UC Berkeley Dissertations, Department of Linguistics
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UC Berkeley Dissertations, Department of Linguistics Title Compensatory Lengthening: Phonetics, Phonology, Diachrony Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9mw088r1 Author Kavitskaya, Darya Publication Date 2001 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Compensatory lengthening: phonetics, phonology, diachrony by Darya Kavitskaya B.A. (University of California, Berkeley) 1995 M.A. (University of California, Berkeley) 1997 A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics in the GRADUATE DIVISION of the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Committee in charge: Professor Sharon Inkelas, Chair Professor Andrew Garrett Professor Alan Timberlake Fall 2001 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Compensatory lengthening: phonetics, phonology, diachrony Copyright 2001 by Darya Kavitskaya Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 Abstract Compensatory lengthening: phonetics, phonology, diachrony by Darya Kavitskaya Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California, Berkeley Professor Sharon Inkelas, Chair The term compensatory lengthening (CL) refers to a set of phonological phenomena wherein the disappearance of one element of a representation is accompanied by a corresponding lengthening of another element. This study focuses on descriptive and formal similarities and divergences between CL of vowels triggered by consonant and by vowel loss. This thesis argues that to account for the full range of existing compensatory phenomena as well as for the absence of certain logically possible outcomes of CL, it is necessary to distinguish synchronic and diachronic aspects of CL. On the basis of a typological survey of languages possessing CL, it is shown that CL through consonant and vowel loss are similar diachronically: both arise through phonologization of inherent duration of vowels and neither involves any transfer of length or weight. Rather, intrinsic phonetic vowel durations in both types are reinterpreted as phonologically significant upon a change in the conditioning environment or syllable structure. To account for the diachronic source of CL, a phonologization model is developed based on a listener- oriented view of sound change. Though similar diachronically, CL through consonant and through vowel loss function differently in synchronic grammars. Because of this split, purely phonological Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 accounts, such as mora conservation, are inadequate to predict the full typology of CL. It is proposed that the nature of the split is due to a difference in the relationship between trigger and target for the two types of CL. Consonant loss in CVC CL is usually transparent, since it is always segmentally conditioned, assuring synchronic recoverability of its trigger and permitting synchronic CVC CL alternations to be modeled as moraic conservation within the syllable. By contrast, CVCV CL is rarely segmentally conditioned. In most cases the trigger of CVCV CL is not recoverable synchronically, and thus vowel length alternations become lexicalized or morphologized and do not result in synchronic compensatory processes. In those few cases where the loss of the trigger of CVCV CL is segmentally conditioned and thus synchronically recoverable, CVCV CL alternations remain transparent and formally comparable to CVC CL alternations. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Contents Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1. Defining compensatory lengthening .................................................................. 1 1.2. Theoretical approaches to compensatory lengthening: an overview .............. 4 1.3. CVC and CVCV CL diachronically: the proposed phonologization model... 6 1.3.1. Origins of CVC C L.............................................................................. 7 1.3.2. Origins of CVCV C L ........................................................................... 8 1.3.3. Listener-oriented sound change .......................................................... 9 1.4. CVC vs. CVCV CL: synchronic divergence ...................................................... 10 1.5. Organization of the dissertation ........................................................................... 10 Chapter 2. Conservation approaches to compensatory lengthening 2.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 14 2.2. Autosegmental phonology ................................................................................... 16 2.3. Moraic approach to compensatory lengthening ................................................. 18 2.3.1. Moraic theory: an overview ................................................................. 19 2.3.2. Moraic approach: predictions and problem s ...................................... 21 2.3.2.1. Independent weight distinction ............................................ 22 2.3.2.2. Onset deletion ........................................................................ 26 2.3.2.3. Intervening segments ............................................................ 28 2.3.2.4. Adjacency .............................................................................. 29 2.3.2.5. Directionality in CVCV compensatory lengthening 32 2.4. Conclusions............................................................................................................ 33 Chapter 3. Conditions on CVC compensatory lengthening 3.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 36 3.2. Phonologization of coda loss ................................................................................ 40 3.2.1. Glides ........................................................................................................ 40 3.2.1.1. Turkish: postvocalic glide loss ............................................. 42 3.2.1.2. Kabardian: postvocalic glide loss ........................................ 46 3.2.1.3. Ngajan: postvocalic glide lo ss.............................................. 47 3.2.1.4. Ancient Greek: postconsonantal glide loss ......................... 47 3.2.2. Liquids ................................................................................................... 53 3.2.2.1./-deletion in K om i ................................................................. 54 3.2.2.2. Liquid deletion in Ngajan ...................................................... 55 3.2.2.3. Loss of r in Turkish ............................................................... 57 3.2.3. Nasals..................................................................................................... 58 3.2.3.1. Ancient Greek: preconsonantal nasal loss ........................... 61 3.2.3.2. Latin: preconsonantal nasal loss ........................................... 63 3.2.3.3. Lithuanian: preconsonantal and word-final nasal loss 64 3.2.3.4. Germanic: pre-fricative nasal loss ....................................... 65 3.2.3.5. Prenasalization: Bantu ........................................................... 67 3.2.4. Fricatives................................................................................................ 70 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3.2.4.1. Turkish .................................................................................... 71 3.2.4.2. Persian ..................................................................................... 73 3.2.4.3. Kabardian ................................................................................ 75 3.2.4.4. G reek....................................................................................... 77 3.2.4.5. Latin ......................................................................................... 78 3.2.5. Stops....................................................................................................... 79 3.2.5.1. CL through g-loss................................................................... 81 3.3 Apparent counterexamples .................................................................................... 83 3.3.1. Glottal stop.............................................................................................. 84 3.3.1.1. K et............................................................................................ 85 3.3.1.2. Tehrani Farsi ............................................................................ 86 3.3.1.3. Implications of the analysis ................................................... 90 3.3.2. Hebrew: morphological compensatory lengthening ........................... 92 3.3.3. Indo-Aryan: compensatory lengthening through degemination 95 3.4. CL through onset loss ............................................................................................. 101 3.4.1. Romanesco Italian .................................................................................. 101 3.4.2. Samothraki G reek................................................................................... 102 3.4.3. Onondaga ................................................................................................. 106 3.4.4. Summary .................................................................................................