24.961 Harmony-2
[1] Autosegmental models: a multiply-linked feature represents simultaneity in time; same
assumption for domain theories like McCarthy’s Spans; Cole & Kisseberth’s Optimal Domains
•
Neutral/transparent vowels are a serious challenge since it appears that a feature has
spread across a segment that could potentially bear it: a “gapped” structure (Archangeli
& Pulleyblank 1994) Finnish
kodi-kas
\ /
[+back]
[-back]
[2] One response
•
The contradiction is only apparent (Gafos 1996); the harmonic feature is just not audibly
salient on a vowel or non-contrastive obstruent in sibilant harmony like Chumash (1982)
•
k-sunon-us
‘I obey him’
s-ixut
‘it burns’
k-ʂunot-ʂ
‘I am obedient’
ʂ-ilakʂ ‘it is soft’
Challenged by various phonetic studies as a general solution to transparent segments
(Beddor & Yavuz 1995 for Turkish, Walker 1998 for Guarani, Przezdziecki 2006 for
Yoruba; cf. Benus & Gafos 2007 for Hungarian)
•
Alternative Syntagmatic Correspondence relations proposed by Rose & Walker (2004)
[3] Consonant Harmony vs. Vowel Harmony
•
consonant harmony has fewer blocking segments than vowel harmony
Kikongo: suffixes with /l/ become [n] when root contains a nasal consonant; any other
consonant or vowel may intervene (including a prenasal)
m-bud-idi
‘I hit’
tu-kun-ini
‘we planted’
n-suk-idi
‘I washed’
tu-nik-ini
‘we grounded
sos-ele
‘searched for’
leem-ene
‘shown’
sakid-ila
‘congratulate for’
ku-dumuk-ina
‘to jump for’
bantik-idi
•
‘begun’
tu-mant-ini
‘we climbed’
similarity effect: segments that harmonize are ones that are most similar to the trigger:
in Kikongo voiced stops but not voiceless ones assimilate nasality; compare nasal
spreading in Malay that affects vowels and glides or in Ijo that spreads nasal leftwards
1
from a nasal consonant or vowel but is blocked by obstruents: izõŋgo ‘jug’, abãmu ‘loft’,
j ̃ãrĩ̃ ‘shake’
[4] Hansson (2001) and Rose & Walker (2004) propose a syntagmatic correspondence constraint
based on shared features (similarity); long distance consonant harmony arises from imposing an
Ident-[F] on corresponding segments in this syntagmatic relation, termed Agreement-byCorrespondence (ABC)
•
Corr C<->C: Let S be an output string of segments and Ci, Cj be segments that share a
specified set of features F. If Ci, Cj are in S then Ci is in the Corr relation with Cj and thus
Ci and Cj are correspondents of one another
•
A hierarchy of correspondence based on similarity (for nasality):
Corr T<->T » Corr T <->D » Corr K<->T » Corr K<->D
Identical stops
•
same place
same voicing
any pair of oral stops
A TYPOLOGYOF CONSONANT AGREEMENTAS CORRESPONDENCE
509
for coronal anterior harmony shared continuancy makes two sibilants more similar than
stop andthe
a fricative
tionalitybyaincluding
left/righttargetedge in theirstatement(examplesfor harmonies involving
consonants
include
& Kisseberth
1996,that dominates inputPadgett 1995a, Gafos
• harmony arises fromCole
an Ident-[F]
over1995,
the corresponding
segments
Nif Chiosaiin& Padgett 1997, cf. Walker 1998). Likewise, in rule-basedapproaches,
output
faithfulness
the direction
is incorporated
into the rule's description(e.g. Poser 1982, Shaw 1991,
In
the
constraintscompel agreementbetween
Odden 1994).
ABC approach,IDENT-CC
and
it
is
here
that
we
locate
the
consonants,
directionalitystatement.33
In Kikongo, the rightward direction of nasal agreement indicates that IDENTis always obeyed
Since IDENT-CLCR
CLCR(nas)is prioritizedabove IDENT-CRCL(nas).
in
we
locate
this constraint
the
consonants
that
nasal
by
participate Kikongo
agreement,
will become apparent
at the top of the hierarchy.The dominatedstatus of IDENT-CRCL
when we examine forms in which an oral voiced stop or approximantconsonantprecedes a nasal in a stem.
Rose,
and the
Rachel Walker. “A Typology of Consonant
Agreement
as Correspondence.” Language 80 (2004):
with respect
to IDENT-CLCR(nas)
we Sharon,
determine
First,
rankingof IDENT-OI(nas)
475-531. © Linguistic Society of America. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons
In Kikongo, any voiced stop becomes nasal
and the
nasal correspondence
hierarchy.
license. For
more information,
see http://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use/.
if precededby a nasal in the stem. This signals that CORR-N+-Band IDENT-CLCR(nas)
• in a language with anterior harmony between affricated stops and fricatives Ident-IO
as shown in 52. The winning candidatein 52a estabtogetheroutrankIDENT-OI(nas),
would slipbetween
below Corr
t<->ʃ
so underlying
/talak-ʃ/
become
nasal- /talak-s/
lishes correspondence
the nasal
and suffix
and theywould
consonant,
agree for
In
violation
the
do
not
a
fatal
CORR-N4-B,
of
52b,
ity.34 • analysis
stops
correspond,
incurring
of Kikongo
(prenasalized
stops are not in the correspondence relation nor are
and in 52c the stops correspondbut do not agree in nasality, an outcome ruled out by
prefixal segments)
IDENT-CLCR(nas).
>> IDENT-OI(nas)
(52) IDENT-CLCR(nas),
CORR-N--B
/sim-idi/
ID-CLCR(nas)
CORR-N"-D
CORR-N<-B
ID-OI(nas)
a. a7 simxinxi
b. simxidyi
c.
simxidxi
I
,
Rose, Sharon, and Rachel Walker. “A Typology of Consonant Agreement as Correspondence.” Language 80 (2004):
as well.from
We our Creative Commons
This
is captured
below
CORR-N+-L
475-531.
© Linguistic
Society
of America.
All rights reserved.
This
content is excluded
IDENT-OI(nas)
by situating
agreement.
information,
see http://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use/.
in
the
nasal
locatelicense. For moreand
CORR-N4-B
correspondencehierarchy,as
together
CORR-N+--L
is
their similarity
are
close.
The
outcome
illustratedin 53. Candidates
rankings
very
faithful
candidate
b violates
the /1/
constraint
defining
the syntagmatic
and faithful
in the output,
on the correspondence
basis of
53b
and 53c,
which do
not nasalize
are eliminated
CORR-N4-4L
and IDENT-CC(nas),
respectively.35
c obeys correspondence
but violates
the constraint requiring identity for [nasal]; IO faithfulness
for the root or Max-[nasal] > Dep-[nasal] blocks denasalization candidate sib -idxi
3"Compare another kind of approachin which apparentdirectionalityeffects seen in certain kinds of x
assimilation are accomplished via positional faithfulness constraintswithout statementof direction (e.g.
Padgett 1995c, Beckman 1997, 1998, Lombardi1999, Walker 2001b).
34 Whetherwe posit /1/ or /d/ as the input suffix consonant does not figure here. Either way, it will be
realized as [d] before [i] if oral, which we attributeto a contextual markednessconstraintthat we refer to
2
VOLUME
3 (2004)
LANGUAGE,
80,NUMBER
> IDENT-OI(nas)
(53)
CORR-N+--L
VOLUME 80, NUMBER 3 (2004)
LANGUAGE,
/nik-ulu/
ID-CLCR(nas) CORR-N*-4D CORR-N"-B
ID-OI(nas)
CORR-N--L
agreement between nasal and voiced oral stop pairs is similarly
*
a. agrn,ikun,u
ranking:IDENT-OI(nas)
>> CORR-N-~D.
to notice about the constraintrankingfor Ngbaka is that IDENTb.
nikulyu
between the CORR-C+-Cconstraintsrequiringcorrespondencebeand the ones that enforce correspondencebec.
nikulu
stops *!
nasal/prenasal
Rose,
Sharon,
and
Rachel
Walker.
“A Typology
of Consonant
Agreement
Correspondence.” Language 80 (2004):
nasal/voiced
oral stop
heterorganic nasal/prenasal stops and
pairs.asIDENT475-531.
© Linguistic
Society of America.
All rights
reserved.
This content
is excluded from our
Creative Commons
in
in
Observe
that
the
voiceless
53
does
not
nasal
unstands
which
nasal
between
participate
agreement.This
promotes
identity stop corresponding
segments,
license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use/.
follows from its lack of similarity to the nasal: the nasal and oiceless stop are not
is not in a
in Kikongo,
and hence
similar
sufficiently
agreement
provoke
correspondence
IO
faithfulness
for to
nasality
slips
below the constraint
placing
nasals
and liquids
AND HETERORGANIC
AGREEMENT.
We these
turn our
attention
now
NASAL
in to
between them.
in which
consonants
are
enforced
Candidates
correspondence
correspondence
tonasals
nasalization
of liquids
bya the
remaining
constraints but a
where
holdsleading
between
and voiced
oral
both
agreement
stops,
incurs
violation
arenasal
screened
out relation
constraints:
gratuitous
by faithfulness
A TYPOLOGY
OF CONSONANT AGREEMENT
AS
CORRESPONDENCE
511
[nxirlxunxu]
and
consonants
also
are
First,
heterorganic
Approximant
voiceless
stop ispairs.
too
with nasalwith
andrespect
so is not
placed in the correspondence
relation
totargeted.
anddissimilar
likewise
of IDENT-OI(nas),
IDENT-CC(nas).
Correspon[nxikxunxu]
in order.
As the in
does not when
include prenasal
Kikongo
inventory
denceare
between
consonants
the output
thus occurs
only
compelledby similarity(54) constraints
IDENT-CLCR(nas)
IDENT-OI(nas)
IDENT-CRCL(nas)
are not
we
relevance here, so
involving
prenasals
>> of
of voiceless
consonants
driven
the >>
constraints,and
(and vowels and voiced
neutrality
constraintsfrom
tableaux.
We
also
and
CORRomit
Kikongo
CORR-N+--N
follows
fricatives)
straightforwardly.
CORRCORR/ku-dumuk-ila/
ID-CRCL
ID-CLCR i CORRdo notID-OI
these
constraints
redundantnasal agreement
and
only
play
word produces
The
tableau inproduce
54 addresses
Nasal
N<->L in this
agreement
(nas)
(nas)
(nas) directionality.
N-*D
i
in the alternations
examine.
N--Bleaves the oral
in the we
nasalization
quality of the /d/ to
1/ to the right of the nasal but
nasal
shows rightwardidirectionality, as exemplified in /ku**
agreement
a. ag
its left
intact.
The
resulting output sequence obeys IDENT-CLCR(nas),which requires
kudxumxukinxa
-- [kudumukina]
that
We
directional
*[kunumukina].
agreement
propose
that correspondingconsonants following a nasal be specified [nasal], but it violates
*
b.
kunumukina
an evaluation
of faithfulness
sensitiveato the left/rightdimension
(i.e. prececonsonants
which requires
IDENT-CRCL(nas),
[nasal] specification in corresponding
constraints
that
versus regressive
agreement
distinguish
progressive
that
a
nasal.
It
is
the
between
these
constraints
of
IDENT-OI(nas)
preceding
interleaving
c.
*
*!*
kunxumxukilya
51.achieves
thatif a segmentis [nasal],any correspondent
IDENT-CLCR(nas)
requires
unidirectional
over IDENT-OI(nas)
rankingof IDENT-CLCR(nas)
agreement.The
in the sequence of segments must
to its RIGHT
also bein[nasal]. IDENT**
d.
kudumukinanasal agreementin the
compels
comparison
rightward
* of 54a and 54e.
! /1/, as evident
for
in
the
leftward
direction.
Unidirectional
agree- to 54b, both
responsible
agreement
In 54a, as opposed
The one-way directionalityis seen in 54a versus 54b,c.
of
under
* these constraints.Prioritizationof IDENT*
asymmetrical
rankings
e.
candidates
establish
kudumxukila
obey
correspondencebetween all threevoiced consonantsandboth
as
in
and
dominance
of
feature
agreement,
progressive
Kikongo,
But the leftward agreementaffecting the first voiced consonant in
IDENT-CLCR(nas).
f.
results
inaregressive
as in Kinyarwanda
*(!) sibilant
*) this
agreement
agreement,
54b
incurs
fatal violation
Even
candidatefares better
of “A
IDENT-OI(nas).
ud,umxukila
Rose,that
Sharon,
and Rachel
Walker.
Typology of Consonantthough
Agreement
as Correspondence.” Language 80 (2004):
th
sensitive
constraints
nondirectional
left/right
together
replace
posit
is
with
and
to
this
constraint
dominated
IDENT-CRCL(nas),
respect
by
475-531.
© Linguistic
Society of America.
All rights
reserved.
This devoice
content isIDENT-OI(nas),
excluded
from our
Creative Commons
in Kikongo,
NCs
Aouniversal
n. 2) points
a voiceless
that nasals
(1991:195,
Inout
in
CON
set of
where
therebefore
is54a
noand
constraints).
(the
Ngbaka,
hence
faithful
of
the
leftward
is
favored.
Candidates
54c
incur
license.aFor
more information,
see
http://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use/.
/d/
mapping
agreement,
in
but
not
C
nkosi
normal
rate
'lion'),
word-initially
(e.g.
word-medially
speech
(e.g.
while
54a
violations
with respect
toboth
but
54c
violates
nasal
constraints
are
situated
at tCORR-N+-L
same
unidirectional
IDENT-OI(nas),
equal
He
this
difference
to the
different
roles
the
nasals.
zinkosi
'lions').
Since
there
are
noattributes
headed-domains
in ABC,
directionality
must
be of
built
into
the constraints
syllabic
for
constraints
and
likewise
the
relevant
IDENT-CC(F)
hierarchy,
laryngeal
thus
CORRit.
Nasalization
of
the
first
voiced
consonant
is
again
suboptimal.
obeys
Word-initial
to
NCs
are
as
Note
that
with
analyzed
tautosyllabic
sequences.
respect
andchanging
Bolivian
Aymara.
the segments
in out
the candidates
correspondence
relation:
note that a > b in (54).
constraints
also rule
54d and
54f.
neutrality,
C+--C our attentionis limited to medial NCs only, because in initial NCs the nasal
in the output
a. IDENT-CLCR(nas):
Let we
be a segment
and CR
be any
CL address
in our analysis
Thefrom
finalapoint that
nasal
Kikongo
derives
which
standsoutside
the stemof
in which
nasal
domain
prefix,
in
the
such
that
of
of clusters.
CRfollows
CL
correspondent
sequence
We attribute
theCL
of nasals insegments
NC
neutralityof NC
neutrality
operates.
If CL is [nasal],
in
the outputfrom
then
is [nasal]. We considertwo
(R>L).
CR
the
affected
oral
consonants.
dissimilarity
potentially
The preference
for
relations
to exist
between
roles
segmentswith
matching
a
Let
in nasals
the
and
be
beNCs:
IDENT-CRCL(nas):
CL
CRin
any
segment
for
the
behavior
of
fromGafos
nasals
distinguishing
singleton
structureis accomplished by the constraintin 55output
1996,
(after
thethe
such
inand
of segments
that
of Rachel
follows
CR
CL
Rose, Sharon,
and
Walker.
“A Typology
of Consonant
Agreement
as Correspondence.”
Language 80 (2004):
CL
correspondent
sequence
to Prince
reference
their
different
other involves
referenceto their
syllable
positions,
&
Suzuki
1993,
1994,
1999).
McCarthy
475-531.
©
Linguistic
Society
of
America.
All
rights
reserved.
This
content
is excluded
from
our Creative Commons
If
in
the
is
then
is
(R>L).
[nasal],
CLapproach
[nasal].here, but also
CRdevelop
output
sketch
the
latter
different
release
status.
We
the
former
SROLE-CC:
consonantsmust have identical syllable roles.
(55)For
Corresponding
license.
more information,
see http://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use/.
athem
of
calls
on
distinction
avaiable in
to further
researc
unidirectional
the
choice
between
agreement
already
leaving
possibility,
in 56.ofSROLE-CC
The
scenario
is
laid
out
dominates
so aasnasal but says
CORR-C
constraints
this
constraint
forces
change
a segment
in
the
Corr
relation
that
for
CORRESPONDENCE
THEORY:
faithfulness
constraints
in follows
to
the
we
that
nasals
medial NCs
--C
of
may
target
Turning
syllable
position
approach,
speculate
o•t&,
to inhibit
that
have
different
roles.
between
similar
consonants
syllable
correspondence
In
the case
of input-output
of
that
inabout
constraints
a syllable
Incorrespondence,
nasals
to an onset,
do singleton
coda.
ason
nothing
what
precedes;
IO faithfulness
then
prevents
contrast,
examples
belong
singleton
belong
This
is responsible
for
where
the segments
nasal in preceding the
candidates
56b
and 56c,change
ranking
eliminating
the
Prince
and
the
If
&
oral
is
a
factor
to
relative
1995)
family
(McCarthywith
MAX-IO
IDENT-IO
stops.
syllable
position
similarity,
.
segments'
nasal;
acluster
corresponding
constraint
Ident-C
right-to-left
harmony
the
NC
is in
acontributing
onset
consonant.
Candidate
56c
RCL controls
correspondence
singleton
in
then
the
coda
this
from
the onsetand
could giveIDENTrise to
nasals'
are
IDENTPater
thosedifference
on
constraints
while
1999,
focusing
DEP-IO
regard
stops
3
also
fails
to
show
nasal
between
agreement
correspondingconsonants,violating
In
their neutrality.
the
area
studies
have foundtothat
thethe
oftechnology
constraints
faithfulness,
similarly
target
language
performance,
general
remark:
itin
is51
unclear
howdistinguish
we
restrict
ABC
justsegments
the
features
Candidate
56a
isofoptimal:
it obeys
SROLE
at
the
is
cost
of
CLCR(nas).
(It dependent
in
the
same
are
more
to
errors
in
of
terms
the
dimension.
of
and
CORR-N+--L.
likely
occupying
syllable
position
participate
speech
precedence
oa
3
assumed
in
here
that
the
contains
a
vowel
the
which
is
lowered
suffix,
high
of coronal consonantsinput
and nasal;
also
do we have
spreading
or feature spans for other
This
lends
to feature
the
notion
that
into
of the constraint
1983,
that
drives
1987).
(Shattuck-Hufnagel
matchingsyllable
directionality
expression
agreethe operation
of the
vowel
through
harmony.) support
roles
contribute
to
of which
the
statusis
of appropriate
medial
harmonies
that
respect
HowIn
do
we
tell
representation
in any given
a tactic
to thatlocality?
taken
in other
work
with
similar
segments'
similarity.
heterosyllabic
support
dealing
directionality
>>
constraints
In
work
on
constraint
has
feature
the
been
CORR-C->C
SROLE-CC
spreading,
driving
harmony
(56)
case?
terms of alignment (Kirchner
Such constraints
direcaccomplish
IDENT- 1993).
SROLECORRCORRCORRIDENT-OI
/-somp-ila/
[5] Nevins (2004, 2009)
CLCR
CC
(nas)
(nas)
•
N<--D
N-->B
N--4L
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.207 on Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:35:50 PM
use subjectby
to JSTOR
andprinciples
Conditions
Vowel harmony isAlltreated
the Terms
same
that define syntactic
a. Qr u
/1 A A
This content
downloaded
somxp
elya from 18.7.29.240 on Wed, 5 Nov 2014 09:00:11 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
b.
a
ur a
agreement:
3
in Italian “I ragazzi sono andati” the auxiliary needs to have its person and number
features specified while the participle needs to specify its number and gender features—
both looking to the subject—the closest relevant element (relativized minimality)
•
There are parametric choices imposed on the search algorithm; cast in a derivational
rule-based model (a la Calabrese 2005) where ordered rules can be parameterized for
whether they see all features, just marked features, or just contrastive features
Turkish
pul
pul-lar
pul-un pul-lar-in
‘stamp’
el
el-ler
el-in
‘hand’
[−high] [l] – [l][−high] [r]
el-ler-in
‘hands’ el-ler < /el-In/
−round
−back
filled by copy from closest specified feature matrix
−back
- search parameter: left-to-right/right-to-left
- for pul-lar-in ‘your stamps’ the search in order to value [round] looks to the preceding
plural morpheme –lar- rather than to the root pul- since the former is closer is closer
•
an opaque vowel is one that is lexically specified for the relevant feature and hence does
not have to seek a value but will instead donate its value to another segment that needs
one; earlier redundancy rule assigns predictable [−ATR] to low vowel
/ɗob-Uɖ-nA-m-gO/ -> ɗob-Uɖ-na-m-gO
[ATR]
+
+
->
ɗob-uɖ-na-m-gɔ
−
++ −
−
[6] Neutral vowels are treated as reflexes of parameters on the search procedure: the procedure
may look for contrastive values or for marked values (cf. Calabrese 2005)
For Finnish [back] minimally contrasts a vs. ä, o vs. ö and u vs. y; i and e lack back counterparts
•
i
e
ä
y
ö
o
a
u
high
+
−
−
+
−
−
−
+
low
−
−
+
−
−
−
+
-
back
−
−
−
−
−
+
+
+
round
−
−
−
+
+
+
−
+
Search to value a suffix for the closest contrastive value for [back]
kodi-kas ‘cozy’ vs. väri-käs
‘colorful’
4
•
Even though [i] in kodi is specified [−back], it is not minimally contrastive in the
phonemic inventory for [back] since there is no /ɯ/and so the search continues until it
finds such a vowel, in this case [o] or [ä]
•
If the search is unsuccessful then a default value is inserted: [−back]
•
For Finnish it seems like the default of [−back] matches the neutral vowels but Nevins
cites Uyghur as language with the same phonemic inventory as Finnish but stems in [i]
and [e] take back vowel suffixes; thus on this view the [−back] on the suffixes in kääntää ‘to turn’ and piir-tää ‘to draw’ arise by different mechanisms: the former by copying
the root vowel’s [−back] and the latter by insertion of default value
[7] Reference to marked values: Sibe (Xibe) is a Tungusic language of China
Sibe
[−low]
i
ü
i
u
[+low]
ɛ
ö
a
ɔ
[+low] is marked: evidence
•
Xibe disfavors successive low vowels in root
•
Most suffixes are high
•
Epenthetic vowel is high
•
Diachronic shift of final to initial stress raises unstressed low vowels
[8] Dorsal consonants contrast velar [k] and uvular [q] as [−low] vs. [+low]
•
harmony: uvular occurs when preceding stem has a low vowel with any nonlow vowels
allowed to intervene
tɔndɔ-qun
honest
udzin-kin
heavy
sula-qin
loose
ildin-kin
bright
adzi(g)-qin
small
farχun-qun
dark
•
Thus the search is for a marked value and any unmarked (high vowel) may intervene
•
default is [−low] velar in case search does not find a marked segment as in udzin-kin
[9] In Sanjiazi Manchu the search is relativized to contrastive features
•
[-low]
i
[+low]
æ
ü
i
u
a
ɔ
Harmony for [low] in suffix
5
qa-χa
obstruct-past
sæ-χa
bite
davi-xi
stride
matʃu-xu
grow thinner
tæri-xi
plant
•
search for [+low] cannot cross a [−low] vowel
•
no examples of stems of structure CaCü
•
the analysis predicts that search will look past [ü] to [a]
low
•
/ sæ-XI/
/tæri-XI/
+ 0
+− 0
+ +
+− −
UR
search (contrastive)
this approach depends on establishing (learning) the contrastive and marked status of
segments and that phonological processes can freely refer to either as well as fully
specified ones
[10] In Hungarian (and Finnish) there are gradient effects in B N- V words where B = a back vowel,
N a neutral (transparent i, e) and V a suffixal vowel (Hayes & Londe Phonology 2006, Ringen &
Heinamaki 1999, and Kimper 2011)
pallér-nak
[pɔlle:r-nɔk]
‘foreman dat.
arzén-nak ≈ arzén-nek
‘arsenic’
mutagén-nek
‘mutagen’
• google searches and wug (novel) word testing probe this variation
• distance effect: B N N – V has less backness harmony than B N – V
• height effect: the neutral vowel transparency effect allowing harmony by a preceding back
vowel increases with height and length: ɛ< e: < i
• competition between N and B in determining the suffixal vowel; seems to track F2 with [i]
having higher F2 (more front vowel) and [ɛ] lowest;
• Hayes & Londe model with a stochastic (probabilistic) grammar where ranking between
neighboring close constraints can change in a given input – output mapping based on a
probability function tracking frequency in the speaker’s lexicon/experience
Selected References
Gafos, Diamandis. 1996. The articulatory basis of locality in phonology. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University
dissertation. [Published, New York: Garland, 1999.]
Hansson, Gunnar. 2001a.Theoretical and typological issues in consonant harmony. Berkeley: University of California,
Ph.D. dissertation.
Hayes, Bruce and Zsuzsa Londe. 2006. Stochastic phonological knowledge: the case of Hungarian vowel harmony.
Phonology 23, 59-104.
Nevins, Andrew. 2010. Locality in Vowel Harmony. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rose, Sharon and Rachel Walker. 2004. A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. Language 80, 475-531.
6
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu
24.961 Introduction to Phonology
Fall 2014
For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.