2.0 The cross-linguistic patterning of glottal stop In this chapter, I present data demonstrating that glottal stop tends to be distinguished from other consonants in a wide range of languages. The data discussed here show that the laryngeal and supralaryngeal consonants pattern asymmetrically in a number of respects, including feature spreading and transparency, hiatus resolution, and consonant cluster simplification, among others. The goal of this dissertation will ultimately be to discover the unifying factor that accounts for why glottal stop so consistently behaves differently than other consonants. Throughout this dissertation I present data from the patterning of [h] in parallel with that of glottal stop where possible in order to illustrate the fact that [h] and glottal stop are often treated as a class distinct from the supralaryngeal consonants. However, certain languages make distinctions even among the laryngeal consonants themselves, and thus no generalization holding of glottal stop necessarily holds of [h] as well. This chapter is organized as follows: section 2.1 presents data from laryngeal transparency, showing that glottal stop tends to be transparent to spreading cross- linguistically, in contrast to the supralaryngeal consonants, which block spreading. Section 2.2 presents data from languages that require all vowels flanking laryngeals to be identical (required identity-across-glottals languages). This pattern bears a surface similarity to the translaryngeal harmony data discussed above, but differs in that feature spreading is not the only way that an offending VxVy is repaired; languages exhibiting this requirement can also satisfy it through such means as deletion of the glottal stop. Section 2.3 goes on to discuss another pattern exhibited by languages with intervocalic glottal stop: a tendency for hiatus resolution-like processes to occur across glottal stop despite the presence of the intervening glottal stop. In this phenomenon, which I refer to henceforth as hiatus resolution-across-glottals, the same repair strategies employed in VV sequences are also employed in VV sequences. This pattern presents a challenge to traditional OT approaches to hiatus resolution, which claim that the motivation for repair is the need for every syllable to have an onset. Section 2.3 discusses the fact many languages avoid glottal stop in onset position, with some syllabifying intervocalic glottal stop as a coda. These data seem to support the position that glottal stop is a poor onset (which fits in with its failure to block hiatus), but a good coda. However, data presented in section 2.4 suggest that glottal stop is not a particularly good coda either: first, some languages avoid glottal codas (e.g. English, Arabic). Second, in many languages underlying sequences with glottal stop surface as non-sequential. Phenomena discussed in this section include vowel intrusion (VxC Æ VxVxC) and C coalescence (C Æ C’). These patterns are analyzed as a reorganization of the gestures in the V and C sequence from sequentiality to simultaneity, a process that further supports the suggestion that sequential timing is not a possibility for glottal stop. Languages discussed in this chapter include Sundanese (Malayo-Polynesian), St’at’imcets (Lillooet; Salish), Yucatec Maya (Mayan), Nez Perce (Penutian), Yatzachi 19 Zapotec (Otomanguean), Chemehuevi (Uto-Aztecan), Wichita (Caddoan), Yapese (Malayo-Polynesian), Makassarese (Malayo-Polynesian), Chamicuro (Arawakan), Kekchi (Mayan), Arbore (Cushitic), Tukang Besi (Malayo-Polyneisan), Kashaya (Pomoan) and Yurok (Algic). 2.1 Transparency of glottal stop One of the best known ways in which glottal stop tends to be distinguished from the supralaryngeal consonants cross-linguistically is in its transparency to spreading. Whereas oral consonants often block the spreading of vocalic features, glottal stop commonly allows vocalic features to propagate across it. Steriade (1987) gives a detailed discussion of translaryngeal harmony and presents data from a number of languages in which vocalic place features (e.g. height, backness) spread freely across an intervening laryngeal consonant, but do not spread across supralaryngeal consonants. Below I present data from two languages discussed in Steriade 1987 in order to illustrate the laryngeal transparency facts. In Chemehuevi (Uto-Aztecan), phonotactic restrictions on vowel sequences result in the pattern that only a subset of possible underlying vowel sequences will surface into the output. Sequences that are realized faithfully are those that end in [a] or [i], and the 1 sequences [a], and [au]. When two vowels are input-adjacent due to morpheme concatenation, the result is rightwards spreading of the features of one vowel onto the other if the faithful sequence is ruled out by phonotactic restrictions:2,3 (1) Chemehuevi a. /kani-upaa/ [kani-ipa] ‘in the house’ b. /ma-upaa/ [ma-upa] ‘in that’ c. /tka-v-uka / [tika-v-ka] ‘ate it’ (Press 1979, Steriade 1987) 1 The Chemehuevi inventory of allowed vowel sequences is apparently constrained by sonority; first, vowel sequences are allowed if they begin in the least sonorous vowel ([i]), or the most sonorous vowel ([a]), presumably because of the need for diphthongs to exhibit a steep sonority contour. The [i, u] final sequences also show a preference for diphthongs with falling sonority, a tendency that is common cross- linguistically (Rosenthall 1994, 1997). 2 Examples (1a,b) also exhibit shortening of the final vowel of the underlying morpheme /upaa/ ‘in’. This is an instantiation of a general pattern in which all word final vocalic morae are deleted, resulting here in shortening of the underlying long vowel. When the word ends in a short vowel, the result is deletion of the entire vowel (e.g. /pac/ Æ [pac] ‘daughter’; Press 1979, p. 26). 3 Press (1979) does not provide explicit evidence regarding the treatment of underlying VxhVy sequences; much of the data is presented in its surface form along. However, a survey of the forms she provides shows that the only VhV sequence that surface are those that conform to the pattern exhibited by VV sequences. 20 Similar phonotactic restrictions hold of the vowels flanking laryngeal consonants in Chemehuevi; if a sequence of vowels is not possible when strictly adjacent, it is also not possible when a glottal stop intervenes. In the case of a disallowed V1V2 sequence, the result is progressive spreading of V1 onto V2. The examples in (2) illustrate this pattern: (2) Chemehuevi a. /nukwijumi/ Æ [nukwijmi] ‘run (pl.)’ b. /vjuni/ Æ [vjuni] / *[vjni] ‘ill/bad’ c. /kacu-a-ra-um/ Æ [kacuaraum] ‘aren’t they?’ (Press 1979, Steriade 1987) Note that no spreading occurs if the vowels are separated by a supralaryngeal consonant, as in the [ju] sequence in vjuni in (2b), even though the vowel sequence /u/ is repaired in VV (c.f. (2a)). Thus, in Chemehuevi, only glottal stop is transparent to vocalic spreading. Moreover, the fact that this process only applies to VV sequences that correspond to the illegal VV sequences in Chemehuevi is shown in (2c); the [au] sequence in kacuaraum does not undergo coalescence (compare (2c) to (1b)). Another example of a language in which there is productive spreading of vocalic features across an intervening glottal stop comes from Arbore (Cushitic). In Arbore, both [] and [h] are transparent to spreading. As in Chemehuevi, translaryngeal harmony is only exhibited for a subset of underlying V(/h)V sequences; /e(/h)a/, /e(/h)o/, /e(/h)i/ and /a(/h)i/. In the case of Arbore, translaryngeal spreading is either progressive or regressive depending on the vocalic context, as shown in (3) below:4 (3) Arbore a. /ea/ Æ [ee], /eha/ Æ [ehe] /gere-a/ Æ [geree] ‘it is a belly’ /yibeh-a/ Æ [yibeh-e] ‘it is a hippopotamus’ b. /eo/ Æ [oo], /eho/ Æ [oho] /ma de-o/ Æ [ma do-o] ‘he is not throwing’ /ma beh-o/ Æ [ma boh-o] ‘he is not going out’ c. /ei/ Æ [ii], /ehi/ Æ [ihi] /amma de-i/ Æ [amma dii] ‘I did not belch’ /ma beh-i/ Æ [ma bih-i] ‘he did not go out’ 4 One possible explanation for why regressive spreading occurs in all VV sequences with the exception of /e,ha/ is that under coalescence Arbore preserves the least sonorous vowel. This approach would force us to consider /o/ to be less sonorous than /e/ in order to account for its preservation in /e,ho/. 21 d. /ai/ Æ [ii], /ahi/ Æ [ihi] /ma zah-i/ Æ [ma zihi] ‘don’t die!’ (Hayward 1984, Steriade 1987) The data in (3) show that while laryngeal consonants allow spreading of vocalic features across them, supralaryngeal consonants do not (compare /ei/ Æ [ei] / *[ii] ‘goats and sheep’ to /beh-i/ Æ [bihi], (3c)). Other languages discussed by Steriade (1987) as exhibiting similar patterns of translaryngeal harmony include Acoma (Keres; Miller 1965), Nez Perce (Penutian; (Aoki 1970)), Yapese (Austronesian; Jensen 1977), Kekchi (Mayan; Campbell 1974), Tojolabal (Mayan; Furbee-Losee 1976) and Mohawk (Iroquoian; Postal 1969), among others. I will return to discuss the details of a number of these languages, in particular Acoma, Nez Perce, Kekchi and Mohawk, in sections 2.2-5 as we begin to classify types of translaryngeal harmony in an attempt to understand the motivations for spreading and glottal stop’s participation in it. The data discussed in Steriade 1987 regarding translaryngeal harmony address only those cases of laryngeal transparency in which every feature of one vowel in the VV sequence spreads onto the other vowel in the sequence. However, there are languages in which we can observe spreading of single features of consonants and vowels through the glottal stop. In the remainder of this sub-section, I present data from partial feature spread across an intervening laryngeal. I begin with the spreading of nasality to demonstrate the tendency for glottal stop to be transparent cross-linguistically. Consider the nasal spreading data from Sundanese presented in (4) from Cohn (1993).