UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Similarity in Phonology: Evidence from Reduplication and Loan Adaptation A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics by Heidi Anne Fleischhacker 2005 The dissertation of Heidi Anne Fleischhacker is approved. __________________________________________ Patricia Keating __________________________________________ Donka Minkova __________________________________________ Colin Wilson __________________________________________ Donca Steriade, Committee Co-chair __________________________________________ Bruce Hayes, Committee Co-chair University of California, Los Angeles 2005 ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First I thank my committee members, Pat Keating, Donka Minkova, Donca Steriade, Colin Wilson, and especially Bruce Hayes. Their insights and guidance shaped this work from beginning to end, and I owe much of what I'm proud of in this dissertation to them. I will always be grateful to them for giving so generously of their time and energy, and for all that I learned from them. It should be noted that the dissertation was largely completed by 2003, and revised slightly before it was filed in 2005. In the interim, my committee members made many helpful comments, both substantive and stylistic, and gave me useful references to newer work; regrettably, much of that is not reflected here. Special thanks also to Ellen Broselow, whose work on s + stop clusters was the foundation for the project undertaken here. My copy of her 1992 paper on the structure of fricative + stop onsets is ragged with wear; I seem to learn something new every time I read it. I owe a large debt to Keith Johnson, who offered his time, facilities, and expertise in collecting the experimental data reported in Chapter 4. Thanks also to the Ohio State University undergraduates who participated in those experiments. Thanks as well to Arnold and Elizabeth Zwicky, for allowing me to use their collection of imperfect puns, now archived at the Western Historical Manuscript Collection. iii I was supported during my graduate career by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship, a UCLA Research Mentorship (with Donca Steriade), and a UCLA Chancellor's Dissertation Fellowship. I'm deeply grateful for that. I had many wonderful professors at UCLA, but I would especially like to thank Sun-Ah Jun, Pam Monroe, Dominique Sportiche, and Tim Stowell. Thanks also to my classmates, especially Adam Albright, Heriberto Avelino, Leston Buell, Ivano Caponigro, Taehong Cho, Sahyang Kim, Jason Riggle, Shabnam Shademan, Harold Torrence, Jie Zhang, and Kie Zuraw, for making my time at UCLA so enjoyable. I also owe a great deal to the staff of the UCLA Linguistics Department, past and present, for their assistance with all kinds of administrative matters. Thanks finally to my family, for giving me their unstinting support and encouragement throughout my graduate career. And a special thank you to my husband, Alex MacBride, without whom this would not have happened. And to Barkley, who knows his contribution. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: Introduction..................................................................................................... 1 1. Overview of the dissertation ........................................................................................... 1 2. Structure of the dissertation ............................................................................................ 7 CHAPTER 2: Reduplicative Onset Transfer.......................................................................... 8 1. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 8 2. Restricted skipping........................................................................................................ 11 2.1. Sufficient copy....................................................................................................... 11 2.2. Selective copy ........................................................................................................ 15 3. Cluster-blind simplification .......................................................................................... 18 3.1. Sonority-based simplification ................................................................................ 18 3.2. Leftmost copy ........................................................................................................ 20 3.3. Rightmost copy ...................................................................................................... 21 3.3.1. Nuxalk (Bella Coola) ...................................................................................... 22 3.3.2. Potential rightmost copy cases........................................................................ 24 4. Summary....................................................................................................................... 27 CHAPTER 3: Cluster Resolution in Loanword Adaptation................................................. 30 1. Introduction................................................................................................................... 30 2. Asymmetrical cluster resolution ................................................................................... 33 2.1. Restricted skipping................................................................................................. 34 2.2. Restricted intrusion ................................................................................................ 39 2.2.1. Canonical anaptyxis-prothesis asymmetry ..................................................... 40 2.2.2. Variable behavior of SR clusters .................................................................... 42 2.2.3. Evidence for the behavior of non-OR clusters other than /s/ + stop............... 46 3. Symmetrical cluster resolution ..................................................................................... 50 3.1. Cluster-blind consonant deletion ........................................................................... 50 3.1.1. Sonority-based cluster simplification ............................................................. 51 3.1.2. Rightmost-oriented deletion............................................................................ 52 3.2. Cluster-blind vowel epenthesis.............................................................................. 53 3.2.1. Symmetrical anaptyxis.................................................................................... 54 3.2.2. Symmetrical prothesis..................................................................................... 55 4. Repair of only one cluster type ..................................................................................... 56 4.1. Repair of obstruent + sonorant clusters only ......................................................... 57 4.2. Repair of sibilant + stop clusters only ................................................................... 60 4.2.1. Vowel epenthesis ............................................................................................ 60 4.2.2. Consonant deletion.......................................................................................... 62 5. Summary....................................................................................................................... 65 v CHAPTER 4: Similarity Evidence....................................................................................... 70 1. Introduction................................................................................................................... 70 2. Consonant deletion........................................................................................................ 74 2.1. Alliteration ............................................................................................................. 74 2.1.1. Germanic alliteration ...................................................................................... 74 2.1.2. Irish alliteration............................................................................................... 76 2.1.3. Middle English alliteration ............................................................................. 77 2.2. Summary: alliteration............................................................................................. 79 2.3. English imperfect puns .......................................................................................... 80 2.3.1. Constructing the pun corpus ........................................................................... 81 2.3.2. Analysis of the pun corpus.............................................................................. 84 2.4. Experimental evidence: discrimination task .......................................................... 90 2.4.1. Method ............................................................................................................ 91 2.4.2. Results............................................................................................................. 94 2.5. Summary of evidence regarding consonant deletion........................................... 105 3. Similarity and vowel insertion.................................................................................... 106 3.1. English imperfect puns ........................................................................................ 106 3.1.1. Results of pun corpus analysis.....................................................................