Inalterability in Cv Phonology Bruce Hayes
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INALTERABILITY IN CV PHONOLOGY BRUCE HAYES University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles Geminate consonants and long vowels frequently resist the application of rules that would a-priori be expected to apply to them; Le., they are frequently 'inalterable'. This article argues that, by invoking the theory ofCV Phonology, it is often possible to predict which phonological rules are unable to affect long segments. The prediction follov's from rather minimal assumptions about how rules apply to forms. * A long tradition of phonological research has shown that geminate conso nants and long vowels behave exceptionally. Within generative phonology, the work of Kenstowicz 1970, Pyle 1970, Fidelholtz 1971, Guerssel 1977, 1978, Leben 1980, Steriade 1982, and others has uncovered at least three exceptional properties of these long segments: (1) a. AMBIGUITY: Long segments act in some contexts as if they were two segments, in others as if they were one. b. INTEGRITY: Insofar as they constitute two segments, long segments cannot be split by rules of epenthesis. c. INALTERABILITY: Long segments often resist the application of rules that a-priori would be expected to apply to them. The theory ofCV Phonology, as applied to length (cf. Leben 1980, McCarthy 1981a, Steriade 1982, Clements & Keyser 1983), has provided convincing the oretical accounts of the first two properties mentioned above, Ambiguity and Integrity. However, the problem of Inalterability has, in my opinion, not yet been adequately dealt with. Consider a specific instance, to be discussed in greater detail below. In Per sian (cf. Cowan & Yarmohammadi 1978), a rule I will call lvi-Weakening con verts Ivl to Iwl whenever it occurs in, roughly speaking, syllable-final position (2a). Unexpectedly, lvi-Weakening fails to affect syllable-final Ivl whenever it forms the first half of a geminate, as 2b shows: (2) a. Inov-ru:zl ~ nowru:z 'New Year' (lit. 'new day') (cf. novi:n 'new kind') Ijrevl ~ jc£w (~ jow) 'barley' (cf. jc£vi:n 'made of barley') b. c£vvc£l 'first' morovvc£l 'generosity' qolovv 'exaggeration' In this instance, the long segment Ivvl is clearly inalterable. Now, it is certainly * I would like to thank Diana Archangeli, G. N. Clements, B. Elan Dresher, Wilson Gray, Morris Halle, Patricia Keating, Phil LeSourd, Joseph Malone, John McCarthy, Brian McHugh, David Odden, Russell Schuh, Donca Steriade, and Charles Ulrich, among others, for their very helpful advice and comments on the research reported here. None of them should be held responsible for shortcomings. An early version of this article was presented as Hayes 1984. 321 322 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 62, NUMBER 2 (1986) possible to write a version of lvi-Weakening that respects Inalterability by appropriately complicating the structural description. However, as I will show below, the phenomenon is quite widespread; this suggests that it would be wrong to write Inalterability into individual rules. Rather, we should seek a general principle that predicts cases of Inalterability automatically. To locate such a principle is not trivial, because not all rules respect Inal terability. An example of a rule that does not may be found in Feinstein's 1979 phonological analysis of Sinhala, an Indo-European language of Sri Lanka. He proposes a rule of Cluster Simplification, which freely applies to geminates: (3) Sinhala Cluster Simplification C ~ 0I C_-]Sy) kand.da ~ kanda 'hill-sG.DEF' Thus an adequate account ofInalterability should be able to predict which rules cannot affect long segments and which rules can. Ideally, the principle that makes this prediction should not be an arbitrary stipulation, but should follow naturally from general principles. This article is an attempt to provide such an account. The exposition is organized as follows. I begin with a review of CV Pho nology, showing how the properties of Ambiguity and Integrity are conse quences of it. In §2, I propose a CV account of Inalterability, and defend it with examples from a number of languages. In §3, I discuss alternative pro posals; the results are summarized in §4. 1. CV PHONOLOGY is an outgrowth of autosegmental phonology, as devel oped in Goldsmith 1976 and other works. The basic tenet of CV Phonology is that the property of syllabicity is represented on a separate autosegmental tier from the strictly segmental features. The tier specifying syllabicity, or 'CV tier', is linked to that specifying the remaining features, or 'melodic tier', with association lines in standard autosegmental fashion. As is normal in autoseg mental phonology, the theory allows for one-to-many and many-to-one asso ciations. Some of these principles are illustrated in Figure 1 by a CV repre sentation of the English word junior, phonetically [Ju:ny~]. c VV C C V ~ V I I I + cons +cons -cons + cons -cons +cons -son -son +son +son +son +son -cont +cont +cont -cont +cont +cont -nas -nas -nas +nas -nas -nas +ant -ant + high +ant + high -ant +cor +cor +back +cor -back +cor -dist +dist +rnd -dist -rnd -dist CVVCCV I I I d. z Vu n i r FIGURE 1. In particular, observe that the symbols i and u suffice for both glides and INALTERABILITY IN CV PHONOLOGY 323 vowels, with the CV tier determining which they stand for. Many-to-one as sociations between tiers may be found in affricates, short diphthongs, and pre nasalized stops; one-to-many associations occur in long vowels and geminate consonants. The literature is now replete with evidence supporting the CV view of pho nological structure. McCarthy 1979, 1981b originally motivated the independent existence of the two tiers by showing that, in Semitic languages, morphemes may be defined on either one. Later work has shown the applicability of the CV framework in solving problems in reduplication (Marantz 1982); compen satory lengthening (Steriade 1982, Clements Mssa,b); secret language games (Yip 1982, Odden MS); global rule application (Clements & Keyser 1983); phon otactics (Prince 1984); and speech error analysis (Sternberger 1984). A number of general principles governing CV representation are generally or partially agreed upon in the literature. Three ofthem will be important below: THE OBLIGATORY CONTOUR PRINCIPLE (Leben 1973, McCarthy 1986), devised originally by Leben 1973 for tonal phonology, forbids sequences of identical segments where a single multiply-linked segment could replace them. Hence a long vowel must be represented as 4a, not 4b: (4) a. VV b. VV V II a a a I assume that the Obligatory Contour Principle is a statement of markedness, assigning greater value to the structure of 4a. This structure is thus selected by the language learner in the absence ofevidence to the contrary. By the same token, languages sometimes contain rules of 'melodic degemination', con verting input structures like 4b to 4a. That 4a should be more highly valued is plausible, given that it represents the same phonetic substance as 4b less redundantly. PROHIBITION ON CROSSING ASSOCIATION LINES. Configurations like 5 are uni versally ill-formed, and rules are blocked when such configurations would be derived: (5) *C V aX t ASSIMILATION AS SPREADING. Halle & Vergnaud 1980, as well as others, argue that total assimilation rules do not actually change a segment into something more like its neighbor, but rather involve spreading of the trigger segment's melody onto the target segment's CV position, in the same fashion that tonal autosegments spread. Thus a rule assimilating ItI totally to Ikl carries out the following operation: (6) CC ~ CC II V t k k To show some of the effects of these principles, I will first discuss how they 324 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 62, NUMBER 2 (1986) solve the problems of Ambiguity and Integrity. The results obtained in these areas will be directly relevant to my proposal concerning Inalterability. 1 1.1. AMBIGUITY. The phonological framework of SPE (Chomsky & Halle 1968) provides two ways of describing long segments: they can be single seg ments bearing the feature value [+long], or they can be sequences of two short segments bearing identical feature specifications. Generative phonologists working in the post-SPE period rapidly found that neither description could account for the way phonological rules treat long segments (see Kenstowicz 1970, Pyle 1970, Fidelholtz 1971, Sampson 1973, Barkal 1974, Malone 1976, 1978). For some rules, only the sequence description allowed for an adequate account; but other rules required that long segments be counted as units, ne cessitating the feature description. Kenstowicz 1970 tentatively suggested let ting long segments start out as sequences, applying all rules that demand this representation-then converting the sequences to [+long] units, and applying the rules that demand the feature representation. However, this proposal proved to be untenable: Fidelholtz showed that the independently needed rule orderings of Micmac are inconsistent with it; and Kenstowicz 1970 demolished his own scheme by pointing out a rule of Lithuanian that demands both rep resentations at the same time. Although the post-SPE research failed to solve the problem of Ambiguity, it did identify the difficulties much more precisely. In addition, Kenstowicz 1970 uncovered a generalization that will be important here: for the most part, the rules that demanded a sequence representation were 'prosodic rules', which affect stress, tone, and length itself. The rules requiring the feature [+long] were mostly rules affecting segment quality. However, as Fidelholtz pointed out, nothing in the theoretical framework of the time provided any formal ac count of the intuitive distinction between prosodic and qualitative rules. Consider now how Ambiguity can be dealt with in CV phonology. The theory represents most long segments as single melodic segments linked to two C or V positions, in accordance with the Obligatory Contour Principle: (7) a. VV b. CC V aV t 1 Two further issues within CV Phonology are not strictly relevant to the proposal I will make below.