Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 289–337 | Cite as

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

Original Paper


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.


Gradience Phonotactics Muna Arabic Harmonic Grammar 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Albright, A. (2006). Segmental similarity calculator. Software, MIT. Accessed 20 March 2008.
  2. Albright, A. (2007a). Gradient phonological acceptability as a grammatical effect. Accessed 20 March 2008.
  3. Albright, A. (2007b). Natural classes are not enough: Biased generalization in novel onset clusters. Accessed 20 March 2008.
  4. 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
  5. Bailey, T., & Hahn, U. (2001). Determinants of wordlikeness: phonotactics or lexical neighborhoods? Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 568–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berent, I., & Shimron, J. (1997). The representation of Hebrew words: evidence from the obligatory contour principle. Cognition, 64, 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berent, I., Everett, D. L., & Shimron, J. (2001). Do phonological representations specify variables? Evidence from the obligatory contour principle. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 1–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berkley, D. (2000). Gradient obligatory contour principle effect. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston.Google Scholar
  10. Boersma, P. (1998). Functional phonology: formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. Ph.D dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  11. Boersma, P. (2004). A stochastic OT account of paralinguistic tasks such as grammaticality and prototypicality judgments. Ms., University of Amsterdam (ROA-648).Google Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Boersma, P., & Hayes, B. (2001). Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 45–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Boersma, P., & Pater, J. (2008). Convergence properties of a gradual learner in Harmonic Grammar. Ms., University of Amsterdam and University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
  15. Boersma, P., Weenink, D. (2007). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.0.14) [computer program]. Accessed 20 March 2008.
  16. Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of english. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. Coetzee, A. W. (2006). Variation as accessing non-optimal candidates. Phonology, 23, 337–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Coetzee, A. W. (2008). Grammar is both categorical and gradient. In S. Parker (Ed.) Phonological argumentation. London: Equinox (In press).Google Scholar
  20. Coetzee, A. W. (In press). Grammaticality and ungrammaticality in phonology. To appear in Language.Google Scholar
  21. Coetzee, A. W., & Pater, J. (2006). Lexically ranked OCP-Place constraints in Muna. Ms. University of Michigan and University of Massachusetts, Amherst (ROA-842).Google Scholar
  22. Coetzee, A. W., & Pater, J. (2008). The place of variation in phonological theory. Ms., University of Michigan and University of Massachusetts, Amherst (ROA-946).Google Scholar
  23. Cohn, A. (1992). The consequences of dissimilation in Sundanese. Phonology, 9, 199–220.Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Côté, M. -H. (2004). Syntagmatic distinctness in consonant deletion. Phonology, 21, 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cowan, M. J. (1979). Hans Wehr: a dictionary of modern written Arabic. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz.Google Scholar
  27. Davidson, L. (2006). Phonology, phonetics, or frequency: Influences on the production of non-native sequences. Journal of Phonetic, 34, 104–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dresher, B. E. (1989). Comments on McCarthy. Guttural phonology. Paper presented at the MIT Conference on Feature and Underspecification Theories, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 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)Google Scholar
  31. Faraway, J. J. (2005). Linear models with R. New York: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  32. 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).Google Scholar
  33. Flemming, E. (2001). Scalar and categorical phenomena in a unified model of phonetics and phonology. Phonology, 18, 7–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Frisch, S. A., & Zawaydeh, B. A. (2001). The psychological reality of OCP-Place in Arabic. Language, 77, 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Frisch, S. A., Pierrehumbert, J., & Broe, M. (2004). Similarity avoidance and the OCP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22, 179–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Greenberg, J. H. (1950). The patterning of root morphemes in Semitic. Word, 6, 162–181.Google Scholar
  38. Greenberg, J. H., & Jenkins, J. (1964). Studies in the psychological correlates of the sound system of American English. Word, 20, 157–177.Google Scholar
  39. Guy, G. R., & Boberg, C. (1997). Inherent variability and the obligatory contour principle. Language Variation and Change, 9, 149–164.Google Scholar
  40. Hammond, M. (2004). Gradience, phonotactics, and the lexicon in English phonology. International Journal of English Studies, 4, 1–24.Google Scholar
  41. 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.Google Scholar
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. Hayes, B., & Londe, Z. C. (2006). Stochastic phonological knowledge: the case of Hungarian vowel harmony. Phonology, 23, 59–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hayes, B., & Wilson, C. (In press). A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. To appear in Linguistic Inquiry, 39.Google Scholar
  46. Itô, J., & Mester, A. (1986). The phonology of voicing in Japanese: theoretical consequences for morphological accessibility. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 49–73.Google Scholar
  47. 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.Google Scholar
  48. 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
  49. Kawahara, S. (2007). Half rhymes in Japanese rap lyrics and knowledge of similarity. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 16, 113–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kawahara, S., Ono, H., & Sudo, K. (2006). Consonant co-occurrence restrictions in Yamato Japanese. Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 14, 27–38.Google Scholar
  51. 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
  52. Kenstowicz, M., & Kisseberth, C. (1977). Topics in phonological theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  53. 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
  54. Lombardi, L. (1999). Positional faithfulness and voicing assimilation in optimality theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17, 267–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Leben, W. (1973). Suprasegmental phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  56. 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.Google Scholar
  57. 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
  58. MacEachern, M. R. (1999). Laryngeal cooccurrence restrictions. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  59. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. McCarthy, J. J. (1988). Feature geometry and dependency: a review. Phonetica, 45, 84–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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
  62. McCarthy, J. J. (2002). A thematic guide to optimality theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. McCarthy, J. J. (2003a). OT constraints are categorical. Phonology, 20, 75–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. McCarthy, J. J. (2003b). Rotuman consonant cooccurrence restrictions, Ling 730 Course Handout, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
  65. 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
  66. Mester, A. (1986). Studies in tier structure. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
  67. 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
  68. Moreton, E. (2002). Structural constraints in the perception of English stop-sonorant clusters. Cognition, 84, 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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.Google Scholar
  70. 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
  71. Padgett, J. (1995). Stricture in feature geometry. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  72. 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
  73. 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. Accessed 20 March 2008.
  74. Pater, J. (2008). Convergence in gradual learning. To appear in Linguistic Inquiry 39.Google Scholar
  75. Pater, J., Bhatt, R., & Potts, C. (2007a). Linguistic optimization. Ms., University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
  76. Pater, J., Potts, C., & Bhatt, R. (2007b). Harmonic Grammar with linear programming. Ms., University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
  77. 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
  78. Peperkamp, S. (2007). Do we have innate knowledge about phonological markedness? — Comments on Berent, Steriade, Lennertz, and Vaknin. Cognition, 104, 631–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Pertz, D. L., & Bever, T. G. (1975). Sensitivity to phonological universals in children and adolescents. Language, 51, 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 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
  81. Pierrehumbert, J. (2001). Stochastic phonology. GLOT International, 5, 1–13.Google Scholar
  82. Prentice, D. J. (1971). The Murut languages of Sabah. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
  83. 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
  84. 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.]Google Scholar
  85. 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
  86. 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
  87. Scholes, R. (1966). Phonotactic grammaticality. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  88. Selkirk, E. (1991). Vowel height features: evidence for privativity and dependency. Paper presented at L’Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal.Google Scholar
  89. 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
  90. Smolensky, P. (1996). The initial state and ‘richness of the base’ in optimality theory. Ms., Johns Hopkins University. (ROA-154)Google Scholar
  91. Smolensky, P., & Legendre, G. (2006). The harmonic mind: from neural computation to Optimality-Theoretic grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  92. Suzuki, K. (1998). A typological investigation of dissimilation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  93. Tesar, B., & Smolensky, P. (2000). Learnability in optimality theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  94. 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
  95. Uhlenbeck, E. M. (1949). De Structuur van het Javaanse Morpheem. Bandung, Indonesia: Nix.Google Scholar
  96. van den Berg, R. (1989). A grammar of the Muna language. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  97. van den Berg, R., & Sidu, O. (1996). Muna-English dictionary. Leiden: KITLV Press.Google Scholar
  98. Yip, M. (1989). Feature geometry and co-occurrence restrictions. Phonology, 6, 349–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Zuraw, K. (2000). Patterned exceptions in phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
  100. Zuraw, K. (2002). Aggressive reduplication. Phonology, 19, 395–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations