Advertisement

Postalveolar co-occurrence restrictions in Slovenian

  • Peter JurgecEmail author
  • Jessamyn Schertz
Article
  • 67 Downloads

Abstract

This paper shows that a postalveolar co-occurrence restriction (Obligatory Contour Principle, OCP) is a productive component of Slovenian phonology. We first examine whether an apparent OCP-based restriction on derived palatalization, previously observed in corpus data (Jurgec 2016), extends to novel forms via a goodness-rating task. We then explore the generality of the restriction across the lexicon, in non-derived novel words as well as derived forms. Our results confirm that native speakers judge derived palatalized nonce forms to be less acceptable when the stem contains another postalveolar, reflecting the pattern found in the previous corpus study. We further demonstrate that multiple postalveolars are dispreferred even in non-derived words, which suggests that the effect is a general case of OCP. This is additionally supported by effects of proximity (the restriction is stronger for postalveolars separated only by a single vowel than for those further apart from one another) and identity (the restriction is stronger for identical than non-identical postalveolars), reflecting cross-linguistic tendencies in the manifestation of OCP and non-local consonant dissimilation. Finally, we show that the restriction does not appear to apply to all places of articulation, suggesting that the co-occurrence restriction in Slovenian specifically targets postalveolars, and adding a previously unattested pattern to the typology of OCP phenomena on consonant place.

Keywords

Palatalization OCP Dissimilation Laboratory phonology Slovenian 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our participants for their time and effort. Thanks also to Abigail Cohn, Yoonjung Kang, Draga Zec, and Jesse Zymet for their comments and suggestions.

Supplementary material

References

  1. Albright, Adam, and Bruce Hayes. 2003. Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition 90 (2): 119–161. Google Scholar
  2. Alderete, John. 1997. Dissimilation as local conjunction. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 27, ed. Kiyomi Kusumoto, 17–31. Amherst: GLSA. Available on Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA 175, http://roa.rutgers.edu. Google Scholar
  3. Alderete, John D., and Stefan A. Frisch. 2007. Dissimilation in grammar and the lexicon. In The Cambridge handbook of phonology, ed. Paul de Lacy, 379–398. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  4. Bateman, Nicoleta. 2007. A crosslinguistic investigation of palatalization. PhD diss., University of California, San Diego. Google Scholar
  5. Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker, and Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67 (1): 1–48.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01. Google Scholar
  6. Becker, Michael, Nihan Ketrez, and Andrew Nevins. 2011. The surfeit of the stimulus: Analytic biases filter lexical statistics in Turkish laryngeal alternations. Language 87: 84–125. Google Scholar
  7. Becker, Michael, Andrew Nevins, and Jonathan Levine. 2012. Asymmetries in generalizing alternations to and from initial syllables. Language 88 (2): 231–268. Google Scholar
  8. Bennett, William G. 2015. The phonology of consonants: Harmony, dissimilation and correspondence. Oxford: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  9. Berkley, Deborah Milam. 1994. The OCC and gradient data. Studies in Linguistic Sciences 24 (1-2): 59–72. Google Scholar
  10. Bhat, D. N. S. 1978. A general study of palatalization. In Universals of human language, ed. Joseph H. Greenberg, 47–92. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar
  11. Bon, Mija. 2017. Soglasniška harmonija v primorskih narečjih [Consonant harmony in Primorska Slovenian]. Ms., University of Ljubljana. Google Scholar
  12. Browne, Wayles. 1993. Serbo-Croat. In The Slavonic languages, eds. Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett, 306–387. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  13. Bye, Patrik. 2011. Dissimilation. In The Blackwell companion to phonology, eds. Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume, and Keren D. Rice, 1407–1432. Malden: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  14. Coetzee, Andries, and Joe Pater. 2008. Weighted constraints and gradient restrictions on place co-occurrence in Muna and Arabic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26: 289–337. Google Scholar
  15. Daland, Robert, Bruce Hayes, James White, Marc Garellek, Andrea Davis, and Ingrid Norrmann. 2011. Explaining sonority projection effects. Phonology 28 (2): 197–234. Google Scholar
  16. El Medlaoui, Mohamed. 1995. Aspects des representations phonologiques dans certaines langues Chamito-Semitiques. Rabat: Université Mohammed V. Google Scholar
  17. Ernestus, Mirjam, and Harald Baayen. 2003. Predicting the unpredictable: Interpreting neutralized segments in Dutch. Language 79 (1): 5–38. Google Scholar
  18. Frisch, Stefan A., Janet M. Pierrehumbert, and Michael B. Broe. 2004. Similarity avoidance and the OCP. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22: 179–228. Google Scholar
  19. Fukazawa, Haruka, Shigeto Kawahara, Mafuyu Kitahara, and Shin-ichiro Sano. 2015. Two is too much: Geminate devoicing in Japanese. Phonological Studies (Journal of the Phonological Society of Japan) 18: 3–10. Google Scholar
  20. Gallagher, Gillian. 2010a. The perceptual basis of long-distance laryngeal restrictions. PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
  21. Gallagher, Gillian. 2010b. Perceptual distinctness and long-distance laryngeal restrictions. Phonology 27 (3): 435–480. Google Scholar
  22. Gallagher, Gillian, and Jessica Coon. 2009. Distinguishing total and partial identity: Evidence from Chol. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27: 545–582. Google Scholar
  23. Hayes, Bruce, and James White. 2013. Phonological naturalness and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry 44: 45–75. Google Scholar
  24. Hayes, Bruce, Kie Zuraw, Péter Siptár, and Londe Zsuzsa. 2009. Natural and unnatural constraints in Hungarian vowel harmony. Language 85: 822–863. Google Scholar
  25. Herrity, Peter. 2000. Slovene: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  26. Ito, Chiyuki. 2014. Compound tensification and laryngeal co-occurence restrictions in Yanbian Korean. Phonology 31: 349–398. Google Scholar
  27. Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 1998. Markedness and word structure: OCP effects in Japanese. Ms., Available on Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA 255, http://roa.rutgers.edu.
  28. Jakopin, Primož, ed. 2005. Besede slovenskega jezika. Ljubljana: Inštitut za slovenski jezik Frana Ramovša ZRCSAZU. Google Scholar
  29. Jurgec, Peter. 2007. Novejše besedje s stališča fonologije: primer slovenščine [Neologisms in phonology: The case of Slovenian]. ScD diss., University of Ljubljana. Google Scholar
  30. Jurgec, Peter. 2011. Feature spreading 2.0: A unified theory of assimilation. PhD diss., University of Tromsø, Tromsø. Available on LingBuzz, http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/001281.
  31. Jurgec, Peter. 2016. Velar palatalization in Slovenian: Local and long-distance interactions in a derived environment effect. Glossa 1 (1): 24. Google Scholar
  32. Jurgec, Peter, and Bronwyn M. Bjorkman. 2018. Indexation to stems and words. Phonology 35 (4): 577–615. Google Scholar
  33. Jurgec, Peter, and Katherine Sung. 2019. Coronal alternations in Slovenian. Ms., University of Toronto. Google Scholar
  34. Kager, René, and Joe Pater. 2012. Phonotactics as phonology: Knowledge of a complex restriction in Dutch. Phonology 29: 81–111. Google Scholar
  35. Kawahara, Shigeto. 2012. Lyman’s Law is active in loanwords and nonce words: Evidence from naturalness judgment studies. Lingua 122 (11): 1193–1206. Google Scholar
  36. Kawahara, Shigeto. 2013. Testing Japanese loanword devoicing: Addressing task effects. Linguistics 51 (6): 1271–1299. Google Scholar
  37. Kawahara, Shigeto. 2015. Can we use rendaku for phonological argumentation? Linguistics Vanguard 1 (1): 3–14. Google Scholar
  38. Kawahara, Shigeto, and Shin-ichiro Sano. 2013. A corpus-based study of geminate devoicing in Japanese: Linguistic factors. Language Sciences 40: 300–307. Google Scholar
  39. Kawahara, Shigeto, and Shin-ichiro Sano. 2014a. Identity avoidance and rendaku. Lingua 150: 71–77. Google Scholar
  40. Kawahara, Shigeto, and Shin-ichiro Sano. 2014b. Identity avoidance and rendaku. In 2013 Meeting on Phonology, eds. Claire Moore-Cantwell, Joe Pater, and Robert Staubs, 10. Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America. Available at http://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/amphonology. Accessed 4 May 2019. Google Scholar
  41. Kawahara, Shigeto, and Shin-ichiro Sano. 2016. Rendaku and identity avoidance: Consonantal identity and moraic identity. In Sequential voicing in Japanese compounds: Papers from the NINJAL rendaku project, eds. Timothy J. Vance and Mark Irwin, 47–55. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  42. Kawahara, Shigeto, Hajime Ono, and Kisyoshi Sudo. 2006. Consonant co-occurrence restrictions in Yamato Japanese. Japanese/Korean linguistics 14: 27–38. Google Scholar
  43. Kochetov, Alexei. 2011. Palatalization. In The Blackwell companion to phonology, eds. Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume, and Keren D. Rice, 1666–1690. Malden: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  44. Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per Bruun Brockhoff, and Rune Haubo Bojesen Christensen. 2016. Package lmertest. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lmerTest/lmerTest.pdf. Accessed 4 May 2019.
  45. Logar-Berginc, Nataša, Simon Krek, Tomaž Erjavec, Miha Grčar, Peter Halozan, and Simon Šuster. 2012. Gigafida corpus. http://www.gigafida.net. Accessed 4 May 2019: Amebis. Google Scholar
  46. Mackenzie, Sara. 2013. Laryngeal co-occurrence restrictions in Aymara: Contrastive representations and constraint interaction. Phonology 30 (2): 297–345. Google Scholar
  47. McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory, eds. Jill N. Beckman, Laura Walsh, and Suzanne Urbanczyk, 249–384. Amherst: GLSA. Available on Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA 60, http://roa.rutgers.edu. Google Scholar
  48. Misic, Mia Sara. 2018. Slovenian sibilant harmony. Master’s thesis, University of Toronto. Google Scholar
  49. Mišmaš, Petra. 2011. Velar softening and its productivity in Slovene. Ms., University of Nova Gorica. Google Scholar
  50. Morén, Bruce. 2006. Consonant-vowel interactions in Serbian: Features, representations and constraint interactions. Lingua 116 (8): 1198–1244. Google Scholar
  51. Moreton, Elliott, and Shigeaki Amano. 1999. Phonotactics in the perception of Japanese vowel length: Evidence for long-distance dependencies. In 6th European conference on speech communication and technology. Budapest, https://users.castle.unc.edu/~moreton/Papers/Eurospeech1999.pdf. Accessed 4 May 2019. Google Scholar
  52. Norman, Geoff. 2010. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education 15 (5): 625–632. Google Scholar
  53. Odden, David. 1994. Adjacency paramaters in phonology. Language 70 (2): 289–330. Google Scholar
  54. Padgett, Jaye. 1992. OCP subsidiary features. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 22, 335–346. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  55. Pater, Joe. 2009. Weighted constraints in generative linguistics. Cognitive Science 33: 999–1035. Google Scholar
  56. Pierrehumbert, Janet M. 1993. Dissimilarity in the Arabic verbal roots. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 23, 367–381. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  57. Pierrehumbert, Janet M. 2009. The statistical basis of an unnatural alternation. In Laboratory phonology 8, eds. Louis M. Goldstein, D. H. Whalen, and Catherine T. Best, 81–107. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  58. Smolek, Amy, and Vsevolod Kapitsinski. 2018. What happens to large changes? Saltation produces well-liked outputs that are hard to generate. Laboratory Phonology 9 (1): 10. Google Scholar
  59. Šuštaršič, Rastislav, Smiljana Komar, and Bojan Petek. 1995. Slovene. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 25 (2): 86–90. Google Scholar
  60. Suzuki, Keiichiro. 1998. A typological investigation of dissimilation. PhD diss., University of Arizona. Google Scholar
  61. Toporišič, Jože. 1976/2000. Slovenska slovnica. Maribor: Obzorja. Google Scholar
  62. Toporišič, Jože, ed. 2001. Slovenski pravopis. Ljubljana: SAZU. Google Scholar
  63. Vance, Timothy J. 1991. A new experimental study of Japanese verb morphology. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 13: 145–156. Google Scholar
  64. Welmers, William Everett. 1945. A descriptive grammar of Fanti. PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania. Google Scholar
  65. Zuraw, Kie. 2000. Patterned exceptions in phonology. PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles. Google Scholar
  66. Zymet, Jesse. 2015. Distance-based decay in long-distance phonological processes. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 32, eds. Ulrike Steindl, Thomas Borer, Huilin Fang, Alfredo García Pardo, Peter Guekguezian, Brian Hsu, Charlie O’Hara, and Iris Chuoying Ouyan, 72–81. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Google Scholar
  67. Zymet, Jesse. 2018. Lexical propensities in phonology: Corpus and experimental evidence, grammar, and learning. PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of Language StudiesUniversity of Toronto MississaugaMississaugaCanada

Personalised recommendations