Phonological Representation and Phonetic Phasing (Linguistische Arbeiten) [1 ed.] 3484304669, 9783484304666

Citation preview

Linguistische Arbeiten

466

Herausgegeben von Hans Altmann, Peter Blumenthal, Hans Jürgen Heringer, Ingo Plag, Heinz Vater und Richard Wiese

Wolfgang Kehre in

Phonological Representation and Phonetic Phasing Affricates and Laryngeals

Max Niemeyer Verlag Tübingen 2002

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme Kehrein, Wolfgang: Phonological representation and phonetic phasing : affricates and laryngeals / Wolfgang Kehrein. - Tübingen : Niemeyer, 2002 (Linguistische Arbeiten ; 466) Zugl.: Marburg, Univ., Diss., 2001 ISBN 3-484-30466-9

ISSN 0344-6727

© Max Niemeyer Verlag GmbH, Tübingen 2002 Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Printed in Germany. Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier. Druck: Weihert-Druck GmbH, Darmstadt Einband: Industriebuchbinderei Nädele, Nehren

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 : Introduction

1

Chapter 2: Phonology without Affricates 2.1 Introduction 2.2 The Generalized Stop Approach 2.3 Previous analyses 2.4 Asymmetry of Contrasts 2.4.1 Strident, lateral and nasal affricates contrast with stops 2.4.2 Non-strident affricates do not contrast with stops 2.5 Natural classes 2.5.1 Affricates and stops form a natural class 2.5.2 Affricates do not form a natural class (but SLN affricates do) 2.5.2.1 Excursus on strident affricates 2.5.3 Affricates do not form a natural class with fricatives 2.5.3.1 Morpheme structure constraints and harmony 2.5.3.2 Deletion and 'deaffrication' 2.5.3.3 [strident] affricates and fricatives 2.6 Place driven affricati on and the story of [t*] 2.7 Conclusion

4 4 5 11 16 17 21 30 31 36 43 46 46 51 55 57 65

Chapter 3: The Prosodie Phonology of Laryngeals 3.1 Introduction 3.2 A PROSODIC ACCOUNT of laryngeal contrasts 3.3 How languages build up laryngeal contrasts 3.3.1 Simplex constituents 3.3.1.1 Stops 3.3.1.2 Fricatives 3.3.1.3 Sonorants 3.3.2 Complex constituents 3.3.2.1 Complex onsets and codas 3.3.2.2 Complex nuclei 3.3.3 Zero constituents 3.3.4 Summary 3.4 How languages do not build up laryngeal contrasts 3.4.1 No language contrasts laryngealized sounds and clusters (A) 3.4.2 No language allows both [spread] and [constricted] within an onset, nucleus, coda (B) 3.4.2.1 Onsets and codas 3.4.2.2 Nuclei 3.4.2.3 Summary 3.4.3 Pre- and post-laryngealized constituents do not contrast (C)

66 66 67 72 72 72 80 82 84 85 90 92 97 99 101 105 105 107 109 110

VI 3.4.3.1 Simplex onsets and codas 3.4.3.2 Complex onsets and codas 3.4.3.3 Nuclei 3.4.4 Summary of non-contrasts 3.5 Apparent counterexamples 3.5.1 Reanalysis of subsyllabic structure: Popolocan, Yuchi and Tsou.... 3.5.2 Reanalysis of syllable structure: Mon-Khmer, Berber, and Salish... 3.5.2.1 Mon-Khmer 3.5.2.2 Berber 3.5.2.3 Salish 3.5.3 Georgian 3.5.4 Summary 3.6 Laryngeal contrasts across constituents 3.6.1 Languages allow both [spread] and [constricted] between onset, nucleus, coda 3.6.2 Pre- and post-laryngealization contrast across onset, nucleus, coda 3.6.3 Summary and discussion 3.7 Laryngeal phonology 3.7.1 Laryngeal neutralization 3.7.2 Laryngeal agreement 3.7.3 O C P ; 3.7.4 On the independence of the LAR and ROOT NODES 3 . 7 . 4 . 1 ROOT NODE d e l e t i o n

3.7.4.2 Apparent metathesis 3.7.4.3 Long distance movement 3.7.5 Summary of laryngeal phonology 3.8 Previous Accounts 3.8.1 Standard Theory 3.8.2 Aperture Theory 3.8.3 Articulatory Phonology 3.8.4 Some more specific proposals for laryngeal features 3.9 Conclusion: the phonology and phonetics of laryngeals

110 118 124 127 128 128 136 137 139 140 151 160 160 161 166 168 171 174 176 187 190 190

194 199 202 203 204 205 207 208 210

Chapter 4: Conclusion and Outlook

213

Index of Languages

217

References

221

Chapter 1: Introduction

This book contains two crosslinguistic studies from a survey of 281 languages. Both intend to show that the phonological structure of segments is leaner than nowadays assumed, and that phonetic phasing of gestures plays an important role in making phonological contrasts better perceptible. The first study deals with the phonetics and phonology of affricates: I argue that affricates are only [stop]s phonologically and should not be treated as contour segments (i.e. *[stop, continuant]): there is neither a natural class of all affricates nor one unifying affricates and fricatives as [continuant] sounds. The class of non-continuant obstruents divides into [strident, stop] [ts], [lateral, stop] [t*], [nasal, stop] [tn], and simple [stop] [t, t 0 ]. The latter accounts for the fact that 'simple stops'[t] and the so called 'non-strident affricates' [t°] are phonologically indistinguishable with respect to contrasts and natural classes. I argue that 'affrication' is a phonetic strategy to achieve or increase the perceptibility of phonological contrasts. The second study is concerned with laryngeal articulations: I propose that the LARYNGEAL NODE does not belong to the domain of single segments at all; rather it is licensed directly by the subsyllabic constituents onset, nucleus, and coda. I discuss existing and non-existing contrasts and show that no language has more than one LARYNGEAL NODE in a single onset, nucleus, or coda; and no language distinctively orders laryngeal and supralaryngeal articulations within subsyllabic constituents. I also investigate principles of phonological 'processes' which strongly suggest a prosodie analysis as well: spreading, deletion and adjacency of the LARYNGEAL NODE(S) are defined on the basis of onset, nucleus and coda, rather than segments. Phonetically, laryngeal articulations show a wide range of variability, especially with respect to temporal orderings of laryngeal and supralaryngeal articulations. Again, gestural phasing serves to increase the acoustic transparency of phonological specifications. This book addresses three major issues. Its first goal is to provide a more adequate model of phonological representation, i.e. one that accounts better for existing and non-existing contrasts and natural classes than current feature theories do. The basic finding is that the contrastive domains of stricture features and laryngeal features are larger than assumed by standard feature geometry. Stricture features contrast at the segmental level but not at a lower ('demisegmental') level as claimed by classical contour analyses for affricates; and laryngeal features contrast at the subsyllabic level of onset, nucleus and coda, but not at the level of individual segments. Eliminating (i) stricture contours and (ii) the entire LARYNGEAL NODE from subsegmentai feature geometry results in a leaner (and still more adequate) internal structure of phonological segments. My findings from affricates and laryngeals suggest that a closer look at the contrastive domains of other phonological features and CLASS NODES might be an interesting area for future research. I expect that future research using the criteria I develop in this book will reveal subsegmentai contours to be superfluous altogether (cf. Duanmu 1990); and I also expect that the V-PLACE NODE at least is prosodically licensed in the same way as the LARYNGEAL NODE is. I thus suppose that a 'segment' (or ROOT NODE) will turn out as a

2 rather simply structured constituent which (i) does not contain any featural contours, and (ii) h e a d s o n l y a f e w CLASS NODES, p r e s u m a b l y STRICTURE, PLACE, a n d MANNER.

The second major goal of this book is to show that phonetics fulfills important functions with regard to phonology. Taking contrasts and natural classes as the guiding criteria to define the borderline between phonology and phonetics yields a rather restricted set of phonological structures on the one hand, and a large set of only phonetically occurring sound types on the other. I focus primarily on non-distinctive phasings of articulatory gestures and show that these serve to achieve or increase the perceptibility of phonological contrasts (following Silverman 1995). I discuss two types of temporal ordering: (i) those which are simply obligatory to recover all aspects of a phonological structure (e.g. [ts, t1, t n , t'1]), and (ii) cases in which temporal ordering helps to increase the acoustic difference between contrastive sounds, for instance affrication of simple stops [t9] (vs. ft]), and laryngeal phasing with respect to sonorants: [mm] vs. [nn]. Pre- and postaspiration and preand postglottalization are shown to fall into the same category of being phonologically irrelevant though phonetically motivated by strategies of 'acoustic transparency'. Last but not least, this book presents two broad crosslinguistic studies and states a number of universal generalizations, most importantly: (i) non-strident affricates never contrast with stops at the same place of articulation; and (ii) laryngeals never contrast below the level of onsets, nuclei, and codas. I would like to emphasize here that linguistics in general and phonology in particular are empirical sciences in the first place, and linguistic theories are means to model generalizations of linguistic knowledge. For this reason, I keep my theoretical premises in this book to a minimum: contrasts and natural classes are the cornerstones of phonological theory in demarcation to phonetics; and I assume phonological representations to be comprised of features and their hierarchical ordering as the most direct way to express them. But nothing hinges on this decision: a universal generalization on contrasts is valid in its own right, and whether it is stated as a restriction on phonological representation or some universally undominated constraint is not crucial to the argument. For instance, prosodie licensing of laryngeal features will be formulated by attaching the LARYNGEAL NODE directly to onset, nucleus, and coda; but assuming an unviolable constraint, e.g. *COMPLEX(LAR, SUB-σ), would do essentially the same job. Similarly, I keep my discussion of natural classes and phonological processes as theoryneutral as possible: my aim is to present the basic generalizations that underlie the phonological patterning of affricates and laryngeals; but there will be few if any areas that favor derivational over constraint based models or vice versa. I thus use standard derivational tools as spreading and deletion of association lines from time to time, though only for purposes of illustration. And I also give 'translations' of some of my findings into OT constraints, specifically when intended to replace constraints that have already been proposed in the literature. The distinction between contrastive (i.e. phonological) and non-contrastive (phonetic) aspects of speech is essential to every phonological theory; but again, there are a number of different conceptual ways to express them, representational as well as grammatical: ARTICULATORY PHONOLOGY (AP, Browman & Goldstein 1986, 1989, 1990), for instance, includes non-contrastive properties as gestural extension and phasing into phonological representations. While AP overgenerates in its original design, contrastive domains can be reintroduced through lexically specified phase windows (cf. Byrd 1996). Similarly, a number of current proposals within the framework of OPTIMALITY THEORY (Prince & Smolens-

3 ky 1993) incorporate both phonological and phonetic factors into a single grammatical component (e.g. Kirchner 1995, 1997).1 To account for their difference, Kirchner postulates that 'phonological features' but not 'phonetic features' are subject to a constraint PRESERVE(F). Crucially though, no matter if we attempt to determine the width of phase windows for a given articulatory dimension, or set up the features that are subject to PRESERVE(F), or define the universal set of phonological features and their prosodie assignment, they are all but different ways to say that phonology and phonetics are different modules of speech; and deciding where to draw the boundary is exclusively an empirical issue. The book is structured as follows. CHAPTER 2 deals with affricates: I introduce my GENERALIZED STOP APPROACH to a f f r i c a t e s a n d c o m p a r e it t o p r e v i o u s a n a l y s e s ( § § 1 - 3 ) . I

discuss existing and non-existing phonological contrasts (§4), natural classes (§5), and the phonetics of non-strident affricates (§6). Laryngeal articulations are investigated in CHAPTER 3: I lay out the predictions of PROSODIC LICENSING f o r l a r y n g e a l f e a t u r e s (§§1-2), I s h o w h o w l a n g u a g e s d o a n d d o n o t

build up laryngeal contrasts within simplex and complex constituents (§§3-5), and how they do across subsyllabic constituents (§6). Phonological processes are discussed in §7. §8 compares PROSODIC LICENSING to previous approaches and shows that these fail to explain most of the empirical observations. CHAPTER 4 gives a general conclusion and states some areas for future research.

1

Other O T proposals do maintain a separate phonetic component, as e.g. Itô, Mester & Padgett (1995) in their discussion of Rendaku and Lyman's law in Japanese.

Chapter 2: Phonology without Affricates

2.1

Introduction*

In this chapter I argue that phonological affricates do not exist. Rather, all affricates are stops phonologically, and stops may be either simple, [strident], [lateral] or [nasal]. At the surface, affricates emerge from a limited set of phonetic strategies which serve to make phonological specifications in stops acoustically more salient. Both MANNER and PLACE specifications will be shown to play a role: the MANNER features [strident], [lateral] and [nasal] are always realized at the release of stops, resulting in phonetic affricates: [ts, t+, t"]1; as for PLACE, phonetic affrication occurs where languages contrast more than one place of articulation for a single primary articulator. Thus, a language contrasting laminai (dental) /t/ and apical (alveolar) stops /t/ will typically realize the former as an affricate: [ty, t]. The claim that affricates are nothing but stops phonologically makes strong predictions with respect to phonological contrasts and natural classes. First, and most obviously, contrasts of stops and affricates are predicted to be non-occurring outside the strident, lateral and nasal range. Second, since affricates have a single STRICTURE feature [stop]2 they form a natural class with other stops, but never with fricatives. Third, the present proposal predicts that affricates do not form a natural class of their own to the exclusion of other stops, since there is no phonological concept 'affricate' of any kind. A major part of this chapter is devoted to showing that all these predictions are true contrary to what other more or less recent proposals claim. The consequences of eliminating affricates from the domain of phonology and making 'affrication' a purely phonetic strategy are manifold, with regard to phonology proper as well as to its relation to phonetics: first, eliminating stricture contours from phonological

*

I thank Chris Golston, T. Alan Hall, Michael Job and Richard Wiese for their help. Thanks also to audiences at the Universities of Düsseldorf and Marburg and HILP IV in Leiden. N o n e of them is responsible for infelicities and inaccuracies.

1

'Lateral affricates' and 'nasal affricates' have received several alternative names in the phonetic and phonological literature, e.g., 'laterally released stops' and 'nasally released stops ' [t\ t n ] (e.g. Laver 1994), or 'prestopped laterals' and 'prestopped nasals' [Ί, 'n] (Ladefoged & Maddieson 1996 for Australian languages). The different terms and transcriptions are sometimes used to indicate a difference in durational extension or acoustic salience of one or the other part of the affricate (cf. Evans 1995a). More often, however, they reflect different synchronic or diachronic sources: thus, /t/ - > [t\ t n ] (Benjamin 1976 on Temiar; Sauvageot 1965 on Wolof); but /1(:), n(:)/ - » [Ί, 'η] (Hercus 1972, Dixon 1980, Evans 1995a for several Australian languages). Notice that the latter are still called laterally and nasally released stops by O'Grady, Voegelin & Voegelin (1966). Crucially, no language makes a phonological distinction between [t\ t n ] and ['1, l n], and thus all these sounds are covered here under the term 'affricate'.

2

In this chapter I use privative [stop] and [cont] instead of [-cont], [+cont] throughout, though without implying any theoretically important consequence as, e.g., a difference with respect to tier arrangements (cf. Lombardi 1990).

5 representation simplifies the internal structure of segments. 3 Second, the existence of purely phonetic strategies such as affrication shows that phonology and phonetics - at least partially - live their own lives: phonetically occurring sound types are not automatically phonologically possible ones. Affrication may never enter the phonology of language. On the other hand, phonetics is by no means restricted to anatomically motivated more or less automatic properties of speech but may well fulfill important functions such as making phonological contrasts easier to perceive. Thus, a more general goal of this chapter is to revitalize a debate on the phonetics-phonology interface, which, if the present proposal is on the right track, is more crucial to the capacity of phonological theory in general and phonological representation in particular than nowadays assumed. The chapter is organized as follows: in the next section I lay out my proposal and its predictions with respect to contrasts and natural classes. 2.3 compares these to previous analyses. 2.4 is concerned with phonological contrasts. 2.5 deals with natural classes. In 2.6 I discuss the phonetics of non-strident affricates. The chapter ends with a short conclusion (2.7).

2.2 The Generalized Stop Approach

It is not the goal of this chapter to deny the existence of affricates altogether. Affricates are a PHONETICALLY well definable subset of stops. Like stops they consist of a closure followed by a release phase, but the release of affricates carries additional supralaryngeal properties. Under this broad perspective NASALLY RELEASED STOPS are subsumed under the definition of affricates as are two main types of ORALLY RELEASED STOPS: LATERALLY

RELEASED STOPS, i.e. stops released by lowering the side(s) of the tongue just behind the primary closure, and CENTRALLY RELEASED STOPS, where the primary closure itself is released. In the latter case, the release consists of a slower and longer movement away from complete obstruction compared to SIMPLE STOPS giving rise to a perceptible phase of homorganic frication. In a subset of these the release phase may be accompanied by additional stridency.

3

Notice that treating lateral and nasal affricates as stops eliminates another potential source of contours, i.e. [-lateral] [+lateral] and [-nasal] [+nasal], respectively.

6 (1)

The phonetic class of affricates 4 [AFFRICATES]

nasally released

[p m , t n , k°] etc.

orally released

centrally released

laterally released

[ t + , t \ tf] etc.

strident

[ts,f,

non-strident

flete.

[ρ φ , t 0 , k x , q * ] etc.

Anticipating the discussion in 2.3, most phonologists believe that 'affricate' is also a phonologically relevant concept, and the most widespread approach treats affricates as contour segments composed of two STRICTURE features [stop] and [cont(inuant)]. In the following sections I discuss a number of generalizations for affricates which strongly suggest that the phonetic classification in (1) has no correspondence in phonology, i.e. there is no phonological concept 'affricate' at all, neither in terms of stricture contours nor anything else. (2)

Universal generalizations for affricates A. CONTRAST: Strident, lateral and nasal affricates contrast with stops. Non-strident affricates do not contrast with stops.

/t, t s , t\ t n / */t, t B /

B . NATURAL CLASS I: Affricates do not form a natural class.

*[pf>tV,ts,t\tn]

C. NATURAL CLASS II: Affricates and stops form a natural class.

[p, t, k, p f , t 9 , q \ t s , t \ t n ]

D. NATURAL CLASS III: Affricates and fricatives do not form a natural class. * [ p f , t s , t*, t", φ, s, i ]

4

IPA does not contain independent symbols for retroflex, palatal, and velar lateral fricatives. Throughout this book I follow Ladefoged & Maddieson (1996) and use the raising diacritic [ J : thus, I transcribe fricatives as [J, A, L] and affricates as [(!-, e15, k^]. To avoid too much transcriptional complexity I will not further distinguish between voiceless and voiced fricatives (which Ladefoged & Maddieson do by additionally marking the former with [ J ) .

7 The following conclusions should be drawn from (2): starting with STRICTURE features, affricates consist of [stop] (C.) but not [cont] (D.), contrary to what contour analyses claim (cf. 2.3). Even more, A. and B. show that affricates are not a homogeneous class of sounds at all: they neither form a natural class of their own (B.), nor do all affricates contrast with their corresponding stops (Α.). This is an unexpected finding given the common intuition that the concept 'affricate' as such is phonologically relevant. According to A. affricates seem to divide into two subclasses: stridents, laterals, and nasals on the one hand and (centrally released) non-stridents on the other. A closer look, however, reveals that the latter is not a subclass of affricates at all because non-strident affricates do not differ from simple stops in any phonologically relevant way: they neither contrast with stops (A.) nor do they form any natural class to the exclusion of stops (B. D.). Thus, non-strident affricates and stops are indistinguishable sounds as far as phonology is concerned, and the most natural way to account for such a situation is by making them indistinguishable from the perspective of phonological representation. Strident, lateral, and nasal affricates are contrastive entities, i.e. we need some representational way to distinguish them from simple stops. A phonological concept 'affricate' could do the job of course, but it would leave the phonological absence of non-strident affricates unexplained. 5 Fortunately, 'affricate' is not needed because the MANNER features [strident], [lateral], and [nasal] are both necessary and sufficient to account for all the existing and non-existing natural classes in (3). (3)

Universal generalizations for strident, lateral, and nasal (SLN) affricates E . NATURAL CLASS I V :

Stridents form a natural class Laterals form a natural class Nasals form a natural class

[ts, tJ, tf, s, J, g] [t+, 1,1] [tn, Θ, n]

F. NATURAL CLASS V :

SLN affricates and fricatives do not form a natural class.

*[ts, t*, t n , φ, s, i, χ]

G . NATURAL CLASS V I :

Strident affricates form a natural class. Lateral affricates form a natural class. Nasal affricates form a natural class.

[ts, [f] [t4, t1, k^] [p m , t", t°, k ' ]

H . NATURAL CLASS V I I :

SLN affricates form a natural class.

[ts, t \ t"]

E. and F. show that strident, lateral, and nasal affricates form natural classes with their corresponding fricatives (and sonorants) only, but not with fricatives in general. This is strong evidence that even these sounds consist of one STRICTURE feature [stop] only, but no [cont]. Positively stated, the natural classes in E. result from marking strident, lateral, and nasal affricates with [strident], [lateral], and [nasal] respectively - and nothing else. The same features together with [stop] assure the natural classes in G. Finally, H. suggests that the parallel behavior of strident, lateral, and nasal affricates is not an accident. Rather, [strident], [lateral], and [nasal] form a meta-class, i.e. - in terms of feature geometry - they 5

'Nasal affricates' of the sort [m*, n°] are another type of unattested speech sounds.

8 are h e a d e d b y a s i n g l e CLASS NODE w h i c h I call t h e MANNER NODE. 6 T h u s , H . r e p r e s e n t s

the class of MANNER specified stop sounds. Lateral and nasal affricates require special comment because they not only contrast with simple stops but also with 'lateral stops' [1] and 'nasal stops' [n] respectively. In fact, all these sounds are MANNER specified stops under the present proposal, and 'affricate' is a potential candidate to represent the phonological distinction. Again, however, a better alternative is available, one that is necessary and sufficient to account for the status of [t\ t n ] vs. [1, n] in phoneme systems and phonological processes, such as, e.g., 'sonorization' and 'desonorization' (cf. 2.5): [tf, t n ] are [obstruent]s and [1, n] are [sonorant]s. The conclusions from (2) and (3) are summarized in (4): a phonological class of affricates does not exist; all phonetic affricates are phonological [stop]s and only [stop]s. Nonstrident affricates are identical to stops; strident, lateral and nasal affricates are stops with additional MANNER specifications [strident], [lateral] and [nasal]. This is the position to be defended in this chapter and I refer to it as the GENERALIZED STOP APPROACH to affricates. (4)

T h e phonological non-class of affricates: the GENERALIZED STOP APPROACH

(obstruent) stops [stop]

[ρ, ρ φ , φ , p f , t, t®, k, k x , q, q x ] etc.

[t\ t-\ k']etc.

[p m , t n , k ' ] etc.

[t\ t', f ] etc.

Since a concept 'affricate' is invisible not only for underlying forms (cf. contrasts) but also for phonology proper (natural classes) it should be eliminated from phonology altogether. Thus, for whatever reason a sound is realized as an affricate, it has to follow from principles outside phonology, i.e. phonetics. I claim here that 'phonetic affrication' occurs because (i) phonological distinctions have to be recoverable, and (ii) the release phase of stops is the most prominent acoustic cue to perceive phonological specifications in stops (cf. Silverman 1994; Wright 1996). The latter explains why stops are realized as 'affricates' [t e , t s , t \ t n ] rather than as their mirror images [ 6 t, s t, *t, "t]; and the former is the key to understanding why 'phonetic affrication' occurs at all. Considering the different types of affricates in more detail, we find that MANNER specified stops are always realized as affricates [ts, t*, t n ], while simple stops are phonetically 6

This definition of MANNER should not be confused with its various uses in the phonological literature, where STRICTURE features ([stop], [cont]) and/or sonorancy (such as [consonantal], [sonorant] etc.) are sometimes grouped together under the MANNER NODE (e.g. Clements 1985).

9 stops [t] in some languages but affricates [t0] in others. None of these facts is a coincidence, h o w e v e r . MANNER DRIVEN AFFRICATION ( M D A ) is obligatory b e c a u s e MANNER s p e c i f i e d

stops involve combinations of phonological features which cannot be realized simultaneously: stridency is simply imperceptible during oral stop closure, and thus gestural phasing is a necessary consequence of phonologically unordered [stop, strident], [lateral] and [nasal], on the other hand, are perceptible during oral stop closure, but the result would always be a sonorant ([1] and [n] respectively). Affrication recovers [obstruent] by leaving the laterals and nasals with some initial phase of simple stop closure. 7 Simple stops do not have any feature combinations that would obligatorily require phonetic sequencing; and yet, non-strident affricates do exist. They typically occur in areas of close contrasts (cf. 2.4.2), and most frequently if a language has more than one contrastive place within a single articulator category (LABIAL, CORONAL, DORSAL), as shown in (5). Thus, simple stops are realized as non-strident affricates by a phonetic process of R.ACE DRIVEN AFFRICATION ( P D A ) . F r o m the p e r s p e c t i v e of ' r e c o v e r a b i l i t y ' P D A a p p e a r s as a

perfectly natural strategy because it prolongs and slows down the acoustically important release phase of the stop and thus increases the perceptibility of phonological place distinctions. 8 However, PDA is not obligatory even in languages with close place contrasts, and the reason is that there are other competing strategies as, e.g., maximizing place-of-articulation differences. This issue will be discussed in more detail in 2.6. The basic properties of phonetic affrication are summarized in (5). (5)

Phonetic affrication and acoustic transparency 1. Manner Driven Affrication (MDA): Make MANNER specifications acoustically transparent, [strident]: [t\ts,{s] [lateral]:

[ t \ t \ tl, k ' ]

[nasal]:

[p m , t n , t°, t a , C1, k°]

2. PLACE DRIVEN AFFRICATION ( P D A ) : I n c r e a s e the a c o u s t i c t r a n s p a r e n c y of small PLACE distinctions within p r i m a r y articulators. LABIAL:

[p]

vs.

[p f ]

CORONAL:

[t]

vs.

[t 9 ]

DORSAL:

[c ç ]

VS.

[k]

vs.

[qx]

Summarizing the GENERALIZED STOP APPROACH, I propose a two step model to account for the special status of affricates, being stops-only with regard to phonology, but consisting of 7

8

One might object that obligatory phonetic processes run into problems with abstractness of phonological representation. However, exactly the same is standardly assumed for laryngeal specifications ([spread], [constr]) of stops: they are phonologically unordered but necessarily sequenced phonetically. Thus, what I propose here as MDA is actually just one instance of a general principle which requires phonologically unordered features in stops to be sequenced phonetically. PDA might also explain the complete absence of 'nasal affricates' like [m^, n®] etc. (cf. fn. 5). Since there is no blocking of airflow in nasal stops these sounds have a weaker release, and thus PDA would not help to increase the 'acoustic transparency'.

10 a specific release phase phonetically. The basic components are summarized in (6); some examples of phonological representations are given in (7). (6)

T h e GENERALIZED STOP APPROACH

1. Phonetic affricates are phonological stops. 2. Stops are simple, [strident], [lateral] or [nasal]. 3. Affricates result from requirements of acoustic transparency. (7)

Phonological representations for phonetic affricates a) Simple stops /Ρ/ = [ρ,ρ φ ]

/Τ/ = [t, tQ]

ROOT STRICTURE

ROOT PLACE

STRICTURE

PLACE

I

[stop]

LAB

[stop]

COR I [laminai]

STRICTURE

I

PLACE

I

[stop]

DOR I [front]

STRICTURE

PLACE

b) MANNER specified stops /S/ = [ts] ROOT STRICTURE

[stop]

PLACE

MANNER

[strident]

STRICTURE

[stop]

PLACE

MANNER

[lateral]

[stop]

MANNER

[nasal]

Linguistic theories should be able to describe all occurring structures in natural languages; but they should also exclude all non-occurring ones. The GENERALIZED STOP APPROACH naturally accounts for all the generalizations stated in (2) and (3) by a simple system of phonological representations. Its basic claim is that the internal organization of affricates is the phonetic consequence of an unordered phonological representation rather than the basis for phonological distinctions itself. Treating 'affricateness' as the phonologically relevant distinction fails on a number of important generalizations, (2) A. and B. in particular; and contour analyses are especially problematic because they additionally fail on (2) D.

11

2.3 Previous analyses

Affricates have fascinated phonologists for long, especially because they sound like (homorganic) combinations of two segments (stop + fricative), but behave as single segments with respect to phonotactics, sonorancy etc. For instance, they occur in clusters with other consonants in languages which otherwise only allow for CC onsets and/or codas, cf. German (Wiese 1986) [pfhçt, tsvai] ('duty', 'two') or [kajnpf, lants] ('fight', 'dance').' And they seem to contradict principles of sonorancy sequencing in that they occur in the same order in onsets and codas (rather than reversed, e.g., *kam^»]). 10 Finally, they appear to be immune to other restrictions, for instance, those that forbid homorganic onsets (e.g. */tl, dl, pm, tn/) or stop + fricative onsets (*/pç, tf, tç, kf/) 11 in German. Treating /pf7 and /ts/ in German as monosegments (i.e. affricates /p f , t s /) provides an explanation for their (apparently) exceptional behavior. Previous approaches to affricates can be divided into three major categories, which I t e r m (i) t h e STRIDENT STOP APPROACH, (ii) t h e AFFRICATE APPROACH, and (iii) t h e SPLIT

APPROACH. The STRIDENT STOP APPROACH (Jakobson, Fant & Halle 1951) treats affricates as [strident, -continuant]. It is thus in line with the present proposal as far as strident affricates are concerned; but it has few to say about other affricates. This point is criticized by Chomsky & Halle (1968: 329; SPE). 12 The alternative they propose is to represent all affricates as [- continuant, + delayed release]. What looks like a slight modification of the STRIDENT STOP APPROACH in the first place turns out as a major conceptual change, since SPE supplies all affricates with a unique phonological representation, thereby raising them to the status of phonological concepts. In other words, SPE gives birth to what I call the AFFRICATE APPROACH.

(8)

Affricates as phonological entities in SPE stops

affricates

fricatives

[continuant]

-

-

+

[delayed release]

-

+

-

This important deviation from the STRIDENT STOP APPROACH was not questioned in the following decades. The feature [delayed release], however, had a short life span, being replaced by [cont] soon after (cf. Hoard 1971, Campbell 1974, among others). Again, what looks like a mere substitution of one feature by another has at least two far reaching effects:

9

I ignore, for the sake of the argument, the special behavior of (presumably extrametrical) initial

10

But see Hall (1991) for an alternative view. Non-native (Greek) stop+fricative onsets /ps/ and /ks/ do occur in German. Ironically, the SPE criticism is based on the (apparent) existence of non-strident affricates such as Chipewyan /t8/ (repeated over and over again in subsequent research), which - as I will show in 2.4 - never contrast with homorganic stops.

11 12

12 first, affricates achieve a contour representation [stop, cont] (or [-cont, +cont] in traditional terms); second, affricates are (incorrectly) predicted to form a natural class with fricatives. C o n t r a r y to t h e GENERALIZED STOP APPROACH t h e n , AFFRICATE APPROACHES a r e c h a r -

acterized by making affrication primary to PLACE and MANNER specifications, i.e. AFFRICATE APPROACHES treat affricates as a phonologically relevant category of sounds. And they do so (at least since Hoard 1971) by assuming a representation with both [stop] and [cont], making affricates a compound category of stops and fricatives. This is summarized graphically in (9). (9)

The AFFRICATE APPROACH: affricates as phonological entities

[p, t, k , q ] etc.

/ STOPS /

/ FRICATIVES /

([stop])

([cont])

/ AFFRICATES /

[φ, θ , s, J", g, χ , χ ] etc.

([stop, cont])

[ρφ, Pf, t°, t s , i , tí, k \ q x ] etc. The emergence of FEATURE GEOMETRY (Clements 1985) gave the contour representation of affricates a hierarchical look, though without any substantial change in the beginning (cf. Sagey 1986). But due to the great impact feature geometry had on the general research perspective, phonologists soon began to concentrate on the hierarchical ordering of features and NODES within segments. In effect, more recent AFFRICATE APPROACHES mainly differ along the following lines: (i) do affricates consist of two ROOT NODES (Hualde 1991) or just one (others); (ii) is PLACE exclusively connected to [cont] (Hualde 1991; v.d. Weijer 1992), to [stop] (no one), or to both (others); and (iii) are the two [cont] values linearly ordered (Sagey 1986), hierarchically ordered (Schäfer 1995) or unordered (Lombardi 1990). (iii) received special attention in the phonological literature because linear ordering translates directly into 'phonological temporal ordering', i.e. it is tightly connected to the question of whether or not affricates show 'edge effects' (cf. Sagey 1986). Lombardi (1990) argues convincingly against phonological edge effects and establishes a number of 'antiedge effects' (cf. Archangeli & Pulleyblank 1987). She concludes that the stricture features of affricates are unordered and assumes privative [stop] and [cont], which are said to be placed on different tiers within the geometry. However, all anti-edge effects discussed by Lombardi deal with [stop], but none deals with [cont]. While this is surprising from the perspective of the AFFRICATE APPROACH, it is simply predicted under the GENERALIZED STOP APPROACH: since affricates have only [stop], there is simply no way to order or disorder STRICTURE features, and no way to have different edges. Phonology can refer to [stop] from "both sides" of the affricate; but it can never refer to any [cont] specification, no matter the "direction". For convenience, I give a short summary of the different analyses in terms of autosegmental representations in (10). Rather than stressing the differences, however, it is import-

13 ant to see what unites them: first, and most crucially, they are all AFFRICATE APPROACHES, i.e. all affricates are assumed to be phonologically relevant entities; second, affricates share stricture features with both stops ([stop]) and fricatives ([cont]). (10)

Summary of different AFFRICATE APPROACHES a) Sagey (1986)

b) Lombardi ( 1990)

ROOT

[-cont]

ROOT

[+cont]

[stop]

\ [cont]

c) Hualde ( 1991 ) ROOT

[ s t 0 P]

ROOT

[contl

SLT

I PLACE

d) v.d. Weijer (1992) ROOT

[stop]

e) Schäfer (1995) ROOT

[cont]

[stop]

PLACE

[cont]

I These AFFRICATE APPROACHES predict that all affricates pattern alike, no matter if they are non-strident, strident, lateral or nasal. They claim that affricates should contrast with stops at any given place, and they predict natural classes of stops and affricates, fricatives and affricates and affricates themselves. Thus, they go counter to almost all the generalizations proposed in (2) and (3). I hasten to point out that the AFFRICATE APPROACH is a priori problematic for nasal affricates because nasals [m, η, η] are non-continuant sounds by definition of the feature [stop] (which is in terms of oral stricture, and not via the amount of airflow; _cf. Anderson 1976). Thus, nasal affricates like [p ra , t n ] cannot be [stop, cont] sounds, [m*, n°], on the other hand, would meet the featural description, but these types of 'nasal affricates' do not exist. In other words, the AFFRICATE APPROACH fails to describe occurring nasal affricates [p m , t n ], and it also fails to exclude non-occurring ones [m* n 6 ]. There is yet a third type of analysis to affricates in the literature, basically a combination of t h e GENERALIZED STOP APPROACH f o r u n d e r l y i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , b u t a n AFFRICATE

APPROACH for phonology proper; hence, a SPLIT APPROACH. Both Shaw (1991) and Steriade (1993, 1994) assume that affricates are exclusively [stop] (A 0 in APERTURE THEORY) underlyingly and should be distinguished from stops by other features than 'affricateness'. On the other hand, both claim that affricates achieve a STRICTURE contour at some point within the 'phonological derivation'. The two analyses mainly differ along the following dimensions: (i) assumptions on underlying representations, and (ii) the point where [cont] is inserted within the phonological derivation. Steriade (1994: 208-9) claims 'release positions' to be universally non-distinctive and thus absent from underlying representation. She tentatively assumes that

14 PLACE specifications do the whole job to distinguish stops from affricates; but she gives one example only, namely palato-alveolar [t/] as the realization of underlying /t/. 13 The conclusion is that, for such widespread cases at least, the affricate [tf] is nothing but an underlying palatoalveolar stop: its affricate nature is derivative from its place specification. (Steriade 1994: 209) On the other hand, the most central claim of APERTURE THEORY is that 'release positions' are phonologically relevant. Consequently, Steriade (1994: 208) proposes an 'early phonological process of RELEASE PROJECTION', which turns simple closures (Ao) into stops (Ao A max ) and affricates (Ao A f ) by adding the relevant aperture positions. Shaw claims [cont] to be universally absent from the lexical component (i.e. for both fricatives and affricates), following general assumptions of radical underspecification (Archangeli 1988). 14 To distinguish stops from affricates she uses [strident] and [lateral] besides PLACE, thereby only slightly differing from the present proposal (mainly in terms of the hierarchical ordering). [I]t is proposed that affricates and stops are both exclusively [-continuant] in underlying representation, and that they are differentiated from one another primary in terms of the feature specification that identifies the distinctive nature of the affricate release. (Shaw 1991: 147) Compared to APERTURE THEORY, Shaw assumes a 'later stage' at which the STOP APPROACH is turned into an AFFRICATE APPROACH: [cont] is said to be inserted by default assignment at the postlexical level. This predicts additional natural classes of all affricates and of affricates with fricatives to exist postlexically but not within the lexicon. As far as I see there is no evidence for such a claim; both lexical and postlexical phonology treat affricates as stops and only as stops. 15 Nevertheless, Shaw (1991) comes very close to a pure GENERALIZED STOP APPROACH, both from considerations of underlying representation as well as phonology. To conclude my brief historical survey of affricate analyses within feature theory I would like to mention two more recent papers both of which propose that the STRIDENT STOP APPROACH was more on the right track than any of its successors. Rubach (1994) presents data from various phonological processes in Polish which can only be analyzed properly if affricates are specified for [strident] and not specified for [cont] (cf. 2.5.3.3). Since Polish does not have non-strident affricates, Rubach only briefly speculates on their proper treatment by weighing two potential analyses for the labiodental affricates [p f , b v ]: (i) 'strident

13

14

15

This cannot be the whole answer, of course, since other strident affricates clearly contrast with stops at the same place, and even palato-alveolar stop-affricate contrasts exist (cf. 2.4.1). Although it is true that fricatives are less marked than stops in, e.g. Athapaskan languages (cf. Rice 1994), the reverse holds for many other languages, [cont] underspecification runs into the same problems that have already been noted for CORONAL underspecification (cf. McCarthy & Taub 1992; Hall 1995): [cont], while claimed to be absent from phonology for reasons of markedness may nevertheless be active within phonology as in, e.g., Greek 'dissimilation', an OCP effect on STRICTURE, disallowing sequences of [stop] [stop] as well as [cont][cont], Rice (1989, 1994) discusses Hare Slave 'deaffrication' as a postlexical process deleting [cont] in affricates, but I will show in 2.5 that 'spirantization' of MANNER specified stops does the same job without referring to [cont].

15 labial stops', and (ii) 'labiodental stops'. He tentatively assumes the former and explicitly rejects the latter option because [...] the opposition labial versus labiodental is generally nondistinctive in phonology. (Rubach 1994: 139-140).

However, bilabial and labiodental are contrastive places of articulation for stops, fricatives and sonorants (cf. 2.4.2). Taking /p f , b v / to be [strident] does not provide an explanation for the existence of labiodental stops and sonorants (unless they are also assumed to be [strident], of course), and it predicts a natural class of the labiodental affricate [p f ] with the coronals [ts, t*, s, J] etc. As far as I see, there is no evidence supporting this claim. The issue of non-strident affricates is discussed by Clements (1999a), and even though both our proposals have been developed independently, 16 there are striking parallels (including some overlap with regard to the languages discussed). Clements focuses on existing and non-existing contrasts, and his findings are basically identical to the ones I present in 2.4: strident affricates do but non-strident affricates do not contrast with stops. He concludes, just as I do here, that the former are best represented as [stop, strident] and the latter should not be distinguished from simple stops at all. Finally, Clements discusses two phenomena of phonetic affrication: (i) assibilation before high vowels and glides, i.e. Ill > /ts, tj/ /_ I/j, and (ii) affrication as an enhancement of aspirated stops (cf. my LARYNGEALLY DRIVEN AFFRICATION in 2 . 4 . 2 ) . M y GENERALIZED STOP APPROACH g o e s b e y o n d C l e m e n t s '

(1999a) analysis in two areas: first, it incorporates lateral and nasal affricates; second, I develop a more general picture of phonetic affrication which, among others, explains why non-strident affricates occur at all (PLACE DRIVEN AFFRICATION in particular). In ( 1 1 ) I c o m p a r e AFFRICATE APPROACH ( A A ) , SPLIT APPROACH ( S A ) a n d GENERALIZED

STOP APPROACH (GSA) according to the empirical findings in (2). The AFFRICATE APPROACH fails on Α., Β., and D., the SPLIT APPROACH (in part) fails on B. and D., and the GENERALIZED STOP APPROACH a c c o u n t s f o r all. (11)

E m p i r i c a l f i n d i n g s a n d c o m p a r i s o n of STOP APPROACH a n d AFFRICATE APPROACH

A.

S

•

S S S

*

V

•/

V

*

s I*

S

NATURAL CLASS III:

Affricates and fricatives do not form a natural class.

16

• *

NATURAL CLASS II:

Affricates and stops form a natural class. D.

GSA

NATURAL CLASS I:

Affricates do not form a natural class. C.

SA

CONTRAST:

SLN affricates contrast with stops. Non-strident affricates do not contrast with stops. B.

AA

Clements (1999a) is based on a talk presented in September 1998 at Ohio State University (LP'98), whereas my GENERALIZED STOP APPROACH was first presented in January 1999 at Leiden University (HILP IV). I am indebted to Nick Clements for kindly providing me with a copy of his paper.

16 2.4 Asymmetry of Contrasts

In this section I examine occurring and non-occurring contrasts between affricates and their stop counterparts. It will be shown that non-strident affricates are not only much rarer than strident affricates in the languages of the world but that they never contrast with stops. Interestingly, they often 'nearly contrast', i.e. affricate and stop differ only minimally with r e s p e c t to PLACE.

Strident (as well as lateral and nasal) affricates, on the other hand, may contrast with their stop counterparts, and they typically do so. Under the assumption that affrication itself is the primary (i.e. phonological) property of these sounds, the asymmetry between strident and non-strident affricates becomes completely unpredicted. The mystery gets a straightf o r w a r d e x p l a n a t i o n u n d e r t h e GENERALIZED STOP APPROACH: n o n - s t r i d e n t a f f r i c a t e s a r e

phonologically identical to their stop counterparts, but strident affricates are distinguished from stops by [strident]. (12) lists the number of occurrences of (voiceless) affricates in Maddieson's (1984) database of 317 languages. As can be seen, non-strident affricates are extremely rare compared to both stops and strident affricates. For instance, there is not a single case of a bilabial affricate in the database, but 263 voiceless bilabial stops (= 83%); and there is only one (apparent, as I will show below) velar affricate beside 283 (= 89%) velar stops. Interestingly, the situation is reversed for labiodentals: three languages (German, Beembe and Teke) have a labiodental affricate, but there is not a single example of a labiodental stop. 17 (12)

Number of occurrences of (voiceless) stops and affricates (Maddieson 1984) LABIAL

bilab

stops

labdent

263

affricate: strident non-strident

3

CORONAL

DORSAL

dent dent- alveo post- retro alv alv 72

135

102

7

28

10

46

40

141

8

2

-

-

-

-

pal

vel

uvul

41

283

38

11

1

3

Strident affricates, on the other hand, are much more common and, in the case of postalveolars, their occurrence exceeds the number of stops by far (cf. the discussion in 2.6). Considering contrasts within languages in the following two sections, the difference between strident and non-strident affricates turns out as absolute rather than gradient.

17

Palatal affricates appear to be more common, but I suspect that most of the cases listed by Maddieson are actually alveopalatals (= CORONAL), rather than true palatals (= DORSAL). This holds at least for Hungarian (cf. Hall 1997), Mandarin (Ladefoged & Maddieson 1996), and Komi (discussed below).

17 2.4.1 Strident, lateral and nasal affricates contrast with stops Contrasts between strident affricates and the corresponding stops (and strident fricatives) are easy to come up with; actually every strident dental affricate in Maddieson (1984) has a corresponding dental stop, and most of the 'dental-alveolar' and 'alveolar' affricates have corresponding stops as well. Contrasts within the posterior coronal region are definitely fewer in general, but the languages mentioned in Maddieson (1984) are not unique in this respect: for instance, contrasts between !\/ and /[5/ have been claimed for a number of languages geographically related to Burushaski (e.g., Yidgha, Gawar-Bati, Kati, Shina, Dameli; cf. Toporov 1970; Edelman 1983). Below I give one language as an example for each place of articulation contrast, together with the total number of contrasts attested in Maddieson (1984). (13)

Contrasts between stops, strident affricates and strident fricatives LANGUAGES

Hungarian (Σ 10) Pashto (Σ 44) Hamer (Σ 28) Capaya (Σ 2) Burushaski

(ΣΙ)

dental

dent-alveo

alveolar

postalveolar

retroflex

t t5 s t ts s t ts s t y Í t t5 §

Contrasts between stops, lateral affricates and lateral fricatives are also attested over the entire range in which [lateral] is defined. Examples are given in (14). 18

18

Data from Rigsby & Rude 1996 (Sahaptin), Maddieson 1984 (Tlingit, Navaho), O'Grady, Voegelin & Voegelin 1966 (Adynyamathanha), Ladefoged & Maddieson 1996 (Hadza, Zulu, Archi). Ladefoged & Maddieson (p.206f) transcribe their Archi examples as velar [L] but point out that these laterals are actually 'pre-velar'.

18 (14)

Contrasts between stops, lateral affricates, and laterals dental

LANGUAGES

dent-alv alveolar postalv retroflex palatal

velar

í Í1 i

Sahaptin Tlingit

t t* i

Navaho

t t* i t J1 1

Hadza Adynyamathanha

t tf I

Archi

c c* X

Zulu

k'

tf'

Nasal affricates are less common than lateral affricates, but since nasals typically occur at a broader range of places within languages, few examples suffice to show that they also contrast with both stops and nasals at every place where [nasal] is possible. 19 One case in point is the Austronesian language Némi (Rivièrre 1975), another is Zing Mumuye (Shimizu 1983; Steriade 1993). (15)

Contrasts between stops, nasal affricates, and nasals in Némi labio-velar

labial stop

ρ ph(m)b

nasal

m m

nasal stop

Pm

continuant

ν f

p

w

nasal cont

19

(pl.W)

(m)bw

'palatal'

apical t th

(n)

d

η

c

velar k kh

mw mw

η η

J1 J?

Í1

pmw

tn

e"

k'

w w

(1) CD

j j

X

w w

(q)

g

X

I was not able to find labiodental and uvular nasal affricates yet. This might be an accidental gap, for labiodental and uvulars nasal themselves are extremely rare. Maddieson's 1984 database, for instance, contains neither /RRJ/ nor /N/.

19 (16)

Contrasts between stops, nasal affricates, and nasals in Zing Mumuye labial

coronal

stop

Ρ b

t d

nasal

m

η

nasal stop

p

m

b

m

'palatal'

Ji

tn d n

velar

labio-velar

k g

k p gb

g

(gm)

k" g
t íl.

affricates fricatives

II

s s' s"

JT f

χ χ'

h

Beeler differentiates both series by 'apical' vs. 'blade', but the latter series seems to be posterior as well, i.e. 'palato-alveolar' (notice, e.g., the orthographic transcription , as in Chumash).

50 Navaho (Athapaskan; Sapir & Hoijer 1967, Young & Morgan 1991, Halle & Vergnaud 1981) has a 'regressive consonantal harmony' of the Chumash type: /s, t s / and /j", tV are mutually exclusive within words. A look at the complete Navaho obstruent system in (74) shows that the set of transparent segments not only includes stops but also a number of fricatives [t, fe, χ, γ, h] and affricates [t*, t h , t th , k xh ] (the latter being the phonetic realization of /k h /; cf. McDonough & Ladefoged 1993). Obviously, the set of harmonizing consonants in Navaho has few resemblance to a natural class of all affricates and fricatives. (74)

Navaho obstruents and 'sibilant harmony' (Halle & Vergnaud 1981) coronal stops

lateral

I

II

t t' t h t^'t"1

affricates

jS J.Si jSh

t í t f> t íh

sΖ

J 3

fricatives

velar

glottal

kk'

?

[k xh ] χγ

h

Finally, Tahltan (Athapaskan; Hardwick 1984, Nater 1989, Shaw 1991) has a consonantal harmony affecting three series of coronal obstruents as shown by the columns I-III in (75). 60 Transparent obstruents include stops, lateral fricatives and affricates, and velar and uvular fricatives and affricates (affricates are phonetic realizations of /k h / and /q h /, respectively; cf. Nater 1989). Again, identifying I, II, and III with the set of [cont] sounds in Tahltan would leave us with quite a number of mysterious exceptions. (75)

Obstruents in TAHLTAN and the MSC (Nater 1989, Shaw 1991) coronal stops affricates fricatives

lateral

I

II

III

11' t h 4

t t*' t

th

t e t e,

jOh

Θ0

t í tí> tJl.

SΖ

Í3

velar

uvular

k kw k' k w '

qq'

[k

xh

k

xwh

χ γ

]

[q xh ] X*

The Tahltan series I seems to provide evidence that CORONAL rather than [strident] is the correct generalization for the cases above. An analysis along these lines is proposed by Shaw (1991): roughly, she treats the three series as (I) 'laminai stops', (II) 'alveolar strident stops', and (III) 'palato-alveolar strident stops'. To account for their transparency, coronal stops and lateral affricates are claimed to be underspecified for PLACE.61

60

61

The domain of 'harmony' seems to differ from dialect to dialect. While Shaw (1991) describes Telegraph Creek Tahltan with a regressive harmony, the Iskut dialect (cf. Hardwick 1984; Nater 1989) is more of an MSC type with additional assimilation restricted to adjacency. See fn. 30 for a possible alternative analysis of the Tahltan series I /t9, t®1, t15', Θ, 0/ as pharyngealized stridents.

51 Deciding between CORONAL and [strident] is not the crucial point here, though. 62 Rather, whatever the correct generalization for this type of co-occurrence restrictions, it is not [cont]. The examples above do not present any evidence for a natural class of affricates and fricatives, and consequently no evidence that affricates consist of [cont].

2.5.3.2 Deletion and 'deaffrication' The second type of evidence in favor of [cont] on affricates is even more indirect: stops are deleted (or 'debuccalized') in the same contexts where affricates turn into fricatives. A unified account of this coincidence is possible if affricates are [stop] and [cont]: 'delete [stop]', [stop] deletion leaves affricates with [cont], but stops with no STRICTURE feature at all, with the consequence that PLACE (but not LARYNGEAL) features get subsequently lost as well. (76)

Stop debuccalization and 'deaffrication' as the result of '[stop] deletion' examples

formal account under the AA

stop debuccalization

/p, t, k/ / p \ t'\ k h /

0 [h]

'deaffrication'

/t s , t»/ [s, J] / t \ t Jh / -> [ s \ f ] s

[stop] -> 0 [stop, cont]

[0, cont]

'[stop] deletion' has been claimed for three languages: Modern Yucatec (Lombardi 1990), North Puebla Nahuat (Schäfer 1995), and Basque (Hualde 1991). All three languages have only strident affricates (as indicated in (76)), 63 and the process is restricted to positions preceding another stop. The languages differ slightly according to what 'counts' as a stop, and more fundamentally in that '[stop] deletion' in Yucatec and Nahuat (but not in Basque) only applies before a homorganic stop. No doubt, '[stop] deletion' is a phonologist's dream in the sense that it unifies two apparently unrelated phenomena into a single rule or constraint. It does so, though, to the expense of losing uniformity for 'general spirantization', as discussed in 2.5.1. If (76) were the correct analysis, we would expect '[stop] deletion' to be quite common and 'general spirantization' to be rare, but the opposite is true; a combination of 'deletion' and 'deaffric62

In fact, CORONAL MSCs/harmonies without reference to [strident] are needed in any case: languages like Shilluk (Clements 1999b) or Mayali (Evans 1995a) require coronal stops and nasals to agree in PLACE: in Shilluk, anterior coronals within roots are either apical (dental) or laminai (alveolar), but never mixed; and apicals in Mayali C V C ( V ) words agree with respect to [anterior], i.e., they are all either alveolar or retroflex.

63

Notice also, that Yucatec and Basque are both languages with a morpheme structure constraint holding between stridents (or coronals), as discussed in 2.5.3.1, a coincidence which might be more than a simple accident (especially since both languages have further ordering restrictions on strident fricatives and affricates not discussed in this section). North Puebla Nahuat is o n e of the Nahuatl dialects that does not have a lateral affricate (cf. the name), and it seems to be the only dialect with '[stop] deletion', as far as I could figure out.

52 ation' is exceedingly rare at best in the world's languages, but 'general spirantization' is frequently attested. The GENERALIZED STOP APPROACH, on the other hand, has to treat a situation as in (76) by two independent mechanisms: simple stops delete (or 'debuccalize'), but strident stops (= affricates) spirantize. 64 What both have in common is their context: [stop] [stop] sequences are impermissible; but the strategies (or constraints responsible) to resolve illformed structures differ. While such an analysis loses the uniformity reached under the AA, it maintains it for 'general spirantization', thereby accounting for typological markedness. But there is yet another general problem with the AA: treating affricates as [stop, cont] segments and allowing grammar to pick out one STRICTURE feature predicts a number of other phenomena, summarized in (77). As far as I see, none of them is attested in language. (77)

Phenomena predicted to exist under the AA Operation

Segmental effects

Languages

[stop] deletion

stop —> 0 ;

affricate —» fricative Yucatec, Basque, Nahuat

[cont] deletion

fricative —» 0 ;

affricate —» stop

[stop] insertion

stop —> stop;

fricative —> affricate

[cont] insertion

stop —> affricate; fricative —> fricative

){: # $ $

In sum, '[stop] deletion' as the appropriate analysis for a situation as in (76) creates more problems than it solves and thus should be abandoned for theoretical reasons. Below I discuss the facts of Yucatec in more detail, showing that at least for this language '[stop] deletion' is also an empirically inadequate assumption. 65 In Modern Yucatec (Blair 1964; Straight 1976; Lombardi 1990) plain stops show up as [h] preceding another stop or affricate of the same primary articulator (LABIAL, CORONAL, DORSAL); and affricates turn into fricatives in the same context. (78) gives all possible combinations, highlighted cells represent those cases exemplified by Lombardi (1990) (cf. (79)).

64

In fact, a unified analysis under the G S A is possible in terms of spirantization, if 'structure preservation' (SP) is taken as an active constraint on the output: while S P was claimed to block spirantization in Nisgha and Koyukon, it could be argued to cause PLACE deletion in Yucatec, and ROOT deletion in Nahuat, and Basque. In fact, I will tentatively propose an analysis along these lines for Yucatec.

65

I will not discuss Nahuat and Basque here, but notice that the data Schäfer (1995) gives (and those he does not give) indicate that Nahuat stop deletion is actually 'degemination'; Basque is somewhat more complex, but I agree with Artiagoitia (1993) that syllable structure conditions play the primary role and that the contexts for stop deletion and 'deaffrication' (i.e. spirantization) are not identical.

53 (78)

'[stop]-deletion' in M o d e r n Yucatec (based on Straight 1976) t

ts

tí

t

[ht]

[ht s ]

[ht']

ts

[St]

[st s ]

[st 1 ]

tí

[ft]

Lfts]

Lit1]

1./2.

Ρ [hp]

Ρ

[hk]

k (79)

k

'[stop]-deletion' in M o d e r n Yucatec (Lombardi 1990: 383) a.

táaq k p a k ' i k k k ò o l

-»

táaq k p a k ' i k h k ò o l ' w e ' r e planting our clearing'

lé 7 ir) w ot Λ

-»

lé ? iq w o h t* 'that house of mine/my house there' tiíq k o l i h k ' á a s ' h e ' s clearing b u s h '

tiít) k o l i k k ' á a s b.

?ut s t iq w iti

—>

? u s t iq w iti ' j like jf (lit.: 'goodness is at my e y e ' ) t s ' u ho 7 oJ tik 'he scratched it'

s

t ' u h o ' V tik

B a s e d on these data, L o m b a r d i (1990) argues that the phonology of M o d e r n Yucatec deletes [stop] b e f o r e another (homorganic) [stop]. T h e remnant [h] is said to result f r o m the fact that 'plain stops' are phonetically aspirated in Yucatec. (80)

'[stop] deletion' in M o d e r n Yucatec stops:

[p h , t ' \ k h ]

affricates:

[t s , t J ]

[h] ->

[s, j ]

However, this is half of the story at best, for Lombardi simplifies the issue in a number of crucial aspects and leaves some important questions unanswered. I concentrate here on showing that L o m b a r d i ' s 'debuccalization' story fails. 6 6

66

Notice however, the following additional complications: (i) 'debuccalization' and 'deaffrication' are optional in all cases and go along with a number of other simplification processes which, together, give the impression of fast speech phenomena rather than core phonology. To give just one example, a form like /táar) k pak'ik k kool/, looking straightforward in (79), is actually given with no fewer than four alternative realizations by Straight (1976: 540: [taar) k pak'ik k kool] (citation form) - [taaq k pak'ik h kool] ('debuccalized') - [taaq k pak'ik kool] ~ [taar] k pak'ih kool]. (ii) The generalization that Yucatec 'deletes [stop] before another homorganic [stop]' is wrong: first, nasals and laterals neither trigger 'debuccalization' nor 'deaffrication', i.e. /pm, tn, tl, t s n, t s l, Ai, A/ surface unchanged, irrespective of homorganeity. Second, the nasals /m, n/ do change in NC clusters, but rather than being deleted before stops they (optionally) PLACE-assimilate to any following consonant (Blair 1964: 31), and /n+n/ dissimilates to [ηη] (Blair 1964: 14).

54 There are three main reasons for its failure: first, [h] also occurs as the remnant of lateral reductions, and there is simply no way to make 'phonetic aspiration' responsible for these cases. For instance, [i]n many words 1 in an unaccented syllable before a juncture or disjuncture is replaced by h. (Blair 1964:33)67 Second, 'stop aspiration' itself is highly questionable. Blair states that [following and preceding a juncture the force of release of the stops of the respective series varies from very weak to very strong, depending on the speaker in part, but more upon certain paralinguistic features of emphasis. Intervocalically and preconsonantally the tense-stops are not ordinarily aspirated [...] (Blair 1964: 9). One wonders whether a 'paralinguistic' feature of aspiration is a good candidate to regularly show up as a remnant of 'debuccalization', even more, if stops are not aspirated at all 'preconsonantally'. Third, it is a striking fact of Lombardi's analysis that so called phonetic aspirates are discussed in some length, but the behavior of phonological ejectives is not even mentioned: 'ejective debuccalization' does exist in Yucatec, and it treats stops and affricates alike. As can be seen from (81), (a) ejective stops, (b) implosive stops, and (c) affricates are (optionally) deprived of all supralaryngeal specifications: /p', t', k', 6, t s ', ts'/ —» [?].68 (81)

'debuccalization' of ejectives in Yucatec (Blair 1964: 32f) a.

b. c.

67

68

k'ékWoB

[k'ekWoß]

-

[k'e'Woß]

pigs

lik'sik

[lik'sik]

~

[li'sik]

'he raises it'

[ ? u hoßnel]

~

[ ? u ho'nel]

'his body cavity'

~

[haVil]

'beauty'

'u hoßnel s

s

hat '(u)t il

—» ->

s

s

[hat 't il]

(iii) While Straight's (1976) description does suggest a situation as in (78), he only gives examples for the combinations highlighted in the table. Most importantly, I was not able to find a single example from sequences of two affricates: /t s +t s , ts+t*, t*+ts, Mt. (iv) The primary data sources Blair (1964) and Straight (1976) show inconsistencies in a number of cases. Most strikingly, Blair (1964), otherwise being the more extensive source, does not mention 'deaffrication' at all. Affricates in the relevant contexts do well occur in his sample, but they do not 'deaffricate', e.g.: ?uts+t+k+?it* good+in+l.pl.+eye ?ut s t Tit1 we like it (Blair 7 s 1964: 35). Notice that / ut / good is the same morpheme as in (79b). Blair transcribes the mobile lateral (which might also delete in other contexts) as IU to differentiate it from stable l\l. This leads Straight (1976: 65) to speculate on /L/ as a voiceless lateral. However, Blair (1964: 34) is quite clear in that /L/, where it shows up, is phonetically identical to /l/, i.e. a voiced lateral approximant: "[t]he morphophonemic symbol of a capital letter L is used to indicate a consonant which is realized as IU except in the environment of a following consonant where it is optionally (but generally) lost." (Blair 1964: 34) Blair (1964) and Straight (1976) agree that ejectives optionally debuccalize preceding any consonant within a word, i.e., presumably, in coda position. Debuccalization is one way to avoid marked codas, and laryngeal neutralization is obviously another (cf. 3.7 of chapter 3).

55 In sum, Lombardi's analysis of 'phonetic stop debuccalization' is more than unlikely. I can only speculate here on alternatives, but one would assume [h] to be a placeless fricative (cf. Lass 1976; Iverson 1989). Under such a premise, /t/ —» [h], I t i [s] etc. in Yucatec could indeed be analyzed as 'general spirantization' with subsequent deletion of PLACE for noninterpretable fricative structures (recalling from 2.5.3.1, Yucatec has no fricatives except for /S, J , H/).69

To conclude the discussion of Yucatec, there are many reasons to doubt that '[stop] deletion' correctly accounts for so called 'stop debuccalization' and 'deaffrication' : first, both phenomena are only parts of a much wider range of reductions (or simplifications) in the language; second, 'debuccalization' of 'phonetically aspirated stops' is suspect from a number of perspectives. Finally, a systematic type of debuccalization exists in Yucatec, and it treats stops and (strident) affricates alike.

2.5.3.3 [strident] affricates and fricatives The preceding sections showed that affricates and fricatives do not share a STRICTURE feature [cont]. Both types of sounds are obviously related through PLACE, and the discussion of Sahaptin 'consonantal ablaut' in 2.5.2 suggested that they might also share MANNER features: strident and lateral obstruents ([s, J, I, ts, t*, t4]) form a natural class to the exclusion of other stops, non-strident affricates [ρ φ ', t 0 '] and dorsal fricatives [χ, χ]. [strident], as a subset of MANNER, might be responsible for morpheme structure constraints, as discussed in 2.5.3.1. However, CORONAL does at least equally well in these cases. To conclude this section, then, I briefly review two clear cases of [strident] relating affricates and fricatives. English plural formation (Sagey 1986, Lombardi 1990) selects from a set of three major allomorphs: [s, z, iz]. [s] and [z] occur following voiceless and voiced stem-final sounds, respectively ((82a) vs. (82b)); [iz] is selected if the stem-final consonant is a strident fricative (82c) or affricate (82d). Parallel to morpheme structure constraints discussed above, the generalization responsible for [iz] cannot be described as a restriction on (adjacent) [cont] segments, because labiodental fricatives do not select [iz] (82e). More than that, CORONAL is not appropriate either in this case, for non-strident coronal fricatives pattern differently from strident fricatives (82f).

69

Note that such an analysis would yield three strategies to avoid violations of structure preservation through spirantization: (i) spirantization fails (Nisgha and Koyukon), (ii) 'PLACE debuccalization' (Yucatec), and (iii) deletion (Nahuat and Basque?). All three types of output may easily be modeled within systems of rankable constraints such as OT.

56 (82)

Plural formation in English a.

po[ts], par[ks]

b.

be[dz], ba[gz], ste[mz], b[i:z]

c.

bu[siz], ro[ziz], bu[fiz]

d.

churft^iz], e[d 3 iz]

e.

cliffs]

*cli[fiz]

f.

mo[0s]

*mo[9iz]

What unifies the set of [s, z, J", t*, d 3 ] is [strident], and it can be nothing else but [strident], especially not [cont]. 70 The occurrence of [i] prevents sequences of two strident sounds *[ss, zz, j"s, Λ , d 3 z], a prohibition which holds independently in English (cf. Lombardi 1990). Polish (Rubach 1994) has the following coronal phonemes. (83)

Coronal obstruents and nasals in Polish (Rubach 1994) 71 dental stops

t d

fricatives

§ ?

affricates nasals

f

glottal width. This is the position taken in Maddieson (1984), who gives [gk'] as /g*/ in the phoneme chart (No. 918), but notes that 'voiced ejectives' in !Xü are prevoiced, the release is voiceless' (p. 216). The same interpretation for !Xü is assumed by Laver (1994: 370). An appropriate phonetic symbolization for the complex !Xü sound in question would therefore be [dtJ']. The phonetic label for what Snyman calls 'a voiced unemitted sound' would in the terms of this book be pre-voicing, in that the brief period of pulmonically initiated voicing can be regarded as a property of the beginning of the medial, closure phase of the stop, before the initiation of the glottalic airstream starts. Prevoiced stops like [ d ts h , d ts'] etc. are also claimed to exist in the Khoisan language !Χόδ, and Traill's (1985: 152) careful phonetic description confirms the simple segment analysis. In each case the voicing symbolized as d is voice lead [...] In all cases [...] we are dealing with a single feature of voicing, the timing of which, relative to the release of the oral articulation with which it is associated, is subject to manipulation by rule. (Traill 1985: 152) If such stops are indeed simplex sounds, then temporal ordering not only affects laryngeal versus supralaryngeal articulation (as in [t h ] vs. [ h t], to be discussed in 3.4.3), but also laryngeal configurations themselves, i.e. vocal fold vibration is separated from glottal width.

77 Rather than pre- or postponing a single 'breathy' gesture, these sounds are prevoiced and pos/aspirated, and this indicates that labels such as 'breathy' and 'creaky' (or 'voiced glottalization') are in fact compound articulations of two dimensions, namely vocal fold vibration and glottal width. 10 The laryngeal system used so far has three features: [voice], [spread], and [constricted], A language gets laryngeally complex simply by using more laryngeal features (yielding up to four series) or by combining its [voice] with [spread] or [constricted] (yielding up to six). The data presented in the tables above suggest the following phonological categorization of the actually occurring stop types. ( 108) The make-up of laryngeal contrasts for stops 0

spread

constricted

0

t

th

t\?u,f

[voice]

d

dfi, d, tfi, d t h

d, d, çf, ? d, * [ d t ' V ' ] · I have not been able to find a language with more than four laryngeal contrasts in complex onsets or codas. This is probably an accidental gap because languages with five or six laryngeal series in simplex stop constituents are very rare, and those discussed in 3.3.1.1 do not have complex onsets or codas (except for !Xóò). Nevertheless, the examples above show that every single contrast is attested for stop+C constituents in some language at least. In sum, laryngeal contrasts in complex onsets and codas allow for the same number and type of contrasts as simplex constituents: contrastive series are build up by using three laryngeal features [spread], [constricted], and [voice], as well as their combinations [spread, voice], and [constricted, voice]. Complex onsets and codas involving stops allow (in principle) for all six contrastive series also attested in simplex stop constituents; and sonorant clusters do not exceed three laryngeal contrasts: 0 , [spread], [constricted] (Klamath) again, the same as with simplex sonorants. 24 Languages differ in the way they realize laryngeal features phonetically in complex constituents: laryngeal gestures may be phased early, late, or throughout complex constituents (e.g. Icelandic Up] vs. Klamath [wl] vs. White Hmong [ml]). But this is also the case with simplex constituents (cf. 3.3.1); comparing Polish [kt] vs. [gd], Hmong [p h ] vs. [pi], and !Χόδ [ d t'] vs. [ d (tq x )'] makes clear that phasing and extension of laryngeal features in simplex and complex constituents are in fact very similar if not identical. Differences mainly arise according to (i) the type of laryngeal feature (notably, [voice] vs. [spread] and [constricted]), (ii) the type of supralaryngeal articulation (roughly, stops vs. fricatives vs. sonorants), and (iii) the position within a syllable (onset vs. coda).

24

obstruents nor do different implosives with each other. All sequences noted in the present sample were of implosives followed by voiced liquid in initial systems." Unfortunately, he does not list the respective languages. Pure fricative clusters are generally rare. For instance, none of the languages making use of [constricted] and/or [spread] in simplex fricative constituents seems to have fricative clusters (cf. Catford 1977, on Caucasian languages). Still, languages like Polish show at least for 0 vs. [voice] that fricative clusters do not differ from other complex constituents.

90 A summary of laryngeal contrasts in complex onsets and codas together with some examples of their different phonetic realizations is given below. (126) The make up of laryngeal contrasts for complex onsets and codas

stop+C

son+son

0

spread

constricted

0

pt

(pt)'\ Phth

(pt)', pt\ ßl

[voice]

bd

bfir, d (t X ) h

61, d (tq x )'

0

wl

wl, ml

wl

*

*

*

[voice]

The crucial cases are those where consonants are combined which independently (i.e. in simplex constituents) support laryngeal contrasts. Rather than adding laryngeal features (or LAR NODES) segment by segment, such clusters obey the same restrictive system of laryngeal contrasts as do simplex constituents. First, although simplex constituents in e.g. Klamath and !Χόδ may be either [spread] or [constricted], neither language allows CC constituents to be [spread] and [constricted] (cf. 3.4.2). Second, no language forms phonological contrasts by attaching [spread] or [constricted] to the first or second consonant in a cluster; i.e. */C h C/ vs. /CC h / (3.4.3). Finally, adding even more segments does not matter either (cf. Polish, Hmong). All of this is quite surprising, given the common assumption that laryngeal features are properties of segments (or ROOT NODES). But it gets a straightforward explanation under the prosodie account: onsets and codas allow for at most one LAR NODE.

3.3.2.2 Complex nuclei Parallel to complex onsets and codas above, a language with a single laryngeal series of simplex nuclei will only have a single series in complex nuclei25, such as Finnish or Estonian (Kehrein 1994), among many others. I was not able to find an example comparable to Dakota, i.e. a language with various laryngeal contrasts in simplex nuclei, but only a single plain series in complex nuclei.26

25

26

Wherever the data permit a distinction, I prefer examples of vowel sequences (i.e. those traditionally described as bisegmental) over diphthongs (= monosegmental), for obvious reasons. Needless to say, no language makes a distinction between these with respect to laryngeal contrasts. Just as with onsets and codas, the phonetic symbols in the following tables are just examples of occurring vowels and vowel sequences which serve to illustrate distinctive laryngeal series, i.e. they should not be interpreted as representing the entire (supralaryngeal) inventory of the respective languages. To avoid typographic confusion with the laryngeal diacritics, I indicate the non-syllabic part of vowel sequences only in the plain series.

91 (127) One series of complex nuclei

Finnish, Estonian

0

spread

constr

α, ε, i, u ai, ei, au, eu

*

*

Next, consider Sedang (Smith 1968) and Gujarati (Cardona 1965; Mistry 1997), two languages which have already been described as possessing a two way laryngeal contrast in simplex nuclei. (128) Two series of complex nuclei spread

0 Sedang Gujarati

a 13,

*

io

a aj, au

a ai, au

constr a jo *

As can be seen, Sedang contrasts plain and [constricted] in complex nuclei as well; and creaky voice is simultaneous with the entire vocalic phase. 27 Thus, complex nuclei are either plain [ig] or constricted [ig], but neither [constricted]+plain *[Í9], nor plain+[constricted] *[i§]. Gujarati shows the same behavior for plain vs. breathy voiced complex nuclei; again, laryngeal series are entirely plain [au] or [spread] [au], but not build up segment by segment *[au, au]. Hmong (Lyman 1979; Yang 1998; Golston & Yang 2000) has the full set of three laryngeal contrasts in simplex nuclei as well as in complex ones. (129) Three series of nuclei

Hmong

0

spread

constr

a aj, ia

a ai, j a

a âi, j §

Again, [spread] and [constricted] cover the entire phase of complex nuclei. As in Sedang and Gujarati above, [spread] and [constricted] in Hmong do not produce segmental contrasts like */ia, ja/ vs. /ia, ia/. Even more, and just like with onsets in Klamath and !Xóo, Hmong does not combine [spread] and [constricted] within complex nuclei: *[ia, .ia].28 27 28

Creaky voice even extends into a following coda consonant (Smith 1968: 60). Jalapa Mazatec (Silverman et. al 1995) is another potential example. As stated earlier, this language has the maximal three-way contrast for simplex nuclei: /a, a, a/. The authors do not discuss vowel sequences, but I found one example: tsja 2 'penis' (p. 71). Sequences of 'vowels' with final syllabicity do exist in Huautla Mazatec (Pike & Pike 1947), e.g. [ia, ue, ae], but Golston & Kehrein (1998) argue that the first (non-syllabic) part actually belongs to the preceding onset, i.e.

92 Although there are fewer examples of complex nuclei compared to onsets and codas, the conclusion is the same: laryngeal contrasts in complex nuclei are build up in the same way as with simplex nuclei, namely by using [spread] and [constricted], yielding at most three contrastive series. They neither distinctively order phonation contrasts with respect to the first or second vocalic phase, nor do they allow for both [spread] and [constricted] to cooccur within a single nucleus. In other words, nuclei (not segments) allow for at most one LAR NODE.

3.3.3 Zero constituents In this paragraph I discuss how languages build up laryngeal series in onsets and codas without further supralaryngeal articulation. I show that the systematics are parallel to those discussed for simplex and complex constituents in all relevant aspects. Specifically, laryngeal contrasts in 'zero' onsets and codas are built up by the same system of three laryngeal features and their combinations. The only universal restriction specific to laryngeal contrasts in zero constituents is that, traditionally speaking, there is no 'voiced segment' parallel to [h] and [?]. But this is phonetically motivated since [voice] needs an articulatory carrier (either supralaryngeal or laryngeal) to be perceptible. Thus, we find [voice] in combination with obstruents (e.g. [b, z]), or with [spread] ([fi]), and probably, though far more controversially, with [constricted] (a 'voiced glottal stop' [*?], proposed to exist in Gimi; see below); but we do not find it without any of these in an onset or coda. In consequence, the maximal number of laryngeal contrasts in 'zero constituents' is FIVE. In the following I present data from languages with different numbers and types of laryngeal contrasts in zero constituents and compare them to laryngeal contrasts in simplex constituents. French and Late (Ladefoged 1964) are examples for languages with a single series of zero onsets and codas. 29 (130) One series of laryngeal only constituents

French, Late

29

0

spread

constr

spread voice

constr voice

t,s 0

*

*

*

*

[C j a, C w e, C f e], Whatever the correct analysis of Jalapa and Huautla Mazatec VV sequences, neither combines both [spread] and [constricted] (*[ia, ja]), nor shows distinctive temporal ordering contrasts *(/ia, ja/ vs. /ia, ia/). In the following tables I give representatives for laryngeal contrasts in simplex constituents in the first row (except for [voice]), and those for laryngeal-only constituents in the second. In the absence of supralaryngeal articulations, 0 (= no laryngeal feature) represents the absence of an onset or coda. For the sake of simplicity I ignore well-known differences of markedness between zero onsets and zero codas (= open syllables) in the discussion.

93 Syllables in French and Late may or may not have an onset (e.g. French île 'island' vs. [vfille 'town'); and they can be open or closed (e.g. French la 'the-fem' vs. lafkj 'lake'). But neither language makes use of [spread] or [constricted], i.e. they have no 'laryngeal segments' and no aspirated or glottalized consonants (though both have voiced obstruents). Languages with a two-way contrast in zero constituents either add [spread] or [constricted] to the French pattern. (131) Two series of zero constituents 0

spread

constr

spread voice

constr voice

Dutch, Finnish, Temne

t 0

* h

*

*

*

English, German30, Icelandic

t 0

th h

*

*

*

Hindi, Kashmiri, Punjabi

t 0

th fi

*

dÄ *

*

Maidu

t 0

* (h)

t' ?

*

cf *

Dutch (Booij 1995), Finnish (Karlsson 1982) and Temne (Ladefoged 1964) have [spread] onsets, and they have consonantal onsets as well; but they do not allow for combinations of both, i.e. there are no aspirated consonants. English and German have both [h] and aspiration. The distribution of [spread] in these languages is largely independent of whether or not it is accompanied by further supralaryngeal material; for instance, the amount of aspiration in onsets is strongest in word-initial stressed syllables, followed by non-initial stressed syllables, and weakest in unstressed (or secondary stressed) syllables (cf. Iverson & Salmons 1995; Davis 1999 on English). But the same holds for [h], as, e.g., German ['h]ut 'hat' > be['h]iiten 'to guard' > Vor[h]ut 'vanguard'. Hindi and many other Indo-Aryan languages differ from English and German in that they have additional [spread, voice] with stops. But although many of them have [fi], they do not contrast it with [h] in zero constituents. Thus, just as with other laryngeal specifications discussed before, the phonetic realization of a single [spread] series varies from language to language (and even within a single language) between [h] and [fi]. As indicated in (131), /h/ is normally voiceless in German and English (though [fi] occurs intervocalically, e.g. English a[h]ead), but predominantly voiced in Hindi, Kashmiri, and Punjabi. 31 Finally, Maidu (Shipley 1956; Lombardi 1995a) has a three way contrast between plain, [constricted], and [constricted, voice] in simplex onsets; but it has only a two-way contrast

30

31

As is well known, most German dialects have no vowel-initial stressed syllables, but phonetic [?] instead; e.g. ['?]aber 'but', The['?]ater 'theater', but: tto[w]a 'boa'. Other languages with a single /h/ phonetically realized as [fi] are: Gujarati (Cardona 1965: 29); Kharia, !Xü (Maddieson 1984); Northern Sotho (Louwrens et al. 1995); Shona (Carter & Kahari 1979: 3); (Ge) Ewe (Westermann & Ward 1970: 86).

94 0 vs. [constricted] in zero constituents, i.e. [constricted, voice] is missing, just as *[spread, voice] is in Indo-Aryan languages. [?] patterns with [d] and [t'] in Maidu in that none of them is allowed in coda position. A number of languages have three way contrasts in zero constituents, for instance Hupa (Rice 1994; Golia 1996; Gordon 1996), Tlingit (Maddieson, Bessell & Smith 1996), Cuzco Inca (Rowe 1950; Um 1996), Klamath (Barker 1964; Blevins 1993), Hadza (Sands, Maddieson & Ladefoged 1993), Wichita (Rood 1975), and Sedang (Smith 1968). (132) Three series of zero constituents 0

spread

constr

spread voice

constr voice

Hupa, Tlingit, Cuzco Inca, Klamath

t 0

th h

t' ?

*

*

Hadza, Wichita

k 0

kh fi

k' ?

*

*

Sedang

t 0

t\m h°

d, m ?

*

*

All languages in (132) use the same set of laryngeal features in zero and simplex constituents. The languages in the first three rows contrast 0 , [spread], and [constricted] in zero onsets, and they have the same contrast in simplex constituents. Again the realization of [spread] varies between [fi] (Hadza, Wichita) and [h] (others). Most of these languages show similar (or even identical) distributions of 'laryngeal segments' and 'laryngealized segments'; as in Maidu, laryngeal features in Cuzco Inca are only licensed in onsets, i.e. neither [t h , t ' ] nor [h, ?] occur in codas (Um 1996). Tlingit disallows [spread] (though not [constricted]) in codas, hence we find [?, t'], but not [h, t h ] in this position (Maddieson, Bessell & Smith 1996: 131). 'Coda simplification' in Sedang is different from Cuzco Inca, Tlingit and other languages with partial or complete laryngeal neutralization: only plain consonants or [h, ?] are allowed. Thus, while onsets may be consonantal [t, m], laryngeal [h, ?], or both [th, m, ? d, ? m], codas can only be either supralaryngeal or laryngeal. 32 I know of two languages claimed to show a four-way contrast in zero constituents: Wu Chinese (Chao 1967 and Maddieson 1984 on Changchow Wu; Kennedy 1952, 1953 on Tangsic Wu) and Gimi (Ladefoged & Maddieson 1996). Both require special comment.

32

This pattern is not unique, e.g. Washo, Kiowa, and Navaho (Um 1996).

95 (133) Four series of zero constituents

Wu Chinese

Gimi

0

spread

constr

spread voice

t

th h

*

tfi

(?)

fi

0 t 0

* fi

*

*

constr voice

*

?

As can be seen, Wu has no glottalized consonants, and I judge the phonemic status of the glottal stop as questionable: [?] is non-phonemic in onsets, 33 but it is one of only three sounds which may occur in coda position ([η, η, ?]), though only with a specific tonal pattern. I have not been able to find out if coda [?] in Wu should be analyzed as predictable from tone or vice versa. Changchow and Tangsic Wu contrast 0 , [spread], and [spread, voice], both in zero and simplex onsets. The phonation differences in onsets (which are mainly perceived during the initial part of the following vowel) interact with tone in the following nucleus: /p, p h , h/ go along with upper register, and /m, pfi, fi/ co-occur with lower register. If I interpret Kennedy (1953), Chao (1967), and Cao & Maddieson (1992) correctly, all authors agree that phonation (i) is primary to register, and (ii) is an inherent property of onsets (rather than nuclei). If so, Wu in fact contrasts fhJ and /fi/. I hasten to point out that Wu is the only (quite) clear example of a phonemic /fi/ I am aware of, although [fi] is not at all rare phonetically. Other potential cases come from Bantu languages, e.g. Zulu (Maddieson 1984), Xhosa (Leben 1973b), and the Masa Chadic languages Lamé (or Zime) and Musey (Ladefoged & Maddieson 1996: 326). 34 Similar to Wu, /h/ and /fi/ belong to different classes of consonants. The 'fi-class' (known as 'depressor consonants' in the literature on Zulu and Xhosa) significantly lowers the tone of the following nucleus; the 'h-class' is neutral with respect to tone. However, phonetic descriptions of Zulu (Traill, Khumalo & Fridjhon 1987) and Musey (Shryock 1995), although differing in detail, make clear that the distinction between the two classes of consonants does not coincide with a difference in 'voicing' or 'breathy voice'. Remarkably, both 'h' and 'fi' in Musey are normally voiced (whereas all stops, traditionally transcribed as /p, t/ vs. lb, d/ etc. tend to be 'voiceless'). Whatever the exact articulatory mechanisms involved in the distinction, so called 'h' and 'fi' do not differ with respect to [voice] (or any other phonation contrast). 35 Thus, Wu remains the only known example of a contrast between [spread] and [spread, voice] in zero constituents. 33 34

35

Vowel-initial syllables receive a phonetic glottal stop in Wu (Kennedy 1953: 458). Sachnine (1982: 72f) states the distinction between /hi vs. /fi/ to be one characteristic feature of the Masa group within the Chadic language family. Traill, Khumalo & Fridjhon (1987) find an independent articulatory gesture of 'anterior movement of the arytenoids and the posterior movements of the tubercle of the epiglottis' (p. 265) with 3 of their 5 subjects. This gesture is centred with the production of depressor consonants and has a coarticulatory pitch lowering effect on the following vowel. Shryock (1995) claims 'longitudinal vocal fold tension' to be the distinguishing property between 'Class A' ("h') and 'Class B' ('fi') consonants in Musey.

96 The most remarkable fact about Gimi is the contrastive use of [constricted, voice] in zero constituents. Taken literally, a 'voiced glottal stop' is of course articulatorily impossible. On the other hand, Ladefoged & Maddieson (1996: 75) remark that [i]n the great majority of languages we have heard, glottal stops are apt to fall short of complete closure, especially in intervocalic positions. In place of a true stop, a very compressed form of creaky voice or some less extreme form of stiff phonation may be superimposed on the vocalic stream.

Thus, the realization of what has been transcribed as /?/ up to now varies a lot between [a?a] and [aaa], just as Γα! varies between [aha] and [afia]. The question is whether this distinction is exclusively a matter of phonetics, or can be contrastive in some language. Gimi is the only language which seems to possess such a contrast in intervocalic position. 36 Ladefoged & Maddieson (1996: 76f) give waveforms of [0, fi, ?, *?] in the context a_o, and provide phonological evidence that [*?] (transcribed * below) behaves like a glottal stop. 37 They conclude: [I]t seems that * in Gimi is voiced, and involves some glottal activity; but it might better be called a creaky voiced glottal approximant rather than a stop. Thus Gimi uses in a distinctive way what are for most languages simply parts of the range of possible variation in the production of glottal stops. (Ladefoged & Maddieson (1996: 76)

According to Ladefoged & Maddieson's discussion, then, Gimi possesses a four-way contrast in zero constituents, including a probably unique contrast between [constricted] and [constricted, voice]. In sum, the survey of laryngeal contrasts in zero constituents leads to three major generalizations: first, although not confirmed for a single language, zero constituents seem to allow for at most five laryngeal contrasts, which can be described as 0 , [spread] [h], [constricted] [?], [spread, voice] [fi], and [constricted, voice] [*?] (or [_]). This system differs from simple stop constituents in only one fundamental (though phonetically explicable) respect: it does not allow for [voice] alone, [voice] does occur distinctively together with [spread] and [constricted] in zero constituents (Wu, Gimi), but there is a very strong tendency at least, to avoid such contrasts even in languages which have them in simplex stop constituents (cf. [spread, voice] in Indo-Aryan; [spread, constricted] in Maidu). Second, apart from these restrictions many languages allow for the same laryngeal contrasts in zero constituents as they have in simplex or complex constituents. But they also disallow the same potential contrasts in all types of constituents: most remarkably, the number of laryngeal contrasts in a zero constituent cannot be increased by combining LAR NODES: *[?h, h?]. For instance, Klamath has /t h , t', m, m, h, ?/ as well as complex onsets, but it does not allow for any of the following combinations: (i) aspirated and globalized consonants (*[p h t', p h m, p't h , p'm]), (ii) combinations of 'laryngeal segments' and 'lar-

36

37

Ladefoged & Maddieson (1996: 77) mention Jingpho as another potential case but argue that "in this case it seems preferable to regard the contrasting forms as being distinguished by tonal differences." The phonological rule they give is: /m, η/ - » [b, d] /{?, *) _. Note that the output of this rule would yield something like [..a*do], i.e. [*] in non-intervocalic position. Unfortunately, the authors do not give examples, nor discuss the phonetics of [*] in this (coda?) position.

97 yngealized segments' (*[ht', ?t h , t'h, ?t h ]), and (iii) clusters of 'laryngeal segments' (*[?h, h?]). In other words: no matter the supralaryngeal make up of a Klamath onset, it has at most one LAR NODE. Third, distributional restrictions to laryngeal features often treat 'laryngeal segments' and 'laryngealized segments' alike: *LARCODA in Maidu prohibits not only [t', d], but also [?]; and *[spread] coda in Tlingit excludes [t h , h], though not [ t \ ?]. Another systematic type of coda restriction seems to treat both types differently: 'laryngealized segments' are prohibited in codas of Sedang (and Washo, Kiowa, Navaho), but 'laryngeal segments' are not. From the position of prosodie licensing, this situation finds a straightforward explanation in terms of coda complexity: codas in these languages allow for at most one NODE, i.e. either a ROOT NODE [t, m ] , o r a LAR NODE [h, ?], b u t not b o t h * [ t h , m , ? d , ? m ] ,

3.3.4 Summary To summarize, the maximal number of laryngeal contrasts in a simplex stop constituent is SIX. The featural system which accounts for all existing contrasts and the systematics that underlie them involves a single LARYNGEAL NODE, heading three privative features, [voice], [spread], and [constricted]. Increasing the number of segments within such a constituent does not increase the number of laryngeal contrasts. Non-stop constituents show fewer laryngeal contrasts, though not arbitrarily: fricatives lack complex laryngeals (*[spread, voice], *[constricted, voice]); thus, they allow for at most FOUR contrasts. And [voice] is non-distinctive with sonorants (*[voice], *[spread, voice], *[constricted, voice]), reducing the maximal number of laryngeal contrasts to THREE. Again, more segments within a single constituent do not produce more (or different) types of laryngeal contrasts. Finally, reducing supralaryngeal articulations to zero does not have any general effect on laryngeal contrasts either; laryngeal-only constituents show maximally FIVE contrasts, with only single [voice] being excluded in principle (though [spread, voice] and [constricted, voice] are exceedingly rare at best). The table below illustrates the attested phonological contrasts for different types of constituents and gives some examples for phonetic variation within the phonological categories.

98 (134) Maximal laryngeal contrasts of different constituents

zero

0

spread

constr

voice

0

h

?

*

spread voice (fi) fi

fi d h

constr voice L) - ?

d , d, d t'

simplex stop

t

t"

t',t,f

d

d , d, t , t

simplex

s

sh

s', S, ζ, s?

ζ

*

*

simplex son

η

η, η

η, n'n

*

*

*

complex

stop+C

pt

bd

b fi r, "(ίχ)"

61, d (tq*)'

simplex

nucleus

a

a, a

a, a a

*

*

*

complex

nucleus

ai

ai, ai

ai, a 7 i

*

*

*

fricative

(pt) h , p h t h (pt)', pt', ßl ?

As stated above, all gaps in the table are related to [voice], and most of them can be explained by universal phonetic restrictions on perceptibility. A [voice]-only constituent would be indistinguishable from the absence of an onset or coda (= vowel-initial or vowelfinal syllable). And sonorants are redundantly voiced due to their specific vocal tract configuration; 'voicing a voiced sound' is as effectless as 'palatalizing a palatal'. The lack of contrastive [spread, voice] and [constricted, voice] in fricative constituents is less clear, though. Even though fricatives do not support laryngeal contrasts in general because of their specific requirements on airflow, they still allow for all three laryngeal features individually. The most important restrictions on laryngeal contrasts from the perspective of prosodie licensing are the columns lacking in (134): first, none of the languages discussed so far makes a distinction between 'laryngeal segments' and 'laryngealized segments', e.g. /th/ vs. /t'V, /t?/ vs. IVI. And no language seems to allow for combinations of [spread] and [constricted] (in either order), *[h?, ?h, ht', ?t h , ht?, ?th, p h t', p't h , p h ?, p'h], and so on. Third, no language seems to distinctively order laryngeal features with respect to supralaryngeal articulations: */ h p, 7 p/ vs. / p \ p'/; */hpt> ? pt/ vs. /p h t, p't/ vs. /pt h , ptV etc. The following sections deal with these unattested contrasts. I claim that they hold universally. There is no general phonetic principle banning the structures above, though, and in fact, some of them do occur phonetically. Thus, contrary to the restrictions on [voice], these have to be treated as genuine phonological principles. Prosodie licensing of laryngeal features is a representational way to exclude them all by one simple mechanism: there is at most one LAR NODE per onset, nucleus, and coda, and this NODE is phonologically unordered with respect to whatever type and number of ROOT NODES occurs within the same constituent.

99 3.4 How languages do not build up laryngeal contrasts

Up to now we have seen that languages build up laryngeal contrasts by making use of three laryngeal features [spread], [constricted] and [voice] and their combinations [spread, voice] and [constricted, voice], giving a maximal number of six (for stops). I can imagine at least four systematically different ways to extend the number of laryngeal contrasts within onsets, nuclei and codas. (135) Increase the number of laryngeal contrasts within a subsyllabic constituent by A. making a structural distinction between 'laryngealization' and 'laryngeal segments' : B. allowing for conflicting laryngeal features to co-occur: C. allowing for contrastive ordering of laryngeal and supralaryngeal specifications: D. increasing the number of segments:

/p h / * /ph/ / ? p h /, /?h/ /p h / * / h p/ /p h /, /p h s 7 /, /p h s ? l h / etc.

Allowing for A would increase the number of laryngeal contrasts by four, i.e. [ph], [p?], [bh], [b?]. Β might look like what is excluded on articulatory grounds; since [spread] and [constricted] are opposite values of the same articulatory dimension, and thus impossible to realize simultaneously. However, while they are impossible at the same time, we can clearly do one after the other. Thus, if Sedang and Cua have [t h ] and [ ? d], why shouldn't languages have both, i.e. [?dh]?38 And if Klamath has [?] and [h] and onset clusters, why shouldn't it have [?h]? Allowing for Β gives us just two more contrasts; but in combination with A we get additional [?p h ] [ 7 ph] [?ph]. C further creates a contrast between [ p \ p'] and [ h p, ? p] (as well as one between late and early voicing, [pb] vs. [ b p]); and combining this option with one or both of the preceding ones, creates a host of other new contrasts, e.g. [hp], [?p], [ h p?], [hp7], [ h p ? ] etc. D ties laryngeal specifications to supralaryngeal gestures, allowing as many laryngeal nodes within an onset, nucleus or coda, as there are segments. This entails Β and C of course, though only in part. Thus, D predicts that both [spread] and [constricted] should occur in a two-segment constituent [p h s 7 ]; and it predicts contrastive ordering in the way that laryngeal features attach to segments, i.e. [p h l] Ψ [pl h ]. Still, combinations of D with both Β or C are possible if we think of them as options within a respective segment, further increasing the number of possible contrasts, as e.g. [p h s 7 ] gives additional [( ? p h )s 7 ], [ 7 p( h s 7 )], [(7ph)(hs7)] (B+D), or [ h ps 7 ], [ h p's], [p h7 s] (C+D), not to mention B+C+D. Finally, A+C results in [p h ?], [p7h], or even [p h h], [p7?]. Most researchers would agree without further discussion that many of these potential contrasts are odd at best, especially the combinatorial ones. On the other hand, at least A, C and D are not my own inventions, but are taken from the existing literature on laryngeals. 38

Formally, this could be represented as either a 'glottal width contour', i.e. an ordered sequence of two conflicting features under the same NODE, or as a sequence of two nodes. Note, that deciding between these options is not trivial: in the case of two independent laryngeal nodes, we would expect to find [voice] contours as well, e.g. something like [ 7 dt h ]. However, since voicing is a binary dimension, the feature [voice] can only contrast with its absence, thus apparent contours [dt] vs. [td] are indistinguishable from a contrastive temporal ordering.

100 As we will see in 3.8, current models of feature theory actively rely on one or more of these options, thus they are quite able to represent some of the potential contrasts above, and as far as they subscribe to more than one, they can also represent the corresponding combinations. In this section I investigate options A to D. I will not only propose that some of them and their combinations do not exist but will make the strong claim that none of them does. My research in the cross-linguistic phonology of laryngeals leads me to posit three universale regarding non-existing contrasts in onsets, nuclei and codas, which hold regardless of their supralaryngeal make up (i.e., option D above is incorporated into universal Β and C, respectively). 39 (136) No language... A. contrasts 'laryngealizations' and 'laryngeals' in onsets, nuclei or codas. h

= /h/

h

h

= /?/ 7

/p / = /ph/

/ρ / = /ρ?/

/ h p/ = /hp/

/ t y = /?p/

h

/pt / = /pth/

/pt ? / = /pt?/

/ h pt/ = /hpt/

/ ? pt/ = /?pt/

B. allows conflicting laryngeal features within onsets, nuclei or codas. */h?/

*/?h/

* /hp?/

* /7ph/

* /p h t ? /

* /p ? t'7

* /aa/

* /§a/

* /ai/

* /ai/

C. contrasts pre- and postlaryngealized onsets, nuclei or codas.

39

[spread]

[constricted]

[voice]

/ h p/ = /p'V

/ ? p/ = /ρ7/

/ b p/ = /p b / = /b/

/ h pt/ = /p'V = /pt11/ = /p h t h /

/'pt/ = /p 7 t/ = /pt 7 / = /p7t7/

/bt/ = /pd/ = /bd/

/aa/ = /aa/ = /a/

/aa/ = /aa/ = /a/

/ai/ = /ai/ = /ai/

/ai/ = /aj/ = /ai/

I exclude a small set of languages here which seem to violate (almost) every universal stated in (136). I discuss these languages separately in 3.5 and argue that they are no counterexample to any laryngeal universal.

101 3.4.1 No language contrasts laryngealized sounds and clusters (A) Laryngeals have always played two closely related roles, serving both as the segments [h] and [?] and as secondary properties of other segments in the form of aspiration [p h ], breathiness [a], glottalization [p'] or creaky voice fa]. As far as I see, there are at least three main sources for 'laryngeal segments' in the literature, paraphrased below. ( 137) Sources for laryngeal segments A. Zero constituents: A laryngeal articulation without further supralaryngeal articulation is a 'laryngeal segment' [h, ?]. B. Phoneme system economy·, if a language has 'laryngeal segments' (as in A) and 'laryngealized segments ' [C'\ C ? ], the latter are treated as clusters /Ch, C?/. C. Phonotactics: if a language has no 'clusters' except [C h , C ? ], these are treated as single segments /C h , C ? /; if it has other clusters, [Ch, C ? ] are treated as clusters as well /Ch, CÌI. (137A) is what I termed laryngeal specifications in 'zero constituents' in 3.3.3. For instance, English hand and and only differ by the presence and absence of initial [spread]; and [ka?a] 'to roll', [?a?a] 'dare' and [ha?a] 'dance' show the contrastive role of [constricted] and [spread] in Hawaiian onsets (data from Ladefoged & Maddieson 1996: 75). Such cases have (almost) always been treated as 'laryngeal segments' : Glottal closures can, of course, occur without accompanying oral closure, in which case they form glottal stops. (Ladefoged & Maddieson 1996: 74). (137A) is obviously based on the common intuition that speech is exhaustively parsed into sequences of discrete phonological entities. This entity is called a 'segment' in traditional analyses; and it is treated as a LAR NODE under the PROSODIC ACCOUNT to model the parallel behavior of zero, simplex and complex constituents. Crucially, though, both options can only be alternatives to each other because no language contrasts [spread] with [h] or [constricted] with [?], i.e. something like [ h a] vs. [ha] or [ ? a] vs. [?a]. Thus, subscribing to the existence of 'laryngeal segments' on the basis of (137A) is never meant in a way to create counterexamples to universal A. Second, linguists have chosen to analyze aspirated or glottalized consonants sometimes as separate series /p h , p'/, sometimes as clusters /ph, ρ?/ on the basis of 'economy' (137B). For instance, if a language has [p, h] and [p h ] the latter is analyzed as /ph/ rather than /p h /, thereby removing whole series of sounds from the phoneme system (cf. Hockett 1955). It should be clear that phoneme reduction of this sort is not without costs; the fact that a language allows for [p h ] (but not, e.g., [m h ] or [''p]) has to be stated anyway, and is simply removed to the domain of possible and impossible clusters: /ph/ but */mh, hp/. The PROSODIC ACCOUNT goes along some way with this argument because it claims that every language specific restriction of laryngeal contrasts should be stated on the basis of onsets, nuclei, and codas. A language with onsets like [h, ρ, 1, p h , 1, pi] (e.g. Icelandic or Hmong) has a single LAR NODE heading [spread], which is licensed in all kinds of onsets. Contrary to the cluster approach, the LAR NODE is universally unordered with respect to the rest; there is thus no need to explicitly exclude potential /hp, hi/ (= [ h p, h l]) in contrast to /ph, lh/. And there is also no need to rule out potential contrasts like /p h l, pi, p h l/, which

102 would be expected to exist under segmental approaches. In a way, 'system economy' (though from the point of view of subsyllabic constituents) is assumed under the PROSODIC ACCOUNT, and further restrictions emerge from language specific constraints 40 (cf. the discussion of Dakota below). Crucially, system economy poses no problem as far as potential contrasts between /C h , 1 C / and /Ch, C?/ are concerned: whatever linguists have decided to take as the appropriate phonological representation of what they heard as, e.g., [p h , m, p', m], it is always an either-or decision—never do we find that both /C h , CV and /Ch, C?/ are assumed for a single language in order to represent contrasts. Third, linguists have chosen to analyze aspirated or glottalized consonants sometimes as separate series /p h , p'/, sometimes as clusters /ph, ρ?/ on the basis of phonotactic grounds (137C): if a language has no clusters other than [C h ], for instance, these will often be treated as aspirated consonants rather than as clusters. If a language has other clusters, then aspirated consonants may be treated as clusters as well (e.g. Cooper & Cooper 1966: 88ff. on Halang; Lyman 1979 on Green Hmong), even more, if the aspirated and glottalized consonants themselves do not take part in further clustering, i.e. [p h , p ' , pi] but *[p h l, p'l]. 4 1 Dakota is the case in point here. As shown in 3.3.2, this language has four laryngeal contrasts with simplex stop onsets, and three with fricatives, but only plain obstruent clusters. (138) lists all attested simplex and complex obstruent onsets. (138) Dakota onsets (Shaw 1989: 5-7) 0

spread

constricted

voice

p, t, t*, k, s, j", χ

p11, t h , t ih , k h , h

P\ t\ k', (?), s \ Γ , X'

b, (d), z, 3, γ

stop+stop

pt, pt J , tk, kp, kt, kt J

*

*

*

stop+fric

ps, pi, ks, kj"

*

*

*

*

*

*

simplex: complex:

fric+stop

sp, st, stJ, sk, jp, Jt, fk, xp, xt, xtf

Note that Dakota has phonemic /h/ and (though severely restricted) /?/. Analyzing aspirated and ejective obstruents as clusters of /Ch/ and /C?/ would uniformly restrict Dakota onsets to at most two consonants. This, in essence is the position of Boas & Deloria (1941). However, it neither explains why voiced obstruents do not form clusters (unless, of course, we assume some mysterious [voice] segment), nor the lack of /hC/ and /?C/. Even more, Shaw (1989) demonstrates that aspirated and glottalized obstruents do not behave as clusters with

40 41

Or highly ranked universal constraints from the perspective of OT. Within classical phonemics we often find even 'split systems', i.e. underlying clusters /ph, ρ?/ are assumed to surface as single segments [p h , p'], an analysis recently taken up for Huautla Mazatec by Steriade (1994). But these introduce a large amount of derivational machinery such as 'merger' of ROOT NODES, which is superfluous under a prosodie analysis (see 3.7.3).

103 respect to phonological processes such as cluster simplification and velar palatalization. Thus, a clear (and typical) paradox has emerged. Shaw (1989:21) assumes that Dakota has a constraint disallowing ROOT NODES to branch into LAR and SUPRALAR in onset clusters ('No melodic branching within a branching onset') to account for the lack of laryngeal contrasts in complex onsets. But a similar, though more elegant explanation is available under the assumption of prosodie licensing: Dakota allows for at most two NODES linked to an onset; these can be either ROOT NODE and LAR NODE ([p h , p', b] etc.), or two ROOT NODES (e.g. [pt, tk]). Note that Dakota onsets never contain two LAR NODES (*[?h, h?]), but this is excluded under the PROSODIC ACCOUNT on principle because it holds universally, no matter if we investigate 'laryngeal segments' or 'laryngealized segments': no language allows for more than one LAR NODE within onset, nucleus, and coda. The example shows that the PROSODIC ACCOUNT directly accounts for the dual nature of laryngeals: the LAR NODE can be part of phonotactic restrictions because it is a direct dependent of onsets, nuclei, and codas; and it can function together with segments because both are headed by the same constituent. The crucial point for the purposes of this section is that making a distinction between 'segments' /p h , p'/ and 'clusters' /ph, ρ?/ on phonotactic grounds is also always an either-or decision but never meant to represent potential contrasts. Thus, cases of (137C.) do not violate universal A either. So far, clusters as /Ch, C?/ have been assumed as an alternative to monosegments / C \ C 7 / for various phonological reasons, but never in addition to these to represent contrasts. Furthermore, whatever the argument to vote for one or the other, the two structures are never claimed to differ phonetically; i.e. they 'merge' to [p h , p']. In fact, I can think of only two ways to perceive a difference between aspiration qua aspiration and aspiration qua segment, or constriction qua glottalization and constriction qua segment. First, recalling that languages differ with respect to the duration of aspiration and glottalization, we could assume to represent short(er) aspiration and glottalization as [p h , p'], and long(er) aspiration and glottalization as [ph, p?]. But although languages vary to a large degree in this respect, no language makes contrastive use of it. No language contrasts /C1'/ and /Ch/ or /C 7 / and /C?/ under this interpretation. The second imaginable way to distinguish / C \ C 7 / and /Ch, C?/ is between phonetically aspirated and glottalized sounds vs. true sequences of independently articulated consonants and laryngeals. Actually, a restricted number of languages has been proposed to contrast singletons and clusters in this way, e.g. the Salish languages Shuswap (Kuipers 1974) and Lillooet (van Eijk 1997). But these languages are exactly those which are excluded from the discussion here because they seem to violate not only (almost) every universal on laryngeal contrasts, but in fact also everything else phonologists have ever proposed as restrictions on numbers and types of consonant clusters. I will argue in 3.5 that this coincidence is not accidental. Anticipating the discussion somewhat, the postulated /C h , C 7 / and /Ch, C?/ differ according to syllable structure, i.e. [Ch, C ? ] vs. [C.h, C.?]. Thus, they do not violate Universal A (nor any other) because the contrast is not within an onset, nucleus or coda. To mention a final source of 'laryngeal segments', cluster analyses have been put forward in cases where languages appear to have distinctive pre- and postaspiration (given as /hp, ph/ instead of / h p, p'1/) or distinctive pre- and post-glottalization (/?p, ρ?/ instead of / 7 p, p7/), presumably to avoid such contrasts within segments (e.g. Pike & Pike 1947 on

104 Huautla Mazatec; M a l o n e 1923 on Icelandic). N o n e of these languages is claimed to contrast segments /p h , p ' / and clusters /ph, p?/; hence they pose no problem for universal A. T h e y are problematic, though, f r o m the perspective of universal C, which claims that no language contrasts pre- vs. post-laryngealized onsets, nuclei, and codas. I will discuss them in 3.4.3 and argue that they are spurious. 4 2 In sum, no language has both C h clusters and aspirated C h segments; or C ? clusters and globalized C ? segments; and so on within an onset, nucleus or coda. And if no language has both, n o language contrasts the two a fortiori. Linguists may imagine a difference, deciding to treat glottalization as sub-segmental in this language [p ? ] and as segmental in that [p?]. But if they contrast in no language, phonological theory should not be able to distinguish them either. T h e generalization holds true for zero and for complex constituents as well: no language contrasts / h a/ vs. /ha/ or / ? a/ vs. /?a/; and no language contrasts /pi11/ and /plh/, or / p i ' / and /pi?/ either. But this means that having supralaryngeal articulation(s) or not is actually irrelevant to the argument: no matter the supralaryngeal material, laryngeal features and segments never contrast in any language. C o m p a r i n g purely laryngeal onsets and codas with those that have additional supralaryngeal articulations, e.g. [p h , p ' ] , reveals that treating the former as segments but the latter as segment-dependent features is not only unnecessary but also unhelpful, since it obscures the fact that many languages show a parallel distribution of aspiration and [h] and glottalization and [?] (cf. 3.3.3). T h e PROSODIC ACCOUNT does away with this distinction since it treats both aspiration and [h] and glottalization and [?] in parallel. (139) illustrates this for [spread] onsets; as can be seen, [h], [p h ] and [ph] are all parallel with regard to laryngeals: they consist of a single LARYNGEAL NODE, which is specified for [spread]. T h e difference between a simple [h] onset and a [p h ] (or [ph]) onset is simply that we add further supralaryngeal specifications in the latter.

42

Michael Job informs me that a distinction between (tautomorphemic) [ C \ C h ] and (heteromorphemic) [C?, Ch] is claimed to exist in Circassian to account for the fact that the latter (but not the former) pattern with pharyngeals in lowering a following Id to [a]. Thus, we get minimal pairs like /ρ'ε/ [ρ'ε] 'bed' vs. /ρ-?ε/ [p'a] 'my hand' (/?e/'hand' is [?a]). However, postulating a structural distinction between [Î] and ['] (and between [h] and [ h ]) to be responsible for this difference only restates the problem. There is no reason for why a 'glottal segment' but not a 'glottalized segment' should lower a vowel since both are [constricted] from a featural perspective. Even more, the opposite situation is attested in Tigre: pharyngeals and ejectives, but not the laryngeals [h, ?], lower a tautosyllabic /a/ to [a] (Rose 1996: 92). I suspect that 'laryngeal articulations' which show pharyngeal properties do in fact have a pharyngeal component. This is plausible for the Tigre ejectives (being the cognates of the famous Semitic 'emphatics'), but also very likely for Circassian and a number of other Caucasian languages (cf. Catford 1977; Smeets 1984). If so, Circassian [h, ?] are actually [h?, ? i ] (or [î h , Î']), and /p-? f e/ is realized as [p'a] because of the additional pharyngeal constriction, but not because of a difference between 'segmental' and 'subsegmental' laryngeals.

105 (139) 'Laryngeal segments' and 'Iaryngealized segments' under the PROSODIC ACCOUNT ^OnsET

ONSET

LAR

[spread]

[spread] Ρ

[h]

[Ph, p h ]

Calling the LARYNGEAL NODE in (139) a 'segment' or not is in fact irrelevant; the crucial point is that the representation covers both so called 'segmental' and secondary (i.e. 'Iaryngealized') properties. This has been illustrated for Dakota above: adopting the PROSODIC ACCOUNT we can explain phonotactics as a restriction to at most two NODES associating to an onset (either ROOT and LAR, or two ROOT NODES), i.e. as a matter of articulatory complexity. But there is no need to rely on something like ordered skeletal positions within an onset. The fact that [p h ] and [p'] behave as 'units' for some phonological processes in Dakota can be translated into phonological representation either as 'single segments' (as Shaw does) or 'single onsets' (as the PROSODIC ACCOUNT claims), since there is a one-to-one correspondence between aspirated (and ejective) segments and onsets in Dakota.

3.4.2 No language allows both [spread] and [constricted] within an onset, nucleus, coda (B) 3.4.2.1 Onsets and codas Despite an extensive search I have been unable to find a single case that would disconfirm Universal Β for simplex onsets and codas. Languages contrast [spread], [constricted] and [voice] onsets and codas, and in the case of stops, they even combine [spread] or [constricted] with [voice]. Phonetically, this may result in such strange sounds as voiceless implosives or prevoiced ejectives. But no language combines [spread] and [constricted]: / ? t h , mm, V , mm/ are as unattested within onsets and codas, as are their potential 'segmental' counterparts / ? t \ ?th, ?m, ?mh, ht', ht?, hm, hm?/, and so on. The PROSODIC ACCOUNT predicts this lack of contrast because these cases would require a disallowed sequence of two LAR NODES within a single onset or coda. 43 The same prediction is borne out in standard segmental models at the level of ROOT NODES. However, these models do not account for 'segmental' non-contrasts: given a language that has /t h , t', h, ?/ as well as clusters, nothing in principle prohibits things like /?t h , t h ?, ht', t'h /, or even /?h, h?/.

43

Unless, of course, we allow for 'laryngeal contours' under a single LAR NODE. Thus, Universal Β in fact shows that 'contours' [spread, constricted] and [constricted, spread] do not occur either.

106 Even more surprisingly from this position, the ban against [spread] and [constricted] within onsets and codas also holds for complex constituents. If laryngeal features were properties of segments, we would expect that the number of LARYNGEAL NODES in onsets, nuclei and codas directly relates to the number of segments within these constituents. Specifically, we would expect that a language using [spread] or [constricted] in simplex constituents should make use of both in complex ones. As shown in 3.3, a number of languages fulfill the criteria of contrasting [spread] and [constricted] in simplex onsets and allowing for clusters; for instance: Dakota, Sedang, Klamath, and !Χόδ. However, while Dakota and Sedang allow neither [spread] nor [constricted] in complex onsets at all, clusters in Klamath and !Xóò are either [spread] or [constricted], but never [spread] and [constricted] (140). What holds for simplex and complex onsets and codas is not violated by zero constituents either. Neither Dakota nor Sedang or Klamath (nor any other language) has onsets like /h?/ or /?hy, although all three languages have /h/ and /?/. (140) Non-occurring laryngeal contrasts: *[spread] [constricted], *[constricted] [spread]

Dakota

spread constr

constr spread

P \ s'

* h? *V

*?h *y

* p t

*pT

* p h t'

* p't"

h

?

simplex

p\)

Vi

* h p'

*?h *y

complex

* PhJ

*'bj

* phJ

*p'i

h

?

* h?

*?h *y

spread

constr

zero

h

?

simplex

ph

complex

h h

zero Sedang

zero Klamath

simplex

q ,J,w

q\i, w

complex

qt'\ q h l, wl

q t \ q'l, w.l

zero !Χόδ

h

* h?

simplex complex

*h t h , d t" tx, d tx

*

1

t'A' (tq*)\ d (tq x )'

h

* p' * q h t \ q h J, wl

* q't h , q'l, wl

* h?

*?h

* 'γ

* d

* tV\ t y

* t'q x h , d t'q x h

As can be seen in (140), these languages might differ in the way they deal with single [spread] and [constricted] in zero, simplex, and complex constituents. But they show the same behavior with respect to conflicting laryngeal features: [spread]+[constricted] and [constricted]+[spread] are disallowed in all languages and all types of onsets and codas. No language violates Universal Β for zero, simplex or complex constituents. Thus, the universal restriction to at most one LAR NODE holds within onsets and codas; but it has nothing to do with the number of supralaryngeal articulations, just as the PROSODIC ACCOUNT claims.

107 Comparing these findings to the behavior of [voice] reveals an interesting observation: as shown in 3.3, [voice] may co-occur with [spread] or [constricted] under a single LAR NODE, representing laryngeal series as 'breathy voice' and 'injectives', respectively, [spread, voice] and [constricted, voice] not only occur in simplex but also in complex constituents in a language like !Χόδ. While there is thus no general principle against [voice] co-occurring with [spread] or [constricted] in an onset or coda, there is a principle banning such combinations as a result of consonant clusters. Comparing Ancient Greek and Kabardian to !Χόδ illustrates this: simplex constituents in Ancient Greek may be [spread] or [voice], but not both; and Kabardian uses [constricted] or [voice] in simplex constituents, though not their combination. Exactly the same system holds for complex constituents, as can be seen in the final column of (141). (141) Occurring and non-occurring [spread]+[voice], [constricted]+[voice] spread

constr

voice

spread voice

constr voice *

Ancient

simplex

P"

*

b

*bh

Greek

complex

phth

*

bd

$ b^jh bjh

Kabardian

simplex

*

p'.