The Dibole consonant inventory is asymmetrical and full of gaps. In addition there are a number of dramatic alternations and phonotactic patterns that call for a unified account in terms of feature specification. The phenomena to be described and explained include: (i) a voiced bilabial stop ‘b’ which has disappeared (become ‘zero’) in many contexts, but reappears, ‘ghost-like’ in certain morphophonological environments; (ii) a voiced coronal ‘d’ which only exists as a very restricted allophone of /l/; (iii) a ‘p’ ~ ‘h’ alternation which parallels the ‘b’ ~ ‘zero’ alternation, and finally, (iv), an apparently default complex segment ‘dz’ which is inserted to provide an onset for otherwise vowel-initial roots in an environment where roots are prefixed with a syllabic nasal prefix, N- (class 9/10). The study proposes a unified account of these phenomena, eventually identifying ‘d’ as a sonorant stop rather than an ordinary obstruent.



In this paper, I propose an analysis of consonant feature specifications for Dibole, a Bantu language of Guthrie’s Zone C (Guthrie 1967). There are a number of curious and interesting morphophonological alternations in this language that call for a unified account. In keeping with the goal of theoretically informed description for this paper, I adopt the framework of Modified Contrastive Specification (henceforth MCS, see Avery

All the data comes from my own fieldwork in the Babole community from 1988–1992. The corpus that this work is based on is a 3500 form dictionary. I wish to thank the audiences at CLA 1994 (University of Calgary) and the Coronals Workshop (University of Toronto, Nov. 2007) for helpful feedback on earlier versions of this paper. I warmly acknowledge the intellectual influence of my UBC phonology mentors, Doug Pulleyblank, Pat Shaw, and Laura Downing and my fellow PhD students there. All of these scholars at one time or another spent considerable time and energy looking over these data with me. I also owe a large debt of gratitude to my Babole language consultants, BIEMBEDI Celestin; MAKOSSO Charlie; ESSATOLE Seraphin, and MOSSANGAMI Lucien, faithful co-workers in the description and development of the Babole language. Any errors of fact or mistaken analyses are entirely my own responsibility.  
Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 30: 69–90  
Copyright © 2009 Myles Leitch MYLES LEITCH

and Rice 1989, Dresher Piggott and Rice 1994, Dresher and Rice 1993, Avery 1996, Dresher 2003, etc.). I first lay out, in §2, the necessary background information, and provide initial commentary on the consonant inventory. Initially no ontological or theoretical claims for the status of an inventory chart like Table 1 are made: however, in MCS, the inventory itself plus a feature hierarchy determine the ultimate feature specifications. The subtleties of the relationships between the segments within the inventory will emerge, hopefully in a clear way, throughout the course of the exposition. Then in §3 and §4, I describe in detail the various phonological phenomena that the analysis must account for. In a final section I propose the feature-geometric structures, constraints and processes that account for the data. I provide illustrative derivations to show how the alternations and phonological processes work. In this approach a key role is played by the complexity of the representations themselves. The derivations require only a set of standard autosegmental operations: add or remove an association line, add or remove a featural element, etc. In addition we will require the staple of feature cooccurrence constraints (for autosegmental operations and featural constraints see Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1995).


  
  
The Dibole language is spoken by about 4000 people in 16 villages spread out along the Likouala-aux-Herbes River in the District of Epena, Likouala Region, Congo (Brazzaville). The data collected comes from the adjacent villages of Dzeke and Impongui. The Dibole consonant inventory is shown in Table 1 below. These initial observations are only background to the analysis proposed later. I have adopted the convention in Table 1 of putting ‘marginal’ segments in brackets, where marginal means that the consonant does not have the robust distribution of a fully contrastive phoneme. Note first of all that the voiced stop series is defective. The bilabial stop ‘b’ is only found word-initially, and before [+hi] vowels, and in NC1 structures.2 The phones ‘d’ and ‘l’ are basically allophones of /l/, but a contrastive /d/ (in fact a sonorant stop) is found in a few forms as well. The segment ‘g’ is entirely absent. The voiceless stop series is more robust. Parallel to the ‘b’ ~ ‘zero’3 alternation, there is a ‘p’ ~ ‘h’ alternation; both can be seen as a type of debuccalization or lenition. Parallel to the voicing asymmetry seen in the stop series, we find ‘s’ robustly distributed, but a complete absence of ‘z’. The affricates ‘dz’ and ‘ts’, although derived in some environments, are assumed to be contrastive in the system, since they also occur in non-derived contexts.

1 That is, in the prenasalized stop ‘mb’. 2 The real situation is considerably more complex, but we will get to the details in due course. 3 I will use the symbol ‘b’ in this paper to represent the ‘zero’ or ‘silent’ variant of /b/. 70 PERSISTENT LABIALS, SLIPPERY CORONALS: THE PUZZLE OF DIBOLE CONSONANT FEATURES

Table 1: Dibole consonant inventory chart p ~ h t k h b ~ b s ts dz (mp) (nt) (nts) (nk) (ns) mb nd ndz ng4 l ~ d m n w y

All the voiced prenasalized series have a robust distribution as segments, but there is an asymmetry even here. The phone ‘ng’ alone acts like a simplex nasal sonorant, while ‘mb’, ‘nd’, and ‘ndz’ can all be derived by /N/-prefixation. The phone ‘ng’ cannot since there is no ‘g’ to prefix. Because the posited inventory is critical in this approach, we will ignore ‘mb’, ‘nd’, ‘ndz’, considering them to be derived complex segments at some level. Of the prenasals, only ‘ng’ will be taken as a simplex sonorant, and thus play a role in the sonorant contrast system. The voiceless prenasalized series exist only in environments where they could have been derived by historical N-prefixation (see Leitch 1994, Leitch 2003 for a detailed description of NC structures in Dibole). The approximants ‘w’ and ‘y’ are rather rare overall, and only occur in verb-root-initial and 1 stem-initial C position. The segments ‘w’ and ‘y’ are commonly derived from [ROUND] and [FRONT] vowels, respectively, in productive glide formation (both lexically and post- lexically). This concludes our introductory tour of the consonant inventory. In the following sections, I will undertake the description of the morphophonological phenomena that the analysis must address.


 

 
 
  

There are two sets of verbs in Dibole that appear, at first glance, to be vowel- initial verb roots. Let us call one group of verbs the -om- class, (1) below, and the other group the -oh- class of verbs, (2). Both examples are low-toned verb roots, and appear to behave phonologically identically in simple near past and imperative paradigms below.

(1) -om- ‘kill’ a. aomi moto  b. oma ! a-o m-i mo-to om-a  3s-kill-NP C1-man kill-IMP ‘S(he) killed someone.’ ‘kill!’

4 For convenience sake, I will identify this phone as ‘ng’, which is the orthographic representation. Phonetically, as perhaps expected, it is [], with velar place of articulation shared between the nasal and oral phases of the prenasalized stop. 71 MYLES LEITCH

(2) -oh- ‘bail’ a. aohi bwato b. oha  ! a-o h-i bo-ato  oh-a  3s-bail-NP C14-pirogue bail-IMP S(he) bailed the pirogue ‘bail!’

One kind of deverbal noun is created by adding the noun class prefix N-5 to a verb root. A suffix is also added, but this is not relevant to our concerns here. With C-initial verb roots, the process is as in Table 2. The fine details of the phonetics are not crucial; the main point is that the nasal prefix is realized as a nasalized high front vowel, with significant homorganic prenasalization on the following consonant if it is voiced. If the initial consonant is voiceless, the nasalization is largely restricted to the vowel.

Table 2: Class 9 deverbal nouns Verb Rt Gloss Cl 9 Nominal Gloss Phonetics Orthography -sa- go downstream /N-sa-el-o / downstream [ i.sa.e.lo] nsaelo  -dih- get /N-dih-a/ riches, wealth [ i.ndi.ha.] ndiha  -kid- renounce /N-kid-o/ renunciation [ i.ki.lo] nkilo -bimb- be full of food /N-bimb-i/ satisfaction [ i.mbi.mbi] mbimbi -lemb- deceive, dupe /N-lemb-o/ waste, ruin [ i.nde.mbo] ndembo 

What happens when we apply this nominalization process to the vowel-initial verb roots in (1) and (2)? We will see that minimally, a consonant is required following the nasal, but the nature of the consonant is determined, either by latent featural material (i.e., ‘re-emergence of the marked’), or by ‘emergence-of-the-unmarked’ effects, or by contextually determined assimilations, or a combination of these.




In Table 3, with class 9/10 nominalizations of the -om- type of verbs, we observe two consistent properties: (i) a voiced bilabial stop ‘b’ is manifested in the ‘C’ position of the NC structure of the class 9 nominalization, and (ii) vowel hiatus is strictly maintained in mo- (class 3), mi- (class 4) and di- (class 5) nominalizations (the ‘other’ column). This is exactly where we might expect productive glide formation or V1 elision to repair the offending vowel hiatus.

5 The class 9/10 noun prefix is commonly considered (in areal Bantu) to be syllabic or moraic, that is, as having some prosodic status, and securing a prosodic unit for itself in pronunciation. The nasalization pattern on the prefix vowel in Babole (see the forms in Table 2) can be seen as the result of two factors: (i) syllable nuclei in Dibole must be vocalic (nasal nuclei are banned), and (ii) codas are strictly prohibited (the nasal cannot be manifested as a coda homorganic to the following onset). This forces the insertion of a default vowel [i] to host the nasality. 72 PERSISTENT LABIALS, SLIPPERY CORONALS: THE PUZZLE OF DIBOLE CONSONANT FEATURES

Table 3: -om- type v-initial roots 6 Root Gloss Class 9 Gloss Other Gloss -om- kill mbomi slaughter moomi killer 3 miomi killers 4 -es- complain mbesa  complaint moesa complainer 3 *mwesa  complainers 4 miesa *myesa  -ot- give birth diota  family likeness 5 *dzota  -d- blame mbdi blaming modi blamer 3 midi blamers 4


  

In the -oh- class of verbs, Table 4, we again find two sets of properties: (i) the voiced coronal affricate ‘dz’ appears following the nasal, and (ii) there is strict hiatus resolution in the ‘other’ nominalizations (either via glide formation, vowel elision, or affrication). It is especially instructive to compare the ‘other’ column in Table 3 and Table 4, noting the contrast in how vowel hiatus is handled.

Table 4: -oh- type v-initial roots Root Gloss Class 9 Gloss Other Gloss -oh- bail out (a ndzoha  jungle pond moho bailing tool 3 boat or *mooho pond) myoho bailing tools 4 *mioho -upod- clean up a ndzupo the cleaning palm tree of a palm… -ane- dry out N/A bwano  sun-drying 14 -iko- take dziko  courage 5/6 courage *diiko -omb- peel ndzombi act of peeling -ang- be stubborn ndzanga  disagreement -p- search for N/A dzp research 5

One of the main goals of this paper is to account for this intrusive [dz]. We will see in §5 that overall the facts lend themselves best to a ‘strident stop’ analysis of affricates. In synchronic terms, the hiatus resolution with these forms can be attributed to the true absence of a root-initial consonant (as opposed to an apparent absence for the forms in Table 3). A default consonant is being ‘inserted’ to satisfy the needs of the NC structure in class 9 nominalizations for the forms in Table 4. We will see that, indeed, with the MCS analysis proposed, ‘dz’ does turn out to be the unmarked coronal

6 In Dibole orthography, the absence of a tone diacritic on a noun prefix indicates low tone. All nominal prefixes are low-toned in citation forms. 73 MYLES LEITCH

consonant in Dibole. The analysis also allows a concise characterization of both the surfacing of the latent ‘b’ (‘reemergence of the marked’) case in Table 3, and the ‘emergence of the unmarked’ case in Table 4. We will provide the relevant feature specifications in §5. For the moment, I will provide some additional facts about the ‘ghost’ labial case we saw in Table 3.


 
 
 

We have seen that verbs like -om-, ‘kill’ seem to have (i) an underlying floating [LABIAL] (henceforth [LAB]) specification associated with the initial consonant position and (ii) enough consonantal ‘presence’ in that same position7 to ‘separate’ vowels which would otherwise appear to be in a hiatus configuration. This observation correlates with cross-linguistic evidence provided in (3). The closely related trade language, Lingala, has fully explicit ‘b’ in exactly those contexts where Dibole has silent ‘b’ along with apparent vowel hiatus (as in the cases in Table 3).

(3) Cross-linguistically /b/ is attested Lingala Dibole -bom- -om- kill -bot- -ot- give birth -beb- -eb- spoil -tub- -tu- pierce

A few additional facts will round out our picture of the behavior and distribution of ‘b’. The segment ‘b’ elides generally in Dibole in both C1 and C2 position in stems. There is an additional constraint involved: ‘b’ is retained everywhere before the [HI] vowels [i] and [u], as shown in (4). There are additional prosodic principles constraining ‘b’-deletion; for example, the first ‘b’ in -beb-, (3), disappears, yielding -eb-, but the second ‘b’ is retained. On the other hand, in -tub -, the second ‘b’ is permitted to elide. I will not comment further on such cases, which seem to involve limits on onset deletion and syllable wellformedness.

(4) ‘b’ is retained before [i, u]; [+HI] vowels -bimb- v. hit esub u n.7 fish-eating water snake nkbi n.9 consultation with fetisher -eb - v. spoil a-e b-i ‘he spoiled’

The last crucial fact about ‘b’s is that they are retained phrase-initially. So for example, class 14 nominals begin with the noun-class prefix /bo-/. As shown in (5), these forms are pronounced in isolation without dropping the initial ‘b’. That is to say, the citation forms retain initial ‘b’, but this same ‘b’ elides consistently in connected speech, as shown in the examples below.

7 We will assume that this crucial hiatus-maintaining structure is a root node. 74 PERSISTENT LABIALS, SLIPPERY CORONALS: THE PUZZLE OF DIBOLE CONSONANT FEATURES

(5) ‘b’ is retained word-initially in all class 14 nominal citation forms a. Citation form /bo-timb-a/ [botimba] C14 village /bo-nss/ [bonss] C14 tobacco b. Connected speech /a-k -i la bo-timb-a/ [aki lotimba] 8 3s-go-NP LOC C14-village he has gone to the village /a-di ng-i bo-nss / [adingonss] 3s-want-NP C14-tobacco he wants some tobacco

The reader will note that when ‘b’s elide post-lexically in the connected speech examples above, prosodic reorganization follows (in contrast to the hiatus-maintenance seen in the earlier word-internal contexts of ‘b’-loss). In summary, ‘b’-loss and retention is complex and constrained by various phonological and prosodic factors. Overall, we observe that the marked feature [LAB] is generally constrained to unlink and is only retained when other requirements come into play. In §5 I will propose feature geometric representations of ‘b’ and its ‘zero’ counterpart, ‘b’, that can unify an account of these phenomena. I will now turn to document the related case of ‘chameleon p’ where a stem- initial ‘p’ softens to ‘h’, but returns as ‘p’ in the ‘hardening’ environment of class 9/10 NC structures.


  
 
A number of verb roots and nominal stems begin with [h]. In fact the phoneme /h/ is robustly distributed and is attested in both C1 and C2 position in verb roots and nominal stems. These same verb roots show up in the now familiar class 9 nominalization with an initial ‘h’ ‘hardening’ to ‘p’. I give several examples of this in (6). The same general phonetic facts obtain for these class 9 forms as those shown earlier in Table 2; when the ‘C’ following the N is voiceless, the nasalization is restricted to the epenthetic prefix vowel and is not shared with the voiceless ‘p’ following.9

8 I am abstracting away from details of tone not relevant here. There are downsteps created by the floating of low tones when vowels are elided in these examples. 9 There is a small amount of nasalization expressed on a following voiceless C, but this can be seen as a gestural overlap ‘phonetic’ effect. 75 MYLES LEITCH

(6) p ~ h alternation -h- to say, speak, talk ahi /a-h -i/ he spoke mpi /N-h-i/ slander (C9) [ i.p.i] -hik- to endure, survive ahiki  he endured mpiko /N-hik-o/ endurance, toughness (C9) [ i.pi.ko] -hem- to rest, to cease from working ahemi  he ceased from working mpema  /N-hem-a/ air of depression, fatigue [ i.pe.ma]

My initial hypothesis is that there are two ‘h’s in Dibole: those that alternate with ‘p’ and those that do not. We will propose in §5 that the alternating ‘h’ has an underlying [LAB] specification, which the non-alternating ‘h’ lacks. It is only root or stem-initial ‘h’s that alternate with ‘p’ in the NC environment of class 9 nominalizations. Stem-final ‘h’s (underlined) in verb roots like -dih -, ‘get’, and -oh -, ‘bail’, do not alternate and I have no evidence that they are related to ‘p’ diachronically or cross-linguistically. So we will limit ourselves to considering the ‘h’ ~ ‘p’ alternation in the C1 stem-initial position. There is additional evidence available concerning this alternation in Dibole of Dzeke. There, we find two dialectal forms for the singular of ‘earthworm’, shown in (7), while the plural forms are identical. There is clearly a debuccalization (lenition) process affecting ‘p’ in the stem-initial position in dialect 1.10

(7) Dialect variation ‘h’ ~ ‘p’ singular plural Dzeke dialect 1 ehambo  mpambo  earthworm(s) (n. 7/10) Dzeke dialect 2 epambo  mpambo 

In general, with both ‘b’ and ‘p’ we observe a tendency for [LAB] to delink in the stem initial position, with some dialectal variation. Where ‘p’ undergoes this lenition, ‘h’, the laryngeal residue of voicelessness, remains. Unsurprisingly, we will see in §5 that the feature representation for the two ‘h’s will differ by the presence or absence of a floating feature [LAB], parallel to the ‘b’ ~ ‘zero’ alternation. In the following section, I turn my attention to a description of the ‘l’ ~ ‘d’ alternation.


  
   
 



The phones ‘l’ and ‘d’ present a classical case of complementary distribution. Under this interpretation, /l/ is the robust phoneme existing before all vowels except /i/, where we find instead [d]. This can be represented schematically as in (8).

10 I note in passing the similarity to the [h]~[pp] alternation in Japanese. See Hirayama 2005 and the references therein. 76 PERSISTENT LABIALS, SLIPPERY CORONALS: THE PUZZLE OF DIBOLE CONSONANT FEATURES

(8) ‘d’ ~ ‘l’ [d] ______/ i [l] ______/ e, , a, o, , u

Unattested Syllables *li *de, *d, *da, *do, *d, *du 11 Attested Syllables di le, l, la, lo, l, lu

One can observe this complementary distribution as a synchronic alternation in the final consonant of CVC verb roots with final ‘l’ ~ ‘d’ in the Near Past and Imperative forms, in (9) and (10), respectively.

(9) akedi mokote  a-ked-i mo-kote  3s-make-NP C3-house He made a house (10) kela mokote  kel-a mo-kote  make-IMP C3-house Make a house!

I take the reason for this patterning to be prosodic in nature. Essentially the banned syllable [li] has too flat a sonority curve, given that ‘l’ is a sonorant, while ‘i’ is very non-sonorant. The optimal solution is just to make ‘l’ less sonorant, by adding a [STOP] feature to make it ‘d’ in the context preceding ‘i’. We will see the feature- representational formalism for this in due course. But there is another context where ‘l’ and ‘d’ alternate: the now-familiar class 9/10 nominalization. Root-initial ‘l’ hardens to ‘d’ following the nasal prefix as shown in the selected examples in Table 5. There are many more examples of this in the lexicon; the generalization is robust.

Table 5: [l] hardens to [d] following N in class 9/10 Verb Root Gloss Class 9/10 Gloss Phonetic Orthography Realization -lemb- deceive, dupe /N-lemb-o/ waste, ruin [ i.nde.mbo] ndembo  -loh- vomit /N-loh-y-a/ that which [ i.ndo.hya] ndohya  disgusts, causes to vomit -lamb- prepare food /N-lamb-i/ session in a [ i.nda.mbi] ndambi hunting or fishing camp

11 There are several exceptions in my lexicon of 3500 forms: the pejorative verb root -dubngn- ‘become obese’; the sexual taboo -dòm-, ‘to make love…’; -dng d- ‘light up with a flashlight’; dum- ‘crash into something’. These forms show that ‘d’ functions outside of the complementary distribution environment, at least in some forms. 77 MYLES LEITCH

We can retain two hypotheses from observing the alternations in the class 9/10 NC environment: (i) sometimes a diachronically earlier ‘harder’ form of the consonant is retained following N (involving a floating [LAB] feature as with ‘b’ and ‘p’), and (ii) sometimes there is assimilation, or insertion, of features (and structure), in order to satisfy the requirements of the nasal prefix environment. In the case of ‘dz’ we posit ‘emergence of unmarked’ coronality, voicing and manner. In the case of the ‘l’ ~ ’d’ alternation we are seeing the insertion of a feature [STOP] which results in de-lateralization and reduction of sonorancy. The representations and mechanisms showing how this works will be presented in §5, following.


  
    


 
 
 
In this section, I will show that one set of theoretical assumptions, consistently applied to the featural specification of the consonants, will give a coherent and unified account of the various phenomena presented in §3 and §4. The theoretical apparatus will be provided by Modified Contrastive Specification (MCS) (as worked out in Dresher, Piggott and Rice 1994, Avery 1996, Dresher 2003, Rice 2005, etc.). The task ahead will involve providing a featural specification and representation consistent with the principles of MCS for each consonant in the inventory, and then showing how these representations solve the phonological puzzle(s) presented up to this point in the paper. I will assume monovalent features throughout.





The Successive Division Algorithm (SDA) (Dresher 2003: 56) requires that we proceed one feature at a time in working out the specification of segments in the inventory. The result will be a contrastive hierarchy where the hierarchical ordering of features plays a crucial role in determining contrastive feature specifications. I will examine the Dibole consonant inventory using the hierarchy in (11), shown in tree form in (12).

(11) Contrastive hierarchy for Dibole ORAL > SONORANT > MANNER > NASAL > PLACE > LARYNEAL > STRIDENT | LATERAL

78 PERSISTENT LABIALS, SLIPPERY CORONALS: THE PUZZLE OF DIBOLE CONSONANT FEATURES

(12) Feature hierarchy tree12

Dibole Consonants

p,b, t, s, dz, ts, n, m, ng, w, y, l, d, k Non-Oral h

SV: p, t, k, b, s, dz, m, n, ng, l, d, y, w ts

y, l, w Stop p, t, k, b ts, dz Cont m, n, d, ng s

y, l Per d Nas w m, n, ng t, ts, dz Per p, b, k

n Lat Per y l m, ng Spr. Gl. dz Lab k

t, ts p, b

Lab ng m ts Not Spr. Gl b strident p t

In (11) and (12) above are the feature domains that undergird my analysis. The status of various features will be made clear in the explanatory sections following. The reader will note that I have maintained the same order of features for both sonorant and obstruent branches, but that there is a change in what is marked: for manner in particular, [CONT] is marked for obstruents, while [STOP] is marked for sonorants. [NASAL] and [LATERAL] are irrelevant for obstruents while [SPREAD GLOTTIS] and [(NON-)STRIDENT] are irrelevant for sonorants. I will now discuss each successive split.

12 Oral vs. Non-Oral refers to stricture or place of articulation, so that Non-Oral would be something like laryngeal stricture, which is marked. I have used bolding to indicate the feature options that are marked, and correspondingly unmarked feature options are omitted. ‘Cont’ = Continuant; ‘Lat’ = Lateral; ‘Nas’ = Nasal; ‘Per’ = Peripheral; ‘Spr Gl’ = Spread Glottis; ‘SV’=Sonorant Voicing. 79 MYLES LEITCH


 

  

In the first split of Dibole consonants, /h/ is identified as having laryngeal place of articulation as opposed to all other consonants, which have an oral place of articulation. We will assume that [ORAL] is unmarked and [NON-ORAL] is marked. For brevity sake I do not include these features in the formal representations to follow.


 
In the next split, I posit that [w], [y], [l], [d], [m], [n] and [ng] are sonorants, and are marked with the node [SV] (Rice and Avery 1991), as in (13). This takes the place of [SON] in other feature frameworks. Note in particular that I am claiming that ‘d’ is a sonorant stop (Rice 1993). We will see later what further features are required to contrastively distinguish the sonorants.

(13) Representations for Dibole sonorants w, y, l, d, n, m, ng SV

The other consonants are non-sonorant and are unmarked for [SV]. We will see in due course that the prenasalized NC complex segments are ‘split’ with respect to sonorancy. In general, a full account of the NC complexes is beyond the scope of this paper. Of these apparent NCs, only /ng/ is accorded the special status of a simplex sonorant consonant, and thus is included in the analysis.




The next split in the feature hierarchy divides both the obstruents and sonorants according to manner criteria, but with a different markedness polarity. For the obstruents [CONTINUANT] (henceforth [CONT]) is marked, [STOP] is unmarked. For the sonorants, [STOP] is marked, [CONT] is unmarked. This meets expectations for markedness tendencies for sonorants and obstruents. I will be assuming the ‘strident stop’ theory of affricates as in Shaw 1991, LaCharite 1993, Rubach 1994, Clements 1999, etc. [STRIDENT] in this line of research is considered a dependant of [CORONAL] (Kenstowicz 1994: 454). I will deal with the feature [STRIDENT] in a later section. /s/ is marked for [MANNER] (abbreviated [MAN]) and [CONT] while the other obstruents have the manner node with underspecified [STOP] as shown in (14). The effect of this marking schema is to isolate /s/ and uniquely identify it early; it will not be marked for other feature distinctions according to the SDA because it is already contrastively unique (see (12)).

(14) Representations for manner in obstruents s MAN – CONTINUANT t, ts, dz, p, b, k MAN

[MANNER] is relevant for the sonorants, but the markedness considerations are reversed with [MAN] and [STOP] marked for the nasals [m], [n], [ng] and for [d], while the approximants [l], [y], [w], are only marked for [MAN] with [CONT] underspecified.

80 PERSISTENT LABIALS, SLIPPERY CORONALS: THE PUZZLE OF DIBOLE CONSONANT FEATURES

(15) Manner distinctions in sonorants w, y, l MAN n, m, ng, d MAN - STOP




 
For the sonorants only (the split can apply to the obstruents, but vacuously), the next split involves the feature [NASAL] (henceforth [NAS]), which is marked and is an SV node dependant (Rice and Avery 1991). This move splits the marked stops above into marked [NAS] stops /n/, /m/, /ng/ and a non-nasal sonorant stop /d/. Nasality is irrelevant for the continuant sonorants /y/, /w/, and /l/. Note that ‘d’ is uniquely identified as a non- nasal sonorant stop (Rice 1993); so subsequent feature specifications under the SDA will be irrelevant for ‘d’. [PLACE], however, will be needed to distinguish between the nasal stop sonorants /m/ and /n/.

(16) Nasal and non-nasal sonorant stops n, m, ng SV – NAS d SV




Consider next [PLACE] features, (henceforth [PL]). I will adopt the PERIPHERAL – CORONAL theory from Avery and Rice 1989, and Rice 1994. Since we absolutely need the feature [LAB] to be specified for obstruents, we will assume that the dorsal /k/ has only the PERIPHERAL node ([PER]), while /p/ and /b/ have the dependant feature [LAB] specified under [PER]. The coronals /t/ and /s/ have only the place node, since by convention, [CORONAL] ([COR]) place is underspecified. The laryngeal fricative /h/ has no PLACE node, since by definition it is not oral, and [PLACE] is by definition ‘oral’ place. These representations elaborated for PLACE are shown in (17).

(17) Representations for [place] in Dibole obstruents p, b PL – PERIPH - LAB t, ts, dz PL k, PL -PERIPH h

There is a possible prediction made by the specifications in (17). It may be that only with the most fully specified [LAB] consonants that the possibility arises of a specific ‘ghost’ place specification; neither the dorsal consonant nor the coronal has a specified place feature to delink or be recovered. If this line of thinking is correct, it might predict 13 the impossibility in the same system for both labial and dorsal ghosts. [PL] is relevant for the sonorants as well. /w/ and /m/ are labials and /y/, /l/, and /n/ are coronals. /ng/ is [PER], default [DOR]. Assuming the same feature structure as for obstruents, we have the

13 The idea is that only the most embedded ‘marked’ substantive feature specifications could be ‘ghosted’. Only the most highly marked segment would be eligible for ‘ghost’ behavior. I do not know whether this idea conforms to cross-linguistic realities. 81 MYLES LEITCH

representations in (18). Other features will be needed to fully distinguish the class of sonorants.

(18) Representations for place in Dibole sonorants w, m PL - PER - LAB ng PL - PER l PL y PL

I have included the prenasalized dorsal /ng/ here and claim that it alone is a unitary sonorant segment among the prenasals. Interestingly it fills a vacant ‘position’ in the contrast system, that of a dorsal sonorant. In fact, since there is no voiced obstruent [g] in the inventory it is impossible to ‘derive’ [ng] via class 9/10 N-prefixation. So /ng/ is a simplex sonorant obstruent involving a single root node, with SV nasality, [STOP] manner, and [PER] place (default [DOR]). We will see in due course the complex structure to be attributed to ‘mb’ and ‘nd’ when they arise in morphophonological class 9/10 environments. I also assume the existence of a nasal glide /N/ (see Trigo 1988) which is a nasal without oral place specification, so no-[PL] /N/ has manner [STOP] and [NAS] specifications only.


 
 
   
I will assume the laryngeal and voicing theories of Avery 1996 and Avery and Idsardi 2001, as adopted in Hirayama 2005. We will thus assume that there is a node LARYNGEAL, which may have a specified dependant GLOTTAL, which may have a further dependant voicing feature [VOICE] (henceforth [VOI]) or [SPREAD GLOTTIS] (henceforth [SPR GL]), depending on the markedness relations in the system. We know that the lenition of /p/ leaves a glottal dependant specification ‘h’, which we will assume to be [SPR GL]. This confirms that, for obstruents, voicelessness is the marked value in the system, while voicing is unmarked.14 Furthermore, there is a voicing distinction marked at the Labial place of articulation, but there is none at the Coronal and Dorsal places of articulation (no obstruent [d], [z] or [g] exist in the inventory]. Therefore we have the partial representations for obstruents in (19).

(19) Representations for laryngeal in Dibole obstruents p, t, ts LAR - GLOT - SPR GL b, dz LAR – GLOT

We will see shortly that the feature [STRIDENT] ([STRI]) is required to complete the picture. It will turn out to be significant that /dz/ is already uniquely identified before the [STRI] feature is invoked to distinguish [t] and [ts].

14 I recognize that this is contrary to normal markedness assumptions for obstruent laryngeal features. 82 PERSISTENT LABIALS, SLIPPERY CORONALS: THE PUZZLE OF DIBOLE CONSONANT FEATURES


 
[STRI] would be at least potentially relevant for representations of the affricates ‘ts’ and ‘dz’ as well as the fricative ‘s’. Because [STRI] is a coronal dependant, this forces the expression of [COR] in the representation which is contrastively marked for [STRI], as in (20). Because of the domains established by the feature hierarchy assumed, the only stridency distinction is between the voiceless coronal stops: [t] and [ts]. Although it is counter-intuitive, I propose that [STRI] is the unmarked option, while [NON-STRI] is marked. This yields the rather surprising (but factual) result that strident [dz] is the unmarked voiced coronal stop. The logic of the SDA gives this result with the hierarchical organization of features given. /ts/ and /dz/ are default [STRI].

(20) Representation(s) with [NON-STRI] specified t PL – COR – NON-STRI


 
The last feature to be applied in the SDA, [LATERAL] (henceforth [LAT]), is a dependant of [SV] (Rice and Avery 1991, but see Walsh 1997 and Yip 2004 for other views). The [SV] dependant view is shown in (21); [LAT] is only relevant for that one sub- domain among the sonorants.

(21) The feature [LAT] /l/ SV - LAT


 
 
 
We can now examine the contrastively specified representations for the consonants that we have looked at. First the sonorants are presented, followed by the obstruents.

(22) Assembled representations for approximant sonorants l w y

PL SV MAN PL SV MAN PL SV MAN

PER LAT

LAB

Note, in particular for the sonorants, that [w], [y], and [d] are distinguished as a class from the other sonorants by the absence of specification under the SV node, where [m], [n], and [ng] have [NAS] and [STOP], and [l] has [LAT]. There are four ‘sonorant stops’ in the system, /d/ and /ng/, as well as the regular nasal stops /m/ and /n/. 83 MYLES LEITCH

(23) Sonorant stops m n

SV PL MAN SV PL MAN

NAS STOP NAS PER STOP

LAB

d ng

SV PL MAN SV PL MAN

STOP NAS PER STOP

The representations for non-sonorants follow. I present the ‘defective’ segments in the context of the segment they are most closely related to structurally: so ‘b’ (zero) in the context of /b/, alternating ‘h’ in the context of /p/, etc. The labials are fairly straightforward. For obstruents there is a contrast for [LAR] specifications at the labial place only. The ‘missing’ voiced obstruents correspond interestingly to the ‘sonorant stops’ we have just discussed.

(24) Labial obstruents

b p

MAN LAR PL MAN LAR PL

PERIPH GLOT PERIPH

LAB SPR GL LAB

84 PERSISTENT LABIALS, SLIPPERY CORONALS: THE PUZZLE OF DIBOLE CONSONANT FEATURES

The segments, ‘b’ (silent) and ‘h’ that alternate with /b/ and /p/, respectively, can 15 be represented as I’ve shown in (25) In both cases the feature [LAB] floats. I will assume that with both ‘b’ and ‘h’ there is a loss of all oral feature structure including the [MAN], [LAR] and [PL] nodes. Crucially, though, there must be a root node present for the silent ‘b’ to get the hiatus resolution blocking effect that we documented in §3.1. Nothing crucial in the analysis would be changed if the manner node were gratuitously maintained in both representations in (25).

(25) Dibole debuccalized labial representations

b h

LAR

LAB GLOT LAB

SPR GL

The coronal obstruents in Dibole are distinguished first by manner (stops /t/, /ts/ and /dz/ vs. continuant /s/) and then by place and voicing within manner. Finally there is a stridency distinction among the voiceless set, but stridency remains unmarked with /dz/ and /s/ as it is not contrastive in the respective domains.

(26) Coronal continuant

s

MAN LAR PL

CONT

15 It is an interesting and far-from-trivial question whether the non-alternating [h] will also have an underlying floating [LAB] specification. I will assume that it does not.

85 MYLES LEITCH

(27) Representations for coronal stops [t], [ts] and [dz]

t ts dz

MAN LAR PL MAN LAR PL MAN LAR PL

GLOT COR GLOT GLOT

SPR. GL NON-STRI SPR. GL

Finally, in (28) I give the representations for the single dorsal /k/ and the non- alternating laryngeal fricative /h/.

(28) Representations for /k/ and /h/

k h

LAR

MAN LAR PL

GLOT PER SPR GL


 
     
    
The behavior of -oh- type de-verbal nominalizations from Table 4 can now be understood more clearly. The derivation is shown below in (29). The roots are truly vowel-initial in the synchronic grammar, and the hiatus resolution processes noted earlier follow. The NC structure itself requires a consonant root node after the nasal glide. If a consonant is not present, one must be inserted. The ‘unmarked’ or default consonant will be inserted, minimally represented by [LAR], [PL] and [MAN] nodes. The default values of all features considered in the contrastive hierarchy will be [COR] place, [STOP] manner, [VOI] laryngeal, and default [STRI]. The voiced coronal strident stop is [dz], and this is in fact what is inserted. I will assume that the inserted consonant does not assimilate the [SV] node of the nasal prefix. The resulting complex segment is partly sonorant, and partly obstruent with respect to the representation of voicing. The nasal takes the underspecified [PL] of the inserted consonant. The resulting complex segment is quite ‘tight’ with shared [PL] and [STOP] specifications. I will assume that the manner node [MAN] is not merged but that the two entities of the NC complex share the [STOP] specification. In fact the [STOP] specification is not shared in every NC, so maintaining distinct [MAN] nodes for each part of the complex is necessary.

86 PERSISTENT LABIALS, SLIPPERY CORONALS: THE PUZZLE OF DIBOLE CONSONANT FEATURES

(29) Vowl-initial verb roots in class 9 nominalization inserted /N/ [n] + [dz]

 SV MAN PL MAN LAR SV MAN

NAS STOP NAS STOP GLOT

Consider the next derivation in (30), the alternation where /l/ ‘hardens’ to ‘d’ in class 9 nominalizations, from Table 5 in §4. The nasal glide /N/ needs [PL] and so takes the underspecified coronal place of /l/ ~ ‘d’. The [l] ‘delateralizes’ because of a posited feature coocurrence restriction between [STOP] and [LAT]. While lateral affricates are attested in the world’s languages, they are considered highly marked.

(30) /l/ ~ ‘d’ alternation in NC [n] [d] /N/ + /l/ 

SV MAN PL SV MAN SV MAN PL MAN SV

NAS STOP LAT NAS STOP LAT

The next alternation involves the change from /l/ to ‘d’ before /i/. Let us continue to assume that the motivation of this change is to reduce the sonority of the onset when a very non-sonorant syllable nucleus is present. Simply delinking [LAT] will only get us /y/, which is actually more sonorant than /l/ and hence worse as an onset. Following the logic of the sonorant contrast system, the already available marked feature [STOP] is inserted to make the onset less sonorant, and [LAT] delinks as a result of the posited feature incompatibility. Note that it is the ‘most sonorant’ sonorants, [w], [y] and [l], that are unacceptable onsets for the high front vowel [i]. The insertion of the feature [STOP] is a minimal repair that reduces the sonority of the onset /l/. Note that ‘d’ under this reading remains a sonorant, and is in fact /d/, the only non-nasal sonorant stop in the inventory.

87 MYLES LEITCH

(31) /l/ ~ [d] before /i/: delateralization of /l/ yields [d]

/l/ [d]

PL SV MAN PL SV MAN

LAT LAT STOP


 
    
  
In this final section of the paper, I show how the structures and processes outlined to this point also account for the ghost ‘b’s and chameleon ‘p’s documented in §§3.1, §§3.3 and §§3.4. The relevant representations are shown in (32) for the debuccalized labial phones. Recall that the twin properties of the ghost ‘b’ forms are: (i) the labial emerging in [mb] and (ii) strict vowel hiatus maintenance with other prefixes. My contention is that the vowel hiatus is only apparent since there is a ‘silent’ consonantal root node intervening, in addition to the floating labial specification. We assume uniformly that the nasal glide /N/ requires [PL] to be pronounced. We saw how this was achieved by assimilation in the previous coronal cases. In the derivation below, the same pressures work to force the unlinked feature [LAB] to be relinked in the representation. Some convention generating or supplying intervening structure is required here.16 We get the [PL], [PERIPH] ‘generated’ in the output. The ‘re-emergence of the marked’ works similarly for both /b/ and /p/. There are some differences, however, relative to the representation of voicing for sonorants and obstruents.

(32) /N/+ -omi  mbomi

/N/ ‘b’ m b + 

MAN SV MAN SV PL MAN LAR

STOP NAS LAB STOP NAS PERIPH GLOT

LAB

In the final derivation, (33) below, I show how the ‘h’ ~ ‘p’ alternation works in terms of the representations posited. There is a significant difference with a voiceless C following the N in NC. The NC complex only shares [PL] and perhaps a [MAN] specification. However, the unmarked value of [MAN] will be [STOP] for obstruents anyway, so a shared [MAN] node is not required. This distinction becomes significant for

16 For one instantiation see Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1995, p. 23: ‘node generation’. 88 PERSISTENT LABIALS, SLIPPERY CORONALS: THE PUZZLE OF DIBOLE CONSONANT FEATURES other cases not in focus here, where for example, verb root initial /s/ remains [CONT] even in class 9/10 NC structures, as in /N+sa-elo/, [i.sa.e.lo] (see Table 2). The progressive assimilation of the [STOP] feature of the prenasal is by no means an obligatory aspect of these nominalizations.

(33) /N/+ -hi  mpi

/N/ + h  [m… p]

MAN SV PL MAN SV LAR MAN LAR

GLOT STOP NAS PERIPH GLOT STOP NAS SPR GL LAB SPR GL LAB




  
The approach to feature structure taken in MCS has allowed an insightful analysis of Dibole consonants. The hierarchical organization of features results in unexpected possibilities for the specification and underspecification of the segments in the inventory as an organic whole. In particular, the identification of /dz/ as the unmarked oral consonant in the system is a surprising result, and it explains the formerly mysterious appearance of ‘dz’ in class 9/10 nominalizations of vowel initial verb roots. The delateralization of /l/ to ‘d’ in class 9/10 and before /i/ follows with a minimum of stipulation in the adopted framework and with the posited feature hierarchy. Perhaps the most startling result is the identification of ‘d’ and ‘ng’ as sonorant stops. This allows us to understand that ‘d’ is not functioning in the contrast system of the obstruents, but rather in that of the sonorant branch. The segment ‘d’ can only be understood in terms of sonorant feature contrasts, not in terms of obstruent feature contrasts. Much work remains to be done to fully integrate the characterization of the voiced and voiceless NC complexes into the analysis.

   
Archangeli, Diana, and Doug Pulleyblank. 1995. Grounded Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Avery, P. and W. J. Idsardi. 2001. “Laryngeal dimensions, completion and enhancement.” In Distinctive Feature Theory, T. A. Hall (ed.), pp. 41–70. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Avery, Peter. 1996. The Representation of Voicing Contrasts. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto. Avery, Peter, and Keren Rice. 1989. “Segment structure and coronal underspecification.” Phonology 6, 179–200. Blevins, Juliette. 1995. “The syllable in phonological theory.” In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, J. Goldsmith (ed.), pp. 206–244. Oxford: Blackwell. Causley, Trisha. 1999. Complexity and Markedness in Optimality Theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.

89 MYLES LEITCH

Clements, G. N. 1999. “Affricates as noncontoured stops.” In Proceedings of LP 98: Item Order in Language and Speech, Osama Fujimura, Brian D. Joseph and Bohumil Palek (eds.), pp. 272–299. Prague: The Karolinum Press. Clements, G. N. and E. V. Hume. 1995. “The internal organization of speech sounds.” In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, J. Goldsmith (ed.), pp. 245–306. Oxford: Blackwell. Dresher, B. Elan. 2003. “The contrastive hierarchy in phonology.” Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 20, 47–62. Dresher, B. Elan, and Keren Rice. 1993. “Complexity in phonological representations.” Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 12 (2), 1–17. Dresher, B. Elan, Glyne Piggott, and Keren Rice. 1994. “Contrast in phonology: overview.” Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 13, iii–xvii. Goldsmith, John. 1990. Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Guthrie, M. 1967. Comparative Bantu, Vol. 1. Gregg Press. Hirayama, Manami. 2005. “Place asymmetry and markedness of labials in Japanese.” Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 24, 125–168. Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Phonology in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. LaCharite, Diane. 1993. The Internal Structure of Affricates. Doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa. Leitch, M. 1994. “Distribution and properties of Babole prenasals.” Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session 38, 101–111. Leitch, M. 2003. “Babole.” In The Bantu Languages, D. Nurse and G. Phillipson (eds.), pp. 225–256. London: Routledge. Rice, K. D. and P. Avery. 1991. “On the relationship between laterality and coronality.” In The Special Status of Coronals, C. Paradis and J. F. Prunet (eds.), pp. 101–124. San Diego: Academic Press. Rice, Keren. 1993. “A reexamination of the feature [sonorant]: the status of ‘sonorant obstruents.’” Language 69, 308–344. Rice, Keren. 1994. “Peripheral in consonants.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 39 (3), 191–216. Rice, Keren. 2005. “Liquid relationships.” Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 21, 31–44. Rubach, J. 1994. “Affricates as strident stops in Polish.” Linguistic Inquiry 25, 119–144. Shaw, P. A. 1991. “Consonant harmony systems: the special status of coronal harmony.” In The Special Status of Coronals, C. Paradis and J. F. Prunet (eds.), pp. 125–158. San Diego: Academic Press. Trigo, R. 1988. On the Phonological Derivation and Behaviour of Nasal Glides. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Walsh, L. D. 1997. The Phonology of Liquids. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts. Yip, Moira. 2004. “Variability in feature affiliation through violable constraints: the case of [lateral].” In The Internal Organization of Phonological Segments: Studies in Generative Grammar 77, Marc van Oostendorp and Jeroen van de Weijer (eds.), pp. 63–92. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

90