.760e-02 8.706e+02 -0.494 0.62157 Vowele:Vrighto 3.514e-02 4.231e-02 6.941e+02 0.830 0.40657 Vowelo:Vrighto 3.427e-02 2.696e-02 8.589e+02 1.271 0.203938 Voweli:Vrighta -5.823e-02 2.634e-02 5.161e+02 -2.211 0.02747 * Vowelu:Vrighta -5.013e-03 2.644e-02 6.149e+02 -0.190 0.84966 Vowele:Vrighta 3.013e-02 2.623e-02 6.260e+02 1.148 0.25123 Vowelo:Vrighta 3.312e-02 2.871e-02 5.675e+02 1.153 0.249267 Voweli:VrightØ -5.823e-02 2.634e-02 5.161e+02 -2.211 0.02747 * Vowelu:VrightØ -5.013e-03 2.644e-02 6.149e+02 -0.190 0.84966 Vowele:VrightØ 3.013e-02 2.623e-02 6.260e+02 1.148 0.25123 Vowelo:VrightØ 3.013e-02 2.623e-02 6.260e+02 1.148 0.25123 Voweli:PenultimateTRUE -1.031e-02 3.242e-02 5.521e+02 -0.318 0.75049 Vowelu:PenultimateTRUE -8.759e-02 3.078e-02 7.553e+02 -2.846 0.00455 ** Vowele:PenultimateTRUE 8.934e-02 3.515e-02 7.888e+02 2.542 0.01123 * Vowelo:PenultimateTRUE 8.563e-03 3.311e-02 6.975e+02 0.259 0.796004

Table 25: Fixed effects for the model concerning the effect of right-hand vowelonF1 in Lozi

214 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

The interaction of vowel and right-hand vowel was also significant, with midback [o] having a lower F1 when followed by high back [u] but a higher F1 when followed by mid front [e]. High front [i] was also found to have a significant lower F1 when followed by low [a] or when there was no following vowel. The effects plot in Figure 43 below shows the interaction between vowel and right-hand vowel.

Vowel*Vright effect plot

i u e o a Ø = Vowele = Vowelo = 0.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1.0

-1.2 = Voweli = Vowelu =

F1_norm 0.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1.0

-1.2

i u e o a Ø Vright

Figure 43: Effects plot for the interaction of Vowel and Vright in Lozi

In addition, a vowel occurring in a penultimate syllable was significant, as was its interaction with the vowel. The full list of fixed effects for this model are shownin Table 25.

6.7.4.2 Further data exploration

When non-final, mid front [e] had its highest F1 after the rounded vowels [u],with non-final [e] after [o] having a similar F1. Final [e] also had a higher F1 after[u]than after the mid vowels [e] and [o], albeit not as high as when word-final following low [a].

In final position, mid back [o] had a lower F1 after non-high [e], [o] and [a]than high [i] and [u]. In non-final positions, no data was collected for [o] following [e].

215 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Non-final Final -1.0

-0.5 e

0.0

0.5

-1.0

-0.5 o

0.0 Normalised F1 (across middle third)

0.5

i u e o a i u e o a Left-hand vowel

Figure 44: F1 of [e] and [o] in non-final and final positions according to left-hand vowel in Lozi

In initial position, [e] had a much higher F1 before [o] than elsewhere, with its F1 before [a] being a similar level. In non-initial position, however, the values for F1 according to right-hand vowel grouped more closely together.

Initial Non-initial

-0.4

0.0

0.4 Normalised F1 (across middle third)

i u e o a i u e o a Right-hand vowel

Figure 45: F1 of [e] in initial and non-initial positions according to right-hand vowel in Lozi

Once again, [a] showed little consistent variation in F1 according to surrounding vowels with the exception of having a lower F1 before [u] than elsewhere.

216 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

6.8 Initial discussion

In this section, I provide a recapitulation of the results of the individual languages presented in §§6.7.2, 6.7.3 and §6.7.4 and discuss how these relate to the prior expectations based on the behaviour of height harmony in each language. For a more general summary, see §6.7.1, especially Table 16.

6.8.1 Bemba

The results from Bemba show little replication of the pattern seen in theharmony system in vowel-to-vowel coarticulation. However, there are still areas in which there are comparable effects. In the first model, high back [u] was found to have a significantly higher F1where a difference in F1 might be expected, i.e. following only152 [o]. This higher F1—which is of course indicative of a lower vowel height—does mirror what is seen in the system of back height harmony. However, this same effect was not detected in the second model. From this, it is therefore unclear whether [u] does in fact undergo some degree of gradient lowering following [o]. In addition to [u], the first model also found that mid back [o] had a significantly lower F1 in positions where a difference in F1 might be expected, i.e. after [i], [u], [e] and [a]. This too mirrors what is found in back height harmony. However, as with[u] after [o], the second model also failed to detect any statistically significant differences for [o] following individual vowels. When looking at particular preceding vowels, vowels were generally found to have a significantly higher F1 after both mid back [o] and low [a]. A higher F1fol- lowing [o] somewhat reflects the lowering of high vowels to mid vowels after [o]; however, interactions with [o] before [i] and [u] were not significant in the left-hand vowel model for Bemba. A higher F1—i.e. lower vowel height—following [a] is the opposite of what is seen in harmony, in which high but not mid vowels are considered harmonic after [a]. However, [u] in particular did have a significantly lower rather than higher F1 following [a]. Though we might expect no significant difference here, this nevertheless does not conflict with what is found in the harmony system. One of the more notable absences was the lack of any statistically significant difference in [i] following [e]. However, in the raw data, there was a non-significant

152 Note that though the raw data actually show [u] following [o] as having a relatively low F1 this is due to the influence of word-final position in which vowels generally had a lower F1 inBemba.

217 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages trend for word-final [i] to have a higher F1 after [e] than following other vowels,as expected based on harmony. On the contrary, non-final [i] had a lower F1 after [e] than after other vowels. The second model also found no significant effect on [o] of preceding [e]inpar- ticular, although, in the raw data, non-final [o] had a much lower F1 after [e]than after other vowels—and [u] is preferred to [o] following [e] in harmony. Anaddi- tional non-significant trend was that, in non-final position, [u] had its lowest F1after [e] and [a], though the values for F1 according to preceding vowel were more tightly grouped together in this case. As well as certain effects of left-hand vowel, there were also significant effects of right-hand vowel in Bemba. Of course, as height harmony is progressive rather than regressive, these effects do not match up with or run counter to what mightbe expected simply on the grounds of harmony. Perhaps the most noteworthy of these effects, however, is the significantly lower F1 of [i] before [e].

6.8.2 Nyanja

Like Bemba, Nyanja also did not show a strong reflection of harmony in coarticulation but there were also certain points of interest in this respect. In the first model, none of the terms of interest here were significant. That is,there was no difference in the F1 of non-low vowels in environments where this mightbe expected from the behaviour of harmony. In the second model, however, as we would expect on the basis of harmony, high front [i] had a significantly higher F1—and so lower vowel height–following mid back [e] and [e] showed a significantly lower F1—or higher vowel height—after [a]. How- ever, in opposition to harmony, [e] had a significantly higher rather than lower F1 following [i]. Additionally, [i] showed a lower F1 after [i] itself, which, although this does not contradict what is seen in harmony, is not necessarily expected either. Two particular non-significant trends in the data are also of interest. Namely that [o] had a slightly lower F1 after [e] and [a] than after other vowels, especially [o], similar to what is found in harmony. In addition, word-final [u] had a higher F1 following [e] than other vowels, an effect which is in the opposite direction to harmony. Notably, there was no significant effect or potential trend in the data with respect to the F1 of high back [u] after mid back [o].

218 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

The model concerning the effect on the F1 of the vowel measured by the right- hand vowel required a less precise coding, namely only the height of the preceding vowel rather than the particular right-hand vowel (unlike for the effect of left-hand vowels). On the whole then, it appears that the effect of the right-hand vowel was less than that of the left-hand vowel in Nyanja. This can also be seen in the generally smaller magnitudes of the estimates in the model. Finally, Nyanja is known to exhibit a phenomenon known as penultimate lengthening in which the penultimate vowel of a word is lengthened when that word occurs in final position in a prosodic phrase (see e.g. Downing & Mtenje 2017 and references therein). In the data elicited here, all penultimate vowels were therefore found in an environment where they would be subject to penultimate lengthening. This then raises the question of how length—and therefore duration—might relate to any potential coarticulatory effects on F1 in such vowels. For example, vowels of longer duration could be subject to smaller coarticulatory influence from neighbouring vowels simply by virtue of their duration. Alternatively, if a longer duration is correlated with a higher or lower F1, this may affect the likelihood of any appreciable coarticulatory effects being found. In the model selection process, the duration of themeas- ured vowel was considered as a potential independent variable. However, this was not found to improve any of the statistical models for Nyanja.

6.8.3 Lozi

Lozi, which has only back height harmony and so fewer contexts in which F1 may mirror harmony, showed a limited number of differences in F1 akin to its harmony system. When looking at environments in which a difference in F1 might be expected in Lozi it was found that [o] had a significantly lower F1, i.e. higher vowel height. This is reflective of the pattern seen in harmony for[o]. When looking at particular vowel and left-hand vowel pairs, there were two particular instances which reflected the coarticulation that might be expected based on front height harmony, which Lozi of course lacks. These were that high front [i] had a significantly higher F1 following mid front [e] and that [e] had a significantly lower F1 after low [a]. This same pattern was not significant for mid back [o] inspiteofthe fact that Lozi lacks front height harmony but possesses back height harmony. As in

219 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Nyanja, there was no significant effect or visible trend in the data for Lozi regarding the F1 of [u] following [o].

A further trend of interest was seen in the data that was not statistically significant. Namely, in word-final position, [o] had a lower F1 after non-high [e], [o] and[a] in particular. This mirrors harmony after [e] and [a] but not after [o].

Lastly, in general, vowels had a significantly lower F1 before the high vowels [i] and [u] and a significantly higher F1 before mid back [o] and low [a], with only[o] in particular having a significantly higher F1 before mid back [e]. These results are perhaps to be expected given the heights of these vowels. However, the most noteworthy significantly effect of right-hand in Lozi is found in the non-harmonic pair [o.u]; that is, [o] was found to have a lower F1—i.e. higher vowel height—before [u].

6.9 Further discussion

6.9.1 Front versus back height harmony

All three languages studied in this experiment exhibit some form of front–back asymmetry in their systems of height harmony. For canonical Bemba and Nyanja, this is the differing alternations of front and back target vowels whereas, in Lozi, this asymmetry takes the shape of no alternations in front vowels but the same back height harmony pattern as in Bemba and Nyanja. On a very small scale, this is somewhat reflective of the much broader typological generalisation about Bantu languages that none are known to possess only front height harmony but there are a certain numbers of languages that, like Lozi, show back height harmony but lack front height harmony.

Here, I discuss two points suggested by these observations. First, the greater prevalence of back height harmony across the typology of Bantu could indicate that the ultimate causes of back height harmony are in some way more well grounded than front height harmony. Second, the fact that front height harmony is only found alongside back height harmony but the reverse is not true leads to the implicational hierarchy that front height harmony implies back height harmony.

As discussed in §6.3, one hypothesis regarding the origin of vowel harmony is that it arises from the stabilisation of the phonetic effects of vowel-to-vowel coar-

220 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages ticulation (e.g. Ohala 1994; Beddor et al. 2002).153 In the case of height harmony, the most obvious relevant phonetic measure is F1. We should therefore expect to see some degree of effect on F1 that in some way mirrors what is seen in height harmony. Thus, if disturbances in F1 are taken to be the phonetic grounding ofheight harmony and the typology of Bantu might suggest that back height harmony is more well grounded than front height harmony then we would expect to more readily be able to find coarticulatory effects—or even more robust effects—in vowel pairs considered non-harmonic in back height harmony than in those vowel pairs considered non-harmonic in front height harmony. However, the present experiment found only somewhat weak evidence of effect on the F1 following the pattern seen in back height harmony. In both Bemba andLozi, [o] had a significantly lower F1 where such a difference might be expected basedon harmony. However, combinations of [o] and particular individual preceding vowels revealed no significant effects. No general effect of this kind on the F1of[o]was found in Nyanja. The only evidence of an effect on [u] came from Bemba, inwhich [u] showed a significantly higher F1 where expected based on harmony but, again, the results concerning combinations of individual vowels did not find this effect and nor was any similar significant effect or trend in the data found in Nyanja orLozi. However, a related observation in Lozi, which may explain why no effect on [u] by preceding [o] was found, is that the vowel [o] had a significantly lower F1 when the right-hand vowel was [u]. Thus, in Lozi, not only is there no left-to-right effect that mirrors harmony in the pair [o.u] but there is an opposite effect from right-to- left. Though this does not mirror harmony, it is reminiscent of apparent variation in a small number of those words in Lozi that do contain the vowel pair [o.u]. As already noted in §5.4, the words mongu ‘promontory’ and miongu ‘pumpkins’ have the attested alternative forms mungu and miungu respectively with mid [o] being replaced with high [u] before following [u]. Evidence was found for effects on F1 similar to what is seen in front height harmony, at least when considering individual combinations of vowels. That is, although in none of the three languages were significant effects found for [i] or [e] in environments where a difference may be anticipated at large, certain specific vowel pairs did show effects. Based on the harmony systems of each individual language, theex- pected difference in F1 for [i] when following [e] was only met in one instance.A

153 Indeed, Beddor et al. (2002: 624) explicitly suggest this as a possibility for Shona and Bantu more generally.

221 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages higher F1 was found in Nyanja which reflects that language’s harmony system; this was not found in Bemba. In Lozi, however, a higher F1 was also observed. Though this runs counter to Lozi’s harmony system, which lacks front height harmony, this does of course align with front height harmony in Nyanja and Bemba. In addition, in Bemba, there was a comparable non-significant trend for word-final [i] after [e]. Thus, though this might be considered a specific instance of rule scattering in Nyanja, the same cannot be said for Lozi as the phonological counterpart of this phonetic effect is not present. No significant difference in the F1 of [e] after [i] was found in either BembaorLozi. However, in Nyanja, though an effect mirroring harmony was found for [i] after [e],a difference in F1 running counter to what might be expected on the basis ofharmony was seen. That is, [e] was found to have a significantly higher F1 following [i]. Inthis case, it is possible that, [e] showed a higher F1 in order to provide a greater contrast between the two neighbouring front vowels of differing heights. That said, it isnot clear why this same reasoning should not also apply in other cases.154 There was no evidence that [i] showed a higher F1 following [o] nor that[e]had a lower F1 after [u]. Lastly, in both Nyanja and Lozi, [e] was found to have a lower F1 following [a], as is in-line with front height harmony in Nyanja and Bemba, though not of course in Lozi. In contrast, in Bemba, no such effect on [e] was found but [i] had a significantly higher F1 after [a], an effect in the opposite direction to front height harmony. From these results, it appears that there is relatively little robust evidence of effects on F1 that generally mirror back height harmony. It also especially noteworthy that there is also only slight evidence for any significant effect on the F1 of [u] after [o], a crucial pair in back height harmony. In comparison, there was stronger evidence for effects on the corresponding pair in front height harmony as [i] had ahigherF1 after [e] in both Nyanja and Lozi, despite the latter lacking front height harmony. There is therefore no evidence here that back height harmony is more well grounded with respect to the potential role of vowel-to-vowel coarticulatory effects on F1. On the contrary, these results in fact suggest that the avoidance of [e.i] in favour of [e.e] seen in front height harmony may be more well grounded than the preference for [o.o] instead of [o.u] in back height harmony, though [i] showed no comparable effect when following [o] rather than [e].

154 Though a similar effect to this was found in Bemba when considering the right- ratherthan left-hand vowel, with [i] having a significantly lower F1 before [e].

222 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

This broad conclusion contradicts the idea noted above of an implicational hierarchy based on the typology of Bantu in which the presence of front height harmony implies the presence of back height harmony. However, this does, at least in part, accord with the results of an artificial-language-learning experiment conducted by Finley & Badecker (2012). In their experiment, native English speakers naive to vowel harmony were first taught either progressive front height harmony or symmetric progressive back height harmony (or otherwise placed in a control group). This was followed up by a binary forced-choice test in which they were presented with stimuli with harmonic and disharmonic forms for both front and back harmony. In the stimuli used, the vowels used were [i u e o]. The results showed that participants had general preference for front height harmony over back height harmony. Those trained on front height harmony failed to generalise the pattern to back height harmony in the forced-choice task; however, participants initially taught back height harmony did generalise this to front height harmony. Just as the results of the present production experiment may hint that the avoidance of [e.i] is more well grounded in terms of coarticulation than the avoidance of [o.u], the results of Finley & Badecker’s (2012) artificial-language-learning experiment suggest an implicational hierarchy in which back height harmony implies the presence of front height harmony. What is remarkable about this is that on the face of it, this would appear to run counter to the typological generalisation about the Bantu languages noted above.155 However, the results of this same experiment by Finley & Badecker (2012) additionally suggested that participants learnt to apply back height harmony only when vowels agreed in backness (cf. discussion of parasitic harmony in §3.3).156 This was not the case for front height harmony. As Finley & Badecker (2012: 304) note, this is ‘analogous to the front–back asymmetry found in many Bantu languages’. What’s more, in a second experiment, Finley & Badecker (2012) found further evidence suggestive that learners may favour height harmony systems in which target and trigger have the same backness. Participants were divided into two groups. The first group were trained on stems containing only front vowels [i e ɪ ɛ] andtested

155 Though compare Bantu, where front height harmony always co-occurs alongside back height harmony but the reverse is not found, with, for example, height harmony in Buchan Scots in which only front vowels are seen to alternate in suffixes (see §2.3.3). 156 And therefore resulted in identical trigger and target vowels, i.e. [u.u] or [o.o].

223 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages on stems containing back vowels. The second group were trained on stems with both front and back tense vowels [i e u o] and tested on stems containing front lax vowels [ɪ ɛ]. For both groups, alternating suffixes contained only front tense vowels [ie]. The first group did not generalised to alternations of a tense front vowel following novel back vowels whereas the second group did generalise to alternations of a tense front vowel following novel tense front vowels. However, this does not consider what learners did with suffixes containing back vowels in such circumstances.

6.9.2 Notes on [e.u] and [e.o]

The vowel pair [e.o] is of particular interest with respect to height harmony asthis is considered non-harmonic in all three languages despite the fact that the two constituent vowels [e] and [o] actually have the same height. That is, in contexts where height-harmonic alternations obtain, rather than mid [o] being found following mid [e], high [u] is found instead. In Bemba and Nyanja there were non-significant trends for [o] to have a lower F1 following [e]. One potential reason for this—which may be linked to the diachronic development of the canonical Bantu height harmony pattern—could be that in order to enhance the rounding of [o] following non-rounded [e] the height of the vowel is raised as high rounded vowels are reported to be more rounded than mid rounded vowels (see e.g. Terbeek 1977 in Kaun 2004: 95). On the other hand, the corresponding harmonic pair [e.u] showed no significant effects and little convincing evidence of trends in the data, with [u] havingahigher F1 after [e], contrary to harmony, but only word-finally and Bemba showing aneven weaker tendency for non-final [u] to have lower F1 after [e]. Thus, it seems thatin these three languages harmonic [e.u] is less susceptible to a difference in F1 than non-harmonic [e.o] despite the mismatch in height in non-harmonic [e.u]. This lack of effect could be to ensure that [u] remain distinct from [o] following [e].

6.9.3 Vowel-pair frequencies and differences in F1

Having discussed the potential implications of the results of this production study in relation to the front–back asymmetry characteristic of the Bantu languages in §6.9.1, I now consider these same results in the light of the study presented in chapter 4 on vowel-pair frequencies in the nouns of a sample of Bantu languages.

224 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Firstly, in Table 26, I provide a summary of the results from the present production experiment in comparison with the expectations based on the overall results of the vowel-pair frequency study. The expectations here are construed in the following way. If a pair composed of vowels disagreeing in height is under-represented in the frequency study, the expectation is that there will be a corresponding detectable difference in the F1 of the second vowel in the production study, with F1 being higher for high vowels after mid vowels and lower for mid vowels after high vowels—i.e. broadly mirroring what is seen in height harmony. If a vowel pair is over-represented or occurs at approximately expected levels then a difference in F1 would not be expected to be found in the production study. Table 26 uses the same set of symbols as Table 16 in §6.7.1. A green tick () and red cross () marks affirmative and negative responses respectively, a green upward- facing arrow (↑) indicates a higher representation or F1, a red downward-facing arrow (↓) a lower representation or F1 and an equals sign (=) neither over- or under- represent and no difference in F1. A question mark (?) denotes uncertainty andan asterisk (*) following a cross signifies that, although an expectation was not met, this is not necessarily problematic. As already discussed, there was little evidence for a higher F1 in [u] following [o] despite this being a non-harmonic pair in all languages in the production study. A higher F1 would also have been expected based on the frequency study in which back rounded [o.u] was found to be the most under-represented vowel across all six languages in the sample. However, in the front unrounded counterpart to this, [e.i], [i] was found to have a higher F1 after [e] in both Nyanja and Lozi. This iswhat is expected from the frequency study as this pair was under-represented across the sample. In particular, it was under-represented in nouns in Chewa;157 however, in Lozi, [e.i] was in fact found at expected levels in nouns. As for other vowel pairs involved in front and back height harmony, for only one pair was a difference in F1 found that accorded with the expectations of the frequency study. The vowel pair [a.e] was under-represented across the sample in the frequency study and thus a lower F1 of [e] after [a] would be expected. This was indeed what was found in Nyanja and Lozi, though not in Bemba. As for [o] after [a], no difference

157 Chewa and Nyanja being two glossonyms for the same languoid (after Cysouw & Good 2013).

225 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages td in study 26: Table hpe 4 chapter umr fterslsfo h ttsia oescmae oteepcain ae nteoealrslso h oe-arfrequency vowel-pair the of results overall the on based expectations the to compared models statistical the from results the of Summary oe pair Vowel [V [u.u] [u.o] [o.u] [o.o] [a.u] [e.u] [a.o] [o.e] [e.o] [a.e] [e.e] [o.i] [i.e] [a.i] [e.i] [i.i] 1 .V 2 ] representation Overall = ↓ = = = = = ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ (?) (?) xetddifference Expected nF f[V of F1 in = ↑ ======↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ (?) (?) 2 ] eb ynaLozi Nyanja Bemba bevddifference Observed ↑ ======↓ (?) nF f[V of F1 in ======↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ 2 ] ======↓ ↑ eb ynaLozi Nyanja Bemba frequency and Production (?) (*) (?) (?) eut match? results (?) (*) (?)

226 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages was expected on the basis of the frequency study and nor was any effect found in the production study for this specific pair.

In the overall results of the frequency study, the pair [o.i] was slightly under- represented; however, no effect on the F1 of [i] following [o] was found. In opposition to the harmony systems of each language, in both the frequency- study sample and the languages of the production experiment, the vowel pair [e.u] was consistently under-represented in nouns. From this, an increase in the F1 of [u] following [e] might be expected. This was not detected. Together, the production study found differences in F1 in the same direction as expected by vowel-pair frequency study for [e.i], [a.e] and, more weakly, [o.u]. Thus, both suggest that the avoidance of [e.i] is well motivated and this would appear to be further corroborated by Finley & Badecker (2012). However, though the frequency study—as well as the typology of height harmony in Bantu—suggest that the avoidance of [o.u] is more well motivated, this is not supported by the production evidence. Nevertheless, if, as is commonly done, height harmony is interpreted as a process of lowering and so back height harmony only actively effects a difference in one environment, this could account for why back height harmony is typically more restrained than front height harmony.

6.9.4 Height harmony and the coarticulation of F1

As already mentioned in §6.4, Beddor & Yavuz (1995) found that, in Turkish, though backness harmony is progressive, the effects of vowel-to-vowel coarticulation on the corresponding acoustic correlate, F2, were most marked in the opposite direction, i.e. regressively. In the cases of Bemba, Nyanja and Lozi height harmony is also progressive and, though the effects of vowel-to-vowel coarticulation on F1 were by nomeans largely restricted to acting regressively, such effects were found, as were effects that ran counter to harmony in a limited number of instances. This then reiterates the case that, if vowel-to-vowel coarticulation is the origin of height harmony, it is not necessarily the case that a similar effect may be seen in the phonetics of a given language and that even languages with the same or similar phonological phenomena may show differing phonetic patterns. However, at least in the case of canonical Bantu height harmony, the assumption that harmony originated in the vowel-to-vowel coarticulation of F1 may be challenged and the present results may have some bearing on this.

227 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

It has previously been reported (see e.g. Farnetani 1990; Linebaugh 2007) that the effects of vowel-to-vowel coarticulation are strongest with respect to F2 (i.e. along the front–back dimension).158 In comparison, F1 is seemingly generally more stable than F2. Indeed, Nevins (2004: 234) comments on the potential problems in work such as Kaun (1995) and Hayes (2004b) that attributes the development of backness harmony to the relative perceptual instability of F2 when this same reasoning is applied to the diachronic development of height harmony. That is, if vowel harmony does indeed arise due to the stabilisation of gradient effects such as coarticulation and F1 isa rather stable or robust percept, how does vowel-to-vowel coarticulation effect any sort of difference in a dramatic enough fashion for a given vowel to be perceived as belonging to a different category with respect to its height? A similar criticism could also be applied to the suggestion made by Walker (2011) that vowel harmony is a way of increasing the perceptibility of weak features by propagating them more widely throughout a word (or other domain). That is, if F1 is already a relatively strong acoustic feature, why should it need to be propagated throughout a word?

6.9.5 A note on the F1 of the low vowel

Although the statistical models were not applied to the low vowel [a] since this experiment investigated coarticulatory effects on F1 in languages where height harmony does not affect [a], it is nevertheless worth noting that the only trend observed in the data regarding [a] was a lower F1 before high back [u] and seemingly in no other environments. Though there are non-canonical seven-vowel Bantu languages—such as Koyo (see §2.6.18)—in which the low vowel does undergo raising (as well as concomitant fronting or rounding), this tendency seen in five-vowel Bemba, Nyanja and Lozi does not correspond to this behaviour. If the origins and motivations of low-vowel raising are to be considered more thoroughly, further more targeted research would be needed; however, the present findings may be suggestive as to why low-vowel raising does not occur among five-vowel Bantu languages.

158 In fact, partly on this basis, Linebaugh (2007: 229) concludes that ‘[p]honological models of vowel harmony that do not distinguish the two types of harmony are misleading’ when comparing backness and height harmonies.

228 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

6.10 Summary

In this chapter, I presented a production experiment which investigated the effects on the F1 of vowels by neighbouring vowels. Of particular interest were those pairs of vowels that are considered non-harmonic in the vowel height harmony systems of the three languages under study, Bemba, Nyanja and Lozi, whose harmony systems all display some sort of front–back asymmetry. Asymmetries in the behaviour of front and back vowels in harmony is common typologically speaking in the Bantu languages (Hyman 1999). For example, there are languages that possess both front and back height harmony—e.g. Bemba and Nyanja— and languages that show only back height harmony—e.g. Lozi—though none known to lack back height harmony but possess front height harmony. A conclusion one may draw from this is that back height harmony is somehow more well grounded than front height harmony. Given that vowel harmony is often supposed to arise by the stabilisation of the phonetic effects of vowel-to-vowel coarticulation (e.g. Ohala 1994), this further suggests that, in the case of height harmony, we might expect to see greater effects on the F1 of back than front vowels in non-harmonic contexts. The present experiment found relatively little evidence that, at a very broad level, gradient changes in F1 mirrored the categorical alternations of vowels in height harmony. When considering the vowel pairs [e.i] and [o.u]—crucial items in front and back height harmony respectively—weaker evidence was found for a change in the F1 of [u] following [o] than in the F1 of [i] following [e]. This then suggests that the avoidance of [o.u] is not more well grounded than for [e.i] at least as far as its putative phonetic coarticulatory grounding is concerned and that the opposite may in fact be the case. The comparison the results of this production experiment with those of thevowel- pair frequency study in chapter 4 shows that the front unrounded vowel pair [e.i] is both under-represented across that sample and shows effects on F1 due to coarticulatory; however, there is less comparability between the two studies regarding back rounded [o.u]. In addition to this, there was also disagreement regarding [e.u] as no coarticulatory effects on F1 were found for this pair which, despite being considered harmonic in back height harmony, was found to be under-represented in nouns in the frequency study. The relative lack of coarticulatory effects on F1 generally mirroring the patterns seen in height harmony may furthermore be indicative of the following points. Firstly,

229 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages perhaps the role of the vowel-to-vowel coarticulation in the origin of systems of vowel harmony is not necessarily applicable in the case of height harmony as F1 is a seemingly more stable than, for example, F2, the coarticulation of which may become sta- bilised as backness harmony. Secondly, the phonetics of a given language need not necessarily mirror a particular phonology process in that language in every way and, more generally, it is not the case that a pattern seen in one area of a language will be replicated in some form of another in wholesale fashion, though—as we have seen both here and in chapter 4—particular parts of that larger pattern may show similarity elsewhere.

230 cHapteR 7

General discussion

Quantum mechanics is normal. It is the world it describes that is weird.

Johnjoe McFadden & Jim Al-Khalili Life on the Edge

7.1 Introduction

Throughout the years, work dealing with the topic of markedness in phonology has made various claims regarding what is expected to be observed on both language- general and language-specific levels for putatively marked structures. In certain instances, separate strands of evidence appear to fit together relatively neatly. However, this is not necessarily the case when considering particular aspects of vowel harmony. In previous chapters, I have provided a survey of height harmony in the Bantu languages and looked in detail at vowel-pair frequencies and vowel-to-vowel coarticulation in production; in this chapter, I consider the implications of these findings for the role of markedness constraints in driving height harmony and the grounding of such constraints. In §7.2, I briefly summarise the traditional claims relating to markedness alluded to above. This is followed in §7.3 by a discussion of nasal–plosive clusters and nasal place assimilation, for which typological and articulatory as well acoustic and perceptual evidence all seem to indicate that heterorganic nasal–plosive clusters are more marked than homorganic nasal–plosive clusters, and hence that nasal place assimilation is a well-grounded phonological process. In §7.4, I then consider the relationship

231 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages of the studies presented in this thesis with the preceding collection of claims associated with the concept of markedness as well as the implications this work has for the potential sources of grounding of progressive height harmony in Bantu. I also discuss the role that a wider consideration of the diachrony and synchrony of a given language may play in the analysis of individual phonological systems.

7.2 Correlates of markedness

The original technical linguistic sense of the word “markedness” comes from workby Trubetzkoy (1931, 1939) in reference to the privative use of features in which particular distinctions between segments are attributed to the presence versus absence of a distinguishing feature. For example, a phoneme such as /d/ would be marked with the feature [voice] whereas its voiceless counterpart /t/ would not. Since then, as re- viewed by Haspelmath (2006), for instance, the term has gone on to be used in a great many ways, not only with respect to phonology but also other fields of linguistics such as morphology and syntax. Discussion in the literature exploring what it means to be phonologically marked and what role markedness plays in both the historical development of sound systems and in the synchronic phonological grammars of human languages is both vast and long-running (e.g. Trubetzkoy 1931, 1939; Jakobson 1941, 1963; Hockett 1955; Jakob- son & Halle 1956; Greenberg 1966, 1978; Chomsky & Halle 1968; Stampe 1973; Ven- nemann 1988; Lindblom 1990; Prince & Smolensky 1993; Archangeli & Pulleyblank 1994; McCarthy & Prince 1994; Hurch & Rhodes 1996; Myers 1997; Boersma 1998; de Lacy 2002, 2006; Rice 2003, 2007; Hayes & Steriade 2004; Moreton 2008; Hume 2011; Watts 2018). However, the following constitute perhaps the commonest properties that are traditionally expected to be observed following the claim that a given segment or structure is marked. Typological evidence will show the following implicature: the presence in a language of the marked item M entails the presence of its unmarked counterpart U. Within individual languages, M is also expected to be the subject of phonotactic constraints which may trigger alternations actively preventing its occurrence. Similarly, M is expected to be under-represented across the lexicon. In addition, M will likely have some kind of phonetic cost or difficulty associated with it. Finally, M is also expected to be acquired at a relatively late stage.

232 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

7.3 Nasal–plosive clusters and nasal place assimilation

Bilinarra—a Pama–Nyungan language spoken in Australia’s Northern Territory—has a consonant phoneme inventory that includes a series of nasal consonants contrasting five places of articulation, specifically bilabial /m/, alveolar /n/, retroflex /ɳ/, palatal /ɲ/ and velar /ŋ/, and likewise possesses the contrastive plosives /b d ɖ ɟ ɡ/ at each of these same places of articulation (Meakins & Nordlinger 2014: 43).159 All five possible homorganic nasal–plosive clusters are attested in the language, such as those given in (179) below.160

(179) a. ɡumbu ‘urine’ d. buɲɟa ‘dung beetle’ b. ŋandu ‘who’ e. ɟaŋɡaɳi ‘big’ c. maɳɖa ‘gum’

In addition to this, it is also possible to find various heterorganic nasal–plosive clusters in the language. Examples of these can be seen in (180—182).

(180) a. ɲunbala ‘you two’ c. ɟaɲbuɾa ‘rib’ b. maɳba ‘catfish’ d. wiɳaŋbuɾu ‘kangaroo’

(181) a. ɡuɭbamɟiɾi ‘while heaping up’ c. lamaɳɟiɾi ‘to the river’ b. danɟaɾi ‘raise’ d. naŋɟaɾna ‘lerp’

(182) a. mumɡula ‘at night’ c. baɳɡal ‘bat’ b. binɡa ‘river’ d. nuɲɡuwaɾa ‘hungry’

However, such permissiveness with respect to nasal–plosive clusters is seemingly somewhat uncommon cross-linguistically, especially clusters such as [nb] and [nɡ] as in (180a) and (182b) respectively. In Spanish, for example, one finds homorganic nasal–plosive sequences such as those in (183) but no comparable heterorganic clusters (Baković 2000b: 2).

(183) a. kampo ‘field’ c. maŋko ‘one-handed’ b. man̪to̪ ‘shroud’

159 Like most languages of Australia (Dixon 2002: 555), plosives in Bilinarra lack laryngeal contrasts. 160 All Bilinarra examples are adapted from Meakins & Nordlinger (2014) with IPA according to their description.

233 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

This pattern seen in Spanish is ascribable to a rule of nasal place assimilation. Bick- more (2007: 53–4) notes that this is also found in the Bantu language Lungu (M.14; Zambia). This is illustrated in (184) below using the first person marker /n-/ which exhibits alternations in place according to the following consonant. That is, the nasal consonant is realised as bilabial [m] before [p b], as alveolar [n] before [t d] and as velar [ŋ] before [k ɡ].

(184) a. ú-kúù-n-pé-él-à → úkúùmpéélà ‘to give to me’ b. ú-kúú-n-bóómv-j-á → úkúúmbóóɱvjá ‘to make me wet’ c. ú-kúú-n-tíínt-à → úkúúntííntà ‘to pull me’ d. ú-kúù-n-déét-à → úkúùndéétà ‘to bring me’ e. ú-kúú-n-kóm-él-à → úkúúŋkómélà ‘to cut for me’ f. ú-kúù-n-ɡúm-à → úkúùŋɡúmà ‘to beat me’

This is a common pattern in Bantu languages, e.g. inBemba(Kula 2002: 67–8), Chewa (Downing & Mtenje 2017: 57–8), Kinyarwanda (Kimenyi 1979: 34–5) and Yao (Ngunga 2000: 60) (see also Choti 2015). What’s more, similar restrictions on nasal–plosive clusters and processes of nasal place assimilation of some variety or other are also widespread outside Bantu, e.g. in English (Padgett 1995b), Hindi (Ohala 1983), Malay- alam (Mohanan 1993), Oromo (Negash 2015), Kpelle (Welmers 1973), Diola-Fogny (Sa- pir 1965), Misantla Totonac (McKay 1999), Bolivian Quechua (Gouskova & Gallagher 2020) and Japanese (Labrune 2012).161 It is also relevant to note that, although there do exist languages that, like Bil- inarra, allow various heterorganic nasal–plosive clusters in addition to homorganic nasal–plosive clusters and languages, such as Spanish, that permit homorganic nasal– plosive clusters but disallow—or in some way constrain—examples of heterorganic nasal–plosive clusters, no known natural language allows heterorganic nasal–plosive clusters but prohibits homorganic ones. From this we can therefore infer the implicature that the presence of heterorganic nasal–plosive clusters in a language entails the presence of homorganic nasal–plosive clusters. This being the case, the question naturally arises of why patterns of nasalplace assimilation should be so common.

161 Though I limit myself here for the sake of simplicity of exposition to nasal–plosive clusters, in many languages, the same state of affairs is found with nasal—obstruent sequences more generally. Thus, in addition to the examples in (183), in Spanish, we see [maɲtʃo] ‘I stain’, [aɱfora] ‘amphora’ and [axeŋxo] ‘wormwood’, for instance (Padgett 1994: 493). This is also demonstrated by the change /mv/ to [ɱv] in the Lungu example in (184b).

234 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Firstly, it has been observed that pressures regarding ease of articulation are very likely a factor in this cross-linguistic tendency (see e.g. Kohler 1991; Winters 2003). Simply put, it is less difficult in articulatory terms to reduce a sequence of differing gestures, e.g. alveolar–velar, to a simple gesture, e.g. velar, that encompasses both consonants. However, in addition to the consideration of reducing articulatory difficulty, previous work has also found that acoustic and perceptual factors play an important role in the development and grounding of nasal place assimilation. Firstly, changes which result in the neutralisation of a contrast are reportedly more favourable when the contrast neutralised by the change is less perceptible in some way (Kohler 1990; Hura et al. 1992; Lindblom et al. 1995; Huang 2001; Steriade 2003; Kawahara 2006). Of particular relevance to this is the vast body of work in support of the claim that contrasts in place are relatively weak perceptually for nasal consonants (Malécot 1956; House 1957; Fujimura 1962; Winitz et al. 1972; Kurowski & Blumstein 1984, 1993; Repp 1986; Ohala 1990; Kohler 1991; Kawasaki-Fukumori 1992; Beddor & Evans-Romaine 1995; Jun 1995, 1996, 2004, 2011; Chang et al. 2001; Steriade 2001; Narayan 2008; Kawahara & Garvey 2014; Rysling 2017; Turnbull et al. 2018).162 This is especially true when comparing the cues for nasals and plosives and even more so for nasals in the coda and plosives appearing in the onset or having an active release. By comparison, the acoustic cues for manner are more perceptually robust for nasal consonants (Wright 2004: 46). In the case of nasal place assimilation then, the different lines of evidence re- viewed above—namely, typology, articulation, acoustics and perception—all lead to the conclusion that heterorganic nasal–plosive clusters are more marked than homorganic nasal–plosive clusters and that the dispreference for heterorganic clusters in favour of homorganic ones is well grounded.

7.4 Bantu height harmony

7.4.1 Reviewing the present evidence

As demonstrated in §7.3 above, there are cases of restrictions on the distributions of segments and related phonological processes for which the sources of evidence for

162 Place contrasts are typically cued by vowel formant transitions and the release burst for plosives and, for nasals, by vowel formant transitions and nasal murmur (or resonance), though formant transitions are reported to be more reliable cues than nasal murmur (see e.g. Jun 2004: 59–66).

235 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages markedness can be seen to accord. However, the results of the core studies presented in this thesis suggest that this is not the case for progressive vowel height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages. As has previously been noted in the literature (e.g. by Hyman 1999: 245), though there are Bantu languages that exhibit back height harmony but not front harmony (see e.g. Mbukushu, Kikamba and Lozi in §§2.6.5, 2.6.6 4.2 respectively), there are no cases of a language in the family having front height harmony but not back height harmony. In chapter 4, I show that this asymmetry between front and back height harmony observed in the typological data is reflected in the lexical statistics of nouns in a sample of five-vowel Bantu languages where alternations are only seen within a particular domain in verbs. In particular, though both are under-represented in nouns across the sample, the back rounded pair [o.u] is consistently more under- represented than front unrounded [e.i]. However, the data from this same study show that, within individual languages, there is only partial agreement between the patterns that emerge from alternations in verbs and vowel-pair frequencies in nouns. Likewise, the production experiment presented in chapter 6 failed to observe general gradient coarticulatory effects on F1 that align with the categorical alternation patterns exhibited by verbal extensions. However, the results of the vowel-pair frequency and production studies agree only partially. In particular, when considering individual pairs, evidence was not found to support the claim inferred from the preceding vowel-pair frequency study that the avoidance of [o.u] is more well motivated than the avoidance of [e.i] and, rather, there was some evidence in favour of the contrary.

7.4.2 Implications for grounding

It is possible that the patterns seen in the lexical statistics are in part due to historical residue. As discussed by, for example, Bermúdez-Otero & Trousdale (2012), over the course of the life cycle, phonological processes become unmoored from their origins and may then take on a life of their own, eventually undergoing morphologisation and lexicalisation (as schematised in Figure 27 in §6.4). This may result in patterns not entirely reflective of the original pressures that gave rise to them and alsoeven co-exist with structures which would once have been phonotactically illegal.

236 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

An illustrative example of this is the development of u-umlaut from Proto-Norse to Modern Icelandic and Faroese. Proto-Norse exhibited a phonological process of regressive rounding assimilation wherein /i e a/ became [y ø ɔ] when followed by /u/ or /w/ (see e.g. Sandstedt 2018: 169–71 and references therein). Firstly, in the modern languages, the only active alternations that survive are reflexes of the assimilation of /a/ to [ɔ] in preceding stages of Norse or related analogical changes (Thráinsson 2017).163 Thráinsson (2017) argues that u-umlaut is still truly a phonological process in Icelandic despite the fact that, alongside continuations of older u-umlaut (e.g. tölur [tʰœlʏr] ‘number.nom.pl’; cf. tala [tʰala] ‘number.nom.sg’), various instances of surface violations (e.g. dalur [talʏr] ‘valley.nom.sg’) are also found. This is because such surface violations are typically the result of historical vowel epenthesis and Thráinsson (2017) claims that epenthesis is still synchronically active and that surface violations are a result of u-umlaut and epenthesis effectively being in a coun- terfeeding relationship. However, this is not the case in Faroese, in which epenthesis is no longer synchronically active. In combination with additional changes such as analogy and vowel shifts, this has led to u-umlaut becoming an idiosyncratic property of certain stems and suffixes (Thráinsson 2017)—compare, for example, fastur [fastʊɹ] ‘firm.nom.sg’ and føstum [fœstun] ‘firm.dat.pl’ with alda [alta] ‘wave.nom.sg’ and aldum [altʊn] ‘wave.dat.pl’ (Árnason 2011: 249).164 In the case of progressive height harmony in Bantu, whatever its history, it is interesting to note that the synchronic situation is one in which at least some morphological or lexical aspect can undoubtedly be seen. That is, though static generalisations may be observed to some extent throughout an individual language, alternations are only seen in such five-vowel languages with verbal extensions such as the applicative or separative. This lends weight to the notion that the underlying representation of these suffixes is key to accounting for their behaviour. In addition to this, it could be that such patterns are not in fact grounded—or at least not wholly grounded—in vowel-to-vowel coarticulation (contra e.g. claims by Ohala 1994 in general and by Beddor et al. 2002 regarding Bantu). Previous work has found evidence that a non-articulatory source of grounding for harmonic processes can be found in the realm of perception. Walker (2005, 2011),

163 See Árnason (2011) for information on both the diachrony and synchrony of Icelandic and Faroese phonology more generally (see pp. 243–5 and 248–50 for u-umlaut in particular). 164 Distinctions between phonologically- and morphologically-conditioned alternations such as the descendants of u-umlaut in Icelandic and Faroese have been drawn as early as Baudouin de Courtenay (1895).

237 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages for example, contends that metaphony in Romance languages such as Central Ven- eto (see §2.3.1) is driven by perceptual considerations and that the propagation of height features from weak unstressed high vowels to more prominent stressed vowels serves to counteract their perceptual difficulty. Similarly, Kaun (1995, 2004) claims that rounding harmony is way of enhancing the perceptibility of the cues for rounding by association with a wider span, e.g. throughout the word rather than on a single vowel (cf. also Suomi 1983 on backness harmony and Steriade 1995a on positional neutralisation). What these approaches have in common is that they posit that harmony is a means of bolstering the perceptibility of less perceptually salient properties by associating them with a position that is more prosodically prominent in some way.

One reason for wanting or needing to enhance perceptibility is lexical recognition. For example, in her discussion of laryngeal co-occurrence restrictions, Gallagher (2010) argues that agreement for laryngeal features—such as is found in Amharic and Zulu—is a way of ensuring that roots be more perceptually distinct from one another. That is, laryngeal agreement makes different roots better able to be discriminated between as their differences have been enhanced by virtue of more individual segments being different.

Likewise, in a forced-choice discrimination task using disyllabic nonce words, Kimper (2013) found that a tongue root contrast in both vowels of a stimulus resulted in lower response times and higher accuracy than when only one of the vowels showed such a contrast. In addition to this, Kimper (2017) provides evidence that perceptual considerations appear to be implicated in the grounding of vowel harmony, even when acting at a distance, when a more orthodox local explanation that appeals to coarticulation would not suffice.

Contrary to the case of metaphony in Central Veneto mentioned above, in progressive height harmony in the Bantu languages, features relating to height are not spread in order to necessarily be associated with a stressed syllable but rather, more akin to rounding harmony in Tuvan or backness harmony in Finnish, rightwards from the root to suffixes. This could therefore be a strategy that enhances the perceptibility of mid vowels which, having intermediate F1 values, require more robust cuing than peripheral vowels whose F1 values fall at the extremes of the acoustic space and are thus more discernible from one another.

The above possibility regarding perception having been explored, it should alsobe acknowledged that, though the results of the production experiment might be inter-

238 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages preted as evidence against perseverative coarticulation in F1 as the primary phonetic grounding of harmony, as also previously noted in §6.4, just as the phonological patterns of a language may change over time, so may the phonetic patterns. In certain instances, it may even be the case that the phonetics of a language adapt so as to enhance phonological patterns. For instance, Stoakes et al. (2020) have recently argued that phonetic vowel nasalisation in Bininj Gun-Wok—an Australian language of the Northern Territory—behaves as it does for reasons of phonological contrast. As is typical of Australian languages (see e.g. Dixon 2002: 549), Bininj Gun-Wok possesses distinctive alveolar and retroflex plosives, nasals and liquids as part of its phonemic inventory (Evans 2003: 78). Stoakes et al. (2020) found that anticipatory vowel nasalisation in pre-nasal contexts was limited but that this was not the case for perseveratory vowel nasalisation in post-nasal contexts. This is despite the fact that, cross- linguistically, significant anticipatory vowel nasalisation is found frequently but this is less common for perseveratory nasalisation (see e.g. Malécot 1960; Moll 1962; Ali et al. 1971; Clumeck 1976). Stoakes et al. argue that phonetic vowel nasalisation is constrained in this way in order to enhance the acoustic cues for place, which is especially important for maintaining the contrast between pairs of distinctive coronal consonants such as alveolar [n] and retroflex [ɳ]. Thus, whatever the ultimate source that innovated the coronal contrasts seen in the modern language, it would appear that the phonetics have subsequently adapted to this inventory and the phonetic pattern seen today is therefore likely different from what it would have been at a prior stage in the language’s development. In the case of height harmony in Bantu, though they may be low in number in certain instances (as seen in chapter 4), vowels pairs that are considered non-harmonic as far as alternations in verbal extensions are concerned, such as [e.i] or [u.o], are nevertheless found elsewhere in the language. Thus, if the coarticulation of F1 did originally have some hand in the development of height harmony, the phonetics of languages such as Bemba and Nyanja may have since changed and this is why comparable effects on F1 are no longer widely seen in the language, perhaps for reasons of contrast as in Bininj Gun-Wok.165

165 One specific detail of the results for Nyanja from chapter 6 that may be of particular relevance here is the significantly higher F1—and hence lower vowel height—of mid [e] following high[i].

239 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

7.4.3 Interim summary

The combined results of the studies presented here may be viewed in oneoftwo ways. First, they may be seen as suggestive that the grounding for progressive height harmony is due to reasons of perceptual enhancement rather than the hypocorrective stabilisation of coarticulatory effects on F1. Second, they may be interpreted as being an indication that the coarticulatory processes that gave rise to the present categorical patterns of alternations seen in height harmony belong to the phonetics ofaprevious stage of such Bantu languages and that this has since changed.

7.4.4 Typology, language history and formal analysis

Regardless of the true origins of the synchronic harmony patterns, in at least the six languages of the sample examined in chapter 4, the limited distributions of vowel pairs that result from alternations in verbal extensions are not reflected in their en- tirety in the lexical statistics of nouns. Most—if not all—formal analyses of progressive height harmony in Bantu (see e.g. §3.2) take into considerations only those vowel-pair restrictions seen in alternations. Though this enables the conception of an economic formal analysis, concentrating on this particular aspect of the language—which is only part of the language’s wider grammar—may mean that a broader-ranging account of the patterns seen within a particular language is left wanting. Consider, for example, the Optimality-Theoretic account of height harmony in Shona propounded by Beckman (1997) summarised in §3.2.3. Although this may well be an elegant analysis of the alternations found in this language, it is claimed by Nichols (2018) that it is unable to be straightforwardly adapted to account for the full typology of progressive height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages, encounter- ing difficulties with Punu and Lozi in particular. Thus, by the criterion offactorial typology inherent to Optimality Theory (see e.g. Kager 1999), Beckman’s (1997) analysis of Shona fails. However, that said, the principle of accounting for typological variation in this way may be challenged by results such as those in chapters 4 and 5 since such approaches are effectively blind to factors such as the synchronically accidental residue of diachronic change.

7.4.5 On markedness in formal accounts

Broadly speaking, there have been two approaches to height harmony in Bantu that can be differentiated according to their formalisations of markedness.

240 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Firstly, one of the salient characteristics of Beckman’s (1997) analysis, in which all vowels are fully featurally specified, is that it attempts to derive harmony patterns from the markedness of individual autosegments or the co-occurrence of autosegments but not from the co-occurrence of particular vocalic segments. Moreover, in this approach, there is no harmony-specific constraint driving alternations or enfor- cing the occurrence of particular pairs of vowels. Rather, vowel harmony is a con- sequent epiphenomenon of minimising the number of putatively marked autosegments. In other accounts, such the analysis given by Harris (1994), markedness is encoded in the system as featural complexity, with the mid vowels bearing more features than the peripheral vowels in this instance (see §3.2.2). Similarly, Moto’s (1989) underspecification analysis also posits that only the mid vowels are specified for thefea- ture [+high] (see §3.2.1) and, in the contrastive-hierarchy-based account by Sandstedt (2018, 2019, 2020b), markedness is essentially a function of the number of features and/or feature nodes that are associated with a particular vowel (see §3.2.4). In the six languages examined in chapter 4, there is only partial agreement between the gradient lexical statistics of vowel-pair frequencies in nouns and the categorical alternations undergone by the vowels of verbal extensions. It is thus clear from the lexical statistics that, if under-representation is taken to be indicative of these being generally marked structures across the board rather than simply a property either of a particular domain or a certain set of suffixes, this cannot necessarily be attributed to any specific segment or feature for the effects observed in thefre- quencies of vowel pairs show a directional dimension—compare the behaviours of [e.i] and [i.e], for example—and are limited to specific pairs—such as [o.u] and [e.i]. Synchronically, it would appear then that both underspecification and some form of co-occurrence-based markedness are required to account for the more general facts not only of canonical languages such as Chewa, Kalanga and Yao but also of non- canonical languages like Lozi. Indeed, this last language is a case overlooked in most of the literature on the topic of vowel.166 In short, a global understanding is required both on the level of particular languages but also across languages. In the context of Optimality Theory, the same markedness that is presumed to drive visible categorical alternations is also supposed to be at work more widely and hence in the statistics of the lexicon. On this basis, we should therefore expect to see

166 In fact, I am unaware of any attempt to devise a formal analysis of vowel harmony in Lozi.

241 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages some sort of affinity between the two. However, in Lozi, for example, this doesnot seem to be the case given that certain gaps—namely, [o.u] in nouns and verbs—that can be found in the lexicon are seemingly truly phonotactic while others—e.g. [e.o] and [u.o] in verbs—are morphological in nature and thus historically accidental as a far as the synchronic state of the language is concerned.

242 cHapteR 8

Conclusion

Ваш роман прочитали, […] и сказали только одно, что он, к сожалению, не окончен.∗

Михаил А. Булгаков Мастер и Маргарита

In the preceding chapters, I have presented an investigation of progressive vowel height harmony as it is instantiated in five-vowel Bantu languages using quantitative and experimental data, the results of which have implications for our understanding of the grounding of phonological patterns as well as approaches to the formal analysis of synchronic grammars. As shown in chapter 2, vowel harmony is common within Bantu and, though there are certain patterns which predominate, there are nevertheless various ways in which systems of vowel harmony operate. When considering progressive varieties of vowel harmony, some sort of asymmetry in the behaviour of front and back vowels is a characteristic trait of Bantu languages. A front–back asymmetry is found in the vast majority of five-vowel languages, with symmetric examples such as South Kongo being in the minority. This is true, for example, of languages that exhibit canonical height harmony which, as the name suggests, is the most commonly observed pattern. For this reason, as can be seen from the examples in chapter 3, it is also the variety

∗ They have read your novel, […] and they said only one thing, that, unfortunately, itisnotfin- ished. — Mikhail A. Bulgakov, Master and Margarita.

243 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages of height harmony which has seen the most attention in the theoretical literature, especially where five-vowel languages in particular are concerned. In both canonical and non-canonical patterns of height harmony alike, though they differ from onean- other, both front and back height harmony can be observed; however, a small number of languages lack front height but nonetheless exhibit back height harmony.

In chapter 4, I provided a study of vowel-pair frequencies in the nouns of a six-language sample composed of canonical Chewa, Kalanga and Yao, Pende, which shows canonical back height harmony but non-canonical front height harmony, as well as Lozi and Makhuwa, which possess only back height harmony. Each of these languages shows alternations due to height harmony only in verbal extensions. How- ever, the results showed that particular vowel pairs considered non-harmonic in verbs are also under-represented in nouns. There were also inter-pair differences in levels of representation. For example, both front [e.i] and back [o.u] were under-represented in nouns but [o.u] was much more under-represented than [e.i] both within individual languages and at large across the sample. This pattern suggests that the avoidance of these pairs is well motivated but that this more well motivated for [o.u] than [e.i]. This is reminiscent of the typological observation above that certain Bantu exhibit only back height harmony but none possesses only front height harmony. For the most part, however, an individual pair being considered non-harmonic in the height harmony system that causes alternations in verbs did not mean that that pair was necessarily similarly under-represented in nouns.

Following this, in chapter 5, I considered the case of Lozi in more detail and argued that, though alternations are indeed only seen in verbs, there is a more pervasive phonotactic prohibition against [o.u] alone and that remaining gaps in verbs such as the pairs [u.o] and [e.o] are morphological and accidental rather than phonotactic.

These chapters on lexical statistics and phonotactics were then followed in chapter 6 by a production experiment conducted with speakers of canonical Bemba and Nyanja and non-canonical Lozi which investigated the potential effects of vowel- to-vowel coarticulation on F1. This crucially included a consideration of pairwise vowel combinations that would be deemed non-harmonic in height harmony. The results are considered in relation to the height harmony system of each language under study as well in the context of the overall results from the vowel-pair frequency study. The results revealed that, similarly to the six-language sample, there wasnot an over-arching pattern for differences in F1 to echo what was seen in height har-

244 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages mony. With respect to the pairs [e.i] and [o.u] discussed above, the results of the production experiment did not wholly align with what was found in the frequency study. More specifically, though evidence was found for lowering of [i] following [e], weaker evidence was detected for lowering of [u] after [o]. This shows the opposite asymmetry not only to what was found in the frequency study but also to what can be seen in the broader typology of height harmony in Bantu. Taken together, the results of these studies may, for instance, be seen as suggesting that the grounding for progressive height harmony is perceptual in nature rather than articulatory. Alternatively, this may simply indicate that the coarticulatory processes that could have given rise to the categorical patterns of alternations currently seen in height harmony belong to the phonetics of a previous stage of such Bantu languages and that this has since changed. In addition to this, the results have implications for approaches used in the analysis of synchronic phonological systems, in particular those that involve phonological alternations. More concretely, they show that it is often informative to take a whole-language approach instead of concentrating the formal analysis on the specific phonological process that is of principal interest. Rather than studying individual processes essentially in a vacuum, an examination of a language at a broader level may supply further information that, once taken into account, can suggest which are the likelier avenues to take when constructing models of synchronic phonology.

245 References

En resolución, él se enfrascó tanto en su lectura, que se le pasaban las noches leyendo de claro en claro, y los días de turbio en turbio; y así, del poco dormir y del mucho leer, se le secó el celebro, de manera que vino a perder el juicio.∗

Miguel de Cervantes Don Quijote de la Mancha

Adler, Allison N. 2006. Faithfulness and perception in loanword adaptation: A case study from Hawaiian. Lingua 116(7). 976–95. Akinlabi, Akinbiyi. 1993. Underspecification and the phonology of Yoruba /r/. Lin- guistic Inquiry 24(1). 139–60. Alderete, John & Sara Finley. 2016. Gradient Vowel Harmony in Oceanic. Language & Linguistics 17(6). 769–96. Ali, Latif, Tanya Gallagher, Jeffrey Goldstein & Raymond Daniloff. 1971. Perception of Coarticulated Nasality. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 49. 538–40. Altan, Aslı. 2007. The acquisition of vowel harmony in Turkish. Talk given atth the4 Old World Conference in Phonology, Rhodes, Greece, 18–21 January. Anderson, Gregory D. S. 1998. Xakas (Languages of the World/Materials 251). Munich: LINCOM Europa. Anderson, Gregory D. S. & K. David Harrison. 1999. Tyvan (Languages of the World/Materials 257). Munich: LINCOM Europa. Anderson, Stephen R. 1972. On Nasalization in Sundanese. Linguistic Inquiry 3(3). 253–68.

∗ In short, he became so absorbed in his books that he spent his nights from sunset to sunrise, and his days from dawn to dark, poring over them; and what with little sleep and much reading his brains got so dry that he lost his wits. — Miguel de Cervantes, Don Quixote de la Mancha.

246 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Aoki, Haruo. 1966. Nez Perce Vowel Harmony and Proto-Sahaptian Vowels. Language 42(4). 759–67. Aoki, Haruo. 1968. Toward a Typology of Vowel Harmony. International Journal of American Linguistics 34(2). 142–5. Archangeli, Diana. 1984. Underspecification in Yawelmani Phonology and Morpho- logy. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Archangeli, Diana, Jeff Mielke & Douglas Pulleyblank. 2012a. From Sequence Fre- quencies to Conditions in Bantu Vowel Harmony: Building a grammar from the ground up. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 22(1). Archangeli, Diana, Jeff Mielke & Douglas Pulleyblank. 2012b. Greater than noise: frequency effects in Bantu height harmony. In Bert Botma & Roland Noske (eds.), Phonological Explorations: Empirical, Theoretical and Diachronic Issues, 191–222. Berlin: De Gruyter. Archangeli, Diana & Douglas Pulleyblank. 1989. Yoruba vowel harmony. Linguistic Inquiry 20(2). 173–217. Archangeli, Diana & Douglas Pulleyblank. 1994. Grounded Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Archangeli, Diana & Douglas Pulleyblank. 2002. Kinande vowel harmony: domains, grounded conditions and one-sided alignment. Phonology 19. 139–88. Archangeli, Diana & Douglas Pulleyblank. 2015. Phonology without universal grammar. Frontiers in Psychology 6(1229). 1–12. Archangeli, Diana & Douglas Pulleyblank. 2017. A minimalist take on Setswana harmony. In Nicholas LaCara, Keir Moulton & Anne-Michelle Tessier (eds.), A Schrift to Fest Kyle Johnson (Linguistics Open AccessPublications 1), 33–42. Amherst, MA: ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. Archangeli, Diana & Keiichiro Suzuki. 1995. Menomini vowel harmony: O(pacity) & T(ransparency) in OT. In Keiichiro Suzuki & Dirk Elzinga (eds.), Proceedings of the First South Western Optimality Theory Workshop (SWOT I) (Conference Proceed- ings 5), 1–17. Tucson, AZ: Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona. Ariste, Paul. 1968. A Grammar of the Votic Language (Uralic and Altaic Series 68). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Publications. Árnason, Kristján. 2011. The Phonology of Icelandic and Faroese (The Phonology of the World’s Languages). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

247 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Ashton, E. O., E. M. K. Mulira, E. G. M. Ndawula & A. N. Tucker. 1954. A Luganda Grammar. London: Longmans, Green & Co. Asu, Eva Liina & Pire Teras. 2009. Estonian. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 29(3). 367–72. Avram, Andrei A. 2009. The allomorphy of the transitive suffix in Pijin. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 1. 253–67. Awde, Nicholas. 2002. Swahili-English English-Swahili dictionary. New York, NY: Hippocrene Books. 2nd printing, 1st edition published 2000. Bailey, George. 2018. Variation and Change in Northern English Velar Nasals: Pro- duction and Perception. PhD thesis, University of Manchester. Baković, Eric. 2000a. Harmony, Dominance and Control. PhD thesis, Rutgers Uni- versity. Baković, Eric. 2000b. Nasal Place Neutralization in Spanish. University of Pennsylvan- nia Working Papers in Linguistics 7(1). 2. 1–13. Baković, Eric. 2001. Vowel Harmony and Cyclicity in Eastern Nilotic. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 27. 1–12. Ball, Martin J. & Nicole Müller. 2011. Phonetics for Communication Disorders. New York, NY: Psychology Press. Barnes, Janet. 1996. Autosegments with three-way lexical contrast in Tuyuca. Inter- national Journal of American Linguistics 62(1). 31–58. Barnes, Jonathan. 2007. Phonetics and Phonology in Russian Unstressed Vowel Re- duction: A Study in Hyperarticulation. Boston University, ms. Barrett, Martyn. 1995. Early lexical development. In Paul Fletcher & Brian MacWhin- ney (eds.), The Handbook of Child Language, 362–92. Oxford: Blackwell. Barrett-Keach, Camilla N. 1986. Word-internal Evidence from Swahili for Aux/Infl. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 559–64. Bassène, Alain-Christian. 2006. Description du Jóola Banjal (Sénégal). PhD thesis, Université Lumière Lyon 2. Bassene, Mamadou. 2012. Morphophonology of Joola Eegimaa. PhD thesis, University of Minnesota. Bastin, Yvonne. 1983. Essai de classification de quatre-vingts langues bantoues parla statistique grammaticale. Africana Linguistica IX. 9–108.

248 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Bastin, Yvonne. 1986. Les suffixes causatifs dans les langues bantoues. Africana Lin- guistica X. 55–145. Bastin, Yvonne, André Coupez, Evariste Mumba & Thilo C. Schadeberg (eds.). 2001. Bantu Lexical Reconstructions 3 / Reconstructions lexicales bantoues 3. Tervuren: Royal Museum for Central Africa / Musée royal de l’Afrique centrale. URL: https://www.africamuseum.be/research/discover/human_ sciences/culture_society/blr. Batibo, Herman M. 1995. Loanword clusters nativization rules in Tswana and Swahili. South African Journal of African Languages 16(2). 33–41. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan Niecisław. 1895. Versuch einer Theorie phonetischer Al- ternationen: ein Kapitel aus der Psychophonetik. Straßburg: Trübner. Baumbach, E. J. W. 1974. Introduction to the speech sounds and sound sound changes of Tsonga. Pretoria: J. L. van Schaik. Becker, Michael, Nihan Ketrez & Andrew Nevins. 2011. The Surfeit of the Stimulus: Analytic Biases Filter Lexical Statistics in Turkish Laryngeal Alternations. Lan- guage 87(1). 84–125. Beckman, Jill N. 1997. Positional faithfulness, positional neutralisation and Shona vowel harmony. Phonology 14(1). 1–46. Beckman, Jill N. 1998. Positional faithfulness. PhD thesis, University of Massachu- setts, Amherst. Beddor, Patrice Speeter. 2009. A Coarticulatory Path to Sound Change. Language 85. 785–821. Beddor, Patrice Speeter, Anthony Brasher & Chandan Narayan. 2007. Applying perceptual methods to the study of phonetic variation and sound change. In Maria- Josep Solé, Patrice Speeter Beddor & Manjari Ohala (eds.), Experimental approaches to phonology, 125–43. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Beddor, Patrice Speeter & David Evans-Romaine. 1995. Acoustic and perceptual factors in nasal place assimilation. Rivista di Linguistica 7. 145–74. Beddor, Patrice Speeter, James Harnsberger & Stephanie Lindemann. 2002. Language- specific patterns of vowel-to-vowel coarticulation: acoustic structures and their perceptual correlates. Journal of Phonetics 30. 591–627. Beddor, Patrice Speeter, Rena Krakow & Stephanie Lindeman. 2001. Patterns of perceptual compensation and their phonological consequences. In Elizabeth Hume &

249 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Keith Johnson (eds.), The Role of Speech Perception in Phonology, 55–78. San Diego: Academic Press. Beddor, Patrice Speeter & Handan Kopkalli Yavuz. 1995. The Relation Between Vowel- to-Vowel Coarticulation and Vowel Harmony in Turkish. Proceedings of the Inter- national Congress of Phonetic Sciences 13. 44–51. Beltzung, Jean-Marc, Cédric Patin & George N. Clements. 2017. The feature [ATR]. In Annie Rialland, Rachid Ridouane & Harry van der Hulst (eds.), Features in Phon- ology and Phonetics: Posthumous Writings by Nick Clements and Coauthors (Phono- logy and Phonetics 21), 217–46. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Bennett, Wm. G., Maxine Diemer, Justine Kerford, Tracy Probert & Tsholofelo Wesi. 2016. Setswana (South African). Journal of the International Phonetic Association 46(2). 235–46. Bentley, William Holman. 1887. Dictionary and grammar of the Kongo language as spoken at San Salvador, the Ancient Capital of the Old Kongo empire, West Africa. London: Baptist Missionary Society and Trübner & Co. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2007. Diachronic phonology. In Paul de Lacy (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, 497–517. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2010. Morphologically conditioned phonetics? Not proven. Talk given at On Linguistic Interfaces II, Belfast, UK, 2 December. URL: http:// bermudez-otero.com/Belfast_handout.pdf. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2011. Cyclicity. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, 2019– 48. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2015. Amphichronic explanation and the life cycle of phonological processes. In Patrick Honeybone & Joseph Salmons (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Historical Phonology, 374–99. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo & Graeme Trousdale. 2012. Cycles and Continua: On Uni- directionality and Gradualness in Language Change. In Terttu Nevalainen & Eliza- beth Closs Traugott (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English, 691–720. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Berry, J. 1957. Vowel Harmony in Twi. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 19(1). 124–30.

250 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Bickmore, Lee. 2007. Cilungu Phonology (Stanford Monographs in African Lan- guages). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Bigi, Brigitte. 2015. SPPAS - Multi-lingual Approaches to the Automatic Annotation of Speech. The Phonetician 111–2. 54–69. Version 1.9.8. Retrieved 25 October 2018 from http://www.sppas.org/. Bigi, Brigitte Bigi & Daniel Hirst. 2012. SPeech Phonetization Alignment andSyl- labification (SPPAS): a tool for the automatic analysis of speech prosody. In Speech Prosody, 19–22. Shanghai, China: Tongji University Press. URL: https: //hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00983699/. Birtalan, Ágnes. 2003. Oirat. In Juha Juhanen (ed.), The Mongolic Languages (Routledge Language Family Series), 201–28. London: Routledge. Bisol, Leda. 1989. A variable rule in Brazilian Portuguese. Language Variation and Chance 1. 185–98. Blanchon, Jean. 1994. Punu lexical database. Available to download from the Com- parative Bantu Online Dictionary. Contributed by Jean Blanchon. URL: http: //www.cbold.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/Dico.asp?Langue=Punu. Bläsing, Uwe. 2003. Kalmuck. In Juha Juhanen (ed.), The Mongolic Languages (Rout- ledge Language Family Series), 229–47. London: Routledge. Blench, Roger. 2006. Archaeology, Language and the African Past. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press. Bloomfield, Leonard. 1962. The Menomini Language. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Blumenfeld, Lev & Ida Toivonen. 2016. A featural paradox in Votic harmony. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34(4). 1167–80. Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. Paradigms (Optimal and otherwise): A case for skep- ticism. In Asaf Bachrach & Andrew Nevins (eds.), Inflectional Identity (Oxford Stud- ies in Theoretical Linguistics), 29–54. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Boersma, Paul. 1998. Functional Phonology: Formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. PhD thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam. Boersma, Paul. 2011. A programme for bidirectional phonology and phonetics and their acquisition and evolution. In Anton Bentz & Jason Mattausch (eds.), Bidirec- tional Optimality Theory, 11–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

251 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Boersma, Paul & Silke Hamann. 2009a. Cue constraints and their interactions in phonological perception and production. In Paul Boersma & Silke Hamann (eds.), Phon- ology in Perception, 55–110. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Boersma, Paul & Silke Hamann. 2009b. Loanword adaptation as first-language phonological perception. In Andrea Calabrese & W. Leo Wetzels (eds.), Loan Phonology, 11–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2019. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [computer program]. Version 6.1.04. 28 September: URL: http://www.praat.org/. Bokamba, Eyamba G. 2012. A Polylectal Grammar of Lingála and Its Theoret- ical Implications. In Michael R. Marlo, Nikki B. Adams, Christopher R. Green, Michelle Morrison & Tristan M. Purvis (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 42nd An- nual Conference on African Linguistics: Linguistic Theory and African Language Documentation, 291–307. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. URL: http://www.lingref.com/cpp/acal/42/index.html. Booij, Gert. 1999. The Role of the Prosodic Word in Phonotactic Generalizations. In T. Alan Hall & Ursula Kleinhenz (eds.), Studies on the Phonological Word, 47–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bostoen, Koen. 2008. Bantu Spirantization: Morphologization, lexicalization and historical classification. Diachronica 25(3). 299–356. Bostoen, Koen. 2019. Reconstructing Proto-Bantu. In Mark Van de Velde, Koen Bostoen, Derek Nurse & Gérard Philippson (eds.), The Bantu Languages (Routledge Language Family Series), 308–34. London: Routledge. 2nd edition. Bostoen, Koen & Mark Van de Velde. 2019. Introduction. In Mark Van de Velde, Koen Bostoen, Derek Nurse & Gérard Philippson (eds.), The Bantu Languages (Routledge Language Family Series), 1–13. London: Routledge. 2nd edition. Bouka, Léonce Yembi. 1989. Éléments de description du kaamba, parler bantou de la République Populaire du Congo (Groupe Koongo, H17b). Brussels: Université Libre de Bruxelles. Bourquin, Walther. 1955. Notes on the “close vowels” in Bantu. African Studies 14. 49–62. Broselow, Ellen. 2004. Language contact phonology: richness of the stimulus, poverty of the base. Proceedings of the Northeast Linguistic Society 34. 1–22.

252 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Broselow, Ellen. 2009. Stress adaptation in loanword phonology: Perception and learnability. In Paul Boersma & Silke Hamann (eds.), Phonology in Perception, 191– 234. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Buckley, Eugene L. 1994. Theoretical Aspects of Kashaya Phonology and Morphology. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Butcher, Andrew & Eckart Weiher. 1976. An electropalatographic investigation of coarticulation in VCV sequences. Journal of Phonetics 4(1). 59–74. Calabrese, Andrea. 1985. Metaphony in Salentino. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 9–10. 1–140. Calabrese, Andrea. 1988. Towards a Theory of Phonological Alphabets. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Calabrese, Andrea. 2011. Metaphony in Romance. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, 2631–61. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Campbell, George L. & Gareth King. 2013. Compendium of the World’s Language. Abingdon: Routledge. Campbell, Lyle. 1980. The Psychological and Sociological Reality of Finnish Vowel Harmony. In Robert M. Vago (ed.), Issues in Vowel Harmony: Proceedings of the CUNY Linguistics Conference on Vowel Harmony, 14th May 1977, 245–70. Amster- dam: John Benjamins. Carter, Hazel. 2002. An Outline of chiTonga Grammar. Lusaka: Bookworld Publishers. Carter, Hazel & João Makondekwa. 1987. Kongo language course: Maloongi makikoongo, a course in the dialect of Zoombo, Northern Angola. Madison, WI: African Studies Program, University of Wisconsin. Carter, Paul. 2003. Extrinsic phonetic interpretation: spectral variation in English liquids. In John Local, Richard Ogden & Rosalind Temple (eds.), Phonetic Interpret- ation (Papers in Laboratory Phonology VI), 237–52. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press. Casali, Roderic F. 2003. [ATR] value asymmetries and underlying vowel inventory structure in Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan. Linguistic Typology 7. 307–82. Casali, Roderic F. 2008. ATR harmony in African languages. Language and Linguistic Compass 2. 496–549.

253 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Casali, Roderic F. 2012. [+ATR] dominance in Akan. Journal of West African Languages 39(1). 33–59. Casali, Roderic F. 2016. Some Inventory-Related Asymmetries in the Patterning of Tongue Root Harmony Systems. Studies in African Linguistics 45(1 & 2). 95–140. Casali, Roderic F. 2018. Markedness and dominance in the ATR harmony system of Diola-Fogny. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 5(1). 99–112. Chang, Kun & Betty Shefts. 1964. A Manual of Spoken Tibetan. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. Chang, Kun & Betty Shefts. 1968. Vowel Harmony in Spoken Lhasa Tibetan. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology Academia Sinica 40. 53–124. Chang, Steve S., Madeleine C. Plauché & John J. Ohala. 2001. Markedness and Con- sonant Confusion Asymmetries. In Elizabeth Hume & Keith Johnson (eds.), The Role of Speech Perception in Phonology, 79–101. New York, NY: Academic Press. Charette, Monik & Aslı Göksel. 1996. Licensing Constraints and Vowel Harmonyin Turkic Languages. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics 6. 1–25. Chavula, Jean Josephine. 2016. Verbal Derivation and Valency in Citumbuka. PhD thesis, Universiteit Leiden. Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Chong, Adam J. 2017. On the relation between phonotactic learning and alternation learning. PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles. Chong, Adam J. Forthcoming. The effect of phonotactics on alternation learning. Language 97(2). Choti, Jonathan Nyabuto. 2015. Phonological (A)symmetries of Bantu Nasal Prefixes. PhD thesis, Michigan State University. Clark, Larry. 1998. Turkmen Reference Grammar (Turcologica 34). Wiesbaden: Har- rassowitz Verlag. Clements, George N. 1974. Vowel Harmony in Ewe. Studies in African Linguistics 5. 281–301. Clements, George N. 1977. Neutral vowels in Hungarian vowel harmony: An autosegmental analysis. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 7. 49–64. Clements, George N. 1981. Akan Vowel Harmony: A Non-Linear Analysis. Harvard Studies in Phonology 2. 108–77.

254 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Clements, George N. 1989. A unified set of features for consonants and vowels. Cor- nell University, ms. Clements, George N. 1991. Vowel Height Assimilation in Bantu Languages. Pro- ceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on African Language Structures 17. 25–64. Clements, George N. 1993. Lieu d’articulation des consonnes et des voyelles. In Bern- ard Laks & Annie Rialland (eds.), L’architecture et la géométrie des représentations phonologiques, 101–45. Éditions du CNRS. Clements, George N. 2017. The hierarchical representation of vowel height. In Annie Rialland, Rachid Ridouane & Harry van der Hulst (eds.), Features in Phonology and Phonetics: Posthumous Writings by Nick Clements and Coauthors (Phonology and Phonetics 21), 25–125. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Clements, George N. & Elisabeth V. Hume. 1995. The Internal Organization of Speech Sounds. In John Goldsmith (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 245–306. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Clements, George N. & Engin Sezer. 1982. Vowel and Consonant Disharmony in Turkish. In Harry van der Hulst & Norval Smith (eds.), The Structure of Phonological Representations, 213–55. Dordrecht: Foris. de Clercq, Mgr. Auguste. 1960. Dictionnaire Tshiluba–Français. Léopoldville: Im- primerie de la Société Missionaire de Saint Paul. New edition revised and enlarged by Em. Willems. Clumeck, Harold. 1976. Patterns of soft palate movements in six languages. Journal of Phonetics 4(4). 337–51. Cobb, Margaret. 1995. Vowel Harmony in Zulu and Basque: The Interaction of Licens- ing Constraints, H-Licensing and Constituents Structure. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics & Phonetics 5. 23–40. Cobb, Margaret. 1997. Conditions on Nuclear Expression in Phonology. PhD thesis, School of Oriental and African Studies. Coene, Alfons. 1960. Kikongo: Notions grammaticales. Vocabulaire Français–Kikongo, Néerlandais–Latin. Tumba: Imprimerie Maison Catholique. Cohen, Evan-Gary. 2009. The Role of Similarity in Phonology : Evidence From Loan- word Adaptation in Hebrew. PhD thesis, Tel Aviv University.

255 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Cohen, Marcel. 1964. Catégories de mots et phonologie. In Carroll E. Reed (ed.), Études phonologiques dédiées à la mémoire de M. le Prince N. S. Trubetzkoy, 36–42. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. Cohn, Abigail C. 1989. Stress in Indonesian and bracketing paradoxes. Natural Lan- guage & Linguistic Theory 7. 167–216. Cohn, Abigail C. 1990. Phonetic and Phonological Rules of Nasalization. PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles. Cohn, Abigail C. 1998. The phonetics–phonology interface revisited: Where’s phonetics? Proceedings of the 1998 Texas Linguistic Society conference 25–40. Cole, Jennifer. 1987. Planar Phonology and Morphology. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cole, Jennifer. 1995. The Cycle in Phonology. In John Goldsmith (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 70–113. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Cole, Jennifer & Loren Trigo. 1988. Parasitic Harmony. In Harry van der Hulst & Norval Smith (eds.), Features, Segmental Structure and Harmony Processes (Part II), 19–38. Dordrecht: Foris. Connell, Bruce. 2000. Mambila Fricative Vowels. In Vicki Carstens & Frederick Parkin- son (eds.), Advances in African Linguistics (Trends in African Linguistics 4), 233–50. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press, Inc. Connell, Bruce. 2007. Mambila fricative vowels and Bantu spirantisation. Africana Linguistica XIII. 7–31. Coupez, André. 1980. Traces de dix voyelles en protobantou. Africana Linguistica VIII. 65–73. Courtois, Padre Victor Joseph. 1899. Diccionario portuguez–cafre-tetense ou idioma fallado no Districto de Tete e na vasta região do Zambeze inferior. Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade. Creissels, Denis. Submitted. Bantu languages: Typology and variation. In The Oxford Guide to the Bantu Languages, draft dated 12 August 2019. Crowley, Terry. 2004. Bislama Reference Grammar (Oceanic Linguistics Special Pub- lication 31). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaiʻi Press. Cruttenden, Alan. 2014. Gimson’s Pronunciation of English. London: Routledge. 8th edition.

256 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Cysouw, Michael & Jeff Good. 2013. Languoid, Doculect, and Glossonym: Formalizing the Notion ‘Language’. Language Documentation & Conservation 7. 331–59. Daland, Robert & Mira Oh. 2014. An orthographic effect in loanword adaptation. Supplemental Proceedings of the 2013 Annual Meeting on Phonology . Daland, Robert, Mira Oh & Syejeong Kim. 2015. When in doubt, read the instructions: Orthographic effects in loanword adaptation. Lingua 159. 70–92. Dawson, Willa. 1980. Tibetan Phonology. PhD thesis, University of Washington, Seattle. Dawson, Willa. 1985. The Tibetan vowel feature ‘Constricted’. In Suriya Ratana- kul (ed.), Southeast Asian Linguistic Studies Presented to André G. Haudricourt, 158– 77. Salaya, Thailand: Institute for Language and Culture for Rural Development, Mahidol University. de Lacy, Paul. 2002. The formal expression of scales. PhD thesis, University ofMas- sachusetts, Amherst. de Lacy, Paul. 2006. Markedness: Reduction and preservation in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dehaene-Lambertz, Ghislaine, Emmanuel Dupoux & Ariel Gout. 2000. Electro- physiological Correlates of Phonological Processing: A Cross-linguistic Study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 12(4). 635–47. DeLancey, Scott. 2003. Lhasa Tibetan. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan Languages (Routledge Language Family Series), 270–88. London: Routledge. Delattre, Pierre, Alvin M. Liberman & Franklin S. Cooper. 1955. Acoustic Lociand Transitional Cues for Consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 27. 769–73. Dent, G. R. & C. L. S. Nyembezi. 1995. Scholar’s Zulu Dictionary: English–Zulu/Zulu– English. Pietermaritzburg: Shuter & Shooter. Dichabe, Seipati Bernice. 1997. Advanced tongue root harmony in Setswana. MA dissertation, University of Ottawa. Dickens, Patrick. 1986. Qhalaxarzi Phonology. MA dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand. Dieth, Eugen. 1932. A Grammar of the Buchan Dialect (Aberdeenshire): Descriptive and Historical, vol. 1: Phonology – Accidence. Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons.

257 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Dingemanse, Mark. 2012. Advances in the Cross-Linguistic Study of Ideophones. Language and Linguistic Compass 6. 654–72. Dixon, R. M. W. 2002. Australian Languages: Their Nature and Development. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. Doke, Clement M. 1938. Textbook of Lamba grammar. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press. Doke, Clement M. 1967. The Southern Bantu Languages. London: Dawsons of Pall Mall. Doke, Clement M. & Sophonia Machabe Mofokeng. 1985. Textbook of Southern Sotho Grammar. Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman. Dombrowski, Andrew. 2013. Phonological aspects of language contact along the Slavic periphery: An ecological approach. PhD thesis, University of Chicago. Donnelly, Simon. 2000. Innovation in Tekela Nguni: superclose and tense/lax vowel harmonies in Phuthi. Talk given at the Conference of the Linguistics Society of Southern Africa, Cape Town, South Africa, 12–14 January. Donnelly, Simon. 2009. Aspects of tone and voice in Phuthi. PhD thesis (corrected ms., original submitted 2007), University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign. Downing, Laura J. 1998a. On the Prosodic Misalignment of Onsetless Syllables. Nat- ural Language & Linguistic Theory Linguistic Theory 16. 1–52. Downing, Laura J. 1998b. Prosodic misalignment and reduplication. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1997, 83–120. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Downing, Laura J. 1999a. Jita lexical database. Available to download from the Com- parative Bantu Online Dictionary. Contributed by Laura Downing and the Tan- zanian Language Survey. URL: http://www.cbold.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/Dico. asp?Langue=Jita. Downing, Laura J. 1999b. Prosodic Stem ≠ Prosodic Word in Bantu. In T. Alan Hall & Ursula Kleinhenz (eds.), Studies on the Phonological Word, 73–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Downing, Laura J. 2007. Explaining the role of the morphological continuum in Bantu spirantisation. Africana Linguistica XIII. 53–78. Downing, Laura J. 2010. Opacity is a matter of representation: Shimakonde vowel harmony and vowel reduction. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 52. 159–91.

258 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Downing, Laura J. & Martin Krämer. 2017. Kinande phrasal harmony — gradient phonetic anticipation or phonological domino? Talk given at the 14th Old World Conference in Phonology, Düsseldorf, Germany, 19–22 February. Downing, Laura J. & Al D. Mtenje. 2017. The Phonology of Chichewa (The Phonology of the World’s Languages). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Dresher, B. Elan. 2009. The Contrastive Hierarchy in Phonology (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 121). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Dresher, B. Elan. 2013. Contrastive features and microvariation in vowel harmony. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 42. 141–53. Dresher, B. Elan & Xi Zhang. 2005. Contrast and phonological activity in Manchu vowel systems. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 50. 45–82. Dryer, Matthew S. 2006. Descriptive theories, explanatory theories, and Basic Lin- guistic Theory. In Felix K. Ameka, Alan Charles Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds.), Catching Language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing (Trends in Lin- guistics: Studies and Monographs 167), 207–34. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dupoux, Emmanuel, Takao Fushimi, Kazuhiko Kakehi & Jacques Mehler. 1999a. Pre- lexical locus of an illusory vowel effect in Japanese. Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, Budapest (Eurospeech ’99) 1675–8. URL: https://www.isca-speech.org/archive/archive_papers/ eurospeech_1999/e99_1675.pdf. Dupoux, Emmanuel, Kazuhiko Kakehi, Yuki Hirose, Christophe Pallier & Jacques Mehler. 1999b. Epenthetic vowels in Japanese: A perceptual illusion? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 25(6). 1568–78. Dupoux, Emmanuel, Christophe Pallier, Núria Sebastián & Jacques Mehler. 1997. A destressing “deafness” in French? Journal of Memory and Language 36(3). 406–21. Dupoux, Emmanuel, Sharon Peperkamp & Núria Sebastián-Gallés. 2001. A robust method to study stress “deafness”. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 110(3). 406–21. Dyck, Carrie. 1995. Pasiego pretonic metaphony revisited. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 14. 141–71.

259 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Eaton, Helen. 2019. Vwanji G66. In Mark Van de Velde, Koen Bostoen, Derek Nurse & Gérard Philippson (eds.), The Bantu Languages (Routledge Language Family Series), 615–44. London: Routledge. 2nd edition. Eberhard, David M., Gary F. Simons & Charles D. Fennig (eds.). 2020. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Dallas, TX: SIL International. 23rd edition. URL: https: //www.ethnologue.com/. Ehret, Christopher. 1999. Subclassifying Bantu: The Evidence of Stem Morpheme Innovations. In Jean-Marie Hombert & Larry M. Hyman (eds.), Bantu Historical Linguistics: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives, 44–147. Stanford, CA: CSLI Pub- lications. Englebretson, Robert, Lisa Jeon, Jessica Li, Samantha Mauney, Anaí Navarro & Jo- nas Wittke. 2015. A Basic Sketch Grammar of Gĩkũyũ. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics VI. Engstrand, Olle, Sven Björnsten, Björn Lindblom, Gösta Bruce & Anders Eriksson. 2000. Hur udda är Viby-i? Experimentella och typologiska observationer. Folk- målsstudier 39. 833–95. Esposito, Anna. 2002. On vowel height and consonantal voicing effects: Data from Italian. Phonetica 59(4). 197–231. Evans, Jonathan P. & Chenglong Huang. 2007. A bottom-up approach to vowel systems: the case of Yadu Qiang. Cahiers de linguistique - Asie orientale 36(2). 147–86. Evans, Nicholas. 2003. Bininj Gun-wok: a pan-dialectal grammar of Mayali, Kunwinjku and Kune (Pacific Linguistics 541). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Fagyal, Zsuzsanna, Douglas Kibbee & Fred Jenkins. 2006. French: A Linguistic Intro- duction (Linguistic Introductions). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Farnetani, Edda. 1990. V-C-V Lingual Coarticulation and Its Spatiotemporal Domain. In William J. Hardcastle & Alain Marchal (eds.), Speech Production and Speech Mod- elling (NATO ASI Series 55), 93–130. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Faytak, Matthew & John Merrill. 2014. Bantu Spirantization is a reflex of vowelspir- antization. Talk given at the 3rd Biennial Workshop on Sound Change: Sound Change in Interacting Human Systems, Berkeley, CA, US, 28–31 May. Feng, Ling. 2007. The articulatory and acoustic study of fricative vowels inSuzhou Chinese. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences 573–6.

260 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Filchenko, Andrey Yury. 2007. A grammar of Eastern Khanty. PhD thesis, Rice Uni- versity. File-Muriel, Richard J. 2018. An OT Approach to Vowel Height Harmony in Brazilian Portuguese. IULC Working Papers 1(4). 1–16. Finley, Sara & William Badecker. 2012. Learning Biases for Vowel Height Harmony. Journal of Cognitive Science 13. 287–327. Fisch, Maria. 1977. Einführing in die Sprache der Mbukushu, Ost-Kavango, Namibia. Windhoek: SWA Scientific Society. Fisch, Maria. 1998. Thimbukushu Grammar. Windhoek: Out of Africa Publishers. Fischer, Arnold, Elisabeth Weiss, Ernest Mdala & Sonwabo Tshabe. 1985. English– Xhosa Dictionary. Cape Town: Oxford University Press. Fitzgerald, Colleen M. 2002. Vowel harmony in Buchan Scots English. English Lan- guage and Linguistics 6(1). 61–79. Fivaz, Derek. 1970. Shona Morphophonemics and Morphosyntax. PhD thesis, Uni- versity of the Witwatersrand. Fivaz, Derek. 1986. A reference grammar of Oshindonga (African Studies of the Academy 1). Windhoek: Department of African Languages, The Academy. Fleischhacker, Heidi. 2001. Cluster-dependent epenthesis asymmetries. Arizona Working Papers in Linguistics 7. 71–116. Fortune, George. 1955. An Analytic Grammar of Shona. London: Longmans, Green & Co. Fortune, George. 1962. Ideophones in Shona. Cape Town: Oxford University Press. Fortune, George. 2001. An Outline of siLozi Grammar. Lusaka: Bookworld Publishers. First published in 1977 by the Institute for African Studies University of Zambia in Language in Zambia; Grammatical Sketches. Fowler, Carol A. 1981. Production and perception of coarticulation among stressed and unstressed vowels. Journal of Speech, and Hearing Research 46. 127–39. Friesner, Michael L. 2009. The adaptation of Romanian loanwords from Turkish and French. In Andrea Calabrese & W. Leo Wetzels (eds.), Loan Phonology, 115–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fujimura, Osamu. 1962. An analysis of nasal consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 34. 1865–75.

261 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Fulop, Sean A., Ethelbert E. Kari & Peter Ladefoged. 1998. An Acoustic Study of the Tongue Root Contrast in Degema Vowels. Phonetica 55(1–2). 80–98. Gallagher, Gillian. 2010. The perceptual basis of long-distance laryngeal restrictions. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Garrett, Andrew. 2010. Basic Yurok grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley. Gazania, Rollande. 1972. Aspects phonologiques et morphologiques du koyo. Thèse de Troisième Cycle, Université de Grenoble. Gerrits, Ellen & Martin E. H. Schouten. 2004. Categorical perception depends on the discrimination task. Perception & Psychophysics 66(3). 363–76. de Gheel, Georges. 1652. Le plus ancien dictionnaire bantu : het oudste Bantu- woordenboek : vocabularium. Louvain: J. Kuyl-Otto. Translation into French and Dutch by Joseph van Wing and Constant Penders published in 1928. Gick, Bryan, Douglas Pulleyblank, Fiona Campbell & Ngessimo Mutaka. 2006. Low vowels and transparency in Kinande vowel harmony. Phonology 23(1). 1–20. Giegerich, Heinz J. 1992. English Phonology: An Introduction (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gioscio, Joseph. 1985. Il dialetto Lucano di Calvello. Stuttgart: Steiner. Givón, Talmy. 1970. The Si-Luyana Language: A Preliminary Linguistic Description (Communication 6). Lusaka: University of Zambia, Institute for Social Research. Gnanadesikan, Amalia Elisabeth. 1997. Phonology with ternary scales. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Goad, Heather. 1994. On the Configuration of Height Features. PhD thesis, University of Southern California. Goes, Heidi & Koen Bostoen. 2019. Progressive vowel height harmony in Proto- Kikongo and Proto-Bantu. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 40(1). 23– 73. Goldsmith, John. 1985. Vowel harmony in Khalka Mongolian, Yaka, Finnish and Hun- garian. Phonology Yearbook 2. 253–75. Goldsmith, John & Jason Riggle. 2012. Information theoretic approaches to phonological structure: the case of Finnish vowel harmony. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30(3). 859–96.

262 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Gordon, Matthew, Edita Ghushchyan, Bradley McDonnell, Daisy Rosenblum & Patri- cia A. Shaw. 2012. Sonority and central vowels: A cross-linguistic phonetic study. In Steve Parker (ed.), The Sonority Controversy (Phonology and Phonetics), 219–56. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Gorman, Kyle. 2013. Generative Phonotactics. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania. Gorman, W. A. R. 1950. Simple Silozi: A Guide for Beginners. London: Longmans, Green & Co. Gouskova, Maria & Gillian Gallagher. 2020. Inducing nonlocal constraints from baselinephonotactics. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38. 77–116. Gowlett, Derek. 2003. Zone S. In Derek Nurse & Gérard Philippson (eds.), The Bantu Languages, 609–38. London: Routledge. Gowlett, Derek F. 1967. Morphology of the Verb in Lozi. MA dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand. Gowlett, Derek F. 1970. Verbal Extensions in Mbuunda. African Studies 29(3). 183–200. Gowlett, Derek F. 1989. The Parentage and Development ofLozi. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 11(2). 127–50. Gray, Hazel. 2018. Kisi Phonology and Morphophonology (Language and Culture Doc- umentation and Description 38). Dallas, TX: SIL International. Green, Christopher & Abbie Hantgan. 2019. A feature geometric approach to Bondu- so vowel harmony. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4(1). 35. 1–29. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1948. The Tonal System of Proto-Bantu. Word 4(3). 196–208. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1951. Vowel and nasal harmony in Bantu languages. Revue Congolaise 8. 813–20. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Language Universals, with special reference to feature hier- archies. The Hague: Mouton. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978. Some generalizations concerning initial and final consonant clusters. In Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson & Edith A. Moravcsik (eds.), Universals of human language, vol. 2, 243–80. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Gudschinsky, Sarah, Harold Popovich & Frances Popovich. 1970. Native reaction and phonetic similarity in Maxakalí phonology. Language 46. 77–88. Guérois, Rozenn. 2015. A grammar of Cuwabo (Mozambique, Bantu P34). PhD thesis, Université Lumière Lyon 2.

263 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Guérois, Rozenn. 2019. Cuwabo P34. In Mark Van de Velde, Koen Bostoen, Derek Nurse & Gérard Philippson (eds.), The Bantu Languages (Routledge Language Fam- ily Series), 733–75. London: Routledge. 2nd edition. Gunnink, Hilde. 2018. A grammar of Fwe: A Bantu language of Zambia and Namibia. PhD thesis, Universiteit Gent. Gusimana, Barthelemy. 1972a. Dictionnaire pende–français. Bandundu, Zaïre: Centre d’Études Ethnologiques de Bandundu. Gusimana, Barthelemy. 1972b. Dictionnaire pende–français. Available to download from the Comparative Bantu Online Dictionary. Contributed by John Lowe. URL: http://www.cbold.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/Dico.asp?Langue=Gusimana. Gussmann, Edmund. 2007. The Phonology of Polish (The Phonology of the World’s Languages). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Guthrie, Malcom. 1967–71. Comparative Bantu: An Introduction to the Comparative Linguistics and Prehistory of the Bantu Languages, vol. 1–4. Farnborough: Gregg Press. Haas, Mary R. 1940. Tunica. In Handbook of American Indian Languages, vol. 4, New York, NY: J. J. Augustin. Haas, Mary R. 1946. A grammatical sketch of Tunica. In Cornelius Osgood & Harry Hoijer (eds.), Linguistic structures of native America, 337–66. New York, NY: Viking Fund. Hagland, Jan Ragnar. 1978. A note on Old Norwegian vowel harmony. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 1(2). 141–7. Hall, Beatrice L. & R. M. R. Hall. 1980. Nez Perce Vowel Harmony: An Africanist Explanation and Some Theoretical Questions. In Robert M. Vago (ed.), Issues in Vowel Harmony: Proceedings of the CUNY Linguistics Conference on Vowel Harmony, 14th May 1977, 201–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hall, Beatrice L., R. M. R. Hall, M. D. Pam, A. Myers, S. A. Antell & G. Cherono. 1974. African vowel harmony systems from the vantage point of Kalenjin. Afrika und Übersee . Hall, Daniel Currie. 1995. The Role and Representation of Contrast in Phonolo- gical Theory. PhD thesis, University of Toronto. URL: https://twpl.library. utoronto.ca/index.php/twpl/article/view/6497.

264 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Hall, Daniel Currie & Kathleen Currie Hall. 2016. Marginal contrasts and the Con- trastivist Hypothesiis. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 1(1). 50. 1–23. Hall, T. Alan. 1999. The Phonological Word: A Review. In T. Alan Hall & Ursula Klein- henz (eds.), Studies on the Phonological Word, 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Halle, Morris & K. P. Mohanan. 1985. Segmental phonology of Modern English. Lin- guistic Inquiry 16. 57–116. Halle, Morris & Kenneth N. Stevens. 1969. On the feature ‘Advanced Tongue Root’. Quarterly Progress Report, MIT Research Laboratory for Electronics 94. 209–15. Halle, Morris, Bert Vaux & Andrew Wolfe. 2000. On Feature Spreading and the Rep- resentation of Place of Articulation. Linguistic Inquiry 31(3). 387–444. Haller, Félix. 1937. Vowel harmony in Shigatse Tibetan. Linguistics of the Tibeto- Burman Area 35(2). 33–47. Hamann, Silke & Ilaria E. Colombo. 2017. A formal account of the interaction of orthography and perception. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 35. 683–714. Hamann, Silke & Nancy C. Kula. 2015. Bemba. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 45(1). 61–9. Hammarström, Harald. 2019. An inventory of Bantu languages. In Mark Van de Velde, Koen Bostoen, Derek Nurse & Gérard Philippson (eds.), The Bantu Languages (Routledge Language Family Series), 17–78. London: Routledge. 2nd edition. Hammarström, Harald, Robert Forkel, Martin Haspelmath & Sebastian Bank (eds.). 2020. Glottolog 4.3. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. URL: https://glottolog.org/. Hancin, Barbara J. 1991. On the phonology–morphology interaction in Brazilian Por- tuguese vowel harmony. Studies in The Linguistic Sciences 21. 39–54. Hannan, Father M. 1987. Standard Shona Dictionary. Salisbury: College Press. Hantgan, Abbie & Stuart Davies. 2012. Bondu-so vowel harmony: A descriptive analysis with theoretical implications. Studies in African Linguistics 41(1). 1–26. Harris, John. 1987. Non-structure preserving rules in lexical phonology: Southeastern Bantu harmony. Lingua 72(4). 255–92. Harris, John. 1994. Monovalency and opacity: Chicheŵa height harmony. UCL Work- ing Papers in Linguistics 6. 509–47. Harris, John. 1997. Licensing inheritance: An integrated theory of neutralization. Phonology 14. 315–70.

265 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Harris, John & Geoff Lindsey. 2000. Vowel patterns in mind and sound. InNoel Burton-Roberts, Philip Carr & Gerard Docherty (eds.), Phonological Knowledge: Conceptual and Empirical Issues, 185–205. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harrison, K. David. 1999. Vowel harmony and disharmony in Tuvan and Tofa. Pro- ceedings of the 2nd Asian GLOW . Harrison, K. David. 2000. Topics in the Phonology and Morphology of Tuvan. PhD thesis, Yale University. Harrison, K. David, Emily Thomforde & Michael O’Keefe. 2002–2004. The Vowel Harmony Calculator. URL: http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/harmony/ public_html/. Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A Grammar of Lezgian (Mouton Grammar Library 9). Ber- lin: Mouton de Gruyter. Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42(1). 25–70. Hayden, Rebecca E. 1950. The Relative Frequency of Phonemes in General-American English. Word 6(3). 217–23. Hayes, Bruce. 2004a. Phonological acquisition in Optimality Theory: the early stages. In René Kager, Joe Paterand & Wim Zonneveld (eds.), Fixing Priorities: Constraints in Phonological Acquisition, 158–203. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hayes, Bruce. 2004b. Stochastic Phonological Knowledge: The Case of Hungarian Vowel Harmony. Talk given at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Hayes, Bruce & Zsuzsa Cziráky Londe. 2006. Stochastic phonological knowledge: The case of Hungarian vowel harmony. Phonology 23. 59–104. Hayes, Bruce & Donca Steriade. 2004. Introduction. In Bruce Hayes, Robert Kirch- ner & Donca Steriade (eds.), Phonetically Based Phonology, 1–33. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press. Hayes, Bruce & James White. 2013. Phonological Naturalness and Phonotactic Learn- ing). Linguistic Inquiry 44(1). 45–75. Hayes, Bruce, Kie Zuraw, Péter Siptár & Zsuzsa Londe. 2009. Natural and unnatural constraints in Hungarian vowel harmony. Lingua 85(4). 822–63. Hebert, Raymond J. & Nicholas N. Poppe. 1963. Kirghiz Manual (Uralic and Altaic Series 33). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Publications.

266 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Hein, Johannes. 2013. Vowel Harmony in Phuthi: A Challenge for Nevins (2010)? Universität Leipzig, ms. Heine, Bernd & Derek Nurse. 2000. Introduction. In Bernd Heine & Derek Nurse (eds.), African Languages: An Introduction, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Hertrich, Ingo & Hermann Ackermann. 1997. Articulatory control of phonological vowel length contrasts: Kinematic analysis of labial gestures. Journal of the Acous- tical Society of America 102(1). 523–36. Hoch, Rev. E. 1998. Hippocrene Concise Dictionary: Bemba–English/English–Bemba. New York, NY: Hippocrene Books. First published in 1960. Hockett, Charles F. 1955. A manual of phonology. Balitmore, MD: Waverly Press. Horton, A. E. 1949. A Grammar of Luvale (Bantu grammatical archives 2). Johannes- burg: Witwatersrand University Press. House, Arthur S. 1957. Analog studies of nasal consonants. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 2. 190–204. Hu, Fang & Ling Feng. 2015. On the fricative vowels in Suzhou Chinese. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 137(4). 2380. Hualde, José Ignacio. 1989. Autosegmental and metrical spreading in the vowel harmony systems of northwestern Spain. Linguistics 27. 773–805. Huang, Tsan. 2001. The interplay of perception and phonology in tone 3 sandhi in Chinese Putonghua. In Elizabeth Hume & Keith Johnson (eds.), Studies on the In- terplay of Speech Perception and Phonology (Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 55), 23—42. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. Huang, Yaqian. 2019. Revisiting non-idempotency in Tibetan vowel harmony. San Diego Linguistics Papers 7. 2–16. Hudson, Joyce. 1983. Transitivity and aspect in the Kriol verb. Pacific Linguistics A-65(65). 161–76. van der Hulst, Harry. 2012. An RcvP analysis of vowel harmony in Yoruba. In Eugeniuc Cyan, Henryk Kardela & Bogdan Szymanek (eds.), Sound, structure and sense: Studies in memory of Edmund Gussman, Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL. van der Hulst, Harry. 2014. Lowering harmony in Bantu: An RcvP account. In Sab- rina Bendjaballah, Noam Faust, Mohamed Lahrouchi & Nicola Lampitelli (eds.), The

267 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Form of Structure, the Structure of Form: Essays in honor of Jean Lowenstamm, 13–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. van der Hulst, Harry. 2018. Asymmetries in Vowel Harmony: A Representational Ac- count. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. van der Hulst, Harry & Norval Smith. 1982. Prosodic domains and opaque segments in autosegmental theory. In Harry van der Hulst & Norval Smith (eds.), The Structure of Phonological Representations, 311–36. Dordrecht: Foris. van der Hulst, Harry & Norval Smith. 1985. Vowel features and umlaut in Djingili, Nyangumarda and Warlpiri. Phonology Yearbook 2. 277–303. van der Hulst, Harry & Jeroen van de Weijer. 1995. Vowel Harmony. In John Gold- smith (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 495–534. Oxford: Blackwell Pub- lishers. Hulstaert, Gustave. 1961. Grammaire du Lomongo. Première partie : phonologie. Terv- uren: Musée royal de l’Afrique centrale. Hulstaert, Gustave. 1965. Grammaire du Lomongo. Deuxième partie : morphologie. Tervuren: Musée royal de l’Afrique centrale. Hume, Elizabeth. 1992. Front vowels, coronal consonants and their interaction in non-linear phonology. PhD thesis, Cornell University. Hume, Elizabeth. 2011. Markedness. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, 79–106. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Hung, Henrietta. 1989. [ATR] harmony in Yapese. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 6. 255–73. Hura, Susan, Björn Lindblom & Randy Diehl. 1992. On the role of perception in shaping phonological assimilation rules. Language and Speech 35. 59–72. Hurch, Bernhard & Richard A. Rhodes. 1996. Natural Phonology: the state of the art. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hyman, Larry M. 1970. The role of borrowings in the justification of phonological grammars. Studies in African Linguistics 1(1). 1–48. Hyman, Larry M. 1976. Phonologization. In Alphonse Juilland, A. M. Devine & Laurence D. Stephens (eds.), Linguistic Studies Offered to Joseph Greenberg on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, 407–18. Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri.

268 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Hyman, Larry M. 1988. Underspecification and vowel height transfer in Esimbi. Phon- ology 5(2). 255–73. Hyman, Larry M. 1991. Cyclic phonology and morphology in Cibemba. University of California, Berkeley, ms. Hyman, Larry M. 1993. Conceptual issues in the comparative study of the Bantu verb stem. In Salikoko S. Mufwene, Lioba Moshi, Ben G. Blount & Deborah Schmidt (eds.), Topics in African Linguistics, 3–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hyman, Larry M. 1995. Nasal consonant harmony at a distance the case of Yaka. Studies in African Linguistics 24(1). 5–30. Hyman, Larry M. 1998. Positional Prominence and the ‘Prosodic Trough’ in Yaka. Phonology 15(1). 41–75. Hyman, Larry M. 1999. The Historical Interpretation of Vowel Harmony in Bantu. In Jean-Marie Hombert & Larry M. Hyman (eds.), Bantu Historical Linguistics: Theor- etical and Empirical Perspectives, 235–95. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Hyman, Larry M. 2001. Vowel Harmony in Gunu. Studies in African Linguistics 30(2). 147–70. Hyman, Larry M. 2002a. “Abstract” Vowel Harmony in Kàlɔ̀ŋ: A System-Driven Ac- count. Talk given at Théories Linguistiques et Langues Sub-Sahariennes, Paris, France, 6–8 February. URL: http://www.linguistics.berkeley.edu/~hyman/ Hyman_Kalong_VH_Paper.pdf. Hyman, Larry M. 2002b. Is There a Right-to-Left Bias in Vowel Harmony? Talk given at the 9th International Phonology Meeting, Vienna, Austria, 1 Novem- ber. URL: http://www.linguistics.berkeley.edu/~hyman/Hyman_Vienna_ VH_paper_forma.pdf. Hyman, Larry M. 2003a. Segmental phonology. In Derek Nurse & Gérard Philippson (eds.), The Bantu Languages, 42–58. London: Routledge. Hyman, Larry M. 2003b. Sound change, misanalysis, and analogy in the Bantu causative. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 24. 55–90. Hyman, Larry M. 2009. The natural history of verb-stem reduplication in Bantu. Mor- phology 19. 177–206. Hyman, Larry M. 2013. Enlarging the scope of phonologization. In Alan C. L. Yu (ed.), Origins of Sound Change: Approaches to Phonologization, 3–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

269 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Hyman, Larry M. 2017. Bantu Tone Overview. UC Berkeley Phonology Laboratory Annual Report 162–77. To appear also in The Oxford Guide to the Bantu Languages. Hyman, Larry M. & Al Mtenje. 1999. Prosodic Morphology and tone: the case of Chi- chewa. In René Kager, Harry van der Hulst & Wim Zonneveld (eds.), The Prosody– Morphology Interface, 62–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Inkelas, Sharon & Cheryl Zoll. 2005. Reduplication: Doubling in Morphology (Cam- bridge Studies in Linguistics 106). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. International Phonetic Association. 1989. Report on the 1989 Kiel Convention. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 19(2). 67–80. Iosad, Pavel. 2012. Vowel reduction in Russian: No phonetics in phonology. Journal of Linguistics 48(3). 521–71. Iosad, Pavel. 2017. A substance-free framework for phonology: An analysis of the Bre- ton dialect of Bothoa (Edinburgh Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 2). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Itô, Junko. 1984. Melodic Dissimilation in Ainu. Linguistic Inquiry 15(3). 505–13. Itô, Junko & Armin Mester. 1995a. Japanese Phonology. In Natsuko Tsujimura (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 62–100. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Itô, Junko & Armin Mester. 1995b. The core-periphery structure of the lexicon and constraints on reranking. In Jill Beckman, Suzanne Urbanczyk & Laura Walsh Dickey (eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory, 181–209. Amherst, MA: GLSA. Itô, Junko & Armin Mester. 1999. The structure of the phonological lexicon. In John Goldsmith (ed.), The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, 817–38. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Jacottet, Édouard. 1896. Études sur les langues du Haut-Zambèze. Textes originaux, recueillis et traduits en français et précédés d’une esquisse grammaticale. Première partie : grammaires soubiya et louyi (Bulletin de Correspondence Africaine XVI). Paris: L’École des Lettres d’Alger. Jacottet, Édouard. 1901. Études sur les langues du Haut-Zambèze. Textes originaux, recueillis et traduits en français et précédés d’une esquisse grammaticale. Troisième partie : textes louyi : contes et légendes, supersitions, etc. et vocabulaires (Bulletin de Correspondence Africaine XVI). Paris: L’École des Lettres d’Alger. Jacquot, André. 1985. Études linguistiques laadi (République Populaire du Congo). Paris: Office de la Recherche Scientifique et Technique d’Outre-Mer.

270 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Jakobson, Roman. 1941. Kindersprache, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Jakobson, Roman. 1942. The Paleosiberian languages. American Anthropologist 44. 602–20. Jakobson, Roman. 1963. Implications of language universals for linguistics. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of language, 263–78. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jakobson, Roman & Morris Halle. 1956. Fundamentals of Language. The Hague: Mouton. Jalla, Adolphe. 1917. Sikololo–English Dictionary. Sine loco: British South Africa Com- pany. 1st edition. Jalla, Adolphe. 1937. Dictionary of the Lozi Language, vol. 1: Lozi–English. London: United Society for Christian Literature. 2nd edition. Jalla, Adolphe. 1982a. Database of Dictionary of the Lozi Language, vol. 1: Lozi–English (3rd edition). Available to download from the Comparative Bantu Online Diction- ary. Contributed by John Lowe. URL: http://www.cbold.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/ Dico.asp?Langue=Lozi. Jalla, Adolphe. 1982b. Silozi–English dictionary. Lusaka: National Educational Com- pany of Zambia. 3rd edition, revised and enlarged by the Literature Committee of the United Church of Zambia. Janson, Tore. 2007. Bantu spirantisation as an areal change. Africana Linguistica XIII. 79–116. Jarosz, Gaja. 2006. Rich lexicons and restrictive grammars: Maximum likelihood learning in Optimality Theory. PhD thesis, Johns Hopkins University. Jerro, Kyle. 2016. The Syntax and Semantics of Applicative Morphology in Bantu. PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin. Jespersen, Otto. 1904. Lehrbuch der Phonetik. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner. Translated by Hermann Davidsen. Johnsen, Sverre. 2003. Ljodsamhøvet i AM 315 f fol. Arkiv för nordisk filologi 118. 47–75. Johnson, Keith. 2003. Acoustic and Auditory Phonetics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub- lishing. 2nd edition.

271 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Jokweni, Mbulelo Wilson & Henry M. Thipa. 1996. ATR harmony in Xhosa. South African Journal of African Languages 16(4). 119–23. Jones, Taylor. 2019. A Corpus Phonetic Study of Contemporary Persian Vowels in Casual Speech. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 25(1). 285– 93. Jones, W. & P. Jones. 1991. Barasano Syntax: Studies in the Languages of Colombia. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arling- ton. Jourdan, Christine & Rachel Selbach. 2004. Solomon Islands Pijin: phonetics and phonology. In Berndt Kortmann, Edgar W. Schnedier, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mes- thrie & Clive Upton (eds.), A Handbook of Varieties of English, vol. 1, 690–709. New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. Juhanen, Juha. 2003. Proto-Mongolic. In Juha Juhanen (ed.), The Mongolic Languages (Routledge Language Family Series), 1–29. London: Routledge. Juhanen, Juha A. 2012. Mongolian (London Oriental and African Language Library 19). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Jun, Jongho. 1995. Perceptual and Articulatory Factors in Place Assimilation: An Optimality Theoretic Approach. PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles. Jun, Jongho. 1996. Place assimilation is not the result of gestural overlap: Evidence from Korean and English. Phonology 13(3). 377–407. Jun, Jongho. 2004. Place assimilation. In Bruce Hayes, Robert Kirchner & Donca Steri- ade (eds.), Phonetically Based Phonology, 58–86. New York, NY: Cambridge Univer- sity Press. Jun, Jongho. 2011. Positional effects in consonant clusters. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, 1103–23. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Jungraithmayr, Herrmann. 1971. The Tangale vowel system reconsidered. Journal of African Languages 10. 28–33. Kabak, Barış. 2011. Turkish Vowel Harmony. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, 2831– 53. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Kabasele, Philoté Mwamba. 2016. Testing the Perceptual Contrast Between /o/ and /ɔ/, and /e/ and /ɛ/ in Kinshasa Lingala. Actes du congrès annuel de l’Association

272 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

canadienne de linguistique 2016/Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Conference of the Ca- nadian Linguistic Association URL: http://cla-acl.ca/wp-content/uploads/ actes-2016/Kabasele_CLA2016_proceedings.pdf. Kabasele, Philoté Mwamba. 2018. A Systematic Investigation of Mid-Vowel Sounds in Kinshasa Lingala: A Case of Extreme Contrast Reduction. PhD thesis, University of Calgary. Kager, René. 1999. Optimality Theory (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. Kalinowski, Cristin. 2009. Multidirectional Vowel Harmony in Esimbi. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 35. 147–55. Kamitondo, E. Ndopu. 1958. Silozi Note Book. London: Longmans, Green & Co. Kang, Hijo. 2012. Diachrony in Synchrony: Korean vowel harmony in verbal conjug- ation. PhD thesis, Stony Brook University. Kang, Ong-mi. 1992. Korean prosodic phonology. PhD thesis, University of Wash- ington. Kang, Yoonjung. 2003. Perceptual Similarity in Loanword Adaptation: English Postvocalic Word-Final Stops in Korean. Phonology 20(2). 127–70. Kara, Dávid Somfai. 2003. Kyrgyz (Languages of the World/Materials 423). Munich: LINCOM Europa. Kari, Ethelbert E. 1997. Degema (Languages of the World/Materials 180). Munich: LINCOM Europa. Kari, Ethelbert E. 2007. Vowel Harmony in Degema, Nigeria. African Study Mono- graphs 28(2). 87–97. Kari, Ethelbert Emmanuel. 2004. A Reference Grammar of Degema (Grammatical Ana- lyses of African Languages/Grammatische Analysen afrikanischer Sprachen 22). Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. Kashoki, Mubanga E. 1999. Loanwords in siLozi, ciNyanja and ciTonga. Ndola, Zambia: Mission Press. Kasonde, Alexander Raymond Makasa. 2009. Phonologie et morphologie de la langue bemba (LINCOM studies in African linguistics 75). Munich: LINCOM Europa. Katamba, Francis. 1984. A nonlinear analysis of vowel harmony in Luganda. Journal of Linguistics 20(2). 257–75.

273 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Katamba, Francis. 2003. Bantu nominal morphology. In Derek Nurse & Gérard Phil- ippson (eds.), The Bantu Languages, 103–20. London: Routledge. Kaun, Abigail. 2004. The typology of rounding harmony. In Bruce Hayes, Robert Kirchner & Donca Steriade (eds.), Phonetically Based Phonology, 87–116. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Kaun, Abigail R. 1995. The Typology of Rounding Harmony: An Optimality Theoretic Approach. PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles. Kawahara, Shigeto. 2006. A faithfulness ranking projected from a perceptibility scale: The case of [+voice] in Japanese. Language 82(3). 536–74. Kawahara, Shigeto. 2011. Experimental Approaches in Theoretical Phonology. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, 2283–303. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Kawahara, Shigeto, Donna Erickson & Atsuo Suemitsu. 2017. The phonetics of jaw displacement in Japanese vowels. Acoustical Science and Technology 38(2). 99–107. Kawahara, Shigeto & Kelly Garvey. 2014. Nasal place assimilation and the perceptibility of place contrasts. Open Linguistics 1. 17–36. Kawasaki-Fukumori, Haruko. 1992. An Acoustical Basis for Universal Phonotactic Constraints. Language and Speech 35. 73–86. Kaye, Jonathan & Barbara Nykile. 1979. Loan words and abstract phonotactic constraints. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 24(2). 71–94. Keating, Patricia. 1988. The window model of coarticulation: articulatory evidence. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 69. 3–29. Kelly, Michael H. 1992. Using sound to solve syntactic problems: The role of phonology in grammatical category assignments. Psychological Review 99(2). 349–64. Kemp, Adrienne W. 1995. Splitters, lumpers and species per genus. Mathematical Scientist 20. 107–18. Kenstowicz, Michael. 1996. Quality-sensitive stress. Rivista di Linguistica 9. 157–87. Kenstowicz, Michael J. 1979. Chukchee vowel harmony and epenthesis. In Paul R. Clyne, William F. Hanks & Carol L. Hofbauer (eds.), The Elements, a Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels, April 20–21, 1979: Including Papers from the Conference on Non-Slavic Languages of the USSR, April 18, 1979, 402–12. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.

274 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Kenstowicz, Michael J. 2001. The role of perception in loanword phonology. Lin- guistique africaine 20. Kenstowicz, Michael J. 2007. Salience and similarity in loanword adaptation: A case study from Fijian. Language Sciences 29(2–3). 316–40. Kenstowicz, Michael J. 2009. Two notes on Kinande vowel harmony. Language Sci- ences 31(2–3). 248–70. Kügler, Frank. 2015. Phonological phrasing and ATR vowel harmony in Akan. Phon- ology 32. 177–204. Khabanyane, Khathatso Evelyn. 1991. The Five Phonemic Vowel Heights of South- ern Sotho: an Acoustic and Phonological Analysis. Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 5. 1–36. Khumalo, James Steven Mzilikazi. 1987. An autosegmental account of Zulu Phono- logy. PhD thesis, University of the Witwatersrand. Kidda, Mario E. 1993. Tangale Phonology: A Descriptive Analysis (Sprache und Oralität in Afrika 8). Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. Kimenyi, Alexandre. 1979. Studies in Kinyarwanda and Bantu Phonology (Current Inquiry into Language and Linguistics 33). Carbondale, IL: Linguistic Research. Kimper, Wendell. 2011. Competing Triggers: Transparency and Opacity in Vowel Harmony. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Kimper, Wendell. 2013. Perceptual Motivations for Parasitic Restrictions in Vowel Harmony. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 41. 259–68. Kimper, Wendell. 2017. Not crazy after all these years? Perceptual grounding for long-distance vowel harmony. Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology 7(1). 19, 1–37. Kisseberth, Charles W. 1996. Makhua–English lexicon. Available to download from the Comparative Bantu Online Dictionary. Contributed by Charles M. Kisseberth. URL: http://www.cbold.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/Dico.asp?Langue=Makhua. Kisseberth, Charles W. & David Odden. 2003. Tone. In Derek Nurse & Gérard Phil- ippson (eds.), The Bantu Languages, 59–70. London: Routledge. Ko, Seongyeon. 2012. Tongue Root Harmony and Vowel Contrast in Northeast Asian Languages. PhD thesis, Cornell University. Kockaert, Hendrik J. 1997. Vowel harmony in siSwati: An experimental study of raised and non-raised vowels. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 18(2). 139–56.

275 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Kohler, Klaus. 1990. Segmental reduction in connected speech in German: Phonolo- gical facts and phonetic explanations. In William J. Hardcastle & Alain Marchal (eds.), Speech Production and Speech Modeling, 69–92. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Kohler, Klaus. 1991. The Phonetics/Phonology Issue in the Study of Articulatory Re- duction. Phonetica 48. 180–92. Krämer, Martin. 1999. On the role of prosodic and morphological categories in vowel harmony and disharmony. A correspondence approach. In Tina Cambier- Langeveld, Aniko Lipták, Michael Redford & Eric Jan van der Torre (eds.), Proceed- ings of ConSOLE VII, 183–9. Leiden: SOLE. Krämer, Martin. 2001. Yucatec Maya vowel alternations – Harmony as Syntagmatic Identity. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 20. 175–217. Krämer, Martin. 2003. Vowel Harmony and Correspondence Theory (Studies in Gener- ative Grammar 66). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Krämer, Martin. 2009. The Phonology of Italian (The Phonology of the World’s Lan- guages). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Krueger, John R. 1962. Yakut Manual (Uralic and Altaic Series 21). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Publications. Kula, Nancy C. 1997. H-Licensing and Vowel Harmony in Venda. MA dissertation, School of Oriental and African Studies. Kula, Nancy C. 2000. The phonology–morphology interface: Consonant mutations in Bemba. Linguistics in the Netherlands 17(1). 171–83. Kula, Nancy C. 2002. The Phonology of Verbal Derivation in Bemba. PhD thesis, Universiteit Leiden. Kula, Nancy C. Submitted. Vowel Harmony. In The Oxford Guide to the Bantu Lan- guages, draft dated 8 January 2021. Kula, Nancy C. & Lutz Marten. 2000. Constraints and processes: Evidence from Be- mba, Herero and Swahili. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics 10. 91–102. Kula, Nancy C. & Nasir A. Syed. 2020. Non-myopic nasal spreading in Saraiki. Radical: A Journal of Phonology 1. 126–82. Künnap, Ago. 1999. Kamass (Languages of the World/Materials 185). Munich: LIN- COM Europa.

276 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Kurowski, Kathleen & Sheila E. Blumstein. 1984. Perceptual integration of the murmur and formant transitions for place of articulation in nasal consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 76. 383–90. Kurowski, Kathleen & Sheila E. Blumstein. 1993. Acoustic properties for the perception of nasal consonants. In Marie K. Huffman & Rena A. Krakow (eds.), Nasals, Nasalization, and the Velum, 197–224. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Kutsch Lojenga, Constance & Christine Waag. 1994. KiBudu: A Bantu language with nine vowels. Africana Linguistica XI, Annales du Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale 142. 127–33. Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per B. Brockhoff & Rune H. B. Christensen. 2017. lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software 82(13). 1–26. Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change: Internal Factors, vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Labroussi, Catherine. 1998. Le couloir de lacs : Contributions linguistique à l’histoire des populations du sud-ouest de la Tanzanie. PhD thesis, Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales. Labroussi, Catherine. 1999. Vowel Systems and Spirantization in Southwest Tanzania. In Jean-Marie Hombert & Larry M. Hyman (eds.), Bantu Historical Linguistics: The- oretical and Empirical Perspectives, 335–77. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Labrune, Laurence. 2012. The Phonology of Japanese (The Phonology of the World’s Languages). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. LaCharité, Darlene & Carole Paradis. 2000. Derivational residue: hidden rules in Op- timality Theory. In Joost Dekkers, Frank Reinoud Hugo van der Leeuw, Frank van der Leeuw, Jeroen Maarten van de Weijer & Jeroen van de Weijer (eds.), Op- timality Theory: Phonology, Syntax, and Acquisition, 193–209. Oxford: Oxford Uni- versity Press. LaCharité, Darlene & Carole Paradis. 2005. Category preservation and proximity versus phonetic approximation in loanword adaptation. Linguistic Inquiry 36(2). 223–58. Ladefoged, Peter & Ian Maddieson. 1996. The Sounds of the World’s Languages. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

277 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

LaPolla, Randy J. & Chenglong Huang. 2003. A Grammar of Qiang with annotated texts and glossary (Mouton Grammar Library 31). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Lee, Wai-Sum. 2005. The articulatory and acoustical characteristics of the “apical vowels” in Beijing Mandarin. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 118(3). 2027. Lehiste, Ilse. 1964. Acoustical characteristics of selected English consonants. Indiana Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore and Linguistics 34. 10–50. Lehmann, Dorothea. 1998. An Outline of ciNyanja Grammar. Lusaka: Bookworld Publishers. First published in 1977 by the Institute for African Studies University of Zambia in Language in Zambia; Grammatical Sketches. Leitch, Myles. 1996. Vowel harmonies of the Congo basin: An Optimality Theory analysis of variation in the Bantu zone C. PhD thesis, University of British Columbia. Leiwo, Matti, Pirjo Kulju & Katsura Aoyama. 2002. The acquisiton of Finnish vowel harmony. In Anu Airola, Antti Arppe, Orvokki Heinämäki, Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemäki, Urho Määttä, Jussi Niemi, Kari Pitkänen & Mickael Suominen (eds.), A Man of Measure: Festschrift in Honour of Fred Karlsson on His60th Birthday (Spe- cial supplement to SKY Journal of Linguistics 19), 149–61. Turku: The Linguistic Association of Finland. Li, Bing. 1996. Tungusic Vowel Harmony: Description and Analysis. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. Lightner, Theodore M. 1965. On the description of vowel and consonant harmony. Word 19. 376–87. Lindblom, Björn. 1990. Explaining Phonetic Variation: A Sketch of the H&H The- ory. In William J. Hardcastle & Alain Marchal (eds.), Speech Production and Speech Modeling, 403–39. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Lindblom, Björn, Susan Guion, Susan Hura, Seung-Jae Moon & Raquel Willerman. 1995. Is sound change adaptive? Rivista di Linguistica 7. 5–37. Linebaugh, Gary Dean. 2007. Phonetic Grounding and Phonology: Vowel Backness Harmony and Vowel Height Harmony. PhD thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana– Champaign. Linker, Wendy. 1982. Articulatory and acoustic correlates of labial activity in vowels: A cross-linguistic study. PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.

278 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Lobanov, Boris M. 1971. Classification of Russian vowels spoken by different speakers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 49. 606–8. Lodge, Ken. 1995. Kalenjin phonology and morphology: A further exemplification of underspecification and non-destructive phonology. Lingua 96(1). 29–43. Lodhi, Abdulaziz Y. 2002. Verbal extensions in Bantu (the case of Swahili and Nyam- wezi). Africa & Asia: Göteborg working papers on Asian and African languages and literatures 2. 4–26. Lombardi, Linda. 1999. Positional Faithfulness and Voicing Assimilation in Optimality Theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17. 267–302. Louwrens, Louis J., Ingeborg M. Kosch & Albert E. Kotzé. 1995. Northern Sotho (Lan- guages of the World/Materials 30). Munich: LINCOM Europa. Lovins, Julie Beth. 1975. Loanwords and the phonological structure of Japanese. Bloom- ington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Mabiala, Jean-Noël. 1999. Phonologie comparative et historique du koongo. PhD thesis, Université Lumière Lyon 2. Mabille, A. & H. Dieterlen. 1950. Southern Sotho–English Dictionary. Morija, Basuto- land: Morija Sesuto Book Depot. Reclassified, revised and enlarged by R. A. Paroz. MacWhinney, Brian. 1978. The Acquisition of Morphophonology (Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 174). Oxford: Blackwell. Maddieson, Ian. 2003. The sounds of the Bantu languages. In Derek Nurse & Gérard Philippson (eds.), The Bantu Languages, 15–41. London: Routledge. Maddieson, Ian & Bonny Sands. 2019. The sounds of the Bantu languages. In Mark Van de Velde, Koen Bostoen, Derek Nurse & Gérard Philippson (eds.), The Bantu Languages (Routledge Language Family Series), 79–127. London: Routledge. 2nd edition. Maganga, Clement & Thilo C. Schadeberg. 1992. Kinyamwezi: grammar, texts, vocabulary. Cologne: Koppe. Mahanta, Shakuntala. 2007. Directionality and Locality in Vowel Harmony: With special reference to Vowel Harmony in Assamese. PhD thesis, Universiteit Utrecht. Maho, Jouni. 2003. A classification of the Bantu languages: an update of Guthrie’s referential system. In Derek Nurse & Gérard Philippson (eds.), The Bantu Languages, 639–51. London: Routledge.

279 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Maho, Jouni Filip. 2009a. BOB: Bantu Online Bibliography. Ms. URL: http://goto. glocalnet.net/jfmaho/bob.pdf. Maho, Jouni Filip. 2009b. NUGL Online: The online version of the New Updated Guthrie List, a referential classification of the Bantu languages. Ms. URL: http: //goto.glocalnet.net/mahopapers/nuglonline.pdf. Maho, Jouni Filip. 2011. The Bantu Bibliography Supplement. Ms. URL: http:// goto.glocalnet.net/mahopapers/bntbibliosupp.pdf. Maiden, Martin. 1991. Interactive Morphonology: Metaphony in Italy. New York, NY: Routledge. Mailhot, Frédéric. 2013. Modeling the emergence of vowel harmony through iterated learning. In Alan C. L. Yu (ed.), Origins of Sound Change: Approaches to Phonologiz- ation, 247–61. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mainga, Mutumba. 2010. Bulozi under the Luyana Kings: Political Evolution and State Formation in Pre-Colonial Zambia. Lusaka: Bookworld Publishers. Majors, Tivoli. 1998. Stress-dependent Harmony: Phonetic Origins and Phonological Analysis. PhD thesis, University of Texas, Austin. Malambe, Gloria B. 2015. Mid vowel assimilation in siSwati. Southern African Lin- guistics and Applied Language Studies 33(3). 261–72. Malécot, André. 1956. Acoustic cues for nasal consonants: An experimental study involving a tape-splicing technique. Language 32. 274–84. Malécot, André. 1960. Vowel nasality as a distinctive feature in American English. Language 36. 222–9. Mann, Michael. 1995. Database of ‘A Vocabulary of Icibemba’. Available to download from the Comparative Bantu Online Dictionary. Contributed by Michael Mann. URL: http://www.cbold.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/Dico.asp?Langue=Bemba. Mann, Michael. 1999. An Outline of iciBemba Grammar. Lusaka: Bookworld Pub- lishers. First published in 1977 by the Institute for African Studies University of Zambia in Language in Zambia; Grammatical Sketches. Manuel, Sharon Y. 1984. Universal and language particular aspects of vowel-to-vowel coarticulation. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research SR-77/78. 69– 78. Manuel, Sharon Y. 1990. The role of contrast in limiting vowel-to-vowel coarticulation in different languages. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 88. 1286–98.

280 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Marlo, Michael R. & David Odden. 2019. Tone. In Mark Van de Velde, Koen Bostoen, Derek Nurse & Gérard Philippson (eds.), The Bantu Languages (Routledge Language Family Series), 150–71. London: Routledge. 2nd edition. Marten, Lutz. 1996. Swahili Vowel Harmony. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics & Phonetics 6. 61–75. Marten, Lutz. 1997. Licensing Constraints for Swahili Vowel Harmony. Papers in Linguistics from the University of Manchester 2. 239–55. Marten, Lutz. 2020. Bantu and Bantoid. In Rainer Vossen & Gerrit J. Dimmendaal (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of African Languages, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marten, Lutz & Nancy C. Kula. 2002. Semantic transparency in phonology: Telicity and vowel copying in Dciriku. In Friedrich Neubarth, Markus Pöchtrager & John R. Rennison (eds.), Phonologica 2002, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Marten, Lutz & Nancy C. Kula. 2008. Zambia: ‘One Zambia, One Nation, Many Lan- guages’. In Andrew Simpson (ed.), Language and national identity in Africa, 291– 313. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marten, Lutz & Nancy C. Kula. 2014. Benefactive and substitutive applicatives in Bemba. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 35(1). 1–44. Marten, Lutz, Nancy C. Kula & Nhlanhla Thwala. 2007. Parameters of morphosyn- tactic variation in Bantu. Transactions of the Philological Society 105(3). 253–338. Martin, Andrew. 2007. The Evolving Lexicon. PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles. Martin, Andrew. 2011. Grammars leak: Modeling how phonotactic generalizations interact within the grammar. Language 87(4). 751–70. Martindale, Colin, Sabir M. Gusein-Zade, Dean McKenzie & Mark Yu. Borodovsky. 1996. Comparison of equations describing the ranked frequency distributions of graphemes and phonemes. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 3(2). 106–12. Martindale, Colin & Andrzej K. Konopka. 1996. Oligonucleotide frequencies in DNA follow a Yule distribution. Computers & Chemistry 20(1). 35–8. Mathangwane, Joyce. 1994. Kalanga lexical database. Available to download from the Comparative Bantu Online Dictionary. Contributed by Joyce Mathangwane. URL: http://www.cbold.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/Dico.asp?Langue=Kalanga. McCarthy, John J. 1982. Dual vowel harmony systems in a Montañes Spanish dialect. Texas Linguistic Forum 21. 143–78.

281 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

McCarthy, John J. 1984. Theoretical consequences of Montañes vowel harmony. Lin- guistic Inquiry 5(2). 343–62. McCarthy, John J. & Alan Prince. 1994. The Emergence of the Unmarked: Optimality in Prosodic Morphology. Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society 24. 55–99. Available on Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-13. URL: http://roa.rutgers. edu/article/view/14. McCarthy, John J. & Alan S. Prince. 1995. Prosodic Morphology. In John Goldsmith (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 318–66. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. McGrath, Donovan & Lutz Marten. 2003. Colloquial Swahili: The Complete Course for Beginners. London: Routledge. McKay, Carolyn J. 1999. A grammar of Misantla Totonac. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press. McMahon, April M. S. 1991. Lexical phonology and sound change: the case of the Scottish vowel length rule. Journal of Linguistics 27. 29–53. McMahon, April M. S. 2000. Lexical phonology and the history of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McPherson, Laura & Bruce Hayes. 2016. Relating applicational frequency to morphological structure: the case of Tommo So vowel harmony. Phonology 33(1). 125–67. Meakins, Felicity & Rachel Nordlinger. 2014. A Grammar of Bilinarra: An Australian Aboriginal Language of the Northern Territory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Meeussen, Achille Emile. 1967. Bantu grammatical reconstructions. Annalen van het Koninklijk Museum voor Midden-Afrika 61. 79–121. Meeuwis, Michael. 1998. Lingala (Languages of the World/Materials 261). Munich: LINCOM Europa. Meinhof, Carl. 1899. Grundriß einer Lautlehre der Bantusprachen, nebst Anleitung zur Aufnahme von Bantusprachen. Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus AG. Meinhof, Carl. 1948. Grundzüge einer vergleichenden Grammatik der Bantusprachen. Hamburg: Echardt & Messtorff.nd 2 edition. Meinhof, Carl & Nicolaas Jacobus van Warmelo. 1932. Introduction to the phonology of the Bantu languages. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. Translated, revised and enlarged version of Meinhof (1899) in collaboration with the author and Dr Alice Werner by Nicolaas Jacobus van Warmelo.

282 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Meyerhoff, Miriam. 1996. Transitive marking in contact Englishes. Australian Journal of Linguistics 16(1). 57–80. Mfoutou, Jean-Alexis. 1985. Esquisse phonologique du kidoondo : Un dialecte koongo de la République Populaire du Congo. Brazzaville: Université Marien Ngouabi. Milligan, Marianne. 2000. A new look at Menominee vowel harmony. In John D. Nichols (ed.), Papers of the 31st Algonquian Conference, 237–54. Winnipeg, MB: Uni- versity of Manitoba. Miner, Kenneth L. 1979. Theoretical implications of the Great Menominee Vowel Shift. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 4. 7–25. Miti, Lazarus. 2001. A linguistic analysis of Cinsenga. Cape Town: Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society. Mohanan, Karuvannur. 1993. Fields of attraction in phonology. In John Goldsmith (ed.), The Last Phonological Rule: Reflections on Constraints and Derivations, 61–116. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Moll, Kenneth L. 1962. Velopharyngeal closure on vowels. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 5. 30–7. Montingea, André. 2006. Lingala courant : Grammaire pédagogique de référence. Tokyo: Nagayama Printing. Moore-Cantwell, Claire. 2016. The representation of probabilistic phonological patterns: Neurological, behavioral, and computational evidence from the English stress system. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Moreton, Elliot. 2008. Analytic bias and phonological typology. Phonology 25. 83–127. Moreton, Elliot & Joe Pater. 2012a. Structure and substance in artificial-phonology learning: Part I, structure. Language and Linguistics Compass 6. 686–701. Moreton, Elliot & Joe Pater. 2012b. Structure and substance in artificial-phonology learning: Part II, substance. Language and Linguistics Compass 6. 702–18. Mortensen, Johannes & John Tøndering. 2013. The effect of vowel height on Voice On- set Time in stop consonants in CV sequences in spontaneous Danish. Proceedings of Fonetik 2013 . Moto, Francis. 1989. Phonology of the Bantu lexicon. PhD thesis, University College London. Mous, Maarten. 1993. A Grammar of Iraqw. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.

283 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Mpiranya, Fidèle. 1997. Spirantisation et fusion vocalique en Bantu: Eassai d’interprétation fonctionnelle. Linguistique Africaine 16. 51–7. Mpiranya, Fidèle. 2015. Swahili Grammar and Workbook. London: Routledge. Mtenje, Al D. 1985. Arguments for an autosegmental analysis of Chicheŵa vowel harmony. Lingua 66(1). 21–52. Mtenje, Al D. 2001. Database of ‘Chewa dictionary’. Available to download from the Comparative Bantu Online Dictionary. Contributed by Al D. Mtenje. URL: http: //www.cbold.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/Dico.asp?Langue=Chewa. Mugane, John M. 1997a. A paradigmatic grammar of Gĩkũyũ (Stanford Monographs in African Linguistics). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Mugane, John M. 1997b. Bantu nominalization structures. PhD thesis, University of Arizona. Mutaka, Ngessimo. 1994. The Lexical Tonology of Kinande. Munich: LINCOM Europa. Mutaka, Ngessimo. 1995. Vowel harmony in Kinande. Journal of West African Lan- guages 25(2). 41–55. Mutonyi, Nasiombe. 2001. Aspects of Bukusu morphology and phonology. PhD thesis, Ohio State University. Mwangoka, Ngapona & Jan Voorhoeve. 1960. Cursus kiNyakyusa, vol. 3: Outline of Nyakyusa grammar. Leiden: Rijksuniversiteit. Mwihaki, Alice. 2001. Consonant–vowel harmony: Evidence from the phonotactics of loanword adaptation. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 37. 139–45. Mwisiya, M. W. 1977. Introduction to Silozi Grammar. Lusaka: National Educational Company of Zambia Ltd. Myers, Scott. 1987. Tone and the Structure of Words in Shona. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Myers, Scott. 1997. Expressing phonetic naturalness in phonology. In Iggy Roca (ed.), Constraints and Derivations in Phonology, 125–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Myers, Scott. 1998. AUX in Bantu Morphology and Phonology. In Larry M.Hyman & Charles W. Kisseberth (eds.), Theoretical Aspects of Bantu ,Tone 231–64. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Myers, Scott. 2000. Boundary disputes: The distinction between phonetic andphon- ological sound patterns. In Noel Burton-Roberts, Philip Carr & Gerard Docherty

284 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

(eds.), Phonological knowledge: Concepts and empirical issues, 245–72. Oxford: Ox- ford University Press. Myers, Scott & Jaye Padgett. 2014. Domain generalization in artificial language learning. Phonology 31. 399–433. Narayan, Chandra R. 2008. The acoustic-perceptual salience of nasal place contrasts. Journal of Phonetics 36. 191–217. Ndonga Mfuwa, Manuel. 1995. Systématique grammaticale du kisikongo (Angola). PhD thesis, Université Paris 5 René Descartes. Negash, Tilahun. 2015. Homorganic Nasal Assimilation in Arsi-Bale Afan Oromo: A Non-Linear Phonology. Humanities and Social Sciences 3. 140–8. Nespor, Marina & Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. Nevins, Andrew. 2004. Conditions on (Dis)Harmony. PhD thesis, Massachusetts In- stitute of Technology. Nevins, Andrew. 2010. Locality in Vowel Harmony (Linguistic Inquiry Mono- graphs 55). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ngonyani, Deo. 2004. Vowel Harmony in Kindendeule and Chingoni Languages of Tanzania. Utafiti Journal 5(1). 99–112. Ngonyani, Deo & Nancy Jumwa Ngowa. 2016. The productivity of the reversive extension in Standard Swahili. In Doris L. Payne, Sara Pacchiarotti & Mokaya Bosire (eds.), Diversity in African languages: Selected papers from the 46th Annual Con- ference on African Linguistics (Contemporary African Linguistics 5), 255–71. Ber- lin: Language Science Press. URL: http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/ 121. Ngunga, Armindo. 1997. Lexical phonology and morphology of Ciyao. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley. Ngunga, Armindo. 2000. Phonology and morphology of the Ciyao verb. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Ngunga, Armindo. 2001. Yao lexical database. Available to download from the Comparative Bantu Online Dictionary. Contributed by Armindo Ngunga. URL: http://www.cbold.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/Dico.asp?Langue=Yao. Nibert, Holly. 1998. Processes of vowel harmony in the Servigliano dialect of Italian: A comparison of two non-liner proposals for the representation of vowel height. Probus 10. 67–101.

285 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Nichols, Stephen. 2017. Nasal harmony in Kamaiurá: Syllabification and spreading. Talk given at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain, Canterbury, UK, 4–7 September. Nichols, Stephen. 2018. Positional faithfulness and feature co-occurrence constraints in the height harmony systems of five-vowel Bantu languages. Talk given atthe 15th Old World Conference in Phonology, London, UK, 12–14 January. Nichols, Stephen. Forthcoming. Asymmetries in vowel-pair frequencies and height harmony in Bantu. In Lee Bickmore, Michael Cahill, Michael Diercks, Laura J. Downing, James Essegbey, Katie Franich, Laura McPherson & Sharon Rose (eds.), Celebrating 50 years of ACAL: Selected Papers from the 50th Annual Conference on African Linguistics (Contemporary African Linguistics), Berlin: Language Science Press. URL: https://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/293. Nichols, Stephen & Henri Kauhanen. 2019. Vowel-pair rank–frequency distributions are polylogarithmic. Talk given at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Associ- ation of Great Britain, London, UK, 9–12 September. Niyonkuru, Lothaire. 1978. Phonologie et morphologie du giphende. Brussels: Uni- versité Libre de Bruxelles. Nornang, Willa. 1978. Tibetan Vowel Processes: A Case for the Feature Advanced Tongue Root. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Meeting of the Western Conference on Linguistics 106–12. Noske, Manuela. 1995. The ternary use of distinctive features: In defense of thenum- ber three. PhD thesis, University of Chicago. Noske, Manuela. 2000. [ATR] Harmony in Turkana: A Case of Faith Suffix » Faith Foot. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 18. 771–812. Nurse, Derek. 2008. Tense and Aspect in Bantu. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Nurse, Derek & Maud Devos. 2019. Aspect, tesne and mood. In Mark Van de Velde, Koen Bostoen, Derek Nurse & Gérard Philippson (eds.), The Bantu Languages (Rout- ledge Language Family Series), 203–36. London: Routledge. 2nd edition. Nurse, Derek & Gérard Philippson. 2003. Towards a historical classification of Bant. In Derek Nurse & Gérard Philippson (eds.), The Bantu Languages, 164–81. London: Routledge. Odden, David. 1991. Vowel geometry. Phonology 8. 261–89.

286 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Odden, David. 1994. Adjecency Parameters in Phonology. Language 70(2). 289–330. Odden, David. 1996. The Phonology and Morphology of Kimatuumbi (The Phonology of the World’s Languages). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Odden, David. 2015. Bantu Phonology. In Oxford Handbooks Online, Oxford: Oxford University Press. URL: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/ oxfordhb/9780199935345.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935345-e-59. Ohala, John J. 1989. Sound change is drawn from a pool of synchronic variation. In Leiv Breivik & Ernst Jahr (eds.), Language Change: Contributions to the Study of its Causes, 173–98. New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. Ohala, John J. 1990. The phonetics and phonology of aspects of assimilation. In Mary Kingston, John Beckman (ed.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: Between the grammar and physics of speech, 258–75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ohala, John J. 1993. The phonetics of sound change. In Charles Jones (ed.), Historical Linguistics: Problems and Perspectives, 237–78. London: Longman. Ohala, John J. 1994. Towards a universal, phonetically-based, theory of vowel harmony. Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing 491–4. Ohala, Manjari. 1983. Aspects of Hindi Phonology. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Öhman, Sven E. G. 1966. Coarticulation in VCV utterances: Spectrographic measurements. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 39. 151–68. Onn, Farid M. 1980. Aspects of Malay Phonology and Morphology. PhD thesis, Uni- versiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi. Orie, Ọlanikẹ Ọla. 2001. An alignment-based account of vowel harmony in Ifẹ Yoruba. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 20. 1–35. Orie, Ọlanikẹ Ọla. 2003. Two harmony theories and high vowel patterns in Ebira and Yoruba. The Linguistic Review 22(2). 117–43. Oxford, Will. 2016. Menominee vowel harmony revisited: A height-based underspecification account. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 35. 1–14. Paas, Steven. 2016. Oxford Chichewa-English English-Chichewa Dictionary. Cape Town: Oxford University Press. 4th edition, 1st edition published 2009. Padgett, Jaye. 1994. Stricture and Nasal Place Assimilation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 12(3). 465–513.

287 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Padgett, Jaye. 1995a. Feature classes. Papers in Optimality Theory: University of Mas- sachusetts Occasional Papers 18. 385–420. Padgett, Jaye. 1995b. Partial Class Behavior and Nasal Place Assimilation. Proceedings of the Arizona Phonology Conference: Workshop on Features in Optimality Theory 5. 145–83. Paradis, Carole. 1992. Lexical Phonology and Morphology: The Nominal Classes in Fula. New York, NY: Garland Publishing. Paradis, Carole. 2006. The unnatural /Cʲu/ (< foreign /Cy/) sequence in Russian loanwords: A problem for theperceptual view. Lingua 116. 1024–45. Paradis, Carole & Darlene LaCharité. 1997. Preservation and minimality in loanword adaptation. Journal of Linguistics 33(2). 379–430. Paradis, Carole & Darlene LaCharité. 2001. Guttural deletion in loanword. Phonology 18. 225–300. Paradis, Carole & Jean-François Prunet. 2000. Nasal vowels as two segments: evidence from borrowings. Language 76(2). 324–57. Paradis, Caroline. 1996. The inadequacy of filters and faithfulness in loanword adaptation. In Jacques Durand & Bernard Laks (eds.), Current Trends in Phonology: Models and Methods, 45–112. Salford: University of Salford Publications. Parker, Stephen G. 2002. Quantifying the Sonority Hierarchy. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Parkinson, Frederick. 1996. The representation of vowel height in phonology. PhD thesis, Ohio State University. Pashi, Lumana & Alan J. Turnbull. 1994. Lingala–English Dictionary. Kensington, MD: Dunwoody Press. Paster, Mary. 2004. Vowel height harmony and blocking in Buchan Scots. Phonology 21(3). 359–407. Peirce, Jonathan W. 2007. PsychoPy—Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 162(1). 8–13. Version 1.90.2. Retrieved 31 May 2018 from http://www.psychopy.org/. Peng, Long. 2000a. Kikuyu vowel harmony. South African Journal of African Lan- guages 20(4). 370–84. Peng, Long. 2000b. Nasal Harmony in Three South-American Languages. Interna- tional Journal of American Linguistics 66(1). 76–97.

288 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Pensalfini, Robert. 1997. Jingulu Grammar, Dictionary, and Texts. PhD thesis, Mas- sachusetts Institute of Technology. Pensalfini, Robert. 2002. Vowel harmony in Jingulu. Lingua 112(7). 561–86. Peperkamp, Sharon. 2005. A psycholinguistic theory of loan adaptations. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 30. 341–52. Peperkamp, Sharon & Emmanuel Dupoux. 2003. Reinterpreting loanword adaptations: The role of perception. Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences 15. 367–70. Peperkamp, Sharon & Emmanuel Dupoux. 2007. Learning the mapping from surface to underlying representations in artificial language learning. In Jennifer Cole& José Ignacio Hualde (eds.), Laboratory Phonology, vol. 9, 315–38. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Peperkamp, Sharon, Inga Vendelin & Emmanuel Dupoux. 2010. Perception of predictable stress: A cross-linguistic investigation. Journal of Phonetics 38(3). 422–30. Perkins, Jeremy, Seunghun J. Lee, Xiao Li & Hongyong Liu. 2014. An acoustic study of fricated vowels in Nuosu Yi: an exploratory study. Journal of the Korean Society of Speech Sciences 6(4). 109–15. Persohn, Bastian. 2017. The verb in Nyakyusa: A focus on tense, aspect and modality (Contemporary African Linguistics 2). Berlin: Language Science Press. URL: http: //langsci-press.org/catalog/book/141. Petzell, Malin & Lotta Aunio. 2019. Kami G36. In Mark Van de Velde, Koen Bostoen, Derek Nurse & Gérard Philippson (eds.), The Bantu Languages (Routledge Language Family Series), 563–90. London: Routledge. 2nd edition. Philippson, Derek & Rebecca Grollemund. 2019. Classifying Bantu languages. In Mark Van de Velde, Koen Bostoen, Derek Nurse & Gérard Philippson (eds.), The Bantu Languages (Routledge Language Family Series), 335–54. London: Routledge. 2nd edition. Phiri, Anacklet George. 1980. A Description of Derivational Forms in Tumbuka. PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin. Picard, Marc. 2001. Vowel harmony, centralization, and peripherality: the case of Pasiego. Linguistics 39(1). 117–32. Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1993. Dissimilarity in the Arabic Verbal Roots. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 23. 367–81.

289 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Piggott, Glyne & Harry van der Hulst. 1997. Locality and the nature of nasal harmony. Lingua 103(2–3). 85–112. Poppe, Nicholas N. 1964. Bashkir Manual (Uralic and Altaic Series 36). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Publications. Poulos, George. 1990. A Linguistic Analysis of Venda. Pretoria: Via Afrika. Poulos, George & Sonja E. Bosch. 1997. Zulu (Languages of the World/Materials 50). Munich: LINCOM Europa. Poulos, George & Christian T. Msimang. 1998. A Linguistic Analysis of Zulu. Pretoria: Via Afrika. Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Rutgers University and University of Colorado, ms. Przezdziecki, Marek. 2005. Vowel harmony and coarticulation in three dialects of Yoruba: Phonetics determining phonology. PhD thesis, Cornell University. Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1996. Neutral Vowels in Optimality Theory: A Comparison of Yoruba and Wolof. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 41(4). 295–347. Pycha, Anne. 2009. Lengthened affricates as a test case for the phonetics–phonology interface. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 39(1). 1–31. Pycha, Anne. 2010. A test case for the phonetics–phonology interface: gemination restrictions in Hungarian. Phonology 27(1). 119–52. Pycha, Anne, Paweł Nowak, Eurie Shin & Ryan Shosted. 2003. Phonological rule- learning and its implications for a theory of vowel harmony. In Gina Garding & Mimu Tsujimura (eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 423–35. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Quinn-Wriedt, Lindsey Taylor. 2013. Vowel Harmony in Maasai. PhD thesis, Univer- sity of Iowa. R Core Team. 2019. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. URL: http://www.r-project. org/. Raffelsiefen, Renate. 1999. Diagnostics for Prosodic Words Revisited: The Caseof Historically Prefixed Words in English. In T. Alan Hall & Ursula Kleinhenz (eds.), Studies on the Phonological Word, 133–201. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

290 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Rajić, Ljubiša. 1980. Gammelnorsk vokalharmoni i språktypologisk belysning. In Even Hovdhaugen (ed.), The Nordic languages and modern linguistics: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of Nordic and General Linguistics in Oslo 1980, 315–22. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Recasens, Daniel. 1987. An acoustic analysis of V-to-C and V-to-V coarticulatory effets in Catalan and Spanish VCV sequences. Haskins Laboratories: Status Report on Speech Research SR-86/87. 71–86. Rennison, John. 1987. Vowel harmony and tridirectional vowel features. Folia Lin- guistica 21. 337–54. Renwick, Margaret E. L. & D. Robert Ladd. 2016. Phonetic Distinctiveness vs. Lex- ical Contrastiveness in Non-Robust Phonemic Contrasts. Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology 8(1). 19, 1–29. Repp, Bruno H. 1986. Perception of the [m]–[n] distinction in CV syllables. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 79(6). 1987–99. Revithiadou, Anthi. 2011. The Phonological Word. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, 1204–27. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Ribeiro, Eduardo Rivail. 2002. Directionality in vowel harmony: The case of Karajá (Macro-Jê). Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 28. 475–85. Ribeiro, Eduardo Rivail. 2012. A Grammar of Karajá. PhD thesis, University of Chicago. Rice, Keren. 2003. Featural markedness in phonology: variation. In Lisa Cheng & Rint Sybesma (eds.), The second Glot International state-of-the-article book, 389–429. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Rice, Keren. 2007. Markedness. In Paul de Lacy (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, 79–97. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Riggle, Jason. 1999. Relational Markedness in Bantu Vowel Height Harmony. MA dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz. Riggle, Jason. 2000. Relational Markedness in Bantu Vowel Height Harmony. Talk given at the 31st Annual Conference on African Linguistics, Boston, MA, US, 2–5 March.

291 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Ringen, Catherin O. 1978. Another View of the Theoretical Implications of Hungarian Vowel Harmony. Linguistic Inquiry 9(1). 105–15. Ringen, Catherin O. 1979. Vowel harmony in Igbo and Diola-Fogny. Studies in African Linguistics 10(3). 247–59. Ringen, Catherin O. & Orvakki Heinämäki. 1999. Variation in Finnish vowel harmony: An OT account. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17. 303–37. Ringen, Catherine O. 1980. A Concrete Analysis of Hungarian Vowel Harmony. In Robert M. Vago (ed.), Issues in Vowel Harmony: Proceedings of the CUNY Linguistics Conference on Vowel Harmony, 14th May 1977, 49–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Robins, R. H. 1957. Vowel nasality in Sundanese: Phonological and Grammatical Study. In Studies in linguistic analysis, 87–100. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Robins, R. H. 1958. The Yurok language: Grammar, texts, lexicon (University of Cali- fornia Publications in Linguistics 15). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Robinson, Orrin Warner. 1976. A ‘Scattered’ Rule in Swiss German. Language 52(1). 148–162. Rohany Rahbar, Elham. 2009. On contrasts in the Persian vowel system. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 31. 1–17. Rose, Sharon & Rachel Walker. 2011. Harmony Systems. In John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle & Alan C. L. Yu (eds.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 240–90. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Rose, Yvan. 1995. Minimalité, préservation et tolérance dans les emprunts français en kinyarwanda. MA dissertation, Université Laval. Rose, Yvan. 1999a. A structural account of root node deletion in loanword phonology. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 44(4). 359–404. Rose, Yvan. 1999b. Perception, representation, and correspondence relations in loanword phonology. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics So- ciety 25. 383–94. Rose, Yvan & Katherine Demuth. 2006. Vowel epenthesis in loanword adaptation: Representational and phonetic considerations. Lingua 116(7). 1112–39. le Roux, Mia. 2012. An acoustic comparison: Setswana vowels versus the cardinal vowels. South African Journal of African Languages 32(2). 175–180. le Roux, Mia & Jurie le Roux. 2008. An acoustic assessment of Setswana vowels. South African Journal of African Languages 28(2). 156–171.

292 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Rysling, Amanda. 2017. Preferential early attribution in segmental parsing. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Sagey, Elizabeth Caroline. 1986. The representation of features and relations in nonlinear phonology. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Sagna, Serge. 2008. Formal and semantic properties of the Gújjolaay Eegimaa (A.k.a Banjal) nominal classification system. PhD thesis, School of Oriental and African Studies. Salting, Donald. 1995. Vowel Harmony in Lhasa Tibetan: Evidence for [hi] and [ATR]. Formal Linguistics Society of Mid-America VI V(1). 39–49. Salting, Donald. 1998a. The Nested Subregister Model of Vowel Height. PhD thesis, Indiana University. Salting, Donald. 1998b. Vowel Height: Reconsidering Distinctive Features. Proceed- ings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Phonetics and Phonological Universals 24. 391–402. Sample, Ward A. 1976. The application of rules in the phonology of Olukisa. PhD thesis, Indiana University. Sandstedt, Jade Jørgen. 2017. Transparency and blocking in Old Norwegian height harmony. Transactions of the Philological Society 115(3). 395–417. Sandstedt, Jade Jørgen. 2018. Feature specifications and contrast in vowel harmony: The orthography and phonology of Old Norwegian height harmony. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh. Sandstedt, Jade Jørgen. 2019. A contrastivist approach to the emergence of sound inventories. Talk given at the 27th Manchester Phonology Meet- ing, Manchester, UK, 23–25 May. URL: https://jsandstedt.hcommons.org/ publications-presentations/. Sandstedt, Jade Jørgen. 2020a. A reanalysis of abstract contrasts and opacity in Bondu- so tongue root harmony. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5(1). 91. 1–28. Sandstedt, Jade Jørgen. 2020b. Bantu harmony locality variation is autosegmental. Talk given at the 5th Fonologi i Norden, Drammen, Norway, 21–22 February. URL: https://jsandstedt.hcommons.org/publications-presentations/. Sandstedt, Jade Jørgen. 2020c. Vowel harmony decay in Old Norwegian. Papers in Historical Phonology 5. 11–48.

293 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Sapir, J. David. 1965. A Grammar of Diola-Fogny. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schadeberg, Thilo C. 1971. Zur Lautstruktur des Kinga (Tanzania). PhD thesis, Philipps-Universität Marburg. Schadeberg, Thilo C. 1982. Les suffixes verbaux séparatifs en Bantou. Sprache und Geshichte in Afrika 4. 55–66. Schadeberg, Thilo C. 1994. Spirantization and the 7-to-5 Vowel Merger inBantu. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 9. 73–84. Schadeberg, Thilo C. 2003a. Derivation. In Derek Nurse & Gérard Philippson (eds.), The Bantu Languages, 71–89. London: Routledge. Schadeberg, Thilo C. 2003b. Historical linguistics. In Derek Nurse & Gérard Philippson (eds.), The Bantu Languages, 143–63. London: Routledge. Schadeberg, Thilo C. & Koen Bostoen. 2019. Word formation. In Mark Van deVelde, Koen Bostoen, Derek Nurse & Gérard Philippson (eds.), The Bantu Languages (Rout- ledge Language Family Series), 172–203. London: Routledge. 2nd edition. Schadeberg, Thilo C. & Francisco Ussene Mucanheia. 2000. Ekoti: The Maka or Swahili language of Angoche. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe. Schoeffer, Rev. Father. 1907. A Grammar of the Bemba Language as Spoken in North- East Rhodesia. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Scullen, Mary Ellen. 1992. Chicheŵa vowel harmony and Underspecification Theory. Linguistic Analysis 22. 218–45. Seidl, Amanda & Eugene Buckley. 2005. On the learning of arbitrary phonological rules. Language Learning and Development 1. 289–316. Seki, Lucy. 2000. Gramática do Kamaiurá: Língua Tupi-Guarani do Alto Xingu. Camp- inas, SP: Editora da Unicamp. Shinohara, Shigeko. 1997. Analyse phonologique de l’adaptation japonaise de mots étrangers. PhD thesis, Université de la Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris III. Shinohara, Shigeko. 2000. Default accentuation and foot structure in Japanese: evidence from adaptations of French words. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9. 55–96. Shinohara, Shigeko. 2006. Perceptual effects in final cluster reduction patterns. Lingua 116(7). 1046–78. Shnukal, Anna. 1988. Broken: An Introduction to the Creole Language of Torres Strait (Pacific Linguistics C-107). Canberra: Australian National University.

294 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Sibanda, Galen. 2016. The Ndebele applicative construction. In Doris L. Payne, Sara Pacchiarotti & Mokaya Bosire (eds.), Diversity in African languages: Selec- ted papers from the 46th Annual Conference on African Linguistics (Contempor- ary African Linguistics 5), 309–33. Berlin: Language Science Press. URL: http: //langsci-press.org/catalog/book/121. Silverman, Daniel. 1992. Multiple scansions in loanword phonology: Evidence from Cantonese. Phonology 9(2). 289–328. Simango, Silvester Ron. 2013. An analysis of vowel harmony in ciNsenga and ciCewa: A comparative study. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 31(2). 139–50. Simeone-Senelle, Marie-Claude, Wolbert G. C. Smidt, Ronny Meyer, Angelika Jakobi, Amani Lusekelo, Bruce Connell & Akinbiyi Akinlabi. 2019. African Linguistics in North-Eastern and So-Called Anglophone Africa. In H. Ekkehard Wolff (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of African Linguistics, 73–97. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press. Singh, Rajendra. 1987. Well-formedness conditions and phonological theory. In Wolfgang U. Dressier, Hans C. Luschützky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer & John R. Rennison (eds.), Phonologica 1984, 273–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sjoberg, Andrée F. 1963. Uzbek Structural Grammar (Uralic and Altaic Series 18). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Publications. Skoruppa, Katrin & Sharon Peperkamp. 2011. Adaptation to novel accents: Feature- based learning of context-sensitive phonological regularities. Cognition 35. 348–66. Sluyters, Willebrord. 1988. Vowel harmony, rule formats and underspecification: The dialect of Francavilla-Fontana. In Harry van der Hulst & Norval Smith (eds.), Fea- tures, Segmental Structure and Harmony Processes (Part II), 161–84. Dordrecht: Foris. Smith, Eric J. M. 2007. [-ATR] Harmony and the Vowel Inventory of Sumerian. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 59. 19–38. Smith, Jennifer L. 2001. Lexical Category and Phonological Contrast. In Robert Kirch- ner, Joe Pater & Wolf Wikeley (eds.), Petl 6: Proceedings of the workshop on the lexicon in phonetics and phonology, Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta. Smith, Jennifer L. 2006. Loan phonology is not all perception: Evidence from Japanese loan doublets. In Timothy J. Vance & Kimberly A. Jones (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 14, 63–74. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

295 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Smith, Jennifer L. 2011. Category-specific Effects. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, 2440–63. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Smith, Jennifer L. 2018. Impossible-nativization effects and productivity in loanword phonology. Talk given at the 15th Old World Conference in Phonology, London, UK, 12–14 January. Smith, Norval. 1977. Vowel epithesis in the Surinam Creoles. Amsterdam Creole Stud- ies 1. 1–54. Smith, Richard & Connie Smith. 2006. Southern Barasano phonemics. Linguistics 75. 80–5. Sprigg, Richard Keith. 1961. Vowel harmony in Lhasa Tibetan: Prosodic analysis applied to interrelated vocalic features of successive syllables. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 24. 116–38. Sproat, Richard & Osamu Fujimura. 1993. Allophonic Variation in English /l/ and its Implications for Phonetic Implementation. Journal of Phonetics 21. 291–311. Stallcup, Kenneth L. 1980a. A brief account of nominal prefixes and vowel harmony in Esimbi. In Luc Bouquiaux (ed.), L’expansion bantoue, vol. 2, 435–41. Paris: Société d’Études Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France. Stallcup, Kenneth L. 1980b. Noun classes in Esimbi. In Larry M. Hyman (ed.), Studies in Stress and Accent (Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics 8), 139–53. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California. Stampe, David. 1973. A Dissertation on Natural Phonology. PhD thesis, University of Chicago. Stegen, Oliver. 2002. Derivational process in Rangi. Studies in African Linguistics 31(1/2). 129–53. Steriade, Donca. 1981. Parameters of Metrical Harmony Rules. Massachusetts Insti- tute of Technology, ms. Steriade, Donca. 1987a. On class nodes. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, ms. Steriade, Donca. 1987b. Redundant values. In Papers from the 23rd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 339–62. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society. Steriade, Donca. 1995a. Positional neutralization. University of California, Los Angeles, ms.

296 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Steriade, Donca. 1995b. Underspecification and Markedness. In John Goldsmith (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 114–74. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Steriade, Donca. 2001. Directional asymmetries in place assimilation: A perceptual account. In Elizabeth Hume & Keith Johnson (eds.), The Role of Speech Perception in Phonology, 219–50. New York, NY: Academic Press. Steriade, Donca. 2003. Knowledge of similarity and narrow lexical override. Proceed- ings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 29. 583–98. Stevens, Kenneth N. 2000. Acoustic Phonetics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Stewart, John M. 1970. Tongue root position in the Volta–Comoe languages and its significance for the reconstruction of the original Bantu vowel sounds. African Language Studies 11. 340–50. Stewart, John M. 1983. The high unadvanced vowels of Proto-Tano-Congo. Journal of West African Languages 13. 19–36. Stewart, John M. 2000a. An explanation of Bantu vowel height harmony in terms of a Pre-Bantu nasalized vowel lowering. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 21(2). 161–78. Stewart, John M. 2000b. Symmetric versus asymmetric vowel height harmony and e, o versus ɪ, ʊ in Proto-Bantu and Proto-Savanna Bantu. Journal of West African Languages 28(2). 45–58. Stewart, John M. & Hélène van Leynseele. 1979. Underlying cross-height vowel harmony in Nen (Bantu A.44). Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 1(1). 31–54. Stoakes, Hywel M., Janet M. Fletcher & Andrew R. Butcher. 2020. Nasal coarticulation in Bininj Kunwok: An aerodynamic analysis. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 50(3). 305–332. Strazny, Philipp. 2003. Depression in Zulu: Tonal effects of segmental features. In Jeroen van de Weijer, Vincent van Heuven & Harry van der Hulst (eds.), The Phon- ological Spectrum: Segmental Structure, vol. I, 223–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Suomi, Kari. 1983. Palatal Vowel Harmony: A Perceptually Motivated Phenomenon? Nordic Journal of Linguistics 6. 1–35. Suomi, Kari, Juhani Toivanen & Riikka Ylitalo. 2008. Finnish sound structure: Phonetics, phonology, phonotactics, and prosody. Oulu: Oulu University Press. Svantesson, Jan-Olof. 1985. Vowel harmony shift in Mongolian. Lingua 67(4). 283– 327.

297 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Svantesson, Jan-Olof, Anna Tsendina, Anastasia Karlsson & Vivan Franzén. 2005. The Phonology of Mongolian (The Phonology of the World’s Languages). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Swenson, Janel. 2015. ATR Quality in the Luo Vowel System. Canada Institute of Linguistics, Electronic Working Papers 1. 102–45. URL: https://www.canil.ca/ academics/electronic-working-papers/canil-ewp-volume-1-2015/. Tabuse, Ryotaku. 2017. Distribution of Mid Vowels and Relating Vowel Harmony in Zulu. ICU Working Papers in Linguistics 1. 14–21. Taljaard, P. C., E. J. Khumalo & S. Diamini. 1993. Swati: The Sound System and Classi- fication of Swati. Muckleneuk, Pretoria: University of South Africa. Taljaard, P. C. & J. W. Snyman. 1991. An Introduction to SiSwati Phonetics. Constantia: Marius Lubbe. Tambovtsev, Yuri A. & Colin Martindale. 2007. Phoneme frequencies follow a Yule distribution. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 4(2). 1–11. Tavares, José Lourenço. 1915. Gramática da língua do Congo (kikongo) (dialecto kiso- longo). Luanda: Imprensa nacional da colónia de Angola. Taylor, Charles. 1985. Nkore-Kiga. London: Croom Helm. Tendeng, Odile. 2007. Le Gusiilay: un essai de systématisation. Une contribution à l’étude du Jóola. Bern: Peter Lang. Terbeek, Dale. 1977. A cross-language multidimensional scaling study of vowel perception. PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles. Ternes, Elmar. 1973. The phonemic analysis of Scottish Gaelic. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. Tesar, Bruce & Alan Prince. 2003. Using phonotactics to learn phonological alternations. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 39(2). 241–69. Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2017. U-umlaut in Icelandic and Faroese: Survival and death. In Claire Bowern, Laurence Horn & Raffaella Zanuttini (eds.), On looking into words (and beyond): Structures, Relations, Analyses (Empirically Oriented Theor- etical Morphology and Syntax 3), 99–113. Berlin: Language Science Press. URL: https://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/151. Tobias, Jerry V. 1959. Relative Occurrence of Phonemes in American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 31. 631.

298 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Toivonen, Ida, Lev Blumenfeld, Andrea Gormley, Leah Hoiting, John Logan, Nalini Ramlakhan & Adam Stone. 2015. Vowel height and duration. In Ulrike Steindl, Thomas Borer, Huilin Fang, Alfredo García Pardo, Peter Guekguezian, Brian Hsu, Charlie O’Hara & Iris Chuoying Ouyang (eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 64–71. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Toosarvandani, Maziar Doustdar. 2004. Vowel length in Modern Farsi. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 14. 241–51. Toporova, Irina N. 1994. Грамматика языка лингала [A Grammar of the Lingala language]. Moscow: Помовский и Партнёры [Pomovskiy and Paterners]. Torres-Tamarit, Francesc, Kathrin Linke & Marc van Oostendorp (eds.). 2016. Ap- proaches to Metaphony in the Languages of Italy (Phonology and Phonetics 20). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Tosun, Gülşat. 1999. Vowel Harmony in Turkish and Turkmen. Harvard University, ms. Trubetzkoy, Nikolay S. 1931. Die phonologischen Systeme. Travaux du Cercle Lin- guistique de Prague 4. 96–116. Trubetzkoy, Nikolay S. 1939. Grundzüge der Phonologie. Prague: Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague. Turnbull, Rory, Scott Seyfarth, Elizabeth Hume & T. Florian Jaeger. 2018. Nasal place assimilation trades off inferrability of both target and trigger words. Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology 9(1). 15, 1–27. Turton, Danielle. 2014. Variation in English /l/: Synchronic reflections on the life cycle of phonological processes. PhD thesis, University of Manchester. Uffmann, Christian. 2004. Vowel Epenthesis in Loanword Phonology. PhD thesis, Philipps-Universität Marburg. Uffmann, Christian. 2006. Epenthetic vowel quality in loanwords: Empirical and formal issues. Lingua 116. 1079–111. Uffmann, Christian. 2007. Vowel Epenthesis in Loanword Adaptation (Linguistische Arbeiten 510). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Ulrich, Charles H. 1997. Loanword adaptation in Lama: Testing the TCRS model. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 42(4). 415–63.

299 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Vago, Robert M. 1973. Abstract Vowel Harmony Systems in Uralic and Altaic Lan- guages. Language 49(3). 579–605. Vago, Robert M. 1976. Theoretical Implications of Hungarian Vowel Harmony. Lin- guistic Inquiry 7(2). 243–63. Vago, Robert M. 1988. Underspecification in the height harmony system of Pasiego. Phonology 5(2). 343–62. Vail, Hazen Leroy. 1972. Aspects of the Tumbuka Verb. PhD thesis, University of Wisconsin – Madison. Vansina, Jan M. 1995. New Linguistic Evidence and the Bantu Expansion. Journal of African History 36(2). 173–95. Van de Velde, Mark. 2019. Nominal morphology and syntax. In Mark Van de Velde, Koen Bostoen, Derek Nurse & Gérard Philippson (eds.), The Bantu Languages (Rout- ledge Language Family Series), 237–69. London: Routledge. 2nd edition. Van de Velde, Mark L. O. 2008. A Grammar of Eton (Mouton Grammar Library 46). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Vendelin, Inga & Sharon Peperkamp. 2004. Evidence for phonetic adaptation of loanwords: an experimental study. Actes des Journées d’Études Linguistiques 129–31. Vendelin, Inga & Sharon Peperkamp. 2006. The influence of orthography on loanword adaptations. Lingua 116(7). 996–1007. Vennemann, Theo. 1988. Preference Laws for Syllable Structure And the Explanation of Sound Change with Special Reference to German, Germanic, Italian, and Latin. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Verhaar, John W. M. 1995. Toward a Reference Grammar of Tok Pisin: An Experiment in Corpus Linguistics (Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication 26). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaiʻi Press. Viljoen, Johannes & Jurgens Amakali. 1978. A handbook of Oshiwambo. Pretoria: University of South Africa. Välimaa-Blum, Riita. 1999. A feature geometric description of Finnish vowel harmony covering both loans and native words. Lingua 108(4). 247–68. Walker, Rachel. 1998. Nasalization, Neutral Segments, and Opacity Effects. PhD thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz.

300 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Walker, Rachel. 1999a. Esimbi Vowel Height Shift: Implications for Faith and Marked- ness. University of Southern California, ms. Available on Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-336. URL: http://roa.rutgers.edu/article/view/346. Walker, Rachel. 1999b. Guaraní Voiceless Stops in Oral versus Nasal Contexts: An Acoustical Study. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 29(1). 63–94. Walker, Rachel. 2000. Yaka Nasal Harmony: Spreading or Segmental Correspondence? Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 26. 321–32. Walker, Rachel. 2001. Round Licensing, Harmony, and Bisyllabic Triggers in Altaic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19(4). 827–78. Walker, Rachel. 2005. Weak Triggers in Vowel Harmony. Natural Language & Lin- guistic Theory 23. 917–89. Walker, Rachel. 2011. Vowel Patterns in Language. New York, NY: Cambridge Univer- sity Press. Walker, Rachel. 2018. Feature Identity and Icy Targets in Menominee Vowel Har- mony. In Ryan Bennett, Andrew Angeles, Adrian Brasoveanu, Dhyana Buckley, Nick Kalivoda, Shigeto Kawahara, Grant McGuire & Jaye Padgett (eds.), Hana-bana (花々): A Festschrift for Junko Itô and Armin Mester, Santa Cruz, CA: University of California, Santa Cruz. URL: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3xv2s3sm. Wang, William S-Y. & John Crawford. 1960. Frequency Studies of English Consonants. Language and Speech 21(3). 221–41. van Warmelo, Nicolaas Jacobus. 1989. Venda Dictionary: Tshivenḓa – English. Pretoria: J. L. van Schaik. Watts, Erica. 2018. Markedness and implicational relationships in phonological development: A longitudinal, cross-linguistic investigation. PhD thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland. Welmers, William E. 1973. African Language Structures. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Wennerstrom, Ann. 1993. Focus on the prefix: evidence for word-internal prosodic words. Phonology 10. 309–24. Westermann, Diedrich. 1930. A study of the Ewe language. London: Oxford University Press. Westermann, Diedrich & Ida C. Ward. 1933. Practical phonetics for students of African languages. London: Oxford University Press.

301 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Wetzels, W. Leo. 2009. Nasal harmony and the representation of nasality in Maxacalí: Evidence from Portuguese loans. In Andrea Calabrese & W. Leo Wetzels (eds.), Loan Phonology, 241–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wickham, Hadley. 2019. tidyverse: Easily Install and Load the “Tidyverse”. R package version 1.3.0. URL: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ tidyverse/. Williams-Ngumu, Angela, Madel M’pandzou & David Kissita. 2015. Petit guide d’orthographe et de grammaire dondo. Brazzaville: SIL Congo. Williamson, Kay. 1965. A Grammar of the Kolokuma Dialect of Ịjọ (West African Lan- guage Monograph 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Williamson, Kay. 1987. Nasality in Ijo. In David Odden (ed.), Current Approaches to African Linguistics, 397–415. Dordrecht: Foris. Wilson, Colin. 2006. Learning Phonology With Substantive Bias: An Experimental and Computational Study of Velar Palatalization. Cognitive Science 30. 945–82. Wilson, Colin & Gillian Gallagher. 2018. Accidental Gaps and Surface-Based Phonot- actic Learning: A Case Study of South Bolivian Quechua. Linguistic Inquiry 49(1). 610–23. Windsor, Joseph W. & Robyn Stewart. 2017. Can unnatural stress patterns be learned: New evidence from Klingon. Actes du congrès annuel de l’Association canadienne de linguistique 2017/Proceedings of the 2017 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association URL: https: //cla-acl.artsci.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/actes-2017/ Windsor_J.Stewart_R.2017CLAProceedingsPaper.pdf. Winitz, H., M. E. Scheib & J. A. Reeds. 1972. Identification of Stops and Vowels for the Burst Portion of /p,t,k/ Isolated from Conversational Speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 51. 1309–17. Winters, Stephen J. 2003. Empirical investigations into the perceptual and articulatory origins of cross-linguistic asymmetries in place assimilation. PhD thesis, Ohio State University. Wright, Richard. 2004. A review of perceptual cues and cue robustness. In Bruce Hayes, Robert Kirchner & Donca Steriade (eds.), Phonetically Based Phonology, 34– 57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wynne, Rev. Ronald C. 1980. English–Mbukushu dictionary. Amersham: Avebury.

302 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Yip, Moira. 1993. Cantonese loanword phonology and Optimality Theory. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 2(3). 261–91. Yip, Moira. 2002. Perceptual influences in Cantonese Loanword Phonology. Journal of the Phonetic Society of Japan 6(1). 4–21. Youssef, Islam. 2010. Laryngeal assimilation in Buchan Scots. English Language and Linguistics 14(3). 321–45. Zaykov, Pyotr Mefodiyevich. 1999. Грамматика карельского языка (фонетика и морфология) [A grammar of the Karelian language (phonetics and morphology)]. Petrozavodsk: Периодика [Periodika]. Ziervogel, Dirk & R. Sh. Dau. 1961. A Handbook of the Venda Language. Pretoria: University of South Africa. Ziervogel, Dirk & Enos John Mabuza. 1985. A Grammar of the Swati Language (siS- wati). Pretoria: J. L. van Schaik. Zipf, George Kingsley. 1949. Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Cam- bridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Zoll, Cheryl. 1995. Consonant Mutation in Bantu. Linguistic Inquiry 26. 536–45. Zorc, R. David & Louise Nibagwire. 2007. Kinyarwanda and Kirundi Comparative Grammar. Hyattsville, MD: Dunwoody Press. Zsiga, Elizabeth C. 1995. An acoustic and electropalatographic study of lexical and postlexical palatalization in American English. In Bruce Connell & Amalia Arvaniti (eds.), Phonology and Phonetic Evidence (Papers in Laboratory Phonology IV), 282– 302. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zuraw, Kie, Kathleen Chase O’Flynn & Kaeli Ward. 2019. Non-native contrasts in Tongan loans. Phonology 36. 127–70. Zwicky, A. 1971. More on Nez Perce: On Alternative Analyses. International Journal of American Linguistics 37. 122–6. Zymet, Jesse. 2018. Contradictory Markedness Preferences across Morphological Do- mains. In Wm. G. Bennett, Lindsay Hracs & Dennis Ryan Storoshenko (eds.), Pro- ceedings of the 35th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 479–88. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

303 appendix a

Stimuli used in chapter 6

A.1 Bemba

Stimulus Gloss

abaana children abakashana girls amacungwa oranges ameno teeth amenshi water amenso eyes babomba they work belenga read (imp.sg) belengela read to (imp.sg) belengeni read (imp.pl) bila sew (imp.sg) bileni sew (imp.pl) bilila sew for (imp.sg) bilulula unsew (imp.sg) bomba work (imp.sg) bombela work for (imp.sg) bombeni work (imp.pl) boola hit, knock (imp.sg) booleni hit, knock (imp.pl) bupofu blindness butuka run (imp.sg)

Continued on following page

304 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Continued from previous page

Stimulus Gloss buula take (imp.sg) cilemba beans fika arrive (imp.sg) fikeni arrive (imp.pl) fikila arrive for (imp.sg) fimba cover (imp.sg) fimbula uncover (imp.sg) funga close (imp.sg) fungula open (imp.sg) fyantusha unstick (imp.sg) iciBemba Bemba iciibi door icipuna chair icisakulo comb icitabo book ifupa bone ilino tooth ilinso eye imbale plate imbokoshi box, suitcase imbwa dog imfula rain impofu blind person inkalamo lion inkalata letter inkoko chicken inkonde banana insalu cloth insapato shoe insofu elephant intambo rope ipika cook (imp.sg) ipikila cook for (imp.sg) ishina name

Continued on following page

305 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Continued from previous page

Stimulus Gloss ishiwi word, voice itebulo table ing’anda house ing’oma drum ing’ombe cow kafundisha teacher kaka tie (imp.sg) kakeni tie (imp.pl) kakila tie for (imp.sg) kakulula untie (imp.sg) koma lock (imp.sg) komena lock for (imp.sg) komeni lock (imp.pl) komonona unlock (imp.sg) konkonsha knock (imp.sg) konkonsheni knock (imp.pl) kula build (imp.sg) kuleni build (imp.pl) kulila build for (imp.sg) lala lie down (imp.sg) lalika lay down (imp.sg) lelo today lemba write (imp.sg) lembela write for (imp.sg) lembeni write (imp.pl) lembulula rewrite, erase (imp.sg) leta bring (imp.sg) letela bring to (imp.sg) longa pack (imp.sg) longela pack for (imp.sg) longolola unpack (imp.sg) luka weave (imp.sg) lukila weave for (imp.sg) lukulula unweave (imp.sg)

Continued on following page

306 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Continued from previous page

Stimulus Gloss mina swallow (imp.sg) Mongu Mongu ndebelenga I am reading ndebila I am sewing ndebomba I am working ndeboola I am hitting, knocking ndebuula I am taking panshi ground panuma often pela give (imp.sg) pelela give to (imp.sg) penda count (imp.sg) pendulula recount (imp.sg) pensulo pencil pepa pray (imp.sg) pepela pray for (imp.sg) peta fold (imp.sg) petela fold for (imp.sg) peteni fold (imp.pl) petulula unfold (imp.sg) pilibula turn around (imp.sg) pola get well (imp.sg) polela get well for (imp.sg) poleni get well (imp.pl) posa throw (imp.sg) posela throw to (imp.sg) putula cut (imp.sg) putuleni cut (imp.pl) putuwila cut for (imp.sg) sambilila learn (imp.sg) sambilisha teach (imp.sg) sela move (imp.sg) senda carry (imp.sg) sendela carry for (imp.sg)

Continued on following page

307 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Continued from previous page

Stimulus Gloss

shita buy (imp.sg) shiteni buy (imp.pl) shitila buy for (imp.sg) someka insert, plug in (imp.sg) somekeni insert, plug in (imp.pl) tina fear (imp.sg) tinisha frighten (imp.sg) tuma send (imp.sg) tumina send to (imp.sg) tunga thread (imp.sg) tungeni thread (imp.pl) tungulula unthread (imp.sg) tungululeni unthread (imp.pl) ukuboko arm umulilo fire umulomo lip umulopa blood umumana river umunofu meat umupila ball umuputule room umusebo road umuseke basket umwaana child umwele knife umweni stranger

A.2 Nyanja

Stimulus Gloss

akazi women ana children basiketi basket

Continued on following page

308 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Continued from previous page

Stimulus Gloss bokosi box buku book chilembo mark Chingerezi English chingwe rope, string Chinyanja Nyanja chita do (imp.sg) chitani do (imp.pl) chitseko door chitsime well (for water) choka leave (imp.sg) chokani leave (imp.pl) diso eye dovu saliva dula cut (imp.sg) dulila cut for (imp.sg) dzaoneni come and see dzino tooth dzulo yesterday fika arrive (imp.sg) fikani arrive (imp.pl) fikila arrive for (imp.sg) funga lock (imp.sg) galimoto car galu dog gawa share (imp.sg) gawani share (imp.pl) gona sleep (imp.sg) gonani sleep (imp.pl) gonela sleep on (imp.sg) gula buy (imp.sg) gulani buy (imp.pl) gulitsa sell (imp.sg) kadzila tie (imp.sg)

Continued on following page

309 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Continued from previous page

Stimulus Gloss kalata letter (message) kholo parent khosomola cough (imp.sg) khulula unstring, loosen (imp.sg) khungu skin (of human) kokolola to sweep off (imp.sg) kolosola dig out (imp.sg) konda love (imp.sg) kondani love (imp.pl) lelo today lemba write (imp.sg) lembani write (imp.pl) lembela write to (imp.sg) lima cultivate (imp.sg) limani cultivate (imp.pl) lindimu lemon longa arrange (imp.sg) longolola be garrulous (imp.sg) lowa enter (imp.sg) lowetsa put in (imp.sg) luka weave (imp.sg) lukila weave for (imp.sg) lukula unweave (imp.sg) lulime tongue luma bite (imp.sg) lumani bite (imp.pl) madzi water mafumu chiefs mafupa bones manga tie up (imp.sg) mangani tie up (imp.pl) mano teeth maso eyes masula loosen, unfasten (imp.sg)

Continued on following page

310 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Continued from previous page

Stimulus Gloss mata stick, affix (imp.sg) matope mud matula unstick (imp.sg) mawa tomorrow mazila eggs mbale plate mbuzi goat mchele salt mfuleni stream mfumu chief mgonthi deaf person mitengo trees mkango lion mkate bread mkazi woman mnyamata boy Mongu Mongu mpando chair mpeni knife mphatso gift mphepo wind mphunzitsi teacher mpila ball msika market mtengo tree mtovu lead (metal) mtsikana girl, young woman mtulo present, gift mudzi village munthu person mupite you should go musapite you shouldn’t go mwezi moon ndevu beard

Continued on following page

311 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Continued from previous page

Stimulus Gloss ndithandizeni help me nena speak (imp.sg) nenani speak (imp.pl) nenela speak for (imp.sg) ng’ombe cow ng’ona crocodile njovu elephant nkhope face nkhosa sheep (sg) nsalu cloth ntchito work nthochi banana nyumba house patsa give (imp.sg) patsani give (imp.pl) patseniko give me some (please) patsila give to, pass on (imp.sg) pensulo pencil pepala paper pfunda wrap (imp.sg) pfundani wrap (imp.pl) pfundila wrap for (imp.sg) pfundula unwrap (imp.sg) phika cook (imp.sg) phikani cook (imp.pl) phikila cook for (imp.sg) phunzila learn (imp.sg) phunzitsa teach (imp.sg) pinda fold (imp.sg) pindika hook (imp.sg) pindula unfold (imp.sg) pota spin, twist (imp.sg) poteza twist around (imp.sg) soka sew (imp.sg)

Continued on following page

312 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Continued from previous page

Stimulus Gloss sokosi socks tenga take, carry (imp.sg) thumba bag tichite let’s do tichoke let’s leave tigawe let’s share tigone let’s sleep tigule let’s buy tikonde let’s love tilembe let’s write tilime let’s cultivate tilume let’s bite timange let’s tie up tinene let’s speak tipatse let’s give tipfunde let’s wrap tiphike let’s cook tipite let’s go titseke let’s shut tivine let’s dance tiwelenge let’s read tiyale let’s spread out tombosola unfold (imp.sg) tseka shut (imp.sg) tsekani shut (imp.pl) tsekula open (imp.sg) tuluka go out (imp.sg) tumiza send (imp.sg) tumizani send (imp.pl) tumizila send to (imp.sg) ulalo bridge ulemu politeness vala put on (imp.sg) vina dance (imp.sg)

Continued on following page

313 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Continued from previous page

Stimulus Gloss

vinani dance (imp.pl) vula take off (imp.sg) vundikila cover up (imp.sg) vundukula uncover (imp.sg) welenga read (imp.sg) welengela read to (imp.sg) yala spread out (imp.sg) yalula roll back up (imp.sg) yimba sing (imp.sg) yimbitsa make sing (imp.sg) zenela window zovala clothes

A.3 Lozi

Stimulus Gloss

babiza they call babupa they mould, shape bafela they finish bafita they arrive bafosa they do wrong bafuluha they paddle bahalifa they get angry bakolopa they scrub the floor bala read (imp.sg) balata they love baleka they buy balela read for (imp.sg) baleñi read (imp.pl) balisa teach to read (imp.sg) balonga they load/pack (imp.sg) banana children baputa they fold

Continued on following page

314 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Continued from previous page

Stimulus Gloss basali women basebeza they work basizana girls batama they tie batamulula they untie batompa they respect batu people bibele bible bishopu bishop biza call (imp.sg) bizeñi call (imp.pl) bizeza call for (imp.sg) bofa inspan (imp.sg) bofela inspan for (imp.sg) bofisa help inspan (imp.sg) bofolola outspan (imp.sg) bomuluti teacher (formal) bubofu blindness buhali anger buka book bunolo softness bupa mould, shape (imp.sg) bupela mould, shape for (imp.sg) bupeñi mould, shape (imp.pl) bupisa make mould, shape (imp.sg) desiki desk fela finish (imp.sg) felela become short of (imp.sg) feleñi finish (imp.pl) felisa put to an end (imp.sg) fita arrive (imp.sg) fiteñi arrive (imp.pl) fitisa make arrive (imp.sg) fosa do wrong (imp.sg)

Continued on following page

315 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Continued from previous page

Stimulus Gloss foseñi do wrong (imp.pl) foseza do wrong to (imp.pl) fosisa mislead (imp.sg) hañata often ingilopu envelope kacenu today kamuso tomorrow kiya lock (imp.sg) kiyela lock for (imp.sg) kiyeñi lock (imp.pl) kiyisa make lock (imp.sg) kiyulula unlock (imp.sg) kiyululeñi unlock (imp.pl) kokoñu wildebeest kolopa scrub the floor (imp.sg) kolopela scrub the floor for (imp.sg) kolopeñi scrub the floor (imp.pl) kolopisa make scrub the floor (imp.sg) komu cow kuhu chicken kwahela cover up (imp.sg) kwahulula uncover (imp.sg) lata love (imp.sg) latela love on account of (imp.sg) lateñi love (imp.pl) latisa cause to love (imp.sg) leka buy (imp.sg) lekela buy for (imp.sg) lekeñi buy (imp.pl) lekisa sell (imp.sg) lekisela sell to (imp.sg) lekulula resell (imp.sg) liino tooth liito eye

Continued on following page

316 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Continued from previous page

Stimulus Gloss lika gallop (imp.sg) likeñi gallop (imp.pl) likisa make gallop (imp.sg) likonde banana lingu sheep (sg) liñolo letter linja dogs linoñu vulture liolanji orange lisa lake lisapo bone lishwana spoon litali leaf litino clothes longa pack (imp.sg) longela pack for (imp.sg) longeñi pack (imp.pl) longisa make pack (imp.sg) longolola unpack (imp.sg) longololeñi unpack (imp.pl) lubilo speed lubolu double chin luka weave (imp.sg) lukela weave for (imp.sg) lukeñi weave (imp.pl) lukisa make weave (imp.sg) lukulula unweave (imp.sg) luma send (imp.sg) lumela send to (imp.sg) lumeñi send (imp.pl) lumisa make send (imp.sg) luta teach (imp.sg) lutela teach for (imp.sg) lutisa help teach (imp.sg)

Continued on following page

317 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Continued from previous page

Stimulus Gloss mabani yesterday makonde bananas mañolo letters matali leaves mbumbu baby meno teeth meto eyes mezi water Mongu Mongu mucaha boy muholu stomach, tripe muhulu adult, older person mulilo fire mulomo mouth munyako door musali woman musebezi job, task mutende newspaper mutu person naleli star nama meat ndate father ndopu elephant ngu sheep (sg) ñola write (imp.sg) ñolela write to (imp.sg) ñoleñi write (imp.pl) ñolisa make write (imp.sg) nja dog nuka river pepa paper pina song pizi horse posa throw (imp.sg)

Continued on following page

318 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Continued from previous page

Stimulus Gloss poseñi throw (imp.pl) poseza throw to (imp.sg) posisa make throw (imp.sg) potoloto pencil pula rain pulukelo safe puma cut (imp.sg) pumela cut for (imp.sg) pumeñi cut (imp.pl) pumisa make cut (imp.sg) puta fold (imp.sg) putela fold for (imp.sg) puteñi fold (imp.pl) putisa make fold (imp.sg) putulula unfold (imp.sg) putululeñi unfold (imp.pl) sebelisa give work (imp.sg) sebeza work (imp.sg) sebezeñi work (imp.pl) sibofu blind person sikekele plough siketu fragment siLozi Lozi sitofu stove sizuma basket songo piece of iron tafule table tama tie (imp.sg) tamela tie for (imp.sg) tameñi tie (imp.pl) tamisa make tie (imp.sg) tamulula untie (imp.sg) tamululeñi untie (imp.pl) tau lion

Continued on following page

319 Height harmony in five-vowel Bantu languages

Continued from previous page

Stimulus Gloss toloka interpret (imp.sg) tolokela interpret for (imp.sg) tolokeleñi interpret for (imp.pl) tolokeñi interpret (imp.pl) tompa respect (imp.sg) tompeha be respectable (imp.sg) tompeñi respect (imp.pl) tompolola disrespect (imp.sg) tompololeñi disrespect (imp.pl) tou elephant

320