Stricture and Nasal Place Assimilation Author(S): Jaye Padgett Source: Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, Vol

Home , Assimilation (phonology), Lithuanian orthography, Lithuanian phonology, Nasal consonant

Stricture and Nasal Place Assimilation Author(s): Jaye Padgett Source: Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Aug., 1994), pp. 465-513 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4047807 . Accessed: 03/02/2014 22:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Natural Language &Linguistic Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions JAYE PADGETT

STRICTURE AND NASAL PLACE ASSIMILATION*

Theories of feature organizationtypically treat stricturefeatures like [continuant], [consonantal]and [approximant]as independentof place of articulationfeatures. The best argumentfor this view centers on [continuant]and facts of nasal place assimilation - in particular,instances of nasal place assimilationto fricatives,where the nasal appearsto remain a stop. However, a closer look at nasal place assimilation providesa strongargument against this standardview: acrosslanguages, place assimilation to fricativesis highly disfavoredin comparisonto assimilationto stops, and occurringnasal-fricative clusters behave like affricates.I show how a theoryin which [continuant]is place-dependentcan explainthese facts, exploitingthe notionof structure preservation.The treatmentof strictureproposed brings feature geometry more in line with models based on facts of phoneticsand vocal tract anatomy, e.g., the gesturalmodel of Browmanand Goldstein.

0. INTRODUCTION There is broad consensus among those who work on feature geometry that place of articulationfeatures constitute a significantgrouping, since they pattern together in phonologicalprocesses. The same can be said of laryngeal features; hence, the ubiquitous Place and Laryngealnodes in proposedfeature geometryrepresentations. The role of so-called'manner' features, however, has been less clear. Early tentative attemptsto group together all of the features[sonorant], [consonantal], [continuant], [nasal], [lateral], etc., under a Manner or Sonority node (e.g., Clements 1985; Mohanan 1983) were abandoned when it became apparent that these features do not reliably spread or delink together or otherwisebehave as a class. Consider in particularthe manner features [sonorant], [consonantal] and [continuant],features which determine the degree of constrictionin the vocal tract. Following Steriade (1987), Catford (1988) and others, I call such features stricturefeatures. Uncertaintypersists about the treat-

* This paper has benefited from discussionswith many people, includingaudiences at the Universityof Massachusetts,Amherst; the Universityof Pennsylvania;Cornell University; the Universityof Maryland,College Park;the Universityof California,Santa Cruz and the NSF Workshopon Propertiesof FeatureOrganization at UCSC, July 1991. I am especially gratefulto John McCarthyand Lisa Selkirkand to the followingpeople: Abby Cohn, Louis Goldstein, Roger Higgins, Beth Hume, Sharon Inkelas, Junko It6, Michael Kenstowicz, Armin Mester, MdireNi Chiosdinand three anonymousNLLT reviewers.All mistakesare my own responsibility.

NaturalLanguage and LinguisticTheory 12: 465-513, 1994. ? 1994 KluwerAcademic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 466 JAYE PADGETT ment of these features, with representationsas different as those shown in (1) found in the literature,among others. ('Supra'abbreviates the class node Supralaryngeal).' (1)a. Sagey (1986a) b. Archangeliand Pulleyblank(1986) Root Root

Supra[cont] [cons] Supra

Place [nas] Place [nas][cont] [cons]

c. Clements (1987) d. Selkirk (1991) Root [son 1 I [consi Supra N--~ [cont] [nas] Oral[nas] [cons] I rll-> Place Place [cont]

I will take a fifth geometry, due to McCarthy(1988) and shown below as my own point of departure.This geometry lacks a node Supralaryngeal, a point I will take up in Section 2.1.

(2) [ sonl cons

Laryngeal Place [nas][cont]

LabialCoronal Dorsal

Despite the differences, all of the geometries in (1) and (2) agree in one respect: stricture features are independent of place of articulation features and are located higher up in the feature geometry tree. In fact,

' Much irrelevantdetail has been omitted, though [nas] is includedto give more meaning to the comparisons.In this paper I will abbreviatethe namesof featuresin ways that should be clear, e.g., [son] for [sonorant],[cons] for [consonantal],etc.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STRICTURE AND NASAL PLACE ASSIMILATION 467 this view of stricturefeatures is held by virtuallyall researcherswho have consideredthe question. The best (and most frequentlycited) argument for it comes from Sagey (1986a): in some languages, nasal consonants assimilate in place, but not stricture, to a following consonant. Sagey provides an example from Kpelle, which I discuss in more detail later. The possessive prefix N combines with a form like fela 'wages' to give mvela 'my wages'. While the nasal and following consonant share place features and must be place-linked, they do not seem to share [sonorant] and [continuant]values. Therefore, these stricture features cannot be located under Place in feature geometry.2 The view that [son] is independent of Place seems unassailable. We must represent the common nasal-obstruentclusters nd, mb, etc., with somethingin the spirit of (3). (3) [+son] [-son]

[+nas] Place

However, in this paper I argue for a reassessmentof the relationbetween place featuresand the feature [continuant],motivating two closely related points. First, phonologicalphenomena systematicallyreveal an interactionbetween place features and [cont] that is not captured by the widely-held geometries.Perhaps the best example of this, ironically,comes from facts of nasal place assimilation.This paper will focus largely on a pervasive cross-linguisticasymmetry between nasal place assimilationto stops on the one hand and to fricatives on the other - the latter is extremely disfavored in comparison to the former. Further, in languages where there is nasal place assimilationto fricatives(significantly, typically with hardeningof the continuantto a stop or affricate, I will argue), there is assimilationto stops as well, while the reverse is far from true. Second, in order to capture this place-strictureinteraction, I argue for the featuregeometry in (4), which differsfundamentally from those shown above:

2 Explicitarguments concerning place and [consonantal]are virtuallynon-existent (note that m and v are both [+cons]), thoughthe conclusionthat stricturefeatures are independentof Place has commonlybeen extendedto this feature.See Clements(1985) and Sagey (1986a).

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 468 JAYE PADGETT

(4) [son]

Laryngeal Place [nasal] I [voice] etc. Labial CoronalDorsal I II [coat] [cont] [cont]

(4) is a modificationof the geometry in (2), differing in the location of [cont] under Place and, in particular,under the articulatornodes, a place- ment first argued for by Sagey (1986b) to deal with complex segments. I will show that the representationin (4) allows the theory to explain the nasal place assimilationfacts noted above as well, facts that remain a puzzle in the commonly assumed geometries. Further, I show that the place assimilationdata that seem to contradict(4), (mv, nz, etc.), are in fact argumentsfor it. The geometry I propose raises many questionsthat cannot be considered at length here, though I address some briefly. It should be emphasized, however, that the argumentfor locating stricture independentlyof Place rests largelyon the existence of nasal place assimilation to fricativeslike that seen in Kpelle. Hence, if this argumentcan be shown to be wrong, the entire issue must be reconsidered. Browmanand Goldstein (1986, 1989) posit phonologicalprimes, called 'gestures', that consist of a unitaryspecification of articulator,place and strictureinformation. The geometry argued for here is to a great extent consistentwith this notion and gives particularanswers to some criticisms raised againstit, as in Steriade (1990) and Clements (1991). Because the term 'gesture' carries much significancebeyond what is at issue here, I simplycall an articulatorfeature, together with [cont] as shown in (4), an articulator group. I refer to all geometries that locate [cont] independently of Place and that do not otherwisepredict any special interactionbetween place and this feature by the collective term 'the standardtheory'. Though I take (2) as representativeof the standardtheory in what follows, this term also refers to (1)a-c and all other geometriesin this spirit.3 The paper is organizedas follow>.Section 1 examines the stop-fricative asymmetryin nasal place assimilation.We see various means by which assimilationto fricativesis avoided - in particular,default place assign-

3 Thoughnot (1)d, since Selkirk(1990, 1991) arguesfor furtherassumptions that motivate place-strictureinteraction.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STRICTURE AND NASAL PLACE ASSIMILATION 469

ment to the nasal, nasal deletion and assimilationwith hardeningof the fricative.The accountproposed here connectsthese diverseprocesses and nasal place assimilation,while in the standardtheory, this connection is stipulatedor not noted at all. Section 1.5 confronts apparent counterexamples,including cases like mv, nz, where the nasal does not seem to acquirethe fricative's[+cont] specificationunder place assimilation. Adapting argumentsof Steriade (1991), I show that such clusters are generally best seen as aifricates, differing from overt cases like mbv and ndz only in implementation.In fact, as Steriade shows, the properties of clusters like mv, nz can be explainedonly under such an account. These facts supportthe articulator group ratherthan the standardtheory. In Section 2 I brieflyconsider alternativeaccounts within the standard theory for the nasal place assimilationfacts, rejecting these accounts in favor of the articulatorgroup. Section 3 concludes by consideringfurther implicationsof the theory. This paper assumes a basic understandingof feature geometry theory; the reader may refer to Clements (1985), Sagey (1986a) and McCarthy (1988).4

1. PLACE ASSIMILATION AND [CONT] Considerthe rule of nasal place assimilationshown below. (5) Root Root

[+nas] Place

In a language in which nasals occur before both stops and fricatives,we might expect the rule to produce assimilatedclusters like mb, nd, and mv, nz. In fact, without stipulationsto the contrary, we should expect assimilationto fricativesto be as natural as assimilationto stops. Yet in languageafter languagewe find that, far from assimilatingblindly to both stops and fricatives,nasals typicallyassimilate to stops, while one of the situationsin (6) occurs before fricatives:

4This work has been inspiredto a greatextent by the workof Selkirk(1990, 1991)on nasal place assimilationand the idea of place-strictureinteraction in general and by the work of Rosenthall(1989, 1992),Herbert (1986) and Steriade(1991). Eachof these presentsaccounts for facts of nasal-obstruentsequences, though underbasic assumptionsquite differentfrom one another and from those of this paper. (See also Wetzels 1991). Space does not permit a detailedcomparison of theiraccounts of nasal place assimilationand mine, thoughSection 2 bears on manyof the relevantissues. The readeris directedto the originalworks.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 470 JAYE PADGETT

(6)a. The nasal simply does not assimilate,receiving a default place. b. The nasal deletes. c. The nasal assimilatesbut simultaneouslyhardens the fricative to a stop or an affricate. Examples of each will be examined in this paper. Although (6) does not exhaust the possibilities of what occurs before fricativesin languages, it is representativeof the most common patterns5that have been discussed by numerous authors, including Herbert (1986), who surveys a great numberof languages,and more recentlyRosenthall (1992), Selkirk(1990) and Steriade (1991). Though assimilationto fricatives does sometimes occur (typically, I argue, as in (6)c above), there is an entailment to be capturedhere: in a languagewhere nasals assimilatein place to fricatives, they assimilateto stops also. The reverse does not obtain. What unifies the different outcomes in (6)a-c is the avoidanceof place assimilatednasal-fricative clusters, a behaviorpervasive across languages. Since the standardtheory of stricturemaintains that [cont] is independent of Place, it has no naturalaccount for this pattern. In contrast,the articulator group provides a ready means of explainingit in terms of structure preservation.Place assimilationmeans [cont] assimilation:6 (7) Root Root

[+nas] Place I [+cont]

Given the feature geometry, place assimilationderives the feature combi- nation [+nas, +cons, +cont] - that is, nasal place assimilation to a fricativecreates a nasalizedfricative. Such segments are at best extremely rare in the inventories of languages, arguablynonexistent underlyingly, and so we expect their creation by phonologicalrule to be highly disfav-

5 Another candidatepattern involves total assimilationof the nasal to the fricative. The nasal in the Attic Greek prefix syn- assimilatesto a followings in this way, e.g., syssitia 'commonmeal', while assimilatingonly in place to a followingstop. (Sommerstein1973, p. 20). A similarpattern is found with nasalsin some ModernGreek dialects(Newton 1972). 6 From here on I will sometimesomit the articulatorfeature from representationswhere it is not relevant to the point. The reader should keep in mind that [cont] is articulator- dependent,however. See Section 2.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STRICTURE AND NASAL PLACE ASSIMILATION 471

ored, an instance of structurepreservation.7 In contrast, there is no obvious problem in specifying a nasal consonant [-cont] (however, see the discussionof markingconditions below). A nasal may thereforeassimilate to stops. (This is all the more true if [-cont] is not specified at all in the triggeringconsonant within a theory of radicalunderspecification): (8) Root Root

[+nas] Place I [-cont]

Before laying out the assumptionsabout structurepreservation and the relevant marking conditions, I turn to. an example of a stop-fricative asymmetryin English, involving the prefix in-. The nasal in this prefix assimilatesin place to a followingstop. Before fricativesthe nasal assumes a default place, although pronunciationslike '[i[nj]faliible'are heard in casual speech, a point I returnto in section 1.5.1. (I rely here largelyon Kiparsky1982 and Borowsky 1986):8 (9)a. impale *inpale b. infallible *imfallible impossible *inpossible infamous *imfamous impenitent *inpenitent infinite *imfinite implicit *inplicit invariable *imvariable imbue *inbue involuntary *imvoluntary. Let us formulatethe rule as follows: (10) Root Root /It l [+nas] Place

Kiparsky(1982), Borowsky (1986) and others place this assimilationat

7 Underlyingnasalized fricatives have been claimedto exist in a few languages.In a recent discussionof these cases, Cohn (to appear)suggests plausible reanalyses of all of them except Waffa, a languageof PapuaNew Guinea. Waffais reportedto have an underlyingnasalized bilabial fricative (Stringer and Hotz 1973), but further investigationis warranted.(See Ladefogedand Maddieson1986 for discussion). 8 Since the nasal assumesthe alveolarplace when assimilationcannot apply (inappropriate, etc.), we cannot observethe stop-fricativeasymmetry before alveolarconsonants. I assume that the facts are as with the labials:the nasal receives its place by assimilationin indelible but not in insensitive.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 472 JAYE PADGETT

Level 1 in the lexical phonology of English. The rule applies differently to the (Level 1) prefixin- than nasal assimilationdoes at other levels; for example, the nasal assimilates completely to liquids, as in illegal, with later degemination. If English phonology prohibitsnasalized fricatives (at least at the level where this rule applies), then the proposed geometry predictsthe failure of assimilationin (9)b. Assimilationwould create the featurecooccurrence *[+nas, +cons, +cont]. Therefore, the nasal surfacesas coronal instead. Let us assumethat the nasal is placeless underlyinglyand receives coronal place by default rule.9 Compareimpossible and infamous: (11) iN + possible iN + famous Assimilation: impossible FAILS Default Place: N/A infamous We could derive the same result by stipulatinga [-cont] triggerin the standardtheory, as in (12). (12) Root Root / 'l I [+nas] Place [-cont]

However, Pulleyblank(1989) has pointed out problemswith this alternative to a markingcondition approach.First, we require the same stipulation for similar rules in many languages, including the cases discussed below, missingthe point that there is a more principledreason why nasals avoid assimilatingto fricatives.We might just as well stipulate a [+cont] trigger, although such a rule is unattested. Second, given the normal assumptionthat simplerrules denote more naturalprocesses, this alternative accountwrongly predicts that the rule without the stipulation(assimilation to stops and fricatives) should be more common. Our account

9 I will generallyassume a placeless nasal segment and default place assignmentin cases like this. However, the question of whetherunderspecification should be appealedto (see Mohanan1991 for recent discussion)is independentof the argumentbeing made here. The crucialpoint is the failureof assimilationto fricatives.Of course, if the nasal has no place underlyingly,it can have no [cont]value either, given the articulatorgroup. Both place and strictureare then suppliedby default.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STRICTURE AND NASAL PLACE ASSIMILATION 473

instead preserves the simple formulationin (10) and allows it to express the more naturalprocess: assimilationto stops and not fricatives.10 The facts of another Level 1 prefix con- parallel those seen above for in-: (13)a. complacent *conplacent b. confess *comfess composit *conposit confederacy *comfederacy compassion *conpassion confirm *comfirm combust *conbust convert *comvert combine *conbine convoke *comvoke In the case of con-, however, there are a few cases where we do have apparentassimilation before the fricative,assuming that these cases should be analyzed as containingthe prefix at all: (14) comfort, comfrey, comfit We treat these as unassimilatedclusters underlyingly, separately specified for labial place, since place linking would derive *[+nas, +cons, +cont]: (15) com fort I I lab lab I [+cont]

Under this approach,they are on a par with wordslike Camden,Canberra, which also have nasals with a lexically specified place. This move seems justified, since the numberof such words is very small in comparisonwith the many exampleslike convivial,confide. A searchof the Englishlexicon does bring up other examples of mf/mv clusters, as in the Greek forms amphi-, triumphand isolated forms like clamjamfry.Yet the strikingfact

10 Borowsky (1986, p. 93) observes that there is also no labiodentalnasal phoneme in English and therefore suggests another markingcondition: *[+nasal, +labiodental].This conditionis meant to prohibitassimilation to f and v for reasonshaving nothing to do with their stricture.Yet we should not appeal to this solution for two reasons.First, the specification of labiodentalplace is entirely redundantin English, predictablefrom the value of [cont]. That is, f and v are underlyinglysimply labial, and so a conditionbased on a feature [labiodental]is not obviouslyrelevant to the facts here. More importantly,an examination of other languagesreveals many instances of failed place assimilationinvolving bilabial fricatives(e.g., Kikuyu,Rosenthall 1992, Padgett 1991) or other places of articulation.The use of [labiodental]could not extend to these cases.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 474 JAYE PADGETT is that examples of the sequence nf/nv vastly outnumberthem. Since the formerrequire specifying two places underlyingly,this is what we expect.

1.1. Structure Preservation and Marking Conditions At this point our assumptionsabout structurepreservation and marking conditionsmust be made clear. Below is a formulationof the principleof StructurePreservation based on the discussion in Kiparsky(1985) and Myers (1991b).12 (16) Structure Preservation Restrictionson the underlyingrepresentation hold throughout the lexical phonology. Kiparskyrecognized that this principlemay need to be weakened (p. 135, n3). Subsequentresearch has shown this to be true, since it is sometimes violated in the lexicon (Archangeliand Pulleyblank1986; Myers 1991b). Further, in some cases StructurePreservation seems to remain in force in the postlexical phonology. Although Kiparsky'sintention is unclear, Archangeliand Pulleyblankinterpret the principleto rule this out as well. To explainsuch facts, Myers(1991b) proposes the eliminationof Structure Preservationand generalizesKiparsky's Strong Domain Hypothesisto the relevant restrictions.This hypothesisoriginated in unpublishedwork and is explored by Borowsky (1986) in the following formulation, which I adopt as the Strong Domain Condition: (17) The Strong Domain Condition (SDC) a. All rules are availableat the earliest level of the phonology. b. Rules may cease to apply, but may not begin to apply at a later level by stipulation. Applied to markingconditions as well, the SDC says that a language's conditions are in effect in the lexical representationsand into the derivation but may be 'turnedoff' at any level of the derivation. Conditions do not 'turnon' at any point. This formulationpreserves the requirement

" These mf/mv clustersare then exceptionsto Yip's (1991) claim that Englishclusters are specifiedfor only one place. (Yip argues that Coronal is not specified). Other exceptions include gm clusters, as in stigma. Note that cases like circumvent, circumference involve underlying m; compare circuminsular. In further support of our account of English, Borowsky (1986, p. 189) remarkson the unexplainedrarity of nasal-fricativeclusters in Englishcodas. 12 Followingthe example of Myers (1991b), I will let 'structurepreservation' denote the property of respectingsome markingcondition, while 'StructurePreservation' refers to Kiparsky'shypothesis about the domainof such markingconditions (discussed below).

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STRICTURE AND NASAL PLACE ASSIMILATION 475

that structurepreserving rule applicationsprecede non-structurepreserving ones, althoughonly with respect to any single condition. That is, one condition may cease to apply while another remains in effect. Further, conditions may now cease to apply in the lexical phonology or, on the other hand, continue into the postlexical phonology. Unlike a theory with StructurePreservation, then, this theory claims that each marking condition has its own domain. This is a significant weakening of the originalprinciple, but as Myers notes, it is more restrictivethan Structure Preservationin requiringthat if a condition holds postlexically, it holds lexically and in the underlyingrepresentation. (Structure Preservation makes no demandson a condition that holds postlexically). For purposes of this paper, I adopt Myer's proposalwith the following qualifications.The facts suggest that the marking condition prohibiting nasalized fricatives is respected throughoutthe phonology for the great majority of languages. Though violations of other marking conditions, such as one prohibitingvelar nasals, are fairly common even lexically (see the referencesgiven above), this is not the case with the markingcondition againstnasalized fricatives. This differenceshould probablybe correlated with another difference:velar nasals are common in languageinventories, while nasalized fricativesare perhaps non-existent. We might attempt to explain these differenceswithin a theory of 'phonetic naturalness'and its relation to phonologicalconstraints. (See Pulleyblank1989; Cohn to appear and referencestherein, and cf. the 'phoneticgrounding' of Archang- eli and Pulleyblank 1992). If nasalized fricatives are phonetically less favored than velar nasals - if they are hard to produce, for instance (see Ohala 1975) - then they should occur less frequentlyin inventories,and the prohibitionon their derivationshould be a strongerforce, i.e., perhaps persistinglonger in the derivation.14 As Cohn notes, in many respectswe are still a long way from such a theory. For the purposesof the following discussion, let us simply assume that the marking condition prohibiting nasalized fricatives is respected throughout the phonology across languages. Although this is only approximatelytrue, it is close enough for present purposes; I will addresscounterexamples in 1.5.2. Let us now examine the nature of the marking condition itself. All recent proponentsof underspecification,whether radical (Kiparsky1982;

13 Compare Archangeli and Pulleyblank's(1986) proposal that configurationconstraints (correspondingto markingconditions to a large degree) be assigned either the X? or the Xmaxdomain. This proposalgives similarresults, but not identicalones, e.g., it is not possible to restricta markingcondition to only part of the lexical phonology. 14 Otherexamples of robustmarking conditions in phonologiesinclude conditions preventing voiceless sonorantsor nasalizedliquids.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 476 JAYE PADGETT

Archangeli1984, 1988) or restricted(Clements 1988; Steriade 1987; Mes- ter and Ito 1989), agree in leaving truly redundantfeatures unspecified in lexical entries and throughoutsome part of the phonologicalderivation. Since [cont] does not serve to distinguishamong nasal consonants, it is not specifiedunderlyingly. I furtherassume the universalredundancy rule given in (18).

(18) [+nas, + cons] -* [-cont]

Markingconditions are often intendedto exclude predictablefeature content from lexical entries. (See Kiparsky 1985, for instance). Thus, we might formulatea condition prohibitingthe cooccurrenceof either value of [cont]with [+nas], as shownbelow. As long as such a markingcondition is in effect, no rule will specify a nasal for [cont]:

(19) *[+nas, +cons, acont]

Marking conditions play an important role in explaining patterns of assimilationin languages, as argued by Kiparsky(1985), Archangeliand Pulleyblank(1986), Pulleyblank(1989) and Cohn (1989, 1990). I am argu- ing here that a prohibitionon nasalized fricativesis crucial to an understandingof nasal place assimilationfacts; however, the condition in (19) suggeststhat [+nas, +cons, -cont] and [+nas, +cons, +cont] are treated equally by the phonology. Yet the basic point of this paper is that only the latter feature cooccurrenceis at issue under nasal place assimilation. Ruling out [+nas, +cons, -cont] as well eliminates redundancyin the underlyingrepresentation - I know of no evidence suggestingthat nasal consonantsfail to be specified [-cont] by an assimilatoryrule. Consider the separatedconditions given below.

(20)a. *[+nas, +cons, -cont]

b. *[+nas, +cons, +cont]

(20)b has been proposed independentlyby Cohn (1989, 1990) to account for facts of long-distance[nasal] spread in Sundanese,and it seems to play a role in nasal place assimilation, ruling out assimilationto a fricative, assumingthe articulatorgroup:

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STRICTURE AND NASAL PLACE ASSIMILATION 477

(21) *Root Root

[+nas] Place Violates*[+nas, +cons, +cont] I [+cont]

One might suppose that (20)a is not violated when assimilationoccurs to stops simply because the stop is not specified for [cont], under some version of radicalunderspecification. But considernow the case of assimilation to an affricate.The fact to be accountedfor is that nasals assimilate to affricatesas freely as to stops. (We will see instances of this in later sections.) I assume that affricatesare representedwith both [-cont] and [+cont] specifications,following Steriade (1982) and Sagey (1986a) (perhaps both privative,Lombardi 1990). I assume furtherthat an affricateis specifiedunderlyingly for both values, since otherwise it is often indistin- guishablefrom a stop or fricative. Therefore, when a nasal assimilatesto an affricate,it acquiresboth [cont] values:'5 (22) Root Root

[+nas] Place

[-cont] [+cont]

Here both of the proposed conditionsfail us: neither would allow this assimilation.The problem is the negative formulationof the conditions.

"' What is the interpretationof (22)? What does it mean for the nasal to be both [-cont] and [+cont]? By analogyto the implementationof a geminateaffricate, it would mean that the nasal is implementedas a stop. Comparethe representationof 1/cc, which is identical in the relevantrespects:

C C

1-coilt l+conlj

Geminate affricatestypically translate into stop-affricatesequences at the phonetic level, not into affricate-affricatesequences. I assume that in the usual case homorganicnasal- affricatesequences are interpretedin the same way; that is, (22) represents[mbv], [ndz], etc. However, see ?1.5.3 for a crucialqualification.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 478 JAYE PADGETT

Consider instead the positively stated condition given below, which can be compared to the positively stated 'c-constraints'of Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1986) or the positive conditions discussed in Pulleyblank (1989) and Mohanan(1991). (23) NasallContinuant Marking Condition: If [+nas, +cons], then [-cont] This condition, which will be assumed here, intriguinglyresembles our redundancyrule [+ nas, + cons] -> [-cont]. It allows assimilationto the affricate;the extra [ + cont] value is irrelevant.What the condition pro- hibits is the assignmentof only a [+cont] value. The difference between saying in effect that nasals may not be fricatives, on the one hand, and nasals must be stops, on the other, is in most cases untestable. Affricates provide a test case, however, if they are both stops and fricatives. The positive interpretationaccounts for the facts by cruciallyallowing a rule to specify a nasal for redundant[-cont].16 At first sight, the nasal/continuantmarking condition (23) may seem to have unwantedconsequences in comparisonto (19). First, it allows a nasal to be specified [-cont] underlyingly.17 However, to preventthis redundant underlyingspecification, we should not invoke a markingcondition in any case. Rather, the absence of [-cont] in underlyingnasals should follow, directlyand by principle,from the existence of the redundancyrule [+nas, +cons] [-cont] itself. Such a connectionbetween redundancyrules and underlyingrepresentations has always been assumed in work on under- specificationbut is missedif we posit markingconditions beside the related redundancyrules to ensure underspecification.18 (On this issue, see Padg- ett 1991 and It6, Mester and Padgett 1993). Sec.ond,(23) allows a nasal to be specified [-cont] in the course of the derivation. This is in fact a desirableconsequence, given the accountof affricatesand the assimilation of nasals to stops in general by which they acquire this feature (if it is

16 A clear alternativeto this approachto the affricatefacts maintainsthat affricatesare only [-cont], following Steriade(1989). This move would allow the use of a negativecondition like (20)b. 17 Actually, the conditionrequires [-cont] specification.For the purposesof this paperwe could instead write "If [+nas, +cons] is specified for [cont], it is specified [-cont]," a statementmore consistentwith the followingdiscussion. However, ItO,Mester and Padgett (1993) argue that an approachto underspecificationwithin the frameworkof Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky1993, McCarthyand Prince 1993), in which constraintsare not surface true, makes the simpler(23) a possible formulation,and in fact the necessary one. 18 Kiparsky (1982), for instance, states . . . we revert to the natural assumption of early generativephonology that phonological features are unspecifiedin underlyingrepresentations if their value can be assignedby a rule."

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STRICTURE AND NASAL PLACE ASSIMILATION 479

specified). Of course, some furtherprinciple must preventthe redundancy rule itself from fillingin the relevantfeature immediately,if underspecification may persist into the derivation. Proposalsto this effect are found in Kiparsky(1985) and Archangeli and Pulleyblank(1986).19 This accountof nasal place assimilationexplains the entailmentwe saw earlier: when nasals assimilateto fricatives (typically hardeningthem, I argue), they assimilate to stops. The reason for this entailment is that nasalsmay alwaysassimilate in place to stops, while the markingcondition in (23) means that assimilationto fricatives must either fail or lead to hardening. (See the following sections). Why assimilationfails in some cases but applies with hardening in others is a question that will be addressedonly brieflylater, when we see instancesof hardeningthat seem to requiresome notion of 'repairoperation' or 'fix-uprule'. For the time being, I assumethat the conditionin (23) serves to block rule application. Let us now turn to more cases illustratingwhat happens when nasals occur before fricatives. We will see that, though the nasal/continuant marking condition and the articulator group predict the stop-fricative asymmetryin nasal place assimilation,other factors, sometimeslanguage- specific, can determinethe precise fate of the nasal fricativecluster.

1.2. No Assimilation; Default Place Assignment: Polish I first consider cases where assimilationto fricativesis blocked, leading to default place assignmentto the nasal. This option is availableonly to languagesthat allow the relevant nasal consonant to bear its own place specification.We have already seen the first such case in English. Here we turn to the second case. A well-known instance of failed place assimilationbefore fricatives occurs in Polish. Though the facts are complicated,they clearly demon- stratethe stop-fricativeasymmetry. Two rulesof Polish, nasalplace assimilation and nasal gliding, are in 'complementarydistribution', as manyhave noted (Gussmann 1980; Steele 1973; Bethin 1984; Czaykowska-Higgins 1988, 1992 and referencestherein). Place assimilationoccurs before stops l9 IOt, Mester and Padgett (1993) argue on independentgrounds for an understandingof redundantfeature specificationin terms of licensing, analogousto that proposedby Gold- smith (1990), extending It6 (1986, 1989). Applied to these facts, while *[+nas, +cons, +cont] representsa truly antagonisticcooccurrence, [-cont] is absent in nasals merely because nasals do not license this redundantfeature, hence the typicalunderspecification. However, in place-assimilatednt, for example, if [-cont] is also assimilated,licensing of this feature is still fulfilledby the obstruentitself, assuming[cont] is contrastiveamong the obstruents.For motivationof this view of underspecification,see 1t6, Mester and Padgett (1993).

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 480 JAYE PADGETT and affricates,while glidingof the nasal occurs elsewhere - before fricatives and word-finally.This pattern of assimilationoccurs both lexically and postlexicallyand affects various nasal segments: the 'nasal vowels', the coronal n and the labial m. Our main concern here is this stop- fricativeasymmetry. For other aspects of the analysisof Polish, I rely on Czaykowska-Higgins(1988, 1992) and Bethin (1984). I begin by examiningthe behaviorof the 'nasalvowels' # and V.Though there is debate about the precise underlyingrepresentation of these two entities (the only so-called nasal vowels of Polish), generativeanalyses at least agree in treatingthem as a sequence of mid vowel (# is actually[9]) and nasal consonant (e.g., Gussman 1980; Rubach 1984; Bethin 1984; Czaykowska-Higgins1988). They are not fully nasalized as are the nasalized vowels of French; rather, they are realized as a sequence of oral vowel (perhaps slightly nasalized) and nasal segment. In addition, they are longer than ordinaryvowels. (On these facts, see Brooks 1968;Dukie- wicz 1967; inter alia). The nasal portion of # and Vis realized as a place- assimilatednasal stop before stops and affricates. Data here and below are taken from Bethin (1984) and Czaykowska-Higgins(1988, 1992). The first column is given in Polish orthography.20 (24)a. zab [zomp] 'tooth' b. zqby [zembi] 'teeth' c. rz#idu [zondu] 'government' d. zajqty [zajenti] 'busy (masc. sg.)' e. rqce [rence] 'hands' f. tqcza [ten6a] 'rainbow' g. badz' [bon'c] 'be (imperative)' h. zaj'ci [zajenii] 'busy (masc. pers. pl.)' i. wqgiel [veog'el] 'coal' Below I give the underlying consontantal inventory of Polish, from Czaykowska-Higgins(1992). C' is palatalized. c and 3 are dental affricates.21

(24)a. Polish Underlying Consonantal Inventory labial p, p', b, b', f, f', v', m, m' dental t, d, s, z, c, 3, n, 1, r alveopalatal 9, z, c, j

20 I do not indicatepartial nasalization of the vowel in the phonetictranscriptions, nor the alveopalatalpronunciation of n before e. 21 /X/ (underlying[+back]) is realized as [w], a fact we returnto shortly e, j, s, and i are underlyingt', d', s' and z', respectively.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STRICTURE AND NASAL PLACE ASSIMILATION 481

prepalatal c, j, s, z, 1',1 velar k,g,x,w In contrast, before fricativesthe nasal segment surfaces as the nasalized glide *.22 (25)a. maz [mows] 'husband' b. w,aski [vowski] 'narrow(masc. sg.)' c. mqski [mewski] 'man's (masc. sg.)' d. ksi,azka [ksowska] 'book' e. gqsi [g'ewsi] 'geese' f. wgch [vewx] 'smell' g. d,ayc` [dowzic] 'aspire' h. rzqsa [zewsa] 'eyelash' Affricates group with stops: the nasal does not delete before them but assimilatesto them, as predicted by the account developed. As we saw above, the positive markingcondition requiringthat nasal consonantsbe specified[-cont] can explain the patterningof affricateswith stops in this way, a patterningtypical of nasal place assimilationrules. Observingthe assimilationbehavior of the nasal consonant portion of @ and v (and the consequentpredictability of its place of articulation),both Bethin and Czaykowska-Higginspropose that it is underlyinglyplaceless. Assimilation is a fill-in process in these cases, applying accordingto the rule in (26), which is adapted from Czaykowska-Higgins(1992). (26) Root Root

[+nas] Place [-cont]

Under my account, the rule is simplifiedto (27). (27) Rool Root

[+nas] Place

This account relies on the location of [cont] under Place, giving the stop- fricativeasymmetry a principledrather than stipulativeaccount, which is desirable for reasons already discussed. Place assimilationentails [cont] assimilation.Assimilation to stops and affricatescauses no problem, since

22 Glidingof the nasalsometimes results in j ratherthan w due to the presenceof surrounding [-back] segments. See the sourcescited for details.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 482 JAYE PADGETT the nasal/continuantmarking condition states that if a nasal is specified for [cont], it must be specified [-cont]. Again, if [-cont] is unspecified, assimilationwill likewise obtain. (28) Root Root

[+nas] Place I [-contl

The marking condition prevents assimilationto fricatives, given the geometryproposed: (29) Root Root / I [+nasl Place AssimilationBlocked I [+contl

In the environmentswhere assimilationdoes not occur (before fricatives and word-finally),the nasal portion of # and v is realized as the nasalized glide, as shown above in (25).23 Though some researchers(e.g., Bethin 1984) rely on a rule of gliding, I follow Czaykowska-Higgins(1988) in assumingthat gliding is default place assignment(at least in the syllable coda), hence, I group Polish with English. Independentsupport for this assumptionis found in the behavior of the underlying[+back] lateral 111, which surfaces as [w] (unless followed by a [-back] segment, in which case it is [1']or [1]).There is, then, a general process of default labiovelar place assignmentthat affects sonorants. (See Czaykowska-Higgins1988, p. 254-5 for details of the argument). This accountmakes the necessaryconnection between place assimilation and nasal gliding:the latter occursjust where the formercannot. Previous accounts fail to make this connection. In some, for example, gliding is stipulatedto occur before homorganicfricatives, where it is assumedthat the preceding rule of place assimilation applies before all obstruents, fricatives as well as stops (e.g., Bethin 1984). In others, gliding applies where place assimilationdoes not, and yet the failureof place assimilation

23 That is, the nasal becomes [-cons]. Note that since the markingcondition in (23) refers to nasal consonants,it is indifferentto the [cont] statusof a glide.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STRICTURE AND NASAL PLACE ASSIMILATION 483

itself is stipulated - a [-cont] trigger is written into the rule (e.g., Czaykowska-Higgins1992). The articulatorgroup theory not only explains the 'complementarydistribution' of assimilationand gliding, it makes the necessaryconnection between the facts of Polish and those of English, as well as Zoque and the other languagesexamined in this paper. What these languages have in common, I claim, is an aversion to the creation of nasalizedfricatives. As I mentioned at the outset, the nasal segments n and m undergo a pattern of place assimilationsimilar to that of the 'nasal vowels', though under different conditions. In casual speech, the coronal nasal n assimilates both within and across words. (In careful speech, assimilationmay be confinedto within words and may fail to apply before velars):

(30)a. blond [blond] 'blond' b. bank [banuk] 'bank' c. pan bog [pam buk] 'lord god' d. huragankolosalny [huragai)kolosalni] 'colossal hurricane'

Except for a difference in domain of application('nasal vowels' do not assimilate across words), the behavior of n is parallel to that of the 'nasal vowels': under the conditions that induce assimilationto stops and affricates,there is glidingbefore fricatives:

(31)a. szansa [sawsa] 'chancc' b. kunszt [ku*wt] 'art' c. konflikt [koWflikt] 'conflict' d. konwent [kowvent] 'convent'

Czaykowska-Higgins(1988, 1992) arguesthat n is underlyingspecified for Coronal. (Recall that the default rules for sonorantsin Polish fill in labiovelar features, not coronal.) She furtherassumes a rule that delinks this specificationand makes the nasal a targetfor the rule of assimilationgiven in (27). I adopt these aspectsof the analysis.At this point, we can explain the behavior of n just as we did the behavior of the 'nasal vowels': assimilationto a [+cont] segment cannotoccur due to the familiarmarking condition; default rules then fill in labiovelarfeatures. Czaykowska-Hig- gins shows that the rules of place assimilationand nasal glidingmust target the nasal vowels in the lexical phonology and n postlexically.Hence, the marking condition is in effect throughout the phonology of Polish, a possibilitynoted in 1.1. One other type of nasal gliding, the gliding of m, occurs in Polish, providingstriking additional support for the crucialrole of place features

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 484 JAYE PADGETT

in the gliding process. Gliding of m occurs only in casual speech and, more important,only before a labialfricative. Compare (32)a-c and (32)d.

(32)a. triumf [triu*fI 'triumph' b. tramwaj [tra*vaj] 'tram' c. tam wal# [taw valow] 'they are bangingthere' d. chamski [xamski] 'boorish' cf. *[xawski]

Unlike n, m does not assimilate to other places of articulation (i.e., klamka 'doorknob' is never *[klagka]). There is apparently an OCP- related rule at work postlexically, as Czaykowska-Higginsargues. The rule deletes the first of two adjacent labial specifications,affecting the sequence in triumf, for example:

(33) m f + I LabialLabial

The nasal cannot assimilateto a followinglabial fricative, and so it receives a place specification by default, giving w. This systematic connection between place assimilationand stricturefinds no explanationwithin the standardtheory.

1.3. No Assimilation; Deletion of the Nasal In some languageswhere assimilationto fricativesis blocked, the outcome is not a nasal with default place but rather deletion of the nasal. Most analyses of such cases have postulated independent rules of nasal place assimilationand nasal deletion. In the account argued for here, the two rules are necessarilyconnected: deletion resultsfrom the (language-specific) failure of the nasal to receive a place specification.Thus, our analysis requireslittle more than we have said so far.

1.3.1. Zoque The first example comes from Zoque, a language of southern Mexico. I rely on the work of Wonderly (1946, 1951). In Zoque, the pronominal prefix N assimilatesin place to the following stop or affricate(Wonderly

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STRICTURE AND NASAL PLACE ASSIMILATION 485

1951, p. 120). c and 3 denote voiceless and voiced alveolar affricates, respectively.24 (34)a. /N + pama/ [mbama] 'my clothing' b. /N + burru/ [mburru] 'my burro' c. /N + tatah/ [ndatah] 'my father' d. IN + disko/ [ndisko] 'my phonographrecord' e. /N + cima/ [n3ima] 'my calabash' f. /N + 6o?ngoya/ [pjio}ngoya] 'my rabbit' g. /N + kayu/ [ogayuI 'my horse' h. /N + gayu/ [ljgayu] 'my rooster' Before continuants,we get not assimilation,but deletion of the nasal. I treat 1 as [+cont] here. (35)a. /N + faha/ [faha] 'my belt' b. /N + sAk/ [s A k] 'my beans' c. /N + gapun/ [gapun] 'my soap' d. /N + lawus/ [lawus] 'my nail' e. /N + rran6o/ [rran6o] 'my ranch' Nasals within stems do not undergo place assimilation:25 (36)a. camdAhka?opya 'he mediates' b. minba 'he comes' c. kendyo?pya 'he wants to look' d. macba 'he goes' etc. None of the non-assimilatednasals in (36) are word-initial.Dell (1973) therefore formulatesthe rule to apply only word-initially.As he notes, there are forms that appear to belie this formulation, cases where the pronominalprefix is itself preceded by another prefixhay- (neg. comple- tive) in verbs, as in hapgyena?s 'I did not see it' (=hay- + N + ken- 'see' + -a- (neg. comp.) + Pm), though this interpretationassumes that hay- constitutespart of the word. We must either restrict assimilationto the morphologicalentity N (and the other deleting nasal Ny), or else

24 The rule voicing the post-nasalconsonant is independent;it applies to non-homorganic nasal-stop sequences as well. The account of Zoque here ignores Spanish loans, which behave differently.See ?1.5. 25 Three other morphemesbesides N evince assimilation:one is a different pronominal prefixNy. (y metathesizeswith the followingconsonant by anotherrule before assimilation). The others are the suffixes-taM- (lst/2nd pers. pl.) and -a?M- (perf.). M is realized as m before vowels and w, but does not occur (in distribution) before fricatives.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 486 JAYE PADGETT

assume that hay- does not form part of the (relevant)word; i.e., we have ha[rjgyena?S]Wd.There is reason to prefer the latter view, as we will see below.26 The failureof assimilationto fricativesin Zoque is just what we expect, for reasonsnow familiar.However, why does the nasal delete, ratherthan assume a default place, as it does in English? Lombardi(1990) suggests that the morphophonemeN may not receive its own place specification, pursuing a strategy developed by Ito (1986, 1989) in discussing other languages,presumably intending a constraintas in (37): (37) *N

Place Under this view, the assimilatednasal is exempt from (37) by the Linking Constraint(Hayes 1986; cf. Schein and Steriade 1986), which requires that associationlines be interpretedexhaustively. Given the LinkingCon- straint, the nasal does not meet the structuraldescription of (37), since the Place node is doubly-linked: (38) Root Root

I+nasl Place

In contrast, when the nasal appears before a fricative and so fails to assimilate, it is subject to the language-specificconstraint in (37). The constraint prevents default place assignment, a state of affairs that in Zoque leads to loss of all feature content, i.e., segment deletion. (37) predictsthat the nasal would delete even if it were the sole onset consonant (assuming the nasal could not receive place from the vowel nucleus, as seems likely). Since there are no vowel-initial stems, it is impossible to test this prediction; however, it may seem dubious. An appealingvariation on Ito's constraint-plus-inalterabilityapproach recasts it in terms of positive licensing conditions, following Goldsmith (1990) and Ito and Mester (to appear):in Zoque, the syllable can license exactly

26 The readermight wish to invoke the StrictCycle Condition(Kiparsky 1985), but the non- assimilatednasals occur in derivedenvironments as well as the assimilatingmorphophoneme N: minba 'he comes' in (36) is /min-/ 'to come' +/-pa/ (incompletive),for example. The StrictCycle does not help.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STRICTURE AND NASAL PLACE ASSIMILATION 487

one onset Place node.27N can exist by linkingto an independentlylicensed place (and could be the sole onset consonant if there were vowel-initial stems) but otherwise must stray erase. The unassimilatednasals in (36), in contrast, are licensed by occurrencein the coda. This approachthen motivates the word bracketingha[igyena?SIWd noted above, where rj is assimilated N: accordingto Wonderly, N deletes before fricatives even after the prefixhay-. N must then be an onset even in these cases. Under either account, deletion and place assimilationare necessarily related: deletion occurs when (underlyinglyplaceless) N fails to acquirea place specificationby assimilation.This sort of accountpredicts that nasal consonantsthat have their own underlyingplace specificationand are not subject to the place assimilationrule will show no special behavior - deletion or default place assignment- before fricatives.We saw in (36) that Zoque allows unassimilatednasal-consonant clusters, as in minba 'he comes', and so we can test this prediction.In fact, these nasals do occur before the fricatives, as in winsa?u'he revived' and agsis 'lips'.28

1.3.2. Lithuanian A nasal assimilationrule in Lithuanianparallels the Zoque facts to a large degree. Here I rely on Kenstowicz(1972). The nasal n assimilatesin place to a following stop or affricate:9 (39)a. se[m]bernisa 'old fellow (nom sg)' b. da[n]tis 'tooth (nom sg)' c. da[jri]iui 'tooth (dat sg)' d. p4[r]kite 'plait (imper pl)' The nasal assumesthe coronalplace before vowels. Comparethese related forms: (40)a. se [n]as 'old (nom sg)' b. pi[n]a 'plait (3rd pres)' Once again assimilationfails before the fricatives; the nasal deletes, as

27 Zoque does allow a second onset place that is vocalic: pyama 'his clothing' from /y + pama/, etc. Wonderlycites other complex onsets that are due to Spanishborrowings, e.g., flawta 'harmonica'. 28 Otherexpected cluster types cannot be adducedbecause they are excludedon independent grounds.See Wonderly(1951) and Padgett(1991). 29 Kenstowiczpresents the data in Lithuanianorthography. Where this may be confusing, I will enclose portionsof words in squarebrackets, giving a phonetic transcription.Note that a hook undera letter indicatesa long vowel, not nasalization.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 488 JAYE PADGETT shown in (41) with the prefixsdn-, and the precedingvowel compensatorily lengthens. Comparesdmburis 'assembly', santaka 'confluence', sa[g]kaba 'coupling'. (41)a. so skambis 'harmony' b. so slavos 'sweepings' c. s4 zine 'conscience' Assimilation creates the non-phonemesji and zj, as in (39)c and d. Yet the rule must apply lexicallybecause we find exceptionalbehavior before the future morpheme-si, where the nasal does not delete. I assume that the nasal here has its own place specification: (42)a. gyvensiu 'live (lst sg fut)' b. minsiu 'trample(lst sg fut)' c. ginsiu 'defend (lst sg fut)' Lithuanian provides yet another example of the failure of marking conditions (prohibitingpalatal and velar nasals) to be enforced lexically. However, the nasal/continuantmarking condition is enforced. Lombardi (1990) discussesthese facts and posits the followingcondition for Lithuan- ian: (43) *C],

E+nas1 corJ We can recast this conditionin terms of licensing:the coda cannot support a coronal nasal. Such a condition is independentlymotivated, since the coronal nasal typicallydoes not appear word-finally(Kenstowicz, p. 16), where it is present in the underlyingform. (Kenstowicz discusses other 'sporadic'instances where it does not appear). Place-linkednasals again will escape this condition, since an onset place is licensed. Because the nasal cannot become place-linkedto a fricative, it cannot be licensed in 30 that environmentand predictablydeletes. I assume that nasal place assimilationin Lithuanian,as in English and

30 The licensingconstraint is not enforcedbefore the futuresuffix, then, assumingthe nasal receives its own place. (Examplesin (42)). Following Kiparsky(1982), Inkelas and Cho (1993), we might wish to account for such exceptionalityby invokingprespecification (of Coronal)along with the ElsewhereCondition. It is not clear how this would work, since the exceptionalityis broughtin by the suffixand yet involvesthe stem nasal. I leave the question open.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STRICTURE AND NASAL PLACE ASSIMILATION 489

Zoque, spreadsplace to an underlyinglyplaceless (coronal) nasal. Just as with Zoque, nasals that have an underlyingplace specificationand are not subject to assimilation do not delete before fricatives, as this account predicts: (44)a. krimi-sti 'chew (inf)' b. grimzti 'sink (inf)' c. glamzyti 'rumple(inf)' Comparebr sti 'ripen(inf )', with the relatedform br6ndo(3rd past). Here the nasal may receive its place specification only by assimilation;yet assimilationto a fricative is impossible. Hence it deletes in the infinitive form.

1.4. Summary Let us review the account of nasal place assimilationdeveloped in the precedingsections. The proposedfeature geometry, along with a marking condition requiringthat nasal consonantsbe stops, makes strong predictions about nasal place assimilation.Languages perhaps universallypro- hibit nasalizedfricatives underlyingly, and the markingcondition prevents their derivationin the phonology. This, in turn, entails that nasals may not assimilatein place to fricatives,given the proposed geometry: (45) Root Root , - l [+nas] Place Assimilationderives *[+nas, +cons, +cont] I [+cont]

The cross-linguisticevidence stronglysupports this view. Assimilationto fricativesis highly disfavored,while assimilationto stops and affricatesis pervasive. The cases we have examined in the preceding sections bear out the predictionsvery clearly. We observe variation among languages in how assimilationto fricativesis avoided. Sometimesthe nasal does not assimilate but assumes a default place value. Sometimes it deletes altogether, and, as we will soon see, sometimesit assimilatesand hardensthe fricative. Yet underthe theory I am arguingfor, these differentprocesses are closely related, all instances of structurepreservation at work. Further,they are all necessarilyrelated to place assimilation.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 490 JAYE PADGETT

The standardview that [cont] is independentof place does not make these predictions. The fact that nasals assimilate to stops and affricates but not fricatives must be stipulatedin the rule for each language. The connectionbetween the failureto assimilate,nasal deletion, and hardening does not follow from such a theory. Moreover, the connection between these processes and place assimilationitself does not follow. Therefore, the standardaccount must be abandoned.On the other hand, the current proposals cannot be readily embraced unless they provide a means of dealing with known apparentcounterexamples.

1.5. Apparent Counterexamples We must confront instances where nasal place assimilationto a fricative does seem to occur. These can be divided into three classes: instances that are more properlyviewed as phoneticprocesses to whichthe structure preservationaccount is irrelevant;cases in which the proposed marking condition is no longer enforced in the phonology - such cases ought to be uncommon;and, the most interestinggroup, cases in which apparent counterexamplessimply involve hardening.I examine each group in turn.

1.5.1. GesturalOverlap In the discussionof the Englishprefix in-, the casualspeech pronunciations 'i[nr]famous','i[nj]variable' (with the labiodentalnasal) were mentioned. These forms parallel casual speech forms like 'i[U]capacity',where the markingcondition *[+nas, dorsal] no longer prevents assimilationto the velar, assumingthere is such a markingcondition in English. (See Borow- sky 1986and referencestherein for discussionof this issue). Here we seem to have a case of nasal place assimilationto a fricative, contraryto the proposed markingcondition. However, some phonetic studies of Englishsuggest an alternativeview: this is not a rule of phonologicalfeature spreadingbut a phonetic process involvingthe overlap of gestures. Browmanand Goldstein (1990) present preliminaryarticulatory evidence showing a hidden coronal gesture in a phrase like seve[m] plus, with an 'assimilated'nasal. The appearanceof assimilation,Browman and Goldstein claim, follows from the overlap in articulationsassociated with the n and those associatedwith the p, along with some possible reductionin the magnitudeof the now hidden coronal gesture. Such changes in the 'gesturalscore' and in gestural magnitude are argued to be typical of casual speech. (See Browman and Goldstein 1990 and referencestherein). If this interpretationextends to 'i[nj]variab-

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STRICTURE AND NASAL PLACE ASSIMILATION 491

le', etc., then we should not treat these cases as instancesof phonological spreading, a categoricalprocess resultingin a fully labiodentalnasal and no coronalgesture. If there are both coronal and labiodentalarticulations, then there is no assimilationin the relevantsense, and no issue of structure preservation. Such considerationssuggest the need for care in bringingdata to bear on issues of assimilationand structurepreservation. Processes that are gradientin a way that depends on speech rate or casualnessare abundant and are typically seen as governed by mechanisms (of the phonetics) havingdifferent properties from those of the phonology. (See for example Libermanand Pierrehumbert1984; Keating 1990; Pierrehumbert 1990 and Cohn 1990).

1.5.2. The MarkingCondition is not Enforced? One of Sagey's (1986a) argumentsfor the standardtheory comes from facts of place assimilationby nasals in Kpelle. I repeat her data below (from Welmers 1973, p. 67). Tone is not indicated;the nasal is syllabic and tone-bearing. (46)a. IN + polu/ [mbolu] 'my back' b. /N + tia/ [ndia] 'my taboo' c. IN + k3l/ [ogzx:] 'my foot' d. /N + fela/ [mvela] 'my wages' e. /N + sua/ [nJua] 'my nose' Crucialto the point is example (46)d, where the nasal assimilatesin place to the fricativef and-yet is said to remain a stop.31As Sagey notes, with [cont] located under Place we predict instead a [+cont] nasal. Hence, she concludes that [cont] cannot be Place-dependent. In fact, in a more thorough discussionof Kpelle phonology, Welmers (1962, p. 79) states that the nasal before f/v is labiodental [nj]. Even if Kpelle is not just another instance of gestural overlap (note that nasal place assimilation applies across words as well, according to Welmers 1962), the [-cont] status of the derived [nj] is far from clear.32 For non-nasal segments, where the value of continuancyis usually obvious, labiodentalityis always indicativeof a [+cont] segment. Let us consider

31 The hardeningof s to an affricate[j], seen in (46)e, is due to a precedingtone, not to the nasalper se. (See Welmers1962, p. 76-77). It is prepalataldue to the vocalicenvironment (op. cit., p. 76). 32 Researcherssometimes transcribe [m] for phonetic[nj], since the latteris neverdistinctive, makingthe issue even more difficult.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 492 JAYE PADGETT the possibility, then, that [m] is [+cont]. It is true that there is likely to be little or no oral air flow in the case of [nj], and the presence of such air flow is taken by Chomskyand Halle (1968) to define [+cont] segments. However, another view of [+cont] suggests itself: a [+cont] segment is one that involves a degree of oral constriction- possiblyeven a complete though non-compressedclosure - such that air flow results given other specifiableconditions, where these conditionsinclude the capacityto main- tain some air pressurein the oral cavity. This capacityis notably reduced when the velum is lowered, accountingfor the rarityof nasalizedfricatives (Ohala 1975). Under this analysis,[nj] is [+cont] by virtue of the constriction degree executed by the labial articulator;the absence of actual oral air flow follows from other conditions obtaining. This seems consistent with the definitionof [+cont] assumedby Browmanand Goldstein (1989, 1990), and it is in the spirit of the definitionsof [voice] and [sonorant]in Chomskyand Halle (1968). These features are defined (though not without controversy)not in terms of the anticipatedresult of implementation but in terms of the articulatorystates required to achieve them under some assumed conditions. From this perspective, r does not cease to be [+sonorant] when it is (perhaps partially) devoiced in a word like cry due to the neighboringvoiceless segment; the conditionsfor spontaneous voicing simply happen not to be met.33Given these considerations,cases like Kpelle do not obviouslychallenge the proposedgeometry. If the nasal in [njv]is [+cont], then the articulatorgroup makes the correctprediction. However, the nasal/continuantmarking condition no longer seems to be in force. We have assumedthat nasalizedfricatives cannot be derivedphonologi- cally - that is, that the proposedmarking condition is alwaysenforced - and so assimilationsuch as in Kpelle should not occur. Perhapswe must weaken our claim about the domain of the markingcondition, allowingit to 'turnoff' in the phonology for some languages.In fact, contraryto the fiction maintained until now, we know independentlythat a condition against deriving nasalized fricatives cannot be absolute. Such segments are derivedby nasalizationin some South Americanlanguages (Anderson

33 Other examples of features defined in this way include the laryngealfeatures of Halle and Stevens (1971) (though see the discussionand criticismof these features in Keating 1988); voicing in Hayes (1984); [nasal] in Cohn (to appear). Cohn defines [+nasal] as involvingan open velo-pharyngealport, ratherthan nasal air flow per se, noting that this is the widely-heldview. In a languagewhere nasalityspreads across a glottal stop (a fairly common occurrence),we would otherwisebe led to the questionableconclusion that the glottalsegment itself is [-nasall, since it obviouslyallows no air flow, even thoughthe velum is lowered.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STRICTURE AND NASAL PLACE ASSIMILATION 493

1975) and in certain Celtic dialects by initial consonant mutationswhich apply lexically. (See de Bhaldraithe 1975; 0 Siadhail 1989).34Such a finding does not negate the enterprise, since we must stipulate domains for other markingconditions. (Recall the discussion in ?1.1 about how such a theory might look). The nasal/continuantmarking condition differs from many others actuallyin being unusuallyrobust. Another instance of nasal place assimilationthat mraycreate [ + cont] nasals is providedby Spanish(which seems similarin essential respectsto Catalan, discussed in Kiparsky1985; Mascar6 1976). Here I rely on the analysis of Harris (1969, 1984). In Spanish, nasals in the syllable coda. assimilatein place to any followingobstruent, giving six places in all. The assimilationis obligatorywithin words in normal speech.35 (47)a. ca[mpjo 'country' b. a[njf]ora 'amphora' c. ma[nt]o 'cloak' d. ma[ns]o 'gentle' e. ma[n6]o 'I stain' f. ma[ijk]o 'one-handed' Following Harris (1984), I assume that the assimilationis feature-filling; coda nasals lose their place specificationsindependently. The point of interest is that assimilationoccurs before fricativesas well as stops: (48)a. triu[njf]o 'triumph' b. 4[njf]ora 'amphora' c. aje[fjx]o 'wormwood' Given what was said above, we might conclude that the nasal is in fact [+cont] in these cases:

34Ladefogedand Maddieson(1986) reportthat nasalized'fricatives' are sometimesrealized as merelyapproximant, with no frication,and questionwhether cases such as those reported by Anderson might not be the same. If a [+cont] value entails a certain oral constriction degree, and not alwaysoral air flow per se (in the case of nasals), then discerningthe [cont] value becomes more complex, requiringarticulatory studies. One instancewhere frication is clearlydescribed is that of the nasalizedfricatives of Icelandic(Pdtursson 1973, Einarsson 1940). 35 The data in Harris (1969) pertain to the Spanishof Mexico City, though the facts are quite similaracross dialects. In more casualspeech, assimilationis reportedacross words as well: u[m] peso 'a peso', u[j x]uego 'a game', crece[nj]flores 'flowersgrow', etc. However, accordingto NavarroTomgs (1965) and discussedin Harris (1969), the across-wordcases seem to be the result of gesturaloverlap. The nasal does not assimilateto the following consonantas muchas get articulatedsimultaneously with it. We shouldnot lumpthis process togetherwith the rule under discussion,then.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 494 JAYE PADGETT

(49) triu[ni flo Place I Labial I

This account predictsa reducedconstriction degree in nasals in the words aje[4x]o, manso as well, in comparisonwith those in ma[Vk]o,manto, etc. No articulatorystudies illuminatingthe issue exist, to the best of my knowledge.36Should such studies cast doubt on the [+cont] statusof these segments or should other considerationslead us to reject this generalview of [cont], then place assimilationlike that in Kpelle and Spanishcan be treated along the lines suggestedin the following section. If instead these cases do involve'a relaxationof the markingcondition, then we expect them to be uncommon for the same reason that nasalized fricatives in general are uncommon.

1.5.3. Hardening We find cases that clearly involve a nasal stop before a fricative under place assimilation. As we will see, these cases are consistent with the articulatorgroup (but not with the standardtheory). These do not violate the proposed markingcondition. Clements (1991) cites the discussionof such a case by Doke (1931) on Shona: It must be noticed that Shona does not employ the denti-labial nasal nj, as do Zulu, Lamba, Bemba, etc., homorganically before f or v, but the full bilabialnasal in the combinationmv. This is parallel to the affricativeforms pf and bv, where the assimilation of elements is not complete, being only semi- homorganic.(p. 55) More telling than this quote are the palatogramsoffered by Doke for the

36 However, in parallelcases from Japanesejust this state of affairsobtains, accordingto Vance (1987). That is, nasalshomorganic with fricativesare describedas havingthe constriction degree of the fricatives,again without appreciable oral air flow. In contrast,homorganic nasalsin Icelandicshare both the constrictiondegree and oral air flow of followingfricatives (Pdtursson1973, Einarsson1940), a rareoccurrence presumably due to articulatorydifficult- ies, as discussedabove.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STRICTURE AND NASAL PLACE ASSIMILATION 495 alveolarclusters [nz] and [ni] (the latter involvingthe alveolar-labialized fricative).The palatogramsfor these clustersclearly show complete contact between the tongue tip or blade and the alveolar ridge. In contrast, palatogramsfor [z] or [4] alone show that there is not complete contact in these cases: a groove is left open down the center of the alveolarridge. Therefore,the obstructionin the clustersmust be due to the nasal portion. Beyond a doubt, then, we have a [-conti nasal and a [+cont] fricative. Given the articulatorgroup, there is only one possible representationof stricturehere:37 (50) Root Root /\ / [+nas] Place E.g. [nz] I Coronal

[-cont] [+cont]

To explain these clusters I therefore adopt a proposal of Steriade (1991) (one that fits well with Doke's descriptionquoted above): such clusters are simply affricates.Steriade's arguments for this view are compelling. I brieflypresent two of them below:38 First, Steriade claims that there is never a distinction made between place assimilatednasal-fricative and nasal-affricateclusters, and my own observations support this view. Further, as she shows, the distinction between fricativesand affricatesis lost under nasal place assimilation.I cite here two cases discussed by Steriade. In Venda (Ziervogel et al.

37 I treat prenasalizedsequences as true clusters, distinguishedfrom the more usual NC clustersonly in syllabifyingas onsets. FollowingSagey (1986a), manyhave insteadassumed that prenasalizedsequences are single segmentsinvolving a contour in nasalityor alterna- tively a two-Root contour with single segment status encoded at the level of a segmental skeleton (Piggott 1988, Rosenthall 1992). There are strong argumentsagainst the single segmentview, includingthe lack of underlyingcontrasts between prenasalizedand 'true'NC sequences, but space does not permit their explorationhere. For the argumentsand discussion, see Herbert (1986), Duanmu (1990), Padgett (1991) and references therein. It should be noted that the cluster representationperhaps does not extend to a class of prenasalizedsounds called 'Type B' by Piggott (1992), who treats them as simple sonorants unspecifiedfor nasality(thus, they are not contours either). None of the cases discussed here are of this type. 38 I shouldemphasize here that Steriadecouches her proposalswithin a theoryof segmental primesthat is quite differentfrom that assumedin this paperand holds significantlydifferent views on the treatmentof these facts.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 496 JAYE PADGETT

1972, p. 42-3), affricatesand fricativespreceded by a nasal are realized identicallywith affricationapparent on the non-nasalportion of the cluster. The latter is an instanceof the commonprdcess of fricativehardening under assimilation,yet anothermeans by which assimilatednasal-fricative clusters are avoided: (51)a. N + bvuda-- mbvudo 'a leak' b. N + vulcdza -- mbvulcdz3 'finishing' In Rwanda,on the other hand, neutralizationis in favor of apparentnasal- fricativeclusters (Coupez 1980, p. 124, 134):

(52)a. n-tsirim-a -- nsirima 'I rub' b. ni-n-sogot-a-4 ninsogota 'if I pierce' As Steriade argues, the lack of a distinction between place assimilated nasal-fricativeand nasal-affricateclusters, and neutralizationslike those shown here, can be understoodonly if our representationsdo not distin- guish such clusters. Under this view, clusters like [nz] are phonologically identical to those like [ndz], both represented as in (50) above.39The difference between them is simply one of implementation:in the latter, the stop portion of the articulationexceeds the nasal portion in duration, while in the former it does not. In fact, we are led otherwise to the claim that place assimilation-in Rwanda, shown above, involves 'softening' of the affricateto a fricative, surely an implausibleinterpretation, given the facts of nasal place assimilationthat we have seen in this paper.40Further, in this vein we might mention languages in which there is variation in pronunciationbetween, e.g., [ns] and [nts], [mf] and [mpf], etc. (Steriade 1991, Herbert 1986). Second, treatingnasal-fricative clusters as affricatesmoves us toward a solution to a puzzle raised by Rosenthall (1989): why are they always strident - why don't segments like 13give [mb,B]or [m,l] under place assimilation?Instead they commonlygive [mb], e.g., in Kikuyu (Rosen- thall 1992; Padgett 1991). If nasal-fricativeclusters are affricates, this reducesto the more general questionof why affricatesare virtuallyalways strident (to which I offer no answerhere).

39 It is importantto bear in mind that [ndz], etc., are meant to refer to place assimilated affricateclusters as in (50) and not clustersof three segments,about whichthese arguments make no claim. 40 Myers (1991a) presents two more cases, one from Zulu, to be discussedbelow, where the hardeningto an affricate is overt, and the other the Shona case already mentioned, wherethere is apparentsoftening of affricatesto fricativesagain. Both are cases of hardening in our terms.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STRICTURE AND NASAL PLACE ASSIMILATION 497

Clusterslike [mv], [nz], at first sight a problemfor the articulatorgroup theory, now become an argumentagainst the standardtheory, a striking fact. As Steriade points out, the standardtheory has no account for the factsjust seen shortof ad hoc stipulations.It (wrongly)distinguishes nasal- affricatefrom nasal-fricativeclusters. (I do not show the nasal's [-cont] value below): (53)a. Root Root b. Root Root

[+nas] Place[-cont] [+cont] [+nas] Place [+cont]

The theory proposed here, on the other hand, cannot make this distinction, for the familiarreason: (54)b is simply ill-formed. (54)a. Root Root b. Root Root

[+nas] Place [+nas] Place

[-cont] [+cont] [+cont]

This distinctionwill be possible only when the markingcondition is not in force, an occurrencethat must be uncommon, as noted before. The standardtheory cannot relate the lack of non-stridentnasal-fricative clusters to the lack of non-stridentaffricates either, since nasal-fricativeclusters are not affricates. If there is nothing exceptionalabout clusterslike mv, nz, then why are they reportedrelatively rarely? I follow Steriadein attributingthis to two joint causes: first, these clustersare only variantphonetic implementations of affricatembv, ndz. Second, affricatesare less common than stops. We have not addressedthe source of the [-cont] value in these clusters. Up to this point I have interpretedthe nasal/continuantmarking condition as a type of filter, a condition that blocks the applicationof rules that would violate it. However, most of the many cases of hardeningunder place assimilationseem instead to involve 'repairs'at work: the marking condition allows assimilationto a fricativebut then serves as a 'trigger'in some sense for 'fixingup' the representation.To see this, considerharden- ing in Zulu, as discussedin Myers (1991a) (see also Doke 1926; Rycroft and Ngcobo 1979). Prefixationof a nasal-finalmorpheme leads to hardening of the following fricative, as shown below: (55)a. izimpfudu 'tortoises' cf. u:fudu 'tortoise'

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 498 JAYE PADGETT

(55)b. izintsizi 'sorrows' u:sizi 'sorrow' c. izindzime 'walking u:zime 'walking staffs' staff' Nasal place assimilationoccurs as shown here: (56) Root Root / l [+nas] Place I [+cont]

We must then understand hardening as a mechanism that brings the representationin line with the proposed markingcondition. The minimal hardeninginvolves insertionof [-cont]. (Since non-stridentsegments cannot be affricates, they will require a further delinking of [+cont], e.g., N + , -*mb): (57) Root Root

[+nas] Place

7' [+cont] [-cont]

Clusters like [mv], [nz] of Shona are to be understoodin just the same way: they undergo hardening,though the hardeningis covert, due to the difference in implementationnoted above. The notion of repairsoperating in tandem with constraintshas a long history. Recent work along this line includes Calabrese (1987), Rice (1987), Yip (1988), Paradis (1988), Goldsmith (1990), Prince (1990), Myers (1991a) and Mohanan(1991). Clearly, there are questionslooming about their workingsthat we would like to have answered.Why are rules seemingly blocked in some cases but allowed to apply with a repair in others? What principlesdetermine the nature of the repair, if any? These questions are addressedby some of the works cited, though it seems fair to say that principledanswers have been somewhatelusive. Recent workin OptimalityTheory (Princeand Smolensky1993; McCar- thy and Prince 1993; cf. the HarmonicPhonology of Goldsmith 1990, to appear) representsan intriguingnew approachto the issue: the 'blocking versus repair'problem is viewed as an artifactof currenttheories, which

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STRICTURE AND NASAL PLACE ASSIMILATION 499 see constraintsas surface-truestatements enforced over derivations.Opti- malityTheory instead sees them as rankedand violable and enforcedover a 'candidateset' of possible forms. Differences among languagesthat give the appearanceof blockingversus repair are the resultof language-specific constraint rankingsimposed on a universal constraint set. Given these underpinnings,we might suppose that the differencebetween Lithuanian, in which a nasal deletes before fricatives,and -Zulu, in which the fricatives are hardened, involves a differencein rankingbetween perhapstwo constraints:one militatesagainst loss of material(e.g. 'PARSE', in Prince and Smolensky1993); the other againstthe insertion of material(e.g., '*INSERT FEATURE', in Ito, Mester and Padgett 1993). While both languagesrank the nasal/continuantmarking condition higher than such constraints - requiringthat one of them be violated in order to satisfy it - Lithuanian ranks '*INSERT FEATURE' above 'PARSE' (making deletion optimal). Zulu does the reverse, making hardeningoptimal. This characterizationof the facts is only a speculativesketch; furtherresearch is required.

2. ALTERNATIVES AND OTHER ASSIMILATIONS The argumentsof Section 1 may be summarizedin the following way: place assimilationentails [cont] assimilation.It is this idea which, in con- junctionwith a notion of structurepreservation, explains the odd behavior of place-assimilatingnasals before fricatives as well as the behavior of apparentnasal-fricative clusters as affricates.

2.1. Alternative Geometries Considerin this light an alternativeaccount that suggestsitself within the standardtheory. While maintainingthat [cont] is independent of Place, we might neverthelessposit a groupingof these features under a node I will call a:

(58) Root

[cont] Place

Under this view, it is the node a which spreadsunder nasal 'place' assimilation, and we derive the effects surveyedin Section 1. In fact, Clements

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 500 JAYE PADGETT

(1987) argues for such a node, his 'Oral Cavity' node, as does Davis (1989), who argues that this is the content of Supralaryngeal,(although neither argues on the basis of nasal place assimilationfacts). The argumentagainst (58) is a particularversion of one by McCarthy (1988) against a class node Supralaryngeal.McCarthy points out that there is a great deal of complementaritybetween Place and the proposed Supralaryngealnodes. Let us weigh this point, given the facts of Section 1. Both the articulatorgroup and the node a in (58) predict that Place and [cont] may spread together. The latter theory also allows for Place spread without[cont] spread, unlike the articulatorgroup. However, it is just this latter possibilitythat I claim does not exist; it has been the burden of Section 1 to show that there is no need for, and in fact no room for, the notion of place spread independentof [cont] spread. Even the facts that seem to supportsuch a notion at first sight, i.e., clusterslike mv, nz, etc., argue against it upon a closer look, as we saw in the last section. Therefore, there can be no node a independentof Place. Consider now the grouping of [cont] with the articulatorrepeated in (59)a (what is here called the 'articulatorgroup'), as opposed to the separate placementof [cont] and the articulatorshown in (59)b. (59)a. Root b. Root lI I Place Place

Labial [cont] Labial I [cont]

I cannot argue in detail here for either representation, though I will mention two reasons for preferring(59)a, a representationfirst advanced by Sagey (1986b). First, as Sagey notes, it solves a problem concerning stricturein complex segments.The two articulationsof a complexsegment may differ in stricture,something easily representedby a theory in which any articulatorcarries its own stricturespecification:

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STRICTURE AND NASAL PLACE ASSIMILATION 501

(60) Root I Place

Labial Dorsal I I [oconl] I-acontl

(59)b provides no means to identify a [cont] value with any particular articulator, a general problem for the standard theory. Since in later work Sagey (1986a) adopts the standardtheory (on the strengthof facts reanalyzedin this paper), she must arguefor a 'pointer'notation by which such informationcan be read (indicatinga relation between strictureand the relevant articulator).In our terms Sagey's original insight is maintained, and the ad hoc pointer device is not required. It is true that differences in stricture are rarely contrastive within complex segments, and so we will often require only one underlying[cont] value.4' Yet this observationdoes not addressthe question of how we are to know which articulatoris associatedwith even this underlying[cont] specification. Second, (59)a allows for a simpler view of the phonology-phonetics relation. The articulatorgroup may be interpreteddirectly in terms of an articulation, something which necessarily involves both place and oral stricturespecifications at the level of implementation.(Note that [son] is not an oral stricturefeature, in the sense that it is not 'executed' by a particulararticulator, but ratherrepresents a 'computation'over the entire vocal tract. It is in this light that the independence of [son] from the articulatorscan be understood).The articulatorgroup is in fact consistent to a large extent with the notion 'gesture' of Browman and Goldstein (1986, 1989). Browmanand Goldstein posit gestures, which are unitary entities consisting of articulator, place and stricture specifications, as primes of the phonetics/phonology. Within the articulatorgroup (under the Place node), [cont] is viewed

4' But only rarely - not never, as claimed by Sagey. See Padgett (1991), which assumes that the rarityof contrastivemultiple stricture values requiresa functionalexplanation. The theory must appeal to such considerationsin any case to explain other underattestedbut predictedsegment types. To name two, there are many more labiovelarsthan labiocoronals attested (the latter may not exist at all) and no complex segmentsconsisting of three stop articulations.Maddieson and Ladefoged(1988) suggestphonetic explanations for these gaps; perhapswe must do the same to explain why strictureis rarelycontrastive within complex segments.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 502 JAYE PADGETT as dependenton the articulatoron the assumptionthat [cont] can spread independentlyof place features, as in the well-known'Iberian' spirantization cases of Mascaro(1984). (See Padgett 1991 for discussion).Without this assumption(e.g., Mascaro1991b arguesagainst [cont] spread), other possibilities are imaginable, including an unordered feature bundle of articulatorand [cont], a matter I leave for furtherexploration.42

2.2. Alternative Principles Let us considera possible objection to the articulatorgroup account. We observe that in some languagesnasals that undergoplace assimilationdo not appear before voiceless segments. In some cases, a nasal deletes in this environment(e.g., Kihungan,Clements 1987); in others, an NC cluster implies that both segments are voiced (e.g., Zoque, Wonderly 1951). Given the abundance of evidence to the contrary, we do not want to concludethat [voice] is groupedwith place features.Therefore, these facts might involve some sort of sequential constraintrather than a segment- internalfeatural constraint. That is, it might somehowrule out a sequence of nasal consonant plus voiceless consonant. If we can appeal to such constraintsin any case, why not a sequential constraint to explain the stop/fricativeasymmetry in nasal place assimilation?43 First, the facts with voicing are not so analogous as they would seem at first sight. Nasals may trigger voicing of a following consonant even wiihout being place assimilated(this is in fact true in Zoque and in Gilyak, see Krejnovich1937, p. 38; Korean, see Cho 1967). In contrast, Herbert

42 Comparethe structureproposed by Selkirk(1990, 1991), who posits no Place node and makes articulatorsdependent on [cont], e.g.:

ISOIl 1 I Iconltl I Lab

Rulesof place assimilation(which target all articulators)can here spreadarticulators independently of [cont]. However, Selkirkemploys an independentconstraint that requiresthat the mother[cont] nodes to whichan articulatoris doublylinked be identical,guaranteeing place- strictureentailments like those seen in this paper. 43 In fact, the appealto sequentialconstraints to explainpost-nasal voicing itself is dubious. At the very least, a constraintthat states in effect that obstruentsfollowing nasals must be voiced would lack explanatorydepth and be unlikelyto extend to other facts. Ito, Mester and Padgett (1993) argue for an understandingof such facts based on quite generalnotions of licensingand underspecification.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STRICTURE AND NASAL PLACE ASSIMILATION 503

(1986, p. 163) states that he knows of no definitive cases of post-nasal hardeningwithout place assimilation.As we saw earlier, there is also no nasal deletion without place assimilation. A sequential constraintmust rule out not nasal-fricativeclusters generally, but exactlyplace-assimilated nasal fricativeclusters - withoutsimply stipulating the importantgeneral- ization. Moreover, nasal place assimilationto voiceless stops is neverthe- less common, while assimilationto fricatives(without hardening) is at the least highly marked, as I have argued. Second, the account here has the appeal of linking the facts of nasal place assimilationto the scarcityof nasalizedfricatives in languages,since both facts involve the issue of structurepreservation. It is not clear how a proposed sequential constraintwould make this connection. Further independent support for the connection is not hard to find: a process of long-distance [nasal] spreadingis arrested by continuant consonants in Sundanese- due to the markingcondition, and not simplyan intervening feature or node - as convincinglyargued by Cohn (1989). Cohn (to appear) mentions other languagesin which [nasal]spread to a continuant hardensthe latter. To explain the behavior of nasals before fricatives by a sequential restriction, we might appeal, for instance, to the notion of sonority sequencing. Perhapsnt is preferableto ns in languagesbecause the former evinces the greater sonority distance, whether within the coda or across the syllable boundary(the latter a 'syllablecontact' phenomenon, Hooper 1972; Murrayand Vennemann 1983). This proposal would seem to fail on groundsjust considered.Most notably, it fails to make the connecti6n to place assimilation.As the facts of Lithuanian,Zoque and many other languagesmake clear, unassimilatednasal-fricative clusters do not behave in the same way. Moreover, assimilatedmf and ns are disfavoredeven as onsets, where they are presumablypreferable to mp, nt in sonority sequencing, as seen in ?1.5.3. Our structure preservationaccount predicts that we should find the same stop-fricativeasymmetry under progressivenasal place assimilation, not only regressive,since the relevanteffect is really segment-internaland hence should not be directional.Though such rules are rare, some relevant facts from Germanconfirm the prediction:

(61)a. hakn - hak jU hacken 'to hack' b. vaxon - *vax g wachen 'to be awake' c. haban hab mn haben 'to have' d. hofan - *h3f m hoffen 'to hope' Some forms show variantswith a syllabic nasal assimilatedin place to .a

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 504 JAYE PADGETT

previousconsonant. This consonantmust be a stop. Sequentialconstraints, on the other hand, seem to be typicallyasymmetric. Sonority sequencing is a case in point: generally, where tr is bad, rt is good, and vice versa, assuminga language allows such clusters at all. By sonority sequencing, hakeUwrongly seems to be worse than vaxj.u

2.3. Other Place Assimilations Finally, a word must be said about place assimilationinvolving non-nasal consonants. Such place assimilationrules are somewhat hard to find (as distinguishedfrom gemination on the one hand or the spreading of a single Coronal-dependentfeature like [anterior]or [distributed]on the other). Among the cases that exist, some evince strictureand place assimilation together, as expected under our account. A few seem not to. (See Padgett 1991 for examples). A well-knowncase from Sanskritis used by Sagey (1986a), who builds on an analysisof Steriade (1982), to argue for the standardtheory: word-final s assimilatesin place to a followingconsonant as follows (Whitney 1889): (62)a. divas putras -)diva4 putrah 'son of a god' b. Nalas kamam --Nalax kamam 'Nalas at will' Another case involves epentheticconsonants in Lardil, which share place of articulationwith a preceding(sonorant) consonant. The last consonant in each form below is epenthesized, as part of an 'augmentation'process enforced by word minimalityand other constraints.(Hale 1973; Ito 1986; Wilkinson1988; references therein). Of concern here are the homorganic liquid-stopclusters. (63)a. wunta 'rain' b. kanta 'grass' c. rilta 'neck' d. marta 'hand'

44 Thanksto MichaelKenstowicz for this argumentand to ArminMester for confirmingthe data. Mester notes a furtherfact: the assimilatednasal is illicit also followingan affricate, as in schopfen 'to hoist', where we do not find *[fmpfm]. If affricatesare phonologically [-cont] and [+cont], then the nasal/continuantmarking condition does not rule out this form. However, consider the phonetic implementationof the place-linkedstructure. The two-segmentspan contains two contours, non-nasal to nasal and stop to fricative. (See Lombardi1990 on the phoneticordering of affricates).Thus, there is an unavoidablespan of fricativenasality; we may assumethat Germanrules out such segmentseven phonetically. Recall that the markingcondition is in fact phoneticallymotivated.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STRICTURE AND NASAL PLACE ASSIMILATION 505

Such facts, on first sight, seem to argue for the standard theory of stricture.Yet we have seen that the standardtheory fails to account for the great bulk of place assimilationdata: that involving nasals. In this light, it would seem reasonable to seek alternativeexplanations for facts like those of Sanskritand Lardil. The Sanskritplace assimilationis optional; where it does not occur, s is invariablyreduced to placeless [h] (the 'Visarga Rule'), as seen in [putrah].This 'complementarity'of Visargaand place assimilationsuggests an alternativeview: the only phonologicalrule is Visarga. [Pp] and [xkj are simply alternaterealizations of effectivelypreaspirated [hp] and [hk], perhaps due to some overlap of aspirationand the oral closure gesture, in the vocabularyof gesturalphonology (Browmanand Goldstein 1989). Hence, they are optional. As for Lardil,the most pressingquestion is how [rt]can be place-linked, since [1] is a stop in some languages (e.g., English, see Clements 1987). Lardil has two series of liquids, the alveolar [11and [r], and the apico- domal (retroflex) [r]. Though epenthesis of a homorganic stop occurs following [1]and [f], it mysteriouslyfails to occur after [r]: (64)a. tera 'thigh' cf. *terta b. yura 'body' cf. *yurta Hale suggeststhat epenthesisoccurs here, since it would be expected, and that epenthesized[t] is then deleted by a late rule. Perhapsinstead epenthesis fails here because [r] is [+cont]. Since epenthesis normallyresults in a homorganicsonorant plus stop sequence, suppose epenthesisinvolves the insertion of a [-son] (Root) node, with place features supplied by spreadingfrom the sonorant.Spreading from [r] is blocked because Lardil has no continuantobstruent. What then, of [r]? This sound has no lateral counterpartin the inventory, a suggestive gap. In fact, Hale (p. 421) reportsthat [r] has [11as an allophone. For some speakers, this allophone predominates,and for most speakers[1] surfaces word-initially. If we have in fact phonological [1], then there is no obvious problem involved with place-linking.Thus, the Lardil data, rather than simply challengingthe articulatorgroup, may be illuminatedby it.45 Turningto one final area, Coronalsibilant harmony systems are a well- known instance of obstruent assimilationbelow the level of Place. Most can be analyzedas involvingthe spreadingof a single featurelike [anterior] or [distributed](e.g., see Poser 1982 on Chumash), and so they are not relevant to the issues of this paper. However, a small numberhave been

45 Thanksto Junko It6 for helpful discussionon Lardil.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 506 JAYE PADGETT argued to require Coronal spreading,since both Coronal-dependentfea- tures are involved(e.g., Steriade1986 on Sanskrit;Shaw 1991on Tahltan). In Tahltan, harmonyinvolves both fricatives and affricates, yet there is no assimilationof stricturewith place, as the articulatorgroup seems to predict. However, if both [cont] and minor place features like [anterior] are Coronal-dependent,there is anotherway to ensure spreadingof only the latter: they may form a class themselves, under a node we might call Site, as suggested in Padgett (1991): (65) Structurebelow the Coronalnode Place

Coronal

[cont] Site

[ant][dist]

Under this interpretation,Tahltan coronal harmonyinvolves not Coronal but Site spread. Independentsupport for this view is found in Ni Chiosdin and Padgett (1993). These considerationsare not meant to be conclusive, of course, but simplyto make a familiarpoint: facts are not labeled as counterexamples. In the absence of an appealing alternative account for the nasal place assimilationfacts, we have strongreason to explore reanalysesof 'counterexamples'to the articulatorgroup like those seen here.46

3. IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION In attemptingto derive the facts of nasal place assimilationfrom proposals about the geometry and structurepreservation, I follow others who seek explanationsthat follow from representationsand general principles.Past accounts of nasal place assimilationhave had to stipulate restrictionson the strictureof the triggersegment and so are inadequatein this respect.

46 Consideralso consonant-to-vowelplace assimilationslike Tulu pi - pu (Bright 1972). If assimilationhere involves the spreadingof primaryLabial from consonantto vowel, as in Clements(to appear),why is stricturenot assimilatedalso? In recentwork, Ni Chiosainand Padgett (1993) argue on independentgrounds that such rules alwaysinvolve the spreading of redundantsecondary vowel place features from the (plain) consonant. Hence, basic stricturevalues ([cont], [cons], etc.) are shared.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STRICTURE AND NASAL PLACE ASSIMILATION 507

There are aspects of nasal place assimilationleft unexplainedhere, such as why place assimilationvirtually always involves nasals and why it is almost always regressive.47 The articulatorgroup drawssupport from a range of phonologicalphenomena besides those consideredhere in detail, as Padgett (1991) argues, including non-nasal place assimilation, complex segment types, under- specificationeffects, spirantizationand OCP effects. In each area, we find an interaction of place features and [cont] that is not explained in the standardtheory of feature geometry. Indeed, as shown in the same work, there is strong evidence in some of these domains (includingnasal place assimilation) for extending the articulatorgroup analysis to other oral stricturefeatures like [consonantal]and [approximant],though the issues will requirefurther research. In conclusion, I mention two other implicationsof this research. First, the facts surveyed here bear on the question of whether assimilationis ever trulyfeature changingor whetherit insteadalways involves neutralization and spreading, as advocatedby Kiparsky(1985), Mascar6(1991a), Mester and Ito (1989), Cho (1990) and references therein, interpreting the Prague tradition.48However we analyze the nasal place assimilation facts, they show that assimilation must at least sometimes be feature changing. To see this, consider Malayalam(Mohanan 1986), a language in which both m and n assimilate in place across words to a following stop, but not to a fricative. In the neutralizationand spreadingapproach, the place specificationsof the nasals are delinked in the relevantenviron- ment (the syllable coda, for instance). Assimilationwill then fail before fricatives,and we predictthat (former)m and n will be treatedidentically, e.g., deleted or neutralizedto the same (default) place of articulation.In fact, m and n instead retain their identity before fricatives. There is failed assimilationbut no neutralization.Hence, delinkingcannot precede assimilationbut must result from it in Malayalam. A second consequence of the proposals made here concernsthe status of markingconditions in relation to repair operations. Myers (1991a) has proposedthat markingconditions as filters, i.e., conditionsthat block rule application,can be eliminatedfrom the theory in favor of 'persistentrules' which undo the effects of rules that appearto be blocked. More important for our concerns, Myers suggests that there is no need for conditions independentof the relevant persistentrules, since the latter will do what

47 See Mascar6(1991a) and Mohanan(to appear)for recent discussionof these questions. 48 Thanks to J. McCarthyand to S. Inkelas and Y. Y. Cho for pointingthis issue out to me.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 508 JAYE PADGETT is required.The facts reviewed in this paper suggest that this latter claim is too strong. We require different persistent rules to account for the different patterns of default place assignment,nasal deletion, hardening and total assimilationthat occur in languagesbefore fricativesunder nasal place assimilation.Yet these different effects are clearly unified by some broader requirement - in our terms, the requirement that nasalized fricativesnot be derived. In fact, differentstrategies to avoid assimilation to a fricative may be found within one language. In Attic Greek, for example, we find nasals either assimilatingin all features to fricativesor deleting before them, depending on the phonologicaland morphological conditions (Sommerstein1973). To capture the larger generalization,we must give some status to the nasal/continuantmarking condition.

REFERENCES

Anderson, Stephen:1975, 'The Descriptionof Nasal Consonantsand the InternalStructure of Segments',in C. A. Fergusonet al., Nasalfest,Language Universals Project, Dept. of Linguistics,Stanford University, 1-25. Archangeli, Diana: 1984, Underspecification in Yawelmani Phonology and Morphology, doctoraldissertation, MIT. Archangeli,Diana: 1988, 'Aspects of UnderspecificationTheory', Phonology5, 183-207. Archangeli, Diana and Douglas Pulleyblank: 1986, The Content and Structureof Phonological Representations,unpublished manuscript, University of Arizonaand Universityof Ottawa. Archangeli,Diana and Douglas Pulleyblank:to appear, GroundedPhonology, MIT Press, Cambridge,MA. Aronoff, Mark and Richard Oehrle: 1984, LanguageSound Structure,MIT Press, Cam- bridge,MA. Bethin, Christina:1984, 'A SyllabicAnalysis of Nasal Vowelsin Polish', Studiesin Language 8(2), 163-180. Borowsky, Toni: 1986, Topics in the Lexical Phonology of English, doctoral dissertation, Universityof Massachusetts,Amherst. Bright, William:1972, 'The EnunciativeVowel', in the InternationalJournal of Dravidian Linguistics 1, 26-55. Brooks, Maria Zag6rska: 1968, Nasal Vowels in Contemporary Standard Polish -an Acous- tic-Phonetic Analysis, Mouton, The Hague. Browman,Catherine P. and Louis Goldstein: 1986, 'Towardsan ArticulatoryPhonology', Phonology 3, 219-252. Browman,Catherine P. and Louis Goldstein:1989, 'ArticulatoryGestures as Phonological Units', Phonology6(2), 201-251. Browman,Catherine P. and Louis Goldstein:1990, 'Tiersin ArticulatoryPhonology, With Some Implicationsfor CasualSpeech', in Kingstonand Beckman1990, 341-397. Calabrese,Andrea: 1987, 'The Interactionof PhonologicalRules and Filters in Salentino', Proceedings of NELS 17, 79-99. Catford, J. C: 1988, A Practical Introduction to Phonetics, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Cho, Seung-Bog:1967, A PhonologicalStudy of Korean,Almqvist and Wiksells,Uppsala.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STRICTURE AND NASAL PLACE ASSIMILATION 509

Cho, Young-mee:1990, 'A Typology of Voicing Assimilation',Proceedings of WCCFL9, 141-155. Chomsky,Noam and MorrisHalle: 1968, The Sound Patternof English, Harperand Row, New York. Clements,G. N.: 1985, 'The Geometryof PhonologicalFeatures', Phonology Yearbook2, 225-52. Clements, G. N.: 1987, 'Phonological Feature Representation and the Description of Intru- sive Stops', CLS 23, Part II, ChicagoLinguistic Society, 29-50. Clements,G. N.: 1988, 'Towarda SubstantiveTheory of FeatureSpecification', NELS 18, GLSA, UMass, Amherst, MA, 79-93. Clements,G. N.: 1991, 'PhonologicalPrimes: Gestures or Features?',in Actes du XIIeme CongresInternational des SciencesPhonetiques I, Publicationsde l'Universitede Provence, Aix-en-Provence. Clements, G. N.: to appear, 'Place of Articulationin Consonantsand Vowels: a Unified Theory',in B. Laks and A. Rialland(eds.), L'Architectureet la Geometriedes Representa- tions Phonologiques,Editions du C.N.R.S. Paris. Cohn, Abigail: 1989, 'Phonetic Evidence for ConfigurationConstraints', Proceedings of NELS 19, 63-77. Cohn, Abigail: 1990, Phoneticand PhonologicalRules of Nasalization,doctoral dissertation, UCLA WorkingPapers 76. Cohn, Abigail:to appear,'The Statusof NasalizedContinuants', to appearin M. K. Huffman and R. Krakow, The FeatureNasal: PhoneticBases and PhonologicalImplications, Aca- demic Press, San Diego. Coupez, Andre: 1980, Abrege de GrammaireRwanda 1, InstituteNational de Recherche Scientifique,Butare, RepubliqueRwandaise. Czaykowska-Higgins,Ewa: 1988, Investigationsinto Polish Morphologyand Phonology, doctoraldissertation, MIT. Czaykowska-Higgins,Ewa: 1992, 'Placelessness,Markedness and Polish Nasals', Linguistic Inquiry23, 139-46. Davis, Stuart:1989, 'The Locationof the Feature[continuant] in FeatureGeometry', Lingua 78, 1-22. de Bhaldraithe,Tomas: 1975, The Irishof Cois Fhairrge,Co. Galway,The Dublin Institute for AdvancedStudies. Dell, Frangois:1973, Les Regleset les Sons. Introductiond la PhonologieGenerative, Herm- ann, Paris. Doke, C. M.: 1926, The Phoneticsof the Zulu Language,special issue of BantuStudies 2. Doke, C. M.: 1931, The SouthernBantu Languages, Dawsons of Pall Mall, London. Duanmu, San: 1990, A Formal Study of Syllable, Tone, Stress and Domain in Chinese Languages,doctoral dissertation, MIT. Dukiewicz,L.: 1967,Polskie Gloski Nosowe: Analiza Akustyczna, Panstwowe Wydawnictwa Naukowe,Warszawa. Einarsson,S.: 1940, 'Nasal+ Spirantor Liquid in Icelandic', The Journalof Englishand GermanicPhilology 34, 462-464. Goldsmith,John: 1990, Autosegmental and MetricalPhonology, Basil Blackwell,Cambridge, MA. Goldsmith, John: to appear, 'Harmonic Phonology', in J. Goldsmith (ed.), The Last Phono- logical Rule: Reflectionson Constraintsand Derivationsin Phonology, University of ChicagoPress, Chicago. Gussmann,Edmund: 1980, Studiesin AbstractPhonology, MIT Press, Cambridge,MA. Hale, Kenneth: 1973, 'Deep-SurfaceCanonical Disparities in Relation to Analysis and Change:an AustralianExample', in T. Seboek (ed.), CurrentTrends in LinguisticsI, Mouton, The Hague, 401-458. Halle, Morrisand KennethStevens: 1971, 'A Note on LaryngealFeatures', Quarterly Pro- gress Reportof the ResearchLaboratory of Electronics101, MIT, Cambridge,MA.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 510 JAYE PADGETT

Harris,James: 1969, SpanishPhonology, MIT Press, Cambridge,MA. Harris,James 1984, 'AutosegmentalPhonology, Lexical Phonology, and SpanishNasals', in Aronoff and Oehrle, 67-82. Hayes, Bruce: 1984, 'The Phonetics and Phonology of Russian Voicing Assimilation',in Aronoff and Oehrle, 318-328. Hayes, B.: 1986, 'Inalterabilityin CV Phonology',Language 62, 321-51. Herbert, Robert: 1986, Language Universals,Markedness Theory, and Natural Phonetic Processes,Mouton de Gruyter,New York. Hooper, Joan: 1972, 'The Syllablein PhonologicalTheory', Language48, 525-540. Inkelas,Sharon and Young-meeCho: to appear,'Inalterability as Prespecification',to appear in Language. It6, Junko: 1986, Syllable Theoryin ProsodicPhonology, doctoraldissertation, University of Massachusetts,Amherst, published1988, by GarlandPublishers, New York. Ito, Junko: 1989, 'A Prosodic Theory of Epenthesis', Natural Languageand Linguistic Theory7, 217-259. 1to, Junkoand R. Armin Mester:to appear, 'LicensedSegments and Safe Paths',to appear in C. Paradisand D. LaCharitd(eds.), Constraint-BasedTheories in MultilinearPhonology, special issue of the CanadianJournal of Linguistics. It6, Junko, R. ArminMester and Jaye Padgett:1993, 'ConstraintRanking and Underspecifi- cation', reportno. LRC-93-08, LinguisticsResearch Center, UC SantaCruz. Keating,Patricia: 1988, 'A Surveyof PhonologicalFeatures', Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington,Indiana. Keating, Patricia:1990, 'The WindowModel of Coarticulation:Articulatory Evidence', in Kingstonand Beckman,451-470. Kenstowicz,Michael: 1972, 'LithuanianPhonology', Studies in the LinguisticSciences 2(2), Universityof Illinois, 1-85. Kingston,John and MaryBeckman (eds): 1990, Papersin LaboratoryPhonology I. Between the Grammarand Physicsof Speech,Cambridge University Press. Kiparsky,Paul: 1982, 'LexicalPhonology and Morphology',Linguistics in the MorningCalm, Seoul, HanshinPublishing Co. Kiparsky,Paul: 1985, 'Some Consequencesof LexicalPhonology', Phonology 2, 85-138. Krejnovich,E.: 1937, FonetikaNivxkogo Jazyka, GosudarstvennoeU6ebno-Pedagogi6eskoe Izdatel'stvo,Moscow. Ladefoged,Peter and Ian Maddieson:1986, Some Sounds of the World'sLanguages: Prelimi- nary Version, UCLA WorkingPapers in Phonetics64. Liberman,Mark and Janet Pierrehumbert:1984, 'IntonationalInvariance Under Changes in Pitch Range and Length', in Aronoff and Oehrle, 157-233. Lombardi,Linda: 1990, 'The Non-LinearOrganization of the Affricate',Natural Language and LinguisticTheory 8, 375-425. McCarthy,John J.: 1988, 'FeatureGeometry and Dependency:A Review', Phonetica43, 84-108. McCarthy,John J. and Alan Prince:1993, 'ProsodicMorphology I: ConstraintInteraction and Satisfaction',manuscript, University of Massachusetts,Amherst, and RutgersUniver- sity, New Brunswick. Maddieson,Ian and Peter Ladefoged:1988, 'MultiplyArticulated Segments and the Feature Hierarchy',expanded version of a paper presented at the 1988 annual meeting of the LSA. Mascar6,Joan: 1976, CatalanPhonology and the PhonologicalCycle, doctoraldissertation, MIT. Mascar6,Joan: 1984, 'ContinuantSpreading in Basque, Catalanand Spanish',in Aronoff and Oehrle, 287-298.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STRICTURE AND NASAL PLACE ASSIMILATION 511

Mascar6,Joan: 1991a, 'A Reduction and SpreadingTheory of Voicing and Other Sound Effects', unpublishedmanuscript., Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona. Mascar6,Joan: 1991b,'Iberian Spirantization and ContinuantSpreading', Catalan Working Papersin Linguistics1991, UniversitatAutonoma de Barcelona,167-179. Mester, R. Armin and Junko It6: 1989, 'Feature Predictabilityand Underspecification: PalatalProsody in JapaneseMimetics', Language 65, 258-293. Mohanan,K. P.: 1983, 'The Structureof the Melody', unpublish-dmanuscript, MIT and the NationalUniversity of Singapore. Mohanan, K. P.: 1986, The Theory of Lexical Phonology, Reidel, Dordrecht. Mohanan,K. P.: 1991, 'On the Bases of RadicalUnderspecificatioln', Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9, 285-325. Mohanan,K. P.: to appear,'Fields of Attractionin Phonology',in J. Goldsmith(ed.), The Last Phonological Rule, Chicago University Press. Murray,R. and Theo Vennemann:1983, 'SoundChange and SyllableStructure in Germanic Phonology',Language 59, 514-528. Myers, Scott: 1991a, 'PersistentRules', LinguisticInquiry 22, 315-344. Myers,Scott: 1991b,'Structure Preservation and the StrongDomain Hypothesis', Linguistic Inquiry22, 379-385. Navarro Tomes, T.: 1965, Manual de Pronunciaci6n Espaniola, Madrid, Publicaciones de la Revista de FilologiaEspaniola, Nuim. III. Newton, B.: 1972, The Generative Interpretation of Dialect, Cambridge University Press. Ni Chiosain,Maire and Jaye Padgett: 1993, 'On the Natureof Consonant-VowelInteraction', paperpresented at the firstHolland Institute of LinguisticsPhonology Conference, Leiden, and reportno. LRC-93-09, LinguisticsResearch Center, UC SantaCruz. Ohala, John: 1975, 'PhoneticExplanations for Nasal SoundPatterns', in C. A. Fergusonet al., Nasalfest, Language Universals Project, Dept. of Linguistics, Stanford University, 289-316. o Siadhail,Michedl: 1989, ModernIrish, CambridgeUniversity Press. Padgett, Jaye: 1991, Stricturein Feature Geometry,doctoral dissertation,University of Massachusetts,Amherst, to appearCSLI, Stanford. Paradis,Carole: 1988, 'On Constraintsand RepairStrategies', The LinguisticReview 6, 71- 97. Petursson, M.: 1973, 'Phonologie des Consonnes Nasales en Islandais Moderne', La Linguis- tique 9, 115-138. Pierrehumbert,Janet: 1990, 'Phonologicaland PhoneticRepresentation', Journal of Phonet- ics 18. Piggott, G. L.: 1988, 'On the Autonomy of the Feature Nasal', CLS 23, Part II, Chicago LinguisticSociety, 223-238. Piggott, G. L.: 1992, 'Variabilityin Feature Dependency:The Case of Nasality', Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10, 33-77. Poser, William:1982, 'PhonologicalRepresentations and Action-at-a-Distance',in H. van der Hulst and N. Smith (eds.), The Structure of Phonological Representations, Part II, Foris, Dordrecht. Prince, Alan: 1990, 'QuantitativeConsequences of RhythmicOrganization', Proceedings of CLS 26. Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky: 1993, 'OptimalityTheory: ConstraintInteraction in GenerativeGrammar', manuscript, Rutgers University, New Brunswick,and University of Colorado, Boulder. Pulleyblank,Douglas: 1989, 'Patterns of Feature Cooccurrence:The Case of Nasality', ArizonaPhonology Conference 2: Coyote WorkingPapers 9, 98-115. Rice, Keren: 1987, 'The Functionof StructurePreservation: Derived Environments',Pro- ceedings of NELS 17, 501-519.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 512 JAYE PADGETT

Rubach, Jerzy: 1984, Cyclic and Lexical Phonology, Foris, Dordrecht. Rosenthall, Samuel: 1989, 'The Phonology of Nasal-ObstruentSequences', unpublished mastersthesis, McGillUniversity, Montreal. Rosenthall,Samuel: 1992, 'PrenasalizedStops and FeatureGeometry', in Phonologica1988, W. U. Dressier, H. C. Luschutzky,0. E. Pfeifferand J. R. Rennison(eds.), Cambridge UniversityPress. RycroftD. and A. Ngcobo: 1979, Say it in Zulu, SOAS PublicationsOffice, London. Sagey, Elizabeth: 1986a, The Representation of Features and Relations in Non-Linear Phonol- ogy, doctoraldissertation, MIT. Sagey, Elizabeth:1986b, 'On the Representationof ComplexSegments and their Formation in Kinyarwanda', in L. Wetzels and E. Sezer (eds.), Studies in Compensatory Lengthening, Foris, Dordrecht. Schein, Barryand Donca Steriade:1986, 'On Geminates',Linguistic Inquiry 17, 691-744. Selkirk,Elisabeth: 1990, 'On the Inalterabilityof Geminates',paper presented at the Cortona Conference,Italy. Selkirk, Elisabeth: 1991, 'A Two-Root Theory of Length', in E. Dunlap and J. Padgett (eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 14: Papers in Phonol- ogy. GLSA, UMass, Amherst. Shaw,Patricia: 1991, 'Consonant Harmony Systems: the SpecialStatus of CoronalHarmony', in C. Paradisand J. F. Prunet(eds.), Phoneticsand Phonology2, AcademicPress, San Diego, 125-157. Sommerstein, Alan: 1973, The Sound Pattern of Ancient Greek, Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Steele, Richard: 1973, The Segmental Phonology of Contemporary Standard Polish, doctoral dissertation,Harvard University. Steriade, Donca: 1982, Greek Prosodies and the Nature of Syllabification, doctoral dissertation, MIT. Steriade,Donca: 1986, 'A Note on Coronal',manuscript, MIT. Steriade, Donca: 1987, 'RedundantValues', CLS 23, Part II, Chicago LinguisticSociety, 339-362. Steriade, Donca: 1989, 'Affricates',paper presented at the MIT Conference on Feature Geometry. Steriade,Donca: 1990, 'Gesturesand Autosegments',in Kingstonand Beckman,382-397. Steriade, Donca: 1991, 'Closure, Release and Nasal Contours', unpublishedmanuscript, UCLA. Stringer,M. and J. Hotz: 1973, 'WaffaPhonemes', in H. McKaughan(ed.), The Languages of the Eastern Family of the East New Guinea Highland Stock, University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. Vance, Timothy: 1987, An Introduction to Japanese Phonology, State University of New York Press, Albany. Welmers,W. E.: 1962, 'The Phonologyof Kpelle', Journalof AfricanLanguages 1, 69-93. Welmers,W. E.: 1973,African Language Structures, University of CaliforniaPress, Berke- ley. Whitney,W. D.: 1889, SanskritGrammar, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,MA. Wetzels, W. Leo: 1991, 'Contrastiveand Allophonic Propertiesof BrazilianPortuguese Vowels', in D. Wanner and D. Kibbee (eds.), New Analyses in Romance Linguistics, John Benjamins,Amsterdam, 77-99. Wilkinson,Karina: 1988, 'ProsodicStructure and LardilPhonology', Linguistic Inquiry 19, 325-334. Wonderly,William: 1946, 'PhonemicAcculturation in Zoque', IJAL 12, 92-95. Wonderly,William: 1951, 'Zoque I,II,III,IV,V,VI' IJAL 17, 1-9, 105-123, 137-162, 235- 251. Wonderly,William: 1952, IJAL 18, 35-48, 189-202. Yip, Moira: 1988, 'The ObligatoryContour Principle and PhonologicalRules: A Loss of Identity', Linguistic Inquiry 19, 65-100.

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions STRICTURE AND NASAL PLACE ASSIMILATION 513

Yip, Moira: 1991, 'Coronals,Consonant Clusters, and the Coda Condition',in C. Paradis and J. F. Prunet(eds.), Phoneticsand Phonology2, AcademicPress, San Diego, 61-78. Ziervogel,D., P. J. Wentzeland T. N. Makuya:1972, A Handbookof the VendaLanguage, Pretoria,University of South Africa.

Received 27 July 1992 Revised 15 July 1993

Department of Linguistics Stevenson College UC Santa Cruz Santa Cruz, CA 95064 [email protected]

This content downloaded from 128.114.163.7 on Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:48 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions