Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Gurindji nasal cluster dissimilation as trigger deletion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2018

JULIET STANTON
Affiliation:
New York University
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Processes of unbounded spreading are often claimed to be myopic (e.g. Wilson 2003, McCarthy 2009): the ability of some feature [F] to spread from some segment z to some segment y does not depend on its ability to spread from y to x. Recent work (e.g. Walker 2010, 2014; Jardine 2016) has however cast doubt on the universality of this claim. This paper contributes to the discussion on (non-)myopia on by suggesting that a kind of non-myopic process, trigger deletion, is attested in Gurindji (Pama–Nyungan, McConvell 1988): when the spreading domain contains a certain kind of blocking segment, the spreading trigger deletes. In order to capture this pattern, as well as the extant typology of non-myopic processes, I argue that any successful analysis of unbounded spreading must allow surface candidates to be globally evaluated.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

For helpful feedback I am grateful to Adam Albright, Edward Flemming, Donca Steriade, Bruce Hayes, and Elliott Moreton; audiences at MIT, PhoNE 2016, 24mfm, and Universität Leipzig; three anonymous Linguistic Inquiry reviewers; and the editor (S.J. Hannahs) and anonymous reviewers at Journal of Linguistics. All errors are my own.

References

Alderete, John. 1997. Dissimilation as local conjunction. In Kusumoto, Kiyomi (ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society, vol. 27, 1732. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen F. 1976. Nasal consonants and the internal structure of segments. Language 52, 326344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beddor, Patrice S. & Onsuwan, Chutamanee. 2003. Perception of prenasalized stops. In Solé, M. J., Recasens, D. & Romero, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 407410. Bellaterra: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Bennett, Wm. G. 2015. The phonology of consonants: Harmony, dissimilation, and correspondence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benua, Laura. 1997. Transderivational identity: Phonological relations between words. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Bickmore, Lee S. & Kula, Nancy C.. 2013. Ternary spreading and the OCP in Copperbelt Bemba. Studies in African Linguistics 42, 102132.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert. 1998. Seimat vowel nasality: A typological anomaly. Oceanic Linguistics 37, 298322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blust, Robert. 2012. One mark per word? Some patterns of dissimilation in Austronesian and Australian languages. Phonology 29, 355381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butcher, Andrew. 1999. What speakers of Australian aboriginal languages do with their velums and why: The phonetics of the nasal/oral contrast. Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 479482. Berkeley, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Cohn, Abigail. 1993. A survey of the phonology of the feature [ $\pm$ nasal]. Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory, vol. 8, 141203.Google Scholar
Cole, Jennifer S. & Kisseberth, Charles W.. 1995. Nasal harmony in optimal domains theory. In Samiian, Vida & Schaeffer, Jeanette (eds.), 24th Western Conference on Linguistics, 4458. Fresno: Department of Linguistics, California State University.Google Scholar
Corbera Mori, Ángel. 2008. Aspectos da fonologia segmental Mehináku. Estudos Lingüísticos 37, 6372.Google Scholar
Diakoumakou, Evanthia. 2004. Coarticulatory vowel nasalization in Modern Greek. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Durie, Mark. 1985. A grammar of Acehnese on the basis of a dialect of north Aceh. Leiden: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Ennever, Thomas, Meakins, Felicity & Round, Erich R.. 2017. A replicable acoustic measure of lenition and the nature of variability in Gurindji stops. Laboratory Phonology 8, 132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ennever, Thomas Blake. 2014. Stop Lenition in Gurindji: An acoustic phonetic study. BA thesis, The University of Queensland.Google Scholar
Everett, Caleb. 2007. Patterns in Karitiana: Articulation, perception, and grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, Rice University.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward. 2002. Auditory representations in phonology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward. 2004. Contrast and perceptual distinctiveness. In Hayes, Bruce, Kirchner, Robert & Steriade, Donca (eds.), Phonetically-based phonology, 232276. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flemming, Edward. 2016. Blocking in nasal harmony. Class notes. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Gibson, Lorna F. 1956. Pame (Otomi) phonemics and morphophonemics. International Journal of American Linguistics 22, 242265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur. 2010. Consonant harmony: Long-distance interaction in phonology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Harrington, Jonathan. 1994. The contribution of the murmur and vowel to the place of articulation distinction in nasal consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 96, 1932.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herbert, Robert K. 1977. Phonetic analysis in phonological description: Prenasalized consonants and Meinhof’s Rule. Lingua 43, 339373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbert, Robert K. 1986. Languages universals, markedness theory, and natural phonetic processes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, David W. 1988. Urak Lawoi’: Basic structures and a dictionary (Pacific Linguistics C-109), Canberra: Linguistic Circle of Canberra.Google Scholar
Jardine, Adam. 2016. Computationally, tone is different. Phonology 33, 247283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeong, Sunwoo. 2012. Directional asymmetry in nasalization: A perceptual account. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 18, 437469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Caroline. 1994. Draft sketch grammar of Ngarinyman. Unpublished Ms., University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Jones, Caroline. 2000. Licit vs. illicit responses in Meinhof’s rule phenomena. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 37, 95103. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Jung, Ingrid. 2008. Gramática del páez o nasa yuwe: Descripción de una lengua indígena de Colombia. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Kaun, Abigail Rhoades. 1995. The typology of rounding harmony: An optimality theoretic approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California.Google Scholar
Kimper, Wendell. 2012. Harmony is Myopic: Reply to Walker 2010. Linguistic Inquiry 43, 301309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter & Maddieson, Ian. 1996. The sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford/Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mahanta, Shakuntala. 2007. Directionality and locality in vowel harmony. Ph.D. dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Mamet, M. 1960. Le Langage des Bolia (Lac Léopold ii). Musée Royal du Congo Belge: Tervuren.Google Scholar
Mascaró, Joan. 2016. Myopic harmony and nonlocal trigger-target asymmetries. Ms., Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J.2009. Harmony in harmonic serialism. (Linguistics Department Faculty Publication Series 41). Available online at http://scholarworks.umass.edu/linguist_faculty_pubs/41.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2011. Autosegmental spreading in Optimality Theory. In Goldsmith, John A., Hume, Elizabeth & Wetzels, Leo (eds.), Tones and features: Phonetic and phonological perspectives, 195222. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
McCollum, Adam G. & Essegbey, James. 2018. Unbounded harmony is not always Myopic: Evidence from Tutrugbu. In Bennett, Wm. G., Hracs, Lindsay & Storoshenko, Dennis Ryan (eds.), 35th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 35), 251258. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
McConvell, Patrick. 1988. Nasal cluster dissimilation and constraints on phonological variables in Gurundji and related languages. Aboriginal linguistics 1, 135165.Google Scholar
McConvell, Patrick. 1993. [-nasal] spreading in Gurindji and related Australian languages. Ms., Northwest Territories University.Google Scholar
Meeussen, Achille E. 1963. Meinhof’s rule in Bantu. African Language Studies 3, 2529.Google Scholar
Meinhof, Carl. 1932. Introduction to the phonology of the Bantu languages. Berlin: Deitrich Reimer.Google Scholar
Mullin, Kevin & Pater, Joe. 2015. Harmony as iterative domain parsing. Talk presented at the 23rd Manchester Phonology Meeting.Google Scholar
Nichols, Stephen. 2016. Nasal cluster dissimilation in Ngarinyman. Poster presented at the 24th Manchester Phonology Meeting.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye. 1995. Feature classes. In Beckman, Jill, Walsh-Dickey, Laura & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory (Graduate Linguistic Student Association), 385420. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe. 2009. Weighted constraints in generative linguistics. Cognitive Science 33, 9991035.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pater, Joe. 2018. Substance matters: A reply to Jardine (2016). Phonology 35, 151156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1989. Patterns of feature cooccurrence: The case of nasality. Ms., University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Douglas. 2002. Harmony drivers: No disagreement allowed. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, vol. 28, 249267.Google Scholar
Repp, Bruno H. & Svastikula, Katyanee. 1988. Perception of the [m]–[n] distinction in VC syllables. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 83, 237247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riehl, Anastasia K.2008. The phonology and phonetics of nasal obstruent sequences. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Rivas, Alberto M. 1975. Nasalization in Guaraní. In Kaisse, Ellen & Hankamer, Jorge (eds.), 5th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 5), 134143. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Linguistics Department.Google Scholar
Rose, Sharon & Walker, Rachel. 2004. A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. Language 80, 475531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, Kevin. 2017. Attenuated spreading in Sanskrit retroflex harmony. Linguistic Inquiry 48, 299340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Safir, Ken. 1982. Nasal spreading in Capanahua. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 689694.Google Scholar
Sanders, Nathan. 2003. Opacity and sound change in the Polish lexicon. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California.Google Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence C. 1973. A cross-language study of vowel nasalization. Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 15, 190221. Columbus, OH: Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Stanton, Juliet. 2017. Segmental blocking in dissimilation: An argument for co-occurrence constraints. In Jesney, Karen, O’Hara, Charlie, Smith, Caitlin & Walker, Rachel (eds.), Proceedings of the 2016 meeting on phonology. Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Stanton, Juliet. 2018a. Constraints on contrast motivate nasal cluster dissimilation. Ms., New York University.Google Scholar
Stanton, Juliet. 2018b. Environmental shielding is contrast preservation. Phonology 35, 3979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1993a. Closure, release, and nasal contours. In Huffman, Marie & Krakow, Rena (eds.), Nasals, nasalization, and the velum, 401470. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1993b. Orality and markedness. 19th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Semantic Typology and Semantic Universals, 334347. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1997. Phonetics in phonology: The case of Laryngeal neutralization. Ms., University of California.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 2016. ATB-shifts and ATB-blockage in vocalic plateaus. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Storto, Luciana. 1999. Aspects of a Karitiana grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Suomi, Kari. 1983. Palatal harmony: A perceptually motivated phenomenon? Nordic Journal of Linguistics 6, 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Keiichiro. 1998. A typological investigation of dissimilation. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Trail, Robert L. 1970. The grammar of Lamani. Norman, OK: Summer Institute Linguistics Publication No. 24, University of Oklahoma.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1981. The Djaru language of Kimberley, Western Australia. Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Walker, Rachel. 2005. Weak triggers in vowel harmony. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23, 917989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Rachel. 2010. Nonmyopic harmony and the nature of derivations. Linguistic Inquiry 41, 169179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Rachel. 2014. Nonlocal trigger-target relations. Linguistic Inquiry 45, 501523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Rachel, Byrd, Dani & Mpiranya, Fidèle. 2008. An articulatory view of Kinyarwanda coronal harmony. Phonology 25, 499535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walker, Rachel & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 1999. Possible and impossible segments. Language 75, 764780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Rachel Leah. 1998. Nasalization, neutral segments and opacity effects. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Welmers, William E. 1962. The phonology of Kpelle. Journal of African Languages 1, 6993.Google Scholar
Wilson, Colin. 2003. Analyzing unbounded spreading with constraints: Marks, targets, and derivations. Ms., University of California.Google Scholar
Wonderly, William. 1951. Zoque I, II, III, IV. International Journal of American Linguistics 17, 19; 105–123, 137–162, 235–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zymet, Jesse. 2014. Distance-based decay in long-distance phonological processes: A probabilistic model for Malagasy, Latin, English, and Hungarian. MA thesis, University of California.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 15
Total number of PDF views: 159 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 09th November 2018 - 26th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-898fc554b-t2lmn Total loading time: 0.322 Render date: 2021-01-26T15:21:43.237Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Gurindji nasal cluster dissimilation as trigger deletion
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Gurindji nasal cluster dissimilation as trigger deletion
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Gurindji nasal cluster dissimilation as trigger deletion
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *