The Nishnaabemwin restructuring controversy: new empirical evidence

Abstract

The categorical deletion of unstressed vowels from iterative feet differentiates serial theories of phonology from parallel theories. Of at least equal importance is whether language learners acquire rhythmic syncope. A potentially illustrative case comes from the recent development of Nishnaabemwin (Algonquian), which extended unstressed vowel reduction until it approximated categorical rhythmic syncope. In response, an entire generational cohort reportedly carried out a dramatic restructuring by innovating a novel set of person prefixes and losing the surface alternations. However, the original reports are subject to some dispute. To shed further light on the status of rhythmic syncope in Modern Nishnaabemwin, this paper details three surveys of the first cohort of speakers born during the near-syncope period. The surveys indicate that, despite familiarity with the original system, the entire generational cohort uniformly adopted the innovative system.

Stratal overgeneration is necessary: metrically incoherent syncope in Southern Pomo

“…Recent work has suggested that rhythmic syncope may be particularly prone to restructuring because of the computational complexity induced by alternating deletion (Hao & Bowers 2019; Bowers & Hao 2020). Rhythmic syncope systems in other languages such as Nishnaabemwin (Bowers 2019) and Eastern Slavic (Isačenko 1970, :95–6) are reported to have quickly collapsed. In Southern Pomo, syncope is further complicated by the imposition of a different structure (surface stress) which could, in theory, condition further deletion.…”

“…The clitic field meanwhile features exclusively heavy syllables, and thus heavy stressed syllables when those bear stress, satisfying SWP while providing no evidence in support of the stratal grammar. The paucity of evidence is not the only challenge for the learner: even when provided with surface alternations, learners may fail to extract the necessary grammatical generalisation (Morley 2018; Bowers 2019).…”

Parallelism within serialism: primary stress is different

“…This is not to suggest that each of these results is unassailable. For example, Hyde (2012b) argues against Pruitt's (2010) proposal, and Bowers (2019) suggests that metrically conditioned syncope is not a synchronic process, contra McCarthy (2008b). It is clear that the comparison of parallelism and serialism will continue (see also Adler & Zymet 2021, among others).…”