Harmonic Scales as Faithfulness

Abstract

Optimality Theory predicts that harmonic scales can be encoded in grammar in one of two ways: either as markedeness hierarchies or else as faithfulness hierarchies. Although most current researchers assume that harmony is encoded as markedness, many investigators have argued that some harmonic relations are better captured as faithfulness hierarchies that prevent the deletion or insertion of less harmonic elements. We demonstrate that at least two perceptually-motivated harmonic scales — notably relative vowel height as well as consonant glottalisation — need to be encoded in the grammar as faithfulness hierarchies which require that more harmonic elements, which are also more perceptible, are more faithfully adhered to. Ourharmony-as-faithfulnessanalysis captures the fact that the same elements which undergo deletion also undergo insertion.

Glottalization and Lenition in Nuu-chah-nulth

“…Second, we show the effect of a markedness scale on glottalization where glottalized fricatives are the least desirable consonant type (cf. Howe and Pulleyblank 2004). Third, we show that fricative-final stems split into two almost equally represented classes: with one set of stem-final fricatives, the result of glottalization is a fricative-glottal stop cluster; with another set, the result is a glottalized glide.…”

“…As discussed in works such as Maddieson 1984 andPulleyblank 2004, there is crosslinguistic motivation for considering glottalized sonorants to be more marked than glottalized stops/ejectives; Maddieson (1984) also presents evidence for considering glottalized fricatives to be more marked than either. For example, in the sample of 317 languages discussed by Maddieson, roughly 18% of the languages include ejectives in their consonant inventories (52 languages), whereas only 6% include laryngealized sonorants (20 languages) and 3% include glottalized fricatives (10 languages).…”

The Emergence of Epenthesis: An Incremental Model of Grammar Change

“…Howe and Pulleyblank (2004) propose a harmony-asfaithfulness account of synchronic epenthesis, whereby more salient segments should fail both to delete and to insert. However, a purely general synchronic framework of this sort does not differentiate between segments with different diachronic origins, and thus does not capture the basic distinction between epenthesis types defined in this paper.…”

Floating yet grounded: Feature transmutation in Optimality Theory

“…Particularly in Optimality Theory (McCarthy 2002, Prince andSmolensky 2004), hard-wiring the "stray erasure" (Steriade 1982, Ito 1986) of floating segmental features into GEN runs contrary to the central idea of explaining phonology through constraint ranking. It is better to admit (with Pulleyblank 1996Pulleyblank ,1997Myers 1997a:867;Heiberg 1999:66;Howe and Pulleyblank 2004, among others) that markedness constraints against floating features (3) are violable and rankable.…”

“…Moreover, <[aF]> should come as no surprise to the many optimality theorists who assume a correspondence approach to faithfulness with feature values ensured by distinct M A X / D E P and M A X / D E P LINK constraints (Pulleyblank 1996(Pulleyblank , 1997(Pulleyblank , 1998Myers 1997b;Fukazawa and Kitahara 2001:105-06, fn. 3;Rosen 2003;Howe and Pulleyblank 2004;McCarthy 2008:276-78;Jurgec 2010, etc. ;cf.…”