Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Weighted constraints and gradient restrictions on place co-occurrence in Muna and Arabic

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper documents a restriction against the co-occurrence of homorganic consonants in the root morphemes of Muna, a western Austronesian language, and compares the Muna pattern with the much-studied similar pattern in Arabic. As in Arabic, the restriction applies gradiently: its force depends on the place of articulation of the consonants involved, and on whether the homorganic consonants are similar in terms of other features. Muna differs from Arabic in the relative strengths of these other features in affecting co-occurrence rates of homorganic consonants. Along with the descriptions of these patterns, this paper presents phonological analyses in terms of weighted constraints, as in Harmonic Grammar. This account uses a gradual learning algorithm that acquires weights that reflect the relative frequency of different sequence types in the two languages. The resulting grammars assign the sequences acceptability scores that correlate with a measure of their attestedness in the lexicon. This application of Harmonic Grammar illustrates its ability to capture both gradient and categorical patterns.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albright, A. (2006). Segmental similarity calculator. Software, MIT. http://web.mit.edu/albright/www/software/SimilarityCalculator.zip. Accessed 20 March 2008.

  • Albright, A. (2007a). Gradient phonological acceptability as a grammatical effect. http://web.mit.edu/albright/www/papers/Albright-GrammaticalGradience.pdf. Accessed 20 March 2008.

  • Albright, A. (2007b). Natural classes are not enough: Biased generalization in novel onset clusters.http://web.mit.edu/albright/www/papers/AlbrightBiasedGeneralization.pdf. Accessed 20 March 2008.

  • Anttila, A. (1997). Deriving variation from grammar. In F. Hinskens, R. van Hout, & W. Leo Wetzels (Eds.) Variation change and phonological Theory (pp. 35–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, T., & Hahn, U. (2001). Determinants of wordlikeness: phonotactics or lexical neighborhoods? Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 568–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berent, I., & Shimron, J. (1997). The representation of Hebrew words: evidence from the obligatory contour principle. Cognition, 64, 39–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berent, I., Everett, D. L., & Shimron, J. (2001). Do phonological representations specify variables? Evidence from the obligatory contour principle. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 1–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berent, I., Steriade, D., Lennertz, T., & Vaknin, V. (2007). What we know about what we have never heard: Evidence from perceptual illusions. Cognition, 104, 591–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkley, D. (2000). Gradient obligatory contour principle effect. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston.

  • Boersma, P. (1998). Functional phonology: formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. Ph.D dissertation, University of Amsterdam.

  • Boersma, P. (2004). A stochastic OT account of paralinguistic tasks such as grammaticality and prototypicality judgments. Ms., University of Amsterdam (ROA-648).

  • Boersma, P. (2007). The evolution of phonotactic distributions in the lexicon. Paper presented at the Workshop on Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology, 6–8 July 2007, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

  • Boersma, P., & Hayes, B. (2001). Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 45–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boersma, P., & Pater, J. (2008). Convergence properties of a gradual learner in Harmonic Grammar. Ms., University of Amsterdam and University of Massachusetts Amherst.

  • Boersma, P., Weenink, D. (2007). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.0.14) [computer program]. http://www.praat.org/. Accessed 20 March 2008.

  • Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of english. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coetzee, A. W. (2004). What it means to be a loser: non-optimal candidates in optimality theory. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

  • Coetzee, A. W. (2006). Variation as accessing non-optimal candidates. Phonology, 23, 337–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coetzee, A. W. (2008). Grammar is both categorical and gradient. In S. Parker (Ed.) Phonological argumentation. London: Equinox (In press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Coetzee, A. W. (In press). Grammaticality and ungrammaticality in phonology. To appear in Language.

  • Coetzee, A. W., & Pater, J. (2006). Lexically ranked OCP-Place constraints in Muna. Ms. University of Michigan and University of Massachusetts, Amherst (ROA-842).

  • Coetzee, A. W., & Pater, J. (2008). The place of variation in phonological theory. Ms., University of Michigan and University of Massachusetts, Amherst (ROA-946).

  • Cohn, A. (1992). The consequences of dissimilation in Sundanese. Phonology, 9, 199–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S., & Pierrehumbert, J. (1997). Stochastic phonological grammars and acceptability. In J. Colema (Ed.) Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the ACL Special Interest Group in Computational Phonology (pp. 49–56). Somerset, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Côté, M. -H. (2004). Syntagmatic distinctness in consonant deletion. Phonology, 21, 1–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, M. J. (1979). Hans Wehr: a dictionary of modern written Arabic. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, L. (2006). Phonology, phonetics, or frequency: Influences on the production of non-native sequences. Journal of Phonetic, 34, 104–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dresher, B. E. (1989). Comments on McCarthy. Guttural phonology. Paper presented at the MIT Conference on Feature and Underspecification Theories, Cambridge, MA.

  • Evans, N. (1995). Current issues in the phonology of Australian languages. In J. Goldsmith (Ed.) The handbook of phonological theory (pp. 723–761). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everett, D., Berent, I. (1998). The comparative optimality of Hebrew roots: an experimental approach to violable identity constraints. Ms., University of Pittsburgh and Florida Atlantic University. (ROA-235)

  • Faraway, J. J. (2005). Linear models with R. New York: Chapman and Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, M. (2005). A Robbins-Monro type learning algorithm for an entropy maximizing version of stochastic Optimality Theory. MA thesis, Humboldt University, Berlin. (ROA-767).

  • Flemming, E. (2001). Scalar and categorical phenomena in a unified model of phonetics and phonology. Phonology, 18, 7–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frisch, S. A. (2004). Language processing and segmental OCP effects. In B. Hayes, R. Kirchner, & D. Steriade (Eds.) Phonetically based phonology (pp. 346–371). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frisch, S. A., & Zawaydeh, B. A. (2001). The psychological reality of OCP-Place in Arabic. Language, 77, 91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frisch, S. A., Pierrehumbert, J., & Broe, M. (2004). Similarity avoidance and the OCP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22, 179–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. H. (1950). The patterning of root morphemes in Semitic. Word, 6, 162–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. H., & Jenkins, J. (1964). Studies in the psychological correlates of the sound system of American English. Word, 20, 157–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guy, G. R., & Boberg, C. (1997). Inherent variability and the obligatory contour principle. Language Variation and Change, 9, 149–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, M. (2004). Gradience, phonotactics, and the lexicon in English phonology. International Journal of English Studies, 4, 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, M. (2007). Typology, judgments and weights. Paper presented at the Workshop on Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology, 6–8 July, 2007, Stanford University, Stanford CA.

  • Hannson, G. (2001). The phonologization of production constraints: evidence from consonant harmony. In M. Andronis, C. Ball, H. Elston, & S. Neuvel (Eds.) Papers from the 37th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Vol. 1 (pp. 187–200). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, B. (2004). Phonological acquisition in optimality theory: the early stages. In R. Kager, J. Pater, & W. Zonneveld (Eds.) Constraints in phonological acquisition (pp. 158–203). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, B., & Londe, Z. C. (2006). Stochastic phonological knowledge: the case of Hungarian vowel harmony. Phonology, 23, 59–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, B., & Wilson, C. (In press). A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. To appear in Linguistic Inquiry, 39.

  • Itô, J., & Mester, A. (1986). The phonology of voicing in Japanese: theoretical consequences for morphological accessibility. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 49–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jäger, G. (In press). Maximum entropy models and stochastic optimality theory. In J. Grimshaw, J. Maling, C. Manning, J. Simpson, & A. Zaenen (Eds.), Architectures, rules, and preferences: Variations on themes by Joan Bresnan. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

  • Jesney, K., & Tessier, A. -M. (2007). Re-evaluating learning biases in Harmonic Grammar. In M. Becker (Ed.) University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 36: Papers in Theoretical and Computational Phonology (pp. 69–110). Amherst, MA: GLSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kawahara, S. (2007). Half rhymes in Japanese rap lyrics and knowledge of similarity. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 16, 113–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kawahara, S., Ono, H., & Sudo, K. (2006). Consonant co-occurrence restrictions in Yamato Japanese. Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 14, 27–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, F. (2006). Linear Optimality Theory as a model of gradience in grammar. In G. Fanselow, C. Féry, R. Vogel, & M. Schlesewsky (Eds.) Gradience in grammar: generative perspectives (pp. 270–288). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenstowicz, M., & Kisseberth, C. (1977). Topics in phonological theory. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, J. P., & Yu, A. C. L. (2007). Lexical and phonotactic effects on wordlikeness judgments in Cantonese. In J. Trouvain, & W. J. Barry (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetics Science, (pp. 1389–1392). Dudweiler, Germany: Pirrot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lombardi, L. (1999). Positional faithfulness and voicing assimilation in optimality theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17, 267–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leben, W. (1973). Suprasegmental phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

  • Legendre, G., Miyata, Y., & Smolensky, P. (1990). Harmonic grammar — a formal multi-level connectionist theory of linguistic well-formedness: theoretical foundations. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 884–891. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Legendre, G., Sorace, A., & Smolensky, P. (2006). The optimality theory–harmonic grammar connection. In P. Smolensky, & G. Legendre (Eds.) The harmonic mind: from neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar (pp. 903–966). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacEachern, M. R. (1999). Laryngeal cooccurrence restrictions. New York: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, H. B., & Whitney, D. R. (1947). On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18, 50–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. J. (1988). Feature geometry and dependency: a review. Phonetica, 45, 84–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. J. (1994). The phonetics and phonology of semitic pharyngeals. In P. Keating (Ed.) Phonological structure and phonetic form: papers in laboratory phonology III (pp. 191–233). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. J. (2002). A thematic guide to optimality theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. J. (2003a). OT constraints are categorical. Phonology, 20, 75–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. J. (2003b). Rotuman consonant cooccurrence restrictions, Ling 730 Course Handout, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

  • McConvell, P. (1988). Nasal cluster dissimilation and constraints on phonological variables in Gurindji and related languages. In N. Evans, & S. Johnson (Eds.) Aboriginal Linguistics 1 (pp. 135–165). Armidale: University of New England, Department of Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mester, A. (1986). Studies in tier structure. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

  • Miles, J. (2005). Tolerance and variance inflation factor. In B. S. Everitt, & D. C. Howell (Eds.) Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science (pp. 2055–2056). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreton, E. (2002). Structural constraints in the perception of English stop-sonorant clusters. Cognition, 84, 55–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, J., & Tsay, J. (2005). The processing of phonological acceptability judgments. In Proceedings of the Symposium on 90-92 NSC Projects, pp. 26–45. Taipei, Taiwan.

  • Ohala, J. J., & Ohala, M. (1986). Testing hypotheses regarding the psychological manifestation of morpheme structure constraints. In J. J. Ohala, & J. Jaeger (Eds.) Experimental phonology (pp. 239–252). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padgett, J. (1995). Stricture in feature geometry. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pater, J. (2005). Learning a stratified grammar. In A. Brugos, M. R. Clark-Cotton, & S. Ha (Eds.) Proceedings of the 29th annual Boston university conference on language development (pp. 482–492). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pater, J. (2007). Cumulative ill-formedness in typological and experimental data. Paper presented at the Conference on Experimental Approaches to Optimality Theory, University of Michigan. http://people.umass.edu/pater/pater-michigan.pdf. Accessed 20 March 2008.

  • Pater, J. (2008). Convergence in gradual learning. To appear in Linguistic Inquiry 39.

  • Pater, J., Bhatt, R., & Potts, C. (2007a). Linguistic optimization. Ms., University of Massachusetts Amherst.

  • Pater, J., Potts, C., & Bhatt, R. (2007b). Harmonic Grammar with linear programming. Ms., University of Massachusetts Amherst.

  • Pater, J., & Tessier, A. -M. (2006). L1 phonotactic knowledge and the L2 acquisition of alternations. In R. Slabakova, S. Montrul, & P. Prévost (Eds.) Inquiries in linguistic development: Studies in honor of Lydia White (pp. 115–131). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peperkamp, S. (2007). Do we have innate knowledge about phonological markedness? — Comments on Berent, Steriade, Lennertz, and Vaknin. Cognition, 104, 631–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pertz, D. L., & Bever, T. G. (1975). Sensitivity to phonological universals in children and adolescents. Language, 51, 149–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierrehumbert, J. (1993). Dissimilarity in the Arabic verbal roots. In A. Schafer (Ed.) Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 23 (pp. 367–381). Amherst, MA: GLSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierrehumbert, J. (2001). Stochastic phonology. GLOT International, 5, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prentice, D. J. (1971). The Murut languages of Sabah. Canberra: Australian National University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, A. S. (2002). Anything goes. In T. Honma, M. Okazaki, T. Tabata, & S. Tanaka (Eds.) A new century of phonology and phonological theory (pp. 66–90). Tokyo: Kaitakusha.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, A. S., & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms., Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science, New Brunswick, NJ. [Published as Prince and Smolensky 2004.]

  • Prince, A. S., & Smolensky, P. (2004). Optimality theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Published version of Prince and Smolensky 1993.].

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, A., & Tesar, B. (2004). Learning phonotactic distributions. In R. Kager, J. Pater, & W. Zonneveld (Eds.) Constraint in phonological acquisition (pp. 245–291). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholes, R. (1966). Phonotactic grammaticality. The Hague: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selkirk, E. (1991). Vowel height features: evidence for privativity and dependency. Paper presented at L’Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal.

  • Shiels-Djouadi, M. (1975). Reappraisal of the voicing constraint in consonant cluster simplification. In R. Ordoubadian, & W. von Raffler-Engel (Eds.) Views on language (pp. 144–158). Murfreesboro, TN: Inter-University Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smolensky, P. (1996). The initial state and ‘richness of the base’ in optimality theory. Ms., Johns Hopkins University. (ROA-154)

  • Smolensky, P., & Legendre, G. (2006). The harmonic mind: from neural computation to Optimality-Theoretic grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki, K. (1998). A typological investigation of dissimilation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona.

  • Tesar, B., & Smolensky, P. (2000). Learnability in optimality theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treiman, R., Kessler, B., Knewasser, S., Tincoff, R., & Bowman, M. (2000). English speakers’ sensitivity to phonotactic patterns. In M. B. Broe, & J. B. Pierrehumbert (Eds.) Papers in laboratory phonology V: acquisition and the lexicon (pp. 269–282). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uhlenbeck, E. M. (1949). De Structuur van het Javaanse Morpheem. Bandung, Indonesia: Nix.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Berg, R. (1989). A grammar of the Muna language. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Berg, R., & Sidu, O. (1996). Muna-English dictionary. Leiden: KITLV Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yip, M. (1989). Feature geometry and co-occurrence restrictions. Phonology, 6, 349–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuraw, K. (2000). Patterned exceptions in phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.

  • Zuraw, K. (2002). Aggressive reduplication. Phonology, 19, 395–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, University of Michigan, 440 Lorch Hall, 611 Tappan Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-1220, USA

    Andries W. Coetzee

  2. Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 01003, USA

    Joe Pater

Authors
  1. Andries W. Coetzee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joe Pater
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andries W. Coetzee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Coetzee, A.W., Pater, J. Weighted constraints and gradient restrictions on place co-occurrence in Muna and Arabic. Nat Language Linguistic Theory 26, 289–337 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-008-9039-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-008-9039-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation