Long-Distance Compensatory Lengthening in Estonian Scott Borgeson Stanford University 1 Abstract • Compensatory lengthening (CL) has traditionally been observed to be a purely local phenomenon, with the trigger and target segments being either adjacent to one another or separated by only one syllable boundary. 2 Abstract • Compensatory lengthening (CL) has traditionally been observed to be a purely local phenomenon, with the trigger and target segments being either adjacent to one another or separated by only one syllable boundary. • In this talk, I present evidence from Estonian showing that CL can be long-distance (LD) as well, and provide an account that allows for LDCL while explaining its crosslinguistic rarity. 2 Abstract • Compensatory lengthening (CL) has traditionally been observed to be a purely local phenomenon, with the trigger and target segments being either adjacent to one another or separated by only one syllable boundary. • In this talk, I present evidence from Estonian showing that CL can be long-distance (LD) as well, and provide an account that allows for LDCL while explaining its crosslinguistic rarity. • If CL takes place in any given language, it will be mediated by a constraint punishing the crossing of association lines (*CROSS). This enforces pure locality. 2 Abstract • Compensatory lengthening (CL) has traditionally been observed to be a purely local phenomenon, with the trigger and target segments being either adjacent to one another or separated by only one syllable boundary. • In this talk, I present evidence from Estonian showing that CL can be long-distance (LD) as well, and provide an account that allows for LDCL while explaining its crosslinguistic rarity. • If CL takes place in any given language, it will be mediated by a constraint punishing the crossing of association lines (*CROSS). This enforces pure locality. • In Estonian, however, constraints forbidding unstressed long vowels (*VV) and geminates (*GEM) outrank *CROSS. As a result, morae are prohibited from landing in intermediate positions, and must travel longer distances to find a new home. 2 Abstract • Compensatory lengthening (CL) has traditionally been observed to be a purely local phenomenon, with the trigger and target segments being either adjacent to one another or separated by only one syllable boundary. • In this talk, I present evidence from Estonian showing that CL can be long-distance (LD) as well, and provide an account that allows for LDCL while explaining its crosslinguistic rarity. • If CL takes place in any given language, it will be mediated by a constraint punishing the crossing of association lines (*CROSS). This enforces pure locality. • In Estonian, however, constraints forbidding unstressed long vowels (*VV) and geminates (*GEM) outrank *CROSS. As a result, morae are prohibited from landing in intermediate positions, and must travel longer distances to find a new home. • LDCL is rare, then, because it only exists in languages that first enforce CL over mora deletion, and second, that possess constraints that force LDCL over local CL. 2 Roadmap • Section I: Define compensatory lengthening (CL) and present a cross-linguistic typology. 3 Roadmap • Section I: Define compensatory lengthening (CL) and present a cross-linguistic typology. • Section II: Show that long-distance compensatory lengthening (LDCL) exists in Estonian. 3 Roadmap • Section I: Define compensatory lengthening (CL) and present a cross-linguistic typology. • Section II: Show that long-distance compensatory lengthening (LDCL) exists in Estonian. • Overlength (“Q3”) will be the diagnostic for (LD)CL. 3 Roadmap • Section I: Define compensatory lengthening (CL) and present a cross-linguistic typology. • Section II: Show that long-distance compensatory lengthening (LDCL) exists in Estonian. • Overlength (“Q3”) will be the diagnostic for (LD)CL. • Focus will be on the partitive case as a case study. 3 Roadmap • Section I: Define compensatory lengthening (CL) and present a cross-linguistic typology. • Section II: Show that long-distance compensatory lengthening (LDCL) exists in Estonian. • Overlength (“Q3”) will be the diagnostic for (LD)CL. • Focus will be on the partitive case as a case study. • Section III: Present an account of CL (both cross-linguistically and within Estonian) that... 3 Roadmap • Section I: Define compensatory lengthening (CL) and present a cross-linguistic typology. • Section II: Show that long-distance compensatory lengthening (LDCL) exists in Estonian. • Overlength (“Q3”) will be the diagnostic for (LD)CL. • Focus will be on the partitive case as a case study. • Section III: Present an account of CL (both cross-linguistically and within Estonian) that... • Explains the behavior of CL cross-linguistically. 3 Roadmap • Section I: Define compensatory lengthening (CL) and present a cross-linguistic typology. • Section II: Show that long-distance compensatory lengthening (LDCL) exists in Estonian. • Overlength (“Q3”) will be the diagnostic for (LD)CL. • Focus will be on the partitive case as a case study. • Section III: Present an account of CL (both cross-linguistically and within Estonian) that... • Explains the behavior of CL cross-linguistically. • Allows for it to be long-distance (in some situations). 3 Roadmap • Section I: Define compensatory lengthening (CL) and present a cross-linguistic typology. • Section II: Show that long-distance compensatory lengthening (LDCL) exists in Estonian. • Overlength (“Q3”) will be the diagnostic for (LD)CL. • Focus will be on the partitive case as a case study. • Section III: Present an account of CL (both cross-linguistically and within Estonian) that... • Explains the behavior of CL cross-linguistically. • Allows for it to be long-distance (in some situations). • Captures the behavior of CL in Estonian. 3 Roadmap • Section I: Define compensatory lengthening (CL) and present a cross-linguistic typology. • Section II: Show that long-distance compensatory lengthening (LDCL) exists in Estonian. • Overlength (“Q3”) will be the diagnostic for (LD)CL. • Focus will be on the partitive case as a case study. • Section III: Present an account of CL (both cross-linguistically and within Estonian) that... • Explains the behavior of CL cross-linguistically. • Allows for it to be long-distance (in some situations). • Captures the behavior of CL in Estonian. • Section IV: Offer concluding remarks. 3 I. What is compensatory lengthening? 4 I. Compensatory Lengthening • Compensatory lengthening (CL) is defined in Hayes (1989) as “the lengthening of a segment triggered by the deletion or shortening of a nearby segment.” 5 I. Compensatory Lengthening • Compensatory lengthening (CL) is defined in Hayes (1989) as “the lengthening of a segment triggered by the deletion or shortening of a nearby segment.” • In Mora Theory (ibid.), it amounts to the movement of a mora from one segment to another. 5 I. Compensatory Lengthening • Compensatory lengthening (CL) is defined in Hayes (1989) as “the lengthening of a segment triggered by the deletion or shortening of a nearby segment.” • In Mora Theory (ibid.), it amounts to the movement of a mora from one segment to another. • It involves: 5 I. Compensatory Lengthening • Compensatory lengthening (CL) is defined in Hayes (1989) as “the lengthening of a segment triggered by the deletion or shortening of a nearby segment.” • In Mora Theory (ibid.), it amounts to the movement of a mora from one segment to another. • It involves: ➢ a TRIGGER segment (the segment that is shortened / deleted), and 5 I. Compensatory Lengthening • Compensatory lengthening (CL) is defined in Hayes (1989) as “the lengthening of a segment triggered by the deletion or shortening of a nearby segment.” • In Mora Theory (ibid.), it amounts to the movement of a mora from one segment to another. • It involves: ➢ a TRIGGER segment (the segment that is shortened / deleted), and ➢ a TARGET segment (the segment that is lengthened as a result). 5 I. Compensatory Lengthening • Compensatory lengthening (CL) is defined in Hayes (1989) as “the lengthening of a segment triggered by the deletion or shortening of a nearby segment.” • In Mora Theory (ibid.), it amounts to the movement of a mora from one segment to another. • It involves: ➢ a TRIGGER segment (the segment that is shortened / deleted), and ➢ a TARGET segment (the segment that is lengthened as a result). • The trigger and target can be either vowels or consonants, and either can precede the other. 5 I. Compensatory Lengthening • Compensatory lengthening (CL) is defined in Hayes (1989) as “the lengthening of a segment triggered by the deletion or shortening of a nearby segment.” • In Mora Theory (ibid.), it amounts to the movement of a mora from one segment to another. • It involves: ➢ a TRIGGER segment (the segment that is shortened / deleted), and ➢ a TARGET segment (the segment that is lengthened as a result). • The trigger and target can be either vowels or consonants, and either can precede the other. ➢ (Some combinations are much more frequent than others.) ➢ (Others are essentially identical to total assimilation.) 5 Trigger I. Compensatory Lengthening: Typology Target (from Gess 2011) • V-trigger, V-target › L ← R /nivem/ → [neːf] “snow” (Friulian; Hualde 1990) › L → R /kasapan/ → [ksaːpan] “sand” (Macuxi; Carson 1981) • V-trigger, C-target › L ← R /luto-en/ → [lutːwen] “cook-goal focus” (Ilokano; Hayes 1989) › L → R /li-kubo/ → [kːubo] “path” (LuGanda; Clements 1986) 6 Trigger I. Compensatory Lengthening: Typology Target (from Gess 2011) • C-trigger,