Distinguishing total and partial identity: Evidence from Chol

Abstract

This paper argues that long-distance assimilations between consonants come in two varieties: total identity, which arises via a non-local relation between the interacting segments; and partial identity, which results from local articulatory spreading through intervening segments (Flemming 1995; Gafos 1999). Our proposal differs from previous analyses (Hansson 2001; Rose and Walker 2004) in that only total identity is a non-logcal phenomenon. While non-adjacent consonants may interact via a relation we call linking, the only requirement which may be placed on linked consonants is total identity. All single feature identities are the result of local spreading. The interaction of a total identity requirement on ejectives and stridents with anteriority harmony in Chol (Mayan) highlights the distinction between these two types of long-distance phenomena. We show that theories that allow non-local, single-feature agreement make undesirable predictions, and that the more restrictive typology predicted by our framework is supported by the vast majority of long-distance assimilation cases. * We are very grateful to two anonymous reviewers for many useful and detailed comments, which have greatly improved this paper. We are also indebted to Adam Albright, Donca Steriade, and Michael Kenstowicz for reading and commenting on previous versions of this work. Thank you also to

Assimilation, dissimilation, and surface correspondence in Sundanese

“…The facts tell us that the occurrence of R-dissimilation is not directly related to the proximity of two [r]s. Deriving this pattern from a theory based around domains of string proximity requires additional formal machinery; this is in fact the motivation for the inter-segmental identity constraints that Suzuki (1999) proposes. Gallagher and Coon (2009) propose a mechanism they term 'Linking', ostensibly a re-naming of surface correspondence, but with one key difference: the only 27 This raises the question of how limits on dissimilation can be explained in the surface correspondence approach. One possibility is that they result from limits on the domain of the CORR constraints.…”

“…Work on harmony in Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 2004) has largely abandoned linking assimilation to the OCP; instead, agreement is driven by other kinds of constraints (Lombardi 1999;Baković 2000;Walker 2000aWalker , 2000bWalker , 2001aHansson 2010;Rose and Walker 2004;McCarthy 2007;Gallagher and Coon 2009;Gallagher 2010; though see also Pulleyblank 2002). Work on dissimilation, on the other hand, has retained the OCP in name, but recast it as a violable constraint (Myers 1997;Fukazawa 1999, among others), or, more commonly, redefined it as a surface anti-similarity constraint that cannot be satisfied by autosegmental fusion (Coetzee and Pater 2006:17; see also Alderete 1997;Itô and Mester 1998;Suzuki 1998Suzuki , 1999Krämer 1999Krämer , 2003Frisch et al 2004).…”

Learning the identity effect as an artificial language: bias and generalisation

“…The data for the simulations were based on a list of lexical roots from Chol, a Mayan language exhibiting the identity effect on ejectives (Warkentin & Brend 1974, Gallagher & Coon 2009 …”

Perceptual similarity in non-local laryngeal restrictions

“…Dissimilatory restrictions on laryngeal features are also found in Chol (Mayan) (Gallagher and Coon, 2009), as well as the languages surveyed by MacEachern (1999): Hausa (Afro-Asiatic), Tz'utujil (Mayan), Ofo (Siouan), Sanskrit (Indo-Aryan), Old Georgian (Caucasian), Gojri (Indo-Aryan), Souletin Basque (isolate), Cuzco Quechua (Quechuan), Bolivian Aymara (Aymaran), and Peruvian Aymara (Aymaran).…”