Nasalization, Neutral Segments and Opacity Effects

Walker, Rachel

doi:10.4324/9781315054544

Cited by 84 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…S pread (F) constraints are broadly similar in effect and evaluation to featural alignment constraints (Padgett 2002; Walker 1998; for related proposals see Kaun 1995; Polgárdi 1998). However, they do not reference a category edge, as exemplified in (5).…”

Section: What Drives Harmony?mentioning

confidence: 94%

Vowel Harmony in Optimality Theory

Walker

2012

Language and Linguist. Compass

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews the analysis of vowel harmony in Optimality Theory. Vowel harmony is a phenomenon in which the vowels in a word or another domain show systematic agreement for some property, such as rounding, backness, height, or ATR quality. Optimality Theory is a framework of generative linguistics in which grammars consist of a hierarchy of constraints on outputs. The treatment of various aspects of harmony systems are discussed, including what drives harmony, directionality and trigger control, opaque and transparent segments, dominant-recessive patterns, and variation. Data from Turkish, Igbo, Pulaar, Diola Fogny, Finnish, and Hungarian are discussed.

show abstract

Section: What Drives Harmony?mentioning

confidence: 94%

Vowel Harmony in Optimality Theory

Walker

2012

Language and Linguist. Compass

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A final point to note is that the lexical-category hierarchy of phonological privilege seems to take the shape of a markedness scale, a prominence-based scale that gives rise to structured sets of constraints. Analogues in phonology include sonority (Prince & Smolensky 2004), place of articulation (Lombardi 2001), or affinity for nasalization (Walker 1998). Analogues in morphosyntax include animacy (Silverstein 1976), case (Keenan & Comrie 1977), or definiteness (Croft 1988); see also Aissen (2003) for a review.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prototypical Predicates Have Unmarked Phonology

Smith

2014

AMP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent work recognizes that phonological processes and phonotactics can be sensitive to lexical category. Moreover, there are strong cross-linguistic tendencies concerning the nature of phonological differences between categories. One such tendency is a hierarchy of phonological privilege, N > A > V: nouns tend to license more phonological contrasts and tolerate more marked structures than adjectives, with verbs showing the least privilege and therefore the greatest phonological unmarkedness.This paper proposes that the N > A > V hierarchy of phonological privilege derives from a more general scale, according to which protypical designators (or arguments) have more phonological privilege, and prototypical predicates show greater unmarkedness. This approach predicts that even within a given lexical category, such as V, category members that are more prototypical as predicates should show greater unmarkedness.A case study is presented in support of this proposal. In Tokyo Japanese, unergative verbs (more-prototypical predicates) show greater phonological unmarkedness with respect to pitch accent than unaccusative verbs (less-prototypical predicates). Some preliminary implications of this finding for our understanding of lexical-category effects in phonology, and of the role of markedness scales in the grammar, are also considered.

show abstract

“…The sets of segments that can participate in nasal spreading processes are subject to implicational laws, schematized in (4) (see e.g. Schourup 1973, Cohn 1993, Walker 1998, also Pulleyblank 1989: in a given language, if nasality is able to spread through a segment with some value x, then it is also able to spread through all segments with values equal to or lower than x, where x is roughly equivalent to the segment's compatibility (articulatory or perceptual) with nasalization (see Schourup 1973:533, Walker 1998. 4Implicational hierarchy in nasal spreading (adapted from Walker 1998:26) 1 Vowels 2 Glides 3 Liquids 4 Fricatives 5 Stops 6 high low compatibility with nasalization…”

Section: Nasal Spreadingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nasal spreading in Aguaruna (Jivaroan) is also claimed to be only triggered by coda nasalsWalker (1998), but this restriction may be illusory: the only nasal that triggers harmony is /N/, which appears only in coda position.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gurindji nasal cluster dissimilation as trigger deletion

Stanton

2018

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Processes of unbounded spreading are often claimed to be myopic (e.g. Wilson 2003, McCarthy 2009): the ability of some feature [F] to spread from some segment z to some segment y does not depend on its ability to spread from y to x. Recent work (e.g. Walker 2010, 2014; Jardine 2016) has however cast doubt on the universality of this claim. This paper contributes to the discussion on (non-)myopia on by suggesting that a kind of non-myopic process, trigger deletion, is attested in Gurindji (Pama–Nyungan, McConvell 1988): when the spreading domain contains a certain kind of blocking segment, the spreading trigger deletes. In order to capture this pattern, as well as the extant typology of non-myopic processes, I argue that any successful analysis of unbounded spreading must allow surface candidates to be globally evaluated.

show abstract

Nasalization, Neutral Segments and Opacity Effects

Cited by 84 publications

References 61 publications

Vowel Harmony in Optimality Theory

Vowel Harmony in Optimality Theory

Prototypical Predicates Have Unmarked Phonology

Gurindji nasal cluster dissimilation as trigger deletion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About