Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T06:01:46.100Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Epenthesis, Geminates, and the OCP in Finnish1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2010

Heli Harrikari
Heli Harrikari
Affiliation:
Department of General Linguistics, P. O. Box 4 (Keskuskatu 8), FIN-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland. E-mail: harrikar@ling.helsinki.fi
Get access

Abstract

This study re-evaluates the representation of phonological length in Finnish in the light of Optimality Theory. The Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP) prohibits sequences of identical elements. It follows that long segments cannot be represented as sequences of two short segments, but must be interpreted monosegmentally (i.e. non-linearly). In Finnish, long segments have been traditionally represented bisegmentally, consequently violating the OCP. There are, however, phenomena in Finnish, such as dialectal epenthesis, which pattern long consonants with short ones rather than with bisegmental consonant clusters. This study provides an Optimality Theoretic analysis for dialectal epenthesis, and shows that the analysis predicts that monosegmental representation is the optimal way of representing long consonants in Finnish as well.

Type
Review Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , June 1999 , pp. 3 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alderete, J. 1995. Faithfulness to Prosodic Heads. Ms. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. ROA–94, Rutgers Optimality Archive, http:// ruccs.rutgers.edu/roa.html.Google Scholar
Gibson, C., Ringen, C. O. 1998. Icelandic Umlaut in Optimality Theory. Handout distributed at the 10th Conference of Nordic and General Linguistics, Reykjavík, Iceland.Google Scholar
HarmsR, T. R, T. 1976. The Segmentalization of Finnish “Nonrules”. In Harms, R. T. & Karttunen, F. (eds), Papers from the Transatlantic Finnish Conference. Texas Linguistic Forum 5. Austin: University of Texas, 73–88.Google Scholar
Harrikari, H. 1998. At-will Spoonerisms and Vowel Length in Finnish. Prepublications and Internal Communications 3. Helsinki: Department of General Linguistics, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Harrikari, H. (forthcoming). A Synchronic Account of Dialectal Gemination in Finnish. Ms. University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. 1986a. Assimilation as Spreading in Toba Batak. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 467–500.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. 1986b. Inalterability in CV Phonology. Language 62, 321–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, B. 1995. Metrical Stress Theory. Principles and Case Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hewitt, M. 1994. Deconstructing Foot Binarity in Koniaq Alutiig. Ms. University of British Columbia. ROA–12, Rutgers Optimality Archive, http:// raccs.ratgers.edu/roa.html.Google Scholar
Holman, E. 1976. A Non-segmental Phonological Process in Finnish: the Functional Unity of Coda Lengthening and Gemination. In Karlsson, F. (ed), Papers from the Third Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. Text Linguistics Research Group, Turku, 189–202.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. M. 1985. A Theory of Phonological Weight. Publications in Language Sciences 19. Dordrecht/Providence: Foils Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iivonen, A. 1978. Suomen kvantiteettidikotomiasta ja keston funktionaalisesta käytöstä. Teoksessa Alhoniemi, A. (toim.), Rakenteita. Juhlakirja Osmo Ikolan 60-vuotispaivaksi. Turan yliopiston suomen kielen ja yleisen kielitieteen laitoksen julkaisuja, no. 6. [Quantity Dichotomy and Functions of Quantity in Finnish. In Alhoniemi, A. (ed), Structures. For Osmo Ikola's 60th Birthday. Publications of the Department of Finnish Language and Linguistics, 6. University of Turku].Google Scholar
Inkelas, S., Cho, Y. -M. Y. 1993. Inalterability as Prespecification. Language 69, 529–574. Itô, J. 1986. Syllable Theory in Prosodic Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. New York: Garland Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Itô, J. 1989. A Prosodic Theory of Epenthesis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7, 217–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itô, J., Mester, A., Padgett, J. 1995. Licensing and Underspecification in Optimality Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 26, 571–613.Google Scholar
Kager, R. 1994. Alignment and Ternary Stress. Ms. Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Karlsson, F. 1969. Suomen yleiskielen segmentaalifoneemien paradigma. [Paradigm of Segmental Phonemes in Standard Finnish.] Virittäjä 73, 351–361.Google Scholar
Karlsson, F. 1983. Suomen kielen äänne- ja muotorakenne. [The Structure of Finnish Phonology and Morphology]. Juva: WSOY.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, M. 1982. Gemination and Spirantization in Tigrinya. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 12, 103–122.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, M. 1994. Phonology in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kettunen, L. 1940a. Suomen murteet IIIa. Murrekartasto. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. [Finnish Dialects IIIa. Dialect Atlas. Finnish Literature Society].Google Scholar
Kettunen, L. 1940b. Suomen murteet IIIb. Selityksiä murrekartastoon. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura 188. [Finnish Dialects IIIb. Explanations for the Dialect Atlas. Finnish Literature Society 188.]Google Scholar
Kirchner, R. 1998. Geminate Inalterability and Lenition. Ms. UCLA. ROA–249, Rutgers Optimality Archive, http:// raccs.ratgers.edu/roa.html.Google Scholar
Laver, J. 1994. Principles of Phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leben, W. R. 1973. Suprasegmental Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Leben, W. R. 1980. A Metrical Analysis of Length. Linguistic Inquiry 11, 497–509.Google Scholar
Lehiste, I. 1970. Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lehtonen, J. 1970. Aspects of Quantity in Standard Finnish. Studia Philologica Jyväskyläensia VI. Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. 1986. OCP Effects: Gemination and Antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 207–264.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (forthcoming). Morpheme Structure Constraints and Paradigm Occultation. Ms. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. In Gruber, M. C., Higgins, D., Olson, K. & Wysocki, T. (eds), CLS 32, Vol. II: The Panels. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J., Prince, A. 1993. Prosodic Morphology I: Constrain Interaction and Satisfaction. Ms. University of Massachusetts, Amherst and Rutgers University.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J., Prince, A. 1995. Faithfulness and Reduplicative Identity. In Beckman, J., Walsh Dickey, L. & Urbanczyk, S. (eds), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst, MA: GLSA. Also ROA–60, Rutgers Optimality Archive, http:// ruccs.rutgers.edu/roa.html.Google Scholar
McCartney, S. 1998. Finnish Stress in Optimality Theory. Ms. University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Prince, A. 1984. Phonology with Tiers. In Aronoff, M. & Oerhle, R. (eds), Language Sound Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 234–244.Google Scholar
Prince, A., Smolensky, P. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Ms. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, and University of Colorado, Boulder, RuCCS-TR-2. Forthcoming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schein, B., Steriade, D. 1986. On Geminates. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 691–744.Google Scholar
Sovijärvi, A. 1937. Foneettisia havaintoja Toraionjoen ja Pohjanmaan murteiden svaavokaaleista. [Phonetic Observations on Schwa in the Tornionjoki and the Ostrobothnian Dialects.] Suomi 5.19, 1–29.Google Scholar
Suomi, K. 1990. Huomioita yleiskielen konsonanttien yhdistelyrajoituksista ja pohjalaismurteiden epenteettisestä vokaalista. [Observations on Restrictions on Consonant Combinations in Standard Finnish and on Epenthetic Vowels in the Ostrobothnian Dialects.] Virittäjä 94, 139–160.Google Scholar
Wiik, K. 1965. Finnish and English Vowels. Turku: Publications of University of Turku, B: 94.Google Scholar