Vowel Harmony and Correspondence Theory

Krämer, Martin

doi:10.1515/9783110197310

Cited by 64 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since it is beyond the scope of this study to individually evaluate the neurophysiological predictions of each slightly differing OT approach, we take a simplifying perspective and invoke two faithfulness (to account for place and roundedness harmony) and one markedness constraint (to account for harmony exceptions) in order to account for the Turkish data. These constraints correspond to a subset of constraints from Krämer (1999Krämer ( , 2003cf. Table 4). Analogous constraints or conditions are present in almost all analyses.…”

Section: Vowel Harmony In Turkishmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The constraint S-Ident (Round) r equires sufffix vowels to agree in rounding with the stem vowels, i.e., penalizes rounding disagreement (e.g., sonlar), while the higher-ranked S-Ident (Place) requires suffix vowels to agree in place with the stem vowel, i.e., penalizes place Table 4. OT approach to Turkish vowel harmony, using a subset of constraints from Krämer (1999Krämer ( , 2003, for the derivation of sonlar ( 'end' [plural] , sonler). Note that the two constraints include directionality in that the stem vowel determines the specification of the suffix vowel to its right, i.e., they require a right-ward spreading of the stem vowel feature onto the suffix vowel.…”

Section: Vowel Harmony In Turkishmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A phonotactic phenomenon that has been given considerable attention in recent years is vowel harmony, i.e., the agreement of particular vowel features within words. Approaches within OT (Kirchner 1993;Kaun 1994;Beckman 1997;Benua 1997;Krämer 1999Krämer , 2003Bakovic 2000Bakovic , 2003Finley 2008;Sasa 2009) and in other procedural or auto-segmental frameworks (Lees 1961;Clements 1977;Clements 1980;Halle and Vergnaud 1980;Clements and Sezer 1982;Sezer 1986;Halle, Vaux, and Wolfe 2000;Kabak 2007;Mailhot and Reiss 2007;Samuels 2009) all try to account for restrictions on harmony that potentially lead to disharmonic sequences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Neuromagnetic reflections of harmony and constraint violations in Turkish

Scharinger

Idsardi

Poe

2011

Laboratory Phonology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Vowel Harmony In Turkishmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Vowel Harmony In Turkishmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Neuromagnetic reflections of harmony and constraint violations in Turkish

Scharinger

Idsardi

Poe

2011

Laboratory Phonology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…the trisyllabic stems [FFN] ] stems also behave differently with respect to opacity/transparency. We will discuss these problems in Section 4 below (for some approaches to this 'count effect' see Bowman 2013; Hayes and Cziráky Londe 2006;Krämer 2003;Nevins 2010) anti-harmony (6ii), transparency (6iii), or anti-opacity/anti-transparency (6iv). 12 Thus, based on the possible combinations of disharmonic properties, we can describe theoretically possible types of weak disharmony.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Monotonicity and the typology of front/back harmony

Rebrus

Törkenczy

2015

Theoretical Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we analyse the surface patterns of suffix harmony in front/back harmony systems as the harmonic values front and back being assigned to harmonic contexts consisting of strings of syllables combining front, back and neutral nuclei. We claim that the harmonic contexts can be arranged in a fixed (universal) scale, the frontness/backness scale, with reference to which the possible (i.e. attested) front/back harmony systems can be characterised in a simple way: only those systems are possible where the assignment of values to the harmonic contexts is monotonic, which makes sure that only contiguous (non-interrupted) sequences of harmonic values are assigned to the harmonic contexts. We give formal definitions of monotonicity in terms of ordering and similarity and discuss predictions about possible harmony systems that follow from monotonicity (which we claim are borne out). These predictions are typological: harmony systems can show disharmonic behaviour, but in a principled way: only those systems exist (at least in front/back harmony) that exhibit a monotonic pattern. In the second half of the paper, we discuss variation in harmony and analyse in detail variation in anti-harmony and transparency in Hungarian, which is thus an example of a variable harmony pattern. We argue that variable front/back harmony patterns assign a "variable" value to some harmonic contexts in addition to the front and back values and can be shown to be constrained by monotonicity, whose definition is naturally extendable to patterns with variation. We discuss both the ordering-based and the similarity-based definitions and the predictions about possible variable harmony systems that follow from the definitions. One of the main predictions of the paper is a consequence of monotonicity: the locus of the variation in a pattern occurs only "in between" non-variable subpatterns. We explore a possible way of quantification in which we identify the harmonic values with the relative token frequency of the forms where the number associated with a variable value is p such that 0

show abstract

“…Despite the significant body of work on vowel harmony (Clements 1977, Kiparsky 1981, Hulst & Smith 1986, Archangeli & Pulleyblank 1994, Ohala 1994, Ní Chiosáin & Padgett 1997, Ringen & Vago 1998, Baković & Wilson 2000, Krämer 2001, surprisingly little attention has been devoted to the phonetics of TVs. In line with the current research program on the role of phonetics in phonology (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%