Feature Specifications for Consonants Obstruents P t t c k q b d <l J g G is dZ c j 41 f 9 s I g ~ x X p v Oz 3 Z i Y B cons ++++++++++++ + + ++++++++++++++++++++ syll voice -++++++-+ + +++++++++ w obs ++++++++++++ + + ++++++++++++++++++++ 5i cont - --++++++++++++++++++ del rei + + + + asp lat nas ant ++----++---- + + --++++-----++++----- cor - + + - - - - + + - - - + + + + - - + + + + - - - + + + + - high + + + + + + + - - - - + + + - low back --++----++ -- --- + + - - - + + round stri - + + ++-+-+++--+-+-+++--+ Sonorants m n Q P g N § w v ~ l j A r R r Y " I 1 1: cons + + + + + + + + + + syll voice +++++++++++++++++++++ VJ obs ~ cont + + + + + + + + + + + + + del rei asp lat + + + nas + + + + + + ant + + + + + + + + + + cor + + + + + + + + + high + + + + + + low back + + + + + round + + Sample Answers to Exercises Chapter 1 c. Polish The devoiced allophone occurs between voi~less sounds, and between a voiceless sound and a word boundary. G. Tamil (a) #_; m_; V_V. Pb] 1m} (b) Ipl - [{3] I V V (c) PeJ] I 0- } /kI _ {[g] I g_ } It! - [ts] I V_V [V] I V_V (d) Yes: #_; l'I....- (e) [£1; voiced retroflex fricative: [~]. (f) Yes. [s] is the intervocalic allophone of IC!. 3. Tamil The [w] allophone occurs word-finally when the preceding vowel is unrounded. Chapter 2 C. English Irl _ {0 -. {~} } [~] I vOlceless segment _ E. Japanese Verbs (a) [eba]; [ta] and [da]. (b) [mats] and [mat]; Imat!. (c) [tswkwc] and [tswkwt]; Itwkwcl and Itwkwt!. For Itwkwt!: It! _ [c] I V_V For Itwkwc/: Icl_ [t] I_t (or: a voiceless segment) Both involve assimilation: intervocalic voicing and devoicing before a voiceless segment. 307 308 Sample Answers to Exercises The stem and the provisional form of 'wait' show that Itl does not become [1"] between vowels. (d) 'read': [jom] and [jon]; 'call': [job] and [jon]. For 'read' as Ijom!: 1m! ~ [n] I_d (or t; or both t and d: more data needed) For 'read' as Ijon!: In! ~ [m] I V_V For 'call' as Ijob/: fbI ~ [n] I_d For 'call' as Ijon!: In! ~ (b) I V_V The 'read' morpheme is Ijom! and the 'call' morpheme is Ijob/. The rule In! ~ [b] I V_Vis phonetically unmotivated and falsified by the data (e.g. the stem of 'die'); this rules out Ijon! for 'call'. The rule In! ~ [m] I V_V suffers the same fate and this rules out Ijon! for 'read'. The analysis appealing to these rules is also incoherent: it asserts both that In! becomes [m] between vowels and that it becomes [b] between vowels. In the unfalsified analysis the rule 1m! ~ [n] I _d is well-motivated phonetically. The rule fbI ~ [n] I _d is phonetically motivated in that it involves assimilation of place of articulation but is unmotivated as far as nasality is concerned. Chapter 4 2. Standard English (i) lrengarl (ii) Singer is Ismg + ar/; it is morphologically complex, i.e. has a morpheme boundary, which anger does not. (iii) It will delete the 1'/1 where it is preceded by an g. (iv) It will apply, as in sing and singer, when there is a morpheme or word boundary following the 1'/1, thus: 1'/1 ~ '" I g _{ : } (v) Nasal Assimilation applies first. (vi) The non-occurrence of [IJ] word-initially follows from the restriction on #NC sequences; in this case, #ng: all occurrences of [IJ] come fromlng! sequences. (vii) They are comparative forms of adjectives; that is, the -er in these cases is a different morpheme (the comparative morpheme) from the -er in singer, which is a nominalising morpheme, used to derive nouns from verbs. (viii) It means that the morpheme boundary in singer differs from that in stronger. (See Section 5.2 on the '+', '#' and '##' boundaries: the -er in singer is a 'Class 2' affix, whereas the -er in stronger is a 'Class l' affix.) (ix) The accents with the [g] simply lack the Voiced Velar Stop Deletion rule. (x) It lends support to it: it is the postulated In! in Ispnng! which is transposed from the position following the stressed vowel in Springtime to the position following the stressed vowel in Hitler, leaving behind the postulated underly­ ing Ig!. (xi) These cases are exceptions to the rule: the words must have an underlyinglng!, since, according to our analysis, all [1J]s derive from underlying Ing! sequences. But the Ig! Deletion rule should not operate on morphologically simple forms; hangar and dinghy should behave like anger. They are, however, loanwords. Sample Answers to Exercises 309 Those speakers who delete the 1'1/ have nativised the words; those who do not have not done so. See Chapter 8 on exceptions to 'Level l' rules in Lexical Phonology. It might be argued that the small number of adjectives (three) which fail to undergo 1'1/ Deletion in the comparative form constitute scant justification for making the rule sensitive to a particular sort of morpheme boundary. We may reply (a) that many rules in English are sensitive to such distinctions (see again Chapter 8) and (b) that it is mere coincidence that there happen to be only three adjectives ending in [g] which take the comparative suffix: the three morphemes constitute a natural class in English which just happens to be small. To this reply, the critic might respond that it would be interesting to try to elicit the comparative form wronger from native speakers and see whether it had the predicted non-application of 1'1/ Deletion. Chapter 5 2. Akan vowel harmony (i) 1 e e u U 0 ~ 0 high + + + + low + ATR + + + + back + + + + + round + + + + (ii) Prefixes: [0] - [~]: [e] - [e]. Suffixes: [i] - [I]; [0] - [~]. (iii) 101 high low ATR back + round + (iv) [+ syll] ~ [aATR] I -- (+) t~llaATR ] (v) [+ syll] ~ [aATR] I (+) t~llaATR ] ([~y~]c __ I (vi) The rule says that prefix vowels agree with the first vowel of the root, and suffix vowels with the last. But there seems to be only one generalisation, not two: since roots themselves must contain all [+ATR] or all [-ATR] vowels, it is 310 Sample Answers to Exercises not a particular vowel in the root which induces the harmony; rather, the root itself is either a [+ ATR] or a [-ATR] root, and harmony affects any affixes, irrespective of whether they be prefixes or suffixes (it operates from left to right and from right to left simultaneously). We wiU return to this matter in the interlude and in Chapter 10. Chapter 6 2. French (i) They have an initial consonant (possibly /hi; cruciaUy a consonant which does not otherwise occur in the French consonant system). This induces Truncation and blocks Elision. (ii) A context-free rule which deletes the /hi: /hi -+ 0 (iii) It must be ordered after those rules. (iv) It contracts a counter-bleeding relation with Truncation: if the AN rule applied before Truncation, it would bleed it. It contracts a counter-feeding relation with Elision: if ordered before Elision, it would feed it. (v) The explanation does not work: the presence of a written <h> does not induce speakers to assume that the word begins with an /hi. It would also be interest­ ing to find out whether French children acquire the appropriate rules and representations before learning to read: if so, it is difficult to see what relevance written forms could have. The 'influence of writing' explanation also predicts that illiterates pronounce words such as 'hibou' and 'hache' with Elision of the vowel in the definite article and non-truncation of the 171 in les mes, etc. It would be interesting to learn whether this is the case. If it is not, the critic might faU back on arguments about the influence of literate on illiterate speakers. Chapter 8 1. Ondarroan Basque (i) The rule applies in derived environment only. Because of this, these cases cannot undergo the rule, even where they have an Ia! at a word formation bracket, preceded by a high vowel, e.g. [pinta] and [cimista] (where,], = word formation bracket). (ii) The rule is a lexical rule and thus does not apply in cases like 'seven Sundays'. (iii) It applies postlexically. Chapter 9 1. London English (i) boredlboard. (ii) I:J:/ is [:>::1] in open syUable, and [ou] elsewhere. Sampk Answers to Exercises 311 (iii) Initial syllabification: CJ CJ ~ ~ 0 R 0 R I ~ N N Co ~ ~ I C V V C C V V C I ~ I I ~ I b :) r b :) d Rule: b :la (r) b o u d Word formation [[b:la]d] Final syllabification: CJ CJ ~ ~ 0 R 0 R ~ ~ N Co N Co A I A I C V V C C V V C I I I I I I I I b :) a d b 0 u d References Allwood, J., Anderson, L.-G. and Dahl, O. (1977). Logic in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Anderson, J. M. (1969), 'Syllabic or non-syllabic phonology?'. Journal of Linguistics 5: 136-42. Anderson, J. M. (1986). 'Structural analogy in case grammar'. Lingua 70: 79-129. Anderson, J. M. (1991). 'Contrastivity and non-specification in dependency phono­ logy'. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia XXIV. Anderson, J. M. and Durand, J. (eds) (1987). Explorations in Dependency Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. Anderson, J. M. and Durand, J. (1988). 'Vowel harmony and non-specification in Nez Perce'. In van der Hulst and Smith (eds), Part II: 1-17. Anderson, J. M. and Ewen, C. J. (1987). Principles of Dependency Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Anderson, J. M. and Jones, C. (1974) 'Three theses concerning phonological representations'. Journal of Linguistics 10: 1-26. Anderson, S. R. (1974). The Organisation of Phonology. New York: Academic Press. Anderson, S. R. (1976). 'Nasal consonants and the internal structure of segments'. Language 52: 326-44. Anderson, S. R. (1980). 'Problems and perspectives in the description of vowel harmony'. In Vago (ed.): 1-48.