Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 1167–1180 | Cite as

A featural paradox in Votic harmony

Article

Abstract

In this paper we present a novel argument against strict locality in vowel harmony: a vowel’s feature may have a double identity, active in one process and neutral in another. Such is the behavior of [back] in Votic [i]. It is invisible to harmony, while simultaneously triggering an assimilation process. We argue that no feature-sharing account of this phenomenon is plausible, including the relatively powerful extension of Span Theory that permits vowels in a harmonic span to remain unassociated (and unharmonized) with the span’s head. We offer instead an account based on the Agreement-By-Correspondence approach to long-distance assimilation.

Keywords

Harmony Transparency Strict locality Votic 

References

  1. Agranat, Tatiana B. 2007. Zapadnyi dialekt vodskogo iazyka. Moscow; Groningen. Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, Stephen R. 1985. Phonology in the twentieth century: Theories of rules and theories of representations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  3. Ariste, Paul, ed. 1968. A grammar of the Votic language. Vol. 68 of Uralic and Altaic series. Bloomington: Indiana University Publications. Google Scholar
  4. Benus, Stefan, Admantios Gafos, and Louis Goldstein. 2004. Phonetics and phonology of transparent vowels in Hungarian. In Berkeley Linguistic Society (BLS) 29, 485–497. Berkeley. Google Scholar
  5. Bermudez-Otero, Ricardo. 2003. The acquisition of phonological opacity. In Variation within optimality theory: Stockholm Workshop on Variation within Optimality Theory, eds. Jennifer Spenader, Anders Eriksson, and Östen Dahl, 25–36. Stockholm: Stockholm University Dept. of Linguistics. Google Scholar
  6. Calabrese, Andrea, ed. 2005. Markedness and economy in a derivational model of phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  7. Clements, George N., and Engin Sezer. 1982. Vowel and consonant disharmony in Turkish. In The structure of phonological representations, part II, eds. Harry van der Hulst and Norval Smith, 213–255. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  8. Cole, Jennifer, and Charles Kisseberth. 1994. An optimal domains theory of harmony. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 24(2): 101–114. Google Scholar
  9. Dresher, B. Elan. 2009. The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gafos, Admantios. 1999. The articulatory basis of locality in phonology. New York: Garland. Google Scholar
  11. Gafos, Admantios, and Stefan Benus. 2003. On neutral vowels in Hungarian. In International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (IPhS) 15, eds. Maria Josep Solé, Daniel Recasens, and Joaquín Romero, 77–80. Spain: Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona. Google Scholar
  12. Goldsmith, John. 1976. Autosegmental phonology. PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
  13. Hall, Daniel Currie. 2011. Phonological contrast and its phonetic enhancement: dispersedness without dispersion. Phonology 28(1): 1–54. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Halle, Morris. 1995. Feature geometry and feature spreading. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 1–46. Google Scholar
  15. Halle, Morris, Bert Vaux, and Andrew Wolfe. 2000. On feature spreading and the representation of place of articulation. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 387–444. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hansson, Gunnar. 2001. Theoretical and typological issues in consonant harmony. PhD diss., UC Berkeley. Google Scholar
  17. Heinsoo, Heinike, and Margit Kuusk. 2011. Neo-renaissance and revitalization of Votic—who cares? Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics JEF 2(1): 171–184. Google Scholar
  18. Kettunen, Lauri. 1930. Vatjan kielen äänehistoria, 2nd edn. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Google Scholar
  19. Kettunen, Lauri. 1986. Vatjan kielen Mahun murteen sanasto. Vol. 27 of Castrenianumin toimitteita. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Google Scholar
  20. Kimper, Wendell. 2011. Competing triggers: Transparency and opacity in vowel harmony. PhD diss., UMass Amherst. Google Scholar
  21. Kiparsky, Paul. 2000. Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17: 351–365. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kiparsky, Paul, and Karl Pajusalu. 2003. Towards a typology of disharmony. The Linguistic Review 20: 217–241. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krämer, Martin. 2003. Vowel harmony and correspondence theory. Vol. 66 of Studies in generative grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Laakso, Johanna. 1989. Vatjan käänteissanasto. Vol. XXII of Lexica societatis fenno-ugricae. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen seura. Google Scholar
  25. Lauerma, Petri. 1993. Vatjan vokaalisointu. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen seura. Google Scholar
  26. Mailhot, Fred, and Charles Reiss. 2007. Computing long-distance dependencies in vowel harmony. Biolinguistics 1: 28–48. Google Scholar
  27. Markus, Elena, and Fedor Rožanskii. 2011. Sovremennyi vodskii iazyk. Saint Petersburg: Nestor–Istoriia. Google Scholar
  28. McCarthy, John. 2004. Headed spans and autosegmental spreading. ROA. Google Scholar
  29. Nevins, Andrew. 2010. Locality in vowel harmony. Cambridge: MIT Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ní Chiosáin, Máire, and Jaye Padgett. 2001. Markedness, segment realization and locality in spreading. In Segmental phonology in Optimality Theory, ed. Linda Lombardi, 118–156. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Keefe, Michael. 2007. Transparency in Span Theory. In Papers in Optimality Theory III: University of Massachusetts occasional papers 32, eds. Leah Bateman, Adam Werle, Michael O’Keefe, and Ehren Reilly. Cambridge: GLSA. Google Scholar
  32. Posti, Lauri. 1980. Vatjan kielen Kukkosin murteen sanakirja. Lexica societatis fenno-ugricae XIX. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen seura. Google Scholar
  33. Rhodes, Russell. 2010. Vowel harmony as Agreement By Correspondence. Ms., UC Berkeley. Google Scholar
  34. Rose, Sharon, and Rachel Walker. 2004. A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. Language 80(3): 475–531. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tsvetkov, Dmitri. 1995. Vatjan kielen Joenperän murteen sanasto. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen seura. Google Scholar
  36. Vaux, Bert. 2004. Disharmony and derived transparency in Uyghur vowel harmony. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 30, 671–698. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Carleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations