1997
DOI: 10.1017/s0952675797003308
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Positional faithfulness, positional neutralisation and Shona vowel harmony

Abstract: The distribution of the feature [high] in Shona verbs is a prototypical example of positional neutralisation accompanied by vowel harmony."2 In languages which exhibit positional neutralisation of vowel contrasts, one or more vowels (generally, the most marked members of the vowel inventory) may occur distinctively in only a small subset of the structural positions available in the language. Outside of these positions, the marked vowels may surface only if they harmonise with a similar vowel in the privileged … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
251
0
6

Year Published

2004
2004
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 319 publications
(262 citation statements)
references
References 140 publications
5
251
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…The dispreference against devoicing of word-initial singletons may have its roots in the psycholinguistic prominence of initial positions (Hawkins & Cutler, 1988;Horowitz et al, 1969Horowitz et al, , 1968Nooteboom, 1981); since word-initial position plays an important role in lexical access, speakers disprefer changing segments in this position (Beckman, 1997;Kawahara & Shinohara, 2010). 9 More generally, the results show that, in line with other recent studies, grammatical intuitions are gradient (e.g., Chomsky 1965;Cohn 2006;Coetzee 2008Coetzee , 2009Coleman & Pierrehumbert 1997;Fanselow et al 2006;Frisch et al 2000Frisch et al , 2004Greenberg & Jenkins 1964;Hay et al 2003;Hayes 2000Hayes , 2009Hayes & Londe 2006;Myers 2009;Pierrehumbert 2001;Schütze 1996;Zuraw 2000) in the following two senses.…”
Section: Gradiency: Beyond a Grammatical/ungrammatical Dichotomymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The dispreference against devoicing of word-initial singletons may have its roots in the psycholinguistic prominence of initial positions (Hawkins & Cutler, 1988;Horowitz et al, 1969Horowitz et al, , 1968Nooteboom, 1981); since word-initial position plays an important role in lexical access, speakers disprefer changing segments in this position (Beckman, 1997;Kawahara & Shinohara, 2010). 9 More generally, the results show that, in line with other recent studies, grammatical intuitions are gradient (e.g., Chomsky 1965;Cohn 2006;Coetzee 2008Coetzee , 2009Coleman & Pierrehumbert 1997;Fanselow et al 2006;Frisch et al 2000Frisch et al , 2004Greenberg & Jenkins 1964;Hay et al 2003;Hayes 2000Hayes , 2009Hayes & Londe 2006;Myers 2009;Pierrehumbert 2001;Schütze 1996;Zuraw 2000) in the following two senses.…”
Section: Gradiency: Beyond a Grammatical/ungrammatical Dichotomymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is manifested in the absence of #CeCo sequences and the presence of #CeCu, as indicated in (10). I will ignore this gap in the remaining discussion; a full analysis is provided in Beckman 1997) Data instantiating these distributional generalizations are given in (11)- (16) Hannan 1981 andPongweni 1990). Vowel length (which is noncontrastive and appears only in the penultimate syllable, as a reflex of stress) and tone are omitted throughout.…”
Section: Phonological Evidence Of Positional Privilegementioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is worthy to note that both the B and T are separate outputs and as such, each constitutes a free standing form. Hence, the need to analyze the patterns observed based on the correspondence between two output forms, but not between an input (I) and an output (O) as was the "original" motivation for the correspondence theory, though there is IO relation between the I and the B of the T. Before we begin the definition and evaluation of our working constraints, let us define what Correspondence is following McCarthy & Prince (1995), which is further expatiated by Beckman (1997) as follows. (10) Correspondence (McCarthy & Prince 1995;Beckman, 1997, p. 13) Given two related strings S 1 and S 2 (underlying and surface), correspondence is a relation R from the elements of S 1 to those of S 2 .…”
Section: Formalization Of the Truncationmentioning
confidence: 99%