Advertisement

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 637–684 | Cite as

Prosodic identity in copy epenthesis

Evidence for a correspondence-based approach
  • Juliet StantonEmail author
  • Sam ZukoffEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper focuses on languages that exhibit processes of copy epenthesis, specifically those where the similarity between a copy vowel and its host extends to prosodic or suprasegmental resemblance. We argue that copy vowels and their hosts strive for identity in all prosodic properties, and show that this drive for prosodic identity can cause misapplication in the assignment of properties such as stress and length. To explain these effects, we argue that any successful analysis of copy epenthesis must involve a correspondence relation (following Kitto and de Lacy 1999). Our proposal successfully predicts the extant typology of prosodic identity effects in copy epenthesis; alternative analyses of copy epenthesis relying solely on featural spreading (e.g. Kawahara 2007) or gestural realignment (e.g. Hall 2003, 2006) do not naturally capture the effects discussed here.

Keywords

Copy epenthesis Phonology Correspondence Misapplication Prosody 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Author’s names are in alphabetical order. We are grateful to Adam Albright, Donca Steriade, Eric Bakovic, Edward Flemming, Gunnar Ólafur Hansson, Bruce Hayes, Junko Ito, Michael Kenstowicz, Ezer Rasin, Nina Topintzi, Eva Zimmerman, and audiences at MIT, CLS 51, and 24mfm for helpful discussion. Earlier portions of this research have been published as Stanton and Zukoff (2016); comments from three NLLT reviewers (Paul de Lacy, Shigeto Kawahara, and one anonymous reviewer) and the associate editor (Rachel Walker) have helped shape the paper into its present form. All remaining mistakes are ours.

References

  1. Akinlabi, Akin. 1993. Underspecification and the phonology of Yoruba /r/. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 152–156. Google Scholar
  2. Alber, Birgit, and Ingo Plag. 2001. Epenthesis, deletion, and the emergence of the optimal syllable in Creole: The case of Sranan. Lingua 111: 811–840. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alderete, John. 1995. Winnebago accent and Dorsey’s Law. In UMOP 18: Papers in Optimality Theory, eds. Jill Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey, and Suzanne Urbanczyk, 21–52. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  4. Awbery, Gwenllian. 2009. Welsh. In The Celtic languages, eds. Martin J. Ball and Nicole Müller. Routledge language family descriptions, 359–426. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  5. Baal, Berit Anne Bals, David Odden, and Curt Rice. 2012. An analysis of North Saami gradation. Phonology 29: 165–212. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beckman, Jill N. 1998. Positional faithfulness. PhD diss., UMass Amherst. Google Scholar
  7. Bender, Bryon. 1968. Marshallese phonology. Oceanic Linguistics 8: 16–35. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bennett, William G. 2015a. Assimilation, dissimilation, and surface correspondence in Sundanese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33: 371–415. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bennett, William G. 2015b. The phonology of consonants: Harmony, dissimilation, and correspondence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bhaskararao, Peri. 1998. Gadaba. In The Dravidian languages, 328–358. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
  11. Bickmore, Lee S. 1995. Refining and formalizing the Tahitian stress placement algorithm. Oceanic Linguistics 34: 410–442. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blevins, Juliette. 2003. Antigemination: Natural or unnatural history? In 29th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS), 499–522. Google Scholar
  13. Børgstrom, C. H. 1937. The dialect of Barra in the Outer Hebrides. Norsk tidsskift for sprogvidenskap 8: 71–242. Google Scholar
  14. Børgstrom, C. H. 1940. A linguistic survey of the Gaelic dialects of Scotland, vol. 1: The dialects of the Outer Hebrides. Oslo: Norwegian Universities Press. Google Scholar
  15. Bosch, Anna, and Kenneth de Jong. 1997. The prosody of Barra Gaelic epenthetic vowels. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 27: 2–15. Google Scholar
  16. Bowern, Claire 2012. A Grammar of Bardi. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brasington, Ron. 1978. Vowel epenthesis in Rennellese and its general implications. In Work in progress 2. University of Reading: Phonetics Laboratory. Google Scholar
  18. Broselow, Ellen. 2000. Stress, epenthesis and segment transformation in Selayarese loans. In Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 25, 311–325. Washington: Linguistic Society of America. Google Scholar
  19. Broselow, Ellen 2008. Stress-epenthesis interactions. In Rules, constraints, and phonological phenomena, eds. Bert Vaux and Andrew Nevins, 121–148. London: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Browman, Catherine P., and Louis Goldstein. 1986. Towards an articulatory phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3: 219–252. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Caballero, Gabriela. 2008. Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara) phonology and morphology. PhD diss., UC Berkeley. Google Scholar
  22. Caballero, Gabriela. 2011. Morphologically conditioned stress assignment in Choguita Rarármuri. Linguistics 49: 749–790. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Campbell, Lyle. 1974. Theoretical implications of Kekchi phonology. International Journal of American Linguistics 40: 269–278. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Campbell, Lyle. 2013. Historical linguistics: An introduction, 3rd edn. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  25. Clements, Nick. 1986. Syllabification and epenthesis in the barra dialect of Gaelic. In The phonological representation of suprasegmentals, eds. Koen Bogers, Harry van der Hulst, and Marten Mous, 317–336. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Google Scholar
  26. Clements, Nick. 1991. Place of articulation in consonants and vowels: A unified theory. In Working papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory, Vol. 5, 77–123. Google Scholar
  27. de Lacy, Paul. 2002. The formal expression of markedness. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts. Google Scholar
  28. de Lima Silva, Wilson. 2012. A descriptive grammar of Desano. PhD diss., University of Utah. Google Scholar
  29. Fleischhacker, Heidi Anne. 2005. Similarity in phonology: Evidence from reduplication and loan adaptation. PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles. Google Scholar
  30. Furbee-Losee, Louanna. 1974. The correct language: Tojolabal. New York: Garland. Google Scholar
  31. Gafos, Adamantios, and Linda Lombardi. 1999. Consonant transparency and vowel echo. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 29, 81–95. Google Scholar
  32. Garrett, Edward. 1994. Minimal words aren’t minimal feet. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 1: 68–105. Google Scholar
  33. Gordon, Matt. 2002. A factorial typology of quantity insensitive stress. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 491–552. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Haas, Mary R. 1940. Tunica. New York: J.J. Augustin. Google Scholar
  35. Hale, Kenneth, and Josie White Eagle. 1980. A preliminary metrical account of Winnebago accent. International Journal of American Linguistics 46 (2): 117–132. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hall, Nancy. 2003. Gestures and segments: Vowel intrusion as overlap. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts. Google Scholar
  37. Hall, Nancy. 2006. Cross-linguistic patterns of vowel intrusion. Phonology 23: 387–429. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Halle, Morris, and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1987. An essay on stress. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Hammond, Michael, Natasha Warner, Andréa Davis, Andrew Carnie, Diana Archangeli, and Muriel Fisher. 2014. Vowel insertion in Scottish Gaelic. Phonology 31: 123–153. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur. 2010. Consonant harmony: Long-distance interaction in phonology. Berkeley: University of California Press. Google Scholar
  42. Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  43. Hayes, Bruce, Bruce Tesar, and Kie Zuraw. 2013. OTSoft 2.3.2, software package. Available at http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/otsoft/. Accessed 1 October 2017.
  44. Helmbrecht, Johannes, and Christian Lehmann. 2010. Elements of grammar/learner’s dictionary. Vol. 1 of Hocak teaching materials. Albany: SUNY Press. Google Scholar
  45. Hualde, José Ignacio. 1998. A gap filled: Postpeninitial accent in Azkoitia Basque. Linguistics 36: 99–117. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Inkelas, Sharon, and Cheryl Zoll. 2005. Reduplication: Doubling in morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jensen, John. 1977. Yapese reference grammar. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. Google Scholar
  48. Ka, Omar. 1994. Wolof phonology and morphology. Lanham: University Press of America. Google Scholar
  49. Kager, René. 1994. Ternary rhythm in alignment theory. Ms., Utrecht University. Google Scholar
  50. Kager, René. 2012. Stress in windows: Language typology and factorial typology. Lingua 122: 1454–1493. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kawahara, Shigeto. 2007. Copying and spreading in phonological theory: Evidence from echo epenthesis. In University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 32: Papers in Optimality Theory III, eds. Leah Bateman, Michael O’Keefe, Ehren Reilly, and Adam Werle. Amherst: GLSA Publications. Google Scholar
  52. Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Phonology in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  53. Kenstowicz, Michael. 2003. The role of perception in loanword phonology: A review of Les emprunts linguistiques d’origine européenne en Fon by Flavien Gbéto. Studies in African Linguistics 32 (1): 95–112. Google Scholar
  54. Kenstowicz, Michael. 2007. Salience and similarity in loanword adaptation: A case study from Fijian. Language Sciences 29: 316–340. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kenstowicz, Michael, and Charles Kisseberth. 1979. Generative phonology. San Diego: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  56. Kim, Yuni. 2008. Topics in the phonology and morphology of San Francisco del Mar Huave. PhD diss., UC Berkeley. Google Scholar
  57. Kitto, Catherine. 1997. Epenthesis and Polynesian loanwords. Master’s thesis, University of Auckland. Google Scholar
  58. Kitto, Catherine, and Paul de Lacy. 1999. Correspondence and epenthetic quality. Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA) 4. Google Scholar
  59. Kumagai, Gakuji. 2016. Resolving the issue of the target of vowel copy in Fijian loanwords. In 2015 Annual Meeting on Phonology, eds. Gunnar Ólafur Hansson, Ashley Farris-Trimble, Kevin McMullin, and Douglas Pulleyblank. Washington: Linguistic Society of America. Google Scholar
  60. Levin, Juliette. 1985. A metrical theory of syllabicity. PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
  61. Lopes, Aurise Brandao, and Steve Parker. 1999. Aspects of Yuhup phonology. International Journal of American Linguistics 65: 324–342. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lynch, John. 1978. A grammar of Lenakel. Canberra: Australian National University. Google Scholar
  63. McCarthy, John J. 1994. The phonetics and phonology of Semitic pharyngeals. In Phonological structure and phonetic form: Papers in laboratory phonology 3, ed. Patricia Keating, 191–233. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. McCarthy, John J. 1998. Morpheme structure constraints and paradigm occultation. In Annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 32, 123–150. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Google Scholar
  65. McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1988. Quantitative transfer in reduplicative and templatic morphology, In Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. Seuk-Dik Kim, 3–35. Seoul: Linguistic Society of Korea. Google Scholar
  66. McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1994. The emergence of the unmarked: Optimality in prosodic morphology. Available at https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/41845/. Accessed 1 October 2017.
  67. McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In UMOP 18: Papers in Optimality Theory, eds. Jill Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey, and Suzanne Urbanczyk, 249–384. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  68. Metcalfe, C. D. 1975. Bardi verb morphology. Canberra: Australian National University. Google Scholar
  69. Miller, Marion. 1999. Desano grammar. Arlington: SIL International and University of Texas. Google Scholar
  70. Mills, Roger F., and John Grima. 1980. Historical developments in Lettinese. In Austronesian studies: Papers from the Second Eastern Conference on Austronesian Languages, ed. Paz Buenaventura Naylor, 273–283. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies. Google Scholar
  71. Miner, Kenneth. 1984. Winnebago field lexicon. Lawrence: University of Kansas. Google Scholar
  72. Miner, Kenneth L. 1979. Dorsey’s law in Winnebago-Chiwere and Winnebago accent. International Journal of American Linguistics 45 (1): 25–33. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Miner, Kenneth L. 1981. Metrics, or Winnebago made harder. International Journal of American Linguistics 47: 340–342. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Miner, Kenneth L. 1989. Winnebago accent: The rest of the data. Anthropological Linguistics 31: 148–172. Google Scholar
  75. Mithun, Marianne, and Hasan Basri. 1986. The phonology of Selayarese. Oceanic Linguistics 25: 210–254. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Mous, Maarten. 2004. A grammar of Iraqw. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  77. Myers, Scott. 1987. Vowel shortening in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5: 485–518. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Nelson, Nicole. 2003. Asymmetric anchoring. PhD diss., Rutgers University. Google Scholar
  79. Ní Chiosáin, Máire. 1999. Syllables and phonotactics in Irish. In The syllable: Views and facts, 551–575. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  80. Ní Chiosáin, Máire, and Jaye Padgett. 2001. Markedness, segment realization, and locality in spreading. In Segmental phonology in Optimality Theory: Constraints and representations, ed. Linda Lombardi, 118–156. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Nichols, Lynn. 1994. Vowel copy and stress in Northern Tiwa. In Harvard working papers in linguistics, 133–140. Cambridge: Harvard University. Google Scholar
  82. Odden, David, and Mary Odden. 1985. Ordered reduplication in Kihehe. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 497–503. Google Scholar
  83. Olson, Kenneth S. 2005. The phonology of Mono. Dallas: SIL International. Google Scholar
  84. Paradis, Carole. 1996. The inadequacy of filters and faithfulness in loanword adaptation. In Current trends in phonology: Models and methods, eds. Jacques Durand and Bernard Laks. Salford: University of Salford Publications. Google Scholar
  85. Paradis, Carole, and Jean-François Prunet. 1989. On coronal transparency. Phonology 6: 317–348. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Parker, Steve. 2001. Non-optimal onsets in Chamicuro: An inventory maximised in coda position. Phonology 18: 361–386. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Piggott, Glyne L. 1995. Epenthesis and syllable weight. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 283–326. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Postal, Paul M. 1969. Mohawk vowel doubling. International Journal of American Linguistics 35: 291–298. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Prince, Alan. 1980. A metrical theory for Estonian quantity. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 511–562. Google Scholar
  90. Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Prince, Alan S. 1983. Relating to the grid. Linguistic Inquiry 14 (1): 19–100. Google Scholar
  92. Rehg, Kenneth L., and Damian Sohl. 1981. Ponapean reference grammar. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. Google Scholar
  93. Riad, Tomas. 1992. Structures in Germanic prosody: A diachronic study with special reference to Nordic languages. PhD diss., Stockholm University. Google Scholar
  94. Rose, Sharon. 1996. Variable laryngeals and vowel lowering. Phonology 13: 73–117. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Rose, Sharon, and Rachel Walker. 2004. A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. Language 80: 475–531. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Safir, Ken. 1979. Metrical structure in Capanahua. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 1: Papers on syllable structure, metrical structure and harmony processes, 95–114. Google Scholar
  97. Shademan, Shabnam. 2002. Epenthetic vowel harmony in Farsi. Master’s thesis, University of California, Los Angeles. Google Scholar
  98. Shih, Stephanie, and Sharon Inkelas. 2015. Autosegmental Aims in Surface Optimizing Phonology. Ms., UC Merced and UC Berkeley. Google Scholar
  99. Stanton, Juliet, and Sam Zukoff. 2016. Prosodic effects of segmental correspondence. In Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 51, 501–515. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Google Scholar
  100. Steriade, Donca. 1987. Locality conditions and feature geometry. In 17th North East Linguistic Society (NELS), eds. Joyce McDonough and Bernadette Plunkett, 595–617. Somerville: Cascadilla. Google Scholar
  101. Steriade, Donca. 1990. Browman and Goldstein’s paper. In Papers in laboratory phonology 1: Between the grammar and physics of speech, eds. John Kingston and Mary E. Beckman, 382–397. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Steriade, Donca. 2009. The phonology of perceptibility effects: The P-map and its consequences for constraint organization. In The nature of the word: Studies in honor of Paul Kiparsky, eds. Kristin Hanson and Sharon Inkelas, 151–179. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  103. Susman, Amelia. 1943. The accentual system of Winnebago. PhD diss., Columbia University. Google Scholar
  104. Uffmann, Christian. 2003. A typology of epenthetic vowels in loanwords. Ms., Philipps-Universität Marburg. Google Scholar
  105. Werle, Adam. 2002. The Southern Wakashan one foot word. In UBC Working Papers in Linguistics. Vancouver: University of British Columbia. Google Scholar
  106. Yu, Alan C. L. 2005. Toward a typology of compensatory reduplication. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 24, eds. John Alderete et al., 397–405. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New York UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations